From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #84 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Wednesday, April 19 2000 Volume 02 : Number 084 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Fwd: Spoilers for an =Angel= that might have been [Micole Sudberg ] comments4/18 ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/propdemon ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/campus ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: comments4/18 [meredith ] Re: comments4/18 [Todd Huff ] Major spoilers for 5/2 [Todd Huff ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 07:56:31 -0400 From: Micole Sudberg Subject: Fwd: Spoilers for an =Angel= that might have been A friend forwarded me this from another Buffy list. Really interesting. I agree with the commenter at the bottom -- I think this version of the series sounds like it would have been *much* stronger than what we've got. Sort of like "Pretty Woman" as intended and "Pretty Woman" as finally filmed ... - --m. ><from producer/writer David Fury, this time focusing on >Angel. According to What's Worth Watching >http://www.whatsworthwatching.com/>, while participating in >a panel discussion last Tuesday, April 11, as part of the >Canadian Film Centre's "Test Pattern" lecture series, Fury >described the original plans for the Angel TV series that >were not to be. When asked if anything he had written for >the program had been rejected, >Fury revealed the following: >"The one script I've written that was never produced was >the second episode of Angel. The reason for that... Angel >was going to be a much darker show than the show you're >seeing right now. It was going to be far more adult, a >little more scary, and it was decided to go that way, to >make it very different, a very adult show as opposed to >Buffy. "And an example of that is, the first episode of >Angel, when a girl he's protecting he finds dead, he has >her blood on his hands - he was going to start licking the >blood off his fingers like he can't control himself, and >being repulsed, he goes to the bathroom and scrubs his >hands. It was all about recovering alcoholics. That was the >allegory of Angel... We were going to play a much darker >show: him struggling to remain good, and starting to feed >again. "And along those lines the second episode that I'd >written called 'Corrupt' - it was pretty much about junkie >prostitutes. Not usually what you see on the WB. And Kate, >the police woman character on the show... originally was an >undercover cop who was addicted to cocaine and was sleeping >with men for sex, because she got a little bit too far into >her undercover work. "And this was all about two days >before we were about to shoot, the network finally got a >hold of the script, and went 'WOAH! Woah, this is the >WB!'...And they said 'Stop it, don't do this.' So they cut >out all the parts of Angel that need blood and they said >this episode of 'Corrupt' is far too dark and disturbing, >so we'd like something nice and friendly and with pretty >people in it. So again, I had to very quickly turn over a >new script.">> > >_________ > >And of course I have to throw my two cents in: >If the show had stayed on its original planned direction, >to me it definately would have been a better show (or it >sounds like it). I would have loved it, but b/c WB only >does 2 hours of programming, these situations sound like a >10pm time slot rather than a 9pm or maybe they should have >sold it to HBO. > >They have seemed to move a tiny bit darker as the season >moves on, perhaps they can move darker still at the start >of the 2nd season and just progess to where they originally >wanted to be. > >Because of the success of the show and the WB growing >confidence in them. > > > > >===== >SISTAH Gwyn >(the silent SISTAH, most of the time) >Keeper and worshipper of many things >The Nicholas Brendon Zone http://lmg.webaxxs.net/nb/nb.html >"The opposite of war isn't peace...it's Creation" -- RENT > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites. >http://invites.yahoo.com >Buffy Webring and Codex Archive: http://mail.planetx.com/buffy/ > - -- "It struck me as pretty ridiculous to be called Mr. Darcy and to stand on your own looking snooty at a party. It's like being called Heathcliff and insisting on spending the entire evening in the garden, shouting 'Cathy' and banging your head against a tree."--Helen Fielding, =Bridget Jones's Diary= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:40:21 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: Spoilers for an =Angel= that might have been I agree, this certainly sounds like a stronger show -- and from what I had read about ANGEL before it premiered, this was my impression of what it would be like. OTOH, it sounds like it would have been more similar in tone to FOREVER KNIGHT and more vulnerable to charges that it was a copy of FK. If you want a show very close in tone to what it sounds like ANGEL would have been, see if you can get a chance to pick up some FK reruns. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:41:55 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: Spoilers for an =Angel= that might have been Hi! Gayle commented: > I agree, this certainly sounds like a stronger show -- and from what I had >read about ANGEL before it premiered, this was my impression of what it would >be like. Same here. > OTOH, it sounds like it would have been more similar in tone to FOREVER >KNIGHT and more vulnerable to charges that it was a copy of FK. If you want >a show very close in tone to what it sounds like ANGEL would have been, see >if you can get a chance to pick up some FK reruns. I think there already are many similarities to FK, even down to the opening theme music. In fact, that's another reason why I haven't been able to get into ANGEL -- I've seen FOREVER KNIGHT (we have pretty much the entire run on tape, in fact), and IMHO it was a much more interesting show, with a main character it was much easier to give a hoot about. +==========================================================================+ | Meredith Tarr meth@smoe.org | | New Haven, CT USA http://www.smoe.org/~meth | +==========================================================================+ | "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille | | *** TRAJECTORY, the Veda Hille mailing list: *** | | *** http://www.smoe.org/meth/trajectory.html *** | +==========================================================================+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:23:30 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: Spoilers for an =Angel= that might have been In a message dated 4/18/00 4:49:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time, meth@smoe.org writes: << I think there already are many similarities to FK, even down to the opening theme music. In fact, that's another reason why I haven't been able to get into ANGEL -- I've seen FOREVER KNIGHT (we have pretty much the entire run on tape, in fact), and IMHO it was a much more interesting show, with a main character it was much easier to give a hoot about. >> I agree. But the way that that ANGEL was described, it would have been even =more= similar to FK. I liked FOREVER KNIGHT a lot, BTW. It had style (a very dark style) and the characters were much more complex than ANGEL's, and to say that Geraint Wyn Davies is a better actor than David Boreanaz is to make a massive understatement. In every aspect in which FK and ANGEL can be compared, ANGEL suffers from the comparison. (IMHO, of course.) Only the things that are distinctively different about ANGEL make it interesting to me. The city filled with all those diverse demons is uniquely ANGEL. Though I enjoyed the way that vampire society in FK was an organized underground culture with its own laws, possibly the most interesting thing about ANGEL to me is the existence of such a varied range of demons, among whom vampires occupy a minor and lowly place. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 07:10:29 -0600 From: Kathleen Woodbury Subject: serial killers, also Faith & Giles At 04:45 AM 4/18/00 -0400, Jennifer wrote: >I've got a whole riff about serial killer novels >being a kind of "mid- or pre-recovery" jungle gym for PTSS survivors, in >which every part of the story--the killer, the many victims, the >detective-hero--is a part of the reader/author, who is using the serial >killer novel =unconsciously= to work the trauma out of its ingrown and >festering hiding place. Later tho. If anybody cares. I'm interested in hearing this, Jennifer. (I have read a few serial-killer novels, but, so far as I know, not because I'm working through victim trauma. Unless being on the fringe of such a trauma counts--the daughter of an old college friend "disclosed" to my daughter the first time they played together--when they were both kindergarten age--and I told my friend about it, leading to the opening of a major can of worms.) You are welcome to email me privately if this would distract from the topics of the list. Meredith responded to Don's comment: >Don commented: >>The point being that Faith has >>enough respect for Giles to try and fool him.) > >Hmmm. I never would consider trying to lie to someone a mark of respect. >Quite the opposite, in fact. If she really respected Giles, shouldn't she >have realized that he would see right through it? Shouldn't she have had >some qualms about trying to pull one over on him? But the fact that she tried to lie to Giles indicates that she =cared= what he thought of her, doesn't it? Phaedre/Kathleen workshop@burgoyne.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:21:36 -0400 From: meredith Subject: b/rolling stone Hi! This may be old news, but: SMG is gracing the cover of Rolling Stone again. I'm not sure if the cover photo this time is any less demeaning than the last one. Anyway, the online bit is at . Enjoy! +==========================================================================+ | Meredith Tarr meth@smoe.org | | New Haven, CT USA http://www.smoe.org/~meth | +==========================================================================+ | "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille | | *** TRAJECTORY, the Veda Hille mailing list: *** | | *** http://www.smoe.org/meth/trajectory.html *** | +==========================================================================+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:36:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: comments4/18 Wow, that was a pretty meaty digest. Probably take me more than a day to address everything I want to... I had a look at next week's =TV Guide= today, by the way. Not much more in the way of spoilers; it looks like it might be one of those rare weeks where =Angel= (Faith being aboard and all) is better than =Buffy=. Can't wait to see. Meredith: Bullsye! re the motif about Xena's father. Just goes to prove that Xena is more "classical" a hero than Buffy. I've been reading Jung's =Psychology and Alchemy= this week (can't you tell?), and on p. 179 (in case you wanted to check it out) there's a 16th-century drawing of Mary (with her womb in "cross- section" showing baby Jesus); above her is a circle of angel-faces with, in the center, the dove representing the Holy Ghost sending down a ray of light to the baby. Which of course brought that last rerun of =Xena= to mind again. I'm really surprised that the Christians aren't more up in arms about =Xena=, actually; I mean, Eli is so =clearly= Jesus, and now there's this virgin birth, which leads us to see Callisto as the Holy Ghost(!), the active agent of the pregnancy...I mean, it's blasphemy, if you really look at it that way. Speaking of offspring: Joyce/Giles-->Little Sister? Have to be some kind of supernatural birth...which would be typically mythic, of course. Would indeed be quite a plot twist. Yep, Robia La Morte does one of those little look-at-the-pulltab Monopoly McDonald's commercials. A 30-second one, I think. Maybe I've phrased it wrong about Faith's attitude toward Giles. Perhaps I should say she knows she =has to deal= with Giles. Doesn't have to deal with Wesley; he's an irrelevancy to be brushed aside. Willow's no threat, Xander's no threat...only Buffy, and Giles partly because he has influence over Buffy, are really a threat to her. And if Buffy were going to Giles, Faith had better do it first. Also, I don't think Faith's really bright enough to consider that her ruse might =not= work. Still...she sassed Wesley to a fairtheewell (as did Buffy), but when Giles admonished her, she took it. She really treated him with as much respect =in that scene= as she did the Mayor. Jennifer: What is the pub date for =Demonomania=? (For those not following this conversation, it's the third of John Crowley's =Aegypt= sequence.) I discover I'm less jealous that you're reading it than I might be, since I never got around to finishing =Love and Sleep=. I did grab my copies of the first two from storage the other week, and maybe (ha!) I'll get around to rereading them before the new one appears. I =suppose= I can understand confusing Lin Carter and Fritz Leiber if you don't deal with the names constantly. But Carter was not much of an editor and hardly a writer at all, while Leiber is one of the most important 20th century sf, fantasy =and= horror writers. =The Big Time= and "Coming Attraction among others in sf; Fafhrd and Grey Mouser, of course; and with stories like "Smoke Ghost" he practically invented urban horror/fantasy in the 40s. (Todd: By =Mater Tenebrarum= did you mean =Our Lady of Darkness=?) Leiber's 1950-something novel =Conjure Wife= could have been about Amy's mother in "Witch" (1st season), and is such a good fantasy novel that even Damon Knight (Hater of Fantasy) loved it; =Our Lady of Darkness=, written 25 years later, is very strong urban horror/fantasy with a so-so ending. I =think= Tor just reprinted their dual volume of the two novels in trade paper, and I highly recommend both. By the way, Judith Krantz just published a memoir called =Sex and Shopping=, which was lead-reviewed in the new =New Yorker= this week. (The key to the success of her novels? the reviewer opines: good business sense.) Good cartoon in the issue: woman saying to a man "I had the strangest dream sequence last night." I had hoped I had made clear that the "Simon Lacerous" paragraph about D.H. Lawrence was a =parody=. Not that it didn't deconstruct the subtext of Leavis' actual opinions...you nail the Modernist "happy childhoods not real" attitude very nicely. (I blame Freud, myself.) Interesting about Freeling; all lifestyles are real. If I were to write a novel of =absolute mimesis= about a bunch of East Village bands who all go to each other's shows and hang out together and play with each other's bands...you'd call it "suburban fantasy" and say it was too much like Bordertown (without the elves). And I'm glad we're on the same page re the "inner drama" of fantasy; that was what I tried to say in the first place and failed miserably. (By the way: what flavor was your therapy training: Freudian? Jungian? Something else entirely?) Do go on about serial-killer novels. Did you ever read =The Silence of the Lambs=? Where does Clute use the "phatic fantasy" label? It's not an entry in the final =Encyclopedia=. That is in fact a standard linguistic term (meaning roughly "small talk"). Jane Austen's style could be described as "phatic with subtext." Anyway...yes, "tea parties" could very well be a new term. I know exactly what you mean...and yes, it's all too typical of =Bone Dance=. (Incidentally, it was not so much =War for the Oaks= as =Bone Dance= that got up Greg Feeley's nose; the "tea party" in the library, where "characterization by book collection" was practiced, really galled him. I've heard him rant about that several times.) Do you think =Buffy= library conferences are tea parties? ("Expository Lump" is a special case of "Phatic" I think.) Todd: I can't at the moment think of =any= other dream (besides "Hush") which features a character not known to Buffy in waking life. Which sure makes it more interesting. Gayle: Belated thanks for those paragraphs about Marvel. Exactly the kind of thing (in summary) that I needed. So...I can either airily perpetrate a sentence like "...the reality-based 60s Marvel comics like =Spiderman=..." or quote you directly. Yes, you're right, dreams are already in the unconscious. But...well... JUNGIAN EXPOSITORY LUMP ALERT. Jung makes a distinction, not only between the conscious and the unconscious, but between the personal unconscious (which contains material from an individual's life experience which for one reason or another--not only repression--has sunk out of conscious perception; this is incidentally the only unconscious that Freudian theory recognizes) and the collective unconscious, which is the hardwired, instinctive constellation of archetypes common to all human beings. The shadow is the first archetype to differentiate itself from the chaotic mass of the collective unconscious, and serves as the guide for the ego to that vast country. END J.E.L. ALERT Note that all three of those dreams start with very realistic scenes: Buffy remembering her night with Angel, a visit to Faith's apartment (window still broken), a typical psychology class...and there comes a signal, somewhere along the line, from the shadow/"spirit guide" that Buffy needs to pay attention: because a message is coming from deeper in (even if the scene remains the same). "You have to know what to see." (And Buffy looks.) "You wanna know the deal...?" (And Buffy remembers.) "When I kiss you..." (And Buffy responds.) Only the "Hush" dream, I think, actually ventures Elsewhere, into the collective unconscious itself, to actually =meet= another archetype; but certainly messages arrive there in the other two. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:44:19 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/propdemon Gayle: Acknowledging that the term you used was "prop character," and that obviously there are various kinds of prop characters, with your permission I'm going to hang on to the term "prop demon" as well, because on reflection (or rather early-morning reverie) it proves to be a most illuminating idea. Pretending, for the amusement value, that I'm writing an entry for the =Encyclopedia of Fantasy=, here's how I'd define it: PROP DEMON A character who is a DOUBLE of the True Antagonist of a tale (and thus the SHADOW of the shadow of the HERO), and whose purpose is to be killed or destroyed =in lieu of= the True Antagonist, to give a temporary (or false) sense of narrative closure. Note that a Prop Demon doesn't have to be a demon either. To elaborate a bit, the Prop Demon can be referred to as the Killable Threat, whereas the True Antagonist must remain the Unkillable Threat...because the True Antagonist is the part of the hero (his/her shadow/unconscious) who must be =dealt with=, mastered or incorporated. An example is overdue. One thing I realized while thinking along these lines is that =this= is the explanation for why =The Silence of the Lambs= feels =slightly= unsatisfying by comparison with its predecessor, =Red Dragon=. In =Red Dragon= Hannibal Lecter is a minor character, in fact the Prop Demon, since protagonist Will [whatsisname] had captured him prior to the book, and he's still imprisoned; the True Antagonist of the book is the eponymous Red Dragon, and conquering him gives the book closure. (The Too High A Cost is that getting into Red Dragon's head in order to capture him causes severe psychic disturbances in Will; so it =is= a conscious/unconscious battle.) In =The Silence of the Lambs= the roles are reversed: Lecter is a major character, the True Antagonist, and the at-large serial killer Buffalo Bill is the Prop Demon. Although the "plot" is the same--FBI agent (Clarice Starling in this case) makes use of Lecter's inside knowledge to kill second serial killer--the =symbolic= balance has been upset: conquering Buffalo Bill only gives the =plot= closure. Clarice's real battle is with her shadow/subconscious Lecter; and therefore she =can't= kill him. Two major possibilities: he remains incarcerated, or he escapes. Of course, he escapes. OK, let's deal with =this= issue again. I was pondering the conundrum the other day: howsofar are we to take Faith as an autonomous character, with her own agenda and destiny (in which case she and Buffy are reciprocally each other's shadows), and howsofar as "merely" part of Buffy? This came to mind because in the course of =Psychology and Alchemy= Jung says "we have to expose ourselves to the animal impulses of the unconscious without identifying with them and without 'running away' [in quotes because he's quoting a dream he's analyzing]: for flight from the unconscious would defeat the purpose of the whole proceeding." [p. 145] When I read that yesterday, I pondered the fact that Buffy (the ego) doesn't run from Faith (the shadow); Faith runs from Buffy. Which didn't make sense, which got me wondering whether, from Faith's point of view, =she= needed to run from =her= shadow, Buffy, because she is less ready to confront her shadow than Buffy is. But maybe not. When looking for the above quote today, on the =very next page= I found this: "The tendency to run away, however, [in this case] is attributed not to the operator [the ego/conscious] but to the transforming substance [the shadow/unconscious]. Mercurius [frequent symbol for/guardian of/spirit-guide to the unconscious] is evasive and is labeled =servus= (servant) or =cervus fugitivus= (fugitive stag [note Latin pun!]. The [alchemical] vessel must be well sealed so that what is within may not escape." [=Psychology and Alchemy=, p. 146; bracketed additions mine] In my own restatement, then, sometimes the ego runs away from the shadow, saying in effect "I'm not ready to deal with you yet," and sometimes the shadow runs away from the ego, saying in effect "You're not ready to deal with me yet." Opposite impulses, but arriving at much the same state. Take the situation at the end of "Innocence," when Buffy (having blown the Prop Demon, the Judge, to bits) chases down Angelus and has a battle with him...but at the key moment she drops her stake, and he says triumphantly, "You can't kill me!" (After which she gives him a swift kick in the groin and walks away saying "Give me time.") At =that= juncture she was the one who "ran away," but on subsequent encounters she hunted for him and =he= ran away (as he also does earlier in the episode, at the end of the school-hallway scene where he threatens Willow). (To pose an example of a Prop Demon treated as a joke, remember the sewer breakup scene in "The Prom," where the vampire Buffy and Angel have chased down there shows up just as their argument is heating up, and Buffy says "Not now!" and dusts him instantly.) The Judge, as I said, is clearly a Prop Demon; so, as Gayle said first, is Acathla in "Becoming." And I suspect Adam will prove to be the same. The Mayor is somewhat of a different case; it's balanced more evenly between him and Faith. But certainly the fact that Faith (however "dismembered") survives and he does not puts him more in the Prop category. And Faith, like Angelus, is "killed" in the sense of being put out of action for a time; but since both of them are True Antagonists, Buffy's shadows, they are Unkillable Threats, and keep showing up again until Buffy reconciles herself with them. (Which, incidentally, is an argument for an eventual Faith Redeemed.) Note that Buffy concludes, reluctantly but firmly, that Faith is her responsibility (and similarly with Angel in the 2nd season). And note that it was clear to everyone that Hannibal Lecter would show up again and force Clarice Starling to deal with him again. As happened in =Hannibal=. To take a slightly different extraneous case, consider =Heathers=, where it seems to me that J.D. (Christian Slater's character) is a Prop Demon. Clearly shadow to Veronica (Winona Ryder's character), he acts out every destructive or self-destructive impulse she can't admit she has; but in the end she hunts him down, "dismembers" him, and he finally destroys himself while she stands by. After which she faces down her =other= shadow, Heather (whichever: Shannon Doherty), by saying "There's a new sheriff in town" (translation: I'm now in control of my psyche), and goes to make friends with Martha Dumptruck, one of the Heather-oppressed. (In Freudian terms, one can say that Veronica the ego gained control over both her superego--the Heathers--and her id--J.D.; but the Jungian analysis works just as well.) What's interesting about looking at =Heathers= that way is how it differs from the similar situation in =Buffy=: to translate the terms, it's as if Buffy's swanning around with Faith led her down paths that resulted in her reconciling with Willow (as she did in "Bad Girls") and asserting her equality to Cordelia (as she did in "Homecoming"; and note that one of the tropes of that episode was =Cordelia being mistaken for Faith=); and in the bargain was complicit in Faith's death (which, in a sense, she was in "Graduation Day"). But whereas =Heathers= is about Veronica getting her social situation in order (which involved her "playing at" being a warrior), =Buffy= is not; Veronica's shadow is a (self-)destructive part of her she needed to put in its place, but Buffy's shadow (since she is a warrior) is a part of her she needs to make a treaty with and =use=. Hence Faith is no Prop Demon, but a True Antagonist, and Buffy will keep encountering her until a true resolution is achieved. I think it's curious, incidentally, that whenever I get down into this algebra of symbology (which takes place largely in the unconscious, I think), the two prior works which come to mind most often in relation to =Buffy= are =The Silence of the Lambs= and =Heathers=. Obviously my unconscious thinks these are =Buffy='s most important precursors, despite the fact that neither is a fantasy. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:48:50 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/campus [I decided I wanted the text of this scene handy, and having transcribed it figured I might as well pass it along; Jennifer, who doesn't watch, might enjoy it. Mere text can't convey the nuances of the acting, of course, which is wonderful throughout. I haven't tried to "annotate" it too much with emphases or bracketed tone descriptions. I've cleaned up some of Faith's colloquial pronunciation rather than trying to reproduce it. I've omitted all but the last lines of the preceding scene, which is Buffy and Willow discussing what Buffy told Riley about Faith.] [Under Copyright, All Rights Reserved, Fair Use Only.] [SCENE: Sunnydale U campus. BUFFY and WILLOW walking together toward the campus bulletin board.] BUFFY: ...if I were her, I'd get out of Dodge, post-haste. FAITH: [turning around from the board to reveal herself] You're =not= me. [BLACKOUT. HALFTIME COMMERCIAL BREAK.] FAITH: So! Check you out, B! Nice! The Big Girl on Campus thing's really working for you. BUFFY: I've been looking for you. FAITH: I've been standing still for eight months, B. How hard did you look? BUFFY: Are you all right? FAITH: Five by five. Nice thing about a coma, you wake up all rested and rejuvenated...and ready for payback. BUFFY: So much for pleasantries, huh? FAITH: What did you think, I'd wake up and we'd go for tea? You tried to gut me, Blondie. BUFFY: You'd have done the same to me if you'd had the chance. FAITH: Let's have another go at it--see who lands on top. BUFFY: It doesn't have to be like this, you know. FAITH: Actually, I think it has to be =exactly= like this. BUFFY: [looking around her] Faith, these are innocent people. FAITH: [also looking] No such animal. BUFFY: I guess it was too much to hope that you'd use your downtime to reflect and grow. FAITH: I could say the same about you. I mean, you're still the same old Better-than-Thou Buffy [BUFFY rolls her eyes]. I mean, I =knew= it somehow. I kept having this dream, I'm not sure what it means, but in the dream this self-righteous blonde chick stabs me, and you want to know why? BUFFY: You had it coming. [WILLOW, who has been standing to the side, stealthily takes off her backpack during this exchange and slowly moves towards Faith's back.] FAITH: That's =one= interpretation. But in my dream, she has it for a guy--try it, Red, and you'll lose an arm [BUFFY head-gestures WILLOW back, WILLOW obeys]--I wake up to find out that this blonde chick isn't even =dating= the guy she was so nuts about before. I mean, she's moved on to the first college beefstick she meets. And not only has she forgotten about the "love of her life," she's forgotten all about the chick she nearly killed =for= him. So, that's my dream. (That, and some stuff about cigars and tunnels). But, uh, tell me, college girl--what does it mean? BUFFY: To me? Mostly? That you still mouth off about things you don't understand. [Police sirens are heard.] Uh-oh! I guess somebody knows you're here. [FAITH punches BUFFY, and they skirmish. The police car drives up. WILLOW swats FAITH with her backpack, and BUFFY jumps between them before FAITH can retaliate.] FAITH: You took my life, B--payback's a bitch! WILLOW: Look who's talking! FAITH: [to BUFFY] See you around. [FAITH runs off, knocking one policeman to the ground, jumping up on the police car hood and kicking the second policeman in the jaw. She runs across a field--pushing people aside as she goes--and over a wall; by the time the pursuing BUFFY has reached the wall, FAITH has disappeared.] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:01:51 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: comments4/18 Hi! Don posted: >I had a look at next week's =TV Guide= today, by the way. Not much >more in the way of spoilers; it looks like it might be one of those >rare weeks where =Angel= (Faith being aboard and all) is better than >=Buffy=. Can't wait to see. Hey, I'll actually be IN TOWN when these air! I'll be able to watch both! Be still my heart. (Watch, I'll get a trip scheduled tomorrow, now. :P) (WARNING: XENA TANGENT FOLLOWS) >Meredith: Bullsye! re the motif about Xena's father. Just goes to >prove that Xena is more "classical" a hero than Buffy. True. She has done the Campbellian "hero's journey", um, twice now. :} (And, if season-ending spoilers are to be believed, she's about to do number three!) More, actually, if you count her journeys to the underworld while still alive - in the episode "Mortal Beloved" she had to dive to the bottom of a very deep lake in order to get there (where she encountered the most hilarious depiction of Charon ever, may the gods bless Michael Hurst ... but I digress). >I've been reading Jung's =Psychology and Alchemy= this week (can't >you tell?), and on p. 179 (in case you wanted to check it out) >there's a 16th-century drawing of Mary (with her womb in "cross- >section" showing baby Jesus); above her is a circle of angel-faces >with, in the center, the dove representing the Holy Ghost sending >down a ray of light to the baby. > >Which of course brought that last rerun of =Xena= to mind again. But of course. (Incidentally: on Saturday I checked out the special exhibition of funerary portraits from the time of Roman Egypt at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It was hands down the best museum exhibition I've ever seen. Anyway, one of the very first pieces, from the "setting context" portion of the exhbit is a statue of Isis feeding Horus at her breast, from the first century C.E. Damned if I wasn't looking at a statue of the Madonna with her child. It gave me chills to see that kind of ... what? Synergy? Blatant evidence of the general cultural looting that was early Christianity? Dunno.) >I'm really surprised that the Christians aren't more up in arms >about =Xena=, actually; I mean, Eli is so =clearly= Jesus, and now >there's this virgin birth, which leads us to see Callisto as the >Holy Ghost(!), the active agent of the pregnancy...I mean, it's >blasphemy, if you really look at it that way. So was _The Way_. Maybe people learned their lesson from that little fiasco ... either that, or this season has turned so many people off the show, the people who would be up in arms about that sort of thing just aren't watching. I tend to believe the latter. Why would a fundie be watching a show about two pagan women doing decidedly un-Christian things, and quite possibly sharing an unholy union to boot? Besides, if the Christians were going to be up in arms about this show, they'd have pitched a fit way back in the first season, when they managed to make a comedy out of the story of Abraham and Isaac. (The Voice of God turned out to be at first henbaned nutbread, then later the world's first megaphone, and the burning bush turned out to be set -- all thanks to Abraham's jealous eldest son.) And if you're *really* looking for blasphemy ... well, Xena and Gabrielle were crucified and then resurrected from the dead after spending some quality time in both Heaven *and* Hell. Drove a disconcertingly large number of fans screaming for the exits, that storyline did. (END XENA TANGENT) >Speaking of offspring: Joyce/Giles-->Little Sister? Have to be some >kind of supernatural birth...which would be typically mythic, of >course. Would indeed be quite a plot twist. The possibilities there are indeed astounding. >Yep, Robia La Morte does one of those little look-at-the-pulltab >Monopoly McDonald's commercials. A 30-second one, I think. Now that I think about it, I think I know which one that is. Weird. >She really treated him with as much respect =in that scene= as >she did the Mayor. I think I see your point. (Why do I suddenly feel dirty for having liked _Bone Dance_ and _War For The Oaks_?) +==========================================================================+ | Meredith Tarr meth@smoe.org | | New Haven, CT USA http://www.smoe.org/~meth | +==========================================================================+ | "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille | | *** TRAJECTORY, the Veda Hille mailing list: *** | | *** http://www.smoe.org/meth/trajectory.html *** | +==========================================================================+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:29:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Huff Subject: Re: comments4/18 > Speaking of offspring: Joyce/Giles-->Little Sister? > Have to be some > kind of supernatural birth...which would be > typically mythic, of > course. Would indeed be quite a plot twist. It was Faith who mentioned her. Maybe she'll be the mother, with a ultra-fast demon birth a la Cordelia a few weeks ago. :) > I =suppose= I can understand confusing Lin Carter > and Fritz Leiber > if you don't deal with the names constantly. But > Carter was not much > of an editor and hardly a writer at all, while > Leiber is one of the > most important 20th century sf, fantasy =and= horror > writers. =The Big > Time= and "Coming Attraction among others in sf; > Fafhrd and > Grey Mouser, of course; and with stories like "Smoke > Ghost" he > practically invented urban horror/fantasy in the > 40s. (Todd: By > =Mater Tenebrarum= did you mean =Our Lady of > Darkness=?) Leiber's > 1950-something novel =Conjure Wife= could have been > about Amy's > mother in "Witch" (1st season), and is such a good > fantasy novel > that even Damon Knight (Hater of Fantasy) loved it; > =Our Lady of > Darkness=, written 25 years later, is very strong > urban > horror/fantasy with a so-so ending. I =think= Tor > just reprinted > their dual volume of the two novels in trade paper, > and I highly > recommend both. > Yes. Did I misremember the title? I got it from the college library and it's been a long time since I was there. :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:44:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Huff Subject: Major spoilers for 5/2 Sorry if you've already gotten this. I was booted while posting and don't know if it went out. Major Spoilers below for 2 weeks from tonight: Some we've speculated about already, some is new. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Buffy New Moon Rising Oz (guest star Seth Green) returns to Sunnydale and is captured by the Initiative during a full moon; a conflicted Willow (Alyson Hannigan) tells Buffy (Sarah Michelle Gellar) about her new relationship with Tara (Amber Benson). Angel Sanctuary After following Faith (guest star Eliza Dushku) to Los Angeles, Buffy's (guest star Sarah Michelle Gellar) angry when Angel (David Boreanaz) grants asylum to her archenemy; Wesley (Alexis Denisof) is tempted to trade Faith for reinstatement to the Council. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #84 ****************************