From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #96 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Tuesday, May 2 2000 Volume 02 : Number 096 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Equivalencies ["Jennifer Stevenson" ] Re: comments4/30 [allenw ] Re: b/The DeJoxerfication of Wesley [allenw ] Re: b/The DeJoxerfication of Wesley ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/propdemon ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/The DeJoxerfication of Wesley [Dori ] Re: comments4/30 ["Hilary L. Hertzoff" ] Re: stillpt-digest V2 #95 [Kathleen Woodbury ] Re: b/The DeJoxerfication of Wesley ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/The DeJoxerfication of Wesley ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 08:53:34 -0500 From: "Jennifer Stevenson" Subject: Equivalencies Don, Yeah, what you're saying here: > Which brings me to Jennifer: right, to restate your point, the "true > lie" of =Buffy= is that her real conflict is with external supernatural > threats which her training and her superpowers make conquerable. But we > are well aware that her real conflict is within herself, and with people > who are (or have been) close to her who directly mirror those inner > conflicts. Yeah. But in order to show the hopelessness of adolescent suffering, and the hopelessness of dealing with loved ones who can't be fixed, healed, or saved (a very typical adolescent negative view, not that I would argue against its truth), they do this big lie about her determination and apparently supernatural dedication to killing all evil. I mean, we're not just saying "she's supernaturally dedicated," we're saying "she was dedicated to this work by supernatural forces beyond our ken, Who decided that 'Into each generation one slayer is born,'" blah blah blah except of course Joss has fudged on that one. THAT'S the lie. And it has to be that way because it's the metaphor for the human truth being dramatized. In that way, Joe's FOREVER WAR soldiers are denied the right to "retire" because they're so good; it is a big lie that points to the big truth that the real Vietnam veterans were forbidden to "retire" because they were effaced, were invisible upon return, because nobody wanted them back, because they were considered worse then worthless to society, not "priceless" (like the story's soldiers) at all. > (Are we talking about the same musical piece? =The Lark Ascending= by > Vaughan Williams? The version I know is a short violin concerto; no > vocals.) God, I don't know. It's definitely a Vaughan Williams piece, but maybe he did it for chorus after he did it for violin. Maybe not though. I could sing it to you, but everybody would complain about my voice . > The only reason I use "=" so much is that the character-set I'm working > with is so small. I see. When I'm making handwritten notes I use a different math term that I can't do here because it's not in the character set-- an equals sign with a third bar. "equivalent" I think is the name of the term. Also helpful, possibly even better, is one with the third (top) bar a wiggly line, meaning, "more or less equivalent" or "approximate." Also impossible in typescript. Unless you remap your f'ing keyboard, or make a macro to go fetch the symbol from another character set. - -Jennifer ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 11:00:02 -0500 (CDT) From: allenw Subject: Re: comments4/30 On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > Meredith: Thanks for passing along that review of "Where the Wild Things > Are." Once again I'm astonished to note that the general populace of the > viewership tends to think the funniest episodes are the best, while for me > they're the weakest. (For example, most people think "Doppelgangland" is a > far better episode than "Helpless," while I think the opposite.) Takes all > kinds. > But what do you think of "The Zeppo?" > I believe I understand what you're talking about with the > "magical" practice: mentally weighing/holding two images that are > opposites or distinctly different, but are simultaneously "the same" in > some way; I'd restate "grasp the distinction without making it" as "notice > the pattern of similarity without insisting on it." This is exactly what > Jung describes as the alchemical mental operation. It's true that Jung was > no alchemist, nor magician in the sense you mean (nor am I), but I think > he grasped what you're saying--and I think I grasp what he =and= you are > saying; it's the kind of mental operation I've been doing all this time > with the comparative-mythological approach to =Buffy=. > This is oddly reminiscent of one of the key principles of Orwell's Newspeak: the ability to simultaneously hold two conflicting beliefs, *without* acknowledging the conflict. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 11:01:53 -0500 (CDT) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/The DeJoxerfication of Wesley On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, David S. Bratman wrote: > Dori: This is a splendid analysis of the evolution of Wesley's > character. But for the very reason that he was _such_ a Joxer (even more > than the original, from what little _Xena_ I've seen), _anything_ is a > vast improvement. Even taking the knife with the intent of defending > Angel in the last scene is more than the Wesley we've usually known would > do. So the long torture scenes still seem to me gratuitous. > David, But if he was that Joxerish, doesn't that make the torture scene even more necessary to counteract it? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 12:14:09 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/The DeJoxerfication of Wesley On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, allenw wrote: > David, > But if he was that Joxerish, doesn't that make the torture scene even > more necessary to counteract it? No, precisely not, for the reasons I explained. If a brave person is to become braver, _he_ needs to show extraordinary bravery. For a coward, _any_ bravery is extraordinary. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 12:59:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: comments4/30 On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > Berni: Treading tentatively on a touchy topic (which sounds like a line > from =Beowulf=), it seems to me that dismissing the old Christian woman in > "Where the Wild Things Are" as (almost) insane evades the issue. I > certainly recognize in her attitude an (admittedly extreme) expression of > the kind of atmosphere I grew up in (as a Catholic), particularly the > ideas that 1) any sexual thought outside the context of marriage is a sin > and 2) any action, even what we would now recognize as physical or > emotional abuse, is justified if it ensures physical and spiritual purity. > > Another dramatization of a similar kind is the recent film =The Virgin > Suicides=, about the five teenage daughters of very religious parents and > their fate. I found it very uncomfortable to watch. Perhaps it's another > extreme case, but I would argue that both this and the =Buffy= example are > grounded in reality, and that it's a case of exaggeration, not aberration. > > Still...I was surprised that the =Buffy= episode made such a strong > statement on the subject, which (given that I agreed with it) probably > meant it was =too= strong. The problem wasn't so much that the statement, in itself, was too strong, or that people of this sort don't exist (obviously they do), but that this was the sole example of a person with a conventional religious faith presented in the show so far (or so I gather). Extreme selection amounts to misrepresentation and prejudice. For instance, one gets tired of journalists whose expeditions into sf cons consist entirely of interviews with people wearing hall costumes. And I get very tired of politically-oriented fictions in which the one respresentative of the disapproved view turns out to be a coward, poltroon, or traitor. (This can be any view, even one I dislike.) > David objects to the poor writing of "Five by Five," which I seem to have > been enjoying Faith's presence too much to notice; I find it hard to understand the whole phenomenon - very common in fantasy readership - of enjoying a particular character, or setting, so much as to not care about the quality of the material. This applies mostly to sequels, of course. I've never found anything in fiction that I liked so much as to enjoy a badly-written sequel featuring it. I do enjoy Eliza Dushku's acting, which is not quite the same thing. I have learned over the years to be cautious about going to see movies _just_ because I liked the actors' work in previous movies. (Nicholas Cage, so brilliant in _Raising Arizona_, has been a disappointment in everything else I've seen him in.) But I would like to see more of Dushku's work as she does it, and in particular I'd like to see what she would do with a very different character. (Faith-as-Buffy gave only the merest hint of this, as the part was, alas, so short and - sorry! - also badly written, unlike the rest of the episode.) Still, as I said, however brilliant Dushku is with good material, she didn't rise above this. > Gayle: Thanks for the additional comments on Marvel; I accept the revision > of "real" life to "ordinary" life being the important point of Marvel's > influence on =Buffy=. I'm inclined to agree with Gayle's point, certainly about resemblance (I don't know about influence), though my independent knowledge of this is mostly secondary. The idea of fallible, "human" superheroes is well-established enough now that one has to know how revolutionary it was then to appreciate the daring. I know, because I recently read the first few episodes in a reprint of Spiderman's debut appearances. Peter Parker is a classic nerd, derided by jocks and beautiful female classmates alike (nothing about any non-beautiful young women, of course) because he actually likes his schoolwork. That'll get my empathy immediately, you bet. And his initial motivation to exploit his new superpowers is entirely financial. He is quite put out when the Fantastic Four tell him they don't make a profit. Eventually, having been pressed by the auctorial thumb into realizing that a superhero should be a do-gooder, he solves his financial worries with what became the long-standing trick of photographing his own exploits and selling the pictures to the newspaper. It's amusing, but read now it doesn't seem as daring as it must have been. (Far more amazing is his feat in the second episode: standing on top of a speeding jet fighter, he lasoos himself to an orbiting spacecraft - orbiting through the atmosphere, and not burning up - to fix a broken part. Wow. Just - wow. At least it was something different from the idiotic villains who soon began making appearances.) > (Are we talking about the same musical piece? =The Lark Ascending= by > Vaughan Williams? The version I know is a short violin concerto; no > vocals.) Definitely a different work: there is no vocal version of "Lark", at least not by the composer. God knows RVW wrote enough vocal-orchestral works of similar mien, though: could have been any one of a number. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 13:39:52 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/propdemon On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > 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. Final exam question: Discuss both these situations as they apply to and appear in _A Wizard of Earthsea_ by Ursula K. Le Guin. For extra credit, do the same with Frodo and Gollum in _The Lord of the Rings_ by J.R.R. Tolkien. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 19:55:43 -0400 From: Dori Subject: Re: b/The DeJoxerfication of Wesley David said: >If a brave person is to >become braver, _he_ needs to show extraordinary bravery. For a coward, >_any_ bravery is extraordinary. Wesley absolutely hasn't shown cowardice on ANGEL, ever. Yet, obviously there's still a perception of Wesley that he's a sniveling, weak coward, even after episodes like I'VE GOT YOU UNDER MY SKIN and ETERNITY, where he not only faces down Angelus , but knocks him out. So I'm with Allen. - -- Dori cleindor@cfw.com - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Torture first. It's better that way. Troll maxim - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 15:09:09 -0400 (EDT) From: "Hilary L. Hertzoff" Subject: Re: comments4/30 On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > Bought a T-160 tape the other day. That way I can fit the last > =four= remaining episodes each of =Buffy= and =Angel= (rather than > having one episode of each left over for a final tape). I envy you...not for the 8 hr tape - I use those all the time. It's the concept of having a tape that only has one show on it and nothing else. (Counting Buffy and Angel as a thematically linked pair.) I can tell which season my Buffy tapes are by what else is on them since I never remember to switch tapes after I've taped something. Or sometimes even after I've watched something (I lost the episode of Angel that was shown after Superstar this week, since I watched Superstar and forgot to remove the tape...) > > Lots to comment on. > > I =had= noticed a certain degree of congruence in the overall arc of > the four seasons, though more in the latter part of the season than > the earlier part (for example, the way that Faith in the 3rd season > occupies the same "ecological niche" as Angel in the 2nd season, > down to little details like derisively kissing Buffy before > fleeing). So who's due to turn bad this season... > > When you say "the first person Buffy met" 1st season, are you referring to > Jessie? That's an interesting parallel with Eddie in 4th season, but (just > to be pedantic) Buffy didn't meet Jessie until after Xander, Cordelia, and > Willow. I need to go back and watch the first episode again, but I thought that she runs into Jessie with his skateboard before she meets the other three. I could be mistaken. It's been a while. > > And a =really= good point about the similarities between Kate and > Riley: the loss of a parent-figure and their "official" warrior status, > and additionally the way they function as a kind of grounding "ordinary > joe" for each show's title character. > > To add one additional thought: we can also see Kate as a =possible= future > for Buffy, ten years or so down the road (just as Dana Scully is a > possible future for Clarice Starling--=Hannibal= providing a different > one). Remember all the "career in law enforcement" jokes in "What's My > Line" 2nd season? (Though Buffy's "rap sheet" of =two= > assaulting-an-officer charges remain mysteriously undealt-with.) > And we can see Riley as another possible future. Professional soldier and all that. > Anytime you want to talk about juvenile lit in general or its relevance to > =Buffy= you have a willing listener here. I meant to comment to you some > time ago that while I read a lot of juvenile fantasy when I was an > adolescent, I've lost touch in recent years (with the exception of > Pinkwater--Jill as well as Daniel--and part of the first Harry Potter > book), and would be glad to learn more. What you said there (about absent > parents) is an interesting start. (Remember what Faith said to Mrs. Poste > in "Revelations"? About her authority figures tending to end up dead? How > many can we name, now?) > Oddly enough I wasn't even thinking of fantasy per se, although it does follow that trope. As do the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys and other children's mystery series, British boarding school books (part of the tradition that Harry Potter grew out of), and many other children's books as well. It's an effect of focusing the books on the child/teen rather than the adults around them. In order for the main characters to solve the problems at hand you have minimise the roll of the older/wiser characters in the book. It's not so much fun to read a story where the problem is solved in the end by going to an adult and have them fix everything. One of my other obsessions is school stories in general (I may have mentioned this before) and I do plan to do write out the "how does Buffy fit into the (mostly) non-magical school story genre" post, I just haven't found the time yet. > Keep me posted on this Hellcat/Patsy Walker story. I might want to have a > look at it when it shows up. > She's revived in Thunderbolts 2000 which came out right about the time that I made my original post about her (this issue is interesting from a mythic standpoint as a retelling of the hero going to hell to rescue his wife motif with a lovely twist at the end, though it would have been better if the author hadn't had to fit all of the Thunderbolts in the story, which gave it a padded feel). According to the press releases, she's due to show up in Avengers 2000 in June, in which she goes back to the town where she grew up (which I didn't realize was in California) and fights some sort of supernatural evil there, and then gets her own miniseries in July. > Berni: Treading tentatively on a touchy topic (which sounds like a line > from =Beowulf=), it seems to me that dismissing the old Christian woman in > "Where the Wild Things Are" as (almost) insane evades the issue. I > certainly recognize in her attitude an (admittedly extreme) expression of > the kind of atmosphere I grew up in (as a Catholic), particularly the > ideas that 1) any sexual thought outside the context of marriage is a sin > and 2) any action, even what we would now recognize as physical or > emotional abuse, is justified if it ensures physical and spiritual purity. > > Still...I was surprised that the =Buffy= episode made such a strong > statement on the subject, which (given that I agreed with it) probably > meant it was =too= strong. I find myself wanting to draw a parallel with a book I read for work recently about one of the girls who was killed at Columbine. She Said Yes was written by the parents of this girl, whose name I've forgotten. Apparently the girl had been involved with a similar crowd to the one that killed her and the other students. Her parents intervened by forbidding her to continue her friendships, removing all of her privacy and transfering her to another high school. She reacted by becoming very religious. I reacted by nearly throwing the book across the room. Throughout the rest of the book, I kept wondering how much of it was true, how much her parents had wanted to believe was true, and how much damage they had done to the girl and to their relationship with her. > > I had an e-mail from Ken Houghton (who for some reason can't post to the > list from his e-mail address) who thought that the reaction of Anya and > Tara and Willow to Giles' performance showed the aftereffects of > "satyriasis" (as he put it), i.e. the spell from the frat house. Judging > from the general reaction of the female viewership (on another e-mail list > I'm on), no spell was necessary. > > Did we notice that the reaction of everyone but Xander was similar to the > way everyone including Xander reacted to Jonathan's swing number? (That > =was= a spell, admittedly.) Or that the female reaction to Giles was > similar to the male reaction to Veruca? Music being linked to or as a conduit for magic isn't a new idea. War for the Oaks comes to mind as does the story of Taliesen and I'm certain there are others. Does the Hellmouth enhance all forms of magic or does it just draw magical creatures to the town? > Phaedre: So to you something like =Psycho=, or a Jack the Ripper story, is > =not= horror? That strikes me as an odd attitude. I'm with David on the > genre "boxes": there =is= something called "psychological horror" with no > supernatural element, I agree with Donald here. I find non magical horror stories much scarier than magical ones to the point where reading The Silence of the Lambs and similar titles is a non-issue for me...I won't even look at them. Psychological horror is one of the few genres (maybe the only genre) of fiction that I avoid. > and I second his pointing out certain fantasies like > =Gormenghast= and =Swordspoint= that have no supernatural element, either, > but are clearly fantasies. Just as there are plenty of fairytales which don't have fairies in them. In fact I'm sure there are some of Grimm's fairy tales with no magical element at all, but I can't think of one at the moment. > It's been long-established in the series that vampires can be videotaped, > at least as far back as "Halloween" in 2nd season, where one of Spike's > henchmen videotapes Buffy fighting another henchman so Spike can study her > fighting techniques. One of the nice things about working in a library is that you can look something up when you're not sure about it. According to The New Way Things Work, studio cameras contain mirrors but hand held video cameras (which may or may not include the portable cameras used on location for news and such - it isn't clear) don't. The image on a video camera is captured directly on a light sensitive microchip which produces an electrical symbol depending on light and color intensity. So no mirrors involved... > Meredith: Thanks for passing along that review of "Where the Wild Things > Are." Once again I'm astonished to note that the general populace of the > viewership tends to think the funniest episodes are the best, while for me > they're the weakest. (For example, most people think "Doppelgangland" is a > far better episode than "Helpless," while I think the opposite.) Takes all > kinds. Interesting note on this. I just last week watched Superstar right after I rewatched Where the Wild Things Are. I thought Superstar was a brilliant episode, but I found WTWTA more engaging. Some of it was pace; Superstar felt slow (though speeding it up would have lost something), while WTWTA had me sitting on the edge of my seat, laughing and talking back to the tv. I think that the fact that the same show can produce both types of episodes is part of why I like it so much. You don't always know what you're going to get humor or horror or social commentary but it's always good. Hilary ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 09:04:17 -0600 From: Kathleen Woodbury Subject: Re: stillpt-digest V2 #95 At 04:45 AM 4/30/00 -0400, Donald G. Keller wrote: >Phaedre: So to you something like =Psycho=, or a Jack the Ripper story, is >=not= horror? That strikes me as an odd attitude. I'm with David on the >genre "boxes": there =is= something called "psychological horror" with no >supernatural element, and I second his pointing out certain fantasies like >=Gormenghast= and =Swordspoint= that have no supernatural element, either, >but are clearly fantasies. Well, I haven't read PSYCHO (only seen the movie--and I would call it a "scary movie" because there were scary things happening in it, but movies are not quite the same as books and don't get classified the same way IMHO), but I have done a lot of reading on Jack the Ripper. And I would say that they are horrific, but not horror. Science fiction doesn't usually have a supernatural element either. I wasn't saying fantasy had to, particularly. I was just saying that for me, they have to be "not of this world," each genre in its own way. GORMENGHAST certainly doesn't =feel= "of this world." PALADIN by C J Cherryh has no fantasy elements either, but it takes place in a country that doesn't/didn't exist (with bits of China and of Japan but not clearly either one). It's "not of this world." I know, I'm probably being terribly picky, but I really don't want to read about supernatural scary stuff. I don't read an awful lot of natural scary stuff either, but I can handle that. I really don't like/can't handle supernatural scary stuff. (I don't know why, unless it's that I really believe in the supernatural and I don't want to read about it when it's being scary. Again I shrug.) >Your question about dismemberment got me into such a fugue state that I've >tabled the question temporarily, but I =will= answer it; it touched off >some interesting lines of thinking. I'm willing to wait. >It's been long-established in the series that vampires can be videotaped, >at least as far back as "Halloween" in 2nd season, where one of Spike's >henchmen videotapes Buffy fighting another henchman so Spike can study her >fighting techniques. Ken Houghton emailed me with the information that videotape doesn't have silver (the way mirrors and some film does), and so it should be able to capture vampire images on videotape. (I hadn't realized that that was why vampires didn't show in mirrors, so I was tickled to receive that information.) Thanks, Ken! BTW, cool stuff about Wesley, Dori. Thanks to you, too! Phaedre/Kathleen workshop@burgoyne.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 00:52:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/The DeJoxerfication of Wesley On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Dori wrote: > Wesley absolutely hasn't shown cowardice on ANGEL, ever. Yet, > obviously there's still a perception of Wesley that he's a sniveling, > weak coward, even after episodes like I'VE GOT YOU UNDER MY SKIN and > ETERNITY, where he not only faces down Angelus , but knocks him out. If Wesley is still perceived as a sniveler after all he's been through, then it's not the amount of danger he faces, or the amount of suffering he undergoes, that feeds the perception. It's his reaction to it. He collapses easily, even when non-cowardly. (Was he being a coward when he offered to help Buffy during the GD2 showdown? Was he being a coward when he was carried out with a sprained back or whatever it was he had?) All it takes, therefore, is for Wesley not to collapse so easily. Putting him through such a long, gruesome torture session is still gratuitous. It's the camera lovingly caressing his face as he sits bound and gagged in the chair that really takes the cake. There's plenty of torture scenes that aren't so gratuitous. For instance, the one of Angelus under the relaxing drug a week or two ago. That wasn't gratuitous at all: rather it was almost vacant; one wished Angelus would get down to it a little more. Also, is this kind of extended torture at all typical of Faith? Even when she and Angel (OK, he was faking, but she wasn't) tied Buffy up in the Mr. Lightshow episode, it didn't go on and on like this -- not ON CAMERA, whatever might ahve happened off camera. It's character behavior, and it's portrayal. Gratuitous. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 02:09:21 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/The DeJoxerfication of Wesley That was too curt and dismissive a final comment; I should withdraw it, and say instead "That's why I thought it was gratuitous; that's what I found gratuitous about it." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 17:53:59 -0400 From: Dori Subject: Re: b/The DeJoxerfication of Wesley >It's the camera lovingly caressing his face as he sits bound >and gagged in the chair that really takes the cake. There's plenty of >torture scenes that aren't so gratuitous. Well, I have a feeling that one man's gratuitous is another woman's foreplay. It's no secret that I'm a big fan of charactertorture, and part of what I liked about that Wesleytorture scene is that I could finally snap my fingers at several people on the big Buffy list and say, "HAH!" because I've said all along that he could stand up to something like that, and been pooh-poohed. So I'm probably looking a little harder for justification than your average Joe... > If Wesley is still perceived as a sniveler after all he's been through, > then it's not the amount of danger he faces, or the amount of suffering > he undergoes, that feeds the perception. It's his reaction to it. He > collapses easily, even when non-cowardly. Yep. - -- Dori cleindor@cfw.com - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Torture first. It's better that way. Troll maxim - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 20:05:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/The DeJoxerfication of Wesley On Mon, 1 May 2000, Dori wrote: > >It's the camera lovingly caressing his face as he sits bound > >and gagged in the chair that really takes the cake. There's plenty of > >torture scenes that aren't so gratuitous. > > Well, I have a feeling that one man's gratuitous is another woman's > foreplay. It's no secret that I'm a big fan of charactertorture, I'm afraid that that's what I was referring to when I wrote previously of the psychology of "hurt/comfort" in fan fiction. For instance, Trekkies, most of them women, write stories in which Spock goes through hideous suffering; usually, Kirk has to take care of him. Substitute characters, or shows, ad lib. This scenario seems to have a sexual/romantic appeal. It's one thing for fans to write this for their own jollies. It's another when it appears in the actual show. > and part of what I liked about that Wesleytorture scene is that I > could finally snap my fingers at several people on the big Buffy list > and say, "HAH!" because I've said all along that he could stand up to > something like that, and been pooh-poohed. So I'm probably looking a > little harder for justification than your average Joe... It certainly proved that, all right. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 22:51:05 -0400 (EDT) From: "Hilary L. Hertzoff" Subject: Replicating themes Sigh, I wasn't planning to get on the internet tonight, but I needed to work this out in writing... Feeling the need of some comfort reading after a rough day, I went into my bedroom, where I keep all of the books I've read to death, to find something that didn't require much effort. And as I was browsing something hit me. I was staring at two short series of books in a small paperback bookcase by my bed. Both extremely obscure and not very well written... Series 1. To quote the cover "Virginia Coffman's Thrilling Occult Gothic Series Lucifer Cove". Lucifer Cove is a "health spa" somewhere in California (my grasp of the geography of the area is vague; as is the location in the book), where the concern is less with health that with earthly pleasures. Each book is about a woman who is tempted by the spa and the spa's mysterious owner and almost trapped in the place. (Think Hotel California) The first two (of the six) win free of the temptations but choose to stay, the first because she is in love with the owner (and he with her, apparently - she's later made out to be his weakness), the second because she's mercenary and cynical enough not to be trapped (i.e. she can meet him on his own level). The other four are tempted but eventually escape from the place, as the reader watches the fates of the background characters who weren't strong enough to escape (most of the original ones have died by the end of the last book). The owner is obliquely (though never directly) identifed as the devil and apparently there is an entrance to hell in the basement. It doesn't fit the pattern completely. Christie Deeth is neither teenager (actually she's the mother of a teenager) nor fighter (though she does have her moments, and she is strong enough to hold her own throughout the series) Series 2. MOrgan Swift. A children's book series that managed to run 4 volumes and two Choose your own adventure books. Morgan Swift is in her mid-twenties, a science teacher, gifted with second sight and amazing athletic ability, and a mysterious (and tragic) past. The tragic part being her boyfriend who might or might not have died in a car crash several years before. Back when she lived in California... The weirdest part is that with both of these examples, there were parallels that I didn't remember until I started writing this out. Now I really don't think Joss has seen either of these series, and I honestly don't suggest tracking them down (they fall into the "I'll put up with any amount of bad prose for this sort of story and I'm rather embarrassed that I like this stuff" category of my reading). The Lucifer Cove series has flashes of brilliance marred by the purple prose typical of the seventies gothic romance and a very dated worldview. The Morgan Swift books have an intriguing premise and well-thought-out plots ruined by wooden characters and bad prose. But I thought you'd appreciate the parallels. Hilary L. Hertzoff From here to there, Mamaroneck Public Library a bunny goes where a bunny must. Mamaroneck, NY hhertzof@wlsmail.wls.lib.ny.us Little Bunny on the Move hhertzof@panix.com by Peter McCarty ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #96 ****************************