From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #99 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Thursday, May 4 2000 Volume 02 : Number 099 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary ["Susan Kroupa" ] Re: b/comments5/2 ["Hilary L. Hertzoff" ] Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary ["Hilary L. Hertzoff" ] Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/The DeJoxerfication of Wesley ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary [GHighPine@aol.com] b/leguin/jung/tolkien ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary [Todd Huff ] Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary [Todd Huff ] Re: b/leguin/jung/tolkien [Todd Huff ] Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary [GHighPine@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 08:05:00 -0700 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary I was actually disappointed in this week's BUFFY--I thought the script was too preachy (Buffy's lectures to Riley), and I'm beginning to fear now that Gayle's prediction that this season won't live up to the last couple of years may be right. There just doesn't seem to be as strong a story arc. Unfortunately, I was out of town the week before and didn't think to call my daughter so I completely missed those episodes. But I'll state, too, that I get tired of the token Christian always being played as a hateful fanatic, looney, or stupid. I've known too many Christians who are one or all of those, but many more who quietly live their religion and do their best to do good--and who are intelligent, compassionate, etc--just like other folks, iow. But you wouldn't know that from Hollywood. ANGEL, though, had everything I'd hoped for in BUFFY (including two of the characters) and was quite good, I thought. Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: Donald G. Keller To: Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 9:09 PM Subject: b/newmoon/sanctuary > Well, =that= was a major helping. > > Felt like I had to re-watch both episodes in order to feel like I'd > even absorbed them. > > "New Moon Rising" is a topnotch Marti Noxon script, I thought. Very > uncomfortable in the best sense. Nicely done parallel between > Riley's "bigotry" and Buffy's reaction to Willow & Tara. > > I thought that was the right way to handle the whole Willow & Tara & > Oz situation; inevitable angst, but everyone behaved like an adult > and they sorted it out. > > Approved of how they handled Riley's passing his point of no return. > > And of Oz finding a way to control his lycanthropy. > > Nice thickening of plot with Spike and Adam joining forces; I'm > interested in what's going to happen next, now. > > It was one thing to have a Samuel Beckett joke (=Wating for Godot= > is a well-known title), but a William Burroughs joke?? I was very > amused. > > And very amused by Giles and Anya doing a high-five. > > Just now struck me: innnteresting parallel between Riley and Angel > going against "law enforcement" to save killers. > > I was surprised they didn't have a scene in "New Moon Rising" > setting up Buffy's trip to L.A. Which muddies the chronology: it > almost feels like "Sanctuary" happened right after "Five By Five" > and =before= "New Moon Rising" (or even before "Where the Wild > Things Are"!). Have to think about it on rewatching. > > Wonder how much of "Sanctuary" Joss Whedon wrote. Bet he wrote all > or most of the Buffy scenes, especially the Buffy/Faith scene on the > roof. (Lots to chew on there: "only you made me feel like a > victim"?) > > Wished Kate had more than that one brief scene with Buffy and Faith. > > Are we looking at Faith having a future on =Angel=? She's going to > be in jail for a long time, I suspect. > > I think I've bought Faith Redeemed, now. > > And now it's late. Later. (Latest.) > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 11:37:54 -0400 (EDT) From: "Hilary L. Hertzoff" Subject: Re: b/comments5/2 On Wed, 3 May 2000, Donald Gidolformer Avenger and Defender will discover that shes be, super hero, even satanic bridebut now shes back from. Keller wrote: > > To give Wesley more credit than I did at the time, despite the clear > early impression that he Just Didn't Get It as to how to handle > Buffy (much less Faith), the fact that he allowed Giles to stay > around and participate means that he actually rather quickly figured > out that maybe the Council didn't have the whole story. What always impressed me the most about Wesley was that he did pay attention to what was going on around him. He walked into the BuffyFANTASTIC FOUR ANNUAL #3. Since her first appearance, titles through the late 60s titles through the late 60s, at which point Stan Lee br, at which point Stan Lee /Angel/Faith situation with no practical knowledge of what he would be facing (unlike Giles), had a quick crash course in how field work is different from theory, and adapted himself to the situation. How about this parallel CordeliaTASTIC satanic bridebut now shes back from the grea FOUR ANNUAL #3. Since her first appearance, = Wesley = Riley/Kate On the we can't ignore this, we can't hide, we better start fighting back track that Buffy herself keeps hitting. > Hilary: Thought of another parallel structure that runs across all four > seasons. I shouldn't have to say any more than just this: > > Owen = Tom = Scott = Parker > > Different characters, different situations, different fates...but each > shows up early in the season and is wrapped up before the first third is > through. Hadn't thought of that one. > > I =do= have all the episodes, pretty much in order; I've been as careful > as I can. Little glitches like the 1st season is out of order, one 3rd > season episode is at the wrong speed, etc. but they're all there and I can > find the episode I want with minimal effort (as I'll prove in a little > bit). > I do have everything labeled and in (roughly) the right order (part of the label includes the season and episode number. So I can find what I have, but I'm missing 1-2 episodes from each season. > Right! somebody has to go over to the Dark Side before the season's > over! I'm guessing Riley (= Angel = Faith), especially after Buffy told > Angel she can trust Riley. But maybe Tara, since we don't know what's up > with her. (But maybe they'll abstain this year.) > Or Spike (since he's been sort of an associate Scooby this year.) > It's true that it's =plausible= Buffy could end up in the military; but > she =does= ask an awful lot of questions (learned it from Giles); and I'm > guessing she does something to scotch a military career sometime before > the season ends (if she hasn't already). Which she has. I was just pointing it out as a possibility, not considering it on a practical level. > > Not being an experienced habitue of comic book stores, could you be a > little more exact (title and publisher) re the Patsy Walker comic that is > out? I might want to go take a look at it. > I'm going to paste in the blurb from Previews (magazine for preordering your comics. Apparently I wasn't the only one who noticed the parallel. HELLCAT #1 (OF 3) cover by norm breyfogle steve englehart/norm breyfogle THE SCOOP: From the pages of THUNDERBOLTS 2000 and AVENGERS 2000, Hellcat leaps into action! THE STORY: Debuting way back in the 1944's MISS AMERICA MAGAZINE, Patsy Walker starred in a multitude of "soap opera" and "humor" titles through the late '60s, at which point Stan Lee brought her into the Marvel Universe with a a cameo in FANTASTIC FOUR ANNUAL #3. Since her first appearance, the energetic and upbeat character has been many things-teen idol, super hero, even satanic bride-but now she's back from the great beyond and just wants to lead a quiet life. But the former Avenger and Defender will discover that she's become the prize in a hell-spawned contest which threatens to spill over into the earthly plane! She's young... she's undead... she kicks demon booty! Move over Buffy, here comes Hellcat! Published by Marvel Comics. The writer is the same one who was responsible for turning her into a super hero. > I saw that book about the religious girl who died at Columbine; I'm afraid > that it gave me the willies. I just needed to vent about it. The things you read when yo're a young adult librarian. > > Re =Earthsea= and =LOTR=, oh, absolutely; your question is well-posed. (Le > Guin is one of the most =consciously= Jungian fiction writers > around.) With those models in mind, how do you feel =now= about Faith > always running away (until just this last episode)? I think that's what made this last episode so powerful...Faith has finally stopped running from her actions and herself. Hilary 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 12:49:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "Hilary L. Hertzoff" Subject: Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary On Wed, 3 May 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > Well, =that= was a major helping. > > Felt like I had to re-watch both episodes in order to feel like I'd > even absorbed them. That's happenned to me the last three sets of new episodes. > > "New Moon Rising" is a topnotch Marti Noxon script, I thought. Very > uncomfortable in the best sense. Nicely done parallel between > Riley's "bigotry" and Buffy's reaction to Willow & Tara. Glad they addressed the Buffy/Angel Willow/Oz parallel. > > I thought that was the right way to handle the whole Willow & Tara & > Oz situation; inevitable angst, but everyone behaved like an adult > and they sorted it out. Well, everyone involved is so nice. (In the best sort of way) > > Approved of how they handled Riley's passing his point of no return. > Note the parallel between Riley and Willow. Both made life changing decisions in this episode, choosing the new over the old. > > Nice thickening of plot with Spike and Adam joining forces; I'm > interested in what's going to happen next, now. > I think this episode was the pivot point from the season. Forces are gathering for the final conflict. > I was surprised they didn't have a scene in "New Moon Rising" > setting up Buffy's trip to L.A. Which muddies the chronology: it > almost feels like "Sanctuary" happened right after "Five By Five" > and =before= "New Moon Rising" (or even before "Where the Wild > Things Are"!). Have to think about it on rewatching. I suspect this would have worked better if they could have flipped Buffy and Angel this week...but television isn't that flexible. > Wished Kate had more than that one brief scene with Buffy and Faith. > > Are we looking at Faith having a future on =Angel=? She's going to > be in jail for a long time, I suspect. > Up until Faith showed up at the police station, I thought this was spinning out into a final arc or at least a two part episode. I wonder if there is going to be a grand finale for Angel this year. Hilary 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 13:28:13 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary In a message dated 5/4/00 7:01:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, susank@fiber.net writes: << I'm beginning to fear now that Gayle's prediction that this season won't live up to the last couple of years may be right. There just doesn't seem to be as strong a story arc. >> When I said the arc was dead in the water, comparing where we were at that point to where we had been at the same point the last two seasons, Donald's response seemed like a nonsequitur. (As of the same point last year we didn't know the nature of the Ascension, the year before we didn't know Acathla was coming, etc.) That didn't seem to have anything to do with what I had said, either to agree or disagree. Of course Joss has surprises in store. Of course surprising things will happen in the last few episodes. That doesn't have anything to do with where the arc is at this point, or was at the point I was writing. After I thought about it, I realized that he must have interpreted what I said as meaning I thought nothing was going to happen in this arc. But that is not what I was saying or what I believe. Of course things will happen. Of course there are yet surprises in store. What I said and meant was that the arc had no momentum as of the point that I was writing. It seemed totally dead in the water as of the point that I was writing, I expected that by now Joss would start pulling the cord on the outboard motor and get the story moving a bit, and that is finally beginning to happen with this ep, but it is not moving with the speed of a boat that has been racing at breakneck pace for months. (In this metaphor, "speed" is not necessarily the literal speed of events, but the sense of momentum, the sense of compulsion that "I HAVE to find out what's going to happen with this!") As of the point I wrote, two new episodes ago, the sense of I GOTTA KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN! had reached the zero point. I didn't care about Adam at all and the Initiative had lost its initial (initiatival?) interest. I asked if anyone did have any interest in the story line comparable to their interest in the Faith and Angel storylines at the same point. The boat is starting to move again and pick up a little bit of "speed," but I would still like to know if anyone finds this arc compelling. The two episodes that followed what I said (Superstar and Wild Things) were both standalones. Did anyone say, "Ohmygawd, even though I love these standalones, how could Joss torture us with standalones now, when I'm dying to find out what will happen with Adam and the Initiative and Riley!" I sure felt like that during the past two seasons at this point. But this time, with the two standalones, I thought, "Shoot, the longer Joss waits to get the motor revved up, the harder it will be to pick up enough `speed' by the end of the season." BTW, my predictions and speculations for this ep turned out to have a lot of hits (some misses, too, in the riskier speculations). << But I'll state, too, that I get tired of the token Christian always being played as a hateful fanatic, looney, or stupid. I've known too many Christians who are one or all of those, but many more who quietly live their religion and do their best to do good--and who are intelligent, compassionate, etc--just like other folks, iow. But you wouldn't know that from Hollywood. >> I agree with you and think you are right, but I'd like to point out a few considerations. All kinds of groups have been stereotyped and exaggerated on screen. It is easier to whip out "types" than to create real characters. The only way that different groups of people have been able to change that is by speaking up about it. And, unfortunately, with Christians, the ones who are speaking up the most loudly to Hollywood are the ones who are actually reinforcing that stereotype. It is not surprising to me that people who live their religion quietly and don't try to coerce others are not heard and don't register on the screen. What to do about it? Should quiet people start being loud about their quietness? Demand subtlety and intelligence in the depiction of Christians? I don't think that subtlety and intelligence can be produced on demand. Perhaps the best course would be for some of those intelligent, compassionate Christians to learn screenwriting and write scripts about people who are living Christian values of integrity and compassion. A group of people is best depicted by someone who knows it from within anyway. Barring that, people in the Christian community should be speaking up and simply saying that "these stereotypes don't represent us." This is what the Arab-American community is trying to do. But unfortunately, stories about bomb-wielding fanatics translate to the screen better than stories about people quietly living their lives, even though the latter account for 99.99% of the Arab community. So there is that problem, but with Christians, my hunch is protesting the stereotypes of Christians carries risks of dividing the Christian community. If some Christians say, "Don't depict us as homophobic," others may respond, "Don't depict us as saying that homosexuality is acceptable." And so on. A further factor in the stereotyping of Christians by Hollywood is that there =is= a more personal element in it than in the stereotyping of people like Indians whom writers may never have known personally. The issue of homosexuality plays a major role. There have always been a disproportionate number of gays, especially gay men, in the theater and the film business (and most people in the theatre and film world who are not gay are gay-friendly). Most of them probably have a sense of resentment against Christians, because the loud, bigoted ones have been a genuine threat to them. The fact that most Christians quietly do not fit this stereotype does not register as deeply as the fact that =some= are hostile and hateful. There is a poem by Countee Cullen that I memorized a long time ago, because it contains so much wisdom about a universal human tendency. I will reproduce it here with the key line in upper case: Once, riding in old Baltimore, / Heart-filled, head-filled with glee. / I saw a Baltimorean / Was looking straight at me. Now, I was eight and very small / And he was no whit bigger, / And so I smiled, but he stuck out / His tongue and called me "nigger." I saw the whole of Baltimore / From May until December. / Of all the things that happened there / THAT'S ALL THAT I REMEMBER. So, overall, it will be an uphill battle to change the stereotypes of Christians, but I think that the key is the very love and compassion that true Christianity teaches. There are people, including influential creative people in Hollywood, who feel deeply and personally injured by Christians. It comes out in characters like the one in BUFFY. I think that nothing will be changed if Christians approach the situation with resentment -- rather, it may be an opportunity to practice the healing power of love and compassion. Changing the subject -- back to Marvel, besides making superheroes ordinary and fallible, its other great Buffyesque innovation was to give the superheroes emotional crises and angst, and problems in balancing their personal lives with their superhero lives. And, also, the habit of wisecracking while beating up villains is very Marvel-esque. And as Hilary (?) said, this was all more revolutionary at the time than it seems now, when Marvel's influence has been absorbed by the whole superhero comic world. When my sister and I discovered Marvel -- I think it was 1963 - -- the first Marvels we bought were Fantastic Four #23, Spiderman #9, Avengers #4, X-Men #4, and Daredevil #2. So we discovered Marvel at a time when it was very new and extremely radical. You would have to read the DC comics of the same era -- DC ruled the superhero world at the time -- to appreciate how shockingly different Marvel seemed at the time. (It's a bit like -- a few months ago I had my VCR record a BUFFY ep I couldn't watch the night it was broadcast. I watched it the next night. When the tape ran out and switched off, ST:VOYAGER was on my TV. The contrast between the aliveness of the BUFFY characters and the stiffness of the ST:V characters could not have been more striking. The contrast between Marvel and DC was like that -- the Marvel characters were so alive, while the DC characters of the time had just about as much dimension as the George Reeves SUPERMAN series based on them. Compare that series to the post-Marvel Superman of LOIS & CLARK!) And -- was it Hilary who asked if we knew whether Marvel had a direct influence on BUFFY (as opposed to the indirect influence of its osmosis through pop culture)? The answer is, we do know that Joss Whedon was a huge Marvel fan, and in an interview, BUFFY staff writer Doug Petrie partially credits his being hired to the fact that he, like Joss, had been a big fan of Marvel. In his job interview, he mentioned something Marvelesque in BUFFY, and immediately he and Joss started enthusiastically talking about Marvel stories. Joss did like having Marvel influence on his staff writers. And so that certain Marvelesque flavor that can be detected in BUFFY is no accident. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:12:09 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/The DeJoxerfication of Wesley Dori - Sorry to see some knee-jerk misreadings of what I wrote, but I can't say you didn't warn me. Prior apology noted also. To continue. You wrote: > > For instance, Trekkies, most of them women > > And their gender is relevant...why? Does everything have to be relevant? Seeing criticism in every parenthetical remark is a recipe for a rough life. OK, it's relevant because gender is relevant to discussions of sexual attractions. I intended description, not judgment. If I were sure you knew this stuff, the description would have been unnecessary. > >It's one thing for fans to write this for their own jollies. It's > >another when it appears in the actual show. > > Tsk. Yeah, it's just so annoying when a good show is contaminated by > those icky Girly!Fanfic Cooties. Yes, it's annoying. But not because it's fanfic, and especially not because it's from women. This is going to be tough to explain, because it'll have to be oversimplified. But literature (I count _Buffy_ as literature) can draw both literary and non-literary responses. Literary responses can be both intellectual and emotional; the best literature draws both. For instance, this week's _Angel_, whose only flaw was the idiotic scene where Buffy and Faith are invulnerable to a hail of bullets, brilliantly both discusses and brings out both emotional and intellectual reactions to questions of guilt, punishment, revenge. (In fact, I'm curious as to people's reactions. If you were in Wesley's place, would you forgive Faith? How about if you were in Buffy's place? Angel's? If you were Faith and you were seriously repentant, what would you have done?) But non-literary reactions are those that go straight to the hindbrain and don't engage the forebrain, either emotionally or intellectually, at all. This isn't just sex, but any of the deadly sins. If a novel about wealthy people leaves you salivating over their lifestyle, it's the same thing. If description of food in a novel leaves you salivating over that, it's also the same thing. And this reaction, I maintain, is bad in reading literature, however appropriate it may be elsewhere in life. It's bad because it's distracting and because it pre-empts literary response. The virtues, if you consider them that, of pornography (the classic example of what I'm describing) are not literary virtues; in fact, literary virtues tend to get in the way of pornographic virtues. This is not elitism, because it says nothing about the genre or social class of the work. I've read highly literary fan fiction. For instance, years before any Trek film was made, I read a story about the aftermath of the 5-year mission that was better than any of the Trek films. (It had the crew split up, which is what would have happened in real life, and then gave vignettes of their mostly cordial run-ins in later years as they got on with their lives.) Here's the dogma: bad literature is that which tends to be read in the non-literary ways I'm describing. And worst _as literature_ (getting one's jollies is a whole different matter, as I said, and a perfectly legitimate thing to do) ... worst as literature is that which is deliberately written to target that. Either it socks your hindbrain, in which case its relationship to truly moving literature is the same as the relationship of tickling to a good joke in making you laugh, or it doesn't sock the particular reader's hindbrain, in which case it has completely failed for that reader. I see that kind of writing (and directing) in the Wesley-torture scene, and I was repelled. Not by Faith's behavior -- Faith's behavior shocked me last season in some highly excellent writing -- but by the way in which it was depicted. I suspected that it was written as a cheap appeal to fans of hurt/comfort, and your reaction confirmed that. Again, it doesn't have to be sex. What someone on this list (I hate this not remembering: if this were an apa, I could remember who wrote what by their typefaces) called "tea parties" are the same thing: cheap appeals to the sub-literary part of us that wants everything cozy and happy. If the above seems nonsensical, it's because I haven't explained it well. I would ask you to read _An Experiment in Criticism_ by C.S. Lewis. That's where I got this theory of literature, and he _does_ explain it well. Some have said that the events of this week's _Angel_ justified last week's torture. I disagree. Good writing can frequently get a story out of a hole dug for other reasons, however irrelevant: like budget problems, or an actor unexpectedly quitting. What they did this week was make a silk purse out of a sow's ear; they had a lemon and made lemonade; they wrote their way out of a paper bag; choose your metaphor. The solution doesn't justify the problem. Even if it does, all that was necessary to set up this week's dilemma with Wesley is that he was badly hurt somehow. It matters less how; and it matters very little how much of it was shown. Donald toted up the timings of past torture scenes. Wow! Still, it proves little re my point. I do not remember these previous scenes offhand. They, too, might have been egregious. Or maybe not. Time span alone is not a measure of whether something has been unduly dwelled upon. > > This scenario seems to have a sexual/romantic appeal. > > No, not "seems to." > > "Does." But not, of course, to =everyone=. If we all liked the same > kinks...well, think what a shortage of whipped cream there'd be. I wrote "seems to" because I know little of this and understand its appeal not at all. I was reporting what I'd been told. Well, this is my reward for being cautious. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:26:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary On Wed, 3 May 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > I thought that was the right way to handle the whole Willow & Tara & > Oz situation; inevitable angst, but everyone behaved like an adult > and they sorted it out. Yeah, I'm just sorry that it had no net effect on the situation (except emotionally, and in the incidental, if major, effect on Riley): Oz wandered off before, now he's wandered off again. Willow was with Tara already, now she's more firmly with Tara. Yeah, I know it feels different because of the water that's gone over the dam. But I was expecting more. Frankly, I was expecting the Initiative to kill Oz. That would certainly have been major. > It was one thing to have a Samuel Beckett joke (=Wating for Godot= > is a well-known title), but a William Burroughs joke?? I was very > amused. I didn't get the William Burroughs joke. Explain, please? > And very amused by Giles and Anya doing a high-five. I identified more with Giles than ever. I do not understand "high-five", no matter how many times I've seen one. I had the same problem when I met Christine Lavin. She held out her hand, and I shook it. Turned out she wanted me to slap it. Huh? > I was surprised they didn't have a scene in "New Moon Rising" > setting up Buffy's trip to L.A. Which muddies the chronology: it > almost feels like "Sanctuary" happened right after "Five By Five" > and =before= "New Moon Rising" (or even before "Where the Wild > Things Are"!). Have to think about it on rewatching. I expect it did happen earlier, actually. Faith gets on the train, Buffy follows ASAP. Makes sense to me. > I think I've bought Faith Redeemed, now. So have I, but it wasn't the ending of the episode that clinched it for me. It was something near the beginning. We've talked a lot here about how, however much _we_ understand Buffy's POV, to Faith she's a merciless enigma. At the start, Faith says to Angel that she realized how much she's screwed up Buffy's life. I wouldn't buy for a moment that this would even _occur_ to her spontaneously, even as something to reject - it goes beyond what Buffy herself has said to Faith - if she hadn't had a real change of heart. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:32:11 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary On Wed, 3 May 2000, Todd Huff wrote: > I was more than a bit surprised that Buffy hadn't > twigged to the fact that Willow and Tara were more > than just friends, especially since Faith had figured > it out immediately. I had also thought that W&T had > already been intimate, but the final scene makes it > clear that they hadn't been. And did you notice in _Angel_ that we learn that Angel and Faith did not do the dirty back in the Mr. Lightshow episode? In her list of how she done Buffy wrong, Faith says something very close to "-screwing her boyfriend-", Angel says "-Faith, you and I never ...-", and she replies, "-No, not you, the new one-", at which point we're distracted by Angel's having just been informed of Riley's existence. (Parallel to our having watched Riley being about to be informed of Angel's existence a few minutes earlier on the other show. Nice set-ups for what's to come, huh?) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 18:31:30 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary In a message dated 5/4/00 2:25:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dbratman@genie.idt.net writes: << Frankly, I was expecting the Initiative to kill Oz. That would certainly have been major. >> I was, too. (In fact, that was one of my speculations posted here.) Oz didn't leave Sunnydale though, did he? They might still kill him, since Seth Green apparently is leaving the show permanently. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 20:39:04 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/leguin/jung/tolkien [It's been a frustrating week or so. I go to work in the morning, sit in my little office space proofreading very dull stuff, and meanwhile my brain feels like it's =boiling= with all the stuff we've been discussing and I've been thinking about, and I just itch to get home and write it out. Then I =do= get home, and I'm so tired from work that I can't muster the effort to write something...so I listen to baseball and go to sleep. Repeat next day. Anyway...I've =got= to write something down or I swear my brain will explode.] David's mention of Ursula Le Guin reminded me that I hadn't looked at her essay "The Child and the Shadow" in a while, so I dragged out my copy this morning and reread it. As I remembered, it's as good an introduction (it was =my= introduction) to the simplest fundamentals of Jungian psychological theory, =and= its relevance to folktale, myth, and fantasy. Le Guin is a much better writer than I (or than Jung, for that matter), and her clear, elegant explanation is recommended to anyone who's been a bit confused or puzzled by what I've been talking about here. (And even after reading lots of Jung, it seems to me that her presentation simplifies but does not distort). Any of you sf readers who have a copy of Le Guin's essay collection =The Language of the Night= are invited to have a look. Anyway...I'm going to refrain from quoting good bits, but I want to take off from the following passage late in the essay, where she's talking about =The Lord of the Rings= (=LOTR= for short): "When you look at the story as a psychic journey, you see something...very strange. You see then a group of bright figures, each one with its black shadow. Against the Elves, the Orcs. Against Aragorn, the Black Rider. Against Gandalf, Saruman. And above all, against Frodo, Gollum. Against him--and with him. "It is truly complex, because both the figures are clearly doubled. Sam is, in part, Frodo's shadow, his 'inferior' part. Gollum is two people, too, in a more direct, schizophrenic sense...Frodo and Gollum are not only both hobbits; they are the same person--and Frodo knows it. Frodo and Sam are the bright side, Smeagol-Gollum the shadow side. In the end Sam and Smeagol, the lesser figures, drop away, and all that is left is Frodo and Gollum..." I nearly jumped out of my skin when I read that. MESSAGE FROM UNCONSCIOUS! blinked the flashing light. PLEASE WAIT FOR PROCESSING TO CONCLUDE. And when it did, it spat out the Levi-Strauss formula: Frodo:Sam:Smeagol-Gollum::Buffy:Willow:Angel(us) (And you can substitute Faith for Angel, Faith being "double-natured" or good/evil in a different sense). Yes, I know that the parallel between Sam and Willow is inexact; but she =is= "partly" Buffy's shadow, and her "inferior" in the purely fighting sense...and the parallel with Angel is frighteningly close. But that wasn't all; my brain continued in overdrive, and before long I had more stuff lined up. Consider the following items as a group: 1) Frodo and Gollum on the lip of Mt. Doom 2) Buffy and Angel at the mouth of Acathla's vortex ("Becoming") 3) Jonathan and "his" monster at the edge of the pit ("Superstar") 4) Buffy and Faith on the roof ("Graduation Day") 5) [just to throw in a ringer] Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty at Reichenbach Falls Doubtless there are more! Now, I grant that each of these situations is slightly different, with different motivations and different outcomes...but in essence it's the same moment, the same mythologem or psychologem (to use Jungian terms): the ego and the shadow grappling on the brink of disaster, at a crisis point storytellingwise...and it's the shadow in each case who takes the fall and makes possible the ego's survival. Now some footnotes. 1) The =LOTR= example is complicated by the presence of the Ring, which serves as another exteriorized motif (Le Guin calls it "the archetype of the Integrative Function, the creative-destructive"). Here it's the shadow who acts, wresting the Ring from the ego and preventing ego-inflation (which would lead to destruction, in the end.) And Frodo, his shadow destroyed, is never the same again. 2) In the chief =Buffy= example, the complication is Buffy's feelings for Angel, who is "cured" (re-cursed with his soul) right at the climactic moment; but as the hero/ego, she has no choice with the world in peril. So in this case it's the ego which acts, sacrificing its shadow to Hell. Buffy, like Frodo, suffers a severe psychic wound. 3) "Superstar" of course is an atypical episode; and here it's Jonathan as the inflated ego with his incompetent shadow-monster. Notice that Buffy plays the Sam role here! and although she participates in the battle to some degree, in the end it's Jonathan the ego who acts to sacrifice his shadow (shoving it into the pit) as well as the world he has made. He is returned to his diminished Sam-like self. 4) The complication in "Graduation Day" is that the fight on the roof is only the first half of the "transaction." The shadow (Faith) is the one who acts, again, refusing to be sacrificed in the manner the ego wants (preventing Buffy from murdering a human being), and takes the dive in order to escape. So the ego (Buffy) has to perform the sacrifice herself, in a different manner, to cure Angel (her other shadow); here the wounding is more purely physical. (There's a =lot= more to say about this very complicated variation of the mythologem, but not now, not now...) (But I will add that the rooftop scene in "Sanctuary" is in a different sense the "second half" of the one in "Graduation Day"--note Faith's explicit reference thereto!--and if one thinks of the equation jail = hell, Faith-the-shadow "took a dive" in this one as well. But there's equally a lot to say about =this= variation.) 5) The interesting thing about the Sherlock Holmes/Moriarty variation is that =both= ego and shadow take the plunge; and "somehow" the ego survives anyway (despite the author's best efforts!). And to bring things full circle, this variation =also= occurs in =LOTR=, with Gandalf and the Balrog on the bridge in Moria. (And Gandalf was different after he came back.) Did I have some scintillating conclusion to make? Not really. Other than saying this stuff is spooky beyond words. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:48:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Huff Subject: Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary > > And did you notice in _Angel_ that we learn that > Angel and Faith did not > do the dirty back in the Mr. Lightshow episode? I'd always assumed that they hadn't. I remember a discussion in which some people seemed to think there might be a chance otherwise. I guess we should be glad Joss threw them a bone. :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:48:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Huff Subject: Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary > > And did you notice in _Angel_ that we learn that > Angel and Faith did not > do the dirty back in the Mr. Lightshow episode? I'd always assumed that they hadn't. I remember a discussion in which some people seemed to think there might be a chance otherwise. I guess we should be glad Joss threw them a bone. :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:58:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Huff Subject: Re: b/leguin/jung/tolkien How about Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader in the cloud city of Bespin? In that case, though, it's only the good side that falls. Easy to go on with this though, because Lucas has always been intentionally mythic as well. The dual nature of Vader parallels Angel(us) and Faith, Lukes particular skills in using the Force parallelling Buffy's Slayer skills, etc. I hate talking Star Wars, but it clearly fits the pattern. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 21:03:22 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary In a message dated 5/4/00 5:49:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, thuff_007@yahoo.com writes: << > > And did you notice in _Angel_ that we learn that > Angel and Faith did not > do the dirty back in the Mr. Lightshow episode? I'd always assumed that they hadn't. I remember a discussion in which some people seemed to think there might be a chance otherwise. >> I assumed that they hadn't because the tone of the interaction between Buffy and Angel afterward did not suggest they had. But that still leaves unanswered the question of how Angel managed to avoid it without tipping his hand to Faith. Gayle ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #99 ****************************