From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #104 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Tuesday, May 9 2000 Volume 02 : Number 104 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/burroughs(william) ["Hilary L. Hertzoff" ] Re: b/The DeJoxerfication of Wesley [Dori ] b/dancing ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/dancing [GHighPine@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 11:01:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "Hilary L. Hertzoff" Subject: Re: b/burroughs(william) On Sun, 7 May 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > William Burroughs (dead only a couple years) was one of the Beats, > along with poet Allen Ginsberg and novelist Jack Kerouac (whose =On > the Road= Xander was reading in "Choices"). Burroughs' best-known > work is =Naked Lunch=; he also wrote some quasi-science fiction > (=Nova Express=, etc.). He was famous for his avante-garde "cutup" > technique, where he'd take a stretch of prose and literally cut the > page in pieces and reassemble the phrases in a different order (kind > of like Hilary's post the other day--what happened there, Hilary?). > Which post? (I rarely look at my own posts when they return to me) I suspect that it must have been the one where I tried to paste in the information about the Hellcat series. It kept doing weird things to my mail program. Thanks for explaining the joke. I fear mainstream adult fiction is not one of my strong suits. 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: Mon, 8 May 2000 16:43:41 -0400 From: Dori Subject: Re: b/The DeJoxerfication of Wesley David said: >> My immediate reaction to this theory is that it's extremely narrow, >> and was thought up by men, > >Sorry, but that's a real cheap shot. Perhaps it was uncharitable, but it's what I =thought=. Or am I not allowed to have uncharitable first impressions? If I were only interested in making cheap shots, I shouldn't have admitted that I was reacting to a very small piece of the whole, nor expressed a desire to see the bigger picture so that I could evaluate whether or not my first impression was correct. > And women are equally capable of coming up with stupid ideas. Dear. One assumes this is a given and need not be stated. But men and women -don't think the same way- and sometimes theories propounded by men just do not make sense to women (and, I suppose I need to say, vice versa). Which, in the case of this particular woman, is what I was trying to say. Perhaps I could have been more tactful in my phrasing, but I won't apologize for what I think. > If not, then the "vampireness" of the danger is part of your enjoyment, > and you're having a literary response. If so -- if any old fight scene > would do just as well -- then you're just responding to the fighting, > and you're having a non-literary response. By this criterion, then, I'm having a literary response to the torture scenes that Joss has given us, because "any old torture scene" =won't= do just as well. I don't care a fig for watching Generic Cute Guy get tortured. But Wesley, or Giles, or Riley or Spike, well, when they're tortured, it -means- something. It tells me something I didn't know, or clarifies something I'd been wondering about. Hmmm. I'll have to make note, next time Joss throws torture at us, which reaction comes first, noticing the character development or noticing the blood, or if it's both at the same time. - -- Dori cleindor@cfw.com - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Torture first. It's better that way. Troll maxim - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 22:47:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/dancing I've been following with interest the discussion between David and Dori, but I haven't felt I had a lot to contribute (beyond the torture stats). But some thoughts achieved synergy this morning, so I'm going to take a shy at the issue. I'm in agreement with David's analysis of the situation (the difference between "literary" and "non-literary" responses), and heartily second his recommendation of C.S. Lewis' =An Experiment in Criticism=: it's a great book. Lewis, like Le Guin, has the gift of expressing knotty critical problems with elegant simplicity. But I think I lean a little more toward Dori's position. We're talking about subjective responses here, of course, and my own experience is that literary and nonliterary responses run in parallel, and that the nonliterary responses do =not= short-circuit the literary ones; I'm able to "be of two minds" about the two aspects. Although it's fair to say the work has to have considerable literary virtues to engage my interest in the first place. Let's explore this question a bit more: how about the William Burroughs joke? Does that inspire what one could call a "nonliterary literary" response? It has no bearing on the plot whatever; it interrupts a tense action scene; and if you don't get the joke it's not even funny. It could be adjudged as esoteric and egregious, a flaw in the writing. (I'll also note here that I've met a couple people who can't watch the show because they have a "nonliterary" response to Xander's incessant wisecracking.) Or how about "Hush"? That "trick" of no spoken dialogue--isn't that "just" avante-garde grandstanding that gets in the way of the story? And the Gentleman! It's lazy to scare people with such cliches of creepiness: skeletal faces, gliding without walking, theatrical body language--not necessary to the story. (Reactions I'd argue vociferously against, by the way--but ones I can imagine; I've heard sillier ones advocated. My own opinion is that "Hush" is one of the most imaginative =and= well-integrated episodes in the series.) You could, in fact, back me against the wall and get me to talk about the "nonliterary" aspect of the "funny" episodes in re the "literary" structure of the arc of the show...but I'd probably be wrong about that. Now I've got a more complex example to move on to. "Bad Girls" is one of my favorite episodes, and one of its best scenes is the one in the Bronze. What leads up to it is Faith coming to the classroom window and spiriting Buffy away from a chemistry test to attack a nest of vampires. They burst in, and we get an image of them posing, stakes and witticisms at the ready; then there's a hard cut to them dancing at the Bronze. As many times as I've watched the episode (I'd be embarassed to say how many if I hadn't lost count), the sheer visceral energy of that cut never fails to get to me; not far different in effect from a rock'n'roll power chord. A coworker of mine who doesn't watch the show reported that he happened on that scene and almost immediately turned it off, certain in his mind that its =only= purpose was to serve as an "MTV moment"--by which he meant an excuse to show off comely young women's bodies. Or, as the =Entertainment Weekly= episode guide put it a bit more neutrally, "more slutty dancing at the Bronze." Sidebar. The "more" in that last quote refers back to Buffy's dance with Xander in "When She Was Bad." A brilliant scene, in my opinion: first, because of the =spacial= presentation of the interlocking love-triangles in effect at that time: Willow observing from one side of the dance floor, Angel observing from the other side, and Buffy and Xander in the middle; second, because of the way the viewer's "nonliterary" reaction to Buffy's dance is =intended= to =coincide= with Xander's. And so all the elements "melt down" or (pause to retool metaphor) tie up into one tightly-integrated knot of affect. (I'm also reminded of the recent scene in "Five by Five" with Faith dancing in a club, causing trouble, and starting a fight--which becomes part of the choreography of the dance. Clever, but not as major a scene as these other two.) Back to "Bad Girls." I think by coworker was =almost= completely wrong about the dancing. (Does it go on a bit too long? Probably. Is the reason it goes on so long because it's an "MTV moment"/"nonliterary"? Possibly. It's less tightly integrated with the rest of the scene, which is why the question arises. But I proceed.) For those of us who watch the show, there was a lot more "uh-oh" than "woo-hoo" (as Willow would say) in that scene: my reaction was certainly "Oh boy, Buffy and Faith are really abandoning themselves to the moment"; taken as a single image, it's a =symbol= for their state of mind, which is then =dramatized= over the ensuing scenes (robbery, assault, manslaughter), until Buffy comes to her senses--and Faith doesn't, which creates the rift explored in "Consequences." Which is to say that the image/symbol of the dance is =ironic= in the literal sense: its subtext ("uh-oh") is the opposite of its text/surface ("woo-hoo"). Which is also to say that whatever its nonliterary meaning, it has a literary meaning as well. (On reflection...isn't it interesting that dancing, like sex, is frequently an "uh-oh" signal on this show? Not slow-dancing, though.) When I picked "Bad Girls" as my demonstration example, I hadn't realized that the scene immediately following, when Angel comes into the Bronze, is kind of an "allegory" of the issue we're discussing here. Buffy is on such a "high" of physical and emotional exhilaration that she allows herself a quite shocking familiarity with Angel (which clearly no little discomfits him); but note that though she never backs off from this "nonliterary" reaction to him, their conversation on paper would indicate that she was fully focused on the "literary" purpose he came to powwow with her about; she shifts seamlessly into "make the plan/execute the plan" mode. (Belittling Wesley when he arrives--"Speaking of the really annoying person!"--is part of the "nonliterary" attitude, of course.) So we see Buffy operating in "parallel processing" as I alluded to above. (Something that I always find striking is the end of the scene, where it's =Angel= who kisses =Buffy= goodbye.) To show how slippery this stuff is, let's consider another very odd element in this scene. It was several viewings before I noticed that Buffy (who is wearing a tank top or something) has a nasty wound on her upper arm, presumably a sword-slash. (Looks a little like Faith's "barbed wire" tattoo.) You can see it most clearly when she's sitting next to Wesley; but if you look closely you can glimpse it elsewhere in the scene (overhead shots during the dance, etc.) After that she puts on her leather jacket, and is in long sleeves the rest of the episode. My surmise is that she was wounded in the sewer fight, but it doesn't obviously happen from what we see--and she's in long sleeves from then until the Bronze scene. And in the first scene of "Consequences" (which takes place only a day or two later) she's sleeveless again--and the wound is gone. What does this mean? After a wild goose chase, I concluded it has no "literary" meaning (it's never mentioned, plays no part in plot or structure); but does it have any "nonliterary" meaning? Can't say I can see any. The only way I can "read" it is: 1) Buffy gets hurt more often than anyone talks about 2) she heals =really fast= 3) the show likes to play games with my head. (Footnote: Checking when I got home, I notice that there are like three or four different clips from "Bad Girls" in the 4th season opening credits, including the dance and Buffy and Faith bursting into the vampire nest; these incidentally are the only two clips with Faith in them.) I want to make clear my opinion, incidentally, that literary/nonliterary is =not= the same dichotomy as intellectual/emotional; I'm quite likely to get really excited by the "literary" stuff ("WOW! That trope echoes the trope in X!!") and react more coolly to the "nonliterary" stuff ("Hm. A pity they had to resolve it that way.") Which is a useful prelude to some remarks on the gender politics of the issue. It seems to me that there are smaller biological factors, and much larger cultural factors, to the phenomenon I've observed that women are more comfortable talking about nonliterary aspects, and men are more comfortable talking about literary aspects. I HASTEN TO ADD that there is NO lack of women (certainly not in this forum!) willing to talk about the literary aspects. Conversely, however, there =is= a lack of men willing to talk about nonliterary aspects. (I plead guilty to this. Partly I'm susceptible to a Modernist prejudice against nonliterary reactions.) Whatever their =professed= attitudes, however, I think it's fair to say that =everybody= has both kinds of responses. (Random thought: are literary/nonliterary unduly loaded terms?) Here's a curious piece of anecdotal evidence. In casual conversation in the general population (as opposed to our self-selected group here), =almost always= the =first= think male =Buffy= fans want to talk about is SMG's, um, physique. I shouldn't be as puzzled by this as I am, because I'd be lying if I said I was impervious to that "nonliterary" aspect; but my =primary= reaction is to her talent, and to the power and complexity of the character she embodies. Which is to say, for a specific example, when Buffy utters the line "If you apologize to me I will beat you to death," I'm =not= thinking of SMG's looks. (Though my reaction might be "nonliterary" in a different sense.) Summing up. Literacy/nonliterary to a certain degree is in the eye of the beholder. I think, for example, that it's quite possible for David to have a =negative nonliterary= response ("It doesn't belong there, =and= I don't like it") to an element and for Dori to have a =positive literary= response ("It belongs there, =and= I like it") to the same element, with the two pairs being four different things and each pair not causally connected (making other combinations possible). It's also possible to be neutral (able to take it or leave it either way). In any case, it speaks the truism that the received work in one's head is different for every individual, and none (including the author's) alters the text that exists. (Last-minute thought: is "tearjerking" a "nonliterary" aspect?) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 23:07:16 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/dancing In a message dated 5/8/00 7:49:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dgk@panix.com writes: << Or how about "Hush"? That "trick" of no spoken dialogue--isn't that "just" avante-garde grandstanding that gets in the way of the story? And the Gentleman! It's lazy to scare people with such cliches of creepiness: skeletal faces, gliding without walking, theatrical body language--not necessary to the story. >> There isn't much story -- it's a triumph of style over substance. But with such style you don;t need much substance. Gayle ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #104 *****************************