From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #106 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Thursday, May 11 2000 Volume 02 : Number 106 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/yokofactor ["Berni Phillips" ] o/lathe ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/dreamnotes ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/comments5/10 ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/yokofactor [meredith ] Re: b/comments5/10 [allenw ] Re: b/comments5/10 [Todd Huff ] Re: Iron Giant (was b/Christian virtues) ["Susan Kroupa" ] Re: o/lathe [GHighPine@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 17:36:14 -0700 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: b/yokofactor >From: "Donald G. Keller" >Most interesting lines: > >"She's just a girl." (Doesn't he know better?) > >"You've got a big head on that skinny little body." > >"Just because you're better than us doesn't mean you can be all superior." Oh, I was rather fond of "For someone with the job 'Watcher' on his resume, you'd think you'd keep an eye on the front door once in a while" (or something very similar to that) and "Now I know why there are no prophecies about the Chosen One and her friends." Berni ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 21:50:52 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: o/lathe Todd: Thanks for passing on the info about =The Lathe of Heaven=: that's really great news. I saw the film when it was first broadcast (and I think once more a few years later), and liked it very much; in fact I think it's one of the better science fiction movies of the post-=Star Wars= era (=Blade Runner= and =Brazil= are two more). That being said, =The Lathe of Heaven= is not a favorite of mine among Le Guin's books; for me it's never really gotten over the burden of being the first book she published after =The Left Hand of Darkness= (I read it really early, too, when it was serialized in =Amazing= magazine). I did reread it a few years later (around the time of the movie), and with expectations more in order I did enjoy it quite a bit: the main idea is clever, and it plays out with some thoughtful things to say about dreams, and power, and social problems. It's a very good, very solid piece of work. But compared, as I said, with =The Left Hand of Darkness= or =A Wizard of Earthsea= (one of the great post-Tolkien fantasies) or =The Dispossessed= or the much-maligned =Always Coming Home=, =The Lathe of Heaven= comes off as a minor novel. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 21:53:35 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/dreamnotes I was discussing my dream-theories with a coworker today, and she had some alternate thoughts that I felt worth preserving and thinking about. (I'm not done with the dream-analyses I've put through here in draft; my most recent plan is that if Readercon wants me to deliver a lecture again--anybody heard from Readercon? they don't have my new e-mail address--I'll do the dream stuff, maybe even with a demonstration videotape. I'd take the three "spirit-guide" dreams- - -"Graduation Day II," "Innocence," and "Hush"--along with the Faith dream trilogy. A nice tight set.) Anyway...I was illustrating my theory that Faith in the "GDII" dream was =not= the real Faith, but Buffy's dream-image, with the similar case in "Innocence" where dream-Angel gives Buffy the hint about Jenny Calendar, and my coworker expressed the opinion that =she= had always thought that the message was from Angel's =soul=...which of course was no longer in residence in Angelus. Which struck me as a very plausible alternate theory...and of course in "GDII" Faith is in a coma, and depending on your "theological" theory you can suppose her soul is on sabbatical, and "met" Buffy in her dream. (And was Buffy in a coma, or merely unconscious?) This theory doesn't jive with "Hush," however, where dream-Riley is =clearly= different from reality-Riley. But Buffy has different kinds of dreams. I'm doubtful about this soul business, but it does fit the facts as well as mine. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 21:56:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/comments5/10 Some belated comments I've been meaning to make. Re the issue of sex between Angel and Faith, David and Gayle are remembering accurately. We had a long discussion about the scene in "Enemies" where Faith thinks she's "turned" Angel, and is sitting astride him ready for either slaying or sex (cf. her encounters with Xander), and kisses him hard as the scene cuts away. We couldn't think of a =good= reason for Angel to turn Faith down (teasing her? Dori's recent suggestion; not bad; but maybe she was just eager to take him to the Mayor). And then "Earshot" was skipped over, so we were puzzled how Buffy and Angel got from her "taking a break" to back to 3rd-season-business-as-usual in "Choices." And in fact my computer was "on sabbatical" for some months, and we never did discuss "Earshot," and how it's =pretty= clear from the conversation in "Earshot" (which bridges the relationship gap pretty well) that Angel and Faith =didn't= have sex. But I went "aha!" myself when the subject came up in "Sanctuary," because that's much more definitive than "Earshot." Berni: Very interesting about St. Athanasius. By sheer coincidence I ran across his name in Jung's =Psychology and Religion= which I was reading today, in a footnote: "Athanasius, in his biography of St. Anthony, gives us some idea of how clever the devils are in foretelling future events [in dreams]...they sometimes appear even in the shape of monks, singing psalms, reading the Bible aloud, and making disturbing remarks about the moral conduct of the brethren..." (Reference to E. Wallis Budge's =The Book of Paradise=) The actress playing the woman lawyer from Wolfram and Hart is named Stephanie Romanov, I think; she appeared before in "The Ring," the gladiator episode none of us think is any good. As with everything having to do with Faith, I suppose you could convince me that she would turn to religion on her redemptive path; but it doesn't seem likely to me from the current vantage point. Which brings me to Allen's speculation that Faith, being from Boston, was raised Catholic (and consider her name). What happens to =some= people raised Catholic is that they rebel from the strictness and get as far away from religion as possible, and stay there. My intuition is that this pattern might well apply to Faith. Which doesn't mean she'd =never= go back to it. Do we know Faith is at least 17? I don't remember any mention of her age at all. (We know Eliza Dushku is about 18.) Incidentally...after we spent some time discussing what Xander knew about Tara and Willow, and what he might or might not have told Oz, now we get the definitive word that he didn't know at all. (Very nicely scripted and played, too.) And Allen: I don't think Anya knew either; "Anya" and "failed to mention it" don't belong in the same sentence. Spike =fond= of the Scoobies? I don't think so. And Hilary: he's =already= on the dark side, so he's not the one to turn. He's had to remind them numerous times that he hates them, and only comes back to them when he needs money or protection. I think it's clear from "The Yoko Factor" that he's glad to do them an evil turn if he can. Hilary: You make an excellent point about Willow and Riley, in "New Moon Rising," both taking a scary step into new territory, which potentially puts them at odds with their peers. (And note how sensitive Willow is on the subject in "Yoko"!) Todd: I'm a =Star Wars= heretic myself, but it's entirely appropriate to bring it up in the mythanalysis context we've been talking about here, since Lucas is most definitely =consciously= mythic (however well or badly he executes). We know for a fact that Lucas knows Joseph Campbell's =Hero with a Thousand Faces=, and I even heard at the time 20 years ago from a friend that Lucas knew Dumezil's work as well (that was in fact how I knew Dumezil's name to look him up a couple years ago), though I've never been able to corroborate that in print. The scene you were talking about was the end of =Empire=? I only saw the movie once, so I don't remember the details well. The scene with the fight between Darth Vader and Luke where Luke loses his hand (wound symbolism, of course), right? What else happens in the scene? Have I ever told my mythanalysis story about =Empire=? There's the vision-quest dream sequence in the middle (during Luke's training with Yoda) where Luke goes through a mazelike something, meets Darth Vader, fights him, knocks off the helmet...and it's his own face. I immediately turned to the person I was with and asked if we'd ever found out what happened to Luke's father. Even then, less knowledgeable about myth, I knew about the tradition of the father and son meeting in battle, not knowing they were related (Cuchullain and...I forget in Irish myth, Sohrab and Rustam in Iranian myth). So the ending came as no surprise to me. David: Really excellent point about Wesley's "Christian" forgiveness toward Faith. The progress of his attitude towards Faith is really interesting: when she appears in "5x5" convinced she's "sick" and needs to be handled carefully and rehabilitated; after being tortured, he's severe and angry with Angel and talking about the "evil" in Faith at the beginning of "Sanctuary"; then, when he considers the alternative of the Council, decides that Angel may be right after all. Contrast this sharply with Buffy, who with a lot less reason is absolutely bent on vengeance. And is way out of line. (Consider this sequence, too: Faith sees Kate on TV; Buffy says "jail"; Faith makes a decision on what to do, and visits Kate and ends up in jail.) By the way, on reflection I don't think Wesley's "you're the best" was ironic; his delivery seems to me entirely sincere and guileless. Especially given how his attitude =then= gets more sardonic as he realizes from their discomfort that Faith (Buffy-as-Faith, to be precise) had "cleaned their clocks." I've wanted to make some more detailed comments on the last few episodes, but this is enough for tonight. One last thing: it occurred to me the other day what an interesting "rhyme" there is between the very last moment of "Consequences" (when Faith "turns" by applying to the Mayor), and the end of "Sanctuary" (when she "turns" back by unexpectedly making a confession). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:26:15 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/yokofactor Hi! I just watched my tape (was out at Xena Night last night, I know, heresy -- but I won some really cool stuff in the trivia contest :). Yow. >S > P > O > I > L > E > R > > S > P > A > C > E > >(forgot last time) > > >"FREE BIRD"???!!!??? > >(Didn't hear anybody call for an encore...) Y'know, I think that's the first time I've ever actually heard the song. >(For the record I like "Helter Skelter" too.) I had to laugh at that reference -- Charles Manson, anyone? >Spike = Yoko! He did =too= good a job. He was fibbing, of course, but his >truthtelling earlier carried some weight... I should've known. It all made perfect sense. >Another chapter in the "why didn't" sweepstakes: Why didn't Buffy tell >Riley the =whole= truth? Yes, sensitive subject, wouldn't ever talk to >Faith, etc. etc. But it sure caused trouble that she didn't. I can see why she didn't tell him. She was trying to let it all out to him slowly -- she probably knew he would react badly, and maybe decided to do it in stages, never realizing that it would backfire. Talking to current SO's about ex-SO's can be a very dicey thing. >How did Riley find his way there at the end? Does he know something he >hasn't told? Find his way where -- to Adam? I have to say, that last shot had me going "holy sh*t!", and I, for one, am looking forward to next Tuesday with great anticipation. Lots of questions here, namely: - -- was this Riley's plan all along? - -- was Forrest's death somehow a trigger for Riley to go to Adam? - -- was there some sort of an implant in Riley that led him to Adam? - -- does it have something to do with the vitamins? ... tune in next week! :) I also LOVED the scene in Buffy's room with Riley and Angel. Wonderful twist, with her pushing both of them into the wall to stop them fighting over her. SMG does Pissed Off *so* well. (So, for that matter, does Alyson Hannigan. Hell hath no fury than a Willow peeved.) >So Buffy left for Los Angeles in the middle of all that, Riley hiding out >in the school?? Hard to justify the trip. The whole timing of =Buffy= >vs. =Angel= seems really screwy to me. Agreed. I was glad to see the apology scene between Angel and Buffy -- it's good that Buffy acknowledged that she was out of line down in L.A. But the question remains -- just what the hell was Angel doing there, really? BUFFY doesn't need David Boreanaz to give it a ratings boost (as opposed to SMG on ANGEL, that makes sense in a sweeps month), and unless Angel shows up just in time to save the day next week, having him show up just long enough to beat the crap out of Riley and piss Buffy off seems rather pointless to me. Hopefully it will all make sense by this time next week. >Most interesting lines: I dunno, I kind of liked Tara and Anya's exchange in the bathroom, myself. ;> (Not to mention Xander's reaction to "Tara is my girlfriend"...) >I would characterize myself as eager, but not dying, to see next week's >episode. If I gave Gayle the idea I didn't understand or agree with her >about this season, well, I don't always express myself clearly. The >weakest first-half-of-climactic-two-parter in the four seasons so far, >clearly, but still a pretty solid episode. See above -- I can't wait for Tuesday to find out just what is up with Riley. I'm also really wanting some more Willow-and-Tara scenes -- the one with the kitten had me on the floor. "You can't handle the catnip!" Have I mentioned lately that Willow is my favorite character on this show by far? :) And the preview *really* has me wondering ... is Buffy going to tap into some bizarre Slayer powers a-la Xena in Chin? What is up with that? Before I sign off, I need to gloat about a conversion. I work with someone who is a huge Babylon 5 fan, as well as the various flavors of Star Trek, and now he's into Farscape and Xena. I told him he needed to watch Buffy, and a couple months ago he started watching, though he always came in on Wednesday morning saying that he thought it was a really stupid show. Then I would explain to him the back story and he'd kind of nod and go away, and the next week there he would be again. Well, now he's watching because he can't stop. I had to make sure I had time to watch the tape tonight (not that I wouldn't have anyway, of course :) because I have an appointment with him tomorrow at lunch to fill him in on the backstory that he's missed and answer his questions. Apparently he flipped to another channel and missed a very key scene (my guess is the one where Buffy and Forrest encounter Adam) and is now seriously confused. Hee. +==========================================================================+ | 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: Wed, 10 May 2000 22:41:14 -0500 (CDT) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/comments5/10 Donald, On Wed, 10 May 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > > And Allen: I don't think Anya knew either; "Anya" and "failed to mention > it" don't belong in the same sentence. > Yes, but Anya and "didn't bother to mention it because it seemed obvious and didn't interest her" go well together. On the other hand, Anya and Tara do go kind of well together thematically, as (as one USENET poster put it) Scooby-spouses retreating to the bathroom until the family squabble settles. It'd be nice if they teamed up somehow, such as by comparing notes to reveal Spike's duplicity, or by pooling their considerable occult expertise to defeat Adam. > Spike =fond= of the Scoobies? I don't think so. And Hilary: he's =already= > on the dark side, so he's not the one to turn. He's had to remind them > numerous times that he hates them, and only comes back to them when he > needs money or protection. I think it's clear from "The Yoko Factor" that > he's glad to do them an evil turn if he can. > Well, perhaps. It's not just the Scoobies that he keep on reminding about his "evilness", IMO; it's himself as well. And while he does clearly enjoy tormenting the Scoobs, I *really* don't see Adam as Spike's choice for Boss. Adam's pontificating reminds me of the Annointed One, and we know how well *that* worked out. So I fully expect Spike to betray Adam, particularly if he can torment the Scoobs by getting them in his debt in the process. - --Allen W. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 20:40:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Huff Subject: Re: b/comments5/10 Joss Whedon was on Fresh Air Tuesday. Mostly stuff we've heard before, but he did say that WB does not want any Willow/Tara kissing. Also, next season will focus on family. > > And Allen: I don't think Anya knew either; "Anya" > and "failed to mention > it" don't belong in the same sentence. > Great point, unless she realized that Willow was no longer a threat to take Xander away from her so it was of no importance. > > Todd: I'm a =Star Wars= heretic myself, but it's > entirely appropriate to > bring it up in the mythanalysis context we've been > talking about here, > since Lucas is most definitely =consciously= mythic > (however well or badly > he executes). We know for a fact that Lucas knows > Joseph Campbell's =Hero > with a Thousand Faces=, and I even heard at the time > 20 years ago from a > friend that Lucas knew Dumezil's work as well (that > was in fact how I knew > Dumezil's name to look him up a couple years ago), > though I've never been > able to corroborate that in print. > > The scene you were talking about was the end of > =Empire=? I only saw the > movie once, so I don't remember the details well. > The scene with the fight > between Darth Vader and Luke where Luke loses his > hand (wound symbolism, > of course), right? What else happens in the scene? > > Have I ever told my mythanalysis story about > =Empire=? There's the > vision-quest dream sequence in the middle (during > Luke's training with > Yoda) where Luke goes through a mazelike something, > meets Darth Vader, > fights him, knocks off the helmet...and it's his own > face. I immediately > turned to the person I was with and asked if we'd > ever found out what > happened to Luke's father. Even then, less > knowledgeable about myth, I > knew about the tradition of the father and son > meeting in battle, not > knowing they were related (Cuchullain and...I forget > in Irish myth, Sohrab > and Rustam in Iranian myth). So the ending came as > no surprise to me. > IIRC, Vader tries to convert Luke to the dark side during the fight. He clearly has the upper hand and is toying with him. I don't recall if Luke lost his hand (his right hand, I believe, and I've no idea if that's significant) before or after Vader told him he was his father. Luke rejects the offer and chooses to kill himself by letting go and falling through the center of the city (he unexpectedly survives, but it's clear he was choosing death rather than dishonor). Thinking back over the Lucas films, he really uses the same ideas (would "tropes" be properly used here?) over and over, doesn't he? Three of the four movies have a climactic scene in which a single ship destroys a powerful adversary by entering it and attacking a vulnerable part. Luke falls at the end of Empire to survive, the Emperor falls to his death at the end of Jedi (and Bobba Fett falls into the Sarlacc Pit), and Darth Maul falls down a shaft in Phantom after he dies. The identities of Vader and Fett are hidden by masks even as the filial relationship between Vader/Luke/Leia is hidden, and Leia hid her face behind a mask when she penetrated Jabba's palace. I'm sure there are more, especially hidden sibling stuff, but I'm tired. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 21:57:13 -0700 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: Iron Giant (was b/Christian virtues) Hmm. I guess I just didn't think the anti-war plot, which was prettied cliched, was original to save the film. I liked the robot and his expressiveness, but the anti-war plot, with the evil militarists is as trite as "the boy and his robot" thread. Yes, the fact that the robot itself _was_ the weapon was touching and was the best part of the story. But your analysis is nice, as always. Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 10:52 AM Subject: Re: Iron Giant (was b/Christian virtues) > In a message dated 5/6/00 8:17:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > dbratman@genie.idt.net writes: > > << > > "Guns bad. Guns kill." That message, which was repeated too much for my > > taste in Iron Giant. And I'm not pro-guns or anything--I just wish the > > message hadn't interfered with The Boy and His Robot, which did have charm. > >> > > {SPOILER WARNING FOR IRON GIANT} > > I had a very different take on it. I didn't see the "guns bad" emphasis as > an extraneous message the movie was trying to push. It was central to the > story of the robot's identity crisis. The robot's discovery that it was, > itself, a weapon, and its consequent identity crisis, was one of the few > things that distinguished the plot of this movie from that of ET. Not to > mention the fact that the =audience's= discovery, halfway through the movie, > that the lovable robot had a sinister side helps to save the movie from > excess sweetness. > > How the innocent, simple-"hearted" robot reacted to and dealt with the > discovery of what it was, its inner conflict over this discovery, the irony > of the fact that this lovable childlike being was a deadly weapon, the fact > that the military people saw it as a threat and turned out to be right and > yet not right, the robot's discovery that it could exercise free will that > could overcome its programming, were all at the core of the story, not an > "interference" with it (IMHO). > > And, though there was of course an antiwar tone to the movie, I saw the > message of the movie not as "guns bad" but the fact that we can exercise free > will to overcome reflex reactions to strike out in anger. The robot's > programming to strike out automatically at attackers, and try to destroy > them, I saw as an allegory of the human reflex to lose one's temper under > attack and impulse to hurt people who have hurt one. Many people who have > trouble controlling their anger feel guilty and conflicted about this much as > the robot did. The robot's witnessing of the death of the deer, from a gun, > was to me an allegory of a child's discovery that anger can have destructive > consequences -- I too have this terrible thing inside me, so if I let myself > get angry, will I too do something terrible? I saw a message that, even if > one has a temper problem, it is possible to learn to control one's temper > through the exercise of will. And the message was subtle. And it couldn't > have been gotten across very well without guns and weapons as part of the > story. Matter of fact, without the weapons theme, there would not have been > much of the story left, at least much that we haven't seen before in other > movies such as ET, which otherwise had pretty much the same plot. > > Not saying you have to agree with any of this, Susan, but I think you have > been puzzled by why so many people like the movie, so maybe this will make > that more understandable. I think that most people who found IRON GIANT > touching and moving (which seems to be most people who saw it) had this take > on it -- were rather than seeing an extraneous message that was slapped on > top of the plot and got in the way of a cute but trite "boy and his robot" > story. > > Gayle > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 22:02:08 -0700 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: b/comments5/10 Interesting post, Don. I've wondered about Faith's name myself. I quite liked this week's episode of BUFFY (not of ANGEL, particularly) and am more interested in what happens than I've been all season except for Faith's return. I thought the interesting thing about Spike's dirty work was that there was enough truth in his insinuations that he had fertile ground in which to stir up trouble. And yes, the moment with Xander reacting to the news of Willow and Tara was delicious. I wonder if we're ever going to find out why Tara corrupted that one spell many episodes back--the one that cast a shadow over demons--or if that's a lost thread. I'm trusting Joss that it isn't. Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: Donald G. Keller To: Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 6:56 PM Subject: b/comments5/10 > Some belated comments I've been meaning to make. > > Re the issue of sex between Angel and Faith, David and Gayle are > remembering accurately. We had a long discussion about the scene in > "Enemies" where Faith thinks she's "turned" Angel, and is sitting > astride him ready for either slaying or sex (cf. her encounters with > Xander), and kisses him hard as the scene cuts away. We couldn't > think of a =good= reason for Angel to turn Faith down (teasing her? > Dori's recent suggestion; not bad; but maybe she was just eager to take > him to the Mayor). And then "Earshot" was skipped over, so we were puzzled > how Buffy and Angel got from her "taking a break" to back to > 3rd-season-business-as-usual in "Choices." > > And in fact my computer was "on sabbatical" for some months, and we > never did discuss "Earshot," and how it's =pretty= clear from the > conversation in "Earshot" (which bridges the relationship gap pretty > well) that Angel and Faith =didn't= have sex. > > But I went "aha!" myself when the subject came up in "Sanctuary," > because that's much more definitive than "Earshot." > > Berni: Very interesting about St. Athanasius. By sheer coincidence I > ran across his name in Jung's =Psychology and Religion= which I was > reading today, in a footnote: > > "Athanasius, in his biography of St. Anthony, gives us some idea of > how clever the devils are in foretelling future events [in > dreams]...they sometimes appear even in the shape of monks, singing > psalms, reading the Bible aloud, and making disturbing remarks about > the moral conduct of the brethren..." (Reference to E. Wallis Budge's =The > Book of Paradise=) > > The actress playing the woman lawyer from Wolfram and Hart is named > Stephanie Romanov, I think; she appeared before in "The Ring," the > gladiator episode none of us think is any good. > > As with everything having to do with Faith, I suppose you could convince > me that she would turn to religion on her redemptive path; but it doesn't > seem likely to me from the current vantage point. > > Which brings me to Allen's speculation that Faith, being from Boston, was > raised Catholic (and consider her name). What happens to =some= people > raised Catholic is that they rebel from the strictness and get as far away > from religion as possible, and stay there. My intuition is that this > pattern might well apply to Faith. Which doesn't mean she'd =never= go > back to it. > > Do we know Faith is at least 17? I don't remember any mention of her age > at all. (We know Eliza Dushku is about 18.) > > Incidentally...after we spent some time discussing what Xander knew about > Tara and Willow, and what he might or might not have told Oz, now we get > the definitive word that he didn't know at all. (Very nicely scripted and > played, too.) > > And Allen: I don't think Anya knew either; "Anya" and "failed to mention > it" don't belong in the same sentence. > > Spike =fond= of the Scoobies? I don't think so. And Hilary: he's =already= > on the dark side, so he's not the one to turn. He's had to remind them > numerous times that he hates them, and only comes back to them when he > needs money or protection. I think it's clear from "The Yoko Factor" that > he's glad to do them an evil turn if he can. > > Hilary: You make an excellent point about Willow and Riley, in "New Moon > Rising," both taking a scary step into new territory, which potentially > puts them at odds with their peers. (And note how sensitive Willow is on > the subject in "Yoko"!) > > Todd: I'm a =Star Wars= heretic myself, but it's entirely appropriate to > bring it up in the mythanalysis context we've been talking about here, > since Lucas is most definitely =consciously= mythic (however well or badly > he executes). We know for a fact that Lucas knows Joseph Campbell's =Hero > with a Thousand Faces=, and I even heard at the time 20 years ago from a > friend that Lucas knew Dumezil's work as well (that was in fact how I knew > Dumezil's name to look him up a couple years ago), though I've never been > able to corroborate that in print. > > The scene you were talking about was the end of =Empire=? I only saw the > movie once, so I don't remember the details well. The scene with the fight > between Darth Vader and Luke where Luke loses his hand (wound symbolism, > of course), right? What else happens in the scene? > > Have I ever told my mythanalysis story about =Empire=? There's the > vision-quest dream sequence in the middle (during Luke's training with > Yoda) where Luke goes through a mazelike something, meets Darth Vader, > fights him, knocks off the helmet...and it's his own face. I immediately > turned to the person I was with and asked if we'd ever found out what > happened to Luke's father. Even then, less knowledgeable about myth, I > knew about the tradition of the father and son meeting in battle, not > knowing they were related (Cuchullain and...I forget in Irish myth, Sohrab > and Rustam in Iranian myth). So the ending came as no surprise to me. > > David: Really excellent point about Wesley's "Christian" forgiveness > toward Faith. The progress of his attitude towards Faith is really > interesting: when she appears in "5x5" convinced she's "sick" and needs to > be handled carefully and rehabilitated; after being tortured, he's severe > and angry with Angel and talking about the "evil" in Faith at the > beginning of "Sanctuary"; then, when he considers the alternative of the > Council, decides that Angel may be right after all. > > Contrast this sharply with Buffy, who with a lot less reason is absolutely > bent on vengeance. And is way out of line. (Consider this sequence, > too: Faith sees Kate on TV; Buffy says "jail"; Faith makes a decision on > what to do, and visits Kate and ends up in jail.) > > By the way, on reflection I don't think Wesley's "you're the best" was > ironic; his delivery seems to me entirely sincere and > guileless. Especially given how his attitude =then= gets more sardonic as > he realizes from their discomfort that Faith (Buffy-as-Faith, to be > precise) had "cleaned their clocks." > > I've wanted to make some more detailed comments on the last few episodes, > but this is enough for tonight. One last thing: it occurred to me the > other day what an interesting "rhyme" there is between the very last > moment of "Consequences" (when Faith "turns" by applying to the Mayor), > and the end of "Sanctuary" (when she "turns" back by unexpectedly making a > confession). > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 00:21:46 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: o/lathe I never saw the PBS LOH movie, but I have heard it is very faithful to the book. A few years ago, shortly after I first got online, an friend who is also a friend of LOH star Bruce Davison was looking for a tape of LOH on BD's behalf. Davison himself did not have a tape of it and had wanted one all these years, but was unable to get one. And it was broadcast back at a time when VCRs were rare. But in a matter of weeks, by asking around the net, my friend was able to find about four people who had taped LOH at the time and were willing to make copies for Davison. After all those years, Davison was able to get a copy just like that. It was one of the first demonstrations for me of the amazing power of the net. I have a special fondness for LOH because it is set in Portland and makes lots of references to Portland locations, including the bridge that I see from my window as I type. (BTW, y'all know the Ursula LeGuin / Ishi connection, right?) Gayle ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #106 *****************************