From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #125 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Sunday, June 4 2000 Volume 02 : Number 125 Today's Subjects: ----------------- o/f&j3 ["Donald G. Keller" ] o/lathe2 ["Donald G. Keller" ] m/scelsi ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/ sappho ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: o/f&j2 ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: o/lathe2 ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: m/scelsi ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: o/f&j3 ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/ sappho [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: o/lathe2 [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/ sappho [meredith ] Re: b/sappho [meredith ] Re: b/ sappho [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/ sappho ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/ sappho ["David S. Bratman" ] b/restlessmap1 ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/restlessmap2 ["Donald G. Keller" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 09:57:53 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: o/f&j3 Jennifer: I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with your last post almost entirely. If you're allergic to the word "theory," let's try another tack. You're a writer. You observe human beings, and come to an understanding of how they behave and interact, and extrapolate how they think from your knowledge of your own thought processes. Another writer, from =her= own observations, comes to a slightly different understanding. These understandings may be intuitive or intellectual, conscious or unconscious; but it's fair to say that they will be reflected in the fiction each writer writes, and the fiction will be different because of them. Now, you can refer to these "understandings" as "ideas" or "models" or whathaveyou; to me, however, they can be described as "different psychological theories." And that's all I meant by the phrase. Something important I neglected to say is that =all= myth, and epic, and folktale, is Jungian fantasy as I'm defining it. (Not to mention the alchemy...). It's Freudian fantasy that's the latecomer: thinking about it historically, I suspect that the rise of the Gothic novel in the late 18th century is about where it starts. Which puts it suspiciously close to 1) the rise of the realistic novel 2) the rise of scientific thinking. And I think that, speaking very broadly here, this is about the era where myth itself, and children's literature, were removed from the category of "worthy of adult attention." By this way of thinking, Freud came more at the end of the process than at the beginning. And therefore Jung can be seen (like William Morris and Tolkien) as a Modernist attempting to return to, or incorporate, a more Medieval or Renaissance (and thus more inclusive) way of thinking about fantasy, for lack of a more specific term. (This is why John Crowley belongs among the Jungian fantasists, incidentally.) Jung would be very firm about the fact that he didn't =invent= the archetypes; he discovered them, from his observation of many thousand patients' dreams and his knowledge of mythology and alchemy. He in fact speaks of the archetypes in a couple places as being analogous to zoological specimens, which is an example of his scientific approach to his material. (And incidentally, it was apparently due to Jung's influence that Freud read enough mythology to come up with his description of the Oedipus complex; Jung could be rather acid about how little Freud knew about mythology and philosophy.) So to Jung's way of thinking the archetypes are simply =there=, to be observed by anyone who knows how to look for them; they are inferred, not imposed. James Branch Cabell is a very peculiar case. The way I read him, he was naturally inclined towards Jungian fantasy, but he had an overactive Freudian superego and =couldn't allow= himself to indulge in such castle-in-the-air-building; so he always in the end had to come down on the side of the cosy virtues of Real Life. Drove me =crazy= when I read him as a teenager; I always found his books unsatisfying, though very well written. I came to appreciate him over time. His dream trilogy =Smirt=/=Smith=/=Smire= is a little bit more Jungian, and not surprisingly it's my favorite work of his. I think Cabell's attitude, actually, is quite prevalent; I think there's a lot =more= of seeing Jungianism through Freudian glasses than the reverse; and if my attitude is biased, the bias certainly doesn't cut one way. And I feel that, arguably, I have the history of fantastic literature on my side of the ledger. Phaedre: 1st Slayer: id or shadow? I think the answer is both, and that quite clearly indicates the difference between the two attitudes toward fantasy. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 09:59:37 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: o/lathe2 =The Lathe of Heaven= film is on Channel 13 in New York tonight. Must get a videotape today... Belatedly, I want to thank David for the specific dates for the magazine appearances of =The Tombs of Atuan= and =Lathe of Heaven=; clears up the chronology a little. I think maybe I was thinking of the YA fantasies as a different "stream" of her work, and that =Lathe= was her next =science fiction= novel after =The Left Hand of Darkness=. So I may well have read the =Atuan= novella version before =Lathe=. How I found out about =A Wizard of Earthsea= was a little peculiar. First of all, the original edition was =not= by Atheneum, but by Parnassus Press, a small Oregon outfit (and it's a very beautiful book). I didn't know it existed until about that same 1970/71 period, when Ted White, editor of =Amazing= and =Fantastic=, wrote a long and highly laudatory review of =Wizard=. At which point I made a beeline for the YA section of my local library and found the book and read it with alacrity. I think my sensitivity to Atheneum post-dates that period. I read "The Word for World is Forest" (which would have an even better title in German: "Der Wort fur Welt ist Wald") when it was first published in =Again, Dangerous Visions=, and it completely knocked me out. Yes, yes, the Earthmen characters were crude stereotypes, and their sections of the story were heavyhanded satire of Vietnam in particular and colonial oppression in general; but it was the portrait of the little green forest people and their dreamtime that really got to me. Wonder what I'd think if I reread it now. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 10:00:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: m/scelsi David may not remember that the image of bees in a jar as a description for Scelsi's music was mine, originally. Though I meant it positively. Scelsi's 4th quartet, which is nine unbroken minutes of bee-music (microtonal drones), is one of the most riveting pieces of music I've ever heard. Oddly enough, though many Scelsi enthusiasts love those big orchestral works, for some unknown reason I've never warmed to them; and although I know "Konx Om Pax" ("peace" in three different ancient languages) has been recorded, I don't appear to have it any more. But I'm glad, David, that you enjoyed the piece. Scelsi was a remarkable composer. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 10:34:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/ sappho That's the _word_ joss, not necessarily the name. They might well be totally etymologically unrelated, as Josh and josh are. I was asking about the name, though it's interesting to know about the word. And, of course, even if they are etymologically unrelated, that's no reason Joss couldn't play upon the word that's spelled the same as his name. (Or that his parents couldn't have had it in mind, either.) For instance, I think of Carl Brandon, the famous hoax fan conjured up in the 1950s by Terry Carr and friends. His middle name was Joshua, and he had a fanzine called "Joshings", even though he was never called Joshua or Josh. On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 GHighPine@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 6/1/00 11:26:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > dbratman@genie.idt.net writes: > > << > > Joss, of course, is cognate to Zeus...... > > Is it? What kind of name is Joss, anyway? Josh I know, but Joss? > >> > > It's Chinese trader-pidgin. Originally it came from the Portuguese > "Deos," which Portuguese traders applied to the images used in Chinese > temples. "Deos" was corrupted to "Joss," and the word gradually came to > apply to the incense burned in those temples (you can see incense sold in > Chinese stores called "joss sticks") and then, since incense was offered in > temples when people were praying for luck and blessings, the word "joss" > eventually came to mean "luck." Joss himself says that his name is Chinese > for "luck," but it is not a word of Sinitic origin -- ultimately it does > trace back to Latin "Deus" (to which, of course, Zeus is cognate). > > So Joss is God. > > Gayle > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:43:22 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: o/f&j2 On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > I hesitate to impugn your first source, but Lin Carter's =Imaginary > Worlds= is a pretty awful book, as I remember. Full of errors and > bizarre opinions. Oh, indeed. My purpose in re-reading it was to compare the state of utter ignorance in which I first read it with my presumably greater knowledge now, and see waht I learned and missed from it the first time. Of Carter's bizarre opinions therein, the bizarrest is not his insistence that LOTR is not the outstanding masterpiece of imaginary-world fantasy - he says _The Once and Future King_ is (whereas I believe that, for all its quality and genius, it has serious problems of structure and tone maintenance that far outstrip Tolkien's, and besides, it only barely qualifies as an imaginary-world fantasy) - but one of his reasons for holding this belief. He quotes an exchange of letters between himself and Fritz Leiber in which they agree that, once you've said you really like LOTR, you've said ALL THERE IS TO SAY about it. Even in 1973, reams of critical analysis, some of it quite good, proved this was silly. Even Carter says more than that about _The Incomplete Enchanter_, a book we had to abandon at a Mythie discussion once because we couldn't think of anything to say except that we liked it. On the other hand, Carter also says, "I suspect that Le Guin is not quite done with Earthsea," a remark that seemed absurd in the late 70s and early 80s, but is turning out to be more prescient all the time; as besides _Tehanu_ Le Guin has published two Earthsea short fictions in the last couple years and is probably working on more. (I have no inside knowledge on this, though.) > Though it does serve the purpose, I suppose, of > letting the novice know what's out there to look for. Indeed it does. Carter introduced me to Dunsany, Eddison, Peake, Garner, Kendall, and Bellairs, among others. Wow. My gratitude is immense. > (=Tolkien: A Look Behind the Lord of the Rings= is a little better.) But not much. If any. > That theory about the continuity between Morris/Dunsany/Eddison and > sword & sorcery is not Carter's; he got it from L. Sprague de Camp. You've pointed this out to me before, and in fact I remembered it long enough to mention this, with acknowledgment, in the piece for the MythSoc apa I wrote about this. (Gee, I should send you a copy.) I've even picked up a copy of _The Spell of Seven_ (it was the only book I found I wanted in the hidden back collector's room of a warehouse of a bookstore in Rockville, Maryland, that I was investigating along with Richard West of Tolkien bibliography fame), but - and this is part of the point - there wasn't anything new to me in it I wanted to read, as it consists of "The Hoard of the Gibbelins" (a revealing choice of a Dunsany story) and a chapter from _The Dying Earth_ mixed in with five pieces of sword & sorcery. > To me this has always been based on a fallacy and a historical > coincidence. Let me start by saying that I =do= buy the idea that > William Morris' prose romances (=The Well at the World's End= et > al.) are the first =otherworld= fantasy "novels" (partly because I > just love his stuff); and that Dunsany and Eddison and James Branch > Cabell belong to the same--well, "tradition" or "school" is too > strong a word, but obviously they're doing the same sort of thing. > > It just so happened that around 1930 that particular "tradition" > faded into the background (Cabell and Eddison weren't done, but > their reputations waned; Tolkien and Peake were writing but hadn't > published much yet), and simultaneously the =Weird Tales= school > arose. But Lovecraft, Howard, and Clark Ashton Smith were =not= > doing the same sort of thing. ... > The fact that Tolkien didn't publish until the 50s, and actually was > a publishing phenomenon of the 60s, makes the continuity of the > "Jungian" tradition hard to follow; but it's a different tradition, > I think. Absolutely. The difference lies not just in the nature of the work, but in the nature of the traditions themselves. The Weird Tales tradition was from the beginning a conscious tradition in the manner of science fiction of the same period: Lovecraft had his circle and disciples, even including the very different Howard and Smith, and they were consciously performing pastiche as beginners in the process of finding their own voices. (Lovecraft, for instance, to his credit considered Dunsany the master, and began by pastiching him.) Up until the 1970s, however, high fantasy was not like that at all. Some of its authors were aware of their predecessors in the field, and acknowledged that they were doing something similar, but by no means did they form any concerted groups. Nor did they undergo apprenticeships, at least in public: Dunsany and Peake in particular burst full-grown upon a bewildered world, and to an extent the same can be said of Morris and Tolkien. I see these authors not as a tradition in any sense conscious to themselves: they are all, each and every one, totally independent spirits who happened to set up camp in roughly the same area of literature. It was only later, observing this, that critics drew a dotted line around them and made them into a retroactive tradition. And it was at that point that newer authors began consciously joining it. But it says something very important about the nature of that tradition that, to this day, the only authors in it worth reading are still the independent spirits who wander into it accidentally, rather than by intent. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:52:57 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: o/lathe2 On Sat, 3 Jun 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > Belatedly, I want to thank David for the specific dates for the > magazine appearances of =The Tombs of Atuan= and =Lathe of Heaven=; > clears up the chronology a little. I think maybe I was thinking of > the YA fantasies as a different "stream" of her work, and that > =Lathe= was her next =science fiction= novel after =The Left Hand of > Darkness=. I'm sure you were, and there was no reason not to do so. I consider the placement of _Tombs_ before _Lathe_ as a point of only picayune interest to the LHD reader deciding what to make of _Lathe_. > How I found out about =A Wizard of Earthsea= was a little peculiar. ... > I didn't know it existed until about that same 1970/71 > period, when Ted White, editor of =Amazing= and =Fantastic=, wrote a > long and highly laudatory review of =Wizard=. Ted White, by the way, was in that same period writing hack fantasy novels so bad that even Lin Carter criticized them. Thus proof, long before Terry Brooks and Dennis McKiernan, that sincere, honest, and fully appreciative love for the masterworks of fantasy can co-exist with complete inability to replicate its quality. This is why I don't write fantasy: I _know_ it would be trash. This self-awareness is all that separates me from the above. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:05:09 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: m/scelsi On Sat, 3 Jun 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > David may not remember that the image of bees in a jar as a > description for Scelsi's music was mine, originally. Though I meant > it positively. What amazed me, after hearing that description from you, was on encountering the music and finding that it was literally true. > > Scelsi's 4th quartet, which is nine unbroken minutes of bee-music > (microtonal drones), is one of the most riveting pieces of music > I've ever heard. > > Oddly enough, though many Scelsi enthusiasts love those big > orchestral works, for some unknown reason I've never warmed to them; > and although I know "Konx Om Pax" ("peace" in three different > ancient languages) has been recorded, I don't appear to have it any > more. But I'm glad, David, that you enjoyed the piece. Scelsi was a > remarkable composer. This is supposed to be his most accessible piece, which is perhaps why MTT chose it. I wouldn't say I was riveted (Gorecki, Part, and Torke, among recent composers, have riveted me with non-melodic music), but I was certainly moved. Maybe, having had this door into Scelsi, I would understand the Quartet better now, and it has after all been over 15 years since I heard it. But I don't think so. I have heard other, equally unapproachable, Scelsi since then. And what bothered me about the Quartet was not just that it sounded like bees -- Hovhaness, whom I adore, has aleatoric passages which sound like bees -- but that it seemed fundamentally incoherent and random in form, which Konx Om Pax emphatically did not. There are those to whom randomness and impulsive meandering are virtues (and they're not just modernists: most ballet music is like that), but to me overall structural coherence is the one absolutely essential requirement for quality in art music. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:23:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: o/f&j3 On Sat, 3 Jun 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > Jennifer: I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with your last > post almost entirely. Perhaps you two are disagreeing less than you think. I read Jennifer as bridling at the notion that theory, in terms of critical classification, precedes practice. Indeed it does not - it's a basic concept of librarianship that classification has to be based on what's called "warrant" - but any amount of classification can come after it. These "Freudian" and "Jungian" fantasy novels already exist, and now Donald is theorizing about them. (What happens when practitioners try to follow theory can be very sad, and I alluded to this in an earlier post.) And of course Donald's main point is that writers do theorize, ad novo if not consciously, whether they know it or not; like the man who discovered that he was speaking prose, you can hardly write without a theory. Writers, with their passion for individual attainment, tend to get annoyed at this. Tell a writer that her work resembles X's and she may resent the implication that she's not entirely original. (But really, it's almost impossible not to resemble _something_.) This is the critic's fault only insofar as some critics tend to write as if they think resemblance = influence, or that all resemblance is significant resemblance. > (And incidentally, it was > apparently due to Jung's influence that Freud read enough mythology > to come up with his description of the Oedipus complex; Jung could > be rather acid about how little Freud knew about mythology and > philosophy.) Did Freud acknowledge that Oedipus himself didn't have the complex? After all, neither he nor Jocasta knew she was his mother. But I suppose - - and this would be so like Freud, or at least like the caricature of Freud - that he'd claim that Oedipus subconsciously knew (a rationalization that can cover a multitude of sins), or that part of his horror on the discovery of what he'd done ("And when he learned what he had done / He tore his eyes out one by one / A tragic end for a loyal son") was on realizing that he liked it. (In which case I'd have to ask what his reaction would have been if he hadn't liked it.) > James Branch Cabell is a very peculiar case. The way I read him, he > was naturally inclined towards Jungian fantasy, but he had an > overactive Freudian superego and =couldn't allow= himself to indulge > in such castle-in-the-air-building; so he always in the end had to > come down on the side of the cosy virtues of Real Life. Drove me > =crazy= when I read him as a teenager; I always found his books > unsatisfying, though very well written. What Cabell kept doing was undercutting his fantastic imagination, as if he felt he had to apologize for it. I wonder how much this is like the undercutting of Leiber, Beagle, and Zelazny that Le Guin notes in her _Poughkeepsie_ essay. And in turn I wonder how much of that is related to the absolutely obsessive "kings and elves are just like us" attitude of many current fantasists, which leaches every trace of the fantastic (as opposed to the merely supernatural) out of their fiction. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:19:43 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/ sappho In a message dated 6/3/00 7:21:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dbratman@genie.idt.net writes: << That's the _word_ joss, not necessarily the name. They might well be totally etymologically unrelated, as Josh and josh are. I was asking about the name, though it's interesting to know about the word. >> As I said, Joss himself says that his name (which he chose in adulthood) is taken from the Chinese word for luck. So (especially given that you have no alternative etymologies) tell me how the words are unrelated. Or rather, don't -- I have a feeling you may be in the mood for more of your silly obfuscation games, and life is too short to waste time with that. (I lost the respect I had had for you when you played those games, and, while I may respond to posts of yours if the discussion may have general interest, I will choose to ignore those that don't.) Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:19:45 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: o/lathe2 In a message dated 6/3/00 7:02:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dgk@panix.com writes: << I read "The Word for World is Forest" (which would have an even better title in German: "Der Wort fur Welt ist Wald") when it was first published in =Again, Dangerous Visions=, and it completely knocked me out. Yes, yes, the Earthmen characters were crude stereotypes, and their sections of the story were heavyhanded satire of Vietnam in particular and colonial oppression in general; but it was the portrait of the little green forest people and their dreamtime that really got to me. Wonder what I'd think if I reread it now. >> That is the aspect, of course, that comes from her exposure, through her parents, to Native American culture, and to the tragic history of the peaceful indigenous peoples of central California. That was, of course, the part that interested me the most, since it was a culture that I could identify with. Speaking of which, I have been spending a lot of time in the last few weeks with a young Indian leader from the Amazon rain forest who has been trying to get support for his people's struggles against petroleum companies that are destroying their lands, and who was brought up here to speak at some conferences. Being with him feels like going back in time and being back in my own culture five generations ago, such a sense of going home -- much as I felt when I visited Amazonian tribes myself 20+ years ago. (As you probably realize, shamanistic cultures are deeply, thoroughly "jungian" -- probably more jungian than Jung himself was -- so I have a natural cultural bias in reading those freudian / jungian discussions.) Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 16:19:51 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/ sappho Hi! Gayle noted: > As I said, Joss himself says that his name (which he chose in adulthood) Really? So what's his real name, then? +==========================================================================+ | 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: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 16:19:00 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/sappho Hi! David wondered: >Concerning mispronunciations and misspellings, I would love to know what >force compells most English-speakers to misspell Gandhi as "Ghandi". (Or >Tolkien as "Tolkein", for that matter.) That sort of thing makes no sense to me either. The other one that gets me (and has been a pet peeve of mine for YEARS) is the inability of 98% of Internet denizens to correctly spell Sarah McLachlan's last name, even when they obviously have the liner notes of one of her CDs in front of them at the time. But then, I amused myself the other night by watching the National Spelling Bee on ESPN2, so this may just be a personal problem. :) +==========================================================================+ | 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: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 20:15:18 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/ sappho In a message dated 6/3/00 1:26:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, meth@smoe.org writes: << Really? So what's his real name, then? >> IIRC from an article I read about him several years ago, he was originally Josh, and as a young adult he altered it to something he liked better. I like the fact that its uniqueness is so subtle. Its uniqueness doesn't hit you in the face -- you realize it only if you think about it for a bit. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 22:45:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/ sappho Gayle - If Joss chose his own name, and chose it with the Chinese-derived word in mind, then it is indeed related, and the connection is relevant. It's not a unique name - there's an actor of some note who bears it, Joss Ackland (known for playing CS Lewis in the original television version of _Shadowlands_), but I know nothing of what it may be short for or derived from in his case - which is why I asked about its origin. I never said that the name was unrelated to the word, only that they need not be related. Your first post of explanation implied, but did not make clear, that there was a connection: your second post did make this clear, and the matter is now settled. Thank you for the information, and I'll remember that you said this is only your recollection and not hold it against you if it should turn out to be in any way inaccurate. If you want to consider this "an obfuscation game," I can't stop you, but I DO NOT PLAY GAMES of any sort, and my attempts are always to clarify, not to obfuscate. Why you could not tolerate this in our previous altercation I cannot guess: it seemed to me that you were either wilfully misunderstanding me or else showing a fogginess of mind completely otherwise uncharacteristic of you, and I have Todd's last post in that series to show that what was baffling you was clear to others. Since then I have dropped the matter entirely and was willing to forget it and carry on as if nothing had happened, but if you insist on bringing it up again and gratuitously insulting me, well ... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 23:06:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/ sappho I just went back and re-read my post to which Gayle was responding, and it seemed to me that I took great pains to avoid the kind of misunderstanding that occurred before. I said that the word and the name _might_ be unrelated. And then I said that _even if_ they're _totally_ unrelated, Joss could have constructed a legitimate relationship in his own mind, and gave an example of when someone had done so with a word that was the same as, but unrelated to, his name. I was deliberately trying to acknowledge and give proper respect to Gayle's way of thinking on these matters, even though it's very different from my own. What did I fail to do here? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:11:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/restlessmap1 Episode IV:22 "Restless" Written and Directed by Joss Whedon Credits: run first. I Prologue (time ca. 2:00) DP: [dramatis personae, in order of appearance] Buffy, Riley, Giles, Willow, Xander, Joyce SCENE: Joyce's house Buffy is taking leave of Riley who is going to his debriefing; don't worry, he says, an honorable discharge is possible. Xander has popcorn. He pushed defrost, but Joyce was there "in the clinch." Joyce is glad to have met Riley...finally. Riley leaves. Joyce pointedly repeats "finally." Buffy pointedly ignores her. The gang, too wired to sleep, is going to watch movies; Joyce is going to sleep. Xander plumps for =Apocalypse Now=. Anything "less =Heart of Darkness=-y?" Willow suggests. Plenty of "chick and British-guy flicks," Xander assures her. We see the "FBI Warning" on the videotape. Cut to the gang, all instantly fallen asleep. [BLACKOUT] II Willow's Dream (time ca. 9:30) DP: Tara, Willow, Xander, Oz(!), Harmony, Buffy, Riley, Giles, Anya SCENE 1: Tara's room Tara is worried; the cat hasn't told them her name yet. Willow says she's not grown yet. Willow doesn't ever worry here. (The cat moves in slow motion.) Tara points out Willow doesn't know everything about her. How about her real name? Willow asks. Tara assures her she knows that. Willow is rinsing and re-inking a paintbrush. Tara says people will find out about Willow, who says she has no time to think about that--homework to do. Class starts soon, says Tara, but Willow thinks she can be late. But it's the first drama class, worries Tara. (--> [reference arrow] "Yoko Factor") Willow doesn't want to leave. We see that Willow is painting a text on Tara's bare back. (--> Sappho's "Hymn to Aphrodite") Willow goes to the red-curtained (--> Scene 3) window; it's so bright, she says. Outside we see a creepy something (--> =X-Files= episode "Folie a Deux") and for the first time hear the SlayMusic (wailing female vocals). The cat has taken an interest in what's outside. SCENE 2: The college Willow walking down the halls. Xander and Oz behind her make small talk about her drama class. Did Oz take it? He's been here forever, he says. Doing spells? Xander asks. Willow starts to open her locker, the bell rings, she abandons the locker because she's late. Xander tells Oz that he thinks of two women doing spells, and does a spell by himself (--> Spike's double entendre of "spells" for "sex" in "The Yoko Factor"). SCENE 3: Backstage A bewildered Willow finds herself backstage in an about-to-begin production. An excited Harmony, in milkmaid garb, comes up babbling about "our first production," and how she loves Willow (--> "Graduation Day," Buffy saying she loves Willow on several occasions.) And how Willow steps on people's cues. Flapper Buffy, equally excited, babbles about how everyone is here, Willow's family is in the front row, and they look angry! Harmony sympathetically says Willow has stage fright. Cowboy Guy Riley comes up, proud he got there early. Flapper Buffy conspiratorily whispers that Willow's costume is perfect, and no one knows "the truth" about Willow. And she's in character! Flapper Buffy pouts she should have done that. Willow is bewildered. Why a production on the first day? Why not a class? They haven't rehearsed! ("Some people haven't," says Harmony. "I'm Cowboy Guy!" says Riley.) In horror, Willow hopes this isn't =Madame Butterfly=? (-->"Nightmares"; stage fright also --> "Puppet Show") Giles, the director (stage manager?) (--> "Puppet Show") calls cast and crew together for a pep talk. Everyone Willow has ever known is here! They have to be perfect! Especially in the musical numbers! (--> Giles' Dream) (Willow sees the 1st Slayer creeping around; no one else notices.) Giles, who is annoyed by Harmony, in vampire face, trying to bite him (doubling the 1st Slayer stalking Willow?) says it's about hiding--else the audience will find them, strip them naked, and eat them alive. They should go out, "lie like dogs," stay in focus, Willow should not step on people's cues, and do their best =Death of a Salesman= ever! Silence falls. Willow turns and walks away. She encounters CHEESE MAN, who has cleared a place on a table for cheese slices. She walks between two red curtains (--> Scene 1), and encounters Tara. Not going well, Tara says. No! they're not doing things the proper way! Willow complains. Anyway, a cowboy in =Death of a Salesman=? Tara points out she doesn't understand yet. Something's following her? asks Willow. Tara confirms. Willow wants to know what, then worries that the play has started and she doesn't know her lines (--> "Nightmares" again). A scene from the play. While Flapper Buffy lounges on a couch, Cowboy Guy Riley has an inane conversation with Milkmaid Harmony about why he's there, finishing "I'm looking for a Sales-Man!" Tara confides that everyone is wondering about the real Willow--if they find out they'll punish her, and Tara won't be able to help. What's after her, Willow wonders? Something she has to do? Hush! says Tara. SlayMusic. Onstage, Harmony is crying on the couch while Flapper Buffy delivers a bitter, badly-written diatribe about men and their "worn-out urges," recommends drowning them, and finishes "Men. With your-- sales." Tara is gone. A primitive knife comes through the red curtains at Willow, then a clawed hand, and Willow struggles to defend herself. Suddenly another hand comes through--(Slayer) Buffy. She helps Willow up. SCENE 4: High school classroom Buffy recommends they keep low so they can't be seen through the window. What did it look like? Willow doesn't know. What did Willow do? Buffy asks. Nothing, says Willow; she's very seldom naughty. Buffy points out the play is long over--why is Willow still in costume? Just my outfit, Willow replies. Everybody knows about Willow, says Buffy--take it off. She needs it, says Willow. Buffy disgustedly spins her around and rips off her outfit. (--> Tara's bare back in Scene 1? Certainly Giles' "strip naked" in scene 3) More realistic, Buffy declares, as she takes a seat in the now- filled classroom. Willow is dressed in white shirt, white tights, and jumper, and her hair is long (--> "Welcome to the Hellmouth," =almost= exactly). Everything clear now? says Anya. It's like a Greek tragedy. Oz, whispering to Tara, says he warned her. Willow is delivering a book report on =The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe=. Who cares!? says Xander. Willow watches Oz and Tara talking. The book has many themes, she begins; then the 1st Slayer attacks her and knocks her down while Buffy looks on unconcerned. Willow is being choked, and in extreme closeup she suddenly ages. Cut to Willow, asleep on the couch, choking. [BLACKOUT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:14:42 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/restlessmap2 III Xander's Dream (time ca. 13:15) DP: Willow, Xander, Buffy, Giles, Joyce, Spike, Tara, Anya, Snyder(!) SCENE 1: Joyce's living room Willow is still choking. Xander starts awake. "I'm good!" he insists. He didn't miss anything, Giles assures him (except the massacring, adds Buffy). The TV is showing a scene with a soldier wearily saying "keep going--we'll take this hill--damn war" etc. =Apocalypse Now= is overrated, Giles opines. Xander is sure it gets better. The soldier in the film wonders where his men are, and screams. Buffy, looking unconcerned, offers Xander some popcorn. Not butter flavor, new-car-smell. To Xander's question, Buffy calls Willow (still choking) "a big faker." Giles suddenly understands! the movie is all about the journey! Xander feels a sudden urge to pee. No, he doesn't need Buffy's help; he has a system. SCENE 2: Upstairs in Joyce's house Xander encounters Joyce, in negligee, lounging seductively at the doorway of her bedroom. He greets her apprehensively (first "Joyce," then "Mrs. Summers"). No, they weren't making too much noise, she assures him; in fact the others left a while ago. He'd better catch up, he says. She's heard that before...she's learned about boys. Always after...conquest. He's a conquistador, says Xander. But isn't it about...comfort? Joyce says (lips not moving). He's a comfortador, too. Would he like to rest, she says (lips not moving). "I'd like you," he admits. But he has to go to the bathroom first. She suggests he not get lost. (Joyce's attitude --> "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered") Xander goes in the bathroom, unzips...then turns slowly to see that a large group of Initiative members (soldiers and scientists) are watching him. So he goes to find another bathroom... BASEMENT INTERLUDE #1 ...but the door he goes through takes him into his basement apartment. There's an insistent banging on the door upstairs to the house. He shouts that he didn't order any vampires, and to himself mutters that that's not the way out. He takes another exit. SCENE 3: The playground Outside, it's sunny; on the swingset are Giles and Spike (the latter in a nice 3-piece suit). Buffy is playing in the sandbox. There they are, says a relieved Xander. Is he sure it's them he's looking for? says Buffy pointedly. Spike notes that Giles is teaching him to be a Watcher; he's got the stuff! Spike is like a son to him, Giles adds. Xander was into that for awhile, he says--other things going on, now. Across the way at the edge of the playground is Xander's ice cream truck (--> "Where the Wild Things Are"); Xander is serving customers. Gotta move forward, he says. Like a shark? says Buffy shortly. More feet, less fins, Xander corrects. And on land! adds Spike; good for Spike, says Giles. Should Buffy be playing there? Xander wonders. We can now see an entire desert scene behind Buffy (--> Buffy's Dream). She says she's OK; it's not coming for her yet. Xander worries that she can't protect herself against...some stuff. "Way ahead of you, Big Brother," she replies. "Brother," he says with resignation. We hear the SlayMusic. They exchange a very long look while Giles encourages Spike's swinging ("A Watcher =scoffs= at gravity!"). SCENE 4: In the ice cream truck Ice Cream Xander is now looking at Xander and Buffy's staring contest. He turns and goes to the front of the truck, which is moving; Anya is in the passenger seat. Does he know where he's going? she asks. He doubletakes but doesn't answer. Anya's thinking about getting back into vengeance; she feels at loose ends, and thinks it'll be a big year for vengeance. Isn't it kind of--vengeful? he asks, bemused. He just doesn't want her to have a hobby! she sulks. It's dangerous! We can't do anything we want! Xander insists. Society has rules, borders, an end zone! Distracted, he turns to look in the back of the truck where Willow and Tara, dressed provocatively, are cuddling together. "Do you mind? I'm talking to my demon!" Willow apologizes; Tara (lips not moving) says he's really interesting. Going places, he repeats. Way ahead of you, says Willow. (--> Buffy, previous scene) Watch this! she says; a long take of Xander's staring face while we hear kissing sounds. "Do you want to come in the back with us?" says Tara. Anya says go ahead; she thinks she can steer by "gesturing emphatically," which she does as Xander goes into the back and crawls through... BASEMENT INTERLUDE #2 ...back into the basement. The hammering on the upstairs door is more insistent. He shouts "I know what's up there!" and turns to the downstairs exit again. He encounters CHEESE MAN with a plate of cheese slices. "These will not protect you!" There is a crash and a growl above; Xander hurries around the guy... SCENE 5: The college ...and into the hallway of the college (seen through green filter). He runs into Giles, who wants to know what Xander's doing there. What's after him? Xander counters. It's because of what they did, Giles is sure. The others went on ahead; Xander's life may depend on what Giles will now tell him. But he speaks several sentences in badly-dubbed French, and Xander desperately says he doesn't understand. Giles' sharp next sentence ends with "idiot!" Anya comes up and (also dubbed in French) tries to reassure him ("I can't =hear= you!" he insists), takes his hand, and Giles takes his other hand; several students surround him and pick him up, beginning to turn him over as the camera spins around... SCENE 6: Apocalypse How? ...and Xander is walking through the jungle, accompanied by a much-shorter native, with a transparent "echo" of himself in the foreground. Cut to the interior of a hut, as a soldier leads Xander to kneel by a makeshift bed. "Where are you from?" comes a voice from the bed; it's Principal Snyder! The basement; possibly born there, answers Xander. Snyder walked by the guidance office one time, where a bunch of the students were "waiting to be shepherded"; there was the smell of dead flowers, i.e. the nation's future was a bunch of mulch. Xander says he was glad Snyder was eaten by the giant snake. To Snyder's question, Xander says he's going to meet Tara and Willow--"and possibly Buffy's Mom." Time's running out, says Snyder. He's getting away--something he can't fight, says Xander. Is he a soldier? says Snyder. A comfortador (--> scene 2), he says. Neither, insists Snyder. "You're a whipping boy, raised by mongrels, and set on a sacrificial altar." Xander has a cramp; he stands up... SCENE 7: Giles'/college/dorm ...and he's outside Giles' apartment. The 1st Slayer is creeping from behind a railing. He rushes inside. "Giles! It's here!" More serious than they thought, Giles says. Anya, facing away, is wearing a transparent shirt (--> Tara's bare back in Willow's Dream?); Buffy is saying she can fight anything, right? Xander rushes away into the college corridors and into Buffy's dorm room, calling for her. A growl behind him. He goes into the clothes closet and down a long corridor (--> curtain scene in Willow's Dream?)... BASEMENT INTERLUDE #3 ...and back in the basement. The hammering above is even more frantic. "That's not the way out," Xander whispers. Suddenly the door bursts open. A man we've never seen, apparently Xander's father, wants to know why he won't come upstairs; is he ashamed of them? His mother is "crying her guts out." "You don't understand," Xander says. No, =Xander= doesn't understand, says the man, descending the stairs. "The line ends here with us; you're not gonna change that. You haven't got the heart," and changes into the 1st Slayer, who thrusts her fist into Xander's chest and pulls out his heart (--> Adam in "Primeval"). Cut to Xander, writhing in his sleep on the couch. [BLACKOUT] ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #125 *****************************