From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #127 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Monday, June 5 2000 Volume 02 : Number 127 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Jung & things ["Jennifer Stevenson" ] Re: b/restlessnotes [Todd Huff ] Re: b/restlessnotes ["Hilary L. Hertzoff" ] Re: b/restlessmap1 [meredith ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 10:17:02 -0500 From: "Jennifer Stevenson" Subject: Jung & things Zowie! Don must have had a day off! Thanks for all the synopses! I've gotta see one of these dream episodes. They read great. I did see the one from Snyder's season blowoff. Wow scenes. Don, you write, > 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. > 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. Same thing. Critical theory comes after text, not before it. Ideas and models are separate from text. Any writer will tell you that fiction comes out of them (to some degree, for some writers more than for others) unconsciously. You can plan and plan; I certainly do; but when it's time to let the words out, they come out on their own. Experience, raw experience, is the same way. You write, > Something important I neglected to say is that =all= myth, and epic, > and folktale, is Jungian fantasy as I'm defining it. "As you're defining" -what?- all mythepicfolktale, or as you're defining fantasy? I think you mean fantasy. See next comment. > It's Freudian fantasy that's the latecomer: "My tradition is really OLDER than your tradition" is a yelp I hear in pagan circles a lot. > 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. I think that's true, Jung is a modernist, more enlightened maybe but still a modernist. That's my point kinda. I'm not on some kind of progress kick; I don't say that our new postmodern way of seeing these things is better. But looser, maybe. That's what I want to argue for here. > 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. > 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. Did you know that Jung's patients would begin their therapy having dreams without his archetypes, but after several months or years of therapy they started having dreams about archetypes? You can program your dreams, you know. I could cite a dozen of my own personal examples, but the most recent is that in 1997 I had one dream about Tommy Lee Jones's work after three solid months of totally obsessively watching his movies. Then I didn't have another for eighteen months; then I had four or five; then I cut back on watching the movies and those dreams stopped. You find what you go looking for, when it comes to dreams. > 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. Is there some kind of "authenticity" measure going on here? I'm reminded of that discussion that arises when people are talking about the use of minority cultural material in fiction: what they talk about is whether the fictional usage "feels authentic" and whether it is factually accurate (two separate measures); then they talk about who the author is and whether they are "entitled" to use such material in their fiction by virtue of their own membership (or nonmembership) in that minority; then they talk about whether they the speakers are allowed to talk about these questions at all, based up on their membership in said minority--and almost always, they aren't members, so then an argument arises about whether non-members may legitimately even discuss another's cultural material, whether in their own fiction or in another's. My position is that what you experience is real. The art you make about your experience is also real, but it isn't actually the original experience. Theories, ideas, and models about the art are post-game deconstruction, not to be confused with the art, nor with the experience that prompted it. I say above that the art is planned, but again I say that it is produced unconsciously to some degree, by trying to tap into the original raw experience and re-experience it, not only for the sake of producing the art, but in order to make art that will =make the receiver of the art (reader, viewer) experience a version of the artist's raw experience.= It's an attempt to reproduce experience. That seems like a whole lot of critical doublespeak to me, as I reread it. Good grief. - -Jennifer ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:29:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Huff Subject: Re: b/restlessnotes Great stuff, Don. > --Loved Giles' comment that it's "all about the > journey." Self-reference > alert... Possible a double self-reference, to Apocalypse Now/Heart of Darkness. > --The whole "triangle" of Giles, Spike, and Xander > is quite curious. Spike > a Watcher?? Like a son?? And what does Xander mean > that he was into that > for awhile? Son, or Watcher? Judging by Xander's dream-father, I'd say the thought of Giles as father-figure would have been a genuine comfort to him. > --Note Joss Whedon meekly following the WB's mandate > and keeping Willow > and Tara kissing offscreen. While the network plays up the male/male kiss on Dawson's Creek! > --I'd love to know from someone who knows > =Apocalypse Now= how much (if > any) of Snyder's speeches are from the movie. > Especially the "whipping > boy" one. (Otherwise, it's about Xander being "the > Zeppo.") Brando mutters some mystical stuff I don't recall and then the pertinent line: "You're nothin' but an errand boy, sent by butchers!" > --Olivia pregnant? pushing a pram? Might be this is > just Giles' > parental-issue anxiety dream. "Little sister" comes to mind here for me, as well. We found out from "Angel" this season (Cordy's sudden and overwhelming pregnancy) that demon reproduction can be quite unusual. > --Why is Spike filmed posing in black&white? Are his > poses Bela Lugosi > references? (It's not "silent": Spike hardly shuts > up the whole time.) At least one pose brought Lugosi to mind, where he seems to be hiding his face behind a cape. > --Hey, Bob, how about those lighters? I'm wondering if this isn't another inside joke. ASH is well known for playing Dr. Frank N. Furter on the stage version of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". During one particular song, it's traditional for the audience to hold lighters in the air (and he is singing on stage at this point). > --Any guesses what the "back before dawn" comment > means? That's when you wake up? > --The Riley/Adam scene is intensely interesting; > right from the start > there's a distinct current of unease between Buffy > and Riley (him calling > her Killer, her accusing him of "forgetting" her), > which only gets worse > when Adam (Riley's double) gets into the act: the > "not demons"/"oh > yeah?" exchange is well worth pondering. Obviously > Buffy is still anxious > about Riley's military connection, and fears she > could still lose him to > soldiering. And remember Buffy's previous dream (--> > "Hush") where Riley > turned into a Gentleman! Riley ending up being nasty > to her at the end of > the scene has several interesting resonances. I found Adam's reply chilling. This whole episode seems to point out that there are aspects to being the Slayer that we still don't know about. The "source" of Buffy's power came up in the final two episodes of the season. The Slayer was created somehow, and that power is passed on. Unlike Adam's source, it will be a lot harder to see. September is annoyingly far off. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:04:54 -0400 (EDT) From: "Hilary L. Hertzoff" Subject: Re: b/restlessnotes On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > --Oz' appearances in Willow's dream are oddly uncomfortable; she > apparently feels ambivalent about how he feels about her. Or how she feels about him. > > --Is Vapid Buffy (who nearly was a Cordelia-crony) a double of Harmony > (who =was= a Cordelia-crony)? Condsider Vapid Buffy = Buffy in Sandbox = Buffy at fair... > --Near the end we discover that what Willow's worried about is that people > will find out she's still a nerd! (--> Percy calling her a nerd in > "Doomed") Fundamentally, in the end it's a classroom anxiety dream. Xander is worried that he's going to fail or be left behind and Giles is having a mid-lfe crisis dream (more on this farther down) > --Wondering what the sudden aging of Willow's face signifies. Passage of time --> Giles watch? > > --Nice rule-of-three patterning of Basement Interludes, early, middle, and > late; essentially identical, or rather all three increments of the same > "scene." He doesn't feel safe there, but then he has been attacked several times. He feels like he's going around in circles... > > --The whole "triangle" of Giles, Spike, and Xander is quite curious. Spike > a Watcher?? Like a son?? And what does Xander mean that he was into that > for awhile? Son, or Watcher? Giles has more in common with Spike than he does with Xander. (British background, rebellious past, etc.) Another instance of Xander feeling left out and left behind. > --And if Xander is Big Brother...does that make Buffy Little > Sister? (We've got too many candidates already.) (--> Faith referring to > herself as Big Sister in "Graduation Day I.") Why does there have to be only one little sister? It could indicate several people on different levels. > --Note Joss Whedon meekly following the WB's mandate and keeping Willow > and Tara kissing offscreen. Talk about the letter of the law. I imagine this is why he was so emphatic about spreading that information around...setup for this scene. > > --Why French? (--> "Primeval" for Giles' linguistic knowledge, and Buffy > studying French instead of Sumerian.) > Typical dream motif, though I have no clue whether the choice of language means anything. > --And now Giles. Odd his furniture being moved to the Bronze...maybe it's > just that he's feeling more comfortable with, or longing for, a musical > career. > --Olivia pregnant? pushing a pram? Might be this is just Giles' > parental-issue anxiety dream. Giles has been having a mid-life crisis all year. This dream is about the conflicts between what he feels his duty is and what he wants to do and about paths not taken - note the emphasis on children/family. And the musical career idea goes back to Band Candy -->Giles says he needs to get a band together. > --I've been wondering if the duck joke is not random: does it refer to the > Buffy/1st Slayer pair and the question of who speaks? > And what about the cheese guy - Joss has been emphatic about that not meaning anything but Joss lies!!! > --Not sure what it means that Willow addresses Giles as "Rupert." Xander addresses Buffy's mom as Joyce. They're on the borderline between childhood and adulthood and are still feeling out how they fit into the adult world. Note the scenes - the high school (Willow's report), the park (sandbox and swings), the fair. > > --Tremendously clever to have Giles' "expository lump" (done as a silent > overhead-projector presentation --> "Hush") be a musical number! > And interesting how they set it up - two of the previous three episodes have had him singing. My response to the next comment made me think of something I meant to mention when we were discussing "Hush". The music during that scene (Dance Macabre) is used as the theme to the British mystery show Jonathan Creek. Anthony Head had a role in the pilot but had to drop out of the show when Buffy was picked up (I think this was between the first and second season). > --Nice "rhyme" to have the pocketwatch show up again at the end...but what > does it mean? How does it signal Giles that it's the 1st Slayer? The key to the riddle is time? An homage to VR.5 (Anthony Head's previous short lived series). (Don, if you want to play with dream imagery, you might check this out - I think all of the episodes are out on video now). > --I'm bothered by the scene that echoes Faith's version of the Buffy/Faith > dream (--> "Graduation Day" II, "This Year's Girl"); it implies more > "leakage" between the dreams than I've been willing to allow. But it's a > spooky linkage; essentially the "same" dream, the bed made, the blind > reference to Little Sister (whom the bed's made for, the "730" reference), > Buffy's sudden need to leave. *Brief interlude about GD2* Wasn't there a comment in that dream about Faith going where Buffy couldn't follow? Consider this in conjunction with what happened when Buffy followed Faith to LA > --Any guesses what the "back before dawn" comment means? Vampires? Cinderella? > > --The Riley/Adam scene is intensely interesting; right from the start > there's a distinct current of unease between Buffy and Riley (him calling > her Killer, her accusing him of "forgetting" her), which only gets worse > when Adam (Riley's double) gets into the act: the "not demons"/"oh > yeah?" exchange is well worth pondering. Obviously Buffy is still anxious > about Riley's military connection, and fears she could still lose him to > soldiering. And remember Buffy's previous dream (--> "Hush") where Riley > turned into a Gentleman! Riley ending up being nasty to her at the end of > the scene has several interesting resonances. Remember that both Angel and Parker turned on her. There's been discussion on Buffy-L about the possibility that the slayer is possessed by a demon and that gives her the special powers and abilities. > > --The blue goo and the special effect. Very bizarre and eerie; obviously > it's a connecting motif between Buffy and the 1st Slayer, though we don't > know that at first. I've got a bunch of random thoughts I'm going to toss out here. Looked like a facial mask (to improve the skin). There's a scene I know I've seen in more than one place. - The woman in a facial mask and curlers causing someone to scream when they see her. Cosmetics = war paint Mask = superhero mask Mask = hiding something = it's harder to see facial expression 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: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 20:13:33 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/restlessmap1 Hi! Wow Don, I guess the game was boring, huh? ;) A couple comments to make: >Giles, who is annoyed by Harmony, in vampire >face, trying to bite him (doubling the 1st Slayer stalking Willow?) I thought this was just a reference to the fact that Harmony ended up as a vampire - Spike's girlfriend. >Tara is gone. A primitive knife comes through the red curtains at >Willow, then a clawed hand, and Willow struggles to defend herself. I thought the "primitive knife" was Adam's claw? >She looks at the >clock: 7:30. Don't forget the reference to GDII there. +==========================================================================+ | 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 *** | +==========================================================================+ ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #127 *****************************