From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #143 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Friday, July 7 2000 Volume 02 : Number 143 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/comments7/5 [GHighPine@aol.com] more Donald stuff [Kathleen Woodbury ] Re: b/titles [meredith ] Re: b/comments7/5 [meredith ] Re: b/comments7/5 [Dawn Friedman ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:29:15 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/comments7/5 In a message dated 7/5/00 1:37:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dgk@panix.com writes: << But my intuition is that =Buffy= doesn't usually work that way. It seems to me that the strongest climax is at the halfway point, with the next-strongest being at the third quarter. >> You are absolutely right, now that I think about it. I have noted to myself how BUFFY (and Joss's scripts especially), rather than starting with a big bang, tend to start rather low-key in a way that puts you off guard, so that often halfway through the ep you aren't expecting much. It is a very unusual structure / strategy in television -- probably only shows with very loyal fans who don't need an early hook would be allowed to get away with it. But, as I said, in general, to the network execs who review and approve scripts, the effectiveness of the act breaks in keeping viewer interest through the commercial break (conventionally the first act break, when the viewer is presumably deciding whether to watch the show all the way through is considered the most crucial, but act breaks before extra long commercial breaks are too ) is absolutely the number one consideration. (Something that anyone who tries to write a TV spec should be aware of.) It is for the same reason that with =most= shows, two-part episodes have a stronger first part than second part. A strong Part One will bring viewers to Part Two, but it doesn't work the other way (and even if the viewers grumble that Part Two was a letdown, at least they watched it). BUFFY is unusual in that all its two-parters are stronger in the second than the first part. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 12:17:32 -0600 From: Kathleen Woodbury Subject: more Donald stuff Donald G. Keller said: >A load of hooey if you ask me. If I say to you "=The Lord of the >Rings=", or "Frodo Baggins," you =don't= think of =the words that >constitute= that novel or that character; what springs to your mind >is an image--possibly visual, but not necessarily. The words that >constitute it are only a =description=. Or so I'd argue. I totally agree. Words evoke, they aren't the thing evoked. They couldn't even be considered the platonian essence of the thing, could they? (Just imagine if words actually =were= the thing evoked. A form of a magic world-view, maybe?) Makes me wonder how Lacan's mind really works that he should perceive things that way.... >And it struck me suddenly, having just seen again that scene where >Tara scuttles the demon-scrying spell: given that we know from >Buffy's dream in "Restless" that there is apparently =some= >connection between Tara and the Slayer(s)...could it be that Tara >was afraid the spell would pinpoint =Buffy=?? The spell has never been used (or needed to be used) before? >In =any= case, this is some time before Tara meets "Buffy" (Faith in >residence) in "Who Are You," so there's no reason to think, that >early, that Tara would have sensed the presence of a demon in Buffy, >which is what I was thinking about. (Which would tie in with Tara >saying in Buffy's dream "You think you know what you are?") If Buffy is a slayer because she has a demon, then so does Faith, right? Did Tara perceive a demon in Faith? >(One thing we can be pretty sure of is that Buffy's oracular >dreaming is as a result of her supernatural powers, =however= they >are generated. And we should remember that at the moment we only >have =Buffy's sense= that Tara "knows something" rather than knowing >that Tara knows something.) Well, except that by scuttling the demon-scrying spell Tara shows that she knows something, whatever it may turn out to be. Allen W. said: > The thought has occurred. However, as you point out, Tara theoretically >hadn't met Buffy yet. > She had met Willow, of course... and we never really got an explanation >for just what was speaking through Willow when she did the soul-restoring >spell for Angel, did we? And whatever it was, might still be around... And Willow had been offered a chance to become a demon herself by then, hadn't she? Berni Phillips said: >Or maybe it just has something to do with the relationship between >Tara and Willow. Was it moving too fast? Was she just getting cold >feet? Was she testing Willow to see if she would still be her friend >if a spell didn't work? Was she hoping that spoiling the spell >would make Willow want to repeat it and spend more time with her? My take on that scene (at the time and before I read what anyone else had to say) was that Tara either didn't want Willow to know something the spell would tell her, or that Tara didn't want Willow to think she needed Tara in order to be able to do spells. (I'm not sure on the latter whether Tara was hiding something about herself or just wanting Willow to not become reliant on her.) Robert Stacy said (about THE PRISONER tv show): > I'll be looking forward to reading your comments on it, Don. (That >is, of course, after you've finished your Buffy pieces.) Me too! Phaedre/Kathleen workshop@burgoyne.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:41:49 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/titles Hi! >"The Dharma of Buffy: Aspects of the Warrior Function in =Buffy the >Vampire Slayer=" >"Spirit-Guides and Shadow-Selves: From the Dream-Life of Buffy (and >Faith)" Very nice! Descriptive, yet academic. I like. +==========================================================================+ | 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: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:41:01 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/comments7/5 Hi! Don commented: >A load of hooey if you ask me. If I say to you "=The Lord of the >Rings=", or "Frodo Baggins," you =don't= think of =the words that >constitute= that novel or that character; what springs to your mind >is an image--possibly visual, but not necessarily. The words that >constitute it are only a =description=. Or so I'd argue. Here's an alternate view: what if Lacan thought in words, not images, and just assumed everyone else does the same? Different people think in different ways. On the one extreme we have Temple Grandin, an autistic woman who has become rather famous for overcoming her autism and functioning quite well in society. She thinks in straight abstract images, much as some imagine animals do. As a result, she empathizes with the fate of animals headed toward the slaughterhouse, and has made a career of designing "humane slaughterhouses" (how's THAT for an oxymoron?). She is the first to say that her mind doesn't work at all like most other people. Her books end up just a cluster of concepts arranged on paper, and her editors have had their work cut out for them trying to turn her scribbled thoughts into coherent prose. What if Lacan were from the opposite extreme? I believe it's possible, because I find myself more often than not thinking in prose rather than images. I'll suddenly realize that I'm narrating my life in the third person as I go through my day, visualizing my thoughts on a printed page rather than as a movie. Or then again, I might just be a freak who needs therapy... +==========================================================================+ | 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: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 22:41:03 -0400 From: Dawn Friedman Subject: Re: b/comments7/5 At 09:41 PM 7/6/00 -0400, Meredith wrote: > >A load of hooey if you ask me. If I say to you "=The Lord of the > >Rings=", or "Frodo Baggins," you =don't= think of =the words that > >constitute= that novel or that character; what springs to your mind > >is an image--possibly visual, but not necessarily. The words that > >constitute it are only a =description=. Or so I'd argue. > >Here's an alternate view: what if Lacan thought in words, not images, and >just assumed everyone else does the same? For what it's worth, for me the words "Frodo Baggins" are a significant part of the character. The sound, the spelling, the combination of familiar and unfamiliar elements; there's no image anywhere, visual or otherwise, that can fully embody the character without invoking the words. Of course, Frodo was created with words in the first place. But I don't think fictional characters are the only essences that involve words as part of their being, not merely a description. Dawn ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #143 *****************************