From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #154 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Tuesday, July 18 2000 Volume 02 : Number 154 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/klhmemo: The deLint factor [klh@technologist.com] Re: b/klhmemo: The deLint factor ["Berni Phillips" ] Re: b/klhmemo: The deLint factor [meredith ] Re: Xena question [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: o/X-Men movie (was Re: b/sappho2) [Dori ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:28:55 -0400 (EDT) From: klh@technologist.com Subject: Re: b/klhmemo: The deLint factor ...was explained by Mr. Bratman rather recently and was therefore assumed to be resident in the Jungians "collective unconscious" (clearly, it isn't, which brings the concept of c.u. into question) Roughly, a bunch of "college students" who are called such because it connotes to "we don't do ANYTHING, so we're always ready to..." As in "Quick: name one course, other than psych with Mamet's ex-wife, that Buffy, Willow, Riley, or Tara took during Season Four." ken p.s. As for the rest, reply anon. p.p.s. Don, you'll see two copies of this, since I can't currently access my list-mapped account. p.p.p.s. (EXCLUSIVE TO THIS LIST) Nah; I'd comment that deLint's fantasy is just b*llsh*t, without being willing to bother whether it's Western Hegelian (i.e., Jungian) b*llsh*t. (It is, however, distinct from "Jew b*llsh*t," which is the province of National Enquirer "reporters" who are looking to publicize their books.) From: "Donald G. Keller" Date: 07/17/2000 12:04:39 AM Subject: b/klhmemo Memo to Mr. Houghton (in the third person): And through a glass, darkly, I can dimly perceive that in the hands of such commentators "de Lint" =approximately= translates as "watered down Jungian fantasy." But I invite Mr. Houghton's amplification and elaboration. - --------------------------------------------------- Get free personalized email at http://iaf.iname.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 18:03:27 -0700 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: b/klhmemo: The deLint factor >From: klh@technologist.com >...was explained by Mr. Bratman rather recently and was therefore assumed >to be resident in the Jungians "collective unconscious" (clearly, it isn't, >which brings the concept of c.u. into question) > >Roughly, a bunch of "college students" who are called such because it >connotes to "we don't do ANYTHING, so we're always ready to..." > >As in "Quick: name one course, other than psych with Mamet's ex-wife, that >Buffy, Willow, Riley, or Tara took during Season Four." Didn't Willow say something about being on her way to Spanish class at some point? Berni ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:10:21 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/klhmemo: The deLint factor Hi! Berni responded: >>As in "Quick: name one course, other than psych with Mamet's ex-wife, that >>Buffy, Willow, Riley, or Tara took during Season Four." > >Didn't Willow say something about being on her way to Spanish class at >some point? I don't know about anyone else here, but when I think of "college", the memories that come to mind aren't of the classes I took. They're of all the cool things I did *outside* of class, most of which gave me more education than a lot of my courses. On _Buffy_, the story isn't the curriculum. It doesn't need to be. +==========================================================================+ | 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: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:42:22 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: Xena question In a message dated 7/13/00 8:15:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, meth@smoe.org writes: << Again, I'm curious to know if the eps you've seen were originally broadcast in the last season. >> I think they were earlier, but I'm not positive. I have seen three complete episodes in addition to fragments I have run into while changing channels. The first one had to do with Xena in another woman's body. (Of course, that was disappointing for an intro, as I wanted to see the lead actress and what she was like. She showed up only at the end.) The second one was set on a boat that was sinking. That was dramatic and pretty good, but nothing outstanding as far as TV dramas go, IMO. The third one I saw had to do with a baby they found who turned out at the end to be some child with a special destiny That had more humor in it. I like the humor, but it made it hard to take the story seriously. The eps were all entertaining and fun to watch, they just never really hooked me or made me feel involved with the characters. I didn't know about the two women's different backgrounds or the obstacles they have gone through in forging their relationship, which of course would have added interest. Nor did I get an inkling of Xena fighting inner demons, which seems it would have added depth and drama. I think that David had an interesting clue, that the episodes that are purely dramatic or purely humorous work better than the ones that are somewhere in between, as the baby episode was. I suspect that that is true. That ep wasn't really funny enough to be funny and not dramatic enough to be dramatic. But, though I haven't seen a completely humorous ep, I can imagine them easily enough and imagine that the show can be pretty funny. (Hm, I wouldn't say the same about Buffy's mix of comedy and drama. The blend seems to work there. Would people say that Buffy mixes the two more successfully than Xena?) Anyway, could someone let me know when a really tiptop episode is due to be broadcast? Or would the impact fail if one had not seen the episodes before? Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:00:42 -0400 From: Dori Subject: Re: o/X-Men movie (was Re: b/sappho2) I saw the movie today, and as a long-time X-Men reader, I was highly impressed. I'd pretty much expected your typical Hollywood rendering of a comic book, but this was actually done by people who =read= the comic. It wasn't, mind you, a perfect adaptation, but it was far closer than I expected to get. And the casting was, for the most part, stunning. I mean, I've been saying for years, whenever my friends and I would blue-sky casting an X-Men movie, that Patrick Stewart was perfect for Xavier, so I knew he'd be spot-on. But I was stunned by how perfect Hugh Jackman was for Wolverine. There before me was the Logan of my fanfic, and it was wonderful. (Of course, the writer gets a chunk of credit for that, too...) The whole movie just... I dunno. =Felt= like I was reading the comic, I guess. Well, with maybe one exception. The Scott in the movie I never once felt like telling, "Oh, just -roll your eyes up in your head-, Scott!" Meredith said: > the FX are cool, but they help tell the story, instead of being the > story. The script is well done, with some really great one-liners, > including one (with an accompanying sight gag) that had everyone in the > (full) theater rolling for the rest of the scene and beyond. I think I know the one you mean. But my favorite was the way Logan convinced Cyke and Ororo that he was the real thing. I chuckled about that for hours afterward. - -- Dori cleindori@rica.net - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "I ADORE Joxer. He validates my inner geek and shows me and being sexy aren't mutually exclusive states." Alexa - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #154 *****************************