From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V3 #31 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Friday, February 23 2001 Volume 03 : Number 031 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE:ANGEL & Robotgirl ["Karin Rabe" ] RE:ANGEL & Robotgirl [allenw ] RE: ANGEL & Robotgirl ["Karin Rabe" ] RE:ANGEL & Robotgirl [meredith ] RE: ANGEL & Robotgirl ["Karin Rabe" ] RE: ANGEL & Robotgirl ["Karin Rabe" ] RE: ANGEL & Robotgirl ["Karin Rabe" ] RE:ANGEL & Robotgirl [Todd Huff ] Re: ANGEL & Robotgirl [GHighPine@aol.com] o/aargh! ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/michelle t ["Donald G. Keller" ] RE:ANGEL & Robotgirl [allenw ] Re: b/michelle t ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:36:38 -0500 From: "Karin Rabe" Subject: RE:ANGEL & Robotgirl ANGEL certainly offered lots of food for thought this week; I had to tape it Tuesday evening and only watched the tape last night; I'm still processing it. But I do have to ask, Meredith, what makes you think Angel lost his soul again? Surely we don't consider his roll in the hay with Darla, after all that had happened earlier in the episode, a "moment of true happiness"? (And in the preview for next week, which I listened to twice because initially it shocked me with a seeming suggestion that he had lost his soul "again," the language at the beginning, and the accompanying imagery, actually refer to his earlier experience with Buffy. Then the question is posed, "Now that he's again tasted the flesh, what will be unleashed?" Clearly he wakes up in the middle of the night with a start, suggesting something is. Since arguably he had already been brought to a point where he wasn't really on speaking terms with his soul any more =before= succumbing to Darla's sexual allure, I anticipate that the effect of "tasting the flesh" of the once again totally and demonstrably evil Darla will be almost the =opposite= of what happened with Buffy. That is, it's his moment of truly hitting rock bottom, a visit to the "home office" far more real, for Angel, than the one on the elevator, and the impact therefore offers the shock therapy he seems badly to need at this point, to help him bounce back =out= of the abyss he's fallen into. IOW, perhaps we've now seen in this reality a playing out of a cycle akin to the metaphorical one he went through when Buffy sent him straight to hell, only to have him eventually and inexplicably bounce back into this dimension, stripped and purified by its torments. Interesting that a couple of weeks ago he tried to subject Darla (and Dru, of course) to hellfire on earth, only to have Darla be the ultimate instrument in this episode of the discovery earlier given voice to by the dead lawyer ont the elevator: hell is where you are, Angel. :) Gayle, regarding your response to my comment on this week's BUFFY: " Rather than "Dawn was brought in because Joyce was going to die" I was thinking more like "Joyce was going to die because Dawn was brought in." IOW nothing could put a sharper focus on the sister dynamic. Now Buffy has complete responsibility for Dawn -- she's =really= her guardian now, in another sense besides being the guardian of the key." Well said! And much of the above is what I was trying less clearly to say. :) But I do suspect that TPTB had grown weary of Joyce already last season, when we hardly ever saw her, and brought her back into the foreground this season only to facilitate Dawn's entry, and pave the way for her demise. After all, the only interesting thing they =did= with Joyce this season was have her almost die of a brain tumor. And you may be right, that it's the tumor that ultimately did her in, indirectly. BTW, I found it a touch odd to see Giles "baby-sitting" Dawn while the woman he had twice lost control of his libido with on the hood of a car was out on a date with her new beaux. Re: "It is kind of obvious in retrospect that Joyce's death was bring set up. And the scene had something of the same poweful understatement as the scene when Giles discovered Jenny's body in "Passion." (Every screenwriter and director should study those two scenes to learn the real power of understatement, the meaning of "Less is more.")" Yes, I actually was mildly surprised when Joyce seemed to make a full recovery from her brain tumor. And I agree totally with your comment on how both scenes express "the real power of understatement." (Although there was nothing understated about the =earlier= scene in which Jenny was pursued and ultimately killed by Angelus! The understated discovery of the body was made absolutely necessary by what went before, I think.) Todd, How exactly can Spike scare Warren into making him a BUFFY robot?? - ---Karin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:41:58 -0600 (CST) From: allenw Subject: RE:ANGEL & Robotgirl On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Karin Rabe wrote: > ANGEL certainly offered lots of food for thought this week; I had to tape > it Tuesday evening and only watched the tape last night; I'm still > processing it. But I do have to ask, Meredith, what makes you think Angel > lost his soul again? Surely we don't consider his roll in the hay with > Darla, after all that had happened earlier in the episode, a "moment of true > happiness"? Karin, For that matter, what about all the nights Darla spent in his dreams earlier, and at least some of the time in his bed? Are we to believe no "rolling" took place then? My prediction: Angel wakes up and *thinks* (not to mention hopes) that he's lost his soul again, only to unpleasantly discover otherwise when he tries to resume his Angelus lifestyle. > But I do suspect that TPTB had grown weary of Joyce already last > season, when we hardly ever saw her, and brought her back into the > foreground this season only to facilitate Dawn's entry, and pave the way for > her demise. After all, the only interesting thing they =did= with Joyce > this season was have her almost die of a brain tumor. And you may be right, > that it's the tumor that ultimately did her in, indirectly. > My understanding was that Joyce's scarceness last season was largely due to the actress being unavailable, although what with Buffy in college there was less call for Joyce anyway, of course. Doesn't the whole Joyce-Buffy-Dawn(-Giles) family dynamic count as something interesting? > BTW, I found it a touch odd to see Giles "baby-sitting" Dawn while the woman > he had twice lost control of his libido with on the hood of a car was out on > a date with her new beaux. > You realize that this makes Giles a suspect. Not in the audience's mind, and perhaps not in the police's mind if the medical evidence seems clear, but *someone* (Spike, Anya, Dawn...) may wonder if Giles was involved. > How exactly can Spike scare Warren into making him a BUFFY robot?? > Well, by scaring him. Spike's good with the threats, good with the vamp-face, good with the violence against inanimate objects; and Warren doesn't know there's no physical danger. Besides, if he can recycle April, it might not even be a big job. allen w. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:04:49 -0500 From: "Karin Rabe" Subject: RE: ANGEL & Robotgirl Allen, re: > For that matter, what about all the nights Darla spent in his dreams > earlier, and at least some of the time in his bed? Are we to believe no > "rolling" took place then? I would have said not really, except that the language of the preview for next week seemed to be saying this was his first "taste" of flesh since Buffy. I was unaware that the actress playing Joyce had better things to do last season. You asked, > Doesn't the whole Joyce-Buffy-Dawn(-Giles) family dynamic count as > something interesting? Only mildly, for me. So much of the emphasis has been on the Buffy/Dawn sibling dynamic. > ... *someone* (Spike, Anya, Dawn...) may wonder if Giles was > involved. Surely you jest?? There haven't been sparks between Giles and Joyce for a long time -- although I must say I never found Giles' long distance romance with the gal that guest-starred several times last season credible, and she seems to have totally vanished. > > How exactly can Spike scare Warren into making him a BUFFY robot?? > > > Well, by scaring him. Spike's good with the threats, good with the > vamp-face, good with the violence against inanimate objects; and Warren > doesn't know there's no physical danger. Besides, if he can recycle > April, it might not even be a big job. Well, all that assumes no communication between Warren and Buffy. I suppose that's possible, given her sympathies for the robot girlfriend at the end of the episode. But it also assumes that Warren won't be trying to win his human girlfriend over by proving he's put all that behind him. I forget exactly how much disarray we left that relationship in at the end of the episode.... - ---Karin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:50:08 -0500 From: meredith Subject: RE:ANGEL & Robotgirl Hi! Karin inquired: >But I do have to ask, Meredith, what makes you think Angel >lost his soul again? The parallels with the last time: the act of intimacy, the rainstorm outside, and the waking up with a start (and what appears to be some physical pain) in the middle of the night. Of course, I am rather hoping your (most excellent) analysis turns out to be correct. If Angel were to lose his soul simply by "rolling in the hay with Darla", whom we are given to believe he really doesn't love, in retrospect that would seriously diminish the loss of his soul when he made love to Buffy. If the two acts were equated, that would mean he didn't have to love Buffy all *that* much in order to have lost his soul with her. "True happiness" in that case becomes simply the moment of climax, and that's a tad too shallow for me. I expect better from Team Whedon. allen added: >You realize that this makes Giles a suspect. Not in the audience's >mind, and perhaps not in the police's mind if the medical evidence seems >clear, but *someone* (Spike, Anya, Dawn...) may wonder if Giles was >involved. Huh? By the previews it seems that it will be clear that the reason for Joyce's death was purely medical. But even then, I really don't see how anyone could consider that foul play was involved. >Besides, if he can recycle >April, it might not even be a big job. I have no sense of scale, so I can't tell - were Buffy and April the same size? I thought April looked scarily like the Sunnydale-era Cordelia. +==========================================================================+ | 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, 22 Feb 2001 19:55:49 -0500 From: "Karin Rabe" Subject: RE: ANGEL & Robotgirl Meredith, re: > Of course, I am rather hoping your (most excellent) analysis turns out to > be correct. Glad you liked it, and that we have the same hope. :) >If Angel were to lose his soul simply by "rolling in the hay > with Darla", whom we are given to believe he really doesn't love, in > retrospect that would seriously diminish the loss of his soul when he made > love to Buffy. If the two acts were equated, that would mean he didn't > have to love Buffy all *that* much in order to have lost his soul > with her. That gets my vote for understatement of the...year, at least! I think we all expect -- and will get -- better from Whedon than that. - ---Karin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:02:02 -0500 From: "Karin Rabe" Subject: RE: ANGEL & Robotgirl Oops, I just happened to scroll though my earlier post where I took issue with Donald's analysis of the meaning of Buffy's visceral reaction to Spike's declaring his love for her, and discovered I said >And it's pretty much a > truism that love is closer to love, than indiffence. In case it's not obvious, I meant to say "closer to hate, than to indifference." :) - ---Karin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:22:56 -0500 From: "Karin Rabe" Subject: RE: ANGEL & Robotgirl Sorry, everyone, for sending a veritable blizzard of separate Emails today, but it suddenly dawned on me that when I posted my take on Angel's sleeping with Darla, I left out any mention of a detail that more than any other accounts for my gut feeling that for Angel the experience was as far from a "moment of true happiness" as he'll ever get: Darla materialized and he turned to her the very instant after hanging up on the suicide call from his policewoman friend. (Sorry, I can't for the life of me recall her name!) So what do you think, is it curtains for the policewoman as well as for Joyce, both in the same week? Or will she live to make life hard for Angel another day? I hope it's the latter, even though I don't like the character all that much. But the load on Angel's conscience will be HUGE if she doesn't. - ---Karin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:23:40 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Huff Subject: RE:ANGEL & Robotgirl > Todd, > > How exactly can Spike scare Warren into making him > a BUFFY robot?? > > ---Karin Any number of ways. I don't believe Warren knows about the chip, and he certainly doesn't seem to be brave enough to face down Spike. Also, fear doesn't have to be physical. Spike could just threaten to tell his mom about Warren's sex toy, or to stalk him and inform all future girlfriends. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:26:20 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: ANGEL & Robotgirl In a message dated 2/22/2001 4:03:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, meth@smoe.org writes: << The parallels with the last time: the act of intimacy, the rainstorm outside, and the waking up with a start (and what appears to be some physical pain) in the middle of the night. >> I think that that was intentionally -- but misleadingly -- meant to echo that earlier scene. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:42:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: o/aargh! He whined: I know it's a voice crying in the wilderness, but would people try to remember =not= to engage the "copy previous message in its entirety" function, especially when it's one of my 7K-10K posts?? When I write something that long, I've read it over several times, probably rewritten bits of it, and am thoroughly sick of it by the time I send it...and don't want to reread it, over and over again. The =only= reason that last digest split in half is that it contained =three more= complete versions of my last post, one a double send and one a double copy (i.e. in the last case it was somebody commenting on somebody else commenting on me). (I'm not talking about selective recopying of specific paragraphs, especially when the arguments get complex; note I did it myself when answering David this last time.) I'll remind everyone that with my antiquated equipment I can't skip over this sort of thing, either; I have to spacebar through =every last page= of it, which is EXTREMELY ANNOYING, especially when I've worked overnight and am checking my e-mail before going to sleep. There, I'm better now. Vent louvered shut again. And I do realize that, in the immortal phrase from "The Zeppo," that it's not... ...the end of the world. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:54:32 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/michelle t The most recent issue of the official =Buffy= magazine came out, the most interesting feature of which is an interview with Michelle Trachtenberg. I was particularly amused to hear her call herself "Little Miss =Buffy= Encyclopedia"; apparently she's been a fan of the show since it started. Can you imagine what a rush it must be to be 14 and find yourself acting in your favorite TV show? No revelations about her character. She's a well-trained Joss Whedon actor. I'm not going to get a chance to participate in the last batch of discussion for a little bit--I'm taking a bus to Baltimore tomorrow for my grandmother's 100th birthday (which is why Deirdre is coming east from Seattle), and Deirdre and I will be back in New York most probably in time for =Buffy= on Tuesday. (How to schedule your life...) So until then... P.S. to David: I fear I may have lost the thread of one of our discussion points. Can you restate for me "the point that Buffy hasn't made lately"? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:49:25 -0600 (CST) From: allenw Subject: RE:ANGEL & Robotgirl On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, meredith wrote: > The parallels with the last time: the act of intimacy, the rainstorm > outside, and the waking up with a start (and what appears to be some > physical pain) in the middle of the night. > Meredith, I agree that the parallels were strong and deliberate, but I think that that's just Team Whedon playing with us. Sure, Angel thinks/hopes he'll lose his soul, and the audience is supposed to think/fear that that's what's happened, but I expect we'll soon learn otherwise. > > allen added: > > >You realize that this makes Giles a suspect. Not in the audience's > >mind, and perhaps not in the police's mind if the medical evidence seems > >clear, but *someone* (Spike, Anya, Dawn...) may wonder if Giles was > >involved. > Huh? > By the previews it seems that it will be clear that the reason for Joyce's > death was purely medical. > But even then, I really don't see how anyone could consider that foul play > was involved. > Sure, the cause of death will appear to be purely medical. It may well *be* purely medical (though I still expect to find that Dawn led to the tumor). However, afyter all they've been through, do you really expect all of the characters to believe/accept that right away? They're going to be looking (probably futiley) for someone/thing to blame, and some way to fix it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:32:22 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/michelle t Donald wrote: >P.S. to David: I fear I may have lost the thread of one of our discussion >points. Can you restate for me "the point that Buffy hasn't made lately"? Not entirely sure what the exact reference was, but the general point I've been making is this. Dawn sees no difference between being courted by Angel and by Spike: they may be both vampires, but they're both harmless. Well, basically harmless (in the words of the British Well Basically Club). Many here have eloquently observed great differences. Buffy obviously feels likewise, but so far she's had a hard time expressing it. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V3 #31 ****************************