From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V3 #37 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Sunday, March 4 2001 Volume 03 : Number 037 Today's Subjects: ----------------- b/gd2dream! ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/&spike ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/body2 ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/body2 [meredith ] Re: b/body2 ["Hilary L. Hertzoff" ] Re: b/&spike ["Hilary L. Hertzoff" ] Re: b/&spike ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/body2 ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/body2 [Todd Huff ] Re: b/body2 ["Berni Phillips" ] Re: b/&spike [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/body2 [GHighPine@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:00:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/gd2dream! =How= many times have I watched Buffy's dream about Faith in "Graduation Day" II (it being the subject of the first section of my dream-essay?)?? Let's start with a dozen and keep counting. The other night Deirdre and her roommate Elaine (also in New York visiting from Seattle) wanted to watch my pristine commercial tape of "Graduation Day" (the tape they have has some big gaps), so we perused it over dinner. At the end of the dream, I noticed something I'd =never noticed before=. As we may remember, at the close of the dream Faith says, "You ready?" and reaches for Buffy's cheek. Then it cuts to Buffy waking up in her hospital bed. But it's the transition that I took particular notice of this time: my first reaction was to take it as a "whiteout" (rather than blackout), which would make it "rhyme" with the whiteout (turning into a sheet) that begins Faith's "matching" dream at the beginning of "This Year's Girl" (sorry, too many quote marks). Then I realized that that wasn't what I had seen. I went back and went through the moment in slo-mo. What actually happens is that Faith reaches for Buffy's cheek...and then =Faith fades out=. You can still see the back of Buffy's head, against the background of the white walls of the apartment (hence the "whiteout" perception)--as well as the bar in front of the window that Faith's head was blocking--while Buffy in her hospital bed fades =in= for a frame before the dream winks out entirely. What does this mean? If anything? It just makes me one increment surer that the dream is Buffy's, and that the Faith figure is a projection, since the Buffy viewpoint remains and Faith vanishes. And I think it "rhymes" with the "Hush" dream (also a subject of my essay), where at the end Riley reaches for Buffy's shoulder and then "vanishes" (turns into a Gentleman). Slightly less explicitly, but symbolically similar, it parallels Faith's third dream, where she falls into a grave, Buffy jumps into the grave, and Buffy "vanishes"--that is, only Faith emerges. I'll have to think about whether this is important enough to mention in my essay (which I have to revise =again=--this time purely for space, i.e. cuts more than changes). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:03:54 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/&spike I've been mulling over the problem of what Buffy's true feelings towards Spike are. It seems to me that there are two main theories: 1. Buffy has positive feelings towards Spike, but is so repelled by them that she's repressed them, and is "protesting too much" and in denial. Her positive feelings are the reason she hasn't staked him. 2. Buffy has hated Spike (never felt indifferent) since he first came to Sunnydale and tried to kill her, and has never wavered from that attitude. It's only her Slayer ethics (don't kill the helpless) that has kept her from staking him. I would argue that there is no way to distinguish between these two theories =simply= on the basis of the evidence. Meaning that choosing between the two is =entirely= a matter of interpretation. That being said, it really surprises me that Theory 1 is the more popular one; Occam's Razor alone would tend to favor Theory 2 as the simpler and more likely one. Theory 1 seems to me to be based on a rather Freudian bit of contortion. But I do understand that the Theory 1 scenario is a very persistent trope of romance fiction, going back at least as far as =Much Ado About Nothing=, and previously played out on =Buffy= between Xander and Cordelia. (Where's Jennifer? I'd love to hear her two cents on this.) Still...we should consider the strong possibility that Joss Whedon is deliberately playing into the romance trope and is messing with people's heads. I'll conclude with two deliberately-provocative statements: - - There is =more= evidence that Buffy's feelings for Willow are more-than-just-friendly (if you choose to look hard) than that she has positive feelings for Spike. (For starters, she has told Willow "I love you" more often than she did Riley.) - - There is as much evidence (i.e. none) that Faith has tender feelings for Xander and will come looking for him when she gets out of jail. I don't buy either of these theories for a minute, please note. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:09:17 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/body2 I was interested to discover, on another list I'm on, a minority opinion that "The Body" was grossly, unfairly manipulative. And another that it was emotionally honest, but that the direction was grandstanding. Also one person couldn't buy Xander's reaction. Myself, I think (as do many here) that it was very believable emotionally, dealt with its subject unflinchingly, and that the direction, showy as it may be, was precisely calculated to increase the effectiveness (but not to the point of manipulativeness). A slight revision to something I said earlier: it is Tara, in general, who provides the stable emotional presence in the group; but it's Willow who calms down first Xander and then Anya. And I thought Xander's reaction was absolutely in character: lashing out either verbally (consider the two memorable times he lashed out at Buffy about Angel, in "Becoming" and "Revelations") or physically (the startling kicking of a trashcan way back in "The Harvest). Looking for a scapegoat (Glory? the doctors?) and then punching the wall follows right on those precedents. I like very much Micole's idea that Joyce-in-the-wall in "Restless" might mean her being bricked up/buried (and remember the bricked-up guy on =Angel=). Note how distressed Buffy was at finding her mother in there. And Hilary: I, too, flashed on "Passion" the moment the cutaway to inside the classroom happened. Again, this could be seen as "showy" direction, but as the exact parallel scene in "Passion" proved, that sense of distance, and the sense of other people watching, gives the scene poignance and a larger context. It's an interesting question: does the Dawn-spell hold outside Sunnydale? Are Angel and Cordelia susceptible to it? Does Buffy's dad know he has =two= daughters? Someone pointed out that the last we knew he was traveling in Europe; but whether that was short-term or long-term we weren't told. Certainly some major change to Buffy and Dawn's living conditions will have to be made. There seems to be discomfort on many people's part with the inclusion of the vampire in the last scene (I particularly acknowledge David's "distraction" that Joyce might be a vampire). Certainly if the only reason was the extrinsic one (i.e. Buffy =has= to fight a vampire every episode), that's clearly insufficient. I'm sure we wouldn't have missed a fight if there hadn't been one (until afterwards, and then only in a "how about that?" sort of way). The unusual nature of the episode would have justified the omission. But since there =was= one...I'm inclined to give Joss Whedon a little rope on this. It's certainly legitimate to spend a whole episode on the universal human experience of grief, and on the specific manner in which the characters we know so well deal with it. But I think it's also legitimate to remind us, just that one time in the episode, that Sunnydale is different, too: there are supernatural dangers as well as natural griefs. And that Dawn, in particular, is physically vulnerable to danger. And that Buffy's sudden realization that she needed to go find Dawn was not groundless. One last item. Meredith said to me, in conversation, that her boyfriend Rob had surprised her by calling the episode a "cliffhanger"; she had assumed that when Dawn touched her mother's body she would realize it was real, that Joyce was dead, and that we didn't need to see that moment. (Did I get it right, Meredith?) Rob, on the other hand, took it as a suspenseful moment, that when Dawn touched her mother's body that her powers would finally manifest. I find myself in agreement with Rob (and so do Deirdre and Elane): the episode ends where it does to create suspense. It's past time we find out just what Dawn's power is. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 14:58:28 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/body2 Hi! Don posted: >I was interested to discover, on another list I'm on, a >minority opinion that "The Body" was grossly, unfairly >manipulative. And another that it was emotionally honest, but >that the direction was grandstanding. Also one person >couldn't buy Xander's reaction. As I said to Don, I find this reaction simply mind-boggling. >It's an interesting question: does the Dawn-spell hold >outside Sunnydale? Are Angel and Cordelia susceptible to it? >Does Buffy's dad know he has =two= daughters? Someone pointed >out that the last we knew he was traveling in Europe; but >whether that was short-term or long-term we weren't told. That could present a *very* interesting plot: Buffy's dad comes to town and has no idea who Dawn is. Personally I hope they at least mention him at some point -- it would be completely unbelievable that he wouldn't come for his daughter, even from Europe in such a situation. He hasn't really been portrayed as *that* much of a jerk. >Certainly some major change to Buffy and Dawn's living >conditions will have to be made. My prediction: Giles buys the house and moves in. You know he'll take Buffy and Dawn in, and his place is just too small. >There seems to be discomfort on many people's part with the >inclusion of the vampire in the last scene (I particularly >acknowledge David's "distraction" that Joyce might be a >vampire). >But I think it's also legitimate to remind us, just >that one time in the episode, that Sunnydale is different, too: there are >supernatural dangers as well as natural griefs. Exactly. It was the Universe saying to Buffy, "Sorry kid, but despite this horrible thing that's going down, you can't forget who you are or what your responsibilities are, not even for a day." >One last item. Meredith said to me, in conversation, that her boyfriend >Rob had surprised her by calling the episode a "cliffhanger"; she had >assumed that when Dawn touched her mother's body she would realize it was >real, that Joyce was dead, and that we didn't need to see that moment. >(Did I get it right, Meredith?) Yep, that's it. :) >Rob, on the other hand, took it as a >suspenseful moment, that when Dawn touched her mother's body that her >powers would finally manifest. I find myself in agreement with Rob (and so >do Deirdre and Elane): the episode ends where it does to create suspense. >It's past time we find out just what Dawn's power is. I'm just baffled that that interpretation never occurred to me. Perhaps this has some connection with what you just brought up about the dreams -- in each case one character touched another, and then a transformation of some sort occurred. Do we know when the next new episode is going to air? My guess is not until April, but I really hope I'm wrong. +==========================================================================+ | 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 Mar 2001 16:20:13 -0500 (EST) From: "Hilary L. Hertzoff" Subject: Re: b/body2 On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Donald G. Keller wrote: > It's an interesting question: does the Dawn-spell hold > outside Sunnydale? Are Angel and Cordelia susceptible to it? > Does Buffy's dad know he has =two= daughters? Someone pointed > out that the last we knew he was traveling in Europe; but > whether that was short-term or long-term we weren't told. > The only person we've had come in from outside Sunnydale, since Dawn arrived, was Dru and she didn't see anyone except Spike, Buffy and Harmony. > Certainly some major change to Buffy and Dawn's living > conditions will have to be made. Custody battle, anyone? It would make a lovely parallel to the struggle over the key. > There seems to be discomfort on many people's part with the > inclusion of the vampire in the last scene (I particularly > acknowledge David's "distraction" that Joyce might be a > vampire). Certainly if the only reason was the extrinsic one > (i.e. Buffy =has= to fight a vampire every episode), that's > clearly insufficient. I'm sure we wouldn't have missed > a fight if there hadn't been one (until afterwards, and then > only in a "how about that?" sort of way). The unusual nature > of the episode would have justified the omission. I don't know that I felt uncomfortable about it. Everything about it fit under the circumstances. It's just that the "Buffy episode without a fight" is something I'd like to see sometime. Pushing the envelope and all of that. > One last item. Meredith said to me, in conversation, that her boyfriend > Rob had surprised her by calling the episode a "cliffhanger"; she had > assumed that when Dawn touched her mother's body she would realize it was > real, that Joyce was dead, and that we didn't need to see that moment. > (Did I get it right, Meredith?) Rob, on the other hand, took it as a > suspenseful moment, that when Dawn touched her mother's body that her > powers would finally manifest. I find myself in agreement with Rob (and so > do Deirdre and Elane): the episode ends where it does to create suspense. > It's past time we find out just what Dawn's power is. I wanted to kill Joss when I saw this scene. How could he make us wait however many weeks to see what happened when Dawn touched her...if anything. In fact the point I found most suspenseful about this was whether something would happen and Dawn would manifest her powers or whether nothing would happen. The question is whether Dawn can use her own power or if she is a source of power for others, a tool to be used for whatever her purpose is. We'll just have to wait and see. Hilary Hilary L. Hertzoff From here to there, Mamaroneck Public Library a bunny goes where a bunny must. Mamaroneck, NY hhertzof@wls.lib.ny.us Little Bunny on the Move hhertzof@panix.com by Peter McCarty ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:00:23 -0500 (EST) From: "Hilary L. Hertzoff" Subject: Re: b/&spike On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Donald G. Keller wrote: > I've been mulling over the problem of what Buffy's true > feelings towards Spike are. It seems to me that there are two > main theories: > > 1. Buffy has positive feelings towards Spike, but is so > repelled by them that she's repressed them, and is > "protesting too much" and in denial. Her positive feelings > are the reason she hasn't staked him. > After all she had warm fuzzy feelings for another vampire. > 2. Buffy has hated Spike (never felt indifferent) since he > first came to Sunnydale and tried to kill her, and has never > wavered from that attitude. It's only her Slayer ethics > (don't kill the helpless) that has kept her from staking him. > Or her contempt. I agree with you, and I find it fascinating that no one believes she's indifferent to him. > I would argue that there is no way to distinguish between > these two theories =simply= on the basis of the evidence. > Meaning that choosing between the two is =entirely= a matter > of interpretation. > Oh, certainly. Joss is playing with our heads and I'm enjoying every minute of it no matter which theory turns out to be true. > That being said, it really surprises me that Theory 1 is the > more popular one; Occam's Razor alone would tend to favor > Theory 2 as the simpler and more likely one. Theory 1 seems > to me to be based on a rather Freudian bit of contortion. > > But I do understand that the Theory 1 scenario is a very > persistent trope of romance fiction, going back at least as > far as =Much Ado About Nothing=, and previously played out on > =Buffy= between Xander and Cordelia. (Where's Jennifer? I'd love to hear > her two cents on this.) I once had a lovely conversation about this with someone regarding The Raven Ring by Patricia Wrede. I'd commented that I'd spent much of the book worrying that the heroine would end up with the wrong man, and he asked why I felt she had to end up with anyone. This forced me to consider my own preconcieved notions about that particular trope. The romantic subplot is very strongly ingrained in our culture, I think. And especially in the dark fantasy genre, the vampire/human romance has certainly become a trope. I can't count the number of vampire romances I've got in the young adult department of my library. There was even a vampire story in the mainstream high school series Sweet Valley High. Joss himself fed into this with the Buffy/Angel romance. > > Still...we should consider the strong possibility that Joss > Whedon is deliberately playing into the romance trope and is > messing with people's heads. Of course he is. That's what makes it such fun. > > I'll conclude with two deliberately-provocative statements: > > - There is =more= evidence that Buffy's feelings for Willow > are more-than-just-friendly (if you choose to look hard) > than that she has positive feelings for Spike. (For > starters, she has told Willow "I love you" more often than > she did Riley.) > But she nearly married Spike (g,d,r)... In fact, one could say that part of the reason that people are reading romance into this is because Spike and Buffy worked so well as a couple in that episode. > - There is as much evidence (i.e. none) that Faith has tender > feelings for Xander and will come looking for him when she > gets out of jail. > I think there is more evidence that Faith never felt anything for Xander but lust than there is that Buffy felt or didn't feel anything. I.e. there is more evidence that the opposite of this theory is true than there is one way or the other regarding Buffy and Spike. And can we read anything into the fact that Buffy's boyfriend in the movie was named Pike... Hilary (being contrary) Hilary L. Hertzoff From here to there, Mamaroneck Public Library a bunny goes where a bunny must. Mamaroneck, NY hhertzof@wls.lib.ny.us Little Bunny on the Move hhertzof@panix.com by Peter McCarty ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 16:08:07 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/&spike At 11:03 AM 3/3/2001 , Donald wrote about the two theories of Buffy & Spike: >I would argue that there is no way to distinguish between >these two theories =simply= on the basis of the evidence. >Meaning that choosing between the two is =entirely= a matter >of interpretation. > >That being said, it really surprises me that Theory 1 is the >more popular one; Occam's Razor alone would tend to favor >Theory 2 as the simpler and more likely one. Theory 1 seems >to me to be based on a rather Freudian bit of contortion. Occam's Razor is not applicable to fiction, which can be deliberately complex in a way life can't be (unless we postulate supernatural forces playing with people's lives - and in fiction, the writers map to a supernatural force). As I said before, I don't think Theory 1 is unduly contorted by the standards of fiction. More importantly, I don't think Theory 2 has an adequate explanation as to why Buffy has failed to stake Spike. Sheer fury at what he's done under cover of being harmless should be enough to make her break this never explicitly articulated rule about not killing harmless vampires. >- There is =more= evidence that Buffy's feelings for Willow > are more-than-just-friendly (if you choose to look hard) > than that she has positive feelings for Spike. ... > >- There is as much evidence (i.e. none) that Faith has tender > feelings for Xander and will come looking for him when she > gets out of jail. This isn't about evidence. It's about writerly emphasis and subtext. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 16:08:14 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/body2 At 11:09 AM 3/3/2001 , Donald wrote: >I was interested to discover, on another list I'm on, a >minority opinion that "The Body" was grossly, unfairly >manipulative. And another that it was emotionally honest, but >that the direction was grandstanding. I'd be curious to read some of the evidence behind these beliefs. My initial response to them is bafflement, but for that reason I wonder what I missed. Also, as perhaps the only person on earth who considers both "E.T." and "Schindler's List" to be grossly manipulative to the point of offensiveness, I might empathize. >It's an interesting question: does the Dawn-spell hold >outside Sunnydale? Are Angel and Cordelia susceptible to it? >Does Buffy's dad know he has =two= daughters? Someone pointed >out that the last we knew he was traveling in Europe; but >whether that was short-term or long-term we weren't told. That is a question I hadn't considered. If I were writing the laws of magic, the spell would be universal, but I'm not writing them. It's obviously a much more powerful spell than Jonathan's, so it's only right that we should wonder what its limitations are. >There seems to be discomfort on many people's part with the >inclusion of the vampire in the last scene (I particularly >acknowledge David's "distraction" that Joyce might be a >vampire). Certainly if the only reason was the extrinsic one >(i.e. Buffy =has= to fight a vampire every episode), that's >clearly insufficient. ... But I think it's also legitimate to remind us, just >that one time in the episode, that Sunnydale is different, too: there are >supernatural dangers as well as natural griefs. And that Dawn, in >particular, is physically vulnerable to danger. And that Buffy's sudden >realization that she needed to go find Dawn was not groundless. Well, yeah ... but that could have been done without the vampire rising off of another gurney in the same morgue where lies Joyce. The awkward and apparently unintended subtext could have been avoided. In any case, if the reference to Glory had been made a little stronger, that would have served as our reminder that Sunnydale has supernatural dangers without spoiling the pure naturalness of this episode. >I find myself in agreement with Rob (and so >do Deirdre and Elane): the episode ends where it does to create suspense. >It's past time we find out just what Dawn's power is. I refuse to guess on this one. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:09:22 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Huff Subject: Re: b/body2 > >It's past time we find out just what Dawn's power > is. > I was amused when Joss played with this again (remember Dawn's diary entry?) with her saying to the mirror "...if I could just make her head explode..." Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 18:19:08 -0800 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: b/body2 From: "David S. Bratman" > At 11:09 AM 3/3/2001 , Donald wrote: > >I find myself in agreement with Rob (and so > >do Deirdre and Elane): the episode ends where it does to create suspense. > >It's past time we find out just what Dawn's power is. > > I refuse to guess on this one. I had an awful thought: what if Dawn's power is to raise the dead and restore them to life as they were? (I.e., not a zombie.) I know that that would make Joyce only Marvel-dead, but we have seen so many zombies and vamps on "Buffy," that Marvel-dead would be something different for the show. Especially if Joyce had no memory of anything being wrong. How spooky would that be, to have your mom come back from the dead and insist it never happened? Or to be the one to whom it happened? I am reminded of this by a friend who had a brain aneurysm some years ago. She started jerking and thrashing about. Her roommate called 911. The seizure ended and she had no memory of what happened. She had emergency brain surgery and now has a metal plate in her head. She would have died if she'd been alone, and several members of her extended family had died of aneurysms. It's going to be a long March! Berni ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 21:55:18 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/&spike In a message dated 3/3/2001 11:05:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, dgk@panix.com writes: << 1. Buffy has positive feelings towards Spike, but is so repelled by them that she's repressed them, and is "protesting too much" and in denial. Her positive feelings are the reason she hasn't staked him. 2. Buffy has hated Spike (never felt indifferent) since he first came to Sunnydale and tried to kill her, and has never wavered from that attitude. It's only her Slayer ethics (don't kill the helpless) that has kept her from staking him. >> I tend to think that Buffy denies and represses and protests too much against her hidden feelings of =pity= toward Spike. Don't know whether pity would be defined as a "positive emotion" or not, but there is a certain tenderness in pity. I think that pity has softened her hatred toward him, but that she is disgusted and repelled by her own feelings of pity toward a "serial killer." Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 23:54:44 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/body2 In a message dated 3/3/2001 11:12:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, dgk@panix.com writes: << I was interested to discover, on another list I'm on, a minority opinion that "The Body" was grossly, unfairly manipulative. And another that it was emotionally honest, but that the direction was grandstanding. Also one person couldn't buy Xander's reaction. Myself, I think (as do many here) that it was very believable emotionally, dealt with its subject unflinchingly, and that the direction, showy as it may be, was precisely calculated to increase the effectiveness (but not to the point of manipulativeness). >> I agree with your opinion. But that brings up the question: just how does one define manipulativeness? It is not just a calculated attempt to make an audience feel a certain emotion -- all entertainment does that. I would venture that it is a calculated attempt to make an audience feel an emotion that the creator and actors do not themselves share. I can't believe that "The Body" could possibly fall into this category. The non-cliched depiction of shock and denial seems to me to draw from direct personal experience. That is why it is so much more effective than countless shows that depict a bereaved person merely bursting into hysterical tears. I don't see such shows labeled manipulative, mainly because they are not all that effective at touching our emotions. I think that people label shows "manipulative" only when their emotions are touched against their will; IOW, you actually have to =be= manipulated into feeling something to consider something manipulative. But that is not all there is to it; I think, one feels manipulated only when one believes that the emotion is faked, IOW, not actually felt by the creators. By this definition, I feel that "The Body" was painfully honest and not manipulative at all. Certainly, there are blatant and calculated instances of audience manipulation in "The Body," such as Dawn's tears when we first see her. But if we feel that the emotions are really shared by the creators, such machinations do not leave us feeling "manipulated." Or is there something else involved in "manipulation"? Gayle ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V3 #37 ****************************