From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V3 #38 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Monday, March 5 2001 Volume 03 : Number 038 Today's Subjects: ----------------- b/straight from team whedon [meredith ] b/&spike and other stuff [Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury ] Re: b/&spike and other stuff [GHighPine@aol.com] RE: b/body2 ["Karin Rabe" ] RE: b/body2 ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 13:53:27 -0500 From: meredith Subject: b/straight from team whedon Hi! The other night there was a panel discussion in L.A. featuring the key members of Team Whedon, ostensibly about _Angel_ but quite a bit of _Buffy_ stuff got included in there as well. The article is a bit disjointed, but the info is quite interesting. http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=8315 +==========================================================================+ | 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: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 15:28:22 -0700 From: Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury Subject: b/&spike and other stuff >Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 21:55:18 EST >From: GHighPine@aol.com >Subject: Re: b/&spike > 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." Amen! A couple of other things: Why didn't they ever close Joyce's eyes? When my dad died (in a hospital--he was there for knee surgery), by the time we all got there, they had taken out all the tubes and removed all the machinery, and they CLOSED HIS EYES. Aside from the challenge for the actress, what was the point of leaving her eyes open? Was it supposed to make her look more dead? BTW, I still think Glory did it--even though I recognize that Glory would have wanted Buffy to KNOW she had done it. What if something really will happen when Dawn touches Joyce? What if Glory, knowing what the key can do, has killed Joyce not only to put pressure on Buffy, but in hopes that Buffy will "use the key" to bring her mother back to life and thereby reveal the key to Glory? Comments/questions on ANGEL: Where did Lindsey get that truck? And why didn't they leave it crashed into the house with the dead bodies of that family inside (not to mention the demons if their bodies stuck around)? Wouldn't Wolfram and Hart have had to scramble to cover for Lindsey on that one? Also, anyone else notice that the name of that law firm could refer to three partners: Wolf, Ram, and Hart? And aren't those all symbolic of the diabolical in one aspect or another? (Where's Jennifer when we need her?) Phaedre/Kathleen workshop@burgoyne.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 18:02:55 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/&spike and other stuff Hi! Phaedre wondered: >Why didn't they ever close Joyce's eyes? A direct quote from Joss Whedon in answer to that very question: "To make it worse." >BTW, I still think Glory did it--even though I recognize that Glory would >have wanted Buffy to KNOW she had done it. I don't think Glory did it. I think it was indeed from natural causes, a result of the brain surgery. HOWEVER, I am still not convinced that the tumor was something that would have happened naturally. I do think we will eventually find that it was a result of Dawn's appearance to some degree. >Where did Lindsey get that truck? I think we all got a glimpse of Lindsey's roots, there. Before he became a high-powered big-city lawyer, he was a hick with a lot of flannel and a really big truck. >Also, anyone else notice that the name of that law firm could refer to >three partners: Wolf, Ram, and Hart? And aren't those all symbolic of the >diabolical in one aspect or another? (Where's Jennifer when we need her?) Ooh, I hadn't thought of that ... you just might have something, 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 *** | +==========================================================================+ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:09:37 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/&spike and other stuff In a message dated 3/4/2001 2:57:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, workshop@burgoyne.com writes: << When my dad died (in a hospital--he was there for knee surgery), by the time we all got there, they had taken out all the tubes and removed all the machinery, and they CLOSED HIS EYES. Aside from the challenge for the actress, what was the point of leaving her eyes open? >> Well, in your dad's case, it happened in a hospital. Maybe while he was already sleeping. Apparently if someone dies with their eyes open, it takes a light adhesive (or the traditional coins on the eyelids) to make the eyes stay shut. The paramedics may well not have been equipped for that (maybe weren't even thinking about it), and the coroner probably didn't care. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 23:41:22 -0500 From: "Karin Rabe" Subject: RE: b/body2 I've been slowed down for the past two weeks by a nasty throat virus, but have enought time and energy tonight to play catch-up and add my thoughts on recent developments to those others have posted. First, David commented as follows on Donald's two alternate theories of how Buffy regards Spike these days: >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. I have to say I don't see that he's done anything "under cover of being harmless" that's bad enough to justify Buffy's losing control of her scruples in a fit of "sheer fury." And I'm intrigued by the response Gayle offered: >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." I agree there's a certain tenderness in pity, or at least in compassion. You could be right that she is "disgusted and repelled by her own feelings of pity toward a 'serial killer,'" but I find myself hoping there's more to it than that. Not because I'd be unhappy if Buffy =didn't= have any other positive feeling towards Spike, but because I hate to think she has so hardened herself since the break-up with Angel that feeling pity even towards Spike disgusts and repels her. I mean, what did she learn from her relationship with Angel/Angelus, if not that the evil one does as a vampire, while all too real, is not evil one =chooses= to do, but the result of having lost one's soul while at the same time retaining even in death as powerful a desire to survive, to "live," as ever! She has to know on some level that if that gypsy curse had been laid on Spike rather than -- or in addition to -- Angel, Spike would have experienced the kind of remorse and self-loathing Angel did, AND been attracted to her romantically. I think what produces her intensely negative reaction, is her awareness that the romantic love is there for Spike, even without the remorse or the self-loathing (aside from the less conscious self-loathing that's the essence of masochism, that is. :) IOW, I think it repells and ALARMS her to have a vampire =without= a soul =love= her! She saw how genuine his devotion to Drusilla was, so she knows he's not incapable of the feeling. But directed at =her=, it's unprecedented in her experience: and what's a vampire slayer to do when the vampire who dares to love her is as harmless as he is soulless?? For me it all comes back to Buffy's larger struggle this season: she's clearly proven over and over again how badly she needs to feel in charge, in control, not only as the slayer but in her personal, emotional life. Any feeling that threatens to make her vulnerable again, or even just leave her at a loss as to how to behave, what to do, is a feeling she tries to find a way to deny. It's her way of trying to put everything that happened with Angel -- especially the parts she has no conscious memory of, perhaps! -- behind her, to convince herself she'll never be hurt or out of control like that again. That's what makes her mother's death such a major crisis, as I don't see how she can find a way to deny the impact of that. (And for that reason, I actually hope Dawn does NOT turn out to have the power of resurrection in her touch!) In a very interesting post on the issue of defining "manipulation," Gayle said, > 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." Actually, I did feel manipulated by Dawn's tears when we first see her. And I'm not sure there wasn't a touch of "grandstanding" here and there. But my =overall= response to the episode was only minimally affected by that, because so much of it was an absolutely believable and well done exploration of a tragic event none of the central group were equipped to deal with (except, of course, for Tara.) An interesting question raised was the appropriateness or inappropriateness of having a vampire born in the morgue while Dawn was trying to say her goodbyes to Joyce. Don said > > 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. To which Meredith responded, >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." I don't disagree with any of the above, but I think there was an additional reason for including the vampire: not just as a "reminder" of business as usual in Sunnydale, but as an ironic way of =underscoring= the main focus of the episode, as Buffy et al deal for the very first time with an "ordinary" (i.e., non-occult) tragedy or loss, and find that none of their previous experiences in California's hellmouth have prepared them for the painful reality. I suggest that the vamp who sits up in the morgue does what Dawn must on some level have been wishing/fantasizing Joyce would do, just as Buffy had earlier fantasized a miraculous recovery for her mother. And even after Buffy with some difficulty dispatches the newborn vamp for "good," Joyce remains all too dead and still. But perhaps with the subtext that they have to try to take comfort in the fact that at least she retains her humanity. Of course, that brings up the "cliffhanger" question posed by Meredith's boyfriend. I confess that until I read Don's comments about that, it hadn't even occurred to me that there was any "suspense" in the final image of the episode. Don agrees with that take, and added > It's past time we find out just what Dawn's power is. To which Hilary responded, >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. Indeed we will. Her original form and purpose, as "energy" and a "key," suggest the latter as likely to me. But monks capable of implanting false memories in a whole community of people as well as turning that energy into a fully functional human being would presumably have been capable as well of giving her some control over the energy she contains. (Did I mention that I have some difficulty crediting the monks with all this power? :) As I mentioned earlier, my own hope is that Dawn =not= resurrect Joyce. Although I suppose even that would confront Buffy with a pretty major challenge to her =own= need to be in charge, and in control. But even beyond that concern, surely it would cheapen the thematic focus and impact of this episode, to have Joyce miraculously restored to life and health in the next! Of course, my greatest hope is that we don't have more than one extra week to await further developments. :) - ---Karin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:36:51 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: RE: b/body2 At 11:41 PM 3/4/2001 -0500, Karin wrote: >First, David commented as follows on Donald's two alternate theories of how >Buffy regards Spike these days: > > >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. > >I have to say I don't see that he's done anything "under cover of being >harmless" that's bad enough to justify Buffy's losing control of her >scruples in a fit of "sheer fury." I do. Take a look at Buffy's expressions on some of those occasions. She's almost Ralph Kramden-like at times: if looks could kill ... but we know he'll never actually sock Alice to the moon. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V3 #38 ****************************