From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V3 #99 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Saturday, June 9 2001 Volume 03 : Number 099 Today's Subjects: ----------------- b/comments0608 ["Donald G. Keller" ] t/tolkien? ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/comments0608 ["Susan Kroupa" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 21:39:00 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/comments0608 I've been in a very strange state in re "The Gift." I seem to be in denial: in the two weeks plus since it was broadcast, I haven't had the slightest urge to watch it again (and when the =idea= has occurred, I've immediately rejected it); which is the first time this has ever happened. So as of now I've still only seen it the once, live. (I do, of course, have it on tape.) And the (surprisingly rare) times that the episode has recurred in my mind, I've tended to shake my head and think something like "it can't have happened that way." I just can't even begin to buy the way the episode (and therefore the season) resolved. There seem to be two schools of thought about the episode: those who are willing to take the problems with the substitution of Buffy for Dawn in stride because the idea of Buffy's death is so powerful for them (Meredith and the =Salon= columnist for two); and those for whom the substitution problem sticks in their craw so much that Buffy's death (complicated by its obvious temporariness) has no power whatever. As I've already made clear, I'm broadly in agreement with David (especially in his more temperate latest statement) and Gayle and Susan in the latter camp; and my thoughts, like Susan's, have been running to "Becoming" as well. I've been trying to articulate more precisely why the episode failed so thoroughly for me; but it's complicated, and I'm still working up to it. What I've been watching instead (besides sports) is =Dark Angel=; while I was waiting for my brother to send me the tape with the last eight episodes, I re-watched all of the first 14; then the tape arrived, and just this morning I finished watching the very last two; and I agree with Meredith's statement that the season finale was the most successful finale she'd seen, much better than =Buffy='s. Good show; glad it's going to be back next year, and not in conflict with =Buffy= or =Angel=. Susan: A recommendation. Due to the special usage of the word "Watcher" on =Buffy=, I've found it preferable to use "viewer" when describing...well...us. Which is to say that when you referred to "watcher" in your bit on "Becoming," I thought for a second you were talking about Giles. Meredith: Thanks for passing along the url for the interview with Joss Whedon. =Most= interesting was the fact that, at the time of the scene where Tara sabotaged the demonscrying spell, =he= thought Tara was part demon! just as many...um...viewers did. Two more little things. The following is from the "Great Performances" sidebar of =TV Guide='s "Cheers and Jeers" column (6/9-15), written by Matt Roush, a big =Buffy= fan: "Dawn Summers scared up skepticism when she dropped into =Buffy the Vampire Slayer= last fall. As the kid sister Buffy never knew, Dawn only grew more confusing as her supernatural origins became known: She is the human embodiment of a 'living energy' that opens other dimensions. We're still a little fuzzy on the details but wholeheartedly give credit to Michelle Trachtenberg (left) [photo of Dawn kneeling at her mother's grave] for bringing an unwieldy character to life. 'I'm like a lightning rod for pain and hurt, and everyone around me suffers and dies,' Dawn said in a recent episode. You know what? She sounded more like a real adolescent than anyone on =Dawson's Creek=." And I picked up the first issue of Joss Whedon's new 8-issue comic about a Slayer in the far future, =Fray=. I don't have much to say so far; I'm interested but not riveted. It's mostly prelude and setup; the setting is relatively familiar (decayed future, several centuries from now; not as much like =Dark Angel=, or even =Blade Runner=, as I feared) and the writing good. But there's not enough yet to make a firm assessment. I'll report later on in the sequence. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 21:40:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: t/tolkien? David: I'd certainly be interested in discussing Tolkien and his critical heritage (especially since we're going to be "on hiatus" here for the summer); with the movies coming out it seems like Tolkien, who had fallen under the cultural radar for a good long time, has reemerged as a topic for discussion. I went and read the piece you rightly spoke disparagingly of (and I'm a little confused just what that reference to you was supposed to convey); I also kept the =NYBTR= piece and would be up to discussing it as well. What struck me as odd about both of them is how much credence they give to Tolkien's detractors (maybe not so odd, since they are detractors themselves, but still). I venture to speculate that if one were to compile a =Dictionary of Literary Invective= to parallel the musical one, =Ulysses= and =The Waste Land= and =Lolita= (to mention a few other important 20th century works) would have as many entries as Tolkien; but how often do you see detractors cited in discussions of those works? (Discussions of =Lolita= tend to disparage the movies while assuming the high quality of the novel.) Fantasy is a crucial genre of the 20th century; =The Lord of the Rings=, as John Clute's entry in =The Encyclopedia of Fantasy= (which you are not a fan of) states, is the paradigmatic fantasy; and although =LOTR= and =Buffy= are very different kinds of fantasy, many things one can say about the former can apply to the latter, it seems to me. I'll throw another piece into the discussion, from =Salon=: salon.com/books/feature/2001/06/04/tolkien/index.htm though I found it easier to just go to the =Salon= page for that day and follow the links. It's by one Andrew O'Hehir, and continues the next day. I found it a reasonable defense of Tolkien. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 20:20:55 -0700 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: b/comments0608 Viewer it is, then! :) Sue From: Donald G. Keller To: Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 6:39 PM Subject: b/comments0608 > Susan: A recommendation. Due to the special usage of the word > "Watcher" on =Buffy=, I've found it preferable to use > "viewer" when describing...well...us. Which is to say that > when you referred to "watcher" in your bit on "Becoming," I > thought for a second you were talking about Giles. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V3 #99 ****************************