From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V4 #34 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Wednesday, March 6 2002 Volume 04 : Number 034 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Tonight's BUFFY ["Susan Kroupa" ] Re: Tonight's BUFFY [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: Tonight's BUFFY ["Susan Kroupa" ] Re: Tonight's BUFFY ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: Tonight's BUFFY [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: Tonight's BUFFY [Hilary Hertzoff ] Re: Tonight's BUFFY [Hilary Hertzoff ] b/parents and children ["David S. Bratman" ] b/Xander in extremis ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/Xander in extremis [allenw ] Re: b/Xander in extremis (SPOILERS) [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/Xander in extremis (SPOILERS) ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: Tonight's BUFFY ["Berni Phillips" ] RE: Tonight's BUFFY ["Karin Rabe" ] Re: Tonight's BUFFY ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: Tonight's BUFFY [Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury ] More b/Xander in extemis [Todd Huff ] Re: Tonight's BUFFY ["Marta Grabien" ] Re: Tonight's BUFFY ["Marta Grabien" ] Re: Tonight's BUFFY [meredith ] b/FutureXander rides a Harley ;) [meredith ] Re: Tonight's BUFFY ["Marta Grabien" ] Re: b/parents and children [meredith ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:09:22 -0800 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: Tonight's BUFFY The funny parts were hilarious--which made the sad parts even more painful, I think. Yes, Buffy juggling is a sight to remember or to try not to remember. And the god-awful dresses! And "one of the presents got loose." Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: David S. Bratman To: Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:07 PM Subject: Re: Tonight's BUFFY > Oh, it had its funny parts, like the opening scene with the hideous dresses > (and the (inadvertent?) Christine Lavin quote, "What was she > thinking?"). And the typical Alan Moore patented segue, from the old man > saying some couples aren't meant for each other to the scene with Buffy and > Spike. > The other cliffhanger in _Angel_, of course, is to note where Gunn and Fred > were headed, and if they'll get there in time. But I must say Wesley acted > very stupidly. This is not like him, or at least not like the new > him. (The old him would never have gotten out of the hotel.) > > What did I dislike about the ballet episode? The scenes in which Angel and > Cordelia re-enact the old lovers were awfully, abysmally, painfully, > self-consciously bad. Compare, please, with the scenes from an earlier > episode in which Wesley and Cordelia deliberately re-enact the saga of > Angel and Buffy. Now that was funny. This was just bad. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:28:21 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: Tonight's BUFFY S P O I L E R s p a c e.... I didn't tape it because I don't routinely tape any shows; if I see a "keeper," I'll try to make a tape during reruns. This is one that does fall into that category. Even without the benefit of rewatching, the subtleties and layers of this episode make me full of admiration for how well done it was. The funny parts did indeed make the painful parts sharper (for funny stuff, I'd mention Anya's ongoing practice wedding vows. LOL at "I vow to have sex with you whenever ...I... want to.") And what performances, especially at the end. I think this ep was the first time I saw Nicholas Brendon as a real actor. It's probably obvious, with minimal reflection, but nevertheless deserves comment, that the magic orb did not have any preprogrammed visions in it, but tapped into Xander's own deepest fears and manifested them, the way a dream can do. When he asked thge old man what happened to Anya after the pan-bashing, I was expecting at the time that the old man would say something like, "And then came trial for murder, and then this and that further disaster happened," maybe escalating to the end of the world. But on reflection it seems clear that the old man did not know the actual content of Xander's visions; he was faking that he knew. Furthermore (again this may be obvious on minimal reflection, but still deserves comment) the content of the visions were based upon his own family dynamics. The whole crux of the episode, IMO, was that Xander had thought he was ready to build a new life and to escape his family past; and then his secret fear was brought to the surface that he might end up not escaping his family life at all but replicating it, that he might not be free of that horror but in bondage to it forever. To me, this ep exemplifies the kind of emotional truth-telling that BUFFY does at its best. And the end... bet Anya says yes. (How did she lose her demon status in the first place? Just the loss of the necklace?) As for next week... my first guess is that there is some connection between what we saw and Buffy's earlier trip to heaven. My second guess is that something was done by someone to protect either Buffy or the world from some cataclysm. But the Anya storyline has to have something to do with it too. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:45:16 -0800 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: Tonight's BUFFY It's the emotional truth-telling you mentioned that saved the ending from cliche and broke my heart at the same time. I was so saddened by the episode that I'm beginning to wonder how much more I can take--I'd like to see something good happen to someone (besides Riley.) :) Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 9:28 AM Subject: Re: Tonight's BUFFY > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > > s > p > a > c > e.... > > > I didn't tape it because I don't routinely tape any shows; if I see a > "keeper," I'll try to make a tape during reruns. This is one that does fall > into that category. > > Even without the benefit of rewatching, the subtleties and layers of this > episode make me full of admiration for how well done it was. The funny parts > did indeed make the painful parts sharper (for funny stuff, I'd mention > Anya's ongoing practice wedding vows. LOL at "I vow to have sex with you > whenever ...I... want to.") And what performances, especially at the end. > I think this ep was the first time I saw Nicholas Brendon as a real actor. > > It's probably obvious, with minimal reflection, but nevertheless deserves > comment, that the magic orb did not have any preprogrammed visions in it, but > tapped into Xander's own deepest fears and manifested them, the way a dream > can do. When he asked thge old man what happened to Anya after the > pan-bashing, I was expecting at the time that the old man would say something > like, "And then came trial for murder, and then this and that further > disaster happened," maybe escalating to the end of the world. But on > reflection it seems clear that the old man did not know the actual content of > Xander's visions; he was faking that he knew. Furthermore (again this may be > obvious on minimal reflection, but still deserves comment) the content of > the visions were based upon his own family dynamics. The whole crux of the > episode, IMO, was that Xander had thought he was ready to build a new life > and to escape his family past; and then his secret fear was brought to the > surface that he might end up not escaping his family life at all but > replicating it, that he might not be free of that horror but in bondage to it > forever. > > To me, this ep exemplifies the kind of emotional truth-telling that BUFFY > does at its best. > > And the end... bet Anya says yes. (How did she lose her demon status in > the first place? Just the loss of the necklace?) > > As for next week... my first guess is that there is some connection > between what we saw and Buffy's earlier trip to heaven. My second guess is > that something was done by someone to protect either Buffy or the world from > some cataclysm. But the Anya storyline has to have something to do with it > too. > > Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 10:29:00 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: Tonight's BUFFY Concerning Gayle's comments on the orb - What exactly did the demon say to Anya that he had done to fool Xander? I don't remember the exact wording, but it rather left the impression with me that the images were pre-set. But maybe not, and that's a minor sub-creational issue anyway. The emotional truth is that, however the images were formed, they did resonate exactly with Xander's fears, and on that you are exactly right - and also right that it deserves comment. This in particular is true: >The whole crux of the >episode, IMO, was that Xander had thought he was ready to build a new life >and to escape his family past; and then his secret fear was brought to the >surface that he might end up not escaping his family life at all but >replicating it, that he might not be free of that horror but in bondage to it >forever. Note also that one of Xander's fears is that his love for Buffy will interfere with his marriage - not in a sexual or romantic way, but love as in caring deeply for and willing to sacrifice himself for. That the old man didn't say anything about what happened after the pan-bashing may well mean that he neither knew the image beforehand or could see it at the time. But if I were going to pull that kind of trick, I'd make sure I could peek in on the images - if the man knew nothing about Xander, how could he even have been sure that Xander had fears? But what it mostly shows is that the old man wasn't really Xander. No matter how embittered, the real Xander would have cared. Previous episodes, notably "Restless", have shown Xander in fear of his father. But have we ever actually seen either of Xander's parents before? Which reminds me that we've seen Willow's mother once? twice? And Buffy's father once? And Tara's family exactly once. For a show about adolescents (well, they're mostly not that now, but they were), parents have been remarkably absent - except for Joyce, and she was often absent too, and now is gone permanently. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:10:30 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: Tonight's BUFFY In a message dated 3/6/02 10:28:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, dbratman@stanford.edu writes: S P O I L E R S P A C E << What exactly did the demon say to Anya that he had done to fool Xander? I don't remember the exact wording, but it rather left the impression with me that the images were pre-set. >> I think he said something ambiguous like "I gave him some visions." But there may have been a blending of pre-set and internally generated images, since the visions didn't apparently =exactly= replicate Xander's family life; the suggestion that Anya was unfaithful, for example (Xander wasn't the real father of his demon-eared daughter), while nothing in the ep suggested infidelity on the part of Xander's mother. Images that are too pre-set, especially by someone who doesn't even know a person, are unlikely to resonate as much with a person's real fears than those that come from within that person. The fears, which you point out, regarding what his love for Buffy could lead to are unlikely to be have been known by the demon and pre-programmed, even if the demon knew of Xander's connection to the Slayer. I would guess that most people about to get married have a worst-case scenario hiding in their subconscious somewhere -- that, I think, is one of the themes the ep was playing with -- and the orb may have added some common fear-themes like the infidelity mentioned above as part of its action. But if Xander had been one of the small percentage without such fears, it only means that that particular revenge strategy would be a bust. Not all plans are guaranteed to work. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:24:12 -0500 (EST) From: Hilary Hertzoff Subject: Re: Tonight's BUFFY On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, meredith wrote: > "That's because this dress is radioactive!" > > >And we thought it was going to be a light episode! I found this one > >incredibly painful. > > No kidding. It had some fall-down funny moments (see above, not to mention > the sight of Buffy juggling is one I'll be unable to get out of my brain > for a long time to come), but all in all, this has to be one of the most > depressing episodes ever. But oh, so good. > > The final line is going to keep me squirming all week ... > Speculative spoiler space I repeat that this is just speculation...I have nothing whatsoever to back it up with. I don't think Anya's going back to vengeance demon...it's too predictable. We know that Halfrek's focus is revenge of children on their parents. We've now seen just how bad Xander's parents are. Xander's fears about his and Anya's future seem to be based in what he saw with his own parents. So I suspect Xander will make a wish, that Halfrek will grant which will in some way have the result of a world without demons/vampires/magic and the scenes we saw in the preview. Hilary Hilary L. Hertzoff From here to there, Mamaroneck Public Library a bunny goes where a bunny must. Mamaroneck, NY - Little Bunny on the Move hhertzof@panix.com by Peter McCarty ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:51:21 -0500 (EST) From: Hilary Hertzoff Subject: Re: Tonight's BUFFY On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, David S. Bratman wrote: > > Previous episodes, notably "Restless", have shown Xander in fear of his > father. But have we ever actually seen either of Xander's parents before? > Which reminds me that we've seen Willow's mother once? twice? And Buffy's > father once? And Tara's family exactly once. For a show about adolescents > (well, they're mostly not that now, but they were), parents have been > remarkably absent - except for Joyce, and she was often absent too, and now > is gone permanently. > It's a staple of children's and young adult literature. You have to get rid of the parents so that the kids/teens can have adventures. Hilary the YA librarian Hilary L. Hertzoff From here to there, Mamaroneck Public Library a bunny goes where a bunny must. Mamaroneck, NY - Little Bunny on the Move hhertzof@panix.com by Peter McCarty ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 13:47:10 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: b/parents and children At 11:51 AM 3/6/2002 , Hilary wrote: >It's a staple of children's and young adult literature. You have to get >rid of the parents so that the kids/teens can have adventures. Not in the same way. I've seen two traditional modes of handling this in children's/YA lit: 1) In non-fantasy literature, typically the children are orphans, half-orphans and sort of wild, or children of divorce, and they have their non-fantasy adventures while the adults conspicuously fret in the background, or are entirely absent from their lives. 2) In fantasy literature, the children may or may not be orphaned, but they go off and have fantasy adventures by themselves in secondary worlds without, often, their parents having any idea they're gone, at least at first. This standard treatment was brilliantly ripped by Sherwood Smith (a friend of mine, and one of Don's original Fantasists of Manners) in a short story called "Mom and Dad on the Home Front," a parents'-eye view of the discovery that their children are the saviors of some fantasy world. Now BTVS doesn't quite do that. The Buffy/Joyce relationship in the early seasons was very much on the model of mode #1, and it's to the show's credit that it's a fantasy using the mode more generally associated with non-fantasy lit. (That Joyce at first doesn't know Buffy is the Slayer doesn't change this; she knows _something_ is wrong, and conspicuously frets.) But neither of those is how Xander and Willow are treated. They aren't off in a secondary world. Nobody's gotten rid of their parents: the parents are still there. They just rarely impinge on their children's lives, unlike Joyce frequently impinging on Buffy's. (e.g. she's grounded, thus has to sneak out of the house to slay) This may well be for purely practical reasons, as is the non-appearance of Buffy's father despite her occasionally seeing him off-screen: there may well be a limit to how many occasionally-appeared actors the show wants to keep under part-time contract. I'm sure, Hilary, that you've read more children's fiction than I have, and may have found this before in books. But it is not, I think, a common treatment. I would certainly appreciate confirmation on my guesses about how often these rare parents have actually appeared. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 13:59:02 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: b/Xander in extremis At 11:10 AM 3/6/2002 , Gayle wrote: > I think he said something ambiguous like "I gave him some visions." But >there may have been a blending of pre-set and internally generated images, >since the visions didn't apparently =exactly= replicate Xander's family life; Xander's internal fears need not, of course, exactly replicate what happened to his parents anyway. > Images that are too pre-set, especially by someone who doesn't even know a >person, are unlikely to resonate as much with a person's real fears than >those that come from within that person. Not in real life. Too often in fiction people are assumed to be alike just under the skin. Kudos to BTVS for usually avoiding that. >The fears, which you point out, >regarding what his love for Buffy could lead to are unlikely to be have been >known by the demon and pre-programmed, even if the demon knew of Xander's >connection to the Slayer. Agreed. Only if the show were more badly-written than it usually is would this problem be ignored. > I would guess that most people about to get married have a worst-case >scenario hiding in their subconscious somewhere -- that, I think, is one of >the themes the ep was playing with -- and the orb may have added some common >fear-themes like the infidelity mentioned above as part of its action. If the orb is capable of magnifying internal fears, it may be unnecessary and would probably be unwise (from the fear-monger's POV) to add common themes: any given such theme is more likely not to be shared. (Chinese fortune cookies are written to be very generic, but many fortunes I've received are laughably inappropriate to me.) Xander could well have a fear of Anya's future infidelity based on 1) doubts about whether he'd remain attractive to her; 2) doubts about his own capacity for fidelity which could lead to a marital breakdown in that area; 3) doubts of his ability to satisfy her sexual appetite; 4) fear of his lack of control over the demon-world side of her life. > But if Xander had been one of the small percentage without such fears, it >only means that that particular revenge strategy would be a bust. Not all >plans are guaranteed to work. Sure. Which is why you have a back-up plan. First element of a Plan B: a way to find out if Plan A is working. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:11:35 -0600 (CST) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/Xander in extremis On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, David S. Bratman wrote: > At 11:10 AM 3/6/2002 , Gayle wrote: > > But if Xander had been one of the small percentage without such fears, it > >only means that that particular revenge strategy would be a bust. Not all > >plans are guaranteed to work. > > Sure. Which is why you have a back-up plan. First element of a Plan B: a > way to find out if Plan A is working. > I think the subject's reaction pretty much provides that element. If Xander had given back the orb and said "Looks good to *me*," or "I didn't see anything," then demon-guy might have gone to or made up a Plan B; the simplest such would be to just kill Xander, thus still hurting Anya while eliminating a witness. That being said, I can't imagine anyone *not* having some kind of fears or worries when getting married, particularly in Xander's situation, so I don't think demon-guy was taking much of a risk. -Allen W. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 17:18:01 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/Xander in extremis (SPOILERS) It sounds like you decided to agree with me, then, that the content of the visions came from within Xander himself and were not pre-programmed by the demon? (My points were an attempt to compromise.) I think you make some good points about why Xander would fear infidelity from Anya; points 3 and 4 seem strongest to me, point 4 especially reinforced by the fact that the vision-daughter apparently was sired by a demon. In a message dated 3/6/02 1:58:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, dbratman@stanford.edu writes: << > I think he said something ambiguous like "I gave him some visions." But >there may have been a blending of pre-set and internally generated images, >since the visions didn't apparently =exactly= replicate Xander's family life; Xander's internal fears need not, of course, exactly replicate what happened to his parents anyway. > Images that are too pre-set, especially by someone who doesn't even know a >person, are unlikely to resonate as much with a person's real fears than >those that come from within that person. Not in real life. Too often in fiction people are assumed to be alike just under the skin. Kudos to BTVS for usually avoiding that. >The fears, which you point out, >regarding what his love for Buffy could lead to are unlikely to be have been >known by the demon and pre-programmed, even if the demon knew of Xander's >connection to the Slayer. Agreed. Only if the show were more badly-written than it usually is would this problem be ignored. > I would guess that most people about to get married have a worst-case >scenario hiding in their subconscious somewhere -- that, I think, is one of >the themes the ep was playing with -- and the orb may have added some common >fear-themes like the infidelity mentioned above as part of its action. If the orb is capable of magnifying internal fears, it may be unnecessary and would probably be unwise (from the fear-monger's POV) to add common themes: any given such theme is more likely not to be shared. (Chinese fortune cookies are written to be very generic, but many fortunes I've received are laughably inappropriate to me.) Xander could well have a fear of Anya's future infidelity based on 1) doubts about whether he'd remain attractive to her; 2) doubts about his own capacity for fidelity which could lead to a marital breakdown in that area; 3) doubts of his ability to satisfy her sexual appetite; 4) fear of his lack of control over the demon-world side of her life. > But if Xander had been one of the small percentage without such fears, it >only means that that particular revenge strategy would be a bust. Not all >plans are guaranteed to work. Sure. Which is why you have a back-up plan. First element of a Plan B: a way to find out if Plan A is working. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:28:28 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/Xander in extremis (SPOILERS) At 02:18 PM 3/6/2002 , Gayle wrote: > It sounds like you decided to agree with me, then, that the content of the >visions came from within Xander himself and were not pre-programmed by the >demon? (My points were an attempt to compromise.) It seems likelier. At least in a well-written show. It was my interpretation of what the demon said that caused me to think otherwise. At any rate I'm willing to accept it for purposes of argument. > I think you make some good points about why Xander would fear infidelity >from Anya; points 3 and 4 seem strongest to me, point 4 especially reinforced >by the fact that the vision-daughter apparently was sired by a demon. All these seemed like things that _might_ have been in Xander's mind, considering what we see in the visions and what some common such fears are. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 20:01:44 -0500 (EST) From: Hilary Hertzoff Subject: Re: b/parents and children On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, David S. Bratman wrote: > At 11:51 AM 3/6/2002 , Hilary wrote: > > >It's a staple of children's and young adult literature. You have to get > >rid of the parents so that the kids/teens can have adventures. > > Not in the same way. I've seen two traditional modes of handling this in > children's/YA lit: > > 1) In non-fantasy literature, typically the children are orphans, > half-orphans and sort of wild, or children of divorce, and they have their > non-fantasy adventures while the adults conspicuously fret in the > background, or are entirely absent from their lives. I suppose the books I'm thinking of are a variation on this one and perhaps shouldn't be described as adventure books, but as survival books, where the parents are there in body but not in any way that counts. a) so screwed up that they don't take care of their children / their children end up taking care of them...essentially forcing their children to take on the role of grownup, while pretending to the world that everything is normal. There's also a variant in which the parent is too ill to take care of their child. (Xander) some examples from literature: A Door Near Hear by Heather Quarles Don't You Dare Read this Mrs. Dunphrey by Margaret Peterson Haddix b) absorbed in their work - so that they rarely see their children (Willow) actually I see this often at the library here. examples include: Razzle by Ellen Wittlinger The Gospel According to Larry by janet Tashijan c) single parents where the other parent is out of the picture completely (divorced, deserted, dead) and not contributing to living expenses or parenting where the remaining parent has to shoulder the whole burden and the resultant stress while trying to make ends meet. (Joyce and Buffy) examples include: (well I know I've read some, I just can't think of any) d) absentee parents where both have gone off for one reason or another, not dead but just out of the picture for some reason. These can be divided into kids being sent to live with a relative and kids completely abandoned either by completely negliegent parents or by accident (the parents go on a trip and the designated caregiver either doesn't show up or has to leave unexpectedly) trying to pretend that everything is normal so that no authority figure interferes. (Oz) examples include: Playing Without the Ball by Rich Wallace When the Boys Ran the House by Joan Carris Just Jenifer by Janet Lambert The Bad Beginning by Lemony Snicket (and sequels) e) the kids are runaways or are on the run for some other reason or the kids are alone because both parents are dead and they don't want the authorities to split them up or they are political refugees who get separated from their parents. examples would be: Homecoming by Cynthia Voigt Hideaway Summer by Beverly Renner Miracle's Boys by Jacqueline Woodson Say You Are My Sister by Laurel Brady f) the catastrophe novel. the kid's in a plane without his parents and it crashes. or a boat. or an earthquake. or a political upheval. The Other Side of Truth by Beverly Naidoo Hatchet by Gary Paulsen g) the teen spy/espionage/political novel. The teen has relatives in the spy business who are missing or dead and the teen ends up trying to find them/salvage the mission. I've also seen books where teens are recruited by spy agencies for special missions. And of course the teen detective novel Stormbreaker by Anthony Horowitz Spy Kids (movie) "Race Against Time" series by J. J. Fortune Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, etc. "Fearless" series by Francine Pascal h) the school or camp story subgenre, in which parents have very little influence or awareness of the social dynamics. most often a boarding school but not always. Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson Give a Boy a Gun by Todd Strasser The Brimstone Journals by Ron Koertge anything by Mel Glenn And it's always been common in series fiction. From Nancy Drew and the Hardy boys parents to modern series like California Diaries and Fearless. In fact, in California Diaries the cast is five viewpoint characters, aged 13 to 18, whose parents only rarely notice what their kids are up to. > I'm sure, Hilary, that you've read more children's fiction than I have, and > may have found this before in books. But it is not, I think, a common > treatment. > Admittedly, some of these archetypes don't fit Buffy at all, but this should give you a better idea of where my mind was when I wrote the earlier message. To go back to your point about absentee parents on Buffy, I think we've heard but not seen Xander's parents and we've only seen Willow's mother once (although I think in Gingerbread she mentions that Oz has to have dinner with her parents), and the one reference I can remember to them telling parents where they'd be is in the first season when they do a round robin session where each of them says that they're studying at another scooby's house. I need to go...they're closing the library around me. Hilary Hilary L. Hertzoff From here to there, Mamaroneck Public Library a bunny goes where a bunny must. Mamaroneck, NY - Little Bunny on the Move hhertzof@panix.com by Peter McCarty ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 17:13:09 -0800 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: Tonight's BUFFY From: "David S. Bratman" > And then we have last night's _Angel_, about which I had better be more > circumspect, I guess. The problem with sending characters off to an > alternate dimension, especially one conjured up from a hat for no other > purpose, is that the dimension can follow any rules the writers care to > make up, so there's no logical way to even surmise what might happen > next. Aarrrggghhh! I hadn't thought of this. If this is one of those "people age differently here" dimensions, we could see a grown-up Connor emerging to attack Angel, giving us "the father will kill the son" entirely as a self-defense situation rather than killing helpless little baby. Berni ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 20:17:39 -0500 From: "Karin Rabe" Subject: RE: Tonight's BUFFY Last night's was indeed a depressing episode despite some very funny moments, and as Gayle's excellent insights underscore, depressing due to its emotional realism (which as J. Whedon said in his Fresh Air interview, is "all I really care about")! I've had the feeling for some time that Xander was not totally comfortable with the prospect of marriage, but wasn't sure if it was the idea of marrying an ex-demon that was the crux of the problem, or marrying period. Apparently it's mostly the latter, though the hybrid daughter suggests also some of the former. :) Nevertheless, I assumed like everyone else, especially Buffy, that the wedding would come off. Xander's breaking up with Anya creates an interesting parallel of sorts with Buffy's break-up with Spike, of course. I can only hope they aren't =both= final break-ups. I must say that the brief moment between Spike and Buffy in this episode left me feeling that the Powers That Be (Whedon et. al., of course :) really have decided to have Buffy move on, just as she has with every other "man" she's let into her life, however deeply and for however long. But Spike has the distinction of being the first one she actually =chooses= to break up with, so perhaps she will gain strength from this, even though it's at the expense of dumping the only one to love her unconditionally. As well as at the expense of leaving Spike even weaker, unchanged, or...? - ---Karin - ---Karin - -----Original Message----- From: owner-stillpt@smoe.org [mailto:owner-stillpt@smoe.org] On Behalf Of GHighPine@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 12:28 PM To: stillpt@smoe.org Subject: Re: Tonight's BUFFY S P O I L E R s p a c e.... I didn't tape it because I don't routinely tape any shows; if I see a "keeper," I'll try to make a tape during reruns. This is one that does fall into that category. Even without the benefit of rewatching, the subtleties and layers of this episode make me full of admiration for how well done it was. The funny parts did indeed make the painful parts sharper (for funny stuff, I'd mention Anya's ongoing practice wedding vows. LOL at "I vow to have sex with you whenever ...I... want to.") And what performances, especially at the end. I think this ep was the first time I saw Nicholas Brendon as a real actor. It's probably obvious, with minimal reflection, but nevertheless deserves comment, that the magic orb did not have any preprogrammed visions in it, but tapped into Xander's own deepest fears and manifested them, the way a dream can do. When he asked thge old man what happened to Anya after the pan-bashing, I was expecting at the time that the old man would say something like, "And then came trial for murder, and then this and that further disaster happened," maybe escalating to the end of the world. But on reflection it seems clear that the old man did not know the actual content of Xander's visions; he was faking that he knew. Furthermore (again this may be obvious on minimal reflection, but still deserves comment) the content of the visions were based upon his own family dynamics. The whole crux of the episode, IMO, was that Xander had thought he was ready to build a new life and to escape his family past; and then his secret fear was brought to the surface that he might end up not escaping his family life at all but replicating it, that he might not be free of that horror but in bondage to it forever. To me, this ep exemplifies the kind of emotional truth-telling that BUFFY does at its best. And the end... bet Anya says yes. (How did she lose her demon status in the first place? Just the loss of the necklace?) As for next week... my first guess is that there is some connection between what we saw and Buffy's earlier trip to heaven. My second guess is that something was done by someone to protect either Buffy or the world from some cataclysm. But the Anya storyline has to have something to do with it too. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:27:30 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: Tonight's BUFFY At 05:13 PM 3/6/2002 , Berni wrote: >we could see a grown-up Connor emerging to >attack Angel, giving us "the father will kill the son" entirely as a >self-defense situation rather than killing helpless little baby. Which we could see anyway, in about 20 years. (Wesley's translation doesn't say when it'll happen.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 18:45:07 -0700 From: Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury Subject: Re: Tonight's BUFFY At 05:13 PM 3/6/02 -0800, Berni Phillips wrote: >Aarrrggghhh! I hadn't thought of this. If this is one of those "people age >differently here" dimensions, we could see a grown-up Connor emerging to >attack Angel, giving us "the father will kill the son" entirely as a >self-defense situation rather than killing helpless little baby. What if Sahjahn (or however you spell it) IS Connor? Phaedre/Kathleen workshop@burgoyne.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 18:23:25 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Huff Subject: More b/Xander in extemis I would love to read a Lemony Snicket novel starring Dawn. >> I think the subject's reaction pretty much provides that element. If Xander had given back the orb and said "Looks good to *me*," or "I didn't see anything," then demon-guy might have gone to or made up a Plan B; the simplest such would be to just kill Xander, thus still hurting Anya while eliminating a witness. In Xander's situation, I'd ask the stranger some question that only Xander could answer. Of course if he answered correctly, I'd wonder if he were a mind-reading demon. :) This was the most depressing episode ever, and I see nothing but pain as a result of Xander's choice. >>To go back to your point about absentee parents on Buffy, I think we'veheard but not seen Xander's parents and we've only seen Willow's mother once (although I think in Gingerbread she mentions that Oz has to have dinner with her parents), and the one reference I can remember to them telling parents where they'd be is in the first season when they do a round robin session where each of them says that they're studying at another scooby's house. And oddly enough, it looks like we see both of Buffy's parents next week. Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 19:37:26 -0800 From: "Marta Grabien" Subject: Re: Tonight's BUFFY > Aarrrggghhh! I hadn't thought of this. If this is one of those "people age > differently here" dimensions, we could see a grown-up Connor emerging to > attack Angel, giving us "the father will kill the son" entirely as a > self-defense situation rather than killing helpless little baby. Who is the demon who wants Angel dead? Could it be Connor, all grown up? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 19:39:39 -0800 From: "Marta Grabien" Subject: Re: Tonight's BUFFY - ----- > What if Sahjahn (or however you spell it) IS Connor? > > Phaedre/Kathleen > workshop@burgoyne.com Ah, someone else who has that idea.... Marty ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 22:48:04 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: Tonight's BUFFY A humble request from someone who is still two episodes behind on _Angel_ and trying to avoid spoilers... When you're discussing the latest episode of _Angel_, could you please change the subject line to reflect that? I've opened several messages thinking they're about "Hell's Bells", but instead I'm finding stuff out about _Angel_ that I really don't wanna know until I see the episode. Thanks. :) I promise to be caught up by the weekend ... ======================================= Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth ======================================= Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series http://www.smoe.org/meth/muzak.html ======================================= (: New England Patriots - Super Bowl XXXVI CHAMPIONS :) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 22:49:58 -0500 From: meredith Subject: b/FutureXander rides a Harley ;) Hi, From the dept. of silly posts: I just saw FutureXander in a Harley Davidson commercial. :) ======================================= Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth ======================================= Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series http://www.smoe.org/meth/muzak.html ======================================= (: New England Patriots - Super Bowl XXXVI CHAMPIONS :) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 20:10:56 -0800 From: "Marta Grabien" Subject: Re: Tonight's BUFFY > When you're discussing the latest episode of _Angel_, could you please > change the subject line to reflect that? I've opened several messages > thinking they're about "Hell's Bells", but instead I'm finding stuff out > about _Angel_ that I really don't wanna know until I see the episode. oops..sorry. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 23:40:41 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/parents and children Hi, Hilary exampled: >The Bad Beginning by Lemony Snicket (and sequels) Ah, Lemony Snicket. a.k.a. Dan Handler, one of my weirder college classmates (in a class which also included Mike White, of _Freaks and Geeks_, _Chuck and Buck_ and _Orange County_ fame, that's saying something). He's going to be giving a presentation at our reunion in May, so even if Joss isn't there it'll still be an interesting afternoon of panels. :) ======================================= Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth ======================================= Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series http://www.smoe.org/meth/muzak.html ======================================= (: New England Patriots - Super Bowl XXXVI CHAMPIONS :) ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V4 #34 ****************************