From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V4 #45 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Friday, March 22 2002 Volume 04 : Number 045 Today's Subjects: ----------------- b/=observer=ed ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/=observer=ed ["Susan Kroupa" ] Re: b/=observer=ed ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:02:08 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/=observer=ed The online edition of the =Observer= has a review today of the two books of essays on =Buffy=: =Reading the Vampire Slayer= edited by Roz Kaveny and =Fighting the Forces= edited by David Lavery and Rhonda Wilcox (the latter is the one I'm in). Here's the URL: http://www.observer.com/pages/book2.asp My essay is one of the ones referenced, to wit: "Another essay borrows from Freudian and Jungian theory to analyze the dream sequences in =Buffy=--a little crazy, but fun." I can live with that. Unfortunately, I haven't seen the book yet; it's not in stores and I haven't gotten my contributor's copy. I do have a copy of Roz Kaveney's book, which you can find at Barnes & Noble. I recommend it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 12:19:41 -0800 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: b/=observer=ed Oh, I read a review of that in BOOKLIST yesterday, too. I'll try to get a copy and post it. The review was favorable, but iirc didn't mention individual essays. Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald G. Keller" To: Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 11:02 AM Subject: b/=observer=ed > The online edition of the =Observer= has a review today of the two books > of essays on =Buffy=: =Reading the Vampire Slayer= edited by Roz Kaveny and > =Fighting the Forces= edited by David Lavery and Rhonda Wilcox (the latter > is the one I'm in). Here's the URL: > > http://www.observer.com/pages/book2.asp > > My essay is one of the ones referenced, to wit: > > "Another essay borrows from Freudian and Jungian theory to analyze the > dream sequences in =Buffy=--a little crazy, but fun." > > I can live with that. > > Unfortunately, I haven't seen the book yet; it's not in stores and I > haven't gotten my contributor's copy. > > I do have a copy of Roz Kaveney's book, which you can find at Barnes & > Noble. I recommend it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:33:17 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/=observer=ed Don - Congratulations on the book coming out. A copy shall be ordered. I've read Roz's book, and found it interesting but not overwhelming. (The best thing in it was the plot summaries at the end, so clear and straightforward, infinitely superior to the wafflage found in all the guidebooks to the show.) I see the Observer reviewer wasn't too impressed by it, and liked the book you're in better. Which gives me hope. But here's a reviewer who writes of watching the show in "reverential silence" and how its quality is due to its "function[ing] as literary text replete with rhetorical figures, symbolism, foreshadowing, metaphor" -- and she calls your use of Jungian theory "a little crazy"? Methinks the lady doth protest too much. (Call the media police: I confess, I plagiarized that last line.) DB ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V4 #45 ****************************