AOQ Review 4-4: "Fear Itself"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Four, Episode 4: "Fear Itself"
(or "Shown actual size")
Writer: David Fury
Director: Tucker Gates
"Fear Itself" starts with our heroes chilling in front of the TV
and hanging out like old times, but Buffy's having another mopey
period, so it doesn't really work. She seems to less interested in
being normal and having fun; mostly because of how it's ended the
last few times she's tried it. I wonder if Parker will become a
recurring character, given that he hasn't been punished yet. (It
wouldn't bother me if he didn't, since life isn't as karmic as TV is.
I'm just saying.) There are a few nice scenes where it takes a
little encouragement to even get her to show up. First the bit with
Riley (I was wondering if he was ever going to appear again) is a
decent little scene, giving a pep talk that's appreciated. Then the
conversation between Buffy and Joyce is a logical way to address the
themes of the previous few episodes. Since they're talking nostalgic
anyway, and since Buffy's so recently had her experience with
abandonment, it feels like the right time to reexamine the situation
with Hank.
Oh, by the way, loved her punching out Random Costume Guy at the
beginning. One would expect that kind of thing to happen from time to
time.
So that's our hero's emotional state, which provides the serious
moments of the episode. What's going on with the rest of the
episode, though, is a pure comedy, or an attempt thereof. It's quite
a stupid episode, all things considered. In my usual practice of doing
so, I'm going to use one scene as a microcosm for the whole show: the
bit where Giles is reading about how to destroy the pentagram. "The
summoning spell for Gachnar can be shut down in one of two ways.
Destroying the Mark Of Gachnar..." [Buffy immediately smashes it
(very in character for her)] "... is not one of them, and will in
fact immediately bring forth the fear demon itself." Well, it's
funny. But if you think about it too hard, or at all, it starts to
suffer (i.e. who in the world would ever write a spell book that way)?
It's the same problem that I had with "Doppelgängland," in that
so many (not all, but many) of the laughs are guilty laughs, jokes that
require enough stupidity to set up that they may not be worth it, and
it bothers me after awhile. (Plus, of course, we all know that I have
no sense of humor at all and am categorically opposed to anything funny
ever appearing on a TV show I watch.)
There's a nice early exchange with Oz playing
concerned/sweet-boyfriend for Willow. His dialogue isn't too good
here, which I think is part of the point; he's not articulating too
clearly because he doesn't do long speeches as a general rule, but
the feelings are sincere.
On the dumb-but-fun note, Xander and Anya continue to entertain with
their storyline. Quotable: "That's the funny thing about me. I
tend to hear the actual words people say and accept them at face
value." And on a personal nitpicky note, as I like to loudly mention
when the opportunity presents itself, the term "anniversary" refers
to a *year*, or a multiple thereof. By definition. Referring to a
one-week or one-month anniversary or whatever is meaningless, and in
fact defiles the language. Yeah, that's right, defiles. You gotta
take a stand somewhere.
Someone whom one might expect to be uptight about such things (now
there's a forced transition for you), Giles, is getting goofier with
every episode. The moment in which we first see him open the door
wearing that sombrero is a piece of comic gold, no qualifiers or
apologies needed. As might be expected, Buffy still isn't happy
seeing her old mentor as a wacky empty-nester ("it's aliiive!"),
but what matters is that he can still flip on the Watcher knowledge
when required. Which he can. And he knows when a situation calls the
chainsaw too (even if it's obviously fake).
Dug the various cute references to "Halloween." And who doesn't
love Willow and Oz having matching costumes, of a sort? The show
continues to be weird, giving the mysterious not-ninjas from the end of
"The Freshman" three seconds to assert their continued existence,
and no more. Okay, then. I'm a patient man (no, really).
We arrive at the Frat Party From Hell, which quickly goes bad. to no
one's surprise. It basically lets us do a lot of haunted-house
stuff. I don't have much to say about it, because it doesn't
warrant much comment. Although I did like the idea of the
"eyeballs" becoming actual eyeballs; there's charm in simplicity.
The rest is just, as I think I may have mentioned, standard
haunted-house stuff.
The show drags badly as our heroes are separated and confront what
basically amount to still more semi-random horror-movie things. Mrs.
Quality and I were talking and saying "I'm not quite getting what
the conceit is here. It's like they're based on their fears or
something?" The joke being that we assumed there was more to it than
just that. Unless learning that Oz fears his wolf self is big news
(Season Two called, it wants its character revelations back...). Hey,
remember when characters' fears used to come to life in a deeply
personal and visceral way, reducing Slayers and audience members to
tears and providing some of the most exciting moments of Season One? I
do. Invisible Xander gets special redundancy points, for not only
being another reiteration of what we've seen before with Xander, but
for recycling a metaphor we've seen twice before with other
characters. I'd say the only new ground here is Willow's vision,
which is creepy enough (at first the sparks seem to only be dividing
based on her instructions, and then...), and suggests that her fears
about the kind of stuff she's dabbling with are more prominent than
she lets on.
This episode either had a high budget or did a good job looking like it
did.
This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
- "Technically speaking, you're a fifth wheel."
- "Oh, yeah? Well, so's your face!" [That will get much play in
the Quality household.]
- Gachnar's whole scene, especially the discussion of why one
shouldn't taunt him.
So...
One-sentence summary: Wrings as much humor as possible from stupidity
and non-descriptness
AOQ rating: Decent
[Season Four so far:
1) "The Freshman" - Good
2) "Living Conditions" - Decent
3) "The Harsh Light Of Day" - Good
4) "Fear Itself" - Decent]
KenM47
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>
>
>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>Season Four, Episode 4: "Fear Itself"
>(or "Shown actual size")
>Writer: David Fury
>Director: Tucker Gates
>
<SNIP>
I don't recall what I thought of this episode at the time it first
aired other than "Great (in a good way), another Halloween themed
episode."
I liked the humor, especially the end (although while I love SMG's
acting in most of the series, I always had trouble with her efforts at
acting little laughs). She just steps on the evil Gachner like some
ugly cockroach - ignoring his dire prophecy. And followed with the
caption translation which itself is accompanied by a terrific little
SMG head shake.
Other major pluses: Anya. Emma Caulfield proved she was a terrific
comic actress in this episode, and I particularly love her (great
bunny outfit) little display of impatience while Giles is examining
the non-door.
I was taken aback by the disruptive little waves - primarily Willow's
"I'm not your sidekick," the Willow spell going wrong (and her
unwillingness to accept that her spells often do - although I don't
think we had seen many examples of such), Willow's upset when wolfie
Oz runs away, Xander's invisibility, Oz losing his cool, Buffy alone
and battling and losing to the dead things, the little allusion, IMO,
to Alice as Buffy goes through the small door - rabbit hole - and ends
up on the other side of a full sized door.
The only thing that bothered me in a negative sense was the early
cafeteria distress over Parker.
This is an excellent episode IMO, but I don't recall if that's what I
thought then. Now? Unquestionably.
AOQ, this is one you may want to consider revisiting after season's
end.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Espen Schjønberg
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Four, Episode 4: "Fear Itself"
It is really difficult to comment without spoilers this time. This makes
my comments much shorter here :-/
>
> Oh, by the way, loved her punching out Random Costume Guy at the
> beginning. One would expect that kind of thing to happen from time to
> time.
One would expect that dude never to wake up again. At least, have his
jaw seriously malfitted.
> So that's our hero's emotional state, which provides the serious
> moments of the episode. What's going on with the rest of the
> episode, though, is a pure comedy, or an attempt thereof. It's quite
> a stupid episode, all things considered.
I thought it was decently scary.
> In my usual practice of doing
> so, I'm going to use one scene as a microcosm for the whole show: the
> bit where Giles is reading about how to destroy the pentagram. "The
> summoning spell for Gachnar can be shut down in one of two ways.
> Destroying the Mark Of Gachnar..." [Buffy immediately smashes it
> (very in character for her)] "... is not one of them, and will in
> fact immediately bring forth the fear demon itself." Well, it's
> funny. But if you think about it too hard, or at all, it starts to
> suffer (i.e. who in the world would ever write a spell book that way)?
> It's the same problem that I had with "Doppelgängland," in that
> so many (not all, but many) of the laughs are guilty laughs, jokes that
> require enough stupidity to set up that they may not be worth it, and
> it bothers me after awhile. (Plus, of course, we all know that I have
> no sense of humor at all and am categorically opposed to anything funny
> ever appearing on a TV show I watch.)
Hey, I agree with you on this! Of course, especially because it makes
Buffy seem stupid, and I don't like that ;-)
> Giles, is getting goofier with
> every episode.
Don't you hate that? It is the decay of the writers: they are writing my
heros down to clowns.
> We arrive at the Frat Party From Hell, which quickly goes bad. to no
> one's surprise. It basically lets us do a lot of haunted-house
> stuff. I don't have much to say about it, because it doesn't
> warrant much comment. Although I did like the idea of the
> "eyeballs" becoming actual eyeballs; there's charm in simplicity.
> The rest is just, as I think I may have mentioned, standard
> haunted-house stuff.
And I thought this was good.
> The show drags badly as our heroes are separated and confront what
> basically amount to still more semi-random horror-movie things. Mrs.
> Quality and I were talking and saying "I'm not quite getting what
> the conceit is here. It's like they're based on their fears or
> something?" The joke being that we assumed there was more to it than
> just that. Unless learning that Oz fears his wolf self is big news
> (Season Two called, it wants its character revelations back...). Hey,
> remember when characters' fears used to come to life in a deeply
> personal and visceral way, reducing Slayers and audience members to
> tears and providing some of the most exciting moments of Season One? I
> do. Invisible Xander gets special redundancy points, for not only
> being another reiteration of what we've seen before with Xander, but
> for recycling a metaphor we've seen twice before with other
> characters.
Here, I disagree. This is not invisible Xander, this is just how the
house works: everybody gets invisible for each other. Well, basically.
Of course, i may be wrong, and this being invisible thing was ment to be
prominent, and i just didn't get it. But I think very few of the people
in the house can see each other.
> I'd say the only new ground here is Willow's vision,
> which is creepy enough (at first the sparks seem to only be dividing
> based on her instructions, and then...), and suggests that her fears
> about the kind of stuff she's dabbling with are more prominent than
> she lets on.
Yes, scary.
>
> This episode either had a high budget or did a good job looking like it
> did.
Anybody? Interesting to get to know!
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - "Technically speaking, you're a fifth wheel."
> - "Oh, yeah? Well, so's your face!" [That will get much play in
> the Quality household.]
> - Gachnar's whole scene, especially the discussion of why one
> shouldn't taunt him.
Loved that.
> So...
>
>
> One-sentence summary: Wrings as much humor as possible from stupidity
> and non-descriptness
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
Yes, well. I say good. But again: most of your post, I cannot comment.
Later.
--
Espen
Terry
news:1145107682.4...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Four, Episode 4: "Fear Itself"
> (or "Shown actual size")
> Writer: David Fury
> Director: Tucker Gates
Side note: this is the first episode I let my daughter watch. Mostly for
the "Fear is only as big as you let it be" lesson. We've now backtracked
slightly and she's seen all of S1. I'm wary of getting into S2, only for
the slightly more adult themes.
> The moment in which we first see him open the door
> wearing that sombrero is a piece of comic gold, no qualifiers or
> apologies needed.
Love, love, love that moment.
> We arrive at the Frat Party From Hell, which quickly goes bad. to no
> one's surprise.
And you're complaining about redundancies? *g* Isn't Frat Party from Hell
just a tad redundant at this juncture?
> Although I did like the idea of the
> "eyeballs" becoming actual eyeballs; there's charm in simplicity.
> The rest is just, as I think I may have mentioned, standard
> haunted-house stuff.
Perhaps that's one of the faults of watching the show in such
concentrated forms. Watching this ep on Halloween week makes it fun.
Standard haunted house is *expected* Halloween week.
> - Gachnar's whole scene, especially the discussion of why one
> shouldn't taunt him.
My kids quote it, regularly!
Terry
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> moments of the episode. What's going on with the rest of the
> episode, though, is a pure comedy, or an attempt thereof. It's quite
> a stupid episode, all things considered. In my usual practice of doing
like the previous halloween show its mostly just a comedy show
and an exploration of the fdr quote
-we have nothing to fear but fear itself-
and when you finally confront your fears
they are actually small and laughable
> Dug the various cute references to "Halloween." And who doesn't
> love Willow and Oz having matching costumes, of a sort? The show
some people dont get the joke that jeanne darc said she spoke with god
hence the -close personal friend- as well as the reference back to gingerbread
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
kenm47
"Just"? Neither was "just"!
"Something is happening, but you don't know what it is ...."
Ken (Brooklyn)
One Bit Shy
news:1145107682.4...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "Fear Itself" starts with our heroes chilling in front of the TV
> and hanging out like old times, but Buffy's having another mopey
> period, so it doesn't really work.
?? They were carving pumpkins. Buffy may be mopey, but that brought us the
life of a pumpkin, which suits me. They did talk about maybe watching
Fantasia. (And for the record, hippos in tutus still unnerve me.)
> So that's our hero's emotional state, which provides the serious
> moments of the episode. What's going on with the rest of the
> episode, though, is a pure comedy, or an attempt thereof.
Well... Sort of. There is a lot of humor. Anya in a bunny suit. Actual
size. Arbor Day. Chainsaw. etc.
But I don't think it's a comedy. Especially deep in the haunted house.
Some of the comedy had an edge too. "Buffy didn't find stairs, no sir!"
> It's quite
> a stupid episode, all things considered. In my usual practice of doing
> so, I'm going to use one scene as a microcosm for the whole show: the
> bit where Giles is reading about how to destroy the pentagram. "The
> summoning spell for Gachnar can be shut down in one of two ways.
> Destroying the Mark Of Gachnar..." [Buffy immediately smashes it
> (very in character for her)] "... is not one of them, and will in
> fact immediately bring forth the fear demon itself." Well, it's
> funny. But if you think about it too hard, or at all, it starts to
> suffer (i.e. who in the world would ever write a spell book that way)?
> It's the same problem that I had with "Doppelgängland," in that
> so many (not all, but many) of the laughs are guilty laughs, jokes that
> require enough stupidity to set up that they may not be worth it, and
> it bothers me after awhile. (Plus, of course, we all know that I have
> no sense of humor at all and am categorically opposed to anything funny
> ever appearing on a TV show I watch.)
I don't know that it's a spell book exactly. I don't believe that the
nature of it is explained. It could be more encyclopedic in nature.
Whatever it's purpose, it clearly isn't in cookbook form. At least part of
its intent is to provide information about the demon and its summoning
beyond just how to do it.
It's also a writing style I am painfully familiar with since I have often
found myself trapped in lengthy strings of caveats that obscure the main
message.
> There's a nice early exchange with Oz playing
> concerned/sweet-boyfriend for Willow. His dialogue isn't too good
> here, which I think is part of the point; he's not articulating too
> clearly because he doesn't do long speeches as a general rule, but
> the feelings are sincere.
Do you mean his concern about Willow's magic? That actually surprised me.
We've talked about hints at Willow's recklessness with magic before, but
that was a particularly blatant caution - from the person who presumably has
the most intimate knowledge of what she's up to.
> On the dumb-but-fun note, Xander and Anya continue to entertain with
> their storyline. Quotable: "That's the funny thing about me. I
> tend to hear the actual words people say and accept them at face
> value."
Funny conversation, though Anya also struck right at Xander's insecurities
with the not getting the friends part.
> Someone whom one might expect to be uptight about such things (now
> there's a forced transition for you), Giles, is getting goofier with
> every episode. The moment in which we first see him open the door
> wearing that sombrero is a piece of comic gold, no qualifiers or
> apologies needed. As might be expected, Buffy still isn't happy
> seeing her old mentor as a wacky empty-nester ("it's aliiive!"),
> but what matters is that he can still flip on the Watcher knowledge
> when required. Which he can. And he knows when a situation calls the
> chainsaw too (even if it's obviously fake).
Getting goofier every episode / wacky empty-nester v. flipping on the
Watcher knowledge when required. Why does the latter matter, but not the
former?
Whatever. Giles in the sombrero is a lasting memory.
> Dug the various cute references to "Halloween." And who doesn't
> love Willow and Oz having matching costumes, of a sort?
Oz gets two wonderful single word punchlines in that scene. "Blasphemoer"
and "NATO?"
> We arrive at the Frat Party From Hell, which quickly goes bad. to no
> one's surprise. It basically lets us do a lot of haunted-house
> stuff. I don't have much to say about it, because it doesn't
> warrant much comment. Although I did like the idea of the
> "eyeballs" becoming actual eyeballs; there's charm in simplicity.
> The rest is just, as I think I may have mentioned, standard
> haunted-house stuff.
mmmm Do you rally think so? Well, there are traditional haunted house
elements. (Including the Abbott & Costello wisecrack.) Some of which is
genuinely creepy to me. Oz slashing Willow, followed by the echoing, "Oz,
don't leave me, don't leave me, don't leave me..." made my skin crawl.
> The show drags badly as our heroes are separated and confront what
> basically amount to still more semi-random horror-movie things. Mrs.
> Quality and I were talking and saying "I'm not quite getting what
> the conceit is here. It's like they're based on their fears or
> something?" The joke being that we assumed there was more to it than
> just that. Unless learning that Oz fears his wolf self is big news
> (Season Two called, it wants its character revelations back...).
Heh-heh. That's funny. Well sometimes a cigar's just a cigar. And
sometimes it's a stinky nasty thing that one sucks on.
> Hey,
> remember when characters' fears used to come to life in a deeply
> personal and visceral way, reducing Slayers and audience members to
> tears and providing some of the most exciting moments of Season One?
Yes.
> I
> do. Invisible Xander gets special redundancy points, for not only
> being another reiteration of what we've seen before with Xander, but
> for recycling a metaphor we've seen twice before with other
> characters. I'd say the only new ground here is Willow's vision,
> which is creepy enough (at first the sparks seem to only be dividing
> based on her instructions, and then...), and suggests that her fears
> about the kind of stuff she's dabbling with are more prominent than
> she lets on.
The sparks flying into her mouth were pretty cool.
> So...
> One-sentence summary: Wrings as much humor as possible from stupidity
> and non-descriptness
> AOQ rating: Decent
I suspected you would end up there. Perhaps next time that will change.
OBS
Rowan Hawthorn
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Four, Episode 4: "Fear Itself"
> (or "Shown actual size")
> Writer: David Fury
> Director: Tucker Gates
>
> "Fear Itself" starts with our heroes chilling in front of the TV
> and hanging out like old times, but Buffy's having another mopey
> period, so it doesn't really work. She seems to less interested in
> being normal and having fun; mostly because of how it's ended the
> last few times she's tried it.
Buffy tries having a life; life kicks Buffy in the (metaphorical)
sprouts - repeat often enough, even metaphorical sprouts get a bit
tender and wanna hide.
>
> So that's our hero's emotional state, which provides the serious
> moments of the episode. What's going on with the rest of the
> episode, though, is a pure comedy, or an attempt thereof.
Neither pure, nor failed, but that's what opinions are for, I guess.
I'll state up front: this is one of my favorite episodes, though it
doesn't appear on the top of my "Best of Buffy" list. It's mostly just
for seasonal fun, an intentionally long setup for a deliberately bad
punchline, but there *are* a few character insights to darken the laughs.
> It's quite
> a stupid episode, all things considered.
Okay, excuse me while I go get my belt...
> In my usual practice of doing
> so, I'm going to use one scene as a microcosm for the whole show: the
> bit where Giles is reading about how to destroy the pentagram. "The
> summoning spell for Gachnar can be shut down in one of two ways.
> Destroying the Mark Of Gachnar..." [Buffy immediately smashes it
> (very in character for her)] "... is not one of them, and will in
> fact immediately bring forth the fear demon itself." Well, it's
> funny. But if you think about it too hard, or at all, it starts to
> suffer (i.e. who in the world would ever write a spell book that way)?
Anyone who wanted to specifically warn the reader *not* to destroy the
Mark once the summoning had begun? (And who, of course, hadn't counted
on the instructions being read *to* someone who's inclined not to wait
for the reader to finish his sentence.)
> It's the same problem that I had with "Doppelgängland," in that
> so many (not all, but many) of the laughs are guilty laughs, jokes that
> require enough stupidity to set up that they may not be worth it, and
> it bothers me after awhile. (Plus, of course, we all know that I have
> no sense of humor at all and am categorically opposed to anything funny
> ever appearing on a TV show I watch.)
Well, you said it, not me...
> On the dumb-but-fun note, Xander and Anya continue to entertain with
> their storyline. Quotable: "That's the funny thing about me. I
> tend to hear the actual words people say and accept them at face
> value." And on a personal nitpicky note, as I like to loudly mention
> when the opportunity presents itself, the term "anniversary" refers
> to a *year*, or a multiple thereof. By definition. Referring to a
> one-week or one-month anniversary or whatever is meaningless, and in
> fact defiles the language. Yeah, that's right, defiles. You gotta
> take a stand somewhere.
Um... okay. How do you feel about world peace?
> Dug the various cute references to "Halloween." And who doesn't
> love Willow and Oz having matching costumes, of a sort? The show
> continues to be weird, giving the mysterious not-ninjas from the end of
> "The Freshman" three seconds to assert their continued existence,
> and no more. Okay, then. I'm a patient man (no, really).
Riiiiight. And we'll back you up on that, even if they question us
separately. :-)
> The show drags badly as our heroes are separated and confront what
> basically amount to still more semi-random horror-movie things. Mrs.
> Quality and I were talking and saying "I'm not quite getting what
> the conceit is here. It's like they're based on their fears or
> something?" The joke being that we assumed there was more to it than
> just that.
For a whole lotta people, that's about as bad as you'd want to get.
> characters. I'd say the only new ground here is Willow's vision,
> which is creepy enough (at first the sparks seem to only be dividing
> based on her instructions, and then...), and suggests that her fears
> about the kind of stuff she's dabbling with are more prominent than
> she lets on.
Ya think? On another point, how about Willow/Buffy? We've seen them
have little tiffs before ("Bad Girls" and "Dead Man's Party" come to
mind,) but this is the first time, IIRC, that we've seen them seriously
fighting over something that's basically a small thing. Willow gets hot
pretty quickly, and not just at Buffy's (unintended) slight towards her
talent with the magicks; she sees herself - with more than a little
justification - as a *partner*, not as a subordinate.
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - "Technically speaking, you're a fifth wheel."
> - "Oh, yeah? Well, so's your face!" [That will get much play in
> the Quality household.]
LOL. Poor Willow; all that bottled-up anger, and she gets *so*
frustrated and angry, she goes incoherent again and can't express it...
> - Gachnar's whole scene, especially the discussion of why one
> shouldn't taunt him.
Buffy: There is no problem that can't be solved by chocolate.
Willow (looking a little green): I think I'm gonna barf.
Buffy: Except that...
>
> One-sentence summary: Wrings as much humor as possible from stupidity
> and non-descriptness
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
Dude, don't *make* me get out the belt again...
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
Rowan Hawthorn
I agree. If they think either of these were "just" comedies, we need to
discuss the "whoosh factor..."
vague disclaimer
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> (i.e. who in the world would ever write a spell book that way)?
The same kind of people who designed the Powerpoint slide that convinced
NASA that Columbia was in no danger? Google for it some time. It's a
shocker.
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
oh and
> Um... okay. How do you feel about world peace?
> Buffy: There is no problem that can't be solved by chocolate.
> Willow (looking a little green): I think I'm gonna barf.
> Buffy: Except that...
thats just the bodys way of making more room for chocolate
Horace LaBadie
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> So that's our hero's emotional state, which provides the serious
> moments of the episode. What's going on with the rest of the
> episode, though, is a pure comedy, or an attempt thereof. It's quite
> a stupid episode, all things considered. In my usual practice of doing
> so, I'm going to use one scene as a microcosm for the whole show: the
> bit where Giles is reading about how to destroy the pentagram. "The
> summoning spell for Gachnar can be shut down in one of two ways.
> Destroying the Mark Of Gachnar..." [Buffy immediately smashes it
> (very in character for her)] "... is not one of them, and will in
> fact immediately bring forth the fear demon itself." Well, it's
> funny. But if you think about it too hard, or at all, it starts to
> suffer (i.e. who in the world would ever write a spell book that way)?
Giles was translating on the fly. Languages all have the sentence
structure same as English not.
The very last joke in the show drives home the point: "actual size."
> It's the same problem that I had with "Doppelgängland," in that
> so many (not all, but many) of the laughs are guilty laughs, jokes that
> require enough stupidity to set up that they may not be worth it, and
> it bothers me after awhile. (Plus, of course, we all know that I have
> no sense of humor at all and am categorically opposed to anything funny
> ever appearing on a TV show I watch.)
Yes, proven again and again, as the chorus of whooshes attest.
HWL
vague disclaimer
Espen Schjønberg <ess...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > Giles, is getting goofier with
> > every episode.
>
> Don't you hate that? It is the decay of the writers: they are writing my
> heros down to clowns.
WHOOSH!
Arbitrar Of Quality
> > Giles, is getting goofier with
> > every episode.
>
> Don't you hate that? It is the decay of the writers: they are writing my
> heros down to clowns.
Didn't really bother me here, because, as I said, Giles isn't really
being demeaned; the moment the situation calls for him to put on his
Watcher hat, he's completely on top of things. And the show has told
us to laugh at him for his not-on-duty foibles for ages (remember those
painful scenes in early S2? Much worse than anything in FI for me).
I keep bringing up the empty-nester theme. Old folks tend to mellow
out and get sillier once the kids are away at college and no longer
need full-time parenting (or Watching).
> Here, I disagree. This is not invisible Xander, this is just how the
> house works: everybody gets invisible for each other. Well, basically.
> Of course, i may be wrong, and this being invisible thing was ment to be
> prominent, and i just didn't get it. But I think very few of the people
> in the house can see each other.
The house separated them after they went in different directions, but I
think this is the only time someone suddenly becomes invisible to
someone else in the middle of a conversation. Plus, otherwise, Xander
doesn't have a personal fear to face like everyone else. And remember
the otherwise-random conversation with Anya about not having much in
common with and/or drifting away from his friends? Usually this show
has a reason for bringing up stuff like that. So, I say Invisible
Xander was meant to be prominent. Not particularly effective or
anything, but they were trying.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > In my usual practice of doing
> > so, I'm going to use one scene as a microcosm for the whole show: the
> > bit where Giles is reading about how to destroy the pentagram. "The
> > summoning spell for Gachnar can be shut down in one of two ways.
> > Destroying the Mark Of Gachnar..." [Buffy immediately smashes it
> > (very in character for her)] "... is not one of them, and will in
> > fact immediately bring forth the fear demon itself." Well, it's
> > funny. But if you think about it too hard, or at all, it starts to
> > suffer (i.e. who in the world would ever write a spell book that way)?
>
> Anyone who wanted to specifically warn the reader *not* to destroy the
> Mark once the summoning had begun?
That would seem to call for large text not stuck in the middle of a
thought about the two ways to end the spell. Those ideas written in
that order simply doesn't make sense (except as a labored effort to set
up a joke, of course).
> > And on a personal nitpicky note, as I like to loudly mention
> > when the opportunity presents itself, the term "anniversary" refers
> > to a *year*, or a multiple thereof. By definition. Referring to a
> > one-week or one-month anniversary or whatever is meaningless, and in
> > fact defiles the language. Yeah, that's right, defiles. You gotta
> > take a stand somewhere.
>
> Um... okay. How do you feel about world peace?
In favor.
-AOQ
KenM47
OK. The set up could have been better, maybe something with Giles
saying "Hmm. Something, I can't quite make it out, about destroying
the seal of Gachner" Following Buffy's destruction with "Oh no, it's a
warning to NOT destroy the seal as that will summon the demon
directly."
But I can live with what they did even if in some world without shrimp
someone thought the above a worthwhile take on it.
Ken (Brooklyn)
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> doesn't have a personal fear to face like everyone else. And remember
other than being stuck in the basement
going through a series of dead end jobs
while his high school friends are off to college and forget about him
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
> In article <e1r1k5$rjp$1...@readme.uio.no>,
> Espen Schjønberg <ess...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Giles, is getting goofier with
> > > every episode.
> >
> > Don't you hate that? It is the decay of the writers: they are writing my
> > heros down to clowns.
>
> WHOOSH!
the old fight
jurqba jnag gb unir fynlrerggrf senpgherq va guvf frnfba
naq unir tvyrf jvgu nonaqbazrag vffhrf
naq ur fhpprrqrq fb jryy ivrjref ungrq uvz sbe senpghevat gur fynlrerggrf
naq nonaqbavat tvyrf
you played me
you played me
vague disclaimer
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I think you spelt "more clumsily laboured" wrong there Ken...
> maybe something with Giles
> saying "Hmm. Something, I can't quite make it out, about destroying
> the seal of Gachner" Following Buffy's destruction with "Oh no, it's a
> warning to NOT destroy the seal as that will summon the demon
> directly."
>
> But I can live with what they did even if in some world without shrimp
> someone thought the above a worthwhile take on it.
Go-o-o-o-o Shrimp!
KenM47
And that's why THEY get the big bucks. :-)
Ken (Brooklyn)
vague disclaimer
<mair_fheal-D101D...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <l64o-1rj5-094A7...@mercury.nildram.net>,
> vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <e1r1k5$rjp$1...@readme.uio.no>,
> > Espen Schjønberg <ess...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > Giles, is getting goofier with
> > > > every episode.
> > >
> > > Don't you hate that? It is the decay of the writers: they are writing my
> > > heros down to clowns.
> >
> > WHOOSH!
>
> the old fight
>
> jurqba jnag gb unir fynlrerggrf senpgherq va guvf frnfba
> naq unir tvyrf jvgu nonaqbazrag vffhrf
>
> naq ur fhpprrqrq fb jryy ivrjref ungrq uvz sbe senpghevat gur fynlrerggrf
> naq nonaqbavat tvyrf
Cresrpgyl gehr. Ohg gung vf abg jung Rfcra unf pbzcynvarq nobhg.
"nonaqbazrag vffhrf" != pybjavfu.
Espen seems to want his heroes to behave like perfectly programmed
robots (which given my quaint theory about him makes a certain sense). I
like my heroes to be recognisably human, foibles, insecurities, tendency
to wear silly hats and all. A moment of clownishness does not equate to
'writing heroes down to clowns'. As A0Q correctly noted, Giles can turn
on the Watcher pretty much at will.
Don Sample
Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Also, Giles was translating on the fly. What was written might have been
much better phrased to a native speaker of that language.
(Old joke: The President of the United States is having a summit
meeting with the Chancellor of Germany. The Chancellor begins speaking
and goes on and on and on. The President wonders why his interpreter
isn't translating, and whispers "Why aren't you translating this as he
speaks?" The interpreter whispers back, "I'm waiting for the verb.")
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Apteryx
news:1145107682.4...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>So that's our hero's emotional state, which provides the serious
>moments of the episode. What's going on with the rest of the
>episode, though, is a pure comedy, or an attempt thereof. It's quite
>a stupid episode, all things considered. In my usual practice of doing
>so, I'm going to use one scene as a microcosm for the whole show: the
>bit where Giles is reading about how to destroy the pentagram. "The
>summoning spell for Gachnar can be shut down in one of two ways.
>Destroying the Mark Of Gachnar..." [Buffy immediately smashes it
>(very in character for her)] "... is not one of them, and will in
>fact immediately bring forth the fear demon itself." Well, it's
>funny. But if you think about it too hard, or at all, it starts to
>suffer (i.e. who in the world would ever write a spell book that way)?
Giles is translating on the fly from Gaelic, and I'd be after thinking that
the sentence structure and verbal logic of Gaelic is not at all at all like
English.
>It's the same problem that I had with "Doppelgängland," in that
>so many (not all, but many) of the laughs are guilty laughs, jokes that
>require enough stupidity to set up that they may not be worth it, and
>it bothers me after awhile. (Plus, of course, we all know that I have
>no sense of humor at all and am categorically opposed to anything funny
.ever appearing on a TV show I watch.)
There's really no need to keep saying that. Everybody knows it by now.
>On the dumb-but-fun note, Xander and Anya continue to entertain with
>their storyline. Quotable: "That's the funny thing about me. I
>tend to hear the actual words people say and accept them at face
>value." And on a personal nitpicky note, as I like to loudly mention
>when the opportunity presents itself, the term "anniversary" refers
>to a *year*, or a multiple thereof. By definition. Referring to a
>one-week or one-month anniversary or whatever is meaningless, and in
>fact defiles the language. Yeah, that's right, defiles.
Decimates it even.
>but what matters is that he can still flip on the Watcher knowledge
>when required. Which he can. And he knows when a situation calls the
>chainsaw too (even if it's obviously fake).
And deliver the line "I can" with perfect timing.
>The show drags badly as our heroes are separated and confront what
>basically amount to still more semi-random horror-movie things. Mrs.
>Quality and I were talking and saying "I'm not quite getting what
>the conceit is here. It's like they're based on their fears or
>something?" The joke being that we assumed there was more to it than
>just that. Unless learning that Oz fears his wolf self is big news
>(Season Two called, it wants its character revelations back...). Hey,
For people watching it as broadcast, its been a while since they've seen Oz
as werewolf, so "still worried about it" is not a pointless message.
Although its maybe also possible that what happens to Oz is Willow's fear,
and what happens to Willow, Oz's
>This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
>- "Technically speaking, you're a fifth wheel."
>- "Oh, yeah? Well, so's your face!" [That will get much play in
>the Quality household.]
>- Gachnar's whole scene, especially the discussion of why one
>shouldn't taunt him.
No mention anywhere of what a 1000 year old ex vengeance demon thinks is
scary? Oh well, Happy Easter anyway.
>One-sentence summary: Wrings as much humor as possible from stupidity
>and non-descriptness
>AOQ rating: Decent
Ha ha, now you're getting it - that is funny. But seriously "Fear Itself" is
at least at the high end of Good. In fact I find myself once again a little
embarrassed by the fact that in setting a round-ish sort of rating level to
equate to your "Excellent" (2.51 to 3.5 in my ratings) I've probably set the
bar a little higher than the word entails (that will be a particular problem
with the AtS episodes, where at my conversion rate I won't have any AtS
episodes that warrant an "Excellent" until the 2nd half of Season 5). But
Fear Itself is my 22nd favourite BtVS episode, 4th best in Season 4
--
Apteryx
Rowan Hawthorn
True. Quite a few languages seem to be written bass-ackwards compared
to English (or vice-versa, since they're actually *older*.)
>
> (Old joke: The President of the United States is having a summit
> meeting with the Chancellor of Germany. The Chancellor begins speaking
> and goes on and on and on. The President wonders why his interpreter
> isn't translating, and whispers "Why aren't you translating this as he
> speaks?" The interpreter whispers back, "I'm waiting for the verb.")
>
My German is rusty, but Ich habe zwei klassen gehabt, ein in der Hoch
schule und eins an der Universität. I can believe that up to a point.
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Four, Episode 4: "Fear Itself"
> (or "Shown actual size")
> Writer: David Fury
> Director: Tucker Gates
Just some really brief comments here, as I'm visiting my parents and their
glacial dialup connection. Also, I've been drinking.
> "Fear Itself" starts with our heroes chilling in front of the TV
> and hanging out like old times, but Buffy's having another mopey
> period, so it doesn't really work.
Mopey Buffy's musings on the life of a pumpkin, ending with its guts
ripped out, are clearly inspired by her own emotional state post-Parker.
Slightly less obviously, the pumpkin Xander carves, which turns out to be
sardonic, sad, and self-loathing, is a reflection of *his* emotional state
at the time.
> bit where Giles is reading about how to destroy the pentagram. "The
> summoning spell for Gachnar can be shut down in one of two ways.
> Destroying the Mark Of Gachnar..." [Buffy immediately smashes it
> (very in character for her)] "... is not one of them, and will in
> fact immediately bring forth the fear demon itself." Well, it's
> funny. But if you think about it too hard, or at all, it starts to
> suffer (i.e. who in the world would ever write a spell book that way)?
Well, how *are* spell books written? Others have pointed out that the odd
phrasing could be an artifact of the on-the-fly translation. I'd add
another possibility: the book's author might have been afraid the reader
would just assume that they had to destroy the mark, so he put the bit
about "destroying the mark is NOT one of them" at the very beginning, but
Buffy was even more hasty than the author reckoned on. (I like the
satisfied look she gives Giles after destroying the mark.)
> We arrive at the Frat Party From Hell, which quickly goes bad. to no
> one's surprise.
One of Buffy's most important messages is that Frats Are Evil. I am quite
serious about this.
> The show drags badly as our heroes are separated and confront what
> basically amount to still more semi-random horror-movie things. Mrs.
> Quality and I were talking and saying "I'm not quite getting what
> the conceit is here. It's like they're based on their fears or
> something?" The joke being that we assumed there was more to it than
> just that.
True, the fears exposed here are nothing new, especially Xander's
isolation fear and Oz's wolf fear. However, while they aren't new, we
haven't seen them focused on in a while either. FI serves in part to
reconnect us to this important part of Xander's and Oz's psyches, to
provide a foundation for further development of their characters.
I was happy to see Xander helping Oz move his sound system to the frat
house. I always like it when members of the gang pal around outside of
Slaying and outside of their normal pairings.
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
More amusing bits, of varying levels of stupidity:
-The lobster guy.
-"Blashpemer."
-"If I were Abbot and Costello, this would be fairly traumatic."
-the reveal of Anya's scary costume.
-Giles creating a door. This is an example of a classic ME humor
technique, having a character say something that sounds metaphorical or
mystical and then revealing that he meant it quite literally.
The word "misnomer" is blatantly misused. I'm never sure if things like
this happen because the writers misuse the word, or because they
deliberately put the misuse into a character's mouth.
What was that the Gachnar said to Buffy right before she squished him?
Was he just lashing out, or can he be sensing something Buffy fears?
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
(Harmony) Watcher
news:1243a6m...@corp.supernews.com...
quote (http://bdb.vrya.net/bdb/clip.php?clip=1166)
...
Gachnar: I am the dark lord of nightmares!
(Buffy tries not to laugh)
Gachnar: The bringer of terror! Tremble before me. Fear me!
WILLOW: He - he's no cute!
Gachnar: Tremble!
XANDER: Who's a little fear demon? Come on! Who's a little fear demon!
GILES: Don't taunt the fear demon.
XANDER: Why, can he hurt me?
GILES: No, it's just - tacky. Be that as it may, Buffy, when it comes to
slaying...
BUFFY: Size doesn't matter?
Gachnar: They're all going to abandon you, you know.
BUFFY: Yeah, Yeah.
...
unquote
...plaat...[Incidentally, was the punishment commensurate with the threat?]
([Fanfic]: Fear Demons cannot be killed because they were actually
holograms. So there was no disgusting mess to clean off Buffy's boots.)
==(Harmony) Watcher==
Opus the Penguin
> And on a personal nitpicky note, as I like to loudly mention
> when the opportunity presents itself, the term "anniversary" refers
> to a *year*, or a multiple thereof. By definition. Referring to a
> one-week or one-month anniversary or whatever is meaningless, and in
> fact defiles the language. Yeah, that's right, defiles. You gotta
> take a stand somewhere.
I keep trying to get people to use "menstroversary" for month markers,
but it's not catching on.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
peachy ashie passion
But it makes me laugh when he says it, so it serves a purpose.
Opus the Penguin
> Didn't really bother me here, because, as I said, Giles isn't really
> being demeaned; the moment the situation calls for him to put on his
> Watcher hat, he's completely on top of things.
Wait a minute. That's his WATCHER hat? How did THAT tradition get
started?
Jeff Jacoby
> Rowan Hawthorn wrote:
>> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
>> > In my usual practice of doing
>> > so, I'm going to use one scene as a microcosm for the whole show: the
>> > bit where Giles is reading about how to destroy the pentagram. "The
>> > summoning spell for Gachnar can be shut down in one of two ways.
>> > Destroying the Mark Of Gachnar..." [Buffy immediately smashes it
>> > (very in character for her)] "... is not one of them, and will in
>> > fact immediately bring forth the fear demon itself." Well, it's
>> > funny. But if you think about it too hard, or at all, it starts to
>> > suffer (i.e. who in the world would ever write a spell book that way)?
>>
>> Anyone who wanted to specifically warn the reader *not* to destroy the
>> Mark once the summoning had begun?
>
> That would seem to call for large text not stuck in the middle of a
> thought about the two ways to end the spell. Those ideas written in
> that order simply doesn't make sense (except as a labored effort to set
> up a joke, of course).
I believe he was translating as he spoke. You already
know not all languages order words and clauses the same
way English does. So in whatever language the warning
was written it probably does come out as "For God's sake,
whatever you do, don't do this: ... "
(And if I'm wrong about Giles having to translate then
just please ignore everything I just said, thanks.)
Jeff
drifter
> Arbitrar Of Quality (tsm...@wildmail.com) wrote:
>
>> And on a personal nitpicky note, as I like to loudly mention
>> when the opportunity presents itself, the term "anniversary" refers
>> to a *year*, or a multiple thereof. By definition. Referring to a
>> one-week or one-month anniversary or whatever is meaningless, and in
>> fact defiles the language. Yeah, that's right, defiles. You gotta
>> take a stand somewhere.
>
> I keep trying to get people to use "menstroversary" for month markers,
> but it's not catching on.
Wouldn"t that be only 28 days?
--
Kel
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I believe he was translating as he spoke. You already
> know not all languages order words and clauses the same
> way English does. So in whatever language the warning
> was written it probably does come out as "For God's sake,
> whatever you do, don't do this: ... "
>
> (And if I'm wrong about Giles having to translate then
> just please ignore everything I just said, thanks.)
No, you're presenting the same argument that others have. The point
isn't just the way the clauses are set up, it's the order of ideas.
The bit Giles is reading, apprently verbatim, has several independent
thoughts strung toegther in an order that makes no sense whatsoever.
And that could've been fixed easily by making it a translation issue
rather than a text issue, throwing in some "let's see, it says here
that..."s.
Changing the subject some, why is summoning the fear demon a problem?
Clearly it can do its magic without being physically present, so how
does summoning it make things any worse? It just helps our heroes
laugh away ther fears and makes Gachnar more squishable.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Although its maybe also possible that what happens to Oz is Willow's fear,
> and what happens to Willow, Oz's
I kinda like that idea. But I also like the idea of Willow talking a
good game but actualy worrying a lot about screwing things up, so I
wouldn't want to lose that aspect of the glowy-things scene.
> No mention anywhere of what a 1000 year old ex vengeance demon thinks is
> scary? Oh well, Happy Easter anyway.
Just didn't seem that funny to me. No partiuclar reason.
> But seriously "Fear Itself" is
> at least at the high end of Good. In fact I find myself once again a little
> embarrassed by the fact that in setting a round-ish sort of rating level to
> equate to your "Excellent" (2.51 to 3.5 in my ratings) I've probably set the
> bar a little higher than the word entails (that will be a particular problem
> with the AtS episodes, where at my conversion rate I won't have any AtS
> episodes that warrant an "Excellent" until the 2nd half of Season 5). But
> Fear Itself is my 22nd favourite BtVS episode, 4th best in Season 4
I'm really not understanding why this one is as popular as it is.
There've always been the episodes that I ranked as Decent that others
tend to love, which is to be expected; we all like the episode at least
okay, we understand each others' viewpoints but don't agree. This is
the first time I'm baffled by the majority opinion. "School Hard"
introduced some memorable characetrs, "The Puppet Show," "The Zeppo,"
and "Earshot" were all memorable stories in some way, etc. This one
seems so non-descript. A poor man's "Nightmares" at best. Since
people are acting as if it'll have some significance for the rest of
the year, maybe it gets elevated in retrospect?
-AOQ
Rowan Hawthorn
>
> Changing the subject some, why is summoning the fear demon a problem?
> Clearly it can do its magic without being physically present, so how
> does summoning it make things any worse? It just helps our heroes
> laugh away ther fears and makes Gachnar more squishable.
I assume that 1)it's metaphorically "making the fear real",
and 2)there wasn't necessarily any problem at all in
allowing Gachnar to manifest. Remember that *Giles* said
that they couldn't allow that after a *quick glance* at the
book (and the drawing of Gachnar,) but then during the
build-up to the punch-line, he says:
GILES: Oh, bloody hell. The inscription!
BUFFY: What’s the matter?
Giles shows her the book.
GILES: I should have translated the Gælic inscription under
the illustration of Gachnar.
Buffy looks at it.
BUFFY: What’s it say?
GILES: Actual size.
Sounds to me like Giles did some 'suming of his own...
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
>
> Changing the subject some, why is summoning the fear demon a problem?
> Clearly it can do its magic without being physically present, so how
> does summoning it make things any worse? It just helps our heroes
> laugh away ther fears and makes Gachnar more squishable.
The gang figured that if Gachnar was that dangerous before the summoning
was even complete, he'd be even more dangerous when actually in the room
with them. A perfectly natural assumption that just happened to be wrong.
Rowan Hawthorn
> Apteryx wrote:
>
>
>>Although its maybe also possible that what happens to Oz is Willow's fear,
>>and what happens to Willow, Oz's
>
>
> I kinda like that idea. But I also like the idea of Willow talking a
> good game but actualy worrying a lot about screwing things up, so I
> wouldn't want to lose that aspect of the glowy-things scene.
>
I don't think it's much of a spoiler to say, "No worries
there." Willow worries about everything, even when she's
doing de Nile thingy...
> I'm really not understanding why this one is as popular as it is.
Well, first, it requires a sense of humor. :-)
> There've always been the episodes that I ranked as Decent that others
> tend to love, which is to be expected; we all like the episode at least
> okay, we understand each others' viewpoints but don't agree. This is
> the first time I'm baffled by the majority opinion. "School Hard"
> introduced some memorable characetrs, "The Puppet Show," "The Zeppo,"
> and "Earshot" were all memorable stories in some way, etc. This one
> seems so non-descript. A poor man's "Nightmares" at best. Since
> people are acting as if it'll have some significance for the rest of
> the year, maybe it gets elevated in retrospect?
Well, maybe, but I enjoyed it at first viewing. But then, I
also still like the Three Stooges, Abbot & Costello, and
"Gilligan's Island." Sometimes dumb fun is just what's
needed. Of course, one thing to keep in mind is that there
is *always* an undercurrent of significance in "Buffy," and
ME is prone to sneaking in little character insights in
places where you'd least expect them.
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
>>
>> What was that the Gachnar said to Buffy right before she squished him?
>> Was he just lashing out, or can he be sensing something Buffy fears?
>>
>>
> He was loud-mouthing his threats of terror:
>
> quote (http://bdb.vrya.net/bdb/clip.php?clip=1166)
I was specifically interested in the part where he tells Buffy "they're
all going to abandon you." Did he just pick a threat at random, or was he
actually reading Buffy's innermost fears?
(Gung guerng znl or sberfunqbjvat gur jnl gur tebhc qevsgf ncneg qhevat
frnfba 4, naq rfcrpvnyyl gur ovt svtug va Gur Lbxb Snpgbe.)
Mel
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
> "\(Harmony\) Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote:
>
>>>What was that the Gachnar said to Buffy right before she squished him?
>>>Was he just lashing out, or can he be sensing something Buffy fears?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>He was loud-mouthing his threats of terror:
>>
>>quote (http://bdb.vrya.net/bdb/clip.php?clip=1166)
>
>
> I was specifically interested in the part where he tells Buffy "they're
> all going to abandon you." Did he just pick a threat at random, or was he
> actually reading Buffy's innermost fears?
I don't think it was random or innermost. It just happened to be the
thing she was experiencing in real life at the time. Remember her
conversation with Joyce -- she's feeling abandoned, by her father, by
Angel, and most recently by Parker.
Mel
One Bit Shy
news:1145199054.1...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Jeff Jacoby wrote:
>
>> I believe he was translating as he spoke. You already
>> know not all languages order words and clauses the same
>> way English does. So in whatever language the warning
>> was written it probably does come out as "For God's sake,
>> whatever you do, don't do this: ... "
>>
>> (And if I'm wrong about Giles having to translate then
>> just please ignore everything I just said, thanks.)
>
> No, you're presenting the same argument that others have. The point
> isn't just the way the clauses are set up, it's the order of ideas.
> The bit Giles is reading, apprently verbatim, has several independent
> thoughts strung toegther in an order that makes no sense whatsoever.
> And that could've been fixed easily by making it a translation issue
> rather than a text issue, throwing in some "let's see, it says here
> that..."s.
There are only two thoughts expressed. (Previous explanations had been from
elsewhere in the book.)
"The summoning spell for Gachnar can be shut down in one of two ways."
"Destroying the mark of Gachnar Is *not* one of them and will in fact
immediately bring forth the fear demon itself."
Presumably the text continues with the two ways.
The structure is not ideal, but it does communicate, and was probably not
written with the assumption that people would act before finishing the
sentence. Switching the order of ideas - don't destroy the mark, then there
are two ways - isn't sufficient. That assumes that the reader wants to stop
the summoning, when it would seem at least as likely that the reader wants
to perform the summoning. The caution needs context.
One solution would be along the lines of, If you wish to shut down the
summoning spell, don't destroy the mark. That will immediately bring forth
the demon. There are two proper ways to shut it down...
But that's a more difficult construction to compose and will defeat many
writers. (And may or may not fit the language.)
One curiosity is to wonder why have the more elaborate summoning if you can
save time and effort by simply breaking the mark. But then it occurred to
me that the utility of the summoning is what Oz did by accident. Initiate
the summoning, then get the hell out of there and let it wreck its havoc
upon those left behind.
> Changing the subject some, why is summoning the fear demon a problem?
> Clearly it can do its magic without being physically present, so how
> does summoning it make things any worse? It just helps our heroes
> laugh away ther fears and makes Gachnar more squishable.
The completion of the summoning may not be a problem. (Though we really
don't know what he would be capable of if he arrived in a more protected
location - or had completed feeding off of people's fears before arriving.)
But the summoning was a process that created all the problems you saw.
If you just mean what's the problem with breaking the mark, well, it did
leave a hole in the floor. <g> Maybe that's why the author didn't bother
with more careful phrasing - it isn't that big a deal.
OBS
vague disclaimer
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> Changing the subject some, why is summoning the fear demon a problem?
> Clearly it can do its magic without being physically present, so how
> does summoning it make things any worse? It just helps our heroes
> laugh away ther fears and makes Gachnar more squishable.
It's not a problem - but you (the Royal you) are afraid that it it.
Nothing to fear but....
KenM47
This looks a bit like over analyzing a show with vampires, etc.
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
I suggested that elevation. I wish I could put myself back 6+ years
and remember how I felt then (and for other reasons as well<G>).
I think I still had not discovered this group, so I tended to teat all
TV as somewhat disposable then, particularly a show like Buffy that no
one I knew was watching.
This group and later finding out about mpegs changed my viewing
habits, and, I believe, made me a much more critical viewer (even if
my ideas were not shared by others too often).
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
Lrf, vg'f sberfunqbjvat, nf jrer Jvyybj'f pevrf bs "Bm, qba'g yrnir
zr" sbe rknzcyr.
Ken (Brooklyn)
One Bit Shy
It probably gets elevated in retrospect. But has a lot going for it as is
too I think.
Nightmares is a natural comparison.
Master: If I can face my fear, it cannot master me. (A thought that seems
to suit the teeny weenie appearance of Gachnar.)
Nightmares has some real attributes. Most notably, IMO, the heart breaking
scene between Buffy and her father. That certainly got to the core of some
of Buffy's real fears. (Touched upon in this episode too.) Buffy buried
alive and rising as a vampire hits a few spots too. But most of the
nightmares were rather less telling. Giles inability to read. Xander nude
in front of the class and chased by a birthday clown. Cordelia with bad
hair and stuck on the chess team. Willow singing opera. These are generic
fears. Scary and/or funny in their way, but not terribly illuminating.
Fear Itself is considerably more germane to the characters, and is supported
by the story outside of the haunted house - both within the episode and
ongoing. You got a little peak inside everybody this episode - even Anya.
You will note that her fear for Xander clearly demonstrated for the first
time that more than lust is at work with her. It may not be quite as
blatant as what you got in Nightmares - that kind of depends on what saw
here. Which might improve in retrospect - I don't know. But I don't
consider that a negative for Fear Itself.
It's also much better staged IMO. There's the humor thing. And lots of
little details. ("It's alive!" by Giles isn't just a joke of the moment -
it's foreshadowing.)
OBS
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> people are acting as if it'll have some significance for the rest of
> the year, maybe it gets elevated in retrospect?
i guess this is why comedieis dont get oscars
having a good laugh is not artisically awe inspiring
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
Arbitrar Of Quality
> One solution would be along the lines of, If you wish to shut down the
> summoning spell, don't destroy the mark. That will immediately bring forth
> the demon. There are two proper ways to shut it down...
>
> But that's a more difficult construction to compose and will defeat many
> writers. (And may or may not fit the language.)
I don't see why it's necessary to conflate the two in the first place.
Two separate thoughts. "Destroying the mark will bring forth the
physical fear demon." "To shut down the summoning spell... etc." That
would be easiest to compose and easiest to read in any language. If
you think one idea is partiuclarly important, put it in big dark
letters.
-AOQ
KenM47
Further proof it ain't funny if you have to explain it.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Nightmares has some real attributes. Most notably, IMO, the heart breaking
> scene between Buffy and her father. That certainly got to the core of some
> of Buffy's real fears. (Touched upon in this episode too.) Buffy buried
> alive and rising as a vampire hits a few spots too. But most of the
> nightmares were rather less telling. Giles inability to read. Xander nude
> in front of the class and chased by a birthday clown. Cordelia with bad
> hair and stuck on the chess team. Willow singing opera. These are generic
> fears. Scary and/or funny in their way, but not terribly illuminating.
Oh, I agree with most of that, and it was one of my complaints about
the first half of "Nightmares." But the stuff surrounding Buffy
(history test notwithstanding) leads to stuff a lot deeper than FI (and
how about the way Giles' and Buffy's fears combine at the end to give
us the final scenario?). And the last part of the episode is one of
the series' best adrenaline rushes to date.
> Fear Itself is considerably more germane to the characters, and is supported
> by the story outside of the haunted house - both within the episode and
> ongoing. You got a little peak inside everybody this episode
That's my issue. I don't see FI being especially germaine to the
characters either.. or to be more accurate, I don't see it telling us a
lot about them. Fear of his wolf-side and desire to control it isn't
much of a peek into Oz. And of course I see a bunch of haunted house
cheap-thrills surrounding everything.
In "Nightmares," we get Hank telling Buffy the things that she's most
terrified of hearing, and then we see her left alone to be truly
helpless (for the first time in the series) against her enemy. In
"Fear Itself" we see Buffy with a bunch of hands trying to pull her
underground. And comparing the background elements, in "Nightmares"
the kid is scared of spiders because of a particular personal guilt,
not just because they're creepy-crawlies. FI has background characters
menaced by things that're icky or jump out at them.
-AOQ
~at least FI has Giles with the sombrero, though~
KenM47
You could also say: We see Buffy ALONE, HELPLESS, being attacked by
DEAD THINGS from beneath her, unable to defeat her attackers and
forced to RUN AWAY.
There may be more there there. Or I might be over analyzing.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Arbitrar Of Quality
> You could also say: We see Buffy ALONE, HELPLESS, being attacked by
> DEAD THINGS from beneath her, unable to defeat her attackers and
> forced to RUN AWAY.
Yeah, of course. But that neither tells us very much we don't already
know, or hits us in a deep place. It seems like some people are
enamored with the device of introducing a theme and then coming up with
a supernatural situation to echo it. That in itself doesn't do much
for me.
> There may be more there there. Or I might be over analyzing.
Don't forget the lame monster's voice telling her about the "lesson" of
this little ordeal.
-AOQ
One Bit Shy
Because it matters in context. If you want to shut down the summoning, be
sure not to destroy the mark. That'll screw it up.
Giles only read a snippet from what appears to be several pages of text.
The caution may be repeated elsewhere too. Perhaps when describing how to
summon Gachnar, it cautions you not to destroy the mark because that will
bring forth the demon prematurely - before it's finished feeding on people's
fear. And maybe elsewhere again stand alone as you suggested.
We don't know. All that we know is that the part about stopping the
summoning includes this caution. Within the context of that limited
subject, it's a sensible warning to include.
Or to put it in classic magic terms, you will note that the symbol is a form
of a pentagram - the classic demon summoning shape. The classic way of
messing up the spell is to break the pentagram. That's also the classic way
of releasing the demon - but normally only when the pentagram is being used
to contain it. It would be important to make clear that breaking the
pentagram doesn't break the spell, but rather completes it. Yes, completing
it is the stand alone effect. But the reason that would matter to some
people is that they would think first in terms of breaking the spell by
breaking the pentagram. (Remember when Buffy broke up the altar in Amends?
Or when Anya lost her magic when her demon stone was crushed? Striking at
the heart of the magic is often the solution.)
OBS
KenM47
I suggested before, you might want to glance at this one again, or
just think about it, after the season ends.
Lots ahead happening which, it appears, you are still unspoiled about,
here and on Angel.
I'm looking forward to seeing if our views mesh on some of them.You've
startled me on some of the past episodes. I know there's at least one
episode yet to be reviewed by you I did not care all that much for
when it aired (although I'm not now sure why) and have grown to
consider it a pleasure upon the reviewing.
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
Or destroying the Janus statue in Halloween.
Ken (Brooklyn)
One Bit Shy
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>
>> Nightmares has some real attributes. Most notably, IMO, the heart
>> breaking
>> scene between Buffy and her father. That certainly got to the core of
>> some
>> of Buffy's real fears. (Touched upon in this episode too.) Buffy buried
>> alive and rising as a vampire hits a few spots too. But most of the
>> nightmares were rather less telling. Giles inability to read. Xander
>> nude
>> in front of the class and chased by a birthday clown. Cordelia with bad
>> hair and stuck on the chess team. Willow singing opera. These are
>> generic
>> fears. Scary and/or funny in their way, but not terribly illuminating.
>
> Oh, I agree with most of that, and it was one of my complaints about
> the first half of "Nightmares." But the stuff surrounding Buffy
> (history test notwithstanding) leads to stuff a lot deeper than FI (and
> how about the way Giles' and Buffy's fears combine at the end to give
> us the final scenario?).
You mean dead Buffy? Yes, that was one of the good parts.
> And the last part of the episode is one of
> the series' best adrenaline rushes to date.
You liked that better than I did. Good for you.
>> Fear Itself is considerably more germane to the characters, and is
>> supported
>> by the story outside of the haunted house - both within the episode and
>> ongoing. You got a little peak inside everybody this episode
>
> That's my issue. I don't see FI being especially germaine to the
> characters either.. or to be more accurate, I don't see it telling us a
> lot about them. Fear of his wolf-side and desire to control it isn't
> much of a peek into Oz. And of course I see a bunch of haunted house
> cheap-thrills surrounding everything.
It's more sophisticated than that - and further not so much like Nightmares.
These aren't stand alone fears. They all act in relationship to the other
characters. It's a device to essentially define roles in relationship to
each other - largely familiar, but not entirely - and highlight the stresses
on them. Hopefully in an entertaining fashion.
It happens with all six main characters, and not just in the haunted house.
> In "Nightmares," we get Hank telling Buffy the things that she's most
> terrified of hearing, and then we see her left alone to be truly
> helpless (for the first time in the series) against her enemy.
Foreshadow? The Nightmares comparison has some utility for highlighting
Fear Itself's attributes. But they're different shows. There's nothing in
Fear Itself to compare with the Hank scene or seeing Buffy's headstone.
Some of the interactions in Fear Itself may disturb - Buffy and Willow
fighting for example - but it's not a big tear inducing show. I'm
attempting to show some of what Fear Itself has - not to tear down either
episode.
> In
> "Fear Itself" we see Buffy with a bunch of hands trying to pull her
> underground. And comparing the background elements, in "Nightmares"
> the kid is scared of spiders because of a particular personal guilt,
> not just because they're creepy-crawlies. FI has background characters
> menaced by things that're icky or jump out at them.
>
> -AOQ
> ~at least FI has Giles with the sombrero, though~
And then there's the humor thing. Silliness abounds. A lobster and a
wrapped gift have a relationship argument.
OBS
vague disclaimer
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see it telling us a
> lot about them. Fear of his wolf-side and desire to control it isn't
> much of a peek into Oz.
I'm not sure I agree with this: I don't think we have seen Oz much
concerned beyond matters of practical safety. He has, in fact, accepted
what he is in characteristic Oz fashion: "Huh, I'm a werewolf. Better
lock myself up 3 nights a month. No gigs those nights".
Here the fear is much more visceral - he is afraid he's going to rip
Willow to shreds (which personally I would count as a Bad Thing). In
short, we've seen what it takes to shake Oz up, to break the cool. This
isn't the Gravlox negotiation - this is about what Oz, personally, could
do.
George W Harris
<tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
:Jeff Jacoby wrote:
:
:> I believe he was translating as he spoke. You already
:> know not all languages order words and clauses the same
:> way English does. So in whatever language the warning
:> was written it probably does come out as "For God's sake,
:> whatever you do, don't do this: ... "
:>
:> (And if I'm wrong about Giles having to translate then
:> just please ignore everything I just said, thanks.)
:
:No, you're presenting the same argument that others have. The point
:isn't just the way the clauses are set up, it's the order of ideas.
:The bit Giles is reading, apprently verbatim, has several independent
:thoughts strung toegther in an order that makes no sense whatsoever.
:And that could've been fixed easily by making it a translation issue
:rather than a text issue, throwing in some "let's see, it says here
:that..."s.
Have you ever read _The Golden Bough_? The
idea that arcane tomes are written really, really badly is
one that resonates, especially after attempting Sir James
George Frazer's turgid magnum opus. The reason studying
dark magics drives you insane might be more from the
prose than the secrets.
--
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar." -Wash, 'Serenity'
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
George W Harris
<tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
:-AOQ
:~at least FI has Giles with the sombrero, though~
Sombreros are the key to humor.
Start here, and go forward:
http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20060327.html
--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like
prunes than rhubarb does" -Groucho Marx
George W Harris
wrote:
:I was specifically interested in the part where he tells Buffy "they're
:all going to abandon you." Did he just pick a threat at random, or was he
:actually reading Buffy's innermost fears?
:
:(Gung guerng znl or sberfunqbjvat gur jnl gur tebhc qevsgf ncneg qhevat
:frnfba 4, naq rfcrpvnyyl gur ovt svtug va Gur Lbxb Snpgbe.)
Trr, ln guvax?
:
:
:--Chris
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
Mike Zeares
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
4
>
> I'm really not understanding why this one is as popular as it is.
> There've always been the episodes that I ranked as Decent that others
> tend to love, which is to be expected; we all like the episode at least
> okay, we understand each others' viewpoints but don't agree. This is
> the first time I'm baffled by the majority opinion. "School Hard"
> introduced some memorable characetrs, "The Puppet Show," "The Zeppo,"
> and "Earshot" were all memorable stories in some way, etc. This one
> people are acting as if it'll have some significance for the rest of
> the year, maybe it gets elevated in retrospect?
I don't get it either. Never have. I didn't like the ep very much on
its first airing, and never understood why everyone else seemed to
think it was so great. It has a couple of mildly cool or amusing
moments, including the final gag, but that's about it.
There might be significance to later eps, but that would be spoilery,
so I won't explore that now. I'm not saying there is; I'd have to
actually think about it. Maybe we can revisit it later in the season,
but for now it's pretty much as you say. Where "Nightmares" has gone
before. Only slower.
-- Mike Zeares
-- Mike Zeares
Terry
news:9JGdncBxp6R...@giganews.com:
> My German is rusty, but Ich habe zwei klassen gehabt, ein in der Hoch
> schule und eins an der Universität. I can believe that up to a point.
>
I almost tried to ROT13 that. Force of habit, I guess.
Terry
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>
>
>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>Season Four, Episode 4: "Fear Itself"
>(or "Shown actual size")
>Writer: David Fury
>Director: Tucker Gates
[snip]
>One-sentence summary: Wrings as much humor as possible from stupidity
>and non-descriptness
>
>AOQ rating: Decent
>
>[Season Four so far:
>1) "The Freshman" - Good
>2) "Living Conditions" - Decent
>3) "The Harsh Light Of Day" - Good
>4) "Fear Itself" - Decent]
Late to the party this weekend, but here's what I wrote back in 1999.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: William George Ferguson <f...@primenet.com>
Subject: Fear Itself - Random Comments - Spoilers
Date: 1999/10/26
Message-ID: <em4WOAd2ctPgwc...@4ax.com>#1/1
Newsgroups: alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer
It's got a nice beat and you can dance to it. I give it a 7.
"It didn't help that my last boyfriend was a homicidal robot"
Joyce knows about Ted. Apparently Buffy has been making good on some
of those 'I'll tell you everything later" promises she was throwing
around the last year or so.
Giles is really getting into this release from responsibility bit.
And maybe his wolfing down the band candy wasn't really all that much
out of character.
"Oh, the rest of them are trapped too, but the important thing is, we
have to rescue Xander."
Nice to have your priorities in order.
Anya must find one Monty Python film really horrifying.
So, Gabr... er, Willow stands up for herself.
This was billed as 'facing their greatest fears'. I can see it for Oz
and the wolf, and Xander and not being noticed, but I don't think I
buy it for Willow or Buffy. (in the first place, where were the
frogs?)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keeping in mind that 'average' for me is probably over '8', my original
score pretty much echoes yours.
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
Rowan Hawthorn
LOL! Couple days ago, I caught myself ROT13ing a section of
*un*encrypted English post! Sure sign I need to take a
breather...
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg,
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Bill Reid
Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145211842.5...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Basically, you went too easy on this piece of crap. It suX, with
a capital "X".
What it has for the supporters is an easily discernable generic
"message" about our fears only being as big as we make them.
Wow, that's deep...if you're an idiot. As a "Buffy" episode, it's
terrible, but it might work as a "very special" episode of "Sabrina
The Teenaged Witch", or even a lamer show, like "Charmed"...
They did a good job on a "Halloween" episode in the second
season, but about the only good thing to say about this one overall
is that they manage to do even WORSE "Halloween" episodes
in the future...
I will agree on two rare good points in this otherwise rotten
episode: Oz's name tag "God", and the whole "Yeah, well...SO'S
YOUR FACE!!!" exchange, which is SO funny cuz it's SO true:
Buffy: Face it, Will, at best your spells are only about 50-50.
Willow: Yeah, well...SO'S YOUR FACE!!!
At best, Sarah Michelle Gellar's face IS only about 50-50...needs
a LOT of make-up, lighting, and camera angles to get it to "work"...
---
William Ernest Reid
lord_...@hotmail.com
> characters either.. or to be more accurate, I don't see it telling us a
> lot about them. Fear of his wolf-side and desire to control it isn't
> much of a peek into Oz. And of course I see a bunch of haunted house
> cheap-thrills surrounding everything.
>
> In "Nightmares," we get Hank telling Buffy the things that she's most
> terrified of hearing, and then we see her left alone to be truly
> helpless (for the first time in the series) against her enemy. In
> "Fear Itself" we see Buffy with a bunch of hands trying to pull her
> underground. And comparing the background elements, in "Nightmares"
> the kid is scared of spiders because of a particular personal guilt,
> not just because they're creepy-crawlies. FI has background characters
> menaced by things that're icky or jump out at them.
Heh. My reaction has always been precisely the opposite. I find most of
the secret fears of "Nightmares" to be thoroughly generic -- the
stage-fright dream, the naked dream, the evil-clown dream -- whereas
every nightmare in "Fear Itself" is hugely personal, from Xander's fear
of irrelevency to Oz's fear that he can't contain the beast within in
him after all, to Willow's fear that she really can't master the forces
she's been playing with for the past year or so. Buffy's story ends up
getting a little bit muddled when the zombies show up, but her central
anxiety -- that she'll drive everyone she cares about away, and that
the only place for her is the world of evil and death -- is extremely
strong.
[WARNING: Unpopular opinion to follow.] And it's certainly delivered
with more nuance and subtlety than the corresponding anxiety in
"Nightmares," when Buffy's dad just sits her down and *tells* her that
she's a terrible daughter and she drove him away. I'm probably the only
person in BUFFY fandom that never really bought that particular scene.
--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."
Apteryx
> Apteryx wrote:
>
>
>> But seriously "Fear Itself" is
>> at least at the high end of Good. In fact I find myself once again a
>> little
>> embarrassed by the fact that in setting a round-ish sort of rating level
>> to
>> equate to your "Excellent" (2.51 to 3.5 in my ratings) I've probably set
>> the
>> bar a little higher than the word entails (that will be a particular
>> problem
>> with the AtS episodes, where at my conversion rate I won't have any AtS
>> episodes that warrant an "Excellent" until the 2nd half of Season 5). But
>
> I'm really not understanding why this one is as popular as it is.
> There've always been the episodes that I ranked as Decent that others
> tend to love, which is to be expected; we all like the episode at least
> okay, we understand each others' viewpoints but don't agree. This is
> the first time I'm baffled by the majority opinion. "School Hard"
> introduced some memorable characetrs, "The Puppet Show," "The Zeppo,"
> and "Earshot" were all memorable stories in some way, etc. This one
> seems so non-descript. A poor man's "Nightmares" at best. Since
> people are acting as if it'll have some significance for the rest of
> the year, maybe it gets elevated in retrospect?
Maybe. There are some aspects which resonate more when you have seen later
episodes (some much later). But it is in some respects a remake of
Nightmares. I like Nightmares too (my 35th favourite BtVS episode). And
probably the main reason I rate Season 1 as (marginally) the best season is
that when points for originality are handed out, Season 1 is at the head of
the queue. Nightmares takes the points for originality ahead of Fear Itself,
but I still put Fear Itself a little ahead of it because it is much funnier.
It has jokes to throw away, like the lobster/package fight that One Bit Shy
referred to, and Oz's Mi Casio es su Casio. And then there is every scene
Anya is in. Her choice of a scary costume, and the way she looks in it. Her
single-mindedness about saving Xander. The others? "Oh, they're trapped too,
but we've got to save Xander". Her impatience while waiting for Giles to
decide he has to "create a door" which causes her bunny ears to quiver. And
Willow, walking with God. And not just the fact that her spell goes wrong,
but why it does, because she can't focus on a single job for her guiding
light.
--
Apteryx
Arbitrar Of Quality
One Bit Shy wrote:
> > I don't see why it's necessary to conflate the two in the first place.
> > Two separate thoughts. "Destroying the mark will bring forth the
> > physical fear demon." "To shut down the summoning spell... etc." That
> > would be easiest to compose and easiest to read in any language. If
> > you think one idea is partiuclarly important, put it in big dark
> > letters.
>
> Because it matters in context. If you want to shut down the summoning, be
> sure not to destroy the mark. That'll screw it up.
So like I said, put it right above the sentance about how to stop the
summoning, with a big "caution" sign. Not in the middle of a separate
thought where it can only cause confusion. [This conversation is a
mobius strip.]
> We don't know. All that we know is that the part about stopping the
> summoning includes this caution. Within the context of that limited
> subject, it's a sensible warning to include.
It worked so well, too.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Have you ever read _The Golden Bough_? The
> idea that arcane tomes are written really, really badly is
> one that resonates, especially after attempting Sir James
> George Frazer's turgid magnum opus. The reason studying
> dark magics drives you insane might be more from the
> prose than the secrets.
Heh. Nothing to add to that, but just thought I'd register my
amusement worldwide.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I suggested before, you might want to glance at this one again, or
> just think about it, after the season ends.
Sounds like a plan.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
vague disclaimer wrote:
> In article <1145210592....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't see it telling us a
> > lot about them. Fear of his wolf-side and desire to control it isn't
> > much of a peek into Oz.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with this: I don't think we have seen Oz much
> concerned beyond matters of practical safety. He has, in fact, accepted
> what he is in characteristic Oz fashion: "Huh, I'm a werewolf. Better
> lock myself up 3 nights a month. No gigs those nights".
>
> Here the fear is much more visceral - he is afraid he's going to rip
> Willow to shreds (which personally I would count as a Bad Thing). In
> short, we've seen what it takes to shake Oz up, to break the cool.
Not really contradicting since it indeed hasn't been a major part of
the series, but I'd say that so far the definitive
how-Oz-relates-to-his-wolf-related-fears episode has been "Beauty And
The Beasts."
> This isn't the Gravlox negotiation
??
-AOQ
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>> Arbitrar Of Quality (tsm...@wildmail.com) wrote:
>>
>>> And on a personal nitpicky note, as I like to loudly mention
>>> when the opportunity presents itself, the term "anniversary"
>>> refers to a *year*, or a multiple thereof. By definition.
>>> Referring to a one-week or one-month anniversary or whatever is
>>> meaningless, and in fact defiles the language. Yeah, that's
>>> right, defiles. You gotta take a stand somewhere.
>>
>> I keep trying to get people to use "menstroversary" for month
>> markers, but it's not catching on.
>
> Wouldn"t that be only 28 days?
>
Nope. It would be a month. That's what the root Latin word means. I
can't help it if they named a 28 day cycle after that word.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Don Sample
William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> Anya must find one Monty Python film really horrifying.
But the rabbit gets what's coming to it in the end. That would have
been a stand up and cheer moment for her.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
the root latin word is cognate with moon
the month is supposed to be 29 and half days
in some calendars (but not all) it has been disassociated from the moon
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
vague disclaimer
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> vague disclaimer wrote:
> > In article <1145210592....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see it telling us a
> > > lot about them. Fear of his wolf-side and desire to control it isn't
> > > much of a peek into Oz.
> >
> > I'm not sure I agree with this: I don't think we have seen Oz much
> > concerned beyond matters of practical safety. He has, in fact, accepted
> > what he is in characteristic Oz fashion: "Huh, I'm a werewolf. Better
> > lock myself up 3 nights a month. No gigs those nights".
> >
> > Here the fear is much more visceral - he is afraid he's going to rip
> > Willow to shreds (which personally I would count as a Bad Thing). In
> > short, we've seen what it takes to shake Oz up, to break the cool.
>
> Not really contradicting since it indeed hasn't been a major part of
> the series, but I'd say that so far the definitive
> how-Oz-relates-to-his-wolf-related-fears episode has been "Beauty And
> The Beasts."
In BB&B the focus was much less personally on Willow. In BB&B Oz is very
aware that he could do a lot of damage. Here he is suddenly focused on
that he could do a lot of damage to Willow. An important distinction, to
me.
> > This isn't the Gravlox negotiation
Where Oz dramatically pushed over the container, thus ending the debate
about whether the spell should be finished OR Willow should be rescued.
I couldn't spell gravadlax :)
Opus the Penguin
> I'm really not understanding why this one is as popular as it is.
> There've always been the episodes that I ranked as Decent that
> others tend to love, which is to be expected; we all like the
> episode at least okay, we understand each others' viewpoints but
> don't agree. This is the first time I'm baffled by the majority
> opinion. "School Hard" introduced some memorable characetrs, "The
> Puppet Show," "The Zeppo," and "Earshot" were all memorable
> stories in some way, etc. This one seems so non-descript. A poor
> man's "Nightmares" at best. Since people are acting as if it'll
> have some significance for the rest of the year, maybe it gets
> elevated in retrospect?
Who's a little nitpicker? Come on, who's a little nitpicker? Gootchee
gootchee!
rrh...@acme.com
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> And on a personal nitpicky note, as I like to loudly mention
> when the opportunity presents itself, the term "anniversary" refers
> to a *year*, or a multiple thereof. By definition. Referring to a
> one-week or one-month anniversary or whatever is meaningless, and in
> fact defiles the language. Yeah, that's right, defiles. You gotta
> take a stand somewhere.
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about a "journal" which isn't
published daily?
Richard R. Hershberger
Terry
> Terry wrote:
>> Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:9JGdncBxp6R...@giganews.com:
>>>My German is rusty, but Ich habe zwei klassen gehabt, ein in der Hoch
>>>schule und eins an der Universität. I can believe that up to a point.
>> I almost tried to ROT13 that. Force of habit, I guess.
> LOL! Couple days ago, I caught myself ROT13ing a section of
> *un*encrypted English post! Sure sign I need to take a
> breather...
It certainly makes me feel better. Let's see how much German I can fake
here.
I have two *Something something* school *something something* the
University.
Can you tell I took Spanish?
Terry
William George Ferguson
>Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:FoydncPAXKu...@giganews.com:
>
>> Terry wrote:
>>> Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:9JGdncBxp6R...@giganews.com:
>
>>>>My German is rusty, but Ich habe zwei klassen gehabt, ein in der Hoch
>>>>schule und eins an der Universität. I can believe that up to a point.
>
>>> I almost tried to ROT13 that. Force of habit, I guess.
>
>> LOL! Couple days ago, I caught myself ROT13ing a section of
>> *un*encrypted English post! Sure sign I need to take a
>> breather...
>
>It certainly makes me feel better. Let's see how much German I can fake
>here.
>
>I have two *Something something* school *something something* the
>University.
It looks to be very bad German (really directly translating an English
sentence into German words, without German syntax, I think.
"Ich habe zwei klassen gehabt, ein in der Hoch schule und eins an der
Universität."
I have two classes had, one in the highly school and some in the
University.
Hoch schule is trying for a direct transliteration. I don't think it
works. I'm pretty sure 'eins' is just a typo of 'ein'.
I would have tried
"Ich zwei klassen in der Deutsch gehabt, ein in der schule und ein in der
universitat." With some umluats and such in appropriate places.
Terry
news:4ka842ti9jkladvef...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 23:38:09 GMT, Terry <no...@nonesuch.com> wrote:
>>I have two *Something something* school *something something* the
>>University.
>
> It looks to be very bad German (really directly translating an English
> sentence into German words, without German syntax, I think.
>
> "Ich habe zwei klassen gehabt, ein in der Hoch schule und eins an der
> Universität."
>
> I have two classes had, one in the highly school and some in the
> University.
Hey, I knew "two" "school" *and* "university."
Okay, so the only reason I knew University was because, well, it was
obvious. And I should have gotten all the "ein"s because the only other
thing I know in German is ein, zwei, drei....
> "Ich zwei klassen in der Deutsch gehabt, ein in der schule und ein in
der
> universitat." With some umluats and such in appropriate places.
I love me some umlauts, but can only produce them on a Mac.
Terry (Motley Crue anyone? They should name a band "Unecessary Umlaut")
Arbitrar Of Quality
I wasn't aware that that was a problem... I may have to start getting
angry about it, depending on the derivation and history of the word.
-AOQ
Rowan Hawthorn
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 23:38:09 GMT, Terry <no...@nonesuch.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:FoydncPAXKu...@giganews.com:
>>
>>
>>>Terry wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>news:9JGdncBxp6R...@giganews.com:
>>
>>>>>My German is rusty, but Ich habe zwei klassen gehabt, ein in der Hoch
>>>>>schule und eins an der Universität. I can believe that up to a point.
>>
>>>>I almost tried to ROT13 that. Force of habit, I guess.
>>
>>>LOL! Couple days ago, I caught myself ROT13ing a section of
>>>*un*encrypted English post! Sure sign I need to take a
>>>breather...
>>
>>It certainly makes me feel better. Let's see how much German I can fake
>>here.
>>
>>I have two *Something something* school *something something* the
>>University.
>
>
> It looks to be very bad German (really directly translating an English
> sentence into German words, without German syntax, I think.
Not exactly, but my German *is* very rusty. I was never
*fluent* to begin with, although I could pretty much grab a
book or magazine in German and read it okay.
>
> "Ich habe zwei klassen gehabt, ein in der Hoch schule und eins an der
> Universität."
>
> I have two classes had, one in the highly school and some in the
> University.
Well, "Hoch" as in "Hoch" Deutsch, or "High" German. Hohe
or Hohen might be better, though.
>
> Hoch schule is trying for a direct transliteration. I don't think it
> works.
Probably not. I think "Hoch schule" really translates
closer to "college" than high school, but on the other hand,
that's more or less the way High School was translated in
the classes I took, and I couldn't really think of anything
else.
> I'm pretty sure 'eins' is just a typo of 'ein'.
Yeah. Oops.
>
> I would have tried
>
> "Ich zwei klassen in der Deutsch gehabt, ein in der schule und ein in der
> universitat." With some umluats and such in appropriate places.
I *said* I was rusty. These days, mein Deutsche ist sehr
schlecht... :-)
Rowan Hawthorn
Use the Alt-key with the number keypad to type in the ASCII
number of the character you want. Alt-0228 gets you: ä
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
from french le jour or la journee mean day
a daily recording
Terry
a8Ej0tn...@giganews.com:
>> I love me some umlauts, but can only produce them on a Mac.
>
> Use the Alt-key with the number keypad to type in the ASCII
> number of the character you want. Alt-0228 gets you: ä
Yeah, see, there's numbers to remember, there. On a Mac, it's a two- or
three-keystroke command. No numbers.
But I got this PC at home, so... I'm umlaut-free.
Terry
Rowan Hawthorn
> Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:BqednYS-
> a8Ej0tn...@giganews.com:
>
>
>
>>>I love me some umlauts, but can only produce them on a Mac.
>>
>>Use the Alt-key with the number keypad to type in the ASCII
>>number of the character you want. Alt-0228 gets you: ä
>
>
> Yeah, see, there's numbers to remember, there.
Well, no, I keep a handy-dandy little ASCII chart pinned to
my corkboard.
> On a Mac, it's a two- or
> three-keystroke command. No numbers.
>
> But I got this PC at home, so... I'm umlaut-free.
>
> Terry
Still got to remember the keystrokes for each umlauted
character - unless the keystroke opens a "character-insert"
box where you can select the one you want, in which case,
that's a function of the software, not the machine or
operating system. MS-Word has that feature, but OE doesn't,
and of course it's not an option for Google Groups (nor for
Thunderbird, which I use for text newsgroups.)
rrh...@acme.com
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> In article <1145326819.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > rrh...@acme.com wrote:
> > > Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > >
> > > > And on a personal nitpicky note, as I like to loudly mention
> > > > when the opportunity presents itself, the term "anniversary" refers
> > > > to a *year*, or a multiple thereof. By definition. Referring to a
> > > > one-week or one-month anniversary or whatever is meaningless, and in
> > > > fact defiles the language. Yeah, that's right, defiles. You gotta
> > > > take a stand somewhere.
> > >
> > > Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about a "journal" which isn't
> > > published daily?
> >
> > I wasn't aware that that was a problem... I may have to start getting
> > angry about it, depending on the derivation and history of the word.
>
> from french le jour or la journee mean day
> a daily recording
Exactly. The broader point is that a word's derivation and history do
not determine its meaning. Don't believe me? Go to any dictionary
with decent etymologies (i.e. word histories). Open a page at random
and go down the list. You will find any number of words whose meanings
have changed over the centuries. If you are going to demand the
consistency of preserving historical meanings, surely this cries out
for the consistency of doing it with all words, not just one or two
that happen to be your pet peeves. But when you try to implement this,
you will find it impossible to communicate.
In actual practice no one does try this, instead picking those pet
peeves and sticking with them. This logic is bogus, and even has its
own name: the etymological fallacy. The reason you are aware of the
issue with "anniversary" but not with "journal" is that the broadening
of the meaning of "anniversary" only happened recently (within the past
few decades) while "journal" was broadened in the 19th century. But I
collect 19th century grammars and usage manuals (and how geeky is
that???) and I can show you people making this complaint. The moral
is, that is how actual English works: it is how actual English will
work whether you like it or not, so why be a bore about it?
Richard R. Hershberger
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> that???) and I can show you people making this complaint. The moral
> is, that is how actual English works: it is how actual English will
> work whether you like it or not, so why be a bore about it?
language is whatever the speakers of the language decide it is
Steve Schaffner
My favorites are "carnation" and "pink", which more or less swapped
meanings.
--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
vague disclaimer
Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Terry wrote:
> > Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:BqednYS-
> > a8Ej0tn...@giganews.com:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>I love me some umlauts, but can only produce them on a Mac.
> >>
> >>Use the Alt-key with the number keypad to type in the ASCII
> >>number of the character you want. Alt-0228 gets you: ä
> >
> >
> > Yeah, see, there's numbers to remember, there.
>
> Well, no, I keep a handy-dandy little ASCII chart pinned to
> my corkboard.
>
> > On a Mac, it's a two- or
> > three-keystroke command. No numbers.
> >
> > But I got this PC at home, so... I'm umlaut-free.
> >
> > Terry
>
> Still got to remember the keystrokes for each umlauted
> character - unless the keystroke opens a "character-insert"
> box where you can select the one you want, in which case,
> that's a function of the software, not the machine or
> operating system. MS-Word has that feature, but OE doesn't,
> and of course it's not an option for Google Groups (nor for
> Thunderbird, which I use for text newsgroups.)
On a Mac it is part of the OS (and had been for years).
For an umlaut it is option-u then the letter you want to place it over:
ü ö. For, say, a circumflex it is option-i then letter: î ô. (option-e
then letter for an acute: é, option-` for a grave: à). A cedilla on a c
is just option-c: ç.
and so on.
And there is a nifty keyboard viewer you can have in the foreground (I
have it up as I type this) that highlights what you are doing, so you
can see what various modifier keys do.
rrh...@acme.com
"Nice" is a standard example of a word with notably unstable meaning.
It started out meaning ignorant and passed through meaning wanton on
its way to its modern, mildly favorable senses. Another of my
favorites is "naughty", which used to mean evil, as in Hitler was a
naughty person, but has lost so much of its power that it now refers to
a misbehaving child.
Richard R. Hershberger
Rowan Hawthorn
But does that work in *every* application installed, even
third-party ones? (Frex, the "character insert" only works
in apps that have that as a feature, but I can use the
Alt-number keys in pretty much everything I've tried,
because it's OS-related.)
vague disclaimer
Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip clutter>
> >>
> >>Still got to remember the keystrokes for each umlauted
> >>character - unless the keystroke opens a "character-insert"
> >>box where you can select the one you want, in which case,
> >>that's a function of the software, not the machine or
> >>operating system. MS-Word has that feature, but OE doesn't,
> >>and of course it's not an option for Google Groups (nor for
> >>Thunderbird, which I use for text newsgroups.)
> >
> >
> > On a Mac it is part of the OS (and had been for years).
> >
> > For an umlaut it is option-u then the letter you want to place it over:
> > ü ö. For, say, a circumflex it is option-i then letter: î ô. (option-e
> > then letter for an acute: é, option-` for a grave: à). A cedilla on a c
> > is just option-c: ç.
> >
> > and so on.
> >
> > And there is a nifty keyboard viewer you can have in the foreground (I
> > have it up as I type this) that highlights what you are doing, so you
> > can see what various modifier keys do.
>
> But does that work in *every* application installed, even
> third-party ones? (Frex, the "character insert" only works
> in apps that have that as a feature, but I can use the
> Alt-number keys in pretty much everything I've tried,
> because it's OS-related.)
Well I dare say there are applications that ignore Apple's toolbox, but
since this functionality has been part of Mac since at least System 6
(c1989) anything that doesn't use it won't be taken up. Why write a
routine yourself when you can just call the library? Remember, Mac made
its name by inventing desktop publishing. And generally Mac users don't
respond well to developers that ignore the Apple Human Interface
Guidelines (including Apple).
In today's world of unixy goodness I dare say there are non-native
programmes that will launch in X11 that might disregard it, but even
BOINC (the software that runs seti@home) recognises it and it doesn't
even have copy and paste. So if it launches natively in OSX then I would
be willing to bet it supports it (as long as the font family has the
character, obviously).
The only app it doesn't work in (for obvious reasons) is Terminal, the
OS's command line interface. option-u-u returns \303\274 instead of ü.
Firefox seems quite happy with it in a search box.
cry...@panix.com
> The only app it doesn't work in (for obvious reasons) is Terminal, the
> OS's command line interface. option-u-u returns \303\274 instead of ?.
> Firefox seems quite happy with it in a search box.
What obvious reasons? I can think of two:
1. User did not (or does not know how to) configure Terminal
to work with UTF-8
2. User enables "Option as Meta" option, which makes typing
symbols via option-key impossible, though it doesn't
prevent entry by other means
You can do this:
1. Put these lines in your .inputrc, so bash won't mangle UTF-8.
set input-meta on
set output-meta on
set convert-meta off
Note: the .inputrc file goes in your home directory. If you
don't have one, just create one.
2. export LANG=en_JP.UTF-8 (in .bashrc)
Note: If you prefer en_US.UTF-8 or another UTF-8 locale will
work fine as well; see /usr/share/locale for a list.
3. Add -v to your ls alias, so characters don't get squashed by
it (I use alias ls='ls -FGv')
4. Compile vim with FEAT_MBYTE defined; use the configure option
--enable-multibyte to turn this on.
I cut+pasted that from a work-in-progress FAQ I'm writing up
("Setting up OSX for UNIX-heads"). Other unorganized and
unfinished tidbits sitting here:
http://auriplane.net/osxsetup.txt
Random screen shot of UTF-8 in Terminal.app:
--
-Crystal
(Harmony) Watcher
news:G6SdnZMUWrS...@giganews.com...
On a Windows machine, I usually just click on one of a few handy links on
"ASCII charts" that I have, look up the number online, and use the
"Alt+number" keystrokes to insert the needed character. For example,
http://www.cdrummond.qc.ca/cegep/informat/Professeurs/Alain/files/ascii.htm
http://www.lookuptables.com/
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/vsintro7/html/_pluslang_ascii_character_codes.asp?frame=true
Personally, I find the other approaches of installing an app such as
"PopChar" (http://www.ergonis.com/products/popchar/) a bit of an "over-kill"
in view of the fact that Windows already has a "character map" utility
(http://tlt.psu.edu/suggestions/international/accents/charmap.html) that one
can call up anytime to copy and paste the desired character into any
Windows-compliant app.
Finally, the "Alt+number" keystroke approach works in a lowly DOS console
just as well--which comes in *extremely* handy if, for some reason (like a
cat stepping on the "global" ON/OFF button of the surge suppressor), a
filename got partially mangled resulting in a few "unreadable" characters.
If the rest of the filename is still recognizable and no other parts of the
file has been corrupted, converting the "unreadable" filename characters to
their original characters had saved me more than a couple of days. :)
=(Harmony) Watcher=
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> third-party ones? (Frex, the "character insert" only works
every application that uses the aqua text related classes
any system upgrades also upgrade all sucj application automatically
x-windows applications and applications that avoid aqua text classes
are left on their own
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> file has been corrupted, converting the "unreadable" filename characters to
> their original characters had saved me more than a couple of days. :)
or select the file in finder
hit return to get the edit box around the file name
and then type in the file name
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> OS's command line interface. option-u-u returns \303\274 instead of ü.
> Firefox seems quite happy with it in a search box.
actually it is working
the shell (not the terminal application) is replacing non-ascii characters
with ascii escape sequences
(i think theres a shell option to turn that off)
the escape sequence you are seeing is the utf-8 encoding of umulaut-u
this escape encoding is recognized by many unix programs
and presumably firefox as well
Arbitrar Of Quality
> In actual practice no one does try this, instead picking those pet
> peeves and sticking with them. This logic is bogus, and even has its
> own name: the etymological fallacy. The reason you are aware of the
> issue with "anniversary" but not with "journal" is that the broadening
> of the meaning of "anniversary" only happened recently (within the past
> few decades) while "journal" was broadened in the 19th century. But I
> collect 19th century grammars and usage manuals (and how geeky is
> that???) and I can show you people making this complaint. The moral
> is, that is how actual English works: it is how actual English will
> work whether you like it or not, so why be a bore about it?
As of right now, a spin through a dictionary reveals no definition of
"anniversary" that doesn't refer to multiples of years. "Journal," on
the other hand, is used properly in 2006-era English, regardless of how
often it's updated. I'm not a futurologist, so present usage is a
pretty good guideline... plus, it's a pet peeve...
-AOQ
vague disclaimer
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
Trouble is that every attempt to be prescriptive towards English has
pretty much crashed and burned. In present usage I frequently here it in
the sense used by Anya and I suspect that it is not going to go away. So
I suspect now-ish might be a good time to get over it. Think of the
blood pressure.
Now my pet peeve is "dumbing down". How the fuck can you dumb something
up?
Rowan Hawthorn
Just wondering. I've been programming computers for years, but the only
thing I ever did on a Mac was rent one once at Kinko's to scan in a photo.
Rowan Hawthorn
> "Rowan Hawthorn" <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:G6SdnZMUWrS...@giganews.com...
>
>>
>>but I can use the
>>Alt-number keys in pretty much everything I've tried,
>>because it's OS-related.)
>>
>>
>
> Indeed. Windows apps will/should recognize the "Alt+number" keystrokes.
>
> On a Windows machine, I usually just click on one of a few handy links on
> "ASCII charts" that I have, look up the number online, and use the
> "Alt+number" keystrokes to insert the needed character. For example,
>
> http://www.cdrummond.qc.ca/cegep/informat/Professeurs/Alain/files/ascii.htm
> http://www.lookuptables.com/
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/vsintro7/html/_pluslang_ascii_character_codes.asp?frame=true
>
> Personally, I find the other approaches of installing an app such as
> "PopChar" (http://www.ergonis.com/products/popchar/) a bit of an "over-kill"
> in view of the fact that Windows already has a "character map" utility
> (http://tlt.psu.edu/suggestions/international/accents/charmap.html) that one
> can call up anytime to copy and paste the desired character into any
> Windows-compliant app.
Plus, I don't use'em often enough to make it worth my time - it's less
trouble just to work with what I have. If I ever need those characters
in my program code, I generally have to use the ASCII-code sequence for
them, anyway, instead of actually entering the character itself.
>
> Finally, the "Alt+number" keystroke approach works in a lowly DOS console
> just as well--which comes in *extremely* handy if, for some reason (like a
> cat stepping on the "global" ON/OFF button of the surge suppressor), a
> filename got partially mangled resulting in a few "unreadable" characters.
> If the rest of the filename is still recognizable and no other parts of the
> file has been corrupted, converting the "unreadable" filename characters to
> their original characters had saved me more than a couple of days. :)
Heh! There's a lot to be said for keeping the "old-fashioned way"
usable. One of the apps that I support and customize still has a
text-based interface, which new clients are continually complainnig
about - until they discover that the screens refresh three to four times
faster than the GUI interface, it's easier on the eyes for their data
entry people, and it's faster for them to get through the fields and
entry screens since they just hit a key and keep typing instead of
having to reach for the mouse. Unfortunately, that will be done away
with probably in the next three years.