AOQ Review 7-16: "Storyteller"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE SLAYER OF THE VAMPIRES
Season Seven, Episode 16: "Storyteller"
(or "Only we're allowed to talk to the camera!")
Writer: Jane Espenson
Director: Marita Grabiak
Yep, it's yet another concept episode of BTSOTV, and it's one
that's a little hard to make sense of at first. This is one of those
things where I have to take a step back and remember that my gig
isn't so much to intensively ponder what it all means, which is
better left to the experienced, but to capture what I was thinking as a
first-timer. Oh, and to answer the question - amidst all the
cleverness and would-be cleverness, does it entertain?
Ah, entertainment. Because, gentle readers, although there is some
character study to be done, there're also a lot of jokes. Although
coughing on the pipe was a little obvious, the rest of the intro is
great fun, with Andrew talking directly to the viewer in a perfect
parody of an easily-parodied role, as he spins a tale for us. I'm
reminded of the first reveal of Jonathan in "Superstar" for some
reason. But even there, it also quickly sets things up to be one of
those shows that's hard to digest. I mean, why are we doing a parody
"recap of the series for new viewers" in an episode that'll
clearly make no sense to a new viewer?
But yes, in the meantime, jokes. Not everything is perfect - I guess
someone thought the "we are as gods" thing was hysterical since
they used it three times, but meh. However, there's a lot that's
absurd and fun as the show just totally cuts loose with the florid
storytelling. Spike suddenly having his shirt off in the kitchen
montage kills me for some reason, and Buffy and Anya's glamorous
wind-blown moments are good too. Granted, our narrator sees sexual
tension everywhere (hey, it's hard to tell quite what Wood's
thinking about), but here he's actually right. The flashbacks to his
bad old villain days, "slightly" embellished, are nice, especially
since one of them involves more Dark Willow; keeping her dialogue
identical while only changing Andrew's part is an inspired choice.
To the end, there's absurdity like a gloriously cheesy "nooooo!"
that would fit right in with the fare at B-Fest. And then it'll turn
things around and underplay something, like having Andrew and Jonathan
in the same bed with no dialogue mention or one-liners about it.
There's time to poke a little fun at the show too, with questioning
why vampires show up on film, and tuning out one of Buffy's frequent
stirring speeches ("she's not done. Even Willow looks bored, and she
usually can take a lot of that stuff"). I complain often about
one-joke premises, and "Storyteller" is a good example of how one
joke can turn into many, if the writing's up to the task.
ZOMG!!! Joss must have totally had this episode planned out when he
had Spike performing for the photographers in "Restless!!!" Feel
free to pretend, anyway.
I wish there were a way to measure that intangible thing called
"chemistry" between actors rather than just baldly stating that,
say, the main cast had it with each other from the beginning, Marsters
has it with pretty much everyone, and so on. Then I could objectively
quantify why scenes between Andrew and Dawn work so well. "... And a
smile that lights up the room." Awww. Willow and Kennedy can only
dream of being able to summon up that kind of sweetness with one line a
few facial expressions - has the show ever seen a more chemistry-free
pair of any kind, let alone as a couple? And yes, I include
Buffy/Riley in that rhetorical question. The description of them is
fun, though - Andrew's such a romantic. "You see, Kennedy
pursued the reluctant Willow and won her heart, only to find herself
frightened when she glimpsed the darkness that still lies within the
witch's mind." Certainly makes for a better story than the way I'd
have told it. "A character came into being, but in truth she was not
character at all, but writer's manipulation. Bearing the speed of
implausibility as her only weapon, she struck a mighty blow against the
script, and the once-captivating tale of fair Willow's recovery arc
was heard no more, shattered like, uh, one of those broken swords
that's in all the fantasy books."
This is one of those episodes that plays with perception, but not
universally - the dichotomy is pretty clear between what the camera
sees and what should be taken as literally real. It may have been
better to stick with the guest narrator throughout, but maybe someone
was worried that his shtick would become tiresome. The SHS scenes are
a bit misconceived since it seems a callous to be making light of death
and riots in "reality." Having Buffy hit the invisible girl seems
at first like a fun callback, but if one thinks about it, it actually
trivializes the kid's problems, and by extension, OOM/S with it. The
other kid exploding and Buffy kinda shrugging it off isn't very funny
either.
And then of course the show breaks down the real/Memorex separation a
little with the strangely appropriate reality show with Xander and
Anya, with Andrew reciting the dialogue along with them. Until he
rewound the tape, I had no idea what was up. He seems to be a fan of
this pairing too, and it's hard to blame him, despite everything
that's wrong with it. The show follows them into bed where they talk
about their one last time. Their facial expressions could be meant to
suggest that they'll go for a second round any second, but if this is
really it, it'd parallel how they got together in the first place,
providing a bizarre kind of closure. I suppose one will have to see.
This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
- The brief cut to Andrew knowingly tapping on the "Hellmouth"
picture
- The interesting window sash
- Spike re-doing his scene
- "You're running to catch the bus naked? That's a dream. Army of
vicious vampire creatures? That's a vision. Also, I was awake."
"A bus to where?"
- "You put your old murder weapon in with our utensils?!" "I
washed it."
The Other One is an unusual choice to be the center of a show, living
as he is as a comic relief character in his semi-delusional world.
Having him (and the audience) actually be told straight out that it's
the end of the over-romanticized stories is a little blunter than seems
necessary, but the conclusion that it sets up is worth seeing. Ripping
down Andrew's world and simultaneously switching modes to non-jokey
drama (well okay, there's some meta-ing too) is adequately set up by
the way the gimmick's been handled. One has to remember that he was
rather evil, if in a passive way, complicit in demonic stuff that
could've gotten Random Innocent #716 killed in "Life Serial,"
accessory to a rape attempt and a murder coverup in "Dead Things,"
and so on. (Actually, it seems strange that Jonathan is the only thing
anyone mentions him needing to atone for. To focus the story, maybe.)
The show is successful in conveying the enormity for him as Buffy
forces him to face death, both his own and those he's caused. He's
spoken about paying for his crimes before, but that was still part of
his heroic redemption fantasy, and I buy this understanding as
something new. The character who can't quite figure out how to
finish his sentence at the end is very much a changed man.
A few plot points, though - it seems like poor Andy gets blamed for
what the First makes him do, while Spike gets off free. The one thing
that's different is that the latter had to have his mind turned off
by means of that "trigger." Which begs the question, hopefully to
be explained, of why the First only can, or does, plant triggers in
some, or one, of its victims but not others. Also the seal is
officially the Pentagram Of Plot Device if it'll take tears, but
that's pretty typical for this series.
This is an interesting enough story about a corner or the 'verse, so
to speak, a look from the outside, and stands alone just fine. But
having spent enough time on this NG, I can't resist very briefly
trying to look for reflections on the main cast too. Cutting into a
layer that's only slightly deeper, Buffy's part in the denoument
seems to follow up on the oft-mentioned "I am the law" remark, and
shows the kind of hardness she's developed as of late. Buffy's not
a fluffy superhero defending the innocent - she's always had
something of a ruthless side, and never more than when she tells Andrew
what he needs to hear and, contrary to past stated principles, likely
hasn't entirely ruled out killing him if it seems necessary.
Going a little deeper, I knew when first watching that there was
something interesting to me that I couldn't quite put my finger on.
Well, here's what it was: the content of this exchange, and the fact
that Buffy's the one who's saying it given the history involved.
Obviously the circumstances are very different, but, still...
BUFFY: When your blood pours out, it might save the world. What do you
think about that? Does it buy it all back? Are you redeemed?
ANDREW: No.
BTSOTV has always been one of those living-is-harder-than-dying
stories. Kind of a demystification of the conceit of the heroic
suicide, even if death is a cathartic atonement, or a Gift to the
world, or both. It's been commented on that ME characters very
seldom get hero's deaths (the only other one I can remember comes in
"Hero"), and this may be a clue why.
Well, that's all for now. It's a rich episode, one that'll
likely reward rewatching and analysis. Discuss.
So...
One-sentence summary: Worth being told.
AOQ rating: Good
[Season Seven so far:
1) "Lessons" - Good
2) "Beneath You" - Decent
3) "Same Time, Same Place" - Excellent
4) "Help" - Good
5) "Selfless" - SUPERLATIVE
6) "Him" - Bad
7) "Conversations With Dead People" - Good
8) "Sleeper" - Decent
9) "Never Leave Me" - Good
10) "Bring On The Night" - Decent
11) "Showtime" - Good
12) "Potential" - Good
13) "The Killer In Me" - Weak
14) "First Date" - Decent
15) "Get It Done" - Decent
16) "Storyteller" - Good]
jil...@hotmail.com
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A few plot points, though - it seems like poor Andy gets blamed for
> what the First makes him do, while Spike gets off free. The one thing
> that's different is that the latter had to have his mind turned off
> by means of that "trigger." Which begs the question, hopefully to
> be explained, of why the First only can, or does, plant triggers in
> some, or one, of its victims but not others. Also the seal is
> officially the Pentagram Of Plot Device if it'll take tears, but
> that's pretty typical for this series.
For me, that one is easy. Spike is a vampire. That means he's dead.
The First is the Evil with which all vampires are connected (this of
course is my opinion based upon what I've seen). Spike has a soul
which, since he'd never had one before, made it so that he could not
distinguish between visions/hallucinations caused by the soul and The
First working its wicked ways upon him. The First appears as Spike to
Spike. Heck, it appears as Buffy, which it never did that we know of
before she REALLY died as in
had-to-be-brought-back-by-black-magic-having-already-rotted-in-her-coffin.
The First knows Spike inside and out. The soul makes him difficult to
control, but his mental instability certainly helped.
As to the "tears" thing... well, Andrew was the one who began the
opening of the Seal, even if it couldn't open under the wash of poor
Jonathan's anemic blood. Perhaps we can fanwank that the person who
started opening the seal has to really, seriously want it closed in
order to make that happen?
Hellmouth, acting up. Suddenly processes that normally take months are
happening within hours. Sometimes that single moment of someone
noticing you is all that's needed, if it's the right moment like just
when you've completely given up. Buffy can't stop these students from
reacting to the Hellmouth energy. What's going on is beyond what's
ever happened before, she even said so. And that little thing where
your metaphysical problems become physical on the Hellmouth is going on
wildly. I don't see the problem, here.
burt...@hotmail.com
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE SLAYER OF THE VAMPIRES
> Season Seven, Episode 16: "Storyteller"
> (or "Only we're allowed to talk to the camera!")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: Marita Grabiak
(snip review)
> Well, that's all for now. It's a rich episode, one that'll
> likely reward rewatching and analysis. Discuss.
Easily one of the show's worst episodes. It was basically 45 minutes of
the writers saying "Look! Isn't Andrew cute? And funny? Oh, but he has
depth too! Don't you just love him?!" Excuse me? Andrew who attempted
rape, thought getting away with murder was "cool," and then actually
murdered Jonathon is someone I should *like?* Um, no.
God, what a waste of space Andrew was. As much as I loathe Spike, at
least he was entertaining back in the early years. But Andrew was
utterly annoying, had *no* redeeming qualities whatsoever, and was
played by the sorriest no-talent hack of an actor Joss ever hired.
Whoever's idea it was to do an episode focused on him should be run out
of Hollywood on a rail.
Apteryx
news:1160202628.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE SLAYER OF THE VAMPIRES
> Season Seven, Episode 16: "Storyteller"
> (or "Only we're allowed to talk to the camera!")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: Marita Grabiak
>
>
> character study to be done, there're also a lot of jokes. Although
> coughing on the pipe was a little obvious, the rest of the intro is
> great fun, with Andrew talking directly to the viewer in a perfect
> parody of an easily-parodied role, as he spins a tale for us.
He's also the perfect character for this approach, I think the only one of
the cast who could have presented the show like this.
> But yes, in the meantime, jokes. Not everything is perfect - I guess
> someone thought the "we are as gods" thing was hysterical since
> they used it three times, but meh.
Yeah, but you have to like their enthusiasm for it, and, hey special Grr
Argh monsters don't grown on trees
> However, there's a lot that's
> absurd and fun as the show just totally cuts loose with the florid
> storytelling. Spike suddenly having his shirt off in the kitchen
> montage kills me for some reason, and Buffy and Anya's glamorous
> wind-blown moments are good too.
Even the lighting is funny.
> thinking about), but here he's actually right. The flashbacks to his
> bad old villain days, "slightly" embellished, are nice, especially
> since one of them involves more Dark Willow; keeping her dialogue
> identical while only changing Andrew's part is an inspired choice.
> To the end, there's absurdity like a gloriously cheesy "nooooo!"
> that would fit right in with the fare at B-Fest.
Yep, much better than the actual Two to Go :)
> why vampires show up on film, and tuning out one of Buffy's frequent
> stirring speeches ("she's not done. Even Willow looks bored, and she
> usually can take a lot of that stuff").
It's good to know the writers have felt our pain about those speeches.
> was worried that his shtick would become tiresome. The SHS scenes are
> a bit misconceived since it seems a callous to be making light of death
> and riots in "reality." Having Buffy hit the invisible girl seems
> at first like a fun callback, but if one thinks about it, it actually
> trivializes the kid's problems, and by extension, OOM/S with it. The
> other kid exploding and Buffy kinda shrugging it off isn't very funny
> either.
True, there are some worrying notes there.
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - The brief cut to Andrew knowingly tapping on the "Hellmouth"
> picture
> - The interesting window sash
> - Spike re-doing his scene
> - "You're running to catch the bus naked? That's a dream. Army of
> vicious vampire creatures? That's a vision. Also, I was awake."
> "A bus to where?"
> - "You put your old murder weapon in with our utensils?!" "I
> washed it."
Some great lines here. I also like Andrew's pronounciation ot "vampire" -
which suggested he would have spelt it "Vampyre"
> The Other One is an unusual choice to be the center of a show, living
> as he is as a comic relief character in his semi-delusional world.
But the ideal choice when a character with a semi-delusional world is
required.
> Having him (and the audience) actually be told straight out that it's
> the end of the over-romanticized stories is a little blunter than seems
> necessary, but the conclusion that it sets up is worth seeing.
And a little odd to be knocking a character for OTT storytelling when only
the episode before the process that apparently created the first slayer was
portrayed as a form of rape (not the same writers of course).
> and so on. (Actually, it seems strange that Jonathan is the only thing
> anyone mentions him needing to atone for. To focus the story, maybe.)
I think as far as the show is concerned, killing Jonathon is his greatest
crime. Murder aggravated by the betrayal of a friend.
>
> A few plot points, though - it seems like poor Andy gets blamed for
> what the First makes him do, while Spike gets off free. The one thing
> that's different is that the latter had to have his mind turned off
> by means of that "trigger."
Notably one of Andrew's revisions of his killing of Jonathon portrayed him
as having had his mind "turned off" and his body temporarily taken over by
the First.
> Which begs the question, hopefully to
> be explained, of why the First only can, or does, plant triggers in
> some, or one, of its victims but not others.
Which raises the question - will "beg the question" ever be used correctly
on usenet again?
> Also the seal is
> officially the Pentagram Of Plot Device if it'll take tears, but
> that's pretty typical for this series.
Mmm, blood would have been a mistake, but they could have tried other bodily
fluids. I'd have respected the episode more if he had turned down the seal
by pissing on it - just as easily achieved by the threat of imminent death,
and probably an even better symbol of him rejecting what he's done.
>
> One-sentence summary: Worth being told.
>
> AOQ rating: Good
Good for me to, and a welcome return to that level (for me the first clear
Good since CWDP - Potential only just made it into Good territory). It's my
57th favourite BtVS episode, 4th best in season 7
--
Apteryx
vague disclaimer
burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
Ah, Burt. It is good to know there are constants. You only being able to
handle layers strictly one at a time is a favourite.
--
What does not kill me makes me stronger. Unless it leaves me as a quadriplegic.
BTR1701
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> BTSOTV has always been one of those living-is-harder-than-dying
> stories. Kind of a demystification of the conceit of the heroic
> suicide, even if death is a cathartic atonement, or a Gift to the
> world, or both. It's been commented on that ME characters very
> seldom get hero's deaths (the only other one I can remember comes in
> "Hero"), and this may be a clue why.
Naq gur ragver pnfg bs NATRY trgf n ureb'f qrngu va "Abg Snqr Njnl..."
ohg lbh qba'g xabj gung lrg.
alphakitten
\
> AOQ rating: Good
alphakitten rating: Superlative. Funniest episode ever, and my third
favorite all round.
~Angel
BTR1701
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> > threads.
> >
> >
> > BUFFY THE SLAYER OF THE VAMPIRES
> > Season Seven, Episode 16: "Storyteller"
> > (or "Only we're allowed to talk to the camera!")
> > Writer: Jane Espenson
> > Director: Marita Grabiak
>
> (snip review)
>
> > Well, that's all for now. It's a rich episode, one that'll
> > likely reward rewatching and analysis. Discuss.
>
> Easily one of the show's worst episodes. It was basically 45 minutes of
> the writers saying "Look! Isn't Andrew cute? And funny? Oh, but he has
> depth too! Don't you just love him?!" Excuse me? Andrew who attempted
> rape, thought getting away with murder was "cool," and then actually
> murdered Jonathon is someone I should *like?* Um, no.
And what's worse is that I *could* like such a character (ever since I
was a little kid, Darth Vader was always my favorite "Star Wars"
character despite the fact that he was a murdering psychopath) if he
weren't such a whining, sniveling little shit.
Andrew is the character equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard.
Easily *the* worst element of Season 7. But Whedon either took an
inexplicable liking to either the actor or the character orpnhfr abg
bayl qvq ur sbvfg Naqerj ba hf guebhtubhg gur qrabhrzrag bs "Ohssl" ohg
ur rira pebffrq uvz bire gb NATRY.
BTR1701
vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
So anyone who found Andrew distasteful is incapable of handling layers?
Scythe Matters
> Yep, it's yet another concept episode of BTSOTV, and it's one
> that's a little hard to make sense of at first.
You mean on a meta-level? Because, again, the narrative is fairly
straightforward.
Anyway, I'm a little surprised that you liked this one...but then again
maybe not, as you've responded fairly positively to Andrew all season.
As will probably be made clear in this thread, some people can't stand
him (especially when used to this extent). The last point is the one
that has some resonance with me; we're spending a lot of time, here and
elsewhere, on Andrew, which -- in concert with the rest of the mob
living in Buffy's house -- is shortchanging many of our more
longstanding characters.
> I'm
> reminded of the first reveal of Jonathan in "Superstar" for some
> reason.
For some reason? ;-) Much as "Him" was a throwback (and in a way, "TKIM"
was a throwback to the "make the metaphor real" episodes), I thought we
were getting yet another one here. Turns out not so much, but it was my
initial thought anyway.
> I mean, why are we doing a parody
> "recap of the series for new viewers" in an episode that'll
> clearly make no sense to a new viewer?
You know, it never occurred to me that they might be doing a recap.
Thinking about it, though, it doesn't make any sense that they would at
this stage. So I have to believe that they're not, and what you see as a
recap is actually something different. What I always thought they were
doing was a "how the story looks to a semi-outsider"
thing...self-parodic and self-referencing. But yes, it certainly sounds
like a recap.
> Not everything is perfect - I guess
> someone thought the "we are as gods" thing was hysterical since
> they used it three times, but meh.
Four times, really:
ANDREW (from "TKIM")
No more listening. I know who you are now. I know what you made me do.
Your promises of happy fields and dancing schnauzers and being demigods
won't work on me anymore.
The utter absurdity of it makes me laugh, even though I feel like I
shouldn't. Great visuals.
> Spike suddenly having his shirt off in the kitchen
> montage kills me for some reason
Yes: self-parody. There's been a lot of self-referential stuff this
season. Not unusual for a final season, perhaps, but it does suggest
that the writing may have gotten just a wee bit insular.
> To the end, there's absurdity like a gloriously cheesy "nooooo!"
> that would fit right in with the fare at B-Fest.
Frankly, it reminded me of Kirk. Not that this contradicts your point.
> and tuning out one of Buffy's frequent
> stirring speeches ("she's not done. Even Willow looks bored, and she
> usually can take a lot of that stuff").
It's something that needed parodying, especially after "Get It Done."
One wonders if Buffy will actually stop, though. Probably not.
> I wish there were a way to measure that intangible thing called
> "chemistry" between actors rather than just baldly stating that,
> say, the main cast had it with each other from the beginning, Marsters
> has it with pretty much everyone, and so on. Then I could objectively
> quantify why scenes between Andrew and Dawn work so well. "... And a
> smile that lights up the room." Awww.
I have to admit, Trachtenberg is really cute in this episode.
> Willow and Kennedy can only
> dream of being able to summon up that kind of sweetness with one line a
> few facial expressions - has the show ever seen a more chemistry-free
> pair of any kind, let alone as a couple?
I'm indifferent to the kitchen scene, but the couch scene...no, no
chemistry at all. I'm as bored by it as Andrew.
> "You see, Kennedy
> pursued the reluctant Willow and won her heart, only to find herself
> frightened when she glimpsed the darkness that still lies within the
> witch's mind." Certainly makes for a better story than the way I'd
> have told it. "A character came into being, but in truth she was not
> character at all, but writer's manipulation. Bearing the speed of
> implausibility as her only weapon, she struck a mighty blow against the
> script, and the once-captivating tale of fair Willow's recovery arc
> was heard no more, shattered like, uh, one of those broken swords
> that's in all the fantasy books."
And the recovery from last episode's energy-suck didn't take long, did
it? It's almost Trek-like in its abandonment of consequences, which is
both unusual and unfortunate for this show.
> The SHS scenes are
> a bit misconceived since it seems a callous to be making light of death
> and riots in "reality." Having Buffy hit the invisible girl seems
> at first like a fun callback, but if one thinks about it, it actually
> trivializes the kid's problems, and by extension, OOM/S with it. The
> other kid exploding and Buffy kinda shrugging it off isn't very funny
> either.
I don't know that it's supposed to be "funny" in the way that you mean.
I think it's more self-referencing that borders on parody. For instance,
trivializing "OOMOOS" is, I think, exactly what the scene intends: all
the trauma of that episode...and if someone had just slapped her,
problems solved (or at least deferred). I put this in the same category as:
WILLOW
A slayer. Makes sense, I guess. Remember that thing about they share the
same blood or whatever?
ANYA
Yeah, I never got that.
...or...
ANYA
Maybe it's another musical. A much crappier musical.
...or...
ANDREW
Dawn used to be a key. (zooms to keys on the table) I don't really know
what that means.
In fact, by blandly stating the early seasons' storytelling device,
Buffy takes a lot of the power out of it:
BUFFY
Being in high school can feel like being at war. Now it's true.
That was always (or almost always) left unsaid, left as obvious, in the
metaphoric monster days. It's a diminishment, and I think a deliberate one.
As for the gallows humor, Buffy's always had that.
> And then of course the show breaks down the real/Memorex separation a
> little with the strangely appropriate reality show with Xander and
> Anya, with Andrew reciting the dialogue along with them.
This conversation has been coming for a long time. (Pun intended, I
guess). They've both talked about their feelings, but not to and with
each other at a point where they can do it without fighting.
> - "You're running to catch the bus naked? That's a dream. Army of
> vicious vampire creatures? That's a vision. Also, I was awake."
> "A bus to where?"
They've still got chemistry, and they're still playing this as if
there's some sort of chance they'll get together. Or maybe just Wood is.
Which is a little strange, given that everyone knows there's got to be a
big confrontation with/about Spike on the horizon.
> The Other One is an unusual choice to be the center of a show, living
> as he is as a comic relief character in his semi-delusional world.
That it works at all is largely due to Lenk, who delivers a heck of a
performance.
> A few plot points, though - it seems like poor Andy gets blamed for
> what the First makes him do, while Spike gets off free.
Hold that thought.
> Which begs the question, hopefully to
> be explained, of why the First only can, or does, plant triggers in
> some, or one, of its victims but not others.
This is, indeed, a good question.
> Also the seal is
> officially the Pentagram Of Plot Device if it'll take tears, but
> that's pretty typical for this series.
Absolutely. Devices, prophecies, spells, mystic items...very few endure
close scrutiny, and doing so anyway just leads to unnecessary angst.
> This is an interesting enough story about a corner or the 'verse, so
> to speak, a look from the outside, and stands alone just fine. But
> having spent enough time on this NG, I can't resist very briefly
> trying to look for reflections on the main cast too.
Well, it took seven seasons, but you're finally learning. ;-)
> Going a little deeper, I knew when first watching that there was
> something interesting to me that I couldn't quite put my finger on.
> Well, here's what it was: the content of this exchange, and the fact
> that Buffy's the one who's saying it given the history involved.
> Obviously the circumstances are very different, but, still...
>
> BUFFY: When your blood pours out, it might save the world. What do you
> think about that? Does it buy it all back? Are you redeemed?
> ANDREW: No.
Good catch.
> BTSOTV has always been one of those living-is-harder-than-dying
> stories. Kind of a demystification of the conceit of the heroic
> suicide, even if death is a cathartic atonement, or a Gift to the
> world, or both. It's been commented on that ME characters very
> seldom get hero's deaths (the only other one I can remember comes in
> "Hero"), and this may be a clue why.
Absolutely. I think, though, that this notion as a core of the show was
one of those "found" meta-messages...not explicit to the creators at the
beginning of the series, but in these later years recognized as
something that's always been there. And rather strongly recognized, too,
as you'll see when you go back to _Angel_.
More:
ANDREW
It's wonderful to get lost in a story, isn't it? Adventure and heroics
and discovery — don't they just take you away? Come with me now, if you
will, gentle viewers. Join me on a new voyage of the mind. A little tale
I like to call: Buffy, Slayer of the Vampyrs.
I had another really twisted thought here: what if they're going to do a
comedic version of "Normal Again"? Scary. And, thankfully, unfounded.
The fight in the graveyard during Andrew's intro is extremely cinematic;
there's a real beauty to Buffy's fighting. An impractical beauty, of
course. And when we return to the action but look at it via a third
party, the fighting's more grunt-level, more normal. That's good visual
work.
ANYA
Why can't you just masturbate like the rest of us?
There are not many people other than Caufield who can pull off* a line
like this.
(*yes, yes)
ANDREW
The world's gonna want to know about Buffy. It's a story of ultimate
triumph tainted with the bitterness for what's been lost in the
struggle. It's a legacy for future generations.
As with the Eve/femininity thing, Andrew expresses what the creators
might want to but can't, because it sounds too hokey when expressed
seriously and directly. But if there's a simple way of lauding the
show's high-mythological aspects, this is probably it.
The Buffy/Wood scene in the office...nice of the secretary to just sit
there, ignoring both Wood's injury and the fascinating Hellmouth talk.
BUFFY
Sure, you know, swim team monsters or killer prom dogs. Again, not all
at once.
This, coupled with all the other references, is becoming more like
continuity masturbation than continuity porn. Not that it's unwelcome.
It's just, perhaps, a little excessive. Though my absolute favorite is
this one:
(a piglet oinks as it runs across the room in front of them)
ROBIN WOOD
God, I hope that's not a student.
Moving on...
ANYA
But we — we still spark. I mean, I get jealous of you. You get jealous
of me. You still love me.
Caufield shows heartbreaking vulnerability in this scene. Wonderfully done.
The Andrew/Jonathan dream sequence...nice of them to include the Cheese
Man. Sometimes, they just can't help themselves.
ANDREW
We're fugitives, haunted by our past, tormented by a message we don't
understand.
JONATHAN
We're hunted men, driven mad by forces beyond our understanding.
ANDREW
We're men of hidden power, tortured from within by-by a voice from out
of nowhere.
What was the saying about jokes? They're funny the first time, not funny
the second time, but by the eighth time they're funny again? Well, this
only requires three iterations, but by the third line it does become
quite amusing.
WARREN/FIRST
Yeah, show me.
ANDREW
Well, I didn't buy them, but there were poison arrows and this sort of
collapsible sword—
WARREN/FIRST
Show me the knife!
*Again* with the self-referencing:
JONATHAN/FIRST
Show me.
ANDREW
Well, I didn't take 'em, but there were thongs and regular underpants—
JONATHAN/FIRST
Show me the gun.
Moving on...
BUFFY
Look, we have to deal with the seal right away.
This doesn't make a great deal of sense. The problem is the Hellmouth,
no? But again, best to not look too closely.
> AOQ rating: Good
Yeah. Parts of it are excellent...especially the last few minutes...but
to be honest the fact that it's not about a core character holds it back
a little bit, at least for me. If this were, say, Xander's episode, it'd
probably get an excellent from me (oddly, though, Xander's actual
episode didn't).
Ari
> I wish there were a way to measure that intangible thing called
> "chemistry" between actors rather than just baldly stating that,
> say, the main cast had it with each other from the beginning, Marsters
> has it with pretty much everyone, and so on.
It doesn't really matter to me, because I'm arrogant enough to think I
know better and my word is gospel. So I don't need everyone to agree
with me on who's pretty and who has chemistry and all that for my
superficial views to feel validated. Not that it isn't nice when
someone else besides me sees it too. *smug grin*
> Then I could objectively quantify why scenes between Andrew and Dawn
> work so well. "... And a smile that lights up the room." Awww. Willow and
> Kennedy can only dream of being able to summon up that kind of sweetness
> with one line a few facial expressions - has the show ever seen a more
> chemistry-free pair of any kind, let alone as a couple?
Oooh, you see shippyness where shippyness isn't intentionally there.
Welcome to the darkside. Next up, smoosh their names together and claim
their love's eternal. Say it with me: Dawndrew4eva!bbq!111eleventy
<squees manically> Anyway, I saw the chemistry between Dawn and Andrew
too and thought they would be cute together...but of course I would
think that wouldn't I? That's what insane wangst happy fangirlys do.
And dude, much as I agree that Marsters has chemistry with everyone, I
don't think even he could strike up any type up chemistry with the
actress who plays Kennedy. She makes me miss Tara in all of her
sweetness and light, boring, frumpy self. That's how awful I think she
is. Poor Aly.
> AOQ rating: Good
So yet again, you show signs that you just might have a sense of humor
after all. Guess it's just something that comes and goes, huh? :P
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> threads.
> BUFFY THE SLAYER OF THE VAMPIRES
> Season Seven, Episode 16: "Storyteller"
> (or "Only we're allowed to talk to the camera!")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: Marita Grabiak
.
"You know what's the problem with all those home-video shows? Nobody
actually dies."
--UPN promo for "Storyteller" (paraphrase)
Trying to be brief today.... I really like Storyteller. It's probably
one of my top five for the season. The humor is great, but for me the
best part is the surprisingly effective little character study of Andrew.
Sure, he's not the most important character in the Buffyverse, and he
probably got more screen time than he should have in the middle of the
season, but Storyteller is strong enough to make up for that.
Some people have expressed annoyance at ME's apparently expecting them to
like Andrew. Dunno about anyone else, but for me Storyteller's success
does *not* depend on liking Andrew. I enjoy the character, but I don't
*like* him as a person. The final two scenes gave me a deep sense of
satisfaction because at last, the weasel finally wakes up to what he
really is and what he's done. My feelings about his awakening are not
unlike my feelings when a villain finally gets captured or killed. It was
a loooong time coming, but the payoff is really nice.
Of course at the beginning of the episode he's still far from that point.
When Storyteller begins Andrew is trying to carve out a niche for himself
as Team Buffy's resident documenter. It's slightly more useful than
making funnel cakes, but it also gives him an excuse to retreat into
fantasy land. One of his fantasies is of himself as a man with a dark
past, but he fantasizes it up to avoid anything like, say, guilt. His
line about the Hellmouth seal being opened "uh, do to some circumstances"
is the classic example. His insistence on being a neutral chronicler fits
in here -- impartiality is especially important to him because he himself
doesn't want to be judged, or even to think about himself as part of what
happens. It takes nothing less than the threat of death, the same death
that he gave Jonathan, to break through his self-deception.
Of course Buffy did it for evil-fighting purposes, not as therapy for
Andrew. I like how afterwards Andrew asks what would have happened if the
tears didn't work, and Buffy just looks at him. If sacrificing Andrew had
been necessary, she's in a mental place where she could do it.
I'm having even more trouble articulating this thought than usual, but I
think the way Andrew finally faces reality throws a nice light on the
inner strength of our heroes who have been facing it all along. Not
everyone can deal with their own imminent deaths, or their own guilt and
regrets, as well as the Scoobies do. (Not that they're perfect at it
either.)
> There's time to poke a little fun at the show too, with questioning
> why vampires show up on film, and tuning out one of Buffy's frequent
> stirring speeches ("she's not done. Even Willow looks bored, and she
> usually can take a lot of that stuff").
Poking fun at something is also a way of drawing attention to it. I think
Buffy's development as a leader is being highlighted as a story line we
should keep in mind. (In case anyone needed a reminder.)
> And then of course the show breaks down the real/Memorex separation a
> little with the strangely appropriate reality show with Xander and
> Anya, with Andrew reciting the dialogue along with them. Until he
> rewound the tape, I had no idea what was up. He seems to be a fan of
> this pairing too, and it's hard to blame him, despite everything
> that's wrong with it.
I love how Andrew mouths their words as he watches the replay. He's
probably seen it as many times as Empire Strikes Back by now. And I have
to admit, this is one scene where I can really empathize with the weasel.
I get a lot of my emotional thrills vicariously through watching the
Scoobies on a screen; how can I criticize Andrew for doing the same?
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
-"It's like all the Hellmouth's energy is trying to escape in that one
little spot, and it's getting all--" "Focusy." "Careful. You're starting
to speak like me now."
-"Why can't you just masturbate like the rest of us?" (Doubly amusing
since Anya finally gets some later in this episode.)
-The anonymous blonde Potential in the kitchen
-The look on Willow's face as she tries to hide her boredom during Buffy's
speech
-"God, I hope that's not a student."
-"Can't I have a cool, refreshing Zima?" Of all the random things to ask
for. (Nothing will top the dancing schnauzers, though....)
> AOQ rating: Good
A very high Good for me.
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>
>
>BUFFY THE SLAYER OF THE VAMPIRES
>Season Seven, Episode 16: "Storyteller"
>(or "Only we're allowed to talk to the camera!")
>Writer: Jane Espenson
>Director: Marita Grabiak
>Ah, entertainment. Because, gentle readers, although there is some
>character study to be done, there're also a lot of jokes. Although
>coughing on the pipe was a little obvious, the rest of the intro is
>great fun, with Andrew talking directly to the viewer in a perfect
>parody of an easily-parodied role, as he spins a tale for us. I'm
>reminded of the first reveal of Jonathan in "Superstar" for some
>reason. But even there, it also quickly sets things up to be one of
>those shows that's hard to digest. I mean, why are we doing a parody
>"recap of the series for new viewers" in an episode that'll
>clearly make no sense to a new viewer?
Hmm, Storyteller, written by Jane Espenson, writer of Superstar, reminds
you of Superstar? Who'd a thunk it :)
>This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
>- The brief cut to Andrew knowingly tapping on the "Hellmouth"
>picture
>- The interesting window sash
Andrew panning the camera past the 'hot' lesbian couple making out on the
sofa to focus on studly carpenter Xander working on the window, had a lot
of saying 'Yep, Andrew is the gayest gaily gay character ever.'
>- Spike re-doing his scene
>- "You're running to catch the bus naked? That's a dream. Army of
>vicious vampire creatures? That's a vision. Also, I was awake."
>"A bus to where?"
>- "You put your old murder weapon in with our utensils?!" "I
>washed it."
Zooming the camera in on Busty Potential's cleavage while asking for her
story, and instead getting (flat as a board) Amanda explaining the
interesting point that she's the only Potential who was actually born in
Sunnydale (we also learned in the opening tease that Amanda does the
Bathroom March, as opposed to Dawn who does the Bathroom Dance, as seen in
OMWF)
--
... and my sister is a vampire slayer, her best friend is a witch who
went bonkers and tried to destroy the world, um, I actually used to be
a little ball of energy until about two years ago when some monks
changed the past and made me Buffy's sister and for some reason, a big
klepto. My best friends are Leticia Jones, who moved to San Diego
because this town is evil, and a floppy eared demon named Clem.
(Dawn's fantasy of her intro speech in "Lessons", from the shooting script)
burt...@hotmail.com
Oh, just ignore ol' vaguey - he's obviously still smarting from his
humiliation way back in the Initiative thread. I killfiled him back
then and I've been enjoying the newsgroup with 75% less idiocy ever
since. His little comment here has nothing to do with the show and
everything to do with him taking shots at me now that he knows he can
do so safely since I've killfiled him. It's pathetic, really, but not
unexpected.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > "recap of the series for new viewers" in an episode that'll
> > clearly make no sense to a new viewer?
>
> You know, it never occurred to me that they might be doing a recap.
> Thinking about it, though, it doesn't make any sense that they would at
> this stage. So I have to believe that they're not, and what you see as a
> recap is actually something different. What I always thought they were
> doing was a "how the story looks to a semi-outsider"
> thing...self-parodic and self-referencing. But yes, it certainly sounds
> like a recap.
even though the series was filmed as if contemporary
with the turn of the millenia
its actually based on stories from two friends of joss
alex and andy mcgregor told him
about their high school days in homestead florida
> > Spike suddenly having his shirt off in the kitchen
> > montage kills me for some reason
>
> Yes: self-parody. There's been a lot of self-referential stuff this
> season. Not unusual for a final season, perhaps, but it does suggest
> that the writing may have gotten just a wee bit insular.
for a lot of people this and the loving scene of the window
prove that andrew is gay
but he also has the cinematic fantasy for buffy anya and anonymous
so what it really proves is andrew is confused
> > Also the seal is
> > officially the Pentagram Of Plot Device if it'll take tears, but
> > that's pretty typical for this series.
>
> Absolutely. Devices, prophecies, spells, mystic items...very few endure
> close scrutiny, and doing so anyway just leads to unnecessary angst.
we also get a viww of where the first gets its bringers from
meow arf meow - they are performing horrible experiments in space
major grubert is watching you - beware the bakalite
there can only be one or two - the airtight garage has you neo
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Easily one of the show's worst episodes. It was basically 45 minutes of
> the writers saying "Look! Isn't Andrew cute? And funny? Oh, but he has
> depth too! Don't you just love him?!" Excuse me? Andrew who attempted
> rape, thought getting away with murder was "cool," and then actually
> murdered Jonathon is someone I should *like?* Um, no.
Chris's post below talks about why one doesn't have to like him in
order to appreciate the episode. I do like him, so I can't speak for
myself.
> God, what a waste of space Andrew was. As much as I loathe Spike, at
> least he was entertaining back in the early years. But Andrew was
> utterly annoying, had *no* redeeming qualities whatsoever, and was
> played by the sorriest no-talent hack of an actor Joss ever hired.
Mileage really varies, I suppose, since I agree with those who talk
about what a great job Tom Lenk did with a difficult assignment. I
don't think I've praised him enugh myself.
-AOQ
Elisi
Wnfzvar vf cebonoyl zl yrnfg snibhevgr punenpgre va nyy bs gur Wbff
irefr. Fur whfg ehof zr hc gur jebat jnl. (V ybir Mbr, fb vg'f abg gur
npgerff)
Ubjrire - V yvxr ure nep jvgu nyy vgf gurzrf naq ynlref naq V guvax gur
vffhrf gung gur jevgref hfr ure gb rkcyber ner snfpvangvat. V gubhtug
ure n jryy qbar naq irel qvssrerag Ovt Onq, naq zl crefbany qvfyvxr bs
ure qrgenpgf irel yvggyr sebz gung.
V oryvrir gung'f gur fbeg bs guvat iq jnf gelvat gb chg npebff.
Arbitrar Of Quality
Scythe Matters wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> > Yep, it's yet another concept episode of BTSOTV, and it's one
> > that's a little hard to make sense of at first.
>
> You mean on a meta-level? Because, again, the narrative is fairly
> straightforward.
Yeah. It's easy to follow the story, harder at first to figure out its
place in the series and what to think of it in general.
> Anyway, I'm a little surprised that you liked this one...but then again
> maybe not, as you've responded fairly positively to Andrew all season.
> As will probably be made clear in this thread, some people can't stand
> him (especially when used to this extent). The last point is the one
> that has some resonance with me; we're spending a lot of time, here and
> elsewhere, on Andrew, which -- in concert with the rest of the mob
> living in Buffy's house -- is shortchanging many of our more
> longstanding characters.
Well, one of my bigger complaints with S7 as a whole is the 2 MENY
CHRCTERS! issue, so I can see the general sentiment, but Andrew's been
around long enough and is distinct enough that he's a little easier to
accept into the group. Maybe some of his scenes earlier in the year
could be shaved by a minute here and there - there's a fair amount of
repetition - but giving a minor character his own episode this way
isn't unusual or even that unexpected at this point in a show's life.
> > I mean, why are we doing a parody
> > "recap of the series for new viewers" in an episode that'll
> > clearly make no sense to a new viewer?
>
> You know, it never occurred to me that they might be doing a recap.
> Thinking about it, though, it doesn't make any sense that they would at
> this stage. So I have to believe that they're not, and what you see as a
> recap is actually something different. What I always thought they were
> doing was a "how the story looks to a semi-outsider"
> thing...self-parodic and self-referencing. But yes, it certainly sounds
> like a recap.
Maybe the point is just to be self-referential, and to parody the
generic "storyteller" type. But I don't see how it could be viewed as
not a recap, given that Andrew's welcoming "us" to the world and, well,
recapping the story so far. But as I've said, it's clearly not
actually intended to function as a recap for us, or to be viewed by
people who do't already know the story, whom I can only imagine being
really confused. It's a bit of a stange choice, although I suppose
it's part of the gimmick.
> > "You see, Kennedy
> > pursued the reluctant Willow and won her heart, only to find herself
> > frightened when she glimpsed the darkness that still lies within the
> > witch's mind." Certainly makes for a better story than the way I'd
> > have told it.
>
> And the recovery from last episode's energy-suck didn't take long, did
> it? It's almost Trek-like in its abandonment of consequences, which is
> both unusual and unfortunate for this show.
This is one time where I'm not quite seeing that, and I jump on the
chance to criticize W/K scenes when it seems appropriate. The
consequences aren't ignored and never mentioned again like Trek at its
most episodic, they're explicitly borught up and dismissed. Kennedy's
words at the end of GID suggest that she's already on her way to
getting over it; she was caught off guard and now she needs a little
time to adjust her headspace, but even then, she doesn't seem to doubt
that she'll soon be okay. And she's generally wanted to go straight to
the flirting and making out without thinking too hard about long-term
implications or past blame or such things. So, it helps reinforce how
shallow and bland (IMHO, of course) the whole relationship is, but it
doesn't seem out of character compared to how it was portrayed in TKIM
or GID. Actually, it reminds me of my other most favoritest couple,
Buffy and Riley, and how they worked past their emotional concerns in
"Superstar."
> In fact, by blandly stating the early seasons' storytelling device,
> Buffy takes a lot of the power out of it:
>
> BUFFY
> Being in high school can feel like being at war. Now it's true.
>
> That was always (or almost always) left unsaid, left as obvious, in the
> metaphoric monster days. It's a diminishment, and I think a deliberate one.
Hmmm. I'm not sure how to feel about that. On the one hand, I don't
want to be diminishing the earlier seasons, given that they're, you
know, good. On the other, it is indeed true that some of the stuff
that feels so life-and-death when one is younger seems less important
once one hits twenty-two or so.
> This, coupled with all the other references, is becoming more like
> continuity masturbation than continuity porn. Not that it's unwelcome.
> It's just, perhaps, a little excessive.
Yeah, I can see that, although as a BTVS geek, it has to get somewhere
past merely "excessive" before I stop enjoying it. The series does
seem pleased with itself sometimes.
> The Andrew/Jonathan dream sequence...nice of them to include the Cheese
> Man. Sometimes, they just can't help themselves.
That's past merely excessive.
> ANDREW
> We're fugitives, haunted by our past, tormented by a message we don't
> understand.
>
> JONATHAN
> We're hunted men, driven mad by forces beyond our understanding.
>
> ANDREW
> We're men of hidden power, tortured from within by-by a voice from out
> of nowhere.
>
> What was the saying about jokes? They're funny the first time, not funny
> the second time, but by the eighth time they're funny again? Well, this
> only requires three iterations, but by the third line it does become
> quite amusing.
Meant to put that as a TIRSBILA, but forgot.
> WARREN/FIRST
> Yeah, show me.
>
> ANDREW
> Well, I didn't buy them, but there were poison arrows and this sort of
> collapsible sword-
>
> WARREN/FIRST
> Show me the knife!
Is this really only the second time for this joke? I didn't think it
was funny the other time(s) either.
> Yeah. Parts of it are excellent...especially the last few minutes...but
> to be honest the fact that it's not about a core character holds it back
> a little bit, at least for me. If this were, say, Xander's episode, it'd
> probably get an excellent from me (oddly, though, Xander's actual
> episode didn't).
Again, this one has to be seen from the eyes of an outsider, if only
because the main cast are already too well adjusted (in this sense ony,
not in general), and becaus none of them would be content to try to
stand back and let the story play out in front of them the way Andrew
would. I mentioned that "The Zeppo" didn't ring entirely true to me as
a "Lower Decks" treatment because Xander had already been living the
lifestyle for so long. So I say that this is closer to being the
_Buffy_ version of "Lower Decks."
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > I wish there were a way to measure that intangible thing called
> > "chemistry" between actors rather than just baldly stating that,
> > say, the main cast had it with each other from the beginning, Marsters
> > has it with pretty much everyone, and so on.
>
> It doesn't really matter to me, because I'm arrogant enough to think I
> know better and my word is gospel. So I don't need everyone to agree
> with me on who's pretty and who has chemistry and all that for my
> superficial views to feel validated. Not that it isn't nice when
> someone else besides me sees it too. *smug grin*
>
> > Then I could objectively quantify why scenes between Andrew and Dawn
> > work so well. "... And a smile that lights up the room." Awww. Willow and
> > Kennedy can only dream of being able to summon up that kind of sweetness
> > with one line a few facial expressions - has the show ever seen a more
> > chemistry-free pair of any kind, let alone as a couple?
>
> Oooh, you see shippyness where shippyness isn't intentionally there.
> Welcome to the darkside.
Not necessarily shippyness, even. They just have chemistry. It
doesn't have to be romantic, though it could be, especially since the
show hasn't even definitiviely told us yet which team Andrew plays for.
Next up, smoosh their names together and claim
> their love's eternal. Say it with me: Dawndrew4eva!bbq!111eleventy
> <squees manically>
Die.
> So yet again, you show signs that you just might have a sense of humor
> after all. Guess it's just something that comes and goes, huh? :P
It's the show's quality of humor that comes and goes. I'm arrogant
enough to think that I know better and that my word is gospel.
-AOQ
Scythe Matters
> Well, one of my bigger complaints with S7 as a whole is the 2 MENY
> CHRCTERS! issue, so I can see the general sentiment, but Andrew's been
> around long enough and is distinct enough that he's a little easier to
> accept into the group. Maybe some of his scenes earlier in the year
> could be shaved by a minute here and there - there's a fair amount of
> repetition - but giving a minor character his own episode this way
> isn't unusual or even that unexpected at this point in a show's life.
Of course there are too many characters. Everyone's getting
shortchanged, except Buffy, Spike and Willow. That is, they get a
special episode, and then we're done. I think the objection to Andrew --
and here I'm borrowing, because I really don't feel strongly either way
-- is that he is such relentless comic relief in episode after episode,
and meanwhile we're running out of time to give our core characters
(Buffy, Willow, Xander, Giles, and now I suppose Spike) a fitting and
proper finale. Yes, this is story that needed to be told. But meanwhile,
you've got Xander and Anya just sort of drifting around in the
background the majority of the time, Giles has been underutilized except
as diversion and scold, and there are a whole bunch of potentials with
underdeveloped personalities. We know a decent amount about Kennedy, a
little about Amanda, and the rest are essentially ciphers.
I don't blame this all on Andrew, but -- and I think it's far enough
into the season to say this -- he contributes as much as most other
characters combined, and I do think it's one of the central failings of
the season. Too many characters to do too much with, too late in the
show. Which is not to say that the season is a failure (or success),
just that this is one of its weakest qualities.
> Maybe the point is just to be self-referential, and to parody the
> generic "storyteller" type. But I don't see how it could be viewed as
> not a recap, given that Andrew's welcoming "us" to the world and, well,
> recapping the story so far.
Well, "us" is his fantasyworld audience. As you say, it's a pretty
unenlightening recap.
> The
> consequences aren't ignored and never mentioned again like Trek at its
> most episodic, they're explicitly borught up and dismissed.
By Andrew, not by Willow or Kennedy. And maybe I'd even allow for a
quick emotional recovery being part of Kennedy's character palette. But
shouldn't Willow, who's been moping all season and has no reason to stop
post-"Get It Done" (rather, the opposite) feel and show some lingering
guilt?
> Hmmm. I'm not sure how to feel about that. On the one hand, I don't
> want to be diminishing the earlier seasons, given that they're, you
> know, good. On the other, it is indeed true that some of the stuff
> that feels so life-and-death when one is younger seems less important
> once one hits twenty-two or so.
I don't see how it diminishes enjoyment of the early seasons. If they're
good, they're good. Priorities shift, views of the world and one's place
in it shift, and it's only a show that *doesn't* reflect this reality
that diminishes itself (e.g. _Voyager_). It's true that the big shocks
are never as shocking as the first time, but if the drama (or comedy,
not that that matters to you ;-) ) is good enough, it hardly matters.
One thing I've found is, at least for me, a lot of this show holds up
rather strikingly well after repeated viewings.
> Yeah, I can see that, although as a BTVS geek, it has to get somewhere
> past merely "excessive" before I stop enjoying it. The series does
> seem pleased with itself sometimes.
There's a scene -- I'm going to say this in a non-spoilery way -- coming
up where the script indicated a whole bunch of this sort of thing,
albeit presented differently than it is here. In the end, it didn't
happen, and it's a shame. I'm sure someone will point it out when it
(doesn't) happen. So I think there's definitely the possibility of
enjoyment here, it's just that in this episode it seems a little thick.
> Is this really only the second time for this joke? I didn't think it
> was funny the other time(s) either.
For Andrew & The First, I think so, but I could be forgetting something.
I thought it was mildly amusing the first time. Not the second.
> Again, this one has to be seen from the eyes of an outsider, if only
> because the main cast are already too well adjusted (in this sense ony,
> not in general), and becaus none of them would be content to try to
> stand back and let the story play out in front of them the way Andrew
> would.
I don't disagree with that, I'm merely saying that I am less moved by it
than I would have been if it were about a core character.
drifter
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote
>> Which begs the question, hopefully to
>> be explained, of why the First only can, or does, plant triggers in
>> some, or one, of its victims but not others.
>
> Which raises the question - will "beg the question" ever be used
> correctly on usenet again?
Not just usenet; newscasters are constantly misusing the phrase. It's a
particular pet peeve of mine. Apparently English is no longer a required
journalistic course. Nice to know, though, that I'm not the only one who
remembers what "begging the question" actually means.
--
Kel
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
One Bit Shy
news:1160202628.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> BUFFY THE SLAYER OF THE VAMPIRES
> Season Seven, Episode 16: "Storyteller"
> But even there, it also quickly sets things up to be one of
> those shows that's hard to digest. I mean, why are we doing a parody
> "recap of the series for new viewers" in an episode that'll
> clearly make no sense to a new viewer?
I've puzzled about that too. And it's not just that scene. There's also
the bit of reworking the old high school is hell with literal metaphors - to
the point of Buffy actually explaining how that works to Wood. It feels
kind of like a remedial course in basic BtVS symbolism. There are other
briefer references, like speaking of Xander as the heart.
Scythe suggests that some of this is intentionally diminishing the mythos.
Other times just continuity porn. I'm not so sure. The diminishment seems
kind of obscure and not so effective to me. And much of the back references
aren't sly enough for continuity porn.
He may be right anyway. My thoughts tend towards a lamer acceptance of the
surface meanings. Andrew's summary and other references is part of the
whole device of showing his point of view (and how his mind works). It's
just that the recap scene ran on a bit. And the re-awakening of the high
school metaphors is the device to show the hellmouth acting up. Jumbling
them is the way of showing that this time is different.
<shrug> Whatever the intent, some of this wears on me a bit. Consumes
time. Slows the episode down. Kind of feels like filler. It's not a
terribly dense show as to indirect plot and character development. (One of
the larger ones - the reconciliation of Willow and Kennedy seems played to
just get it over with quickly so we don't have to spend time on it in the
future. Which might actually be a blessing.)
This aspect of the episode is its weakest for me, and prevents it form
getting an Excellent rating. Otherwise I think the episode is quite fine.
> Spike suddenly having his shirt off in the kitchen
> montage kills me for some reason,
Me too. Absolutely the best effort at poking fun at the shirtless routine.
> ZOMG!!! Joss must have totally had this episode planned out when he
> had Spike performing for the photographers in "Restless!!!" Feel
> free to pretend, anyway.
And the cheese. Since this is a First driven dream, does that mean the
cheeseman is The First?
> I wish there were a way to measure that intangible thing called
> "chemistry" between actors rather than just baldly stating that,
> say, the main cast had it with each other from the beginning, Marsters
> has it with pretty much everyone, and so on. Then I could objectively
> quantify why scenes between Andrew and Dawn work so well.
If you think back through this season's use of Andrew, he has also shown
chemistry with just about every actor he's put up against.
(A thought sure to make Andrew haters blanch. Heh.)
> Awww. Willow and Kennedy can only
> dream of being able to summon up that kind of sweetness with one line a
> few facial expressions - has the show ever seen a more chemistry-free
> pair of any kind, let alone as a couple?
The smooching is unbelievably bad. Though I suppose I should consider the
possibility of it done that way on purpose to reflect how it would look to a
disinterested Andrew.
> And then of course the show breaks down the real/Memorex separation a
> little with the strangely appropriate reality show with Xander and
> Anya, with Andrew reciting the dialogue along with them. Until he
> rewound the tape, I had no idea what was up. He seems to be a fan of
> this pairing too, and it's hard to blame him, despite everything
> that's wrong with it. The show follows them into bed where they talk
> about their one last time. Their facial expressions could be meant to
> suggest that they'll go for a second round any second, but if this is
> really it, it'd parallel how they got together in the first place,
> providing a bizarre kind of closure. I suppose one will have to see.
If this is it, what's nice (I wouldn't have thought bizarre) is them finding
a way that doesn't leave them angry with each other.
Also, getting back to Anya's personal issues left over from Selfless, and
her general dissatisfaction of late; if this is really it, then it has one
huge implication. For maybe the first time in Anya's life she's found a way
to peacefully get past her problem with rejection.
> Having him (and the audience) actually be told straight out that it's
> the end of the over-romanticized stories is a little blunter than seems
> necessary,
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you just talking about Buffy
telling him to stop making up stories?
> but the conclusion that it sets up is worth seeing. Ripping
> down Andrew's world and simultaneously switching modes to non-jokey
> drama (well okay, there's some meta-ing too) is adequately set up by
> the way the gimmick's been handled.
A case where I'd call it a device, 'cause I don't think it's a gimmick. I
know, semantics. But it's extremely true to the character, which makes it
quite apt as the physical manifestation of the character trait that Buffy
abruptly knocks down.
> The character who can't quite figure out how to
> finish his sentence at the end is very much a changed man.
Yep. In some ways this seems kind of a fast track to that conclusion -
almost too easy for Andrew. But I'm willing to give slack for that because
of the impending series end and because this is a pretty potent way of doing
it. (Have we seen comparable from Willow? Is that what The Killer In Me
was supposed to accomplish?)
But it's still not penance. Sometimes the series seems to make people pay
for things. (Fairly or unfairly.) Sometimes not.
> A few plot points, though - it seems like poor Andy gets blamed for
> what the First makes him do, while Spike gets off free. The one thing
> that's different is that the latter had to have his mind turned off
> by means of that "trigger."
There's another difference - which I think explains the blame part.
Andrew's final revelation is that he didn't really believe The First's
depiction of Warren was actually Warren. Spike couldn't tell reality from
fiction.
> Which begs the question, hopefully to
> be explained, of why the First only can, or does, plant triggers in
> some, or one, of its victims but not others.
Excellent question. What's going on with Spike remains a mystery.
> This is an interesting enough story about a corner or the 'verse, so
> to speak, a look from the outside, and stands alone just fine. But
> having spent enough time on this NG, I can't resist very briefly
> trying to look for reflections on the main cast too. Cutting into a
> layer that's only slightly deeper, Buffy's part in the denoument
> seems to follow up on the oft-mentioned "I am the law" remark, and
> shows the kind of hardness she's developed as of late. Buffy's not
> a fluffy superhero defending the innocent - she's always had
> something of a ruthless side, and never more than when she tells Andrew
> what he needs to hear and, contrary to past stated principles, likely
> hasn't entirely ruled out killing him if it seems necessary.
I think Buffy has been able to turn the ruthless on when she decides she
needs to ever since skewering Angel. (What she did to Faith in Enemies and
Graduation Day comes to mind.) But you're right that she seems to be
looking more at the hard decisions this season. (Hell, Selfless alone makes
the season stand out that way.)
I'd like to point out something more though. This ruthlessness isn't just
to win a battle. It's redemptive. She didn't have to keep Andrew to begin
with. And she didn't have to use this method to make him cry. Buffy saw
the progress Andrew had made, his real effort to stand up to The First
(which she painfully knows not everybody does) and try to redeem himself.
But she could also see that he hadn't truly faced up to what he did - was in
substantial denial over it. I think this was quite inspired of her (unless
it was Willow's idea) to use this opportunity to make him face what he had
to in order to succeed at the redemption he sought. Another example of
Buffy seeing the possibilities in people. Andrew really has been a parallel
to Spike in some ways.
And Buffy doesn't rule out killing anybody if it seems necessary to her.
Dawn is the only line in the sand we've seen. (Other examples - like doing
the trade with the Mayor for Willow hadn't achieved the necessary threshold
for her - even if it had for Wesley.) And that had special considerations I
don't want to go into now. The point being that Andrew isn't singled out
that way. She never was looking to kill Andrew. She was looking not to.
> Going a little deeper, I knew when first watching that there was
> something interesting to me that I couldn't quite put my finger on.
> Well, here's what it was: the content of this exchange, and the fact
> that Buffy's the one who's saying it given the history involved.
> Obviously the circumstances are very different, but, still...
>
> BUFFY: When your blood pours out, it might save the world. What do you
> think about that? Does it buy it all back? Are you redeemed?
> ANDREW: No.
Hell of a line to throw in there isn't it? Sheesh. Looking back at my
prior comment, maybe Dawn doesn't have the special exemption anymore and
really should take pseudo-Joyce's warning seriously.
Of course Buffy is play acting some here, so why does she draw on a thought
like that? Does she feel the need to be redeemed herself? Or is it her
knowing that her own sacrafice really never was enough? Kind of goes back
to the question never answered in S6 of why she's still here.
> BTSOTV
What's the acronym?
> Well, that's all for now. It's a rich episode, one that'll
> likely reward rewatching and analysis. Discuss.
>
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Worth being told.
>
> AOQ rating: Good
I think it's an outstanding concept, that's mostly well executed.
Especially the final scenes of Andrew confessing and then completing his
movie. But it seems a little thin over the course of the 40 minutes - like
it's a 30 minute show or something. A bit stretched out. So I leave it in
the Good category.
OBS
Elisi
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE SLAYER OF THE VAMPIRES
> Season Seven, Episode 16: "Storyteller"
> (or "Only we're allowed to talk to the camera!")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: Marita Grabiak
>
> Yep, it's yet another concept episode of BTSOTV, and it's one
> that's a little hard to make sense of at first. This is one of those
> things where I have to take a step back and remember that my gig
> isn't so much to intensively ponder what it all means, which is
> better left to the experienced, but to capture what I was thinking as a
> first-timer. Oh, and to answer the question - amidst all the
> cleverness and would-be cleverness, does it entertain?
Having read/skimmed the various comments I'm rather puzzled. Some like
Andrew, some don't. Some enjoy the humour, but most complain (at least
a little) about having someone like him at the center, and about the
recapping of events. It apparently doesn't make sense to them.
All of which leaves _me_ puzzled. Because it's so very obvious to me
what the episode is saying:
Andrew is Joss.
The funny nerd, with all his pop culture and geeky references (which
we've seen since S6 of course, and was remarked upon then because the
writers said that they used the Trio to discuss thier own arguments)
who lives in a fantasy world of Slayers, vampires and demons,
constantly embellishing whatever is in front of his eyes.
The re-cap is probably not too far from Joss' original pitch to the
network.
Throughout, we get continually pulled out of our viewing experience,
being told in not so many words that 'Buffy is a SHOW! It's a STORY!'
And one that Joss is telling. The first example of this being the
graveyard scene, where Andrew's camera pulls back, and we see what's
'really' happening. And then the camera pulls up and out - so far that
they must have used a crane for the shot. We're watching Joss' story
now.
Being in a hurry I must sadly snip your excellent review, and just say
one more thing: Joss isn't a nice guy. He kills people - Jesse, Jenny,
Angel, Tara, Jonathan... he makes his characters do horrible things and
he's really sorry about that, but he hopes the story is worth it. His
story isn't nice and predictable like Andrew's, it's a lot darker and
more complex and he might just kill them all. You never know.
> One-sentence summary: Worth being told.
Absolutely.
> AOQ rating: Good
Excellent, easily. :)
Michael Ikeda
news:Fs-dnR-Nw7JosLXY...@rcn.net:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
>
>> The
>> consequences aren't ignored and never mentioned again like Trek
>> at its most episodic, they're explicitly borught up and
>> dismissed.
>
> By Andrew, not by Willow or Kennedy. And maybe I'd even allow
> for a quick emotional recovery being part of Kennedy's character
> palette. But shouldn't Willow, who's been moping all season and
> has no reason to stop post-"Get It Done" (rather, the opposite)
> feel and show some lingering guilt?
>
Maybe. On the other hand, quick recoveries aren't exactly foreign to
Willow, either. It's just that for most of this season she's been so
terrified of relapsing that she's been doing her best Angel
impersonation. The events of GID seem to have jolted Willow into
modifying this attitude.
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
George W Harris
wrote:
:> BTSOTV
:
:What's the acronym?
Buffy the Slayer of the Vampyrs
--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like
prunes than rhubarb does" -Groucho Marx
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Ken from Chicago
"BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-5DE267...@news.giganews.com...
Hated Andrew, tho liked this episode, and grew to tolerate him following
this episode.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Ohg gura ur fubjf hc va Ybf Natryrf, naq jbefr, va Vgnyl, naq orpbzrf
Ze. Zbeny Fhcrevbevgl?!!! Nyy gur byq natre ebfr ntnva yvxr ovyr.
Arbitrar Of Quality
Not to get into the whole debate again about whether current dictionary
definitions should dictate one's use of language, but your basic online
dictionary will include both uses of the phrase as correct. But I
hadn't heard of the original meaning before, so these threads continue
to be educational.
-AOQ
~which I guess would mean that the statement implied by Apteryx's
rhetorical question begs the question~
Arbitrar Of Quality
One Bit Shy wrote:
> (One of
> the larger ones - the reconciliation of Willow and Kennedy seems played to
> just get it over with quickly so we don't have to spend time on it in the
> future. Which might actually be a blessing.)
Absolutely. It's only fair to thank the writers for the small favors.
> I'd like to point out something more though. This ruthlessness isn't just
> to win a battle. It's redemptive. She didn't have to keep Andrew to begin
> with. And she didn't have to use this method to make him cry. Buffy saw
> the progress Andrew had made, his real effort to stand up to The First
> (which she painfully knows not everybody does) and try to redeem himself.
> But she could also see that he hadn't truly faced up to what he did - was in
> substantial denial over it. I think this was quite inspired of her (unless
> it was Willow's idea) to use this opportunity to make him face what he had
> to in order to succeed at the redemption he sought. Another example of
> Buffy seeing the possibilities in people. Andrew really has been a parallel
> to Spike in some ways.
Oooh, that's good. Sorry I don't have anything to add.
> > BTSOTV
>
> What's the acronym?
Buffy, The Slayer Who Knew No Fear.
-AOQ
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
>
> Hated Andrew, tho liked this episode, and grew to tolerate him following
> this episode.
willow and xander have dealt with most of their high school issues
they are becoming adults and even superheroes
andrew reintroduces the nerdy outsider to the series from season one
andrew probably gets his clothes from the softer side of sears
Stephen Tempest
>On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 01:07:20 -0400, "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry>
>wrote:
>
>:> BTSOTV
>:
>:What's the acronym?
>
> Buffy the Slayer of the Vampyrs
BtSotV would be a better parallel to BtVS...
Stephen
kenm47
burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> > threads.
> >
> >
> > BUFFY THE SLAYER OF THE VAMPIRES
> > Season Seven, Episode 16: "Storyteller"
> > (or "Only we're allowed to talk to the camera!")
> > Writer: Jane Espenson
> > Director: Marita Grabiak
>
> (snip review)
>
> > Well, that's all for now. It's a rich episode, one that'll
> > likely reward rewatching and analysis. Discuss.
>
> Easily one of the show's worst episodes. It was basically 45 minutes of
> the writers saying "Look! Isn't Andrew cute? And funny? Oh, but he has
> depth too! Don't you just love him?!" Excuse me? Andrew who attempted
> rape, thought getting away with murder was "cool," and then actually
> murdered Jonathon is someone I should *like?* Um, no.
>
> God, what a waste of space Andrew was. As much as I loathe Spike, at
> least he was entertaining back in the early years. But Andrew was
> utterly annoying, had *no* redeeming qualities whatsoever, and was
> played by the sorriest no-talent hack of an actor Joss ever hired.
> Whoever's idea it was to do an episode focused on him should be run out
> of Hollywood on a rail.
IAWTP.
I've been reading a bit of the posts here, and I am utterly amazed at
the continuing glowing "reviews."
Couldn't keep silent. Andrew was horrible. A worse comic foil than the
TV Frank Burns idiot on "MASH."
Ken (Brooklyn)
lili...@gmail.com
>
> > Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > > A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> > > threads.
> > >
> > >
> > > BUFFY THE SLAYER OF THE VAMPIRES
> > > Season Seven, Episode 16: "Storyteller"
> > > (or "Only we're allowed to talk to the camera!")
> > > Writer: Jane Espenson
> > > Director: Marita Grabiak
> >
> > (snip review)
> >
> > > Well, that's all for now. It's a rich episode, one that'll
> > > likely reward rewatching and analysis. Discuss.
> >
> > Easily one of the show's worst episodes. It was basically 45 minutes of
> > the writers saying "Look! Isn't Andrew cute? And funny? Oh, but he has
> > depth too! Don't you just love him?!" Excuse me? Andrew who attempted
> > rape, thought getting away with murder was "cool," and then actually
> > murdered Jonathon is someone I should *like?* Um, no.
>
> was a little kid, Darth Vader was always my favorite "Star Wars"
> character despite the fact that he was a murdering psychopath) if he
> weren't such a whining, sniveling little shit.
>
> Andrew is the character equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard.
> Easily *the* worst element of Season 7. But Whedon either took an
> inexplicable liking to either the actor or the character orpnhfr abg
> bayl qvq ur sbvfg Naqerj ba hf guebhtubhg gur qrabhrzrag bs "Ohssl" ohg
> ur rira pebffrq uvz bire gb NATRY.
lrnu, ohg gung jnf gur bayl gvzr gung Naqerj jnf npghnyyl gbyyrenoyr.
Jura ur uhttrq Fcvxr va Qnzntr Bs pbhefr, ol gung gvzr V jbhyq unir
yvxrq nalbar gung tnir cbbe Fcvxr n uht.
Lore
lili...@gmail.com
I think that might be because you also like Alyson Hannigan, they have
the same kind of acting style, so both annoy me equally*g*
Lore
Mel
You're utterly amazed that some people like things you don't like? What
is so amazing about that? People are different and have different
tastes. I would be amazed if everyone had the same opinion about
everything. And very depressed too.
>
> Couldn't keep silent. Andrew was horrible. A worse comic foil than the
> TV Frank Burns idiot on "MASH."
>
> Ken (Brooklyn)
>
Frank was a pathetic loser. Kinda like Andrew. But at least he's trying
to change.
Mel
kenm47
Yes, there are some things that strike me as so horrible, I have
difficulty with the idea that other thinking folk don't see it that
way. It happens. Doesn't mean I'm correct, doesn't mean it strikes me
that way often, just means I am amazed. The disjointed unfunny season
7 is one of those things, and part of that was Andrew.
I have to chalk it up to some folk just being in thrall. In the greater
scheme of things, it matters not at all. Just felt I would express some
solidarity with the minority opinion in these posts I've been reading.
Ken (Brooklyn)
BTR1701
lili...@gmail.com wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Easily one of the show's worst episodes. It was basically 45 minutes of
> > > the writers saying "Look! Isn't Andrew cute? And funny? Oh, but he has
> > > depth too! Don't you just love him?!" Excuse me? Andrew who attempted
> > > rape, thought getting away with murder was "cool," and then actually
> > > murdered Jonathon is someone I should *like?* Um, no.
> >
> > Chris's post below talks about why one doesn't have to like him in
> > order to appreciate the episode. I do like him, so I can't speak for
> > myself.
> >
> > > God, what a waste of space Andrew was. As much as I loathe Spike, at
> > > least he was entertaining back in the early years. But Andrew was
> > > utterly annoying, had *no* redeeming qualities whatsoever, and was
> > > played by the sorriest no-talent hack of an actor Joss ever hired.
> >
> > Mileage really varies, I suppose, since I agree with those who talk
> > about what a great job Tom Lenk did with a difficult assignment. I
> > don't think I've praised him enugh myself.
> I think that might be because you also like Alyson Hannigan, they have
> the same kind of acting style, so both annoy me equally*g*
I think Hannigan is great but despise Andrew as a character and don't
think much of the actor, either.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> eye-for-an-eye sacrifice; it wants tears--and not just tears of
> remorse, but of empathy: When Andrew weeps, it's not only because he
> understands his guilt, but because "This is what Jonathan felt." He
> finally sees what he did, stripped of all its fictional trappings and
> disguises. He experiences his victim's grief and fear as if it were his
> own. He moves from being the disinterested, dispassionate documentarian
> Observer to being the protagonist of the tale.
andrew is guilty of murder possibly capital murder
but its not buffys place or concern to enforce human laws
andrew meddled with supernatural forces when he killed jonath-n
adn buffy seems quite willing to kill him to control the supernatural
but if it not then andrew is no longer her balliwick
you seek redemption from your judge
in faiths case redemption is dealing with a criminal conviction under state law
andrew or willows redemption if any may be in whatever goddess holds their fate
Malsperanza
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> > of her own there. But the Seal (and Buffy) doesn't want an
> > eye-for-an-eye sacrifice; it wants tears--and not just tears of
> > remorse, but of empathy: When Andrew weeps, it's not only because he
> > understands his guilt, but because "This is what Jonathan felt." He
> > finally sees what he did, stripped of all its fictional trappings and
> > disguises. He experiences his victim's grief and fear as if it were his
> > own. He moves from being the disinterested, dispassionate documentarian
> > Observer to being the protagonist of the tale.
>
> andrew is guilty of murder possibly capital murder
> but its not buffys place or concern to enforce human laws
Agreed. It's not relevant to her task.
> andrew meddled with supernatural forces when he killed jonath-n
> adn buffy seems quite willing to kill him to control the supernatural
> but if it not then andrew is no longer her balliwick
>
> you seek redemption from your judge
> in faiths case redemption is dealing with a criminal conviction under state law
> andrew or willows redemption if any may be in whatever goddess holds their fate
Redemption is a recurrant theme of s6 and s7, but I think it's not
*Buffy's* theme. She's all about the Get It Done. And now she seems to
be saying to her peeps that too much concern with their own personal
redemption is not a good thing, as it is preventing them from doing
anything morally iffy, such as relishing the killing of demons, or
performing risky magic.
When Andrew asks her at the end, "You weren't really going to stab
me, were you?" Buffy answers, "I wasn't going to stab you." And when
Andrew persists, "What if the tears didn't work?" he gets only a
knowing look from Buffy, who refuses to answer. Yes, I suppose she'd
kill him if she had to, but that's not how I read her look. I think her
silence suggests that she *knew* tears would work--or rather, that
blood would not work--that Andrew was never at risk of death. Because
taking vengeful judgment on Andrew for his transgression would not shut
down Evil, but merely please it.
~Mal
One Bit Shy
Smart aleck. (But I deserved it.)
OBS
One Bit Shy
news:1160330764.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160202628.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > BUFFY THE SLAYER OF THE VAMPIRES
>> > Season Seven, Episode 16: "Storyteller"
>>
>> > But even there, it also quickly sets things up to be one of
>> > those shows that's hard to digest. I mean, why are we doing a parody
>> > "recap of the series for new viewers" in an episode that'll
>> > clearly make no sense to a new viewer?
>>
>> I've puzzled about that too. And it's not just that scene. There's also
>> the bit of reworking the old high school is hell with literal metaphors -
>> to
>> the point of Buffy actually explaining how that works to Wood. It feels
>> kind of like a remedial course in basic BtVS symbolism. There are other
>> briefer references, like speaking of Xander as the heart.
>
> it was for the show to offer a concept episode at this crucial juncture
> of the final season. It seems to slow the pace at just the point where
> it was finally beginning to pick up some momentum, after a very slow
> start. That said, I think the meta justifies the decision. As we
> approach the Last Battle and the Big Ending, the show not only revisits
> its own story arc in semi-ironic mode, it also revisits some of the
> main tropes of television, and the claim of TV to provide knowledge and
> education and wisdom cleverly disguised as cheap entertainment. I like
> the show's mixture of skepticism and agreement with that rather dubious
> idea.
>
> So we start with Andrew mimicking a specific TV show: the highly
> influential Mawsterpiece Theatah, with its pompous "host": the
> unbearable Alistair Cooke, with his Received English accent and his
> absurd attempts to summarize great works of fiction with a few key
> pointers. The set for this opening is worth spending a little time on,
> with the Pause button: it's Andrew's image of what an educated
> Englishman's study would contain, and it's hysterical. Reassuring, too,
> in case we ever worried that Andrew might have ambitions to become a
> Watcher in the Quentin Travers mode.
>
> The Andrew Show then waffles between a BBC/Ken Burns-style documentary,
> with reenactments and interviews, and a very different kind of TV
> show--the sort, we suspect, that Andrew actually watches: a daytime
> soap with lots of wind machine action. The kind of show Joyce and Spike
> are addicted to.
>
> TV does pretty well at telling stories, whether reenactments of famous
> novels or sexy soap operas, as long as it makes no claim to presenting
> fiction as reality. Andrew can't tell the difference; to him, still,
> it's all entertainment. He's living in a world governed by the
> imagination--and as we know, that's a demonic domain, ruled by Sweet.
> Which is a pretty odd thing for a fictional TV show to be saying. Is
> the imagination a liar? Dangerous? Irresponsible?
>
>> > Spike suddenly having his shirt off in the kitchen
>> > montage kills me for some reason,
>>
>> Me too. Absolutely the best effort at poking fun at the shirtless
>> routine.
>
> confusion about whether the scene is really occurring. (Another
> favorite moment of mine is Andrew's confusion about Vulcanologists. He
> has not watched enough Discovery channel documentaries about volcanos,
> apparently.)
>
> The meta really works for me in this episode. Andrew is a story teller,
> but an irresponsible one. He shifts from truth to lies and back again
> without even realizing it. He invents new "documentary" information on
> the spur of the moment and to suit his latest whims. And he can't be
> bothered to let his audience know when he's showing an imagined
> reenactment and when he's filming actual events. Plus, he's a voyeur.
> The criticism of TV is pretty direct here, and is only partly balanced
> out by a few pithy points in support of Andrew's home movie:
>
> 1) Buffy's story is a real hero story, and is worth preserving. (Hence,
> BTVS is a story worth telling.)
>
> 2) Andrew is another Watcher, albeit an inept and cowardly and
> self-absorbed one. He watches, but he doesn't always see. OTOH, he does
> sometimes see things we don't expect him to notice, and even when he
> misses their importance, he still records them so that we can see them.
> Like his camera, he's a conduit for our seeing.
>
> This was AOQ:
>> > but the conclusion that it sets up is worth seeing. Ripping
>> > down Andrew's world and simultaneously switching modes to non-jokey
>> > drama (well okay, there's some meta-ing too) is adequately set up by
>> > the way the gimmick's been handled.
>
>> There's another difference - which I think explains the blame part.
>> Andrew's final revelation is that he didn't really believe The First's
>> depiction of Warren was actually Warren. Spike couldn't tell reality
>> from
>> fiction.
>
> exactly; it's about insight. Buffy, who has insight, guesses from early
> on what will close the Seal. To get Andrew to accompany her to the Seal
> she more or less lies to him: he thinks he's going to be killed as
> punishment for his crime. ("When your blood pours out, it might save
> the world.") So Buffy is doing a little bit of dishonest "storytelling"
> of her own there. But the Seal (and Buffy) doesn't want an
> eye-for-an-eye sacrifice; it wants tears--and not just tears of
> remorse, but of empathy: When Andrew weeps, it's not only because he
> understands his guilt, but because "This is what Jonathan felt." He
> finally sees what he did, stripped of all its fictional trappings and
> disguises. He experiences his victim's grief and fear as if it were his
> own. He moves from being the disinterested, dispassionate documentarian
> Observer to being the protagonist of the tale.
>
> conveyer of meaning and ideas. If we are brought to empathize with
> Andrew (perhaps for the first time), despite his flaws, then we too are
> persuaded by the (fictional) story we are being told. The power of that
> scene has something visceral in it; as if Buffy were holding the whole
> writing staff of the show over that Seal; or maybe us.
This post is a really eloquent discussion of the meta-story aspects. I love
that last line about holding the whole writing staff over the seal, and the
notion that in the end, in spite of the criticism of TV, that the story -
that BtVS - is worth the telling.
I don't think it really answers my puzzlement over the rehashing of the
story to date and spelling out how the high school metaphors work, but
that's trivial, and this was a joy to read.
OBS
Scythe Matters
> snibevgr zbzrag bs zvar vf Naqerj'f pbashfvba nobhg Ihypnabybtvfgf. Ur
> unf abg jngpurq rabhtu Qvfpbirel punaary qbphzragnevrf nobhg ibypnabf,
> nccneragyl.)
Not yet.
drifter
> drifter wrote:
>> Apteryx wrote:
>>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>> Which begs the question, hopefully to
>>>> be explained, of why the First only can, or does, plant triggers in
>>>> some, or one, of its victims but not others.
>>>
>>> Which raises the question - will "beg the question" ever be used
>>> correctly on usenet again?
>>
>> Not just usenet; newscasters are constantly misusing the phrase.
>> It's a particular pet peeve of mine. Apparently English is no
>> longer a required journalistic course. Nice to know, though, that
>> I'm not the only one who remembers what "begging the question"
>> actually means.
>
> Not to get into the whole debate again about whether current
> dictionary definitions should dictate one's use of language, but your
> basic online dictionary will include both uses of the phrase as
> correct. But I hadn't heard of the original meaning before, so these
> threads continue to be educational.
Personally, I think it sets a bad precedent to change the meanings of
words and phrases simply because a number of people who don't know
what the actual meaning is *think* that they do. It would be nice if
more people were as willing to learn as you seem to be.
buck naked
I have to agree with BTR here.
I hate the character, never cared for the actor. Admittedly I haven't seen
him in much (buffy, angel and a guest on House) but I haven't ever felt the
desire to hunt down his appearances. I hated the Warren character, but I
think the actor that played him did a damn good job in making me HATE him.
Rowan Hawthorn
>
> To my mind, the ending isn't about penance, or even redemption,
> exactly; it's about insight. Buffy, who has insight, guesses from early
> on what will close the Seal.
Except that she didn't.
BUFFY: Andrew, do you speak this Tawarick?
ANDREW: Yeah. I’m okay with it. It says, “The blood which I spill I…
consecrate to the oldest evil.”
KENNEDY: Creepy.
Buffy looks at Willow’s thoughtful expression.
BUFFY: Will, what are you thinking? You think you can do
something with that?
WILLOW: (considers)Let me work on it.
CUT TO:
33A INT. SUMMERS HOME— DINING ROOM/LIVING ROOM— NIGHT 33A
Willow looks up from her computer at Buffy standing behind her.
WILLOW: I think it’s got a shot.
That's from the transcript. The shooting script is a little different,
but not much; in both versions, it's *Willow* who works out the connection.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
Malsperanza
Crap! OK, I deleted the post (I think) & will repost without the
spoiler. I should have checked the transcript before posting. Very
sorry.
~Mal
Mike Zeares
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> Mileage really varies, I suppose, since I agree with those who talk
> about what a great job Tom Lenk did with a difficult assignment. I
> don't think I've praised him enugh myself.
I'm with you. I always liked the nerds in general, and always liked
Lenk's work in S7. He's easily worth all the Potentials put together.
-- Mike Zeares
Malsperanza
Rowan Hawthorn wrote:
> Malsperanza wrote:
> >
> > To my mind, the ending isn't about penance, or even redemption,
> > exactly; it's about insight. Buffy, who has insight, guesses from early
> > on what will close the Seal.
>
> Except that she didn't.
>
> BUFFY: Andrew, do you speak this Tawarick?
>
> consecrate to the oldest evil."
>
> KENNEDY: Creepy.
>
> Buffy looks at Willow's thoughtful expression.
>
> BUFFY: Will, what are you thinking? You think you can do
> something with that?
>
> WILLOW: (considers)Let me work on it.
>
> CUT TO:
>
> Willow looks up from her computer at Buffy standing behind her.
> WILLOW: I think it's got a shot.
>
> That's from the transcript. The shooting script is a little different,
> but not much; in both versions, it's *Willow* who works out the connection.
Good point. Willow and Buffy both grasp the idea more or less together
that the knife has a clue to how to shut down the Seal, and then Willow
does the Google search that explains what needs to be done. I still
tend to think that Buffy (and Xander) has insight where the rest of the
team just have intelligence and research skills (and Willow can use
magic as a shortcut to leap to information, which looks like insight
sometimes). But that's more visible, perhaps, in Get It Done and some
other episodes than here. (Buffy seems to be relying on insight as well
as compassion to grasp that Andrew is worth rescuing in the first
place, for example.)
The connection between insight and empathy was the main thing I was
aiming for, and the idea that Andrew has no real ability to see until
he achieves the ability to empathize. It's somewhat parallel to Spike's
dilemma in s6. Andrew isn't the only member of the household in s7
whose vision is impaired. And Storyteller is one of the few episodes
lately with an explicit moral at the end, aimed possibly at the viewer,
as much as at the characters in the show.
~Mal
Malsperanza
idea.
are addicted to.
This was AOQ:
And this was OBS:
To my mind, the ending isn't about penance, or even redemption,
exactly; it's about insight. Buffy, who has insight, guesses from early
on what will close the Seal. To get Andrew to accompany her to the Seal
she more or less lies to him: he thinks he's going to be killed as
punishment for his crime. ("When your blood pours out, it might save
the world.") So Buffy is doing a little bit of dishonest "storytelling"
of her own there. But the Seal (and Buffy) doesn't want an
eye-for-an-eye sacrifice; it wants tears--and not just tears of
remorse, but of empathy: When Andrew weeps, it's not only because he
understands his guilt, but because "This is what Jonathan felt." He
finally sees what he did, stripped of all its fictional trappings and
disguises. He experiences his victim's grief and fear as if it were his
own. He moves from being the disinterested, dispassionate documentarian
Observer to being the protagonist of the tale.
Storytelling can be dangerous and dishonest, but it is also the genuine
conveyer of meaning and ideas. If we are brought to empathize with
Andrew (perhaps for the first time), despite his flaws, then we too are
persuaded by the (fictional) story we are being told. The power of that
scene has something visceral in it; as if Buffy were holding the whole
writing staff of the show over that Seal; or maybe us.
~Mal
Malsperanza
One Bit Shy wrote:
[snip]
> I don't think it really answers my puzzlement over the rehashing of the
> story to date and spelling out how the high school metaphors work
The over-literal explaining of the high-school-as-hell metaphor was a
shame, because even new viewers would not find that joke difficult to
grasp. I did enjoy the literal explosion of the boy against Principal
Wood's window, though. And the piglet wandering by from an earlier
episode ("God, I hope that's not a student")--these are vintage Buffy
jokes.
The question is: Why does the show come to a screeching halt at episode
16 and use the Andrew-with-camera device and the
Buffy-as-school-counsellor device to give us a capsule history of the
Story So Far? The crass answer is that with 2/3 of the season over,
buzz about the finale is out, and new viewers who have tuned in for it
need to be brought up to date.
But I think it's also interesting that this episode ends with a moral,
whereas most episodes this season end with a cliffhanger (I think). In
some sense, Andrew's story has closure here and now, but in any case,
the episode ends on a quiet note. Once again I have the feeling that
the chessboard has been set, the players are seated, and the game is
about to begin in earnest.
So maybe another way to think of the recap is that it has shown us the
whole tale through the somewhat distorted and ignorant perspectives of
Andrew and the newbie Wood. We, the old hands, can spot all the errors
in the presentation that newbies would miss: the outright lies, the
missing info (Tara), the silly overdramatizing of certain aspects. And
for us it's fun. We can spot the places where our own obsessions are
being mocked (Spuffy, Kennedy hatred, etc.), and the places where the
show is pulling its own leg (the piglet, or Wood's line: "I don't
know why any of you should trust each other. You've all been evil at
some point, right?") We're being reminded of the reason the outcome of
season 7 matters: because the whole story matters. And what may have
seemed a set of 5 or 6 loosely connected seasonal arcs are now
presented as a single unified story, leading step by step to this
point: the confrontation, once and for all, with the Big Bad. We're
being shown, in a kind of vision or dream, everything that is now at
risk. If Buffy fails this time, the end will be absolute.
Because of course the ultimate meta is this: no matter how the final
episode of s7 ends, whether with utter triumph or utter defeat or
something in between, the real ending is known and foregone: Buffyverse
will come to an end in 6 more weeks, obliterated by the Cancellation
Demons. It will remain only as a memory, a bunch of chatroom archives,
and a set of DVDs. Thank goodness for the DVDs, which keep the story
from vanishing completely, and being forgotten. Which is the point, I
suppose, that Andrew and his camera have been trying to make all along.
Nice to think of the subtext here: that the Network Powers that Cancel
BTVS *are* the First Evil. I wonder if they noticed.
~Mal
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> I enjoy so much about this episode that I usually forget how jarring it
> it was for the show to offer a concept episode at this crucial juncture
> of the final season. It seems to slow the pace at just the point where
> it was finally beginning to pick up some momentum, after a very slow
> start. That said, I think the meta justifies the decision. As we
> approach the Last Battle and the Big Ending, the show not only revisits
> its own story arc in semi-ironic mode, it also revisits some of the
> main tropes of television, and the claim of TV to provide knowledge and
> education and wisdom cleverly disguised as cheap entertainment. I like
> the show's mixture of skepticism and agreement with that rather dubious
> idea.
I would far rather an episode like this than a plot by numbers episode
advancing the plot in a leaden way, as the season threatened to become
around the time of Never Leave Me, Bring On the Night and Showtime.
[snip]
Well said, you echo a lot of my thoughts on the episode but I can't
articulate them as well as you.
--
You can't stop the signal
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> Yep, it's yet another concept episode of BTSOTV, and it's one
> that's a little hard to make sense of at first. This is one of those
> things where I have to take a step back and remember that my gig
> isn't so much to intensively ponder what it all means, which is
> better left to the experienced, but to capture what I was thinking as a
> first-timer. Oh, and to answer the question - amidst all the
> cleverness and would-be cleverness, does it entertain?
Most definitely, as well as be thought provoking.
> Ah, entertainment. Because, gentle readers, although there is some
> character study to be done, there're also a lot of jokes. Although
> coughing on the pipe was a little obvious, the rest of the intro is
> great fun, with Andrew talking directly to the viewer in a perfect
> parody of an easily-parodied role, as he spins a tale for us. I'm
> reminded of the first reveal of Jonathan in "Superstar" for some
> reason. But even there, it also quickly sets things up to be one of
> those shows that's hard to digest. I mean, why are we doing a parody
> "recap of the series for new viewers" in an episode that'll
> clearly make no sense to a new viewer?
Because the episode is in part about storytelling and the creation of
myths and legends and the relation to reality, how we distort the truth
with stories to hide unpalatable facts about ourselves.
[snip]
> usually can take a lot of that stuff"). I complain often about
> one-joke premises, and "Storyteller" is a good example of how one
> joke can turn into many, if the writing's up to the task.
Written by Jane Espenson.
[snip]
> This is one of those episodes that plays with perception, but not
> universally - the dichotomy is pretty clear between what the camera
> sees and what should be taken as literally real. It may have been
> better to stick with the guest narrator throughout, but maybe someone
> was worried that his shtick would become tiresome.
The episode is about Andrew beginning his redemption by removing his
illusions and getting him to accept the reality of his actions, there had
to be a break at some point.
[snip]
> The Other One is an unusual choice to be the center of a show, living
> as he is as a comic relief character in his semi-delusional world.
> Having him (and the audience) actually be told straight out that it's
> the end of the over-romanticized stories is a little blunter than seems
> necessary, but the conclusion that it sets up is worth seeing. Ripping
> down Andrew's world and simultaneously switching modes to non-jokey
> drama (well okay, there's some meta-ing too) is adequately set up by
> the way the gimmick's been handled. One has to remember that he was
> rather evil, if in a passive way, complicit in demonic stuff that
> could've gotten Random Innocent #716 killed in "Life Serial,"
> accessory to a rape attempt and a murder coverup in "Dead Things,"
> and so on. (Actually, it seems strange that Jonathan is the only thing
> anyone mentions him needing to atone for. To focus the story, maybe.)
> The show is successful in conveying the enormity for him as Buffy
> forces him to face death, both his own and those he's caused. He's
> spoken about paying for his crimes before, but that was still part of
> his heroic redemption fantasy, and I buy this understanding as
> something new. The character who can't quite figure out how to
> finish his sentence at the end is very much a changed man.
Which is one reason why the episode is so powerful and so good.
[snip]
> Going a little deeper, I knew when first watching that there was
> something interesting to me that I couldn't quite put my finger on.
> Well, here's what it was: the content of this exchange, and the fact
> that Buffy's the one who's saying it given the history involved.
> Obviously the circumstances are very different, but, still...
>
> BUFFY: When your blood pours out, it might save the world. What do you
> think about that? Does it buy it all back? Are you redeemed?
> ANDREW: No.
>
> BTSOTV has always been one of those living-is-harder-than-dying
> stories. Kind of a demystification of the conceit of the heroic
> suicide, even if death is a cathartic atonement, or a Gift to the
> world, or both. It's been commented on that ME characters very
> seldom get hero's deaths (the only other one I can remember comes in
> "Hero"), and this may be a clue why.
Well said.
> Well, that's all for now. It's a rich episode, one that'll
> likely reward rewatching and analysis. Discuss.
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Worth being told.
>
> AOQ rating: Good
Excellent for me easily, close to superlative. Given how much you liked
Normal Again I'm surprised that you didn't like this better (yes I
realize a good means you liked it I just think its one of the best
episodes of the entire series). IMHO it had the perfect mixture of drama,
poignancy, humour and depth. A multi levelled story that acted as a self
referential comment on the show, the act of storytelling and the creation
of myths, as well as being a poignant story of the beginning of Andrews
redemption, told in such a way to make his change of heart truly
believable.
It struck me as sort of a cross between The Zeppo, Superstar and Normal
Again. Its also Jane Espenson's best episode she did for the show.
Rowan Hawthorn
Sure. Just wasn't the key in this instance.
> (and Willow can use
> magic as a shortcut to leap to information, which looks like insight
> sometimes). But that's more visible, perhaps, in Get It Done and some
> other episodes than here. (Buffy seems to be relying on insight as well
> as compassion to grasp that Andrew is worth rescuing in the first
> place, for example.)
As with pretty much everyone where she's made that decision. Lots of
(maybe even most) other people in her position would err on the side of
caution and bury'em.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Because of course the ultimate meta is this: no matter how the final
> episode of s7 ends, whether with utter triumph or utter defeat or
> something in between, the real ending is known and foregone: Buffyverse
> will come to an end in 6 more weeks, obliterated by the Cancellation
> Demons.
I was under the impression that the end of BTVS was semi-voluntary
(i.e. their star didn't want to do it anymore, and at least some people
thought they'd said everything they needed to say). I don't believe it
was a network cancellation. However, the Buffyverse on TV would end a
year later, thanks to the cancellation of _Angel_.
> It will remain only as a memory, a bunch of chatroom archives,
> and a set of DVDs. Thank goodness for the DVDs, which keep the story
> from vanishing completely, and being forgotten. Which is the point, I
> suppose, that Andrew and his camera have been trying to make all along.
Absolutely. The story has to be out there, or it'll be forgotten, and
I'm sure the creators sincerely hope (correctly) that it's one worth
remembering, one that people should know about.
> Nice to think of the subtext here: that the Network Powers that Cancel
> BTVS *are* the First Evil. I wonder if they noticed.
_Firefly_ was ended by the Alliance and those who'd try to stop the
signal.
-AOQ
Mike Zeares
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> Malsperanza wrote:
>
> > Because of course the ultimate meta is this: no matter how the final
> > episode of s7 ends, whether with utter triumph or utter defeat or
> > something in between, the real ending is known and foregone: Buffyverse
> > will come to an end in 6 more weeks, obliterated by the Cancellation
> > Demons.
>
> I was under the impression that the end of BTVS was semi-voluntary
> (i.e. their star didn't want to do it anymore, and at least some people
> thought they'd said everything they needed to say). I don't believe it
> was a network cancellation. However, the Buffyverse on TV would end a
> year later, thanks to the cancellation of _Angel_.
You are correct. BTVS was not cancelled by UPN.
-- Mike Zeares
alphakitten
>
> Nice to think of the subtext here: that the Network Powers that Cancel
> BTVS *are* the First Evil. I wonder if they noticed.
>
> ~Mal
>
BtVS wasn't cancelled. Both Joss and SMG wanted out and there's no show
without them. The network powers than cancelled AtS were certainly evil,
though.
~Angel
Malsperanza
Yeah, I sort of knew that. But I figured I'd ignore the facts, because
they would weaken my nifty argument. ;-)
~Mal
rrh...@acme.com
drifter wrote:
> Personally, I think it sets a bad precedent to change the meanings of
> words and phrases simply because a number of people who don't know
> what the actual meaning is *think* that they do.
> --
>
> Kel
Arewe to follow this rule retroactively? If so, how far back are we
going to go? Are we to use Webster's Second International Dictionary
from (IIRC) 1934? Or perhaps Johnson's dictionary from the 18th
century? Or Old English? Proto-Indo-European?
Or did you have in mind merely stopping such things going forward? If
so, (a) good luck with that, and (b) you ought not characterize the way
all natural languages have worked throughout the history of humankind
as establishing a precedent.
Richard R. Hershberger
rrh...@acme.com
I wonder if one's enjoyment of this episode, or at least the opening
bits, depends on whether or not we watched Masterpiece Theatre back in
the day? I am of an age that I grew up with Alistair Cooke, and
watched MT back in the glory days of "I, Claudius" and "Upstairs
Downstairs". (Well, I actually was just a bit too young for "Upstairs
Downstairs" but my parents watched it faithfully. I Netflixed it a
while back and was pleased at how good it in fact turned out to be.)
The MT opening bits have been parodied various times over the years,
but never better than in this episode. The important point is that
this actually isn't a send-up of Alistair Cooke. It is Andrews
imagining of Alistair Cooke (probably rather far removed, given
Andrew's age).
Richard R. Hershberger
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
rrh...@acme.com wrote:
the way languages actually work is that words mean
whatever a community wishing to communicate agrees they mean
high status speakers can sometimes dominate the community
and get others to agree with them easier than low status speakers
but it remains a consensus
shiny?
Clairel
Apteryx wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160202628.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > threads.
> >
> >
> > BUFFY THE SLAYER OF THE VAMPIRES
> > Season Seven, Episode 16: "Storyteller"
> > Writer: Jane Espenson
> > Director: Marita Grabiak
> >
> >
> > Ah, entertainment. Because, gentle readers, although there is some
> > character study to be done, there're also a lot of jokes. Although
> > coughing on the pipe was a little obvious, the rest of the intro is
> > great fun, with Andrew talking directly to the viewer in a perfect
> > parody of an easily-parodied role, as he spins a tale for us.
>
> the cast who could have presented the show like this.
>
>
> > But yes, in the meantime, jokes. Not everything is perfect - I guess
> > someone thought the "we are as gods" thing was hysterical since
> > they used it three times, but meh.
>
> Yeah, but you have to like their enthusiasm for it, and, hey special Grr
> Argh monsters don't grown on trees
>
>
> > However, there's a lot that's
> > absurd and fun as the show just totally cuts loose with the florid
> > storytelling. Spike suddenly having his shirt off in the kitchen
> > montage kills me for some reason, and Buffy and Anya's glamorous
> > wind-blown moments are good too.
>
> Even the lighting is funny.
>
> > thinking about), but here he's actually right. The flashbacks to his
> > bad old villain days, "slightly" embellished, are nice, especially
> > since one of them involves more Dark Willow; keeping her dialogue
> > identical while only changing Andrew's part is an inspired choice.
> > To the end, there's absurdity like a gloriously cheesy "nooooo!"
> > that would fit right in with the fare at B-Fest.
>
> Yep, much better than the actual Two to Go :)
>
> > why vampires show up on film, and tuning out one of Buffy's frequent
> > stirring speeches ("she's not done. Even Willow looks bored, and she
> > usually can take a lot of that stuff").
>
>
> > was worried that his shtick would become tiresome. The SHS scenes are
> > a bit misconceived since it seems a callous to be making light of death
> > and riots in "reality." Having Buffy hit the invisible girl seems
> > at first like a fun callback, but if one thinks about it, it actually
> > trivializes the kid's problems, and by extension, OOM/S with it. The
> > other kid exploding and Buffy kinda shrugging it off isn't very funny
> > either.
>
> True, there are some worrying notes there.
>
>
> > This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> > - The brief cut to Andrew knowingly tapping on the "Hellmouth"
> > picture
> > - The interesting window sash
> > - Spike re-doing his scene
> > - "You're running to catch the bus naked? That's a dream. Army of
> > vicious vampire creatures? That's a vision. Also, I was awake."
> > "A bus to where?"
> > - "You put your old murder weapon in with our utensils?!" "I
> > washed it."
>
> Some great lines here. I also like Andrew's pronounciation ot "vampire" -
> which suggested he would have spelt it "Vampyre"
>
>
> > The Other One is an unusual choice to be the center of a show, living
> > as he is as a comic relief character in his semi-delusional world.
>
> required.
>
> > Having him (and the audience) actually be told straight out that it's
> > the end of the over-romanticized stories is a little blunter than seems
>
> And a little odd to be knocking a character for OTT storytelling when only
> the episode before the process that apparently created the first slayer was
> portrayed as a form of rape (not the same writers of course).
>
>
>
> > and so on. (Actually, it seems strange that Jonathan is the only thing
> > anyone mentions him needing to atone for. To focus the story, maybe.)
>
> crime. Murder aggravated by the betrayal of a friend.
>
> >
> > A few plot points, though - it seems like poor Andy gets blamed for
> > what the First makes him do, while Spike gets off free. The one thing
> > that's different is that the latter had to have his mind turned off
> > by means of that "trigger."
>
> Notably one of Andrew's revisions of his killing of Jonathon portrayed him
> as having had his mind "turned off" and his body temporarily taken over by
> the First.
>
> > Which begs the question, hopefully to
> > be explained, of why the First only can, or does, plant triggers in
> > some, or one, of its victims but not others.
>
> Which raises the question - will "beg the question" ever be used correctly
> on usenet again?
>
> > officially the Pentagram Of Plot Device if it'll take tears, but
> > that's pretty typical for this series.
>
> Mmm, blood would have been a mistake, but they could have tried other bodily
> fluids. I'd have respected the episode more if he had turned down the seal
> by pissing on it - just as easily achieved by the threat of imminent death,
> and probably an even better symbol of him rejecting what he's done.
>
>
> >
> > One-sentence summary: Worth being told.
> >
> > AOQ rating: Good
>
> Good since CWDP - Potential only just made it into Good territory). It's my
> 57th favourite BtVS episode, 4th best in season 7
--This is the kind of thing that puzzles me. You love CWDP; I love
CWDP. You love "Storyteller"; I love "Storyteller." But what about
"Sleeper," which I like a lot (I'd call it a Very Good if not quite an
Excellent), and "Never Leave Me," which is superb? Why on earth would
you put a so-so episode like "Potential" above "Sleeper" and the
peerless NLM?
I only ask because you love two episodes I also love. That makes me
wonder, why the divergence over the other above-mentioned episodes?
Clairel
rrh...@acme.com
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> rrh...@acme.com wrote:
>
> > drifter wrote:
> >
> > > Personally, I think it sets a bad precedent to change the meanings of
> > > words and phrases simply because a number of people who don't know
> > > what the actual meaning is *think* that they do.
> > > --
> > >
> > > Kel
> >
> > Arewe to follow this rule retroactively? If so, how far back are we
> > going to go? Are we to use Webster's Second International Dictionary
> > from (IIRC) 1934? Or perhaps Johnson's dictionary from the 18th
> > century? Or Old English? Proto-Indo-European?
> >
> > Or did you have in mind merely stopping such things going forward? If
> > so, (a) good luck with that, and (b) you ought not characterize the way
> > all natural languages have worked throughout the history of humankind
> > as establishing a precedent.
>
> the way languages actually work is that words mean
> whatever a community wishing to communicate agrees they mean
>
> high status speakers can sometimes dominate the community
> and get others to agree with them easier than low status speakers
> but it remains a consensus
>
> shiny?
The main thing I would add is that a community can have innumerable
sub-communities, whether distinguished geographically for by social
class or hobbies or whatever. These sub-communities have their own
variants. These variants can cross into the broader community, but
most often they don't. But the main point is that it is tilting at
windmills to think that we can halt language change, even were it
desirable.
Richard R. Hershberger
William George Ferguson
tomys des anges <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <1160410271....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> rrh...@acme.com wrote:
>
>> drifter wrote:
>>
>> > Personally, I think it sets a bad precedent to change the meanings of
>> > words and phrases simply because a number of people who don't know
>> > what the actual meaning is *think* that they do.
>> > --
>> >
>> > Kel
>>
>> Arewe to follow this rule retroactively? If so, how far back are we
>> going to go? Are we to use Webster's Second International Dictionary
>> from (IIRC) 1934? Or perhaps Johnson's dictionary from the 18th
>> century? Or Old English? Proto-Indo-European?
>>
>> Or did you have in mind merely stopping such things going forward? If
>> so, (a) good luck with that, and (b) you ought not characterize the way
>> all natural languages have worked throughout the history of humankind
>> as establishing a precedent.
>
>the way languages actually work is that words mean
>whatever a community wishing to communicate agrees they mean
>
>high status speakers can sometimes dominate the community
>and get others to agree with them easier than low status speakers
>but it remains a consensus
>
>shiny?
I invoke it as the Humpty Dumpty Rule (from Through the Looking Glass,
"When I use a word, it means exactly what I wish it to mean, no more, no
less.") Convincing people that things which are relative and consensus
established actually have no intrinsic value is difficult to impossible.
Try doing it with money sometime (I've gotten tired of explaining the
fallacy of 'Nobody is worth (given actor/athlete/whatever's salary).
When UPN bumped SMG's salary up to $125,000 per episode for Buffy, that
meant that a dollar was worth 1/125,000th of an SMG episode performance, by
definition.
--
... and my sister is a vampire slayer, her best friend is a witch who
went bonkers and tried to destroy the world, um, I actually used to be
a little ball of energy until about two years ago when some monks
changed the past and made me Buffy's sister and for some reason, a big
klepto. My best friends are Leticia Jones, who moved to San Diego
because this town is evil, and a floppy eared demon named Clem.
(Dawn's fantasy of her intro speech in "Lessons", from the shooting script)
Arbitrar Of Quality
>
> I wonder if one's enjoyment of this episode, or at least the opening
> bits, depends on whether or not we watched Masterpiece Theatre back in
> the day? I am of an age that I grew up with Alistair Cooke, and
> watched MT back in the glory days of "I, Claudius" and "Upstairs
> Downstairs". (Well, I actually was just a bit too young for "Upstairs
> Downstairs" but my parents watched it faithfully. I Netflixed it a
> while back and was pleased at how good it in fact turned out to be.)
> The MT opening bits have been parodied various times over the years,
> but never better than in this episode. The important point is that
> this actually isn't a send-up of Alistair Cooke. It is Andrews
> imagining of Alistair Cooke (probably rather far removed, given
> Andrew's age).
I'm much younger, and grew up with the "Monster Piece Theater" segments
on _Sesame Street_ starring Alistair Cookie. But it's been so parodied
over the years and the Storyteller device is so widely used that it was
easy to recognize the familiar tropes, even if not the specific nods,
and thus appreciate the teaser.
-AOQ
One Bit Shy
news:1160415577....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Oh, I wasn't talking about that part. That's great! I was referring to the
recap at the big board where Andrew talks about the hellmouth and so on.
OBS
One Bit Shy
>
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I don't think it really answers my puzzlement over the rehashing of the
>> story to date and spelling out how the high school metaphors work
>
> The over-literal explaining of the high-school-as-hell metaphor was a
> shame, because even new viewers would not find that joke difficult to
> grasp. I did enjoy the literal explosion of the boy against Principal
> Wood's window, though. And the piglet wandering by from an earlier
> episode ("God, I hope that's not a student")--these are vintage Buffy
> jokes.
I liked that too. It was the explanation of the metaphor that gave me
pause.
Well, you may have gone overboard with that last, but again - terrific post.
I still think the recap at the big board drags a bit, but I'm willing to go
with this as to why it and much of the episode is there. Nicely done.
OBS
Malsperanza
Good point. I'm old enough to have watched masses of the stuff, and
liked a lot of it (though I could never bear Cooke). There's something
affectionate about this parody, isn't there?
~Mal
Malsperanza
Heh, as you may have noticed, going overboard is my stock in trade. ;-)
~Mal
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > bits, depends on whether or not we watched Masterpiece Theatre back in
> > the day? I am of an age that I grew up with Alistair Cooke, and
> > watched MT back in the glory days of "I, Claudius" and "Upstairs
> > Downstairs". (Well, I actually was just a bit too young for "Upstairs
> > Downstairs" but my parents watched it faithfully. I Netflixed it a
> > while back and was pleased at how good it in fact turned out to be.)
> > The MT opening bits have been parodied various times over the years,
> > but never better than in this episode. The important point is that
> > this actually isn't a send-up of Alistair Cooke. It is Andrews
> > imagining of Alistair Cooke (probably rather far removed, given
> > Andrew's age).
>
> Good point. I'm old enough to have watched masses of the stuff, and
> liked a lot of it (though I could never bear Cooke). There's something
> affectionate about this parody, isn't there?
andrew wouldnt parody alistair
he would want to be alistair
the parody then is of andrew
trying to emulate what he sees as his betters
Malsperanza
Memory of the details of MT is a bit dim, but the only specific nods to
the original that I can recall are the camera wandering from
bookshelves to tabletops in one long take in the opening credits, past
the fireplace to the wing chair where our host is perusing a volyoom.
Oh, and the Baroque trumpet fanfare. The opening credits of MT had the
camera sliding past books that had been done as MT series in the past,
so there were nice leatherbound octavo volyooms of Middlemarch and Jane
Austen and whatnot lying tastefully and Englishly about. In Storyteller
we get Andrew's best guess about what these important volumes might be.
~Mal
Don Sample
<mair_fheal-8CDD2...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > > I wonder if one's enjoyment of this episode, or at least the opening
> > > bits, depends on whether or not we watched Masterpiece Theatre back in
> > > the day? I am of an age that I grew up with Alistair Cooke, and
> > > watched MT back in the glory days of "I, Claudius" and "Upstairs
> > > Downstairs". (Well, I actually was just a bit too young for "Upstairs
> > > Downstairs" but my parents watched it faithfully. I Netflixed it a
> > > while back and was pleased at how good it in fact turned out to be.)
> > > The MT opening bits have been parodied various times over the years,
> > > but never better than in this episode. The important point is that
> > > this actually isn't a send-up of Alistair Cooke. It is Andrews
> > > imagining of Alistair Cooke (probably rather far removed, given
> > > Andrew's age).
> >
> > Good point. I'm old enough to have watched masses of the stuff, and
> > liked a lot of it (though I could never bear Cooke). There's something
> > affectionate about this parody, isn't there?
>
> andrew wouldnt parody alistair
> he would want to be alistair
It was Andrew attempting to do a pastiche, not a parody.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Ben Morrow
Quoth "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>:
>
> I'm much younger, and grew up with the "Monster Piece Theater" segments
> on _Sesame Street_ starring Alistair Cookie. But it's been so parodied
> over the years and the Storyteller device is so widely used that it was
> easy to recognize the familiar tropes, even if not the specific nods,
> and thus appreciate the teaser.
Huh. I've found this whole sub-thread rather bewildering, as the only
place I know Alistair Cooke (I presume it's the same person) from is
'Letter from America' on (BBC) Radio 4... where my general impression
was that sometimes he could be rather too American :).
The opening of Storyteller is so clearly a parody of *something* that it
really doesn't matter what it is.
Ben
--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. I will face my fear and
I will let it pass through me. When the fear is gone there will be
nothing. Only I will remain.
benm...@tiscali.co.uk Frank Herbert, 'Dune'
drifter
> drifter wrote:
>
>> Personally, I think it sets a bad precedent to change the meanings of
>> words and phrases simply because a number of people who don't know
>> what the actual meaning is *think* that they do.
>> --
>>
>> Kel
>
> Arewe to follow this rule retroactively?
Note; "Are we" has a space in it.
> If so, how far back are we going to go?
> Are we to use Webster's Second International Dictionary
> from (IIRC) 1934? Or perhaps Johnson's dictionary from the 18th
> century? Or Old English? Proto-Indo-European?
Were you shooting for sarcasm, there? Because you've landed
squarely on "silly."
> Or did you have in mind merely stopping such things going forward?
This is not "going forward," this is simple ignorance. As an example; some
time ago a U.S. politician got in some hot water for using the word
"niggardly." A number of ignorant people who couldn't be bothered to
look the word up in a dictionary accused him of being a racist. They
made an inaccurate assumption as to what the word meant, much as the
people misusing the phrase "begging the question" do.
> If so, (a) good luck with that,
> and (b) you ought not characterize the
> way all natural languages have worked throughout the history of
> humankind as establishing a precedent.
You're saying that living languages change and grow simply because
the people who speak it are too ignorant to know what they are really
saying? I would call that a unique perspective.
There's a difference between using a word in a new way ("bad," as an
example), and using it in a wrong way because you don't know what it
really means (begging the question).
--
Kel
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
rrh...@acme.com
Ben Morrow wrote:
> Quoth "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>:
> >
> > I'm much younger, and grew up with the "Monster Piece Theater" segments
> > on _Sesame Street_ starring Alistair Cookie. But it's been so parodied
> > over the years and the Storyteller device is so widely used that it was
> > easy to recognize the familiar tropes, even if not the specific nods,
> > and thus appreciate the teaser.
>
> Huh. I've found this whole sub-thread rather bewildering, as the only
> place I know Alistair Cooke (I presume it's the same person) from is
> 'Letter from America' on (BBC) Radio 4... where my general impression
> was that sometimes he could be rather too American :).
>
> The opening of Storyteller is so clearly a parody of *something* that it
> really doesn't matter what it is.
Yes, that is the same person. He was an Englishman who emigrated to
the United States in his late 20s. He made something of a career of
explaining England to Americans and America to the English. He was the
host for many years of Masterpiece Theater on public television. MT's
gig was showing "quality" BBC productions. Cooke would do an
introduction of each episode, explaining to the American audience what
the hell was going on. Much of the American stereotype of the bookish
upper class Englishman derives from this.
Richard R. Hershberger
Malsperanza
LOL. In some ways Cooke was his own best parody.
~Mal
(Harmony) Watcher
"drifter" <ne...@home.net> wrote in message
news:XdKWg.59$ra...@newsfe05.lga...
negatives, and that of confusing "all not" with "not all"?
--
==Harmony Watcher==
rrh...@acme.com
drifter wrote:
> rrh...@acme.com wrote:
> > drifter wrote:
> >
> >> Personally, I think it sets a bad precedent to change the meanings of
> >> words and phrases simply because a number of people who don't know
> >> what the actual meaning is *think* that they do.
> >> --
> >>
> >> Kel
> >
> > Arewe to follow this rule retroactively?
>
> Note; "Are we" has a space in it.
As a point of style, picking on minor typos never strengthens your
argument. (To illustrate, note how the sentence which follows this
does not strengthen my argument.) As a further point of style, if you
are going to do it anyway make sure you don't have any of your own.
> > If so, how far back are we going to go?
> > Are we to use Webster's Second International Dictionary
> > from (IIRC) 1934? Or perhaps Johnson's dictionary from the 18th
> > century? Or Old English? Proto-Indo-European?
>
> Were you shooting for sarcasm, there? Because you've landed
> squarely on "silly."
Quite the contrary, it was entirely on point. Are we to judge past
changes in the language, separating the sheep from the goats and acting
accordingly, or are we to declare the language of today to be meet,
right, and salutary and not to be futzed with? The problems with the
first plan are obvious, but the second plan raises its own set of
questions (such as why did the processes which produced the language of
today formerly produce good changes yet now produce bad ones?).
> > Or did you have in mind merely stopping such things going forward?
>
> This is not "going forward," this is simple ignorance. As an example; some
> time ago a U.S. politician got in some hot water for using the word
> "niggardly." A number of ignorant people who couldn't be bothered to
> look the word up in a dictionary accused him of being a racist. They
> made an inaccurate assumption as to what the word meant, much as the
> people misusing the phrase "begging the question" do.
>
> > If so, (a) good luck with that,
> > and (b) you ought not characterize the
> > way all natural languages have worked throughout the history of
> > humankind as establishing a precedent.
>
> You're saying that living languages change and grow simply because
> the people who speak it are too ignorant to know what they are really
> saying? I would call that a unique perspective.
>
> There's a difference between using a word in a new way ("bad," as an
> example), and using it in a wrong way because you don't know what it
> really means (begging the question).
Languages don't change "simply" because of ignorance of past usage, but
this certainly is one way change occurs. Here's a classic example:
consider the archaic word "pease". This word has largely passed out of
standard English, but it is retained in the nursery rhyme "Pease
porridge hot; pease porridge cold; pease porridge in the pot nine
days old." It was a mass noun, signifying a certain class of legumes.
(For a similar modern usage, "barley" is a mass noun signifying a class
of cereal grains.) Ignorant users of the language misunderstood this,
and re-interpreted it as a plural count noun, with the singular "pea"
signifying an individual example of said legume. Rank ignorance! Yet,
I suspect, you find the idea of "a pea" unremarkable.
So if we are taking a hard line and rejecting all changes due to
ignorance, we must reject "a pea" (and many many other usages). If we
accept that at some point the changed usage becomes standard and
acceptable, then we have an entirely different discussion.
Richard R. Hershberger
vague disclaimer
"\(Harmony\) Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote:
> Would you also like to include the technical/logical mistake of using double
> negatives,
Of course, everywhere the double negative is used in everyday speech, it
is not a logical statement at all, so not a logical mistake and, from a
technical standpoint, is simply a vernacular method of emphasis - so not
a technical mistake either.
We don't want no bleedin' so-called la-di-da intellectuals telling us
what we mean!
--
What does not kill me makes me stronger. Unless it leaves me as a quadriplegic.
One Bit Shy
>> drifter wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I think it sets a bad precedent to change the meanings of
>>> words and phrases simply because a number of people who don't know
>>> what the actual meaning is *think* that they do.
>>> --
>>>
>>> Kel
>>
>> Arewe to follow this rule retroactively?
>
> Note; "Are we" has a space in it.
>
>> If so, how far back are we going to go?
>> Are we to use Webster's Second International Dictionary
>> from (IIRC) 1934? Or perhaps Johnson's dictionary from the 18th
>> century? Or Old English? Proto-Indo-European?
>
> Were you shooting for sarcasm, there? Because you've landed
> squarely on "silly."
>
>> Or did you have in mind merely stopping such things going forward?
>
> This is not "going forward," this is simple ignorance. As an example;
> some
> time ago a U.S. politician got in some hot water for using the word
> "niggardly." A number of ignorant people who couldn't be bothered to
> look the word up in a dictionary accused him of being a racist. They
> made an inaccurate assumption as to what the word meant, much as the
> people misusing the phrase "begging the question" do.
Yes, they assumed they wouldn't be jumped on for a meaning they didn't
intend. <g> The analogy might be better if it was one of people actually
using a word or phrase incorrectly as opposed to being misunderstood.
>> If so, (a) good luck with that,
>> and (b) you ought not characterize the
>> way all natural languages have worked throughout the history of
>> humankind as establishing a precedent.
>
> You're saying that living languages change and grow simply because
> the people who speak it are too ignorant to know what they are really
> saying? I would call that a unique perspective.
Hardly, since that's one of the ways it works. So sorry.
> There's a difference between using a word in a new way ("bad," as an
> example), and using it in a wrong way because you don't know what it
> really means (begging the question).
Only as to how they got there. What they do is the same. The developed
meaning of begging the question *is* using the phrase a new way. A useful
way as it turns out, which is a big reason you're fighting a difficult
battle. Most people have little reason to use the original meaning. (It's
not a widely or well understood concept.) But there are lots of times when
the new meaning can apply. You might say "raise the question" rather than
"beg the question", but "beg" fits some circumstances better. Adds a kind
of emphasis and color to the expression - like it cries out to be answered.
So people like it. And a lot of people liking it is how things enter the
language. Ignorance be damned.
It's also a meaning that actually follows along with the words rather than
rely on a somewhat archaic usage of "beg" to roughly mean avoid.
Now, mind you, I like the original meaning. It's useful. People make
arguments by just rewording their premises frequently. But the reality is
that it's well understood by such a minority as to leave it perilously close
to being jargon. Perhaps an alternate term needs to be developed.
OBS
Arbitrar Of Quality
> "drifter" <ne...@home.net> wrote in message
> > There's a difference between using a word in a new way ("bad," as an
> > example), and using it in a wrong way because you don't know what it
> > really means (begging the question).
>
> Only as to how they got there. What they do is the same. The developed
> meaning of begging the question *is* using the phrase a new way. A useful
> way as it turns out, which is a big reason you're fighting a difficult
> battle.
Agreed. I do have some sympathy for Kel's position since I like
speaking correctly. I correct people when they refer to a "one-month
anniversary" or an "ATM machine," and do kinda feel like anyone who
says "for all intensive purposes" should be beaten severely. I hope
those die out before they can get too ingrained. But for good or evil,
misunderstandings and rephrasings and slang are the way of the world.
Sometimes something cool pops up if you let it (my bias, and I know
it's not an entirely accurate way of looking at things, is that I tend
to use dictionaries as the be-all end-all authority on "right" and
"wrong" usage. Again, by that standard, the new meaning of begging the
question has pretty well passed into the vernacular).
-AOQ
Don Sample
One of my pet peeves is "moot" which has pretty much had its meaning
inverted.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> speaking correctly. I correct people when they refer to a "one-month
> anniversary" or an "ATM machine," and do kinda feel like anyone who
> says "for all intensive purposes" should be beaten severely. I hope
> those die out before they can get too ingrained. But for good or evil,
> misunderstandings and rephrasings and slang are the way of the world.
> Sometimes something cool pops up if you let it (my bias, and I know
> it's not an entirely accurate way of looking at things, is that I tend
> to use dictionaries as the be-all end-all authority on "right" and
> "wrong" usage. Again, by that standard, the new meaning of begging the
> question has pretty well passed into the vernacular).
shiny
(Harmony) Watcher
"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-FA648D...@news.giganews.com...
point has been reduced to be of little or no practical significance and
therefore becomes an academic debate"? It seems to me that the "inversion"
occurs because people want to equate "academic" debates with "useless"
debates.
One of my biggest pet peeves is "your" being used incorrectly in place of
"you're". If and when "your" is used universally to replace "you're", I'll
stop using the English language. One has to draw the line somewhere! :)
--
==Harmony Watcher==
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
whats the inversion of -meeting-?
a diffusion?
Don Sample
"\(Harmony\) Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote:
Moot used to mean that something was important. A moot point was one
that you had to think about, and discuss. Now when someone says
something is moot, they usually mean that it is irrelevant, or
insignificant, not worthy of thought or discussion
Elisi
burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> > threads.
> >
> >
> > Season Seven, Episode 16: "Storyteller"
> > Writer: Jane Espenson
> > Director: Marita Grabiak
>
>
> > Well, that's all for now. It's a rich episode, one that'll
> > likely reward rewatching and analysis. Discuss.
>
> Easily one of the show's worst episodes. It was basically 45 minutes of
> the writers saying "Look! Isn't Andrew cute? And funny? Oh, but he has
> depth too! Don't you just love him?!" Excuse me? Andrew who attempted
> rape, thought getting away with murder was "cool," and then actually
> murdered Jonathon is someone I should *like?* Um, no.
Gosh you must really hate Faith! (Or, y'know, pretty much any character
on the show...)
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
actually moot was cognate of the verb meet met met
(similar to song sing sang sung)
what it really used to mean is meeting
and the moot point was the point of the meeting
the agenda
> that you had to think about, and discuss. Now when someone says
> something is moot, they usually mean that it is irrelevant, or
> insignificant, not worthy of thought or discussion
that youre complaining about semantic shift is ironic
since youre complaining about shifting from a meaning
that itself was already a semantic shift
language change is natural and inevitable
or do you really want to talk about ellen slayers
who are ethel stars against the darkness
drifter
> drifter wrote:
>> rrh...@acme.com wrote:
>>> drifter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Personally, I think it sets a bad precedent to change the meanings
>>>> of words and phrases simply because a number of people who don't
>>>> know what the actual meaning is *think* that they do.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Kel
>>>
>>> Arewe to follow this rule retroactively?
>>
>> Note; "Are we" has a space in it.
>
> As a point of style, picking on minor typos never strengthens your
> argument. (To illustrate, note how the sentence which follows this
> does not strengthen my argument.) As a further point of style, if you
> are going to do it anyway make sure you don't have any of your own.
>
>>> If so, how far back are we going to go?
>>> Are we to use Webster's Second International Dictionary
>>> from (IIRC) 1934? Or perhaps Johnson's dictionary from the 18th
>>> century? Or Old English? Proto-Indo-European?
>>
>> Were you shooting for sarcasm, there? Because you've landed
>> squarely on "silly."
>
> Quite the contrary, it was entirely on point.
Not really. You're saying we should go all the way back to grunts and
farts. I'm saying simply this: Learn the meaning of a word or phrase
before you use it. If you disagree, that's fine. I'm over it.
Since you're so sure of what I think, you may as well have this
discussion with yourself.
> So if we are taking a hard line and rejecting all changes due to
> ignorance, we must reject "a pea" (and many many other usages). If we
> accept that at some point the changed usage becomes standard and
> acceptable, then we have an entirely different discussion.
Apparently so, since the "hard line" you describe exists nowhere in my
post.
rrh...@acme.com
I'm saying that there are implications to your stance. If you are
unwilling to face them, that is your business. But if you aren't
willing to take your own stance seriously, it hardly seems reasonable
for anyone else to, either.
We seem to have a problem, here. I wrote "I suspect" and you read that
I am "so sure". This is even apart from your blithely ignoring all
those inconvenient "fact" thingies.
>
> > So if we are taking a hard line and rejecting all changes due to
> > ignorance, we must reject "a pea" (and many many other usages). If we
> > accept that at some point the changed usage becomes standard and
> > acceptable, then we have an entirely different discussion.
>
> Apparently so, since the "hard line" you describe exists nowhere in my
> post.
Once again we have a failure of communication. I pointed out two
possibilities and the implications of each. You denied one and ignored
the other, serenely wafted by the implications, and completely failed
to offer any alternatives.
I know that you aren't going to be convinced. This is a religious
argument. Worshippers at the alter of Correct Usage are not interested
in evidence or history or logical conclusions deduced from facts. My
point here is not to convert you from your religion. It is merely to
make clear to any passersby that that it *is* a religion. I am
actually a fan of religion, and partake of it myself. I just don't
happen to think that language usage is a particularly sensible place to
apply it.
Richard R. Hershberger
Malsperanza
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> One Bit Shy wrote:
> > "drifter" <ne...@home.net> wrote in message
>
> > > There's a difference between using a word in a new way ("bad," as an
> > > example), and using it in a wrong way because you don't know what it
> > > really means (begging the question).
> >
> > Only as to how they got there. What they do is the same. The developed
> > meaning of begging the question *is* using the phrase a new way. A useful
> > way as it turns out, which is a big reason you're fighting a difficult
> > battle.
>
> Agreed. I do have some sympathy for Kel's position since I like
> speaking correctly. I correct people when they refer to a "one-month
> anniversary" or an "ATM machine,"
which no doubt makes you a popular guy ;-)
> and do kinda feel like anyone who
> says "for all intensive purposes" should be beaten severely.
Or boiling oil is also good.
> I hope
> those die out before they can get too ingrained. But for good or evil,
> misunderstandings and rephrasings and slang are the way of the world.
> Sometimes something cool pops up if you let it (my bias, and I know
> it's not an entirely accurate way of looking at things, is that I tend
> to use dictionaries as the be-all end-all authority on "right" and
> "wrong" usage. Again, by that standard, the new meaning of begging the
> question has pretty well passed into the vernacular).
And of course the dictionary writers themselves wrestle with this
question every day.
Changes in meaning for "moot" and "begging the question" don't disturb
me, though I enjoy knowing the difference between the old meaning and
the new. In those cases, the original meanings are tied to traditions
or activities that themselves have changed. The historical memory of
parliamentary procedure that would remind us of the original (and most
correct) meaning of "begging the question" is mostly gone. We use
"meeting" as our noun instead of "moot" and the word now only turns up
in law schools (moot court) and in the phrase "the point is moot."
"Moot" once signaled the moment when the point was brought forward for
discussion; now it signals the moment when discussion is suspended or
abandoned, which is an interesting shift, linguistically. I don't want
to see "moot" lose its resonance and simply turn into a synonym for
"undecided" or "irrelevant," but it may happen.
On the positive side, lately we've seen some fantastic new words arise
very organically. Among my favorites are gridlock, retcon, fen, frex,
and w00t. I hope they all survive.
My bugbears are using metyonymy-words instead of good solid nouns:
"shaver" instead of "razor," "wipe" (n.) instead of "dustcloth,"
"cleaner" instead of "solvent" or "soap," etc. It's a habit that
shrinks the language.
Also, confusing e.g. with i.e. drives me up the wall. And flout/flaunt.
I make a distinction between written and spoken language. Frex, in
spoken English I'm becoming reconciled to the use of "their" in the
singular ("a person can change their mind") even though it grates on me
horribly, because it is a natural effort by speakers to avoid gendering
the singular in English, which is a response to the greater sensitivity
in our culture to the power of gender in speech. In written English I
would never let it pass (but I also hate s/he).
I think of NG chats as more spoken than written, though language useage
online does straddle the line in an interesting way.
~Mal
George W Harris
wrote:
:My bugbears are using metyonymy-words instead of good solid nouns:
:"shaver" instead of "razor," "wipe" (n.) instead of "dustcloth,"
:"cleaner" instead of "solvent" or "soap," etc. It's a habit that
:shrinks the language.
The creation of instant messenger software has
created the abominable back-formation verb 'to messenge',
as well as the slightly less objectionable word 'messager'.
--
Never give a loaded gun to a woman in labor.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Malsperanza
George W Harris wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2006 09:00:18 -0700, "Malsperanza" <malsp...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> :My bugbears are using metyonymy-words instead of good solid nouns:
> :"shaver" instead of "razor," "wipe" (n.) instead of "dustcloth,"
> :"cleaner" instead of "solvent" or "soap," etc. It's a habit that
> :shrinks the language.
>
> The creation of instant messenger software has
> created the abominable back-formation verb 'to messenge',
> as well as the slightly less objectionable word 'messager'.
Gaah!!
*performs self-lobotomy with spork*
~Mal
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > Agreed. I do have some sympathy for Kel's position since I like
> > speaking correctly. I correct people when they refer to a "one-month
> > anniversary" or an "ATM machine,"
>
> which no doubt makes you a popular guy ;-)
Well, look how much time I spend on the Internets... (it'd be a trip if
people ironically using that plural turned it into a word)
> We use
> "meeting" as our noun instead of "moot" and the word now only turns up
> in law schools (moot court) and in the phrase "the point is moot."
> "Moot" once signaled the moment when the point was brought forward for
> discussion; now it signals the moment when discussion is suspended or
> abandoned, which is an interesting shift, linguistically. I don't want
> to see "moot" lose its resonance and simply turn into a synonym for
> "undecided" or "irrelevant," but it may happen.
Never knew that either... and that'd explain why the big coronation
debate/meeting in Martin's _A Feast For Crows_ is called a Kingsmoot.
And I thought it just sounded cool.
-AOQ
drifter
>>> drifter wrote:
>> There's a difference between using a word in a new way ("bad," as an
>> example), and using it in a wrong way because you don't know what it
>> really means (begging the question).
>
> Only as to how they got there. What they do is the same. The
> developed meaning of begging the question *is* using the phrase a new
> way. A useful way as it turns out, which is a big reason you're
> fighting a difficult battle.
Actually not fighting a battle, just stating my point of view. At least
one person in this thread (not you) seems to think it *is* a battle for
some reason, but all I did was compliment a person (Apteryx, I believe)
on knowing the correct use of "begging the question." AOQ, the person
Apteryx was referencing about the phrase, took it in good humor (which
is odd, considering his reputation) and even evinced pleasure at having
learned something new. It was a nice change of pace. For a while.
> Most people have little reason to use
> the original meaning. (It's not a widely or well understood
> concept.) But there are lots of times when the new meaning can
> apply. You might say "raise the question" rather than "beg the
> question", but "beg" fits some circumstances better. Adds a kind of
> emphasis and color to the expression - like it cries out to be
> answered. So people like it. And a lot of people liking it is how
> things enter the language. Ignorance be damned.
No matter how many people like to say they are *unthawing* a turkey
for Thanksgiving dinner, it will never be correct.
> It's also a meaning that actually follows along with the words rather
> than rely on a somewhat archaic usage of "beg" to roughly mean avoid.
>
> Now, mind you, I like the original meaning. It's useful. People make
> arguments by just rewording their premises frequently. But the
> reality is that it's well understood by such a minority as to leave
> it perilously close to being jargon. Perhaps an alternate term needs
> to be developed.
Well, the term already exists. Circular reasoning.
Malsperanza
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> Malsperanza wrote:
> > Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> > > Agreed. I do have some sympathy for Kel's position since I like
> > > speaking correctly. I correct people when they refer to a "one-month
> > > anniversary" or an "ATM machine,"
> >
> > which no doubt makes you a popular guy ;-)
>
> Well, look how much time I spend on the Internets... (it'd be a trip if
> people ironically using that plural turned it into a word)
Ahem. I believe the correct ironic term is Interwebs. It's important to
be accurate when using language ironically, you know. Or do I mean
satirically?
> > We use
> > "meeting" as our noun instead of "moot" and the word now only turns up
> > in law schools (moot court) and in the phrase "the point is moot."
> > "Moot" once signaled the moment when the point was brought forward for
> > discussion; now it signals the moment when discussion is suspended or
> > abandoned, which is an interesting shift, linguistically. I don't want
> > to see "moot" lose its resonance and simply turn into a synonym for
> > "undecided" or "irrelevant," but it may happen.
>
> Never knew that either... and that'd explain why the big coronation
> debate/meeting in Martin's _A Feast For Crows_ is called a Kingsmoot.
> And I thought it just sounded cool.
Also Entmoot. Tolkien wasn't an etymologist for nothing, and I bet
Martin snagged the idea from him. I like to think that politicians back
in Beowulf's day met constituents at a moot-and-groot, but that's
probably just wishful thoonk.
~Mal
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> Martin snagged the idea from him. I like to think that politicians back
> in Beowulf's day met constituents at a moot-and-groot, but that's
> probably just wishful thoonk.
in beowulfs daege you would mate them at the moat
(see also middle english vowel shift)
Scythe Matters
> Never knew that either... and that'd explain why the big coronation
> debate/meeting in Martin's _A Feast For Crows_ is called a Kingsmoot.
Older: Entmoot in _The Two Towers_.
Mel
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
Don't forget the Entmoot.
Mel