Everything but the Kitchen Sink Post...
May. 29th, 2009 11:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatThe work week gave me a headache, I mostly blame the rain which refused to stop, except for brief snatchs today and Wednesday. It wasn't a soothing rain, so much as a drippy dirty rain, which covered everything in a layer of murk.
Reading lj tonight, I was reminded of how I used to tell stories - to the trees and squirrles and birds and walls in my backyard. My voice echoing against the roar of traffic in front and the twittering of birds out back. I think the neighbors thought I was crazy, my brother's friends certainly did, on those rare occassions when they caught me bouncing a tennis ball against the wall of the house and telling a story out loud. One story was a musical - where I sang all the parts...and made up songs to go with them. I did this when I was about 14. Before I learned that I could not sing. Or rather, before I was told that I could not sing.
At any rate...what hits me now is that I don't have that story in my head. I always had at least one on-going tale in my head. That I couldn't wait to get home and go outside to tell to myself. Or retreat into my bedroom and whisper to the walls. My parents gave me my first typewriter at twelve to push me to write my tales as opposed to speaking them aloud.
Have the tales gone away? No. I think they are stuck in my brain, in a weird sort of bottleneck or logjamb. Which makes me think this weekend I need to start either jotting them down on paper or telling them inside my head. Also methinks I may give up on Peter Watts Blindsight...which while interesting lacks the ability to pull at emotion, and attempt Orphane Tales - In the Cities of Coin and Spice instead.
On the television front...I have as you are no doubt painfully aware of by now - been rewatching the Buffy and Angel series much as one might reread a favorite serial in order, for a host of reasons. The main one being - that the last time I watched every episode in order - was when they actually aired, and even then...I think I missed a few here or there.
And I certainly didn't have the benefit of time and hindsight in my favor. It's odd rewatching or re-reading a favorite creative work. Particularly after you haven't looked at it at all for a bit. Your opinions on it change. I rarely do it, by the way. I'm not one to re-read books and don't feel much need to rewatch tv shows and movies...a few here and there, but not all that many. Mainly because I have an excellent visual memory for stories and tend to remember every bit pretty vividly, almost too vividly - so re-watching or re-reading is a waste of time. When Buffy first aired, and specifically in the 6th season - when I got obsessed with it - I did admittedly re-watch numerous times to the point of memorization of dialogue - each episode. And as a result, didn't feel a need to re-watch any of the episodes for a very long time after approx. 2006. So two-three years went by. I resisted the urge.
And crap happened. So to comfort myself more than anything else...I decided to rewatch. It's not that there aren't other shows that I like on tv - there are. But I am not in love with them. I like them. But they do not, how to explain, resonate in quite the same way. There's no plucky heroine who speaks to me. I don't quite know why Buffy did and the other shows don't. It is what it is.
In any event...while rewatching Something Blue (a weird and somewhat illogical episode that does not bear up under in depth analysis but is hilarious and makes me laugh quite a bit) and HUSH (which is just plain brilliant) - I realized a few things. Spike and Buffy definitely did not work as a couple in S4. The episode Something Blue is ironic in the extreme, when you know what happens later. Buffy's speech about how she's not bad boys any more, doesn't need the heartache, and the intense pain that comes with it and life would be so much easier with Riley who she can have picnics with and is so solid and up front - is also, equally, ironic.
"I won't have heartache with Riley" she tells Willow. But, if you watched I Will Always Remember You just before it - you know that's not true. That even solid nice guys like Riley can break our hearts, that it can end in heartache. There is no such thing as a safe and easy relationship. Buffy however is prevented from obtaining that crucial bit of insight. She doesn't know what happened with human Angel. And never will. Something Blue underlines the fact that Buffy doesn't know and the extent that actually hurts her. Removing one's memory of an event can prevent them from learning from it - our experiences make us who we are. They change us. They mold us. This is a theme that Whedon returns to over and over again - in Something Blue - Buffy tells Willow that maybe a forgetting spell is in order, she'd like to forget her love affair with Spike. (One wonders sometimes if Willow ever complied.) And in Tabula Rasa - Willow does make everyone forget - who they are, with dicey results. While over in Angel the Series - Angel erases everyone's memories of Connor, and Connor's of his own past life - replacing them with separate memories. From Angel's perspective it was the right thing to do in I Will Always Remember You and worked out, so why not fiddle with the fates again? And now...Dollhouse - in this series people are constantly memory wiped. Their experiences peeled off of them like a dirty set of clothes. Critics of the series have compared it to rape - but I ask you, is it any different than what Angel did to Buffy in I Will Always Remember You? Or to his friends in Home? Whedon in these episodes as well as Dollhouse appears to be asking the same questions that were asked in the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - and Alfred Bester's Demolished Man - to what degree are we - our memories. To what degree do our experiences, more importantly how we recall our experiences and what we take from them, what we learn from them - define us? We are creatures that learn by doing, learn from reading, learn from interaction. If the fire burns us? We avoid it. What if you removed the memory of the fire? That's what happens in I Will Always Remember You - Angel removes Buffy's memory of him giving up on their relationship because he isn't strong enough to protect her. (The sequence if you watch closely is repeated to humorous effect in Something Blue - where Spike (defenseless due to the newly implanted chip and under Willow's spell - fervently in love with Buffy) tells Buffy - he won't be able to protect her. Buffy retorts - "what? who says I need protecting?" And Spike - "not the girl power thing again." It is to a degree the unvoiced dialogue between Buffy and Angel in Remember You. Angel bails because as a human he can not protect Buffy. He has to be a champion, a vampire to do it. And he denies her the memory of that choice. She can't remember, only he can. And he never tells her about it. As a result - she relives it with Riley. Would she have tackled her relationship with Riley the same way if she remembered?
How would she have played it differently? We will never know.
The brilliant HUSH - discusses heartache and lack of communication - in relationships, from numerous perspectives. Willow and OZ - OZ who rarely spoke his feelings for Willow and ends up ripping her heart out, metaphorically speaking. Xander and Cordelia - where their relationship was all hormones, here Anya calls Xander on it - is that all it is? Do you care about me at all? Or is it just hormones? Just sex? Giles and Olivia - Olivia who tells Giles that his world is too dangerous and too scarey for her to reside in. An echo perhaps of both Joyce and Jenny, Jenny who can't survive it. And finally Buffy and Angel - who like a ghost haunts a good portion of Buffy S4. Riley tells Buffy in her dream sequence that with a kiss he'll make the sun go down. But as Buffy points out they aren't communicating. They are keeping secrets. Much as she did with Angel. She never knew what Angel was thinking. She knows even less with Riley. She thinks he is one thing, he turns out to be another, much as Angel had. And the fear she has of getting her heart ripped out again, of enduring "heartache" - echoed in part by Willow and Xander, and even Giles - is shown literally by the fairy tale Gentleman who silently glide down the streets and into homes, extricating rather painfully their victims hearts. She slays them with a scream, and does it not alone, but with Riley's aid - much as she slayed Angel's monster with Angel telling her what to do to kill it. Here she tells Riley and he smashes the box, which gives her back her voice. She slays her fear - and in that moment, she is able perhaps to leave the pain of Angel behind and march into Riley's arms, not realizing of course...that he may rip her heart out as well, only differently. But if she doesn't take the risk...how is she to learn?
I've been avoiding saying anything about the two legal bits that occured this week. Obama's choice of Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice is machiavellian in some respects, and I approve. He has craftily picked someone that will not only change the makeup of the court but cause problems for those who disagree with her views. Strict Constructionists annoy me - because they are so hypocritcal. First off - how in the hell are you going to know the intentions of a group of people who have been dead and buried for over 200 years? Second - even if you did, what does it matter? The founding fathers lived in a different time with different problems and completely different way of thinking. There was no such thing as the internet back then. Information was not available to everyone - most people couldn't read.
Women weren't allowed to vote and considered property. Native Americans were Indians (because Columbus got lost and thought he hit India as opposed to a whole new continent - I corrected someone recently regarding this. Funny story. She was talking about Brazil. At the table was a young man from "India". She said, and the indians - to which I said, you mean the native americans, and she said - no, they are the indians. And I said, uh no, Brazil is not India.
Ryan sitting across from you is from India and is Indian. The native/indigenious population in Brazil is Native American or Native South American. Let's not confuse people.) In short going by the intentions of the founding fathers is well idiotic. It's like stating oh, we need to go by what the people in the Bible did way back in 1000 AD, ignoring of course the fact that they lived in a desert, and it was over 1000 years ago. The other reason the conservative/strict constructionist annoys me - is they state that they believe in going by the letter of the law and not being emotional about it and not creating law - but that's exactly what they have done. Every single solitary decision Anatonin Scalia has written and I've read quite a bit of them serves his "moral" judgement and his "values". It has absolutely nothing to do with what is written. He's interpreting it to fit what he wants. He's no more objective than anyone else. Same deal with Chief Justice Roberts. The accusations that the conservatives are throwing at Sotomayor are stupid and self-serving.
(See that's why I haven't talked about it. I think she'll get in, though. But you never know.)
On the other topic - Proposition 8? Eh. Sounds like the court upheld the right of the majority to amend the constitution of California. Haven't read the opinion. My take? They took the easy way out. Because I don't think that was the legal issue. The legal issue was not can you ammend the constitution of the state of California. The issue was - is the right to get married in the state of California a right that can be legislated or amended in the constitution? Because if it can be, than what is to stop us from ammending the constitution to state that marriage is only a right between a man and woman who get married in the Catholic Church? If you don't get married in the Catholic Church you aren't married? Or it is only legal if it is between two people who are US citizens? I mean honestly this is not a right that you want to be legislating people. Or amending constitutions over. The other issue - in my opinion was - does the majority have the right to dictate who can and can't get married? And do we really want the majority to dictate that? I mean, regardless of how you feel about "gay" marriage - I would think long and hard about that point. The whole there but for the grace of god, go I, comes to mind here. (I'm hoping the rest of the US makes Californians look like idiots in the next few years, by passing legislation that makes it legal everywhere else. Come on New York! Get on the ball!)
Reading lj tonight, I was reminded of how I used to tell stories - to the trees and squirrles and birds and walls in my backyard. My voice echoing against the roar of traffic in front and the twittering of birds out back. I think the neighbors thought I was crazy, my brother's friends certainly did, on those rare occassions when they caught me bouncing a tennis ball against the wall of the house and telling a story out loud. One story was a musical - where I sang all the parts...and made up songs to go with them. I did this when I was about 14. Before I learned that I could not sing. Or rather, before I was told that I could not sing.
At any rate...what hits me now is that I don't have that story in my head. I always had at least one on-going tale in my head. That I couldn't wait to get home and go outside to tell to myself. Or retreat into my bedroom and whisper to the walls. My parents gave me my first typewriter at twelve to push me to write my tales as opposed to speaking them aloud.
Have the tales gone away? No. I think they are stuck in my brain, in a weird sort of bottleneck or logjamb. Which makes me think this weekend I need to start either jotting them down on paper or telling them inside my head. Also methinks I may give up on Peter Watts Blindsight...which while interesting lacks the ability to pull at emotion, and attempt Orphane Tales - In the Cities of Coin and Spice instead.
On the television front...I have as you are no doubt painfully aware of by now - been rewatching the Buffy and Angel series much as one might reread a favorite serial in order, for a host of reasons. The main one being - that the last time I watched every episode in order - was when they actually aired, and even then...I think I missed a few here or there.
And I certainly didn't have the benefit of time and hindsight in my favor. It's odd rewatching or re-reading a favorite creative work. Particularly after you haven't looked at it at all for a bit. Your opinions on it change. I rarely do it, by the way. I'm not one to re-read books and don't feel much need to rewatch tv shows and movies...a few here and there, but not all that many. Mainly because I have an excellent visual memory for stories and tend to remember every bit pretty vividly, almost too vividly - so re-watching or re-reading is a waste of time. When Buffy first aired, and specifically in the 6th season - when I got obsessed with it - I did admittedly re-watch numerous times to the point of memorization of dialogue - each episode. And as a result, didn't feel a need to re-watch any of the episodes for a very long time after approx. 2006. So two-three years went by. I resisted the urge.
And crap happened. So to comfort myself more than anything else...I decided to rewatch. It's not that there aren't other shows that I like on tv - there are. But I am not in love with them. I like them. But they do not, how to explain, resonate in quite the same way. There's no plucky heroine who speaks to me. I don't quite know why Buffy did and the other shows don't. It is what it is.
In any event...while rewatching Something Blue (a weird and somewhat illogical episode that does not bear up under in depth analysis but is hilarious and makes me laugh quite a bit) and HUSH (which is just plain brilliant) - I realized a few things. Spike and Buffy definitely did not work as a couple in S4. The episode Something Blue is ironic in the extreme, when you know what happens later. Buffy's speech about how she's not bad boys any more, doesn't need the heartache, and the intense pain that comes with it and life would be so much easier with Riley who she can have picnics with and is so solid and up front - is also, equally, ironic.
"I won't have heartache with Riley" she tells Willow. But, if you watched I Will Always Remember You just before it - you know that's not true. That even solid nice guys like Riley can break our hearts, that it can end in heartache. There is no such thing as a safe and easy relationship. Buffy however is prevented from obtaining that crucial bit of insight. She doesn't know what happened with human Angel. And never will. Something Blue underlines the fact that Buffy doesn't know and the extent that actually hurts her. Removing one's memory of an event can prevent them from learning from it - our experiences make us who we are. They change us. They mold us. This is a theme that Whedon returns to over and over again - in Something Blue - Buffy tells Willow that maybe a forgetting spell is in order, she'd like to forget her love affair with Spike. (One wonders sometimes if Willow ever complied.) And in Tabula Rasa - Willow does make everyone forget - who they are, with dicey results. While over in Angel the Series - Angel erases everyone's memories of Connor, and Connor's of his own past life - replacing them with separate memories. From Angel's perspective it was the right thing to do in I Will Always Remember You and worked out, so why not fiddle with the fates again? And now...Dollhouse - in this series people are constantly memory wiped. Their experiences peeled off of them like a dirty set of clothes. Critics of the series have compared it to rape - but I ask you, is it any different than what Angel did to Buffy in I Will Always Remember You? Or to his friends in Home? Whedon in these episodes as well as Dollhouse appears to be asking the same questions that were asked in the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - and Alfred Bester's Demolished Man - to what degree are we - our memories. To what degree do our experiences, more importantly how we recall our experiences and what we take from them, what we learn from them - define us? We are creatures that learn by doing, learn from reading, learn from interaction. If the fire burns us? We avoid it. What if you removed the memory of the fire? That's what happens in I Will Always Remember You - Angel removes Buffy's memory of him giving up on their relationship because he isn't strong enough to protect her. (The sequence if you watch closely is repeated to humorous effect in Something Blue - where Spike (defenseless due to the newly implanted chip and under Willow's spell - fervently in love with Buffy) tells Buffy - he won't be able to protect her. Buffy retorts - "what? who says I need protecting?" And Spike - "not the girl power thing again." It is to a degree the unvoiced dialogue between Buffy and Angel in Remember You. Angel bails because as a human he can not protect Buffy. He has to be a champion, a vampire to do it. And he denies her the memory of that choice. She can't remember, only he can. And he never tells her about it. As a result - she relives it with Riley. Would she have tackled her relationship with Riley the same way if she remembered?
How would she have played it differently? We will never know.
The brilliant HUSH - discusses heartache and lack of communication - in relationships, from numerous perspectives. Willow and OZ - OZ who rarely spoke his feelings for Willow and ends up ripping her heart out, metaphorically speaking. Xander and Cordelia - where their relationship was all hormones, here Anya calls Xander on it - is that all it is? Do you care about me at all? Or is it just hormones? Just sex? Giles and Olivia - Olivia who tells Giles that his world is too dangerous and too scarey for her to reside in. An echo perhaps of both Joyce and Jenny, Jenny who can't survive it. And finally Buffy and Angel - who like a ghost haunts a good portion of Buffy S4. Riley tells Buffy in her dream sequence that with a kiss he'll make the sun go down. But as Buffy points out they aren't communicating. They are keeping secrets. Much as she did with Angel. She never knew what Angel was thinking. She knows even less with Riley. She thinks he is one thing, he turns out to be another, much as Angel had. And the fear she has of getting her heart ripped out again, of enduring "heartache" - echoed in part by Willow and Xander, and even Giles - is shown literally by the fairy tale Gentleman who silently glide down the streets and into homes, extricating rather painfully their victims hearts. She slays them with a scream, and does it not alone, but with Riley's aid - much as she slayed Angel's monster with Angel telling her what to do to kill it. Here she tells Riley and he smashes the box, which gives her back her voice. She slays her fear - and in that moment, she is able perhaps to leave the pain of Angel behind and march into Riley's arms, not realizing of course...that he may rip her heart out as well, only differently. But if she doesn't take the risk...how is she to learn?
I've been avoiding saying anything about the two legal bits that occured this week. Obama's choice of Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice is machiavellian in some respects, and I approve. He has craftily picked someone that will not only change the makeup of the court but cause problems for those who disagree with her views. Strict Constructionists annoy me - because they are so hypocritcal. First off - how in the hell are you going to know the intentions of a group of people who have been dead and buried for over 200 years? Second - even if you did, what does it matter? The founding fathers lived in a different time with different problems and completely different way of thinking. There was no such thing as the internet back then. Information was not available to everyone - most people couldn't read.
Women weren't allowed to vote and considered property. Native Americans were Indians (because Columbus got lost and thought he hit India as opposed to a whole new continent - I corrected someone recently regarding this. Funny story. She was talking about Brazil. At the table was a young man from "India". She said, and the indians - to which I said, you mean the native americans, and she said - no, they are the indians. And I said, uh no, Brazil is not India.
Ryan sitting across from you is from India and is Indian. The native/indigenious population in Brazil is Native American or Native South American. Let's not confuse people.) In short going by the intentions of the founding fathers is well idiotic. It's like stating oh, we need to go by what the people in the Bible did way back in 1000 AD, ignoring of course the fact that they lived in a desert, and it was over 1000 years ago. The other reason the conservative/strict constructionist annoys me - is they state that they believe in going by the letter of the law and not being emotional about it and not creating law - but that's exactly what they have done. Every single solitary decision Anatonin Scalia has written and I've read quite a bit of them serves his "moral" judgement and his "values". It has absolutely nothing to do with what is written. He's interpreting it to fit what he wants. He's no more objective than anyone else. Same deal with Chief Justice Roberts. The accusations that the conservatives are throwing at Sotomayor are stupid and self-serving.
(See that's why I haven't talked about it. I think she'll get in, though. But you never know.)
On the other topic - Proposition 8? Eh. Sounds like the court upheld the right of the majority to amend the constitution of California. Haven't read the opinion. My take? They took the easy way out. Because I don't think that was the legal issue. The legal issue was not can you ammend the constitution of the state of California. The issue was - is the right to get married in the state of California a right that can be legislated or amended in the constitution? Because if it can be, than what is to stop us from ammending the constitution to state that marriage is only a right between a man and woman who get married in the Catholic Church? If you don't get married in the Catholic Church you aren't married? Or it is only legal if it is between two people who are US citizens? I mean honestly this is not a right that you want to be legislating people. Or amending constitutions over. The other issue - in my opinion was - does the majority have the right to dictate who can and can't get married? And do we really want the majority to dictate that? I mean, regardless of how you feel about "gay" marriage - I would think long and hard about that point. The whole there but for the grace of god, go I, comes to mind here. (I'm hoping the rest of the US makes Californians look like idiots in the next few years, by passing legislation that makes it legal everywhere else. Come on New York! Get on the ball!)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-30 04:57 pm (UTC)