My year in TV

SHOWS I ENJOYED

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. - Great work and exciting stories this year, but it never quite makes me love it as much as I want to. It's one of the few shows I don't watch for the characters. Some great fight scenes this year.
Archer - Still got it. The elevator bottle episode! Just jackin' it.
Arrow - Season 3 didn't end well, but I still always enjoy this show. I love its world & tone more than I'll ever love the world of The Flash. Just a personality thing.
The Big Bang Theory - Expanding their core cast was the best thing they ever did. I love watching their hijinks & friendships.
Brooklyn 99 - So quick witted & funny. The Halloween episodes!
Elementary - It's never going to be more than a pleasant procedural, but they respect the characters and I enjoy Sherlock and Joan always.
The Flash - Fun popcorn show. I often roll my eyes at the craziness and the gleeful plot holes, but it hits the emotions really well.
Fresh Off the Boat - Jessica being Jessica.
Community - Enjoyed catching up with the real show.
Game of Thrones - Not the best year but still love to visit this world. And THAT battle left me breathless.
Grimm - In the groove. Great cast. Nice long game last season and good start to this one. And a beautifully lit show.
iZombie - Took me about 6 episodes to fall in love, then couldn't stop rewatching. They solved the Duncan problem with Major! Amazing.
Justified - Wonderful last season. Really nice bounce back from season 5, which I really didn't enjoy much. They went out perfectly.
Orange is the New Black - Not as great as 1 and 2, but still a wonderful show. Piper is the worst! And the show doesn't try to say she isn't!
Person of Interest - Also not its best season, but I freaking love this show. Amy Acker as Root! Sarah Shahi as Shaw! The Machine POV! Can't wait for it to come back.
Wet Hot American Summer - Fun ride. Watched it first, then the movie, & had a blast.

**HONORABLE MENTIONS

Gotham - Finally watched the season on Netflix this fall. I realize its issues but still find it entertaining. Sad for the women not getting much screen time, but whenever they do, I just want them to spin off into a new Birds of Prey with these actresses.
The Librarians - Took me a while to get into the tone, but now I do enjoy its silliness.
Supergirl - Not completely caught up and it's a little wholesome for my tastes, but the lead is great and I'm hoping for overall goodness.
Supernatural - Season 10 suprised me by coming together pretty well in the last half, and 1st half had the wonderful 200th episode. Everytime I think I'm out...

SHOWS I <3 much="" p="" so="">
Agent Carter - So fun! Carter & Jarvis could totally be the new British Avengers. Loved the setting, the story, the breezy girl power. More more more!
The Americans - Brilliant & subtle & beautiful spy/family drama. So sad it gets so little love when it's truly one of the best shows on TV, even given a huge amount of competition.
Better Call Saul - I didn't even realize how much I missed the Breaking Bad visual artists until I saw the pilot. And the show is a great character exploration. Wonderfully written and shot.
Bojack Horseman - Painfully true existential crises in a surreal looking world. OMG, Will Arnett is so good here.
Crazy Ex-Girlfriend - Deeply flawed but realistic female character who sings! The episode where she and Greg go on a date is one of the best episodes of TV I watched this year.
Daredevil - That fight scene! Charlie Cox in those red lenses. Kingpin's backstory. Nelson vs. Murdock's painful breakup. Another great character named Wesley.
Hannibal - The fever dream is over but will never be forgotten. My favorite show. It did things no other show would, experimenting with story and visuals and sound. Just amazing. Farewell, murder husbands.
Jessica Jones - So damned good. Great creepy villain, noir heroine, nuanced exploration of consent and agency. Makes it look so easy we have to wonder why no one else ever did it. I cannot wait to see this character again. And Luke Cage.
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver - Just a great and funny weekly news show. When is it coming back?
Mr. Robot - What a great dose of paranoia and mystery. I enjoyed the lead-up more than the conclusion, but it was still a unique and wonderful thing. And its tone made me remember Rubicon, so points just for that.
Pretty Little Liars - An actual dollhouse! Metaphor made concrete. And dealing with the aftermath. The villain reveal delves into an issue that's not easy to tackle, and they do a pretty decent job of trying to reconstruct Hitchcock for a (hopefully) more enlightened age.
Sense8 - This show. I'm not even sure why I like it so much; it just wouldn't let me go. Loved the slow build, the characters, the genre mixing, the philosophy. And the plot was fine. There was just a visceral excitement every time the characters melded, a feeling of joy you don't often get from a TV show.
You're the Worst - I had a moment this season where I almost fell out. I went from respect at the issue they were tackling to disappointment that it was going to completely destroy what I loved about the show to realization that they were managing to meld them together, all in the course of three episodes. So glad it's coming back.

**HONORABLE MENTIONS

Fargo - Only down here because I haven't watched all season yet. But I know I'm gonna love it. The first season was right under Hannibal and The Americans for me last year.
The Man in the High Castle - Watched the first 3 episodes and loving it muchly. High hopes for a great season.

SHOWS I MOST WANT TO WATCH/CATCH UP WITH

The 100
Bates Motel
Deutschland 83
Halt and Catch Fire
Humans
Jane the Virgin
The Leftovers
Master of None
Orphan Black
Other Space
Penny Dreadful
Transparent
UnREAL

__________________________


I just bet I've missed something important. What have I missed?

Mary Sue Pentagon

Starbucks musings before my afternoon job.

I tell myself stories as I go to sleep. Or I used to anyway. My favorite for a long time was a pretty intense fan fic crossover.

I had Mary Sued myself into 5 different fictional worlds as the same character. There was a complicated magic/physics, crossing multiverses reason for it. It was awesome. The worlds were from Joss Whedon's Buffy/Angel TV shows and J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter, Jim Butcher's Harry Dresden, Diane Duane's Wizards and Mercedes Lackey's Diana Tregarde books.

There was a backstory where I used to exist in each of these worlds according to the standard parallel universe idea of multiple yous in multiple worlds. In each world, I was a young magic user raised by my evil sorcerer type uncle. He was twisted but brilliant. He found a way to breach dimensions and collaborate with four of his other selves in the quest to combine their essences to create someone who could cross freely from one to the other, drawing on the magical power available to the inhabitants in them all. But he wasn't reckless, he didn't try it first on himself, but on me. He succeeded in combining 5 of me into one who could travel to all the places. Of course, my first act was to kill him in every one of them. Hey, it hurt. Plus your Mary Sue needs something dark in her past in order to redeem herself later.

So I had a tragic backstory and a lot of power. I aged slowly. I lived for periods of time in each of the worlds, having adventures that would sometimes intersect with known characters. Did a lot of bad things, mostly as a result of the insanity that came from suddenly being all of me, and gradually came to regret them and attempt that redemption. Tons of bedtime stories for myself.

The story eventually led to a problem cropping up in every 'verse I existed in that I had to investigate. Of course it turned out that my creation had formed an instability in these 5 worlds that could lead to their destruction if I didn't find a way to fix it. By reversing the original spell, destroying myself as I existed and probably not allowing for my survival.

That was the broad outline of the story. So one night maybe I wanted to hang out at the Magic Box in Sunnydale, inadvertently crashing one of Buffy's adventures. Or I could visit that time in England when I worked as a spy for Dumbledore when Voldemort was rising. Or I had to visit an oracle with Harry Dresden, telling me about my upcoming doom. I could occasionally help Angel Investigations, if I was in the mood, or fight monsters with Diana and Mark. And towards the end of the story, the cat wizards looking after Manhattan's world gate would sure come in handy with all this multi-dimensional stuff.

I had a few original characters, but mostly I thought about the various lairs I had across the 'verses, and how my magic worked differently in each according to their own rules, and visited various time periods of my character's existence according to my mood. I could work through emotional issues I was having at the time by getting all angry or injured or whatever in my head story. It was fun.

I never was able to spin that off into something more original. And I never attempted to make my character interesting to anyone but me. It was all in my head, no reason to worry about the Mary Sue-oscity of her.

Many people hearing about my habit of telling myself these stories -- which I've had for a while, this was merely the last, best version because it could incorporate so much -- might think that with my imagination, I could be a writer. Okay, I might think that, lack of originality excepted. I could still be a bad writer, right? But there's that disconnect between the daydreams and writing a real story. I've not found the impetus to transition the brain power put into the daydreaming into something more tangible. It's even impossible for me to write down the schlock in my head as a starting point for something else. It just won't go down on the screen or page. This is the most I've ever said about it.

It's just weird is all. Is it just a lack of discipline or is there just some toggle I can't check on? Does everybody feel like there's something they should by all rights be good at, yet can't seem to do it? I blame myself for being -- something negative. But sometimes I feel like I'm missing something really obvious. Screw the meaning of life, where's my epiphany for this?

Poetry?? Well, an unedited, inept version of such anyway...

Feelin' jittery and out of sorts.

Some days you can't ignore the things you normally ignore.

Yet there's no optimism in the recognition
that this could lead to something I need
if only I could find the path or do the math.

Instead just a sense of usual recompense,
this too shall pass without leaving a mark
and there's no "at last I'm out of the dark."

Just descent into the same, again and again.

Life gives us so many chances
if we can only see them.
But sight is meaningless without action.
Just continual, disappointing redactions
of the openings in the veil.
Ignore it and return to blindness
because it's steady and easy, really a kindness.

I can make a choice to jump between the curtains
where nothing is certain,
but I can't envision what's beyond
because it's not there yet.
Without faith in my ability to create,
I'm left with the need to obviate,
not to deviate.
Self-hate is too strong a word,
but it does get referred
to in the thoughts that I hold.
This inability to be bold is infuriating,
had I the passion to be so angry.
Instead left with a dull and vague despair,
hardly deserving of the name.

Ennui is so French and so literary
Angst is too throat curdlingly German
and contains an anger that makes me tired.
Anxiety is just a piece, not really the point.
So search eternally for the words
rather than the means, the usual,
while time continues passing and
stasis remains the rule.

Thinking somehow poetry can unlock
the crock that is nothing profound,
only the immature ramblings
of derivative lambling.
Somehow tortured rhymes can take the joke,
twist the yoke, invoke the Loki that can burst free
and transform the staid and passionless
into new life and not too scary madness.
As if.

We are limited by who we are,
not because genes are concrete,
but because our minds are replete
with fears of self deceit.

Perspective and Tigers and Choices, OMG what?

So it was not the condemned making the choice in The Lady, or the Tiger, it was his beloved. I had completely forgotten that. The choice is not what would you choose for yourself, but what do you think the barbarian princess chose for her lover: Brutal death or life in the arms of another.

I did not in any way remember this part. I really think I only remembered how much I hated not knowing the ending; I'm not sure I ever engaged in the actual question of what did she choose. I'm not sure I care. I came back to this from Life of Pi, where I (sadly true) delighted myself with the comparison of choosing stories with or without tigers. And they do parallel. But where the story is asking the reader to extrapolate what is most likely the course of action taken by the character as written, the movie (and its preceding novel) is asking the viewer to choose which they would prefer. Maybe the two could be the same, but I think there's a huge difference. I guess you could choose your ending to the short story based on what you think will follow and what you'd rather see if you could keep reading, but I think you're constrained by the parameters of the character making the choice. Who is not you.

Or maybe it's the chronology that makes it so different. In Lady, it's about what will happen to this man. In Pi, it's already happened to him and your decision of which story you prefer does not affect him in any large degree. In Pi, it's more about you. So of course I prefer that.

But in first making the connection, I thought it was about the man in the arena. (BTW, this is all tying into Spartacus as well, so my pop culture serendipities continue to multiply). I knew he didn't know what was behind each door. I thought the question was which would he prefer. I thought my answer at the time was probably the lady because duh, but now I might think that was too safe a choice. Following Pi logic, choose the tiger because that's a better story. But it's not his choice.

Reading Jacob's Bates Motel recaps. The latest referencing, as the show did, Blake's The Tyger. Seriously, it's all coming up tigers lately. When it's not the Other. Can the tiger be the Other? Should it? And let's not get into where the tiger stands in societal privilege, the other recurring theme I keep coming across recently. The tiger can stand for so many disparate things. Are pop culture Tigers always male?

Yeesh. In what furnace was my brain? Anyway, it's all a mess in my head, not knowing what connection I really want to make here.

"Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb, we are bound to others, past and present, and by each crime and every kindness, we birth our future." -- Sonmi-451, Cloud Atlas

Arena boy sure is bound to his princess, and we can imagine bother crime and kindness coming his way, even if we disagree with which is which. Because we never hear what choice he would make. We wonder if the barbarian princess would choose his death to avoid seeing him with another, but couldn't he conceivably make the same choice?

I guess I'm just thrown by how different the story is than what I thought I remembered. Also weird it was written in 1882, and the person taking control of fate is a woman, and the person without real agency is a man. Isn't that odd? Maybe we're supposed to fear the power of this woman, who is bound to make a choice based on her barbarian emotions. Another example of how women shouldn't be in charge of things.

Why can't I ever think straight, untangle the webs to a readable skein? Time to end this ramble.

"while bored arena crowds for once look eager,
hoping toward havoc, neither pleas nor prizes
shall coax from doom’s blank door lady or tiger."--Sylvia Plath

There was girl: a ramble of thoughts with no solution

Once upon a time there was a girl. She prided herself on not being like the other girls, not realizing that that was just internalizing the misogyny around her. It's a point of pride to not be girly? But you see the predicament. No one likes to be put in a box and told how she is, particularly when she doesn't feel it. It's actually easier to see the box that way, but you're still dealing with the definitions imposed by the people doing the sorting.

So this girl grew up knowing that there was a lot of bullshit in the world. Not only from the usual suspects of entrenched power, but also from those who one would think would know better, would be an ally. Why she always saw things in these extremes is a good question. The world, and people, are always more complicated than you first think.

First hurdle is to understand the problem, which is harder for some than others, but then comes dealing with it. This girl dealt with it by stepping away from the heart of it and trying to stay separate, trying to define herself apart from it while still trying to take what pride she could from the difference, even if it was a facade with a weak foundation. It's all working with what others give you, abstract symbols created by others.

But not too long ago the girl considered whether there was some freedom in the purposeful use of these symbols. So why was that necessarily bad? Maybe because these early usages were not purposeful, but part of a rejection, an act of running away. One escapes the box only by leaving it behind entirely. But that means some of the good things in the box become inaccessible, or at least hard to get to. And if you escape the box with nothing, how do you even get into the other boxes to pick and choose from their contents?

Why does the girl think in terms of cardboard boxes in a white room? That's beyond abstraction to absurd oversimplification.

Once upon a time there was a girl who learned early on to empathize with characters in books, to feel their story with them, but who found it so much harder to understand the real people around her. She wasn't emotionless, she didn't see real people as cardboard, she just didn't really think about them that much because she was concerned with other things. Is that true?

Once upon a time there was a girl who developed cynicism early. Was it because the outside world wasn't as neat and tidy as the world of fiction? Was it because she learned through fiction that everyone had an agenda or just that life wasn't fair? Was it something learned from her surroundings? Was she naturally inclined to that? Or is it another function of the distancing? Did she really feel removed from the first person from childhood, or can she just not remember now what it was like?

Once upon a time there was a girl who was tentative, lacking confidence in herself, in the rightness of her actions. She was a girl much loved, appreciated, who never had to question her worth in the eyes of the adults around her as she did her peers. Why should such a girl be so tentative? Was it something that happened or an outgrowth of her natural inclinations? Just like everyone else, the girl became good at some things. She had confidence in her abilities to do some things, but it never translated over to confidence in just being herself. This life-long identity crisis stemming from never feeling certain of an identity to begin with?

But that's too simple. Surely early on she felt like herself. This questioning is a function of adolescence. So maybe the lack of self-confidence came later, and she just doesn't remember it. How did it happen and why does it persist into early middle age?

She had never lived the unexamined life, but what they don't tell you about that idea is that said examination is not the solution to anything, it's just a step. And sometimes it's a misstep because you examine the wrong things or come up with the wrong solution to the perceived problem. Step one is to think it through, but step two gets dicey.

Her common theme seems to be lack of solidity (which is kind of funny for the extreme contrast with her very solid physical existence). Part of it is not knowing what she wants to do with her life, never having had a goal/plan/desire that felt close to all-encompassing. Part of it is the struggle with what is expected, what is assumed, even by those closest. Part of it is a desire to not become static, to always remain open to new things/ideas/possibilities. It's all of a piece assuredly, but how does that help her? Does this mix of traits necessitate this constant dance? Or is the dance a lie she tells herself?

Is it possible she clings to this idea of the lack of solidity as an excuse for her lack of -- not advancement, but -- success maybe? Progress? Maybe her insides really are like her outsides, slow moving, solid as a rock, slow to change, unlikely to let go, unmoved, placid.

This is what lack of commitment feels like, she would say to all the sitcom men who were ultimately amateurs at the process. You want to sleep around and not commit to a relationship? Big fucking deal. I can't even commit to being me. I can't commit to a life plan of any sort. I can't commit to an understanding of what I really want from life. I can't commit to the idea of committing. Go back to school, son.

Do I want a place to stand that doesn't move or do I want eternal change? Do I want to stand in a room and yell, "Hey, I'm here" to whoever will listen or do I want to continue creeping around the edges and seeing how many people I can fool into thinking I'm not even there? How much of all of this is rank cowardice? That's a question that haunts me. The thought that everything I do, everything I am is a reaction to fear of some kind is unacceptable. But maybe it's true. What the hell do I do with that?

Do I keep to myself because that's what I desire, because it's what I need to be happy, or because I'm scared to A, fail, or B, open myself up enough to another person to make a partnership work? I honestly don't know, and it's not like I haven't thought about it. How much of that decision is tied to my second wave ideas of men/women, to my existential feeling that no other person ever actually sees you as as much of a person as he/she is? How much of it is a decision or a choice?

I guess we all start wondering what we're missing at some point, what will be those big regrets at the end of everything, but -- it's all tied up into the idea of giving up and letting them win. Giving up what and letting who win? In attempting to stay back from the fray and define myself for myself, how much is still dependent on some nebulous they and how they view things? And how much of this right here is just posturing and not truth?

Once upon a time there was a girl who couldn't tell when she was lying to herself or when she was telling the truth. There was no nose changes, no helpful twitches or truth-containing dreams. It was all so nebulous. Maybe she knows herself and it's only lack of confidence or neurosis that leads her to question her own hard-won wisdom. It's so easy to discount it if it's coming only from her. Yet what do other people know anyway? They're right when they say bad things about her, wrong when they say good. What about her?

Once upon a time there was a girl who could rarely tell when she was happy, who didn't know the difference between contentment and complacency, who through physical detachment came to be even more emotionally detached. Once there was a girl who worried about being a Vulcan, while also taking pride in her intellectualism overriding her emotions, who never gave in as a point of pride. This girl would look at Hollywood girls as wimps. You ever notice how the smart girl always had to learn to be dumber? All in the name of not locking away her more emotional/passionate self? Aside from the self-serving -- seriously!? -- nature of it, all could agree that those nerds needed to let loose and maybe do stupid stuff -- more likely do stupid boys -- to be a well-rounded person. Never once could one remain as she was. And all would likely agree she was not well-rounded, even if some would argue the need to tie it all in to becoming more conventionally attractive and finding a boyfriend.

Hah! Once there was a girl who wondered if it was just her who was able to withstand hormonal drives while making choices. She felt it then, she did. She had a crush once that was so intense it took almost all of her brain over, yet she didn't give into it because the guy was so not a good choice. You never see that story. It's all about sometimes needing to make those kind of mistakes. The girl wonders sometimes if they have a point beyond the straight male agenda.

Once upon a time there was a girl who failed in one of the only arenas she had ever had pride of self in. The girl fell so hard, when she crawled back up, she was another person. She still doesn't know if this made her stronger or weaker, but maybe long-term, it was stronger. The girl can no longer remember what was so different, whether the fall just brought out things more clearly or whether it was a total shock. There's been almost a decade now to smooth over the bumps.

Once upon a time there was a girl who finally learned something new about being a teen girl -- from a gay man who got it more than she ever did, who seemed to understand what was going all under the surface of all those popular girls, mean girls, let's face it most all other girls that were never who she wanted to be. She started to really understand all that she had disdained. Even if she was really still mostly a Dan Humphrey about it all. She even felt some nostalgia for something she never experienced in the first place.

Once upon a time there was a girl who was proud of not being a man while at the same time gloried in all things that separated her from being a stereotypical woman. Her role models were intellectual men, or any men who at least seemed to accept women as persons. Later they became, and remain somewhat, middle aged women who fought/fight the power. Iconoclasts and eccentrics who didn't follow traditional womanly paths. And she became one of them. So there's that. She got what she wanted there. But she wonders if she focused on the whole picture or just parts of it. She suspects that one needs more integration after the initial separation or you're back to accepting the world of the boxes, the unacceptable.

Yet the girl knows that if only through indifference or insouciance, she has not been so iconoclastic or eccentric. At least, not on the surface. It goes back to perspective. Is being enough, or does one need to express externally? I wouldn't have had those role models if they had been as hidden as I am from the world

Once upon a time there was a girl who would pick and choose what to focus on and what to ignore based on what made her feel best about herself. She knew she was not so different from anyone else that way. She felt most of life was self-serving indulgence. Can one be cynical and proactive?

Once upon a time there was a girl who didn't know how to end a rambling essay. So she gave up and just did it, realizing that it would lack closure to make it coherent, just like fucking life.

useless blather

The spring started out with my voluntarily hanging at coffee shops for the sun and the cabin fever remedy. I'm so ready to be busier next term. Crossed fingers. Now I'm just avoiding roofers/traffic and biding time until the mail comes, hopefully with my check in it!

So comfortably ensconced in a westside Starbucks with a fake fire. Kind of comfy, but since daylight savings is still messing me up, feel like I'll fall asleep despite the caffeine. Thought maybe using the computer would be more conducive to staying awake than reading, though I really want to get going on the next Harry Dresden book.

Don't think I want to go into any of the stuff I've been talking about in my latest entries. Not feeling like I have anything new to add.

Really, I've got nothing. I should do some research on things to do spring break when I visit the folks. Usually it's an opportunity to just be able to chill and not worry about doing anything. But since winter term has been so uneventful, I'm over it already. I'll need something else.

There's computer work I can do of course, but I haven't been very likely to do it thus far. IDK. Don't want to think about all that either.

So yeah, this entry is pretty much worthless, even in context.

What to write about spy TV.

Only possible self-initiated writing assignment I can come up with for myself is related to spy tv, since that's what has been pulling my attention lately. I don't have any real desire to write, just a feeling that I should. At least it's something I can do that's not passively imbibing. But not sure of the angle. Came up with ideas of compare and contrast episodes of various spy shows with similar plot ideas. Not sure what would come of that.  Could lead to some chronology comparisons, which ties in with ideas on changing face of surveillance with new tech, and/or pre and post 9/11 stuff. But not sure where to go. Trying not to worry about it too much. It's just for me right now; doesn't have to rock the world. So that way I don't have to do a ton of research either. Want just some grounding in spy tv tropes that I can then apply to my focus, which is more personal to me.

Do I just want to know why Homeland, Person of Interest, and The Americans have been the latest shows I've really been excited about? Oh, maybe I should go ahead and recap Americans. It's 6 in, I could do it. Even though I have read/listened to some commentary on the eps already, plus have larger than one episode scope. Still, could be fun.

OMG Person of Interest. This show is just so good, and so few people in my sphere talk about it. It's a real shame. I don't know if it's the procedural backbone or just that it's another that was either advertised or anticipated to be trying to recapture Lost. It's so its own thing that that's not close to fair, but whatever. It's one of the only shows lately that I daydream up stories in order to insert myself into its world. That's a rare thing for me of late. I certainly don't go there with Once or Grimm or even Supernatural anymore. Nor Arrow. But this show, oh man, pushes all the right buttons for a world I want to be a part of, even though it's really scary and I in reality would be toast there. Kinda like the Buffyverse that way.

I just realized that. I know I've been Mary Suing myself to the show, but hadn't considered that it's been a couple years since I found a show to do that with. I think since Supernatural was good. It's a different level of enjoyment than just really digging a show being good, like Americans. It's a combo of enjoying an excellent show and having the world/mythology of the show really capture my imagination. That's what it is. A thrilling feeling, especially when I feel so insulated from emotion these days, something to be passionate about.

Anyway. So what to write about? Skimmed some essays on Informational Ethics that could apply. Still interested in idea of omniscience and its relation to prognostication, although that is fading a bit. Still like best I think the idea of surveillance, something about that. I have always had a huge dose of something like double consciousness, and I think that's part of what I'm liking about these shows and their focus on surveillance. Watching Carrie watch Brody on the monitors. The meta parallel of that action with tv viewing, looking into the lives of these characters like an omniscient god, getting to know them via their external actions and communications. And how it is to always be aware of being watched, how that affects your actions. Tying into even the thing in Cloud Atlas I keep coming back to, the idea of seeing yourself in the gaze of the Other. All of that is aswirl in my head and I need to figure out how to see it clearly, what is the through line that I want to tease out.

Something is enticing about the meta parallel. Even though I don't generally enjoy reading about how we watch tv or what being a fan is or any of that stuff, I do wonder about how far that parallel goes. Couldn't you imagine yourself doing the spy surveillance stuff, even if you're not into anything else about it? Isn't that part of reality tv's appeal, looking in on real lives, trying to figure out something about the truth of these lives from watching them? It's not about talking to them, but watching. Which is my modus operandi most of the time anyway, when getting to know people. I don't tend to ask them a lot of questions, to actively seek information about what they're like. I prefer to just sit back and observe their behaviors and analyze their words, forming my impression of who they are from that. Maybe it's just because of the distancing thing I do socially that I can so connect with that idea.

Many of my daydreams have involved being undercover, always being watched, having to pass secret messages, never fully trusting anyone with the truth. That's my play time. So it's no surprise that something like the Americans (also set during my COA, my preteens) would really be of interest to me. Hell, I had a story similar to theirs as a backstory for my Scarecrow & Mrs. King Mary Sue, only we were sleepers in Russia instead. Pushing buttons.

But that's all well and good. What could I write about that would give me practice, be satisfying, and teach myself something new about what I'm seeing or why it's working for me? Maybe it's just because I'm lazy, but it's hard to think of something I would want to commit to writing about. It's easy enough to throw around some ideas, think of further research that could be done, but not so much to come up with a topic sentence and go to it. This is why I worry about being able to go back to school. Writing essays used to be the easiest thing in the world, but now... Of course, it's so much harder to be self-directed anyway.

I liked Alias and Chuck, but they were very different from these types of shows, very actiony or comedic, using surveillance tools, definitely focused on tech -- spy-fi -- but not really going into the bigger ideas associated with that. They weren't supposed to.

Part of it is the whole reality of eternal surveillance coming into being around us too. It's easier and easier to empathize with characters who are always being monitored, isn't it?

Actually, now that I think about it, a lot of the fantasy I liked best had some aspects of this undercover stuff too. The more medieval cloak and dagger espionage, people hiding powers or birthright, secret mages in current society, wizards and witches seeing people from afar... People not who they seem, but special. Common fantasies we all have I suspect. How many of us hope we're secretly more special, skilled, important than we actually are? It's just that we're not recognized as we blend into the crowds around us. But if someone were really looking, they would be able to figure out that we were somehow unique, no matter how much we look indistinguishable from everyone else around. We are all hiding our own secrets, we're all sleeper agents.

Or maybe I shouldn't say all. We are all heroes in our own story, but some are kings and queens, some are warriors, and some are spies who always know more than they say, who always see both the world everyone sees and the other realities happening to the side or underneath that most people ignore or are ignorant of. Some of us like seeing and not being seen. Some of us hide anything real or important to keep those things safe from those who are always trying to see us but never see us truly.

Oy. That's enough of that. At least I didn't start in on the whole female thing. You're welcome.

But what do I want to write about? I really think surveillance is the overarching, big picture part. But it's way too abstract and wide-ranging. But what's interesting is that could reach out of the spy genre and bring in things like Gossip Girl or PLL, both shows which have/had omniscient antagonists that see all the heroes do and use that intel for their own ends. How does that fit in/compare to what some of these spy dramas are doing? And again the meta parallel, do I want to go there given how little I really feel able to comment on all that? I don't know.

Then there's the whole storytelling aspect of that too. That's too real world for this topic for me I think. I always love that kind of investigation, but not in this case.

Of course, there's always the option of not writing anything about them, just enjoying what they give me. Like I do everything. Black hole. Maybe I do need school assignments to actually accomplish anything.

Well, enough rambling here.

Rambling thoughts that only make sense to me

So here it is, February of 2013, and I'm in a holding pattern of some sort. I'm annoyed by it, but not despairing because I think the next month or so will bring changes. We've got more spring coming this way, the time of change, and we've got spring break, followed by a new term, new schedule. Things will change one way or another, and that's a good thing. So if all I seem to be able to do these days is lounge around watching TV, doing kakuro, and listening to podcasts, not eating well, not exercising, not doing anything proactive, that's okay. It will pass.

Thing is, right now I can't think what I want to do. I just want to do something that's less passive. I always worry about how much stimulation I take in in an attempt to not have time to deeply reflect on "important" things, but I don't know that it's something I always do to avoid deep thought. I think it's just an inertia thing. But I've found lately that I downplay most of those kind of thoughts, either because I've entered into a deeper level of repression, or just because it feels unnecessarily histrionic to ascribe a more portentous meaning to these things.

It's that worry about complacency again, but it doesn't go anywhere. Maybe it's part of self-acceptance to not be as hard on myself as I used to be. It's probably a good thing. Of course, it could be lowered expectations. Although how they could be even lower...

Anyway.

What does it mean to waste your life? We're back to POV, something I've considered before. Wasted according to who? There's this set of things you do, this set of things you could do, this set of things you'd never do, and those set of things you don't know that you might do. I think it's important to not just do the things you do, to consider the possibilities, even to reevaluate the things you'd never do or leave yourself open to discover those things you didn't know about before. But you have to follow your own path to find the other things; I don't think you can force it. I'm into widening my environment to let other things filter in around the edges of my established world, but I'm not sure the best way to do it.

But see, that's still relatively passive. I've spent a great deal of my life as an observer, acting mostly to position myself in such a way as to see what I need to see without being seen by others looking back. Back to that idea in Cloud Atlas that you only know yourself in the gaze of the Other. If that's true, I'll never know myself because I refuse to legitimize wholly the gaze of the Other upon me. I doubt I could change that, but maybe I can still use the idea somehow. Especially now that things seem less urgent and dangerous. I'm less self-conscious, less worried about being seen now than I probably ever have been. Surely I can use that to my advantage?

If there's a way to -- not objectively, not dispassionately, but calmly? maybe -- consider the assumptions others make about me in a way that allows me to come to a new understanding of myself, that could be a good thing. I just still don't see why -- I'm a bit stubborn about that still. I don't know if I'm insisting on my perspective or running from the truth though. Probably both.

It sounds defensive, which is one thing I remember infuriating me from my youth, when I was told in an argument not to get defensive. And I remember very little from my youth, but that burning injustice still stings. How to tell the (very legitimate) difference between being overly defensive, meaning reacting without thinking to a presumed attack, and defending your view or your actions from a real attack meant to shut YOU down without having to think about the point you're making? It goes to something Jacob (and others) have said about telling girls to be polite or nice means denying them their own voice, being polite or nice is a self-abnegation, losing your voice and ceding the ground to the others around you. The Others who only see you as an adjunct to their story where they're the hero. The ultimate idea of being defined by the Other as seen in and ultimately rejected by Dollhouse.

That's part of the issue I have with that idea. Still, consensus can be a more complete picture. There are things some of those Others who are closest to you see and understand that are of value. I just -- it also goes to the idea of needing validation from another, something too many women my age and older seemed to too often succumb to in the form of their relationships with men. Not only just the idea of getting validation from the men themselves, but legitimization from society for doing the thing you're supposed to do, pairing up with a man and all that follows. It's a security thing, an on the surface easy way. Follow the track that so many do, take on the labels "everyone" does in the right order, and you always know who you are. As opposed to forging your own path and having no ready definitions to apply, no easy, well-defined personas to take on. Of course, I understand now that no path is easy, even if you do what's expected. There's always problems. But often those problems arise from the dissonance between the label you bought into and what you want and need for yourself as a labelless, real person.

So I no longer know if it's harder to be adamantly nebulous and rejecting labels or to take on labels that only fit uneasily. At least if the former, you're playing dolls with yourself, trying out different specific Barbie outfits to see which feels better and which you need to burn. Whereas if you try so hard not to allow any of the premade outfits, you've got nothing to wear and nowhere to go except a nude beach of nonidentity. Probably the best thing, and what I think the younger generations excel at, is mixing and matching. Not tossing out the wardrobe entirely, but just picking a hat here, a skirt there, whatever you want. And it's about using the labels as they're understood, but showing that you get the artificiality of them. Using that artifice to create a self-made synergy. So not rejecting the labels, not accepting them, but recognizing they're artificial constructs, and using bits and pieces as -- not fetishes, but -- symbols of deeper meaning, that meaning needing to be taken in context of all the other symbols to be understood or to be occasionally subverted or radicalized.

On one hand it feels extremely derivative, or even somethings adolescents have always done, but it's at a new level now, it's viral. And it's active, not passive, for males and females. I think it's in the knowingness of it now. Well, I can't go down that rabbit hole because all I know about kids at this remove is what I see on TV or in the movies or read. And artists have always been more knowing.

Anyway.

Not sure how I got to trying to understand -- whatever. I liked the Barbie analogy.

So back to me. :) Boring subject. How does that all help me understand life, the universe and everything? I spent my life trying to ignore the labels. I tried on some identities, but I never took them seriously. My dark observer undercut my posturings at every turn. Oh, I'm a film nerd, I'm alternative, I'm into punk, I'm a leftie, I'm an underground zine maker, I'm a city person, I'm a writer; all things I have thought about myself at different times, but I never really allowed myself to try and externally express any of it. Or to talk to others from those positions. They were just what I thought of myself, but I felt that showing those things on the outside was pretentious and was posturing. In my twenties I had more disdain for people who needed to shove their personas in other people's faces than practically anyone else. It all felt desperate and a lie and I wouldn't allow myself to do it and hated when others did.

I don't know why that was such a big deal. Why was self-expression perceived with such cynicism? Maybe because I never felt my external truth and my internal truth ever matched? Maybe I just was always afraid to be challenged to prove myself worthy of the persona I was adopting. If I ever felt any of the labels that applied to me were true, rather than me trying to be something I wasn't, maybe really getting into it would have been easy. Maybe would have been fun.

I don't know when I decided everything was a lie.

I see others as I see myself, therefore everyone else is a liar? It just seems like I had a view that everything was so cliched or something. All the stuff you go through in high school and college, I had read about it, I had seen it somewhere, so the fact that I was going through it was nothing special, I was nothing special. I rebelled as a teenager, but only internally, because that's where it mattered. It ties back to the gaze of the Other. The external self is what others see, and not what you see. Anything you do for yourself is internal. If you have to wear a mohawk and a leather jacket with safety pins to be a punk, that's just to show others that you think you're a punk. That has nothing to do with what you actually are. It's all about show.

That's what's so hard about all of that. This weird distinction I make between what's for real and what's for show and thinking they don't ever match. Or thinking it's somehow a statement about someone's character that they make everything a show. While at the same time, honestly, being envious of those who do it. I see others as I see myself, therefore I view them with both admiration and contempt? I envied the arty kids in high school, but I never once thought of emulating them or trying to be one of them. Even today I get a thrill when I see anyone, of any age, with a intricately constructed external persona (hello hipsters). I'm so happy that someone can do it, when I just can't. I've learned to accept the admiration part and ignore the contemptuous part that wants to scoff at the artificiality of it. Maybe by the time I'm 80 (god forbid) I'll be a crazy lady with a purple mohawk.

I think I've always been concerned with what is real and fake, probably too concerned. Probably thinking that there's some sure way to tell the difference. Every time I tried out a persona, in my mind, it always felt like a costume. So even today my "fashion" sense is almost nonexistent. I've never really tried to decorate myself or transform myself from the outside in, even though I think that's something that could be done, carefully. Humorless, practical, utilitarian, puritanical -- those are huge forces in me. Yet I'm not actually humorless or puritanical at least, so that's something. But I do think those conservative tendencies are what lead to the cynicism, and recognizing that they're conservative and therefore less optimal, I try and reject them.

I have terrific parents who have always supported me and wanted the best for me, who have never tried to push me in a predetermined direction, but let me make my own choices. Yet I seem to still have picked up this -- not self-hate, but -- self-doubt maybe. I always fall on the side of distrusting myself or thinking the worst of myself, even as I have a strong sense of self and stand firmly in the world, not swaying with the winds of others. It's a weird thing. It's also why the comment in Conversations With Dead People between Buffy and Holden really hit home. You do have a superiority complex, and you have an inferiority complex about it. This motherfucker of a Janus-headed coin, where I in one way only really trust myself to define myself, yet I always distrust the conclusions I make about that topic because it's all a self-promoting, self-aggrandizing lie to make myself seem cooler than I am. But other people, they don't know shit about me.  (Partly because I try to tell them as little as possible.)

I reframed my whatever the fuck it is not being able to express myself thing as purposeful mystery. Other people always judge me by what I look like or how I seem to act, and I look nondescript and my movements are small and quiet and smooth, so I'm giving them nothing. Therefore anything they think about me is wrong, based on incorrect assumptions. Ha! What a joke. I'm bland on the outside, but if they only knew what I was inside, but they never will. It's got to be all about fear, right? I'm afraid to be myself on the outside? Or is there nothing to translate? Maybe I'm bland on the outside because I'm essentially bland on the inside. Or maybe I just don't know what the fuck I am and lack the ability to figure it out. Kevin.

And again, anyway.

What does this backwards looking self-reflection do for me? Am I learning anything I didn't know? Am I figuring out how to mitigate the bad and accentuate the good? I really don't know. I honestly don't think that how I express myself externally is all that important, but I leave open the possibility that I'm wrong about that. Maybe that is a key to something. I'm sure some of it is the fat thing. I think of myself as ugly and that might feed into anything having to do with externalities. Not like grotesque ugly, just not at all attractive in the context of my culture. I suppose I lack confidence in my ability to present myself in any way that would make anyone overlook the basic fact of my appearance. Maybe all the rest of the self-definition springs from that. Maybe the dichotomy I mentioned above is all about it. Maybe that's the whole reason I privilege inside to outside, intellect to physicality. I've allowed that my brain is beautiful, but my body is not; therefore I ignore the external as much as possible and make the internal all important. Maybe that's the one thing that if I could get over it somehow would revolutionize my life. I don't know. On the one hand it seems too simple, but on the other hand, in all my life I've never managed to do that one thing, so maybe it's not.

And it feels so ridiculous, I know all the arguments for how stupid that whole idea is, yet it's there. I think I even know intellectually that it's not true, but I can't believe it. I'm evening feeling like crying right now, which means this is important because I just don't cry. Weird.

Maybe I should work on that more directly, privilege that as something important to change and not ignore. I don't know how. Affirmations are a lie. A cheat to try and trick yourself into believing something that's not true. That's unfortunately how I feel. Again feel, not think. You would think that if I truly put intellect ahead of everything, I could get past the unreasoning feelings like that.

Love yourself. I mean, it's not like I don't, it's just that it's not absolute. Like I feel I have to overlook my faults to love myself or something. Well, we all do that when it comes to love, right? I'm continuing to understand why I've never loved anyone enough to want to spend a significant portion of my time/life with them.

A few years ago, when I had yet another friendship blow up due to a combination of issues on both sides, after a few weeks of misery and a concatenation of self-loathing and self-pity and anger, I came to a very intellectual decision that I think ultimately made my life better. I was stuck with myself for life. I could hate myself and doubt my every move and blame myself for not being able to be a proper human or I could accept myself, faults and all. Up until then, it might have felt like a defeat, giving up on the possibility of changing myself for the better, but at that point, it was what I had to do to survive, and it made sense and made me feel a bit cleansed, made the experience at least closer to cathartic.

I made peace with myself. But I still have doubts, and I refuse to give them up because I think it is important to evaluate yourself and try to make yourself be better if you can. But accepting myself as I was at that instant was important. Maybe it and not just age has helped me reach a less histrionic view of my issues, made the abyss seem less like painful fear and more like common anxiety. But that self-acceptance was also a very internally directed handshake. It was not about accepting how I look or anything like that, it was about accepting my personality quirks. It was a step. Maybe I can work backwards.

If the core issue is that unquestioning acceptance of external -- ranges from ugly to unappealing to unremarkable -- looks as a negative, and that basic assumption leads to equal assumptions about what is really me and what is me pretending to be something I'm not, and that leads to disdain for my need to pretend to be better than I am, and that leads to disparagement of what I am that I would need to rise above it, etc., then can I work back from accepting some parts of what I am as okay to accepting that I don't need to worry about pretense versus reality -- no, it's breaking down. I don't know how to follow that thread. Does not compute.

But what does work is that my agreement with myself that day did lead to less self-hatred and more self-acceptance. It didn't lead to determining the "truth" of what was real or what was wished for or anything, it left that out of the equation. Which I think is good. The search for self-knowledge is always important and will never stop, but the need to arbitrarily say this is really what I'm like and this is a sham, this is something other people think I am and this is something I want to be is diminished. Maybe true self-knowledge is all of those things collapsed together in 4d space. Maybe there's no real way to separate them anyway. Maybe it's more important to realize that you are who you wish to be.

I guess that's all I've got for now. As usual, more questions than answers. But the hope is to get ever closer to the right questions, and this was useful. For me anyway.

Connections to other people

So the world is trying to tell me something I don't want to hear. The idea of life being less meaningful or less fun or less "insert positive thing here" without connections to other people. It's not that I disagree so much as it feels like a pointed statement to me right now. Yeah, I know the obvious downsides to choosing to exist as a oner instead of as part of a couple or larger family. And I accept them. But I am also recognizing lately that there are less obvious downsides that I haven't considered for a while. Even little things like thinking over movies I've seen or music I've listened to, I remember that I wouldn't have seen or listened to this or that particular thing were it not recommended to me by the people I was hanging out with at a certain time in my life. Somehow that seems more significant to me than the knowledge that I don't have anyone to freakin' cuddle with at night, which is what seems to drive a lot of people into relationships. How many cultural experiences do I miss from that lack of input?

Of course, there's the internet, which provides reference services all the time. But it's almost ephemeral, surface level; it's not the shared physical experience of watching a David Lynch film and discussing it for hours and feeling on fire with ideas, or going to a Brazilian Girls concert with a friend when you'd never even heard of them before and feeling that emotional specificity that music provides.

I have friends, and I see them fairly often, so it's not a dire situation, just something that has come up recently. A reminder to not let them fall by the wayside out of lethargy or hermitage.

______________________________________SEGUE?________________________________

To my mind, Cloud Atlas was all about how our connections to other people are pretty much the only good thing in a world full of horrors, about how interacting with other people changes us, and how magical that can be. There's even one point where a character says the only way we truly know ourselves is through the eyes of the Other. Which struck me because I've spent my whole life attempting to reject definition from the outside. If that's a true statement, what does that say about my inherent abhorrence of the whole idea? I'm just not sure what to do with that. The right to self-definition is one that I consider to be of pretty primary importance. Why would we seek to have another define us?

But I get it. There is the nausea of looking into yourself and finding a lack of purchase. Maybe the eyes of the Other give you something to stand on, a reference point? I've always found the idea of myself in Others' eyes to be inevitably wrong. But maybe that's more about what I can and cannot accept about myself than it is about what is a truth about who I am.

I don't know. Through my life I've found that women especially, when they define themselves by the Other, it's almost always by the male Other, and that's problematic because historically men have viewed us as less human than men. Why would I want to be defined that way? That's not shelter from the storm; that's a lie that demeans us both. That's worse than existential pain and loss. That's the worst thing I can think of (relative to this discussion).

So is it possible for the Other's gaze to be helpful? To be less about objectification or broad generalization based on the Other's own understanding of the world rather than my specific self and more about telling me a truth that helps my self-understanding? Can I be made less abstract without being frozen in a shape of someone else's choosing?

I find it doubtful, but I can't help but be intrigued by the thought.

Morning musings, or second verse, same as the first

There are times when I get the crazy idea to write a series of essays about myself. But then my inner voice is all over the stupidity, worthlessness, never going to happenicity of that. But it's still there in my mind, especially when I'm feeling this 40s version of angst, which is less fiery pain and more feet are about to slip on the ice -- all the time. But not off balance, just poised over the swirly abyss of my own inner depths. Like if I could just jump into it, it would be terrifying but ultimately transformative. Yet I continue as I am, living on the surface, back from the edge, making do. Because transformation is so uncertain, yes, will I like what comes out the other side. But more importantly, transformation takes actual effort, and I seem to avoid that as much as possible. Do the basics of what needs to be done in all things, then just skate by.

I don't think I always was like this. I don't know if it's part of growing older or just part of the flatness of affect, the genial apathy, the no hope but no despair either of the life I live now. It's a balance, and I've always thought of balance as good, but is it a balance between the right things? Is this see-saw all the way on one side of a vast plain of possibility?

I've always lacked specific ambition. Now I lack general ambition. Giving up, settling, getting by; I've fucked myself over for sure because the goals I did strive for have led me here. And here is easy and doesn't require a lot of drama or inner turmoil, yet it also doesn't provide joy, intense satisfaction, excitement, giddiness...

Easy going, doesn't really care, go with the flow -- it's ridiculous how none of those celebrate the agency I've always fought so hard to embrace. Yes, I run my life the way I want, I make my choices and take responsibility for them, but I'm slippery, I slide out of the way of things to follow my course; I don't confront obstacles head-on, but ignore them or find alternate routes. Nothing wrong with that, but it does mean spending most time looking to dodge, and little time setting my path, heading toward a goal.

I make lists all the time. It's becoming a pathology probably. But the one list I have the most trouble with is goals. Beyond staying financially healthy, and physically healthy, and paying off debt and enjoying what entertainment I want, what is there to aim for? Part of it is finances, settling in to a relatively simple life as both penance for and restoration from the excesses of my 20s and the schooling of my 30s. If paying off most debt and using real money for everything is your main goal, other things do fall from view. It's another way of fending off the need to think of what kind of life I want to live of course. It limits the options along one axis, which keeps the graph weighted along one side.

I haven't been excited about a course of action I've taken much lately. Yes, this summer I went to Slayage and explored Vancouver/Victoria and it was glorious. I've greatly enjoyed movies I've seen or books I've read. I've had moments of fun. But it's so -- like a splash in a still ocean, it is felt, but recedes quickly, merged into the surface of calm. Even while avoiding typical scenarios like marriage, suburbia, or a 9-5 job, I've still fallen into a rut of complacency and stasis. And it is what I was going for, so it's not like it's surprising that I got here. You do make your own life, one way or another.

Most days I'm happy to be where I am. But then I just get that feeling that there's untapped potential in myself to live life another way, to keep my personality and habits and comfort levels and likes and dislikes and the whole package, but still run a slightly different course. Maybe a course that would incorporate a little more passion for life, a little less sleepwalking.

In a funny way, I feel like that thing that I avoid is art. Not other people's art, I regularly enjoy the creative outputs of many people in many disciplines, but my own. Not that I'm a blocked writer or could be a sculptor or anything that specific. But I don't even do crafts or play with fashion, or write blog posts beyond what I did with my day or, if I'm really working it, recapping what happened in a book or tv show I watched. I do nothing that deeply taps into my creativity. I make lists. I read other people, watch others' stories. Because I'm afraid there's nothing there? Because I've never successfully understood how to individuate my presence into the world? Because my presence is so diffuse and noncommittal?

My inability to make concrete, bar all other options choices and distaste for allowing other people to define exactly who I am is part and parcel of not being a solid presence in the world. If it's concrete, it's defined. Even if only in one moment in time, if I'm fully formed at that point, then I cannot be anything other than that. It's fear, but not from a place of cowardice I don't think. I understand why I am this way, but I still think I need to find a way to be something beyond a cipher for myself.

On the plus side, it could be that I'm closer to being ready to do something about it. A lot of the issues plaguing my younger self feel so much less important now. I'm less self-conscious, less afraid of making mistakes in public at least, more forgiving. That could help. I've almost always known intellectually anyway that no one is looking at me, other people being preoccupied with their own shit, but that doesn't mean I don't look at myself. Maybe it's time to stop trying so hard to see what I am from the outside. Maybe it's time to experience myself. I just wish I had a good idea of how to start.

Slayage5 Day Three

Okay. Want to wrap this up and move on. Just a quick aside. If you're going to take the steps down to Tower Beach, give yourself more than 15 minutes to climb back up them. Seriously.

Started last day of Slayage with Keynote 3, Tamy Burnett. "I've Got These Evil Hand Issues": Amputation, Identity & Agency in Angel. Was a very interesting exploration, especially of the characters of Lindsey and Spike and how they differed in dealing with losing a limb/s, how a difference between them in levels of accepting responsibility and agency allowed Spike to shift from a villain to a champion while Lindsey could not follow suit. A lot of interesting ideas that I'm barely touching upon. And the author is working with others on a book to explore some of them more fully. I look forward to that.

My choice of morning panel turned out to be a nice one in terms of continuing on a theme. The Body and Sex in the Whedonverses. Bronwen Calvert talked about body swapping and links between identity and the body. Viv Burr spoke about the connection between imagery of torture, crucifixion and sex in Buffy and in general with reference to Sartre's ideas of subject/object. Lewis Call gave a great paper on "That Weird, Unbearable Delight": Representations of Alternative Sexualities in Joss Whedon's Astonishing X-Men. He talked about Kitty/Rasputin, Emma/Scott, and McCoy/Brand especially. Talking about small m minority sexualities and how they're given positive expression in these relationships. Really fascinating stuff. It was a fun panel.

Took the UBC film tour at lunch with Ian Klein, Nikki Stafford, Rhonda Wilcox, Dale Koontz, Ensley Guffey, Nancy Holder and Alysa Hornick. Then skipped the WSA meeting to eat lunch at a burger joint on campus. Their sweet potato fries had cajun seasoning. Perfect.

Afternoon. Made the hard decision to not watch Natstev present her Firefly paper because I really wanted to hear Stacey Abbott talk about Tim Minear. Was a good panel. I tweeted about it and, since she used Minear's twitter name in the title, he saw the tweet and responded to it. That was fun. And actually Mo Tancharoen tweeted at a couple of us about how Slayage went, so of course now I'm totally famous. Hobnobbing with the rich and powerful and all. Why am I talking to you people?

Back to reality. Also heard a talk by Tamara Wilson comparing and contrasting OMWF and Milton's Comus. Since I don't know Comus, it was hard to keep up, but a very interesting piece. And presenter made some witty jokes throughout as well. Abbott is one of a few people that after the fact expressed concern about live tweeting of paper presentations, so I won't go into detail here about her talk on Minear. I'm sure it will all come out in published form soon, hopefully in another wonderful book since I so enjoyed her previous ones.

Then we finished up with a quick talk with all the attending Whedon bookers. They talked about the books they have out and some that will be coming up that I can't wait to read. There will be a Joss Whedon Reader, a book on Fan Phenomena & Buffy, a book on TV Horrors, Buffy the Making of a Slayer retrospective, the Burnett book currently called something like Blood, Body & Soul I mentioned earlier and possibly a new edition of Conversations with new Joss interviews. Much to look forward to.

And that's it. I was at a loss of what to do now that everything was over, so I just lingered. That worked out well because everyone left trouped over to a bus and went to an Indian restaurant in town for dinner. I sat with Elizabeth Rambo (who is as cool in person as she is on twitter) and Tamy Burnett and Ami Comeford, editors of the Literary Angel. That was great. I really got to meet a lot of scholars whose work I admired, who turned out to also be very nice, cool people.

And that was that.

Slayage5 Day Two

Yeah, so not writing it up right away due to extreme tiredness might make this post short due to shoddy memoriness. But I'll give it a go.

Started out the morning with Keynote #2, Jonathan Gray on Joss Whedon as Undead Author. Was interesting talk about studying an author who is still producing work and participating in the discussion of his work to the public, helping shape how it's seen in paratextual forums. And much more. But very complex discussion of a field about which I'm only slightly knowledgeable. Along with discussions of the changing textual identity, the author in the text and the audience appropriation of imagery across texts, I mainly got from it some of the challenges faced by academics and critics trying to pin down a moving target like this.

The morning panel I chose was the Characters. Ana Carolina Gutierrez did a paper on signs of clinical depression in Buffy season 6, bravely relating it to her own struggles in that area, pointing out how the show gave the audience some hope that there can be an end to the depths of depression and that anyone, no matter how strong, can be susceptible to mental health issues. She said some of the things I've tried to articulate about why season 6 is so important to me.

Next up was Jessica Ratcliffe on Placing Giles in BtVS, talking about how Giles' character is defined by where he spends the most of his time and by his costuming, emphasizing the visual aspect of character definition. She argued that he became less Other/foreign and more normalized/Americanized over the series even when he moved back to England.


And we ended with Xander as Seer of the Self, Provider of Clarity, and Purveyor of Acceptance: Human Agency in BtVS. This paper focused on the importance of Xander as Everyman with the power of his humanity even while in the midst of so much supernatural, world-saving power. 


Afternoon panels. Again, I had to miss Dollhouse stuff because it was up against Dr. Horrible and one Cabin paper that I really wanted to hear. Hopefully much more will be published on Dollhouse in the near future. Also, even though I never sought to go to the many fandom panels, from what I heard, they were all pretty great, so maybe I should have given more thought to them. In this case I missed Jen Stuller on Nerd Burlesque.

Kris Woofter spoke of Cabin in the Woods. He didn't think the film was a good commentary on the horror genre, that it spoke more to reality tv, and that it didn't have a lot of respect for its audience. He argued that horror audiences are generally pretty sophisticated with regard to the genre, and that that wasn't represented in the film. I think he was arguing that CiTW (and Dollhouse also) show a contempt for the idea of the watcher of a story, speaking to the parables these works contain of story/creator/fan dynamics. More that I didn't fully get, but should be interesting to read sometime.

Leigh A. Clemons did a paper on the Faustian Bargain in Dr. Horrible, just going through and highlighting some of the parallels with both Marlowe and Goethe's Faust and Dr. Horrible. It was an interesting paper and she has a theater background, which might speak to why her presentation was very witty and fun. Also brought up the question of whether Billy really wanted to rule the world or just wanted the girl, thinking ruling the world was the avenue to get the girl. We'll have to see where the character goes from here.

Jim Wilson spoke on parallels between Dr. Horrible and his namesake, Melville's Billy Budd. I never read that book, so I missed a lot of it, but I found it interesting how he highlighted Billy's naivete in regard to evil. He committed the sin of isolation and had the naivete that came from that. Also relevant in regard to internet persona of evil genius versus reality of the ELE.

Thank goodness the last presentations of the day were all together, no decisions to be made. First we heard from Alyson R. Buckman on viewer responses to Whedon works. An example of what I mentioned earlier, that the analysis of fandom at this conference was really well done. Followed well from Gray in the morning as well. Then Helene Frohard-Dourlent analyzed "Nobody's Asian in the Movies" from Commentary the Musical. It was a mixed bag, but ultimately seemed to absolve whites from feeling guilty about the racism it outlined by making it sound like that's just the way it is. But she went over it line by line and really had some good thoughts about its relation to real-world issues while not being harsh and accusatory. Hard line to walk.

Final speaker was Ananya Mukherjea on Mothering, Trust, and Hope in the Whedonverses. She talked on different displays of "mothering" and "fathering" in relation to Fray, Simon, Adelle and Boyd. It was really interesting. Talked about the privileging of the mothering aspect of family, interdependence driven by trust, as a way to a better future. Another one I want to read for the full impact.

I was going to try and drive somewhere for dinner, since we had a bit of time, but once I got halfway to the car without managing to even remember my keys, I decided I shouldn't be driving around someplace I've never been in that state. So I grabbed a couple slices of pizza and ate them in my room while watching an episode of Archer. Much safer and a nice breather.

At 7 was the screening of Dr. Horrible. It became a sing-a-long. Then we talked a bit about it, then watched it again with Commentary the Musical. Had fun sitting with Natstev and singing, but totally wiped out by the end. Can't remember much of the discussion. And phone was losing the battle with wifi so didn't tweet it. I think Samira did though. Long day. Good day. 

Slayage5 Day One

The day started with an opening address by an elder of the Musqueam nation, welcoming us to their land, giving us a little info on the first people here. Then the admin of the law school welcomed us. He's a Buffy fan too, so that was cool.


Then  we got a terrific talk on puppets in Angel. Break Out the Champagne, Pinocchio: Angel and the Puppet Paradox. I really never noticed how very many references there are to puppets in Angel (and Buffy) aside from Smile Time and the Puppet Show. So many references to pulling someone's strings and being a real boy, etc. Cynthea Masson gave us a lot of information on puppet theory and how it relates to questions of the undead, inner demons, and souls, puppets and puppeteers and free will and much more. It was really great. I'm now seeing Smile Time in a whole new light, and it seems an extremely important thematic episode instead of/as well as just a fun romp.


To my mind, part of what she was saying is that since Angel as a puppet was able to take control of his own strings, that led to him no longer being Wolfram & Hart's puppet or the PTB, which led to the end of the season's attack on Black Thorn and signing away of the Shanshu. And there was much more to it that I'm not recalling right now. Will be looking for that paper.


The first session I went to after that was the panel on Law and Language. Erma Petrova analyzed Buffy's use of state of emergency justification of the suspending of the usual democratic processes in season 7 and how that was not validated as a good solution to the war with the First. (I'm Declaring an Emergency: Leadership and the State of Exception in BtVS.) Sharon Sutherland and Sarah Swan spoke on issues of law in the Whedonverse (Vampires, Reavers, and Lawyers: Joss Whedon's Lens on Law.) They spoke of doing more work on the presentation of legal questions and methodologies in non-law shows regarding morality vs. justice, the inadequacy of legal institutions, and the development of new systems of law. And they played clips from Buffy, Angel, Firefly and Dollhouse.


Rhonda Wilcox, pretty much the reason I chose this panel, spoke on A Soliloquy by Any Other Name: Speech-Making in the Whedonverses. She highlighted a few of the memorable speeches given by characters in the four shows and also spoke of the history of the soliloquy/monologue, as well as its definition. That's another one where I'll need to read the paper to fully process everything she was saying, but it was really enjoyable. She asked people to speak to her about instances in other TV of affective speech-making, how common or rare it is, and of course she defined that, but I'll have to wait for the paper to remember the details.


Then was lunch. Went downstairs of the student union and got a sushi roll. Agonized with Natalie over what session to see next.


I finally chose Music in the Whedonverses over the Dollhouse panel. Sadness. But the musical info was great. Neil Lerner spoke on Spike's Musical Motif in Season Seven. He identified its starting point in Beneath You when he handed Buffy the flashlight and she flashed back to the attempted rape and he said he understood why she was skittish around him. He made a great point about Spike calling it a torch. Hold the torch, he told Buffy, when he had sung about holding a torch for her that was scorching him. Later in the episode as he talked about the spark he now had inside, the music gained fuller expression. Then of course, he died in fire from the amulet interacting with his soul, with the music again. Great word motif to go with the music. His question was whether it was a love theme since it only appeared when he was with Buffy. There was no consensus on that, but some good discussion.


Steven Halfyard then spoke about the theme song to Dollhouse and the significance of there being no lyrics. It was really interesting, and again I want the paper so I can understand the intricacies of the argument. Basically the lyrics are Caroline's and become Echo's but then also still signify Caroline. The loss of words at the end representing the loss of memory leading to childishness. So the fact the lyrics are excised from the theme song due to their being to specific about what the show is perhaps, means that Caroline is absent from the text too. Generally. Like I said, need to see the paper to understand it fuller, but looking forward to it.


The next panel I chose was The Grotesque Across the Whedonverse. Cynthia Burkhead and her students were presenting on fairy tales in Buffy, carnival masks in Firefly, and cute grotesque in Angel & Dollhouse. There was interesting stuff here, but my lack of sleep caught up with me at this point and I had trouble paying attention. Cute grotesque definition and discussion related to manga and kawaii, twee and moe, and other things Japanese, which was tied to Angel puppet and certain Echo Active costumes. Hush, Killed By Death and Gingerbread were analyzed for signs of the grotesque in their fairy tales, and the masks/personas that Mal puts on throughout Firefly were also discussed. The students pretty much just read their papers, which was fine but with my lack of sleep problem, really hard to stay on focus. I did hear about a show scheduled for 2013 called Happy Time Murders that would be a puppet noir kind of deal. A world of puppets and humans interacting. Will have to check that out.


Last panel of the day was brilliant. I got caffeinated just in time to hear Matthew Pateman speak on the importance of TV directors to the art of TV and the discipline of television studies and K. Dale Koontz on the similarities between Cowboy Bebop and Firefly, and the history of the space western and its ghettoization by some schools of science fiction. Very interesting, both of them. Almost asked a question or tried to participate in the discussion, but felt pretty sure I'd be nervous enough to sound like a trembling ninny, so didn't. Plus, plenty of discussion was had by all anyway. I was very sad Jes Battis was ill and couldn't be there. I really enjoy his work and was looking forward to hearing him talk about River.


I was also sad to miss the Comics panel. I really wanted to hear Elizabeth Rambo talk about Sugarshock!, but I guess I'll have to wait for the paper to appear somewhere. A day of tough decisions.


So I really need to watch Cowboy Bebop. Aside from seeing the theme here and hearing about the story, it also came up several times in Ready Player One as I was listening to the audiobook on the way here. Universe is definitely telling me to see it.


The evening ended with a banquet, presentation of Mr. Pointy awards, and a speech by Nancy Holder. Dinner was good, I met some more new people at my table, and the speech was interesting about the world of tie-in novel writers and what Joss meant to her in her career. But coffee had worn off and it was stuffy and hot in there, so started losing the gist again and just wanted the evening to be done. I left before the sing-along. So good day.

Status update

Well, I'm halfway through revisiting season 8, but it's taken a damned long time. The point of this was to practice writing while taking a close look at Buffy season 8 to try to figure out what happened and why, since by the end I mostly felt confused and a little depressed. I'm still going for it, but since it's taking me so long to complete, I'll probably have to take time to reread what I've written to have it fresh in my mind when I get to the end. Read my own writing? Ugh. But that's for later I think.

I'm going to try to do this more often and actually get through the next 4 trades/arcs more quickly now, but we'll see how it goes. How's that for goal setting?

Buffy Season 8 - Issue #20 POTENTIAL SPOILERS FOR BUFFY 1-8 ENTIRE, S9 #1, & ANGEL THRU AFTER THE FALL

Time of Your Life Part 5.

We begin with a montage of Buffy battling various crechy faces, saying over and over, "Can't say I didn't warn you." She's musing on how hard it is to have to save the world over and over, and it's a bit of a thematic callback to "Going Through the Motions" I think. Even the patter is rote at this point, even if getting a good night's sleep is not. "Why is it always this hard?" I hear you, sister.

Headquarters. Don't think it's the castle anymore but not sure. Buffy's come in and collapsed on a bed to get some sleep, but it's Xander's bed and he doesn't want demon goo all over it. As he complains, Buffy falls asleep.

And she visits Buffy the Animated Series, the show that never was, but was planned for years to happen. (I believe; I'm not going to research it. No one's reading this anyway and whatever.)

Buffy's dream is herself in the old days of Sunnydale High. We get enough clues throughout to determine it's probably end of season 1, after Puppet Show but before Prophecy Girl. Joyce and a young Dawn are there. It's always fun to see Dawn in the flashbacks when she wasn't there in the original time line. Buffy quickly learns that Joyce doesn't know she's the Slayer and that there's a party tonight. Buffy's wearing a tee that says Relax. Subconscious much?

Buffy is herself and knows she's in a dream; she hasn't forgotten all that's happened. She gets to school and sees Willow and is happy, being still a bit traumatized at having to kill her future self. Thanks a lot, Future Willow.

Cordy! is there and being a bitch to Willow. Buffy says someday she'll be dead and Willow will be a sorceress supreme. Harsh, B. RIP Cordelia.

Xander's on the skateboard he never got to ride in the show. Principal Snyder confiscates it in his typical nasty fashion. Buffy tells Xander that maybe someday he'll get eaten by a giant snake and you'll be in charge of a bunch of women, only to be reminded that Willow is not yet gay (I know, terminology, just going with how Willow herself tends to put it) and has the hots for Xander. Yeah, this is when you definitely get the time period.

Buffy's starting to enjoy the dream, happy to be part of the little Scooby gang again. It's after school, and they meet up with Giles in a graveyard, talking obsessively about the party that night. Giles is looking particularly dire through this whole sequence, like he's taking the blame for ruining the fun. He kind of served that function before but this seems extra layer-y. Buffy's still not too happy with him I think.

Anyway, the fate of the world is up for grabs tonight. Again. This could "shift the balance of good and evil beyond all hope and reckoning." This is one part that makes me think some Slayer prophecy/Spidey sense stuff is leaking into this fairly fluffy dream. That's too relevant to what's going on in the now.

As her young, fit, unbeaten down, high school self, but still having all her memories of so many battles to draw on, Buffy's confident she can deal with whatever is happening here. She wipes out the three vampires in the nest Giles is worried about, the worshippers of Morgala, but he's still worried because he notices Morgala's image seems to be a dragon. Chekov's dragon.

But Buffy goes off about wanting to have fun. I think she appreciates now that she did get a chance to have some fun and normalcy in high school, even though at the time slaying always seemed to get in the way, and now she wants to enjoy this simpler time that's so irrevocably gone for good. OOH, Sunnydale High reunion! needs to be a story someday.

They split up to get ready for the party (well, Giles is probably going back to the batlibrary to mutter over his books and worry). Buffy looks at her cross and thinks of Angel of this time. She and Joyce have a season 1 style conversation, and Joyce says even with Buffy's whole life ahead of her, she can always come home again. Bittersweet, knowing Buffy can't return either to Sunnydale the town or Joyce's home. But also again, some Slayer instinct at work re returning to Sunnydale in the present?

Buffy meets Angel on the way to the party. He tells her he heard about the vampire thing and it's good she took out Morgala's five followers so they couldn't raise Morgala. Pretty much highlights that he just wants to see her because why does she need to here about what could have been? Classic early Angel.

She snipes at him a bit, then gets close and asks if he knew of the future of someone, would he tell that person what he knew. Thinking of Angelus and, well, all of Angel's unfun future stuff no doubt. And maybe of Willow too, come to think of it. That makes more sense really. That must be wearing on her mind, whether to tell Will what happened in the future. He actually answers that weird ass question, saying no, because if they know, it could change their future into something unpredictable.

Buffy leaves, then realizes that three and five are different, there's still two Morgala vamps out there. So instead of letting the party music pull her in that direction, she heads back to the vamp nest and finds the other two acolytes finishing their ritual. She dusts them, but they've brought forth the Dragon!

She grabs it as it flies up into the air and fights with it as they soar over the party and Buffy bitches at the dragon for ruining her fun dream. She really is getting a lot of air time in the comic books. (Crack myself up.) She gets rid of it easily, but then falls to the ground and...

...wakes up, just where we left of with Xander. She's been asleep all of four seconds. They're joined by Dawntaur and Willow, who has word from Andrew of trouble in Madrid. Buffy is excited to babble to them about her high school dream.

She says she kept thinking how nice it was when it wasn't so complicated. But it really wasn't that different. And it doesn't matter. Dream over. By the end of that chain of thought, she all depressed about life again. I can't even tell you how many times I've had that same segue happen, and it's always in that order of emotions too.

"We've got a world to save," says BuffyAtlas. And her last thoughts are on Angel's words. "You can't change a person's past. And just by telling them, you'll change their future into who knows what." I think that means she's decided not to tell Willow what she becomes. But I can't help but think it might be important in a more general way to the season's themes, since it was repeated twice, but I can't figure out how it applies quite yet.

But this volume of stories began with a trip to Will's far future and ended with a visit to Buffy's past, so that's something to ponder as we go forward.

Buffy Season 8 - Issue #19 POTENTIAL SPOILERS FOR BUFFY 1-8 ENTIRE, S9 #1, & ANGEL THRU AFTER THE FALL

Time of Your Life Part 4.

Future Willow, Madwoman, is melancholy about living for so long. Which won't be a problem much longer. She's talking with Melaka and Erin Fray as Buffy, chained to a chair, starts to come around. Fray is still not willing to kill another slayer, despite whatever horrible thing Willow showed her. Erin's for just sending her home, but Fray says if they do that, she'll try and change the future and end their world.

Buffy wakes up and is a bit upset that Willow went dark again. But before they can get into it, Harth and co. show up. He brings up the fact that Willow told him the opposite of what she told Melaka, that Buffy would cause this world to be after all this. Willow admits to the deception, saying she's all evil and stuff. Then she says it's not important who dies, just who kills them. Hunh? Oh, I get it. Sort of. Future Willow is just all kinds of messed up. So sad.

Gates(?) is helping Buffy with her chains while Melaka faces off with Will. Which was the lie? Harth doesn't care; he just wants to kill them all. And then Gunther! arrives with reinforcements and cool submarine-looking cars, scoffing that Harth though three vamps could take him out.

In the melee, Buffy gets free and disables Erin and Melaka. She says she doesn't care about their world, she just has to save hers. For reals, I mean, how many worlds can she have on her shoulders? Will says she's not done yet as she races off.

And we're in Scotland. The various wood spirits and fairy creatures of the area have been recruited to take out Amy's demons. Xander and Dawn also got a hold of some swords. Then suddenly the demons go from sickly green and invincible to normal looking lizardy types who get wounded. Hurray, Wiccan Squad! Rowena has led them and the slayers back to the fight. Those guys are toast.

Buffy runs away, headed for the rift building. Fray beat her there. They fight and argue, as slayers are wont to do. Instead of the "big picture," Buffy calls her attitude the "fate of the world, short view." The difference between those two things is probably important, but I'm not sure how. Maybe just that Buffy can see both, but knows when to choose between them? Is this her getting something back she's lost or more of the same? And mistake or rationality? Melaka says that the fate of the world view made sense to her when there was only one world. Fringe-world problems.

So they fight more. Fray's on her own turf, so stronger that way, but Buffy has the memories of all the slayers to guide her. It's a good fight.

Warren, Amy and Twilight are watching their army get decimated. Warren blames Amy for the failure. As the two snipe at each other (they're the worst), Twilight turns to another man in the shadows. He stands all soldiery and has the Twilight scar on his chest. We find out he's who Buffy met in New York. And it's Riley. (I think. The reveals don't work as well in the comics because the representations of the actors are different enough that it's hard to immediately place them and go AHA! By the time you work it out, it's more oh. For me anyway.)

So Riley is pretending to be Buffy's pal while reporting to Twilight? I had forgotten this. I believe he's a double agent though. But I'm still trying to figure out the logic of Twilight in general, so I honestly don't remember how this plays out.

Anyway, Willow of the present blindfolds herself to keep her promise. The rift opens. On the other side, Buffy totally demolishes Fray's scythe. WTF? Is that a sign that she will destroy Fray's world if she goes home? Probably just Slayer strength thing.

Future Willow steps in front of the rift, in Buffy's way. Buffy has it figured out that Willow wanted all of this to happen and wants to know why. I think she probably already knows at this point. It's a long story, Willow begins, and -- THUNK! scythe through the chest. Future Will falls down dead as present Will reaches through the rift and grabs Buffy. Fray lunges for her but is too late.

Buffy is through and crying and hugging Willow, telling her she loves her. Brutal.

Future Willow is dead, just as she wanted. And what was important to her was who killed her. It had to be Buffy, even if it meant messing up the time lines and all. And I can't figure out if that's about love or hate, or if Willow even knew. It feels hateful, like revenge, which is just so unfair. But maybe it's just because they went through so much together, and she knew Buffy would do it if she had to. Or maybe it's a last warning to Buffy about what's to come, the absence of effect of her plans to change the world.

Melaka and Erin stare at Willow's body, Melaka feeling defeated, until they realize that they're still here. The end.

Buffy Season 8 - Issue #18 POTENTIAL SPOILERS FOR BUFFY 1-8 ENTIRE, S9 #1, & ANGEL THRU AFTER THE FALL

Time of Your Life Part 3.

We start with books. Buffy's reading the histories and trying to figure out what happened. She refers to one entry as being too ridiculous to comprehend. Wonder what that refers to. 

What's not mentioned at all is Buffy's creation of the slayer army, and what's not present in the future is the better world she hoped to create with it. So is it a hubris thing? Did she aim too high with the spell? You know, it's not like she had many choices at the time. And the reason things went off the rails in the first place was Willow and the gang bringing her back from the dead. Not her fault, any of it. Feel so bad for her. 

Anyhow, Fray and Gates(?) come in with news from Gunther about some vamp action. Buffy's in the mood for some carnage about now.

Xander and Dawn make it to the forest, but are in the opposite direction of the fleeing slayers. They figure out it's a Warren and Amy thing, but aren't sure what to do next. That's when some tree spirit calling himself Lorelahn makes an angry appearance. Xander and Dawn are not impressed with his rhetoric given what they just ran away from, and after insults are exchanged, they settle in to talk.

Gunther is being visited by Harth and some minions. Harth isn't happy about Gunther giving Fray info. Gunther is as unimpressed by Harth and his threats as Xander and Dawn are of the wood fairies. Gunther should be a little more concerned though, since there's three vamps in his water sneaking up behind him as Harth leaves.

Oh, no, Buffy's trying to drive. Why did she think a flying car! would be a good idea? Remember B, unmixy things? There's also a Bandy Candy callback that just sounds weird in this context.

They find some vamps -- in mummy gear to hide from the smog-infested sunlight -- attacking some complex. Fray wants to stop them. Buffy wants to hang back and follow them home after. Looking at the big picture as she's learned to do over and over in the last few years. Fray's not for that though. So is it a critique of General Buffy becoming upper echelon in her thinking and not remembering what it is to be a foot soldier who exists in the field of battle? I mean, she goes in the field all the time, but she has become more end justifies means, organized soldier instead of hero. Is she the new Watcher's Council? The new Initiative? And is it inevitable that that happens when she tries to establish her own status quo? Again, as Buffy is an adult now, the concerns seem very in tune with Angel themes.

Fray attacks, the vamps flee, and Buffy follows them, giving future Willow time to talk to Fray. Yeah, that'll end well.

Back to the present Willow getting mystically sexy with Saga Vasuki. She says someone she trusted told her what to say to Willow. Willow is polite but firm, she wants Buffy back. Willow is always going after Buffy. Future Willow even goes after Buffy for her own reasons while knowing that her past self will come after Buffy too and planning for it. Anyway, Saga Vasuki says the rift will reopen, but she insists that Willow promise her not to look at the future when she reaches for Buffy. And then Willow's back with Kennedy, orgasm--I mean, vision over.

Future Willow talks with Fray, saying she should kill Buffy because they want different things. When Fray mentions they both want vampires to be gone, Willow says, "The most important men in both your lives are 'lurks.' You think it's really that simple?"

But what I don't get, if it's about balance and not the eradication or the victory of one side over the other in good vs. evil terms, how does deleting all magic do the job? Isn't that just another extreme winning out?

Willow suggests to Fray that she can't access much magic. Is she wiped out with all the temporal rifts and such? But she wants to show Fray some kind of vision. No doubt calling on the things she learned from Saga Vasuki that she had put to use setting this thing in motion with past Will, so nice.

Buffy managed to crash her car close to where the vamps went, but then suddenly she's back at Fray's place being accosted by Erin. I guess she came back for reinforcements. They bond over troublesome younger sisters, but then bam! Buffy is shocked unconscious by Fray. It was a trap. Part of Fray's plan to save her world.

Back to the present Willow getting mystically sexy wit