I had been watching clips of Maher's show on YouTube right around the election in 2008 and after (I was also binging on Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart; then I got bored with all of them and stopped.) Religulous was probably the main reason I stopped watching Maher, however, for the very reasons you mention. I mean, the "none of us can know there is a God - therefore I am right to not believe in one and you are crazy if you do, even if I can't prove God doesn't exist...."
Oh, break me a fucking give.
You might even argue that's the entire point of the Initiative storyline - oversimplified, the rational, logical, blinkered "male" narrative that forces things into boxes ("A lot of filing, giving things names"), vs the intuitive, instinctive, storytelling "female" narrative that creates meaning.
That's no stretch whatsoever - rebcake reminded me that one of the main themes of s4 is "magic vs technology" and how it's not about one being preferable to the other, but about how power is used and abused (which repeats itself in S6, but the magic/technology dynamic is inverted). Have you read the meta-fic she wrote in which Buffy circa S4 gets sick of being magic's bitch that year? http://rebcake.livejournal.com/3823.html?view=657647#t657647
But we're not really talking about S4, are we?
And here's where I confess that I know nothing about "existentialism" beyond being a word that is tossed around by everyone and understood by very few (so far as I can tell); and admittedly I have a lot to catch up on in terms of studying mythology and psychology.
The trick is to not let the myth have power over you, but to have power over it.
Isn't that part of the thing that makes Willow's Will be Done spell powerful - the things that she believes (and, it could be argued, already have a grain of truth in them) come true? Whereas technology requires no such belief, only knowledge - how to pull the trigger, so to speak? As with the rocket launcher in S2, Warren's gun in SR, etc?
All contrasted against the Rileys and the Quentins of the world, who already Know how the world works and thinks it's really just that simple
"Just that simple" reminds me of Riley's comments to Buffy in Doomed, when she says she doesn't want to start a relationship with him, that she can't do it, and he dismisses her as "stupid". He sees it as that simple "I like you, you like me" and isn't willing to listen or acknowledge her objections or feelings, because in his mind she is being irrational ("stupid"). He has no idea what he is in for.
But - extending your comments (I'm learning existentialism from you and possibly local_max in bits and snippets. Enough to be dangerous, perhaps?) Buffy's ultimate power on the show comes from, as you've said brilliantly, rewriting the narrative, "solving" the problem that the title presents "THE vampire slayer". But she doesn't undo the original narrative in the sense that she doesn't contradict the "good fights evil" paradigm, rather she uses magic to expand it, to bring more soldiers into the fold - and whether they fight for good or evil is their own choice to make. She doesn't turn her back on the fight or say "Nah, I'm not going to believe in this stuff anymore" (as she attempts to in Anne). Is it impossible for her to turn her back because she now believes in the myth (and her job in Anne seems to be to get Lily to believe in herself? Does Buffy belief in The Slayer mythos more than she believes in herself, ironically? And am I making a lick of sense here?)
So she has solved the problem for herself of being "the One" in Chosen; but has she solved or created more problems on a wider scale for others? Is she progressive/transgressive, or is she a fascist?
And as loathe as I am to deal with them *cringe* - how do the comics, esp S8 and the undoing of the Slayer spell (with the guilt and blame raining down on Buffy's head) extend Joss' existentialist philosophy? (Assuming it does any such thing or even attempts to.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-12-19 12:54 am (UTC)Oh, break me a fucking give.
You might even argue that's the entire point of the Initiative storyline - oversimplified, the rational, logical, blinkered "male" narrative that forces things into boxes ("A lot of filing, giving things names"), vs the intuitive, instinctive, storytelling "female" narrative that creates meaning.
That's no stretch whatsoever - rebcake reminded me that one of the main themes of s4 is "magic vs technology" and how it's not about one being preferable to the other, but about how power is used and abused (which repeats itself in S6, but the magic/technology dynamic is inverted). Have you read the meta-fic she wrote in which Buffy circa S4 gets sick of being magic's bitch that year?
http://rebcake.livejournal.com/3823.html?view=657647#t657647
But we're not really talking about S4, are we?
And here's where I confess that I know nothing about "existentialism" beyond being a word that is tossed around by everyone and understood by very few (so far as I can tell); and admittedly I have a lot to catch up on in terms of studying mythology and psychology.
The trick is to not let the myth have power over you, but to have power over it.
Isn't that part of the thing that makes Willow's Will be Done spell powerful - the things that she believes (and, it could be argued, already have a grain of truth in them) come true? Whereas technology requires no such belief, only knowledge - how to pull the trigger, so to speak? As with the rocket launcher in S2, Warren's gun in SR, etc?
All contrasted against the Rileys and the Quentins of the world, who already Know how the world works and thinks it's really just that simple
"Just that simple" reminds me of Riley's comments to Buffy in Doomed, when she says she doesn't want to start a relationship with him, that she can't do it, and he dismisses her as "stupid". He sees it as that simple "I like you, you like me" and isn't willing to listen or acknowledge her objections or feelings, because in his mind she is being irrational ("stupid"). He has no idea what he is in for.
But - extending your comments (I'm learning existentialism from you and possibly local_max in bits and snippets. Enough to be dangerous, perhaps?) Buffy's ultimate power on the show comes from, as you've said brilliantly, rewriting the narrative, "solving" the problem that the title presents "THE vampire slayer". But she doesn't undo the original narrative in the sense that she doesn't contradict the "good fights evil" paradigm, rather she uses magic to expand it, to bring more soldiers into the fold - and whether they fight for good or evil is their own choice to make. She doesn't turn her back on the fight or say "Nah, I'm not going to believe in this stuff anymore" (as she attempts to in Anne). Is it impossible for her to turn her back because she now believes in the myth (and her job in Anne seems to be to get Lily to believe in herself? Does Buffy belief in The Slayer mythos more than she believes in herself, ironically? And am I making a lick of sense here?)
So she has solved the problem for herself of being "the One" in Chosen; but has she solved or created more problems on a wider scale for others? Is she progressive/transgressive, or is she a fascist?
And as loathe as I am to deal with them *cringe* - how do the comics, esp S8 and the undoing of the Slayer spell (with the guilt and blame raining down on Buffy's head) extend Joss' existentialist philosophy? (Assuming it does any such thing or even attempts to.)