Quick mini-metas (metae? Metii?)
Jun. 9th, 2013 08:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beer_good_foamyPosted a couple of thoughts over at the
FREE-FOR-ALL META COMMENT-A-THON!
(click on the picture)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
upupa_epops asked:
Buffyverse, translations. Have you ever seen Buffyverse in any other language? Tried to translate anything? Wrote fic in another language? I'm very curious about other people's experience with Buffyverse language in translation.
Just a brief idea I think I've posted someplace else before: I've watched Buffy in three languages - English, German (dubbed) and Swedish (subtitled). Some really odd voice actor choices and translations aside (the Swedish subtitler once has Spike describe Andrew as a "pimp" rather than a "ponce", which... would be a completely different show), what's stayed with me is the titles.
See, the original title Buffy, The Vampire Slayer really encapsulates a lot about the story (I wrote more on that here). It's the story of Buffy, who is a vampire slayer. You have a silly name, you have monsters, and you have the promise that the girl with a silly name will kick monster ass.
The Swedish title comes out Buffy och vampyrerna - Buffy And The Vampires - which not only makes it sound even more like a kids' show, but also misses a couple of key points: the fact that Buffy slays vampires (notably, one TV critic wrote a very critical essay about the show despite clearly never having seen a second of it, since she was convinced that Buffy was a vampire herself), and the fact that Buffy is the focus of the show. By giving Buffy and "the vampires" equal weight, it becomes just a show about vampires. (Which, in fairness, is how some people see the show; I know I always cheered for Jerry over Tom.)
The German title, on the other hand, is more interesting: Buffy, im Bann der Dämonen - Buffy, Under The Demons' Spell. While it screws up in another way, indicating that Buffy is the victim (which in a way she is, with the whole structure of the show piled up against her from the get-go, though hardly a passive one) and of course leaving out the word "vampire" altogether, it highlights something about the show that I like: that the various demons are used as metaphors to highlight the very real issues she has to face. There is a spell that she has to break out of, bit by bit - not just a cheap monster show.
Of course, the Germans screw up the title of Angel instead - Angel: Jäger der Finsternis. How the hell does one hunt darkness, pray tell?
ETA on second thought: Just that I've previously said that the English title implies a question - the very idea that someone named "Buffy" slays vampires, and that there's just one of her. The German title does the same, even more so even; it's not the same question, but both questions adress the core idea of the show. The Swedish one? Not so much.
wheatear asked:
Sci-fi fandoms: do sci-fi shows tend to present an atheistic or theistic universe? Discuss the differences.
This is a very interesting question. I guess there are (at least) two ways of looking at it:
1) Whether or not there are gods in the story. Which gets muddled a lot since sci-fi is full of examples of Shermer's Third Law - "Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from a god." Where do you draw the line there, how do you define "god" when there are multiple and varying levels of "exaltedness", for lack of a better word? Are the beings in 2001 gods? Are the aesir in Thor just aliens? When the Magratheans in Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy create heaven and earth, are they gods or just overpaid architects? The Doctor in Doctor Who is often referred to and even worshipped as a god, and as an effectively immortal member of a race far beyond human capabilities he might as well be. Yet The Doctor also goes out of his way to never accept a mystical explanation (even if he sometimes finds himself making up technobabble just so he doesn't have to call it magic). Everything is science to him, things may be unknown, but not unknowable. There's always a causality. Which brings us to
2) Whether or not the story itself is atheistic or theistic. Which is also a bit muddy, but to take two examples, Firefly and Battlestar Galactica.
Joss Whedon is an outspoken atheist, but moreover he's also an existentialist - and Sartre argued that god's existence is basically irrelevant. Firefly is his big existentialist manifesto, with all the characters basically locked in a room floating around "in the black" and forced to define themselves. Firefly tackles religion, but not God; man's belief is real, and several of the main characters (Book, Inara, Jayne) are believers, whereas others aren't; belief is considered powerful, but it only affects the acts of the person believing or not believing - Book can't call down a bolt of lightning or heal the lame. It's also pointedly one of the few sci-fi shows to never even hint at the existence of any other life form anywhere in the universe. No aliens, no gods, no robots, no mirror universes... just us. Firefly isn't straight-up atheistic since it never actually attempts to disprove god (what would be the point? A truly atheistic work wouldn't bring up gods at all), but the closest it comes to theism is to admit that belief itself exists. Is theismism a word?
Gods explicitly exist in Buffy alongside vampires, demons and werewolves, but they're knowable. Buffy can't claim to be an atheist since she's actually punched at least one god square in the face, but when asked if she has information on God's existence, she just shrugs. The few characters that are shown to actively believe in God The Father (Riley, and oddly enough Spike) never make a huge deal of it and it doesn't change who they are. The characters have to deal with the world they can see - the world they can't see and which doesn't affect them is irrelevant. Whereas the Powers That Be in Angel skirt much closer to being gods, simply by virtue of moving in mysterious ways and almost never interfering - to the point where you could just about argue that they're not powers at all, and have more in common with Greek stage machinery than any actual pantheon.
In BSG, on the other hand, God's clearly an active player in the story. We're explicitly told that things happen simply because it's part of God's plan. We see his agents work on screen even if we never see the man himself. Yet we never know why he does what he does or what it's supposed to achieve, why it's necessary, who he is. The world works according to a script. The cast itself is full of people of various faiths - polytheistic humans, monotheistic cylons, and the odd atheist - but they all have a relationship to religion, and their actions are motivated by their belief, but ultimately they're not responsible for the outcome - God is. Whereas characters in Whedon's shows can simply choose to ignore the existence or non-existence of god, BSG characters are forced to have an opinion (even the atheist Bill Adama is happy to play along to achieve his goals).
To add to whateilowyn said above, the Star Wars 'verse has a very interesting concept that goes along with the Force: the idea that there's a balance to be had, that there's one ideal way for the world to work where everything and everyone is in their right place (physically and metaphysically), and that any aberration from it causes problems. While that idea is not theistic in and of itself, it still takes for granted that there's a certain predetermined way in which the world should work, which implies a man with a plan (and possibly a canal). Whereas works like Firefly don't assume that: the world simply is, and people's actions determine what they make of it.
So to cut short my rambling, I'd say there are very few sci-fi works that are explicitly atheistic and few that are explicitly theistic (at least that stick closely to any existing religion). However, most of them are written by people wanting to comment on some aspect of society, so...
And funnily enough, just as I posted this, this article popped up in my RSS feed:
The Guardian: Does God have a place in science fiction?
ETA on second thought: The above may have come across a bit strident, I didn't intend to equate "atheist" with "rational" and "theist" with "irrational", or imply that "theistic" works inherently include gods moving in mysterious ways and that that's the one difference. But of course the original question is a bit more complex than it looks at first; aside from works explicitly written to convince others (such as Left Behind or His Dark Materials) most writers don't let only their religious belief or lack thereof dictate how the story works, there are more factors at work and defining a story only by that isn't quite fair. I do think it would be interesting, the death of the author notwithstanding, to take a closer look at how different sci-fi/fantasy/horror stories treat the concept of faith and gods depending on the writer's personal opinion. Of the writers mentioned above, at least two (Adams and Whedon) are outspoken atheists, yet they write stories where gods figure - and are occasionally even portrayed as quite sympathetic, if not perfect.
Also, there's something here about the difference between fantasy and sci-fi - as muddled as the line gets, I think there's something to the old Rod Serling quote: “Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible.” That would make a lot of sci-fi essentially fantasy with rocketships - Doctor Who, for instance. Getting back to the original question, and assuming that one of the key characteristics of a god is the ability to perform what you might call miracles, that would mean that sci-fi is inherently non-theist (as opposed to atheist) and fantasy inherently (duh) fantastical (as opposed to theist). But again, that's a much longer subject...
There's a lot of other interesting questions and posts there, and some interesting replies to my posts as well which I won't copy here without permission. Go check it out!
FREE-FOR-ALL META COMMENT-A-THON!
(click on the picture)
upupa_epops asked:Buffyverse, translations. Have you ever seen Buffyverse in any other language? Tried to translate anything? Wrote fic in another language? I'm very curious about other people's experience with Buffyverse language in translation.
Just a brief idea I think I've posted someplace else before: I've watched Buffy in three languages - English, German (dubbed) and Swedish (subtitled). Some really odd voice actor choices and translations aside (the Swedish subtitler once has Spike describe Andrew as a "pimp" rather than a "ponce", which... would be a completely different show), what's stayed with me is the titles.
See, the original title Buffy, The Vampire Slayer really encapsulates a lot about the story (I wrote more on that here). It's the story of Buffy, who is a vampire slayer. You have a silly name, you have monsters, and you have the promise that the girl with a silly name will kick monster ass.
The Swedish title comes out Buffy och vampyrerna - Buffy And The Vampires - which not only makes it sound even more like a kids' show, but also misses a couple of key points: the fact that Buffy slays vampires (notably, one TV critic wrote a very critical essay about the show despite clearly never having seen a second of it, since she was convinced that Buffy was a vampire herself), and the fact that Buffy is the focus of the show. By giving Buffy and "the vampires" equal weight, it becomes just a show about vampires. (Which, in fairness, is how some people see the show; I know I always cheered for Jerry over Tom.)
The German title, on the other hand, is more interesting: Buffy, im Bann der Dämonen - Buffy, Under The Demons' Spell. While it screws up in another way, indicating that Buffy is the victim (which in a way she is, with the whole structure of the show piled up against her from the get-go, though hardly a passive one) and of course leaving out the word "vampire" altogether, it highlights something about the show that I like: that the various demons are used as metaphors to highlight the very real issues she has to face. There is a spell that she has to break out of, bit by bit - not just a cheap monster show.
Of course, the Germans screw up the title of Angel instead - Angel: Jäger der Finsternis. How the hell does one hunt darkness, pray tell?
ETA on second thought: Just that I've previously said that the English title implies a question - the very idea that someone named "Buffy" slays vampires, and that there's just one of her. The German title does the same, even more so even; it's not the same question, but both questions adress the core idea of the show. The Swedish one? Not so much.
wheatear asked:Sci-fi fandoms: do sci-fi shows tend to present an atheistic or theistic universe? Discuss the differences.
This is a very interesting question. I guess there are (at least) two ways of looking at it:
1) Whether or not there are gods in the story. Which gets muddled a lot since sci-fi is full of examples of Shermer's Third Law - "Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from a god." Where do you draw the line there, how do you define "god" when there are multiple and varying levels of "exaltedness", for lack of a better word? Are the beings in 2001 gods? Are the aesir in Thor just aliens? When the Magratheans in Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy create heaven and earth, are they gods or just overpaid architects? The Doctor in Doctor Who is often referred to and even worshipped as a god, and as an effectively immortal member of a race far beyond human capabilities he might as well be. Yet The Doctor also goes out of his way to never accept a mystical explanation (even if he sometimes finds himself making up technobabble just so he doesn't have to call it magic). Everything is science to him, things may be unknown, but not unknowable. There's always a causality. Which brings us to
2) Whether or not the story itself is atheistic or theistic. Which is also a bit muddy, but to take two examples, Firefly and Battlestar Galactica.
Joss Whedon is an outspoken atheist, but moreover he's also an existentialist - and Sartre argued that god's existence is basically irrelevant. Firefly is his big existentialist manifesto, with all the characters basically locked in a room floating around "in the black" and forced to define themselves. Firefly tackles religion, but not God; man's belief is real, and several of the main characters (Book, Inara, Jayne) are believers, whereas others aren't; belief is considered powerful, but it only affects the acts of the person believing or not believing - Book can't call down a bolt of lightning or heal the lame. It's also pointedly one of the few sci-fi shows to never even hint at the existence of any other life form anywhere in the universe. No aliens, no gods, no robots, no mirror universes... just us. Firefly isn't straight-up atheistic since it never actually attempts to disprove god (what would be the point? A truly atheistic work wouldn't bring up gods at all), but the closest it comes to theism is to admit that belief itself exists. Is theismism a word?
Gods explicitly exist in Buffy alongside vampires, demons and werewolves, but they're knowable. Buffy can't claim to be an atheist since she's actually punched at least one god square in the face, but when asked if she has information on God's existence, she just shrugs. The few characters that are shown to actively believe in God The Father (Riley, and oddly enough Spike) never make a huge deal of it and it doesn't change who they are. The characters have to deal with the world they can see - the world they can't see and which doesn't affect them is irrelevant. Whereas the Powers That Be in Angel skirt much closer to being gods, simply by virtue of moving in mysterious ways and almost never interfering - to the point where you could just about argue that they're not powers at all, and have more in common with Greek stage machinery than any actual pantheon.
In BSG, on the other hand, God's clearly an active player in the story. We're explicitly told that things happen simply because it's part of God's plan. We see his agents work on screen even if we never see the man himself. Yet we never know why he does what he does or what it's supposed to achieve, why it's necessary, who he is. The world works according to a script. The cast itself is full of people of various faiths - polytheistic humans, monotheistic cylons, and the odd atheist - but they all have a relationship to religion, and their actions are motivated by their belief, but ultimately they're not responsible for the outcome - God is. Whereas characters in Whedon's shows can simply choose to ignore the existence or non-existence of god, BSG characters are forced to have an opinion (even the atheist Bill Adama is happy to play along to achieve his goals).
To add to what
eilowyn said above, the Star Wars 'verse has a very interesting concept that goes along with the Force: the idea that there's a balance to be had, that there's one ideal way for the world to work where everything and everyone is in their right place (physically and metaphysically), and that any aberration from it causes problems. While that idea is not theistic in and of itself, it still takes for granted that there's a certain predetermined way in which the world should work, which implies a man with a plan (and possibly a canal). Whereas works like Firefly don't assume that: the world simply is, and people's actions determine what they make of it.So to cut short my rambling, I'd say there are very few sci-fi works that are explicitly atheistic and few that are explicitly theistic (at least that stick closely to any existing religion). However, most of them are written by people wanting to comment on some aspect of society, so...
And funnily enough, just as I posted this, this article popped up in my RSS feed:
The Guardian: Does God have a place in science fiction?
ETA on second thought: The above may have come across a bit strident, I didn't intend to equate "atheist" with "rational" and "theist" with "irrational", or imply that "theistic" works inherently include gods moving in mysterious ways and that that's the one difference. But of course the original question is a bit more complex than it looks at first; aside from works explicitly written to convince others (such as Left Behind or His Dark Materials) most writers don't let only their religious belief or lack thereof dictate how the story works, there are more factors at work and defining a story only by that isn't quite fair. I do think it would be interesting, the death of the author notwithstanding, to take a closer look at how different sci-fi/fantasy/horror stories treat the concept of faith and gods depending on the writer's personal opinion. Of the writers mentioned above, at least two (Adams and Whedon) are outspoken atheists, yet they write stories where gods figure - and are occasionally even portrayed as quite sympathetic, if not perfect.
Also, there's something here about the difference between fantasy and sci-fi - as muddled as the line gets, I think there's something to the old Rod Serling quote: “Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible.” That would make a lot of sci-fi essentially fantasy with rocketships - Doctor Who, for instance. Getting back to the original question, and assuming that one of the key characteristics of a god is the ability to perform what you might call miracles, that would mean that sci-fi is inherently non-theist (as opposed to atheist) and fantasy inherently (duh) fantastical (as opposed to theist). But again, that's a much longer subject...
There's a lot of other interesting questions and posts there, and some interesting replies to my posts as well which I won't copy here without permission. Go check it out!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-06-09 07:43 pm (UTC)Actually, no. That's what 'ponce' means. It has a secondary meaning of someone who dresses like a pimp, and who may be effeminate, but that's much rarer and is normally used in the form of the adjective 'poncey', as in "You poncey git". Joss messed up English slang, as usual, and the Swedish translator got it right.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-09 08:00 pm (UTC)Also, the same episode has the line
Buffy (...) had her lesbian witch make with the beaucoup de magie
translated as
Buffy fulfilled her lesbian wish with lots of magic
which I believe didn't happen until the *spit* comics. ;)
no subject
Date: 2013-06-09 08:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-09 09:13 pm (UTC)In Swedish articles about the show it's also been translated "straight", but "Slayer" is a pretty tricky word to translate. The Swedish translators waffle back and forth a bit between "vampyrdödare" ("vampire killer") or "vampyrdråpare" ("vampire slayer"), but "dråpare" doesn't really have the slightly mythical/mystical feel that "slayer" does - it pretty much just means "someone who commits (involuntary) manslaughter in the legal sense", and even then it's pretty archaic. (The same with German, I suppose - "Schlächterin" is analogous with "Todschlag", manslaughter.) The Germans also get around it with "Vampirjägerin", "vampire hunter", which I actually prefer given the options.
And checking Google Translate just now, they also offer "culler" as a translation of "Schlächterin". Which, again, is an incorrect translation but more in line with the actual story...
no subject
Date: 2013-06-09 11:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-10 05:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-10 02:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-10 05:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-10 03:19 pm (UTC)I vote for "metae".
Are you familiar with the animated version of "Josie and the Pussycats"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEdWvYA0icg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josie_and_the_Pussycats_(TV_series)
That was Hanna-Barbera's version of women's lib circa 1970 I guess - the same group that made the Scooby-Doo cartoons, so there's a "six degrees of separation" joke in their somewhere. I used to watch it as a little girl all the time. (I recall liking the theme song when I was two years old.)
Buffy can't claim to be an atheist since she's actually punched at least one god square in the face, but when asked if she has information on God's existence, she just shrugs.
And this is what happens when the show's creator is an atheist who also sucks at world-building. I recall fans having a strong reaction to her comment to Holden in CWDP over at the AV Club thread on the episode, ie "How can she say there's no God? She's been in Heaven!" but it didn't bother me as much I suppose because I assumed at the time that Holden was asking about a "Judeo-Christian" concept of God the Father, who created the world and watches over us to punish, reward, or just amuse Himself but who cares about the existence of the least little sparrow, etc; and Buffy's concept of "god" (ie hellgod) is simply a super-duper-powerful being who may come from one of the thousands of uncounted dimensions; not "God the Father".
no subject
Date: 2013-06-10 04:27 pm (UTC)"How can she say there's no God? She's been in Heaven!"
Eh, as much as I like to paddle Joss for lack of world-building, I think that one is more an example of a limitation of the poster's worldview than anything. For one, Buffy didn't say she was in Heaven, she said she thought she was in heaven. She also called Earth hell, so...yeah. I don't think there's a contradiction there. Gods in the Buffyverse tend to follow closer along the lines of Pagan gods, I think. Glory and Illyria are classed as a gods, but neither are omniscient or all-powerful.
I think in the Bverse, the closest thing to "God" is the PTB, which are arguably knowable and in most cases, able to be defeated (Jasmine, free will, etc.) which, I think, makes them unable to be defined by the Judeo-Christian "God" as well. /ramble
no subject
Date: 2013-06-12 02:28 am (UTC)Exactly.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-10 05:56 pm (UTC)Oh yes. And that's exactly where my mind went the first time I heard "Buffy and the Vampires".
As for the rest, I'm going to have to agree with the above comment; I think it's actually one of the things that really works - there's really no place for belief in Buffy's life. She knows that some gods exist, because she's actually met them or at least seen their work first-hand, so believing in them becomes pointless. As for gods she hasn't met or experienced otherwise, being an existentialist hero, she can really only shrug - whether they exist and don't intervene, or don't exist at all becomes irrelevant; in either case, she'll have to make her own life on her own.
And even if Buffy went to heaven (or a heaven) I don't see why that would prove the existence of any particular god. If there's countless hell dimensions, why not heavens?
I assumed at the time that Holden was asking about a "Judeo-Christian" concept of God the Father
I still think he is. "Oh my God! I mean not my God because I defy Him and all His works - does He exist?" He's clearly talking specifically about the Abrahamic god, much like Spike does in "Beneath You" and the lead vampire in "Who Are You". And Buffy's answer is that she's never seen any sign that He - the god actually called God - either exists or doesn't.
Buffy's concept of "god" (ie hellgod) is simply a super-duper-powerful being who may come from one of the thousands of uncounted dimensions
I think this question is at the heart of the whole discussion of what "a god" is in a story where supernatural things are a matter of fact rather than belief. There's a huge grey area between "unusually powerful being" and "all-powerful, omniscient creator". The common definition of "god" that we use in traditionally monotheist cultures almost seems a bit narrow. (See also Captain America's comments about Thor.)
(And then there's the question at what point an increasingly powerful human gets classed as a god. A very early draft of this fic had Faith muse that when Willow says a prayer in Hebrew over a fallen Slayer, Faith's not sure if she's praying or just shooting the breeze with a colleague.)
no subject
Date: 2013-06-13 07:14 pm (UTC)I thought so but I didn't want to assume.
I think it's actually one of the things that really works - there's really no place for belief in Buffy's life. She knows that some gods exist, because she's actually met them or at least seen their work first-hand, so believing in them becomes pointless.
Exactly. Not so long ago I not only claimed that I believed in God, but I KNEW without a doubt that God existed. Which is arrogant and nonsensical. (Recently Oliver Sacks reported that this phenomenon has been reported with epileptics, so at least I have an excuse. *lol*) But there's a huge difference in Buffy's experiential knowing, and my claim of "knowing".
And even if Buffy went to heaven (or a heaven) I don't see why that would prove the existence of any particular god. If there's countless hell dimensions, why not heavens?
Tara says as much. I don't see what the difficulty is in this concept.
And I didn't mean that I've changed my opinion re: Holden's remarks and Buffy's reply in CWDP by my use of the past tense; I meant that was my immediate assumption when I watched it last year and still is. I quite like that the show plays with/raises that distinction.
And Buffy's answer is that she's never seen any sign that He - the god actually called God - either exists or doesn't.
"Note to self: religion, freaky." If I made a list of my favorite "Buffyisms", that would be on it.
The common definition of "god" that we use in traditionally monotheist cultures almost seems a bit narrow.
And, pervasive: "Thou shall honor no other gods but me" is the first Commandment, isn't it? it's been a remarkably effective bit of PR and a device for thought and behavior control. (Reading the old testament was an eye-opener: the commands from God to the Hebrews to completely destroy their enemies, cut open the wombs of pregnant mothers and dash the babies against the rocks, etc.) God didn't create "Man" in his image; humans create gods according to their current needs.
(See also Captain America's comments about Thor.)
The movie or the comics? Not familiar with either.
(And then there's the question at what point an increasingly powerful human gets classed as a god. A very early draft of this fic had Faith muse that when Willow says a prayer in Hebrew over a fallen Slayer, Faith's not sure if she's praying or just shooting the breeze with a colleague.)
Are you referring to the story you recently posted? I confess I haven't read it yet, but that point sounds very "Faith" (hah).
BTW I think I've only seen one or two other fics (one by Annie Sewell Jenkins) that explicitly has Willow reciting or performing a Jewish prayer or ritual, but her religion is hardly dealt with. A lot of fans call her and Tara "Wiccans" but that's not explicitly stated either - I don't really see Willow as Wiccan (a specific "earth religion" that has many offshoots. a lot of people, and the show itself, seem to use terms interchangeably. Does Tara ever say she's a Wiccan in-canon explicitly or is that fanon assumption?;
even after her time with Giles I'm not sure I'd call Willow "religious"/WIccan per se, just that she has a greater (expanded) moral sense and awareness beyond herself, and awareness of repercussions ( "thesis/antithesis/synthesis" manifested in physical action.)
Another canon-ish question: When fans call Willow a "goddess" are they basing that from Kennedy's "You are a goddess" in Chosen, which I didn't take literally - I've called women-friends "goddess" (and even Norbert, before I knew his gender!) by which I mean "force of nature". It's a compliment. Or are they basing that off the comics, and again - is it meant literally, or is it playing with the razor-fine line distinction that you speak of?
no subject
Date: 2013-06-13 09:12 pm (UTC)Oh. Woops. I forgot which post I was commenting on.
And I didn't mean that I've changed my opinion re: Holden's remarks and Buffy's reply in CWDP by my use of the past tense; I meant that was my immediate assumption when I watched it last year and still is. I quite like that the show plays with/raises that distinction.
Ah, OK, gotcha. I was racking my brain trying to come up with a reason to think otherwise... :)
"Thou shall honor no other gods but me" is the first Commandment, isn't it? it's been a remarkably effective bit of PR and a device for thought and behavior control.
Yep. (As an aside, I've heard some scholars claim that the commandments and some of the other oldest bits of the Bible aren't monotheist as much as monolatrist - ie they don't say there's only one god, but that there's only one god worth worshipping. I kind of like the idea that there are still traces of older myths in there...)
God didn't create "Man" in his image; humans create gods according to their current needs.
Much like science fiction writers. :) Funnily enough, some of my favourite descriptions of both gods and characters of faith in spec fic - Firefly and Discworld, for instance - are written by avowed atheists. It's a fascinating subject, but I think it takes a certain distance and self-awareness to write convincingly. (Which is not to say that's exclusive to atheist writers.)
The movie or the comics? Not familiar with either.
The Avengers movie. There's a scene where Captain America decides to get mixed up in a fight between Loki and Thor. Black Widow tells him to "sit this one out, for all intents and purposes those guys are gods." To which Captain America replies "There's only one God, ma'am, and I'm sure He doesn't dress like that." While Thor is calling down actual thunder...
even after her time with Giles I'm not sure I'd call Willow "religious"/WIccan per se, just that she has a greater (expanded) moral sense and awareness beyond herself, and awareness of repercussions ( "thesis/antithesis/synthesis" manifested in physical action.)
Absolutely. Willow's religious affiliation post-... well, season 4 I suppose, is tricky. She clearly fails the "no other gods before me" bit - again, it's hard to be a monotheist once you've actually shoved your fingers into a peroxide blonde god's brain and bossed the Egyptian god of death around. At the same time, of course, Jewishness is more than just a religious belief. I keep wanting to write post-series Willow fic that deals with all of that, but I'd have to read up a lot on Judaism and I'd still feel like I was appropriating something. (Even more so than I did in this (http://archiveofourown.org/works/423273).) Still, I can't help but feel that there should be fic in which Willow meets up with the golem of Prague...
As for wicca, it gets complicated since the writers clearly don't know much about it and constantly use it as a synonym for "being a witch". I'd say Tara is probably meant to practice the actual faith, while Willow (ever the pragmatist) picks and chooses the bits she needs.
Another canon-ish question: When fans call Willow a "goddess" are they basing that from Kennedy's "You are a goddess" in Chosen, which I didn't take literally
In my experience, quite a few people do. I really don't get it, but apparently they assume that Kennedy has some sort of goddess radar (goddar?) and can recognise one on sight. I do like the idea post-series of people (including Willow herself) wondering just how powerful she is or will become, but I don't think she automatically qualifies as a goddess past a certain point. Again, the concept of a god(dess) is pretty fuzzy, and I like that.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-14 08:04 pm (UTC)20 years ago I read a book that had been written decades earlier,that claimed that the Hebrews calender was based on moon phases, not the sun, and did the math to interpret how old the supposedly 1000+ year old Methusulah etc are would have actually been. (Somewhere in his 80's, as it happens.) But also that there was archaeological evidence that the Hebrews esp women had also kept figures of goddess, Mother gods and fertility figures, "household gods" by the hearth and so forth during that time.
It's a fascinating subject, but I think it takes a certain distance and self-awareness to write convincingly.
I'd say that's true of almost any subject.
To which Captain America replies "There's only one God, ma'am, and I'm sure He doesn't dress like that." While Thor is calling down actual thunder...
*lol* that could have worked in the Buffyverse. Even with Riley; Buffy isn't a "god" but she actually seems a little insulted that he's never heard of the Slayer. That's part of her superiority complex right there. (Granted, she gets zero recognition or perks so I cut her a lot of slack.)
it's hard to be a monotheist once you've actually shoved your fingers into a peroxide blonde god's brain and bossed the Egyptian god of death around.
Indeed.
At the same time, of course, Jewishness is more than just a religious belief.
ONe of my mentors in college called herself "ethnically jewish but religiously atheist" which at the time I couldn't get a grasp of, but now I understand it better. (She gave her son a bar mitzvah anyway, but I assume she gave him the choice.) But it's something that I keep forgetting because I'm not Jewish obviously.
I keep wanting to write post-series Willow fic that deals with all of that, but I'd have to read up a lot on Judaism and I'd still feel like I was appropriating something.
Aren't we appropriating every time we write about characters who aren't like ourselves? Some of my favorite fics in this fandom focusing on the female characters (including your own) are written by guys. Technically I could call that "appropriation." What matters to me is that the writer has a genuine feel for the characters. Gender of the author shouldn't matter. (Isn't the author of 50 Shades of Grey a woman?) OTOH it IS trickier when you're talking about race, ethnicity, etc as we are. I can say "I am a mixture of male and female characteristics" ; I can't say "I'm a mixture of black and white characteristics" (whatever the hell that means) or even "I understand what it means to be black in America." But we can do our best to educate ourselves as much as possible, right? That will show up in the work.
Which is long way of saying I'd love to see what you come up with and I think you can pull it off. Besides, nobody else is doing it.
Still, I can't help but feel that there should be fic in which Willow meets up with the golem of Prague...
Mmm, that would have made a nifty episode in the Buffy comics. Or, better versions of them.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-14 08:05 pm (UTC)Didn't Joss say Willow was his favorite character? That description sounds an awful lot like him. If making Buffy into a Christ-like figure in her dive in The Gift is what gets the biggest emotional bang for the buck, that's what he'll go with. (I actually do think it's more complex than that of course, but there is something of that in btvs anyway.)
I don't think she automatically qualifies as a goddess past a certain point.
That's pretty much how I see it Re: Kennedy's comment, I never used the term as a compliment to other women (or generically, to "feminine power") until I got into college and was introduced to feminist theology, modern-day paganism, Wicca, and the very notion of the Divine as female as well as male. that was unthinkable to me growing up sorta-kinda Catholic. A teacher was very careful to tell us "we worship God, we adore Mary" I had no idea that distinction had not always existed. So I think Kennedy's remark is there purposely: the Potentials are basically third-wave feminists and that would fit with the time period.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-11 06:34 am (UTC)One of the first shows to come to my mind with that question is Babylon 5... it's a show run and almost entirely written by an avowed atheist, who probably did the best job I've ever seen of handing the subject of faith (and I do mean faith itself rather than faith=sect/religion). Which I guess doesn't necessarily answer the theism question at all, but I enjoyed some of the ambiguities he was able to bring in, while still respecting the faith or lack thereof in the characters. There did seem to be something to it in that universe, but the way it was often presented, the lines between religion and science were actually quite blurred.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-11 08:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-14 12:11 am (UTC)