Buffy Season Two Episode Seven
Oct. 17th, 2009 06:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
koganbot"OK, but do they really stick out?"
"What?"
"Sore thumbs. Do they stick out? I mean, have you ever seen a thumb and gone, 'Wow! That baby is sore!'?"
"You have too many thoughts."
Episode starts real shitty, then turns relatively good. Problem is the script's heavy-handed insistence that Buffy is jealous and doesn't trust Angel, and doesn't trust her own appeal, etc., and that Angel is also insecure and jealous, and there's new guy Ford to be jealous of, and Xander's jealous in his usual way, and the show gets mired in all this exposition.
The reason it feels like exposition is that the show has never sold us on Buffy's insecurities or on her* and Angel being anything but trustworthy, in relation to each other and to everybody else. Now, irl it would make sense that a 16-year-old who has mastery in one part of her life might feel plenty insecure in others, or that someone who has a basic nonnormal aspect to his being might wonder if anyone would really want to get close to him, even if he is strong and handsome. But as I said, the show has never sold us on this, so Xander is the only one whose jealousy believably emanates from his personality (since he does get overlooked and he really is vastly more interesting than sensitively morose hunkboy Angel; but Interesting isn't what Buffy needs).
But then the episode finds itself, thanks to a genuine mystery about who Ford is and what he wants, leading us to a hilarious goth club and its sweet young things, enamored of "vampires," i.e., the misunderstood "Lonely Ones," and wishing to join them. And here the show becomes deft and funny, rapidly suggesting in demeanor and dialogue all sorts of history and petty resentments among the goth kids, as if walking into their club were like walking into an office. And back in the vampire lair, it is amusing to watch Spike as he realizes he has to deal with dorkboy Ford rather than getting to dispatch him instantly. Poor Spike, always reliant on the none-too-competent help of inferiors.
Meanwhile, aboveground, Angel almost makes a joke about his moroseness, and the scriptwriters continue to tease us with how and when Willow is going to blossom.
Ford's got a sad story that is introduced near the end, with just enough time and emphasis to make us feel pathos, but not enough to descend into sap.
*Is it "her and Angel" or "she and Angel"? I suppose it could be "her and Angel's," but the possessive doesn't feel right (though it would be fine if I put "their," so what's my problem with "Angel's"?). But I'm not sure if she's acting as subject or being an object in that sentence. "On her" versus "she being"? I am the master of many things, but the present participle is not one of them.
"What?"
"Sore thumbs. Do they stick out? I mean, have you ever seen a thumb and gone, 'Wow! That baby is sore!'?"
"You have too many thoughts."
Episode starts real shitty, then turns relatively good. Problem is the script's heavy-handed insistence that Buffy is jealous and doesn't trust Angel, and doesn't trust her own appeal, etc., and that Angel is also insecure and jealous, and there's new guy Ford to be jealous of, and Xander's jealous in his usual way, and the show gets mired in all this exposition.
The reason it feels like exposition is that the show has never sold us on Buffy's insecurities or on her* and Angel being anything but trustworthy, in relation to each other and to everybody else. Now, irl it would make sense that a 16-year-old who has mastery in one part of her life might feel plenty insecure in others, or that someone who has a basic nonnormal aspect to his being might wonder if anyone would really want to get close to him, even if he is strong and handsome. But as I said, the show has never sold us on this, so Xander is the only one whose jealousy believably emanates from his personality (since he does get overlooked and he really is vastly more interesting than sensitively morose hunkboy Angel; but Interesting isn't what Buffy needs).
But then the episode finds itself, thanks to a genuine mystery about who Ford is and what he wants, leading us to a hilarious goth club and its sweet young things, enamored of "vampires," i.e., the misunderstood "Lonely Ones," and wishing to join them. And here the show becomes deft and funny, rapidly suggesting in demeanor and dialogue all sorts of history and petty resentments among the goth kids, as if walking into their club were like walking into an office. And back in the vampire lair, it is amusing to watch Spike as he realizes he has to deal with dorkboy Ford rather than getting to dispatch him instantly. Poor Spike, always reliant on the none-too-competent help of inferiors.
Meanwhile, aboveground, Angel almost makes a joke about his moroseness, and the scriptwriters continue to tease us with how and when Willow is going to blossom.
Ford's got a sad story that is introduced near the end, with just enough time and emphasis to make us feel pathos, but not enough to descend into sap.
*Is it "her and Angel" or "she and Angel"? I suppose it could be "her and Angel's," but the possessive doesn't feel right (though it would be fine if I put "their," so what's my problem with "Angel's"?). But I'm not sure if she's acting as subject or being an object in that sentence. "On her" versus "she being"? I am the master of many things, but the present participle is not one of them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 12:29 pm (UTC)"i can't bear angel being morose" <-- being is an adj
"i can't bear angel's being morose" <-- being is an noun
both of these are fine grammatically, and the meaning distinction is nugatory -- the second it's the mood you're reacting against, not the person, except same diff in the circs -- so you end up making the choice on rhythm and stuff like that
also:
"i can't bear angel, being morose" <-- the morose one is you
"angel, being morose, is unbearable" <-- the morose one is angel
"angel's being morose is unbearable" <-- it's the mood that's unbearable not angel
you've double up the puzzlement with "her" bcz (as you say) it's not clear if it's a possessive her or the accusative of "she" -- either works! but you can pick Angel or Angel's or indeed "she")
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 02:58 pm (UTC)I can't bear his being morose.
I can't bear him being morose. (That latter would imply that when I'm morose, I can't bear him.)
Sold us on his being anything but trustworthy.
Sold us on him being anything but trustworthy. (Is this one allowed? What is "him" the object of, here?)
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 03:04 pm (UTC)"Sold us on his being anything but trustworthy" = selling us on his trustworthiness.
"Sold us on him being anything but trustworthy" = selling us on him and his trustworthiness (pretty much a wash between the two)
"Sold us on he being anything but trustworthy" = even if it's grammatically allowable, it sounds wrong
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 03:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 04:24 pm (UTC)you say "it sells us on him" not "it sells us on he"
but (in yr original) which the accusative IS is ambiguous: it could be "her" or "being" -- if it's "being", then "being" is a noun [a gerund] and "her" is a possessive
it can't be "i can't bear he being morose" bcz he is a noun hence the object of "bear" so has to be in the accusative...
I can't bear him being morose. (That latter would imply that when I'm morose, I can't bear him.)
No: it has to be "I can't bear him, being morose" for YOU to be the morose one. "I can't bear him being morose" means almost exactly the same as "I can't bear his being morose."
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 04:42 pm (UTC)He being sad, I was sympathetic. (Not sure what the rule is here, but "He" is correct.)
I was sympathetic, he being sad. (Not sure what the rule is here, but "he" is correct.)
I was sympathetic to him being sad. ("Him" the object, the guy who is sad.)
I was sympathetic to his being sad. ("His being sad" is the object, but "his" grammatical role is as possessor of sadness.)
I was sympathetic to whoever was sad. ("Whoever" is the subject of "was sad.")
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 04:53 pm (UTC)The first two (being identical) are genuine nominative absolutes: absolute -- I believe -- because "he" is at most only implied in "I was being sympathetic."
I suspect the nominative absolute in English exists so as replicate the elegant and economc ablative absolute in Latin -- where you can hang a significant qualifying phrase off the main sentence without all kinds of relational faff, because nothing in the qualifying phrase is directly mentioned in the main sentence. Hence its faintly fancy-soundingness.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 05:07 pm (UTC)Perhaps the most controversial example of a nominative absolute is the sentence comprising the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
(I don't agree with "comprising" in that sentence, however. The Bill Of Rights comprises ten amendments, but the sentence that constitutes the entire second amendment doesn't comprise the second amendment, I wouldn't think. The "comprise" relationship is a whole comprising [embracing] parts, not a whole comprising a whole. Or if the sentence is a part (albeit the only part) of the amendment, it is the amendment that comprises the sentence, and not vice versa.)
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 04:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 05:00 pm (UTC)"her and Angel's" ISN'T wrong: but i think it feels wrong because of the mismatched shapes of the possessive endings? you feel you want to say "hers and Angel's", which is DEFINITELY wrong and feels somehow corrected and tidy and symmetric
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 05:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 05:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 12:38 pm (UTC)