Archive for the ‘Provoked by Celluloid’ Category

I have re-watched Dawkins ‘The Genius of Charles Darwin‘ three episode and even taken notes.

I was seriously thinking about writing about how many and conflicting faith statements Dawkins made – and you’ll be relieved to know I may yet indulge this compulsion but in the meantime I thought I’d stick with something that struck me as I re-watched the first episode, subtitled ‘Life, Darwin and Everything’ which was – What has evolution actually helped build in today’s world?

As a note to clear everything up – all quotes which aren’t directly sourced will be of Dawkins and be followed by a roman numeral to denote which episode of this series it refers to – I for the first ‘Life, Darwin and Everything’ II for ‘The Fifth Ape’ and lastly III for ‘God Strikes Back…’ but just to be confusing my notes include two segments which include Dawkins quoting Darwin. They, however, may not be used – we’ll just have to see, dear Reader…

One of the outstanding claims Dawkins makes is that Darwin turned our world upside down – which would be a great achievement in itself if true. However the list of folk held to have turned our world upside down is legion – the mystical and possibly not actually real General Ludd of the Luddite fame, Newton, Brunnel, Kant, Marx, Aristotle, Jesus, Ghandi, Martin Luther King among a long list of which everybody has their own favourites…

Some of these have inspired social changes and even attempts to bring about their social view, some have inspired and designed great industrial masterpieces others have inspired great works or been involved in building temples to their own God/Gods but what has Darwin inspired or evolution been used for…

The main thrust of Dawkins is that he has faith that science can and will explain everything…

… and then I thought, well, if science can explain something so apparently inexplicable as life who knows what the limits might be on what science could explain more generally without any recourse to the supernatural. At that moment I became an atheist and I’ve never looked back. III

So, what Darwin has achieved is to do away with the necessity of the supernatural and that seems to be Dawkins main thrust on how our world has been changed. If only it were so, at least for Dawkins – Plato in his work ‘The Republic’ talks about how we might as well make up a myth to help keep the ideal society working smoothly which shows a mindset that believes that faith in the greek pantheon is purely because we, or rather the ancient greeks, have been told it rather than in being true in and of itself. Hume, a prime mover in The Enlightenment was also a staunch atheist – and as with Plato, lived before Darwin… between these two points there are influential thinkers who were atheists and after Darwin there have continued to be atheist thinkers in prominent positions.

So, the idea that we need evolution to be free from belief in the supernatural is wrong and to put it in Dawkins language that’s just a ‘plain truth…’ III What I find dificult when Dawkins is trying to free our minds is that he seems to have no knowledge of sociological research into status and belief – in Ancient Rome we are told that some Patriarchs had to convince others of their standing to make the sacrifices and attend the ‘holy’ festivals because it keeps the small folk happy – not because they believe in them. This seems crucial – those who feel confident of their own control over their own lives tend to have a lower level of belief in the supernatural.

After Darwin folk still persist in their beliefs in the supernatural – Dawkins dedicates the last programme of his latest series into tackling christians who still hold onto their beliefs despite or in acceptance of evolution.

So the question then becomes what use can evolution be put to?

Basically it boils down to being useful to explain the various forms of life we see around us and how they have developed – including us. Which is problematic as then Dawkins wants to show how that has no recourse into how we should use evolutionary theory in either the business world or the business of states.

While in the second programme Dawkins accepts that businesses could be compared to large biological entities he accepts, and even proffers the view, that businesses don’t and can’t operate on an evolutionary basis. This leaves the horror of eugenics and on this Dawkins has this to say

Eugenics is not Darwinism. Eugenics is not a version of natural selection. Hitler, despite popular legend, was not a Darwinist. Every farmer, horticulturist or pigeon fancier Knew how to breed for desired outcomes. Eugenicists, like Hitler, borrowed from breeders. What Darwin uniquely realized was that nature can play the role of breeder. Darwin has been wrongly tainted. II

Which is all well and good. The problem facing this is that if we say that humans are part of the natural world and then we decide to go and be eugenicists then surely that’s a decision made within the world of nature? Dawkins does argue that the idea of the selfish gene is one we should fight against in how we deal with each other…

Thus evolution cannot, or should not, be applied. So the question becomes what use is evolution outside academia? It’s all very well saying that evolution does away with the necessity of God but that is not, nor was ever, new. Dawkins tries to explain human behaviour from a genetic point of view but that rules out the old, and well established, debate of nature vs nurture as Gross in his rather gargantuan overview of psychological research ‘Psychology‘ argues that the influence is 40/60, not that I can remember which is which but still nurture of either 40% or 60% is still a large chunk. Which means that our behaviour is not completely determined by our genetic make-up.

Apart from statues to Darwin there have been no temples built, Darwinism has not changed our view of the supernatural and any policies based on natural selection are wrong to do so.

So What Use Evolution?


Read Full Post »

this is from the pronouncement that according to a bed time story read to Hellboy as a child that the race of man suffers from a hole in their hearts…

And as it’s a good enough [and similar enough] film to compare it to The Dark Knight I thought I’d compare and contrast that with Hellboy II: The Golden Army to use an old and worn scrap from exam questions…

As Batman’s been out for awhile I won’t feel that constrained about plot but I’ll try to do my best to keep the suspense due to Hellboy – for those who have not yet seen this romp of a film.

Well – both are violent and unsuitable for those under 12 and perhaps for older viewers of a more delicate sensibility. Hellboy continues to smoke his cigars throughout the film and as I write this smoking an impromptu mix I put together in the tobacconist in Evesham [not much of a range of pipe tobaccos but friendly enough and helpful staff – a bit of a treat] I find that the very idea of a smoking hero, well, heroic really in this day and age…

Both Hellboy and Batman struggle in their different ways with public opinion – Hellboy certain that once the public could see him they would appreciate the struggles and risks he’s taken on their behalf and Batman hugging the shadows only at the greatest provocation – willing to give up his real identity.

The question then becomes who are we if we can’t come to terms with the heroes in our midst and therein lies the key to the beginning of Hellboy and our, human, nature. But before we get to that – both films have grand villains – the odious Joker in Batman and Nuadu the charismatic but now, after the eons of waiting for him to take his stand – slightly psychotic. And a good fight they put up too – which is key to a good film of this ilk…

Batman has the byline at one point that sometimes we get the heroes we deserve and Hellboy says that we’ll never be satisfied with them – both are true within these films and provide a fair amount of truth for the ‘real world’ for who has not heard a detractor of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, even Mother Teresa never mind the comments about those held as holy figures – Jesus, Mohamed and others…

But it is not the whole truth in this age of capitalist secularism – there are those who are prepared to turn their backs on it and take ‘orders’ – monks and nuns being the extreme example – so are those who turn their backs of a different ilk, do they have hearts which do not have holes in them?

Probably not, they – just as we could – decided to be self-disciplined about their lives and their acquisitiveness for their goal of how they think they should live. Could we not do the same and bring some balance into our debt ridden object seeking societies?

Read Full Post »

Just as a quick note/warning this post is going to be a medley or smorgasborg of different strands with the main theme as the title… So if you reach that which you are interested in then you can either keep reading or just plain go enjoy yourself somewhere else, dear reader…

On the cinematic front I’ve been off to watch acouple of movies recently – WALL-E and The Dark Knight

Now I’ll start with WALL-E and I have to say that I was looking forward to seeing this but if any of you, like me, don’t like musicals then it is very difficult to enjoy this film. WALL-E seems hooked on a track from ‘Hello Dolly‘ (or so the wife informs me) and that is fine – after centuries of undertaking it’s programmed task some foibles/errors in the programme will crop up – what it is is a block for those who don’t like the choice of what the droid is stuck on [and don’t get me started about ABBA!] so after the ruined start I was looking for some good hard sci-fi to kick start my interest… and it never came – true it was vaguely enjoyable but some things were glaringly either absent or wrong – starting with the pile of ‘space trash’ the rocket had to get through to escape Earth gravity. If it had got that bad how would it have left Earth still so warm? Apart from the question that it would have taken a huge amount of junk to create that barrier.

Other than that there is nothing new here for a sci-fi watcher – the dystopic society that has developed on the ‘Mother Ship’ is an old tried and tested one. Nevermind that if through the centuries they didn’t recycle the ship would be stripped of all it’s inards leaving possibly only the life support and folk left in frozen accomodation and that’s if they were lucky….

So a disappointing film from my particular musical intolerant viewpoint…

What is also disappointing is the whole thing that’s been going on around the Lambeth Conference

Apparently it has been a ‘bit dull’ for some – especially The Times as they regurgitated an article from the Archbishop of the Southern Cone [or Mexico Southwards down to the end of South America for the rest of us] a one Venables who said sometime ago that Bishop Gene Robinson should be sacked – which was also ran as a paragraphed bulletin in the Telegraph (and when we get to a point that’s worth sourcing – I will try…) But folk have been doing their best to throw a few spanners into the works if not stones…

But that’s not to say that they aren’t trying to make some important and real work on some issues – take that old nut of homosexuality – there’s this piece which tries to tackle violence and intolerance towards those who do not conform to some folks prejudicial view regarding gays and even there existence in some places on this world… and we can only hope that the relevant folk will stand up and take note – but wait, didn’t that get covered in Gafcon? Well it did, but it’s probably a good thing to reinforce the work they did here.

On the other hand there’s also the meeting they had about rape and beating – including wife beating and the whole thing about the evils of domestic violence be it physical, emotional or spiritual and it’s here that we get stuck in the old stone throwing. There was a report in the old rag Telegraph about Bishop Catherine Roskam who basically accused the bishops from the ‘third world’ of harbouring wife beaters in their midst…

And whilst I admit, somewhat to my disliking of this particular truth, that some cultures in the ‘third world’ do accept or condone domestic violence at the level of education and status of bishop – I think you have to be honest and say that it is no longer about geography. Domestic violence occurs in all societies and classes – and it’s not just by men, there are women who beat their partners (male and female). So in the end I think leveling this sort of accusation to only one part of the grand collection of bishops and archbishops is false. It’s on the same level as me going up to the Archbishop of Canterbury and asking him ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’ and just to be clear, I don’t think he ever beat his wife – or anyone else for that matter.

Even Giles Fraser has managed to get into throwing stones from his particular sideline – there’s a couple of posts – the more interesting one is here and the other one is there. Before I get into his particular stones I’ll just take a couple of sentences from his lesser piece –

I am sure that there are many terribly important things going on in Canterbury. But, speaking to some of the people involved in the meetings and prayer sessions, I think it sounds a dreary and draining experience. Anglicanism is all rather Calvary at the moment. But there is so much more to God than this. Christians ought to throw better parties.

Which seems to show just how tortured he had to write that particular piece, after all Lambeth is not supposed to be a PARTY – it is a serious meeting at which Rowan Williams is trying to hold the anglican communion together… and what Giles in this piece is objecting to is a motion where practices which might fracture it should be placed under a ‘moratorium’ ie an agreement to stop being disruptive, whilst bringing some folk nearer to being reconciled [Isn’t that what Giles wants?] – and while I may agree with same sex blessings [as they are called] the sharp question for Giles and his friends in the ‘Inclusive Church‘ [which means – if you agree with us – feel included.] is do they want to just have their cake and eat it locally or do they want to try to get to where they want within a still global church?

Peter Mandelson on his piece about the collapse of the latest trade talks makes some interesting views on how a deal falls apart or for the sharper eyed amongst us – hints at how to reach a deal all can sign up to –

One side insisted they would not accept any formula that did not let them protect small farmers – especially from subsidised exports from the United States.

The US complained that the measure effectively meant new restrictions on US exports of soy and cotton.

There is something to both arguments, and important principles involved.

But what seemed to get lost in Geneva was the fact that a principled argument does not have to mean an argument on which no compromise is possible.

Technical experts in Geneva spent hours hammering out a compromise that would have met the concerns of both sides.

Neither side felt able to pick it up. That is what makes failure – when we were so close to success – much more difficult to explain.

emphasis and italics mine and so back to the post…

More recently I have watched the latest Batman movie [if you wondering where this bit was coming] and I liked it – it was a gripping sequel and everyone played their parts well and I can only do it justice by reccomending it to all and sundry [who are old enough… ie 12 upwards] but the thing I want to pick out and is a bit of a spoiler if you haven’t seen it yet so rejoin the post at the emboldened start of the next paragraph –  is that at some point in the film Batman tells Commissioner Gordon to blame him for crimes he didn’t commit – nevermind the ones he did –  to save another’s reputation and it is this which sticks out in the midst of the anglican squabling – no-one wants to compromise on the reactionary front.

It is also what Mandelson was saying – both sides need to compromise but the church in the US hasn’t compromised at all despite the terrible toll that both the homosexual issue took but also over the liberal theological movement that steamed ahead – so rather than traditionalists being stuck in the muds they’ve been winched relentlessly from their positions and even offering [after the bishoping of Gene Robinson] a voluntary moratorium which would have eventually made all the sacrifices they made and the successes of the liberal movement the de facto status qou ie ‘normal’ but that wasn’t good enough for them then and they still may hold that it’s not good enough for them now.

Where is the heroic ‘Batman’ figure who is big enough to take the intransigence of the liberal movement and prepare to offer themselves up for the sake of the communion? Instead of saying

Blake would have seen the Windsor report and its children as a form of tyranny, in which legalistic religion (the “stony law”, as he called it) triumphs over the creative religion of the Spirit. And so do I.

as Giles finished his more interesting piece – he is in an unenviable position to offer himself up for the liberal movement to try to hold everything together after all Mandelson finishes his article re the Doha trade talks with this –

But we can be sure of one thing: we would all have been winners from a Doha deal. Without one, we all lose.

And we can be sure that if there is no deal or agreement from Lambeth the same is true for the anglican community as a global entity [and if we are thinking What does that matter? then think about Desmond Tutu – when the South African government was thinking of trying to gag him Archbishop Robert Runcie told ‘them’ that if they touched Desmond Tutu then they would be touching all anglicans, and Desmond Tutu was allowed (for whatever reasons) to continue unabated…]

But of course who would be likely to take the sins of others on their shoulders? It rather reminds me of Calvary and the sacrifice Jesus made for all of us – perhaps the failure of any within the anglican fold {so far} to be able to make this step shows in sharp relief just how much we need to accept Jesus’ sacrifice…

and that his admonishment that the first person to throw a stone should be without sin doesn’t excuse the rest being flung once someone has decided that they are good enough…

Read Full Post »

well, alright it’s a rather tacky way of sticking a review of The Kingdom and The Narnia Chronicles: Prince Caspian together in one title…

I think both films are both fantastic and gritty. The idea of a large bomber that causes such damage as to eventually let the FBI have permission to send an investigative team to Saudi Arabia – we all know bombings happen but the construction of the piece is fictional and that shouldn’t be forgotten. And then there’s the ‘appearance’ of Abu Hamza – the bogeyman, this would be possible given that the first blast was factual… but it shows a certain desperation to both lend credence to the film’s basis and remind us that this could be a genuine flash point. [ie they do have the knowledge to commit things like that and there are real people like that…] After these two things, the second being fairly minor The Kingdom is a fairly realistic down to earth grit fueled film – which takes the opportunity to show the Saudi Arabian lifestyle and conditions [I can’t be sure that women are allowed to drive yet…] Despite some bad reviews on this side of the pond {in the UK} I listened to an interview with a BBC correspondent from the area that the film is set within and he argued that, whether or not you like it, the film was realistic and it was, in the end the saudi officer assigned who does some of the hard, grizzly work as the americans just stand around bewildered…

So, how does it tie in with Prince Caspian and Narnia? The entire reality behind the book and now the film is based on a fantastic realm called Narnia and a Big Lion called Aslan. Once that has been accepted it does become quite gritty in the sense of having one usurper, betrayals, courage and cowardice…

At the end of The Kingdom ‘Abu Hamza’ ie the architect of the bombings [and just to be clear here – the film has been out for awhile… and the claim for Abu is that the americans keep asking about him and then assume that they may have found him.] whispers in his last breath to a child that he shouldn’t worry becuase they will kill them all…

And grotesque and hopeless as that seems it is revealed that the leader of the FBI agents comforted a mourning fellow agent by those very words – ‘We’ll kill them all.’ High King Peter declares as he prepares for battle that they will ‘crush them all’ [which is not in the book]…

Kill them all, Crush them all – no room for quarter or mercy from any – be they FBI, bomb manufacturer or, now, Knights of Narnia. To quote a line from Lethal Weapon – There are no heroes anymore… and it is this moral ambiguity that in the end underpins the reality of The Kingdom whilst also shading the characters of C. S. Lewis from our modern point of view – in the end though after the ‘bad guy’ had said those words in Lethal Weapon – Mel Gibson broke threw into the room to prove the point wrong.

Now, after all those years and dredged into wars that don’t seem to have a clear end, even after Vietnam, the film industry doesn’t think there are heroes anymore… Just folk trying to protect their own folk with whatever means they have to hand.

Read Full Post »

I write this post, as I smoke my pipe and drink coffee and sip a small gin – you may think it’s a bit early but then I’ve just watched This World; Bannatyne Takes On Tobacco which documents Duncan Bannatyne’s hard look at British American Tobacco practice in Africa.

I watched it with notepad to hand and took some notes and quite frankly whilst you can argue stats and such there is in the end no point – Duncan’s point is irrefutable, British American Tobacco has been targeting the young and it doesn’t matter how young it would seem (smoking starts at the rather premature age of eight years old)…

There are three points I’d like to make at this point – I have emailed Duncan Bannatyne to ask whether or not he’d have another look if ‘BAT’ genuinely changes its practices [as the marketing policies are fine, in print, the question is how they have been trampled over and when I say the ‘marketing policies are fine’ I believe that when you are old enough to fight, kill and die for your country I think you are old enough to decide ‘hmm, to smoke or not to smoke…’]

I have also emailed BAT and this is a copy of the text –

After watching the terrible marketing practices of British American Tobacco in Africa in ‘This World’ by Duncan Bannatyne I feel compelled to boycott your products until I can be firmly reassured that your marketing policies and practices no longer target children.

I look forward to hearing from you as I sometimes post on the ‘right to smoke’ here in the UK on my blog The Third Province at stumblingtoheaven.wordpress.com and would be more comfortable doing so in the future if you could facilitate this matter.

So we’ll just have to see if they reply to a small chap like me…

Lastly I want to say that although I find the targeting of children abhorrent I find even worse Nestle‘s practice which is to target the mother of a newborn with their powdered milk produce which in the end is far more dangerous for their babes than if they begin to smoke – as they could quit whilst once a mother has stopped producing breast milk there is no return… Have a look here

I hope you can join me in my personal boycott of both Nestle and now (if you smoke) British American Tobacco. It is through choices like this that we define our relationship with the marketplace.

PS I have since received a reply from British American Tobacco and here, in full, it is –

02/07/2008 18:37:04

Thank you for your email. The programme has generated a lot of comments and
it's impossible for us to respond individually to each one. However, to
read our response to the points that it raised, please see our website at

Yours sincerely,



British American Tobacco p.l.c.
A company registered in England and Wales
Registered office: Globe House, 4 Temple Place, London WC2R 2PG
Registered number: 3407696

This message is subject to and does not create or affect any terms and
conditions between yourself and British American Tobacco, its subsidiaries
or affiliates ("British American Tobacco") .  Communications on the
internet are not secure. Accordingly British American Tobacco cannot and
does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.  Any
view or opinions expressed are those of the author.  This communication is
intended only for the addressee. Its contents and any attached files are
strictly confidential.  If you have received it in error, please telephone
the number detailed above.

Kind of makes you all warm inside, doesn’t it? It’s nice to know they’ve had to notice the programme – which is what Bannatyne intended I’m sure – referring to their policies that Duncan showed were meaningless doesn’t make much more than chaff…

If they had something more meaningful to say I may well have treated the ‘information’ or the ‘communication’ with sensitivity. On the other hand you can visit the website and see for yourselves, just as they wish… there is a section on youth prevention which is definitely there…

Now all I need is a note from Duncan… before I move on to the really evil empire of Nestle…

Read Full Post »

at the way the state sponsored attempt at justice is on BBC One this week at 9 O’Clock and available for the internet viewing thing is Criminal Justice written by one of the legal professionals and as such it was good to see the comfortable tone of Rumpole of the Bailey, [from the radio plays I’ve listenned to] even if Rumpole’s mind is more dangerous than a samurai’s sword (complete with samurai) by John Mortimer is nowhere to be seen – Peter Moffat’s writing is sharply focused on bringing the raw detail home to us, the viewers, so much so that we may scrape the our sense of justice upon ‘our’ system of justice…

Of course, it is also put on in a very sharp way – one episode per day for one week at peak time…

I am going to be watching the last episode of House on Thursday and then use the iplayer to watch Thursday’s episode in less quality than normal – perhaps the old BBC is getting cutthroat and is trying to displace our ‘loyalties’ to our normal shows – well after Thursday I won’t have any anyway… As I’m still waiting for the next season of NCIS and, of course, the switch off of the analogue when I’ll be more than content to watch DVDs and stuff the lot of the TV channels but the wife doesn’t entirely agree with my dismissive view of TV and we may have to get that energy hungry digital box so we can add to global warming…

The one fault (so far and returning to the point of this post)… is that the circumstances of the ‘crime’ are rather unbelievable – but that’s not the point about all of this, it’s about Criminal Justice and, so far I’d recommend it…

Read Full Post »

In the series of Buffy [The Vampire Slayer] and Angel magic is used relatively commonly and not just by the good guys…

Given the shift of sympathy for programmes with an edge of realism and the ‘occult’ given that some involved in these went through a spate of badness – Witchblade was cancelled, the actress who played ‘Cordelia Chase’ in Buffy and then Angel had a problem and some groups were always going to object to these series – either secularists who wish no-one to believe the Tooth Fairy might be true or radically conservative Christians – but of course all we’d ever here are the louder and not so sympathetic Christians

[Why Do we shoot Ourselves in the Foot so well and so Often?]

But when the sixth season of Buffy was airing and (not to put too fine a point on it – its been years if you don’t know the plot you obviously Don’t Care, well at least not enough to stop me from giving some hints away) Willow the resident ‘cool and approved’ witch is going bad – there were quite a few who just thought that Willow was merely doing her best and it’s all understandable, what with all she’s gone through and all…

This does include doing her best to destroy the planet all on her own – grieving over her failed relationship with Tara, another witch, and her failed substitute relationship with Amy, yet another witch…

To grudgingly be fair – Ever since back in Buffy season whatever there has been the ‘byline’ that every time magic is used there are consequences

The argument’s have all been gone over but what I think is actually being done in Season 6 is that Willow is having to deal with some hard realities that come from life, and that she seeks the easy, convenient path at every turn to deny those realities and when that fails she becomes destructive – unable at the last to cope.

In essence this isn’t the debate about magic it’s more to do with how we can or can’t cope with life through the eyes of Joss Whedon – which if you spin down far enough you’ll find he’s an atheist and absurdist… or to put it in more common language – he is a nihilist. This can, if you know what you are looking for, be seen clearly in Angel particularly the comments that Angel makes after his conversation with a dead man in this episode in season2 – that nothing matters and because if you know nothing matters then how you actually decide to do anything then matters – building a morality from the individual up with nothing but a circular argument to support it [which means if you can kick a bit of it then the whole thing falls to smash].

This is Whedon’s view of life and in extremis it means that anybody going off and being a villian doesn’t matter- so Willow’s ‘Journey into darkness’ is nothing to be surprised at – other would be heroes have had this treatment within Whedon’s writings. Giving Buffy and Angel a credibility rare amongst tv shows of this ilk but at what price?

Folk’s moral compass is taken for a spin. And all sorts of issues are dragged in. Take magic, the use of, it is about doing something the easy way, a cheat, sometimes within Buffy and Angel – necessitated by demanding circumstances [which aren’t normal in everyday life…] but generally taken as dubious but the characters believe themselves and their friends are good thereby giving a strange and interesting view of magic which goes like this –

Witches use magic, not all witches are evil as Willow is good therefore magic can be good… even though earlier OZ [Willow’s boyfriend before Seth Green went off to be a film star…] argued that magic demanded a price – he was discounted.

It winds up with the view that the caster’s intention determines the moral force of the act – good, bad, indifferent or more pointedly – excusable. Which is were Whedon’s view on life comes in – if you cheat then it does not matter except in regard to it’s consequences and how that affects you – are you now more likely to cheat or not? Some I knew at the time this was being released here only made justifications for Willow’s choice to walk the easy path and therein lay the problem – if given the chance to be expedient and get what they wanted they not only replied that they would but justified themselves by thinking that everyone would if they could… which is the point – some folk do choose the harder path.

But of course the cheesey serials like Charmed have managed to carry on given the wholesome idea that if you are beautiful outside then you are beautiful inside and thus your use of magic must also be beautiful… It lacks any edge of realism and thus the fantasy of the easy path is left to stick out like a life plan. Why did Joss Whedon pick this for the sixth season’s focus of Buffy – why not, after all, what does it matter?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »