Which seems to include no one here.

Well, you know, there's a working theory that Buffy appeals to people who still haven't gotten over high school, and doesn't to people who have. So, yeah. (Theory put forth by: my aunt, who aesthetically appreciated S1, but did not become emotionally involved.)

Although, really, my general objection is to people who fantasize about anything being perfect, dramatic and uncomplicated, and the prevailing myths of childhood are such that childhood is an incredibly easy target for such fantasy. I blame the toy industry.

"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir" comes from Berkeley Breathed. He did a small series of strips in Bloom County where a bunch of animals rode around with Wheelchair Guy like the crew of the Enterprise. Opus was Mister Spock. I loved it as a kid, and it turns out I wasn't the only one: in a later collection of reprints, Breathed said something like, these were hands down the most popular things I ever did, including that time I wrote a poem about Caspar Weinberger.

I think I see the distinction, ita; one is an aesthetic appeal and one is visceral. But you use the same terms for both. Is that more or less right?

Or possibly because you couldn't break away from that first look?

there's a working theory that Buffy appeals to people who still haven't gotten over high school, and doesn't to people who have

Does the group of "not over HS" include people who make it perfect? I'd think it would have to.

I'm very over high school. Loved it. It was much fun, plus with the learning complicated stuff. But that was seven million years ago, and I've had fun since too.

Bloom County! I have all the books! I even have the record done by Billy and the Boingers--never been played.

you use the same terms for both. Is that more or less right?

Yeah, pretty much. I'd say there are guys that "don't do anything for me." Tyson's not one of those -- but it's only his picture that does something for me. Sure he's stunning in real life, but there's no pull there. So once I verified he still looked that good, I went on with my evening.

Djimon was more like me backing away, trying to get out of range of his mysterious powers before it was too late.

including that time I wrote a poem about Caspar Weinberger.

Aww, yeah:

How I love to watch the morn,
With golden sun that shines,
Up above to nicely warm
These frosty toes of mine

The wind doth taste of bittersweet,
Like jasper wine and sugar.
I bet it's blown through others' feet,
like those of... Caspar Weinberger

I think I see the distinction, ita; one is an aesthetic appeal and one is visceral.

And it's about twenty times more complicated in a fannish context, where most of the time, there's at least an element of the character appreciation involved in actor appreciation. There are so many levels.

Scott Bakula - loved him on Quantum Leap, think he's very attractive, cannot STAND him on Enterprise.

Bradley Whitford -- love the character *and* what I know about the actor, which includes his heartfelt devotion to his wife and children.

And there's got to be someone out there where it's a case of loving the character, but thinking the actor's an ass, although I can't think of...yes, I can. David Duchovny.

So with you on that one, Dana.

Well, I know I wanted smack Mulder upside the head more than one or two times. Then again, I have the tolerance of a gnat.

What always annoyed me was the general acceptance, in my old fandom, that photos of actors should be taken as if they were photos of characters. Like, that TV guide photoshoot is "proof" the characters are sleeping together. WTF??