McAfee Antivirus was installed on my recently purchased Dell laptop.  Then I learned that the university where I'm located recommends Norton antivirus (though they later said both are about equally effective).  I thought to be doubly safe, I'd download and install that, too, from a software suite I'd purchased for $15 from the university.

That was a big mistake.  Basically, I couldn't use my computer -- everything was frozen.  It took several days of phone calls for the IT people to figure out that the problem was caused by my doing this.  They said the two softwares read each other as viruses.

I was annoyed with all kinds of McAfee popups on my computer so I ended up uninstalling that.  I then uninstalled Norton, then reinstalled it using a free download from Norton's website.  It is now actually called Symantec AntiVirus Corp., but the Norton website (sorry I don't have the URL offhand) brings you to it.  There are "live updates" when you click on an icon once you have it installed.

You shouldn't have to pay for antivirus software.

 

An afterthought.

To tell  the truth, had one scene in particular NOT been cut when SciFi aired "Suspiria," I probably wouldn't have gotten into these Argento movies at all ... that is the scene of a knife stabbing an exposed, still-beating heart.  That scene (in the first murder) is restored to all its technicolor glory in the newly restored offering.  Thinking about that scene still gives me pause ... and makes me question the director's psychology.  I'm making parallels as I write this to some of the intensive criticism currently being directed at "Passion of the Christ" ... I want to give Argento/Suspiria the benefit of the doubt given other aspects of the movie that do appeal to me.  And to review the movie, not the director.

Roddy MacDowell was such a gifted actor, I found it painful to see him reduced to parading about in a monkey suit delivering tosh.
....

Compared to the fare on offer now, this stuff looks pretty good. At least it's entertaining.

Not to go too far off into a discussion, but I think there's actually a bit more substance than most people might guess.  I've only watched the first three or four 1-hr. eps so far so I can't assess the series as a whole, but the first few eps effectively dramatize the senseless, irrational hatred that different "groups" have toward each other, with realistic characterizations (especially some of the ape characters).  The novel by Pierre Boulle was also a work of social commentary (I was in junior high when I read it).

When Roddy McDowell died, I was dismayed how so many commentators "explained" who he was by saying he was in "Planet of the Apes."  Somehow that seemed beneath the dignity of a "good" actor.  But as I've watched these eps (and not all that closely really), the personality of the character shines through even the ape mask and costume.  Good actors like McDowell and Maurice Evans, Kim Hunter, are able to convey very distinctive characters through voice and movement ... with lesser actors they'd all probably seem the same.  But it must have been a challenge!

I did a quick search and didn't find that anyone else had posted this, so ...

While missing Dark Shadows' daily airing and while waiting for a possible SoapNet run -- and the hoped-for WB series -- vampire fans can also look forward to TNT's remake of Stephen King's "Salem's Lot."  It's supposed to air in June.

I enjoyed the original miniseries of Salem's Lot enough to begin reading the book (which I got about a third of the way through before I had to set it down and never got back to it).  Apparently the vampire character in the book was presented in a much more human but subtly menacing way than the cheap-shock monster of the miniseries (which I found almost unintentionally humorous looking).  The new version, running about the same length (three hours plus commercials) is supposed to follow the book much more closely, especially in the way the vampire is portrayed.

I rather liked David Soul as the writer in the original.  In the new version the character is played by Rob Lowe.

Recent discussions in another thread got me thinking about what exactly a witch is.  Some statements presented there surprised me because I thought I knew ("of course, everyone knows what a witch is"), but this forum shows that there's always more to learn ... 

It might help to define what sort of witch we're talking about.

The witches that I'm somewhat familiar with would be historical "witches" and fictional "witches."  Another category might be modern day practioners of witchcraft such as Wiccans (not sure if I am using these terms correctly).

The usual thinking in academic literature is that those accused of witchcraft in historic times, as in the Salem trials and in the witch hunts all over Europe that spanned several centuries, were innocent people, often poor and disenfranchised women.  It's often claimed that those accused were usually people living on the fringes -- outsiders distanced by their unusual behavior and/or nasty personalities.  This definitely wasn't always true, as in the case of the Salem trials.  Those events took place in 1692 in Salem Village (which was later renamed Danvers, Mass.).

In contrast to this conventional view, someone on this forum pointed me to the writings of Margaret Murray, whom if I'm not mistaken believed that many of those accused of witchcraft were actually practioners of the old pagan religions.  I'm not sure what scholarly opinion has to say about this theory, but it's an interesting one.

It seems highly likely to me that in some cases those accused did deal with old folk beliefs involving things like herbs, charms, and spells.  In fact I know this is true in the country of Finland, where the practice of spells was fairly commonplace well into the Middle Ages if not later, and folk beliefs such as charms (both physical talismans and orally recited) continued well into the 20th century.  Proceedings against witches in Finland were usually prosecutions for malevolent witchcraft, while more "white Magic" witchcraft was more tolerated.  Perhaps uniquely, most of those prosecuted in that country were male, and there may be a connection between these male witches with the vanished shamanistic culture of ancient times.  The usual punishment was a hefty fine (such as a horse), although there were some executions too.  I believe that I have also read that there were witchcraft prosecutions prior to the Christian era, but I would have to do more checking to verify my memory on this point.

These are some of the historical witches, then.  So far this sounds different from witches like Angelique on DS, since the real life witches were human, mortal people who could, let's say, have possibly been lured off a cliff.  Whereas Angelique would seem to be far more powerful.  I can't think of specific examples offhand, but I think that's how we see Angelique.

I remember being surprised during my first complete viewing of DS during the last run on SciFi when it was said that Angelique was immortal.  I had never heard of witches being immortal before.  Does anyone know if this is actually common to fictional witches, or was this unique to DS?

Is Angelique the witch par exemplar, or is she really not all that special in the world of witches?  I know it has been pointed out in the past that she makes a lot of mistakes early on, although she is capable of transforming someone into an animal which shows she has some rather out of the ordinary powers, or at least access to them if not fully under control.

My experience with fictional witches that I can think of is mostly of witches as they appear in children's literature.  For example, in "Hansel and Gretel," the two children are able to outwit the evil witch and Gretel pushes her into the oven where she is killed.  I take it that some DS posters would not want to consider her as a real witch since she is deceived and killed (some indicated that this rules out someone like Joanna Mills from consideration as a witch).  Although today we think of fairy tales as for children only, they were originally told as folk tales and were not primarily told for children's enjoyment.  I also read an interesting analysis of a fairy tale that may have preserved a more positive view of witches and the apprenticeship to becoming a witch.

The other fictional witches that have stood the test of time that I remember are those in L. Frank Baum's Oz books.  Interestingly, Baum populated his magical land with both good witches (such as the unnamed Witch of the North, and Glinda the good witch of the South).  Magical practices are widespread in Oz and can be used for good or evil depending on the character of the witch or wizard.

Children's books are filled with witches and my sense is that there are many variations in the literature as to a witch is.  But there must be common denominators so that we recognize, yes, that's a witch.  I think Baum is somewhat unique in more classical literature for presenting so many positive views of witches.

I just realized that I'm leaving out the whole category of witches in the movies, which have probably shaped our view of witches as much as anything else.  My guess would be that these are overwhelmingly negative portrayals, with witches being in league with evil.

Does anyone care to elaborate on what they think a "witch" is, in any of these contexts?  I got the impression from some comments that there are certain things that define a witch and other things that rule one out as a witch.  If that's the case, what are the rules, and what is the origin of these rules, I wonder.  ("Rules" may not be quite the right word.  Someone may have a better term but at least you can probably tell what I'm getting at).  Are they based on fictional representations I'm not aware of, or might these conceptions stem from the thinking of modern day Wiccans?  Or some other source?

Your post is a very touching tribute, Lorraine.  I'm sure her family would appreciate reading it, too.

-Vlad

I may be splitting hairs that are apparent only to me.  I did not intend to start a debate (yes, I know, this is a discussion forum ...).  I didn't make a declaration or statement -- such as "Joanna Mills was a witch"-- as one would expect in a debate.  Had I taken such an approach, I would expect a deluge of divergent opinions and counter opinions.  But I asked a question -- made a suggestion -- based on impressions, and was not anticipating challenges requiring proofs in response to what I thought was expressed as a very open question!  I expect challenges in response to statements of finality or strongly worded opinions, but usually am not armed with evidence to back up a question.  So I was a bit taken aback.  Perhaps this distinction is lost on everyone but me.  If that's the case, then I should probably re-examine why I'm the only person who sees this differently.

But in all your descriptions of Joanna's ghostliness, you've only demonstrated that she was a ghost unlike other ghosts previously seen on DS.

I'm glad that point finally came across.

What part of that translates into "...therefore, she must have been a Witch in life."

My posts may have been very unclear, but I did not think I made any such statement.  My post was intended as an open question ("Could she have been a witch?"), not a closed statement ("she must have been a witch").

There is no evidence that she was powerful in any way that a Witch might be.

Agreed, as stated in my posts.

I appreciate the information in Rainey's response which points up my lack of knowledge of witches.  I thought I had read and seen enough fictional representations of witches to have come up with an interesting (fictional) idea (at least within the context of DS), but if there are too many problems with the idea, then there's no point pursuing it.

Gothick presents a good suggestion regarding ghosts who have been killed by violence having special properties; this was also news to me, and that may have been all the writers had in mind.  Beyond this, I restate only my observation, which others may not find valid, that the ghost of Joanna Mills seemed to be a very special ghost (dare I say, "spellbinding" in her ability to deceive the living, the living dead, and the immortal), but I truly make no other conclusions.  (I use the term spellbinding loosely and do not intend to imply that the only explanation for this ability which I observe is that she must be a witch.)

I apologize if I was unfair in characterizing others' comments.