April 2002 posts
I heard rumors that the last two
eps of the year will be shown as a 2 hour episode... -- Rob, 10:27:32 04/05/02 Fri
I have mixed feelings about this. I love a big 2 hour TV event, but, that means a whole week less of
"Buffy" before the BIG BREAK. That means that, once it returns near the end of April, we'll only
have 4 weeks left of "Buffy."
I know it's kind of futile to argue either way. They're gonna do what they're gonna do. Part of me
wants to see both episodes in a row, knowing they'll be a cliffhanger at the end of the first. But the
other part, obviously, wants the season to last as long as possible.
Any thoughts?
Rob
[>
It's pretty well confirmed which will delay "Entropy" to 4.30 -- Liq, 10:58:22
04/05/02 Fri
[> [>
Does anyone know the dates of the last few episodes? -- Apophis, 11:11:50 04/05/02
Fri
I have local/reception problems with UPN. If they all are over with before May 4, I'm fine. If they go
beyond that, I might miss the last few (and we can't have that).
[> [> [>
Here ya go! -- Liq, 11:18:57 04/05/02 Fri
April 9th
Gone (R)
April 16th
DoubleMeat Palace (R)
Dead Things (R)
April 23rd
Older and Far Away (R)
April 30th
Entropy
May 7th
Seeing Red
May 14th
Villains
May 21st
Two To Go
Grave
[> [> [> [>
Thanks, and Grr aargh! -- Rob, 13:07:17 04/05/02 Fri
The name of that last episode doesn't sound too happy, does it?
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Thanks, and Grr aargh! -- wiscoboy, 13:34:59 04/05/02 Fri
The title only indicates to me that Buffy may finally come to terms with her time in the grave and
"resurrection", and what all that signifies in her life as it is now.
[> [> [> [> [>
Hey, It Could Be In French! -- Rachel, 15:48:16 04/05/02 Fri
Where "grave" means serious...but not dead. (Okay, so far out on the limb that it's starting to creak).
Actually, that's also another meaning in English. That would rapidly signal the end to this
post!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
"She came from the grave much graver", foreshadowing ? -- Ete, 16:26:14
04/05/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Great insight, Ete! Much to think about now! -- Rob, 20:06:53 04/05/02 Fri
that bloody soul! -- Purple Tulip,
10:48:22 04/05/02 Fri
I was watching the AtS episode "I Will Remember You" the other night with some of my friends who
had never seen it before (it is one of my fave eps. from either show, any season), and it got me
thinking about the soul and human thing. When Angel went to the Oracles and asked them if the
Powers that Be were the ones to make him human again, they laughed, and the male one asked him
if he had averted the apocolypse, or performed other human life-saving events. Does this mean that
the P.O.B. can make a demon humand again if they have performed one of these tasks? If this is
true, then why can't they make Spike human? I mean, he did help avert an apocalypse when he
helped fight Glory- and he has helped the gang numerous times before and after that as well. And
Angel has also helped repeatedly to save human kind. So why have they not been able to become
human yet, other than Angel by the Morhra demon? Or would they even want to if they had the
chance? I know that Angel gave up his chance in IWRY, but Spike hsan't even been given that
option yet. Hmmmmm....makes me wonder what will happen in season 7. Anyone got any
thoughts?
[>
Re: that bloody soul! -- Apophis, 11:01:35 04/05/02 Fri
I'd imagine that the PTB can do quite a bit, if they put their minds to it. Will they, though? Angel
has been one their side for 6 years now (barring a few months when he was... indisposed); he's
suffered incredible torture on their behalf. Despite this, the Powers have given him jack (save,
possibly, Connor, though A) we don't know it was them and 2) that could be both a blessing and a
curse). Spike has been sort of good for about 3 years now. Yes, he's been tortured, and yes, he's
made sacrifices. At the end of the day, it comes down to motivation. Angel works for the betterment
of human kind (most of the time); Spike works to get on Buffy's good side. Since Angel hasn't gotten
any rewards from the Powers as to yet, I'd imagine it would take both a radical shift in motivation
and several years (if not centuries) of humanitarian service for Spike to become human (assuming he
would even want to).
[> [>
Come to think of it... -- DickBD, 12:06:28 04/05/02 Fri
Why would ANYONE want to be human, given the choice? I mean, as a vampire, you are immortal,
you don't get sick, you are super strong, and you can even smoke without worrying about the effects.
(Well, of course, there is that pesky thing about having to feed upon humans, but there is always the
option of getting blood from the butcher. And you have to avoid sunlight, but as it turns out, most of
us humans should do that, too!) Obviously, this post is tongue in cheek, but if you could retain your
identity and personality, there would be advantages.
[> [> [>
Re: Come to think of it... -- leslie,
14:57:20 04/05/02 Fri
I'm going on a gut feeling here, but this whole question just has Wizard of Oz written all over it--
"Make you human? But you've been human all along... However, in recognition of your contributions
to the betterment of humankind, I am pleased to present you with a lifetime's supply of industrial-
strength sunblock."
[>
Re: that bloody soul! -- Corwin of Amber, 20:19:29 04/05/02 Fri
> If this is true, then why can't they make Spike human? I mean, he did help avert an apocalypse
when he helped fight Glory- and he has helped the gang numerous times before and after that as
well.
Would Spike or Angel be as effective in averting future apocalypti :) if they were human?
Would Spike be any different if he had a soul?
Or if his conscience came back full force, would he just kill himself immediately?
[>
Re: that bloody soul! -- Robert, 17:03:18 04/06/02 Sat
>> "If this is true, then why can't they make Spike human?"
I am in the minority (apparently of one) in this theory, but I don't think that the Powers-That-Be
(PTB) exist within the mythology of BtVS. I have long seen the mythologies of the two shows as
different and divergent.
>> "I mean, he did help avert an apocalypse when he helped fight Glory- and he has helped the gang
numerous times before and after that as well."
Now we are getting into theology. Does anyone deserve to live based solely upon their previous
actions? If so, does Spike's recent actions make up for more than a century of constant murders and
(more importantly) the killing of two slayers. After all, if the PTB exist in the BtVS realm, then the
slayers are their instrument for protecting humanity. This makes Spikes actions even more heinous.
Can a year and a half of relatively good actions atone for this? Besides, have Spikes actions been
really all that good? Are his motivations pure?
Do actions justify a person's existance, or do we need also to consider that person's results? I am
referring to Spike's attempt to prevent the apocalypse. He did make the attempt, but he failed. The
key was activated, thus resulting in Buffy's death -- the death of yet another precious slayer. So, I
ask again. Does Spike's actions in "The Gift" count as a checkmark in the plus column or the minus
column?
>> "... but Spike hsan't even been given that option yet"
Angel has suffered since before the Boxer Rebelion, as atonement. Spike has been metaphorically
muzzled only for the past two years. Before the chip, he was still firmly a villan. How much has he
suffered since the chip? Except for Buffy's death, he hasn't suffered any remorse. He suffered
remorse over Buffy's death because he loved her. Does loving someone make them more of a
champion for humanity? Spike has suffered some beatings. Most were just single punches as Buffy
asserted her authority over Spike. I would guess that the PTB would expect that a slayer has moral
authority over a vampire. Let us look at the more severe beatings.
Glory tortured Spike in the episode "Intervention". He nobly did not betray Dawn to Glory, but the
torture was at least mostly Spike's own fault. He commissioned the construction of the buffybot. It
was his actions with the buffybot that convinced Glory's minions that Spike was the key. Making
the buffybot was not a noble act.
The other major beating Spike suffered was at the hands of Buffy in "Dead Things". Spike was
attempting to convince Buffy to conceal the murder of Katrina -- also not a noble act.
The point I am attempting to convey is that Spike is in no way as deserving of humanity as Angel. If
humanity can be bought through good deeds and noble acts, then Spike has a long way to go. Spike
has much to atone for.
B/X parallels -Dealing with the monster
(very long/spoilerish) -- shadowkat (yeah - I know...needs a life), 11:36:01 04/05/02
Fri
B/X parallels – Dealing with the Monster
First my thanks to the Board for allowing me to take up Board Space and to the people who keep
encouraging me. If it weren’t for you, I would never have continued doing this. (Thought about
waiting until my other posts got moved to archives but...oh well.)
WARNING – THERE MAY BE SPOILERS AHEAD.
Been thinking a lot about monsters this year. The internal and external ones, possibly because I’ve
come face to face with a few and as a result find myself identifying quite a bit with the characters of
BvTs, specifically Buffy and Xander.
As a child, I remember escaping my parents’ living room whenever Space 1999 came on. I’d go
outside or up to my room, because I was terrified of the monsters that were portrayed on it. The
monsters that scared me the most were the ones people changed into, such as werewolves, or the
Swamp Thing, or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I was more afraid of those monsters than ghosts,
poltergeists, or flying insects. Now that I’ve come face to face with a few human monsters – I no
longer fear the ones that occasionally appear on TV. It’s the unseen, internal ones that scare me the
most. You’ve seen them. The nice guy who turns into a rapist? The guy next door who is a serial
killer? The preacher who has a yen for small boys? The prophet who likes to blow up buildings? You
can’t tell by looking at them that a monster lies beneath the surface.
Buffy and Xander have a similar dilemma. They have been fighting external monsters most of their
lives. The vamps who rise from the grave with fangs or the ugly Master or Adam, ME’s version of
Frankenstein. These monsters, while scary, they can handle. It’s their own internal monster that
they continue to fear and struggle with. Perhaps this is why they are attracted to monsters?
Subconsciously they seek someone who can overpower or handle their monster? And maybe this is
why Buffy has never been romantically interested in Xander? Because she’s afraid of what she can
do to him? And maybe this is part of the reason Xander has always been attracted to Buffy? Because
he believes he’ll never be able to hurt her like his father continuously hurts his mother? At least not
physically or verbally, she’s proven more than once to be a match for him.
Buffy and Xander have both witnessed someone they loved turn into a monster and not just any type
of monster – but a vicious cold blooded killer, who on the outside appears to be the same person they
knew and loved. It happens to Xander first – in Harvest. In this episode, Xander and Buffy have
gone to save Xander’s best friend Jesse from vampires. Xander has known Jesse all his life. Xander
follows Buffy into the tunnels and together they find Jesse, unshackle him, and start to lead him out,
eventually reach a dead-end and discover vampires in pursuit. Apparently it was a trap and Jesse
was the bait. Except for one minor thing:
Jesse: Wait, wait. They brought me through here, there, there should be a way up. I hope! (Jesse
leads them into a chamber.)
Buffy: I don't think this is the way out!
Xander: We can't fight our way back through those things. What do we do?
Jesse: I got an idea. (vamps out) You can die!
Xander: Jesse, man. I'm sorry.
Jesse: Sorry? I feel good, Xander! I feel strong! I'm connected, man, to everything! I, I can hear the
worms in the earth!
Xander: That's a plus.
Jesse: I know what the Master wants. I'll serve his purpose. That means you die. And I feed.
Xander: Jesse, man. We're buds, don't you remember?
Jesse: You're like a shadow to me now.
Later in the library, after Xander and Buffy have escaped the tunnels sans Jesse, Xander makes it
known exactly how he feels about vampires: “I don't like vampires. I'm gonna take a stand and say
they're not good.” Xander never changes his mind on this. He can’t. Think about it for a minute.
Have you ever seen someone you thought you knew, even cared for, become a monster? Jesse looks
normal. Like himself. Neither Buffy nor Xander can tell he’s become a monster until he actually
vamps.
Xander doesn’t only have this experience with Jesse. He also has it with his first crush, outside of
Buffy. It’s no wonder to me that Xander prefers Buffy over Willow – Buffy is powerful, no man can
hurt her, she is also very pretty, and unavailable. These things combined are very attractive to
Xander. As Xander himself comments at one point – “I'll tell you this: people don't fall in love with
what's right in front of them. People want the dream. What they can't have. The more unattainable,
the more attractive.”
In Teacher’s Pet, Xander falls for a sexy attractive older teacher, who is unattainable or so he thinks.
When she takes an interest in him – he goes for it much to his regret. She turns out to be a giant
insect intent on mating with him and devoring him. This episode reminded me of legends I collected
in Wales several years ago. In each legend, the woman is monsterous – she coaxes the man either
into a deep well or devores him. She is a little like the Sirens in the Odyssey, that call out to sailors,
seducing them to their deaths. A beautiful woman on the outside, a monster on the inside. She
keeps up the illusion until she decides to mate. Xander barely escapes with Buffy’s help.
The episode Angel – echoes this theme from the female point of view. Prior to this episode, a
mysterious attractive stranger called Angel rescues Buffy from numerous situations. He warns her
and disappears. Finally in ANGEL – the stranger saves her from a trio of assassins. She takes him
home with her, because she believes they are now both in danger. He admits his attraction to her
and in this scene actually kisses her. But unfortunately, like Xander’s “Teacher”, “Angel” is also
more than he seems:
Angel: All I can ever think about is how badly I want to kiss you.
Buffy: Kiss me?
Angel: I'm older than you, and this can't ever... I better go.
Buffy: H-how much older?
Angel: I should...
Buffy: (approaches him) ...go... You said...(They kiss. They kiss again. They kiss passionately. She
puts her arm around him. The kiss goes on for several moments. Angel suddenly pulls back and
looks away.)
Buffy: What? What is it? What's wrong? (He turns to face her and growls. She sees he has his game
face on and screams. He takes a last look at her and jumps out of the window. He slides down the
roof and off onto the ground. Buffy goes to the window and watches him run away. Her mother comes
running into the room.)
Willow: Angel's a vampire?
As Buffy’s boyfriend Scott mentions in a much later episode (Beauty and The Beasts, Season 3
BvTS): “It's just that you never really know what's going on inside somebody. Do you? I mean, you
think... if you care about them... But you never really do.”
The truth is – we don’t know what lies beneath the surface of other people. We can only know what
lies inside ourselves. They may look normal on the outside but really be a monster underneath.
That said - there’s more going on here than just an inability to see beneath the surface. There’s also
an innate attraction to what lies there, an attraction to the monster, whether it be an external or
internal one. Buffy and Xander may initially flee from this attraction, but in later episodes they
continue to go there (I could give a complete run – down but this is already too long). Xander seems
to sense his problem before Buffy does, as he states at the end of Nightmares and then again in Inca
Mummy Girl.
Nightmares:
Willow: When Buffy was a vampire, you weren't still, like, attracted to her, were you?
Xander: Willow, how can you... I mean, that's really bent! She was... grotesque!
Willow: Still dug her, huh?
Xander: I'm sick, I need help.
Inca Mummy Girl:
Xander: I just, present company excluded, I have the worst taste in women of anyone in the world,
ever.
Buffy: Ampata wasn't evil. At least not to begin with, and... I-I do think she cared about you.
Xander: Yeah, but I think that whole sucking the life out of people thing would have been a strain
on the relationship.
Here’s the difference between Buffy and Xander: Buffy unlike Xander, has always been cognizant of
her inner monster. She has nightmares about it. In the episode Nightmares – she dreams she
becomes a vampire – pure killer, pure animal. She knows that’s what lies inside her and she fights it
constantly. As Faith, the rogue slayer, tells Buffy in Consequences (Season 3 after Faith accidentally
killed a human):
Faith: (grins evilly) Scares you, doesn't it?
Buffy: Yeah, it scares me. Faith, you're hurting people. You're hurting yourself.
Faith: (approaches Buffy) But that's not it. That's not what bothers you so much. What bugs you is
you know I'm right. You know in your gut we don't need the law. We *are* the law. You know exactly
what I'm about 'cause you have it in you, too.
Buffy: No, Faith, you're sick.
Faith: I've seen it, B. You've got the lust. And I'm not just talking about screwing vampires.
Buffy: Don't you *dare* bring him into this.
Faith: (taunting her) It was good, wasn't it? The sex? The danger? Bet a part of you even dug him
when he went psycho.
Buffy: No! (continues walking)
Faith: (follows) See, you need me to toe the line because you're afraid you'll go over it, aren't you, B?
You can't handle watching me living my own way, having a blast, because it tempts you! You know it
could be you!
Buffy knows Faith is right on a deep level, part of her does get off on it. Buffy knows that the
monster resides in her. She feels it inside her just as Dracula points out in Buffy vs. Dracula:
DRACULA: Why else would I come here? For the sun? I came to meet the renowned ... killer.
BUFFY: Yeah, I prefer the term slayer. You know, killer just sounds so...
DRACULA: Naked?
BUFFY: Like I ... paint clowns or something. I'm the good guy, remember?
DRACULA: Perhaps, but your power is rooted in darkness. You must feel it.
He sees the monster inside Buffy, a monster she can hide from her friends and family but not from
the demons she slays. The demons can handle the monster. They are monsters themselves. And it
must get difficult being careful all the time, careful not to hurt people. Notice whenever she hugs
Xander or Giles, they complain of hurting a rib? And what about Riley? Riley who asks her to hit him
in Into the Woods after she discovers him with vamp trulls, but she doesn’t dare do it. Riley who
tries to fight with her, but every time they do maneuvers he gets hurt. And when he becomes “weak
and kittenish”, she begins to shut him out, protect him, partly from herself. As Spike points out to
Riley in Into the Woods Season 5 Bvts: “The girl needs some monster in her man and that's not in
your nature no matter how low you try to go.”
But Riley doesn’t understand it any more than Xander does, which is ironic, because of all the
characters, Xander should. After all he has the same attraction – but unlike Buffy, he’s never really
understood why. Xander’s monster is more hidden than Buffy’s, not as obvious. But it does come out
at times. As Faith states (Beauty and the Beasts Season 3):
Faith: All men are beasts, Buffy.
Buffy: Okay, I was hoping to not get that cynical till I was at least forty.
Faith: It's not cynical. I mean, it's realistic. Every guy from... Manimal down to Mr. I-Love-The-
English-Patient has beast in him. And I don't care how sensitive they act. They're all still just in it
for the chase.
Hasn’t Xander admitted as much? In The Pack – Xander gets possessed by a hyena which amplifies
his inner beast or monster. It is the first glimpse the audience gets of Xander’s dark side, a side he
does not allow out. Granted most of it was the hyena, but he remembers it and refers to the
experience later in Phases (Season 2), when the gang is looking for a Werewolf, stating that he
knows what it’s like to have an animal inside. In a sense he almost admits some responsibility for
his beastlike behavior. Here’s the most disturbing Xander scene from The Pack, the scene tells us
something about Xander and Buffy:
(Xander growls and rolls Buffy over onto her back so he's on top now and has her arms pinned
down.)Buffy: Get off of me.
Xander: Is that what you really want? (Buffy struggles a bit) We both
know what you really want. You want danger, don't cha? You like your men dangerous.
Buffy: You're in trouble, Xander. You are infected with some hyena
thing, it's like a demonic possession!
Xander: Dangerous and mean, right? Like Angel. Your Mystery Guy. Well,
guess who just got mean. Do you know how long... I've waited... until you'd stop pretending that we
aren't attracted...(Buffy throws him off of her and quickly gets up to face him. He gets up, too, and
begins to approach her as she backs away.) Until Willow... stops kidding herself that I could settle
with anyone but you?
Buffy: Look, Xander, I don't wanna hurt you...(He grabs her by the shoulders and pushes her
against the vending machine.)
Xander: Now do you wanna hurt me? (Buffy struggles, but the possessed Xander is too strong.)
Come on, Slayer. I like it when you're scared. (She struggles a bit more.)The more I scare you, (sniffs
her) the better you smell.
Xander clearly thinks on a deep subconscious level that Buffy prefers the Beast. She doesn’t. She’s
afraid of the Beast in both herself and in the men she is attracted to. But she is more afraid of it in
herself. She’s also afraid – and here’s the kicker – that she brings it out in her men. In Innocence
(Season 2) the scene that continues to break my heart is the one after Angel turns evil, in which she
asks Jenny – if it was her. If she was responsible. If she caused Angel to turn and Jenny says,
hesitantly, she thinks so. Later with Riley, when she discovers him with the vamp trulls, she feels
the same sense of revulsion and fear and also, although she denies it, blames herself. Even in the
above scene where she tells Xander that it is the hyena talking, a part of her must be worrying that
it’s her.
Xander wonders the same thing about himself. He appears to be a demon magnet as Willow so aptly
calls him in Something Blue: “Let's-let's look at your bio. Insect Lady, Mummy Girl, Anya.. You're a
demon magnet.”
Every woman he gets interested in has some sort of monster inside, even Buffy. Willow – he avoids –
seeing her as weak. He doesn’t really show any interest in her until she starts going out with OZ and
practicing magicks, becoming both unavailable and oddly more powerful. Getting involved serves an
additional purpose – it breaks things off with Cordy, a relationship that may be scaring him a little,
possibily because Cordy reminds him of his mother? Or his relationship with her was beginning to
remind him of his parents’ relationship? In Restless – we begin to see what really scares Xander.
Xander is in his parents’ basement, hunting a way out, but all the paths he takes lead him right back
there, except one – up the steps and directly to his parents.
XANDER: (whispers) That's not the way out. (The door bursts open. Xander looks down at himself,
then back up the stairs.)
VOICE: What the hell is wrong with you?(Xander looks chastised.)(We see a man silhouetted in the
doorway above. It's Xander's dad.)
DAD: You won't come upstairs? What are you ... ashamed of us? Your mother's crying her guts
out!
XANDER: You don't understand.
DAD: No. You don't understand. (Starts down the stairs, stomping angrily) The line ends here with
us, and you're not gonna change that.(Xander looking down, unable to look at his dad.)
DAD: You haven't got the heart.(Suddenly Dad shoves his hand into Xander's chest..)
A lot of people have written how weak and dumb Xander is. I beg to differ. I think he is actually
quite bright and brave and strong. He is afraid of becoming his father. A man he has watched his
entire life abuse his mother. A drunk and a blowhard and possibly a wife beater. As a result –
Xander has deliberately chosen strong women. Women who can match him both verbally and
physically. He prefers Buffy – because he knows he could never hurt her the way his father hurts his
mother. But he falls for Anya – believing perhaps naively – that Anya is strong enough to take him.
She was a demon after all. A 1000 years old. She used to punish men. If he steps out of line – she’ll
probably punish him. That is until he gets a glimpse of the future and realizes that he could hurt her
far more than she could hurt him. In his vision – he sees himself making Anya miserable, he sees
himself about to hit Anya over the head with a frying pan. Then after he returns and saves Anya
from the demon – he watches over herhead his father torturing his mother in the background.
XANDER: It wasn't you. (sighs) It wasn't you I was hating. (pauses) I had these thoughts, and ...
fears before this. (Another beat. Xander stares at the floor.) Maybe we just went too fast.
ANYA: Look, everybody has thoughts. It's natural, it doesn't mean that, that getting married is
wrong.
XANDER: I know, I know...
ANYA: (desperate) Look, you're just shaken up, okay? You just calm down and we'll start over, okay?
(Xander looks over at the main room. Shot of Xander's Parents yelling at each other. Mr. Harris is
standing while Mrs. Harris sits in a chair.Shot of Xander watching.Closer shot of Xander's Dad
yelling angrily. Pan down to Xander's Mom arguing back at him. It looks like he tries to hit her and
she grabs his hand. Cut back to Xander still watching them. )
XANDER: (tearful) We can't start over. If this is a mistake, it's forever, and ... I don't want to hurt
you. Not that way. (Close shot on their hands separating, falling to their sides.) I'm sorry. (Anya
crying) I am so sorry.
Xander is looking at his monster as he tells Anya that it’s over. He later regrets this decision, but he
made it not out of fear for himself so much as out of fear for Anya.
He is afraid of becoming this monster. He is trying to fight it, but can he?
Buffy has the same problem. Since she returned from the grave she’s felt less alive. Cold. More like a
killer. Scared to show this to her friends, she goes to the one person who can understand, a vampire
– who in reality isn’t a person at all, at least not according to her training. As Giles states in
ANGEL: “A vampire isn't a person at all. (clears his throat) It may have the movements, the, the
memories, even the personality of the person that it took over, but i-it's still a demon at the core,
there is no halfway.” So who better to spend time with, to risk being the monster with, than another
monster? “Vampires are monsters (after all), they make Monster movies about them” (Xander –
Intervention, BvtS Season5). She doesn’t have to worry about hurting him. She doesn’t have to
worry about being the monster with him. And she’s never felt more like a monster than she did when
she came out of her own grave.
Unfortunately – Spike hasn’t been acting much like a monster of late. And she’s starting to care for
him. Not love necessarily. But care. At least enough to know that she can’t use him to deal with the
monster anymore. That all she’s doing is what Faith suggested she wanted to do years ago – let it
out, enjoy it a little, be the monster. Like Xander does in Hell’s Bells – Buffy realizes that she can’t
allow the monster inside her to destroy someone or something else. Unleashing her monster onto
him is starting to tear away at her, at the part of her that isn’t the monster. Here’s the scene from As
You Were. Buffy has just come back to Spike’s bombed out crypt to break it off with him:
BUFFY: I’m using you. I can't love you. I'm just ... being weak, and selfish...
SPIKE: (moves even closer) Really not complaining here.
BUFFY: ...and it's killing me. (Spike frowns.) I have to be strong about this. (He continues staring at
her.) I'm sorry ... William.
B/X have come to a sort of epiphany. They’ve looked inside themselves and seen the monster.
They’ve acknowledged that they can become that monster if they aren’t careful. As Buffy discovered
in Beauty and The Beasts – once you let the monster out…controlling it becomes more and more
difficult. The Monster starts to become you. It’s expressed quite well in this Scene from Beauty and
the Beasts, Season 3 – In the scene Willow explains to Cordy how a normal schoolboy became a
horrible monster.
Willow: Well, we got ahold of, uh, Pete's lab books and stuff, and Mr. Science was doing a
Jekyll/Hyde deal. He was afraid Debbie was gonna leave him, so he mixed this potion to become
super mas macho.
Buffy: The only thing was, after a while, he didn't need the potion to turn into a bad guy. He did it
just fine on his own.
Cordelia: So it was like a real killing. He wasn't under the influence of anything?
Buffy: Just himself.
Buffy and Xander have finally figured out that loving the external monster is not the answer to
dealing with their own. They can’t avoid their inner monsters by thrusting the pain on someone else.
That is monsterous in of itself. All they’ve done is create a bigger problem. Let the monster out of the
box and it becomes very hard to tuck it back inside – this is something all of our characters are
beginning to discover, not just B/X. Internal struggles are the toughest. It’s so much easier to fight
something that exists outside yourself. It’s the things inside that are tough to fight. But if we don’t
deal with them, don’t acknowledge them – then we risk doing what Mr. Science did in Beauty and
the Beasts or Xander in the Pack, we risk becoming what we fear - monsters.
Sorry for the length again. Hope this adds to the discussion and isn’t a retread. Thanks for reading.
As always appreciate your comments…actually I think I may be getting addicted to them.
;-) shadowkat
[>
Re: B/X parallels -Dealing with the monster (very long/spoilerish) -- Rochefort, 13:42:39
04/05/02 Fri
shadowkat that was damn good. Engrossing reading. And I think you've got a pretty great insight
into this Buffy/ Xander/Monster thing. I was thinking a lot about Xander's dream seaquence. Would
you read the sandbox scene, the Giles/Spike on the swings thing, as Xander's attempt to replace his
family with another family? A sort of "That isn't my family. These people are my family. I can forget
all of that." It doesn't lead him directly back to the basement, maybe it does help him figure out
some things, these new relationships, but eventually he does have to face his own parents, his own
inner monster, as you say. I thought Hells Bells was really well done for just the reasons you say.
So many things we've always known we finally got to see and I think they were incredibly
believable.
Anyway, great insights, not just into the show, but into attraction and the monsters of our pasts.
Thanks!
p.s. There is no normal life, Wyatt. There's just life.
[>
'Kat, don't get a life... this stuff's too good to give up! -- Kitt, 14:37:39 04/05/02 Fri
[>
Welsh legends? Did you say Welsh legends??? -- leslie, 14:52:01 04/05/02 Fri
Completely off track here--what legends were you collecting in Wales? I would love to hear about
them! If you like, e-mail me offlist, since I have learned through hard experience that this is not a
subject of vital interest to 90% of the human population (sob).
[> [>
My cat is named Gwydion, Prince of Math. -- Rochefort, 16:33:37 04/05/02 Fri
[> [> [>
Don't let him persuade you to give up the pigs! -- leslie, 17:08:27 04/05/02 Fri
[> [> [> [>
OK, I assume this is a legendary Welsh joke? -- Lilac, 04:31:54 04/06/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: OK, I assume this is a legendary Welsh joke? -- leslie, 08:59:40 04/06/02 Sat
Yup. In the 4th Branch of the Mabinogi, Gwydion, for his own nefarious reasons, wants to start a
war, so he goes south to Dyfed, where Pryderi has recently received a gift from the Otherworld of a
marvellous new animal: pigs. The catch is that he can neither give them away nor sell them until the
herd has doubled in size. Gwydion, disguised as a Bloody Good Poet, persuades him that while he
can't give them away or sell them, he can trade them for something better, namely, a bunch of
amazing horses and greyhounds. Pryderi agrees, but unfortunately, Gwydion has actually conjured
the horses and hounds by magic. When Pryderi realizes he's been duped, he wages war on Gwydion's
uncle Math, but is killed in battle by Gwydion "by means of force, magic, and enchantment."
So, if a poet offers to trade you for your pigs, DON'T.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Thank you, I will guard my pigs carefully. -- Lilac, 09:31:52 04/06/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
In the 5th book of Mabdegonian, Gwydion is turned into my Cat as a punishment. --
Rochefort, 09:42:37 04/06/02 Sat
[> [>
You've got mail ;-) -- shadowkat, 22:26:25 04/05/02 Fri
[>
Swamp Thing -- fresne, 16:58:32 04/05/02 Fri
Okay, to 2nd, 3rd and Kazillionth what everyone else had to say, wow.
Also, odd how little things can set off thoughts. You mentioned Swamp Thing,
"The monsters that scared me the most were the ones people changed into, such as werewolves, or
the Swamp Thing, or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde."
I was recently re-reading Love and Death, one of the, if not the pivotal turning point in the Swamp
Thing series. For those not familiar, 20 year old Swamp Thing spoilers to follow.
Up until this point in the series, Swamp Thing believed that he once was a man, Alec Holland, who
through an - insert hideous accident here - was turned into some sort of monstrous plant mutant
thing. Un-natural. Ugly. Un-loveable. Many of his earlier struggles are about trying to "reverse the
accident." His attempts to become the normal man that he was. Oh, and throw in some unrequited
love.
Then we have a change in the writer of the comic, a change which took the series in an entirely new
direction. You see, Swamp Thing isn't Alec Holland. He never was. He is a plant, that for a time,
thought that he was once a man. Yes, there was an accident. Yes, there was a man named Alec. Yes,
Swamp Thing does have Alec's memories. However, it's a result of a natural process. A series of
mystic events that have existed since the dawn of time.
Swamp Things body was never Alec's and it is just a shell. The heart, the lungs, the brain, all the
internal organs that he has recreated within that body are merely simulacrums which serve no
purpose.
It's an odd and wonderful moment, because he isn't a monster who wants to become a human. He is
a god (the god of all growing green things, the earth elemental) who learns that being human is
irrelevant. So, of course, this is when he finally (for a time at least, comics like tv series being what
they are) gets the girl. Just not in the way that he expected.
So, if Buffy thinks that she is a monster, who was once a girl, then I must wonder when will she
realize that she was never the girl? That she was always Buffy.
[> [>
battling with monsters -- ponygirl, 20:16:41 04/05/02 Fri
Fresne, your last line blew me away. In her darkest moments when Buffy is stripped of everything
else she always manages to retain her core identity -- her essential "Buffy-ness" that ultimately is
her source of strength. I'm thinking specifically of Becoming II, when Angelus asked her what was
left after she had lost everything, and Buffy replied "there's me". This re-claiming of her self seems
to be what Buffy is leading to this season. And that for all the characters perhaps a realization that
there are no true monsters, just the people we all end up becoming through the choices we make.
As always, thanks to Shadowcat for starting such great discussions.
[> [>
Sublime comparison, fresne and wonderful post, shadowkat. -- Ixchel, 22:58:48 04/05/02
Fri
I wonder if this applies to Dawn as well? She thinks she is a girl who once was mystical energy
(monstrous power). Maybe she is just Dawn and that is something more than both?
Ixchel
[> [>
Re: Swamp Thing -- anom, 14:57:45 04/07/02 Sun
"It's an odd and wonderful moment, because he isn't a monster who wants to become a human. He is
a god (the god of all growing green things, the earth elemental) who learns that being human is
irrelevant. So, of course, this is when he finally (for a time at least, comics like tv series being what
they are) gets the girl. Just not in the way that he expected."
Wow. Sounds very relevant. I used to read Swamp Thing occasionally, but it's been a long time, long
before the moment you describe. I just have to wonder, why would an earth elemental--essentially, a
plant--still want "the girl"?
Oh yeah, & does this discovery change the fact that "Whatever knows fear burns at
the touch of the Swamp Thing!"?
[>
Great as usual ShadowKat -- LeeAnn, 20:46:28 04/05/02 Fri
Soon there will be NOTHING left for anyone else to write. You will have examined all and explained
all.
I'm just jealous.
[> [>
Done some great stuff yourself! -- shadowkat, 22:32:26 04/05/02 Fri
Were you the one who wrote that amazing essay on investing
in Spuffy? i loved it and you have inspired me!
There's plenty to write. Plenty to analyze. I certainly
keep finding more...(yep really need a life. LOL!)
[>
The monster in everyone -- Kerri, 20:51:26 04/05/02 Fri
Amazing essay, once again!!!
I'd just like to briefly suggest that what the message here maybe is that there is some monster in
everyone.
There is monster in Giles-just look at his fooling around with magic and the fact that he is able to
kill Ben.
There is certainly some monster is Willow. Her magic is fueled by her emotions and when Willow
taps into drak magic it seems clear that she is also tapping into the darkness within.
Of corse the real question is how to deal with this monster. Buffy, Xander, and Willow have tried
and tried to conceal their inner demons, but this year we've seen a little more of their inner monster
than they want to show.
Willow is so terrified by what lies within her that she gives up magic all together. Buffy hasn't had
this option-because of her responsibility to the world she is forced to comfront her slayer powers on a
dayly basis and this means looking right at the monster that she is so terrified of.
We have had numerous discussions of Buffy needing to find a balance in her two halves. She can't
deny her slayer half and she can't drown in it either-there is a thin line that must be walked-and
that happy medium can only come with Buffy's understanding of both her human and slayer
halves.
As shadowkat pointed out in his essay Buffy is introspective. She tends to see her inner monster,
even if she choses to hide from it. I think that ultimately we will see Buffy be able to learn from her
relationship with Spike and accept her slayer side.
Buffy must accept the slayer-a force which helps to shape her as a whole. This somewhat parallels
Xander's acceptance of his father and his contribution to Xander's developement. Both the slayer
and Xander's father have been shown to be "monsters" but there is also good within them and they
must be accepted as part of who Buffy and Xander are.
[>
Lovely, deep, insightful, as ever. How can you do to write so many great things at that speed
? -- Ete, 01:49:51 04/06/02 Sat
A where can I read your restless analysis ? someone has been refering to it, i'm curious :)
[> [>
And I just read the A/S compareason in the Archives so compliments for that too. -- Ete,
05:30:33 04/06/02 Sat
It's really an interresting analysis of their evolution, and of the metaphoras under both those
characters.
So, we've got Tara / Spike / Anya on a side, and Willow / Buffy / Xander on the other side of all those
ships, each parallelism expressing something a bit different. Will you draw a conclusion to all those
compareasons ? That' be really interresting. And how do you place Dawn the key into that pattern
?
[> [>
Restless analysis? -- shadowkat, 06:52:27 04/06/02 Sat
Haven't really done one by itself...just as part of
each of the character analyses. I guess I could. There's
so much there.
Used Restless in B/X parellels and in some B/W parallels.
Also referred to it in some G/T parallels I think.
Not sure.
But thanks - really appreciate it!
[>
Re: B/X parallels -Dealing with the monster (very long/spoilerish) -- Anne, 05:08:14
04/06/02 Sat
Wonderful analysis, again, and defines the trajectory that Buffy and Xander on with regard to the
internal monster issue -- but I have a less optimistic take than you appear to in terms of where Buffy
is right now.
You write:
"Buffy and Xander have finally figured out that loving the external monster is not the answer to
dealing with their own."
Well, as of the end of "Normal Again", it's not yet clear to me that Buffy has gotten to this point in
the trajectory. In her relationship with Spike, I'm not sure that Buffy was "loving" Spike so much as
projecting her internal monster on to him, and then proceeding to beat him up verbally, emotionally,
and physically in a continuing attempt to deny and destroy it. In order to get past this point, she did
have to break up with Spike -- and she has. But the question is: does she now recognize that the
monster is something inside her, something she still has to embrace, integrate, and manage? Or
does she think that by turning her back on Spike, she has managed to escape from the
darkness?
I fear that the latter is the case. In fact, this is one of my big problems with "As You Were". Riley
descends out of the light, shows up the meanness of her current existence in contrast to his
wonderfulness, and gives her a pep talk about how the darkness doesn't touch her. She then dumps
Spike, turns her back on him, and walks out into the sunlight. It's all presented as though she can
abandon the monster by abandoning Spike.
In fact, to me, the "It doesn't touch you" speech is nonsense. Of course the darkness touches her: it's
inside her, she can't escape it and never will. She needs to appropriate it and handle it. But if she
buys Riley's speech -- and if we buy the way the writers have presented the whole situation in this
episode -- then the darkness is being seen as something outside of her, something she can abjure and
distance from herself in the same way that an alcoholic can avoid drink.
The second reason I'm not so sure that Buffy has understood the real nature of her problem yet is
that she still has not acknowledged, apologized for, or in any way made amends for the beating in
the alleyway in "Dead Things". In fact, when Spike said something in "OAFA" about "what are you
going to do, beat me up again", not so much as a ripple on her face expressed the idea that she took
any responsibility for it or understood what an atrocity it was. Moreover -- and I expect a lot of
disagreement here -- in retrospect I believe that Buffy made a bad confession to Tara.
Let's look again at exactly what she said to Tara, and just how Tara is likely to understand what she
says.
First, she says "then why do I let him do those things to me?" Okay, what interactions have we been
presented with in this episode? First, of course, the Bronze scene -- definitely an unsavory thing that
Buffy let Spike do to her. Then, however, we see an interesting dream in which the sex is portrayed
as tender for the first few seconds in which Spike appears to be in control, then turns ugly with
visions of violence and betrayal as Buffy gets on top. And finally, a vicious beating in which Spike in
effect takes Buffy's sins upon himself unresistingly as he lets her work out her own little
psychodrama of self-loathing and denial of her inner monster. (And I'm not denying that he has
plenty of his own sins to begin with. That doesn't change the fact of what he's doing here for
Buffy).
With these images in mind, the phrase "why do I let him do these things to me?" seems incomplete,
to say the least. I think to someone operating on a fully conscious and moral plane, especially right
after that beating, the more insistent question would be "why do I do these things to him?"
Now, some people might claim that this point is handled a few seconds later when Buffy admits to
Tara that she is using Spike, and that that's not right. But again, what is she leaving out here, and
what does Tara surely understand her to mean? There is no way for Tara to understand anything
from this but that Buffy is using Spike sexually in order to make herself feel better, without loving
him and despite knowing that he loves her. And that again is part of the truth, but not the whole
truth and not the ugliest truth. The ugliest part of the truth is that Buffy, as noted above, is
abusing Spike as a punching bag proxy for her own evil. The picture of somebody who is
getting off on somebody sexually without being able to return their love is not nice, but is still a
whole lot prettier than the picture of Buffy beating Spike in the alleyway, which is the apotheosis of
the whole relationship. And her abusiveness is something she did not confess either directly or
indirectly to Tara.
Until Buffy can admit to herself and to Spike the atrocity she committed in abusing him in order to
repudiate her own darkness, I don't think she's entitled to walk poetically out into the light as she
did in "As You Were". The status as of "Normal Again" is much harder to assess. Since that episode
ended very shortly after Buffy made her decision to take up her cudgels again in the Buffyverse, we
are still not sure exactly where she stands as far as her internal monsters are concerned. Hopefully,
she has finally recognized them as her own. But I'm not buying it until I see the recognition of, and
apology for, the "Dead Things" beating and everything about the relationship that it represents.
And by the way: that apology is owed regardless of Spike's status as evil as good. She can make the
apology and then stake him right afterwards, if he's been found out to be eating babies or something.
But the amends is something she needs to make for her own sake.
[> [>
Very interesting...somewhat agree -- shadowkat, 08:08:43 04/06/02 Sat
Did you see my post on S/T parallels - dealing with the
whole abuse relationship? It might be on one of the archives
now. Because your analysis fits that.
What you just said made me think of the last scene in
Normal Again - where we see her still present in the asylum but her mind is in Buffy in the
Buffyverse. I'm wondering
if maybe a part of her will always remain in that alternate universe until she can acknowledge or
confess her own actions as you suggest. I believe she has excused them in her own mind just as half
the audience has by stating: Spike is evil. Spike is bad. Spike was emotionally manipulating her.
Spike took advantage. Spike is a demon.
But these arguements are getting harder and harder for Buffy to support because Spike hasn't been
cooperating that much, outside of three maybe four instances, some of which are written so
ambiguously I'm still not sure how we are supposed to read them. (Bronze scene, the whole demon
eggs bit, the alleyway, the tree and the fight in Smashed) To be honest only the Bronze scene and the
demon eggs seemed to fit the whole "spike is possibly bad spiel". I think the next few episodes may
be telling - because in this life we
do have a tendency to "reap what we sow" and when you do what Buffy is doing to someone or
something that is basically made up of raw emotion and reactes to things without thinking it
through - you can end up with a bomb.
The question is - will she take any responsibility for the bomb going off? Or will she continue to
project it all onto Spike - which is easier for both her and the audience?
[> [> [>
S/T and James Hillman -- Anne, 08:48:58 04/06/02 Sat
Yes, I do think your S/T abuse analysis fits in with this; if I'm disagreeing with you at all, it's only
with regard to how far Buffy has come so far in her journey.
Incidentally: as I recall, your S/T analysis set off a debate on gender stereotyping and the symbolic
use of "masculine" and "feminine" in relationship to concepts of "dominant" and "submissive". This
morning I just so happen to be reading a a fascinating book called "The Myth of Analysis", by
archetypal psychologist James Hillman. I'm only at the very beginning of the book, but I couldn't
help being reminded of the very ambiguous nature of the dynamic between the forces of dark and
light in Buffy, and the characters who represent them. The following Hillman quote, I think, ties in
with some of the things you were saying about Spike in your earlier post:
"Misogyny would seem inseparable from analysis, which in turn is but a late manifestation of the
Western, Protestant, scientific, Apollonic ego. This structure of consciousness has never known what
to do with the dark, material, and passionate part of itself, except to cast it off and call it Eve. What
we have come to mean by the word "conscious" is "light"; this light is inconceivable for this
consciousness without a distaff side of something else opposed to it that is inferior and which has
been called -- in Greek, Jewish, and Christian contexts -- female."
[> [> [> [>
amazing thank you -- shadowkat, 16:37:06 04/06/02 Sat
Thank you. Yes - I sort of messed up a little on explaining the whole gender thing which ended up
setting off a heated
debate on "submissive" and "dominant" and "male" and
"female" with some very odd responses.
You hit the nail on the head. I think we have two characters
who are symbolic of messy eve - the vampire (also known
as Lilth in Jewish Lore) and the witch (heretic in Protestant/Christian). Both come from the earth or
worship
the earth - the vampire rises out of it, is washed in blood, drinks blood mixed with burba weed to
make it hot and spicy? And the witch worships the mother or goddess of
moon and earth - using blood to cast spells or earth as the source of her magic. Our culture has
always struggled to
deal with this. Emotion after all is messy. Men are taught to be stoic - not to cry. We are taught to
deride the crying weepy female. Emotional manipulation is considered
worse than physical beating...in some circles. How often
have I heard a girlfriend say "she hates women, prefers men
because they let it out physically and aren't all emotional".
Now this takes me back about 15 years - haven't read Neumann
or Jung since 1988-89, so be kind ;-) - what I remember is
that the collective unconscious or the snake eating its own tail is synomous with female energy or
emotion. It is the subconscious - the primal, the body, the part connected with the earth and nature
in its violence and its glory.
Joseph Campbell described it as the White Goddess. In some of the stories I once collected in Wales -
also way back in 1988, the ghosts were beautiful women who turned nasty and ugly when you tried
to kiss them - then they disappeared in a well. They rose from the well and disappeared in the
well.
I remember vaguely comparing these to the ancient stories of the Mabinogi which were transcribed
in Medieval Times but date back to ancient Gaul, prior to the invasion of the
Romans. In those myths - the goddess also reigned supreme.
MAB - or Queen Mab - i think her name was - again we'd have to ask Leslie or Rochfort - it's been a
very long time since I looked at this. But my point is - in our culture the power of the female has
been a source of worship, fear,
condemnation, and reverance for an extreemly long time...
and we still have no clue how to deal with her in ourselves
or in nature. But i certainly see her depicted in various
ways in the characters of Spike, Willow and Anya...and possibly Dawn in Btvs - which continues to
blow my mind.
One more thing - actually I sort of agree on Buffy - not
convinced she's come that far either...
[> [> [>
S/T and James Hillman -- Anne, 12:11:08 04/06/02 Sat
Yes, I do think your S/T abuse analysis fits in with this; if I'm disagreeing with you at all, it's only
with regard to how far Buffy has come so far in her journey.
Incidentally: as I recall, your S/T analysis set off a debate on gender stereotyping and the symbolic
use of "masculine" and "feminine" in relationship to concepts of "dominant" and "submissive". This
morning I just so happen to be reading a a fascinating book called "The Myth of Analysis", by
archetypal psychologist James Hillman. I'm only at the very beginning of the book, but I couldn't
help being reminded of the very ambiguous nature of the dynamic between the forces of dark and
light in Buffy, and the characters who represent them. The following Hillman quote, I think, ties in
with some of the things you were saying about Spike in your earlier post:
"Misogyny would seem inseparable from analysis, which in turn is but a late manifestation of the
Western, Protestant, scientific, Apollonic ego. This structure of consciousness has never known what
to do with the dark, material, and passionate part of itself, except to cast it off and call it Eve. What
we have come to mean by the word "conscious" is "light"; this light is inconceivable for this
consciousness without a distaff side of something else opposed to it that is inferior and which has
been called -- in Greek, Jewish, and Christian contexts -- female."
[> [> [> [>
Now that was a weird double post -- Anne, 12:17:56 04/06/02 Sat
[> [> [>
Just some thoughts (not really disagreement)... -- Ixchel, 18:36:45 04/06/02 Sat
Honestly, I'm confused by the whole relationship and I feel ME's done this quite deliberately.
Perhaps Buffy _can't_ come to terms with this right now. She's so confused, lost and hollow that she
might break, disintegrate? Maybe, she was afraid of the revulsion she might see on Tara's face? Or
maybe, she can't even think about it at all? When Tara asked how she was in OAFA Buffy started
with her happy act and then almost confessed that she wasn't fine at all. I get the sense that
perhaps it's taking all her strength to function at the level she does. I found her scene with Dawn in
DT hinted at this (to me). Buffy can't even lie to Dawn convincingly when Dawn states that Buffy
didn't want to come back. Depression can do that. You look at a loved one and you know you should
say something (feel something?) to reassure them, but you're so empty there is nothing inside. I did
get the impression when Buffy realized what she'd done (in DT) that her "I..." was the beginning of
"I'm sorry", but maybe that is hopeful thinking on my part.
Ixchel
Theory on the inner Big Bad(s) : Restless
coming true [Longish] -- Etrangere, 16:24:04 04/05/02 Fri
I've been thinking about Season 6's Big Bad being all about inner demons since OMWF. We had,
ever since the beginning of the season, plenty of clues about it. Willow's magic addiction, Buffy's
coldness, Xander's attitude with Anya, Dawn's stealing or Anya and Spike's threatening to come
back to their old way. And there's also the thing that most of the various demons and problems that
appeared were caused by themselves, when it wasn't the Troika's deeds, who are immaturity
impersonnified.
But if we look more closely at what kind of inner demons are theirs, what exactly are their evil ? It
seems to me that they are weak exactly where they are powerful. That's their faults and evilness lies
in the same place of their strengths and virtues.
Buffy's strength has been symbolized by the Hand in Primeval/Restless. The Hand has two sides :
the opened hand and the closed fist. Hands are an image we found again a lot in this season,
sometimes in weird place (like in Tabula Rasa). I think we should tie the hand idea, Buffy's strength,
to her role of linking of people, of bringing the people together. As the Slayer she leads them, she
even lead her class as the class protector during the Graduation day. We often saw how much she
found the strength to fight in the people she was fighting for. Let's just remember Prophecy Girl,
when Willow's being in danger was the trigger of her decision.
In Season 6, Buffy's problem is that she doesn't feel anymore connected to the people. She has to be
alone (and she can't be alone with Spike). The strength she took from protecting the people has
turned into a burden of obligation she feels more and more bitter about. And she feels guilty about it,
without being able to connect back to them.
"Understand we'll go hand by hand / but we'll walk alone in fear"
Restless didn't show us Buffy's hand actually getting severed, as it did for the other character's
attributes of power. Yet she was seen with her friends (and the Manus card was also the card were
her friends were) removed from her. When Tara gave her the Manus card Buffy said : "I'm never
gonna use those." She rejects her friends while pretending to be looking for them. Riley then again
considers she's been the one rejecting her friends : "Thought you were looking for your friends. Okay,
killer... if that's the way you want it. I guess you're on your own." and Tara a third time says that
Buffy came into the desert because she's not gonna find her friends her.
When Dawn mentionned Buffy couldn't possibly know how it felt being alone in OAFA, I immediatly
though about the episode Out of Mind, Out of Sight and Cordelia's speech about being alone in the
crowd. Buffy obivously knows what it is to feel alone. She's never felt as much away from her friends.
Like in Dead Things, she tries to be with them, but she always found herself back in the dark, with
Spike.
Thus Buffy's Restless dream is coming true for Buffy. Her one source of power, of strength in the
Super-Slayer of the Primeval Spell, is riped out from her. Seeking her friends, or pretending to seek
them, she realized she comes farther and farther from them. And she does try to use the same
strategy that then, denial. Doesn't seem like working this time :)
Let's skip to Xander, whose case is probably the clearest. Xander's strength is his heart. His loyalty.
His courage, as shown in the Zeppo (ethymologicly courage comes from the word for heart) We've
always seen him placing his trust in his friend and thus bringing the best from them.
The Xander of Restless is lost in a labyrinthus of eternal errance, eternal looking for a way out that
just puts him back to the same place. And then his heart is ripped out. "You haven't got the
heart".
Like him, the Xander of Season 6 is lost in a maze where he can't find the way out. "Why is the path
unclear / When we know home is near ?" Mariage seems like a prison of forever. The closed house
brings out the fear of family. The endless car line in As You Were stops any movement forward. And
Hell's Bell's concretizes the Labyrinthus image by making him meet his inner Minotaurus. So he
runs away, who he had courage as his strength, he fails to his engagement to his fiancee, who he was
the loyal, he lacks the heart to trust in their couple. Again, as in Restless, it is his strength that is
riped out, flawed by insecurities.
What about Willow. Her strength is said to be Spiritus, the spirit. What is that ? It's different than
Giles' brain power, so it is not to Willow's intelligence it refers. I think it's a reference to soul, the
humane spirit. And souls, in the buffyverse, are the synonime of morality. Willow is the one who
always wants to do what's best, good. The one who doesn't want to be evil. "I'm very seldom
naughty.", she said in Restless. And the one who wants to defend the innocents and the weaks. So
she's even the representent of every minorities ! As a jew, a lesbian and a witch, or in Pangs when
she tries to defend the Indian spirits, or when she takes a stand for not letting Spike kill himself
because "we know him." Willow is the one who decided to help Buffy because she coudln't stand the
idea of all this evil existing around her without doing anything. Willow's power always seems to be
her compassion, her understanding of others. Except when the others are Faith. :)
Spirit and Soul also can be tied to identity, offcourse. And that's the major theme in her Restless
dream. Identity and offcourse the hidden nature of identity. That dream questionned both Willow's
and Tara's identity. We learnt why when we discovered Tara hid what she believed was her identity
as a demon. Willow's own getting back to her old geek self can be seen in Season 6 as what happens
to her with her magic over and her girlfriend away. Nothing's left of the identity she created for
herself all along s4.
But isn't Willow's weakness in Season 6 not really the lack of magic (or the overabundance of it) but
the misuse of it, that is, the use of immoral magic, the corruption of her sense of right and wrong. As
says Tara in Tabula Rasa, she started by wanting to help people with magic, now it's about making
herself feels good. Even if that means attacking Tara's identity, her own sense of self by playing with
her memories. From feeling good by doing good, Willow comes to doing bad for feeling good. With the
best intentions, Willow doesn't realise she's shutting her own strength. As in Restless where her
breath, or in the greek tradition, her pneuma, her spirit, is extincted.
There's only Giles' case left, who's not there much around in Season 6 so could hardly seem as being
the Big Bad of it. Yet, that also realises the Restless foreshadowing. Giles' power, the Brain, ties
mainly to his power of teaching, the guiding he can provide to the group. That's what is put into
focus in the Restless dream, where he is first presented as Buffy's dad, then directing Willow and
Xander's research of what is attacking. The realisation of Giles in S6 is offcourse that he can't help
them anymore. His power, the brain, is useless. He can't teach them what they need to know now,
because it's something they need to learn by themselves. That's what he tells Buffy in his song and
later. This feeling of uselessness is the same as in the Restless dream while saying he can "cripples
[her] with [his] though" he has his head - and brains - cut by the First Slayer - the primitive power
that is the opposed of his learned power.
So, like in Restless, season 6 shows us the character deprived of their greatest strength and thus
turned into weakness. They are attacked via their insecurities, but the insecurities comes from the
same places that previously allowed them to beat Adam in the joining spell of Primeval.
Thus their strengthes are becoming their weaknesses. That's what the inner Big Bads are.
So I think that in order to beat them, they need to remember it was their power force, they need to,
paraphrasing Joyce's speech in NA, believe in themselves. They have to stop fighting themselves and
thus succumbing to their insecurities and find back the way to their assets.
What you guys think ?
[>
That was great, Ete. ' Restless' never fails to amaze. -- CW, 16:38:48 04/05/02 Fri
I liked the ties to 'Primeval' (the cards) as well.
[>
Wow, very impressive. I'm convinced. -- Rattletrap, 17:05:49 04/05/02 Fri
[>
Great job! But no overarching theory of 'Restless' can be complete without considering Cowboy
Guy. -- Rochefort, 17:17:28 04/05/02 Fri
I like your analysis quite a lot. Especially the Xander and Willow parts of it. I think you do a great
job of demonstrating that they are cut off from their strengths right now. Sheds a great deal of light.
(Question: how do they visually represent the severing of Willow's spirit? I know Giles gets his
brain cut, Xander his heart punched, I just remember Willow getting tackled. Not that this is
important to your analysis, which was pretty thourough.) Oh, by the way, read together with
Shadowkat's analysis of Restless that episode makes a heck of a lot of sense.
But! What about Cowboy Guy? Riley says "I was on time. So I get to be Cowboy Guy." What does
being on time have to do with getting to be Cowboy Guy? Was it really the "on time" part? Or is
there another reason why Willow could not be Cowboy Guy? Would Willow WANT to be Cowboy
Guy? I think we can safely assume that Willow would not like to be Cowboy guy, AND I don't think
Cowboy Guy fits very well into this or any other analysis of Restless. I think he's a wild card in the
dream, like the First herself. I don't think Cowboy Guy is a product of Willow's dream life at all, but
some sort of outside spirit, perhaps related to the First in some important way.
I find this question particuluarly interesting because ever since 'Restless' *I* have been dreaming
about Cowboy Guy. In one form or another. Considering the power that Cowboy Guy has had in my
dream life, I would not be surprised to see him reappear in season seven, perhaps resurected in a
new form, to help Buffy fight the First.
[> [>
more on Restless -- Purple Tulip, 18:06:11 04/05/02 Fri
I too am not really sure what the significance of Cowboy Guy is, it was one of the more ambiguous
and confusing symbols in that episode, which i feel have and will forshadow the rest of this season,
as well as next. But I think that Cowboy Guy could mean one of two possible things: a) it could be a
simple nothing like the guy with the cheese, or b) it could signify Riley's role in the scooby gang, in
that cowboys are usually seen as tough and law-enforcing, which mirrors Riley's actual role as crime-
fighter by Buffy's side. Maybe when he said "I got here first," it was meant to imply that he got
Buffy before someone else did (Spike?) and thus, got to take over the role of her "protector", co-law-
enforcer, and sidekick. Or it could just be Joss's way of throwing us off track by putting in something
that really has no significance just to make us think.
Another important thing that I haven't seen anyone mention here about that episode, is when Tara
told Buffy to "be back before Dawn." This could mean nothing, but the two or three times that I've
seen this episode, this line jumped out at me each time. I think that this is a direct foreshadow
about Dawn's arrival in season five, and it would be appropriate that Tara as the most intuitve and
the voice of reason and conscience would be the one speaking it.
One other thing that i was curious about, was during Xander's dream sequence, he saw Spike
dressed as Giles and on swings with Giles, and Spike said that Giles was training him to be a
watcher. This part also intrigued me, and what I was thinking it meant, was one of two things: a)
Xander's subconscious fear that as Spike continues to further infiltrate the scooby gang at this time,
he would prove to be more useful than Xander, and thus take over his role in the group. I think that
Xander, in a way, always wanted to be the vital protector like Giles, and it scares him that Spike is
probably more fitting for the role, as he really seems to have more in common with Giles that Xander
does. Which leads me to my next theory b) this is a foreshadowing of what will happen in season six
when Giles leaves: that Spike will now have to grow up and fill the position that Giles has left
empty, as he seems to be the best one for the job. This is further shown in Tabula Rasa when Giles
and Spike think that they are father and son- as Spike is wearing a Giles-like suit, something that is
completely uncharacteristic of him.
Anyway, this is just what I was thinking. Opinions?
[> [>
Willow's attack and Cowboy Guy -- Etrangere, 01:27:26 04/06/02 Sat
>>Question: how do they visually represent the severing of Willow's spirit?
Oh, I though I told it, maybe I wasn't clear. Willow is strangled, so her breath-pneuma is taken
away.
>>What about Cowboy Guy?
Well, I think I've already analysed Riley's role in the dream by compareason with Spike's. Both have
a show or costume appearance, as "Cow boy guy" or "the big bad", and then one that is linked to a
role of autority in the two other dreams they are in except that Riley's family is shown to be the
government / Adam while Spike's integrated in the Scooby family.
But Cowboy Guy and Willow, well, Willow does like the Cow boys, she's with the indians ! I think
this too ties to Restless, Cowboy Guy can't be a good costume in Willow's dream who's shown in
Pangs what she though about Westerns :)
[> [> [>
So then this foreshadowed... -- Ixchel, 17:25:46 04/06/02 Sat
That Riley would return to the military and Spike would stay in SD?
Ixchel
[> [> [> [>
Yeah :) -- Ete, 19:42:14 04/06/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
Thanks, Ete. I think I need to go watch Restless again. -- Ixchel, 19:51:09 04/06/02
Sat
[>
Buffy's Inner Big Bad, and reflections on Spike and 'The Gift' -- Slain, 17:57:38
04/05/02 Fri
Great analysis, Etrangere - it's nice when other people come to the same conclusions independently!
One thing I've also been thinking about is how Buffy's Inner Big Bad relates to Spike, as I think
that's absolutely the key to her in S6.
I'd say Buffy's inner big bad her inability to come to terms with the source of her power, linking in
with 'Buffy vs. Dracula'. She can't come to terms with her own inner darkness. She's afraid, I
suppose, of losing control of her power, like Faith.
So with Spike she's found an escape into a dark world - it's not just a case of her trying to escape the
reality of the mundane side of her life, but of her trying to escape her duty as the slayer, and her
dedication to always seeing herself as 'good'.
The way her noble sacrifice in 'The Gift' was negated by the dark magic that brought her back seems
to me to have disillusioned her about her calling: or at least reinforced the doubts she was already
having. She was denied a hero's death and afterlife, and now she's back to being a hero again, but
the sense of continuity has been lost.
[>
Beautiful analysis, Etrangere. -- Ixchel, 20:30:20 04/05/02 Fri
I think I'm only now really beginning to comprehend Restless fully. And excellent analyses like
yours are a big part of that.
I believe you're correct that their strengths (twisted or denied) can be their weaknesses. It has a
certain symmetry that seems to express a basic truth about their personalities.
Also, I love your evaluation of Willow. I do believe that in her heart Willow is kind and
compassionate. I've seen quite a bit of commentary on other boards implying that Willow was
always power-hungry and even cruel. I disagree strongly with this perception. Also, I have
wondered about Willow's lack of compassion (which she seems able to extend to almost everyone) for
Faith. I suppose it is tied to her feelings of Faith being able to take away the people she (Willow)
depended on for love (Buffy, Xander). Maybe also, like Buffy, Willow saw something of herself in
Faith that she couldn't accept (ruthlessness)?
Ixchel
[>
Restless, the episode that keeps on puzzling -- ponygirl, 20:47:01 04/05/02 Fri
That was great, Ete! Especially that you managed to incorporate Giles' absence this season into your
analysis. The scariest thing for me about Restless is that for Willow, Giles and Xander they had no
opportunity to resist. Like a true dream they had to push on to the conclusion, seeing all of their
fears and failures, but powerless to truly affect the course of the dream, which in each case led to
their death at the hands of the Slayer. Only Buffy was able to fight, though she ultimately defeated
the First Slayer by asserting her control over her dream and her identity. This could tie in with
Normal Again and perhaps (hopefully) with the end of the season. Your reference of OMWF is
interesting too, because it is certainly the most dreamlike episode since Restless, and in it all the
characters are as powerless under Sweet's spell as they were in any dream. Buffy too is unable to do
anything but play her part. This time Spike is the only one able to step outside the spell, both by
saving Buffy and by breaking away from the final group-sing. Though of course in the end he and
Buffy return, rather willingly, to their spelled state for the final kiss. What does it all signify? And
does it predict anything? April is going to be a looong month.
[> [>
Re: Restless, the episode that keeps on puzzling -- Etrangere, 01:40:29 04/06/02 Sat
Well, I was focused on the core scoobies, so I didn't really talk about Spike, Anya, Tara and Dawn,
but I think that one way or another they're going to have major roles in the issue, showing the
importance of the outer cicle too :)
I do think that OMWF is a template of the season, so Spike will probably bring what will save Buffy
from herself someway.
Oh, but Xander won't get away as easily this time because the Queen clause was only waved "just
this once", so he's going to be taken to the underwold. Or be turned a vampire. Anyway that's my pet
wil theory that nobody else believes :)
The mention to the fact they "return to singing" is interrestant because, well Spike's attitude toward
the singing spell is particuliar. Much like with his feelings, he is first reluctant, considering with
much distates (the face he makes at the beginning of RIP), then he lets go and gives himself totally
to the music. Then he didn't feel like he should be part of the group singing so he left. He also left
when his hand was in midair, and hands are an important symbole too, I wonder what it means. So I
think Spike's way to accept his feelings are key to his ability to save Buffy there, or something.
And there's also the "bloody parade" thing to consider. "When will the trompets cheer ?", I'm sure
they are foreshadowing lines but we won't understand of what before it happens.
[> [> [>
Re: Restless, the episode that keeps on puzzling -- Cynthia, 03:57:33 04/06/02 Sat
Regarding OMWF,perhaps Spike sudden break off from the group singing could represent his
realization that he doesn't need to be part of a gang (Scoobies or vampires), or even a part of Buffy, to
be his own person. He walks off alone, on his own, his own person. And it's at this point, when he's
not trying to be something he's not, where he is himself and not a reflection of what others think that
Buffy comes to him.
A forshadowing, perhaps, of Spike's need to stop doing things because of what he perceives others
want and doing or not doing things because it's what he truly wants.
The same is true for Buffy. She too leaves the gang, which is no longer what she wants. She even
states so when Spike tells her to go back to her friends. She may love and need her family and
friends but she needs him and breaks free of their influence, to go after Spike.
I think the RIP scene is a representation of Spike's/Buffy sexual relationship, where in the end it
was hurting them, killing them, as represented by their falling into a grave. Where the perceptions
of who they aught to be (Spike in vamp face equaling bad grabing the priest who represents
good)cause Buffy to run away frightened and Spike to be left behind sad.
But the end indicates that there is still a connection, a true connection there, that now as full adults,
they are going to perhaps explore. A connection not seen or acknowledged by others but finally
realized by Spike and Buffy. While I don't think this will be acknowledged by an actual kiss I think
there will be something that the audience will see to show that the relationship isn't over yet even if
the characters aren't conciously aware of it yet. Will they fall back on old perceptions and fears or
thru each other's strengths grow to be better persons together and individually. Well, the curtain
falls and we don't know. At least until the curtain raises on season 7.
[> [> [> [>
Just wanna say I like this interpretation. -- Ete, 05:23:13 04/06/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Just wanna say I like this interpretation. -- Cynthia, 15:34:50 04/06/02 Sat
Thanks. Nice to know when something I write actually makes sense to someone else LOL
[> [> [>
76 Trombones -- Anne, 04:12:14 04/06/02 Sat
Well, this thought is probably totally ridiculous, and I think I'm really, really stretching it here, but .
. .
Your mentioning Spike's lines about having a parade if Buffy ever figures out her feelings made me
think --
The reference of the line "76 bloody trombones" is the musical "The Music Man", about a con man
who in a way, and almost despite himself, turns out not to be a con man. On the one hand, he poses
as a music professor and cons the townspeople into wasting their money on a lot of band uniforms
and instruments that he is utterly incapable of teaching their children how to play. But he also
winds up infusing life, spirit and love into a community that had been fractious, inhibited and
emotionally arid. He delivers on the spirit rather than the letter of the deal he has with them.
Of course, in the end he winds up with the girl -- but in order to get to that point, he has to get to the
bottom of his own con: to 'fess up to the parts of it that are in fact mischievous and selfish, and to
adopt the real and warm parts of his character that are what the girl and other townspeople really
fall for.
Now how exactly this relates to Spike I'm not sure, but the idea that Spike, in his current phase of
development, is also engaged in a con of some time is of course supported by his appearance in
"Restless". Maybe, in order to get to the parade, it isn't just Buffy who needs to "suss out her
feelings". Spike needs to get to the bottom of his own con.
[> [> [> [>
Re: 76 Trombones -- Etrangere, 05:21:54 04/06/02 Sat
Oh, thanks to explain the reference, Anne, very interresting stuff.
From that I wonder if with that line Spike is saying that Buffy doing the con, and having to
recognize her pretending and the truth of her feelings.
But there also might be a double entendre, the line being true for both Buffy's own hypocrisis and
Spike's pretending Big Badness, yeah.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: 76 Trombones -- Slain, 06:39:52 04/06/02 Sat
Hmm - I think Spike's con is pretending to be good, not pretending to be evil. But then again the
'Restless' scene does seem to disprove that, seeming to suggest that Spike is more human than he
might have seemed (in Season 4). But it also occurs to me that it might have been a foreshadowing of
a planned Spike and Giles plot that never happened as ASH left, and we only saw a little of in
'Tabula Rasa'.
The thing with 'Restless', is it never makes sense, except in hindsight!
[> [> [> [> [>
Etrangere, Cynthia, Anne and co....you all rock! -- Caroline, 16:09:30 04/07/02 Sun
[>
Question: Why is Buffy dressed like Sally Boles? -- Eric, 21:16:40 04/05/02 Fri
In Willow's "Restless" Riley is dressed like cowboy guy because he "got there early". Perhaps because
he was more mature than the Scoobs (though not w/o his own issues). But Buffy is dressed like Sally
Boles (possible mis spelling) from the musical "Cabaret". "Cabaret" is set in the highly decadent '30s
Berlin. The character is a singer and a drug addict. Unfortunately, I only vaguely remember the
show except thay Liza Minelli was in the movie version.
[> [>
Re: Question: Why is Buffy dressed like Sally Boles? -- leslie, 21:36:14 04/05/02 Fri
I always have had the feeling that the significance of getting to be Cowboy Guy because he got there
early hinted that Riley's good-guy persona was exactly that, a persona, a public face, and he was able
to project it because he got there and got his "costume" before anyone else had a chance to see the
real him. And getting there early gave him the chance to choose his persona, rather than being stuck
with whatever was left over, like Willow. What is he hiding? Probably the aspect of himself that
Buffy sees in her dream, his parallelism to Adam. As for Buffy as Sally Bowles, the character is not
just a singer and a drug addict, but a prostitute as well (a fact that is much clearer in Christopher
Isherwood's _I Am A Camera_ on which _Cabaret_ was based), which seems to hint at the aspects of
her sexuality that she is currently refusing to face. And that is really interesting, that Willow's
dream, which focuses so much on her own anxieties about her own sexuality, seems to throw in this
insight into Buffy's sexuality almost as an afterthought.
[> [> [>
Re: Question: Why is Buffy dressed like Sally Boles? -- Cactus Watcher, 06:35:03
04/06/02 Sat
Actually in the movie Sally is not a prostitute at all. She constantly uses sex to try to get what she
wants, but I don't believe in the movie there is any suggestion that she simply accepts pay for sex.
And there is a strong suggestion Sally is addicted to sex, which could, in fact, relate to Buffy
now...
[> [>
I thought she was dressed like a flapper... -- Ixchel, 22:46:51 04/05/02 Fri
with maybe the idea that Buffy's costume is a liberated woman, in control of her life?
Ixchel
[> [> [>
Re: I thought she was dressed like a flapper... -- parakeet, 01:44:16 04/06/02 Sat
That was my interpretation as well. While Sally Bowles (how is that spelled!) could be interpreted
as the dark side of the already ambivalent flapper, I don't think that it's necessary to get that
specific. The flapper was, perhaps (and with many exceptions), the first "modern" woman. She
didn't confine herself to traditional roles in that she accepted herself as a sexual being and had
stirrings of unrest at the thought of being a homebody. She made a great effort to be pretty and
cosmopolitan. Her sense of freedom was very structured; she rebelled within set limits, but those
limits were actually very revolutionary in where the lines were drawn. Make-up was considered to
be bold, as were, of course, short skirts. Bobbed hair was both tomboy-ish and potently sexual. She
thought of herself, still, largely in terms of her attractiveness to men (again, many exceptions, I'm
sure) but was beginning to question the role she had to play.
Oh, yeah, Buffy in Restless. Faced with the personification of her inhuman half (the Slayer), she
would be faced with a crisis of identity, between fighter and regular girl. Is there a better definition
of the flapper?
[> [> [> [>
I thought it was more Louise Brooks/Lulu -- Rahael, 06:47:31 04/06/02 Sat
With her hair and her make up, I thought Buffy looked like Louise as Wedekind's Lulu. Lulu was of
course a prostitute, and the play ends with Lulu being murdered by Jack the Ripper.
[> [> [> [> [>
of course another term for flapper is "vamp" -- ponygirl, 07:01:54 04/06/02
Sat
Back in the silent era, the flappers, the Louise Brooks or Theda Bar types were also called vamps,
which I always thought was verrrry intersting for Buffy. Not sure on the origin of the slang but the
flapper girls were considered more sexually aggressive in manner and dress. I'm not sure if
expressions like vamping it up had a vampire origin but it is interesting that Willow chose that role
for Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: vamps -- leslie, 08:46:37 04/06/02
Sat
The origin of the term "vamp" is indeed "vampire"--they were supposed to suck the free will out of
normally upright and respectable men, causing them, as S.J. Perelman characterized it, to dance the
Bunny-Hug real fast. (Which is why Anya could never be a vamp. See, we've solved that problem
now!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: vamps -- parakeet, 01:59:29 04/07/02 Sun
Wasn't there an old silent movie serial called "Les Vampires", featuring not literal vampires, but a
crime syndicate, of sorts, led (perhaps?) by a vampish femme fatale? Sorry, I'm very hazy on the
details, but I recall reading reviews of its limited re-release in specialized theaters. I also remember
another silent film starring Theda Berra (I know I've got that name wrong; my memory isn't what it
used to be) where she is implied figuratively to be a vampire, but is literally a life-sucking bitch (read
"independant, sexually active, morally ambiguous woman with a less than proper attitude towards
social mores"). Maybe somebody could help me out with the details, though this is a bit off
topic?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: vamps -- parakeet, 03:19:26 04/07/02 Sun
Just read Ponygirl's comment again and realized that she mentioned Theda Bar (probably what got
me thinking about those old silent films). The spelling still doesn't look right to me (not that this is
really that important) but does seem closer than Berra (as I wrote). It strikes me that I'm getting
increasing irrelevant, so I will go to bed now. I'm still interested if anybody has any more details
about those films, though.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
requested spellings -- anom, 09:58:52 04/07/02 Sun
It's Theda Bara. And Sally Bowles.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
thank you :) (NT) -- parakeet, 20:01:03 04/07/02 Sun
[> [> [>
Flappers were still around in the early '30's. Tho' they were more liberated than loose. --
Eric, 10:37:02 04/07/02 Sun
[>
Now for a silly question: Are Etrangere and Ete the same person? -- Dyna, 08:05:43
04/08/02 Mon
[> [>
Yes, Ete is the short name for Etrangere, found on the chat, sorry if that was confusing --
Ete, 08:55:16 04/08/02 Mon
Translation for the French in Restless?
-- Rochefort, 17:26:08 04/05/02 Fri
I just remembered that your name is FRENCH!
I only know enough French to know that the French portion of Restless actually seems to make
sense. But what does Giles actually TELL Xander? Can you translate for me? (or anyone else who
knows what that part says?)
[>
Re: Translation for the French in Restless? -- Rufus, 17:32:35 04/05/02 Fri
From the Restless Shooting Script
Hidden by the crowd, but visible in glimpses, the PRIMITIVE is following him.
Xander pushes ahead until he sees Giles, moves to him.
XANDER
Giles!
GILES
Xander! What are you doing here?
XANDER
What's after me?
GILES
It's because of what we did.
I know that.
XANDER
What we did?
GILES
The others have all gone ahead. Now
listen carefully. Your life may
depend on what I am about to tell
you. You need to get to --
And at this moment, as Giles continues to speak, he is suddenly DUBBED INTO FRENCH. We can
see him talking, but we can't understand a word any more than Xander can, unless we speak French,
in which case la di da aren't we intellectual, I'm not Joe DICTIONARY, all RIGHT?
GILES
(french dubbing over:)
-- the house where we're all
sleeping. All your friends are there
having a wonderful time and getting
on with their lives. The creature
can't hurt you there.
XANDER
What? Go where? I don't understand.
GILES
(still dubbed)
Oh for God's sake, this is no time
for your idiotic games!
Anya rushes to them, worried. And dubbed.
ANYA
(with the dubbing)
Xander! You have to come with us
now! Everybody's waiting for you!
GILES
(dubly)
That's what I've been trying to tell him.
XANDER
Honey, I don't -- I can't hear you…
Anya grabs his arm, start dragging him.
[> [>
Well don't I look silly! -- Slain, 17:37:19 04/05/02 Fri
I managed to post just after Rufus...
That edited shooting script seemed to direct an inexplicable amount of bile towards French-speakers
- whoever wrote it clearly has serious issues!
[> [> [>
It's Jeunet and Caro's fault -- Etrangere, 01:42:18 04/06/02 Sat
Whedon's mad at French because of what they did to Alien 4. Pffffff :)
[> [> [> [>
Ah. I assumed the translation was an addition, and not in the original -- Slain,
06:32:33 04/06/02 Sat
[> [> [>
Re: Well don't I look silly! -- Rattletrap, 05:02:34 04/06/02 Sat
I think the bile is something of an in-joke directed at Whedon's then-assistant Diego Gutierrez who
did the French translation and the overdub, all on extremely short notice. I remember an interview
with Joss where he said that Diego speaks Spanish and English fluently and French passably, or
something to that effect. Joss went on to lament that he still has trouble with just English.
[>
Re: Translation for the French in Restless? -- Slain, 17:32:41 04/05/02 Fri
Er, whose name is French? ;)
I far as I can remember, the French wasn't very interesting - just the usual Giles talk. If someone
can give me the text then I can translate it fully, as I've never seen it written down and my Season 4
DVD doesn't arrive for a few days yet. :D
I wonder what they did with the French in the actual dubbed French version of the show? I bet that
confused a lot of people!
[> [>
in the french version, i think it was german (I should check) -- Etrangere, 05:17:18
04/06/02 Sat
Continuity (or lack of) with the BtVS and
AtS mythologies -- Slain,
18:25:32 04/05/02 Fri
I guess I'm a stickler for continuity, and I'm sure this is all mapped out by Joss, but it's always
bothered me that the BtVS and AtS mythology don't seem to coincide too well, specifically in the
representations of Good, Evil and Things In Between.
In AtS you have this mysterious force, the PTB, which is against evil, but is not strictly Good. Evil is
almost never Evil, but always evil with a small 'e' - that is, redeemable human evils rather than Big
Bad Evil. Wolfram and Hart seem to be Evil, but are only concerned with keeping the status quo and
don't seem to really do anything Evil. Demons are not always intrinsically Evil. As Angel
says, it's getting hard to tell who's good, these days.
Contrast this with BtVS. You have shades of grey in the form of characters like Spike, Faith, and the
Lame Gunmen - but chiefly you have big stinky Evil battling with Good. Demons bad, humans
sometimes bad but mostly good. The only supernatural force against Evil seems some kind of
Christian God, but this never manifests itself and might even be purely psychological on the part of
vampires. Generally speaking, Evil wants to destroy the world and Good wants to stop it. Where is
the PTB in all this? We have the First Slayer, and the First Evil (probably not connected). But the
First Evil has only manifested itself once, and doesn't seem to be a major player.
It seems to me that AtS has moved on from BtVS, in terms to establishing a more complex and more
wide reaching mythology. In Season 6, BtVS does seem to be catching up in the grey areas and moral
complexity, but chiefly the show seems to be more concerned with small scale events: whereas AtS is
both small-scale and large.
[>
Re: Continuity (or lack of) with the BtVS and AtS mythologies -- Rob, 19:05:25 04/05/02
Fri
Just because TPTB aren't expressly mentioned in "Buffy" does not, I believe, mean that they are not
present. Also, I'm not sure that I agree with you on the force for Good being a "Christian god" on
"Buffy." Yes, crosses are used, but really more as symbols than anything else. The word, "god" is
rarely invoked on "Buffy," unless it's referring to Glory, who was most certainly not a Christian god!
I will give you this...the background forces are more prevalent on "Angel," but I don't think that
means they don't exist on "Buffy." The First Evil may have only made itself known once, but whose
to say it isn't constantly around on "Buffy" pulling the strings? There are also theories that, in
"Amends," it is TPTB that caused the snowfall that kept Angel from burning.
I think the difference has to do with that on "Angel," the main character is himself one of the dark
forces, whereas on "Buffy," the main character is meant to fight those forces. I don't see "Buffy"s
events being on a smaller scale than "Angel." In fact, I'd argue that they're on a much larger scale.
How many apocalypses have been thwarted now on BtVS? Six? Seven?
I think the greying of the line between Good and Evil (besides little hints here and there throughout
the first few years of "Buffy," and they were VERY small hints), truly began in the fourth season,
with the Initiative plotline, which I thought was absolutely brilliant, although I am in the minority
on this one. That was also, not coincidentally the same year that "Angel" began. I think that was a
very deliberate decision.
And, as I said before, "Angel"s focus is on the vampire himself. Even though he is good now, that
darkness will always somehow be a part of his life "Buffy" on the other hand, by nature, is not as
involved with the workings of demon life, etc. That's why Spike, for a long time, was such a great "in"
for her, to learn about demon culture and threats, etc.
And there have been numerous times on "Buffy" when the "big stinky evil" (love that phrase by the
way!) wasn't so defined. How about the character of Ben...and Giles' decision to kill him, while in
human form? And Glory really wasn't so evil, per se, as opportunistic and self-centered. She didn't
care enough about the human race to want to inflict harm on them for harm's sake...only when they
got in the way of her goals. There are lots of other examples, but I don't have the time right now to
write anymore. Actually, I didn't really have time to respond in the first place, but that always seems
to happen, doesn't it? Homework beckons...
Rob
[> [>
Re: Continuity (or lack of) with the BtVS and AtS mythologies -- Slain, 07:12:56
04/06/02 Sat
Good points, Rob. I was really only being contentious and pointing out the lack of continuty so I could
have someone refute that with good examples like that. ;) Really I think, some minor things aside,
the BtVS and AtS mythology is pretty consistent. Both Cordy and Buffy have visions, which seem to
be a link to the powers, only Buffy's are more vague. In both shows, some mysterious force acts for
good (the snowstorm in BtVS and allowing Angel to enter whats-her-name-suicidal-police-woman's
appartment without an invite in AtS, for example).
However, I do think it's true that Season 6 is on a small scale, though obviously the previous
five seasons weren't! In S6, has Buffy lost her connexion to the powers that be? I'm wondering if she
really is the Slayer in anything more than name. The First Slayer said Death was her Gift -
in being resurrected, has she rejected that Gift, and has her natural span ended?
However, the Christian god thing interests me. I think this is an example of Joss embracing
elements of the Horror genre for his own postmodern purposes without it neccessarily fitting in with
anything. ;) It's definitely only relevant to vampires, and, as I said, may accually be psychological on
their part. But it does seem to be a physical force, capable of actual burning, which is more than just
psychological; a vampire can be burned by a cross, even if they don't see that cross, as in one
B/A kiss in Season 1. Consecrated ground burns them, and Holy Water burns or kills them. The
Master and Adam tried to say that the fear of god was purely in the mind, but clearly it's not. God
never manifests itself (as the vampires say, god isn't in churches, the house of god). I'm not sure
what this force is - maybe it's the PTB, but it doesn't seem to be.
I liked the Initiatve the second time round. The basic idea was great, just the execution of a few key
episodes (and sodding Adam) spoilt it.
[>
Re: Continuity (or lack of) with the BtVS and AtS mythologies -- Robert, 14:35:32
04/06/02 Sat
>> " I guess I'm a stickler for continuity, and I'm sure this is all mapped out by Joss, but it's always
bothered me that the BtVS and AtS mythology don't seem to coincide too well, specifically in the
representations of Good, Evil and Things In Between."
Now this is interesting! You see differences in the mythologies between BtVS and Angel, and you
conclude that Joss Whedon can't maintain continuity. I see differences in the mythologies, and I
conclude that the mythologies are different. If one's agenda is to discredit Mr. Whedon, this could be
used as just such an argument. On the other hand, I see the differing mythologies as proof that Joss
is more than a one hit wonder. He is capable of creating a spin-off show which is not just more of the
same.
[> [>
Re: Continuity (or lack of) with the BtVS and AtS mythologies -- Darby, 17:20:49
04/06/02 Sat
I agree - the two shows definitely "spin" the Buffyverse in different ways - for most non-intersecting
purposes, they are different worlds with different themes and different approaches. Just try to
imagine the Cordy of Buffy's world or the Wesley - or the Angel, for that matter - in Angel's current
little slice of paradise to see some of the contrasts.
Buffy's world is moving a bit toward Angel's, and I have a theory about this that I'm just starting to
formulate...
[> [> [>
Re: Continuity (or lack of) with the BtVS and AtS mythologies -- Robert, 17:57:52
04/06/02 Sat
>> "Just try to imagine the Cordy of Buffy's world or the Wesley - or the Angel, for that matter - in
Angel's current little slice of paradise to see some of the contrasts."
Yes, the characters have been allowed considerable growth since they moved over to Angel. Even
beyond that however are the differences in the nature of the good, evil, and the demons. I maintain
my theory that the Powers-That-Be (PTB) do not exist in the BtVS mythology. My theory will
obviously change the moment the PTB appear (or are mentioned) on BtVS.
In addition, the general story arc of Angel is different than for BtVS. On Angel, the seasonal story
arcs seem to carry less weight than the series arc. The seasonal story arc is clearly dominant for
BtVS. My evidence is that BtVS has a different "big bad" each season. Angel has a general "big bad"
centered primarily around "Wolfram and Hart".
[> [> [> [>
difference in perspective rather than substance -- yuri, 15:05:39 04/07/02 Sun
I agree that the differences in BtVS and AtS are much more a display of Joss' talent than his
sloppiness, but I think those differences are not at all in the actual rules and philosophies governing
each world, but in how the people in each group relate to them.
I actually don't believe that the PTB exist in AtS, in the way people usually mean it. I think that it's
interesting how in that show they've given a name to this unnamable "force." It seems like it was a
choice that those characters made, and it shows more about how they relate to their world than what
their world is like.
Generally, AtS is a show that began after its world began, so to speak. (Now, I have not been an avid
Angel watcher to this season, so if I"m off sometimes here, be kindly correcting.) The BtVS world was
born when the show started, in terms of us learning the lore and rules of the game along with the
characters, who are still learning.
no conclusion to this post. oh well.
[> [> [> [> [>
AtS vs. BtVS perspective vs. substance -- matching mole, 21:19:19 04/07/02 Sun
At some point (in season 1 I think) the PTB were shown onscreen as definite individuals on AtS (and
Angel was seen arguing with them as disembodied voices on Cordelia's behalf this season). Someone
with a better memory or the patience to look it up could provide more information.
I think that the difference in mythology between the two shows reflects the differences in emphasis
between AtS and BtVS. I see BtVS as having become an internally focused show while AtS is more
externally focused. Both shows have two aspects to them: the effect of the hero's journey on the
world and the effect of the hero's journey on the hero. BtVS is increasingly emphasizing the latter.
Although I would suspect that many will disagree I think that AtS is emphasizing the former.
Angel's LA is a more complex and interconnected place than we see in Sunnydale and the more
concrete mythology reflects that.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I think, but am not certain, that those were "The Oracles" . . . -- d'Herblay,
06:00:42 04/08/02 Mon
. . . and were a link to the Powers that Be, not the actual Powers that Be themselves.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
That sounds right -- matching mole, 09:22:05 04/08/02 Mon
My memory is a little vague.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: That sounds right -- yuri, 18:18:05 04/08/02 Mon
Well I haven't seen the episode, but it seems that even if the oracles were saying that they were a
link to the PTB, that is just an example of how the world of AtS is populated by people who think of
the rythms of life in those terms. On Buffy, rather than attributing everything to the PTB, if
something happens or something is some way, then, like, that's just how it is. Cordelia can believe
that her visions come from some sort of centralized source of power that has a mind and a will, but
they could just as easily be her instinct to save and heal and prevent evil from winning amplified
somehow by being exposed to the supernatural. Or maybe its in her genes, like some people have
better social sensory systems, she has a crisis sensory system that so sensitive it senses crisis (she
sells sea shells) before it happens.
Anyway, maybe a little clarification about AtS willl totally pull the rug out from under my feet, but I
don't mind.
I do agree that BtVS is more internal and AtS more external. That's what I was trying to get at
when I said Angel began in a world that was already established (and therefore the plot revolves less
around the discovery of and reaction to that world than the actual adventures and crises that happen
there) and BtVS began by creating a new world from a few scraps and building on it progressively (so
you have much more focus on the internal workings of the show and how an internalized group of
people react to the discoveries of the world around them).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: PTB Issues -- Robert, 21:28:26 04/08/02 Mon
>> "Cordelia can believe that her visions come from some sort of centralized source of power that has
a mind and a will, but they could just as easily be her instinct to save and heal and prevent evil from
winning amplified somehow by being exposed to the supernatural. Or maybe its in her genes, like
some people have better social sensory systems, she has a crisis sensory system that so sensitive it
senses crisis (she sells sea shells) before it happens."
It was established in "Hero" that Doyle passed on his visions to Cordelia with a single kiss. She
never had visions before then. The Oracles told Angel subsequent to Doyle's death that Angel would
have a new link to the PTB. In a number of episodes, the visions (and thus Cordelia) were referred
to as the link to the PTB.
If the visions were strictly genetic (ie. not supernatural), why would they suddenly manifest
subsequent to the kiss? If the visions were strictly an instinct, why did they not manifest for the 18
years she lived on the Hellmouth, or the 3 years she battled vampires and demons with Buffy?
While we have not directly viewed the PTB, they are mentioned and referenced enough to convince
me that the Angel mythology does in fact include them. I cannot recall any evidence to the contrary.
The existance of the PTB does make sense given that the Angel mythology also includes an
organized evil element (apparently centered around Wolfram and Hart).
Can you define for me the terms "social sensory system" and "crisis sensory system"?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: PTB Issues -- yuri, 00:18:24 04/09/02 Tue
he he he, I chuckle at myself. By having a social sensory system, I meant people who are socially
intelligent and are very sensetive to social vibes and how people are really feeling in social
situations. By having a crisis sensory system, I meant people who may be very perceptive of when a
crisis is about to happen, like they can sense the warning signs. So okay, the Doyle thing discounts
my theories about how Cordy first started getting her visions(blush), but after what you say I still
think it could be seen just as easily as some sort of transferrable supernatural talent instead of a gift
from the PTB. Matter of perspective still, I think, but maybe I should just stop since I don't really
have the background to what I want to talk about.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: PTB Issues -- Robert, 09:15:15 04/09/02 Tue
>> "... but after what you say I still think it could be seen just as easily as some sort of transferrable
supernatural talent instead of a gift from the PTB."
My point is that I do not believe that anything presented so far supports your theory that the PTB do
not exist in the Angel mythology. On the other hand (and this is where I disagree with most others
on this board), I do not believe that anything presented so far in BtVS supports the existance of the
PTB in the BtVS mythology.
[> [>
Re: Continuity (or lack of) with the BtVS and AtS mythologies -- Slain, 09:15:14
04/07/02 Sun
Robert, you obviously didn't read my second post.
[> [> [>
Re: Continuity (or lack of) with the BtVS and AtS mythologies -- Robert, 13:32:51
04/07/02 Sun
>> "Robert, you obviously didn't read my second post."
I read your second post after I answered your first post. There is a risk to using sarcasm in the
written media, as it is not always clear to the reader that sarcasm is in use.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Continuity (or lack of) with the BtVS and AtS mythologies -- Slain, 18:20:40
04/08/02 Mon
I wasn't being sarcastic, just contentious. ;)
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: contentious -- Robert, 21:33:15 04/08/02 Mon
>> "I wasn't being sarcastic, just contentious."
Well then, congratulations on a job well done. You raised my hackles.
Fray 6 Question -- Dochawk,
20:17:00 04/05/02 Fri
I stumbled across a copy of fray 6 today (Dark Horse doesn't seem to take deadlines very seriously).
Anyway, when Fray is given the weapon forged eons ago, is this a weapon that Buffy has used? I
seem to remember something like it in Anne, but not at any other time (the Anne scene has been in
the credits ever since season 3 started)
[>
Re: Fray 6 Question -- Apophis, 21:24:39 04/05/02 Fri
The weapon in Anne was acquired in Ken's hell. It's not the Fray one, I don't believe. I don't think
Buffy's ever used anything that elaborate. As a side note, how come the vampires in Fray are
purple?
[> [>
Re: Fray 6 Question -- grifter, 01:41:52 04/06/02 Sat
First, I think it´s Joss who doesn´t take deadlines seriously I think! ;)
Second, that weapon has never been used in BtVS. Maybe it will in teh future, that´d rock!
Third, I think the vampires are purple because they look more gouhlish this way and it fits the
"Lurkers"-theme better. Just a guess, though.
Chat please? -- agent156, 21:05:40
04/05/02 Fri
Anyone wanna chat?
[>
Re: Chat's a'happenin'. Join in if you dare! ;-) -- OnM, 21:48:07 04/05/02 Fri
Classic Movie of the Week - April 5th 2002
*** with Guest Host: Rattletrap *** (Yay!) -- OnM, 21:11:05 04/05/02 Fri
*******
Evil Clone: So how’s the vacation going?
OnM: What vacation? It’s busier than ever at work, and you know very well that I haven’t had a
real
vacation for at least two years now. You stick your head up against the second anode again? I told
you I’ll
fix that monitor as soon as I get a chance.
E.C.: I already fixed it. I mean the vacation from doing the movie column, you dork.
OnM: (~mentally noting the EC hasn’t openly denied the possibility of cranial contact with 30,000
volts~):
It’s only a partial vacation, I still have to arrange and do a little editing and some additions here and
there,
to retain the overall format of the column. As I suspected they would be, the quality of the
submissions to
date has been very high, so as far as the actual primary content is concerned, I’ve had to do very
little.
Another wonderful review just came in the other day, so the entire Buffy spring hiatus period should
end
up getting covered very nicely. I may even get some extra stuff left over that I can use this
summer.
E.C.: Well, so who’s de stand-in du jour?
OnM: Rattletrap is up tonight, with a wonderful film I haven’t seen for quite a while, but certainly
need to
see again, The Milagro Beanfield War.
E.C.: Redford did that one, didn’t he?
OnM: Yup. We tend to think of him mostly as an actor, but of course he’s directed his fair share of
flicks,
also. And some very good ones.
E.C.: And where would Sundance be without Redford? Just another ski resort, and we’ve already
got
plenty of those. Not that I have any interest in skiing, of course. I could easily injure my delicate
clonal
DNA and the body that it so justly pays tribute to.
OnM: Uhhh... huh. OK. I think we better get right to the review, now, before this tangent takes on
any
additional diversionary meanings...
E.C.: Speaking of diversionary meanings, did you know that the thesaurus lists as synonyms to
‘tangent’
both the words ascent and descent? Sounds pretty damn philosophical to me! Although personally, I
pretty
much prefer to be perpendicular, hee hee...
OnM: (~sighs~) OK, posting column now...
*******
Classic Movie of the Week, Buffy hiatus guest host column, take two-- ACTION!
Awright! It’s Friday night once again, and your humble movie man is ever so pleased to announce
yet
another great guest review of another great Classic Movie! So later on after the lights come back up,
be
sure to give a great big Thank You Masked Man and/or a hearty round of cyber-applause to the
charming
and talented (or at least that’s what I’ve heard) Rattletrap!
( The ‘Question of the Week’ and anything else that ‘trap didn’t write is your traditional OnM-age,
but you
probably already knew that. Enjoy! )
~~~~~~~
In Buffy the Vampire Slayer we see a series of metaphors for life’s problems in which there is a
constant
tension between those who know and understand the supernatural and those who do not. This
tension is
often, though not always, played out as a tale of conflict between generations. Our teenage and
twenty-something heroes have knowledge about the inner workings of the world that their
parents,
teachers, and bosses do not. In this week’s CMotW, we see a similar situation, but with the roles
reversed.
Director Robert Redford’s 1988 film The Milagro Beanfield War provides a
delightfully
quirky look at one event that becomes symbolic of the larger struggle between two ways of life.
Based (fairly faithfully) on John Nichols’ book of the same title, The Milagro Beanfield War is
set
in the small village of Milagro in the mountains of northern New Mexico. It is a poor town that
barely
subsists on small farming and ranching. This way of life is all but destroyed when a resort
development
threatens to drive the town’s predominately Hispanic and Indian population off the land by placing
them in
an economic stranglehold enforced by a myriad of complex and confusing water laws. One
unforeseen
event threatens to collapse the entire system. Joe Mondragón, a feisty, hard-headed individual who
serves
as the town’s jack-of-all-trades handyman, is denied a job on the construction crews building the
resort.
While walking home, he kicks loose an irrigation gate that begins letting water into his deceased
father’s
fallow beanfield. Joe decides that, given no other option, he will irrigate the field regardless of what
the
law says. Joe’s rash act of defiance almost immediately blossoms into a symbolic conflict between
the
townspeople on one hand and the resort owner and his political cronies in Santa Fe on the other.
Ruby
Archuleta, the owner of the town’s lone body shop takes Joe’s beanfield as a cause celebre
and
begins rallying the townspeople. She finds a reluctant ally in Charlie Bloom, a jaded ex-idealist
lawyer who
runs the local newspaper.
Ladd Devine, the owner of the resort development, immediately moves to stop Joe. He appeals first
to the
town’s bumbling but well-meaning sheriff Bernabe Montoya, but Montoya refuses to arrest Joe.
Briefly
stymied, Divine turns to his friends in the governor’s office. The governor and his men realize,
however,
than an arrest will surely stir up a hornet’s nest of potential conflict, and that the conflict would
almost
certainly make national news with heavy racial overtones, giving the Miracle Valley development
and the
state too much negative publicity. Instead they delegate state policeman Kyril Montana to go to
Milagro
and stop Joe quietly. Joe refuses to go quietly, and the tensions in Milagro grow progressively worse
as
the citizens begin to take sides and violence threatens to overrun the town.
This basic conflict is hardly unique; it has been played out in many places across the West and
Southwest
since time out of mind. The Milagro Beanfield War complicates the situation by introducing
some
very subtle supernatural elements that shift the balance in favor of the people of Milagro. The
townspeople
are not, by and large, a religious group in anything other than name. One individual, however,
retains
some faith. He is Amarante Cordova, the seemingly immortal 104-year-old man who has lived in the
same
adobe adjacent to Joe’s field all his life. Amarante firmly believes that God has ordered Joe to begin
the
revolution without delay. He religiously venerates a host of carved santos on his mantelpiece.
More significantly, he regularly engages in conversations with ghosts and angels that only he can
see.
Shortly before the beanfield war begins, an itinerant angel in the garb of an aged revolutionary
returns to
town. The credits refer to him as the ‘Coyote Angel’, especially interesting because of the
coyote’s
common appearance as a trickster figure in the mythology of some Indian groups in the Southwest.
The
angel acts as a catalyst, initiating change and gently shifting the balance in favor of Milagro’s
farmers. I
find the contrast with Buffy here interesting: the angel is visible only to the oldest man in
town and
intervenes on behalf of the rural, subsistence farmers practicing essentially traditional ways of life
(even
when most of them do not recognize his intervention). In Buffy, on the other hand, we
more
frequently see young people in tune with the supernatural and a slayer who is consistently willing to
turn
her back on the traditions of her calling.
The situation in Milagro is complicated still further by the presence of Herbie Platt, an NYU
sociologist
who is attempting to study the people of Milagro, but finds himself a cultural fish-out-of-water and
an
innocent caught up in a flood of larger events beyond anyone’s control. Herbie cultivates a friendship
with
Amarante and, as the film goes on, finds himself gradually abandoning his erudite, rationalistic
worldview
in favor of a more open-minded one that leaves room for magic and other things that exist beyond
what we
can see.
The Milagro Beanfield War (in both book and film formats) gives a wonderful look at small
towns
in the southwest. Speaking as someone who grew up in one, I can assure you that the
characterization is
dead on, and Redford’s cinematography captures the native beauty of the New Mexico high country
quite
well. The story was adapted for film by John Nichols, author of the book, and remains generally true
to his
vision. The film boasts a number of well known actors, but most of them in supporting roles—
Ruben
Blades as the town sheriff, Baldemar ‘Freddy Fender’ Huerta as the Mayor, Melanie Griffith as
Ladd
Devine’s wife, Christopher Walken as Kyril Montana, and Daniel Stern as Herbie Platt. Less well
known
actors Chick Vennera and Sonia Braga portray Joe and Ruby respectively, and both do so brilliantly.
I
would encourage you to check out this film if you have not seen it. It is a fun, humorous, and
uplifting
look at the triumph of human goodness and community over selfish greed; David over Goliath.
~~~~~~~
Technical Bean Counting:
For reasons that mystify me completely The Milagro Beanfield War is available on DVD only in
Region 2.
The review copy was on a rented VHS cassette which was, alas, in the get-your-scissors-off-my-
movie
(read ‘pan -n- scan’) form rather than the original 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Given that this movie did
well
critically (though not in theaters) a Region 1 DVD release at some point may not be out of the
question.
The film is MPAA rated “R,” mostly for language I suspect, though the English is still a good deal
cleaner
than most of the untranslated Spanish in the background.
Cast overview:
Rubén Blades .... Sheriff Bernabe Montoya
Richard Bradford .... Ladd Devine, Owner Ladd Land & Cattle Co.
Sonia Braga .... Ruby Archuleta, Owner Ruby's Body Shop
Julie Carmen .... Nancy Mondragon
James Gammon .... Horsethief Shorty
Melanie Griffith .... Flossie Devine
John Heard .... Charlie Bloom, Activist Lawyer & Publisher of La Voz Del Norte
Daniel Stern .... Herbie Platt, Sociologist
Chick Vennera .... Joe Mondragon
Christopher Walken .... Kyril Montana
Freddy Fender .... Milagro Mayor Sammy Cantu
Tony Genaro .... Nick Rael, Storekeeper
Jerry Hardin .... Emerson Capps, Devine man
Ronald G. Joseph .... Jerry G, Forest Service Officer
Mario Arrambide .... Carl
Robert Carricart .... Coyote Angel
Carlos Riquelme .... Amarante Córdova
~~~~~~~
As OnM would say, post ‘em if you got ‘em.
Thanx,
‘trap
*******
Miscellaneous:
Evil Clone: How are they going to read if the lights are off?
OnM: You’re pissing me off again.
E.C.: Oh, like that doesn’t happen at least 33 1/3 times a day...
OnM: They’re reading off the monitors, OK? Which, like, light up, ya know?
E.C.: These are too long to read off the monitor. You know they have to print ‘em out. Besides,
reading a
computer monitor in a dark room causes eyestrain, ya know???
OnM: (~sighs very deeply~): Posting the Miscellaneous and Question of the Week, now...
*******
Miscellaneous (Take 2):
Birth name: Charles Robert Redford Jr.
Date/place of birth: August 18th 1937 / Santa Monica, California, USA
Here’s a listing of other films directed by Robert Redford:
The Legend of Bagger Vance .... (2000)
The Horse Whisperer .... (1998)
Quiz Show .... (1994)
A River Runs Through It .... (1992)
The Milagro Beanfield War .... (1988)
Ordinary People .... (1980)
*******
The Question of the Week:
How many of you have ever attended a decent sized film festival? (Sundance, Cannes, Toronto,
Philadelphia, etc.) Did you enjoy it? What films do you remember in particular, and did any of them
go on
to be a success in general release, or did they stay buried in obscurity?
((‘trap already said it, so I won’t repeat it. (Ni! He said The Word! Ni!!) However, I will
say...))
See you next week, and take care. (Especially you, dub-dub! :-) :-)
E. Pluribus,
OnM
*******
[>
Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 5th 2002 *** with Guest Host: Rattletrap *** (Yay!)
-- mundusmundi, 13:51:46 04/06/02 Sat
Good choice, trap. I've seen Milagro a couple times on TV and wish I'd seen it in a theater.
Lovely cinematography, as with all Redford's movies. Except for Quiz Show and Ordinary
People, all of them deal with his concern with nature and the environment. Interesting point you
made about the distinction between the supernatural in the film and on Buffy. With the old
man, of course, it's perhaps a hallucination (or else just a case of "magic realism"); with the young on
our favorite show, it's a metaphor for being wised-up to the ways of the world.
I've never been to a film festival, sorry to say. The best movie theater I've ever been in is in
Oxford, MS. Compact aisles but a large screen, and filled with old time ambiance.
[>
Nice one, 'trap! -- Vickie, 15:24:03 04/06/02 Sat
I'll definitely rent this one, scissor format or not.
Never been to a big festival, though I've attended some local ones. The film that I saw that went on
to get noticed was Pi.
[>
Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 5th 2002 *** with Guest Host: Rattletrap *** (Yay!)
-- matching mole, 07:04:02 04/07/02 Sun
Great job. As someone with very fond memories of the rural southwest you've made me really want
to see this film. Thanks.
I've been to two film festivals, one local and one big one. The local one was the Roger Ebert
Overlooked Films festival (or something like that) here in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois (where Ebert
grew up). The big film festival I went to was the Chicago Film Festival back when I was going to
school in the windy city. I didn't go to very many films because they were expensive. One I saw that
had a huge impression on me was the two part adaptation of the Dickens' novel 'Little Dorrit'. The
films were 'Nobody's Fault' and 'Little Dorrit's Story'. I'd still rank it as one of the top cinematic
experiences of my life - all six hours of it.
[>
Does the San Francisco Film Festival count? (Beginning very soon, btw.) -- yuri,
18:07:16 04/07/02 Sun
's pretty big. Last year one of my favorites that I saw was The Town is Quiet (top of my head, there
were many other spectacular ones). Kandahar was a child of film festivals, I think, though I didn't
see it in one. (Very very good.)
I haven't seen the Milagro Beanfield War, so can't comment much, but I now intend to. I generally
am not attracted to Robert Redford Movies (the most recent Legend of Baggar Vance's premise was
just too ech) but I'll definitely check this one out.
P.S. tell evil clone he makes me laugh.
[> [>
Yeah, well, power behind the throne, dude! ... ;-) -- The Third Evil ( and don't you fergit it ),
07:03:56 04/08/02 Mon
[> [> [>
Nahh, that's just the plumber's helper... ;-) -- OnM, 07:12:36 04/08/02 Mon
Puzzles -- DickBD, 21:38:24 04/05/02
Fri
I may get jumped on here for not doing my own research, but I am puzzled by a couple of things.
First, why does Spike retain his low English accent, while Angel no longer has his Irish one? Second,
in Spike's first appearance, he berates Angel for aiding Buffy as a special shame to him because
Angel was his sire. But Drusilla was actually depicted as "turning" William in a particularly
touching episode. (I haven't learned all the names of the episodes yet, but I'm in the process. I'm
sorta new at this.)
Finally, in the very first episode, Angel beholds Buffy and says words to the effect that he expected
her to be "bigger." And yet, later, he is shown to have observed her closely in Los Angeles before she
came to Sunnydale. As careful as the writers are and as consistent, they wouldn't make mistakes
like that. Would they?
[>
I don't have answers, but I do have opinions... -- Ixchel, 22:30:46 04/05/02 Fri
Well, just from my own observation, accents seem to need reinforcement to be maintained. Spike
was with Drusilla (presumably) since he became a vampire, so they may have reinforced each other's
accents. Whereas Angel, after becoming a vampire, was with Darla, Drusilla and Spike. As they
aren't Irish, no reinforcement. OTOH, it could be just individual quirks. Some people seem to be
able to maintain an accent even after years of being surrounded by a different accent (example from
BtVS: Giles) and some people seem to lose an accent fairly quickly.
Regarding the Spike sire question, this has been debated quite a bit I think. I take the easy way out
and just consider it as him meaning grandsire and leave it at that. BTW, the episode you refer to is
the brilliant Fool for Love.
I attribute the Angel comment about Buffy discrepancy to him not wanting to disturb her by
admitting to seeing her and following her to SD. It works for me.
Ixchel
[> [>
Re: I don't have answers, but I do have opinions... -- DickBD, 10:45:48 04/06/02 Sat
Thanks, you guys. Obviously, the writers can't be perfect. I'm sure all the people who have studied
Shakespeare put much more thought into his writings than he ever did. Even though they didn't
have his genius--none of them, probably--they were able to find things that he didn't intend.
I thought a particularly good explanation was the one about Spike's deliberately taking on a low-
grade tough accent. I hadn't thought of that. It's a good explanation. By the way, I saw James
Marsters (I may have got that wrong!) on Politically Incorrect this past year, and I was surprised to
find that he didn't have an accent, but he was one of the better guests.
In my experience, accents seem to be usually fixed at a young age (as is being able to speak without
accent in a different language), but I appreciate your comments.
I also appreciate the name of the episode I mentioned. It was, I thought, a great one.
[> [> [>
Definitely good points below... -- Ixchel, 19:33:41 04/07/02 Sun
I can't believe I forgot Spike's deliberate accent change. And I would call myself a Spike fan, the
shame! I suppose my theory could still account for Drusilla's accent. I tend to agree with Cactus
Watcher, it varies from individual to individual. I have known adults to lose an accent through
choice (to sound less "country" and more "city" for example), it starts out as conscious effort and then
after a while isn't an effort anymore.
There can never be enough praise for Fool for Love.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [>
Re: Definitely good points below... -- Yellowork, 10:02:11 04/09/02 Tue
I love James Marsters, but his accent is obvious a mile off to a native English English speaker. I
think part of the problem is an attempt to combine elements of resounding, received pronunciation,
stage-style, 'aristocratic' English English, and a more 'natural', regional, vernacular English dialect;
doing one version of the English English accent is tricky enough as it is. I infer his speech is based
on an observation of the difference between Anthony Stewart Head's 'work' and stage accent and his
common-or-garden one. Conversely, I have heard US netters criticising Landau's accent in no
uncertain terms: this is simply unfair; I have lived in the South-East of England for most of my life
and I can say here that her accent is pretty impressive; perhaps they are confusing 'accent' with fey,
non-naturalistic characterization? As far as I am aware, JL spent a year or so in England as a young
child and her accent in 'Buffy' is therefore drawn from current or recent dialect more than the 'Cock-
er-nee' speech which you will find in old films about London.
[>
Re: Puzzles -- Anne, 03:36:45 04/06/02 Sat
Spike's accent makes sense to me since it was obviously a construct to begin with -- he did not have a
North End accent as a human being; he adopted it as part of the new persona he created for himself
as a vampire. He talks that way because he likes talking that way; I guess it expresses some kind of
rebellion. It's a deliberate expression of personality, and therefore continues to be maintained.
[>
Accents -- Cactus Watcher, 06:19:58 04/06/02 Sat
In real life some people change accents. Some don't. Some adjust completely to the accent of a new
area they live in. Some will make a kind of compromise so that both the people they live around now
and the people they used to live around will notice they have a 'different' accent. There is no
predicting this.
[>
Re: Puzzles -- Doriander, 07:05:54 04/06/02 Sat
Although this addresses vampire rules in particular, it could relate to issues with puzzles:
Jane Espenson on rules (Transcribed from her Rm w/ a VU commentary on Angel S1
DVD):
"I think there's some complicated stuff about vampires and eating (re Angel doesn't like food while
Spike eats all the time), and I hope that we've been consistent in it. But this is the kind of thing
where you- sometimes you aren't, and sometimes the fans will always catch you. The nice thing
about that is if you make a mistake, like about reflections or invitations or any other aspect of
vampire life, the fans will generally solve it themselves because, they will- they want it to be
consistent because they wanna believe that this is the real world. So they will find an explanation
that makes everything that they've heard be consistent. It's very helpful for us."
I'm thankful for the great insights of posters on this board, because I rarely could come up with my
own explanation.
Certain things I find puzzling myself. Take Darla, for instance. In WttH/The Harvest, she's
portrayed as very much subservient to the Master, which fine, I can reconcile with later depictions of
her. But I don't get her reaction when she first encounters Buffy. She genuinely didn't seem to have
a concept of what a slayer is, as if she didn't know such a girl/being exists. This from the top dog of
the fanged four? She that honed Angelus? So I resigned myself to acknowledging later portrayals as
retcon, but one which I don't mind at all, given the richness that the character provided in Angel's
storyline.
[> [>
Re: Puzzles -- VampRiley, 14:28:47 04/06/02 Sat
But I don't get her reaction when she first encounters Buffy. She genuinely didn't seem to have a
concept of what a slayer is, as if she didn't know such a girl/being exists.
I always thought that Darla knew what a slayer was...just not who the current
slayer was.
VR
[> [> [>
Re: Puzzles -- Slain, 09:30:47 04/07/02 Sun
I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out inconsistencies in BtVS, because, as Jane
Espenson says, fans can explain them. ;)
I like Anne's explanation of Spike's accent - as it's more of an affectation, it stays. With Angel,
remember he spent lots of time with humans and with Darla, an American. While Spike presumably
spent most of his time with Dru.
[> [> [> [>
Neither do I. -- VampRiley, 10:35:08 04/07/02 Sun
[> [> [> [>
Question: Should Darla be considered American? -- Scroll, 19:12:16 04/07/02 Sun
Since Darla was born before 1600 in Virginia, an English colony that was not yet part of the United
States, then shouldn't she really be considered English, not American? Just a nit-picky question. I
would think that she should be considered British, albeit a colonialist.
As for Angel's loss of accent, he still had the Irish lilt during the Boxer Rebellion, but apparently he
moved to the New World during the 1920s (see 'Angel' ep) so I can see how he lost his accent trying
to blend in with them.
[> [> [> [> [>
Good point, Scroll. -- Ixchel, 19:39:54 04/07/02 Sun
Though, I imagine, that a colonialist of that time would sound quite different than say a Londoner.
So leaving Darla with an "American" accent is acceptable (though probably not realistic)?
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Darla and the Virginia colonies -- matching mole, 21:32:34 04/07/02 Sun
I don't remember the exact date displayed on screen in the scene in which the dying Darla meets the
Master in early 1600s Virginia but I do remember thinking that it was awfully early in time. My
understanding, which could be totally wrong, is that the first English colonies in Virginia were just
getting started around the time of Darla becoming a vampire. All the colonists, except maybe for
very small children, would have been born and raised in England.
As an interesting side point, if a PBS documentary I saw on an early Virginia colony was anything to
go by, the very early colonies were largely, if not exclusively, male. Unlike the Pilgrim settlers the
early Virginia colonies were commercial enterprises financed by wealthy interests back in Britain
who were interested in their employees earning them a profit, not settling down. Of course, Darla
was obviously not the marrying kind and probably would have fit into such a place very well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Darla and the Virginia colonies -- d'Herblay, 23:39:58 04/07/02 Sun
According to the shooting script, the date was 1607. According to the transcript, the date was 1609.
Either way, there wasn't much time for a woman to move to Jamestown, set up shop as a prostitute,
contract syphilis, and die. There were no women in Jamestown at all from the first arrival of settlers
on May 13, 1607 until September, 1608. And then there were only two: Mrs. Thomas Forrest and her
maid, Anne Burras. Miss Burras married a carpenter that November in Jamestown's first
wedding.
Now, 200-300 colonists did arrive in Jamestown in August 1609, and for all I know they may have
included a boatload of skinny blonde prostitutes. What they certainly did not include were the nuns
who appeared in the scene or the robed Catholic Priest the Master disguised himself as. Jamestown
was a Protestant colony, through and through.
(I will, though, entertain the notion that Darla was Virginia Dare . . . )
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Darla and the Virginia colonies -- matching mole, 07:34:03 04/08/02 Mon
Glad to have my suspicions confirmed so authoritatively. As a non-American I was a bit leary of
discussing American history. I wonder why they just didn't set the date as 1630 or soemthing like
that? 'Shakespeare in Love' made a similar and even more glaring gaffe with some character having
plantations in Virginia in the 1500s.
Completely OT - I saw Gould's new book in a bookstore yesterday - what a whopper!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Darla and the Virginia colonies -- leslie, 11:43:58 04/08/02 Mon
My gut reaction to the positioning of Darla in the Virginia Colonies at the turn of the seventeenth
century was that she was meant to echo Defoe's Moll Flanders, a prostitute and petty criminal who
became that way because, as an innocent young housemaid, she was seduced by the son of the house,
got pregnant, and then was thrown out on the street. The original "whore with a heart of gold." She
is eventually caught in some crime or other and deported to the colonies, where she manages to put
her sordid past behind her and become respectable, falling truly in love and marrying a nice young
man and bonding deeply with his mother. Then, through conversation with her mother-in-law one
day, she discovers that her mother-in-law is actually HER mother, her husband is her half-brother,
and I think they actually have kids by this point, incestuously conceived. She flees back to Britain
and gets in even more trouble. Anyway, one of the points of Moll's story is that men punish women
for the men's own sins, especially their sexual sins, a theme that is very relevant to Darla's situation.
(What *is* her original name that no-one can recall? Could it be Moll?)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Darla and the Virginia colonies -- matching mole, 12:27:08 04/08/02 Mon
I have to confess that I have never read Moll Flanders although I did see most of the fairly recent
film version which I quite liked. Just did a quick search on the internet and discovered that MF is
supposedly set in the early 18th C (which is what I suspected) rather than the early 17th C. I'm sure
by 1709 the colonies were overrun with 'skinny blonde prostitutes'.
But that's really neither here nor there. Your parallel between Darla and Moll is very intriguing,
especially as Darla eventually comes to an end because of the sins of men (or rather the sin of a male
vampire).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Darla and the Virginia colonies -- leslie, 14:09:47 04/08/02 Mon
Well, regardless of timeframe, I think the thing we Americans need to remember is that originally
the southern colonies served as penal colonies for the British, and therefore most of the people who
wound up there were criminals. Of course, the definition of "criminal" was pretty harsh those days--
many of the transported criminals were basically small-time shoplifters, poachers who had no other
source of protein, or people who were snotty to their landlords. (And people wonder why America
turned out the way it did... desperate, uppity peasants and religious fanatics.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
MoreOT -- DickBD, 11:52:12 04/08/02 Mon
For you guys who like Gould so much, try Richard Dawkins for someone who is probably even more
brilliant. His writing is direct and read by scientist and layman alike. His SELFISH GENE helped
revolutionize thinking in biology. I think his latest is UNWEAVING THE RAINBOW, but I would
suggest CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE and BLIND WATCHMAKER.
Thanks for your comments everyone, they were thoughtful and illuminating. If anyone is still
reading down this far, I would like to ask if the vampire lore in areas other than Buffy and Angel
contain the bit about vampires not being able to enter a home without being invited.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Survival of the fittest -- Sophist, 12:41:55 04/08/02 Mon
Dawkins vs. Gould?!
I hope you realize you are raising an issue more contentious than Spike.
***ducks for protection under Gould's latest book***
It's thick and dense enough to serve as a bomb shelter.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Survival of the fittest -- DickBD, 15:09:45 04/08/02 Mon
More contentious than Spike? Is there such a thing? But I continue to be amazed about how savvy
everyone on the board is. You know, I haven't been around many message boards, but I continue to
be amazed at the intelligence and general civility shown here. The two don't always go
together.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Survival of the fittest -- Sophist, 17:49:44 04/08/02 Mon
The three most contentious issues in history are, in descending order, Gould/Dawkins, Spike, and
Marti Noxon. Race and religion are in a distant tie for fourth.
I'm 180 pages into Gould's tome (there is no other word for it). I promise a review, but it may take
me until S7.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Think I'll pass on Gould, wait til the movie comes out. ;) -- mundus, 07:26:02 04/09/02
Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Dawkins vs. Gould, Death match 2002! -- matching mole, 12:52:56 04/08/02 Mon
Vampire lore question first - a Dracula comic I read in the early 1970s contained the invitation only
clause so I would assume it is a piece of traditional vampire lore (or it was invented in some earlier
vampire oriented pop culture).
My own world view is much more in line with Dawkins than with Gould but I would hesitate to say
that either of them have revolutionized biological thought (Gould may well have revolutionized
paleontological thought but that is straying beyond my ken). I mostly posted my OT bit because
there had been a discussion of Gould's new book here a month or so ago which was the first I'd heard
of it. Then by chance I saw it in a bookstore and was struck by its sheer immensity.
Beside it on the shelf was another book which might be worth searching out for those interested in
general books on evolution. It was called 'What Evolution Is', or something like that, by Ernst Mayr
published last fall. Mayr, who incidentally was born in 1904 and continues to put out books
regularly, is among the last living links to the modern synthesis of evolution and genetics which
took place in the 1930s and 1940s and is a central figure in the study of evolution in the 20th
Century. The book is supposedly aimed at both specialized and general audiences. And it is much,
much shorter than the Gould opus.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Started "What Evolution Is" last night, as a matter of coincidence -- d'Herblay,
15:01:11 04/08/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks. I should have said "influenced," rather than engage in hyperbole! NT
-- DickBD, 15:04:21 04/08/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
It seems to me the invitation clause... -- Ixchel, 20:16:21 04/08/02 Mon
is part of Eastern European vampire tradition. I could be wrong though.
I've read quite a bit of Gould's general audience works, but only a little Dawkins (and not recently),
so I can't comment intelligently on the Gould vs. Dawkins debate.
Ixchel
[>
Re: Puzzles -- Darby, 17:13:14 04/06/02 Sat
As others have pointed out, Spike's adopted accent is part of his persona, and so it persists. Angel's
isn't, and he spent a long time here (but since we found out about his Irish heritage, Angelus has a
hint of the accent when he appears).
I read an interview with Marsters where he acknowledges that the sire thing was just one of those
instances where the writers saw fit to rewrite history; since then, someone from the show - it might
have been Joss - has "updated" the canon to say that anyone along your immediate sire's "family
tree" counts as a sire.
The "I thought you'd be bigger" is probably another early statement that became inconvenient and
was just ignored, but could also just be read as a comment to "tweak" Buffy, as Angel liked to do in
those early encounters.
But, bottom line, don't expect too much consistency from ME - they don't seem very obsessed with
it.
[> [>
ME have the fan community to work out the inconsistencies for them - that's what we're here
for ;-) -- Slain, 14:35:27 04/07/02 Sun
[> [> [>
another thing... -- pink,
15:15:26 04/07/02 Sun
I've often wondered - how does Spike smoke if vampires cannot breathe? Even if he could inhale the
smoke, what pleasure would he get from all that nicotine-y goodness if his heart does not beat and
therefore the nicotine would never make its way round his body? Would he have to kind of run
forwards with his mouth open in order to get the smoke into his lungs? Or am I taking this all a bit
too seriously???
Sparkles
pink
xxxx
[> [> [> [>
I think Spike likes how the smoking looks, to fit his bad boy image... -- Rob, 08:45:19
04/08/02 Mon
I doubt he's addicted, in the human sense of the word.
As far as the blood circulating, "dead" is a misnomer in vamp terms. Vamps take on a different
physiology than humans, although they are using their bodies. We already know that their body
functions can imitate humans. For example, Spike is able to inhale and exhale smoke. His lungs
imitate human lungs, although they cannot do their oxygeny function, like lungs should. Likewise,
I'm sure there is some way vamp blood circulates.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I think Spike likes how the smoking looks, to fit his bad boy image... -- Akita,
10:12:41 04/09/02 Tue
I see Spike's smoking as a clever twist on his addiction to recklessness, his love of living dangerously.
But, in his case, it's not the cigarettes that may kill him, it's the lighter. Typical of Spike to always
carry the means of his own destruction with him. What he did to the vamp in the opening sequence
of Bargaining he could do to himself -- intentionally or accidentally.
-A-
[>
Re: Puzzles -- JustAsking, 10:47:26 04/08/02 Mon
I heard somewhere that the "bigger" comment was an injoke based on the fact that SMG is smaller
than Swanson. Could be wrong, though.
OT-garden gnomes -- Kerri,
21:49:01 04/05/02 Fri
I'm chatting right now with OnM and agent156 who suggested that I post this (so I do not take all
the credit for this insanity ;))
Earlier today my friend was searching for a picture of garden gnomes and she found the official
gnome liberation front (which has a clever acronym of GNL) who's mission is to free garden gnomes
everywhere. In case you care the address is: http://www.kazm.net/gnomes/
But the scary of this is when i went to check out the site I also found a fanfic titled "Spike the
Garden Gnome Slayer". It's one of the funniest things I've read. For some strange reason I can't get
the URL but I'm going to copy and paste the story here. (however you are sadly missing out on the
picture of spike surrounded by garden gnomes)
Title: Spike the Garden Gnome Slayer
Author: Robyn the Snowshoe Hare
Part: 1/1
Rating: PG
Genre: Parody - Utterly outrageous parody
Disclaimer: *smirk* This idea is mine. Buffy the Vampire Slayer remains Joss' property, but this
parody idea was cooked up by ME! Ha!
Spoilers: References up to Season Four
Author's Notes: This is one of my weirdest fic-lets ever. Seriously. I think I might've outdone the
cows with this one. And I might even pull a mini-series out of this. Be warned.
Dedication: The FINNatic RP crowd, especially those who were around when I first beat this idea to
death. The Watcher's Council crowd, for supporting me in my insanity. And the Fictalk crowd, as a
(very) belated one-year anniversary wackiness fic. Special SO to Zak, for being his snazzy self, and to
Genevieve for her amazing new website.
****
< cue intro music >
Into every generation, a Slayer is born. One vamp in all the world, a Chosen One, one born with the
strength and skill to hunt the garden gnomes, to seek out their places of gathering and halt the
spread of their numbers. He is.... The Slayer.
****
Until he was 135, Spike thought that he was just a normal vampire. He had all the regular worries
of a vampire -- murder, mayhem, and Manchester United -- never suspecting that he was destined to
be something greater.
One night, however, when Spike was hanging out on the steps of a local vampire bar, he was
approached by a man named Sherrik, who identified himself as Spike's Watcher, and explained to
the vampire about his sacred duty. Spike was extremely sceptical, but agreed to meet Sherrik at a
local arboretum, where for the first time he was faced with a garden gnome. Spike slew the garden
gnome, and realized beyond a shadow of a doubt the truth of Sherrik's words.
Soon after, however, a Master garden gnome named Cothos came to town, and killed Sherrik. Spike
was able to destroy Cothos, but to do so he had to burn down the vampire bar. In his need to keep his
identity a secret, he could not defend his actions, and despite a possible theory set forth by a local
fire chief that the fire could've been started by mice -- mice that were smoking -- Spike had to leave
the city, and move to the one-Gap town of Sunnyvale.
In Sunnyvale, Spike met his new Watcher, a local librarian named Rupert Niles. Together with Niles
and two local students -- Sandra Harris and Will Rosenberg -- Spike faced the nightly swarm of
garden gnomes that threatened the safety of humanity and vampires alike.
During this time, however, Spike also met a mysterious -- and very short -- woman named Sereph,
who would show up from time to time to give Spike cryptic hints. Over several months, Spike found
himself falling deeply and passionately in love with Sereph - and one night she revealed that she felt
the same towards him. However, Spike discovered that Sereph herself was a garden gnome, though
she had been cursed with a soul by gypsies and was now seeking redemption.
Even though they knew that their love was doomed from the beginning, Spike and Sereph found that
they could not deny the love that lay between them. The night of Spike's 137th birthday, they
consummated their relationship, and the curse on Sereph was broken as she experienced a moment
of true happiness. An anguished Spike found himself facing Serephus - the Scourge of Eastern
Europe.
After months of heartache and terror, Serephus' soul was returned by Will, just in time for a
devastated Spike to send her to Hell in order to save the world from a demon that Serephus had been
about to unleash. After months, Sereph mysteriously returned, though both she and Spike knew that
they could not be around each other and not end up screwing like ferrets. So Sereph left a heart-
broken Spike and went to Los Gnomus - the City of Gnomes.
Spike mourned his lost love, but slowly again became strong enough to try and move forward with
his un-life, just as he and Will Rosenberg head off to Sunnyvale Community College. There, Spike
met a charming Psych TA named Ronnie Flinn.
Spike found himself deeply attracted to the adorable and honest Ohio-bred Ronnie Flinn. He was
shocked to discover, however, that Ronnie was actually a member of the ultra-secret government
group: The Purgative.
Spike learned that The Purgative was a military operation dedicated to capturing Garden Gnomes --
or, as the Purgative called them - Hostile-Lawn-Terrestrials (aka HLTs) -- and implanting them with
controlling chips. These neurological chips prevent the HLTs from attacking any living things, of any
kind, without intense pain in theÿ
[>
Re: OT-garden gnomes -- Jen C., 23:11:16 04/05/02 Fri
That is so funny! But I couldn't find the story...really wanted to see the picture! Could you tell me
how you got to it?
[> [>
Go to google and type in "Spike the Garden Gnome Salyer" and voir-la! :) --
Kerri, 08:30:54 04/06/02 Sat
[> [> [>
Didn't see Slain's message. Sorry bout that. -- Kerri, 08:32:07 04/06/02 Sat
[>
Re: OT-garden gnomes -- Slain, 07:30:31 04/06/02 Sat
The pic's here.
http://members.tripod.com/robyntsh/stggs.html
[>
Re: OT-garden gnomes -- leslie,
08:38:05 04/06/02 Sat
I have to say, the real antics of the GNL are even more funnier than this story. Though the outrage
on the part of the owners of "liberated" gnomes surpasses even that of anti-Spikers.
Celebration of Willow -- Magus,
18:10:07 04/06/02 Sat
This post is to being the Celebration of Willow Rosenberg, Six seasons.
We all know that after this season, Joss only has four options with Willow.
1. Willow that is without powers, traveling on a road for Redemtion. (WHEN I SAY NON, WILLOW
WILL PROBABLY HAVE NO MAGIC, *Non*, ever again.
2. Willow who becomes a *Faith-like* character.
3. Willow who crosses to season Seven as a Big bad.
4. Willow that is deceased.
[>
Re: Celebration of Willow -- Robert, 18:38:35 04/06/02 Sat
>> "We all know that after this season, Joss only has four options with Willow."
WE DO??? I would add at least one more option.
5. Willow retains all her powers and abilities, but chooses not to use them in her battle with Buffy
against evil, and thus continues to travel the road to her redemption.
Willow may be fortunate, as her road to redemption is comparatively short. She was out of control
for only a couple episodes, "Smashed" and "Wreched" -- unless the universe takes particular offense
at the whole resurrection spell thing.
[> [>
Re: Celebration of Willow -- Kitt, 19:03:51 04/06/02 Sat
"She was out of control for only a couple episodes, "Smashed" and "Wreched" -- unless the universe
takes particular offense at the whole resurrection spell thing."
When it comes to particular offense, I find the memory spell of Tabula Rasa to be fairly offensive and
out of control.
[> [> [>
Re: Celebration of Willow -- Robert, 19:18:44 04/06/02 Sat
>> "When it comes to particular offense, I find the memory spell of Tabula Rasa to be fairly offensive
and out of control."
Yes, this makes sense. Thus, Willow has three weeks of out-of-control behavior to atone for, plus
that nasty resurrection spell. Otherwise, her biggest problem is the irresistible urge to use
magic.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Celebration of Willow -- Malandanza, 06:19:37 04/07/02 Sun
"Yes, this makes sense. Thus, Willow has three weeks of out-of-control behavior to atone for, plus
that nasty resurrection spell. Otherwise, her biggest problem is the irresistible urge to use
magic."
Go back a little further -- to Willow's out-of-control attack on Glory that could have gotten both
Willow and Buffy killed for no purpose. Or even further to the spell she began on Oz and Veruca --
yes, I know she stopped, but only just barely. Forget Something Blue -- that was the episode that
should have attracted D'Hoffyn's attention.
As for Willow being on the path of redemption, I say maybe.
I see her case as similar to Lindsey's in Season One, when he came to Angel for help -- Angel realized
that Lindsey was afraid, but didn't believe that Lindsey truly understood that his actions had been
wrong. Similarly for Willow -- she is afraid of magic and the control it has over her, but I have yet to
hear her apologize meaningfully for past misdeeds or to try to atone.
It's as if she has absolved herself of any responsibilty -- blaming the magic instead. Never mind that
she was the one who chose to abuse magic. Her possibility for reform came because of her loss of
Tara (her friends had always been able to shelter her from the consequences of her own actions prior
to this)-- but even here, she has not accepted that Tara is gone. Willow still hopes that they'll get
back together as soon as she's recovered from her magical "addiction", which diminishes the
effectiveness of the Tara loss as an instrument of change (it's just temporary, you see -- no big
deal).
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Celebration of Willow -- Slain, 15:14:50 04/07/02 Sun
I think it was clear that Tara left because Willow had already gone off the rails, not the other way
round. She left because Willow was messing with her mind, because she felt she was being suffocated
by the relationship.
The nearest comparison with Willow, at the moment, is Giles in 'The Dark Age' (Season 2). In that
episode, dark magic Giles was involved with (when he was roughtly the same age as Willow) had
dire consequences. Giles had already tried to escape from those consequences by more-or-less leaving
the practice magic completely, and returning to his Watcher studies - but that didn't work. The
consequences caught up with him. So it seems to me that the 'cold turkey' approach doesn't
work.
As for blame, you can lay some of the blame with the magic itself; after all, the real power comes
from the demon realms, and it has been made clear that this type of power is evil. Despite the drugs
'metaphor', magic and drugs aren't alike. Heroine and cocaine are neutral substances without any
moral nature; whereas, much magic is explicitly, irrevocably Evil.
But the problem, of course, is that Willow is intelligent; as Giles said, she was the most responsible
of all of us. So I think she has to take the blame, in the same way that Giles did in 'The Dark
Age'.
Willow has already appologized - I think her crawling on the floor crying "I'm sorry, I'm sorry!"
counts as an appology in my book. However it does seem to me that Willow has given up magic not
because she realizes it was evil and corrupting, but because she wants to be respected by her friends.
She's behaving like magic is like heroine, an inanimate substance that has no a moral dimension;
when it does.
But Willow is like any other character - she's human. Every other character in BtVS is wreckless
sometimes, and Willow doesn't deserve to go through hell because of it. Buffy and Xander have both
done equally stupid things and put people in danger.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Smart Girls are Sexy -- Malandanza, 19:21:04 04/07/02 Sun
"I think it was clear that Tara left because Willow had already gone off the rails, not the other
way round. She left because Willow was messing with her mind, because she felt she was being
suffocated by the relationship.
It certainly wasn't my intention to say that Tara's departure caused Willow to go "off the rails" --
rather, that it took Tara's absence to get Willow to understand that she'd gone too far. Tara had
excellent reasons for leaving, and has excellent reasons for never returning, no matter how contrite
Willow is or how much she promises to reform.
"The nearest comparison with Willow, at the moment, is Giles in 'The Dark Age' (Season 2). In
that episode, dark magic Giles was involved with (when he was roughly the same age as Willow) had
dire consequences. Giles had already tried to escape from those consequences by more-or-less leaving
the practice magic completely, and returning to his Watcher studies -- but that didn't work. The
consequences caught up with him. So it seems to me that the 'cold turkey' approach doesn't
work."
I mostly agree with what you've said -- Giles is the closest parallel. What I don't agree with is that
Giles decided to go "cold turkey" -- he ran away and pretended nothing had happened. Fear, not
fortitude, kept him from using magic. He reinforces this idea when he hears from Ethan of the
Eyghon's return -- instead of facing his personal demon, he hides in an alcoholic stupor of
denial.
"As for blame, you can lay some of the blame with the magic itself; after all, the real power comes
from the demon realms, and it has been made clear that this type of power is evil. Despite the drugs
'metaphor', magic and drugs aren't alike. Heroine and cocaine are neutral substances without any
moral nature; whereas, much magic is explicitly, irrevocably Evil."
Irrevocably evil? You're preaching to the choir :) I'm probably the only person on the board who will
agree with you on that one. Most people see magic as a tool -- neutral. Good or evil depends upon
how you use it and for what purposes. But my contention has been that magic comes from
somewhere -- and something. Why do these dark powers that Willow supplicates in her spells give
her power if not to further some evil end of their own? (Although, for the magic as addiction analogy,
I would point out that Giles and co. got into magic, allowing Eyghon to possess them, because it was
"an incredible high.")
"But the problem, of course, is that Willow is intelligent; as Giles said, she was the most
responsible of all of us. So I think she has to take the blame, in the same way that Giles did in 'The
Dark Age'."
Of course Willow is intelligent -- but she lacks common sense. And whatever Giles may say about his
favorite non-Slayer, Willow is not responsible. She keep proving how irresponsible she is. Willow
should accept the responsibility, but as long as she's playing the victim she'll continue to impose on
her friends' sense of compassion.
"Willow has already apologized - I think her crawling on the floor crying 'I'm sorry, I'm sorry!'
counts as an apology in my book. However it does seem to me that Willow has given up magic not
because she realizes it was evil and corrupting, but because she wants to be respected by her friends.
She's behaving like magic is like heroine, an inanimate substance that has no a moral dimension;
when it does."
An apology is meaningless without actions to back it up. Remember in TR when the group gathered
to discuss making life easier for Buffy? No one has acted on that good intention. In fact, that same
episode Willow made Buffy's life significantly worse in two ways(and don't talk to me about good
intentions -- I remain convinced that Willow wanted an excuse to wipe out Tara's memories and was
using Buffy to justify her actions). First, Buffy was on the verge a break down -- a catharsis. We've
seen it happen before -- everything builds up in Buffy to the breaking point, she breaks, then she
feels much better. Willow's spell arrested Buffy's healing process. Second, Willow effectively tore
Buffy out of heaven twice. In TR when the amnesia spell wore off, Buffy remembered everything. I
have never seen her more lost than at the end of that episode. Buffy have suffered beyond incredibly
in her life and the terrible irony is that her best friend has played a key role in her worst moments
(from the re-ensoulment of Angel to her resurrection). You think Willow has apologized? The other
half of the "I'm sorry..." speech was "I need help..." She's sorry, but it's Buffy's responsibility to help
her. And Buffy does help -- but Willow has not succeeded in taking any weight off of Buffy's back --
she's just added her own problems to Buffy's. Where's the evidence that she was still sorry the next
day? Where's the remorse? the contrition? the penance? She was more interested in getting Tara
back than supporting the friend she has wronged. Willow is remarkably self-absorbed.
"But Willow is like any other character -- she's human. Every other character in BtVS is
wreckless sometimes, and Willow doesn't deserve to go through hell because of it. Buffy and Xander
have both done equally stupid things and put people in danger."
Willow hasn't suffered the way Buffy has -- perhaps if she had, she'd realize there's more to the
world than how Willow Rosenberg feels.
But I still like Willow :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Dark side of the force? -- OnM, 20:49:17 04/07/02 Sun
*** I'm probably the only person on the board who will agree with you on that one. Most people
see magic as a tool -- neutral. Good or evil depends upon how you use it and for what purposes. But
my contention has been that magic comes from somewhere -- and something. Why do these dark
powers that Willow supplicates in her spells give her power if not to further some evil end of their
own? ***
This is really Ded's territory I'm treading on here, but as I was reading your very apt analysis, Mal, I
couldn't help but think of how Luke Skywalker ('Buffy') is eventually pitted against someone who
was once a good person but who was (could be) taken over by the 'Dark Side' (Willow?). And even
then, Darth Vader served the Emporer, a being who was darker yet, far more evil than Vader.
The similarities are quite striking. Willow has always 'meant well', and genuinely so, but she has
also been easily seduced when the opportunities arise. I've always thought that there was a
deliberate reason for ME to place her character as a supposed 'counterpoint' to Faith, a person whom
Willow openly disliked, and particularly for what Willow saw as Faith 'so easily giving in' to the
seduction of power.
*** Willow hasn't suffered the way Buffy has -- perhaps if she had, she'd realize there's more to
the world than how Willow Rosenberg feels. ***
I agree completely. I am always baffled at those who complain that Buffy is 'self-centered' or 'bitchy'.
I say considering her life from the age of 15 on, she has good reason to be on occasion. Buffy's 'faults'
are pretty damn petty compared to most of those around her, something I hope that by season's end
she'll obtain a more clear understanding of.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Dark side of the force? -- Rufus, 22:25:58 04/07/02 Sun
Part of Willow's problem has been she has always seen herself as weak, deficient. As the shy, bookish
one in school she was always overlooked for the Cordy and Buffy types who she felt were easier on
the eyes. It's that lack of inner confidence that has left her open to wanting to take the short cut.
When she finally found something that she did better than anyone (being a geek wasn't status
building for her), she made that one thing, magic, her whole identity. At first her intentions were
pure, stay around and help people, then as Tara pointed out, Willow began helping herself. It has
only been in the most dire circumstances that Willow has resorted to the darkest side of magic, and
she was pulled back because she was able to find Tara's mind again. The thing about darkness is
that it will find you when you are least able to see it for what it is. Willows slow attitude adjustment
doesn't hide the fact that she hasn't changed, she still only see's herself powerful and worthy when
she does the magic thing. It's so sad cause there is so much more to Willow than her borrowed
power.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
what did it take? -- anom, 21:49:25 04/07/02 Sun
"'I think it was clear that Tara left because Willow had already gone off the rails, not the other way
round. She left because Willow was messing with her mind, because she felt she was being suffocated
by the relationship.'
It certainly wasn't my intention to say that Tara's departure caused Willow to go "off the rails" --
rather, that it took Tara's absence to get Willow to understand that she'd gone too far."
Willow was still deeply in denial after Tara moved out, saying things like, "Little things got blown
out of proportion, we saw the problem differently, the time apart will be good for us"--as she used
magic to augment her computer search! She didn't realize she'd gone too far & take some
responsibility until she got Dawn hurt in a car crash. That was when she really gave up magic,
rather than lying about it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
What will it take? -- Malandanza, 00:23:11 04/09/02 Tue
"Willow was still deeply in denial after Tara moved out, saying things like, "Little things got
blown out of proportion, we saw the problem differently, the time apart will be good for us"...She
didn't realize she'd gone too far & take some responsibility until she got Dawn hurt in a car crash.
That was when she really gave up magic, rather than lying about it."
I think that there were three events that led Willow to realize that she needed to take a break from
magic:
1. Realization that she had torn Buffy out of heaven
2. Loss of Tara after her amnesia spell in TR
3. Injuring Dawn
But I think that she has forgotten events #1 and #3 -- and that she stays "clean" solely with the
expectation that she will be rewarded for her behavior by Tara's return. Certainly we haven't seen
her go out of her way to help Buffy feel better. It's possible that she's doing penance for hurting
Dawn by helping Dawn out with her chores (whatever those might be -- Buffy is the only one we see
doing housework) but I think it's more likely that Dawn guilted Willow into taking over the tasks (I
envision comments like, "My arm still hurts from the car accident -- could you clear the table for
me?")
So I don't the car accident as pivotal -- certainly it was the final step in pulling her out of the I-don't-
have-a-problem denial, but it is the loss of Tara that really drives Willow. Even then, Willow is
avoiding magic not for Tara's sake, but for her own -- so that Tara will see how good she's been and
return. And I'd say that Willow's behavior to date has yet to demonstrate that she feels anything
resembling responsibilty for her actions. Momentary guilt when she is caught, yes, but to have
forgotten about the things she has done to Buffy in so short a time? Isn't dragging Buffy out of
heaven worth at least a couple of weeks of brooding? She didn't even make chocolate chip cookies for
Buffy -- how sorry could she have been?
So, in answer to your question, "What did it take?" I can only reply that we're still waiting. I used to
think that Tara's death would be required for Willow to finally get it and grow up, provided that
Willow had some culpability in the death, but maybe seeing Tara happily involved in another
relationship would be enough.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Dark is not Evil: Willow vs. Buffy, Willow vs. Faith (long ramble) -- Scroll, 08:56:09
04/09/02 Tue
Warning, this is pretty long...
I belong to the camp that believes that magic is, at its most basic level, a neutral tool that people can
use for either good or evil. I don't agree that magic is inherently evil because I consider it similar to
Angel's demon-beast in Pylea. That beast wasn't evil: it was mindless and hungry for blood, but that
desire for food is not Evil. It doesn't have the capacity for evil, it's the human mind that has evilness
inside. In fact, I'll even draw the parallel of the First Slayer. She's not as mindless as Angel's beast,
but like Giles says, she is a primal, an *animal* force--implying that her morality may not extend to
any complexity further than 'demons kill people, which is not good; I slay demons so more
good.'
I see magic as a supernatural force like the Angel-Beast and the darkness inherent in Buffy's slayer
powers. Which is to say, it is a dark power. After all, Buffy, Faith, Angel, and to a lesser degree
Spike, all struggle with falling prey to the darkness of their own powers, their power to ultimately
save or kill people. Faith's slayer strength isn't what caused her to go evil. Her big muscles may have
helped her to kill people but it is Faith herself that performs these deeds. While Willow hasn't gone
as far as Faith, I still draw the parallel that it isn't Willow's magic that is corrupting her, it's her
desire to 'make things better' and control people. Willow is a good person, and I think she's on the
road to recovery, but her desire to 'fix' everything (usually to her liking) is analogous to Faith's
superior attitude in S3. In fact, that last scene in "All the Way" when Willow casts the forgetting
spell on Tara, I heard myself silently chanting 'want, take, have!'
Now all this isn't to say that magic isn't addictive; I'm sure Willow is truly psychologically dependent
on magic as it represents her specialness. She needs it like a druggie that needs her next fix because
it makes her feel better about herself. However, I don't agree that magic is *physiologically*
addictive. Other than "Wrecked" and Rack's hilarous crack house (which I agree with other posters
was a parody rather than a true representation), we've never seen magic make a witch *physically*
dependent. Yes, Willow has nosebleeds and headaches. But that's like Buffy punching a demon and
getting bruises on her fists. Bruises don't make her addicted to physical violence. It's Buffy's nature
to be drawn to the dark, a nature which as Spike points out "needs a little monster in her
man."
Willow is similarly drawn to the dark, but this dark is not necessarily evil. Even Giles and Ethan's
summoning of Eyghon is not, I argue, exactly *evil* the way the Troika's use of the neural dampener
to rape Katrina is Evil. Ripper and Ethan were out-of-control and their reckless use of magic
resulted in their killing a friend, but neither had the *intention* of killing.
Intention, for me at least, is the difference between the evil of humans and the neutrality of animals.
Compare Angelus murdering Jenny and the Angel-Beast whose mindless appetite made him chase
after Fred's bag of blood and leave Gunn and Wes unharmed. Which one is evil? Which one is a not-
quite-so fluffy puppy with bad teeth?
"As for blame, you can lay some of the blame with the magic itself; after all, the real power comes
from the demon realms, and it has been made clear that this type of power is evil.
Yes, magical power can stem from the demon realms, but as we've seen in both Buffy and
Angel, demons are not necessarily evil. And gods/goddesses aren't always evil. Osiris, god of
the underworld, whom Willow invokes to resurrect Buffy, is one of the good Egyptian gods. And the
gods Willow name when killing the fawn includes "Adonai", which is a name for the Jewish God
meaning "my Lord" in Hebrew. And I think nobody would call Him evil. Yet Willow invokes his name
to slaughter a fawn? (I don't have any coherent thoughts on this bloody scene yet, but I welcome
people's interpretations.)
It seems clear that Willow's downward spiral, culminating in "Wrecked", is driven not only on her
dependency on magic to make herself feel special, but on her faulty morality and her, thus-far,
sheltered state regarding the negative consequences of her actions.
Scroll.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Adonai or Adonis? -- leslie, 13:10:20
04/09/02 Tue
"And the gods Willow name when killing the fawn includes "Adonai", which is a name for the Jewish
God meaning "my Lord" in Hebrew."
I agree with your general stance that "dark" does not invariably equal "evil." However, is Willow
invoking Adonai, or is she invoking Adonis (whose name, in certain conjugations, would sound like
"Adonai")? The thing is, Adonis is a type of dying-and-revived god, like Attis, Tammuz, and, of
course, Osiris. He would make a lot more sense in this spell. And he was killed by being turned into
a deer and torn to bit by his own hounds, which would explain the fawn.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
excuse me, declensions, not conjugations -- leslie, 13:13:01 04/09/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Adonai or Adonis? -- Scroll, 13:57:08 04/09/02 Tue
I'm pretty sure it's Adonai, I checked the transcripts and Masq's site too. But whether Joss meant a
derivation of Adonis rather than Adonai/Jewish God, I don't know. Adonis turning into a deer and
being killed would make sense in the general spirit of the spell, so maybe that's what Willow meant?
But it's interesting to note that Willow *is* Jewish. I don't know what bearing her religion (I don't
really consider her Wiccan) has on her magic, but if my best friend died, I'd certainly be praying to
God to bring her back!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Wasn't Adonis killed by a boar? -- Ixchel, 15:10:39 04/09/02 Tue
I could be wrong, but it seems to me he was (maybe because Persephone wanted to take him from
Aphrodite?). Either way he is defintely a dying/resurrecting god and seems appropriate (like
Osiris).
I think it was Acteon (sp?) who was transformed into a stag and hunted by his own friends and
hounds for offending Artemis.
Again, I'm not positive, it's been a while.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
You're right, Acteon. -- leslie,
15:15:31 04/09/02 Tue
I'm just getting all my dying-and-reviving gods mixed up today!
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that "Adonis" and "Adonai" are, in fact, linguistically related.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I think you're correct about Adonis and Adonai... -- Ixchel, 16:23:02 04/09/02 Tue
It seems to me that there was a lot of flow between the various ancient Mediterranean civilizations'
religions.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Check out Behindthename.com -- Scroll, 17:46:25 04/09/02 Tue
You're right, Adonis and Adonai are definitely related. Behind The Name gives this as the definition
of Adonis:
ADONIS (m) Greek Mythology
"lord" (Semitic). In Greek myth Adonis was a handsome young shepherd killed while hunting a wild
boar. The anemone flower is said to have sprung from his blood. Because he was loved by Aphrodite,
Zeus allowed him to be restored to life for part of each year. The Greeks borrowed this character
from various Semitic traditions, hence the Semitic origins of the name.
So Willow was probably invoking Adonis, and not Adonai/Jewish God. (Which makes sense since the
Jewish God was really against witchcraft in the first place!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Check out Behindthename.com -- leslie, 19:33:17 04/09/02 Tue
And the definition of "leslie" is: "gets the general structure right, frequently screws up on the actual
details."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
requested spelling -- anom, 22:37:34 04/09/02 Tue
"I think it was Acteon (sp?)...."
Since you asked...it's Actaeon.
Which brings up a button: "This doll looks like a hunter, but press the hidden button and it turns
into a deer. It's an Actaeon figure! Pack of dogs sold separately"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL, anom! I thought it looked wrong, tried Aecteon, looked really wrong. -- Ixchel,
23:24:14 04/09/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Excellent post, Scroll. -- Ixchel, 18:21:01 04/09/02 Tue
I'm inclined to agree with you regarding the neutrality of magic. But, as it is so powerful, so wild
could it not modify the person that uses it? And perhaps because the dark or unpleasant parts of a
person are hidden and secret, it may be those parts the magic could act on more strongly? In this the
magic could be perceived as a neutral force that blasting through the user can warp him/her without
intent, design or direction (good or evil)? I agree though that Willow's misuse of magic and
personality problems involved with that are definitely coming from within her, her own
weaknesses.
Regarding the killing of the fawn, I really didn't have a problem with it (this is not to say it wasn't
disturbing, it was), but she killed it quickly (no torture). IMHO, it isn't wrong to kill a nonsentient
animal to save someone (I believe Willow was honestly trying to save Buffy) when it is all right to
kill a nonsentient animal for food. Also, would people have been less disturbed if instead of a fawn it
had been a lizard, a fish, or a cockroach? I think yes (I know I would have), we tend to have more
sympathy for our fellow mammals. Now the fact that Willow later lied about it is a problem, she
should have been honest about what was required.
In fact, she should have been honest about the whole thing with everyone, including Giles.
Particularly, _why_ she was going to do it (as she did explain to Xander in Bargaining and I do
believe she meant what she said). I believe she honestly thought Buffy was suffering somewhere,
needing her help. And to me it is logical to think so, the universe never previously rewarded Buffy
for her sacrifices, why would it start now? And all the knowledge that Willow had about the
situation (hellgod trying to get home, Angel's hell experience, life on the Hellmouth) would not make
_me_ conclude that Buffy was in the Elysian Fields (no matter how much she deserved to be there).
Do I think that Willow was completely selfless in what she did? Not at all, I think she loves Buffy
and missed her a great deal, so her action was mixed selfless and selfish (I believe most actions are).
Also, I'm sure there was a great deal of guilt (in TG Buffy specifically told two people she was
counting on them, Spike and Willow, and I think both felt they had failed her).
None of the above is to say I defend Willow's actions in ATW, TR, Smashed or Wrecked, not at all. I
do think that in the course of going from powerless (S1) to powerful (S5), Willow has been changed
by that power to become careless and disrespectful of others. That the ability to do magic
unfortunately became her basis for self worth.
I guess I've gone on so much because I've seen posts (on other boards) claiming that Willow was bad
from the beginning, she always hated Buffy, was always completely selfish, and always very power-
hungry. I just don't see Willow this way. These posters seem ready to throw out a character that I
like a great deal. Actually, I did read an excellent point someone made about Willow and being
power-crazed. If she was so concerned with power, why resurrect Buffy (their leader)? Without
Buffy, Willow could have been the leader of the SG indefinitely.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
What does "dark" mean? -- skeeve, 07:50:41 04/10/02 Wed
Scroll: "Willow is similarly drawn to the dark, but this dark is not necessarily evil."
What does "dark" mean here? It clearly doesn't mean evil. A reference to color doesn't seem right
either.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What does "dark" mean? -- Scroll, 08:13:00 04/10/02 Wed
I'm not sure I've developed a decisive definition for 'Dark' yet. :) I guess I just mean something, a
power like magic or the Slayer force, that opens up the hidden things in people's psyches. Like SM
sex or the desire to hunt (Buffy), or the insanity that comes with visions (Buffy in "Earshot", Cordelia
in "To Shanshu in L.A.") Things that are scary to normal humans, things that we push to the backs
of our minds and ignore for fear of becoming 'evil'. (I don't consider insanity evil, though it's painful
and not considered good for people.) For Willow, perhaps the 'dark' in her magic actually helped her
to be more readily accepting of her newfound lesbianism. Just my thoughts...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What does "dark" mean? -- leslie, 09:24:25 04/10/02 Wed
I think on a really basic level, "dark" means "things that tend to happen when there is no light."
Which is not as flip as it sounds--it means things that people want to do when no-one else is looking,
when they can't be seen (sex, murder, conspiracy, some religious rites), things pertaining to the dead
(who are put into the ground, away from the sunlight, or who, when undead, cannot exist in the sun),
things that grow in darkness (like seeds sprouting and fetuses gestating in the womb). And then
there are the things that are kept in the dark so that no-one can see them, even if they could live in
light: things we are ashamed of in ourselves.
There's always a relationship between dark and light, however. The Eleusinian Mysteries, in ancient
Greece, for instance, apparently took place mostly in the dark, and culminated in something being
revealed in a burst of light. In medieval Ireland, poets "kindled" their poetry through a rite called
"imbas forosnai", "the great light that illuminates." But the way they did it was to chew a piece of
raw meat, place it on the threshold of a windowless chamber, then lie in the dark, in the middle of
the chamber, on his back, with his palms on his cheeks and his eyes closed, watched over by fellow
poets to be sure he did not turn over, and wait for (literally) enlightenment. So, being in the dark is
the prerequisite for seeing the light.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
"O dark, dark, dark, dark, dark, amid the blaze of noon" - Long -- Rahael,
11:38:50 04/10/02 Wed
How could I resist? lol. Any opportunity to have Milton in my subject line!
That part of Samson Agonistes which depicts Samson talking about his blindness seemed especially
relevant to me when looking at the motif of light and dark in Buffy.
"O dark, dark, dark, dark, dark, amid the blaze of noon,
Irrecoverably dark, total Eclipse
Without all hope of day!
O first created Beam, and thou great Word,
Let there be light, and light was over all;
Why am I thus bereav'd thy prime decree?
The Sun to me is dark
And silent as the Moon,
When she deserts the night
Hid in her vacant interlunar cave.
Since light so necessary is to life,
And almost life itself, if it be true
That light is in the Soul,
She all in every part; why was the sight
To such a tender ball as th' eye confin'd?
So obvious and so easie to be quench't,
And not as feeling through all parts diffus'd,
That she might look at will through every pore?
Then had I not been thus exil'd from light;
As in the land of darkness yet in light
To live a life half dead, a living death,
And buried; but O yet more miserable!
My self, my Sepulcher, a moving Grave"
Leslie points to the link between Darkness and death. When things decay, they blacken. We consider
sleep to be a kind of death, and that happens in darkness. There is a link between blindess (both
moral, and physical) in darkness. 'In the Dark' signifies both ignorance and loneliness. Night is
dark.
In Genesis, the creation of light and dark are simultaneous. It's God ordering his universe, creating
dichotomies and boundaries. "Let there be light" but as Light was created, so was darkness.
"Let there be light, and light was over all;
Why am I thus bereav'd thy prime decree?"
In Sunnydale (ironic title, signifying light, but the original Spanish name was closer to hell), there
are two worlds, the world of light; and that of darkness. It is dangerous to stray across the
boundaries. This season, we have two uneasy, restless creatures, who aren't normal, who transgress
all kinds of boundaries, walking in between. Buffy believed herself to be expelled from Heaven, and
Spike himself is damned. Samson (rather than Milton himself) links God explicitly with light. He self
pityingly considers himself exiled, in the dark, weak, helpless and abandoned. He is a 'moving grave',
a 'living sepulchre' and that in essence, is what Buffy and Spike are too.
This morning, I planned yet another long, self revelatory post, titled 'Buffy Summers, c'est moi!".
Which I decided to spare everyone. But the essence of this idea, was that my personal perspective
leads me back to 'The Body' as the essential turning point for our current darkness in BtVS. The
Body as an episode is bathed in light. It's everywhere. I think it signified that death is normal; that
it happens in 'daytime', that to be human and normal in Sunnydale means living in the light, and
that means that death is inevitable. Dawn's attempt to rescue her takes place in darkness, and is
tellingly titled 'Forever' (i.e, escaping diurnality, escaping days, months years, which are the rags of
time).
From then on, an inevitable darkness falls upon Buffy. Everything is and must be unnatural for her.
She is exiled from day (normality, non-Slayerness) because she is exiled from her Mother.
But her mental darkness must be differentiated from the darkness of death, which has cast its long
shadow over her. For the darkness of death, of night is not unnatural at all, but part of the cycle of
life, of time.
Darkness has also got some very positive connotations. Darkness/Night has sexual connotations. No
wonder that Dark Buffy is also more sexual than she has ever been! Darkness is mysterious,
exciting. Darkness is beautiful, just as night is beautiful.
("She walks in beauty, like the night
Of cloudless climes and starry skies;
And all that's best of dark and bright
Meet in her aspect and her eyes")
At the end of the poem, Milton triumphantly shows that Samson's mental blindess is the real
problem, not his physical one. He has access to 'inward illumination' as does Buffy, whose prophetic
dreams come to her at night ("When most I winke, then do mine eyes best see/for all the day they
view things unrespected/ but when I sleep in dreams I rest on thee/ and darkly bright, are bright in
dark directed" - ok, that was from memory so it is probably mangled)
Samson can 'live' in the 'dark' but still be with his God. And this leads me to Angel. Exiled always to
the dark (and by crushing the ring of Amara, that's where he chooses to stay), he can be the warrior
for the Powers that Be. In fact, they saved him by creating darkness, by covering up the sun,
creating unnatural night. The wording of Angel's Shansu takes me back to Joyce. For his salvation is
couched in the language of the dead. And Buffy's gift is death. Her gift, really is her life. And these
two concepts heavily underline this idea in BtVS and AtS - Light/Dark and Life/Death are linked in
a profound and mysterious way. And this mystery is the mystery of Dawn, the personification of
light, who is created to be sacrificed, to be killed. Whose function is the tear down dichotomies/the
walls of the universes, and who ushers in chaos.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
And I should mention -- Rahael, 11:47:34 04/10/02 Wed
That 'at the heart of darkness' we will find illumination. That at the bottom of Pandora's box/at the
end of the tunnel, we find Hope. And that at the close of night, dawn will break.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
& let's not forget ursula leguin -- anom, 22:05:29 04/10/02 Wed
"Light is the left hand of darkness
and darkness the right hand of light.
Two are one, life and death, lying
together like lovers in kemmer,
like hands joined together,
like the end and the way."
(from "The Left Hand of Darkness," in which an alien race has sexes only when they're going to, well,
have sex--the state of being differentiated into one sex or the other is called kemmer)
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Celebration of Willow -- skeeve, 09:12:14 04/08/02 Mon
What's the evidence that magic is inherently evil?
We don't even have evidence that all demons are inherently evil. Also, some of the spells mention
gods.
The problems others have with Willow are her carelessness and lack of respect. The Tabula Rosa
spell was the result of both. It was evil regardless of the source of her power. Searching for Dawn by
sending the people in the background into another dimension is another example.
Closing drapes with magic isn't going to hurt anyone.
Note that this disrespect for other people preceded her megawitchhood. Remember her breaking into
computer files to which she wasn't supposed to have access, including files on individual people?
Reading about people doesn't do quite as much damage as casting spells on them.
The disrespect did get worse after Willow became a megawitch. So far as I can tell, Willow never
snooped on people for fun. Megawitch Willow remade the Bronze and the people in it for her own
entertainment.
Here is a question for those in the magic is evil camp. What should Willow do if Oz comes back and
wants to be cured?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Celebration of Willow -- Farstrider, 12:55:41 04/08/02 Mon
"Heroine and cocaine are neutral substances without any moral nature; whereas, much magic is
explicitly, irrevocably Evil."
Things can't be evil. Only entities who can 1) recognize right and wrong and 2) choose between them
are evil. "Magic" can do neither, magicians can do both. So, either Willow is evil or she is not, but the
tools she uses for her acts are still neutral.
That is not to say that certain types of magic may be seductive, but that is the nature of power, to
seduce. One who is so seduced is likely to act on their baser impulses. That lack of self control, to the
extent it is voluntary, is evil. But, the seductive thing is not evil in and of itself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I think what they mean is -- Sophist, 14:05:49 04/08/02 Mon
that the magic is being accessed through a source -- say, a demon -- which is evil. In other words, the
magic and the source are inseparable.
Personally, I'm not convinced that magic in the show is intrinsically evil. We have been shown spells
where both the intent was pure and the result good (e.g., Who Are You, Primeval, Blood Ties). Either
the demon sources of magic are incompetent at predicting the outcome of magic use, or magic can be
good.
Besides, what would OZ be without Glenda?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Celebration of Willow -- leslie,
14:17:37 04/08/02 Mon
The comparison with Giles is also pertinent because it gives a clue to how Willow's powers can still
be useful. True, Giles no longer practices magic for fun (or profit), but he knows enough about it to be
a guide in magical matters, and he *does* perform the occasional spell when it is absolutely
necessary. What he has learned, however, is how to judge accurately when "necessary" has
arrived.
My problem with the magic-addict plotline has always been that it seems to rule out the possibility
of Willow's powers ever being used again, and it seems that this is a rather drastic reduction of the
abilities of the Forces of Good. There is always going to be an occasion when you can only fight magic
with more magic. The SG would not have been able to best either Adam or Glory without Willow's
magic, either directly or indirectly used.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Celebration of Willow -- Slain, 18:13:31 04/08/02 Mon
I think it's important to separate the real world from the fiction of the show, and magic from drugs -
something, to be honest, the writer's really haven't done. In the real world, things cannot be evil; yet
in BtVS there are forces, such as The First Evil, which are things, yet have a moral nature. Much
magic is evil: and this magic is corrputing, whereas heroine is merely addictive.
I think magic in BtVS can be separated into the Natural (coming from the magic user themselves, or
from benign deities, mostly Goddesses) and the Demonic (coming from demons) - Wicca, and the kind
of magic Tara practicises, is natural, and not evil - whereas the kind of powerful magic practised by
Ethan Rayne, Rack and Willow is instrinsically rooted in evil. The more powerful the magic,
the more evil. That's borne out by the fact that the more powerful the wizard or witch, the more evil
they are.
However I'm not ruling out that this kind of powerful magic can be used for good. As I said, Willow's
fall was brought on by two factors - the magic itself, and the way she used it, cutting herself
off from Tara and from the rest of the Scoobies. In the Season 4 finale, Willow used dangerous magic
to defeat Adam; yet because she did so with the support of the Scoobies, the consequences were borne
by the group. Magic can be a power used for good, even though it involves communicating with evil,
but only if it is used correctly - not only with the right purpose in mind, but also within a strong
group or coven.
This is why the magic/drugs metaphor pushed on the show is so assinine. Magic is not drugs. Magic
gives power, whereas drugs gives an escape from powerlessness but no power. Drugs are not evil or
good, whereas magic is both good and evil. Magic can be used like a drug, as an escape, but it
isn't just that.
[>
Re: Celebration of Willow -- Eric, 11:00:14 04/07/02 Sun
"1. Willow that is without powers, traveling on a road for Redemtion. (WHEN I SAY NON, WILLOW
WILL PROBABLY HAVE NO MAGIC, *Non*, ever again."
Not likely. That door is open, and is traditionally nearly impossible to close.
"2. Willow who becomes a *Faith-like* character."
Very unlikely. Willow hated Faith. If someone mentioned her showing Faith like behavior she' snap
out of it right away.
"3. Willow who crosses to season Seven as a Big bad."
Possible. Willow is basically a good person. She's screwed up, lost control, made bad decisions, etc.
But I defy anyone to name a Scoob who hasn't. If she does became a threat, she'll be a formidable
one. Yet she'll also be among the easiest to defeat once she becomes conscious of the costs.
Before going to #4, I think the most likely option is that she, along with the rest of the Scoobs, will
just grow up.
She'll get a clue that magick is what she does, not who she is. So she'll stop trying to magically puff
herself up to overcome that idiotic high school self image. She'll do less magic, but be correspondingly
more powerful.
"4. Willow that is deceased."
Foul language spoiler. Children, please leave the room.
THEY BETTER FUCKING NOT.
Current board
| More April 2002