April 2002 posts
Modern Times adress etc. --
yuri, 19:36:56 04/08/02 Mon
Here's the adress -
Modern Times Bookstore
888 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 282-9246
And I'm a white teenager with long long brown hair and many many many light freckles that you
almost can't see from a distance. Prone to wearing large earrings and being so absobed by books or
the computer that customers have to cough very loud to get my attention (oops). If you want
anything, email me first so I can make sure we've got it, and tell you when I'm working. (35%
discount is what I get, btw. That's how much we buy em for, basically.)
[>
So we show up and cough loudly.......gotcha....:):):) -- Rufus, 19:58:17 04/08/02 Mon
Sometimes it sucks being in Canada. No discount for me. Most of the people that see me buy any
Buffy books smirk and pack....:):):)
[>
That's great! I'll have to drop by next time I'm out west -- d'Herblay, 21:29:13 04/08/02
Mon
<Homer>Mmmm . . . discounted books . . . </Homer>
Um, we wouldn't happen to have anyone here who works at Black Oak Books in Berkeley? Murder
Ink in Manhattan? Powell's in Portland? (I'm not trying to alliterate; it just seems to be
happening.)
[>
Boy or girl or does it matter? -- Masq, 21:30:14 04/08/02 Mon
It is, after all, San Francisco : ) : )
[> [>
true, true! girl, though. : ) -- yuri, 23:14:48 04/08/02 Mon
Passion after The Body -- Buffyboy,
21:00:16 04/08/02 Mon
Since I'm relatively new to this board, these points may well have been made before, but they sure
did jump out at me tonight as I watched the second season episode Passion on F/X: the one where
Jenny Calendar is brutally murdered by Angel. Though I’ve seen this episode before, this is the first
time I’ve seen it since seeing The Body. A number of striking parallels jumped, as I said before, to
my mind. Flower/s greet the finder of the body. Giles finds a flower beckoning romance on his front
door and Buffy finds “romantically meant” flowers sent by Joyce’s new suitor. This romantic
expectation is irrevocably thwarted as we see the fully clothed body lying prone, clearly dead.
Buffy’s horrifying “Mom, Mom …Mommy?” echoes the transformation of Giles face as they both
realize the true nature of what has happened. Later in Passion, as the lurking Angel menacingly
observes from outside the Summer’s living room window, we first see but do not hear Buffy and then
Willow get the news of Jenny’s death initially expressing their anguish facially and then through
tears. Later in The Body this scene is echoed in the great scene when Buffy tells Dawn of their
mother’s death, as we see but do not hear from behind the glass of the classroom window, Dawn’s
devastating reaction. There may well be more parallels in these two episodes, but these are the ones
that initially strike me.
[>
Re: Passion after The Body -- Purple Tulip, 21:29:20 04/08/02 Mon
I think you may be on to something here, but I think that larger paralell that they were trying to
make, is the reaction of losing a loved one. The two deaths were totally different, as Angel killed
Jenny brutally, and Joyce died from natural causes. Both episodes were extremely emotional and
did well to show how it feels to lose those who are close to us. I think that these two episodes were
also carefully placed to a) show exactly how ruthless and evil Angel had become, before the
restoration. Kind of building up all of that evil to get to the climaxing moment when you think that
he can't get any worse, that you can't hate him anymore than you already do, and then he is back to
the man that Buffy loves, forcing another heart-wrenching decision, and b) with Joyce's death, to
show that Buffy really is not invincable, that even though she always seems to make it through and
always seemes to defeat the bady guys and save the world yet again, she couldn't save her mother-
this was the one thing that was completely out of her control. I think that they did this to humanize
Buffy and her family, because this is something that happens to real people every day- and in a
sense, this makes Buffy what she always wanted to be- a real girl.
Either way, these two episodes were very good attempts at playing on our emotions and sympathy
for these charcters. My roommate and I both cried when watching The Body for the first time on FX
not long ago---and that's how I know that something is good, when it can make me feel that
much.
[>
Excellent observations, Buffyboy and Purple Tulip. -- Ixchel, 23:35:15 04/08/02 Mon
I've never watched Passion and The Body close together. Though, now that I think about it, I'm not
sure I want to. I still get teary when I watch either one.
Ixchel
[>
The Summer's Flower -- Rahael, 06:05:36 04/09/02 Tue
"The summer's flower is to the summer sweet,
Though to itself it only live and die"
I think there is a really rich connection between the idea of death and flowers/beauty.
First off, we associate the giving of flowers/wreaths with funerals. There's a poignancy in this
connection between the beauty of life and the sadness of death.
Doesn't Buffy call Joyce "Flower-getting lady"? Might this not tie in with Joyce as Demeter (and
Buffy as Persophone), since Flowers/Summers/Summers Women kind of ties in with Caroline, Fresne
and other's discussion of the Hades-Persophone myth.
But there is also another connection - that of flowers as representations of mortality (Gather ye
rosebuds while ye may). The most beautiful expression of this is Shakespeare's sonnet:
Sonnet 56
Since brass, nor stone, nor earth, nor boundless sea,
But sad mortality o'er-sways their power,
How with this rage shall beauty hold a plea,
Whose action is no stronger than a flower?
O, how shall summer's honey breath hold out
Against the wreckful siege of battering days,
When rocks impregnable are not so stout,
Nor gates of steel so strong, but Time decays?
O fearful meditation! where, alack,
Shall Time's best jewel from Time's chest lie hid?
Or what strong hand can hold his swift foot back?
Or who his spoil of beauty can forbid?
O, none, unless this miracle have might,
That in black ink my love may still shine bright.
[> [>
Seize the day -- Ete, 06:39:42 04/09/02 Tue
that Buffy once described as her philosophy relates with Ronsard's most famouse poem :
Mignonne, allons voir si la rose
Qui ce matin avoit desclose
Sa robe de pourpre au Soleil,
A point perdu ceste vesprée
Les plis de sa robe pourprée,
Et son teint au vostre pareil.
Las ! voyez comme en peu d'espace,
Mignonne, elle a dessus la place
Las ! las ses beautez laissé cheoir !
Ô vrayment marastre Nature,
Puis qu'une telle fleur ne dure
Que du matin jusques au soir !
Donc, si vous me croyez, mignonne,
Tandis que vostre âge fleuronne
En sa plus verte nouveauté,
Cueillez, cueillez vostre jeunesse :
Comme à ceste fleur la vieillesse
Fera ternir vostre beauté.
Flowers, and Roses, are thus used as the symbol of mortal and ephemere beauty of life, already
dying.
[> [> [>
Re: Seize the day -- Brian, 14:41:01 04/09/02 Tue
"...And nothing can bring back the hour,
Of splendor in the grass, of glory in the flower."
[> [>
Rah, you come up with the best stuff! -- Caroline, 11:12:26 04/09/02 Tue
Giles and Buffy: Eww Revisited -- JM,
21:13:13 04/08/02 Mon
Well, looks like it’s been a busy day of the posting boards. April, this Bud’s for you. Unfortunately,
due to a severe case of writer’s block it’s a little late. April noticed, not that long ago, some parallels
between Giles and Angel in “Surprise” and wondered if there might have been more notes to Giles
and Buffy’s relationship than those that belong in a strictly father-daughter tune. Since the
unanimous response was pretty much “Ewww,” I couldn’t help but play devil’s advocate. Sorry I
haven’t had a chance to read all the other posts -- I’m particularly upset about falling behind on
shadowkat’s serial opus-- but I just can’t keep up anymore. Anyway, before I finally got back on the
boards and found out I missed my moment in the sun, the post was supposed to go like this.
April, I’m having writer’s block so your thread may be gone by the time I finish formulating a
response. [Does this mean I can see the future?] I just wanted to come in with a little support. The
following is a quote from Joss on one of his visits to the venerable Bronze posting board back when
the Willow/Tara relationship was the new dynamic on the block. To my mind it is a defense of any
unconventional shipper vibe.
“To me it feels just right. ALL the relationships on the show are sort of romantic (Hence the B Y O
Subtext principle).”
You of course aren’t the only one who’s noticed this particular dynamic. There are entire shipper
boards devoted to this relationship. I know that the first ep I saw, “The Dark Age,” I knew nothing
of the show (except from the movie) and was watching it on my bunny ears. Resolution was so bad
that I really couldn’t tell that about a quarter of a century separated the two characters. The
intensity of their relationship was such that I also wondered whether there was something going on
between them. (Maybe that was the whole reason that I never entirely bought into the whole B/A
mystique. LOL.)
There has even been a few meta mentions of the topic. Cain, the bounty hunter in “Phases,” jumps
to his own conclusions, and even Spike “always wondered.” I myself wonder if Maggie Walsh wasn’t
so hostile toward Giles in “A New Man,” because she wasn’t comfortable about this older man
sniffing about after one of her young students. When Olivia and Buffy first met they were totally
sizing each other up, Olivia probably wondering at this young woman who casually strolls into
Ripper’s home unannounced. And, finally, there is the aching duet, Tara and Giles both preparing to
rip the heart out of the person they most love in all the world. (And also their superimposed leave
takings.)
The mentor-student relationship is one fraught with the potential for sexual tension, whoever the
participants, but especially between an older man and a younger woman. He is at a the point of
beginning to question his mortality and vitality, she on the cusp of realizing her sexual identity. In
art and real life there have been more than a few cases of the subtext burgeoning into text, from “My
Fair Lady” and “The Apartment” to the professors at my college who were notorious womanizers and
the professors who had married their former students and the boss we all knew was sleeping with
one of our young colleagues. It does happen. And for those outside of the relationship, it’s
impossible to judge the dynamics. But from the outside there is always the suspicion of impropriety.
(In support of the possibility, I would like to bring in Faith as exhibit A. She was extremely inclined
to read sex into power relationships. It’s how she first interprets the Mayor’s interest. On her initial
meeting with Giles she notes his attractiveness. When she’s torturing Wesley, she accuses him of
harboring lewd thoughts about her. Though it’s arguable that she’s off base, and worth noting that
she never allowed him anything approaching a mentor relationship with her, it is an interesting echo
of his discomfort about his attraction to the student Cordelia.)
The fact that there is no impropriety where Buffy and Giles are concerned is probably due as much
to the characters’ awareness of the possibility as their lack of interest in pursuing such. In the very
first episode Buffy pointedly notes the inappropriateness of his appearance at the Bronze. She
frequently points out her discomfort at the idea that Giles might ever have anything resembling a
sex life, with Miss Calendar, with Olivia, especially with Joyce. (It’s also noticeable that in “Tabula
Rasa,” where the mentor role is unknown, only “Randy” shows any discomfort that Rupert and
Annya are involved.)
On Giles’ part, from the beginning, he is careful of physical contact. With Angel, and later in college,
he is careful to remain removed from her more personal affairs. I suspect that on some level he
consciously builds a father-daughter dynamic as a way of channeling the potential of the relationship
into appropriate channels. Though this ultimately costs him his job as Watcher and deepens his
anguish at her death. It is, however, notable that he does on several occasions reject the overt role of
father, to Buffy, and, by extension, to Dawn. And it is also arguable that if he had identified himself
entirely as her father figure, he would not have felt compelled to leave her. As a parental figure her
dependency would have been less distressing. It has been argued cogently that Giles may have
sensed that in their mutual vulnerability, together may not have been the best place for them to
be.
In the same vein is also interesting that Giles’ departure is the stimulus that transforms Buffy and
Spike’s relationship from ambiguous tension to overt sexuality. If Angel was ever subtle parallel to
Giles (I’d point out his relationship with Drusilla in particular), Spike is a much more direct one. I
think it was Joss who articulated that Spike is what Giles has rejected in himself (i.e., the Ripper)
and Giles is what Spike refuses to become (i.e., an adult). Spike has frequently acted as a mentor to
Buffy, and it’s there that their relationship is the healthiest. It’s possible that “Restless” provides a
foreshadowing to this, emphasized by the reminder in “Tabula Rasa.” There is one scene in
particular that haunts me, however. The scene in the balcony of the Bronze in “Dead Things” is
shot-for-shot a reenactment of Buffy and Giles’ meeting there in “Welcome to the Hellmouth.”
Culminating with the older man standing over her shoulder, forcing her to look down on the crowd
below. But what a difference context makes. Giles pushes her to embrace her obligation to
humanity, breaking, for one of the few times, the Joss imposed six-inches rule. Spike instead pushes
her to confront her separation from the rest of humanity while engaged in an only somewhat
welcome act of intimacy, the exact nature of which had quite a few naughty minds racings on the
TwoP boards that week. I thought it was a stunning exposé on the damage that a relationship that
abuses power can cause, to both the participants. Perhaps a path wisely not taken with our other
two protagonists.
So, I guess my point, if I actually have one, is that, no, we are not supposed to be comfortable with
the idea of Giles and Buffy in a physical relationship. But if we out of hand reject the possibility that
such had occurred to either of them on some hidden level, we pay the nuanced portrayal less than its
fair due.
[>
Don't make me say it again... -- Apophis, 21:53:16 04/08/02 Mon
I have considered the evidence and I cannot bring myself to accept the possibility of a G/B
physical/romantic/statutorily wrong relationship. It's not so much the age thing; afterall,
appearances aside, Angel was about 16 times Buffy's age when he fell for her. I just never picked up
on any sort of romantic chemistry between them. Maybe I'm dense, but in every instance their
relationship looked father/daughter. This is why, at any mention of G/B "relations," I am repulsed;
not because he's old(er), but because it is practically incest.
Whenever Buffy brought sex up, Giles would beg her to change the subject. I can hear you now:
"That's because he was uncomfortable with his own feelings." Maybe, but he did the same whenever
any other member of the Scoobies brought it up, as well. My take: Giles was/is uncomfortable
thinking of his charges in a sexual way. How could he and Buffy be in a relationship (note that I'm
not saying he never felt an attraction to her; I can't blame him for that) if he felt such discomfort at
the thought of her or her friends being involved in physical/romantic circumstances.
So, there you go. Never will I accept a Buffy/Giles pairing. Maybe it's morally rigid of me, but that's
the way it is.
[> [>
Re: Don't make me say it again... -- JM, 23:14:34 04/08/02 Mon
No, not morally rigid, morally upstanding. I think your revulsion is exactly what ME wants us to
feel in the face of this possibility.
I probably didn't make it clear, but I really have no desire to see a Buffly/Giles relationship. I just
think that their relationship is the more poignent because it developed from an at least subconcious
rejection of the purient possibilties than it would be if they were actual kin.
My defense was more along the lines that those who picked up on the ambiguos vibe weren't
necessarily perverts. Simply sensitive to the possibilities that presented themselves.
I don't honestly think that Giles ever fought against feelings for Buffy. Those were feelings he would
never have allowed himself to have. Before he ever met her. From the moment he knew he would be
an active, not just passive, Watcher. Period.
PS Thanks for responding. Sorry I made you say it again.
[> [> [>
Re: Don't make me say it again... -- Yellowork, 09:45:26 04/09/02 Tue
'Chemistry' like a lot of words you find yourself reading once too often, is both vague and subjective.
I am pretty basic, and to me it refers to the ability of a pair of actors to convince the audience that
they have a bond or kinship, filial, fraternal, sexual, whatever. If they do have it, say, in the form of
a 'father / daughter' or 'mentor / warrior' relationship, it is more likely to develop plausibly into a
sexual relationship than between two actors who lack mutual chemistry, no?
[> [>
Re: Don't make me say it again... -- yuri, 00:00:36 04/09/02 Tue
I respect that you didn't pick up on B/G romantic chemistry, but I think that to discount any
possibility of such is, as JM says, paying "pay the nuanced portrayal less than its fair due," and also,
I think, playing into the rigid guidelines of what sexual thoughts are okay to have. When
relationships can be associated at all as father/daughter, I think many people automatically break
out the caution tape and bind the sexuality of those characters as far from each other as possible.
You say you were repulsed because it was practically incest, but don't incestual sentiments exist? I
don't think they're automaticaly repulsive, especailly if they're not even acted upon. Some people
have sexual thoughts about their parents or their children sometimes and that's how people work. I
tend to think it's better to ackowledge them and let them go then to force oneself to believe they don't
exist. Lots of ewws here, probably, but whatever.
JM - I noticed the similarities in the balcony scenes at the bronze as well, and that B/G scene in
welcome to the hellmouth is one of their most potentially erotic ones because of AH's intensity and
proximity. (doesn't Joss comment on it on the DVD's? I though that was funny.)
You said I suspect that on some level he consciously builds a father-daughter dynamic as a way of
channeling the potential of the relationship into appropriate channels, and I completely agree, I
think that's what people do and have done and always will do in order to deal with keeping their
lives "appropriate." Shee-it, it sounds like I'm some sort of rampant B/G shipper, I'm not -- I've never
even really lent much time to thinking about it, so that's why this is fun.
One more thing - I think Joss also may have implied AH was often breaking the appropriate
proximity lines because of his being from a different country - or else I just made it up - but whether
or not this is true, I am endlessly intrigued by how much more physical people are in many other
countries (and also people in America who are not what is considered "the norm"). I watched this
Italian film the other day (bread and tulips, sweet movie if you need a little pick-me-up on life) and
the physical way in which the mother and father were with their sons would have been borderline
scandalous in a film in the US. It wasn't even half as much as most Italian films I've seen, really.
And I can't forget the weird looks people gave me here after I spent five weeks in Mexico and moved
to kiss everyone on the cheek when we met. Sad sad, if you ask me.
[> [> [>
physical proximity -- leslie, 08:54:51
04/09/02 Tue
My experience has been that British people tend to stand even further away from each other than
Americans....
I agree with JM's reading of the Buffy and Giles relationship, too, by the way--it is not an implication
that they *do* have, want to have, or should have a sexual relationship, but precisely the fact that
they potentially could, but don't, that makes it interesting. Look at all the men in Buffy's life in
Sunnydale: all of them are, or want to be, sexual partners. Giles is the only one who removes himself
from that arena, that is the source of his strength for her--not because they are not boinking, but
because he has a degree of objectivity about her life that she can't get. I think specifically about the
scene where he tells her that there was nothing wrong about her sleeping with Angel, that she had
no way of knowing what the result would be, that the aftermath was going to be hard to cope with
but he was going to be there with her through it. Probably the most sane piece of advice about sex to
a teenager I have ever seen on television. (Though I now am wondering about the parallelism of that
scene and Tara's response when Buffy tells her about sleeping with Spike. Tara basically says the
same thing about Spike that Giles says about the pre-Evil Angel. Personally, I am inclined to see
this as an inversion rather than a repetition--sex with good Angel made him bad, sex with bad Spike
has the potential, at least, for making him good.)
Anyway, the thing is, the relationship between Giles and Buffy as mentor/mentee is the classic
situation in which inappropriate sexual relationships do occur in the real world. Part of the strength
of their relationship comes from the fact that it *doesn't* take that route, but you can't appreciate
the strength of that if you don't admit that the potential was there in the first place.
[> [> [> [>
"sex with good Angel made him bad, sex with bad Spike has potential to make him
good..." -- yuri, 00:52:10 04/10/02 Wed
I can't believe I haven't seen that simple inversion. Well thanks for enlightening! And yeah, I kind of
knew that british folk were more stand offish physically, just felt like making a comment about those
dern foreigners.
Part of the strength of their relationship comes from the fact that it *doesn't* take that route, but
you can't appreciate the strength of that if you don't admit that the potential was there in the first
place.
perfectly put.
[> [>
I have to agree with Apophis - if it was there, I never saw the tiniest sign of it. -- Slain,
10:55:03 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Re: Giles and Buffy: Eww Revisited -- Purple Tulip, 06:30:28 04/09/02 Tue
Honestly, I have never even thought of them in a romantic way. Sure they have an intense
relationship- look at what they are forced to endure every day- and her relationshionships with
Xander, Willow, Dawn, etc., are just as intense. Does that mean that she has romantic feelings for
them too? Even bigger ewww there. All I'm saying, is that I think that Giles just filled that father-
figure role in Buffy's life- she could depend on him to protect her and take care of her when she
needed him to. And Giles even said himself (in Life Serial) that he saw himself as a sort of uncle to
buffy. And I really don't think that her "sizing up" Olivia, was her showing her inherent jealousy- I
think that it was an instinctual reaction to seeing your "father" with a new girlfriend, much as how
Buffy reacted to Ted, her mother's pyscho robotic boyfriend.
[>
Re: Giles and Buffy: Eww Revisited -- Rattletrap, 07:12:09 04/09/02 Tue
Very good analysis, JM. I had noticed the similarities between the B/G and the B/S relationships,
but I had never outlined it so clearly. I think the repeated sexual conversations that occur between
B/G (and always end very quickly) supports your contention that they had both considered
the possibility on some level and reject it out of hand--both being more comfortable with a father-
daughter vibe. While I'm not, by any means, a B/G shipper, I don't share the intense moral revulsion
that some posters have expressed--at this point in the series they are both adults, and while the age
difference is large it is hardly unheard of. I think, however, the defining feature of their relationship
is, and will always be (and should be), paternal.
[>
Re: Giles and Buffy: Eww Revisited -- Darby, 08:48:21 04/09/02 Tue
Totally agree.
As someone who works closely with young women as a teacher and coach, I've found that the
reactions of the two actors have been exactly along the lines that you describe. I remember the
discomfort that those thoughts (and everyone has those thoughts, if only fleetingly) brought on when
I was a student, if I was actually talking to the person; from a distance, they seemed interestingly
dangerous fantasies that would obviously never be acted upon. From the adult side, I've been
amazed at how efficient a detachment can be maintained - I notice how attractive a student is more
from an esoteric standpoint, and it doesn't intrude into our interactions, unless a conversation strays
into the "inappropriate" area, which almost never happens. If there is an attraction from the other
side, I try to not reinforce any notions in that direction without reacting negatively. It all goes with
the job. I would expect that, as the "old guy" in the cast, ASH picked up offscreen experience in this
area as well.
And virtually every time I've had a student that I've gotten really close to, the relationship gets more
and more familial, much as Giles did with Buffy.
[> [>
Very nicely put... -- Caroline, 11:53:19 04/09/02 Tue
[> [> [>
Passion and relationships -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 14:52:53 04/09/02 Tue
Another factor is what one might call the "shared foxhole" experience. Both G & B have saved each
others lives -- how many times? -- and faced danger for themselves, their friends, community -- even
species over and over. The emotional bond that creates is quite real, quite powerful, if not
sexual.
As cops point out, your partner knows more about you than your wife or lover.
There was that exchange in "The Gift" (albeit complicated by the threat to Dawn -- the fear in Buffy
that to save the planet Giles might sacrifice her {created} sister.)
BUFFY: This is how many apocalypses for us now?
GILES: Oh, uh, well... (sits, takes off his glasses) six, at least. (sits back slowly) Feels like a
hundred.
A trace of that front-line camaraderie.
Neither would be breathing without the other.
[>
Re: Giles and Buffy: Eww Revisited -- Malandanza, 22:06:50 04/09/02 Tue
"The mentor-student relationship is one fraught with the potential for sexual tension, whoever
the participants, but especially between an older man and a younger woman."
When dealing with a very young girl, like Buffy from season one or two, and a much older man, I'd
say that mutual attraction is often not particularly mutual at all. A young, inexperienced girl
having a crush on a a teacher/coach/mentor is not the same as an older man desiring his charge
sexually. A crush doesn't consider practicalities at all.
However, the biggest problem I have with the B/G scenarios is the suggestion that the attraction is
reciprocal. In seasons one and two, Buffy was attracted to Angel, and Angel alone. Even in
When She was Bad, when she danced with Xander, it was not out of sexual desire for him,
but out of spite. Buffy was very much a child, emotionally, in the early episodes and I can see no
evidence that she felt any sort of passion, not even a crush, for Giles.
In subsequent seasons, we get periodic reminders that Buffy does not see Giles as an object of desire.
The "Raise your hand if ewww" comment was Buffy's from Season Three -- when Faith said she
found Giles to be cute.
In Season Four, The Freshman, where Buffy walks in on a scantily clad Olivia, here is her
reaction:
GILES: I'm not supposed to have a private life?
BUFFY: No, because you're very very old and it's gross.
Hardly seething jealousy.
In The Body, Buffy fantasizes about Joyce and Giles as heads of the family, not Giles and
herself. She even teases fantasy Joyce about the Band Candy incident.
In Season Six (Smashed) we continue to get confirmation that Buffy does not even consider
Giles as potential sexual partner:
BUFFY: When I kissed you? You know I was thinking about Giles, right?
Spike looks genuinely stunned at that. Then:
SPIKE: You know, I always wondered about you two.
BUFFY: (flustered) Wha ...? Oh. Eew. Spike. Gaah!
Still with the "eew" factor.
Looking at it from the other side, there's a better case for Giles to be harboring illicit sexual feelings
for his slayer (I wonder if that's against the WC rules? -- I would guess so, since they want their
Watchers to be emotionally detached). In Seasons One and Two, I discount any possibility of Giles
lusting after Buffy -- he sees her as a child, not a young woman. In Innocence, he is
astonished to discover that Buffy is sexually active. He's totally clueless in spite of Buffy, Jenny and
Willow all making it abundantly clear that Buffy had slept with Angel. His reaction is one of
profound sympathy and compassion -- not that of a frustrated lover.
Season Three Giles didn't hit on Buffy in Band Candy -- he was more interested in her
mother. In Helpless his actions are not those of a lover -- not even those of a father, until it
is too late.
Giles was disgusted with Wesley's infatuation with Cordelia.
However, Giles has repeatedly insisted that he is not Buffy's father -- it's not his role. And
this denial may be something similar to Mr. Knightley's denial in Emma:
Emma: "You have shown that you can dance, and you know that we are not really so much brother
and sister as to make it at all improper."
Mr. Knightley: "Brother and sister! No, indeed."
In Season Four, when Buffy catches Giles and Olivia at home, Giles lounges around in front of Buffy
in his dressing gown -- very much at ease with her discomfort and in the Yoko Factor his
reaction to Spike's disinformation is a bit extreme.
But when Giles visits Buffy after her one-night-stand with Parker, he doesn't seem at all jealous or
ill at ease; in fact, he comes across as enjoying Buffy's discomfort.
In Something Blue, his reaction is more of disgust than jealousy.
In Season Five, we have the Ripper lecturing Spike about staying away from Buffy:
GILES: We are not your friends. We are not your way to Buffy. There is no way to Buffy.
Giles picks up the wet and charred blanket and shoves it roughly into Spike's arms.
GILES: Now clear out of here. And Spike, this thing... get over it.
SPIKE: Don't know what you mean--
GILES: Yes. You do. Move the hell on.
Except that is extremely unusual for Giles to intervene in the personal lives of his young friends, this
scene could as easily support the Giles as Father.
Overall, I think there is little evidence to support the Giles lusting after Buffy hypothesis, but I do
think that if he was lusting after her, he would do his best to hide the fact -- so we ought to expect
little evidence. Many of Giles' 5th and 6th season actions might make more sense if he is carrying a
torch for Buffy. In Tabula Rasa,when Anya kissed Giles is was out of misplaced emotions for
Xander, but Giles kissed her back just as passionately and I do wonder who he was really kissing.
Maybe it was Buffy -- but I'd be more convinced if his past girlfriends weren't so disimilar to her
physically.
But for Buffy loving Giles in the carnal sense of the word -- I really don't see it.
[> [>
Re: Giles and Buffy: Eww Revisited -- JM, 23:12:38 04/09/02 Tue
Actually I thought he was kissing Anya. That is a much more possible dynamic, considering they
spent almost every day of the last year in constant contact. Much more constant quality time than
Buffy and he ever did. She was supposed to go to class occassionally.
Again, not implying an attraction, simply noting that the dynamic did lend itself to possiblities. And
their relationship was always the more interesting for the fact that those possibilities were rejected
out of hand. I may be biased because I've seen the destructive alternative played out a few too many
times. Their relationship seems so satisfyingly mature because inappropriateness never developed,
even when it very well could have.
PS I also think that Buffy to Olivia was genuine, eww. But Olivia gave off a touch of territoriality.
She may not have know bad-magic Ripper, but she did know him as Ripper, not a bastion of
propriety. I imagine she wouldn't have given him any benefit of the doubt. As would not anyone
seeing the moment entirely from the outside and uninformed.
[> [> [>
Re: Giles and Buffy: Eww Revisited -- Rahael, 01:50:37 04/10/02 Wed
I saw that possibility there.
I went to an all girls school for the first part of my school education and I can confirm that girls who
were 'still children' definitely had strong crushes on older, male teachers.
I thought Giles' Rakish Uncle line was great - it implied someone who was older and paternal, but
the word 'rake' has sexual connotations too. Not with Buffy, or any particular person in general, but
it was Giles affirming his sexual identity.
Not that I'm a Buffy/Giles shipper, but to use the Knightley/Emma relationship - Emma's public
pronouncements, indeed even her inward ones did not allow her to think of Knightley in that way
until very late in the novel.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Sophist, Scroll and Rahael -- Malandanza, 11:07:21 04/10/02 Wed
Sophist: "The issue of authorial intent has been debated many times here, and I don't intend to
revisit it now. However, I think Malandanza's post makes a pretty compelling case for the fact that
the writers always intended us to see the relationship as nonromantic. The affection B/G shared was
and is undeniable, but it's father/daughter love (as Quentin Travers expressly said in
Helpless)."
My point wasn't that Buffy and Giles have a father/daughter relationship, but that Buffy sees the
relationship as such. Giles has denied that such a bond exists -- and Quentin Travers may have
been wrong. In A New Man, Professor Walsh points out that Buffy has lacked a male role
model -- a father figure (she's a psychologist and she's evil -- both give her great insights into the
human psyche). Giles tries to explain why he hasn't taken a more prominent role in Buffy's life, but
Walsh brushes his harried explanations aside. In Restless, Giles as father leaves much to be
desired. I have felt that the dreams in Restless were more about the subconscious fears of
the dreamer than a prediction of things to come -- thus, Giles fears that he has not been a good
father figure to Buffy. He has only rarely provided her with the unconditional emotional support
that Buffy craves, and then, only in the second season (Lie to Me and Innocence). In
later seasons, she turns to her friends instead -- Willow in Consequences, Xander in The
Freshman -- although Giles does feel an attack of guilt for ignoring Buffy in that episode. I
think that if Giles really had had an ideal Father/Daughter relationship with Buffy, he would not
have drifted out of her life in Season Four -- perhaps he intentionally kept his distance knowing that
there might be a time when he'd have to send Buffy to her death (again).
But I don't preclude the possibility that Giles loves Buffy in a decidedly non-platonic fashion.
Scroll: "A Watcher, on the other hand, might argue that a Slayer needed to be able to stand on
her own two feet, to be able to handle her battles without hiding behind her Watcher, and therefore
would remove himself from the temptation of over-helping her for her own good."
The Watcher's job is not to make sure that the slayer is self-reliant -- independent slayers don't need
the WC. Kendra was the model for a good slayer and she would have always been dependent upon
the council. I don't think that Giles' desire to see Buffy become self-reliant (if he really does) has
anything to do with him being a watcher.
Rahael: "I went to an all girls school for the first part of my school education and I can confirm
that girls who were 'still children' definitely had strong crushes on older, male teachers."
I work with teen-agers and I understand what you are saying. However, even among the same age
group the girls range from astonishingly naive to worldly. There is further variation among the
sexually active girls -- an example: one of my students is a High School Senior and has been "dating"
the same man (currently 24) for two years -- and expects that she will marry him once she graduates.
Another was talking with her friend about which had the most "Jewish Points" -- they and their
friends (all Jewish) had devised a system for rating sexual activity and kept track of how many
points they had earned with the various Jewish boys with whom they had sex. The more risque the
sex, the more points it is worth. At the other end of the extreme are the girls who blush and
stammer when a boy speaks to them.
Buffy and her friends in the early seasons are more closely in line with the latter group. Buffy had
one sexual experience in High School, as did Willow and Xander. Oz claimed to have had sex before,
but we have seen no evidence to support his claim (and boys sometimes lie about such things). We
have seen evidence that suggests he had not -- Larry tries to corner him about his relationship with
Willow, Devon asks him why he doesn't pick a groupie and he continually rejects Willow's
advances.
When Faith comes to town, she frequently brings conversations to a screeching halt by assuming
that people are sexually active (as in Beauty and the Beasts )-- and Buffy doesn't even want
to mention sex in front of her.
A crush doesn't mean sexual interest. Willow has admitted to having had a crush on Giles, but can
you imagine what Season Two Willow's reaction would have been if Giles had cornered her in the
library and propositioned her? I imagine she would have fled and kept running until she reached
home, then found excuses never to set foot back in the library again. And I think is true for most of
the High School girls with crushes on their teachers -- as long as the teacher is unattainable, the
crush will last, but if the teacher flirts back, the students quickly move from romantic fantasy to the
"ewww" factor.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sophist, Scroll and Rahael -- Sophist, 12:54:57 04/10/02 Wed
You are quite right about your original post. You did leave open the possibility of Giles' affection
being romantic.
I took it in a stronger sense for a couple of reasons. One is that we are usually (though by no means
always) intended to see things through Buffy's eyes. Since she had no such feelings, I
interpret that to mean Giles didn't either. I understand, of course, that all this really proves is that
Buffy never recognized Giles as having any such interest in her.
Another reason is that no one has cited any direct evidence that Giles did harbor such feelings. To
the contrary, the evidence of his romantic interests contradicts such feelings. The existence of those
feelings does remain possible in a logical and a "what we know about the world" sense.
The fact that Giles sometimes was unsuccessful in his quasi-father role is not (to me at least)
evidence that he didn't fill the father's role. After all, Joyce sometimes wasn't entirely successful as a
parent, but she nonetheless was Buffy's mother.
In the past I've agreed with you too little. Today I agreed too much. One day I'll get it just right.
Fear that day.
[> [> [> [> [>
Just a little quibble : ) -- Scroll, 11:27:49 04/11/02 Thu
I get what you're saying about Buffy and Giles, but I have one tiny little quibble about your take on
Oz's sexual history. You wrote, Oz claimed to have had sex before, but we have seen no evidence
to support his claim (and boys sometimes lie about such things). We have seen evidence that
suggests he had not -- Larry tries to corner him about his relationship with Willow, Devon asks him
why he doesn't pick a groupie and he continually rejects Willow's advances.
From my perspective, Oz's reticence over discussing his relationship with Willow has less to do with
his being a virgin and more with being a gentleman; he doesn't 'kiss and tell'. Yes, Oz always tried to
slow the pace with Willow, but I saw this as a sign of maturity. In fact, of all the teens, I'd say Oz has
the healthiest (and most romantic) attitude towards sex.
Innocence (from Psyche's Transcripts)
Oz: Oh, I'm not gonna kiss you.
Willow: (confused) What? But freeze frame!
Oz: Well, to the casual observer, it would appear that you're trying to make your friend Xander
jealous or even the score or something. And that's on the empty side. See, in my fantasy when I'm
kissing *you*, you're kissing *me*.
Amends
Willow: Oz, I-I wanna be with you. First. (...) I-I'm ready.
Oz: Okay. Well, don't take this the wrong way... but I'm not.
Willow: Are you scared? 'Cause I thought you had...
Oz: No, I have, but this is different. I mean, you look great. You know, and, and you got the Barry
working for you, and, and it's all... good. But when it happens... I want it to be because we both need
it to for the same reason. You don't have to prove anything to me.
I've always admired Oz's total rejection of the male teen stereotype of always wanting sex. And
personally I don't think he lied about Willow not being his first. Please don't take offence to me
quoting stuff at you. This is just me missing Oz and Seth Green. (sigh) I miss Oz! But I still love
Tara. Can't we have them both? (pout)
[>
Re: Giles and Buffy: Eww Revisited -- Coral Cat, 02:04:43 04/10/02 Wed
Thank you, from one who lurks and who is endlessly intrigued by the many nuances of the Buffy-
Giles relationship, for a thoughtful and unbiased look at the relationship. I am a B/G 'shipper (not
that I ever expect to see my fancy ever make it to the screen). I've never been a fan of any
male-female television couple (romantic or otherwise) before, and I've looked long and hard at my gut
level response to the Buffy-Giles, and still I'm hard put to decide what about the potential between
the two characters appeals to me so much.
I think what has always intrigued me most is that the Buffy-Giles relationship is so complex and
multi-dimensional. You can call it father-daughter if you like. Those elements are there. But then
they aren't. The power dynamics between the characters aren't parent-child. There are elements of
mentor-student, but then at other times the characters interact like seasoned colleagues. I got strong
husband-wife vibes myself, especially S4. If Giles is the patriarch of the Scooby Gang, Buffy is very
much the matriarch.
Their relationship encompasses many things, and thus seems so much more real life to me than the
usual television male-female dynamic. There really is no other relationship between two ficional
characters like this anywhere else on television. I'd like to see where a romance could go, because
their relationship is complex.
I don't think we can so easily discount Buffy's potential attraction. When she first met Giles, he was
slamming down a Big Book of Destiny down in front of her, which at the time she wanted no part of.
After that she grew to need and rely on him. She's got major abandonment issues with men and sex.
She's not going to acknowledge any attraction that puts her at risk of losing anyone she feels she
can't lose. (Giles and Xander both would fall in that category -- or Giles did before he left.) Buffy has
in the past been attracted to tall, quiet, romantic men who can give her a shoulder to lean on. (Spike
aside, and as we've seen, Spike and Giles are alike in other ways.)
With Giles, as someone said earlier, who can tell? He has always put his duty above everything else,
including his personal feelings. Buffy is a young, vivacious, attractive woman. He not only loves her
(in whatever capacity) he at times seems to idolize her. ("The Gift".) He wants love in his life, but
he's been forced to sublimate it. He's been attracted in the past to strong, assertive, intelligent
women (which Buffy is in her more confident moments).
I've always like their quiet, affectionate, bantering style of interaction. Season 2, I naively never
considered that anyone could think of this as father-daughter. I've thought their relationship was
fraught with unresolved sexual tension, and the writers haven't been above playing off of that
tension (subtly but occasionally undeniably sexually suggestive -- a Joss written Buffy-to-Giles "no
time for bondage games" remark leaps to mind).
I recently read a young adult fantasy novel about a young teenager who met an old street musician
who turned out to be her mentor into the magical gateways of her world. There was one point,
midway through the novel, where the girl imagines herself kissing this man who has become so
important in her life. The author acknowledges the girl's forbidden but natural feelings without
judgment or denial. It was a natural, honest moment. One that BtVS, for all its exploration of the
supposedly more adult, edgier boundaries of human sexuality, has not ever even tried to directly
address. (Thus we can have these debates.)
The discussion here has, I have to admit, make a good case for keeping it all (whatever it is)
unresolved. One of the reasons the Buffy-Giles relationship is so powerful, I agree, is that it hasn't
passed the boundaries into the intimate. (Although I for one would like to see how a mature Buffy
and a mature Giles could interrelate.)
What I don't like is the tendency for many viewers to reject the idea of sexual tension
between the characters because, the idea is, that Giles is Buffy's 'dad'. As late as mid-third season,
ASH himself was saying in interview that he didn't think that Giles could function as Buffy's
Watcher if her were her father. I don't think he ever played Giles as Buffy's 'father'. As Mutant
Enemy wrote Giles, he generally didn't function as her parent, except in as much as a mentor is
parent to the younger generations.
I think that Joss and the writers used Giles as a metaphor for parenthood, in the mentorish sense
that at its broadest makes all older and wiser guides the parents to the younger generation.
(Gandalf, Obi Wan Kenobi, Merlin). Even so, I think they overused the metaphor to the point of
actively damaging Giles' role on the show. S1-3 Giles was a competent professional, a world class
expert on ancient artifacts and expert on the occult and magick. S4-5 we were expected to believe
that all that expertise became useless as Buffy grew up and became more independent. (And Giles,
inexplicably, started knowing less and less about the things he used to know a lot about and as a
result became increasingly irrelevant.)
If you want a case study in the absurdities of Giles' as Buffy's 'father', look no further than "The
Freshmen" when he tells her to go do the research on the evil on campus on her own by way of
leaving the nest. Was that Giles' mistake (trying to do his duty and 'play' the father when he was
misconceiving his own role), or the writers trying to force an analogy that doesn't really fit? Wish I
knew.
Hope to see the Buffy and Giles relationship redefined in the future, at least to the extent that it
has a future.
[> [>
That's why Giles left -- Scroll, 06:57:36 04/10/02 Wed
The role of the father is one in which he must ultimately allow his children to leave the nest. As a
Watcher, Giles has a duty to his Slayer, he is supposed to be at her side at all times to provide
support, particularly in a training and research capacity. But then one might argue that a father can
never emotionally detach himself from his children, no matter how old they get, and that home is
always open for them when things get tough. A father would be emotionally compelled to do
everything he could to help his child, especially if she'd just returned from Heaven and was feeling
kinda depressed. A Watcher, on the other hand, might argue that a Slayer needed to be able to stand
on her own two feet, to be able to handle her battles without hiding behind her Watcher, and
therefore would remove himself from the temptation of over-helping her for her own good.
So what I can't decide is if Giles' decision to leave Bufffy to struggle on her own is the decision of a
father pushing his baby bird out of the nest, or that of a Watcher insisting that his Slayer be self-
sufficient. Maybe it's a combination of both. (Or maybe Giles just wants a chance at a normal life of
his own back in jolly old England. ASH certainly does!)
[> [> [>
Re: That's why Giles left -- Coral Cat, 18:54:01 04/10/02 Wed
The father-figure analogy doesn't work if you look at it with a faintly critical eye.
The analogy doesn't work on an emotional level. Giles rarely related to Buffy the way father relates
to his children. The natural instincts of a parent are to protect from harm, as a Watcher Giles had to
do his best (and did do so) to enable Buffy to go out alone and fight the forces of evil. The natural
instincts of a parent are to be an authority figure for the child, Giles discovered early on that he
related best to Buffy as adult-to-adult. The natural instincts of a parent are to involve themselves in
all areas of their childrens lives. Unless asked, Giles kept himself scrupulously out of the personal
lives of Buffy and the rest of the Scooby gang.
And if Giles really felt parental towards Buffy, he could have certainly balanced remaining there for
her in a time of intense personal difficulty and still encouraged her to be independent. Buffy
wanted him to "play the father" (in ways that she hadn't tried to get him to do before S6) and he
refused to do it.
The analogy doesn't work on a practical level. A Watcher does not function as a parent. As Mutant
Enemy wrote Giles in the beginning, he was more of a technical advisor to Buffy than an authority
figure. He served as a researcher, historian, coach, advisor, magicker for those times when magic
needed to be done. The same sorts of things that Wesley does for Angel on the Angel show. Nobody
argues that Angel needs a push out of the nest because he relies on others for their expertise.
S4-5, the writers suddenly started de-emphasizing those aspects of what Giles did for Buffy, and
they did it by artificially creating a climate where he was no longer of use to Buffy. In some cases,
Buffy wasn't facing the same kinds of supernatural threats she used to, but the super-science
creations of the Intiative, or gods. In other cases, Willow and Tara suddenly (and unbelievably) took
on the expertise that Giles (with 25 years of study in the occult) used to provide, at one point to the
extreme bit of silliness where they had Willow telling Giles which one of his OWN BOOKS he should
consult to find the needed information. This isn't good or consistent writing.
Does Buffy really have no more need of someone to research the threats she has to fight, someone
who can translate the obscure prophecies, or someone she can turn to for some tactical advice just
because she's now grown up? If she does still need that help, then Giles is guilty of abandoning his
post.
Bah. It's a dumb if convenient metaphor, which allows viewers to enjoy have warm fuzzy feelings
about the B-G relationship without thought or worry, and which at its worst seems to promulgate
the idea that the older generations have nothing of worth to offer the younger. I would have had no
problem with Giles heading back to England for his own purposes, but I reject the notion that Buffy
is going to benefit in any way by his departure.
[> [> [> [>
Re: That's why Giles left -- Sophist, 08:43:40 04/11/02 Thu
While I completely agree with you about Giles's departure, I completely disagree about fathers.
Speaking as one myself, it's much less one-sided than you suggest.
You aren't much of an authority to a 16/17 year old. If you don't treat them as adults at that age,
they shut you out. If Giles had treated Buffy like Wesley did, Giles wouldn't have been much of a
father at all (just ask Wes about his).
Yes, you want to protect the child. But you do recognize the need for the child to stand on her own
and face problems herself. You do relinquish authority so she can make her own decisions. And you
are interested in their personal lives, as Giles was, without trying to control them. Like Giles.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: That's why Giles left -- Coral Cat, 13:53:54 04/11/02 Thu
The point is, Giles isn't Buffy's father. To construct a father-daughter relationship between them,
you've got to make a case from how they relate to one another. And the power dynamics between the
two of them are, for one, all wrong for a parent-child relationship. In a classic family, the parent
provides the economic sustenance, and the child's life decisions are by necessity dictated by what the
parent needs to do to earn a livlihood for the family.
Buffy is the central figure, the metaphorical earner of the livlihood, in this drama. Giles rearranges
his life around her job. He doesn't provide her with support (with the exception of a single bail out),
but she provides him with employment. When he got fired, she was the one who eventually got him
rehired. He defers to her judgement in times of crisis. When there is a serious conflict between the
two of them, Giles is almost always the one to back down.
A classic parent-child relationship basically is one where the parent is focused on protecting,
discipling, nurturing, and guiding the child.
Giles' job is to prepare Buffy to go out and confront the dangers to their world. With two exceptions
that I can think of, he's never been even tempted to take her place in the front of the fight. (ASH
himself Season 3 said that he thought it would be a very bad idea for Giles to get involved with
Joyce, because he didn't think that Giles, as Buffy's stepfather, could continue to send her out
against the evils that confront her every night. He's a father himself, has put a good deal of himself
into the Giles character, and I think he basically knows what Giles is and isn't capable of.)
Giles met Buffy far too late in her growth development to be an effective father to her (most adults
marrying into an established family with teens will tell you that the best they can usually manage is
to be friends to their stepchildren). He's the next step on the rung: the mentor. His job isn't to
protect and nurture Buffy, it is to challenge her. Parents can be mentors, but mentors aren't
necessarily parents.
Giles is, I think, Joss Whedon's idea of the wise mentor in the classic hero's tale. He's Gandalf, Obi
Wan Kenobi, Merlin. Yes those older and wiser people represent, to a certain extent, that aspect of
the older generation that 'parents' the younger into the world, but the classic hero myth doesn't ever
get too literal with the analogy. The mentor in the tales is always the mentor, and never the parent.
The functions aren't the same. A parent can become a mentor, but a mentor isn't automatically a
parent.
I can't help but wonder if the father-figure analogy would be so popular if Buffy were a young man
confronting his hero's journey. The push seems to be to have someone 'safe' there for Buffy who will
nurture and protect her. Luke Skywalker's test was to come into his own as adult. Like Luke, what
Buffy needs now is the metaphorical equivalent of a marine drill sergeant, not someone to be her
daddy.
In any case, Giles has no future as Buffy's 'father' or 'mentor'. He told Buffy himself that he'd taught
her everything he could as a Watcher. If he is to have any kind of place in her life, their relationship
will have to be reforged. And he's left her, which will have a permanent impact on the nature of their
relationship.
I happen to think that Giles still has much to offer Buffy, if only in a professional capacity. ASH has
indicated that he's still willing to stay with the show in a recurring capacity. Time will have to tell, I
suppose.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Mentors and fathers -- Sophist, 15:59:43 04/11/02 Thu
Maybe we're just disagreeing about definitions here. I don't mean to say that Giles took over every
aspect of a father to Buffy. I do mean to say that there were fatherly aspects to their relationship,
and that much of Giles's behavior was equivalent to what fathers (IMHO) do. Indeed, I see fatherly
aspects to the other relationships you mentioned (Gandalf, Obi Wan). Less than father, more than
advisor. Maybe it's just me.
[>
Re: Giles and Buffy: Eww Revisited -- Sophist, 09:00:40 04/10/02 Wed
First of all, congratulations on your post, JM. You took a subject that seemed at first to evoke
nothing but a gag reflex from most, and made such thoughtful points that you inspired a number of
excellent posts in response.
I think there are 2 separate and distinct issues here. One is the way the writers intended us to see
B/G. The other is the way we, the audience, may have seen it.
The issue of authorial intent has been debated many times here, and I don't intend to revisit it now.
However, I think Malandanza's post makes a pretty compelling case for the fact that the writers
always intended us to see the relationship as non-romantic. The affection B/G shared was and is
undeniable, but it's father/daughter love (as Quentin Travers expressly said in
Helpless).
What I found most interesting about your post was your comment about the road not taken. Several
responses have pointed out that similar relationships have, IRL, turned into physical relationships.
We know this when we watch the show, and I suspect that the writers were careful to play the
fatherly aspects even more strongly because they wanted to head off any other interpretation.
All this verbiage was to reach my real point: every action or non-action, whether IRL or in
television, raises the issue of alternatives. Each artistic decision represents a choice among the
options the artist sees as available. We, the audience, may see the same options, or we may see
different ones. The more options we can see, the better we can evaluate the artist's decision to take
the particular route chosen.
Your post raised what was, for me, an option I had never considered. It does give me a better
understanding of the dynamics of the relationship. And it makes me grateful that ME chose to
emphasize the father/daughter dynamic rather than any other.
[>
Why the Eww? Because... -- Eric, 21:33:58 04/10/02 Wed
The primary reason behind the immediate Eww reflex is that most fans picked up that Giles and
Buffy's relationship was not only paternal (initially) but fairly complex. Giles intended it to be
merely teacher-student. And certainly there was a parent-child aspect to it as Buffy was very young.
Even into season five she could not tolerate Giles acting as anything but an adult (no wizard
costumes or sombreros allowed). But the Watcher-Slayer relationship is more than just teacher-
student. Watchers are chosen much like Slayers. Being a Watcher was Gile's destiny, one he like
Buffy tried to flee. That weird joining and their constant battles bonded them. So their relationship
is not only one of teacher-student, parent-child, but also companions and comrades in the war
against darkness. Such a complex relationship is not necessarily complemented by sex, but often
cheapened by it. So more than mere prudery or teen Eww sentiments kept them apart. Buffy fans
clued in to this also. BTW, I think the intent of Watcher-Slayer combat sparring is to benefit the
Watcher in a scrap, not the Slayer.
[>
Neither father nor lover -- Liz, 09:58:06 04/11/02 Thu
Over this damp grave I speak the words of my love:
I, with no rights in this matter,
Neither father nor lover.
--Theodore Rothke
I do not think that Giles and Buffy should ever be lovers. Nor do I think that their relationship is
entirely lacking in this possibility. I don't think he's her father--that analogy holds up in a few ways,
and they both benefit from the relationship in a way that is similar to a father/daughter bond, but it
is not literally the way it all plays out.
They're not either. What's wrong with that possibility? They are simply close, in some undefined
way. Their relationship made some sense as watcher/slayer, but from the start they broke out of
those terms. They were, in some way, partners. The way two men can be partners in a western and
love each other more than anyone else in the world yet not be harboring homosexual feelings.
Now I have to admit that I find a B/G relationship highly interesting and appealing. But that's just
because it would seem like a conclusion and explaination for the intensity that is already there. And
I think that's a lie--I think it would not be a conclusion nor explaination nor anything positive at all--
I think that's all a romantic lie.
But I don't think he was her father. I don't think he knew what he was to her, and I think this was
the cause of some confusion for him. He didn't want to be her lover, necessarily, and he didn't
entirely want to be her father. He wanted to be close to her but he couldn't entirely figure out a good
role to play in order to do it. And it wasn't really a source of confusion for her. I think this was
because she was taking him for granted in many ways. And because to her, the role was clear. He
was her watcher. And if she didn't need a watcher at times, then she simply didn't see him. When
she did, she would see him. This was fine with her and not so fine with him.
[> [>
Nail. Head. Also, love the quote, very appropriate! -- Scroll, 11:41:44 04/11/02 Thu
[> [>
I like.... -- Coral Cat, 14:38:50 04/11/02 Thu
You've managed to very eloquently capture most of the appeal the B-G relationship has for me.
Thank you.
As to whether the B-G should ever cross the line between platonic and romantic, I'm undecided. The
possibility appeals to me, a lot. I find both characters attractive, I like their chemsitry, I think Giles
has it in him to be a tremendously supportive and loving spouse. Whatever Buffy needs in a life
partner is there. Their relationship as mentor and student is essentially over.
I suspect (and I sort of hope) that at the end of the series, the important relationships in Buffy's life
will not be her romantic relationships (who she is with at the end is largely irrelevant to her coming
into her own as an adult), but her friendships with Xander, Willow, and Giles. "Restless" seemed to
imply that they were four parts of a whole, and I'll continue to cling to that idea until the end.
[> [>
Re: Neither father nor lover -- Slain, 15:01:46 04/11/02 Thu
Good points, Liz. Buffy and Giles doesn't really appeal to me, but in the Season 1 DVD commentary
Joss was talking about the way that ASH played Giles, as if there was a hint that there might be
something between him and Buffy - but Joss told him not to play it that way.
I don't think age is the problem - there was nothing icky about Giles and Anya in 'Tabula Rasa'. It's
more how Giles sees Buffy, as his ward if not actually his surrogate daughter. He sees himself as her
father figure, so while I think it's fair to say that their relationships is effectively more like that of
close friends, Giles sees himself in a parental light. But really I just don't think they're attracted to
each other, in the same way that Willow isn't attracted to Buffy. Well, probably. ;)
[> [> [>
Willow and Buffy -- Malandanza, 19:51:38 04/12/02 Fri
"But really I just don't think they're attracted to each other, in the same way that Willow isn't
attracted to Buffy. Well, probably. ;)"
From the Shooting Script for Normal Again
INT. BUFFY'S HOUSE - DINING ROOM - DAY
Buffy walks down the stairs in a new outfit. She joins Willow in the dining room at her computer.
BUFFY: I could wrestle naked in grease for a living and still be cleaner than after a shift at the
Doublemeat.
WILLOW: Plus, I'd visit you at work every single day.
Okay -- probably a joke -- but maybe a little Freudian as well :)
[> [> [> [>
Willow and Buffy - you have to wonder, don't you..? -- Slain, 08:51:20 04/13/02 Sat
Oz question -- Purple Tulip, 21:17:34
04/08/02 Mon
One question I had....I was watching Phases again this morning for like the gazillionth time, and
when Oz realized that he was changing into a warewolf, he called his aunt to ask if, I'm assuming his
cousin, was going through the same thing. This makes me think that the whole warewolf thing is
some family inherited trait. However, in season four I think, I can't remember what episode, I know
that he told someone (Riley?) that he got bit, and that's how he became a warewolf. Could he
perhaps have been bit by his cousin? Or maybe by another anonymous warewolf? There don't seem
to be an awful lot of them around...the poacher had only killed eleven in how many years? And
Veruca is the only other one that we've seen. If it's his whole family then you'd think there'd be
other familes of them too. Or is this just one more of those infamous inconsistencies? Just
wondering....any ideas??
[>
It seems to me it was implied... -- Ixchel, 21:28:02 04/08/02 Mon
That he was bit by his cousin. I got the impression that the cousin (Geordie?) was a small child
(some are inclined to biting). Makes you wonder what happened to him.
Ixchel
[> [>
Pretty explicit, I thought -- d'Herblay, 21:48:11 04/08/02 Mon
From the shooting script:
The students separate into GROUPS. Larry removes his
jacket to reveal a large BANDAGE on his arm.
XANDER
What happened to
you?LARRY
Ah, last week some huge dog jumped
out of the bushes and bit
me. Thirty-nine
stitches. They ought to shoot those
strays.OZ
I
been there, man.He holds up a
finger.
OZ (cont'd)
My
cousin Jordy. Just got his grown-up
teeth in. Does not like to be
tickled.WILLOW
(leaning in)
Looks like it healed
already.OZ
The emotional scar is still there.
[> [> [>
Thanks, d'Herblay. I wasn't sure, it's been awhile since I've watched Phases. -- Ixchel,
21:52:17 04/08/02 Mon
[> [> [> [>
Thanks:) -- Purple Tulip, 06:15:46 04/09/02 Tue
Guess I spaced on that one---thanks for the insight:)
ASH on BBC America -- beekeepr,
23:02:08 04/08/02 Mon
My apologies if this has already been covered-just stopping in following an extended period where
my actual life has cut excessively into my virtual life. BBC America heavily advertising series
Manchild, ASH appears to be starring-anybody have any further information? Discussions here have
covered Ripper/Watcher possibilities, but I don't recall any mention of this. I believe set for premiere
April 19. Is this new series, or old news to everybody who isn't me? Anybody?
[>
Re: ASH on BBC America -- Marie, 01:10:49 04/09/02 Tue
'Manchild' is a series (half-hourly in the UK, for about, I think, 6 weeks). ASH is one of four 40-
something friends who are all very wealthy and going through some sort of mid-life crisis. Chasing
after young girls being their most common way of dealing with it.
If you want to see 'Giles' getting a penile enhancement, watch it!
Marie
[> [>
Re: ASH on BBC America -- JM, 02:21:40 04/09/02 Tue
Hmm . . . Not that I want to constrain the actor. But please remember that ASH isn't Giles in those
scenes. Giles is, I suspect, currently getting blottoed. If not currently trying to reconstruct Ethan's
phone number from creased scraps of paper. Oh, can't you let a sodding G/E shipper rest in peace.
Burke. And, yeah, I looked up what that meant. And it really isn't very nice. So I advize you sod off
. . unless you've got a fag to spare. What do you mean you can't smoke 'em inside . . . ?
[> [> [>
Is this post *meant* to be offensive? -- Marie, 07:51:07 04/09/02 Tue
Because as an easy-going person, I don't want to take offense if it's meant to be a joke. And if you
were joking, then I don't get it.
And yes, I do know that ASH isn't Giles in these scenes - which is why I placed the name in quotes. I
simply meant that if you have fond memories of ASH as Giles, then "Manchild" probably isn't the
programme for you.
Marie
[> [> [> [>
Re: Is this post *meant* to be offensive? -- JM, 09:24:12 04/09/02 Tue
Definitely meant to be joking. Humour doesn't always come across well on-line, or at two a.m., or
when it's mine.
I was just trying to imply that whatever ASH may be doing, I currently suspect that Giles is
wallowing in a self-destructive funk in England. At loose-ends and unhappy about leaving Buffy,
kind of like season four but way more depressed. Of course, I'm sure that we'll tune into the
eventually produced "Ripper" and find out he's doing just fine.
I was feeling a tad defensive of the actor, not from your comments of course, but because I've heard
some fans acting like his taking this part is somehow a betrayal of Buffy fans and Giles the
character. If we can separate Giles from Dr. Frankafurter, we should be able to distinguish him
from ASH less than admirable character on "Manchild." I was in no way trying to imply that you
weren't able to. Watcher warning advised. It really seemed relevant when I wrote it. Far less so
now. I'm blaming it on day light savings time.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Is this post *meant* to be offensive? -- Slain, 10:49:50 04/09/02 Tue
Some people do have trouble separating ASH from the roles he plays, but, given the average IQ the
posters, I don't think you'll find that's likely to happen on this messageboard. ;)
Personally, though, I felt that ASH's character in 'Manchild' was quite similar to Giles - but
that was more to do with his distinctive style of acting (kind of like Hugh Grant, only good) than the
writing itself.
[> [>
Re: ASH on BBC America -- beekeepr, 02:23:47 04/09/02 Tue
Thank you, Marie. All around repugnant, then-pity-I am fond of ASH, and continue to mourn the
yawning void which is his absence on BVS. Sigh. Gloomy now.
Ain't it Cool News on Renewals --
Rufus, 01:14:25 04/09/02 Tue
AICN
The Fates of 24, ED, THE JOB, UNDELCARED, BERNIE MAC, ROSWELL, ANGEL &
More!!
I am – Hercules!!
USA Today says “24,” “Angel,” “Ed” and “Bernie Mac” are all coming back this autumn. The same
paper says “Undeclared,” “Roswell,” “Family Guy” and “The Job” are not.
Gary Levin has turned in his annual list of shows “on the bubble” – that is, shows that may or may
not be on the autumn schedules the nets will reveal in about a month. But the big news is what
Levin says isn’t on that bubble.
Here are the shows Levin deems “CANCELLED (or on the way out)”:
AFP: American Fighter Pilot (CBS)
American Embassy (Fox)
As If (UPN)
Bob Patterson (ABC)
Chair, The (ABC)
Chamber, The (Fox)
Citizen Baines (CBS)
Colin Quinn Show, The (NBC)
Court, The (ABC)
Danny (CBS)
Dharma & Greg (ABC)
Elimidate Deluxe (WB)
Ellen Show, The (CBS)
Emeril (NBC)
Family Guy (Fox)
Family Law (CBS)
Felicity (WB)
For Your Love (WB)
Glory Days (WB)
Imagine That (NBC)
Inside Schwartz (NBC)
Job, The (ABC)
Lost (NBC)
Men, Women & Dogs (WB)
Mole, The (ABC)
My Guide to Being a Rock Star (WB)
Nikki (WB)
No Boundaries (WB)
Once and Again (ABC)
Pasadena (Fox)
Popstars (WB)
Random Years (UPN)
Roswell (UPN)
Special Unit 2 (UPN)
Steve Harvey Show, The (WB)
Temptation Island (Fox)
That’s Life (CBS)
Thieves (ABC)
Three Sisters (NBC)
Tick, The (Fox)
Undeclared (Fox)
UC: Undercover (NBC)
Under One Roof (UPN)
Wayne Brady Show (ABC)
Weakest Link, The (NBC)
Wednesdays 9:30 (ABC)
What About Joan (ABC)
Wolf Lake (CBS)
X-Files, The (Fox)
Here are the shows Levin deems “RENEWED (or almost)”:
According to Jim (ABC)
Alias (ABC)
America’s Most Wanted (Fox)
Angel (WB)
Baby Bob (CBS)
Becker (CBS)
Bernie Mac Show, The (Fox)
Boston Public (Fox)
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (UPN)
Charmed (WB)
Cops (Fox)
Crossing Jordan (NBC)
CSI (CBS)
Dawson’s Creek (WB)
District, The (CBS)
Drew Carey Show, The (ABC)
Ed (NBC)
Enterprise (UPN)
ER (NBC)
Everybody Loves Raymond (CBS)
Fear Factor (NBC)
Frasier (NBC)
Friends (NBC)
Futurama* (Fox)
Gilmore Girls (WB)
Girlfriends (UPN)
Guardian, The (CBS)
Just Shoot Me (NBC)
King of Queens, The (CBS)
King of the Hill (Fox)
Law & Order (NBC)
Law & Order: CI (NBC)
Law & Order: SVU (NBC)
Malcolm in the Middle (Fox)
My Wife and Kids (ABC)
NYPD Blue (ABC)
One on One (UPN)
Parkers, The (UPN)
Practice, The (ABC)
Reba (WB)
Sabrina, The Teenage Witch (WB)
Scrubs (NBC)
7Th Heaven (WB)
Simpsons, The (Fox)
Smackdown! (UPN)
Smallville (WB)
Survivor (CBS)
That ‘70s Show (Fox)
24 (Fox)
West Wing, The (NBC)
Whose Line Is It Anyway? (ABC)
Will & Grace (NBC)
Wonderful World of Disney (ABC)
Yes, Dear (CBS)
*There are enough “Futurama” episodes in the can to last until perhaps early 2004.
Here are the very few shows Levin still deems “ON THE BUBBLE”:
Agency, The (CBS)
Ally McBeal (Fox)
Amazing Race, The (CBS)
Andy Richter Controls the Universe (Fox)
Bachelor, The (ABC)
Dark Angel (Fox)
Education of Max Bickford, The (CBS)
First Monday (CBS)
George Lopez Show, The (ABC)
Greg the Bunny (Fox)
Grounded For Life (Fox)
Leap of Faith (NBC)
Maybe It’s Me (WB)
Off Centre (WB)
Philly (ABC)
Providence (NBC)
Raising Dad (WB)
Spin City (ABC)
That ‘80s Show (Fox)
The Hughleys (UPN)
Third Watch (NBC)
Titus (Fox)
Touched By An Angel (CBS)
Watching Ellie (NBC)
As usual, USA Today offers the opportunity to vote on the fate of the “bubble shows” here.
I am – Hercules!!
[>
Re: Ain't it Cool News on Renewals -- Cactus Watcher, 07:24:05 04/09/02 Tue
It's amazing how many really old shows dominate the "renewed" category. It used to be if a show
lasted four or five years it was exceptional. Now old war horses like ER, Friends and Frasier, which
are clearly far past their best days seem to go on forever. Do they still call Sabrina the 'teenage
witch?' I guess if its audience doesn't quibble, I shouldn't either. ;o)
[> [>
Incumbancy has its benefits -- d'Herblay, 12:25:17 04/09/02 Tue
Once television shows reach their fifth season (and have enough episodes to go into syndication)
they're pretty much untouchable until the seventh or ninth season. I think (and I'm pulling this out
of a headache-addled brain that wasn't too attentive in the first place) that those stations which
syndicate a show tend to demand enough episodes so that they don't have to keep rerunning the
same ones over and over again; but once a higher number is reached (I think in the ninth season) the
syndication affiliates have the right to refuse to show or pay for further episodes.
Syndication money seems to be the major factor now in deciding if an older mid-list show gets
renewed. A show's fortunes seem to follow its syndication package. Thus, Spin City and
The Drew Carey Show, which pull in the big money of being syndicated on local broadcast
stations, have survived whereas shows limited to rebroadcast on basic cable like Ellen
(syndicated only on Lifetime) and NewsRadio (syndicated only on A&E) did not.
I know that part of the rationale of renewing Homicide after its sixth season was that they
had only 100 episodes and had a presence on Lifetime. After the seventh season, it had moved to the
lower-distribution Court TV, and NBC figured that they had more to lose than to gain by pumping
the episode pool up from 122 to 144. So, R.I.P. Homicide.
By the way, I suspect that the list is based on nothing more than educated speculation and
previously publicized information. In other words, you or I or a trained monkey could have made one
just as accurate. Also by the way, "The Job" is my favorite comedy on tv right now, and if this guy is
right (and I think he is) about it being doomed to cancellation, I encourage everyone to tune in before
it's too late. It's like Homicide, if the solving of crimes was left out and the Dada bullpen
banter was all there was.
[> [> [>
Re: Incumbancy has its benefits -- matching mole, 13:21:15 04/09/02 Tue
Another aspect is the sheep-like loyalty/laziness of most of the viewing public (as I get older I tend to
place myself in this category occasionally). Frasier, a show I once loved, is old and tired but I am
sure it brings in boatloads more viewers than Andy Richter Controls the Universe. ARCtU is
certainly not as good as Frasier in its prime but it is fresh and funny. I've always been baffled by the
tendency of many people I've met to reflexively prefer the familiar to the new but it seems to be a
very prevalent trait. I do find myself falling into the same pattern but am irked with myself when I
get caught.
warning - Satire ahead
I think a constitutional ammendment setting term limits for TV shows might not be a bad idea (say
five years). Sure a few exceptional examples might get cut down in their prime but it would prevent
the Strom Thurmonds of the TV world from being wheeled out weekly to 'entertain' the masses.
Write to Congress now! After all the airwaves are public domain.
[> [> [> [>
Re: I second that plug -- mundusmundi, 04:33:49 04/10/02 Wed
for "Andy Richter Controls the Universe." For all you "24" junkies and otherwise, if you can't catch
Richter on Tuesdays, Fox runs the eps again Thursdays at nine:30 EST, against the Generic Bad
Show NBC Puts After Its Nine O'Clock Hit: "The Single Guy's Watching Ellie and Two Other Guys
at a Pizza Place," or something.
[> [> [> [> [>
Erm actually Andy's pitted against Buffy on Tues. Shows I haven't been watching reruns. -
- mm, 04:47:47 04/10/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [>
One (small) advantage of life in the hinterlands -- matching mole, 08:18:34 04/10/02
Wed
and not having a UPN affiliate is that Tuesday night is much less crowded TVwise. Although I have
to wait four days to watch Buffy that does give me the opportunity to watch some of the other things
that have been crammed into Tuesday night.
The great thing about Andy Richter Controls the Universe is its relative lack of either cynicism or
sentimentality And it's funny of course.
[>
Re: Ain't it Cool News on Renewals -- luvthistle1, 10:31:31 04/09/02 Tue
Yea! I glad three of my favorite shows has been renewed. I sorry to here about "Glory days" I think it
had a great start, but the wrong day. They should have left it on on wensday or put it on "monday ,
before "Angel" would have given them a target audience.[ I love 7heaven, but feel it is not a good lead
in for Angel, in would make a better lead in for "Gilmore Girls "]
I also felt that, "Seth Green" is such a talented actor, that is was hard to watch him waste that talent
on such shows like "greg the bunny" . *I mean did anyone really believe that show was going to make
it?? I know a lot of people is going to be disappointed to see "Roswell" go. It had a hugh following ,
until the "Network" started playing "shell games" with the show. The "80's show" was just bad. The
80's was a great decade, but the show suffer from a case of "B.A.D", bad casting, bad writing, bad
actors. the show "As if". There is only one "Real World" and it's on cable. I wonder who told them
that a tame down "Real World" was going to work. They should be fired.
Was the other shows on the cancelled list, really worth watching??
[>
Re: Ain't it Cool News on Renewals -- luvthistle1, 10:35:24 04/09/02 Tue
Yea! I glad three of my favorite shows has been renewed. I sorry to here about "Glory days" I think it
had a great start, but the wrong day. They should have left it on on wensday or put it on "monday ,
before "Angel" would have given them a target audience.[ I love 7heaven, but feel it is not a good lead
in for Angel, in would make a better lead in for "Gilmore Girls "]
I also felt that, "Seth Green" is such a talented actor, that is was hard to watch him waste that talent
on such shows like "greg the bunny" . *I mean did anyone really believe that show was going to make
it?? I know a lot of people is going to be disappointed to see "Roswell" go. It had a hugh following ,
until the "Network" started playing "shell games" with the show. The "80's show" was just bad. The
80's was a great decade, but the show suffer from a case of "B.A.D", bad casting, bad writing, bad
actors. the show "As if". There is only one "Real World" and it's on cable. I wonder who told them
that a tame down "Real World" was going to work. They should be fired.
Was the other shows on the cancelled list, really worth watching??
[> [>
Re: Ain't it Cool News on Renewals -- Purple Tulip, 10:44:08 04/09/02 Tue
I personally am sorry to see shows such as Roswell and and Once and Again be cancelled- I think
that they are great shows that really never got a fair shot. And i'm kinda sad about the American
Embassy too---that's another great show that hasn't even had a chance.
[>
Undeclared -- Dochawk, 11:51:40 04/09/02 Tue
I know most of you have never seen it because it was on against Buffy (one of the dumbhead
programming moves of all time, they ae focusing on exactly the saem audience). This show was
beyond good, it was close to great and frequently had a humorous take on themes we see in Buffy.
UPN should grab this instead of tryign tired shows like As if or Random years, Undeclared already
did it great.
[> [>
I wonder... -- Darby, 12:10:01 04/09/02 Tue
Could it be that there are not enough college-educated viewers to give a show about college proper
ratings? Do such shows intrinsically have no attraction to people who haven't lived on a campus? Or
do college-educated writers and TV executives believe this, producing self-fulfilling prophecies (like
the scheduling you mention)?
I'm drawing a blank here on other shows with similar themes, but this isn't the first time that I've
seen this happen. Even on Buffy, very little time was spent examining college life (and they
were good at it when they tried), which could have metaphorically supported our Slayer and friends
for more than a pittance of episodes.
[> [> [>
Re: I wonder...College and the long climb from Hell -- Dochawk, 12:26:31 04/09/02
Tue
College is not teh universal experience that high school is. Although more than 1/2 of the US goes to
college, many of tehm go part time or to local colleges (Sunnydale Community College, not UC
Sunnydale). As someoen who went away to colelge we sometimes forge how nonuniverasal that
experience is. Undeclared" was teh best presentation of that that I can remember on TV (and shows
like this aer the reason for multiple VCRs).
I also wish that Joss had spent more time exploring the college experience. Its intersting that I
consider my four years of undergrad as my long climb out of hell( high school). For someone, ie Buffy,
to find themselves there is little that challenges the college experience. But I think alot of television
people (especially the writers, I know an awful lot of tv writers adn they all seem to share this
experience) remember college fondly as the idyllic years (freedom without responsibility, easy to
meet new people, gabfests where we cure the world etc). For example the geeky guy, Steven Karp,
couldn't get a daet in high school gets to sleep with cute girl, Lizzy. This really happens in college, so
it does miss some angst (though every little slight is a horror of major dimensions). Maybe that's
why.
[> [> [> [>
The University Experience -- matching mole, 13:43:31 04/09/02 Tue
I can only think of one or two other university oriented shows and they vanished without a trace
very rapidly. This has always baffled me as university seems to have a lot of TV potential. Like
Dochawk one of my (very few) regrets about BtVS was that the University setting wasn't really used
to its full potential. But I think you guys are right, it isn't a universal enough experience. My wife
and I were discussing Buffy last week and we brought up the growing up aspect of seasons 5 and 6
and how our experience of that age was completely different (beyond not being vampire slayers and
battling the forces of darkness). For both us university was a joyous escape from the anti-
intellectualism of high school and probably the most happy and carefree times of our lives. Our (my
wife's and mine) individual experiences were very different as undergrads but they were very
positive and pivotal. It is hard to realize how different your next door neighbor's life might be.
Then there was grad school and by the time we were facing the cruel cold world we were both over 30
and growing up didn't seem like that big a deal any more.
[> [> [> [> [>
TV & High School -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 14:39:41 04/09/02 Tue
Someone I know has a theory that extremely good, realistic shows about high school -- are always
doomed.
Such shows (think "Square Pegs" or "My So-Called Life") make people remember how painful that
process was -- so they don't tune in. Shows that romanticize high school -- think "Happy Days" or
(insert any one of dozens) go on forever.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: TV & High School - Don't Forget Freaks and Geeks -- Dochawk, 18:16:54 04/09/02
Tue
[> [>
Re: Undeclared -- ravenhair, 14:21:47 04/09/02 Tue
I watched several of the episodes and they were very good. Since I never lived on campus, much of
the college life depicted on Undeclared was lost on me.
But there were so many great moments on the show: The dorm RA flirting with Lloyd; Lloyd (yum!);
Will Ferrell writes the gang's term papers; all of the Adam Sandler episode; Lizzie's boyfriend goes
vengeancy on Steven.
I'm sad to see it go. :-(
[> [>
I'm so upset about this -- aurelia *mourns the passing of Undeclared*, 17:47:16
04/09/02 Tue
Undeclared is great and the only reason I'm glad that Buffy airs on Sat. here.
[>
Wasn't "Wolf Lake" picked up by UPN? -- Masq, 12:20:53 04/09/02 Tue
I watched it after "Enterprise" last week. First ep. Seems like a cool show.
[> [>
Re: Wasn't "Wolf Lake" picked up by UPN? -- vampire hunter D, 12:30:42
04/09/02 Tue
Wolf LAke is on UPN now (interesting how Herc seems ignorant of this). It even has a place on the
UPN website almost as big as Buffy's and Enterprise's. And it is a good show. I highly recomend it.
Hell, I might be missing Wednesday chat from now on to watch it.
Personally, I don't think Herc knows what he is talking about. And I also hope UPN renews this
show in the fall (they need another show.)
[> [> [>
I think just for the existing episodes, no new ones. -- Lilac, 12:36:35 04/09/02 Tue
[> [> [> [>
Re: I think just for the existing episodes, no new ones. -- Rob, 05:30:43 04/10/02
Wed
Yeah, that's what I heard. They're going to be airing all of the episodes that were filmed, but never
aired on CBS...and they will decide, based on those ratings, whether to pick up the show or not.
Rob
[>
Proof there is no justice in the world -- Pete, 03:40:11 04/10/02 Wed
As long as we're talking about the business side of shows, is it a huge guarded secret how much our
pals in the JossVerse make per episode? All I could find with Google was that SMG makes $75,000,
but it didn't say during what season that was.
You probably heard that the Friends cast now makes $1,000,000 per episode; that just makes my
gorge rise. I would never begrudge actors with actual talent from making loads of money, but
Friends? From what little I've seen of it, it seems like yet another brainless sitcom. None of those
clowns could hold a candle to the likes of Alexis Denisof, Juliet Landau, Kristine Sutherland (a gift
to viewers from TBTB!), James Marsters, etc., etc.
(Anyone who watches that show, please correct me if I'm wrong.)
I hope my fears will be quelled soon with a special Buffy episode of Cribs where it is revealed that all
of the cast members have gigantic houses in the Hollywood hills. Amber Benson wants to live with
her mom? Fine, let her buy her mom a nice country villa. Michelle Trachtenberg has more talent at
16 than most tv actors do at 30? Fine, reward her with her own mansion.
And I don't want any of you philosophy snobs writing a 20-page dissertation about capitalism and
how there's more to life than money. :-)
If we want Hollywood to keep producing brilliant shows, brilliance must be rewarded.
Sincerely,
Pete
p.s.: I also think the entire cast of Gilmore Girls, the best comedy/drama currently on the air, should
be making a lot more than whatever they make. Kelley Bishop and Alexis Bledel rule!
[> [>
That should say tPtb (NT) -- Pete, 03:42:35 04/10/02 Wed
What was Ethan Rayne charged with? -
- Earl Allison, 04:46:37 04/09/02 Tue
When Riley had Ethan Rayne taken to a detention facility in the desert -- what did they (or could
they) ultimately charge him with?
Was this ever mentioned or addressed?
I'm just curious if there was even a legitimate reason for it aside from being a cute scene.
Take it and run.
[>
Demonization? -- Lilac, 05:55:05 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Re: What was Ethan Rayne charged with? -- Rattletrap, 06:57:42 04/09/02 Tue
At a military detention facility in the desert he probably wasn't charged with anything at all. More
likely he simply dropped off the face of the earth in a nice 1950s-style CIA espionage kind of way.
Plus, this leaves it open for him to return at any time.
[> [>
Either that or... -- Cactus Watcher, 07:28:44 04/09/02 Tue
like Marcie, the invisible girl, they quietly hired him!
[> [> [>
Maybe it was for crimes against fashion. Though I quite liked some of his shirts... -- Slain,
10:51:36 04/09/02 Tue
[>
They don't need charges to hold him. John Ashcroft is the Attorney General. -- Sophist,
08:11:02 04/09/02 Tue
****ducking flames**** :)
[> [>
Re: They don't need charges to hold him. John Ashcroft is the Attorney General. -- leslie, 08:34:27 04/09/02 Tue
Or maybe he IS John Ashcroft!!! Notice how chaos has erupted in the world ever since he became
AG?
More likely, I think, is that Ethan is working on that little South American project of Riley's. Who
convinced them to hire shamans, you think?
[> [> [>
Ethan in the Iniative -- Heinaki, 08:58:04 04/09/02 Tue
Ethan working for the goverment? It really does seem like something he might even do voluntarily
(and since he has no choice, it's almost certain). Now that you mention it, I bet he's training
Iniative soldiers in the black arts. That would certainly explain how the two "hard core shamans"
mentioned by Sam in AYW got hooked on spells and just disappeared. Bad influence on behalf of the
teacher?
Let's just hope those Iniative boys and girls don't keep him tucked away for eternity. I for one would
love to see Ethan popping up to stir mischief and mayhem again. Here's a thought: Since ASH is
getting his own spin-off (if I'm not mistaken), shouldn't Ethan become a regular cast member on that
show? He would make a great trickster type, kinda like Spike in the 4th season of BtVS. What do
y'all think?
[> [> [> [>
Ethan on Ripper: Definitely!! I miss seeing Ripper beat him up! -- Scroll, 09:09:44
04/09/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
That would be so cool. I can already imagine... -- Heinaki, 10:12:40 04/09/02 Tue
...A scene that might go like this:
Giles: "Oi! Ethan, you sodding twat! 'Avent I told you not to summon up any more nasties since that
Eyghon accident?"
Ethan: "But Ripper, I was just..."
Giles punches Ethan in the face: "Shut up you!"
Ethan: "Can't I just..."
Giles punches him again: "I said shut it!"
(OK, maybe 'the Ripper' didn't talk like Spike but there wasn't much missing in Band Candy when
Giles was transformed into his teenage self.)
PS. As far as I can remember, Giles has ALWAYS been abusing Ethan physically. Is it any wonder
that the good old chaos worshipper holds a grudge?
[>
Re: What was Ethan Rayne charged with? -- Robert, 09:03:21 04/09/02 Tue
>> "I'm just curious if there was even a legitimate reason for it aside from being a cute scene."
How do you define the legitimacy of a scene? How do you decide if a scene is legitimate or merely
"cute"? What standard do you test a scene against? Does Mr. Whedon need to have his scripts
inspected against such a standard of legitimacy? What if a scene is illigitimate? Does that make it a
bastard scene? Do we want respectable BtVS scenes associating with a bastard scene?
[> [>
Re: What was Ethan Rayne charged with? -- leslie, 11:12:03 04/09/02 Tue
"Do we want respectable BtVS scenes associating with a bastard scene?"
As long as they don't have sex with the bastard scenes and then start beating them up.
[>
From the Transcripts of "A New Man" -- Rufus, 14:17:21 04/09/02 Tue
Here you go.....
Buffy: (crossing her arms) And why would I let you go?
Ethan: (pompously) Well, maybe because you have no choice. I'm human,
you can't kill me. What's a Slayer going to do to me?
Riley steps up behind him as a couple of tough looking MP's enter the
room.
Riley: (as Ethan is cuffed) By the authority of the US military,
you're being taken into custody pending a determination of your
status. (to MP) Take it from here.
Ethan doesn't look happy as they take him out of the room. Buffy and
Giles exchange a very happy look.
Riley: They'll, uh, take Mr. Rayne to a secret detention facility in
the Nevada desert. I'm *sure* he'll be rehabilitated in no time.
The pattern of Btvs seasons --
Galadriel, 10:30:20 04/09/02 Tue
I've always found the 'seasons' everyone goes on about to be pretty arbitrary. Surely a more
meaningful devision of Buffy-time is
I Welcome to the Hellmouth
- Innocence
II Phases
- Helpless
III The Zeppo
- A New Man
IV The 'I' in Team
- Blood Ties
V Crush
- Older and Far Away
VI Now
[>
Re: The pattern of Btvs seasons -- Heinaki, 11:17:36 04/09/02 Tue
You may be right, but it hard to say since you don't really use any arguments. Why is this division
more "meaningful"? Because of the general tone or the events that take place? Surely you can't deny
that season (which you call arbitrary) have a clear beginning, a middle and (duh) an end.
Of course, Innocence marked the beginning of a new era, but what about Graduation or Buffy's death
in the Gift? Don't you think they divide the series at all? But maybe I misunderstood your point.
Please write some more and explain yourself. I beseech thee.
-Heinaki-
[>
Re: The pattern of Btvs seasons -- Slain, 11:18:14 04/09/02 Tue
In terms of Buffy's emotional development, that seems right to me. Seasons generally are
concerned with one monster-bashing plot, with a few exceptions where there wasn't really a main big
bad which was the main focus (S2 and S6 deliberately so, S4 more-or-less by accident). But of course
there's always a character to link the main plot emotionally to Buffy, rather than just in terms to
'kill the big bad' - Angel, Faith, Riley, Dawn, and I suppose Jonathan in the current season.
Still, you could separate the Seasons again in terms of Buffy's development as the Slayer, rather
than as Buffy Summer, with key episodes being things like the S1 finale, 'Bad Girls', 'The Gift' and
many others in between - marking her change from unwilling participant to someone who sees
slaying as her duty.
"Death is my
gift?....Right....whatever." ;o) O/T -- Wisewoman, aka dubdub, WW, Ursa, and
many more, 11:01:41 04/09/02 Tue
Um....hi? It's me, yes it is, and if you can read this then I think I'm A-OK and not permanently
damaged in any way except perhaps hair follically (sp?).
David did his best to get in touch and keep people updated. Hope he was understood. I'm sorry if
anyone was worried, I didn't realize until a few days ago that I almost croaked, but hey, I was
unconscious through most of it, so I couldn't really reassure anyone, including my partner and
parents. Ironically, this whole ep has been much harder are other people than it has on me. Plus,
visit from Rufus!! YAY!! (And other special and wonderful and joyful messages and surprises and
treats--thank you all so much!)
Okay, if I ramble you're all gonna think it's the whole brain surgery bit and that's so not...I'll try to
check back in later. Can't chat...stupid hospital firewall (did I say that!?)
Love you and miss you all, and glad to be back...
;o)
[>
Welcome back...happy that your gift is life... -- Caroline, 11:07:26 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Dubdub!!! -- celticross, 11:08:23 04/09/02 Tue
"And there was much rejoicing" :)
[>
Welcome back!! -- neaux, 11:09:34 04/09/02 Tue
It is absolutely great to hear from you!! We missed your pleasantries. ^_^
(I know pleasantries sounds weird but I didnt know what word to substitute for voice since
technically I've never heard your voice.. but I meant your typing or words or whatever and now I'm
rambling..)
[>
Even though I didn't know you... -- Heinaki, 11:20:37 04/09/02 Tue
...reading the heartfelt messages on this board after what happened to you really moved me. It's
really great you're back and well .
[>
Wonderful to see your name on the board!!!! -- Rahael, 11:30:40 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Yay! you're well enough to say hi! -- verdantheart, 11:31:56 04/09/02 Tue
Welcome back! We missed your insight and warmth!
[>
She's back so we're happy, happy, happy :)) -- Ete, 11:33:40 04/09/02 Tue
So very pleased to hear you anew, WW, we missed you !
[>
Welcome back, dubdub -- Masq, 11:39:08 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Despite not knowing you very well, it's always good to hear that someone didn't die. Bona
foruna! -- Apophis, 11:42:08 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Welcome back - so glad to hear you are well -- dream of the consortium, 11:42:56
04/09/02 Tue
[>
Yay! We've heard from WW! -- Kimberly, 11:54:21 04/09/02 Tue
Welcome back and hope your recovery is smooth and speedy!
[>
So glad to hear you're OK - Welcome back!! -- matching mole, 12:00:03 04/09/02
Tue
[>
Good to hear from you again! -- Traveler, 12:02:10 04/09/02 Tue
Get finished healing up so we can have more of your posts! Am I selfish or what?
[>
Hey, Great to see you back Dub -- vampire hunter D, 12:07:09 04/09/02 Tue
[>
No more brain-freakies for you, okay? (welcome back) -- Darby, 12:12:51 04/09/02
Tue
[>
We've all missed your posts! Glad you're on the mend. -- ponygirl, 12:13:36 04/09/02
Tue
[>
Re: She's Back Already!?!?!?! -- Dedalus, 12:35:54 04/09/02 Tue
Man, I hate not being around a computer. You miss so much.
Anyway, it is SO good to hear from you. We were all very worried. I actually asked Liq about you the
night before your partner in crime told everybody what was going on. Does prove you are missed
around here.
I hope you have the best of recoveries. Hopefully I can send you a card or something. Please take it
easy, and thanks so much for stopping by.
Love,
Ded
[>
Welcome back WW -- Lilac, 12:39:12 04/09/02 Tue
I am not a praying person, but you have been in my thoughts since you fell ill. I am so happy to hear
that you are on the mend.
[>
What a nice surprise to "see" you here! Wishing you and your hair speedy
recovery! -- Dichotomy, 12:46:05 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Welcome back! -- Earl Allison,
12:48:37 04/09/02 Tue
[>
She's baaaaaack! And good news it is. -- Sophist, 12:57:20 04/09/02 Tue
[>
WW!!! Hugs and kisses! -- Rob, 13:10:19 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Wonderful to have you back, Your Dubbyness. -- mundusmundi, 13:22:36 04/09/02
Tue
[>
Welcome back! I'm glad you're OK! -- Wynn, 13:25:21 04/09/02 Tue
[>
See, wishes do come true! -- xo, 13:40:02 04/09/02 Tue
[>
So good to hear that you are in good spirits. Uh, the spiritual kind not the alcoholic one. --
Deeva ;o), 13:57:27 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Big "Welcome back" - hug! -- grifter, 14:03:07 04/09/02 Tue
Uh, that is, if you´re not uncomfortable with strangers haugging you! ;)
[>
Re: "Death is my gift?....Right....whatever." ;o) O/T -- Cynthia, 14:07:37
04/09/02 Tue
Glad you're back. Hope you are home and at a computer without firewalls by the time repeat hell is
over.
[> [>
Ya just can't keep a good Wicca down! Welcome Back! -- Brian, 14:22:13 04/09/02
Tue
[>
Good that you live -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 14:25:29 04/09/02 Tue
While you don't know me, I've always appreciated your comments on the board (and on more general
topics -- like life.)
Glad you're here, albeit for selfish reasons. A world without you would be less good and more
foolish.
[>
Your wisdom has been sorely missed! -- cat, 14:34:27 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Yay! what a relief to hear you're better - we were worried! ;-) -- The Second Evil & the
Peanut Gallery, 14:42:08 04/09/02 Tue
[>
WW, Glad to have you healthy and posting -- darrenK, 14:57:02 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Yay! now to get out from behind the firewall -- Vickie, 15:07:54 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Glad to have you back, WW. (hugs) -- LadyStarlight, 15:54:23 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Good to Hear from You. Hope you you get better soon. -- Isabel, 15:55:14 04/09/02
Tue
[>
Re: "Death is my gift?....Right....whatever." ;o) O/T -- Buffyboy, 16:07:33
04/09/02 Tue
Glad to see you're feeling better. Hope your stay in the hospital is a short one.
[>
Damn. So many people beat me to the wb. Oh, well. Welcome back!!! dubdubdub --
VampRiley, 16:12:00 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Welcome back! :) -- Ixchel, 16:13:58 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Sassy and wise:) I'm so glad you are doing well. <hugs> -- Aquitaine, 16:17:43
04/09/02 Tue
[>
Welcome home WW. Back where you belong ;) -- Forsaken, 16:27:36 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Happy to hear you are better-how is the hospital food? <grin> -- AurraSing,
16:41:30 04/09/02 Tue
The last time I was in the hospital up in Prince Rupert (having my daughter),I ended up getting my
husband to cook and bring me food....that was fun.
Take care and hugs to you!
[>
I'm so pleased you're doing better. Say hey to David for me too. -- Ian, 16:45:56
04/09/02 Tue
[>
Welcome back! Glad to see your doing better! -- Kerri, 16:54:46 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Boy, you miss lunch hour here and you miss all the best stuff! -- Cactus Watcher,
16:55:38 04/09/02 Tue
Just take things easy and keep gettin' better, WW!
[>
In celebration of your quick return, a round of cat of nine tails for everyone.;-) -- A8,
17:24:41 04/09/02 Tue
[>
WW!! Welcome back from the brink dear! -- Eric, 19:24:10 04/09/02 Tue
[>
Apparently your brain is brighter than the fire. Resurrection suits you, my dear Dub... ;-) --
OnM, 19:42:08 04/09/02 Tue
Gee, lookit all them replies! There must be a meaning to all this.
( Have to start thinking too much now... )
:-)
[>
Doing a Happy Little Jig! Group hug with dub! Huuuuuuuug!! -- Sheri, 19:49:13
04/09/02 Tue
[>
YYYYYAAAAAAAYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!! hello, dubdub... -- anom, 21:56:50 04/09/02 Tue
...well, hello, dubdub, it's so nice to have you back where you belong!
sooooo good to see you here--dubdub, don't ever go away again!
[>
It's good to have you back! Looking forward to hearing more soon! -- Kitt, 22:02:15
04/09/02 Tue
[>
Wow! Thanks, guys!! ;o) -- dubdub, 22:18:55 04/09/02 Tue
Y'all make me teary eyed. No wait, that's the staples? (Oh, geez, just ignore that, I'm so
tactless.)
Truly though, I feel great and you all just made me feel better. I have this irksome little laptop I've
borrowed and my eyes are a bit wonky, so I'll be somewhat limited for the next week or so, but I'll be
back up and running as before just as quickly as I can.
Your wishes give me wings!
;o)
[> [>
Glad to hear you're okay! -- Dariel, 20:13:06 04/10/02 Wed
[>
oops, I'm late! too bad -- WELCOME BACK!!! : ) :))))) -- yuri, 00:45:29 04/10/02
Wed
[>
DUB-DUB!!! Welcome back! Stay well! -- Marie (always a day after everyone else!),
04:27:09 04/10/02 Wed
[>
Welcome back Wisewoman!! -- Rattletrap, 05:14:57 04/10/02 Wed
[>
Welcome back, WW! -- Sebastian (super late sending this!), 08:30:03 04/10/02 Wed
[>
Not dead is always a good thing. Best wishes. -- Rendyl, 09:08:25 04/10/02 Wed
[>
Re: "Death is my gift?....Right....whatever." ;o) O/T -- julia, 09:53:32
04/10/02 Wed
dub:
so happy to hear you're well. i've been out of the loopy too so didn't know you've been ill. best, best
wishes for a speedy and easy recovery. much love julia
[> [>
Great to see your ok -- JCC, 14:17:24 04/10/02 Wed
Reminder: JM will be on Politically
Incorrect tonight. -- Postit, 15:09:01 04/09/02 Tue
Search TV Guide Online for time and station in your
area.
[>
Re: Reminder: JM will be on Politically Incorrect tonight. -- blessedbe, 01:10:45
04/10/02 Wed
I was impressed with Spike's command of American English. Does he look too emaciated to be
human, or what?
[> [>
Re: Reminder: JM will be on Politically Incorrect tonight. -- Grace, 08:17:28 04/10/02
Wed
I too was impressed by how smart he seemed. Not bad for a kid from Modesto, CA! It was interesting
hearing him speak without the English accent and I even heard a little Southern accent. Did anyone
else? I must admit that he still dresses like Spike with the black jacket and silver rings etc. As for
being too skinny--yes! But still very attractive!
[> [> [>
Re: Reminder: JM will be on Politically Incorrect tonight. -- julia, 09:49:56 04/10/02 Wed
hey did anyone happen to tape that? i was long in bed and sleeping--no rest for us wicked teachers
you know!
[> [>
Re: Reminder: JM will be on Politically Incorrect tonight. -- Purple Tulip, 14:46:14
04/10/02 Wed
I thought that he was great on PI last night. I was very impressed with what he had to say, and I
really like the fact that he has a strong mind and is opinionated (I'm that way too ;)) I didn't think
that he looked that thin though, just the same as usual---but then again, I think that he always looks
good, 40 or not!
[> [> [>
JM is 40?!?...Just j/k! People, please don't kill me! :O) -- Rob, 16:15:51 04/10/02 Wed
[> [> [>
Re: Reminder: JM will be on Politically Incorrect tonight. -- Valhalla, 17:37:03 04/10/02
Wed
I was pretty impressed, too. I don't know why, I was just surprised he was so outspoken. It's always
a bit of a risk, watching actors who play characters I like as their real selves. I was relieved that I
liked his non-Spike persona!
[> [> [> [>
aaaarrrrrrggggghhhhhhh.... -- leslie,
17:51:42 04/10/02 Wed
Everyone please go home and read _How the Irish Became White_ by Noel Ignatiev (New York:
Routledge, 1995).
[> [> [> [> [>
Very good book, but why do you mention it here? What elicited the argh? As for JM, even
though -- yuri, 23:55:46 04/10/02 Wed
he was hearteningly outspoken, many of his mannerisms bugged me, and I didn't think he listened
as much as he needed to. He was rather self-rightous, which is okay and good sometimes but his
seemed like it prevented him from hearing and thinking about some more subtleties of race relations
he wasn't seeing. I was disappointed with the perspectives represented, I thought it left a huge gap
in the conversation.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Very good book, but why do you mention it here? What elicited the argh? As for JM, even
though -- shadowkat, 06:09:37 04/11/02 Thu
Actually I felt sorry for everyone up there - they
kept talking over each other. They rarely heard one another
and I got the feeling that they were too aware of both
the audience and the camera to engage in a good discussion.
Poor JM. Though his mannerisms reminded me a lot of
the character he plays - which means he truly does bring
a lot of himself to the role.
I haven't read the book leslie mentions - but my own arrrgh
was elcited by the fact that the discussion was never able
to really get anywhere - partly because the comedienne
kept cutting everyone off. JM had to yell to be heard.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Very good book, but why do you mention it here? What elicited the argh? As for JM, even
though -- leslie, 09:17:53 04/11/02 Thu
I mention _How the Irish Became White_ because it's about the social construction of race, a topic
that Lani Guinier seemed to be getting close to if anyone had let her get a word in edgewise. I also
think this book is a good jumping-off point for discussions of race because these days, everyone
accepts without question that the Irish are white, but the book shows how this was not always the
case--and that their "blackness" was a quality based ultimately on class rather than skin color
(although Ignatiev's illustrations show that in fact, in the early 19th century, newspaper drawings of
the Irish depicted a cariacature that was virtually identical to the cariacatured Negro of the same
time).
And therefore, to wrench this back into a topic relevant to the board, I would like to reiterate my
conviction that the "missing" black American population on BtVS is, in fact, right there in the form
of vampires. Unpretty as it may be.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Interesting -- Rahael, 09:37:45 04/11/02 Thu
"And therefore, to wrench this back into a topic relevant to the board, I would like to reiterate my
conviction that the "missing" black American population on BtVS is, in fact, right there in the form
of vampires. Unpretty as it may be."
How would you enlarge on this metaphor?
Because as a black British woman, that thought never occurred to me. Is this a metaphor that only a
certain section of the audience would pick up?
Or is it that Vampires are such a potent symbol that all sorts of metaphors can be overlaid? In which
case, how can I reconcile that with such a sympathetic and authoritative figure as Giles saying that
Vampires are evil? reconcile that with Angel's comments about Harmony?
Of course, I may be missing the point. I wait for further illumination.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Interesting -- leslie, 10:36:58
04/11/02 Thu
Well, I think the rhetoric of race is slightly different in the UK than the US in terms of Asian
"blacks" versus African "blacks" (just for a start, for many Americans the idea of Indians and
Pakistanis being "black" is a mind-bender).
On the whole, it seems to me that issues that, in the real world of the US, are formulated as "race"
issues of black versus white, turn up on BtVS as "species" issues of human versus vampire. Just for a
start, I would note that virtually every "evil" charge laid against vampires in BtVS has, at one time
or another, been made against blacks in the US. In particular, the extreme unease and revulsion
that the notion of human-vampire sexual relations has always aroused virtually replicates historical
white unease at black men "defiling our women." And notice that these sexual relationships are
always a male vampire with a female human--the sexual relationship of a male human with a female
demon is regarded as slightly irritating, since everyone has to put up with her, but not as
"unnatural" and repulsive as male vamp-female human. (The representations of demons make them
seem closer to Latinos, by the way, if we're going to extend the metaphor.)
Vampires form gangs and kill innocent people just going about their business. They live in the bad
part of town. They are identifiable by their physical appearance. They eat weird food. They are
sexually voracious. They are a Threat to Civilization As We Know It. They have strange folklore and
they know too much about magic. They are "primitive" and act on their impulses. They are criminals.
They are parasites on "our" society. They have no souls. They're "darkies." They need to be
exterminated. People have said these things about blacks in America for centuries. Most sane people
would be appalled to hear someone say most of these things about blacks today, but on BtVS, they
get said about vampires without a blink of an eye.
I'm not saying that there's a one-to-one correlation between blacks in America and vampires and
demons in Sunnydale--I think the whole issue is, as Freud would say, overdetermined (i.e., multiple
etiologies for a single symptom, and hey, look at me, I'm referencing Freud instead of Jung!)--and I
also am not accusing ME of racism--in fact, they strike me as a very liberal bunch, but I think that's
the reason why this huge issue in the culture at large is so radically metaphorized on the show. It
simply is so huge that it can't be addressed directly.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Interesting -- Rahael, 11:10:15 04/11/02 Thu
Well, its the very awareness that race is a construct which leads me to call myself Black. In the
sense that describing myself as Asian tells most people very little about myself at all.
I call myself Black because it's a politcal construct. And my blackness, my colour belongs in the
political arena, not the cultural, social or emotional.
What I would say about the descriptions applied to Black people which are reproduced in BtVS to
describe Vampires, is that they are not new descriptions. They have been used before. They are
applied to all groups that society might fear. The word 'bloodsuckers' and 'parasites' have famously
been used to describe another group of people who are not black.
So its a language of fear, and hate and ignorance. It's an easy reference point, in my opinion. I really
don't think it's meant to be an explicit parallel, but that may be wishful thinking.
Do vampires know too much about magic? Spike had to kidnap Willow to try and put the love spell
on Dru. No one unsouled Angel until Buffy came along. Darla didn't find anyone to do it. (why didn't
they vamp a Gypsy who had access to this knowledge?). Are vampires in BtVS associated with sexual
voraciousness? I know that the vampire mythos has heavy sexual overtones, but was Angel really
getting it off right left and centre? The only sexual vampire is Spike, and Harmony. Perhaps Darla?
she looked like she just used sex as a weapon, rather than being voracious for it.
For me the Vampires have been solidly European. The mythos that BtVS draws upon is a European
one on the main. The only time ME have drawn upon 'dark' Africa and Magic is Restless, and that is
explicitly connected with Slayerness.
Angel reads Satre. He collects fine art, he can't dance, and once you tear off the broodyness, he's
really a little goofy. Spike goes on about 'effulgence' and brags about what might possibly be
mythical kills. One of the most striking images of the Fanged four is that their European-ness is
emphasised again and again. The Flashbacks. Everytime we see Slayer versus Vamp (before Buffy)
we see Foreign 'Others' combatting the very white Spike. A metaphor for colonialism? the encounter
with the other where the 'civilised European' is bloodsucking, parasitical and monstrous?
There is a story that when white conquerors first went to my native country, the indigenous
population described them as very strange people, who drank blood (wine), ate iron (forget what that
was an analogy for), and so on. That description was laughed at as the product of a simple folk. But
really it was a humorous description to compass the strange habits of these foreigners.
It all depends on your perspective.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Vampires as a metaphor for colonialism -- Dead Soul, 14:20:55 04/11/02 Thu
Rahael,
The point you made about the very white Spike defeating the non-white Slayers really struck me.
My initial take on the casting of his trophy Slayers, to the extent that I thought about it at all, was
that it was an effort to show that Slayers come from every race, from every culture.
But to take it that one crucial step further and see the Spike/Slayer fights as an illustration of the
impact of the invading colonialists on the native populations...chills up my spine.
I hope that I'm interpreting you correctly. Thanks for blowing my mind!
Dead Soul
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The Boxer Rebellion -- Rahael, 14:45:53 04/11/02 Thu
We often talk about how Spike is a 'Romantic' with a capital R figure. Well, while Spike is being all
Victorian and Romantic, Britain is busy colonising other parts of the world. The very identity of
Britishness is bound up with colonialism at this period.
So we have Spike going off to the new world (via Romania) to prey on one of Britain's ex colonies.
Then we have Darla, Angel, Spike and Dru in China at the time of the Boxer rebellion. Isn't that
significant? I know very little about the Boxer rebellion, but what I do know is that it was a
movement to expell the white foreigner.
And when Spike fights the Chinese Slayer, they emphasise each other's foreigness to each other by
Spike's last words "I'm sorry, I don't speak Chinese".
Another facet to my problem with the race/vampire discussion is that Vampires are powerful!! (and
moreover, most of them are actually evil, not pretend evil, not perceived evil but evil). They aren't
oppressed or suffering, but aggressive, predatory and strong. Perhaps this metaphor is only meant to
work one way - the perception of white people of black people. The whole black people as vampires
tells us nothing about what it might mean to be black.
There is only one person on the show who is cast with a burden that is hers by birthright, and which
she can't help. Only one person who struggles to deal with the wreckful siege of battering days. Only
one person who is shown as being both strong and vulnerable. And that's Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
And extending this idea *future spoilers** -- Rahael, 15:25:04 04/11/02 Thu
Spike is rumoured to be traveling into the Heart of Darkness......into Africa.
Now if that isn't overlaying the colonialism thing.......
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: And extending this idea *future spoilers** -- leslie, 15:49:23 04/11/02 Thu
Uh huh, and why Africa? "Back where they came from."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL -- Rahael, 16:02:39 04/11/02 Thu
We'll see............
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Interesting -- anath, 18:04:48 04/11/02 Thu
"It's an easy reference point, in my opinion. I really don't think it's meant to be an explicit
parallel"
I agree. I think that it is too easy as an explicit parallel. (I like the specific point about colonialism as
well. A 'white devil' for a change...)
I don't think that there is a constant or singular parallel being drawn about race. But I do think that
the 'Buffyverse' itself as a whole (construct) is very much to do with the idea of the 'other'. In the
'Buffyverse' the demonized 'other' is literal, real, if not always recognisable on sight. Obviously,
vampires and other demons exemplify this (and I loved Shadowkat's 'What holds you back now?'
above). But it is also, frequently, explored with reference to the SG - Nightmares, Pack, The Wish,
etc. etc.
It's late, & I'm trying not to ramble. I think the idea I thought would contribute to this discussion
was this. As I see it the 'Buffyverse' manages to encompass two opposing perspectives. On the one
hand, we have Buffy and the SG (who are 'us' - human, fighting the good fight, and so on). Their
perspective (at least initially) was fairly morally absolutist, anthropocentric, well defined and easy to
identify with. On the other, we have 'them'- vampires, demons etc. From the perspective of the SG, it
was, at least at first, just that simple. Us 'modern Americans' vs. them 'the demon(ized) others'.
But from the wider perspective of the 'Buffyverse' (and for the viewer, right from S.1) it was never
that simple. 'They' were always individuals - the one thing that the 'other' is rarely allowed, or
admitted, to be. (Of course, not all the demonic individuals are equally individual, but then not all
the high-school students were either). We were shown their hopes, desires, fears. I remember Buffy
(TIIT, I think) asking the Initiative what the Polgara demon wants, how it behaves, why its there.
The Initiative, of course, neither know nor care. To them, the 'other' is a problem to be solved, a
potential soldier to be conditioned, a resource to be exploited (more colonialism?)The contrast shows
us how much the SG have learnt since S1.
IMHO, it is the existence of this second perspective which allows the idea of the 'other' in the
'Buffyverse' to become complex. In the 'Buffyverse' the 'other' has a perspective. Often, it is one
which morality or empathy lead us to find abhorrent. But often also we can find something to
identify with in it - Darla wants her man back, the Master wants to be freed, Spike wants Drusilla
restored, etc. We can see that although from 'our' perspective, their ends, and the means they use to
achieve them, are 'wrong', for 'them' they are natural, necessary. To appreciate the perspective of the
'other' does not mean to share it. And often, the human 'other'- Amy's mother, the Coach, Snyder - is
shown to be more alien, less comprehensible, more 'other.'
(This is why, imo, the 'Buffyverse' can be both morally relativistic, and morally absolutist, without
being inconsistent. The 'graying' of the 'Buffyverse' is not the rules being changed, it is 'our'
perspective becoming more knowledgeable and aware about a complexity, or a paradox, that has
been integral from the start. In the end, practical choices often come down to 'us' or 'them.' But one
makes better decisions based on knowledge and understanding than ignorance and
assumptions...)
Anyway, back to race and the 'other'. By taking the 'demonization' of the 'others' to a literal extreme,
but still recognising their individuality, the 'Buffyverse' seems to me to transcend many of the
comfortable, traditional definitions of the 'other' which have so often supported racism and
intolerance. Particularly the idea that all we need to know is that 'they' are not 'us.'
Sometimes in the 'Buffyverse' the 'other' is 'evil', sometimes 'good' (Giles is 'other' in his Englishness,
and unashamed of it. And Angel...) Sometimes the 'other' is part of us. Buffy is 'other' and has been
becoming more so by the episode, for some time.
The threat posed by 'otherness'- to values, to certainties, to sense of self - is always acknowledged.
But neither blind hatred (I'm thinking Xander's rants mentioned above) or blind certainty (Lie To
Me)offers safety from it. The SG prevail (where necessary) by learning about the 'other' and by
acknowledging what sets them apart.(Adam would be a good eg.- Giles' arcane knowledge, Willow's
magic, Xander's everyday humanity, Buffy's Slayerness).
'Otherness' in the 'Buffyverse' threatens, but more than that, it challenges, and provides the major
impetus for the growth and maturation of the characters. Because it is not reduced to a simple
question of morality, or colour, or even humanity. Because its ambiguity as a concept is not glossed
over. Race and culture are complex issues always and everywhere. But one could argue that what is
often at issue is fear of having to define oneself. It is easier to say 'not one of them'. I like that in the
'Buffyverse' it's not enough to not be a vampire.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
"Otherness as Specialness" (Ps ROB! Comments about WTTH here) -- Rahael,
08:10:39 04/12/02 Fri
Excellent. Couldn’t agree more.
You are right about the fact that the rules haven’t changed in the Buffyverse. We have just explored
different parts of it. Whistler was always part demon – the whole ‘some demons are good’ didn’t come
as a coup de foudre.
At first sight, the demons appear to be ‘the other’. But very quickly , Mutant Enemy (does even their
name remark upon this idea?) undercut it. Who really are the ‘Other’? Even in Welcome to the
Harvest, as Darla quickly turns out to be predator rather than prey, we are specifically warned that
outward appearance deceives. Don’t trust the surface picture, ME tells us – look underneath the
surface. As if to ram this point home the very first glance we have of the demon world is when the
camera simply keeps moving downward, past the ground and into the underground caverns of
Sunnydale. The 'bad' parts of Sunnydale aren't very far away from the 'good' parts of Sunnydale
(Didn't Cordelia remark that they were only half a block away? Isn't this significant?)
I would posit that the real Other are Buffy and the Scoobies. And that Otherness is a positive
quality. To be honest, aren’t the vast horde of demons really rather homogenous? They aren’t even
original. Both Spike and Angel, time and time again remark on the numerousness of rather dull
witted and incompetent Vamps. You make a great point about their being individuals and
background people in both the ‘normal’ and the ‘demon’ world. The point is that they are mirror
images of each other. The truly original, quick witted and intelligent individuals stand out starkly
from the rest of their peers, whether this be in Sunnydale High School or in the graveyards of
Sunnydale. The crucial point, I feel, is that these worlds are not opposed but fundamentally the
same. After all, who are the Vamps originally? They were the formerly living inhabitants of
Sunnydale. These superficially ‘Others’ aren’t Others at all! They are the same!
From the moment that Cordelia insults Willow, from the moment we see that sad hurt look from her,
we know who the real ‘others’ are. When Buffy makes a decision that she cares more about being a
decent human being rather than being popular, we see the power structures of normal Sunnydale
laid bare. Isn’t this comparable to the Patriarchal power structure shown by the Master and his
minions? Both worlds are ruled by the powerful. At the same time, we see that there are many
varieties of power. There is the power accorded by privilege, tradition and custom (Snyder, Flutie,
The Master, The Annointed One). There is the power accorded by being intelligent, strong and
inventive (Spike, Buffy). There is the power accorded by being thoughtful and wise and
knowledgeable (Giles, Angel).
What do we know about Buffy? We know she is special. We know she has been marked out, chosen,
burdened. The entire story of BtVS is Buffy’s struggle to grapple with this idea. At one moment, she
acknowledges her power and her specialness; at other times she is horrified by her ‘otherness’. Time
and time again we see her marked out as not being ‘normal’. Apparently, she is the only one.
But that all changes with the appearance of Kendra, another girl who has been similarly marked
out, and then we have Faith. I think this is significant. We start to extrapolate this idea of
‘Specialness/Otherness’ towards other people. It doesn’t just reside in Buffy – all the human
characters are somehow different. Willow starts dabbling in magic. Oz is part werewolf. Giles had a
wild, dark past. Xander is a demon magnet. Angel has been cursed. By Vampire standards, he isn’t
normal. And how long is it before Spike himself is made an outcast from the Vampire community, as
Angel once was?
So who exactly is the Other? Aren’t we all strange to ourselves? Isn’t our story the same as the story
of the BtVS characters?
“You don’t know what’s to come”
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Just beautiful, Rahael. You have my fervent admiration. -- Ixchel, 17:41:39 04/12/02
Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Wonderful post, anath. I couldn't agree more. -- Ixchel, 17:26:02 04/12/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Missing? -- Sophist, 10:15:46 04/11/02 Thu
I guess it's a matter of perspective about how many minorities are on the show. After the Great Race
Debate, I've watched the reruns carefully for minority actors. There are actually quite a few, mostly
in background scenes, occasionally in minor roles, Forest and Kendra conspicuous. No SG members,
of course. "Missing" doesn't seem to be quite the right word.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Whoa...cool. Agree -- shadowkat, 11:44:06 04/11/02 Thu
I see that too - the bit about the black population
being represented by vampires. Did you see the episode
of Angel this year where Gunn's old gang went demon/vamp hunting for sport? It reminded me a lot
of KKK metaphors.
Thank you on the book reminder - I had heard of it but couldn't remember it. Guiner 's
a lawyer by the way - written some good constitutional
litigation essays - that I vaguely remember reading way back in law school. You're right - she could
barely get a word in over the comic, Maher and poor JM.
Wrenching back to the vamp topic - I've been seeing prejudice metaphors crop up a lot this year on
both shows - but it's not just about vamps, it's all demons, and the show seems to be making the
same point Guiner was trying to make last night - you can't put race neatly in a box. JM
and the comic and Maher wanted to do that. It's easier.
No more than you can put all vamps in a box - I sort of try
to address that in my Angel/Spike analysis above (quoted you up there by the way). That all
vamps are different. They aren't the same. Their human traits color their actions. Just as all demons
are different. The problem with race - and Guiner put it very
well - if you weren't distracted by JM (which I was ...yeah
I know...) -is we want to say: these people are black, these
are hispanic, these are white, etc...yet some people may actually be a mixture of all three or even
more. The Irish
certainly are.
Here's a perfect example and I will hook this back to vamps, promise: This past week a friend of
mine was shocked
to learn I was raised Roman Catholic - from looking at me
she assumed I was WASP, when in fact I'm a combo of Irish, German, Welsh, Beligium (french side),
Scotch Irish. No
Anglo Saxon Prostestant that I know of...we need to stop putting labels on each other. It doesn't
work. Just as our
young heros of Btvs and Atvs are finding out. Vampire doesn't necessarily equal evil, each Vampire
is different.
Just as a demon may not necessarily be evil. The boxes don't work - we need to think outside
them.
Hope this made some sense...at work, doing contracts etc
at same time *G
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Whoa...cool. Agree -- Rahael, 12:20:29 04/11/02 Thu
I guess this is something I'm never going to get.
My main problem with the argument that somehow ME are saying 'hey, don't judge people by their
physical appearance - see, at least 2 vamps aren't unremittingly evil, and therefore you shouldn't
judge people by their appearance is that they have dealt with race issues on a much more
sophisticated way on Angel (HYNOEHB). And the main proponents of the 'ambiguous/good' vamps
are Angel and Spike who are very pretty indeed. That in a way, it is easy to believe they are good
because they are beautiful on the outside.
The crucial distinction between Vampires being identifiable by their appearance and Black people
being identified by their appearance is that Vampires don't look different all the time. In fact, the
very terror they can invoke is that *they look just like you*. They could be your son, your sister or
your mother. And they can devour you. Until it is too late, you have no way of knowing that they are
different.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Whoa...cool. Agree -- shadowkat, 12:44:41 04/11/02 Thu
Which is why I think they've extended it to demons in general on both shows - the vamps by
themselves don't work metaphorically. Re-watch Hell's Bells - they do a lot
subtly with the demon prejudice metaphor and Xander's family.
You're right - Angel has been a little bit more outspoken
about it. Of Course it helps that an actual ethnic minority
is represented.
I was thinking about the episodes of Btvs and found it amusing how they tried to make it more
ethinically diverse : Season 2 - Kendra, Season 3 - Trick is introduced, doesn't survive long, Season 4
- we get the amalgated Adam, Forrest (who I was disappointed in - they could have done more with
him), some of the supporting characters like the
frat guys are actual minorities - whoa, sunnydale isn't all
white???, Olivia - Giles' girlfriend is black, Season 5 - the two slayers Spike fights are Asian and
black, Dawn's best friend at school is black, Season 6 - now we are limited to the demon analogy.
You're right - they aren't doing a great job of pulling it
off. I think they may have been attempting the whole interracial romance metaphor with S/B and
A/X on one level, but didn't pull it off or they didn't try it at all and we're reaching to see it. It's a
tough topic to pull off well.
Maybe reading race into it - is asking a bit much from the metaphor - maybe the B/S metaphor - is
more a reflection
of how society treats gay relationships? Or maybe even that's too narrow a focus - maybe it's that we
have a tendency to define people by who they are with or who we think they ought to be with, as
opposed to who they feel
makes them happy? Or that we allow others to choose who
we should be with? Not sure - see all sorts of themes
intermingled here. Makes my brain tired weeding them all out.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Whoa...cool. Agree -- leslie,
14:31:10 04/11/02 Thu
Have you ever noticed, though, that all bit-part vamps as a general rule are vamp-faced all the time?
It's only the ones who are actual characters in the plot who "pass for human." (With the exception of
the Master, that is. Though that brings up a bit of an anomaly, since it's said that he's all vamp, all
the time, because he's so old, yet as the show goes on, it's really the young vamps who tend to be
vamped all the time. The older ones--Darla, Angel, Dru, and Spike--tend to look human most of the
time.)
But I'm not talking about vampires=race based on physical appearance, really. That's the smallest
part of the metaphor. What first made me start thinking about this was wondering why I always felt
sick to my stomach whenever Xander went off on one of his anti-vamp rants, and I finally realized I
feel exactly the same way when I hear someone go off on an anti-Semitic rant (I am Jewish, in an
incredibly assimilated, nonpracticing way). Vampires do not make a good comparison to Jews in
American society (at least not in this century), but when I started listening with my ear tuned to
that frequency, it seemed to me that the rhetoric against vampires sounded awfully (awful-ly) like
pre-Civil-Rights rhetoric against blacks in America. Which, by the way, was frequently characterized
as "demonization" of blacks.
Again, I'm also not saying that this is the sum total of what vampires are about in the Buffyverse.
But I definitely see the relationship of Spike and Buffy as an "interracial" relationship and this is
why I hope to hell it gets resolved in a way that does not re-demonize him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
It's my understanding -- Rahael, 15:03:28 04/11/02 Thu
That the bit part players are in vamp face because it's too expensive to do the CGI face morph thing
for them. Also, it takes ages to put the make up on.
But I do understand now what you are getting at. Early in the series, I was like "hang on. What are
they getting at here?" That was before I started watching somemore and realised that BtVS were
much more sophisticated than that.
Prejudice.......well prejudice all the world over uses the same language and rhetoric. Human beings
aren't that original in their hatreds.
I think we are both alarmed at the possible implication of vampire imagery here.
But I think the demon metaphor is really far more interesting than race, and so is the vampire
metaphor. And I hadn't seen Buffy and Spike as interracial. Let me think about that some
more.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: It's my understanding -- leslie,
16:06:20 04/11/02 Thu
"I think we are both alarmed at the possible implication of vampire imagery here."
Yes, it is potentially rather nauseating. However, I think it is also relevant in terms of Buffy's
understanding of what she does as a Slayer, especially in context of the law enforcement problems
dealing with race in both the US and the UK (thinking here of Rodney King on the one hand,
Stephen Lawrence on the other). For instance, I am *really* not in favor of gangs running rampant
throughout the city, and although I live in lovely whitebread Santa Monica, California, I live in the
"bad" part of town, such as it is, where there *are* gangs, and there have been gang shootings and
drive-by shootings within a block of my apartment. At the same time, I am also not in favor of
assuming that every black and Latino man between the ages of 14 and 30 is a gang member, and I
also don't like the fact that the police so often justify their racial profiling behavior on the grounds
that the law must be kept at all costs. (And we won't go into the whole notion of the criminalization
of drugs leading to the criminalization of society.) The Rampart scandal here in LA basically
illustrated that under the right--or wrong--circumstances, the police become just another gang, it's
just that they're the Establishment's gang. There has to be some balance between a need to prevent
danger and violence terrorizing society as a whole, and maintaining human integrity. Which is
increasingly Buffy's problem, as she starts to see vampires as persons, rather than simply
monsters.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
P.I. is always like that; JM's not usually so shout-y -- Valhalla, 21:36:07 04/12/02
Fri
I don't watch Politically Incorrect for just the reason you were frustrated -- ugh! -- lots of talking over
each other, no subtlety, blah blah blah. (Which is why I love this board! Lots of delving. Rampant
subtlety. Copious humor.)
I've seen a couple of interviews with JM and he was nothing like he was on PI - he's very thoughtful
and interesting.
I was just glad, given that PI is all over the place and loud all of the time, that JM really put his
opinion out there.
BtVS, AtS, and the Mysterious forces of
Good, pt I (longish, but you guys can take it) -- Masquerade, 23:16:02 04/09/02
Tue
The Powers that Be have been around since day one, episode one of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Of
course, they weren't called the "Powers that Be" then. They weren't called anything. But they were
part of my web page long before "Angel the Series" started. I called them "The mysterious powers for
Good" back then (or MG, for short).
o The Chosen One
The most obvious evidence of these mysterious powers is embedded in a quote by Giles in Welcome to
the Hellmouth:
"Into each generation a Slayer is born, one girl in all the world, a Chosen One, one born with the
strength and skill to hunt the vampires..."
We can all debate what a "generation" means, but one thing we can't debate: Buffy is the Chosen
One. Chosen by whom? Who called the First Slayer? Who decided which girls would be the Slayers
after that? Watchers don't choose them, watchers just find them. And Buffy certainly didn't
choose:
"God, you act like I picked this gig. But remember, I'm the picked!" --What's My Line
This certainly falls under the purview of the "Powers that Be". We know from A:tS that one of their
main interests is helping humanity defend itself against malevolent demons. This is, in fact, Buffy's
"sacred duty".
o Whistler
I have put forth other evidence of the
mysterious ways of the MG's in Buffy Seasons 1-3, but the next significant piece of evidence from
those Seasons is Whistler. When we met Whistler, we'd never heard of "good" demons before. But
Joss created one.
Did Whistler decide out of the goodness of his own heart to track down a filthy loser souled vampire
in a Manhattan alleyway, or was he sent?
Buffy says to him in Becoming, pt 2 "What are you, just some immortal demon sent down to even the
score between good and evil?"
Whistler: "Wow. Good guess."
Clever, that Buffy. I wonder who bequeathed her with psychic insights and dreams on top of her
slayer fighting skills.
So, it's quite conceivable that the MG's noticed the preternaturally strong souled vampire wandering
the Earth lost and useless, and decided, "Hey, potential Warrior for Good!" and sent a supernatural
agent of good to Angel to put him on a new path.
The new path started with sending Angel to Buffy, who would motivate him to become a Warrior of
Good. Or maybe that was just Whistler's plan. Certainly no one counted on Angel and Buffy falling
in love and doing what comes naturally and turning Angel evil. As Whistler put it, "Nobody saw you
coming."
So who's "Nobody", do you suppose?
Well, the MG's aren't omniscient or omnipotent. In "Birthday," when Cordelia says to Skip, another
demon intermediary of the MG's, "I thought the Powers That Be knew everything," Skip says, "Life
and death, that sort of thing, they got a handle on. Who someone chooses to love, well, that's just
good old free will."
o Restoring Angel's soul
So Angel goes bad, Buffy sends him to hell, and-- Oh wait, right before he goes to hell, Angel's soul is
restored by Willow trying her very first spell ever. Beginner's luck? Well, most people don't
believe that. She was possessed by something. Something that wanted Angel good. A lot of people
said, "Jenny's spirit". But we are given no evidence for this. Jenny's spirit just pops up at the right
time and helps Willow? Talk about your deux ex machina.
But in retrospect, we know of one very powerful force that wanted Angel good again, and that's the
MG's. They wanted their Warrior back. How could they know Buffy would have to dispatch him
shortly afterwards? Life is full of unanticipated turns.
o Angel's return from hell
Which brings us to "Faith, Hope and Trick". At the end of the episode, a portal appears in the
Garden Mansion and Angel falls through. A lot of people were disappointed in how easily Angel came
back. Where the heck did that convenient portal come from, right when Buffy was about to get on
with her life? Well, from Joss, of course. He likes to make Buffy's life miserable.
But there are other answers. The First Evil being a big contender. No, I don't mean me. :) I mean
that Jenny-looking primal malevolence from "Amends" who tempts Angel with feasting on Buffy and
going evil:
Jenny: This is what you are. This is why we brought you back. Take her! And then you'll be ready
...to kill her.
O.K., so everybody in the TV audience nods and smiles. The First Evil brought Angel back. C'mon,
people, a malevolent evil takes claim for this and you just buy it? Hello, evil!
Angel certainly doesn't believe this. He believes a force for good brought him back, as he explains in
"In the Dark" before he destroys the Gem of Amarra so he can go back to helping the helpless in the
night:
Angel: "I was brought back for a reason, Doyle, and as much as I would like to kid myself, I don’t
think it was for 18 holes at Rancho."
Stay tuned for part 2
[>
BtVS, AtS, and the Mysterious forces of Good, pt II -- Masq, 23:18:11 04/09/02 Tue
o Amends
Amends is an important episode in bringing us evidence for the MG's for another reason, too. Angel
decides he won't let the First Evil tempt him back into being Angelus, and to foil the First Evil's
plan, he decides to kill himself. Well, you can imagine the MG's, who want their Warrior for Good,
aren't going to stand around while this happens. And they don't. When Buffy fails to convince Angel
to live, a miracle happens.
Sweatydale, which is a hundred degrees in the shade in December, sees an actual snowfall. One that
carpets the ground. In Southern California. Just as Angel waits for the sun to rise and incinerate
him, the sky is dark with clouds for a day. Says Joss,
"The snow was good... was it God? Well, I'm an atheist, but it's hard to ignore the idea of a
"Christmas miracle" here... The fact it, the Christian mythos has a powerful fascination to me, and it
bleeds into my storytelling. Redemption, hope, purpose, Santa, these all are important to me,
whether I believe in an afterlife or some universal structure or not. I certainly don't mind a strictly
Christian interpretation being placed on this ep by those who believe that -- I just hope it's not
limited to that (joss, Dec 15 22:17 1998).
Maybe not Christian, but a higher power intervening? Certainly.
o General Point
OK, pause for a general point here. I realize that almost all these examples have to do with Angel.
But the point is, they're on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Angel from both shows is sort of a Job or a
Saul from the Bible. A sinner that God just won't leave alone.
So what about Buffy? Why isn't she plagued by the MG's? Well, Buffy is already Chosen. From birth.
She was born with her skills nascent in her. She had a built in group to guide her, the Watchers. The
MG's have created thousands of Slayers. Buffy's "theology", if she even has one, certainly
acknowledges she was Chosen. And that her duty is "sacred". In times of trouble, she may go to the
source of her own power, as represented by the First Slayer, or the Slayer's Guide, but what is the
source of these things?
Angel, on the other hand, Angel was just sort of this random guy who happened to get turned into a
vampire and happened to be cursed by gypsies. To get him on their team, the MG's needed to
intervene just a little. Show him his path, and send him a vision-person to remind him of his path
when he is tempted to going back to Joe Grouchy Souled Vampire.
o Buffy and the Powers
O.K., so Angel goes to Los Angeles and Buffy stays in Sunnydale and never a reference to the MG's
escapes Buffy's lips after that. Right? Well, not exactly. In "I Will Remember You", Buffy's right
there, talking about them:
Buffy: "Right. You spoke to the Oracles and they said you were cured for good. But how do we know
that they really speak for the Powers? I mean they [the Oracles]* could be pranksters."
There's our Buffy, talking about the Powers That Be. Now some of you will have clever theories
about how when Buffy traveled to LA she also traveled to the alternate dimension where "Angel the
Series" takes place, where there are PTB's and good demons and Angel's always the subject of
prophecies.
Well, the PTB's were in Sunnydale long before "IWRY", and so were good demons, like Whistler, the
graveyard demon in "Enemies", and maybe even *gasp* Spike is becoming good. Oh, but you're right
about the prophecy thing, 'cause of course, Buffy was never the subject of ancient prophecies. Except
that oh, right, she was.
Imagining that Angel the Series happens in another dimension is unnecessary. And it's boring. Just
because there hasn't been a cross-over episode in a while doesn't mean there's a dimensional portal
on that two-hour-to-Neiman-Marcus trip south (or between Willow's phone calls to Angel
Investigations). It's no fun to think our warriors who were once all together aren't fighting on their
prospective fronts in the same world (and state!) plagued by all those evils.
o *The Oracles, et al.
In Buffy's quote above where she mentions the Powers, she also talks about their intermediaries, the
Oracles. And listen carefully to this, people: The Oracles are NOT the PTB's. We have never met
the PTB's. All we have met are their intermediaries. And a nasty lot they've been sometimes.
Doyle makes this clear in "I Will Remember You":
Angel: "I want to speak to the Powers-That-Be."
Doyle: "Woah, woah, woah! That's easier said then done, bud. The Powers-That-Be don't live in our
reality. You have to approach them through channels. Dangerous channels."
All we have met are channels: The Oracles, like the Oracle at Delphi, speak for the god, they are not
themselves the god.
Nor were the Conduit in "Birthday", those disembodied voices that batted Angel around while he
tried to save Cordelia-in-a-coma. Intermediaries folks, not the Powers themselves. And Skip and that
Valet who gave Angel those tests in "The Trial" were certainly not PTB's.
The Mysterious forces for Good are as mysterious as they have ever been. Sending signs, visions, and
guides to vampires with souls and Slayers alike.
Masq
All quotes from Psyche's transcripts
[> [>
Killin a tree here, get back to you.......:):) -- Rufus, 23:32:54 04/09/02 Tue
[> [> [>
That makes two of us...! -- shadowkat, 07:24:22 04/10/02 Wed
[> [>
I agree with you completely! -- Rob, 05:09:44 04/10/02 Wed
First off, I have to thank you for posting this. I've always thought the same about the PTB or MG
being on "Buffy" and "Angel," but I'm so glad you assembled so much proof for your analysis. (It will
be very helpful for my annotations!)
Here are my two favorite things you wrote:
"O.K., so everybody in the TV audience nods and smiles. The First Evil brought Angel back. C'mon,
people, a malevolent evil takes claim for this and you just buy it? Hello, evil!"
and
"Imagining that Angel the Series happens in another dimension is unnecessary. And it's boring. Just
because there hasn't been a cross-over episode in a while doesn't mean there's a dimensional portal
on that two-hour-to-Neiman-Marcus trip south (or between Willow's phone calls to Angel
Investigations). It's no fun to think our warriors who were once all together aren't fighting on their
prospective fronts in the same world (and state!) plagued by all those evils."
I agree. Has some sort of "dimensional portal" been crossed when "Buffy" moved to UPN? And I don't
believe either that the rules on "Angel" are any different than those on "Buffy." They may focus on
different issues at times, and "Angel" may invoke TPTB on a more regular basis, but that doesn't
mean they aren't present on "Buffy." And your explanation was great...
"So what about Buffy? Why isn't she plagued by the MG's? Well, Buffy is already Chosen. From
birth. She was born with her skills nascent in her. She had a built in group to guide her, the
Watchers. The MG's have created thousands of Slayers. Buffy's "theology", if she even has one,
certainly acknowledges she was Chosen. And that her duty is "sacred". In times of trouble, she may
go to the source of her own power, as represented by the First Slayer, or the Slayer's Guide, but what
is the source of these things?
"Angel, on the other hand, Angel was just sort of this random guy who happened to get turned into a
vampire and happened to be cursed by gypsies. To get him on their team, the MG's needed to
intervene just a little. Show him his path, and send him a vision-person to remind him of his path
when he is tempted to going back to Joe Grouchy Souled Vampire."
I am SO printing this one out!
Rob
[> [>
Re: BtVS, AtS, and the Mysterious forces of Good, pt II -- Rattletrap, 05:27:04 04/10/02
Wed
Great job, Masq. Major KABOOM here.
You could also cite Giles' conversation with the oracles in the graveyard in "The Zeppo" as evidence
of the PtB (or MG or whatever) in Buffy. That conversation certainly fits with Doyle's
description of "dangerous channels," but it does seem to be a link to the powers. I'm also curious to
hear your take on the spirit guide in "Intervention." In your opinion does this qualify?
[> [> [>
Re: BtVS, AtS, and the Mysterious forces of Good, pt II -- Masq, 09:21:10 04/10/02
Wed
Yes, in fact I mentioned it in the essay. I think I called it the "Slayer Guide" because Giles said it
was specifically for Slayers. I failed to cite the episode, "Intervention", but yes.
I wasn't so sure about the Spirit guides. The metaphysics of these entities is a little fuzzy. People in
real life often talk about having spirit guides, and I guess they mean this in a spiritual/religious
guide sense, but how closely are these beings related to God in their beliefs? I don't know much about
it, so I deliberately left it out.
[> [> [> [>
Masq, have you ever read Carlos Casteneda? -- OnM, 17:38:30 04/10/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Masq, have you ever read Carlos Casteneda? -- Masq, 17:58:14 04/10/02 Wed
I remember not liking him much, but I was reading him from a philosophical point of view. I'm sure
there are more literary virtues in his favor. Care to offer any for instances?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Carlos Casteneda - call for essays? -- OnM, 18:59:14 04/10/02 Wed
Actually it was the philosophical aspects that intrigued me, since at the time I read the first four
books (The 'real' ones IMO, the later stuff didn't really bring anything new to the table, and just
seemed like chaff on the wheat, or maybe sand on the peyote to me) I was trying to seek out some
fresh, non-Western perspectives on 'reality'.
I was in my late teens / early 20's when I read 'The Teachings of Don Juan - A Yaqui Way of
Knowledge', and having only aquaintance with Western or Eastern philosophies/mythologies, seeing
a Native American perspective filtered through the experiences of a 'modern' Western mind was
fascinating.
I would have to read the books again to comment effectively in detail, and finding the time to do in
the near future might be difficult. I'd be very happy to see any other posters who are conversent in
Castaneda to contribute an essay or three. ;-)
I do recall that one of the primary lessons Don Juan ( a Yaqui 'sorcerer' or 'shaman') tried to teach
Castaneda was to stop connecting to the world with his normal senses, and learn to use others that
were available, but 'ignored' by most non-Native American cultures. The whole scene with Buffy in
the desert with the spirit guide (and it's animal familiar) really suggested Castaneda to me, just sort
of a 'feel', like the writer has paid an homage to him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Actually, Claire on "Six Feet Under" was reading Castenada's "Don
Juan" last season! -- Rob, 19:05:14 04/10/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Carlos Casteneda - call for essays? -- Rufus, 01:05:48 04/11/02 Thu
I do recall that one of the primary lessons Don Juan ( a Yaqui 'sorcerer' or 'shaman') tried to
teach Castaneda was to stop connecting to the world with his normal senses, and learn to use others
that were available, but 'ignored' by most non-Native American cultures. The whole scene with Buffy
in the desert with the spirit guide (and it's animal familiar) really suggested Castaneda to me, just
sort of a 'feel', like the writer has paid an homage to him.
Ooooo you also see Buffy stop her connection to the real world and go within herself....at the end of
B2 when Angelus tries to strike a fatal blow and she stops the blade between her hands. As that
moment she understood, she was all she had and to let go of all she was trying so desperately to
hang onto, Angel, his love, his unlife..to win she had to let go. She revisited that type of moment
again in The Gift when she understood what she needed to do to save her sister and the world. She
then had to let go of her life. Why are the PTB's sending her these lessons?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The question is... -- OnM, 06:04:26 04/11/02 Thu
...are the PTB 'sending' her the lessons, or are they arranging the surrounding circumstances so that
she is forced into a position of reaching into herself and bringing out what is already within?
Casteneda's biggest difficulty was that he kept insisting on replacing his own 'conventional' (that is,
Western, 'scientific') world view for the one Don Juan was trying to show him existed. As such, he
only had fleeting contacts with the sorcerer's alternate means of perception.
A lot of readers mistakenly thought that the books were some kind of celebration of the 'drug culture'
of the 60's, but the peyote and other substances, when they were used, were meant to be used as
tools to increase awareness of reality, not distance oneself from it. For Don Juan and his
people, there were layers to reality, and some of them required great mental or physical effort to
attain an accurate perception of.
BTW, agree completely that the scene from Becoming was a perfect example of what I
mean.
[> [>
Pet Theory Perspective (Speculative Spoilers) -- Darby, 05:39:43 04/10/02 Wed
Just want to chime in and say that "Good" is a relative term. There really has been no evidence that
we are not seeing manipulation by the behind-the-scenes "Powers" in a great demon war. Yes, this is
my pet theory and it periodically needs to be walked.
On one side, vampires (the supposed only holdovers from the First Expulsion) and various take-over-
the-world schemers; on the other, an anti-vampire faction who wants the world preserved until they
can get their claws into it. Humans and those interested in human lives (our heroes / Champions,
Wolfram & Hart, etc.) are just pawns on the board.
There seems to be a consensus that, somewhere down the road, we're wheeling toward some massive
rumble with the demons. What better way to precipitate it - and continue the blurrings-of-the-lines
that have become a staple of both series - than to pull our heroes into a battle where they don't really
want either side to win, but must pick a side, even temporarily, to have any chance at all?
[> [> [>
Re: Pet Theory Perspective (Speculative Spoilers) -- Masq, 09:24:35 04/10/02 Wed
I just hope we get to see this some day. They got a bit into the mythology of the origins of demons on
BtVS--once were on Earth, were driven out, want to come back and claim it and destroy human
life.
On AtS, they keep talking about the "coming cataclysm". Now that can't have that any time soon, or
I imagine the series would have to end. But it'd be interesting to see it. And I'd be a bit unhappy if
the Slayer wasn't there.
[> [> [>
Darby, interesting theory. Strange thought here, PtB = Angel's CoW? -- Ixchel,
15:01:01 04/10/02 Wed
[> [> [>
Re: Pet Theory Perspective (Speculative Spoilers)- umm Do we hear Buffy Movie here --
Dochawk, 14:50:38 04/11/02 Thu
Funny, I have ahd the same thoughts. I always thought this was going to be teh Buffy movie. Much
bigger than the original. And in my vision I always see Faith returning, redeemed, sacrificing
herself to save Buffy, who ends the battle self-actualized and understanding.
[> [>
Thanks! -- verdantheart, 06:26:51 04/10/02 Wed
[> [>
Re: BtVS, AtS, and the Mysterious forces of Good, pt II -- Cactus Watcher, 06:51:05
04/10/02 Wed
Nice to have a special essay directly from the board's own PTI (Power That Is).
I pretty much agree with everything. I do however believe that there is, in fact, a difference of
vocabulary between BtVS and Ats. The universes if not exactly the same are certainly compatable,
and run much the same. But, neither Buffy nor Angel nor anyone else, I can remember, has
mentioned the PTB on BtVS. I think this is significant. It's not that the PTB don't exist on BtVS,
but rather that their relative influence is felt more on Angel. Buffy was chosen and once having
been chosen she was pretty much on her own, from the point of view of the MG. If she wins this
battle, great. If she loses and dies, well, choose another girl and move on. But, Angel isn't part of
that chain of events. He too is chosen, but if he dies there is no Angel-in-waiting to take his place.
Buffy is (at least, I believe) an exceptional slayer, one more successful than even the MG hoped. She
really owes them nothing, and since she seems still fated to die fighting in the end, there is nothing
they can offer her more than the peace she felt the last time she died. Angel on the other hand, has
something to gain. The PTB have through prophecy promised him that he will be forgiven for the evil
done while he was Angelus, and further more the PTB will restore his life, giving him the chance to
start again. Angel needs to relate to the PTB. Essentially, they have given him much and promise
more for doing their work. Buffy on the other hand, does need to relate to them. She has been
virtually cursed by the MG. She is doomed and it is only her own conscience and inner good that
keeps her fighting on their side. Buffy is good because she has always been part of the world. She
does need PTB to know what she is fighting for. Angel desperately wants to get back to being part
the world. His future is still in the hands of the PTB. He must have a closer relationship with them.
It is signifcant also that given a chance to take shortcuts back to life, Angel has chosen to make the
long hard fight.
[> [> [>
Important correction -- CW, 06:55:34 04/10/02 Wed
I meant to say Buffy does not need the PTB to know what she is fighting for.
[> [> [>
Buffy's spiritual crisis -- Masq, 09:33:46 04/10/02 Wed
"Buffy was chosen and once having been chosen she was pretty much on her own, from the point of
view of the MG. If she wins this battle, great. If she loses and dies, well, choose another girl and
move on. But, Angel isn't part of that chain of events. "
Exactly one of my points. The PTB's have followed Angel around since 1996, trying to get his
attention. Buffy is already loyal to her duty, even if she complains about it from time to time.
"I meant to say Buffy does not need the PTB to know what she is fighting for.."
Oh, I think she does. This is SOOO needed. I see Buffy's crisis this season as in part a spiritual one.
Yanked out of heavenly bliss to the cold, cruel world to yet another heart-breaking fight with evil.
One could argue (although I don't think ME will go in this direction) that what Buffy needs is a
spiritual/religious experience that affirms her place in the world and that acknowledges her
responsibility to her duties. She needs a good visit by an intermediary of the powers that made her,
or the Powers themselves, to help her on the way to healing.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Buffy's spiritual crisis -- Sophist, 10:56:45 04/10/02 Wed
Hmm. Now I'm not sure I'm following you Masq. Maybe I'm not sure what you have in mind for a
"spiritual experience" that "affirms her place in the world, etc."
Here's how I see it. When Angel first accepted his role as Champion in Los Angeles, he did so
because he was looking for a reward at the end. This eventually proved insufficient for him and he
underwent a crisis. He recovered from the crisis (Epiphany) when he decided that he could
act for good not because of the promised reward, but because people didn't deserve to suffer the way
they were.
I think Angel's crisis and epiphany are inescapable. There is not much nobility in being good because
you've been promised a nummy treat at the end. True goodness involves doing good for its own
sake.
Buffy's behavior was always more noble than the pre-Epiphany Angel, precisely because she never
expected any reward. Her only reward for doing good was the doing of it. The classic example of this
is Prophecy Girl.
I (we) don't know yet the precise nature of Buffy's crisis this year, and we don't know how it will
resolve. It may very well be that it stems from getting a reward she never expected, leading her to
wonder now why she should have to do it all over again. If this is the source of her crisis, then she
can only resolve it by regaining her original sense of purpose.
The existence of PtB, like the existence of God in Christianity, creates 2 related problems. One is
that of fatalism -- why not let God fix things? The other is that of doing good for the sake of reward
as discussed above. It seems to me that introducing the PtB more explicitly into BtVS might
exacerbate Buffy's crisis rather than ameliorate it. For me, the show works better without
them.
[> [> [> [> [>
Great post! -- ponygirl, 11:13:26 04/10/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
Excellent post, Sophist. I agree. -- Ixchel, 14:56:27 04/10/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
Good for its own sake. -- CW, 18:22:53 04/10/02 Wed
Ideally, true good is, as you say, its own reward. Unfortunately, Buffy has found after 5+ years of
fighting evil, that it isn't enough. She's going through the motions and feels trapped. The same
thing could happen to Angel even after his epiphany. Sometimes it is important to believe you are
working toward something.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Buffy's spiritual crisis -- Rufus, 23:09:29 04/10/02 Wed
I (we) don't know yet the precise nature of Buffy's crisis this year, and we don't know how it will
resolve. It may very well be that it stems from getting a reward she never expected, leading her to
wonder now why she should have to do it all over again. If this is the source of her crisis, then she
can only resolve it by regaining her original sense of purpose.
I think Buffy has been in an evolving crisis that has been resolved as she begins to appreciate the
experience of living and interacting with others in the real world...Buffy the Buffy that clawed out of
her own grave was reborn. In that rebirth she had to start from a new place, one not of clarity, but
emotional confusion. In Afterlife we get to see her first disclosure to Spike of why she seems so
numb...From the transcript of Afterlife...
BUFFY: I'm here. I'm good.
SPIKE: (walks back to her) Buffy, if you're in ... if you're in pain ... or if you need anything... or if I
can do anything for you...
BUFFY: (looks down at her lap) You can't.
SPIKE: Well, I haven't been to a hell dimension just of late, but I do know a thing or two about
torment.
He sits beside her.
BUFFY: (still looking down) I was happy.
Spike looks at her in confusion.
BUFFY: Wherever I ... was ... I was happy. At peace.
Spike stares, shocked.
BUFFY: I knew that everyone I cared about was all right. I knew it. Time ... didn't mean
anything ... nothing had form ... but I was still me, you know? (glances at him, then away) And I was
warm ... and I was loved ... and I was finished. Complete. I don't understand about theology or
dimensions, or ... any of it, really ... but I think I was in heaven.
Spike continues to stare at her in dismay.
BUFFY: And now I'm not. (almost tearful) I was torn out of there. Pulled out ... by my
friends. (Spike continues staring, listening) Everything here is ... hard, and bright, and violent.
Everything I feel, everything I touch ... this is Hell. Just getting through the next moment, and the
one after that ... (softly) knowing what I've lost...
She looks up, realizes Spike is still there. She looks uncomfortable, gets up.
She walks just to the line where the shadows become sunlight, and pauses, but doesn't turn back to
face Spike.
BUFFY: They can never know. Never.
She still doesn't look back at him, just continues walking into the sunlight.
Buffy was happy, death had been her gift, she was finished fighting a fight that weighed heavily
upon her soul. That feeling of happiness wasn't associated with a person, just a state of warmth and
love. Then like a child is expelled from it's mother, she was compelled to claw her way back into a
cold, hard life. Buffy has to grow up all over again, relearn the joy of living, even if it's as a slayer.
Her subsequent actions have shown Buffy growing up. It's painful to watch someone not enjoy living,
and it's in Gone that she finds that she has jumped that first hurdle by being afraid of becoming
nothing....
WILLOW: How are you doing, post-invisibleness?
BUFFY: (shrugs) Okay. I still have to do some damage control from my giddy-fest. Dawn was pretty
freaked out. (pauses) The whole taking-a-vacation-from-me thing didn't work out so well.
WILLOW: (nods) Tell me about it.
BUFFY: Except ... when I got Xander's message ... you know, that I was ... fading away ... I actually
got scared.
WILLOW: Well, yeah. Who wouldn't?
BUFFY: Me. I wouldn't. Not too long ago I probably would have welcomed it. But I realized ... I'm
not saying that I'm doing back-flips about my life, but... (nods) I didn't ... I don't ... wanna die. (looks
hopefully at Willow) That's something, right?
WILLOW: It's something.
Buffy went from Going Through the motions to accepting that she is here, now. It may be a small
thing but at least she isn't a person with a death wish. Buffy thought that she had gotten a gift a
reward for the pain of letting go in The Gift. Btw...I also see the hand of the PTB's in Buffy's return.
Willow is very powerful, but somehow I think that if Buffy were meant to stay dead, nothing Willow
did would have changed that. Unless we ended up with brain-eating-zombie-Buffy. Nope, there is a
reason Buffy is back, and there is a reason that it's now.
You think you know ... what's to come ... what you are. You haven't even begun.
Buffy is beginning to find out who she is. But her life isn't like a box with a toy surprise inside, she
will have to work hard to find out what she is and what's to come.
The existence of PtB, like the existence of God in Christianity, creates 2 related problems. One is
that of fatalism -- why not let God fix things? The other is that of doing good for the sake
of reward as discussed above. It seems to me that introducing the PtB more explicitly into BtVS
might exacerbate Buffy's crisis rather than ameliorate it. For me, the show works better without
them.
Buffy has asked before from Whistler why the PTB's didn't get off their collective ass and help
out...she did that in Becoming 2...
Buffy: (steps up to him) Well, why don't you try getting off your
immortal ass and fighting evil once in a while? 'Cause I'm sick and
tired of doing it myself.
Whistler: In the end, you're always by yourself. You're all you've got.
That's the point.
Buffy: (disgusted) Spare me. (starts to leave)
Whistler: The sword isn't enough. You gotta be ready. (raises his
voice) You gotta know how to use it!
I take that last line to go for every crisis Buffy gets into, she won't be able to fix it unless she finds
that place within herself to figure out how to use whatever tool she uses to save the day. The PTB's
seem to have rules that even they have to follow, and ME hasn't printed that rule book anywhere I
know of. I don't see there being much of a problem with Buffy sicking around waiting for God to do
stuff for her, because she already found out the only way to get things done is do it yourself. The
PTB's are all around in Buffy, but because the heroine is full of love, they have less reason to lend
much of a helping hand.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Buffy's spiritual crisis -- CW, 17:55:59 04/10/02 Wed
If I were writing the story I'd do it your way, Masq. But, Joss doesn't do things the way I would. I
have the feeling that for Joss, Buffy is more of a 'humanist' fighter for good. The fact that she went
to heaven, and still in your opinion (and mine), she could use a spiritual/religious experience, leads
me to believe that no visit from intermediaries for the PTB could help her within Joss' vision. To do
so would go against everything we've seen. If heaven, itself, isn't proof enough of what she is
fighting for, what can the Whedon/Greenwalt PTB do to change her mind? Rather than give her a
'divine' reason for going on, I think once again the defence of her friends and loved ones will
eventually be the reason she will 'snap out of it.'
[> [> [> [> [>
You're right... -- Masq, 18:01:05 04/10/02 Wed
that Buffy's central motivator, the thing that gets her going every time, is friends, family, and the
innocent. On an intense, emotional level.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Has Buffy's 'job' had an intersection with 'The Peter Principle'? -- OnM, 19:16:45
04/10/02 Wed
The common (and I think technically misunderstood) statement of the Peter Principle is:
'In the workplace, each individual rises to his/her particular level of incompetance'.
In fact, I believe what is actually meant by this is that an individual will not get promoted should
they find themselves in the unfortunate position of being extremely good at doing something.
A 'file clerk', for example, who is superb at file-clerking will never get a better job even if he loathes
the work, because his superiors think that they will never get anyone else to replace him.
Is Buffy 'stuck' as a Slayer because she's so damn good at it?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Actually, didn't Buffy up and promote herself in "Checkpoint"..... -- Rufus,
20:48:42 04/10/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Has Buffy's 'job' had an intersection with 'The Peter Principle'? -- d'Herblay,
20:59:11 04/10/02 Wed
Actually, I think that the Peter Principle has been technically understood. The principle states: in a
hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their "level of
incompetence." In a hierarchically structured administration: an important qualifier. It
evokes the time when the principle was formulated, 1969, when job security was strong, when people
expected to join companies and spend the rest of their working lives there, when gold watches at
retirement parties were common, when over 60% of this nation's population was excluded de
facto from the hierarchies, when CEOs were found in-house rather than hired away from other
companies.
Laurence J. Peter was trying to explain why there seemed to be so many incompetent people at high
business levels; his work was as much a piece of humorism as it was a work of sociology. The
mechanism is simple: all ranks in a business administration are filled from below (it was a different
time); people who do well will be promoted to higher ranks; bureaucratic inertia causes a reluctance
to demote or to fire (it was another time), so people who don't do well will stay at the same level. In
other words, if you're not getting promoted, you've found your level of incompetence. It's a simple
enough formula to have evolutionary
applications.
The Scooby Gang is no hierarchy, but I suppose some could see this principle at work here. Willow
was so good at being research girl that she was promoted to pencil-floating witch-in-training; she
was good at this so she was promoted to kick-ass Wicca; she was finally in a role she couldn't handle.
Jonathan was good at being the nebbishy burr-in-Buffy's-side. Now he finds himself with the title of
Sunnydale Crime Lord and he can't walk the walk. Buffy may have found that there is no chance to
move up for someone filling the Slayer position, but some would say that she's been promoted to
resurrected-messianic-figure status. Some others might say she's not handling that too well.
[> [> [> [>
No fruit for Buffy... -- Eric, 11:10:47 04/14/02 Sun
In one particular ep Buffy is discussing with Angel her mom's MOO preoccupation. Joyce had told
her that Slaying was "fruitless", that the big bads keep coming back. Angel replies victory alone was
not the point. They fight because what they fight for is worth preserving. Angel got it intellectually.
Buffy always has instinctually.
[> [>
Re: BtVS, AtS, and the Mysterious forces of Good, pt II -- ponygirl, 07:13:31 04/10/02
Wed
That was great Masq! The two series definitely seem to have different philosophies, but they are
certainly not incompatible. Rather as you note the PTB/MGs seem to tailoring their approach to
each set of circumstances. Buffy seems to work better with a hands-off approach, she will get the job
done through her own sense of responsibility, but she rails against prophecies and destinies. She is
accepting of her duty but never in the prescribed way, she can usually find the option b in any locked
in prophecy.
Angel on the other hand seems to require a bit more structure. Even when he's defying the Powers
he seems to like having something to rail against, be they oracles or demons. His approach is
definitely more personal, and the PTBs encourage that - naming him in prophecies and the like.
Perhaps this sense of his own individual importance is what Angel requires to continue the
fight.
[> [> [>
Angel's importance for the PtB -- Heinaki, 07:48:25 04/10/02 Wed
Well put, but have you thought that maybe Angel's (PtB-encouraged) sense of individual importance
comes from the fact that he is, from the PtB's point of view, a more important individual than Buffy?
I personally think that PtB are more interested in Angel's well-being.
Think about it: Buffy has died twice, but higher forces never intervened to bring her back (unless you
consider Xander or Willow higher forces, of course). Angel is sent to hell and presto! A magical portal
drops him right out! OK, maybe a few hundred years late (perspective, people) but still.
All the prophecies that are written about the Slayer are just that, prophecies about the Slayer
not specific prophecies about Buffy. Angel gets his name in the prophecies (unless you know other
souled vamps and no, Spike doesn't count) and a very own vision girl.
I guess the PtBs may be controlling Buffy's life in a more indirect way, but they never
intervene directly. The reason is obvious: She can easily be replaced. Angel can't. The Powers can't
just magically create a centuries-old souled fighter vamp with a brooding problem out of nothing. It
takes centuries. Buffy's been doing a great job as the Slayer but Angel has been around since the
1700s. If I assume correctly, even Angel's vamping was probably planned by the PtB. Everything he
has done in his whole unlife has led him to where he is now. So if Angel croaks, that's 200 years of
careful planning down the drain.
Hmm. Well, it didn't come out as clearly as I meant, but the point is that as far as the Powers are
concerned, Angel is more important than a single Slayer.
[> [> [> [>
minor correction -- Masq, 09:37:52 04/10/02 Wed
"All the prophecies that are written about the Slayer are just that, prophecies about the Slayer not
specific prophecies about Buffy. Angel gets his name in the prophecies (unless you know other souled
vamps and no, Spike doesn't count) and a very own vision girl."
This isn't true. Buffy was the subject of the prophecy in "Prophecy Girl". It named the Slayer, not
Buffy, but it also named the Master, the Anointed One, and the events that happened in that
episode. It was about Buffy.
The prophecies concerning Angel refer to "a vampire with a soul" or "the father" (if that second one
even means Angel at all).
So neither Angel or Buffy get named by name. Another vampire with a soul could pop out of nowhere
and be the one who Shanshus in the end. Probably won't happen, but it could.
The prophecies about Angel are trickier than the ones about Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [>
I knew I didn't state my point clear enough... Damn. -- Heinaki, 10:12:59 04/10/02
Wed
What I was trying to say is that even though there have been prophecies that Buffy has fulfilled, any
other Slayer could have fulfilled them as well. Suppose Buffy had been killed by Lothos before she
ever arrived in Sunnydale? The prophecy you referred to might still have been realized, but instead
of Buffy it could have been Kendra or even Faith who would have been led by A1 to meet her doom in
the fangs of the Master. Of course it wasn't, but it could have been. That's my opinion
anyway.
Your right about Angel though. He isn't really named in the prophecies either but I (perhaps
foolishly?) simply assumed that there won't be any other souled vamps "popping out of nowhere" as
you put it. "The souled vampire" is certainly a more narrow definiton than "the Slayer". The
references to the father could, of course, mean someone else, but there have been enough other
prophecies and deus ex machinas in Angels unlife to prove that he is a major player from the Powers'
point of view. And I still think that his role in the "climatic end battle" is greater than Buffy's.
Thanks for the feedback though. Much appreciated.
[> [> [>
That Need Was Exemplified In... -- AngelVSAngelus, 12:27:46 04/10/02 Wed
"Loyalty," I believe the episode was titled. Angel began to doubt his own importance and
Champion-ness when the Groosalugg was capable of things he wasn't in the fight. However, Wesley
was the one to remind him that without him there would be no AI, and it was his specific nature,
that of a vampire, that allowed them to slay the demon in the end.
I think that insecurity is always something that haunts his character, and he needs that
reaffirmed from time to time. Incidentally, or maybe I should say irrelevantly, that insecurity is one
of the things I like best about him.
[> [>
Re: Cool -- Dedalus, 09:02:00 04/10/02 Wed
[> [>
Terrific! OT (A little!) -- DickBD, 11:24:11 04/10/02 Wed
That was great. (Did you do your dissertation on Buffy? :)) I meant to mention to the group here
that there was an article in my paper about different television shows going to the wide format. One
of the shows mentioned was Angel. Joss Whedon said that they were only going to do it with Angel,
not Buffy, as that was more of a soap opera. Well, naturally, I took umbrage at that and assumed
that Joss must have been misquoted or taken out of context!
I have quite a bit of catching up to do on Angel. I only started watching Buffy and Angel last year.
And the rerun of the shows on FX have been a boon to me. So I can't fairly evaluate the shows
against each other. I just think that they both are great.
And I'm beyond redemption now, as not only am I taping Buffy and archiving the episodes, I have a
file on my computer for saving quotes posted about the show, as well as dissertations upon it. This
definitely goes into it!
[> [> [>
Re: Terrific! OT (A little!) -- Masq, 12:25:31 04/10/02 Wed
"Did you do your dissertation on Buffy?"
Only if you count my website as my dissertation.
: )
[> [>
Finally someone who says its not First Evil! -- shadowkat, 19:01:41 04/10/02 Wed
I totally agree. It's been annoying me for a while all the
posts claiming the first evil brought him back. I thought
ANGEL (atvs seasons 1-2) made it pretty clear the Powers
That Be did.
Finally someone posts the truth - well the truth IMHO.
[> [>
Again very good and agree! -- shadowkat, 19:10:37 04/10/02 Wed
Always loved the name Powers That Be - basically a pseudonyme (sp?) for something we don't see,
don't know
and is in all ways mysterious but has powers over us.
I also agree with you about Btvs and Atvs being in the
same universe. They even echo each other's themes. And
they explained why Angel didn't sense her death or
the hell dimensions ripping open - he was in an alternate
universe at the time. You can fight a war on two fronts
and not see the other army. Most of WWII was like that.
I had forgotten some of the mythos about the oracles - so
thanks for the reminder.
[> [>
Redirect: "The X-Files," the conspiratorial mind-set, and the Powers that Be Behind
"Angel" -- d'Herblay, 21:57:35 04/10/02 Wed
I think the case you make for the presence of Mysterious Good forces in Sunnydale in the first three
seasons is irrefutable. I did notice, however, that you presented no evidence for Powers that Be
Chillin' in Sunny D from recent seasons. This leads me to wonder if Mysterious Good forces were not
something added to Angel but rather subtracted from Buffy. Y'know, sort of like
David Greenwalt.
I do believe, by conscious choice as much as by argument, that the shows still inhabit the same
mythology; therefore, what follows is more secular reasoning. This is the first season where there
was no crossover between the shows -- not only with actors but with the writing staff as well. (Joss is
the only person who wrote episodes of both Buffy and Angel this season and he's
hardly "staff.") Now that the shows have independent staffs, there is one striking difference between
the two. Of the five people (other than Joss) writing for Angel this season, three previously
staffed The X-Files -- Greenwalt as co-executive producer, and Jeffrey Bell and Tim Minnear
as executive story editors. Buffy's staffers have more experience in sitcoms and coming of age
dramas. Only Jane Espenson's tour of duty on Deep Space Nine constitutes any exposure to
the grand-forces-at-work-in-the-universe mind-set, and that's probably leavened by her work on
Ellen and Dinosaurs.
The X-Files is, of course, noted for its conspiracies, and I have long thought that the
conspiracy theorist and the religionist share a basic need to see higher powers controlling the world,
whether they are Mysterious forces for Good, or the Gnomes of Zurich. Correct me if I am wrong, but
I believe that David Greenwalt's Profit was similarly conspiratorially-minded. The
conspiracies David Fury was exposed to on The Jackie Thomas Show were the stuff of drama
only backstage.
Of course, the most conspiratorially-minded season on Buffy was the Initiative arc of season
four, after Greenwalt's departure. Someone more aware than I of the behind-the-scenes goings-on at
Mutant Enemy can speak as to whether or not Greenwalt had any residual influence on that
arc.
I treat the mythology as common between the shows, but I am afraid that this is becoming a matter
of choice rather than necessity. I am afraid that the divergence in the writing staff is necessitating a
divergence in approaches to myth-making. I would love to hear more possible influences of the
Powers in seasons four through six (with the caveat that the Powers shouldn't be invoked only to fill
in plot holes, so I don't want to hear conversations like, "Weapon of the gods? When did Olaf become
a Troll God?" "The Powers that Be promoted him").
[> [> [>
Re: Redirect: "The X-Files," the conspiratorial mind-set, and the Powers that Be
Behind "Angel" -- Masq, 22:32:04 04/10/02 Wed
I did site an episode, not by name, where Buffy seeks the word of a higher power, when she went to
talk to the Slayer Guide in "Intervention". Someone--CW, mm, I forget who at this point, also pointed
this out. The Slayer Guide would be a guide, an emissary of the PtB's, not one of the PTB's
themselves.
[> [> [> [>
Oops . . . missed that one -- d'Herblay, 22:38:02 04/10/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
That's okay......."love is your Gift"....;) -- Rufus, 23:47:20 04/10/02 Wed
Who's not adverse to rewards here and there.....choclate type rewards, delivered by
kittens...:):):)
[> [> [> [> [> [>
The day my cats bring me chocolate, I will be scared. : ) -- Masq, 07:44:46 04/11/02
Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
What? You haven't trained your kitties to retrieve chocolate? -- Rufus, 19:17:18
04/11/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The day I train my cats to do anything, it'll merit a national holiday -- Masq, 21:39:18
04/11/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [>
There's chocolate delivering kittens? Where?! -- VampRiley, 19:49:06 04/11/02 Thu
[> [> [>
Maybe the PTB are really David Greenwalt? ;) -- Slain, 14:28:27 04/13/02 Sat
[> [> [> [>
And the randomness of the uncaring universe is Marti Noxon . . . -- d'Herblay, 15:08:22
04/13/02 Sat
[> [>
A monkey wrench in the ointment -- Darby, 08:09:13 04/11/02 Thu
Sorry, sometimes you just gotta go with the mixy metaphor...
I'm curious, does anyone really believe that Joss' Buffyverse includes any forces that could
be considered absolute (or even close) GOOD and EVIL? It doesn't seem to fit the shows,
especially as they have developed over the last couple of years, and it definitely does not seem to jive
with those snippets of information we've gotten about Joss himself. I'm not disputing that the PTB
are acting as suggested so much as countering that they and the First Evil are merely labeled as
being on the two "sides" according to sources with their own biases (here we go into Postmodernism
again!), and I don't trust labels, especially simple ones.
My own theories aside, at some point ME will have to address just what motivates these mysterious
manipulators, and considering Joss' attitude toward any type of authority (Watchers' Council,
Initiative, Knights of Byzantium, professors, doctors, mayors, police...), don't expect that "good" will
ultimately describe any of them...
[>
Is Fate part of the PTB? -- Scroll, 07:11:47 04/10/02 Wed
I just rewatched Welcome to the Hellmouth and realised that Giles, in his second scene with Buffy,
tells her that there is a specific reason she'd been called to the Hellmouth, one greater than the fact
that she'd been expelled from Hemery and her mom had moved them to Sunnydale.
Giles: You really have no idea what's going on, do you? You think it's conincidence, your being here?
(...) It's getting worse. The influx of the undead, the supernatural occurrences, it's been building for
years. There's a reason why you're here and a reason why it's now!
I don't know if Fate is part of the PTB, but it would make sense if somehow the PTB were involved in
bringing Buffy to the Hellmouth in time to prevent the Harvest and stop the Master from rising. So
that's another example of the PTB at work in BtVS.
[> [>
Yeah, I thought of that example, too--after I posted the essay! : ) -- Masq, 09:42:36
04/10/02 Wed
[> [>
An alternate solution -- Annie, 13:09:41 04/10/02 Wed
It could have been the doing of the Watcher's Council, who knew that a confluence of events were
coming up on the Hellmouth. The Council have been shown to have vast, if not quite divine, power,
and could probably easily have made sure that Sunnydale High was "the only decent school that
would take [Buffy]", as Joyce says.
I have a theory that the PTB are actually minor players that don't wield much power over the Slayer
at all, but alas, no time to write it out:)
[> [> [>
Someone once theorized . . . -- d'Herblay, 22:13:25 04/10/02 Wed
. . . that it was the
Mayor, intent on preventing the Master from rising and threatening his control over the town.
As that someone pointed out, "The Wish" has no place for Richard Wilkins in it, and that between
the events of "The Harvest," which Buffy was essential to stopping, and those of "Prophecy Girl,"
which Buffy (or Kendra, or Faith) was essential to causing, the sensitive Principal Flutie was
replaced by the expulsion-minded Snyder.
I suppose, though, that we'll never really know.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Someone once theorized . . . -- John Burwood, 01:25:30 04/11/02 Thu
I agree you theory about the Mayor facilitating Buffy's acceptance at Sunnydale High, but that does
not necessarily exclude PTB interference. My own theory is that PTB interference on Buffy is
generally much more subtle than on ATS - Buffy's prophetic dreams (did not one in Surprise
conveniently tell her where Spike & Dru were assembling the Judge) being much vaguer normally
than Doyle/Cordy visions, and PTB intervention only becomes blunter when apocalypse threatens-
i.e. the Surprise dreams & whistler's arrival.
Examples of subtler interventions, so subtle no-one noticed it, could be Willow's spell in Becoming 2,
and my two pet theories - Xander's remarkably fortuitous recall of his soldier 'life' just when it was
needed to stop the Judge, & the astonishing success of Xander's less than expert resuscitation skills
just when needed to stop the Master.
Subtle improvisation, perchance.
Xander as unwitting agent of PTBs? I like it, at least.
[>
Thanks for putting all of this together -- Vickie, 09:30:21 04/10/02 Wed
This is fab. I very much agree. Love the Occam's razor approach to analysis.
Maybe one small quibble: the resouling is perhaps not Willow's first spell. In IOHEFY, she
researches and coordinates the exorcism that definitely has effect, if not complete success. The
resouling is still her first solo (that we see) working, and first major one that works.
[> [>
Point taken -- Masq, 09:41:29 04/10/02 Wed
My main point, though, is that Willow isn't even a fledgling witch at this point, she's not a witch at
all. She's a dabbler, and after she restores Angel's soul, she spends the summer doing spells that
accomplish little more than getting her bedspread wet.
This was just meant to address the objection that Willow succeeded with the soul-restoration
because of her innate witchy talents. Most of her talent was grown and earned by hard work over the
years and wasn't there yet at the time of the reinstatement of the curse.
[> [> [>
No! My post vanished... -- Slain,
15:33:51 04/10/02 Wed
"...She spends the summer doing spells that accomplish little more than getting her bedspread
wet."
Kind of like some of the spells she did with Tara. ;)
My previous post vanished, but basically I was saying that BtVS and AtS have the same mythology -
AtS exists within the Buffyverse, and isn't a different universe or a different mythology - it's not a
different show, it's an extension of the same show. Joss clearly wanted to make AtS starkly different
from BtVS - but I think he hasn't, because of network restrictions, but that it's all the better for
it.
I tend to think of 'the PTB' to be L.A. street slang for the Mysterious Good. The PTB is more obvious
in L.A. because there isn't the Hellmouth and general mystical convergence to get in the way.
As for Angel's relative importance, it was made clear that he isn't the mystical warrior in the
prophesies (I can't remember the official name), but is merely part of the confluence of events. We
don't know what that part is, and it may well be no bigger than Wesley's, or the rest of the Rat
Pack's (Cordy, Gunn, Fred, Lorne). Angel is a champion, whereas Buffy is the
Slayer.
It is true that at the moment Buffy is on the edge of things - but I think that has something to
do with her recent resurrection. In the eyes of the MG, is Buffy still the Slayer - is she even alive?
After Buffy died the first time, the MG seemed to stick with her; her death was temporary, her
resurrection natural and neccessary to save the world. But the second time around it wasn't - was
the heaven she was dragged from related to the MG?
[> [> [> [>
Good points. How did your post disappear? -- Worried board administrator, 15:46:46
04/10/02 Wed
[> [>
Re: Thanks for putting all of this together -- Rufus, 15:55:20 04/10/02 Wed
Maybe one small quibble: the resouling is perhaps not Willow's first spell.
It was clear in the Hospital that Willow didn't have the strength to do such a powerful spell.....she
started off in Latin and when she appeared posessed there was a different voice/voices that spoke in
Rummanian.....Willow doesn't know Rummanian.
Further to that, even Jenny didn't understand the texts she was attempting to translate. In Passions
she had to get the Orb of Thessula and for that Orb to do the job she needed translations of the text
or it was worthless....she translated the needed spell with a computer and before she could do much
more than copy to a disc, she was killed.
Willow was flying blind, she had the basics but wasn't at full human power any more than she was
at the level of power she has now.
[> [> [>
So um... is that an argument that it was the PTB's that intervened? -- Masq, 15:59:37
04/10/02 Wed
[> [> [> [>
Intervention? Quite possibly. PTB intervention? hmm... -- VampRiley, 19:56:12
04/11/02 Thu
I don't think we have ever been given any information just what exactly, or close to exactly what, it
was the "passed through" Willow. We know it was something. Just not what. It would seem that
someone, or something wanted it to happen. Might have seen Willow struggling and decided to give
her a hand.
VR
[> [> [>
yes to all your points -- Vickie, 17:42:13 04/10/02 Wed
I didn't think my quibble at all refuted Masq's main point there, that Willow didn't do the resouling
on her own.
[> [> [>
Sorry...the doorbell went before I got into it too much -- Rufus, 18:00:49 04/10/02
Wed
[>
Related Question, Masq: Why do the MG's only create one Slayer at a time? -- Rob,
21:55:46 04/10/02 Wed
I'm sure this question has been talked about before, but I'm wondering if you could possibly tie any
of your possible theories about this into your MG theory.
Rob
[> [>
Re: Related Question, Masq: Why do the MG's only create one Slayer at a time? -- Masq,
07:53:35 04/11/02 Thu
I have to admit I haven't given this much thought. It's always struck me as an odd way to do things--
one slayer? I supposed back in ancient times Slayers were called to the region on Earth they were
needed most, because there were less people and people were more scattered. Generations were
shorter and so one girl in every generation made more sense.
Seems like they'd need more slayers today, in that event. Of course, a whole army of slayers might be
quite dangerous. I suppose having one slayer makes the responsibility quite personal for the girl.
But as we've seen, it also makes it that much harder on her. It's such a burden to put on one young
person.
So, not many good ideas here. On this particular subject, my ideas have always fallen outside the
narrative, to Joss's motivations, etc. And I believe he started the idea like he had it in the movie, the
slayer is reincarnated from the previous one, it really is a generational thing, and hence there can
only be one at a time (whoever has the Slayer's spirit). Then he scraped that idea when he
made the TV show, possibly already planning Kendra's entrance. But he kept the one slayer
thing.
[> [> [>
Re: Related Question, Masq: Why do the MG's only create one Slayer at a time? -- Mystery,
10:17:38 04/11/02 Thu
He also seemed to change the whole concept of Watchers. It seemed like Merrick was the only
Watcher ever, and was reincarnated over and over again, destined to find and train the Slayer but
never interfering. All of sudden, there's Giles and the whole Watcher's Council.
Does anyone know of any interviews or whatnots in which Joss himself might have addressed the
differences between the movie and the series?
[>
not jenny, but maybe not the mg's either -- anom, 23:24:41 04/10/02 Wed
"So Angel goes bad, Buffy sends him to hell, and-- Oh wait, right before he goes to hell, Angel's soul
is restored by Willow trying her very first spell ever. Beginner's luck? Well, most people don't believe
that. She was possessed by something. Something that wanted Angel good. A lot of people said,
"Jenny's spirit". But we are given no evidence for this. Jenny's spirit just pops up at the right time
and helps Willow? Talk about your deux ex machina.
But in retrospect, we know of one very powerful force that wanted Angel good again, and that's the
MG's. They wanted their Warrior back. How could they know Buffy would have to dispatch him
shortly afterwards? Life is full of unanticipated turns."
It looked to me as though the spirit of the Gypsy who cast the original curse took Willow over. Of
course, I suppose the MG's could've arranged that....
[> [>
Re: not jenny, but maybe not the mg's either -- Rufus, 23:50:09 04/10/02 Wed
Yes, that's right, cause if the Old Evil Ones had brought him back they wouldn't have tried so hard
to return him to his evil roots in Amends. PTB's did it.....cause I said so......:):):)
[> [>
Also skeptical about the role of the MGs in Buffy's life... -- Malandanza, 09:16:01
04/11/02 Thu
"It looked to me as though the spirit of the Gypsy who cast the original curse took Willow over. Of
course, I suppose the MG's could've arranged that...."
This is my assessment of the re-ensoulment spell as well -- Willow was possesses not by a benevolent
entity wishing to help out the gang and save Angel and the world, but by the same gypsies that
originally cursed Angelus, helping to curse him again.
There are three instances on BtVS and AtS that I consider unambiguous attempts by TPTB to help
out -- Angel's return, the snowstorm in Amends that saves Angel from suicide, and the last minute
vision that Cordelia gets when Angel is headed towards noir-dom. In each of these cases, it is Angel
that they are helping, not Buffy.
I don't even think that TPTB are the source of Buffy's power -- we have had many hints that the
power is rooted in darkness -- or, at least, destruction. With as many close calls with the apocalypse
that Buffy has had, one might reasonably expect that beneficent guiding powers would be in closer
contact -- and be more helpful. Instead, Buffy struggles through her travails and moral crises by
herself (well, sometimes her friends are helpful, but sometimes they exacerbate the situation).
Where Buffy is concerned, TPTB are characterized by nothing so much as their absence.
The much derided WC seems to be responsible for putting the slayer on the path of righteousness.
Third season Faith or early fifth season Buffy seem to be closer to what a slayer in her natural
habitat would be like. The council, not TBTB, imposed the sacred duty and converted a feral
monster hunter into an instrument for mankind. In the end, Buffy's sacred mission is little more
than a lie invented by the WC to control their pet monster.
[> [> [>
That's pretty cynical -- Rahael, 09:22:41 04/11/02 Thu
Though I may be viewing monstrosity a little differently from you.
More positive connotations. Less Feral, more 'fearful symmetry'. What immortal hand or
eye........
[> [> [>
Less sceptical about the role of the MG in Buffy's life -- Slain, 11:20:31 04/11/02
Thu
I don't think we know enough about the source of Buffy's, and other Slayer's, power to say where it
comes from - the mysterious good is, after all, mysterious, so even if the MG was the source, it
wouldn't say so. I would be helpful if Buffy came with 'Made by the Powers That Be' stamped on her
arse, but sadly not.
But who has said Buffy's power is rooted in darkness? Spike, Dracula? Not very reliable people, and
both with the same get-into-Buffy's-pants motive.
In my opinion, I think Buffy's power is made up of both good and evil, while actually belonging to
neither. Like magic in BtVS, is has both good (Buffy, Kendra) and bad (Faith) properties to it. The
Slayer was created to repel evil in the form of demons, presumably soon after demons left the earth
and left behind the curse of vampirism: which would seem to suggest that the power was gifted by
the forces of good, even if its actual source was more complex.
But I think that Season 7 will probably be addressing these issues, as it's been building up since
Season 1. At the moment, it's still a case of "you cannot hope to grasp the source of [her]
power."
[> [> [> [>
compromise suggestion? -- John Burwood, 00:08:50 04/12/02 Fri
How about a compromise suggestion?
Maybe the power of the Slayer is rooted in darkness, but the PTBs found a way to divert it to their
own ends? They have done it with Angel.
The key with the Slayer, of course, is that a young human has free will, & can be guided to good as
well as corrupted by power.
How come the original WC found out how to trace Slayer candidates before they are even called? No
darker powers have shown the slightest sign of knowing how to do that. Maybe that was gifted to the
first Watchers by a Whistler-type emissary.
Let's face it, the official Watcher line on the Slayer - that she is an expendable walking weapon
requiring strict training & control - could have come direct from the PTBs.
[> [> [>
Re: Also skeptical about the role of the MGs in Buffy's life...Ditto -- Dead Soul, 13:54:11
04/11/02 Thu
Malandanza - you hit it bang on the head!
[> [> [>
The Watchers -- Rufus, 14:38:15 04/11/02 Thu
If Buffy is a pet monster, then how did she get away with promoting herself over the Council,
sending them back the England to go do the research thing?
Why did the guide show up and tell her about herself "full of love, death is your gift"?
The ancestors of the Watchers may have had something to do with creating the Slayer, but Buffy is
no one's pet monster.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Pet Monsters -- Malandanza, 10:37:18 04/12/02 Fri
"If Buffy is a pet monster, then how did she get away with promoting herself over the Council,
sending them back the England to go do the research thing?"
Think of the slayers as wild animals -- like jaguars. Kendra was the jaguar that was taken from its
mother before she was weaned and raised in a domestic environment. She had trainers putting her
through obedience school and constantly monitoring her behavior. Buffy was taken a little later in
life and while the WC tried to tame her, there's still a little too much of the jungle in her. How did
Buffy get the upper hand on the watchers? Easy -- they lost control over her. She hasn't gone back
to the jungle completely, like Faith did, so they won't break out the rifles and put her down, but she
is not under their control.
As far as Buffy making the WC her council goes, since her declaration of independence the WC has
not been helpful. They went back to England because they had failed to re-domesticate her, not
because she sent them back.
The PTB have not interfered dramatically in either Faith's or Buffy's life. When Buffy set off to kill
Faith and feed her blood to Angel, why didn't the PTB make some attempt to stop her (as they did
with Angel as he headed to Holland's party)? Why didn't they try to help Faith before she went
rogue? The PTB have limited powers but they have intervened frequently on Angel's behalf -- if the
slayer was their pet project, wouldn't they have a little more interest in one of their girls being
pulled into evil?
"Why did the guide show up and tell her about herself "full of love, death is your gift"?
This is the best argument for Buffy's powers coming from good rather than evil or neutral powers --
Buffy asks for help and her guide is ambiguous and ineffectual -- hallmarks of the good guys.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Pet Monsters -- Rufus, 01:50:00 04/13/02 Sat
This is the best argument for Buffy's powers coming from good rather than evil or neutral powers
-- Buffy asks for help and her guide is ambiguous and ineffectual -- hallmarks of the good
guys.
The other part of that arguement....the guide was smart enough to speak to the one person capable of
figuring out what they were told....;)
The WC were on a plane on the way back to comfortable chairs, Masterpiece theater, and making
sure their current article for the "Insaneo's Home Journal" was ready before the deadline.
Current board
| More April 2002