April 2002 posts
a brief critisism of
Bargaining -- Rochefort, 16:03:33 04/21/02 Sun
In this long Buffy-less break I've been watching some old episodes. Watching Bargaining. Um... same
prelude that goes to any critisism of Buffy (love buffy, die for buffy, great epic poem of our times) but
um...
Marti Noxon needs like... a personal assistant she can trust. So that that person can kinda say:
"Marti... baby... I think there's a reason why we've... so far... sort of tried to avoid the
whole....demons on motorcycles thing."
"What about demons on jet-skis then?"
"Um...no."
"Not cool?"
"No."
[>
Re: a brief criticism of Bargaining -- Rahael, 16:19:00 04/21/02 Sun
ahh. I must be terminally uncool! lol.
I thought Bargaining was an excellent start to the season. Buffy facing the broken Buffybot on the
ground? just great.
[> [>
the triceratopses grazing quietly.... -- Rochefort, 16:45:31 04/21/02 Sun
.... have no idea that they now face a far greater threat than Tyranasaurs...
TRYANASAURS IN F-15 JETS!
(points if you've already guessed where that's from)
then Calvin says: "This is so cool!"
and Hobbes answers: "this is so stupid."
heh. So you know, there's all kinds of legitimate opinions.
:)
But I also tend to disagree with you about the fun of seeing the Buffy-bot torn to shreds. The Buffy-
bot (first given voice by the creative Jane Espenson) was a sweety and I just kept hoping she'd make
it through the episode alive.
[> [> [>
Re: the triceratopses grazing quietly.... -- Slain, 18:18:54 04/21/02 Sun
Poor old Marti does get blamed for all the shit on Buffy, doesn't she? Although after 'Wrecked' and
her systematic destruction of my favourite character, Willow, I'm less inclined to stand up for her.
However, I do think it's perfectly possible the Hell's Angels demons were someone else's idea, David
Fury's of even Joss'. They did suck, but the rest of the episode was great. Actually, I thought David
Fury's half of Bargainning (part 2) was much worse than Marti's half, so maybe we should blame
him. ;)
[> [> [> [>
Re: the triceratopses grazing quietly.... -- darrenK, 20:33:59 04/21/02 Sun
Yeah, I agree that the Fury half was weak, but I tend to think that as a writer he's WAY overrated.
His episodes tend to be the most violent ones because he can't seem to do humor and subtext so he
just breaks things, e.g. the Buffybot, Adam, the Initiative, Maggie Walsh, Gachnar the Fear Demon,
Forreststein, Maggiestein, and probably a whole lot of other stuff I'm not thinking of.
I'm not happy about him doing the finale, but maybe he can break Spike's chip.
[> [> [> [> [>
in fairness to the writers.... -- Sebastian, 09:27:24 04/22/02 Mon
To be fair to the writers - I think we have the tendency to subconsciously (and consciously, for that
matter) compare them to Joss.
Joss is one of the most gifted TV/movie writers out there - he has the ability to balance humor and
pathos brilliantly (within the same ep., mind you) - and that is an anomaly when it comes to writing.
Most writers, no matter how good, are NOT going to be able to nail subtexual themes and issues the
way Joss can.
All the other writers have their weaknesses, sure, but they also have strengths that keep the show
above standard TV dreck - otherwise we would have stopped watching BtVS long ago.
Just my thoughts. :-)
- Sebastian
[> [>
Re: a brief criticism of Bargaining -- Rattletrap, 19:10:38 04/21/02 Sun
I agree w/ you Rahael, I like the motorcycle demons and found the post-apocalyptic Sunnydale and
the dismembered Buffybot very affecting. I also think "Bargaining" was possibly the best season
premiere the series has ever aired ("Anne" being my other favorite). As Slain points out, this
probably wasn't Marti's idea anyway, as the writers usually break the stories in group meetings and
nothing goes out without Joss having read it. If you didn't like it, blame him.
[> [>
Re: a brief criticism of Bargaining -- shadowkat, 05:46:42 04/22/02 Mon
Not uncool at all - I completely agree with you.
I really enjoyed Bargaining - actually more than most
of the past first season openers. It kept me enthralled
throughout. And I love the biker demons - particularly
loved the scene where Spike took over a motorcycle. (But hey, I like dark.)
Side note on regarding the writing - uh, Joss Whedon is
involved in the writing - he reads most if not all the
scripts before they are filmed, he said so. He also is
involved in the plotting and story arcs and assigning
writers. TV show writing is a collaborative process, even
though you only see one name in the credits doesn't mean
the others weren't involved. It's not a like a book, in
which only one guy writes it. The only thing Joss is not
involved in any more due to time constraints is the
time-consuming: filming, post-production, editing, and
final cut.
[> [>
Hey!!! I liked Razor and the Hellions. -- Forsaken, 14:11:03 04/22/02 Mon
[> [> [>
Me Too!! -- ravenhair, 17:19:20 04/22/02 Mon
One of my favorite lines this year:
Razor - "What's with the blood rat?"
The cross tatoo on the Hellion's forehead was pretty cool, too.
Newbie *waves*, and shipping... (spoilers
through As You Were) -- Erin, 18:05:38 04/21/02 Sun
Hello:
This is my first post here but I've been lurking for about two months, I think. I have had a hard time
finding a good message board for Buffy discussion, but I've been impressed by the intelligence and
depth of the discussions here and hope I'll be welcome to join in. :) The ATPoBTVS site is wonderful,
and my partner, who is a Kant scholar of sorts, wants me to say how impressed he was with the
sections you have on Kantian ethics and Kierkegaard.
But I have a question I've longed to ask on other boards but haven't for fear of being roasted alive.
I've been around the BC&S and the Kitten and a few other places (never posted though) and have
always been surprised by the level of vitriol which can accompany discussions relating to the
relationships on the show.
I recognize that people may like or dislike different characters on a show, but I'm mystified at the
kind of devotion which dictates that if a relationship is threatened or controversial (let's say, well,
B/S, for example) it must be defended with the zeal of a thirteenth-century crusader. I've read
countless invectives against various writers who are felt to have "betrayed" fans by not allowing
Spike and Buffy to remain together.
I don't wish to defend writers to the death, but it seems that so much that masquerades as "critical"
discussion of Buffy lately is simply arguments about how "faithful" a story arc is to a given
community's conception of a character. I am quite happy to see Marti or Joss criticized regarding
unfortunate analogies (I read a very intelligent post somewhere which complained about the
unfortunate association of magic as metaphor for the early stages of Willow and Tara's relationship
in the age of WB censorship and now as a metaphor for drugs), poor writing, etc. But I'm unsure how
relationships fit into any kind of critical understanding of the show.
So I want to know: am I the only person to whom the entire concept of "shipping" is completely
foreign? And if so, could someone please explain the appeal?
Thanks for the help,
Erin.
[>
Re: Newbie *waves*, and shipping... (spoilers through As You Were) -- Wynn, 18:33:31
04/21/02 Sun
Hi Erin! I'm also impressed at the topics and threads posted at ATPoBtVS. 99 percent of the time I
lurk in awe of the other posters and 1 percent of the time I attempt to post something
intelligent.
As for "shippers"... I don't really know. I think some aspect of a particular 'ship, whether it be the
actors themselves or the storyline of the 'ship, appeals to some people. The Buffy-Spike pairing
intrigues me. The combination of the two, dedicated Slayer and soulless vampire, is interesting. I
love the evolution of their storyline, from enemies to reluctant partners against Angelus to reluctant
allies due to the chipping of Spike to friends to lovers, etc. But I also love the others 'ships past and
present on the show, even the much hated Buffy-Riley pairing. There's just something about B/S. I
look forward to seeing where the two characters go next.
So that was pretty much a big bunch of nothing since I have no clue why some go wonky over 'ships.
I know someone else on the board can explain the concept of 'shippiness, and the craziness it often
involves, much better than me.
[>
1, 2, 3, 4... Do the shipper twist! -- Slain, 18:35:02 04/21/02 Sun
I've been mulling over posting a very similar thing to this myself, Erin. Before I start, I personally
thought the use of magic as a metaphor for sex was wonderful, and I think there's nothing wrong
with magic being used as a metaphor for drugs, as was done in 'Dark Age' (Season 2). The
problem is that, currently, isn't not a case of 'magic is like drugs' (which it can be), but rather 'magic
is a just drug like heroine'. That's the problem.
To get back to the point, people who're heavily involved in certain characters are often a pain. I'm a
Willow/Tara shipper myself, but since they split up I've been trying to look at things more
objectively. What personally irks me is when shippers twist events in the show to make relationships
more probable - by trying to make Buffy seem more bisexual, or by trying to make Spike seem less
evil, for example. But actual "Damn the writers for not putting Buffy and Anya together!"-type
shipperiness isn't something I often see here.
But I think the point is that everyone watches the show differently. I've always cared more about
Willow than Buffy, so I'm more tollerant to interesting plots which make Buffy unhappy than I am
to, for example, the current Willow arc. It would be nice if we could stop telling the writers what to
do, but I know I'm as guilty of that as anyone. All we can do is recognise when we're being irrational
and try not to let that get in the way of discussing the show.
[> [>
You know, shippers really don't bother me. -- Traveler, 02:02:40 04/22/02 Mon
Welcome to the board, Erin :) I think other posters have already addressed your question, so I just
wanted to throw in my two cents about ships in general.
If you think Buffy and Anya belong together and can provide some well thought out arguments to
support your case, I say more power to you. I may not agree with what you have to say, but that
doesn't mean you don't have something to teach me. Also, I just like to argue, lol. The only posts that
bother me are the ones that just state an opinion without giving supporting evidence, or posts that
are biased to the point where the author absolutely ignores all evidence that contradicts his or her
beliefs. Luckily, the vast majority of the posters on this board fall into neither catagory. Thus, I can
happily argue with Malandanza about Spike (for example), knowing that his arguments will be
clearly worded and pertinent to the discussion. We'll probably never agree, but discussing the issues
with him helps me to understand why I think the way I do.
[>
Re: Newbie *waves*, and shipping... (spoilers through As You Were) -- Ramses 2,
18:39:00 04/21/02 Sun
Uh, it's fun. Seriously, maybe it's purposely flawed, go back to the concept of the show, a frail little
blonde who is the superhero, absolutely wonderful. And then keep throwing guys at her, boyfriends
and mentors who want only to protect her. Each season she fights not only demons but males. Males
who only love her and want to keep her safe. They are her biggest opponents. They fight each other.
They drive her crazy. See, it's fun. Truthfully, I think the ships do matter, there's a story being told
and that story is ambitiously epic. In every epic there are men and women with stories and those
stories matter. You could argue for the traditional crossed lovers. Or for the white knight who waits
patiently for his queen to realize that he's been steadfastly there. Or, you could want to see great
drama play out, a villian who struggles with his fate becoming a fascinating anti-hero. It's all here.
It's all Buffy.
[>
Hiya Erin! Good first post. My 1/50th of a dollar is... -- OnM, 19:50:00 04/21/02 Sun
...that people recognize aspects of themselves in the various personal relationships that exist on the
show, so that when you challenge some aspect of the 'ship, it's like you are challenging the viewer
themselves.
Also, since the characters stand in metaphorically for various world-views and
philosophical/religious outlooks, someone can get very involved in identifying with that, again with
the same results if a particular view is deprecated in some fashion.
Some folks approach art intellectually, some emotionally, others a combination of the two. Some
have 'distance' from what happens on-screen and others at the opposite end of the spectrum are
virtually living as if the fictional world is real.
Maybe I'm just stating the obvious, but I thought it makes as good a place as any to start.
;-)
BTW, Welcome! (Stay, post again, sil vous plait).
(Now hoping I didn't mangle the French!)
[>
Re: Newbie *waves*, and shipping... (spoilers through As You Were) -- Rufus, 20:03:47
04/21/02 Sun
Welcome......as for ships, they are a pain in the ass if they are the only reason a person is watching a
show. I see so many posts that ignore evil behavior in their favorite character, but see it in the
characters they don't like. In both Angel and Buffy there are is a constant message of a fall into
darkness and a redemption through actions that may or may not have anything to do with how
"deserving" the character may be of it. In Fairytales, redemption can be the instant transformation
from one state to another, cursed to whole. Both series work with themes from both Fairy Tale and
myth. There was something that Angel said in an epsode of ATS that people should take into
consideration when judging guilt or innocence...From the Prodigal
WESLEY
Perhaps. Still, at the very least he
must realize he's in league with
someone who, if not criminal, is most
certainly unethical. It's his choice to...
ANGEL
Yeah, I know all about it, Wes.
Believe me. But sometimes the price
we end up paying for one bad choice
isn't commensurate with the offense.
BTVS and ATS prove to me that we have to remember that we all have a bias no matter what we say
to the opposite, I myself find it easier to excuse the actions of a person I sympathize with. The
problems with the concentration of analysis of a problem in the show based upon one "bad choice" a
single character makes, and condeming them forever reflects our tendancy to hang on to resentment,
when there may be another solution that would be more healing. I tend to see this more in those who
favor one ship at the expense of all other character interactions. I don't mind ships, but my watching
the show isn't based upon them as ships are prone to sinking...;)
[> [>
Re: Newbie *waves*, and shipping... (spoilers through As You Were) -- gds, 20:48:58
04/21/02 Sun
Agreed.
I do have my own favorite ships, but I am also willing to follow along with the writers and see where
they go. E.g. I have always been a B/A fan, but I have definitely been receptive to the C/A ship. I
also watch with interest at the different Xander & Willow relationships to see if they eventually end
up more or less where they started before Buffy arrived. I think the only thing that stopped the W/X
relationship from developing was that Xander really considered Willow a sister rather than a
candidate for romance. When he first thought of her as woman sparks flew. This ship is a great
candidate for the "after trying everything else, go back to where you started" pattern of
relationships.
Some relationships are short or doomed, but still are a positive step in the development of the couple.
E.g. the C/X ship was very good for both of them. It was a major event in humanizing Cordy – and
making her independent of the in-crowd. It also helped Xander’s self-image to know that he could
interest someone of Cordy’s beauty and station.
[>
Welcome! -- Ixchel, 22:33:23 04/21/02 Sun
I think it is a credit to ME, really, that people feel so passionately about the relationships (and
characters). Unfortunately, a side effect of this passion for some is great disappointment at certain
turns in the story.
I do feel a certain amount of emotional investment is expected (for example, IMHO, the audience was
meant to feel sad at the breakup of Willow and Oz in WAH, I did). Also, I believe that the character
exposition and transformation that can occur within the context of a relationship makes these
relationships quite relevant to analysis of the characters (and the show as a whole).
However, there is the possibility that, by focusing solely on one aspect of the show (a certain
relationship), a person can miss other, equally fascinating, aspects. This is regrettable, to me,
because it is so limiting.
I'm not sure that I provided any answers, oh well.
Ixchel
[>
Welcome! And sort of agree -- shadowkat, 06:01:01 04/22/02 Mon
Good post. I've had to jump off the B C & S
board because of the fights constantly breaking out over
ships. People literally have screaming matches on some of
the threads - it's funny until I discovered posting boards, I didn't believe it was possible to have a
screaming match
by email.
As far as ships go, a bit new to the phemenon myself. I have
more or less become obsessed by the B and S relationship for the following reasons:
1. It is the most unpredictable interesting complicated
relationship I've seen on the show
2.I have no clue what will happen next or what these two characters will do and I love that
3. The actors have blinding chemistry, they work well together and are both extreemly good in their
roles. They
also look good together.
4.It is ironic to have two mortal enemies go from hating each other to sleeping together...and I have
to admit, I'm
one of those people who has the secret fantasy of the bad guy being reformed by his love for someone,
having the love
bring out his better side.
5. I sense the writers attempting something brillant and
want to see if they can pull it off or if they cop out.
Overall - if the B/S relationship falls apart, I'll still
be into the show. I don't understand why people go off on it, I mean it is fictional - not real. The two
characters really can't exist in our world - unless of course you believe there are vampires wandering
about. It's just an interesting story. I think some people have adopted the characters as members of
their families or identify them with someone they knew - which does affect how they enjoy
the show. Sometimes I think the show works better if you
can watch it objectively...you see more interesting things
in it.
[> [>
Welcome! -- ravenhair, 16:58:25 04/22/02 Mon
Just to second what shadowkat mentioned regarding the heated 'ship wars. For some, I believe it's
good natured fun but it's exhausting to read those threads, so I just avoid them. I've said before, if
you watch BtVS for a specific relationship, you'll soon be disappointed.
As much as I love Spuffy, I think the relationship had to dissolve in order to bring focus back to the
individual journeys of Buffy & Spike.
Happy posting!
rh
[> [>
Re: Welcome! And sort of agree -- Ian, 21:27:16 04/22/02 Mon
Okay, this post will add nothing, but Shadowkat's comment, "...and I have to admit, I'm one of those
people who has the secret fantasy of the bad guy being reformed by his love for someone, having the
love bring out his better side," reminds me of a great quote from The Simpsons, which I feel
compelled to relate.
In one episode from years back (hopefully I won't mangle this; it's been years since I saw it), Lisa
develops a crush on Nelson, the bully infamous for his "ha ha." Lisa eventually confides in her
mother, and Marge says something to the effect of "Some women say you can't change a man, but
those women are quitters. When I met Homer he was loud, boorish and a slob. And now look at
him."
Lisa responds with incredulity, "Um, Mom?"
Marge, with steel in her voice, "Lisa, they are quitters."
Or something like that. Also, maybe Marge had gravel in her voice, and not steel. It's been
awhile.
[>
Re: Spuffy Shipping -- Anneth, 09:43:48 04/22/02 Mon
The Spike/Buffy relationship is the only one on the entire show, in the history of the show, that I find
I have any sort of emotional attachment to. I'm not willing to speculate on percentages, but I
understand that the reasons I can't maintain my "academic distance" from the B/S pairing are a)
because their chemisty is mind-boggling and b) because I have a *huge* crush on James Marsters. (I
haven't had a thing for a tv character like this since the days of Don Karnage, from Disney's
TailSpin.)
Totally off-topic: I got to see Ghost of the Robot this last Saturday. It was fun to see JM clowning
around and enjoying himself. Heck, it was just plain ol' fun to see JM.
(insert girlish giggle here)
Anneth
[> [>
Re: Spuffy Shipping -- Slain, 12:18:06 04/22/02 Mon
I can get angry at B/S, W/O or W/X shippers sometimes, but I think on the grand scale of things I'd
much rather have shippers than bashers. I can tollerate even the most irrational of shippers,
providing they don't bash other characters.
Weird Buffy related experience today --
Farstrider, 19:07:45 04/21/02 Sun
I was watching Comedy Central this morning over breakfast, and they had a movie called "Bye Bye
Love" on after "Whose Line."
It starred Eliza Dushku (Faith), Amber Benson (Tara) and (??) Dr. Walsh in it. Weird, huh? Could
that be the movie with the most Buffy-related actors in it?
Farstrider
[>
Re: Weird Buffy related experience today -- Slain, 19:32:40 04/21/02 Sun
There's actually surprisingly many - Seth Green and Marc Blucas also pop up quite a lot in various
combinations.
[>
Re: Weird Buffy related experience today -- MaeveRigan, 01:49:47 04/22/02 Mon
For a really weird experience (and a blast from the past) check out "My Stepmother Is an Alien" and
watch little Alyson Hannigan and Seth Green, approx. 14, go to their first school dance
together.
Alyson can already chew up the scenery, here, BTW. AND it's her first encounter with a penis-
monster. Otherwise, except for Dan Ackroyd and Kim Basinger, the movie's forgettable.
[> [>
Re: Weird Buffy related experience today -- mucifer, 04:37:15 04/22/02 Mon
Another really interesting one is watching an approximately 10 year old Seth Green with the
starring role play a young Woody Allen in the 1940's. It was called "Radio Days". It was very funny
and Seth did a great job.
[> [> [>
A Buffy sighting in an unexpected place!!! -- Rahael, 08:39:39 04/22/02 Mon
Paul Routledge, political commentator for the Mirror reports in this today's 'New Statesman'
Magazine that
"a life size cardboard replica of Buffy the Vampire Slayer occupies pride of place in the Home Office
Press office"
Now the Home Office is of course not anything to do with Wolfram and Hart's conception of hell, but
the (British) Government Department that deals with domestic issues; Crime, immigration etc.
Looks like we have fans in close proximity to power! (yeah, I know, press office. But New Labour!
Spin doctors!)
[> [> [>
Re: Weird Buffy related experience today -- Purple Tulip, 11:05:56 04/22/02 Mon
There's also "Can't Hardly Wait" which I watched again last night, that had Seth Green and Amber
Benson (for a split second), and "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" with Eliza Dushku, and Marc
Blucas palying Fred in a Scooby Doo sketch!
[> [> [> [>
Re: Weird Buffy related experience today -- ponygirl, 11:44:12 04/22/02 Mon
And don't forget Bring It On which had Eliza Dushku, the girl who played Glory, and one of the
Cord-ettes, who is also in Can't Hardly Wait. It also had a line about the girls being called
"Buffy's".
[>
Re: Weird Buffy related experience today -- ArmyGreenCargoPants, 16:17:17 04/22/02
Mon
When I saw Can't Hardly Wait a while ago, I started counting Buffy actors--I think I had to use both
hands! I can't remember most of them now, but they include Oz (Seth Green) and Marcie Ross (from
Invisible Girl).
[> [>
Re: Weird Buffy related experience today -- Eric, 16:47:38 04/22/02 Mon
Mark Blucas has a role in We Were Soldiers Once and Young. Buffy actually has a cameo of sorts in
the book Big Trouble, where a in a scene where a main character watches TV. I'm not sure if it made
it to the movie.
[>
Very Weird Buffy related experience tonight -- d'Herblay, 21:10:19 04/22/02 Mon
I watched Slap Shot for the 8 zillionth time tonight, though this is the first time I've seen it
unexpurgated. At the end, I see among the credits "Lindsey Crouse." I say to myself, "Maggie Walsh
in Slap Shot? Where?" Turns out she played Lili Braden, and had the ingenue role in the film
(actually, more of an anti-ingenue -- ungenue? -- role). Her voice was a quite bit different, and she
was much fleshier back then, so I'm having a tough time reconciling Crouse in Buffy with
Crouse in Slap Shot.
The Shooting Script for
"Forgiving" is up at Psyches' -- Masq, 07:57:23 04/22/02 Mon
Here
[>
A legitimate question -- Sloan Parker, 12:54:00 04/22/02 Mon
Hi Masq
I was wondering why you and your friends just keep supporting some websites like Psyche's by
posting links everyday day and you don't accept when some of us, including me, just want to let
people know about other website like The-One-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named?
I mean you keep saying it's because of illegal material and such non-sens but Psyche's illegal too!
And it's perhaps the most illegal of all since it posts actual shooting scripts. So I don't really like the
double way of thinking and acting regarding link posts.
[> [>
An illegitimate answer -- d'Herblay, 14:01:48 04/22/02 Mon
(I'd like to emphasize that I am not attempting to speak for Masq or to establish some sort of policy
here. These are only my two cents.)
I can't recall anyone ever saying that TWIZ-spam is unwelcome because it links to "illegal material."
Now, you are welcome to scour the archives to find examples; I am trying to code them without
reading them -- I find it helps with my sanity. (I still have to clean up dropped tags though, so I
would appreciate it if people [Rufus] would not drop tags in trollopy posts!) It is my
impression though that people tend to dislike TWIZ-spam because it is spam. Now, it's Buffy-related
spam, so Masq's policy is to allow it; however, it's still spam, so one can't blame others for feeling
manipulated.
There are several obvious differences between the posts linking to Psyche's site and the posts linking
to TWIZ. The first is that the links to Psyche are posted by people we know to be unaffiliated with
the site. They come across as public services, as information that we might be interested in. The
TWIZ posts had the air of advertisements.
Secondly, the links to Psyche's site tend to be up-front about what they are. Masq's post was entitled,
"The shooting script for 'Forgiving' is up at Psyche's." It's hard to mistake that for anything but what
it is. A lot of the TWIZ posts had perfunctory subject lines asking Buffyverse questions -- they were
masquerading as legitimate posts only to reveal themselves as TWIZ-spam once they were
opened.
Third, Psyche's site does not sell advertising, whereas TWIZ seems to be a commercial venture.
Many people here are going to be put off more by copyright violations in the name of Mammon than
in the name of Robin Hood.
Fourth, when TWIZ first came onto the scene, we were inundated by a flood of variously-named
posters who tried to give the impression that there was a ground-swell of TWIZ-love. These posters
did not seem to have clear personalities of their own though, leaving one with the impression either
that they were all one person or that TWIZ is an arm of the Church of Scientology (or both).
Polynymity is a well-oiled and much-despised tactic on this board: it is the favorite strategy of our
resident troll (who can be seen below us); it is the modus operandi of the Sugarbomb
marketing robots (last seen promoting someone named "Avril"); it was some sort of post-modernist
deconstructivist technique of that noted theoretician Boke (check out February's archives).
All of these reasons have given some on the board reasons to think of Psyche's and TWIZ separately
without engaging in doublethink. By the way, I have noticed a tendency on the part of certain
TWIZlers to restrict their non-spamming comments to complaints about the length of posts on this
board. This is not endearing. Here at ATPo, we pride ourselves on our ability to give long answers to
short questions. This post serves as an example.
[> [> [>
Re: An illegitimate answer -- Sloan Parker, 14:06:05 04/22/02 Mon
Where on earth do you see advertisements on TWIZ???
And by the way they do delete the TWIZ links!
[> [> [> [>
Reposte juste -- Vickie, 16:02:13 04/22/02 Mon
Your argument appears specious on both points.
d'Herblay said "TWIZ seems to be a commercial venture." Please note the seems. In your
defense, I just took a look and don't immediately see any advertising, beyond some popups that could
be because of your hosting service.
But d'H NEVER said anything about deleting or not deleting links. As far as I can tell, you have
brought this into the discussion--it is a new point, yet you write as though you are refuting
something d'H said.
[> [> [> [>
And by the way -- Vickie, 16:07:09 04/22/02 Mon
Couldn't help but notice a few tiny typos:
It's Flooded, not Floodless
and it's most likely Seeing Red (not Seeign), if that turns out to be the episode title.
and the season finale entry has a BR> showing (probably missing the initial broket)
[> [> [> [>
I got pop-ups -- d'Herblay, 16:08:02 04/22/02 Mon
Which are ads in my book.
Who's they? The only people with any power to delete posts are Masq and the powers that be at Voy
and myself, in a way. I don't get a crack at them until I construct the archives at IvyWEB -- I delete
only unanswered calls for chat. I occasionally correct my own spelling, but otherwise leave
everything intact. Masq deletes posts when the author asks her, which means mostly that she'll
delete her own administrative threads once they go into the VOY archives (the page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 links
above). I don't know how much of the TWIZ-spam (if any) she's deleted; I know that there's a fair
amount of it in the March archives at IvyWEB.
A lot of people assume that when posts disappear from the main page they have been "deleted,"
when, in fact, they have merely gone into the VOY archives. VOY uses its own mysterious algorithm
to determine when a thread is archived; the general rule is that threads which do not generate
discussion get archived more quickly than those which do. This algorithm is mindless and there is no
arguing with it, though some of us have been known to rail madly against it.
[> [> [> [> [>
If the popups are from the hosting provider -- Vickie, 16:11:56 04/22/02 Mon
IMHO, they are no worse than the ads at the top of our discussion board. Just the price of free (or
cheap) web space.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: popups -- Robert, 19:54:26 04/22/02 Mon
>> "If the popups are from the hosting provider IMHO, they are no worse than the ads at the top of
our discussion board. Just the price of free (or cheap) web space."
In my less humble opinion, popups are MUCH more annoying than banner ads.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
More annoying, hardly more commercial -- Vickie, 21:06:23 04/22/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
Some issues -- Masq, 16:57:24 04/22/02 Mon
(1) I think I deleted a Twiz thread once while it was on the main board. And that was because posts
underneath it from regular board members asked me to. This is the ONLY circumstance under
which I would delete a post or thread from the MAIN board (when asked to by a trusted someone(s)
who's not me).
I do delete posts that have gone into the voy archives that I deem not interesting or useful for the
ATPo archives. Usually they are administrative threads, advertisements for things that are likely to
be reposted on the main board again, and requests for chats. And I only do this once a week so all
threads have a chance to sit in the voy archives and be available to people.
Twiz threads fall into the category of "things that are likely to be reposted on the main board again"
because that has been my experience. As such, a Twiz thread will remain in the voy archives up to a
week, when I will either delete it or it falls off the edge of the voy archives like any other
thread.
(2) On the issue of people posting underneath Twiz or other posts that "This links to illegal
material", the person or person(s) who have done this are not board regulars (at least no one I
recognize) and are therefore not speaking for this board.
(3) Someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I assume that Fox is a little helpless to do
anything about Psyche's site because it is in Germany. Our national laws do not apply and it isn't,
strictly speaking, illegal for Psyche to put this material up. Unethical is another matter, which we
tend to turn a blind eye to. Again, I could be wrong on this assessment.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Dude!!! It's in Germany? Huh. Didn't know. Thanks. ;o) -- VampRiley, 20:05:16
04/22/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Germany isn't really an issue. -- Solitude1056, 22:16:09 04/22/02 Mon
Like I've probably posted before, Germany (along with the rest of the EU) follows the Berne
Convention, which means it recognizes American copyrights as valid. The copyrights must be
registered in the EU, but it's only a formality as long as they're registered elsewhere in a country
also honoring the Convention. Fox has probably already done so, since they have deals with various
international distributors for BtVS and AtS to be broadcast overseas. I suspect it has more to do with
the fact that it's still a major hassle to do the overseas shut-down-a-site routine (since the ISP may
or may not realize the Berne Convention is international, and may not care much anyway), and
possibly that Psyche's site just isn't splashed all over the 'net like Rayne's was. Or possibly the fact
that Fox has taken the diplomatic approach and realized that no matter what they do, the material
will be cached and saved and reposted elsewhere by yet another intrepid fan... and they're only
sticking their fingers in the duck, err, dike to shut down one site, knowing another three will pop up
overnight. *shrug*
[> [> [> [> [> [>
To MASQ and EVERYBODY involved in the TWIZ debate -- SLOAN PARKER,
08:15:28 04/23/02 Tue
Sorry for the caps
Just wanted people to read me, then the TWIZ debate is over. :-)
Hey there,
Quite a discussion uh?
Anyway Masq thanks for your honnest answers, it's always good to see that some people are
responsible to enough to take the time to answer you with integrity. From now on I will not post
hostile links, I will answer anything with honesty like everybody else on the board, but I will just
post a quick link at the end, nothing important you'll see. And I want to remind everyone that you're
all free to not click on the link provided, as much as I'm free to not click on links provided by other
messages. It's called freedom of will and it's up to you to just ignore and/or disregard any stuff you
don't want to visit.
Just a few things I want to clarify though:
I am not in any kind of ways related to the TWIZ website, I just happened to discover the site a few
weeks ago and I since I really liked it. I also happen to chat with Jim from time to time, he's a nice
guy and he does not even agree with me for promoting his site the say I do. I got sermoned because
he received bad feedbacks from angry people. But heck them, I'm decided to promote it (discretly
from now on) on the different boards I visit in a daily basis because it's worth it.
Then sorry Vickie if there's any vocabulary mistakes on the site I just can't do anything about it, you
should ask Jim, the webmaster (webmaster@twiz.fr.st), so that he can fix them up.
Second there's nothing commercial about the site, just check out the TWIZ, there's a section called
FAQ where it says that he does not want to see any commercial stuff on his site. The pop-pus you see
when you access the site are just pop-ups from the provider that hosts the site, I got meself a website
with geocities and there's also pop-ups, so it's absolutly not related to TWIZ in any kind of way. And
I do agree it's really annoying but I guess everything has a cost and a free service comes always with
some stuff you don't really want to have on your site.
Hey VampRiley of course Psyche is from Germania, come on, are you blind: the website address is
psyche.kn-brenen.de or studiesinwords.de !!! the .de at the end means DEUTCH(land) which means
GERMAN(y). Is that so difficult to figure out? :-) See the TWIZ address is www.twiz.fr.st which
means it's a french site because it has .fr in it. That's a clue for you to know where the website come
from if you happened to not know that.
At last, I've seen many times my posts deleted, so maybe it was someon else that you Masq who did
it, I do not know that, but I just hate censorship on boards. Boards should be a way for people to
express themselves and even if some folks post illegitimate message, just ignore them and they'll go
away. The best weapon to all the crap out there is indifference.
Almost done, just wanted to let you know Masq that Fox's copyrights do apply everywhere on the
planet, including Germany and France. It sucks because honestly I don't considerate transcripts as
illegal material. Everything that is coming from television is broadcasted for free and therefore we
should be free to do whatever the heck we want with it. Heck we can make copy of movies with
videotapes and they don't sue us for that as far as I know.
A message from Sloan Parker
With the message "the TWIZ debate is over"
Sorry for the long message
:-) Peace on earth
[> [> [>
Quote of the week... quite possibly, the decade -- Masquerade, 15:06:56 04/22/02
Mon
"Here at ATPo, we pride ourselves on our ability to give long answers to short questions" --
d'Herblay
[> [> [> [>
definitely! it's our new unofficial motto! ;-) - but if Liq makes a tshirt of it, I want one! --
Solitude1056, 20:59:17 04/22/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
What ever happened to the T-shirt of the old unofficial motto... -- OnM, 07:53:50
04/23/02 Tue
.. namely, the picture of Joss and:
He thinks, therefore we are.
???
At least, I never got one!
(~sniffle~)
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I think there was a schism . . . -- d'Herblay, 12:09:17 04/23/02 Tue
. . . because the t-shirt I wanted was a picture of Buffy with the motto "She is, therefore we
think," possibly also in Latin: Est Ergo Cogitamus.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Me! Me! I want that one! -- Rahael, 13:01:53 04/23/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Can't we have both? Chocolate and vanilla! -- Scroll, 14:40:24 04/23/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I'll take Chocolate and ..hmm chocolate that I'm thinking of in a vanilla way....;) -- Rufus,
17:19:48 04/23/02 Tue
[> [> [>
Yay, d'Herblay! -- Vickie, 15:53:51 04/22/02 Mon
I was trying to come up with a comprehensive reposte, but brain doesn't work on three hours of
sleep.
Thanks for covering it better than I would have.
[> [> [>
Oh yeah, mention Rufus and illegitimacy in the same post..... -- Rufus, 22:38:15
04/22/02 Mon
I try the best I can with the tags Herb...just learning here...;)
[> [> [> [>
:) -- I'm just anticipating being spoiled this weekend -- d'Herblay, 23:08:43 04/22/02
Mon
I'll be archiving "Symbolic use of Tara......spoilers for season end" on Saturday or Sunday, and I'm
just afraid I'll have an entire page italicized or something. My policy has been to go back and put in
the correct closing tag where I think it should be, but I'm not sure that I can do this without learning
exactly what will happen to Tara at season's end . . . I'm still hoping she's running away to join the
circus . . .
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: :) -- I'm just anticipating being spoiled this weekend -- Rufus, 04:00:12 04/23/02
Tue
I did a corrected version I think and hoped the other one was deleted. But yes, you will be spoiled but
I did put a spoiler warning on it first.....hope that eases your pain.......:):):)
[> [> [>
d'H - What's a "dropped tag"? (Just curious.) -- Marie, 06:33:18 04/23/02
Tue
[> [> [> [>
Not d'H, but I can answer that one... -- OnM, 07:38:43 04/23/02 Tue
A 'dropped tag' refers to the html code or 'tags' used to create a special effect such as italics or
bold etc.
These commands must be opened (enabled) and then closed (disabled). If you open a command tag
and then don't close it, the effect doesn't shut off, and the entire post then carries the effect, not just
part of it.
Thus, the coder has 'dropped a tag'.
[> [> [> [> [>
Oh, thanks, OnM - I like to learn at least one new thing every day... -- Marie, 08:30:30
04/23/02 Tue
...and the posters on this board teach me more than that!
Marie
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I'd like to teach the world to not drop tags . . . -- d'Herblay, 14:25:56 04/23/02 Tue
OnM has defined "dropped tags" perfectly. The reason this has become an obsession of mine is that I
am now constructing the archives from the original HTML rather than from a text approximation.
This allows me to preserve the original formatting of posts, including embedded links, mailtos and
whatnot. Should someone drop a closing tag (</i>, </B>, etc.; lord forbid someone should
drop a </FONT> after a <FONT FACE="symbol">!) in a post, then not only that post, but
all posts below it on the 50-80 page archive will be in the format that the dropped tag would have
ended. I get tired reading that many italics!
There is an easy way to tell whether or not you've dropped a tag in time to correct it. In the
"Modify/Approve Message" screen, beneath the button marked "Approve," there are a couple of lines
of fine print courtesy of Voy. (The lines appear on every page of this forum, actually.) These are
normally in plain text, but they take on the formatting of your post. If you drop a </I>, they will
be italicized; a </B>, boldface. This gives you a chance to notice and correct any coding errors
you may have made.
It's not that problematic to fix these. I am only complaining because I've been doing the April
archives as I receive them, and I will be archiving Rufus's Tara post (which apparently has a
dropped tag) well before the season finale airs on May 21, and am thus in danger of finding out that
Tara moves to Calcutta to clothe lepers (or something). A terrible conundrum is that the people who
spend the most time with the archives (Masq and myself) are also the two most prominent
spoilerphobes on the board!
(Who's coding the archives for the Trollop Board?)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Again.....the reply to the original post has the corrected version with intact tags... -- Rufus,
21:26:57 04/23/02 Tue
Honest....just ignore the first post and look at my reply to myself that has the corrected post, tags all
closey.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Again . . . too little too late -- d'Herblay, 21:49:32 04/23/02 Tue
Reposting the essay with the tag closed won't undo the effect that the unclosed tag has on the
archives. I can delete the first post for you, but I'm going to find it hard to do without looking at it!
Trust me, this Saturday you will have effectively spoiled someone who has never asked to be spoiled,
who has, in fact, often asked not to be. (Isn't this why we set up a Trollop board in the first
place?)
The solution that seems most reasonable to me is that I isolate the thread, send it to you, and have
you correct the dropped tag in the first essay. Do you mind Microsoft Word documents? I still
wonder if I can do this without reading the body of the thread, though. Oh, to hell with it. I'll work
something out on my own.
I really don't mind if people drop tags because it's a three-second fix. I don't mind if people post
spoilery threads, because I can archive them without reading them. The combination of the two is an
unfortunate one, because I have to read the post to fix the coding problem, even if just
superficially.
Oh, well. These things happen. You're still aces with me, Roof. But pay attention in the
Modify/Approve screen! Or you'll get sent to bed without chocolate!! (That should get her
attention!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Again . . . too little too late -- Rufus,
23:42:13 04/23/02 Tue
Actually I've moved everything I did at the Spoiler Trollup board to my own Yahoo Group....
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conversebuffyverse/
So everyone looking for articles and news should be joining that group.....I have posted the Wildfeed
back to the Trollup board, but will just post a link to my site soon. If a post is spoilery I either post a
warning or like lately kept my opinons to my spoiler site.
As for the Tara post, I properly labelled it as a very Spoilery post and didn't think you would see it til
end of season....sorry. I don't have Microsoft, I only have Wordpad on my computer right now. I don't
know if you can mail me the post and have me do it on that and send it back to you.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I think I can do that . . . -- d'Herblay, 00:44:00 04/24/02 Wed
Send it as a text file, have you fix the one little broken tag in WordPad, and deal with it that way.
Seems like a reasonable solution.
Sorry to make such a big issue of it. I've been so proud of getting up to date on the archives that I
had never considered that when we were so far behind on the archives, I could avoid dealing with
spoilery posts until after the spoiled events had passed! It's not really that big a deal.
I hope that this has served to show people on this board what a real hissy-fit looks like!
I think it's time for a row of emoticons . . .
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)(::):):):):):):):):):):)
(There's always got to be someone going against the flow!)
[>
Why I'd hate to wait four years til Fox got around to publishing these... (spoilers for
Forgiveness) -- The Second Evil, 21:33:56 04/22/02 Mon
Cause then I'd miss the immediate jokes like the following... remember that awesome line, "you love
her so much, start a website"? Here's the second part, of which the last line (if I recall correctly) was
cut:
GIRL (cont'd)
Now, your demon made flesh. Big ritual, it's all here.
She holds out her hand. A folded piece of paper on it. As Angel reaches for paper it's suddenly in his
hand.
GIRL (cont'd)
Can't wait to see how it turns out. You have a web site?
Bwahahaha.
An attempt to analyse the S6 plot
structure -- Etrangere, 09:06:46 04/22/02 Mon
As most people here, I know the "Buffy formula" as described in the Spoiler Slayers site. Things used
to be simple : Little Bad, turning point before the third half of the season that revealed the Big Bad
and finale.
There were variations : in S3, we knew about the Mayor since a long time, but the Scoobies found out
only in Consequences, which is also the episode that is a turning point for Faith on the side of the
Big Bad.
In S4, the Little Bad was actually the mystery around the Initiative before the Goodbye Iowa
turning point episode set up Adam for the role of the Big Bad, but the Initiative theme stayed
central.
In S5 Glory as the Big Bad was revealed early on, and we can debate wether the Little Bad should be
considered Dawn, the Knights of Bysantium or Joyce's tumor (I'm thinking that third option)
Indeed in many ways S5 was really the first season to break from the Buffy formula. But S6 is way
more different, not only because of the story arc.
Episodes role in the story used to be easyly recognized There were the "metaplot" episodes, that were
mainly about the Little or Big Bad story arc, there were "relation ship" episodes, those that moved
forward the long term character evolutions, and there were the "standalones" episodes that grew
fewer and fewer as the series progressed, and you also could add to that the two or three by season
"character centered" episodes like the Zeppo or Fool For Love that explored one character in
depth.
In Season 6 this is harder to do, because all episodes seems to have a place in one of the various story
lines we have. Every single episodes keep the metaplot moving in important way. That's maybe
because the "Big Bad" being the inner evil of the characters, we've got sort of as many story arcs as
characters.
We can criticize that by saying it means the story is fragmented, shattered into too many pieces that
just won't come together in time for the finale (and indeed I wonder how they will be able to join the
different story lines and resolve them before the end) Or we could admire the work, because when
you look at it, it's quite impressive.
In the first part of the Season, and I consider it to be from Bargaining to Once More With Feelings,
we could say there is four major story lines, by order of importance :
- Buffy's story arc, centered about the dealing with the consequences of her resurection, of being
teared up from heavens and the secret she made of it. This is also centered around her relation ship
with Dawn, Giles and Spike, as she's running away from her responsabilities (mostly making money
and Dawn) by letting them on Giles' shoulder (end of Life Serial, end of All the Way) while she finds
in Spike a confident since she feels disconnected from the Scoobies because of the "back from heaven"
thing.
- Willow's growing threat as an Evil Witch who's willing to sacrifice Bambi to resurect Buffy
(Bargaining), to threaten Giles when he criticizes her decision (Flooded) and messes with Tara's
memory when they fight (All the Way). More secrets and hiding there as she refuses to face the
darkness of her magic.
- Xander & Anya's wedding story arc, that was again centered around the secret Xander made of
their engagement.
- The beginning of the Troika, that for now appears as mostly harmless, comic relief kind of idiot
Little Bad, though Warren might a bit badder than the others.
We can say all those stories knows a first turning point by OMWF.
- Buffy finally reveals she was in heaven, Giles decides to leave to let her take her own
responsabilities, and the Spuffy sex begins to be Buffy's new secret.
- Willow's mental manipulation is discovered and thus Tara decides to leave Willow.
- Xander anounces their futur wedding just before the Musical in All The Way, but OMWF now
makes it about a revealed fear of mariage story line. (nothing very surprising there)
Tabula Rasa is sort of a "break" episode, that mostly serves to underline all those points :
- Contrast between Joan's cheerfullness and Buffy's depression, Giles actualy leaving, more Spike's
kissing.
- Tara and Willow actual breaking up. A second attempt by Willow to hide from the problem through
magic.
- Anya's happiness with marying Giles, and Xander's reluctance to imagine himself in the Willow
relation ship, the fact they're the only couple separated without the memories.
From there we go on with the second part of the Season, from Smashed to Hell's Bells. What's
amazing there is how much the first story arcs are changed and almost... made forgotten by the new
developments. Can you say red hearring ? At this point, we observe a lot of complaining from the
fanbase about those developments. Let me explain my self :
- For Buffy, it's neatly divided in two sub-story arc : B/S is wild and crazy sex, but also using and
abusing of Spike that makes the B/S shipper quite unhappy after the high that was the ending of
OMWF (Dead Things) also a growing number of clues about Spike not being all redemptionned yet
(AYW mostly). The responsabilties dealing with side of Buffy's plot seems to go slightly better as she
finally finds herself a job (DmP) and recognizes Dawn's need of her (OaFA). In the between we've got
the "Buffy came back wrong" that seemed to further the "Back from Heavens" story line to be only
dissmissed in Dead Things.
- Willow's third attempt to flew from the magic problem is the last one as Wrecked turns her plot
into Willow the recovering magic addict. Probably the most criticized turn of the metaplot.
Apparition of Amy as a reflection of Willow's evil.
- Xander and Anya's fear of the mariage only seems to grow as the wedding comes near. Apparition
of Halfrek as a reflection of Anya's evil. That point is mostly criticized by those who hoped to see the
wedding come to a "happy ending" and those who starts hating Xander for his jerk attitude toward
Anya, pre and during said wedding.
- The Troika appears to be more and more threatening as they first reveal themselves to the Scoobies
(Gone) then makes their first victim (Dead Things) which turns their image to funny-or-annoying
Geeks to evil rapists (except maybe Jonnathan has a chance to turn against them)
What's interresting here, is how the first plot seems to have been dismissed : The consequences of
Buffy's resurection seems forgotten in the Dead Things revelation, the sweetness of her connection
with Spike pre-kissing seems forgotten in the darkness of their relation ship, her problem to deal
with her life seems forgotten by her annunced new will to live, Willow the mind manipulating witch
seems forgotten by her good will to renunce magic, the harmless aspect of the Troika is forgotten by
the gravity of their actions etc.
Only the Xander / Anya's story seems to follow a kind of fluid evolution there.
But by Hell's Bells the situation is almost back to Normal : Willow and Tara are likely to get back
together, Buffy has stopped the vampire boinking and they almost have a friendly interraction, and
the reason why Xander flew his wedding was only false visions, right ? Except that Xander leaves
Anya nonetheless.
With that all is ready for the third part of the Season.
Normal Again is, like Tabula Rasa, a break episode that summerizes the situation : the gravity of
Xander / Anya separation, Willow's almost back with Tara as she's almost recovered from magic
addiction, Buffy's epiphany about willing to live now and go on (note, a third one after Gone and As
You Were) and separation from Spike, the Troika's still out there planning evil and Jonnathan's
reluctance to follow them.
So where do we go from there ?
[>
Added Speculations with Spoilers -- Etrangere, 09:09:10 04/22/02 Mon
WARNING : SPOILERS in this post
From what we know from the spoilers, I think we're getting back to exploring the plots from the first
part of the Season.
Willow as the dangerous witch, ofcourse, is the most obvious one.
But I will also finds some resolution to the consequences of Buffy's resurection for Buffy, a resolution
about her relation ship with Spike (something that would balance sweet talking and wild sex, you
know) and Spike's own situation of Big Bad or Light Grey Hat (we know we're going to have that
with that dealing in Africa, for the worse or the better), and probably some more things about Buffy's
capacity to deal with her responsabilities. Obivously the Troika becomes a new some more harmless
threat compared to the Willow one, though that doesn't mean they don't have to face the gravity of
their actions (being sent to jail). Then is left the Xander and Anya storyline.
I don't know for you, but if this is how the season 6 is structured (three parts, with the second part
being mostly red hearring from the plot annunced in the first part), i find it pretty clever and
interresting.
[>
Agree - we're on same page.. -- shadowkat, 10:03:25 04/22/02 Mon
You do an excellent job of pointing out what's been in my
head about this season for some time. It's also why I'm
somewhat obsessed with it.
The characters have major problems in the first half,
the second half shows their means of dealing - which
leads to decisions that on the surface may not have
such bad consequences, in fact it looks like Buffy has
dealt with her problem - on the surface, just as it
appears Willow and Xander have dealt with theirs.
Problems:
1. Buffy dealing with her resurrection and challenges
of adult hood, feels disconnected - deals by 1) having sex then ending
sex with Spike, ends their relationship, trying to move
it back to where it started, a strained friendship acting
as if sex never happened 2) lack of money - solved by getting a quick mindless job that requires no
brain power
or long interview process 3.)Dawn - starting to discipline
and try to spend more time with Dawn at least on the surface.
2. Willow - gives up magic like it is an addiction, goes
back to schoolwork and chemistry and hard stuff, slowly moves back towards Tara. Problem was
magic was hurting
her relationship with Tara and she was addicted to magic
3. Xander - problem secrecy about upcoming marriage, repressed fears of marriage. Deals with by
breaking off
marriage, believing he and Anya can go back to the way they were.
Okay here's the scenerio by the end of Normal Again = all
the characters believe things can go back to how they were,
that the problem is solved. Buffy has dealt and can be
slayer again, she'll tell her friends about Spike - they'll
forgive since hey they forgave her almost killing them and
besides it's over with Spike, no big. Willow has dealt
with the whole magic addiction - not using it once to get
out of danger and Tara came to help - so they are getting
back together. Xander misses Anya and has dealt with his fears so of course they can just go back to
where they were
before he made the mistake of proposing.
Hee Hee Hee...no, sorry, you can't solve the problem that
easily. It's sort of like Willow thinking all will be well
if we bring back Buffy. They've forgotten there are factors
outside of their control - other people they've affected
with their choices, who have yet to react and may not react
the way they predict. They've also all misunderstood the
true nature of their problem...Willow's situation is the
most obvious, Buffy's and Xander's less so. Willow believes
it's addiction - but she hasn't addressed the reasons she's
addicted. Buffy believes it's what she did, but she hasn't really addressed the reasons she made these
choices or why they made her react the way they did. Or what effect these
choices could have on everyone around her.
Xander actually may be the closest to figuring it out - because he knows why he broke things off with
Anya, he just
hasn't addressed why the manner that he did it was the wrong move. And what really brought him
to this decision.
Hope this made sense...mind is scattered today. Buffy
withdrawl??? OR the side-effect of doing too many essays??
Tempted now to re-watch all the episodes leading up
to Normal Again in order...ack!
[> [>
Re: Agree - we're on same page.. -- Ete, 11:21:29 04/22/02 Mon
"The characters have major problems in the first half,
the second half shows their means of dealing - which
leads to decisions that on the surface may not have
such bad consequences, in fact it looks like Buffy has
dealt with her problem - on the surface, just as it
appears Willow and Xander have dealt with theirs."
I think with that sentence you sum it all very clearly, actually :) Thanks for adding that.
[> [> [>
Re: Agree - we're on same page.. -- Slain, 13:59:11 04/22/02 Mon
As Ete kind of said, the superficial problems are dealt with, but none of the deeper ones -
Willow's insecurities which make her turn to darker/more powerful magic.
Xander's fears of entrapment and becoming his father.
Buffy's fears about the source of her power.
I don't think these have been dealt with, so much as turned away from. So I think the season finale
will be about the way that these problems haven't been solved so much as repressed.
For example, with Buffy the real issue has never been 'did she come back wrong?' Instead it's been
'does she love darkness?' The resurrection was a deflection from this.
[> [> [> [>
Both -- Etrangere, 14:42:11 04/22/02 Mon
I think there's still some stuff waiting to be revealed, some prices and consequences from the
resurection. It just doesn't feel right that way, all those questions, all thise foreshadowing for
nothing.
And of course, there's still the point about her nature, her attraction to darkness, about the
primordial violence of the Slayer, about the fascination for death.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Both -- Slain, 15:26:02 04/22/02 Mon
I think you're right that there'll probably be some more to the consequences - maybe Tara was trying
to reassure Buffy, and in fact hasn't found an answer. Her explaination seemed a bit weak - perhaps
Marti had just found a good excuse to make Buffy cry, and couldn't resist it. ;)
[> [>
Season Final Theories -- Spike Lover, 17:07:06 04/22/02 Mon
You are right about the many, many secrets this season. And remember that Dawn has them
too.
What is the potential that the final resolution for this year will not be a good one? Let's see, after
Season 2, it ended with Buffy (although Angel had had his soul restored) was sucked into Hell and
then Buffy promptly left home- What an ending.
What happened at the end of Season 5? Buffy solved the problem by taking the giant leap into the
abyss. Painful- and shocking?
What do I think is coming up? I don't know but get ready for these possibilities...
The welfare worker takes custody of Dawn (having found out that she is a theif too.)
Xander chooses not to go into therapy to deal with his family issues, but instead continues to 'sort of'
look for Anya in the hopes of getting back together with her. She has instead gone back to her old
job of vengence demon (and he is on her list?).
Willow chooses not to go into therapy, and continues to ignore her control and power issues-
resulting in ??
Buffy can not afford therapy and is not certain she would do it willingly anyway. She will continue
to ignore/treat Spike badly until it leads to an undeniable crisis point. If there is any poetic justice,
when the relationship comes out, everyone should drop her like a hot rock (including Spike and
Dawn), not for having a relationship w/ Spike, but for not being honest enough to tell them. (I would
really like her teeth kicked in also.)
Finally, will Giles come on the scene also and tsk, tsk her and clean his glasses?
[>
Boy I hope you're right -- Anne, 10:39:45 04/22/02 Mon
I have been hoping against hope that they consciously mean the Buffy "addiction to sex with Spike"
to be a red herring -- and by the way, I feel that way completely regardless of whether they
have Buffy end up with Spike, or whether they have Spike going back to being evil again.
To use addiction -- and the kicking of an addiction -- as the metaphor for Buffy's relationship with
Spike so far is to represent Buffy's main problem as being with something external to herself,
something that she can turn her back on, repudiate, abjure in the same way an alcoholic can abjure
alcohol.
To the contrary it seems to me that the deeper and more interesting interpretation -- and one that
ME has surely been building in one way or another since Season 3 at least -- is that Buffy has issues
with aspects of darkness within herself, that will never be dealt with until she can recognize and
even embrace them as something internal. Accordingly, the imagery of her walking out of the crypt
into the sunlight in AYW looked to me like just one more essay in denial.
But truthfully, I've been afraid that that's all wishful thinking on my part. However, your
interesting post, which suggests a "red herring" pattern in a number of the story lines, makes me a
little more hopeful in that direction.
[> [>
Parallelism -- Ete, 11:18:02 04/22/02 Mon
One thing you remind me to mention is the way the parallelism between characters swift :
in the second part of the season, there's the Willow / Buffy parallelism, first began by Giles and Tara
duet about leaving them in OMWF, then about addiction in Wrecked, then about abuse by Dead
Things. This parallelism is mostly from Buffy PoV (as shown by her remarks in Smashed)
After Hell's Bells beginning with Normal Again, we can see that parallelism changing into a Buffy /
Xander with Buffy saying "we all screw up" and the cut to Spike and her in the cemetary, and the
moment Spike, obviously projecting, blames Xander for running away. If that new pattern remains,
it should give you hope agains the "addiction metaphore"
[> [>
Re: Boy I hope you're right -- shadowkat, 12:55:52 04/22/02 Mon
I think you are right Ann. I've also worried about it
being wishful thinking on my part - maybe this is the
reason we both thought in terms of Eros and Psyche??;-)
But I feel in my gut, that the problem Buffy has had
with every relationship between Angel and Spike is that
problem accepting and intergrating the darkness in herself.
What she's been looking for is someone like Giles - who has figured out how to balance both.
Both Spike and Angel both get her struggle on a level that her human boyfriends couldn't. The
problem she had with
Angel is he can't deal with the darkness inside him, and being with her only succeeds in bringing it
out even
more. Spike - seems to understand and even be attracted
to the darkness inside her, he's also attracted to the light. He likes both. What he doesn't seem to
understand is why she's struggling with the darkness so much. Possibly because he's struggling with
the light? (Sort of the reverse of Angel, Buffy brings out Spike's light side, the side that Spike
believes makes him weak and soft and is the part of himself he's always struggled with?) He keeps
talking about her joining him in
the dark but is that because he's afraid to go into the light? Or because he can't go into the light? Or
because he despises that side of himself, the side he considers weak and soft and uncool? Perhaps all
three? Remember he complains in normal again about her making him soft and
in Dead Things - he proclaims that he tried not to love
her and all the way back in Crush - he says she's destroying all that's left of him until it's just her in
a dead shell? (I know he literally can't venture into the light atthis point - I'm talking metaphorically
here...) In a way, I think Spike and Buffy might work for the very
reason Angel and Buffy didn't. It's the relationship flipped. Buffy love turned Angel into Angelus.
While Buffy love appears to turn Spike into William? Nice ironic
flip that, maybe that's why I'm so obsessed with this
show. These little ironic flips. ;-)
[>
Ete, you read my mind! -- ponygirl, 11:39:22 04/22/02 Mon
That was great (and also the posts by shadowcat and Anne). I'd actually been mulling over a sort of
"the story the thus far" kind of recap in my head, which you did perfectly. For me season 6 seems to
be structured like a three act play; all of the past seasons have had elements of this - the well-loved
and quoted Buffy Formula - but this season the act structure is made more evident both by the
connectedness of the episodes themselves and the convenient (yet maddening) gaps between new
episodes.
Thus we have Act 1 running from Bargaining to Smashed/Wrecked (which I consider a two-part
episode so closely are the events of the episodes linked). Buffy's return, her isolation, her attraction
to Spike are all building throughout this act, similarly the darkening of Willow, with her various
abuses and final addiction spiral, comes to a conclusion here, with the more B sub-plots of
Xander/Anya and the Troika on slow boil (though it is interesting to note that both Smashed and the
Act 2 conclusion Normal Again were sparked by the actions of the geeks).
Act 2 seems to have our characters attempting to deal with the problems raised in Act 1, though as it
is pointed out they do so without looking at the root causes of the problems, they are all surface
solutions - Willow staying away from magic, Buffy's job and failed attempts to stay away from Spike,
Xander and Anya's constant affirmations that their marriage will be fine once they get past the
wedding. Like OMWF for act 1, Dead Things serves as a turning point for act 2, with Buffy's
discovery that she did not come back "wrong" the beginning of a realization that she will have to take
responsibility for her life, and the first shaky beginnings of an apparent Willow/Tara reconciliation.
The curtain comes down on act 2 with Normal Again, Buffy is once again underground, as she was in
her grave in Bargaining, in the basement with Spike in Wrecked, now she is in a basement with the
remaining Scoobies, but seemingly taking control of her reality and choosing her life. We now await
the beginning of the third act to see how it will all resolve.
[> [>
Wow ! -- Ete, 14:33:07 04/22/02 Mon
I love the underground symbolism you've undercovered
It's true that both OMWF and DT serves as an important turning point, maybe i should think my
structure more along that way...
I agree with you about Smashed / Wrecked being a double episode, except it was badly done, it didn't
feel well balanced the way they did it, with most of the Spike deal in Smashed and most of the
Willow deal in Wrecked. It's too bad, it could have been a very good ep as a duet. But they would
have need to use more the Troika in it or not at all. One more reason for Smashed to be unbalanced.
I disgress ;)
[> [>
Ok, I am too far outclassed to be in this conversation, but here I go . . . -- Rattletrap,
15:06:26 04/22/02 Mon
Excellent work by everyone who's contributed to this thread so far, I am more anxious for the home-
stretch than ever.
I want to throw in my $.02 to ponygirl's underground analogy: If, as some of us have suggested
before, each season follows a Hero's Journey-type pattern, then the conclusion of "Normal Again"
that leaves Buffy and the SG trapped underground could correspond to the death, journey through
hell, and resurrection of the Hero. In screenwriting this event almost always occurs at the end of the
2nd Act (or the end of Initiation and the beginning of Return) just as ponygirl suggests. The 3rd Act
almost always deals with the resolution of problems held over from the 1st, but never fully resolved,
just as Ete suggests. This is the basic form behind every season so far (and virtually every movie to
come out in the last 30 years or more), but the Little-Bad/Big-Bad archetypes have given way to
slightly more ambiguous face.
Wow, you guys are really good at this stuff, and I'd be about willing to bet that your (non-spoilery)
predictions for this season's home-stretch are pretty accurate. Cool stuff.
Just my $.02, anxious to hear your thoughts
'trap
[> [> [>
slight spoiler, some speculation -- ponygirl, 16:27:14 04/22/02 Mon
That was great Rattletrap! The screenwriting structure was exactly what I was thinking of, but I
kept trying to remember my old Syd Field screenwriting book and getting muddled by his plot points
and inciting incidents.
While I am trying to stay spoiler free for the finale (my name is ponygirl and I am a recovering
spoiler-trollop) I did see that the title for the last ep. is Grave, which is what got me thinking again
about the underground stuff. There had been a lot of discussion about basement/underground
symbolism around Flooded and Normal Again, and if this season has been about Buffy's journey out
of the underworld it would make sense for her to conclude it in some way that takes her back to the
beginning of the season. I believe that the end of the Hero's Journey, the Return, is supposed to
emphasize how much the hero has changed by bringing her back to where she started.
[> [> [>
Re: Ok, I am too far outclassed to be in this conversation, but here I go . . . -- redcat,
17:08:50 04/22/02 Mon
Thanks to all who’ve posted to this thread and to the many other wonderful threads on
this
board, especially about the deeper psychological and mythic sub-texts of the show. This is my
first time posting and I hope I’m not repeating what others have said in the past.
However, I’ve some thoughts that lead to a question, which I hope might add to the
conversation about the possible and multiple meanings of the fact that Buffy is underground at
the end of both Acts 1 & 2 of S6. (But please, forgive me in advance. I’m doing some of this
from memory, as the last of my copies of the Kramer/Walkowitz study of the Inanna cycle
never came back home after being lent out many years ago...).
In the oldest extant of all “Hero’s Journey” myths, the Descent of Inanna, the goddess of the
upper-world journeys to the realm of her dark twin sister, Ereshkigal, the goddess of the
underworld. Ereshkigal is the original archetypal “shadow self,” as it were. Many things
happen to Inanna in her sister’s world, including that she spends 3 (?) nights hung on a hook
on the wall. Ereshkigal hangs and then leaves her “light” sister there out of her rage and
sorrow at the loss of her own husband. Inanna “drys out” hanging on the hook, before being
rescued by her helpers, who give her a drink of the water of life, after which she can come
down off the hook and journey back up to the upperworld. In that return journey, she re-
claims
the seven “ME,” or sacred attributes of her goddess-hood, such things as law and geometry
and knowledge of agriculture and healing, etc., all of which have now been enhanced. These
are the hero’s gifts she brings back to the world, as well, of course, as a promise made to her
sister that she will send her husband, the mortal shepherd-king Dumuzi, down to the
underworld for part of the year. (Later, his sister argues for him and eventually replaces him
in
“hell” for part of each year.)
In discussing this myth cycle once many years ago with a Sumerian scholar, she noted that the
word for “hook” in Sumerian is the same as the word for “penis.” Given the ways many posters
on this thread have previously discussed Buffy’s shadow self-selves from Kendra to Faith to
Spike, I suspect that we could discuss the sub-texts of Inanna’s descent and its possible
relevance to critical readings of Buffy ad infinitum. But here’s my question for this particular
S6 thread: what “gifts” can Buffy reasonably be expected to bring back to her world? Since
this has been a season of deeply interior struggles for all the Scoobies – Warren’s truly evil
actions of abduction, attempted rape and murder notwithstanding – what world or worlds does
Buffy, indeed, need to heal by her gift-bearing return?
I guess I see a lot of intertextual relevance between Inanna’s story and the deepest/longest-
running (since S1) of all of Buffy’s struggles, her struggle to integrate her dark, violent self
with
her “hero” self. Any thoughts on this, anyone?
And again, thanks for the many great postings to this board!
[>
Good points Ete -- vampire hunter D, 13:06:20 04/22/02 Mon
Put that way, the plot this season doesn't seem so bad (the writing, however, still sucks). Maybe this
season won't be so bad after we see teh rest of the season. Therefore, I am gonna hold back the hit
squads I sent to get Marti Noxon (I may still send them, if the season finale sucks).
Thrashing a dead horse. Spoilers for
Forgiveness -- Sophist, 13:32:34 04/22/02 Mon
That part of me which is less obsessive is telling me not to resurrect an overlong thread made that
way by my own posts. As usual, there is a "but" and here it is.
Both the shooting script and the transcript for Forgiveness are now up at Psyche's site. I did not
have those available in the discussion about whether the audience was supposed to think that
Wesley "did the best he could". There are 2 quotes relevant to the point:
Fred: "Wes did the right thing. The only thing he could do under the circumstances."
Three comments about this line:
1. At the time Fred said this, she did not yet know exactly what Wes had done. From the information
she then had, it appeared that Wes had voluntarily given Connor to Holtz.
2. The shooting script contains a response by Charles that "He could have talked to us." This line
does not appear in the transcript and was apparently deleted.
3. Fred's comment goes far beyond merely reassuring herself that Wes had not betrayed them.
Lorne: "You did everything you (Angel) could with the knowledge you had. Just like
Wesley."
While I'm still open to discussion on this point (I hear that snickering), it sure seems to me that we
were intended to come away from that episode believing that Wesley did the right thing. That
bothers me.
[>
Not quite sure -- an abashed matching mole, 14:04:51 04/22/02 Mon
what I make of that. I missed that line of Fred's in both my viewings. And I seem to have been
unbelievably dense in taking so long to realize that Wesley's collusion with Holtz was the obvious
interpretation for the others to make. It's all so confusing! I'll wait and see before considering the
matter much further (new episode tonight).
I will comment that Fred has gone from being quite unstable to (at the moment) the voice of reason
in AI very quickly. Perhaps her comments should not be taken at face value?
[> [>
don't quite agree -- Robert, 16:45:13 04/22/02 Mon
>> "Perhaps her comments should not be taken at face value?"
No, I think her comments can be taken at face value, but I don't agree with how Sophist is
interpreting the situation either. Liz's posting, just below mine, sums up quite well how I viewed this
scene, so I'll let her take up the argument.
>> "I will comment that Fred has gone from being quite unstable ..."
I don't believe that Fred was ever unstable, even in Pylea. She survived 5 years of hardship using
any means necessary. Her worldview was shattered by her entry into Pylea. She was attempting to
reconcile the magic and demons with science.
During the early half of this season, she was tentative and shy and, maybe, a little fragile (just like
my cat), but mentally intact. Her peculiar behavior was just her creative way of surviving yet more
weird stuff happening to her.
She hadn't lost touch with reality. Hmmm? Maybe reality lost touch with Fred!
[> [> [>
Re: don't quite agree -- Apophis, 16:57:59 04/22/02 Mon
I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of Fred's mental state. In the earlier parts of the
season, she was, if not unstable, then at least unbalanced (which, now that I think about it, mean
the same thing). She went through hardships she never could have imagined beforehand; that sort
of thing leaves one at least a little in doubt of the nature of reality. Upon returning to "reality," she
hid under tables, scribbled on walls, and was prone to sudden outbursts. She also fixated on Angel
as a larger than life hero from a fairy tale. All this time, she is willfully living in a fantasy world. As
long as she can deny the reality of what happened to her, she doesn't have to deal with the resulting
emotions. When confronted with her parents, i.e. hard evidence of her old life and reality, she
"freaks out" and flees in a physical attempt to deny the truth. By the end of Fredless, she's has a
catharsis, allowing her to deal with what happened to her and accept reality, symbolized by the
ending of her crush on Angel and the erasing of her wall scrawlings. I'd say her psychological state
was shaky in the beginning, but she's okay now.
[> [> [> [>
PS- Spoilers for Fredless ^^^ -- Apophis, 16:59:16 04/22/02 Mon
[> [> [> [>
Fred and Angel -- Stability? -- oceloty, 17:43:51 04/22/02 Mon
Digressing from the original discussion a bit to ask, does anyone else see similarities between Fred
and Angel, in terms of mental stability and dealing with hardship?
Both Fred and Angel have been through incredibly traumatic experiences (Fred stranded in Pylea,
Angel tortured for centuries in a demon dimension, not to mention being forced to sing Barry
Manilow) and not only survived, but recovered and gone on to become (mostly) productive members
of society. To me, that says pretty impressive things about their strength of character.
On the other hand, both Fred and Angel don't cope nearly so well with the basics of everyday life or
dealing with their own emotional issues. I'm thinking of wall-writing Fred of early season 3, or
Angel, well, pretty much anytime. And both have a tendency to be blind to the faults of people they
trust. They're both this weird mix of stoic endurance, pragmatic idealism, and emotional
fragility.
[>
Re: Thrashing a dead horse. Spoilers for Forgiveness -- Liz, 14:55:43 04/22/02 Mon
While I understand these objections when you say them and when you quote from the show, for some
reason I didn't have that impression when I watched it. (And my housemates taped the show on the
wrong speed and so they only got 1/4th of it--gaaa! so no reviewing.)
Fred URGENTLY wanted Wesley to be on their side. She insisted that what he did was right
because it was understandable. I think Fred has a lot invested in Wesley continuing to be their
leader and friend. That's what I heard in her voice. Desperation to believe and relief that it wasn't
as bad as it initially looked.
Gunn and Lorne are following suit, which is less credible, but I think that they are taking that role
because they're trying to keep Angel under control. If nobody else was mad, then they might get
mad. But right now I think they're just trying to balance out Angel's wrath.
And besides all that... Wes being missing and almost dead counts for some severe allowances in the
short term. They care about him.
Or I could be totally wrong. We just have to see how it plays out. My guess is that everyone else will
be defending Wes to Angel in order to achieve some kind of sanity in the overall balance. I don't
think that we, the audience, were supposed to think that Wes the The Right Thing, but I do think
that we were supposed to understand and sympathize, and watch it all unfold with a kind of
inevitable tragedy.
[>
Re: Whinnying, not snickering -- mundusmundi, 14:59:34 04/22/02 Mon
Sorry, not convinced.
1. At the time Fred said this, she did not yet know exactly what Wes had done. From the
information she then had, it appeared that Wes had voluntarily given Connor to Holtz.
But Wesley was also missing, and since he didn't jump into the other world with Holtz hand
in hand, I think it's safe to reason that Fred believes there's no way Wes would have been in cahoots
with Holtz. Not even Holtz believed it, after all.
2. The shooting script contains a response by Charles that "He could have talked to us." This line
does not appear in the transcript and was apparently deleted.
Neither shooting script nor transcript reveal Charles's physical reaction as it plays in the
episode, which is a shot of him silently tilting his head, clearly skeptical of Fred's reasoning.
Personally I would have liked that line included -- it makes sense given Wesley's earlier warning to
Charles about withholding information -- but I'm taking the skeptical head tilt as the visual
equivalent.
3. Fred's comment goes far beyond merely reassuring herself that Wes had not betrayed
them.
Since I disagree with the previous two points leading to this conclusion, I'm afraid my own
conclusion must also differ.
*mundus respectfully tilts head skeptically* ;)
[> [>
Re: Whinnying, not snickering -- Rufus, 15:47:01 04/22/02 Mon
So, is this a first step twords you stomping your future replied?...;)
I also agree with you, but I'm not whinnying for anyone..:):):)
[>
Re: Thrashing a dead horse. Spoilers for Forgiveness -- Rufus, 15:57:23 04/22/02
Mon
Lorne: "You did everything you (Angel) could with the knowledge you had. Just like
Wesley."
While I'm still open to discussion on this point (I hear that snickering), it sure seems to me that we
were intended to come away from that episode believing that Wesley did the right thing. That
bothers me.
I didn't read or see it that way. Lorne wasn't saying that Wesley didn't do the "right thing" as much
as he took Connor because he was sure that he had no other alternative. He was protecting Connor
and Angel. Also, remember that the prophesy as originally written was considered to be true by even
Sahjan, who worked very hard to save his long lived ass. I don't get why with everything that Wesley
has gone through and all he has done for Angel, that he has to be villified for making an honest
mistake. He didn't take Connor intending to hand him over to Holtz, or to take him to another
dimension, but to keep him safe, that has been forgotten in the rush to convict the man.
The point of the episode Forgiving is to show just how hard forgiving can be for us. Instead of
working to get Connor back, Angel chose to give up and search for revenge anyway. If anyone can
find Connor it would be Wesley, after all he is the one who was able to open the portal to Pylea.
Wesley made an honest mistake, through the intervention of another man, it became a more tragic
mistake. Instead of punishment I'd like to see Wesley get a chance to make amends....just like Angel
has.
[> [>
honest mistake? -- lulabel, 17:19:55 04/22/02 Mon
I don't get why with everything that Wesley has gone through and all he has done for Angel,
that he has to be villified for making an honest mistake.
I certainly wouldn't say that Wesley should be vilified, as he undoubtedly had the best of intentions.
But let's remember where his "honest mistake" would have led him if Holtz et al had not interfered.
Presumably, Wesley would have done exactly the same thing that Holtz was planning - to disappear
with Connor FOREVER. Wesley is a very intelligent man, he is not likely to have made the mistake
of trying to contact any of the AI team after his disappearance. So the end result is that he would
have permanently separated Connor from his loving, devoted father because he got too wrapped up
in his own little paranoia world. This is the same result that Holtz was intending to be his ultimate
revenge upon Angel!
Back to the original question, I agree with Liz that Fred was over-justifying Wes out of desperation
and loyalty. She is only one voice, and I don't think that there was unequivocal agreement from any
of the other characters.
Let's consider if the writers truly did intend to present Wesley's case as excusable. If that is so, then
Angel's attack on Wesley at the end is clearly NOT excusable - and I find that to be very unlikely.
He is the hero after all, however tarnished he may be.
[> [> [>
Everyone's right? -- oceloty, 18:37:57 04/22/02 Mon
Can it be that Fred, Gunn, Lorne, and the ATP posters are all right?
Wesley was trying to protect Connor and Angel, but ended up kidnapping Connor and
unintentionally allowing him to be taken by Angel's worst enemy. With the best of intentions, under
enormous emotional pressure, Wes committed acts of dubious morality with consequences that were
ultimately horrific.
Angel was trying to rescue Connor, but ended up kinapping people, making evil demons corporeal,
and attacking Wesley. With the best of intentions, under enormous emotional pressure, Angel
committed acts of dubious morality with consequences that were (stop me if you've heard this before)
ultimately horrific.
You know that road to hell, good intentions thing? Wesley and Angel meant well, but their choices
didn't turn out well. They acted in ways we can condemn, for reasons we can understand and
sympathize with. So we (and Fred, Gunn, and Lorne) can justify _and_ villify them both, and be
right on both counts.
Well, that's my take on it, anyway. :)
[> [> [>
Re: honest mistake? -- Rufus, 18:44:09 04/22/02 Mon
Let's consider if the writers truly did intend to present Wesley's case as excusable. If that is so,
then Angel's attack on Wesley at the end is clearly NOT excusable - and I find that to be very
unlikely. He is the hero after all, however tarnished he may be.
Wesley made a mistake, one that he would never have considered if he didn't believe a prophesy that
had been tampered with. That prophesy is true, except for the parts Sahjan traveled through time to
doctor.
I understand why Wesley did what he did. His intentions were not to harm but to protect. If you
consider what a hero is, then Wes also fits the bill. If you do a balance sheet on Angel and Wesley,
who comes out worse? As I believe Angel has a right to make amends, I also believe that part of
making amends is being able to look at a situation and come to forgive a person for a mistake they
made. Wesley has done so much right, I don't think this mistake erases that fact. If we can't forgive
Wesley for his honest mistake then why should we forgive Angel for the many children and babies he
may have killed as a vampire? If you only want to talk about Angel as a vampire with a soul, then
his time ran out 15 human lawyers ago. Forgiveness isn't just for the main hero of the show but for
their friends as well.
[> [> [> [>
Well said -- AngelVSAngelus, 21:55:22 04/22/02 Mon
And its easy for we, the audience, to do so. I'm sure, however, that it will take much longer for the
father that has lost his son, and if that isn't understandable, well... I don't know what is.
Yeah, I think Angel's actions midway last year (Noir Angel) were on the reprehensible side. I also
think that it was much easier for the gang to forgive and reaccept him despite those actions because
they didn't lose anyone. If anything, they were just left with less enemies.
I'm not condoning those acts or even comparatively saying that they are of less value immorally,
but I am saying that it may be easier to forgive than the current situation. The ease of forgiveness is
not always proportional to the wrongness of an action, but what is lost in the course of it.
[> [> [> [>
Re: honest mistake? -- Rahael, 03:05:35 04/23/02 Tue
I think there's also another reason why Angel finds it hard to forgive Wes, apart from his natural
feelings as a parent.
Angel hasn't forgiven himself. He's spent decades worrying, atoning and brooding.
If he forgave Wes so quickly where would he stand with himself? What were all those decades about?
He's personally invested in the non forgiveness thing.
Angel's victims can't forgive him because they're dead. There are many parallels between Angel and
Wes, and of late, with the dubious actions for a good purpose, it's being highlighted again.
[> [> [> [> [>
Exactly -- Rufus, 03:58:21 04/23/02 Tue
In the Season One ep Five by five, we get a flashback to Angelus/Angel, who has been cursed by a
soul, able to care about all he has done. He talks to Darla about killing..
She walks into the other room. Angel is huddled up against a wall.
Angel: "Not everyone screams."
Darla: "What?"
Angel: "When you kill them. Some - just stand there, - frozen... While others..."
Darla: "What are you doing? Are we playing a game?"
Angel: "The children - they usually scream."
Darla smiling: "Hmm, yes. They sound just like little pigs. Have you brought me some? -
What you don't think I’ll share? I can't believe that you would think I'm that insensitive."
Angel turns away from the wall. He looks pretty ragged.
Angel: "We've drunk and killed for who long now? 140-odd years. We've drunk them all up and
they're all dead."
Darla tries to take his face into her hands: "Where have you been?"
Angel pushes her away: "Don't."
Darla: "What is this? Have you met someone else?"
Angel takes a hold of her shoulders and leans against her.
Darla: "No. -Let go. (Pushes him away) Let go of me! What happened to you? Angelus, what
happened?"
Angel: "That gypsy girl you brought me - her people found out. They did something to me."
Darla: "A spell?"
Angel: "Funny. You would think with all the - people I've maimed - and killed I wouldn't be able
to remember every - single - one. (Darla walks up to him) Help me."
Angel has a lot to feel guilty about, lots to atone for. If we can feel enough compassion to care about
this accomplished killer, then why should we have any less compassion for Wesley, who took Connor
to keep him safe, so he didn't have to have the screams of a child on his conscience. We tend to forget
just how much enjoyment killing brought Angelus, but Wesley has a file on him, knows his secrets,
yet has cared enough for the man that he still wanted to protect him. His big mistake was acting
without consulting the others. Lorne brought out the real reason Angel has such a problem with
forgiveness...
Lorne: "I don't know. I hope for the best. You know, there is a bigger picture here, Angel. And in
that bigger picture there is a glass."
Angel: "If the words 'glass is half full' are about to come out of your mouth - don't."
Lorne: "No. No, this is more a glass half full of spiked blood. If Sahjhan and that lady lawyer
pulled off their feeding plan, you'd have *Connor's* blood on your hands."
Angel: "Don't I anyway?"
Lorne: "No! You think there is something more you could have done? You did everything you
could with the knowledge you had. Just like Wesley. - You know, maybe the way to start forgiving
yourself is by starting to forgive him."
Angel knows what he has been, what he has been capable of doing...and he still can't forgive himself
because he had come to hope for a new beginning in Connor, now that is gone. Angel can't forgive
Wesley because as a friend, Wesleys inability to tell him about the prophesy showed he still feared
the monster that could still surface at any time. Angel still can't stop believing that suffering is what
he deserves. When he is able to understand what forgiving can do to heal the soul in the demon,
maybe he will reach out to the friend who made a mistake. Let that friend make amends.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Why didn't Wes tell anyone? -- Arethusa, 07:53:39 04/23/02 Tue
Why didn't Wes tell anyone?
"Angel can't forgive Wesley because as a friend, Wesleys inability to tell him about the prophesy
showed he still feared the monster that could still surface at any time."
Wesley's fears seem to be the reasons he didn't tell anyone. He is, wisely, afraid of Angelus, but he's
not afraid of Angel, whom he should have talked to. Cordelia wasn't there, but he could have called
her when the prophecy appeared to come true. Fred could have helped him research the prophecy.
Gunn could have helped him watch Angel and guard Connor. The Host might have been able to
better gauge Angel's temperment. Why did he remain silent, feeding his paranoia with panic and
fear?
Wesley doesn't seem to have much confidence in himself, or trust his ability to make a decision. He's
been decisive in the past, most notably when Angel left in S2 and in Pylea, but the events in "Billy"
clearly shook his image of himself, and losing a chance with Fred was another blow. It's very
common in drama, and especially tragedies, for a character to keep quiet when he should speak;
otherwise there'd be no tragedy. But Wes has been wrong before, and by "Loyalty" he obviously was
afraid he would be wrong again (and look like a fool).
Wes: "Life. Life is funny. Listening to stupid people talking to hamburgers is funny. Worrying about
things that will never... - It's all so incredibly funny and - and beautiful."
Insecurity and fear led to paranoia, paranoia led to panic, panic led to tragedy. Now Wes has no job,
no friends, no money, a hospital bill the size of Texas, and it was all for nothing. I wouldn't leave
him alone for five minutes under these circumstances.
[>
Re: Thrashing a dead horse. Spoilers for Forgiveness -- Apophis, 16:51:01 04/22/02
Mon
I don't think Wes did the right thing, necessarily, but he did an understandable thing, and therefore
a possibly excusable thing. I think the writers want us to understand his actions, but not necessarily
approve of them.
1) Wes finds the prophecy. He's mistranslated before, so he doesn't tell anyone.
2) Wes confirms the prophecy (unwittingly stumbling into the enemy's hands). At this point, he is A)
used to working alone on it; B) uncomfortable in enlisting the aid of Fred and Gunn (for personal
reasons), unable to get Cordelia's help (since she's not there), and not keen on telling Angel (having
no idea what his possible reaction/state of mind may be); finally, C) he's panicing. When one panics,
one doesn't necessarily do the logical thing, i.e. getting help.
Due to the obvious results of his actions, I think it's okay to forgive him, though I doubt anyone will
anytime soon.
[>
Re: Thrashing a dead horse. Spoilers for Forgiveness and Double or Nothing -- Robert,
19:20:53 04/22/02 Mon
>> "While I'm still open to discussion on this point (I hear that snickering), it sure seems to me that
we were intended to come away from that episode believing that Wesley did the right thing. That
bothers me."
Now that you've seen Fred's scene with Wesley in "Double or Nothing", would you modify your
conclusion?
[> [>
One of the remarkable things about ME -- Sophist, 08:30:14 04/23/02 Tue
is that they continue to successfully subvert our expectations. They point us in one direction, only to
reverse it in an unexpected way. The dramatic effects of these subversions can be quite
powerful.
:)
[> [> [>
I entirely agree with you, but ... -- Robert, 10:02:43 04/23/02 Tue
is that a yes or no?
[> [> [> [>
You'd make a good lawyer Robert. -- Sophist, 10:43:36 04/23/02 Tue
To quote Xander (Phases): "Must you keep pushing and pushing?" Kidding of course.
Here's my take. I think we were intended to get the "Wes was right" message from
Forgiveness. Having the opposite message delivered so bluntly -- and by Fred of all people -- made
the moral point as strongly as even I could wish.
The Biology of Vampires -- Slain,
18:09:46 04/22/02 Mon
This is something I thought I'd raise, as it has no specifc answers and hopefully won't start any
arguments about whether Spike is evil or not!
So, if you could get a vampire to sit still for long enough to cut it open, what would it look like? Some
questions -
Do vampires digest blood like humans digest food?
Does blood flow in vampires veins, despite the heart not beating? Or, what physical processes
(mental and physical) are still active in the human body?
Is the demon a physical thing instead the human body, as the lumpies, teeth and eyes would seem to
suggest, or is it more a mystical presence?
Is it UV rays that kill vamps, or sunlight itself?
There are some other things I've been thinking about relating to other bodily fluids, but I won't
broach that topic. ;-)
[>
Re: The Biology of Vampires -- Apophis, 18:34:18 04/22/02 Mon
- Do vampires digest blood? If they do, they'd have to use the restroom at some point, which would
detract from the "mysterious creature of the night" mystique thing a bit. They'd also be able to gain
weight. We know that vampires lose weight if they don't feed enough, but we've never seen a fat
vampire (think of Darla and Drucilla after they feasted on the lawyers). I always figured that
vampires converted blood directly into energy without having to process it. This would explain their
voracious appetites, as they'd need to feed like weasles to maintain their energy levels.
- I figure that the blood flow is controlled by subconscious willpower. Vampires bleed, but they don't
gush blood when greivously injured, implying that, once the blood exits the body, it lacks locomotive
force. It would appear that vampires sweat, they reflexively pant and breath hard at exertion, they
blink (though maybe out of habit only), and they must, at some point, sleep. Do they, in fact, excrete
waste? I prefer to think not. Does their hair grow? Well, it would be pretty hard to get a haircut or
shave w/o using a mirror, but we don't know for sure. Maybe their hair can only grow to the length it
was when they "died." As far as mental processes go, vampires appear to possess all the mental
traits of mortals (including the illnesses, re: Drucilla and Zachary Kralik).
- The actual vampiric demon would appear to be an immaterial thing, similar to the soul it displaces.
When Angel was on Pylea, perhaps that was only a physical manifestation of the etheric being
inhabiting his body. The vampdemon possesses limited control over the host's form, allowing it to
make the necessary alterations to render it a vampire (superstrength, regenerative powers, etc.) and
to reshape the face in order to feed. Being able to hide in plain sight would be a useful survival
tactic.
- Seeing as how neither starlight nor moonlight (which is really just reflected sunlight) harms
vampires, one must assume that it is the mystical significance of the sun itself that is harmful to
vampires and not the UV rays. The sun is a symbol of life, vitality, and the divine. Vampires are the
antithesis of all these things.
[> [>
Addendum -- Apophis, 18:40:56 04/22/02 Mon
As far as physical processes go, it would seem some carry over into undeath. Kralik needed his
medication to stave off headaches. Penn needed (or believed he needed) glasses. Regarding the
vampdemon, perhaps it is somewhat physical. As vampires age, they begin to reflect their demonic
nature physically. Perhaps, after millenia of feeding on vitality, the demon begins to assert itself in
the physical world, altering its host to reflect its true nature. This begs the question "What would
the oldest vampire in existence (the first vampire?) look like and just how powerful would it
be?"
[> [>
Vampire grooming -- ponygirl, 06:26:52 04/23/02 Tue
Definitely my weird thought of the day: I imagine the invention of the Polaroid camera was a big
boon for vampire kind. Since we have seen vamps show up on video and photographs a decent
Polaroid camera, or video camera with monitor hookup for the more technologically minded, would
solve all of those pesky questions about outfits and hairstyles.
[>
This brings up a question that has bugged me for years ... -- Wolfhowl3, 19:34:10 04/22/02 Mon
How large is the Vampire's Heart? Because we have seen them turn to dust after they get staked in
the Gut, Sholder, etc.
Most of the time, it seems to me, Buffy hits the Vamps Right below the Breastbone, and I don't know
about those pesky Undead Kidders, but I don't keep my heart there, I keep it higher up, and on my
left side, nice and safe in my Rib cage.
Wolfie
[>
Re: The Biology of Vampires -- Darby, 20:10:15 04/22/02 Mon
It isn't biology, not really, because it breaks too many rules, too many basic life
requirements, forgetting that we're also dealing with what is physiologically a somewhat modified
human body. This aspect more than any of the Buffyverse has been made and added to on the fly,
with major inconsistencies and contradictions. All we can do is fall back on Joss' main excuse when
pressed in such areas: "It's magic."
[> [>
Re: The Biology of Vampires -- Slain, 21:16:17 04/22/02 Mon
Inconsistencies!? But Joss is never inconsistent. ;)
Here're my theories about vampires (mostly I'm agreeing with Apophis).
In a way vampires do digest blood - from Spike's rumbling tummy we know that something is going
on down there. Though that might just be the juices sloshing around, and the vampires merely
associating it with feeding.
I don't think vampires excrete, aside from Spike excreting cool. Things like sweat and tears,
however, do happen. It seems like the whole life giving process is removed, and supplanted by that of
the demon, but other non-life giving processes remain. I think, however, they are vulnerable to the
frailties of their bodies - the mind that they use as undead is the same as used by the human; hence
Dru is still mad. While vampires are strong, some are stronger than others, and this seems to be
dependent on their physical size, not just on mystical force; it's always the big-ass vamps which give
Buffy the most trouble. The likes of the Master are an exception, because they have magical power of
some kind.
I think of the demon as being like a soul, too: invisible, but still present. However, it can't quite exist
in this dimension, except by physically manipulating the flesh of the humans to resemble itself. This
explains why vampires can't been seen in mirror, and their thoughts can't be read. Vampires aren't
quite all there, and I don't just mean Drusilla. ;)
The way I think of it is that vampires really are a mystical abberation; they shouldn't exist here, so
contradict many rules of the dimension. Other demons seem happier in this world, so aren't effected.
Sunlight and wood are both things of this dimension, so they effect them. UV light doesn't, because
it's artificial.
As for the heart, I think the heart is more a mystical than a physical force - so it might not exist in
quite the same way as the undead heart of the body.
[> [>
Hey Darby. Missed your posts lately. -- Sophist, 08:32:23 04/23/02 Tue
A Spuffy thread with a twist......(nope, not
Spike and Buffy) -- Ahira, 19:42:52 04/22/02 Mon
Okay, my weird thought of the day sorta just came to me as I was driving around for work. Can't
say if this has ever been said before, only been reading the boards for a little while.
The comparison works best when taken from the beginning of the season, wonder if there is more
than what I have here.
Buffy: superpowered individual, came to these powers while young and in school, a protector of
the innocent and bane to evil, has a very acrobatic fighting still which is mixed with liberal doses of
snappy banter.
Willow: very smart, nerd/geek, likes school and does very well, sciences oriented.
Xander: low confidence and self esteem, nervous with the ladies, hooks up with one of the A-
listers at his school.
All righty, now put that all together and what do you get? I am thinking it is just because the
movie is so close to release, but, Spider-man sure comes to mind. Not sure about the familiarity with
him for those of you out there. I did a lot of reading the comic when I was young and it is very easy
to find the facets of his character in the big 3 on Buffy.
Okay, enough of my flight of fancy. You may return to your regularly scheduled reading.
(sometimes, I just gotta give in to my strangeness, sigh)
[>
Re: A Spuffy thread with a twist......(nope, not Spike and Buffy) -- Wolfhowl3, 19:53:00
04/22/02 Mon
I've never made that conection before, but you are correct. You could even take it a step farther, and
connect Faith with Venom or Carnage, because They have the Same powers as the Hero, but use
them for less noble purposes. (Like Murder!)
Wolfie
[>
Re: A Spuffy thread with a twist......(nope, not Spike and Buffy) -- Apophis, 21:02:13
04/22/02 Mon
I always thought a crossover between the two would be cool. It would have to take place when the
Scoobies were in high school and you'd probably have to use the Ultimate Spider-Man version of
Spidey. There's be, like, a field trip or something and they'd run into each other. Once the action got
started, Spider-Man would have the moral dilemma of killing vampires (he'd have to get a crash
course in undead morality).
[> [>
Re: A Spuffy thread with a twist......(nope, not Spike and Buffy) -- Ahira, 21:09:54
04/22/02 Mon
Yeah, could be cool. Or go the other way even and have Morbius be introduced to the scoobie gang
and throw another wrench in their thoughts on vamps...hehe
[> [> [>
I was rooting for Nicholas Brendan to get cast as Petey... -- AngelVSAngelus, 21:59:48
04/22/02 Mon
Because he IS (well, was. His character's kind branched from that path since highschool) Spidey as
Xander.
So where has Charisma been? -- The
Last Jack, 20:49:56 04/22/02 Mon
When regulars of a show leave like she did, it usually means they are either doing a movie, or had to
take some time off for personal reasons. So, will we be seeing her on the big screen soon, or did she
just take her own little hiatus?
[>
Re: So where has Charisma been? -- Apophis, 20:57:36 04/22/02 Mon
I heard she was either working on a movie or that her father died. I heard the movie thing first,
though, so I'm more inclined to believe it.
[>
Re: So where has Charisma been? [spoilers for 'Sleep Tight'] -- Slain, 21:22:26 04/22/02
Mon
I don't know, but it was amazing how the tone of the show completely changed without Cordy
around. I don't think 'Sleep Tight' wouldn't have worked with her, or more specifically her and Groo,
around.
Does anyone know how to spell Groosalag, BTW? I always thought it was Gruesalaag, but maybe
that's just me being fanciful.
[> [>
I think I've seen it spelled as Groosalug. -- Deeva, 22:33:28 04/22/02 Mon
[>
Re: So where has Charisma been? -- aurelia, 22:15:22 04/22/02 Mon
I don't know if this is why she took the time off, but she's going to be in some movie called the
Groomsman. So you will get to see her on the big screen if you are so inclined.
Double or Nothing...(AtS spoilers) --
JBone, 20:58:35 04/22/02 Mon
My first impressions were that this was a plodding episode getting Cordy back before sweeps month.
I actually got bored watching. But what a coup for Jenoff! I always read her reviews, but to have a
character and casino named after you, wow. Could there be a Masq or Psyche in the future of the
Buffyverse?
I might add more later, if I can find the time.
[>
DoN reactions (spoilers) -- Solitude1056, 21:10:57 04/22/02 Mon
Just real quick... a few comments.
1. Love Groo.
Never thought I'd say that, since his Dorkness bugged me during the Pylea arc (well, that whole arc
kinda bugged me at some points), but his naive joy is, uh, rather refreshing at this point. His
expressions during the powwow were enchanting and had me cracking up - nice to see that
something could still make me laugh despite all the doom, gloom, and general broodiness of the
episode.
2. Cordy needs another raise.
If she's going to keep being the Momma Bear of the group, and the unofficial therapist for everyone,
she needs a new couch and a raise. I mean, sheesh, we didn't even get to hear how her trip went, if
she's comfier with Groo, or what - just a few quick expressions from her to him that implied maybe
some comfierness. Otherwise, she just kinda hung out and was supporto-gal.
3. Tragedy is getting rougher here.
I still think if Wesley had died, the utter greek tragedian aspects would've been even sharper - he did
his best, in an Oedipal way (not the mom-sex bit, the dad-death & divert-prophecy bit), to prevent
what he thought would be a horrible event... and then, afterwards, to find out that it was all a
forgery. Then you could have an utter bitterness that Wes' death didn't even mean anything.
Leaving aside the wierdness of his survival (and trip to the hospital - did that bum take his wallet
and leave him, or did he really help?), his survival puts some real kinks into the believability of the
other characters' actions - how does one heal after that, or can one ever heal? From my
understanding of parents, healing and forgiveness may come only after a loooong time, and we're not
talking three episodes. I'm not holding my breath, but I am hoping that ME finds a way to resolve
this without putting the characters through inconsistent loops.
[> [>
My post of shame. -- Ian, 21:49:38 04/22/02 Mon
I'm ashamed for even mentioning this, and I'm fighting the urge to sign a fake posting name, but
what the heck happened to Cordy's hair? It's horrible. I actually found myself staring at her odd 'do
instead of listening to her speak. I know she was saying something comforting, I think, but her
asymmetrical bangs and odd hair color just riveted me. I was even having weird early S3 Buffy hair
flashbacks, "Are those streaks on purpose?"
[> [> [>
I too was distracted.. -- neaux, 05:56:18 04/23/02 Tue
very hard to concentrate when a cast member gets a Star Trek Next the Generation Haircut
[> [> [> [>
I read somewhere that "there's a reason" for Cordy's hair... -- Marie,
06:37:07 04/23/02 Tue
...I could be totally wrong, but I think it was David Fury or someone, on the Bronze VIP Archive
board, when he was quizzed as to the reason she's blonde again. He didn't say what the reason was,
though, so we'll have to wait!
Marie
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I read somewhere that "there's a reason" for Cordy's hair... -- Lyonors,
09:53:36 04/23/02 Tue
Being that my VCR decided to die...does anyone know where I could see a screen shot of Cordy in her
oh so scary blondeness?
Thanks.
Ly
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I read somewhere that "there's a reason" for Cordy's hair... -- Masq,
10:17:44 04/23/02 Tue
There's a shot of Cordy up at the official Angel WB website
http://www.thewb.com/Shows/Episode/0,8201,||317,00.html?chosenEpisode=%2FShows%2FEpisode
%2F0%2C8201%2C%7C%7C317%2C00.html
It's a little more flattering than the way she actually looks in the episode. But that website should
have their "gallery" pictures for the ep up soon and that might have a more accurate picture of the
woman with the skin-tight blond bob.
[> [> [> [> [>
Maybe the reason is -- Annie, 10:22:22 04/23/02 Tue
Angel's supposed predilection for blondes.
[> [> [> [>
Not just the hair.. -- Can I be
Anne?, 11:59:17 04/23/02 Tue
I also found it hard to pay attention to Cordy's words, what with that gawd-awful shirt she was
wearing. I speculated that maybe CC lost a bet, or the people in wardrobe have it in for
her(everyone else gets the snazzy clothes) My brother helpfully offered that it matches her
hair!
[> [>
but can they afford to give her a raise? -- anom, 23:08:30 04/22/02 Mon
"2. Cordy needs another raise."
It occurred to me when I saw Gru greeting "customers" & contributing to the proceedings to wonder
if AI is paying him? Or is Cordelia supporting him, in which case she sure could use another raise?
Hmmm...I suppose Wesley's salary is now available to pay Gru with....
[> [>
Re: DoN reactions (sp for DoN and some unspoiled speculation), CC's acting chops -- yuri,
23:57:59 04/22/02 Mon
Yes, I did a total 180 for Groo this episode, he is somehow more in balance there, now. And I thought
a lot of Cordy's comfiness was sort of in the motherly way - can't ignore those lingerings of the
camera when talking about how babies make ya feel... and special attention to her relishing a loaf of
bread? I dunno.
as a small aside, I am a big fan of books on tape. I love to listen to them when I'm painting, or
sometimes when I'm cleaning my house. I somewhat sheepishly borrowed a buffy book on tape from
the library, narrated by Charisma Carpenter, and it was just terrible! I mean, I found it amusing so I
continued to listen to it, but she was just awful! I began to think she's only convincing as cordelia
because it's an easy role to play for a not-so-hot actress (very stylized, exaggerated way of talking).
I'm not trying to bash the girl to smitherines here, I adore Cordy and wouldn't have anyone else play
her, but for goodness sake! I'm not suprised I haven't seen her around.
[> [> [>
Re: DoN reactions (sp for DoN and some unspoiled speculation), CC's acting chops --
skeeve, 08:35:11 04/23/02 Tue
I've heard the the books on tape gig isn't as easy as it seems, so it might not be a good indicator of
her acting ability.
Audio tapes of me generally sound like gibberish, even though the guys with the recorders have no
trouble understanding me. Digital voice recorders don't give me that problem.
[> [>
Completely agree about #3. -- Sophist, 08:17:18 04/23/02 Tue
[>
Re: Double or Nothing...(AtS spoilers) -- OnM, 07:49:29 04/23/02 Tue
* For what it's worth, my understanding is that jenoff is a 'he'.
* Liked the ep, liked Cordy's hair a lot. Was puzzled that Fred told Wesley off-- Angel I can
understand, but Fred?
* Feel very sorry for Wes, blamed so terribly and unjustly for doing what seemed to be the best
course of action under the circumstances.
* Not sure whether jenoff should be pleased at the name-drop, or upset because the character was a
very nasty evil demon. Hummm...
* Branching off the last comment, I certainly hope if anyone ever names a Buffyverse character
'OnM' that he or she is one of the good guys!
* Yes, I genuinely did like the hair.
;-)
(See, I really am just as shallow as everybody else!)
[> [>
Not in agreement (SPOILERS for Double or Nothing) -- Robert, 10:34:42 04/23/02
Tue
>> "Was puzzled that Fred told Wesley off ..."
and
>> "Feel very sorry for Wes, blamed so terribly and unjustly for doing what seemed to be the best
course of action under the circumstances."
There should be no puzzlement. Fred stated exactly why Wesley was wrong. Wesley should have
trusted the others. He should have shared his dilemma and his information. He should have shared
his doubt and his pain. Collectively the group may still have done the wrong thing, but they would
collectively shared the shame.
When Wesley cut the group out of the process, he committed an act of betrayal. Even if the scenario
had ended well, it still would have been an act of betrayal. Angel illustrated the depth of the
betrayal when he referred to losing Gunn as losing another member of the family.
[>
FYI: I think Jenoff the TV reviewer is Allan Jenoff, i.e. a he, not a she -- Rattletrap,
07:51:12 04/23/02 Tue
First Thoughts on Tonights Ep --
Corwin of Amber, 21:21:07 04/22/02 Mon
Hmm. My first thought is...that was too easy? I was ready for some world class brooding on the part
of Angel and Wes, and a burst of murderous rage from Angel, but I didn't really get it.
In reality, both of these guys should be under suicide watch. Well, I guess that might have been
what Cordie was doing, but what about Wes? Have the AI gang taken Angels side on the whole
thing?
Other stuff...pleased to see Cordie and Groo back. Wanted to know some details of what they were
doing, didn't get it.
Surprisingly, Groo has grown on me. He's a great contrast to Broody Guy.
[>
Re: First Thoughts on Tonights Ep -- luvthistle1, 00:24:47 04/23/02 Tue
This season of Angel have been great, but the "Double or nothing", epsiode was boring. It lack the
passion of the last couple of epsiode. I still can not get use to Fred being with Gunn. Gunn seem to
not talk to anyone,beside Fred , anymore. I surprise Cordelia did not go check on Wes. I thought for
sure Cordelia would understand. She knows how bad Angel is when he turn into "Angelus" and
would understand Wesley concern for Conner life. Her and Wesley were once very close. Also , how
come angel didn't attack Holtz, or Justine or even Lilah? They had just as much to do with Conner
disappearance than Wes. He was only a pawn,in their plan to get Conner. He once side he wouldn't
kill a human because they can be redeem. Yet, he tried to kill Wes.
[> [>
Re: First Thoughts on Tonights Ep -- mucifer, 07:08:56 04/23/02 Tue
I was very disappointed with this episode. The dialogue to me seemed very poorly written. I dont
have a problem with Angel's shift from anger to depression. That makes sense and David B handled
it well. He really is improving as an actor. I dont think Angel was trying to kill Wesley, just scare
him. That also makes sense. It just felt like the pacing and the dialogue was poor. I think they
shoved every verbal cliche they could about death and grieving to deal with Conner and that is hard
for me to watch after having seen "the body" so many times. Showing the empty crib 18 times just
didnt impress me. Hopefully the next episodes will have a better writter and director. (damn Joss
and his 200 projects!).
[> [> [>
Re: First Thoughts on Tonights Ep -- Cactus Watcher, 07:45:21 04/23/02 Tue
We just had a sub-thread on 'unessential' Buffy episodes. I'd say Double or Nothing would certainly
be a candidate for a list of unessential Angel episodes. But, it could have been worse. It could have
been one of those episodes you see on Star Trek: Next Gen. and elsewhere where there is no story
just flash-backs to old eps tied together weakly.
Let's see in Double or Nothing, we have Angel acting broody. We have someone coming back from a
journey to discover something awful has happened, and instead of a long reaction scene we just see a
quick recognition something is very wrong. We have a bet-your-soul to save someone else gambling
scene. We have a tortured soul isolated from the group (Ooh! Ooh! Will they ever accept him again?).
We have the ladies all acting as 'Mommy' because the guys are too stupid and insensitive to figure
anything out without a serious maternal influence. We have Gunn acting nasty and distant because
of something in his past. Er, maybe it was a bunch of flash-backs; some of them from other TV
series.
This episode was neither the worst nor the most boring. But, it does show that when care isn't
taken, that aspects of the show that seem just right in good episodes, can become trite and even
annoying.
[>
Re: First Thoughts on Tonights Ep (SPOILERS for Double or Nothing) -- Robert,
10:59:59 04/23/02 Tue
>> "In reality, both of these guys should be under suicide watch. Well, I guess that might have been
what Cordie was doing, but what about Wes?"
You are damn right that was what Cordelia was doing. When in the previous 5 years would Cordelia
have hung out with someone in such a profound funk? Regarding Wesley, what about him? Yes, he
should have someone watching him as well, but right now the quantity of friends Wesley has is an
infinitesimal number. I argued in several posting last week that Fred, Gunn and Lorne were not
happy with Wesley, dispite the fact that they protected him from murder by Angel. Well now we see
the consequences of Wesley betrayal. No one is willing to hang out with him.
>> "Have the AI gang taken Angels side on the whole thing?"
No, they have not! Each member of the "gang" was betrayed by Wesley. Each member of the group
has a grievance against Wesley. The act of betrayal was not the kidnapping of Angel's baby, it was
the act of cutting the rest of the group out of the process. In regards to Gunn, Angel expressed that
he would not lose another member of the family. This illuminates the depth of feeling which each
member of the group must be feeling. Wesley took it upon himself to keep vital information close to
the vest, and to make profound decisions for the rest of the family.
As one poster pointed out, Wesley previously threatened Gunn with firing if he ever withheld
information again ("That Old Gang of Mine"). I would not be at all surprised if this little incident
comes up again in the next couple weeks.
I'd REALLY like to chat RE: the
discussions below Deeva's JM thread... (O/T) -- yuri, 00:37:04 04/23/02 Tue
colorblindness
slavery (US and world)
civil war
- about slavery or about state rights
reparations
Political Correctness
White privilege
some really in-depth US history
Half wits taking over the world
I haven't been here since friday, and after sitting with my head in my hands for a while, trying to
suss out all the millions of things I wanted to say, I decided that this would be the best
solution.
I'd particularly like to invite Phoenix, Sophist, Malandaza, ravenhair, Rahael, yabyumpan, Rob,
Scott, anom, Traveler, Stevosaurus, and anyone else who feels at all passionately about this stuff.
(There's a much longer list of everyone who I'd like to come, but I'm sure they'll come if they want
to.)
Now I'm really free especially this week, so those more pressed for time should suggest a date. I'm a
little nervous to be the person to suggest this, but ya gotta put yourself out there sometimes,
right?
[>
Re: I'd REALLY like to chat RE: the discussions below Deeva's JM thread... (O/T) --
Traveler, 01:31:16 04/23/02 Tue
While all the topics you mentioned are quite interesting, that's a spectacular chat you're inviting us
to. Many books have been written about these subjects and they are often hotbutton issues. It might
help to narrow your focus a bit and appoint a level headed moderator. Laying ground rules and
setting aside time to sleep might be a good idea too :P
[>
Re: I'd REALLY like to chat RE: the discussions below Deeva's JM thread... (O/T) -- Phoenix, 01:56:14 04/23/02 Tue
Hi
Thanks for the invite, but chatrooms and me do not a merry mix make. ;)
Don`t even visit the chatrooms on my own board; tried but I find the conversation whizzing past me
before I`ve finished typing a sentence. :p
Thanks anyway. :)
Probably will reply to Rahaels post later if I can manage to word it so I don`t get misunderstood or
end up starting a scrap. ;)
Phoenix
[> [>
Re: I'd REALLY like to chat RE: the discussions below Deeva's JM thread... (O/T) --
Rahael, 02:12:37 04/23/02 Tue
Unfortunately Scott is the same troll that caused the ruckus when we last debated race here.
Remember Rochefort's huge thread? And the same troll by the way who's been plaguing the board
since around 2001.
Also, my laptop has died this week, so my time online is only during work hours.
I would also have to say that I am waay too sensitive about this issue to really debate it as it were.
Especially if I'm debating it with wounds bared, and other participants were bright and breezy.
But I would be very happy to chat with you, sometime Yuri, (and Yaby and Traveler - never chatted
to them before)!!
I shouldn't even have dignified the PC halfwit post with a reply really. I never learn!
[>
Wed or Fri about 5 PDT or 8 PDT would work for me -- Sophist, 08:11:14 04/23/02
Tue
[>
Re: I'd REALLY like to chat RE: the discussions below Deeva's JM thread... (O/T) --
yabyumpan, 11:04:17 04/23/02 Tue
Thanks for the invite, although it is something i am very passionate about not sure how much i could
contribute. I've also never been on a chat board before so have no idea how these things work. Let me
know more details and i'll see if i can join in baring in mind i do shift work so my timeing might be
off plus being in the uk, not sure about the time difference thing.
[>
Re: I'd REALLY like to chat RE: the discussions below Deeva's JM thread... (O/T) --
ravenhair, 12:25:20 04/23/02 Tue
Yuri, I would like to thank you for the discussion invite! All the issues you mentioned would make
for interesting debate; however, I was actually trying to let sleeping dogs lie. I don't mind a candid
discussion but let me confess I'm afraid I would be stepping into the lion's den. While tracing our
family genealogy, my husband and I found Confederate soldiers on both sides of our families and I
don't know if I can remain objective in such a debate, at least regarding Civil War history. And I've
already gotten a taste of South=evil/North=virtuous from other social circles to have to swallow it
here. It has been my experience that such issues are emotional hot buttons and I respect everyone
on this board too much to risk losing my acceptance into this community. I don't mind engaging in a
candid discussion on the chat room, but my work schedule is unpredictable so I can't really commit
to a certain date/time. I almost popped in the chat room last night but was called away to work,
Grrrr!! Plus, I am working on a Buffy essay (gosh,imagine that!) I should've finished last week. :(
Happy Tuesday!
rh
Mother Figure No More -- Maura, 07:24:57 04/23/02 Tue
The one thing I was disappointed with in "double or nothing" was Cordy's reaction to Connor's
abduction and disappearance. Cordy was a mother figure to the child, sharing parental
responsibilities with Angel. It seemed as though a real family unit was forming.
Yet, when she hears that Connor is gone, she is surprisingly calm and emotionless. You could argue
that she may have been trying to keep it together for Angel’s sake. You could also argue that the
emotional distance between herself and Angel & Connor has increased due to the appearance of Groo
and her holiday with him.
But I don’t buy it. She should have been more heavily impacted by what happened to Connor. It just
wasn’t real enough for me.
Also, one of the clips i saw in the previews for this episode showed Cordelia surrounded by a bright
white light. It seemed as though her demon powers were going to appear in this episode.
I am quite disappointed that they didn't -- it seems as though Mutant Enemy was just teasting us!
- maura
[>
Re: Mother Figure No More -- Arethusa, 07:56:19 04/23/02 Tue
Blame the network, not ME. The preview also had a clip of Fred being attacked by Wes in "Billy"-
obviously nothing to do with "Double or Nothing."
[>
"teasting" ? -- Robert, 11:21:29 04/23/02 Tue
>> "I am quite disappointed that they didn't -- it seems as though Mutant Enemy was just teasting
us!"
What does "teasting" mean? I can't find it in my dictionary. Did you mean "testing"? If so, how do
you mean that ME was testing us?
[> [>
Re: "teasting" ? -- Maura, 12:43:09 04/23/02 Tue
Sorry, that should have been "teasing". These text entry fields need a spell checker. ;)
[>
Blame the WB -- amber, 13:22:32 04/23/02 Tue
The WB has set up all its preview for the next month so that they include scenes of the last 5-6 eps.
depending how many eps. of a given show are left. Therefore, the stuff you see in the preview isn't
necessarily what you'll see in the next episode, just stuff that will happen before the season ends.
Since this is being done with Felicity, Smallville, Charmed, etc. as well as Angel, I doubt it's ME's
fault. More likely a choice made by the WB and ME has no say in it.
I'm confused (spoilers for Double or
Nothing) -- Vickie, 09:17:09 04/23/02 Tue
So, Angel cuts of Jenoff's (the demon's) head. And Gunn says, "If it were that easy, I'd have killed
him myself."
And Jenoff starts growing another head.
Angel gets the crowd to attack Jenoff, and they do with the punching and the kicking, and our heroes
run off.
If this guy can grow another head, how are punches and kicks going to stop him? What did I
miss?
[>
You missed the poor writing :) -- Earl
Allison, 09:39:05 04/23/02 Tue
The idea was, the distraction allowed Angel and the others to escape.
You're right, though, as the demon was presented, this was at best a temporary solution. No reason
at all that Jenoff can't simply send people after Gunn and Angel, after all, according to Angel's
wager, he OWNS their souls.
Of course, a dollar says we never see or hear of Jenoff again.
I know no one can legitimately be held to an illegal contract, but I did have some issues with our
"heroes" and their behavior last night. The alt.tv.angel newsgroup is going into it in far more detail,
but there was at least one good point;
If Jenoff had lost, and then tried to take Gunn and Angel by force, the fans would be screaming
about how evil and sleazy Jenoff was -- how odd that there isn't (as of yet, there may be more
backlash later) any such cry over Angel's actions ...
Don't get me wrong, I want the good guys to win ... of course, I'd like them to ACT like good guys,
too.
Take it and run.
[> [>
So it really wasn't a solution? -- Vickie, 09:43:01 04/23/02 Tue
Because I really need Jenoff's thugs to show up every week and threaten to break kneecaps and
kidnap Gunn and Angel to get their souls sucked out through their eyes.
Of course, I also need them to find out something (else) really scummy about Jenoff, then find a
REAL way to deal with him. ;-)
[> [>
Hate to say it, but... -- Cactus Watcher, 09:54:46 04/23/02 Tue
About the only interesting thing in the whole ep. was Angel and the gang behaving dishonorably at
the end.
[> [> [>
Re: Hate to say it, but... -- Robert, 11:36:49 04/23/02 Tue
>> "... Angel and the gang behaving dishonorably at the end."
Can you expand on this point please?
[> [> [> [>
Read Earl's post. It's his point. -- CW, 11:38:51 04/23/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Read Earl's post. It's his point. -- Robert, 12:01:03 04/23/02 Tue
I did read his post, but you gave his point a name, by referring to Angel's actions as dishonorable. I
am curious to know your thoughts about the honor and dishonor of the whole sordid scenario.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Honor would imply keeping one's word (as a thought) -- Earl Allison, 12:33:28 04/23/02 Tue
I'll take a stab at this.
Angel (and Gunn, who changed his mind at the close) violated their word, their pledge, something
that, as heroes, is supposed to MEAN something.
I would have been far, far happier with some clever loophole to exploit. Believe it or not, the
Simpsons did just that when Devil Flanders lost his claim to Homer's soul because Homer had
pledged it to Marge years earlier.
I suppose the whole idea that Gunn was in essence pledging his soul to 'Fred might have been a nod
to that, but I would have preferred something clever to Angel simply attacking the demon after
losing.
Like I said, not very heroic -- which seems to be all the rage with Angel this season.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Honor would imply keeping one's word (as a thought) -- Arethusa, 12:44:49
04/23/02 Tue
Yeah, I was expecting Jenoff to say that Angel had given his to Connor, or even Cordelia. But none
of this jibes with what's been said about souls before. If Gunn was about to give his soul away to
Fred because he was falling in love with her, then Angel would have lost his soul when he fell in love
with Buffy. Or if a soul is not transferable in that matter, which is what ME's led us to believe, than
how would Jenoff know (or care) that Gunn was falling totally in love with Fred?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
It was convenient for the timing (or it WAS a tip of the hat to the Simpsons) -- Earl Allison, 12:49:35 04/23/02 Tue
Lack of consistency, from ME? No, I refuse to believe it :)
Seriously, I think it was just quick and sloppy writing to force things to come to a head.
Take it and run.
[> [>
I'd have to agree (spoilers for Double or Nothing) -- matching mole, 10:06:45 04/23/02
Tue
Last night's episode was a post-disaster piece in which you have an unrelated but thematically
linked stand alone (like der Kinderstod, or Ken (the demon in Anne)) threat to occupy the main space
of the episode so that the whole thing isn't one long bout of sorrow. However in this case it seems
like very litle attention was actually paid to constructing the episode level plot. The whole point of
the big scene in the casino was presumably to show Angel's determination not to lose anyone else
but, at least to me, it just seemed ridiculous and poorly thought out.
If it really was that easy to get rid of Jenoff then someone else would have done it a long time ago.
And if his soul-sucking activities are widely known why hasn't AI taken action before now? Not to
mention the rather dubious morality that Earl refers to. The demon casino seemed like a very
intriguing idea that wilted from lack of attention.
On a more positive note I'd have to agree with several others that the Groosalug was at his best last
night. Very entertaining. And the elderly demon couple who needed their dwelling de-skenched
(spelling?) were absolutely hilarious and dead on. If as much attention had gone into the casino plot
as into their dialogue it would have been a stand out episode. Gunn and Fred were really good in
that scene as well.
I have no comment to make about Cordelia's hair except that if the current trajectory is unchanged
she will be completely bald by the start of next season.
[> [> [>
LOL,mm......that would sure break Angel's blonde streak in choosing women...:):):) --
Rufus, 17:24:08 04/23/02 Tue
[> [>
Angel's actions (SPOILERS for Double or Nothing) -- Robert, 11:56:18 04/23/02 Tue
>> "If Jenoff had lost, and then tried to take Gunn and Angel by force, the fans would be screaming
about how evil and sleazy Jenoff was -- how odd that there isn't (as of yet, there may be more
backlash later) any such cry over Angel's actions ..."
Do you really think the situation was symmetrical? The wager was; if Angel wins then Angel and
Gunn live, if Jenoff wins then Angel and Gunn die after losing their souls. Gunn did not deserve to
die and he did not deserve to lose his soul.
1. No one can legally or morally sell his life for a pickup truck, not even a really good one.
2. Gunn struck the deal with Jenoff when he was at a point of despair (ie. he had no hope for his
future). I argue that it is never morally right to take advantage of someone who is emotionally
fragile. As an alternate scenario; take someone with severe clinical depression and offer to
completely cure them. The only cost is that a week later they will be harvested for their useful
internal organs. Should the person be held to such an agreement?
3. Gunn was 17 years old when he struck the deal. Others will know better than I, but I don't
believe that a 17 year old boy can be held legally bound to a contract, in many states.
As a side note, I believe that this may be the first time in either BtVS or Angel that we have seen a
physical manifestation of the soul. Can anyone comment on this?
[> [> [>
I think the gray areas are becoming rather black, yes -- Earl Allison, 12:26:42 04/23/02 Tue
You are right, a minor cannot legally enter a binding contract.
I do take serious issue with your "despair" comment, though. Gunn knew what he was proposing,
and if he didn't put any stock in what he was to lose, whose fault was that, exactly? One can cleverly
argue that NO ONE can actually make a deal, since their desire for whatever they are dealing for
MUST be influencing. I know you didn't mean it that nebulously, but one can make that case, and I
think it seriously detracts from personal responsibility (which was thrown away here at the
end).
I don't deny the bad situation, what I have a problem with is the unheroic actions taken to resolve
it.
Gunn knew damn well what he was getting into, ignorance is hardly an excuse. If we as viewers
decide that the heroes are, like villains, not bound by their word, they are heroes ... why, exactly?
When the hero and the villain subscribe to the same behaviors and actions -- the hero has no moral
high ground to claim.
I won't even go into the fact that this hardly seems to be the same Gunn that could barely tolerate
demons when we first met him in Season One.
Argue what you will, Angel just keeps losing more and more right to call himself a hero -- and if the
personnel of Angel Investigations (although how they can be AI without the boss is beyond me) can
pick and choose when their word is worth something -- they are that much closer to being the things
they fight.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [>
Re: I think the gray areas are becoming rather black, yes -- AngelVSAngelus, 12:35:31
04/23/02 Tue
While I agree that Gunn is responsible for his own decisions, I don't see Angel's actions in the end
as having been wrong on his part. As far as I'm concerned, his plan when he walked in there was kill
Jenoff, walk away with Gunn, and it happened. The cut of the deck seemed like a coercion or
distraction to me.
[> [> [> [>
Suppose -- Sophist, 12:59:44 04/23/02 Tue
that the legal system stepped in to invalidate Gunn's original contract (which it clearly would do).
Would you feel differently about that than you do about Angel's intervention in a situation where the
law was powerless?
If all such contracts are invalid, how much moral obloquy should we attach to efforts to evade them?
Put another way, am I honor bound to comply with a contract that the law declares to be immoral? If
I agree to sell myself into slavery, must I go through with it? Can I be freed by others, and if so, by
what means?
[> [> [> [> [>
So, a hero's word is worth nothing, then. -- Earl
Allison, 13:07:56 04/23/02 Tue
Heroes are supposed to be, in some sense, larger than life. If I want real life, I can look out the
window.
If Angel and Buffy cannot be counted on to honor their word, that's one less way they can be
considered a hero.
Fine, anything that isn't legal/moral doesn't bind our heroes -- Buffy should have staked Spike and
Dru in the close of Season Two, but she didn't. She made a deal with Spike, and honored it,
DESPITE how it chafed her to do so, even with Kendra's death by Drusilla's hand that she wanted to
avenge. THAT was a noble, heroic act.
Buffy and Faith should just have taken the Books of Ascention by force, according to the reasons
listed. After all, it's just a demon, not subject to any laws, and surely the needs of the hundreds of
students at Graduation count more than the life of a single, obviously dishonest (or opportunistic)
demon?
How far are you willing to take that argument before it becomes a serious issue?
Angel made a deal, one he apparently had no intention of keeping if he had lost -- that is NOT heroic.
Finding a loophole, or simply battling it out, would have been acceptable.
All I want are some decent and honorable traits in the alleged heroes of Buffy and Angel -- which
seems to be too much to ask this season.
I don't know, maybe I'm not explaining it well. Maybe I'm an idiot for my views -- but I'd like to
think that the heroes are BETTER than the villains. Resorting to the same tricks and behaviors
they use doesn't exactly make them heroic.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Odysseus, Jason, Aneas et al -- Rahael, 13:19:55 04/23/02 Tue
THe usual qualification of not having watched the ep.
But isn't Greek (and indeed Hindu) mythology full of heros who break their word?
Jason. Rama. Odysseus (tricked people again and again) Lancelot cheated cuckholded his Lord.
Aneas. I'm sure there's many more
And in Chaucer's Wife of Bath's tale, the noble knight rapes a helpless maiden, but eventually
proves his moral worth and heroism (by admitting that women know best!)
Most stories about heroism are actually examinations of what honour really means. And the tensions
within. It's never just list of moral triumph after triumph
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
sorry. "Aeneas". -- Rahael, 13:26:03 04/23/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Odysseus, Jason, Aneas et al -- Earl
Allison, 13:29:12 04/23/02 Tue
I'm not attacking, here, so I apologize if that's how I sounded.
Maybe if the episode had been well-written, hadn't asked us to overlook not just one, but two heroes
breaking their word, I might not have a problem with it.
Gunn walked into his deal with his eyes open. He didn't believe in a soul -- fine, but he should have
been smart enough to realize you don't get something for nothing. He admitted that he expected to
be dead before the debt could be called, but he didn't say anything that, as far as I am concerned,
made him an exception.
Angel was even worse. There was never any intent to keep his word if he lost. And added to all the
other things Angel has done lately, I have to wonder if he can even be considered a hero anymore.
Sure, Wesley stole his son -- and Angel allowed Darla and Drusilla to murder several people. He
burned them, not to kill them, but to hurt them, without follow-up staking. He risked his soul by
sleeping with Darla. He decided to torture an employee of Wolfram and Hart, utilized dark magics
(which will bite him in the butt next week), and broke his word. A real peach, Angel is.
Yes, the old myths are full of heroes who sometimes lie -- and some of them I can forgive. But in
many of those cases, the lie was to save innocents -- which in this case Gunn wasn't. I won't
comment on Lancelot, I have serious issues with his dalliance with the Queen, but again, most of
these were well-written and well-done.
On top of everything else I've seen from Angel lately, it just came off as ... wrong.
Hey, to each their own -- it's clear I'm fighting a losing battle against ever-worsening odds.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I didn't think you were! -- Rahael, 13:39:44 04/23/02 Tue
attacking that is....
No arguing on the well written and well done....you actually watched the ep, so better qualified than
me but it was a chance to bring in the Greeks again!
Aeneas abandoned Dido cos he had to go off and perform his glorious deeds, founding Troy.
Rama rejected Sita because his subjects demanded it, as she was a woman who was now 'Impure' -
being kidnapped against her will and all. She was the real hero, in the end. She offered to prove her
purity by walking through fire, and not burning away. But the earth was so outraged at how she had
been treated, that it opened up, and carried her away.
Jason abandoned Medea when he got an better offer.
Most of these heroes exploited these 'innocents' to forge their way, ruthlessly, heroicly to a golden
future.
Odysseus, yes, he did break oaths and use trickery for good purposes - pretending to be mad to try
and avoid being called up for instance - but it wasn't very heroic conduct.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I actually agree with much of what you're saying -- Sophist, 13:57:09 04/23/02 Tue
I didn't mean to be cute by posing a series of rhetorical questions. The toughest moral dilemmas
arise when we have to chose between 2 rights or 2 wrongs.
Yes, Angel and Charles did break their promises. Angel was worse because he never intended to
keep his. That being said, the bargain was clearly immoral (I'm not relying on the legality of it,
merely pointing out that the law is expressing a moral judgment about such contracts). The result of
keeping the bargain would have been horrific. Can I justify Angel's behavior as ethical under
somewhat contrived circumstances? Yes. Would the episode have been better if the writers had found
another way out? Absolutely.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Exactly -- matching mole, 14:09:00 04/23/02 Tue
After reading everyone's posts and considering the matter further I realize that my disatisfaction
with the ending is well summarized by Sophist. Heroes are constantly using deceit and trickery to
win out when force can't prevail. Think back to your favourite old time TV adventure show where
the world is divided into two morally distinct camps. I'm sure you can think of an episode where the
hero did something dishonest (directly or indirectly) to achieve their goal which was itself
worthwhile. The difference here is largely in the directness and clumsiness of the deceit. My wife
made some comment about Fred counting cards (as discussed above) while the show was going on.
That is what we (at least I) was expecting - some sort of clever trickery rather than Cordelia's quick
hand on the stake.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Weren't we all? (Continued spoilers) -- Darby, 14:39:08 04/23/02 Tue
On top of the villainy of the double-cross, weren't we all disappointed that the writers couldn't be
bothered to come up with a clever way of resolving the conflict?
I was thinking, in keeping with Angel's recent goofiness, that he'd play Old Maid or Crazy Eights, or
something from his long past that the casino would be unfamiliar with. But at any rate, I expected a
plan when all of his associates (except Cordy, and what's up with that?) were sure that he
had gone nuts.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Honor or lack thereof -- fresne, 14:43:50 04/23/02 Tue
By this point in the day, this just feels like reiteration, but no matter.
Okay, both my housemate and myself were a little disturbed by the dishonorable behavior at the end
of Double or Nothing.
There's been a fair amount of discussion already about the ethics of selling your soul, the horror of
such a bargain, Gunn selling his soul as a minor, suckering the downtrodden, the ethics of breaking
your word to the devil, etc. I have to admit, that's somewhat to the left of what I want to say.
Now I should probably give some background on where my personal biases in this are, because they
are fairly hard core. I want to preface things that way, because I certainly don't want to step on
anyone's religious/philosophical toes.
I take a spoken vow to do something "very" seriously. Not that I've never broken my word, but I try
very hard not to be foresworn (both by not promising things that can't be done, and trying to deliver
things that I have said that I will do)
This is based on my parent's behavior, inhaling quite a few medieval and fantasy novels, as well as
several thousand hours of Sunday school while growing up. So, basically in the back of my head
there is this a simple syllogism. God is a word. Words have power. If I give my words lightly, make
easy promises with my words, then I endanger who I am. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd loose
my soul or anything, but I certainly would not be me. Furthermore, other people who give their
words easily, who don't do what they say, are not trust worthy.
So, when in a show about a vampire, a character breaks a blood oath; in an episode about trusting
your friends, characters break their word; in a series that is contingent on the idea of the redemption
of the soul, soul oaths are blithely rescinded, I feel cheated.
Because yes, I thought of the Simpson's soul episode as well. That was clever. That was using words
and language and barracks lawyering to advantage. Using the devil's tricks against him.
Because despite my stance on keeping oaths, I love clever heroes who know how to use words,
Odysseus "I am no one", etc. But that's not breaking your word, (you can have my soul if you win this
game), its about using the flexibility, the nuance, the power, of words. Odysseus vs. Jason, because
betraying Medea was not only an utter break of honor, it was idiotic (hello, she murdered her brother
for you, what makes you think she's going to just go away.)
I wish I could explain the difference better. Straight out lying=bad. Supple prevarication that plays
on your enemies own corruption=okay. Sigh.
I guess if rather than allowing violence to be a solution to what was Gunn's choice, if they had:
" beaten the devil at his own game (The Devil Went Down to Georgia, the Seventh Seal)
" or if Angel had picked an obscure game known only to people in his village (heck, play Fizbin
or Dragon Poker, the demon agreed to a game of Angel's choosing)
" Played Twister (Bill and Ted's Bodacious Adventure. Perhaps, the demon would have
admired their moxy)
" or if we had learned some essential lesson about letting go (Gawain and the Green Knight),
then I wouldn't be feeling so gypped. Maybe, I would respect Angel, trust the show with my fiction
loving heart.
Because I liked it that Gunn went to Jenoff of his own free will. That was a choice that I could
respect. I thought that they were going to go somewhere with that. Or with Fred being given Gunn's
soul into her keeping (and writers, let's remember that she's a cave dwelling genius as well as a shy
sweetie). Or, or. Argh!
Perhaps, some of my problems was that I really liked the build up in the last few episodes and this
felt like a 90 degree turn to the left. This episode should have been an Ocean's 11 parody, with Lorne
singing swing backup. Everyone in sharp clothes. Twists. Turns. Stings on stings on stings. An
episode next season. Or earlier this season.
Placed here, it just broke my buildup. I felt like Wesley's plot was flapping (beautifully, I loved the
Fred/Wesley scene) off to one side. The casino jarred with the Poor Long Lost Connor, who, (and this
is purely my speculation and not a spoiler) is so obviously showing up in the next episode, bits.
Gall (or should that be Gaul with brie. No, gall with processed cheese) darn it, it made me grumpy.
Yeah, yeah, wait until the end of the season. I want some consequences to this, in the same way
some foreshadowing of Gunn having sold his soul for a truck (which he still has!) would have been
nice.
Grump, grump, Grump, grump, grump.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Spoiler speculation in above post! -- Masq, 14:57:47 04/23/02 Tue
Buried deep in the text, so watch your step
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Medea -- Malandanza, 08:48:34 04/24/02 Wed
"Because despite my stance on keeping oaths, I love clever heroes who know how to use words,
Odysseus "I am no one", etc. But that's not breaking your word, (you can have my soul if you win this
game), its about using the flexibility, the nuance, the power, of words. Odysseus vs. Jason, because
betraying Medea was not only an utter break of honor, it was idiotic (hello, she murdered her brother
for you, what makes you think she's going to just go away.)"
I'm in complete agreement with you. I like to see the heroes keep their word even if they've agreed
to something foolish -- like the "Rash Boons" common in mythology (Semele and Dionysus comes to
mind), Arthurian Legend (King Arthur's promise to Gawain in "The Knight of the Cart" that leads to
Guinevere's abduction) and Fairy Tales. When Odysseus tries to avoid the Trojan War, he does so by
pretending to be insane (sowing his fields with salt) but he is not directly violating his oath -- he is
trying to trick the conscription officer into voluntarily releasing him from it. Likewise with Achilles
(although Achilles was happy to be discovered). In each case, the men honored their oaths when
confronted.
And I love Medea! In the Euripides version, we see Jason arguing dispassionately about the
necessity of breaking his oath and telling Medea how much better off she is now that he's civilized
her, and, later, accuses Medea of being the betrayer -- she betrayed her own father after all. But all
of Jason's subtle wordplay is to no avail. Medea sees that he is punished. And this is something that
bothers me about Angel -- he made a promise to trade his soul. In human courts it would be
inadmissible, but what about under supernatural law? Can he get out of his agreement so easily?
The contest was fair (and I think Angel chose cutting cards because it was something Jenoff would
less likely to be able to either cheat at or win by superior skill) and even if it hadn't been, he still
ought to have been bound by the results (although it could have been worse -- he might have agreed
to a head chopping off competition like Sir Gawain :). I don't see how Angel and Gunn have been
freed from their bargains.
Another point of oaths in Medea is when Medea insists upon Aegeus' swearing an actual
oath to give her sanctuary rather than merely accepting a promise to do so. Aegeus is careful -- he
asks many questions before agreeing. In the end, he swears because it will make it easier for him to
give Medea sanctuary -- he can claim that he is simply fulfilling an oath that he cannot break,
removing his responsibility for harboring a murderess. Still, he insists that Medea must make it to
his kingdom alone; he will give her sanctuary, but he will not violate Creon's hospitality by carrying
her to safety. The seriousness with which Aegeus takes his oath highlights how bad it was for Jason
to violate his oaths. The gods seem to despise oath-breakers as well -- they do not punish Medea for
her crimes but Jason ends up bereft of everything and dies alone.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Sorry for whining -- Earl Allison,
14:55:23 04/23/02 Tue
Just feeling a bit sorry for myself was all.
Please accept my apologies for my defeatist comment at the end :)
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Angel = Hero? (Spoilers for Double or Nothing and Bachelor Party) -- VampRiley,
15:49:01 04/23/02 Tue
Who says any of them, from either show, is a hero?
The only one I had thought of as being a "hero" was Buffy. But the last season or so has definitely
dropped her out of it, IMHO. Which I don't mind. In fact, I'm glad. Knock her down off her arrogant,
morally high pedestal after all these years. To see that she's just like the rest of us: a normal person.
It was refreshing. But I've never viewed them as being "heroes". Champions? Yes. Hero's? See
above.
Now before you all start throwing stones. ;o)
I liked last night's ep. In fact, for me, if they had written it where they had come up with some clever
plan, I would have been severily dissappointed. It just wouldn't have made any sense to me if they
did.
Angel had to have been emotionally drained after losing Connor (angry or not angry). And while he
did do some fighting in the ep, I don't see him doing much fighting. As anyone who knows what it
feels like to be "that" emotionally drained, it does effect you on a physical level. Angel did look, at
least to me, like he was very tired throughtout the whole ep, even when he was holding the axe to
the red head's throat.
When you are that tired, your mind isn't worried about coming up with any sort of complex plan.
Your brain is processing mainly simple stuff (Angel was having a bit of trouble getting his mind
wrapped around the idea of Fred and Gunn were together) and you're working mainly with simple
stuff. It's almost like you're on autopilot. He did come up with what they should do, but that isn't
very complicated for anyone to come up with. A direct assualt looked like a simple enough plan. Not
very complicated.
As for the lying, it's like what Angel said to Doyle in Bachelor Party: "This isn't a spelling bee.
Nobody expects you to fight fair." I don't believe Angel was worried about "fighting fair". He had
already lost Connor and then Wesley. All he wanted to do was keep from losing anyone else he cared
about. He didn't care about fighting fair if it meant Gunn would still be alive. To Angel, this isn't a
story. This is real life. And if it meant not keeping his word would keep Gunn from being killed, I
believe he wouldn't. It just seemed very realistic to me.
VR
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Good point. -- Traveler, 22:50:47 04/23/02 Tue
The way AI beat the demon may not have been interesting or satisfying, but maybe it was more
realistic. However, for that realism to continue, there must be further reprocussions for their actions,
like the demon surviving to hunt them down for example. If that doesn't happen, then it becomes
harder to argue that it wasn't just the writers who are tired and worn out.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I'm not sure it would too hard to argue (Spoilers for Double or Nothing and Speculation) --
VampRiley, 12:33:25 04/24/02 Wed
Given the fact that after Jenoff grew a new head, and all those demons went to beat on on him,
chances are that at least one of them would probably come up with a way to kill him permanently.
And given the spoilers I've heard about the rest of the season, I think they would let that plot die out
and focus on something else. They probably wrote Jenoff as one of those killable demon species.
VR
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
means and ends and in betweens -- yuri, 00:44:46 04/24/02 Wed
Though in many ways I yearn to feel the sort of commitment to truth and "rightness" that some
people feel, I've always been more irked by "heroes" who insist on taking the long way around to
achieve their goal, possibly risking the success of their noble task in the name of honor or goodness,
when isn't that what they were fighting forin the first place? it's like, when a hero must go through
so much toil to make the means honorable, it makes it seem like the ends are questionable, that
they're not necessarily good.
Like, isn't saving Gunn a good thing, regardless? Won't his being alive do more good than his being
dead? And isn't Jenoff obviously going to do more damage than repair in his lifetime? So does all that
not matter unless Angel is honorable in his methods?
That's kind of a backwards way of looking at the "do the ends justify the means?" question. Funny,
that.
And I very much agree with VR about how Angel's actions fit sort of poetically with where he was
emotionally. Simple goal, simple execution. It's kinda beautiful, really. Oh, you can tell I'm sleepy
when I start getting sentimental.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
But aren't there usually consequences for the lies? -- Anne, 13:59:28 04/23/02 Tue
I think part of the difference here between what Earl is saying and your post above is in the implied
attitude the tale has towards the moral failure.
My memory of all the heroes you list above is unfortunately not extremely clear, but isn't there
normally a consequence for word-breaking and lies by heroes? Maybe not always, but it seems to me
that Jason's breaking of faith with Medea didn't turn out too well, and neither did Lancelot's
cheating with Guinevere -- in fact it was a big part of what brought down Camelot. (The other part
of what brought down Camelot was the long-term consequences of the deception Uther Pendragon
practised in fathering Arthur).
I must admit that the case of Odysseus, to the best of my very vague memory, is a little more
complicated -- his cleverness and ability at deception are central to his character. But even with him
aren't they a bit of a two-edged sword?
In any case, it seems to me that it could at least be argued that there's a difference between telling a
tale in which a hero engages in lies and deception, with a bill that comes due down the road, and a
tale in which a hero breaks his word and it seems like we're just supposed to think it's a real cute
trick. Unless "Angel" develops this incident further -- unlikely, I'd think -- last night's episode risks
falling under the latter description.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: But aren't there usually consequences for the lies? -- yabyumpan, 15:57:45 04/23/02
Tue
I haven't seen the ep yet so I'm really commenting on what I've read. It's been said by many people,
and quite rightly, that as a Hero, Angel shouldn't have decieved. I think we need to step back and
look at what Angel first said when they realised Gunn was in trouble "We're not loosing another
family member"(or something like that, as i said I haven't seen it yet). This was not "Angel the
Hero", this was Angel who has just lost his son to a hell dimension and a good friend through
betrayel. This was Angel who, through fair means or foul, wasn't going to lose anyone else.
Many posts i've read about the end of "Forgiving" have said that Angel acted in a very "Human" way.
I see this in the same way. If someone in our own family was in mortal danger, esp due to a stupid
choice they made as a teenager, would we not also resort to trickery and decipt to save that person? I
know I would.
No, Angel was not being "heroic", he was just trying to save a friend.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Losing a family member -- leslie,
11:56:01 04/24/02 Wed
My memory is fuzzy here, but didn't Angel say something about not losing another family member
right before he went to the hospital and tried to smother Wesley? One wonders what his definition of
"losing a family member" is--"I'm the only one who's allowed to kill them"?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: But aren't there usually consequences for the lies? -- yabyumpan, 15:58:59 04/23/02
Tue
I haven't seen the ep yet so I'm really commenting on what I've read. It's been said by many people,
and quite rightly, that as a Hero, Angel shouldn't have decieved. I think we need to step back and
look at what Angel first said when they realised Gunn was in trouble "We're not loosing another
family member"(or something like that, as i said I haven't seen it yet). This was not "Angel the
Hero", this was Angel who has just lost his son to a hell dimension and a good friend through
betrayel. This was Angel who, through fair means or foul, wasn't going to lose anyone else.
Many posts i've read about the end of "Forgiving" have said that Angel acted in a very "Human" way.
I see this in the same way. If someone in our own family was in mortal danger, esp due to a stupid
choice they made as a teenager, would we not also resort to trickery and decipt to save that person? I
know I would.
No, Angel was not being "heroic", he was just trying to save a friend.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: So, a hero's word is worth nothing, then. -- Rattletrap, 07:16:55 04/24/02 Wed
I think I basically agree with you, Earl, that heroes should keep their word, and I was a bit disturbed
by what happened on Angel last Monday.
That said, I have to contest one point of your message:
"Buffy should have staked Spike and Dru in the close of Season Two, but she didn't. She made a deal
with Spike, and honored it, DESPITE how it chafed her to do so, even with Kendra's death by
Drusilla's hand that she wanted to avenge. THAT was a noble, heroic act."
Buffy never had the opportunity to welsh on her deal with Spike. Spike and Dru left town while
Buffy and Angel were still fighting and Angel had a pretty clear advantage. Angel was always a
much higher priority to her than avenging Kendra's death. I don't think we can draw any
conclusions about Buffy's willingness to keep her word based on B2--had she quickly defeated Angel,
she might have turned on Spike; but this sort of specualtion is counterfactual, we never had any
opportunity to observe.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Goodness me, can't we cut Angel some slack here? -- Marie, 08:02:50 04/24/02 Wed
I agree with others here that he never said he was a hero - he's a deeply flawed individual, who's
trying his damndest to make up for the things he has done in the past. Like someone else, he knows
he's a monster.
I also don't much like the idea of him cheating, but as someone else pointed out, he'd just lost his son
- he wasn't going to let anything happen to Gunn, no matter what.
We are arguing intellectually here - he acted while in a very fragile state of mind, emotionally. And
who knows? Perhaps he will be made to atone in some future episode for not keeping his
word.
Marie
[> [> [> [>
Angel, a hero (SPOILERS to Double or Nothing) -- Robert, 17:08:42 04/23/02 Tue
>> "Angel just keeps losing more and more right to call himself a hero"
Good point. I do not recall Angel calling himself a hero. When did he do this?
[> [> [>
Seeing souls -- Masq, 12:58:09 04/23/02 Tue
"As a side note, I believe that this may be the first time in either BtVS or Angel that we have seen a
physical manifestation of the soul. Can anyone comment on this?"
If you mean the glowy-thing coming out of that guy's eyes and mouth, I think we have "seen" the soul
before. Kathy in "Living Conditions" claimed to be sucking Buffy's soul, and we saw a stream of light
coming out of Buffy's mouth.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Seeing souls -- Robert, 17:29:16 04/23/02 Tue
>> "Kathy in "Living Conditions" claimed to be sucking Buffy's soul, and we saw a stream of light
coming out of Buffy's mouth."
Yes, I forgot about that one. It was a good episode too.
[>
Re: I'm confused (spoilers for Double or Nothing) -- Robert, 11:34:26 04/23/02 Tue
>> "If this guy can grow another head, how are punches and kicks going to stop him? What did I
miss?"
Presumably Jenoff can withstand an indefinite number of punches and kicks, but you did miss
something.
Jenoff had power because he had an organization. He rules his organization through fear and a
system of obligations. Now, every person (or demon) in his organization wants him dead, whether
they can ever achieve it or not. Jenoff no longer has any power to have victims dragged into his
casino.
In addition, no one said that Jenoff couldn't be killed, only that it wasn't easy. In the context of an
protective organization, that toughness becomes an impossibility. Now that the organization is gone,
it is just one tough demon against the world. Some one will find a way to kill him permanantly. Too
many people want him dead.
[> [>
Re: I'm confused (spoilers for Double or Nothing) -- yabyumpan, 16:09:13 04/23/02
Tue
I haven't seen the ep yet so i'm just commenting on what i've read. It's been said that as a Hero,
Angel souldn't have used deception and yes, I can agree with that. I don't think this is about Angel
being a Hero though, it's about him being a friend. When they first realised Gunn was in trouble
Angel said "we're not going to loose another family member" (or something like that, as i say, i
haven't seen the ep). He's just lost his son to a hell dimension and a close friend through betrayel
and if he has to use fair means or foul, he's not going to loose some one else.
If I was in danger of loosing someone close, esp due to a stupid choice they made as a teenager, I
would use trickery and decipt to save them.
Angel wasn't being a Hero, he was being a friend.
[> [> [>
Now I'm confused (SPOILERS for Double or Nothing) -- Robert, 22:25:24 04/23/02
Tue
yabyumpan,
Gee, I don't know how to answer this. I was discussing the question of Jenoff's mortality. I didn't
address in my posting the question of Angel's hero status.
[>
Re: I'm confused (spoilers for Double or Nothing) -- anom, 22:29:58 04/23/02 Tue
"If this guy can grow another head, how are punches and kicks going to stop him? What did I
miss?"
Well, the new head wasn't very developed. Maybe he was more vulnerable in that state. (I
dunno...just a theory.)
Current board
| More April 2002