April 2002 posts


Previous April 2002  

More April 2002

Why does Buffy act so spineless when it comes to telling her friends about Spike? -- JMC, 17:38:15 04/24/02 Wed

“The way that they would look at me, I just couldn’t”- Buffy in Dead Things.

I don’t understand she has always been so strong willed before.

I just can’t envision what the big deal is, if it were me and I had to tell my friends and family I would in a heart beat. I personally don’t care what my friends and family think about whom I choose to be with. It’s none of their damn business and if they don’t like it they can take a hike. It’s weird because it has always seemed to me that this was Buffy’s mentality but this season its completely different. She just acts so much more weak willed and afraid what her friends and family will think about her and how they would look at her.

The way I see it in the worst possible scenario Buffy tells her friends, Dawn is almost certain to be ok with it, Willow would probably be against it but she won’t judge Buffy about it, Anya could care less who Buffy is with, and Xander would jump up and down like a gorilla and call Buffy names and probably head off to try to stake Spike.

Personally, I think it may be that the writers are trying to imply that Spike is like her dark side and that she doesn’t want to recognize she has one to her friends and family. That is just my opinion, what do you think?
[> Re: Why does Buffy act so spineless when it comes to telling her friends about Spike? -- Rufus, 17:42:36 04/24/02 Wed

"Spineless".......after what Buffy has been through she is far from spineless.....she is someone who has slept with the enemy and found that she cares for one or two of them. That challenges all she has been taught and experienced. She fears the rejection of her friends and family. She may be underestimating them but she is far from spineless.
[> Re: Why does Buffy act so spineless when it comes to telling her friends about Spike? -- Apophis, 17:44:59 04/24/02 Wed

She's probably ashamed of herself (for her own reasons; S/Bers need not jump down my throat). If her friends don't know, she can act like it never happened. That, and she remembers what happened the last time she was with a vampire and doesn't think this will go over any better. Besides, what business is it of theirs? Do they have to know every sordid detail of her sex life? Just because Willow and Tara are/were publicly affectionate and Anya couldn't keep her mouth shut doesn't mean Buffy can't be more private about her private life.
[> [> Re: Why does Buffy act so spineless when it comes to telling her friends about Spike? -- Miss Edith, 18:04:31 04/24/02 Wed

Xander better not be judging Buffy. Not after he has slept with Anya with no moral questioning whatsoever. His biggest concern has been that she might have looked ugly as a demon!
Anya has killed and tortured more than Spike and ordered Willow's death so Xander so better not be judgemental. Anya has no remorse either and glorifies her past and is always talking about the good she did burning down villages etc. I like Anya but Xander needs to look at his own dating choices before moralizing to Buffy who wouldn't even be sleeping with Spike if her friends hadn't screwed her over. She is supposed to be resting in heaven now and her friends selfishness ruined that. It's long overdue for Buffy to be shown some consideration. No consequences were expected from Buffy's return and she was just left to get on with it. It was the scoobies responsibility to make sure Buffy was adjusting okay and Xander better be supportive! If I were in Buffy's place I would have said a lot about Xander choosing to date Anya just becasue she offered sex. Did he just forget all the grief he gave Buffy about Angel and the damage he'd caused?
I know Xander is a fictional character but god help Xander if he's mean to Buffy I'll jump into the tv and give him a damn good ass kicking. Well I'll be literally screaming at the tv in a rage anyway lol.
[> [> [> So, we make Spike look good by attacking Anya? -- Earl Allison, 04:38:45 04/25/02 Thu

Lot of venom, there.

You're right, on one point -- Anya, LIKE SPIKE, has shown no remorse for her past, with the possible exception of what happened with Olaf, and now with the man/demon who showed Xander the false visions -- and both of those made her think only because they came back to bite her in the butt.

Recall also that Anya went to get Giles to help the others during the Season Four Halloween episode -- and also got injured saving Xander during the sex-engine episode.

I'm not sure it's so clean-cut that Anyanka murdered and tortured MORE than Spike did, it's not like we have numbers here.

I take MAJOR offense to your "screwing over" comment. Who exactly, KNOWING where Buffy was, laughed maniacally as they dragged her kicking and screaming back to this dimension? As I stated a while back, given that the portal Glory opened was to lead to ALL dimensions, that EVERYTHING that came out of it was demoniac, and that Glory, a Hellgod, was using it to GO HOME -- it made perfect sense that they would all conclude that she was in torment somewhere, AT LEAST as much sense as assuming she was in (a) Heaven. Any damage done was unintentional, much as the damage Buffy inflicted on her friends in "When She Was Bad," or abandoning them all to the Hellmouth between Seasons Two and Three ...

Sure, the Scoobies blew it, but they not only all had their own problems, but Buffy hasn't exactly been at all forthcoming with how she feels, either. You can only check on someone so many times before you conclude that they are either telling the truth, or don't want you to know the truth.

Um, Xander dated Anya LONG before the concept of sex came into it -- she was his Prom date, remember? Way back in Season Three, BEFORE she slept with him? And she did help them all with information on the Ascention, even though she skipped town (so it wasn't information merely to save her own skin).

Finally, Xander has ALWAYS had a problem where vampires and Buffy meet -- he always disliked Angel (and I'm sure some of that was jealousy), and has never cared much for Spike (and who could blame him -- remember the rather bloody wound from "Lover's Walk"?). If he blows up, it might be OOC compared to last Season with the Buffybot, but it won't be so OOC that I can't see it.

And frankly, given that Buffy has always professed (publicly) to hate, or at least to NOT LOVE, Spike, you can't see where this might throw them?

Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> Re: So, we make Spike look good by attacking Anya? -- Miss Edith, 09:55:30 04/25/02 Thu

Yeah I guess I was a bit venomous wasn't I. Sorry if I came across like I was putting Anya down as that was never my intention. I understand that whilst she has an unsavoury past she has accepted it and moved in. She is doing good now and has worked with her friends at averting the apocolypse which means a lot. There is a huge difference between her actions in Graduation Day when she ran out of harms way and The Gift when she fought alongside her friends. I don't feel that all characters need to brood to the extent that Angel does at all. In fact I have always viewed Spike and Anya similarly. E.g they both lost their powers and were forced to adjust to a new existence. In WTWTA we see them both complaining about their lack of powers to hurt others. But both have committed good actions since then and adjusted. Spike did take longer as he wasn't given the support and talks from the scoobies as Anya was. But both have them are much nicer people than they were.
Anya protected Xander in Triangle and The Gift and Spike protected Dawn in Intervention and helped the scoobies over the summer. Plus both characters helped with fighting Glory in The Gift. I wwasn't trying to criticise Anya I was just trying to make the point that Xander is not in a position to judge Buffy as he is dating some one who has caused more than her fair share of damage. He questioned what Anya looked like as a demon in DMP I believe so clearly hadn't given her past much thought before then despite of proposing to her. He didn't deal with those issues until the wedding day.
It is natural for Xander and the others to be concerned for Buffy and not be close to Spike as he has tried to kill them in the past. I just don't want to see Xander judging Buffy for her choice of dating partner. There is a difference in a friends concern and judgement. Tara's reaction in Dead Things is what Buffy needs right now. Willow was bitching a bit about Xander dating Anya after she ordered Willow's death in the past but she didn't judge Xander for his attraction to Anya, she simply threw bitchy comments at Anya. So why judge Buffy? And I don't know that is what Xander is going to do, I am just saying if he does it will wind me up.
It will be a shock to the scoobies and I don't expect them to necessarily understand why Buffy is attracted to Spike. I just don't want to see Buffy being told she is wrong and bad as she pleads with Tara to do in order to validate her own self-loathing. That is neither kind nor helpful. It is not the action of a good friend.
And Xander was mainly interested in sex at the beginning of his relationship with Anya in my mind. Yes he took her to the prom because he didn't have any other offers (not having a dig here this is what he tells the others) but I don't believe he was particularly attracted to Anya. Rather her gory stories were putting him off. He slept with her in AHLOD after she stripped off and made her interest clear. He may have viwed her with some affection/ found her endearing but his primary interst in the beginniing was sex. Hence him blowing her off afterwards.
And as for my comment that Buffy's friends secrewed her over I'm sorry if you're offended by it but I stand by what I said. I believe they did act selfishly. Buffy was practically catonic with grief in TWOTW and she needed to rest but still the insistent call of "Buffy we need you" came from Willow. That is similiar to how I saw Barganning. Buffy needed to rest. In many ways her death in The Gift was what she needed. She had fought and sacrificed for so long and it was time for her to accept her gift and rest in heaven. She was pulled back into a world of violence and yet more was expected from her because her friends couldn't accept her death. They may not have had malevelent intentions but I do feel they acted selfishly. Willow states in TR that they didn't want to consider alternative places Buffy could be. The likelihood of her being in heaven was as far as I know never even discussed because the scoobies needed her back. They avoided discussing it with Giles and Willow made no attempt to try and contact Buffy to find out where she was. Tara actually says what they are doing is against all laws of nature before they do it.
I'm not saying I hate the scoobies for that or anything. I understand why they did it and it was a very human response to berevement. I am just saying that I personally feel Buffy's friends did act selfishly. When Buffy returned they weren't quiet and concerned for her wellbeing. They were shouting questions at her concerned with reassuring themselves that Buffy was okay. Buffy herself realises this and thanks them at the end of Afterlife realising that they are concerned about themselves and don't want to know how Buffy is really feeling. We see in Flooded and Life Serial that Buffy is expected to get on with life. She is given bills to cope with and is sacked from Xander's construction company and has her wages docked at the Magic Box. If my friend had been through a traumatic experience such as being trapped in a hell dimension I would want to help them adjust to the experience, not expect them to return to life without a care in the world.
I am not saying all this to throw hate and critisicism at the scoobies. My original point was just that Buffy has been through a lot and I do feel Bufy's presence and the mistakes she is making is partly the scoobies responsibility as they weren't willing to take responsibility for Buffy when she did return. Therefore I will be throwing things at the tv if Xander does lay a guilt trip on Buffy.
Hope that made some sort of sense and sorry for rambling. It's all JMHO.
[> [> [> [> [> No apologies needed -- Earl Allison, 03:59:05 04/26/02 Fri

S'okay, perhaps I read a bit much into things.

I guess my real problem is, everyone seems terribly OOC this season, from Buffy to the Scoobies to Giles, to even Spike.

I DON'T accept that the Scoobies are this selfish and self-centered.

I CAN'T believe that Willow would use magic on close friends without consent not just once, but TWICE!

I personally have a problem with the Buffy/Spike relationship, but that's my issue, so I'm leaving it. It was, IMHO, ham-handed, as was the magic-as-drugs analogy, but that's been done to death.

Who knows how it will all turn out -- although if certain spoilers are true, I will be most purturbed :)

Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No apologies needed -- Doug The Bloody, 13:46:10 04/26/02 Fri

I've had the same problem, all the characters seem...off. Like someone grabbed partial traits from all the characters and then just filled in the blanks to make them all harder to like.
[> [> Re: Why does Buffy act so spineless when it comes to telling her friends about Spike? -- Cactus Watcher, 08:54:10 04/25/02 Thu

I agree. I think Buffy's problem with the talking about the relationship has to do with her perception of herself, not with how her friends might see her relationship with Spike. She knows that even if her friends would be disappointed in her relationship with Spike in the long run they would accept it. Xander grumbled and took many verbal cheap-shots at Angel, but he never once suggested to Buffy there was anything 'wrong' with her attraction to him. Buffy is not comfortable with this relationship with Spike herself, and she is the one calling it wrong.
[> Did we already forget Intervention? -- Pete, 22:28:17 04/24/02 Wed

This plot point has never made sense to me, since the gang already found out she was having sex with Spike (or at least they believed she was) and was nothing but loving, supportive, and non- judgmental. Why does Buffy think anything would be different now?

W: Grief can be powerful, and we shouldn't judge

X: If she's losing it, we gotta help her before she
gets herself hurt.

W: Wait. This shouldn't be about blame.
B: Blame? There's blame now?
W: No, there's only love. And ... some fear.

X: No one is judging you. It's understandable


If they're this supportive because of Joyce's death, shouldn't they be even more so because of Buffy's own?
[> Re: Why does Buffy ....friends about Spike? mentions up to N/A -- lachesis, 03:47:47 04/25/02 Thu

Hmmm, I've been thinking about this quite a lot, and I agree with you that her reluctance is both an over-reaction and out of character.

I also think your last point is along the right lines - its not really the relationship she's hiding, its something about herself, and that why she's sooo not telling anyone. I also suspect that the reason it is made into such an issue by the writers is to suggest that Buffy herself doesn't necessarily realise this, and prefers to believe that it is Spike she's ashamed/worried about.

Spike's comments in N/A would seem to suggest that he does realise this, and also knows that hiding them from herself and her friends is not helping her deal with her resurrection 'issues' (as Giles called them in WSWB).

I think its about a bit more than her 'dark side' though. The last episodes of S5 made it seem to me that Buffy had accepted Spike's feelings for her, and the reliability of the desire to help her that they inspired, but no more than that. Something big was going to be required for her to allow/want them to get closer. And it happened. She died.

Not as she has died before, briefly, to be brought back by resuscitation, as has also happened to many ordinary people in the 'real world.'This was months, before she was torn from her eternal reward and had to claw her way out of her own coffin. If her first death gave her issues which divided her from her friends, that must be infinitely worse.

At the start of S6, there is a unspoken understanding and intimacy between Buffy and Spike. She tells him the big secret. She knows he is not in a position, or of the disposition, to judge her. He didn't help bring her back, so he doesn't have a big emotional investment in how 'right' she is. He's not so 'normal' anyway. And suddenly they have a fair amount in common. The whole resurrected dead thing. The struggle to fit in, whilst knowing it never quite works. Being on the outside. That this develops into still unspoken physical intimacy (once she can trust him because he can hurt her and doesn't) isn't just about a 'ship, I don't think. Its also symbolic of how close they are, of how much has been changed by her death and resurrection.

Last time Xander and Willow didn't understand her issues, but they did accept her(once she was back to normal). Getting back to normal will surely be a lot harder this time (if its even possible to return unchanged from death) so, much easier to pretend that there's nothing wrong, especially since there's the whole issue of blame this time.

If she speaks to them about her feelings about being resurrected, which are clearly not very positive, even if she has accepted it, they are going to feel blamed and guilty. And if these feelings are linked to Spike, how easy it would be for X & W to shift their feelings of guilt onto him. To pretend, as Buffy has done, that Spike is what's wrong with her, and removing him will solve the problem.

So I don't think she's being spineless. I think she fears that actually talking about her relationship with Spike will lead her to talk about the rest of it, and that talking about any of it will change her forever in the eyes of her friends, and of herself. I can see why she fears that so much, why she's not ready to deal. She wants to 'just be Buffy.'

But she's 'back from the dead Buffy' now, and that's not going to go away. Seems to me that Buffy has been resurrected but not reborn. To complete her return to life, I think she's going to have to trust her friends to still accept her, even if they know she's not the same as she was, or as them. Spike's acceptance makes her feel better (because someone who understands what she's been through loves her) and worse (because what is she now that only he understands her so well, and she needs him). Major conflict.

Anyway, that's my take on it. Hope it makes sense :)
[> [> Well-put, lachesis. -- Dyna, 10:26:40 04/25/02 Thu

[> [> Why X, W, & D might be mad -- Spike Lover, 10:38:08 04/25/02 Thu

I think the real issue is not who Buffy has been shagging but that she has been keeping it a secret. Although she has not really been lying to them about the relationship (lying by ommision only). There have been times I am certain when she has told them I am going patroling and instead went to see Spike.

(Remember when everyone was mad when Buffy had been secretly seeing Angel when he came back from Hell.)

The other problem is that Buffy cares so much about what X and W think that she has limited her own behavior. She has inadvertently surrendered her own power to them, much like one does to a parent. Thus, X & W have assumed parental roles- The type that Giles has just purposely escaped from. In truth, Buffy has no one to answer to about this, but because she has allowed them so much power, she now has to answer for this and all her actions when it is really -NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. It is another problem of childhood.
[> [> [> I completely agree, lachesis & Spike Lover :) -- ravenhair, 13:22:34 04/25/02 Thu

[> [> Excellent post, lachesis. -- Ixchel, 11:32:23 04/25/02 Thu

[> [> Beautifully summed up, lachesis! -- ponygirl, 11:43:06 04/25/02 Thu

Season 6 opening credits - Part One -- LadyStarlight, 17:51:34 04/24/02 Wed

This is something I've been kicking around in my head for a while now. Enjoy! (subsequent parts as I get them finished off)

BtVS Season 6 – Opening Credits

Shots marked with an * go by so fast, I’m not sure any significance should be attached to them. My feeling is that it’s the stuff we can see that is foreshadowing. Some of the unseen stuff is pretty cool, though. I also place more emphasis on screen shots included within the character credits, not the ‘filler’ material, although I think the filler stuff expands on the character credits.

Wolf howl/logo – The wolf howl is an accepted movie device to let us know “here there be tygers”. We have now moved outside the suburban safety net. (constant, except for font change on ‘Buffy’)

(if you run the tape frame by frame, there’s a winged figure with a sword.*)

Vampyr book from Season 1 - this, the wolf howl and Angel’s cross are from Season 1. Continuity from season to season, back stories don’t get rewritten on a whim. (S1)

Angel’s cross - see above (S1)

’Alien’ from The Gift’? - watching this again, I can’t help thinking that this is somehow a dig at the Alien franchise. Also, a truly creepy monster. (S5)

(this might be the start of SMG credits, it’s hard to say.)
Buffy fighting vamp?* - I think that a lot of these shots are mood establishers. Fighting, running, and dancing tend to happen a lot.

Buffy running* - see above

Buffy/Xander/Willow ducking Dracula - Why throw this one in? Well, Dracula did bring up the question of the darkness inside of Buffy, something she doesn’t seem to be able to accept. First foreshadowy hint? (S5)

Blindfolded Buffy fighting - This is, I think, when the WC came to town in S5. Or it’s not. Anyways, Our Heroine is blinded and fighting. Something she’s quite good at, when the chips are down. (S5?)

Buffy fighting vamps* - see comment above

SMG credits
Buffy swinging sword on top of motor home - Buffy’s first human kill. Even if it was self- defense, or what have you, that’s got to be something incredibly hard to get through. It’s never brought up again, however. (S5)

Buffy turning*

pan & scan up at Buffy* - This is from Spiral, I think. Another mood-type shot. (S5)

Buffy in plaid shirt - This is College!Buffy, I think. Just a ‘normal’ girl hanging out, right? (S4)

Buffy hugging someone* - It might be Riley she’s hugging, not sure.

Buffy swinging torch. - Okay, not a clue here. Anyone like to chip in?

The rope swing from ‘Hush’ with a full frontal of ‘the Gentleman’ - ‘Hush’ was the first time Buffy and Riley found out about each other; a pivotal relationshippy episode. I can see echoes of this in ‘Smashed’, lots of finding out perhaps unhappy truths. (S4)

Most of SMG credit shots are of Buffy moving, with the exception of the pan & scan shot. However, it’s not movement towards anything, it tends to be reactionary movement; except for the rope swing shot from ‘Hush’. This ties in with the stated them for this year, in that Buffy is growing. It may be infinitesimal growth, but hopefully it’s there.

NB credits

Xander plunging sword though Doc’s throat. - Unfortunately, ME seems to have abandoned the wary Xander/Spike friendship that seemed to be developing through the end of S5/very start of S6. Sigh. (S5)

Head shot – NB*

Xander in the Magic Box during Bargaining?* (S6)

Head shot – NB sitting*

NB/KB (The Replacement) - How better to illustrate the theme of “oh, grow up” than by showing Suave!Xander again. It was explained in the ep that S!X was actually a part of Xander, but, boy howdy, he seems to have vanished into the murky depths of the subconcious. Would S!X have dumped Anya at the altar? I think not. (S5)

Xander with a torch*

(something blowing up*) - I’m so tempted to link these two scenes somehow with Hell’s Bells, but I won’t.
[> Re: Season 6 opening credits - Part One -- Ixchel, 18:23:16 04/24/02 Wed

Interesting, I never gave much thought to the credits (I do like them though). Now I'm wondering what S7's will look like.

BlindfoldBuffy is S5 (Checkpoint).
PlaidshirtBuffy is S5 (I think), sometime when Joyce was in the hospital?
HugBuffy is hugging Riley (S4, TYF, I think).
TorchBuffy is S5 (BvsD).

I fairly sure on these, but I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time).

Ixchel
[> [> Season 6 opening credits - Part Two -- LadyStarlight, 18:43:27 04/24/02 Wed

(Thanks, Ixchel, for tidying up some loose ends. :))

Emma Caulfield credits

2 shots of Shopkeeper Anya*

Bunny-suit Anya* (S4)

Anya going after the demons in ‘Bargaining’ - Now this is interesting. This is the first action shot, rather than a head shot-type thing, of anyone doing anything in Season 6. And it’s not Buffy! Now why would Anya get the action shot? Hmm…..

Anya dancing at the Bronze

hand coming out of grave*

Buffy(?) swinging axe*

something is again being blown up*

Buffy (?) staking vamp*

Michelle Trachtenberg credits

Dawn on couch – smiling (S5?)

Dawn crawling out from behind a piece of furniture (a chest maybe??) (S5?)

Dawn sitting at a kitchen table (S5)

Dawn in the gas station, a knight has just punched a hole through the wall (S5)

Dawn in school, taking off backpack - Okay now, what do all these shots have in common? Well, for starters, Dawn doesn’t do anything. She reacts, and comes out of hiding, and is terrifically good at sitting down, but there’s no sense of who she is. She is reduced to “something we have to save”, both here and in JMs credits. (but more of that anon…)

She’s also one of the only ones who has nothing readily apparent from S6 in their credit shots. Of all of the SG, Dawn has ‘grown’ the least. In fact, it would appear that she’s regressed. (S5)

Tara blowing powder - Without rewatching all of Season 5, this shot is from Family, I think. Interesting that Tara is only shown in relation to Willow. (S5)

W/T on roof – Quellar demon comet glimpsed in sky - see above. (S5)

James Marsters credits

Full face shot of Spike, facing down a demon for a motorcycle - And whatever happened to that cycle anyways? But anyways, watching this shot makes me think of someone facing down something unpleasant that has to be done, not having a good time being violent. (S6)

70’s Spike in subway, twirling that metal rod thingie - Evil!Spike. And you have no idea how much I hope this is not foreshadowy goodness. I liked Evil!Spike, but Conflicted!Spike makes for better TV, I think. (S5)

Spike tied up in Xander’s basement - How symbolic can you get? Especially as this shot is a constant for him. ‘Nuff said. (S4)

Spike looking for Dawn in Bargaining - ME dropped the ball on this one. I wish they’d shown a little more of the S/D friendship. (S6)

Spike leaving town – again! - Interesting that ME used the scene at the end of Lover’s Walk, rather than Becoming. (S3)

Spike/Dawn on motorcycle, looking for help in Bargaining - Besides Anya, Spike does the most stuff in the credits. He’s also moving forward a lot, and is paired up with an easily identifiable partner the most. Even in the solo shots (tied up in chair, in the subway) we can still instantly identify who he’s reacting to. He also has the most shots from S6 – will he grow the most? (S6)
[> [> [> Season 6 opening credits - Part Three -- LadyStarlight, 19:26:11 04/24/02 Wed

(Last part. If I get time, I'll do some statistics later.)

Alyson Hannigan credits

Willow going after Glory with lightening - Aw, c’mon guys, this one’s too easy.

Willow smiling - in the Magic Box? - Lots of ‘shiny, happy people’ in these shots.

Willow throwing knives at Glory - Again with the easiness.

Willow smiling – Tara’s dorm room?*

Willow smiling at Tara - Okay, it just occurred to me that Willow’s credit shots are all about Tara, too. Colour me slow on the uptake.

Willow/Tara dancing at Bronze - the end of ‘Family’. Hmmmm.

Willow/Tara spell in…. - Somebody, anybody, tell me what this scene is from. I’m thinking either “Hush” or “After Life”. (it’s a sad thing when I can’t run the remote)

full face shot of AH, lit from below quite harshly. - I keep thinking this is another ‘something’s blowing up shot’.

(we will now observe the sad absence of ASH. Sniff)

‘Filler’ shots:
A S1 shot of Buffy running through a graveyard?

graveyard shot

Highly lit shot of dancing??

a cauldron, lit from within

Eyes/nose shot of First Slayer - I didn’t realize what this was until I was doing frame by frame. The First Slayer is a rather sketchily drawn character, for someone who’s fairly important. There’s been some speculation that the FS was/is a ‘dark’ character. ME keeps circling this issue, don’t they?

green light

fire?

Buffy jumping from tower - Gotta have it.

words from start of credits

SG walking through a set of double doors

more words from start

Continuation of double door shot

more words, 1st season style ‘Buffy’

BuffyBot in The Gift - Ah the Bot! Something created, that cannot change unless an external source acts upon her. This is a good metaphor for Buffy herself, including the menial job at Doublemeat Palace. After all, most robots (in fiction and real life) are built to do menial, tedious jobs.
[> [> [> [> Re: Season 6 opening credits - Part Three -- tost, 21:54:01 04/24/02 Wed

I think the girl running away from the camera (filler shot) was from "superstar" running away from the Jonathan demon outside his mansion
[> [> [> Re: Season 6 opening credits - Part Two -- Ixchel, 13:59:05 04/25/02 Thu

You're very welcome, LadyStarlight.

I have to say, I love that they've kept bunnysuitAnya in the credits.

I think Dawn is coming out from under a desk (S5, Family), where Giles put her to protect her.

PowderTara is from Family (the see-no-evil spell).

Ixchel
[> Re: Season 6 opening credits - Part One -- cjc36, 05:23:51 04/25/02 Thu

I think the edited character/actor montages are to illustrate the natures of the characters: Buffy fights, Willow does magic--now, some of it is scary (hence the Glory "I owe you PAIN" clip).

But a bunch of them could be included--the Dracula-bat (minus the CGI of the bat as in the actual B vs. D episode) duck being one--because they looked cool. In the ducking shot, the Scoobies were together and doing something sort of unique.
[> Re: Season 6 opening credits - Part One -- Cactus Watcher, 06:48:14 04/25/02 Thu

The winged statue with sword is from Buffy's first dream at the beginning of Welcome to the Hellmouth. It's a cemetary scene.
[> Re: Season 6 opening credits - Part One -- leslie, 10:28:04 04/25/02 Thu

Funny, I have been kind of thinking about this topic, too. I think what first started the train of thought was realizing that they had finally eliminated the shot of Spike's "oh, who gives a damn" reaction as he's hauling off Drusilla, when he thinks that Angelus is about to kill Buffy, just as the character develops to really giving a damn about whether she's dead or not. And then I started thinking about how long they had the shot for ASH of him picking up the rose just before he discovers Jenny's body--the last few seasons really glided over what kind of emotional residue the loss of her might have left (there really seemed to be more emphasis on his antipathy to the returned Angel over the torture, not so much over Jenny), and yet that last moment when he still thought she was alive and their relationship was finally going to be consummated was being poked in our faces every week.

Anyway, I think it's really significant that that final shot in the current credits is of the Buffybot, not Buffy, but I'm not sure what it means. That the Buffybot is/was the real Slayer? The one for whom it's all straightforward and programmed into her operating system? That for Buffy, slaying has become mechanical, robotic--a killing machine? It certainly has something to do with her division into two halves at the end of the last season. I'm thinking now about the demon who divided Xander in two--there was a strong and weak part, and the death of one would mean the death of the other. Is this what has happened to Buffy? And was the Buffybot, ironically, the strong part? Is that why Buffy has been in such a tizzy all season?
[> [> Tara (Possible Spoiler) -- Giselle, 21:26:26 04/25/02 Thu

Hi to all. First message, though I've been dreaming up some very long, convoluted essays---I just had to post to this thread as it speaks directly to my #1 Buffy question this week: Why has Tara never been featured in the credits? I do know there are a great deal of Union requirements re: screentime, etc. but I should think Amber has met those by now. I do think it a bit odd that she's the only Scoobie not featured when she's been on the show three seasons now. In watching Restless again, I was reminded of the great emphasis placed on Tara---as guide, as messenger, as omniscient angel. True, we were being set up for "Family", wondering if Tara was a good deal more than the shy, sheltered girl Willow was fast falling for----but I've never been completely satisfied by the neatly wrapped "Family", especially considering Tara's unbelieveably coincidental talent for being in the righ place at the right time with just the right thing to say in order to soothe, comfort and illuminate (especially for Buffy). I can't help but wonder if the rumors surrounding Tara's fate this season will show us up for taking Tara for granted, and if not having her in the credits is a way to enforce that "not as important as the others" feeling.
Anyone else had questions about Tara's no-show in the credits?
[> [> [> Re: Tara (Possible Spoiler) -- CW, 05:43:53 04/26/02 Fri

Actually, it's a matter of contracts. All of the people whose names are listed in the opening credits are under contract to show. They have to be there every time the studio wants them all season (or at least for a set number of episodes). But, of course, they get paid well for it. Joss has said he offered Amber Benson a contract, but she turned it down, because she wanted to keep her acting options open. Fortunately for us, she hasn't been so busy with other projects, that she hasn't been able to do a lot of Buffy eps. as well.
[> Re: Season 6 opening credits - Part One -- i-jingle, 13:44:21 04/25/02 Thu

wasn't there one point where xander does the snoopy dance? i haven't sat down and watched the credits that closely yet, but i'd give a nice pretty hand beaded thing to anyone who can tell me.

and if you posted it and i missed it...well, you still get a pretty hand beaded thing.

God bless all
the jingling one
[> [> Re: Season 6 opening credits - Part One -- LadyStarlight, 14:13:54 04/25/02 Thu

Xander does the snoopy dance in 'The Replacement' when he's trying to convince Willow that he's the real Xander.
[> [> Re: Jewlery on Buffy -- Arethusa, 14:27:51 04/25/02 Thu

Do you do beading? I started last year, and, since all roads lead back to Buffy, I've noticed how well the jewlery on "Buffy" reflects the characters' personalities.

Buffy used to wear a lot of metal chains. I've read how ancient people used to wear ornaments of iron to ward off spirits. The chains were long enough to draw attention downward. During the episodes when Spike and Buffy were exploring their sexuality (to be delicate), Buffy wore necklaces of cords that somewhat resembled ropes. In "Normal Again," both hospital Buffy and real Buffy don't wear necklaces-blurring the lines between the characters.

Willow used to wear many beaded necklaces. Many were brightly colored, or flowered, and were, modestly, choker style. Lately, of course, her necklaces have become more sophisticated.

Tara wears gorgeous, elaborate jewlery with rich colors, often multi-strand (multi-layered?).

Dawn's jewlery is delicate chains and beaded strands, somtimes several at a time-also multi- layered.
clg0107 - the beginning of an answer to your archived question (Gay/vocal thread) -- yuri, 18:36:26 04/24/02 Wed

I really want to answer this question myself, but I'm a little pressed for time right now. I wouldn't want to rush in a reply of this nature.

However, here's an excerpt of a really good article on the subject -
(The full article is a better read, but I couldn't find it anywhere online.)

http://www.diversityweb.org/Digest/Sm98/gays.html

I entreat you to read this, and tell me what you think of it.
[> Interesting -- Vickie, 20:01:54 04/24/02 Wed

Hardly controversial by my lights. It was a nice "my life and learning about gay people" piece.

I've gone from a pretty ignorant "well, it looks weird to me, but it's none of my business" to "they're people, it's normal for them, get over it" attitude, mostly because of actually having a couple of gay friends.

All it seems to have taught me, and this is only my limited experience, is that you can't really learn tolerance for groups. You can practice it (or maybe I should use "I"), but I cannot actually learn it. I learn real tolerance when I meet people.

One good reason to participate here. Lots of different sorts of people to get to know (just a little) as people.
This year's Good Literature Done Wrong Buffy Fanfic -- fresne, 00:48:59 04/25/02 Thu

Ah, in that in that springtime of the year, when a youngish woman's fancy lightly turns to obsessively corrupting perfectly good literature.

Last year it was of course Joss Whedon's Pride and Prejudice
http://lifeamgood.com/01aprbuffy.html

This year, with Dante much on my mind, I decided to write a little crossover. Yes, Dante and Virgil wander around Sunnydale, Los Angeles and England.

Of course, it got a little out of hand.

http://lifeamgood.com/dante_previously.html
[> Magnificent! -- d'Herblay, 05:11:46 04/25/02 Thu

I loved that. I laughed loud and long at Virgil's "Until our discussion this very day, I did not know that I could do it." Thank you for the annotations as well. As long as you are so attentive to supportive detail, though, I see a few nits to pick (which should in no way suggest that the story or the notes or anything other than my general attitude towards the board today is lousy).

I am very confused by Virgil's ignorance of the word "apocalypse." I know that as a virtuous pagan, he was damned by his separation from God, and thus would not understand it in the modern sense which Xander uses, but surely he would have recognized the Greek root meaning "revelation." For that matter, would Virgil have referred to "Greek Fire"? A quick look at Norwich tells me that Greek Fire was first used (against the Saracens) in 672 A.D. Perhaps Averröes filled him in.

Also, the Sabine women were captured by the Romans under Romulus. Romulus had populated his new city by making it a haven for escaped criminals; it was a hirsute bunch. This is depicted on the shield Venus gives Aeneas in Book VIII (not Book XIII as the note has it and which doesn't exist). I can find references to Phaeton only as the son of Helios, never as the son of Apollo, and Diogenes and Demosthenes would be dead white guys in chitons. (Picky, picky, picky!)

On the bright side, mus is Latin for "mouse," so you need not feel abashed about Dante's reliance on Modern English symphony for his referrence.

By the way, after having seen Willow quote Handy, I got a flash during Lilah's attempted seizure of Virgil and Dante of the chapter in The Tick: The Naked City entitled "The Night of a Million Zillion Ninja."
[> [> Thanks -- Fresne, 07:28:43 04/25/02 Thu

Glad you liked it. It has been an Enormous time suck over the last several weeks.

Yes, it is particularly peculiar of Virgil that he doesn't understand Apocalypse, especially since he watches both Buffy and Angel, and Trading Spaces. Apparently, you can get cable in Hell. I might suspect him of sly sense of humor. As I was rereading Inferno, Purgatory, I kept coming across all these 10 year old notes from a collegic me, "Virgil, he's the man."

Phaeton was the son of Apollo and the nymph Clymene. One day he gave into peer pressure, borrowed his dad's car and plowed it into the ocean. Poor kid. He did get a type of carriage named after him. So, it wasn't a total loss.

As to Mouse, cool, I mostly remember him from the Heroes in Hell series. I will have to amend my notes (along with any XVLIII, greek fire commentary, etc. corrections.) Anyway, I forgot to reference the actual source of my harpy quote, Gaudy Night.
[> [> [> One sun god as good as another? -- d'Herblay, 08:15:53 04/25/02 Thu

This is the nigglingest of niggling points, but could you source the parentage of Phaeton for me? Helios is named exclusively as his father in Gods and Mortals in Classical Mythology, the Encyclopedia Mythica and Bullf . . . oh, Bullfinch's gives Apollo as his father . . . never mind.

Still wondering about "Early Morning of a Million Zillion Ninjas" though. Anything that inspires me to dip into Virgil, John Julius Norwich and Ben Edlund in one night is greatly appreciated!
[> [> [> [> Re: One sun god as good as another? -- Cactus Watcher, 08:37:14 04/25/02 Thu

Apollo and Clymene as Phaeton's parents is in Ovid's Metamorphoses, books one and two.
[> [> [> [> Helios, Apollo, Helallo. -- fresne, 09:12:19 04/25/02 Thu

Basically, the same, although not to be confused with Hyperion or Huitzilopochtli, who are altogether different.

Oddly enough, I wasn't thinking of the Tick as I wrote the Lilah/everyone else fight scene. Standing awkwardly in confusion. However, since I'm the proud owner of Retcon-omatic 2010 (additional snap on Barbie/GI Joe plastic cover at no additional cost. Order now, just $19.99.), this is not a problem. Yes, yes, I was thinking of Early Morning of a Million Zillion Ninjas. Yeeesss. It was a subliminal, subconscious thing. Totally.

I was mostly trying to come up with a way to have the fight scene last long enough for Dante and Virgil to get in lots and lots of exposition, while at the same time having everyone fighting for their lives. Except Lilah, who is apparently doing her nails.

And, other than I don't want to take up too much board time, no actually I do because this is good clean philosophical/literary/historical/semantic fun, by all means bring up nitts, picks, niggles, and fardles bearing. I have a Retcon-omatic 2010 and it's called the revision process. Yeeesss. That's right, revisions. I might even list the board as a resource on the References page. (and for that matter any exposition on the why and the what of what you found in Virgil, John Julius, Norwich and Ben Edlund is welcome.) Then again my housemate got no credit for suggesting that Dante shouldn't be so up on lemon vs. cream in his tea, without some help from the wonder Virgil (he slices, he dices, he has access to the sum total of human knowledge in bite sized medieval flavored chunks.) Have I mentioned how this story has now driven me completely mad and I've begun to speak in this bizarre mixture of Buffyisms and poetical-ish Danteisms. It's sad really. I should be writing a presentation on how the SDLC, PMM, and PDLC processes have been merged into the SDM process, but for some reason, yeah, Apollo, Ovid, Bullfinch (a kind of bird I note), Averröes (which counts as a sailing/ocean/river metaphor), hmmm.
[> [> [> [> "ra! ra! ra!" (to quote asterix)... -- anom, 00:04:17 04/26/02 Fri

...the books, not the character, that is (Egyptians chanting the name of their sun god in the issue where Asterix meets Cleopatra).

And rah rah rah to Fresne for a great fanfic! I may have a few nits to pick later when I have more time (ha), since you say you actually want that, but for now, I'm just amazed at how you pull together ancient (& less-ancient) literature, contemporary TV, & present & past music.

One more thing--thanks for inspiring me to look up the poem you got your posting name from. If anyone else wants to check it, one translation is at .
[> [> [> [> [> oops! that url is... -- anom, 00:06:41 04/26/02 Fri

http://web.english.ufl.edu/exemplaria/fresn.html
[> [> [> A Whimsical Suggestion -- Arethusa, 13:37:27 04/25/02 Thu

I have another (rather scary) crossover for you, inspired by you: Spike as Lord Peter Wimsey, Buffy as Harriet Vane, in "Busman's Holiday." Sayers described Wimsey as "the romantic soul at war with a realistic brain," so what could be better? And Harriet is prickly, independent, and very reluctant to commit to a man who lives so far outside her own world.
[> [> [> [> Oh, noooo! Never Spike as Peter Wimsey! -- Marie, 01:38:39 04/26/02 Fri

While I could just strech my imagination long enough to see Buffy (but vaguely) as Harriet, Spike as Peter? Just go to the end of Busman's Honeymoon and re-read his agonies over sending the murderer to the hangman. Can you imagine Spike in that sick, shivery state?

Marie
[> [> [> [> Re: A Whimsical Suggestion -- fresne, 08:25:52 04/28/02 Sun

Hmmm… I'm not sure I could imitate her style enough to pull off Spike Wimsey. And Wimsey exudes upper class. Columbo with style. Although, if William hadn't met Drucilla, would he have turned to Logic after being rebuffed by the fair whateverhernamewas?

Well, we are talking next year, most of the time it's too weird to go from, "And like the eagle harried by ravens, takes flight from his perch," at home to "The maximum possible Outbound Telephony is derived from the Erlang B1 formula," at work.

I'm actually percolating Tarzan and Highlander. It would explain so much.

Although what Tarzan would make of Sunnydale would be interesting. I can't quite decide who he'd understand better, Angelus or Spike. In his day (Tarzan of the Apes), Tarzan left behind quite a few gag gifts. Of course, he makes Oz look loquacious, but in more languages. But I could totally see Tarzan and Spike reminiscing about wandering around Belle Époque Paris, smoking too many cigarettes, drinking too much Absinthe, picking fights with the biggest baddest thing they could find (Tarzan's habits in Paris are funniest bit of The Return of Tarzan). And you know the whole outside it all.

Then again Tarzan and Wimsey. Now that would just be funny.
[> You have waaaaay too much time on your hands -- Vickie, 11:57:05 04/25/02 Thu

And I'm delighted that you do!

Fantastic. Amazing. thank you!
[> Ah, this brings back memories. -- Deeva, 14:19:50 04/25/02 Thu

I loved reading Joss Whedon's P&P. It was a hoot. I look forward to reading this.
[> Wunnerful...Just Wunnerful...Thank you! -- La Duquessa, 21:36:41 04/25/02 Thu

[> Re: Love it! and a tiny nitpick -- MaeveRigan, 08:27:49 04/26/02 Fri

The Dante is fantastic! graphics alone worth the price of the tour.

Tiny correction: Dante has Aquinas mentioning Giles removing his shoes in Paradiso XI, not X. It was so funny, I just had to look it up.

Thanks again!
[> [> Re: Love it! and a tiny nitpick -- fresne, 10:35:10 04/26/02 Fri

Yes, the funny thing about this project is that I went through and re-read (well not everything, I'm not that compulsive, but you know re-read Dante and bits of others.) and made notes on heaps of quotes and various relevancies (imagine fresne supined about in a sleeping bag, on a camping trip, by the dim light of morning, making notes on Dante, and chortling). Then right about the end, I realized that I hadn't made one single page number, source reference, whatever. That was an interesting moment of, "Doh!"

Which is to say that the story really ought to be one big footnote. I stole and corrupted quite a few of Dante's descriptive comments. So, yes, nits and revisions. I'm using you all quite shamelessly. The real problem will come with trying to stop tweaking the thing. Did I mention obsessive compulsive behavior?

Though as to content tweaks, eh. In many ways, I feel like this is my definitive essay on Dante/Italian 14th century romances/French 13th century romances and the Jossverse. Funny thing is I had completely forgotten the Caritas - Dante link, until looking at the Poetics of Conversion by John Freccero. As well as the emphasis that Dante, pre-Romantic that he was, placed on correcting your love towards Caritas within a community. It was a very Buffy/Angel need their community to function/survive moment. (Although, it is also a very personal individualistic story. Dante's main character is not Christian or Everyman, it's Dante.)

Especially in context with the theme in the previous Slayers comic (spoilers I guess), that the Slayers, as heroes, are excluded from the communities that they protect. Culminating in Fray's revelation, at the end of the book, that she is not "one girl in all the world," but rather part of a community of many Slayers. She will never be alone because she is surrounded by those who came before and those who go after.

Rather like Dante's insistence on his place within a chain of writers, poets, philosophers, humans.
[> This is wonderful, fresne, thanks so much for having so much time on your hands! ... ;-) -- OnM, 20:50:00 04/26/02 Fri

[> fresne, you are a genius. I admire and slightly fear you. -- Ixchel, 21:55:11 04/26/02 Fri

[> thank you for rounding out my knowledge of the classics! great work! -- ponygirl, 22:49:13 04/27/02 Sat

Help from Angel experts on the soul -- Anne, 03:47:13 04/25/02 Thu

I did watch "Double or Nothing", but there's a part I must have spaced out on or gone out of the room for, where Jennoff or someone apparently says something to Gunn about having to hurry to conclude the soul deal because Gunn is "transferring" his soul to Fred by being in love with her. (I only know about it because I've seen references to it in posts on other boards).

Sorry but this makes absolutely no sense in relation to any theory of the soul that I have heard on the Buffyverse (or outside it). Can anybody give me a theory of the soul that is consistent with:

1. Joss's "Guiding Light" comments

2. The history of Angel and his various losings and regainings of his soul

3. The "Double or Nothing" soul-transferred-when-you-fall-in love concept, which I obviously got at second hand and am probably grossly misunderstanding.

Thanks for any help anyone can give.
[> Unfortunately... -- Cactus Watcher, 06:35:09 04/25/02 Thu

There were a number of things in the episode that were ever so slightly out-of-kilter. I'm not sure the author of the episode is entirely conversant with the 'rules' of the Buffyverse as we understand it. Since the episode has been called sub-par by the great majority here, it might be best to wait to see if this 'giving your soul to the one you love' idea has any relevance beyond this episode. It may be a one time thing and never be heard of again. The episode seemed very much a 'filler' written by a relative outsider to me, and I wouldn't want to make major changes in any theories until I saw the same idea being used by someone else in ME.
[> Soul vs. Future -- Scroll, 06:42:18 04/25/02 Thu

I don't know if I can answer your questions fully, but I can tell you that Gunn's original deal with Jenoff was not to hand over his soul so much as to hand over his 'future'. ME confuses this point by equating the 'soul' with Gunn's 'future' and 'life-force' (which is what Jenoff seems to suck out of his victims via their eyeballs). We've mostly seen the term 'soul' used in conjunction with a person's conscience (Joss' Guiding Light theorem), which is different from their spirit/life-force.

Jenoff is calling the marker on Gunn's 'soul' because he has dedicated his *future* to Fred. I really don't think Gunn has given his conscience to Fred so much as his love and a belief that they can live a happy life together. That belief in a future is what causes Jenoff to go after Gunn.

In "Primeval", Willow is the Spirit of the quartet when they call on the power of the Slayer to stop Adam; later in Restless, she is killed by having her breath/spirit *sucked out*. I don't think spirit is the same as the soul in Joss' Buffyverse. And I really think the writers dropped the ball when they tried to refer to Gunn's life-force as a soul. I can see why they'd use the 'soul' word for dramatic purposes: Angel offered up his soul and we all had a split second of wondering if Angelus would be back. (Angel's soul, if sucked out, wouldn't kill him the way Jenoff seems to kill his human victims, because Angelus would still be around to massacre everyone nearby! Now that would have showed that slimy casino demon!)
[> [> Re: Soul vs. Future -- skeeve, 09:56:29 04/26/02 Fri

Here is what I think is the scenario that assumes the most intelligence on the part of the writer:
Gunn's contract was somewhat open-ended and the soul-sucker was a sadist. The SS would collect whenever he thought Gunn was happy enough to be worth hurting. Gunn erroneously thought that that would never happen. Fred made him happy enough to be worth hurting. The comments about giving his soul to Fred were just comments to annoy Gunn and tell him that SS knew what made him happy and how to make him unhappy. They were not intended as a description of the situation.

If you want a more interesting puzzle involving souls, try this one: In Doppelgangland, what effect, if any, would the soul-restoring spell have had on vamp-Willow?
[> [> [> Vampwillow's soul -- fresne, 13:29:54 04/26/02 Fri

Okay, that's a juicy one.

Vampwillow gets her soul back and…becomes rarely naughty again? I'm sure that she'd be tortured for things that she's done, but Willow has always demonstrated a tremendous capacity to push responsibility off. "I have an addiction to magic" versus, "I have root problem which causes me to abuse magic."

Also, her typical response to doing something wrong is to compulsively try to make it better. So, would Vampwillow start to compulsively bake cookies? Learn magic. (Drucilla and Angel can do magic, so Willow should be able to as well) Would Willow be able to face the idea that there are some things that you just can't fix?

Somehow, I can't help but think of that moment when Vampwillow breaks that vampire's fingers, "Who's your boss?" snap, "Who's your boss?"
Re PC debate -- Shari, 05:28:46 04/25/02 Thu

I just wish to make some comments regarding the post below. I realise that ONM and others are trying to keep the peace, but I actually think having read through the post that you are by and large disregarding the aggressiveness directed against Rahael and the nature of the posts. Rahael do not apologise or feel ashamed I think the fact that you have had to argue against what are farcical quite badly thought out soapbox rants is fairly disgraceful in itself.



In answer to the comments relating to Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe.
1. I am not by any means a fan of Mugabe; I condemn him utterly but from the position of having conducted research into Zimbabwe and land reform in particular. I believe that the majority of the struggle conducted against Mugabe and Zanu PF has come from within Zimbabwe and the various opposition and coalition activists whereas the momentum seems to be placed with the Commonwealth and their silence because he was black.. In fact the British government supported Mugabe not because he was black but in preference to another prominent leader because the other leader was considered too extremist.
2. The very recent history of colonialism in Zimbabwe make it very difficult to argue for the disengaged position that Phoenix argues from which seems to consist entirely of rhetoric. The historical position of Zimbabwe deserve their own reading and should not be hijacked fro a diatribe against speaking out against 'people of colour' ugh even the terms of this debate appal me.

3. Back to Zimbabwe I suggest you look at the differential treatment and sanctions dealt out to Zimbabwe and that dealt out to Israel in its treatment of Palestinians. Have you been watching the news recently, the ineffectual way in which h we are forced to watch genocide carried out against people in refugee camps who are being completely dispossessed. The aid agencies couldn't even get in, when the UN envoy finally got into Jernin, he spoke of the 'stench of death' every news reporter and envoys have been appalled and often angry. Yet until now the US and the UK have not acted. We have effectively watched this happening in front of us. Why? Because Israel is viewed as a stabilising factor in the Middle East, viewed as the white nation in a sea of Arabs partly I suspect. Certainly a minister recently said that he feels sanctions are not effective against Israel and that the most important to get Israel to the negotiating table and for Gasser Arafat trapped in his compound to call of the suicide attacks. Ridiculous, somehow sanctions seem perfectly applicable against Iraq, Zimbabwe and other nations but not against Israel.

Wake up and read your history, your comments are pure rhetoric Phoenix. The world and world politics works in entirely different ways. I do believe in political correctness because some measure of how the world works and the attention to the macro structural facets of international politics is needed, rather than constantly alluding to the micro as a justification that PC is half-witted and punishes the wrong people. Any attention to the long-term effects of structural factors and an honest attention to this as a political and intellectual project soon expose rhetoric.

The other point I wish to make is the labelling of terrorists. As Rahael has said pointed out sensitivity to the way labelling practices work does not necessarily bring identification with terrorist practices. I am not in support of Al- Quaida, The LTTE, the PKK and so on.
However as Edmund Leach one of the most distinguished anthropologist that this country has ever produced, pointed out in 19977 that the dehumanisation of people who do not conform to our values is a tragic but common occurrence and warned that this is often one of the elements involved in the labelling of people as terrorists. He points out that if those labelled 'terrorist' are defined as less than human, then every form of terrorism attributed to them becomes permissible for oneself. As Said points out ' the entire arsenal of words and phrases that derive from the concept of terrorism (is) both inadequate and shameful'. (These are all taken from an article by Jeffery Sluka in anthropology today).

Sluka writes of northern Ireland ' the (British) Government and security forces portray the IRA and the INLA as 'terrorists', 'criminals' and 'monsters' not only as a deliberate means of denying their political legitimacy, but also as a means of legitimising their own use of naked power and political, legal, and military repression to combat them'. A comment from Feldman’s book on violence in NI, illustrates how both loyalist and republican paramilitaries described the absolute torture inflicted on them by the State and the way in which civil liberties and common laws were suspended for them, because of the 'special state of affairs'. (Diplock commission of 1972 advocated the suspension of common rules of law concerning the right to silence and admissibility of evidence).

The Parker report of 1972 identified the five techniques of interrogation ' isolation, sleep deprivation, non specific threat, depersonalisation, inadequate diet and in many case physical brutality' while the Parker report exposed these techniques, it concluded that given 'the special circumstances in Northern Ireland they were justified and should be officially re-introduced and regulated by formal legislation). In the Castlereagh detention centre

' high up on the wall on a bracket is a movable camera, and its meant to scan the interrogation. The Branch men just hang their coats over the camera lens and tell you, " You know who mans these cameras? Its us so don't be worrying about the camera '
excerpt from oral history of PIRA man (Feldman; 1991; 126.

'I remember one story where a guy suspected of IRA terrorism jumped out of a window and killed himself. Now I hate the IRA. Some of the republican politicians said the soldiers done it. I said 'a lot of piss, he was trying to escape, didn't know he was so high up and killed himself" After I had been taken in for interrogation a couple of times I said to myself maybe he did get thrown out the fucking window. If a catholic said to me such and such had happened to him while being interrogated I would honestly believe it. I would believe him before I would believe the security forces if they were denying it. Its as bad as that'.

UDA man. (Feldman 1991; 133-134).

Now this a long ramble but what I am trying to call attention to is Power and Words, the Power of Words, John Whitbeck an International lawyer observed that 'the greatest threat to world peace today is clearly 'terrorism'- not the behaviour to which the word is applied but the word itself...it is extremely dangerous, because people tend to believe that it does have meaning and to use and abuse the word by applying it to whatever they hate as a way of avoiding rational though and discussion, and frequently excusing their own illegal and immoral behaviour'( Sluka; 2002; 22). Now why have I brought this up? I am referring to one of the aspect of PC'ness that often becomes the butt of most jokes, that is of discussing the words we use and the power they have. I believe that a consideration of the words we use and the power contained within them is essential in any intellectual act. Secondly I dislike the way people bandy around the word ‘terrorism’ without realising the application of ‘terrorism’ as juridical label is also the acceptance of certain kinds of techniques to prosecute said terrorists.

This is a long and perhaps purposeless post, it is written in the heat of the moment. However I really dislike rhetoric when we should be encouraging ourselves to think dispassionately and honestly about our world and Power. This means paying attention to the classification and categorisation of people in regimes of power such as ethnicity, class religion and so on. What we are and should be are responsible adults.

The most irresponsible act is when people share and debate feelings and the instant response is that you just want to suppress freedom of speech. That is such a knee jerk reaction. I don't wish to suppress freedom of speech; I want to talk more about what is going on in the world. Phoenix's use of the argument of freedom of speech offends me. Freedom of speech is a very valuable thing we should honour not use it superficially. Our right to freedom of speech and information should be upheld in relation to the opaque workings of power, which we only dimly perceive. The freedom of speech principle has been most upheld by those activists who have made a politically damaging discovery of corruption etc and who are sat on very heavily. This happens all the time, we could perhaps pay more attention to that instead of simply relegating the power of our right to speech to watching Benny Hill or not. These kinds of arguments call for an equally weighted freedom of speech as those who they oppose, a zero sum game. The question is are you willing to be honest about yourself and your reasons for arguing certain things. To argue that all you are saying is commonsense is not good enough. The classic rhetoric of I used to be a lefty too and now I have changed my views? One might ask why, I am genuinely interested in opening a free and open debate which is not conducted aggressively as it seems to have been.

As Chomsky says when we are agents of power, we cease to be moral agents.
[> Re: Re PC debate. Thanks for the quotes, very interesting. -- lachesis, 06:40:45 04/25/02 Thu

[> oh hell. i wasn't going to get into this. -- anom, 23:31:51 04/25/02 Thu

I was really determined to stay out of it. And it's not like I don't have work I need to get done....

But Shari says this:

"Have you been watching the news recently, the ineffectual way in which h we are forced to watch genocide carried out against people in refugee camps who are being completely dispossessed."

Then Shari goes on to say:

"The other point I wish to make is the labelling of terrorists....John Whitbeck an International lawyer observed that 'the greatest threat to world peace today is clearly 'terrorism'- not the behaviour to which the word is applied but the word itself...it is extremely dangerous, because people tend to believe that it does have meaning and to use and abuse the word by applying it to whatever they hate as a way of avoiding rational though and discussion, and frequently excusing their own illegal and immoral behaviour'...."

I would say the same about "genocide." Israeli forces have indeed committed excesses, abuses, & sometimes deliberate cruelty against Palestinian civilians in Jenin & elsewhere in the West Bank. I've heard numerous stories from Palestinians about Israeli soldiers breaking down doors or walls of houses--in one case, a church--even when those who lived there offered to let them in, demolishing houses that may have had people in them, holding people prisoner in their own houses & sometimes gratuitously terrorizing them, keeping ambulances from reaching hospitals & the dead from being buried. If those soldiers had been committing genocide, none of the people telling those stories would be alive to tell them. This is by no means intended to justify what Israel has been doing in the West Bank. It's wrong, it's oppressive, it kills innocent people. But it's not genocide.

I often find myself assumed by people on every side to be against "their side," because I tend to bring up other points of view. I've found myself arguing w/Jews who said Palestinians killed in a building when the Israeli army shelled Hamas offices couldn't have been innocent because they were in "a Hamas building" (1. having offices there doesn't mean the whole building was "theirs"; 2. the men may have been there for the social services that Hamas also provides) & w/Jews opposing the occupation who said Israelis were "using the history of anti-Semitism to justify claims of fear" & called it "dishonesty" (1. what, they're not really afraid of gunmen & suicide bombers, they're just "claiming" to be? 2. trauma, whether on a personal or a larger scale, has real effects on perception-- the feeling of being threatened is real & needs to be respected & addressed [yes, on both sides]). I've spoken to Palestinians who were more accepting of my calling myself a Zionist than some left-wing Jews were. (Better clarify that: I'm a progressive Zionist who supports Palestinian rights & ending the occupation, believes that supporting Israel doesn't mean agreeing w/everything its leaders do, & resists the right-wingers' claim to represent all of Zionism.) I'm sick of the victim contest ("we're bigger victims than you, so whatever we do to you is self-defense"), & I'm sickened by the violence carried out by people on both sides.

I could go on & on (boy, could I...), but it's getting really late, & I do have to get a lot of work done tomorrow. Believe it or not, Shari, I agree w/most of what you wrote. But y'gotta be careful w/words like "genocide," they push a lot of buttons. Kinda like "terrorist."
Nice little Nick Brendon interview--No spoilers whatsoever... -- Rob, 06:46:04 04/25/02 Thu

Click here.
[> Thanks for the link, Rob. -- Deeva, 08:54:14 04/25/02 Thu

[> Cute. Thanks. -- yez, 10:31:54 04/25/02 Thu

[> Hee! A fellow Great White fan! -- vandalia, 16:43:42 04/25/02 Thu

[> E! called Buffy a sitcom. I almost died. -- Pete, 00:02:55 04/26/02 Fri

Nicholas Brendon and his wife were on "Celebrity Homes" last week and that's what the host called the show.
Angel and Cordy (Double or Nothing Spoilers) -- Darby, 07:47:23 04/25/02 Thu

With all of the talk about the payoff in the casino, I just now remembered one of the standout lines from the episode:

"You know I will."

Watching Six Feet Under the other night, I was drawn in (good writing will do this) into imagining how I might react to being around Billy, a violent psychopath currently medicated and free, and it hit me, isn't that what Angel is?

Remaining in AI, only Cordy has had direct contact with Angel "off his meds." When he handed her the stake, I know that they weren't talking about pinning hands to tables (isn't that Justine's schtick, anyway?). Cordelia's a practical gal, moreso every month, obviously ready to give Angel the benefit of the doubt now, but could she ever really forget his potential enough to truly give herself to him? It's never going to be easy for me to accept her doing that. Maybe it depends on just how much distance from Buffy the Angel staff feels.

On a related note, my wife looked at me during the casino scene and exclaimed, "He really is Groo!" Every time he's on camera I'm looking for dual katanas and that weird blue buckly thingy...
[> "weird blue buckly thingy"?? -- Masq, 12:27:02 04/25/02 Thu

[> [> I knew someone would ask... -- Darby, 13:47:28 04/25/02 Thu

Groo the Barbarian is a recurring character in comics (Mark Evanier and Sergio Aragones), very funny, very metaphorically topical. Funny and consistent on or above a Simpsons level. Groo is so dumb that to compare him to a post is an insult to the post, but an incomparable warrior who is at his best in a fray (coincidence that Joss' comic is Fray)? Fray first, think later, if at all. Misunderstands pretty much everything. I can't help but think that the Gruesselug is an homage.

Groo is always dressed the same - beige tunic, headband, long scruffy hair, 2 katana strapped to his back, a blue buckly thingy (no one knows what it really is, including the creators) on his chest, his dog (and mental superior) Rufferto at his side.
[> [> [> Couldn't be a coincidence! -- Masq, 14:20:47 04/25/02 Thu

Joss is a comic book fan...
[> [> [> Don't forget the cheesedip *N/T* -- Andy, 14:56:17 04/25/02 Thu

[> [> [> Re: I knew someone would ask... -- skeeve, 09:59:48 04/26/02 Fri

How does he compare with Cohen the barbarian?
[> [> [> [> Cohen the Barbarian??? Another great quote for the thread above. -- Sophist, 10:40:40 04/26/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Cohen the Barbarian -- matching mole, 11:52:28 04/26/02 Fri

Cohen the Barbarian is an actual character (as opposed to a typo) from at least one (and possibly more) or Terry Pratchett's novels.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Embarrassed now. -- Sophist, 13:03:06 04/26/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't be -- matching mole, 13:19:22 04/26/02 Fri

I should be embarassesd for remembering a detail like that when much more important things escape my mind every day.

Not to mention the fact that I have never read any of the source material on which fresne's current fan fiction is based.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It is kinda tough -- Sophist, 13:51:56 04/26/02 Fri

to keep up on Dante and Pratchett at the same time. To say nothing of the numerous other references here. Especially when I'm 500 pages deep into Gould. But I shouldn't have assumed a typo when I didn't actually know (it did seem funny though).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Congrats on your Gould progress.... -- mundusmundi, 16:11:56 04/26/02 Fri

Leave a trail of breadcrumbs so you can find your way back. ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL. You'll hear me gasping when I come up for air. -- Sophist, 17:24:15 04/26/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I've got a mind like a steel sieve -- fresne, 15:56:53 04/26/02 Fri

All of sudden imagining ideas (which look like tiny people in bright Technicolor clothing) leaping out of the top of mm's head (which has a hinge for some reason) and fleeing in all directions.

Hmmm…anyway, since the only real qualifier for long term posting here seems to be, (returning to the quote thread,) "Here at ATPo, we pride ourselves on our ability to give long answers to short questions." - d'Herblay, I wonder what we could produce if we, in the off season, were to write the Mega essay.

Not just any essay, but a long rambling, esoteric, quote filled, bursting with references on the most absolutely abstract concept within Buffy that we can think of: the recurrence of cheese, Buffy's coats, Angel's hair, etc.

Sort of like Dark Alchemy, only you know, non-fiction and possibly with graphs and flow charts.

fresne - remembering the fungus thread with fondness
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> How did you know about the hinge? -- matching mole, 18:38:07 04/26/02 Fri

That was my most carefully guarded secret
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Mine's occasionally like a Teflon pan. -- Ixchel, 21:48:50 04/26/02 Fri

I love your idea of the abstract concept essay. To see what kind of fascinating and surreal thoughts the board could extract from the recurrence of cheese in BtVS!

This is probably not a very original idea, but has the board ever collectively analyzed an episode by breaking it down into sections? For example, assigning the first two minutes to someone, then the next two minutes to someone else and so forth. Or by assigning a certain facet of an episode to several people (example: hair, makeup and clothing significance) and then another facet to another group? As I type this, I realize this has practically been done with Restless. Oh well.

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cohen the Barbarian -- skeeve, 12:32:48 04/27/02 Sat

Terry Pratchett is a wonderful writer. He also has a wonderful voice. The voice he described in Wyrd Sisters (one of his best) was his own. Cohen isn't in WS, but he does show up in The Colour of Magic, TP's first Discworld novel. Buffy and Giles might like Small Gods, another goody.
Dawn/Buffy who what and from where spoilers through OaFA long -- tost, 11:33:20 04/25/02 Thu

It is inevitable that after many months of lurking a person is seized with the desire to share some of his thoughts about the remarkable TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I must admit that I approach this with all the trepidation of a man with muddy shoes entering the spotless kitchen of a kind and tolerant hostess. Let me offer my appreciation to the board and the posters for the many many hours of insight that you have provided me with. Please accept the following as an all too inadequate repayment for the wealth I have supped from the shadows.


GILES: (whispers) She's not your sister.
BUFFY: (pause) No. She's not. She's more than that. She's me. The monks made her out of me. I hold her ... and I feel closer to her than ... (looks down, sighs) It's not just the memories they built. It's physical. Dawn ... is a part of me. The only part that I- (stops)

I've always been impressed with Buffy's feelings. They have served her well where a slower more thoughtful approach might not.

She "feels" her identity with Dawn, the essential sameness and (I think) mistakenly assumes that the monks made Dawn out of her. Some have said with blood drawn by our favorite pointy toothed phlebotomist Dracula.(vein attempt at humor)

Why were the Knights of Byzantiun so sure the Slayer would protect the key even before they knew it had been made human, much less made into Buffy's sister?
Why did the monk say "we knew the Slayer would protect"? A "Slayer could" or "sister would" might make more sense. Unless Slayer and Key share something which compels that protection beyond what Buffy and Dawn share.
The end of The Gift has also been a puzzle to me. Not Buffy's decision to not decide. That made perfect sense. Take yourself out of the equation and let the rest of the universe decide between the horns of that dilemma. But why did it close the portal? If Dawn was made out of Buffy (thanks Vlad) I can see how she might get Slayer traits but how does Buffy end up with Key traits? The monks could have used Dracula to get some Key blood into Buffy when she drank His blood. Or the siblings ritual blood sharing in Blood Ties might do the trick. But these seem(to me) more like devices to placate or distract persistent and detail obsessed fans (like me).
A not unreasonable and way more interesting theory is that the "Slayer" and the "Key" were both created from the same unnamed "stuff." Since the Key seems to exist beyond "good" and "evil" then the Slayer should also. Both created,in a way, for the same purpose. To serve as intermediaries between the dualities of chaos and order, demon and human, hell and heaven, id and super ego, nagual and tonal(Don Juan fans).
I have never wondered why the PTB insert themselves into Angel's life (he works for them) and the First Evil wants Angel to work for her/him but they give Buffy more autonomy because she as "Slayer" out ranks them. Her sole responsibility is to their (and her) creator (fortunately a hands off type boss).
Looked at from this point of view Buffy stops being a force for "good" and becomes a force for balance making sure neither side becomes so dominate as to threaten the healthy interplay of forces in the Jossverse. You can't have a ecology without the struggle between predator and prey at best all you have is a zoo at worst a wasteland. One reason I think this is interesting is with that small change of perspective we have doubled the number of enemies and allies that inhabit Buffy's world.

Dawn is the Key.
"The Key is the link. The link must be severed. Such is the will of god." It must be important they repeat it enough.

Edger Allen Poe pioneered the technique but leave it to Joss to beat us over the head with a clue until the simple unambiguous words become lost in cadence and search for subtlety. A lock separates two areas. If the key is used the two areas become one. If the key ceases to exist the two areas become irrevocably separate and lose all ability to effect one another. Only when the key exists unused can the two areas influence each other and still maintain their integrity.
The Key is the link (of course).
If true this explains the precariousness and importance of Dawn's existence. Hopefully Glory eliminated the threat from Byzantium but others surely exist who are willing to risk the wasteland to achieve the zoo with themselves as keepers. Buffy's fear of the Watchers Council in "Checkpoint" was neither a mystery nor misplaced. I suspect they came to town for the purpose of finding out more about the Key. Leaving after learning the Scoobies knew nothing about it. I think their god would "will" the link's severance as well. I am not surprised at Joss's reluctance to call ASH's new series "The Watcher." It is way to small a title to house his talent.
One more point about Dawn. Her power as the Key lies in her existence and no other power should be necessary. But I did notice that on three occasions when Dawn says something three times it happens. Twice when she says "get out" on Buffy's birthdays and once when she wants to talk to Glory instead of Ben. If this is a foreshadowing of her "Key power" then it apparently even affects the gods.

MONK: "many more die if you don't keep it safe." He understood the value of a healthy ecology.

In 1983 a wonderful little movie came out called "Never Cry Wolf" it detailed the studies of a naturalist,Tyler, in the arctic wilderness. There was a concern over the dwindling elk population and it was expected that Tyler would conclude that perdition by wolves was a significant factor, justifying the wolves eradication. Tyler's actual conclusions were both surprising and eye opening and summed up by the following Inouit story.

In the beginning the gods created man and the elk herds that man might use them for food and clothing and all was good. But one day man noticed that hunting was difficult and the herds no longer as large or plentiful and out of fear one was chosen to make the long and dangerous journey to the mountains to confer with the gods. Finely arriving at the holy place the man spoke "Please help us. The elk you have given us no longer sustain us our people are hungry our children are cold." The gods conferred and after a time gave the man a tool that would keep the herds healthy and plentiful. The wolf

I hope my all to fallible memory hasn't made too much of a hash of a worthwhile movie but I do recall it stared Charles Martin Smith with rare top billing. I remember him best as a co-star in the movie "Starman" with Jeff Bridges and Karen Allen. He has also enjoyed some modest success directing, including the first episode of BtVS "Welcome to the Hellmouth."
Interestingly WttH also gave us Buffy telling Angel that her desire is different then his and her desire is NOT to kill all vampires.

I realize the impossibility of convincing the elk of the benefits gained from the existence of the wolves. There will always be groups who based on an imperfect knowledge of the way the universe works advocate the destruction of an entire subsection of existence. I'll close with a less often used paraphrase from Nietzsche "Be not so smug oh you moralists. The world needs us monsters too."


Quotes are from Psyche

Poor spelling, improper diction, lousy word choice, bad pacing, and errors in logic are solely and exclusively the property of this poster.

TWS
[> Re: Dawn/Buffy who what and from where spoilers through OaFA long -- Rattletrap, 11:58:44 04/25/02 Thu

Welcome tost, hope you stick around. I enjoyed your post and look forward to hearing more from you in the future.

'trap

P.S. I also enjoyed your vein (har!) attempts at humor :-)
[> Really enjoyed your post...and welcome! -- Caroline, 12:13:59 04/25/02 Thu

[> Re: Dawn/Buffy who what and from where spoilers through OaFA long -- Anne, 13:24:26 04/25/02 Thu

I need some more time to think about the applicability of your argument to BtVS, but this I will say: the elk story and the Nietszche quote (or paraphrase) were worth the price of admission.

Welcome.
[> [> Re: Dawn/Buffy who what and from where spoilers through OaFA long -- redcat, 15:14:17 04/25/02 Thu

Although I, too, have to spend more time thinkging about the argument, here's one teensy bit to support it... When Giles and Ethan Raynes get drunk in A New Man, Ehtan says that the Initiative is throwing the balance between good and evil _out_ of balance. The Slayer obviously does NOT do this. Can we conclude, then, that she does, indeed, serve the balance itself rather than serving only some absolute conception of good?

Just a thought...
and I, too, loved the Nietszche quote!
[> [> [> and Whistler . . . -- Anne, 15:47:25 04/25/02 Thu

and of course Whistler was described, or described himself, as a balancing demon, not a "good" demon, if memory serves me correctly.
[> [> [> [> mmmm. I like. -- yuri, 21:06:16 04/25/02 Thu

As one who's favorite arc of the past few seasons has been the one that indicated the power of the slayer and the power of the vampire have the same source ("the first's" ambiguity -- first slayer or first vampire?), I'm diggin this thread. Wonderful post, tost. Better than my first, I'm sure. Oh, now you've got me going with the whole self-deprecation thing. That's no fun. Maybe we should outlaw it.

And Solitude - thanks for the detailed and annotated version of the story.
To the Dinetah, a long life - beyond the scope of normal lifetime - is a bad thing, not a good thing.
Strangely, the Dinetah religion has little to no concept of an "afterlife" like in the Xtian religion, in the sense that they welcome death so they can "move on" or "be at one with" some type of God-form. It's more like the traditional Judaic concept of a shadowy realm if explicated at all, but just downright non-existence, more commonly.
At the risk of playing out a cliche, I must express my wonder and say that that's a beautiful way to think about death. one of the best I've ever heard. It takes something to be at peace with near non- existence.
[> Re: Ah, lovely. -- mundusmundi, 15:27:04 04/25/02 Thu

Excellent post, and not just because it contains no Controversial Issues. (Nothing against Controversial Issues, but I'm on overload lately.) Any post that can cite Poe, Nietzsche and Never Cry Wolf in the same breath is a welcome one by me. Thanks.
[> Re: Dawn/Buffy who what and from where spoilers through OaFA long -- Etrangere, 15:48:00 04/25/02 Thu

Come in and have a cup of tea or chocolate or coffee or blood if that's what you're into, tost. After this great post you're very much welcome. Don't mind the mess, i'm afraid those days our kitchen isn't so clean but the hearth fire still make it warm in the and I'm sure your arrival will help it burn some more.

>>She "feels" her identity with Dawn, the essential sameness and (I think) mistakenly assumes that the monks made Dawn out of her. Some have said with blood drawn by our favorite pointy toothed phlebotomist Dracula.(vein attempt at humor)>>

Whatever is a "phebomotist", the theory is interresting. Not that getting blood of the Slayer must be a very hard task.
As for Buffy's feelings, we know from a long time it is her source of power "my feelings give me power, they're total asset", was she already saying in What's my line. Buffy's problem in S6 is indeed her lack of connection with her feelings "why can't I feel ? / my peel should crack and peel". You might note that those feelings are represented by Hands (from Restless, from Afterlife, from OMWF...)
Here I stop before I get to my pet theory of ice and fire or I won't ever stop.

>>A not unreasonable and way more interesting theory is that the "Slayer" and the "Key" were both created from the same unnamed "stuff." Since the Key seems to exist beyond "good" and "evil" then the Slayer should also. Both created,in a way, for the same purpose. To serve as intermediaries between the dualities of chaos and order, demon and human, hell and heaven, id and super ego, nagual and tonal(Don Juan fans).>>

I won't ask what's a nagual and tonal, but I'm going to say that's quite an even more interresting theory (ok, what's a nagual and a tonal ?)
I always found rather interresting the vague clues we have to the origin of the Key. It is described as rather old, but not as old as Glory. Glory herself is described as predating language. This then makes me think of a few quotes from Restless, mainly :
- "What was your name ?" "Before Adam ? Not a man among us can remember"
- "I have no speech, no name"
- "This is the way women and men have behaved since the beginning......before time"

All are very vague references that are interresting by the way they seem to refer to a much older time, a time devoid of names and speech.
The season 4 was I believe the first instance where we've seen Buffy acting as the keeper of balance between humans and demons by fighting Adam. It was also a season about which I made an essay that was called "In the Beginning" that relates with the issues of the knowledge of good and evil. Another quote I find rather interresting about Adams is that one, from Where the wild things are :

"BUFFY: Think about it. Who better to bring together a bunch of... demon types than someone who's made out of a ... bunch of demon types?
TARA: So he's, um, bridging the gap between the races.
WILLOW: Huh, like Martin Luther King."

My theory, there, is that I always felt that Dawn was a sort of Adam that was actually a success. Like Adam, she was made instead of being born, like Adam, she's made of stuff of different nature. And as the key she can be litteraly described as "bridging the gab between races". (which we can see she does in weight of the world, by the way she breaking the wall between Glory and Ben, the God and the human) And like Adam, not a man among us can remember her first name/nature.

This applies for Buffy too. Her nature as the Slayer is old indeed, maybe predating speech ? (though Tales of the Slayers tends to indicate the contrary)
Of course, on a symbolical plan, Dawn is but a part of Buffy, like Buffy she is the innocent child with something wild, primal and surnatural into her that prevent her from leading a normal life. She's the symbole of Buffy's innocence and sacrifice, and of Buffy's love.
Feelings, are Buffy's source of power, as you indicated. It is with love and feelings that Buffy brough the knowledge of Good and Evil to Riley (before he went back in to the wood, that is) against the dry rationnal and amoral knowledge of the Initiative.
Bringing people together, that is also an attribute of Buffy, one of the thing the Hands make, they link people. Different kind of people, witch, vampire, ex-demon, humans, all fighting together. "And the two of us... natural enemies, thrown together to stand against the forces of darkness. Utter trust. No thought of me biting you, no thought of you staking me."
Such is the power of love. It brings the barriers down. It makes the walls crumble. It makes forget what used to separate the human from the monsters, the hell from the heaven, the id from the superego, and maybe even the nargual from the tonal. :) Buffy is no more about balance, it is now about synthesis.


>>I have never wondered why the PTB insert themselves into Angel's life (he works for them) and the First Evil wants Angel to work for her/him but they give Buffy more autonomy because she as "Slayer" out ranks them. Her sole responsibility is to their (and her) creator (fortunately a hands off type boss).>>

I think that's because Whedon is an atheist while Greewalt is a believer. :)

>>One more point about Dawn. Her power as the Key lies in her existence and no other power should be necessary. But I did notice that on three occasions when Dawn says something three times it happens. Twice when she says "get out" on Buffy's birthdays and once when she wants to talk to Glory instead of Ben. If this is a foreshadowing of her "Key power" then it apparently even affects the gods.>>

Interresting. All of those instance of power seem linked to the idea of closure or opening, so it suits the key.

>>In 1983 a wonderful little movie came out called "Never Cry Wolf" it detailed the studies of a naturalist,Tyler, in the arctic wilderness.>>

I've never seen the movie, but the book was one of my favorite when I was a child and I've read it several time. *sights*
I don't know if you've read the comics "Tales of the Slayers". I certainly advice you to do so.
In the Fury's tale, named "Glittering World" (OMWF allusions gallore) they quote this Navajo myth :
"the Navajo tell of a time in the great before when the one called Monster Slayer came upon Death hiding by the side of the road. Death begged Monster Slayer to spare him. "Think of the suffering of the old ones" he pleaded "and the unborn generations". Monster Slayer though long about Death's warning and in the end it was decided that Death would go on."

I'm sure you can see the similarities with the themes of the Inuit tale. Ofcourse it work on several plane too. Demons as a necessary predatory force in the ecology. The Slayer as a necessary predator against the demons, because Vampires are those who do not die. Death as Buffy's gift.
And compassion, love, as the source of such a decision.
[> [> I couldn't resist... gotta see if I can add a smidgen here. ;-) -- Solitude1056, 16:17:39 04/25/02 Thu

Maybe I shall have to track down a copy of Tales of the Slayer, just to read the story. Ete says,

In the Fury's tale, named "Glittering World" (OMWF allusions gallore) they quote this Navajo myth : "the Navajo tell of a time in the great before when the one called Monster Slayer came upon Death hiding by the side of the road. Death begged Monster Slayer to spare him. "Think of the suffering of the old ones" he pleaded "and the unborn generations". Monster Slayer though long about Death's warning and in the end it was decided that Death would go on."

Actually, it's not Death, nor is it Poverty (as it was originally translated by the Franscican priests who first attempted to work through the complex Navajo/Dinetah language). Navajo, btw, is a spanish word for "bloody knives", while "Dinetah" (pronounced Deh-NEH-tah) is the adjective form of the Dine (pronounced Deh-NEH) word for themselves, which simply translates as "the people" - and my Dinetah friends prefer Dine over Navajo, so I'm including both here... Anyway, Poverty is actually not the state of being without sheep or home or horse, but the state of being without family. In that sense, if we had a Dinetah Slayer, the isolation from her family and complex clan system would probably have killed her faster than any vampire, because she would have been truly poverty-stricken.

Part of the reason that the Franciscans may've thought the best english word is "poverty" may be deduced from how it was explained. Keeping in mind that the Dinetah were learning english along with the Franciscans learning Dinetah, it's an understandable confusion - especially since to most Anglo eyes, the Dine weren't exactly a huge powerful civilization with a lot of wealth; the Dine don't measure wealth in the same way (as may be obvious from the paragraph before this one). To say, "this word is something that holds you back and slows you down" could be read as "poverty," since that's one of the Franscicans' major goals of overcoming... and were very pointed in considering "poverty" to be something that held back and slowed down the Dine from becoming fully inculturated in a market economy or Xtian faith.

However, if you go back to the original Dinetah meaning of the word, in the story, the best translation is probably that of Entropy. Curiously, this fits in with BtVS but at the same time, it's opposite. Not quite a paradox... because if Entropy must remain so that things eventually come to a halt (rather than continually speeding up), then it's a force of balance, but it's a force that's seen as positive rather than the usual Anglo perspective of seeing it as a negative. People die, animals die, this is a bad thing, if life were better/cleaner/safer, we would live longer. To the Dinetah, a long life - beyond the scope of normal lifetime - is a bad thing, not a good thing. Strangely, the Dinetah religion has little to no concept of an "afterlife" like in the Xtian religion, in the sense that they welcome death so they can "move on" or "be at one with" some type of God-form. It's more like the traditional Judaic concept of a shadowy realm if explicated at all, but just downright non- existence, more commonly.

Okay, here ends today's mini-lecture on irrelevant folkloric topics. ;-)
[> [> [> Re: I couldn't resist... gotta see if I can add a smidgen here. ;-) -- CW, 17:12:30 04/25/02 Thu

Forgive me for being an etymological pain in the backside, but I need to add something too. Navaja is a Spanish word for knife. Navajo refers to a kind of swampy terrain. The use of Navajo for the Dine people usually is traced back to Tewa Pueblo Indians of New Mexico, the word meaning 'arroyo (canyon) with planted fields.' The word 'Apache' apparently is from the Zuni word for the Dine people.

Ya'at'eeh, shilah! (forgive the lack of diacritics)

Hey, doesn't everybody have a teach-yourself Navajo book in their personal collection? ;o)
[> [> [> [> etymological warfare! or something... ;-) -- Solitude1056, 23:24:15 04/25/02 Thu

Yes and no - it's all fuzzy, really. My understanding is that there are two trains of thought, where in each case the original word got bastardized by translation into English anyway. One argument goes that the Dine were known as the Apache des Nabahos (or something like that, I'm no spanish speaker, unfort, and the Peanut Gallery has gone to bed already), which is supposed to translate as "people of the tilled (or cultivated) fields"... and the other is that "navajos" comes from the spanish word for knife. The sound seems roughly similar to me, but given the Navajo's traditional tendency towards raiding just as viciously as the Apache or Jicarillas or the rest of the neighborhood, it'd be no surprise if the Pueblos such as Zuni and Hopi were a bit suspicious of the Dine (and thus shifted the original spanish title into something more negative). Either way, however, the final word is that "navajo" or "navaho" is a foreign word, and certainly not what the Dine call themselves.

I always find it interesting that in each aboriginal language, the tribe usually calls itself by whatever term means "the people" ... while its enemies are invariably something derogatory like "people who eat dirt" or "people who have sex with their brothers" or some such. I have a Lakotah dictionary around here somewhere, too, and the translations of some of the Sioux names for their neighbors could best be described as, uh, colorful. Which always makes me wonder when we're gonna get a demon who says, "oh, please don't call me that - that's what such-and-such type of demon calls us, and we're really the such-and-such demons, which translates as 'the people'." !! ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: etymological warfare! or something... ;-) -- CW, 05:29:16 04/26/02 Fri

Yes, I've heard a translation of the Lakota word Ogalala (one of their own bands), which true or not, I wouldn't care to repeat here!

I guess it's human nature; your family and friends are 'people,' everyone else is 'those rotten $#@!&$ who live over the hill.'
[> [> Re: Dawn/Buffy who what and from where spoilers through OaFA long -- tost, 16:29:53 04/25/02 Thu

It's been a long time since iv'e read the Don Juan books by Carlos Casteneda but I think the nagual and tonal were mentioned in "Tales of Power". The tonal was all our percived existance and the nagual was everything else. I've found the concept usefull when thinking about the duality of existance.
Thank you for your insight which I have always found very worthwhile. Not just this post
[> Welcome! Great post. -- Deeva, 15:52:37 04/25/02 Thu

[> Re: Dawn/Buffy who what and from where spoilers through OaFA long -- Andrew, 22:48:14 04/25/02 Thu

Great post, tost (!), I like your writing style a lot. Though, God help me, I read 'If Dawn was made out of Buffy' as 'If Dawn made out with Buffy'.

I know, I know; my mind is disturbed. ;)
[> Never Cry Wolr -- matching mole, 14:02:38 04/26/02 Fri

Thanks for reminding me of Never Cry Wolf, a fine movie adaptation of the wonderful book by Farley Mowat. I found your post very interesting. I was going to discuss the ecology analogy a bit further but my brain is too tired right now. So I'll just provide a little tidbit of biological information of no great importance whatsoever. The animals being eaten by the wolves in the film were caribou rather than elk (the term elk is rather confusing in and of itself as it refers to very different animals in North America and Europe).
[> [> Re: Never Cry Wolr -- tost, 15:56:22 04/26/02 Fri

I knew that. I picked elk because it was easer to spell.
'Something Blue" and Season 6 -- AurraSing, 11:42:40 04/25/02 Thu

I was setting up my receiver and VCR to tape "Something Blue" off of the SPACE station tomorrow night when I was given pause by the wording of the episode on the receiver's built-in tv guide..
"Willow's spell goes awry,making Buffy fall in love with Spike".

So I looked back at the summary of SB and realise that a lot of Season 6 was forshadowed by this single episode:

1.Oz leaves Willow/Tara leaves Willow

2.Willow gets drunk on beer to drown her sorrow/Willow gets drunk on magic to try and drown her sorrow.

3.Amy gets deratted for a bit/Amy gets deratted.

4.Willow says all relationships are doomed to fail/Every relationship on the show fails,even the Dawn/Buffy one.

5.Giles goes blind and begins to drink to avoid witnessing the B+S smoochies and wedding plans/Giles leaves Sunnydale just as Spuffy is about to begin.

6.Willow uses a spell to make her wish come true behind her friends' backs,a spell that goes wrong and changes their realities/Willow uses a spell to alter reality in Tabula Rasa that goes awry and changes everyone.

7.D'Hoffryn first appears and offers power to a Scooby member/D'Hoffryn appears and offers power back to Anyanka.

8.Xander becomes a demon magnet/Xander nearly marries an ex-demon and well,anymore would be technically spoilers,right?

9.Xander asks to be blind rather than watch Spike and Buffy get all mushy/Xander appears to be blind (or is turning a very blind eye) to Spuffy even when he walks in on Spike caressing Buffy's thigh or Spike doing 'exercises' in "Gone".(Much thanks to Phae for pointing that one out to me!)

And the final one,and here is my ultimate point.......

10.Buffy and Spike fall in love because of Willow's spell/Is it possible that Spuffy occured as some sort of holdover from Willow's reincarnation spell??
Is the reason Buffy could "feel" when she was boinking Spike because of the spell's effects and not just because she was feeling upset over being dragged away from 'heaven'?
This would also explain why she chose Spike to tell first about her sadness over being brought back and why the world seemed so hard and bright.It might also account for why Spike ended up being the only one who tried to save her in "OMWF" when everyone else stood back and despite the fact that this evil vamp was so mad at her.
It also would mean that Buffy did love Spike at some level (and I think bits of "Hell's Bells" and "As You Were" add to that idea-see footnote #1) but since the spell cannot be taken back (like it was in "SB") or stopped since it would result in Buffy being dead again,does that mean that Buffy still loves Spike a little bit? And what does that bode for next season?

Footnote-I think Buffy does feel something for Spike,simply because she treated him like a girl would treat a still liked ex-boyfriend in "Hell's Bells"-you could tell she was hurt he had shown up with a date,you could see she was trying to cover her emotions when he walked away.
Even her breakup with Spike in "AYW" was gracious and kind,indicating she was finally trying to not hurt his feelings so much as the season 5 Buffy would have.(ie probably by punching his lights out if he had dared to try and stop her from walking away)
[> ps...I'm not a shipper,it's the coincidences seem rather interesting to me. -- AS, 11:52:11 04/25/02 Thu

[> Re: 'Something Blue" and Season 6 -- luvthistle1, 15:13:52 04/25/02 Thu

I love it. You know what esle is funny. When Willow called Xander a demon magnet, he make a point, to point out that Cordelia might be a "B" but she isn't a demon. well, this season sheis..."half demon."
[> Re: 'Something Blue" and Season 6 -- Caroline, 07:23:07 04/26/02 Fri

Very insightful. A friend of mine thinks that the spell in Something Blue did not make Buffy fall in love with Spike, it just removed all the barriers and prejudices that would make it unthinkable for Buffy to admit any attraction to Spike. While in the past I was unwilling to read THAT much into Something Blue, it is a plausible possibility, and would provide an interesting parallel to the resurrection spell. Buffy was so changed and found things so changed that the barriers to any kind of relationship to Spike (as well as his good deeds in season 5 - Intervention, etc) make it possible for her to admit Spike into the rank of friend and later lover. You make a very convincing argument. Now I have to admit to my friend that I could have been wrong!
Fiction: Leashing the Beast, chapter 11 -- Nos, 14:32:30 04/25/02 Thu

For any of you who might be following it here, Chapter 11 is finally up. Sorry it took so long, hope you enjoy....


Leashing the Beast, by Nos


Summary: In response to my own challenge *heh*, found on Crumbling Walls.
The Nerdy Three find out what Spike's chip does and formulate a plan to kill
the Slayer.
Rating: R for violence


http://www.fanfiction.net/read.php?storyid=602842
[> Finally! I've been eagerly anticipating this.. -- shadowkat, 08:19:41 04/26/02 Fri

BTW - I sort of like your plot better than the one I'm
currently watching at the moment...but hey I get both,
so cool!
[> Re: Fiction: Leashing the Beast, chapter 11 -- Lilac, 08:37:49 04/26/02 Fri

Nos, I feel remiss for not having told you sooner how much I have been enjoying your story. It had seemed to me early on that Warren knowing about the chip was a bad thing, but the show doesn't seem to be exploring that situation. Your take on it has been very engrossing.
[> Re: Fiction: Leashing the Beast, chapter 11 -- Nos, 09:42:11 04/26/02 Fri

Thanks so much guys! I always love the feedback. And Shadowkat, thanks. I'm a huge fan of your posts here and at BC/S, especially the B/S one. Is there a place where you are archiveing them? I would love to link to them on my site...
[> [> Re: Fiction: Leashing the Beast, chapter 11 -- shadowkat, 10:16:33 04/26/02 Fri

Yes there is - see my above post for the web site.

But just in case you don't see it - here it is
again - and go ahead.

http://www.geocities.com/shadowkatbtvs/index.html

Btw - of the fanfiction I've read - which is quite
a bit, I think you got the characters fairly nailed.
(Did have troubles reading the torture of Spike...but
hey I think I was supposed to. ;-) ) And Spike is hard
to nail, he's so slippery. ;-)

Sorry can't return the favor - haven't gotten to the point
of doing links yet, still fairly new to this web site deal.
(One of my fans was kind enough to set it up for me, she
did a marvelous job!)
T-shirt idea -- Ixchel, 14:40:46 04/25/02 Thu

I thought the ideas for t-shirts (several posts ago) were very clever.

So, here's my (possibly not-so-clever) one:

Picture of Jenny (holding the Orb of Thesulah, Passion), but replace the orb with an apple.
Centered underneath:
The Knowledge of Good and Evil
All Things Philosophical on Buffy the Vampire Slayer
and Angel: the Series

The Jenny picture could be sort of a tribute to Masq.

Ixchel
[> Aw, shucks *blush* -- Masq, 17:02:24 04/25/02 Thu

[> Re: T-shirt idea -- Maeve Rigan, 17:28:50 04/25/02 Thu

I love it. I'd line up to buy one!

Thus removing all doubt among my academic colleagues that I've gone completely 'round the bend-- guess I'd better glue a copy of "Fighting the Forces" to my hand, too.
[> [> Masq and Maeve Rigan, thanks. Glad you liked it. -- Ixchel, 18:51:16 04/25/02 Thu

Sightly OT: tangent from previous PC discussion plus "Firefly" -- Liz, 14:45:21 04/25/02 Thu

Well, that's what happens when I don't read the board for three days.

There was a HUGE discussion spawned by James Marster's interview (very little of it seemed to about what he said, but it was interesting anyways) and it reminded me of an incident that I had been trying to discuss with everyone. I thought I'd put it here and see what people thought.

I was telling a friend about Joss's new upcoming show, Firefly. I am intrigued by this show and I can't wait to see how it turns out. For those who don't know, it's a sci-fi show set on a small spaceship. The setting is 500 years in the future after some galactic version of the civil war. These are people who fought on the side the corrosponds to the south and now have nowhere to go. There is now a nice big federation like you see in many sci-fi shows, only the main characters didn't want it and are desperatly trying to avoid it. The way Joss put it, most sci-fi shows are about the people who made history. This one is about the people history stepped on.

I think this sounds very interesting and I was trying to explain it to my friend. She is (at first glance, I guess) one of those people that make you feel guilty just by existing, someone who is incredibly socially conscious and pays attention to what most people won't look at. Someone who is PC but not in that annoying way. Her reaction: "They're supposed to be the white southerners? But.. I don't see how they can possibly be likable characters."

I was floored. So much that I'm just telling the story to everyone and trying to make sense of it. Her explaination was that the civil war was not TOTALLY about slavery, of course, but slavery and race are inseparable from it.

First, it is separable. Firefly doesn't have to have that aspect. It can just be about one group trying to secede (maybe for not totally admirable reasons, but does that have to make all the difference?) and they were not allowed to. Maybe the south as a whole has a case to make and maybe they don't, but a whole lot of _people_ got totally screwed. This is about those people. And maybe they're likable and maybe they're not, but I'm interested in their stories.

Second... I was totally stunned at her immediate reaction. If they're white southerners then they MUST be assholes. I'm even stunned if you say that racist slave-owning white southerners must all be assholes, no story about them could be worth your time, no sympathy could ever be held for their story. I thought that the point of PC and social consciousness was to really look and really see, as opposed to having prejudice and stereotypes. Now I'm wondering if it's just that everyone is parroting a different party line, the PC line (or the PC-backlash line--they're not doing any better). Nobody is actually looking and seeing, nobody is really doing what was supposed to be "raised consciousness" (a ridiculous term but nobody has come up with a better one). It's all still prejudice and category and good guys and bad guys.


(When I talk like this I am mildly unsettled by the fact that I do not mind these things in _Buffy._ I don't mean to spawn THAT whole discussion again, although we can if you like. Mostly I just wanted to describe that conversation, and how weird it was to me--so weird that I still don't feel I have a grasp on what happened.)
[> As one who participated in the Civil War portion of the discussion -- Sophist, 15:01:51 04/25/02 Thu

in that earlier thread, I'm inclined to believe 2 things:

1. This whole subject seems pretty OT (which, of course, you already know and said).

2. Such strong feelings are aroused by this topic that it may be better to find a different way of dealing with it than seriatim posts here.
[> Sounds to me like your friend has racist views. -- Ruth, 15:03:00 04/25/02 Thu

How can she generalise about people she doesn't even know? She thinks every southener without exception is an asshole? Sounds like she need some educating.
Notable Quotes - add yours now! -- Solitude1056, 14:51:25 04/25/02 Thu

Just because I'm sick of studying mandarin, thought I'd drop by for longer than twenty seconds to contribute this... Ixchel's post reminded me of it. Add your Notable Quotes now, and sometime in the next month (I'm making no promises, being NoTimePerson these days), I'd like to do up a page for us to stick on the Fictionary Pages, y'know, just because I don't think these gems should be lost. If I can't remember the attributions, it's not listed. Sorry.

Starting with, of course:

"Joss thinks, therefore we are."

"Here at ATPo, we pride ourselves on our ability to give long answers to short questions." - d'Herblay

"Weird hours are when they last an hour." - Vickie

And I know there's more, but I was hoping everyone else could remember or would be willing to do a quick search through the archives for some of the truly memorable ones...
[> Re: Notable Quotes - add yours now! -- Sloan Parker, 15:01:06 04/25/02 Thu

What about this one:
"Rain wets"
Pretty catchy uh?
:-)


X
[> Dedalus: "Oil is the lifeblood of your car" -- d'Herblay, 15:03:08 04/25/02 Thu

[> [> Re: :-) - (slipping back into SW mode) -- Dedalus, 08:06:39 04/26/02 Fri

[> Twiz: "We put the 'unc' in unctuous" -- mm, 15:11:05 04/25/02 Thu

[> Watch last week's Buffy on tape, make some more esoteric connections and over think the whole thing. -- Deeva, 15:27:25 04/25/02 Thu

That was in response to what we would all do when the ocassional re-run hit. For the summer it'll be "Watch S1 & 2 on dvd..."
[> Quote of the week fun -- Masq, 15:55:01 04/25/02 Thu

Here's some I found doing a search of the archives. I know they aren't the only one's I've nominated:

"I'm no biggie poster or philosopher, but I play one on Voy Forums. Bwahahaha." -Solitude1056

"Aw, poor mainstream-subscriber - did you see your life pass before your eyes? - NBC; NBC; almost- got-UPN; NBC..." --RabidHarpy

"I'd kinda have to break your legs...but only in a philosophical way" -Rufus
[> [> Re: Quote of the week fun -- Rufus, 01:57:22 04/26/02 Fri

Oh jeeze...we all know I was only making nice with Mr. OnM....;) Or whoever that time.....:):):)
[> How about -- Sophist, 16:42:38 04/25/02 Thu

Mole's descripton of BtVS as involving "the imminent clash between food and evil"?

Or the one from tost below: "perdition by wolf".
[> [> Right in my post below, Soph -- Masq, 16:59:50 04/25/02 Thu

[> More Quote of the Week fun -- Masq, 16:57:35 04/25/02 Thu

"they've got our brain cells by the short hairs already!" -- OnM

"You don't sit back on the couch watching Buffy,'you have to sit forward and think about it" -- James Marsters

"BtVS + Gnosticism => wacky mathematics" --KoopaFanatic

" I quite often forget that Angel is supposed to be this champion for good in some imminent clash between food and evil" -matching mole
[> Re: Notable Quotes - add yours now! -- vampire hunter D, 18:35:39 04/25/02 Thu

I forget what this was in response to, but I replied:

"I tried opening my eyes, and all I saw were people trying to pluck them out."
[> Re: Notable Quotes - add yours now! -- mm, 18:54:40 04/25/02 Thu

I always liked this comment from Lurker Becoming Restless in the Buffy character post, about the quality of the dialogue on the show as opposed to other series (e.g., Dawson's Creek, etc.):

"It is just as unbearable to see television or film in which words are treated like artifacts that must be passed around carefully so they don't break as it is to hear cliches being chucked around like rubber balls."
[> [> lol. wow, I don't have any, but believe me when I say my lol has /never/ been more sincere. -- yuri, 21:13:58 04/25/02 Thu

If someone sees the promo available online, please post the location! -- Dyna, 14:52:12 04/24/02 Wed

I forgot to tape last night's ep to get the new promo! I hate to go to UPN's site because it's so spoilery--not that I'm not already rather spoiled, but they spoil in such tacky ways! :)
[> Uh, that would be the "Entropy" promo, that is. :) -- Dyna, 14:54:54 04/24/02 Wed

[> Link inside... -- Rufus, 15:44:45 04/24/02 Wed

People in my Yahoo Group already have this...

The Buffyverse
[> [> Cool! Thanks, Ruf -- Masq, 15:50:09 04/24/02 Wed

Missed it 'cause I didn't watch OaFA last night

Previews are the one spoiler I will indulge in. But I don't read TV guide!
[> [> [> You said it, Masq! Thanks, Ruf! -- Rob, 16:03:09 04/24/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> Sign up for the group and you will find goodies there like this -- Rufus, 16:08:38 04/24/02 Wed

Conversations on the Buffyverse

That is where I took all the stuff I do on spoilers to...that way you can choose to get stuff in your e- mail or read it on site. There are the reviews of both Buffy and Angel, as well as articles...and anything you can add as well....it is a place of spoilers but I keep them out of the subject lines and warn the best I can.
[> [> [> [> [> Help for the Yah-group challenged? -- Vickie, 17:02:57 04/24/02 Wed

Rufus,

I tried to join this group, but Yahoo just sat there and sat there and wouldn't let me. I don't know if it was too busy that day, or if it doesn't like the Macintosh browser I was using, or if I'm just a moron.

However, since you seem determined to make me wanna join, can you offer me any clues? Feel free to email and not clutter the board.

Thanks in advance,
V.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Help for the Yah-group challenged? -- Rufus, 17:19:44 04/24/02 Wed

Send me the name you want to use and a e-mail address and I'll try to add you to the list from the site
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Backup board addy for those who can't get on Yahoo -- Rufus, 22:50:21 04/24/02 Wed

Yahoo has been having technical problems as of late, now these problems seem to be of signing up new members. Here is the Voy board addy

ConverseBuffyverse

I will be putting all the same spoilers on that board til things get back to normal.
[> [> [> Hah! TV Guides! (Spoilers for 'Hell's Bells') -- Marie, 08:15:15 04/25/02 Thu

I saw last week that my TV guide had a half-page spread on that night's BtVS episode, and it's lucky I'm such a trollop, because I kid you not - it gave away the whole plot, including the fact that the old man wasn't Xander, but a demon coming back to get revenge on Anyanka, and that they didn't get married at the end.

If I wasn't a trollop, I'd be steaming after reading that!

Marie
[> [> [> Re: Cool! Thanks, Ruf -- Cactus Watcher, 09:35:14 04/25/02 Thu

I quit reading the previews at the Bronze site last year, because they gave away that someone close to Buffy was going to die at the end of I Was Made to Love You. Totally destroyed what should have been a big shock. I understand why people enjoy spoilers, especially after a cliff hanger, or during a long lull like we're having now, but I still wonder why they bother week in and week out. I have more fun trying to guess what's going to happen than when I accidentally find out what actually will happen in a future ep.
[> [> [> [> No offense, Rufus. If it wasn't a spoiler site, I'd love to join in. ;o) -- CW, 09:37:57 04/25/02 Thu

[> [> Thanks! -- Dyna, 17:08:38 04/24/02 Wed

Quick question Re: Loyalty -- yabyumpan, 16:24:26 04/25/02 Thu

In the UK and just watched Loyalty and want to ask US people who are further along: Shajan said that W&H hadn't looked for the right thing in Connor's blood, do we know yet what he thought they should be looking for/have found?
thanks :-)
[> Nope, not yet -- Apophis, 16:58:41 04/25/02 Thu

[> Actually, we do... -- Masq, 17:06:38 04/25/02 Thu

At least I think so. Go to my site

Loyalty/Sleep Tight

It's spoilery if you haven't seen "Sleep Tight" but, this gist is (Spoilers below!)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
It's not what's in the blood, it's what can be done with the blood to kill Connor--human yummy goodness
[> [> Spoilers for Sleep Tight above -- Masq, 17:07:52 04/25/02 Thu

[> [> Oh -- Apophis, 17:20:04 04/25/02 Thu

[> [> But, W&H knew about that, didn't they? -- CW, 17:21:54 04/25/02 Thu

Couldn't he be talking about something else?
[> [> [> Re: But, W&H knew about that, didn't they? -- yabyumpan, 01:57:42 04/26/02 Fri

I got the impression he was talking about something else aswell. We'll just have to see where ME take this ride next. I must admit i'm already clutching my teddy bear and hidding under the covers!!!(where's a seer when you need one?)
When Legends Die: Buffy S5/the Gift and Godzilla vs. Destroyah -- Goji3, 20:10:41 04/25/02 Thu

Legends. They are apart of our culture. Of every culture, really. The mere mentioning of the names of either the legends themselves or the focal character can conjure an image in a persons mind, even if they have never encountered the original versions before. They generally pass on a basic premise, but often skip over the deeper/detailed stuff.

When the story of a legend’s demise is told, it is nothing short of tragic, especially, and probably mostly for those who have followed the stories of the characters stories faithfully. I don’t know if Buffy’s second demise triggered a story on CNN, but she also hasn’t been alive and kicking for 41 years at the time of death.

In any case, when legends die…similarities begin to show themselves. However, the striking similarities, if only apparently superficial, are extremely compelling. I say ‘Superficial’ because Buffy is more about internal battles than external, and Godzilla…well…how much psychology can be done on a 100-meter tall reptile? Also, they are legends about completely different things: Buffy is about growing up, the trials and tribulations therein; and Godzilla is a defeater of arrogance, be it from mankind, or foreigners, he beats them down, he humbles them.

Anyway, (beware, I may go on tangents every now and again), There are many similarities between both demises. Character, representations, various event similarities and a few others. I’ll take things from the Godzilla angle mostly, since I doubt many have actually scene Godzilla vs. Destroyer.

Lets look at the characters first.

First up is Godzilla. Fans refer to the Godzilla represented here as “Burning Godzilla”. Basically, the Nuclear reactor that is his heart is melting down, I’ll get into the importance of this later. He is this legends focal character. He is akin to ‘Buffy’ in this effect, and comparisons between the two will be made later.

Next up is Destroyah. He is this stories Glory. A Demon in Red. Destroyah a.k.a. Destroyer is an amalgam of Precambrian arthropods brought to life and mutated by the Oxygen Destroyer, the weapon used to destroy the original Godzilla back in 1954. It goes through several stages of evolution, and is armed with a ‘Micro-Oxygen’ spay, capable of tearing flesh away from bone.

Then, there is Godzilla Junior…this would be Dawn. Both are pretty much adopted by the hero’s, and both are used to lead them to their doom.

Following that is the JSDF: The Japanese Self Defense Force. They can’t have a military, so they have this instead. Their main weapon is the Super X 3, loaded with various ice-beams and cadmium missals.

Then, there are the Psychics, Miki Saegusa and Meru Osawa. One could say they are like Tara and Willow, but it’s a moot point, really.

In the interest of space, I will take the events of Godzilla vs. Destroyer in order, comparing the similarities to Buffy as we go along.

The film opens with a helicopter flying over the ocean, heading towards Birth Island, the place where Godzilla and his adopted son, ‘Little Godzilla’ are located at. The reason Godzilla is there is because of the large uranium deposits on the island.

1. Birth Island, here at least, is like Sunnydale. Buffy is ‘drawn’ there because of all the evil there just as Godzilla is drawn by the radioactivity. With the current seasons theme of a Slayers power being rooted in evil, this parallel is even better.

When the Chopper gets there…they receive a nasty surprise. Something has triggered a nuclear chain reaction on the island. It’s been toasted. Nothing but a smoldering cinder. Next scene, Hong Kong, everything seems normal as the sun sets…until a glowing, burning Godzilla appears, madly destroying everything in his path. It is concluded that Godzilla had absorbed too much radiation during the ‘Birth Island Incident’ and his heart, which is like a nuclear reactor, has been badly damaged. Godzilla is overloading…they fear he might explode!

2. The ‘Bass Island Incident’ is a direct corollary to Joyce’s Death. The world of both characters will never be the same again, and both events truly begin the hero’s downward spiral.
3. Godzilla’s Burning Heart part 1: Oh, where to begin. I know, with what the 1st slayer said to Buffy during her spirit walk-thingy: “You are full of love”, “You grow stronger from it”, and “Death is your gift”. The heart is the most common symbol of love. Godzilla’s power source, and indeed Buffy’s, is the heart. This power source is battered and injured during the beginning of their final journeys. It gives them power, but it is also what does them in.

Meanwhile, the area of sea floor where the original Godzilla had been destroyed has stumbled over accidentally by a tunneling crew. They expose the sea floor to air … this is not a good thing. Exposed to air for the first time, the micro-organisms revived by the Oxygen Destroyer’s detonation begin to mutate at a fantastic speed…Destroyah is slowly being formed.

4. Destroyah is Glory and Glory is Destroyah. There menace both doesn’t fully reveal itself until the climax…

Godzilla then appears outside of Okinawa, near a nuclear plant. He’s burning up energy so fast that he needs more to keep going. The Super X 3 is dispatched and cools him down, then pumps him full of cadmium. The explosion is no longer a threat…but the out of control chain-reactions in his heart have only been delayed. Now, he’s going to melt down. Think ‘China Syndrome’ to the Nth degree.

5. This would be Buffy’s Near Death experience and her questioning of Spike about the slayer’s he killed. I believe the episode was “Crush”. Or, an argument could be made for “Intervention” as well. Basically, Buffy’s re-routed. She’s still on a downward slide, but it’s been slowed down.

Meanwhile, the Destroyah have become man-sized bug monsters. The JSDF attacks the offending creatures; they bring out the freezer-guns, which begin to work. Until, that is, they fuse into one big, spiky one, then a winged flying form.

6. Remember how Glory only slowly developed her ‘super-bad-ness’, and her full power wasn’t displayed until much later? Same with destroyer.

Around this time, Godzilla Junior appears, he too was mutated by the meltdown at Birth Island, he became a teenager, and daddy is following him wherever he goes.

7. Dawn/Buffy, Godzilla/Godzilla Junior. Need I say more?

A scheme is hatched, basically, their gonna use the psychics to guide Junior to where Destroyah is, in hopes he will defeat Godzilla before he melts down. Junior gets there first and battles Destroyah, apparently defeating him…

8. Ok, we’re getting into the 4-part ending around here… Glory gets Dawn, Buffy follows, Dawn tries to escape…. and now, we see the failure.

Well, Godzilla comes, and with Destroyah apparently gone, they plan to freeze him when he melts down. They are now regretting brining him to Tokyo…then, the adult, 120 meter, winged Destroyah appears. It kills Junior real quick and then begins to fight Godzilla.

9. Enter the climactic Battle!!

The fight, Godzilla is enraged, and blasts Destroyah to itty-bitty bits…but that’s not enough! He has to smash the itty bits too! After his victory, he goes over to try and breathe life into Junior…to no avail. He spits out flames in rage-only to be blindsided by Destroyah again! The thing just won’t die!

Godzilla’s Temperature reaches 1100 degrees C, 1200 C is meltdown. His spines begin to melt…and he is supercharged!

10. Um… The hammer, folks, the Hammer.

Godzilla blast destroyer again and again with super-powerful beams of radioactive plasma, forcing Destroyah to flee, but it the Super X 3, which kills Destroyah

11. Buffy beats Glory till she reverts to her human form. But Giles is the one who kills Glory/Ben.

Godzilla then begins to meltdown. The JSDF freeze him as best they cane, but he pulls a china syndrome anyway, Tokyo is thoroughly irradiated. A ghost city.

12. Buffy died because or her love for Dawn. Her heart. Godzilla’s heart killed him too; his affection for his adopted son spurred him to a faster grave, causing him to summon up all that power. In the end, they die undefeated. No enemy can stop them. No weapon has beaten them. They are Legends. Their downfall comes at there own hands.

13. Also, The killing mechanisms are kind of similar. Both are capable of destruction on a mass scale. (If G had detonated, it would have been with a force of 1,000,000 Megatons – An Extinction- Level event).

However…when the mist clears…a figure stands amidst it. One that is easily recognizable. Junior’s all grown up, absorbing all the radiation from the meltdown caused another growth spurt. Godzilla is reborn

14. Bargaining. Legends never die.

The ending credits show clips of all the past Godzilla movies, in this, what is known as the Hesei series. Godzilla: King of the Monsters, Godzilla 1985, Godzilla vs. Biollante, Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah, Godzilla and Mothra: the Battle for the Earth, Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla 2, Godzilla vs. Space Godzilla, Godzilla vs. Destroyah.

15. The opening of “The Gift”, all bits of the past. Sewn together in Memoriam.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters

Buffy: the Vampire Slayer

Modern Day Legends
[> A fun read. Absolutely Cool! -- neaux, 04:36:40 04/26/02 Fri

A Story of Negative Transcendence: Spike’s Journey through the Eyes of Poe -- ravenhair, 00:05:01 04/26/02 Fri

“The house fell down. It’s a bad thing.”

This was quoted by one of the writers shortly after Smashed aired. His statement struck me because I felt it represented something positive, such as breaking down barriers. After watching the episode a few times something caught my attention (script excerpts taken from Psyche’s site):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SPIKE
Afraid to give me the chance?

Spike pushes her back, leaps at her. She spins him into the dining room. She pins him against the wall. They breathe heavily, pressed up against each other. A stalemate.

SPIKE (cont'd)
Afraid I'm gonna –

She kisses him, hard, and as he kisses back, she punches the wall above them. The wall cracks and begins to crumble.
Still liplocked, they spin away from the wall, slam into the opposite wall, Spike pressing Buffy against the plaster. It cracks, too.
Buffy shoves Spike away and pushes off the wall. The crack there spreads up to the ceiling. Plaster falls. The chandelier wobbles.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The scene reminded me of Edgar Allan Poe’s The Fall of the House of Usher. In Poe’s short story, Madeline escapes her tomb and falls on top of her brother, Roderick. The house collapses around them and the narrator barely escapes, but takes notice of the widening zigzag crack extending from the roof before the house consumes the last members of the Usher family.

Poe adopted the popular theme of transcendentalism, but from a different more abstract perspective. The traditional path to transcendence, embraced by poets Emerson and Thoreau, moves upward; whereas, Poe’s characters embark on a journey of downward transcendence, a darker path to the same end. His philosophy is best explained in The Poetic Principle:

“Just as the Intellect concerns itself with Truth, so Taste informs us of the Beautiful while the Moral Sense is regardful of Duty. Of this latter, while Conscience teaches the obligation, and Reason the expediency, Taste contents herself with the charms: waging war upon Vice solely on the ground of her deformity…to the harmonious – in a word, to Beauty.”

Buffy’s journey reflects the traditional path to enlightenment, searching for truth through wisdom. (I posted an essay on Buffy & Emerson earlier this month. I can repost it or email it to those interested.) Spike’s journey resembles Poe’s aesthetic view, the protection of beauty as precedence above all else, a theme echoed by William in last season’s episode, Fool For Love: “I prefer to focus my energies on things of beauty.”

The ending of The Fall of the House of Usher shows Roderick and Madeline perishing under the rubble of the family estate. Buffy takes up where Usher left off. The heroine and Spike consummate their desire, resulting in the destruction of the house. This reflects the end of a promising friendship of mutual respect and the crumbling of their self-esteem, as demonstrated the following day in Wrecked. Spike refers to himself as “dirt” and Buffy ashamed of her actions verbally lashes out at her lover. Now each is left to climb back to an ideal state – Buffy, the inward journey (Emerson) and Spike the outward (Poe).

Poe’s narrator describes Roderick Usher as a boyhood friend from many years ago and admits he knows little of his former friend’s current activities. When he meets face to face with Usher, the narrator barely recognizes him, symbolizing deep repression and alienation of his youth. Spike is a perfect illustration of this repression. After being turned by Drusilla, the poet immediately denounced his life as William and created a new persona as Spike. Even when pressured by Buffy, Spike hid his past insisting he had “always been bad” when in truth he was a good man.

Upon entering the Usher estate, the narrator passes by Madeline’s physicians whom he describes as “sinister.” The doctors appear to represent a healthy attitude of consciousness toward Madeline; therefore, necessitating a change in the narrator. Spike, by comparison, attempts to dissuade Buffy from following the mental physician’s advise in Normal Again. The idea that he’s a figment of Buffy’s imagination doesn’t appeal to the vampire and is even more concerned over her extreme withdrawal from life. But even while Spike tries to convince Buffy to let go of her misery, he clings to the darkness where he thinks she can “finally be at peace.” He doesn’t see any hope of walking out of the shadows and attempts to draw Buffy into his world, as previously shown during the infamous Bronze scene in Dead Things.

The narrator of Usher states that Roderick “suffered much from a morbid acuteness of the senses…his eyes were tortured by even a faint light.” The central character has achieved an extreme perception of beauty in its ideal form. All of Poe’s most memorable characters withdraw from life into heavily draped rooms with artificial lighting. Spike offers some self-deprecating humor in Double Meat Palace when he asks Buffy to be patient as his eyes adjust to the florescent lights. He also retreats to the lower level of his crypt, which has been elaborately decorated. Even after his relationship with Buffy has dissolved, he remains drawn to beauty as voiced in Hell’s Bells:

SPIKE (to Buffy)
It's nice, watching you be happy.
For them, even. I don't see it a
lot. You, um... you glow.

Roderick Usher, the aesthetic, with whom the narrator identifies helps entomb Madeline and commences to occupy his friend with fantastic stories of the supernatural.
Spike is at the same time drawn to the light and repulsed by it. He is trying to live in both worlds, the light and the dark, but is failing. Last season in the episode Crush, Spike confessed his fear of losing his identity:

SPIKE (to Buffy)
You think I like having you here?!
Destroying everything that was me
until all that's left is you in a dead
shell. You say you hate it but you
won't leave.

His fear of losing his identity is again threatened in Normal Again, realizing he has become Buffy’s sex slave and dismissed as being a fantasy. He reaches toward Buffy but is kept away by a small sunbeam; eventually, he walks away in frustration and leaves her to escape into her delusions.

The implied incestuous relationship between Madeline and Roderick Usher comes to a climax when Madeline escapes her tomb and falls on her brother, prompting the destruction of the mansion. One can see the home’s ruin as the end of the family but also the end of a culture. Buffy, as a hunter, can no longer retreat to the narrow vision of a black and white world. Spike is tortured by his evil nature but drawn to the world’s beauty and craves the ideal family unit provided by Buffy and Dawn.

Sounds gloomy, you say. But there is hope if we continue with The Fall of the House of Usher. The narrator escapes and lives to tell his story. He has successfully assimilated imagination and reason. The ability to articulate his story acts as therapy and gives him a new understanding to live by. Spike is desperate to reach this level of enlightenment and we are led to believe he has the potential to reach transcendence by none other than Drusilla (Fool For Love):

DRUSILLA
Don't need a purse.
Your wealth lies here.
(touching his heart)
And here.
(touches his head)
In the spirit and imagination.
You walk in worlds the others
can't begin to imagine.

Recently, Spike has been relying on Buffy to show him the way to this ideal state, but Buffy is on a different path to transcendence. It will be up to Spike to embark on this journey alone. Poe believed we reach full identification through death. We have heard time and again Spike’s willingness to sacrifice himself, his death wish. Will Spike survive the trials that are sure to come? Will he return next year a changed man, strengthened by a new respect for truth and love of life?
[> Above essay longish & contains spoilers thru Normal Again -- ravenhair, 00:07:13 04/26/02 Fri

[> Re: A Story of Negative Transcendence: Spike’s Journey through the Eyes of Poe -- Caroline, 07:09:59 04/26/02 Fri

A very beautiful post. I'm going to have to go back to Poe for the parallels you bring out.

Like you, I initially thought that the house falling down in Smashed was positive - the house represents the self, one's identity and my theory at the time was that the misconceptions that each character had about themselves and each other were crumbling down. However, that turned out to be wrong - instead of looking into the parts of themselves they were afraid/ashamed to look at, Buffy and Spike unleashed the negative and lost the positive parts of their relationship. But, as a result of the consummation of their relationship, you are completely right - they cannot return to the simpler black and white world they lived in before. Some type of resolution is required. For Spike, he has a very healthy dark side that he's comfortable identifying with but the challenge Buffy provides is to look at the goodness within. I keep going back to Restless, where Spike is being trained by Giles as a watcher and also sacrificed in a Christ-like pose in a sideshow (?) as possible avenues of resolution. As for Buffy, she has the more traditional hero's journey of integrating and honouring her dark side.
[> [> Re: A Story of Negative Transcendence: Spike’s Journey through the Eyes of Poe -- leslie, 14:07:24 04/26/02 Fri

I think your beginning quote, and Caroline's response, shows where the disconnect is happening between what the writers may think they're doing and what some of the audience sees in the Buffy/Spike relationship. I, too, saw that house falling down as an incredibly liberating moment, especially since it was an old, abandoned house--it seemed symbolic of the "outdated structures" Buffy and Spike were finally tearing down, the way you have to demolish a condemned building before you can build something new on the site. Absolutely cathartic. (I also remember thinking, "My GOD these people take AMAZING delight in concretizing their metaphors!" Which tells you something about my mental syntax.)

But because that initial scene seemed so ecstatic, the subsequent development of the relationship has been incredibly frustrating. It's been like tearing down a solid if shabby Victorian home and putting up a plastic garden shed in its place. Even worse, putting up a plastic garden shed and complaining that it's a piece of crap but you aren't allowed to put up anything better because all your friends live in plastic garden sheds. You want a real house, learn how to f**king build a house.
[> [> [> Another parallel (spoilers) -- ravenhair, 16:55:29 04/27/02 Sat

Thanks for your input guys! Another parallel I noticed was Roderick Usher would spend hours reading books about the adventures of African satyrs. A famous satyr, Marsyas, was challenged by Apollo to a musical duel. If Marsyas won, Apollo would grant any wish of the satyr. But if he lost, he would be at the mercy of Apollo. Marsyas was tricked by Apollo and the satyr was flogged and his skin nailed to a tree. This fits well with Spike's rumored pilgrimage to Africa. Spike will search for a demon who agrees to grant the vampire his wish for change if he succeeds the demon's challenge. Will Spike's wish be granted or will he be set up for failure, meeting a similar fate as Marsyas?
[> [> [> [> Re: Another parallel (spoilers) -- leslie, 18:41:16 04/27/02 Sat

Well, let's hope it isn't a literal parallel, because yuck! Not to mention that SAG would probably object to skinning an actor alive.... you're only supposed to do that financially.
[> [> [> [> Possible future spoilers above -- Traveler, 23:45:39 04/27/02 Sat

[> ravenhair.... it's back! -- Masq : ), 15:01:45 04/27/02 Sat

[> [> Thanks, Masq !! :) -- ravenhair, 16:59:00 04/27/02 Sat

.
[> Great post ravenhair -- shadowkat, 22:13:39 04/27/02 Sat

And after reading an interview with MN in SFX magazine today
I agree with you. I also agree with Leslie - dang, why couldn't they have gone a different route? (Won't repeat the interview here - it's no different than all her other interviews that have made everyone want to slap her silly.
Dead topic. Except that I think it reiterates what you're
saying and it does state that she's aware that what you see when you're working on something and what you see when you're watching it may be two different things...yep, MN,
it is. Duh.)

My take - I always saw poor Roderick as the obsessive lover, much like Poe pining for his poor dead Annabelle Lee. The story seemed achingly sad to me and reminiscent of,
the Dracula story - where Vlad is hunting for his Lucy.
In both stories - love destroys the lover and the object of his love, consuming them and burying them in a demolished house. I'm hoping ME takes a different path...I'm pretty
sure they will. But we shall see.

Current board | More April 2002