April 2002 posts


Previous April 2002  

More April 2002

Has Sahjijan signed his death warrant? -- Halcyon, 01:52:13 04/27/02 Sat

After hearing that Connor ends up in the worst hell dimension possible because of Holtz, Sahjijan & Wesley's actions, I keep remembering what the Master said about prophecies in S1 of Buffy and I was wondering if by doing this Sahjijan has actually set in motion the events he was trying to prevent. Think about it, what little we know of Connor suggests origins aside he's a perfectly normal human baby yet now he's apparently going to spent the next 20 years in a hell dimension, is it because he survived all these years in Qurdoth that he is now powerful enough to kill Sahjijan? After Angel, Gunn & Justine all skilled fighters were children compared to Sahj who threw them around like they were nothing to him. Now that would be deeply ironic if his actions contributed to his own death.
[> You know Joss, he wants to make sure we all get our daily dose of irony! -- Kitt, 05:59:33 04/27/02 Sat

[> It would be very much like a Greek Tradgedy if that happened...so, you're probably right (NT) -- Goji3, 12:52:21 04/27/02 Sat

OT: The Pivot Point -- Aquitaine, 10:22:33 04/27/02 Sat

The other day, I told my fiancé that I had heard David Schwimmer whilst listening to The Beatles' Yellow Submarine. He laughed and said indulgently: "O-kaaaay, honey". "No, no," said I, "about 2/3 through the song, there are background voices of men on a submarine and I swear I heard Ross Gellar say: 'Pivot! Pivot!'"

-----------

That being said, sometimes it's good for people who are living on the same submarine to leave the Das Boot "ALARM!" aside and shout "PIVOT!" instead. If all the submariners are bent over double with laughter, thoughts of conflict and depth charges will fast dissipate and even that annoying pinging will be drowned out.

Shall we all drop a couch together and "PIVOT!"?

- Aquitaine (sending out an encrypted radio message from an undisclosed looking:)
[> Having adjusted my enigma machine... 'looking' should be 'location' <g> -- Aquitaine, 10:37:21 04/27/02 Sat

[> Re: OT: The Pivot Point -- Ahire, 12:14:35 04/27/02 Sat

Hmm, as a former submariner, I don't think I ever heard "PIVOT" spoken on board. Oh, and no room for a couch, but we dropped many other things, made lots of noise, got in trouble from our superiors, etc...hehe.

But, we were no strangers to fun. I know, hard to believe, sailors and fun in the same concept. To bash another myth, sailors can have fun without drinking. (waiting to let everyone overcome the shock) Umm, yeah, we did end up in bars a lot, but that was for a good cause. We were just returning from our nightly bible study at church and wanted to help spread our happiness with others. Boy were there a lot of bars between church and the pier...(wonders if they are buying this)

Now, I am curious to find that song and see if Ross's distinctive "PIVOT" is in there. Makes me wonder what it really is.

heh, gotta like an OT now and then, thanks Aquitaine.
[> [> Dang, got my own name wrong...sigh (NT) -- Ahira, 12:16:41 04/27/02 Sat

[> Good suggestion! -- mundus, 12:36:05 04/27/02 Sat

I'm pivoting as we speak...though would that be a "ham radio" you're using, perchance?
[> Re: OT: The Pivot Point -- Cactus Watcher, 15:15:15 04/27/02 Sat

In a another moment from 'Friends' Chandler points at his roomate's new museum-guide suit and blathers, "Hey, Joey, Donald Trump wants his blue blazer black..." Perhaps, all of us are being too hard on both others and ourselves for not quite saying the right thing at the right time, all the time. Let's go with Aquitaine and try to get back to enjoying each other's company.

Pivot!
[> Re: OT: The Pivot Point -- LadyStarlight, 07:39:08 04/28/02 Sun

But what happens if/when I drop the couch on my foot? Is there hazard pay involved? Chocolate?? Inquiring minds want to know.

However, perhaps 'Pivot' will distract my toddler from his new word -- 'Damn'.
[> [> Consider kissage of injured feet and a free-flowing supply of chocolate part of the 'Pivot!' deal :) -- Aquitaine, 08:02:43 04/28/02 Sun

[> [> [> I noticed you're keeping pretty quiet about word choices, though! ;) -- LadyStarlight, 11:02:02 04/28/02 Sun

[> Whoa . . . I missed something the first time I read this . . . -- d'Herblay, 00:05:23 04/29/02 Mon

I was so confused trying to reinsert "Pivot!" back into my David Schwimmer-less reconstruction of Friends that I glossed right over something.

Fiancé?
[> [> Yes. Marriage: The ultimate pivot point... -- Aquitaine, 04:17:48 04/29/02 Mon

Now, while altverses have their appeal, a Rossless or PhoebeNoirless Friends just wouldn't be the same.

Wouldn't you say? (grin)

- Aquitaine
[> [> Yeah, I missed that the first time too...;) -- mundusmundi, 04:48:11 04/29/02 Mon

Did that post out me, or does this one?

Feeling more like Chandler than Ross, *g*

-mm
[> [> [> Congratulations -- matching mole, 05:16:10 04/29/02 Mon

from the other mm who is carefully avoiding making any references to or comments about 'Friends'.
[> [> [> [> Thank you, other mm! -- mundus, 15:59:58 04/29/02 Mon

Buffy and our board -- if that's not a solid foundation, what is?
[> [> [> Well, Ross probably isn't the best role model in these circumstances anyway -- d'Herblay, 06:20:58 04/29/02 Mon

Congratulations! May your days ring with joy and laughter.
[> [> wwwoooOOOWW!!! -- anom, 16:48:37 04/29/02 Mon

Mazel tov! I did kinda think "huh?" as that went by but didn't have time to think any further (& I'm only surfacing briefly now), & I'm about as unfamiliar w/"Friends" as it's possible to be & still have a TV set, so any clueage related to that show whooshed right on by me. (Background voices in "Yellow Submarine," yes; "Pivot!"...huh? No, don't bother to explain, I don't care that much about that part.)

But yeah, that is indeed the ultimate pivot point. Ring the merry bells on board 'ship! @>)
[> Congradulations on the engagement! -- Masq, 09:19:40 04/29/02 Mon

[> [> Thank you! -- Aquitaine, 15:14:14 04/29/02 Mon

Buffy as tragic hero in The Gift (Long, Spoilers for S5) -- lachesis, 15:34:52 04/27/02 Sat

“It is this blood which brings the tempest on our city.”
“Break forth what will.”
“We must call no mortal happy until he has crossed life’s border free from pain.”
- Sophocles

I’ve been trying not to write this for days. But you guys got me thinking with posts about tragedy, and now it won’t let me go. So I’m just going to put it out there and let it fend for itself. (I've looked in the archives - don't think its been done. If it has, sorry!)

You see, once I started thinking about specific Greek tragedies and TG, I had a sudden brainstorm. I found The Gift to be an incredibly tragic episode, not in the sad sense, although that obviously was there, but in the sense of sheer relief I felt at the end. True catharsis is really rare in my experience, and I couldn’t quite figure out what had got to me so much. Two moments stand out: the end, obviously, when Buffy runs so eagerly to fall: but also the moment when she says ‘I’ll kill anyone that comes near Dawn.’

So, thinking about TG as a tragedy, I asked myself why Buffy had to die. (In Greek tragedy, the tragic hero always makes understandable mistakes of action or attitude that lead inevitably to death). And actually, Buffy’s actions and attitudes in Spiral, WOTW and TG are distinctive: the SG all leave Sunnydale, something they never do: Buffy is catatonic, which is unique: and her absolute (understandable) refusal to sacrifice Dawn for the world (compare Becoming II). In the context of the series and plot, these things all follow naturally, but at the same time they are not typical Buffy. And in TG, as well as the previous 2 episodes, Buffy’s attitude, before she actually goes to fight Glory, is also quite distinctive: she is proud, stubborn and angry (again, all understandable and natural in context). She is definitely not discussion girl. She snaps at the SG several times, and has her most serious ever confrontation with Giles, in which she definitively assumes leadership and responsibility. She intends to do what she feels is right, no matter what the consequences.

Now you’re probably thinking ‘And for this she deserves to die?’ But Greek tragedy is not about what you deserve. It’s about what you get in a cruel and dangerous world if you are not constantly careful, and often even if you are. The whole point is that the audience should identify and sympathize with the hero, even though they know it will end badly. Buffy’s actions as the tragic hero in these episodes could be summarized as; evasion, assumption of responsibility, and pride. Again, these are not necessarily bad things, but then it wouldn’t really be tragic if the hero was a ‘bad person’ who ‘deserved to die.’

There is one tragic hero who also acts in this way: Oedipus in Sophocles’ ‘Oedipus the King’ which is the best known, and probably the greatest, Greek tragedy. Now you’ll be laughing, because there are 2 things that Oedipus famously does (kill his father, marry his mother) which Buffy obviously doesn’t. But Oedipus doesn’t do them in the course of the play. He has done them unknowingly before the play begins, and in a certain sense, they are not his fault, having been fated/prophesied before his birth, making him spend his life in desperate attempts to prevent them, which in fact cause them to come to pass.

In the play itself, Oedipus begins by unquestioningly assuming responsibility for finding and punishing the murderer of the previous king. His attitude makes it clear that he is the hero; that what he says goes. The truth of his previous actions is actually revealed to him by a seer very early on in the play, but he evades it, preferring to believe that the statement is part of a conspiracy against him. Later, it emerges that he was actually responsible for the murder, but at this point he feels relief, because this guilt is outweighed in his mind by the news that his father (adoptive, though he doesn’t yet know it) has died in Corinth, the home he left to avoid his fate. All he has done is kill a man on the road. However, in his pride, and his desire to continue to avoid fate, he keeps questioning to discover his parentage. Throughout the play he is proud and stubborn, and quickly becomes angry and threatening to those who seem to defy him, or refuse to answer his questions. In the end, the truth of his actions comes out. In leaving Corinth to try and evade the gods and fate, he met and killed his real father on the road. In assuming responsibility for the city of Thebes, after saving it from the Sphinx, he was given his own mother in marriage.

Oedipus’ actions in the past parallel his attitudes within the play: his physical evasion is paralleled by his mental evasion: his becoming king is paralleled by responsibility for saving the city, and his guiltless confession to the murder: achieving heroic status by defeating the monster is paralleled by his pride. Buffy’s situation is clearly different – there is no destroying revelation to come – but her actions are actually very similar. She too tries to physically evade a god and her apparent fate by leaving home. Her catatonia follows, the ultimate mental evasion in response to guilt. When Willow goes into her mind, we see scenes of her unquestioningly accepting responsibility (for baby Dawn, for killing Dawn, and finally for having wanted Dawn to die). She doesn’t learn from her feeling of guilt though. When she emerges, she assumes the role of hero absolutely – what she says will go – rejecting advice and questioning. She will try to defeat the god, but if she does not, the world will share her sister’s fate. She threatens her closest and most trusted friends with death if they even seem to be disobeying her orders.

Until I re-read ‘Oedipus’ I thought that these broad similarities were as far as it went. But in fact, the 3 episodes are full of little details. The SG quite often act as Buffy’s ‘chorus’ in the show, but here, they are joined by the ‘chorus of the brain-sucked’ (led by Tara) who fulfil a traditional role of the chorus by reminding us of the actions of the gods. The active god in ‘Oedipus’ is Apollo, who sends plagues, and in his kinder aspect, heals: Glory has brought a plague of brain-sucking / Ben is a doctor. Buffy actually does kill at least one man ‘on the road’ – we clearly see the axe blow, and are told of the Knights’ losses to emphasise it. Her evasion causes the wounding and near death of her father figure, as she later admits to him: ‘if I hadn’t left, none of this would have happened.’ We see that her mother still ‘sleeps’ within her – the classic grave as bed scene. In TG we also see that she is both ‘mother’ and sister to Dawn (perhaps the most poignant speech in the play is Oedipus lamenting the fact that he is both father and brother to his children).

This is getting over-long even for this board, but I just want to point out that various other figures from the play also appear to a certain extent. Spike acts as the seer, revealing what others don’t see (Ben/Glory, ‘always...about blood.’) Willow fulfils the functions of Iocasta: taking charge, deflecting anger, trying to guide, comfort, and protect Buffy. Giles parallels Creon, explicitly saying that he is not, does not want to be, the hero.

And what’s my point? The tragedy of Oedipus is that the actions which lead to his downfall are those of a good man. He tries his best in an impossible situation, but for him, there was never a way out, a simple choice that might have saved him. Yet at the same time, the play illustrates the fact that his own attitude, his certainties, only intensify the pain he will eventually suffer. It says that the only choice left for the Chosen is how to meet their fate: with acceptance, dignity and humanity, or evasion, pride and anger. His tragedy is not that the gods destroy him, because they get us all in the end, but that in striving to deny what he is, what will come, his own heroism is subverted and brings about what he most fears.

When I realised the subtlety with which these themes, structure, and characters are used to increase the pathos and tragic impact of Buffy’s ultimate sacrifice, I was staggered. These episodes are not in any way an adaptation of ‘Oedipus,’ because Buffy as the tragic hero is a sub-plot which relates only to her experience of death through fighting the divine. And even re-watching the episodes with the play in mind, it never intruded. The references just intensify plot and characters that are purely BtVS – and do so even if you don’t know they’re there. (Tragic structure and ideas work largely on your unconscious empathy anyway). Also, the end, since Oedipus doesn’t die. He is trapped in life with the never-ending realization of his mistakes, failures, and horrible guilt – as Buffy surely would have been had she had to let Dawn sacrifice herself, or had she prevented it and borne the weight of the apocalypse on her shoulders. Instead, she comes to a transcendent realization and gives her gift. Her evasion, guilt and pride become acceptance, dignity and humanity. Her death is triumphant. Like no other tragic hero, she fights the gods and wins, making her death a positive example, not just a warning.

If I hadn’t already imposed on you enough, I might go on – there are two more plays about Oedipus and his unhappy family, which I feel could be full of foreshadowy goodness (‘Antigone’: treatment of the dead & head vs. heart, and ‘Oedipus at Colonus:’ redemption of the ultimate sinner). If you want more, just say so. Otherwise I’ll let you alone. If you want to read the plays online, try the Perseus database at - www.perseus.tufts.edu -
which has most of Classical literature in translation.

Thanks for bearing with me and letting me get my tragic obsession off my chest!
[> Re: Buffy as tragic hero in The Gift (Long, Spoilers for S5) -- Cactus Watcher, 15:48:28 04/27/02 Sat

This makes a lot more sense to me than a lot of the things we hashed through last summer. I enjoyed it, and I hope you will go ahead and post your comparisons to the other Oedipus plays sometime, if you have the desire and and the time.

Don't be bashful about being long. We sometimes have three part essays with each part longer than this.
[> The Greek tragedy chorus welcomes you lachesis! -- Sophist, 18:10:14 04/27/02 Sat

[> BtVS/AtS and Greek tragedy, a match made in the Elysian Fields -- Ixchel, 20:51:36 04/27/02 Sat

Excellent post, lachesis. I look forward to others.

Regarding Buffy's threat ("I'll kill anyone who comes near Dawn."), I believe this statement was meant for Giles alone. IMHO, Buffy knows everyone well and so knows the following. Willow and Xander may have considered killing Dawn to save the world, but (JMHO) would not have been able to actually do it. Also, I don't believe they would have gone against Buffy's wishes. Tara was incapacitated, but I doubt she would have even considered it. Anya may have considered it, but I can't see her going against Xander's wishes. Spike had just been appointed to protect Dawn by Buffy. So, as I see it, this statement from Buffy is directed at one person, Giles. Giles is the one who would have actually done it (though I believe it would have destroyed him emotionally). I can't believe that Buffy would have killed him if he tried though. Stop him by any means short of killing him, yes. Actually kill him, no (JMHO).

Ixchel
[> [> Re: BtVS/AtS and Greek tragedy, a match made in the Elysian Fields -- d'Herblay, 01:50:50 04/28/02 Sun

And, of course, it is Giles who finally does kill an "innocent" to avert destruction, smothering Ben to destroy Glory. Whether or not it has affected him emotionally (it is too much for even my tragedy-enraptured tastes to hope that it may have "destroyed" him) hopefully will be dealt with on Ripper.
[> [> [> Re: BtVS/AtS and Greek tragedy, a match made in the Elysian Fields -- lachesis, 05:31:06 04/28/02 Sun

Thanks guys. I agree with you, none of the SG would have a)gone against Buffy's wishes, b) been psychologically capable of harming Dawn anyway (which was a particularly moving aspect of the dilemma, since it was clearly always going to have to be Giles or Buffy that acted, and if either of them had harmed Dawn, it would have destroyed them both) or c) taken such responsibility on themselves.

It wasn't the fact that I regarded it as a real threat. Just the fact that she says it though, emphasises her position of command at this point, and the loneliness of it. In the past, when Buffy has faced the final danger alone, its been through choice (PG), or necessity (Becoming II). Here, she seems to be saying 'when the chips are down, its me that has to act/die/sacrifice all that I hold dear, and that means I get to decide.' She doesn't often force the SG to face up to the real difference of her position, and when she does (WSWB) its an indication of real trauma.

It frightened me, not because I thought that she might kill anyone, but that it seemed to deny what they learnt in at the end of S4 - 'You will never comprehend the source of our power.' It meant that she was walking out the door to fight the god alone, with help, yes, but ultimately alone.

I too am looking forward to seeing the consequences for Giles, d'Herblay. I don't think he will have to be 'destroyed' though. Whatever the ethical implications of that choice, I think it was made with the purest of motives. Buffy had made it clear in their argument that she had grown up, taken charge, was no longer 'taking direction.' Killing Ben is Giles' own gift to Buffy. He doesn't attempt to interfere, in the end, with her decision about Dawn, having accepted her right to make it. But he takes this guilt upon himself, willingly (and understanding the consequences, I'm sure) so that she can do what she has to do as the hero, untainted by guilt or failure. In doing so, he validates her gift of life. I can only see it as an act of love, which I think will mitigate (but not remove) its destructive potential for him. And I loved the way he put his glasses on first, emphasising that it was not an action excused by the heat of battle.

Thanks for all your encouragement. I will try and put my thoughts on the other plays together tonight, 'cause I'm planning to stay away from the board for a while after Monday. I need to stay spoiler-free for the end of S6, and I just don't think I'd be able to resist what y'all will have to say about the new eps. Back in June once I get it on video!
[> [> [> [> Re: BtVS/AtS and Greek tragedy, a match made in the Elysian Fields -- Ixchel, 14:57:10 04/28/02 Sun

lachesis, wonderful point regarding Buffy's seeming isolation on her way to fight Glory compared to the group's unity in Primeval. I feel that one of the main themes of BtVS (and AtS for that matter) is strength in unity, weakness in division. Actually, I believe the "What Can't We Face" song from OMWF expressed this beautifully, while at the same time emphasizing their inability to face any threat at this time (S6) because of the fractured state of the group.

I agree completely with your view of Giles' gift to Buffy (very well said). IMHO, killing _Dawn_ may have destroyed him (he states clearly that he loves her in TG). Killing Ben (while a horrible burden) could not have the same effect.

Ixchel
"Buffy" makes TV Guide's list of best 50 TV shows of all time! -- Rob, 17:07:41 04/27/02 Sat

Here's the entire list:

1. Seinfeld (NBC)
2. I Love Lucy (CBS)
3. The Honeymooners (CBS)
4. All in the Family (CBS)
5. The Sopranos (HBO)
6. 60 Minutes (CBS)
7. Late Show with David Letterman (CBS)
8. The Simpsons (Fox)
9. The Andy Griffith Show (CBS)
10. Saturday Night Live (NBC)
11. The Mary Tyler Moore Show (CBS)
12. The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson (NBC)
13. The Dick Van Dyke Show (CBS)
14. Hill Street Blues (NBC)
15. The Ed Sullivan Show (CBS)
16. The Carol Burnett Show (CBS)
17. Today (NBC)
18. Cheers (NBC)
19. thirtysomething (ABC)
20. St. Elsewhere (NBC)
21. Friends (NBC)
22. ER (NBC
23. Nightline (ABC)
24. Law & Order (NBC)
25. M+A+S+H (CBS)
26. The Twilight Zone (CBS)
27. Sesame Street (PBS)
28. The Cosby Show (NBC)
29. Donahue (syndicated)
30. Your Show of Shows (NBC)
31. The Defenders (CBS)
32. An American Family (PBS)
33. Playhouse 90 (CBS)
34. Frasier (NBC)
35. Roseanne (ABC)
36. The Fugitive (ABC)
37. The X-Files (Fox)
38. The Larry Sanders Show (HBO)
39. The Rockford Files (NBC)
40. Gunsmoke (CBS)
41. Buffy the Vampire Slayer (WB/UPN)
42. Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In (NBC)
43. Bonanza (NBC)
44. The Bob Newhart Show (CBS)
45. Twin Peaks (ABC)
46. Star Trek: The Next Generation (syndicated)
47. Rocky and His Friends (ABC)
48. Taxi (ABC/NBC)
49. The Oprah Winfrey Show (syndicated)
50. Bewitched (ABC)

Yay!!! And here's my source.

(I would have personally put "Buffy" much higher up on the list and "Seinfeld" a great deal lower. But that's just me.)

Rob
[> Thanks Rob. -- Ian, 18:13:43 04/27/02 Sat

They did rank Buffy too low.

Also, what's up with Bewitched? Are they crazy? Why is it there? Who are these people?

Okay, I feel better now.
[> No MST3K? That's just nuts. -- Apophis, 18:28:37 04/27/02 Sat

[> [> You're absolutely Right! What were they on! No MST? Grrr!(NT) -- Goji3, 12:46:54 04/30/02 Tue

[> Re: "Buffy" makes TV Guide's list of best 50 TV shows of all time! -- leslie, 18:46:02 04/27/02 Sat

Not to mention the disgracefully low showing of Moose and Squirrel. Pfaugh!
[> Seinfeld shouldn't even be on it. -- VampRiley, 18:56:55 04/27/02 Sat

But that's just my opinion.


VR
[> [> I agree... -- Rob, 19:14:05 04/27/02 Sat

In the few years since it has been on, "Seinfeld" truly has not aged well. And it's only been what? Three? four years? When it was on, I was a fan, but I truly never thought this was the best show on TV at the time. It's certainly not the best show of all time! And it's not just because I'm biased...I truly think "Buffy" deserves to at least be in the top 10, if not the top 5.

I also don't think "Sopranos" has any business being on there, without "Six Feet Under," which I think is a far superior show.

I was very glad to see "Star Trek: TNG" there, but I think that "Farscape" is equally as deserving.

Oh, well, if only we could make the lists!

Rob
[> [> [> We could always try to make one. -- VampRiley, 20:30:05 04/27/02 Sat

The attempt has only two outcomes: finishing it or not. There is a try.

Take that, Yoda and tell me there is no try!


VR
[> [> [> you are right about Seinfeld -- aurelia, 08:22:06 04/28/02 Sun

it wasn't a bad show but it hasn't aged well and it certainly isn't the best show.

That list is so far from any list that I would make, of course there are many shows on that list that I've never seen. Actually there are four shows on that list that I've never even heard of.

Sopranos deserves to be on there, but I would knock off the first 4 if I had my way.
[> Where is the Avengers??!! The other Emma and Tara -- neaux, 19:08:52 04/27/02 Sat

[> Re: Thanks Rob. It would have made my Top 1. -- Dedalus, 20:34:18 04/27/02 Sat

[> No "Homicide," no "Soap," no "White Shadow" or "NewsRadio" or "Police Squad!" Well, it's not MY list -- d'Herblay, 21:48:25 04/27/02 Sat

[> Pearls Before the Swine -- Buffyboy, 22:33:08 04/27/02 Sat

I must confess that I don’t watch all that much regularly scheduled television and in all honesty there are a number of these top fifty show that I’ve either never seen or perhaps I’ve seen only one or two episodes. With that said I would like to raise the question as to which of these other forty-nine show even deserves to be compared to BtVS. Now I very much like Nightline. I’ve watched this program since its beginnings in the late 70’s during the Iran Hostage Crisis, when it was called America Held Hostage Day 21, Day 22, etc, etc. Yet programs like Nightline, 60 Minutes or the Tonight Show can’t be effectively compared to a regularly scheduled fictional series. That leaves about forty shows.
As far as I’m concerned none of these shows is the same league with BtVS, though again there are a number of these show I know little about so I could easily be wrong here. What show has portrayed bereavement comparable to The Body? What show has offered us anything like the extraordinary tragic narratives of Beginnings 2 or The Gift: where the expected alternative endings are subverted to produce remarkably powerful emotional outcomes? In Beginnings 2, where Buffy’s hope, that Willow would be able to restore Angel’s soul, comes true, but comes true too late and only makes her predicament that much worse and all the more tragic. In The Gift, where Buffy’s adamant refusal to accept a Beginnings 2 type logic of sacrificing someone she loves to save the world is resolved through her realization that her gift is her ability to save both the world and Dawn but that their salvation requires her own death. Where else is an episode with the delicious moral ambiguity of Doppelgangland to be found? Where the very evil vampWillow not only saves Willow from the vampires sent to kill her by the Mayor, but also where, more humorously but no less poignantly, she gets the star basketball player to finally do his own homework. Such episodes can indeed be compared, but to the likes of Shakespeare, Sophocles (see the excellent post by lachesis below) and Racine rather than to Seinfeld, thirtysomething and Gunsmoke.
[> [> Re: Pearls Before the Swine -- lulabel, 23:50:58 04/27/02 Sat

As far as I'm concerned none of these shows is the same league with BtVS

Well, I have to put in my two cents to this - there were a couple shows which were mentioned in the TV guide list which I believe are very comparable to Buffy. I used to be a huge X-Files fan, and Twin Peaks is probably my all-time favorite TV series. Both of these series had incredible, imaginative, writing which operated on several levels simultaneously, like Buffy does (I refer to X-files in the past tense as I no longer watch). Twin Peaks in particular could leave your head spinning - gutwrenching tragedy, campy comedy, frothy romance and the just plain WEIRD in the space of minutes. Excellent, excellent actors for both of these shows as well.
[> [> Re: Pearls Before the Swine -- Cactus Watcher, 06:37:25 04/28/02 Sun

Minor disagreement here. It might not seem like it now, but in it's day Gunsmoke was about the most intelligently written and produced show on television. There were attempts to put serious drama from the stage on TV in the 50's, but with the lack of mobility of TV cameras in those days, primitive directing techniques, and the choppiness produced by commercial breaks, it was dull and almost unwatchable. (Yes, I remember watching a production of Oepidus Rex once on a Sunday afternoon. Admittedly I was pretty young. The costumes were interesting. But, the play seemed like it was making a mountain out of a mole hill, if you can believe that.) Often, though not always, the plays were 'dumbed down' for a broader audience. Things got better when it was realized there was no advantage to live TV performances, that commercials could be postponed if the audience attracted was large enough, and that motion picture film was a far more flexible medium at the time.

Gunsmoke was the show that proved that TV could provide both entertainment and touch on serious adult themes at the same time, and that people would watch such shows loyally. Most of the other prime-time shows from those days would seem laughably childish now.
[> Re: "Buffy" makes TV Guide's list of best 50 TV shows of all time! -- Andy, 06:07:14 04/28/02 Sun

It is very nice to see Buffy get recognized like that but looking at the list I see a lot of really terrible shows listed very highly and some absolutely brilliant shows not listed at all. What kind of all time best list for tv doesn't even mention The Avengers or The Prisoner? Oh, that's right, those shows are OLD and BRITISH (yipe!) so who cares? ;)

Andy
[> [> The Prisoner -- Arethusa, 08:35:27 04/30/02 Tue

*Nostalgic sigh* Patrick McGoohan....Bouncing white beach balls of doom....Cold War paranoia...."I am not a number!"
All good.
[> [> [> Re: The Prisoner -- CW, 09:59:31 04/30/02 Tue

It's interesting to see how many people enjoyed that show. I liked Danger Man, which McGoohan did in the same time slot, before the switch to The Prisoner. I really didn't care for The Prisoner (except for the last couple of episodes), but I'm positive I saw every last one of them first-run. Was I watching too much TV in those days or what? ;o)
[> [> [> [> Re: The Prisoner -- LittleBit, 10:33:02 04/30/02 Tue

Did you see them with the psychololgical discussions that PBS attached?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Prisoner -- CW, 17:13:18 04/30/02 Tue

No, I saw them their first-run on American network (CBS) TV. Watching PBS revivals of shows you didn't like, isn't something that's going to change your mind. They can praise the show's glories to the skies, but you still notice all the old things that made you dislike it the first time.
[> Re: "Buffy" makes TV Guide's list of best 50 TV shows of all time! -- matching mole, 06:21:05 04/28/02 Sun

I find TV Guide's listmania to be a little baffling. A couple of weeks ago they had the top 35 Star Trek moments of all time (TV Guide subscription, originally taken to support charity, expired months ago but the issues continue to arrive - perhaps it is a curse?). It's not clear to me why anyone should care about these lists.

They appear to be completely arbitrary. The lists are not based on polls of the viewing public or of critics. I presume some group of TV Guide staffers sit down and work them up. And what about methodology - how are the ranks determined? Politics seems to play a role - TV Guide lists always seem suspiciously evenly divided across time periods, networks, genres, etc.

Given that I will make a couple of comments about the list.

1. Despite its name it should really be titled the best 50 American TV shows of all time.

2. It seems utterly incredible to me that anyone would could think it possible to rank such disparate types of shows on a single list. How could you possibly decided whether, for example, Nightline is better or worse than the Mary Tyler Moore show?

3. Comparing shows across eras is very difficult. For example, sitcoms in the 1960s were mostly extremely formulaic and simplistic by the standards of later shows.

4. Given that this is basically a popularity contest I'm basically impressed at how many shows that I think would be on my (non-nationally biased) top 50 are actually on the list. I would rank Buffy higher on the list and Rocky and Bullwinkle as well (and Roseanne and the Rockford Files). I might even rank The Simpsons a bit higher although I am delighted it made the top ten. And sure there are some great shows not on it at all. For example, I would have included AtS, Barney Miller, SCTV, and the Prisoner (I'm counting SCTV and the Prisoner as American because they were aired as first run series on major American networks) as well as a host of British shows (plus Red Green) that I've seen on PBS. If I made a list it would have no dramas about doctors, lawyers, or police officers because I basically don't watch those shows. And no cable shows because (until next Thursday) I don't have cable. I would have also excluded all the non-entertainment shows because I think they're non-comparable. And I would have ranked Seinfeld somewhat lower but it would still have been on the list. But I'm just grateful that it didn't include any shows that I thought were truly awful (although Letterman comes close) - just a bunch that seem unremarkable or that I've never watched at all.
[> Re: "Buffy" makes TV Guide's list of best 50 TV shows of all time! -- skpe, 06:59:44 04/28/02 Sun

no jack benny? no ernie kovacs? tv guide has forgotten its history
[> Is that a joke? -- Sloan Parker, 08:25:04 04/28/02 Sun

Seinfeld and ER before Buffy? That's ridiculous! Both shows are stupid, not funny, not even interesting! Buffy deserves to be at least in the 10 first! That's one of the best written and directed show. Ok some people consider it as a show for teens, but there's stupid people everywhere. And I'm sad that Ally McBeal is not on the list. I like the show (season 1 and 2 ONLY) and I think it should be on the list along with Picket Fences.

X
[> The major problem with the list, of course, is... -- Rob, 08:31:58 04/28/02 Sun

...as some of you have said, that there is no true guidelines to this list. It includes sitcoms, hour dramas, late night shows, news programs, children's shows, variety shows, etc etc, and it is impossible to truly rank these in such a manner.

And do you rank them by popularity? By depth? By enjoyment factor? And also, "Best" is a tricky term. "I Love Lucy," for example, is the quintissential sitcom. I adore it, as most people do. But the fact is that there has definitely been better TV since "Lucy" first came out. While the episodes are still funny (unlike a great deal of the old stcoms), they are definitely dated in many ways.

So, "Lucy" is, basically, so high on the list out of nostalgia. But is that really fair? Can't nostalgia blindside actual quality? It apparently has, because a lot of the older shows on the list just aren't as good any more. So, again, do we count them as "Best," compared to other shows at their time, or to all shows? If we compare them to all shows, the old shows will always come up short. If we compare them to shows of their time, it is certainly not fair to have the more sophisticated shows in the same list. Because then it becomes a game of how many shows from each era should be included.

And there's more problems...

How about a show that was great for a long time, but then greatly decreased in quality? Two examples from that list are "X-Files" and "Roseanne." "X-Files" merely became weaker and, generally annoyed its fans by stretching out the mythology so long with no answers in sight. "Roseanne," once a great show, became utterly unwatchable by its last season. Do we count them as not as good as shows that maintained a high level of quality throughout their run (Star Trek: TNG, for example), or do we only count their good years? And is it fair to judge that?

And then how about a show like "Twin Peaks"? Now, I think it definitely deserves to be there, but based on this list, does a show that didn't even run 2 full seasons deserve to be counted the same as a show that ran 7-9 years?

And, on a totally separate note, why isn't "Wonder Years" on this list?

Rob
[> [> Re: The major problem with the list, of course, is: where's Six Feet Under? -- Sloan Parker, 09:14:39 04/28/02 Sun

Not on the list? You got to be kidding me!
[> [> True. Still it's nice to see Buffy recognized at all! -- Dichotomy, 09:31:24 04/28/02 Sun

The list is by no means the Bible of Best Shows, but to have Buffy mentioned in a mainstream publication as a "best" is nice to see. People still look at me funny when I mention what a great show it is. (Sigh)

I wonder if SFU (and Angel for that matter) are just too new to merit consideration in the eyes of TV Guide?

And Wonder Years! Yes! That really was a great show.
[> [> [> I absolutely agree. Any Buffy recognition in a mainstream publication like "TV Guide" is great... -- Rob, 11:42:04 04/28/02 Sun

Anyone not in the know, who only considered "Buffy," based on preconceived notions, to be a dumb action show may have to find themselves waking up and smelling the coffee when they see it has made such a list. Any time "Buffy" gets such respect and is acknowledged such as this is good.

Rob
[> [> Re: The major problem with the list, of course, is... -- Andy, 11:42:16 04/28/02 Sun

"And do you rank them by popularity? By depth? By enjoyment factor? And also, "Best" is a tricky term. "I Love Lucy," for example, is the quintissential sitcom. I adore it, as most people do. But the fact is that there has definitely been better TV since "Lucy" first came out. While the episodes are still funny (unlike a great deal of the old stcoms), they are definitely dated in many ways."

Eh, I know what you're getting at but I don't like using "Lucy" as an example of this. As the sitcom genre goes, it's critically important - technically, it's like the Citizen Kane of sitcoms - and the humor still holds up pretty well. During a course on tv I took in college, it got by far and away the most laughs of all the sitcoms we watched, and this includes shows that were at the height of their popularity and acclaim at the time, such as Friends and Seinfeld. So IMO it definitely deserves a high placing on any "best tv" list. But I do think the point about certain shows placing more out of nostalgia is true, just not for this particular example :) (IMO, something like Andy Griffith would be a better example. It's pleasant and all but I'm struggling to remember anything extraordinary about it.)

"How about a show that was great for a long time, but then greatly decreased in quality?"

Good question. IMO, one should consider how consistently great the show was during its peak years and discount the downturn by acknowledging that pretty much all shows will fall apart if they're on for a number of years. I like the theory that you can usually count on three good seasons and anything good after that is gravy :) Of course, while many people here probably wouldn't agree with me, I DO think Buffy has suffered such a major collapse this season, to the point that I'm probably not going to watch anymore, but I wouldn't knock it down the list because of that as the previous seasons were so classic.

Andy
[> [> [> Re: The major problem with the list, of course, is... -- Rob, 11:51:37 04/28/02 Sun

"Of course, while many people here probably wouldn't agree with me, I DO think Buffy has suffered such a major collapse this season, to the point that I'm probably not going to watch anymore, but I wouldn't knock it down the list because of that as the previous seasons were so classic."

Personally, I rank it, so far, as the second best season, just under the fifth's epicy goodness...but to each his own. ;o)

Oh, btw, I concede on the "Lucy" point, having just watched a few episodes today, by chance, on TV Land...It wasn't the best example. Yes, there are some dated notions, but it does still hold up extremely well. You're right...."Andy Griffith" is a good example.

Another classic sitcom on the list that is still very good today is "Mary Tyler Moore." The other show MTM was on, however, "Dick Van Dyke" (also on the list) has not held up as well.

But my point, on the whole, basically was that sometimes it's hard to separate nostalgia or how a show was received at the time it originally came out to a show's quality in the context of today.

Rob
[> [> Twin Peaks Forever! -- lulabel, 21:05:02 04/28/02 Sun

And then how about a show like "Twin Peaks"? Now, I think it definitely deserves to be there, but based on this list, does a show that didn't even run 2 full seasons deserve to be counted the same as a show that ran 7-9 years?

Now I gotta say that you definitely can't judge a TV show's influence/impact by how long it runs. I believe the original Star Trek series only ran 4 years, and look at popular it was in syndication, and how many series it eventually spawned, and is still spawning.

Another case in point is the movie "Blade Runner" which was NOT a box-office hit by any measure when it came out about 20 years ago. However, it is arguable the most influential sci-fi movie of the last 20 years - at least in terms of defining a totally new vision of what the future might look like.

I think Twin Peaks really pushed the envelope, and I think a lot of other TV series since have taken advantage of that. Buffy Episodes like "Restless" and "Double Meat Palace" owe a lot to David Lynch. (I thought Double Meat in particular was very Lynchian)
[> The major problem with the list, of course, is... -- Rob, 08:32:06 04/28/02 Sun

...as some of you have said, that there is no true guidelines to this list. It includes sitcoms, hour dramas, late night shows, news programs, children's shows, variety shows, etc etc, and it is impossible to truly rank these in such a manner.

And do you rank them by popularity? By depth? By enjoyment factor? And also, "Best" is a tricky term. "I Love Lucy," for example, is the quintissential sitcom. I adore it, as most people do. But the fact is that there has definitely been better TV since "Lucy" first came out. While the episodes are still funny (unlike a great deal of the old stcoms), they are definitely dated in many ways.

So, "Lucy" is, basically, so high on the list out of nostalgia. But is that really fair? Can't nostalgia blindside actual quality? It apparently has, because a lot of the older shows on the list just aren't as good any more. So, again, do we count them as "Best," compared to other shows at their time, or to all shows? If we compare them to all shows, the old shows will always come up short. If we compare them to shows of their time, it is certainly not fair to have the more sophisticated shows in the same list. Because then it becomes a game of how many shows from each era should be included.

And there's more problems...

How about a show that was great for a long time, but then greatly decreased in quality? Two examples from that list are "X-Files" and "Roseanne." "X-Files" merely became weaker and, generally annoyed its fans by stretching out the mythology so long with no answers in sight. "Roseanne," once a great show, became utterly unwatchable by its last season. Do we count them as not as good as shows that maintained a high level of quality throughout their run (Star Trek: TNG, for example), or do we only count their good years? And is it fair to judge that?

And then how about a show like "Twin Peaks"? Now, I think it definitely deserves to be there, but based on this list, does a show that didn't even run 2 full seasons deserve to be counted the same as a show that ran 7-9 years?

And, on a totally separate note, why isn't "Wonder Years" on this list?

Rob
[> Re: "Buffy" makes TV Guide's list of best 50 TV shows of all time! -- Cher, 14:58:06 04/28/02 Sun

Hello, I'm a newbie here - been lurking for a few weeks and am enjoying all of the thoughtful (and thought-provoking) comments and analyses on Buffy and Angel.

Buffy also received honors on an E! show this weekend - their Rank program (I know, I know, another case of 'who decides these things,' but still . . . ). This one ranked the toughest people in Hollywood. SMG ranked #6 on the list (beating Arnold, among many others). I didn't see the entire episode (it airs again this weekend: p://aol.eonline.com/On/Rank/Shows/ToughestStars/), but one poll I saw had BtVS winning top spot for best fight scenes (or maybe it was action scenes, I don't remember).

Anyway, just thought I'd pass along that little tidbit. Maybe one of these days I'll muster up the courage to post my thoughts on an episode.

Cheryl
[> [> Welcome Newbie!!!! -- VampRiley, 18:01:09 04/28/02 Sun

[> [> I second that welcome...Hope to read other posts of yours in the future. :o) -- Rob, 20:55:53 04/29/02 Mon

[> If you made a list, what would rank ABOVE Buffy? -- Darby, 17:00:08 04/28/02 Sun

Of the ones above Buffy on the TV Guide List, I'd agree with:

The Sopranos, The Simpsons, The Dick Van Dyke Show, Sesame Street.

Given that I'm taking an obscenely short time to do this, I might put Star Trek TNG and The Prisoner up there too. I'm sure there might be a few others, but am drawing a blank and running off to the Simpsons.
[> [> Right now, nothing. -- Eric, 19:13:06 04/28/02 Sun

We're currently living in the golden age of TV. There's more great shows on than ever. There's more good shows than I can possibly watch. And 90% of the crap shows croak before they really start to irritate me. The TV Guide list is ridiculous for all the reasons listed above. But it does accurately show all the shows that worked their way up in quality to Buffy. And in their own hey day they were the bomb. I can only hope that it just gets better. I liked Seinfeld a lot, BTW, and it deserves a place on the list. Just not #1.
[> [> Re: If you made a list, what would rank ABOVE Buffy? -- Marrec, 00:10:27 04/29/02 Mon

The only thing I'd put above Buffy would be The Simpsons and Dragonball (Z,GT)... okay, not exactly a fare choice but the only reason I choose the two is the fact that they both had an amazing run on T.V. While the Simpsons continues its historic series, Dragonball (Z,GT) ended many years ago, yet is still watched by millions of fans every day.

I don't think either show is better then Buffy mind you. I only think that they are universally accepted as best shows ever. Both shows are multi-national and multi-billion dollar industries.
(Hyperbole, maybe... *needs to look into that*)

Also, you have to remember that:
1) T.V. Guide is very quirky when they choose "quality programming", so their Top 50 list probably doesn't reflect the veiws of anyone outside the T.V. Guide staff.
2) T.V. Guide has always had a love affair with Buffy so it's no wonder the show made the Top 50.(Also, see above #1)
3) I'm a rather large fan of Anime, and Dragonball Z is what I like to call the "Gateway Anime"
4) Note, 2 of 3 in my Top 3 are animated. I think that animated shows require much more talent to put together.
5) The Simpons will get more laughs then I Love Lucy on -any- given Sunday.

P.S.
It's 1 A.M. over here, and I'm a High-School student staying up late... don't take anything I say at face value. -_-
[> [> [> Truly. Nothing. -- Rob, 09:17:32 04/29/02 Mon

I am a huge TV buff. I watch everything...and I mean everything. Old TV reruns, new shows...And I have never loved a show as much as "Buffy." This is not just in terms of personal love for the show. This obsession and adoration did not happen until Season 4 for me, and it grew out of the amazing quality of the writing, acting, and directing of "Buffy." There has simply never been a better written, acted, or directed show than "Buffy" in my mind.

I have some other favorites..."Six Feet Under"..."Star Trek: TNG"..."Farscape"..."The X-Files"..."Twin Peaks"..."Mary Tyler Moore"..."I Love Lucy"..."Friends"..."Soap"..."Kids in the Hall"...

But none of the sitcoms on that list match the brilliant comedy of "Buffy," and none of the deeper, artistic shows, like "Twin Peaks" or "X-Files" reach the deep artistry and magnificence of the best episodes of "Buffy."

Actually, I take that back...the only other show I find completely equal to "Buffy" in emotional and artistic integrity, not to mention acting, directing, and writing (although it is a very different show from "Buffy") is "Six Feet Under." And I find myself very lucky to have two of my favorite shows of all time be on the air at the same time. Although I do admit, there will be a problem this year. The first season of SFU aired during the summer, so I had that to watch while "Buffy" was away...But now I'm going to have to spend this entire summer w/o any new episodes of either of my two favorite shows, since SFU only has about 5 weeks left until the season finale. That could be torture!

Rob
[> [> On the TV Guide List (more detail than you wanted) -- matching mole, 11:24:59 04/29/02 Mon

only one, The Simpsons, would I definitely rank above BtVS. After 13 seasons it never ceases to astonish me. And Roseanne I would probably rate just about equal to BtVS. The best X-files episodes are at least as good as the best BtVS episodes (The Night of the Coprophages is still one of my all time most favourite TV experiences - a Farside cartoon come to life - perhaps you have to be a biologist to truly appreciate it). But the quality of the series as a whole has been far more uneven than BtVS. Star Trek TNG was also very well written and very consistent but its characters (with the notable exception of Picard) were much less interesting than those on either the X-files and BtVS.
Rocky and Bullwinkle (or whatever its real name is) is a tough one. It is brilliant and utterly hilarious but it is really more of a sketch show (despite the serially produced stories) and difficult to compare with the others. I would exclude it from consideration along with the variety, talk, childrens and news shows.
There are several other shows on the list that I would rate as excellent personal top 50 material but clearly not as innovative as any of the shows I've mentioned so far: The Bob Newhart Show, The Rockford Files, Seinfeld, Frasier, and Taxi. There are a number of others that are excellent even if I don't personally rank them quite as high that are obviously of great historical importance (I Love Lucy, The Dick van Dyke Show, MTM, All in the Family, Gunsmoke and Bonanza).

Twin Peaks strikes me as an unusual case. David Lynch is an immensely talented figure but I don't think that the type of work he produces is condusive to a TV series. I really enjoyed Twin Peaks initially but got tired of it pretty quickly. What starts seeming unearthly and intriguing eventually comes to seem overly serious and contrived. The Twilight Zone is also brilliant but I haven't seen enough episodes to really judge it.

As for the rest - either I haven't seen it or it just seems like ordinary TV rather than exceptional TV.

Of course there are lots of shows not on the list that I would rank really high. Ones that might surpass BtVS would include The Prisoner, The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin, and SCTV. Babylon 5 might also come close. SCTV is a difficult case - it was really a sketch show but it had integrated story lines and loads of recurring characters. It seems more comparable to the other shows than Rocky and Bullwinkle to me but I couldn't justify it to you. The FaRoRP (for those of you unfamiliar with it) was a 1970s British show that was a brilliant and poignant satire on modern life (at least modern middle class male life).
[> [> [> Lonesome Dove: The Outlaw Years -- JBone, 16:27:52 04/29/02 Mon

As I was a huge fan of Lonesome Dove the book and miniseries (I just might rank it ahead of Buffy), I was willing to give all things LD a chance. The first year was so-so, mostly following Newt Call (Scott Bairstow) to the sleepy little town of Curtis Wells, were he falls in love, marries, and sets about getting himself his own ranch and home. The year does a good job of setting up relationships between Newt and his in-laws, and Newt and the resident bad "good guy" (Eric McCormack) who has a thing for his wife. At the end of the year, Newt's wife is tragically killed, which sets up a brilliant season 2.

LD The Outlaw Years starts out bringing Call (he is no longer called Newt, but Call) back to Curtis Wells after a few years of bounty hunting. He's now a killing machine. Curtis Wells has changed a lot since he's been gone, it's now a booming mining town. Lots of bad stuff going on. And Call strolls into town with a lot of baggage with those now in charge, and they don't want to see him stick around.

LD The Outlaw Years only lasted one syndicated season, but both seasons used to be rerun on, of all things, the Hallmark or Odyssey channel. I'm not sure were you might find it now.

We don't rent pigs.
[> [> [> [> Star Trek DS9 years 1, 4-7 were pretty top drawer too -- JBone, 17:57:00 04/29/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> As was Star Trek: TNG years 3-7 -- Rob, 20:35:48 04/29/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> DS9 vs. TNG -- matching mole, 08:20:50 04/30/02 Tue

I would rate the two series as pretty much equal to one another overall - excellent but not quite equal to BtVS. Interestingly they are complements of one another. TNG was much more consistently well-written but DS9 had way more interesting characters - Kira, Bashir, O'Brien, Odo, Garek - some of the best in Star Trek history. Even though the very concept of the Ferengi annoys me - Quark and his family were pretty interesting as well. I remember season 1 of DS9 very fondly. However once it turned into a show about galactic war I lost interest. Babylon 5 did that a lot better.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: DS9 vs. TNG -- Rob, 10:13:05 04/30/02 Tue

Maybe it's just a nostalgia thing, but I would never be able to rank DS9 on the same level as TNG...Just something about that show sets it in a class above all the other "Trek" shows. I care about the characters more, and the stories. Like Buffy, Xander, Willow, Tara, Anya, Spike, and Giles feel almost like family to me (in a weird way), I feel the same about Picard, Troi, Dr. Crusher, Riker, Data, Geordi, and Worf. There's something very special about their interpersonal relationships, and their relationship to the viewer.

TNG, however, does not rank as high as "Buffy" for me, but definitely on my top 10 favorites shows list, which is:

1) Buffy
2) Six Feet Under
3) Star Trek: The Next Generation
4) Farscape
5) The Simpsons
6) Get Smart
7) I Love Lucy
8) The Mary Tyler Moore Show
9) Friends
10) Twin Peaks

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I've resisted long enough -- matching mole, 11:52:44 04/30/02 Tue

I've gotta ask this. Just like post-modernism this issue has burned at the back of my mind for years. And although Rob's post inspired it - in no way should this be directed at him alone. Feel free to leap in and enlighten me.

Of Rob's top ten I feel that I can evaluate 8 (never seen Six Feet Under and saw one episode of Farscape in a hotel room in Anchorage). Of those 8, seven seem like excellent top ten candidates to me. That doesn't mean that they would necessarily be in my top ten but that I could easily envision others including them based on variance in individual taste.

The one exception - Friends.

This is an earnest plea for information, with no irony of facetitious attached so hopefully no fans of Friends will be offended.

But why does this show appeal to so many people? Including very intelligent people with good taste like Rob.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't hate Friends. I don't think it's a bad show. In some ways this would be easier for me to understand if I thought it was really terrible and objectionable. Maybe other people like the qualities that I hate. But Friends just seems very unexceptional to me. I don't see anything in the originality of the concept or presentation, the quality of the writing, the depth of the characterization, or the comic talents of the performers that makes it stand out from the great mass of sitcoms in any way. I must be missing something.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Friends -- Darby, 12:23:27 04/30/02 Tue

I wouldn't rate it that high, even though I enjoy it, more this season than recently. Some possible reasons why it might deserve to be on the poll -

- it's a classic ensemble show but tweaks the genre by twisting and turning the roles through the seasons.

- it almost never sacrifices a character for a good line, which may be why it has not one but two of the most well-rounded "ditz" characters in the history of sitcoms. It's hard to imagine how you balance the dumbness with insight and an ability to participate in Joey (amazingly played, too) and Phoebe (the weaker of the two from a writing and an acting standpoint). Even Ross stays consistent, when you know that everybody involved has got to be as tired with him as the general public. And what they have accomplished with the Monica-Chandler marriage is amazing, delving into the characters in a way that is revelatory but betrays nothing.

- It's funny.

Incidentally, I think that it does all of these things better than Seinfeld did - I think that Seinfeld's strengths, such as they were, lay in its distinctive voice, which I personally had little patience for.

And, on a procedural note, my primary mode of analysis of what makes a show "good" is most strongly influenced on how well it stands up to repeat viewings.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks Darby -- matching mole, 13:20:02 04/30/02 Tue

I can see a lot of truth in what you say. Your comment about Seinfeld's distinctive voice is perhaps the most helpful. I really like Seinfeld and I think that is in large part due to its distinctive voice as you put it. I would never really think of comparing what it achieves to Friends because I perceive the two shows as having very different goals (see next paragraph for caveat). For me, George Costanza is a brilliant comic creation, a distillation of human weakness into a liquor of unsurpassed purity and potency. He is in no sense an attempt to realistically portray a human being. But I would argue that almost everyone , if they are honest about themselves, can see some of his urges buried deep inside their psyches. These qualities are his greatness and his limitation. The misanthropic world view of Seinfeld is what makes the show stand out from the pack and also what keeps it from being one of the absolute greatest shows ever.

Now I can easily see how this voice might not appeal to everyone. No reason it should. There are shows out there with distinctive voices that don't really appeal to me. I guess it has always seemed to me that Friends didn't really have a voice at all. That's what so baffled me. Maybe it's because it depicts a kind of friendship (it is a buddy comedy) that is sort of outside of my experience. Most of my adult friends have been more or less in the same line of work as I am (speaking pretty broadly) and/or share a lot of the same interests. When the group makes fun of Ross' job my automatic reaction is - why is he hanging out with these shallow idiots? The Monica/Chandler relationship has beeen the one thing that has seemed the most interesting to me, perhaps because I can relate to it the most. I felt much the same way about Cheers (only more so). I couldn't really buy that these people were really friends with each other. I'm not saying that these sorts of friendships don't exist - they obviously do - just that me, these shows don't make a very good case for them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My reason for putting it on the list... -- Rob, 18:18:48 04/30/02 Tue

...is that, I believe, "Friends" is the most successful example of the sitcom genre. The writing is snappy and funny; the situations and stories are able to draw on the conventions from previous sitcoms, but tweak them in unexpected ways; the characters are likable and have great chemistry together. In fact, I would argue that the show is the best television example of right time, right place, right people. No, it may not be deep or even very meaningful, but "Friends" fulfills its purpose to a "T"--it's entertaining, it's clever, and, unlike most sitcoms, is funny. It does not aspire to be anything greater than what it is, and yet, many times, has achieved just that, seemingly without meaning to. Even when it doesn't and is merely average, it does "so-so" much better than most other sitcoms.

The sitcom rule is usually two-dimensional characters making the same mistakes over and over again and learning their lessons by the end. "Friends" is different, though. The characters have become much fuller human beings since the first season, with back story filled in here and there...a character like Joey who may have once been a mere caricature has now become a fully rounded character. As we slowly learned more and more about each character over the years, they have become real people. The continuity is very good, as well. The characters remember previous events, and don't have lessons that need to be learned. And when they do, they stay learned. And if they don't, they call each other on it.

I can believe that they are really friends, first off due to the great chemistry between the cast. They have become such a great team that the better actors from Season 1 (Matthew Perry, Lisa Kudrow, and David Schwimmer) have been able to deflect the weaknesses of the others (Matt LeBlanc, Courteney Cox, and Jennifer Aniston), and, instead of outshining them, helped them build up their own strengths. Now, all of the 6 actors are completely equal in my mind. The weakest link, Courteney Cox, has grown the most as an actress, and I believe it was due to being surrounded by such giving, supporting actors. The key to their magic is that there is not one of them who tries to drown out the others...they are all very generous and give each other time in the spotlight.

Here's an example of the greatness of the show. Rachel and Ross' relationship was in the forefront for most of the early years. When Ross had a brief tryst with a copy girl, causing the two to breakup, this could have been the most depressing, soap-operaish episode ever. And, in the Ross and Rachel scenes it was...but the show turned that on its head. As it turns out, the rest of the friends were hanging out in one of the bedrooms in the apartment, and, when they hear Ross and Rachel come in, arguing, shut the door and hide, in order to eavesdrop. They end up being stuck there for hours and hours, and throughout all of the R&R melodramatics, the other characters comment on what is going on, like a built-in Mystery Science Theatre 3000. This made what could have been a downer of an episode into a hoot.

I don't see these characters as not having enough in common. When they make fun of Ross' job, it is more of a good-natured joshing or teasing than truly not having anything in common with him. Although they make come from different backgrounds, they all seem to have a real understanding of one another. They all have their own strengths and weaknesses, their own quirks, their own levels of smartness (yes, even Joey).

I never was in love with "Seinfeld," because I thought it lacked the heart required for a great sitcom. I think there was a mean-spirited undercurrent to the show, and in most cases, the absurdist humor and interlocking plots and subplots overwhelmed the viewer. You walk into a "Seinfeld" episode late, and you could have no clue what's going on. "Friends," you can always figure out what's going on whenever you walk in. Although that may seem like it's not as good as "Seinfeld," I say it's better. "Friends" is by nature much easier to rewatch and view casually. And that's what I want in a sitcom.

Sorry if this wasn't worded well or was too rambly. I kind of wanted it to flow a little smoother, but I typed it pretty fast and had no time to clean it up. Tell me if anything needs to be clarified...

Rob :o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> My top ten... -- LittleBit, 14:43:49 04/30/02 Tue

I made my top ten list, and on looking at it I can only conclude I need 'help'. :-D Only basis used was whether or not I wanted to watch them in re-rerun after re-run after re-run. No adherence to genre or origin.

1. Buffy the Vampire Slayer
2. Rocky and Bullwinkle
3. The Prisoner
4. Whose Line Is It Anyway? – British version
5. Star Trek – The Next Generation
6. Monty Python's Flying Circus
7. Dr. Who
8. MST2K – the original cast
9. Mystery (Poirot, Holmes, Marple)
10. I Love Lucy
[> [> Highlander: The Series -- Masq, 11:41:48 04/29/02 Mon

[> [> [> And Highlander: The Raven -- VampRiley, 12:09:44 04/29/02 Mon

It lasted a season, but I still like it.


VR
[> [> [> [> Re: And Highlander: The Raven -- Masq, 13:12:23 04/29/02 Mon

So did I. I was almost tempted to write fan fic for the first time in my life to figure out how Nick the ex-cop gun-guy dealt with his immortality and the need to carry a sword. Also what happened when he and Amanda met up again after he took off at the end.

But who has time to write fan fic when you're writing original fic? Would have been fun to see if play out on the screen.

*Wah!*
[> At least B got ON the list! -- cjc36, 05:50:21 04/29/02 Mon

I'm really glad the editors of TV Guide decided to include BtVS in the list. There aren't too many spaces for dramas (or 1 hour single camera productions), and Buffy gets dissed way too many times by various industry beauty contests (Emmy's, anybody?).

But lists like these are, obvously, arbritrary. How does one quantify quality across five+ decades and nearly as many genres? This is a mass-media list, and they can't list every show that was deserving-- to much formatics and politics come into play. And voices. I'm surprised the list is as diverse as it is, though it could be much better.

And, mostly, I'm glad the Buffster is on it at all.
[> what, no frank's place? -- anom, 01:06:58 04/30/02 Tue

That was an amazing show! Took on race, class, northern vs. southern culture, with respect for all of them, characters w/depth, & some well-planned surprises.
[> [> Thanks for the reminder - that *was* a really great show! -- OnM, 19:29:28 04/30/02 Tue

[> [> [> glad to get some concurrence--i was starting to think no one else had seen it! -- anom, 23:53:23 04/30/02 Tue

Rambling blather about Rahael, Buffy (maybe) & trolls -- Eric, 21:46:43 04/27/02 Sat

OK. Some people post meaningless BS here, mindless geek trivia, trolls, etc. And by and large the board is pretty tolerant. But many post very insightful, well written, and meaningful stuff. Rahael is one of those. OK, so she went a little far responding to Pheonix. Rah, if you're reading, so what? I think you're entitled to go off the deep end from time to time. Unless you start pulling a "Boke" or post fake Buffy links to porn sites on a regular basis, I don't care how strident you are. Nor do I care if some of your opinions are against mine. Again I'll say that if I wanted to hear my own opinions over and over again I'd talk to a mirror. BTW, I read a couple of Pheonix's posts, and though the PC thing irritates me, I wasn't impressed by her.

Buffy. What the hell is up with the Buffy bashing? How can you be a Buffy fan without being a fan of Buffy? OK, so Spike is popular and he's Buffy's favorite punching bag. But the relationship is just fundementally screwed up. I sometimes wonder if Spike didn't get some evil magician to cast a spell of some sort on Buffy. She doesn't love him. She can relate to him and lust for him, but she doesn't love him. Furthermore, she's hinted that their sex isn't particularly loving or respectful, even within the context of weird sex. So there's some reason for her to resent Spike as much as she wants him. Buffy ain't no plaster saint. But she always comes thru. So she'll either stake that bloodsucker or make it up to him as needed.

Trolls. Could someone PLEASE explain to me the reason for trolls. I mean, if you're some PC nut and you want to piss off some Republicans you go to their boards and troll. Ditto for the Limbaugh ditto heads. But why here? People here have strong opinions about everything. But this is a Buffyverse forum and people have only so much steam to blow about Buffy. And ultimately what is to be gotten for the effort?
[> Re: Rambling blather about Rahael, Buffy (maybe) & trolls -- Earl Allison, 07:15:38 04/28/02 Sun

Some interesting questions -- and until someone knowledgable comes along, I'll offer my two cents worth.

Buffy-bashing. Bear in mind, a lot of that is coming from (as I've seen, anyway) Spike fans, who have been weathering some bashing of their own the past three seasons. Buffy IS behaving badly this season, but a lot of mitigating factors are being ignored (even more odd given how many mitigating factors Spike got to be made a viable regular for the series) -- her death and rebirth, her merciless plunge into the world of adult responsibilites -- not a bit at a time, but all at once. Dawn, a difficult chore, since Buffy ISN'T a parent, and her inability to merge the fact that she doesn't love Spike with the fact that she enjoys sex with him. Bashing is extreme, but (regrettably) understandable given what has been (again, to me only) heavy-handed and substandard writing -- no one TALKS to anyone, just goes off on their own and self-destructs.

Trolls. They simply are. They exist to start flame-wars and to sit back and watch the carnage as someone tries to make sense of their posts and views. Unfortunately, they are everywhere, and for what it's worth, we don't see very many here, certainly not as many as I've seen at other sites.

I hope this helped, a bit. Oh, and I'm NOT a Buffy-basher, so if you want to address my comments, I'm not defending them, merely putting them out there as potential explanations, I frankly can understand Buffy's actions given what she's gone through.

Take it and run.
[> Re: Rambling blather about Rahael, Buffy (maybe) & trolls -- celticross, 17:49:01 04/28/02 Sun

About the Buffy bashing...well, I don't like to bash, but believe me, Eric, it's quite possible to be a Buffy fan and not like Buffy the character. I've been a fan of the show for nearly 5 years now and I've never been particularly fond of her. I've always been more fond of the supporting characters. She has been acting terribly this season, and yes, she does have reasons (though I think ME's gonna have to write some pretty awesome episodes to show her coming out of this depression, because in real life, a depression like that doesn't just get better. We're talking serious therapy here). What do I not like about Buffy? She makes snap judgements, has a terrible temper, lets her boyfriends define her life, and can be too emotionally dependent on others. But I admire Joss Whedon for creating a lead character who is flawed, and yes, there are things about her I like. To wit, she's smart, decisive, creative, and loyal. It doesn't bother me a bit that the character Buffy is not my favorite character on her own show. There's more to it than her.
[> [> This might be a dumb question, but what exactly is a troll? -- NightRepair, 20:20:51 04/28/02 Sun

[> [> [> Smart question. The answer is still being debated. More later. -- d'Herblay, 21:41:45 04/28/02 Sun

[> [> [> My pathetic attempt at an answer -- agent156, 10:15:11 04/29/02 Mon

Here's an old usenet defintion of a troll that explains it a bit.

troll

1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it.

2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial.


What exactly a troll is though seems to vary slightly from person to person. Since trolls oft times take the unpopular stance on a controversial topic, it can be quite difficult to distinguish a troll from someone who is just innocently trying to point out an opposing viewpoint. I just try to determine if the post is being purposefully inflammatory and if so consider it a troll. But it is a very thin line that not everyone will fall on the same side of.

I hope some of this helped.
[> [> [> [> Pornography and trolling -- Sophist, 12:46:21 04/29/02 Mon

In a 1960s pornography case, then Justice Potter Stewart wrote an opinion containing the following words about pornography, since infamous among law students:

"I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it."

There have been many sarcastic suggestions that we refer all obscenity cases to the late Justice, who alone can tell us what is obscene. Sadly, the Supreme Court has opted for a "definition" of obscenity. The application of this "definition" seems to depend quite a bit on each Justice's secret use of Stewart's principle.

Rather than seeking a definition of trolling, perhaps we should look for guidelines. Here are some I apply:

1. The tone of the post is aggressive, contentious, and/or challenging.

2. The post contains a long string of opinions or overbroad generalizations rather than assertions of fact or logic.

3. The post veers over a variety of topics instead of trying to make one point or explore a single theme.

4. Followup posts either don't respond to reasonable attempts at dialogue, or respond only with diversions or flames.

Through diligent application of these guidelines, I'm just as confident in my judgments as Potter Stewart.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Pornography and trolling - add one point -- LittleBit, 13:15:20 04/29/02 Mon

to # 3. The post veers over a variety of topics instead of trying to make one point or explore a single theme.

I would add: or fixates on a single point without variation or discussion, or supporting arguments.

Other than that addition, I agree entirely.
Keeping Secrets (general spoilers, Angel S3, upto DoN) -- lulabel, 23:34:39 04/27/02 Sat

Several people have commented on how it was hypocritical/ironic that Wesley got himself into so much trouble by keeping secrets, considering how he gave Gunn a lot of grief for the same things back in "That Old Gang of Mine" It got me thinking that this season has had a recurring theme of people keeping secrets. A lot of these secrets (but not all) have caused feelings of betrayal and anger when discovered. The first that came to mind was Cordelia's hiding of her progressively debilitating visions - Angel expressed a lot of anger over being kept in the dark.

So I starting thinking up a list of other occurrences; I'm sure others can add to it:

- Angel didn't tell the others about his one-night-stand with Darla (this happening in the previous season, but the truth came to light this season)
- Darla didn't tell Angel about the baby until she ran out of options
- Wesley never told Fred about his feelings for her
- Ditto Angel and Cordy
- Fred didn't tell her parents that she was back from Pylea
- Gunn and his "deal with the devil" (maybe he just forgot about it)

This got me thinking also about an inherent difference between BtVS and AtS. On Buffy, the characters are for the most part transparent to us - we know about their motivations, we know why they do what they do. Very few things seem to happen out-of-the-blue. The exceptions to this are notable - the only one I can really remember vividly is when Tara deliberately messed up a demon locator spell with Willow, back in season 4. I can't remember other really significant examples of thinking "what was up with that?" except maybe Dawn's klepto behaviour.

On Angel, at least this season, it has become increasingly obvious that we don't know a lot about what makes these characters tick. I find Wesley to be a mystery (even before angst-fest) There are these glimpses of a terrible relationship with his father which is clearly a very important part of who he is. Gunn is also a mystery, but some might attribute that to negligent writing. Cordy's secret illness was also quite a surprise - not so much that she was ill, because we'd seen that coming, but that it was so far gone and that she had kept it a secret from the others.

I'm interested to know what others think. It would be pretty easy to argue that this season's Buffy is also about keeping secrets. Since AtS is ostensibly about more "adult" themes, is the secret-keeping supposed to be indicative of grown-up things? (I personally don't have a clue)
[> Re: Keeping Secrets (general spoilers, Angel S3, upto DoN) -- AngelVSAngelus, 14:22:12 04/28/02 Sun

I've interpreted the secret keeping theme as having to do with one aspect of adulthood: acknowledging and moving forward from your sordid past. Each of the characters on Angel have had their pasts come back to bite them in the ass, and the title character's past is what drove him to heroics in the first place. Part of growing up is about carving a niche in the world regardless of, and sometimes despite, your origins.
Buffy's dealing with that too, now, but from a different perspective I think. I believe that BTVS is looking at that aspect from the perspective of one entering into the adult world and not wanting to let go of the past (friends, family, lack of responsibility), while AtS sees it from the perspective of one who's become someone else since moving on, and occassionally has some circumstance that forces them to look back at who they were.
Film and Book Recommendations -- matching mole, 06:46:32 04/28/02 Sun

Yesterday at the Roger Ebert Film Festival I saw a truly exceptional film that I thoght many fans of BtVS would be interested in. Unfortunately, at the moment it seems that few of you will ever get the opportunity to see this film but I put this out for the few who may be lucky enough to come across it.

The movie is Paperhouse, a 1988 British production directed by Bernard Rose and based on a children's book by someone named Storrs (forget the details now - the title of the book is not the same). It is a children's/'horror' film and it is one of the greatest pieces of cinematic fantasy I have ever seen. It captures the feeling of dreams and of dread and anticipation that children feel in an amazing fashion. Perhaps not coincidentally, the simplicity of the dream world, filmed in the days before computer generated backgrounds is enormously effective in creating a subtle, surrealistic atmosphere.

Unfortunately Vestron, the film company that produced Paperhouse has since gone bankrupt and its library bought by some other company. Paperhouse is now not available anywhere and the company has declined to sell the rights to it to Rose (the director). The print we saw came from the lab that originally developed the film in England and Rose thinks it may be the only copy (presumably other than that in the library of the copyright holder) in existence. He rather brazenly asserted yesterday that he intends to take this copy back to LA and transfer it onto DVD and pirate it. But if you come across a copy of this by some fluke I urge you to watch it.

A few weeks (months maybe) ago I mentioned 'Blood Sucking Fiends', a vampire novel, by Christopher Moore deep in some thread. Having started a second of his books , 'Practical Demonkeeping' I would like to recommend him again. I think that most viewers of BtVS might enjoy his work. Although somewhat different in style they are similar to Buffy in mixing humour and satire with more serious elements. Not quite as serious as BtVS but not just fluff either. They are very entertaining. Apparently some of his books do not have supernatural themes although the two I've read do.
[> I read "Practical Demonkeeping" last year! It was very funny... -- Rob, 08:12:16 04/28/02 Sun

Another great one of his was "The Lust Lizard of Melancholy Cove," which is basically about a Godzilla-type monster who has the ability to camoflauge himself. He falls in love with a woman, while in the shape of a trailer. Only problem is, he needs to eat people to survive.

Every now and then I see "Bloodsucking Fiends" at a bookstore and want to get it, and then put it off. Now that I have your recommendation (and have read some of his others) I'll definitely pick it up next time I'm there.

Christopher Moore could be called the "Douglas Adams" of horror, but he's original enough to stand on his own feet without the comparison.

Oh, and speaking of vampire books, has anyone else here read the "Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter" series by Laurell K. Hamilton? It is a very interesting series, because it mixes vampire mythology, science fiction, and the detective genre. I started reading it last year. Again, it's not as deep as "Buffy," but it's very, very well-written and highly original.

Rob
[> [> By the way -- matching mole, 08:42:01 04/28/02 Sun

the book Paperhouse was based on is 'Marianne Dreams' by Catherine Storr first published in 1958 and now out of print - very highly rated by Amazon.com readers if that means anything.
[> [> Re: I read "Practical Demonkeeping" last year! It was very funny... -- LadyStarlight, 11:07:50 04/28/02 Sun

If you like Moore's books, check out "Lamb". It's his newest, and it's very hard to describe. A little bit satirical, very funny and a soupcon of irreverance sums it up. Plus, how can you not love a biblical hero called 'Biff'? :)

I've read (and own) all the Anita Blake series. She's getting away from the detective stuff in her last one, I think, but still a good read, nonetheless.
[> [> Re: Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter -- AngelVSAngelus, 14:14:52 04/28/02 Sun

I've only had the opportunity to read a couple of them (Obsidian Butterfly, and the title of the other one illudes me now...), and they are quite well written, although I have the same problem with Anita's character that I do with Blade's in comparison to those well written ones from Buffy and Angel: They're just too bad ass for me. I never really think either of them are in danger, because they're perpetually portrayed as invulnerable and hardcore.
One of the things I enjoy the most about what I've read of Anita Blake, though, is something I also enjoy alot about AtS : the nonchalant depiction of the supernatural alongside the mundane. Makes it seems simultaneously more realistic and quite fantastic.
[> [> [> Re: Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter -- Aquitaine, 17:05:05 04/28/02 Sun

Although the last offering in the Anita Blake series ("Narcissus in Chains") went off in some strange directions, the first 9 books are very enjoyable for the reasons you mention. If I had my wish, I would change Hamilton's 1st-person narrative style but then it's that style that makes Anita so distinctive and human (sort of;). You gotta take the package whole.

-Aquitaine
[> [> [> Re: Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter -- Vickie, 19:47:45 04/28/02 Sun

The earlier Anita Blake books presented here as much less hard-assed and much more vulnerable. She's been through a lot, and it's toughened her up.

There's actually some Anita/Buffy crossover fanfic out there...
[> Add to the list.. New to DVD very soon!! Hellsing! -- neaux, 09:17:12 04/28/02 Sun

Yes I have yet to see Hellsing.. but its vampires.. and sounds a little like Angel.

Here is the website and yes it is anime.

http://hellsingdvd.com/
[> Re: Film and Book Recommendations -- Farstrider, 12:34:16 04/28/02 Sun

I read "Blood Sucking Fiends" off your recommendation, and I agree that it was quite good. I also bought Coyote Blue, but I haven't read it yet.

Just wanted to second your recommendation.

One caveat: Moore's books are quite expensive, in the $10-15 range. I recommend looking for them at Half.com; that's where I got my copies for about $6 each.

Far
[> [> Re: Film and Book Recommendations -- LadyStarlight (who used to work in libraries <g>), 12:47:35 04/28/02 Sun

Or try your local library. That's where I've found the Moorie's I've read.
[> [> Re: Film and Book Recommendations -- Rob, 12:47:51 04/28/02 Sun

Out of some stroke of sheer luck, I actually found my hardcover copy of "Lust Lizard" on a discount bin in my local "Barnes & Noble" for $3...and it was autographed! I checked what his signature looked like on-line, and it was one and the same! (Usually when B&N has an autographed book, there's some kind of sticker on the cover.) What are the odds of that happpening?!?

Rob
[> [> Libraries (a poll) -- matching mole, 14:54:12 04/28/02 Sun

This sub thread has reminded me of something I had been thinking of asking for a while (to the board in general) - Is the public (or school/university) library a major source of reading (for pleasure) material for you? If not - why not? (Not being judgemental one way or the other just curious).

I'm a big library user myself for reasons of economy (both of my money and the world's trees) and when I buy new books it's usually either something I really value and thus probably have already read or it's by an author I feel could really use my financial support (if you looked at my personal library there are lots of exceptions but that's my philosophy even if I don't always follow it). But my wife's grad student and her husband apparently never use the library and they read a lot. So I'm just curious how the reading public falls on this spectrum.
[> [> [> Re: Libraries (a poll) -- Ete, 15:16:30 04/28/02 Sun

I used to read a lot from my library and was ever thankful for its large SF and Fantasy section
then it was built into a new mediatheque and hence was close for nearly a year
during this period I had to find my books elsewhere, and mainly because it was more economic for me, i began buyging english books in their original version. Now I'm addicted to it, and have a great trouble reading my library books on time (though I still do)
[> [> [> Re: Libraries (a poll) -- LadyStarlight, 15:28:40 04/28/02 Sun

I have a bunch of authors that I automatically buy in paperback. That said, I use my library system to read the hardcover edition first, or to follow up on recommended books. Either from the board (thanks all ) or from other sources.

So yeah, the library is a big source. It's a rare week that I don't take out at least 5-8 books.
[> [> [> [> Re: Libraries (a poll) -- Cactus Watcher, 16:24:31 04/28/02 Sun

When I was working and studying at various universities, I used the libraries extensively, for pleasure as much as work. The last place I lived had a pretty fair county-wide library system. But, here there is only a small suburban town library, which isn't much use to me.

In college I got in the bad habit of buying any book I thought I'd ever need. The last time I moved I gave half of everything (the ones I'd never read, or never read again) to charity. I still get coments from people about how many books I have. I try not to buy as many any more. I mostly buy reference material, now. I've got enough fiction in Russian to read that I own, and relatives keep handing me their used fiction books in English to read. Now that I've retired I don't spend nearly as much time reading, anyway.
[> [> [> Re: Libraries (a poll) -- AngelVSAngelus, 16:12:18 04/28/02 Sun

I hardly ever use the library, though economy is an issue for me as well (ask any art student, B.R.O.K.E.). I just grow so fond of most of the books I read that I don't ever want to give them up, and using the library would require me to do so. Buying them is kind of a psychological necessity for me.
[> [> [> [> Re: Libraries (a poll) -- Rob, 16:44:55 04/28/02 Sun

That's exactly how I see it. I don't know why, but I have to own every book I've ever loved, even though I couldn't reread them all in a lifetime. There's just something special to me about owning the book that I don't get from borrowing it from a library. It's also nice to be able to go back at any time I want and look up something in a book I love, or read it again. Also, there's the fact that my local library has an appallingly small Sci-Fi section, only about one bookcase worth.

Rob
[> [> [> [> Re: Libraries (a poll) -- Rob, 16:48:41 04/28/02 Sun

That's exactly how I see it. I don't know why, but I have to own every book I've ever loved, even though I couldn't reread them all in a lifetime. There's just something special to me about owning the book that I don't get from borrowing it from a library. It's also nice to be able to go back at any time I want and look up something in a book I love, or read it again. Also, there's the fact that my local library has an appallingly small Sci-Fi section, only about one bookcase worth.

Rob
[> [> [> [> Re: Libraries (a poll) -- Thomas the Skeptic, 13:09:45 04/29/02 Mon

I work in a library (I'm there now, as a matter of fact) and yet I rarely check out anything. Instead, I am the biggest book-buying trollop in the universe. I haunt second hand bookshops, Goodwills and Salvation Army stores, so at least my habit is somewhat economical. Also, since I read mostly obscure out-of-print titles on philosophy, theology, popular science, etc., I find these are the best places to shop.
[> [> [> [> Re: Libraries (a poll) -- Thomas the Skeptic, 13:26:08 04/29/02 Mon

I work in a library ( I'm there now, as a matter of fact), and yet I rarely ever check anything out. Instead, I am the biggest book-buying trollop in the universe. At least most of my purchases take place at second hand bookshops, Goodwills and Salvation Army stores so my habit is somewhat economical. Since I primarily read obscure, out-of-print books on philosophy, theology, science and other non-fiction I find these are the best places to shop.
[> [> [> Re: Libraries (a poll) -- Lilac, 16:35:57 04/28/02 Sun

I couldn't do without my local library. I could neither afford to buy all the books I read in a year, nor could I store them all in my home. As it is, book storage is a major problem for us -- for many years I couldn't bear to part with a book I had purchased, but I finally came to the realization that since a dedicated library wasn't suddenly going to appear attached to my house, I would have to learn to let go of some of them. So now I try to do an annual cull and support the local AAUW book sale. It now makes more sense to me to let the books recycle to new readers rather than hoarding them as they rot apart.
[> [> [> Re: Libraries (a poll) -- Aquitaine, 16:55:50 04/28/02 Sun

There are two types of books in my world. 'Serious' books I buy because I'll never read them unless I have time and leisure to work up the interest or stamina to read them and 'throw away' books. I generally buy the former new and the latter used, although I've been going the 'new' route all too often recently.

I stopped using my local library about the same time I got online and realised I could own ANY book I wanted ANYtime I wanted. Being internet connected has made me even more of an 'instant gratification' book freak than I was before. LOL.

When I was younger and when I was in university, I used to take dozens of books out every week. You are all inspiring me to save my money and head back to the library!

I'm currently still working up the courage to read Dorothy Dunnett's Lymond Chronicles which were recommended on a Buffy board last year. Of course, I bought all 6 books before even starting the first!

- Aquitaine
[> [> [> [> Recommending the Lymond Chronicles -- Vickie, 19:53:25 04/28/02 Sun

Read them! Then let me know what you thought of them!

I love these books and have read them several times. The sweep of the narrative (from Scotland, to the Mediterranean, to the Ottoman Empire, Russia, France, and eventually back to Scotland) and the depth of the characters are both fascinating. I suppose others will figure out the plot twists, but I certainly didn't.

Go have fun!
[> [> [> Re: Libraries (a poll) -- LeeAnn, 17:08:54 04/28/02 Sun

I have a real problem with libraries: They make you give the books back!!
This is not good. I am still tormented by a book I returned to the library a decade ago, judging it barely worth reading. Then I found myself thinking about it again and again for years. Unfortunately I had forgotten the name and the title and could never find it again, never could reread it or read anything else by the author.
I blame the library because I did something similar with Tanith Lee's Night's Master but because I owned that book I could pick it up again, reread it and become a fan.
[> [> [> Re: Libraries (a poll) -- OnM, 20:45:35 04/28/02 Sun

I used to visit our city's public library regularly when I was in high school and for several years after that. I never had trouble finding books that I would like to buy, though, so once I was in the working world, I mostly bought instead of borrowed.

I still buy books occasionally, I just never get to read more than about 1/4 of each one of them, then I get too busy, and never get back.

A bummer, but a fact of life for moi the last 10-15 years.

:-(
[> In Praise of Tanith Lee -- LeeAnn, 18:11:21 04/28/02 Sun

Let me recommend Tanith Lee to anyone who loves the language. Not all of Tanith Lee however. She's written over 60 books and some of them she really hacked out. But some of them are wonderful. If Shakespeare was Christopher Fry in his last life in this one she's Tanith Lee.
Most of her books seem to be about nothing. They go down as easy as ice cream, but then you find yourself thinking about them months or years later. Kurt Vonnegut is like that too.

Let me recommend a starter set of Tanith Lee:

Bite the Sun: A reissue of Don't Bite the Sun and Drinking Sapphire Wine. A lot of fun. The story of a future society where the young (and young lasts from 50 to 100 years) spend their time in frivolity and change their gender and their bodies as they please.

And then there was this sound. A kind of soft, soft, pat-pat noise, like tiny paws clapping. I was just thinking how pretty it was, crazy and disoriented as I'd become, when the heavens opened and the desert was under water....a solid silver wetness

Blood, my blood, was running exuberantly from the wound, as if it had been waiting for ages only for a chance to get free of the skin envelope, and now, burbling to itself, fled like the kids at hypno- school at midperiod.

The mountains were like carvings from the night left behind at dawn, the edgings of sand like powdered silver. And here light was raining in dapples of golden green through the tall trees.

their...faces...shone with the pure radiance which only total imbecility can bring.

Red As Blood or Tales from the Sisters Grimmer : A retelling of old fairytales in new ways.
Cinderella becomes Ashella, the daughter of a witch, her stepmother and stepsisters loving, the prince, driven mad with love, the target of her mother's vengeance.
The paid piper steals the children of the town with a curse of sterility.
Rapunsel is raised to let down her golden hair to bring a demon up from hell.
Beauty and the beast, the beautiful beast an alien invader. In Little Red Ridinghood, grandmother is not swallowed by the wolf but become ones, a werewolf, as a pendulant granddaughter finds herself crossly following in grandma's footsteps.

she became aware of the little fluttering at her left wrist. She looked, and a scarlet butterfly flew away from her, away down the length of the tower, and then another, another, an unraveling scarf of butterflies like winged blood.

Her hands, which had been dishes for her tears, now lay as if slain in her lap

Sung In Shadow: Romeo and Juliet with a twist. Everything different and everything the same. Idiot children motivated by lust but beautifully done.

All the other towers of Sana Verensa's horizons, were starting to open the lamp-lighted slots of long slim windows. Inexorable vertical eyes of brass and blood fixed on the town, the darkening hills that embraced it. The towers seemed all alive in this moment, like serpents risen on their tails, pitilessly intent.

with a feigned velvety sloth

two blue conflagrations that must serve as eyes

The storm broke on a count of twenty after sunset. Thunder, like a clap of enormous wings, the wings of some fabulous giant bird made of metal, smote out impending stars, and crushed the last strawberry colors from the sky.

Leopardo, soaked to the skin and the water plopping in a heavy glass fringe from his clothes to mirror his image on the floor

that most incurable and terrible of all man's ills, his rage at being alive

the oriental silk sizzling over the floor

In the wake of the announcing storm, tossed coins of rain were broadcast on the dust.

that bizarre disadvantage of the truly beautiful. He knew and did not know the picture he presented, that which brought him the violent responses of others, devotion or hatred, and which impaired the judgement of others more or less consistently.

And then we have the Flat Earth series, minor fantasies about a world where demons go around causing mischief for fun. Azhrarn, Night's Master, is the Prince of Demons. But some of the stories are retellings of biblical ones and if you look closer you might notice the tale is really about the problem of God, about how there can be a God who is vain, jealous and cruel yet who loves us, loves us enough to die to save us. The demon Azhrarn, Azhrarn the Beautiful, is all those things, yet in the end humanity is the only thing he cannot do without, the thing he loves enough that he is willing to die to save it, when even the Gods will not lift a hand.
[> Charlaine Harris' Southern Vampire series -- Arethusa, 07:24:53 04/29/02 Mon

Dead Until Dark, and Living Dead in Dallas are the two books in the series (so far). They feature a telepathic waitress named Sookie Stackhouse, and are funny, scary and very enjoyable. Quite literally Southern Gothic.
[> [> Re: Charlaine Harris' Southern Vampire series -- Aquitaine, 17:13:42 04/29/02 Mon

Tell me, Arethusa. Does each book work as a stand-alone? Someone sent me the first Harris book and I'm stalling on reading it because I'm afraid it's going to be a cliffhanger and suck me into a vortex of sequelhood!

- Aquitaine
[> [> [> Re: Charlaine Harris' Southern Vampire series -- Arethusa, 08:23:52 04/30/02 Tue

The mystery/supernatural threat is solved by the end of each book. The characters and their relationships continue to develop slowly through both books.
[> [> [> [> thanks for the info! -- Aquitaine, 17:30:21 04/30/02 Tue

[> Re: Film and Book Recommendations - Tanya Huff -- LittleBit, 12:59:22 04/29/02 Mon

Has anyone else read Tanya Huff? In particular "Summon the Keeper" and her vampire series?

"Keeper" is much more light-hearted than the vampire series as far as the humor directly involved, and I can assure you that if you like cats, Austin does not disappoint!

The vampire series ("Blood Price", "Blood Trail", "Blood Lines", "Blood Pact", and "Blood Debt") deals with a vampire in Toronto and an ex-Police Detective, now private investigator, who find themsleves teaming up. Like Joss, she's picked her mythology carefully, although not so much based on Dracula. [An example: "Demons are unable to enter a mortal's home unless expressly invited." "I thought that referred to vampires?" "Mr. Stoker was indulging in wishful thinking."]
[> I've read 2 of Susan Sizemore's vampire books -- cynesthesia, 00:08:03 04/30/02 Tue

'The Hunt' and 'Partners,' part of a series (Laws of the Blood, I think it's called) but not with the same sets of characters. Pretty light but fun.

I'm also in the midst of a novel that isn't strictly genre but has elements of the supernatural. Margot Livesey's 'Eva Moves The Furniture' is about a Scottish nurse (WWII era) whose mother died giving birth to her and has from early childhood had two supernatural companions (an older woman and young girl) who act as a sometimes unwelcome and counterproductive force in her life. My description doesn't quite do the book justice. Livesey's a wonderful writer and I'm stretching it out to make it last.

Cynthia
Character poll. -- Ruth, 23:17:08 04/28/02 Sun

This isn't particularly philosophical but I thought I might as well post it in case anyone's interested. There's a favourite character poll at this address:
http://www.funvote.com/fun/buffystars/
So far the results are:
Spike: 1905
Tara: 1875
Willow: 1806
Buffy: 736
Faith: 614
Drusilla: 517
Giles: 513
Xander: 511
Angel: 447
Anya: 408
Cordy: 403
Dawn: 95
Riley: 93
Oz: 83
Glory: 58
The Mayor: 16
The Master: 5
Adam: 4
Of course the votes are constantly being updated. It's just a fun poll to judge the polularity of the characters. Unfortunately it looks like Willow and Tara fans might be rigging the votes for their favourite characters and creating voting robots to cheat with. But anyway if anyone wants to vote for the favourite character please feel free to.
[> Riley got more votes then Oz?! -- Marrec, 23:32:57 04/28/02 Sun

[> [> Re: Riley got more votes then Oz?! -- Ruth, 01:22:25 04/29/02 Mon

You can revote after two minutes and some fixated fans keep pushing up their favourite characters place on the poll which is what happened with Riley. A new vote kept appearing about every two minutes for Riley so it was probably just one fan who spent a couple of hours voting for the character. What I want to know is who thought Adam was the best characacter Bts has ever produced lol.
[> Re: Character poll. -- d'Herblay, 23:48:47 04/28/02 Sun

So far the results are:
Spike: 1905
Tara: 1875
Willow: 1806
Buffy: 736
Faith: 614
[ . . . ]
Unfortunately it looks like Willow and Tara fans might be rigging the votes for their favourite characters and creating voting robots to cheat with.

Ummm . . . no suspicion that Spike fans may be rigging the results too? Does cheekbone- induced blindness impact one's coding ability?

(Was someone to make a breakthrough in artificial intelligence and produce Haley Joel Osment-style voting robots, we would know by the high placement of April and Ted in the results. Those damn robots! They all stick together!)
[> [> It's not rigged! Tara SHOULD come second. -- Rochefort, 00:59:40 04/29/02 Mon

[> [> Re: Character poll. -- Ruth, 01:08:41 04/29/02 Mon

JMHO is all. Willow and Tara's votes are constantly being updated which has made me a bit suspicious although I could be wrong. Not one minute has yet gone by without their votes increasing so either voting robots are being used or people are taking shifts to vote for them. Spike is doing well also but his votes aren't constantly changing in the same way. Just an observation.
And Tara is a great character and I am not saying she isn't but I doubt she is the most popular character on the entire show. In the top five perhaps.
The resulters have changed if anyones interested. Tara is now number one and Xander has overtakne Dru and Giles.
[> [> [> Re: Character poll. -- Under Her Spell, 07:25:02 04/29/02 Mon

The votes are being rigged, actually. I know because I've voted about 20 times myself, and I know people who've voted many mores times than that! Still, before we started rigging it Tara was already in second place, so I do think she's a very popular character - probably because she's the only person who isn't in some way morally reprehensible!

While Willow is my favourite character, I think Spike is probably the best character on the show this season, so it makes a kind of sense that he's in the lead - even if the poll is supposed to be the best character in all seasons.
[> [> [> [> Re: Character poll. -- dream of the consortium, 13:38:13 04/29/02 Mon

If you don't mind my asking and truly I'm not being facetious, just curious - what's the point of rigging an online poll?
[> [> [> [> [> This is a really good question -- matching mole, 16:26:24 04/29/02 Mon

I was thinking the same thing but couldn't think of any way of asking the question that didn't sound insulting to the participants. This question deserves a long answer as per d'Herblay's statement about the board but I'm afraid that someone who knows a lot more about psychology and the internet than I do would have to answer it.

Logically it seems a completely futile exercise. Cheating on the TV Guide Poll might actually result in higher ratings for the show (although this seems dubious) so there's some logic there. The only value a fan poll can have is if it accurately reflects the true opinion of the fans. If you favour Tara for example and indulge in cheating to raise her rank what do you gain? The poll shows that Tara is the most popular but that isn't really true and you know it isn't (and apparently everyone else does too). Is there some aspect of this that I don't get? Do the adherents of the most popular character get foot massages from fans of the least popular characters or something.
[> [> [> [> [> [> They started it! -- Under Her Spell, 12:42:43 05/01/02 Wed

Well, in our defence the Spike fans were the ones who started rigging it! But that aside, it quickly turned it into a race for the number 1 spot; I think most people view these polls as a test of whose fans are the most loyal/obsessive. It's more like a competition to see who can get the most amount of people to vote than anything else. Remember, logic has no place in fandom!
[> [> [> [> Re: Character poll. -- spi, 15:06:27 04/29/02 Mon

it probably is rigged and peole are just voting for Tara because she is spoiler---------------------------------- --------------------------------




10




9






8





7







6




5


4


3


2

1



going to DIE!!!!!!!!
[> [> Re: Character poll. -- clg0107, 10:09:14 04/29/02 Mon

There's clearly some skullduggery going on in all 3 of the top places.
[> Latest results. -- Ruth, 17:05:04 04/29/02 Mon

Tara: 2931
Willow: 2927
Spike: 2572
Buffy: 965
Faith: 750
Xander: 734
Dru: 724
Giles: 635
Angel: 551
Anya: 468
Cordy: 462
Dawn: 162
Riley: 99
Oz: 90
Glory: 59
Wesley: 34
Jenny: 23
The Mayor: 16
Kendra: 6
Adam: 5
The Master: 5
And in response to the comment I made about cheating I didn't mean to suggest that Spike fans weren't voting more than once. Tara and Willow fans just seem very organised about it is all I meant. I'm guessing their support groups are similiar as they are both constantly updated and always have similiar scores which I assume means people are taking in turns to vote for them both.
Spoiler





























As for why someone would bother cheating on a online poll I'm guessing it is in response to Tara's upcoming death. Presumedly W/T fans want to make it clear how popular the characters are. Unfortunately I don't think many people are going to buy Tara's sudden popularity as evidence of the majoritys feelings. It's just a saddenned minority making a big effort for her is my guess. Don't get me wrong I do love Tara but she is not the most popular character and I don't think people are going to be convinced that she is from a fixed poll. I doubt the writers will even see the results.
[> O/T expression of gratitude -- d'Herblay, 22:57:13 04/29/02 Mon

I want to thank people in this thread, namely Ruth and spi, for being so considerate with their future spoilers! I've been able to open all the posts and still maintain my spoilerphobia!

Possible spoiler (highlight to view)***I mean, as far as I know, Tara is running off to Vermont to get hitched to one of the Sisters of Jhe, right?***
[> [> Cool! Inviso-text! -- Rob, 10:16:34 04/30/02 Tue

[> [> i'm not getting any inviso-text--i mean, inviso yes, text no -- anom, 23:51:21 04/30/02 Tue

[> [> [> Re: i'm not getting any inviso-text--i mean, inviso yes, text no -- LittleBit, 00:13:58 05/01/02 Wed

Did you highlight the inviso part? The text shows up in reverse-image.
[> [> [> [> Re: i'm not getting any inviso-text--i mean, inviso yes, text no -- anom, 11:49:27 05/01/02 Wed

"Did you highlight the inviso part? The text shows up in reverse-image."

Yes, I did, & no, it didn't.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: i'm not getting any inviso-text--i mean, inviso yes, text no -- LittleBit, 12:57:19 05/01/02 Wed

Then the only other obvious thing I know that may cause it to not show is having the browser set to text only...some of the 'special' features don't work in text only.

Other than that. I'm stumped.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: i'm not getting any inviso-text--i mean, inviso yes, text no -- anom, 14:07:59 05/01/02 Wed

"Then the only other obvious thing I know that may cause it to not show is having the browser set to text only...some of the 'special' features don't work in text only."

I couldn't find "text only" as an option in anything relevant in my browser's Preferences or Settings. I thought I'd found something helpful in Preferences/Documents: I checked "Invert Active Text Element" & went back to d'Herb's message & selected the inviso-text...nothin'. Guess it inverted both the background & the text.

I use Opera most of the time. Maybe it'll work in Netscape? Where would I find "text only"--under Options? Preferences? somewhere else?

Thanks for your efforts, LittleBit.
[> [> Re: O/T expression of gratitude -- LittleBit, 15:22:41 05/01/02 Wed

I've never used Opera, so can'e help with it.

I use both Netscape Navigator 6.2.1 and IE 5.0

Both of these are displaying the inviso-text with default settings. All the inviso-text does is print the text portion in white so it doesn't appear on the white page background [musing here] so when highlighted the text 'appears'. In Netscape the highlight color block is a med-dark gray and the text pops in white - exactly the same as happens with regular black text. In IE the highlighted text is reverse imaged with the text in med-dark gray and the background white. So I would think it should show in either one.

The 'text-only' function is really the result of disabling all the pictures, sounds, animations, videos so the page loads faster. So it may affect some HTML handling, but shouldn't make a difference in font color. (But you never know).

Does the highlight function in Opera produce a solid color highlight? Or better yet, what happens when you highlight regular text? What color is the background and what color is the text?

I'm including my e-mail if we'd like to let the thread off the page.
[> [> [> Re: O/T expression of gratitude... -- anom, 19:03:20 05/01/02 Wed

...in this case, mine to you, LittleBit. I tried it in Netscape, & there it was...inviso-text visible- ized!

Still don't know what the problem was in Opera, which shows selected text as reversed, white on black. The inviso-text just showed up as a black block. I'm sure the text was still there...in black....
[> [> [> [> Hurray!! :):) -- LittleBit, 21:41:14 05/01/02 Wed

Dawn, Pandora and the Nature of the Key (Part II) -- cjl, 07:10:29 04/29/02 Mon

Where was I? (Oh. Right.)

Before I go on with my dissertation, I’d like to break with my usual format of orating from my personal Mount Olympus, and acknowledge some of the people who responded to my first post and actually integrate their comments into this one.

Along with the regulars at the Buffy Cross & Stake, I got some interesting feedback from some the folks on this board, as well. I never realized Rahael had posted a similar Promethean theory last year, albeit related to Buffy, not Dawn; and Elz commented on Dawn’s relation to another prominent figure in Greek creation myths--Pandora.

I. The Bottom of the Box

Let’s take up Pandora first. According to Bullfinch’s Mythology, Pandora was the creation of Jupiter, lord of the Titans, who sent her to Prometheus "...as punishment for [his] presumption in stealing fire from heaven; and man, for accepting the gift." Although blessed with the finest attributes of the Gods themselves, Pandora was unable to restrain a burning curiosity about a certain jar [or box] filled with the great evils of the world. She opened it, and released "a multitude of plagues for hapless man--[disease] for the body, and envy, spite, and revenge for the his mind--[which] scattered themselves far and wide. Pandora hastened to replace the lid, but alas--the whole contents of the jar had escaped. Only one thing was excepted, which lay at the bottom, and that was HOPE. So we see to this day, whatever evils are abroad hope never entirely leaves us; and while we have that, no amount of other ills can make us completely
wretched."

If you treat the story of Pandora as a simple folk tale, you can make an easy comparison between Pandora and Dawn’s role in BtVS. In "The Gift," Dawn was Pandora’s box, with Glory turning the Key and releasing a plague of horrors into the world. But this is just the surface interpretation. Creation myths like Pandora usually have many levels of meaning, meanings that reveal the collective fears and dreams of a society. For example: the glory that was Ancient Greece led the world in science, philosophy, art and literature; but the golden age of Greece was also plagued with warfare, and--just like their descendants in the Modern World--the Greeks wondered if advances in civilization were worth the concomitant costs in human life. If the legend of Prometheus is their tribute to mankind’s unquenchable intellectual curiosity and the aspiration to reach the heavens, Pandora is the flip side--man’s inability to use his god-given gifts responsibly, corrupting them with his own dark impulses, leading to death and destruction.

I hope all everyone reading out there sat up in their chairs after that last sentence--because it should have sounded familiar. Isn’t this what Season Six is all about? The Scooby Gang, those paragons of virtue, practically a pantheon of minor Greek deities, falling prey to their own weaknesses, eventually unleashing destruction on the very town they’ve been protecting. "Don’t remind me," Buffydom Assembled cries in despair. "It’s the season from Hell, and the light at
the end of the tunnel is a locomotive ready to splatter me all over the tracks." But let’s not give up on the season just yet, people--that’s only half the story. Remember, even after Pandora has unleashed evil upon the world, there’s still Hope at the bottom of the box. No matter how bad things get, no matter how awful the world seems at the moment, as long as mankind exists, there is still a chance we will live up to our lofty goals and rise above our baser instincts. That last sentence should also be familiar, because Joss has been saying it from the beginning: "The hardest thing in this world is to live in it"--but there’s always Hope.

I’ll get back to this a little later, in conjunction with Dawn’s higher purpose and her special powers as the Key. Which makes this as good a time as any to ask:

II. Is Dawn Still the Key?

This might have been a point of contention two weeks ago, but since that UPN promo calling Dawn "the Key to the fate of the universe," I think I can safely answer: Duh.

But that’s not all...

I think Dawn’s "Key-ness" has been working at full power over the course of the last two seasons-- NOT just during "The Gift"--and nobody realizes it.

Let’s go back to the beginning of Dawn’s stay in Sunnydale. It was obvious from the first moment she walked down the street that her unique nature wasn’t masked, dampened, or nullified in any way during her everyday life as an American Teenager. You just had to be in the right state of mind to see it. That street crazy near the Magic Box took one look at her and knew she didn’t belong; and all during Season 5, a variety of mentally altered townspeople, kitty cats and
snake demons took notice of the Key-ness that was hiding in plain sight. The capper, of course, was at the end of "Tough Love," when Crazy!Tara glanced over at Dawn and was awestruck by the magnificent nimbus of green energy surrounding her.

The inevitable question: if Dawn’s Key-ness is and has always been part of her, and not just during bloodletting and ritual sacrifice, why hasn’t it affected reality during Season 5 and 6?

Well, who says it hasn’t?

Think back to "Blood Ties." Dawnie has discovered her true nature, run away from home, and eventually makes her way to Sunnydale Hospital. She strikes up a conversation with Cute!Intern Ben, who takes her into his confidence, and gives her a much-needed shoulder to cry on. Then, she lets it slip that she’s the Key, and you witness a rare natural phenomenon: Ben has a cow right on the spot. He yells at her to get out of there as fast as possible, warns her that Glory is coming--then TURNS INTO Glory before our eyes. Fortunately, Buffy and the Gang bail Dawn out of trouble, and the sisters hug and make up.

Right after that episode, I was mostly wondering about the logistics of the transformation, how do Ben and Glory co-exist in our dimension, what is the nature of their relationship, etc., etc. I also wondered why Dawn couldn’t remember the moment of transformation itself. But after awhile, I started to ponder another peculiar aspect of the hospital scene--the fact that Ben turned into Glory just when the object of her quest was sitting right in front of her [him/them]. What a weird coincidence.

But is it a coincidence? It happens again in "Spiral." (In fact, it happens TWICE in "Spiral," but I’ll discount the first instance as Truck Impact Disorientation.) Ben has been invited through Willow’s impromptu magic force field to treat Giles in the abandoned gas station. He goes through a momentary crisis of conscience regarding Dawn, then remembers his Hippocratic Oath and tends to his patient. Things seem to go swimmingly until, in Dawn’s presence, he freaks out again, and presto--Glorificus ascendant. Dawn taken. Knights dead. Buffy has her coma.

Once is coincidence, twice is suspicious, three times is a pattern. Look what happens to Ben and Glory in "Weight of the World." Dawn is constantly in their presence, and they COMPLETELY LOSE CONTROL of the transformation. Dragging Dawn through the back streets of Sunnydale, Ben turns into Glory
and back and back again and back AGAIN, all within a matter of seconds. When Glory asks the mystically inclined amongst her minions what the hell is going on, they sort of shrug and give a vague answer about how "this is price you pay for these magicks." (Sounds like your local doctor when he doesn’t know what’s causing that hacking cough, but doesn’t want to admit it.) Eventually, though, I think Glory catches on. Note that Glory gives her minions the task of preparing Dawn for the ritual. She never stays near Dawn for anything more than a few seconds during "The Gift," and she pretty much maintains control of her body for the entire episode--until Buffy beats the living crud out of it.

If we accept the premise that Dawn is responsible for these unscheduled transformations, we have to expand our previous conception of the Key. In the standard definition, the Key shatters dimensional barriers under specific conditions at a prescribed moment in time; in our expanded definition, the sustained presence of the Key also dissolves artificially imposed mystical barriers--any time, anywhere.

All right, let’s assume that Season 5 was a hotbed of raging Key-ness. But what about this season? There’s no schizoid Bitch Goddesses, no Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde transformations (mmm...Martine Beswicke); did Dawn completely shoot her mystical wad during "The Gift" and she’s now Normal Teen until the next bloodletting? Again, I don’t think so. This season’s Key activity is much tougher to detect, and I’ll admit I can’t justify my theory with examples as
blindingly clear as Ben and Glory’s identity crisis. But I’m convinced Dawn’s powers are still humming along at full throttle--and this is where Shadowkat comes in.

A few weeks ago, the wondrous entity known as Shadowkat wrote a fantastic post about Buffy and her Inner Child. Shadowkat postulated that Dawn’s erratic and increasingly immature behavior this season reflects BUFFY’S raging internal conflicts just as much as it does Dawn’s considerable anxieties andfrustrations. I won’t be able to summarize Shadowkat’s analysis well enough to do it justice, so I’ll take the easy way, and crib from her website. This is her
description of the "Inner Child" concept in action during "Older and Far Away":

"Older and Far Away deals with Dawn's frustration at constantly being left alone. She feels that no one cares for her. Older and Far Away also refers to Buffy - who feels older and far away from her loved ones; the episode is after all dealing with Buffy's 21st birthday, the day that you leave childhood behind. Older and Far Away is a line from the last page of J.G. Ballard's novel EMPIRE OF THE SUN about a boy who lost his family in pre-world war II Shanghai and is
not reunited with them until years after the war. By the time he is, he is so changed by his experiences and they by theirs, that they are all both older and far away. What an apt description of how Buffy feels. Here is this child screaming at her from a distance - pay attention to me! Stay with me! But Buffy can't hear the child - she is distracted. And it's not just Buffy that's ignoring Dawn - its her friends - the impromptu family at the beginning of Bargaining Part I: Spike, Xander, Willow and Tara - all of whom follow Buffy up to her room after they discover she may have had something to do with them being locked in the house. This is what Dawn says in reply to Xander, Tara and Willow's comments.

DAWN: God! I didn't do anything! I wish I had. (Buffy frowning) I'm glad you're trapped. (very angrily) How else can I get anybody to spend any time with me?
BUFFY: Dawn. If you want us to spend time with you--
DAWN: I don't. Get out. Get out. Get out!

"They all leave her bedroom except Buffy. But they feel the rage. Rage that can barely be contained any longer as is represented by the demon lurking in the walls. The demon oddly enough is brought into the house by Buffy and is released by a spell that they are using to get out of the house. Instead of getting out, they've released the demon (Buffy's rage). And the rage attacks the people Buffy is the most furious at with its sword. So it's not Dawn's rage that was brought into the house, or Dawn's rage that is released, it's the adult, BUFFY’S [my emphasis added]. Dawn's rage is what keeps them inside. Dawn's rage is expressed through the wish and the jewelry that she is constantly stealing from Anya.

"It is at the end of Older and Far Away that Buffy finally acknowledges Dawn's needs. She agrees to stay behind with her child self, letting everyone else exit. Oh--notice who leaves last and holds open the door. What Spike does in the last scene is very interesting, particularly if he is the metaphor for Buffy's shadow self. He throws the door open when Buffy asks if he thinks they can get out. He waits until everyone is gone, exchanges a look with adult Buffy and Dawn and then exits. Almost as if the shadow self has given its blessing. Death has exited the building - leaving the innocent child and adult together. Honoring Buffy's decision to acknowledge her child. And Buffy closes the door on him and with a smile goes back to Dawn.

"If Dawn is indeed Buffy's inner child, the innocent, the light - then perhaps Dawn may be the key to Buffy's rediscovery of herself? The part she lost when she died? Maybe if Buffy can reintegrate the shadow self and Dawn, she can feel whole and strong again? Or is something else going on here? If Dawn and Buffy are part of each other, more than sisters, more than mother and child, than what happens if Dawn is killed? Does the part the monks took from Buffy go
back into Buffy? What is Dawn's role? Or is Dawn becoming a separate entity, a portion of Buffy but also separate from her?"

I think Shadowkat meant for the Inner Child metaphor to be exactly that--a metaphor. Except for a hint in the last paragraph, she doesn’t seem to believe there is an actual psychic connection between Buffy and Dawn, wherein Buffy’s "lost" self gains expression. (We’ll know for sure when she responds to this post!) But when it comes to the world of BtVS, is that really such a huge leap in logic? Since the monks cast the living energy of the Key into a mold created
from the blood of the Slayer, is it so hard to believe that Dawn might be attuned to Buffy in a way that goes beyond sisterhood, beyond the connection of mother and child?

I know--I’m pushing it here, but bear with me. Suppose, instead of Dawn slowly separating from Buffy as the series progresses, the connection between the two women is intensifying? Suppose Dawn’s Key-ness is breaking down the barrier between herself and Buffy, forging an emotional symbiosis? Wouldn’t that (at least partially) explain why Dawn seems to have gone off the edge this season, and why Buffy is having so much trouble regaining her emotional
balance?

Let’s take things one step further. The triad Shadowkat described in reference to Buffy, Dawn and Spike--would-be adult, inner child, and shadow self--has, in one way or another, been the working pattern with ALL of the Scoobies this year. In fact, it seems as if their well-hidden Shadow Selves and Inner Children have erupted into their conscious minds like explosions from a psychic volcano. Xander’s suppressed rage and trauma from years of parental abuse scuttled his wedding; Willow’s deep-seated resentments are about to send her into a death spiral; and Spike, once a Demon and Proud of It, has been confronted by his Inner William, and it’s mentally ripping him to shreds. The only character in town (we haven’t seen Giles lately) who seems to be immune is Tara. Why? Because she’s already resolved most of her inner conflicts (see "Family") and is the most serene and well- balanced character in the cast. (Which means, of
course, that her story is finished and she has to die.)

It might just be possible that Dawn’s continued presence on this plane of existence is affecting EVERYONE, knocking down the Scoobies’ mental barriers before they were ready to confront the horrors behind them. (Perhaps the Buffy/Dawn tradeoff at the end of "The Gift" wasn’t a perfect substitution, and we’re seeing the residual effects.) This theory works on a metaphorical level as well. With Joyce singing in the Choir Invisible and Giles departing for the
Mother Country, the parent/child dynamic of the Scooby Gang has been flipped on its head. In the new configuration, Dawn is the baby, and each of the Scoobs has been thrust into a quasi-parental role. Dawn’s presence has, in effect, prematurely pushed them into adulthood, and this season has made it abundantly clear that NONE of them are ready for it.

So, once again, if we accept this premise, we have to further broaden our perspective on the Key. If Dawn’s Key-ness can destroy psychological as well as mystical barriers, then her powers go well beyond conventional magic (at least as shown in BtVS) and can work their way down into the core of our humanity.

And that brings us back to the beginning.

III. What is Key-ness?

At the beginning of Part I of this post, I wrote a little pseudo-Biblical folk tale about the origins of the Key and how it came to be passed down from the Powers that Be to mankind. I described the essence of the Key as the Emerald Fire, equivalent to the fire Prometheus brought down from the heavens to jump start human civilization. The Emerald Fire, though, is far more than just a tool to give Mankind dominance over the beasts of the fields. It is the very essence of the Powers that Be themselves, the starstuff (thank you, Carl Sagan) that formed What Is out of eternal chaos and binds together the living creatures of the universe.

Yes, Star Wars fans, you can call it the Force. But even George Lucas’ concept doesn’t quite go far enough. The Emerald Fire burns within all the living creatures of creation, and its presence within each individual carries with it the knowledge that all other creatures possess the same fire and equal value under the eyes of God (or the Powers that Be). From six years of BtVS and rolling Joss Whedon’s definition around in our heads, we all know what to call this particular quality...

So let's end at least one debate on this board...

Dawn, technically speaking, doesn’t have "a soul."

Dawn IS "Soul."


IV. Where Do We Go from Here?

I’ve explained my opinions regarding Dawn’s true nature about as elaborately as I can without doing a doctoral thesis. But I’ve neglected one critical aspect of Dawn--mainly, that she’s a 16 year-old girl living in the state of California. As of this posting, she has no idea of her origins, she has no clue as to how far her powers extend, and--like her Big Sister--she’s completely clueless as to her Destiny (one I believe they will share).

Dawn’s journey has just started. Like Buffy, as she goes through adolescence, she’s going to learn more about her powers, what they can do, how to control them, and perhaps their Ultimate Purpose. The particulars of Dawn’s education, who might be her teachers, and that Ultimate Purpose will be covered in Part III (and hopefully, the conclusion) of this post. Thanks for coming this far with me, everyone.
[> Re: Dawn, Pandora and the Nature of the Key (Part II) -- zooey, 07:38:12 04/29/02 Mon

i'm not entirely sure but i always thought that Pandora was given by the gods to Prometheus' 'brother' Epimetheus( something like that) this is from my fairly dimly remembered childhood. Anyway I probably am wrong.it doesn't alter a really interesting post. Thanks CJL
[> Re: Dawn, Pandora and the Nature of the Key (Part II) -- lachesis, 16:17:30 04/29/02 Mon

Loved your post, especially your very convincing thoughts on Dawn's effects on the SG. I love the way psychology is incarnate in the Buffyverse . . .

On Pandora, Graves' 'Greek Myths' has "Old Age, Labour, Sickness, Insanity, Vice and Passion" escaping from the jar, along with "Delusive Hope." This list seems to tally quite specifically with what's aflicting the SG this season, as well as with the 'light at end of tunnel=train' motif.

But Buffydom need not despair: Graves points out that Hesiod, whose version this is, was a depressed (& depressing!) misogynist who put his personal spin on it. I have every confidence that Joss, being neither of those, will balance the 'verse as beautifully as ever.

I always associated the Pandora story with the '5 ages of man' one: that opening the box brought an end, not just to the age of innocence (as a variation on the 'Knowledge of Good and Evil' story), but also the age of heroes, when men were "nobler and more generous," "fought gloriously" against mighty enemies, and then went to "dwell in the Elysian Fields."

Afterwards, in the age of iron where we all live, wars were fought with technology, everybody had to work (they didn't in the first four ages: the Greeks thought work was a *very* bad thing which must be a punishment from the gods) and happiness was hard to find. That's my own personal summary, and its less depressing than Hesiod's.

All of which is a round about way of saying that I really agree with the Pandora analogy. Thanks for Part II, I'm looking forward to Part III ...
[> [> Excellent work, lachesis. I wasn't familiar with Graves' commentary. -- cjl, 16:39:28 04/29/02 Mon

I was familiar with the Five Ages of Man, specifically about the Greeks and the Age of Iron (Bullfinch goes into that too, somewhat), but I wanted to simplify the argument so everyone could get a gist of the underlying themes of the Pandora myth.

The "psychology is incarnate" principle can be found on every credible philosophical post relating to BtVS, either here, the BC&S board, or elsewhere. It's Shadowkat's raison d'etre, and it seems to be Mutant Enemy's as well. Of course, Part III will deal with my theory about Dawn's role in the series endgame, and this principle will be there in spades...
Buffyisms Pet Peeve Poll -- Darby, 08:04:05 04/29/02 Mon

Just the thing for the day leading into new episodes...

The two shows have a distinctive "voice"; are there any parts of that voice that you are finding tiresome? These include dialogue "tells" that pull you out of the scene and into the writer's (or actor's) head at inopportune moments. I've got a couple that have stopped working and have just gotten tiresome to me, and I'm wondering if there are others.

Things I'd rather not hear again...

- SMG saying "What?" in that clipped, slightly-annoyed way or whispery way. Ditto with "Okay," although the reading is a bit different.
- anything-"y goodness." Enough, already!
- Fred doing Buffyisms. With a character so disconnected from the others (and with whom she has not had contact), she should not mimic Sunnydale quips. What happened to her hint of a Texas twang, anyway?
- References to "tummies." Or puppies. At least bunnies continue to be funny.
- Dawn's wandering age profile. Dialogue-wise, she way too often seems about 8.

I know that there are more. What distracts you?
[> For me, it's more "Things they don't do as well" -- Marie, 08:16:51 04/29/02 Mon

Y'know, like when I'm thinking, "Oh, dear, I wish they hadn't done that!"?

And it's not a huge criticism, really, it's little things, like I don't think SMG does laughter particularly well - it always sounds forced to me (though she does angst quite brilliantly), and bits like Xander batting at the firefly that was Tara, in Bargaining, and the girlfriend/Tinkerbell line that didn't quite ring true (although I loved his Snoopy dance). Oh, and Willow, when she's being particularly breathy... there are others, I'm sure, that I'll think of as soon as I approve this post!

Oddly enough, Dawn doesn't annoy me at all. Neither did Giles. Or Oz. I'll be listening more attentively to Fred now, though!

M
[> [> Re: For me, it's more "Things they don't do as well" -- Rob, 08:48:48 04/29/02 Mon

I love everything you think is a peeve!

Honestly, I have trouble being annoyed by anything on this show...Okay, Dawn can be a peeve for me, but only since OaFA. I really hope this situation improves, b/c I really loved her last year. But as it is now, I was kind of thinking that Buffy didn't rough her up enough in "Normal Again"!

And, btw, that "Tinkerbell" line is on my list of my all-time favorite Xanderisms!

Rob
[> [> Does Buffy laugh? -- skeeve, 12:17:15 04/29/02 Mon

She laughed at the thought of Harmony with minions.
Has she laughed at other times?
[> [> [> Re: Does Buffy laugh? -- LittleBit, 13:41:23 04/29/02 Mon

To be honest, I've always thought of The Real Me as the Buffy-actually-laughs episode. I can't think of another episode in which she lets go like that. She's usually too controlled and her sense of humor is more dry and sardonic...not given to belly laughs.
[> [> [> the one all the spuffyites somehow manage to forget -- anom, 17:12:17 04/29/02 Mon

In Harsh Light of Day, after they run into Spike & Harmony sneaking their semi(?)-conscious victim out through a party & Buffy comes back from chasing them, Parker asks Buffy if she used to go out w/Spike. Her answer is to burst out laughing. I always think of this one when someone tries to make the case that Buffy was attracted to Spike "from the moment they met!"
[> [> [> [> Not a spuffyite, but I did forget about it. -- LittleBit, 18:44:14 04/29/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> I am a spuffyite and I remembered it - it's actually a neat moment -- mushypeas, not that forgetful yet ;-), 19:13:56 04/29/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> ok, ok...it was just a generalization (btw, great name, mushypeas!) -- anom, 11:44:25 05/01/02 Wed

[> Re: Buffyisms Pet Peeve Poll -- dream of the consortium, 13:18:06 04/29/02 Mon

I love the show, but yes, I have peeves. My top four (I know five is more lovely and round, but I really only have four major complaints)

4 Dawn's in trouble!!!!
3 The almost cruel wardrobe choices for Tara
2 The near-silence about Giles since his departure
1 Cheesy monster costumes - particularly when they are recycled. Isn't that the same demon from last month, painted blue? Yup.
[> [> Re: Cheesy monster costumes -- leslie, 13:22:37 04/29/02 Mon

I have to agree on the cheesy monster costumes, especially because no-one will ever top Dr. Who in that category (not in *my* heart, anyway). The thing is, the more elaborate the costume, the cheesier it looks, plus I would imagine the more it costs, and thus the impulse to justify the investment by recycling. Simpler really is better.
[> [> [> Re: Cheesy monster costumes -- matching mole, 16:38:32 04/29/02 Mon

Whatever your opinion of Dr. Who, and I have to admit that my own nostalgic love for the programme defies all logic, everyone should realize that it plays two valuable roles in the world of science fiction television through its cheesy monster constumes, cheesy space ship models, flimsy sets, and antediluvian special effects: on its better days it demonstrated that substance is more important than style and especially on its worst days it makes even the cheapest sf/fantasy show made in the last quater century look slick by comparison.

Other than the werewolf costumes I've really hardly ever noticed cheesiness on Buffy - hundreds and hundreds of hours spent watching the good Doctor have immunized me against all but the most glaring of costume deficits.
[> [> Thought of a fifth.... -- mundusmundi, 12:53:43 04/30/02 Tue

Spike pops out from behind the bushes (or a tree, or a tombstone)....

BUFFY: *rolls eyes and conveys dialogue meant to reflect irritation and hostility.

SPIKE: *counters with leering and reply meant to imply he knows what she really wants.

Please, no more.
[> [> [> oh wow, very good one. That's definitely on my top 5. -- yuri, 00:36:52 05/01/02 Wed

[> Re: Buffyisms Pet Peeve Poll -- Cactus Watcher, 14:20:58 04/29/02 Mon

Actually, SMG never says 'okay,' at least not like a California girl. As a good native of New York City, she says something closer to 'okoy,' which makes the word more noticeable when she says it, and either more endearing or more annoying depending on how you feel about her saying it. (The writers do have her say it quite a bit.)

Frankly, the only cliche I'm getting tired of is the shots of Angel sitting alone brooding, while, or right after, we hear someone else voice concern about him.
[> [> SMG's OK... -- Rob, 16:53:27 04/29/02 Mon

Maybe it's because I'm a New Yorker too, but I've never noticed anything wrong with SMG's "Ok"s. In fact, I don't think I've ever actually noticed them! In all likelihood, it's because I talk like that too, as do everyone around me.

But I'm not sure if it's exactly "Okoy"...Can you try to write that out in a different phonetic way, cause I don't really get what that sounds like from those letters.

Rob
[> [> [> Re: SMG's OK... -- CW, 17:15:24 04/29/02 Mon

Yes, if it's your accent, it very hard to hear! I'm not sure how much phonetics without elaborate symbols will help, but I'll try. In terms of the common Midwestern American accent 'Okay' should rhyme with 'Oh day!' SMG's 'Okay' does not rhyme with 'Oh boy!' because the dipthong in 'boy' is too long. The final vowels are kind of a cross between midwestern 'oh-ee' and 'uh-ee' pronounced somewhat shorter than a midwesterner would say them.
[> [> [> [> Re: SMG's OK... -- Rob, 17:25:10 04/29/02 Mon

Uh...I sort of get it lol.

Now you're gonna start telling me that it's not supposed to be pronounced "New Yawk"! ;o)

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Re: SMG's OK... -- CW, 17:47:48 04/29/02 Mon

I used to have a girlfriend from New York. I used to tease her about saying 'Oy' instead of 'I.' In return, she used to say I leaned on my a's (as in 'Okay'). ;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> And don't forget the coffee issue..."Kahfee" or "Kawfee"... -- Rob, 19:40:30 04/29/02 Mon

Actually, I was raised about 45 minutes out of the City, so I don't have one of those heavy stereotypical Fran Drescher-esque New York accents, but they definitely don't sound alien to my ears.

I have a more subtle New York accent, or at least compared to other New Yorkers. I may sound like Fran Drescher to you f you heard me talk...Hard to say. :o)

But then again, I didn't even notice anything weird about SMG's "OK"s. I just find that so weird that that is something that so many people have noticed, and I can't even call to memory one single time SMG said "OK" in a distinctive way. That's really funny!

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And don't forget the coffee issue..."Kahfee" or "Kawfee"... -- verdantheart, 07:40:42 04/30/02 Tue

LOL! Reminds me of Rita Rudner's routine about living in England and picking up an English accent -- sort of. She says the following in a clipped British accent, exept for the last word, which is all NY:

"Would you like to have some kwaffee?"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And don't forget the coffee issue..."Kahfee" or "Kawfee"... -- leslie, 08:17:48 04/30/02 Tue

Well, *I* was raised about an hour north of the city, and a childhood friend and I once inadvertantly sent her Californian boyfriend into paroxysms of laughter simply by saying the words "dog bowl." Dwag'-bol. "Why yes, it does look like a dog bowl. Dog bowl dog bowl dog bowl."
[> [> [> Re: SMG's OK... -- yabyumpan, 17:20:01 04/29/02 Mon

I've got a couple of Fred peeves (although I'm actually growing to like the character)
1. Is there anything that girl does't know? From Lullaby
"We would normally do a c- section in this situation" when did she ever do a c-section!!!!
2. I'm not quite sure what to call it, but when she says something like "can you throw that axe" "yea why" "well cos there's a big monster over there" you get my drift.

With Buffy it's the crying, she does it sooo well and it sooo irritates me :-)
[> [> [> [> What Fred can't do ... -- verdantheart, 07:42:29 04/30/02 Tue

She seemed to have trouble with thamogenesis ...
[> [> [> LOL! so am I... -- shadowkat, 11:29:54 04/30/02 Tue

Fellow new yorker here - rob. Apparently we have more in common besides anti-defamation character league and love
of season 6 ;-)

Yep, after living in NYC for past six years, I don't hear
it either. I would have when I was still in the midwest.
But i really don't notice her vocal mannerisms.

Of course I'm tone death and don't really have the ear for it either. ;-)
[> [> [> [> Re: LOL! so am I... -- Rob, 16:44:11 04/30/02 Tue

Small world!

I think I may even be worse off than you with the New Yorkiness...I don't think I've ever been away from New York for longer than a week, my entire life!

So we can charter the New York Chapter of the Buffy Character & Season Anti-Defamation League together. ;o)

Rob
[> Regarding the Dawn speakage... -- Rob, 16:50:32 04/29/02 Mon

Remember, Dawn is really less than a year old. The fact that she sometimes acts younger than she should be is most likely a result of the fact that she really is younger. She's full of keyish- goodness!

And when the hugs and puppies references go, so do I!

Rob
[> [> Re: Regarding the Dawn speakage... -- LittleBit, 18:55:40 04/29/02 Mon

Not to mention she was created by a group of monks in the Czech republic, whose knowledge of American teenage girls would be somewwhat suspect. Although, I used to wonder why they didn't instill a modicum of natural caution, but have since decided that as she was made from Buffy, natural caution was not in the mix. ;)
[> Re: Buffyisms Pet Peeve Poll -- Anne, 19:17:22 04/29/02 Mon

The Buffy eye-roll, and the systematic misuse of personal pronouns by all hands.
[> Aaargh! I remembered one! -- Marie, 01:21:32 04/30/02 Tue

And this is a real "grrrr!" peeve - When cleaning and disinfecting sword wounds, take the b****y shirt off! When they were tending to that guy at B's birthday bash, they were mopping him up through the hole in his shirt!

That sort of thing drives me bonkers!

Okay... better now...


Marie

Current board | More April 2002