April 2003 posts


Previous April 2003  

More April 2003

William's Real Mum or Spike's Demon -- Vulpes, 18:49:23 04/04/03 Fri

I have been pondering......
William sired his own mother in Lie My Parents Told Me.
The night after her death she rose as a vampire.
Were the statements Anne made truely how the real Anne felt about William's poetry and attachment to her?

Or was that the cruel statements of a souless demon he made?

Upon reflection, did Spike, in the end just rationalized that his real mother loved him unconditionally and that it was just the demon speaking to torture him? If so, why would the demon want to torture Spike?

I got the impression from the shooting script that the real woman was speaking. And further more, this demon didn't want to live. And wanted William to kill her.

Any comments?
[> Re: William's Real Mum or Spike's Demon -- luvthistle1, 04:08:55 04/05/03 Sat

I think it's anybody guess. I do not think William mother felt that way about him, just that the demon twist everything around, and play on the fact that William was such a goody two shoes. I think it actually could be a little of both. Part of it was probably true. like her wanted him to marry so she can leave. William mother (before turned) was questioning William about his crush. she wanted him to get marry, or just to have someone in his life, because she knew she was dying and did want to leave her son alone, without no one to love.

Why would a demon want to torture Spike?
because demon in some cases ( remember Angelus treatment of Spike) are like bats, they prey on the demons they feel are weak, or not demonic enough.
.. or it considering his mother wasn't vamp long time, maybe part of her wanted him to kill her, and therefore force/baited him into killing her. that could be why it was necessary for her to be shown converting to human face before turning to dust. to show that she was still sweet and it was a way of forcing her son to let go. something that he had a hard time doing.

Spike in the end , hated himself for all those years because he had turned his mother into a monster and had to kill her. he felt guilty and probably wanted to die. which would explain his reckless behavior, of alway getting them hunted. he also never sire anyone else, until season 7 sleepers. ( he did not sire Ford in lie to me, Dru did).
He come to realize that his mother always love him, and that she forgave him.



It also put insight into why he help Dawn try to bring her mother back in "forever". he wanted his mom with him forever. he knew it was wrong, but he also remember how he felt and realize she was going to do it anyway. so he went with her to make sure , if she did it, she would have done it right. also to keep her safe. that was about Buffy. he did not let Buffy know about it.
[> [> Re: William's Real Mum or Spike's Demon -- Vulpes, 06:13:18 04/05/03 Sat

Thanks luvthistle1
For you insights.....
[> [> Re: William's Real Mum or Spike's Demon -- goose, 21:28:35 04/05/03 Sat

What evidence is there that he never sired anyone before Sleeper? And wouldn't Dru have been too weak to sire someone in Lie to Me.
Inside out:Manipulation of the 7 sins -- luvthistle1, 03:41:12 04/05/03 Sat

In inside out Skip tell the gang at "AI" that everything they had done for the past few years had been the works of others. Fred seem to think that their free will was taken away from them. that they didn't control their own destiny. but although, I agree with Fred on some of it, I do not believe their free will was taken away. I believe they where manipulative, and they all fell victims to the 7 sins. They all had free will ( only the soulless do not, as Buffy pointed out to Andrew on Btvs) it was the choices they made, and why they made them, that was the problem. They all made bad decision base on their egos, or inner feeling of mistrust. Just like it was Connor's free will to chose to rather , or not to let the girl go. Most of their choices can be categorize by , one of the seven sins, , Lust, vanity/Pride, Envy,
Greed, gluttony, Wrath/vengeance, and sloth.


Angel -It was "envy "of Angelus/Connor which made Angel go along with the plan to take his soul out. Cordy compared Angel to Angelus, and point out that Angelus was smarter. so he became Angelus, to impress Cordy- not so much rather it was right or wrong or even logic. She also use Connor against him and Angel "envy " Connor's relationship with Cordy. Which created tension and mistrust.

Cordy -it was vanity/Pride, that led Cordy to believe she was capable of becoming a higher being. It was also Cordy's vanity/pride, that led her to chose being a high being. Skip told her , that she was special, he flatter her. She never really thought rather or not she deserve to be a higher being. she never thought that she hasn't did anything more special than, Buffy,Angel etc. She could have kept refusing. would an higher being, not call and check on the baby she claims she loved? will a higher being not visit her best friends in the hospital, after she found out he had his throat slash?



Wesley -It was pride/envy, that would not allow Wes to ask Fred or Gunn for help with the prophecy "about the father killing the son. Wes envy Fred and Gunn's relationship. he also had a mistrust of them , which led him to take the baby Connor. his mistrust was put into play by his feeling of betrayal by his friends Gunn and Fred, who carry on a secret affair behind his back,. although Gunn knew that Wes liked Fred, he did not let that stop him- which made Wes mistrust him and Fred. he never really trusted Angel. With Cordy gone, he had no one he trusted to talk to.

Connor - Lust. it was lust that led Connor to sleep with Cordy and produce a baby that might bring about the end of the world. it 's lust that allow Cordy to manipulate Connor. He never had closeness with a women before, and he was turn down by a hooker , who's life he saved. so, he was by far the easiest to manipulate .


SLOTH could apply to their too-easy reliance on magic when the need a quick solution, and most of them had committed "wrath/vengeance





They all had their free will, but they was all manipulated by their own sins. The same can be said for Btvs.I sure there are more ways we can connect each of them to one of the deadly sins,but You get the idea. so , lets see if we can connect the "AI" gang, or the scoobies to one of the deadly 7 sins.
[> Re: Inside out:Manipulation of the 7 sins -- Dannyblue, 07:22:24 04/05/03 Sat

Wesley -It was pride/envy, that would not allow Wes to ask Fred or Gunn for help with the prophecy "about the father killing the son. Wes envy Fred and Gunn's relationship. he also had a mistrust of them , which led him to take the baby Connor. his mistrust was put into play by his feeling of betrayal by his friends Gunn and Fred, who carry on a secret affair behind his back,. although Gunn knew that Wes liked Fred, he did not let that stop him- which made Wes mistrust him and Fred. he never really trusted Angel. With Cordy gone, he had no one he trusted to talk to.

While I agree with most of what you said here, I must disagree on a few points.

Gunn and Fred didn't have a secret affair behind Wesley's back. Gunn didn't even really betray Wes by pursuing Fred, even though he knew Wes liked her too.

What happened was that both Wes and Gunn liked Fred. Both knew how the other felt, and neither one said, "Please don't go after Fred because I like her." In fact, in "Provider", each made it pretty clear to the other that he was going to pursue Fred.

The difference was that Wes kept waiting for the "right time" to let Fred know how he felt about her. Fearing rejection, he wanted some sign that Fred liked him back in that way and wouldn't reject his affections.

Gunn, on the other hand, wasn't afraid to let Fred know exactly how he felt about her. He didn't wait. And Fred responded.

I think what Wes felt towards Gunn wasn't so much distrust as envy. He looked at Gunn and Fred getting closer and closer, and thought to himself, "If I'd just taken the chance Gunn took, I'd be where he is now." And I think he pulled away from them as much to hide his own pain and anger (because even he knew he didn't really have the right to feel angry at Fred or Gunn) as because he didn't trust them.

You know, I think anger at his own inactivity concerning his feelings for Fred might have been what pushed Wes to take action when he found the "father will kill the son" prophesy.
[> [> But they didn't tell him of their relationship, until -- luvthisle1, 13:35:43 04/05/03 Sat

..much later. They kept it a secret, that they had been going together for a while before they decied to tell Wes. Wes might view that as "betrayel".

Also it was Wrath/Vengeance led Holtz to go into the futrue and take Connor and Wrath/vengeance, which led Angel to open the hell dimension to try and get him out.( I know some would call it love, but Angel could have found another way, if he wasn't so Angry. he even tried to kill Wes.

They all had free will. but they were each Manipulated by
one of the 7 sins.
[> [> [> Re: But they didn't tell him of their relationship, until -- Shiraz, 16:12:39 04/05/03 Sat

I don't remember that happening.

From my recollection, the advent of the Gunn/Fred relationship happened during "Waiting in the Wings", and Wes was right there when it occurred.

Sure, Gunn and Fred had been having breakfasts together for some time, but that was hardly a secret from anyone. Moreover, neither Fred nor Gunn or even Wes viewed this as dating, much less a 'relationship'.

-Shiraz
Outcasts Recovered? (Angel Odyssey 4.3-4.5) -- Tchaikovsky, 04:52:21 04/05/03 Sat

I get to start off with the Fury episode, which is good as it will clear my general annoyance out of the way nice and quickly.

4.3- ëThe House Always Winsí

One of these days, Fury is going to write an episode which will make me repent of my sins and believe in him again. This ainít it. I think it may not be entirely his fault in this instance- it came across as one of those horrible episodes in TV where the staff blow the budget on the big exciting location, and then attach the flimsy plot on later. At times, this episode felt like one of those do-it-yourself Ikea wardrobes where you put everything together, it doesnít quite look right, and then you realise that you have left two sections off, and fit them wherever you can. In this particular episode, I felt this was true of the Lilah/Wesley scene and the Connor scene. Both perfectly fine scenes, but with no reason to be there whatsoever. Incidentally, as much as I admire Alexis Denisof for being a great charismatic actor of a superbly written character, could somebody please tell him that itís details in America but details in Britain. I have no idea why this annoys me so much, but he repeated it in ëSupersymmetryí. OK, thatís it with the pickiness, here goes with some things I enjoyed.

-Connor replying to the question ëWho are you?í with ëDonít know yetí. Thatís a really rich three words. The character hasnít quite established an obvious niche on the show yet- heís floating enigmatically around the borders. Further, it draws attention to the fact that more than a year after Darlaís pregnancy was revealed in ëHeartthrobí, we still have no real idea how or why.

-It was nice to see Fred smiling a lot in this episode- the heavy grind of losing people being replaced momentarily by entertainment and relaxing. The songs out of Lorneís show seemed excessively long- perhaps they were padding a little, which is something I donít think Iíve ever said of an episode before, so itís quite a harsh criticism if so.

-We have the patriarchy in the Lorne story. Lorne is apparently the big star, the one in control, with the money and the fame and the riches. In reality, he is being controlled for evil purposes. If in doubt in finding anything interesting in an episode, I tend to revert to the old ëLorne is Greenwaltí thing. Here, itís not as entirely obvious as usual. Yet consider the talented writer leaving to produce his own show, only to find that he canít do what he wants because heís tied down to contracts and rules and negotiations. The whole episode looks a little prophetic if we consider the moronic, (Iím guessing, I havenít seen it, but itís a fair bet), decision to cancel ëMiraclesí. Now Greenwalt may well scuttle back to the fold just as Lorne did at the end here- defeated by the nameless suits who appear unimportant but actually control everything that goes on. Itís a rather Greenwaltian message, like ëReptile Boyí and ëWolfram and Hartí, about who is really running the country. A secretive patriarchy are behind everything.

-What to say about Cordelia in this episode? Not a lot really. Obviously she acts as Fate when Angel is playing on the slot machines, making the impossible happen. Are we supposed to believe that this action was somehow wrong of her, and she was expelled, or something else entirely. The final shot of her standing there is one of those shocker endings- although I might have expected it to be sorted out a little quicker than it evidently is being.

Frankly, I felt like I could have been watching an episode of Friends. Iím not a big fan of Friends. Letís take a second to pray for David Fury.

4.4- ëSlouching Towards Bethlehemí

I like Jeffrey Bell a lot more, although I would be interested to know anything about the politics of him getting the show-runner title ahead of a superior Mere Smith. In any case, anyone who puts a Yeatsí reference in the title has me happy. I remember this being discussed before, but Iím afraid youíre getting it again. Hereís ëThe Second Comingí:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot find the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere 5
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand. 10
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight; somewhere in the sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze black and pitiless as the sun, 15
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reell shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Where vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, 20
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? 22

I include this in its entirety for three reasons. Firstly, I wondered how much I could get of it by heart, (about three- quarters, with a few mistakes). Secondly, regardless of what you think of Yeats as a prophet, or the poem as a vision of Hitler or whatever, the sheer power of this poem makes it one of the greatest of the 20th Century. Thirdly, because I thought it might be fun to do the review in a slightly off- centre way, by looking at some of the lines and free associating. Sometimes this will inevitably lead to non sequiutrs, but it may be occasionally revealing, and certainly sounds fun to write, so here goes:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
Here we have the idea of a gyre which has been used by more intelligent minds than mine to consider the Buffyverse, and which was a recurring symbol in Yeatsí poetry. The idea of the slowly widening spiral gives the idea of repetition, (of course the poem is ëThe Second Coming) in history, but also of the consequences getting larger each time. Lorneís depression in this episode seems to be of that consequence- the idea that the thing coming is something truly dreadful. There is the same tone of threat as in the beginning of the Buffy season- both seem to be heading towards a particularly devastating apocalypse, [cause some are worse than others?].

The falcon cannot find the falconer;
Whoís the falcon and whoís the falconer? I am tempted to associate Cordelia with the falcon- she is the one who has been up in the air all summer, after all, and is now directionless and vague. Cordeliaís re-integration is fairly well-handled, I thought. I loved the different styles of hair being gone through- who doesnít yearn for the days of the simple, long brunette look?- and this represented the confusion about her life. Itís difficult to explain someoneís life to them- and on the level of metaphor for real amnesiacs, the nuanaces of Cordeliaís life seem impossible to breach again. Angelís vampirism, Lorne, the killing of demons- all correspond to the strabgest things that are encountered when trying to allow someone who has forgotten everything to understand their old life. In a way, it may be easier to understand starting from nothing; at least Cordelia doesnít have all the events in her life mixed up, like my Grandfather did shortly before he died. He had a habit of segue-ing instantly from his lunch that afternoon to an important contract meeting with Welsh Glass in Port Talbot that most probably happened 30 years ago. It was horribly simultaneously wrenching and still funny. Cordelia is spared this- but the odd details rarely seem to correlate, until some things are explained by Connor- the truthful narrator. Yet oddly enough, his tabula is almost as rasa as Cordeliaís; his lack of understanding is almost as great- particularly of Angel and Cordeliaís relationship.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world
This is one of the major themes of the episode. We see at every stage the attempts made by people to stay together as a whole are failing. The causes of this effect are many and various; Cordeliaís return, and her state; the continuing fall-out of Connorís return, and the new story of things to come. Each of them seems to tie into an idea of Fate or Destiny however, and it is encroaching.
-Wesley is of course still isolated from AI, and thus is able to be played by Wesley. At the end of the episode, Angel realises that there can be no proof that it was Lilahís intentions, not Wesleyís that led to Lorne being injured, and thus he becomes less trustworthy. Simultaneously, the way that Lilah plays him destabilises their ërelationshipí a little.
-Angel has regained the two other constituents of his family in ëProviderí, only for them not only to disappear again, lacking trust of him, but worse, disappearing together. The Oedipal parallels start to develop more fully in the next episode, but for the moment it is clear that the two characters who have had their early lives torn from them, (either by Quortoth or by forgetting what has happened), come together in shared experience, as well as Cordelia trusting Connor for his intense honesty, and Connor being attracted to Cordelia, the acting Mother in the Greek myth.
-Lorne does not feel happy with Angel- although he still trusts him to a degree, the way that he was attacked, the fact that he will not do what Angel might, because he is too self-interested, [in an understandable way] to be a Champion and his general pain, isolate him a little from the gang.
Overall, thereís a fragmentation in the characters in the foreground, even before considering the other things that have fallen apart- Cordeliaís mind, Cordeliaís mission, AI as a family. Of course, we see Connor again in the teaser, and he is rather affected by the family strong together in the car. Yet by the end of the episode, the integration of Connor to the fold, that might have been expected in a lighter series like Buffy, has not taken place.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity

Well, thereís the slightly facetious use of the word ëpassioní for the Lilah/Wesley relationship, but the main point is just about Lilah. While Angel is frankly bamboozled by the weight of odd events happening all together, and is wrong in attempting to shelter the new Cordelia from reality, thus making her lose her trust, we see Lilahís plans working perfectly. Her tryst with Wesley has never been anything to do with collusion in life, and of course we see Wesley hiding Justine from Lilah in ëDeep Downí. This is the first time that either has manipulated the other deliberately for a certain end, though- and perhaps we start to see why Lilah is fairly keen for Wesley to be relatively close to AI, so that he can (unknowingly) help her disrupt their plans. Lilah is certainly full of ëpassionate intensityí in this episode. Firstly, there is the obvious mislead that Wesley is the one over-hearing. So Lilahís plan would not work without Wesley being as keen to double cross Lilah as she is to cross him. The scheming of the morally ambiguous characters plays in marked contrast to the general dithering of the ëGood Guysí.

Surely some revelation is at hand.
Surely the Second Coming is at hand!

There are two Second Comings, which interplay here- the second coming of Connor from Quortoth, and the second coming of Cordelia as amnesiac. Of course, the main second coming may be yet to come!

ÖHardly are those words out
When some vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight;

This is the most obvious reference to the poem- Lorneís vision is as painful as Yeatsí ostensibly was.

That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Where vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle
The image of the rocking cradle is an interesting one for Connor, as much as anything. We see how his presence is difficult for Angel in this episode. The baby in the cradle becomes the son tussling for the Fatherís loverís affection. There is the lovely awkward father to son line ëI like what yoíve done with this placeí. Of course, it is a dump, but it becomes a necessity for Angel to continue to act the supportive Father. Furthermore in the relationship, Connorís blindness to the dynamic between Cordelia and Angel the previous year is a key component to the confusion. When Connor says of his past that ëI had nothing to loseí, he is in fact being untruthful, although he perhaps does not realise it. He tells Cordelia she is brave for losing all her memories and being strong. What Connor lost was the sapling family of ëDadí to ëProviderí, with Cordelia as the mother. This is a role that she doesnít understand she had, and Connor certainly doesnít.

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Now come on. Iím not that unspoiledÖ

4.5- ëSupersymmetryí

This is an excellent episode. I donít know whether it aired at a similar time in the US to ëSelflessí, both of which are the fifth episode of the Season, but it has the same kind of vibe going on- characters who we imagine know each other well, trying to tease out the roles between them, how they interact, how they cariacature real, living people in their life. There are a multitude of decisions made in the episode, some arguably morally right but deeply unfair on a perspnís right to choose, some morally wrong but perhaps in the best interests of a characterís self-determination. Iím sure the different nuances of the characterís created a lot of shall we say discussion, (argument is such a strong word) after this aired. I shall try to take each character slowly and carefully, and avoid too much personal identification here.

Basically, there is a very interesting chain being built up here, vaguely along the lines of Lilah-Wesley-Fred-Gunn. It would be simplistic to argue that the line goes from Baddest to Best- although I suppose that in some senses Gunn is the one who has the best intentions, and Lilah the worst. The chain here though sees everybody interpreting the characterís motivations and traits somewhat differently.

Lilah: Exactly how Lilah sees Wesley at the moment is a moot point. There is no doubt that she is physically attracted- but there appears to be a further feeling of slight possessiveness in this episode, as she watches him entranced by Fredís reading of her thesis. This is perhaps the first sign that Lilah really has invested a little more in the meetings than she is happy to let on- she is, as Angel tells Gunn, frankly stalking him, and it is no longer simply the case that the sex is everything. I wonder how much Lilah is enjoying living a clichÈ- enjoying the ëwrongnessí of the coming together of Good and Evil, the idea that the Bad tries to corrupt the Virtuous and vice versa. Does she feel threatened by Fred? There must be an element of that, as well as a feeling that any end to the relationship is going to be worse for her than him- Wesley has the possibility of a place to return to in AI, while Lilahís job would be weakened by the loss of the influence over an opposing pawn, (or perhaps bishop- heís more important to the game than those little pieces).
Wesley: On one side, thereís Lilah. Wesley is to an extent using Lilah, as Lilah is using Wesley. Currently, however, it appears that Wesley may be the one slightly less invested in the relationship. This is an interesting twitch. In the classic path, Good is perverted by Evil, only to be cast aside as evil has other thoughts. Wesleyís intentions, while full of the idea that he can never come back from his deep moral ambiguity, (as he expresses to Fred), seem clear in terms of Lilah- that she is sex and information, and little more.
On the other side- we have Fred. Wesley has been attracted to her since before that conversation at the start of ëBillyí, then let time elapse as he got over his horror over what he said while influenced by Billy, and then lost out to Gunn in ëWaiting in the Wingsí. Here, we see a kind of collusion re-kindled. When Wesley welcomes Fred, she treats her as a woman able to make her own decisions, is clearly impressed by her work, and allows her the opportunity to enact the vengeance she wants. This is perhaps not the correct thing to do- it encourages Fredís emotions to rule her mind- because Seidel hurt her as deeply as she has been hurt in her life- banishing her to a Pylea that seemed to her like hell. Yet Wesley sees Fred as an intelligent, collected woman, and has decided since ëLoyaltyí that Good is harder to have a grasp of than it may seem. His attraction to her seems to be more to do with her intelligence than her faÁade of innocence..
Fred: Fred has been stuck between Wesley and Gunn ever since she finished her complete reliance on her saviour Angel after Pylea. The Fred/Gunn relationship is a fairly happy one with relatively few bumps except the downright silly ëDouble or Nothingí. Yet Gunnís view of Fred is far from completely healthy. I believe he may be using the same brand of pedestal as Xander uses for Buffy, if a slightly different design. Gunn sets Fred up as the more intelligent of the pair, but also the more innocent. This is ultimately why he snaps Seidelís neck at the end of the episode. He is unable to allow Fred to taint herself. He is unable to recognise that Fredís intelligence and innocence do not fit easily together. She is perceptive, and as able to think and commit horrors as any of the other regulars. This is, I believe, the reason why we see Fred and Gunn having sex for the first time in this episode. Fred is not just the genius little girl.
As for Wesley- Fred still admires his intellect, and goes to him as the person more likely to understand her mission. She perhaps sees his actions around ëLoyaltyí as an incidence of moral recklessness on his part, and therefore decides he will help her in doing the same. Fred and Wesley have much in common- academia, their tendency to hide their real selves underneath a visage, their attractions to people they consider as opposite poles, but who are actually much more complex. It will be interesting to see if this relationship is developed any further.
Gunn: As I mentioned above, Gunn does not have the greatest grasp of Fred. He is very perceptive in some ways; notice how he immediately identifies Fredís writing on the wall as being a sign of her insecurity about going back to Pylea. But by committing an act that is morally reprehensible only so that Fred doesnít, he makes the wrong choice on two levels. He doesnít do what Angel would do- save Seidel from the portal. Yet he neither allows Fred to reap what she has sown. He chooses a halfway house that is corrosive to his mutual trust with Fred, his camaraderie with Angel, and obviously to Seidelís future.

Who was right? Who was wrong? Angel seems the most consistent in the episode, but of course heís not caught up in the crazy chain above. In fact, discounting Lilah for a moment, he is on the tip of another triangle: that being set up between Cordelia, Connor and Angel. Cordelia is self- aware enough to explain to Connor that the kiss cannot signal a relationship while she doesnít know who she is. Yet the triangle is confusing, all the more so when Cordelia asks Angel the question that highlights how painful her amnesia really is ëWere we in love?í Angel was, at times, in love with Cordelia. Underneath the displacement of the Groosalugg, Cordelia was perhaps in love with Angel. But without her won angle, how is Angel possibly to answer that question? She is stuc between the two stools of Connor and Angel, desperate not to betray her former trust in the vampire, and yet unsure as to just where she stands in all this.

A couple more bits:
-Fred is the wise physicists to the baffled laymen Lorne, Angel and Gunn early on. A nice gender subversion from ME, in a show that often flees from Buffyís remit.
-Who can resist ëchatty roomsí?
-I was starting to wonder whether Masq was mad with the whole ëThe Voynok demon has nine livesí thing, but now I understand properly. Not a bad metaphor for the crazy, archive monster.
Excellent stuff from the new writing team. Look forward to more from them. And once again, itís turning into quite a Season.

TCH
[> Re: thanks TCH -- aliera, 05:32:31 04/05/03 Sat

haven't mentioned in a while, how much I am enjoying these and happy for you that you're getting a chance to catch up.

Now that you're up to it, here's a link to one of my favorite reviewers in case you're interested in another POV slouching towards bethlehem.
[> [> That's an excellent review -- Tchaikovsky, 11:08:43 04/05/03 Sat

Very intelligent thoughts, and a great understanding of the context of the poem. I'm now going to go and read some other reviews of theirs.

Thanks for the link.

TCH
[> Re: Outcasts Recovered? (Angel Odyssey 4.3-4.5) -- CW, 05:46:05 04/05/03 Sat

It isn't details in my part of America, and I had no idea it's supposed to be the preferred pronunciation here until you mentioned it. But, that pronunciation is common enough I don't notice it in context.

Wesley has lived in the U.S. a number of years, now. We might excuse him because it's not unusual for accents to become 'polluted' after years of immersion in another environment. If he was saying details back in Buffy season 3, though, that's not so good.

Otherwise, all I can say is that 'American' pronunciation in all-British productions can sound very strange as well. Words like 'schedule' are dead giveaways all English speaking actors should be aware of.
[> [> This is what I get for being picky! -- Tchaikovsky, 09:29:04 04/05/03 Sat

I'm always rubbish at being picky because I get my facts wrong! Last time, d'H debunked both my complaints, so I think I'll just stick to the old anlysis thing.

A good point about pollution, backed up by Arethusa below.

TCH- thinking 'You say details, and I say details too/ Let's call the whole thing off'
[> [> british/u.s. pronunciation in show biz: schedule -- anom, 23:41:38 04/06/03 Sun

"Words like 'schedule' are dead giveaways all English speaking actors should be aware of."

You remind me of a ST:TNG episode in which someone must have decided an American audience would be confused by "shedule" & told Patrick Stewart to use the U.S. pronunciation. Well, for some of us it worked the other way--I was taken aback to hear Capt. Picard tell another character that a ship was "skeduled" to arrive in x hours. The word occurred in his lines 2 more times, & 1 of those times Stewart slipped, reverting to his native accent & saying "shedule." Ya gotta wonder who comes up w/these decisions, & how.
[> [> [> That's what you get when you have a Briton pretend he's French on US TV! -- CW, 12:54:14 04/07/03 Mon

[> Re: Outcasts Recovered? (Angel Odyssey 4.3-4.5) -- Arethusa, 06:28:08 04/05/03 Sat

Denisof said he's deliberately Americanizing his accent a little.

I was so uninvoved by THAW that I actually notice I own the stockings Fred is wearing with her showgirl's outfit. Boy, one size really does fit all.

Every time I read The Second Coming, I also think of Shelley's Ozymandias. (Must be the optimist in me.) That great deadly warrior, feared by the world, whose power is destroyed by time, and whose stone visage becomes forgotten in the sand of the desert.

I could feel Connor's lonliness in Slouching, and yearning for family. Holtz really screwed him over by killing himself and making sure Connor couldn't form ties with anyone else. It makes me wonder how Holtz treated his "precious" family.

Gunn seems very attracted by innocence-becuase of all the years he spent trying to protect Alonna? Yet when she was sired and he had to kill her, he didn't become relentlessly bitter, like Holtz. I really like Charles Gunn.

Thanks, TCH. Great stuff to think about.
[> [> Quick response -- Tchaikovsky, 09:26:01 04/05/03 Sat

Denisof said he's deliberately Americanizing his accent a little.

I'll let him off, then. I'm willing to believe the best- he's a great actor.

I could feel Connor's lonliness in Slouching, and yearning for family. Holtz really screwed him over by killing himself and making sure Connor couldn't form ties with anyone else. It makes me wonder how Holtz treated his "precious" family.
Agree on Holtz, although a fascinating character. There was some talk after I wrote about 'Quickening', (not instigated by me, but someone more perceptive), about how Holtz allowed his vendetta against the vampires to take priority over everything, so that he was partly to balme for being carelesss in leaving his family alone to be killed and in one case vamped. He certainly had his problems as a person!

Gunn seems very attracted by innocence-becuase of all the years he spent trying to protect Alonna? Yet when she was sired and he had to kill her, he didn't become relentlessly bitter, like Holtz. I really like Charles Gunn.
 Interesting link back to Alonna, and it was exceptionally brave to stake her so quickly.

And thanks.

TCH
[> A Fury to look forward to -- Masq, 06:48:17 04/05/03 Sat

There's a mid-season episode called "Salvage" that I really liked. Not all of it, of course. There is one character Fury can't get the voice of at all. There is another character that Fury did a better job at than the other writers.

Me liked Salvage.

Comments on 4.3-4.5 coming up!
[> [> Re: A Fury to look forward to -- s'kat, 07:58:20 04/05/03 Sat

Also Awakenings - excellent episode that was co-written by DeKnight and Fury?

Fury does have his moments.

Agree completely on Salvage - loved that episode.
[> Thanks, TCH. I always enjoy these. -- LadyStarlight, 07:17:49 04/05/03 Sat

[> On Greenwalt, gyres, and Gunn -- Masq, 07:30:43 04/05/03 Sat

The House always wins

A filler episode to be sure. But it does bring Lorne back to the fold, and it raises interesting questions about Connor's identity and Angel's destiny, which I've already yapped about in my episode analysis.

Now Greenwalt may well scuttle back to the fold just as Lorne did at the end here- defeated by the nameless suits who appear unimportant but actually control everything that goes on.

Well, if you believe the official behind-the-scenes talk, Greenwalt never quite left the fold. He's still a consulting producer. However, fan behind-the-scenes talk has it that he left because he didn't like the dark direction Season 4 would be taking.

That said, he might be back if there's a Season 5 and it's as different as Joss claims it will be.

Slouching towards Bethlehem

By now, TCH, I'm sure you've read my analysis of this episode and the brief discussion of Yeat's poem. The poem as I understand it is talking about the overthrow of the Christian gyre and its replacement with an equally long gyre of totalitarianism.

Which gets me thinking about the direction that both shows are taking. What I'm about to say is spoilery for both shows. I'll start with Buffy, which you might be able to read.

Spoiler Space







Buffy: Is the First Evil trying to "overthrow" the gyre of the Slayers? For millenia, the slayers have been the protectors of humankind, balancing the evil influence of the First. Is the First now "tired" of the balancing of the scales and trying to start a new "gyre" of evil?






Angel: Likewise with this Jasmine character who's just arrived on the scene. Is this whole thing with mother Cordy and father Connor her way of entering our world and becoming some kind of (anti-)Messianic figure, taking away the era of the benevolent PTB's and human free will and replacing it with interfering PTB's and human slavery "for their own good"?






End Spoiler space


Supersymmetry: Both Deep Down and Slouching Towards Bethlehem speak of certain awkward place Gunn has found himself in in Angel Investigations. The whole "Alpha male" (while Angel is gone) and the "not a sidekick" comments aren't throw-aways. Gunn has always had a somewhat awkward position in A.I., for more than one reason. Race isn't one of those reasons, although there may be an undercurrent having to do with race.

Gunn is about the only character in A.I. who didn't come to A.I. as a loner with no one else. Angel, Cordelia, and Wesley arrived in L.A. alone and friendless and found each other. Fred was saved from Pylea and was afraid to return home to her parents. Connor came back from Quortoth and lost Holtz. Lorne had Caritas, but Caritas got burned to the ground twice and so Lorne imposed on those responsible for a new place to stay. More so after his Vegas gig fell through.

Gunn, on the other hand, had his "crew". And furthermore, he was leader of that crew. He was their general. Then he comes to A.I. and becomes, well, a minion. The hired hand. And for a while in Season 2, Gunn waffles between A.I. and his old group, leaving us to wonder what exactly he sees in A.I. in the first place.

So ME writes "That Old Gang of Mine" to estrange Gunn from his old friends. To give him a reason to think he's doing more good at A.I. than with them. "Angel's got the mission, you don't."

So fine, but Gunn is almost too large for A.I. He's forced into the ranks when he used to be an innovator, a leader. So they (ME) give him another reason to stay. They give him Fred. Fred is a real emotional connection to A.I. that Gunn might otherwise lack. Being with Fred estranges Gunn from his old friend Wesley. Gunn's latent distrust of vampires estranges Gunn from Angel. And Gunn has never particularly been friends with Cordelia.

So what happens when Gunn and Fred commit murder together? It's not the kind of thing you can just go home from. There's going to be trouble, and that trouble, for Gunn, is going to larger than just trouble with the girlfriend.
[> [> My personal view on Gunn (personal not analytic) -- Tchaikovsky, 14:46:56 04/06/03 Sun

Of the main 14ish characters in the Universe in which I sometimes wonder whether I live, Gunn is the character in whom I have perhaps the least interest. Not because he's a bad character; not because he isn't well written; not because he has any deficiency. Purely on personal identification- I don't relate to him at all. Because of this, I often allow him in my mind to occupy a place holder position in Angel- because I'm not that interested, I paint him in relation to others rather than by himself. Having said this, this season is the one in which he has been most interesting for me so far- the surrogate Father to Connor in 'Deep Down', the very important, (as you said) 'I'm not a side-kick line in StB, (ME never repeats lines without reason, except the insidious 'I get that' perhaps), and his wrong and fascinating decision in 'Supersymmetry'. When I skate over Gunn it's because I find it harder than any other character to feel him or be interested by him, even if I think I understand his character well enough.

Incidentally, having explained all this, I don't believe there's any racial undertone going on at all in AI towards Gunn. There's perhaps a remote hint that where Gunn came from makes him insecure- the other characters might be considered middle class, him less so ['There's no class system in America. Discuss], but I really don't see his race figuring. Ironically and bravely from ME, Lorne is the person who is perhaps the character most used to explore race.

In any case, a good little study of Gunn's character- and your episode reviews for these three seem even meatier than usual. Oh, and from another post- sorry about the homework thing! But the roller-coaster part of the Odyssey is over as I slow down towards the pace of the rest of the audience.

TCH
[> [> [> Re: My personal view on Gunn (personal not analytic) -- Masq, 16:28:07 04/06/03 Sun

Gunn has been mostly a side-lines character for seasons 1-3. He's pretty much a side-lines character in season 4 as well. But he's one of those characters who you know has a lot of issues, even when the writers aren't writing about them. So he's one of those characters that you suspect might do something vital to the story that comes out of nowhere if you're not paying attention.

I'm not being spoilery by saying this, but I keep my eye on Gunn.

Ironically and bravely from ME, Lorne is the person who is perhaps the character most used to explore race.

I'm not sure how brave it is. It's the Star Trek syndrome. Don't write about race using actual human ethnicities. That would expose you to criticism about how you are dragging politics into your entertainment or shoving politics down the throats of the whinier fans (yes, I have issues with the whole 'there should be no politics in entertainment' attitude. There is always is politics in entertainment, it's just a matter of noticing it. And you usually don't until you see political views that don't agree with your own).

Science fiction and fantasy shows can get away with it more because they use "aliens" and "demons" as metaphors for race. It's less obvious that way and less threatening. But I'm not clear what ME is trying to say by doing this. Sometimes demons are depicted as clearly evil, and not deserving of life or rights. And sometimes they are shown as sympathetic and deserving of respect. Maybe ME is just trying to say "it's complicated", but they aren't saying it very coherently.

your episode reviews for these three seem even meatier than usual

My AtS episode analyses have been huge this season. I usually have 4 files per season per show that average around 50-60 K. I have three for AtS so far and the first two are 80+ K. The third that I'm finishing up today is going to be 90+. This is just a meaty season! Or maybe it's me. I found a way to stretch out my analysis of "The House Always Wins"- -a thin episode if ever there was one--by yapping about Connor's identity and Angel's destiny. But so far, I haven't had any reason to take that stuff out as superfluous, either!

sorry about the homework thing! But the roller-coaster part of the Odyssey is over as I slow down towards the pace of the rest of the audience.

That's the kind of homework that I like! ; )
[> [> [> [> Re: My personal view on Gunn (personal not analytic) -- Rahael, 18:15:50 04/06/03 Sun

Thank you Masq!!!

It's this incoherency I find most unsettling about both shows. Though I feel more comfortable in AtS because Gunn is there. No racial undertones in his character and his interractions? Not for this viewer. I think they are *very* much there at least for me. It's one of the reasons that AtS has become so meaningful for me.

I find it interesting also how often the show depicts Gunn as coming up with the crucial thinking part of getting at the solution, whether it's finding the Svea, or working out how to find Darla or working out the puzzle in Apocalypse Nowish. This is logical, rational problem solving he is doing.

And yet, despite this actual depiction, how fans view his character is......interesting, to say the least.

Gunn's character may be sidelined, but I agree with Masq that his story has a great deal of unspoken depth to it, depth that people like myself add in while we watch.

And, I know that you haven't seen the newest eps, but there is going to be at least one off the cuff remark that alludes directly to Gunn's colour, and to racial/sexual politics. I'll pick it up when you get to reviewing the ep, TCH.

To add to a long running debate here, as to whether the demons/vampires actually depict non-white people in the MEverse, I would say that I would prefer that Lorne and other non human people weren't used to work on issues surrounding race. I hope I shouldn't have to explain why.
[> [> [> [> [> My spoilery guess... (Spoilers for 4.11) -- Masq, 19:42:18 04/06/03 Sun

And, I know that you haven't seen the newest eps, but there is going to be at least one off the cuff remark that alludes directly to Gunn's colour, and to racial/sexual politics. I'll pick it up when you get to reviewing the ep, TCH.

Rah, was that Angelus' comment that when it came to Fred, for the first time in Gunn's life, he "wasnt' dark enough"? Meaning, Fred saw more appeal in Wesley?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Oops, I mean 4.12... I think -- Masq, 19:44:04 04/06/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, and (quote from future ep) -- Rahael, 23:51:26 04/06/03 Sun

Lilah's comment to Wesley during the 'shades of grey' speech that Fred 'preferred Black'
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You know, I've always wondered... -- Masq, 05:55:18 04/07/03 Mon

About the "black and white and shades of gray" metaphor vis a vis the "black" and "white" ethnicities.

Normally, these color codings are kept separate. We know when we're talking about "black hats" and "white hats" as the bad guys and good guys respectively, and we know we're not making any reference or implication about the color of one's skin.

Likewise, we talk about black and white people (although it's something more akin to brown and peach-pink) and we can talk about that and know we're just refering to skin color.

But sometimes I get very bugged about how "black" gets used for "evil"--black hats, black magic, blah blah, because I wonder what "black" people think of that, while "white hats" and "white magic" are good.

So a couple times this season ME has chosen to deliberately run those two metaphors together, "Fred prefers black" in a conversation about good and evil and what's in between. "You're just not dark enough" in a conversation about crossing the line in one's moral actions.

Is is a clever crossing of metaphors that everyone understands isn't really meant to imply anything, racially speaking? Or am I being naive here?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A point -- KdS, 06:08:57 04/07/03 Mon

If you notice, all the lines this season where the two metaphors get mixed seem to be coming out of more or less evil characters who are trying to be offensive at the time. I don't think we should take that as endorsing a crossover.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A point -- Masq, 07:50:19 04/07/03 Mon

If you notice, all the lines this season where the two metaphors get mixed seem to be coming out of more or less evil characters who are trying to be offensive at the time. I don't think we should take that as endorsing a crossover.

Oof! If I thought for a moment that ME was in any way endorsing a cross over between these two metaphors, I wouldn't be able to watch the show any more than Rahael. I'm white, but I'm extra sensitive to this sort of thing.

No, I pretty much give ME the benefit of the doubt and assume they are these mixing metaphors deliberately but intending nothing from it (except, perhaps, making their evil characters seem worse).

Not sure, Rah, whether AtS has had a habit of using the "black" and "white" to stand in for "evil" and "good". I know BtVS has done it enough for me to notice--e.g., "white hats", "black magic". I try to avoid those terms on my website, too, since they bug me personally.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> going further into the race issue, and perhaps too far OT -- pilgrim, 09:43:23 04/07/03 Mon

Any thoughts about Wood's race, and whether it matters to the show that he's African-American? I think the only reference, an oblique reference, to his race came when Buffy assumed he'd been raised "in the hood." I remember some posters had a problem with that remark because it tended to show that Buffy made assumptions she shouldn't have, based on Wood's race.

This may be an example of the show tackling race issues more head-on, rather than through metaphor, even though there's no explicit discussion of race. A couple of media scholars recently published a book arguing that in US movies and TV, when black-white relationships are portrayed (say, in buddy movies or movies that more expressly teach about race like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner) the white character usually is the stand-in for the normal and the black character is the one who fits into the "white" "all-American" society.

Wood in some ways reflects this typical dynamic--he's clearly fitting into/trying to fit into the Buffyverse, an almost all-white world. But in other ways, he may subtley be undermining the standard US portrayal of race relationships. He has his own agenda that deviates from that of Buffy's, and it's a controversial agenda that speaks to power relations between employer and employee, between man and woman, as well as between black and white. He's very much an unknown quantity, from Buffy's point of view-- she wonders whether, given that his office is over the hellmouth, is he evil or just in big trouble. Wood's mystery, his creepiness, as we experience him from the SG's pov, the disconnect between his personal agenda and Buffy's, all may play in different ways because he is black rather than white.

I don't wish to read more into this than there is (or, heck, maybe I do), but it seems to me that race so permeates US culture that ME's choice to cast Wood as an African-American man may mean something.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's 'In The Hood' comment -- AngelVSAngelus, 13:22:49 04/07/03 Mon

It seemed to me at the time that perhaps the writer's were trying to illuminate the fact that his character had a background contrary to the stereotypical perception, but by doing this through dialogue coming out of Buffy's mouth only made it appear that she herself carried that stereotypical perception. I personally found it offensive, but considered it well intentioned. Like affirmative action.
I really never believe that race and racism are intended subject matter for ME, but the subtext may exist there on a level that could be called by some accidental and by others subconsciously inevitable. But to address these issues consciously and head-on may undermine a part of the shows' purpose that I enjoy: universality. By taking a stand point that, directly and consciously, at least ATTEMPTS to maintain a standpoint of gender and race not mattering, the show can communicate on a much more ideal and communicatively reverberating level, IMHO.
The unfortunate fact is that we may never know if there's truth or fiction to a racial subtext on the show as far as the intentions of the creators are concerned. We don't know if the reason both shows have a single African American character at the moment is because of discriminatory reasons or just a coincidence of the actors and actresses that auditioned for the colorlessly written roles.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's 'In The Hood' comment -- Shiraz, 13:45:27 04/07/03 Mon

Unfortunately, race and gender always matter, especially to those whose race and gender put them at odds with those in power.

Its like money, in that it only doesn't matter if you have enough to start with.

-Shiraz

"You've got to face it, all this stuff about golden boughs and the cycles of nature and stuff just boils down to sex and violence, usually at the same time."

-Terry Pratchett, The Light Fantastic
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Use of "black and white" for "good and evil" -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:35:09 04/07/03 Mon

Well, while I have noticed the black=evil thing a few times, the only cases I can recall where white=good was used were in "The Wish" and "Dopplegangland", where there were references to "white hats".

Also, personally, I think it would be preferable to find a new word for describing black people rather than finding a new one to symbolise evil. Because the black=evil thing originates with the blackness of shadows and darkness where evil things tend to happen. As long as horrible things are best done in the "black of night" the connection of blackness to evil will always exist. It would be much simpler to change "black" in regards to race to "brown".

Oh, and on one last note, usually, when the magic is being taken seriously on the shows, it's referred to as dark magic, rather than black magic. The word "black" is usually used when in a mocking way (see BBB: "I'm not the one who had to resort to the black arts to get a date!")
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You know, I've always wondered... -- Rahael, 07:05:52 04/07/03 Mon

KdS is right - Angelus uses Gunn's race against him, and Lilah uses race to taunt Wesley. Which says a lot about Lilah and Wesley, none of it good. Especially if Lilah has hit upon some sensitivity of Wes towards Fred preferring Gunn, a black man, over him.

But still, you'll have noticed that I have always tried never to use the black=evil, white=good dichotomy. In one of my early posts I tried to overset the black/white/grey set of metaphors with "the Buffyverse is full of colour" post. I've always been uncomfortable with the idea that the darkness inside the slayer (which, you may have noticed is explicitly connected to the black, primitive First Slayer) is evil. Primitive, black, inarticulate and murderous.

So I've always preferred to see the darkness of the Slayer as akin to night, which is black, and beautiful and part of our lives - not evil.

As for the AtS refs this season, the references to Gunn's blackness have all been used as jibes by people who demean themselves, not Gunn. Which is what happens in ordinary life. Someone needs to refresh my memory - does AtS frequently, and with no irony, frequently use the word black to denote evil?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> dark is beautiful, and necessary! -- Vickie, 17:25:25 04/07/03 Mon

Rah said: I've always been uncomfortable with the idea that the darkness inside the slayer (which, you may have noticed is explicitly connected to the black, primitive First Slayer) is evil. Primitive, black, inarticulate and murderous.

So I've always preferred to see the darkness of the Slayer as akin to night, which is black, and beautiful and part of our lives - not evil.

Yes! I always make this same connection, vaguely Jungian and somehow connected to some current research on the "Dark Madonna" and other dark-visaged, numinous women.

In this Jungian approach (apologies to scholars in the audience), the "dark" self is not evil, per se. It is the denied portion of oneself. If I see myself as a good person, the opposite of that, my evil self, is my denied shadow. If I see myself as clumsy, my coordinated and graceful self is my shadow. If HonorH sees herself as a vegetarian (hypothetical, people!), and clings to that image, her repressed Honorificus might burst out for a midnight barbecue.

To truly grow up, one must integrate this shadow self, animus/anima, and become whole. I'm hoping we'll see something like this going on with Buffy. (Come on, guys! Just five more episodes!)

The dark madonna seems to present this shadowy side in a mythic sense, yin to the sun gods' yang, if you will. She is only "evil" in the sense of opposite. She represents the fertile earth, the darkness of blessed restful night, the mysterious feminine power. She is as necessary as the day. Images of this dark lady include the Virgin of Guadalupe, Durga, and Tara.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> black/white, light/dark, & dichotomies (long, at least for me, w/many tangents & parentheses) -- anom, 09:56:19 04/08/03 Tue

First--Masq, thanks for bringing this thread back!

[Note: This post quotes a use of "the N-word." It's in the part labeled "Digression," in case anyone wants to skip over it.]

"I've always been uncomfortable with the idea that the darkness inside the slayer (which, you may have noticed is explicitly connected to the black, primitive First Slayer) is evil. Primitive, black, inarticulate and murderous."

It may be an indication of the complexity of this issue that I'm not sure whether the description at the end of that quote applies to the First Slayer or to the demon-energy that changed a (presumably normal) girl into her. I'd have to object to it as a complaint about the characterization of the First Slayer, whose appearance I understood as reflecting how ancient the Slayer line is--dating back to before any humans left Africa. As such, she would necessarily be primitive & dark-skinned; why she's inarticulate is another question, since the Shadowmen certainly had language (although if they were supposed to be the same men who made the First Slayer, they should've been speaking some kind of reconstructed proto-Bantu rather than modern-day Swahili), & I wouldn't call her murderous unless she were killing humans, something she doesn't even advocate in her tirade in Buffy's dream.

If that description applies to the demon spirit, I consider the objections more well founded. In terms of the problems raised by equating dark/black with evil, it would've been preferable to make the demon-stuff another color--maybe a sickly greenish shade or blood red (might be appropriate by way of the vampire connection). The other qualities are more understandable in a demon: most demons have been presented as more primitive & certainly as murderous. If the demon this spirit came from didn't have speech, it might have been its infusion into the girl that rendered her inarticulate-- which, for me, would make her violation even deeper; imagine having language & then losing it! But it might well have made her more subject to the Shadowmen's, & later Slayers to the Watchers', control, esp. if she couldn't explain to her family & society what had happened to her. (Remember how Giles-the-Fyarl-demon couldn't make Xander understand him, & how Xander reacted? OK, he didn't look human either, but if he could've talked in English, he might've been able to get someone to listen long enough to explain what was going on.)

I think I'm less bothered by the idea that "the darkness inside the Slayer...is evil" than by the fact that the evil inside the Slayer (as evil exists in all of us) is called "dark." But I agree w/Finn's point that the association of darkness w/evil comes from a very natural human fear of the dark. Evil may exist in the light too, but at least we can see it coming! In the dark, not only can't we see it coming, but we can't see well enough to distinguish it from good. This association may have been harmless in social terms before populations of people w/noticeably different skin colors encountered each other. But I also agree w/Rahael about color vs. B/W/grey. I'm trying to remember if I ever posted something w/a line about "I don't believe in shades of grey--I believe in full-spectrum living [&, in this case, undead] color!"

As for whether demons are used on the shows as stand-ins for "non-white" racial & other discriminated-against populations, I think sometimes they're used in a general way as the "other," but often for the purpose of showing that you can't make assumptions about that "other" based on stereotypes. (Well, you can, but it's a mistake to.) And ME plays this both, or maybe >2, ways--in 1 ep, Harry's fiancÈ (& his family) is not as assimilated as he's pretended to be & tries to eat Doyle's brain, & in another, a demon of a type that's supposed to be mindlessly violent is a pregnant woman's protector & has Buddhist symbols in his living quarters. Of course, there are plenty of times when the characterization we're given of a "race" of demons appears accurate for all its members (at least all those we see), but they've shown enough variation in the way they treat this theme for me to think they've overcome Star Trek syndrome. (That's where each planet/dimension is inhabited by 1 species of aliens/demons, all having the same culture & values. Corollary: if there are 2 cultures on the same planet, they're at war. This always bothered me about the original ST series, but eventually I came to understand it as presenting these alien species as standing for given human qualities or issues. It may even have contributed to my being receptive to the way metaphor is used on "Buffy" & "Angel.")

On the other hand, I remember thinking even as I laughed at Angel's complaint about "stereotypes [of vampires] perpetuated by hack writers" that remarks like this pointed up the fact that Angel seemed to be (un)living in an LA that was whiter than Sunnydale. I'm somewhat disappointed that after the introduction of Gunn's gang, he's the only one of those characters we continue to see on a regular basis. When Angel told him "I might need your help," I understood it to mean Gunn and the others.

I'm also bothered sometimes by the use of racist comments (although not so much on these shows) as a sort of shorthand to indicate "this is one of the bad guys." Sure, as Rahael says, such comments say far more about the person using them than about the person being targeted, but it strikes me as too simplistic, & it also requires setting up the "good guys" as having an equally simplistic lack of problems around racial issues. Instead of ignoring these problems totally, it pretends they don't exist among "good" people. Either way, it allows the writers to avoid confronting these issues. (Digression here, because I can't resist citing my least-favorite example: in the movie "White Nights," Gregory Hines has defected to the Soviet Union because his ballet career was stymied by discrimination. The plot contrives to bring him together w/Mikhail Baryshnikov, who defected in the other direction but has been rescued/kidnapped from a plane crash in Soviet territory. Hines doesn't realize he's been a guestage, albeit a willing one, & only catches on when he objects to the force being used to stop the escaping Baryshnikov & his Soviet handler calls him "nigger." OK, that's just stupid. It wasn't part of the culture. Paul Robeson & other black Americans rather pointedly commented about how they weren't treated as 2nd-class people when they were in the USSR. [The Soviets had the Jews for that....] Digression over.)

In this context (um, that would be the one back there before the digression), I'm not sure how to take Buffy's "'hood" comment. Maybe it was just a setup for Wood to say he wasn't from the 'hood in its usual meaning. Is it a wry acknowledgment of how few black recurring characters there've been on the show? Is Buffy being racist? Or is she assuming Wood overcame an underprivileged background? (I keep going off on tangents--anyone else wonder how Wood got from NYC to Beverly Hills, given the backstory we've seen? Was the "'hood" scene written before it was decided Wood was Nikki's son? Did the Watcher's Council have a generous retirement package for members after their Slayers died, allowing Crowley to raise young Robin in a ritzy neighborhood? Or was Crowley's cover job something more lucrative than being a librarian?)

There's probably more I was thinking of putting in this post, but it's late & I can't think of it. I'll just end by quoting Ursula K. LeGuin's line "Light is the left hand of darkness." In this case, at least, the light side is presented as secondary...& even as "sinister"!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: black/white, light/dark, & dichotomies (long, at least for me, w/many tangents & parentheses) -- Rahael, 10:33:22 04/08/03 Tue

Thanks, Vickie and Anom.

I can't do these posts justice because I'm all fevery and non-coherent of thought myself. But I think my discomfort at the First Slayer has come more from being online, than from the show itself, i.e, the reactions of many to what the First Slayer is. So my reaction is very much coloured by others reaction to it and my resulting discomfort. Many in their description of the FS have tended to go with the 'animalistic' inner nature that Buffy has to overcome or get rid of. And I am discomifted by the notion that the FS is less human than Buffy.

Also, as for racist remarks being used to denote badness - well, I'm equally uncomfortable with Fred (and indeed Angel) calling Gunn 'the muscle' of the group - because obviously, Gunn's so much stronger than Connor or Angel! I think we are meant to be discomfited by this, and understand that Gunn's insecurity in the relationship does not come from him alone, but is part of a dynamic between him and Fred, where she gets to have all the intellect, and he gets to be the body.

See, I don't think the inner Slayer *is* evil. And if that is what Season 7 says, I'm going to have feel very very disappointed. Though if I start unpicking the concept of Slayerness, I start realising that it has very many disturbing elements, at least disturbing to me.

But I can remember being drawn to the First SLayer depicted by Joss in Tales of the Slayer, where she is indeed very human, very understadable and empathetic, so that is what influences me. If the end result is that these women are evil because the very first one was chained down and penetrated by the naughty black evil, well!!

Oh, and something I remember wanting to say about black/white - I think AtS played very cleverly with our (and the characters) instinctive assumptions with the whole glowy white Cordy thing. And, there's the white rooms.
[> [> [> [> [> Sorry everyone -- Tchaikovsky, 03:03:34 04/07/03 Mon

To add to a long running debate here, as to whether the demons/vampires actually depict non-white people in the MEverse, I would say that I would prefer that Lorne and other non human people weren't used to work on issues surrounding race. I hope I shouldn't have to explain why.

That was a careless, post-long-day comment of mine. Hope I didn't offend anyone. I'm not quite sure about my line of thought- in the harsh light of day it seems clear to me that, as Masq has wrote, it is not particularly brave to use metaphors rather than tackling racism head on, but an opt- out route.

TCH
[> [> [> [> [> [> Not at all -- Rahael, 06:42:22 04/07/03 Mon

Over the last couple of days I have been having a good long think about ME and its politics, including the politics of its fandom.

You certainly didn't offend me, TCH, especially because you said something which is feasible. You also didn't offend me because I've heard much stronger formulations of this view from other posters here. It's a view I find very very hard to take. You are certainly more sensitive to why I might not like it than many other posters here. Last time someone suggested that Joss may have been attempting to show muslims as vampires and demons, I really did get offended. A whole lot of posters kept explaining to me why I shouldn't be offended by this, and me being dim (and perhaps I'm still too dim to get the subtleties of this argument!) didn't get why this wasn't an enlightened approach and why I didn't have a knee jerk "ughhh" reaction to it.

On a board where a great many respected posters argue that Vampires are a different species altogether, and not to be considered or judged in human terms, I hope that people who argue that demons are black might understand why I get upset when it is suggested that minorities are shown as this group of largely evil blood sucking parasites preying upon Sunnydale. If this was what the show was showing I wouldn't be able to bear to watch it..........
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> My old post on this issue... -- Rob, 12:13:47 04/08/03 Tue

The Misrepresentation of Buffyverse Vampires & Demons in Academia -- Rob, 14:19:14 12/05/02 Thu

I'm probably opening up a whole big controversial can of worms here--actually, I know I am, since we've had discussions about this before--but, while reading "Fighting the Forces," I became very disturbed by a particular essay, "The Undemonization of Supporting Characters," in which the author casually referenced a source that claims that "Buffy" is racist. She went on to demonstrate how the show was not racist; her examples included things such as the Initiative plotline and Spike, and the overall greying of the good/bad delineations in the Buffyverse. And yet the author still claimed that vampires and demons are symbolic of "race in American society; the characters' successful and unsuccessful attempts to deal with the Other often illuminate the ways in which society may come to terms with differences in race, culture, and lifestyle." Throughout the essay, she continually repeated the idea that the vampires and demons on "Buffy" are symbolic of minority races.

While I will acknowledge that, at times, the treatment of vampires and demons have been used to demonstrate racism-- examples include, from "Buffy," the Initiative arc, and from "Angel," the Scourge from "Hero" and Gio from "That Old Gang of Mine"--I think that to make such a sweeping gesture as to say that all vamps and demons on "Buffy" at all times represent minorities is not only an overgeneralization, but robs other, deeper layers of meaning from this incredibly complex show. Metaphors do not remain constant on "Buffy." Just look at all the different things magic has been used to represent!

An interpretation of vampires as the minority, of course, paints Buffy as an evil figure, wiping out those other races trying to converge on white society. While this is a convenient argument, I think it ignores a great deal, particularly regarding vampires. For starters, "Buffy" is a show about growing up, and all the trials and tribulations the characters go through in the process of growing up. And what are Vampires? Things that will, in the "natural" course of events, live forever. They can be seen as representational of the fears Buffy and the SG have upon growing up--that they will become cold, soulless things also, as many adults in their world seem to be. Principal Snyder is not much different than a vampire. What I've always felt to be the important part of the vampire symbol is that vampires were once just like us, but were changed into demonic things. The "minority" symbol doesn't do justice to this very important part of the "Buffy" mythology, the fear that one day we will give into our darkness as well and also become vampires. Yes, Vampires are societal Others, but they are Others who used to be members in the society. Minorities, on the other hand are considered societal Others from the get-go; they are not members of society who were transformed into something else, as vampires are, but have always been perceived as different, be it because of the color of their skin, the sound of their accent, or their religion.

This also ignores the fact that Buffy and the SG were also shown as societal Others, and that the two groups (Buffy and her friends/demons, vamps) were meant to parallel each other from the beginning. It was again one of the first clues on the show that a souled creature is not necessarily good, an unsouled is not necessarily evil. Buffy and her friends, from the start, were shown in a similar position, in the high school microcosm, as the beings that they fight.

I think that it is easy to find racism in just about any piece of art. If you look for it, you can find it. If you try to find a very surfacey symbol--that because vamps and demons run in gangs and harm people in the society, that they are villainized versions of minorites, done to promote, as propaganda, the idea that minorities are monsters--you can find it. But that ignores so much. I'm very glad that Sunnydale is being portrayed as more multi-cultural this season, because it further hammers home the point that vampires and demons do not = Blacks, Hispanics, etc. A white person, a black person, a Hispanic person, a Jewish person, an Asian person...they all could be turned into vampires. Vampires are not the Other of White Society, but are the Others of the Entire World, feeding on the outskirts of every society. Vampires and Demons are the darkness within Ourselves.

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My old post on this issue... -- Rahael, 14:41:32 04/08/03 Tue

Well Rob, as you'll remember, I believe in much of what you've said - I have made many of these points here before (in fact, it was your annotations thing for WTTH that made me start thinking of this). While these are very persuasive, what troubles me is the inconsistency in which this is carried out, that's all.

One very troubling this season has been the idea of Slayerness as something that disconnects you from humanity, from other people. That it stops you being a 'good mother', a loving, nurturing one, that it makes you think that others are expendable. What I most fear from the finale is that Buffy will give up her power. For so long, I've looked at her Slayer nature as the true 'otherness'. Well, then, what of those of us who can't 'give up' our otherness?

Rather than Buffy's power being empowering for her, we learn that it comes about from the ultimate victimisation, from the first slayer being held down and penetrated.

Let's put it this way. I'm not identifying any more with our 'heroes', for the first time ever. I'm with the 'bad mother', the 'vengeful son' and the 'mushroom who hates his free will'. I don't know if it's intentional, but such is my level of discomfort, I'm feeling so rebellious that I'm intending to identify with everyone that ME doesn't want me to identify with.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My old post on this issue... -- Masq, 15:26:09 04/08/03 Tue

the 'bad mother' = ?
the 'vengeful son' = ?
the 'mushroom who hates his free will' = Andrew
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nikki/Connor? -- TCH- always one to second guess, even on unspoiled eps, 15:33:09 04/08/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I figured one was Connor, but yeah, I think you're right the other is Nikki. Rah? -- Masq, 15:39:20 04/08/03 Tue

Turning your eloquent heart felt post into a guessing game. Sorry!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Or Robin... -- Masq, 15:41:23 04/08/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, AtS! -- Rahael, 15:45:30 04/08/03 Tue

I love them all, Angsty Connor, his ex-prostitute, former Vampire mother, his broody dorky father, and Wesley, and Gunn, and Fredlet, and Lorne and Gwen (hushed silence for my once former bad-girl faves, Cordy and Lilah)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That about sums it up for me, too! -- Masq, 15:51:20 04/08/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nikki and Wood! -- Rahael, 15:39:35 04/08/03 Tue

You know, whenever the discussion of 'bad' women comes up, I get flashbacks to my grandmother's bible readings and my mother's subversive and snarky asides to me.

There's a reason why I love my shiny red ankle boots of vanity and sinfulness.... (well, I like to think sin, but actually they are just cute)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I like to think "sin" too . . . -- d'Herblay, 15:46:17 04/08/03 Tue

. . . but cute does not necessarily exclude sinful, right, cutey?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, Rahael, I just can't control myself -- dream, 10:15:07 04/09/03 Wed

I just have to say that I really, REALLY, didn't see Nikki being portrayed as a bad mother in ANY way. Yes, I know some people on this board saw it that way. But personally, I think they're nuts. I saw a strong woman who (for all of her twenty seconds of screen time) spoke to her son in a loving, gentle way. I saw that she had taught him to protect himself in an emergency. Heck, I even thought that when the FE appears a Nikki, the line in which she prompts him to say thank you, even if it was creepy in the context, indicated that the ACTUAL Nikki had been the sort of good, loving but firm mother that makes sure her son knows his manners. I just hate the idea that reading posts on this season might ruin these episodes for you.

I also think Buffy's struggle with the slayer side of herself is supposed to be difficult, but that ultimately she will come to terms with what she needs to do - her loving nature will be stronger than her idea of what a general is supposed to be.

I would also caution about reading "Slayerness" too narrowly as "Otherness," and vice-versa. Whether Buffy remains a Slayer or not, she is always an "other." (Unless the series ends with Angel all human and the two of them going off to live in the suburbs with the white picket fence - which I sincerely doubt.) The experiences she has gone through will always make her apart from the world that gets to live free of the knowledge that the things that go bump in the night are real. She's died twice. She is other in a way that goes far beyond racial/ethnic otherness.

I guess I'm just saying that I still have a lot of faith in where this will all end up, and I hope you won't let other's interpretations color your vision of the show so much that you stop looking forward to it.

As for sympathizing with the mushroom, well, I'm right there with you.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed, dream -- ponygirl, 11:42:00 04/09/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you, Dream -- Rahael, 13:52:20 04/09/03 Wed

I think that the last couple of weeks have left me embittered. It's really not only this board, which has been fairly moderate. It's the fandom generally. Over the last couple of weeks, I have heard views expressed along these lines:

That Spike did Wood a favour by killing his mother because if she had lived she would have 'f***ed him up further'.

That if Nikki had really loved her son, she would have killed Spike rather than dying at his hands.

That women who are unlucky enough to live in dangerous places are bad mothers, who f*** up their children.

That Spike wasn't tearing Wood apart in that scene - he was doing Wood a favour, helping him in him put right his misguided views that his mother loved him.

THese aren't some extreme views - I've read them all over the place, in the journals of well known fans, in reviews, in posts, in justifications .....

I'm just fed up of a fandom which blames the victim for her death. That sees murder as a favour. That puts the death of a human being as a lesser event than a man's path to greater self esteem. It doesn't really matter what Spike did in the past, (in whatever incarnation) what really really matters is that he knows that his mother really really loved him.

And it's really hard to describe how shattering it is to read a post which bluntly condemns a mother who 'drags her child into a war'. That really hits me hard in so many ways.

I choose to read Slayerness that way, because that's what engages and resonates with me, and I think everyone will have something that resonates with them, that draws them in. At the moment the themes of Season 7 do not speak to me, the characters of Buffy or Willow or Spike do not speak to me, and moreover, the whole season could do with tighter editing and pacing.

Any other season but this one, I would be there, telling a poster like myself to wait and see, to trust Joss, defending the current season. So I want to thank you, I appreciate your effort.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spoilers for LMPTM above -- Rahael, 13:54:36 04/09/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Those people, whoever they are.... -- dream, 14:14:20 04/09/03 Wed

I just have to say, they suck. (I hope I can get away with that much profanity.)

I don't read other boards, so I hadn't seen all of that. No wonder you're upset. Heck, I'm upset, and I don't have the sort of personal stake in this that you would. But that sort of ignorance is very disturbing...Oh, and just because these views are commonplace doesn't mean they aren't extreme. I think those views are VERY extreme...

And I would agree that this season could use some tighter editing. The beginning of the season was great, but I got bored in the bogged-down middle. I have great hopes for the end, though. Hope you will enjoy them more than you expect.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I sincerely do too -- Rahael, 14:24:43 04/09/03 Wed

I say, as I look at all the Buffy video box sets I own, and the DVD duplicates of the very same, which probably exceed £500 easily altogether. I have a stake in loving this series, LOL! I had very very high hopes. Maybe that's my problem, it's a long way down to disappointment! Maybe now I'm in the right mood to be pleasantly surprised. I was very amused by Potential, which was the last ep I saw.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I second your profanity, dream -- The Webmistress/Board Moderator, 15:16:49 04/09/03 Wed

And am glad, for one, that I didn't have to read those posts as written by their original authors. Very disturbing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I was thinking about your issues with this... (well- known casting spoiler) -- Rob, 11:52:46 04/09/03 Wed

"One very troubling this season has been the idea of Slayerness as something that disconnects you from humanity, from other people. That it stops you being a 'good mother', a loving, nurturing one, that it makes you think that others are expendable. What I most fear from the finale is that Buffy will give up her power. For so long, I've looked at her Slayer nature as the true 'otherness'. Well, then, what of those of us who can't 'give up' our otherness?"

...and I think that perhaps we will get some real answers about this when Faith returns to "Buffy." Because my prediction is that Faith being there will prove that it is not being the Slayer that is separating Buffy from everybody else, but herself. I can't see Faith being as disconnected from her humanity as Buffy is. Perhaps, ironic as it may seem, Faith will end up being the one to remind Buffy that she does not have to be cold and does not have to push everybody away in order to do her Slayerly duties. In many ways, I think Buffy is imposing her current "Otherness" on herself. She always before found a way to be Other than everyone else, but still part of the world, close to her friends, etc. Interestingly, right now, Buffy is in danger of the same separateness that Doyle warned Angel against in "City of..."

And re: the bad mother thing, I'm not so sure we are actually supposed to feel that way about Nikki. Remember, Spike was psychologically tearing Wood apart at that point, and I'm not so sure that ME or we as an audience are actually supposed to endorse that viewpoint. Issues such as these I think we really need to see the whole story before judging.

But again, if I'm right and it's proven that the "Slayer" isn't driving Buffy away from her friends but what her own perceptions of how she should be as a Slayer is, then that point may be moot.

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Absolutely on the WKCS part, Rob (unspoiled spec for next BtVS) -- Masq, 12:54:12 04/09/03 Wed

I think Faith's arrival will really shake things up. She's not the person she used to be. If she goes against Buffy's wishes on anything, it will be for a good reason.

Ever since the First showed It's face(s) and the Potentials came to town, Buffy has been dealing with the enormous pressures of her job by doing the "I'm the only one" thing-- I'm the only one who can save the world from the First, I'm the only one who gets to make the big decisions here, it's my job, everyone stand back and let me do my job."

She knows she needs others helping her--she makes that very clear by how far she'll go to keep Spike on her team--but she doesn't really want any other co-generals. She believes it's Her Job, she's taking all of the pressure on her own shoulders. She's forgetting the first lesson she learned in Sunnydale--her greatest strength is her friend's strengths. Part of her knows that, but she wants to tell Willow, Spike, etc, what to do and how to do it and when. She wants to micro-manage everything.

And I think she's doing it with the best of intentions. She wants to fight this war right and get the job done. But she's taken on all the weight of it herself and turned herself into a little tyrant in the meantime.

So here comes Faith, fresh from the Angel pep-talk, fresh from the successful Angelus salvage-operation that she lead, depending more equitably and clear-mindedly on the strengths of Wesley, Gunn, Connor, Fred, etc. than Buffy has on her troops.

I can just see this scene where Buffy is doing another one of her inspiring speeches to the troops, going on a tangent about how "she's the Slayer, she's gotta make the tough decisions," blah blah blah, and then Willow walks in the house with Faith.

And Faith says something like, "I think you're forgetting one thing, B."

Faith's status as a real Slayer just like Buffy, Faith's status as the end of the line (the one whose death will spawn the next Slayer) will directly challenge Buffy's authority in a way Giles can't. In a way Wood and Spike can't. In a way Willow can't.

Or not. Either way, I'm really excited to get more FAITH!!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oops, I mean unspoiled except for the WKCS part ; P -- Masq, 12:57:13 04/09/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Absolutely on the WKCS part, Rob (unspoiled spec for next BtVS) -- Rob, 13:38:22 04/09/03 Wed

"And I think she's doing it with the best of intentions. She wants to fight this war right and get the job done. But she's taken on all the weight of it herself and turned herself into a little tyrant in the meantime."

Totally agree. I still love Buffy besides her current 'tude, because on the whole that's a role she's playing, a costume she's putting on because she feels like she has to. But we get flashes of the Buffy we know and love in scenes such as when she strokes Dawn's hair after she fell asleep, her sadness and shock at first discovering Chloe, etc. I want Buffy to realize that to fight the First she does not have to lose her love and compassion. And I think Faith may help her see that.

"Faith's status as a real Slayer just like Buffy, Faith's status as the end of the line (the one whose death will spawn the next Slayer) will directly challenge Buffy's authority in a way Giles can't. In a way Wood and Spike can't. In a way Willow can't."

Absolutely. I am chomping at the bit to see their reactions to each other at this point in their lives. They are both very different than the last time they met. And there's no way I can see Faith putting up with Buffy's "I'm the general. You must obey my every word to the letter"- iness!

"Or not. Either way, I'm really excited to get more FAITH!!!"

Oh, yeah!!! :o)

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The New [WKCS] heads to Sunnydale (more unspoiled spec for next BtVS) -- Masq, 14:13:37 04/09/03 Wed

I'm going to be curious to see the reactions of others to the new Faith as well. Buffy was there in L.A. when Faith gave herself up to the police. Buffy knows a little about where Faith is and how she got there (prison, voluntarily).

Of course, she hasn't seen how prison changed Faith, and how working with Angel has changed Faith.

But what about the other Scoobs? Thinking back on it, Willow was very blandly accepting of the new Faith. So much so she made no comment on it. It was like, "Oh, hey, Faith, how's it going? We need all the help we can get back in Sunnydale." No lingering issues around "Faith sharing my people" that Willow used to have.

Would have liked to have seen that Faith-Willow conversation after Faith came out of coma #2. I imagine it started out more awkwardly than that.

But how about the other Scoobs? Xander--how will he react to the woman he lost his virginity to? How will Anya react? What are Dawn's "memories" of Faith? What are Faith's "memories" of Dawn?

How about Spike? Faith remembers "buttering him up" in the Bronze. As far as Spike's concerned, they never met. Plus, hey, she's a Slayer. Spike and slayers, well, you know..

How will Giles react? He kind of thought of Faith as screwed up at best, psychopathic at worst.

The reaction I'm looking forward to, though, is from the Potentials. Should be interesting.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I hope... (WKCS spec) -- Rob, 14:24:07 04/09/03 Wed

...that we get to see a little peek at the ride home between Willow and Faith. While she may not have wanted to bring up any issues in front of everybody else, the two of them alone in the car for that long drive...I'm sure both of them had a lot of um catching up to do! I really don't want to miss out on Faith's reactions to discovering about Willow's walk on the dark side. Now that they have so much more in common than they ever did in the past, this could be a very interesting dynamic (if there's time enough to explore that, with only 5 eps left!).

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe that explains Willow's reaction -- Masq, 14:50:38 04/09/03 Wed

She was not nearly as judgmental as one might expect because she doesn't have the moral high ground anymore. She killed someone, just like Faith, but unlike Faith, she didn't pay society's dues.

Heck, I could see those two gals bonding at this point....
[> And one tiny detail from "Slouching Towards Bethlehem"... -- Rob, 07:41:48 04/05/03 Sat

...didja notice how Cordy sang "The Greatest Love of All," Queen C's theme song from Buffy Season 1, "The Puppet Show"? While doing all that heavy analyzing, just wanted to make sure you didn't miss that little moment of continuity brilliance. ;o)

Rob
[> [> Totally missed that, Rob -- Tchaikovsky, 09:04:16 04/05/03 Sat

That's superb continuity- six seasons later- and of course penned by the relatively new Jeffrey Bell. Kudos to him for that.

TCH
[> [> [> The Lyrics -- Arethusa, 09:58:08 04/05/03 Sat

Here's the lyrics to The Greatest Love of All. I won't comment because I don't want to say too much.

I believe the children are our future

Teach them well and let them lead the way

Show them all the beauty they possess inside.
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier

Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be.

Everybody's searching for a hero

people need someone to look up to

I never found anyone who fulfilled my needs.
A lonely place to be
and so I leamed to depend on me.

I decided long ago never to walk in anyone's shadow

If I fell
if I succeed
at least I lived as I believe.
No matter what they take from me

they can't take away my dignity.
Because the greatest love of all is happening to me

I found the greatest love of all inside of me.
The greatest love of all is easy to achieve

Learning to love yourself
it is the greatest love of all.


I believe the children are our future
. . .
I decided long ago never to walk in anyone's shadow
. . .

And if by chance that special place that you've be dreaming of
Leads you to a lonely place
find your strenght in love.

From lyricsfreak.com
[> [> [> And also cross-show continuity! -- Rob, 12:54:34 04/05/03 Sat

[> Some thoughts on THAW and the others (Angel Odyssey 4.3- 4.5) -- s'kat, 21:42:56 04/05/03 Sat

Finally got around to reading your essay tonight. Great job.

Completely agree with your assessment on THAW. A weak episode in an otherwise stellar year. (At least so far) Believe me - this is the only episode in Angel all year that I would rank beneath a 7/8. Angel Season 4 has rocked in my humble opinion.

There is something in THAW that I thought was incredibly dull and lame the first time around and now I'm beginning to wonder isn't maybe important? It's Angel losing his destiny and the whole reliance on destiny and fate. When I think about it - it sort of goes counter to some of the themes of the Whedonverse - about how we may have a destiny, but it is important to set our own path and choose it for ourselves. And no higher power is going to help us?
In THAW - we have Angel lose his destiney and the higher power Cordelia appears to help him get it back and save his friends. Seems to be sort of a contradiction to the whole Whedon mantra, doesn't it? So, maybe...we were supposed to see the whole episode as a bit of a satire? Making fun of Angel's reliance on higher powers and destiney? The idea of going to Vegas - gambling on fate, relying on it? When the house is rigged and you aren't in control?

The House Always Wins after all. We go to Vegas - gamble, believing luck or fate or our own skill will give us winnings. When all our winnings are rigged. Angel can never win the slot-machine but feels compelled to keep playing.
Thinking sooner or later he has to. Then whammo, a higher power comes down and makes him win, snapping him out of his cycle. Whoa. This reminds me oddly enough of Angel in the gutter in Becoming where Whistler comes to him and snaps him out of his haze and takes him to Buffy, because she's his destiney. Or when Doyle finds him in LA and gets him out his morose haze and back to helping folks in City of. Or Fred tells him that he and Cordelia are destined to be together?? Could THAW be ME's and Fury's way of making fun of or metanarrating on Angel's reliance on the PTB and others to find/set his own destiny? And that's the reason he is so dull and useless for a good majority of the episode, because without a set destiney, he feels has no will or purpose? If so, the episode suddenly got a lot more interesting and maybe I should rank it higher than a 4 after all.

Another thing in that episode - Fred and Gunn believe they are destined to be together. Angel believes Cordy is destined to be a higher being. Lorne - everyone is mislead into believing is happy. Very ironic when it plays out.

Something to keep in mind about David Fury - the man has the most satirical sense of humor I've seen in a writer. He reminds me of Swift at times. And he is brutal about it. Knocks you over the head. You either like him or hate him.
Me? I go either way.

Completely agree on Slouching. Not much to add, except loved the analysis of the poem. Clearest one I've read yet.

Also agree on your rating of Supersymmetry. This is one of my all time favorite episodes. Absolutely loved it. The new gal team - is an excellent addition - they haven't failed once.

When it first aired, I tended to see Wes in the right. (see my essay on Little Girl Lost: Fred and Cordelia). Now I don't think any of them were. This is what happens when you get an epiphany. My epiphany on connections and forging own path with those connections as a main theme - has literally turned all my readings of the episodes upside down.

From one angle Wes's help of Fred seems right on. He appreciates her views and lets her empower herself. She forges her own path. But and a huge but here - his advice and help only serves to disconnect her from everyone and to disconnect him. What were Wes' other options here?

1. He could have told her no and not given her the information.

2. He could have gotten hold of Gunn and Angel and let them know what she was up to.

3. He could have insisted on going with her.

4. Do what he did in the episode.

5. Gone after Seidel himself.

Honestly? I think option 1 or 2 would have been the best, but that would have been out of character for Wes, who a) has a major crush on Fred and b) feels disconnected from everyone and doesn't trust a soul, except himself well sort of. And desperately wants Fred's approval and love.

Gunn - unfortunately also made the wrong decision but, I can see why he did it. For exactly the reasons you state above. Poor Gunn - in some ways he was in exactly the same place Wes is. Afraid of being disconnected from Fred.
Your analysis of Gunn, I believe is right on here. Same with Fred.

In retrospect, I feel much more positive about Gunn in this episode than I did originally. Odd.

That's what I love about Btvs and Ats - no matter how many times I rewatch or re-examine, I always discover a new angle, even in the lackluster episodes.

Great reviews.

SK
[> [> Again, not understanding the general dislike of "The House Always Wins" -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:12:51 04/06/03 Sun

It seemed to me to be a very funny episode, and running from the bad guys was done very cleverly. No, it's not a really deep, "gee, thinking about this is going to keep me up all night!" episode. But, personally, it's sometimes nice to get some lightness and comedy without having to switch away from ME quality writing and acting. Plus, I've seen TV shows before that try to make every episode deeply philosophical; I've yet to see one show like that that actually makes it work. Sometimes you just need a lighthearted filler episode.

Also, I didn't see the episode being about Angel's reliance on destiny and higher powers. Note how he keeps avoiding having Lorne read him, which would reveal at least part of his destiny. Rather, I think he was nervous about what a Lorne reading might reveal, given all the trouble prophecies caused back in Season Three. Also, keep in mind, Angel was still able to fight the bad guys even without his destiny, because his friends/family were in danger.

Though, my rating of it may be a little higher than some because I wasn't too fond of "Deep Down" or "Ground State", so "The House Always Wins" had an easy act to follow.
[> [> Congratulations on a blood from stone performance! -- Tchaikovsky, 15:03:47 04/06/03 Sun

Loved your take on 'The House Always Win'. When you put it like that, it does become interesting. I wonder whether this isn't more your genius than Fury's though!

Something to keep in mind about David Fury - the man has the most satirical sense of humor I've seen in a writer. He reminds me of Swift at times. And he is brutal about it. Knocks you over the head. You either like him or hate him.
Me? I go either way.

That's a significantly different angle from me- I'm with Sol on the whole Fury Fury thing, mostly. Actually, I'm not furious with him- his episodes rarely leave me feeling annoyed with what he's written, ('Disharmony' a mini- exception), but just consistently underwhelmed. He is kind of satirical; I personally admire your bravery in comparing him to Swift, but can't see Jonathan being that impressed. Setting aside whether Fury is anywhere near the same league as Swift, there is another key difference. Swift is writing from within to his own personal worldview, sometimes mistakenly- the horse story at the end of Gulliver discounts some of what is essentially human I believe- sweat, vulgarity, lust and a temptation away from reason. If Swift makes mistakes, we blame him, love him for his dead-on accuracy in the rest of the book, and move on. When Fury does his satire, he imposes his own ideas without full blame on an established Universe not created by him. I personally find his tendency to spin out on his own limb a problem with his later work. It was fine while he was the new writer on a tight leash- think 'Helpless', 'Choices', both good. Now with his Producer-ness his crazy subversive things sometimes grate too badly for me. Just personal opinion. As you so beautifully used in your review of 'Storyteller', SK, your orange is sweet, mine sour.

Agree entirely on 'Supersymmetry'- and off to read your essay!

TCH
[> [> [> Re: Congratulations on a blood from stone performance! -- s'kat, 16:26:50 04/06/03 Sun

Thank you.

Actually, I think you are right - comparing him to Swift may be giving the man far too much credit. Swift, of course, wasn't hemmed in by the boundaries of tv writing and someone else's universe. But Swift also was a master of satire and satire IMHO is something that is very hard to pull off well, without being too heavy handed.

I agree - one of my problems with Fury is his tendency to impose his own view of things on Joss' verse. What's amusing about it is watching Joss use what he gives him and flip it around later.

While I loved Crush, Helpless, Fear Itself, Choices,
LMPTM, Disharmony (which may be more Goddard than Fury) and Awakenings and Salvage....Fury was admittedly off at times and I don't like the heavy handedness of his writing. The serial killer lines - and he's the only one who uses them btw, always get to me. It seems a little heavy-handed and out of place. The lame jokes - he does them with rat pack in THAW - grates. But...there are times that he nails it and I think sometimes he writes better when he is co-writing the episode, almost as if the second writer is somehow tempering the work. All in all? I prefer Fury on Angel as a writer than Btvs, he seems to have a better feel for that show somehow. Not sure why.
[> Preserving this thread -- Masq, 06:38:01 04/08/03 Tue

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Song used Early One Morning Lyrics -- Charlene Skluzacek, 08:18:37 04/05/03 Sat

I liked the song Early One Morning and have found the music but I would like the lyrics they used from the show. April 5, 2003 and I haven't any luck finding the words. Are they the same? Here are the words the traditional song used:Anonymous
Traditional English Folksong

Early one morning,
Before the sun had risen,
I heard a bluebird
In the fields gayly sing,
"South winds are blowing,
Green grass is growing,
We come to herald the merry Spring."

One Autumn afternoon,
Just as the sun was setting,
I heard a bluebird
On a tree pipe a song,
"Farewell! we're going;
Cold winds are blowing;
But we'll be back when the days grow long."

Thanks for all the help in finding the words.
[> Re: Buffy the Vampire Slayer Song used Early One Morning Lyrics -- CW, 08:30:32 04/05/03 Sat

Early one morning, just as the sun was rising,
I heard a maiden singing in the valley below.
Oh, don't deceive me, Oh, never leave me.
How can you use a poor maiden so?

from Folksinger's Wordbook, Silber and Silber, 1973.

This is the version of the folksong I'm used to. There are five more verses.
[> [> Spike's Mom actually screwed up a little... -- dub ;o), 11:55:55 04/05/03 Sat

She sang,

Early one morning, just as the sun was shining...

That might be an accepted adaptation, but I've never heard it before.

;o)
[> [> [> Re: Spike's Mom actually screwed up a little... -- leslie, 16:08:44 04/05/03 Sat

This was something I found rather odd about the song being a psychological trigger. As I understand it (and I am not particularly well-versed in brainwashing so I could be wrong), the trigger has to occur exactly as it is programmed, yet not only does Mrs. William the Elder sing a variant of the words, but there are also some slight melodic variations among the people who sing the song, timing variations (FE!Spike jazzes up the rhythm), even what you might call orchestration variations--an accordion player seems to set it off with just the tune, no words. I don't know whether that's deliberate and meaningful, a comment on the variant-ing nature of folk song, or what, but it struck me as interesting.
[> Re: Buffy the Vampire Slayer Song used Early One Morning Lyrics -- Lynn Jepsen, 15:12:08 04/05/03 Sat

Actually, a different version was used on the show... These are the lyrics I learned to sing, and they match all the snippets I heard on the show.



Early one morning, just as the sun was rising
I heard a maid sing in the valley below
"Oh don't deceive me, Oh never leave me,
How could you use, a poor maiden so?"

Remember the vows that you made to me truly
Remember how tenderly you nestled close to me
Gay is the garland, fresh are the roses
I've culled from the garden to bind over thee.

Here I now wander alone as I wonder
Why did you leave me to sigh and complain
I ask of the roses, why should I be forsaken,
Why must I here in sorrow remain?

Through yonder grove, by the spring that is running
There you and I have so merrily played,
Kissing and courting and gently sporting
Oh, my innocent heart you've betrayed

How could you slight so a pretty girl who loves you
A pretty girl who loves you so dearly and warm?
Though love's folly is surely but a fancy,
Still it should prove to me sweeter than your scorn.

Soon you will meet with another pretty maiden
Some pretty maiden, you'll court her for a while;
Thus ever ranging, turning and changing
Always seeking for a girl that is new.

Thus sang the maiden, her sorrows bewailing
Thus sang the poor maid in the valley below
"Oh don't deceive me, Oh never leave me,
How could you use, a poor maiden so?"
Yipe! -- Cactus Watcher, 08:58:15 04/05/03 Sat

I've been keeping track now and then of the numbers which follow /14567/ in the internet address of our individual posts. We were getting close to 100,000 which would mean we've had that many posts, and we'd have something to celebrate. Now, that darn Voy has started counting over.
[> why not celebrate anyway? :) -- Alison, 11:44:20 04/05/03 Sat

[> I noticed the sme thing. -- OnM, 19:07:24 04/05/03 Sat

As best as I could tell, we left off at about 97,349. Anyone know for sure exactly where the re-numbering took place?
[> [> But there isn't a message 97349! -- Solitude1056, 09:57:40 04/06/03 Sun

[> current numbering, post #2661 = original numbering, post #100,000 -- Solitude1056, 21:08:13 04/05/03 Sat

[> [> Sounds good, Post #2661, here we come! -- CW, 06:42:31 04/06/03 Sun

[> [> [> Or Post #2651, here we come! Since OnM's count looks better. -- CW, 07:19:01 04/06/03 Sun

Then again, we've had all those double posts... Sigh!

The witching hour seems to have been 22:00 Pacific time on thursday. Other than that, I'll let someone with more patience track it down. I couldn't find post new-style #1, but did see Rob's post #4 at 22:02, and Masq's post #97348 at 21:50.
[> [> [> [> New post #1 was by Honorificus at 22:01:02 04/03/03 Thu -- OnM, 08:33:50 04/06/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Yes! I am the First! -- Honorificus (Always The First), 13:24:52 04/06/03 Sun

I knew it! I knew there was nothing more evil than myself (except perhaps Ryan Seacrest's wardrobe, but that's another show)! All of you bow down.

Cool! Gotta go change my clothes!
[> [> [> [> 97339 was the highest I could locate. -- Solitude1056, 09:53:40 04/06/03 Sun

I located http://www.voy.com/14567/97331.html manually and just kept changing the last digits until I hit a 404. The highest number that had a post attached to it was 97339.
[> [> [> [> [> It should be in the archives, although I couldn't locate it right now. -- OnM, 20:40:20 04/06/03 Sun

The post was by Masq, at 21:51:56 on 04/03/03 Thu. I had previously found a post at # 97346, and thought that might be the highest, but then located (this) one at 97349. Couldn't locate anything higher, and the time signatures are pretty close.

Has Voynak struck again???
[> I say we party. I'll bring the hamster kabobs! -- HonorH, 22:36:54 04/05/03 Sat

And maybe some bichon creme frise, too. Anybody have a good recipe for entrail salad? And don't forget the cats-in-a- blanket!
[> [> Honorificus!!! -- HonorH (the real one), 23:29:23 04/05/03 Sat

If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, NO USING MY PSEUDONYM TO MAKE WEIRD POSTS!!!!!

That's it! I'm listening to Air Supply tonight.
[> [> [> Do we suspect that Honorificus and HonorH are connected somehow? -- Jay, who just noticed that I lost an hour last nite, 07:22:52 04/06/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> Dude...could it be possible?!? -- Rob, who wants that hour back....NOW!!!, 08:48:17 04/06/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Arizona doesn't do that. We just suddenly move from Mountain to Pacific! ;o) -- CW, 11:35:52 04/06/03 Sun

[> It happened last week, but the big news is... -- Masquerade, 08:09:06 04/06/03 Sun

I meant to comment on it, but I got busy. The good news is, CW, we can continue to keep count just by doing math. We'll know when we get to 100,000

The big news is we probably went over 100,000 a while ago. Voy is our second board host, and we were at InsideTheWeb for over a year.
[> [> It figures. I'm usually a year late to the party ;o) -- CW, 11:38:14 04/06/03 Sun

Spike, Souls and Whips -- Majin Gojira, 12:14:15 04/05/03 Sat

A Disturbing trend in Spike's Behavior has reared it's ugly head. His capacity to redeam himself for his past transgressions is on even more unstable ground than it was before. This season, it looked to all intesive purposes that Spike was going to try and redeam himself, now, it looks like he does not want to be redeamed or even care if he is.

At the beging of the season, Spike arrived with jibbering insanity and gnawing guilt. His behavior looked much like Angel did when he was first ensouled.

However, it was revealed that unlike Angel, who felt bad for everything he had done durring his soulless days, Spike only felt bad for one thing and one thing Only: His treatment of Buffy. Nothing else appears to be wracking his conscience.

He tried his best to do good, to do what was needed...to do what Buffy needed him to do.

He tries, he wants to be good and has the capacity to show kindness. However, at Buffy's bidding, he can tune it out just like that.

Buffy is actually a barrier to Spike's moral development...wait a minute.

Spike has hardly developed morally since season 5. he's perpetually Buffy's bitch. She wants him to help. He does. She 'needs' him to be a killer. he becomes one...completely.

Spike's moral compas is, and probably always will be Buffy. Now that she's asked him to be bad, we got to see the ramifications of that in LMPTM.

In it, it is revealed that Spike's world has always revolved around the women he's cared about. His Mother, Cecilly, Dru, Buffy. They guide who he is in the greater sense.

He doesn't care about anything else except how these people view him.

Spike Doesn't feel bad about what he's done to countless innocense over his 150 years of vampirism. He only cares about what he's done to the women he seeks approval from.

Hence his return to his more brutal ways.

This bring up a whole slew of issues on Vampires with Souls in how much of them is Demon and how much of them is Soul.

Spike, even with this new soul, is hardly an improvement morally over the Old Spike.
[> Disagree -- HonorH, 12:44:07 04/05/03 Sat

Yes, he felt bad about his treatment of Buffy, and that was his major focus when he first got his soul. However, we see him wracked with guilt in "Sleeper" as well, telling Buffy that he wouldn't hurt more people because he can hardly live with what he's done already. Now that the chip is out, Spike has his real test: can he restrain himself from killing people on his own?

Think back to "Smashed". What was the first thing he did when he thought the chip wasn't working any longer? Tried to bite a girl. This time, no such thing. Even when he's very angry, like in the case of Robin, he can still restrain himself from killing, even without Buffy's presence to stop him.

Also, Buffy didn't tell him to be a killer again. She told him to quit wimping out on fights--to be dangerous again. He wasn't fighting his hardest for fear of releasing the demon again, and she essentially told him to get over it. Now, that might've been unwise, but so far, Spike's actually done very well. Again, in the fight with Robin, Spike restrained himself from killing. The old Spike would've killed Robin in a heartbeat.

The point of LMPTM, to my way of thinking, is that Spike is now truly his own man. He's not the First's lap dog anymore, he's not restrained by the chip, and he's no longer Buffy's bitch. He told Buffy flat-out that he'd kill Robin if he tried anything else, and I don't imagine he was thinking Buffy would be especially pleased to hear it. Spike controls Spike now. It'll be interesting to see where that goes.
[> [> Which is probably a first for him, actually. -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:09:42 04/05/03 Sat

I don't think we've ever seen Spike before when a woman (or at least the memory of a woman) wasn't what his mind was focused on. For most of his mortal life, he was symbiotically (or parasitcally, depending on your outlook) attached to his mother, and late in it developed a deep obsession for Cecily. Then, after his vamping, Drusilla became his world. Everything he did he did with thoughts of her in mind, which spurred him on to be even more viscious than he might have been otherwise. Even after she left him in 1998, he was still haunted by his memory of her and dreamed of getting her back. Even in his relationship with Harmony, it was clear she was just a Drusilla substitute. Then he fell in love with Buffy in Season 5 and became her faithful lapdog. The memory of her lasted him throughout the summer, and, after her resurrection, he returned to making his life revolve around her, and this has continued ever since.

But, in "First Date", Spike talked about having moved past him and Buffy as an item. He got past Drusilla back in "Crush" when he was willing to kill her for Buffy. He most likely stopped crooning over Cecily shortly after Dru turned him. And now, finally, he's put his issues with his mother behind him. The closest Spike ever came to this type of freedom before was early Season 4, but even then it was very clear he was still pining. The last five episodes of Season 7 should give us our first look at a fully independent Spike.
[> [> [> Well, he's not independant yet. -- Doug, 14:27:33 04/05/03 Sat

Spike's at sort of a complicated place in his relationship with Buffy. He's no longer the faithful lapdog, but while he is no longer emotioally dependant on her he still is tied to her in other ways. How many allies does he have? Wood just tried to kill him, Giles helped Wood try to kill him, the potentials are terrified of Spike, Anya is trying to get Spike into bed but I'm not sure how much she likes him; and as for Xander, Willow and Dawn I have no clue about how they feel. The only advocate Spike has, the only person who will trust him, is Buffy.

I don't think there's anyone else in the world right now who would treat Spike as a friend (we haven't seen Clem for several episodes, and no interaction between him and Spike since last season), no one else who would help him or who would accept his help. So until Spike can find at least one new ally he is tied to Buffy as tightly as he ever was; he's no longer emotionally dependant, but there are a lot of people who want him dusted, and since Buffy is the only person other than Spike watching out for him he's still going to be watching her back.
[> [> [> [> emotionally independent? I'm not so sure . . . -- pilgrim, 18:09:42 04/05/03 Sat

I agree with much of what you're saying, but I think what's getting Spike through, even now, is that four-word mantra: Buffy believes in me. As long as he has that foundation to stand on, he has both a reason to try to be a good man and a guide for how to achieve that end, ie, what Buffy would want him to do. I see him as still being basically Buffy's faithful lapdog, or perhaps her trained pitbull--he still looks to her for approval, basically does what she asks of him, and jumps when she calls him.

What would happen if (1) he screws up royally and Buffy doesn't believe in him any longer, or (2) Buffy falls or jumps off that pedestal he still has her on? (re the pedestal, Spike tells us that for him, it's still all about Buffy.) Would he believe in himself even if she didn't? Would he even want to be a good man? I suspect that making that leap, essentially a leap into true adult responibility for himself, would be difficult for Spike. Shadowkat suggests in her thread below that Spike went after a soul for deeper reasons than just needing to be a good man for Buffy--that he longed for human connection. I hope so, although I'm not entirely convinced. I also think that Spike has his own, very personal reasons for wanting to fight and defeat the FE--it took away his self control. So that gives him a non-Buffy motive for wanting to be good, at least good enough to fight with the other good guys.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: emotionally independent? I'm not so sure . . . -- Doug, 18:40:49 04/06/03 Sun

I think that what Spike's final scene in LMPTM was supposed to show was that he was through just following Buffy and was setting his own rules for things like people trying to kill him. He is starting to define his own existence, rather than let himself be defined by his mother or Drusilla or Buffy. That being said, while he has his freedom from chip, mind control, and at least some of his issues, he still has nowhere in particular to go in this world; he has alot of enemies and few real friends.
[> [> Re: Disagree -- luvthistle1, 20:04:55 04/05/03 Sat

Do anyone remember, that he stayed with Dawn after Buffy had died? If it was all about Buffy, wouldn't he had left, or went evil? instead he continue to help the scoobie in there battle against evil.
[> [> [> Re: Disagree -- Dochawk, 20:35:51 04/05/03 Sat

The fact that Spike stayed to "help" at the end of Season 5 don't support Spike having changed.

1. Spike obsessed over all women Summers, not just Buffy, but Dawn and Joyce as well. In their instructions to authors who write Buffy novels, they are told that Spike is not allowed to do anything good except when it comes to one of the Summers women. Get It Done, when Spike fights to save Anya was the first time we have seen Spike independently do something good for someone who wasn't a Summer's women.

2. Remember Spike loves to kill, when he learned in Season 4 that even chipped he could kill demons he couldn't wait to get back out there. Working with the Scoobies allows Spike to do this. He could have gone out as a rogue demon hunter, but he still felt a responsibility to Dawn, the last of the Summers' women.
[> [> [> Re: Disagree -- Dannyblue, 20:45:22 04/05/03 Sat

It's true. Buffy wasn't there physically to see and be impressed by all things Spike did (fighting demons, looking after Dawn) while she was "dead". But I think that, to Spike, she was there in spirit, and he was still trying to impress her.

1. Spike promised Buffy he would protect Dawn. As he told Doc, he "made a promise to a lady." A lady he loved, no less. That's not a promise he going to break.

2. Doing things Buffy would want him to do was a tribute to her memory. A living memorial, if you will. Buffy would want him to protect Dawn. Buffy would want him to fight demons and help her friends.

3. Staying in Sunnydale gave him a connection to Buffy. Yes, she was dead. But he could keep her alive, in a way, by interracting with other people who loved her too. By leaving, he would've lost that connection.

4. He also protected Dawn out of guilt. I think a part of Spike blames himself for Buffy's death. If he'd been able to save Dawn on the tower in "The Gift", Buffy would never have had to sacrifice herself.

I thought it was possible Spike stayed in Sunnydale because he cared about Dawn independent of his feelings for Buffy. But that notion went out the window with his complete indifference towards Dawn in seasons 6 and 7.
[> [> [> [> Re: Disagree -- luvthistle1, 21:02:26 04/05/03 Sat

. but by all accounts a vampire are not suppose to care. they are not suppose to feel remorse, or love. yet , some how he was able to. plus, he had change. in season 4, he wanted the chip out and he team up with Adam.he also later team up with Harmony. if he was that same person , he would have repeated the same action.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagree -- Dannyblue, 21:21:22 04/05/03 Sat

but by all accounts a vampire are not suppose to care.

According to the Watchers Council, who have every reason to promote the idea of vampires not having emotions. But we have been shown, time and time again, that vampires do care.

1. Dru tells Buffy vampires can love "quite well, if not wisely", just like humans.

2. James loved Elizabeth so much, he sacrificed himself in the name of avenging her.

3. When Angel was first ensouled, Darla grieved for him, even tried to get his soul taken away. She felt pain over his loss.

4. When Spike was first vamped, he still cared about his mother. And felt remorse that he had vamped then killed her.

5. Harmony missed her life as a human so much, she tried to recapture it by going to see Cordelia in LA. And, since being friends with Cordy meant being good, Harmony tried to be good. (And, who knows, might have succeeded if the Fang Gang hadn't sent her into that meeting.)

6. When Darla was first re-vamped by Dru, she was so angry, she attacked her sire. For those first few moments, even without a soul, she was angry about the loss of her humanity.

7. When torturing Angel in "What's My Line?" Dru was her most viscious when mentioning all the horrible things Angelus did to her family. Despite being soulless herself, she cared.

So vampires have emotions. They care, they love, they mourn and grieve.
[> [> [> [> [> Vampires can feel love -- Majin Gojira, 21:34:11 04/05/03 Sat

Only it's always some twisted, perversion of love. Obsessive, self-destructive Romeo-Juliet kind of love. Sadistic Love. etc. Not "healthy" love. Spike felt love. The Vampires dusted in the Season 3 premier of Angel felt love. None of it was healthy, mind you, but it was still love.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Vampires can feel love -- deacon, 21:46:21 04/05/03 Sat

One thing that is unique about spike was that unlike other vampires who seemed have a burning passinate love that borders on hate, spike was capable of a carring non-sexual love that he felt towards Dawn
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Vampires can feel love -- Dannyblue, 21:58:16 04/05/03 Sat

One thing that is unique about spike was that unlike other vampires who seemed have a burning passinate love that borders on hate, spike was capable of a carring non-sexual love that he felt towards Dawn

Which is why it was such a shame that ME abandoned the Dawn/Spike friendship? It was very interesting watching Spike deal with someone he

a) Didn't want something from.

b) Wasn't trying to impress.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Vampires can feel love -- Alison, 11:12:20 04/06/03 Sun

It is a shame it was abandoned, but I think ME did it bc the two actors had such chemistry, it gave people "ideas"... and MT is 17 and James is 40, whereas in the B/A relationship the actors were much closer in age. I too, loved the interaction between them, and am still hoping that we may get lucky and see a few scenes between them before the story ends.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ok... -- Majin Gojira, 12:17:47 04/06/03 Sun

well, there are two reasons why it was abandoned, that I can see:

1. It could very quickly devolve into "Spike and Dawn go out and get themselves in trouble and the others have to rescue them" much like what happened with "Lost in Space"

2. Not everyone views Chemistry as Romantic Relations. (at least, I think your implying this with the "Ideas" remark)
[> [> [> [> [> Heartthrob -- Dochawk, 07:57:46 04/06/03 Sun

On the contrary there was an entire episode of Angel, called Hearthrob James set off to destroy Angel because he dusted his love, Elizabeth. There were questions about the obsessive nature of their love, but it was certainly love.
[> [> [> [> Re: Disagree -- deacon, 21:58:43 04/05/03 Sat

very good points here, could you elaborate on why you said spike had complete in differnce toward Dawn. In my opinion spike still cared for Dawn, in season six dawn did not need anymore protecting she was not the key any more and there was really no big bad that she needed protecting from. And in season 7 she is older stronger able to take care of herself. And she is angry at spike for trying to rape buffy. When Dawn threatens to light spike on fire there is a look of hurt in his eyes. Spike still cares for Dawn and still protecter her if she needed it
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagree -- Dannyblue, 22:34:39 04/05/03 Sat

In season 5, Spike and Dawn's relationship didn't depend on whether or not she needed protecting...although he did that too, and without any prompting from Buffy. But they also just...talked. Like friends do.

After Buffy returned in season 6, it was like Spike forgot about Dawn. Long before he attacked Buffy and Dawn had a reason to be mad at him, they could be in the same room and it was like he didn't even notice her.

In season 7, it's like they are complete strangers. You could say it's because Dawn is still mad with him. Maybe. But people in the Jossverse are all about forgiving their friends. Dawn hasn't even made an attempt. And, except for that one moment you mentioned in "Beneath You", Spike doesn't seem to mind.

Like I said, it's a shame.
[> [> [> [> [> [> They had a dynamic that reminded me of Dr. Smith and Will Robinson from "Lost in Space" -- Majin Gojira, 06:23:15 04/06/03 Sun

Vampires can feel lovwe.... how fitting(little OT) -- Angel, 00:15:13 04/06/03 Sun

..okay.

My wife just left me. Pretty much.... out of the blue
[> Dude, I'm sorry -- Wolfhowl3, 07:12:37 04/06/03 Sun

I know what you are going through, becuase My wife left me a little less then a year ago.

I'm sorry it happend, but I'm sure you will be okay. (eventually)

Wolfie
[> I'm so sorry, Angel. -- LadyStarlight, 07:14:50 04/06/03 Sun

If you need to talk, or vent, I'm here.
[> My sincerest sympathies, Angel...hope things work out in the end -- Random, 12:32:01 04/06/03 Sun

[> Well, that stinks. -- HonorH, 13:21:45 04/06/03 Sun

I hope you have some good friends to lean on in this time. Take care of yourself, okay?
[> [> Thanks, all of you. -- Angel, 15:57:13 04/06/03 Sun

I don't even know why I said it here, of all places. But yeah. I'm stuck alone in a bad situation when three days ago we were joking about me being an anachronism because I couldn't work the jacuzzi tub and bubble bath combined. I don't know. And all my good friends, actually, live at least three states away.

Thank you all for being kind right now. I'm trying to keep from breaking down completely.... I'm trying to still see the good in the world. That I have a place and a mission in it. But my faith is fading fast.

Thanks, guys. In most seriousness.
[> [> [> Angel, hang on -- luna, 19:23:17 04/06/03 Sun

I've been there, and I'm sure many others will tell you the same--eventually I got to a MUCH happier place, and also one that lasts! And I'm betting on the same for you. Time is miserable, but when you're not watching, it passes. And then the thing you really wanted is there. I'm hoping for you!
Spoiler&Spec: a slayer,aVamp, a embryo and the Zeppo.? -- luvthistle1, 12:19:56 04/06/03 Sun

Connor and Cordy just had a bouncing baby girl...ur.wait! a full grown adult African American women. I guess it safe to
say the child might not be Connor's.


I do not believe that the baby is actually Connor's. he was led to believe it was, so he would protect it with his life. That could have been way it was necessary for Holtz to raise Connor,. Holtz talked about how he lost his family because of Angelus. it was to insure that Connor protect "the beast master 's baby with his life.

I also do not think it's Cordy. All of those things Skip mentioned as manipulations in a grander scheme--one of them was Wes' "sleeping with the enemy." and how might that fit into the great plan? The Beast took something out of Lilah, and I'm betting it was an embryo. Lilah was more than just human. The beast put his hand straight into her. she continue to bleed over a course of a couple of day with no medical attention, yet she didn't bleed to death?

BTVS connection:

I notice that when the baby was transfer into another body it appears to have tentacle. could it be the same huge, green, multi- headed, tentacled demon that erupted from the hellmouth the night Buffy died in Prophecy girl and is partly seen in the Zeppo.?

Angel and Buffy was there when it tried to escape from the hellmouth. it will probably take Buffy and Angel to send it back= back to the beginning.


Spoiler and Speculation are welcome! feel free to e-mail me.


Do anyone knows why Giles went to the "spirit guide" in the Zeppo, yet went to the demon I thing in "bring on the night" ?( or showtime, I'm not sure)
The Tro-Clon? (possible spoilers, unless I'm wrong) -- Sgamer82, 16:51:36 04/06/03 Sun

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E

J
U
S
T

I
N

C
A
S
E
An idea popped up into my head a while ago that had me wondering, is it possible that Gina Torres' character part of the Tro-Clon prophecies in the Nyzian scrolls? I'm not sure if the entire prophecies were made by Sahjahn or if he only affected the parts relating to him. If they are real, then is it possible that the confluence of events has been set in order to bring about Gina's existance in this world?

If Skip is to be believed, a lot of the AI gang's major moments have been manipulated in order to bring about the outcome we've seen. A lot of the events didn't have much connections to the other events. Gunn would've had to kill Alonna regardless of Angel's intervention. Fred's going to Pylea had nothing to do with any of AI's moments, though Lorn'es leaving Pylea was an unintended consequence of Fred's attempts to escape. Holtz's appearance and Connor's birth really didn't have anything to do with each other except for both being mentioned in the scrolls. There's more to this line of thinking, I'm sure but I can't think of it...

Speaking of Connor's birth, the scrolls predicted it, and Skip said that Connor was made for the sole purpose of bringing forth Gina. There could've been more about this in the scrolls, though it seems we'll never know (what happened to the scrolls anyway?)

So, assuming Skip is, to some extent, telling the truth, a lot of very separate events have been arranged in order to bring forth Gina Torres' demonic form. Sounds like what the Tro-Clon describes to me. Nobody said the confluence of events had to happen one after the other. For all anybody knows the confluence has been preparing itself for decades, if not centuries. The past couple of years probably just had more confluey things happening than others have.

Is it possible that Gina is related to the Tro-Clon and, if so, will the Nyzian scrolls re-appear (if they weren't destroyed) as a way of finding a means to defeat her?
[> The only prophecy... (spoilery spec for AtS within) -- Masq, 17:01:12 04/06/03 Sun

The only prophecy that was wrong as far as I know was "the father will kill the son". Sahjhan admitted that he deliberately made that up.

The Nyazian prophecies were as good as any prophecies in the Buffyverse ever are. They predicted the birth of Connor, and the fact that his birth would be a "death"--i.e., Darla's. They said there would be a confluence of events that would bring about the "ruination or purification of mankind".

Some of those events were the birth of Connor, the arrival of Holtz, and probably Connor's "quick growing up" as a result of Connor and Holtz crossing paths. Connor grows up fast, Cordelia gets made half-demon and gets taken into another dimension where she is prepped to become the carrier of the GinaTorresBeing.

Cordy comes back, she and Connor do that thing that made me go blind, Cordelia becomes pregnant with the GinaTorresBeing's "vessel". The Beast arrives and almost brings about the ruination of mankind with blotting out the sun. Angel's role in the apocalypse is unclear because no one knows if he will be dark or good, and lo and behold he's dark when he kills the Beast, which is actually a Good thing.

Then Gina is born and after all this darkness and death she seems to be a good glowy being who wants everyone to be shiny and happy. So maybe it's the purification of mankind.

So, yeah, I think you could be onto something.

Just watch the spoilers in the subject line... ; )
[> [> Re: The only prophecy... (spoilery spec for AtS within) -- Angel, 17:31:09 04/06/03 Sun

Damnit.... now I have to go watch "Inside Out" on my download -- I missed it.

Prophecy is always a good subject for me.... and right now, believe me, I could use the distraction and the re(almost wrote 'redemption')assurance.
[> [> Re: The only prophecy... (spoilery spec for AtS within) -- Sgamer82, 18:52:23 04/06/03 Sun

So I guess I should've titled the original thread Gina Torres the Tro-Clon, huh?

I forgot it before, but the whole ruination/purification part of the prophecy does fit into the theory. Since Gina Torres does seem to be a harbinger of one or the other. What happens with her could bring about that ruining purifying part of the prohecy.
[> [> [> Re: The only prophecy... (spoilery spec for AtS within) -- ahira, 05:46:47 04/07/03 Mon

Maybe you could get both. One being's concept of purification could lead to another's ruination.
[> [> Re: The only prophecy... (spoilery spec for AtS within) -- maddog, 10:21:28 04/07/03 Mon

With the way the preview went and the look on Fred's face I'm somehow doubting that it's the purification of mankind. However it does make me wonder if the double meaning(purfication or ruination) may be on purpose because both will happen...it may look like purification but lead to ruination....get it? I don't know...just thinking out loud.
Masq, continuing our brief discussion from earlier re: Cordy... -- Rob, 01:18:22 04/07/03 Mon

...Since the A/C ship started around this time, I was wondering where you fall on it. Pro? Con? I personally like it, but I know a lot of people complained that they don't have chemistry or it felt forced. Since it seems (and I agree w/ you) that Cordy's arc and the strangeness of her character in latter season 3 was mapped out, and we were supposed to be weirded out by her, do you think we were also supposed to feel like there was something wrong with A/C? Or do you think that area had genuine intentions but just failed to convince some viewers?

Rob
[> That ol' A/C 'ship (spoilers through season 4 AtS) -- Masq, 05:41:44 04/07/03 Mon

I'm not an A/C shipper as such. Part of it is residual B/A shippiness, part of it is a very strong opinion that poor Angel shouldn't have a 'ship. Not a happy one, anyway. Not as long as he has the gypsy curse. Not that he can't fall in love, but I had trouble believing that these two had back in mid-season 3.

Partly because I liked their friendship so much. And partly for the same reasons a lot of the A/C shippers had with it. It felt forced. All "telling" and no "showing". But in retrospect, maybe the writers couldn't do a lot of "showing". They could have built up the romance slowly, showing all the things people do and feel as they fall in love and not commenting on it and leaving it up to the fans to say, "You know, suddenly I'm an A/C shipper!"

But I think the writers weren't really focused on A/C because they knew they weren't really going there. Not in a kissing-and-romance way. They just wanted A and C to have feelings for each other to up the emotional damage of this season. They knew any feelings Cordy had would be lost for the duration in Evil!Cordelia. They knew that any feelings Cordelia had prior to ascending would come out not in romance as such, but in that fanatical devotion to Angel's cause.

They wanted to set up Angel to be jealous of Connor this season--but not SO jealous he really felt moved to DO anything about C&C besides get distracted by his own attitude.

A&C might well develop a genuine romance that the fans can really feel in S. 5 if there is a S. 5. But that wasn't the point of S. 3&4. So while the writers could have handled in a bit more emotionally and subtely than they did (klunky kye- rumption), I can see why they did it like they did.
[> [> I think that Cordy is Xander -- lunasea, 09:18:22 04/07/03 Mon

I really don't want to see Xander and Buffy together. They are friends and not all friends should end up together. Just because you have a good looking guy and a good looking chick doesn't mean they should end up together. Why belittle friendship like that? The ultimate goal shouldn't be couples.

For Cordy to be any fun, she has to have that spunk that is built around a wicked sense of humor that involves a multitude of put-downs. That worked great with Xander, her equal in this respect. I don't want to see Angel in a relationship like that.

I think C/A was more than to set Angel up for that truly evil scene. Instead it was to set up him not knowing how he felt. Everything about it feels to me like Angel is acting like he thinks he should. I wrote a bit about this in S'kat's thread. I don't think Angel loves Cordy or she loves him like that. They are Buffy and Xander.
[> Re: Masq, continuing our brief discussion from earlier re: Cordy... -- Dannyblue, 10:54:33 04/07/03 Mon

Some fans seem to think that, if they don't see any chemistry between two characters, it must not be there. But chemistry is subjective, in the eye of the beholder. I don't see a lot of chemistry between Buffy and Spike, but there are countless B/Sers who do. And while I, and countless C/Aers, see chemistry between Cordy and Angel, I'm not surprised there are those who don't.

I don't think you can judge whether or not C/A can succeed as a 'ship until it actually becomes one. Unlike other 'ships, and contrary to popular belief, C/A has never been the focus of the show. It's been a lingering issue, with the occasional mention, but hasn't really had time to develope. Largely because so many other things were going on. Connor was born, Connor was taken, Connor returned, Cordy ascended, Cordy returned with amnesia, Evil!Cordy took over.

Not much time for romance. I think we have to wait until the storm passes to see where C/A goes, and how Angel and Cordy really feel. Right now, it's way too soon to write it off.
[> [> Well said Dannyblue... -- yabyumpan, 11:32:15 04/07/03 Mon

Re: the whole chemistry thing... it seems to refer to some explosive sexual energy between 2 people. What I see is different about C/A and why some people don't 'get it' is that that sort of chemistry is not the basis of their attraction. It's about friendship and trust and knowing each other and an inimacy that's not based on the sexual. Not that I don't see sexual chemistry there but that it's not at the forfront of the relationship. I think with C/A we see a real, mature, healthy relationship. I know people wil cry Wesley/Lilah and while they did have lots of grown up sex I don't see that it was ever a really mature relationship.
[> Nick and Nora Charles. -- Dannyblue, 12:16:13 04/07/03 Mon

I also think certain pairings are more suited for certain kinds of romantic storylines.

Buffy and Angel worked as Romeo and Juliet. Starcrossed lovers who were as much about why they couldn't be together as why they didn't want to be apart. And the more it seemed like they had to stay apart, the more I wanted them together.

In my mind, C/A are more like Nick and Nora Charles. Nick and Nora (of the Thin Man series) weren't about angst and pain. They were best friends who also happened to be deeply in love. They were more likely to tease each other than make sweeping declarations of love. (She made fun of his laziness, he joked that he married her for her money. She got mad at him for running off on his own to investigate a murder. He got mad at her for the same thing.) Sometimes, she'd look at him, and you'd just know she was thinking, "What a dork!" But she loved him anyway. And there was no- one he'd rather talk to about whatever was going on in the story than her.

Their romantic gestures, sexual chemistry, and teasing banter made them really fun to watch.

That's more C/A's style, I think.

But ME seems to believe their lead characters (Buffy and Angel) can only be in relationships filled with angst and pain and hardship and loss. But, as Angel said in "Loyalty", he'd realized love didn't have to be something that swollowed you whole and ripped you up inside. It didn't have to make you miserable.

What a concept. Love can actually be fun!

I think C/A was headed that way. And they can again.
[> [> Re: Nick and Nora Charles. -- shambleau, 15:34:36 04/07/03 Mon

Well, the reason Buffy and Angel couldn't get together and were thus star-crossed lovers, was because of the curse. That's what made their love rip them up inside, not anything innate in their relationship. As long as that applies, how are you going to get to Nick n' Nora land just because Cordy's in the mix? Nothing's changed. You end up with angsty platonic love. Again.

As for chemistry, early on, I saw a younger sister teasing a relatively humorless brother, back when Cordy actually had a sense of humor. I never saw chemistry and still don't. I'd be curious if there was a large group of C/A shippers who saw it in the first two seasons. All I remember is people saying the relationship was cool precisely because it wasn't romantic and how refreshing it was that ME wasn't going the usual romantic-cliche route.

I have a hard time believing that there's a large and passionate band of A/C shippers out there, really. The anti- shippers have certainly been more vocal on other boards. I know people who think the relationship is psychologically plausible and are on board in that respect, but large numbers of people who devoutly want them to get together?
My analysis of "Lies My Parents Told Me" is up -- Masq, 08:12:54 04/07/03 Mon

Here.

Sorry for the delay. Busy couple of weeks.

"Inside Out" is close to done as well.
[> Thanks, Masq -- Arethusa, 08:34:25 04/07/03 Mon

I thought Spike could get into the house because the owner- himself-was dead. I'm assuming that Spike's father is dead and left the house to his son with a provision to care for his mother, which I believe was common then.

There's that free will again-Spike is divested of his chip, trigger, and mother complex, finally letting him have free will, as he says.
[> [> Good point! -- Vickie, 09:42:43 04/07/03 Mon

If I'm recalling the flashbacks we've seen correctly, Liam had been disowned when he left the house against his father's wishes. He no longer lived there, and so needed an invite.

Maybe William didn't need one?

Thanks Masq. Can't wait to see the Inside Out analysis.
[> [> [> Angel in Angel's house -- Masq, 10:47:39 04/07/03 Mon

I'm sticking with Honorificus and Gyrus here, thinking of Angel needing to be invited into Fred's room in his own house.

As long as Anne was still alive, I think VampWilliam needed an invite.

"Oh, these rules are getting all messed up!" --Cordy, Room w/ A Vu

And yet I keep trying to make 'em make sense anyway!
[> [> [> [> Re: Angel's invite into Fred's room -- yabyumpan, 11:16:13 04/07/03 Mon

I assumed it was because Angel doesn't actually own the hotel. When they're leaving for Pylea in 'Over the Rainbow', in the message he leaves for Gunn, Angel specifically says that the hotel is in the company name. I think the only thing in the hotel that counts as 'his' are Angel's suite of rooms. Maybe they should have Fred own the whole thing, that way no Vamps would be able to get in unless invited.
[> [> [> [> [> Invite related to ownership? -- Vickie, 13:52:41 04/07/03 Mon

I thought that the ability to invite a vampire in was related to the place being one's home, not to ownership of the building. Thus (as has been noted), a slumlord couldn't invite a vampire into each apartment in a building.

If it were related to ownership, Dawn could not have invited Harmony in in Real Me. (Nor could Buffy, for that matter. Most likely only Joyce's name was on the deed.) Buffy even says that only someone who lives there could have invited her in.

Probably, there are spells to turn temporary lodging, like hotel rooms, into "homes" for the purpose of keeping out vampires. No doubt Willow could invent one from the de- invite spell she keeps performing on Casa Summers.
[> [> [> [> [> [> On the other hand... -- KdS, 14:17:36 04/07/03 Mon

Russell was able to get into Tina's apartment and kill her in City of... because he owned the building (although admittedly that was more about furthering the ep's vampire- as-capitalist subtext than keeping the mythologu straight).
[> [> [> [> Re: Angel in Angel's house -- Sgamer82, 12:53:28 04/07/03 Mon

Maybe it's another of those loopholes, like in Rm w/a Vu.

Anne wouldn't invite William into the house because as far as she, the only living resident, was concerned, he lived there and would be welcome to come in if he wished.

Did Anne even know that William had died? If she didn't, that implied invitation wouldn't be revoked because she wouldn't think that her son was gone forever, which could revoke an invitation.

But that's just my theory, I could be wrong.
[> [> Re: Thanks, Masq -- LadyStarlight, 10:13:14 04/07/03 Mon

After some thought, I figured it was because William still thought of his house as home, whereas Liam did not, and probably hadn't for quite a while.
[> [> Invitation stuff -- Gyrus, 10:39:36 04/07/03 Mon

I thought Spike could get into the house because the owner-himself-was dead. I'm assuming that Spike's father is dead and left the house to his son with a provision to care for his mother, which I believe was common then.

And yet any resident of a home, owner or not, can invite a vampire inside. I should think, therefore, that only the death of every resident would negate the barrier against uninvited vampires. (Otherwise, in an apartment building where all the units are rented, a vampire could just kill the landlord in order to have the run of the place.)

With regard to how Spike got into his mother's house, I'm going with the servant theory.
[> Very interesting -- Gyrus, 10:21:01 04/07/03 Mon

Very interesting analysis. I particularly like the discussion of Giles and his apparent embrace of Watcherly ways after the destruction of the Council. I, too, was puzzled by Giles' deception of Buffy so that Wood could kill Spike. It is very rare for Giles to make such important decisions unilaterally, especially when they directly contradict Buffy's wishes. Also, unlike Wood, Giles does not seem to have any particular reason to resent Spike.

But I wonder if Giles, consciously or unconsciously, is drawing parallels between Spike and Angelus. Buffy's emotional attachment to Angel made her unable to kill Angelus before he could murder Jenny; Giles may be afraid that Buffy's attachment to Spike will lead to similarly dire consequences.
[> [> If that was Giles' reasoning, I can't follow it. -- Sophist, 10:40:53 04/07/03 Mon

The two situations are hardly parallel: Angelus lost his soul but Spike has one. I suppose a parallel would be Giles trying to dust Angel in S3 to preempt the possibility that the Mayor would succeed in removing Angel's soul. Giles, of course, did no such thing.

It would have made much more sense for Xander to conspire with Wood. He, at least, has always hated Spike and such a conspiracy would have been entirely consistent with his attitude towards Angel in Becoming and Revelations.
[> [> [> Re: If that was Giles' reasoning, I can't follow it. -- Gyrus, 13:30:53 04/07/03 Mon

The two situations are hardly parallel: Angelus lost his soul but Spike has one.

It's not about who has a soul and who doesn't; it's about Giles' trust in Buffy's judgement. Because of her love for Angel, Buffy couldn't make the hard choice -- to kill Angelus -- in time to save Jenny in S2. Now, with the FE able to take control of Spike at any moment, Giles may be afraid that she will be similarly slow on the draw if the FE decides to send Spike on a killing spree.
[> [> [> [> Shouldn't that concern have been even more acute when it comes to Angel in S3? -- Sophist, 13:46:25 04/07/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> It was. -- Gyrus, 16:19:05 04/07/03 Mon

But:

1. In S3, Giles had no real reason to believe that Angel would go bad again. Therefore, there was no justification for killing Angel that Giles' rational mind could accept. In LMPTM, on the other hand, Giles knew that Spike could be "set off" by the FE any time it liked. Spike was an immediate threat.

2. Not having to do kill Spike himself himself removed a psychological barrier for Giles. Killing Spike face-to-face might have been difficult at best, both physicially and emotionally. Keeping Buffy distracted was a far easier task. In S3, on the other hand, Giles would have had to kill Angel himself -- there was no one else both willing and able to do it.

3. It was someone else's idea. Knowing that at least one other person agrees with you makes it easier to believe you're right. (I don't think S3 Xander would have counted, in Giles' mind.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It was. -- Sophist, 17:03:05 04/07/03 Mon

In S3, Giles had no real reason to believe that Angel would go bad again.

What about this passage from Revelations:

Nor shall I remind you that you've jeopardized
the lives of all that you hold dear by harboring a known murderer.

Or Giles' reaction to Angel's visit in Amends when Giles does not invite him in except at the point of a crossbow?

And, of course, the actions of both Faith and the Mayor in Enemies gave good reason to think that Angel's soul might be removed even against his will.

Add to all this, S3 was much closer in time to Buffy's inability to kill Angel in S2, and that Buffy's feelings for Angel in S3 were likely to be seen by Giles as much stronger than her feelings now for Spike.

In S3, on the other hand, Giles would have had to kill Angel himself -- there was no one else both willing and able to do it.

One word answer: Faith.

You have to wonder if Giles' murder of Ben didn't change him in some fundamental way, making him willing now to do things he never would have considered in S3.

I should add that I'm just trying to understand Giles' logic here (assuming he's not evil). I don't think it ultimately matters -- the key point is that he acknowledges Buffy as General, so he is betraying her whatever the merit of his logic.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> a stab at Giles' reasoning -- Mencius, 21:56:10 04/08/03 Tue

Spike was not, in Gilesí mind at least, the same as Angel is season three. He was the same as Angel in season two. The fact that spike had a trigger made him as much of a danger as if he did not have a soul. At any moment he could have been used as a weapon to kill. This was not Spikes fault, he may not be morally responsible, nonetheless he was a danger.

In season three Angel had the potential to be a danger again if he lost his soul. Spike with the trigger did not have the potential to be a danger, he was a danger. When Angel was in soulless state, Giles did unequivocally advocate and work towards Angelís destruction. Spike, while conditioned was also a danger, and it made sense for Giles to work towards Spikeís destruction. Remember that in nightmares Giles greatest fear is Buffyís death, this is still his greatest fear. SPIKE WAS A DANGER TO BUFFY. Giles thus acted perfectly in character by attempting to removing the danger.

The situation is very similar to that with Jenny Calendar. Angel, like Spike, was a danger, not the potential to be a danger like Angel in season three, was a danger. Buffy because of her feelings for Angel was unable to remove him and so Jenny and others died. Giles sees this as being the same situation.

In my very humble opinion, Gilesí line of reasoning is immoral, a person ought not to be destroyed to prevent a greater harm from occurring through no fault of said person. The ends do not justify the means. The attitude that Buffy has taken up throughout this season, however, contradicts this. Giles is correct to point out that it is hypocritical of Buffy to expect this attitude from others, but not herself follow it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: a stab at Giles' reasoning -- Sophist, 08:56:31 04/09/03 Wed

In season three Angel had the potential to be a danger again if he lost his soul. Spike with the trigger did not have the potential to be a danger, he was a danger.

I do think Giles reasoned this way. The difficulty I have is that I don't think this logic follows. Two reasons:

It really isn't quite right to say that Spike "was" a danger. He was not unless triggered. In the same way, we could say that in S3 Angel was not a danger unless he lost his soul. The argument, as I understand it, is that Spike had no control over the trigger, while Angel did have some control over losing his soul. The episode Enemies shows the weakness in this argument -- Angel might well have lost his soul through no fault of his own. In that sense, he posed exactly as much of a threat as Spike did.

I think I'm seeing the "trigger" in somewhat broader terms than others. I see it as nothing at all unusual or peculiar to Spike. I see it as a metaphor for anything that "pushes my buttons". We all have triggers. We all have triggers that others can pull. Angel has one, Willow has one, Andrew has one, Anya has one, Wood has one. The FE knows what they are and might at any time take advantage by triggering any of them. In this sense, I see Spike as posing no greater danger than anyone else.

The attitude that Buffy has taken up throughout this season, however, contradicts this.

I don't agree that Buffy has taken this attitude. If she had, she would have eliminated Andrew long ago. I think she has demonstrated a great deal of faith that her friends will come through when it counts.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think it's a question of likelihood -- dream, 09:52:48 04/09/03 Wed

Buffy usually plays her odds, as we all do. She has to. The odds of Angel losing his soul WITHOUT a willing act on his part were pretty low. The odds of Willow losing it WITHOUT making a decision to use magic are pretty low. The odds of Spike being triggered without his choosing to be are pretty high - he has been triggered before, the First Evil said he's going to use him again. The stone essentially set off the trigger (and shouldn't these people know by now that magic doesn't always work in the very first minute?) There's no stop-gap measure of will. Willow's will to stay on course, Angel's will to keep his soul act as safeguards - an extra step between the trigger and Buffy, the ultimate safeguard on all of them. So I think you're right in that the situations are similar, but the comparison is not fiar, because there is a question of degree of likelihood that you are leaving out. Almost all of these characters have at some point been taken over by some sort of evil magical force and done evil things. That could happen again. No one would argue that they all should be locked up. Then again, I don't hear anyone complaining about Oz's restraints. Why? Sudden takeover of one of ths Scoobies is unlikely, though possible; Oz's transformation and the results thereof are almost certain. Willow, Angel and Spike live somewhere in between. In my opinion, the lack of the "brake" of free- will, combined with the stated intentions of the FE to come for Spike again, put him far enough at "likely" side of the spectrum to warrant restraints - and the prioritizing of de- triggering him as soon as possible.

Yes, the trigger is a metaphor, but it's not just a metaphor. The specifics still matter.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It certainly is, at least in part (Spoilers through all aired eps) -- Sophist, 13:01:46 04/09/03 Wed

Though the probabilitites are hard to figure in some cases. For example, how would we assess the probability that Andrew might still succumb to the FE? That Wood has not given up his goal of vengeance? That Anya might return to demonhood? I truly don't know the answers to these.

But don't forget that there is another variable in this equation: risk = (chance of going bad) x (amount of harm that we could expect). I'd probably agree that the chance of Spike going bad is higher than the chance that Willow would, though my prejudice in favor of Willow might be affecting this. But the amount of harm Willow could do far exceeds what Spike is likely to accomplish. The overall risk to Buffy seems at least as great.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Probably... -- dream, 13:19:53 04/09/03 Wed

But preventing Willow from doing magic would take her out of the running as a "big gun." (That's assuming they could do some sort of magic-block, which we haven't seen.) Tying her up wouldn't help because chains not much of a deterrant to DarkWillow. Really, the only choice with Willow is to try to help her control the magic, give her lots of emotional support. With Spike, there is a temporary solution that won't take him out of the game as a fighter in the long term, but will prevent problems in the meantime. It seems reasonable to use it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> How willing would Spike be to use his power for Buffy if she chained him up until she needed him? -- Sophist, 14:15:47 04/09/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The perfect example -- Sophist, 16:22:54 04/09/03 Wed

which I naturally thought of after I posted that line above, is Faith.

Isn't the "lock Spike up till we're sure he's no danger" argument exactly the same argument made by Wesley and the WC towards Faith?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, if you remember -- dream, 06:07:52 04/10/03 Thu

Angel and Buffy kept Faith chained up, too. The difference was in intent - Wesley and the Council wanted to punish Faith; while Angel and Buffy wanted to help her. On the necessity of keeping other people protected from her while she was an immediate danger, there was no disagreement.

And, yes, I think if Buffy asked Spike to remain chained until they could untrigger the trigger (unless she could be there to watch out for him), he would respect her judgment. After all, he doesn't want to kill anyone - just like Oz.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Fair point, but -- Sophist, 08:50:12 04/10/03 Thu

after Wesley's little escapade in Consequences they released her. It's a direct parallel to Spike, who was chained in Sleeper and then released. Or to Andrew, who was tied up at first but then released. Or to Willow, who was sent to reform school, but then set free. Let's hope these 3 don't betray Buffy's trust like Faith did.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fair point, but -- dream, 10:01:57 04/10/03 Thu

**they released her**

Well, to be more accurate, she escaped, and then they didn't try to capture her against her will again because after she saved Buffy's life, she came back to town with Buffy willingly. Buffy and Giles belived this was a good sign - they believed that Faith no longer wished to do evil. (They were, of course, wrong.) But the point is that in their estimation, her risk level had moved from a Spike level (no stop-gap between him and evil) to a Willow level (potential for evil, but with a good-intentioned will standing in the way.) Counting on Faith's will was of course not the thing to do...Also worth considering, if you're working the equation you have above, that the worst Faith had done by this point was attack Xander and accuse Buffy. Hardly world- ending stuff.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed, but I don't think this vindicates Giles's actions-- (spoilers LMPTM, of course) -- Dyna, 13:52:07 04/09/03 Wed

In my opinion, the lack of the "brake" of free-will, combined with the stated intentions of the FE to come for Spike again, put him far enough at "likely" side of the spectrum to warrant restraints - and the prioritizing of de- triggering him as soon as possible.

True! I agree with you that a sensible approach to the particular dangers posed in Spike's situation would include restraint and an effort to deactivate the trigger. But this isn't what Giles tried to do--or at least, he gave up on that plan after a single attempt to convince Buffy of its wisdom, and moved immediately to conspiring with Wood to kill Spike.

Buffy may not have been "right" in this analysis when she unchained Spike, but I don't see her action as warranting Giles taking matters into his own hands in such an extreme and irrevocable way. Let's not forget that the only thing that was changed by the rock test was everyone's knowledge of the situation. Spike had had the trigger all along; he was exactly as dangerous before the test as he was after. As such it's hard to see this as a situation where a sudden change in circumstances makes it necessary to act immediately, and to engage in deception instead of trying to win over those who disagree.

Given that both Buffy and Spike in the past had willingly chained him up for the protection of others--Spike even arguing at one point that Buffy needed to kill him to prevent him from doing further harm--it's not a stretch to think that under less provoking circumstances they might have come around to the "restrain and defuse" point of view. However, as others have pointed out, the particular setup here was such as to put both Buffy and Spike on the defensive--Wood's unnecessary and palpably hostile presence, Giles's dirty looks and insulting comments, and (as ponygirl pointed out) the uncomfortable echoes in this scene of Buffy's recent experience with the Shadowmen. It's not surprising under the circumstances that Buffy and Spike both resisted what they've shown in the past, under more compassionate conditions, they know to be the sensible thing to do. It's clear even from Buffy's conversation with Giles in the cemetery that she dislikes leaving Spike with anyone else, which indicates to me that she does take the risk Spike poses seriously.

I know he's corporeal, but it's difficult for me to accept that this Giles is the same person we knew before. Part of me expects we're going to find out that he too has a "trigger" that is controlling him. Why else be so eager to kill someone that the First has obviously been working overtime to eliminate from the picture before the big fight comes? How is it that Giles's interests line up so well with those of TFE? And Wood's, for that matter?

Oops, digressing!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, I'm on record as being completely horrified by Giles' actions! -- dream, 14:02:20 04/09/03 Wed

Not to mention the unnecessary nastiness of the set-up for the stone mojo (the presence of Wood and Dawn, for instance.)

I'm also having a problem with Giles - I don't know whether it's just that I love him so much I can't bear for him to be this stupid, or that his character really is supposed to have changed. I can believe it, just, only because he has lost the whole Wathcer's Council, which he has been part of on and off his whole life, and his father was as well, and so on. And he's been away from Buffy and the group and the last time he saw them, they weren't doing too well. So yes, I can blieve it if I have to - but I would much rather find out that Giles was being influenced in some way.
[> [> [> [> Re: If that was Giles' reasoning, I can't follow it. -- Rina, 11:47:38 04/08/03 Tue

What I could not understand is why Giles gave up so quickly. Why didn't he try to convince Buffy and Spike to give the device another chance, instead of accepting Wood's suggestion so quickly?

But I've heard that this is not the first time that Giles has given up on Spike so easily.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: If that was Giles' reasoning, I can't follow it. -- LonesomeSundown, 20:30:31 04/08/03 Tue

The device was supposed to probe Spike's psyche to find out activated the trigger. It did that - Spike remembered the song and the fact that his mother used to sing it to him. Remember, only Buffy knew, or rather, guessed, that a song was the trigger and she didn't remember the words or the melody: "It's not like it was catchy - 'I'm coming up, so get this party started' "
[> [> Ooh, I can... -- Masq, 10:57:59 04/07/03 Mon

Yes, Giles behavior here was particularly puzzling for me. Not that he would find a problem with Buffy's behavior concerning Spike. I had a problem with it as well. Unchaining Spike after it's been proven his trigger is still in effect, in a house full of so-far-unchosen-ones and her sister and friends for heaven's sake?

There's a time to respect a person with a soul, and there's a time to show caution and wait for Giles' stone-cure to make things safe again.

But Giles joining forces with Wood to let Wood "take care" of Spike? That just seemed weird to me. But it makes a certain amount of sense if this was left over issues from Jenny's death. That was many years ago now, but that doesn't mean Giles has just forgotten about it. A dangerous vampire looms and Buffy refuses to do anything about it. True enough, it's not exactly Spike's "fault" that he's dangerous, but the fact remains that he is.

Maybe Giles was acting on memories and feelings of a past time when Buffy was unwilling or unable to take care of a dangerous vampire she'd had a relationship with. He needed to remind Buffy of her duty to guard the people in her house against any unnecessary danger, but he went overboard with it because of his own personal issues.
[> [> [> The problem is... (Spoilers to LMPTM) -- Sophist, 13:30:06 04/07/03 Mon

that neither Giles nor Wood emphasized the danger to others. They talked instead about the danger to Buffy. Here's Wood:

He's an instrument of evil. He's going to prove to be our undoing in this fight. Buffy's undoing. And she's never gonna see it coming.

And here's Giles:

Spike is a liability, Buffy. He refuses to see that. And so do you. Angel left here because he knew how harmful your relationship with him was. Spike, on the other hand, lacks
such self-awareness.

This explains the difference between Angel and Spike from Giles' perspective, but it misses another key point: neither Giles nor Wood knows that Buffy has been in danger from Spike ever since Smashed, but he has never tried to kill her. Nor do they know that, trigger or not, Spike had enough self-control to back away from biting Buffy in KiM.

This is yet another example of the troops undercutting the General.

Not that he would find a problem with Buffy's behavior concerning Spike. I had a problem with it as well. Unchaining Spike after it's been proven his trigger is still in effect, in a house full of so-far-unchosen-ones and her sister and friends for heaven's sake?

There's a time to respect a person with a soul, and there's a time to show caution and wait for Giles' stone-cure to make things safe again.

How did or does Spike's situation differ from Willow's? Would you advocate putting magical handcuffs on her? Should Andrew be kept perpetually tied to a chair against the chance that he might fall under the FE's influence again and this time act on the command to murder all the SITs?
[> [> [> [> The difference is. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:00:57 04/07/03 Mon

That Willow and Andrew have free will. Yes, they could become evil again, and there is a chance they might choose to serve the First Evil. But here's the thing: if they did these things, they'd be CHOOSING to do them. The First doesn't have any direct control over them. It can manipulate them, make them dispair, prey off their weaknesses. But, in the end, if Willow and Andrew choose not to do evil, they won't do evil.

Spike, however, didn't have total free will. Even if he had no dark impulses whatsover, even if he was a completely pure and good person, a humanitatian, a vegetarian, a philantrophist, and any other good thing you might imagine, the First was still able to control him. Even if Spike chose not to do any evil whatsover, the First Evil could still make him do evil things just by singing that song.

By showing trust in them, reassuring them, and helping them through their problems, Buffy and Co. can convince Andrew and Willow not to join signs with Evil. But Spike, as long as his trigger was active, couldn't help whether he did evil or not. That's the difference. For Spike, force is the only thing that can control his evil side. For Willow and Andrew, their evil sides can be controlled through self- discipline and therapy.
[> [> [> [> [> I can't agree, but I'm not sure it matters (Spoilers for aired eps) -- Sophist, 16:44:40 04/07/03 Mon

First, the can't agree part with respect to Willow. I admit the ending of S6 was deliberately vague on this point, but I understood that we were to interpret Willow as having been taken over by the magic (hard to write that sentence without gagging at the storyline). This is supported by Willow's comment this season that "I was out of my mind. I killed people." If we assume that magic did overpower her free will, then she is in the same situation as Spike.

Second, I don't agree in general because I'm inclined to see Spike's trigger as a metaphor. It's just a way to make him lose control, to unleash the dark impulses of his subconscious. In this sense he is no different than any of the other characters (indeed, probably no different than any person anywhere). Willow can lose control under the influence of grief; Anya upon rejection; Angel in the case of true happiness. Each of these instances represents a metaphorical way of exploring the dark side of the human soul, that which can cause us to lash out at others. Spike's loss of control under the trigger is no different than the loss of control experienced by the others.

As a side note, the example of Angel is probably the best one. He can lose his soul just by dreaming of a day of perfect happiness (though you have to wonder about his definition of that). Better keep him permanently caged.

Third, just looking at the issue of danger (and ignoring moral judgments for the moment), I don't see the issue of free will as important. What difference does it make if Andrew has free will yet kills the SITs under the FE's influence? It affects our moral judgment of his behavior after the fact, but the SITs will be just as dead as if the FE hypnotized him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Reply -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:11:53 04/07/03 Mon

First off, Willow said she was out of her mind, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was the magic that took over her, just that she went nuts over the rush of it. Also, like with whether soulless vampires can be redeemed or not, whether Willow was possessed by magic or not is something the writers all seem to disagree on (and Joss, the most authoritative source, doesn't seem to be very open with his views on the issue). As such, that first point doesn't truly hold water.

Second, there is a difference between Spike's trigger and the triggers of the others: if Spike's trigger is a metaphor, than the methods for dealing with it must be likewise metaphorical. Willow and Andrew go evil in the same way that real people might go evil, as such the methods for dealing with their evil ways must be ones that would work for real people. But, since Spike's condition is metaphorical, the temporary solution for real people (strict observance and regular reassurances by friends) must be given a metaphorical temporary solution (chains), and the permanent solution for real people (having an epiphany/coming to grips with things) must be given a metaphorical permanent solution (the magic reminiscence stone). It's like how they may have a demon representing lust or hate or fear on the show, they don't beat the demon in the same way that people in real life overcome what the demon represents. No, when the problem is metaphorical, the solution must/should be metaphorical as well, hence ass kicking solving a lot of teen/young adult angst problems.

As for the Angel comparison, he managed to go four and a half years without having a moment of perfect happiness, and only experienced one recently because he chose to do it for the sake of the plan. There are measures Angel can take to not become perfectly happy. There's nothing Spike can do to stop the song. Several people have tried to give Angel that perfect happiness moment, but he can thwart those plans. Spike, however, can't stop the First Evil from making him hear the song.

When I talked about free will being important, I meant it like this: free will effects how you're able to stop them from being evil. Chain someone up in a basement and keep guard over them all night, and they start getting restless and feeling bad about themselves. Very few people like being a prisoner. As such, keeping Andrew or Willow under lock and key would only further the emotional problems they have and make them more susceptible to the manipulations of the First Evil. But, by not locking them up, they interact more with other people, strengthen/form friendships, and in general get their lives back together. These conditions make it much less likely the First would be able to convince them to be evil. But Spike is different. Let him be free, befriend him, talk with him about his issues, anything short of the magic stone doesn't seem to help. Whenever he heard that song, he became murderous, no matter what. Having someone who cares about him and having his freedom doesn't really effect his trigger in any way. As such, different measures must be employed. Plus, at the very least, applying the same measures to Willow as were used with Spike doesn't really work, since no chains can hold her, probably not even mystical chains, given that even the Devon Coven freed her.

Think of it this way. Suppose about an hour after Buffy freed Spike from the chains in LMTM, the First appeared to Spike and sang "Early One Morning". Spike would go into his triggered state and start killing, most likely taking down a couple potentials before he could be stopped. However, we've seen the First come to Willow in CwDP and Andrew in "First Date". In both cases it tried to get them to go evil, and in both cases failed. They were able to resist it. Spike would not be able to resist. The First Evil can trigger Spike whenever it wants. It would take some special circumstances that would be fairly difficult to arrange (especially for an incorporeal being) to make them go evil, and, even then, it still wouldn't be definite that they would truly go evil. If the First came to Spike, it could very easily make Spike kill people and would have 100% certainty of making the trigger work. From a danger standpoint, Spike is a much greater risk than either Willow or Andrew.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Reply -- Sophist, 21:11:45 04/07/03 Mon

We'll have to agree to disagree about Willow on her "under the influence" issues.

It's like how they may have a demon representing lust or hate or fear on the show, they don't beat the demon in the same way that people in real life overcome what the demon represents. No, when the problem is metaphorical, the solution must/should be metaphorical as well, hence ass kicking solving a lot of teen/young adult angst problems.

What you're discussing here is how the show demonstrates the removal of Spike's trigger (i.e., that his metaphorical issue has been resolved). That's not the issue. The issue is what to do with him until it has been removed. They untied Andrew long before Storyteller, though he surely still posed a danger. Giles allowed Willow to return to Sunnydale even though it was clear her training was not finished.

As for the Angel comparison, he managed to go four and a half years without having a moment of perfect happiness

I'd say the relevant period is the first 6-8 months after his return, which is where Spike is. That is the time frame in which Giles, Xander and Faith still considered him a danger (Revelations, Amends, et al.). As a footnote, I don't know that the claim of 4 years would be all that persuasive to the wives of the W&H lawyers.

There are measures Angel can take to not become perfectly happy. There's nothing Spike can do to stop the song.

It was sheer luck that thwarted the Mayor's plans in Enemies.

These conditions make it much less likely the First would be able to convince them to be evil.

Your overall point about letting them be free is a good one. However, your implicit assumption is that Willow and Andrew (and Anya, for that matter) rationally chose their descent into evil. I'm not sure that's true. In Willow's case, at least, it was more a loss of control under extreme emotion than a rational act. I don't see any reason why the FE couldn't find a way to "trigger" her emotions again. As for Andrew and Anya, the evidence is less clear, but emotion, not reason, seems to have played a substantial part. Free will can only affect the outcome if reason remains in control. It's that very premise that I'm questioning.

From a danger standpoint, Spike is a much greater risk than either Willow or Andrew.

This only accounts for half the equation. You have to measure not only the probability that they will turn evil, but the consequences if they do. I agree that Spike has Andrew beat on both counts (unless Andrew learns to use an Uzi, which is in fact what the FE wanted him to do). With Willow, however, the consequences are potentially apocalyptic, something Spike could hardly arrange. Just to be fair, I'll call Willow and Spike equally dangerous. :)

And I wouldn't chain either one of them. Well, ok, I'd handcuff Willow, but not for that reason. ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sophist is touching on something that's been bugging me -- s'kat, 22:08:51 04/07/03 Mon

Double standards. It bugs me more than anything else in the world. Hypocritical double standards.

Angel, Willow and Anya have all at one point or another almost destroyed the world.

1. Angel in Becoming
2. Willow in Grave
3. Anya in The Wish

Spike to my knowledge hasn't tried to destroy the world and on the occassions Willow and Angel were, was actually doing something positive and was the one with no soul.

In Becoming - he helps stop it. In Grave - he goes and gets a soul.

Okay before you misunderstand me and think I want Spikey to get a get out of jail free card? I don't. I think he was no, I don't think the FE is through with him yet. I do think Giles handled the situation horribly. Worst way possible. He should have explained it to spike first. He should have done it with just himself, Willow and Buffy no one else. They should have done it over a period of several sessions. And he should have kept Wood out of it. Including Wood on any level was stupid and dangerous both to Wood and to everyone else. Wood was an unknown quantity. And Dawn certainly shouldn't have been present. But then it would have been boring and there wouldn't have been any conflict and well it is a horror show which focuses on the things we shouldn't do most of the time.

It's not that I don't think Spike should have been chained when they discovered the trigger still active,- I do,( but humilating him was not the way to go about it and the fact he willingly chains himself in previous episodes is evidence that he's not being difficult about this on most occassions), it's that not only did Giles treat Spike like a soulless thing and humilate him, but Giles also has ignored the danger Willow represents and continues to encourage her. The only explanation I can come up with for this - is maybe he thinks he can control her because he was able to do it in Grave? Willow has proven on more than one occassion to be someone that FE can manipulate or possess. Examples: Killer in Me, and BoTN
come to mind.

Anya? Well not only has she killed more people than anyone else in both shows. But she chose to do it. While I think they should give her a second chance, she is a danger.
We don't know what she could do. And D'Hoffryn keeps sending demons after her.

Angel? Whoa boy. This guy has always been far more dangerous than Spike. Angelus? He almost destroyed the world. When he returns, there is no guarantee he won't lose his soul again. He and Buff almost do it four times in S3.
And hey, he lost his soul this year in a dream sequence.
There was a reason Willow didn't tell ANYONE where or what she was doing in LMPTM. How much you want to bet, Giles might have suggested killing him?

What annoys me is the double standard. Both from fans online and some of the characters. Xander at least seems to have calmed down since Buffy rammed his double standard down his throat in Selfless. So has Willow. Xander and Willow seem to get it. And it makes me love them. Anya - I keep wanting to kick. Honey, if I'd killed as many folks as you have, I'd keep my trap shut when it came to anyone else.
But her whining does make her interesting in a way, and I believe most of it is projection - projection of her own fears and foibles.

Of course double standards and hypocrisy are human...but they still annoy me to no end. LOL!

BUT and a huge but here, I think I know where the writers are going with this. We are supposed to feel uncomfortable with the scene and Giles' behavior. IF you did? You are with the writers on it. If you didn't? Well...then you aren't with the writers and they aren't reaching you. The writers want Spike to feel cut off and humilated. To feel like a thing - because he hasn't proven to Giles yet that he has a soul. And they want us to identify with him and root for him. Otherwise there's no point. Just as Buffy does. He hasn't proven he's a man yet. He's growing still. The process is supposed to be a painful one. We are supposed to feel the pain of the struggle. The horror and distrust of all the characters.

To defend Giles a little - I think Giles did what he did because deep down inside, he probably doesn't believe Spike has a soul or think it's possible. Curse? yes. Go get one?
no. Giles has been trained by the Council. He believes there can only be one slayer. (He's never known what to make of Faith). Slayer kills vamps. All vamps evil. Spike has changed the rules on him a bit and he has no clue how to deal with that. Also you have to remember Giles was not around when Buffy saw Spike change - he wasn't there in Sleeper or Never Leave Me or First Date or Beneath You.
He doesn't know that Spike offered to leave or asked Buffy to kill him or struggled against the First's torture. And Giles is scared to death. Notice how disconnected and off he's seemed since he almost got scalped in Sleeper? And isn't it interesting it was in Sleeper that happened? Also Spike represents to Giles, his own evil past - the Ripper side of him. Giles looks at Spike and sees the part of himself he detests. (So in a way, Giles handling of Spike is a metaphor for how Giles deals with his own dark side.) I think that has a lot to do with it. Willow is like a daughter to Giles, Anya - a close friend, Andrew - doesn't see as dangerous, but Spike? spike is the thorn in Giles' side. Because in Giles heart - Spike is his younger more dangerous self. The self he'd like to obliterate.
Just as Angel was the thorn in Giles' side. But for different reasons. But the key to Angel - is Angel was cursed and that curse is mentioned in Giles' books. Giles can hunt Angel down in a prophecy or text book. Spike? Not so easy.

Someone, I believe it was WtP once pointed out that if Angel hadn't left for his own show - this would be Angel that Giles would have betrayed. I believe that is true.
If Angel hadn't left...sooner or later, Giles would have wanted to get rid of him. Remember it's what Spike said:
This isn't the way it should be. Vampire kills slayer.
Slayer kills vampire. That is how the game is played.
But what if someone flips the game board over and changes the rules?? Buffy changed the rules. First with Angel.
Then with Spike. No guessing what she'll do next.

Sort of rambly. Hope it added something.

SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ack... the editing demon -- s'kat, 22:11:59 04/07/03 Mon

This statment:Okay before you misunderstand me and think I want Spikey to get a get out of jail free card? I don't. I think he was no, I don't think the FE is through with him yet.

It should read: I don't. I think he was dangerous, I'm glad he figured out the trigger, and no I don't think the FE is through with him yet.

Ugh. Should go to bed. Before I just write something silly.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "ack" is a good name for an editing demon! @>) -- anom, 23:19:55 04/07/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 'Ack' is also the favoured expression of Bill the Cat! -- Caroline, 06:54:07 04/08/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not to mention the timelessly appropriate 'pfitth' ! -- OnM, who voted for Bill, I'll have you know, 07:46:55 04/08/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A dead cat for prez - O where is the Meadow Party when you need it? -- Caroline, 09:54:51 04/08/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think you're right -- ponygirl, 07:51:22 04/08/03 Tue

I think we are meant to see the troubling aspects of Giles' behaviour. There's that little smile he gives to Willow as she comes forward to do her spell, the look of a pleased, indulgent teacher, it then turns to distaste when he goes over to Spike. It's very deliberate, we're meant to see the contempt Giles has for Spike.

I was wondering too, if part of Buffy's reasons for getting Spike out of the chains so quickly (too quickly I'd agree) was that the whole situation was reminding her of her recent encounter with the Shadowmen? The chains, the standing watchers, the violation aspect, it may have been making her uneasy and unwilling to participate further.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think you're right -- Alison, 13:39:00 04/08/03 Tue

Great point about why Buffy might have been so quick to release him..it explains alot.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think you're right -- skyMatrix, 22:36:45 04/08/03 Tue

Thank you so much for this explanation! I don't know if the writers consiciously intended this parallel, but then again this kind of close reading makes me want to subscribe to the intentional fallacy and say who cares if they meant it! In my discussions with others, the only explanation has been a starkly utilitarian narrative one; basically, that Buffy has to do something a bit rash so that Giles can seem to be less than totally heartless in his decision to backstab her.

I much prefer this explanation, as it shows Buffy acting unreasonably in response to a subconscious association with her own brush with external violation, and in a way, answers those who felt indignant that Buffy insisted that Spike embrace the darkness when she wouldn't. Not that I totally agree with that assessment (or wish to revive that discussion) but by removing Spike from a situation similar to her own in "Get It Done," she does show a greater degree of empathy than people often give her credit for lately (regarding Spike and/or in general). It also reveals another problem with Giles' actions, if in this scene he's (at least symbolically) acting like a true descendant/inheritor of the Shadowmen!

Of course, Buffy and Giles still should have discussed things reasonably, and given the magical doohickey a chance to work rather than ulimately turn against each other, but both of them were acting emotionally no matter how much they each try to justify their actions in utilitarian terms (Giles' unspoken motivations have been well covered in other posts) This is done not only because characters with true utilitarian motivations would be uninteresting, but because it makes sense when one considers the psychology of these two characters. Thanks again, ponygirl, and I hope I wasn't being too redundant with my response!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Anya is a God, sort of -- lakrids, 17:36:35 04/08/03 Tue

With Cordelia wish did she create another world, ok itís a darker world. But it means that there where created six billions new souls. The possibility of transporting vampire Willow in the Episode Doppelganger, would seem to indicate that the realities co exist. ;)

I donít think that Anya saw her vengeance gig as killing, more like that she was a gun, and the women just pulled her trigger. So Anayka donít kills people, people kills people.

Selfless is an important very important in my view of Anya (duh!). Anya has until this episode helped with saving the world a couple of times. She has set her own safety aside to protect Xander see Triangle and Grave. That kind reminds me of Spike, where she begins to differs from Spike is in Selfless. She accept the consequences of the action, she has helped to execute, an tries to make amend for them, by paying the ultimate price ( death of her life and soul ). And she does it not for Xander or his friends or some vague hope of salvation in the afterlife because of her noble? Self sacrifice. All these things doesnít matter to her, because she knows and accept that oblivion is the price, she has to pay, to make right for the wrong she has done.


Note: I like Anya she is my Spike
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Reply -- Malandanza, 17:35:23 04/08/03 Tue

"I think these questions apply to Willow just as much as they do to Spike. I don't think Buffy is guilty of applying a double standard; I think Giles and others are the ones who are."

I also don't think Buffy is applying a double standard for Willow and Spike. We have seen that Willow can be taken over by the First when she uses magic, in spite of her summer school session in remedial magic. Back in Selfless we also saw Willow on the verge of losing control when she blasted the evil spider Anya had summoned - - maybe it was the First, but it didn't seem like it to me. At any rate, it is risky for Willow to use magic. She poses a danger to those around her, just as Spike does when the First activates the trigger. Now, Buffy is usually around when Willow is casting spells, just as she has been around when Spike has been on the loose. However, it's still a risk in both cases -- can Buffy stop them before they kill someone? Maybe, maybe not. Spike being free when Buffy is not around is analogous to Willow using magic when Buffy is not around -- in each case there is no one who can stop them if something goes awry. Spike, it seems to me, is the less risky of the two since no one is comfortable with him and so are on guard. Willow has cast spells without Buffy's supervision even after her close encounter with the First, but no one is prepared for another one of her rampages -- just as no one would have been prepared for Andrew's killing spree.

Where the double standard lies, I believe, is how Buffy currently treats Willow and Spike compared with how Oz was treated back in Season Three. Yes, Oz chose to be locked up, but if he hadn't, he would have been locked up anyway. In B&tB he tries to walk out of the library just before sunset, but is stopped:

OZ: You're having a slayer watch me? Good thing we're not over-reacting

Freaking - Oz heads for the library doors. But he stops. A beat. He turns back.

OZ: Okay. You know that thing where you bail in the middle of an upsetting conversation? I need to do that. Kind of dramatic. But sometimes it's a necessary guy thing.

He starts out again - but Willow moves to stop him.

WILLOW: And I want you to. Do the guy thing - butÖ

She looks at the clock. It's half past five. Oz follows her gaze - gets it. Has to fight all his instincts to bolt. Supremely frustrated - he walks to the cage


By Season Four, however, Oz is allowed to ride off into the sunset -- nor is there any attempt to hold him when he returns and demonstrates that his control is not as great as he believed.

Spike was also willing to be locked up -- although he would have had to be locked up almost continuously since his feral periods are unpredictable (which I'd be okay with). Buffy made the decision not to lock him up, just as she hasn't locked up Willow (in Willow's case it would have to be some magical binding to prevent unauthorized spell use). Anya's case was sufficiently different that there is no double standard because the cases are in no way analogous. Buffy could not keep Anya locked up -- Anyanka can teleport (as long as it's for official business). If she hadn't surrendered her powers, Buffy's choices would have been limited to killing her and allowing her to go free. Well, maybe they could have found a binding ritual of some kind, had they been willing to allow the body count to climb while they researched.

So while I think it would have been smart to kill Spike under lock and key after they found out the FE was using him to kill people (especially when Buffy wasn't around), I don't see a double standard. Willow should also have some sort of restraint and should not be allowed to play with magic without adult supervision. (And it's a good thing she didn't go all dark-eyed and evil in LA -- Team AI would have been caught off-guard).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed, Finn -- Scroll, 21:12:20 04/07/03 Mon

First off, Willow said she was out of her mind, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was the magic that took over her, just that she went nuts over the rush of it.

I agree with you, Finn, that Willow, Andrew, and Angel are different from Spike in this situation. But even if Willow was being "controlled" by dark magic in S6, I think we should memember that the dark magic can't arbitrarily take control of her. In "Villains" Willow chose to absorb the dark magic. Now that she's gone through her "de- tox", we see a Willow who has fairly good control over her magic. It's not like every time the phone rings, Willow gets taken over by dark magic. (If you'll abide that lame example.)

Spike's case is different (even metaphorically speaking) because he can be triggered at any time. (Unless there's a way to make him deaf!) He can be triggered with no warning, no time to prepare or defend against it. Spike's chains were his only safe-guard and should have been left on until the trigger could be defused.

Of course, this is all moot point now that the trigger has been deactivated.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ooh, I agree with s'kat and Scroll and Finn and.... -- dream, 07:41:14 04/08/03 Tue

ponygirl below here! (Sorry, Sophist.) I'm just irrepressibly agreeable! I absolutely think a middle ground would have been the wisest route here. Giles was obscenely wrong, but Buffy wasn't acting her wisest either. Ideally - Buffy talked to Spike, convinced him to stay in restraints while the trigger was active unless Buffy herself (the only one who we know can take him) was with him. The whole stone mojo was performed with only Buffy, Willow and maybe Giles present. Spike's dignity could have been preserved while still keeping everyone safe (other posters have state more clearly than I could the difference between Spike and the others in terms of immediacy of danger).

I would love to see a scene in which Giles expressed skepticism about the soul. Anya could back up Buffy, but Buffy might just feel forced to give up some information, which I think would be good for her. I think Giles did a horrible, horrible thing, but I also understand how little he knows about what's been going on with Spike. Buffy has always kept her friends emotionally at arm's length in certain ways, and it's causing trouble here. Of course, that doesn't change that Giles' screw-up here is his own damned fault, and I'm furious with him. For the sake of audience sympathy, I would really like to see some indication of the devastating effect of the Council's destruction on Giles. I think that has more to do with his current state of mind than Jenny.

Unless, of course, he's evil.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> MagiCrack -- Sophist, 10:04:42 04/08/03 Tue

I think we should memember that the dark magic can't arbitrarily take control of her. In "Villains" Willow chose to absorb the dark magic. Now that she's gone through her "de-tox", we see a Willow who has fairly good control over her magic.

I really hate to base an argument on a storyline I detest, but...

The major storyline of S6 was that Willow was addicted to magic per se, not just dark magic. Whether her "de-tox" has been effective is precisely the point -- how do we know when that risk is no longer a risk? What should be done as long as the risk remains?

I think these questions apply to Willow just as much as they do to Spike. I don't think Buffy is guilty of applying a double standard; I think Giles and others are the ones who are.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ironic -- Rina, 12:02:00 04/08/03 Tue

I find it ironic that Giles worried about the FE influencing Spike, yet he was willing to follow the murderous plans of a man who allowed the FE to influence his desires for revenge. Very ironic.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great point. -- Sophist, 12:24:19 04/08/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> yes, if... -- anom, 14:36:21 04/08/03 Tue

"...yet he was willing to follow the murderous plans of a man who allowed the FE to influence his desires for revenge."

...Giles knew about Wood's encounter w/the First. I don't remember seeing Wood tell anyone about it, & even if he did, Giles has been away a lot & may not have been told everything.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We can appreciate the irony even if Giles can't -- Sophist, 16:27:30 04/08/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> Buffy is not a general -- lakrids, 16:53:23 04/08/03 Tue

Buffy is not a general in my opinion; a general is appointed from a higher authority for example a dictator or hopefully a democratic government.

Buffy is a leader in a more tribal tradition, her power comes from that her subjects?, they feels that under her leadership, they have a bigger chance to survive, and that they trust her and feel loyalty to her. If the people that follows Buffys lead, began not to not to trust her judgment. Would it not be treason to general, but only plain old group dynamic. And why should they keep listening to Buffy?, if it seems that she doesnít gets results or seems to jeopardize the group safety, except for old loyalty and the historical fact that team Buffy always wins in the end.

I think we have to ask our self, if we want an old top bottom leadership, or a democratic leadership where sometime people exercise their right to choose another leader, or go against the ruling party line.
[> [> [> [> [> Giles and Wood should be thankful Buffy doesn't rule like a tribal leader -- Doug, 19:06:21 04/08/03 Tue

Under such systems there are ways of changing leadership during peacetime. However in any time of war most tribe and clan based societies meet treachery with Death without trial. My own ancestors had some rather specific forms of ritual execution for dealing with those who betray Comrades- in-arms; I'm still trying to remember the specifics however (may post them later).

In short; Giles and Wood should feel lucky Giles called Buffy "General" rather than "Chieftain."
[> [> [> What I'm wondering -- ponygirl, 13:50:45 04/07/03 Mon

Why has this storyline come up again? We're obviously meant to see the parallel to Angel in s2, enough characters have brought it up, but Buffy dealt with that situation, made the hard decision in the worst possible circumstances. Why doubt her ability to do so again? So much of this season has involved the back to the beginning theme, seeing familiar situations from an entirely new perspective. I wonder what it is we're meant to be seeing this time around? I have a feeling that question won't be answered until the last episode, but it's definitely making me say hmm.
[> [> [> [> Re: What I'm wondering -- pilgrim, 08:04:33 04/08/03 Tue

Good question, and I think you're right. We're getting a new perspective on an old issue.

Buffy has never come to terms with having sent Angel to hell. Because Spike functions in some ways as a foil for Angel, as Buffy resolves the problem of Spike, to kill or not to kill, she also resolves some of those buried feelings about Angel (regret, anger, need for forgiveness, need to be punished).

Here's what I think (at the moment) is the crux of the issue: Buffy now has a more mature perspective on her ability to save other people. She knows she can't always. I think that perspective will play out in her actions toward Spike--She needs to save him, but he's going to have to save himself (or not). And Buffy's going to have to let him. While she's letting go of her feelings of responsibility for Spike, she may can let go of her guilt over Angel. Put her relationship to him on a new foundation.

Buffy proved in S2 that she's tough enough to kill a loved one if it's necessary to save the world; she proved in S5 that she's tough enough to kill herself if it's necessary to save the world. The end of this season may be more about letting go, letting loved ones make their own choices and accepting those choices, accepting that although you can offer support you can't save all of them.

Oh, I don't know, maybe not.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What I'm wondering -- ponygirl, 08:49:03 04/08/03 Tue

Buffy proved in S2 that she's tough enough to kill a loved one if it's necessary to save the world; she proved in S5 that she's tough enough to kill herself if it's necessary to save the world. The end of this season may be more about letting go, letting loved ones make their own choices and accepting those choices, accepting that although you can offer support you can't save all of them.

My weird back of the brain rumbling is about whether there are times when the world shouldn't be saved - not a screw it all kind of thing but a situation where the moral cost would render the supposed victory over evil meaningless. Buffy has said you can't fight evil by doing evil, but she's also said that she's willing to sacrifice anyone to save the world. Are these two statements contradictory? If it came down to it I think she would do evil for the greater good, but is that the way to defeat the FE?
[> [> [> [> [> [> yeah, Me too. -- Shiraz, 12:26:22 04/08/03 Tue

I can't help but think that this whole 'big picture' thing is a little wrong-headed.

After all, to just about all of us, 'the world' is made up of all the people and places we know and care about. The people and things we connect with. If you are willing to sacrifice all of this for 'the world' aren't you really just destroying something in order so save it?

In other words, the big picture is made up of many small pictures, if you ignore the small pictures, you'll never be able to see the big one.

-Shiraz

"The point that must be made is that although Herrena the Henna-Haired Harridan would look quite stunning after a good bath, a heavy-duty manicure, and the pick of the leather racks in Woo Hung Ling's Oriental Exotica and Martial Aids on Heroes Street, she was currently quite sensibly dressed in light chain mail, soft boots, and a short sword.

All right, maybe the boots were leather. But not black."

Terry Pratchett, "The Light Fantastic"
[> [> [> [> Re: What I'm wondering -- Shiraz, 12:07:38 04/08/03 Tue

Also:

Why on Earth did Giles beleive a normal human could take a vampire who had killed two slayers?

Why did Spike just stand there slack-jawed while Wood slowly strapped on his weapons?

Why did Wood, after having beaten Spike senseless, break off the fight and CHANGE INTO HIS DRESS SHIRT before trying to stake him?

-Shiraz

"...any woman setting out to make a living by the sword isn't about to go around looking like something off the cover of the more advanced kind of lingerie catalogue for the specialised buyer."

Terry Pratchett -The Light Fantastic
[> Re: My analysis of "Lies My Parents Told Me" is up -- Cactus Watcher, 14:05:58 04/07/03 Mon

It may be nothing, but since the woman playing Nikki now is somewhat more attractive than the original woman who played her in Fool for Love, I get a vague sense that Nikki, as we've seen her this year, is an idealized version of the real person, perhaps as seen through Robin Wood's memory.
[> [> You think she's more attractive? -- Masq, 14:18:59 04/07/03 Mon

I don't. I like the original Nikki. This new one has a funny nose. Doesn't quite fit her face.
[> [> [> Yes, and it's quite distracting! -- Dyna, 15:36:24 04/07/03 Mon

I was so surprised by the difference in this actress's appearance compared to the original that the first time I saw her I thought it was supposed to be a trick--that Robin's mother wasn't the woman that Spike killed after all. Then reason and the realities of television kicked in and I accepted that yes, we are now supposed to accept this new actress as the same person.

What I find really distracting about this actress is how much she looks like Angelina Jolie. It's a little creepy!

On the other hand, I like the idea that this is how Wood remembers her, and that's why she's so Barbie-perfect in appearance. It definitely fits with his idealization of his mother, even if it is a little bit fanwanky. :)
[> [> [> The original looked tougher, more like a normal person... -- CW, 15:45:07 04/07/03 Mon

and less like a model. I can't see the new Nikki with the intense facial expression the original had fighting Spike. There's a difference between 'attractive' and what we each might be attracted to, isn't here? If I'm voting for beauty queen I'd have to pick the new one. If I'm voting for who'd make a good slayer for my next vampire movie, I'd pick the original any day.
[> [> [> I read that the original Nikki was a stuntwoman and not an actress. That's why with the switcheroo. -- Rob, 19:56:00 04/07/03 Mon

[> [> The original woman in interview said she was told she had matured too much -- Walking Turtle, 15:27:22 04/07/03 Mon

[> *I* got quoted by Masq! -- Honorificus (The Eminently Erudite One), 15:17:13 04/07/03 Mon

Not, of course, that it really means anything to me--I mean, of course puny humans want to quote me. It's not like I got a big thrill out of it or anything. You can all stuff that, as far as I'm concerned.

Just pointing it out.

That's all.

Really.
[> [> Moi? Human? I think not! -- The First Evil, 15:37:48 04/07/03 Mon

Could a human do this?

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!"
[> [> [> I can vouch for this. -- The Second Evil, 12:20:50 04/08/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> Hey! -- The First Evil, 12:33:54 04/08/03 Tue

What'd I ever do to you?

You know, besides all the inhuman nagging?

Which is all I'm really capable of, because, hey, incorporeal here.

; )
[> [> [> Sure. Yeah. Humans do that. Yeah. (shrugs) -- LittleBite, 22:34:28 04/08/03 Tue

Current board | More April 2003