April 2003
posts
More literary Buffy references -- ponygirl,
09:26:20 04/07/03 Mon
I was reading an online interview with Kelly Link, an author
whose amazing collection of short stories Strangers
Things Happen I picked up primarily because the Salon
review compared it to BtVS. The chat (which is up on her
site www.kellylink.net) briefly turned into a discussion of
the merits of Buffy seasons and some finale speculations.
Link slams Marti Noxon a bit unfairly I thought, but I was
pretty amused at more proof that all things do lead
eventually to Buffy. She also mentioned admiring Kate
Atkinson's new collection for its ability to mention Buffy
in almost every story. Since I was snowbound this weekend I
went and got Atkinson's It's Not The End Of The
World. I'm about halfway through, very impressed with
the writing, the Buffy mentions are pretty much just that,
mentions-- but it gave me a great deal of satisfaction to
see in the quotes that front each story, among lines from
Ovid, Blake and Virgil, Buffy's speech from The Gift.
[>
Re: More literary Buffy references -- shambleau,
14:59:32 04/07/03 Mon
I zipped down to the library and got a copy of Link's book.
I've finished three of the stories (the shortest ones).
Salon got it right. Borges, Raymond Carver and Buffy, all
slooshed together. It's resemblance to Buffy is in it's
horror-as-metaphor aspect, mostly. Very cool.
[> [>
Re: More literary Buffy references -- ponygirl,
15:20:40 04/07/03 Mon
Cool! Did you read The Girl Detective yet? Prepare to be
blown away. That and Travels With The Snow Queen were my
favourites.
[> [> [>
Re: More literary Buffy references -- shambleau,
18:24:16 04/07/03 Mon
Just started The Girl Detective. She's the basis for the
Nancy Drew type on the cover, I assume.
USA Today - Vote for Angel -- yabyumpan,
09:26:41 04/07/03 Mon
USA Today has a poll of various shows which have yet to be
renewed, Angel is one of them. The address to go vote
is:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/2003-04-05-
sos.htm
(sorry, I don't know how to do the link thingy for
addresses)
[>
Ack, they make you vote for all of them -- Masq,
09:32:57 04/07/03 Mon
It looks very weird when you have "Don't Care" for
everything but Angel. It's not that I "Don't Care", I've
just never seen a single episode of any of those other
shows.
Well, I did vote to keep "Big Fat Greek Life". Haven't seen
that show, wasn't aware it had started episodes. But I did
like the movie!
[> [>
Dude, if I'm going to spawn a long sub-thread, don't
even bother answering this, but... -- AngelVSAngelus,
12:55:13 04/07/03 Mon
didn't you think the resolution of that movie completely and
totally undermined what was being set up as the purpose
behind its premise?
Toula feels stifled and constrained by her family's oddly
misogynistic and racist conceptions of a Greek woman's role
in the world, but in the end completely conforms to their
whims and lets them dictate exactly how her marriage should
go?
And her father's 180 degree turn from racism was something
that seemed completely abrupt and contrived to me.
But that's me. I was just curious about your thoughts on
the subject, Masq.
[> [> [>
What's wrong with long sub-threads? -- CW,
13:41:02 04/07/03 Mon
The TV series is okay, but it turns out that Nia is the weak
acting link of the show. I watch occaisionally, but it isn't
something I'd miss if it got cancelled.
Like most people, I loved the movie. Unlike most people I
dated a Greek-American girl in high school, and many many of
the jokes were very familiar; everything good comes from
Greece, all words are derived from Greek, Grandma who speaks
with an accent is more than a little nutsy about Turks and
Bulgarians... The girl used to compare everything I did with
what Greek guys did (sometimes unfavorably; sometimes not
just favorably, but with great gratitude). She didn't go to
Greek school, but her best friend did. Her father was not
in the restaurant business, had no particular feelings about
Windex, but he did seem to be the only guy in the
neighborhood who thought T-shirts were the proper uniform
shirt at all times at home. She was Orthodox. I didn't get
close to asking her to marry me, but if I had and I'd found
out anyone was going to spit on her during the ceremony,
there would have been war!
I don't think it's fair to call Nia's father a racist. A
Greek nationalist certainly; a partisan for the Greek
Orthodox Church. But racism is a different matter. My girl
friend's family would have been happier if she'd ended up
marrying someone who was from their religion, I'm sure. But
the two of us who dated her the most in high school and her
eventual husband were all not overly-religious protestants.
The idea that Nia's father would eventually accept a
"Frank," as Greeks call western Christians, isn't surprising
at all to me. Nor is it that Nia accepted some of her
father's wishes.
[> [> [> [>
Well, I don't think there's anything wrong, but I
didn't want the board to hate me... -- AngelVSAngelus,
14:09:50 04/07/03 Mon
You're right about my misnomer, but despite being a
different form of discrimination, discrimination it was.
That having been the case, it bothered me that either of
them would even bother considering the wishes of their
parents when their motivations were obviously dubious.
I'm an African American male, a fact that's only
important and brought up to set up context for the
statements of my family's racist (and here's it accurate)
misgivings regarding my relationships. I've been seriously
involved with two caucasian girls (one of them German, which
made some of my family even angrier) and an Asian girl.
My family's many infuriating paradigms are exactly why we
DON'T get along and I'd never consider letting them have the
amount of control of my life's situations that Toula granted
her family in that movie.
I guess because of how immoral I consider that kind of
behavior, from anyone, be they family or not, the fact that
those people were presented in a comedic light and thus
granted ethical immunity by many movie-goers bothers me.
Well, that and the fact that most actual conversation to
demonstrate those two's relationship is supplanted by the
kind of awkward-stammer-quirky-behavior dance that too many
writers today thinks can fool the viewer into buying a
couple's validity. See problems with Romeo and Juliet and
Moulin Rouge for details of anger with Hollywood regarding
relationships.
[> [> [> [>
Re: What's wrong with long sub-threads? -- s'kat,
20:23:04 04/07/03 Mon
I tend to agree with you on this. The situation comedy is
not up to the movie's standards. It's weak. The movie was
much stronger. Not sure why.
Could be because they seem to back-pedal on some of what was
accomplished in the movie. Nia is working at a travel agency
not the restaurant in the movie, in the comedy she's back at
the restaurant and her husband just has zip to do.
I can understand why John Corbett passed on it.
I liked the movie for the same reasons CW did. I thought it
was realistic, but then I live in a city and have been to
these types of weddings.
I didn't vote for the situation comedy, just don't care.
Actually this worked out fine for me, outside of Angel and
KingPin and maybe Dragnet - didn't care about any of the
programs listed. TV has become a complete and utter
wasteland for me, what can I say?
Oh if you want Angel renewed - do as much as possible.
I've sent an email tv guid post-card. Voted for it for
Kristin chat Online (used to be Wanda). And voted here.
I really really want it renewed. And from what I've heard in
interviews and online? Looks like it will be. ME is putting
everything they have behind it and not working on developing
anything else according to the online rumors.
Which means S5 could be the best season ever.
;-) SK
[> [> [>
Sub-thread mania! (or, My denouncement of Greek
Wedding) -- skyMatrix, 21:19:55 04/07/03 Mon
Personally, I was immensely aggravated by this movie, and I
find myself unable to hold my peace! I will be advancing
somewhat controversial notions on the films racial politics,
and I hope this is not taken as an attack on anyone who
enjoyed it, as I fully respect the opposing viewpoint, and
also itís been a while so some of my original objections
have been forgotten or weakened.
My feeling on this movie is that it is racist. However, my
problem is not the father's insistence that his daughter
marry another Greek-American. While that is racist in the
strictest sense, I understand the factors that make
minorities in America worry that their culture will
disappear after the first intermarriage. Yes, it's
ultimately a wrong response, but I am not one to speak for
too long on "reverse racism," as I figure that racism in the
ordinary direction is a MUCH bigger problem! (for various
reasons which I won't address here).
There is a third kind of racism, and that is the brand of
"racial self-hatred." The notion in America is that racial
humor is only okay when you're making fun of your own race.
In my opinion, there is a validity to this, but only to a
certain degree. I recall one time watching a little known
African-American comic on HBO go on at length with jokes
such as "[black people] are so dumb that..." (obvious slur
deleted), with no real sense of irony or satire, and I
realized that the jokes were still racist even though the
comic was "only making fun of his own." I wouldn't go out
and get him censored, but I personally was offended by his
humor. And, if this man suddenly became the biggest comic
sensation for mainstream (white) Americans, I would wonder
if these whites weren't enjoying him so much because he
expressed their own negative feelings about blacks in a
format that was somehow acceptable.
So you're asking what can this possibly have to do with
Greek Wedding? Well, the movie shows us a family that
is uniformly loud, boisterous, lovable, traditional, proud
at the expense of other cultures, illogical and quaint (the
Windex and the faulty etymology), overprotective, and etc.
Already, this family now represents the only Greek-Americans
that many of us in America will ever meet, and theyíre
nothing more than enormous, simplistic stereotypes. Are they
negative? Not entirely, but stereotypes to me can be almost
as destructive when positive. (Consider the notion that all
Asian-Americans are more intelligent, which creates a
standard many decent average people wonít live up to). The
film just doesnít stop at this though, in fact it repeatedly
tells us (through Vardalos' narration) that
all Greek-Americans are like this.
It seems to me that Vardalos has a lot of issues with her
own cultural identity, and basically decided to make a joke
out of it for Americans at large. I donít mean to say that
everyone who enjoys this movie enjoys it because of
these racial undertones, after all Iíve enjoyed many a film
only to realize afterwards the racism inherent in a main
character (cf the mentally retarded, "magical" black man in
The Green Mile, a ubiquitous film stereotype that is
worth another prolonged post!).
In conclusion, I really donít know anyone of Greek descent,
and there may be many Greek-Americans who do resemble
members of this family in some ways or others. Nonetheless,
the whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because
no group should be painted so recklessly with so wide a
brush for perhaps their only mass-market film representation
for the next 50 years, even if it was done by "one of their
own."
I'm sure someone will ask me if I was offended by the
portrayal of John Corbett's White Anglo-Saxon Protestant
family, and as someone who roughly corresponds with that
category, no, I wasnít. Yes it was stereotypical as well,
but considering that people with that ethnic & cultural
background are represented ubiquitously in filmed media
(such as our favorite shows, for instance), I wouldnít worry
about that group being stereotyped. Furthermore, no one
tries to assert in the movie that all people of this
background resemble Corbettís parents!
Finally, as far as the film itself goes, Time said it
best in their year-end cultural rundown when they described
the movie as having "three decent jokes and no conflict!"
The appeal seemed to be that it was good-natured, but canít
a film be good-natured and also high quality?
[>
Let's keep this on the board -- pellenaka,
15:11:29 04/07/03 Mon
I voted "don't care" for everyone but Angel, simply because
I don't know any of those shows.
Except for Jamie Kennedy. So I also voted 'keep' for him.
He's cute.
[>
Just told USA Today: "If they cancel Angel, the
WB can kiss my TV screen goobye." -- cjl,
11:46:40 04/08/03 Tue
OK, not my best work. But it conveys the sentiment.
[> [>
Oooh, I bet you got them quaking in their shallowly
juvenile boots! -- Masq, 12:16:40 04/08/03 Tue
But what if a spin-off ends up there?
Mmm, maybe not.
FCC rulings on limiting ownership of media outlets
(possibly OT) -- luna,
12:27:20 04/07/03 Mon
I don't really think this is OT, and I hope it is not
inappropriate to post this here--I can't think of a group
that is more aware of the dangers of limited ownership of
media outlets. In my area, WB and UPN are now on one
channel, and I never know from week to week if they will
decide to cut either Buffy or Angel. These are two different
networks and should not be owned by the same company.
I'm posting this here to ask you to consider writing a
letter in support. I'm also giving my email address so you
can bash me in person, more or less, if I should not have
done this!
This Issue Affects All of Us
Whether you are conservative, liberal, or somewhere in
between, this issue has immense importance for you and your
future ability to find out what you need to know.
The Federal Communications Commission will be making
decisions about changing the rules for limits on media
ownership in this country. For many decades the limits on
media ownership have protected the independence and
diversity of information and opinion. Changes being
considered could radically alter and reduce the protections
of independent media that we have enjoyed. We could find the
same concentration of ownership that has developed in radio
since 1996 extended to include television and
newspapers.
Our ability to find out what is going on in our government,
in our communities, in our environment, and in the world
will be affected by the decisions that are made on media
ownership in this country.
Whether diverse points of view will be broadcast and
published for us to consider, debate, and use to inform our
political opinions, our votes, and our civic actions will be
profoundly affected by the decisions that the commissioners
of the FCC make on this issue.
Our access to information, the sources of information
available to us, our ability to make informed choices, and
the political health and future of our democracy are all
profoundly affected by this issue.
The radio and television airwaves are public property; they
cannot be anything else.
Tell your Senators and congressmen what you think until this
issue is resolved in the public interest.
Insist that the FCC Commissioners act in the interest of the
public, not in the interest of corporations ñ which have
many other, more beneficial, ways to make money. Our rights
as citizens should come before the rights of large
corporations to make millions through government grants of
monopoly use of publically owned airwaves.
Some of the important questions are:
Can remotely operated stations owned by large
corporations and "manned" by computers respond when local
emergencies or natural disasters happen? Can the computers
running the stations even know what is going on outside the
station?
How much local investigative reporting will take place
when local stations and newspapers are owned by large
corporations that "share" the same groups of reporters?
Do large media corporations care more about local
concerns or more about the bottom line?
Is public service for use of the public airwaves too
much to ask?
Should reporting over the public airwaves fairly report
the different sides of political arguments, or should it
reflect only the views of the owners of the stations?
Is the only proper measure of journalism and
broadcasting profitability?
Should commercial values be our main values?
Below are some web sites that provide important views and
information on this crucial subject. Please read and think
carefully about the issue. We stand to lose a great deal if
the wrong decisions are made. Let your Senators,
congressmen, and the commissioners of the FCC know what you
want done to protect your rights as citizens. You can use
one of the links given below to find addresses for
congressmen. FCC links, telephone numbers, and the
Washington FCC address are also given below.
We must act soon to protect our rights. The FCC wants to
decide on June 2, after only one public hearing! Ask for
more public hearings. Let the officials know your views.
Read what Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of
Concerned Journalists, and Tom Rosenstiel,
director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said
in their editorial which appeared in The New York Times on
January 7, 2003, at
http://www.journalism.org/resources/publications/articles/de
regulation.asp
See what Molly Ivins said in "FCC and Right-Wing Radio
Helping U.S. Press Freedom Slip Away" for The Salt Lake
Tribune at
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Feb/02032003/commenta/25802.asp
Read what the conservative William Safire said "On Media
Giantism" in his article in The New York Times at
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/20/opinion/20SAFI.html
Other Sources of Information
The site for the Committee of Concerned Journalists, at
www.journalism.org has background information on ownership
and deregulation as well as many articles, commentaries,
results of research, and links to other related sites. Click
on
Media Ownership Deregulation under Special Daily
Briefing Archives, or go directly to:
http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/ownersh
ip/deregulation2.asp
Go to http://www.pbs.org/now/ to reach the Bill Moyers' NOW
program site. Type FCC in the Search box to find a list of
information including transcripts of NOW programs on the
subject and several useful links to more information from
other sources.
Sites Promoting Media Diversity
Media Access Project
http://www.mediaaccess.org/programs/diversity/index.html
Center for Digital Democracy
http://www.democraticmedia.org/issues/mediaownership/index.h
tml
MediaChannel
http://www.mediachannel.org/news/indepth/fcc/
I Want Media - Media Consolidation Page
http://www.iwantmedia.com/consolidation.html
How to Contact U.S. Senators and Representatives
THOMAS - U.S. Congress on the Internet
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Next to Quick Links click on House Directory or Senate
Directory to find address information.
How to Contact the FCC http://www.fcc.gov/ &
http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html
For Media Ownership Policy Reexamination information go to:
http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/
To file public comments in this proceeding, use ECFS Express
or go to ECFS and enter "02-277" in the "Proceeding" box and
complete the other required information.
To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail
Chairman Michael K. Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: kabernat@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: mcopps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: kjmweb@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: jadelste@fcc.gov
To Obtain Information via E-mail
General information and inquiries: fccinfo@fcc.gov
Freedom of Information Act requests: FOIA@fcc.gov
To Obtain Information via Telephone
1 - 888 - 225 - 5322 (1 - 888 - CALL FCC) Voice: toll-
free
(888) 835 - 5322 (1 - 888 - TELL FCC) TTY: toll-free
United States Postal Service First-Class Mail, Express Mail
& Priority Mail
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Please pass this message on to others.
[>
Re: FCC rulings on limiting ownership of media outlets
(possibly OT) -- 110v3w1110w, 14:09:16 04/07/03
Mon
i have no problem with media outlets being owned by whoever
pay the most for them reguardless of how many other media
outlets they own. the market economy will allow the public
to decide for themselves what is in their interests to watch
by paying for the channels they want it does not matter who
owns the media if they do not give the public the service
they want they will go out of bussiness. what the public
does not need is people like your trying to get the
government to control who supplys them with their news and
entertainment because you think you know what best for
them
[> [>
Re: FCC rulings on limiting ownership of media outlets
(possibly OT) -- luna, 16:54:39 04/07/03 Mon
Well, actually, the point of what I posted is that we should
have many, many different stations, not just one big one--
which I think WOULD tell you what you can watch and what you
can't.
For those fairly new to Philosophical Buffy... --
DL,
13:23:52 04/07/03 Mon
Hi! I'm DL, and I am currently in the process of delurking
- in fact, I've met a few of you in chat. I have to admit
that I am fairly new to Buffy. For approximately 2 years,
I've been watching the show, and for almost a year, I've
been lurking on these boards. To be honest, I don't go more
than a couple of days without reading the posts because I
find that you all have added new perspective into my
life.
However, with the impending end of the series, there won't
be new episodes to discuss. This is why I think it's a
really opportune time to revisit the past. With the DVD
sets, the first three (and soon to be four) seasons will be
available to lots of us, and I wanted to gauge whether or
not anyone would be interested in an online discussion
"club," kind of in the book-of-the-month style. I think
it'd be great for people like me who haven't seen everything
or been able to discuss a lot of the show, and also for
others just to gain new perspectives. Over the summer, we
could do a new episode every week and meet in the chatroom
to discuss.
So, is anybody interested? I'll leave my email address just
in case this thread disappears quickly. Thanks!
[>
There is an ongoing project -- Sophist, 13:40:43
04/07/03 Mon
coordinated by Rob to analyze past shows. He has a site
called The
Annotated Buffy. You might want to visit there and then
follow the discussion when he's ready to do the next
episode.
[> [>
Or... (taking DL's idea and adding to it) -- Masq,
14:17:10 04/07/03 Mon
We could just start a weekly thread from the beginning.
Rob's analyses are focused on cultural annotations, but
there is a lot more to discuss. Plus Rob's well along in
Season 2 now. It'd be fun to start from the beginning, and
it would continue to give the board "Buffy" life after the
show is over.
I for one don't want to see the fun end on this board!
[> [> [>
I like the weekly thread idea a lot. Let's do it,
starting in the summer! -- CW, 15:18:28 04/07/03
Mon
[> [> [>
What about doing Angel episodes too? -- s'kat,
16:22:51 04/07/03 Mon
What about doing one for Angel the Series as well? Rob's
only been doing Buffy. We could start doing some of the
Angel episodes - particularly since TNT is supposed to start
showing Angel reruns in September.
TCH has set the stage for it with his Odyssey. I'd love to
see us do both series.
SK
[> [> [> [>
Plenty of summer action for all -- Masq,
16:30:20 04/07/03 Mon
Revisiting Buffy I think will be interesting because we'll
have the benefit of the whole series as perspective. Looking
at things in retrospect without having to speculate about
what's coming up next and how ME might change things.
Of course, that might be true as well for AtS as well if AtS
doesn't come back, but... I think our thinking about AtS
will be from a different perspective than we'll have on
BtVS.
I'm not ready to speculate about what the summer AtS talk
will be like. It all depends on what sort of AtS we have--in
terms of renewal or cancellation, in terms of possible
retconning of early story lines, and in terms of syndicated
episodes.
[> [> [> [> [>
Also...I might be able to add some stuff from these
discussions into the annotations. -- Rob, 17:19:32
04/07/03 Mon
[> [> [>
Re: Or... (taking DL's idea and adding to it) --
luna, 17:45:22 04/07/03 Mon
I really like this idea a lot. I too joined late and would
really like to have the chance to go back. It would be
especially interesting to analyze the early shows with the
knowledge of what finally happens.
[>
Oh, jumping jehosphat, please, not that. --
Solitude1056, 15:56:19 04/07/03 Mon
How about if we could actually - gasp! - have the
conversations here, in the forum, where we could all read
them. Don't take this the wrong way, but I'd really rather
have posts that I can read, peruse, ponder, and reply to,
than have to track three to seventeen conversations
scrolling past at top speed.
Much appreciated.
[> [>
Re: Oh, jumping jehosphat, please, not that. -- DL,
17:10:31 04/07/03 Mon
Oh, I'm up for whatever the consensus is. I just want to
hear everyone's opinions and I really don't care how it's
done. I'm actually just glad someone else wants to do
it.
[> [>
I've always wondered how you spell
"jehosphat". Thanks:) -- Calvin, 23:22:29
04/07/03 Mon
[> [> [>
It's "Jehosophat" - one more syllable.
Biblical King. -- Darby, wondering why he's jumping.,
06:29:22 04/08/03 Tue
[>
Re: For those fairly new to Philosophical Buffy...
-- Giles6688, 19:36:40 04/07/03 Mon
i wanna help
[>
I was puzzling through an idea where... --
Tchaikovsky, 02:25:59 04/08/03 Tue
I take one poem a week and relate it to an episode of Buffy,
somewhat like I did with 'Slouching Towards Bethlehem', but
with less reason. I thought I might be able to enlist the
help of people who are more knowledgable and have a
different angle than me, (offf the top of my head- Rahael,
Dedalus, Random, Scroll anyone else who wants to help), to
take turns. If we have a weekly thread, I could let this run
along side it. Anyone interested?
TCH
[> [>
Re: I was puzzling through an idea where... --
Rahael, 07:12:39 04/08/03 Tue
I did once think about doing this - a poem a week, a while
ago, but didn't think there would be any interest. It would
be cool especially now there might be posters who would
respond.
Also, am being seriously tempted to do a long post about a
particular poem and its relevance to the Angel character,
but that depends on my (non-existant) discipline and
notoriously short concentration span!
[> [> [>
Poems and other literature and BtVS/AtS -- Masq,
09:18:15 04/08/03 Tue
I used to hang a bit at the salon.com Angel board and those
wonderful folks (every bit as erudite as ATPo'ers) started
taking classic poems, literary pieces, songs, even prayers
and re-writing them to fit Buffyverse characters and
situations. It's a real hoot:
BtVS
and Angel Filk Collection
I think there's at least one Yeats in there.
[>
Great! How about after the June Boardmeet? -- DL,
10:19:55 04/08/03 Tue
My analysis of "Inside Out" is up --
Masq, 14:30:00 04/07/03 Mon
Here.
Oooh, this was a toughy. The temptation to read between the
text and start spinning out theories about what's really
going on was tough to fight. But that's why we have the
board.
And just figuring out what the text itself meant was
challenge enough! But that's why I have the board.
I'm going to crawl into a nice hole and sleep now. It was a
loooong weekend. But not the good kind with the extra
days.
[>
Excellent analysis as always, Masq. One thought...
-- Ixchel, 16:33:44 04/07/03 Mon
IMHO, it's when you recognize the posibility that you may be
a pawn that you can break free from another's control.
Unfortunately for Connor, he's both fairly new to this world
and was raised by a master manipulator. Did he really stand
a chance against EvilCordelia, who makes Holtz's
machinations look simple by comparison?
Ixchel
[> [>
Good point on Holtz -- Masq, 17:04:37 04/07/03
Mon
The larger issue of pawns and control and free will have
been debated in threads below, but I don't know how much of
Holtz came up, except for the fact that he turned Connor
against any real chance of seeing his parents for who they
are now, which makes Connor turn his back on what both Angel
and Darla might have to offer him in this situation.
But as far as prepping Connor to be the pawn, to be the kind
of kid who only knows how to be manipulated, who doesn't
really know how to think for himself, that's a very valid
point. No matter how much Holtz professed to love Steven in
"Tomorrow", you could see by his actions in "Benediction"
that he had that boy completely well--is "brain washed" the
right term here? I'm thinking of that scene in the motel
room where Holtz and Connor are going through that "God gave
me to you" routine.
I hesitate on the word "brain-washed" because Holtz believed
it as much as Connor did. I don't know to what degree Holtz
really realized that he was manipulating and using Connor.
EvilCordelia knows full well what she's doing, but Holtz I
think really believed he wanted what was best for Connor.
That he loved him. But what he actually did was use him as a
pawn, even up to the very end, in his revenge.
And that's the only role-model Connor's ever had. No wonder
Angel's "hands off" fathering failed so miserably. I'm not
taking Angel off the hook for the way he failed Connor this
season, but Connor does not respond well to people giving
him lee-way and choices. He was raised to take on the
"mission' whoever was manipulating him gave him with single-
minded passion. And "Angel's mission was "maybe someday
you'll choose to be a champion". Holtz and EvilCordelia's
missions were "I want you to do somethings for me. You'll do
this, right, because you love me/our baby/etc."
Some people no longer feel sorry for Connor after "Inside
Out". I still do.
[> [> [>
Thank you. I believe Holtz permeates Connor's entire
psyche. -- Ixchel, 18:41:53 04/07/03 Mon
I believe as long as Connor exists, Holtz will cast a shadow
on him. (This is one of the best aspects of ME's shows,
perceiving a character's influence long after separation or
death.)
You have it exactly, Connor _doesn't_ know how to think for
himself. IMHO, IO made that very clear with his repetition
of "Cordelia's" and "Darla's" words.
And I believe Holtz did love Connor (as much as what was
left of him could), but he (like Medea) loved his vengeance
more. He may have even lied about it to himself.
Perhaps the word "indoctrinated" would serve better than
"brain washed"?
Excellent point about Connor being mission oriented. I also
believe he wants something solid, when everything he has
ever known has been inverted and twisted so many times.
I'm with you. He is a very sympathetic character to me.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [>
Re: Thank you. I believe Holtz permeates Connor's
entire psyche. -- Angelus,
02:26:31 04/08/03 Tue
This is my first post here. This board looks quite
fascinating.
Regarding Connor, I believe Holtz did love him in a way and
I also believe that Cordy (or the thing controlling her) has
intentionally replaced Holtz in Connor's mind. Connor feels
alone and desperately needs a connection to someone. With
Holtz gone Cordy became that attachment, his mother in every
way that matters. He desperately needs to convince himself
that what she is telling him is true even when his common
sense tells him she is lying. To accept that she is lying
would be to lose the emotionsal attachment he so desperately
needs. Its the same reason he still feels hate for Angel
against the evidence. To accept that Angel isn't what Holtz
said he was would be to accept that the one person who loved
him, the one human he knew at all for the first eighteen
years of his life, was lying to him and using him. He just
cannot accept that yet and I can't blame him.
[> [> [> [> [>
I agree completely, Angelus. And welcome. :) --
Ixchel, 09:46:17 04/08/03 Tue
[> [> [> [>
The problem here, though -- Shiraz, 09:04:08
04/08/03 Tue
Is that Holz would have been just as appalled at Connor's
actions as Angel.
While it is true that Holtz raised him as an instrument of
revenge, it's reasonable to assume that he also tried to
instill in him some sense of his original mission;
protecting the innocent from the supernaturals who prey on
them.
I can't really blame Holtz for this; Connor had the
intellegence to make this decision, and enough of a moral
grounding to know the difference between right and wrong,
and he chose to commit an act which was unambiguously WRONG.
A lot of my symapathy for the character drained away in this
ep.
There comes a time when a lousy childhood is no longer an
excuse.
-Shiraz
"[T]his particular hero was a heroine. A redheaded one.
Now, there's a tendence at a point like this to look over
one's shoulder at the cover artist and start going on at
length about leather, thighboots and naked blades.
Words like "full," "round" and even "pert" creep into the
narrative, until the writer has to go and have a cold shower
and a lie down."
Terry Pratchett, "The Light Fantastic"
-Commenting on issues Joss knows only too well
[> [> [> [> [>
Connor's false dilemma -- Masq, 10:08:06
04/08/03 Tue
Yes, Holtz would be appalled. But part of the fault lies
with him, and the way he raised Connor.
Understand me, I am not trying to take Connor off the hook.
But indulge me for a second while I show you the way this
situation must have appeared from Connor's point of view.
In his mind, he had a dilemma--the life of a stranger over
the life of his own child. We know from a larger vantage
point that what Cordelia was giving birth to was no child.
But Connor had, in his own head, a real moral dilemma. A
braver person than Connor might have decided they had to
sacrifice the life of their child and spare an innocent
stranger death. And still other people would argue on
rational moral grounds that Connor had an obligation to his
family first and strangers second.
In more abstract terms--think of it this way: what if you
had a child and they were dying and you knew they could only
be saved if you killed another, random innocent human being?
Would you not even be tempted for a second?
Now, you'll no doubt argue that this wasn't Connor's
situation at all. And that's true, I think, from a larger
perspective. But in Connor's mind, this was the situation he
was in. And what might Holtz have told him to do if this
situation as exactly what it appeared to be to Connor?
Connor's failing was in letting himself get into this
situation in the first place. Letting Cordelia create this
false dilemma for him. The situation was very different from
Connor's perception of it. Cordelia spun a web so fantastic
and so relentlessly that what it finally boiled down to for
Connor was innocent stranger vs. my child.
Connor had his doubts about Cordelia. And we all hoped he
would listen to those doubts. But he didn't. He listened to
his intense desire for approval instead. He listened to his
intense desire for family. He did not think for himself. He
let himself be manipulated.
And there will be fall-out. Connor will, and should,
come to doubt his moral core for what what he did. He should
come to doubt his ability to really think for himself. If he
doesn't agonize about this situation and try to change
himself and the way he thinks about and reacts to
situations, I will be disappointed in the story line and in
the character.
He crossed the line through his own failings as a person, I
agree absolutely. Some of those failings--like the inability
to think for himself--were the result of Holtz'
upbringing.
Connor needs to change his ways. But I don't think there was
an absolute, clear-cut moral failing here.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
To me, its a question of empathy. -- Shiraz,
11:50:40 04/08/03 Tue
True, Holtz did mess up Connor fantastically, and certainly
set the stage for evil!Cordy's manipulation of him. This has
made him the sulking brat we've known for the past year.
However, until now I could at least see the beginnings of a
likeable person under all of that messed-up baggage.
All of that changed for me when he couldn't bring himself to
help a terrified girl, pleading for her life in front of
him.
Forget Darla, mere human empathy should have been
enough!
And empathy is something everyone deserves.
Connor has now joined the long list of people who defend
their actions with the phrase "I was only following
orders".
I'm going to need some VERY good reason VERY soon to not
hold Connor at the same level of contempt I hold the rest of
people in that category.
-Shiraz
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: The problem here, though -- Angelus,
12:11:26 04/08/03 Tue
I'm not sure if I can completely agree here because I think
Holtz had reached a point where revenge mattered to him more
than anything. At the end he was even willing to have his
minion cut Wesley's throat (that he survived was not part of
the plan I think) when Wesley thought he was in league with
Holtz. As I said, Holtz had reached a point where nothing
would stand in the way of revenge so if Holtz would be
appalled by Connor's choice in "Inside Out" it would only be
because it was an evil act that didn't serve the cause of
revenge against Angel. Had it somehow served that cause I
think it would have been okay with Holtz. He would have
been more angry had Connor not staked Angelus after
realizing he was Angel (ignoring that Faith was there to
stop him).
Regarding Connor's horrible act in this episode, I agree
that in spite of all the emotional turmoil he is in its hard
to have any sympathy for him but I compare the act itself to
those committed by many characters of myth.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The problem here, though -- random lurker,
13:01:17 04/08/03 Tue
I completely agree with you Angelus. Connor is in no way
innocent, and what he did was completely wrong, but I don't
think that Holtz gave Connor sufficient grounding in what is
morally right and wrong. As you mentioned, Holtz probably
wanted Wesley to die, if only to prevent him from running to
Angel to tell him that Holtz had Connor. I don't think
Holtz had any inhibitions about killing humans as long as it
furthered the mission. (e.g. slitting Wesley's throat,
having Justine kill Holtz to frame Angel).
In addition to this, I also think that Holtz instilled in
Connor a strong sense of family. I think that Holtz even
went so far as to tell Connor that anything is justified if
it is done for the good of the family. Holtz himself
kidnapped Connor and raised him to kill his father (Angel),
all in the name of family. Therefore, I think Connor is
justified in believing that Holtz would support his decision
to sacrifice a stranger to save the life of his son, his
family.
I still have a lot of sympathy with Connor, but what he did
was so very wrong, in so many ways - and I think he knew it
too, he just didn't know how to stop, and to get out of the
situation he was in.
Connor's background doesn't excuse what he did, but I think
that it played a large part in his decison making process.
Holtz taught him that anything is justified if it is done in
the name of family. (how else could Holtz justify stealing
Connor from Angel and raising him to kill Angel)
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: this will change the father/son dynamic --
Lupe, 14:50:21 04/08/03 Tue
Along that same line (that all that mattered to Holtz in the
end was the revenge), anything that Connor does that is
opposite of what Angel would want him to do is what Holtz
would want. It was that division, that seperation of father
and son that was Holtz's ultimate goal as his last revenge.
And because it is so central to Connor's core identity that
he NOT be like Angel, that he does want to oppose Angel that
made it easy for evilCordy to manipulate him. Despite first
hand evidence to the contrary, years of indoctrination have
taught Connor that Angel is a threat.
Angel was a threat to Holtz's own children when he killed
them as Angelus. Connor believes Holtz "rescued" him from
Angel as a child. After all that, why wouldn't Angel be a
threat to his own child now (in Connor's mind and with
evilCordy's prodding)? (Again, first hand experience which
should now tell him differently, not withstanding).
What Connor's failure to have empathy and to make the right
choice does, however, is completely change the dynamics
going forward (at least once whatever brainfreeze that the
new evil brings is over). Connor will no longer have some
sort of moral high ground over Angel. Like Angel said about
Faith, once you take a life it changes you. It will change
Connor, but whether he will take a road a la Faith (I'm
special, it's okay [that I took an innocent life], denial,
denial, denial) or perhaps something more immediately self
destructive (oh my god, I AM just like my real Dad - evil
and loathesome and perhaps beyond redemption). Or something
entirely different. And knowing ME, I'll bet on something
entirely different.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this changed dynamic plays
out.
[>
It all reminds me of what Whistler said in Becoming
Part 1 -- Helen, 03:54:38 04/08/03 Tue
Bottom line is, even if you see 'em coming, you're not
ready for the big moments.
No one asks for their life to change, not really. But it
does. So what are we, helpless? Puppets? No. The big moments
are gonna come. You can't help that. It's what you do
afterwards that counts. That's when you find out who you
are.
Buffy, the Birth of American Feminism and the Solitude
of Self (long; spoilery speculation) -- cjl, 23:06:15
04/07/03 Mon
This ramble is in response to Shadowkatís incisive treatise
on the necessity and centrality of human connection in
Buffyís world. Actually, itís not so much a response as an
expansion--because, even though shadowkat presents a
comprehensive analysis, I think an essential aspect of life
in the Buffyverse needs to be included in order to paint a
complete picture.
1. "In our extremity we must depend on ourselves"
Letís return to one of the seminal moments in the history of
the series--the climax of Becoming II. Angelus had Buffy
pinned down, and tried to psychologically intimidate her,
play up her isolation from her friends, break down her
resistance so he could land the deathblow. But Buffy was
made of tougher stuff than Angelus (or Angel) could ever
dream, and in that spine-tingling moment when she
immobilized the blade of the oncoming sword, just inches
away from her face, she displayed the inner strength (to go
along with the fancy kung fu moves) that made her the
heroine of postmodern feminists everywhere.
And yet, the episode was unquestionably a tragedy. Buffy
triumphed, but she was forced to kill the only man she ever
loved, a choice of love over duty that still haunted her in
"Selfless." Thanks to Xanderís lie, the post-Becoming Buffy
believed all of her friends wanted Angel dead, and that none
of them understood her suffering. So she isolated herself
in Los Angeles ("Anne"), turning away from her friends, her
family, her calling, and herself, until Chanterelle brought
her back to humanity. Like the mythic heroes of old, she
descended into hell and was reborn with a fresh appreciation
of her unique place in society.
The events from "Becoming" through "Dead Manís Party" (and
there are similar sequences all through both Buffy and
Angel) demonstrate the paradox of living in Joss Whedonís
universe: you desperately need connections with other human
beings in order to realize your potential and your place in
the world; but when it comes down to the big decisions, you
have to make them alone. Buffy never would have made it to-
-and through--that final battle in "Becoming" without the
love and support of Willow, Xander, Giles, Joyce (and
Angel); but in her darkest moment, Buffy had to reach inside
and summon up the strength to defeat Angelus when she
thought she had no one else behind her.
For the existentialists in the audience, this is old,
familiar territory. If there is no divine being, no God-
given morality, then every person bears the weight of the
world, and every decision we make is an act of creation in
an absurd universe. We cannot shuttle the responsibility
for those decisions on our loved ones, our community, our
society, or the unseen force who sends the sun and the
planets pinwheeling across the sky. Free will is a bitch,
but thatís the deal. The hardest thing in this world is to
live in it--and in a world of six billion people, weíre all
faced with the solitude of self.
2. The Solitude of Self
The phrase "the solitude of self" has special resonance in
this discussion, since it originated from one of the
founders of modern American feminism, Elizabeth Cady
Stanton. For those of you on the board whoíve never heard
of Mrs. Stanton, sheís an amazing story, one thatís nearly
been forgotten over the stormy course of the past hundred
years.
Stanton (along with her lifelong friend, Susan B. Anthony)
was the intellectual lifeblood of the American womenís
suffrage movement from its conception in the late 1840s to
her death in 1902. While Anthony forged political
alliances and built the nationwide organization that would
eventually bring women the right to vote in 1920, Stanton
built the ideological structure of the movement, hammering
home the ethical and moral necessity of suffrage, connecting
the issue of womenís rights to its origins in abolitionism,
then expanding the discussion outward to the plight of
oppressed people everywhere.
In her later years--saddened by the death of her husband and
hobbled by failing health--Stanton went off the lecture
circuit and devoted her remaining strength to clarifying and
explicating her principles in a series of brilliant (and
controversial) texts. The most universal of these personal
manifestos (to me, at least) was "The Solitude of Self,"
first and most gloriously presented to the public in her
resignation speech to the Womenís Suffrage Association in
1892. Iím going to skip a few of the introductory
paragraphs--but for the most part, Iím not going to cut a
word.
____________________________________________________________
To appreciate the importance of fitting every human soul for
independent action, think for a moment of the immeasurable
solitude of self. We come into the world alone, unlike all
who have gone before us, we leave it alone, under
circumstances peculiar to ourselves. No mortal ever has
been, no mortal ever will be like the soul just launched on
the sea of life. There can never again be just such a
combination of prenatal influences; never again just such
environments as make up the infancy, youth and manhood of
this one. Nature never repeats herself, and the
possibilities of one human soul will never be found in
another. No one has ever found two blades of ribbon grass
alike, and no one will ever find two human beings alike.
Seeing, then, what must be the infinite diversity in human
character, we can in a measure appreciate the loss to a
nation when any class of the people is uneducated and
unrepresented in the government.
We ask for the complete development of every individual,
first, for his own benefit and happiness. In fitting out an
army, we give each soldier his own knapsack, arms, powder,
his blanket, cup, knife, fork and spoon. We provide alike
for all their individual necessities; then each man bears
his own burden.
Again, we ask complete individual development for the
general good; for the consensus of the competent on the
whole round of human interests, on all questions of national
life; and here each man must bear his share of the general
burden. It is sad to see how soon friendless children are
left to bear their own burdens, before they can analyze
their feelings; before they can even tell their joys and
sorrows, they are thrown on their own resources. The great
lesson that nature seems to teach us at all ages in self-
dependence, self-protection, self-support. . . .
In youth our most bitter disappointments, our brightest
hopes and ambitions, are known only to ourselves. Even our
friendship and love we never fully share with another; there
is something of every passion, in every situation, we
conceal. Even so in our triumphs and our defeats. . . .
We ask no sympathy from others in the anxiety and agony of a
broken friendship or shattered love. When death sunders our
nearest ties, alone we sit in the shadow of our affliction.
Alike amid the greatest triumphs and darkest tragedies of
life, we walk alone. On the divine heights of human
attainment, eulogized and worshipped as a hero or saint, we
stand alone. In ignorance, poverty and vice, as a pauper or
criminal, alone we starve or steal; alone we suffer the
sneers and rebuffs of our fellows; alone we are hunted and
hounded through dark courts and alleys, in by-ways and high-
ways; alone we stand in the judgment seat; alone in the
prison cell we lament our crimes and misfortunes; alone we
expiate them on the gallows. In hours like these we realize
the awful solitude of individual life, its pains, its
penalties, its responsibilities, hours in which the youngest
and most helpless are thrown on their own resources for
guidance and consolation. Seeing, then, that life must ever
be a march and a battle that each soldier must be equipped
for his own protection, it is the height of cruelty to rob
the individual of a single natural right.
To throw obstacles in the way of a complete education is
like putting out the eyes; to deny the rights of property is
like cutting off the hands. To refuse political equality is
to rob the ostracized of all self-respect; of credit in the
market place; of recompense in the world of work, of a voice
in choosing those who make and administer the law, a choice
in the jury before whom they are tried, and in the judge who
decides their punishment. Think of . . . womanís position!
Robbed of her natural rights, handicapped by law and custom
at every turn, yet compelled to fight her own battles, and
in the emergencies of life to fall back on herself for
protection. . . .
The young wife and mother, at the head of some
establishment, with a kind husband to shield her from the
adverse winds of life, with wealth, fortune and position,
has a certain harbor of safety, secure against the ordinary
ills of life. But to manage a household, have a desirable
influence in society, keep her friends and the affections of
her husband, train her children and servants well, she must
have rare common sense, wisdom, diplomacy, and a knowledge
of human nature. To do all this, she needs the cardinal
virtues and the strong points of character that the most
successful statesman possesses. An uneducated woman trained
to dependence, with no resources in herself, must make a
failure of any position in life. But society says women do
not need a knowledge of the world, the liberal training that
experience in public life must give, all the advantages of
collegiate education; but when for the lack of all this, the
womanís happiness is wrecked, alone she bears her
humiliation; and the solitude of the weak and the ignorant
is indeed pitiable. In the wild chase for the prizes of
life, they are ground to powder.
In age, when the pleasures of youth are passed, children
grown up, married and gone, the hurry and bustle of life in
a measure over, when the hands are weary of active service,
when the old arm chair and the fireside are the chosen
resorts, then men and women alike must fall hack on their
own resources. If they cannot find companionship in books,
if they have no interest in the vital questions of the hour,
no interest in watching the consummation of reforms with
which they might have been identified, they soon pass into
their dotage. The more fully the faculties of the mind are
developed and kept in use, the longer the period of vigor
and active interest in all around us continues. If, from a
life-long participation in public affairs, a woman feels
responsible for the laws regulating our system of education,
the discipline of our jails and prisons, the sanitary
condition of our private homes, public buildings and
thoroughfares, an interest in commerce, finance, our foreign
relations, in any or all these questions, her solitude will
at least be respectable, and she will not be driven to
gossip or scandal for entertainment.
The chief reason for opening to every soul the doors to the
whole round of human duties and pleasures is the individual
development thus attained, the resources thus provided under
all circumstances to mitigate the solitude that at times
must come to everyone. . . .
Inasmuch, then, as woman shares equally the joys and sorrows
of time and eternity, is it not the height of presumption in
man to propose to represent her at the ballot box and the
throne of grace, to do her voting in the state, her praying
in the church, and to assume the position of high priest at
the family altar?
Nothing strengthens the judgment and quickens the conscience
like individual responsibility. Nothing adds such dignity to
character as the recognition of oneís self-sovereignty; the
right to an equal place, everywhere conceded--a place earned
by personal merit, not an artificial attainment by
inheritance, wealth, family and position. Conceding, then,
that the responsibilities of life rest equally on man and
woman, that their destiny is the same, they need the same
preparation for time and eternity. The talk of sheltering
woman from the fierce storms of life is the sheerest
mockery, for they beat on her from every point of the
compass, just as they do on man, and with more fatal
results, for he has been trained to protect himself, to
resist, and to conquer. Such are the facts in human
experience, the responsibilities of individual sovereignty.
Rich and poor, intelligent and ignorant, wise and foolish,
virtuous and vicious, man and woman; it is ever the same,
each soul must depend wholly on itself.
Whatever the theories may be of womanís dependence on man,
in the supreme moments of her life, he cannot bear her
burdens. Alone she goes to the gates of death to give life
to every man that is born into the world; no one can share
her fears, no one can mitigate her pangs; and if her sorrow
is greater than she can bear, alone she passes beyond the
gates into the vast unknown.
From the mountain-tops of Judea long ago, a heavenly voice
bade his disciples, "Bear ye one anotherís burdens"; but
humanity has not yet risen to that point of self-sacrifice;
and if ever so willing, how few the burdens are that one
soul can bear for another! . . .
So it ever must be in the conflicting scenes of life, in the
long, weary march, each one walks alone. We may have many
friends, love, kindness, sympathy and charity, to smooth our
pathway in everyday life, but in the tragedies and triumphs
of human experience, each mortal stands alone.
But when all artificial trammels are removed, and women are
recognized as individuals, responsible for their own
environments, thoroughly educated for all positions in life
they may be called to fill; with all the resources in
themselves that liberal thought and broad culture can give;
guided by their own conscience and judgment, trained to self-
protection, by a healthy development of the muscular system,
and skill in the use of weapons and defence; and stimulated
to self-support by a knowledge of the business world and the
pleasure that pecuniary independence must ever give; when
women are trained in this way, they will in a measure be
fitted for those hours of solitude that come alike to all,
whether prepared or otherwise. As in our extremity we must
depend on ourselves, the dictates of wisdom point to
complete individual development.
In talking of education, how shallow the argument that each
class must be educated for the special work it proposes to
do, and that all those faculties not needed in this special
work must lie dormant and utterly wither for want of use,
when, perhaps, these will be the very faculties needed in
lifeís greatest emergencies! Some say, "Where is the use of
drilling girls in the languages, the sciences, in law,
medicine, theology. As wives, mothers, housekeepers, cooks,
they need a different curriculum from boys who are to fill
all positions. The chief cooks in our great hotels and ocean
steamers are men. In our large cities, men run the bakeries;
they make our bread, cake and pies. They manage the
laundries; they are now considered our best milliners and
dressmakers. Because some men fill these departments of
usefulness, shall we regulate the curriculum in Harvard and
Yale to their present necessities? If not, why this talk in
our best colleges of a curriculum for girls who are crowding
into the trades and professions, teachers in all our public
schools, rapidly filling many lucrative and honorable
positions in life?". . .
Women are already the equals of men in the whole realm of
thought, in art, science, literature and government. . . .
The poetry and novels of the century are theirs, and they
have touched the keynote of reform, in religion, politics
and social life. They fill the editorís and professorís
chair, plead at the bar of justice, walk the wards of the
hospital, speak from the pulpit and the platform. Such is
the type of womanhood that an enlightened public sentiment
welcomes to-day, and such the triumph of the facts of life
over the false theories of the past.
Is it, then, consistent to hold the developed woman of this
day within the same narrow political limits as the dame with
the spinning wheel and knitting needle occupied in the past?
No, no! Machinery has taken the labors of woman as well as
man on its tireless shoulders; the loom and the spinning
wheel are but dreams of the past; the pen, the brush, the
easel, the chisel, have taken their places, while the hopes
and ambitions of women are essentially changed.
We see reason sufficient in the outer conditions of human
beings for individual liberty and development, but when we
consider the self-dependence of every human soul, we see the
need of courage, judgment and the exercise of every faculty
of mind and body, strengthened and developed by use, in
woman as well as man.
Whatever may be said of manís protecting power in ordinary
conditions, amid all the terrible disasters by land and sea,
in the supreme moments of danger, alone woman must ever meet
the horrors of the situation. The Angel of Death even makes
no royal pathway for her. Manís love and sympathy enter only
into the sunshine of our lives. In that solemn solitude of
self, that links us with the immeasurable and the eternal,
each soul lives alone forever. A recent writer says: "I
remember once, in crossing the Atlantic, to have gone upon
the deck of the ship at midnight, when a dense black cloud
enveloped the sky, and the great deep was roaring madly
under the lashes of demoniac winds. My feeling was not of
danger or fear (which is a base surrender of the immortal
soul) but of utter desolation and loneliness; a little speck
of life shut in by a tremendous darkness. . . ."
And yet, there is a solitude which each and every one of us
has always carried with him, more inaccessible than the ice-
cold mountains, more profound than the midnight sea; the
solitude of self. Our inner being which we call ourself, no
eye nor touch of man or angel has ever pierced. It is more
hidden than the caves of the gnome; the sacred adytum of the
oracle; the hidden chamber of Eleusinian mystery, for to it
only omniscience is permitted to enter.
Such is individual life. Who, I ask you, can take, dare take
on himself the rights, the duties, the responsibilities of
another human soul?
____________________________________________________________
I donít know if Joss has ever read "The Solitude of Self,"
but Mrs. Stantonís words permeate every frame of his beloved
brainchild.
3. "Alone she goes to the gates of death...."
In the end, itís all about Buffy. All through Season 7, we
have seen her searching for a new way to relate to her
world, leaving behind the old truths exemplified by the
Shadowmen and the Watcherís Council, and finally taking her
rightful place as the general of her own life. But sheís
still influenced by the past to the degree that she doesnít
know how to forge ahead in a new direction. I think this
is where all of the recent posts about the Dark Feminine
will come in. I believe Buffy will revisit the
circumstances of Becoming and Anne, as the slow process of
alienation from her friends in S7 will culminate in a total
break--and a metaphysical quest into the recesses of her own
mind and heart. It is there that she will find the answers
to the impossible question of the First Evil, in the dark
power sheís feared for the length of the series. And when
she emerges from the quest, she will share her joy with her
friends and the world--because Buffy will realize (once
again) that itís her friends who give her the support and
love to face the decisions we all face alone.
It is the only possible ending for Buffy the character,
because it is the only possible ending for Joss and the
series as well. Joss has had Buffy inside of his head for
the past ten to fifteen years, creating a complex and unique
universe, and perhaps his greatest joy has been to share his
creation with the world. Iím reminded (as usual) of a Jorge
Luis Borges story, "The Secret Miracle," in which a Czech
playwright is about to be executed by the Germans, and prays
to God for the time to finish his masterpiece. The
soldiers take aim, but the guns do not go off; in fact, the
entire physical universe is suspended, leaving the writer
alone with his consciousness. He spends a year constructing
the play in his head, cutting and rewriting when necessary,
adjusting the style and the plot until it is absolute
perfection. And when the play is complete, down to the last
detail, time resumes its course, and he is executed as pre-
ordained.
I get the feeling Joss would consider the events of "The
Secret Miracle" a punishment fit for the last circle of
hell. To finish your masterpiece and be unable to share it
with anyone would, for Joss, constitute a perversion of art.
Because even though we make the big decisions alone, every
decision we make is an act of creation, rippling out into
the world. It is how our acts of creation influence the
other people in our lives that gives our lives meaning, and
I think Joss will want us to know how much his own life has
been enriched before the series signs off once and for
all...OW
[>
Great stuff, CJL -- Rahael, 06:35:26 04/08/03
Tue
[>
Wonderfully wonderfully written, cjl. Thank you. -
- ponygirl, 07:12:05 04/08/03 Tue
[>
I was with you for a while... -- Darby, 07:27:07
04/08/03 Tue
Fascinating quote. I wonder if it represented her true
feelings about her place in the world - very much like Buffy
at this stage - or was an exaggeration to make a point?
It's not that I can say that the assertions of aloneness are
wrong, but they are definitely not the whole story. Or
shouldn't be. As stated, Stanton's words make her sound
like a profoundly lonely woman. I've lived under that
cloud, and it's not fun. Much better to share your inner
world, as much as you can, with other human beings. Burdens
can be shared.
But Buffy's story is, at its heart, Joss' story, and I'd
hate to think that over the course of these years he's
gotten more isolated and alone without realizing the dangers
therein. But who knows, as he has taken on more power and
responsibility, perhaps that's exactly how he feels. My
feeling, though, is that he knows the temptation to be an
island and the pitfalls, and is leading Buffy down this
course to get her "back to the beginning," when she was
successful only because of the support of her friends.
Joss, now married with baby, running an organization that
for about 8 minutes produced 3 hourlong tv shows, should be
feeling a lot of scary worldly responsibilities but lots of
supportive connections as well. In interviews this year he
has indicated dissatisfaction with his own actions towards
others, under the stress. I wonder how many inspirational
speeches he's given? Do you think he really gave one to the
phone guy? How does he pull himself through that? Is that
something that can be best done alone?
I think that this was a good year to be uncertain about the
future, to set in place a very open-ended arc, because what
the year has done to Joss it's also doing to Buffy. And
they are both going to survive only with the support of
those around them, and a willingness to stop tilting at
windmills.
Besides, even Joss likes a happy ending.
[> [>
How closely does Joss' story parallel Buffy's? --
cjl, 10:23:07 04/08/03 Tue
Taking it point by point:
"I wonder if it represented [Stanton's] true feelings about
her place in the world - very much like Buffy at this stage
- or was an exaggeration to make a point? It's not that I
can say that the assertions of aloneness are wrong, but they
are definitely not the whole story. Or shouldn't be. As
stated, Stanton's words make her sound like a profoundly
lonely woman."
I'm not enough of an expert on American feminism in general
or Stanton in particular to gauge her state of mind when she
prepared that speech. [cjl bangs side of head to jog
memory.] Granted, she was going through a rough transition
period in 1892--she was 77 years old, widowed, and was
forced, due to health reasons, to abandon the lecture
circuit and resign the presidency of the organization that
represented her life's mission.
Her relationship with Anthony was close and fulfilling but
tempestuous; they had many ideological disagreements, most
stemming from the conflict between Stanton's radical,
uncompromising feminist vision, and Anthony's brilliant
political strategy of incorporating conservative women's
groups (like the Daughters of the American Revolution) into
the suffrage movement. A case could be made that her
increasing isolation was expressed through her writing.
But I'm not convinced. Stanton still had her daughter's
love to give her strength, and no matter how much Stanton
and Anthony sniped at each in other private or disagreed in
public, their friendship was unbreakable. I think she had a
clear vision of life from the cradle to the grave; she was
an existentialist thinker before there was an existentialist
movement in the U.S., a solid half-century before Simone de
Beauvoir.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton would be the first to agree that you
need the support of family, friends, colleagues, and even
enlightened institutions--but she would also maintain that
support systems can't make the hard decisions of life for
you. They can give you strength, they can (somewhat)
prepare you for the hard knocks, but how you handle those
knocks is pretty much up to you. From Becoming, Part I:
WHISTLER: Bottom line is, even if you see 'em coming,
you're not ready for the big moments. No one asks for their
life to change, not really. But it does. So what are we,
helpless? Puppets? No. The big moments are gonna come. You
can't help that. It's what you do afterwards that counts.
That's when you find out who you are.
"Buffy's story is, at its heart, Joss' story, and I'd hate
to think that over the course of these years he's gotten
more isolated and alone without realizing the dangers
therein."
Sure he realizes the dangers. But Joss is the whole
ballgame when it comes to Buffy--he knows it and we know it.
If Joss keeled over in the middle of Season 4, could any of
his associates have taken up the mantle and led Buffy into
TV immortality? (Marti? Fury? Petrie? Don't think so.)
There has always been a special burden on Joss as the
creative genius, the fountainhead (everybody else is playing
in his sandbox), and there's a certain degree of isolation
that comes with the territory. Fortunately, he does have
Marti, Fury, Petrie, the Drews and the rest of his crack
staff to make things easier.
"In interviews this year he has indicated dissatisfaction
with his own actions towards others, under the stress. I
wonder how many inspirational speeches he's given? Do you
think he really gave one to the phone guy? How does he pull
himself through that? Is that something that can be best
done alone?"
Sometimes you go through phases in your life when all the
internal issues you've repressed or postponed or ignored
come to a head and demand to be addressed. Your friends and
family, your teachers and colleagues, they can help, they
can provide examples, but you have to do the work yourself.
Buffy can definitely incorporate the lessons she's learned
from Willow, Xander, Giles, Spike, Dawn, Angel and her mom
throughout the length of the series--but the journey to the
Heart of Darkness is a solo voyage.
"I think that this was a good year to be uncertain about the
future, to set in place a very open-ended arc, because what
the year has done to Joss it's also doing to Buffy. And they
are both going to survive only with the support of those
around them, and a willingness to stop tilting at
windmills."
I'm not sure the Joss of S7 is the same as the Buffy of S7.
It may be more instructive to compare this year's Buffy to a
younger Joss Whedon, who takes the comic books, movies and
literature from his youth and suddenly has a vision of a way
to elevate pulp fiction into high art. The end of BtVS may
be Joss' way of conveying his original moment of creation--
the BtVS big bang.
"Besides, even Joss likes a happy ending."
And I think we'll get one.
[> [> [>
It's the Jossy & Buffy Showwwww.... -- Darby,
12:07:42 04/08/03 Tue
Sung to the Itchy and Scratchy theme.
I had a lengthy and largely insane reply, but it got eaten
by the evil computer gods. Let's see if I can recreate
it...here's the theory:
When the show started, the premise represented the Hell that
was Joss' high school years, with Xander being the clearest
Joss alter ego. The horrors of high school became the
demons. But once the characters were out of high school,
Xander's path diverged from Joss, and the character he had
the most invested in, Buffy, the character whose emotional
development became each season's arc, started to follow
paths metaphorical to Joss' course through life.
Was the Initiative a metaphor for Film School, or maybe
Joss' experiences as a script doctor, appreciated but
ignored, and a powerless writer? Think about how Buffy was
treated through the arc, how she eventually found her power
in a collaboration but remained the driving force, the
decision-maker.
And who is more classic Hollywood than Glory, a shallow
egomaniac disguised inside a reasonable human, surrounded by
sycophantic minions bent on doing her will? Could this be a
metaphor for Joss' experiences on Roseanne's show?
Season 5 was always supposed to be it, the big finish,
ending with Buffy's death, but her co-worker buddies and
innate sense of responsibility pulled her back into the
fray, when she was done and satisfied, and put her back to
work. Another year of being in charge but wanting to duck
out of it and try something different, of dealing with money
matters that had never seemed so critical before, of having
those around you dealing with their own problems: the
attention-grabbers, the substance abusers, the gradually-
useless. Until your close associate takes on too much power
that she loses control and almost destroys your world. Hey,
I know that this is all a stretch.
So we come to this year, with three shows going, a huge
production staff (filled with Joss wannabes, no doubt), and
a system where the boss can write, and he can give
inspiration, but a lot of the actual doing has been
long-since-delegated. The future is fuzzy, probably bleak,
with no clear enemy, and maybe he's really preparing
everyone for their doom. This has been the open-ended arc,
twisting on the fly toward an ending that is just recently
solidifying, as around him the First Evil that is the
Business itself undermines his decisions.
I suspect that some characters have themselves become
metaphors for the production staff (the show has long had a
reputation of being filled with in-jokes and private
references). Could Fury be Spike, someone whom Joss
considers essential but everyone else sees as a liability?
Drew Goddard as Wood? David Greenwalt as Giles? I know
this is all a huge reach, but I'm finding it surprising how
far the analogy reaches now that I'm thinking about it. Ah,
the power of self-deception.
[>
This quote needs to be at the top of the board,
methinks. -- OnM, 08:08:06 04/08/03 Tue
*** Free will is a bitch, but thatís the deal. The
hardest thing in this world is to live in it--and in a world
of six billion people, weíre all faced with the solitude of
self. ***
Or at least just the first part-- pretty much sums up the
Jossverse to me!
This post should be added to the collection over at ES, cjl.
Suggest you submit it or just ask The Sidereal Coder to copy
it over for you.
Great stuff!
:-)
[> [>
Perhaps we need a new "Quote of the Week"
section in ES -- Masq, 10:33:41 04/08/03 Tue
Or after a while the top of the board is going to start
looking like a pretentious philosopher's convention.
Not that s'kat or cjl are in anyway pretentious, but we got
a lot of quotable folks on this here board.
I'm just sayin'.
[> [> [>
Masq, send me a reminder email. -- The Second Evil,
12:25:05 04/08/03 Tue
And I'll do up a Quotes page. Once it's coded, I'm sure LS
will be more than able to take it from there. (As a matter
of fact, I doubt I could stop her, if I wanted to. She's a
woman on a mission these days.)
[> [> [> [>
On a mission to code the First Anniversary Character
Essays, I hope? -- Masq, 12:29:08 04/08/03 Tue
Not that I'm being naggy. It's just everytime I go to check
the logs for ATPo, there are always numerous errors where
folks tried to access one or more of those analyses. They're
hungry for our brilliance!
I have a bunch of those "Quotes of the Week" that I have
made note of over the past couple years. I can dig them up
and send them to you.
[> [> [> [> [>
We can only hope... (gripe, volunteer, reminder
request) -- The Second Evil, 13:03:17 04/08/03
Tue
Side note: I am really not liking the New Voy. I'm on a T3,
here on campus, and the add-post is timing out more than it
does when I'm posting from home, on a much-slower dialup.
Someone explain that logic to me. Voy's servers suck rocks,
and their updates seem to have slowed down the system, not
sped it up. But anyway...
Haven't heard anything of LS recently - either she's
slacking, or she's up to no good coding who-knows-what and
will post it soon. However, dumping the QotW on her, too,
may be too much, so here I could ask for a volunteer from
the audience. If someone were at least moderately versed in
HTML (or able/willing to follow a template), that person
could add new quotes as needed, send the file to myself or
LS, and it'd be uploaded regularly. Anyone who wants to
manage this single page on the ES pages, and thus
participate in our grand maniacal scheme, feel free to post
a comment here or email me directly.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Just sent a sample to Masq of the Character
Analysis... -- LadyStarlight, 13:14:32 04/08/03
Tue
I don't know what happened, but I forgot all about them.
However, it's now at the forfront of my cluttered brain.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Slacker! -- The Second Evil, 17:38:48 04/08/03
Tue
I've been wanting to say that. Bwahaha.
[> [> [>
You could rotate them -- Vickie, 17:27:09
04/09/03 Wed
No need to add to the size of the board header. You could
just rotate quotes out for new ones after a while.
If you wanted. Or not
[> [> [> [>
Or even revolve them! -- d'Herblay, 17:57:44
04/09/03 Wed
This works, I think, only for those who browse through
Microsoft-infected eyes, but you can have some fun with the
<MARQUEE> code and end up with something like:
Ooh, that was fun. Not.
(There seems to be some sort of JavaScript code that makes this work across
browsers. Just what we need! Now what's the tag that makes
text blink? My eyeballs need a good bleeding.)
[> [> [> [> [>
it works on my opera browser -- anom, 22:12:37
04/09/03 Wed
That is, if it's supposed to look like a large-scale font in
colors.
[> [> [> [> [>
AHHHH!!! ... No blinking!! No blinking!!! Back, back,
evil java!! -- OnM, 07:54:10 04/10/03 Thu
Actually, just changing them out every week would be cool,
like Vickie suggested.
[> [> [> [> [>
I did that at the top of the board, once -- Masq,
12:35:46 04/10/03 Thu
The Marquee dealie. It messed everything up below it.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Really? -- d'Herblay, 13:18:53 04/10/03 Thu
I used it while copying the archives a couple of times, and
it worked fine.
NOT that I am seriously suggesting that we use it for quotes
-- for one thing, it gives me headaches! I like Vickie's
idea that we rotate the quotes more often. (Personally, I'm
starting to think that Angel does negate Spike -- or,
at least, the quality of Angel has negated the doubts
I've had about the franchise since Buffy started to
be all about Buffy jumping through hoops to keep Spike
around.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
According to some people, it centered the board --
Masq, 13:45:59 04/10/03 Thu
Looked all right on my browser after I did it.
[> [>
OT to Sidereal Coder -- cjl, 10:54:24 04/08/03
Tue
Please do. Copy the essay, that is. Heck, you can edit it,
excerpt it, pour hot fudge and chocolate sprinkles on it, if
you want. And if I get that banner quote? Cool. If not,
no problem.
[> [> [>
For hot fudge & sprinkles....no problem! -- The
Sidereal Coder, 13:06:22 04/08/03 Tue
[>
Self and Ego and Whitman -- luna, 10:59:41
04/08/03 Tue
That was a really well-written post, and I especially
appreciate the insight into Stanton.
It's been interesting this season to see Buffy dealing with
the problem of self and others in a different way--see the
many, many discussions here about her egotism as she assumes
the role of general, predicting that she's headed for a
fall, etc., even mocked by Andrew in Storyteller. But I
think the idea of self that you develop above is quite
different from this superficial image that we're seeing
right now, and more connected to the part of her that was
willling to die for others in The Gift. In S6 we saw that
self put itself back together, almost, through the human
connection; in S7 we're seeing it transformed. I think the
"ego" self, Buffy-the-General, will indeed not be successful
and will ultimately be changed, partly because it separates
her from the others, but the inner self, the true self of
Stanton's vision, is what allows her to make the connection,
as Whitman saw:
I celebrate myself;
And what I assume you shall assume;
For every atom belonging to me, as good belongs to you.
[>
Re: Buffy, the Birth of American Feminism and the
Solitude of Self (long; spoilery speculation) -- Angelus,
00:16:06 04/09/03 Wed
Very moving and beautiful cjl. Insightful how you realize
that Buffy, the character and the series, sum all of that up
in that one word, "Me!" uttered at that critical moment when
Angelus asks what she's got when everything else is gone.
That word is a very profound, lonely and moving one summing
up the human condition.
[>
The most ironic post I've written -- s'kat,
09:56:21 04/09/03 Wed
(First off: in case I forget, Good essay, cjl. Well written
and insightful.)
Irony...is the word that best describes the post I'm writing
in response to cjl's well-written and insightful essay.
Which at one point, I may have agreed with. Why is it so
ironic? Because I find that I disagree with him and Ms.
Stanton on one thing - and the thing I disagree with them on
believe me is incredibly and laughably ironic, if you knew
me. And I think in a way Irony is the point of all of this.
That is in a way the whole foundation of Buffy The Vampire
Slayer - irony. What we think is true is often the complete
opposite. Heck the title itself is ironic.
You see - I don't believe we make the big decisions alone as
much as we think we do. We may feel we are alone but we
aren't really. And that epiphany by itself is incredibly
ironic for me to make, particularly this morning.
I am physically alone at the moment. I've been disconnected
from the internet three times this morning. The only noise
besides my typing is the hum of a chainsaw or machinery
somewhere in the background. I've been alone physically all
week more or less - connected by phones and electronics to
the world. And while feeling incredibly sorry for myself, I
thought I'd always gotten everything in my life, by myself,
no one helped me. I've had long chats with my mother about
how we must depend completely on ourselves and save
ourselves and no one helps us. Then it hit me, how
completely and utterly untrue that was. How much of a false
illusion. And is for all of us. We are such literalists - we
think that we are alone because no one is in the room with
us or in Borjes story because it's only taking place in our
head. But if we stop to think about it a moment, every
thought, every idea is inspired by someone or something
outside ourselves. Our decisions are not made in a vaccume.
The job we get is given to us - someone hires us, someone
desires our product, someone gives us inspiration or an
idea. Someone loans us money. Someone if we are homeless -
gives us shelter or the food kitchen gives us food. If we
need comfort - someone gives us a hug.
Yes, it is up to us to decide whether to recieve these
things to take advantage of them and that is a decision we
make literally by ourselves, but and an interesting but here
- the descision is influenced by others.
Let's look at Joss Whedon for a moment - did he really come
up with the idea of Buffy the Vampire Slayer on his own? Uhm
no. According to numerous interviews, he discussed this idea
at length with his mother, an unpublished novelist living in
a commune. And part of the reason he was so upset with the
movie was he felt he'd hurt their vision. Joss Whedon's
first writing job was gotten through his father's contacts.
His father told him to write for TV, to get a job, not sit
around moping. Do you really believe he got where he is
alone? Sans contacts?? Take Stephen Deknight - in his
interview he mentions how his friend Roland got him his
first job on MTV and another friend got a script of his to
Joss Whedon who never reads Buffy spec scripts. He didn't do
it alone.
And Buffy The Vampire Slayer - in the credits of the series
we see close to 15 names, credited with production, acting,
writing, composition. The ideas for each show Whedon grabs
from his writers and actors. What we see on the screen is
not what is just in Whedon's head. It's what is in the heads
of over 20 participants. Whedon,Marti, and Minear co-
executive produce the shows. All the writers work as
producers. When the show reaches the air it has been put
together by numerous individuals. Before a single script is
written, they all meet in a room and hatch out the story
arc. It's not created alone. The ideas they get? Aren't
found in a vaccume. The decisions they make? Aren't made by
themselves - they ask advice from others. The idea, the
notion, this is done alone is an ironic illusion.
Back to Becoming. What really happens in Becoming? Does
Buffy really act alone? Think about it. When she's on the
run from the police - she runs into first Whistler, who
tells her what she must do, then Spike who tells her where
Giles is and how he can help her defeat Angelus. He says
something very important here: "None of us can defeat them
alone." And they don't. In that pivotal scene with Buffy and
Angelus - they aren't alone, they just believe they are.
Willow is busy in a hospital room getting Angel his soul
back. Xander has just gotten Giles out of there. Spike just
killed a vamp and got Dru out of the way. In the final scene
Buffy is with Angel when she makes her choice. And even that
choice wasn't one she did in a vaccume completely by
herself. Others ideas and views affected it. Affected her.
The sword she used was brought by Kendra. The knowledge she
had that she had to seal Acathla with Angel's blood was
given to her by Whistler and possibly Kendra.
Yes she had to make that choice and was physically by
herself when she made it and makes a big deal of saying
ME.
But the irony of the whole scene is in the background of
this choice is 20 some people influencing it. Just as the
irony of the whole idea that this show is all about Buffy or
all about Joss - is there are 20 some other people
influencing and changing every idea.
Truth is? We are only completely alone if we put ourselves
in a sealed container or tower and never ever see a living
soul.
They say we come into the world alone? But do we? Our genes
are a combination of our parents DNA. We sleep in our
mothers warm womb with her caring for us. When we come out
people smile and hold us. We really aren't alone. We just
think we are. When we die we are alone? But are we? Do we
know this for certain? We get buried and our ashes join all
the other ashes in the earth and our energy reconnects with
the energy of the earth - not alone.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton believed she was alone. YEt her
speech was made in front of lots of people. The Suffrage
Movement was made with Susan B. Anthony. Nothing she did was
really alone. None of her ideas came from just herself.
Everything was influenced by others.
The act of writing is a solitary art, but the ideas in the
words come from elsewhere. Cjl's post above - has Elizabeth
Cady Stanton's speech in the center of it and mentions my
pseudonyme at the front - so obviously something I wrote
inspired it. Just as this post in response to cjl's would
never have been written if it weren't for his post above.
ie. Not alone. If we think about it nothing we do, nothing
we think, is not influenced in some way shape or form by our
connections to others. However alone and isolated we may
feel, we aren't. We are whether we like it or not dependent
on each other. And believe me there are times, like today
for instance, when life feels like the pits and I want to
scream for all it's worth, that I wish we weren't dependent
on others. That I feel completely and utterly cut off and
alone and nothing will ever work out. But I'm not.
Evidence that I'm not alone props up every day, whether I
choose to acknowledge it or not.
Even our choices, tend to be influenced by others choices.
We don't make them alone as much as we think we do. They are
influenced by the people around us. Think what choices you
may have made in your life if you didn't have anyone else?
No parents. No friends. No children. No family. No teachers.
No employers. No one.
The victim in the Borges story - writes a play with people
in it, his play is based on his experiences with people, he
stands in front of a firing squad which is killing him for
choices he made that affect other people. The irony, is that
he thinks he's alone.
You have no idea how ironic this post is coming from me. I
who have always believed that I'm alone. That I've done
everything by myself and screw the rest of them. But over
the past two years...I've realized something...that this
idea that I am alone in the universe is an illusion. I'm
not, even though there are times like this one that I'm
completely and utterly convinced I am.
SK
[> [>
The Blind Men and the Elephant (Buffyverse edition)
-- cjl, 12:01:12 04/09/03 Wed
THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk
Cried, "Ho! what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ëtis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"
The Fourth reached out an eager hand
And felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"íTis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
added: "Eíen the blindest man can tell what this
resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope.
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
-- John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)
This is what's so marvelous about the ATP board. Dozens of
learned, witty people can look at the same object and
produce dozens of different opinions. Each of us comes to
the board with our own background, our own experience, and
each of us brings own distinct perspective to the remarkable
creation that is Buffy. We are all unique, and yet, Buffy
connects us.
That is the paradox of the ATP board, of Buffy, of life.
All of us connected, even in our loneliest hour; each us
unique and alone, in a world of billions. If you try to
define Joss Whedon's creation without dealing with the
paradox, you're not getting the complete picture...
Which begs the question--can we, as the Blind Men of
Indostan, ever grasp Absolute Truth?
Maybe we should save that for Sunday brunch and the company
of friends.
[> [> [>
Re: The Blind Men and the Elephant (Buffyverse
edition) -- lunasea, 12:16:25 04/09/03 Wed
One of my favorite stories. If the men would just walk
around the darn thing they would get a more complete
picture. To me that is what the story is about. Each man
felt one thing and went no further. We each think that our
tiny corner of the world is "THE world." There is a world
and we should all broaden our horizons (or not argue to
forcefully)
The ultimate perspective would hold all other
perspectives.
What I have found interesting lately is that this board is a
way for us each to relate to the elephant (Buffy) from our
tiny perspective. I know about X, so here is how Buffy
relates to X. Often discussions get heated because the
participants aren't talking from the same thing. One cares
about X and the other Y. Since it is about Buffy, it is
assumed that it is the same thing. Often it isn't.
I think we geeks are trying to connect to the learned men of
the past by knowing what they did. We feel disconnected from
the people with the screwed up priorities of today and
instead find kinship in our prefered area of interest. When
we read or see something and think "I feel that way" we
don't feel so alone. "I'm not a complete freak" we
think.
Or at least I do. Your mileage may vary.
[> [>
Re: The most ironic post I've written -- ponygirl,
12:02:57 04/09/03 Wed
Is it ironic? It's not so unexpected really, this is the
divide that we all face - how to connect to others while
always being alone in our own heads. How to be self-reliant
in a world where the slightest action of another can impact
on us in countless ways. And for Buffy, the Slayer is
always alone, yet is connected to every slayer who has gone
before her. Apart from the world, yet trying to live in it.
I wonder if anyone's told Buffy that it's all connected, she
keeps being told that she's alone.
Glad that you were able to re-establish an electronic
connection, shadowkat!
[>
I've been thinking about this -- lunasea,
12:43:27 04/09/03 Wed
The Woman's Movement has been about one word to me,
empowerment. That is why so many men are attracted to it,
including Joss. The struggle of those early feminist will
rival anything any fictional hero with a thousand faces has.
Biography has "replaced" mythology in modern society.
Alone, connected. Words. Rhetoric. Motivation. There is the
key. What perspective is "right"? Doesn't really matter?
What matters is what we do with that perspective. Sometimes
one perspective motivates us and sometimes the other.
Sometimes one perspective used to work, but no longer does.
Then we need to switch. Every now and then, it helps to have
someone come along and kick us in our pants.
Calls to action. That is what speeches like this are. Talk
about them, if you want, but to truly do them justice take
them into your heart. What is important is that you put them
into effect and live them.
Becoming struck me because typically so dramatic a change
involves a baptism of some sort on the show. In this case it
was a baptism by tears. Buffy baptised herself, in the
ultimate symbol of her self-reliance and what that
meant.
Connor and Mythical Themes -- Angelus,
02:54:55 04/08/03 Tue
I'm new to the board. This is only my second post but I
thought I'd bring something up for discussion.
I believe one of the things that fascinates me about Connor
as a character is that he plays out mythical themes in ways
beyond other characters in the show. Granted Angel plays out
many archetypal themes but, for instance, one of the
qualifiers of a mythical hero is that he is predestined for
greatness even from birth. Samson's parents are visited by
angels who tell them that he will be the hero of his people.
Heracles is the son of Zeus and strangles monsters while
still in his crib. Jesus is born of a virgin.
Buffy may be the slayer but its never been indicated that
she was destined from birth for greatness by any unusual
circumstances. Same for Angel and so on. But Connor is born
of two vampires yet a human with a soul and powers. He is
kidnapped into a hell dimension where he spends his
childhood.
I'm tempted to say he then grows up to be oh not too bright.
But this is clearly not a requirement for our mythical
heroes. Besides its not a matter of intelligence but in
wanting to believe in someone.
Someone pointed out to me that, in addition to being
destined for greatness by an unusual birth, a mythical hero
is often the son of a god or king. In this context, the son
of two vampires, one of them the only souled vampire until
very recently, might qualify.
Another element often seen in mythical heroes is that there
is a threat to his life by a parent, family member or loved
one while he is still a child. So to save him he is taken
away to a strange foreign land. We then see little or
nothing of his childhood but he comes back a man and a hero
who has achieved whatever superhuman powers he might
possess.
Often he opposes his own father and possibly kills him. He
establishes himself as a great hero and performs great tasks
but is often duped by those he cares about and especially by
some of the women in his life. Along the way, he often
performs acts that are not altruistic or heroic at all.
Some of them are heinous and he must perform great tasks and
take long journeys as a means of repentance for his crimes.
My knowledge of myth is not all that great and I know this
is only the tip of the iceberg but it seems to me that
Connor touches upon many mythical themes that may explain
why some of us see him as a profound character even while
others see him as a shallow character.
The Angel 'Ship Chart -- KdS, 09:01:41 04/08/03
Tue
This has been a project of mine for a while now.
http://freespace.virgin.net/philip.eagle/ME/atship.html
Interestingly, this was relatively sparse until mid-S3 but
now has reached BtVS-like levels of incestuousness. My
personal theory why is alluded to on the site.
[>
Lindsey had an unrequited attraction to Angel? --
Masq, 09:12:36 04/08/03 Tue
In everyone's fanfic dreams, and in subtext, perhaps, but...
makes me wonder about some of the other links you've
made.
One iffy meaning of "It's not me you want to screw" taken as
"canonical text"?
Just teasing. ; )
On another note, I notice it's only romantic relation
'ships. Is there a reason to leave out friendship/family
ties? I'm a lot more shippy about those myself.
[> [>
On the friendship issue -- KdS, 10:07:49
04/08/03 Tue
I left the friends and relations out because otherwise it
would just have enbded up like a spider web.
[>
Re: The Angel 'Ship Chart -- SableHart, 17:14:16
04/09/03 Wed
Brilliant! But don't forget about the Wes/Cordy kiss in
Parting Gifts, which I though rather made up for GD.
Back to that Kali thing (spoilers thru 7.15ish, I
suppose) -- Calamus, 11:51:21 04/08/03 Tue
Some random musings on the earlier trilogy of essays about
Kali. I can't keep up with the board's gaping maw.
Those essays- I enjoyed them very much, but they filled me
with questions. I admit I just don't get what's going on
with the whole "First" thing and s. 7, cosmologically
speaking. And I suspect I don't get the particular way the
folks on this board have enthusiasms about mythology and
psychology. (Or maybe it's just 'cos I don't read spoilers.
Don't really want to know.) But I had doubts. I express
them tentatively, not as a criticism. Just trying to puzzle
through it all, in a muddley kind of way.
One set of questions involves the Slayer myth. The other,
how the First fits in, if Buffy fits in as Kali. They're
related questions.
First, I'm uncertain whether the whole "Slayer mythology" as
an unambiguous "given" is one part big projection of "Buffy
the Vampire Slayer" (she sees what she wants to see, hears
what she wants to hear, and so do we, wanting a classic TV
heroine as bad as she wants to be one), one part
misdirection from her (our) "guides," and one part what
hasn't been said. What if Buffy's not Kali, but a black
goat laid at Kali's feet, the first to get up and walk away
long enough to wonder whether it really wants to offer
itself up to her?
What if Buffy, the First Slayer, and the Slayers in between
were given power (the demon essence, etc.), but not so that
they would live long and prosper, fighting evil in all its
guises. What if they were given power so that they would do
their real job- the job given to so many lineages of
pubescent girls over the generations, so many lines of
Chosen- as sacrificial victims? Were they intended to fight
the demons? Or propitiate the forces of darkness, by
feeding the hungry maw? (After giving good fight, of
course, a Lion and Gladiator kind of thing. Demons only
like it when she puts up a fight, or some such deal.) So,
was Buffy "supposed" to take the demon into her in the
shadowbox in order to gain more power, or be overwhelmed by
its essence, and so, the deathwish? What plan did she
thwart?
The imagery of Kali sparked this question in my mind,
because the main thing I've noticed about Kali is how linked
her history is with blood sacrifice, actual blood sacrifice
and iconic imagery of blood sacrifice. I can't help but
notice how Tara/The First Slayer's lines in "Restless" fit
the picture of The First Slayer as being a direct victim of
blood sacrifice: "I have no speech. No name. I live in the
action of death, the blood cry, the penetrating wound. ...I
am destruction. Absolute ... alone." These lines are
ambiguous about who's doing the action of death, causing the
penetrating wound- one can revel in destruction as
sacrificial victim or wielder of the blade/teeth. In
joining with the destructive force, as well as in
annihilating it.
It would make sense that over time the Slayers gained
skills, changed their attitude, and interpreted their role
as "Vampire Slayer." Who wants to see themselves as a
victim these days (even when we're really acting like one)?
This development would parallel the transformation of other
forms of sacrifice- from actual blood sacrifice to merely
symbolic sacrifice, and from required to rejected role for
women/girls.
This could mean that the Bel-Joxa's Eye thing's statement
had something to do with Buffy disrupting the order of
things because she didn't succeed in doing the Slayer death
wish thing (or, equally, Faith "doing time" instead of
offering herself up to the endless battles every night).
Really trying to live a 'normal' superhero life as stepping
out of the line of mythological footprints.
Why would this give the First a foot in the door? Dunno.
If it's Buffy, maybe 'cos of the way Buffy's trying to do
this, not what she's trying to do- i.e. because she's trying
to shed her 'darkness' in order to "live" instead of
embracing her 'darkness' (and the realization of
hopelessness that was the little 'gift' dying gave her), or
whatever. (Maybe Bel-Joxa's eye sees the big picture but
eschews the subtleties or little details.)
The other issue that nags at the back of my mind is the
image at the end of "GID" of the long line of baddies
waiting to make their way through the Hellmouth. Is the
whole dream-of-First-Slayer thing and the jacked-up--in-the-
box thing really a warning that "it's not enough" and Buffy
needs to bring out the big guns? Or is it something like a
vision of the Buddha's First Truth- "all life is suffering"?
(Interpreted by some as meaning "despair, give up," and by
others as meaning "it's hopeless to pull out a big gun; if
you insist on having and killing enemies, there's always
another demon ready to take the last one's place. Hopeless,
baby, go with that hopelessness.")
Which leads me to one more question: What if it's the First
Evil that's more profoundly related to Kali? (Since Buffy
seems to be deeply related to the First in some way, she'd
still have a deep relationship to the images of Kali, the
divine dark feminine, yadda yadda. Also, I guess it's about
which vision of Kali you're thinking of. There are so many
different sources, stories, and images of her.)
There's the way that in one story, Kali was born from
Kausiki ("she of the sheath"), who was created when Siva's
consort, Parvati, is embarrassed by and sheds her dark
complexion- and only Kali, the discarded dark part, can
fight off the demons. This could go either way- The Slayer
as created by the Shadowmen to do their dirty work and fight
off the demons (which would fit right into the tripartite
essays nicely). Or, The First Evil as being constantly
brought into the world, as a non-corporeal but "made-real"
entity, whenever we try to shed our 'darkness' as if it's
some embarrassing thing. (As if...).
There's the story in the Devi-bhagavata where Shiva gets
royally pissed off at his wife, Sati, because she wants to
go to Daksa's sacrifice, to which Shiva is the only god not
invited in all of the heavens. He refuses her permission to
go, so she assumes the "terrible" form of Kali, and
manifests the ten heads of the dasa-mahavidyas. He asks
where his lovely wife went, and she lets him on the little
secret that she only assumed that form to reward him for his
austerities, but being his wife is just a sideline, an
amusing pasttime. She has this other gig where she, you
know, sort of creates and destroys everything.
For some reason, that story reminds me not of Buffy, but of
the way the First manifests in "our world" as dead people,
to, like, "give us what we really want," until it gets
bored. It seems like the force that in fairy tales grants
people's wishes, on strictly literal terms- which is always
a curse. What if what it does here, in this world in "real"
form is just an amusing sideline that's no longer amusing
(for the moment- maybe Buffy needs to try to amuse it
instead of try to destroy it)?
The thing about Kali that's also so striking is the way non-
devotees see images of her as simply images of evil, of
horror. (I'm biased. Buffy's just too young, cute, blonde,
and perky for me to superimpose any of the images of Kali
over her. And imagery is so important with this particular
mythology.)
Here's the quote that reminds me of the things said about
the First (it existed even before the earth) and the
emphasis on how it "devours." Wait, first, thinking a little
more- "from beneath you" casts shadows of the vamacara or
"left-hand" tantra- partaking of the forbidden and
disgusting in the cremation ground, to seek union with the
divinity, beyond such dualisms. "Starting with your bottom"
- ack, a sly reference to the first chakra? That could cut
both ways.
Anyway, the quote is from Arthur Avalon's translation of the
Mahanirvana-tantra, quoted in David R. Kinsley's "The Sword
and the Flute":
"At the dissolution of things, it is Kala [Time- male
epithet] Who will devour all, and by reason of this He is
called Mahakala [an epithet of Shiva], and since Thou
devourest Mahakala Himself, it is Thou who art the Supreme
primordial Kalika.
Because Thou devourest Kala, Thou art Kali, because Thou art
the Origin of and devourest all things Thou art called the
Adya [primordial] Kali. Resuming after dissolution Thine
own nature, dark and formless, ineffable and inconceivable
Thou alone remainest as the One. Though having a form, yet
art Thou formless; though Thyself without beginning,
multiform by the power of Maya, Thou art the Beginning of
all, Creatrix, Protectress, and Destructress that Thou
art."
Yum.
In embracing Buffy-as-Kali-as-Shiva's-better-half, are we
unknowingly drowning in the water contained in a cow's
hoofprint? Is Buffy Kali, or is Buffy as much as victim as
the rest of us of Kali's web of Maya? And, of course, is
Joss merely a bubble arising from the mouth of Kali, along
with Vishnu, Brahma, and Siva?
-Confused
[>
Preserving this thread... -- Random, 12:33:26
04/09/03 Wed
[>
Also preserving -- LittleBit, 15:30:17 04/09/03
Wed
[>
just a little more Vishnu action -- Vickie,
18:17:38 04/09/03 Wed
[>
Holding steady -- Steady Holder ;-), 00:35:32
04/10/03 Thu
With Buffy winding down... -- Wolfhowl3,
13:02:16 04/08/03 Tue
I think it's time to look back over the past 7 years, and
remember the greatest quotes that have come from this great
Series.
I invite everyone to post there favirote quote from both
shows.
For me, it has to be the following from Season 3, Lover's
Walk.
Spike:
"Your not friends, you'll love each other till it kills you
both. You'll Fight, and you'll shag but you'll never be
friends. Love isn't this, children" (points to his head)
"It's Blood, screaming inside you to work it's will. I may
be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit
it."
That speach always gives me chills, becuase I know that I am
also very much, Love's Bitch.
Wolfie
[>
Spike's rooftop monologue from "In the Dark"
(ANGEL S1) -- cjl, 14:00:55 04/08/03 Tue
SPIKE (in high voice): How can I thank you, you mysterious,
black-clad hunk of a night thing? (low voice) No need,
little lady, your tears of gratitude are enough for me. You
see, I was once a badass vampire, but love and a pesky curse
defanged me. Now I’Äôm just a big, fluffy puppy with bad
teeth. [Rachel steps closer to Angel, and Angel steps back
warding her off with his hands] No, not the hair! Never
the hair! (high voice) But there must be someway I can
show my appreciation. (low voice) No, helping those in
need’Äôs my job - and working up a load of sexual tension,
and prancing away like a magnificent poof is truly thanks
enough! (high voice) I understand. I have a nephew who is
gay, so’Ķ (low voice) Say no more. Evil’Äôs still afoot!
And I’Äôm almost out of that Nancy-boy hair-gel that I like
so much. Quickly, to the Angel-mobile, away!
[Spike lights a cigarette while he watches Angel lead Rachel
away.]
Spike: Go on with you. Play the big, strapping hero while
you can. You have a few surprises coming your way: the
Ring of Amarra, a visit from your old pal Spike - and, oh
yeah - your gruesome, horrible death.
[Smiles. Credits.]
Thanks to Psyche, as usual.
[> [>
Which is one of those ringing ironies, in
retrospect -- Masq, 14:31:28 04/08/03 Tue
I was once a badass vampire, but love and a pesky curse
defanged me.
Love and a pesky chip.
Now I'm just a big, fluffy puppy with bad teeth.
Especially after that psychotherapy stone.
Say no more. Evil's still afoot! And I'm almost out of
that Nancy-boy hair-gel that I like so much.
I mean, c'mon Spike, you're trying to tell us you don't get
up every morning and swipe about 10 gallons of grease
through your hair?
[> [> [>
Re: Which is one of those ringing ironies, in
retrospect -- lunasea, 14:43:35 04/08/03 Tue
And don't forget at least our Champion's hair is the color
he was born with.
Gotta love that scene in light of what happened next. The
irony was just too delicious.
I loved that Spike was the first character to really be a
cross-over. He just had to follow Angel. Then he comes back
to Sunnydale and gets his mini-soul.
[> [> [> [>
Following in grand dad's footsteps (spec from alleged
Season 5 AtS spoilers) -- Masq, 15:07:21 04/08/03
Tue
OK, I read--accidentally, I'm not a trollop--that to sell
Season 5 to the WB, Joss may be forced to bring Spike over
as a regular.
Getting past how that is monumentally going to suck
(Spike has a nasty habit of stealing scenes, and thinking a
TV show is All About Him), I wonder what the Angel-Spike
dynamic would be like on a show that is Angel's show, not
Buffy's.
Those two boys have a lot of history. A LOT of history.
History in the past, a la "Fool For Love", and history in
the not-so-past, as in "I shagged your true love for months,
gramps, what do you think of that?" "What do I think, Spike?
*thud, crunch, crack*)
I also see this surreal scene where Spike meets Connor for
the first time. "Hey! I guess that makes you my uncle.... Or
possibly my great-uncle, I'm not sure."
[> [> [> [> [>
Gotta tell you, Masq--the S/C scene? I'm laughing
already. -- cjl, 15:14:28 04/08/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I'm tellin' ya, I coulda been in fan fics! -- Masq,
15:30:01 04/08/03 Tue
And if there is no Season 5 of AtS, I may very well have to
be.
[> [> [> [> [>
Hmm . . . let's think. (spec only, no spoilers) --
HonorH, 15:43:14 04/08/03 Tue
(Spike strides into the Hyperion as if he owns it. The Fang
Gang, still recovering from the events of last season, all
stare at him.)
Con: Who's that?
A: Spike.
S: 'Lo, Angel. I thought I'd drop by and see how my
favorite grandsire's holding up.
Cor: And to think I thought things couldn't get any
worse.
G: Hold on--this guy's a vampire?
A: With a soul.
F: I thought you were the only one.
A: Was. Spike here's not very original.
S: Why, Peaches, you wound me.
W: (with great irritation) As charming as it is to meet you,
Spike, we've a great deal to do here.
S: (shedding his coat and plopping down on the couch beside
Fred) Great! Bring me up to speed.
W/A/Cor: What?
S: Well, what with Sunnydale all out of commission and
everything, I thought I'd join my old grandsire in this neck
of the woods. Fight the good fight and all that.
Con: Grandsire?
S: (looking at Connor): Who's the kid? Smells like . . .
Darla.
Con: She was my mother.
A: Connor, this is Spike, who's in my line of descent.
Spike, this is Connor, my son with Darla.
S: How'd that happen?
W: (tiredly) Very long story.
Cor: And twisted. Don't forget the twisted.
(Spike and Connor give each other the once-over twice.)
S: So he'd be what? My uncle?
A: Yes, on my side. On Darla's, your nephew. Or possibly
your great-uncle, depending on which vamping you're talking
about.
S: Hmph. Least he looks more like his mum. Take my advice,
Junior: never let your hair stick straight up.
Con: As if I would. Your hair's cool.
A: (to Cordy) Please don't tell me they're bonding.
Cor: Could be worse. Has been worse.
F: Hold on a minute. You said he's got a soul? How?
S: Did it for a girl.
A: He used to . . . work with Buffy. (Gives Spike a warning
glare. Spike smirks, but says nothing.)
F: Why'd she work with him?
S: I had a chip. (indicates head) Kept me from hurting
people. I could go after demons, though.
G: So you can't hurt people.
S: Actually, I can. I don't have the chip anymore, but my
soul keeps me on the straight and narrow.
A: Except for that nasty little "trigger" incident.
F: He has a trigger?
S: Not anymore, since Giles shoved that rock in my
brain.
F: There's a rock in your brain?
S: No, it crawled out.
F: This is very confusing.
S: Do yourself a favor and don't think about it too long,
love. So, how about the Good Fight?
(Angel looks around the room. No one's especially trying to
fight Spike's inclusion. They're all too exhausted.)
A: Fine. You're in. Just stay in line.
S: No problem, Peaches.
A: And stop calling me that.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- Masq, 15:49:11
04/08/03 Tue
Just imagining Connor with Spike's hair-do.
wandering off into a corner, simpering
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
On the bright side . . . -- Finn Mac Cool,
16:28:36 04/08/03 Tue
While there are rumors of James Marsters appearing on Angel
Season Five, it appears to be merely idle speculation that
he'll be a regular. As yet it is unknown (may even be
unknown to the writers and actors) what capacity he would
have. While a regular is a possibility, he may simply be a
recurring character, like Drusilla was in Season 2, or Gwen
is this season. Or he may only be in it for one episode as
a special guest. Or, we can't even be sure it's the current
Spike we'll see. We might instead have Angel/Angelus
flashbacks that include Spike.
Personally, while I like the character of Spike, I do agree
that making him an "Angel" regular would be a bad idea. For
one thing, it undermines Angel's position as THE vampire
with a soul. That remains in tact as long as the only other
souled vamp is on a seperate show, but not otherwise. Also,
a number of the points you said are very legitimate
concerns. Of course, we have kept hearing Season 5 is going
to be different. Spike being there would certainly be
different. Though, honestly, I'm hoping that, at most,
Spike's on Angel for two or three episodes. One ep might be
better, and I think Spike appearing only in flashback(s)
would be ideal.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Agreed. -- Masq, 16:37:27 04/08/03 Tue
A few episodes, I can handle.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
What I've heard (slight rant as gift with purchase)
-- Doug, 17:31:09 04/08/03 Tue
I think it was Jane Espenson who put out the figure of 10+
episodes; I presume that includes episodes where he's only
in flashbacks.
Ok, I have a question about something you said:
"For one thing, it undermines Angel's position as THE
vampire with a soul. That remains in tact as long as the
only other souled vamp is on a seperate show, but not
otherwise."
Now, if AtS and BtVS are still in the same universe (as
Willow's crossover this year would indicate) then Angel is A
Vampire with a soul; still the original one, but no longer
THE Vampire with a soul. So shouldn't the existence of
another VwaS (acronyms are fun) have an effect on him,
particularly when the other VwaS is from his own bloodline
and a descendant of his. Now, that effect can either be
shown, prefferably with the other VwaS on screen at least
for a short time so the audience can see for themselves, or
Angel can be delusional boy; rocking back and forth and
repeating:
"I'm the only one. I'm the only one. I'm the only one.
I'm the only one. I'm the only one. I'm the only one. I'm
the only one. I'm the only one. I'm the only one. I'm the
only one. I'm the only one. I'm the only one. I'm the
only one."
rather than try to adjust his view of his own identity to
absorb new information. Like it or not, Joss Chose
to have Spike get that soul. Personally, as far as
metaphors go I HATE the soul. Nevertheless it's
there, and there are now two souled Vampires.
Personally I think this could also be fully part of Angel's
storyline. Posters here have written far more eloquently
than I could about Angel's focus on family. Well one member
of Angelus's old family hasn't appeared on AtS since the
first season; Spike. I think that if Season 5 is going to
be the last Season, then Spike and Dru should both be in
that season. Darla's already dead, but the rest of the
family is still out there and if Angel's storyline is to be
brought to a close than Angelus's will be as well. And
what's left of the family should be a part of it.
Your mileage no doubt varies.
And sorry for the Rant; but I had to get that out of my
system.
Doug
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Shanshu (spoiler Inside Out) -- lunasea,
18:27:26 04/08/03 Tue
The uniqueness of the Vampire with a soul only really
matters with the prophecies of Aberjian. I think Shanshu is
going to go away this season. We heard several
interpretations of "shanshu." It means become human when it
is proto-Bantu. When it is Sumerian, it means Death.
(since when does one word get interpreted out of context?
When you do an interpretation, that word is in a sentence.
Shanshu was surrounded by lots of words. What language where
they in? Major difference between Ugarit and Bantu. Proto-
Bantu isn't even written.)
Cordy/Jasmine seems to be speaking Sumerian to me. Her form
before she is poured into Jasmine looks like Tiamat to me.
Jasmine has been pulling a great many strings. It is
completely plausible that she is the one who set up Aberjian
for some reason.
If this season is about Free Will kicking the the prophecy
over and starting over would be a powerful statement.
That doesn't mean that eventually Angel won't turn fully
human. The idea was brought up back in "I Will Remember You"
with both Doyle and the Oracles. That wasn't dependant on
him being the vampire with a soul. That was Angel
specific.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Even though Spike's in the same universe. . . --
Finn Mac Cool, 18:38:44 04/08/03 Tue
He hasn't had any interaction with Angel since he got his
soul. When I talked about Spike being disruptive to Angel's
position, I meant in terms of group dynamic and how he
thinks of himself. Also, if they're in the same city, it
becomes to see why Angel is the #1 evil fighter and center
of prophecies and what not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What I've heard (slight rant as gift with
purchase) -- maddog, 12:37:04 04/09/03 Wed
Where are people getting numbers on episodes? I read
practically every article on both shows and I haven't heard
anything on how many shows he'll be on...in fact he's the
only one I've read mention that he'd been asked to be on the
show next year.
I kinda think it would be interesting to see Angel deal with
Spike because Angel has a tendancy to pout...I can see him
having a hard time dealing with Spike and their mutual
situation.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: On the bright side . . . -- maddog, 12:28:23
04/09/03 Wed
If you call a rumor having the man himself saying that he's
going to be on it then I'd like to know what you think fact
is. If there's anything rumored it's the one about Giles
and he's even said they've talked and they like the idea,
but nothing concrete. And I'll say what I said in my other
post here. Don't forget what Joss does...he surprises us.
Hell, Spike may not be a vampire at all when he gets to
LA...who knows?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
James Marsters has stated what's going to be coming on
the show before. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:29:59
04/09/03 Wed
. . . and been wrong. As long as he's the only one saying
it, I'm weary of trusting it too much.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: James Marsters has stated what's going to be coming
on the show before. . . -- Dochawk, 19:10:16 04/09/03
Wed
He's backtracked from that statement. Now he says "he
thinks" he will be on it and "we are discussing it". Not
the same as a sure thing.
[> [> [> [> [>
Angel wouldn't know what hit him -- Doug,
15:53:08 04/08/03 Tue
Could you imagine what would happen if Connor and Spike were
to bond and team up? Angel's two surviving male descendants
in one place at one time:
Oedipal Issues Squared.
I think those two would be a hoot if they were working
together.
If Spike crosses over to Angel I hope they have him do
opening monolgues like in "In the Dark".
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Following in grand dad's footsteps (spec from
alleged Season 5 AtS spoilers) -- lunasea, 17:51:49
04/08/03 Tue
(Spike has a nasty habit of stealing scenes, and thinking
a TV show is All About Him)
Spike is a character. It is the actor that tends to steal
the scenes. I think JM is a great actor, but I also think
that he should tone it down sometimes. He is in the chorus,
not the soloist. When we notice him so much, that isn't
necessarily a good thing.
I'm not thrilled about the idea of Spike on Angel, either,
especially if Cordy is on it also. There will be two
characters whose interaction with Angel will involve mainly
insults. Connor is a third.
I only see it really working if instead of working for AI,
both souled vampires end up working for another entity (and
I have my suspicions what entity it is). Then Spike can
handle his stuff, Angel can handle his and occassionally
they will be foreced to work together.
I can see Spike providing something interesting for Angel's
growth. Angel is not going to be happy when he finds out
about "Seeing Red" or pretty much any of S6. I don't see him
being able to just dismiss it as pre-soul. In order for
Angel to really be able to be mad with Spike, he will have
to understand the correlation between souled and unsouled
vampire. When he does this, he will have to accept
Angelus.
Then maybe Angel will help Spike actually grow.
If anyone can find an interesting angle that makes me want
to watch it and look forward to each week, it is Joss.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I'd like to see them meet too. -- Arethusa,
18:33:00 04/08/03 Tue
I can see Spike providing something interesting for
Angel's growth.
That's a good point about Angel and Spike. If they were to
meet and thrash it out, Angel would have to realize that
while Spike became sickened by the pain he was causing as a
vampire, Angelus reveled in hurting others. That says a lot
about Liam and William, since "what we once were informs all
that we have become," as Darla states. That might make
Angel face the fact that Angelus is merely a facet of Angel,
as the unsouled Spike is still a part of the new Spike. I
just rewatched Never Leave Me, and it was interesting to see
Spike declare that he and unsouled Spike are the same
person, a fact that Angel has always denied. Since I am an
even bigger fan of Angel than of Spike, I'd really like to
see Angel incorprate all of his splintered personality, so
he could finally grow as a person.
Wouldn't it be a kick if Angel does Shanshu and they have to
bring Spike in to be the vampire-with-a-soul Champion with
superpowers?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Angel hasn't always denied it -- Finn Mac Cool,
18:44:09 04/08/03 Tue
He seems to go back and forth. Sometimes he seems to take
it all as his responsibility and his own acts. Other times
he makes the distinction between souled and unsouled. For
every occasion when Angel has declared himself to be two
seperate beings, there's a case where he declared himself
the same person as Angelus (most notably when he was on
BtVS, when the name distinction between his souled and
unsouled states didn't even exist).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Angel hasn't always denied it -- Arethusa,
19:44:20 04/08/03 Tue
It's a tricky issue. He and FakeCordy speak of Angelus as
"he," as a different person, but he ssys "I" when talking
about Angelus with Connor. If Rufus is right about the fact
that Angel sees himself separate from Angelus, and I think
she is, Angel pays lip service to the notion that they are
the same, but doesn't really believe it. I think that part
of his need to be a champion is his desire to be a good
person, and seeing himself as both Angel and Angelus would
make that very difficult. (Time for research, I think.
What does Angel really believe in his heart?)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'd like to see them meet too. -- lunasea,
19:34:36 04/08/03 Tue
Angel would have to realize that while Spike became
sickened by the pain he was causing as a vampire,
Spike became sickened by the non-existant pain he was
causing because of the chip?
It isn't about Liam or William. It is about what pain they
are both under *now.* Angelus, when we saw him again, wasn't
formed by Liam's issues. It was formed by Angel's. Angel
grew and Angelus was different. Angelus is more than a facet
of Angel. He shows him what issues Angel needs to work on.
He started reaching out to others because he didn't want to
eat them. not hurting others is a big motivator for him. If
he understood where Angelus comes from, he might work harder
on himself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Angel or Angelus -- Arethusa, 20:27:59 04/08/03
Tue
Spike was chipless for a hundred years. He caused a lot of
pain, which he could shrug off until it was the pain of
someone he cared about very much.
Angel is the soul of Liam (older and more mature, of
course), and the vampire demon. Either the issues arise
from the soul or from the vampire, or Angel has no issues,
and we both agree he does. So the issues arise from the
soul or the demon. But the demon doesn't have issues-it's
not a personality or memories, it's just the lack of a moral
compass. The person becomes inclined towards evil instead
of good and the personality and issues of the person become
the basis for the behavior of the vampire. (Obviously, I
believe in the soul-as-conscience theory.) If this is not
the case, if the issues are Angelus' and not Liam's (young
or "old"), than the demon has issues-and therefore
personality-of its own, which according to canon is not the
case. "Who we were informs all that we
become [as vampires]," Darla said. (Quote by
psyche.)
Souled Angel sought to help others. (Souless Spike sought
to help others, for selfish reasons, of course because
hello, vampire.) But yes, Angel does need to understand
where Angelus comes from.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Angel or Angelus -- lunasea, 09:16:57
04/09/03 Wed
He caused a lot of pain, which he could shrug off until
it was the pain of someone he cared about very much.
From "Lover's Walk"
"I'm gonna do what I shoulda done in the first place: I'll
find her, wherever she is, tie her up, torture her until she
likes me again."
"Who we were informs all that we become [as vampires],"
Darla said. (Quote by psyche.)
It is true. Who we were does inform all that we become. It
is called Karma. It isn't just the switch from human
to vamp that this applies to. It is every day. Which was my
point. Angelus now isn't just Liam's issues. He is Angel's.
Angel is everything from his birth as a human to the
present. Angelus is the darker side of those issues (lashing
out because of them as he explain in "Release").
When we start to divide Angel into soul, demon, etc, we miss
the forest for the trees. Angel isn't the sum of certain
things. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The
parts are just plot devices to explain what would be
uncharacteristic behavior.
Issues don't arise from the soul or the demon. The soul
isn't the Christian soul. It is just a switch that changes
the moral compass. It doesn't do anything but give warm
fuzzies and guilt. The demon is pure instinct. There is more
to the personality than either of these.
Angelus comes more from Darla than from Daddy, just like
Spike comes more from something that happened after he was
vamped. Just because someone is vamped doesn't mean they are
psychologically frozen. The only thing a vampire loses is
the soul. The rest of the psyche is intact.
The only thing a soul does in regards to issues is give
guilt when a person lashes at others in order to deal with
those issues. A souled creature has to find another way to
deal. A vampire, lacking a soul, gets positive feedback when
he lashes out. This stops the pain temporarily.
Angel has lived for over 100 years with a soul. He has
changed in that time. Angelus is also going to change. He is
no longer Liam.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'd like to see them meet too. -- yabyumpan,
22:40:51 04/08/03 Tue
and it was interesting to see Spike declare that he and
unsouled Spike are the same person, a fact that Angel has
always denied.
I don't think I've ever seen Angel deny that he and Angelus
are the same person/vampire. He generally talks about "what
I did" or When I was evil", how is that denying? When he
does refer to 'Angelus' I see it just as a shorthand for 'me
with out a soul', the same way that we, as fans, use Angel
and Angelus.
What I do think is different between Spike and Angel is that
Angel has over 100 years of distance from Angelus, not
counting SD and recent events. I think what that means is
that he's been able to develop a personality that
incorperates Liam and Angelus but is also something more -
Angel. Spike hasn't had the time to do this, he's had his
soul for less than a year and for part of that time he's
been controled by the First. Of course we'll probably never
know, but it would be interesting to see Spike in 100 years,
to see how much he's changed, see if he keeps his name which
he got from torturing people with rail road spikes. For me
that's one of the big problems in comparing souledSpike and
Angel, their post-soul experiences have been very different.
And it's the constant comparisons which make me join in with
Masq's AAAAAAAAGH Re: Spike joining AtS. The
discussions/debates/arguments are bad enough now, I may just
have to stay off line completely if JM/Spike does end up in
L.A.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'd like to see them meet too. -- Angelus,
02:48:18 04/09/03 Wed
For most of his unlife, Angel seems to have accepted that he
and Angelus are more or less the same person, one with and
one without a soul. When he became Angelus in Buffy season
2 he referred to things he did with a soul as "a phase I was
going through" and generally used first person descriptions,
"I did..." Likewise when he got his soul back he felt guilt
over what he did without a soul and referred to them in the
first person. The names Angel and Angelus were essentially
conveniences.
But in more recent times Angel tended to refer to Angelus in
the third person. When he lost his soul and took a walk
down memory lane, he kept saying things like, "It wasn't me
that did that. It was HIM." Likewise souled Angel seemed
to consistently refer to his unsouled or Angelus self as a
completely separate being. I know Lunasea has used the term
disassociation. Its a new element.
That was one of the things I was dissapointed by in the
recent appearance of Angelus (well, that and Angelus as a
standup comedian). Especially in the scene where Angel and
Angelus confront each other as two personas, I hoped for
some sort of inner admission from Angelus that he is simply
Angel with something missing and an admission from Angel
that Angelus is the issues and the darkness within himself
once you strip away the guiding moral compass of the soul.
Instead you got the two aspects staying separate and in
denial.
Regarding the "Angel and Spike on the same show"
possibility, I am sure Joss will present it in such a way
that it can work. Right now both characters seem to have
been brought to a stage where they draw complete distinction
between souled and unsouled. In Spike's case, he tells Wood
that he was a vampire and Wood's Mom was a slayer. He feels
no guilt over what he did because that's what a vampire
(unsouled) is and lacking a soul there's nothing he could do
about it. Angel presents much the same sentiment in saying
he feels no guilt for anything Angelus did (note third
person) in Angelus's most recent appearance. Its the same
implication, that he can't control what Angelus does. In a
sense both Spike and Angel are right. Whatever atrocities
they committed pre-soul, anyone without a soul would do such
things. Their souled selves are not to blame. On the other
hand, this also means both of them are thinking of their pre-
soul selves as separate beings to some degree though I think
Angel is drawing an absolute difference between his souled
and unsouled selves even more than Spike is.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Good post. -- Arethusa, 06:33:13 04/09/03
Wed
I do think that Spike and Angel feel guilt, though. If they
didn't, they wouldn't feel so defensive about their behavior
that they have to disassociate themselves from it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'd like to see them meet too. -- lunasea,
08:54:00 04/09/03 Wed
But in more recent times Angel tended to refer to
Angelus in the third person. When he lost his soul and took
a walk down memory lane, he kept saying things like, "It
wasn't me that did that. It was HIM." Likewise souled Angel
seemed to consistently refer to his unsouled or Angelus self
as a completely separate being. I know Lunasea has used the
term disassociation. Its a new element.
As late as "Billy" Angel is still refering to when "I" was
evil. So is Cordy. Cordy never really bought the massive
distinction between Angel and Angelus. Perhaps that is why
he has been able to talk to her. The end of Billy is one of
my favorite Cordy/Angel moments. Wesley is the one that
really draws a distinction between them, especially with
Holtz.
Angel has had three unbelievable traumas in his life, being
vamped (raped), being sent to hell and being stuck in the
bottom of the ocean. It is a typical human reaction to
trauma to dissociate. For the first one, Angel completely
turned into Angelus and let all of his rage pour out on the
world. (I wrote about this in more depth in the Rape of
Angel(us)) Even as Angelus, he still "hurts to the bone"
The second one caused him to even lose that identity
temporarily. I believe it is the third one that caused him
to dissociate into the Angel/Angelus that we now see. In
"Deep Down" he calls the experience "Unbelievable" but then
in his next breath dismisses it compared with what Buffy did
to him. I think the most important scene in that episode,
Angel's turning point, is the Lorne hallucination on the
boat. (From Psyche, where else)
Angel: "Why is it like this?"
Lorne: "Well, that's the age-old, bubby. I'll fire you off a
postcard if I'll noodle the answer."
Angel: "Life should be beautiful and bright. But, no matter
how hard I try, everything I touch - turns to ashes."
Lorne: "Well, there goes that encouraging hug I was
planning. Snap to, buckaroo. The only one turning to ashes
is that patricidal pup of yours. Hell, I'd take him out
myself if I wasn't just a crappy hallucination."
Wes comes down the stairs: "How is he?"
Lorne: "How do you think?"
Justine: "He won't shut up."
Angel: "I have to stop him."
Lorne: "You wanna bitch-slap sour-puss over there for
practice? I'm your cheering section."
Wes walks up to the table.
Wes: "Angel?"
Angel: "I have to do it."
Angel tires to get up and Wes puts a hand on his shoulder to
stop him.
Wes: "Shh. You need to rest now."
Lorne, singing: "Hush, little baby, don't say a word.
Mamma's gonna buy you a mockingbird. And if that mockingbird
don't sing..."
Angel looks up and sees Connor standing over him.
Angel: "I should have killed you."
Angel deals with everything he touches turning to ashes by
developing a scapegoat (way most people tend to deal with
things they really can't control). His scapegoat is Angelus.
An interesting post would be how and why each character
dissociates Angel(us). Only Cordy and Buffy really
understood that they were one. Angel used to, but due to his
most recent trauma has split them. Angel has shit coping
mechanisms.
That was one of the things I was dissapointed by in the
recent appearance of Angelus (well, that and Angelus as a
standup comedian). Especially in the scene where Angel and
Angelus confront each other as two personas, I hoped for
some sort of inner admission from Angelus that he is simply
Angel with something missing and an admission from Angel
that Angelus is the issues and the darkness within himself
once you strip away the guiding moral compass of the soul.
Instead you got the two aspects staying separate and in
denial.
Ever since I heard Angelus was coming back, I thought they
would be doing this. I have been wrong about pretty much
everything this season. They have to leave things for next
season. I actually like where they took Angelus. It was a
great distraction. That is all it was supposed to be.
Tackling the real good that is in Angel and the darkness is
probably too much for one season.
And Welcome to the board. Sorry I missed your Connor post
the other day. Things tend to go by fast here. I'm surprised
people didn't elaborate on it. It was a great jumping off
point.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'd like to see them meet too. -- Arethusa,
06:31:33 04/09/03 Wed
I'm trying to understand how the two different men/vampires
deal with guilt and repentance. Does Angel sees himself as
two separate entities? Is he trying to make amends for what
the vampire did or for what the man is? And Spike-is he
really able to accept what he did and move on with his
unlife? How does he deal with guilt, now that he's no
longer crazy?
I don't want to argue which one is better; that's futile and
tedious. (Maybe I shouldn't have pointed out how both Spike
and Angel have room for improvement. Can I say my demon
made me do it?)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Angel's dissociation -- lunasea, 10:06:25
04/09/03 Wed
Does Angel sees himself as two separate entities? Is he
trying to make amends for what the vampire did or for what
the man is?
Not going to go into Spike, but I will tackle Angel for you,
if you want.
two seperate entities? Yes and no. It is still the same body
and even Angelus knows that even when the other is in
control, he is always there beneath the surface. One is "me"
and one is "not me" though. Angel can blame it on the demon
(it needs to be blamed on the various traumas before healing
can begin).
It was a process:
First Angel is overwhelmed by what he did as Angelus,
something he really doesn't have any control over. It is
like an alcoholic on a bender. Once the poison is in there
system, they physically have no control. Their only control
lies in not letting it get there in the first place.
Next, he doesn't see himself as anything but a monster. He
is Angelus, not Angel. No dissociation yet. He tries to be
that monster, but can't. He realizes he has changed. This
happens in China.
He tries to dissociate himself physically from what he was.
He doesn't hang with other vampires and leaves his family.
He can't even handle being in Europe any more and comes to
America. He tries very hard to shape what that new thing is.
He tries to do good, but it is hard.
Then he slips and does eat someone. He doesn't think he is
anything new. He is just the same monster he was before. The
only difference is he doesn't want to be. He realizes he
can't fight the monster, so he removes temptation.
Whistler shows him that there is a better way. Angel finds
something worth fighting for. He tries again to be something
different. He is still fighting the monster though. When he
wants to eat Joyce, he feels that all he is is the monster
again. Buffy shows him there is another side of him.
These are all still sides though. It is a mild dissociation.
We all have it to some degree. We have fun sides and serious
sides, for example.
Angel gets a pretty good handle on his cravings. He isn't so
afraid he is going to let out the evil side of himself. Then
in Pylea he faces the pure form of that side and he wins. He
feels good about himself. He manages to deal with Buffy's
death without going off the deep end. He doesn't think too
much about what he did as Angelus except to understand the
world in general.
Previously, Angel HAD to see himself as Angelus. One wrong
step and he would go on another bender. When the fear of
going on another bender was removed, he could then develop a
different coping mechanism. That mechanism was full
dissociation.
He didn't want to take the blame for what he did as Angelus
any more, so that wasn't him. He was so different from
Angelus now, that he could say that was a different
creature. That was the demon. Angel thinks Angelus is the
demon, in some ways a different entity.
As for Amends. Angel isn't making amends any more. He is
just trying to hold his life together. He isn't champion to
make up for what he did. It just gives his world order. He
does what he has to.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Yes but -- Arethusa, 10:24:46 04/09/03 Wed
you are saying everything Angelus does stems only from
bloodlust. That is like saying everything the alcoholic
does is because of his alcoholism, while ignoring the reason
he drinks in the first place. The booze made him do it.
While I believe that someone gets drunk for internal reasons-
a deep unhappiness about something. The drink doesn't take
them over, their unhappiness takes them over, and they drink
to alleviate the pain. And than do very bad things they
probably wouldn't have done otherwise.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: Yes but -- lunasea, 12:00:15 04/09/03
Wed
you are saying everything Angelus does stems only from
bloodlust. That is like saying everything the alcoholic does
is because of his alcoholism, while ignoring the reason he
drinks in the first place. The booze made him do it. While I
believe that someone gets drunk for internal reasons-a deep
unhappiness about something. The drink doesn't take them
over, their unhappiness takes them over, and they drink to
alleviate the pain. And than do very bad things they
probably wouldn't have done otherwise.
Not the model of addiction they use for Angel (wrote about
this earlier in more depth). His addiction is caused by the
physical nature of being a vampire. What you said applies
more to Willow.
People don't just drink because they are unhappy. There is a
physical nature to addiction. If there wasn't, people
wouldn't have to take it one day at a time.
Everything Angelus does does stem from being a demon
(combination bloodlust, violence/rage, chaos/destruction).
How that is expressed is determined by his issues. It is
like a drunk. He gets drunk, he gets violent. Who he takes
that out on depends on his issues.
Not everyone drinks because they are unhappy. It is a drug.
It often starts out recreationally and then screws with our
brains, permanently. Even when you are happy, the rum bottle
can talk to you. That is why it is called a craving. The
pain is often the pain of withdrawal.
Life pretty much sucks. We all have a "deep unhappiness"
about some thing. Why isn't everyone an alcoholic or some
other type of addict? Some people can drink and be fine.
Others can't. Some can do pot recreationally and for others
it is a gateway. There is a genetic/physical component
here.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Following in grand dad's footsteps (spec from
alleged Season 5 AtS spoilers) -- dub, 13:24:02
04/09/03 Wed
Spike is a character. It is the actor that tends to steal
the scenes. I think JM is a great actor, but I also think
that he should tone it down sometimes. He is in the chorus,
not the soloist. When we notice him so much, that isn't
necessarily a good thing.
*sigh*
Are you at all familiar with the concepts of directing and
editing, as they apply to the medium of television?
This isn't a live stage production you're talking about,
where an experienced and possibly unprincipled bit player
can take advantage of the situation to focus attention on
themselves. JM has absolutely no control over the precise
manner in which his performance is presented to the
audience.
If indeed we "notice him so much" it is because that is
Joss's ultimate intent. If you feel "that it isn't
necessarily a good thing" then the fault lies with Joss, not
JM.
Why am I not surprised you've graduated from dissing the
character to dissing the actor who plays him?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Agree dub, getting tired of the Spikebashing
myself. -- s'kat, 21:09:12 04/09/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Following in grand dad's footsteps (spec from
alleged Season 5 AtS spoilers) -- maddog, 12:19:36
04/09/03 Wed
Forced? All the stuff I've read made it sound like not only
did he want Spike over there but James loves the idea. That
doesn't sound forced to me...unless you know something the
rest of us don't. :)
as for how they'll handle it, don't we always do this?
second guess Joss and then 99% of the time turn out to be
wowed by how he pulls it off. Just let it flow and hope we
get Angel back for another season...then we can start to
worry about how Spike will fit in...besides, by then we'll
know how he makes out in the finale(dead, alive,
unknown).
[>
Giles: "Oh--as usual--dear." -- leslie,
14:37:10 04/08/03 Tue
[>
'Me' -- TCH- being minimalist for once, 15:15:07
04/08/03 Tue
[>
"Is everyone here very stoned?" --
Philistine, 17:05:33 04/08/03 Tue
[>
One of my favorites., that no one ever mentions..
"Ice is cool. It's water. But its not." --
Alison, 18:30:29 04/08/03 Tue
[> [>
Oz had some of the best lines: "Just a thought,
poker: not your game." -- Helen, 01:15:15
04/09/03 Wed
[>
What happened to "Bored now"? -- luna,
18:50:15 04/08/03 Tue
[> [>
Perhaps eclipsed by the perennial favorite... --
The Second Evil, 19:03:45 04/08/03 Tue
"This is the part that's less fun, when there isn't any
screaming."
(Oft misquoted as, "Too much talking, not enough
screaming.")
[>
memorable quotes -- Deacon, 18:58:21 04/08/03
Tue
Willow; I knew it, well not in the sence of having any
idea, but I knew there was something I didn't know.
Willow: I'm a blood sucking fiend look at my outfit.
Spike: What are you doing pet
Drusilla: I am naming all the stars
Spike: You Can't see the stars that's the celling also it's
daylight
DRUSILLA: I can see them but I named them all the same
thing and there is terrible confusion.
SPIKE: If I want her back I know what I have to do I have
to be the man I was, the man she feel in love with, first
I'll find her, where ever she is, capture her, torture her,
untill she likes me again
Anya: You know this isn't your world right
Vampire Willow: No. This is a dumb world, In my world
there are people in chains and we can ride them around like
ponies
Willow: That's me as a vampire, I am so evil and skanky and
I think I am kind of gay
Buffy: Your logic doesn't resemble our earth logic.
Drusilla: Say uncle oh that right you killed my uncle
Spike: So when do we destroy the world already.
Buffy: vampires are creepes
Giles: Yes that is why one slays them
Willow: Six years as a sidekick and now I get to be the
slayer.
Doc: I don't see a soul on you anywhere, why do you care
Spike: I made a promise to a lady.
Spike: It's a big rock I can't wait to tell my friends I
bet they don't hav a rock this big.
Faith: Little Miss Muffet counting down to 7-3-0
Buffy: Dawn's in trouble it must be tuesday.
Spike: I may be dirt but your the one who like to roll
around in it.
Spike: Angel, he should have warned me.
Tara: Be back before Dawn
Anya: If I get vamped I going to come back and bite your
ass.
Willow: bored now.
Dawn: Oh my god is that for buffy, that so sad, I mean the
box is all bent and choclates, lame, and you know that she
would never accept any thing from you
Spike: Shouldn't you be tucked in your beddy bye where
nothing can eat you.
Dawn: (laughs) is that suppost to scare me
Spike: a tremble wouldn't hurt
Spike: button, button someone got the button my money's on
the witch.
Buffy: Oh I know this one, slaying entails certain
sacerfices, blah blah blah biddy blay, I'm so stuffy give
me a scone.
Buffy: You had sex with Giles. You had SEX with giles.
Twice
Buffy: When giles sends me on a misson he says please and
afterwards I get a cookie.
Tara: I am you know
Willow: what
Tara: yours
Willow: Nothing in the world can stop me now
Giles: I'd like to test that theory
Darla: I think our boys are going to fight
Drusilla: The king of cups expects a picnic but it is not
his birthday
Darla: Good point
Dawn: Is this blood.
Buffy: Dawn Listen to me, I Love you, I will always love
you. This is the work that I have to do. Tell Giles that
I've figured it out, and I'm okay. Give my love to my
friends. You have to take care of them now, you have take
care of each other you have to be strong, Dawn the hardest
thing in the world is to live in it. Be brave, live, for
me.
[>
Two more -- Mencius, 21:31:30 04/08/03 Tue
Giles: "Tea is soothing I wish to tense"
Drusilla: ìIím counting all the starsî
Spike: ìYou canít see the stars, loveî
Dresilla: ìI can see them, but Iíve named them all the same
name and there is great is great confusionî
[>
Re: With Buffy winding down... -- CW, 21:56:11
04/08/03 Tue
Joyce - "Neither of you is pregnant, failing or under
indictment?"
Advice for us ATPo posters from Triangle? - "Stop being
insightful. It's creepy!"
[>
Anya's perspective on Thanksgiving... -- Corwin of
Amber, 23:02:56 04/08/03 Tue
"To commemorate a past event, you kill and eat an animal.
It's a ritual sacrifice. With pie."
Geez. I'm gonna miss Anya.
[> [>
"You're referencing literature I have no way to be
familiar with, and you're stealing!" -- Helen,
01:13:44 04/09/03 Wed
[>
and I was having fruit punch, and I thought, well,
Joyce will never have any more fruit punch ever -- Indri
with more Anya wisdom, 23:49:45 04/08/03 Tue
[>
Re: With Buffy winding down... -- TheAlmighty,
01:26:47 04/09/03 Wed
Most of my favorites are up already... but the one that
characterizes the first six seasons of the show is
conspicuously absent!
Spike: You should go back inside, join the group sing, get
your kumba-ya-yas out.
Buffy: I don't want to.
Spike: The day you suss out what you _do_ want there'll
probably be a parade - seventy six bloody trombones.
Current
board
| More April 2003