April 2003
posts
Why does Dru highlight (spoiler speculation request)
LMPTM -- Alexandre Dumas Pere, 16:08:35 04/08/03
Tue
As William the Vamp is about to feed and turn his mother,
why does Dru rub the outside of her abdomen???
The actress does this in a pronounced way.
[>
I'm not going to answer your question, but . . . --
d'Herblay, 16:12:55 04/08/03 Tue
. . . I feel I've met my maker!
(Rochefort really should be here for this.)
[>
Re: Why does Dru highlight (spoiler speculation
request) LMPTM -- Dariel, 19:38:56 04/08/03 Tue
Because William is about to FEED on his mum.
[> [>
I think it was also -- ponygirl, 07:18:47
04/09/03 Wed
Suggestive of pregnancy. Dru had just remarked that she was
the other who gave birth to Spike.
Free Will and Choice (complete speculation and spoilers
for all episodes-Be Warned!!!) -- Cecilia, 07:01:50
04/09/03 Wed
Free Will and Choices
I have seen a lot of speculation surrounding the "tying-in"
of BtVS and Ats this year and I have come to join in the
mix. I was pondering the signifigance of Spike being
"ensouled" and the method for how he went about it, the
actions that certain members of the AI team and the Scoobies
have performed and what it will/can/does all mean in the
end. It all revolves around choice.
When Willow has her discussion with the FE in the library in
CwDP, the entity expresses "I'm done with the whole mortal
coil...Balancing the scales thing..." (or something to that
effect). Then over on AtS, we have Cordelia ascending to a
higher plain (I mean, c'mon! Cordelia!!)and, if Skip is to
be believed at all, it is the same dimension/level of
consciousness that Buffy inhabited after her death. (Skip
(re:Cordy's return)"...No one comes back from Paradise.
Well, a slayer. Once")Also, we have the whole ambiguous
"Yes, it really is Cordelia" thing, and I was thinking,
huh??? Ok, Cordy, not exactly the person I would have pegged
to be "pure" and worthy of a seat in heaven or anything, but
evil, no way! Then I realized something, the balance within
her is off kilter. The balance of good and evil that exists
within all humans(at least according to Holland-the dead
Wolfram & Hart lawyer). And that makes sense,at least in
the bigger picture.
The thing that sets humans apart from demons, for the most
part, is free will. Call it a soul, call it a conscience,
whatever, it doesn't matter. Humans can choose to do good,
humans can choose to do evil. There is that balance within.
Now, the FE is done with "balance", what about the other,
the opposite to the FE. Since the Buffyverse/Angelverse is
aetheistic, I won't call it God, let's call it the FG(first
good-or perhaps TPTB??). Surely it plays some role in
balancing the scales. The term balance implies that there is
an opposite.
I would postulate that the FG is as dangerous for humanity
as the FE is. Afterall, lack of choice is lack of choice,
right? If free will is the essence of humanity, then the
lack of ability to choose evil is as dangerous to that
essence as the lack of ability to choose good. Therefore,
humanity needs that balance. Evil is necessary, good is
necessary.
In CwDP, Joyce tells Dawn that in the end, "Buffy won't
choose you. She will be against you". Here comes the
complete speculation part; Jasmine (an entity born to
Cordelia after descending from Paradise-ie Heaven) is the
physical manifestation of Pure Goodness. The FE is still non-
corporeal with no apparent plans to become corporeal. So the
FG (in the form of Jasmine) can affect the mortal coil in a
way that the FE cannot. Buffy's choice, her sacrifice, will
be to choose evil, to enable the fight between good and evil
to continue, to rebalance the scales. This, not death, is
the ultimate sacrifice that Buffy can make. Without evil,
humanity cannot continue. Without good, humanity cannot
continue. A fitting, if somewhat twisted, ending for a hero.
For the first time ever, there are two slayers. Anything
Buffy does will not affect the balance that has existed
since the dawn of time. If she dies, there is still the
slayer, if she lives, there is still the slayer, if she
chooses evil over good, there is still the slayer. She is
unique, separate and apart from the slayer line. I have
thought from the very beginning (with Kendra) that there had
to larger reprecussions of there being two slayers. This is
it.
Similarly, I also believed that there has to be something
larger to Spike being ensouled. I mean, chip or no chip, he
still should not have been able to choose!!Yet he did. The
signifigance of this is not that he, by choosing, caused
these events to unfold, but because of the resurrection of
Buffy (the first one, where Xander performed CPR) this
(Spike choosing a soul) was able to happen. The balance of
the scales between good and evil has been off for years.
This is the event that the Floaty Multi-Eyeball Demon thingy
(sorry-forget the demon's name and the episode name) told
Anya and Giles about, not when the Scoobies resurrected
her.
I could go on and on here. And I am sure the "theory" has
more holes than swiss cheese, but it is the only thing that
makes sense.
Please tell me what you think.
[>
Some incoherent thoughts in response, Spoilers for Ats
and BtVS to date, incl. Ats trailer -- Arethusa,
10:08:16 04/09/03 Wed
I think you make a lot of sense. Unfortunately, when I try
to respond, I don't! But here are a few thoughts.
Skip refers to humans as monkeys a couple of times. In the
Christopher Walken movie The Prophecy, Archangel Gabriel and
many other angels become jealous when God gives people
souls. Gabriel bitterly refers to humans as glorified
monkeys. The angels rebel, are cast out of heaven, and man
takes over earth. In the Buffyverse, demons are cast out
(except for one) and man takes over the earth. Man has free
will. Demons don't. Vampires eradicate free will by
releasing the soul. Buffy helps two vampires have souls by
helping them keep/gain free will. The whole thing centers
around free will. Both forces want to eradicate it, one to
create a paradise and the other to create a hell. This
could be like the battle between God and the Devil. Both
want to eradicate free will-God says obey me and ascend to
Paradise, the Devil/Satan/Whatever says obey me and be
powerful here on earth.
E!Cordy says by whose judgment does AI try to do good?--
implying who are they to decide for themselves what is good
and evil?
It makes more sense for Buffy to accept all of herself to
become a complete person than to give up part of herself-her
slayerness-to be a complete person. To deny the negative in
ourselves is to give it power. (I'm starting to prefer
negative and positive over light and dark.) To accept the
negative is to gain power over it, to be able to use it when
necessary without it taking over. Willow, Spike, Anya, Fred
and Wesley are all facing these issues, as well of course as
Angel and Buffy.
The weird thing is, I can't imagine what Buffy would do
regarding herself to restore balance. It's Spike and Angel,
because of Buffy, who have upset the balance, by being
vampires with souls. According to the rules of this cosmic
game, demons don't get to have free will. Would they have
to either give up their souls or become human to restore
balance?
[>
Curmudgeon Response -- DickBD, 11:31:43 04/09/03
Wed
Free will is not infrequently mentioned in Buffyverse. I
suspect that is because the term is used in the lexicon of
existentialists. In real life, it is a meaningless concept.
We don't really have free will. Well, we can choose what we
want--but we can't choose what it is we want. That has been
provided by our inheritance and environment. That doesn't
mean that we can't be accountable. (Punishing people is
only justified in that it is intended to change
behavior.)
Obviously, this is an aside and not a direct response to
your post. I just couldn't help my curmudgeonly response to
the idea of free will. (I can't help myself!)
[> [>
Re: Curmudgeon Response -- Arethusa, 11:51:33
04/09/03 Wed
We are unable to overcome our impulses? We can't recognize
what influences us and choose to either go with our impulses
or not? We are capable of self-reflection and making
choices about our behavior. If we weren't, both religions
(which tell us to fight our sinful nature) and psychology
(which helps us recognize what influences and drives us, to
make the right choices) are as illusionary as you say free
will is.
[> [> [>
Re: Curmudgeon Response -- DickBD, 12:14:44
04/09/03 Wed
Well, you are talking about further influences (causes)
right there. I think free will was originally a religious
concept to excuse the use of hell. (i.e. "God gave us free
will so that we could choose." No wonder Voltaire called
free will "the means by which humankind condemns itself to
hell.")
We have the illusion of free will, and I have no problem
with the term "autonomous," but we act within a framework of
our heredity and environment. The influences you mention
are not outside that.
[> [> [> [>
Isn't it more accurate to say that -- Sophist,
12:40:06 04/09/03 Wed
heredity and the environment constrain our available
choices? Within those constraints, we might still have "free
will". Certainly we might have "unpredictable will".
[> [> [> [> [>
Still determined! -- DickBD, 14:03:34 04/09/03
Wed
I guess it is how you look at things. You are trying to
find a little "wiggle room" for free will. Cetainly, we
cannot accurately predict human behavior. But we can't
accurately predict the weather either, but that doesn't mean
that it isn't determined by various factors, some of them
very difficult to measure.
I feel just as free as the rest of you, but I don't delude
myself that I have free will in the way it is described. In
my opinion, it is a meaningless term that has a dubious
history (as an excuse to condemn people).
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Won't give up my free will! -- Sara, who chooses to
post today, 15:40:49 04/09/03 Wed
So you're saying that between our genetic/chemical makeup
and our experiences we are hardwired to react to every
situation in a specific way, even if we don't have enough
knowledge of the mechanics to be able to predict that way?
That makes no sense to me, any given day I can choose to
react to something emotionally, and no that's not a pretty
sight, pragmatically, or avoid making a decision. I can
control anger, or choose to let it out based on the result I
am hoping to have, I can decide that of my top 5 priorities
today I will address #1 or #3 to keep everything in balance.
We're not computers, in which 0 or 1 determines an outcome,
and as the complexity of systems has increased even
computers are becoming unpredictable and almost organic in
behavior. And it's not that it's just becoming to complex
for us to understand, it's actually becoming
unpredicatable due to the levels of interaction,
adding a random aspect to it's behavior. But we're not just
random, we make choices all the time, even if that choice is
to not think about our choices and thereby forcing a random
element to our behavior. People don't always realize that
they're making choices all the time but they are. We often
can't control what the different choices available to us
are, but we choose within them all the same, whether we
recognize it or not.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Unpredictability -- Sophist, 16:39:35 04/09/03
Wed
Well, I agree that decisionmaking is unpredictable. I've
never been sure if that is equivalent to what most people
mean by the concept of free will, but I suspect it is. Maybe
Darby can provide evidence of Sara's random
behavior......
Are you stating determinism as a working hypothesis, or do
you claim to have a proof of it?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Not random so much as unexpected, right Darby? --
Sara, who lives by logic, so long as it's my logic,
19:09:12 04/09/03 Wed
Actually, I don't think decision making is random, because
that isn't my concept of free will either, more that it is
deliberate. You weigh your choices and determine your
priorities, but since the parameters are many and
complicated, each decision is unique and an act of
control.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Yes, but think about it. . . -- Finn Mac Cool,
20:12:22 04/09/03 Wed
The decision you make is based around the situation you're
in and on who you are as a person. Obviously, the situation
you're in isn't part of free will, so that hope is loaded on
what sort of person you are. But what determines your
psyche, if not your biology and your life experiences? Of
course, depending on your religious beliefs, the answer may
be something else. After all, Hindus believe that you can
be the reincarnation of someone, and, even though you don't
have their memories or their body, that you are that person.
Personally, I've never really been able to understand that
belief (and, as such, have been less receptive than several
people I know to the New Age movement). If you do believe
that a soul functions in a way similar to the Hindu soul,
than it does not seem unreasonable to believe in free will,
since that sort of soul is innately outside of linear
thought.
Keep in mind, though, even if we don't have free will, it
doesn't change anything. As others have pointed out, since
it's impossible to predict human behaviour (whether you
believe it's due to free will or the factors involved simply
being too complicated), free will or the lack there of
doesn't really effect how we relate to the world.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thinking...hmmm...still like free will -- Sara,
20:26:55 04/09/03 Wed
I'm not disagreeing that biology and life experiences make
up who you are - it's just that at any given moment you can
make one of untold numbers of decisions and those decisions
are often not a clear choice of 'a' is good and 'b' is bad.
There are often a number of reasonable options with
different expected results and the selecting of one has to
be free will. When we learn from our mistakes, or just from
experiences is that programmed in? How we interpret our
life, the stories we're told, the people we meet, is that
all a mechanical event? Every choice we make shapes us, and
we shape ourselves by making the choices.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Agency -- Rahael, 06:16:20 04/10/03 Thu
I'm with you, Sara. Free will isn't in my vocabulary at all,
really. I tend to think of myself as an autonomous person
who has agency, and at least one choice, if not many about
how I react and deal with life.
This is pretty crucial to me because so much of my life in
the past was so totally out of my control.
I went on feeling like I was drowning and powerless for so
many years, until I realised that getting my sense of power
and choice back would entail realising that I had a choice.
If there weren't any choices, if it felt like there was a
blank, unyielding wall in front of me, I would create a
choice, somehow. So that's what I've been doing ever
since.
So, as to the whole Free will debate, I'll say - I don't
know. I can't know for certain whether I do indeed have
choice and agency. But the most important thing for me is
that I believe that I have choices. That I act as if I do.
That I make things happen when I'm desperate and running out
of solutions to my problems. Since I did that, I've always
felt like I'm a resourceful, powerful person. I have agency
in this life. And that required a couple of years of re-
setting how I looked at, and reacted to life. I felt this
was one of the more important 'creating a choice' things I
did.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: Agency (spoiler Inside Out) -- lunasea,
08:41:18 04/10/03 Thu
Since you graciously shared your experience, I will do the
same. It helps show how both perspectives are just a circle
(not polarities) and maybe that we aren't quite as far apart
as some may think.
I think waaaaay too much, about pretty much everything. You
know how when some people are just looking out into space
and you ask them what they are thinking, they can answer
"nothing"? I can't. The walls between my conscious and
unconscious are more permeable than most, so I am aware of
an awful lot. This results in a tremendous amount of self-
knowledge.
I have learned that thinking and consciously choosing isn't
always the best thing. Jasmine said the heart can lie. It
never does. The heart knows things that my brain can't. The
heart represents the unconscious thinking that comes in the
form of feeling. If I trust that, I tap into something much
more than conscious thought or choice. I tap into the
totality of my psyche. Once I learned this, I *have* to
"obey" my heart.
What if Connor had listened to his heart? He felt like he
didn't have a choice, but what he didn't trust was himself
and his own feelings. Because of that what made his decision
was stacked a certain way. If he did trust himself and his
own feelings, his decision would have been stacked a
different way. Our beliefs determine our decisions.
Your belief in agency allows you to make what you consider
the best decisions and more importantly make the world
bearable for you. My non-belief allows me to make what I
consider the best decisions and just as importantly a world
view that is well expressed at the end of "Grave."
That is what is really important. Not any particular belief,
but what that belief does for the believer and how this
impacts how the believer impacts the world.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: Agency -- Sara, 09:44:58 04/10/03 Thu
The older I get the more important it is to me to feel that
I have a control in my life, even though so much of what
happens to us is completely out of our control. If we can
determine our own reactions to events, at least we have some
power even if it's not over the events themselves. I
applaud you Rahael for choosing to make the most important
choice, choosing to control your life instead of letting it
control you!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Thanks Lunasea, Sara -- Rahael, 17:38:11
04/10/03 Thu
Thanks Lunasea - I agree, we come full circle - and I rarely
separate my heart and mind. They speak in unison to me. And
Sara, as you may know, my emotional reactions to events are
seemingly uncontrollable in the sense that I hardly know how
I feel until I start articulating and feeling! But after I
find out, I act!
[> [> [> [>
Re: Curmudgeon Response -- Corwin of Amber,
20:03:35 04/09/03 Wed
Heredity and environment are just much of an illusion as
anything else. It only constrains us if let it.
[> [>
Fun exercise -- lunasea, 17:41:43 04/09/03
Wed
Watch yourself make a decision and tell me how much free
will you actually have.
Sit down and decide something, anything. Tell me how you
made that decision. Not what went into making the decision,
but what generated it. At what point did YOU make that
decision (then tell me what YOU is).
I am still hoping that since "Grave" ended with The Prayer
of St. Francis that is where Buffy will go, "Lord make me an
instrument of your peace." When you know in your heart what
is right, how can you have "free will?" You have to do what
is in your heart. Did Jesus have free will? Could he have
really said "Sorry Dad, don't really feel like doing that?"
Nope. His love for humanity dictated his behavior.
Just because someone lacks a belief in free will doesn't
mean they justify horrible things. It doesn't mean they are
a robot devoid of feelings. It can also mean that they know
themselves well enough to realize who they are and that they
don't have a choice.
I agree, Free Will isn't real, but it is one of the most
powerful illusions there is. When you get fully enlightened
and know what is in your heart, you just do it. Until then,
it sure looks like you have a choice. Better choose what is
right.
Now I bow out. Not a discussion I like to get into. Just
wanted to let you know I agree. Now I can go back to writing
about the illusion, pretending it is real.
[> [> [>
Here's the thing though. . . -- Finn Mac Cool,
19:37:17 04/09/03 Wed
Lack of free will is like the existence of fate. So far as
we know, it's impossible to see the future or travel through
time, so, whether or not fate exists, it doesn't actually
affect our lives one way or the other if it exists.
Likewise, whether or not free will exists, it doesn't really
affect us if it does or not.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Here's the thing though. . . -- lunasea,
08:20:42 04/10/03 Thu
I agree, which is why I tend to bow out of the discussion.
Its "existence" isn't what is important. The *belief* in it
is.
It is just another concept that motivates people. If it
empowers you, great. If not believing in it empowers you,
great. All these beliefs, all these philosophies just create
a concept of the world that is orderly enough to function
in.
[> [>
Re: Curmudgeon Response -- Darby, 08:19:26
04/10/03 Thu
This is the ultimate reductionism - if we but knew how all
of your genes worked and how their expression has been
shaped and how every experience of your life has accumulated
in you, your every conceivable choice (provided we could
fully express the parameters) would be clear to us before
you made it. This is the attitude of folks who think that
chaos can be reduced to predictable rules (don't laugh, it's
a whole discipline now!). A huge proportion of scientists
have this basic worldview, although one hopes that most
wouldn't take it to such an extreme.
But think, if this were true, then the basic premise of
alternative universes flies out the window. If, for any
eventuality, there is really only one way things can turn,
then the generation of "either-or" alternates becomes an
impossibility. There are no roads not traveled. And
where's the fun in that?
On the other hand, that might explain a lot of the wonky
aspects of how time works...
And on the other foot, Sara's free will is rarely free in
the long run...
Willow's magick use and real life wicca -- Mercedes,
09:17:26 04/09/03 Wed
Ate lots of ice cream last night. Sugar rush. Couldn't
sleep. Couldn't stop thinking about my theory on Willow's
use of magick actually being a lot closer to the real thing
than a lot of people think. So much so, I ended up writing a
really long essay on it.
If you're interested, here it is:
http://www.geocities.com/tmntdissected/btvsessay.htm
Phew. Out of my system now.
[>
Reality Check -- DickBD, 11:21:50 04/09/03
Wed
In Buffyverse, there are witches, vampires, demons, and
almost everything supernatural. In my opinion, the writing,
acting, and directing have made for some of the best stuff
on television. But are there really witches in the
traditional sense? As a long-time atheist, I view the
concept of witches as one the various churches have used to
prosecute women, particularly old women. There may be young
girls now that call thenselves witches or wiccans, but are
they any more real that Star Trek enthusiasts with their toy
phasers?
Just a point, by the way, as I in no way wanted to deprecate
your excellent essay.
[> [>
Re: Reality Check -- leslie,
13:05:06 04/09/03 Wed
"There may be young girls now that call themselves witches
or wiccans, but are they any more real than Star Trek
enthusiasts with their toy phasers?"
Man, will you listen to yourself? Maybe you are the one who
needs a reality check. You might as well say "are they any
more real than born-again Christians who are recovering
alcoholics?" Yes, there are people of all ages, genders, and
races who practice Wicca as a religion--I am not one of
them, but I certainly know a bunch, and given my social set,
they're mostly thirty- to forty-something women and men who
have doctorates. Do they practice magic with all the
pyrotechnics that Willow uses? Not to my knowledge, but
then, I haven't seen any Catholic priests turning matzo into
flesh recently, either. They certainly believe that the
magic they perform affects their lives, usually for the
better. As an atheist, you may not believe in deities, but
dismissing other people's religious beliefs as "silly little
girl stuff," which is the subtext of your statement, is
rather offensive, not only to Wiccans but to women in
general.
[> [> [>
Before we get too far down this road.... --
Sophist, 14:04:15 04/09/03 Wed
I don't think Dick meant there were no Wiccans. I think he
was expressing skepticism about the existence of magic.
Thus, a Protestant would not deny the existence of Catholics
even if she doubts the doctrine of transubstantiation.
And I certainly don't think his comments were intended to be
sexist. Using the same analogy as above, we would not accuse
a Protestant of religious bigotry for questioning
transubstantiation. Even disparaging that doctrine in harsh
terms wouldn't necessarily be evidence of bigotry; people
are entitled to strong opinions. Of course, discretion can
be the better part of valor......
[> [> [> [>
Thanks, Sophist -- DickBD, 14:17:08 04/09/03
Wed
Discreet? Me? Never! But I actually intended my comments
as a defense of women. A main point was that the idea of
witchcraft had been used to oppress them, kill them, for
that matter. Isaac Asimov had a masterful essay on the harm
the concept of "witch" had done to women, particularly old
women who had lost all their friends.
As I recall, Willow met Tara at a wiccan meeting, and the
impression of both of them was that these were not real
witches. I agree. But I doubt that wiccans do any more
harm than regular religion. Perhaps not as much.
[> [> [> [> [>
some historical background -- leslie,
14:48:05 04/09/03 Wed
As it happens, I am writing a book on this subject, so the
research is fresh in my mind. And probably also explains why
I found the statement so offensive, although I did not think
that you were being deliberately so--it just seemed that
your (Freudian) slip was showing....
Whether you believe magic to be "real" or not, there have
been people who have practiced what they believe to be magic
basically forever. On a practical level, they practiced
healing with folk medicine, using herbal remedies, for
instance, in the Dark Ages before the invention of
multinational pharmaceutical research labs. However, there
were also people who healed by consulting with spirits, whom
they encountered in trance; they also asked the spirits
other questions, like fortunes, location of treasure, and
who's causing this great big boil on my ass? Being such a
seer/trancer--basically, an attenuated European form of a
shaman--was a double-edged sword, however, because it was
often believed that the only person who could cure a
supernaturally induced ailment was the one who caused it,
and so people often suspected that they were being played--
magical extortion, "here, I've made you sick, now pay me and
I'll make it all better." So people tended to regard these
seer-witches with a certain degree of suspicion.
Did they actually commune with spirits/fairies/the dead?
Evidence from eyewitnesses suggests that they were at least
in a trance, and often emerged from the trance with useful
information and healing techniques. However, always, at the
local/village level, it was believed that there were good
witches and bad witches, often along the lines of "the
witches in our village are good because they help us, and
the witches in the next village over are bad because they
covet our crops." However, the Church, in the late Middle
Ages, decided that all interaction with spirits who
were not accredited saints, angels, or the Virgin was
heretical and constituted trafficking with the Devil. This
was actually a change of opinion from the early Middle Ages,
when the Church opined that spirits didn't exist, so those
who consulted with or worshipped them were simply deluded
(actually quite close to the skeptical stance today). With
this change of opinion, the Church began prosecuting all
witchcraft as heresy, and yes, there was a great deal of
misogyny behind it, but contra a lot of the "Burning Times"
rhetoric you may hear, while the majority of "witches" were
female, there was a goodly percentage who were male. There
are many explanations for what some scholars term
"contagious" witch hunts (where the prosecutors keep
demanding the names of other witches until practically
everyone in town has been accused), many having to do with
economic pressures, the tensions between Catholics and
Protestants in the early Reformation period, changing social
structures as traditional village life was beginning to
break down under the Renaissance rise of capitalism, and so
on. There's piles of books you can read and take your pick
of what seems the most reasonable explanation(s) to you.
However, getting back to contemporary Wicca--when it first
began to be practiced in the twentieth century, it was
claimed to be an ancient organized religion that
existed sub rosa after the beginning of the Christian era.
Tnen, in the 1970's, historians and anthropologists began to
demolish that theory (mostly associated with Margaret
Murray, who was actually an Egyptologist). This is also when
the "it was all an anti-feminist plot" theory of the witch
hunts began to gain popularity. In the last 10-15 years,
however, there has been a very interesting amalgamation of
historical, anthropological, and folkloric research that
suggests that the basis of modern witchcraft does
have ancient roots, not as an "organized" religion, but
something more along the lines of folk religious remnants of
shamanism. Carlo Ginzburg is probably the most well-known of
these scholars, with his books Night Battles and
Ecstacies: Deciphering the Witches' Sabbath; there is
also a 6-volume history of witchcraft in Europe edited by
Bengt Ankerloo and Stuart Clark which I am currently plowing
my way through that gives much more detailed documentation
of the history of witch beliefs and practices. The insight
that started this trend of research was when Carlo Ginzburg
was doing research on Inquisition records in northern Italy
in the early modern era and noticed that people were
initially confessing to magical practices that did not
conform to the Inquisition's idea of what "witchcraft" was;
through the process of questioning and torture, the accused
began to change their stories, but Ginzburg decided to look
at the initial confessions and see if there was some
underlying reality to them--and there was.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks, Leslie -- DickBD, 14:57:39 04/09/03
Wed
[> [>
Re: Reality Check -- Belladonna, 14:22:47
04/09/03 Wed
"But are there really witches in the traditional
sense...There may be young girls now that call thenselves
witches or wiccans, but are they any more real that Star
Trek enthusiasts with their toy phasers?"
I must jump in here to offer *you* a reality check. I'm
going to take what you said with a grain of salt, and hope
that you are just unfamiliar with the religion of Wicca.
Wicca is a *real* religion, some practitioners of which
refer to themselves as witches. It's recognized by the US
government as a valid religion. Its members are from all
age groups, classes, races, male and female. Magick is a
*part* of it, but only one part. It isn't "supernatural,"
nor a fantasy of little girls. I've been practicing it for
years, and I am not a glorified Trekkie, thank you very
much. :)
[> [> [>
Glorified? -- DickBD, 14:51:19 04/09/03 Wed
My point was that the wiccans were no more the witches of
legend, religion, and folklore than the trekkers would be
starship members. I didn't doubt that there was a religion
of people who called themselves witches--just that they were
really witches.
Here's a hypothetical: If the government recognized Satanism
as a religion, would it make Satan real? Would it grant
Satanists access to the dark powers? (And here I must
confess that I very much doubt that there are many Satanists
at all, real or not. For, if you really believe in all that
stuff, why would you choose the losing side?)
[> [> [> [>
Who says we're losing? As Christopher Wren would say,
circumspice! -- d'Horrible, 15:03:35 04/09/03 Wed
[> [> [> [>
Not A Satanist Here, but From What I Understood From
Reading about it... -- AngelVSAngelus, 16:28:07
04/09/03 Wed
Satanists don't actually believe in the existence of any
devil, but see Satan as a metaphoric figure of atheist
empowerment, and hedonistic revelry in the primal impulses
that make us human.
I've read a little Lavey and that's what I got out of
it.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Not A Satanist Here, but From What I Understood
From Reading about it... -- ASorcerousFreak, 19:11:22
04/09/03 Wed
That's LaVeyan satanism,wich is only one form of it.There
are also theistic satanists.Contrary to popular belief,LaVey
Doesn't have exclusive rights to the term satanist.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks for t he info -- AngelVSAngelus, 20:19:30
04/09/03 Wed
apparently my reading on the subject was more limited than
it should have been.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Aside for LaVey's "Church of Satan", the most
widespread is probably. . . -- Finn Mac Cool,
20:32:05 04/09/03 Wed
The Luciferian faith. It's one that is devoted to Lucifer,
seeing him as the angel that dared to defy Jehovah's command
in order to give humanity the gift of knowledge. He was
then cast out of Heaven and unjustly sentenced to Hell. As
such, he's viewed as being an anti-authority figure who'll
one day rise from Hell and challenge Jehovah, who they see
as a repressive tyrant.
Personally, not a Satanist or Luciferian, but about a year
ago I went through a period where I researched lots of
different religions in order to form my own, so I tend to
know these sorta things.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Heh... -- KdS, 02:49:30 04/10/03 Thu
Wonder if Philip Pullman's a Luciferian ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Luciferian has strong equivalencies with Gnosticism, if
I recall correctly. -- Solitude1056, 09:38:59
04/10/03 Thu
Both have the notion that the "creator god" was actually the
Bad Guy.
[> [>
Yes there are DickBD and I am one. We don't have the
fx, but it is real. -- Briar Rose, 01:05:07 04/10/03
Thu
[> [>
Re: Reality Check -- Mercedes,
02:20:44 04/10/03 Thu
> But are there really witches in the traditional sense?
I'm assuming that when you say "traditional sense" you mean
in the popular cultural perception of witches? In which
case...no, not as such. Actual people who can can unleash
these big pyrotechnical displays...that doesn't happen.
But the "traditional" version wicca has never claimed as
much. Such ideas have been formed by myth and Hollywood.
Witches exist, obviously, in the sense that millions of
people of various pagan faiths call themselves witches. Do
they practise magick?
The real nature of magick is far more subtle, but it exists.
One theory is that magick is simply science which has not
been explained yet (e.g. magnetism was thought to be
"supernatural" before it was properly explained). I know I
have done rituals (e.g. to relieve pain, to increase
confidence, to protect my household, etc) which I fully
believe at least contributed to the way things work. Some
people would say the effects are psychosomatic or just the
result of "positive thinking" but this doesn't mean it's NOT
magick. If it's redirecting any kind of energy - mental or
physical - towards a particular goal, it's magick.
[>
Karma? -- M., 15:47:12 04/09/03 Wed
You mention Karma as a main tenant of the Wiccan Faith, but
is this not a Hindu concept? I am familiar with the ěthree
fold lawî but Karma seems to be a much more involved
concept. Is it simply a case of using a common word or has
the Wiccan religion really incorporated an east Indian
belief?
[> [>
Karma/Kamma -- lunasea, 17:24:12 04/09/03
Wed
Karma is a Sanskrit word meaning Intention. In Pali it is
Kamma. It is important to both Hinduism and Buddhism.
In Buddhism there are 4 types of Karma:
1. Dark with dark result
2. Bright with bright result
3. Dark and Bright with dark and bright result
4. Neither dark or bright with neither dark or bright result
leading to end of karma.
One of the Four Imponderables is the results of karma. Karma
isn't the complicated. Its results are. Buddhism's "goal" is
to extinguish karma, thus eliminate suffering.
Many New Ageisms have appropriated the term to mean some
kind of cosmic balance sheet. That isn't what it is in
Buddhism. When we have certain intentions, that makes its
mark, on US. It forms habits and these habits become harder
and harder to break the more we do them. THAT is karma in
Buddhism.
The Three-fold law which is central to Wicca is NOT KARMA.
For a while there, I used to use the Pali terms, since many
of the Sanskrit ones have been appropriated and the Buddhist
concept has little in common with the "modern" one. People
thought I was just mispelling them.
[> [>
Ah...that would be a mistake. Fixed it now. Sorry. No
karma in wicca (N/T) -- Mercedes, 02:29:23 04/10/03
Thu
[>
Satanism, Wicca, Witchcraft and Paganism.... First - I
totally disagree here Mercedes: -- Briar Rose,
02:07:29 04/10/03 Thu
In your first sentence of your second paragraph you
state:
There are some Wiccans and witches (actually, the two
terms mean much the same thing)
and at that point you lose the majority of your arguement
for me.
They do not in any way mean "much the same thing" because
Wicca is a religion thoroughly based on the teachings of
Gerald Gardner. It is a religion and a theology and also
incorporates many tenets that have nothing to do with the
Original Earth/Pagan Religions (and there are untold
multitudes!)that predate Wicca by thousands of years.
Witchcraft is not just a generic title for Wicca. Just as
Druid is not a generic title for Wicca. It has been made so
by the many people who follow a religion that they do not
even understand the true roots of and call themselves
"Wiccan" just as they have taken the term (wrongly) of "The
Old Religion" to mean Wicca when Wicca didn't even exist
until the early 1900s.
Even though you do make a solid arguement that all energy in
the Universe is neutral and magick is only given it's
ultimate form by the intent of the practitioner...
And it is not only acceptable, but indeed common in some
theologies of Earth Religions/Paganistic/Shamanistic
practice to use animal sacrifice and other forms of what
"Wiccans" percieve to be "dark magick" you are basing it on
a very loose meaning of the definitions of Wicca versus
Witch Craft versus so many other theolgies of many religions
that aren't covered by either title.
There are over 140 recognized forms of Pagan/Earth Religion
theologies right now world wide. And Wicca is only
one of them. You further reduce your argument by adding in
things like Sabbats and Esbats and Karma and Reincarnation
in trying to affirm your arguement that Witch craft and
Wicca are the same. Pardon me - but many (if not most) of
the OTHER Pagan/Earth Religions do not share those same
beliefs, holy days or even agree with the "Wiccan Creed" at
all.
I call myself a Witch because I am NOT Wiccan and do not
care to be. It's just easier to say Witch than Flint Ridge
Mountain "4th" (we actually skipped one) Generation Family
Tradition Hoodoo Priestess and have anyone understand what
the hell-o I'm talking about.*L
I do not celebrate any of those Sabbats or Esbats. I do not
technically celebrate any other "legally recognized"
holidays in any religious ways either. I do not believe in
"Karma" as it is layed out by any theology or the "Three
Fold Law" or the whole Wiccan hard core thing against
returning negative energy or protecting myself and those I
love offensively. I do love magick and what some theologies
consider "curses" when appropriate. I also had absolutely no
problem with Willow sacrificing the deer that she called
forth to give it's life in trade for Buffy's - even though
it isn't my thang. I tend to use ground hamburger, since
it's in my Family Tradition. Also - my theology has no
differences between "black/dark" and "white/light" magick. I
work from the BALANCE of my actions with the acts that they
are addressing. Period. And that the energy I put out in
everything will have an equal measure of balance coming back
in my direction, so I'm ethical by my theology in my
practices - but not impotent by any means.
Yes - I do agree with the fact that there are people who
practice magick and do become dependant on it for
everything. But as you said, (and this I agree with you on)
that is more about the same people not understanding the
magickal power of the theology that must accompany it. I
would go even farther and say that in my own opinion (and
that which I pass onto those who come to me for information
and help/learning): You will never get the outcome you
desire using any form of magick without the grounding in the
theology that feeds that magickal energy. It's a symbiotic
thing from my experience.... To do as ME prtrayed, is to
uncover Power with no balance to handle it. And then it's
not unrealistic to expect some sort of wonky outcome, just
not the way ME carries on their "love/hate" relationship in
the way they portray the use of magick.
And those who try to take any form of Earth/Pagan Religion
and say that it's "Satanism?" Okay - stop right there.*L For
one thing it's practically impossible for someone to honor
and worship some diety that they do not even recognize as
existing. The only persons who can actively practice
Luciferian/Satanistic theology are people who believe in
Christianity or other forms of religion that have an
All Powerful Evil to counterbalance their All Powerful Good.
And most Earth/Pagan religions simply don't have either. The
majority of them have duality in their dieties and no All
Powerful Anything: of the Good or of the Bad.
This is already too long - but I could surely add more line
by line in your thesis. I won't, because I'm sure that where
we disagree with the aspects you layed out from the use of
magick in both BtVS(AtS, BTW) and The Craft,
(Charmed/Practical Magic/Witches of Eastwick, etc.) are
already in between the lines here with what I've already
written.
T'ami'dai!
[> [>
re: Witchcraft and Wicca - okay I didn't know that.
-- Mercedes,
02:40:23 04/10/03 Thu
> Witchcraft is not just a generic title for Wicca
Fair enough. Having never studied any other kind of pagan
religion, I can't dispute that. As a wiccan, everything I've
read is written by wiccans and tells you that "witch" is an
antiquated term for wiccan and "witchcraft" simply means
"wicca." Black and white definitions, which I expect were
over-simplified for convenience. But if other religions use
these terms, I apologise. Didn't know.
> And it is not only acceptable, but indeed common in some >
theologies of Earth Religions/Paganistic/Shamanistic
> practice to use animal sacrifice and other forms of
> what "Wiccans" percieve to be "dark magick"
My point here being that Willow has always specifically
defined herself as a follower of "Wicca", not any other kind
of pagan religion, so again whilst accepting that I now know
this doesn't apply to all "witches", it would constitute an
important part of Wicca.
> You further reduce your argument by adding in things like
> Sabbats and Esbats and Karma and Reincarnation in trying >
to affirm your arguement that Witch craft and Wicca are
> the same
Well, no, actually, I add things like that (and I didn't
mean to type "karma", that's actually a mistake) to
emphasise Willow's neglect of the non-magickal side of
Wicca. I wasn't trying to "argue" that witchcraft and wicca
were synonyms, because I didn't know there was anything
controversial in this. Now I do and I agree they aren't the
same thing.
Hmm...sorry to derail your argument by agreeing with you so
much. :-)
[> [> [>
My use of "Arguement" was meant in a
terminology of debate - So it's all good.*S* -- Briar
Rose, 15:06:27 04/10/03 Thu
Different kinds of vampires (spoiler for LMPTM) --
skeeve, 09:23:17 04/09/03 Wed
It's worth noting that Spike and his mother seemed to be
different kinds of vampires. They seemed to be examples of
two different theories about humans becoming vampires.
His mother, seems to be the kind of vampire that Giles told
Buffy about: the result of a human soul being replaced by a
demon soul.
Spike, on the other hand, didn't seem to change all that
much. He still liked poetry and he still loved his mother.
Even without a human soul, he could love Buffy and other
Summers women.
Other than than the WC version of siring, do we have any
evidence of demon souls in the Buffyverse?
[>
Here's one... -- Alison, 12:52:08 04/09/03
Wed
In the Harvest, the Master tells Luke "My soul is your
soul".
[>
two questions? -- M., 15:04:36 04/09/03 Wed
What do you mean when you say ětwo different kinds of
vampireî and what do you mean when you say Spike ědidnít
change that muchî? Giles descriptions of vampires did
imply that they were incapable of human feelings but we have
seen countless examples of vampires who love (not just
Spike). The only thing we can really say is that the
vampire (sans soul) seems to lack any empathy for their
human victims. Our experiences with Spikeís mother after
she was vamped was very limited. We know she had no
feelings (other than revulsion) for her son, but we really
donít know what she would have been like had she lived
longer.
But we do know a great deal about Spike/William.
William before he was vamped was a gentle kind man who
didnít even like to think about violence ěThat's what the
police are for, I prefer placing my energies into creating
things of beauty.î Afterwards he took great pleasure in
both the violence and the killing; and is there any evidence
of Spike being interested in poetry after he became a
vampire (there may be but I canít think of any).
[> [>
He actually seemed to despise it. -- Finn Mac Cool,
19:53:15 04/09/03 Wed
From "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered":
Spike: Why don't you rip her lungs out? That oughta make
an impression.
Angelus: Nah, lacks poetry.
Spike: Doesn't have to. What rhymes with lungs?
[> [> [>
rungs tongues -- skeeve, 10:01:39 04/10/03
Thu
[> [>
Re: two questions? -- skeeve, 09:38:44 04/10/03
Thu
According to Giles, vamping involves two souls: the human
soul leaves and a demon soul takes up residence. The demon
soul brings with it a whole new personality, wholly
unrelated to the former personality.
This conflicts with much of what we have seen in the
Buffyverse. The soul-as-conscience-most-vamps-have-none
model seems to fit better.
All vampires need blood.
My understanding is that the over-the-top violence-lover we
have come to know and love was rather different from the
vamp-William we saw in the LMPTM flashback. I got the
impression that it was the result of a self-improvement
project possibly designed to increase his standing with
other vampires. My recollection is that vamp-William was
rather bothered by his mother's scathing review of his
poetry. Vamp-William still liked poetry.
I suppose vamp-Anne's behaviour can be worked into the soul-
as-conscience model, but Spike seemed to reject it:
"It was just the demon talking".
Does Spike know which model is correct? Do other
vampires?
Suppose that Spike had not been caught up in the plans of
the first evil. Would the Scoobies have noticed Spike's
"shiny new soul" without being told?
Is it a shiny new soul or his old one? Does it matter?
[> [> [>
Giles didn't actually say that (spoiler for
"Inside Out") -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:44:49
04/10/03 Thu
"According to Giles, vamping involves two souls: the human
soul leaves and a demon soul takes up residence. The demon
soul brings with it a whole new personality, wholly
unrelated to the former personality."
I've seen this statement used many times, and something
about it always seemed off to me, and now I know why: look
at this quote from the Buffy Season 1 episode, "Angel".
Giles: "A vampire isn't a person at all. (clears his
throat) It may have the movements, the, the memories, even
the personality of the person that it took over, but i-it's
still a demon at the core, there is no halfway."
Giles never says the demon soul brings in a new personality.
He specifically states that the human personality remains
(or at least can remain). But, to him at least, that
doesn't mean the demonic vampires isn't different from the
previous human. Given this comment, it's fair to say Giles
regards the essential makeup of a person not to be their
personality, but something else, something more spiritual.
And there are many reiligions which back up this viewpoint;
I've met several Christians who believe that, in Heaven,
people have their own memories and personality stripped
away, but that they're still the same person. Also, the
belief in essence of a person being seperate from
personality is the norm in Eastern and New Age
religions.
So, it really comes down to what you think is the true
essence of a human being. If it is the personality, than
vampires are the same person as their human predecessors,
just with bloodlust and a natural tendency to do the wrong
thing where they once did the right thing. But, if you
believe that everyone has a spirit, unrelated to the
personality, that embodies who they really are, than humans
who become vampires really do pass on and a demonic spirit
comes in and absorbs their psyche.
My personal religious beliefs regard someone's personality
as the essence of who they really are, and that, if souls
exist, they are essentially the embodiment of personality.
However, the Buffyverse has different metaphysics than the
real world, so I try not to let my own religious philosophy
enter into thoughts and discussions of it. As such, I still
see it as perfectly plausible that vampires and their former
human selves are different entities, despite shared body,
memories, and personality.
P.S. Does anyone think that the writers had this in mind
when they had the Darla apparition say "I've got her
memories, her feelings. Isn't that what makes up a
person?"
[> [> [> [>
what was said -- skeeve, 09:27:49 04/11/03
Fri
From masq on Doppelg”ngland:
Are vamps like their human predecessors? Joss confuses the
issue more when Buffy reassures human Willow that "a
vampire's personality has nothing to do with the person it
was," and Angel briefly comments, "Well, actually... yeah,
good point."
From Giles in The Harvest:
The books tell the last demon to leave this reality fed off
a human, mixed their blood. He was a human form possessed,
infected by the demon's soul. He bit another, and another,
and so they walk the Earth, feeding... Killing some, mixing
their blood with others to make more of their kind. Waiting
for the animals to die out, and the old ones to return.
More Giles in The Harvest:
You listen to me! Jesse is dead! You have to remember that
when you see him, you're not looking at your friend. You're
looking at the thing that killed him.
Buffy in Lie to Me:
I got a newsflash, braintrust. That's not how it works. You
die. And a demon sets up shop in your old house. It walks
and talks and remembers your life but it's not you.
If most vamps have no souls at all, why are they considered
demons at all? For that matter, what makes them different
from zombies or the "dead" guys in The Zeppo"?
The vampire has a demon soul and a new personality theory
has bugs, but so does the soul as conscience theory. Giles
soul in A New Man didn't seem to affect him when he bacame a
demon. Likewise the ex-human troll in Triangle.
[> [> [> [> [>
Was just saying the Giles never actually said that
vamps had new personalities. -- Finn Mac Cool,
14:30:10 04/11/03 Fri
He specifically said in "Angel" that the human personality
does (or at least can) carry over. The two Giles quotes
above refer to the vampire being a different person than the
human, but not saying anything about personality (as I said
above, having the same personality doesn't account for same
person in all people's beliefs).
Here's my personal theory:
In the Buffyverse, everyone is made up of mind, body, and
spirit.
The body is the person's physical self.
The mind is memories, personality, and intelligence.
The spirit is the way through which the world is viewed.
When someone becomes a vampire, the body remains, but is
changed to allow for superstrength, bloodlust, and other
vampire characteristics. There have been some indications
that change in body can affect someone in the Buffyverse
(with Giles's demon self and Olaf the troll, I'm assuming
they were influenced by the hormones of their new body,
which went along the lines of "crush, kill, destroy").
Then there is the mind. There is personality in it, but it
isn't totally who we are, since it doesn't have the ability
to actually care on its own. Robots like April and Ted had
minds but no spirits, and as such, the most they could do
was simulate the emotions they were programmed with, but
couldn't acutally feel anything independently. Likewise,
there was the soulless boy from Angel Season 1. He still
possessed mind and personality, but no real emotional
caring, whether familial connection or about right and
wrong. In the siring process, I believe that the mind
remains in tact.
Lastly, the spirit. While the spirit isn't our personality
(that's part of the mind), it uses the mind as a medium for
observing and processing the world. It is what puts
emotional feeling behind personality traits, and also what
causes our conscience to exist. Human spirits (souls), if
seperated from mind and body, only have one unsentient
instinct: do good. However, it needs a mind in order to
understand which acts are good, which are evil, and how to
go about performing these acts. It also needs a body in
order to carry them out. The downside of this is that the
body and mind influence decisions as well, creating desires
which may lead counter to the spirit's intent. In order to
stop these desires from gaining control, the spirit cries
out and causes guilt when an evil act is performed, and
rewards good acts with happiness (though this doesn't stop
some people from finding desires greater than the spirit, or
becoming numbed to its rewards and punishments). But there
is also a different type of spirit: the demon spirit
(soul). Like the human spirit, this one has only one
instinct, but in this case it's: do evil. And, also like
the human spirit, the demon spirit needs a mind and body to
carry out this instinct, hence they possess human corpses
and take over. They take the human's body and give it all
of the vampire's powers and weaknesses, and they use the
human's mind as their way of connecting to the world. But,
because the demon spirit wants to do evil, personality
traits are expressed in a different way. While the human
spirit tries to bring out the best in the personality, the
demon spirit tries to bring out the worst. *Note: this
isn't the same as having no conscience. A totally amoral
person does whatever it takes, good or evil, to fulfill it's
own ends. Many vampires, on the other hand, might go out of
their way to do evil acts that don't directly help them in
any way, just because it's an evil thing to do. We've even
seen several vampires give up their lives for the cause of
evil.* *2nd Note: some vampires, like Spike and Harmony,
are amoral, and don't have much draw to do evil for evil's
own sake. But, just as there are human sociopaths, there
are vampire sociopaths, who have suppressed their spirits'
reward/punishment system. Other vampires (Holden Webbster,
Angelus, etc.) have shown pleasure both in the idea and act
of evil, expressing their reverse conscience.*
So, this is how I view the relation between human and
vampire. You don't have to agree, but I find it reconciles
most of what we've been shown and told about vampires. They
are different people, from a certain standpoint, as their
spirit is gone. But it still allows for vamps to retain
their personalities from when they were human, though
twisted to fit their "evil is good" viewpoint.
[>
This is my take (longish, my bad) -- Ender,
20:32:24 04/09/03 Wed
Umm, this is long but I think it is sound.
I have a different take. What if instead William was such a
good man (or nancy boy if you prefer) that the demon that
took hold of him had little starting materials to work with.
What if what it meant in Joss's Universe that the soul works
to help one consider others and not just follow our desires
unhindered, if souls work as conscience as other's have
postulated.
If so, then from observing William and Spike we might
surmise that truly what William desired was dinner, dancing,
and the theater with Mom followed by a good shag with his
"soul-mate"- someone who he belonged with. He wanted a
loving family with a content life. When vamped, Spike was
able to act with a confidence that William lacked and yet it
was in perfect synergy with what mortal William desired.
Unfortunately for our Spike, we do not all desire the same
and our conscience does not inhibit our actions based on our
desires in the same fashion. William's soul inhibited what
he viewed as improper behavior, impinging his will on
others, violence, and rash action. He could be said not be
able to do these things in good conscience (which is not to
say that we never act against our consience). Unsouled,
Spike now acts with impunity in the actions that his soul
shied away from. William just really wanted his mother with
him, a coordination of the demon and the past of the body
that the demon inhabits. Anne loved her son truly, she
wished William to find a good girl to shag before she died
so death would come with piece of mind. But do you really
think she didn't recognize bad poetry spewing from her sappy
spawn? Being an aristocrat around Freud's time, Anne might
be aware of the Oedipus complex. I think Anne's conscience
(her soul) was such that it prohibited her from really
analyzing what her relationship with her darling boy. Once
Anne's soul was no longer with the living, she acted with no
conscience and no consideration for her son. Anne looked at
her life with out the confines of the soul and spoke her
mind unconstrained.
I think that if you look you will see a pattern of this
developing. Look at vampires we have known and their
actions after the turn, Alonna (Gunn's sister) wants to
bring her big brother over or Jesse (Xander's friend) going
after (lust worthy) Cordellia. Their demon actions are for
the pursuit of a something they truly desired to happen when
human. I think that this is why Angel feels such
responsibility for Angelus, Liam somewhere deep and dark
wanted to exact a punishment on his family for their
judgement of him being a bad seed and the turning of their
backs on him (or at least the appearance of this). Liam's
conscience kept him from acting on this desire to enact
retribution of their judgement of him, but Angelus had no
such qualms. In fact Angelus liked the control he got out
of it, he got off on the pain because in his mind they
deserved it. Fuck them for judging him. Even better,
fulfill that expectation of the bad seed. Kill, murder,
rape, and love ever minute. Angel knows that the nature of
a person plays an integral role in the personality of the
vampire. Liam has a hand in the nature of Angelus, the
thirst for retribution fueled the demon to rise to levels of
atrocity unknown prior. Willow/VampWillow sexual nature
(just one example), ?Darla?/VampDarla disillusionment and
subsequent desire for corruption show more instances of the
pull of the personality.
Consider this, if you could act with out remorse what would
you do? What dark desires that you have would you fulfill?
Most people, I would guess, fall somewhere between Angelus
and Spike, the two extremes. Angelus is a fulfillment of
the Hannibal Lector potential, sadistically evil in our
worst hidden impulses. Spike shows openness to what he
really wanted as human, he really wanted his mother at his
side in a pure sense. But his mother without consience did
not fill the need that Spike wanted, so he fulfilled his
mother's apparent death wish. I do believe that this event
is what catalyzed the formation of Spike in his subsequent
form. The realization of just what people hold back on the
account of their soul was a wake-up call to Spike. I think
William wore his heart on his sleeve and to an extent
thought others did the same. His mother turned and showed
just what dark thoughts his dear mum was capable of without
that pesky soul. So Spike becomes disillusioned but also
gets something else that he wanted soooo badly for so long.
A pretty girl to shag. Spike saw how the world really
worked for a demon and started down the path to becoming a
bad-ass vampire. Ever wonder why Spike had such a thing for
slayers? Maybe on some level Spike had a death wish, a want
to rejoin his mother and relive the exhilaration of killing
someone who is intimately connected to you. The slayer. If
a mother represents life, certainly a slayer is a vampire's
death given form. In Spike's mind a slayer could represent
so many little connections about his staking of his own
mother, desire for death, and a repetition of one of the
most emotionally involved moments of his long life.
If this is the case, then the obsession with Buffy might
begin to be analyzed in a more coherent manner. Consider
Spike seeking out the Slayer for an emotional high
reinforced as pleasure and then not being able to kill her.
She is stalked, beaten, but never killed. There is something
else interesting going on here, the slayer never finishes
the job (or at least doesn't get the chance). Spike's
obsession just feeds on itself, in the consience and sub-
consience. Don't you think it bothered him that he fought
Buffy so many times but never got finish in one way or
another? Spike wanted a completion of his death or hers,
and he never got it- only blue-balled each time. The chip
just makes Spike feel impotent, unable to even pick the
fight with Buffy anymore, he lets his unfulfilled feelings
play out on the poor demon population. Spike becomes an
antagonizing nuisance in Buffy's life (never pissing her off
to the point of staking because that would just be
pathetically anti-climatic) until his feelings begin find
another outlet. If you can't have the violence, have the
love. Now I'm not directly accusing of Spike having an
Oedipal complex like his mother, but I do think that his
feelings for Buffy have a relation to Anne. Spike sought
slayer's for the high, and it became a pattern. Because of
outside factors, this pattern of behavior was disrupted but
the tendency to turn there for emotional connection stayed.
She looked hot while kicking his ass and his obsession
turned from the unfulfilled fight to trying to fulfill Buffy
in entirely different way. Anything Spike did out of love
for Buffy was really in an attempt to get something that he
desired. He desired Buffy, but because of her strength she
set the rules in the relationship that developed. So in
order to get her, he goes to get the thing that seems to be
the only real factor (in Spike's mind) distinguishing
himself from Angel. Spike gets his soul because he equates
this with being worthy of Buffy's love. Unfortunately a
soul is trickier than a greased weasel, and gets Spike into
some other tricky points.
If anyone likes this, I will write more about what I think
this implies about other facets in Jossverse. If not, it
was fun to write.
[> [>
Well I'd love to read more, personally... --
AngelVSAngelus, 20:40:55 04/09/03 Wed
[> [>
Hmm, this was interesting. If you've got more, go for
it. -- Sarand, 07:05:13 04/10/03 Thu
[> [>
Really interesting, I like your take on it --
ponygirl, 12:29:10 04/10/03 Thu
[> [>
Really Interesting post. Thank you for writing it.
-- s'kat, 15:40:27 04/11/03 Fri
One of the few I've actually printed off in awhile, next
to Sol's excellent treatise on religion.
Thank you for this...nice to see something positive and even-
handed posted about Spike for a change. Also a nice
twist.
Be interested to see more.
SK
False Hopes, Messiahs, Scams...(spoilers for Ats
4.18) -- s'kat, 21:02:54 04/09/03 Wed
I just watched the scariest episode of Angel I've seen. I
had to leave the bloody room during it. It made me
squirm.
Why? You ask. What the heck?
Hmmm let's back up a bit. There's an episode of Space 1999
that I couldn't watch. Every time it came on the TV, I
switched it off. I was uhm 9 or 10 at the time. Space 1999
for those of you who never heard of it, was a 1970s science
fiction drama about a research station on the Moon. A
horrible event separated the Moon from the Earth and sent
the Space 1999 MoonBase Alpha Team off into Space. Their
mission is to get back home or find a home similar to earth.
The show starred Martin Landau and his wife Barbara Bain
(yep Juliet Landau's parents). In the episode, I can't
watch, a shuttle lands on the moon bringing a bunch of the
MoonBase Alpha team's old friends from Earth. They have good
news - the MoonBase Alpha Team can go home now. All is fine.
Home is fine. They've drifted close to Earth. The shuttle
will take them there. And everybody but Martin Landau
believes them. When Martin Landau looks at these people he
sees Monsters. Horrible Monsters. But no one believes Martin
Landau. They think he is crazy and lock him up.
I stopped watching at that point. So have no clue what
happened next. Until now, I always believed it was the
monsters that scared me. Heck until I saw Star Wars, I
believed Science Fiction = scary monsters. Now, I know it
wasn't the monsters that made that episode difficult to
watch.
False Scams, False Hopes, False Messiahs
We believe what we want to believe. A scam that tells us if
we send off a 1000 resumes, we'll get a job. A prophet who
tells us that we are beautiful and kind and all will be
well. An ad who says if you take this drug you'll lose
weight and be gorgeous in ten days. A President who tells us
if we just destroy this one person, terrorism will end and
we will be safe. A dictator who tells us if we eradicate the
representation of evil on the planet, life will be good and
we will be employed. Thousands of dollars are collected
annually by false prophets who spread false hope and false
dreams. And be honest, we all occassionally fall for them.
It's like the false hope of the lottery. Spend 2 dollars and
you'll win a million. Yeah right. But a girl or guy can
dream, right? And what's wrong with dreaming? What's wrong
with hope? What indeed?
Let's go back to that little filler episode called The House
Always Wins. In that episode, people come to a casino to win
money, money that will fund their destiny. Yet the moment
they enter the contest, the game becomes rigged and they are
doomed to forever play the slots looking for that false win.
Have you ever wandered around a casino and seen the blank
faces of the people playing the slots? Some win and leave
and have fun. Others just sit there hoping for that false
hope.
Angel wants that desperately. He wants to believe everything
he's done has had a purpose. That there is a reward at the
end. That there is meaning to all of this. That someone will
come and tell him its alright, he's forgiven and will be
saved. Can't blame him. I'd like to have the same thing
happen. Who wouldn't?
But uhm, no that false hope, false fantasy isn't really what
we think. It comes with a price. We lose our identity.
We become disciples. Like the AI gang who follows Jasmine
around with silly grins on their faces. Until Fred sees the
light. Question is why? Why did Fred see the light? And why
does she see it when she does?
Fred is busy scrubbing a shirt that Jasmine bled on. Jasmine
doesn't notice it nor does she care about the shirt. But
Fred does. Fred can't get the stain out and it torments her.
So she buys Jasmine a brand new shirt. She feels an
incredible ache when Jasmine isn't around and goes to find
her, alone with Connor. When Fred looks up at Jasmine and
nervously is about to hand over the shirt - she sees a
rotting face, green with maggots crawling over it, hideous,
a Medusa's head. Freaking she backs away and covers her
discomfort.
Not sure what she is seeing Fred hunts down a man in the
psychiatric ward who saw the same thing. A man that Angel
beat down when he tried to attack Jasmine. A man that
Jasmine touched and burned. Fred asks this man why he saw it
and says she saw it too. When Fshe asks him, he shows Fred
what Jasmine did to him when she touched him - how she
turned half of his face into something twisted and
demonic.
He tells Fred that she was called like he was and must kill
Jasmine. That she is evil. And to trust no one. That Jasmine
will destroy them. And only those who have been chosen or
called can see what she truly is.
So Fred goes back to the Hyperion and attempts to tell Wes
and Gunn her fears. But both her old lovers turn against her
and tell Jasmine. Fred threatens Lorne as a means of
escaping the hotel which now is suddenly filled to the brim
with loyal people. All happy and accepting of one
another.
Fred is alone. Cut off. She alone sees the monster in their
midst. A monster who tells the gang she'll help them
eradicate evil and make everything beautiful. But if they
can't see her for what she is, how will they know what they
are destroying is evil?
Why did Fred get called? What is it about Fred that made her
see? Did Jasmine's blood get on her? Is it because she has
been isolated before? OR was it just blind luck?
Random? Like Buffy's calling is random? Or Faith's?
Now this reminds me of the movie Fraility. In this movie a
man is called to slay demons. He believes his sons are also
called. But one son is said to be a demon. According to the
voice calling him - demons walk the earth disquised as
humans and only he can see them for what they really are. It
happens when he touches them. Once he does? He kills them.
To the viewers eye - he is a serial killer. Until the story
flips on itself and we enter his pov and are left with the
question - is he right to kill the demons he sees.
Was he truly chosen?
The unreliable narrator raises it's ugly head. What do you
believe. Do you believe Fred or the AI gang. IT's a theme
all season on both shows - who do we believe. And in life as
well. Do we believe news commentators and newspapers?
Do we believe the preacher in the pulpit or on tV? Do we
believe in the words we see in religious texts? How do we
trust the information fired at us on a daily basis? How do
we know what is true? I learned a long time ago that truth
is a manipulatable item - in the hands of a good
speaker?
Anything can be proven to be true.
The False Messiah motif asks us the question. An very old
one. Do we believe what we see? Do we trust our senses?
How do we know what is real? It's quite frightening if you
think about it. At the age of 10, I found it downright
traumatic, but I knew even at that age that following
anything blindly is dangerous. No, what scared me was not
the ugly monster on the screen - it was the mob that
followed it. The mob of good people who went along with its
every whim. Who were willing to die for that false dream
that false hope. That terrified me as a child and gave me
nightmares. It gives me nightmares now. Why? One name comes
to mind, although I'm sure there are countless others in our
history: Adolfe Hitler.
It's not the monster that scares me, you see, it's us.
Because it's our hopes and dreams and fears who make the
monster real and powerful. The false prophet has no power if
we don't give it to them.
That's why Iago is so powerful in Othello and in Agathe
Christie's Curtain. That's why Adolfe Hitler succeeded in
almost ruling the world and taking out over half of humanity
in the process.
The False Prophet motif is by no means a new idea. I've seen
it done in just about every Science Fiction drama on
Television. It was a big metaphor on Babylon 5. Perhaps
there's a reason for that? When hunting the biggest baddest,
scariest thing of all - who better than ourselves?
Oh - a final note - isn't it interesting that what Lorne
described in his vision is exactly what Fred sees? And Yeats
poem about the Second Coming - does mention an antichrist we
all want to see? Or what about the name Jasmine and the
scent she loves - a scent that is used in funeral homes, I
dimly recall, to hide the stench of death? (I could be wrong
on that - it could mean something else.)We choose what we
want to see. We choose what we want to believe. That is both
our greatest weakness and our greatest flaw. It's where our
ability to choose turns in on itself. And that may be why I
found tonight's episode almost impossible to watch.
SK
[>
Re: False Hopes, Messiahs, Scams...(spoilers for Ats
4.18) -- DEN, 21:06:58 04/09/03 Wed
Beautiful, 'kat!
[> [>
agreed -- maddog, 07:21:52 04/10/03 Thu
I especially like the comment about the anti-christ at the
end as I had the same notion and posted it in aother
thread.
[>
Ack typos aplenty! sorry! : "flaw" should be
strength. -- skat, 21:29:01 04/09/03 Wed
Where is that editing demon when you need it?? sigh.
[>
Any theories about "what" J is? -- Masq,
22:18:42 04/09/03 Wed
I'm collecting theories, step on up
Great post, btw, S'Kat. I'll buy that Jasmine is evil
parading as good, or that she is well-intentioned but
totally out of touch with the reality of what is truly good.
Or...
Any theories about what she's after?
Because yes, all that blind devotion is scary. But what do
you think those monsters on Space 1999 wanted with the
people they lured? Love? Devotion? Worship? Dinner? Chaos?
Order? Control?
This isn't some hokey Sci-fi show. It's ME...
[> [>
Oh, and may I just pause to say (spoilers for next
week's AtS trailer) -- Masq, 22:21:09 04/09/03
Wed
Eeeeeeeeeeeeek!
I wanted father-son togetherness, but...
Eeeeeeeeeeeeek!
Who's lame idea was it for them to sing--
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeek!
Did Fury write next week's episode?
I can't even say it.
[> [> [>
*Oh, Jasmine, I saw you and loved you* sung to the tune
of you know what. -- deeva, humming tunelessly &
unlikely to sleep now, 22:43:58 04/09/03 Wed
[> [> [>
I eeeeeeked too - (spoilers for next week's AtS
trailer) -- Anneth, 23:05:30 04/09/03 Wed
But not because of the duet!
I mean, really, how come she gets a third man?
(*hef hef* Just remember, Anneth, the trailers always lie.
The trailers always lie. Repeat as necessary. *hef
hef*)
[> [> [> [>
Re: I eeeeeeked too - (spoilers for next week's AtS
trailer) -- Dead Soul, 23:19:11 04/09/03 Wed
I mean, really, how come she gets a third
man?
'Cause Joss thinks AA is Audrey Hepburn...except less
dead.*
*from the Waiting in the Wings DVD commentary
Dead (but still lurking) Soul
[> [> [> [>
"She's kinda bony for my taste, but different
strokes..." -- Masq with some spoiler spec for next
week, 06:13:38 04/10/03 Thu
Don't you think that basically sums up Angel's less-than-
tactful opinion, coming out of the mouth of Angelus?
It's like VampAnne telling William Anne's deepest darkest
thoughts that she'd never (want to) admit to in life.
I think they're just scared because they're alone in their
perceptions of Jasmine. I don't think it's a new wrinkle in
the turgid supernatural soap opera
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: "She's kinda bony for my taste, but different
strokes..." -- maddog, 07:30:08 04/10/03 Thu
Couldn't it all just be a dream? :) That would be nice.
[> [> [>
Writing credit spoiler for next week's AtS and total
spec -- Rob, 23:15:43 04/09/03 Wed
I read that Jeffrey Bell wrote and directed the next ep.
And you can totally mock me for saying this, but I thought
the singing looked pretty funny. And ya never know, maybe
Lorne will read them while they're singing and come up with
some hidden message about killing Jasmine, or something.
Rob
[> [> [>
Just adding to another Scary episode?? -- neaux,
04:37:44 04/10/03 Thu
When I saw that in the trailer.. I wanted to laugh but
instead it was pure Horror!!
cant wait to get the beejeezes scared out of me next
week.
[> [> [>
Re: Oh, and may I just pause to say (spoilers for next
week's AtS trailer) -- Yoda, 06:53:24 04/10/03
Thu
Masq here is a theory for you (see #2 below). These
observations were made by a poster named Tess on the Angel
Spoiler Board.
"Two things:
1. It seems that touching Jasmine's blood allows you to see
the real her. The guy in the mental hospital got her blood
on him from the vampire that injured her and Fred touched
Jasmine's blood when cleaning her shirt.
2. I noticed this since I just finished watching the season
1 DVDs but doesn't the real Jasmine's face look a lot like
the demon Vocah (sp?) that was brought up from the
underground to raise Darla in "To Shanshu in LA". They both
have the same creepy maggot infested half eaten away face.
Just wondering? He was really the one that kind of started a
lot of this story line after all."
[> [> [> [>
I thought the same thing... -- Masq, 09:34:33
04/10/03 Thu
I noticed this since I just finished watching the season
1 DVDs but doesn't the real Jasmine's face look a lot like
the demon Vocah (sp?) that was brought up from the
underground to raise Darla in "To Shanshu in LA". They both
have the same creepy maggot infested half eaten away face.
Although I think the similarity is just in general
creepiness of the effect. Vocah was a "warrior of the
underworld". My theory is that Jasmine is a "higher being"
who has descended to our plane. Well-intentioned but really
clueless about what it best for humankind.
OTOH, the similiarities of their appearances could mean
something.
[> [> [> [> [>
They were both were icky and 'eew', that's for sure
-- pellenaka, 13:31:43 04/10/03 Thu
[> [>
Re: Any theories about "what" J is? --
KKC, 02:00:05 04/10/03 Thu
Theories on what our new character is? I've got a disturbing
one...
Maybe she really is the 'Powers That Be.' Maybe she is
exactly what she has always claimed to be, one of the two
primal forces in conflict on Earth before man arrived (the
other presumably being the First Evil.) She's responsible
for bringing Angel back from hell, for Connor's birth, for
Cordelia's ascension, and for the creation of the Slayers
(although granted, she's only verbally taken credit for the
two in the middle.) She's been responsible for Cordelia's
visions, for the intervention of Skip and Whistler, and for
anything else that combats the forces aligned with the first
evil.
Now here comes the disturbing part. Although Jasmine, the
'First Good' if you wish, is dedicated to fighting demons
and other forces of the First Evil, that doesn't mean that
she cares one bit about the survival or welfare of mankind.
Man just happens to be on the side of 'good' and is
therefore a tool to be used in the fight, and nothing more.
This explains the actions and words of the character as
we've seen in just the one episode, and it makes Jasmin just
as 'evil' as her enemies. At least from the standpoint of an
impartial human observer.
I understand the Sumerian creation epic works along these
lines. Two forces aligned against each other fight a long
and bloody battle. One side is defeated and is banished. The
other side lays the groundwork for human civilization. And
while the victors can be said to be the 'good guys,' there's
nothing in their methods or their morality that suggests
there's anything 'good' about them.
-KKC, who doesn't have an explanation for Fred's observation
yet.
[> [> [>
That's what I think too. -- Areethusa, 03:45:21
04/10/03 Thu
I think you're absolutely right, KKC. She is what she said
she is, although she certainly didn't say much about
herself. (Can you vague that up a little, Jasmine?) I'm not
sure how much she's responsible for, since gods have a
tendency to take credit for everything. But yeah, her
concern was probably maintaining balance until she got tired
of the whole good and evil thing. Just like the FE, she
decided to step in and end the good-evil tug of war, to stop
the suffering. Or else.
So why Fred? It might have something to do with her
reaction to Jasmine and faith. We don't know what went on
in the other guy's head, but bliss for Fred meant anxiety
and pain. Nothing she did was good enough and without her
god around constantly to give her constant reassurance she
felt lost and frightened. Trying to worship made her
unsatisfied. But hey, maybe it's because of Pylea or some
mystical reason. Maybe it was the bleach fumes.
[> [> [> [>
And why Angel (spec for next week) -- Masq,
06:21:48 04/10/03 Thu
Angel was dangerously close to having a moment of true
happiness this week and he knew it. Jasmine kind of blew it
off with the non-sequiter, "We'll eradicate evil", but she's
promising them all bliss. And Angel is afraid of bliss.
Maybe that will wake him up.
Although I'm wondering if Fred and that guy at the
restaurant who "saw" the mushy-faced Jasmine might not be
the ones who were hallucinating. They both got kind of
grandiose about their "mission". Maybe they're the ones who
aren't seeing clearly....? Just a thought.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: And why Angel (spec for next week and spoilers for
last night's ep) -- VampRiley, 06:54:16 04/10/03
Thu
Makes sense about how Fred lost the hold Jasmine had on her
and I think that might wake Angel up, too. Emotionally
traumatic events have a habit of screwing people up, as well
as clearing the fog that's been around their brains.
Whatever Jasmine may have been "long ago", today, she's a
clear and very good example as evil as order, much worse
than The Master was. He wanted order and evil through fear.
With The Master, you knew where you stood with him. He was
very clear about what he wanted from life and from you.
Jasmine, she makes you think you really love her and want to
worship her. I liked how they had the rotting flesh for what
the man and Fred saw. It symbolizes just what Jasmine does.
She offers peace, tranquility and getting along-ness. You
can have free will, but just as long as it doesn't go
against her view of things. She talks of how she's gonna
make everything better. Says there's important work to be
done. Yet, what she's doing is removing the free will of
those that gaze upon her, turning her followers into nothing
more than mindless puppets, whose bodies are devoid of any
kind of "existence" beyond what she gives to them. She turns
them into what Fred and that bloke saw. No life, no
individual spark. Just a lifeless husk of rotting flesh.
They remind me of the cops from The Thin Dead Line and the
zombies that were created from the employees of W&H after
the Beast killed them. Their strings are being pulled by
another.
If she really is as old as she wants us to believe, then,
she must know of her power to make those that look at her
and hear her voice want to revere her. She said that humans
were the ones who were failed because of her or their
inaction, but she doesn't believe in humanity anymore. She
might have at one point, but she doesn't want to take the
"good with the bad".
She said to Angel to not worry about him losing his soul.
That they will be eradicating all evil. Maybe she has plans
of getting rid of Angel? She did say that "everything has
it's season." That it was Connor's time now. Connor has some
of the powers of a vampire without having to be a vampire.
He may be part demon, but he isn't a vampire, like
Angel.
VR
[> [> [>
I vote that she's One of them perhaps, but not all of
them -- Masq, 06:16:24 04/10/03 Thu
I think there are still hands-off benevolent PTB's up there
who aren't interfering like she's chosing to do.
[> [> [> [>
Re: I vote that she's One of them perhaps, but not all
of them -- Wolfhowl3, 06:23:55 04/10/03 Thu
Is it really so different then what the PTB have been doing
for the last 4 years?
Consider what the AI team have been doing, getting Visons,
going to kill what they are told to kill. I think the only
real difference is Jasmian needs her ego stroked.
Wolfie
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I vote that she's One of them perhaps, but not all
of them -- KKC, 14:08:17 04/10/03 Thu
Wolfie raises a good point that if Jasmine is (all of or one
of) the Powers That Be, his/her methods this year are really
not that much different from the past three. Sending visions
to someone and guilting her into fighting evil really is a
hand's breadth away from just showing up and enchanting her
into doing the same.
Just to complete my earlier ramblings... If there is only
one first evil, then I think just for symmetry's sake there
should be only one Power That Be, or that all the powers are
now encapsulated and personified in this single Jasmine
being. If there is going to be fight between good and evil
that will end all other conflicts, then what should happen
is that BOTH should be banished from the Earth this time,
leaving mankind to live based on free will and self
determination alone. That ending wouldn't be possible if
there are other Powers That Be still around and silently
interfering.
And that's about as close as I can come to publically
disagreeing with Masq without feeling silly and arrogant.
:)
-KKC, watching Jacksonville slowly become Los Angeles.
There's no reason for freeways in Florida to be seven
stories tall.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
My reasons for thinking there's more than one --
Masq, 15:58:44 04/10/03 Thu
I don't mind disagreement, after all, I am often wrong, and
usually change my episode analyses to reflect new points of
view and correct errors.
I think there is more than one PTB because I think that
Jasmine was controlling Cordelia's actions when she killed
that virgin girl last week. And another PTB (or more than
one) sent Darla to whisper in Connor's other ear.
Jasmine doesn't want people to think for themselves and make
up their own minds about things. She's got them all falling
on their knees looking for ways to please her. The PTB's
that sent Darla wanted Connor to PREVENT Jasmine's
birth.
Now you can say that Darla was sent by the First Evil, or
that she WAS the First Evil, but she did not follow the
First's M.O. in anyway. She wanted Connor to follow what his
conscience was already telling him. She wanted to empower
him.
Personally, I think there is some connection between the
events of BtVS and AtS, but I'm not going to try to guess
what it is. On AtS, I believe there is a war going on among
the PTBs about how much to interfere in human lives.
They already interefere, granted, but it's a matter of
degree.
We don't know which individual PTBs are responsible for
which particular miraculous actions over the past four
years, but there's no reason to think these entities speak
or act with one voice.
Some PTB's want more intereference, for, they believe, the
greater good of humankind. Some want less interference, for
the value of human choice and free will. The former is
Jasmine's world, the later is the world of the PTBs that
sent Darla to Connor and allowed Connor to fail because his
right to choose was paramount.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
For what it's worth...I agree with Masq -- s'kat,
18:42:34 04/10/03 Thu
I've read all the interesting responses to who is J threads
as well as Sol's views above. And based on the information I
have regarding the creators of the series?
There's probably more than one entity at work here.
Going back to H.P. Lovecraft (who I guess I need to add to
my reading list - so cannot afford another book right now,
sigh) and Marvel Comics : There are three entities or elder
gods. One is Gaea who imbued the earth with her essence and
connects all living things with it. One is Set who committed
the first murder. And one is Cthon - who came up with a
spell to get him and Set out of the dimension and free. Now
going back to the whole Glorificus mythos - Glory was one of
three gods ruling a hell-dimension, she got exiled into this
one and fought to get back home. Who are our writers?
Joss Whedon - angry and rabid athesist
ME troops who wisely keep their mouths shut but my guess
fall between religious-agnostic-athesist spectrum
David Greenwalt - uncertain Judeao/Christian bordering on
agnostic
What do they all share in common? They are comic book and HP
Lovecraft geeks. They particularly love the Marvel Universe
- which in itself loves Lovecraft. (I have a friend who is
into Lovecraft and has read Marvel and assures me they are
connected.)
So logic dictates that we probably have three entities here:
1. First Evil (Chthon in Marvelverse) who can't take
corporeal form. 2. Jasmine (either Set or something
close)
OR Set could be FE and Jasmine could be Chton? No clue.
3. Gaea - the third is the earth which is a deity that does
not interfer so much as just remind the characters they are
connected and occasionally do miracles.
How does it break down?
1. FE - tries to sew disorder, creates vampires, pushes the
big bads. It doesn't make their choices for them. It just
works to persuade them to do it's bidding. Now it's bored
and wants a confrontation. This thing is what tried to get
Angel to kill himself, motivated all the big bads on Btvs,
is trying to manipulate Spike and triggered Spike, and is
behind D'Hoffryn, etc.
2. The essence that connects us, or whatever you want to
call it. This is probably behind the snow storm in Amends,
giving Spike a soul (although that's debatable - have no
proof on this one either way), Darla's appearence to Connor,
and possibly the power behind the slayer line (also
debatable)
3. JAsmine - the one that may have been behind Angel's
return to Buffyverse, his cursed soul (this too is debatable
and far more likely to hit FE or Gaea territory??)
and Cordelia and Connor. Jasmine sort of reminds me of the
Glory in this group. The one who prefered interferring and
wasn't content playing Iago or just prodding here and
there.
This one has probably been working on FE guy for a while
now. And I'm sure, assuming Jasmine isn't FE - which I
doubt, is gloating up a storm that she got corporeal
first.
It's the middle essence whose into choice that the other two
are probably annoyed with. And the middle one is an Elder
god. Neither good nor evil.
That's what my gut tells me. I think we got three here, not
two. Now I could always be proven wrong.
I have another pet theory on Connor and the shanshu prophecy
deal if anyone's interested? ;-)
SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Very interested.. Beans. Spill them. -- Arethusa,
19:01:28 04/10/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Okay ...regarding Connor/shanshu(future speculation
for Ats) -- s'kat, 19:31:50 04/10/03 Thu
My pet theory:
Connor is the one who shanshues. Remember he's part
demon.
We show him in the mirror aping Angel's vampire expression
in Release or is it Salvage?? Can't remember which one.
Just as Angel did the vampire expression in Spin the
Bottle.
So - what if the shanshu prophecy is about Connor? What if
Connor shanshues because of Jasmine into a vampire? That
would be a wonderfully ironic twist.
Then to save the world, Angel has to kill the one thing he
loves most in all the world?
Think about it - this solves two prophecies in one.
1. to live you must first die? We know Wes may have read
that wrong.
2. the father will kill the son. (according to Tim Minear's
commentaries, this prophecy is still valid...even if Saijhan
says he changed it - he may have been manipulated to change
it.)We just have no clue when that was supposed to
happen.
3. The parasites tell them through Fred - that the Destroyer
is coming - meaning Connor?
So I'm wondering if Jasmine turns Connor into a monster,
Angel has to kill him? My gut tells me that Connor may not
make it to next year. (Of course this was the same silly gut
who thought Fred would die in Calvery...so I could be wrong
or missing a link here.)
If it does happen - it will be a motivating factor for Angel
to go to SunnyD and talk to Buffy. Having to kill the one
person he loved most??
And has anyone else noticed that every time Angel or Buffy
consider killing someone this year they pick up a sword and
its a sword that looks a great deal like the one in
Becoming? (Selfless - shiny bright sword and through Anya's
stomach)(Beast - sword through him in Awakenings and
Release)(Cordelia - Angel tries to kill her and the baby
with sword through stomach...).
Would ME kill off someone in their credits?? Would they be
so cruel as to have Angel kill his son? Would they be nasty
enough to have Connor be the one who shanshues but into a
vampire not a human? Don't know...but I think it would be a
clever bait and switch to play on the audience and a way to
get rid of two pesky prophecies.
SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ummmmm no. -- Rufus, 22:14:08 04/10/03 Thu
You just may be very surprised to see where Connor ends up
at the end of the season...think back to the first
episode.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Which first episode? Connors? Angels? Buffy's? This
seasons? -- Masq, 05:28:36 04/11/03 Fri
It's obvious Connor is being set up for something big by
Jasmine. She seems to prefer him over Angel, and I think it
has a lot to do with Angelus, and with the fact that Connor
is her creation (or usurpation), which Angel is not.
I only hope Connor survives the season (if the show survives
the season!). I kinda like him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Entering the guessing game again...;-) -- s'kat,
08:47:45 04/11/03 Fri
Well if the First episode is Deep Down?
1. Under the sea (Angel's fate in Deep Down- which is
ironically fitting)
2. At W&H (Wes's fate)
3. In a mystical realm unable to talk to anyone (Cordelia's
fate - equally fitting)
If first episode is City of?
Sitting at a bar getting drunk, which uh, kinda boring, but
you never know.
In first episode of Buffy? Welcome to the Hellmouth? In the
Hellmouth.
In the first episode of this year's buffy? In the Basement
of Sunnydale high? Or the Summer's house? Uhm not logically
feasible...but you never know.
My bet is it's either mystical realm or under the sea.
Thanks for the answer on the above, Ruf...
SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Connor -- Rufus, 23:31:55 04/11/03 Fri
First....who says that Connor is Jasmine's creation? We only
have Jasmine's word for it.
Now to Connor. He has had it rough...lousy hair, brought up
in hell, and a Champion dad. But look at how he started. You
could say that Jasmine and Connor had similar beginnings as
having evil roots but look at it.....when Connor's soul
kicked in, Darla became good, she wanted the best for her
son and even started to apologize for some of her actions
(the scene when her water broke in the back of the car is
priceless). Darla became a person, she wasn't evil, and she
was ready to die to save her son....the only good thing she
ever has done. Then we have Jasmine...who may have the name
of a flower but her stories stink. The reason I say this is
because of what Cordy became while pregnant....she was under
the influence of evil and became a passenger in her own body
while whatever (beastmaster) was in control went about
killing and trying to blot the sun out. The beastmaster used
Cordy and Connor to give birth to himself....and I don't
think the birth pains changed the result into a good thing.
Connor may have a suspect background but it was the
influence of his human soul that impacted everyone around
him, even Darla.
Jasmine....well Jasmine is safe because of an evil act
involving death just as Connor, the difference is one was a
willing sacrifice out of love and one was a sacrificial
murder. Now that Jasmine is here everyone is acting like
they should be at an airport selling flowers and whatever
path Angel should be on has been forgotten, all to worship
this being who would have people thing that she is a "power
that was". The end of Shiny Happy People has Fred getting
out of a resturant when she sees Jasmine on TV....note that
a man is walking outside and when he sees Jasmine his
destination (maybe a job) is immediately forgotten as he
drops to his knees....this can't be a good thing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Oh I was suspicious of Jasmine's claims myself --
Masq, 11:42:36 04/12/03 Sat
I absolutely love the idea that Connor was conceived as a
result of the life Angel was owed for being willing to
sacrifice himself for Darla in the Realm of the Trials.
That's metaphysically and emotionally pleasing at the same
time: it explains how a vampire could get pregnant, and it
means that despite Angel and Darla's attitudes at the time
they had sex, Connor was actually conceived through an act
of love, not an act of despair and disdain. I hope this part
of what Jasmine said is true.
In my episode analysis, I hypothesize that Jasmine took
advantage of Connor's miraculous conception for her own
purposes, but that perhaps she didn't cause it.
She has a definite agenda for Connor above and beyond his
fatherhood role, and the question for me is not whether it
is good or bad, but whether it is well-intentioned or not.
What intrigues me about Jasmine is that she seems to believe
what she says. She did all these awful things while inside
Cordelia, but in her mind, they were necessary to bring
about something she sees as beneficial to humankind. I'm
hoping she is a PTB that's gotten too ambitious, that has no
real conception of what good and evil mean to mere mortals,
and who is trying to promulgate her own conception of
perfection on us in a way that can only, in the end, make
our lives worse because our freedom to chose and make
mistakes and be true heroes will be gone.
[> [> [>
Re: Any theories about "what" J is? --
lunasea, 09:51:42 04/10/03 Thu
Not sure if Joss is going to go strictly by the Enuma Elish,
but so far so good. I wouldn't say Jasmine is THE Powers
that Be. It is plural. She is ONE of them. I don't think
they all poured themselves into her. She is Tiamat. Apsu is
still out there, along with their children and
grandchildren.
Darla was sent by/allowed to come by someone. Either the
First did it to prevent Jasmine's arrival or the other
Powers did, because they realize that the paradise she
offers is really a hell to some. It isn't their place to
create paradise because that is asking them to choose among
their children. Parents tend to let their kids work things
out. Isn't that what we've been doing?
I think she is on the level. She does have humanity's best
interest in mind and she does love us. She doesn't offer
false hope. She offers HOPE period. When we start to label
things true/false, good/evil in the Buffyverse, we tend to
get into trouble. No black and no white in the entire verse.
I am waiting for the First to do something to grey things
up.
I think Jasmine wants to make a special place for the
special people. Just who those special people are will
factor into why some can see through her. Those people who
see her as icky would be the ones to mess up Jasmine's
paradise. They don't see her as a savior. Jasmine wants
everyone to be special, but it just can't be that way. She
can't control people. She can't take away our free will. I
don't think people are enchanted, in the sense that she is
putting a spell over them to do her biding. Instead they are
attracted to what she is. The key to breaking that
enchantment is not being attracted to that. (then again, I'm
never right)
One scene that hit me most was Angel being worried about
being happy. Angel has been disparaging the Powers all
season. He has lost his Faith in them. Still he hung onto
the belief that they had choosen Cordy to ascend because she
had proven herself. The Corallary to that is if Angel was
still a vampire and couldn't be happy, he hadn't proven
himself to them. Daddy/Mommy didn't love him, so he didn't
love them back. He still wants their love though. Jasmine
doesn't offer him false hope. She offers him hope, period.
She says that Mommy and Daddy do love him. I don't think she
has told one lie. She isn't the Princess of Lies. That is
too obvious.
It sets Angel up with a major dilema. Jasmine can rid the
world of all evil, including the evil in him. She can give
him everything he ever wanted. Is he willing to see Fred
killed or hurt to do this? Is he willing to let the non-
special people be shut out of this paradise? I am going to
say no.
But Connor will be. That is why Angel's time will pass. It
may be why Jasmine wanted him to be Angelus. She needed the
tremendous love that is Angel's soul to grandparent her.
That love created Connor in the Trials. (kudos to those who
predicted that he was the life that Angel earned in "The
Trials") Now that he has served his purpose, she isn't going
to discard him (he will be her general as long as he wants),
but she knows he will take himself out of things evenutally
and fight for the status quo rather than what she offers
(thus the side he picks in the Apocalypse). Jasmine
understands goodness, unlike anything Buffy or Angel have
faced before.
Connor is going to side with Jasmine even when he finds out
what is going on. He is one of the special people and
paradise is being made for him. This will set up more of a
problem with Angel. Not only will he have to fight against
paradise for himself and many others, but he will have to
fight against his son. If Jasmine is just a False Messiah
the problems aren't really there. Jasmine is offering
paradise to the vast majority of humans. Is it right to
prevent that because of what it does to a small percentage?
Connor will side with paradise and Angel won't. Who is
right? Can't be too black and white. Wouldn't be the
Buffyverse.
I don't think we are seeing the typical False Messiah
storyline. Jasmine is as real as it gets. If Jesus were to
show up today, what do you think would happen? Peace on
Earth? Yeah right. Two things would happen. The believers
would beat up the non-believers, like Angel beat up that
guy. The other thing is that nothing would get done. People
would gather on hills to hear the Messiah speak. What would
be left of civilization? People's lives would revolve around
the Messiah. They wouldn't have a life any more.
Look what happened to Fred. She was isolated from Jasmine
and this depressed her. The world became hard, bright and
violent without her. Fred's life was devouted to Jasmine.
This was symbolized by her obsession with the shirt. The
guys can contribute to Jasmine by fighting and creating
Jasmine's paradise. Fred can't do that. She felt she was to
blame for Jasmine's injury. She felt she wasn't special.
This cut her out of paradise and that is why she saw
Jasmine's face as something else. (again, I tend to be wrong
about things)
As for the trailer (and I like the idea. Angel should be
with someone sweet, funny and smart) it is probably a way to
break Jasmine's hold over him. I am sure he will be tempted
to go back to her. It may be his way of affirming his
commitment to the not-so-special. It will be scary to turn
his back on paradise. Angel is good at convincing himself to
do really scary things.
Let's just hope he figures things out quickly and he gets
better wardrobe. Great to have him out of dark colors, but
that shirt. GAHHHHHH!!!!
[> [> [> [>
Re: Any theories about "what" J is? -- Angelus,
14:30:40 04/10/03 Thu
The only bone I have to pick is that, if we go with biblical
myth, when Jesus showed up most people didn't recognize him
as the messiah and refused to believe while a few did.
Jasmine is the reverse of that. Almost everyone believes
while a few don't. She is more a representation of what a
deity becomes in a longstanding religion that is a vast
organization than a representation of what happens at that
core origin moment when a true messiah appears.
Going with the Jesus metaphor (and no I'm not a believer but
still I'm going with the story), he says all sorts of things
that people don't want to hear. He tells them their faults
and he tells them the price of sacrifice they have to pay
for the reward. In that sense, he isn't perfect bliss
telling everyone what they want to hear and having them
walking around in a euphoria. "He who follows me must pick
up his cross and follow me daily." Your earthly rewards
will be nothing but sweat and toil and persecution but you
will be with him in paradise. "Why do you call me good? No
one is good save God alone." In that respect, Jasmine
reminds me more of the biblical concept of Satan, joy and
peace and beauty and 'I love you' and all I want is for you
to be happy and as seemingly innocent as a child on the
outside. Rotten and wanting naught but absolute power on
the inside.
I'm not sure on the idea that she is one of the Powers That
Be. They had always been presented as a force opposing the
demons, sort of God without saying God. Then again, there
is no reason they cannot be a conglomeration of beings that
predate humanity and the concepts of good and evil as we
understand them- which would mean possibly predating the FE.
What I wonder is, where is the First Good? Then again if
the FG showed up in corporeal form to fight the fight, it
wouldn't be the Buffy and Angel shows anymore.
[> [> [>
A slight variation on this theory... -- Thomas the
Skeptic, 10:21:33 04/10/03 Thu
I believe that Jasmine is one of the elder gods tha Giles
described in "Welcome to the Hellmouth", those supremely
demonic beings who ruled the world before mankind emerged
(evolved?). Like in the H.P. Lovecraft mythos, they were
expelled from our plane of existence and have spent every
second since frantically trying to get back in
(parenthetically, I also think that many tentacled whatis we
saw in the burst of light in which Jasmine was "born" was a
shadow of her true form, sort of like the shadows in
Plato's cave). Its possible that these elder gods are "The
Powers That Be" but I think the jury is still out on that.
I don't think, however, that the FE is the same type of
being as Jasmine. I take it at its word on this point and
think that it is the evil that inheres and resides as an
element of every conscious being. Thus the FE would predate
even the elder gods as it would be a part of them. At some
point the FE acquired independent awareness and decided it
did'nt want to just be a passive observer of the world of
the living but an active mover and shaker. Now, as some
people have already begun to speculate, the goals of Jasmine
and the FE are diametrically opposed (absolute control vs
absolute annihilation) so a good old fashioned "war of the
villains" could definitely be in the works. Of course, ME
being ME, they could go in an entirely different
direction...
[> [>
Re: Any theories about "what" J is? --
Rufus, 05:22:25 04/10/03 Thu
Because yes, all that blind devotion is scary. But what
do you think those monsters on Space 1999 wanted with the
people they lured? Love? Devotion? Worship? Dinner? Chaos?
Order? Control?
More than one of the things you have mentioned above is
right.
Powers that Be....or a big old faker....it's everyone's
choice on what to believe.
And on a totally shallow note.....how did Angel manage to
fall onto Fred's lips in next week's promo?
[> [>
New literary paradigm--could be totally wacked --
ELR, 06:45:07 04/10/03 Thu
OK--here's my theory. Testing, testing...
Forget Yeats. Or no, don't forget him, but filter him
through William Blake, who wrote a very confusing little
tome called The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, in which
he redefines "good" and "evil" thus (and don't forget what
Milton said in Areopagitica about the
impossibility:
"Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and
Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary
to Human existence.
"From these contraries spring what the religious call Good
and Evil. God is the passive that obeys Reason. Evil is the
active springing from Energy.
"Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell."
Confused yet? Good! Or rather, fine! Blake isn't talking
about "religious" categories of good and evil, heaven and
hell. He's redefining them for life on earth. "I must
Create a System or be enslaved by another Man's." The
problem was, he still had to use existing words. (Later, he
tried to overcome that problem by creating new words,
confusing people even more. I won't even go there.)
Among the "Proverbs of Hell" in the Marriage is "Damn
braces; Bless relaxes." We're seeing this principle at work
with the night-blooming Jasmine, whose blessing of everyone
around her relaxes them into unwary, "shiny, happy people"
who are also--oops--virtually enslaved. Only Fred, who
feels "damned" is braced enough to resist.
I'm probably getting in way over my head with Blake. Not
even Blake scholars claim to fully understand Blake, and
most people think he was a little loony. But he has
irresistible flames of genius, nevertheless, and I think he
may offer some insight here.
[> [> [>
Not whacked at all - I completely agree -- Rahael,
06:51:09 04/10/03 Thu
And glad that others are thinking of Areopagitica
too!
And also, in Samson Agonistes, Milton shows what choice is
available to those individuals who still stand firm, who
choose 'strenuous liberty' while all around them, others
choose 'bondage with ease'.
But as you demonstrate Blake is certainly very relevant too,
how delightful!
[> [> [> [>
Re: Not whacked at all - I completely agree -- ELR,
06:54:28 04/10/03 Thu
So, Rahael, wanna co-write an essay with me?
[> [> [> [> [>
Oh, I am so tempted! -- Rahael,
07:06:30 04/10/03 Thu
I actually have in mind a much longer term, over-arcing
essay on Angel and Samson Agonistes which I've had in mind
for a couple of years, but that can wait.
There's more to be done on Milton, Blake and what's going on
currently!
Hmmm, what kind of timescale were you thinking? I'm goodish
for the next week, but I disappear for real life work
reasons for most of the week after (though that would in
itself be handy for reading and writing.)
But I'm up for speed writing something informal quickly!
(I'm not one of life's patient polishers). Email me!
I would especially welcome working on a basic argument with
you and helping adding in plenty of quotey-analytical
goodness to flesh it out. I'm especially up for this because
I have the basic texts available at home.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Oh, please do! -- Masq, 09:42:44 04/10/03
Thu
Help me figure all this Jasmine stuff out and have some
impressive Milton and those-other-guys quotes to top it off
with!
Something informal and quick would suit me fine...
For quoting on my site, of course, I mean.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Oh, found the quotage... -- Masq, 09:49:49
04/10/03 Thu
"It was from out the rinde of one apple tasted, that the
knowledge of good and evill as two twins cleaving together
leapt forth into the World. And perhaps this is that doom
which Adam fell into of knowing good and evill, that is to
say of knowing good by evill. As therefore the state of man
now is; what wisdome can there be to choose, what continence
to forbeare without the knowledge of evill?"
-John Milton, Areopagitica
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Yeah you might want to consider how Paradise Lost fits
in with the Buffyverse -- Rufus, 21:29:54 04/10/03
Thu
[> [> [>
Something got lost -- ELR, 06:52:07 04/10/03
Thu
I think I meant to say:
(and don't forget what Milton said in Areopagitica
about the impossibility of knowing good without knowing evil
in this world)
Real life interruptions.
[> [>
Re: Any theories about "what" J is? --
Yoda, 06:49:12 04/10/03 Thu
Masq here is a theory for you (see # 2 below). I pulled
this over from the Angel Spoiler Board. Tess made the
following observations.
"Two things:
1. It seems that touching Jasmine's blood allows you to see
the real her. The guy in the mental hospital got her blood
on him from the vampire that injured her and Fred touched
Jasmine's blood when cleaning her shirt.
2. I noticed this since I just finished watching the season
1 DVDs but doesn't the real Jasmine's face look a lot like
the demon Vocah (sp?) that was brought up from the
underground to raise Darla in "To Shanshu in LA". They both
have the same creepy maggot infested half eaten away face.
Just wondering? He was really the one that kind of started a
lot of this story line after all."
[> [>
All that glitters -- Cactus Watcher, 07:35:33
04/10/03 Thu
I can't help but feel Jasmine is not one of the PTBs, but
something more than a run-of-the-mill primal demon. She's
been attacking evil as it exists (Wolfram & Hart, vamps
demons), but for what reason? Most likey to install her own
brand of evil. Right now, I'd simply have to call her a
destroyer, an aspect of death itself, but that probably
won't hold up.
Why can Fred tell something is wrong? Sol's theory is good,
but I'm wondering if what Fred was afraid of isn't part of
it. She asked the man in the mental ward if he'd been there
before. He doesn't answer. The insane could see through
Dawn. Fred had been insane before in Pylea, and went on a
compulsive, trippy mixture of self doubt and self-loathing
while cleaning the blouse, while everyone else was out
fighting evil with a clear conscience. I wonder, also, why
Cordy is still alive, and apparently in a coma.
[> [> [>
Second Sight -- Doug, 09:53:03 04/10/03 Thu
From the BtVS 5.13 "Blood Ties"
DAWN: "The key is not directly described in any known
literature, but all research indicates an energy matrix
vibrating at a dimensional frequency beyond normal human
perception. Only those outside reality can see the key's
true nature." (shakes head) Outside reality. What's that
mean?
SPIKE: Mm. Second-sight blokes, mostly. (Puts out his
cigarette in an item on the shelf) Or even just your run-of-
the-mill lunatics.
Remember how those who were insane could perceive Dawn as
the Key, rather than the visage of a teenage girl that she
is in this reality? Maybe those who are at least slightly
insane, or have been in the past, can see through Jasmine's
appearance in this reality and see the maggot face.
Maybe Fred should go recruit an army of LA's insane.
[> [>
Re: Any theories about "what" J is? --
genivive, 17:09:51 04/10/03 Thu
Are you sure she knows what she is?
[>
Great post as always, shadowkat. (spoilers AtS
4.18) -- Ixchel, 22:36:56 04/09/03 Wed
IMHO it was exposure to Jasmine's blood that enabled Fred to
"see" her. I think that the vampire who attacked Jasmine
transferred some of her blood into Stoler (man who tried to
kill Jasmine) when he scratched him. Later Fred says she
washed the bloody shirt until her fingers bled, again
transferring Jasmine's blood. This reminds me of a
fairytale where the human is able to see the true (and ugly)
nature of the fairies when some fairy ointment gets in her
eye.
A really _interesting_ episode.
Ixchel
[>
Re: False Hopes, Messiahs, Scams...(spoilers for Ats
4.18) -- Copper, 22:46:57 04/09/03 Wed
The best liars/scam artists/false prophets are those who
believe their lies. Jasmine may be so convincing because
she truly believes she is here to save the world; to make it
a perfect place. When she looks at herself, I imagine she
sees a beautiful, caring woman and is truly puzzled by
Fred's reaction.
Of course, next week could prove me wrong. My tape ended
before next week's teaser began.
[>
Tremendously terrific, s'kat! -- Dead Soul,
23:20:55 04/09/03 Wed
[>
Trailers bad (no trailer spoiler, SHP spoiler,
spec) -- skyMatrix, 23:51:10 04/09/03 Wed
Last week I caught a glimpse of Fred walking alone in the
trailer, so I knew she'd be immune. So I ended up looking
for it the whole way through the ep, and for much of the
first half, I even believed that Fred was maybe just faking
her devotion to Jasmine. So once again, this reminds me why
I really should avoid those trailers (and why I do avoid
spoilers). If I know that a certain thing, even a relatively
minor thing, is going to happen, my enjoyment of the episode
is decreased because I often spend much of it waiting for
the event in the trailer to happen. When you realize that
that shot of Fred alone in "Los Angeles" (boy was that ever
an obvious backlot shot! It looked like Boston or something)
was the last shot, and yet they had that in the trailer, you
have to wonder if trailers are that different from
spoilers!
As for thoughts on the episode, I think maybe they should
have had Fred learn about Jasmine sooner, because that way
the ep would have had a protaganist. (Despite my
frustrations with the preview, I still think this is a valid
problem with the ep itself.) Merely watching everyone
worship Jasmine gets monotonous, for me, after a while.
I wanted to like this ep, because I like the idea,
especially if she really is a "god" or a PtB. I am a
Christian (albeit heretical) but I think there's a good
reason why God gives us free will, even though many won't
believe in God specifically because he does give us
free will (i.e. he allows bad to happen). It would be
fascinating if we see that there is some kind of heavenly
conflict, or something like that. If Jasmine really is just
a world-ending demon in disguise, this storyline will
dissapoint me. They are threatening to go down a very
interesting path, and I dare them to follow it to its
logical completion. If anyone's read His Dark
Materials they have an inkling of what I'm talking
about, although this would probably be something a little
different...
[>
Excellent analogies and I am applauding this entire
post wildly! -- Briar Rose (free will for all!),
02:13:59 04/10/03 Thu
[>
Re: False Hopes, Messiahs, Scams...(spoilers for Ats
4.18) -- Celebaelin, 04:37:37 04/10/03 Thu
OK, so, absolutely no idea what's going on in AtS S4 but
then again neither has anyone who's actually seen it.
Wishing to be amusing rather than insulting there seems to
be a preponderance of 'infinite number of mokeys' syndrome.
It seems that pov is everything and if the audience aren't a
witness to the big bad revealing the plot to its' minions
then pretty much anything could be happening. Sounds
fantastic, and if convention is being bucked to that extent
who's to say that the majority aren't right and it's Fred
who's wrong? Don't look for quick fixes, S5 could be
spectacularly interesting (but probably quite hard
work).
[>
Re: False Hopes, Messiahs, Scams...(spoilers for Ats
4.18) -- Arethusa, 05:16:22 04/10/03 Thu
Oh, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. No angst, no
suffering, true devotion, heart's ease. Everyone got along,
everyone was happy. All they had to do was sugjegate their
will.
Power's a scary thing, and the power of fanaticsm is one of
the scariest, whether it's a terrorist on the other side of
the world or a president who thinks he's on a mission from
God.
Good post, sk. (Although Medusa's a bit annoyed about the
maggot crack.)
[>
This was more of "The Dangers of Religeous
Fundementalism" episode -- Majin Gojira,
05:51:45 04/10/03 Thu
People that follow blindly can be tricked into doing
horrible things in the name of 'good'. That's where we get
Human Sacrifices, Witch Trails and Young Earth
Creationism.
The Woman can be seen as an Anti-Christ figure, it is
masking it's evil as good.
So far, we've seen it do 2 things: Go after demons, Gather
Followers.
Superficially, these things look to be 'good', but when we
look at what's displayed, we see a powerful, mind-effecting
magic that robs people of their free will and rational
thought.
I'm reminded of Fundementalists in so many ways...(I have a
mild thing against Fundementalist ANYTHING, so don't think
I'm picking on a specific religeon. I'm cool with anything
as long as you don't shove it in my face obnoxiously...and
that's what 'fundies' are bread to do)
Plus, since Buffy/Angel are both Lovecraftian, we know that
many of the Old Ones/Elder Gods/Etc. Don't get along.
Is the Woman Evil? Hell yeah, it's robbing the people of
their free will and rational thought, bending them to it's
will. Subjugating them. It's slowly taking over the world.
Not with an army, not with an apocalype. But with an
enchantment that promots Religeous Zealotry towards it.
[> [>
Excellent, blunt, points! Very well said. --
Solitude1056, 08:35:13 04/10/03 Thu
[> [>
Re: This was more of "The Dangers of Religeous
Fundementalism" episode -- Rob, 08:40:13
04/10/03 Thu
"Is the Woman Evil? Hell yeah, it's robbing the people of
their free will and rational thought, bending them to it's
will. Subjugating them. It's slowly taking over the world.
Not with an army, not with an apocalype. But with an
enchantment that promots Religeous Zealotry towards it."
I agree. But do you think she would perceive herself
as evil? Meaning, most other Buffyverse Big Bads--the
Master, Angelus, the Mayor, Adam, Glory, the Evil Troika,
Willow--knew they were evil, and revelled in it. What
I'm not sure is whether Jasmine truly believes with all her
heart that she's helping the world or whether she is merely
putting on a facade to plot her insidious schemes.
Rob
[> [> [>
Re: This was more of "The Dangers of Religeous
Fundementalism" episode -- Solitude1056,
08:48:57 04/10/03 Thu
But do you think she would perceive herself as
evil?
So far, I'd say: absolutely not. "We're from the Powers that
Be, and we're here to help."
Yuh-hunh.
[>
Good vs Evil, Order vs Chaos -- Corwin of Amber,
08:49:42 04/10/03 Thu
Seems everybody is reading their predjudices into this
episode, judging by the snarky comments about
Fundamentalism, Creationism and Pres. Bush. Unfortunately,
I think y'all are jumping the gun here. We simply don't
have enough information yet, especially since ME has been
doing the bait-and-switch on us all season long.
The balance between good and evil,order and chaos keeps
getting referenced this season on both A:TS and BTVS. I
think this is a motivating factor behind the baddies on both
shows. The balance has been teetering from one side to the
other on both shows for years, and the higher powers , elder
gods, old ones, whatever you want to call them, are trying
to even it out before it tips over. Hence, you have "evil"
beings snuffing out W&H and "good" beings (Cordelia) doing
evil things. I haven't decided which Jasmine is yet.
Perhaps she is another "good" being forced to do evil.
I haven't figured out how order vs. chaos fits into the
equation yet. In Michael Moorcock's Multiverse, if either
gets too much of a hold on a plane of existance, it's a bad
thing. Too much order leads to a stagnant reality where
nothing changes. Too much chaos means nothing can hold
together long enough for anything to progress.
It's all a puppet show, from AI's point of view. They have
free will...but that's already been factored into the
equation.
[> [>
Re: Good vs Evil, Order vs Chaos -- KKC,
14:20:23 04/10/03 Thu
"The balance has been teetering from one side to the other
on both shows for years... Hence, you have "evil" beings
snuffing out W&H and "good" beings (Cordelia) doing evil
things. I haven't decided which Jasmine is yet. Perhaps she
is another "good" being forced to do evil."
Hoo boy. It was actually a decent surprise to learn that the
horned beast wasn't the instigator of the apocalypse in this
season's Angel. Now you're suggesting the possibility that
Jasmine herself is being manipulated by an even greater
power, good or evil?
This makes for an excellent story, but not necessarily good
television... It would be as if your favorite urban crime
drama suddenly took a detour into California from New York
so you could meet the politicians and crime bosses who
influence events on the show. It's interesting, but takes us
too far away from our principal characters to keep
viewers.
I guess this is something that's been bothering me about
Angel lately... The show is largely about Angel's journey,
but the bloat of regular characters and side plots has
really taken the focus away from him. The further up the
chain we get in this conflict, the less interesting it may
be to me because it's not about Angel any more. Although I
can't think of a better excuse to have gotten the poor guy
into a yellow shirt. :)
-KKC, who wears a lot of black himself and briefly pauses to
reassert his masculinity after inadvertantly making a
fashion observation. Okay good, I still like sports and I
don't understand ice skating. :)
[>
"The Bringers of Wonder" (Space: 1999 and
Angel 4.18 spoilers) -- cjl, 08:56:35 04/10/03
Thu
Just thought you'd like to see this. From the Space: 1999
website (snide comments in brackets []):
"The Bringers of Wonder" (Parts I and II)
Year 2, episodes 17 and 18
written by: Terence Feely
directed by: Tom Clegg
On a routine radiation check over the nuclear waste domes,
Koenig [Juliet's Dad] appears to go mad and crashes. He is
rescued, and Helena [Juliet's Dad's now-ex-wife] uses a new
cerebral wave machine to restore him.
Meanwhile, a Superswift from Earth arrives, led by Tony's
brother, Guido. There has been a breakthrough allowing
faster than light travel, so they can return the Alphans to
Earth.
Sandra [played by the cute-as-a-button Zenia Merton] is
reunited with her fiance, Peter Rockwell. There are other
joyful reunions in Command Centre.
Koenig wakes after treatment and is told about the rescue by
Helena. The others greet him in Command Centre, but he is
shocked to see horrid monsters among the Alphans. The
Alphans restrain the hysterical Koenig.
In Medical, Koenig insists the rescuers are hostile
monsters.
Two rescuers, Guido and Shaw, watch the records cameraman
archiving the film of the reunion. The film shows monsters.
The rescuers concentrate, and the cameraman starts smashing
equipment, causing a fire. Firemen put out the blaze, but
the cameraman is dead.
Tony [boring second season hunk-type character played by
Tony Anholt] draws the names of the first three to return to
Earth. As Guido watches, he reads out Carter, Ehrlich and
Bartlett.
Koenig wakes to find one of the monsters smothering him. But
when Helena enters she sees Dr. Shaw examining Koenig. Shaw
leaves, and Koenig argues that the cerebral wave machine
protected his mind. Helena agrees to treat Maya [yummy 2nd
season metamorph character, played by Catherine Schell], and
when Maya sees the rescuers she now sees monsters too.
The Superswift pilot ship, with Carter, Ehrlich and
Bartlett, returns to New York City on Earth.
But in reality, the pilot ship lands at the waste domes, and
Alan and the others start moving equipment in
spacesuits.
Koenig, Helena and Maya decide to use white noise to block
the alien mind controls. They break into Command Centre, and
play the white noise over the base. The aliens are now
revealed.
Abruptly, the monsters disappear. [The Alphans] must now
stop Alan from blowing up the waste domes.
Koenig and Maya fly after the astronauts. Koenig is lowered
by harness from the Eagle in front of their moonbuggy.
Koenig fights Alan and Ehrlich, but he is outnumbered. Maya
transforms into a space animal to rescue him, but Alan gets
away in the moonbuggy.
In the waste domes, Alan and Bartlett set up laser beams to
break into the reactor core. [In one of the funniest and
most disturbing sequences of the series, we see that Alan
and Bartlett think they're kicking back at the beach on
Earth, riding dune buggies, laying down towels and sticking
a big, garishly colored umbrella in the sand...]
On Moonbase Alpha, Helena anesthetises most of the Alphans
so the aliens cannot tap their mental energy.
Koenig finds Alan and Bartlett and fights them. Alan tries
to put the nuclear trigger into the waste, but Koenig
eventually stops him. Without energy, the aliens die.
This brought back memories. "Space: 1999" was so incredibly
bad most of the time, but occasionally, they would cut
through the pomposity and cheesiness and do something
interesting. "Bringers of Wonder" wasn't one of those
episodes, but there was a fascinating moment at the climax
when Koenig confronted one of the aliens and told it to stop
screwing with his people. The alien replied, with a
straight something-resembling-a-face, that the humans were
happy. Truly happy. OK, granted, blowing up the waste
domes would kill the Alphans in a particuarly horrible
fashion while the aliens fed off the energy, but that's the
breaks. The aliens could give the Alphans a lifetime of
happiness just before their deaths. Wouldn't that be worth
it? Needless to say, Koenig didn't see their point of
view.
As for what's going with Angel/Buffy, I'm thinking we've got
more of a Bab5 thing going on here than a Space: 1999 thing.
Jasmine = Vorlons; FE = Shadows. Humanity would do better
to toss them both out on their ear, flip over the board, and
start fresh. Haven't seen SHP yet (getting the videotape
tomorrow), so will comment more later....
With me, all things are possible: major freakin
spoilers for whatever the latest AtS ep was called. --
Solitude1056, 23:19:43 04/09/03 Wed
Cause, like, I'm a half-sheet to the wind and could care
less what the episode title was, or its number.
As for the episode? Around 8:27, EST, that was me jumping up
and screaming, "take that, Mister Greenwalt!" No, I
don't think Dave will be wanting back his job with the Angel
writing crew again anytime soon. Well, I figured this a few
seconds after the anvil smack that I paraphrased slightly as
a message subject. I mean, really. Could we be just a little
less subtle, Joss? Is it even possible? So I don't think
we're dealing with a false messiah, actually. In fact, I
think Jasmine is a creation that many people would willingly
embrace as a new religion. Hell, a bunch of people followed
Jim Jones straight down to kool aid, and Jasmine's a helluva
far sight better looking to boot - and there's no sign yet
that she's spiking the fruit punch. So she's obviously a
good guy, right, as long as we overlook the fact that her
copy of Messiah-hood for Dummies was missing the chapter on
Appropriate Dresscode for a Messiah's Workday. I mean,
really, can we look anymore faddish? A messiah should have a
sense of style, granted, but not swing between being a
wannbe Seventeen cover model and a higher class of palm
reader. That outfit, from the post-Beatles homage party,
alone is grounds for a major case arguing Jasmine as bad
guy, but...
...That depends entirely on what you consider positive or
negative. If you've spent your life trying to make good with
your local authority, railing against your dotcom fate, or
feeling empty and useless in the check-out lane at your
favorite generic grocery store, you too might be more than
willing to see Jasmine as a purely positive entity. And
given AI's past season of turgid supernatural soap opera, I
can't blame them for wanting - even for just a little bit -
to have someone come along and make it all better. The only
question, then, is: better by whose standards?
Anyway, that's not what I was thinking about at the end of
the episode, however, although I guess it's a nifty thing to
ask. I'll ask again later. In the meantime, I suspect that
here I shall buy a vowel.
Gimme an I.
Err, the insanity clause rears its unusually pretty head.
This is an old metaphor of Joss', isn't it - hey, didn't we
see this in Into the Woods? Didn't we see this with the
curds and whey guy, scaring Dawn? And didn't we see this
when Tara had that two week stay in the vegetable patch?
I don't know how the guy - Stover, or John, or whatever it
was - felt or what he saw or what prompted his clear seeing.
Nor do I understand the chat about the spontaneous "calling"
to destroy Jasmine - it's not real obvious, from what I saw
at least, whether there's something driving that calling or
whether it's just something defensive and instinctive in a
human. It could be that the calling to attack Jasmine is
more of a fight/flight mechanism, something buried deep down
that says it's better to die fighting to destroy a bad thing
than to let it suffer to live. Or something.
And for this reason I think it's important to note that Fred
does belabor the point slightly as to whether John had
previously been mentally ill, prior to seeing Jasmine. I
don't think she was asking because she thought - wait, I
shall rephrase. I think Fred was asking because the
script told her she would be dubious of John's reliability.
I think ME was asking because they wanted us to note,
hm, strange similarities here. If John had a history of
mental illness (a question he never answered, naturally),
this could potentially be a corollary with Fred as well as a
shout-out to BtVS fans from Season 5. However, I think the
situation goes a little deeper than just the character's
mental stability - I think the how, and the
why, are equally important.
Fred's response to strong negative stimuli is withdrawal,
and it's usually withdrawal into an obsessive, repetitive,
nearly mindless action where there's no end in sight and the
same quirky things get repeated endlessly. As long as she's
reenacting whatever action, she seems to hold off the forces
of collapse. Her repeated washings of Jasmine's shirt
reminded me of the same frantic, desperate scribblings of
her first return and shortly after finding doctor what's-his-
face had given her the portal vacation on purpose. It took
this sudden sinking into her 'crazy' behavior to prompt her
awareness of hurting when Jasmine was absent, and it seems
to be that this awareness of her hurting in some way led to
her awareness of Jasmine's skanky facial wiggling.
So perhaps Joss' theme continues unabated - crazy people,
insane people, those we consider marginalized by their
inability to interact in a common, consistent reality, can
at the same time be prophetically aware of the true nature
of things. This would certainly hold true to the continued
extremo true messiah crap, where peace love and happiness
occur because everyone gets along.
Oh, and by the way: Jasmine, as a name and as a flower,
means 'sweet and amiable'. I know this because my
housemate's daughter is named Jasmine, and she's anything
but. (Teenagers. Can't shoot them, can't shoot them.)
Where was I.
Oh, right. Everyone gets along, because we all agree that
this is what we should do, this is where we are going, we
have an agreement on our common reality. But the crazy
folks, the independent people, the free thinking others,
aren't always so quick to automatically accept authority.
Who was it, earlier this week, rejected "question authority"
as Joss' secret mantra, and instead posited "You are your
own authority" as the true message? Right on, you perceptive
person whose name just now escaped me.
(I am now a whole sheet to the wind. I have an excuse.)
When Fred goes through her phases of scribbling on walls,
she's attempting to be her own authority. By that I mean,
she's trying to figure it out on her own. Everything
around her said, you are trapped in Pylea, but her
scribbling was her way of attempting to take back and change
that reality that she didn't want to accept, by trying to
impose her own sense of order and justice on the chaos of
the unwelcome reality - if she could figure it out, she
could fix it. When she was trying to cope with the
realization about the portal-giving bad doctor, she again
scribbled, again trying to rationalize, compartmentalize,
organize her reality into something she could control and
manage. As far as I'm concerned, scrubbing a shirt until
your own hands bleed is definitely one way of taking "make
something just so" to the extreme. Fred wanted the shirt
clean; she felt the reality should be that the shirt should
come clean, and her own worth hinged somehow on this.
Cleaning the shirt, therefore, was her way of trying to
control the situation, to make it her own and bend it to her
will - to turn the bloody-shirt situation into a clean-shirt
situation. It didn't work, however, and somewhere in there,
amidst her attempts to take responsibility for what she
perceived as the consequence of her actions, something
turned a corner. Between the left of center perspective from
the obsessive organizing actions, and the will to force,
to make, to do something just so, Fred was able to see a
different point of view.
Then the questions become: why would she see a negative side
of Jasmine? And does this negative side negate Jasmine's
otherwise (at least so far) peaceful and benevolent message?
First, Fred sees a negative side of Jasmine because - at the
point when she sees Jasmine's wriggly face - she's still in
a mode of self-awareness, of claiming responsibility, of
trying to do something about her actions, of trying
to change things, on her own initiative. Each of
these traits could also describe a free thinker, an
independent soul, just as much as it could describe an
obsessive-compulsive physics skinny like Fred. Jasmine has
consistently preached (and I use that word on purpose) a
doctrine of sitting back, accepting the way things are now,
of allowing the crunchy goodness to happen on its own time.
What do-something action the gang gets, it gets at her
invitation, following her lead. Jasmine's position is that
one shouldn't actively do things so much as feel peace,
love, happiness and let her do the hard thinking. All the
puny mortals have to do is worship.
Fred, however, doesn't worship. She actively takes on
responsibility, tries to change things to fit with what
she wants (where Jasmine specifically told her not to
bother), and as a result, she sees badness in Jasmine's
leadership where others see only goodness, because they want
that leadership. They want to follow, but it's not that
they're bad people where Fred is the lone good person. It's
simply that Fred was the first person to try to actively
impact her world despite Jasmine's exhortation to not worry,
be happy, and do what Jasmine says. In that contrast,
Jasmine is a negative because she would enforce nonaction
where, for Fred, the positive is action. If Fred's concept
of Life is vitality and self-affirming choice, then Jasmine
would naturally be presented as Rotting Death, as her self-
denying non-choice is the opposite of Fred's concept of
Life.
(It's not clear whether Fred continues to see Jasmine as
Rotting Maggot Woman, or whether ME opted to let us guess
that visual rather than deal with the special effects for
every instance of Fred's POV of Jasmine.)
Second, I don't think Fred's perception negates Jasmine's
message at this point in time. Based on what I've
seen so far, I've only my own awareness to go on that says
that free will, and making one's own choices based on one's
own actions and responsibilities, is far more positive than
letting someone else tell you what to do - no matter how
much they may have your "best interests" at heart. To use an
analogy on my mind thanks to current events, I would see a
new benevolent government not elected by the populace to be
little improvement over any former oppressive government.
The government's benevolence doesn't change the fact that
the populace still has no say in the matter - and I was
culturally raised to believe it's better to have a true say
in a bad government than no say in an otherwise beneficial
government. I mean, hell, even totalitarian government have
their good days. Jumping to the devil's advocate position,
I'd also have to add that the fact that a few dissidents
aren't in line doesn't necessarily mean the governments in
question automatically fall in the category of absolute
evil. It's just the way it is that I, as a product of my
culture, will be dancing with the dissidents rather than
praying with the good citizens of Jasmine-land.
As for the evidence backing up my Fred theories this week, I
think Angel provided our contrasting storyline. Spoiler,
from next-episode teaser, in white font: which may be why we see that Angel is the next
one to figure out there's another side to the Jasmine
shindig. When he goes outside to brood (of course),
Jasmine rebukes him gently for worrying about it. Don't
worry, be happy, yada yada yada. Notice that he doesn't say
to himself, I shall continue to worry about this, because it
is important to me, and I should do something about
this myself. Nope. Angel says - with a bit of perfectly
understandable relief - that he's willing to believe
Jasmine's reassurances. Of course, it probably helps that
she affirms his value by calling him her 'general,' but
whatever. Point is that Angel stood at the brink of thinking
something wasn't right with his perception of reality (the
get-happy risk), and was brooding about how to fix it or
make it better. Jasmine's interception meant that he no
longer needed to brood, because she would take care of it.
Angel opted to continue following Jasmine, where Fred -
purely by dint of personality and lucky circumstance -
happened to be the one to try and act on her perceptions
regardless of Jasmine's assurances.
Hmm, hmm, it's almost 2am. My, how time flies when you're
pondering the comeuppance of Elvis fans.
[>
Re: all things: major freakin spoilers for whatever the
latest AtS ep was called. -- Arethusa, 04:13:55
04/10/03 Thu
That was me, with the quote. I watched most of this episode
wth my mouth open, shocked and delighted with the lack of
subtlety, the clear correlation between Jasmine and her
followers and organized religion. I'd like to say more on
that later, after I see the episode again.
It was so great how everyone was still so very much
themselves, just really really happy. Angel still had to
brood-and you're probably right that the "chosen" are those
who have something in them that isn't satisfied by perfect
happiness. Angel has been wary and distrustful of "perfect
happiness" for so long that he might not be able to stay in
that mood for long. Fred's been kicked in the pants by fate
too. Her life torn from her for five years. Slavery
instead of royalty. Remember Fred's remark about how
Cordy's there for five minutes and becomes a princess, while
she's a slave for five years. After a few years of terrible
suffering, some start to question the idea of an all-
powerful and benevolent god.
[>
Re: Who are the chosen? - spoilers & speculations -
- keriann, 05:22:22 04/10/03 Thu
While watching this episode, I believed it was the mental
instability of Fred and (maybe) John that allowed them to
see Jasmine as the evil that she (presumably) is. However, a
friend brought up an interesting point - both Fred and John
came in contact with Jasmine's blood. John was attacked by
the same vampire that scratched Jasmine, and Fred - of
course - was washing the blood out of her shirt. What is the
potential for this contact to bring about some immunity to
her enchantment?
[> [>
Purification and the Tro-Clan prophecy (Spoilers,
aired BtVS and AtS eps) -- Rahael, 05:34:44 04/10/03
Thu
Usual disclaimers about not having seen the eppy etc, but
the blood thing is a good point because it would tie in with
the imagery in BtVS re the importance of blood to the Big
Bad.
Also, on a different point re Fred and the shirt-washing,
didn't the Tro Clan prophecy say something about
Purification? Was Fred's compulsive efforts to clean the
shirt a metaphor for a theme to come?
And, the wildfeed informs me that Jasmine's true visage had
maggots involved. Maggots of course signify death...
[> [> [>
Re: Purification and the Tro-Clan prophecy (Spoilers,
aired BtVS and AtS eps) -- Solitude1056, 08:23:14
04/10/03 Thu
Maggots of course signify death...
Yes, hence the Fred-perspective = Life vs. No-choice =
death, at least it'd be death to anyone who considers
"choosing for hirself" to be a requirement for living.
[>
KABOOM!!!! cos this post freakin' deserves it. --
Caroline, 11:10:05 04/10/03 Thu
This deconstruction is spot-on. Maybe you should get drunk
more often? I'd love to see what you can do when you are
three sheets to the wind!
I admit that the only parts of the ep I really enjoyed were
Fred-inspired. I was a bit bored by the Jasmine action
because, to me, it was such a predictable and rather
pedantic exploration of the dangers of fundamentalism and
how seductive it can be to let someone else make it all
better and I was wondering when the kool-aid was gonna show
up.
But the real crunchy goodness was Fred - her zeal to make
amends for not protecting Jasmine resulted in her release
from the enchantment. She was true to herself and therefore
won herself back. ME appears to be exploring many of the
same themes this season in both shows: that in the end we
are who we are, that in a world where events happen to us we
have the capacity to shape them through our own
behaviour.
And like you, I am also glad to see this new slant to the
PTB. A huge chunk of the reason I stopped watching Angel was
the rather large reliance the show placed on the 'good' PTB
and their machinations and interference in the mortal realm.
There is a reason why Amends is my most hated Buffy episode
philosophically and AtS continued from there. So, despite
the fact that dramatically this ep was a bit of a low for me
after Inside Out, I welcome the change in direction.
[> [>
Heh, even if I missed... -- Solitude1056,
11:31:50 04/10/03 Thu
The rather duh element of "it's always got to be blood," in
terms of Fred's and John's recognition of a different view
of Jasmine. (Not willing to say yet which is right or wrong,
per se, however.) In some ways, blood is an ongoing theme,
thanks to the metaphor of vampires and blood as sex, blood
as life-force and vitality, and blood as portal-whammies. I
suppose one could say that "ME says contact with Jasmine's
blood will wake up so-and-so," but I think the alternate
version equally holds, if we add the caveat that somehow,
being in touch with Jasmine's true "life-force" is what
opens the doors to seeing something other than the glamour.
But I think the point underneath that is that blood isn't
enough. Fred, upon seeing Jasmine's other face, didn't
immediately think she had to kill it. And there's also the
question of what she would've done had she not seen someone
else respond with disgust towards Jasmine. It's entirely
possible that she would've seen her vision of Jasmine as her
own failure - it's only her awareness of another
negative response that prompts her to come up with a cover
story and go seeking more information. And even then, she
doesn't automatically jump to the assumption that such a
vision indicates she's called to do anything about it. Fred
continues with the self-determination, deciding for herself
to seek information, measure the source of that info,
observe, get a second opinion (even if that turned out
badly) and go from there. At all points she was attempting
to intelligently and coherently manage her own destiny,
which is more than I can say for John's sudden knife-
grabbing attack on Jasmine. All he lacked was a little froth
at the mouth, frankly.
On the other hand, I was expecting Fred to whine to herself
in her best pub school brit voice, "don't touch that, that's
pure eeeevul!"
Bwahahaha.
[> [> [>
Buffy vs. Dracula -- Rufus, 22:18:09 04/10/03
Thu
Remember that when Buffy tasted Dracula's blood she gained
knowledge about herself, not the darkness that Dracula
assumed she'd be anxious to join him in.
[>
Agree. Good analysis of Fred. -- s'kat, 19:43:28
04/10/03 Thu
She's amazing......you'll go crazy.......spoilers for
Angel "Shiny happy people" -- Rufus,
02:35:11 04/10/03 Thu
Nuts, just the word I was looking for. Seems everyone is
having a St Theresa reaction to Jasmine....well to be honest
she has no name and didn't till the end of the show but I
gotta call her something. Gina Torres, she is one good
looking woman...and hell Connor got to skip potty training
just like his dad did without his kid going to a hell
dimension. But who the hell is Jasmine......so we get a
history lesson straight from the deities mouth (depending on
how you see her with or without blood and worms).......
Jasmine: I can't tell you how good it is to be back.
Wes: Back? Then you've been here before?
Jasmine: Yes, in the beginning before the time of man, Great
Beings walked the Earth. Untold power emanated from all
quarters. The seeds of what would become known as good an
evil. But the shadows stretched and became darkness....and
the malevolent among us grew stronger. The earth became a
demon realm. Those of us who had the will to resist left
this place...But we remained ever watchful.
Gunn: You're a power that was?
Jasmine: But then something new emerged from deep inside the
Earth. Neither demon or god.
Wes: Man
Jasmine: And it seemed for a time that through this new race
a balance might be restored.
Fred: I guess we really let you down.
Jasmine: But you didn't. It was we who failed you. We became
little more than observers. I could no longer bear to just
watch all the suffering. I had to find a way back. But first
I needed a miracle, so I arranged one....through you Angel,
through Darla, that is where my parentage began. Two
vampires, creatures once human corrupted by darkness. And
you with a soul.....a miracle already.
Angel: But how?
Jasmine: Through Lorne.
Lorne: Huh????
Jasmine: The day Lorne sent Angel and human Darla into the
trials to earn a new chance at life.
Angel: I failed
Jasmine: No...you earned that life....and there it is (looks
to Connor). All these events unfolded that I might reenter
this physical plane. I know there's been Chaos.
Wes: All the events we've witnessed these past months all
the madness...it was birth pains.
Jasmine: But the storm has passed.
Lorne: And here comes the sun.
Angel: And Cordelia...will she wake up?
Jasmine: If we take hold of the world strip away the thorns,
win the battle...then yes, I think she will.
Fred: How do we do that?
Jasmine: One evil at a time......much damage has been done
in my name. There are demons forces of hate all over this
city.
Fred: We're going to destroy them.
Jasmine: We're going to change the world.
Angel: Finally.
Everyone is happy, happy, happy.....like the folks in Buffy
when under the love spell in Him....who cares that they were
ready to screw over their friends and relatives to get what
they wanted. Everyone (on ATS) was too quick to put a death
sentence on Fred, too quick to call her evil. So, I think
that Connor was right....."she's amazing.....you'll go
crazy".
Something quick to think about......"not the bang, not the
word"...that quote about the beginning from Lessons.....and
think....this Jasmine has no name........really?
Oh and one more.....here we go again with the
mission.
[>
Crowds. -- neaux, 04:53:18 04/10/03 Thu
Well if you've watched the Simpsons religiously you know
every other episode the town turns into an angry mob and
tries to lynch one of the Simpson's members for some zany
reason.
Will Ats take this route? Right now everyone is happy.
Crowds of happy people (which I find terribly disturbing).
Either the extras in the episode were really bad actors or
the extras were really good actors acting really really
happy. Either way it made for one creepy episode.
So I ask you all, how long till the thousands of LA's finest
turn into hordes of evil / Angry mob. Jasmine actually stops
the AI crew from chasing Fred. Her reason is that her
minions.. ahem I mean followers will be her eyes. Will her
followers eventually become her evil doers??
[>
Eradicate all evil...spoilers for Angel "Shiny
happy people" -- Rufus, 05:11:45 04/10/03
Thu
Now onto another quote from the show....
Angel: If I get too happy...allow myself to feel what I'm
feeling...Angelus might...
Jasmine: I know, but soon none of that will matter...evil
will be bannished by the deeds we will do Angel. Even the
evil inside of you, that too will be gone...all that will be
left is the beauty.
Angel: Eradicate all evil..
Jasmine: Yes.
Angel: Is that even possible? We've been fighting for so
long.
Jasmine: I know I've seen it all. It's why I've come back.
You're my General I have faith in you.
Now, what exactly will evil look like, act like, be? With
everyone acting like they are sleepwalking in some dream
world, who will choose the ones who are evil? We have seen
Wes turn Fred in to Jasmine...have seen everyone act in ways
that are very unlike them....all after seeing Jasmine....she
even seems to work over the airwaves..but the result is the
same..real living stops and worship begins. Jasmine wants to
change the world, what would her ideal world look like?
[> [>
Disturbing scene...spoilers for Angel "Shiny happy
people" and future specs -- random lurker,
08:35:32 04/10/03 Thu
IMHO I thought that this was the most disturbing scence of
the entire episode. What exactly did Jasmine mean when she
said "eradicate all evil"? And Angel's question of whether
that was even possible is extremely valid. This whole scene
gave me a very quesy feeling.
In ATS - Season 2 Reprise - Angel learned that the "home
office" was earth:
Holland: "Welcome to the home office."
Angel: "This isn't..."
Holland: "Well, you know it is. - You know *that* better
than anyone. Things you've seen. Things you've, well -
done. You see, if there wasn't evil in every single one of
them out there (Angel watches as some people in the plaza
start yelling at each other) why, they wouldn't be people. -
They'd all be angels."
So, if to be human you have to have evil inside you, how can
anyone be safe from Jasmine if she wants to rid the world of
evil. Which again raises the question of who decides who is
evil and who isn't. To me, when I heard Jasmine's plan, the
first thing that came to mind was that she wanted to remove
all humans from the world. There is no such thing as a
Utopia - where everyone is happy and evil doesn't exist.
Again in Reprise, Holland told Angel:
Holland: "See, the world doesn't work in spite of evil,
Angel. - It works with us. - It works because of us."
To really have peace on earth, the world has to be empty. So
maybe Jasmine's ultimate plan is to rid the world of both
humans and demons, so that she and others of her kind can
live on Earth without any danger to themselves. (isn't that
why they really left in the first place?)
Anyway, those are just my thoughts - could be wrong.
[> [> [>
Unless of course humanity, instead of being removed,
becomes angels. -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:17:00 04/10/03
Thu
Theoretically in the Buffyverse there could exist creatures
that don't want to harm anyone and derive happiness just
from living and helping others. This doesn't mean being
someone else's slave, though, or being brainwashed, as long
as they willingly made the change.
Of course, this is likely not possible. But, if it was
possible, it would certainly be worth doing.
[> [> [> [>
Well, ideally -- Masq, 11:41:07 04/10/03 Thu
Theoretically in the Buffyverse there could exist
creatures that don't want to harm anyone and derive
happiness just from living and helping others.
I know you're talking about some sort of supernatural
creatures like angels, small "a", but just food for thought-
-
We already know who such creatures are, Finn. They're
Champions. Buffy, Angel, etc. Since they are only human
(mostly), they have their faults and sometimes they end up
hurting people. I don't think they intend to in their right
minds, but sometimes they do. But they still more or less
fall under the category you're talking about. They just want
to help, and they do so because they chose to. Buffy could
have hung up her Slayer shingle the minute Kendra appeared.
Angel could have stayed in his bat-cave brooding when Doyle
appeared.
They didn't.
[> [> [> [> [>
I'd call them about as close to angels as humans can
get without metaphysical transformation -- Finn Mac
Cool, 14:15:24 04/10/03 Thu
What I was thinking of when I said that were beings that
didn't even feel tempted to be evil. We've seen before that
Buffy and Angel have hurt others even though they know it's
wrong and don't see much good coming from it (trying to kill
Wesley, using Spike). However, when I described angels, I
guess I had a sort of "pure good" ideal in mind, something
that no human (or vampire) could ever hope to reach; the
sort of person that no halfway entertaining TV show could be
made about since they would always refuse, without even any
internal conflict, even the slightest wrong doing. But, I
do agree, Champions, as we've seen them on Buffy and Angel,
are far closer to this impossible ideal than most people on
the planet.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Why Jasmine must be stopped!! -- Masq, 15:03:42
04/10/03 Thu
the sort of person that no halfway entertaining TV show
could be made about since they would always refuse, without
even any internal conflict, even the slightest wrong
doing
I had this exact thought last night. "Hey, everyone's happy!
But it sure makes for boring story-telling."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I'm with Masq: Why Jasmine must be stopped!! And on a
more theological bent... -- Briar Rose, 15:51:44
04/10/03 Thu
Many of the world's religions are based in the philosophy
that the universe is supported by a complicated construct of
checks and balances.
If it were indeed possible to "iradicate all evil" then it
would cause the much needed balance pertaining to the
universal laws of order to loose the equilibrium to hold
itself together.
There is such a thing as 'Killing with kindness' and this
would appear to be Jasmine's agenda: That her ultimate goal
is to reclaim earth for those "First Beings" that (as we
have seen in BtVS & AtS before), are neither good or evil at
their core - they simply are.
Now the logical next argument is that "Humankind is
imperfect while the First Beings (TPTB) are not." Yet we
also got a clue from Jasmine that the Powers That Were are
not good nor bad in actuality, they just are because they
also make what we would see as mistakes; not taking an
active role in the doings on earth.... So in the instance of
taking out humankind, daemon kind and all other kinds, the
First would be taking Earth through yet another change that
isn't necessarily good or bad. It just is.
On days when I watch the news and see how messed up some of
the world population is (yes that includes all
nations), I think that it's time for the Jasmines of this
world to come forward and end the mess we've made of the
planet and ourselves. On days when I am loving the feel of
sun on my face and wind in my hair? Well then I could care
less what a PTB thinks and would become a Sovell (what's his
name?) or Fred and be the first in line to take out Miz
Annointed and Annoying One.*L
But as there is no light without darkness and no sadness
without happiness to balance them, so there can be no good
without evil to balance it. And I doubt that ME would go the
"it's all shades of gray and no matter on what the intent
is, 'cause there IS no active intent in energy in it's
natural state..."
The one thing that ME has always stuck to theologically is
that there is no "one way" to look at anything in the Joss-
verse. The Vampire can be a Champion or a Scourge (even if
they are not souled!) The Slayer can be a Sacred Chalice for
the Powers of Good and yet hold an Evil Source.
So whatever is going to happen I hypothesize that Jasmine
will soon be shown to lack the true diachotomy that the
theology of the Joss-verse requires and will be stopped.
Of course, we will be left wondering if it was the "Right"
thing to do when it happens... But it wouldn't be an ME
production without that ethical and moral dilema to be faced
at the end of the campaign.~w~ "The battle's done.... and we
kinda won?... so we'll sound our victory cheer. Where do we
go from here?"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'm with Masq: Why Jasmine must be stopped!! And on
a more theological bent... -- lunasea, 16:15:23
04/10/03 Thu
I think Jasmine will offer a specific paradise for the
special people. Angel will have to decide between that and
what humans can manage to put together themselves without
any divine aid. Angel has to stop Jasmine because it is a
profound statement of hope about the potential of humanity.
It says we don't have to resort to what Jasmine is offering.
We will get to an even better place without her.
Things may be grey in the Buffyverse, but do they always
have to be? Are we moving towards a better tomorrow? Angel
and Buffy have changed how many people/demons, giving them
hope and making them better people? Change happens one
person at a time. The journey of a thousand miles begins
with one step. It started with Cordy, Kate, Melissa, Doyle,
Ryan's family, a bunch of unnamed demons held against their
will and forced to fight, Rebecca, Wesley, Faith, Gunn,
Judy, Denver, Darla, Lindsey, Fred, Lorne, Connor, Gwen. All
those people changed forever by Angel. Not to mention,
Buffy. Buffy and Angel are what they are because of each
other.
Angel can tell Jasmine to shove it. We don't need her.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Why Jasmine must be stopped!! -- Rufus,
20:13:16 04/10/03 Thu
Things will start to get way more exciting soon.....but
while we are waiting look at the reaction people have to
Jasmine...they seem to forget all about their life, thinking
that everything they were is meaningless....and they hurt
when they aren't around Jasmine....and the murder rate went
through the roof....til it leveled off...hmmmm wonder why
that happened?
Listen to what Jasmine says.....but look at what she and
everyone around her does...cause religion has been used over
the years to kill more people than just about anything I
know. If you don't belong you are the other....and all the
lovey dovey words don't apply to the other....right now
demons are the other...what happens when the demon becomes
us?
[> [>
Disturbing scene...spoilers for Angel "Shiny happy
people" and future specs -- random lurker,
09:10:16 04/10/03 Thu
IMHO I thought that this was the most disturbing scence of
the entire episode. What exactly did Jasmine mean when she
said "eradicate all evil"? And Angel's question of whether
that was even possible is extremely valid. This whole scene
gave me a very quesy feeling.
In ATS - Season 2 Reprise - Angel learned that the "home
office" was earth:
Holland: "Welcome to the home office."
Angel: "This isn't..."
Holland: "Well, you know it is. - You know *that* better
than anyone. Things you've seen. Things you've, well -
done. You see, if there wasn't evil in every single one of
them out there (Angel watches as some people in the plaza
start yelling at each other) why, they wouldn't be people. -
They'd all be angels."
So, if to be human you have to have evil inside you, how can
anyone be safe from Jasmine if she wants to rid the world of
evil. Which again raises the question of who decides who is
evil and who isn't. To me, when I heard Jasmine's plan, the
first thing that came to mind was that she wanted to remove
all humans from the world.
There is no such thing as a Utopia - where everyone is happy
and there is no such thing as evil. Again in Reprise,
Holland told Angel:
Holland: "See, the world doesn't work in spite of evil,
Angel. - It works with us. - It works because of us."
To really have peace on earth, the world has to be empty. So
maybe Jasmine's ultimate plan is to rid the world of both
humans and demons, so that she and others of her kind can
live on Earth without any danger to themselves. (isn't that
why they really left in the first place?)
Anyway, those are just my thoughts - could be wrong.
[> [>
connections btwn. the shows, dissension in the ranks?
(spoilers for shp, recent buffy eps) -- anom,
16:14:15 04/11/03 Fri
No way can I keep up w/all the posts on the new ep, so I
hope I'm not repeating someone else. [Plus Voy wouldn't let
me post it last night, so there's that much more chance
someone already said the same stuff. But I'm just relieved
that all my attempts didn't get through even though I got
"could not connect" notices. There'd be a dozen repeat
posts!]
"Jasmine: ...evil will be banished by the deeds we will do,
Angel. Even the evil inside of you, that too will be
gone...all that will be left is the beauty.
Angel: Eradicate all evil....
Jasmine: Yes.
Angel: Is that even possible?"
Does this sound like the other side of what we've been
hearing on "Buffy?" About "You can never defeat evil. It's
always been here. It's in all of us." But Jasmine says it
can be eradicated, even the evil inside us...even inside a
Champion.
"Jasmine: ...You're my General. I have faith in you."
Couldn't help noticing 2 rather loaded words in this quote:
"general" & "faith." Who else is being called a general?
Buffy. Where is Faith (not Jasmine's faith) headed? Buffy.
What if just as Buffy is finally ready to try an approach
that doesn't depend on getting rid of all evil, Angel & co.
show up saying that's just what we need to do, & see--we've
been doing it? Maybe Faith vs. "faith" will play a crucial
role. I think someone on this board suggested the casts of
the 2 shows are going to end up fighting it out (under their
respective generals?) for the fate of the world...maybe
that's what's being set up here. However, the trailer for
next week's "Angel" looked as though that may not be what
happens (won't get any more specific than that).
I also wonder if Jasmine is sowing dissension in her closest
followers even as she preaches peace & love. She calls Angel
her general but tells Connor he's her new champion. I didn't
tape it, but she seemed to imply he's to supplant his father-
-or has already. And is it possible she set Fred up to have
to leave the fold? Why did she take her aside during the
fight in the bowling alley? Sometime during that
conversation, did something happen (other than Fred's
contact w/her blood, as keriann mentioned--or maybe that was
it, although it didn't seem planned) that suggested to Fred
that Jasmine wasn't what she seemed?
Now I'm sorry I didn't tape it. I'd like to look for
instances when Jasmine told the others things that could
divide them from each other. I remember things that could be
taken >1 way (like "Everything is going to change"), but
nothing else that seemed like that kind of setup. (What I'd
really like would be for Lorne to hear her sing! Would it be
like reading amnesiac!Cordelia all over again?)
[>
Re: She's amazing......you'll go crazy.......spoilers
for Angel "Shiny happy people" -- maddog,
06:56:17 04/10/03 Thu
Not to bring religion into this but she reminds me of what
that anti-christ is supposed to be like...not a love at
first sight thing like this, but very much loved by the
masses as they preach peace to the world....all the while
making it impossible for everyone to depend on anyone but
them....so in the end they have total control(or think they
do at least).
Current
board
| More April 2003