April 2004 posts
Why does Buffy try to disempower ordinary people who want to want evil? -- slayer, 09:59:28 04/12/04 Mon
In the The Harvest she told Xander she is slayer and he isn't. But he still comes to help out later on. In Season 3, Faith and Buffy hung out slay more than her friends because want them safe. After Riley lost his superpowers she wanted him to partol with the gang than by himself. In Season 6 and 7 she tried to keep Dawn from fighting by sending her away. Ordinary people can empower themselves by fighting but Buffy acts like they no power to fight back.
Replies:
[>
And yet... -- Ames, 11:37:07 04/12/04 Mon
When Xander got his eye gouged out, who was quick to blame Buffy? Everyone, that's who.
[> [>
Because, of course ... -- Earl Allison, 03:45:11 04/13/04 Tue
Because it had nothing to do with Buffy's poor planning, or her actions afterwards, right? Letting normal people fight alongside the Slayer is a far cry from Buffy's "Charge of the Light Brigade" plan, IMHO. One does not prove or disprove the other.
What happened to these boards, where open discussion used to be more, well, open?
The original poster has a point, one that is underscored by the very existence of Gunn and others like him. The original premise, that only Buffy was equipped to battle vampires and the forces of evil, only worked for so long.
Angel the Series began to undermine that, when we see someone like Fred (Fred, of all people!) dusting multiple vampires. Of course, Buffy the Series tried to keep it going, but it really didn't wash after that.
So much for the claim that you need superpowers to battle the forces of Darkness.
I know where the premise came from, but it really became either laughable or offensive (depending on how charitable you wanted to be, IMHO) in the later seasons. It was painfully clear even as early as "Graduation Day" that normal people COULD make a difference. But they painted themselves into a corner with the "one girl in all the world" angle. Upon major examination, and execution of storylines, it didn't work.
Yes, the Slayer works alone, but at least part of that is her own fault.
Take it and run.
[> [> [>
DAMNIT! I lost my large post! -- Majin Gojira, 05:52:44 04/13/04 Tue
It basically pointed out that generally, the main fighters of Angel had longer experience times (Gunn fighting since 1991, Fred raised for 5 years in a hell dimension, Wesley's 4 year transformation into darkness, Doyle was a half demon, Cordelia only began to train in Sesaon 3, Groo is...well...GROO!) and more dedication to physically fighting the forces of darkness than the scoobies. They were more focused on other aspects of life (Xander with carpentry, Anya with money and avoiding rabbits ;), Willow and Tara with Spellcasting, Giles with occult knowledge). And of them, there is one who was -- Riley. He was able to take on a vamp or two by himself. As was Robin Wood. Nice to see them ignored like that.
Also, None of them go out nightly and fight vampires -- there bodies cannot take it (both in reality and in the fact that there is no evidence that they ever did).
No one ever made the claim that one needs superpowers to fight evil. Such a claim smacks of broad-brush fallacy.
The closest one comes to that claim is that the scoobies need Buffy to act fully and effectively. It's not ALL people, it's just them.
AI were dedicated to fighting evil (literally) because that was their job. The Scoobies had other things to worry about.
That said, there is a noticable differential in power level between the two shows. Why I don't know, there just is. Trust me on this.
[> [> [> [>
plus, definition of "normal" in the buffyverse -- littletrigger, 06:31:24 04/13/04 Tue
as i see it there are at least to kinds of it;
normal = human (without superpowers or whathaveyou)
and
normal = without any knowledge that there's something like the forces of darkness to begin with
it seems that while on AtS as soon as you don't fall into the latter category and you're up for it you're in, on BtVS the ideal is to force those two categories into one an the same. (andd i think that's the ideal for both the watcher's council and for buffy herself, albeit for different reasons.)
although buffy and angel fight the basically same good fight, they do it for different reasons and with different goals, so i see no reason why their methods shouldn't differ.
[> [> [> [>
The Scoobies & Wesley -- Claudia, 07:40:38 04/13/04 Tue
Actually, the Scoobies had more experience in fighting demons, vampires, etc. than Wesley. Even Cordelia had more experience. As for Fred, we really don't know what she was doing during those five years in Pylea, aside from scribbling on walls.
I wouldn't dismiss the Scoobies that easily.
[> [> [> [> [>
They maye have done it for longer... -- Majin Gojira, 07:49:34 04/13/04 Tue
But they were never shown activly training/preparing for it as both Wes and Cordy were.
Ad for Fred, she was basically survivng in a wilderness whilst being hunted by mideval authorities. That gives you a lot of experience--day to day as opposed to Monster of the Week.
I don't mean to dismiss them as effective fighters, they simply lack the insane focus that Wes and Cordy put in. For the Scoobies, fighting monsters is an extra-curricular activity. For AI, it's their Bread and Butter.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: They maye have done it for longer... -- dlgood, 08:37:22 04/13/04 Tue
But they were never shown activly training/preparing for it as both Wes and Cordy were.
Next question? Why weren't they actively training? Willow did engage in training though - she trained herself magically through experimentation.
Which ultimately follows on the valuation of might as a source of power. Buffy's physical might. Willow's magical might. Those who do not have apparent potential might, are generally encouraged to remain distant from the fight.
For the Scoobies, fighting monsters is an extra-curricular activity.
I don't know that this is necessarily true. It certainly wasn't for most of S7, yet Buffy did not offer to train Xander, Dawn or Anya alongside the potentials.
Despite the fact that Xander could throw a punch in S1-2, Buffy did not seek to increase their capacity, to "empower" him. Indeed, Buffy deliberately taking Dawn out for training in "Lessons" seems to be quite the anomaly in the series.
But then, it's also something that may be specific to Buffy herself, who seems to fall into the trap of seeing too many problems as nails, because she has such a trusty hammer.
Does she exclude them on grounds of "vision" that normal people should be free from having to fight. Or on policy grounds - that normal people aren't capable of fighting? Up in the air, I think. Regardless, for those without readily apparent potential, Buffy does not see value in training or "empowering" them, nor does it really even occur to her all that much.
It is very much a contrast to AtS.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The Power to Fight Evil: Tabulating Apocalypses es -- manwitch, 12:49:22 04/13/04 Tue
"Regardless, for those without readily apparent potential, Buffy does not see value in training or "empowering" them, nor does it really even occur to her all that much."
I would just point out that it seems like its as much our perception that "empowering" someone means encouraging them to get into fist fights as it is the perception we attribute to Buffy.
We should remember just how far beyond the scoobs and "normal" people Buffy is. Even in training the potentials, Buffy hands off much of it to Kennedy. In some ways, Buffy is more like a guest lecturer to them. The only people that extensively train or work out with Buffy are Faith, Angel, Spike, Giles and Reilly. Faith, Angel and Spike are not normal, Giles regularly gets whupped even when he's just holding the punching bag, and Reilly, well, Buffy holds back when she works out with him. It could arguably be inappropriate and power-centric for Buffy to force training for such circumstances on people that don't indicate a desire for it. This argument is in fact made consistently about Buffy's treatment of the Potentials.
Dawn is the only one that we know explicitly requested such training and was denied. Except, as you point out, she does get it in Lessons. And that was after she had demonstrated in Grave that she was training herself by Buffy's example with or without Buffy's help. She showed an interest.
While we know Xander wanted to help, we don't see him show the interest in learning to fight. We don't see the work and training he was willing to put in, except as puffy Xander, which was for Buffy's benefit, not his own. We frequently see Xander failing to succeed in fist fights, but we have no evidence that Buffy has in anyway disempowered him or influenced his failure.
That said, it seems to me it would be wrong to say that Xander was less of a contributer to Buffy's success than say Gunn or Wes is to Angel's (not that I think you said that, dlgood. I'm just positing). Xander brings Buffy back to life, thus stopping the Master's apocalypse. Xander has the idea and supplies the weapon and training in it that defeats the Judge, thus defeating that apocalypse. Whether Buffy knows it or not, Xander helps prevent the apocalypse in Zeppo. Xander figures out that the demons are the sacrifice in Doomed, thus allowing Buffy to halt that apocalypse. Xander has the idea and is part of the spell that is used to defeat Adam and avert that apocalypse. Xander picks up the spare that sidelines Glory and allows Buffy to climb the tower and avert still another apocalypse. Xander stops Black Willow when Buffy cannot and averts yet one more apocalypse. So it seems that Xander himself stops one apocalypse, plays a major role in the thwarting of 6 others, and in the remaining two (GD2 and Chosen), he is in the thick of it, yes fighting and leading, even if his role is not essential in stopping it. Isn't it our mistake to see his lack of success as a boxer as a lack of power to fight evil? I don't see how his disempowerment by Buffy manifests itself.
And I certainly don't see how it relates to his fighting evil. 9 apocalypses in which Xander, sans muscle and training, plays a major role. I find it difficult to see Wes and Gunn as contributors at that level, despite their muscle and training.
One could argue that rather than emphasizing might, Buffy actually encourages moreso than Angel other methods of participation, other forms of power, than brawn. It just seems to be a possibility.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Well said, Manwitch. I totally agree. -- fidhle, 19:06:50 04/13/04 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The Power to Fight Evil: Tabulating Apocalypses es -- dlgood, 06:10:55 04/14/04 Wed
I don't dispute that this is what happened.
What I dispute, is that Buffy had any particular active role in this development, actively facilitated or encouraged it, or thought seriously about implementing it.
That Xander wound up empowered, I won't argue against. But it happened incidentally (and she'll still get some credit) not because of any intent Buffy had in terms of "empowering" him - and in fact - runs counter to what her intentions were.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Who made that a point? -- Majin Gojira, 07:41:48 04/14/04 Wed
"What I dispute, is that Buffy had any particular active role in this development, actively facilitated or encouraged it, or thought seriously about implementing it."
Who made that statement? Honestly who? Non point.
"That Xander wound up empowered, I won't argue against. But it happened incidentally (and she'll still get some credit) not because of any intent Buffy had in terms of "empowering" him - and in fact - runs counter to what her intentions were."
And this does what? Paintng Buffy in a negative light? She's overly protective of her friends sometimes. It's a character trait. How is this not a thinley veiled Ad Homium against Buffy as your past post has been?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The Critical Job Performance Review -- dlgood, 09:26:24 04/14/04 Wed
It's not an "Ad Hominem" against Buffy. It's a serious and legitimate commentary on her management and leadership style. It's a performance evaluation. I'm in the middle of one at work right now. And calling out "Ad Hom" isn't going to mean much to HR.
If I'm critical of her policy, that's very much a professional judgement not a personal one. In the performance of her professional duty, Buffy places far greater emphasis upon might as a form of power, and does an inconsistent job of recognizing other, non-might based sources of power. Particularly, as her tenure as slayer mounts.
Do I argue that it makes her a "bad person"? That's hardly a subject of my commentary, and thus not Ad Hom at all. My argument addresses a flaw in her fulfillment of the performance objectives as a group leader in S7. And it addresses the initial question of why Buffy did not empower people.
And replies to Manwich, who had noted that Xander was "empowered" nonetheless, in a manner of speaking. I'm not making "value" judgments on good people bad people. It's a job critique.
Of course, it's hard to do any sort of assessment, because Buffy's actual job and role has never been clearly defined. And thus she has no standards to either exceed or fall short of beyond whatever standards the individual viewer believes a Slayer in her position should uphold.
Granted, that's certainly linked to a values equation. ut I very much admire Buffy Summers as a person. And I admired her in terms of performing her job. But not so much in S7, where - while she was a wonderful person - she was not particularly skilled in the envisioning or execution of her professional role.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The Critical Job Performance Review -- manwitch, 13:02:54 04/14/04 Wed
"But not so much in S7, where - while she was a wonderful person - she was not particularly skilled in the envisioning or execution of her professional role."
And this is certainly one of the interesting and/or controversial things about the end of Season 7. I think most everyone agrees, especially when they see li'l baseball girl and the other images of those "who can stand up will stand up," that the intention was to show empowerment, that Buffy's final victory was based on sharing, dissolving boundaries, erasing separatenes, effacing ego etc. etc. etc.
And yet, by the sharing being limited to potential slayers it can be interpreted as exclusive. And since the sharing was with the intent to create fighters that she was about to drag into hell, the "sharing" and "unifying" aspects can be seen as merely potential byproducts to the desire to manufacture some quick ass-kickers.
I personally don't see it that way. For me she is guilty of the mightcentric view of power up until she gets Richard Seconded. Then she tries something else, even though might is still part of the conflict, her emphasis changes, and the strength she gets to make this change comes from a non-might moment with Spike. I am what you might call "willing" to see it that way. But I'm very aware that a lot of nationally ranked and world-class posters here don't think it gets pulled off successfully.
As far as it not being Buffy's intention prior to that, well, neither is disempowerment. I mean, when Xander shows up to fight, she could kick his ass and knock him unconscious. She could refuse to tell Xander and Willow, and even Cordelia what she's up to. But she doesn't. More often than not she includes them. The fact that she doesn't want to watch them get killed doesn't mean she's disempowering them.
If there is a shootout going on in the street, and the cops in the thick of it tell you to stand back and get to safety, it seems a mischaracterization to say they are trying to disempower you from opposing crime. They are qualified authorized and able to do something you are not and just want to keep you safe. You are more than welcome to call in tips and testify to what you witnessed, etc.
This analogy obviously fails if you are, in fact, in law enforcement.
But your argument and the original one that started the thread seem to suggest that if Buffy isn't letting people get into something where they can get hurt, hurt her, escalate the situation, and possibly contribute to catastrophic consequences than she's disempowering them. Buffy doesn't think might is the only power, but its the one that should by and large be left to her. Buffy rarely does magic or carpentry.
"And replies to Manwich, who had n..."
Oh. Just like Xander. I try to make myself sound like a mysterious and powerful man witch, and I'm reduced to a sloppy joe meal time helper. Oh well...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The Critical Job Performance Review -- dlgood, 13:55:45 04/14/04 Wed
But your argument and the original one that started the thread seem to suggest that if Buffy isn't letting people get into something where they can get hurt, hurt her, escalate the situation, and possibly contribute to catastrophic consequences than she's disempowering them.
Mostly, my argument is that "empowerment" really isn't a topic Buffy intentionally deals with either way. She's exclusionary, because she heavily focuses on might.
To the extent that she's "not empowering" people, it's by not offering assistance to increase their capacity to handle themselves in a fight when she's not present. That would be empowering - she doesn't really do that. At least not intentionally. "Development" is not really part of her vision.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
That's not really Buffy role, imo. -- Arethusa, 15:21:28 04/15/04 Thu
I don't think it's Buffy's role to empower people to fight, it's her role to fight so they can live the "normal" life that she's been denied. Buffy fights demons so the rest of the world doesn't have to know they don't exist, and can live free of the fear of the supernatural. Whether or not that's a good thing is very much up to debate, but the way I see it is like President Bush saying that our soldiers fight in Iraq so we don't have to fight here. (Something that can be seen as cowardly and sleezy, or self-sacrificial so our kids don't have to worry about someone blowing up their school or parents' places of employment every day.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Error: "doesn't have to know they exist" -- Arethusa, 15:22:29 04/15/04 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: They maye have done it for longer... -- heywhynot, 14:23:16 04/13/04 Tue
The impression I got from the end of season 6 and the start of season 7 was that Buffy did train Dawn during the summer. At the end of the summer, Dawn got her first real hands-on lesson. It should be noted Cordelia did not receive much training from AI until she asked for it. Xander it appears never wanted to be trained, nor did Anya.
To me it demonstrates the difference between AI and the Scoobies. For AI, fighting evil is their chosen profession. For Xander his chosen profession was in construction. Willow was in school for much of her time on the show and trained in magics which Buffy encouraged. Anya was attached to Xander and was interested in making money at the Magic Shop. Gunn grew up fighting vampires & that is what he did. He joined AI & was a professional demon fighter. Fred lived in a demon dimension and then joined AI. Cordelia stayed out of the fights until she made the choice to become a full time fighter and asked Angel to teach her techniques.
For much of the series Buffy was the one being trained, really until season 6. In season 6 she was majorly depressed. At the end of season 6, she begins to train Dawn how to handle herself culminating as I said with the lesson in the graveyard. Dawn was the one who asked to learn how to fight like Cordelia did on AtS. Dawn through much of season 7, takes a step back and fills Giles role of looking information up, doing the work the potentials can not because they lack her experience and knowledge. Never underestimate the importance of a good librarian.
Season 7 has Buffy trying to figure out what is going on, finding the potentials, regaining Spike, training the potentials (with assistance from the rest of the Scoobies), her job at the school, etc.
To me she never really excludes. Does she actively encourage people to become warriors? No mostly I think because of the conflicts she had about being a warrior called into the role. It was a burden that yes she enjoyed at times but it was hard & she did dream of a "normal" life & resented it being taken from her. Not exactly the best mindset to recruit people to become fellow warriors. It is not like the Fang Gang has gone out and taught the people of LA how to fight demons.
Also, was Buffy ever taught how to teach? It might seem trivial but teaching is an art that requires a great deal of skill. Just because she was trained to be the Slayer doesn't mean she knows how to teach. I am in graduate school and the professors are all tops in their respective fields of study but most of them can not teach to save their lives. Why? Because they lack the skill set to teach even simple things like how to write on a chalkboard without standing in front of what you are writing. Besides Buffy learned how to fight as a super-powered being and to take advantage of those skills. A "normal" person doesn't have those abilities, Buffy would not be able to transfer exactly what she learned but who have to adopt it. When you are in the middle of a war against the First evil, drawing up a good lesson plan just doesn't seem plausible. Usually it takes teachers three years before they start hitting their stride teaching a particular class. Lets not devalue the skill & dedication involved in teaching.
[>
Re: Why does Buffy try to disempower ordinary people who want to want evil? -- dlgood, 11:42:39 04/12/04 Mon
Ordinary people can empower themselves by fighting but Buffy acts like they no power to fight back.
Historically, Buffy has tended to view power narrowly, and primarily existing only in the forms of physical and magical might. Her views occasionally expand, but in general, she holds to the restrictive and narrow view. Above all, in the fight she values might.
Therefore, she prefers the non-mighty to be fray adjacent, generally believing that her responsibility to protect them is a greater burden then their capability is a boon. She wants them out of the fight both for their own good, and for hers.
Where that comes from, and why she so frequently retreats to that view, is subject for a larger debate than I'm prepared for at the moment. I do think it's excessively narrow a conception, on both practical and ideological grounds.
[> [>
Because . . . -- Joyce, 12:16:53 04/12/04 Mon
I believe the reason Buffy does this, is because she fears that ordinary people - especially those close to her like Xander or Dawn - will get hurt, due to her activities as a Slayer.
[> [>
Well, Buffy does this in regards to actual, physical fights -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:15:43 04/12/04 Mon
And in those, might is the most important thing, especially when you're taking on beings with superstrength. I mean, when we've seen the Scooby Gang fighting without Buffy, they don't seem to do entirely well. During the summer of '98, the Scoobies did manage to kill the majority of the vampires they faced, but not by much (compared to Buffy who seems able to kill most of the vampires she goes up against). And, in "Bargaining", while the gang handled your standard issue vampires all right, they admitted they needed Buffy to fight a gang of demons. I mean, it's hard to deny that, with the exception of Angel and Spike, Buffy is simply better at fighting demons than any of the people around her (while Willow is certainly more powerful in the later seasons, it's rare that we see her using it to fight monsters other than Glory (I can't be the only one who wondered why she didn't just mentally incinerate the vampires from the teaser to "Bargaining")).
[>
I'm not sure its a closed case. -- manwitch, 07:05:01 04/13/04 Tue
Hmm, let's see.
I think the Harvest can be tossed out as an example because, while it does show the phenomenon you describe, it is basically the first time Buffy performs as the Slayer in the series and she has had her whole exposure to slayerness up to that point as being something that must be kept secret lest she put those around her in danger. She has just seen, in fact, that her advice to Willow and her allowing Xander to accompany her to the graveyard put them both in extreme danger, and she holds herself responsible for that and for the loss of jessie. So for her to, at that moment, suggest that she's the slayer and Xander is not, is simply a statement of her perception at that point, being unaware of the vast contributions her friends and family will ultimately make to her mission. She is just parroting what she has been taught and experienced up to that point.
As for Riley, she wants him to patrol with the gang not simply because he lost his superpowers but because she nearly got killed the night before. She is again acutely aware of the dangers of this project. And since she is asking the gang to go along, she really isn't disempowering Reilly, so much as empowering them all to function together in her stead. Its Reilly who perceives that as disempowering because he doesn't have respect for the gang.
I think there are about a gazillion examples, give or take, from each season (I might be overestimating slightly), of Buffy having to rescue or save Xander, Giles, Willow, and other normal people. Buffy expresses an awareness of having to do this and of the danger it poses to her, at least in Graduation Day if not elsewhere. So in that sense, the number of times she does include them seems to speak to her overcoming her own fear of their danger and the inconvenience it imposes on her to neverthless empower them to fight evil as their capabilities allow.
Certainly Checkpoint speaks to that empowerment.
I think many other examples exist of her empowerment of others who wish to fight evil. Certainly in Reilly's moments of self-doubt following Maggie's death, she is extremely empowering towards him. Even in the Harvest she encourages Willow to help as she is able and when Xander does show up she gives him a weapon of sorts in the cross. She brings the whole gang with her to the Bronze, quite consciously.
She is quick to ask Giles to enlist the help of Jenny Calendar and to take Xander with her to the Factory in IRYJ. It would hardly be empowering to Giles, in Prophecy Girl, for Buffy to watch him get killed by the Master and then have to fight the Master alone anyway.
Its hard for me to see Buffy disempowering Cordelia in Homecoming, or anyone in Primeval or Graduation Day. If anything, by midpoint of Season Three, she assumes the help of the gang, rather than rejecting it. Its Buffy's idea to put Willow in the vamp suit in Doppelgangland, and to bring Xander with her to break into the Initiative on more than one occasion. I'm sure Parker Abrams felt empowered. I know I would have.
Of course, there are moments when she is overprotective or absorbed in her own thing, and those tend to be moments where she is shown to be weak or mistaken, and usually she overcomes exactly that sort of behavior to become a more inclusive and empowering person in the ultimate defeat of the big bad. Not always, but not rarely either. A good example of that might be her disempowerment of Jenny Calendar in Innocence, which I think we can all understand and which Buffy ultimately realizes is not productive.
So I kinda disagree with the premise underlying the question. To answer it directly, I would say that when she does disempower people, she does it because she is mistaken, confused, overly protective, properly and justifiably protective, or because its an unintended consequnece of what she is trying to do. (And let's not forget, since I mention "properly and justifiably protective," the number of times that Buffy has been in a knock down drag out with some beastie or other and Xander has been hiding behind the bed or lying by unconscious, while Willow stands by parallyzed in fear or throwing nerf balls. They aren't in there kung fooing demons, not by a long shot, even though the opportunity is readily available and Buffy is not stopping them.) But by and large, I think she is far more empowering than not. The end of the series, Chosen, shows her ultimate victory through empowering others, something for which she seems to be largely castigated in these discussions.
I also disagree in part with dlgood's description of Buffy's narrow approach to power. Buffy certainly recognizes that aspect of power, but I think episodes like Helpless, Graduation Day part One, Intervention, Primeval, Restless, The Gift, even Prophecy Girl, show that there is more to it for her. She is aware that there are greater powers than the ability to beat things up. Its just that she is also aware that she beats things up better than most people do, and she's not wrong.
[>
A loaded question -- Kansas, 13:32:07 04/15/04 Thu
I assume slayer meant to say, "Why does Buffy try to disempower people who want to fight evil?"
This is a pretty loaded question, however... the main text of the message would seem to be asking why Buffy tries to keep non-superpowered people out of fights. But the subject says, "disempower", so basically the conclusion is stated and then the question is asked. I.e., the conclusion is that Buffy keeps non-superpowered people out of fights to disempower them. Which, as other posters have pointed out, is not necessarily the case.
Does anyone think Willow has changed from the Chosen spell? -- slayer, 13:26:54 04/12/04 Mon
I think she has been changed by the spell and become a guardian. They probably like becoming a higher being type.
Replies:
[>
No evidence one way or the other, really...not enough aftereffect on her seen -- Majin Gojira, 07:17:40 04/13/04 Tue
[> [>
Re: No evidence one way or the other, really...not enough aftereffect on her seen -- Alistair, 15:07:18 04/13/04 Tue
I think that the coloring of her hair into white indicated the next step in her development. It was the antithesis of what she became when she went apocalyptically evil back in Season 6. This act, which saved the world was her redeption for the horrible things she did and planned to do. She was able to invoke the good in her and it worked the spell. I don;t know if she is becoming a higher being. We all saw what that meant for Cordelia, having to chill with the powers until one of them used her body to manifest on Earth. What Willow was able to tap in "Chosen" was even greater then the powers, but the Earth herself. Who knows if a Buffy movie will reveal the changes in her.
quesion about buffy music -- ghady, 13:33:13 04/12/04 Mon
What are the songs that are constantly played on Buffy called? There's one called "Close Your Eyes" and there's another one that wasn't played in the earlier seasons; it was only played in seasons 5 and 6 (I THINK.. I'm not sure about 3 and 4, and I haven't seen 7 yet).. I remember it was played in Hell's Bells when Anya was saying her "real" vows to Tara, and Xander was walking under the rain all confused and such (it was also played in many other episodes, but I can't recall which). If you know its name, that'll be great. Now if annyone knows where i can download these two songs from, that'll be great too (i can't use kazaa because of firewall issues). You know what else would be great? If someone had those songs AND MSN. Then he/she could send them to me online (we'll delete/block each other later IF you want).
Ok then. Thanks in advance.
Replies:
[>
P.S.quesion about buffy music -- ghady, 00:46:09 04/13/04 Tue
I forgot to mention this, but if someone has the song played when Buffy kills herself in The Gift, that'll be great too.
[> [>
a possible resource -- manwitch, 05:46:06 04/13/04 Tue
There used to be a great website called the Buffy and Angel music pages. As near as I can tell it is gone now. The address brings you to something else at anyrate.
The music playing at the end of the gift is on the Once More With Feeling soundtrack CD.
For other music, this address below seems to list everything up through Season 6. Might help you find what you're after.
http://www.buffyworld.com/buffy/music.htm
[>
Re: quesion about buffy music -- Ames, 08:30:00 04/13/04 Tue
Buffy music listing sites come and go. manwitch already mentioned Buffyworld's listing. Here's another one:
http://www.sillybean.net/buffymusic.html
There's lots more sites around if you look. Most of the music is available on file-sharing services, and it's usually labeled as Buffy music, although not often with the specific episode.
There have been 3 Buffy-specific CDs released: the Buffy the Vampire Slayer Soundtrack (music from seasons 1-3, not the movie soundtrack), Radio Sunnydale (music from seasons 4-7), and of course the Once More With Feeling soundtrack. You can find the track listings and samples on Amazon. Radio Sunnydale is available in different US and UK releases, and the UK release has a lot more tracks. Unfortunately the current US CD has one of those brain-dead experimental "copy protection" schemes, so it can't be recommended anyway.
Original orchestral music was composed for BtVS by people like Christopher Beck and Rob Duncan. Not all of it is available on CD, although you can download most of it.
Please remember that all of the music is copyrighted, and much of it is available on CD and pay download services. I can't say that buying it supports the artists to any great extent, but it may incease increase the chance that there will be future Buffy-related investments by the entertainment industry. Consider buying CDs or at least a few tracks.
Potentials -- Mike, 15:00:39 04/12/04 Mon
This whole potentials thing has me kinda confused. In the past i always assumed Buffy and Faith and the other slayers were called spontaneously when the previos Slayer died and they were chosen out of all the girls in the world (as the jargon in Season 1 always says) at that time.But now we see many girls in the running to be a Slayer. When are potentials made potentials - is it when they're born - cause if so, how come all of the slayers we know about have always been teenage-young adult types - couldn't there be really young slayers or older ones? If the slayer is chosen spontaneously once one Slayer dies, this could always be averted, but in a potential system - not always so. For example, if the First Evil had carried out its plan, to wipe out the potential slayers, if Buffy and Faith were killed and all the teenage potentials, would more potentials who were teenagers be called or would a much younger girl be called?
Replies:
[>
Re: Potentials -- Claudia, 15:53:19 04/12/04 Mon
In BtVS Season 2, it was established that Kendra, unlike Buffy, had been spotted by the Watcher's Council as a potential Slayer, when she was a very young girl. I don't know about Faith, but it is possible that she was spotted as a Potential, before she became a Slayer. Buffy, on the other hand, wasn't spotted until AFTER she became the Slayer.
[>
Movie vs. TV show -- Vickie, 15:29:28 04/13/04 Tue
In the feature film (say "fillum"), a potential slayer bore a particular birth mark that identified her. Buffy had "that thing taken off" at an early age. Hence, the council did not identify her.
Which begs the question of HOW the watchers would spot such a mark. Perhaps it was in a visible spot, like the elbow or something. ;-)
Anyway, in the television show, it's clear that a potential slayer's aura or magical presence or spirit or something is detectible to those skilled in magic. The witches of the Devon coven can detect potentials around the world (Buffy S7), though it's apparently fairly hard work. Willow cannot do it, perhaps because it is a matter of precision rather than raw power. The First Evil, or its Bringers, can also find potential slayers this way.
Either way, a potential slayer is apparently born, not made. She is apparently eligible to be called from puberty onward, with some nebulous upper age limit that was never defined. Kennedy thought, at nineteen, that she might be too old to be called. This makes some small sense, as this way young women with the potential can then mature and hopefully pass the potential along to their daughters.
Angel's Epiphany - Gingerbread revisited? -- shambleau, 18:49:20 04/12/04 Mon
I was just wondering what differences people see in the speech Angel made to Buffy in Gingerbread and what he said to Kate in Epiphany. I know many people consider the Epiphany speech to be a pivotal moment in Angel's growth, when he becomes an existential hero, but I personally don't see much difference between the two. In fact, it seems more like he'd backslid during the first two seasons of Angel and was simply coming back to a stance he'd taken before - especially since the metaphor on Seasons 1 and 2 of AtS was of Angel as a reformed drunk, with his backsliding a constant motif.
Replies:
[>
Re: Backsliding -- Ames, 08:04:12 04/13/04 Tue
Don't underestimate the effect that going to Sunnydale and then leaving it had on Angel, as seen in this speech to Faith from Consequences:
Angel: Faith, you have a choice. You've tasted something few ever do. I mean, to kill without remorse is to feel like a god.
Faith: Right now, all I feel is a cramp in my wrist, so let me go!
Angel: But you're not a god. You're not much more than a child. Going down this path will ruin you. You can't imagine the price for true evil.
Faith: Yeah? I hope evil takes MasterCard.
Angel: You and me, Faith, we're a lot alike. Time was, I thought humans existed just to hurt each other. But then I came here. And I found out that there are other types
of people. People who genuinely wanted to do right. And they make mistakes. And they fall down. You know, but they keep caring. Keep trying. If you can trust us, Faith, this can all change. You don't have to disappear into the darkness.
-----------------------------------
Angel is speaking about himself as much as Faith here. His departure for LA is still several episodes away, and this foreshadows how much it will cost him. So his state of mind in the first year in LA is quite understandable.
But what always bugs me about this sequence of personal development is that Angel's bundreds of years in a hell dimension in the middle of his Sunnydale period seem to be totally forgotten, like it had no effect on him. It seems pretty cheap to just pretend that he blocked it out.
[> [>
Re: Backsliding (spoilers for S5 'Hellbound') -- Pip, 16:19:15 04/13/04 Tue
But what always bugs me about this sequence of personal development is that Angel's bundreds of years in a hell dimension in the middle of his Sunnydale period seem to be totally forgotten, like it had no effect on him. It seems pretty cheap to just pretend that he blocked it out.
It does get referenced. One of the episodes in Series 1 of AtS, Angel responds to 'go to Hell' with 'been there, done that.' And in S5 Hellbound Spike and Angel discuss Angel having been in, and got out of, a hell dimension.
Technically speaking (hey, Lent's just finished, I've been reading this stuff), Hell is a static state in the old-style Catholic theology. So it's entirely possible for Angel to have learnt absolutely nothing from his sojourn in a Hell dimension. People go to Hell (in the classic theology) because they can't change from their condition of sin. Even the smallest, slightest hint of repentance (ie a desire to change) before death is enough to get you out of Hell and into Purgatory [for non Catholics - Purgatory is a boot camp for Heaven. It's about as much fun as boot camp, too. :-)].
So you could argue that Angel's in a Hell dimension because of his refusal to change. His claim in Becoming Pt. 2 is that he didn't remember what he was doing as Angelus. Since Spike appears to have crystal-clear recall of what he did while soulless (even if he is discussing it with people who aren't actually there), it seems more that Angel doesn't want to remember.
Looking at Holtz, who also went to a Hell dimension, he also shows a complete and utter inability to change from his 'revenge' mode. Darla, who was able to change, doesn't remember anything about being dead. Not 'in Hell', then. Spike, also able to change, is being dragged in to Hell (once he's in Wolfram and Hart) but escapes. Again, like Darla, he seems to have no memory of the period when he was actually dead (or perhaps he's simply not saying).
So being 'in a Hell dimension' in the Jossverse might well be a signal that someone is unable or unwilling to change. It's a danger for Spike, but he escapes by his own efforts. Angel doesn't seem to have done a thing to save himself - but something does seem to be trying to save him. Holtz wants revenge despite Angel having changed and despite Angel's being sorry for what he did. Holtz chooses to 'go to Hell'. Darla doesn't remember being there at all, and eventually tries to keep her soul. Buffy, another character who changes, never goes to a hell dimension at all - her friends just think she has.
So it might be entirely consistent that Angel's stay in hell hasn't changed him at all [grin].
[> [> [>
Re: Hell and paradise in the Bible (and Ats) -- Anny, 03:09:54 04/14/04 Wed
Hell's dimension known in Ats :Quortoth and may be Pylea.
Quortoth ,from Connor's point of view,doesn't seem to be
a place where you learn nothing(understatement of the year!)Struggle for life in a non-human environnement and a lot of Hell's "beasts" to track or being tracked by,...
Pylea is also(Lorne's opinion in "Over the rainbows")"not Hell,but close second"
There is probably a difference between Hell(The real one) and Hell's dimensions in the Joss' verse.
In Christians' belief,Hell is not a place full of fire and demons,Hell is a big metaphor,Hell is the absence of love.
If you can't love the others,if you can't connect with humanity and love it,then you are in Hell.Hell is not a "place",Hell is in your heart.Hell is pain because you can't be happy if you cant learn to love all humanity.
Paradise is not a place either,but Agapé:happiness in the love of the others and in the love of God.
Hell is not God's punishment.God doesn't punish you even if you are a big sinner because God IS love :if you don't like the message,you're free to dismiss it.He won't send you in a bad place where you will be tortured by red little demons with spikes.
Hell is your own doing.It's Holland's message in the elevator,Earth is Hell and Paradise,good and bad are in mens' heart.They must choose their path.
Humanity's misery is not God's doing but the results of humans' actions(or sins if you prefer)
You can be the biggest bastard on earth,God wont punish you.
You are punishing yourself because you cant find real happiness.
Real happiness cant be found in passion or lust for one person(most of the time it's short and destructive even if the feelings are strong) or even in the more peaceful sort of love,"caritas in latin",the love for a few other people:love for your family,frienship,love between husbands and wives,between lovers,this love bring you happiness and joy and it's a great thing but it's not enough...To reach perfect happiness,God says that we must embrace all humanity in our love... and it's far from being easy!
OT:God's proposition is an "alliance" with him(symbolised by the arch in the Old Testament),it's not an obligation.Happiness,if we follow his advice(and its only an advice) can only be found in the love of others and him.
In the New Testament(Jesus'life),the curtain of the Temple which were in front of the little room where the arch was kept and where noone could go with the exception of the Grand Priest once a year,is teared after Jesus' death and resurrection.God was hidden from men between the curtain and now everyone can see him again.It's the symbolisation of the New Alliance between God and men.The new possibility for men to live in peace with him and the rest of humanity.God is not the Elected People's "property",he wants the message of love to be spread all over the world and not only for the David's sons.That's the message of the New Testament.
God(!),I sound like a preacher(sorry),but the Bible (Old and New)is a fascinating text full of metaphors,parabl and most of the time people tend to take it on the first level.
So,sorry for the little lecture*g*
Return to topic after aparté:
If JW follows the Bible's metaphor,then Angel's sojourn in Hell is only the pain of his lack of love for humanity,his disconnection and apathy for humans'feelings and it was Doyle's message in City of...That's why he probably came back from "Hell".A new chance to discover his own humanity which he is far from at the moment imo.
In the beginning of season three,he was close to that goal,he had Babyconnor,Cordy,Wes,Gunn and Fred's friendship and love,a purpose in life:"helping the helpless",a rewarding job,he was beginning to be happy.The DorkAngel phase that a lot of people hate.Well,I,I loved it.
At last he was more human,joking around,being vulnerable and a little stupid sometimes.Human,you know.
But,hey,people prefer Angel screwed up and it's better TV in Joss opinion,so everything began to escape from Angel's hands and now he is back to his personnal hell,disconnected from humanity.No "caritas" for Angel and certainly not Agapé!
I'm curious to see if they(ME)are going to give him a chance to find a little peace.
[> [> [>
Verily, I swear, I hadn't read any spoilers for AtS 5.17 when I posted above (but there's some now) -- Pip, 13:11:52 04/15/04 Thu
Yet another hell type dimension (ok, a holding hell) where nothing ever changes. And Angel says that Lindsay doesn't seem to have learnt anything there.
Hmmmm.
Anny, I agree that you've given a good breakdown of current thought, but I was talking classic hell theology. As in pre-Reformation, Middle Ages, 14th Century or so. Buffyverse theology always feels 'not-modern' to me - possibly because that fits in better with their universe.
Connor does not fit with the 'hell = unchanging' theme, which is why I left him out. He's also the only person who ends up in a hell dimension without deserving to be there . He was a baby, an innocent when he was taken to Quoroth - I think he's quite deliberately not supposed to fit in with the pattern of the adults.
Inca Mummy Girl -- ghady, 06:51:18 04/13/04 Tue
She's a Slayer, right? Just checking.
Replies:
[>
Re: Inca Mummy Girl -- monsieurxander, 00:42:25 04/14/04 Wed
Possibly.
They definitely drew a parallel between Buffy and Ampata (single chosen one, sacred duty, etc.), but whether the Inca Mummy Girl was actually once a Slayer... They never answered that question. I think they left it open for interpretation on purpose. That's just my take on it, though.
[>
Re: Inca Mummy Girl -- skeeve, 12:20:52 04/14/04 Wed
Why would you even suspect that the mummy had been a Slayer?
Mummifying a Slayer would seem a strange thing to do,
even by Incan standards.
'Twould also seem difficult.
[> [>
Re: Inca Mummy Girl -- monsieurxander, 22:44:10 04/14/04 Wed
....Mostly because of the "One girl in all the world chosen to fight the forces of darkness" bit that Ampata repeated. Remember, in an episode of Firefly, villagers on a backwater planet tried to burn River for her psychic abilities (calling her a "witch") rather than take advantage of them. Superstition's a bitch.
[> [> [>
Re: Inca Mummy Girl -- skeeve, 08:22:34 04/15/04 Thu
When the mummy girl refered to a chosen one from her time,
she wasn't talking about herself,
she was talking about a princess who apparently was a Slayer.
Since Slayers had previously come one at a time,
it follows that the mummy girl had not been a Slayer.
To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been
mummified for witchcraft or anything else of which
the mummifier disapproved.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Inca Mummy Girl -- ghady, 09:00:20 04/15/04 Thu
No, no, I can assure you she was talking about herself. I saw that episode on DVD not too long ago.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Inca Mummy Girl -- skeeve, 13:16:58 04/16/04 Fri
Since the mummy had been a princess,
I suppose it is possible that she
was refering to herself in the third person.
In that case, I would infer not that she
was one of Buffy's predecessors, but that
the Incans had another way of defending
themselves from the denizens of the netherworld:
a defender that could turn them into dust bunnies.
The 'bodyguard' would activate her when necessary
and keep her from feeding on the people that
mummified her.
I don't have the DVD. I was going by an online transcript from
http://www.buffyworld.com/buffy/season2/transcripts/16_tran.shtml
[skeeve's note: the mummmy wasn't named Ampata
the real Ampata was male]
Ampata: Thank you. You are always thinking of others before yourself.
You remind me of someone from very long ago: the Inca Princess.
Buffy: Cool! A princess.
She gets up from her bed and opens Ampata's backpack while Ampata tries
out a lipstick.
Ampata: They told her that she was the only one. That only she could
defend her people from the nether world.
Buffy pulls out a pair of boy's briefs and looks at them in confusion.
Ampata: Out of all the girls in her generation...
Buffy looks over at Ampata and sees she's about to open the top left
drawer where she keeps her Slayer stuff. She rushes over. Ampata pulls
open the drawer and looks in curiously.
Ampata: ...she was the only one...
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Inca Mummy Girl -- ghady, 03:25:14 04/17/04 Sat
Oh.. well, see, i forgot about that. But maybe SHE'S the Princess person, and she's referring to herself in the third person. dunno..
Angel/Connor/Sahijan -- ghady, 07:17:07 04/13/04 Tue
I've seen Angel Season Three. But that was over a year ago, and i missed like 10 episodes. So, a few questions:
1) Why does Sahijan want Angel and Darla dead??!!
2) How did Darla get pregnant??
3) What's with the prophecies about Connor? Are they fake or are they real? I THINK i heard that Sahijan and Lila made them up or something, but i woulnd't know.
4) The Tro-Clon.. or Tri-Clon (i forget).. the first event was the birth of Connor, the second was the surfacing of Holtz.. What's the third??
Thanks a LOOOOOTTTTTTTT!
Replies:
[>
answers (with spoilers) -- Ray, 13:08:49 04/13/04 Tue
1) To prevent Connor's birth. The prophecy states Connor will kill Sahjan. Sahjan flitted around in time altering the prophecy so no one would know his intentions. Flitted around in a manly way, just so we're clear.
2) In the episode the Trial, Angel earned Darla a second chance at life. However, it couldn't be used to save her. Unknown to them they had a mystical life floating around between them. When they had sex, Jasmine used this mystical life to bring about Connor.
3) See #1. Sahjan wrote certain prophecies to make it seem that Angel would kill Connor. That way he could push Holtz, Wesley, whoever into caring out his plans.
4) In theory, Sahjan or the "Father will Kill the Son" or perhaps the death of Sahjan. Its not too clear.
[> [>
Re: answers (with spoilers) -- Alistair, 15:03:03 04/13/04 Tue
The troclon did not imply a convergence of three events, it was simply a cosmic convergence which seems to involve Angel, Connor, the rest of AI, Holtz, the demise of the Ra Tet, the coming of Jasmine, Wolfram and Hart changes and even the coming of Illyria. The Troclon emergences set off a chain of events which led from the middle of season three all the way until now on Angel.
Whether Connors purpose was to birth Jasmine or to kill Sahjahn or both, is still unknown, but he is a special child indeed.
[> [> [>
Re: answers (with spoilers) -- ghady, 05:13:30 04/14/04 Wed
ok ok.. a little lost here.. it's ok, you can spoil me--a bit.. just a little general info..
who's jasmine??? who's Ra Tet?? and who's Illyria (try not to mention any spoilers about Wolfram and Hart plz!)
[> [> [> [>
changed my mind -- ghady, 05:19:15 04/14/04 Wed
ok, i changed my mind. DON'T say another word. i don't wanna know ANYTHING. i'm gonna buy angel seasons 3 and 4 at the end of this month, so just tell me this: will i understand everything if i watch them? (oh, i'm also gonna buy buffy season 7.. so yey.. i've been saving up some cash.)
Final six episodes destined to be bloody good - MSNBC Article (very minor spoilers) -- tomfool, 13:52:54 04/13/04 Tue
MSNBC just posted a rather long and actually pretty decent article about Angel coming to a close. From what I could see, the spoilers about the end of the season are extremely minor (dealing with the fate of Fred/Illyria). I stay unspoiled and nothing jumped out at me.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4565069/
I'm sure this is just the first of numerous 'end of series' articles. It does acknowledge and link to the Saving Angel websites.
Replies:
[>
Masq, shield your eyes from this one! -- Vickie, 19:22:04 04/13/04 Tue
The writer's a Connor hater, so there's no good for you in this one.
[> [>
Oh, I know...The writer annoyed the **** out of me re: those snotty comments! -- Rob, 19:37:46 04/13/04 Tue
[> [> [>
Re: Oh, I know...The writer annoyed the **** out of me re: those snotty comments! -- nazlan, 11:14:53 04/14/04 Wed
Indeed. I really don't think such an article was the proper place to bash the Connor arc. Some of us like Connor, even if we weren't too keen on the Cordelia/Connor tryst. Personally, I happened to particularly like the Baby Connor storyline, so take that, Mr. Reviewer!
[> [> [> [>
You go! -- Masq with the pom-poms, 14:12:06 04/14/04 Wed
I don't read anything that could even be slightly spoilery (and frankly, I'm afraid to read Connor spoilers at all--last year they put me into a catatonic state), so I didn't read this.
But I'm glad the big ol' vamp-scion brat adorable little tyke has supporters on the board!
[> [> [> [> [>
Aww! Isn't he the cutest wittle thing?!? -- Rob, 15:18:10 04/14/04 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
I am! I am! -- Ann, 16:56:46 04/14/04 Wed
And I have an icon that asks the ultimate question!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
*Sob* -- Masq, 11:20:36 04/15/04 Thu
I'm already anxious enough about that looming possibility. Didya hafta stick it on a pic of that sweet little face??
Thanks for the support, btw. Sometimes I wonder if all the Connorlurv on the board is just folks sucking up to me.
Nah. Who'd want to suck up to me?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL -- Ann, 12:15:12 04/15/04 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Well, you are the Mother of the Board... -- Jane, 16:46:36 04/15/04 Thu
and as such deserves much sucking up to! BTW, I like Connor too. Always had a bit of a thing for rebels..LOL.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
But am I the Mother Board? -- Masq *tired after a long day*, 16:56:39 04/15/04 Thu
AtS 5.22 Writer Spoiler only... -- Rob, 19:39:32 04/13/04 Tue
The finale, which was going to be written and directed by Jeff Bell alone is now going to be co-written with Joss, which I'm very happy about, so we at least get Joss, even if he's not directing, working on what might be the final episode.
Rob
Replies:
[>
Re: AtS 5.22 Writer Spoiler only...(including title) -- Nino, 20:06:26 04/13/04 Tue
I read a while ago that it was to be written by Joss and called "Not Fade Away" and I also read that it was to be directed by Bell...this is the first I've heard that he would be co-writing. Is there any chance of Joss directing the ep? I wouldn't have it any other way...I can't imagine the last episode of the Buffyverse being in someone else's hands.
Has the ep already been shot?
[> [>
Re: AtS 5.22 Writer Spoiler only...(including title) -- Rob, 22:19:09 04/13/04 Tue
There's a good reason Joss isn't directing...The schedule overlaps with the filming of Serenity, the Firefly movie.
Rob
[> [> [>
ahhhhh -- nino, 05:42:54 04/14/04 Wed
Xander/Tight Embrace -- ghady, 05:49:34 04/14/04 Wed
Ok, clearly, the second "tight embrace" was meant to replace the word "boobies." HOWEVER, what was the FIRST "tight embrace" supposed to replace (ooh, that rhymes!) Seriously. "Warm in the night when i'm right in her tight--embrace, tight embraaaaaace." They were referring to Anya's...er... vaginal region. But what is the exact word they didn't want to say? I can't think of anything naughty that rhymes w/ "grace" or "night/right." (unless they didn't want to replace anything in the first place; unless they were doing this whole "we don't have anything naughty to rhyme with this, so let's just say 'tight embrace,' because our viewers are intelligent enough to know what we mean" concept.) Any ideas?
Replies:
[>
"tightest place"? -- KdS, 09:39:51 04/14/04 Wed
[>
Re: Xander/Tight Embrace -- Evan, 09:43:03 04/14/04 Wed
I think they were just repeating the "tight embrace" the first time around to make the line more noticeable so that people wouldn't miss it. Just to make sure that people would get the later "tight embrace" joke.
[>
Re: Xander/Tight Embrace -- skeeve, 12:15:57 04/14/04 Wed
Apparently this is a reference to something I missed.
Would someone kindly enlighten?
[> [>
Xander's and Anya's song in "Once More With Feeling" -- KdS, 12:39:22 04/14/04 Wed
[>
Re: Xander/Tight Embrace -- Matthew Wilson, 12:27:39 04/14/04 Wed
I think that, structurally, it's the same as
"going through the motions, faking it somehow,
she's not even half the girl she - ow"
In other words, the "original" version of the line doesn't need to rhyme, as long as the final version does.
I think.
| ATPoBtVS&AtS Archives |
Forum timezone: GMT-8
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems. Please support our sponsors.
Copyright © 1998-2003 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.