April 2001 posts
Peter and the Wolf... -- Rufus, 13:39:06
04/18/01 Wed
The things that stand out for me are: Doc was humming Peter and
the Wolf,
canine and serpent can see the key, so do we have a demon with
canine
aspects here? Dawn seemed to see Doc in a different way than Spike
did, so
is there more to Doc than meets the eye?
The Gohra demon, sounds like the Mohra demon, they have the similarity
of
the Mohra having the blood of eternity, the Gohras eggs giving
life. So as
Spike was bitten by the demon what will happen will he get an
aspect of the
Gohra demon (I don't mean he will start laying really big eggs
here), if so
what?
Doc said that he saw Spike before, ramblings of an old man, or
did Doc see
the past, or how about the future?
Doc seemed to want to see Dawn again, is Doc the Wolf?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- The Godfather, 13:43:36 04/18/01
Wed
I don't think Spike will get anything from the demon because it's
life-giving was in it's eggs and not in it's saliva or blood.
I don't see
them basically repeating the been there done that story from both
BUFFY and
ANGEL..
I however do wonder about Doc's ramblings..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Doc's looks and a Possible Spoiler -- Scott L., 15:40:12
04/18/01 Wed
I thought that Doc's eyes looked a lot like Jinx's eyes. Coincidence?
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
TV Guide said that Joel Gray played a hell-god in the 100th episode.
That
means that either Doc is the third hell god -- a part of the Glory,
Ben, ?
triptych, or the hell-god will be played by the same actor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Masquerade, 14:26:46 04/18/01
Wed
And does Doc know Dawn is not all she appears to be?
I also wonder if Glory will take her minion Jinx to Doc because
she said
something about "getting him fixed" after he died so
she could "hear the
story again without all that moaning" or some thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Rufus, 15:11:12 04/18/01
Wed
I think that the Doc knows that Dawn is more than a little girl....one
note....he did first offer a spell to make her grieving easier.
The bit
where he took a bit of her hair and commented on the DNA being
strong was
something to remember. I don't think that Doc is a dottering old
man, I
think he is way more. I considered the fact that as he is supposed
to be
well known for spells of reserection that his home may be his
place of
business so I considered that Spike wouldn't need an invite. I
also thing
that the bite of the demon should be considered because they made
such a
point of showing it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Wiccagrrl, 14:30:16 04/18/01
Wed
Well, the tail Dawn saw poking out under the coat seemed pretty
reptilian.
And there was the thing with they eyes going all black. So, I'm
guessing
he's probably not just a mere mortal, not even a powerful and
knowledgable
one. There's more to this guy than meets the eye.
I would really love to know what the comment about knowing Spike
was all
about- sitting in the corner mart, playing Dominoes, but different
color
hair and not a vampire? Was this refering to William? Was it implying
he
could see the past, or that he was around back then, too?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Solitude1056, 14:41:15
04/18/01 Wed
I would really love to know what the comment about knowing Spike
was all
about- sitting in the corner mart, playing Dominoes, but different
color
hair and not a vampire?
But even stranger, to me, was Spike's reaction - it seemed verging
on
defensiveness. (Someone else who taped it may need to re-watch,
'cause I
could be remembering or interpreting that wrong.) But he sure
seemed
insistent for some reason that no, no, he didn't know the old
man. And for a
bit there, perhaps I wasn't the only one wondering why Spike felt
it
necessary to insist this was his first meeting with the old man,
until the
old man suddenly changed tack completely & said something about
brown hair
(and glasses, too, I thought).
I may be reading way between the lines here, but it seemed to
me that Spike
had some sort of invitation, even if it was unnecessary... that
looked like
the guy's living room, and it didn't seem like the kind of place
that was a
storefront. Why else, then, would you just walk in - needing an
invitation
or no? Not knocking at all but just walking in implied to me a
"Spike's been
here before." On top of that, I took the old man's words
- and Spike's
testy, almost insistent negative reaction - to be that these two
had met
before. Perhaps the old man was not-so-subtly reminding Spike
to watch his
step, for some reason.
And as long as I'm at it, why so unsubtle a demonic touch? I mean,
come on -
usually the baddies don't go out of their way to broadcast that
they're
baddies unless it serves some sort of purpose. And Spike,
Mr-Notice-Everything, seemed to be quite impervious to Dawn's
nudges and
jumpiness at seeing Doc's repitilian side. It just struck me as
awfully
heavy-handed - one glimpse of the tail is intriguing, but the
eyes seemed a
bit of overkill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Wiccagrrl, 15:51:49
04/18/01 Wed
And as long as I'm at it, why so unsubtle a demonic touch? I mean,
come on -
usually the baddies don't go out of their way to broadcast that
they're
baddies unless it serves some sort of purpose.
Which sort of leaves me wondering how much of a baddie he really
is. I mean,
they left little question that he wasn't completely human. But
he seemed to
almost be trying to spook Dawn, and maybe he was. He made it awfully
clear
to Dawn that this was a bad idea. He warned of the consequences,
didn't in
anyway claim this would really be her mom coming back, etc. He
also told her
(accurately, apparently) how to break the spell if things didn't
go right.
But he was going to leave the choice to her.
I also find myself wondering, since the spell did technically
work, if Dawn
is going to find herself being held to what she was saying/offering
in that
spell. It did sort of sound like she was offering herself to Osiris.
Could
be wrong, but it would make things interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Rufus, 18:22:19
04/18/01 Wed
Consider Satan, he gives you the choice of selling your soul,
with complete
awareness of what you are doing. With vampires there is generally
no choice
you are made so that evil is easy to see. With darker evil there
is that
element of needing you to make the choice to follow the darkness
without the
light to guide your way. In the shooting script it says about
Doc:
"As he moves to another stack of papers and we see what Dawn
is seeing -
just a hint of Reptilian tail curling from under his bathrobe.
But before we
can really make it out, it's gone agian - disappearing into his
clothes.?
"As Dawn takes his hand - Doc's eyes go Dompletely Black
for just a moment,
another hint of unnerving evil."
Spike didn't see what Dawn saw. That was clear. So what type of
evil is Doc.
Ambiguous or very smart deliberate evil? What does he want from
Dawn...is he
the third hellgod or a bigger bad? I see alot of snake imagery
this year. If
Doc is the snake, what is he offering?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Check out my post below... -- Jen
C., 19:46:15 04/18/01 Wed
...on the corruption of Dawn. I really got an impression that
Dawn was
slipping down a path of corruption with this particular turn of
events. She
may have terminated the spell before we could see the outcome,
but she was
very determined to carry it out, regardless of the cost to herself,
Buffy,
and whatever shell of a mom the spell would have called up.
I think that Dawn is a plum waiting to be plucked by whatever
evil can
discern her true nature. It may be that that Doc is one of those
evils - who
knows what he may want?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Check out my post below...
-- June, 23:16:55 04/18/01
Wed
Dawn is all too easily enticed by evil given the right situation.
And at times she really scares me.
Or, to put it another way, she is just an ordinary teenager.
Dawn is basically a good kid, but there is the very real possibility
that
her darker nature might assert itself over the strong light of
goodness that
is within her. Just like there is with the rest of us.
Dawn is a very strong willed individual. She showed great strength
in this
episode, albeit in pursuit of an less than honourable objective,
but came
through in the end. People underestimate Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dawn gets a personality
-- Charlotte, 14:01:48 04/19/01
Thu
This is the first episode in which I felt Dawn really developed
a character
with a personality. In the past, I felt that she was just portraying
an
annoying, childlike and undeveloped personality. In this episode,
her
character grew. She knew what SHE wanted and what SHE had to do
to get what
she wanted. She spoke more strongly and acted more strongly. It
makes
perfect sense that this would be the episode where her character
and
independence are truly developed because she could no longer depend
on her
mother.
The only other times she started showing her own personality is
in her
interactions with and about Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn gets
a personality -- Sue, 10:21:58
04/22/01 Sun
All her life people have protected Dawn. Treated her as "the
baby" as the
immature one.
It is only natural for her to adopt, to a certain extent, the
role others
have placed her in.
Often our perceptions of ourselves, and therefore our personalities
are
shaped by how we perceive others perceiving us.
Dawn has always been treated as the baby, as immature, so we shouldn't
be so
shocked when she acts that way. Just fulifilling their expectations
of her.
She might have adopted the role assigned to her by others to a
certain
extent, by those around her, but as she grows she will be able
to fight this
to some extent. People underestimate Dawn. And that's a big mistake.
Dawn is
stronger than she even realizes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Eania Snow, 04:44:52
04/19/01 Thu
Just rewatched the scene over a few times. When Dawn see's the
Doc's tail
spike is lighting a cigrette when it happens and is not really
looking at
him. When his eyes change its kind of hard to tell if hes looking
in dawns
direction as well. As for him having evil intentions with the
spell I don't
really think there was. He tried to convince her not to do it
and something
bad would come out of it. As far as Spike knowing him im pretty
sure he
didn't his reaction is more along the lines of amuzed at the crazy
old guy.
I think that part was there also to show that he was not human.
Being able
to spot a vampire in less then 3 seconds is not a human triat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Dean, 21:35:37
04/20/01 Fri
Doc is evil of the worst type.
The type that comes to you appearing harmless, even friendly,
and helpful.
He is the corruptor!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Sue,
21:51:34 04/20/01 Fri
When I think of Doc the first thing that comes to mind is
ew!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Ramo, 18:25:05 04/18/01
Wed
I think this Doc guy is bad news, and I agree he's probably much
more than
what meets the eye.
First, it was mentioned that his tail and eyes seemed reptilian.
Doesn't
that mean that reptiles can see the key (like the snake), so he
may have
known what Dawn was?
Also, that thing with knowing Spike from before...it may have
been before he
was a vampire. He appears to be a demon, and since he's old, maybe
he's not
immortal but is slower in the aging process.
Another thing--he told Dawn there were problems with the spell,
but overall
encouraged it and gave her the information for free. Then, when
she shook
his hand, you could see a hint of evil in his demon eyes. Maybe
he had
different goals and plans to helping Dawn other than just being
nice.
The Peter and the Wolf humming I think symbolizes that though
the tune
sounds pretty innocent and cute, it shows evil is approaching
(not
necessarily a wolf, but something).
This guy seems very interesting, and I hope we find out more about
him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- purplegrrl, 14:33:57 04/18/01
Wed
Thanks for the thread, Rufus. I was going to mention "Peter
and the Wolf"
but it slipped my mind.
My take on Doc whistling "Peter's Theme" from "Peter
and the Wolf" was that
it was a prediction that Dawn was blithely entering into something
that she
was better off staying out of. Much like Peter, who goes into
the woods with
his toy gun because he wants to hunt the wolf. In the end, Peter
must be
rescued from his folly by the Huntsman. Just like Dawn had to
be rescued
from what she had wrought by Buffy's admission of fear and despair,
and
reassurances of family.
I guess that would equate Spike to the Duck who follows Peter
into the
woods!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Perfect analogy Purplegrrl! (N/T) -- estefena, 15:01:24
04/18/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Tornado, 11:51:09 04/19/01
Thu
I guess that would equate Spike to the Duck who follows Peter
into the
woods!!
And the duck (Sonja) is eaten alive by the wolf (Ghorra demon?)
and comes
out alive(!).
Hmmm....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- LoriAnn, 13:25:19
04/20/01 Fri
"And the duck (Sonja)[Spike] is eaten alive by the wolf (Ghorra
demon?) and
comes out alive(!)."
Except Spike isn't alive to start with, so is he eaten by the
wolf
(whatever) and comes out ALIVE?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- purplegrrl,
14:15:49 04/20/01 Fri
I think this was meant as an analogy, not literally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That's not the story I know. -- Diana Michelle, 14:40:04
04/20/01 Fri
I've heard a different Peter and the Wolf:
Early one morning, Peter opened the gate and went out into the
big green
meadow next to his house.
The first friend he met was a little bird sitting on the branch
of the big
tree. The bird was chirping away happily, "All is quiet,
All is quiet....."
Soon a duck came waddling by she was glad that Peter had forgotten
to close
the gate. Now she could take a nice swim in the deep pond that
was in the
middle of the meadow.
Seeing the duck, the little bird flew down next to her on the
grass. "What
kind of a bird are you if you can't fly," said the bird.
To this the duck
replied "What kind of a bird are you if you can't swim?"
Then she dove into
the pond.
They argued and argued.The duck swimming in the pond and the little
bird
hopping after her along the shore.
Suddenly, something caught Peter's attention. It was a cat sneaking
through
the grass.
The cat thought; While the bird is busy arguing with the duck,I'll
just grab
him.
"Look out!" shouted Peter to the bird and he immediately
flew up into the
tree. While the duck swam as fast as she could to the middle of
the pond
where the cat couldn't touch her. And she quacked at the cat with
all her
might.
But the cat was more interested in the bird. So she walked round
the tree
and thought "Is it worth climbing up so high? By the time
I got there the
bird will have flown away."
While Peter was watching the cat, he suddenly saw his grandfather
standing
at the opened gate. His grandfather was very angry because Peter
had gone
out in a meadow. This is the dangerous place, he grumbled. "If
a wolf should
come out of the forest, then what would you do?"
But Peter payed no attention to his grandfather's words. Because
boys like
Peter aren't afraid of wolves.
But his grandfather took Peter by the hand, led him home and locked
the
gate.
No sooner had Peter gone,when a big grey wolf did come out of
the forest.
In a flash the cat climbed up the tree. The duck was quacking
louder than
before, and in her excitment she jumped out of the pond. But no
matter how
fast the duck tried to waddle away, she couldn't escape the wolf.
He was getting nearer and nearer, catching up with her then he
got her and
with one gulp he swallowed her.
And now this is the situation the cat was sitting on one branch
of the big
tree ..... and the bird on another, which was not too close to
the cat.
And the wolf, still famished, was walking round and round the
tree looking
at them with hungry eyes.
In the meantime: Peter, without the slightest fear, stood behind
the closed
gate watching everything that was going on.
Suddenly he got a brilliant idea. He ran home and found a strong
rope. Then
he climbed up the high stone wall that seperates his house from
the meadow.
The big tree in the meadow was so big that one of its branches
streched out
over the wall.
So Peter grabbed the branch and swung himself easily over on to
the tree
right next to the bird.
"Listen" he wispered to the bird. "Fly down and
circle round the wolf's
head, but only be careful that he doesn't catch you."
The bird came so closed to the wolf's head that he almost brushed
it with
his wings while the wolf snapped in every direction.
How the bird did worry about the wolf! And how the wolf wanted
to catch the
bird! But the bird was clever enough so that the wolf simply couldn't
do
anything about it.
Meanwhile, Peter made a lasso and he carefully let it down and
down, untill
he caught the wolf by the tail and pulled it with all his might.
The moment the wolf felt his tail was caught in the lasso, he
began to jump
wildly trying to get loose.
But Peter tied the other end of rope to the branch, and the wolf's
jumping
only made the rope round his tail tighter.
Just then, Peter saw some hunters coming out of the woods. They
followed the
wolf's trail and shot as they went.
But Peter sitting in the tree shouted to the hunters. "Don't
shoot! The bird
and I have already caught the wolf. Now help us take him to the
zoo."
So now you can just imagine the victory parade. Peter is of course
in the
lead. And following Peter, the hunters leading the wolf. And winding
up the
whole parade, grandfather and the cat.
Grandfather tossed his head discontentedly. "Well",
he said, "and if Peter
hadn't caught the wolf? What's then?"
Above them flew the little bird chirping merrily. "My,what
brave fellows we
are, Peter and I! Look what we have caught!"
And if you listen very carefully, you can hear the duck quacking
very softly
inside the wolf,of course. Because the wolf, in his excitment
and hurry, had
swallowed her alive.
The ending is actually creepy because no one realizes that the
duck is still
alive inside the wolf and that it's slowly going to die a torturous
death by
stomach acid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: That's not the story I know. -- purplegrrl,
14:56:59 04/20/01
Fri
You're probably right. It's been a *very* long time since I've
heard the
whole story. I just remember the music, especially "Peter's
Theme."
Could this story still work as an analogy for Dawn's and Spike's
actions in
"Forever"? Since very little in the Buffyverse/Jossverse
is done as a
"throwaway," I think it's very interesting that Doc
would choose to whistle
a tune from "Peter and the Wolf" when he was helping
Dawn. Both Peter and
Dawn scoffed at the consequences of their actions when they were
told of the
dangers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: That's not the story I know. -- Diana
Michelle, 15:10:59
04/20/01 Fri
And does this mean that there will be a duck, An innocent who
suffers and
dies because of Dawn's impetuousness?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: That's not the story I know.
-- purplegrrl, 16:07:44
04/20/01 Fri
I think the Spike-Duck analogy could still work. While not an
innocent (not
by a long shot!), Spike could suffer some sort of consequences
for going
along with Dawn's plan to resurrect her mother. He knows darn
good and well
that if Buffy finds out, he is toast, or dust as it were.
And the Peter-Dawn analogy could be more arcing rather than just
this single
incident. Dawn is young and unmindful of her own mortality. She
also wants
to play with the "grown-ups" - fight like Buffy, do
spells like Willow, have
a boyfriend like Anya. Dawn's bound to do something else where
the
consequences lead to someone being hurt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: That's not the story I know.
-- Solitude1056, 17:28:47
04/20/01 Fri
And does this mean that there will be a duck, An innocent who
suffers and
dies because of Dawn's impetuousness?
I won't give the spoiler here, but I will say that it seems like
Spike isn't
the duck (in this version), he's the bird. He flies around, worries
the
baddie, and gets free. Someone else must be the one who suffers.
And while
we're at it, is the Wolf the Ghorra monster, or is it Glory?
(Also: several of the online references to the composer's original
narrated
version mention that it's specifically the "first day of
spring" on which
the wolf is outwitted. Hmm...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That's not the story I
know. -- Rufus, 18:21:16
04/20/01 Fri
I'm still thinking that perhaps the wolf could be the harmless
but
reptillian Doc.....or perhaps Sleepy, Dopey, or, sorry, wrong
story.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That's not the story
I know. -- Sue, 19:19:16
04/20/01 Fri
"wolf could be the harmless but reptillian Doc."
Doc isn't harmless. Ew!
Dawn - Stay Away.
Faith, Joyce & Dawn -- Hauptman, 15:46:11 04/18/01 Wed
I think that Faith, if she even thinks about these things anymore,
will
mourn the loss of Joyce. As I remember it, before Fiath punched
her inthe
face and tied her up, Joyce was pretty supportive of the #2 Slayer.
Having
lost her mother, maybe she will feel even more connected to Buff.
Hey, Will Faith ever get to see Dawn? I wonder if Faith would
see something
different, after all she was the first perso n to know about Dawn
in a way.
I hope we get to see her this season, but chances are quite slim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Faith, Joyce & Dawn -- Max, 21:30:46 04/19/01 Thu
"Hey, Will Faith ever get to see Dawn? I wonder if Faith
would see something
different, after all she was the first person to know about Dawn
in a way. "
I don't believe that it was Faith coming to Buffy in her dreams.
Certainly
Buffy's subconcious was using her image, but that was no more
Faith, than it
was Tara in Restless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I hate to speak ill of the dead -- Kurt, 20:45:51 04/26/01
Thu
But I have always gotten the impression that Joyce used Faith.
"Joyce was pretty supportive of the #2 Slayer. "
Or so it seemed at first. But perhaps there was an ulterior motive
for that.
With Faith in the picture, there would be no need for Buffy to
be the Slayer
anymore. Let Faith handle the slaying stuff, then Buffy can forget
about it,
go off to College, and have an normal life.
Perhaps Joyce felt playing the Surrogate Mother role for Faith
was her Real
Daughter's ticket out of being slayer. Remember she asked Buffy
"Have you
ever tried not being the Slayer?" With Faith in Sunnydale,
Joyce hoped Buffy
could be her normal daughter again.
You can't blame Faith for feeling a bit used by being taken advantage
of
someone who was using her greatest need (that of family which
she finally
found in no less than the Mayor) for their own gain. I am sure
she was sad
to hear of Joyce's passing, but I am also sure she has mixed feelings
about
Joyce.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Faith, Joyce & Dawn -- Jane, 06:39:02 04/27/01 Fri
I hope Faith does come back to either Angel or even Buffy. I don't
think
though hearing about Buffy's mom's death is going to make her
feel any more
connected to Buffy. I am sure she will be sad to hear about it,
and sad
about how it will effect Buffy, for despite her issues with Buffy,
she
generally sees her in a favorable light, but a part of her, mind
you a very
small part, will think -"Well now Buffy is going to get a
taste of what it
is like to be me. To be all alone."
Angel used to visit Faith. Does he anymore?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Faith, Joyce & Dawn -- Jane, 06:43:15 04/27/01
Fri
Mind you it will be "all alone except her sister and the
scooby gang" so
even there Faith will still have jealousy for what Buffy still
has.
Part of Faith, a small part, will think "well, you lost your
mom, tough, yes
I am sure it is, but you are still the lucky one."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> ESP -- Hauptman, 07:49:56 04/27/01 Fri
I guess you are right, Jane, Faith will always consider Buffy
the lucky one,
the one with the family, the scoobies, the fab, seemingly limitless
wardrobe, the pair of devoted (though absent) boyfriends and the
saucy kid
sister. And even if Buff has recently lost mummy, Faith will think
that at
least she will carry the memmory of the love Joyce had for her
like a warm
blanket rather than the shroud of broken glass Faith has to cuddle
up with
whenever she thinks about the past.
Okay, maybe that wasn't Faith talking directly to buffy when buffy
had those
visions, But it wasn't totally Buffy either. "Is this your
head or mine?"
Buffy asks. I can't remember Faith's answer exactly, but I think
it
indicated both or neither. Buffy seems to have ESP of a sort.
Her dreams
come true to some degree several times. I am not sure that other
slayers
have this ability, though Giles did say that Slayers could hone
in on
Vampires, but it wasn't clear if that is based on psychic ability
or if it
was because after a while you just know what to look for. The
scoobies have
been able to spot vamps and Riley did in the monster bar.
But if it is psychic, then shouldn't Faith have the same ablility?
And since
it was Buffy who, in a trace, saw through the spell that makes
Dawn appear
human, shouldn't Faith, who is a lsayer and, let's face it a little
crazy,
be able to see something other than what is on the mystical surface?
And, by
the way, since crazy people can see through Dawn's corporeal spell,
shouldn't Glory, who is borderline, have seen something? That
might be
nitpicking.
And will somebody tell me what the hell "730" means.
Gosh!
My thoughts on 'Forever' with a spin towards Cinematic Artistry
- (Spoilers)
also (Long)) -- OnM, 16:05:41 04/18/01 Wed
I thought I'd do something a little different this time around.
Usually I
stop by the board and read up on
the comments of others that are currently posted before setting
out to write
down my own thoughts and
post them. I do this mainly to avoid bringing up points that others
have
already made until I have had a
chance to ponder them. This time around, I'll volunteer my impressions
firstly, and put just a little different
spin on them, a spin created by just one of the things that struck
me most
strongly about this week's
wonderful episode of Buffy, 'Forever'.
The regulars here at ATPoBtVS who read my movie recommendation
column each
Friday night may recall
that when I started the feature, I made note that cinema has become
a sort
of common language that we
can utilize to share experience with one another. Humans tend
to think not
only with words, but with
images, and you could make a very good case that from an evolutionary
perspective our DNA even
orients us primarily toward understanding the essence of things
in a visual
manner.
I have quite a number of thoughts regarding this weeks episode,
but I think
that I'd like to start with an
appreciation of just how *cinematic* Joss' Buffyverse is, and
how the use of
that 'common visual
language' of the 20th century influences how we interpret an episode,
and
the emotions that spring from
that interpretation.
'Forever' opens with a shot of Buffy wandering through a room
that is
obviously at a funeral home, where
she is attempting the sad duty of selecting a casket for her recently
deceased mother. The first shot fades
up out of blackness, we see a small area of white light, which
turns out to
be a lamp, and then we begin to
recognize Buffy's face as she emerges from the darkness.
She walks slowly around the room, finally stops before a casket,
pauses,
then raises the lid partway, begins
to look inside. Suddenly the lights in the room come up and we
cut to a shot
of Dawn, Giles and the
funeral director entering the room. The two adults stop just shortly
inside
the doorway to the room, Dawn
continues walking forward until she is in between Buffy and the
two adults,
she on the one side of the
casket and Buffy at the other side.
The funeral director comments approvingly on Buffy's choice. Buffy
avoids
looking at Dawn and walks
over to stand with Giles and the director. She crosses her arms
in front of
her chest, speaks briefly with
Dawn, who while not disapproving of Buffy's choice, wonders aloud
if perhaps
her mom 'wouldn't like
something else better'. Buffy then responds to the director's
question about
taking some more time to
decide by stating no, she's made a decision . She looks up at
Dawn and asks
for her OK, but the question
really isn't a question. The scene ends with the camera close
up on Dawn,
watching the emotions playing
out on her face as the others leave the room.
Now, I had to play this scene back several times on my VCR just
to get the
modest level of detail described
in the paragraph above, because my memory isn't good enough to
recall it
that clearly. However, the
emotions and thoughts the scene brought about in my mind weren't
really any
different than when I saw
the scene as it happened the very first time. This is because
the emotions
of the story are laid out in the
visual shorthand of cinema, and even though the spoken word compliments
and
strengthens the impression
the storytellers intended, you can play the scene with the sound
turned off
and it still conveys the same
feelings.
Indeed, without even speaking a single word, the lighting alone
in the
beginning of the scene reflects what
must be Buffy's emotional mood at the moment. The scene lighting
makes use
of a great deal of light and
shadow, but even then the visual range is compressed, there are
initially no
very bright lights, only a range
of soft to somber. When the lights come up, the physical placement
of the
characters within the room and
their body language continues to tell the story without words.
This is the
essence of cinematic storytelling,
and here is how I interpret what happens in this space of a few
short
minutes:
Buffy appears out of darkness, the light is behind her. The way
ahead is
poorly lit. She is alone and
uncertain. She gains a small moment of focus by concentrating
on the task of
the moment, even attempts a
certain level of courage by lifting the casket lid, thus more
directly
confronting the painful reality of what
lies ahead. Her focus is broken by the arrival of the others,
especially her
sister, and now she is obligated to
include them in her thoughts, assume the responsibilities she
again has been
handed not out of choice but of
fate.
The rest of the scene shows the distance between her and her sister,
from
her sister's perspective. Buffy
avoids eye contact, moves over and stands with the other adults
in the room,
in a corner, leaving Dawn
alone out in the middle of the room. She crosses her arms in front
of
herself, a distancing gesture, and all of
the 'adults' are also standing in a shadowed area, while Dawn
stands in the
lighter spot, much of the light
ironically provided by reflection off the bright white casket
Dawn has at
her back. (The significance to me
of this minor detail is that Buffy sees herself as moving in and
out of
darkness, that it is something that one
must just accept and get through, while Dawn sees only that the
light behind
her is gone, and she sees no
future without that light).
Most adult viewers can easily see through Buffy's outward appearance
of
being 'in control' and see the
depth of pain and grief just under the surface. Dawn cannot, and
only sees
in her older sister's (apparently)
authoritative manner that someone supposedly close to her has
no
comprehension of her own level of pain.
Thus we have set up the beginning of the story, with the resolution
at the
end once again using lighting to
show the depth of emotion felt by Dawn and Buffy, this time fully
aware of
just how the other feels, as they
collapse together in deep shadow, holding each other tightly and
sobbing
uncontrollably.
I could go on and detail many scenes in the same manner, but I
think you get
the idea. You could even say
that I'm not really pointing out anything you didn't already know,
but the
fact of the matter is that this
level of care is very rare in television, and even among the better
shows on
the air, is almost never used this
effectively-- it's the difference between being merely a competent
craftsman
and being an artist.
Some other favorite scenes in this ep with a bent towards cinematic
artistry:
The scene that begins in the upstairs hall of the Summer's home
with the
camera panning the rows of
pictures on the wall and passing Buffy and Dawn sitting silently
and in the
same positions in each of their
rooms.
The transition from the above scene to the scene at the funeral,
where the
camera pans the rows of people
in the present day of the Summers' family in contrast to the pictures
that
represented the past.
The scene where Tara asks Buffy if she wants Willow and herself
to wait a
while longer for her, and the
lighting slowly changes from the warm light of afternoon to the
cold, blue
light of night, all the while Buffy
stands unmoving.
The appearance of Angel and the handclasp as they stand side by
side.
(Noting the visual irony of her in
white, him in black as they stand in the darkness).
The arrangement of the three sequences whereby the various characters
try to
deal with their grief in
varying manners and with varying degress of insight-- Buffy and
Angel,
Willow, Tara and Dawn, and
Xander and Anya.
And of course, the scene at the end with Buffy and Dawn, as mentioned
before, bookending the opening
scene. Speaking of bookending, it also struck me that this episode
is a
bookend for 'The Body'. Consider
that the tone is very different for each, the more 'reality based'
characteristics of 'The Body' vs. the more
conventional 'cinematic' aspects of 'Forever'. The former deals
with the
occurance of death itself, and the
sense of time suspending in the immediacy of the moment, and the
latter
deals with the aftermath of death
(the funeral preperations, the grieving, etc.) and the sense that
time drags
out or expands as the
consequences of the death settle in and the mind has time to dwell
on those
consequences. Take note of the
deliberate differences in sound and lighting between the two episodes,
and
how they each reinforce the
telling of each story in different ways.
If one thinks of the two shows as actually being one longer show,
in two
major acts or parts, then again
this appears to be a cinematic convention, since most films run
from 1 1/2
to 2 hours. It certainly isn't the
first time Joss & Co. have done this, as in 'Surprise/Innocence'
or 'Bad
Girls/Consequences' or 'This
Year's Girl/Who Are You?', for example. (I also believe I recall
that in an
interview Joss remarked that
one of the more restrictive/challenging factors he had to deal
with in
creating the show was the need to
work within the rigid 40-some minute time frame that television
practice
dictates).
Finally, it would be one thing if the cinematic tendencies of
the show were
an occasional thing, but as we
all know, themes and techniques like the ones I've described have
been
nearly constant throughout the
entire run of the show over the last 4 3/4 seasons, and 'Forever'
is just
the latest example of this dedication
to artistry. Quite a long time ago, I commented in a another post
here that
BtVS could very well rise out of
the collective mass of our history of popular entertainment and
become the
Shakespeare of the 20th
Century, given the passage of time, and with the understanding
that the
popular artists of the current day
sometimes turn into the classics admired by future generations.
If the next
five episodes keep to the same
standards as the last two, this season will surely become one
of the most
appreciated 'plays' by those who
come after us.
*******
So, there are some thoughts from my Little Brain to yours. As
always, your
comments and insights are
most welcome. Thanks for reading!
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My thoughts on 'Forever' with a spin towards Cinematic
Artistry --
Nina, 17:33:34 04/18/01 Wed
OnM, What a great post! Before "Forever" aired here,
I watched "The Body"
right before. I wanted to be in that special state and forget
about the 6
weeks of hell... I felt exactly what you described. One show is
the
aftermath of the other. Darkness and Light. Contrast. Not only
did they
surprised me with the plot, but the cinematography was very interesting.
I
was skeptic about ITW, I had many reserved towards MN as a director.
But I
was totally surprised with this one. She did a terrific job. I
love that
little scene with Giles drinking and listening to his music. Short
but
subtle!
The only thing that I still have a lot of difficulty with is the
music. I
tried to give that new comer a break (and I actually loved what
he did in
FFL) but most of the time he always takes the same music instruments
and as
far as I try to understand the logic of his themes (I am a musician
and I
should be able to understand!) I don't. If anybody does understand...
please
help me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My thoughts on 'Forever' with a spin towards Cinematic
Artistry --
Rufus, 18:50:24 04/18/01 Wed
And who can forget the scene where Buffy askes Dawn "who
is going to take
care of us now"? Buffy was finally stripped of the pretense
of strength.
Buffy is just as scared as Dawn but showed it very differently.
The Body of
Joyce may be in the ground but both girls now understand that
it is in their
hearts that Joyce will live forever. Tara had it right because
she lived
through loss and was in a different stage of grief. Dawns preoccupation
of
where the body would be ignored the fact that Joyce was no longer
with the
body. The Key is learning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My thoughts on 'Forever' with a spin towards Cinematic
Artistry --
OnM, 06:08:37 04/19/01 Thu
Thanks, Nina, so glad you enjoyed my humble thoughts!
Judging by what I've read from other posters, particularly on
the Cross and
Stake board, many people seem not to like Marti Noxon, or are
unsure of her
contribution to the stable of Buffyverse writers/directors. I
have three
comments in that regard:
1 > Joss thinks highly of her. Therefore lesser mortals such
as you or I
should always give the benefit of the doubt.
2 > Some years back a fellow I worked for made a comment re:
movie critics
that they weren't of any value because he went to see a film recommended
by
one and he didn't like the film. I was rather amused by this,
he seemed to
look at the service critics provide like it was a movie version
of *Consumer
Reports*, and therefore universally correct and infallable. I
didn't attempt
to explain the messy reality of one artist trying to interpret
and
discuss/recommend the work of another artist, it was obviously
a concept
beyond his ken.
3 > Years ago I read an interview with an actor who had been
in the film
scene for many decades (it may have been Marcello Mastroianni,
not sure) and
he commented in one part of the interview that Americans and Europeans
seem
to have very different expectations of movies/acting. He said
that Europeans
seem to accept that there will naturally be ups and downs over
the course of
a career, whether it be in acting or directing, that you can make
a great
film one time and a not-so-great one another time. Americans,
on the other
hand, seem to expect that every film will be an improvement on
the one
before, and an actor or director who is a hot commodity at the
moment is
yesterday's news after making only one poor film. He felt this
was
unrealistic, and I certainly agree. Even genius's have off-days--
or years.
Finally, I would love to hear your thoughts as a musician regarding
music on
BtVS/Angel. I love music, but, alas, do not have the coveted musician
gene.
(I do have a least a small bit of the photography gene, which
enables me to
comment at least partly intelligently on film and photographic
art).
Please detail what you mean by the music not doing the thing for
you, I'd
love to hear about it and I'm sure others would too. This is just
as valid a
topic as the cinematography, I don't get into it myself because
see above
re: music gene.
For example, why does the Buffy opening theme song still rock
my world even
though I've heard it now over 100 times? It never gets stale,
and always
gives me a charge. There must be something the band is doing technically
that causes this to happen. What is it?
Please post! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: OmN - Great Analysis (no N/T) -- Brian,
11:33:45 04/19/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> music in BtVS -- purplegrrl, 12:24:22 04/19/01
Thu
***why does the Buffy opening theme song still rock my world even
though
I've heard it now over 100 times? It never gets stale, and always
gives me a
charge. There must be something the band is doing technically
that causes
this to happen. What is it?***
Yeah, OnM, I know what you mean. While there may be something
actually in
the music (chords, arrangement of notes, rhythm, tempo) that causes
such a
response in us, it is probably more that we associate that theme
music with
the rollercoaster ride that is "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
Meaning that we
know we will see and feel drama, comedy, horror, love, angst,
deception,
acceptance, friendship, betrayal, mystery, magic, and a hundred
other sights
and sounds - even if we know we will be watching a re-run. Personally,
I
have favorite movies and other TV shows that illicit a similar
response -
even if I've seen them dozens of times. The theme music sets off
our
anticipation of what is to come.
Does this help?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: music in BtVS -- Anthony8, 19:14:50
04/22/01 Sun
Being a struggling musician myself, and for some time, the whole
creative
process (where it comes from and why the end result affects people
one way
or another) is still a big mystery that I hope I never solve.
While there
are some formulaic things that can be done to evoke certain emotions
(for
example using a minor key to set a more pensive tone), in my opinion,
the
more profound stuff comes from somewhere very magical and, thankfully,
not
easily explained. As someone once said (I think it was Elvis Costello),
talking about music is like dancing about architecture.
The great thing about this show (and particularly the more outstanding
episodes like "The Body", "Restless" or "Hush")
is that like a good song, it
stands up to multiple viewings without getting old. That's a credit
to the
overall package--writing, directing, cinematography, scoring,
and song
selection.
As for the theme song, it's the fact that it so effectively compliments
the
collage of images in the opening credits, not its merits as a
stand-alone
composition (in my opinion at least) that makes it resonate so
well with the
viewer. It tells you: "Buffy's coming on--get ready for something
worth
watching." Without the show, I'm not sure if Nerf Herder's
song would jazz
you up the same way.
In contrast, The Smiths' song "How Soon Is Now" (used
as the theme for
"Charmed") has (once again, for me, at least) a lot
of power on its own, but
is misleading with respect to how it sets the tone for the show
(in my
opinion, the theme song is the best part of that show). When combined
with
the images in the opening credits, it makes you think "wow,
something good's
coming up." Unfortunately, what you get is "Sabrina"
on diluted steroids.
Anyhow, this is just my opinion. Notwithstanding my "dancing
about
architecture" comment, I look forward to a future music thread.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I'll be working on that music thread OnM! Thanks!
:) -- Nina,
15:35:17 04/19/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Excellent tribute to cinematic artistry on BtVS -- curious,
22:32:12
04/18/01 Wed
I completely agree with your assessment of the long standing artistry
in
this series, and since there is nothing I could possibly add to
that
thoroughly, well, thorough analysis, I can't resist the temptation
to add a
few comments about the Buffy and Angel scenes and so it digresses
a bit to
their relationship.
When I was watching this episode, I was simply overwhelmed by
the lonely
graveside scene. It was pure visual storytelling with only one
line of
dialogue but speaking volumes about their relationship. I'm tempted
to write
an entire essay on just this scene, and it only lasted exactly
31 seconds of
screen time. I promise I won't though:)
I've always loved smg and db's portrayal of buffy and angel. In
fact, I've
come to the point where I pretty much take smg's dramatic acting
for
granted. But when she does the whole speaking volumes without
so much as
uttering a single word thing, I start to shake my head in wonder
and
admiration. That was one of the most affecting thing about this
Ep. A lone
figure having just lost her entire world standing lost in a world
of
emptiness. She's not grieving yet, she's not in a state of shock,
everything
seems bland and meaningless at this juction in time. Her most
important
source of comfort is gone. She can barely feel, there's just this
void, this
emptiness within her. She's numb. She stands there, doing absolutely
nothing. The complete numbness she feels is further emphazised
by day
turning into night. (I loved the transition. So much more affective
than a
simple cut.) And yet she still stands there, alone and empty.
I really don't
think the director meant to imply a dream seqence by this shot.
I truly
think it is an establishment of buffy's state of mind. To me the
'non
acting' was spot on. To carry a 30 second shot of doing absolutely
nothing
and conveying so much is no small achievment. (I mean try it guys.
Stand in
front of someone whose got their attention completely focused
on you and do
absolutely nothing for 30 seconds and see just how long that is.)
I thought Angel showing up after dark was expected. Not only by
the
audience, but by Buffy herself. She wasn't in the least bit shocked
by his
presence. She didn't move, didn't turn around to express any surprise.
Angel's solemn dialogue, " I'm sorry, I couldn't come any
sooner", is said
in such a way that he knew she would want him to be there and
knew she
thought enough of him to know he would be there. Her barely perceptible
nod,
her grasping of his hand in an understated gesture of gratitude
and somehow
of knowing that he would be come, would be there for her, spoke
volumes
about their relationship. They could have ended the Angel and
Buffy
interlude right there, and I would have understood. It kinda of
went like
this to me, but without so many words.
Buffy: "I knew you would come. I needed you to come and you
did."
Angel: "How could I not be here at a time like this? If you
didn't know I
would be here, I would have been dissappointed in what you thought
of me."
The scene under the oak tree was a real treat. I don't care what
anyone
says, but this scene put into words the undeniable companionship
that exists
between the two. I don't even care about the whole romantic issue.
It seems
to me that it goes way beyond that. Some fans say that this Angel
doesn't
mesh with the Angel of his own show. Well, that's true. He's a
very
different Angel there. He has a working relationship that is at
an unease
right now. He's trying to open up, but is still guarded, and leads
a
completely different life that Buffy is not part of. The thing
is, the Angel
on "forever" isn't so much a season 2/3 Angel, or a
currently out of
character Angel, but is "Buffy's Angel." The sweet,
caring non jugdeamental
Angel that worries for her, that always listens to her, that wants
shield
her from pain, that simply wants to comfort her. It's the Angel
that up to
now, no one is privy to but Buffy. Conversely, the Buffy sitting
underneath
the oak tree is "Angel's Buffy". The one who doesn't
put on a brave front
for everyone else all the while frightened on the inside. To the
scoobies,
her mom, her sister and even Giles, she frequently presents "slayer
Buffy".
She would never admit without any reservations whatsoever that
"I'm
seriously needy right now" without first fighting it and
asserting "I'm
fine" in front of anyone else but Angel. "Angel's Buffy"
has always been
very vocal and open about her inner feelings to Angel. These sides
of our
hero and heroine seems very much to be private to them and not
many, if any,
get to access that territory.
I don't think its a coincidence or an accident that this episode
is called
"forever". Its not just about the finality of Joyce's
death, but also about
a deep bond, be it romantic or not, that exists between these
two
starcrossed lovers. The romance many not be forever, but the love
that goes
beyound romance is 'forever'.
Sorry, I have rambled on far to long. If you have read this much,
thanks for
reading.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Long Posts 'r' Us -- OnM, 05:44:52 04/19/01 Thu
Many thanks for your kind words! When I was organizing my thoughts
on this
ep, the aspects of visual storytelling were the things that just
kept coming
to the forefront, and I figured that there would already be quite
a lot of
commentary already posted on other parts of the show (and I was
right), so I
thought this might be a good approach. The show has *always* been
'cinematic', but this ep just seemed to be extremely so. Even
a single
'perfect moment of cinema' (the phrase may not be his, but Roger
Ebert was
the first film critic I ever heard use it) in a film is a gift,
things just
simply don't always come together to make them, even if you intend
it, and
there was not just one, but *many* in this episode. (See my response
to
Nina'a post also re: Marti Noxon).
*** "When I was watching this episode, I was simply overwhelmed
by the
lonely graveside scene. It was pure visual storytelling with only
one line
of dialogue but speaking volumes about their relationship. I'm
tempted to
write an entire essay on just this scene..." ***
Please do. Make it long or short or in between, whatever feels
right and
gets across what your insights are.
*** "The complete numbness she feels is further emphazised
by day turning
into night. (I loved the transition. So much more affective than
a simple
cut.)" ***
See, that's the great thing. I interpreted the scene as evidence
of Buffy's
grief disassociating her with the passage of time, that what is
in reality
hours doesn't seem like that to her. Day, night, all the same.
Your comment
on her being numb presents an emotional context that didn't occur
to me, but
you are absolutely right, that fits perfectly.
*** "I don't think its a coincidence or an accident that
this episode is
called "forever". Its not just about the finality of
Joyce's death, but also
about a deep bond, be it romantic or not, that exists between
these two
starcrossed lovers. The romance many not be forever, but the love
that goes
beyound romance is 'forever'." ***
Very nicely put.
*** "Sorry, I have rambled on far too long." ***
No you haven't. Good post - please ramble again soon! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Long Posts 'r' Us -- Masquerade, 12:56:09
04/19/01 Thu
I think there is currently a thousand word limit on posts on this
board. I
can change it, but I figured it would be ample for the usual treatises.
Don't want anyone to get "dingoed" as they say on some
other Buffy board I
know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Long Posts 'r' Us -- OnM, 21:00:36
04/19/01 Thu
Thousand word limit? That's interesting! Just for grins, I started
up Word,
loaded in my post and did a word count (well, the computer did,
it's much
faster! ;).
It tells me that there were 1,802 words in my post. You don't
have a special
OnM subroutine in the board software, do you?
Not that I wouldn't appreciate it, but we do need to be fair to
all the
other verbosistos (and ta's) here!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> My bad. That's 1000 lines per post,
not words. Continue your
verbosting! -- Masquerade, 10:31:59 04/20/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Long Posts 'r' Us -- Rufus, 13:03:31 04/19/01
Thu
I call the OnM posts the "tree killers" cause I get
accused of deforesting
when I copy them out(by my husband). So last night I killed yet
another
tree....in a good cause of course:):):):) I use recycled paper.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Trees are a renewable resource! --
OnM, 21:16:39 04/19/01
Thu
While I utilize electromagnetism whenever possible, sometimes
there is just
no substitute for the papyrus thang. I mean, what, you're gonna
park a
laptop on your stomach for summer reading at the beach? That wood
be a
beech!
And now... The Larch!!
(Sorry... M. Python attack...)
I buy live Christmas trees and then plant them in the spring,
so I've put
back what I've taken out. Mostly, anyway. I hope... ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Excellent tribute to cinematic artistry on BtVS
-- purplegrrl,
12:32:56 04/19/01 Thu
Excellent analysis of Buffy and Angel's relationship. I think
this is the
heart of their relationship - that the other is the only one each
can and
will be truly open and honest with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Letting down the walls -- fresne, 16:36:09 04/19/01
Thu
I'm afraid after the endless angst of season 3, I had forgotten
what Buffy
and Angel could be like together.
Although I never had a problem with Riley, (a few of the guy's
choices/issues, but not the character himself) I was also going,
"Riley
who?" after this scene.
Which when I had a chance made me think.
1) It made me think about Buffy's javelin toss of a remark to
Angel last
season that she could share her thoughts and emotions with Riley.
The
implication being that she couldn't with Angel. Now since by that
time, I
had completely forgotten the era before "Oh, the angst, Angel
is leaving
me...star-crossed, angst, angst, angst," the remark didn't
have the sting that
it might have.
However, if Buffy only showed her soft inner self to Angel and
Angel only
showed the vulnerability of his soul to Buffy, well, it was a
statement that
completely invalidated all the sharing that had gone before. Buffy
was
saying all that sharing was a lie, that she never showed Angel
the real her.
2) Which made me think about how, for me, the scene wasn't as
if Riley or LA
or Angelus had never existed. It was just all that no longer matters.
Buffy
and Angel are now emotionally at a place where they can let down
the
barriers again for each other. They can be emotionally honest.
Things are now right between them again. Buffy was both relaxing
into an
earlier, less emotionally scarred Buffy, and remerging into something
new.
Buffy was able to display weakness and yet when they broke off
their kiss,
there was no teen angst, no recriminations, just comfort.
3) Which was important, because the other big issue in the episode
was that
Buffy was holding Dawn back. Building up emotional walls. Buffy
was, as is
typical, protecting herself. However, Dawn really needed to see,
to connect
with Buffy. By being weak together, holding onto each other in
front of an
open door, they could begin the healing process.
4) Good thing too, because in a "Joss is evil" sort
of way, I think they are
in for a bumpy end of season sleigh ride. After all they may have
been
sitting in shadows inside the house, but its really dark outside.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Letting down the walls -- Grace, 20:30:37
04/19/01 Thu
Sorry.
The whole scene really bothered me.
Especially when she told Angel about how she acted when she found
her mom
and how she didn't behave as an adult (Buffy is 21/22 now, going
to college
and is technically an adult, but still a Young Adult, the role
of being
"adult" is still new to her).
It just reminds me of how Buffy was still an developing child
when she met
Angel (ie a teenager). Liam was 26 when he was killed (he might
have not
acted like it, but he was an adult.)
Buffy was still becoming. She was then where Dawn will be soon.
The
Angel/Buffy relationship was sick! And not because of the whole
Vampire/Slayer thing.
I think it would have been so much better if at the end of the
scene "Angel"
would have disappeared into thin air. It wasn't Angel, it was
Buffy thinking
what it would be like to have him there at this critical time.
It was Buffy
imagining the Angel she would like to remember, not the Angel
that really
is. The Angel that she desperately craves to help her through
the pain, but
that Angel could never be. And as Buffy shakes herself out of
the daze the
realization that Angel never came shakes Buffy to the core, she
falls to the
mount of dirt on top of her mother's grave emotionally spent.
Tears flowing
she feels so empty, hollow and alone.
I think that would be much better. I don't want to see a real
Buffy/Angel
relationship. In fact I never did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Letting down the walls -- Ben, 06:35:58
04/20/01 Fri
You know what really would have been freaky.
After "Angel" has spent the whole night being supportive
and all.
When Buffy tells Angel of how if only she would have gotten there
faster or
used CPR better, for "Angel" to say "It is only
natural for you to feel
guilty and all. After all it's your fault. You should have been
able to save
her."
Buffy looks at Angel. Shocked. She can't believe Angel just said
that. Angel
transforms into his Angelus face. "Why didn't you save her
Buffy"? Buffy
screams "Angelus" disappears. Buffy wakes up lying upon
Joyce's grave in
tears. Angel never came. It was all a bad dream.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: They may have been sitting in shadows inside
the house, but its
really dark outside. -- OnM, 21:04:50 04/19/01 Thu
Oh, I really like that! Yeah!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Excellent tribute to cinematic artistry on BtVS
-- Luna, 17:10:27
04/19/01 Thu
Thank you for that Curious, I'm like in tears right now because
you couldn't
be more right about Buffy and Angel. I think the beauty of there
relationship is that it's deeper than they are, they are almost
servant's to
it. It would so much easier for them to move on (and they have)
but the bond
still remains, and I think that the only peace and resolve they'll
ever get
out of all of this is that even if they don't end up as a couple
the
connection that has grown between them will always exist, and
that when they
truely need eachother they can each BE there without the guilt
of being
romantically involved. B/A shipper's seem to drag this on and
on and on but
the truth is still there, and I believe that Joss is now a servant
to his
own creation: The Buffy and Angel phenomenon!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My thoughts on 'Forever' with a spin towards Cinematic
Artistry -
(Spoilers) also (Long)) -- purplegrrl, 12:40:50 04/19/01 Thu
Excellent analysis, OnM. I believe you are right about a common,
inate
symbolic language that we all share - whether we are aware of
it or not.
I think "Forever" was more "cinematic" than
most BtVS episodes because using
lighting, posture, expressions could more effectively convey the
emotions of
everyone involved. A lot of dialog might have "cheapened"
the emotions or
diluted them. To see Buffy standing looking lost and completely
oblivious to
the passage of time (even if she is waiting for Angel to appear)
was much
more effective than if there had been dialog detailing her feelings
or even
a voiceover describing how she felt.
Willow was irresponsible -- VanMoodySenior, 18:35:31 04/18/01
Wed
Willow was wanting to help Dawn and I appreciate her zeal, but
why give the
book to a nonwitch? If Willow really wanted to help Dawn, then
she should
have helped her do the spell instead of just giving her the book.
She was
too irresponsible. With power comes responsibility. Hopefully
she realizes
this before something really bad happens.
Does anyone wonder what Joyce might have been like if Dawn had
not ripped up
the picture? They left us hanging on that one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow was irresponsible -- Rufus, 18:55:22 04/18/01
Wed
As I posted before, I think that Willow has the best intentions
but doesn't
understand consequences of the use of power. Tara is her guide,
and has the
history and knowledge that Willow lacks. I think their next fight
will be
over Wiccan ethics. Willow thinks if it is for a good cause go
ahead and do
it. What would have happend if Buffy had opened the door and seen
what was
her mother fresh from the grave. Willow has to learn to think
before she
leaps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow was irresponsible...spoilers for Tough
Love (ep 19) --
Wiccagrrl, 20:02:19 04/18/01 Wed
I think you're exactly right about where they are going with some
of this,
Rufus, and backing up your point, here is the TVGuide writeup
for ep 19.
(This was posted at the Kitten, Witches, and Bad Wardrobe board
by TVSurfer)
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
Space
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Tough Love
60 min.
While Buffy is preoccupied with the pressure of being her obstinate
sister's
keeper, Glory and her minions set out to grab the person whom
they believe
to be the Key---Tara. Unfortunately, Tara is more vulnerable than
usual, as
both she and Willow are stunned from the aftereffects of their
first big
fight.
Tara: Amber Benson. Glory: Clare Kramer. Willow: Alyson Hannigan.
Cast: Sarah Michelle Gellar, Nicholas Brendon, Alyson Hannigan,
Anthony S.
Head, James Marsters, Amber Benson, Michelle Trachtenberg, Clare
Kramer,
Charlie Weber
Category: Drama
Release Year: 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Willow was irresponsible...spoilers for
Tough Love (ep 19) --
Eania Snow, 20:40:34 04/18/01 Wed
Shoot from the quickie I read they said one of the scobbies is
going to be
glory's victem. Im really hoping they don't kill her off I was
beginning to
really like her now. Take Xander he wants to die. Look at him
he has long
hair, TAKE HIM GOD DAMN IT.... TAKE HIM!!!!!
ummmmm tee hee sugar is good
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow was irresponsible...spoilers
for Tough Love (ep 19)
-- Wiccagrrl, 21:29:05 04/18/01 Wed
I don't think they're gonna kill her off. Amber's mentioned in
interviews
that she's coming back next year. (Please, please, please let
me be right- I
love Tara.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow was irresponsible...spoilers
for Tough Love (ep
19) -- Scott L., 06:54:24 04/19/01 Thu
Joss said that even if Willow and Tara weren't dating, he'd keep
Amber
around, she's become intregral to the heart of the show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow was irresponsible -- Anthony8, 18:30:28
04/19/01 Thu
Willow's magical recklessness was apparent as far back (farther?)
as the
Halloween "Fear" episode when, despite warnings from
Buffy and Oz regarding
her grasp exceeding her reach, she attempted to summon a friendly
guide
spirit and got a swarm of little nasties. Then again, it resurfaces
with the
wish spell gone awry (Buffy falling in love with Spike, Giles
losing his
sight,etc.)
She does not yet seem to appreciate the extent of her power or
the potential
negative consequences if it is exercised without discipline. Despite
a
couple close calls, so far no one has really been seriously hurt
by her
mistakes.
Probably not exactly on point metaphore-wise, but it reminds me
of Icarus
(Willow) and Daedalus (Tara).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow was irresponsible -- Max, 19:06:54 04/18/01 Wed
"Does anyone wonder what Joyce might have been like if Dawn
had not ripped
up the picture? They left us hanging on that one."
I try not to think about it, but it does leave me wondering.
On one hand Joyce might have come back normal (albeit a bit confused).
Or
she could have come back souless. Or she could have come back
with a soul,
but within a decaying human body. Or she could have come back
without a
soul, and with a decaying body (which I believe wouldn't be really
bringing
her back) ie. a Zommy.
What I found so scary was how willing Buffy was to open that door.
I feel it
was at that point Dawn realized that she must be the strong one.
"Mommy?" That sent chills down me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow was irresponsible -- Anthony8, 18:36:04
04/19/01 Thu
Yeah, I thought there was some good role reversal going on here
too. Dawn
played the Slayer this episode, from stealing the Ghora eggs (remember
Spikes "bitty Buffy" comment)to ultimately doing the
right thing in
terminating the resurrection spell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> role Reversal -- Diana Michelle, 14:55:34 04/20/01
Fri
And she was highly impulsive. Also a Buffy trait.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Jen C did it, my turn now :) -- Solitude1056, 19:52:14 04/18/01
Wed
Check out my post under the Angel & Willow lies thread, about
Willow's
intentions. Now, that all said, I do wonder: it's been made clear
that
performing "magic" in the Wiccan sense, in the Buffyverse,
isn't something
that just anyone can do. Although I'm not sure if they've tried,
AFAIK
neither Spike nor Xander nor Cordy have any abilities. Knowledge,
yes;
abilities, no. It seems that some do, some don't. I'm wondering
if -
assuming Willow was even aware that Dawn was serious about the
idea - Willow
was acting under the impression that Dawn doesn't have the "juice"
that's
needed.
This is still putting a minus in Willow's column, for not having
the clear
head to stop and ask these questions. But like I point out elsewhere,
I
think Willow's headspace is full of emotional interference right
now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> witchcraft in the Buffyverse -- purplegrrl, 09:53:08
04/19/01 Thu
***it's been made clear that performing "magic" in the
Wiccan sense, in the
Buffyverse, isn't something that just anyone can do***
I guess I'm not sure that it's clear that magic doesn't work for
just anyone
in the Buffyverse. There's a lot of magic and magical stuff floating
around
in the Buffyverse. Magic users include Giles, Jenny, Willow, Tara,
Anya (as
Anyanka and as a human), Angel, Buffy, Ethan, the Mayor, Amy,
Catherine
(Amy's mom), and now Dawn. Oz, Xander, and Cordelia have assisted
with
spells. Jenny had a techno-coven over the Internet. Giles' customers
may or
may not be doing "magic." And I think Spike has even
dabbled a little. This
is an awful lot of people if not just anyone can work magic. (OK,
granted,
they're on the Hellmouth, so maybe that helps.)
Which is not to say that all these people *should* be doing magic
- at least
not on a regular basis. But they have all shown they can at least
follow the
"recipe" in a spell book.
From what I've seen of magic in the Buffyverse, there are several
elements
that make it effective or work correctly - the correct incantation,
the
appropriate ingredients, desire for the outcome, strength of will
to
accomplish it, and magical ability. And the least of these seems
to be
magical ability. Tara, Amy, and Catherine are natural witches.
Giles and
Willow have learned how to use magic. Jenny and Ethan may or may
not have
any natural ability with magic, but at least are powerful "learned"
magic
users. Most of the rest use magic only when it is the only solution
-
destroying a magical object, entering into a trance, assisting
in fighting
evil, etc.
I think it's more appropriate to say that, at least in the Buffyverse,
magic
isn't something that just anyone *should* do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Xander's potential power -- Diana Michelle, 15:02:44
04/20/01 Fri
Well, he did set a book on fire just by speaking. And I have to
wonder if
him wanting Buffy to live so much helped her more than the CPR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow was irresponsible -- Wiccagrrl, 19:53:41 04/18/01
Wed
I think Willow was very irresponsible, and I agree with the posts
talking
about how Tara has been the more grounded, moral one. OTOH, I
don't really
think that Willow intended Dawn to do the spell. As she said to
Tara, she
figured it would answer some of her questions, maybe help explain
why this
wasn't such a hot idea. But she didn't think it through- she was
putting a
book with some very dangerous info into the hands of someone who
wasn't in a
position to be thinking very clearly, and then left that person
to figure
out what to do with the information. It was careless and dangerous,
and
while I think she intended to help Dawn, that wasn't the way to
do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow was irresponsible -- Jen C., 20:04:07 04/18/01
Wed
I've been thinking for a while that Willow seems really unsuited
to be a
Wiccan. She's always seemed a lot more sorcerer-like to me. (anyone
remember
the Techno-Mages from Babylon 5?). She doesn't seem so much into
the
religion part of it all, and seems to have very little appreciation
for the
"balance" that Tara finds all-important. Before she
discovered magic, she
used her computer skills to offer whatever help she could. Now,
magic is her
first recourse whenever faced with a problem. She uses magic as
a weapon, or
a solution to problems, not as any type of sacrament. I think
that this
utilitarian attitude towards magic may stem from her long association
with
Buffy and the necessities of backing up the slayer. It should
be interesting
to see where her relationship with Tara goes in relation to this
issue,
because I don't think that she shares Tara's attitude towards
magic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow was irresponsible -- Rufus, 21:11:47 04/18/01
Wed
I think that the problem with Willow is that she got power before
wisdom.
Tara was brought up with Wicca and was taught the ethical use
of magic.
Willow has the kindest intent but she uses magic like a dependable
tool that
will work the same way all of the time. She doesn't understand
that power
misused can go very wrong. Kind intent isn't enough when it comes
to power
you don't fully understand. Willow wanted to soften the blow of
Joyces death
for Dawn, but the only way to get over grief is to live through
it. I think
that's what Dawn realised at the end of the ep.
Willow is going to make a mistake due to her impatience. I think
of a quote:
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple,
neat, and
wrong." HL Menkin
Willow was giving Dawn the lead to an easy solution, that was
very wrong.
Death and the grief after a death is a complex problem that has
no simple
solution. You have to grieve and spells won't make it better.
Willow is kind
but magic isn't always the answer to a problem. Tara understands
that and I
hope will be able to teach Willow to think before she casts a
spell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow was irresponsible -- curious, 22:41:50 04/18/01
Wed
I used to really like Willow back in the highschool years, but
I seem to
have lost that emmotional connection to her over the last 2 seasons.
It's as if Willow regards use of Magic as a solution to life and
everthing
else, similar to solving a complex algebraic problem. She's been
reminding
me of a child playing with a new toy. She's like the quinessential
curious
scientist who experiments because she can, and never stopping
to ask if she
should. Again like a gifted child that is pleased with her own
abilities to
do remarkable things. To Willow, it appears that a successful
outcome is
justification enough for performing it.
It appears that Tara knows alot more than she lets on. It's obvious
now that
she has a very grounded sense of responsibilty towards her choosen
art. I
hope she imparts that wisdom to Willow before something really
horrible
happens to one or more of them. I think Willow is good person,
but her
softheartedness sometimes gets in the way of her good jugdement.
I can't help but shudder at the thought of the emotional damage
that might
have been done to the girls, especially Buffy, if "Pet Semetary
Mom" were to
have walked through the door. (The episode heavily implied an
unnatural
resurrection, so I'm going with it.) Not only would Buffy's last
images of
her kind, loving and gentle mother be replaced by an unnatural
abberation
from beyond the grave, but she would most likely have to destroy
it. How
psychologically devestating would that have been? I'm glad that
Dawn had the
strength to do the right thing. Kudos to her, because she also
would have
been terribly traumatized by having to witness such a scene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Leaving us hanging -- verdantheart, 07:04:02 04/19/01 Thu
Which was exactly where they wanted us! We can imagine dozens
of scary
scenarios as to what Joyce might have been like (Pet Sematary
mom, indeed
(don't remember offhand how Mr. King misspelled that one ...))!
Often the
question is scarier than the answer. Very Val Lewton of them!
- vh
Willow's way v. Tara's -- Darrick, 20:14:40 04/18/01 Wed
As several people have pointed out below, Willow and Tara seem
to have
diverging opinions on what constitutes "proper" use
of magic. Tara seems to
take the view that there traditions and boundaries which shouldn't
be
violated. As someone said, she views her witchcraft as a religion
and
philosophy of life.
Willow is much different. She views magic as a science and doesn't
seem to
acknowledge any boundaries at all. This is true to her character
as it has
been written throughout the show's history.
So, the question is, who is correct? IS there one correct way
to deal with
magic? Tara's way has its advantages. Presumably, the rituals
evolved so
witches could have a reliable and safe means of using magic. Deviating
from
these prescribed methods is probably dangerous in the extreme...as
Willow
has shown time and again.
But I am suspicious of all arguments which claim that it is unwise
to "go
against the natural order" of things. It's just not persuasive
to me. Going
by that rule, very few of our technological or medical advances
would have
occured. And Dawn made an excellent point in "Forever",
when she accused
Tara of violating her own advice every time she floated something.
Tara says
that "life and death" are different. Does that mean
that if someone was
sick, they should just stand by and do nothing? How far is too
far? To me,
relying on a set of ancient beliefs to excuse inaction when you
have the
power to intervene is troubling. I compare it to the behavior
of certain
religious sects in relying on prayer, while rejecting medical
technology, to
deal with illness.
Having said all of the above, I feel that Willow still screwed
up. Her
problem isn't that she takes risks, it's that she lacks the confidence
to be
forthright and honest in what's she's doing. She tries to hide
everything
behind her facade of "nice-ness" in order to avoid confrontation.
I think
she's got the right idea, to experiment with magic and find new
ways of
applying it. Her execution is totally wrong and has led to many
unfortunate
consequences.
This resurrection business is a perfect example. If she were serious
about
treating magic like a scientific tool she would discuss with Dawn
the
possible consequences of such a spell. They could even do experiments
on
dead animals and such to get a feel for how it might work. If
it failed
miserably with them, then she could easily persuade Dawn of the
problems
with such a spell. Instead, she takes a sort of passive-aggressive
stance
and makes Dawn aware of the possiblity without informing her of
the dangers.
It's entirely possible that the risks of doing resurrection spells
outweighs
the possible benefits. Leaving aside Tara's customs, if Willow
was being
honest with herself she might have figured that out.
As I said, I don't have a problem with her goal, to gain a fuller
understanding of magic and how it works. The problem is in the
means she
uses. I think she has to overcome her doubts and fear of confrontation
in
order to really bring her interests out in the open. Giles, Buffy,
Xander,
and Tara, would certainly frown on those experiments, but if she
were open
and honest with them maybe she could discover some worthwhile
uses for magic
while avoiding the worst kind of unintended consequences.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow's way v. Tara's -- Scott L., 07:01:44 04/19/01
Thu
Willow said that she wasn't sure it was possible to bring Joyce
back. I
don't think she was lying. I think she didn't know that it could
really
happen.
I think that she left the book out for the reasons that she stammered,
that
she wanted Dawn to understand the history of the decision. She
didn't
realize that Dawn would be resourceful enough to take a history
book and
find practical application of the knowledge found within.
That was where Willow messed up. Tara understands that Dawn is
capable of a
lot, through pure Summers tenacity, if need be.
Intervention and Tough Love (Spoilers BEWARE!!!) -- Eania Snow,
20:35:01
04/18/01 Wed
WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Read some info about the 2 up and comming episodes. Intervention
is going to
be the Buffy Bot with Buffy dealing with the first slayer again.
I really
really really hope they do something good and unexpected with
the buffy bot
because every time I think about it, the whole idea just seems
lame to me. I
mean real lame. However I do have faith in JM now im sure it will
be good
and unexpected.
Now for the biggy In tough love on of the scobbies gets it from
Glory. The
snipit I read is one of the Scobbies will be glory's next victem.
Victem to
me sounds like dead? Could also mean a mind sucking thing that
puts the
person out of commission till they kill glory a few episodes later.
If its going to be a death thing then I have my money riding on
Xander. As
has been noted before things are just going to well for him right
now. I
also think they have everyone else covered with killing him off
as well.
Willow would take it the hardest since she's his best friends
but she has
Tarra to help her though it since shes is very strong now. Buffy
I don't
know what they would do with her though? 3 People leaving in her
life in the
span 2 months is almost impossible to deal with she would snap.
Only thing I
could see preventing her from snaping is if Angel was there and
that is not
going to happen. However we would also have the benfit of having
Anya lose
it completely prehaps might even turn into next seasons badie.
Even though I
don't see her as a very scary or amuzing super badie yet anyways.
If its the mind sucking thing then I see Giles getting it. Having
giles out
of the picture for a few episodes would make for an interesting
no adult to
lean on type of plot line.
Anywho thats just my ranting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Intervention and Tough Love (Spoilers BEWARE!!!) --
Eania Snow,
20:56:24 04/18/01 Wed
Arg! I lost before I even hit the post button. Tarra's the one
that gets it.
It better be a mild beating or something. They kill her off and
I will be
pissed. Even though if they have to kill someone shes the only
one they
could without it effect a bunch of other people seriouly. Kill
Xander you
have problems with Willow and Anya is out of the picture no Xander
no Anya.
Grrrrrrrrr. Im in a bad mood now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Intervention and Tough Love (Spoilers BEWARE!!!)
-- Anthony8,
18:12:13 04/19/01 Thu
One of the spoiler sites said that someone dies, whoever you think
it is
think bigger, and that it is not Anya.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Intervention and Tough Love (Spoilers BEWARE!!!)
--
Solitude1056, 19:57:30 04/19/01 Thu
Should I put in spoiler space?
I heard it's Faith.
(bummer.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Intervention and Tough Love (Spoilers BEWARE!!!)
-- Wiccagrrl,
21:29:51 04/19/01 Thu
Mostly speculation, probably fake rumors, but pretty major spoilers
if true.
Don't read if ya don't wanna know.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
Space
Ok, I'm not really buying that any of the core four, or Anya or
Tara, are
going to die. BTW, that quote (think bigger) was a Wanda quote.
But when she
said that "Whoever you're thinking, you're most likely wrong,
think bigger"
line, the first one to come to mind, really only thing, that woulda
fit that
is Buffy herself. And rumors have been flying that Buffy'd die
in the season
ender. Maybe Wanda's been visiting one to many fannish boards/sites,
and
picked up a bogus rumor?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Spoiler Personages -- Solitude1056, 21:00:33
04/20/01 Fri
Who is this Wanda person, anyway?
(I've heard her mentioned on other boards. Editorial comment censored.)
1056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spoiler Personages -- Rufus,
23:51:39 04/20/01 Fri
Wanda at eonline.com...click on the gossip section...and you can
read about
Buffy moving to UPN as well.
Thought on clothing color choice in Forever...spoilers -- Wiccagrrl,
21:40:13 04/18/01 Wed
Ok, I may be really reaching here, but I was rewatching the funeral
scene,
and had a thought about the choice of color that they put Buffy,
and Tara,
(and Willow and Dawn, I suppose) in. So, everyone leaves, and
we are left
with Buffy, Tara, Dawn, and Willow. Dawn and Willow are in fairly
traditional black. But Buffy is in white, and Tara is in red.
Kind of odd
colors for a funeral, at least by western/US standards. and then
I had a
thought. The three colors (White, Red, and Black) are, at least
in Wicca,
symbolic of the lifestyle- the colors that represent the three
stages/faces
of the Goddess (Maiden, Mother, Crone) White representing youth
(Buffy,
whose childhood is ending) Red representing middle life/motherhood
(Tara,
who is the nurturing, mature one in this situation, trying to
care for Dawn
and Buffy) and Old Age/Death (The crone- Willow and Dawn- maybe
because they
are the ones of the four most allowing themselves to focus on
the grief?)
Am I completely out of it, or do you think I'm on to something
here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Thought on clothing color choice in Forever...spoilers
-- Wiccagrrl,
21:44:22 04/18/01 Wed
The three colors (White, Red, and Black) are, at least in Wicca,
symbolic of
the lifestyle
Ok, even with having to approve posts, I manage to have typos-
sheesh-
pathetic much? Anyway, that was supposed to say Life Cycle, not
lifestyle.
Also, I'm not saying that Buffy or Tara chose the clothing because
it fit
the "role" they were in, but that maybe the writers/directors
chose the
colors because it did sort of symbolize the life cycle, and where
the
characters were at.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Thought on clothing color choice in Forever...spoilers
--
Solitude1056, 21:57:56 04/18/01 Wed
Actually, I hadn't noticed what Buffy was wearing (altho I recognize
the
coat from several other episodes) - but I did notice that Tara
was wearing
that dark red burgundy. That did seem strange to me, since it's
not the most
usual color choice. The implication would have to be that she
either chose
it, or just doesn't own anything black.
Or we could say it was just the head stylist getting funky with
the
clothing, setting us up for the Angel/Buffy color contrast (thx,
OnM!). Or
we were supposed to focus on Tara for some foreshadowing reason.
On the
other hand, Joss is way too sneaky for songs to be just filler,
so I doubt
the colors, lighting, camera angles or any of the rest of it is
just filler,
either. Or Joss & crew was bored, and decided to have Tara wear
red just
'cause they knew there's a pocket of pseudo-philosophers on the
'net who
would go bonkers trying to figure out the deeper symbolism. Ah,
the easily
amused. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Easily amused? Ah, yes.. and a low philosophy
threshold to boot...
;) -- OnM, 06:35:43 04/19/01 Thu
I also very seriously doubt it was an accident to choose the colors
the cast
was wearing in that scene. I know little about Wicca, but I have
heard of
the Life Cycles concept, so that makes as much sense to me as
anything.
I also think that as a Wiccan, Tara might not just automatically
go with the
'conventions' of funerals in the United States, which are, after
all,
largely Christian/Judaic in nature, and Wicca is certainly not
Christian or
Jewish.
Whatever the reason for the choices, they certainly were effective
from a
visual standpoint, as I pointed out in my 'Cinematic' post which
you so
kindly referred to. The enjoining of the Buffy/Angel light/dark
symbolism
certainly wasn't lost on me, and I'm sure many others got the
same vibe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Thought on clothing color choice in Forever...spoilers
--
Masquerade, 11:45:07 04/19/01 Thu
"Or Joss & crew was bored, and decided to have Tara wear
red just 'cause
they knew there's a pocket of pseudo-philosophers on the 'net
who would go
bonkers trying to figure out the deeper symbolism."
Oh, don't I wish Joss or one of the writers knew of our humble
little site
here?? I had this vain hope that the Host's line in "Reprise"
about the
"complementary nachos bringing in the morally ambiguous crowd"
was a
shout-out to us, but alas, that's just the ol' ego speakin' *sigh*
I can
dream.
and remember we don't philosophize for recognition or money, but
cuz... of
the fun!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thought on clothing color choice in Forever...spoilers
--
Rufus, 12:58:54 04/19/01 Thu
Masquerade, at least on Yahoo your site is highly recommended,
even has
little sunglasses beside the name. I found my way here by Yahoo...I
wonder
if any of the writers lurk here....I did long enough.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thought on clothing color choice in Forever...spoilers
--
Solitude1056, 14:16:20 04/19/01 Thu
and remember we don't philosophize for recognition or money, but
cuz... of
the fun!
Money? What money?
(and if your friends & family laugh at you 'cause you hang up
on everyone
with a shouted, "not now! Buffy [Angel] is on!" for
two hours on Tuesday
evenings, this does not necessarily count as the kind of recognition
I think
is meant.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Thought on clothing color choice in
Forever...spoilers --
Masquerade, 16:37:25 04/19/01 Thu
I was making 34K a year teaching philosophy to little undergraduate
grunts.
It's not big money, but it paid the bills. It also gave me NO
life
whatsoever. Much more fun doing philosophy as a side-line.
And I don't even answer the phone between 8 and 10 on Tuesday
nights.
Although, yeah, my sister laughed in my face one night when I
called her in
a panic at 7:55 because the power had gone out in my apartment
and I needed
her to tape the episode "Pangs" while I searched for
the breaker.
People just don't realize how deep and adult this show is. I guess
you have
to watch a few episodes all the way through to catch all the existential
angst and on-screen orgasms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thought on clothing color choice
in Forever...spoilers --
Rufus, 18:36:17 04/19/01 Thu
There is such a thing as an "existential orgasm"?
No one and I mean no one bugs me on Tuesday night. And I agree
that Buffy is
a very adult show with a kiddie name. They deal with alot of issues
in a way
that gets people thinking...one way or another.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thoughts on What's in
a name? -- OnM, 20:45:05
04/19/01 Thu
I have always assumed that the name of the show is meant to be
ironic, in
that it mirrors the world of comics whereby it looks to be silly
kid stuff
on the surface but inside the stories deal with real thoughts,
emotions, and
certainly philosophy. (Not all of them, of course, but the really
good
ones.)
I stopped collecting comic books as I got into my teens, but there
is little
question that the themes they dealt with helped shape my thoughts
and the
way I approach the realverse. I'm still a huge fan of the regular
daily
comic strips that appear in newspapers, I remember that back in
the 60's it
was pretty much like talking to a wall to get people to understand
that
those 3 or 4 little b&w panels were art. Now, the creator of 'Calvin
and
Hobbes' retires the strip, it's front page news, and they're building
memorials to Charles Schultz and Snoopy. 'Dilbertization' is now
part of the
American lexicon. Gary Trudeau wins Pulitzers for 'Doonesbury'.
The beat
goes on...
It just takes the passage of time, sometimes, for people to appreciate
what's right in front of them.
BTW, Masq, maybe you should get a UPS like they have for your
computer and
hook it up to your VCR. If the power goes out you're still OK!
(I don't have
one of those yet, but I do record on two VCR's simultaneously
in case one
should throw a tantrum at an inopportune moment! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thoughts on What's
in a name? -- Eaia Snow,
22:24:11 04/19/01 Thu
Tisk Tisk people. Recording in DVD quality on your computer is
the way to
go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: In theory,
yes. Scroll down to... -- OnM,
06:07:34 04/20/01 Fri
JBone's thread of last Friday "In need of a fix" and
see my response in "Oh
yeah, I guess you could do that.. or maybe this".
Speaking as a videophile, I know where you are coming from, but
the
technology is still a little too dicey and expensive at this point
*for most
people*. (Hard drive recording and DVD recorders). What is truly
sad is that
VCR's *could* be much better than they are quality-wise, but the
entertainment industry has been doing their best for many years
now to
degrade, not improve the ability to copy their material. It is
the primary
reason that DVD took a good two to three years longer than necessary
to
actually reach the streets-- it wasn't technical issues, it was
about legal
wrangling and copyright protection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy on tape -- purplegrrl,
09:54:25 04/20/01 Fri
***I do record on two VCR's simultaneously***
Gee, OnM, and I thought I was compulsive because I tape every
episode - even
the re-runs - after not being able to see the pivotal episode
where Angelus
kills Jenny until it came out in prerecorded video because I didn't
set the
VCR.
I'm not so worried about my VCR throwing a fit as I am with the
cable signal
going out - my local WB station tends to have a questionable signal
at
times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy on tape
II - Compulsives 'r' Me! ;) --
OnM, 22:54:59 04/20/01 Fri
LOL! Yes, pg, there is a certain compulsion involved.(I started
timer-recording the show almost every week after I missed 45 minutes
of
'Bewitched, Bothered & Bewildered' after running very late on
a client
meeting one night, the *only* ep I ever missed viewing live since
day one
season one. This week I missed the first 10 minutes for the same
reason, but
both VCRs were humming along when I got home!)
The main reason though is that both VCRs have a lot of hours on
them, and
both have these little image quality quirks that show up at random
intervals
(and are therefore nearly impossible to pin down to repair). The
quirks are
different, though, and are unlikely to show up at the same time,
thus the
dual recording thang.
My cable's been pretty reliable, thankfully, and I used to have
access to
WGN on DirecTV, but they dropped Buffy a year or so ago, bummer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's a hard
row we hoe -- Brian, 08:50:45
04/21/01 Sat
I've been a fan of BTVS since the end of Season 2.(A friend finally
convinced me to give it a try). I instantly realized what superior
writing
the show displayed. Since that time I have tried to convert many
people to
the show, but have met with continued failure. Apparently most
people just
can't get past the name. Sigh!
On Tuesdays I do not answer the phone. I've let my family and
friends know
that I am always unavailable during those two important hours.
I tape all the episodes on my VCR, and try to get them in order.
I alternate
the Buffy and Angel episodes as there is usually a cross over
of characters,
themes, or deliberate counterpoint.
And, yes, why it is that the WB afiliate is the weakest station
on the cable
system, and it seems to tank only on Tuesday nights? Tornado season
is
especially hectic here in Kentucky. Thank Heavens for reruns!
Although there
are some episodes I've missed, and will have to wait until either
the DVDs
come out, or Buffy appears in syndication.
(I heard that this may happen this fall on FX. But I also read
an interview
with Joss that it will be chapped up with more commericals. Apparently
FX
won't treat the show like they treated X-Files and NYPD Blue)
Double Sigh!
Being a big comic book fan, on Wed nights I met with the only
other Buffy
fan who frequents the store, and over coffee, we rehash the episodes
which
is always great fun!
Of course, finding this board was the icing to cover and sooth
those BTVS &
Angel needs. Many thanks, Masquerade, and all the other great
contributors
to this board. You folks make my days all the brighter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
It's a hard row we hoe -- Masquerade,
13:31:42 04/23/01 Mon
I hear you. I used to live in Nebraska. I missed "Halloween"
due to a snow
storm in October (!) and "Band Candy" due to a wind
storm. I was able to get
a friend to tape Band Candy that same evening (the phones were
working, not
the electricity, go figure), but had to catch Halloween in reruns.
I've taped every ep from day one, but that's me, compulsive rerun
watcher.
Oh, no wait--it's necessary for research purposes. Yep, that's
what it is.
Transcripts? What transcripts?
Of course, there was the time I accidentally taped over "Choices"
getting
"Earshot" put in the one-hour slot I'd left for it for
six months. Try
replacing an episode when it's not the current season and when
season three
tapes are only on sale in the UK (What's up with that?)! But I
managed
somehow!
Thanks for joining in the board!
Ethics of Religion & Science (a bit long) -- Solitude1056, 21:50:15
04/18/01
Wed
Been thinking about the Willow threads and...
It's been oft-repeated that Joss doesn't want to validate any
particular
religion with a "rightness" over another religion, especially
in the sticky
question of Xtianity with a predominantly Xtian-culture audience.
All along
we've seen both Giles and Willow using magic as a science: you
put in these
ingredients, you say these words, and presto, this happens. It's
a recipe,
not a religion, for them - or so it appears. The one digression
into any
appearance of a "religion" for Giles, thus far, has
been that E-demon
whatsahoosie, the one with the tattoo shindig. And if I recall
correctly,
Giles remarked at some point that at first he & his buddies weren't
aware
this was a "real" demon - to some extent, he'd thought
they'd faked a great
deal of it, albeit unconsciously. Group hysteria, something like
that.
But be that as it may, we've never seen any indication that Giles
holds any
particular religous beliefs. For the most part, religion has been
largely
absent from 99% of the discussions amongst the Scoobies - except
for Willow,
who seems to regularly bring up her Jewish heritage. I'm not certain
this is
a depth to which Joss has researched (tho I'd not be surprised,
frankly),
but Judaism does have a deep mystical current, which expresses
itself in
edgy traditions like the Qabalah and its numerological component,
Gematria.
Qabalistic studies are the basis of many modern ceremonial magick
traditions, and essentially boil down to more recipe following:
these
letters have this value, switch this around, visualize this, and
this is
what you get.
[An aside from the Peanut Gallery Inside Source: with enough skill
but
enough ignorance, you can turn just about any combination of letters
into
"666," but the validity of the results in the english
language (as opposed
to Hebrew) are a thread for another board. Regardless, the PGIS
suggests
Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco for an amusing take on the
practice, but
doesn't recommend mentioning it to any hardcore Masons or Qabalistics,
since
it's rather irreverent. Apparently his own decades of studying
Qabalah have
led him to believe that enough time on Gematria will lead you
to a final
ultimate statement, hidden somewhere in the sacred texts: "get
a life,
qabalah-dweeb."]
But back to the Judeo-magical/mystical traditions, and my impression
of
their influence on Willow's perspective. There is no assumption
in the
Qabalah that one must believe in a particular Divine entity or
an angelic
personage - many of the greatest scholars verged on Jewish heresy
- to
achieve a purpose: the words themselves have power in & of themselves.
Qabalah is a science, not a religion, really. So Willow treating
other magic
as a science, also, would not be a big step. Add into that Giles'
influence
- in terms of his treatment of magic & acts magical - and you've
got a pure
scientist, right down to using the Chem Lab in H.S. to do her
experiments.
Tara, on the other hand, seems to come from a religous background,
albeit
one that may be foreign to much of the audience. Ethically, this
gives her a
different perspective, but no less a valid one. Each has its pros
& cons. In
a religious framework, magic is positive if its intent is pure
(not colored
by personal self-interest), and its ends do not disrupt the 'natural
order'
of things - ie, screw up the world created, and run by, a Divine
Entity.
It's like having a landlord, and not the absentee landlord of
the Xtian
tradition (by that I mean non-participatory in the sense of everyday
reality). You can paint your walls, which is altering your reality,
but you
can't just haphazardly go knocking down walls if it pleases you.
It's a
matter of degrees, which you obey out of respect for, and worship
of, a
particular focus (read: divine entity).
Science, on the other hand, negates the influence of a divine,
and values of
positive/negative. Instead, its emphasis is on effectiveness.
"We don't know
how or why it works, but it does, so we do it." What doesn't
work, doesn't
get used, what does work, gets used. The side-effects, like post-spell
migraines, electrical blackouts, are noted as after-effects but
do not
necessarily negate the science-magic's usefulness. Instead, the
scientist
seeks to either further tweak the spell until the side-effects
are
minimized, or considers the after-shocks to be part & parcel of
the spell.
Either they're tolerable, and the spell is used, or they're not,
and
something else is found for a solution.
To an observer, it's hard to measure "bad" and "good,"
but for the sake of
argument let's say that personal discomfort (such as major headaches)
are a
bad. To the scientist, if the spell is successful, and the headaches
can be
treated with aspirin, then the recipe is effective with qualifications.
To
the theist, if the spell is successful, but there are headaches
afterwards,
this may be a sign that you just thwacked your paintbrush and
nearly knocked
down a wall... and that the landlord is telling you to back off.
Getting back to Joss' stance on remaining neutral concerning particular
mainstream religions, I'd be interested to see how the apparent
divergence
between Tara & Willow might resolve - or if the resolution will
happen
onscreen at all. A belief system, in & of itself, is appearing
to have more
& more strength (in the Buffyverse) in terms of successful
self-preservation, rather than the disinterested poking about
of a novice
scientist. "The operation was a success, even if the patient
did die."
I make that statement of self-preservation because so far it's
appeared that
Tara's had little to no backlash from the workings she's done,
and she's
mentioned none about any of her independent stuff previous to
meeting
Willow. That stands in stark contrast to Willow's history of treating
a
spell as a recipe and not realizing that more or less energy,
juice,
experience, or what-have-you may be needed, that's not listed
in the recipe.
So when things blow up, Willow doesn't have a measure for what
it was that
went wrong, she can only note the recipe's tangible ingredients,
determine
whether the side-effects were tolerable, and continue from there.
Ok, so a lot of this may be garbled, but it's just something that
occured to
me...
1056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ethics of Religion & Science (a bit long) -- Wiccagrrl,
22:05:01
04/18/01 Wed
I'm always a bit hesitant to really comment on the witchcraft
on Buffy,
because I'm Wiccan, and it really doesn't bear much resemblance
to the Wicca
that I practice, and I know my own views/experience color much
of how I view
it. One example- healing spells are very common in Wicca in my
experience.
Now, the results aren't usually as tangible as magic in the Buffyverse,
but
doing a spell to help give someone the energy/strength to help
fight an
illness isn't considered off bounds. According to Tara, in the
Buffyverse,
they are.
That said, I do think that with any power, there comes responsibility,
and
that there have to be limits and a sense of what your boundaries
are- and
that goes for science as well as magic, IMO. And Willow seems
to be lacking
that sense of what is crossing the line, or even that there is
a line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ethics of Religion & Science (a bit long) -- Rufus,
22:38:53
04/18/01 Wed
I'll repeat the quote:
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple,
neat, and
wrong." HL Menkin
I love that quote. I agree that Willow sees magic as more of a
science
project than something more complex. There is a reason that Tara
warned both
Willow and Dawn about fiddling with the natural order of things.
Some things
aren't meant to be tampered with for good reason. Willow has good
intentions
but to see life and the bringing forth of life as a science experiment
is
folly. Too many things go wrong. Sometimes as humans we have to
suffer,
death and loss are things we have to suffer through not cure through
a
magical experiment. I hope that Tara shows Willow the way and
makes her
realise that the natural order is there for a reason. Float a
pencil, but
leave the dead alone. With magic comes responsiblilty and consequences.
Tara
and the Wiccans know this from experience passed down through
time, Willow
has power but lacks the maturity to use it wisely.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ethics of Religion & Science (a bit long) -- Solitude1056,
22:58:05 04/18/01 Wed
Discussing the Buffyverse type of magic doesn't bother me, because
it
appears to be logical extrapolation. Let's say that magic is a
musical
instrument - let's say it's a flute. In our universe, when we
try to play
the flute, most of the time we get nothing. Sometimes we think
we're getting
a sound, but we can't be sure. Other times a bunch of us together
are
convinced we heard a clear sound, but a disinterested observer
remarks a
train was passing in the next valley & it echoes... you get the
idea.
Now, in the Buffyverse, that flute makes quite a pretty sound.
It boils down
to two types of playing, as characterized (thus far) by Willow/Giles,
and
Tara. Science measures the pitch of each note, and determine logically
the
note that must follow in order that the notes be identified as
a melody.
Religion just plays whatever, but within a holistic (altho I hate
that word
in pop culture, it fits here) perspective. Ok, without rambling
into that
bad analogy tooooo far...
Tara's ethics concerning healing are consistent with her attitude
that this
verges on life-and-death situations, which are best left in the
hands of
some Greater Power. Although it's been mentioned elsewhere (a
while back)
that Willow's been more assertive since Tara came along, I'd say
Willow is
more self-confident, but she takes a backseat when Tara suddenly
stands up
about magic. Without Tara delivering the caveats, I suspect Willow
would
have tried a healing spell for Buffy, and may have even experimented
with
Dawn, even if only with the intent to demonstrate for Dawn that
it's not a
good idea - but she herself would have rationalized her own participation
as
being solely for the purpose of gathering information, and thus
having a
negligible influence in a scientific sense. In a religious sense,
she's not
justified IMO.
I do know Wicca, and I'm aware there's a mainstream trend in it
concerning
healing actions on behalf of others - particularly that you don't
do such
without the person's awareness and consent. As a Shinto Buddhist,
I don't
mind my Xtian father praying for my safety when I travel... but
if he got a
whole prayer group together at a tent revival, that might be another
matter.
*grin* That verges on the issue of the Buffybot: the idea that
someone
else's prayers/actions somehow, although perhaps unaffective upon
reality,
still emotionally transgress on your personal space.
Joss has messed with the Wiccan paradigm to some extent, although
with
Tara's introduction he's gotten more towards the mainstream system,
it
seems. Willow's got a long history of calling it "the black
arts," which to
me is a rather negative attitude. I've yet to hear Tara call it
such, tho I
could be wrong. Tara doesn't seem to be measuring things by the
same ruler -
back to the science vs. religion aspect. Essentially, Joss is
playing a huge
game of "let's pretend" when it comes to our reality's
understanding of
different religions.
Let's pretend that magic really does things, and that you really
can make
things float, become invisible, worship demons, turn snakes into
heat-seaking missiles, etc. Seen through the eyes of an audience
unused to
such power, Willow's nonchalant attitude towards the consequences
may not
ruffle too many feathers, ethically: we're so used to magic not
working that
we're unused to the idea that we should stop & consider what might
happen if
it did. This is where Tara comes in.
If there are God(s) who contain power and answer one's call, then
who's to
say that there might not be a backlash for interfering with one
God's plan?
And what about the idea that one God may see no reason to help
a sufferer
who isn't also a worshipper of that God? And what if modern medicine
is
doing just fine solving the problem, and your energy thrown in
the wrong
direction just makes it worse? Some stoves are way too hot to
touch, if we
continue with the premise that magic is effective. Energy thrown
in the
direction of a person about to undergo surgery, in the Buffyverse,
might be
effective - but is it really a positive thing to shove the surgeon
energetically right when s/he is about to perform a delicate maneuver?
But in the end, Willow's intentional blindness to the consequences
are
finally becoming clear as a negative trait. Without Tara's presence,
though,
we might not have had the chance to see her mistakes as more than
humorous.
We had no comparison other than Giles, and Willow doesn't yet
have Giles'
more mature ability to measure the possible consequences. Giles
doesn't
appear to have "religion," per se, but he does have
caution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Ethics of Religion & Science (a bit long)
-- Wiccagrrl,
23:33:34 04/18/01 Wed
I do know Wicca, and I'm aware there's a mainstream trend in it
concerning
healing actions on behalf of others - particularly that you don't
do such
without the person's awareness and consent.
For many Wiccans, doing any magic on behalf of someone else without
their
knowledge or consent is considered to be baneful, going against
the "harm
none" creed, because it takes away/interferes with their
free will. You
don't really know, unless you've talked to them, what they would
want or if
they'd be comfortable with it. That's one of those "boundaries"
that I was
talking about. But I've rarely heard of healing magic in and of
itself as
being considered baneful, which is what Tara was basically saying
when she
said any healing magic was a no-no and would only make things
worse.
In the real world, I tend to view most spells as being a more
active form of
prayer- a way of focusing one's energy, calling on/connecting
with "the
powers that be" Now, whether we are really being aided by
powers larger than
ourselves, or whether we are really just focusing our own energies
and
tapping into our own inner resources is open to debate.
I do see your point that if spells really worked in the way they
do in the
Buffyverse, it would make things very, very different. That said,
the fact
that the results are more immediate, physical, and tangible makes
a careless
attitude towards those powers just that much more dangerous.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> healing magic -- purplegrrl, 15:44:49
04/19/01 Thu
Perhaps "healing magic" in the Buffyverse and in the
Realverse are vastly
different. I got the impression that the healing magic Tara was
talking
about being a no-no was to make Joyce's tumor just go away, poof,
and she
would be well again. Whereas Realverse Wiccans who do healing
magic are
attempting to bolster the sick person's own healing abilities
and mental and
physical strength to either fight the illness or be at peace with
the
inevitable outcome.
I can still see where having the person's consent before performing
healing
magic on them would be considered prudent and respectful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Black Arts -- Malandanza, 22:09:41 04/22/01
Sun
***Joss has messed with the Wiccan paradigm to some extent, although
with
Tara's introduction he's gotten more towards the mainstream system,
it
seems. Willow's got a long history of calling it "the black
arts," which to
me is a rather negative attitude. I've yet to hear Tara call it
such, tho I
could be wrong...Let's pretend that magic really does things,
and that you
really can make things float, become invisible, worship demons,
turn snakes
into heat-seaking missiles, etc. Seen through the eyes of an audience
unused
to such power, Willow's nonchalant attitude towards the consequences
may not
ruffle too many feathers, ethically: we're so used to magic not
working that
we're unused to the idea that we should stop & consider what might
happen if
it did.***
It seems to me as though, in the Buffyverse, all magic is black.
There is
always a price to pay for power extracted (just ask Jonathan or
Wesley's
ex-girlfriend). Whether it is a quid pro quo with a demon or capricious
powers perverting the intent of the spell (be careful what you
wish for...),
spells seem inherently evil. Even with Buffy, the source of her
slayer
powers may ultimately be darker even than Dracula has alluded
to. In some
cases (like the curse she almost placed on Veruca), Willow has
directly
supplicated evil powers. In other cases, she has inadvertantly
attracted
their attention (D'Hoffyrn).
My theory is that if you want a spell to do exactly what you wish,
a price
must be paid (sacrifice goats or your daughter, become a demon
-- or even a
physical price such as Willow's chronic migraine after the teleportation
spell). If you allow the powers some leeway to fulfill the letter
of your
desires in a manner of their own choosing, the price is less significant.
The trade-off is that the demons granting your wishes aren't the
fairy
godmother variety -- they will create as much havoc as possible
while still
providing you with the literal fulfillment of your wishes. A Monkey's
Paw or
Evil Genie style of magic.
Thus, with healing magic, where a very specific result is required,
the
price might be too steep. Contrast that with the non-specific
"bring my dead
mother back" spell -- a relatively easy spell to cast because
it permits the
forces animating the body to wreak havoc.
Are there some spells that do not require a price and are not
inherently
evil? Probably -- spells like floating the pencil -- where the
power
required is minimal and the results trivial. Whatever powers these
spells
may do so to encourage young witches down the path of their own
damnation
(see how safe and easy magic is? why not try a trickier spell...?)
Ben Good, Glory Bad, Doc ???? (Possible Spoiler) -- Eania Snow,
04:48:51
04/19/01 Thu
Rumor around the camp fire is that the Doc is going to be the
third hell
god. Im currious to know what he is going to be like if this is
true. Ben is
seen as Good (even though some of his actions have been bad) Glory
is of
course bad. Will the 3rd hell good be neutral? Im guessing from
his
interaction with dawn that he does know that she is the key? Ben
being white
glory being black and Doc being grey would be a nice touch if
they did it
like that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ben Good, Glory Bad, Doc ???? (Possible Spoiler) --
Solitude1056,
06:35:04 04/19/01 Thu
If that was Doc, & the 3rd HellGod - I got the delicious impression
that it
might not be good/bad/neutral... but mediocre/bad/absolute-worst.
That'd be fun, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ben Good, Glory Bad, Doc ???? (Possible Spoiler)
-- Scott L.,
06:46:39 04/19/01 Thu
I know that I've said that I think Ben is "Benificus"
before, that he's a
good hell-god. Now, I'm not so sure of that. It seems pretty pat
-- like
Joss is leading us down that path just to yank our chain.
The only thing that we know for certain is that he doesn't want
his sister
to have the key. There are a lot of reasons why that could be.
We're not
sure what the key unlocks, or locks, for that matter.
More and more I'm convinced that Joss is going to twist all of
our
perceptions around on us. I'm looking forward to it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ben Good, Glory Bad, Doc ???? (Possible Spoiler) --
Sue, 19:31:33
04/19/01 Thu
Two words for Dawn regarding Doc. STAY AWAY!
He is the anti-Giles.
Right now, Dawn is smart enought to realize that. She isn't stupid
and has
good instincts. When Doc said "You just keep in touch. Let
me know how it
goes." Dawn says "I will" but the look on her face
and her body language
said "file that under never!"
But I fear there might come a time where Dawn might feel the need
for his
expertize again. This guy really freaks me out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Anti-Giles? -- Solitude1056, 19:55:43 04/19/01 Thu
So if Doc is the anti-Giles does that make Glory the anti-Buffy,
and Ben the
anti-Xander? Yikes, that means Dreg is the anti-Willow...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Anti-Giles? -- Sue, 20:53:30 04/19/01 Thu
Love the analogy.
There are many surface similaries between Glory and Buffy. And
I can
certainly see the comparisons you make.
But I don't think Doc is with the Glorius crowd. Got to save something
for
next year.
Giles is an adult who served young Buffy as a guide, teaching
how to use her
own powers and other magic to in her quest for fighting for good.
Doc is an adult (something) who has expertize in the darker magic.
He could
serve as a type of mentor as well.
Another anology. Giles=Obi-Wan Kenobi. Doc = the emperior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Anti-Giles? -- Sue, 21:04:56 04/19/01
Thu
Another analogy I would like to make is between Spike and Angel.
Young Buffy had Angel by her side in her battles against the forces
of evil
(before she slept with him, then he become one of the forces of
evil).
Young Dawn has Spike on her side, but like Spike himself, her
exploits are
more ambigious then young Buffy's. Not a pure good fighting evil
thing.
I don't believe Dawn is evil. She is fundamentally good. But I
believe she
can be attracted to evil given the right set of circumstances.
Which makes
her, well, just about like most the rest of humanity (not pure
good, not
pure evil, swayed either way given the right incentives).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Anti-Giles? -- Ben, 23:09:22
04/19/01 Thu
When Dawn gets that look - Watch Out!
No I don't think she will go evil, but she might become like Giles
was in
his youth. Wild, reckless, and untame. Messing with forces better
left
undisturbed.
Dawn will become a ripperete.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Anti-Giles? -- Dean, 06:46:23 04/20/01
Fri
I hope the "Riper" kicks Doc's ass!
With Dawn's mother being gone, Giles really needs to protect and
guide Dawn.
He seems to ignore her a lot. If she doesn't have him to guild
him, she will
look elsewhere for her answers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> The Most Evil of All the Villians
in the Buffyverse -- Sue,
19:17:03 04/20/01 Fri
Doc will turn out to be the most evil of all the things ever faced
in
Sunnydale.
Ew! Doc is so creepy.
Dawn trust your instincts - Stay Away.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Most Evil of All the
Villians in the Buffyverse --
Dean, 11:22:09 04/22/01 Sun
I think what makes "Doc" so much more evil than Vampires,
other Demons is
that while vampires turn you evil (or to be more exact kill YOU
and put a
evil demon in its place) without your control, Doc helps you Become
Evil.
You are not "forced" to become evil, you are guided
down that path as an
active participant.
Will Dawn be an Apt Pupil. In the end her good side will win out,
but it
will go down to the wire.
Doc: "But you ASKED for my help little girl. All the children
love Old Doc.
All of the little boys and girls so hungry for what the doctor
has to
prescribe."
It takes a very strong personality to get so close to evil, to
becoming
evil, yet be able at the last moment having the strength of goodness
to pull
herself back. Takes a strong will. Shows that within her good
will win out.
Probably would be much better for Dawn not to get so close to
becoming evil
in the first place, but then again, that wouldn't make much of
a show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Most Evil of
All the Villians in the Buffyverse
-- Sue, 12:38:56 04/22/01 Sun
I haven't seen you around for a while little girl
You don't come to visit anymore.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Most Evil
of All the Villians in the
Buffyverse -- Sue, 12:41:38 04/22/01 Sun
Got some magic spells I can teach you little girl.
You are interested in magic aren't you? You wouldn't want to hurt
an old
man's feelings would you?
STAY AWAY DAWN!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just because it is evil,
Does that make it bad? --
Steve, 13:14:50 04/22/01 Sun
Sure the Dark Arts are evil, but does that make them bad?
I mean evil is just what you call something. It's your own judgmental
attitude that says they are wrong or evil. Evil is just what we
call
something we don't like.
After all look at Willow and Tara. They use magic all the time,
but you
don't call that "evil" Oh, but that is "good"
magic. Who's to say. Both the
type of magic Willow is into and the type Doc could teach Dawn
manipulates
the natural order of things. No difference.
And we call Spike "evil" but Spike has been there for
Dawn like no one else
has. He doesn't ignore her. He doesn't treat her like a kid. And
he has
actually helped Dawn a few times. Saved her life a couple. So
while he might
be "evil" he really isn't bad?
And Anya she was an evil vengence demon, but we don't go around
condemning
her for how she used magic.
And Giles, when he was young, he was a heavy dark arts user. Didn't
seem to
hurt him any. Using the dark arts didn't give him any long lasting
effects.
Could even say it made him a better watcher.
And besides, if Dawn learns how to do the Dark Arts, just because
she uses
evil, doesn't make her evil. Practicing the Dark Arts is just
something she
will do, its not what she will be. She doesn't have to do it.
She could stop
anytime she wants.
She can start out slow. Doc could give her a few incantations
to practice.
You know, just harmless little spells she can do when Buffy isn't
around
(she wouldn't understand). Then Dawn can slowly work her way up
to maybe 3
or four spells a day. Maybe more. I am sure Doc could supply her
with all
the potions. I am sure Doc could fulfill her need.
She could even get her friend Spike to help. What would be the
harm? And
again she could stop anytime she wanted. It's not like she has
to do the
Dark Arts, it's just something she does for fun. Doesn't make
her what she
is. What will be the harm? Especially with "Doc" to
guide her.
People who think the Dark Arts shouldn't be practiced, especially
by someone
so young, just are being so intolerant. Buffy wouldn't understand,
but then
again she never wants Dawn to have any fun, or develop her potential.
To
Buffy Dawn will always be a little kid. So if Dawn wants to get
into the
Dark Arts - more power to her. And if she can find some adults
like Spike
and Doc to assist her, go for it. Dawn could use evil, but doesn't
have to
be used by it. And after all she could stop any time she wanted,
any time
she wanted.
So the dark arts are "evil". So are lots of things Dawn
has been around, and
they weren't bad. Giles had used Dark Arts for a long time, and
look at him.
I know most adults say using Dark Arts is wrong. But how can something
so
intriguing be bad. Dawn will know her limit. She might use, but
she won't
abuse, and of course can stop whenever she wants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just because
it is evil, Does that make it bad?
-- Sean, 15:01:47 04/22/01 Sun
Being evil is just another way to look at the world. Doesn't make
them bad
does it?
Dawn shouldn't be afraid of using the Dark Arts. Giles was in
it heavily in
the 1970s. And he was doing the hard stuff. Not the light stuff
Dawn would
be into. He doesn't look any worst for wear. So why should the
scoobies be
so judgmental? How about Willow. She uses magic. She is so cool.
Come on Dawn, everyone else is doing it. Spike would think it's
a good idea.
He would respect you a lot more for it. See you in a more mature
light. And
you can stop anytime you want. Doc will be more than happy to
assist you.
Or are you afraid? Too much of a baby to get involved in adult
stuff like
practicing the Dark Arts. Well I guess then it would be better
not to get
involved in it, Dawn. The Dark Arts are for grownups, not little
kids.
Too bad, Dawn. You really seemed to have a talent for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just
because it is evil, Does that make it
bad? -- Sue, 15:35:39 04/22/01 Sun
What if Dawn gets into the Dark Arts and it starts to have good
effects (at
least at first). Then Dawn could justify to herself, "see
it's not that bad,
I can even help people with it. If if does such good, how could
it be so
bad."
This will encourage her to get in further and become more entangled.
If it is done, I hope it is done slowly like the minute hand of
a clock. One
almost innocent or helpful thing leading to another, to another.
It didn't
seem so bad at first. How did it get to this point? When was it
that it
turned so bad? What was the point where it got so out of control?
Dawn is going to get as close to evil as one can get without going
over. It
takes a very strong person to get so close to evil yet having
the strength
to pull back and not get totally sucked in. I believe Dawn has
it within
her, though Buffy will give her strength as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Just because it is evil, Does that make it
bad? -- Kurt C., 16:10:10 04/22/01 Sun
Perhaps Willow's magic will get out of hand.
And Dawn will have to save her.
Through what happened to Willow perhaps it would shock Dawn into
realizing
her problem and to seek help.
Dawn is lucky to have Buffy as a sister, but some of the other
people in her
life aren't the best roll models. Perhaps through their misadventures,
Dawn
will learn what NOT to do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Addiction & Wierdness. -- Solitude1056,
18:37:20 04/22/01 Sun
"I'm sensing wierdness here."
I suppose the last few posts have been somewhat satirical ("all
your friends
are doing it," "you can handle it, just a bit at a time,"
etc). But I
proscribe to the knife theory, as a friend used to call it. A
knife can cut
bread to feed you, or slice a gut to kill someone. Which it does
is entirely
up to the one who wields it. A great quote about magick, from
the early 20th
century, is that "magick is causing reality to change in
conformity with
will," or roughly like that. To simplify & reduce, if you
want it bad
enough, it will happen. The value judgement occurs not in the
wanting, but
in the estimation of whether the wanting is "good" or
"bad" in some larger
sense.
Whether Dawn decides to up & become Little Miss Evil Magick User
is entirely
up to her, but based on the character so far, I doubt it will
be because of
peer pressure - of any type, for any reason. Like Tara, she's
no dummie, and
she has her own priorities. Willow may be courting danger to attempt
magicks
beyond her skill, but at some level she's determined the need
to be worth
the risk. Dawn appears to operate on the same premise: I want
this, it's
worth the risk that it'll go wrong. It's only at the last minute
that she
determines there's more information than she'd originally known,
reassesses,
and acts accordingly. This is not the process for someone likely
to follow
the peer pressure line without question.
If Doc had not shown any reptilian signs, would we be reacting
this way, or
would we be only commenting: "such a strange doddering old
man - he gave me
the creeps -" yet not able to put our finger on the reason
why? Or is this
the reverse of the usual Joss formula: put a pretty face on the
most evil
heartless creature - think Darla, Dru, and Evil Willow. Perhaps
this time
he's put an apparently evil facade on the most harmless creature.
True
neutrality, after all, IMO, wouldn't hold the information from
you: it'd
give you the news, with all caveats, and let you make your own
decision. Doc
didn't force Dawn, he didn't mislead her, and all his information
(cepting
the meandering parlay with Spike) was accurate, as far as we know.
He
presented the facts and let her choose. That's neutrality.
And as another aside: the comments about the dark arts remind
me of a remark
by Jayne Mansfield, that "someone who is promiscious is just
someone getting
more sex than you." Sometimes people like to protect themselves
from
recognizing their own shortcomings by claiming that someone more
successful
must've done so with some sort of help (with the implication that
this help
was from a bad source, like Mafia money, as in the Angel-Anne
episode whose
title escapes me right now). It seems to me that to say magick
plays with
the "order of things" is no better than the old argument
that each person
has their place in the "order of things," hence supporting
gawdawful
institutions like slavery, feudalism, illiteracy, and women not
having the
vote. If magick, at its most basic (as demonstrated in the Buffyverse)
is a
form of imposing one's Will on the universe, then this can only
be a bad
thing if one's Will is not fully realized considering the consequences.
Otherwise, it's as neutral as I see Doc being - for the time being.
(After all, I'm sure I'm not the only one figuring Doc's gonna
show up
again.)
Forgive the rambling, it's a Sunday night!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Addiction & Wierdness. -- Dean,
19:04:21 04/22/01 Sun
"Doc didn't force Dawn, he didn't mislead her, and all his
information
(cepting the meandering parlay with Spike) was accurate, as far
as we know."
No, Doc didn't force Dawn. After all she ASKED him for help.
And he was, oh, so willing to provide it to her.
He provided her the means but she was a willing participant.
"Please come back and let me know how it turns out."
Ah Yes, they always
come back. Always come back for more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Addiction & Wierdness. -- Sue,
20:05:44 04/22/01 Sun
Dawn's first experience with the Dark Arts was raising her mother
from the
dead.
How do you top that?
I am afraid to even contemplate.
Doc make seem like he is just a harmless grandfatherly type, but
he isn't
harmless. He is ew!
Dawn Stay Away. (I know she won't though as it wouldn't make much
of a show
if she did.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Addiction & Wierdness. --
Solitude1056, 20:06:17 04/22/01 Sun
Ah Yes, they always come back. Always come back for more.
If I'm following the undercurrent here, magick is another analogy
for drugs,
or some similar addiction-type activity. And fact is, not everyone
comes
back for more - sometimes a person discovers that the drug, once
tried, just
isn't what they want, or isn't what they're "into,"
or whatever.
And that's why I wonder about Joss making it soooo clear that
Doc isn't 100%
human - it was like hitting us, and Dawn, upside the head with
the news that
Something Isn't Right About This. If it were truly a sneaky attempt
to lure
Dawn to the proverbial dark side, then why broadcast so clearly
that the
source of the information is himself something unusual? Dawn's
seen enough
(both within real life & in remembered life) of Buffy's line of
work to have
some strong proximity alarms despite her attempts to brazen past
them when
necessary. A junkie in the last stages of addiction, offering
you a hit
while displaying numerous track marks, is hardly the image one
might use to
sway a young woman who may be protected but isn't stupid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Addiction & Wierdness. --
Dean, 20:21:11 04/22/01 Sun
"Dawn to the proverbial dark side, then why broadcast so
clearly that the
source of the information is himself something unusual? "
That is what makes it so the much more sinister. Dawn should know
better yet
she goes ahead regardless. Unlike vampires who turn you evil without
you
being in control (since you are dead) Doc Helps you become evil.
You are a
WILLING participant. Evil in its truest form.
After all, Doc doesn't force you to do anything. You want to do
it. All Doc
does is gives you the means and guides you along the way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Addiction & Wierdness. --
Ben/Glory, 21:06:54 04/22/01 Sun
It seems harmless enough at first.
You know simple incantations. Levitation spells. You know soft
stuff. But
soon you crave something more. Summoning demons, etc.
And all the while there's olde Doc. So helpful, so kindly, providing
you
everything you need. He doesn't force anything on you. YOU beg
him for it.
And he gently guides you further and further, with you as an active
participant along the way.
Soon all you can think about is the the next spell. You ignore
your school
work thinking of the best way to use toads warts. You turn you
best friend
into a snail.
You don't think you have a problem, you think you can control
the dark arts,
not let it control you.
Dawn, Dark Arts JUST SAY NO!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> My Name is Dawn. Hi Dawn --
Sue, 21:13:20 04/22/01 Sun
I was just imagining Dawn at a DA meeting (Dark Arts abusers Anonymous
meeting). Surrounded by all kinds of wierd looking people(victims
of their
own backfired magic).
When she goes, I hope she invites Willow to go along as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Addiction & Wierdness. -- Sue,
20:34:38 04/22/01 Sun
I think Dawn's knowledge that "all isn't what it seems with
Doc" makes it
all the more creepy. All the signs are there, but she is ignoring
them
regardless.
Right now I don't think she is in a hurry to visit olde Doc. She
seemed like
she wanted to get away from him as fast as possible. Dawn isn't
stupid, and
her instincts tells her to stay away.
But there make come a time again when she might search Doc out
for his
knowledge of the dark arts.
And he will be there waiting, like he always is, oh so willing
to help.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Addiction & Wierdness. --
Sue, 20:38:22 04/22/01 Sun
"But there make come a time again when she might search Doc
out for his
knowledge of the dark arts."
Sorry for the typo. May come a time again. When something is so
important
Dawn that she will ignore her instincts, ignore all the warning
signs, and
go visit olde Doc.
And he will be there. Just waiting for her. Sooner or later they
all come
back to see olde Doc. At least most of them do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Addiction & Wierdness. -- Kurt C.,
21:24:29 04/22/01 Sun
Doc didn't force Dawn...
No Doc didn't. In fact SHE was the one who sought him out for
help.
And he was right there. Willing to assist. Always willing to help
a child in
need.
And despite the fact that it was so obvious that "something
was odd" about
Doc, Dawn went ahead any way. All the bells were ringing, the
warning lights
flashing, but her alure to the knowledge of the Dark Arts compelled
her to
charge ahead despite all of that.
Little boys, little girls, always seeking Doc out. Not Doc's fault.
He just
gives them what they want.
Hey little girl, want to learn a magic trick? You like magic don't
you?
This guy (or whatever) makes my stomach turn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Addiction & Wierdness. -- Linda,
21:47:12 04/22/01 Sun
"Whether Dawn decides to up & become Little Miss Evil Magick
User is
entirely up to her, but based on the character so far, I doubt
it will be
because of peer pressure - of any type, for any reason. "
Perhaps not peer pressure. But perhaps in a perverse way she will
see it as
a way to gain her sister's respect.
She would know that if Buffy found out at first she would be outraged,
but
maybe if Dawn could get really good and then be able to show how
powerful
she has become through the use of Black Magic, Buffy wouldn't
be so upset,
and actually let her participate more in the Scooby gang (so Dawn
might
think). And again it will start out harmless enough. Dawn will
not see the
danger until it is almost too late.
I think her reasons would be similar to that of Willow. A way
to find
identity. Perhaps not peer pressure, and perhaps if Willow messes
up really
bad and Dawn sees the effects, that might have a impact and steer
her away,
but there is something within the dark arts that Dawn craves,
and I fear she
might be drawn to it as a solution to her problems again.
The again perhaps Tara will recognize and be able to guide Dawn
away from
the darker aspects of magic. Haven't had much success with Willow
though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Addiction & Wierdness. -- Steve,
21:58:37 04/22/01 Sun
Giles needs to become a mentor for Dawn. Otherwise she will find
her mentor
on the streets (ie Doc).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Addiction & Wierdness. -- Linda,
21:56:18 04/22/01 Sun
"Willow may be courting danger to attempt magicks beyond
her skill, but at
some level she's determined the need to be worth the risk. Dawn
appears to
operate on the same premise: I want this, it's worth the risk
that it'll go
wrong. It's only at the last minute that she determines there's
more
information than she'd originally known, reassesses, and acts
accordingly."
Willow's knowledge is self-taught. But she also learnt some from
Giles's
books, and now Tara. (and perhaps a bit from Jenny Callendar.)
But these options aren't open to Dawn. Both Giles and Tara (as
well as
Willow) knows that Buffy would be outraged if she ever found out
that they
taught Dawn the simplest of spells. They won't tell her anything
about magic
(except it's bad, and that Dawn should never do it. Don't touch.).
So the only source she has left is Doc. If the Scoobies won't
tell her about
magic, she will just find someone who will.
Buffy should have THE TALK before it's too late.
Dawn and "The Monkey's Paw" -- Dee, 06:04:42 04/19/01
Thu
Does anyone remember a short story called, "The Monkey's
Paw"? It's about a
man who receives a monkey's paw that will grant three wishes.
Don't want to
spoil the story for those who haven't read it, but there were
quite a few
similarities between that story and Dawn's actions. The ending
(prior to
Buffy crying in Dawn's arms) was lifted directly from the story.
Any
comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn and "The Monkey's Paw" -- Scott L., 06:41:24
04/19/01 Thu
My roommate sat down for the last few minutes of the episode and
cried out,
"Monkey's Paw!"
He liked the show even more with that homage to a classic story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn and "The Monkey's Paw" -- Solitude1056,
06:46:42 04/19/01 Thu
For others (like myself) who've not read it in years, I found
the full story
here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dawn and "The Monkey's Paw" --
Anthony8, 18:08:26 04/19/01 Thu
Additionally, there was a grisly adaptation of "The Monkey's
Paw" in the
early 1970's "Tales of the Crypt" movie.
On Gunn and Redemption -- Scott L., 08:09:49 04/19/01 Thu
I've seen a couple of posts below stating that Gunn is a favorite
character
of some. It's funny, because some friends and I were going through
a list of
who we'd like to see as regular characters on Angel, and Gunn
didn't show
up.
I think what Gunn lacks for me is any sense of redemption. Cordelia
is
moving away from her shallow youth, Wesley is redeeming his pathetic
existence as a watcher, and Angel -- well books could be written
on Angel
and redemption.
Gunn is the odd man out. He is, so far, a simple warrior with
a clear
conscience and nothing to redeem. I'm not saying that the character
is
without depth or nuance, he has a struggle between his roots and
his current
path . But I don't sense the same sort of moral ambiguity that
the other
characters possess - especially Cordy after last night's episode.
Do you think that adds or takes away from the show.
By the way, my perfect cast is Angel, Cordelia, Wesley, and/or
Kate/Faith,
but not both.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: On Gunn and Redemption -- Sebastian, 09:54:01 04/19/01
Thu
"Gunn is the odd man out. He is, so far, a simple warrior
with a clear
conscience and nothing to redeem. I'm not saying that the character
is
without depth or nuance, he has a struggle between his roots and
his current
path."
I wonder if that may be the point. He serves as the "clear
thinker" when
everyone else is dealing with conflict. Its rather similar to
the role Tara
plays on BtVS.
This week's episode is a clear example of that. When everyone
was debating
whether Harmony should be allowed to tag along - Gunn was clear
headed
enough to ask "we still *do* fight vampires, right?"
Gunn tends to be the voice of reason - even at times if is a bit
abrasive -
when the others are not thinking clearly.
It would be rather boring if EVERYone on the show was always conflicted.
Its
a bit more balanced to have someone who is a little more logical
in terms of
what needs to be done, IMHO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: On Gunn and Redemption -- Charlotte, 13:05:29
04/19/01 Thu
I agree. Gunn does provide balance. Plus, I really enjoy his interactions
with the other characters. I'd love to see the following as the
regular
cast:
Angel, Cordy, Gunn, Wes, and Faith.
I think the Faith would really shake things up. Although, if I
REALLY had my
druthers, I'd bring Doyle back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: On Gunn and Redemption (tangent) -- Solitude1056,
14:10:45
04/19/01 Thu
[aside: I still think it'd be kickass if Doyle came back at irregular
intervals as the new Oracle...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: On Gunn and Redemption -- Dean, 19:20:42 04/19/01 Thu
I really like Gunn.
He seems like he is the only one there with a clear head.
I think he brings to the show the outsider's (the viewers) perspective,
and
I think it definitely adds to the show. He often says what I am
thinking (or
saying to the television).
WESLEY
It's all right to speak freely in
front of her. She's a vampire.
Gunn loses his smile, looks at Angel.
GUNN
(sotto)
Don't we kill them anymore?
GUNN
Just so we're on the same page,
when we find this vampire cult,
we are gonna kill 'em, right?
Got to love him. The voice of reason.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Gunn, Tara, and Redemption -- Solitude1056, 17:39:47 04/20/01
Fri
Gunn is the odd man out. He is, so far, a simple warrior with
a clear
conscience and nothing to redeem. I'm not saying that the character
is
without depth or nuance, he has a struggle between his roots and
his current
path . But I don't sense the same sort of moral ambiguity that
the other
characters possess ...
The struggle for Gunn doesn't seem to be between his roots & his
current
path - where once he was a vigilante for his own neighborhood,
now he's one
for the whole city. The faces have changed but the game remains
the same.
What we've seen of Gunn's internal workings, though, parallels
Tara's,
though there are different mechanisms & responses at work. We've
seen a
whole episode for each minor character, bringing both into sharper
focus as
to their roles - and their motivations. Cordy set out specifically
to "save"
Gunn from something, which turned out to be himself. Tara's spent
the
majority of her life afraid of herself, and the accusations of
her power's
source. In different ways, both were seeking to negate some intrinsic
aspect, IMO. Gunn was on a crash-course with self-destruction,
and Tara was
on a crash-course with self-oblitheration. That may seem extreme
way to put
it, but I think it sums up the parallel without pushing it too
far just to
draw comparisons. (I hope.)
Both received some sort of feedback in their particular focus-episodes.
For
Gunn, it was the recognition from Cordy that intentionally going
over the
edge was not the right way to rid himself of the guilt over his
sister's
death. For Tara, it was the recognition from the Scoobies that
her family's
attitude was truly as wrong as she'd always hoped it was. Both
of them seem
to have been relatively level-headed to start with, which is perhaps
why
they responded so readily to getting a reality check from their
friends.
So redemption may not be an issue now but it's still an undercurrent
in both
of them. Gunn needs to forgive himself - and perhaps he has -
for not
protecting his sister. Tara has the same issue over her conflict
of hating
and fearing her own power, and coming into it fully. Or something
like that
- it's been a long day!
1056
Evil dispostition... -- Rufus, 13:53:57 04/19/01 Thu
The story of Spike has sure heated up the boards...but at a different
level
it also makes us face the issue of evil. We started with vampires
and demons
as evil only and that made it easy to watch Buffy kill them..they
deserved
it as they threatened humanity. I was all for it but have always
been uneasy
with the idea of evil existing as an absolute. Then Joss started
doing
something that got my interest...he started to show that demons
had
lives...very different lives from us but still they had hopes,
dreams, and
loved. It has been a gradual thing but now Buffy can't just kill
every demon
because they are different...but because they are a true threat.
It took
away the video game feel of the killing in Buffy.
Now the issue of a soul has been the most highly contested one
of all. In
the Buffyverse Souless meant evil, with no exceptions, then B2
happened and
Spike helped Buffy preserve the world. If Spike were evil only
he would have
helped Angelus because it was his nature to want to destroy humanity.
Then
we got FFL and the question of who the vampire was before they
were turned
was addressed. To me it's clear that vampires are heavily influenced
by the
host. Vampire behavior covers a spectrum similar to humans with
a
predisposition towords evil. Some of Joss's words were:
"Essentially, souls are by their nature amorphous, but to
me it's really
about what star you are guided by.....The way Spike has become,
an example
is Spike obviously on Buffy, is getting more and more completely
conflicted.
But basically his natural bent is towards doing the wrong thing.
His court's
creating chaos where as in most humans, most humans, is the opposite,
and
that's really how I see it. I believer it's kind of like a spectrum,
but
they are setting their course by opposite direction. But they're
all sort of
somewhere in the middle."
I found those words worth noting because if humans can display
such a broad
range of behavior on a spectrum, then, what range of behavior
can vampires
exhibit? In Disharmony the self help vampire talked about supressing
the
neurosis of the ghost of who the host once was....if someone is
evil only,
why would they need to supress anything...good simply wouldn't
exist and
there would be no struggle. But there was a person before, that
has been
corrupted by an evil infection. I feel that some vampires are
capable of a
larger range of good behavior than we previously thought. Vampires
can and
do love....we can't ignore the fact that with that ability that
they may be
capable of more. If we don't consider the possibility of a vampire
changing
are we as evil as they can be?
There is the army saying "Kill em all, Let God sort em out."
That statement
means to me that you kill without conscience, get rid of any and
all
potential threats no matter what form they come in. It shows just
how
inhumane we can be. It is also lazy that you have not enough compassion
to
take the time to find out if what you are doing is right. I somehow
think
that God wouldn't be pleased by the statement or the people that
think that
way. Buffy sorts out who to kill, she makes sure that they are
a danger
before ending their lives, she shows that she has a conscience,
she shows
that the slayer is more than just a killer.
That brings me back to Spike, is he evil only? I have noted that
he has had
two occasions where he was trapped alone with his thoughts. First
when he
was in the Wheelchair and then helped Buffy, now with the chip.
What kind of
influence have these events had on the vampire? Can Spike change,
or is he
forever stuck at evil only capable of destruction? He seems to
take a few
steps forward and many back in his behavior. He is having to relearn
to
exist with humanity because we are all he has left now. In B2
he valued
humanity enough to want to save the world, maybe he had selfish
motives, but
he had to consider his actions and the consequences that would
happen. He
has stalked Buffy and chained her up in a vain attempt to force
her to love
him. Now he is almost resigned to the fact that she won't. He
has done a few
things that show that he is no longer looking for attention and
reward as
much as doing things because he thinks they are right. Will he
betray the
SG? I'm not sure at this point...but I feel the chance that Spike
may truly
be lost and may eventually switch the star he follows...maybe.
He has a
pattern of doing the wrong thing then when we least expect it
he changes
direction and helps out. I don't think Spike will ever be a helpless
fluffy
puppy, but I do think that he may be someone that the SG can work
with. If
so, Spike would truly be a deviant to the other vampires...something
to
fear. If he betays the SG and reverts to evil then Buffy should
finally take
him out.
It is clear that Spike is not one of the vampires waiting for
the old ones
to come and make the world hell, he is quite happy with a comfortable
crypt
a blooming onion and a beer...followed with a blood chaser.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Evil dispostition... -- The Godfather, 14:09:00 04/19/01
Thu
But as long as he is still awaiting and wanting that blood chaser..and
likely him of the tap type..he will still be damned..
BTW, was it just be or did Angel seemed to have devloped a fondness
towards
pigs blood?
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Evil dispostition... -- Rufus, 14:52:35 04/19/01
Thu
Now think of this at what point does the status quo become a cause
worth
fighting for?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ooops that was a reply to Sol.... -- Rufus,
14:55:16 04/19/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Evil dispostition... -- Solitude1056, 14:41:19 04/19/01
Thu
Two notes:
Buffy sorts out who to kill, she makes sure that they are a danger
before
ending their lives, she shows that she has a conscience, she shows
that the
slayer is more than just a killer.
Remember her participation in the Initiative meeting before getting
the
Polgara demon. She wanted to know why it was here - a question
that appeared
to be irrelevant to Walsh & company. For Buffy, knowing its reasons
would
help her know how to fight it (and as stated other times, would
also help
the Scoobies determine if it even needed to be fought). When your
cavalry is
just one frightened guy with a rock, strategy is more important
than when
your cavalry is a lot of guys with a lot of firepower.
IOW, there's only one Buffy & a whole lot of Baddies out there.
Randomly
killing anything that even remotely looks like a bad guy only
works when
there's as many of you as there are of them. Otherwise, you have
to conserve
your strength and use your head beforehand to determine if you're
really
dealing with someone worth the energy to kill it. That's just
smart
Slayership, IMO, and a long way from the "video arcade"
feeling of the early
episodes, or however that great visual went.
In B2 he valued humanity enough to want to save the world, maybe
he had
selfish motives, but he had to consider his actions and the consequences
that would happen. [...] It is clear that Spike is not one of
the vampires
waiting for the old ones to come and make the world hell, he is
quite happy
with a comfortable crypt a blooming onion and a beer...followed
with a blood
chaser.
Spike's real clear about why he helps Buffy in B2: he likes things
the way
they are. If that amounts to saving the world, he's indifferent
in the
gratitude department. He just doesn't see any reason to go messing
a good
thing. And it's interesting that his comment about Angelus is
this:
"Truth is, I like this world. You got dog racing, Manchester
United, "Love
Boat," and you got people. Billions of people walking around
like Happy
Meals with legs. It's all right here. But then someone comes along
with a
vision. With a real passion for destruction."
Spike just plain doesn't have the ambition that Dru, Angelus and
Darla
shared. He had no problem participating in Dru's notions, but
Spike is too
much of a pragmatist to actually want those dreams to come to
pass. As a
human, he'd hardly ever be a Lindsey - scrabbling his way to the
top before
by age 35. Spike is more of the kind of guy you see at the pub
after work,
content with his lot and sees no reason to stress too much about
the rest of
it. That's part of his ambiguity, IMO. In some cases, it may not
be that
he's acting out of love for humanity or anything, but more out
of a wish to
keep the status quo 'cause in some way it suits him just fine.
Spike can't betray Scooby Gang -- Dean, 19:02:40 04/19/01 Thu
"-Joss says vampires without souls have a tendency toward
evil. Will Spike
eventually betray the Scooby Gang? How? Why? Why not?"
He has always been upfront about being evil. He hasn't ever pretended
to be
good.
It is like in that one episode (Perhaps someone can remember,
I don't recall
the specifics) where I believe Giles and Xander was looking for
some monster
and asked Spike. Spike said, no, but if I see the bloke I will
send him on
his way to you! I will be routing for him.
I think using the Scorpion analogy with Spike is flawed in one
respect. With
Spike it is like the Scorpion told the fox "put me on your
back, and I will
definitely sting you half way across". And the fox replied
OK!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike can't betray Scooby Gang -- Wiccagrrl, 19:18:57
04/19/01 Thu
I sort of agree- Spike can't betray them cause he's never pretended
to be on
their side in the first place. (Well, until this whole Buffy obsession,
he'd
still probably kill anyone who claimed he was one of the good
guys.)He never
really asked for or wanted their trust.
Part of that quote you mentioned (which, btw, was about Faith,
and was from
This Year's Girl) makes it pretty clear.
"Can't any one of you're damn scooby group at least try to
remember that I
*hate* you all"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike can't betray Scooby Gang -- VanMoodySenior, 19:19:47
04/19/01
Thu
Spike already has betrayed the Scooby Gang while having a chip.
First, he
worked with Adam so he could get him to take the chip out, so
he could
return to his killing ways.
Second, he kidnapped an Initiative doctor to get the chip out
and almost
cost Riley his life since he needed the Doctor to operate on him.
Spike is
bad news. Never forget it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike can't betray Scooby Gang -- Wiccagrrl, 19:22:22
04/19/01 Thu
I think the point was that for there to be betrayal, there has
to be a level
of trust and an attempt to deceive, which, arguably don't really
apply in
Spike's case. He hasn't been claiming to be anything but bad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike can't betray Scooby Gang -- Solitude1056,
19:53:49
04/19/01 Thu
But there is a level of trust - since no one's done anything about
the fact
that Spike knows Dawn is the Key. If there wasn't some inherent
either sense
of trust - or a misguided trust in Spike's perceived impotence
to do them
too much harm - then he should've been done away with pronto.
It would've
been the only way to make sure that no potential enemies had any
knowledge
of Dawn's true identity.
So no, Spike's not betraying anything by continuing to be true
to himself -
it's the Scoobies who may discover that their willingness to overlook
him is
what will do them in. Spike may not be able to kill humans anymore,
but he
still has a mouth on him. And he's still aware that someone or
something is
out to get Dawn. I don't think betrayal is the right word for
this
situation. More like "walking into a trap of your own making."
1056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't betray Scooby Gang --
Dean, 20:06:49 04/19/01
Thu
- then he should've been done away with pronto. It would've been
the only
way to make sure that no potential enemies had any knowledge of
Dawn's true
identity."
Duh.
Keeping Spike around (though I like the character and actor) has
forced the
writers to protray Buffy and the Scoobies so unbelievably. Buffy
would have
slayed Spike. Oh, so, so long ago.
And after this week with Buffy believing that he helped Dawn (she
doesn't
know about Doc) he would be dust in the wind before the opening
credits next
week.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't betray Scooby Gang
-- Traveler, 20:45:07
04/19/01 Thu
At first they didn't want to kill Spike because it would be cold
blooded
murder. Later, Spike proved useful. After she found out about
his feelings,
Buffy simply didn't want to be anywhere near him. Also, she's
been pretty
busy with other things. He DID let her go instead of killing her,
so maybe
that plays part in her unconcious decisions. So far as we know,
Buffy has no
idea that Spike helped Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't betray Scooby
Gang -- Dean, 21:15:06
04/19/01 Thu
She might not KNOW Spike was involved, but when Dawn said "He"
I am sure
Spike is the first name that came to Buffy's mind (even though
she was
talking about Doc).
For Buffy, suspecting should be enough. Perhaps it is unfair for
Buffy to
blame "the usual suspect for no reason" but just by
chance she would just
happen to be right (at least in part).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Spike and Bitty Buffy -- Rufus, 00:57:43
04/20/01 Fri
You brought up a good point about Spike knowing about Dawn....he
could have
turned her over long ago and hasn't. The big question now is if
he turns or
when he turns on the SG how will it happen? If we take for granted
that
fangs + crypt = evil then Spike should have been gone long ago.
As he says
"something is happening to me". Is he capable of change
is one question, can
the desire to change be enough another. We just don't know and
can only
speculate based upon his past behavior. He may have tried to kill
Buffy and
crew before but he has also helped them. Remember it was Buffy
banging on
his door for help numerous times. When she needed someone to guard
her
mother and Dawn she felt for some reason that she could trust
Spike to do
the job. If we take for granted based upon appearence that a being
is evil
we may miss the fact that the window dressing is no indicator
of what's
inside. I don't know if Spike will betray the gang but it's sure
fun
watching.
Spike clearly cares for Dawn and cared for her mother,he loves
Buffy and I
think it's more than sex motivating him to stick around town.
I'm kinda
interested in the bite that he got from the Ghora demon. As the
Ghora is
serpent it may give Spike an aspect of the serpent....I wonder
where that
may come in handy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike and Bitty Buffy -- Dalwes,
09:02:30 04/20/01 Fri
Spike is definitely one flawed "leading man." He's probably
the reason a lot
of viewers keep tuning in every week. I think it's been discussed
in great
depth that he's kind of in the Heathcliff mode of romantic lead--dark,
mysterious, detructive, etc. I personally see him more like a
Rhett Butler,
who acted mostly from personal self interest as does Spike. This
didn't keep
him from admiring Melanie or loving Scarlett. Rhett eventually
acts
heroically, but self interest generally determined most of his
actions.
Spike mentioned that Joyce was the only one of the SG that he
did like and I
believe him. She treated him fairly and he appreciated that. It
had nothing
to do with good or evil. His relationship with Dawn is still developing.
He's wasn't immune to her "crush" on him. It's not to
his interests at this
time to cause her any harm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike can't betray Scooby Gang -- Traveler,
20:06:28 04/19/01
Thu
You know, I'm not sure I believe in Spike's "badness"
anymore. "Forever"
really threw me for a loop. Either Spike has developed some amazing
acting
abilities or:
1) He sincerely wanted to do something nice for Joyce
2) He genuinely cared about Dawn and RISKED HIS LIFE for her benefit,
with
no possible reward for his actions.
Even when Spike threatened Dawn, it lacked any real bite (pun
intended). He
also backed down from a confrontation with Xander, even though
he didn't
seem afraid. Please understand that I was never a redemptionist
arguing for
his "turning good," but I ask you: does current day
Spike even remotely
resemble the Spike that killed two slayers and attempted to kill
Buffy? I
never expected the writers to go as far as they already have,
so as far as
I'm concerned, all bets are off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> wanna bet -- JBone, 21:27:46 04/19/01
Thu
Since I'm not sure what sides people are arguing anymore, I thought
that I'd
just state what Spike is. Hopefully, ending peoples fanciful delusions.
Spike may puppy-dog it enough it to get in on some soft sides
of Buffyverse,
but he'd kill them as soon as anyone else. Just because I believe
Spike is a
cold-blooded vicious killer, doesn't mean I believe he is worse
off than
Angel. Angel is in just as a bad spot, if not worse as far as
humanity is
concerned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't betray Scooby Gang --
Nina, 08:27:34 04/20/01
Fri
With "Disharmony" I am now convinced that the writers
are really trying to
say that a vampire is a vampire and can't change his nature. A
lion is a
lion may it be tamed or not. The fact that DF wrote Crush and
Disharmony is
a good indicator. JW entrusted him with the mission to point out
to us that
there's no way a vampire can ever become good just because he
wants to.
So what is happening to Spike on BtVS then? I'd love to see him
change for
love's sake, but I believe that the only way the writers are going
to
explain a real change in him will be through something exterior
to him.
Angel got a soul, he was cursed with magic. Spike got a chip.
But it's been
hammered on us (in Crush) that the chip isn't a soul. What if
Doc new Spike
from his Victorian times? He seems part demon or reptile... he
could be
immortal? What if through Doc we learn something new about Spike's
past.
Something he did that could explain why he is different?
JW and team wants to keep Angel special. They want to keep vampires
evil, so
I guess that the only way they are going to do something different
with
Spike will be through some kind of magic. The chip is temporary...
so as
Rufus said what if that bite he got by the Gorah demon isn't going
to be
that mojo stuff I'm talking about!
As for betraying the SG... as it is the thread (and I am evilly
off topic!)
I still believe he could do that. It will take something to slap
him in the
face to do so, but he is impulsive. He is not far enough on his
path not to
stumble ever again. Not that I want him to stumble, but it makes
good drama!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> AThe doctor is always in -- Brian,
15:10:32 04/20/01 Fri
My reaction to the Doc with Spike is that he was seeing some future
reality
of Spike, not the past. It seemed to me that Spike didn't want
or feared
what he might say.
So the posibility for Spike "becoming" seems very real.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: AThe doctor is always
in -- Nina, 15:41:17 04/20/01
Fri
Maybe it's part of JM's request for next year. Last year he asked
for "more
tail" (and he did get more). Maybe for next year he is asking
for natural
hair!After all he said it often enough that the only thing that
bugs him is
to die his hair. ;)
But you could be right Brian. Either way... it's all very good!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> And there are always
willing patients -- Sue, 11:33:11
04/22/01 Sun
Doc: "I don't go to them. They come to me. They seek me out,
They always do.
"
Doc harmless? Oh he seems so harmless, even grandfatherly, but
ew! ew! ew!
Dawn- trust your instincts. STAY AWAY!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> People are always
knocking at his door -- Dean,
12:34:21 04/22/01 Sun
Old Doc, so harmless, yet so helpful.
Always able to fulfill those perscriptions. Always being able
to give people
what they say they want.
Always able to provide those Needful things.
Not his fault, they seek him out. They ask him. And he is ever
so helpful.
How could Doc be evil? He looks so harmless.
I rather battle a hundred Glory's than one "Doc."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: People
are always knocking at his door --
rowan, 18:49:48 04/24/01 Tue
I agree! I thought about "needful things", too. Is he
the third hell god?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re Spike's hair -- verdantheart,
07:39:14 04/25/01 Wed
I saw him say in an interview that he likes the blond look, 'though
he
doesn't like the process. Apparently Sweet'N'Low eases the burning
...
(Entertainment Weekly)
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike can't betray Scooby Gang -- Reid, 10:34:31 04/21/01
Sat
Spike's 'loyalty' to Buffy has been discussed at great length:
it's a
'loyalty' that could be explained with reference to self-interest.
I just watched OoMM again and, in the beginning, Spike 'saves'
Buffy in
order to 'get a little killing in before bedtime.' One of the
things Spike
likes to do is to kill. It was through his work with the SG that
showed him
he could still kill with the chip, and it is with them that he
can
_continue_ to kill with relative impunity--he could become a demon
hunter on
his own, but that's less safe. I wonder if this has created a
certain sense
of 'loyalty' to the SG as such, even unconsciously. He doesn't
want to
betray them because they are his way, not only to Buffy, but also
to
something he genuinely loves: killing.
This doesn't mean he _won't ever_ betray them, however.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike can't betray Scooby Gang -- Ben/Glory, 12:23:50
04/22/01 Sun
"It is like in that one episode (Perhaps someone can remember,
I don't
recall the specifics) where I believe Giles and Xander was looking
for some
monster and asked Spike. Spike said, no, but if I see the bloke
I will send
him on his way to you! I will be routing for him."
Yeah, and Xander's response to Giles was something to the effect
of "We are
so stupid!" I loved it. I think might have actually voiced
out - "Yeah you
sure are."
The scoobies are deceiving themselves more than Spike is deceiving
them. He
has always been upfront about his evil intent from day one.
"Vampires, we still do slay them, don't we?"
-- Charles Gunn
Harmony shows what true vampire tendencies are -- VanMoodySenior,
19:15:38
04/19/01 Thu
She is evil, she said it, Angel said it, I believe Wesley said
it. And when
it came down to making a choice, she made the evil one without
regrets,
except when an arrow was pointed at her heart. The only reason
she wanted to
be part of the LA scooby gang was to make herself feel wanted
and important.
When the vampire guru of pyramid schemes gave her more of that
feeling, then
she went the way of evil. Of course she probably loved the idea
of feeding
on warm fresh human blood, like she told Angel. Vampires without
souls can't
make choices that are totally selfless. There is always something
in it for
them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Harmony shows what true vampire tendencies are -- Nina,
20:04:37
04/19/01 Thu
Harmony is evil you say. Yes. But she reflects so many shades
of grey! I
know that when I tried to pay tribute to her after Crush a lot
of people
only talked about her like a stupid girl/vampire. Personally,
I am amazed
with Harmony. In "Disharmony" we get to know her inner
world better. She is
evil, but it's so much more than that. She didn't want to be a
vampire. She
isn't happy. For her the good time was when she was human. Maybe
I am
forgetting something, but she seems the only vampire so far to
express this
kind of love for what she used to be as a human.
Harmony is also the vamp who changed and empowered herself with
books. She
has been trying to find a purpose all along. Okay she is evil,
she doesn't
have a chip or a soul. But my god does it open some doors to see
that she
didn't want to kill Cordelia and just couldn't help herself? From
where does
that come from?
Okay she reverted to her badself after hearing a guru (I'm not
even
surprised by that!), but all she did before reverting was done
without an
evil thought. She wasn't planning anything (she's Harmony for
Godsake!)...
THAT to me means even more than just saying that she is bad. She
impersonates the GREY in vampires. If she'd hear this... she'd
be so proud
of herself! ;)
Harmony isn't wise, far from even being intelligent, but she knows
it and I
respect her for that. She is evil, but she said it herself:she
sucks as an
evil creature. Can't wait to see more of her!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> You're right- Harmony is grey... -- Greta, 13:50:08
04/20/01 Fri
and I bet it's a nice pale grey that really brings out her eyes:)
If the Mad One wasn't such a nasty piece of work to fans, I'd
almost feel
sorry for him. He keeps trying to tell us all vampires are utterly
and
completely evil, but then those pesky characters get in the way
and show us
something quite different.
For all the propping-up, for example, of poor saintly Tara whose
mommy died
and whose daddy was just mean, and of poor Wesley who also had
a mean daddy,
and a bullet in the gut, it was Harmony who made something catch
in my
throat when she said the last time she remembered being happy
was in high
school.
I agree with everything you said. Harmony isn't evil so much as
she's easily
led and desperately searching for acceptance and affection. I
think she
would've guarded the car (albeit possibly with some accidental
maiming of a
passerby or two:) the same way I think she would have stayed with
Spike
forever if he hadn't (literally) tossed her aside.
A couple more points to ponder:
-Harmony not only doesn't particularly like being a vampire, she
was, unlike
Angel, Darla (the first time) and Spike, shown not to be given
any choice in
the matter. Not that the other three truly knew what they were
getting
themselves into, but Harm's a bit like someone who was grabbed,
shot up with
heroin, and then woke up to a world in which she was blamed and
hunted for
being an addict. (Tangentially, I LMAO at the sugar in the coffe
mug of
blood. Given Spike's predilection for pouring blood on cereal,
one has to
lament never seeing a breakfast scene in the Spike/Harmony household
(crypthold?).)
-For that matter, she became a vampire in the first place, because
she
DIDN'T turn on another group she belonged to- her graduating class.
She
didn't run out on Graduation Day, she was there with a weapon
same as the
rest, after Willow told her what was going down. Perhaps this
explains her
antipathy for Willow.
-Why didn't Phantom Dennis freak out when she came to stay? He
slammed the
door ONCE to get Cordelia to wake up, but he didn't fling Harmony
across the
room, or open the curtains to let in the sun, or find one of the
stakes
Cordelia undoubtedly has stashed and dust this evil creature who
could only
be there to betray and eat her best friend from high school.
-Finally, and this just now occurred to me, how sad is it that
this girl has
been gone from the world of the living for two years and the one
she calls
her best friend didn't even notice?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Harmony shows what true vampire tendencies are
-- VanMoodySenior,
17:34:53 04/20/01 Fri
I got from the show, and I suppose it is impossible to know this
for sure,
but if Dennis the Ghost had not slammed that door Cordelia would
be dead
right now. I see what you are saying, but my point was that vampires
only do
what is in their nature and self interest. She didn't kill Cordelia
even
after Cordelia found out she was a vampire, but the real question
is why. I
believe it was because she wanted to be part of something so that
SHE would
FEEL good about HERSELF. She wasn't wanting to do good for the
sake of doing
good.
I had forgotten about her reading self help books. This could
also be seen
as her attempting to only work for her own self interest as well.
She liked
the good ole days of being human b/c it was there that she felt
the most
needed and fulfilled. Remember she loved to put others down so
she could be
in the "in crowd". This followed into her demon life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Harmony shows what true human tendencies
are -- LoriAnn,
07:11:02 04/22/01 Sun
Self-interest, self-gratification, self-indulgence, self-arandizement,
self-mortification, self-deprection, self-sacrifice, self-, self-,
self-.
Why is it only vampires act out of self-satisfaction? I can't
think of a
human action that has nothing of "self" in it. If there
were no "self,"
there would be no action. We talk about people who give themselves
"selflessly," yet there has to be a reason for this
"selflessness." Could it
be something about themselves that makes seemingly selfless action
acceptable? I'm not saying that so-called "selfless acts"
are bad or
insincerely motivated, but rather that our motivations are eventually
tied
up in doing something "the self" wants on some level
or another. We are all
driven by out own needs and desires. Does anyone ever say to themselves
I
couldn't care less about this beggar, but I'll give this person
some money?
Actually, some of us do sometimes. We don't know the beggar, we
really don't
care about the beggar on a personal level, so what motivates us
to give? To
help the needy? Okay, I'll buy that. What happens if we do help
the needy?
We help make a better world? Would helping make a better world
benefit us?
It certainly would? Better worlds are "better" for everyone.
More than than,
we can feel good about having helped make OUR world better. People
are deep,
with multi-leveled motivations and unconscious, as well as conscious,
needs
and desires. No one ever does anything that does not have at least
some
small element of self-satisfaction in it, no matter how helpful
or hurtful
to self or others the act is.
This may seem a negative way of looking at people, but these self-whatever
motivations are part of being human, and without them nothing
would ever
happen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Harmony shows what true vampire tendencies
are -- Solitude1056,
20:33:50 04/22/01 Sun
I had forgotten about her reading self help books.
Well, in a Harmony-way: she was just reading the inside jackets
& the backs.
Not the full book, mind you. (Probably not enough pictures.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Harmony shows what true vampire tendencies
are -- Rufus,
22:54:44 04/22/01 Sun
Oh, at least give her credit for reading the Table of Contents...that
alone
would symbolise growth for her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Harmony would be a very good subject for a chip,
ya know... --
OnM, 22:39:46 04/20/01 Fri
On the 0-10 scale of vampire evil-ness, Harmony certainly doesn't
seem able
to get much past 0.5. If she were chipped, I suspect it wouldn't
take much
prodding to get her to forsake that 1/2 point.
Thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Harmony would be a very good subject for
a chip, ya know... --
June, 22:42:25 04/20/01 Fri
I don't understand why Willow couldn't "curse" her.
After all Willow did it for Angelus.
Multi level marketing -- Rufus, 13:37:22 04/20/01 Fri
Loved the vampire personal coach, he was the combination of all
those late
night infomertials. Turn two, bring one for the foodbank. Actualize
your
potential, be in control of your undead life. Did anyone remember
that most
pyramid type schemes fail? The pyramid collapses? Well, we are
talking about
undead multilevel marketing. Doug did say one thing I'll note
from the
script:
Doug: "That's just the voice of your inner human, spreading
the ghostly
remnants of neuroses from your past life....Ignore it. Suppress
it.
Instead...Say, I'm in control of my unlife, become a more active
and
involved sire..."
I have to ask, how much power does the ghostly remnants of a former
life
have? If it's something you have to supress, what conflict does
it cause
with the vampire? If the vampire is the personality and memories
of the host
and the vampire needs them to function how do the memories of
a good life
impact upon the demon. Looking at Harmony I didn't see much of
a change from
who she was alive, being dead sure didn't make her any smarter.
The only
vampire to date that has done anything that went against the evil
norm was
Spike, and we still aren't sure if he is still a bad dog in a
muzzle or if
he has changed. One thing is certain, for a vampire to really
change
something more than the good memories from the past has to happen.
Harmony
could stop herself from killing Cordy untill someone coached her
to
actualize her potential. So even though the vampire is evil we
can see that
they still have doubts that come from the person they were.
On thing that has me wondering is what Wesley said..."And,
what, you're just
going to leave her here? A vampire alone in your home, risking
your
neighbors' lives?"...If Cordy was convinced that she and
Harmony were no
longer friends, that Harmony was a filthy demon, then why not
finish her
off? If killing Harmony protects others, why just tell her to
get out of
town? Harmony had just tried to kill her, Harmony the friend,
is now Harmony
looking for a food bank donation. Gunn says it right...Don't we
kill them
anymore? If we are to come to terms with the fact that the vampire
is evil
only, why are they letting so many go to spread the infection
of evil? That,
to me, makes no sense.
One thing about the situation with Cordy...I don't think it was
just the
clothes that made her like Angel again...I think it was the fact
that she
couldn't kill her former friend...no matter how evil. I think
Cordy
understood why Angel found it so easy to become obsessed with
trying to
reform Darla...no matter how evil the demon, when it wears the
face of
someone you know, it's hard to kill them. I think Cordy got a
look of why
Angel had done all the crazy things for Darla. I think the clothes
just made
it easier for Cordy to say things were okay with her and Angel
again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Multi level marketing -- fresne, 14:31:01 04/20/01 Fri
I would have to agree that Harmony has not really changed all
that much.
Harmony in Disharmony betrays Cordelia et al because she wants
acceptance
and a place in structured group. In Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered,
Harmony turns on Cordelia because Cordelia is dating Xander. Harmony
saw an
opportunity to rise in the high school social scene and she took
it.
Now realize I that one action involved social ostracism in high
school and
the other killing someone, but the root behavior is the same.
I guess, I just find it interesting that in giving into the urging
to
suppress her inner human, Harmony was actualizing a magnified
example of
that inner human's behavioral patterns.
Now if only Doug had said, "Just remember, I'm evil and I'm
ok. You're evil
and you're ok."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Killing me softly with your social ostracism in
high school?
Hummm, I do recall that... -- OnM, 22:31:21 04/20/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> the vampire you know -- purplegrrl, 14:44:01 04/20/01 Fri
***One thing about the situation with Cordy...I don't think it
was just the
clothes that made her like Angel again...I think it was the fact
that she
couldn't kill her former friend...no matter how evil. I think
Cordy
understood why Angel found it so easy to become obsessed with
trying to
reform Darla...no matter how evil the demon, when it wears the
face of
someone you know, it's hard to kill them. I think Cordy got a
look of why
Angel had done all the crazy things for Darla. I think the clothes
just made
it easier for Cordy to say things were okay with her and Angel
again.***
Absolutely, Rufus.
There may still be some residual "weirdness" between
Angel and Cordelia, but
they've gotten over the big hurdle in their relationship. Now
Angel just has
to go the distance with Wesley and Gunn to prove that he has once
more taken
up the good fight and is willing to accept their help and guidance
in that
fight. Wesley will be persuaded by Angel's committment and Gunn
by Angel's
actions.
As for Cordelia not staking Harmony when she first realized she
was a
vampire, I think Cordy was just hungry for some aspect of her
former life
when she had money and postion and few cares or worries in the
world. Now
Cordelia has to deal daily with the lack of money, a stalled acting
"career," rampaging demons, a broody vampire boss, zombie
policemen, etc.,
etc. She was willing to let Harmony stay at her apartment when
she thought
she was a lesbian, so it's only another small step to dealing
with Harmony
as a vampire. I think that if Harmony had actually tried to attack
Cordelia
herself (not under the influence of Doug the undead motivational
speaker and
pyramid schemer), Cordy might have been able to stake her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: the vampire you know -- Malandanza, 19:32:30 04/21/01
Sat
***There may still be some residual "weirdness" between
Angel and Cordelia,
but they've gotten over the big hurdle in their relationship.
Now Angel just
has to go the distance with Wesley and Gunn to prove that he has
once more
taken up the good fight and is willing to accept their help and
guidance in
that fight. Wesley will be persuaded by Angel's committment and
Gunn by
Angel's actions.***
It does seem to me that Cordelia was the one who was most hurt
by Angel's
departure -- she was certainly the most hostile upon his return.
I agree
that this was a watershed in their relationship and will quickly
get back to
"normal." Compare forgiving Cordelia with the Cordelia
from Sunnydale (after
the Xander/Willow betrayal). It wasn't just the clothes -- Cordelia
had
complained that Angel had given away her clothing (a violation
of her trust
-- a betrayal) so, symbolically, by accepting his gift, she was
saying she
trusted him again. I also do not see there being any lasting problems
between Angel and Gunn.
Wesley, however, seems to be a bit put out by Angel's quick acceptance
back
into the fold -- a little like the non-prodigal son: Wesley was
the first to
accept Angel back, cordelia the last, yet Angel spent his time
wondering how
to repair the damaged relationship with Cordy -- never giving
Wesley a
second thought (even when Wesley tried to make Angel feel guilty
about his
gunshot wound). Also, when did Wesley become the boss? Angel deferred
to
Wesley, Wesley has an office and seems to be in charge...
***She was willing to let Harmony stay at her apartment when she
thought she
was a lesbian, so it's only another small step to dealing with
Harmony as a
vampire***
Actually, Cordelia seemed less repulsed by Harmony being a vampire
-- almost
relieved when Willow told her. There's still a little bit of the
old
judgemental Cordy left :)
And speaking of Harmony, what do you think the host saw in her
future? Did
he know that she would betray the AI team, or did he see the possibility
that she might be redeemed? In other words, how much free will
did Harmony
have?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: the vampire you know -- Rufus, 00:37:38
04/22/01 Sun
That's the question I would like to see answered. Both human,
and vampire
start at the middle of the spectrum of good and evil. Humans can
use free
will to move to either side of the spectrum, can vampires?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Multi level marketing -- Cleanthes, 17:44:19 04/20/01
Fri
Reading your post got me to thinking what would happen if someone
truly
upstanding were vamped. Gandhi or St. Theresa, say.
Then I thought, hey, who's closest to that standard on the show?
Tara? Oooh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Oooh indeed! -- Jen C., 21:18:38 04/20/01 Fri
That would be cool! She's always seemed kind of creepy to me,
it'd be cool
to see her turned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Oh, now that's just mean! :) -- Wiccagrrl, 20:03:31
04/22/01 Sun
I love Tara, personally. Don't see the creep factor some people
talk about.
That said, seeing someone with a really good heart and a very
strong sense
of morals get vamped would be interesting. They sort of did that
with Dru,
but she had been driven crazy before she was vamped, so she isn't
really the
best example.
Random thoughts about "Forever" -- Liz B., 21:12:31
04/20/01 Fri
"Forever" Spoiler.
So those who haven't seen "Forever" might not want to
read this.
After having a few days to think about "Forever" and
sort it all out, it
really has impressed upon me the high quality of the writers they
have for
the show. After "The Body" I thought no television episode
could have that
effect on me again, but I was wrong. I haven't stopped thinking
about it all
week.
I was surprised that so many have focused on the "Buffy at
the Gravesite
with Angel" scene, as for me, what really did it was the
final scene. That
was very powerful stuff, and no coincidence the setting of the
confrontation
between Buffy and Dawn. The front room where Buffy originally
found Joyce's
body in "I Was Made to Love You".
After Dawn gets it into her head that she wants to raise her mother
we all
pretty much think we know how it is going to end. Dawn will try
to raise her
mother. Buffy at the last minute will stop her. Dawn will tell
Buffy how
alone she is. Buffy will say how she still has Buffy to protect
her. Perhaps
she will even tell Dawn that her mother's last thought before
going into
surgery was for Dawn and how Joyce made Buffy promise to be there
for Dawn.
Buffy will apologize for being so emotionally detached. "It
will be tough,
but we will get by together". Buffy and Dawn will hug. Buffy
will let flow a
few tears just so Dawn will know that while still the strong slayer
and
older sister that Dawn has always idolized, Buffy isn't made of
stone. This
has affected her.
At least that is how we EXPECTED it to go down. And with lesser
writers, it
most likely would have, but this show has superior writers. And
what they
gave us was more powerful than we could ever imagine.
The confrontation certainly starts out as we expected. Buffy telling
Dawn
how wrong it is. Dawn telling Buffy that the spell will work and
(this
struck me as so eerie and perverted) even if it didn't Dawn said
"But I need
her. I don't care if she's...". If she's what one is left
to imagine. Dawn
would settle with Zombie Mom rather than no mom at all.
Dawn tells Buffy that she isn't like her. I am still trying to
understand
what Dawn was saying. But the next sentence I think clarifies
it. "I don't
have anybody-". I am still not sure what Dawn was saying.
Who does Buffy
have? The Scooby gang? But doesn't Dawn have them as well as friends?
As
support. Or I am wondering if Dawn was saying that while Buffy
doesn't need
people, Dawn does. Obviously an incorrect statement, but is that
what Dawn
was saying?
But here, practically instantaneously, is where things go in an
unexpected
direction. Dawn was so angry with her sister for seeming to be
so unfeeling.
Not caring about her mother's death. Shutting Dawn out. She wanted
to know
that beneath that strong big sister exterior there was someone
who at least
felt some of the pain she was feeling. That is what she wanted,
or thought
she wanted, but I really don't believe she had any idea what she
had
unleashed.
"Who's going to take care of us?" Buffy said. For us
this statement doesn't
have the shock value because we have seen this side of Buffy.
But I can't
imagine the effect it had on Dawn. It must have been earth shattering.
Dawn
must have been thinking, "I don't know what I was expecting,
but not this".
"Who is this?"
Buffy weeping openly now, desperately. Dawn watches, helpless
and scared as
Buffy devolves, becoming smaller and more childlike.
We have seen this Buffy before, But Dawn hasn't.
You have to understand what Dawn has seen of Buffy up to this
point.
We saw Buffy crying while doing the dishes in "Listening
to Fear".
Dawn saw her big sister Slayer saving her and her mother from
The Queller.
We saw Buffy totally losing it when she found her mom dead in
the front
room.
Dawn just saw her strong big sister holding it all together as
she falls
apart after Buffy tells her the news.
We see Buffy telling Angel how she doesn't know if she can make
it through
tomorrow.
All Dawn sees is someone who seems more concerned with drafting
the funeral
notice, than anything else.
So, while to us, this Buffy is familiar, to Dawn it must have
been shocking
to say the least. To see her sister so weak, so helpless, so (to
her
perception) un-Buffylike.
Suddenly the tables have been turned. Buffy who only moments before
was
telling Dawn how wrong it was, now actually is the one who seeks
out
whatever Dawn has resurrected. Roles seem to have reversed. No
longer is it
Buffy saving Dawn from Dawn's deeds, but Buffy being the one in
real danger.
THERE IS A KNOCK ON THE DOOR.
CLOSE ON BUFFY
Whose expression crumbles - she's a lost little girl.
Mommy?
ANOTHER KNOCK
Mommie? The way Buffy said it sent chills down my spine. And I
realized why.
The last time we heard those words from Buffy in that tone was
when she
found her mother in the front room dead. And now in that SAME
front room it
is Buffy who is drawn to opening that door. This isn't what we
expected. We
expected Dawn to attempt to go to the door and Buffy rushing to
stop her. In
a flash of a second, roles reversed, Dawn realizes that SHE must
save Buffy.
"God what have I done to Buffy!" she must have thought.
I found the fact
that it is Dawn who makes the decision to stop the course of events
she
started in order to save her sister so powerful." They could
have had Buffy
tear up the picture, but that would have made for a lesser show.
But to have
Dawn do it for the sake of her sister (and through her concern
of her sister
realizing how evil it really was) made for a far, far better scene.
And then to have Buffy open the door, and absolutely nothing be
there. Buffy
still calling out. Mommie,
Tis the wind and nothing more.
This show was so well written. You don't expect such quality from
a
television show. Especially one about kids fighting vampires.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Very good post! Thanks!:) -- Nina, 15:36:39 04/21/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Random thoughts about "Forever" -- Linda,
10:05:59 04/22/01 Sun
DAWN
"I'm not like you, Buffy, I don't have anybody-"
I can only guess what was meant.
So let me guess.
I am not like you, Buffy. You are the big bad slayer (big sister).
You are
an adult and don't need anyone to take care of you. I am a little
child. I
have no one to take care of me. No one to protect me from this
world. Not
even you, as it is so obvious you don't want me around.
Dawn very quickly learned how wrong those thoughts were.
"Who's going to take care of US?" I think the US must
of floored Dawn. US?
Dawn must of thought. I was thinking about ME, it didn't even
enter in to my
mind to worry about you. Buffy being needed to take care of?
What bothered me about that statement "I am not like you,
Buffy" at first is
that on one level she is correct. Dawn isn't Buffy. Dawn is Dawn.
They are
so fundamentally different in so many ways, though they are similar
in so
many ways as well.
But taken in context of that paragraph, which we must, and the
situation.
Dawn was so fundamentally wrong, as she soon found out. Like means
similar
not exactly the same. I am not like you Buffy, you are the strong
slayer, I
am just a frighten little girl.
No Dawn, you were like Buffy. More than you could ever realize.
Buffy was
just a frighten little girl too. With the same types of questions,
the same
kinds of fears. And like you Dawn wondering who is left to take
care of her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Random thoughts about "Forever" -- JBone,
19:07:21 04/22/01 Sun
That was very powerful stuff, and no coincidence the setting of
the
confrontation between Buffy and Dawn.
I agree, the first 45 minutes of the episode I was watching, but
wondering
where it was heading... the last scene with Buffy and Dawn, is
everything
you said.
How Fast You Grow... -- Solitude1056, 21:38:11 04/20/01 Fri
In another thread, Grace commented that:
"[Buffy] told Angel about how she acted when she found her
mom and how she
didn't behave as an adult (Buffy is 21/22 now, going to college
and is
technically an adult, but still a Young Adult, the role of being
"adult" is
still new to her). It just reminds me of how Buffy was still an
developing
child when she met Angel (ie a teenager). Liam was 26 when he
was killed (he
might have not acted like it, but he was an adult.) Buffy was
still
becoming. She was then where Dawn will be soon. The Angel/Buffy
relationship
was sick! And not because of the whole Vampire/Slayer thing."
This made me think about apparent ages and maturity. Someone remarked
that
Buffy got out of Major Relationship One and jumped right into
Major
Relationship Two. The observer, as a college student, felt that
this was
unrealistic - a college student is normally all for playing the
field (my
words), not settling down. The response from another poster was
that Buffy
isn't a regular college student. And she's not - starting at 16,
she rapidly
became a forty-year old mind in a 16-yr old body. She carries
a great deal
of responsibility and stress, and has had no choice but to set
aside the fun
playing she used to do, and assume the mantle of Slayership. So
first, we're
dealing with someone who - up until her mother's death - was forced
to be an
adult in some particularly important ways. Her job is crucial,
and she had
to kill her first love to save the world. Tough day at the office.
Next!
20 years old may be an almost-adult in most of the western world,
but it's
hardly an emotional adulthood in the fullest sense of the word.
Few 20 year
olds have attended a parent's funeral let alone lost their first
love in a
violent death. A majority of them may even return to the parental
house for
a year or two after getting out of college, while they get their
last ducks
in a row, financially, emotionally. In our modernized society,
Buffy is an
anomaly - and while parts of her may have grown up fast, her mother's
death
was bound to snap her back into realizing that she really is only
20 years
old. Two decades isn't enough time to no longer need a mother.
Now take a look at Liam/Angelus/Angel. He may've been 26 when
he was turned
- an age at which most of his peers were probably already married
& working
hard to make ends meet. But from what we've been shown, he was
a pretty
pathetic excuse for a 26 year old. I've known 11 year olds with
more sense
of responsibility. Face it, Liam was a slacker of the highest
order - and
then he was turned. One of the key notes - the undercurrent to
the whole
"can Spike change?" discussion - is Joss & Company's
constant subtle
reminder that the answer, dear folks, is no.
Dru has been stuck in madness and psychosis since she was turned,
a
hundred-plus year old child trapped in a vampire's body. Penn
spent however
many decades repeating the same pattern, endlessly, and without
variation.
Harmony already demonstrates a repeating pattern, of seeking approval
from
the strongest player and backstabbing when it serves her purposes.
From all
indications she will likely continue to do so. I point this out
because it's
the only way to understand that effectively Angel was stuck at
his original
maturity level, no matter how much he saw or did. It was only
once he got a
soul that he could begin to change - or just plain grow up.
Even then, though, from what we've seen in flashbacks, Angel was
no more
than a defanged vamp. He spent several decades - if not more -
doing exactly
what Spike's doing now: avoiding people & the kill, but still
following his
same patterns in all other aspects. Angel didn't start growing
up until
Whistler came along & gave him a purpose. Just like the average
post-college
slacker will live at home as long as possible until he's handed
a bill for
rent or is bodily kicked out, Angel wasn't going to grow up and
accept that
he plays a role in humanity until someone showed him that he's
got a role to
play in the first place. Some slackers whine that they aren't
good for
anything, when what they want is to have the world handed to them.
Others
are convinced they're not worth anything, so they just avoid the
world
completely and thus hope to avoid the issue - and dealing with
that issue,
whatever it may be, is a crucial step towards adulthood.
So in the sense that Angel's seen however many years go by, he
was still
only beginning to achieve a maturity when he met Buffy. And Buffy,
despite a
short time on this planet, had already begun to mature faster
than her peers
due to the Slayer role. Add to that the well-known sociological
theory that
women mature faster than men, and you've got a roughly well-matched
pair.
As for others who've grown quickly, Anya's another example. She's
been human
for what, two years now? Like Angel, IMO, she was trapped in repeating
the
cycle of her original pattern without an exit sign anywhere in
sight. Her
first appearance had slickness - and I suspect due to her powers
as a demon.
But once she regained full human status, all that dropped away,
and you have
the voice & actions of a young child who's struggling to act her
age, and
isn't sure what that age really is. Dawn, in comparison, has existed
in the
physical plane for 8 or 9 months now, but has the memories of
who-she-has-been. These past months it seems to me that she's
blowing past
those pre-set expectations and starting to become her own person.
Someone
else observed that it's only in this most recent episode that
we've finally
gotten to see Dawn act, instead of react. I'm not sure that's
entirely true,
but she was certainly far more decisively active this episode
than we've
seen her be, before. That's a part of growing up, although perhaps
her
imagined collective history lends the appearance of continuity
to her recent
growth.
I'll stop there for now. ;)
1056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How Fast You Grow... -- Max, 21:42:19 04/20/01 Fri
I wonder what Spike will get Dawn for her 16th Birthday?
Angel gave Buffy a cross.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How Fast You Grow... -- Sue, 11:02:19 04/22/01 Sun
"[Buffy] told Angel about how she acted when she found her
mom and how she
didn't behave as an adult (Buffy is 21/22 now, going to college
and is
technically an adult, but still a Young Adult, the role of being
"adult" is
still new to her). It just reminds me of how Buffy was still an
developing
child when she met Angel (ie a teenager). Liam was 26 when he
was killed (he
might have not acted like it, but he was an adult.) Buffy was
still
becoming. She was then where Dawn will be soon. The Angel/Buffy
relationship
was sick! And not because of the whole Vampire/Slayer thing."
Depending on how you look at it.
Angel was either:
26 as when you die and the Vampire that inhabits your body is
stuck with
your maturity level, physically age appearance, and personality
you had when
you died. The vampire doesn't age. It remains the same age until
it is
slayed.
Or if you want to look at it more techically Angel was 200, with
200 years
of experiences compared to Buffy's 16 years.
Either way you look at it 26 or 200 a rommatic relationship with
still
immature 16/17 year old Buffy was, and still is SICK!
And therefore I will never accept such a relationship as being
anything but
pedophila.
As Buffy ages, the situation will become reverse. But it is just
as sick to
imagine a forever 26 year old Angel having sex with an 80 year
old Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: How Fast You Grow... -- Michael J. Hennebry, 11:29:32
05/01/01 Tue
Sue:
"Either way you look at it 26 or 200 a rommatic relationship
with still
immature 16/17 year old Buffy was, and still is SICK!
And therefore I will never accept such a relationship as being
anything but
pedophila."
Calling it sick is one thing, calling it pedophilia is another.
My
recollection is that 16-year-olds usually have pubic hair and
adult-sized
breasts. I haven't investigated the former personally, so if I'm
wrong about
that feel free to say so. Lusting after a 16-year-old might not
be a good
thing, but calling it pedophilia is also wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How Fast You Grow... -- Wiccagrrl, 19:09:26 04/22/01
Sun
I am a B/A shipper. I'm realistic about it, I understand the issues-
the age
thing, the vampire/vampire slayer issue, the whole perfect happiness
clause
to the curse. But that said, I think there is something special
about these
two- a connection and a meeting of each other's needs (and I'm
not so much
talking physically as mentally and emotionally) Buffy is able
to let her
guard down with Angel, to not have to be "the strong one"
in a way she
doesn't seem able to do with just about anyone else in her life.
Buffy
helped give Angel the strength and the self-confidence to start
searching
for his path.
Now, that's not to say I think they should be together at this
point. There
is just too much standing in their way, and unless there were
a drastic
change in circumstances (shanshu, anyone?) these two are going
to remain
star-crossed lovers.
As for the age issue, for me that is probably the least of the
problems.
Buffy is simply not your average teenage girl. At that point,
she was 16
going on 40. Not only the added responsibilities of being a slayer,
but the
knowledge that she's not likely to live past 25, mean that, for
me, judging
her by ordinary standards doesn't feel right.
And Angel's situation is so odd I don't even know where to start
talking
about the age thing with him. But it never felt to me like an
old man
preying on a young girl.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: How Fast You Grow... -- Solitude1056, 19:59:26
04/22/01 Sun
But it never felt to me like an old man preying on a young girl.
Angel is best summed up, IMO, by a friend's statement: "That
guy may be
cute, but he's a dork."
(hehe)
And he is - he may be 26-and-140-whatever, but on some level he's
relating
to people in ways that are completely new to him, and thus unfamiliar.
And
that's why I consider Angel-in-L.A. to be so hilarious: here's
the ultimate
cool-looking guy, who's really one of the biggest stammering stumbling
dorks
when it comes to interpersonal relationships. Ok, so I have a
soft spot for
dorks, but hey... :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How Fast You Grow... -- Wiccagrrl, 20:05:34
04/22/01 Sun
Well, that's a lot of it. I mean, he seemed just as new and awkward
at the
whole "relationship" thing as Buffy did- more, maybe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: How Fast You Grow... -- Sue, 20:11:35
04/22/01 Sun
Still, when he met Buffy, Angel wasn't still growing up.
She was.
A 35 year old dating a 45 year old - not much difference.
A 16 year old dating a 22 year old - makes all the difference.
Why do you think everyone is going ew about a 16 year old Dawn
having a
romantic relationship with Spike? (I am glad they are all going
ew, as it is
ew). Because on an instinctive level we know it's harmful. Just
plain wrong.
Now why is that!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: How Fast You Grow... -- Sue,
20:15:06 04/22/01 Sun
"Now why is that!"
Angel was too old for Buffy. He had more life experience, he wasn't
a
teenager.
If Liam was killed when he was a teenager, perhaps an argument
could be
made, but even then I would have a problem as 200 years of life
experience
would still make him more adult than teenager.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: How Fast You Grow... -- Wiccagrrl,
20:18:02 04/22/01 Sun
Well, Dawn is still *fourteen*, not sixteen. Spike is still a
soulless,
remorseless vamp. (Spike and Angel are very different personalities)
Buffy,
emotionally, strikes me as much older than her chronological age
while Dawn
strikes me as much younger. And MT *is* fourteen, while SMG was,
I believe
in her twenties, and didn't really look so much like a 16-year
old. (Which
probably shouldn't matter but does) There's my theory :)
Now, like I said, there are plenty of reasons why B/A needed to
part
ways...but the age thing didn't strike me as the biggest. Actually,
the
boinking the undead thing hit my eww button more than the age
difference.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Plus, with S/D, anyone you
call "Nibblet" & "Little Bit"
automatically loses girlfriend potential ;) -- Wiccagrrl, 20:23:01
04/22/01
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> "the boinking the undead
thing" - LOL!! -- Solitude1056,
20:29:16 04/22/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ok, ok, so I admit it... --
Solitude1056, 20:32:31
04/22/01 Sun
While my secret romantic heart was all thumpety-thump over the
B/A
culmination... my pragmatic side was thinking (of the boinking
the undead
thing, as WG so graciously put it): gee, if someone's been technically
dead
for 200 plus years, do you still have to worry about getting pregnant?
(hehe)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ok, ok, so I admit
it... -- Wiccagrrl, 20:36:26
04/22/01 Sun
Umm, no, Angel said to Buffy at one point that he couldn't have
kids (one of
those "normal life" things he wasn't going to be able
to give her.) Also, I
remember an interview with SMG on one of the late night shows
where she
mentions people being upset that they didnt show B/A using safe
sex, and her
words were something like "He's a 200 year old vampire, folks-
he's shooting
blanks."
Oh, and you can thank (or blame) Faith for the "boinking
the undead" line-
but I forget which ep.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ok, ok, so
I admit it... -- verdantheart,
06:32:23 04/23/01 Mon
Yikes! can you imagine a pregnant Slayer trying to get the job
done?
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ok,
ok, so I admit it... -- Michael J.
Hennebry, 11:09:47 05/01/01 Tue
verdantheart:
"Yikes! can you imagine a pregnant Slayer trying to get the
job done?"
Yes.
An interesting question is whether a slayer can get pregnant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> maturity vs. chronological age --
purplegrrl, 13:13:55
04/24/01 Tue
I think this age-difference "problem" is a product of
our late 20th century
sensibilities. In years past it was not uncommon for girls as
young as 13
(post first menarche) to *marry* men as much as 10, 15, or 20
years older
than they were. Accordingly to some theorists, Mary (the mother
of Jesus)
was 10 or 15 years younger than Joseph. This practice was still
common in
the 1800s and early 1900s. And why do some men divorce their first
wife and
then marry some hot, young "trophy wife"?? On the other
hand, why did Anna
Nicole Smith marry some 80-90+ geezer??
Is Angel 26 or 240+?? Since vampires "stagnate" when
they are turned, I'm
guessing 26. Yes, he's has the experience of all that time as
a vampire, but
it was years of reliving all the emotional problems of his original
mortal
life. Angel was emotionally, as well as physically, arrested.
Even after
Angel got his soul back he didn't become instantly more "mature."
That took
80 or 90 years and the intervention of Whistler.
(Another possibility is that the chronology of Angel is off by
a few years.
Joss has said he is bad with math (hence the confusion with Spike's
exact
age). And I can't imagine a 26-year-old male still living under
his parents
roof in the 1700s. To me it seems more likely that Liam was 18
to 22 years
old when Darla turned him. This would put Angel closer to Buffy's
age in
development (not counting the vampire years). Perhaps less of
an eww!
factor??)
As the Slayer, Buffy has had to mature much more quickly than
the average
teenager. She was 17 going on 40. Obviously not physically. And
perhaps not
completely emotionally. But her sense of duty and responsibility
and the
emotional maturity that her fate as Slayer required were definately
beyond
that of a normal 17-year-old. An accelerated maturity.
So if you put one emotionally and physically arrested male vampire
together
with a maturity and mostly emotionally accelerated human female,
would they
not be close in experience even if they aren't in chronological
age?
I think it has little to do with chronological age and much more
to do with
maturity level.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: maturity vs. chronological
age -- Max, 22:58:14
04/24/01 Tue
Dawn will be 16 in two years. The age Buffy was back in season
1.
And in season 1 she had already been the slayer for about a year.
Classic Movie of the Week - Apr. 20th 2001 -- OnM, 22:18:52 04/20/01
Fri
Remember Angel's great speech about *passion*?
When I was in my middle-to-late teens and early 20's, one of my
buddies was
a fellow who, like me, had
an interest in all things electronic. He had great passion for
the field,
and was always wiring up one project
or another. He had lots of great ideas, and a lot of imagination.
He worked
tirelessly at exploring his
beloved hobby.
There was only one little problem... he had almost no talent for
what he was
doing. His projects were
enthusiastically created, but very seldom actually *worked* after
they were
completed. He had a great deal
of trouble discerning between an idea that was a practical reality
and one
that was basically impossible. He
spent quite a lot of money tinkering with stuff that never got
finished, and
when they did get finished, they
often looked like they weren't.
He wasn't stupid. He just lacked one critical thing... a gift
for what he
was doing.
Looking back on it now with an older and wiser perspective, I'm
sure I
didn't make things any easier on
him. I tinkered as he did, but I had a good, solid, background
in basic
physics, math, chemistry, the
scientific method. I instinctively knew what would be likely to
work and
what wouldn't. I had a gift, maybe
not a great one (else I'd be a lot *lot* richer today then I otherwise
am,
which, alas, isn't very!!), but a gift
nonetheless. My projects looked good, and almost always worked,
and I didn't
overstep my rather modest
bank account to do them.
What started out as his admiration for me after we first met up,
turned some
years later into a greater and
greater distance and eventually the slow dissolving of the friendship.
I
think it happened sometime shortly
after I was trying to patiently explain to him that in order to
get enough
photocells on a solar panel on his
roof to run the little compact refrigerator and a few lights in
his room
would set him back roughly $10,000,
he finally gave up in disgust and grew away from electronics as
a hobby. I
haven't seem him for about 25
years now, have no idea what he's up to. I truly hope he's found
something
he's good at and enjoys it.
Now, he was just a friend, if that doesn't sound too harsh. Suppose
he was
my brother? You can choose
your friends, as the saying goes, but...
Suppose you have two sisters, like Buffy and Dawn. They argue
and hassle
with each other, but they are
really very much alike. The older one, in fact, is turning into
her mother.
The youger sister is turning into
her older sister. The apple certainly has not fallen too far from
the tree
of knowledge. Suppose it were
different, like night and day? Apples and aardvarks? Such is the
topic of
this weeks Classic Movie, a film
which is a character study of two women, sisters, who care very
deeply for
one another, but otherwise are
polar opposites.
The one character, Sadie, is passionate about what she loves to
do more than
anything else in the world--
singing. She reaches way down into her heart and places her emotions
right
out in front. She is giving and
generous of spirit. She is, all too tragically, totally bereft
of any real
musical talent. This would be quite
pathetic in its own right, but the pain doesn't stop here. Her
sister,
Georgia, has exactly, and gloriously, the
gift she lacks-- a rich, soaring, golden voice, reams of musical
talent, and
has built a large and devoted
following of fans who pack her concert venues. Sadie has to make
do
performing with a ragtag band of
musician friends who typically settle for playing weddings, or
in front of a
smattering of drunks at a local
nightclub.
The irony carries even further though, for Georgia has little
or no
ambition. Her voice is magnificent, but
she has no real passion for her work, it's just like a job where
you clock
in and clock out. This isn't
because she is tired or burned out, she just isn't all that into
it. It pays
the bills, people really like her (to
put it mildly), and it just comes out effortlessly, so why not?
So one would rightly assume that Sadie must despise her talented
and popular
sibling, but such is not the
case. Sadie loves, even worships her sister. She applauds enthusiastically
and unabashedly at Georgia's
concerts, praises her to all she should chance to meet. Georgia
loves her in
return, but is also terrified by
Sadie's desperate ambitions and tendencies to, as she sees it,
steal energy
from other persons and leave
them in her wake. She loves Sadie, but stays emotionally detached
from her
whenever possible. One could
make a good case for whether or not this is the only possible
way to deal
with the circumstances of the
relationship, but to Sadie, it is this personal rejection which
is the one
that hurts, not the fact that Georgia
is obviously far more talented than she is.
This film's essence is the character study of these two women,
and so
everything else is just background,
and has little meaning. Georgia, played by the great (and underappreciated)
actor Mare Winningham,
perfectly counterpoints Jennifer Jason Leigh as Sadie. Leigh had
a great
deal to do with bringing this film
to life in other ways than just playing her character, her mother
(Barbara
Turner) wrote the screenplay and
she and Winningham are long term friends in their off-screen lives.
The film
is directed by Ulu Grosbard,
who opts for a laid-back, non-intrusive style that lets Leigh
and Winningham
do their thing without
distraction, even to the point of letting the cameras roll for
nearly 15
minutes with barely an edit for a
scene in which Sadie performs onstage at one of her sister's concerts.
It's
virtually painful to watch, like
some car wreck in slow motion at 10,000 frames per second, but
at the same
time you can't turn away,
because how could you turn your back on someone that open, passionate
and
giving?
So, passionately seek out this week's Classic Movie, *Georgia*,
and take
this long, strange trip for yourself,
for the answer to yet another age-old musical question.
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technical stuff and miscellania du jour:
*Georgia* is available on DVD & VHS, according to the IMDB. (My
review copy
of the film is on
laserdisc, so I can't comment on any additional features that
the DVD
edition may or may not have). The
running time is 1 hour, 58 minutes, aspect ratio is 1.85:1, and
sound is
standard Dolby Surround.
Cinematography is by Jan Kiesser. Some other cast members include
Ted
Levine, Max Perlich, John Doe,
John C. Reilly and Tom Bower. The film was released in 1995.
Poster Eania Snow brought up an interesting subject this past
week, whereby
s/he suggested that recording
your TV via DVD via computer is the way to go. I made a few short
comments
as a followup post re:
practicality etc., but since I'm sure many of you record Buffy
and Angel
each week as I do, it might be an
interesting subject to expand on a bit. What are the legalities?
What is the
current technology and where
are we headed?
If you are interested, let me know, and I'll put something together
on the
subject and post it with next
week's column. For those of you who are newer to this board and
aren't aware
of it, your humble
movieman OnM works professionally ('bout 20 years now) in the
custom
audio/video field, whereby he
designs, installs and services home theater and stereo systems
for ya'all.
It's a basic requirement of the
business that you keep up to at least a reasonable extent on the
new stuff
(a never-ending process!!), so I
thought I'd mention it so as to answer the *other* age-old musical
(or
cinematic) question, namely, "So
whadda *you* know?"
(To which, of course, Michael Feldman would reply, "Not much,
you?")
Turn on, tune in, post! ;)
The Gang's Memories -- Luckybean, 04:59:12 04/21/01 Sat
Hi All! Newbie with a question. A couple of days ago someone over
at BC&S
Board (I wish I could remember who) was questioning the ethics
of leaving
the "Buffy" gang with the false "Dawn" memories.
I have to admit this has
been bugging me especially since there has been no effort or even
discussion
on changing it. Memories are a huge compotent of who we are and
even slight
variations could drastically change one's percetion of one's past
which
leads to the present and so on. What effect has the memories of
Dawn had on
the gang's personality, their character? But if those memories
were
"corrected" wouldn't that negate Dawn's character for
the same reason. Would
it take away from her as a human being? I'm torn.
Okay that's more than one question. My apoligizes if this has
been discussed
to death.
Masquerade: Thanks so much for your exquisite site!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Gang's Memories -- Zus, 12:38:06 04/21/01 Sat
Hi Luckybean! You've gotten very bold. I always feel like I can't
hold my
own over here. But I do want to respond. Memories are funny things.
We all
remember things differently. My brother and I have lived through
many of the
same experiences, but choose to remember them differently. Different
things
stood out as important, I guess. Anyway, how I remember things
is my
reality, regardless of if it is the way something happened or
not. If I
remember that I had the crab legs, but everyone else says, No,
you had the
chicken, in my Zus-y little world, the reality is, I had the crab
legs. So,
I really don't think this situation invalidates the Scooby's memories;
they're just remembering differently and that is now their reality.
Does
this make sense at all?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Don't worry, Zus... ;) -- OnM, 22:10:54 04/21/01
Sat
I'm sure you can hold your own just fine here. It might help if
you were
aware that in reality (?) Masquerade and all of us here are just
cyberspace
illusions created by a group of monks to protect Microsoft's newest
operating system from opening a dimensional barrier into another
universe
where there are no electrons.
Oops... Shouldn't have sai...
(~blink~)
(OnM disappears)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> That's what you get for being a Microsoft illusion!
I won't align
my electrons with "the beast"! -- Masquerade, 23:03:33
04/21/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Gang's Memories -- Solitude1056, 12:55:10 04/21/01
Sat
Good points from Zus & the Zus-y World. IMO the difficult aspect
of changing
memories is the question of enough information for the folks whose
memories
got changed.
Think back to Superstar (or go read the script & transcript) -
the Scoobies
became aware that something couldn't be right about Jonathan being
so
perfect. But they couldn't remember a time when he wasn't, so
they had
little to nothing to go on when it came to how to fix it. In the
bizarro-world of The Wish, no one in that alternate reality could
definitively know what might happen if Giles beat Anyanka. He
could only
hope that it was better than what he already had.
The sense of violation at finding out that one's memories were
faked (to
some extent) must be immense. That's where the monks were particularly
crafty, in making Dawn a flesh-and-blood sister. On a lighter
note, think of
Beatrice & Benedict in Much Ado About Nothing - they fell in love,
to no
small part, due to the belief that the other was in love with
them. Your
expectations shape your actions, and other's reactions - and it
can be hard
to differentiate. Ok, that's not perfectly clear but close enough,
hopefully.
And in a practical manner, I'd have to ask whether the Scoobie's
reluctance
to "undo" the Key isn't just because there's a big bad
after it, or that
it's in the shape of a cute young defenseless (hah) female. It
also may have
something to do with the question of "but how do we know,
if we take Dawn
out of the equation, that we'd even be at this point right now?"
Perhaps in
this reality, Willow met Buffy because Joyce had Willow over to
babysit Dawn
at some point, and other "situations" exist (now) that
have given a
continuity to why Dawn is an integral part of things. In that
circumstance,
in Willow's place, I'd have to wonder whether x-ing out Dawn means
x-ing out
everything else that appears to be part of my current life. As
the audience,
we know differently, but from within the Buffyverse, it'd be damn
hard to
tell.
I know this has been discussed before - you might want to scroll
the
archives & see what other people have said. There's always a new
twist on an
old topic, if you look hard enough. That's kind of a philosophical
speciality, even if other non-philosophical types consider it
excessive
flagellation of a deceased equine. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> There is no topic that we can't discuss to death... -- Rufus,
13:50:25
04/21/01 Sat
Reality is a funny thing, the monks that created Dawn were what
I call the
real pros in the creation business. There is a big difference
between
creating a human from energy that is already life, than trying
to reanimate
the dead like Dawn attempted to do with Joyce. The monks built
the memories
of Dawns life into everyone including Dawn. I keep saying how
smart they
were to do this. One, Dawn was neutral energy before the spell,
now, she is
human, helpless, and innocent. But it's smart to give what could
be used as
a tool consciousness where once there was none. As a human Dawn
now
understands the consequences of death. When she ripped up the
picture at the
end of Forever she understood that life is complicated and can't
be fixed
once life has left the body, you just may not get back what once
was. I
think that will be important later when she is faced with the
fact of her
function being used to destroy the humanity she now calls her
own.
Then you have the SG, the monks were again very smart to build
the memories
they did. As Dawn she is not an inanimate object to protect, they
now have
an emotional bond that makes it impossible not to protect her.
They have
memories of growing up with and loving Buffys little sister. If
somehow the
memories of Dawn are interfered with I have to wonder if it will
be a spell
that just makes them forget Dawn but not wipe out the memories
altogether.
For the memories of Dawn to completely be gone I think Dawn would
have to be
destoyed, as she is now a source of current memories as well,
I don't think
Glory has the same stuff the monks did to create either Dawn,
or build
memories.
If the gang does "forget Dawn" I think it will be something
that is
reversable. As for making her less as a human being, well, when
someone in
our world gets amnesia, only their perception of past reality
has changed,
not reality itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You're welcome! -- Masquerade, 19:34:42 04/21/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Reality is a tricky thing. -- Luckybean, 23:17:01
04/21/01 Sat
Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts. I agree with Zus on
the idea of
their present memories making up their current reality. I think
I was mainly
reacting to what Solitude1056 refered to as "a sense of violation"
of the
false memories as well as their effect on the gang's personalities.
I do think that the "Dawn" memories must have an important
effect on the
Scoobies' personalities especially for Buffy. I am wondering to
what extent
if any her memories of growing up with a sister as opposed to
being an only
child has changed her personality. For example, having grown up
with an
older brother who was always getting into trouble I think nudged
my
personality to be "the good one" and contributed to
my people-pleasing
character. If I suddenly didn't have an older brother and my memories
were
shifted to reflect that in this new reality wouldn't aspects of
my
personality shift dramatically? Even in "Superstar"
and "The Wish" we see
personality changes in Buffy where she was slightly more timid
in the former
and more bitter in the latter.
I'm not saying they should "fix" the memories and I
think even if given the
choice Buffy might choose to keep her memories as is. I'm just
not sure if I
would want to. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ya dun it. -- Solitude1056, 01:16:57 04/22/01
Sun
I'm not saying they should "fix" the memories and I
think even if given the
choice Buffy might choose to keep her memories as is. I'm just
not sure if I
would want to. :)
Don't know if we've flagellated this particular formerly breathing
equine
yet - although I suppose it may've been touched on after the Angel
episode
IWRY. If someone were to tell me tomorrow that my sister isn't
"real," and
were to give me the choice of suddenly having a world without
her, I don't
know if I could do it - even if I had every reason to believe
the
information was true. Ok, so her not-being might mean a greater
chance of my
own car in H.S. instead of having to share, but there's also the
chance that
as an only child I might've been expected to actually *gasp* do
well in
school and not be the Bad Kid and have a life instead. My alterna-life
would
definitely have been radically different, but from where I stand
now I've no
way to determine if one is better than the other. The only way
to find out
is to decide to put my sister back into non-being status.
And beyond that - after IWRY, Buffy doesn't remember the day.
Angel's the
only one. Do you really think the Scoobies would accept Dawn's
not-being,
but remembering her & therefore stumbling over the emotional gap
she's left
behind? Or choose ignorance of a different life once in the new
one? It's
easier to deal with after the fact, but a harder choice to make.
I mean, if you really want to get convoluted, it's possible that
this is the
3rd or 4th time the monks have tried to put Dawn into the picture
- but it's
only this time that they got it right. Dawn may've conked out
energetically
in the first go-rounds, they may not have synced her up properly
with her
body, they may have accidentally sent her to deepest darkest Borneo
instead
of lovely Sunnyhell. Does it make the feelings of violation worse
to know
that someone's been experimenting on you for a bit now, until
they got it
right? Or is that another "I'd rather not know" kind
of deal? :)
1056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Ya dun it. -- Rufus, 02:49:24 04/22/01
Sun
Makes me wonder if we had the power to select our memories if
we would
choose to erase the bad ones and leave only the good. What type
of life
would we have?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Only happy memories... -- OnM,
21:11:31 04/22/01 Sun
And yet isn't this just pretty much what many people visualize
as part of
the afterlife in Heaven, where there are no unhappy thoughts and
life is
always perfect?
One of the many reasons why I prefer the reincarnation model myself,
were I
to contemplate an afterlife scenario.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Ya dun it. -- Sue, 09:04:40 04/22/01
Sun
I like Dawn.
But I think it would be cool if the first episode (or perhaps
the first few
episodes) of next season would be Dawnless.
It will begin normal enough. Buffy telling Willow how it is still
tough not
having anyone around the house. So quiet. Willow mentioning how
it must have
been especially difficult being an only child. Buffy saying that
lately she
has been feeling a sense of lost. Of something being taken from
her. She
thought it was grief for her mother, but, while she grieves for
her mother,
this is something more, something else. Can't really describe
it.
Other people have these indescribable, unattributable feelings.
I wish I
knew why I was so upset Willow would say.
Tara wakes up in a daze crying. "Where is she?" "I
am here" Willow would
reply. No Willow, "WHERE IS SHE?". (Tara when asked
later will say that she
doesn't know what she was talking about.)
Spike will be restless. Going out picking fights with every demon
he could
find. Tearing up the town. When he runs into Buffy he will say
"I feel so
hollow. Like something has been riped from me leaving in its place
only
emptyness." Buffy replies sarcastically "perhaps you
are missing your soul."
Spike retorts "Heck I got use to not having that useless
thing around
decades ago. No can't you feel it? It is everywhere. You can feel
it, can't
you! I see it in your eyes."
Buffy goes to her empty house and looks at the picture of her
and her mother
and starts to cry. For an instant the picture changes, but too
fast for
Buffy to really catch what happens.
Anyway, that is pretty much how it would go. Later on Buffy will
have a
dream about this girl who Buffy has never seen before but yet
seems
distrubingly familiar calling out for help. Fading in and out,
morphing
between human and green light energy thing. "Help me Buffy,
I am trying so
hard to hang on".
In the end of course Dawn will re-emerge into their reality. Through
Dawn's
subconcious desire to stay and the love of her friends and sister
who even
though on a surface level had forgotten about her, on a deeper
level not
letting go, they (monks perhaps) will not be able to transform
the key back
to it's original form. It's much more difficult to remove someone
from
people's lives than to place someone in it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ya dun it. -- Sue, 09:15:39
04/22/01 Sun
Here would be a funny line for around the beginning of such a
episode.
"Where's the key?" Xander would say. We then see Xander
frantically
searching the kitchen drawers, the table, his pockets. "Here
it is" Anya
replies. Hands Xander his car keys. Yet Xander still seems upset.
And Anya
seems bothered as well. They don't know why.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Gang's Memories -- Steve_in_NJ, 20:39:39 04/22/01
Sun
I think I need to point out that nowhere this season was it ever
suggested
that time was altered with the appearance of Dawn. While it is
true that
'your focus determines your reality', Reality was not altered.
Just
memories. If Time were somehow altered, the man at the hospital
would never
have told Dawn 'there is no data' etc. Buffy & Joyce would not
have realized
the truth about Dawn.
Divine Powers ( a bit long) -- Virgill Reality, 06:29:30 04/21/01
Sat
Peeps,
It is perhaps I am something of a minority as a Christian who
is also a fan
of BtVS/Angel. I don't think I've come across someone, whether
on these
boards or elsewhere, like myself. I have, however, been intrigued
by the
recent discussions about religion in the Buffyverse and how Joss
doesn't
want to place one religion's "correctness" over another.
I have these ponderings: Wicca is obviously a large part of how
the Scooby
Gang deal with their fight against evil, but it only recently
occured to me
when someone else said that no one is "religious" in
the true sense of the
word. Willow practices Wicca magic, though she also makes constant
references to her Jewish heritage and I have yet to see her once
pray either
to God or the Wicca earth goddess.It seems it was right when someone
else on
these boards said that the scooby gang see magic as an exercise
in science
rather than a religious ritual.
It was the same on the Angel episode "I've got you under
my skin" where
Angel and Wesley used a Catholic exorcism ritual to expel a possessing
ethros demon. In the actual ritual no divine power was really
mentioned,
only a latin recitation for the ethros to "renounce satan
and all his
works." Like Wicca with the scooby gang, it was a matter
of adding the
ingredients and hey, presto!
Given then that both these religious practices have their importance
in the
Buffyverse, how do their respective divine powers fit into all
of it? You
have God as I know Him, the mysterious Powers That Be, and the
Wicca gods
and goddesses (probably). There has to be some kind of complicated
system in
it all. I suggested at one time that perhaps there is a thearchy
in which
some gods are in charge of certain realms who answer to powers
above them.
Just like Glory and Ben ruled over this hell dimension, the Powers
That Be
are responsible for the earth realm, and probably they all answer
to some
greater, Higher, Omnipotent and Omniscient power Who governs the
whole lot,
as it were.
OK, so perhaps my religion makes me biased as to how I would rather
see
things, but perhaps others could share their thoughts?
Virgill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Divine Powers ( a bit long) -- Unsung Hero, 12:45:07
04/21/01 Sat
I'm a christian(although quite unorthodox), and I always figured
it was the
same thing:
The Powers That Be that act on the side of good would be the term
used for
"God" as in the religious sense. However, as a writer,
I know that religion
is a good thing to keep out of fiction: People get upset REALLY
easy at the
mention of God in a fictional world. So I always figured "The
PTB" was his
way of using God, the all-powerful but inactive force for Good
that creates
and aids the good guys, mainly Buffy and Angel. I also believe
that the PTB
control magic sources as well, simply letting people use it. That's
my
interpretation.
Glory, Ben and the rest aren't so much Gods as they are really
friggin'
powerful demons, in my amatuer opinion. I think the shows simply
stretch
religion in a fictional way, making it amazingly pliable. It's
a fictional
universe, therefore Relgions are what you make of it, and what
the writers
deem Christianity is what we see. :-)
Nate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Divine Powers ( a bit long) -- Virgill Reality,
14:14:53 04/21/01
Sat
"So I always figured "The PTB" was his way of using
God, the all-powerful
but inactive force for Good that creates and aids the good guys,
mainly
Buffy and Angel."
Funnily enough, I was actually thinking about that not long after
typing my
message. After all, everyone is a bit hazy on what The PTB are.
Doyle was
the first to mention them in "City Of", and the way
he was talking it seemed
like he was simply using the term "Powers That Be" to
roughly describe the
source of his visions. In his own words, he himself didn't know
who or what
they are.
Perhaps it is fair after all that Joss is vague on the religious
details of
the Buffyverse, that way we can each make of its workings what
we will. I
myself have no trouble seeing the PTB as God. After all, God as
I see Him is
3 Powers in One ;-)
Virgill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Divine Powers ( a bit long) -- Solitude1056,
14:23:46 04/21/01
Sat
And the phrase, "Powers That Be" is vague enough to
read whatever you like
into it, which gives it a flexibility that doesn't exist in
religion-specific writing. The PTB could just as easily be the
Buddha, the
Ancestors, Parvati-or-Shiva, or any other traditional (or non-traditional)
parttime or fulltime divine entity(s) who communicates for the
betterment of
hir people. That's my favorite part of BtVS & Joss' vision: he
doesn't
exclude other viewpoints, but gives room for others by being vague
at the
right times, but not in a dumb-down or over-simplified way. Joss
leaves some
questions open, which IMO is a good thing or else this would be
a pretty
boring board!
Dominos and... Restless? -- Nina, 15:25:51 04/22/01 Sun
I read something on another message board that really got me thinking.
It's
about Doc's comment about Spike: "Big into dominos..."
I know that we talked
about it earlier, but we were already off topic for the thread
(I think it's
the thread intitled "Can Spike betray the SG?") so I'm
starting a new
thread. Not that we have to discuss it forever.... :)
I've said that I thought the comment could refer to Spike when
he was still
William. And if I recall it right, Brian speculated that it was
probably
something to do with the future. But what if it's about the present?
We all jumped to the conclusion that when Doc was talking about
dominos he
was talking about the game, but dominos are also costumes. Usually
black and
white costumes. People used to wear them in masked bals and masquerades
(word that also means to assume a false appearence - nothing to
do with you
Masq!!!!! :) What if what Doc meant was that Spike has a different
hair
color and is now a vampire, but he is basically the same guy that
he was
before he was turned. The rest is appearence. False pretence.
He built the
Big Bad image. But he is wearing a mask. Maybe Doc can see through
the mask.
That goes fairly well with the black and white Spike's poses in
Giles'
dream. As for the watcher's part from Xander's dream I guess we
already have
that one covered now with Spike watching for Dawn (which he did
3 times now
: Checkpoint, Blood Ties, Forever)
Gee, all thread go back to Spike and Restless. I thought I was
over that!
Sorry!!!! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dominos and... Restless? -- Sue, 15:59:29 04/22/01 Sun
Dominos,
When lined up and then you hit one it has a cascading effect.
Cause, effect, cause, effect, cause, effect, cause, effect and
so on and so
on until all the dominos fall down. By hitting the first one you
set a
series of events in motion, some of which can happen in a total
different
area of the room.
And they all fall down.
By introducing Dawn to Doc, Spike has set a series of events in
motion, and
I really fear for Dawn. I don't think it will have anything to
do with what
is going on currently(Glory, Ben etc), but down the line (next
season) the
effects of this evil will be become quite apparent. And it will
be something
we can't even imagine yet. But we will be able to trace the series
of events
that led there right back to Spike introducing Dawn to Doc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dominos and... Restless? -- Dean, 16:17:55 04/22/01
Sun
I don't know the significance of what Doc said, but I believe
you are on the
right track here. We can't be so literal, as he is talking in
a symbolic,
not a literal manner (like Dru used to talk to Spike).
Also since Doc isn't all with it the truth and just plain nonsense
might be
mixed together. It is left to us to find the insights while weed
out what
actually might be garbage.
This could be this year's "Restless". A year from now
we will look back and
say "that was what doc foretold".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dominos and... Restless? -- Zus, 18:58:36 04/22/01 Sun
I kind of thought maybe Doc is very, very old--that he was referring
to
Spike, but when he was William. Or, he was rambling like a senile
old man,
so he would appear to be harmless. Which I am sure he is anything
but.
It's After Dark. Do You Know Where Your Dawn is? -- April, 16:43:43
04/22/01
Sun
I know Buffy was grieving, but it really bothers me how easy it
was for Dawn
to go to her mother's grave (at night) with Buffy not even knowing
that Dawn
was missing.
And I really found it interesting Tara calling Buffy about Dawn.
It was like
do you have clue what is happening under your own roof?
I guess if I was Buffy I would probably not let Dawn out of my
sight.
Especially after dark. I would be sure that I knew exactly where
she was.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> After Dark Timeframe -- Solitude1056, 17:04:18 04/22/01
Sun
I actually had more trouble this time than usual following the
clues on
"what time it is" in the Buffyverse. We know Dawn spent
the night after the
funeral at Willow's, and that Buffy stayed up all night with Angel
at the
graveyard. So I'm guessing the following night, Spike found Dawn
at the
graveyard - but was it the next night, or later that same night,
that Buffy
and Dawn had their showdown? If it's the same night, it seemed
odd (to me)
that Dawn could make her first attempt, go with Spike to meet
Doc, grab the
demon eggs, and squeeze in the time to do a full ritual - unless
it's 3am
when Buffy gets home. In that case, where the hell was Buffy all
that time?
The other option was that Dawn did the first 3 things the night
after
staying with Willow, and then the final ritual the following night,
in which
case it might be early enough that Buffy's just in late from who-knows-what.
Either way, it was pretty confusing. Usually Joss is pretty good
about
indicating passage-of-time, until the last few episodes. On the
other hand,
I seem to recall someone quoting him as saying that he was purposefully
messing with our perception of time to reinforce the bizarre experience
of
shock of death & the aftermath.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: After Dark Timeframe -- Sue, 17:37:51 04/22/01
Sun
"On the other hand, I seem to recall someone quoting him
as saying that he
was purposefully messing with our perception of time to reinforce
the
bizarre experience of shock of death & the aftermath."
You can see that in "the Body" and in the funeral scene
in "forever" (day
turning to night) but I don't think we can attribute that for
the "where was
Buffy during Dawn's exploits" problem.
I get the sense that Dawn doing the ritual and meeting Spike happened
the
next night. I was worried enough seeing Buffy in the cemetery
after dark
(what was it, vampires took the night off) but for Dawn to be
there all
alone. It was like a kid playing in a minefield.
If it was me, Sun goes Down, I would be with Dawn. Or I would
be very sure
that I knew where Dawn is. Dawn might think it's overprotective,
but this is
the Hellmouth. I would behave the same way if I lived in South
Central LA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: After Dark Timeframe -- Solitude1056, 18:16:19
04/22/01 Sun
If it was me, Sun goes Down, I would be with Dawn. Or I would
be very sure
that I knew where Dawn is. Dawn might think it's overprotective,
but this is
the Hellmouth. I would behave the same way if I lived in South
Central LA.
Agreed, but I think that sort of intelligent vigilance is asking
a bit much
of Buffy's character at this point. Part of her shock from Dawn's
accusations is she was unaware that this is how her actions have
been
interpreted. Remember when Buffy & Angel argued about whether
it'd "be best"
if Angel left Sunnyhell after graduation - a vamp intrudes, and
Buffy
mutters, "not now," and dusts the vamp. Glory would
probably get the same
short shrift, due to Buffy's preoccupation with her own pain.
[aside: perhaps Tara was also aware of this tendency on Buffy's
part when
she suggested the Scoobies do the patrolling for a bit.]
The Utterably Obscure -- BobR, 08:59:00 04/23/01 Mon
In "Forever," there was a truly bizarre echo in the
dialog. Tara says to
Dawn, "We're witches. We know stuff." In the movie,
_The Crush_, Amber
Benson's character has the lines, "Darian knows stuff, stuff
that other kids
don't know."
I don't know if this has any significance whatsoever, but it strikes
me as
odd, though not as odd as the fact that I noticed it. _The Crush_
was in the
theatres seven or eight years ago and I don't think it was a very
good
movie.
Is Hank Dead? -- Kim, 19:27:34 04/23/01 Mon
I am really hoping that this isn't a start of another "all
father figures
are bad" storyline, but I am beginning to think that hope
is in vain.
Buffy said the number that Hank left didn't work. Hank wouldn't
do that. He
loves his daughers.
So I am thinking that Hank might have been Vamped. After all he
lives in Los
Angeles, and we all know there are many vampires there.
Hopefully he is only kidnapped. In much so danger himself so that
his slayer
daughter will have to rescue him from it. I want to think the
best of Hank.
Sure he couldn't take Buffy to the Ice Capades, but that doesn't
make him a
bad father. Buffy even stayed over the summer with him once.
For these "bad daddy" storylines are getting real old.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Is Hank Dead? -- change, 03:54:40 04/24/01 Tue
> So I am thinking that Hank might have been Vamped.
> After all he lives in Los Angeles, and we all know
> there are many vampires there.
I think Buffy said he was living in Spain now. So, he should be
okay unless
Harmony got to Antonio Banderas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Is Hank Dead? -- Kim, 06:28:17 04/24/01 Tue
After he was vampired, Vamp-Hank might of moved to Spain. (with
the woman
secretary who might have vamped him)
Hank's actions are not normal for him.
I am hoping that they will be more creative than that. Perhaps
the knights
kidnapped him, and are holding him somewhere. They are the ones
who left the
false address, or who forced Hank to give his family misleading
information
about where he is.
It would be terrible for Buffy to lose two parents in one year.
And if Hank
is vamped Buffy would be forced to either slay him, or let him
go to do more
damage (the whole Angelus, Darla, Harmony cliché).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Is Hank Dead? -- Solitude1056, 06:56:45
04/24/01 Tue
We are talking about an actor who used to be on "Little House
on the
Prairie"! American Icons just don't get vamped, it's anti-patriotic.
I know
every vampire believes in the nutritious value of a square meal
a day, but
Hank's too square even for the average vamp.
(hehe)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Is Hank Dead? -- Brian, 09:35:45 04/24/01
Tue
Heck, Hank's not dead; he's working for the international branch
of Wolfram
& Hart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Is Hank Dead? -- Kurt, 22:50:20 04/24/01
Tue
Dawn might have to slay her father.
But again those who say that the whole too hard to slay your
lover/friend/family member storyline has been done to death are
probably
correct.
Oh no, he's at it again! New speculation on the Meaning of 7-3-0 (long, what
else?) -- OnM, 21:15:04 04/23/01 Mon
*******A Few Initial Quotables*******
"What is 730?" (chuckles to self, looks out window. Resumes typing) ---joss,
Jun 1999
The psychic nature of this interchange is unclear, as is the meaning of
dream-Faith's words before hand,
"Yes. Little Miss Muffet counting down from 7-3-0." Regardless of whether it
was the real Faith who
helped or not, Buffy goes into Faith's hospital room when she wakes up and
kisses her on the forehead
before she heads off to war. ---Masquerade, from ATPoBtVS site
The stuff in the dream in graduation day does have meaning. All will be
revealed, ---joss, Jan 2000
Or as I have come to believe, do they intend to... (turn her) into the
'Kwisatz Haderach', with a greater
ultimate destiny than merely being the latest in the long line of (rather
short-lived) warriors for the PTB?
Some of the evidence for Buffy Anne Summers, Messiah, are as follows...
---OnM, Oct 2000
The appearance of Kendra reinforces the notion that Buffy is special since
as far as we know
at this point in time there has never been a case where two Slayers have
lived simultaneously.
Buffy soon befriends Kendra and so is all the more devastated at her death
at Drusilla's hand. Did
the PTB sacrifice Kendra to guide Buffy in affirming the importance of her
destiny? ---OnM, Oct 2000
_______________________________________________________________________________
OK, so what's all this about? I know, two *very* long posts within a single
week, but hey, when the muse
comes to visit, you pour her a nice, tall, cool drink and listen up, ya
know?
Several weeks ago, I had wanted to post a speculation for what I think will
happen (or at least what I'd
*like* to see happen for the remainder of the season, but I was hung up on
the problem of resolving the
7-3-0 conundrum. Then, this afternoon, a thought popped into my head, and it
was one of those ooo!
oooo!! kinda thoughts, and so I just let it play out to its logical
conclusions.
Wouldn't you know, I think it is something that I haven't seen turn up
anywhere else, it seems to fit nearly
all that happened so far, what seems to be coming up, and-- the real bonus
for me-- it even fits my much
beloved (by me, anyway) theory of Buffy as Messiah, and the Slayer Trinity
concept. So, here be my newly
updated spec on the 7-3-0 thang, hope you dig it!
Please note that this is being posted just a day before 'Intervention' airs,
and I have *not* read the
wildfeed, so if something turns up in tomorrow's ep that causes all this to
be bogus, well, them's the
breaks, and I hope at least you get to be entertained with my craziness for
a short while.
_______________________________________________________________________________
*******The Meaning of 7-3-0*******
Unbeknownst to we the viewers, and even to the central characters of the
Buffyverse, the PTB have been
engaged in playing this eons-long cosmic chess game with the forces of
darkness. The game is a god-level
game, with layers of intricacy incomprehensible to mere mortals. Strategy is
planned thousands of moves in
advance. The dominion of the universe hangs in the balance, and we are
nearing the endgame.
As we know, a Slayer has been resident in our earthly realm since the time
of the Old Ones. We know of
The Primitive, or The First, from Buffy's dream in *Restless*, and that
future Slayers have been chosen to
carry on her spirit and her duty. Over the millennia that have passed, the
forces of darkness have
unfortunately grown much stronger, and so the PTB have developed a new
strategy. One Slayer is no
longer enough to contain the growth of evil, and so a new weapon will be
forged to combat it. Two things
that have never occurred before will come into being-- First a slayer will
die, but be resurrected, allowing
two Slayers to exist in the world at one time. Then, the two Slayers will
give 'birth' to a 'child', who will
carry with her not just the powers of the First, or those who followed her,
but become a more direct
conduit for the PTB to manifest their will directly into our universe.
The two Slayers could not just be any Slayers, they needed to have certain
characteristics. Slaying,
regardless of the shadings of meaning we apply to it involving
righteousness, is still killing, the bringing of
death. It is immensely difficult to take an 'ordinary' human and teach her
to kill, and kill again and again,
without the heart and soul hardening itself to the inherent horrors involved
for a being possessed of a soul.
Yet, the defense of humankind requires this of her. On the other hand, a
Slayer who chooses the most
efficient defeat of evil via the acceptance of a 'Total War' concept could
lead to the killing of innocent
beings, or become a tool of evil herself.
So, what is to be done?
Just as the Bene Gesserit manipulated bloodlines over ages to create the
Kwisatz Haderach (in the 'Dune'
mythology), the PTB have done the same to the Slayer lineage. As one Slayer
died and another took her
place, the qualities of the 'ideal Slayer' were being refined generation
after generation. In China, during the
Boxer rebellion, a vampire known as William the Bloody ended the life of a
Chinese Slayer. What he did
not know, nor did she, was that this encounter was fated. The Chinese Slayer
was the first of Seven
penultimate Slayers, the last of whom would lead to Buffy.
Who were the seven 'penultimate' Slayers? This is pure conjecture at this
point, but assuming it was the
last seven before Buffy, Nikki (the Slayer who battled Spike in the subway
in FFL) would be one. Note
Spike's remark to Buffy that "she had a lot of your style". Spike's
encounter may very well have been just
as fated as the one he had with the Chinese Slayer. If the PTB have been
using him as a tool to 'produce'
Buffy, it would go a long way towards explaining his non-vamp-like
relation/obsession with her. He may
be unable to kill her because the PTB have *planned* it that way.
(Personally, I really dig the idea that the
PTB would indirectly manipulate vamp 'bloodlines' to produce the creation
that actually destroys them!)
This could also explain his role as a 'Watcher' in *Restless*, although
recent events might lean his
'Watcher' duties in the direction of Dawn, not Buffy.
So qualities of the seven Slayers were intercombined until finally Buffy was
called. Buffy was fated to die
in her fight with the Master, but she was resurrected, causing Kendra to be
called. Kendra was killed, and
then Faith was called. These are the two Slayers that the PTB had worked to
produce-- one possessed of a
very high sense of morality and always troubled by the burden of deathgiver
placed into her hands, the
other very close in spirit to the original First, an efficient killing
machine who essentially enjoys her calling,
but with a rather slippery grip on the moral consequences of that enjoyment.
The birth of the 'child' occurs metaphysically when the essences of the two
Slayers merge. The yin and
yang combine, and the 'child' will carry the advantages of both and the
drawbacks of neither. This new
being will then have the strength to push back the forces of darkness,
inconjunction with her two 'parents'.
In my theory of how the monks created Dawn, I hypothesised that the 'DNA'
for the spell to make Dawn
into human form was from Joyce and Buffy. I would now conjecture that it was
from Buffy and Faith.
(Joyces' DNA would of course be present in Buffy, so she is still a major
factor in Dawn's makeup).
All this makes much more sense if you consider the first Buffy/Faith
prophetic dream. Buffy and Faith are
together in Faith's apartment. Buffy no longer seems angry at Faith, in fact
seems very concerned for her
well-being. They are preparing the room for Faith to 'move on'. While the
amicable quality seems unlikely
given the circumstances surrounding the time 'Graduation Day' takes place, I
think that time has a
different, non-linear charcateristic in the 'spirit world' of the dream. The
events may therefore be taking
place in the future, not in the present of 'Graduation Day'.
So, the dream takes place in a time when Buffy and Faith are now essentially
combined spiritually as a
single entity. Faith, by virtue of her fall and redemption, has been able
infuse her primitive violent urges
with Buffy's humanist wisdom and sense of morality. Buffy, through her own
lengthy trials and
tribulations, has gained Faith's warrior strength of spirit. Many people who
have contemplated the
differences between these two powerful women have noted that they are
essentially a mirror of one
another. Fused together, they are stronger than either alone.
If you have a tape copy of this episode, I urge you to cue it up to the
dream sequence and look at it again
in light of this idea-- on rewatching it myself, I was astounded by how
neatly this idea fit the sequence,
both visually and scriptwise. For the benefit of those without a tape, I
will provide the script excerpt here:
(Script excerpt supplied courtesy of Rayne's site,
mustreadtv.com/buffyscripts)
INT. FAITH'S APARTMENT - DAY
Buffy is on her feet, in her street clothes. Entering the room to find it
empty.
The window is still broken. Clothes and weapons are laid out on the couch -
there are packing boxes
everywhere. Moving day. A cat jumps onto the bed. Buffy looks at it.
BUFFY
Who's gonna look after him?
Faith crosses behind Buffy, replies:
FAITH
It's a she. And aren't these things
supposed to take care of themselves?
BUFFY
A higher power, guiding us?
FAITH
I'm pretty sure that's not what I meant.
She turns to the window.
BUFFY
There's something I'm supposed to be doing.
FAITH
Oh yeah. Miles to go. Little Miss Muffet
counting down from seven three oh.
BUFFY
Oh, great. Riddles.
FAITH
Sorry. It's my head. Lotta new stuff.
She looks out the window. In the foreground, the cat on the bed dissolves to
Faith herself lying
unconscious then back.
FAITH
They're never gonna fix this, are they?
BUFFY
What about you?
Faith turns back, indicates her face.
FAITH
Scar tissue. It fades, it all fades.
Buffy looks down at her hand. For a moment, Faith's knife is in her palm,
then gone.
Faith moves toward Buffy.
FAITH
You wanna know the deal? Human weakness.
It never goes away. Even his.
BUFFY
Is this your mind or mine?
They both smile at that -- Faith even laughs a little.
FAITH
Beats me. (a beat) Gettin' towards that time
.
Buffy looks around her, at the boxes.
BUFFY
How are you gonna fit all this stuff?
FAITH
Not gonna. It's yours.
BUFFY
I can't use all this.
Faith stands before her, looks at her with quiet regard.
FAITH
Just take what you need.
Buffy nods.
FAITH
You ready?
She puts her hand to Buffy's cheek.
INT. HOSPITAL - MORNING (DAY)
Buffy wakes, suddenly.
She looks around her -- she is alone for the moment. She gets out of bed.
In the next section is Faith, also unattended. Buffy goes over to her bed,
looks down at her.
After a moment, she leans down and kisses Faith's forehead lightly.
(End excerpt--------------------------------)
(If you have the tape, note the use of light when Faith faces the window and
looks out, and also when she
touches Buffy's cheek. Have we seen this before? Now also ask yourself why
Buffy kisses Faith after she
awakes, in view of what I've theorized on here. Interesting, no?)
A side note: In my original theory of the 'Slayer Trinity', I referred to
Buffy as the Mother, Faith as the
Daughter, and Dawn as the 'Spirit', in an analogy to the Christian concept
of trinity. I sort of predicated
this arrangement on the idea that Faith followed Buffy sequentially in time,
therefore she would be the
'daughter', and since Dawn existed as energy (spirit) in her original Key
form, it seems logical to make her
the 'spirit' element. I now believe that this is incorrect, and that Faith
is the 'Spirit' (of The First) and thus
Dawn represents the Daughter.
So, we have *Seven* Slayers who produce Buffy (six before, and Kendra after
to produce Faith), who
then metaphysically 'mates' with Faith (her 'mirror') to produce Dawn, and
now you have the *Three*,
Buffy/Faith/Dawn. Dawn isn't currently, but will be called as a Slayer and
eventually become the vessel for
the PTB in the physical Buffyverse.
We now have the '7' and the '3' of 7-3-0, so what is the '0'?
As you may know, Joss is working on a graphic novel series for Dark Horse
Comics that will involve a
new Slayer who is called approx. 300 years in our future, the first Slayer
to be called in all that time. Why
300 years and no Slayers? **Because Dawn will be the last Slayer of our
period of time**. Over the next
two years, Dawn will grow in power, and by the end of Season 7 be the Slayer
who finally drives the
vampires (and who knows, perhaps other evil demons and such) completely from
our plane of existence.
At that point, there will be no need for a Slayer, and the lineage will be
ended.
Seven - Three - Zero.
_______________________________________________________________________________
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong". -- Dennis Miller
_______________________________________________________________________________
I thank you all for reading all this stuff, and if you have, well, then you
are just as hopelessly addicted as I
am. I hope it was good for you and that your brain didn't explode or
anything, I really hate when that
happens.
Thinking way, way, extremely way too much,
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> Can you hear that....the sound of OnM forcing me to kill another tree...
-- Rufus, 22:14:50 04/23/01 Mon
Yes, it's getting interesting now. You have the power of the slayer and the
power of the key....what happens if the powers combine...As Dawn can
destroy....can she create? Why send the key to the slayer if the slayer
can't protect? Was there more to sending the key to Buffy than we first
thought?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> Re: Oh no, he's at it again! New speculation on the Meaning of 7-3-0
(long, what else?) -- Alice, 10:29:53 04/24/01 Tue
Interesting theory, I really like it, esp. Spike's involvment.
But two questions : why then is a new Slayer called 300 years into the
furture if all slayers and demons have been driven from our planes of
existance?
And why in Restless, did Tara tell Buffy, 'oh, that clocks all wrong' ? Has
something gone wrong with the PTB's plans? To do with Faith being still
alive maybe?
Maybe that's why Tara's there. There's certainly something she's hiding, and
I read somewhere some speculation that she might be an avatar or simmilar(if
that was your idea I apologise immensely. I cannot remember where I read
that)
Okay, thinking way too hard and being way too picky. I wish I had your
brain. It'd make for an immensely cool story.
Alice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> [> Re: Oh no, he's at it again! New speculation on the Meaning of 7-3-0
(long, what else?) -- Solitude1056, 13:00:43 04/24/01 Tue
Maybe that's why Tara's there. There's certainly something she's hiding, and
I read somewhere some speculation that she might be an avatar or simmilar(if
that was your idea I apologise immensely. I cannot remember where I read
that)
I seem to recall someone pointing out that Tara does seem to be a vessel of
some type, especially after channeling the First Slayer. Doubt that makes
her an avatar per se, but a vessel's nothing small, either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> [> [> 7-3-0 and the counting down -- Mav, 13:51:01 04/24/01 Tue
Ok, here's a slightly different look at it (ok I just haven't seen this
proposed elsewhere!) 0= pre sunnydale, 3= end of Sunnydale high and if I
remember (I'm english)you have 4 years at college (7 seasons when she
leaves)so could this just mean that there is some sort of climax at the end
of S7?
or alternatively
Buffy, Giles, Xander, Willow, Spike, Anya, Tara, Dawn = 7
Ben, Glory, third hell god = 3
end of the world =0?, that would be nasty!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> [> [> [> Re: 7-3-0 and the counting down -- Ramo, 15:24:17 04/24/01 Tue
There are so many posibilities!!!! I've heard a less philosophical theory
that 730=the amount of days in two years. Apparently, the contract for the
show was supposed to end in 5th season, and 730 was shown in the end of the
third season, which means "two years to go!" Fortunately, they signed on the
show for another two years, hence Tara saying the clock was wrong in the
forth season finale. I'm not saying this is definitely true, but it's a
theory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> [> [> [> [> Re: 7-3-0 and the counting down -- Solitude1056, 15:29:24
04/24/01 Tue
Well, there's your simplest explanation. On the other hand, I'm sure Joss
would come up with a way to still get it to fit despite that... what an evil
boy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> [> [> [> Re: 7-3-0 and the counting down -- Solitude1056, 15:27:47
04/24/01 Tue
Buffy, Giles, Xander, Willow, Spike, Anya, Tara, Dawn = 7
Ben, Glory, third hell god = 3
end of the world =0
OnM's version is complex but fascinating - but I dunno. I still tend towards
simplest explanation being right in front of your face but not apparent
until the last piece is in place. Which is why I might tend towards this
version of the 7-3-0, except for the fact that all spoilers indicate it'll
be "the whole gang" back together... which means you'd have to include
Angel, Wesley, and Cordy in there. unless they're the 3, faith is one of the
7, and Dawn is the zero. I'd rearrange it slightly, though, since not all
those characters were around when the numbers came up, and just a hunch
(like many others, and I could jsut as easily be wrong) that there's some
sort of heirarchy in first the 7, then the 3, then the 0. unless Joss used
that order just because it rhymed with "miles to go," which I suppose is
equally possible.
but if it's a countdown, then you'd have to figure out which characters
would be part of the 7, and which the 3 - and whether the 3 derive from the
7 somehow (as OnM has suggested) or whether it's just those 3 are more
important in the heirarchy. There may be a causal effect between the two
groups - if it's groups that are indicated, be they slayers or regular joes
- or it may simply be an efficient way to group the two, as in battle
schema. One group to attack head-on, and one group to flank, and one at the
center, as the fulcrum.
(and btw, wasn't it 3 that combined with Buffy? if it was 7 at first, then
3, in forces with her - I dunno. That doesn't add up without contrivance,
either.)
Who knows... but tonight's another episode: perhaps another step closer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> [> [> [> [> Re: 7-3-0 and the counting down -- Rufus, 16:35:36 04/24/01
Tue
There is dialogue in the ep that points rather clearly to what will happen
in the last ep. Just pay attention to what the guide says.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> [> [> [> [> [> which guide? faith, or tara? -- Solitude1056, 16:47:04
04/24/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: which guide? faith, or tara? -- Rufus, 19:13:45
04/24/01 Tue
No, the quide that Giles called...in the form of the first slayer she said
something that tells you what will happen at the end of the season...
Guide: "You're afraid that being the slayer means losing your humanity...you
are full of love, you love with all of your soul. It's brighter than the
fire..blinding...that's why you pull away from it....."Love is pain, and the
Slayer forges strength from pain, love...give...forgive...risk the pain. It
is your nature. Love will bring you to your gift....Death is your gift..."
You now know what will happen in the last episode....at least you know how
Buffy will brought to her gift...Death.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: which guide? faith, or tara? -- Solitude1056,
20:25:21 04/24/01 Tue
No fair posting that just before the episode - you wildfeed watcher! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> [> [> [> [> [> Re: 7-3-0 and the counting down -- Darren K, 09:24:07
04/27/01 Fri
I think the 7 refers to the Scoobies in their first incarnation:
Willow
Cordelia
Miss Callendar
Giles
Xander
Buffy
Angel
I think the 3 refers to the original Summers family:
Hank
Joyce
Buffy
I think the 0 refers to Dawn; the "nothing" that Glory's insane victims
can't see
There is a more ominous interpretation:
7 as the original number of Buffy's supportors (see above list trade Buffy
for her Mom) in season one.
3 as the number that are still on the show: Giles, Willow, Xander
0 as the number that will be left when the show ends...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> [> [> 7-3-0 and the counting down -- Mav, 13:51:06 04/24/01 Tue
Ok, here's a slightly different look at it (ok I just haven't seen this
proposed elsewhere!) 0= pre sunnydale, 3= end of Sunnydale high and if I
remember (I'm english)you have 4 years at college (7 seasons when she
leaves)so could this just mean that there is some sort of climax at the end
of S7?
or alternatively
Buffy, Giles, Xander, Willow, Spike, Anya, , Dawn = 7
Ben, Glory, third hell god = 3
end of the world =0?, that would be nasty!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> [> Re: I wish I had my brain, too. I know it's around here somewhere...
;) -- OnM, 20:34:27 04/24/01 Tue
Thanks, Alice! Glad you enjoyed my riff. As to your questions:
If I recall correctly, the new Slayer who is called 300 years from now in
Joss' graphic novel is called because vamps have suddenly reappeared on
Earth after being gone for that long period of time. Guess we will have to
wait for the story to appear (I think it's this June or July). I have never
personally checked out any of the Buffy comics but this does sound
interesting. Of course, Joss is under no obligation to tie his 2D world to
the 3D live action one, but I tend to think he might insist on some degree
of continuity.
'The clock's all wrong' comment I have no particular answer for, except that
maybe a year has passed since the first prophetic dream, and so it's a twist
on the common 2-year by days interpretation of 730. Or you could be correct,
the PTB's plans have not unfolded as expected. Chess is chess, and the
unexpected may occur, no matter how skilled the chessmaster.
No, the avatar wasn't my idea, think it was Sol1056's, but I'm not sure
either.
The post was already long enough, but one side topic I could get into if I
wanted was how the PTB work indirectly nearly all the time, nudging and
bumping things into alignment, so that they act without actually acting, if
that makes any sense. Like some other wise poster mentioned, it's like the
flap of the butterfly's wings that ends up causing a monsoon-- cause and
effect over many generations of events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> [> [> not me, honest -- Solitude1056, 21:12:17 04/24/01 Tue
I didn't bring up the concept of Avatars in the Buffyverse - I just did
copious amounts of typing The Inside Source's dictations. *grin*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> [> [> An Isaac Newton clock-maker PTB, sort of... -- Masquerade, 10:16:05
04/25/01 Wed
In Isaac Newton's cosmology, the world runs pretty much on its own by
natural laws, just as a clock runs itself. But every once in a while, the
clock-maker has to wind the gears or nudge the hands on the clock. The PTBs
may operate on similar principles, letting people and demons make their own
choices according to their natures as humans, demons, and individuals, but
occassionally (or often) stepping in and nudging things. Hmmm. I like it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> 7-3-0 means 730 -- Michael J. Hennebry, 09:42:38 05/02/01 Wed
The problem with OnM's theory is that it treats 730 as three separate
numbers.
"Yes. Little Miss Muffet counting down from 7-3-0." dream Faith
One counts down from *a* number. Remember joss's typed remark: "What is
730?" (chuckles to self, looks out window. Resumes typing)
7-3-0 is a three digit number, not three separate numbers.
One does not count down from zero. If Willow is involved, it might even be
in octal.
Why no slayer callings for the next 300 years? Maybe it's because Buffy is
still around.
Kendra is not the most important thing that makes Buffy unique. Buffy is the
first slayer to be treated as a slayer and a human being *by the same
people*. Spike stated that slayers eventually get something resembling a
death-wish. Buffy is much less alone than her predecessors. Eventually the
WC might get the idea that keeping Buffy around is a real good idea. They
might even use magic to keep her healthy and 21 forever.
Scenario number 2: Buffy is beaten and dying. Spike comes along and vamps
her. Willow does the soul restoration spell. I've omitted some interesting
dialogue.
Senario number 3: Buffy might or might not be beaten or dying. Oz comes
along and bites her.
Why no calling when Faith dies? Maybe because the death of a slayer is not
sufficient. Maybe a slayer is only called when the number of slayers is down
to zero.
BTW Buffy is failing the written again. She's complained about the lack of
information regarding slayers' last battles. Buffy knows about four, but so
far as we can tell she hasn't written them down. Even if she plans to live
forever, Faith might want to read them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> [> Re: 7-3-0 means 730 -- Wiccagrrl, 09:36:00 05/05/01 Sat
Some very interesting thoughts. I, too, wondered about the no new slayer for
300 year thing (I think this is alluded to in the Fray comic Joss is working
on) The other explaination is that there have been no new slayers because
there have been no vamps. As in, Buffy put herself out of a job (wouldn't
that be kewl :))
As far as the writing things down, I think Giles is doing that, and I
imagine he and Buffy had a long talk about her discussion with Spike in FFL.
I'm sure he mentioned what happened with Kendra in his Watcher's Diaries,
and Buffy's near-death experience in Prophecy Girl.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> [> [> Re: From the horse's mouth... -- OnM, 21:31:27 05/06/01 Sun
This is from an interview by Dark Horse Comics with Joss. I'll provide the
link below the excerpt. Pretty interesting, and long, interview.
***
SE-G: I want to get into the story of a little more, so this is where I
should start letting you talk a lot. Fray is a vampire Slayer. How does she
discover that?
JW: It's probably important to understand the world she live in: there has
been no magic -- no demons or vampires or magical creatures -- on the earth
for a few hundred years. The implication being that something happened in
the 21st century that sort of made them all go away and no more is ever said
about that. But, though no Slayer has actually been called , the watchers
counsel is still around and it has become a bunch of insane, drooling
idiots, and a bit of vampirism has sort of resurfaced, but nobody knows what
it is. Nobody even knows they ever existed or has heard stories of vampires
-- that eradication really did `em in. So, Fray basically someone who has
always had this power in her, but she was never trained and never "called."
She's never had an outlet for her power.
***
The link is:
http://www.darkhorse.com/news/interviews/sku_00018int/index.html
Very, very neat site, this is. Even if you're not big into comics, you might
want to peruse it anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
]>> [> [> Re: 7-3-0 means 730 -- Michael J. Hennebry, 13:04:17 05/08/01 Tue
from Wiccagrrl:
I, too, wondered about the no new slayer for 300 year thing (I think this is
alluded to in the Fray comic Joss is working on) The other explaination is
that there have been no new slayers because there have been no vamps. As in,
Buffy put herself out of a job (wouldn't that be kewl :))
No vamps is the answer, but Buffy couldn't have done it. Even if she made
Sunnydale a black hole for vamps, that would still leave the rest of the
world, e.g. LA.
That doesn't mean that Buffy didn't have it done. She does have rather more
help than her predecessors.
Bufffy could still be around after 300 years. In the Buffyverse, it wouldn't
be hard to explain. She wouldn't have to still be a slayer. Devamping the
world might uncall a slayer.
from Wiccagrrl:
As far as the writing things down, I think Giles is doing that, and I
imagine he and Buffy had a long talk
about her discussion with Spike in FFL. I'm sure he mentioned what happened
with Kendra in his Watcher's
Diaries, and Buffy's near-death experience in Prophecy Girl.
Oops. I missed Kendra. There should be five, not just four.
down the rabbit hole -- purplegrrl, 14:58:01 04/24/01 Tue
I was reading the thread on "Dominoes" below and it
struck me how the
Buffyverse is like Alice in Wonderland (and Alice Through the
Looking
Glass). Nothing is what it seems and everything has at least two
meanings.
And there are a few things that no one but the creator (Lewis
Carroll or
Joss Whedon) can explain ("mimsy were the boregroves,"
anyone??) Things may
be literal or things may be metaphor/allegory/simile/satire/homage,
and it's
often hard to tell the difference.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this analogy, therefore I have
no concrete
examples (at the moment) to offer up. However, what I am thinking
is that
this is just a general "feel" to the 'verse - not that
Buffy is Alice, etc.
(although Spike *might* be the Cheshire Cat, hmmm).
I'd like to hear what others think.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: down the rabbit hole -- Masquerade, 15:50:16 04/24/01
Tue
Well, that was my impression of a lot of stuff in "Restless".
We're not
supposed to be able to figure it out. At least, not until something
happens
down the line that makes particular sense of it. I just got that
impression
after looking at all the interpretations of those dreams--what
if only 1% of
the meanings are based on stuff we've seen and 99% are references
that will
only make sense in coming seasons? (e.g., the infamous 730).
If at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: down the rabbit hole -- Unsung Hero, 18:24:16
04/24/01 Tue
In "Restless", Willow gave a book report on "The
Lion, The Witch and The
Wardrobe", and I think that that series has more in common
with "Buffy:The
Vampire Slayer":
Four kids(well, originally- Buffy,Xander,Willow and Cordelia)
all taken from
thier routine lives and introduced to a life of danger and excitment,
with
mythic battles and deciding the fate of the world. :-) That's
my impression,
anyway.
Nate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Narnia & Sunnydale -- Solitude1056, 19:14:11
04/24/01 Tue
In which case I wonder if Joss also has the last lines from that
book
memorized, like me. I can never remember the way CS Lewis put
it, but I do
always remember the animated version. (So shoot me, you lit purists,
I
wasn't the Narnia fan in the family.)
"This may not be the beginning of the end, but the end of
the beginning."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: down the rabbit hole -- Cleanthes, 12:49:32
04/26/01 Thu
I agree that C.S. Lewis influences BtVS.
The Doc from the recent episode may turn out to have Screwtape
attribute,
maybe.
AtltS, of course! (Intervention spoilers) -- rowan, 18:44:48 04/24/01
Tue
Hi everybody! Sorry I haven't been around recently, but I had
a major work
deadline which is now thankfully past. After seeing Intervention,
all I can
say is WOW! If the last four eps are anywhere as good as the last
three, I
don't think I can stand it. It almost makes up for the whole UPN
thing.
I thought there was no way I could stand to watch a BuffyBot storyline,
but
I have to say, the writers got me again. I thought the comedy
of the
BuffyBot definitely softened the general ickiness of the whole
plastic sex
thing. Plus, the last scene between Buffy and Spike seemed to
me to show
that Spike is just, after all, a fool for love and not out for
sick,
perverted fun and/or revenge.
"Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his
life for his
friend." John 16:13
Tonight Spike exemplified that principle for me. In Buffy's words,
he did
something real. He was willing to die rather than allow someone
(Glory) to
inflict pain on another human being(Buffy & Dawn). He may not
have a soul,
but he's got something. Buffy exemplified the "forgiveness"
principle the
First Slayer shared in her vision quest.
Okay, enough about Spike. Tonight's ep was full of wonderful moments,
and I
just want to take a minute to list my top five. Please forgive
the bad
paraphrasing.
1. "What are you, the god of bad home perms?"
2. "Should I begin the program again?"
3. "Anya, how is your money?"
4. "And Spike built the robot to play checkers with."
5. "What you did today, that was real."
And now some rampant speculation on future episodes:
1. Are the rumors true and is a major cast member going to die?
Will it be
Tara? Or were those scenes just of Willow and Tara's fight in
Tough Love?
2. Who was holding hands? Buffy and Spike? (the black nails look
like Spike,
but the hand looked feminine, so I wonder if it's Willow or Tara's
hand).
3. Is Glory visiting a plague on the world in order to flush out
the Key?
4. Is Glory's a** really lopsided?
5. Will the BuffyBot reappear? Does Willow perform the "easy
fix" to the
wires and will the BuffyBot figure in the season finale?
6. What did that whole vision quest thing mean anyway?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Tara info and other thoughts on The Gift (Intervention
and later ep
spoilers) -- OnM, 21:16:23 04/24/01 Tue
Hey, rowan, welcome back!
It's late and it's been a long day for me, but I will give you
this item,
from an E! Online interview with Joss, in regards to your Tara
question #1.
From DeLisa in Columbus, Georgia: "It shocked me, but I really
love the
Tara/Willow pairing. How long
will Tara be around?"
"I have no plans to send Tara anywhere. Amber [Benson] and
Alyson [Hannigan]
have such great
chemistry; they're so great together, and they're very romantic
together. We
have terrible, terrible things to
do to them because they're on my show, so needless to say, horrible
things
will happen--but as a couple, I
think they work really well. As for Amber, even if she weren't
going out
with Willow, I think she's become
a big part of the heart of the show."
Question #5 - I think it's a given that the B/Bot will reappear,
just not
sure what they will do with her. One possible season-ending-Buffy-dies
theory I had was that it will be the Bot that dies, and the writers
will
somehow make us really care for 'her' to such a degree that it
will feel
like Buffy died. May be unlikely, but nothing's impossible for
this bunch.
Question #6 - Unfortunately, my take is that it means Buffy is
'Jesus', and
'Death is your Gift' is analogous to Christ offering up his mortal
life to
save humanity. Or, she 'enables' another to provide the Gift.
My only
complaint with this is that Buffy has *already* given her mortal
life to
save us, way back in season one, and I'm asking myself why would
Joss repeat
this? Now, if Faith *willingly* gave her life, it would close
up a lot of
(metaphorical) loose ends of the last several years. I keep wondering
if all
the 'spoilers' leaked so far are diversionary tactics and Faith
will
reappear at the last moment after all. 'Death is your Gift' would
still
apply if you think about it. The guide could have been referring
to Slayers
in general, not just to Buffy in particular. And besides Buffy,
there is
only one other at the moment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Spoilers abounding... -- Solitude1056, 21:24:59 04/24/01
Tue
The problem with the spoilers (at least this season) is that they
seemed to
be hyped up especially high - perhaps b/c Joss & Co were leaving
the
possibility open that this was the last season, if talks didn't
pan out.
I've seen off spoilers before, but so far nothing seems to be
turning out
like the rumors indicated. Which is actually kinda cool, if a
little
hellacious to be left so hanging for another week.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: One last little goodie, then I'm outa here
for now... -- OnM,
21:43:55 04/24/01 Tue
From Willow's Dream in 'Restless':
GILES
Remember, acting isn't about
behaving. It's about hiding. The
audience wants to find you, they want
to strip you naked and eat you alive
so HIDE.
Harmony has gone VAMP and is trying to bite Giles, craning at
various angles
to get a better purchase on his neck. He swats at her as at a
buzzing insect
as he continues:
GILES
Stop that. Costumes. Sets. The
things, you know, things, you touch
them and hold them --
HARMONY
Props?
GILES
No...
RILEY
Props.
GILES
Yes. It's all about subterfuge.
(to Harmony)
That's very annoying.
(to the company)
So get out there, lie like dogs and
have a wonderful time. If we can
stay focussed, keep our heads and if
Willow can stop stepping on
everybody's cues I know this will be
the best production of Death of a
Salesman we've ever done.
(to Harmony)
Stop it.
__________________________________
So, it's all about subterfuge, eh?
*******
***
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: One last little goodie, then I'm outa
here for now... --
rowan, 01:15:57 04/25/01 Wed
Yes, these spoilers we're all hearing are very interesting. I
did hear one
earlier in the season that had to do with Spike being captured
by Glory and
tortured to reveal the key, but it was all tied up in him getting
the chip
removed. So it often seems that these spoilers have a grain of
truth in
them, but it's hard to figure out the grain unless it's in hindsight.
One of the big spoilers has been about Buffy being vamped by Spike.
There's
also one about Buffy having to sacrifice Dawn to save the world,
but finding
out at the last minute that she can sacrifice someone else instead.
I'm
wondering if she asks Spike to vamp her in the season ender to
stop Glory's
apocalypse. That would fit the death is your gift theory and reconcile
both
spoilers. Maybe she's figuring either Willow can curse her with
a soul after
she's vamped or that she can someone come back from the dead again
(although
it is too much like the previous storyline, I agree).
The Key to Wolfram and Hart -- Rufus, 19:26:57 04/24/01 Tue
I was pleased to see Lindsay leave the law firm of Wolfram and
Hart, with
the nice parting gift of the "evil hand". The thing
that meant the most was
his last words to Angel before he jumped in his truck headed out
of town.
Lindsay: "Key to Wolfram and Hart, don't let them make you
play their
game....You gotta make em play yours."
Angel: "Thanks, I'll keep that in mind"
That was extra proof that Angel is on the right track after his
Epiphany...see what an "existential orgasm" (three to
be exact) will do for
a guy? Wolfram and Hart are still very interested in Angel, and
what he is
doing. Is Angel still a project or now a target? The main thing
is for Angel
to remember don't play their game...make one up of his own....one
a bit
better than a sign that says "Cops Suck" on the back
of a truck. The new
Angel is such a kidder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Key to Wolfram and Hart -- Max, 22:40:56 04/24/01
Tue
It's strange, but I got the exact opposite from that.
When Lilah was talking about Angel at the beginning of the episode,
everyone
sounded glad that he was "on the right track again"
and not so focused on,
well on killing them.
They seemed glad that he wasn't all alone, but was back with his
group.
Total War Angel scared Wolfram and Hart more than anything. It
wasn't in
their gameplan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Key to Wolfram and Hart -- change, 03:41:36
04/25/01 Wed
> When Lilah was talking about Angel at the beginning
> of the episode, everyone sounded glad that he was
> "on the right track again" and not so focused on,
> well on killing them.
> They seemed glad that he wasn't all alone, but was
> back with his group.
I didn't get that impression. I think that Lilah was glad he wasn't
trying
to kill her anymore. The other lawyers didn't say anything about
it. I think
it was a slip up when Lilah said "He's doing better",
and that she then
tried to cover up by saying that it was "in the sense of"
he isn't alone any
more and isn't focused on killing them.
Lindsey was negative about Angel (at least in the meeting), and
the other
lawyers didn't say anything.
That's my take, anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Key to Wolfram and Hart -- Sue, 06:56:41
04/25/01 Wed
I don't think "Total War" Angel was part of the plan.
Now everything is back on track again (for Wolfram and Hart that
is.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Key to Wolfram and Hart -- Wiccagrrl,
08:13:44 04/25/01
Wed
Humm. Interesting. See, I always thought that Total War Angel
was
*precisely* what W&H wanted. It wasn't necessarilly what *Lilah*
wanted,
because it meant Angel was gunning for her, but the one of the
higher-ups
mentions in an earlier ep that if Angel snapped and killed Lilah
or Lindsey,
it would just show that he was that much closer to being where
they wanted
him to be. I got the impression Angel was pretty much playing
right into
their hands up until he had his epiphany, at which point he stopped
playing
their game.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Key to Wolfram and Hart
-- Masquerade, 10:00:58
04/25/01 Wed
That's my take on it, too. When Angel was gunning for Lilah and
Lindsey,
their boss Nathan was pleased. He explicitly said we're hoping
this leads
Angel to kill you two, because even though it's bad to lose two
good
lawyers, it will lead Angel down the dark path they wanted him
to go.
When he was Total War Angel, he was Wolfram and Hart's Angel.
Or, at least,
on his way to being.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Key to Wolfram and
Hart -- Rufus, 14:57:09
04/25/01 Wed
Yes, total war is what Wolfram and Hart is all about. Total war
encourages
people to lose sight of their humanity and be the most brutal
and cruel they
can possibly be. If we are busy bashing each other over the head
then we
can't see how pointless the constant battles are. Wolfram and
Hart are here
to create chaos in our world by using our fears and hatred as
the fuel. As
long as we do the Total War tap dance we are too preoccupied and
and stupid
to see the truth. Angel finally got it, and Lindsay confirmed
what Wolfram
and Hart were all about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Key to Wolfram and
Hart (spoilers) -- Max,
20:04:22 04/25/01 Wed
Spoilers Below
Here is what Lilth said.
"He is back with his group, Sir. According to my sources
he is doing better,
in the sense that he is not spending all of his time alone on
the war path,
trying to kill, well, us."
He is doing better said Lilth.
Angel has lost his focus! He has lost that focus that he needed
to win the
war against Wolfham and Hart.
Total War Angel wasn't in Wolfram and Hart's plans. In fact Total
War Angel
was their worst nightmare. Someone who were more ruthless than
they were.
Holland did his job well in derailing Total War Angel!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> curious spelling --
Solitude1056, 21:04:18 04/25/01 Wed
I find it intriguing that you spelt "Lilah" as pretty
close to "Lilith" -
the original nasty woman. *grin*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You trying to
say something about *nasty*
women???:):):) -- Rufus, 22:20:48 04/25/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lilah doesn't
have half the chutzpa Lilith did --
Masquerade, 23:36:22 04/25/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> An odd thought -- fresne,
12:31:45 04/26/01 Thu
You know a funny thing just occurred to me, total war Angel cannot
be Total
War Angel. Guerilla War Angel, yeah. Total War, hmm, well one
guy does not a
nation make.
Total War refers not only to being willing to sacrifice lives
and resources
to obtain a complete victory, but how engaged a population is
in the war
effort. Total war is when every facet of society, when every available
resource is aimed at an objective. WWII was a Total War because
while GI Joe
fought, Rosie riveted, Fred Astaire sold war bonds, Daffy Duck
made war
movies, and my grandmother had a victory garden. A limited war
is simply one
that is not total. You not only avoid civilian targets, but your
average
civilian doesn't care that there is a war on.
If Angel fired his support staff, alienated neutral allies like
Merl, Anne
and Kate, and generally speaking cut himself off from resources,
how can he
be all that total. Perhaps, we should call him Limiting War Angel.
So as I digress, I'm assuming we've all seen Monty Python's The
Life of
Brian. But for those who haven't, there's this bit about a radical
group who
want to drive out the Roman's from Palestine. They are a splinter
group from
a larger Down with Roman's group. And they themselves have a guy
sitting on
a nearby bench who splintered off from their group. Suddenly,
I have this
image of Angel sitting by himself in a Roman Coliseum. Damn Romans.
Anyway, so Angel the guerilla fighter's every facet was turned
to fighting
W&H, a multi dimensional corporation with vast holdings, countless
minions,
and a limitless supply of new lawyers who want to join in and
rake in the
corporate earnings. (Although, alas poor Lindsey, they apparently
have
terrible medical benefits. First he gets a lousy prosthetic. I
mean,
really...he should have been able to get one with some articulation.
Then
Lindsey gets an evil hand. What kind of bene' program is that?)
Now personally, beyond the moral issues, I'm glad to see Angel
finally get a
grasp of decent tactics. (Well, I am a big proponent of Indirect
Strategy,
but that's another discussion) For Angel to attack W&H head on,
is to bring
Angel's weakness (he is a limited resource of one) up against
their strength
(money and people are irrelevant).
Angel's new objective must be considered in light of W&H's
objectives. W&H
wants bad in the world. They want to plumb the depths of humanities
nature.
If Angel becomes a guerilla warrior, nipping in and doing good
and then
running away, he attacks W&H's weakness. People have free
will. They can do
evil. But if Joss, oh evil creative one, is correct, then people
want to do
good. They just need a little assistance.
So does that make him Saint Angel now?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 3 miracles, first!
:) -- Solitude1056, 17:27:42
04/26/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: An odd thought
-- Max, 18:36:34 04/26/01 Thu
"You know a funny thing just occurred to me, total war Angel
cannot be Total
War Angel. Guerilla War Angel, yeah. Total War, hmm, well one
guy does not a
nation make.
Let's just call him Section One Angel. Fighting Ruthlessness with
Ruthlessness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Key to Wolfram and Hart
-- Halcyon, 05:11:00 04/26/01
Thu
Nathan Reed says in Blood Money that Total War Angel is exactly
what they
wanted. Once he abandons the mission that the Powers That Be gave
him, he
starts acting more and more like Angelus. THAT IS NOT A GOOD THING.
Witness
how he speaks to Lilah when he is in her car, he says to her "
Begging comes
later.". That sounds exactly like a statement Angelus would
make.
INTERVENTION, LOVE, DEATH AND SPIKE -- Vulpes, 19:57:46 04/24/01
Tue
Just saw Intervention. I just thought I would start a thread about
it.
Any comments about the trueness of Spike's Devotion to the Summers
women?
Does the First Slayer's message mean if Buffy loves Spike she
will kill him?
Will Glory finally get Dawn?
Does Buffy's gift of love mean killing her sister to prevent Glory
from
using her?
Will we see the BuffyBot again?
Gifted writers any comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: INTERVENTION, LOVE, DEATH AND SPIKE -- Solitude1056,
20:32:48
04/24/01 Tue
AtltS: there was a spoiler, in there somewhere, along the lines
of:
Spike contacts Glory (somehow), tells her he'll spill about the
Key in
exchange for getting his chip out. She removes the chip, and he
leads her to
the magick shop. At the very last minute, Ben takes over & bolts.
[There's
also a thread about how Ben is getting weaker & weaker, and Glory
finally
ditches him.]
however... spoiler space, for those of you delayed until the burnt
CD or VHS
tape arrives by Fed Ex tomorrow:
Spike pretty much got as toasted as he could possibly get. Gee,
and he
thought getting a church dropped on him back in season 2 was bad.
And he
didn't spill. He didn't even seem to consider that a God could
take out the
chip without breaking into a sweat. And he still had the strength
to call
Glory a god of bad perm jobs. (I want that whole speech! It rocked.
- Ed.)
So whatever we may argue about souls and caring and compassion,
Spike's got
something going on there that just isn't your run-of-the-mill
situation.
Maybe the chip does change things, maybe not. Maybe it's not the
same as
having a conscience, but perhaps it's moot: even remorseless creatures
can
respect and care for something. In Spike's case, it's the Summers
women.
And Glory mentioned that Ben's getting stronger - and this because
he took
out the now-revived Dreg? Previously, Ben's beaten Dreg without
hesitation
(or so it's seemed). How is it that Ben having the nerve (or the
sudden
endorphin rush of fear) to stab Dreg counts as "getting stronger"?
Some questions answered, IMO, but plenty enough left for us to
mull over
until next week.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Love and the Rubbermade bot.... -- Rufus, 21:16:40 04/24/01
Tue
Buffy learned what her gift was and Spike learned something about
what real
love was. He got his new toy and tried it out and I'm sure was
quite happy
with it except for one thing....it was a toy and nothing else.
Spike really
learned about love when Glory stuck her finger in his chest, then
trussed
him up and used him for a slice and bash fest....impure is what
she called
Spike...yet he never told where the key was...she almost beat
him to
death...but he didn't and wasn't going to give up the key. When
Buffy came
into the crypt it was to determine if Spike was a threat to Dawns
safety.
She got the biggest surprise of all....Spike told what he thought
was a
machine that he couldn't live if Buffy were to suffer the loss
of Dawn.
Buffy gave Spike a thank you kiss...and in that moment he knew
what Buffy
said next was true....the Buffybot wasn't real...his actions at
the hands of
Glory were.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Love and the Rubbermade bot.... YOUR WORDS - HOW
TRUE. THANK YOU !
-- Vulpes, 23:46:41 04/24/01 Tue
thank you,
But do you think Buffy could have helped Spike out more than just
a little
kiss?
He was only beat to a pulp!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Love and the Rubbermade bot.... -- Rufus,
00:12:59 04/25/01 Wed
To be practical...kissing someone that bloodied up is gross.....I
think that
Buffy not putting a redwood into his heart was a great start for
a new
begining. Both Spike and Buffy are capable of great love but both
don't
express it very well. Buffy has only just learned that her greatest
strength
is her love. "Love...give....forgive...Risk the pain."
I think that Buffy
learned a new respect for Spike tonight and that goes a long way
when you
consider that he is an impure demon. Buffy showed Spike the folly
of the
bot...it wasn't real....it was pretend..but at the same time she
does now
know that he is capable of love and the sacrifice that can come
with it.
From the preview next week it looks like they will all be getting
out of
town together...in an RV no less.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Love and the Rubbermade bot.... --
rowan, 01:27:35 04/25/01
Wed
This episode clarified for me (somewhat) some issues surrounding
Spike. As I
mentioned in a thread below, "greater love hath no man than
this, that he
lay down his life for his brother" (John 6:13). In Forever,
Spike risked
bodily harm to help Dawn get back her mother. Spike seemed to
display real
emotion over Joyce (the flowers without the card). In Intervention,
he
undergoes torture rather than reveal the identify of The Key.
He had every
reason to believe that Glory would kill him and no reason to believe
the SG
would save him. He does this out of love for Buffy (and even though
he
doesn't say it, obviously out of some feeling for Dawn as well).
This is
definitely not typical vampire behavior and I don't think we can
assume it's
selfishly motivated, since he had every expectation that Buffy
would never
know about it.
I interpreted the "forgiveness" message from The First
Slayer as having to
do with Buffy's hardness this season -- she's been very judgemental
about
what's right and what's wrong in the world (her treatment of Spike
is one
example). But when she asked if she was losing the ability to
love, she was
given a message to "forgive, give, and love." She also
began acting on that
in her last scene with Spike. The SG also showed some softening
towards
Spike as well. This was particularly interesting in light of the
fact that
he created that BuffyBot. Apparently, in the SG's eyes, his sacrifice
of his
body redeemed that action.
It's very hard to imagine that Spike would go back to the Big
Bad now. He
seems on the road to becoming some part of the SG to me. Even
if he gave the
appearance of trying to betray them, I would question if it was
a ploy or
setup.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Weird love is better than no love ... -- verdantheart,
06:53:28
04/25/01 Wed
That segue into Spike's introduction to the bot said it all for
me. He never
would have been interested in the bot in the first place if he
thought he
had even the slightest chance with Buffy. The bot was just a more
elaborate
version of the manniquin/shrine. He knew it wasn't satisfactory,
but Buffy
told him to get lost.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Love and the Rubbermade bot.... -- Humanitas,
15:25:00 04/25/01
Wed
Y'know, this whole Buffybot issue scared the heck out of me when
it was
first introduced. I thought "Boy, there's just no way this
can be good." And
the bot-as-sex-toy aspects of the story were indeed all kinds
of wrong. But
once again, Joss pulled it off. It was so wrong, it was funny.
The creators
pulled no punches, in fact heightened it so much that it became
over-the-top
comedy. I about fell off my couch at "You're the Big Bad."
more importantly,
the bot providied a way to do the last scene. It allowed Spike
to tell Buffy
the truth without hiding behind his Clockwork Vampire Persona,
while giving
Buffy the certain knowledge that he was telling the truth. It
allowed the
two of them to, for the first time, be real with each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Love and the Rubbermade bot.... -- rowan,
17:10:12 04/25/01 Wed
Yes, I agree! I had been dreading this all season, but I think
it was
Aquitaine who said, "trust Joss." The comedy was so
over the top, it
eliminated all the plastic ickiness (well, most of it). When the
BuffyBot
was bouncing on Spike in a cemetary of all places, and he was
lying there,
submissively, while she said, "Oh yeah, you're the Big Bad"
I was in
stitches. It was like really bad fanfic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Love and the Rubbermade bot.... --
Solitude1056, 18:52:37
04/25/01 Wed
Despite the comedy of some of it - and the utterly bad acting
job (which
takes true talent to act that woodenly! IME) - there were some
points that I
just felt sorry for Spike. Although the "should I start this
program over?"
line was great, his response was truly bittersweet.
There certainly seem to be demons capable of happy family lives,
and a slew
of vampires for whom committment isn't a four-letter word. As
a matter of
fact - ignoring the static maturity levels & repeating patterns
- it seems
that many of our worst vamp bad guys have had some pretty long-term
serious
relationships. The desire to be loved, needed, and wanted doesn't
seem to
require a soul.
Ok, so dysfunctional relationships they may be, but still... anything
must
be better than an eternity spent alone. Spike's used to having
someone to
love, who loves him, who can relate to him and to whom he can
relate. The
pained look on his face when the Buffybot cheerfully mentioned
the program
spoke volumes. He knew he was being cheated, but he wanted to
believe in the
fantasy just a little longer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Love and the Rubbermade bot....
-- Jen C., 19:06:09
04/25/01 Wed
I was really moved when Spike asked "Are you afraid of me?"
He sounded so
incredibly lonely, and I got the feeling that he wouldn't have
liked
whichever answer he got. But, it may just be JM's incredible acting!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: BotLove, Real Love, and Spike's
personal growth. --
Humanitas, 07:55:32 04/26/01 Thu
"Ok, so dysfunctional relationships they may be, but still...
anything must
be better than an eternity spent alone."
As the lady said, "Wierd love is better than no love at all."
The love that
Spike and Dru had was definitely wierd, but it was love, or some
approximation thereof. At the very least, they behaved as though
it were
love. What Spike and the Bot had was no love at all, but rather
a game.
Since the Bot was never alive, in fact, it could be said that
the game was
Solitaire. In any case, it was definitely "not real."
We've debated Spike's ability to love at some length (to put it
mildly).
This week's ep suggests some interesting things in that regard.
We know
William was capable of a certain type of adolescent love, the
kind that is
expressed in Bloody Awful Poetry. Perhaps Spike simply never matured
beyond
that point. The lack of a soul would certainly hinder that sort
of personal
growth, since he never gets the physio-emotional feedback that
the soul
provides. If we accept that the chip performs the soul's function,
at least
to a limited extent, then perhaps Spike is picking up where William
left
off.
No Greater love -- Sue, 22:36:54 04/24/01 Tue
"Any guesses on the meaning of 'Death is your gift'?"
I am really afraid to guess on this. Doyle comes to mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: No Greater love -- rowan, 01:17:04 04/25/01 Wed
Yes, the whole Jesus Christ parallel comes to mind. Especially
with the
spoilers that a spilling of Dawn's blood initiates an apocalypse
and that a
death can stop it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: No Greater love -- lynnette, 06:30:29 04/25/01
Wed
Perhaps Buffy already has her "gift" - Dawn. The Monks
gave her to Buffy for
protection. We know that Glory wants to use her for some evil,
possibly
ending the world... thereby killing lots of people. I may be off
base, but
just a thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: No Greater love -- Calliope, 06:58:12 04/25/01 Wed
I hate to say it, but I think "Death is your Gift" implies
that it will be a
gift to the slayer when she finally dies, that is the only time
she will be
at peace and free from the evil she fights every day. That's my
theory, but
from the previews of next week, it seems that they're hinting
toward the
slayer being alone...the people she loves leaving or dying, although
it's
Dawn that says something about everyone around her dying. It's
hard to say
what "Death is your gift" will really mean in the end...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Death Wish -- Malandanza, 11:14:23 04/25/01 Wed
***I hate to say it, but I think "Death is your Gift"
implies that it will
be a gift to the slayer when she finally dies, that is the only
time she
will be at peace and free from the evil she fights every day.
That's my
theory, but from the previews of next week, it seems that they're
hinting
toward the slayer being alone...***
I agree. The interpretation that Buffy's gift is dealing out death
to other
creatures is too literal. I think it goes back to the deathwish
that Spike
spoke about: every Slayer becomes weary of the incessant, hopeless
battle
versus evil. The process erodes her soul. When death finally comes
for
Buffy, she will accept it gladly, as her predecessors did before
her, and
will, at last, find the peace denied her in her earthly existence.
Hence, it
is a "gift".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: No Greater love -- JeniLynn, 07:57:15 04/25/01 Wed
I'm more of a lurker then a poster here so I'm not to sure if
anyone will
understand my thoughts. But here goes.
Death is a Gift
Let's looks at this another way. Perhaps the First is talking
about Buffy's
own death.
When she died, a new slayer was called: Kendra
Then Buffy was resuscitated causing the beginning of two slayers
active at
the same time.
Kendra was then killed forcing Faith to be called.
I have a theory that if Buffy were to die, again the two slayers
would
revert to one, but if Faith is killed another slayer will be called.
Perhaps OnM's theory of "7-3-0" holds true that Buffy
and Faith did in fact
make up Dawn. Moreover, TPTB allowed Buffy to be resuscitated
so that she
would become the guardian of the key. Because they knew that Faith
would be
unstable emotionally and perhaps would not protect Dawn with her
life as
Buffy is.
JeniLynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> maybe I'm being too simplistic... -- celticross, 08:40:40
04/25/01 Wed
...but when I heard those words, I thought of Spike's "Death
is your art". I
interepted it as Death is the Slayer's gift, her talent above
all others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: maybe I'm being too simplistic... -- rowan, 09:27:59
04/25/01 Wed
I had a few thoughts when I heard that (especially when it came
after the
forgiveness and love stuff).
1. Buffy protects innocents (humans) from death by slaying. It
is her gift
to humankind.
2. Buffy gives death to vampires. In traditional vampire lore,
slaying is a
gift, since it frees the tortured human soul that has been corrupted
by the
vampire. Here, current thinking (I think) is that the original
soul is lost
in the ether, but maybe in some way the vampire's death does have
some
benefit to the human (or even demon) soul by releasing it.
3. Buffy may have to sacrifice herself and provide salvation to
someone
(Dawn or mankind) through her own personal death.
Dawn the klepto -- Greg, 22:54:18 04/24/01 Tue
Dawn seems to always be stealing something from someone.
Just can't keep her hands off that magic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn the klepto -- Wiccagrrl, 23:28:50 04/24/01 Tue
I don't think that this was for a spell or info- which seemed
to be her
motives the two other times we've seen her steal/break in somewhere
(In
Blood ties she wants to break into the magic shop, and sees Spike
stealing a
couple of little items- even luring him there with the comment
"wanna steal
some stuff?" In Forever she steals the books and potions
from the magic
shop, not to mention the egg from the Gohra demon.)
Maybe she's gotten a bit addicted to the rush? Plus, she saw Spike
knicking
stuff and we know she thinks he's pretty cool.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn the klepto -- Rufus, 00:05:55 04/25/01 Wed
Part of the theft may have to do with Dawn copying what she sees
as cool in
Spike..but I go with the fact that she is still in grief over
her mother.
Who knows what she has planned for the earrings. She may just
like them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Dawn and Purity -- verdantheart, 06:47:13 04/25/01
Wed
I thought that that particular scene was interesting in contrast
with
Glory's comment that Spike obviously could not be the key because
he was
impure (he's certainly not pure evil nowadays ...). So what happens
if Dawn
is becoming less than "pure"? Is this what they might
be getting at?
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Dawn and Purity -- Sue, 06:54:26 04/25/01
Wed
I was thinking of that myself.
What if the key is broken?
I'm sorry. Dawn isn't evil, but she isn't pure either.
She is human.
Actually if I didn't know who the key was, I would have said the
most likely
candidate was Tara.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn and Purity -- Solitude1056,
07:28:06 04/25/01 Wed
I would've said Tara, too - but then again, we weren't counting
on the bumpy
gnomes watching the Bot fighting alongside "her man."
That cracked me up
during the scene with Glory & her minions - I'm actually starting
to like
those poor guys. (Especially their pathetic puppy dog, albeit
bumpy,
expressions when Glory said, "and you do love me, don't you?"
at the end of
the scene.)
But all that aside, I'd guess Tara would be the next obvious choice.
And
while we're at the Dawn & purity thing, I noticed Glory sniffed
Spike and
said he was impure. The first thought I had was: didn't he just
get through,
uh, having sex for like the 37th time since the ep started? There's
a long
standing tradition (and used in several other Joss storylines)
that virgin =
pure. Dawn's 14, so throwing Glory off the track by sending Dawn
out to have
sex just does not seem like a realistic solution to the problem!
;D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn and Purity -- rowan,
09:19:34 04/25/01 Wed
I was wondering if Spike is unpure because he has a demon soul,
because he's
had sex, or because he's killed people. I wonder if Buffy would
pass the
purity test. I'm starting to wonder about this "innocent"
stuff too. What
exactly would Dawn have to do to "unqualify" herself
as the key? Usually in
mythology of this sort, it's sexual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn and Purity
-- Sebastian, 09:56:46 04/25/01 Wed
I was under the assumption that Dawn is becoming less pure because
she is
becoming more human.
She is corruptible - because all humans are flawed by nature.
Notice how Glory and her minions are focusing on the fact that
The Key is a
newly made human.
"The Key is in human form." They're NOT saying "The
Key IS human..."
I think Glory is assuming that the Key, in human form, lacks the
ability to
change and adapt to its role as a human.
Someone who is "pure" would have no selfish motivation
- be it "normal",
"evil" or otherwise. Glory sees The Key as a tabula
rasa. The Key, in her
opinion is a blank slate - its just energy CLOTHED as human -
she doesn't
realize the Key has BECOME human - with every human characteristic.
I think she feels the The Key is incapable of change - which fits
Glory's
thought patterns, since humans are inconsequential to her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Age, Change, and
Glory -- Solitude1056, 10:18:54
04/25/01 Wed
I think she feels the The Key is incapable of change - which fits
Glory's
thought patterns, since humans are inconsequential to her.
Glory's comment was that the Key is "aeons old," or
something to that
extent, which she then amended to say, "well, not as old
as me." If humans
were to live 100 years in a lifespan, that's probably still not
much more
than a three-day space of time in Glory's lifespan - and in that
sense,
seeing us as the equivalent of fruit flies makes sense. So I'm
not surprised
she'd not consider the Key as being "human" - as opposed
to merely looking
human - that would imply the Key suddenly only has two more days
to live, in
Glory's perspective. And perhaps it's not that the Key can't change
in its
current shape, just that the amount of change it might be able
to manage in
its now-short lifetime would be relatively minimal compared to
the lifespan
of a God & what a God could do with so much more time on hir hands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: PURITY defintions
-- FanMan, 19:40:38 04/25/01
Wed
Glory "The KEY could have been anything; a log, a rock anything!"
ONLY sure
about the log part of her examples.
Glory said that Spike couldn't be the KEY because he's impure.
Traditional
conception of purity is a virgin, however that is only part of
it. A virgin
can be impure by having "dirty thoughts", or by immoral
actions. Pure would
be a person who has not sinned in thought or deed, and who has
not been
"tainted" by exposure to "evil" in the world.
The above is the moralist perspective on what PURITY is.I have
never heard
of a log being jugded by moral standards. Oh loggy! , you have
been naughty;
so I will have to spank you! LOL
By the way where would you spank a log?...:):):)
Another definition of purity is percentages; a gold ring is not
100% gold
because it would be too weak. Some gold coins are PURIFIED to
99.99% PURE
gold. This definition does not aply to a log.
What other types of purity are there?
I don't have a dicionary handy or I would look it up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: PURITY
defintions -- Shaglio, 05:44:46
04/26/01 Thu
"Glory "The KEY could have been anything; a log, a rock
anything!" ONLY sure
about the log part of her examples."
I'm pretty sure the second example was a bicycle pump. This stuck
in my head
because I found the complete randomness to be quite comical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn and Purity
-- verdantheart, 11:18:52 04/25/01
Wed
Glory mentioned that "vampire=unpure" so I would assume
that a vampire who
hasn't had sex or killed anyone yet would still be unpure. Probably
has
something to do with the evil/demon soul bit.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn and Purity and sniffing
-- Anthony8, 18:12:07
04/25/01 Wed
Didn't Glory sniff Dawn in "Blood Ties"? I can't remember
whether she made
any comment regarding Dawn's nature following the "sniff."
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn and Purity -- Traveler,
14:06:42 04/25/01 Wed
Glory thinks that the key must be "pure" because Ben
described it as an
innocent. We really don't know if she needs purity for its own
sake.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> One more time! -- Jen C., 16:34:19 04/25/01 Wed
I posted before "Intervention" about the idea that Dawn
seems to be heading
on a path towards corruption. It really seems to me that, when
presented
with several ways to react to a situation, she tends toward the
dark. I
realize that she's a teenager in a difficult (read impossible)
situation,
but her outlook seems to be very negative. When she wants information
- she
spies. When she wants results - she will do anything to get them
(even bring
back the dead). Who knows why she's stealing ( maybe she feels
spiteful? )
So far, nothing has become of any of this, but what will happen
if something
does. Someday, her first impulse will be SO wrong that it will
be impossible
to stop it, and then what!
(OK, I'm getting scared, so I'll stop!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: One more time! -- June, 18:14:20 04/25/01 Wed
All too often Dawn Scares me.
I don't want to come down so hard on her. She is no Faith (well
at least not
yet) but unlike Buffy she has engaged in delinquent behavior.
Again I don't want to say evil, that would be too hard just Dark.
I don't think I have ever though "Buffy Scares me".
Perhaps when she was
going after Faith, but that is the only possible time.
That is what makes Doc so scary. She is so susceptible. But in
the end,
while others like Spike and Doc might be wrong in assisting her,
she is
accountable for her own actions. While others might have participated,
she
only has herself to blame.
Dawn must take some responsibility for her actions. For her sake
and for
everyone else's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: One more time! -- Shaglio, 05:42:39 04/26/01
Thu
"She is no Faith (well at least not yet) but unlike Buffy
she has engaged in
delinquent behavior"
I thought that the reason Buffy originally moved to Sunnydale
was because of
delinquent behavior? Something about burning down her school's
gym. I never
saw the first 3 seasons, but I thought I heard mention of this
event in one
of the first few episodes I saw.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: One more time! -- June, 06:45:33 04/26/01
Thu
That's the irony of it.
Burning down the school's gym was as a result of a vampire attack.
The
school gym burned down during the battle.
So, yes, Buffy was seen as delinquent, but she never really engaged
in
delinquent behavior.
Unlike Dawn who is going around stealing people's stuff for apparently
no
reason.
Dawn seems to have a dark part to her personality that Buffy never
processed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Jeez, just lock the girl away then
-- Solitude1056, 07:18:52
04/26/01 Thu
Buffy's had a run of appearing to be delinquent - the violence,
skipping
school, and various priorities other than listening to authority
figures.
But we've always known that since she's our hero, she's not really
"bad,"
even when she was bad. Dawn, though, seems to be getting all sorts
of
aspersions thrown on her. She's cast as the smarter bookish (if
more naive
socially) of the two sisters, yet her actions in the midst of
some pretty
serious traumas have created two questionable (IMO) responses
in this forum.
One, let's compare her actions & those of a newbie drug addict.
No, Luke,
it's too dangerous! And two, it's not enough to notice the stolen
earrings -
let's mutter as if her next step is selling stolen VCRs on the
Dark Side.
No, Luke, not that.
Quick, someone get these danishes off my head while I get out
of this barely
opaque white bathrobe.
Anyway, my point is that there's enough going on - and soon to
be going on -
that it seems kind of strawmanish (if that's the right word, I'm
not sure it
is) to set Dawn up as being the bad seed at this point. One thing
that
someone noted on another board is that all season the gang's been
collecting
stuff. Before asbestIcanrecall they usually did away with the
leftovers from
earlier fights. Not this season: we've got Dagon's sphere, troll's
hammer,
to start with. Dawn's scared of what will happen to her if Glory
gets to
her, and she's going to try to protect herself. She's also not
stupid, and
may've continued to read up on those books instead of returning
them
immediately. Who's to say she's not continuing the magpie action
for some
reason other than to make the fans gasp in horror that she's headed
straight
for the juvey center & witches anonymous?
(On the other hand, it could be something we won't find out about
until
season 8, in which case I doubt I'll even recall that I made pop
culture
references to Princess Leia.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Jeez, just lock the girl
away then -- Humanitas,
08:21:20 04/26/01 Thu
Two thoughts:
1. We see Dawn's flaws more clearly than Buffy's at least in part
because we
have spent a great deal of time seeing her from Buffy's perspective.
In a
sense, we are all participating in their sibling rivalry.
2. The notion of Dawn having "a darker side to her"
is interesting,
especially given the comparison to Faith. This fits nicely with
OnM's theory
that Dawn's DNA is a blend of Buffy's and Faith's. (Now that I
think about
it, that would also explain her coloring, much darker than either
Buffy or
Joyce.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Could is just be a little
of....Want ...Take...Have??
-- Rufus, 15:23:25 04/26/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Could is just
be a little of....Want
...Take...Have?? -- Sue, 20:33:23 04/26/01 Thu
I like Dawn.
But there seems to be a darkness with her. Never saw that with
Buffy. The
enigma that is Buffy is precisely how warm, caring and fun loving
she is
despite being the slayer.
The first thing she did when she got to Sunnydale was make new
friends.
Buffy has always been about love. It hasn't been easy, but that
love is what
has pulled her through.
There is lots of love within Dawn as well. We can see that. She
is good. But
also there is the dark just waiting to come out at a moment's
weakness. With
Buffy there's a darkness (we all have some) but with her it's
usually
self-doubt or fear of not having love. Causes her to do some
self-destructive things (such as becoming Slutty the Vampire Slayer
in
season 4, or her experience with beer). With Dawn though, it might
be
self-destructive, but it is also destructive to others as well
(not
intentionally, just because she doesn't think).
Some have said that Faith is what Buffy might have been (there
for the Grace
of God goes I), but I really doubt that. Buffy wouldn't ever go
like that.
There is a love within her that would have risen despite what
ever happened.
A caring for others that would have pulled her through.
Buffy had her chance to become "Faith" at the beginning
of Season
Three(perhaps foreshadowing Faith's arrival just two episode later).
As
"Anne" she was on the streets, no friends, no family,
on the run. Yet that
didn't turn her "into Faith". She soon found a friend
in Lily (formerly
known as Chanterelle) whose need she just couldn't turn away from.
Just like
back in season one she couldn't turn away from trying to save
some kids she
barely knew, but hoped to become friends with. Because of Buffy's
strength
of character it gave Lilly (now known as Anne) the strength she
needed.
No, Buffy could have never been Faith. But could Dawn? I don't
know. One
thing Dawn has going for her that Faith didn't is that she has
Buffy as a
sister.
(I like the idea that Dawn is somehow related to Faith as well
as Buffy on
some metaphysical level. Reminds me of the whole Xena, Callisto,
Eve thing).
Perhaps Dawn is Buffy's second chance. She failed in saving Faith
(her
sister in the all Slayers are sisters sense of the word), but
in saving Dawn
in some way she can make up for how she neglected to help Faith.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Could
is just be a little of....Want
...Take...Have?? -- Ida, 20:56:51 04/26/01 Thu
Does Dawn need to be "saved"?
Obviously from Glory, but in some other sense as well?
I don't think Dawn is as bad as everyone is making her out to
be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Could is just be a little of....Want
...Take...Have?? -- Sue, 21:21:07 04/26/01 Thu
Not "evil" but a teenager.
Next year she will be 15. The age Buffy was when she became a
Slayer.
I realize she has been treated like a "baby" like forever.
But still, Dawn
is going to have to grow up real quick.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Could is just be a little of....Want
...Take...Have?? -- Christy, 23:21:29 04/26/01 Thu
Dawn will make it, but it will be tough.
She is a very good person, but it must be hard living next to
a near saint.
Sure Dawn is no Buffy, but who is.
Buffy is a very wonderful person. Sure she has made some mistakes
(Faith)
but other than that has shown great warmth and love to all around
her.
I was thinking about how come Spike is so attracted to her. If
good can be
attracted to evil, why can't evil be attracted to good.
Dawn will find her own way. And it will be tough, and she will
make some
mistakes. But with a sister like Buffy to guide her, she is half
way there.
Buffy's light will shine through Dawn's Darkness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Could is just be a little of....Want
...Take...Have?? -- Darrick, 06:43:16 04/27/01 Fri
I think it's possible we're going a little overboard with Dawn's
supposed
"evil" tendencies. She may be somewhat fast and loose
with the truth, and
she does have a propensity toward larceny, but it has always been
for an
ulterior motive. The earrings may just be a desire to experience
the same
rush she did when plotting to finish the resurrection spell, or
breaking
into the magic shop.
I, for one, don't have any problem at all with what she did in
stealing
Giles' diary. They were all lying to her, and she had a right
to find out
the truth about herself. I would have done the same thing and
never
apologized for it.
The resurrection spell was clearly an act of desperation, I don't
know if
she ever apologized to Giles but I could understand if subsequent
events
took precedence.
Dawn is obviously a metaphor for those turbulent early teenage
years. But as
we all know, in Joss' work, the metaphor is real. There is nothing
about
Dawn's life, until she discovered the truth, that wasn't a lie.
She had no
free will at all and is constantly put in the position of dealing
with
friends who were selected for her, and a set of morals and beliefs
which did
not evolve naturally but were chosen by outsiders.
Is it any wonder Dawn has come to question everything in her life?
Tara said
it would violate the natural order to bring someone back from
the dead. Dawn
had to be wondering what the meant for her, considering she was
created out
of nothing at all. I think it's healthy for Dawn to try to take
her life in
her own hands so she can develop a sense of personal responsiblity.
Of
course, the question is what will be the consequences to those
around her?
There seem to be at least 4 seperate groups, and counting, who
want to use
her in some way. Assuming she lives to be an adult, I suspect
she'll need
some of the skills she learned with Spike and others to stay alive.
Since at
least two of the groups, assuming some monks survived, seem to
be human,
Dawn may even have to learn to kill, to defend herself. That's
not evil,
it's just survival.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Could is just
be a little of....Want
...Take...Have?? -- OnM, 21:09:37 04/27/01 Fri
Dawn is still a 'work in progress'. Her destiny as part of the
'Slayer
Trinity' will be to combine the positive elements of Buffy and
Faith and
reject the negative aspects. This isn't going to happen all at
once. It took
Buffy five years of difficult life experience to get where she
is today--
the prior Slayers didn't just hand over all they learned to her
like some
mind-meld, they presented a type of metaphysical DNA that *predisposes
her*
to *develop* into one of the Three. The same is true of Faith
(who's had a
very different path to enlightenment, and in fact is still working
on it)
and it will be no different with Dawn when she is Called.
Keeping with the *Dune* analogies, Paul Atredes wasn't born as
a
full-fledged Kwisatz Haderach, he had to develop into one thru
a long
process of practical experience and spiritual enlightenment (aided
by the
'Spice' no less (~grin~)-- see this week's CM/Week). Dawn will
also need
quite awhile to become what she is destined to be.
As to the earring pinch, my suspicion is that they are going to
be part of a
spell she is thinking about casting. She may be fully aware that
taking the
earrings is technically wrong, but sees some greater purpose,
and so, just
like Willow, goes ahead with it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> perhaps
"want to protect, take to magick, have
safe"? -- Solitude1056, 22:03:09 04/27/01 Fri
I don't usually notice jewelry on a character, and I don't know
if those
earrings have ever been mentioned before. But the thought I had
- given
Dawn's recurrent interest in witchcraft - was whether these were
favorite
earrings of Anya's. As I've noted before, this season has seemed
to have a
lot of collecting going on, and I'm wondering if Dawn is continuing
this
trend - but perhaps in this frame, is doing so for defensive instead
of
offensive reasons. (And no, I don't mean "offensive"
as in bad, but as in
attacking.)
There's already been mention in previous episodes of using someone's
personal items in magick. Remember Tara asking Willow if she had
anything of
value to Buffy? In western magickal traditions, a person's belongings
carries the "scent" of the person, in a way. Usually
it's a step removed
from the 5 primary forms (blood, skin, finger/toe-nails, hair,
and, uh, sex
stuff *grin*), but it's better than nothing if one is planning
on doing
anything that will impact the person/target in some way. I feel
relatively
safe in suggesting such correlations since so far Joss seems to
have kept
within touching distance of the modern myths & expectations of
"how magick
works."
That's why I was (and am) dubious about Dawn becoming a klepto
bad girl in
the infamous Faith style. My jury's still out, since I'm waiting
to see if
she's filching personal items from anyone else. I wouldn't be
surprised,
given her magickal interests (and the plethora of information
between
Giles', Tara's, & Willow's libraries), if she's not trying to
come up with a
protection of her own for those around her. Based on the spoilers,
it
doesn't look like it'd work - the Scoobies seem to be closer to
toast soon
than ever before - but Dawn seems like the kind of girl to try,
anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Could
it just be a little of....Want
...Take...Have?? -- Rufus, 22:04:10 04/27/01 Fri
I don't see what Dawn is doing as much more than the trauma of
her mothers
death. She sees the earrings and decides for whatever reason she
wants them.
It either is just simple Want..Take...have or who knows at this
point? It
would be interesting if all Slayers shared DNA...all slayers remotely
related...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn the klepto -- Dean, 23:45:23 04/26/01 Thu
Dawn has been going through some tough times.
But it still doesn't justify her stealing things from her friends.
Don't
want to be hard on her, but I still fear where it may lead.
When Buffy finds out, she shouldn't get mad, but should ask one
question-
Why?
The wrong Summers got the intervention. Dawn is the one who needs
intervention. Hopefully the Scoobies will recognize that before
it's too
late.
Today it's ear-rings. Next shop-liffing? If Dawn ever gets caught
it just
would kill Buffy. To have her sister locked in juvie.
I have to agree with those who sense a darkness within Dawn's
personality to
the extent we never saw with Buffy. I think Dawn's good side is
much
stronger, but watch out when the dark is released.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cordelia + Angel=? -- AngelEyes, 08:43:16 04/25/01 Wed
Has anyone else been noticing some hints of a relationship between
Angel and
Cordelia?
He seems crushed that she doesn't consider him a friend anymore.
Then, he
buys her a lot of clothes that look expensive.
She tells him he has a great taste, kisses him and they do a dance
together.
He buys a lot of food because he doesn't know what she likes but
doesn't
want to upset her by asking her. She says "I love you"
and he grins!
Cordelia tells him that he should smile more often.
Then in the preview for next week, he offers to rip a guy's head
off for
treating her like a sex object (I assume).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Cordelia + Angel=? -- Solitude1056, 08:52:56 04/25/01
Wed
Their relationship makes more sense if you're male and have a
attractive
younger sister, or are female & have a rather over-protective
big brother.
Best friends can go into that brother-sister mode, too, even without
the
blood kinship. Besides, Angel's not Cordy's type (whatever that
is), she's
seen his bad sides as well as good, and Cordy knows she's not
Angel's type.
For starters, she's not blonde! :) Personally, I really enjoy
their
interaction - he's goofier with her and she's gentler around him.
So many
shows these days think chemistry=sex, and here's one great example
where
chemistry=sib-love (and rivalry).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I always got Big Bro/Little Sis vibe from those two -- Wiccagrrl,
08:55:36 04/25/01 Wed
I mean, if nothing else, after seeing how things went with Buffy
and even
with Darla, I'm betting Cordy's smart enough not to be thinking
"Now he's
got serious boyfriend potential." ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I always got Big Bro/Little Sis vibe from those
two -- rowan,
09:16:04 04/25/01 Wed
I guess I thought that Angel was not planning to pursue a romantic
(which
would lead to sexual) relationship with anyone. Didn't he break
up with
Buffy for two reasons: first, he's undead and it wouldn't be fair
to have a
relationship with a mortal human and second, he can't have sex
in a loving
relationship without losing his soul and becoming Angelus. So
I can't see
the point in his pursuing anything with Cordelia, unless it would
be an
unrequited love.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I always got Big Bro/Little Sis vibe from
those two -- Metron,
11:42:33 04/26/01 Thu
he can't have sex in a loving relationship without losing his
soul and
becoming Angelus. -rowen
You know Rowen, I'm not quite sure it's that easy. According to
the gypsies,
it's a 'moment of true happiness'...or was that 'contentment'?
Darnit, I
can't remember it exactly right now. But anyway, I think that
what happened
with Buffy was because their having sex was a turning point, an
affirmation,
of their love. Buffy is really his one true love. I don't think
that 'sex'
with anyone else will have the same effect on him.
I think that if he would have been able to redeem Darla's soul,
that might
also have been one of those "moments", can't say for
certain, only a theory.
After Buffy, I don't think he'll ever love the same way again,
so I believe
that so long as he steers clear of that kind of relationship with
Buffy,
he's home free on that front.
But there's more then one way to skin a cat, ya know. :>
Met
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I tend to agree, but I also think it's
not a theory ya wanna put
to the test. -- Wiccagrrl, 18:37:38 04/27/01 Fri
obviously, having sex with Darla didn't give him that one moment
of true
happiness. And it's possible that sex with anyone else wouldn't,
either.
Heck, a case could even be made that having sex with Buffy again
wouldn't
necessarilly have the same effect that that first time together
did
(although that's less likely IMO). But the consequences are rather
serious
if he's wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I always got Big Bro/Little Sis vibe from those
two -- Sebastian,
09:45:02 04/25/01 Wed
"I mean, if nothing else, after seeing how things went with
Buffy and even
with Darla, I'm betting Cordy's smart enough not to be thinking
'Now he's
got serious boyfriend potential.'"
That gave me a really GOOD laugh for the really BAD day I'm having
at work.
;-)
But its true. Cordelia, despite her vanity and occasional shallowness
(or
maybe because of) is a very pragmatic person. I doubt she would
be foolish
enough to put herself in that sort of situation.
And Angel clearly cares for Cordelia more as a sister rather than
a
potential girlfriend. His reactions to her intial refusal of him
seemed more
"hurt" than "heartbroken." Although I'm sure
he felt both - the dynamics of
both emotions would have been different if he saw her as a "more
than...."
This is totally off topic - but even though I know Charisma Carpenter
is
techincally older than the character she plays - but it also rather
seems
like Cordelia is written as an older character as well now.
In comparion to Buffy and the Scoobies - who are all roughly 20
years old -
Cordelia is presented as someone a little older (like between
23-25) -
although in the Buffy/Angelverse she is the same age.
Although I'm sure being impregnated with a demon seed (not once,
but TWICE)
as well as having painful psychic visions would age ANYone....
;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ages of actors -- Vickie, 10:25:12 04/25/01
Wed
This is trivia, but SMG is 24 (on April 14, I think).
Her engagement was announced at her BD party. I don't
know the ages of any of the others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Ages of actors -- purplegrrl, 11:18:53
04/25/01 Wed
I don't know all of them, but here's a few:
David Boreanaz - 30
Charisma Carpenter - 30-31
Allison Hannigan - about 25
Anthony Stewart Head - early 40s
James Marsters - late 20s?
Michelle Trachtenberg - 15 (she just had a birthday)
Nicholas Brendon - late 20s
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> hey purplegrrl -- Cern, 14:28:29
04/25/01 Wed
This is WAY off topic, but everytime I see your screenname, I
can't help
thinking of that Trance Gemini character from ANDROMEDA
Thats all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: hey purplegrrl - OT --
purplegrrl, 10:18:01 04/26/01
Thu
LOL!
Hadn't thought of that connection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ages of actors -- verdantheart,
10:15:27 04/26/01 Thu
The Internet Movie Database reports that James Marsters will be
32 on August
20. So early 30s for him.
By the way, if you like movies, you can find a lot of good info
at this
site.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Cordelia + Angel=? -- VanMoodySenior, 13:12:47 04/26/01
Thu
For one thing, she says he has "gay man" tastes in clothes.
I doubt that is
the seed of a relationship. When she kissed him he smiled, and
when she said
she loved him he smiled. These were the biggest smiles I have
seen from
Angel. I think they have the relationship of a brother and sister.
In the
promo for next week, Angel is angry she is being used by some
hollywood
director. It reminded me of the time I yelled at a guy for whistling
at my
sister.
Giles in the desert (Intervention episode0 -- John, 10:24:09 04/25/01
Wed
Was he speaking Swahili? If so what did he say (in either Swahili
or
English)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Yep, check it out -- Masquerade, 10:43:02 04/25/01 Wed
http://www.mustreadtv.com/buffyscripts
GILES
(Swahili)
...nilivyoahidi kulinda na
kuongoza, nakupokeza.
Mpeleke afike mahali pa
usalama na ujuzi. Mpe
anavyohitaji. Mwonyeshe njia
(English)
...that which I am pledged
to guard and guide, I
hand over to you. Lead her
to a place of safety and
learning. Give her that
which she needs. Show
her the path...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Plagarism??? Giles in the desert (Intervention episode)
-- John, 13:05:03
04/25/01 Wed
I found out from the reply that Giles was speaking Swahili.
I tried using an online dictionary to check the translation.
I think there may be a bit of plagarism here. The very first line
"nilivyoahidi kulinda na kuongoza"
is taken directly from The Kamusi Project: Internet Living Swahili
Dictionary, http://www.cis.yale.edu/swahili/
The phrase is given on the Kamusi Project as an example of use
of the verb
"kulinda" which means to guard.
Likewise the phrase "Mpeleke afike mahali pa usalama na ujuzi"
is taken word
for word from the Kamusi Project. It is given as an example of
a use of
mpeleke. (I could almost swear that Giles actually said "ucehzi"
rather than
"ujuzi," but are they that clever?)
Of course the phrases in on the Kamusi Project web site may have
been taken
from some literature written in Swahili. The presense of "mpeleke"
on the
Kamusi site is a bit strange. They don't ususally have imperatives
with
object prefixes embedded.
And would you believe that "mpe anavyohitaji" and "mwonyeshe
njia " also
appear verbatim on the Kamusi Project Website.
I don't believe in that many coincidences.
Spike and LORD OF THE RINGS -- Cern, 14:44:25 04/25/01 Wed
I'm about halfway through RETURN OF THE KING, and was thinking
of Gollum.
How even though he was a miserable little prick, and he should
have been
killed a dozen times over, he ended up saving the day.
and then I started thinking of Spike...
Any thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike and LORD OF THE RINGS -- rowan, 15:08:27 04/25/01
Wed
I don't know. IMO, I think Peter Pettigrew in Harry Potter is
more of a
parallel to Gollum. When I think of Spike and LOTR, I think: "All
that is
gold does not glitter, nor all those who wander are lost..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> LotR/BtVS (no BtVS spoilers, some spec / LotR spoilers)
(long) --
Tornado, 10:00:04 04/27/01 Fri
My brother and I were discussing the LotR references in "Intervention"
and
wondering if there had been more we missed earlier in the season.
I haven't
looked back, but I'd like to if I can make time.
There are a lot of similarities between the characters and stories
of BtVS
and LotR. They aren't parallel stories, but since they're both
epics,
there's bound to be some similarity. Some of this may be unintentional,
but
it's been fun to look at. Of course, it's possible Jane Espenson
just read
LotR and put these lines in "Intervention" for fun.
This is what we came up with yesterday and this morning. If you
notice two
writing styles, it's because I directly quoted from his email.
And if you're
a LotR fanatic, feel free to correct any mistakes. *grin*
First, the references, then the similar characters..
(quotes from mustreadtv.com/buffyscripts)
JINX: But, Your Unholiness, we observed the Slayer. She protected
this one
above all others. She treated him as precious.
GLORY: Really? Precious?
She comes over to Spike.
GLORY: Let's take a peek at you, "Precious."
(later)
XANDER: The guys that work for Glory? You said they were kinda
like Hobbits
with leprosy? Well, this was a whole flock of Hobbits and they
grabbed
Spike. I think they're taking him to Glory.
(later)
GLORY: I have a riddle for you, Precious.
Gollum called the One Ring his Precious, and eventually Bilbo
did, too.
Glory was thinking Spike might be the Key at that point. So the
Key equates
to the One Ring (powerful and will make the owner supremely powerful).
Bilbo and Gollum played a game of riddles when Bilbo took the
ring from him.
Now, a crash course in Middle Earth (where LotR takes place) and
what
characters and situations map the to the Buffyverse.
The One Ring is powerful and makes its owner supremely powerful.
It was
created by evil, though, so it corrupts. The Key is neutral, but
it's a
similar idea.
It was presumed lost for centuries, and it providentially found
its way to a
person strong enough to take on the responsibility of keeping/destroying
it.
That was Frodo, of the hobbits -- a gentle, fun-loving race that
turned out
to have surprising strength and fortitude of spirit, not unlike
the Scooby
Gang.
Sauron is the Big Bad of Middle Earth. He wants the One Ring so
he can rule
the world. When he had it before, he was nearly invincible, but
it was taken
away from him. Sound familiar? Glory.
Sauron took little notice of the hobbits until he realized that
they had the
One Ring. At that point, (through his lackeys) he began to torment
them and
take away everything they held dear (the Scouring of the Shire,
where the
hobbits lived). Similarly, Glory was quite dismissive of humans
and even the
Slayer herself before she realized that they had what she wanted.
If the
hints in the previews are accurate, the SG may begin to suffer
greatly at
the hands of Glory.
Frodo had been given the Ring to protect. Eventually, however,
he's supposed
to destroy it. Protector of the Key? Buffy. We don't yet know
what she'll
ultimately have to do with it.
Frodo reluctantly accepted the onus of bearing the Ring -- he
was chosen to
do so by a group of wise councilors (the Council of Elrond), but
he himself
had to decide to take on the responsibility. Buffy reluctantly
accepted
guarding the key in "No Place Like Home" and was advised
by her own group of
(wise?) councilors (the Council of Watchers) in "Checkpoint."
And just like
Frodo, Buffy has to take charge.
Bilbo was Frodo's uncle and was the Ring Bearer before Frodo.
He kept it as
long as he could without revealing its location to Sauron. The
Monks kept
the Key before sending it to Buffy as Glory beat down their door.
Frodo had his own Scooby Gang, known as the Fellowship of the
Ring. They
were a diverse bunch -- two humans, an elf, a dwarf, three other
hobbits,
and a wizard. Buffy's SG is two witches, two other humans, an
ex-demon, and
(peripherally) a chipped vampire. It's also included a werewolf
and other
humans.
Samwise is a young, inexperienced hobbit and Frodo's best friend.
He starts
as somewhat of a bumbler but grows much more mature through the
trials of
the journey. Xander fits that role.
When members of the Council of Elrond advise against Sam being
part of the
Fellowship, Frodo also insists that Sam go along. Buffy does something
similar in "Checkpoint":
PHILLIP (looking at Xander): The boy? No power there.
BUFFY: "The Boy"s clocked more field time than all of
you combined. He's
part
of the unit.
Gollum was once the presumably good-hearted hobbit Smeagol. He
found the
ring and became corrupted by it. Eventually he joined up with
Frodo and Sam
in a ploy to get the ring back, but he wound up protecting them.
He suffered
from a split personality, struggling between good and evil. All
threads lead
to Spike. (Let's just hope he doesn't bite off any fingers.)
Gandalf is a wizard. He knows a lot and tends to show up when
needed and
disappear just as quickly. He's Sauron's nemesis and equal in
power, but he
doesn't show his powers unless pressed to. He's tempted by the
power of Ring
and wants to hide it from the Enemy. Ben fits here. Gandalf seems
to die at
one point but comes back later, even more powerful. Ben might
do something
like that.
Legolas and Gimli, the elf and the dwarf, often bicker but eventually
become
good friends. Although not everything about the characters fits,
that part
could fit Willow and Anya.
Strider is one of the humans, a shady, suspect man who is clearly
hiding
something. He turns out to be Aragorn, descendant of the mighty
kings of old
and heir to the throne. If Tara turns out to be more than she
seems, this
would fit.
Sauron had perverted other species to create orcs, his minions.
Glory's got
demon minions of her own (Jinx, Murk, and the others).
Saruman worked for Sauron and found out where the Ring was but
was stopped
before he could tell Sauron. Glory's Key-sniffing snake.
Consider also that if the rumors are true, there may be another
parallel.
Everyone and his dog (*wink* -- Oz, anyone?) shows up at the end
of LotR, to
join in the fight against evil at Minas Tirith -- after a costly
victory,
they proceed to the gates of the land of evil, where they prepare
for an
apocalyptic battle....
he's a person -- Solitude1056, 21:10:34 04/25/01 Wed
Glory's comment about Ben raised my eyebrows, when she was speaking
distractedly about Ben stabbing Dreg: "he's a person, he's
not supposed to
do that." Perhaps Ben has already lost his Hell-God powers
(and become
human), and somehow Glory's held onto hers?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: he's a person -- Rufus, 22:19:06 04/25/01 Wed
Yes that was interesting along with the information that Glory
is worried
about Ben getting more powerful and she is losing control of him.
The thing
that made me wonder was when she said:
Glory: "I'm a God in exile. Far from the Hellfires of Home
and sharing my
body with an enemy that stabs my boys in their fleshy little stomachs?"
So I have to think that as they are hiding Jinx from Ben they
are afraid of
Ben doing a little Intervention of his own and ruin his sisters
going home
party. By the way why is Glory in exile? Who sent her there? Who
has the
power to bannish a god?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: he's a person -- VanMoodySenior, 13:15:27 04/26/01
Thu
By the way why is Glory in exile? Who sent her there? Who has
the power to
bannish a god?
It could be a pantheon of gods in her dimension. Perhaps she did
something
wrong there and was sent to our reality. It will be great to see
this story
unfold. VMS
Did you ever had to knock on wood? -- Liz, 23:49:45 04/25/01 Wed
I was listening to this song today, and after all that Buffy has
been
through this season somehow I just thought it might be appropriate
here.
Hope you don't mind.
The Impression That I Get
Have you ever been close to tragedy
Or been close to folks who have
Have you ever felt a pain so powerful
So heavy you collapse
I've never had to knock on wood
But I know someone who has
Which makes me wonder if I could
It makes me wonder if
I've never had to knock on wood
And I'm glad I haven't yet
Because I'm sure it isn't good
That's the impression that I get
Have you ever had the odds stacked up so high
You need a strength most don't possess
Or has it ever come down to do or die
You've got to rise above the rest
I've never had to knock on wood
But I know someone who has
Which makes me wonder if I could
It makes me wonder if
I've never had to knock on wood
And I'm glad I haven't yet
Because I'm sure it isn't good
That's the impression that I get
I'm not a coward
I've just never been tested
I'd like to think that if I was
I would pass
Look at the tested and think there but for the grace go
I might be a coward
I'm afraid of what I might find out
I've never had to knock on wood
But I know someone who has
Which makes me wonder if I could
It makes me wonder if
I've never had to knock on wood
And I'm glad I haven't yet
Because I'm sure it isn't good
That's the impression that I get
- The Mighty Mighty Bosstones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Did you ever had to knock on wood? -- Shaglio, 06:19:14
04/26/01 Thu
I was going to post this a while ago when somebody suggested listing
the
lyris to songs that reminded us of Buffyverse situations. This
one always
reminds me of Spike, and since he sort of reminds me of Billy
Idol (with the
accent and spiked, bleched blond hair), I just couldn't resist
posting it:
INTO THE NIGHT
words and music by: Billy Idol/Tony Iommi/
Bob Marlette, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you say you wanna live forever
And you've got all the time to kill
And you're living in the dark forever
In your own little private hell
I wanna rule this world
I wanna walk the night
I wanna bleed this girl
Wanna shake it all night till the morning light
I wanna lead this world
I wanna wake the dead
And all the undead souls who walk the night
Are you sure you're so clean and pure
As you lie here in front of me now
And you're tempting the lord of darkness
As you see what's forbidden to see
I wanna rule this world
I wanna walk the night
I wanna bleed this girl
Wanna do it all night till the morning light
I wanna rule this world
I'm gonna wake the dead
And all the undead souls who walk the night
Oh yeah you know it's true
Yeah you yeah
When people say I'm from the underworld
Every kind of sin you best belive it girl
You come on over here from the other side
Come back to hell it's warm inside
I sleep through the day coz I'm into the night
I wanna through the day coz I live through the night
I sleep through the day coz I'm into the night
I wanna through the day coz I live through the night
Yeah you
I wanna rule this world, yeah
I'm gonna walk the night
I wanna rule this world
I wanna rule this night
And all the undead souls I wanna wake the dead
I wanna get you girl
I'm gonna rule this world
It's gonna be alright
Yeah
Just be Buffy -- Rufus, 00:11:08 04/26/01 Thu
I've watched Intervention a few times now and some things about
the Buffybot
have me wondering. I know the sex scenes in the show have alot
of people
grossed out and I agree that the Buffybot should have been delivered
in a
brown paper wrapper, but there's more here than just a sex toy.
When Spike was told to leave Buffy alone for the most part he
did and came
to a solution that made kinda wierd sense, make a replacement.
Being cooked
up in Warrens kitchen, Spike should have expected problems. First
all the
sex, well, that I expected, but the lonliness when the bot asked
if she
should repeat the program wasn't.
Buffybot: "Spike! I can't help myself! I love you!"
Spike: "You're mine, Buffy"
Buffybot: "Should I start this program over?"
Spike: "Shhhh. No programs. Don't use that word. Just be
Buffy."
Spike found out just like Warren did that he could make a machine
to love
him....but he couldn't love it back...he was still alone.
The biggest surprise for me was the fact of the robot programing.
I would
have expected Spike to want a Buffy that had evil tendancies...but
he
didn't, he wanted a copy of the real thing, just a hell of alot
more
compliant. The Buffybot was very benign. She helped the SG when
the time
came, even leaving Spike to help Giles. That from an evil guy
surprised me.
If he was so into evil you would have thought he would have made
a weapon of
revenge. Instead he pretty much made the Buffy he sees her. She
made only
hostile actions against the vampires and minions. So what is going
on. Why
make just a fancy sex toy. It was clear in the script that the
Buffybot was
to be an in crypt accessory only. So what does Spike want? He
clearly
doesn't want to change Buffy the person...he didn't have programed
in evil
intent. The fact that he was so ashamed that Buffy found out about
the copy
was evident in the script and Spikes face. I still have to ask
why not
create a companion in your own evil image? If you are evil why
not make a
weapon and set her against the SG? I have to wonder if the bot
was just like
a sexual heating pad for Spike, ease the pain of lonliness...if
so what is
happening to the big bad?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Just be Buffy (some spoilers) -- verdantheart, 06:57:51
04/26/01 Thu
He's in love.
He doesn't want to change his beloved. He's seeing himself through
the eyes
of this beloved (from which comes the shame and the efforts toward
good
actions). He's motivated to protect his beloved (joining in her
fights
earlier, resisting torture in "Intervention").
When Buffy told him to get lost and the SG pretty much told him
the same
thing, his response was to put in an order for a Buffybot. To
please him,
the Buffybot had to be like Buffy herself in many ways. Certainly
he could
have ordered a bot in Buffy's likeness that would have been evil,
but then
he could not have pretended that it was Buffy. I see the Buffybot
as an
extension of the manniquin/shrine; a way of working out his obsessions
in a
private setting--obsessions that have a strong sexual element
but are
clearly more than that. The Buffybot was sort of an elaborate
action toy. He
wanted to be able to have sex with it, but also fight with it.
Most
importantly, he wanted to be able to pretend that Buffy cared
for him. In a
way, the bot's response was much like his; I know I should kill
you, but I
can't. He couldn't have that with an evil Buffybot. I agree; the
sexual
heating pad analogy was a good one, but I believe he was not only
easing
sexual drives (strong though they seem to be in Spike) but lonliness,
specifically lonliness for Buffy.
In a way, it's very sad. The SG told him to move on, but he can't
(reminds
me of "Missing You"). It seems that he is trying to
stay out of Buffy's way.
I imagine that this is hard on him. There hasn't been any mention
of his
feelings toward Buffy on Joyce's death, but my belief is his inclination
would be to want to comfort her as Angel did; his feelings would
be jealousy
and pain that he could not provide that comfort (witness his actions
in
"Fool for Love").
So the big bad, IMHO, is becoming compromised by love. He knows
shame,
because he sees himself through Buffy's eyes. He still has evil
impulses,
but he is becoming more and more conflicted. He couldn't even
act in his own
defense under torture.
I can see him possibly acting with great evil under the right
circumstances,
with despiration, perhaps. However, as long as he continues to
look at
himself through Buffy's eyes, he is going to continue to act in
non-vampirish ways. And, no doubt, continue to suffer.
Love is pain.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just be Buffy (some spoilers) -- Wiccagrrl, 08:25:34
04/26/01 Thu
I've heard people speculating (and I think it may be true) that
the kiss at
the end of Intervention may actually give some kind of closure
to Spike's
obsession. And I think that may be true. As much as anything,
I think Spike
wanted an acknowledgement of the changes he's been going through,
the
feelings he's been having. The embarassment of having Buffy find
out about
the bot, but then the kiss and the acknowledgement that what he
did for
Buffy and Dawn *was* real, may actually help him put the more
obsessive
behavior behind him, and interact with Buffy and the gang in a
healthier
way. And it is sort of full circle from FFL, when Spike showed
uncharacteristic compassion for Buffy. In this ep, Buffy (the
whole SG,
really) was able to feel/show some compassion towards Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Just be Buffy (some spoilers) -- verdantheart,
09:57:50
04/26/01 Thu
Yes, especially Xander's reaction. His response over Spike's being
thrashed
and "having his best toy taken away" was an interesting
change.
It will be interesting to see whether this opening up on the part
of Buffy
and the SG will elicit more "normal" behavior from Spike
(normal vampire or
normal human?).
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Just be Buffy (some spoilers) -- Metron,
11:22:35 04/26/01
Thu
You know, I like Spike, I really do. I liked him when he was the
big bad,
and I like him even more now that he's become a dynamic, complex
character.
I dare say, I may even like him more then I like Angel (the character),
or
perhaps I should say, I'm rooting for him more, since Angel's
reward of
'redemtion' is pretty much a given, while it's much less clear
what will
become of poor ole Spike.
That being said, that last scene where the real Buffy took the
place of the
BuffyBot had me looking closely at Spike's behavior when he disclosed
his
reasons for not telling Glory about they key.
Now, I don't exactly know how finely tuned to living beings a
vampire in the
buffy universe is, but I've grown accustomed to vampires being
able to
'scent' out the living. If the same can be said in the buffyverse,
wouldn't
Spike have known that it was the real deal that he was interacting
with, and
not the Buffybot? And if that's the case, couldn't his admission
to her
about his reasons for not telling Glory been to get 'in' with
Buffy, rather
then what it seemed?
I would much rather it have been a real, spontaneous admission
of what's in
his heart, but I just can't shake the uneasiness that the old
Big Bad is
still in there, manipulating as only he can.
I hope Spike never loses that chip, I really do.
Met
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Just be Buffy (some spoilers)
-- Lynn, 12:31:30 04/26/01
Thu
I don't even think Spike is that good an actor. And while I agree,
one would
think he would have noticed Buffy's humaness, we can also say
that as he was
"really thrashed", as Xander said, his senses were not
working too well. The
look on his face when he realized it was the real Buffy kissing
him, the
feeling of shame that came over him, and his reaction to her thank
you were
all genuine, as well as his little speech about be willing to
die rather
than see Buffy in pain. We know that's true, because he was ready
to do it,
if he could not escape. I'm willing to cut him some slack for
the moment.
Having said that, I'm with you, I love this new gray Spike, and
I'm rooting
for him, he needs all the help he can get.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just be Buffy (some spoilers)
-- rowan, 21:13:46
04/26/01 Thu
I say, if Buffy doesn't want him next season, let's find a nice
girl for him
so that he can settle down. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just be Buffy (some spoilers)
-- Dean, 23:55:16
04/26/01 Thu
I thought it was interesting that he did it for Buffy, but not
for Dawn.
He couldn't care less about Dawn dying, albeit for the fact it
would hurt
Buffy too much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just be Buffy (some
spoilers) -- verdantheart,
06:21:48 04/27/01 Fri
I think he's already shown that he cares for Dawn, he just cares
more for
Buffy. Perhaps he wouldn't lay down his life for Dawn except for
his
feelings for Buffy, but he did go back into that cave to protect
her from
the Ghora.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just be Buffy
(some spoilers) -- Lynn, 08:28:58
04/27/01 Fri
I agree, I think the emotional connection to Buffy is deeper,
but the more
he gets to know Dawn the more he likes her, and is protective
of her.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Just be Buffy (some spoilers)
-- rowan, 21:12:32 04/26/01
Thu
But didn't you think that expression on his face during the kiss
was his
realization that it was Buffy? Plus, with all those injuries,
wouldn't that
affect his judgement? And he was so vehement about the whole 'don't
tell
Glory bit.' It just felt very real to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just be Buffy (some spoilers)
-- Metron, 10:04:19
04/27/01 Fri
But didn't you think that expression on his face during the kiss
was his
realization that it was Buffy?
Yes ;)
Plus, with all those injuries, wouldn't that affect his judgement?
Absolutely!
And he was so vehement about the whole 'don't tell Glory bit.'
It just felt
very real to me.
Yes, I'll admit that it did feel real to me, at that moment. It
was just on
reflection that I started to get suspicious, but that's just me.
I'll go
with my first initial instinct and say, "Yes, that was real.
Worship it!"
and anxiously await the next episode. :)
Met
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just be Buffy (some
spoilers) -- rowan, 17:59:00
04/27/01 Fri
Well, I'm all for worshipping Spike!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just be Buffy (some spoilers) -- rowan, 21:09:56
04/26/01 Thu
Did you notice the cemetary slaying scene and the look on Spike's
face when
BuffyBot threw the stake to him? I think he was as happy with
that teamwork
as he was with the sex.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Just be Buffy -- rowan, 21:08:39 04/26/01 Thu
"I would have expected Spike to want a Buffy that had evil
tendancies...but
he didn't, he wanted a copy of the real thing, just a hell of
alot more
compliant."
Yes, or maybe not more compliant, but just one that loved him.
After all,
the BuffyBot did show some surprising free will (leaving the crypt
after
Spike told her not to, going slaying when Spike was asleep, leaving
Spike
unconscious to go help Giles, agreeing to help Buffy stake Spike,
etc.).
Although the BuffyBot was sweet in a simple way, Spike didn't
just make her
his slave -- he just set her up as if his dearest wish was true
-- Buffy
loved him.
Also, Spike did a couple of things in the sex scenes that also
suggested to
me that he was trying to give the BuffyBot pleasure as well as
receive it
(no need to review gory details here, I hope!).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just be Buffy and I will be the Big Bad -- Vulpes,
19:25:10
04/29/01 Sun
Yes I think vampires can tell the real thing from the BuffyBot.
However, considering the pain Spike was in, and if vampires believe
what
they assume to see, just like humans, he must have assumed it
was the Bot.
Glies relationships to the others (discuss) -- Jack_McCoy, 13:22:39
04/26/01
Thu
Just occured to me that the majority of Giles' social life has
centered
around people half his age since the series again. Except for
the odd
girlfriend and Joyce, he spends most of his time hanging out with
the rest
of the Scobies. How do you think he feels about them? Does he
see himself as
a friend? Equal? Father figure? Mentor? All of the above?
What are your opinions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Glies relationships to the others (discuss) -- Mav,
14:23:00 04/26/01
Thu
I think Giles sort of acts as a mentor/father, he's there to instruct
them
and to help them, but not to protect them. He definately treats
them as
equals, more now than in the beginning I think, whenever he talks
to any of
them he never looks down on them, and treats them with respect
(not
including the odd comedy moment with Anya or Xander).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Glies relationships to the others (discuss) --
Humanitas, 15:30:23
04/26/01 Thu
He definitely does protect Buffy, though. So much so that he got
fired for
it. He clearly looks at her as more than a student, although she
is that. He
treats her as a father, albiet the father of a grown-up child.
She clearly
looks to him to fill that role, as well. When Joyce died, it was
to Giles
that Buffy turned first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Glies relationships to the others (discuss)
-- FanMan, 16:50:56
04/26/01 Thu
I think that Giles should have had a relationship with Joyce.
Buffy was
being immature when she was wierded out by the thought of Joyce
being
sexual. Giles is much more of a father than Buffy's biological
father. He
cares about Buffy as a mentor/watcher, however he also loves her
the way a
protective parent would. Buffy is like a cop: cops put thier lives
on the
line every day, soldiers generally do a mission then come home
where it's
safe. The danger Buffy faces is different from cops in degree
only. Her duty
as The Slayer is important, so Giles knows he can't protect her
all the
time. When a parent of a soldier, policeman, or fireman hears
about someone
being killed by work hazards they will immidiately think about
their child.
Every time there is a new menace in Sdayle Giles probably worries
"Is
tonight the night my litle girl will die"
BOO HOO! Poor Giles...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Glies relationships to the others
(discuss) -- Lachelle,
19:48:33 04/26/01 Thu
Giles is everything to Buffy and the Scooby Gang. Especially to
Buffy. He
really is like her father, mentor, protecter, confidant, protector,
and
friend. I think the others look up to him as a positive adult
role model. I
don't think Buffy and/or the gang would have survived this long
without
Giles. About the Buffy and her mothers sex life. I agree the joke
about
Buffy being disgusted at the thought of "old people"
having sex was way
overdone and stupid-(She did have sex with a 247 year old vampire).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Glies relationships to the others
(discuss) --
Solitude1056, 20:05:47 04/26/01 Thu
But it's a little different when it's your mother! Especially
when the man
in question is, perhaps to some extent, Buffy's own mentor. There's
got to
be a bit of not-wanting-to-share in there, too. That may seem
selfish but
it's human; Willow expressed it more openly when she told Tara
why she
didn't want to jump right away at introducing Tara to the gang.
Not to mention the discomfort with Giles & Joyce getting together
may have
been a holdover from when Joyce was ignorant of Buffy's Slayer
status. The
two meeting up would leave Buffy without the independence she'd
enjoyed
previously - note that when Joyce & Giles did finally hook up,
it was
ostensibly to schedule the returning Buffy into total non-social-life
oblivion. So the element of being ganged-up-on may have played
a role, as
well. It's all about timing, but it seems to me that Giles' response
at
finding Joyce's body was pretty demonstrative of how much he'd
also grown to
love Joyce.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Glies relationships to
the others (discuss) --
superscrounger, 21:06:00 04/26/01 Thu
Buffy wasn't being immature. When she discovered the Joyce/Giles
liason it
wasn't just that it was her mother and Giles (although my parents
being
sexual is always something I have never been interested in picturing)
but it
was "on top of a patrol car-twice?!" That would get
to anyone. On another
thought, I think it would have been cliche' to have those two
get
together-the only two adult regulars on the show pairing up. Joss
often
avoids the obvious. It was more interesting the way it was, with
them as
friends. And as the show has oft demonstrated, people don't always
end up
together and there are not always neccessarily happy endings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Giles and Anya -- verdantheart, 06:18:13 04/27/01 Fri
I thought that it was interesting that Anya, who is so naive in
many ways,
showed a flair for business and took Giles in hand as far as the
day-to-day
running of the magic shop as a business is concerned.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Redemption -- FanMan, 17:07:50 04/26/01 Thu
Lindsey has always seemed like someone who is basically good.
Seeing his
father lose everything made him cynical.
He hardened his heart to try to fit in at W&H. He could handle
the grey and
dark gray of corrupt people. However everytime W&H did something
truly vile,
he had an atack of conciance. W&H needed a few more years to fully
corrupt
him. I love the irony of the EVIL HAND being the final straw that
convinced
him to leave!
Lindsey has never done anything vile himself, he has been a witness
and his
worst sin is knowing the evil of W&H and trying to rationalize
it as
"business as usual"
Turn-around in the heart -- Solitude1056, 17:24:31 04/26/01 Thu
Concerning Spike: they didn't go light on the makeup, that's for
sure. He
looked pretty damn gruesome, at the very least. And perhaps I
would've said
- if I'd not seen the Glory-Spike scenes - that Spike was saying
his last
bit as one more way to get in good with Buffy. But as someone
else pointed
out, Spike had no reason to expect rescue, and I realized: he
couldn't
expect that the BuffyBot would disobey & crawl out of the tunnel,
nor did he
have any reason for her to suddenly get RealBuffy knowledge & deduce
where
to find him. So he was toast - courageous toast, but still toast
- until he
saw Buffy & Xander burst through the door and he could finally
collapse. If
they hadn't come in at that point, the minions would've dragged
him back
upstairs, Buffy & Xander wouldn't have seen anything, and that
would've been
that of ol' Spike.
[aside: just what was Spike intending, getting free, if you think
about it?
It was daytime, we'd have crispy Spike if he'd managed to get
outside - and
he wasn't moving too fast as it was. I wonder if he was trying
to get free
to let Buffy know that Glory was targeting in on Dawn, or if he
just wanted
to get into sunlight where he could end the pain already. Dunno.]
But the turn-around in the episode, IMO, wasn't just Buffy going
in as the
Bot & hearing finally the depth of Spike's compassion & caring.
I don't
think she ever would've done it except for one thing: Xander.
If Xander didn't like Angel, he positively loathes Spike & made
that
perfectly clear, right up to the scene with the flowers for Joyce.
Of all
the characters, Xander can be the most inflexible in his opinions
of people
- Buffy's been reflecting that trait this season, IMO. Giles seems
to be
more ambivalent, but you'd think Xander (previously) wouldn't
have had a
minute's loss of sleep over dusting Spike at the first opportunity,
and he
was heading in that direction - I suspect - when the minions kidnapped
Spike. But he didn't, and he didn't even express regret over not
taking the
chance, like I expected him to. For some reason, he stopped and
saw not
Spike the Big Bad, but a guy who'd gotten the crap beaten out
of him, lost
whatever small piece of happiness (even fantasy-based) he might've
had, and
for what?
I honestly think it was Xander recognizing that Spike had just
gotten the
worst deal of all, and saying so, that made Buffy decide to go
see Spike.
Xander's always been vociferous about his obstinate opinions,
and I'm
surprised there's not been more comment about his own epiphany
about Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Turn-around in the heart -- Rufus, 18:02:53 04/26/01
Thu
Actually had a conversation about Xander and his actions towards
the
vampires in Buffys life. It's true that Xander is truly the heart
of the SG.
When Buffy was angry at Riley it was Xander who got her to step
back and at
least consider if the relationship was worth saving. He also pointed
out
that Riley had become less a boyfriend and more of a convenience.
Buffy
listened.
With Angel things were a bit more complex, there was the jealousy
over Buffy
wanting Angel over him, then you had the whole Angel gets some
and turnes
into a monster. If Xander had begun to trust Angel at all, the
turn to
Angelus erased that trust. To this day Xander still has misgivings
about
Angel.
Now, to Spike....it was Willow that thawed first towards Spike
but Xander
that had him as a roommate. When Spike stole from him Xander felt
betrayed.
When it came out about Spikes crush, the first reaction was laughter...and
after Spike chained Buffy up....lots of anger. But still Xander
didn't seek
Spike out to kill. The flowers were the beginning of Xanders new
view of
Spike. Then the beating sealed it. Xander had his share of days
and years
where he never got the girl...he knew what it was like to be lonley.
So he
felt for Spikes need for company. If the Buffybot had have been
violent and
gone after the gang, Xander wouldn't have felt that way, but the
Buffybot
was so benign, harmless that it was clear that she was made to
love Spike.
The beating Spike took also softened Xander up a little...he's
been beaten
plenty fighting demons but never came out of a fight looking like
Spike did.
Xander is the most interesting of the SG because of his normality...covering
an abusive home, and insecurity. Xander could have just as well
have turned
out to be a bully a jerk, but he took the worst parts of his experience
in
life and made it work for him. He seems normal, maybe boring to
some, but
Xander has the largest heart in Sunnydale, and when he speaks,
Buffy
listens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Turn-around in the heart -- rowan, 21:03:35 04/26/01
Thu
"But as someone else pointed out, Spike had no reason to
expect rescue, and
I realized: he couldn't expect that the BuffyBot would disobey
& crawl out
of the tunnel, nor did he have any reason for her to suddenly
get RealBuffy
knowledge & deduce where to find him. So he was toast - courageous
toast,
but still toast - until he saw Buffy & Xander burst through the
door and he
could finally collapse. If they hadn't come in at that point,
the minions
would've dragged him back upstairs, Buffy & Xander wouldn't have
seen
anything, and that would've been that of ol' Spike."
I had the same interpretation. Spike had to assume he was dust
(or mutilated
by all hope of recovery), because the only hope of salvation was
from
Xander, and why would Spike think Xander would lift a finger to
help him,
especially after he threatened him in the crypt? Even if the SG
wanted to be
sure he didn't spill the beans, I'm sure he knew that no one in
the SG knew
where to find Glory. After all, if he could find out Joyce was
dead, he
could certainly find out their level of knowledge about the goddess
of bad
perms.
I was surprised that Spike passed out in the elevator when Buffy
and Xander
arrived -- after all, they were coming to dust Spike, and that
showed some
faith on his part to assume he'd be "safe" now that
they arrived.
All I can say is that surviving someone shoving a thumb in your
abdominal
cavity and feel around your internal organs has to be a big deal,
even for a
vampire.
"[aside: just what was Spike intending, getting free, if
you think about it?
It was daytime, we'd have crispy Spike if he'd managed to get
outside - and
he wasn't moving too fast as it was. I wonder if he was trying
to get free
to let Buffy know that Glory was targeting in on Dawn, or if he
just wanted
to get into sunlight where he could end the pain already. Dunno.]"
I figured he thought he was surely dead if Glory kept up, but
if he tried to
escape, he was only possibly dead.
I watched this episode again. Spike is my favorite character (and
I am a
redemptionist who's believed Spike is changing), but I too, had
a strong
reaction to Spike in this episode. I was darn impressed with him.
I think I
would have been even if I wasn't already sold on his desire to
change.
Suffering that type of torture...wow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Turn-around in the heart -- verdantheart, 06:14:41
04/27/01 Fri
Perhaps Spike thought that getting dusted by Buffy or Xander would
be OK
compared to going back upstairs . . . Just a thought.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Turn-around in the heart -- Solitude1056,
06:17:59 04/27/01 Fri
That's what I thought when I saw Spike had passed out - if Buffy
or Xander
dusted him, at least they'd just dust him, they wouldn't torture
him for
three hours beforehand. Like Xander said, he & Giles tried to
get Spike to
tell them what had happened (or Spike was trying to tell them
without
prompting, I'm not sure), but Spike was so toasted by Glory that
he wasn't
making much sense. It also says a lot about just how much Glory
did to
Spike, that he made it as far as the ground floor of the elevator
& just
couldn't make it any farther.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Turn-around in the heart -- rowan,
17:56:57 04/27/01 Fri
I imagine having someone put their finger in your abdominal cavity
and start
messing around with your internal organs could be quite painful,
even for a
vampire. I just wonder if she did any lasting damage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Turn-around in the heart --
ann, 17:01:07 04/28/01 Sat
Wonder if she poked around in his head and found a chip?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Turn-around in the heart -- rowan, 17:55:54
04/27/01 Fri
Yes, I imagine a chance at rescue or chance to be spiked (ha,
ha, little
joke there) would be more appealing to his nature than to be mutilated
beyond repair but still alive. Plus, Spike's not one to sit around
and take
something on the chin.
Lindsay's Limit -- Rufus, 21:40:58 04/26/01 Thu
The words that come to mind with Dead End are the ones Angel said
to Lindsay
in the car:
Angel: "I mean, here you are, young and healthy, good job,
new hand. Seems
like the more you get, the less you have. Am I getting through
here? You
just keep moping. You're good at that.
When Lindsay sought Angels help to save the children last year
he told Angel
why he works where he does. Lindsay had been poor enough to experience
hunger and the loss of family members, it left him with a strong
drive to
not be stepped on like his father had been. So it's most ironic
that Lindsay
finally reached his limit when he saw the results of being the
one that was
doing the stepping for a change. He has the hand of a fellow he
worked with
in the mailroom. He stepped up and over this man and now has part
of this
man to forever remind him just how low he had gone to get ahead.
Angel: "Your firm in action, Lindsay. A lot to be proud of,
huh?"
Lindsay had to turn off the life support for the man whos hand
he got. A man
he knew. A man who meant nothing to Wolfram and Hart except to
strip parts
off of like a stolen car. Suddenly Lindsay became bored of it
all. And he
has just enough info on his higher ups that maybe he can get lost
and stay
there.
Lindsay: "I hope your're not waiting for me to tell you that
I learned some
kind of a lesson, that I had a big moral crisis, but now I see
the light."
I have to wonder what Lindsay learned other than that he reached
his limit
on what he could stand by and let happen. He now has his evil
hand..the hand
from the man that didn't want Lindsay to do anything but kill
him and put
him out of his misery. Can Lindsay be redeemed, hell yes, but
he also has
alot to atone for, I wonder how he will start. He doesn't have
many years to
sit and brood about it though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Lindsay's Limit (long, cause it's friday night!) --
Solitude1056,
18:15:20 04/27/01 Fri
Thinking about Lindsey - a character that at first got on my nerves
- and
re-reading some of the transcripts. I never saw the episode with
the blind
woman (thanks to the cable company deciding no WB until new contract,
grrrr). Something that struck me: when Lindsey first approaches
Angel about
the contract on the kids, Angel comments that he smells big stinky
human
fear radiating from Lindsey. But later, in the wine celler/bomb
shelter,
Lindsey's the only person not radiating fear to Darla. She tells
him he
might die in that room, and asks him why he's not scared. He says
something
along the lines that he's not scared, but he'd be disappointed.
It's like he
went from ambivalent to just plain not caring.
And somewhere along there he became a more interesting character,
because
the ambivalence is something we've got plenty of with everyone
else. But
Lindsey's character was opaque enough - and played laid-back enough
- that
it's real hard to determine what he's thinking & planning. Ok,
so that's
also good lawyerly style, but re-reading, it seems that someone
who'd
watched siblings die at a young age & watched his parents lose
everything
might be just a little harder to shock than your average joe.
And it's one
thing to save someone by stopping them from being hurt, but it's
another
thing to realize that the only way to stop the pain is to let
the person
die. During that last episode, when Lindsey was writing "kill,
kill, kill,"
all I could think was: oh, no, not yet another possessed-evil-body-part
storyline. Please, Joss, you're better than that! But once again,
The God
Known As Joss showed me how little faith I had... *grin*
And some here have expressed disappointment in Cordy, Angel, and
Buffy for
not dusting/killing/eradicating a particular bad guy when they
had the
chance. And Gunn's gotten praise for having the courage to dust
his sister.
Perhaps dusting a vamp fits into the "stop them from doing
harm" category;
perhaps it fits into the "put the soul out of its misery"
category. Killing,
in the end, is still killing, I suppose. Was Lindsey in harder,
or easier,
position when faced with his decision? I suppose it depends on
your point of
view. Not many vampires beg to be put out of their mercy at the
point of a
chair leg, and not many people are walking around in debt to a
vampire,
either.
It seems to me that Lindsey may, at points, be the kind of character
who'd
steel himself to blinders at running into someone who'd failed
where Lindsey
himself had excelled. There but for the grace of god, etc. But
it's another
thing to realize that not only did you excel, you did so at the
cost of the
other person - as Gore Vidal said, "it's not enough to win;
others must
lose." Those who win may keep themselves purposefully ignorant
and try to
keep themselves believing that everyone wins, one way or another.
Well, his
job went nowhere, but he's got a wife & kids who love him. I think
it's
called rationalizing.
But it's hard to rationalize staring that person in the face & mercy-kill
them. Killing isn't easy for anyone who's not trained to it, like
Angel's
been & Buffy's learned to be. Lindsey's a lawyer, he doesn't commit
the
crimes - he just enables those who do. Now he's got to commit
the crime not
because he wants to, or will gain from it, but purely because
if he doesn't,
he gets to spend the rest of his life knowing that someone out
there is
suffering horribly just so Lindsey can play guitar. That's gotta
hit someone
hard, and the actor was good enough to start letting the audience
see that
in his face, without being too obvious about the lack of opaqueness
in
comparison.
Lindsey redeems himself by the same path as anyone else in the
World of
Joss: action. As Angel puts it, if the big things don't matter
in a Grand
Plan, then the little things mean everything. It seemed to me
that in
Angel's Big Plan Total War mode, he was reacting to Wolfram & Hart
- and any
other bad thing out there. They move, he counters. It becomes
an endless
game, and the only way to break things is to start making the
first move.
Same with our singing lawyer guy.
Lindsey's sudden change in demeanor in the boardroom is remarkable
because
it's the first time I've seen him really act without waiting for
someone
else to make the first move. (Well, not counting Lilah reaching
for her gun,
that is...) He's been so deadpan all along, it was hilarious to
see him so
animated. (I was totally cracking up, especially at that last
pinch on the
ass on his way out the door.)
In the transcripts for the kids-in-trouble episode, Holland specifies
Lindsey's troubled position as being that of a man who doesn't
have passion,
and thus hasn't been able to decide where he should be. A sort
of
ambivalence of not being excited about too much of anything. It
may have
been convenient for Lindsey to have Holland express it like that,
but it
seemed to me that after this false epiphany, where Lindsey cloaked
his
decision in Holland's words, that Lindsey became less passionate.
Drywall
would've had more reaction to Lilah's usual jabs - strangely,
in comparison,
it seems Lilah progressively lost more & more of the cool that'd
made her
come across as such a femme fatale at first.
And it's in the boardroom that I think Lindsey finishes the leap
that he'd
started when he pulled the plug on his former coworker. Lilah
was slated to
die - it was implied often enough, and more importantly, she believed
it -
if Lindsey was going to be promoted. Lindsey had just had to watch
one
person die so he could slake his guilt about stepping - perhaps
literally -
on someone else to get where he was. Now he was going to get to
do it again.
His choice was either to react, by protesting perhaps, if Lilah
were dragged
away or she shot herself. Who knows. And in simply reacting, he'd
leave
himself back in the same limbo of not-completing-the-leap that
he'd been in
when Holland offered him a rationalization for his ambivalence.
Instead, he
jumped up and made his move first. That's when, IMO, his character
first
touched solid ground.
IMO, as long as a character is acting instead of reacting, then
s/he has the
chance of redemption in the Buffyverse. It's those that let the
world make
the first move that are doomed to repeat a la vampires, or doomed
to go down
struggling in vain, a la Kate. When they get off their ass and
start calling
the shots in their own lives - and taking responsibility for their
actions,
as well - then they start moving towards countering the Wolframs
& Harts of
their world.
1056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I thought no one was going to read the post... --
Rufus, 18:25:39
04/27/01 Fri
I'm glad I gave you something to do on a Friday night....of course
I killed
another tree getting a copy....:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Lindsay's Limit (long, cause it's friday night!)
-- Rufus,
20:44:39 04/27/01 Fri
I have thought a fair bit about how W&H recruits its employees
and they do
make sure that they get the ones that are hungry, either literally
or, for
power. Lindsay wanted to escape the hunger and deprivation of
his youth and
Lilah wants power.
Lindsay probobly found it easier to compromise his morals when
the dirty
deeds were mostly done on paper without his physical presense
there. With
the children and the literal Chop Shop he was there, he found
a limit to
what he could stand by and let happen. The pulling of the plug
on his former
workmate brought him to the point of not caring anymore. His actions
in the
boardroom were wonderful if not painful (the security guard, not
Lilahs
ass). I wonder where he is going, to his roots? Or does he have
something
else in mind. He did give Angel that tasty little hint in interpersonal
relations with W&H. I think that W&H may someday wish they
had never found
the boy from Oklahoma.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Lindsay's Limit (long, cause it's friday
night!) --
VanMoodySenior, 23:14:33 04/27/01 Fri
All this makes me think about what kind of character Lilah will
be now since
she is in the fold. VMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Lindsay's Limit -- Lynn, 19:43:46 04/27/01 Fri
I do hope we haven't seen the last of Lindsay, he's one of the
more
intriguing characters on that show. I love Cordelia's line to
him: "I know
you're evil and everything, but that was great." :) How will
Lindsay atone?
How does anyone? The only way to atone in my mind is to not repeat
the sins
of the past - you can't undo them no matter how hard you try,
Angel found
that out. Lindsay reached his saturation point with W&H; makes
me wonder if
he will show up at the Hypernion some day, even just to irritate
Angel :)
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Lindsay's Limit -- Joann, 20:03:36 04/27/01 Fri
I agree. Lindsay is not a whiner. I think Kate did alot of barking
and
whining and then went down with the ship. I didn't feel sorry
for her.
Lindsay has always been an intriguing character. I don't think
he is looking
for redemption. He is disgusted by what he has been involved in
but he is
wholly open to "unhealthy relationships."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Lindsay's Limit -- Lynn, 20:07:37 04/27/01
Fri
Lindsay picks his fights - harming kids, using people for replacement
body
parts - he didn't like that. Doesn't mean he would not do something
diabolical that fit his moral code, so to speak.
I agree, Kate did get on my nerves, blaming Angel for everything.
But I did
feel for her at the end. I wonder what will happen to her character?
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Lindsay's Limit -- Joann, 20:34:41
04/27/01 Fri
Kate's whining phone call for big handsome strong Angel to rescue
her was
pathetic. Why didn't she just call 911? Oh, yeah, she wanted to
die. No, she
just wanted Angel pronto. What is she the only one in the world
who ever had
a remote, emotionless father? As Willow would say "Oh, poo
hoo, poor me." It
was ok for her to threaten Angel with a slow "Southern exposure"
death while
wearing a badge though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Poo Hoo, what the heck is that????:):):)
-- Rufus, 20:36:59
04/27/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Poo Hoo, what the heck
is that????:):):) -- Joann,
17:24:11 04/29/01 Sun
I was quoting Willow from "Choices" when she said to
Faith "Well, boo-hoo,
poor you. You had a lot more in your life than some people!"
Sorry about the
poo when it was boo!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Poo Hoo, what the
heck is that????:):):) -- Rufus,
22:50:41 04/29/01 Sun
Don't be sorry....I love spelling mistakes...they can be funny.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balancing Spike's characterization (spoilers for "Intervention")
--
verdantheart, 07:05:18 04/27/01 Fri
I've been thinking a little bit about "Intervention"
and was struck by the
way it was written to balance out the character strengths and
flaws of
Spike.
On the one hand, we have him playing with his Buffybot. On the
other,
exhibiting great courage under torture. The first, something that
is
pathetic at best and could be expected to turn the viewers against
the
character, the second, something that brings the viewers staunchly
behind
him. Is it by chance that they had Xander, not Giles voice the
sentiment
that they couldn't bear to dust Spike because he was so thrashed
and had
"his best toy taken away"? Xander here (I believe) voices
the sentiments of
the audience.
Creating a duplicate of someone to do what the real thing will
not is not a
good thing any way you slice it. But look at the way they handled
this
difficult subject. There was the humor: At times the bot sounded
a lot like
Harmony's efforts to play the Slayer ("I can't resist your
sinister
attraction", indeed!); and Spike's efforts to extract the
bot from Xander's
and Anya's company. That served to balance out some of the queasier
aspects
of the situation.
Then, the abilities of Mr. Marsters enables us to sympathize with
Spike's
actions despite the fact that they are reprehensible. He was able
to bring
out that Spike's obsession is tangled up with a love and a hopeless
need to
have that love returned ("Just be Buffy")--as well as
perhaps some assurance
that he's still "bad" and "scary" (by the
way, whoever mentioned the "Do I
scare you?" quote and what response he wanted, thanks). He
wanted to be able
to pretend that Buffy loved him back, and that's just sad.
Following this up, of course, is Glory's abduction and extended
torture of
Spike, eliciting what is arguably his "finest hour"
thus far. We had ample
opportunity to witness his courage. As has been mentioned, he
had no
expectation of rescue. If the SG caught up with them in time,
he could
expect them to dust him--as they indeed set out to do. His only
hope was
escape. (How did he expect to get away in the daylight? He might
not have
thought ahead that far. When the SG arrived he stopped struggling.
Why? Even
if they killed him, he could certainly see it as an improvement
over what he
had been going through! Remember, he didn't have much left.)
Anyway, what I'm getting at in this long-winded and roundabout
way is the
way Spike's character is balanced in this episode, illustrating
both
positive and negative aspects. And, interestingly, both sides
can be viewed
as "proofs" of Spike's love for Buffy, the "gross
and obscene" and the
heroic. One disgusts Buffy, the other touches her.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Balancing Spike's characterization (spoilers for "Intervention")
--
Lynn, 08:26:41 04/27/01 Fri
Not long-winded at all, excellent analysis! I was not looking
forward to
this episode at all, but it has turned out, in my opinion, to
be one of the
best of the season, for all the reasons you mentioned. I watched
it again
last night and was struck by the sadness in Spike's eyes when
the bot asked
to start the program again. In that scene you can see it's not
just
obsession, but unrequited love.
I think the obsession part is over, and it will be interesting
to see what
takes its place. There won't be much time to explore it, as it
looks as if
the last four episodes are more action packed. I personally think
Spike is
still in love with Buffy, but it will manifest itself in trying
to be
helpful and being more respectful of her.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Balancing Spike's characterization (spoilers for
"Intervention")
-- rowan, 17:52:34 04/27/01 Fri
My sentiments exactly, Lynn! I dreaded this episode, and then
turned out to
love it. Spike's reaction to the BuffyBot was so bittersweet;
he wasn't
using it to create evil, but because he so desperately craved
love and
acceptance (from someone he loves and accepts). I think the end
of the
episode marks Spike's transition from obsession to love & respect,
too --
hard to say if it will still be romantic/sexual love, or if it
will be a
deep friendship. But I believe that Buffy has another true friend
in Spike,
if she tries to nurture that relationship. But much like a plant,
if the SG
continues to scorn him, he may weaken and tread a darker path.
I found the whole torture scene enormously emotional, and now
I believe
firmly that Spike will be a key part of defending Dawn against
Glory in the
last episodes.
I also felt that Spike, even though he recognized the BuffyBot's
limitations, had some genuine sadness when he asked Buffy what
happened to
her in the last scene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Balancing Spike's characterization (spoilers
for
"Intervention") -- Lynn, 18:09:58 04/27/01 Fri
I think he showed a little sadness when asking about it too, Rowan,
but that
was before Buffy thanked him for not giving up Dawn. I know that
meant much
more to him, it was a "real" thank you.
I have a feeling, if Spike doesn't die in the season-ender (please
don't
die, Spike!) I think their relationship could end up as a deep
friendship. I
miss their verbal sparring, I would love to see it come back in
a fun way,
if TPTB wanted it that way. I have a feeling staying single for
a while
would be good for both Spike and Buffy, they haven't had much
succes in
romance this year, have they?
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Balancing Spike's characterization
(spoilers for
"Intervention") -- rowan, 18:32:05 04/27/01 Fri
They both have horrible taste in significant others, don't they?
(except for
Angel and Buffy, perhaps, depending on your opinion). :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Balancing Spike's characterization
(spoilers for
"Intervention") -- Lynn, 19:25:18 04/27/01 Fri
Oh, one can see the attraction in Angel :) I just keep wondering
how they
are going to end up. In the meantime, I think Buffy needs a break
from
boyfriends and think of herself, and Spike needs to realize he
doesn't
necessarily need a Harmony hanging around :) Like Riley, he needs
something
constructive to do - I just hope it isn't an evil something.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Balancing Spike's characterization
(spoilers for
"Intervention") -- Wiccagrrl, 19:32:47 04/27/01 Fri
I'm not sure I'd say Dru was a horrible choice as an S.O.- at
least in vamp
terms. They had about as good a relationship as any vamppair we've
seen in
the Buffyverse- well, at least until Angelus returned and Spike
developed
his obsession with Buffy.
And, I'm a big B/A 'shipper, but even I can see that those two
are about as
wrong for each other as two people can be...and yet they feel
so *right*
together, too ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Balancing Spike's characterization
(spoilers for
"Intervention") -- Lynn, 19:50:18 04/27/01 Fri
That's a perfect description of B/A, Wiccagirl. And I agree to
a point about
Spike and Dru - but no matter what, he'll always be second to
her "daddy",
and ironically, it would be the same should he and Buffy ever
become a
couple. But I think Buffy would make him happier, because she
has a generous
heart and would make the effort. I'm really going out on a limb,
though, I
have no idea what is planned for them.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Balancing Spike's
characterization (spoilers for
"Intervention") -- rowan, 08:35:14 04/28/01 Sat
I guess this is heresy, but I always felt Angel was way too old
for Buffy.
After all, she was, what, 16 or 17, when they met. She was still
very much a
girl. I always got a little "dirty old man" vibe at
first. Spike doesn't
bother me as much because now Buffy feels more like an adult lately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Spike is still unbalanced :P -- Traveler, 14:54:52 04/27/01
Fri
I always believed that Spike was more than just a killer, and
I had no
difficulty believing that he had truly fallen in love with Buffy,
but the
last episode left a sour taste in my mouth. Spike isn't the "Big
Bad"
anymore. He isn't even kind of mean. Creating the Buffybot wasn't
evil, it
was just pathetic. What happened to William the Bloody, murderer
of
countless innocents (as well as a couple slayers)? Ok, he loves
Buffy, but
that shouldn't change who/what he is. Yet, his transformation
seems
complete. We haven't seen his bloodlust, selfishness, anger, or
arrogance in
quite a while. He seems virtually indistiguishable from the Scooby
Gange.
It's as if the writers set out to give Spike/Buffy shippers as
much as they
could reasonably hope for. Contrived much?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike is still unbalanced :P -- Justin, 15:26:41
04/27/01 Fri
Yes it's a big change, but the writers did an interesting thing
in giving us
the PRE-vamp Spike. The Pre-Vamp Spike WAS a pathetic romantic.
I read
something on this board about Spike being more emotionally developed
at the
time he became a vampire than Angel was. And then, he's gone through
quite a
few episodes of that clockwork orange style behavioral psychology.
So in the
end, it doesn't feel contrived to me. It feels quite a bit like
a painful
redemption... slowly getting back to the emotions he felt as a
mortal, and
trying, once again, to make sense of them. As if he's picking
up where he
left off....after hundreds of years of "deadness" or
um... "undeadness." I'm
enjoying it.
J
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike is still unbalanced :P -- Justin, 15:40:05
04/27/01 Fri
Yes it's a big change, but the writers did an interesting thing
in giving us
the PRE-vamp Spike. The Pre-Vamp Spike WAS a pathetic romantic.
I read
something on this board about Spike being more emotionally developed
at the
time he became a vampire than Angel was. And then, he's gone through
quite a
few episodes of that clockwork orange style behavioral psychology.
So in the
end, it doesn't feel contrived to me. It feels quite a bit like
a painful
redemption... slowly getting back to the emotions he felt as a
mortal, and
trying, once again, to make sense of them. As if he's picking
up where he
left off....after hundreds of years of "deadness" or
um... "undeadness." I'm
enjoying it.
J
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> One person's pathetic is another person's sensitive
-- rowan, 08:36:33
04/28/01 Sat
what, or rather who, is evil? -- purplegrrl, 08:56:36 04/27/01 Fri
There is a thread below where most posters automatically assumed that Doc
was evil because of the information he gave Dawn.
My question is, is Doc evil? Other than a couple of non-human attributes
(tail and all-black eyes - these don't automatically make him evil, just
different), what did Doc do that was evil? Dawn (at Spike's direction) came
to Doc for assistance - he did not go to her (like D'Hoffran came to
Willow). Here is Doc in his magical workshop pretty much minding his own
business (our information is very limited here, we can *assume* a great
deal, but we *know* very little). In walks a vampire (Spike) with a young
teenage girl (Dawn). When Doc learns that Dawn wants a resurrection spell so
she can bring her mother back from the dead, he is helpful but also gives
her fair warning that what she wants may not be what she gets. In classic
fairy tale tradition, Dawn is so focused on what she wants that she ignores
the warnings until it is nearly too late. Doc accepts no payment for his
services, perhaps thinking that the lesson Dawn will learn about messing
with magics she has no business messing with will be payment enough. As for
Doc's remark about Dawn coming back, he doesn't think Dawn has the emotional
strength to destroy what she will bring back from the dead with the spell
and figures she will be back to ask him for help in correcting what has gone
so wrong. Yes, Doc seems a little creepy, but then it's late at night in a
poorly lit, strange room with some old guy who may not be entirely human who
says weird things. That's a little creepy even without the magic stuff.
Doc dispenses knowledge to those who ask and exacts a fitting payment.
How is this different from what Giles does as the owner/operator of the
Magic Box? Giles, too, dispenses knowledge to those who ask and exacts a
fitting payment. While many of the items in the shop are relatively
harmless, especially to a lay person who is more interested in the "party
trick" aspect of magic than really performing spells. But Giles also has for
sale items that could do real damage in the right hands, or even in the
wrong hands. Does Giles give fair warning when he sells any particular
talisman or book of spells? Do his customers know what these items could do
if used improperly, or if used properly in combination with other things?
The Magic Box is not just "New Age" candles and incense and objects d'art.
There are items of real power in the shop as well. Does Giles question his
customers to ensure that they are aware of the possiblities of an item they
are purchasing? Apparently not, since he sold magic objects of some power to
Glory without realizing the implications of her purchases.
Doc seemed to keep to himself. Only giving knowledge to those whose need was
so great that they seek him out. His magic is not for just anyone.
Giles puts himself in the public eye. Giving knowledge to anyone with a whim
and the money to pay for it. His magic is for anyone.
So who or what is evil?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: what, or rather who, is evil? -- Humanitas, 10:22:10 04/27/01 Fri
In Giles' case, his ability to dispense knowledge is limited by his own
knowledge. He didn't think twice about selling Glory the items she needed to
raise her snake-minion because he had no reason to believe that those items
could be used in practical fact. In fact, without Glory's unique knowledge
and level of power, those items were harmless.
"GILES: I still see no reason for concern. I mean, the-the Sobekian
transmogrification spells were lost thousands of years ago. And besides, the
young woman to whom I sold them would have to have had enormous power-
(Stops suddenly.)
WILLOW: (quietly) Young woman?
GILES: Oh, dear lord."
---From "Shadow"
Now, the argument could certainly be made that Giles has a responsibility to
be aware of the various and sundry capabilities of what he sells. In that
respect, he certainly does bear some responsibilty for what happens as a
result of his sales. This is a fine moral stance, but as we have seen, the
shop is fairly busy, and it is practically impossible for him to police
every transaction. Having said that, Giles has recently made an effort to
segregate the really dangerous items from the more mundane.
"DAWN: Is there anything I should know, like, um, off-limits stuff? Willow
told me that some of the books and things are ... kind of dangerous?
GILES: Quite right. Um, but they're all labeled, and, and, and, uh, kept off
the floor. Most of our, uh, more potent texts and potions are all up there.
He points upward. Shot of the loft, a fairly narrow section full of
bookcases.
GILES: If anyone asks you about anything in that area, just come and get
me."
---from "Forever"
It is obviously a problem that he is aware of. He does make mistakes (he is
human, after all), but he never knowingly sells a cursed item, for example.
(Flashback to "Friday the 13th - the Series.) Indeed, he has made efforts to
avoid having things fall into the wrong hands. Giles is certainly not evil.
As for Doc, we'll have to reserve judgement until we see more of him and his
actions. Thus far, I see no reason to consider him evil.
To dig to a level deeper, there is the philosophical issue of whether the
disemniation of knowledge is ever, in and of itself, an evil thing. Is the
public library where the terorist finds the information needed to make a
bomb responsible for the deaths caused by the bomb? To bring it back to
BtVS, is Spike responsible for the way Buffy reacted to finding out about
Reily's Vamp-Whore habit? Questions, questions!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Look at the shooting script. -- Traveler, 14:31:57 04/27/01 Fri
It clearly implies that "Doc" is not to be trusted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Look at the shooting script. -- Justin, 16:04:56 04/27/01 Fri
Still. It's a good point. It's rather capitalist ideology laden on the part
of the writers to say SELLING magic to anyone with money is all right... but
giving it away in your bathrobe is not.
there's also the fact that, "not to be trusted" could mean some sort of
neutral character. When we divide the world into "good" and "evil"
dichotomies and then have these sort of strange "neutral" characters, it's
sort of lame. But maybe that's what they were going for. At any rate, I
didn't entirely get the idea that he was entirely evil. If that's what they
intended, they missed it visually, I think.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: what, or rather who, is evil? -- rowan, 17:44:18 04/27/01 Fri
Well, here's my lame thought. I can't think of too many situations where a
reptilian creature is associated with good - it's usually associated with
evil. So, although I don't necessarily think Doc behaved evilly in that
exchange with Dawn, I'm afraid later he come to display some really bad
stuff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: what, or rather who, is evil? -- Solitude1056, 23:04:43 04/27/01 Fri
It seems to me that the scariest of all, in the Buffyverse, isn't the good,
or the evil. They're pretty clear: Glory is bad. Angelus was bad. Jenny was
good. Cordy is good. You know where these people stand.
It's the ones who are neutral - who could go either way - that really worry
you. Their apparent neutrality lends an air of unpredictability. Doc
displayed enough of each style - good/caring/compassionate, and
bad/reptilian/creepy - that he's definitely an unknown variable. But being
an unknown variable doesn't necessarily equate to Being Evil, IMO. It just
means you don't know what he's going to do next.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: what, or rather who, is evil? -- Rufus, 23:09:56 04/27/01 Fri
The thing about evil is that it is so confusing. Everyone is capable of evil
at any time, and frequently we do evil things it's just the degree of evil
that changes. We don't know Doc but I had the vibe that he wanted something
and that he wanted to see Dawn again. For what I don't know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: what, or rather who, is evil? -- rowan, 08:33:07 04/28/01 Sat
There does tend to be an element in fantasy that the biggest evil often
doesn't look the scariest -- it looks sort of normal and pathetic and then
--- wham! That's what so scary to me about Doc's bathrobe. Glory you can see
coming. What is Doc??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: what, or rather who, is evil? -- Rufus, 13:34:31 04/28/01
Sat
In the Buffyverse it just can't be a good sign when the nice old man you
meet hums Peter and the Wolf. Come to think of it how about if he hums
Cabaret????:):):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> What good is sitting alone in your room? :) -- rowan,
15:02:27 04/28/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> My thoughts on Doc -- Unsung Hero, 15:47:01 04/28/01 Sat
Well, here's what I'm thinking.
The mood of the scene and how it was set and directed very much screamed
"Evil"- the lighting, the little signs that he was letting Dawn see but
apparently Spike was missing it, the way he acted like he wanted her to
return, and just generally his creepy movements and leering eyes, lizard
like features and the music.....it just all seems evil to me. I found it
clear as day, quite honestly.
also, remember this(this just occured to me)- When Dawn was reading about
the key, she read that reptilian creatures could see The Key's true form,
and that tail was certainly reptilian.......so it's quite likely he knew
what she was. Anyway, my interest is peaked, and I can't wait to see what
becomes of the character. I hope he's simply not a one time deal, since he
seems interesting, evil or not.
Nate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My thoughts on Doc -- Wiccagrrl, 18:00:29 04/28/01 Sat
See, I was kinda wondering if the evil vibe wasn't just a tad too clear, too
obvious. That's the only think making me wonder if we're being tricked, if
Doc isn't what he seems, namely evil. Joss usually tends to be a bit more
subtle about things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: what, or rather who, is evil? -- Humanitas, 12:52:21
05/03/01 Thu
Casting alone explains why Doc is so creepy. Joel Grey is the master!
(By the way, this is me admitting that I didn't pay enough attention to the
credits to get the Cabaret joke - I just ran across the Enlightening Tidbit
on another site. I bow to the superior geek-dom of Rufus and Rowan!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: what, or rather who, is evil? -- Solitude1056,
18:18:51 05/06/01 Sun
The clueless one pipes up: the Cabaret joke? Where? When? What's this
Enlightening Tidbit site? :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: what, or rather who, is evil? -- Humanitas,
08:35:15 05/07/01 Mon
Sorry. Doc is played by Joel Grey, who created the role of the MC in
"Cabaret." Thus the reference to him humming "Cabaret" insted of "Peter and
the Wolf" a few posts up on this thread. I hadn't realized who was playing
Doc until I read it on Ain't I Cool News.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Inside Jokes (OT) -- Solitude1056, 08:52:19 05/07/01
Mon
Right, got that - I was thinking Joss & Co had had Joel utter a line or two
that was a reference somehow to Cabaret... but I don't know the movie well
enough to know, even if they had!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: what, or rather who, is evil? -- Dean, 23:54:16 05/01/01 Tue
Evil is often found in the subtle shadows, not it the glaring light.
So often EVIIIL is in your face. A crazy villian laughing sinisterly.
Usually ugly. I will get you!
Such a view of evil was so aptly parodied in the form of "DR EVIL" on Austin
Powers.
Real evil rarely is that way. After all who would be attrached to that. Some
hidious beast. Some bald guy with a scar wanting "one Million Dollars". Oh,
yes how appealing. Where can I join up?" Want to be on that team.
Real evil is much more subtle. "Doc" is evil precisely because he seems so
harmless. That is what is so deceiving about him. How subtle he is. And what
is worst. He has to do so little for him to control you. He knows your
weaknessness. All he has do to is put it in front of you.
He can even warn you against doing it, as he KNOWS that those warnings will
go unheeded. He has hooked you. He just set the events in motion, and your
own weaknesses, your own desires take over. Sure he "warns" you. That makes
it all the more fun. He knows you won't listen. They never do.
I know that physically he has reptilian features including a tail, but I
kind of think of him like a spider. A spider doesn't go out looking for
food. Food comes to him. The fly gets tangled in the web. Spider just
watches. Until the fly has tangled ITSELF(by the fly's effort, spider hasn't
done anything yet) so much that it can't escape.
It is then, and only then that the spider goes in for the kill.
Along came a spider.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The Tempter as Evil -- Humanitas, 12:02:31 05/03/01 Thu
Neat Post about the nature of Evil. The key to manipulating people
(especially 'good' people) is knowing what they want.
Is it fair to say that simple manipulation qualifies as evil, though? We
often percieve it as such, because it offends our sense of
self-determination, but is it Evil in its own right, or is it a tool (like
magic or a stake) that can be used or mis-used? I'm not sure, to be honest.
Maybe Doc is evil, maybe not. We don't have enough evidence to say for
certain, yet. He's certainly creepy, but Joss has misled us with that sense
before, as with Tara.
Spike too good for Buffy? (intervention spoiler) -- Justin, 15:20:09
04/27/01 Fri
Now... how many people out there could be SO good that they could
become a
vamp, be rejected brutally by the whole SG and pretty much be
alone in the
world... and STILL hang from that chain because he couldn't stand
the
thought of Buffy suffering. There's some real strength there.
Some real
character. Plus he's got style. I mean he's overcoming not having
a SOUL! I
don't think there's a heck of a lot of hope for Buffy and Spike
being
together. They don't have much in common and I can hardly see
them sitting
quietly in the evening and talking of their hopes and dreams.
But don't you
think, eventually, when Spike fights all this stuff out in the
soul he
doesn't have....that he deserves a chick that's pretty damn cool?
Cooler
than Buffy? Maybe the NEXT slayer AFTER Buffy.
Pretty great moment when she kissed him too, eh? And finally:
Angel is lame.
His hair sticks straight up, and he's bloody stupid.
J
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike too good for Buffy? (intervention spoiler) --
rowan, 17:41:22
04/27/01 Fri
That's what I think -- let's find somebody worthy of Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike too good for Buffy? (intervention spoiler) --
Lynn, 18:00:46
04/27/01 Fri
What did Buffy and Angel have in common? Aside from they both
fight evil not
much. Besides, having too many things in common is not always
a good thing.
But Spike and Buffy have more in common than she and Angel did
- he is a
more modern man in his awareness of the world and pop culture,
they're both
smart and quick-witted, and follow their instincts. The main thing
that
would keep Spike and Buffy from ever being a couple would not
be that they
don't have much in common, it would be the feeling that aside
for loving her
and caring for Dawn, she may never be able to trust him to stay
out of
trouble. Would her love be enough to keep him on an even keel,
and would she
want the hold to be that tenuous? I can't say at this point. One
thing I
think is still true, he still loves her, but the obsessive behavior
is gone.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike too good for Buffy? (intervention spoiler)
-- rowan,
18:06:17 04/27/01 Fri
As much as I can personally justify a relationship between Buffy
and Spike,
wouldn't it inherently go against some key concepts? I mean, I
always felt
there was more to the breakup of Buffy and Angel than just the
"if we have
sex he'll lose his soul" thing. After all, people can love
each other
without having sex and build a life together. I thought it really
had more
to do with Angel wanting Buffy to have a chance at a more normal
life
(marriage, kids, living with someone who wasn't undead and immortal).
If
Buffy and Spike do get together, doesn't that beg the question,
why can't
Angel and Buffy stay together?
Plus, it just seems to me that whoever Buffy is with, he'll always
take
second place to Angel (Forever really showed that, I thought).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike too good for Buffy? (intervention
spoiler) -- Lynn,
18:24:37 04/27/01 Fri
I agree, Rowan, but Buffy was willing to give it a go that way,
Angel
wasn't. I really think Angel could not handle being with her and
not being
with her in every way, so to speak, it wasn't only a matter of
him wanting
her to have a normal life. One thing that sometimes irritates
me about Angel
is that he tends to make decisions for Buffy "for her own
good" without
giving her a chance to decide for herself - he sometimes acts
like a parent
to her. If she ever finds out or remembers what happened in I
Will Remember
You I think Angel should hide out for a while. Hell hath no fury
like the
Slayer's wrath :) Buffy may have a short life, I think she should
have a say
in how she leads it.
I have no idea whether or not Spike and Buffy will ever be a couple,
so much
would have to happen, and I don't mean atonement for Spike, there
is no way
he (or Angel for that matter) can atone for all the evil he has
done, but if
he wanted to try renounce evil from now on, and gives it a good
shot, I
think he deserves the chance. But if it were to happen, I think
Spike would
be good for Buffy, he's less serious, enjoys life's simple pleasures
more
and he would encourage her to as well, he treats her like an equal,
and
would love her totally, that we have already seen. And I think
he would
protect those dear to her, Dawn, of course, and the SG.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike too good for Buffy? (intervention
spoiler) -- rowan,
18:30:32 04/27/01 Fri
"I agree, Rowan, but Buffy was willing to give it a go that
way, Angel
wasn't. I really think Angel could not handle being with her and
not being
with her in every way, so to speak, it wasn't only a matter of
him wanting
her to have a normal life."
Yes, and I've always wondered if the writers are speaking through
Buffy or
through Angel on this point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike too good for Buffy? (intervention
spoiler) -- Lynn,
19:31:15 04/27/01 Fri
I've wondered too. I think right now Angel's POV has the edge,
we'll see if
that changes. Normal boyfriends are not a bad thing for Buffy,
but Riley
wrapped himself up totally in Buffy's life and thought she should
do the
same for him. She can't do that, and he did not make a life for
himself
outside of Buffy, and they broke up - I will disagree with Buffy
here, it
was not 100% her fault he left - she gave him as much as she could
at the
time. She was going through some things herself, not just her
mom, but
trying to understand and keep her slaying in perspective.
One thing I will say for Angel, and I think Spike would do the
same - he
accepted her just as she was, and understood her calling.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike too good for Buffy? (intervention
spoiler) --
Joann, 19:43:54 04/27/01 Fri
I agree Angel was totally lame to leave Buffy; he couldn't handle
the
rejection from her family and friends, not to mention his shame
from feeding
off her. But I picture them in my dreams -- somewhere happily
playing house
together --all the time.
I saw S/B as closet pals ever since Angel, Buffy and Spike hung
out together
in "Lover's Walk". I think he does treat her more as
an equal than Angel did
but I can't see Buffy getting serious about Spike. I can see her
patting him
on the head and saying "nice vampire, now go away, while
I concentrate on
serious things."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike too good for Buffy?
(intervention spoiler) --
Joann, 19:50:34 04/27/01 Fri
As far as I'm concerned Riley blamed his faults on Buffy. He refused
to take
responsiblity for them. Instead of whining and following the Slayer
around
he should have made his own way. Xander was out of character for
condemning
the Slayer for being true to her birth right. Her job wasn't babysitting
Riley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike too good for
Buffy? (intervention spoiler) --
Lynn, 20:00:24 04/27/01 Fri
A agree totally about Riley, but I will give Xander the benefit
of the doubt
- he was right as far as he knew - he didn't know what was going
on with
Riley other than Riley told him Buffy didn't love him. And he
didn't blame
Buffy, he just tried to get Buffy to let go of her anger long
enough to
think about the situation clearly. I'm glad she didn't catch the
helicopter,
she's better off alone until she finds someone to accept her for
what she
is.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike too good for
Buffy? (intervention spoiler) --
rowan, 08:27:39 04/28/01 Sat
I have a real problem with Riley. That whole feeding off vamps
thing really
turned me off. I have a harder time with that than with Spike
actually being
a vampire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike too good for Buffy?
(intervention spoiler) --
Lynn, 19:56:29 04/27/01 Fri
Angel felt too guilty to try to overcome all those obstacles,
Joann, didn't
feel he was worthy. He should have just tried to be as happy with
her as he
could for as long as he could - and maybe someday that scenario
will happen
:)
Buffy and Spike closest pals? I think that is entirely possible.
But I think
it would be a closer friendship than her just patting him on the
head and
sending him away. Buffy doesn't treat people that way, and Spike
refuses to
be ignored :)
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike too good for
Buffy? (intervention spoiler) --
Joann, 20:16:28 04/27/01 Fri
Lynn, I was as excited as Buffy in "The Prom" when she
planned to stay
overnight at Angel's frequently and asked him for drawers and
mirrors. And
so disappointed when he "decided what was best for her."
Sorry about the misunderstanding but I was saying "closet
pals" not "closest
pals" meaning I noticed to myself that they were pals underneath
all that
posturing against each other. I don't know if they would ever
become closest
pals and that is the patronizing way Buffy has been treating him
lately
apparently not realizing they have all along been "closet
pals" but as the
Slayer she has other things on her mind at the moment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike too
good for Buffy? (intervention spoiler)
-- Lynn, 20:27:47 04/27/01 Fri
No Joann, not your fault, I just can't read :) I agree, they are
closet
pals, they were when they were enemies, if that makes sense. Remember
in
Becoming 2 when he helped her lie to Joyce about being in a band?
He didn't
have to do that, but he went along anyway. Too funny :) But I
think Buffy's
attitude has softened somewhat, the ball is in his court now to
behave
himself, and then she will be able to talk to him more easily.
How I felt for Buffy in The Prom! She was so happy, willing to
go on as they
had been, she was just so glad that he was back with her to care
about
anything else. Men (vampires)!
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike too good for Buffy?
(intervention spoiler) --
Wiccagrrl, 20:08:16 04/27/01 Fri
I think there were a lot of reasons why Angel left Buffy, most
of them good,
some for her sake and some probably for his sake too.
I do think Angel realized that the Mayor was, sadly, probably
right. These
two, as things stood/stand now, were only going to end up hurting
each
other. And it may seem silly, but to Angel, who would give probably
just
about anything for a "normal" life, this was a real
issue. And he knew that
Buffy would have stood by his side, whether or not it was what
was best for
her, whatever the sacrifices she might have been making. So, right
or wrong,
he felt he had to be the strong one for once. He had to make the
difficult
decision. And the Mayor and Buffy's mom both reinforced this.
I think there is a secondary issue- one I doubt he admitted to
himself at
the time, one he may not have admitted to himself yet. I think,
in a way,
walking away was something he needed to do for himself, as well
as for
Buffy. Partly because being so close to her and never being able
to really
have her, to let himself give in to his feelings for her, had
to be torture.
But, aside from that, in Amends, we get a real confirmation that
Angel's
been brought back for a reason, probably by forces for good. From
the time
he'd met Whistler, Angel had been working to help Buffy, and in
doing so
working for the side of good (we'll set aside the Angelus period
for a
moment.) When he comes back, he's got to be wondering "why"?
Amends, while
not totally answering the question, at least let us know that
there was an
answer, an apparent reason (When TPTB cause a snowstorm in Southern
Cal to
keep you from committing suicide, ya gotta figure you've got a
role to play
in the "bigger picture") Up until he left Buffy, his
fighting for The
Greater Good was intimately tied to his relationship with her.
She was on
her path, and he was following her, helping her. When he moved
to LA, he had
to start asking some big questions, looking for his path, searching
inside
for that reason to keep fighting and doing good. If there is going
to be a
happy ending, it'll be because Buffy and Angel both had a chance
to find
their way, and they discover that there separate paths end up
leading them
back to each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike too good for
Buffy? (intervention spoiler) --
Joann, 20:26:20 04/27/01 Fri
I love ATS. I love BTVS. I would never stop watching either show
but I don't
like the crossovers because they drive me crazy; they give me
what I need
and then take it away. Just seeing B/A sitting under that tree
and kissing
to me was pure magic. When they are together, it's like watching
a alchemist
change lead into gold.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike too
good for Buffy? (intervention spoiler)
-- Wiccagrrl, 20:29:15 04/27/01 Fri
I know what you mean, but for me, the crossovers tide me over.
Those little
bits of gold last me till the next one, and I can be patient and
wait until
they do get their happy ending (and I do still hope they do. Just
not yet,
they've both got too much work and growing up to do ;))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike too
good for Buffy? (intervention spoiler)
-- rowan, 08:30:43 04/28/01 Sat
Well, at least this last crossover left me in a good place about
B/A's
relationship. It put it back on the soulmate level. The crossover
where A
learned about the B/R ship really went against the soulmate concept
and left
a bad taste in my mouth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike too good for
Buffy? (intervention spoiler) --
Lynn, 20:32:40 04/27/01 Fri
Put in that way I agree with you, Wiccagirl. I still think Buffy
would not
have minded, after all, she doesn't even know how long she's going
to live,
heck, none of us do. Finding happiness where you can is not wrong.
But as for Angel needing to find his own way, I think he did the
right thing
in leaving, I wish he had made that more clear to Buffy, I think
she would
have understood that. When she came to see him in Sanctuary they
were both
too angry with each other to discuss it rationally. I think now
they both
understand, and just hope someday they will find each other again.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Putting the hurt
aside -- Solitude1056, 22:15:17
04/27/01 Fri
When she came to see him in Sanctuary they were both too angry
with each
other to discuss it rationally. I think now they both understand,
and just
hope someday they will find each other again.
When you're still hurting to any degree, it's going to be hard
to set that
aside long enough to forgive the other person for hurting you...
and to
forgive yourself for letting yourself be hurt, too. The time & distance
-
and immediate pain of her mother's death - seemed to put a lot
into
perspective for Buffy. The post-funeral night in the graveyard
with Angel
(how apropos, all those nights spent fighting side-by-side in
graveyards,
only now the demons are inside of Buffy) was a sign to me of each
character's growth since separating. As someone else mentioned,
there wasn't
the clingy angst of "oooh, I wannnnnnt you but I can't haaaaave
you," wah,
wah. There was just a bittersweet recognition of the continued
bond, and an
gentle acceptance that this moment was only one moment in time
before things
returned to the current status quo.
Which is to say, I liked the quiet understanding between them
way better
than the last few times they've met up - when jealousy, resentment,
hurt,
and self-denial seemed to reign.
1056
Classic Movie of the Week - Apr. 27th 2001 -- OnM, 19:24:46 04/27/01
Fri
This weeks'episode saw our heroine engaged in one of the time-honored
actions of those on a hero's
journey-- the quest for spiritual guidance, or a 'visionquest'
as the
writers put it.
The need to know more about ourselves and our relation to the
universe at
large is, after all, the driving
force behind many bodies of religious and philosophical thought.
The ways of
seeking out such knowledge
are many and varied, but certainly the Native American-inspired
methodology
depicted in 'Intervention' is
of a type that was sort of rediscovered back in the 1960's, not
too
surprising since that decade was famous
(or infamous, depending upon your point of view) for the counterculture
and
its fascination with the idea
of 'expanding consciousness'. Sometimes the means to the end in
that regard
was contingent on the use of
psychotropic drugs, also commonly used by Native American shamans
to achieve
the 'higher state of
being' they required to facilitate communication with the spirit
world.
To diverge slightly for a moment, I think a little perspective
may be in
order for those on the board here
who are of a young and tender age (that is, at least several decades
younger
than myself!). The 'war on
drugs' has been going on for over a century now, maybe longer.
Most of this
'war' focusses on the
obviously more deadly pharms like cocaine, ampthetamines and heroin,
but
also goes after 'milder'
substances such as marijuana or LSD. I will make two general comments
on
this situation, and please keep
in mind that this is just my opinion, and I am not all-knowing/seeing
like
the fine, highly intelligent
members of our noble government and law-enforcement agencies.
(OnM is being
satirical here, please, no
flames from members of the above groups! ;)
One, you cannot win a war against a basic element of human nature,
and the
seeking of
pleasure/enlightenment is very much a basic human desire/need.
The best you
can do is to provide
accurate, non-biased information about the benefits and hazards
and then put
social mechanisms in place to
control the fallout to reduce or eliminate danger to self and
others.
You will observe that over the last few decades progress has been
made in
doing just this with alcohol and
tobacco, still the drugs of choice for millions of persons worldwide.
When I
was a kid, a comic named
Foster Brooks did what were admittedly very funny standup routines
about a
character who was always
intoxicated on some manner of alcoholic brew. It was humorous
then, but our
social attitudes toward the
carnage that misuse of alcohol causes have changed. Those same
comedy
routines would likely be
considered pathetic and in poor taste today here in '01. The same
degree of
enlightenment could be
achieved in regard to other substances, if we would be more willing
to stop
blaming people for acting on
natural urges and start educating/acting. (BTW, I don't know about
you, but
I am very fond of the series
of 'Truth' ads re: tobacco that have been running for the last
few months).
Two, please take special notice of my choice of words above in
statement
one, where I said a basic human
nature is to seek pleasure/enlightenment. This is a very critical
point--
what is the *reason* one uses mind
altering substances? Is it just to get a good buzz on for a while,
or is it
to aid in seeking a higher level of
consciousness, a greater awareness and connectedness to the world/universe?
I have been very dismayed in recent times about the degree of
attempted
revisionism (mostly by the radical
right) concerning the decade of the 60's. I was there, people,
I lived it.
While I personally pretty much
stayed away from pharms myself (interestingly, some friends who
knew me
fairly well who were occasional
LSD users suggested that I *not* try the drug, since they knew
my normally
nervous/paranoid
high-school-induced nature would likely get amplified by the drug,
and so
result in a 'bad trip'. So much
for peer pressure in *my* case!), I certainly knew people who
used them.
Some of these people were just
out for a high, and sadly the need to get on that high more and
more often
resulted in either physical or
psychological addictions. Most of the people in my (rather smallish)
group
of buds were more into the
'feed your head' motif. They looked to LSD, peyote etc. to do
for them what
it did for other cultures who
used them in this manner, such as the Native Americans.
A while back, in one of my responses to a thread, I mentioned
that it might
be interesting for someone to
do a comparison between Giles in his 'Ripper' days and Carlos
Castaneda's
search for adventure a la mind
expansion in his stories of Don Juan, the Yaqui sorcerer. Of course,
that
could be tricky since Castaneda
wrote like about six books on his experiences, and to date we
know fairly
little about Giles' Ripper days. It
also presumed that people knew who this Castaneda guy was in the
first
place.
Well, to return to the topic at hand (you knew I would eventually,
right? ;)
Castaneda was likely a very
significant influence on the creators of this weeks Classic Movie,
Ken
Russell's *Altered States*. This flick
is trippy nearly to a fault, but it is eminently sincere in its
visionquest,
a quest sought after by research
scientist Eddie Jessup, played wonderfully by William Hurt. Hurt's
character
is engaged in the study of
people who experience mind-expanding or altering phenomena, whether
induced
by pharms or of natural
causes. He becomes so intellectually involved in these 'trips'
that he
decide to experiment on himself,
which leads him on a journey filled with both terrible fear and
immense
wonder.
Along the way, he meets up with another scientist, Emily, played
with great
craft by the exquisite Blair
Brown (likely best known for her equally shining work in *The
Days and
Nights of Molly Dodd*).
Brown's solid, more self-aware character acts as a counterbalance
to Eddie's
passionate yearnings to find
'The Truth Behind All Existence', that first moment of life/thought
from
which all humankind has
subsequently decended. The story quickly evolves into a counterpoint
between
the two (think Mulder and
Scully, except Mulder's on drugs, and far more intense), and how
it finally
ends is in a scene that is yet
another of those 'perfect moments' that we cinephiles so yearn
after, and by
the by emotionally/visually
resonates with another similarly powerful scene we recently witnessed
in
last weeks ep, 'Forever'.
The special effects are pretty good, and hold up decently today
even though
the film was made way back in
1980. The screenplay was based on an adaptation of the original
novel by
writer Paddy Chayefsky, and
Russell maintains a fairly high level of intelligence throughout,
somewhat
reigning in his seemingly normal
tendencies to go for over-the-topness to a degree that they enhance
the
story instead of taking over from it.
(Love his work or not, Russell knows how to get your attention,
and he's
*never* boring).
So, set your own personal visionquest in the direction of your
friendly
neighborhood video emporium and
seek out at least one Truth of Existence by renting or purchasing
*Altered
States* this weekend. I promise
it's worth 'The Trip'.
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technical notes & foofarah:
*Altered States* is available on DVD, and of course presumably
VHS. The DVD
version is in widescreen,
with an aspect ratio of 1.85:1, and is enhanced for 16x9 televisions
(i.e.,
anamorphic widescreen). The
soundtrack, originally in standard Dolby Surround, has been remastered
into
Dolby Digital 5.1 for the
DVD release. The extras include production notes, 5 theatrical
trailers and
2 TV spots. Languages and
subtitles are avilable in English and French. Running time is
1 hour, 43
minutes
While finishing up a few minor revisions here this evening, I
happened to
come across the original
'Ghostbusters' playing on one of the HBO channels. There were
plenty of
great lines of dialog to spring
forth from this nifty old flick, but when I tuned in it was just
around the
time Bill Murray discovers that his
girlfriend (Sigourney Weaver) has been taken over by an evil entity
and he
comments "Sorry, I make it a
rule never to date possessed people."
Probably good advice, methinks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'm trying to think of the results of an OnM bad trip......:):):)
--
Rufus, 19:39:59 04/27/01 Fri
By the time I finished watching Altered States I came to the conclusion
that
some things are best left a secret...the Initiative was a good
example of
science mixing in things they shouldn't have.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I'm trying to think of the results of an OnM bad
trip......:):):)
-- OnM, 20:21:22 04/27/01 Fri
Visualize Arthur of 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' at the castle
being
taunted by the French guy. ;)
Actually, I'd probably be one of the guys trying to figure out
how the bird
could carry the coconut...
How do you think Buffy would react if she learn about Angel's
actions from
Redefinition to Ephinany? -- Halcyon, 01:43:39 04/28/01 Sat
I was just wondering what Buffy would think of his recent actions
towards
Cordelia, Gunn & Wesley and the way he acted towards Anne and
Wolfram &
Hart. After he really did act in a shitty way to C, G & W particularly
in
Blood Money with the video tape of Cordelia and Wesley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How do you think Buffy would react if she learn about
Angel's recent
actions -- Halcyon, 10:15:51 05/03/01 Thu
How would the Scooby Gang act towards Angel if they learnt about
some of of
his recent actions?
How old are the actors? -- Jack_McCoy, 07:06:30 04/28/01 Sat
How old is the cast? I know David and Charisma are both in their
early 30s,
but how old are Alexis, Christian, and Gunn (can't remember the
actors name)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How old are the actors? -- Scott L., 07:42:19 04/28/01
Sat
According to imdb.com
David Patrick Boreanaz was born 16 May 1971
Charisma Carpenter was born 23 July 1970
Alexis Denisoff (Wesley) was born 25 February 1966
J August Richards (Gunn) was born 23 August 1973
Julie Benz (Darla) was born 1 May 1975
James Marsters (Spike) will be joining the cast next year according
to the
site! He was born on 20 August 1969
Christian Kane (Lindsey) was born 27 June 1974.
It also says that Chris Kane was in the TV series Fame L.A., poor
guy! His
website www.kanemusic.com has some more of his music, for those
who like
good country and he's going to be in a movie with Freddie Prinze
Jr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: How old are the actors? -- Solitude1056, 15:05:38
04/28/01 Sat
I did read somewhere that Nick Brendan & his twin are celebrating
their 30th
birthdays sometime in the next month. And I think Alyson Hannigan
was 21
when the series started, so she'd be about 27 or 28 now?
1056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How old are the actors -- Buffy Cast --
Scott L., 15:35:22
04/29/01 Sun
Also from imdb.com -- a top-notch database.
Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy) -- April 14, 1977 [24]
Nicholas Brendan (Xander) -- April 12, 1971 [30]
Alyson Hannigan (Willow) -- March 24, 1974 [27]
Emma Caufield (Anya) -- April 8, 1973 [28]
Seth Green (Oz) -- February 8, 1974 [27]
Marc Blucas (Riley) -- January 11, 1972 [29]
Michelle Tractenburg (Dawn) -- October 11, 1985 [15 1/2]
Anthony Head (Giles) -- February 20, 1954 [47]
Amber Benson (Tara) -- January 8, 1977 [24]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: How old are the actors? -- Shaglio, 06:33:30 04/30/01
Mon
I can't believe Julie Benz is the baby of the group. For some
reason I
thought she was older than 25 (26 tomorrow). Does anyone know
how old
Drusilla's actress is? It's pretty cool to see that Seth Green
is 4 days
younger than me. It means absolutely nothing, but it's still cool.
the Scooby gang's mis-perception -- mmm, 13:58:53 04/28/01 Sat
This may have been discussed previously, but did anyone else think
it was
odd that the Scooby Gang accepted the Buffybot AS Buffy? In a
town where
your best friend today could make you a Happy Meal (with legs)
tomorrow, I
would think they would have realized that just because it LOOKS
like your
friend doesn't mean that this is the case. And i know that they
thought of a
good explanation for her "odd" behavior (namely, excessive
grief) It just
seems strange that after being exposed to robots, vampires and
other
human-like creatures, they didn't think - hmm, maybe this isn't
buffy or
hmmm, maybe something really bad has happened to buffy since we
saw her this
morning acting normally. This is particularly true in light of
the fact that
the Buffybot acted just like a robot, and they had no difficulty
figuring
out April was a robot in about 30 seconds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> the previous message contains some spoilers from last week's
episodes --
mmm, 14:00:46 04/28/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: the Scooby gang's mis-perception -- ann, 16:49:17 04/28/01
Sat
Her friends didn't know, but Spike knew when she kissed him. Hmmm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: the Scooby gang's mis-perception -- Humanitas,
10:09:00 04/30/01
Mon
It makes sense that Spike would be able to tell the difference.
First of
all, even in his toasted state, he would be able to sense fresh
blood at
*such* close range (during kissing, the lips actually swell a
little, and
the blood is even closer to the surface than usual). Second, he
has kissed
Buffy before (in Something Blue). The 'bot would have had a slightly
different feel to it, one imagines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: the Scooby gang's mis-perception -- Sam Gamgee, 20:49:23
04/28/01 Sat
I don't understand why you think excessive grief wouldn't be reason
enough
for them to buy this. Plus, you seem to be prescribing a level
of paranoia
that would devastate the gang more than giving a grieving friend
a little
slack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The Friend You See... Spoilers -- Scott L., 15:49:24 04/29/01
Sun
People tend to look at their friends and see their friends. They
incorporate
strange behavior into something that fits into their paradigm.
This has been done on the show before. No one guessed that Xander
wasn't
really Xander when he'd been split in two. Nobody guessed that
Faith was in
Buffy's body. People didn't even see past vampire Willow.
On the show it can wrap up into the part of human nature that
prevents most
people from realizing that there is a big magic world behind the
world they
see.
People favor the explanation they want instead of the one that
makes sense.
In the real world it's like the time my buddy got a toupee. No
one realized
it was a toupee, they all thought he'd lost weight. I thought
it was new
glasses. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Friend You See... Spoilers -- Rufus, 16:12:59
04/29/01 Sun
When the bot was April it was easy to spot because they had no
expectations
about her behavior...plus she threw Buffy across a room. With
the Buffybot
you had a face that they all knew but some strange stuff was coming
out of
her mouth. They were being more accepting of unusual behavior
because of her
mothers death. When Xander saw the bot on Spike at the cemetary
he could
only conclude that grief made Buffy nuts and kinda slutty...:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Friend You See... Spoilers -- Anthony8, 17:56:24
04/29/01 Sun
Also, I think the whole point of having the Buffy-Bot at all in
this episode
(aside from the opportunity to present some Spike-Buffy weirdness/comedy)
was to emphasize Buffy's concern about becoming less human. She
tells Giles
she is afraid that slaying has made her emotionally distant and
stone-like.
She goes away to find her humanity and comes back only to find
that her
friends can't tell the difference between her and a robot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Friend You See... Spoilers -- Sue, 00:13:37
05/02/01 Wed
Buffy was really hurt that they couldn't see through Buffy-Bot.
And I don't
blame her. After all, it might have looked like her, but it didn't
act like
her. Doesn't anyone know what Buffy is inside? She seems like
one who wears
her heart on her sleve.
Xander could tell. At least at first. That is what made him go
back. Willow,
though, should have been able to figure it out after that conversation
she
had with the bot.
But here is how we can redemn the Scooby Team. After finding out
about the
sex thing with Spike their concern for Buffy took over. They couldn't
think
about anything except helping Buffy. So when they saw the bot,
when they
heard her, they weren't really focusing. All that was on their
minds was
that Buffy was in trouble and we need to intervene.
My point is, had the "Buffy is having sex with Spike"
thing not been so
front and focused on their mind, and the overwhelming need they
felt to help
they would have recognized Buffy-Bot in a few minutes. But their
concern for
Buffy distracted them. It was as a result of their friendship
that caused
them to ignore everything else but trying to find a way to help.
I can't blame the Scoobies for being so distracted. Buffy having
Sex with
Spike? That would throw off anyone's focus.
Selective Redemption -- Rufus, 15:37:26 04/28/01 Sat
I have written alot about Spike over the past six months. I was
facinated by
the idea of good defeating evil. I felt the perhaps the residual
good that
was in the memories and personality of the host could influence
the vampire
to change. I still hope it does. Now I come to something that
has bugged me
for awhile. Selective Redemption. I use the characters of Riley
and Spike
for comparison.
Riley is a loving and kind man who clearly loved Buffy. He has
saved her
life on occasion as well. As a result of insecrurity he ended
up going to a
vamp brothel and became addicted to the bites. What happend and
what he did
was wrong, but what some of us have done is worse. We have judged
him on
some of the worst things he has done in his life, forgetting or
ignoring the
fact that the good outweighs the bad. Then there is Spike, we
want him to be
redeemed. We pick apart all the things he has done to find the
good in him.
But I've noticed that in doing that we have ignored the evil he
has done,
all the murder he has committed, and have focused only upon the
good.
When Buffy met the guide, the primative one, the words
love...give....forgive were spoken. So, if Buffy is supposed to
forgive she
can't just pick and choose and forgiving only those she likes
as people. She
has to consider everyone is redeemable and forgiveness can't be
selective.
That extends to us. If we are able to so easily forgive Spike
all his
transgressions we have to do the same for Riley. Spike has alot
to atone
for. Actually he never can bring back all those he has killed.
Riley may
have gone to a hooker but how do you compare the two men? Riley
have been by
far the superior person. I feel that all can be redeemed. We can't
be open
for redemption to a murderer then reject the addict. We shouldn't
pick and
choose who to redeem or forgive, or reject using the looks or
likability of
the character as our only prerequisite, we have to judge everyone
on all of
their acts not just a few. If we don't do that, forgiveness and
redemption
is meaningless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Selective Redemption -- Sam Gamgee, 16:00:17 04/28/01
Sat
Unfortunately, it is the nature of many viewers to latch on to
something
about their favorite character and defend him against everyone.
Of course, Spike is evil. . .and if he is to be looked upon for
redemption
as a man, he should be looked upon in his past as a man, and not
a vampire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Selective Redemption -- ann, 16:45:12 04/28/01
Sat
If there is good in Spike, and if he is evil by definition because
he is a
vampire, then the good in Spike must reside in some part that
is not demonic
(is that possible). If Buffy comes to feel compassion or affection
for the
good she sees in Spike, what gift can she give but death and release
from
the demon? And isn't she serving those killed by vampires when
she slays the
demons that possess their bodies? Isn't that how death is her
gift? I think
Spike might even reach a moment when he asks her to do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Selective Redemption -- change, 05:06:31
04/29/01 Sun
> I think Spike might even reach a moment when he asks her
to do it.
Actually, Spike already has asked her to kill him in a dream sequence
in
OoMM. The following is from the shooting script for this episode.
BUFFY
I'm done. You're a killer and I
should've done this years ago.
SPIKE
You know what? Do it. Bloody just do it.
BUFFY
What?
SPIKE
End my torment -- seeing you every
day, everywhere I go, every time I
turn around. Take me out of a world
that's got you in it.
(suddenly shouting)
KILL ME!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Selective Redemption -- Lynn, 20:12:42 04/28/01 Sat
I've been thinking about that some myself, Rufus. I suppose it
can be
chalked up to defending a favorite character somewhat, but I also
think it
comes down to the idea of saving the lost sheep, the one who is
least likely
to redeem himself is the one we want to see redeemed the most.
Now, I think
Buffy would forgive Riley too if given the chance, he's just a
good guy who
made some stupid mistakes. But Buffy's forgiveness of Spike is
all the more
wondrous to most of us because of the nature of the wrongs he
has done to
her - there was a lot to forgive. Jesus forgave those who crucified
him.
That's pretty big too.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Selective Redemption -- Sam Gamgee, 20:39:37 04/28/01
Sat
I am sure that may be true somewhere for somebody, but I certainly
do not
see Buffy as Christ, nor do I think Spike deserves anybody dying
for him.
The reason I have seen in most of the boards I have visited usually
have
something to do with Spike being "dreamy" or some other
like adjective.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Selective Redemption -- Lynn, 20:47:24 04/28/01
Sat
You notice the word "dreamy" was not in my post. And
I wasn't saying Buffy
was Christ, or that Spike deserved to have someone die for him.
I was saying
that people tend to want to see the least redeemable person redeemed,
it's
human nature to want to save someone who they think needs saving
the most.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Selective Redemption -- Sam Gamgee,
20:52:21 04/28/01 Sat
Okay, try reading this again. I said nothing about what you said--I
said in
the posts on boards I have read (notice how I still haven't mentioned
you)
pretty much give the "dreamy" or A LIKE ADJECTIVE as
a defense for Spike.
I must be inhuman, because I feel the people who need saving the
most are
not the ones who have spent two hundred years being an ass and
a murderer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Selective Redemption -- Lynn,
21:57:15 04/28/01 Sat
I understood what you were implying. I agree with you, dreaminess
is not a
good reason for redemption. I don't think you're inhuman at all,
in fact I
agree with you there too. It's just that I think the story of
someone who
has done great wrong, and has repented is a compelling one for
many. The
fellow who wrote Amazing Grace was a slavetrader, which is just
as bad as a
murderer, the trading in human lives. Yet he saw the light, and
became a
minister.
If you feel that way about Spike, how do you feel about Angel?
Should he get
off the hook because he has a soul? He not only had a longer killing
career
than Spike, but he killed Jenny Calendar. Giles has been able
to forgive
him, which is pretty big on Giles part, in my view. People seem
to think
that Angel has had it hard, and he has, but he has been cut a
lot of slack
because of his soul.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Selective Redemption --
Sam Gamgee, 22:03:43 04/28/01
Sat
Well, I don't quite know what the rules for posting are here,
so let me just
say if I saw Angel on fire, not only would I not piss on him to
put him out,
but I would probably go to my house and grab the can of gasoline.
. .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Selective Redemption --
Wiccagrrl, 22:28:25 04/28/01
Sat
I think people are really diminishing the importance of the soul
in the
Buffyverse when they say that Angel is let off the hook "just
because he has
a soul." (and I've heard a lot of people make statements
to that effect.) If
you go back and watch the change in Angel in Surprise/Innocence,
and then
again at the end of Becoming pt 2, something major clearly happened
to him.
I don't think it's a stretch to see Angel and Angelus in very
different
lights, even if the demon is still there. Because the soul gave
Angel the
ability to realize what he'd done- to feel remorse for the pain
he'd caused
as Angelus. It also seemed to have given him the self control
to not only
stop harming people, but to dedicate himself to trying to help
them.
My biggest issue with Spike (and to an extent, Anya) and the reason
I don't
see him as particularly redeemable, at least at this point, is
that he's
still remorseless. He can't kill humans, because he's got the
chip, but he
would if he could. And he doesn't see anything wrong with what
he did in his
past. If the show has drawn a paralell between Vampirism and Alcoholism/Drug
Addiction, the first step is admitting you have a problem. Spike
hasn't done
that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Selective Redemption
-- Sam Gamgee, 22:32:32
04/28/01 Sat
Which would make what he allowed to happen to those lawyers even
more
horrible than anything Spike may have done.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Selective
Redemption -- Wiccagrrl, 22:50:00
04/28/01 Sat
What he allowed to happen to the lawyers was horrible. And yeah,
probably
worse than what you can blame a vamp for, because he had a soul.
On the
other hand, I honestly believe he was not in his right mind at
that point.
He snapped. He was out for vengeance, he had watched someone he
cared very
much about be vamped before his eyes. Probably the closest real-world
analogy to what happened in the Darla situation would be watching
someone
you cared about be raped and murdered before your eyes. Or seeing
someone
who had finally gotten themselves clean from drugs held down and
forceably
re-hooked, knowing it would destroy them and it was being done
to get back
at you. What he did may have been wrong, but I also think it was
understandable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Selective
Redemption -- Rufus, 23:52:23
04/28/01 Sat
I see we're back to a balance sheet of wrongs and who was worse
and who more
deserving ect. This is why we get confused when speaking of redemption.
We
all have bias influencing how we consider redemption, making us
unfit to
judge fairly who is redeemable. We have to ask a question, if
a being with
no soul seeks to atone for acts they realise have been wrong,
how do we
judge their eligability for redemption? We all have personal preferences,
certain buttons that can be pushed and certain hopes. Redemption
is
something that we can't take away from those deserving, or grant
those who
aren't. Redemption is something permanent that the person does
to atone for
their acts. Each redemption is a different process based upon
the person
seeking it. We can get stuck by comparing one being to another,
who is more
evil, who is deserving and we can get it wrong because we are
tainted by
bias and personal preference. When someone seeks redemption they
have to be
honest about their actions, they can't make excuses, they have
to atone for
all. I don't know if there is a list of things that would kick
one off the
list. If redemption is to be achieved it has to be by the choice
of the
being not the wishes of those around him/her. If Spike is to be
redeemed he
has to want redemption and that does start with the acknowledgement
of his
wrongs. One thing I'm sure of is that we can't grant redemption
nor can we
force it upon one who doesn't want it. We certainly can't grant
it to
someone just because we like them. It is out of our hands. We
can only stand
and observe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Selective Redemption -- Lynn, 10:04:46
04/29/01 Sun
Yep, stand and observe, that's all we can do. Maybe it's a bit
premature to
speak of Spike and redemption, as he hasn't even said he wants
it. Right
now, he has shown he can try to do the right thing for those he
loves, which
for him is a big step. I'm looking forward to his first meeting
with Buffy
after she left his crypt - should be interesting.
Sorry, didn't mean to get into the balance sheet thing, Rufus.
It's hard to
sit back and see what happens, we all have to put our two cents
in before it
does, don't we? :)
I do remember Giles telling Buffy in I Only Have Eyes For You,
that
forgiveness isn't given because someone deserves it, but because
they need
it. In Intervention, Spike needed to hear his near sacrifice was
appreciated; Buffy forgave him for the Bot because he risked his
life for
her and Dawn. In this instance, it was the right thing to do.
We'll just
have to see what happens from here on out.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Selective Redemption -- Rufus, 14:15:49
04/29/01 Sun
Don't worry Lynn, we all do the balance sheet bit, helps us figure
things
out. The problem with the balance sheet approach is that we all
see things
differently. With the redemption issue I find that we can all
have opinions
but in the end that's all they are. We can only watch and see
what happens.
Redemption is mostly the choice of the person seeking it. We can
stand by
and hope for a character to redeem themselves but we have no control
over
what happens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Redemption & Choice -- OnM, 21:16:00
04/29/01 Sun
*** "Redemption is mostly the choice of the person seeking
it." ***
How true. A comment I would like to make involves Buffy thanking
Spike for
not spilling the beans about Dawn even at the risk of losing his
un-life,
and the implication that it was evidence of her 'forgiving' Spike
his past
misdeeds. I don't think that is the case, at most she may have
cut him some
small amount of slack on the Bot scenario, but it was to emphasis
that a
reward comes only when some truly significant ('real') action
is taken.
A drug addict who stops taking drugs gets more credit than one
who says
"I've cut way back". Spike has been looking for points
for things that don't
really count. (Like not having bloodlust for the injured and bleeding
woman
in the Bronze fracas). He has finally done something that *does*
count, and
he got some credit in return. He now hopefully has some idea of
just where
the bar is set.
BTW, Rufus, some really nice posts, I liked 'em muchly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Redemption & Shakespeare --
Malandanza, 21:39:30 05/05/01 Sat
There is a moment in Hamlet (after the Mousetrap scene) when King
Claudius
seeks forgiveness. While he is praying, he realizes that he can
never be
forgiven as long as he possesses the crown and woman he committed
the crimes
to obtain. While he desperately wishes to be forgiven, he is ultimately
unwilling to relinquish his ill-gotten gains and realizes that
his refusal
has cost him his redemption. "My words fly up, my thoughts
remain
below./Words without thoughts never to heaven go."
I wonder whether Lindsey can find redemption while he wears the
hand of a
W&H victim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Selective Redemption -- Rendyl, 09:13:49 04/29/01 Sun
Having been out of town and without access to the board I am a
bit rusty but
here goes.
***We shouldn't pick and choose who to redeem or forgive, or reject
using
the looks or likability of the character as our only prerequisite.***
Agreed, but I do not feel this is the case with Riley. According
to the
rules the Buffyverse runs on, beings with a soul (Riley) are held
to higher
standards of behavior than those without one (Spike). This does
not excuse
any of Spikes crimes it merely points out he is a vampire without
a soul to
guide him in making decisions. Riley (as a human with a soul)
has a distinct
advantage in choosing right from wrong. His mistakes are considered
more
serious because it should be easier for him to make the right
choice.
I won't rehash Riley character flaws as they have been discussed
to death
but I will mention the real problem with Riley and how it may
affect our
opinion of him. Riley needed someone or something to give his
life purpose.
When he lost Walsh and the Initative he turned to Buffy as that
thing. When
he did not get what he needed from Buffy he turned to the vamps.
Perhaps his
lack of confidence in himself and his willingness to just follow
along
without questioning make us less willing to forgive him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Selective Redemption -- Sam Gamgee, 11:12:15 04/29/01
Sun
I haven't read these Buffyverse rules, but my feeling if we look
to have
Spike redeemed it has to be under the same rules as everybody
else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Selective Redemption -- Rufus, 14:28:02 04/29/01
Sun
See, hot buttons....you have decided to hold Riley to a higher
standard than
Spike. You can't each act that has been committed by the individual
has to
be looked at the same way. Murder is murder, addiction is addiction,
adultery is adultery. If you hold Spike to a lower standard then
redemption
makes no sense at all. Both parties started at the same point
on the
spectrum of good and evil. Spike may have been predisposed to
evil but he
still made a choice to murder thousands of people. He enjoyed
it. How do you
compare murder with adultery and addiction. If you are considering
Riley
worse cause he has a soul then you miss the point of redemption.
Redemption
is the choice of the person, they understand what they have done
is wrong.
They wish to atone. Riley did wrong and addmitted to it. Spike
isn't even
close to that point. I'm waiting though cause you never know.
Adultery seems to carry more weight for some people but to me
it's clear
Spike caused alot of suffering for mankind, Riley only really
betrayed
himself and hurt Buffy in the end. You can't change what either
guy did but
I consider murder the top big bad that someone can do. Spike has
built his
reputation upon his capacity for murder and cruelty...I don't
see where you
can consider Riley in that comparrison. Now if Riley becomes a
serial killer
we can talk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Selective Redemption -- Rendyl, 15:03:50
04/29/01 Sun
No Rufus you (and Sam) missed my point entirely. You said
"We shouldn't pick and choose who to redeem or forgive, or
reject using the
looks or likability of the character as our only prerequisite."
I agreed. All I said was that it was not all a matter of looks.
I also did
not say -I- held Riley to a higher standard, I said the rules/mythology/etc
of the shows setting would hold him to a higher standard because
he has a
soul.
As for redemption, does Riley need it? I never considered him
so far down
the path of darkness that redemption was necessary.
And back to Spike. Why does he need redeeming? He hasn't asked
for it or
shown any sign of wanting it. He told Buffy he could be good if
that was
what she wanted. (paraphrased) Isn't there something disturbing
about having
to change who you are as a person -just- so another person will
love you?
Shouldn't she love him faults and all? If roles were reversed
wouldn't we
all be complaining that yet again the woman had to change in order
to make
the man love her?
The entire Spike issue is a huge tangled mess. How much of William
is hidden
inside him. How much of Spike is a pose created decades ago to
impress Dru.
Have any of his -good- actions been motivated by anything other
than Buffy?
Would he behave any differently if the chip was out? And my plaintive
plea,
"Can't he just balance precariously between good and evil
instead of having
to commit to one or the other?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Selective Redemption -- Rufus, 15:51:24
04/29/01 Sun
When I first wrote the post I said redemption and forgiveness.
Riley has
done nothing I know of to redeem himself for. He already attempted
to
apologise to Buffy for his actions. It's up to her to forgive
or not.
The rules of the show may seem to hold a person with a soul to
a higher
standard but I think it doesn't. What the rules of the show has
seemed to
say, is that without a soul the being could never see a need to
redeem, they
don't have the choice. Then Joss threw out the newer version of
the soul as
a predispostition to good or evil. That means the only thing that
can change
the natural direction of the being would be conscious choice.
I don't see
vampires lining up to be redeemed...just like I don't see the
majority of
beings with souls choosing to murder. There is just enough room
in the new
way of seeing the soul to allow for a vampire to change, but it's
ultimately
up to the vampire to do so. If both man and vampire start at the
same place
on the spectrum of good and evil, doesn't it make sense that either
being
can potentially lose their way or choose to lose their way, ending
up in the
opposite side of the spectrum their moral compass naturally points
them to?
Remember in Crush Dru said of Spike that he was lost and even
she couldn't
help him now.
William, is there any of him left? If you count the personality
and
memories, yes. Now it has to be determined if these things can
influence the
vampire. From what I've seen, yes. If vampires were only capable
of evil,
then they would only do evil and never be able to make the choice
to vary
their actions. Now what we have to find out is if the chip started
a change
in Spike or if the change is temporary, dependant on the chip
only. That we
don't know yet. As for your plea, I think everyone is balanced
on the edge
between good and evil, we all do evil acts and all do good for
every act we
pick a side.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Selective Redemption -- purplegrrl,
15:01:35 04/30/01 Mon
***Can't he just balance precariously between good and evil instead
of
having to commit to one or the other?***
- Rendyl
***Then Joss threw out the newer version of the soul as a predispostition
to
good or evil. That means the only thing that can change the natural
direction of the being would be conscious choice.***
- Rufus
After reading your two posts I thought "What if Joss' altered
description of
the soul is a red herring to make us *think* Spike has a chance
of being
redeemed?" It is true that Spike serves Spike. Nearly all
of his actions
since he has been chipped have been an attempt to continue on
as The Big Bad
despite being unable to harm humans. These actions have alienated
him from
demon society. He's not really welcome in human circles (only
Joyce accepted
him at face value, and unfortunately for Spike she's gone). Spike's
only
"friend" is Dawn. And is this a "friendship"
or an excuse to be near the
object of his obsession, Buffy? If possible, Spike's emotional
growth may be
even more stunted than Angel's.
Spike's only act that could be called "selfless" was
refusing to tell Glory
that Dawn is the Key. And even that could be considered self-serving
- if
harm comes to Dawn through some action of Spike's, then Buffy
is sure to
dust him.
For Spike to ask for redemption he will have to be have to be
knocked to his
knees (figuratively speaking). The chip had that effect initially,
but Spike
found a way to work around it. Since he hasn't had a big ouchy
in a while,
Spike doesn't see the need to do good. He can still kill, terrorize,
manipulate, deceive, torment, obfuscate, lie, etc. - pretty much
what he did
before being chipped. Other than being unable to kill humans and
having to
buy his blood at the butcher's, his life hasn't changed that much.
And he
*enjoys* that life. The only real complications to his existence
are the
Summers women - they confuse and torment him.
Does Spike want to be redeemed? I don't think so. Spike's existence
- even
stunted as it is by the chip in his head - has value/meaning for
him. He
would have to lose everything (similar to Angel, or worse) for
Spike to even
consider asking for redemption.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Selective Redemption --
Solitude1056, 17:41:09
04/30/01 Mon
Spike's only act that could be called "selfless" was
refusing to tell Glory
that Dawn is the Key. And even that could be considered self-serving
- if
harm comes to Dawn through some action of Spike's, then Buffy
is sure to
dust him.
That dog don't hunt, for me. Surely what Glory was dishing out
was 10 times
worse than any thrashing from Buffy. At that point he'd probably
have gladly
been dusted just to end the torture, IMO. Fear of the distant
threat is
usually minimal compared to the immediate threat, and the only
way to get
Glory to stop would've been to spill the beans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Selective Redemption
-- purplegrrl, 10:20:07
05/01/01 Tue
***Fear of the distant threat is usually minimal compared to the
immediate
threat***
That may be true. But Spike *does* think ahead. When Angelus was
trying to
bring the apocalypse/end of life as we know it, Spike went along
initially
but he backed out of it (by relunctantly enlisting Buffy's help)
when he
realized his food supply was going to be destroyed. Angelus and
Drusilla
never figured that out - at least not that we saw.
I don't think Spike wants to be redeemed. He is, however, willing
to do
anything that will continue his existence. Maybe there is more
residualWilliam in Spike than he is willing to admit, even to
himself.
Perhaps this explains his behavior concerning Dawn.
We know that William-the-Bloody/Spike is a facade that VampWilliam
invented
for himself. Spike likes that facade. He is more comfortable as
a "poser",
living the "Big Bad" facade than returning to or acknowledging
what he must
view as William the Sniveling Bad Poet Who is Rejected by Women.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Selective
Redemption -- Greta, 11:50:30 05/02/01
Wed
***Fear of the distant threat is usually minimal compared to the
immediate
threat***
That may be true. But Spike *does* think ahead.
But that assumes Spike actually thought Glory was going to let
him go once
he told her. I think we can safely believe that Spike knew she
was going to
dust him whenever she got through with him, and again, he probably
would've
welcomed it as an end to the pain.
I don't yet know if Spike wants redemption, but he definitely
wants
something different from his life now, and I don't think it's
necessarily a
return to Big Badness. "Tough Love" and his conversation
with Dawn marked
the first time Spike ever equated vampires and evil in a negative
connotation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Selective
Redemption -- Jen C., 22:38:31
05/02/01 Wed
****"Tough Love" and his conversation with Dawn marked
the first time Spike
ever equated vampires and evil in a negative connotation.*****
Hey, you're right! Spike seemed really thrown by the whole conversation
with
Dawn down in the cave/tunnel/whatever. While his hate -->lust
-->love? of
Buffy seems to kind of fit (albeit badly ) into his universe,
his
protectiveness and empathy towards Dawn does not. I thought that
it was
interesting that, while he could tell her with absolute conviction
that she
wasn't evil, he couldn't tell her that she was good (no frame
of reference,
I guess).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Selective Redemption -- LoriAnn, 23:45:25 04/29/01 Sun
A big part of the reason Buffy has tolerated Spike is the chip.
If he were a
threat, he would probably have been staked by now. Other than
that, everyone
roots for the bad guy who shows some redeeming features, but nobody
likes
the good guy who stumbles.
Moreover, redemption isn't Buffy's department, but with regard
to
forgiveness, she can forgive anyone she pleases, as selectively
as she
pleases; as with us, it's up to her. She may forgive wisely or
foolishly. In
her line of work, foolish forgiveness could cost her her life
or garner her
an unlife. Yet, forgiveness is still up to her.
On the other hand, she can't forgive Spike for what he's done
in the past to
others. That is impossible. She can choose only to forgive the
things he's
done to her, but she can decide to overlook his past actions that
have
nothing to do with her. It is the offended that must do the forgiving.
JW has said, in general, that he is following Buffy's maturation
process. At
about Buffy's age now is when young adults just leaving, or just
having
left, adolescence start to see things as more that black or white,
yes or
no, good or bad. This way of viewing the world is typical of adolescence.
If
we are following Buffy's maturation, what we may be getting is
her changing
view of the world. She's starting to see more gray areas: evil
is rarely
absolutely and totally evil and good is rarely completely good.
Regarding Riley, what he did was very personal to Buffy. Spike
may have
killed many, and she would certainly take a stand against that,
but it would
not be personal unless it touched HER in a personal way. Riley,
for all his
good points, did something to deeply hurt and, I believe, humiliate
her,
something very personal. More than that, he then blamed his actions
on her.
That she was able to go after him, as ineffective as the action
was, shows a
lot about her capacity to, at least, make a start at forgiving
something
that many would never forgive.
If this is too long, forgive me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Selective Redemption -- Halcyon, 07:10:31 04/30/01
Mon
If that is the case, the first person she should forgive is Faith.
It seems
a little two faced that B has accepted Anya into her circle of
friends but
attempted to kill Faith in G D 2 and threatened to do so in Sanctuary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Selective Redemption -- Brian, 08:34:19
04/30/01 Mon
Buffy never saw the world that Anya created for Cordelia.
But she has had several "close encounters" with Faith,
all bad, and she will
have a hard time forgiving Faith for what she has done:
Joining the Major, beating up her mother, nearly killing Xander
and Angel,
switching bodies, and seducing Riley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Selective Redemption -- Wiccagrrl, 08:37:20
04/30/01 Mon
I think, eventually, it would be good for her to let go of the
anger she
feels towards Faith. But the truth is, the damage Faith caused,
the betrayal
Buffy felt, was much, much deeper than anything Anya or even Spike
have done
*to her or her friends* Plus, I think with Faith there is also
just a touch
of seeing what she (Buffy) might have become if she'd let herself,
of
looking at her own dark side, and I think that frightened her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Selective Redemption -- Brian, 10:02:37
04/30/01 Mon
Absolutely! Faith, in many ways, is like the First Slayer -
All about gratifying the Id - Hunt, Kill, Score.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Selective Redemption -- Brian, 10:05:08
04/30/01 Mon
Absolutely! Faith is like the First Slayer - All about gratifying
the Id -
Hunt, Kill, Score.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Selective Redemption -- Humanitas, 12:24:19 04/30/01
Mon
This has been a truly facinating thread. I'm intrigued by the
core ideas:
redemption and forgiveness. I think the difference between the
two is
critical to understand. Forgiveness is fairly easy to define:
it is one
person letting go of his or her anger toward another for a particular
action
or set of actions.
Redemption is much harder. It seems to be a personal issue, within
the
individual, rather than a gift from one person to another. As
such it is
much harder to percieve, much less define.
Just to make things more complicated, the two concepts are clearly
related,
but do not necessarily depend on one another. It is possible to
have
forgiveness without redemption. It may also be possible to find
redemption
without getting forgiveness. Clearly, Angel and Spike cannot get
forgiveness
for the vast majority of the evil they have done. It has been
pretty clearly
implied, however, that redemption is possible, at least in Angel's
case.
Logically then, it must be possible to be redeemed without being
forgiven.
Is perhaps acceptance of one's guilt and the willingness to live
with the
pain of being un-forgiven a part of redemption? I'm thinking here
of Angel's
attitude toward Cordy and Westley in the ep's immediately following
Epiphany. He made the effort to aknowledge his guilt, and was
prepared to
suffer the consequences of his actions. Of course he hoped for
forgiveness
and worked toward that end, but he was clearly willing to live
with their
ire for as long as it took, despite the pain it caused him ("She
said we're
not friends").
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Selective Redemption -- rowan, 19:24:20 04/30/01 Mon
I guess it's redundant to say what a fascinating thread this is
-- the
number of responses says that clearly enough.
What's struck me about The Redemption Debate (it's almost as famous
as the
Lincoln-Douglas debates at this point) is what's at its core:
is redemption
an act of grace or a reward for action? If redemption is an act
of grace,
visited upon the chosen for reasons that are unknowable to us,
it makes alot
of us uncomfortable. After all, it opens up the whole unpleasant
possibility
that if we ever need redemption, we might not be able to get it.
But that's the whole tricky part of redemption -- it just shows
up, alot of
time without any direct action on the part of the recipient. Did
Matthew
seek redemption from Jesus, or did Jesus offer it freely to Matthew?
"I came
not to call the righteous, but sinners." (Mark 3:17)
Redemption seems composed of two parts: the freely offered gift
and the
action to accept the gift. Neither Angelus or Spike really did
anything to
warrant an offer of redemption; both possibilities arose as a
result of
catalysts: Angelus was so evil he was "cursed" with
a soul, and Spike got
chipped.
The devil is in the details. Angel, once cursed with his soul,
became an
evil being able to empathize with the victims of that evil. His
response to
that event, over time, has been to change his behavior to stop
being an
agent of evil, then to become an agent for good, first in order
to atone,
and now as an end in itself. Inherently, Angel could probably
never atone
for the evil acts of Angelus. If he had been another type of person,
he
might have gone insane instead -- or continued on his evil ways.
Angel has
had quite a while to develop this sophisticated response.
Now, Spike got a chip. It was not quite as devastating an experience
as a
soul, because it did not immediately provide an awareness of his
evilness --
it just stopped the behavior. However, as Spike's behavior modified
in
response to the chip, he also has modified his internal identity
to some
extent as well. We can see this by his desire for Buffy, his yearning
to be
part of (and outside of at the same time) the SG, and his rejection
of
Drusilla.
Is this change a redemption, and is it permanent? Or will it end
if the chip
comes out? It's hard to say. Spike has greater obstacles to overcome
than
Angel, since he is still inherently drawn to evil (that darn demon
thing).
While Angel sought his redemption primarily down solitary paths,
I suspect
that Spike, without an internal ethical compass, will need a community
of
others to support him if he chooses to take the redemptive opportunity
offered to him. And it is an opportunity. No, Spike can never
atone for his
actions (Angel can't either), and he may never be capable of recognizing
that he needs to atone (which Angel has been able to do). We don't
know.
Spike is at the start of a path; Angel is already at the end of
that road.
But Spike might be able to at least live a better life in the
future. And
that may be just enough, in the end. "He who saves a life,
saves the world
entire."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Selective Redemption -- Rufus, 20:19:00 04/30/01
Mon
I just love this show. I think Joss has done the smartest thing
he could
have by exploring the Spike story, namely making us think about
the demons
Buffy kills. My complaint with TV shows is that when the killing
is done
it's clear who the bad guy is, and the death is quick. Season
one brought us
the vampire in Buffy, a foul demon, evil only, a target to kill.
Then,
slowly Joss revisited the enemy. He made it clear that just because
we could
identify the demon didn't guarantee that the demon was evil. In
season five
we have had to relook at and rethink the vampire. This has been
done by
investigating, not the vampire with a soul, but the one without
one, Spike.
If his story had been similar to Angels many of us would have
wanted him
dead. William is no Liam, we can see that here was a flawed but
good man.
Then we began to wonder how much of him was left in the vampire.
His actions
with the chip have only confused the issue more. We now know that
the
vampire can love. Joss put a human face on the target of the vampire.
If you
know someone, have hopes for them, they are harder to kill. Targets
you just
point and stake, Spike is no target, he is someone we know. I
tip my hat to
JW for binging us to this point. We have to consider Redemption,
forgiveness, and our habit of prejudging situations. I want killing
to be
hard for everyone, I want no easy answers to a problem. And with
Spike we
get all of that. The fact that so many of us have hoped that Spike
can or
will change is wonderful. But it also bings up another type of
scenario, the
one where the loved one looks on while the addict or criminal
attempts to
change but can't. We care about what happens in BVS we want good
to win.
Sometimes it doesn't. All good intentions can be for naught.
If Spike can't change, reverts back to evil we will know why,
and that will
be so much more painful than if he was good for one episode then
became bad
again. I love this storyline, we have had to really think about
what is
going on. There is no right or wrong way to think with this storyline.
It's
not about who is right or wrong about Spikes future, it is the
process of
taking the journey with him.
Musing about Angel -- FanMan, 16:59:09 04/28/01 Sat
When Angel was vamped his soul was banished from his body. If
he was aware
in hell or purgatory for the 100 years that Angelus controlled
his body
Angel would have 200 years of memories from that time period.
When the
Gypsies cursed Angelus they returned Angel's soul to thier body.
Angelus is
still in the body; it is the vampire essance that is keaping Angel
"alive"
in some undead state. The curse makes Angelus feel guilt, because
he is
sharing the body with Angel. Angelus has no soul, so he has no
guilt
himself.
Angel/Angelus=split personality with Angel in conroll of the body.
Angels guilt is because he has no memories as himself for the
100 years his
soul was "elsware". His memories of that period are
what Angelus did. He is
guilty for someone elses memory! As an aside when Dawn was created
she had
no real memories; only actions after her creation are "real"
because she
actually chose to do them. She is not responsible for any actions
before her
creation that she remembers.
Question: IF there was a method to transfer memories, what memories
would
you want? Whose memories? Why?
I would like memories of a womans orgasm....Gasp!:):):) I'm not
gay, but I
am curious if they really have better ones...
If someone transfered memories of a seriall killer to you, would
you feel
guily for actions that you know someone else did, but you also
"remember"
doing yourself?
I would not as long as I could distinguish between my memories
and the
implanted memories. However I would be horified to actually remember
killing
someone.
Angels case is different because it was his body that was used
by Angelus to
commit crimes. Also others have made the point before that the
personality
of vampires on BTVS&ANGEL is a perversion of the orriginal personality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Musing about Angel -- Scott L., 16:31:43 04/29/01 Sun
I think the sinister thing about vampires is the fact that they
take on the
memories and personality traits of the deceased. The soul or conscience
of
the deceased is gone, but all of the memories, feelings, and hurt
of the
deceased are still there.
In Angel's case, it was as if he woke up and began to remember
all of the
things that were done with his body, with his grudges, without
benefit of
his conscience holding him back. I think Angel wanted to kill
his father
before he was a vampire, that's why the vampire did it. That's
why Angel
felt guilty.
That said, if someone who had nothing to do with me transferred
their
memories to me, I think I'd be able to differntiate between those
memories
and my own. But, because a vampire's actions are tied to the personality
of
the host, I think I'd feel cursed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Serial killers and Babylon 5 -- spotjon, 11:16:35 04/30/01
Mon
"If someone transfered memories of a seriall killer to you,
would you feel
guily for actions that you know someone else did, but you also
'remember'
doing yourself? I would not as long as I could distinguish between
my
memories and the implanted memories. However I would be horified
to actually
remember killing someone."
This reminds me of an episode of Babylon 5 I saw a few years ago.
In it,
there is a group of monks from a (mostly) Christian sect who come
to the
station to learn about the religions of the many alien races there.
There is
one monk who begins to have disturbing dreams about murdering
people, and he
finds black roses and words written in blood on his wall. At first
he
believes he is going insane, but after searching through old computer
records, he finds that the black rose was the signature of a serial
killer a
few years back whose face just happens to look just like his.
It turns out that the sentence for murder is to have a telepath
mind-wipe
the offender, destroying his previous memories and creating a
new set for
him. They had mind-wiped the Black Rose killer, given him new
memories, and
dropped him off at a monastery. The families of the victims eventually
were
able to find him again, and used a telepath to bring back some
of his
memories, so that he would remember what he had done before they
got their
revenge on him.
One of the big philosophical musings of the episode was whether
or not this
man was guilty of the murders he had committed before his memories
were
erased. His mentor told him that God's forgiveness could cover
even the sins
we don't remember, but the ex-serial killer (can't remember the
character's
name for the life of me) wouldn't accept that, and willingly allowed
his
victim's families to kill him, as an atonement of sorts.
It seems that this guy was in the exact opposite situation as
Angel. Where
Angel was not technically guilty of "his" crimes, the
monk was guilty. Where
Angel remembered things he never actually did, the monk forgot
his past
actions. Both repented, but did either of them need to?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Serial killers and Babylon 5 -- FanMan, 14:40:08
04/30/01 Mon
If the monk was given a new set of memories, he was also given
a new
personality. Even if you have a CORE personality youre actions/reactions
in
a given situation are going to be affected by what you remember.
If youre
origial memory of youre friend is good you would be friendly to
them the
next time you see them; if youre memories are altered so that
you "remember"
them hurting you serely, you will have a hostel reaction to them
regardless
of what realy happened. The monk is a different person, so he
did not need
to atone for the sins of the previous personality in his body.
The original
personality was murdered in a sense when it was erased. If the
new
personality was a good person- probably from youre description-
then by
giving his life he was being a martyre, and dieing to provide
closure for
relatives of the victims.
Something similar is very controversial in the REALVERSE. The
problem is
recovered memory syndrome, weather children's memory of abuse
is real or
created by police/therapists continually asking sugestive questions.
I
believe that both situations exist, the problem is that the "victom"
and the
"abuser" are often the only people who remember what
realy happened. Also an
abuser could forget his/her crimes because of guilt and denial.
I figure
this would not happen very much and usually the abuser would merely
want to
avoid emberassment or punishment. So innocent people are accused,
and also
guilty people are accused, the dificulty is when the only evidance
is a
child's memory it is hard to tell the differance. Recovered memories
can
surface years after the relevant CRIME. Also it is a fact that
people do
suppress horible memories.
Angel needs to atone for the sins of Angelus because Angelus did
what Angel
would have done if he were not encumbered with a conciance. Even
if the
actions were not his own, it was his personality that defined
what Angelus
did. Until Epiphany Angel was too hard on himself though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Serial killers and Babylon 5 -- spotjon,
15:03:17 04/30/01 Mon
"If the monk was given a new set of memories, he was also
given a new
personality. Even if you have a CORE personality youre actions/reactions
in
a given situation are going to be affected by what you remember....
The monk
is a different person, so he did not need to atone for the sins
of the
previous personality in his body."
Perhaps, but his old memories began to resurface again, since
his victims'
family members hired a telepath to root them out. If he eventually
remembered every thing that he did, would he then once again be
guilty for
his actions?
"Angel needs to atone for the sins of Angelus because Angelus
did what Angel
would have done if he were not encumbered with a [conscience].
Even if the
actions were not his own, it was his personality that defined
what Angelus
did."
Just because Liam would have done those things, that does not
mean that he
should be considered guilty, because he did not in actuality do
them. It was
somebody else entirely (unless you want to argue that the soul
is nothing
more than the conscience). The demon may have taken what Liam
was and
perverted it, but it was still the demon who committed those sins.
You
cannot be punished just because you have the potential of evil,
but only for
the actuality of evil. (Well, maybe you can be punished, but you
shouldn't.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Serial killers and Babylon 5 -- Michael
J. Hennebry, 10:00:28
05/01/01 Tue
"Recovered memory syndrome" is much more common than
suggested. Adult
eyewitnesses seem to be about as suggestable as children. Show
an eyewitness
a lineup and tell him to pick out the perpetrator. He'll pick
out the
perpetrator whether the perpetrator is there or not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Serial killers and Babylon 5 -- FanMan,
15:59:10 05/01/01
Tue
I know that recovered memory sydrome is very common. My post was
making the
point that it is very dificult to judge weather someones claims
are based on
actual events or memories created by sugestion.
You are talking about something else. To recover a memory it has
to be
suppressed. Eyewitnesses do have a problem with accuracy, but
it is not from
suppressed memories. In an emotional situation people are not
trying to
observe and rationally anylize the situation; in dangerous/confusing
situations people act on emotions and instinct. Even without suppressed
memories people are usually innacurate at any form of precice
recall. Long
term memory is usually about overall situations, not what color
shirt,eye
color or other specific details.
if we cheapen the gift -- Solitude1056, 11:55:56 04/29/01 Sun
Joss has mentioned - and I think a few other writers in his group
have, too
- that sending a fully or even partially redeemed Spike to L.A.
would
cheapen Angel's role considerably. Part of the big deal about
Angel is that
he's THE vampire with a soul. Frequently overs have mentioned,
"gee, Willow
gave Angel his soul, why not do it for so-and-so?" Assuming
it'd even work
(and given Joss' predelictions, I don't think it would), then
all of a
sudden Angel's not such a big deal anymore - it'd seem to me.
Angel's angst
is demon+soul, and Spike's is demon+chip. Both have some interesting
peculiarities due to the mix, but if both have a soul, it seems
neither
would stand out.
On top of that, if Spike suddenly regains some level of humanity
due to
getting a stomach tuck from some three-headed demon, it seems
to me that
it's like: man, all that time Angel's been working hard to be
part of this
prophecy... and all he should've done was stuck around long enough
to be
there with Dawn instead of Spike. Hmph. The idea is that regaining
your
humanity is a hard long road that requires a lot of work & dedication.
And
the person who regains such without even breaking into a sweat?
That plot
line leaves me as dissatisfied as having friends who worked hard
to recover
from addiction, who then had to deal with some nitwit who says,
"oh, yeah, I
did such-and-such once or twice, but I decided to just quit cold
turkey.
Yeah, I'm a recovering addict too." Or high school girls
who accuse their
chemistry teacher of molesting them - these are girls who obviously
don't
understand the true pain that'd result from really experiencing
such a
situation. When people falsely claim to have "suffered greatly"
the result
is usually an audience that disbelieves any claim. Sort of like
crying
wolf... so to speak.
So in that sense, while I certainly admire the work JM (and JW)
has done
with Spike, I'm dubious about the value behind any sort of full
redemption.
Forgiveness, maybe. But full redemption, I don't think so. I don't
think
everything else that has happened deserves to be so cheapened
(as it would
be) by the comparison. And as a final blow, I really wonder if
so many fans
would be clamoring for Spike's redemption if JM weren't just so
damned
handsome!
(hehe)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: if we cheapen the gift -- change, 13:17:50 04/29/01
Sun
> Joss has mentioned - and I think a few other writers in his
group have,
> too - that sending a fully or even partially redeemed Spike
to L.A.
> would cheapen Angel's role considerably. Part of the big
deal about
> Angel is that he's THE vampire with a soul. Frequently overs
have
> mentioned, "gee, Willow gave Angel his soul, why not
do it for
> so-and-so?" Assuming it'd even work (and given Joss'
predelictions, I
> don't think it would), then all of a sudden Angel's not such
a big deal
> anymore - it'd seem to me. Angel's angst is demon+soul, and
Spike's is
> demon+chip. Both have some interesting peculiarities due
to the mix,
> but if both have a soul, it seems neither would stand out.
On the other hand, it could help the Angel show dramatically.
Think about
what the implications would be for Angel if Spike was to start
moving
towards redemption. Right now, it's a given that Angel will be
redeemed. Not
only is that the premise of the Angel show, there was even one
episode with
a prophesy that said that the "vampire with a soul"
will become human. Since
Angel is the only vampire with a soul, we all know he will be
the one to be
redeemed and to become human. Given that we know how the thing
must end,
where's the drama in it?
However, if Spike gets a soul or starts to appear like he could,
then
everything changes. In that case, the prophesy could refer to
either one. If
Wolfram and Hart were to continue chipping away at Angel's humanity,
while a
chipped Spike starts helping Wesley and Cordy, then a lot of premises
would
have to be revised. The Angel show could become the story of Angel's
last,
doomed struggle to achieve humanity while Wolfram and Hart slowly
destroy
his soul piece by piece. And, while all this is going on, Angel
is slowly
being displaced in Cordy, Wesley, and Buffy's hearts by Angel's
old enemy
Spike. The series could end with Angel losing his soul and being
staked by
Faith (the Slayer who's soul was saved by Angel), and with Spike
getting his
soul.
Angel and Spike could become like Spock and Data. Spock had human
emotions
and sought replace them with pure logic. Data was a machine that
only knew
logic and sought human emotions. Likewise, Angel is a vampire
with a soul
seeking to become human, but who is driven by Wolfram and Hart
to be more
demonic. While, Spike wants to be a vampire, but is slowly being
driven by
his chip to become human.
If it's done right, giving Spike a bit more humanity while taking
some of
Angel's away could make things a lot less predictable and much
more
interesting on the Angel show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: if we cheapen the gift -- Joann, 17:35:53 04/29/01
Sun
Don't kill me but when I watched "Intervention" again
I noticed that Dawn
was Nancy Drewing it when she went after the egg and Spike was
her
quasi-watcher-trainer. When he hung over her shoulder and advised
the
mini-bit sister slayer on what to do--I got a cold chill--because
I saw BTVS
going on w/o SMG -- and SMG and Anthony Head being replaced by
the new team.
The thought of no new BTVS with SMG or Giles and the SG is giving
me
pre-nightmares, as you can see. Basically, I don't see Spike leaving.
And I
don't want to see him redeemed and really turned into "Blondie-Bear."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: if we cheapen the gift -- Wiccagrrl, 18:21:26
04/29/01 Sun
Well, if they want to have a whole lot less Angel viewers than
they have
now, that's one way to go. I don't think most of the people who
consider
themselves fans of that show really want to see him replaced by
Spike, or
totally derailed in his attempts to do good. Temporary detours
are one
thing, becoming the villain of his own show permanently while
someone who
never claimed to want to do good usurps his life? It'd turn me
off the show
for good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: if we cheapen the gift -- Solitude1056,
18:29:29 04/29/01 Sun
change has some good ideas about how to flip-flop the whole point
of a show
named after the very character we're talking about "replacing"
- but I go
with Wiccagirl on this one. Thing is, all philosophy aside, the
show has
been able to get as far as it has (where most spin-offs fail after
a year)
because we're genuinely interested in what Angel's up to, and
DB (and DG/JW)
has kept up with Angel's development. There's only so many plot
devices I
can stomach, even from Joss, and Spike & Angel just don't make
a great pair
- we've seen that in flashbacks, and in current episodes. Buffy
& Spike have
a good repartee going on, and I don't want that ruined, but Spike's
got to
have his own path.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> change did have an interesting idea --
Wiccagrrl, 18:41:14
04/29/01 Sun
And actually, it would probably make for a fascinating fanfic.
But I just
have a hard time seeing it playing out in the actual series. It's
like the
idea of having Buffy get vamped. I've actually had some thoughts
on doing
that as a story. But would I want to, or do I expect to, see that
in the
actual series? No.
That said, I do have to mention that when the Shanshu prophecy
was first
mentioned by Wesley, I, too, zeroed in on the fact that they used
the
description (The vampire with a soul) and didn't really mention
Angel by
name. You could argue that the description was pretty clear, and
did say
"The" and not "A". But I've wondered before
if Angel was in for a shock, or
if they were jumping the gun in assuming it was him. Probably
not, but it's
possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: change did have an interesting
idea -- OnM, 20:43:06
04/29/01 Sun
I agree that the show would not do well to _replace_ Angel with
Spike, but
the idea of introducing a competitor for Angel in the soul department
might
hold some great possibilities. The writing team is certainly talented
enough
to pull this off if they wanted to (I'm thinking back not too
very long ago
when many fans were moaning and groaning that the Buffybot/Spike
idea just
*couldn't possibly* work. Oh yeah?
My thinking here (all this is predicated on having Spike actually
move over
to A:tS, hardly a given at this point) is that the major concept
to be
explored here is the one we brought up here at this board back
last fall--
does the chip provide an 'electrochemical soul', and if so, what
would be
the difference between it and the 'real thing'?
This is an age-old philosophical question, after all, for example
in the
issue of whether other animals besides humans have souls. Recall
Dawn's
comment to Buffy after Buffy pointed out that Spike doesn't have
a soul and
Angel does-- "Spike has a chip-- what's the difference?"
I could just
envision a pissing contest between S & A as to who's the most
'soulful' on a
practical basis. Knowing Spike's ego, he would probably be happy
to brag
that he got to a point that it took Angel centuries to get to
in less than a
year. (Not true, of course, but Spike wouldn't see it that way).
So could I see them write this particular arc? You betcha!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: change did have an interesting
idea -- rachel,
17:34:52 04/30/01 Mon
I would love to see an angsty resolve to the Spike/Angel/Buffy
storyline.
I'd love for a storyline that has Buffy accidently choose Spike
over Angel.
For instance, there is a chance for a vamp to redeem and become
human. Buffy
misinterprets this chance as a chance to sacrifice life and die
so she asks
Spike to do this for her and Dawn. He has said he'd be willing
to die. She
does not want Angel to die. He commits this act, preferably by
the side of a
helpless Buffy- I hope she temporarily loses her powers- and is
then
redeemed. The fallout and crossovers would be great and Angel
would have to
deal with the pain, envy, and frustration, and the senselessness
of Spike
being awarded a soul or humanity while Buffy deals with the guilt
and maybe
attraction to a humanized Spike. In the end, Buffy would end up
with
truelove Angel, maybe Spike would die or maybe- like suggested-
Dawn and he
would become a team for future slaying.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: change did have
an interesting idea -- Lyn,
17:56:00 04/30/01 Mon
I would really love to see Spike and Niblet working together.
Remember the
dream scene with Giles and Spike on the swings? Was that a glimpse
of Spike
as a watcher for Dawn? I really can't see Spike as a permanent
member of the
Angel cast. You can't have two heros on one show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> you sure these guys
aren't plants by Joss (spoilers) --
Solitude1056, 17:59:31 04/30/01 Mon
just to confuse & tantalize us with possible story twists???
(hehe)
ok, spoiler space, just because...
Last month, the spoilers were saying explicitly that by now we
should be
seeing Hank & his gurrrrlfriend show up & claim custody of Dawn,
along with
some protracted custody battle. And there was the whole storyline
of Glory
ditching the weakened Ben & grabbing Xander's body, too. I've
seen nothing
leading in either direction, what with Hank's absence & Ben getting
"stronger," in Glory's words. Hello! Is nothing sacred
anymore? Rant, rant,
rant. *grin*
Or perhaps we were getting spoilers from next season, since they're
double-taping right now in prep for the actor/writer/whatever
strike that's
coming soon? Right now we've only got 4 more 45-minute stretches
in which to
pack up a whole lot of loose strings! Anyone have any idea of
whether those
were all Joss' evilness showing its face again, or if not, how
those lines
could all squeeze into the last 4 segments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Can't speak
for anyone else, but I'm firmly in
the animal kingdom myself... -- OnM, 19:43:12 04/30/01 Mon
...however, being an equal-opportunity living entity, those who
prefer to
photosynthesize are welcome here also.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> AtS becomes a tragedy? -- spotjon, 14:38:51 04/30/01
Mon
"The Angel show could become the story of Angel's last, doomed
struggle to
achieve humanity while Wolfram and Hart slowly destroy his soul
piece by
piece. And, while all this is going on, Angel is slowly being
displaced in
Cordy, Wesley, and Buffy's hearts by Angel's old enemy Spike.
The series
could end with Angel losing his soul and being staked by Faith
(the Slayer
who's soul was saved by Angel), and with Spike getting his soul."
This is an interesting concept. I think that it would be really
neat for the
Angel series to end as a tragedy. Perhaps he manages to stop the
apocalypse,
but dies before he can be given the gift of mortality. I doubt
that a lot of
fans would support this as an ending, though. "But Angel
and Buffy should be
together forever!" (insert whiny voice.) But then, I never
would have
expected the writers to make Angel allow the horrible deaths of
about a
dozen lawyers. They don't seem to be too scared about taking risks
with the
characters, but I wonder if they would allow Angel to die at the
end without
receiving the gift he had fought for for so long. As romantic
as it sounds
to have A&B finally get together at the end, I really hope that
it doesn't
happen, because it would make for a better story (at least in
my opinion).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: AtS & crimes -- Solitude1056, 15:46:48 04/30/01
Mon
I dunno about being so upset about the deaths of a dozen lawyers.
Taking the
addiction analogy, I'd have no problem - honestly - with locking
a dozen
dealers & enablers into a room with the addicts they'd created.
If you're
going to unleash such hell upon the world, then don't be surprised
when it
comes back and bites you, too. Besides, the Host pointed out that
the PTB
were working hard to keep Angel away from having to make that
decision...
but he was there despite their attempts (there's your free will),
and he
choose their intended path anyway.
All in all, I'm more for remorse from Angel (or anyone else) for
crimes they
committed against civilians. Those lawyers were willingly fighting
a war on
behalf of evil, and their demise may be mourned by family members
and
friends... but if you put yourself in the line of fire as a warrior,
and you
get shot, well, you knew the risks. In that episode with the dead
cops,
Gunn's ex-friend was thrilled that the cops were exorcised - as
he put it,
now the streets were safe for "his type"... the type
that destroys families,
promotes crime, supports the drug trade, and just about anything
else that
keeps people down, neighborhoods bad, and life dangerous. When
compare the
two, Gunn may've gotten points for dusting his sister, but Angel
got just as
many for clearing out some of the competition.
Ok, so that may sound harsh, but...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: AtS & crimes -- Lyn, 18:04:42 04/30/01
Mon
I'll never get over Angel (not Angelus) locking those lawyers
in the celler.
He committed cold blooded murder. We don't even know those other
people in
the room. Lyla, Lindsey, and their boss deserved what happened
(or should
have happened) but who were those other people? Were they just
paralegals,
secretaries,limo drivers? Or were they serious evil do'ers? Were
they
Wolfram or Hart? It's going to take a while before I forget what
he did.
After Angel set the girls on fire...Dru went to Sunnydale...where
did Darla
go?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Demon tummy tuck..... -- Rufus, 22:29:02 04/29/01 Sun
Angel is the vampire with a soul. While he was thinking of revenge
he did
things that put that soul into question. Along comes Epiphany
and his
direction changed. Angel is no longer on the Redemption road for
a gift. He
is on that road because he recognizes that living a good life
is it's own
reward. If Angel continued on the road doing good deeds expecting
a payment
of mortality, then, that would cheapen the gift. For everything
that Angel
now does to make sense he has to do it because he wants to, no
reward, maybe
no ShanShu.
If Spike becomes mortal as a side-effect of the demon tummy tuck
how does
that random occurance cheapen Angels redemption. First we would
have to
determine what a gift is. Would Spike see the mediocraty of mortality
a
gift? Or would he see it as a curse?
Sometimes things happen, not because the person worked for them,
or deserved
them, but because they happened. No explanation. Is it fair for
Spike to get
humanity for little work? Maybe not, but why look a three headed
gift demon
in the mouth? Life ain't fair, and maybe the road to redemption
isn't
either. One question is Redemption commensurate to the effort
or pain used
to gain it, or based upon genuine intent?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Demon tummy tuck..... -- Lyn, 18:12:12 04/30/01
Mon
I too think the epiphany has changed Angels ideas of redemption.
Like
getting coffee for the gang, working for forgivness is almost
a joke now.
He's doing whats right because it feels good, inside. He loves
cordy (back
to the brother/sister relationship from Doyle days) He respects
Wesley and
wants to work side by side with Gunn, because it feels good to
do the right
thing. If he had a master plan for redemption, why doesn't he
go to church
and pray for forgiveness?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meaning of 7-3-0 -- rpcvc76, 15:46:27 04/29/01 Sun
Someone on the Buffy & Cross Stake posted a link that has Joss
explaining
the meaning of 7-3-0. I don't know if anyone has already read
it or posted
it, but here it is:
http://www.dishthis.com/entertainment/wb/features/features_whedonint.html
rpcvc76
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Meaning of 7-3-0 -- Wiccagrrl, 18:01:26 04/29/01 Sun
Guess sometimes the simplest answers are right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: No simple answers in the Jossverse! -- OnM, 20:20:34
04/29/01 Sun
Does it surprise you at all that Joss would give out 'The Answer'
this close
to the end of the season, after waiting for almost two years?
I'm not
disputing that 730 is two years in days, but keeping in mind that
everything
associated with the show creatively operates on multiple levels
(even the ep
titles always have more than one meaning, a characteristic many
have noted
in the past), my question isn't that 730 is 2 years, but what
*else* does it
mean?
I personally would be very disappointed if the obvious explanation
is the
sole and only one, I mean, how devious and clever would that be?
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: No simple answers in the Jossverse! -- Mav,
04:34:56 04/30/01
Mon
I saw the post at the other board, and I'm sort of dissapointed
if that is
all it means, I hope it goes for something else too.
Mirrors & Vampire Reflection -- FanMan, 18:28:36 04/29/01 Sun
Vampires can't be seen in mirrors.
Vampires have thoughts, but they can't be "seen" by
telepathy.... RE EARSHOT
Glory can't brainsuck vampires...RE INTERVENTION
Maby the brain of a person who is vamped is preserved, and unchanging
like
the rest of their body. This would mean that the memory and personality
of
the original person is preserved as Read Only Memory. The vampire
personality would not evolve; at least not the way human personalities
change by haveing new connections between neurons that create
new
memories/and skills. The human learning process is still being
researched,
however it is generaly seen as an evolving hologram. Memories
are not
localized in one location; they are spread out in the entire cerable
cortex.
Skills are learned by haveing neuron connections grow in a certain
pattern,
more connections equals better/more diverse skill.
Maby vampires thoughts are not like humans, and they are purely
supernatural.
Supposition: Glory could cot brainsuck Spike because his brain
doesn't have
the bioelectrical animus of a living person. Also all vampires
are preseved
as an evil version of their original personality. New memories
would be in
the vampire essance/animating force.
When Buffy switched bodies with Faith her personality was in the
new body.
If Faith's memories were still in Faith's body when Buffy was
in it then she
would have reacted somehow.
Question: are memories part of the soul, or is there a mirror
relationship?....IE do the memories of the soul have an identical
copy in
the form of chemical and electrical connections between neurons
in the
brain?
There is no way to answer this, however it is an interesting question
about
what the SELF is!....:):):)
Second Question: If a complete copy is made of someones memories/and
personality as it exists in thier brain into a different body,
would the new
body have a soul? The soul is not perceivable-oppinion here!-
by mortals,
psychics detect the aura wich is a connection between the physical
body and
the soul. Gohsts are made of ectoplasm wich is probabably the
same type of
energy as the aura.
Third Question: If the copy described above were to interact with
people
he/she knows how would you tell witch is the real thing? Would
he/she have
an aura like the original? Note: for these questions I'm assuming
the
physical bodies are also identical.
This is Speculation about an Oppinion! I cannot percieve auras
myself.....
Just some random babbling(and astrology) -- Kate, 21:09:52 04/29/01 Sun
Alright, I know this really has nothing to do with
anything, but..............(I hope no one minds:)
Lately I've been getting into astrology, and
I decided to check and see how accurate it was
compared with people who aren't even real.(Now, theres
a test for you)That's where Buffy comes in.I did a comatiblity chart (One of
those instant on-line free things) on Buffy and Spike,based on date of birth
time, stuff like that, which I mostly made up, or guessed.
The resuslt surprised me, and thats the only
reason I'm posting this,because no matter what you
believe, scam or real, its still kinda spooky:)
Check it out.
There is conflict between the planet Mars in your(Buffy) birth chart and the
planet Mars in Spike william's birth chart. This aspect symbolizes somewhat
difficult, stormy relationships... If your relationship is already well
established, there might be an ongoing battle of the wills between your two
personalities. Each person tries to assert him or herself in different
directions than the other. On a sensual level (Mars also represents the fire
of desire), this opposition can also mean sexual completeness. His virile
aggressiveness reminds you of the images of sexual conquest you have in your
mind. You project a great deal of psychic energy on the virility you
discovers in him. His warmth, the way he shows his love for you, and his
spontaneous demonstrations of desire, all contribute to the opposition and
sense of completeness that exist between you.
The Sun in your birth chart is in a close angular relationship Pluto in
Spike william's birth chart. Pluto represents transformation and presides
over the deep changes in our personalities; changes that take place, for the
most part, as a result of trying, difficult experiences. These planets, your
Sun and Spike william's Pluto, are not in harmony together, therefore, they
indicate a complicated, but extremely intense relationship. When you met
Spike william, something changed in your consciousness, and in your
relationship with yourself. Your extremely tense, and sometimes complicated
relationship with Spike william seems like one long emotional crisis after
another. This has caused some profound psychological changes in you. You do
not look at yourself, or at your future in the same way as you did before.
This passion (because that is just what it is, a passion) involves the
deepest, most hidden parts of your personality. It brings your sexuality to
the surface, which may be hard for you to accept. The relationship is both
invigorating and destructive, tender and cruel, and is anything but calm and
peaceful. There will be a current of separation and reconciliation in this
relationship, according to your individual personal developments, and your
needs for security and autonomy. This compelling relationship, in which
enchantment alternates with disgust, love with hate, and desire with
indifference, uncovers the most hidden facets of your personality and
promises a radical metamorphosis in your life.(Just a theory, but it sounds
good dosen't it?)
Buffy summers'Behavior as a Partner
Sun in Capricorn for BUFFY SUMMERS
Buffy summers probably has trouble expressing her feelings. She is an
introvert who has a kind of defiance for the world around her. She fears her
own feelings, because they are unpredictable and unreliable. In her quest to
be a part of something, she has a tendency to formalize everything, to give
it shape. She is immovable toward her theories and ideologies, and she likes
to study things in depth. Finding the solutions to difficult problems gives
her great satisfaction. Buffy summers is perseverant and frugal,
self-disciplined and pragmatic, and capable of accomplishing great things.
Behind her cold attitude, is someone very sensitive, and tender hearted;
someone who is hungry for passion. But it is hard for her to express her
emotions, because, for her, they are not rational. Her incredible patience
and self-control allow her to endure restrictions and frustrations that, at
least for most of us, would be unbearable. In her relationships with men,
she often plays the role of the older sister, as she takes it upon herself
to take care of them, (Riley!)and build a stable and happy home for them.
Moon in Aries for BUFFY SUMMERS
Buffy summers is a lively, feverish person whose agitation makes her come
off as a real live wire. Though she may not be aware of it, her subconscious
insecurity sets the high pace in her life, and keeps her in constant motion.
She always has to have a task before her, or something to excite her
interest. Her moods often affect the way in which she reacts to other
people. And her audacious personality and impulsiveness make her feel like a
businessman or an athlete who uses his "pushiness" to get ahead in life.
Yet, she tends to sacrifice her family life in order to satisfy her strong
desire for independence, and her constant need for change.
Influence of Sun and Moon on BUFFY SUMMERS
Buffy summers is a discerning, competent woman and a very pleasant and
capable person in her professional life, but she is somewhat more difficult
in her personal life. She is a real go-getter; she plays hardball and this
tends to scare men away. Her passions are powerful, almost violent. And her
relationships are not always happy, almost as if something were preventing
her from finding true love...
Venus in Capricorn for BUFFY SUMMERS
Buffy summers is sometimes afraid of falling in love. For Buffy summers, the
world of her feelings is a world of coldness and self-restraint. She is not
an insensitive person; she just wants to protect her very delicate feelings
at all costs. She feels she needs to control and organize her feelings as
she would her thoughts. But this very analytical way of looking at her
feelings has a tendency to turn her partners off.
Mars in Aquarius for BUFFY SUMMERS
Buffy summers is capable of devoting all her energy to a project on the one
condition that it is modern, groundbreaking or intellectually stimulating.
Once she is interested in something, she throws herself headlong into his
work and does not give up until she has achieved her goal. Ironically
enough, though her projects often involve spiritual or humanitarian issues,
she is often intolerant and obsessive in her relationships with men. She
does not realize that not everything is as black and white as her personal
convictions.
Spike william's Behavior as a Partner
Sun in Aries for Spike william
Spike william lives by his instincts and in the moment, and he absolutely
thrives in the limelight. He listens neither to his good sense, nor his
reason, but only to his almost visceral need to exist. Spike william is in
constant rebirth and has a predilection for all the diverse forms of
creation: tear down, rebuild, and recreate... He is always in a rush, he
runs, he tackles, ignoring all the obstacles, big or small. Every act, no
matter how trivial, becomes an act of heroism for Spike william. Not even
the occasional failure can stop him; it just must not have been his day!
People often say that he is egotistical, but that is not exactly true. He
has no conscious ill will toward other people. It is more of an unconscious
necessity to assert himself at all costs. Spike william needs to understand
his limits. He also must realize that there will be drawbacks to his
constant and absolute need for freedom.
Moon in Gemini for Spike william
Spike william is a sensitive and spiritual kind of person. He needs
intellectual stimulation to feel alive. He is an active man who is always on
the look out for new contacts with others. His curiosity gives him some wide
interests and the need to be well informed about them. He likes to talk and
communicate with others; he would like to be admired for his conversational
skills and for his sense of humor.
Influence of Sun and Moon on Spike william
Spike william's childlike vivacity is a very seductive aspect of his
personality. He believes in love at first sight, but unfortunately this
seems to happen to him almost every day. He will have many loves and many
short-term love affairs, until a strong-willed woman comes into his life to
straighten him out and take care of him.
Venus in Gemini for Spike william
Spike william likes to seduce women by whispering sweet nothings into their
ears. He is a charmer, who likes to play around with his words in order to
get through to a woman's heart! In his eyes, two people must be as
intellectually complementary as they are physically or emotionally. He is
probably(well, not everyones perfect) an excellent writer who has a gift for
writing love letters. Yet Spike william does have his faults. He has a
tendency to run away from his commitments. He feels he will lose his freedom
to continue to be the sociable person he is if he commits. For Spike william
communication and the exchange of ideas are more important than anything
else in life!
Mars in Taurus for Spike william
Though Spike william sometimes has trouble getting started, once he has
found an activity or a project in which he can channel his energy, nothing
can stop him. His remarkably powerful instincts call him into action and he
does not stop until he is done. Whether his motivation is positive and
constructive, or violent and destructive, the result will always be concrete
and tangible.
Influence of Venus and Mars on Spike william
Spike william has a kind of childlike charm about him that is very
attractive to women. In fact, if he's single, he may have many different
lovers in his life time. He is a very patient, tolerant man. This explains
his attraction for the kind of young, fairly immature women who are far from
being completely reliable or responsible.(Dru, anyone? He may be impatient
in everything else, but when it comes
to Dru, he had to be patient, or else go nuts!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Just some random babbling(and astrology) -- Nina, 14:12:35 04/30/01
Mon
Even though I can't say I believe in the stuff anymore (well not with my
eyes closed anyway!) this is all very funny! Many, so many coincidences.
Tell me though... how did you decide that Spike was Aries? :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Just some random babbling(and astrology) -- Solitude1056, 17:52:19
04/30/01 Mon
Spike is soooo not the Venus in Gemini - his only amours, prior to Buffy,
were Harm, Dru & Cecily. Even given the vampire's apparent static
personality, there's nothing that says vamps are bound for long-term
relationships, but Spike's been one-girl-at-a-time since the get-go. I'd
argue more for Venus in Taurus or even Capricorn, myself - a fixed sign that
tends towards wanting to make the other person happy, creating a home for
the two, that sort of thang. Alternately, he's got elements of Leo in him:
an insecure person on the inside who's got to play the facade at all costs,
and to have someone with him who believes in that facade even when he's
secretly uncertain it's fooling anyone. On that same note, a sun sign of
Aries is usually walking around with the attitude of "here's my brilliant
plan, now y'll go do it while I come up with another one." Spike's got a lot
more follow-through than that; an Aries would've come up with the idea of
the Gem of Amarra but wouldn't have necessarily stuck around to see it
through. A Leo, on the other hand, would've masterminded it from beginning
to end, and invariably in a solitary manner except for one or two devoted
audience-companions.
Anyway, it's all academic but fun nonetheless. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just some random babbling(and astrology) -- rowan, 18:25:41
04/30/01 Mon
I'd be interested in how you came up with the birthdates. Also, if you used
William's birthdate, you might want to consider using the date Spike was
made by Drusilla. It, I think, would be a more accurate reading of Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just some random babbling(and astrology) -- Rufus, 18:32:16
04/30/01 Mon
Sol, you a Leo?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Just some random babbling(and astrology) (OT) -- Solitude1056,
19:33:13 04/30/01 Mon
No, though the various Leos in my life frequently accuse me of being an
Aries or a Gemini for that same start-but-never-finish quality. For the
record, my sun sign isn't Aries or Gemini - I don't even have any Aries in
my chart! But I do have a lot of books on the topic thanks to the
combination of my library & that of the Inside Source Peanut Gallery (TM),
who just happens to be a quintuple Leo. Yikes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Just some random babbling(and astrology) (OT) -- Rufus,
12:23:14 05/01/01 Tue
You just can't seem to get away from the influence of the lion.......and be
prepared to go yikes again.:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Just some random babbling(and astrology) (OT) --
Solitude1056, 20:01:49 05/01/01 Tue
Yeah, I noticed on the cast birthdays there's a plethora of Leos & Geminis -
both big signs for the thespian arts, but yeesh. Must make those soundstages
hell if anyone's feeling either insecure or indecisive (which is probably a
lot, even if they don't admit it). Which is why it's wierd that SMG &
Nicholas Brendan are both Aries... Then again, sun signs are only 1/12th of
the system - doing it just by sun signs is rather like saying everyone born
in 1966 is year of the whatever and therefore is like whatever
automatically. Even my household quintuple Leo (and my ex, who was a
quadruple Virgo) aren't "text book" sun signs, anymore than I'm a "textbook"
ENTP on the Meyers-Briggs scale. It's all an imperfect science, though a lot
of fun after a few drinks... :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just some random babbling(and astrology) (OT) --
Rufus, 21:31:57 05/01/01 Tue
I get to butt heads with the household Pisces....and an orbiting Taurus,
Virgo, and Scorpio.....I do love to tease them with their readings....no
drinks needed....well maybe a few...:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just some random babbling(and astrology) (OT)
What's Ben/Glory's Sign? -- Vulpes, 13:16:39 05/03/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ben's totally a Pisces. Definitely! -- Solitude1056,
15:33:58 05/03/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay tell us why you think Ben is a Pisces.....:)
-- Rufus, 16:45:44 05/03/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just some random babbling(and astrology) -- Kate, 20:23:54
05/06/01 Sun
You have a point, but I still stand by my original guess.
You forget about chinese astrology.Put together
with a dragon sign, he would definetly be able to follow
through.I think the Dragon part of his nature only came
through later, when he was turned into a vampire,
perhaps because of the demon or just him being plain
fed up with his lot in life.
I said Aries for him because of how he acted as
Willam, very innocent and unasuming that Ceclia could be
so mean to him.I don't know.I could be wrong, no one
knows excatly when he was born.Also, I doubt he was a
Leo because no Leo would have admited anything he wrote
could possibly be bad! The "I'm the Big Bad" sign he
always carries is pure Dragon, all bark and no bite.(Most
of the time)The book I read from to determine this had
a part (In the Aires/Dragon section) where it mentioned
how susceptible Dragons were to tears.And Spike
certainly seems to melt the moment any of those appear.
(Buffy on her front porch, and Spikes expression when
Dawn was talking to him and it looked like she might
start crying)
Heres the section: Here in the Aires/Dragon, we find a
crackling combination of raw Aires energy and Dragon
pluck and guile.Its an unbeatable conocotion.Aires/Dragon
burns to get ahead in life.Nothing can stop the brand of
will and enterprise born into this subject.
Guile, normally so foriegn to the Aires basic nature,
will color every stone the Dragon born and Aires overturns.
These people are not only devious, they not just crafty,
they are so self-confident that you hardly notice your
s;iverware is missing.Aires/Dragon don't ever appear
shifty.They are ladies and gentlemen.And to hear them talk
you would think they were positvely callow!
The impecable Aires/Dragon melts when confronted with
sadness.Aires/Dragons fall for all sob stories.
An Aires/Dragon boss may hate his employee with a green
disgust.But if said employee comes crying for a raise,
Aires/Dragon sends out for Kleenes and a fountain pen
to sign the guy's check.
Theres no other way to tell it.Aires/Dragons are irresistible. They possess
unmitigated attractiveness.
They give off a kind of brute heat that topples
even the iceiest oppostion.
There is of course the danger of arrogance here.
So much fire and so little temperance couppled with
looks and taste and success- well its an incendiary
combination.
Aires/Dragons may inspire envy.Their inveterate cunning
drives strong direct people to distraction.Why, wonders
the plain-spoken hard driving straight arrow, does the
Aires/Dragon always try to get away with trickery.Can't
he see that we are on to him? Can't he tell that after
years we've been vaccinated against his wiles?
Answer:Yes
Aires/Dragon can see that the straight-shooting Sheriff
John Wayne-type character has got his number.But that
will never deter Aires/Dragon from trying to have a little
fun at the sheriff's expense.To the Aires/Dragon its all
a game anyway.He has the magic touch.So why should he
deprive himself fo flaunting it?
Actually underneath the slick exterior, teh Aires/Dragon
is touchingly sincere.He dosen't make friends easily.
He cares deeply about everyone he undertakes to love.
And Aires/Draons are capable of tue flaming passionate attachments.They are
essentially good and well-meaning.But
they cannot resist their own adorableness.They like to
bask in their own sunshine, get the most out of life
and tear into everything to do with living.
Love: If you love and Aires/Dragon and feel he or
she is erring and straying just a bit too frequently
you can always appeal to him or her through the maudlin.
Stand at the dining room table, white knuckles griping
the edge, head down and sob.Yes.Snivel and heave your
shoulders alot.Your Aires/Dragon may have been on their
way out of the house when suddenly there comes this
choking sound."My love is crying!" Dragon swashbuckles
back up the steps, cuddles you close and asks, "What can
I do?"
Theres more ,but you get the point.It certainly sounds
like Spike to me, but its all guesswork anyhow.:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Just some random babbling(and astrology) -- Valentina, 22:35:59
05/04/01 Fri
Hi! I've never posted here before but I've been reading other people's posts
for a while. I love reading everybody else's opinions. So here's my take on
the whole astrology and Buffy thing. I'm really into astrology and tried to
figure out all the character's signs. Personally, I think Buffy is an
Aquarius. I've looked up all the air dates of her birthday eps and averaged
them (anal, I know). It came out to like January 22. And she seems more like
an Aquarius to me. And Spike is definitely a Leo. He's got that insecure but
covering it up with macho-ness thing going on. That's just my inexpert take
on their signs. Valentina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just some random babbling(and astrology) -- Rufus, 22:18:55
05/05/01 Sat
You know Leo men are going to get a complex over the macho act covering
insecurity thing......lucky Leo women don't have that problem...:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Just some random babbling(and astrology) -- Valentina, 23:16:54
05/05/01 Sat
Yeah, but I love Leos, especially the Leo women. My Mom's one, so I know
them pretty well!:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Just some random babbling(and astrology) -- Solitude1056,
18:14:34 05/06/01 Sun
I am suddenly reminded of the episode where Willow almost got the job as a
vengeance demon. To refresh your memory: with Giles almost blind, Buffy &
Spike engaged, and Xander fighting off demons at every turn, the Scoobies
determined that Willow must've done a spell that's caused such chaos. Buffy
announces, while holding hands with Spike, "but it must not have affected me
because I'm the Slayer."
Uh, sure, Leo women are naturally exempt from those Leo issues, since, uh,
they're women. Uh-hunh.
*ducking*
(hehe)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Just some random babbling(and astrology) -- Rufus, 20:53:15
05/06/01 Sun
That is my Leo logic...makes perfect sense to me...:):)
I'm still waiting for you to finish what you started on the Pisces male.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> pisces exp. is on to-do list, when I have time! :) --
Solitude1056, 06:11:46 05/07/01 Mon
Gender Issues -- BobR, 08:35:09 04/30/01 Mon
A couple of rather important Gender Issues have come up on Buffy
but I don't
think anybody has commented on them. These involve grammar, not
sex.
The hell-god Glory is sometimes called "Glorificus."
In that she appears to
be female, shouldn't it be "Glorifica," to obey correct
Latin grammar?
Willow and Tara's cat is sometimes called "Miss Kitty Fantastico."
The cat
also appears to be a female, so the name should be "Miss
Kitty Fantastica."
What makes this stand out is that it has been established that
Willow knows
both French and Latin and would thus be aware of such gender issues.
I know that I am engaged in very pedantic nit-picking, but it's
fun. Buffy
and Angel usually do pretty good with the various languages that
turn up in
various episodes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Gender Issues -- Alane, 14:32:02 04/30/01 Mon
Bob, gotta love your sensitivity to grammatical gender issues.
Here's my
take: although Glory exists in a female body on this early plane,
Glorificus
could well be masculine or gender-neutral in his/her/its own demon
dimension.
And about Fantastico... well, I guess Willow thought that since
it isn't
even a word (at least not in English), the gender mismatch really
didn't
matter... :p
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Gender Issues -- Solitude1056, 15:30:33 04/30/01 Mon
First, if the cat's fixed, then the gender of the name could be
any of three
latinate options! Second, as long as we're nitpicking - Buffy
& Angel
usually do well with languages, not good.
*grin*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Gender Issues -- Anthony8, 16:27:46 04/30/01 Mon
This is kind of a silly side topic-so I guess I might as well
join in for a
couple comments. Re: fantastico, Miss Kitty Fantastica just sounds
awkward.
It seems to me when anybody these days tries some on the spot
slang
creation, they frequently try to give it a latin sound. For example,
a lot
of people will substitute "no problemo" for "no
problem" when the more
accurate response would be "no problema" (actually,
it would be "de nada").
People often try to "mexicanize" a word by adding an
"o" on the end
regardless of gender.
When I was a kid, my father lived in an apartment building that
had an
amazing collection of very colorful people (would-be actors, artists,
transients, etc). I was too young at the time to understand the
concept of
transvestism so it took a couple of years and my first basic Spanish
class
before I got my dad's (who speaks fluent Spanish) gender inconsistent
reference to "las Bonitos" who lived down the hall from
him. By the way, and
so as not to offend anyone who might misconstrue this little anecdote,
the
nickmame was given (and received) with neighborly affection.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Gender Issues -- Cleanthes, 18:28:41 04/30/01
Mon
Presumably, "Fantastico" is from the word "fantastic"
which is not of
Latinate origin, so the Latin stuff is irrelevant.
Fantastic comes, like phantom, fancy and fantasy, from the Greek
word
pantazein. These words reached English from the Old French.
In Greek, the "o" ending is often feminine: for instance,
Leto, Callisto,
Sappho...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Ms. Kitty Fantastico is a Greek lesbian
cat??? ---- Whoa! Must
be a ratings thing! ;) -- OnM, 20:04:55 04/30/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Gender Issues -- BobR, 09:44:24 05/02/01 Wed
I am deeply impressed by the level of linguistic pedantry on this
forum. The
fact is that almost anything can be justified if you dug far enough.
Pedantically yours,
Bob
Spike and Buffy: the masks are falling -- Nina, 11:18:08 04/30/01
Mon
Hi everyone! I've been quiet recently. Reading the posts, seemed
to be
enough to content me, but I feel I need to post this because I
haven't read
it anywhere and for some reasons, it's what struck me the most
while
watching Intervention. Sorry to start yet another thread on the
subject, but
it will be easier to gather all my thoughts here! If it's redundant,
please
ignore!
Spike and the BuffyBot
What I read the most was that the BuffyBot kept a lot of Buffy's
characteristics but that she was fake. I agree. The way I see
it, something
is terribly wrong with the Bot. Spike didn't build the Bot to
love "him",
but to love the Big Bad image of him. That's why the BuffyBot
is so fake.
Buffy is a hero. She can't love evil. By making the Bot loving
that aspect
of him he changes Buffy dramatically. He makes her love the mask.
The false
image he built over the years
The only valuable image Spike can rely to is the Big Bad image.
He can't
possibly be William the Sissy, or The Heart-broken lover from
season three,
or the neutered vamp. All these images make him look weak, impotent,
flacid!
He would like to believe that the real Buffy is sparing his life
because of
his sinister attraction, but the truth is that as far as we know
she's doing
it because he is harmless. Out of pity. So Spike clings to his
Big Bad mask
and fantazises that Buffy loves him with the mask (sinister attraction,
evil, big Bad, fear)
After Crush, I noticed that Spike had 3 women types in his life:
The mother
(his mother & Dru), the whore (Harmomy) and the virgin (Cecily
& Buffy). The
BuffyBot is clearly the helpless virgin type. The outfit and the
dialogue("I
don't understand this, my skin is all hot") reeks of it.
She's always
helpless against him. She can't resist the attraction, she can't
kill him,
can't hurt him, can't stop loving him. This makes him feel he
has the upper
hand for once. He feels like a man and looks more like one than
the
adolescent we've seen lately.
Still even though he wants the Bot to love the mask, the Hopeless
Romantic
in him can't shut up. He has satin sheets (maybe Dracula needed
an Estate,
but Spike needs satin to cuddle!), after sex pillow talk, and
soap operas'
scenario responses. This guy has been listening to Passions and
soaps for a
year now and I was surprised that no one mentioned the link between
the
scenarios and the soaps. His first interaction with the Bot is
clearly
coming from a guy who had a high dose of soap's addiction. What's
with that
line? "Maybe I should repay you for your gentleness and let
you go?" For a
moment, Spike is not in his crypt anymore, he is in a tv screen
reenacting
what he saw, adapting the fantasie to his condition.
Buffy gets rid of her boxes.
Now if that episode was a huge step for Spike it was a huge step
for Buffy
as well. She got her epiphany while letting herself go in Dawn's
arms in
"Forever". She finally opened the dam to her emotions.
She's now ready to
face them. To go to the source. That's an extraordinary move for
Buffy.
Something I wanted to see happen in long time. She's stepping
out of her
boxes. She's showing maturity. She's growing up. Buffy took her
mask away.
The mask of the girl who is tough and can take everything on her
shoulders
without breaking down. We finally get to see the real Buffy. The
one we were
used to before she started to protect herself.
Full of Love meets Fool for Love
In that final scene, the real Buffy comes to Spike playing his
game. She's
wearing a mask. Beaten-Spike isn't wearing his though. She gets
to see the
real him for the first time. No defenses, no pretenses. Just Spike.
And who
is the real Spike? What does she see? Resilience "even though
he's beaten to
death he sits down), Humor ("They feel real sexy"),
Loyalty ("No. You can't
ever!" - he'd destroy the Bot if he had to), Honesty ("Couldn't
live with
her being in that much pain"), Simplicity (he's at his weakest
and he's not
hiding from it).
Buffy, full off love and compassion, forgives. She takes off the
mask. What
got me were not her words, not the kiss, but the way they looked
at each
other. No masks for the first time in their history. Just Spike
and just
Buffy. Yes, I too believe that it's the end of obsessive bheavior
for Spike,
but I also believe it's the end of any masks between them. What's
left is
loyalty, honesty, simplicity, resilience and humor...
So that's my rambling for today! Thanks!!!! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike and Buffy: the masks are falling -- verdantheart,
11:47:24
04/30/01 Mon
Thanks for a great post! Lots of really good points here.
I agree, Buffy really hasn't been able to see beyond Spike's mask,
particularly since it's been important to him to keep up some
pretense of
still being the Big Bad. That's why it was important to Spike
to have the
bot affirm his badness. However, I think it was that the bot was
supposed to
love him helplessly, despite his evil, rather than because of
his evil--just
as he loves Buffy despite her good.
(Note that Spike's confidence level rises when his badness is
affirmed--for
example, by Dru in "Crush". William and the chipped
Spike haven't got much
confidence. The bot helped shore up his confidence in this way,
as well.)
I'm really curious to see how the two behave toward each other
now--and I
can't say that I have any predictions. Any thoughts? I'm interested.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike and Buffy: the masks are falling -- VanMoodySenior,
14:13:16
04/30/01 Mon
Am I the only one to think this? Can't vampires smell human blood?
Wouldn't
Spike be able to tell that this was not the robot but Buffy? I
am not saying
that Spike didn't do something heroic. I thought he would rat
them out to
Glory, but he surprised me. But I have a hard time believing that
he thought
the robot was there. VMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike and Buffy: the masks are falling -- Paradox,
15:27:52
04/30/01 Mon
He took quite a beating, he was barely able to get up and talk
to Buffy at
the end. All the pain would make it pretty difficult to use your
other
senses or to even think straight. And Buffy did a pretty good
job of
imitating her robotic twin wouldn't u say ;)
-Paradox (who desperately wants a Buffybot)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike and Buffy: the masks are falling -- Solitude1056,
15:39:38
04/30/01 Mon
Gee, if Buffybot had walked in & said "Spike, I'm going to
kick your ass" in
that take-no-prisoners tone SMG uses sometimes... despite the
lack of human
scent, Spike (in that condition) might've still have had a moment
of
cognitive dissonance. And the chances, frankly, of Buffy walking
in wearing
that particular get-up, being so damned perky!, and nudging him
for sex (not
to mention the bizarre non sequitors) are pretty slim. Any human
scent on
her may've been - in Spike's addled brain - something worn off
on her from
an afternoon around humans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike and Buffy: the masks are falling --
Lyn, 17:23:18
04/30/01 Mon
I have always loved Spike and knew the big bad was a mask. Although,
I admit
some of the things he's done are pretty evil. I'm glad spike surprized
us
all by not telling about the key. (I thought he'd tell)The make-up
guys and
girls should get an emmy for the job they did on Spike. It was
unbelievable.
Not even Rocky looked like that when Apollo got done with him.
And, yes, it
wasn't the words between Buffy and spike, or the kiss, it was
the way they
looked at each other. Spike asking for acceptance, some nod of
friendship,
was Buffy forgiving every thing that went before, or just understanding
what
was in his heart for the first time? Did anyone else see Glory
snif Spike? I
thought that was a great little clue. And notice how the big bad
was holding
on to his big bad self, being tough, being strong, until he sees
Buffy
charge in and then he turns into a puddle in the elevator. Buffy
to the
rescue! Although at that point Buffy thought Spike had spilled
his guts to
Glory. Buffy ran back to be with Dawn while Giles and Xander dump
Spike back
in his crypt. I'd like to see Buffy take Spike fresh blood from
the butcher
(like she did for Angel) to help him heal faster.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Brava! -- rowan, 18:23:00 04/30/01 Mon
Nina, I thought this was tremendously insightful, well-written,
and
thought-provoking. With all the redemption talk around Spike,
it's
refreshing to look at this whole thing from a slightly different
angle. I
was giving this some thought on my way to work today (I have a
long commute,
so I need to keep my mind occupied). I think that Spike (like
the rest of
us), is looking for two things: identity and community.
Identity
For the last hundred odd years, Spike's identity has been defined
by being
"The Big Bad" -- the risk-taking vampire who would rather
challenge Slayers
than always settle for the easy kill. He's been evil, and he's
embraced it.
It almost doesn't matter whether he was this thing actuality;
he assumed it
as his identity and believed it to be true.
Now, because of that pesky chip, that identity is at risk. If
he can't
behave in accordance with that identity, is it still true? Much
of this
season has been about his struggle to understand at a most fundamental
level
who he is. He has swung wildly between wanting everyone to believe
that he
is still evil and wanting everyone to believe he's changed (sometimes
in the
same episode).
As the season progresses, Spike's post-chip identity diverges
more and more
from pre-chip Spike, and we see the posturing, the hiding behind
the mask
you describe. When that evil Spike mask doesn't work, he pulls
some old
William tricks out of the box (weirdly distorted as only Spike
can do) and
tries that mask out for size. Underneath, this covers up someone
who doesn't
know anymore who he is.
Community
Equally important with identity is community. Both humans and
vampires need
community. Spike is now alienated from the community of Drusilla,
Angelus,
Darla, and their kin. Even though the chip only prevents the kill
(and not
the feeding), Spike clearly feels isolated from his support system.
He
rejected an opportunity to rejoin Drusilla, and has also rejected
some other
vampire behaviors as the season has progressed.
That leads to the SG -- and Spike's conflicting desire to be both
a part of
them and apart from them at the same time. He wants to be like
them and fit
in, but he's different. And although Spike might have changed
(at least in
the sense that he doesn't currently want to make them his latest
Happy
Meal), the SG isn't ready for such a big leap. Throw in a demon
soul more
drawn to evil than good, and hijinks ensue.
I think Intervention is a very important episode in Spike's life
because it
provides an honest moment when Spike can see clearly what a new
identity
might be for him, and the community he wants to join responds
positively.
I don't know what's in the future for Spike. His total lack of
an internal
ethical compass (soul) makes it almost impossible for him to change,
because
it means that he will have to learn behaviors that don't come
naturally. But
I think that any permanent change in Spike's identity will only
happen if he
both wants it and if the SG reinforces it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Brava to you too! -- Nina, 20:33:18 04/30/01 Mon
Rowan I really liked your post too. I agree that Spike is in quest
of
identity and in need of community. Two little facts came to my
mind while
reading your post. First:
"He has swung wildly between wanting everyone to believe
that he is still
evil and wanting everyone to believe he's changed (sometimes in
the same
episode)." We got to witness that in Intervention. He wants
the Buffybot to
consider him evil and dangerous (yet to be attracted to him) and
he tells
Xander a little later "I'm not a monster." Coming from
the guy who said to
Riley that Buffy liked her men to have some monster in them, that's
pretty
interesting!
The second thing that popped to my mind is when you said that
Spike wanted
communnity but didn't fit with his own kind anymore and didn't
fit with the
SG. That reminds me a lot of Giles. He doesn't fit with his own
kind
(watchers) and he hangs out with people 20-25 years younger than
he is!
Giles said from Spike "he's like a son to me". I want
to see some X/S
bondage, but I surely want to see something develop between Spike
and Giles
too. They got so many things in common. He surely wasn't Ripper-y
with him
this week. He didn't have the heart to stake him either.
Gee I sweared to myself to read and stop writing all the time....
couldn't
help myself. Thanks to everyone for your thoughts!!!! :)
Current board
| May 2001