August 2002 Archives

August 2002 Archives - Page 2

Prev August 2002

More August 2002

You Say it's Your Birthday.... -- Purple Tulip, 08:06:16 08/02/02 Fri

I was thinking this morning (very dangerous when done so early) about birthdays in the Buffyverse. We see Buffy's birthday every year, as some great atrocity or apocalyptic activity always seems to occur (or just getting stuck in her house like this year). And I was wondering, have we seen anyone else's birthdays celebrated or even mentioned (aside from Tara's in "Family" I think it was). They always make such a big deal out of Buffy's and I just don't remember seeing others mentioned. Also, do we even know when her birthday is for sure? I know the episodes celebrating her birthday have aired at different times each year, but in an episode of season four, she says to Riley "I'm a Capricorn on the cusp of Aquarius". And if this is true, then her birthday would be the same day as mine. Just curious if that has ever been stated as fact; there might have been a date on her tombstone when she died, but I didn't pay that close of attention.

Also, does Dawn have a birthday? I assume that she must because the monks have supplied her with everything else---but have we ever been told when that is? And do you think that strange things will start to happen on her birthday as well as Buffy's? That would be interesting. Will there be another great dramatic situation for this year's 22nd for Buffy? Hmmmmm.....

[> Re: You Say it's Your Birthday.... -- CW, 09:23:59 08/02/02 Fri

In Bargaining the tombstone only has her year of birth, 1981.

[> [> If Buffy's birthday is around late Jan-early Feb 1981... -- Rob, 09:46:09 08/02/02 Fri

...then she is about 2 months older than I! (My b-day is March 19, 1981)! Cool!

Rob

[> Cusps and such -- Lyonors, 09:57:53 08/02/02 Fri

From everything I have ever read about astrology, to be born on the cusp of another sign, you would be born sometime on the last 3 days of your particular sun sign. So, since Capricorn is usually considered Dec. 22-Jan 19 Buffy would be born anywhere from January 17-19th. (sometimes Cap's are listed as Dec. 22-Jan 20th, so lets just say 17th-20th.)

Ly

[> [> Cusps do not apply in this context... -- Caroline, 11:08:41 08/02/02 Fri

because there's no such thing as a cusp relating to birth time. You are either born at 29 degrees 59 minutes of one sign of 0 degrees 0 minutes of the next sign (which is why exact times are so important - not just to calculate the ascendant and midheaven but also for other planetary positions of the luminaries and planets - the moon moves roughly 12 degrees a day, the sun about 1 degree). Cusps relate to the houses in the horoscope - the cusp is the beginning of each house. (It would probably be wise to avoid the huge controversy of which house system to use.) Planets near the end of one house and therefore close to the cusp of the next house are often interpreted as having a sphere of influence in the following house, especially if they are in direct motion. However, Buffy has never been revealed to be much for the study department, so one would not expect her to be aware that this is common misconception.

[> Dawn's BDay -- Dochawk, 16:59:18 08/02/02 Fri

Well in "The Weight of the World" we see Dawn being brought home from the hospital. Kinda suggests she has a birthday too. And we know she is going to be or is 16, which would make her born in 1986 (most likely).

[> Re: You Say it's Your Birthday.... -- Random wanderer, 02:50:48 08/03/02 Sat

In a season 1 episode -- "I, Robot -- You Jane" if I be not mistaken -- her actual birthday is displayed on a computer screen when someone calls up her student records. It was sometime in May, I believe. I've already pondered this because her birthday generally occurs sometime toward the middle of the season -- "Surprise" occurs before Valentine's Day, "Helpless" after Christmas, "A New Man" occurs roughly in the middle of the season, as does "Older and Far Away." Can't remember season five's birthday episode (think, brain, think!) and don't believe season one had one. That's the basic story on Buffy's birthday, for what it's worth. Gotta re-watch "IRYJ" to catch the date, but it seems a highly unlikely date, given the evidence. As for her "Capricorn" comment...well, she was being a rather snappish little slayer there, with good reason, given Riley's rather abrupt challenge/question. Not necessarily a good idea to take her literally

[> [> Re: You Say it's Your Birthday.... -- CW, 05:59:51 08/03/02 Sat

Watch close. IRYJ gives two different birthdays, including two different years.

[> [> [> Re: You Say it's Your Birthday.... -- monsieurxander, 17:28:23 08/03/02 Sat

It also says that she is both a senior and a sophomore. My guess is that by that part of the season they realized there would be a second and wanted to explore more of high school... and there are two computer IDs by mistake.

[> [> Re: You Say it's Your Birthday.... -- monsieurxander, 18:13:34 08/03/02 Sat

Factoid:

Season 5's Buffy Birthday was in the episode where Dawn finds out she's the Key, and consequently cuts herself at Buffy's party.

Is Fractured Fandom Unavoidable? -- cjc36, 09:58:08 08/02/02 Fri

Is divided fandom a good thing? Is the Buffyverse getting to a point all successful genre universes get where internecine warfare and sub-identities fandom qualifiers become too much weight for the thing to hold?

When I first started going to Fandom's (then Cinescape's) BtVS board, I also visited their X-Files board from time to time. By this time, mid '99, I was a lapsed Phile; the mytharc was going nowhere, and there were rumors of the show ending every May. The X-Files board was cool, there were people much like here, extremely literate folks who wrote long essays on the nature of the show, and they were fantastic to read. Things changed when it was announced Robert Patrick was going onto the show, and suddenly what was once small, easily unnoticed divisions in Phile-dom became uncross-able divides: Not only were there Romos (in favor of M/S romance) and No-Romos (officially opposed), but there were now Mulderists, Sculliests, Mytharc-lovers and MOW (monster of the week) fans. Mostly the friction came from the so-called Mulderists, who couldn't for the life of them even consider anybody, ever, playing the male lead on the show. They posted many hategrams toward the producers and made Robert Patrick's name nearly unspeakable (uh, untypable?) on the board. Well, the Mulder fans finally gave up and left the board, and I did, too, soon after.

Is Buffy/Angel fandom now becoming this? Have we ever seen anything as divisive as the uproar over Spike's near-rape of Buffy, and the W/T debate fiasco? Are we now breaking up into Spuffy shippers and no-romos, W/T kitten fans, Giles Tweed Twavlers?

I hope this doesn't get so bad that certain groups of fans become so intolerant, that certain subjects or events become the spark of raging firestorms.

What the heck happened to liking Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Angel: The Series??? Are is the universe(s) too old, too well traveled now, to have general fans?

[>I hope not... (season 6 spoilers) -- Rob, 10:26:01 08/02/02 Fri

I have always been a very contented "Buffy" fan. I never ask for them to change anything they've done on the show...to bring two characters together, break two apart, kill one, keep one alive, etc. I am so involved in the story, I can't wait to see what will happen next. I don't want the writers to make everything work out the way I think they should. The thing I love most about "Buffy" is its ability to surprise me. When something happens that I think is a little off or odd, it usually ends up paying off for me later in the year. Most "Buffy" seasons are better when one rewatches them at the end of the year.

I am a fan of the sixth season, a huge fan, in fact--change is good, in my book--but I would like to see the show end with the characters all at a good state in their lives. Doesn't mean everything has to be happily ever after, but optimistic for the future...Uplifting...

And I have complete faith that Joss will deliver a great 7th season, just as he has delivered 6 great seasons in the past.

I hope he ignores all the possible divisions of fans, and just keeps writing the story the he wants (and needs) to...The Death of Tara and Near-Rape of Buffy might have cost him some fans, but ya know what? I'm not sorry he did things the way he did. And I hope he isn't either. Because for me, this year has been one of the most rewarding in the show's six year history. My favorite is still Season Five, but Season Six is definitely up there.

Fans who break off into groups and are intolerant of others' opinions can make viewing the show a most unpleasant experience...and discussing it even worse That way they have already decided beforehand that (for pro-Spike anti-everybody else fans) everything Spike does is good, everybody else is evil; (for angry Kittens) that they will never accept Willow with another lover, etc, etc. If you make these decisions beforehand, you will be extremely annoyed when the story doesn't work out the way you wanted it to work.

Well, you know what, I love every character on the show. Every one. Sometimes I side with one or another in an argument (like if Xander was right or not to leave Anya at the alter), but I never tear apart one in order to praise the other.

I say, "Just shut up and watch the story enfold!"

Some would say that I am too blindly accepting of the show and don't critique it enough. That's fair, but this is honestly the only show I feel this way about. I think the saddest thing is that, in most cases, the fans who tear a show apart are its most diehard fans. I enjoyed "Doublemeat Palace." I have a friend who never watches "Buffy" who enjoyed it very much. Therefore, a non-viewer liked an episode that most "fans" didn't like. Who's the real fan then?

I'm not saying that you can't dislike an episode...You're allowed! But I'm just explaining where I'm coming from, and why, in most cases, I will argue on ME's side in a discussion over the merits of a particular event on "Buffy."

Now I'm going off on a bit of a tangent, so I'll just stop now and get back to work! Hope I made at least a little bit of sense here and there...

Rob

[> [>BTW, "hope not" didn't mean I hope fandom is fractured, but a response to the post's last sentence! -- Rob, 11:09:27 08/02/02 Fri

[> [>Re: I hope not... (season 6 spoilers) -- Badbh, 11:50:09 08/02/02 Fri

i agree. You have to trust the creator of the show. After all if it wasn't for Joss and his team of writers there would never have been a Buffy universe to argue over.
Its just like reading a book, sometimes bad things happen to the characters and maybe if you had written the book you would have changed things. But then the book would be different, and maybe not as good as the author made it.
I love Spike, I loved him when he was evil. Was doubtful when he got his chip, but then he was still cool. I am sure that he will be different with a soul, but still a great character.

[> [>Viewing BtVs critically.... -- Caroline, 12:20:58 08/02/02 Fri

Rob and cjc36, you both make very good points. I also hope that fandom does not degenerate into a pyhrric battle. I consider myself to be what you, cjc36, call a 'general' fan. I like the entire show, have been sad to see certain people go, happy to see new people come in. You could say that I'm a reasonably malleable viewer of BtVS - I'm prepared to go where Joss and the writing team are prepared to take me. But I'm not entirely uncritical - there are episodes I think are not up to ME's standards and certain plotlines that fail.

Let me give an example. Although I loved season 6, I think that they dropped the ball on developing Willow's story in a psychologically complex way (ie, physical addiction to magic but they suddenly stopped exploring the *why* of it very quickly) and I think that it took some punch out of the finale - Willow is 'possessed' rather than dealing with her demons and responsibility for her actions.

I like Willow - I won't stop liking her if she does something bad if I can understand what propelled her there and see that she's acknowledged it and is trying to change. This is why I haven't stopped liking Xander after he walked out on Anya and why I don't hate Spike after he tried to rape Buffy. I see character development and motivation and horrible tragic mistakes but I don't point the finger because I can't clearly and unambiguously assign fault. I hope that we see this early next season - Willow may have been possessed by the magic to destroy the world but she made the choice to go to the books in her right mind, prior to possession. She really needs to deal with that. (Please don't spoil me, I'd prefer to be surprised).

I understand that there are some who are particularly enamoured or identify deeply with a certain character.
I know that many will think that my eyesight needs to be checked but I don't see the studliness quotient of either of the actors who play Angel or Spike (more of a Rutger Hauer/Benicio del Toro/Rufus Sewell/Cary Elwes girl myself - with a dash of Norm Abram from This Old House) so I never really got into the devotional thing to either. Being enamoured of a certain character (over-identify much?) can be a healing and cathartic experience for the viewer but when the viewer is unable to let go of their identification or clings to a certain, static view of a character is, imho, potentially destructive. We have to acknowledge that they are not our characters. We may see something within them that attracts but they are not us. Okay, I thought I could say this more concisely but I can't. I'll have to go a little deeper and hope that people will 'grok' what I'm saying and realize that I am in no way trying to offend anyone.

There have been protests from two sets of fans - Spikelovers and W/Tlovers. The former argue that it's completely out of character for Spike to rape Buffy. The latter are viscerally angry and upset about the death of a beloved character and the descent into evil of another. I'm not arguing the merits of these views. All I'm arguing for is a modicum of detachment necessary to view this events from a slightly different perspective for our own sakes. The level of heat and passion in the defense of these characters and the attacks on others characters and the writers indicate to me a level of fusion on the part of these viewers and the characters created. It is a tribute to Joss and co that they have managed to do this - artists touch us in precisely these subterranean ways - our feeling, our emotions, our unconscious assumptions. And it may be necessary for many of us to seek this fusion for our own experience. But to be unable to move beyond this fusion, to stay stuck in it would have the same destructive results to our viewing of the show and the fracturing of fandom itself as Buffy's continued liaison with Spike in season 6. We would stick to whatever character we identified with and defend our views of them as if our lives depended on it. We ourselves would not learn and grow from our interaction with this medium and this show. I've spent a lot of time this season writing stuff about psychological projection and lack of separation in many of the relationships on BtVS but I think that we in fandom need to also check on the status of our own projections and lack of separation we may have with characters on the show. The lack of separation means that we are unable to accept change in our beloved characters (or parts of ourselves) because that would upset the delicate fusion we have with them and is intepreted unconsciously as an attack on ourselves, thus the level of heat and passion generated. If we don't get a handle on it, I do fear a destructive, divisive time for fans of the show.

I just hope that Joss doesn't start catering to certain segments of fans and stays true to his vision. That would also be a destructive thing because I think Joss can tell this story better than any one of us can.

[> [> [>Hear! Hear! (for Caroline & for d'H) -- Dead Soul, 12:44:05 08/02/02 Fri

[> [> [>Right there with both of you. -- HonorH, 12:52:31 08/02/02 Fri

I love the show as a whole. I came to the fandom late and had to get caught up via tapes (God bless you, Phouka!), and let me tell you, surfing through seasons 1-4 at as fast a pace as I could get the tapes in the VCR was quite the amazing ride. Watching the universe expand, seeing characters change, grow, at times regress, but always staying in motion, is all part of the show's joy to me. Wanna break up Buffy and Angel? Okay. Chip Spike? Sure! Make Willow fall in love with a mysterious woman? Why the heck not? Give Buffy an even-more-mysterious little sister? Terrific!

The reason this show is better than any other show I've watched (even M*A*S*H, even Highlander, which are my other two favorites) is that the characters *don't* stay static, and you can chart their growth as the seasons go by. You can watch the universe expand with a continuity no other show has ever quite accomplished.

That's why I don't invest as much of my emotion in the pairings. Not that they don't affect me--Tara's death hit me like a gut-punch--but it's the *individual* characters that really interest me, and if they grow beyond a particular relationship, or if the relationship doesn't work out due to whatever factor, it makes sense to me that they'd have to split up. As long as the pairings make sense, and as long as the breakups make sense, I'm not going to start hating anybody.

What annoys me most is when people start making dire predictions about the show's future. "Willow gets off scot-free for killing Warren!" Okay, what show are you watching? I can tell you without having seen any S7 spoilers that there will be consequences for everything Willow did. I'll lay any amount of money on it, in fact. Bet against me only if you've got money to spare. "Souled Spike will be Angel v. 2.0!" Tell me, if unsouled Spike isn't anything like unsouled Angel, what makes you think the souled versions will be anything alike?

That may be a rant for another time, but let me connect it with the subject by saying: I'm willing to make the above predictions (Willow will face Consequences, and Spike won't be Angel Jr.) because of the show's past. Although there have been weak spots here and there, overall, TPTB-Jossverse have shown themselves to be excellent storytellers.

As for 'ships, well . . . here's my take on them:

'Ships that Pass Into Type

and its tart-tongued post-S6 counterpart:

Some 'Ships Shouldn't Sail

Hope I managed to amuse, if not enlighten!

My FanFiction.Net Page

(Finally got that gosh-darn HTML thing figured out.)

[> [> [> [>ROTFL! -- Masq, 13:40:44 08/02/02 Fri

I love this stuff, HonorH! You da man! Da woman... well, you know what you are.

Would you mind me linking to this stuff on our board links page?

And, have you thought of doing a "Meet the Posters" profile?

[> [> [> [> [>Re: ROTFL! -- HonorH, 16:49:36 08/02/02 Fri

Sure! Link to the stories, my FFN page, whatever. It's all good with me. I'll do a profile, too. I like this place!

[> [> [> [>Those were so frickin' funny, HonorH! -- Rob, 13:55:27 08/02/02 Fri

And having checked out your site through your Fanfiction.net page, I saw your "Xena" stories. I'm a "Xena" fan as well. Used to be really into it, and still look back on it now nostalgically, although it doesn't hold a candle to the Buffster.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [>Re: Those were so frickin' funny, HonorH! -- HonorH, 23:38:14 08/02/02 Fri

Xena is what got me into Internet fandom and writing fanfic. I also participated quite vigorously in Highlander fandom for a time and still have a lot of friends (and one kickass board I hang around on) in that fandom. The Jossverse, though, is just plain A Cut Above.

[> [> [> [>Great stuff! -- Rahael, 15:13:12 08/02/02 Fri

Thanks so much!

And you really nailed those voices!

[> [> [> [>oh my! -- Vickie, 15:32:32 08/02/02 Fri

Can't talk, can't breathe, laughing too hard, scaring the engineers.......

THANK YOU!

[> [> [> [>Thanks for posting this- -- Arethusa, 16:04:15 08/02/02 Fri

very funny, and characterization is perfect, which is so rare.

[> [> [> [>'Ships -- Kitt, 16:24:55 08/02/02 Fri

ya'know, HonorH, it's not nice to write stuff so funny I laugh so hard I can't breath, now, don't you?

Seriously, those have got to be the 2 funniest fics I ever read. {pathetic voice} Can we have some more, please sir?

:)
Kitt

[> [> [> [>Damn, they were good! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 20:49:02 08/02/02 Fri

[> [> [> [>Funniest Fan Fic I've ever read..... -- cjc36, 06:36:23 08/03/02 Sat

On Ships that Pass Into Type" and "Some Ships Shouldn't Sail"

Seldom has the fanfic I've came across actually captured the humor of the Buffverse. Heck, even the 'official' comix and novels can't get it done. This did it in spades, ironically a parody of fanfic itself, but not unkind, and actually sympathetic to the fanfic cause.

IMHO, I think any Buffy text story should have reams of nearly unadorned dialog. We're already fans, we'll put the actors on the stage in the 'theatre of the mind.' Of course one has to have a properly Joss-keyed 'ear' for it, and you do, Honor H, very well.

Thanks for the belly laughs and a unique and needed mid-summer visit with the Scoobies.

[> [> [> [> [>Thanks so much! -- HonorH, 20:14:42 08/03/02 Sat

That's a very high compliment indeed. To me, there's nothing so important as the character in fanfic. You can come up with a kick-ass plot and write it incredibly well, but if you miss the characters, I'm going to hit the "back" key because I just won't be able to believe it. Conversely, good characterization will keep me reading a fic I normally wouldn't. I'm not a slash-lover, but Yahtzee's "Sea Change" (Angel/Lindsey) kept me reading because she got the characters so *right*.

Glad I was able to amuse!

[> [> [> [>Hilarious HonorH. Color me very impressed -- Dedalus, 14:57:04 08/03/02 Sat

[> [> [> [>Thanks - a much needed respite from axe-grinding -- gds, 19:10:51 08/03/02 Sat

[> [>A few responses, and a thanks -- cjc36, 03:45:55 08/03/02 Sat

POSTED BY ROB: "ŠI am a fan of the sixth season, a huge fan, in fact--change is good, in my book--but I would like to see the show end with the characters all at a good state in their lives. Doesn't mean everything has to be happily ever after, but optimistic for the future...Uplifting..."

The more I watch S6, the more I like it. One can only have an S6 if it is in fact years down the road. And that is really an enriching experience for a viewer.

POSTED BY ROB: "ŠI'm not saying that you can't dislike an episode...You're allowed! But I'm just explaining where I'm coming from, and why, in most cases, I will argue on ME's side in a discussion over the merits of a particular event on 'Buffy.'"

Exactly! Criticism, especially the well-thought critiques here (which are frequently over my head, but remind me of the Wrapped in Plastic/Spectrum folks) is needed. This is the fan participation part, and the full-circle of storyteller, audience, storyteller. It *isn't* in a vacuum.

CAROLINE POSTED: "Š.We ourselves would not learn and grow from our interaction with this medium and this show. I've spent a lot of time this season writing stuff about psychological projection and lack of separation in many of the relationships on BtVS but I think that we in fandom need to also check on the status of our own projections and lack of separation we may have with characters on the show. The lack of separation means that we are unable to accept change in our beloved characters (or parts of ourselves) because that would upset the delicate fusion we have with them and is interpreted unconsciously as an attack on ourselves, thus the level of heat and passion generated. If we don't get a handle on it, I do fear a destructive, divisive time for fans of the show."

I've always taken a 'writerly' approach to BtVS. I can see the characters as characters, but I also see them as participants in a grand novel. Watching a new episode, or even reviewing a seasonal arc, is almost like hearing a great band and sensing the hooks in the songs before they come, but still being surprised by them when they do. Joss is an intuitive master at story-craft, and his balance of all the balls: comedy, horror, drama, etc, is just a marvel to behold when it all works, and, really, should it ever work this well, as often as it does, on a TV show?

CAROLINE POSTED: "ŠI just hope that Joss doesn't start catering to certain segments of fans and stays true to his vision. That would also be a destructive thing because I think Joss can tell this story better than any one of us can."

Hear, Hear!

HONOR H POSTED: "ŠThe reason this show is better than any other show I've watched (even M*A*S*H, even Highlander, which are my other two favorites) is that the characters *don't* stay static, and you can chart their growth as the seasons go by. You can watch the universe expand with a continuity no other show has ever quite accomplished."

Characters change in one other medium: Soaps. But I've always wondered what alchemy Joss uses to make these plots come out non-'soapy?' Round up a bunch of other writers and give them this show back in '96, and BtVS would've been "Dawson's 90210" with vampires. What is it that makes this a novel and not a soap opera?

HONOR H POSTED: [GENERIC SPOILER PREDICTION] "'Souled Spike will be Angel v. 2.0!' Tell me, if unsouled Spike isn't anything like unsouled Angel, what makes you think the souled versions will be anything alike?"

Exactly! Souled Spike will become something quite unlike Angel. Will they make him funny? Evil? Who knows? But I'm looking forward to seeing what ME gives JM to work with, and expect him to run with it, actor-wise, big time!

Thanks to all the responses, and I'm going to look up your articles you linked, Honor H.

[> [>Rob - OT link -- Dedalus, 14:50:17 08/03/02 Sat

Hello, Rob. I agree with your post. As one blind fan to another. :-)

Anyway, I noticed you asked me for a link that I set up wrong over at Suite101. I was NOT ignoring you - I never ignore people, especially the ones who actually want to take the time to read my ramblings, but I kept trying to post a reply, and my computer simply wouldn't let me.

So anyway, a little late but -

StarCrossed

That should do it ...

[> [> [>Thanks, Ded! I'm off to read it now...I love your "Star Wars" essays! -- Rob, 22:11:08 08/03/02 Sat

[>No, it isn't, remember the 'net is a very small portion of fandom ... -- Earl Allison, 15:03:03 08/02/02 Fri

Not at all. Sure, there are some fractured sections of the fandom, but truth be told, they are small, and unfortunately rather VOCAL sections.

In the grand scheme of things, the Internet is still a small percentage of the fandom, which is why it's not really a fair representation of things.

I popped into the Bronze -- yikes! Not the friendliest place, not at all like here. And sure, there are a few vocal posters here who might qualify as divided fandoms, but overall, the posters here are overly tolerant of other views -- a GOOD thing, and educated enough to recognize bias and either ignore it, or attempt to educate it away.

You'll always have some who promote one 'ship, or one character, over the others, and everyone has a favorite character. Now, if they make that 'ship or character the only reason to watch, in a Joss Whedon production -- bad idea. Remember, no one is happy -- everyone takes their lumps, and nothing is forever.

Heck, my favorites are Drusilla (my avatar/icon on Meet the Posters), Faith, and Harmony -- but I'm still watching despite none of them even being on this season :)

Let the small pockets be intolerant, there are more than enough cool heads here to keep things calm, and despite the glut of Spike and Willow/Tara threads lately, almost any view is welcome (although the "Joss hates lesbians" and "Spike is super-duper-good and everyone else sucks" threads are tedious, they are still viewpoints).

I think this board will do fine -- although it wasn't there for the Angel/Buffy breakup of S3, it's been brought up, and the board hasn't crashed and burned. No worries, too many smart folks here to look out for us.

And if I get too rabid in MY views, feel free to clock me one (posting-wise, I mean) -- I'll be good, honest :)

Take it and run.

Totally OT......why Rufus is a fear biter....;) -- Rufus, 14:56:29 08/02/02 Fri

I've not been able to get on the board as much as of late. I'm in the process of packing to move, not a move across country but a move 4 doors down. Just so we are clear...packing to move sucks. My office is like an archeololgical dig....I didn't know just how much crap I had. Just so you all know....not one picture of Spike or calendar of Spike, one has to be dignified....so there is the standard Kitten calendar, plaques with cats, 6 foot high cat post, litter box, live cats, and in the room somewhere the desk with the computer. Of course I have to hoover off all the litter dust to see the screen(it's understood you know I'm exagerating). Then I had to look in my piles of paper and "actually" throw out some of said papers.....some books beyond repair, and the occasional hairball. Did you all know that a packing box is 4 bucks each? Then there is the packing tape, paper and the job of assembling the flat box into something that will hold my above mentioned crap. So no one in my complex finds out I'm a closet Buffyholic I've hidden all things Buffy in Rubbermaid containers, no action Spikes to hide, just papers that in the wrong hands would prove my addiction.

Now my house looks like a maze with stacks of boxes all nicely labeled on where they go, of course my husband never reads directions so why did I bother? But at least I know where I put my stuff. Then there is the question of throwing out his stuff....does anyone need a copy of "Verbal Judo"? What the hell does a guy who barely talks need with a book called Verbal Judo? And then there is the matter of a certain bedframe I bought cause it matches the colour of the bed.........he says "you have 3 bed frames", but I say "this one is special it is beige"...the standoff begins for real....what are we going to do with the other frames that are perfectly good?......He has me there til I pull out the virtual ace........"Dear, remember all the computer equipment you buy?....the things that I NEVER complain about cause you have duplicates of them?....Think of this bed frame as a computer part and get over it already.....Rufus - one.....Mr. Rufus - 0. Did I also tell you that Mr. Rufus has done almost nothing since we started this move? I've packed, sorted, bagged, labelled.....while Mr. Rufus vigorously sits at his computer? That grain of truth I save for the inevitable arguement over why he has to throw out some of his sacred crap he has carried around with him since birth.

So, packing is hell....I'm in hell and can now sympathize with Buffy......where is Spike when I need someone to carry stuff around? I'll take that Rileybot too...and he has to do windows and ovens. And if anyone visits me and I never see them again I expect the Minotaur got them, or they escaped out the back.

Oh, I mentioned I'm a fear biter......just when things are going just a bit better than lousy, I remember I have an appointment with the dentist....for a root canal. Just so you all know I'm a coward when it comes to needles and pain. The biting comes in about when the drill hits the one live nerve I have left in the tooth. I didn't see the humor when both dentist and assistant giggle as I'm told "Don't worry when we open you up we'll be able to freeze you up better".........shit!!!!!....how about those seconds just before I'm all open and exposed? And do I really want to know where the man I intend to kill when I can stand, is going on his holiday paid for with my pain? I suffered, but he suffered too, I have the bite strength of a Pit Bull, cause if I'm going to hurt I'm sharing. But after some negotiation the doc gets his finger back and they fill the pothole in my mouth......all is well, I can leave, skedaddle......til I find out....."Oh btw, we will see you in September for Root Canal Part deux..........I booked it for the day of my move....let the boxes fall where they may...and the dentist have a memory of my policy of sharing....;)

[>ROFL!! -- dubdub, 15:20:10 08/02/02 Fri

Been there, Rufus! Tell Mr. Rufus I said you can never have too many bedframes.

Good luck!

;o)

[> [>Quasimotos Bell Tower -- Rufus, 03:26:47 08/03/02 Sat

Cause I just love to share may pain, being all generous and all, I had to let you in on the latest. Moving is hell, my own hell dimension, but it is not without some laughs.

My move is more of an exchange, the place I'm moving into was my parents place. In their late 60's they have decided to do the retirement thing.....not like most sane folk that go to Florida or Sun City.....no not my folks, they are going to live in a small town in Northern Alberta with a population of 500 with 5 churches (I'm sure it's a hellmouth). Living on the West Coast our winters are usually quite mild, and now my parents are considering the merits of Long Johns and Snow Blowers, if it weren't so flat I'd say they were moving into the Overlook hotel from Stephen King's the Shining, if the Hotel was 1100sq ft. I told them to get a short wave radio for those dark days of winter..;)

Now to the fun part. After hearing that there may be snow in Jasper, my parents feel they are in a race against the first snow (they are moving mid September)so they are trying to get their stuff together as fast as possible to vamboose out of here. I get a call tonight, "Can we leave our Buffet in the Living room til the weather gets better?"....Simple request if it weren't for the fact that my townhouse if 1000sq ft and I'm sure that bloody thing is 1200sq ft.......it has a Gothic look that makes me visualize gargoyles surfacing at night to survey the room (what's left of it) and guard Quasimotos Bell Tower. They would like to sell this Gothic Horror but have an inflated idea of value and eye appeal......I think once they leave it they aren't coming back for the damn thing. Just think stuck with a piece of furniture that makes me think of David Fury. I'm feeling a little Jack Torrancy and if they are even a few days past spring thaw I will make kindling of the thing and say it "fell down in pieces". Oh.....and my tooth....with the proper drugs I feel almost fine and the dentist still has feeling in that finger.....for now...:):):):)

[> [> [>Re: Quasimotos Bell Tower -- CW, 05:52:10 08/03/02 Sat

Great story. This time of year I sometimes wish I lived somewhere less blasted-hot like northern Alberta. On the trip during which I first visited Arizona, years and years ago, we went through Colorado in early September. One of the passes we crossed there was closed for the winter by a snowstorm the next week. I've been over the mountains between Revelstoke and Calgary. I wouldn't fancy going that way if it looked like snow, or through Jasper either.

Look at the bright side about the bell tower. If the winters are as bad as I think they are in northern Alberta your parents will probably ask you to chop it up and send it to them for fire wood.

[>Oh Rufus...best wishes (but too funny!) -- aliera, 17:37:28 08/02/02 Fri

[>Go to the liquor store... -- Humanitas, 10:59:26 08/03/02 Sat

...for boxes. They'll usually give them to you for free. Saves that four bucks a box. ;)

Hope all is going well, Rufus.

[>Remember, I wrote some very funny stuff on here after my oral surgery ... -- Dedalus, 14:22:06 08/03/02 Sat

[> [>Yes I remember that......... -- Rufus, 01:48:55 08/05/02 Mon

I must remember not to hurt my dentist "cause it would be wrong".....;)

[>But, Rufus.... -- Marie, 02:00:45 08/05/02 Mon

"...what are we going to do with the other
frames that are perfectly good?.."

Darling, you must buy new beds to match them, of course!

Marie

p.s. I know everyone says this, but you will get over it. Eventually. Sometime. Soon. Er...

[>A suggestion for your next dentist visit -- dream of the consortium, 06:17:57 08/05/02 Mon

If your dentist will allow it, wear headphones for root canal, part two. Really. In the last year I have had two root canals, three crowns, and several large fillings replaced - the result of finally getting dental insurance after ten years without. My dentist encourages the use of the headphones. Music gives you something to focus on that isn't pain, discomfort and drool. It's wonderfully distracting.

[> [>I always take headphones . . . -- d'Herblay, 07:30:55 08/05/02 Mon

. . . and one of those sleeping masks they give away on long airplane flights -- oops, this is Rufus I'm talking to -- they sell in travel shops, even for a routine cleaning. I hate staring up into that bright light. My goal is one day to be able to sleep through my cleaning.

[> [> [>One of the rooms at my dentist's office... -- dream of the consortium, 08:18:55 08/05/02 Mon

has a VCR, which is just great. I watched O Brother Where Art Thou during a filling. It was the easiest dentist's visit of my life, though I recommended the dentist stock up on dramas and skip the comedies. You definitely don't want to start laughing with the drill in your mouth.

[> [> [> [>Especially if you get nitrous instead of novocaine! -- d'Herblay, 09:09:20 08/05/02 Mon

[> [> [> [>Sometimes ... -- Dedalus, 12:38:35 08/05/02 Mon

I either recite poetry to myself - like some of Ulysses or Intimations of Immortality, or I just recite bunches of dialogue from the latest Star Wars episode.

[> [>Naked Viking Pity Dance -- Dead Soul, 12:28:00 08/05/02 Mon

The last time I had oral surgery a few of my friends did the Naked Viking Pity Dance and that helped a lot - or maybe it was the Percodan? Or the beer? Well, anyway, it might be worth a try. And the best part is - you don't have to be naked yourself - just the people who pity you.

Dead (and fully clothed) Soul

[>Quasimoto and his Bell Tower have a One Way Ticket to Edmonton.....Yay!!!!!!!! -- Rufus, 17:43:56 08/05/02 Mon

The best news of this move is that the Gothic Horror that is my parents buffet is going with them to Edmonton, one nervous breakdown averted. Now it's getting my and my husbands "crap" sorted and hopefully most of it chucked....of course my idea of junk and his idea of junk are two different things......he has the 5 second rule for food that falls on the floor and an "eternity" rule for anything remotely related to computers.....meaning of course I have lots to do when he goes to work......meaning "if he don't see it - he won't miss it".

Now for contributions from all of you.....I'm collecting weather stories from those of you that live in the Calgary/Edmonton area........mom and dad fear they will get the first big snow Labour Day and get stuck in Jaspar or something......I tell them to pack enough food for winter and some flares(I'm so helpful). It doesn't snow much in the Vancouver area and most Vancouver drivers go into some sort of weird snow induced panic when snow hits our streets. My parents have never lived on the praries...or as my friend has termed their new home "Little House on the Tundra" and want to know how to be prepared for winter. ........I wonder if I will ever get a good nights sleep when two people who have trouble navigating a shopping mall hit small town Alberta.....I think I'll start with sewing my brothers name and phone number inside their clothes......;)

Oh, my husband likes the idea of the "Naked Viking Pity Dance"....maybe he will go in for my root canal part two....he hates hearing about needles and filing teeth etc.....for a guy who has seen some pretty grizzly stuff, needles and female problems make him "green".....wimp...;)

Season 6 - Why so controversial? -- sunshine, 15:11:31 08/02/02 Fri

I'm fairly new to the board, so please forgive me if this is an old chestnut...

Judging from the posts, season 6 has been exceptionally controversial (stating the obvious - always a good strategy). I don't know for sure as I've only been lurking for a couple of months, but I can't believe that previous seasons have generated the kind of arguments we're seeing about the attempted rape, and Tara's death in SR. I can imagine lots of intelligent discussion, but not the heat season 6 has generated. In addition, it's very difficult to see where the truth lies in these discussions - I have some fairly strong opinions about some of the issues, but I'm often impressed by the cogency of opposing arguments (kudos to the Kitten boards FAQ on the Evil/Dead lesbian cliche, for changing my mind on some aspects of Tara's death).

Anyway, all of this reminds me of a discussion of Edgar Allen Poe I read a while ago. The literary merit of his short stories and novels has been hotly disputed over the years, with some proclaiming his genius, and others dismissing his work as puerile nonsense, or the product of a diseased mind. The point of the discussion I read was that the very existence of this intense controversy tends to suggest that Poe is a great writer, as only great works of art can inspire this sort of thing. Can't quite remember what the evidence for *that* claim was, but there is something quite appealing about it.

So (at last) my question is - does the mere existence of these controversies about certain aspects of season 6 indicate that it is a great season (whatever many people may say)? Or is this a sneaky, specious argument?

[>Re: Season 6 - Why so controversial? -- Earl Allison, 15:31:39 08/02/02 Fri

I lean towards the fact that there is conflict and confusion meaning excellent writing to be a specious one. Not deliberately so, certainly, but disagreement doesn't indicate brilliance. I wonder, had this been Season ONE -- would there be a Season Two, or does most of the conflict stem from the perception that ME has done this so much BETTER before, and that they therefore have set the bar too high?

To me, the biggest problem with Season Six, if I had to pick one, was execution.

Sure, we all understand where things were going, and most of us can accept what we saw onscreen, even if we don't like it, but this season, the writers seemed to have serious problems making their points.

I can't recall another season where so MANY points were hammered home, not through the episodes, but through the interviews given later.

Spike wasn't looking to have the chip out, he wanted a soul (I am personally bitter with this one). Spike was still evil, despite his acts (I agree, but I can see where others might not -- as long as they didn't stray into "St. Spike" territory). Willow's problem stemmed from addiction, not the flaw of her personality and tampering with power (AAARRRGGHH! My brain hurts!), etc.

Some people got all these messages loud and clear, others still feel cheated. I think the problem here is a lack of SHOW, DON'T TELL, a problem largely missing from earlier seasons, and this more than most was a season without Joss. How could it not be? The man was working on Firefly, which was time away from Buffy.

I don't think Marti is the AntiChrist, as some on the newsgroups and review sites think, I just think she had her own way of doing things, and they were markedly different from what we the viewers were used to. That, coupled with everything else, spelled out trouble (IMHO).

There are those who feel this was the best season, I say more power to them -- would that I could agree :) It's subjective, like so many other things, so maybe I've gone the long way around to say -- who knows?

Take it and run.

[> [>Re: Season 6 - Why so controversial? -- sunshine, 15:58:14 08/02/02 Fri

Ishould lay my cards on the table and say that, after some doubts in the middle, I liked season 6 a lot. One thing I especially enjoyed (in retrospect) was the absence of a "big bad" and the fact that the overall design of the season was not obvious until quite late on (Entropy/SR,say). However, once the design was revealed, everything that had gone before seemed to click into place. I'm looking forward to watching the whole season again, with the knowledge of how it ends.

Also for the record (though I wouldn't want to argue these points just now), I saw Spike's AR in SR as in character, and didn't have a major problem with Tara's death (aside from feeling very very sad, as she was one of my favoutite characters; plus, some aspects of how it was handled bother me).

However, I do agree that S6 failed in the execution at several points. The one that bugs me the most is Willow's magic "addiction" (just say "No", kids) - shockingly unsubtle. The Riley story was also too damn clunky for me (and I've always liked the Riley character).

At worst, I would say S6 is a fascinating experiment, with a few shaky moments.

I too kinda lean to the view that the "controversial = excellent" argument is specious, but am occasionally tempted by it - especially if it helps defend S6!

[>Too close to real life for some? -- Kerri, 15:34:58 08/02/02 Fri

Let me start by saying that I loved season 6! I also love the character of Buffy (always been my favorite) and find her very sympathetic. So I guess, to begin with, I'm not really in the majority.

BtVS is a mythological show, with characters who are in ways larger than life. The supernaturnal has served as a metaphor for life, which allows viewers to connect with the characters in a detachment. We can see parts of ourselves in the characters, who we become greatly invested in. However, despite this, there was always a sense that we were watching a show that did not exist in our reality and while it mimiced life, it was far enough removed to feel safe to the audience.

This season the metaphors have been removed a bit, and the characters who we have already seen in ourselves are now in situations we've experienced-in a sense becoming us. Is this maybe a little too close for some people to look at the characters objectively?

Everyone makes mistakes, including heroes. As I said Buffy is my favorite character and has always seemed to be a moral, caring, selfless, and loving individual; however this does not mean she's perfect. Buffy is an incredibly human character. She's made mistakes before-but they've been far enough removed from the audience that its easier to stand back and say, "well she's been through a lot, I understand why she's pulling away."

MAybe this season some have felt to close to the characters to look at them objectively. I'm not saying this is bad-in fact, I think the reality of Season 6 made it better. But I do think for some it also made it threatening, and IMO that's part of the reason there has been so much controversy this season.

[>Re: Season 6 - Why so controversial? -- Arethusa, 15:56:01 08/02/02 Fri

Not all controversial art is great-I remember reading about a very controversial work of art that consisted of a crucifix in a container of urine. I don't see anything profound or artistic in that.

I believe S6 is so controversial because it portrayed our "heroes" making very unheroic and all-too-realistic mistakes. Depression, rape and self-esteem implosions are too close to the surface for some people to shrug off as a fantasy. Plus, the worse behavior was committed by the (arguably) most popular characters, in whom some viewers invested a lot of their emotions. As other posters have said, when one identifies with with a character or has invested a great deal of one's emotions in a person or relationship, any change of the status quo is threatening. Hence, controversy. Happily, most of the posters here don't fall into that trap, so we're able to discuss this season and not just villify it.

I thought it was remarkable for a television show to show how many young adults flounder and make terrible mistakes when they are on their own for the first time. Almost all series have the teenagers make a relatively smooth transition to adulthood, complete with success at school, work and romance (which is usually monogamous, heterosexual and squeaky clean).

When I was a kid my family took many long car trips, from Washington to California to Florida to Maine. The scenery wasn't always pretty, but I wouldn't have missed those trips for the world. For the next stage of our BtVS road trip that is Season7, I'm packing a pillow and a few sodas and my laptop and I'm going to enjoy the journey. I have a feeling it's going to be a helluva ride.

[> [>Re: Season 6 - Why so controversial? -- sunshine, 16:15:17 08/02/02 Fri

Yes, I agree that "controversy = artistic excellence" isn't necessarily a good argument. At the very least I think you need to add something about the *quality* of the controversy - that the opposing viewpoints are passionately held, but supported by cogent arguments - and that the controversy *develops* (rather than becoming bogged down in "name calling", say). That's why I mentioned the high quality of discussion on this board. It's also why the crucifix in urine may not qualify as great art, even accepting the "controversy = excellence" claim. However, note that just saying there's nothing profound about the latter case doesn't wash, as the "controversy = excellence" argument aims to undercut that level of the debate by dropping to the meta- level (hope that makes sense).

I agree with you about S6 though - excellent and fascinating for all kinds of reasons, including the ones you mention.

[> [> [>Re: Season 6 - Why so controversial? -- Arethusa, 16:53:24 08/02/02 Fri

However, note that just saying there's nothing profound about the latter case doesn't wash, as the "controversy = excellence" argument aims to undercut that level of the debate by dropping to the meta- level

As a lawyer recently reminded me, I'm not qualified to debate anything. You will have to explain exactly what you mean, because I don't understand. I was trying to point out that I can think of works of art that are controversial, but that I personally would not consider excellent. I'm sorry, I can't come up with any reasons on a meta- level-I'm also not qualified to judge art.

[> [> [> [>Re: Season 6 - Why so controversial? -- DEN, 18:57:34 08/02/02 Fri

IMO, a major problem with s6 was the disconnect between conception and execution in too many key story lines. That problem was exacerbated by what might best be called the "pseudo-realism" of s6--that is the core Scoobies were put into situations that were close enough to "real life" that plot holes which might have been overlooked in a more metaphor-focused season became obvious. Finally, after five years, the show's characters have been sufficiently developed to have acquired autonomous identities. They are correspondingly less flexible, and can no longer be manipulated with the facility of earlier seasons.

To illustrate the points in turn: as for conception versus execution, Willow's long-intended turn to the dark side was postulated rather than demonstrated, to a point where it requires hard-core retconning to extract even a marginally credible matrix for the behavior. In lieu of convincing back story, ME turned to an addiction metaphor that a high proportion of viewers found unconvincing. "Pseudo-realism" is well illustrated by a season story line that gave Buffy the life of a thirtysomething single-parent soccer mom, with none of the resources normally available to such a person. Viewers correspondingly began asking "WTF." As for the issue of character consistency, one needs only to check the archives on Spike and Willow.

Put together, these factors make s6 significantly more controversial than any of its predecessors.

[> [> [> [>Re: Season 6 and art -- aliera, 06:33:00 08/03/02 Sat

DEN I don't know about the marginal part; that may be part of the subjectivity of viewer response. Given the number and depth (or length) of the posts on this, some people feel that there is sufficient background and others don't. I was, and am, one of the people that felt that Willow's character did not fit well with my concept of her character or addiction or magic (as it was previously defined.) I'm not saying that there weren't some signs (retconning!) but that the background wasn't developed in a way that made the story flow easily and realistically for me. And since as you so rightly mentioned this was a more 'realistic' season, realism was a part of the problem. Neither the scoobs nor the viewers had the normal (metaphoric) big bads as a distraction. The season as a whole was a departure from the past in a number of ways. I didn't personally enjoy it as much for this and other reasons; but obviously many other people did and I can understand that.

And Arethusa, your point about controversy not being the only qualification to assessing the greatness of art was also well made; but, I would defend your right to determine your own feelings on it's greatness or lack of greatness. It leads us back to what is art. If art is defined as the production or expression of what is beautiful, appealing or of signifigance (from the American College dictionary), that means (if we accept that definition) that greatness is determined by the response of the viewer/listener. If I produce a sketch which has great personal signifigance does that make it art? If I do a sketch which garners some critical acclaim does that make it art? If I do a piece which moves other people and changes something in their lives does that make it art?

I would definitely agree with you that the quantity and extent of debate does not necessarily mean that that season six or anything else is a great work of art. It might simply mean that season six left us with a lot to debate and that we enjoy that debate! Or it might not. Either way I would defend your right to debate it. JMHO.

[> [> [> [>Re: Season 6 - Why so controversial? -- sunshine, 13:30:22 08/03/02 Sat

Yes, I see your point now, and, on reflection, it's a fair one - one way of arguing against the "controversy = excellence" claim is to produce a counterexample (piss-christ) to it.

My point was the different one that someone who holds the C=E view wouldn't care about your personal reaction to piss-christ (or to anyone else's). Instead, she would use the fact that a large number of people disagree passionately and articulately (?) about it to argue that it must be good art. The more vehemently you argue that piss-christ is banal, shallow, etc, the more you provide her with evidence for her counter claim. The best strategy against this sneaky tactic would be to keep quiet!

Sometimes I wish critics would adopt this quietist approach to art that they see as banal or offensive. I think that by arguing so vehemently and publicly about it they reinforce the view that it is somehow important.

Hope that answers your question.

[> [> [> [> [>Re: Season 6 - Why so controversial? -- Arethusa, 15:26:35 08/03/02 Sat

Yes, it does. And your're quite right-the more protests, the more people are exposed to the art.

[> [>Aaah... Maplethorpe's "Piss Christ" -- Q, 19:24:25 08/02/02 Fri

Not a fan?

[> [> [>Not so much -- Arethusa, 06:21:49 08/03/02 Sat

So that was Maplethorpe? I read about his photos too. I can understand controversy to get people thinking about their assumptions and preconceptions, but a crucifix in unrine just doesnt' get me questioning anything. I don't get the point. Religion is crap? Catholic icons are hypocritcal? Christ was irrelevant?

Hey-no fair. Now I'm thinking.

[> [> [>Er, Actually Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" -- Akita, 07:57:04 08/03/02 Sat

[> [> [> [>Yeah, Maplethorpe's famous for stuff like the "Bull-Whip" (I belive it's called) -- Rob, 08:26:19 08/03/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> [>Re: Yeah, Maplethorpe's famous for stuff like the "Bull-Whip" (I belive it's called) -- Arethusa, 09:18:13 08/03/02 Sat

I took a look at some Serrano photographs on the web. They're beautifully photographed, but his "History of Sex" seems more pornographic than historic-that is, nudity for titillation instead of contemplation. One photo, of an older woman (?) and a younger man is interesting, since our society sees older women as asexual, but the others are pretty porno. But then, like I said, I know nothing about art.

Which brings me back to BtVS. A friend of mine recently saw some of "The Wish" and was horrified. People in cages, spread-eagled on a pool table, male and female vampires simultaneously carressing a victim's neck before biting-he called it sick and evil. Obviously, most of us don't have a problem with the more, er, lurid aspects of vampire tales, but others do. Does anyone think that parts of BtVS are unhealthy? I'm talking pre-Spuffy, especially, since the sexcapades of S6 are controversial for slightly different reasons-sex, not lurid images or violence.

[> [> [> [> [> [>My apologies to Maplethorpe (and Serrano) -- Q, 00:11:44 08/04/02 Sun

I really should double check stuff like this, instead of trusting my mind--which hasn't studied this stuff in years, and probably learned about Maplethorpe and Serrano during the same lecture and got them confused.

I am deeply embarassed.

[> [> [>Re: Aaah... Maplethorpe's "Piss Christ" -- J, 14:24:26 08/03/02 Sat

"Piss Christ" is by Andres Serrano, not Robert Mapplethorpe. While both Serrano and Mapplethorpe are controversial artists, Serrano's not nearly in Mapplethorpe's league: Serrano is a shockster with very little content beyond the shock; Mappelthorpe's work, on the other hand, is varied, intense, and personal. Moreover, his work is not always confrontational or explicit. Don't tar Mapplethorpe with the same brush!

For a look at "Piss Christ" check here:

http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502.html

For a look at Mapplethorpe's work, check here:

http://www.mapplethorpe.org/selectedworks.html

I think you'll find there's really no comparison.

[>Re: Season 6 - Why so controversial? -- ZachsMind, 22:59:30 08/02/02 Fri

"So (at last) my question is - does the mere existence of these controversies about certain aspects of season 6 indicate that it is a great season (whatever many people may say)? Or is this a sneaky, specious argument?"

The argument you suggest regarding Edgar Allen Poe's controversial nature defining his greatness does have its flaws. This same argument could be used regarding the efforts of Robert Maplethorpe, who if memory serves, once submerged an image of the Christian crucifix in urine and called it art. Or was it Andres Serrano? In either case, it was an expression of the self, and can be construed as art.

I happen to believe that everything in life is art of one form or another. Even a simple exhalation of breath can be seen as art, as was illustrated by the Japanese in the invention of Haiku poetry. Haiku is intended to be expressed verbally in one exhalation of breath, capturing a frozen second of time for all eternity within a few simple words.

However, is something *good* art? Just because something causes people to argue the facts and suppositions of a given form of expression does not automatically constitute its high standard of quality. And one man's trash is another's treasure. Someone can talk and spit at me until they're blue in the face, but I still will never accept that Brittany Spears has ever committed anything constituting *good* art.

There are those who question whether anything broadcast for television can be considered good art. I happen to find Buffy the Vampire Slayer a curious enigma. The title alone turns people away. The premise doesn't encourage many others, and yet still it has found its audience. Why? Because those of us who admire the work of Joss Whedon and his cast & crew for BtVS do so because we are each intelligent enough not to judge a book by its cover. It is for that reason that to those of us enjoying the series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is high quality *good* art indeed.

But what of season six? It cuts too close to the bone for some. It's dark and dreary to others. Rather than have the Big Bad of the season be a naughty vampire, a disgusting demon, or a powerfully evil god, season six allowed the Big Bad to be the principal players themselves, and in this day and age when true heroes are seemingly so few and far between, we hate to see the mighty fall.

Buffy fell this season, from a higher precipice than anyone could have imagined. The protagonist of the series fell from the pedestal that those supporting her had placed her. She fell short of their ideal for her. She lost her confidence. She turned to the arms of the enemy for comfort. She fraternized with the very evil she has sworn to destroy. When those closest to her needed her most, she was too preoccupied with her own concerns to be of any use to them. She even attempted to kill them at one point.

Willow too fell from the pedestal of grace. She too attempted to kill everyone and everything she held dear. She embraced the dark forces of evil in magic, rather than discover the true pure form of magic as Tara and Giles had. She opted to be super Willow instead of plain jane Willow, and it almost cost her her soul. It might just yet.

Xander has in the past sought love in Buffy, in Willow, Cordelia, and even Faith, but his only success has been with that of a vengeance demon. Again, we see a protagonist turn to the forces of evil for comfort. Yet in Anya he found the chance to seek true love in its grandest form. Yet what did he do at his moment of requited love? He dashed it on the rocks and left it to erode in the rain.

The Big Bad of season six was the evil inside the heroes themselves. I happen to find this the most creative and original direction that Whedon and the writing staff of BtVS could ever have gone. It's daring. It's risky. Some might even venture to say foolhardy, yet they trudged on through the concept and sick or swim they succeeded in their task.

Whether one can aquiesce to calling season six *good* art, one cannot deny that it is in fact art. My personal opinion is that it's art of a high calibre, but that is what makes discussion about it so delicious.

We'll never all agree.

[> [>Re: Season 6 - Why so controversial? -- Miss Edith, 06:22:52 08/03/02 Sat

Personally I have no problem with the darkness of season 6. The lack of a big bad actually appealed to me as intriguing and a change of pace. Deconstructing the characters faults was also not a problem in my eyes.
I just didn't like the clumsy way the series was executed.
Willow's story lost me after she became a magic junkie. She was not a victim of the magic. She did not do mind spells on Tara because she was addicted to using magic. She was using magic because of her own flaws. She had problems that needed addressing. But Tara returns to Willow when Willow says she has dried out. Not the point of the story arc surely?
Buffy's story lost me after she had a few epithimies and her depression remained. I am fully prepared to admit that is realistic but it is not interesting to watch. Her darkness was explored in random flashes such as when she beat Spike in DT. But the lack of continuity this year meant the implications were never followed through.
Dawn's whining became unbearable to me.
I missed Giles.
Spike had no interaction with any character but Buffy. I was hoping for more following the promise in Barganning when he was interacting with the scoobies. Yes seeing him naked was all very nice but James Marsters has shown us he is capable of a lot more than that. He was used as a pice of meat, he ahs said as much in interviews. Jokingly of course but he has suggested that having him nude on camera was very important to Marti.
Xander and Anya's arguments over their engagemnt came acrss as dull and tedious to me. Although I will admit Anya becoming a vengeance demon again and retaining her humanity was a nice twist.
Tara's character was also nicely developed (although we know why now). She was given a sene of humour and won a lot of fans when teasing Spike. Not to mention her compasionate side emerging strongly when she comforted Buffy and the two went on to develop a close friendship. But she was killed off.
The lack of continuity also bothered me. In interviews David Fury stated no demons have souls. Therefore Anya lost her soul as a demon, regained it when becoming human and has now lost it again. Whereas Jane Epsenson believes Anya always had a soul and simply choose the profesion of demonhood hence her lack of remorse. I agree with Janes's view personally as otherwise some questions are raised. E.g did Cordy lose half her soul when becoming a demon etc.
I was also not impressed by dark Willow. The poor dialogue just made her seem cartonny. E.g "I am so juiced", "Get off me superbitch", "Wanna see a spell abracadabra", "Fly my pretties fly" etc. Not to mention seeing her scream like a banshee at the police station. I wanted Willow's capacity for darkness to be explored. Seeing her possessed by magic and doing cartoony things wasn't the storyline I had been waiting 3 years to see. Especially as it only lasted for 3 episodes. Yes it is easier to bring Willow back that way. But it was still a disapointing cop-out in my eyes.
Bascially I loved season 6 until Smashed. The musical was my favourite episode ever. But from Wrecked onwards I was not impressed by the poor pacing and dull filler such as Willow going to magic annonyoumous until the writers could make her temporerily evil.
I almost gave up on Buffy this season but following all the spoilers the writers are releasing to tempt viewers back I have decided to see the programe out and give season 7 a chance.

[> [> [>Re: Season 6 - Why so controversial? -- Miss Edith, 07:17:30 08/03/02 Sat

I actually like the character Buffy more than I ever had previously up until Smashed/Wrecked. She was portrayed as so human and vunerable it really moved me. I thought Sarah was especially good in the musical. I also like the episodes Flooded and Life Serial which dealt with Buffy's money troubles. But when it became clear that Buffy's depression was going to last all season and there would be no change I did lose interest. What got me interested in the show was the fact that the characters were allowed to grow and develop. Seeing the hero stagnate just became tiresome and I felt the writers tried to drag it out for to long. JMHO.

[> [> [>Re: Season 6 - Why so controversial? -- auroramama, 11:50:29 08/03/02 Sat

>>I almost gave up on Buffy this season but following all the spoilers the writers are releasing to tempt viewers back I have decided to see the programe out and give season 7 a chance.<<

If you do give up on BtVS, what are you planning to watch? It must be remarkably good! Or are you giving up on TV altogether, which is certainly a valid choice?

[> [> [> [>Re: Season 6 - Why so controversial? -- Miss Edith, 12:14:01 08/03/02 Sat

Farscape is my favourite programe personally and hasn't disapointed me yet.

[> [> [>Re: Season 6 - Why so controversial? -- ZachsMind, 13:27:27 08/03/02 Sat

I agree that Buffy's story arc lacked definition and consistency. They just left her depressed all season with little room to grow until the very end. This caused her final revelation with Dawn in the last episode to fall flat. My kneejerk reaction to her suddenly wanting to show the world to Dawn instead of protecting her from it was to say, "oh yeah. same song second verse. pull the other one Miss Gloomy."

"Dawn's whining became unbearable to me."

If they plan to keep that character around, the whining has got to stop. I'm a fan of Dawn the character but even I'm growing impatient. S7 will have to be the season when Dawn grows up, or some fans will rebel.

Regarding the lack of continuity with demons and souls, I do have to concur. Although there's a lot of leeway here in Whedon's Universe. There's all these different kinds of demons and each kind seems to have its own set of laws.

In the case of Anya and her soul, she's technically not a demon. She is a "vengeance demon" which is actually always part demon part human. Anya was a human first and was brought on board by D'Hoffryn. As far as I can tell, Anya has always had her soul, but in return for the powers of a demon (eternal life, neato wishing powers, teleportation, etc) she has to work for D'Hoffryn and do his will for all eternity. Not a bad deal if D'Hoffryn's a nice guy to work for. However, making a deal with the devil ultimately means your soul is his forever. Even though D'Hoffryn allows Anya to keep her soul, it's technically on loan. When she dies permanently, she only exists in the afterlife as his trophy.

"Willow's story lost me after she became a magic junkie. She was not a victim of the magic. She did not do mind spells on Tara because she was addicted to using magic. She was using magic because of her own flaws."

Buffy's dialogue hit the nail on the head near the end of the season. At one point she defensively explained Willow's condition as due to her having an "addictive personality." They've tried to hint a couple times that she has the potential for a drinking problem. It's not that magic is evil, but how the character Willow opts to use magic -- that's what is at issue. Giles & Tara both have used magic as much as Willow at times, and they show no after effects because they treat it with respect.

So to that extent I can completely accept how Whedon's team chose to tell this story. It's just that it's so easy for the message to get lost in the medium, and most young people don't like hearing this message. I've read others in other message boards say that magic and alcohol or controlled substances is a bad metaphor. I think it's the perfect metaphor. Like magic in Willow's case, controlled substances in and of themselves are not necessarily bad. It's how they are used and under what pretenses that decides whether or not the results are bad. People who have no respect for such things really should avoid them. Willow's one of those people.

I believe it was Tommy Lee Jones who said it in the movie Men In Black: "A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." In real life, if magic were real on the level as it is in television, it would be 1) illegal and 2) as impossible to enforce such laws as today's controlled substance laws have proven to be. Not because magic is evil, but because human beings are by nature irresponsible when it comes to such things.

Present company excepted of course. =)

"But Tara returns to Willow when Willow says she has dried out. Not the point of the story arc surely?"

Do keep in mind that had Tara stuck to her guns and not given in so prematurely, she would not have been in that room when Warren shot the gun. Tara is dead because she said, "can you just be kissing me now?" She chose to remain in that room, rather than leave Willow and stay as far away from Willow's impending bad karma as possible.

So perhaps the point of the story was that Tara didn't leave Willow to get her to dry out. Tara left Willow to get Willow to cease the irresponsible use of her powers. Tara became a finger in the dam. Soon as she was pulled away from the picture, Willow opened the floodgates. There was still a part of Willow who wanted to use the dark powers. She only needed an excuse.

If Whedon wanted to get really nasty, he could establish in season seven that the real reason Tara's dead is because Dark Willow unconsciously WILLED it to happen. I cite Something Blue as precedent.

[> [> [> [>Re: Season 6 -Willow's will -- DEN, 15:44:23 08/03/02 Sat

I threw out a question on amother thread as to what might happen when Willow starts processing her perceived responsibility for Tara's death--not from magic addiction, or as a consequence of premature reconciliation, but because Tara put herself on line in a war zone for love of Willow, and now she's dead. I think ME missed real opportunities to develop W's turn to the dark by not suggesting early in s6 her questioning of roads not taken. Willow could, for example, be caught looking at a poster from Oxford or Harvard. She could express, perhaps to Xander, her feelings about Tara's crushed hand/mindsuck experience: do I have a particular responsibility to the woman I love?

Willow had life choices in a way none of the other scoobies did. Giles and Buffy are "called." Xander is a grunt. His scooby identity gives his life meaning he was otherwise unlikely to find; Buffy is his Robert E. Lee, his Napoleon Bonaparte. But Willow is another story. She could be at any university in the world. Her computer skills could guarantee immediate affluence. Given even a hint of ambivalence, and her showdown with Buffy in "Grave" has some real meaning--because it's only a short and logical jump to displacing onto Buffy her own sense of guilt and responsibility. Oh well....fanwank is fanwank.

[> [> [> [>Re: Season 6 - Why so controversial? -- Miss Edith, 16:36:50 08/03/02 Sat

I still think the Willow arc could have been better handled. Most critics are saying that episodes such as Wrecked are far too heavy handed and I would have to concur. Seriously with Willow using lines like "I'm so juiced" and talking of magics anoynoumous the writers were just inviting ridicule.
The problem for me was that I was interested in seeing Willow's darkness gradually explored. Seeing her take charge in Barganning and not face up to her actions in Afterlife, threatening Giles, using magic to control her friends. All fascinating to me and getting me hooked in preperation for the pay off. In Wrecked onwards the filler just seemed trite. Seeing Willow crave water, get the shakes etc. Not interesting to me personally. And what saddens me is the story could have been one of the most fascinating character arcs ME had ever done. Unfortunately ME whimpied out in believing they could not compromise the character Willow without giving her a possesion excuse. The writers (specifically David Fury) were saying "the magic made her do it, that isn't really Willow" whilst the final 3 episodes aren't even finished playing out. Made me lose interest frankly.

[>Re: Season 6 - Why so controversial? -- Marginal Drifter, 11:39:40 08/03/02 Sat

I think my problem with Series 6 doesn't come so much from it's content as the messy way in which that content was presented. One of those things I love about Buffy is that it's not like alot of other shows where everything is all cuddles and sunshine by the end of the week - the problems the characters have can take all year to come out in the open and be dealt with, and still they're gonna have flaws that will stay with them the whole way through the series. (One of the reasons I love the way that the Big Bads take so long to defeat).
Season 6 didn't leave that behind exactly, but you could see certain plotlines being rushed instead of slowly unfolding. (eg, Dawn's kleptomania). Willow's magic addiction was really interesting at the start of the season, as we saw her covering up the darker aspects of the resurrection spell, her mood swings in her conflicts with Giles and Tara, more and more use of magic to whisk away deeper problems. I think it would have been more interesting to see her becoming Dark Willow in this way rather than interrupting the process with a (kinda tedious) recovery and then having her suddenly fall over the edge at the end of the series. Sure, it wouldn't have been as easy to distinguish addicted/non addicted Willow and the series couldn't have rapped up as neatly, but it would have been far less frustrating for the viewer (well, for me at least)

Shanshuing to Kill: Angel Vs. the Dark Avenger (Season II AtS analysis) -- KdS, 07:51:12 08/03/02 Sat

This is my first attempt at an extended essay. Hope you enjoy it. The mention of Watchmen made me think I'd better hurry up and post before someone got there before me :-)

When you come down to it, although he makes it into Kevin Burton Smith's superb PI encyclopaedia at www.thrillingdetective.com, Angel isn't much of a detective. Even in Season I, before the focus started shifting from the clients to the AI team, he spent most of his time beating up very obvious bad guys, instead of finding out who the bad guy was. AtS does have references to hard-boiled crime fiction, but it isn't the Hammett/Chandler/McDonald tradition but a far less literary and more disreputable one. Moreover, the references aren't respectful, but arguably a head-on confrontation with a world-view which I shall refer to, to take a quotation from the series itself, as the "Dark Avenger" tradition in pulp fiction.

There've always been violent heroes, characters for whom Good is Good, Evil is Evil, and Evil needs a good hacking to death. One might argue that we all have to pass through this stage in our moral reasoning, that you need to be clear what the extremes of the spectrum are before you start greying things up. Shortly after WWII, however, Mickey Spillane introduced a rather dangerous tradition to the pulp thriller.

In the first pages of Spillane's notorious debut novel, "I, the Jury", his hero Mike Hammer finds that a friend of his has been rather nastily murdered. Hammer makes a private vow that when he finds who's responsible, he'll do exactly the same to them as they did to his friend. He'll put a large-calibre bullet in the stomach and watch them bleed to death. In the final pages, he finds that the person responsible is a woman named Charlotte, who he has become close to. Charlotte attempts to use her feminine wiles to persuade him to overlook her little peccadillo. As she strips naked and sashays seductively towards him, Hammer struggles to decide the moral thing to do. Finally he calmly and cold-bloodedly goes through with his original plan. During the last agonising minutes of her life, she looks up at him.

How could you?

It was easy.

Over five further books, Hammer continues to struggle with this decision, and others like it. He tries to tell himself that he keeps getting forced into these situations, that he's really just doing what he needs to. In the last book Spillane wrote before a ten-year break, Hammer finally comes to an epiphany, as he wipes out a horde of Red Chinese secret agents with a machine gun. The following paragraph has been much quoted, but I repeat it for those of you who haven't seen it before.

I lived to kill because my soul was a hardened thing that revelled in the thought of taking the blood of the bastards who made murder their business. I lived because I could laugh it off and others couldn't. I was the evil that opposed other evil, leaving the good and the meek in the middle to live and inherit the earth!
Mickey Spillane "One Lonely Night"

Over the next few decades, Spillanes followers would develop, generally without explicitly stating it, what I refer to here as the "Dark Avenger" postition. As I see it, this rests on three assumptions:

A) That the stresses and hazards of the position of a moral enforcer, especially an extra-legal one, are so severe that no psychologically healthy person would voluntarily accept it.

B) That even if a person were to take on such a role for idealistic and optimistic reasons, they would inevitably become so corrupted and brutalised as to become hard to distinguish from their enemies.

C) That this process of brutalisation is actually a good and desirable thing, as the refusal of Evil to play by any form of rules means that it is impossible to defeat it by sticking to a higher moral level.

Not unnaturally, the obvious unpalatability of these positions created a backlash in realistic prose hardboiled fiction. Two particularly intriguing authors from this point of view, especially as their most significant works are set in Los Angeles, are James Ellroy and Joseph Wambaugh. Ellroy's three early novels (mid 1980s) featuring the mentally unstable LAPD detective Lloyd Hopkins show a Dark Avenger coming apart at the seams as we watch. In the first two books "Blood on the Moon", and "Because the Night", Hopkins uses his potential for darkness and violence, created by an (all but self-parodically) hideous childhood, to hunt down and defeat various LA predators, but at the cost of steadily stripping himself of family, friends and illusions. The final novel, "Suicide Hill", opens with an occupational psychologist's report denouncing Hopkins as a sociopath who uses a self-image as a romantic paladin to indulge his worst instincts. The typical reader initially views this as the witterings of a bleeding-heart pinko, but over the course of the book Hopkins is forced to investigate a series of tragedies that are not the work of a Satanic manipulative monster, but simply result from the random collisions of several damaged people, including himself. In the process we recognise that the prologue we rejected is merely pointing out truths that we, in reading the previous novels, failed to recognise as much as Hopkins did. The book closes with Hopkins seeking suicide by proxy at the hands of an old enemy, but instead finding an ambiguous redemption. (Anybody who reads the books, especially the last, will find some thought provoking resonances with Angel's first two seasons, as I've hinted in the last sentences.) Wambaugh gets into this essay chiefly for his jaw-dropping third novel "The Choirboys" whose frame plot is mainly an excuse for a series of initially comic, but increasingly horrible vignettes portraying urban police work as a hellish ordeal calculated to reduce any human being to despair or nihilism.

By the 80s, however, the Dark Avenger mindset had worked its way into the superhero tale, both in the comic strip and the cinema. Arguably the best-known works in question were Frank Miller's "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" and Alan Moore's "Watchmen". "Watchmen", intriguingly, is an example of a work whose influence was the complete opposite to its author's intentions. In portraying a group of costumed vigilantes' descent into, variously, Mike Hammer style self-righteous sadism, amoral nihilism, and messianic mass murder, Moore intended to reveal the truths that the form had been denying, hoping that this would have a cautionary effect. However, the empathy with which Moore portrayed the archetypal Dark Avenger Rorsharch ended up inspiring a series of dark, tormented, and ultraviolent characters whose chief moral lesson seemed to be that it was alright to behave like an animal in an ill-defined quest for justice so long as one felt really bad about it afterwards. Arguably the nadir of this process came in Sam Raimi's remarkably despairing superhero film "Darkman". For those of you who haven't seen it, the essential plot involves a biotechnological genius who survives a murder attempt by a group of gangsters, leaving him hideously disfigured but superhumanly powerful. At the close of the film, our hero has finally achieved the revenge he desired, and has revealed his identity to his true love. She is willing to nurse him back to sanity and normal life, but he rejects her, believing that his successful quest for vengeance has rendered him irredeemable. He walks away into an endless fight against evil, leaving her heartbroken.

The usual response to the Dark Avenger mindset among those disturbed by it was to insist on the necessity of idealism and to argue that all self-defined Dark Avengers would fall prey to their own drives for cruelty and become all out villains. Arguably, the whole of BtVS/AtS has been a reaction against the 80s and early 90s dominance of the Dark Avenger. ME's characters suffer appallingly for their vocation to protect others, but always try to retain their idealism. In BTVS Season 6, they come very close to losing it altogether, but both they and the writers are always clear that this is a bad thing, rather than a necessary abandonment of hypocrisy. The examples of Faith and Holtz follow the usual pattern of corruption through indulging one's dark side in a noble cause.

However, ME's real attack on the Dark Avenger comes through the arc of Angel Series II, and I believe it goes farther than any other response to the mindset that I've seen.

At the close of "The Trial", Angel is at his lowest point for a couple of years. Not merely has he failed to save Darla's life, but he's been forced to see her re-vamped at the fangs of his own offspring/victim. Worse, he feels that it's now his personal responsiblity to destroy her again. Unfortunately, he fails. At the climax of "Reunion" he is faced with a moral dilemma. Save the lives of a bunch of thoroughly evil, yet canonically redeemable humans, or put a stop to their actions at the cost of their, and probably his, eternal damnation. (I'm not a Christian, but a great deal of AtS and a slightly lesser amount of BtVS only seems to make moral sense in a traditionally Christian cosmology). He heads straight into the Dark Avenger mindset, just as the Senior Partners want him to. He lets the lawyers and their possibly innocent servants die, cuts off his friends, and settles down to becoming The Evil That Opposes Other Evil. Mike would be proud of him.

Then things start getting really complicated. Angel stalks his evil daughter/lover/victim and mother/lover/granddaughter/tormenter, soaks them in petrol, and sets them on fire. (I would be astonished if it were a coincidence that Spillane's fourth novel "Kiss Me Deadly" climaxes with Hammer soaking a femme fatale in rubbing alcohol and flicking a Zippo). However, instead of checking to make sure that they're dead, he wanders away. He breaks into Lilah's car, beats her up, threatens her, and again simply walks away. In the following episode, he sets up an insanely elaborate plan against Wolfram & Hart, but settles for simply tweaking Lilah and Lindsey's noses. What's Angel up to? Is he not really a Dark Avenger yet, still too sensitive to go in for the kill? That's a charitable interpretation, but I go for the uncharitable one. Angel has become Angelus again, despite his soul. And now he's even more dangerous and morally contemptible than before, because he genuinely believes that he's working for good. This is ME's uniquely damaging blow against the Dark Avenger paradigm. Not only is it morally corrosive, but it isn't even effective, because when push comes to shove a Dark Avenger likes hurting people more than he does achieving victory.

The point made, ME quickly turn Angel around before he completely loses our sympathy. In "Happy Anniversary", he goes after a supervillain plotting to end the world, and finds... a nebbish being manipulated by darker forces. (Given the hostility of Spillane and his imitators to anyone not a straight white man, it's amusing that Angel's redemption comes through the outrageously effeminate and oddly-hued Lorne). In "The Thin Dead Line" he realises how much he has hurt the people he was meant to be supporting and being supported by, and finds that they won't forgive him easily. This drives him to seeking a heroic death that is really just suicide. When it doesn't work, he gives up being a Dark Avenger and goes for all-out nihilistic darkness. It's when even this doesn't work that he finally recognises the mess he's made of his unlife, and realises that true satisfaction (albeit hopefully not happiness), comes not from fighting evil but doing good. The Dark Avenger paradigm is conclusively rejected.

(I hope you enjoyed this essay and didn't think the first section too off-topic. This has been bubbling in my head ever since I first saw Season II. I'd especially like to acnowledge the influence of Woody Haut's book "Pulp Culture". I'd also like to draw the attention of anyone who hasn't read it to HonorH's hilarious and very wise Angel/Screwtape crossover, on the website she linked to below, which reassured me that I wasn't completely on the wrong track.)

[>A small opinion on 'She' -- Banana Hammock, 08:11:50 08/03/02 Sat

Although I found your essay as a whole impressive and agree with your point to a certain extent, I feel it's worth mentioning 'She'. In this episode, we saw for the first time Angel struggle with the shades of grey that inevitably appear between the black and the white. He knew who it was he was loyal to in the argument, and at the same time wasn't too sure if he should be because of the woman's disregard for the people HE was chosen to protect. The fact that Angel didn't follow her initial 'Every Oppressed Group For Themselves' attitude, and helped her regardless, was in my opinion a new level for Angel and helped him earn my respect. In general, though, I would also add that Angel's tendecy to see right as right and wrong as wrong and no in between a slip on the behalf of the writers, as in theory, Angel himself can never be either to the full extent.

[> [>Wonderful essay -- lele, 18:54:25 08/03/02 Sat

Unfortunately, I don't read too many mystery novels/comics, but I can definitely see your point of ME's rejection of the Dark Avenger paradigm. I don't think Angel is quite out of his dark period(am not sure if he ever will be), but the actions around that period of S2 are still haunting him and I suspect they will for awhile(Darla pregnant, firing the AI, turning his back on the lawyers leading to S3- Connor, Holtz, ousting Wesley from the AI team). Very good essay- I'll definitely try to pick up those Ellroy novels.

[> [> [>wholeheartedly recommending Ellroy -- Dead Soul, 20:51:47 08/03/02 Sat

[> [> [>The Hopkin trilogy is currently available in one big book, titled "LA Noir" -- KdS, 05:00:07 08/05/02 Mon

[> [>Shades of grey aren't the issue... -- KdS, 06:25:05 08/05/02 Mon

Banana (Can I call you Banana :-) ?), the mindset I'm complaining about doesn't deny shades of grey. What I'm getting at is that there's a difference between accepting your inner darkness (and riding it to a certain extent) and self-righteously wallowing in it. Essentially, it's the old "A man who tries to do good by evil means shall lose his soul" (I'm paraphrasing here) argument.

However, I agree with you about "She", and I think that Angel does regress to a certain extent in mid Season II compared to Season I.

Does Buffy think of Spike's attack in SR as attempted rape? -- CrystalJ, 11:49:38 08/03/02 Sat

I just rewatched Villians and I can't comprehend how Buffy could ever take her sister and then pin after someone who tried to her. The only way I could rationalize her behavior is that she either doesn't think of it as attempted rape or she blames herself.

[>Or she remembers the chip only fails in her case, not Dawn's -- Majin Gojira, 12:16:33 08/03/02 Sat

[>Re: Does Buffy think of Spike's attack in SR as attempted rape? -- SugarTherapy, 16:45:48 08/03/02 Sat

I'm guessing she knows he'd never hurt Dawn. Plus, I think Buffy realizes that if he'd really meant to hurt her, he'd have tried a lot harder, been more persistent.

Sugar

[> [>Re: Does Buffy think of Spike's attack in SR as attempted rape? -- Marginal Drifter, 17:16:48 08/03/02 Sat

I do think she thinks of it as attempted rape, definitely, If she'd thought of it as a routine Spike-groping thing or as just plain vanilla violence I don't think she would have been as upset as she was. While I don't think she blames herself, I think she does understand that what Spike did came from his obsession with her (personally I think at this stage this can do more damage to him and everyone else than his not having a soul)and that it wasn't premeditated, and because of this and because of the chip he wouldn't hurt Dawn. Though attempted rape is still attempted rape and plenty twisted so I'm more inclined to agree with Xander in the "Should Buffy have left Dawn with Spike" debate.

[>Re: Does Buffy think of Spike's attack in SR as attempted rape? -- HonorH, 18:37:56 08/03/02 Sat

My thoughts: first, I think she does blame herself. It may be wrong-headed, but it's not unusual. I think she blames herself for getting involved with Spike in the first place and trusting him too far.

Incidentally, it occurs to me that she might also have Angel Issues: I sleep with a vampire, and he goes evil on me. Again, it's wrong-headed, but I can see her thoughts going that direction.

Secondly, there is the chip thing. She *knows* he can't hurt Dawn. She also knows that *he* knows that if he ever *did* try anything like that with Dawn, he'd be extreme dust. Besides, he did seem like the only option at that point.

Thirdly, I don't think Buffy's "pining" after Spike, no matter what the 'shippers say. I think that part of her does miss him--or at least the parts of him that seemed good for her. I think she blames herself for his leaving and is placing the whole blame for the ugly situation on herself. Again, wrong-headed, but it's Buffy; she tends to blame herself when things go bad.

Personally, I'm *really* looking forward to whatever will happen with them next year. Ooh, it's gonna be so not pretty! Bwahahahaha!!!!!

Okay, so I'm evil.

[> [>Being *so* not pretty is the interesting part! I'm on pins & needlesfor S7! -- Deeva, 22:50:12 08/03/02 Sat

[> [>Re: Does Buffy think of Spike's attack in SR as attempted rape? -- Just George, 01:36:30 08/04/02 Sun

HonorH: "I think she blames herself for his leaving and is placing the whole blame for the ugly situation on herself. Again, wrong-headed, but it's Buffy; she tends to blame herself when things go bad."

I agree. We have 6 years of history where Buffy blames herself for everything that goes wrong in her life and most of what goes wrong in the lives of those near her. And it is common for people involved in an ugly situation to see their own mistakes (and Buffy made a few) and not see the mistakes of others.

I am also looking forward to Season 7.

[> [>Re: Does Buffy think of Spike's attack in SR as attempted rape? -- Lyonors, 13:05:30 08/05/02 Mon

HonorH: "My thoughts: first, I think she does blame herself. It may be wrong-headed, but it's not unusual. I think she blames herself for getting involved with Spike in the first place and trusting him too far."

Wow...can we say YES YES YES! I totally agree with you here. As I mentioned when the AR scene was brought up immediatly following the ep airing, this was how I reacted when I was raped...hello, major denial..."I walked into it, I saw the potential, but did I turn and walk away? NO." And with a bit of time to chew on the whole incident, to an extent I still blame myself a little bit, granted I still place fault where fault belongs, on the attacker, but I can still name for you every moment in the course of the evening where I could have walked away and didnt. I think that most likely it will be addressed by ME, and I have every hope that is addressed in a manner fitting the severity of the incident. Which in my opinion is what the fans "need" (as joss so likes to point out...he gives us what we need, not what we want)

just some mid-day musings,

Ly.

[>Classification is a dangerous thing. -- Caesar Augustus, 20:29:37 08/03/02 Sat

Suppose we decide that Buffy DOES think it was attempted rape. Then how can she ever forgive him? It's disgusting. How can he trust her with Dawn? etc ...

Or suppose she doesn't think of it as attempted rape. Then it's not a crime. Just another desperate Spike attempt. He can be trusted with Dawn. He didn't cross a line.

Whatever. The point I'm making is that you're choosing between classifying something in one of 2 ways, with each way having its own set of conclusions and ramifications. When in truth, it's a grey mix between the two, and I think Buffy herself appreciates this. The situation was pretty unique. It has its own consequences which should not be judged by classing it as either AR or not AR, and then drawing conclusions from a typical AR.

Buffy knew that, whatever Spike did/tried to do/couldn't bring himself to do, to her, he would still never harm Dawn.

[> [>Re: Classification is a dangerous thing. (S7 Spec.) -- Just George, 01:41:59 08/04/02 Sun

Caesar Augustus: "Buffy knew that, whatever Spike did/tried to do/couldn't bring himself to do, to her, he would still never harm Dawn."

At first reading, I agreed with this statement completely. Spike would never hurt Dawn.

Then I remembered that Buffy and friends life in an ironic universe. Whenever anyone states an absolute, I have come to expect it to be proven wrong. Everyone knows that Spike would never hurt Dawn. Therefore, someday Spike will probably hurt Dawn very badly. I'm not sure I want to see it, but it makes an evil sort of sense.

[> [> [>Re: Classification is a dangerous thing. (S7 Spec.) -- Dariel, 16:55:06 08/04/02 Sun

Whenever anyone states an absolute, I have come to expect it to be proven wrong. Everyone knows that Spike would never hurt Dawn. Therefore, someday Spike will probably hurt Dawn very badly. I'm not sure I want to see it, but it makes an evil sort of sense.

C'mon, now--one more thing to add to my worry list of "Bad things ME might do to my favorite characters." Besides, Spike has already hurt Dawn--he attacked Buffy, then left town without a word. I think this is plenty!

[> [> [> [>Re: Classification is a dangerous thing. (S7 Spec.) -- Just George, 18:20:20 08/04/02 Sun

Dariel: "C'mon, now--one more thing to add to my worry list of "Bad things ME might do to my favorite characters." Besides, Spike has already hurt Dawn--he attacked Buffy, then left town without a word. I think this is plenty!"

I hope you're right.

[> [>Re: Classification II - "pining" according to whom? -- Dyna, 10:48:53 08/05/02 Mon

Excellent point, CA. On a related note, the use of the term "pining" has become strangely dominant to describe Buffy's reaction to Spike's disappearance. The expression "Buffy pining for her attempted rapist" is ubiquitous in anti-shipper/deeply bitter forums, generally used as evidence of, say, ME's collective insanity. (Not to say that everyone who uses this expression is deeply bitter! Just pointing out its provenance.)

I do hate to see expressions like this take over discussions, because they begin to function like cliches, leaching subtlety out of the text and replacing it with "givens." I don't feel like I could decide based on Buffy's two lines and one facial expression what was going on in her mind at that moment. Nor do I think Buffy was supposed to be clear on what her feelings were. At least, that's what the scene conveyed to me.

I really appreciate the thought that goes into everyone's posts in this forum, this discussion being a great example. :)

[> [> [>Re: Classification II - "pining" according to whom? -- Dariel, 15:22:17 08/05/02 Mon

I don't feel like I could decide based on Buffy's two lines and one facial expression what was going on in her mind at that moment. Nor do I think Buffy was supposed to be clear on what her feelings were. At least, that's what the scene conveyed to me.

Good point. Also, those folks seem to have forgotten what's really going on during that episode. One friend has just been killed, another is preparing to go on a murderous rampage, Buffy nearly dies again herself, and Giles is nowhere in sight. Who wouldn't be confused?!

Interesting Idea... Possibly Flawed -- monsieurxander, 17:37:20 08/03/02 Sat

Willow: "I wish Tara were still alive."

Anya: "Done."

Maybe? Possibly? Not very likely... However, I can dream.

[>Re: Interesting Idea... Possibly Flawed -- HonorH, 20:11:46 08/03/02 Sat

The only hitch: Anya is a Vengeance Demon. That tends to imply someone's got to suffer in the wish-fulfillment. If she could bring Tara back, would it end with happy-happy, or more suffering? For whom?

Anybody got ideas on Anya's vengeance-ness?

[>Re: Interesting Idea... Possibly Flawed -- Caesar Augustus, 20:33:18 08/03/02 Sat

Yup. I was thinking of this a while back. Would also make defeating the Big Bad easy.

Xander: "Gee, I wish [insert name of Big Bad] would drop dead."

Anya: Done.

We lack information on when Anya can apply her wishing. I think we can assume the wisher has to feel some genuine desire for vengeance to give the demon the power to grant it.

[> [>Re: Interesting Idea... Possibly Flawed -- monsieurxander, 21:05:33 08/03/02 Sat

Understood... but what about when she tried to get Spike to wish something against Xander? Spike wasn't exactly bursting at the seems to get even with Xander... So yeah, it seems to me that conceivably your Anya-wishing-the-Big-Bad-away theory is plausible, but infinitely uninteresting. My hypothesis is that Anya will lose her powers yet again this year... for the sake of storytelling.

[> [> [>Why Anya must lose her powers in season seven -- Quentin Collins, 04:41:34 08/04/02 Sun

monsieur xander, I agree that Anya will lose her powers for storytelling reasons. I don't see how the Scoobies can remain friendly with an active Vengeance Demon. The wishes that she grants obviously cause pain and suffering to those who may be innocent or at least not deserving of the severe punishments her wishes may cause. We've heard stories of her doing some unbelievably cruel things with her wishes.

At the end of season six, she seemed too preoccupied with her own broken heart to grant wishes to others. If she continues to be unable to bring herself to grant vengeance wishes for scorned women, D'Hoffryn may take away her powers himself.

[> [> [> [>Re: Why Anya must lose her powers in season seven -- Just George, 00:09:04 08/05/02 Mon

This is an edited version of a previous post I made on a similar topic.

I believe that Anya must lose her powers in season seven as a part of the metaphor describing her journey into adulthood. I think the metaphor in Anya's case concerns her acceptance of demonic powers to avoid her human problems.

Anya became a demon willingly the first time after being betrayed by Olaf. We assumes that Anya loved Olaf and the sting of his betrayal drover her to this drastic step. By becoming a vengeance demon, Anya no longer had to worry about human problems like falling in love or getting hurt ever again.

Anya lost her powers 1100 years later because Giles was clever. Anya did not choose to rejoin the human race because being a vengeance demon had taught her anything. She tried initially several different methods to regain her demon status and again avoid her human problems. Only after she repeatedly failed to regain her powers did Anya grudgingly accept being human.

However, Anya's three years with Xander and the Scooby Gang changed her. She grew back into her role as a human being. While she missed having her powers when she felt momentarily abandon by Xander, she didn't actively try to regain them. Ultimately Xander's love and the Scoobies acceptance provided a foundation for her rocky transition. Anya became a "useful member of society" and learned to love again.

However, love made Anya vulnerable. Xander hurt Anya to the quick when he backed out of the wedding and left her to inform the guests. Devastated by Xander's betrayal, she retreated back into begin a Vengeance demon again.

But, so far, Anya has not been very good at being a vengeance demon. She hasn't successfully used her wish powers to hurt anyone, though the situation has come up at least twice. Anya interrupted the wronged woman in the bar multiple times before she could ill wish her ex. And though Anya unintentionally hurt Xander by sleeping with Spike, she didn't do it hurt Xander. She slept with Spike to make herself feel better. But when Spike began an ill wish against Xander, Anya stopped him. From her comments in Two To Go, that may have been her last chance to "officially" use her magic powers against Xander.

Anya is still working through her issues. She has regained the mantel of a vengeance demon but has not fully embraced the role. She doesn't know if she wants Xander to live or die. She hasn't been causing "pain and suffering for the pleasure of the lower beings."

Since her change, Anya has been better at acting like a human being than as a vengeance demon. She helps save Jonathan and Andrew instead of acting against them. She does this "for Willow" even though this is acting against Willow's vengeful intentions. She acts heroically to keep up the magical protection spell to slow down Dark Willow. She is affectionate towards Giles.

I'll bet Anya's big tests will come in Season 7. If she returns full force to wreaking bloody vengeance (anything including the terms coagulate probably counts) the Scooby Gang will have to confront her. And if she doesn't, at some point D'Hoffryn will likely confront her. I don't think the world will let her have it both ways and be a "nice" vengeance demon.

When the crunch comes, I think Anya will have to make the choice between remaining a child (demon) or becoming an adult (human.) Children avoid problems; Adults deal with them. In this way, her decision will be similar to what Spike went through at the end of Season 6. He could either stay an adolescent (soulless) or take a step that will allow him to grow into an adult (gaining a soul.) The decision is similar, but the metaphor for growth is different.

[> [> [> [> [>Immortality -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:21:53 08/05/02 Mon

Something to consider:

As a vengenace demon, Anya is immortal. She can live forever and never be truly hurt. I doubt she'll give up on being a demon because, like most people, she doesn't want to die. OK, so that's a slightly cynical view, but I think it has its merit.

[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Immortality (S7 spec) -- Just George, 12:40:31 08/05/02 Mon

Finn Mac Cool: " As a vengeance demon, Anya is immortal. She can live forever and never be truly hurt. I doubt she'll give up on being a demon because, like most people, she doesn't want to die. OK, so that's a slightly cynical view, but I think it has its merit."

You're right, being a vengeance demon has a lot of advantages. Immortality. Wish powers. Teleportation. Even some demon-enhanced strength (as seen in The Wish.) But, it can also be seen as eternal adolescence. No responsibilities. No regrets. No emotional vulnerabilities. Anyanka showed no emotions at all except the dangerous ones (thirst for vengeance, love of chaos, glee in manipulating others.)

Why would any rational being (and Anya has shown signs of ruthless rationality) want to stop being a vengeance demon? Is there anything in this world that might pull Anya away from vengeance? Her lover betrayed her. Her supposed "friends" in the SG wouldn't support her against Xander. And Anya's last tie to worldly responsibilities (the Magic Shop) was destroyed by those same supposed "friends". Anya doesn't seem to have much reason to give up her powers, does she?

But what will Anya be missing as a demon? A chance at love. A chance to make real friendships. A chance to help people instead of hurting them. Anya gives up all of these as a vengeance demon. But right now, Anya doesn't value these things very much. They have all led to heartache and pain. Anya is going to need a big, juicy, emotional story reason to consider giving up her demon status.

What might cause a change:

* What happens if Anya's demon urges conflict with her old relationships?
* What if appropiate vengeance would endanger Xander, Spike, or other members of the Scoobies?
* What if Anya has a chance for love if she gives up her powers?
* What if she has a chance to save the world if she gives up her powers?

Any of these might cause Anya to reconsider her decision. And, since BtVS occurs in an ironic universe, Anya's decision will probably come at the most emotionally charged and painful moment imaginable.

Just some ideas on where Anya's story might be heading.

[>Re: Interesting Idea... Possibly Flawed -- Rob, 10:37:30 08/05/02 Mon

Actually, we did discuss this before here...but then again, we've discussed just about everything Buffywise one time or another lol.

Basically, I think it comes down to the fact that Willow, at the time of Tara's death, was completely self-centered, and still thinking it was all about her, the first factor being her leaving Tara's body on the bedroom floor, and walking off without telling Xander about what happened until later. If she had stopped rationally to think about it, she probably could have gone to Anya and wished that Tara were still alive. Or, more likely, that time be turned back (I don't think Anya can resurrect someone--even Osiris couldn't do that for someone who died naturally). But she was too wrapped up in the moment, not thinking logically. Instead, she went apes*&! and went on a destructive path, the major irony being that, had she calmed down, she might have been able to do something about it.

Rob

Tabula Rasa: Was it prophetic as well as funny? -- HonorH, 19:31:26 08/03/02 Sat

I've got some theories, some wacked-out theories . . .

Oops. Hate it when that happens. Let's try again:

Did TR have a prophetic element in it? Let's examine how each character reacted to the amnesia.

Willow: She's the first to offer the common-sense solution to their lack of identity by suggesting they look for identification on themselves. She finds her name in her wallet and immediately pronounces it "funny." Thinks she must be Xander's girlfriend because his name is on her jacket. Finds the fact that they're in a magic shop only of passing interest while suggesting practical steps to take to keep safe and get help. Is a little disturbed to find herself so strongly attracted to Tara because she initially believed she was heterosexual. She's also unknowingly carrying around the reason for their amnesia on her person.

Xander: Finds his identification easily enough, but no one knows that he uses the nickname "Xander" instead of the more popular "Alex." Immediately thinks maybe Willow's involved with his older brother rather than himself. Sets about protecting the women as best he can after an initial bout of freaking out in the Magic Box. It's Xander who eventually breaks the spell and exposes the truth of who they all are.

Tara: Finds her identity in her school ID, but unlike the other people with identification, she only tells her first name, not her last. It's like she already knows her family name doesn't mean much to her. Immediately flirts with Willow, showing no signs of being disturbed by her sexual orientation. Is able to identify that they're in a "REAL magic shop." Stutters very little and easily joins into the conversation.

Anya: Finds her name in her business papers (how appropriate is that?), but mispronounces it. Deduces she's engaged, but to the wrong man, and immediately forms a bickersome relationship with that man. Is still protective of her shop and her money, and is also still afraid of bunnies. After all the bickering, the revelation that her "fiance" is leaving her, and throwing away the ring, she still doesn't want him to leave, and the "engaged" couple makes up after a crisis.

Giles: Finds his name, but has no way of knowing he's called "Giles" instead of "Rupert." He gets his relationships all wrong, "discovering" his "fiancee" and "son." His suggestions are somewhat practical, but he doesn't instantly decide he's the leader of the group. That's interesting, as he's the oldest person in the Magic Box (at least in *looks*). Ultimately proves he's not half-bad with the research and the spellcasting. Oh, and the fighting of skeletons stolen from the "Sinbad" set.

Spike: gets everything wrong. His name, his relationships, his entire *species*. Instantly has Daddy Issues (Angel would be laughing). Defers to "Joan's" leadership quickly. When he discovers his vampirism, he decides he's "a vampire with a soul" (Angel would laugh himself soulless). Note, too, that there's no obvious sexual tension between "Joan" and "Randy." They fight well together, but don't seem inclined to go in for kissing or otherwise.

Dawn: Discovers her name with Buffy's help. Is initially terrified, but when "Joan" befriends her and is later revealed to be her sister, gets plucky. She's brave in the tunnels, moving quickly with the others and helping "Alex" stake the vampire.

Buffy: Is the only one who has to name herself, and ends up with the name of a saint. Is instantly protective of and loving toward Dawn. She's also thrilled to discover her superpowers and natural leadership ability. Takes charge of the group and lays herself on the line for the others and Randy. Takes joy in her status as the Vampire Slayer.

Do you see what I'm saying? Their states as they awake reflect their pasts, reveal their current characters, and in some cases, predict their futures. Buffy *does* end up joyful. Spike *does* end up souled. Dawn's going to be helping with the Slaying. Xander *is* the one who brought Willow back to herself.

Questions? Comments?

[>Re: Tabula Rasa ( Spoilers for S6 ) -- Alvin, 21:26:13 08/03/02 Sat

Well, yes, Tabula Rosa was basically S6, especially the 2-part season finale. Notice that when they wake up, Anya is with Giles, Xander with Willow, Buffy is closest to Dawn, while Tara and Spike are by themselves which is how Grave ends. Giles and Anya kiss on the table which she will, as Xander will say, "polish" with Spike and later she is seen literally polishing the table. Also, she is seen reading a spell from a book like she does in TTG while Giles fights a dead thing with a sword like Buffy will do in Grave.
Xander accidently saves them by breaking Willow's rock and makes a joke about seeing "King Ralph", a movie where a nobody becomes king of England due to an accident. (I don't remember much else about the movie, except I really hated it). And of course there's Spike claiming to be a souled vampire. Willow wears dark clothes like she does later.
The episode that really ties in with Tabula Rosa though, is Restless. Spike and Giles as father/son, a shark, on land, with legs. I know there's more, but I can't think of them right now.

[> [>Re: Tabula Rasa ( Spoilers for S6 ) -- Just George, 01:30:15 08/04/02 Sun

My wife, mother-in-law, and I have been watching Buffy together. We started several months ago with Welcome to the Hellmouth. I've seen all the shows, they hadn't seen any of S1-3, only a few of S4-5, and none of S6. I have gone out of my way to keep them unspoiled. Tonight we watched Once More With Feeling and Tabular Rasa.

After OMWF and TR, we talked about how things stood for each character. Their conclusions indicate how prophetic the episodes were. My mother-in-law asked, "is everyone in a bad place?" After talking about the episodes, here were some of their conclusions:

* Dawn was unhappy because her surrogate parents (Willow and Tara) had split up. Her thieving would come back to haunt her big time. But Dawn would get over it when Buffy got her act together.

* Willow was crushed when Tara left. But, but it was Willow's fault given what she had done to Tara. Willow would continue to abuse magic and it would cost her big time.

* Tara was sad, but was doing the right thing by leaving.

* Giles' leaving was bad news for everyone. Giles was wrong to leave when he did.

* Anya and Xander mostly got out of the episodes without being hurt, but their wedding was in trouble given their revelations in OMWF.

* It was great to see Buffy enjoying being a hero in TR. It didn't seem that she had enjoyed being a hero since mid S4. Buffy was very conflicted about being back and it seemed natural for her to find comfort with Spike (especially after being abandon by Giles and hurt by the rest of the gang.)

* Spike was making out like a bandit. He had what he wanted, Buffy. But, my wife said, "it will be very bad for Spike when Buffy gets her act together and dumps him."

The two ladies didn't get everything right. They haven't figured out Willow's S6 roller-coaster ride, nor Tara's ultimate fate. We'll have to wait for S7 to see if Buffy gets back to enjoying being a hero. But many of the rest of their predictions came true at some time in S6.

I think the lady's success at predicting the 'future' shows that Once More With Feeling and Tabular Rasa did a good job at foreshadowing the arcs of the season.

[>About Joan... -- angela, 08:28:51 08/04/02 Sun

Just a point about Buffy's choice of the name Joan. Not just any saint, but a martyr. Spike also makes reference to the martyr idea in Normal Again. Some interesting notes:

Joan of Arc

(1412-1431)

Joan of Arc, in French, Jeanne d'Arc, also called the Maid of Orleans, a patron saint of France and a national heroine, led the resistance to the English invasion of France in the Hundred Years War. She was born on January 6, 1412 (another Capricorn). Her childhood was spent attending her father's
herds in the fields and learning religion and housekeeping skills from her mother. When Joan was about 12 years old, she began hearing "voices" of St. Michael, St. Catherine, and St. Margaret believing them to have been sent by God. These voices told her that it was her divine mission to free her country from the English and help the dauphin gain the French throne. They told her to cut her hair, dress in man's uniform and to pick up the arms.

By 1429 the English with the help of their Burgundian allies occupied Paris and all of France north of the Loire. Joan convinced the captain of the dauphin's forces, and then the dauphin himself of her calling. After passing an examination by a board of theologians, she was given troops to command and the rank of captain.

At the battle of Orleans in May 1429, Joan led the troops to a miraculous victory over the English. She continued fighting the enemy in other locations along the Loire. Fear of troops under her leadership was so formidable that when she approached Lord Talbot's army at Patay, most of the English troops and Commander Sir John Fastolfe fled the
battlefield. Fastolfe was later stripped of his Order of the Garter for this act of cowardice.

In 1430 she was captured by the Burgundians while defending Compiegne near Paris and was sold to the English. The English, in turn, handed her over to the ecclesiastical court at Rouen led by Pierre Cauchon, a pro-English Bishop of Beauvais, to be tried for witchcraft and heresy.

Much was made of her insistence on wearing male clothing. She was told that for a woman to wear men's clothing was a crime against God. Her determination to continue wearing it (because her voices hadn't yet told her to change, as well as for protection from sexual abuse by her jailors) was seen as defiance and finally sealed her fate. Joan was
convicted after a fourteen-month interrogation and on May 30, 1431 she was burned at the stake in the Rouen marketplace. She was nineteen years old. Charles VII made no attempt to come to her rescue.

In 1456 a second trial was held and she was pronounced innocent of the charges against her. She was beatified in 1909 and canonized in 1920 by Pope Benedict XV.

Just a side note (from my memory), she is connected with the fleur-de-lys (royal symbol?) whch we see on Dawn's Tshirt in Bargaining...info came from a google search bio page...sorry, I didn't save the name of it.

[> [>Not only that -- Rahael, 10:14:38 08/04/02 Sun

but there is the imagery of fire involved as well, which connects Joan to OMWF.

I also saw this connection right after TR aired, and pointed out then that there was also suggestions that both Joan and St Teresa (referenced in Life Serial) were both mad, which connects to Normal Again. These intense women who had access to incredible visions because of mental illness.

I agree with Honor H (I keep wanting to write Honour H!). I loved TR, and thought it pointed ahead to the whole of the season. In particular, this dialogue between Tara and Willow:

TARA: Do you think I'm stupid? I know you used that spell on me.
WILLOW: Tara, I'm sorry, I-
TARA: Don't! Just ... don't. (shakes head) There's nothing you can say.
WILLOW: Tara, I didn't mean to-
TARA: To what? Violate my mind like that? How could you, Willow? How could you after what Glory did to me?
WILLOW: Violate you? I ... I-I didn't ... mean anything like that, I-I, I just wanted us not to fight any more. I love you.
TARA: If you don't wanna fight, you don't fight. You don't use magic to make a fight disappear.
WILLOW: But I-I just wanted to make things better. Better for us.
TARA: But you don't get to decide what is better for us, Will. We're in a relationship, we are supposed to decide together.
WILLOW: Okay. I'm ... I realize I, I did it wrong.
TARA: You did it the way you're doing everything. When things get rough, you ... you don't even consider the options. You just ... you just do a spell. It's not good for you, Willow. And it's not what magic is for.
WILLOW: (anxious) But I ... I just wanna help people.
TARA: Maybe that's how it started, but ... you're helping yourself now, fixing things to your liking. Including me.
WILLOW: Tara, no!

(quotes courtesy of Psyche's site, transcribed by Joan the English Chick)

[>Re: Tabula Rasa: Was it prophetic as well as funny? -- Akita, 08:50:51 08/04/02 Sun

I agree completely with your assessment that the Randy-Joan relationship has no romantic/sexual component. And if there is still a future relationship that can be developed between Spike and Buffy, I think that this is the most likely and quite possibly the healthiest outcome (for both).

The one relationship that interests me most at the moment, however, is Anya-Xander, or rather the total lack thereof in TR. Whereas the others recognize some semblance of real-life relationships with at least one other of the Scoobies (i.e., Buffy/Spike, Giles/Spike, Buffy/Dawn, and the intriguing Willow/Xander/Tara triad), there is no click between Anya and Xander whatsoever. I'm not sure they ever even have an exchange. While this is definitely indicative of things to come in B6, I think it may also carry over into B7.

Leave aside every awful thing that happened at the wedding-that-wasn't and in its aftermath, assume that each could somehow overcome that pain, and there still may be a fundamental irreconcilable difference. To me the most interesting and touching thing Anya said in her vows was "I get to marry my best friend." Xander was her best friend (which also serves to magnify her hurt at being left, I think). But Anya has never been, and probably could never be, Xander's best friend. (Rowan, BTW, illumines this beautifully in her fic, "A Place So Bitter.")And I think the lack of any communication/sparkage between them in TR is indicative of that.

Although Anya has long been one of my favorite characters whereas I am currently pretty down on Xander, I'm not implying in this instance that one or the other is wrong in her/his expectation. Some people need their SO to be their best friend, and some don't. But I do think that this is the sort of conflict in expectations that can easily undermine a long-term relationship.

Akita

Current board | More August 2002