August 2002 Archives - Page 8
A partial defence of the Watchers' Council -- Liam, 08:51:28 08/14/02 Wed
The Watchers' Council has got a bad press, in many cases because of bad writing, about how it treated Buffy, Giles, and the Scoobies. While I agree with many of the criticisms against it, I feel that a few criticisms could be leveled by it against Buffy, in particular regarding her relationship with Angel.
If she had not formed such a close attachment to Angel a lot of pain and suffering could have been avoided. Her having sex with him ensured that Angelus came back. Her failure to stake him in 'Innocence', because he had Angel's face, ensured that he was able to kill more people and tried to get the world sucked into hell.
At the end of the third season, in 'Graduation Day, Part II', Buffy let Angel drink from her to save his life, despite the risk to hers and the coming Ascension of the Mayor. As far as she is concerned, Sunnydale and its inhabitants can go to hell, as long as her boyfriend lives.
If she had followed what appears to have been the pattern of other slayers, in having no outside attachments, none of this would have happened.
[> I couldn't disagree more -- Sophist, 09:10:15 08/14/02 Wed
It's not quite clear to me what B/A has to do with the WC (I really like that abbreviation, hehe). If the WC does encourage slayers "to have no outside attachments", then it is Willow and Xander (and now Dawn) who would have to disappear from her life. I hardly think that would have been beneficial to her or to the world.
I'm not sure why you blame Buffy for the return of Angelus. Seems to me the gypsy curse was to blame. She may well have been wrong in Innocence, but if she had staked him then, the world would have lost the good Angel has done since. More good than the WC, I suspect.
Buffy couldn't let Angel die in GD2. As the First said in Intervention "You are full of love". It's that love that makes her the slayer she is; to deny that is to make her "nothing but a killer". Letting Angel die (or Dawn in TG) would have been totally inconsistent with her character. Not with Quentin's, though.
[> [> Re: Beg to differ -- Liam, 09:34:02 08/14/02 Wed
The Buffy/Angel relationship had _everything_ to do with the Council, whose responsibility is to protect humanity from evil; because it led to Buffy and Angel having sex, resulting in the return of Angelus, many people dying and the world in danger of being sucked into hell. Because of the world being in danger, I would say that _everyone_ on the planet had an interest in that relationship.
To clarify my last post, I don't blame Buffy for the return of Angelus, because she (and Angel) didn't know about the ramifications of the curse; but I _do_ blame her for not staking Angelus in 'Innocence'. This resulted in him killing at least several more people (including Jenny) and putting the world in peril. Therefore, Buffy is certainly morally responsible for the consequences of Angelus's actions after 'Innocence'.
[> [> [> Giles in the silo -- cjc36, 09:49:33 08/14/02 Wed
Then to extend the thought, Liam, do you also feel that Giles was in the wrong in Helpless? That his paternal feelings and love for Buffy were, as Travers accused, a detriment to his role as sometimes Watcher? Should he have been able to put that needle in her arm with complete, military-style detachment? Should Buffy be no more than a mission for him?
My heart screams that the above thoughts are completely wrong. But if one takes the context of, say, a nuclear weapons command structure - something that deals with the fate of the entire world - unwarranted emotional attachments in said command could be very dangerous, indeed. Is this what Giles is, a soldier on apocalypse watch?
If that is the qualifier, then Liam, you are correct. But my emotional response still disagrees. I am, AGAIN, left conflicted when thinking of Hellmouth matters .
[> Not a defense of the Watchers' Council (general BtVS spoilers) -- Vickie, 09:38:07 08/14/02 Wed
Um, Liam, how is attacking Buffy a defense of the WC? "You did something bad too, so my bad actions are justified"? That way lies the conflict in the middle east, and every other insane human conflict on the planet.
I partly agree that Buffy should have staked Angelus. Yes, we'd have lost the good Angel did since, but at that point in the story (Innocence), Buffy didn't know that Angelus could ever be re-cursed. She was just working up to staking him. Staking him then would have saved Theresa and Jenny at least (and the immolate-a-gram woman).
However, I thoroughly disagree (and agree with Soph) that Buffy's attachments are a weakness and she should not have them. Her attachments to friends and family have made her a better, stronger, longer-lived slayer. Buffy knows this ("Kendra, my emotions give me power. They're total assets!" What's My Line).
When The First attacks Buffy for joining with the other Scoobies in Primeval, she rejoined that the world had changed since The First's day. "There's trees in the desert since you moved out. (The First Slayer shakes her head) And I don't sleep on a bed of bones. Now give me back my friends."
Buffy's attachments do give her hostages to fortune, vulnerable people that the bad guys can attack in an attempt to control or injure Buffy. This has not often worked out well. Zachary Kralick kidnapped Joyce, and got a holy water highball for his trouble. Harmony kidnapped Dawn, and got her gang wiped out--probably would have been staked if she weren't so good at running away. Spike kidnapped Angel, and got a large portion of his gang staked and an organ dropped on him.
In fact, the only times I can remember this ploy working is when Angelus tried it. He killed Jenny without much payback (Gile tried, but...). He kidnapped and tortured Giles, and only got his soul back (and sent to a hell dimension for a while)--but these were consequences of his plan for Acathla and not for the harm he did Buffy's people.
On the flip side, where would Buffy be without her attachments? Uh, Prophecy Girl anyone? Dead in the first season, without Xander to do CPR. I'm not going to try to count up the times the Scoobies have helped her, saved her, saved innocents while Buffy kept the bad guys busy. Even Dawn guarded Buffy's back in The Grave. It's clear she's better off with her friends and family.
[> [> Re: Not a defense of the Watchers' Council (general BtVS spoilers) -- Liam, 10:00:35 08/14/02 Wed
I was making a point that, while people like to show the mistakes made by the Council, they aren't as willing to show the mistakes made by Buffy.
Of course, the problem with the portrayal of the Council and the Initiative is that they have been badly written. Attempts were made to portray them as evil; but they were also portrayed as being always incompetent, a combination I found boring. They were like Scott Evil, told by his father that he was the 'diet coke' of evil. :) I like my villains to be smart as well as evil, something the Buffyverse writers could do, as seen with the Mayor.
[> [> [> Re: Not a defense of the Watchers' Council (general BtVS spoilers) -- Rook, 10:49:13 08/14/02 Wed
Classic child's reasoning. "Billy did something bad, so I can do bad things too!"
One person's/group's bad behavior is not a defense of anyone else's actions.
And "I didn't like it/found it boring" does not = "it was badly written".
[> [> [> [> Re: Not a defense of the Watchers' Council (general BtVS spoilers) -- Dochawk, 13:24:44 08/14/02 Wed
I agree Rook, Giles and Wesley are the two most prominent examples of the Watcher's council and neither are badly written nor unidimensional. Nor is Quentin. I loved Checkpoint Helpless and This Year's Girl which are the most prominent episodes on Buffy of the WC. All were interesting and well written.
I have always wondered, why did the WC choose Giles as Buffy's new watcher? he seems to be an outcast among the council (in Faith, Hope and trick he talks about never being invited to the Watcher's retreat), He was never informed about the renegade watcher being kicked out of the council. You'd think that the watcher assigned to the actual Slayer would be the most prominent watcher, not an afterthought.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Not a defense of the Watchers' Council (general BtVS spoilers) -- Rook, 13:52:16 08/14/02 Wed
It seems to me that while it would seem, on the surface, that watching the slayer would be a prestigious assignment, it's actually closer to a suicide mission. Look at what happened to Faith's watcher, or how many times Giles and even Wesley were endangered.
It may be that there's an assumption that whoever gets assigned as the Slayer's Watcher is just as likely to end up dead as she is, so they send someone that they deem as expendible.
It also probably very difficult to find someone with the right combination of attributes to take on such a dangerous mission. After all, both Watchers we've seen have had some common characteristics, mainly enthusiasm and excitement about being in the middle of things (so much so that they both continue to put themselves in harms way even when disconnected from the council) People that are both warriors and scholars don't necessarily grow on trees.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not a defense of the Watchers' Council (general BtVS spoilers) -- Wizardman, 14:00:21 08/14/02 Wed
For a while, the Council's choice of Giles as Watcher to the Slayer didn't make sense, as he was apparantly an outcast, but your explanation makes sense. The Ripper is under the tweedy scholar's shell, and the combination is a deadly one, as we've seen more than once. Added to that is that fact that he's not well-liked anyway, so to the CoW he's the perfect dupe- I mean, person, to send on what is as you stated almost certainly a suicide mission.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually performing the mission is bad politics -- Cleanthes, 15:02:33 08/14/02 Wed
The Watcher's Council may well function like the US Intelligence agencies or many bureaucracies around the world -- the "real" work to most of those working for such groups is continuing the institution, NOT the putative mission of the agency. The people who found the 20th terrorist, for example, couldn't get anyone in Washington interested because actually finding bad guys gets in the way of politics and might raise questions the answers for which were not already known.
So with the Watcher's Council - actually dealing with Slayers is messy, and as you say, Rook, dangerous. Far better to manage the funds and the string-pulling aspects of the group, which will also leave one safe, and close to the political center-of-gravity.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Interesting (TOTS Spoilers) -- Dochawk, 12:54:45 08/15/02 Thu
In the short story version of Tales of the Slayers there is a story about a slayer who is betrayed by her watcher. He accidentally leads her into a vamp nest on the day she becomes chosen. When confonted by vamps the watcher runs away watching his slayer get vamped. Thats where the story ends, I always thought that once she killed her watcher that she would go after the Council of Watchers. they play a dangerous game. I also would love to see her come to Sunnydale, for Buffy to have to face a vampire who was once a slayer would force alot of identity issues (and we'd get to learn alot about what happens when one becomes a slayer).
[> Well, okay, let's defend them! -- Darby, 09:58:45 08/14/02 Wed
The Watchers' Council's tactics are meant to get our ire up, but we are seeing very little of their methods. In one way, their methods have to work, because hey, world still there 'n everything at the beginning of the series!
Slayers are called at 15 or 16 and rarely last until 18, a turnover of one every, say, three years although it's probably quicker on average. Slayers date back into prehistory, let's give them 6000 years. That's 2000 Slayers!
The Watchers' Council is in the business of cannon fodder. Their training methods may be more likely to mimic kamikaze prep than West Point. Yes, Buffy has been, we're led to suppose, a particularly successful Slayer, but perhaps the power was never meant to reside in a particular place for very long. Maybe in the Buffyverse, Australia has literally gone to Hell because it's been too long since they had a Slayer. Yeah, yeah, I know, Slayers have been known to travel, but have we ever seen the Buffster on a roadtrip?
Darby, who really thinks that the WC is a demon front organization but is feeling contrary today. Damn it's hot here.
[> [> Re: Damn it's hot here. -- Robert, 10:37:24 08/14/02 Wed
So Darby, where are you located. I'm outside of Eugene Oregon and my house was 98 stinking degrees yesterday.
[> [> [> Re: Damn it's hot here in upstate NY. -- Darby (sweltering), 11:38:56 08/14/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> Re: I agree! where in upstate NY? -- Purple Tulip, 13:30:08 08/14/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> NW of Albany, Adirondack foothills, temps & humidity in 90s -- Darby, 17:30:16 08/14/02 Wed
[> [> [> 72 not counting the wind-chill factor here in SF -- Masq, 13:29:35 08/14/02 Wed
And you must always count the wind-chill factor. Feels about.... 60.
[> [> yet, when there are two slayers, Kendra and Faith both are sent to Sunnydale -- Dochawk, 13:28:37 08/14/02 Wed
Well Faith wasn't sent to Sunnydale, but once there wasn't sent somewhere else. Obviously there are vamps other places because Kendra had killed many on her Caribbean island.
As for # of slayers, I would guess more than 2000, since some would have died within days of being called. Buffy and Kendra died within 1 year of each other.
[> [> [> Re: yet, when there are two slayers, Kendra and Faith both are sent to Sunnydale -- Darby, 17:34:28 08/14/02 Wed
Kinda hard to interact them with never-leave-town Buffy without getting them from wherever to Sunnydale. But there must be other hot spots or the only place Slayers would have been through the 20th Century would have been Sunnydale, right?
[> [> Re: Well, okay, let's defend them! -- Wizardman, 14:12:39 08/14/02 Wed
I am of the theory that the Slayer isn't the world's main warrior against evil. Oh, she's one of them, but not THE main one. The existence of Champions proves that. Sure, Angel may be in the soul saving business, but that's because it's a task to which he is so very well suited. I'm sure that there have to be Champions out there who's purpose is to solely kick ass. And the world-saving biz isn't just limited to those two groups. One thing that both shows have repeatedly shown us is that the most ordinary of people is capable of saving the world. There are people and groups that hunt demons all over the world, and then you've got groups like the CoW who do the bigger things like avert apocalypses. I'm not saying that I'm now a fan of the CoW, but I've always believed that they are so insufferably arrogant because they actually have saved the world, many times, and somehow manage to keep on doing it. If they are thickheaded and rigid, it's because they have weathered everything that can possibly have been sent their way, and are of the notion that the methods that they have been using will work again, conveniently ignoring the fact that the world has changed into a place where those methods won't work anymore. That's why, as I've stated in a previous post, the CoW is ripe for demonic subversion- they are too arrogant to believe that such could be successfully done. Unless, of course, the Council has already been subverted...
[> Re: A partial defence of the Watchers' Council -- Robert, 10:30:02 08/14/02 Wed
>>> "The Watchers' Council has got a bad press, in many cases because of bad writing, ..."
Could you provide some examples please?
>>> "... I feel that a few criticisms could be leveled by it against Buffy,... "
How does criticizing Buffy serve as a defence of the Watcher's Council?
>>> "If she had followed what appears to have been the pattern of other slayers, in having no outside attachments, none of this would have happened."
Yes, and whose fault is that? The Council of Watchers was responsible for identifying the next slayer early enough so that she could be removed from her family and trained in the craft of slaying. The Council failed to find Buffy before she was called as the slayer. Consequently, she was raised as a normal girl by family and friends, and was inclined to continue to be a normal girl. The Council doesn't look to good with how Faith turned out either.
>>> "Her having sex with him ensured that Angelus came back."
Yes, and whose fault is that? The gypsies who cursed Angelus sent Jenny Calendar to Sunnydale as their agent, to ensure that Angel never attains any happiness, only they failed to properly brief Ms Calendar about the issue of the soul escape clause. Thus, she could not know to prevent the return of Angelus. Blame can further be spread. The Council is responsible for providing the slayer with the intelligence she needs to do her job. They dropped the ball by not providing Buffy with the crucial details of the curse. They fact that they didn't know either is their failure.
To lay the fault solely on Buffy, for unknowingly breaking the gypsy curse, is outrageous. Then again, the metaphor is clear that sex has bad consequences, and it would not be the first time the girl was blamed in entirety for the results of sex.
>>> "Her failure to stake him in 'Innocence', because he had Angel's face, ..."
This is true, and Buffy recognized and accepted her responsibility for this failure. She acquitted herself in "Becoming" by sticking the newly ensouled Angel through the chest and consigning him to hell.
>>> "Buffy let Angel drink from her to save his life, despite the risk to hers and the coming Ascension of the Mayor."
Good point! Your objection to her motives may be correct. However, it was her short stay in the hospital which provided her the means, clarity and strength to commit to battle with Mayor Wilkens. The prophetic dream she shared with Faith gave her vital details and inspiration, without which all might have been lost. Angel provided the final detail about the Mayor's relationship with Faith.
>>> "As far as she is concerned, Sunnydale and its inhabitants can go to hell, as long as her boyfriend lives."
Did Buffy say anything like this, or are you making assumptions?
It is dangerous when society starts to prioritize the lives of individuals. There is something to be said for valuing the individual more than society. The US special forces have long regarded the individual as priceless. They will throw men and machines into harms way to save one of their own. This happened in Afganistan just a few months ago. Several men died in a failed attempt to rescue one.
When the individuals in society feel that they have no value (or infinitesimal value), then society at large is weaker for it. Society is strengthened by the knowledge that each person is valuable. How much effort do we, in the United States, expend to rescue someone who is lost or trapped? What was the cost for rescuing the miners in Pennsylvania? Might it have been cheaper to just train new miners and right off the trapped men?
As I mentioned above, Angel provided vital intelligence to Buffy for fighting the Mayor. In addition, he served as a loyal and effective soldier in the battle. Buffy could not have known in advance that saving Angel would provide such decisive benefits. No one can know the future, but we can still adopt the principle of valuing the individual and hope for dividends later.
You could have provided a more pointed example. Buffy made clear in "The Gift" that if the choice was saving Dawn or saving the universe, she would choose Dawn. As she fortunately did not have to make this choice, we can't know what she really would have done in the peak of the crisis.
[> [> Re: A partial defence of the Watchers' Council -- Dariel, 11:12:59 08/14/02 Wed
Buffy made clear in "The Gift" that if the choice was saving Dawn or saving the universe, she would choose Dawn. As she fortunately did not have to make this choice, we can't know what she really would have done in the peak of the crisis.
Actually, I think we do. When the portal first opens, Dawn tries to jump off the tower, but Buffy stops her. Dawn then insists that she (Dawn) has to jump/die in order to halt the growing chaos. Buffy's anguished expression at this says it all--she knows Dawn is right.
I've re-watched that scene many times, and think that it's just wonderful. Because the tables have been turned on Buffy, and she knows it. Because the best thing for Dawn at that moment is to make her own choice, to jump, to have a "good death." Not to live an extra 15 minutes for Buffy's sake while the universe collapses.
[> [> [> Re: A partial defence of the Watchers' Council -- Robert, 11:25:55 08/14/02 Wed
>>> "Actually, I think we do. "
Yes, I remember the episode as well. I think that (barring her gift of death), Buffy still could eventually have come to the correct decision. Both Dawn and her own conscience were arguing for it.
This episode was very powerful for me. It showed Buffy at her most deparate. Up to this point she had lost almost more than she could bear. Just a few hours before, she was catatonic. It was understandable and touching that she couldn't bear to lose anyone else. Events and fate had conspired to push Buffy to her breaking point. This is what made the gift of death so poignant. Death truly was a gift to her, and her gift to Dawn.
[> [> Re: A partial defence of the Watchers' Council -- Liam, 11:23:44 08/14/02 Wed
Thanks for the challenge, Robert. First, in terms of examples of the bad writing of the Council:
1. Why didn't it tell Giles about the fact, unprecedented in the Council's entire history, that there were _two_ slayers in existence at the same time, the result of Buffy being mostly dead, instead of him finding out only when Kendra appeared?
2. Why was nothing said about the Council dealing with the season 2 consequences of the Buffy/Angel relationship? I would have thought that Giles's failure to even try to keep Buffy and Angel apart would have been enough to get him fired, considering what the consequences were. Of course, he might never have told the Council about the relationship in the first place, which would have also certainly justified his being fired. In this case, the results of 'Helpless' could have happened much sooner.
3. Why didn't the Council stake Spike in 'Checkpoint' once they knew who he was? He was supposed to be the most fearsome vampire around, the killer of two slayers, so why wasn't he dusted?
4. Why didn't the Council pay Buffy's bills in season 6? I would have thought that it would have been a great way to regain its influence over her, as long as it was careful.
5. Why didn't the Council send a replacement Watcher when Giles left in season 6?
Second, you asked why criticising some of Buffy's actions was a defence of the Council. I said that it was a _partial_ defence, and was not saying that the Council didn't make mistakes. Also, the fact that she makes mistakes shows that she doesn't always get things right; so it's reasonable that the Council doesn't always get things wrong either.
Third, I agree with you completely that the Council messed up in terms of not finding Buffy before she was called as a slayer. Also, it could certainly have given Faith better accomodation than that motel. I'm the first one to admit that the Council has messed up many times; but I would say that some of the mistakes might be due to sloppy writing.
Fourth, I _don't_ blame Buffy or Angel for the coming back of Angelus; because neither of them knew about the ramifications of the curse. I lay the blame _completely_ on the shoulders of the gipsies, who didn't tell Jenny. I _never_ laid the fault on Buffy for this; I lay the fault on her for not staking Angelus at the end of 'Innocence', when she knew what he was and what he was capable of.
Fifth, you asked whether I was making an assumption regarding Buffy's attitude at the end of season 3. I was, based on what was seen and heard in the episode. Wesley was telling her that stopping the Mayor should be her top priority, and that the Council would not help deal with Angel's illness. Also, when she later tried to get Angel to drink from her, he at first refused, on the grounds that she would die.
Sixth, I agree with you about the 'more pointed' example of Buffy's behaviour in 'The Gift'. Other examples include her not staking Spike at the end of 'Lovers' Walk', and not staking the Willow-like vampire in 'Dopplegangland', instead sending it back to its own reality, where it would kill again.
[> [> [> Re: A partial defence of the Watchers' Council -- Robert, 12:13:41 08/14/02 Wed
>>> "1. Why didn't it tell Giles about the fact, unprecedented in the Council's entire history, that there were _two_ slayers in existence at the same time, the result of Buffy being mostly dead, instead of him finding out only when Kendra appeared?"
Why do you consider this bad writing? It would not be the first time that the right hand of a bureaucracy failed to tell the left hand what it needed to know.
>>> "I would have thought that Giles's failure to even try to keep Buffy and Angel apart would have been enough to get him fired, considering what the consequences were."
You assume (I believe incorrectly) that the Council didn't approve of the relationship. Before "Helpless" the only part of the Council we ever saw was Giles, which is proper given that he is the Council's representative to Buffy. Thus Giles' knowledge and judgements are all we know of the Council's knowledge and judgements. Giles didn't know about the soul escape clause in the curse, therefore the Council didn't know. Since they have the greater resources, they have the larger responsibility for the consequences.
On the other hand, I could see a case for encouraging the relationship with Angel, who was a long-lived, knowledgeable and powerful ally.
>>> "3. Why didn't the Council stake Spike in 'Checkpoint' once they knew who he was? He was supposed to be the most fearsome vampire around, the killer of two slayers, so why wasn't he dusted?"
The Council knew that he was neutered, thus no longer the most fearsome. Regarding the murder of two slayers, why should they care. I've already stated in previous postings that the Council considered the slayers to be easily replaceable components. On the other hand, Spike was unique, thus worth keeping around and studying. He could be a model for future methods for dealing with vampires.
>>> "4. Why didn't the Council pay Buffy's bills in season 6? I would have thought that it would have been a great way to regain its influence over her, as long as it was careful. "
Why do you think they knew about Buffy's money problems? Giles stated that the Council was clueless. I wonder if they even knew that Buffy had been resurrected. Giles was no longer employed by the Council, so he need not have told them anything. The feelings between Giles and the Council were strained at best ever since the Cruciamentum.
You might ask, why Giles didn't help Buffy more with her money problems? I saw Giles as attempting to take the role of a parent who is pushing their children to learn to take care of themselves. Buffy needed to go through hard times, in order to rebuild her self-confidence and her priorities.
>>> "5. Why didn't the Council send a replacement Watcher when Giles left in season 6?"
Refer to my argument above. I doubt the Council knew that Buffy was alive.
>>> "I said that it was a _partial_ defence, ..."
and
>>> "... the fact that she makes mistakes shows that she doesn't always get things right; so it's reasonable that the Council doesn't always get things wrong either."
Criticizing Buffy is in NO WAY a defence of the Council, partial or otherwise. It is a diversion. Unscrupulous politions use this all the time. The reasonableness of the Council's mistakes does not logically follow from the fact that Buffy makes mistakes. The Council is responsible for their own actions and misdeeds.
>>> "... but I would say that some of the mistakes might be due to sloppy writing."
Interesting! So when the Council does something bad, it isn't really bad, because the writing was sloppy. I guess, by definition, there is no way for me to refute this assertion. I can only say that I believe the Council does bad things, because they are a bad institution with bad people. On the other hand, I see that the "sloppy writing" argument could be used to prove just about anything you wanted.
>>> "I _never_ laid the fault on Buffy for this ..."
THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID!!!
In your previous posting;
>>> "If she had not formed such a close attachment to Angel a lot of pain and suffering could have been avoided.
Her having sex with him ensured that Angelus came back."
Thus, you squarely put the blame for Angelus' return on Buffy's shoulders.
>>> "... and that the Council would not help deal with Angel's illness."
It was the Council's lack of compassion which led to Buffy taking extreme measures. It may have been the case that the Council honestly could not provide any help, but that isn't what was communicated to Buffy. Wesley told her that the Council would not help, due to dispassionate policy. This may have been Wesley's mistake. Regardless, he was their representative to Buffy. Buffy separated herself from the Council and Wesley as a result of this. If the situation had turned into a disaster, then the Council would bear as much responsibility as Buffy. They were supposed to help and support the slayer, not drive her to the point of desparation.
[> [> [> [> Re: A partial defence of the Watchers' Council -- leslie, 12:51:03 08/14/02 Wed
"The Council knew that he was neutered, thus no longer the most fearsome. Regarding the murder of two slayers, why should they care. I've already stated in previous postings that the Council considered the slayers to be easily replaceable components. On the other hand, Spike was unique, thus worth keeping around and studying. He could be a model for future methods for dealing with vampires."
As, indeed, they have at least one member who wrote her thesis on him. Which I found rather adorable, as one tends to fall in love with the subject of one's thesis, if only to have an incentive to slog through the damned writing (and as her reaction clearly showed she had).
I would agree with Robert here that the representation of the Council is *not* sloppy writing; it's remarkably consistent. That doesn't mean that they are an admirable or even a well-run institution. Clearly Giles is as unusual a Watcher as Buffy is a Slayer. It also seems pretty clear to me that the Council is meant to be seen along the lines of the British imperial government (and all administrations of empires), in which the policy-makers back home make decisions based on abstract notions of what's right and on their overall agenda, while the input of the representative on the scene is ignored and the representative is required to enforce actions that he knows are misguided and counterproductive. I think there is also a sense that their mindset is literally medieval, if not archaic--and in this, they are an interesting counterpoint to the demons they fight, who are also rather hidebound when it comes to following their traditions. There is something about the Council that reminds me of the administration of UCLA (a much younger institution!), which never eliminates forms, just adds new ones that need to be filled out as well, and which was still requiring employees to sign a McCarthy-era loyalty oath up to the early 1990's (yes, I had to swear in writing not to sell folklore secrets to the Commies in order to get a work-study job!). If that's what UCLA can do in 70 years of existence, what would the Council be like with 7,000 years under its belt?
[> [> [> [> [> The "God is an Englishman" trope -- Cleanthes, 15:16:20 08/14/02 Wed
It also seems pretty clear to me that the Council is meant to be seen along the lines of the British imperial government (and all administrations of empires), in which the policy-makers back home make decisions based on abstract notions of what's right and on their overall agenda, while the input of the representative on the scene is ignored and the representative is required to enforce actions that he knows are misguided and counterproductive.
It occurs to me that Kendra may have been Jamaican more to illustrate her relationship to the Watcher's Council, an English institution, than to reference the "Tragic Mulatta" trope much discussed in another recent thread. The English are the ethnic group most heavily over-represented on Buffy relative to their occurance in American society. Kendra could have easily been Canadian - another group that didn't sufficiently rebel against the mother country, in American eyes.
[> [> [> [> [> Representation of the Council -- Robert, 15:29:50 08/14/02 Wed
Thanks Leslie for your support. The representation of bloated or moribund bureaucracies is a subject on which Joss has not spent nearly enough time. We see only the Council. There is also the child services department in Sunnydale, which nearly took Dawn away from Buffy. In AtS we see Wolfram & Hart as a bureaucracy, but this is a different case. My main complaint with bureaucracies is that they can tend to become selfsustaining monsters with a distorted or diminished purpose. Wolfram & Hart, on the other hand, is an active evil. They have a clear purpose, and it is the destruction of everything.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bureaucracies crafted as a reform of the system, not a debasement of it -- Just George, 22:29:30 08/14/02 Wed
Interesting that as far as I know, bureaucracies were originally created to reduce the power of despotic authority. Before bureaucracies, despotic individuals (at all levels of society) made decisions based on their own prejudices and self-interests. This led to great inequities. Bureaucracies were created so that decisions could be made based on rules that were the same for everyone. These rules were theoretically crafted in the best interest of the society instead of in the interest of the despot.
Now, bureaucracies can have their (many) failings too. The creation of their rules can be hijacked by special interests. Their rules can be incomplete, obsolete, or insanely over defined. They can run roughshod over individuals and ignore subjective fairness in the observance of maintaining an objective order. But they were originally crafted as a reform of the system, not a debasement of it.
[> [> [> Re: A real defense of Quentin Travers (and a bit of speculation) -- Just George, 00:07:41 08/15/02 Thu
The Council of Watchers reflects its leader, Quentin Travers. I actually kind of like the old man. From what I can tell, he is trying to keep this fragile world from falling apart with fewer resources than his demonic foes. He maximizes the resources he has to best fight the fight. Here are a few of his resources:
1) As we saw in Checkpoint, Quentin uses information as a weapon. Giles comments that the Watchers have a better library than he ever had. Quentin does not seem to readily release information on the other Slayers, on Slayers in training, or on the menaces that they fight. I expect Quentin believes he has the most complete overview of the global paranormal situation. He uses this information to best deploy his resources to combat emerging global menaces.
2) As we saw in Helpless and Checkpoint, Quentin uses his stentorian bearing and formal language to intimidate people. I expect it has been very useful in rising to the top of the order.
3) In Helpless, we saw Quentin use the press of tradition to get people to act against their instincts. Giles would never have agreed to poison Buffy on his own. Nor would he probably have done it on the orders of the council alone. But the press of tradition, the "we've always done it this way" syndrome, led Giles to betray Buffy in the most personal way. This was a sign of Quentin and the council's power.
4) In Checkpoint, Quentin says, and Giles substantiates, that the council has enough political power to get Giles deported. Given that the council has been saving the world (or taking credit for the Slayers saving the world) for centuries, I expect they have banked a few favors from people in high places.
5) The council has a substantial number of competent, but non-super-powered people in their employ. In Checkpoint we see a half a dozen people who seem to be watchers (or watchers in training). Giles intimates that there are a number of watchers stationed around the world who train girls who may become Slayers. In Enemies and This Year's Girl the council sends "retrieval teams" around the world on a moments notice. In This Year's Girl, they have a spy in the hospital watching Faith.
6) The continued support of a large group of people leads me to believe the council has access to substantial funds.
To sum up, Quentin uses information, his presence, tradition, political pull, a body of trained people, and money as weapons to fight the good fight.
From what we have seen, the Slayers are the most powerful weapons that Quentin could deploy against evil. However, he does not wield the Slayers directly. Quentin uses his other tools to convince Slayers to fight the fight. Given that each Slayer is a super-powered warrior with the emotional stability of an adolescent, Quentin probably needs every tool he can muster.
Quentin can't threaten the Slayer physically, they can take out any group of people he could send after them. Slayers are trained to deal with such impediments with deadly physical force and no retrieval team has ever been ultimately successful on BtVS or AtS. Quentin must rely on using information, his presence, tradition, political pull, a body of trained people, and money to manipulate the Slayers into doing what he sees as best. And manipulate them Quentin does. From his POV he has no other choice. Otherwise the most powerful force at his disposal (the Slayer) will waste her efforts and our fragile world will be imperiled.
In Helpless and Checkpoint Quentin is testing Buffy. Does Buffy have the mental toughness to be a worthy Slayer? If not, she will either die or Quentin will change how she is being mentored. The Slayer is such a valuable piece in his arsenal it is imperative that she be operating at the highest level. I suspect he is proud when she passes both tests.
Buffy's interactions with council have been seemingly different than those of most other Slayers. By the end of Checkpoint she is firmly in control of the relationship. And I think Quentin was glad to see it. This may be a fanwank, but I suspect the Quentin came to Sunnydale with the knowledge that Glory was the most powerful enemy Buffy had ever faced. So, if he decided Buffy wasn't ready to handle Glory, then Quentin would take over her training and make her ready. If Buffy was ready, then he would let her take care of the situation. Quentin had his people push Buffy's every button. And she was failing Quentin's test. Then Buffy found her "power" and told Quentin off. I don't think Quentin backed off because he was intimidated by Buffy. He backed off because he saw she could do the job.
So as to Liam's questions:
1) Quentin didn't tell Giles about Kendra because he decided that Giles didn't need to know. He didn't tell him about Faith for the same reason.
2) Quentin may have had questions about the Buffy/Angel relationship, but up until Innocence, the relationship actually helped her effectiveness as a Slayer. After that, Buffy stopped Angelus' plans several times until she finally sent him to hell in Bargaining Part 2. I expect Giles' reports to Quentin put Buffy in the best possible light during this time. After Angle came back, he again helped Buffy be a "more powerful instrument".
3) The council didn't stake Spike because they were trusting Buffy's judgement. She had plenty of chances to stake him before they came and hadn't. Since Spike could not kill humans, they deferred to Buffy's judgment.
4) The council didn't pay Buffy's bill in Season 6 because she didn't ask them to. Buffy didn't want to be under Quentin's thumb, so she never made the call. And Giles wanted Buffy to demonstrate independence, so he never told Quentin of her problems.
5) The council didn't send a replacement watcher after Giles left because Buffy didn't ask them to. She was setting the terms of the relationship. I'm sure if Buffy had asked for a watcher, one would have been sent.
I suspect that unless Quentin decided that Buffy needed council help to be an effective instrument he wouldn't change their arrangement. Quentin still thought he was dealing with mid Season 5's "decisive" Buffy, not Season 6's "depressed" Buffy. And since Buffy and Giles were keeping Quentin out of the loop, he had no reason to change his opinion.
Finally some minor speculation:
1) One of my favorite bits of fan fiction postulates that the Cruciamentum exists to make the Slayer immune to the "combination of muscle relaxants and adrenal suppressants" that can take away their powers. If we see the council again, I'd love to have that bit of trivia dropped on Buffy. It would put her ordeal in a whole new light.
2) Since everyone (Scoobies and fans included) think the council is at best clueless and at worst evil, I'll bet that ME makes them good guys the next time we see them. In a Jossverse, everything that has not been firmly set down is probably wrong. Actually, most of what has been firmly set down is also probably wrong. Since the council seem like Buffy's enemies, they must therefore secretly be her friends.
Or they could be a front for demons and the S7 BB. I don't know. That's why I watch.
-JG
[> [> [> [> Nice Defence of QT and the WC, George. (NT) -- HarryParachute, 01:18:50 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> Re: A real defense of Quentin Travers (and a bit of speculation) -- Arethusa, 07:09:01 08/15/02 Thu
Well done.
I suspect Giles' comments about the Council (it "hasn't a clue, about anything, really") are a set-up for "Ripper," so I'm expecting the Council to be portrayed negatively.
quote by psyche
[> [> [> [> A speculative quibble -- Darby, 08:25:10 08/15/02 Thu
I don't think that Quentin runs the Council - in an organization like this has been portrayed, even their most important operative, in this case the Slayer, doesn't get someone from "the Board" to come to them. He strikes me as a general-type, the highest ranking of the field operatives, with broad discretionary powers but limited ability to effect new policy (that supports your could-go-either-way strategy in Checkpoint). For one thing, I don't think a truly high-ranking member would be called by his first name by a Watcher.
- Darby, who feels manipulated into seeing the WC in a certain light but can't help it - Bloody Americans!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: A speculative quibble -- Malandanza, 10:19:48 08/15/02 Thu
"I don't think that Quentin runs the Council - in an organization like this has been portrayed, even their most important operative, in this case the Slayer, doesn't get someone from "the Board" to come to them. He strikes me as a general-type, the highest ranking of the field operatives, with broad discretionary powers but limited ability to effect new policy"
I agree with you and I also liked the idea that the watchers sent to train the slayer were not their best men, but their most expendable. It explains why someone with Giles' Ripper background could draw such an important assignment. Probably only the higher up watchers realize that this field assignment is not so great (imagine Wesley's father when Wesley told him he had become Buffy and Faith's personal watcher -- something like "great, my son's idiocy has been confirmed by the WC").
I also think that the WC is a more diffuse organization than we have been led to believe -- that there are multiple, semiautonomous councils scattered throughout the world. The US falls under the mandate of Britain, but Kendra doesn't seem to have belonged to England.
First of all, she wasn't educated in England. She was taken from her parents when she was too young to remember them -- she should have a British accent if she had been raised in England (in fact, a Masterpiece Theater accent since she would have been raised and educated by Oxford/Cambridge types). Next, neither Kendra nor Buffy knew of the other's existence. It may have been a need-to-know basis at first (although Faith knew about Buffy), but when Kendra's watcher decided to send her on a plane trip to Sunnydale, it seems the higher-ups would have either countermanded that order or filled in their local operatives. Then there's how Kendra entered the US -- stowing away in the cargo hold of a plane even though the WC surely has enough bureaucratic muscle to sneak her in or enough money to get her in legally. It makes no sense. However, if Kendra belonged to a non-English branch of the WC it could work -- informing the English WC would likely result in bureaucratic roadblocks being set in Kendra's path while QT and company pretend to be helping. After all, the sooner Kendra dies, the sooner they'd get a slayer of their own. Kendra's emphasis on maintaining her secret identity and traveling incognito supports her trying to avoid WC radar -- from whom else would she have to conceal herself? The vampires? They don't get out much. Kendra's outlandish accent could be explained by having English as a second language while her tight fitting clothing (which, as fresne pointed out, would have been picked out for her by her watcher) could have been part of her low profile -- trying to pass as a Southern Californian based on what her watcher believed to be the prevailing styles.
Faith and Buffy seemed to have been trained in completely different manners than Kendra. Given that we agree than low-level watchers would have a "limited ability to effect new policy" it is strange that the training should be so different even considering the personalities of the slayers. If the WC were a monolithic organization with every aspect controlled by a single person (or set of rules), Buffy's training should have at least resembled Kendra's in some aspect.
I imagine the WC as an essentially European institution (there is something of Colonialism in the way they treat their slayers) with divisions along national lines. The WC spread during the Colonial period (which is why America is under British rule) -- Kendra could have come from the French branch -- with French colonies in Africa and the West Indies allowing her to be from those regions and still fall under French dominion. The various branches would interact as little as possible with each other, would resent intrusion on each others' territory and would generally try to keep their rivals in the dark as much as possible -- especially with regard to the death of a slayer. It's possible that there would be a race to find the new slayer and having a headstart would be a good thing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: speculative feedback -- Just George, 12:04:17 08/15/02 Thu
Arethusa: "I suspect Giles' comments about the Council (it "hasn't a clue, about anything, really") are a set-up for "Ripper," so I'm expecting the Council to be portrayed negatively."
A completely legitimate reading. Giles is in the best position of anyone on the show to know the state of the council. I'm just on a "read everything backwards to try and predict upcoming surprises" kick this month. My way of marking time until the new season starts.
Darby" "I don't think that Quentin runs the Council - in an organization like this has been portrayed, even their most important operative, in this case the Slayer, doesn't get someone from "the Board" to come to them."
Malandanza: "I also think that the WC is a more diffuse organization than we have been led to believe -- that there are multiple, semiautonomous councils scattered throughout the world."
You're both right that we don't know who runs the council or how it is organized. Quentin is the highest-ranking person we've seen or heard about, but there could easily be others. Given that the council is a central part of the Slayer mythology, and the Scoobies have had a knowledgeable representative in our midst for almost 6 years, we know surprisingly little about them. This leaves the organization open to all kinds of fascinating speculative possibilities.
Interestingly, I think we know surprisingly little about the council because Buffy never asks about them. I'm sure Giles would tell her what he knows if she asked. Even during her "work ethic" period at the beginning of S5, we have no record that Buffy learned anything that should color audience opinion about the council.
Is Buffy avoiding learning about the council because she is afraid of what she might find? She trusts Giles and has good reason to distrust every other council representative she has met. It would be interesting for Buffy to meet Kendra's watcher, Sam Zabuto. Giles was obviously impressed with him and I expect it could give us another window into how Watchers and Slayers operate.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: speculative feedback -- redcat, 13:31:31 08/15/02 Thu
Just wanted to pop in and say what an intriguing set of speculative sub-threads these have turned out to be. Thanks, everyone!
[> [> Re: A partial defence of the Watchers' Council -- leslie, 11:31:18 08/14/02 Wed
"Buffy made clear in "The Gift" that if the choice was saving Dawn or saving the universe, she would choose Dawn. As she fortunately did not have to make this choice, we can't know what she really would have done in the peak of the crisis."
Actually, we do know--she sacrificed herself to save both the universe and Dawn. Typically, she found an alternative to all the black-and-white choices that were offered her. (True, she ended up dead, but she doesn't seem to regret that...)
[> [> [> misunderstanding -- Robert, 12:18:55 08/14/02 Wed
You wrote:
>>> "Actually, we do know--she sacrificed herself to save both the universe and Dawn."
in response to my statement; "As she fortunately did not have to make this choice, we can't know what she really would have done in the peak of the crisis."
The choice I was speaking of was whether to save Dawn or the universe. Once Buffy came to understand what "death was her gift" meant, then she had a third alternative, which she took.
[> Re: In Defense of Buffy & Angel -- Purple Tulip, 11:02:22 08/14/02 Wed
Are you trying to start an argument thread here? I really don't agree with what you said---in fact, one thought came to mind while reading your post: You can't choose who you love. We can't control who we fall in love with and care about in the real world, so why should Buffy be able to choose who she falls in love with? I think that Joss was using the Buffy-Angel relationship to show how, when we are young, we fall in love with the wrong person, the one that we shouldn't be attracted to b/c they will not bring us anything but heartache and misery in the end. Yet, somehow, we always manage to fall for that one person anyway. In this way, Buffy is no different than the rest of us. Can you honestly say that when you were 16, you didn't swoon over that rebel, that one person that people told you to stay away from?
True, a lot of pain and suffering could have been avoided had Buffy and Angel never gotten together---but how were they to know the true extent of how bad it would get and what would happen? They tried so long to hold off on anything, to no admit their feelings for one another (if you remeber in "Surprise", Angel telling Buffy that he loves her but tries so hard not to---and In "Angel" Buffy tries to walk away from him, knowing that it is wrong for them to be together)and yet they are continually drawn together.
"Her having sex with him ensured that Angelus came back. Her failure to stake him in 'Innocence', because he had Angel's face, ensured that he was able to kill more people and tried to get the world sucked into hell."
---Buffy had no idea what would happen when she had sex with Angel, and neither did he. He knew he had a curse on him, obviously, but he didn't know the terms of it, didn't know that he would lose his soul when he slept with Buffy. For them, they were just making love to the person that they loved, not trying to make Angel evil again. And maybe she didn't kill him in "Innocence"- and can you honestly blame her? I think shock an denial were still key factors there. But in "Becoming Part Two" she stepped up and did what she had to do to save the world. She sent Angel to Hell when he was Angel again and not Angelus---she finally had her lover back, but she drove a sword through his heart anyway to stop Acathla from sucking the whole world into Hell. In my mind, that's even more profound, sacrificial, and self-forgetting than killing Angelus. Do you think you could kill your loved one for the good of the rest of the world. She put the world ahead of herself and her feelings there, and how many of us, if faced with that, could do what she did?
Again, Buffy let Angel drink from her, not just to save his unlife, but for her own piece of mind as well---if Angel had died then, Buffy would have been distraught and not have been able to do her job as a slayer---and again she saved the world. She may have Angel's best interest in mind at times, but she certainly doesn't let it get in the way of her job. I would have done exactly what she did in "Graduation" and told the Council to go to Hell---what right did they have to sit over in England and try and tell her what to do, and only come to America to give her cruel tests of her "slayer abilities"?
"As far as she is concerned, Sunnydale and its inhabitants can go to hell, as long as her boyfriend lives."
---Has she ever let anyone go to Hell? EXCEPT for her boyfriend when she put the fate of the world ahead of her love life????
"If she had followed what appears to have been the pattern of other slayers, in having no outside attachments, none of this would have happened"
---And if she did, then we would have no show---the whole point of this is that she's different from the other slayers, she does things differently, but she still gets the job done. Her whole relationship with Angel is supposed to be a metaphor for young love and what we all go through---granted, we don't all fall in love with vampires and have to send them to Hell, but we do all have those puppy-love things that seem so crucial and important where everything seems like the end of the world if it doesn't go as planned. Buffy and Angel had their own version of puppy-love, and when it ended it seemed like the end of the world, but it wasn't---it was just one phase in Buffy's continual growth as a person and as a slayer. The Council should have been proud of her for what she did when she killed Angel, when she stopped the Mayor, when she passed the slayer tests, but all they did was give her grief. I don't blame her at all for kicking them to the curb.
You really should have clerified that this was a post bashing Angel and Buffy and not defending the Council---a partial defense I guess, but I think it's a bit more microscopic than partial. And I'm not even a B/A shipper!
excuse me one little question? -- rabbit, 16:11:32 08/14/02 Wed
I've been trying and trying to find a good description of the term 'shanshu' which apparently is some kind of prophecy about Angel. Can someone PLEASE have mercy on me and point me to a good and complete definition?
thank you...
[going back to my corner under the table now]
[> If memory serves... -- The Last Jack, 16:21:08 08/14/02 Wed
It means to live and die, which is why the title of Angel's first season finale is kind of funny (TO Shanshu in LA...To Live and Die in LA lol). It basically means that the vampire with a soul (not necessarily Angel anymore)will become human again once his task(s) for the PTB has/have been fulfilled. For in order to live and die, one must be human, because only humans are truly alive (which is what the people who created the term thought)
[> [> Re: If the two of you got together... -- dubdub, 17:42:05 08/14/02 Wed
...would you be the Last Jackrabbit?
Sorry. Bored.
;o)
[> From my site -- Masq, 16:35:39 08/14/02 Wed
http://www.atpobtvs.com/a14.html#des
Episode "To Shanshu in L.A."
"Wesley translates "shanshu" initially as "death". This translation was wrong, but it made sense because of the double-meaning the word "dead" takes on with vampires--vampAngel can die (*poof*). But shanshu's earliest meaning is "live until you die." Hence the prophecy goes, "the vampire with a soul, once he fulfills his destiny, will shanshu"--become alive and die, in other words, he will become mortal (human).
This is Angel's reward. "...it won't happen tomorrow or the next day," Wesley explains. "He has to survive the coming darkness, the apocalyptic battles, a few plagues, and several ...fiends that will be unleashed."
[> Thank you that helps ... but '-) -- rabbit, 16:39:10 08/14/02 Wed
Is this prophecy supposed to only apply to one vampire with a soul or is it available to any who happen to have acquired one?
[> [> Ah, but that's the 64,000 pints of blood question... -- Dead Soul, 16:45:38 08/14/02 Wed
[> [> [> Rats! -- rabbit, 16:49:43 08/14/02 Wed
[> [> Re: Thank you that helps ... but '-) -- Masquerade, 16:52:56 08/14/02 Wed
I doubt the prophecy applies to ALL vampires with souls, but I think we can treat as an open question WHICH vampire with a soul it's about (since there is now more than one).
So it could refer to Spike and not Angel, giving the way it is written.
However, since the two shows don't have cross-overs (we won't see Spike on AtS or Angel on BtVS) I'm thinking the prophecy only relates to events that occur on AtS. Hence, we can assume it refers to Angel.
[> [> [> That seems reasonable. :-)) -- rabbit., 16:57:28 08/14/02 Wed
[> [> Re: Thank you that helps ... but '-) -- Arethusa, 19:54:17 08/14/02 Wed
Angel Investigations and Wolfram and Hart seemed pretty sure that the vampire with a soul and his son were in the prophesies. A very powerful force, more powerful than any Darla could find on earth, protected her child, so he, and therefore his father, are probably the ones in the prophecy.
The Evidence
"Offspring"
Wes: "It's not clear on that. It predicts the arrival or arising of the Tro-clan, the person or being that brings about the ruination of mankind."
Wes: "And I'm not sure on the translation. Ruination may in fact mean purification."
Gunn: "Purification? So this Tro-clan is a good thing?"
Wes: "I doubt that. But it's purification in Aramaic, ruination in ancient Greek and in the lost Ga-shundi language it means both."
Wes: "You know the first prophecy that said that the vampire with a soul would be pivotal in the battle between good and evil?"
Gunn: "That Shanshu one?"
Wes: "Maybe it's not you. Maybe your child is a pivotal figure. Maybe your destiny is simply to help bring to the world."
Angel after a beat: "Or to stop it."
"Quickening"
Wes: "The Tro-clan isn't a person or persons. It's a confluence of events."
Cordy: "Which means it not only involves you, Darla and the child, but other horrible things we don't know about."
Angel: "That... That's good. Right? I mean, doesn't that mean that the kid isn't this evil, apocalyptic thing that we feared?"
Wes: "Not necessarily. There are a few Nyazian phrases related specifically to the thing being born that I haven't been able to complete."
Angel: "So it's important that you so."
Gunn: "Because we need to know what kind of bun is in the oven."
Darla: "I know one thing about it. Something's protecting it."
Fred: "How do you know that?"
Darla sits down: "Because I can't get rid of it."
Fred: "Sorry I asked."
Lilah: "Thank you. (Steps up to Linwood) Intelligence is just coming in. No one seems to know *how* Darla could be pregnant. There is a rumor about a prophecy involving a vampire birth, but the Scroll it's recorded on seems to be missing."
Vampire straightening from his meal: "As it has been prophesied - by our great potentate Ul-thar, we vow our lives to protect this - special child."
Angel aside to Darla: "You hear that? Our kid. Special."
Vampire: "Now let us kill the humans so we may use their blood to nourish the mother - and her miracle child."
"Lullaby"
Man: "The prophecy, it's not so much a birth announcement as it is an obituary."
Lilah: "Obituary?"
Man: "Yes. The prophet is telling us there will be no birth."
Lilah: "But are you sure?"
Man: "Oh, quite sure! 'For surely in that time, when the sky opens and the heavens weep, there will be no birth, only death.'"
Gunn: "We don't know that. We don't know that it's the powers that's been protecting it. Angel, I'm sorry, but what if what Darla's carrying *is* the thing in the prophecies? That scourge of mankind that's supposed to plunge the world into ultimate darkness? - What if - what if what's happening to Darla *now*, what if that's the powers? Finally stepping up to the plate and doing something for once!"
"Dad"
Wes: "No. Angel's son is part of the prophecy. Everyone and everything will be coming for him."
Linwood: "No one is going to put their hands on this child. Is this meant to be ironic? According to our highly - and I'm now thinking, somewhat overpaid translators, the Nyazian Scroll said the child would never be born. And yet - here he is."
All quotes by psyche
[> [> [> I'm not sure the Shanshu prophecy and the Tro-clan prophecies are related...(spoiler S7) -- cjl, 09:22:44 08/15/02 Thu
And pondering this tangle of prophecies for even a picosecond makes me feel like Wesley in "Loyalty"--my head starts to throb, and I get these heavy bags under my eyes... (Fortunately, I'm not talking to burger statues--yet.)
When Wes was discussing the possible inter-relation between the two prophecies in Offspring, there was still a chance that the child might not be human, and could, in fact, be a vampire with a soul just like Daddy. When Connor returned from Quar-toth all badass and still distinctly human, any connection to the Shanshu prophecy was dropped, and discussion centered on whether Connor is/will be the Destroyer. (Safe bet.)
Back to the Shanshu prophecy itself: are we REALLY sure Angel is the vampire referenced? There are rumors floating around that Giles discovers the prophecy in S7, and the possibility of Spike as the chosen vamp gets thrown into the ring on BtVS. (I'd love to see Buffy's reaction to that--and Xander's!)
[> [> [> [> Heck, I'm not sure of anything. -- Arethusa, 09:40:20 08/15/02 Thu
After rereading all the evidence, I was sure that Connor easily could have nothing to do with the prophesies. Then I remembered that something very powerful was protecting the baby, and that tipped the scales for me. I could still be wrong, if it's not the PTB protecting the baby. Just making a semi-educated guess.
[> [> [> [> Re: I'm not sure the Shanshu prophecy and the Tro-clan prophecies are related...(spoiler S7) -- shadowkat, 09:42:02 08/15/02 Thu
Or ME could pull a fast one like they did in Forgiving and prove that the prophecy means zip and Wesely misread it
or someone rewrote it or that one should just not believe everything they read. Point was sort of made first in Epiphany then later in Forgiving.
Personally I'd rather see what you suggest cjl.
s'kat
[> [> [> [> Re: I'm not sure the Shanshu prophecy and the Tro-clan prophecies are related...(spoiler S7) -- ponygirl, 10:28:57 08/15/02 Thu
"Back to the Shanshu prophecy itself: are we REALLY sure Angel is the vampire referenced? There are rumors floating around that Giles discovers the prophecy in S7, and the possibility of Spike as the chosen vamp gets thrown into the ring on BtVS. (I'd love to see Buffy's reaction to that--and Xander's!)"
Personally what I realllly want to see is Angel's reaction to Spike's recent acquisition. I can picture it now, Angel mouthing off to some representative of the PTB...
Angel: Since I'm the only vampire with a soul around you'll have to deal with me.
PTB: Well...
A few moments later Angel, still reeling, asks,
Angel: Why? Why would Spike try and get a soul?
PTB: Well...
Angel crawls under his bed and stays there for the rest of the episode.
[> [> [> [> [> ROFLMAO......Oh to see that! ;o) -- Lyonors, 11:06:19 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> LMAO! Agreed...ooooh for crossovers. -- shadowkat, 11:22:52 08/15/02 Thu
Or the big non-crossover event as the case may be.
[> [> [> [> [> [> All depends on how you define Crossovers - Casting spoilers for A4/B7 -- Dochawk, 12:46:01 08/15/02 Thu
With the confirmation by ME that ED is returning for at least 4 episodes of Buffy/Angel combined, do you really think that it will not be a single continous story between teh shows? Faith has alot of issues to wrap up between the shows before she (speculating here) makes way for another slayer.
[> [> [> [> [> Laughing so hard I hurt! (spoiler S7) -- rabbit, 14:12:54 08/15/02 Thu
Well, I guess I'm back to being confused.... at least I appear not to be alone!
[> [> [> [> Know what I think would be funny? -- Forsaken, 11:34:02 08/15/02 Thu
A scene of Giles hanging up the phone after a long discussion with Wesley (after all, Buffy and Angel talked on the phone early 6th season). Giles shows that Wesley still isn't better at the research than he is by finding that the translation actually says the "vampires with souls" rather than "the vampire with a soul" and it turns out there are two of them in the Shanshu prophecy. Can you not see Spike's reaction?
Spike: What?! Bugger that, I don't want to be human.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Know what I think would be funny? -- cjl, 11:43:43 08/15/02 Thu
Even better, an obscure passage of the Nyazian scrolls seems to indicate that the TWO vampires with a soul will "share a special destiny, and will fight in the coming apocalypse as brothers."
Spike and Angel hear that, and BOTH go under the bed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy - The Comedy!!! :-))))) (funny S7 spoiler) -- rabbit, 14:16:13 08/15/02 Thu
Maybe this is what Joss meant by a "lighter" tone! ;-))
What was Buffy's motivation for going after Faith in "Graduation Day Part I"? -- Earl Allison, 18:00:28 08/14/02 Wed
I do NOT ask this to invite Buffy-slamming! I ask this to see what others think of Buffy's motivations and thoughts at this difficult time.
Were they for the greater good, or was it all for Angel?
Was Buffy going after Faith to stop her, to take an enemy soldier out of the fight, or was it largely to save Angel, and damn the consequences?
Buffy never showed an interest in tracking Faith down before Angel was poisoned, despite the fact that she (Faith) would have to be dealt with at the Ascention.
Buffy doesn't even consider Faith or wonder about where she is until Willow informs her of the nature of the poison, and its cure -- Slayer's blood. Then she goes off, fully intending to either kill Faith herself, or beat her into submission and let Angel kill her by feeding on her (and I can't tell you how horrible that sounds, letting a vampire feed on a Slayer, fallen Slayer or not).
Is this a good thing? Were Buffy's motivations good here? They are certainly understandable, but were they good ones?
Buffy stops at the brink, after plunging Faith's own knife into her stomach -- and but for the grace of a plot point (and keeping a popular character available), Faith would have pretty much been dead anyway.
Were there other options Buffy could have pursued, had she not been so blinded both by love for Angel, and her revulsion of Faith?
I guess I should explain why this comes up -- I was in a role-playing session this evening, and one of the players (could be me, maybe not, I'm not saying, muhuhahah!) had a character that was in love with Faith -- spots or not, evil or not, he (the character) loved her. When Buffy made her intentions to kill Faith known, the player had his character tear into Buffy about her motivations, that it was all about Angel, not justice, not doing right -- and he seemed right. There wasn't a lot for Buffy to stand on morally -- heck, the player even came up with a compromise solution -- take the tranquilizer rifle, shoot Faith, and have BOTH Slayers donate blood -- no killing, no comas, etc.
What do you think? Is this player insane? Am I? Am I just wasting bandwidth? Am I on to something here?
Take it and run.
And please, NO Buffy-bashing.
[> Re: What was Buffy's motivation for going after Faith in "Graduation Day Part I"? -- Rook, 19:06:42 08/14/02 Wed
I think it's best summed up by the line from WML II..."Nobody messes with my boyfriend" That's Buffy's general response, to put her friends above everything. As for coming up with another solution, while maybe more morally correct would be totally out of character for Buffy. She tends to just rush off and damn the consequences...whoever was playing Buffy should have just punched the other character in the mouth and run off to take care of business.
[> Re: Defending a third party in imminent danger of death -- Just George, 21:46:39 08/14/02 Wed
I normally consider Buffy justified in attacking with all necessary force an enemy who is threatening to kill her or a third party. In these cases, Buffy is either acting in self-defense or to protect the third party. However, I don't normally consider hunting people down and killing them justified. Hunting someone down is revenge, not self-defense or protection.
Except in this case.
1) Faith attacks a third party (Angel) to wound and poison him. "Missed the heart." "Wasn't aiming at it."
2) Buffy finds out that only a Slayer's blood can cure the slow poison.
3) Buffy hunts Faith down to get her blood. Not to take revenge, but to cure (protect) the target of the initial attack.
As I see it, the slow acting nature of the poison extends the duration of combat and makes Buffy's attack on Faith a justifiable means of protecting a third party in imminent danger of death. It's as if Faith were standing over Angel the whole time with a knife, slowly slitting his throat.
Also, I don't think the attack was specifically about Angel. Buffy probably would have done the same for any of the main characters in the show, maybe even for any innocent bystander. I'm pretty sure Buffy would have fought Faith to the death to protect (cure) Joyce, Willow, Xander, or Giles!
Buffy may have had other options. However, none of them were certain to work.
1) Faith is almost as good a fighter as Buffy, tranquilizers might not have taken her down or might have tainted her blood.
2) No one knows if mixing Buffy and Faith's blood would have worked together, canceled each other out, or became actively dangerous. The book said the cure was the blood of a Slayer, not two.
Since Buffy was acting to defend a third party in imminent danger of death, I believe she was justified in taking steps to maximize the chance that the third party survived. The best way to do that was to make Faith an unwilling blood donor. Didn't work, but it I believe it was moral.
[> Re: What was Buffy's motivation for going after Faith in "Graduation Day Part I"? -- fresne, 23:45:24 08/14/02 Wed
Now, you see I take a completely different tack with Buffy and Faith's final fight. I don't think it was for the greater good or for Angel. It do think it was inevitable. Something that the entire season had been leading towards.
Buffy could have brought a tranquilizer gun, but she didn't. Faith could have shot and killed Angel, but she didn't. Buffy could have brought allies. Faith could have shot and killed Buffy. An arrow through a Slayer's heart is just as deadly if you mean it. It could have gone a thousand different ways. If it were about the greater good. If it were about getting a cure for Angel.
BUFFY - I thought I'd stop by.
FAITH (smiles) - Is he dead yet?
BUFFY - He's not gonna die. Good try, though. "A" for effort. Your plan?
FAITH - Uh-huh. Mayor got me the poison. Said it was wicked painful.
BUFFY - There's a cure.
FAITH - Damn. What is it?
BUFFY - Your blood. As justice goes, it's not unpoetic. Don't you think?
FAITH - You come here to get me? Gonna feed me to Angel?
Buffy nods.
FAITH (cont'd) - You know you're not gonna take me alive.
BUFFY - That's not a problem.
FAITH -Well, look at you, all dressed up in big sister's clothes.
BUFFY- "You told me I was just like you, Faith. That I was only holding it in."
FAITH -"You ready to cut loose?"
BUFFY- "Try me."
FAITH - "Okay then. Give us a kiss."
And then you know with the fighting.
Angel is just the excuse for the kiss. All season, Buffy and Faith are paired as opposites. Dark Sister. Light Sister. As rivals. As the same. I have this temptation to just keep quoting lines, from Bad Girls, from Enemies, This Years Girl, but I do want to keep this to some sort of trim size.
There's this wonderful tension between Buffy and Faith. Angel is Buffy's beloved, but Faith is the unacknowledged half of herself that enjoys the fight. Slaying as comfort food. The fight in Graduation grows directly out of the dance scene in Bad Girls, that almost seduction to, "Want, Take, Have." Out of the anger Faith spills forth in the "bondage" scene in Enemies.
FAITH - "What are you going to do, B? Kill me - you become me. You're not ready for that..."Faith surprises Buffy by jerking her head forward - not to head-butt her, but to give her a quick kiss on the lips. Faith pulls back. "Yet.?" Faith bolts for the door. Buffy does not move as Faith bounds up the stairs.
I mean, my God people, talk about a seduction to the Dark side of the force.
The language of that fight scene in Graduation, their body language, Buffy's choice of weapon. Why a knife? Why the knife of Faith's almost father? Of all the weapons that Buffy can pick, not a sanctified sword, but the weapon with which her sister kills. Stabbing Faith in the gut, her center, her womb, with this phallic (in the way that knives are) thing.
And what happens, Faith, like Buffy in the S5 finale jumps, and as in the S5 finale, it's all about blood. So, Buffy trades herself for Faith to save Angel, who she killed to save the world last season. And in that dream which comes, she and Faith talk. We get the first set of references to Dawn and Buffy's death, "Miles to go. Little Miss Muffet counting down from seven three oh."
God, I love this show.
So, was it the right call? The most logical, strategically, tactically sound decision? Was it right and good? Or ignoble and vengeful?
I think that misses the point. For me, the grand love affair of opposites in S3 is Faith/Buffy. Not necessarily in the traditional candles and Yanni sense, but in the way that they circle all season. Gyring down and down to that roof top fight. As soon say, Luke shouldn't go to face Vader. Maybe not, but they do. Which I guess is an odd analogy in that Faith's Slayerness is literally descended from Buffy. As Dawn, another little sister, was literally made from Buffy. It's all in the blood. And love, I've heard it said, is a fire in the blood working its will. At least it is for children, angry over betrayal, rejection, and rivalry.
Although, (****Spoilers for the next season, skip this final paragraph) if rumors are true, then Faith and Buffy will get a chance this season to finish their dance and resolve their issues. And I say, about time.
[> [> Fabulous Post, Fresne -- Dochawk, 06:54:05 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> fresne you rock! -- ponygirl, 07:00:23 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> Adding my voice to the accolades! -- HonorH, 07:07:21 08/15/02 Thu
Terrific take on the whole thing, and very accurate.
[> [> Terrific -- Arethusa, 07:49:51 08/15/02 Thu
What do you do when you love someone just as much as you hate them?
Faith saw Buffy and Joyce as the family she should have had, the family she deserved but was cheated out of by her alcoholic mother. The scoobies should have been her friends, the cute, nice Watcher her watcher. Instead she had nothing, and Buffy everything. Faith came to Sunnydale looking for a home and family, but when she couldn't find total acceptance from the scoobies, she was willing to find it from the mayor. Anything less than total acceptance would have proven to Faith what she, and all mistreated children, feared the most was true-the misery of her circumstances was her own fault, due to her own flawed nature.
The relationship between Faith and Wilkins is one of the most interesting on the show.
[> Re: What was Buffy's motivation for going after Faith in "Graduation Day Part I"? -- Forsaken, 11:20:26 08/15/02 Thu
I'm not sure about the rest of the questions here, but I must admit shooting Faith with a tranq dart would have made much more sense than taking her on one on one. Faith didn't even know Buffy was there until she turned the stereo off, announcing her presence. One good tranq dart in the back and Angel could have snacked on her with little problem.
You're in the Xander Zone! (way OT actually, but hey, it's still summertime!) -- mundusmundi, 21:24:28 08/14/02 Wed
(SPOILERS for the movie below, though I can't imagine it matters....)
So it's hot. I'm bored. I'm tired of baseball and I'm sick of reading the newspaper. I decide to go see XXX, the new Vin Diesel flick that's grossed a gazillion dollars. Lord knows, I'm not expecting much. I know this isn't going to be Casablanca. Nor probably even Die Hard with a Vengeance. I'm just in the mood for a halfway-decent Action Craptacular. The reviews from some allegedly reputable critics promise a good time.
I start giggling uncontrollably early on, when Vin (may I call you Vin?) jumps his motorcycle across an exploding rooftop whilst fleeing a machinegunning helicopter. My body begins shaking harder with the arrival of the bargain-basement Euro-villains, the 9 1/2 Weeks-esque eroticizing of cars and guns, and every scene where Vin puts on that unspeakable coat and parades through Prague like a tattooed woolly mammoth. By the time Our Hero has to dismantle three phallic missiles protruding vertically from his crotch area of the frame, I'm practically in convulsions. Happily, the rest of the audience seems to agree. I haven't heard such hooting since Rambo: First Blood Part II. And, naturally, my thoughts turn to Buffy. Who's the bigger jerk Xander Harris or Xander Cage? How highly would Warren approve of the filmmakers' enlightened view of the opposite sex? (Memorable line: "Bitches, come!") Who on earth would win in a kissing contest between Vin Diesel and SMG?....Okay, Elle thought of that last one.
Nevertheless, I'm sensing a "Guilty Pleasure/Buried Treasure" buried within this motion picture extravaganza. Perhaps I'm being unfair. The parachute that opens into an American flag contains, I suspect, innumerable subtleties. So I'll turn over this thread to anyone else who'd like to weigh in, or hijack, or whatever. I'll just fan the flames by declaring XXX, quite possibly, the worst movie I've ever seen. Wouldn't have missed it for the world.;)
-mm
[> I love (to hate) a good craptacular! -- A8, 21:37:01 08/14/02 Wed
The worst movie I ever paid to see was Mad Magazine's "Up the Academy." It's 2 decades later and I still want my money back (with interest) from that disaster! The second worst movie I ever saw in the theatre was something shown as a sneak preview called "Duck You Sucker!" It starred Rod Steiger and James Coburn. I recently saw it rerun on television under the title "A Fist Full of Dynamite." I think the original "Duck You Sucker!" title was probably the only good thing about the movie (got to rank up there with "Surf Nazis Must Die" and the epic "I Drink Your Blood/Eat your Skin" as memorable titles--wait, I seem to remember another one that began something like "Those Incredibly Mixed Up Zombies who..." Drat, I can't remember the rest...)
[> [> I'd vote for Sprung as the worst movie I've ever seen (fun to laugh at though) -- Caesar Augustus, 23:52:46 08/14/02 Wed
[> [> Re: I love (to hate) a good craptacular! -- acesgirl, 17:27:46 08/15/02 Thu
My favorite "this movie is so bad, it's good" has got to be Deep Blue Sea. World class scientists that look like they walked out of an Abercrombie & Fitch add, super-smart sharks eating up some people, a gratuitous bra & panties shot from the female lead (she must be so happy that she remembered to wear her matching set that day), plus LLCOOLJ!!!! What's not to love?
[> XXX was good. not great. but good for explosive X-games cameos -- neaux, 04:24:47 08/15/02 Thu
I knew I was in trouble when Vin diseil's friends were Matt Hoffman(I think) and Tony Hawk.
but there were some good action scenes in it.
[> **Attn: Rah.** Posting here rather than starting another thread. Re: Your question... -- OnM, 06:48:14 08/15/02 Thu
... as to a relationship between Raquel Welch and Linda Cardinelli, from last week's CMotW.
*** I could swear that in the commentary track, they say that Linda Cardinelli is related to Raquel Welch - that the compliment to her bone structure was especially pleasing to Raquel Welch because of the familial relation. Is this true? Were they pulling my leg? Did I imagine the whole thing? ***
No, you didn't imagine it, but after checking the commentary again, I can see that you could have been left with that impression. In the director commentary, one of the speakers refers to a joke that he feels only he and the director get, which is where Reese's character Elle comments on the fine 'bone structure' of LC's character. This comment is followed by a reaction shot of Raquel's character reacting with a big smile to this.
The person on the commentary track did the same thing I find that I often do-- freely interchange the actor's name with the character's name, thus he calls her 'Raquel' instead of the character's name.
So, I don't think that he meant to state that the two actors were related.
Does this make any sense? Anyway, that's what I got out of it. Hope this answers your question, and sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
:-)
[> [> Ahh, I see. Okay dH, you win this one. -- Very abashed Rahael, 07:00:54 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> [> PS, thanks OnM! -- Rahael, 07:02:59 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> [> It's not about winning and losing -- d'Horrible, 07:06:26 08/15/02 Thu
It's about grinding the bones of your enemies into a fine paste.
[> [> [> [> Re: It's not about winning and losing -- Medusa, 08:01:29 08/15/02 Thu
And then you take the paste, add a little yeast, salt and honey, and use their bones to make your bread. Serve with a Mulligan stew, if you can find Mr. Mulligan.
[> [> [> [> [> Okay, now... -- Wisewoman, 08:37:13 08/15/02 Thu
The summer doldrums have gone on TOO long!
Crikey. I don't wanna start havin' to use the whip...
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry -- Arethusa, 08:58:29 08/15/02 Thu
Medusa thinks good taste and discretion means eating her victims on the sly. I'll keep her reined in, but one warning-she and the snakes like whips. The snakes think they're related.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Besides which... -- sethra, 09:23:39 08/15/02 Thu
they like to watch.
[> [> [> [> [> And as a beverage... -- Souless Undead, 08:55:39 08/15/02 Thu
You can wash down your bonebread and Mr. Mulligan stew with a little vino tinto d'Inez.
If you're in Seville, that is.
Souless Undead - ah, that rich fruity bouquet!
[> XXX was a hoot! -- ponygirl, 06:52:57 08/15/02 Thu
At the end of the movie one of my friends turned to me and said "This movie is incredibly bad". Well, duh I was forced to say, that's the point! I went with a group of 7 women and we had a great time (well, except for the aforementioned, but she hated the Matrix too). Unfortunately our row was the only one laughing. Ah well, it's total turn off the brain James Bond type fun. And mundus, I hate to look for deeper meaning in XXX, but I think the American flag parachute was a reference to that Bond movie where there was a Union Jack parachute. That's really all the depth I can find in the movie.
Next week... Blue Crush!
[> [> Ah, "Blue Crush"... the "Point Break" of Feminism ;-) -- Elle, 13:31:02 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> [> And "Stealing Harvard" the new "Paper Chase"! -- mm, 14:39:45 08/15/02 Thu
Ah, yes, we're living in a Golden Age.
[> [> [> "I am an eff bee eye agent!" - (hee, I do love me some Keanu.) -- acesgirl, 17:21:47 08/15/02 Thu
[> Frankly,Vin is more fun when he's a bad man,not a bad boy.. -- AurraSing, 08:27:03 08/15/02 Thu
I walked into a matinee of "XXX" on Sunday expecting to be truly entertained but came away feeling let down.
I mean,I truly loved Vin's work in "Pitch Black" and admired him in all his other movies,but he just felt wrong in this show.Part of it had to do with the fact that Sam Jackson towered over him and so did a fair number of the baddies (I though Vin was supposed to be 6'2"...was everyone else standing on boxes??) which made him seem sort of puny,plus his attempts to inject some sort of empathy into the scene where he is watching the scientists get killed was simply laughable.As were his two very brief and very lame kisses with Asia Argento.The stunts were fine but I came to see some bad-ass Diesel and instead got a whiny little bad-boy who was clearly in over his head and treading water the whole time.Jackson's character of Gibbons played X like a fish-where is the fun in that?? As a cartoon version of the Bond films I suppose it had some merit but as the start of a new franchise,I can tell you that I certainly won't be shelling out for the next installment!
Oh well,maybe Vin can redeem himself in my eyes when "Ruddick",the sequel to "Pitch Black" comes out.I can only hope.........
Current board
| More August 2002