August 2002 Archives - Page 15
Faith? A link for Spoilers for Season 7/4 -- Dochawk, 14:47:33 08/26/02 Mon
Rufus posted this on her spoiler board. since its not really a spoiler and Faith is of interest to all of us:
Dushku Back On Buffy, Angel?
Eliza Dushku told SCI FI Wire that Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel fans should check out her Aug. 27 appearance on CBS' The Late Show With David Letterman for news about her reprising her role as Faith on upcoming episodes of both series. "[Creator] Joss [Whedon] and I have been talking, talking a lot," Dushku said in an interview. "I'm doing Letterman on Tuesday night, and Tuesday is the day of the decision-making. So I'll have an announcement to make that evening."
Dushku added, "I really love the character, and it's beyond me what Joss could write for her to do, because he's so creative. I can't even imagine. But I trust him so much that I'd be able to jump in [and do] whatever he can spin for me. The whole crossover thing is pretty cool. The shows have gone off in such different directions, but also stayed true, on Angel, to the original concept. It's fun to play on both shows. Angel is a little bit darker. It's on an hour later. It's a little bit more gritty. But they're both really excellent shows."
Whedon earlier told SCI FI Wire that he hoped to bring back Dushku as the slayer gone bad on both UPN's Buffy and The WB's Angel next season, depending on whether he and she could match schedules. Buffy begins its seventh season on Sept. 24; Angel starts its fourth season on Oct. 6.
[> Re: Faith is back -- Brian, 20:02:38 08/26/02 Mon
And I, for one, can't hardly wait!
Faith returns;
Our stomachs churn.
And just what will be her story?
Knowing Faith, 'tis bound to be gory!
[> [> Ah! Poetry! -- HonorH, 20:14:05 08/26/02 Mon
Wish I could do that. Unfortunately, my best efforts resemble William's worst.
[> [> [> Could you please watch putting spoilers in the subject lines? And yes, even the name is a spoiler. -- Rook, 20:42:33 08/26/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> That's why I put a "?" in my title, because we don't know anything yet -- Dochawk, 21:11:28 08/26/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> It's still a spoiler -- CW, 06:08:42 08/27/02 Tue
I don't mind knowing who will be in the cast ahead of time. But, all the speculation/news about Faith really should be marked, and the titles sanitized for those who do mind.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spoilers -- Brian, 06:17:36 08/27/02 Tue
One spoiler, two spoiler, three spoiler, four
Spoilers reveal plot, nothing more.
Anything else, just a rumor.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spoilers -- CW, 07:44:43 08/27/02 Tue
But, if you know a long lost character is coming back, isn't that a major hint about what direction the story is going to take? I don't object, but some people are objecting to this kind of hint. Whether or not you think it's a spoiler, please treat it as if it were one.
[> [> [> [> [> [> IMO, a subject line containing a character's name and the promise of spoilers is a spoiler. -- Dyna, 08:24:32 08/27/02 Tue
You may disagree, but if people are avoiding spoilers, the actual content of the page you linked to doesn't matter, because they're not going to go there. If you put a character's name in a subject line along with an indication that you're referring to S7 spoilers, you've just posted a spoiler, whether or not it turns out to be true.
On every other site I frequent, casting information is considered a spoiler.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Faith, The Master, Glory, The Mayor, Riley, et al. - The horror, the horror! -- Brian, 08:35:29 08/27/02 Tue
Sometimes the imp of perverse infects my verse,
And literal minds cloy at the rhymes I employ.
So to foster strife, I say, "Get a life."
But, really, relax, forbear, take a smoothing mental bath.
It's only a giggle, a gibe, a pulling-the-leg laugh.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Forshamed! -- redcat, 08:51:08 08/27/02 Tue
'Tis respect only they do seek
for their glorious goal.
Virgins still,
their most sacred desire
to be joined with the One
on the perfect day of
Opening.
No foreplay, no flirting
no amorous glances, sideways cast
across a fleeting hint of possibility.
Their imaginations remain untouched
memory their only guide.
Until, Infidel,
you cast aside their heart's
fond discipline merely
for a joke.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forshamed! -- Brian, 09:03:04 08/27/02 Tue
Thanks, redcat. Up the PC revolution!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Have to agree -- Masquerade, 09:11:55 08/27/02 Tue
"If you put a character's name in a subject line along with an indication that you're referring to S7 spoilers, you've just posted a spoiler, whether or not it turns out to be true."
If it does turn out to be true, you'ver revealed A LOT. I remember how anti-climactic the return of Dru was in AtS season 2 because I knew about it before hand. I wanted to be surprised!
And I certainly want to be surprised if my second favorite character in the Buffyverse ever ever comes back on the show(s). But now I won't be, if it's true.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Aww, Gee, Masq -- Brian, 09:19:44 08/27/02 Tue
You've spoiled my fun. I guess I take my ball and go home now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Still the poetry was great -- ponygirl, 09:32:55 08/27/02 Tue
... even if I had to hide my blushing eyes from the rest! Spoiler virginity is a hard thing to maintain in this world of temptation.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> But you can write poems about other stuff, right? Stay! -- Masq, 10:37:02 08/27/02 Tue
Very old question... -- TRM, 20:29:52 08/26/02 Mon
Here's a question I've had for quite a while, but hadn't thought about asking any others, regarding The Witch. Can anybody tell me exactly when Amy Madison's mother switched bodies with her? I had originally thought that they switched somewhere in the middle of the episode, but then upon re-watching it, it seems as if she was always switched. For example, when Amy says that her father ran away with "Miss Trailer-Trash", she seems genuinely timid and Amy-like (when she was like that), yet we know that she does appreciate her father. Plus, her mother refers to the other women by the same name. Likewise, is Amy praising "Catherine the Great" or is it her mother praising herself? Perhaps, it was intentionally vague, because The Witch to some degree was trying to blur the lines between the mother and her vicarious and not-so-vicarious living through her daughter... any thoughts?
[> Re: Very old question... -- Rook, 20:39:48 08/26/02 Mon
I believe they were always switched. Amy herself had zero interest in cheerleading, and probably wouldn't have had the motivation to even get as far as being an alternate.
[> Re: Very old question... -- monsieurxander, 20:54:34 08/26/02 Mon
If I remember correctly, there was some comment made by Amy (in Catherine's body) about the switch being months before.
[> [> Re: Very old question... -- Rook, 21:01:00 08/26/02 Mon
Yeah, just popped in the DVD, she says "A few months ago, I woke up in her bed."
Midnight musings, or a possible meaning to the Cheese man from 'Restless' -- too much caffine, 21:30:25 08/26/02 Mon
just watching the Greenwalt's commentary to "Reptile Boy" on the S2 DVD, and towards the end he says, "We are the Masters of Cheese." What flashed in my overworked mind at that particular moment was "Restless" in S4. Joss has said that the cheese man didn't mean anything in particular, he was just there. I wonder if this was really a little symbolic self mocking by the Masters?
[>Re: Midnight musings, or a possible meaning to the Cheese man from 'Restless' -- parakeet, 23:17:48 08/26/02 Mon
That would be nice (not that I'm a stickler for needing "meaning"). The Cheese Man always bugged me a bit, though, because he struck me as an all too obvious attempt at "no meaning=ironic meaning". Restless was a wonderful episode, in all other respects. Sometimes (and please take this comment in perspective) ME gets too literal in its puns (i.e. the loan shark in Tabula Rasa and the fire truck cameo in OMWF). While the Cheese Man isn't a pun, I found him to be either too obvious an attempt to be something or too shallow an attempt at not being something.
I have a great tolerance for interesting pretension and amusing anti-pretension. I have, however, yet to attach any kind of worth to the Cheese Man.
[>I still think it was Sid, the Wiley Dairy Gnome... -- Cactus Watcher, 05:59:02 08/27/02 Tue
from a wisecrack Buffy made to roommate Kathy, about being concerned about someone stealing her milk in Living Conditions. In other words, the cheese guy in Restless was just a joke (maybe part of an on-going inside dairy/cheese joke going around the ME staff all that year).
[> [>Re: Cheeseman -- Brian, 06:00:59 08/27/02 Tue
Somewhere in the archives there is a serious analysis of the Cheeseman that was funny and insightful into his function in the Buffyverse.
[> [>Also "Buffy likes Cheese" -- Rahael, 06:05:20 08/27/02 Tue
Riley asks Willow what Buffy likes and she gives the feeble answer that she "likes cheese".
He offers her cheese at the frat house party after an awkward pause. And later, he tells her "he likes cheese". And she answers "you're a little peculiar, you know that?"
[> [> [>Rah! Thanks for breaking down the Gouda! -- neaux, 06:57:31 08/27/02 Tue
that scene with Riley now kinda makes more sense.. sort of.
[> [> [> [>Another example of feta-narration? -- ponygirl (sorry couldn't help myself), 07:03:06 08/27/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>"Bunny the Brie Slayer" -- Arethusa, 08:04:30 08/27/02 Tue
The animation is a little cheesy, but we camembert it.
http://www.cheesewars.com/ep6/gv1cm.ram
[> [> [>Re: Also "Buffy likes Cheese" -- parakeet, 22:35:03 08/27/02 Tue
I'd forgotten about that! Thank you, it makes a little more sense, though I stand by my assessment. I mean, in-jokes aside, it just seemed silly (not that there's anything wrong with that) and...Heck, maybe it does make sense that somebody with a true affection for cheese (I like it myself, though not that much) would incorporate it into a dream. Still, pretty cheesy. Geesh, I should stop now, before considering the importance of pre-sliced processed cheese in a show I love.
OT: Searching for Opinions, here. -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:14:46 08/27/02 Tue
I've been going through Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan sites for several months now. I've enjoyed many of them, but there's one trend I find somewhat weird:
A lot of BtVS fans hate Friends.
Is this true for many of the posters on this board, or am I just leaping to conclusions? I'd like it a lot if someone could give me his/her opinion on this.
[>Re: OT: One man's opinion (on a day he has to fly) -- Brian, 07:17:15 08/27/02 Tue
Only watched one show, and nearly went into toxic shock.
[> [>Don't watch, but don't care -- verdantheart, 07:59:36 08/27/02 Tue
[> [> [>Ditto -- Majin Gojira, 13:12:08 08/28/02 Wed
[>Re: OT: Searching for Opinions, here. -- CW, 07:34:45 08/27/02 Tue
I like most of the first few seasons of Friends, but especially since the time Monica and Chandler got engaged, that show has been pretty tired. I still watch occaisionally, but not all the time anymore. Ross isn't very funny anymore (witness the holiday armadillo fiasco). The idea of Joey and Rachel together is ludicrous. I've never been much of a fan of Pheobe (I was an Ursala fan) and she's been getting most of the good jokes these days. The character Monica has less depth than she used to. Matthew Perry's real life problems make Chandler hard to watch... They should have let the show die a couple of years ago. The whole cast should be doing better things.
[>"I'll be there for you" (when the blood starts to pour...) -- KdS, 08:01:05 08/27/02 Tue
I have never seen more than a few moments of a "Friends" episode, but I have read a number of violently anti-Friends articles in newspapers and magazines. Hence I believe I am qualified to comment as it is the perceptions of Friends-loathers that we are discussing here, not the extent to which those perceptions are justified by the series itself.
It is my observation that many of those who bash Friends at every opportunity believe it to portray a gratuitously sanitised, upscale, painless, and carefree portrayal of the life of young adults. Given this, one can suspect that those who would hold such perceptions would enjoy a series such as BtVS which portrays the life of young adults as being marked by betrayal, heartache and mass slaughter on the scale of Jacobean tragedy.
Any takers?
[> [>Friends and BtVS -- Rahael, 08:07:38 08/27/02 Tue
I used to watch Friends when it first aired here in Britain - looked forward to it even. But I never really wanted to see repeats, and after the first couple of seasons just gave up on it altogether. I now feel a dislike for it - mostly based on the sameyness - I feel that despite all the bedhopping, the characters have been preserved in static. How have any of them actually changed since the First Season? They all have their exact same trademark idiosyncracies.
I do have friends who watch it constantly, and buy tapes of all the seasons. One of them even likes Buffy too.
But I will say this. At least once, perhaps twice on the DVD commentaries, the ME writers say that "they rip off Friends all the time".
And I'd rather watch an ep of Friends than one of Ally McBeal. Especially any ep featuring anything like that horrid dancing baby.
[> [> [>Amen on the anti-McBeal sentiment! -- ponygirl, 08:11:32 08/27/02 Tue
[> [> [>Good policy for TV shows: No Dancing Babies Allowed! -- CW, 08:13:02 08/27/02 Tue
[> [> [>Re: Friends and BtVS -- shadowkat, 08:50:53 08/27/02 Tue
Have to agree here, had a similar experience to Rah in watching friends and Ally McBeal. Really can't handle Ally. Have tried. Last time was with Robert Downey Jr. - who I enjoy watching but couldn't handle it.
My problem with Friends is actually similar to my problem with every situation comedy I've ever faithfully watched which aren't that many. (MASH may have been the only one I watched repeatedly.)With the exception of a couple situation comedies, the majority I've watched tend to have static characters that don't change all that much. They don't appear to grow. And the jokes seem the same after a while. While Friends has grown in the sense that two characters are married, one had a kid, and there are new romantic entanglements. The characters themselves seem pretty much the same. As do the jokes and camaraderie. I just well got bored. Also, I can't really identify with them. I live in NYC and I don't know anyone who lives like these people do. Nor do I know anyone like them. So the jokes just don't work. BTVS - oddly enough works for me, I find myself genuinely identifying with these characters, more actually than the Friends. Odd. I know. My friends don't understand me at all, they'd prefer to watch friends and Ally McBeal. I'd prefer to watch Btvs & Angel.
Luckily we can talk about other things besides TV. ;-)
[> [>Re: "I'll be there for you" (when the blood starts to pour...) -- pr10n, 13:41:53 08/27/02 Tue
Got to TESTIFY -- That's exactly why I loath Friends.
I'm slightly older than those guys, I have four kids, I worked my way through college and took forever to finish, and I can't write the stuff I want to write, 'cause I'm a lobe-sod for The Man.
Although Friends is often funny (read "clever"), about the only character I relate to is the blonde bartender who works all the time and crushes wild on Rachel, who can't even see him.
AND furthermore *kick-starts diatribe* that's what I liked so much about Buffy S6. That was some hard work, folks. Everybody went through some real life flame-thrower-age.
"You wanna live in this lousy world? Get cool!" Deal with your issues, or admit your failures and move on, or crack wide and invoke the Phallic Temple of Doom... or make a nice souffle and shuffle roommates again for laughs, you turkey-head-wearing, armadillo-wearing, fat-suit-wearing has-been. I choose Option Joss.
Now I'm all frothy,
pr10n
[>Re: OT: Searching for Opinions, here. -- JCC, 09:17:30 08/27/02 Tue
I like friends. The first seasons were great but it has gone downhill since there. But I'm still a big fan.
[>I'll certainly admit to watching every single episode of "Friends"... -- AurraSing, 09:31:36 08/27/02 Tue
My husband is a big fan and he loves Buffy too (well,not so much since season 6) but he's sooner catch Friends than Buffy if he had to make a choice.I'm the opposite but we have made it a point to watch the show together if at all possible or on tape if he is working late.
I'll also admit that we both hate Ross,see something of ourselves in Chandler/Monica (he's a silly clown,I'm the one who runs things around here but I'm NOT a neat freak,we started out as friends who had nothing in common and fell in love despite our mutual misgivings),think Rachel is sweet and Phoebe is hilarious and wonder why Joey supposedly has so much sex appeal.
We like the show because for 1/2 hour we can usually tune out the outside world and just laugh.And for us,sometimes that is all we really need from our tv-pure entertainment with no deep thought or major issues involved.
[> [>That's the problem with most sitcoms... -- cjl, 10:13:13 08/27/02 Tue
About Ross...
He was my big problem in later seasons. The Friends creators--supposedly smart, witty sitcom writers--were willing to sacrifice the character for cheap laughs. Ross was transformed from a sensible, sweet nerdling in the first few years into a raging dork. He was nearly intolerable, and you had to wonder what Rachel saw in this idiot in the first place.
American sitcoms have a tendency to veer toward the cartoonish as they get older. Since the characters stay pretty much the same for the entire run, the writers usually have to resort to wilder and more implausible plotlines to pique our interest. "Night Court" started out as a fairly grounded legal sitcom, and ended up as a three-ring circus; Drew Carey used to be an interesting look at blue-collar living, then became as garish as Mimi's make-up; and don't ask about the last two seasons of Seinfeld. The great ones--like MTM and M*A*S*H--managed to explore their characters more deeply in later years, and maintained their tone.
I still watch Friends. But like AurraSing, I don't attach too much significance to it. I consider it an entertaining science fiction show. (There's no other way to explain how Monica could afford that apartment.)
[> [>I'm with you... -- Dariel, 10:25:31 08/27/02 Tue
We like the show because for 1/2 hour we can usually tune out the outside world and just laugh.And for us,sometimes that is all we really need from our tv-pure entertainment with no deep thought or major issues involved.
I watch it, I enjoy it, I don't take it seriously. It's just comic relief. I did get tired of it season before last, but Rachael's pregnancy picked things up a bit this past season. The delivery episode was hilarious (although the last couple of minutes got silly, what with the Joey thing).
[> [> [>Re: I'm with you... -- Miss Edith, 13:02:03 08/28/02 Wed
I enjoy Friends but I cannot bear Ross. He became completely intolerable in later seasons particularly when he had all those anger managment issues and freaked out over someone eating his sandwitch. I haven't seen Rachel and Joey get together yet as they haven't shown that on terristral tv in England. Anythings better than Ross and Rachel though. Talk about becoming dragged out and dull. I really liked Friends in the first 2 seasons but I do think it lost its spark a while ago. It does have the odd good joke so I still watch it on occasion but I can see why some people don't like it.
[>Re: OT: Searching for Opinions, here. -- Sheri, 21:04:17 08/27/02 Tue
I wouldn't say that I hate "Friends", but I have stopped watching it. I missed the better part of a season, and when I started watching again, I realized that the show now bores me silly. It's not that the writing/acting had changed for the worse, the trouble was that the writing/acting hadn't changed at all. I think the reason a lot of BTVS fans cringe at shows like "Friends" is that we're used to seeing lots of character and writing/story development. So when we see an episode in which for the millionth time, Phoebe says something spacey, Joey says something stupid, Chandeler says something sarcastic, Ross says something depressing, Rachel says something selfish, and Monica says something anal-retentive.... it just gets a tad dull. After a while, the punchlines stopped coming as much of a surprise (something the writers seem to be aware of, judging from an episode in which the other characters tease Chandler for constantly saying "Can this BE [huge emphasis] any more blah blah blah"; it was kind of like, "well, writers, if you're finding the character's delivery to be getting a tad trite.... how about giving him some different lines?????"
[>I have also seen every episode of "Friends"...gasp!...and all on their original air dates! -- Rob, 22:48:38 08/27/02 Tue
Yup, I'm a hopeless "Friends" junkie. Got the DVD sets, also. My copy of the second season's already pre-ordered at Amazon.com. It comes out next Tuesday.
I would not classify it on the same level as my real favorite shows, which are, namely, "Buffy," "Six Feet Under," and "Farscape," but I would definitely rank it above any other sitcom on television today, and as one of my favorite sitcoms of all-time, as well. If you want to just kick back, relax, and laugh, you'll find few shows that are as effective in that category as "Friends."
I will agree with cjl, though, that Ross evolved from one of the sweetest, kindest characters on any television show to the most obnoxious, abrasive, borderline psychotic thing ever. He is abusive and self-reighteous; his whining and screaming and self-absorption has also crossed the line from over-the-top to demented. As the most avid "Friends" fan I know, I have been able to pinpoint the exact episode that Ross changed into EvilRoss. And that was the fifth season premiere, when Ross and Rachel temporarily got back together, but then did not stay together because Ross refused to read a long letter Rachel had written him. He stubbornly refused to take responsibility for the affair he had with the girl from the copy place a year before...and worse, made this annoying squawk of a tantrum that got big laughs that episode. And he's been getting worse and worse ever since. I can't even hear the word "pivot" without cringing. Or that awful episode where Ross went insane over his boss eating his sandwich...I mean, what was that?
For a short time, when he was with Emily, he became nice Ross again, but after they broke up, he instantly became sour and cantankerous.
I personally don't want Rachel with Ross anymore. They just don't fit anymore, although I couldn't see him fitting with anyone. This may sound really harsh, but I truly have never grown to dislike someone on a show that I started out liking as much as Ross Gellar. Grr aargh!
Rob
[> [>Re: Ross -- CW, 06:56:03 08/28/02 Wed
You're probably right about that key moment. Even though I really take Ross' side in the copygirl and letter incidents, that moment seems to be the point when the writers finally decided that 'screaming Ross' was funny. Ross already seemed a tad sick to me rather than funny when he was being 'creepy, jealous boyfriend' in the episodes that led up to the copygirl mess. After the point in the show you brought up, he's creepy a lot of the time.
[> [> [>And for pure psychotic behavior, how about the aftermath to the Vegas wedding? -- cjl, 07:26:56 08/28/02 Wed
Ross was in complete denial. Despite Rachel's insistence that they get the quickie marriage annulled, or failing that, a divorce, Ross completely disregarded her feelings and stalled on the paperwork in the bizarre hope they could "work things out." Seasons 1-3 Ross wouldn't have done something like that in a million years. I couldn't bear to watch such a blatant "character rape," and I actually turned off the show for a while. Rachel's pregnancy storyline won me back to a degree, but I still have an evil eye on the writers...
[> [> [> [>And people say the characters on Friends don't change with time. -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:52:41 08/28/02 Wed
Ross becoming psychotic Ross is proof to the contrary. Not the most glowing recommendation you can give, but it's something.
[> [> [> [> [>Ross' "character development" on Friends -- cjl, 08:16:22 08/28/02 Wed
You COULD say the Ross Geller character "evolved" from his Dweeby Nice Guy in S1-3 to Psycho Ross in S5-7. I prefer to think of it as de-evolution. It's as if someone stuck David Schwimmer into a Comedy Deprivation Tank at the end of S4 and a hideous, primitive proto-Ross emerged to terrorize the rest of the cast.
"But," you counter, "who says character development has to be positive?" True. But "Friends" is supposed to be a comedy. I don't find proto-Ross' screaming funny in the least. Turning things back around to Buffy, imagine if Joss thought axe-wielding Xander in "Entropy" was funny, and decided to keep him that way...
[> [> [> [> [>The other character who's changed a great deal is... -- Rob, 08:23:36 08/28/02 Wed
Rachel. And that's why I don't think they're right for each other any more. Their pairing used to have this sweet innocence about it, when Ross was just a nice guy who'd been in love with her since high school. But they are such different people now, and only one of them has improved. Although I never could have seen it in the first season, well actually any season, I am now a total Rachel/Joey fan. I think that's one reason the writers shouldn't be judged too harshly. Over the years, they have messed up here or there, but they've always been very creative in changing and shifting the group dynamic to keep it from getting stale. When the Ross & Rachel thing grew old, they shifted attention away from it to Phoebe's pregnancy, and then (after the fateful wedding) Monica and Chandler. Now that they're married, so that doesn't get boring, they've shifted the focus to Rachel & Joey. Speaking of which, both of those last two pairings were complete surprises.
Since Monica & Chandler were married, a lot of people assumed Ross & Rachel would marry, and Phoebe and Joey would...but now there's a bigger dilemma than, "Will Ross end up with Rachel?" Screw Ross! I want to know who Joey will end up with. Joey has also changed over the course of the show to the sweet, innocent guy Ross once was, but with an edge, since he's obviously more sexually active than Ross ever was. I want Joey to end up with Rachel, but I also want him to end up with Phoebe.
Perhaps cjl's sci-fi theory is right, and they could clone Joey so he could marry both of them. And while we're at it, if Ross had to fall down an elevator shaft a la Joey's soap opera alter ego Dr. Drake Ramorey, I wouldn't complain. Would you?
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [>I'd be afraid... -- CW, 08:39:29 08/28/02 Wed
if Ross fell down the shaft a la Dr. Ramorey, they'd do the full circle a la Ramorey. They do a transplant from that other annoying guy who's supposed to be funny, and we'd have in Ross' body - the brain of George Costanza!
[> [> [> [> [> [>I'm sorry, but Joey's "accidental proposal" was lame. -- cjl, 08:49:54 08/28/02 Wed
And it shows how desperately insecure Rachel is to even consider marrying somebody she doesn't love.
And what is going on between Joey and Phoebe anyway? Their relationship has been dead cold ever since he kissed her in the inevitable "Joey sleeps with the evil twin" episode, about a million years ago. (Talk about characters going nowhere!) We've had the occasional hint they're still close, but nothing substantial. I hope Phoebe does a full-fledged freak-out when she realizes she's about to lose him for good. (Here's a girl with abandonment issues who could give Buffy a run for her money.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: I'm sorry, but Joey's "accidental proposal" was lame. -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:10:15 08/28/02 Wed
Not totally. Phoebe has shown signs this season that she would really like to end up with Joey, though backs down when it looks like it might be for real. However, they have generally been closer than they have with any of the others, since the marriage of Chandler and Monica and the baby of Ross and Rachel has left them basically relying on each other. I do agree the accidental proposal was lame, though.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>I liked the cliffhanger...just because it was so goofy and unexpected. -- Rob, 22:47:06 08/28/02 Wed
I don't know what I really want to have happen re: who Joey ends up with. I'd be happy with either Rachel or Phoebe.
Only request for the writers I do have is the aforementioned "drop Ross down an elevator shaft" plea. The only other option I will allow is that the gang find a time machine, go back to the first season, grab old, nice Ross, and bring him to the current season. Then, of course, the current Ross (to prevent any sort of paradox) could be disposed of by my ever-trusty, and conveniently-positioned elevator shaft.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: I liked the cliffhanger...just because it was so goofy and unexpected. -- JCC, 06:04:47 08/29/02 Thu
I thought it was a very disappointing ending to a fairly disappointing season. Best clifffhanger ever? The one at the Beach where Ross can't decide if he should go with Rachael or Bonnie. And then we find out they're both in the same room. Very clever.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>The "accidental proposal" is a straw man that will knocked down two minutes into the new season... -- cjl, 06:55:43 08/29/02 Thu
"I'm sorry, Ross. Joey proposed--and I said yes."
"He...he what? Wait a minute, Rache--that's my ring."
"YOUR ring?"
"Yeah, my grandmother's ring. I...had it with me."
"You mean, then you--?"
It was a lame attempt to generate suspense, but if you think about it for more than two seconds, you realize it won't hold up.
However...
I have to admit that, if they're smart, the writers can potentially turn this lemon into lemonade. Even though Ross would recognize the ring, he could also conclude he's blown his last shot with Rachel, and nobly shut his mouth so Joey and Rachel can be happy. (We could see the return of noble, suffering Ross from S1. Yay!) He'd also have to swear Monica and his parents to silence, but it's doable.
The really interesting stuff would kick in when Rachel and Joey start planning their wedding. Rachel asks Phoebe to be Maid of Honor; Joey asks both Ross and Chandler to be Best Man. Emotional torture ensues. It's "put up or shut up" time for Phoebe and Ross; they have to decide how they really feel about Joey and Rachel, and act. Now.
[> [> [>Re: Ross -- Miss Edith, 10:27:34 08/29/02 Thu
What about when he sent those singers in to Rachel's place of work sing that she must remember her boyfriend Ross. Arrrghh. Can you say creepy unbalanced stalker. And I cannot believe he and Rachel are so perfect together although at one point I did root for them. He is unwilling to make any sacrifices and is obsessed with being right. At one point he adored Rachel and now he won't even apologise for cheating in order to win her back. The writers have acknowledged how infuiating he can be with characters pointing out how annoying it is becoming to constantly hear him yell "We were on a break".
[> [> [> [>Re: Ross -- Rob, 11:10:05 08/29/02 Thu
I classify the "creepy-stalker-boyfriend" phase as the first inklings of just how insane Ross would become. He still had his sweet moments at that point, though. I still wanted him with Rachel then, and was devastated (at the time) by his subsequent breakup with her. I wanted them together all the way up to the season-ending cliffhanger...and was ecstatic when they did reunite in the season premiere. It was all smooth-sailing...until he wented apes$%! over having to read her letter. Would it have killed him to just apologize and get over it? That is the exact moment I remember thinking, "This is so out of character for him."
Ever since that breakup, Ross has annoyed me, although when he was with Emily, that was downplayed. But he acted so self-reighteously nauseating about how none of the other friends could understand because none of them had been married...Hey, buddy, you're the one who said the wrong girl's name at the wedding! Issues much?
I enjoyed the Ross-and-Rachel-get-married-in-Vegas plot, because it was a great twist, especially because the writers finally got them married--but by that point, most people didn't want it any more, and it was really more of a joke than anything else. But Ross' behavior after the wedding, lying to her about the divorce just so he wouldn't have to have another divorce...and the manic way he talked to the lawyer was just demented.
And ever since then, I've completely disliked Ross in every way. Amazing though, when I see the old episodes (first-fourth seasons, around), I like him. Sigh.
Rob
[> [> [> [>Re: Ross -- Cactus Watcher, 12:09:26 08/29/02 Thu
Yes, that was episode I was refering to.
The reason I agree with Ross about the copy-girl is that Rachel did ask for a break from seeing Ross, and had to correct Ross when he misunderstood the first time she said it. Ross' bellowing aside, there are no time-outs in affairs of the heart. Either you're engaged/married to someone or your not. Either you're seeing someone or your not. It was unfortunate that Rachel used those words to express her anger when she still loved Ross. It was unfortunate that Ross got drunk and stupid so quickly. But, once Rachel asked for the break from each other, she lost her right to claim he cheated on her. It just doesn't work that way.
Ross tried to appologize and Rachel refused to hear it, because she was too hurt. Then months later Rachel, in that letter, insisted he take all the blame for everything bad that had happened between them. No workable relationship can be built on that kind of expectation. So, I have to agree with Ross for refusing to go along with it.
[> [> [> [> [>Re: Ross -- Miss Edith, 13:32:39 08/29/02 Thu
In theory I agree with Ross saying they were on a break at the time he slept with the other girl. But to be fair he had only just broken up with Rachel the day he screwed the other girl and Rachel had never said they were broken up for good. She just needed some space to work things out because Ross was suffucating her. He was sending people to her desk singing about being her boyfriend, trying to have picnics on her desk at work etc. He was just too needy.
And the way he presents his point of view would have anyone turning against him. When he keeps saying he doesn't want to be the divorce guy. He has been divorced 3 times, some people have had 4 or 5 divores but don't talk about it all the time.
And as for Ross refusing to take all the blame, that was fair enough. But remember how it happened. He didn't try to reasnably argue his point of view. When he was first reading the letter he bellowed to himself "it absulutely so is not" (something he can do). And when Rachel talked about the letter he just starts screaming at the top of his lungs "we were on a break". That is what I call unreasnable behaviour. They were in bed at the time and he screamed right in her face from what I remember.
And following his slip when at the alter with Emily he was intolerable. The way he whinied when trying to find her was truly excruiating for me. Every time he was on screen I had an urge to slap him.
[> [> [> [> [> [>I wouldn't blame you, if you did -- CW, 16:42:41 08/29/02 Thu
Willow's wouldbe honey -- Yellowork, 07:44:08 08/27/02 Tue
Does anyone think it would make sense for Willow to find a prospective partner on the 'net? After all, she has done this sort of thing before and knows how to protect herself now (and then some!). Maybe she might meet someone who knew or knew of Jenny out there somewhere.
On a different note, it occurs to me that in other seasons, there would be little need to have this discussion. The post-graduation, post-mortem milieu of the Scooby Gang has got really thin, don't you think? Bring back minor recurring characters please! (Old or new). If they mixed a bit more, then it would not be such a problem for Willow to meet someone, I think.
[>It worked so well the last time. -- Apophis, 08:56:47 08/27/02 Tue
The last time she went looking for love online, she nearly got killed by a robotic demon.
[>Poor Will. Slim pickings out there. -- cjl, 09:22:42 08/27/02 Tue
Presuming Joss meant what he said and said what he meant ('cause a Whedon is evil, 100%) and Amber Benson won't be back as Tara, let's look at the possibilities:
1. AlternaTara - this has been a popular concept in fanfic land, with the Tara of a parallel universe plopping down in Sunnydale, and snuggling with Willow. The concept would work about as well as it did on Hercules--meaning, not too well. They could play the "Vertigo" angle, and have Willow obsessed with remaking Tara II into the original, but that doesn't appeal to me either.
2. Faith - Gotta admit, I kind of like this one. (W/F shipping is fun!) But Willow absolutely loathed Faith on a gut level for all of Seasons 3 and 4, and Joss would have to flip her attitude in literally a microsecond. Not impossible, but almost.
3. Amy - This is an interesting possibility, with one possible flaw: Amy doesn't seem to be a lesbian. (Same applies to Anya and Buffy.)
4. Fetching member of Devon coven - Probably the most realistic possibility here, and the best shot Willow has for a lasting relationship. Let's face it, the lesbian dating pool is kind of shallow in Sunnydale, and asking a non-magical outsider to accept Willow's baggage is far-fetched. Yes, Tara did, but Tara was always extraordinary that way--and besides, Willow has way more baggage this season.
What else is out there? Sophie? Halfrek? HARMONY? Yeesh. (I thought we LIKED Willow.)
[> [>Re: Poor Will. Slim pickings out there. -- leslie, 09:37:41 08/27/02 Tue
This is an interesting point you raise--the dating pool for Our Heroes. Aside from Riley and the other Initiative guys, and Tara, Buffy and Willow really have not made any college chums. They still have a basically high school social circle--not just the Scoobies, but even the Band of Evil Weenies and Harmony (and Spike) are high-school era. Xander at least appears to have a certain amount of socializing going on with the guys at work.
Now, I have to say that one of the things I really enjoyed about the Band of Evil Weenies was Jonathan, the fact that he was someone who has been part of the scenery since the first season--the fact that he has probably known Xander and Willow longer than Buffy has, even. It gave a lot of depth to his divided loyalties. Likewise with Harmony--part of the reason she was interesting as a vampire was because she was still exactly the same annoying, vapid person she had been as a human. But since the girls went off to college, the people in the background are just people in the background. There's no sense that someone could emerge from that crowd and prove to have had a life of their own all along that now is intersecting with the Slayer and Scoobies.
[> [> [>Re: Poor Will. Slim pickings out there. -- DEN, 09:45:57 08/27/02 Tue
Another BIG reason I'm sorry ME did so little with the college experience, and why I consider it a missed opportunity.
[> [> [>Re: Poor Will. Slim pickings out there. -- Cheryl, 10:18:32 08/27/02 Tue
"Now, I have to say that one of the things I really enjoyed about the Band of Evil Weenies was Jonathan, the fact that he was someone who has been part of the scenery since the first season--the fact that he has probably known Xander and Willow longer than Buffy has, even. It gave a lot of depth to his divided loyalties."
I agree! I know this is wishful thinking on my part, but I would love to see Jonathon return to Sunnydale and try to make amends. I can see him try to do good in secret (cuz he'd be afraid he'd be caught and sent to jail), and help save Buffy and the Scoobies on occasion. And with his majicks (sp?) background, he and Willow would have something to talk about - once he's caught by the Scoobies, of course, which would happen in my imaginary universe.
Now here's another way out thought I had the other day - another thing I don't see really happening but . . .
With Amber Benson returning and Glory returning, what if "Tara" takes the place of Ben? Tara was the last one that Glory had a connection to and maybe there's still some link that's been dormant until Glory found a way to come back. I know, pretty farfetched, but it's a thought.
[> [> [> [>Is there a s7 spoiler above? I'm not sure.. be wary (N/T) -- TRM, 10:21:09 08/27/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>Oooh, I never knew the (NT) was automatic... -- TRM, 10:22:43 08/27/02 Tue
[> [> [> [>Spoilers in above post for Season 7! -- Rahael, 10:21:27 08/27/02 Tue
[> [> [> [>PLEASE LABEL SPOILERS!!!!!!! -- Sophist, 10:23:27 08/27/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>Oops, sorry about that! -- Cheryl, 10:34:53 08/27/02 Tue
[> [>S7 spec above -- cjl (closing the barn door after the horse has escaped), 12:39:36 08/27/02 Tue
[> [>AlternaTara! -- HonorH, 13:06:29 08/27/02 Tue
Guilty of one of those here!
(No spoilers; this fic is pure AU.)
[> [> [>Re: AlternaTara! -- Masq, 14:20:12 08/27/02 Tue
"And I'm really sorry about the lack of Spike"
You should never apologize for that!
[> [> [>No fair! no fair! no fair! -- Vickie, 18:01:20 08/27/02 Tue
Where's the rest?
I propose a new rule: HonorH cannot tell us of her fanfics unless she warns us they aren't finished. I'm dying here!
Proposed corollary to the new rule: HonorH must tell us of finished fanfics the very second (if not sooner) that they are finished and posted. Please?
[> [> [> [>Um, did I mention the story's not finished? -- Honorificus (Super Evil Writing Goddess), 19:00:44 08/27/02 Tue
Whoopsie!
Sorry, doll. I never dole out a multi-part story in one big serving. The rules of drama, you know: one piece at a time. Start small, and build. Part 3 will be posted tomorrow, and the rest should be up by the weekend, if my betas are up to speed on it.
[> [> [>Re: AlternaTara! -- errin, 18:37:41 08/27/02 Tue
Just getting through watching "entropy", i was already a bit weepy and now this. Excellent story. The idea of Tara from another dimension has entered my mind also but i am no writer; i am thankful that you are.
What's the deal!? Nice dress, but no Buffy talk at ALL! -- Rochefort, 21:24:47 08/27/02 Tue
[>VERY nice dress... all three of her; but ragged voice -- JBone, 21:29:52 08/27/02 Tue
hope ED feels better
[> [>Well, at least I don't have to tape & watch it now. -- Deeva, 22:41:24 08/27/02 Tue
[>Considering the dress, I'm willing to forgive her. -- Apophis, 23:46:52 08/27/02 Tue
[>No talkee the Buffy? Speculation says... -- pr10n, 00:40:53 08/28/02 Wed
Maybe she's been Jossed into secrecy, or perhaps all Faith talk is hype.
Gee, never seen that idea before.
[> [>The Suspence has killed me. I am now dead... -- Majin Gojira, 13:14:26 08/28/02 Wed
[> [> [>Um.... WHAT are you guys talking about???? -- Sheri, 15:24:31 08/28/02 Wed
[> [> [> [>They can't say, Sheri -- dubdub, 19:22:55 08/28/02 Wed
As it's related to a spoiler!
;o)
[> [> [> [>Check below -- DickBD, 22:04:27 08/28/02 Wed
In the message about Faith appearing on David Letterman, as she was expected to comment about coming back to BtS for another appearance. She wore a spectacularly revealing dress. Letterman's quote was "It is good to meet all three of you!" Anyway, we poor guys set our VCRs, only to be disappointed when nothing about Buffy was mentioned. I know. I have watched the tape ten times--and not one mention about the appearance on Buffy!
S&M Part II: Werewolves, Witches, Demon Hunters & Slayers Intro (Monstrous! Spoilers Season 6) -- shadowkat, 20:12:17 08/28/02 Wed
Okay taking the plunge...really sorry so long.
Part II: Werewolves, Demon Hunters, Witches and Slayers - S&M metaphors (long! Spoilers Season 6 for all sections)
Uhm quick note of warning here this is truly an essay from hell. I think it got away from me and took on a life of its own. Yes, that's right I've created the monster post in five parts. So Masq thanks for your indulgence.
(Thanks go to everyone who responded to Part I! Part II would not exist otherwise. Also Btvs quotes from Psyche Transcripts.)
**Warning again not for the faint of heart or the overly pedantic. This essay discusses mature topics relating heavily to adult sexual behavior and is not pro-ship in any way. Monstrously long, probably longest post ever, because I got well carried away. Mature readers only. Spoilers to the end of Season 6. This is just my way of wiling away the hours until the new season and trying to avoid spoilers.;-)
Introduction
Since I wrote Part I, I've discussed S&M online and offline with actual people who have practiced it and explored a few websites. I discovered sadomasochism is not always about inflicting pain; in fact sadomasochism is more about the politics of control as played out by the submissive and dominant roles of the parties than it is actually about the infliction or enjoyment of pain. While S&M may and often does include the infliction of pain and or violence, it does not have to, many real life participants do not engage in the painful acts, they merely anticipate them and get a kick out the idea of enduring them. Some of it is merely psychological the idea of mentally coping with pain or exploring intense sensations in a safe environment of course in a horror fantasy show like Btvs the environment is never safe and pain often is the writer's means of getting to the truth of the matter.
The Masochist and Sadist Relationship
I discussed sadomasochism with a friend who actually experimented with it and she said S&M is partly about projecting your needs or desires onto the other and asserting control over them through the projection of those desires. The masochist projects her desire to feel pain onto the sadist. "I hate myself beat me up? I'm dirty, I'm bad, I'm eeevil!" The masochist asserts control over the sadist by forcing the sadist to focus their attention on causing them pain. They in effect become the center of attention or the center of the sadist's attention/focus. A perfect example of this is how Spike manipulates Buffy and asserts control over Buffy by getting her to hit him. As Spike stated in Lover's Walk, "Dru didn't even care enough to chop off my headŠor torture me." As long as Buffy hits him, insults him, throws him across the room, and goes to him for that quick beating he is important. As Buffy states in Crush, "I beat him up a lot, to Spike that's like third base." When she comes to beat him up, when she reacts to his comments with a fist in the nose, he feels like the center of her life. Her drug. No matter what she says, her fists or the rough sex they engage in tell him how she truly feels about him and he loses himself in the pleasure of it. The moment she stops he loses control, he becomes no longer important. By taking the seemingly "masochistic" role in the relationship, he is in effect keeping the relationship going.
Control is an issue for both parties in the S&M relationship. The dominant party or sadist often controls the relationships by withholding pleasure or pain. In Ann Rice's erotic retelling of the Sleeping Beauty fairy tale, the Claiming of Sleeping Beauty, the Prince tortures and controls Beauty by inflicting punishment in the form of repeated spankings and withholding pleasure by binding her at night so she cannot pleasure herself nor can anyone else. By doing this he asserts some sort of control over her, meanwhile she asserts control over him by causing him to desire to inflict these punishments upon her. The masochist controls the sadist by being the center of the sadist's orbit. In order to "get off" sexually the sadist requires the masochist to torture. The masochist projects his/her desire to be hurt onto the sadist, often encouraging the torture. Likewise the sadist hunts individuals who can stand the torture and are willing to be in the submissive role. This of course is not true in all cases. In some situations, which I hope to examine in this essay, the sadist will torture unwilling parties justifying his/her actions with the view that the unwilling or willing party as the case may be is not human, just an animal, or in the case of Buffy The Vampire Slayer evil, demonized.
In Btvs and Ats we have several, I would term "good", characters who exhibit sadomasochistic tendencies. These tendencies however are not shown so much by the "human" side of their nature as by the demonic. Most of them only exhibit these tendencies with demonic creatures. Buffy does not hurt, slay, or beat to a pulp humans. She does however hurt, slay and beat to a pulp demons. She is after all the Vampire Slayer. She also gets off on it. Willow similarly only tortures those individuals deserving of it. She does not hurt "good" people, well not until she's been pushed too far. Riley does not beat up on people, only demons, only Spike. OZ is only violent in his werewolf state. As Willow is only sadistic as either VampWillow or DarkWillow. Each of these characters unlike our vampires, has a soul or the moral compass that separates them from demons and animals. They justify their sadistic acts in the same ways that Hitler and other renowned torturers have the victims were less than human.
TBC ...sk
[>1.Werewolves OZ, Larry, and Veruca Sexual Hunger -- shadowkat, 20:17:20 08/28/02 Wed
1. Werewolves OZ, Larry, and Veruca Sexual Hunger (very long section)
Robert Eisler, a contemporary of Havelock Ellis and a scholar on werewolves, in his 1940 speech to the Psychiatric Section of the Royal Society of Medicine stated the Greek word for Werewolf formed from the Greek "lukhos = 'wolf' and authrpspia = 'humanity', for the dread folklore of men converted into 'werewolves' (Germanic wer, the Latin vir, means 'man', 'male'). The name 'lycanthropy' is used also by alienists to denote a particular form of raving madness manifesting itself in the patient's belief that he is a wolf, with lupine teeth, refusing to eat anything but raw, bloody meat, emitting bestial howls and indulging in unrestrained sexual attacks on any victim he can overpower. Ancient medicine would naturally confuse this form of psychosis with contagious canine rabies, communicable to dogs by the bite of wolves and to man by the bite of a dog, which causes man and dog to snap at and bite everything within reach and thus to spread the dread disease."(Eisler. Man Into Wolf: an Anthropological Interpretation Of Sadism, Masochism, And Lycanthropy. 1940. For more information on Eisler see: website of the University of London. School of Advanced Study, The Warburg Institute Archive of degrees in doctor of Philosophy.)
Unlike most forms of sadism, the werewolf appears to have little control over his sadistic tendencies. The beast takes over. In some cultures the bestial state was sought after, the Ancient Greeks were rumored in literature to undertake Bacchia like rituals involving wine and drugs to build themselves to a state where they would literally be out of their heads, rending the arms and limbs off of animals. This was their way perhaps of returning to that ancestral memory. By surrendering to the needs of the beast within, they felt a release. The blood-lust was appeased.
a. OZ and Larry: Sexual Identity
When OZ is first introduced he is the cool guy. He seems almost androgynous in some ways. Boyish. Small. Not powerfully built. Quiet in tone. Seldom aggressive except for his pursuit of Willow, which also seems fairly laid back. When a werewolf is discovered wandering around Sunnydale, the SG assumes it's Larry, a powerfully built obnoxious student who has wolfish manners. In Halloween he not only threatens Xander, he attempts to rape Innocent 18th century Buffy in an alley. (Halloween Season 2, Btvs) In Phases, Larry appears to be hiding something. Xander assumes he's the werewolf, since Larry's tendencies are reminiscent of Xander's behavior in The Pack, when Xander was possessed by a hyena. (The Pack, Season 1 Btvs and Phases Season 2, Btvs)
The werewolf is an interesting metaphor for deviant sexuality because the werewolf is created through an infection. Many people believe homosexuality or other sexual practices they don't understand are infections, contagious. Lycanthropy or becoming a werewolf is an the infection that results in a sexual hunger or deviant practice. Vampires may be an even better metaphor since the act of vamping is in of itself a sexual metaphor. Particularly since to become a vampire you must suck the blood of a vampire and die (dying is an act that is often associated with orgasm the little death and may happen after oral sex.) To become a werewolf all that is needed is a bite not unlike contracting rabies, Aids, herpes or a host of other sexually transmitted diseases.
When Xander confronts Larry, believing he's the werewolf, he discovers that Larry's not hiding a double-life as werewolf, he's gay. Homosexuality to Xander is almost worse than the werewolf identity. (Phases, Season 2, Btvs) But Larry becomes a better person once he accepts his homosexuality. His wolfish tendencies recede. He is no longer a sexual predator as portrayed in Halloween or even in the beginning of Phases where he obnoxiously asks OZ how Willow is in bed. After Xander confronts Larry, he is nicer to everyone. Even stoops to help someone pick up their books and as Buffy comments does not take the time to look up her skirt. He becomes the opposite of the wolf. By accepting his sexual desires, he loses his wolf like traits. Becomes less of the beast.
b. OZ, Willow, and Veruca: Devouring the Lover
It's ironic that OZ becomes a werewolf due to the bite of an innocent little boy. Someone who has no sexual experience infects OZ. (Phases, Season 2 Btvs). When OZ changes into the werewolf he becomes a danger to everyone around him. He is the complete opposite of himself. No longer contained. Aggressive. Brutal. Cannibalistic. Willow discovers him in Phases with chains. Her reaction is the obvious one is my boyfriend into something slightly kinky? He attempts to get her to leave, but ends up changing before she does so. She eventually is the one who shoots him with the tranquilizer dart and in subsequent episodes locks him in the cage in the library, reading to him as one might to a child. (Beauty and the Beasts, Season 3 Btvs.) She has regained the power in the relationship. Before Oz was the pursuer but had control he could see her when he wished and moved the relationship along at his speed. By Season 3, Willow appears to be in more control, locking him in the cage, monitoring the phases of the moon.
In one episode in Season 3, Dopplegangerland, Willow briefly is seen as the monster. Unlike OZ, Willow's monster is the dominant one in control. She takes over the Bronze. While OZ in his werewolf persona merely wrecked it. VampWillow actually changes the lives of two humans turning one, Sandy, into a monster, and frightening Percy into doing his homework. Her clothing and attitude is the epitome of the dominatrix image. So much so that the real Willow makes a joke regarding how OZ and her are engaged in S&M. An image that unsettles her friends. "Did anyone else just go to a weird place?" Xander asks.
Metaphorically their relationship is a tad S&M when OZ becomes the wolf. Willow locks him in the cage and treats him like a pet wild dog. A fantasy that is right out of Little Red Riding Hood which Angela Carter in her retelling of the tale in Company of Wolves points out was far more sexual in its earliest incarnations. Cannibalism underlies both the werewolf metaphor and the Little Red Riding Hood tale. In Carter's tale the wolf is a werewolf. In Btvs when OZ becomes a wolf he desires to devour the humans he encounters. We see him eat one of the dead boys in The Zeppo.
Dolcette is an artist who specializes in female fantasies relating to cannibalism. In Dolcette's art women volunteer for the love of their man to be slowly cooked alive. There is no force or coercion in this. They volunteer. It reminds me a little of Hansel & Gretal and Little Red Riding Hood. It also makes me think of the werewolf and the idea of sodomy or oral sex. The idea of being devoured by the lover can be traced back to some of our grimmest tales (Little Red Riding Hood, Hansel & Gretal, to name a few) and possibly further to creation myths of the Mother Goddess devouring her lovers. In nature, several insects and arachnids devour their mates after or during sex. (Teacher's Pet, Season 1, Btvs).
Cannibalistic S&M metaphors aren't limited to Werewolves in Btvs. Intervention the Buffybot asks Spike to "devour her". She tells him that she wants to be bitten. Also we have the scene where Angel bites and drinks from Buffy in Graduation Day Part II. (Both characters appear to enjoy this act and Buffy literally sacrifices herself for Angel not unlike Dolcett's women.) VampWillow treats biting Sandy and possibly Willow as well as a sensual act. Licking their necks with her tongue. (Dopplegangerland). And when Veruca shows up and runs into OZ in her wolf form they make violent love, biting and scratching and attempting to devour one another. Veruca even comments on how she is closer to OZ than Willow because of the experience, she can appreciate OZ in his wolf form. Willow on the other hand has domesticated him. Placed him in a cage. Veruca suggests that the cage can't keep him, the wolf is always inside, a part of his nature, perhaps his sexuality as well. (Wild at Heart, season 4 Btvs.) When Veruca goes after Willow, OZ lets loose and does kill her and almost kills Willow as well. The danger inherent in Veruca and OZ's sexual habit comes to the forefront and OZ takes off.
c. Oz and Willow : Power and Control
What I find interesting about OZ and Willow, is when OZ returns, the wolf apparently contained, Willow has moved on to Tara, a homosexual relationship. Tara is the antithesis of OZ. Submissive. Uncertain of herself. Anti-cool. Stuttering. Not popular. Female. Her energy unlike OZ's is female. When OZ discovers Willow's scent on Tara, he loses control the wolf breaks out and we discover that anger or hostility causes the beast inside OZ to surface. Only a tranquilizer gun can stop him. (New Moon Rising, Season 4 Btvs.) Willow chooses Tara, the female energy, the soft, submissive partner over OZ who she has no control over. Willow has control over Tara. In the previous episode, Tara tells her : "I am you know. Yours." Tara unlike Oz has made Willow the center of her universe. OZ has always had other friends and activities outside of Willow a band, classes, the werewolf. In fact Veruca and OZ first met due to his involvement in his band. Willow feels cool because she is dating a guy in a band. (Wild at Heart, Doomed, Btvs Season 4, Dopplegangerland, Beauty and the Beasts Btvs Season 3) Tara feels cool because she is dating Willow and Willow is a powerful witch like her mother. (Hush, This Year's Girl, Who Are You, New Moon Rising.) With Tara Willow has control, she senses that Tara will always come back to her, always stay, not suddenly leave like OZ.
For awhile in the Willow/OZ relationship it appears Willow is in control it's clear from his fling with Veruca that Willow truly isn't. Veruca makes it even more clear when she suggests that Willow has tried to domesticate OZ, but he can't be domesticated, he is the wolf inside. His dark sexuality cannot be harnessed by Willow, he must be the one to control it. Does OZ get off in being free and violent with Veruca yes. But by the same token he likes to be reigned in by Willow. He breaks free from this pattern of having someone else control his urges, some outside party cage the beast, by leaving and hunting a way to control himself.
TBC - shadowkat
[>2. The Witches - Tara & Willow: Submissive & Dominant Roles -- shadowkat, 20:21:42 08/28/02 Wed
2. The Witches: Willow and Tara Submissive and Dominant Roles
Up until Tara, Willow often was placed in the submissive role in her relationships. Giles bossed her around the library, Buffy told her when she could help, and Xander asked her for homework advice (Season 1 Dopplegangerland Season 3, Btvs). Is it any wonder she went a little nuts in Dopplegangerland? Tired of being everyone's doormat. Magic was her way out. It gave her a sense of power. A sense of control.
In the Hush commentary on the Season 4 DVD's, Joss Whedon states how in casting Tara they were hunting someone who would come across as weaker than Willow. Willow had become confident now. So in order to build a romantic relationship they wanted a character that would look up to Willow, would lean on Willow, and be shyer than Willow. Enter Tara. Tara is developed as a stuttering, shy, uncertain, yet incredibly warm character. In comparison to Willow in Seasons 4-5, Tara is uncertain of herself and where she stands with people. The writers explain this attitude of Tara's with the introduction of the Maclay family, a group of "rednecks" who treat women as "slaves". They justify their enslavement of the women in their family by stating they are "demons". Demonizing someone makes it okay. As Spike states, "Oh I see, this whole demon thing was a way to keep your women in line." (Family, season 5, Btvs.) Up until Family, Tara is concerned about Willow rejecting her, seeing her as a demon. Tara acts in the submissive role.
The submissive role in Btvs is the role of the party who is worried about being left. Spike takes the role in the B/S relationship. He is worried about being left. He will do anything to keep the relationship. In the beginning of Willow and Tara's relationship, Tara is in the submissive role. She tells Willow continuously that she is hers. She follows Willow around. She does the spells Willow wants to do. She lets Willow decide when to introduce her to the gang or when to reveal their relationship. Tara does not attempt to control the relationship in any way, she does not try to wrest the power away from Willow. Not until Willow forces her hand in Season 6.
The writers use magic as a means of demonstrating the sexual relationship between these two women. Often in the spells we see Willow falling to the ground while Tara is supporting her. Or they are holding hands to control a rose. The idea of support is present here. Very important in a dominant/submissive or any relationship. One party must support the other when they go into the ether or lose control. To contrast this look at Buffy's relationships with our vampires with Angel Buffy has no support. She has an orgasmic experience, loses her virginity, he becomes evil. With Spike, she also has limited support, she can't totally lose herself in him without the fear that he could bite her or destroy her. His constant comments that she should join him in the dark lend credence to this fear as does the attempted rape.
Willow and Tara's relationship works up to a point, but Willow's need for control and power causes the relationship to break down. Tara acknowledges this need as far back as Tough Love, but is rendered briefly incapable of doing anything about it. When Willow brings Tara back, Tara is far too traumatized to realize that Willow is becoming more and more attached to the dominant role in their relationship and to some degree has taken full control of it. Tara lost her voice in the relationship the moment Glory sucked her mind and was never quite able to regain it.
By the time we reach Season 6, Tara has fallen into the supportive role. She even supports Willow when she probably shouldn't the spell in Bargaining Part I, comes to mind. When pushed by Xander and Anya, Tara admits that the spell to bring Buffy back goes against the forces of nature, but she allows there are special circumstances. Buffy was taken by mystical forces not natural ones. Willow, for her part, barely hears Tara's misgivings. Tara's job is to support Willow in all things. When Tara stops supporting Willow, Willow gets angry.
In All The Way, we begin to see the dark edge of Willow. ME starts to show us a little of Willow's sadism. Now before people get huffy, I'm not saying Willow is a heartless sadist. (Honestly, there are times in which I wonder if I'm analyzing a fictional character or the member of someone's family.) I'm saying she has sadistic tendencies. We all do. I do. You do. Your next door neighbor does. Most of us just choose not to go there. Every day we make a conscious or unconscious choice not to. Think about it. How many times have you fantasized about torturing that nasty boss or ripping a fingernail down the arm of that girl who tormented you in school? Willow was horribly teased in school. Treated like a loser. Inside she feels like a loser. Some sadists (not all) can display a tendency towards self-hatred. When they hurt something they are often projecting their pain on to someone else. In Willow's case she is attempting to control others views.
The first sign we see of this is in the Bronze where she attempts to find Dawn by shifting people into Alternate Realities. Horrified Tara attempts to stop her and Willow in order to more affectively argue with Tara magically lowers the volume, interfering with everyone's reality to suit her own purposes, which horrifies Tara more.
Realizing she can't appease her lover or receive comfort sex, and possibly just a little afraid Tara will leave her, Willow erases Tara's memories of the events. Is this a sadistic act? Not really. Willow isn't interested in harming Tara. Harming or causing pain is not her intent. (See Tabula Rasa) She intends on controlling Tara. Their relationship appears to be more D&S than S&M dominant and submissive and largely unconscious. And these roles do not stay stagnant, they shift back and forth. One party being dominant, the other submissive and vice versa.
When Tara discovers that Willow is using magic to literally control her mind, she leaves. By leaving she regains control of her life and the relationship. She becomes the dominant party. Willow is at her mercy. It is telling that Willow does not use magic to get Tara back. No love spells are cast. (Tabula Rasa, Season 6, Btvs.). Willow does however take out her grief briefly on others. She goes to the Bronze and meddles with people's reality again. Reminiscent of her behavior in Something Blue, where she attempts a spell to diffuse her pain and instead will's chaos on her friends, disrupting their realities. (SB, Season 4 Btvs) Her acts in the Bronze with Amy may seem amusing on the surface but in reality are quite sadistic. And are in response to threatened male violence. Actually most of Willow's acts seem to result from male violence. In Smashed, she magically places two men in cages after they insult her and attempt to manhandle Amy. In Wrecked she conjures a demon after being magically molested by Rack. Willow's sadistic use of magic is usually a direct result of abuse she has suffered at someone else's hands. (Wrecked and Smashed, Season 6, Btvs).
The events of Wrecked, Smashed, and to a degree Tough Love (where Willow tortures a hell-god to avenge a violation on her lover) foreshadow the depths of Willow's sadistic capabilities. Magic appears to allow her to do these things. Without magic, I seriously doubt Willow would have been able to wreck the havoc she does in Season 6. Magic provides her with the power necessary to inflict her own pain on others. Her own low self-esteem is reflected by the pain she inflicts. For the first time, her friends get a peek at who Willow thinks she is. A loser. A nerd. Not worthy. An ordinary boring no-account girl. (Wrecked, Villians, Two-to-Go and Grave). Willow's actions remind me a great deal of Faith who also tended to react in a self-destructive manner because of self-hatred. (more on Faith in section 5.)
Perhaps Willow's most sadistic act was torturing Warren. Her rape of Warren with a bullet, sealing his lips shut, then ripping off of his skin and final combustion was grisly and caused numerous debates on the internet. (Villains, Season 6). This scene disturbed me, because to be honest? I wanted Warren ripped asunder. I hated him with a passion. His blasé manner towards women, his idiotic escapades, everything about him made me ill. He scared me because I've met him. I know him. And believe me if you meet him on the street? Run. Warren populates films like Neil LaBute's classic In The Company of Men (where two men plot to bed, seduce, romance and brutally dump a handicapped woman.) Warren is the serial killer Ted Bundy. The kids at Columbine. He is real. (It's hard to hate vampires I know they aren't real and I don't take them seriously.) So what disturbed me most about Willow's sadistic torture of Warren, was part of me enjoyed it, although I could have done without the skin ripping scene. As I said, we all have a little sadist inside us.
Admitting our own sadistic tendencies is hard. I honestly don't think Willow knew she was capable of these things. That's what distinguishes her from Buffy. As Buffy states in Villains Willow doesn't understand these forces, she doesn't understand that you can't do these things. Buffy also says something else, which made me pause, and rewind, several times it's a quick throw-away line "killing someone, it changes you, believe me, I know." Buffy knows that she is capable of these things. It's why she adheres to certain strict moral codes. Buffy chooses not to go there. She chooses not to kill or torture for pleasure and it is always a struggle. (See section 5 for more on this.)
Willow doesn't know what she's capable of, she blames the magic, she blames others. Willow is so busy hiding, so busy protecting herself from rejection and pain, that she can't see herself. And remember what she says in Choices before she loses control of a spinning pencil (Season 3 Btvs)? It's important to have emotional control when dealing with magic. How can you handle the powerful forces of magic when you have no idea what you yourself are capable of? When you haven't acknowledged your own darkness? We think she has in Dopplegangerland, but has she? Really? It takes several months before she realizes she's gay. No, I think Willow like most of us is terribly afraid to look into that dark mirror and see her dark self. To realize her own sadistic tendencies. Tendencies that scared Tara way back in Tough Love. Tendencies that probably scare Willow now.
I think part of the reason Willow was able to go as far as she did with Warren was that she decided he was less than human. His violence towards Tara and Katrina and Buffy dehumanized him in Willow's eyes. He became her own personal demon. What's interesting is if he was a demon Buffy would have killed him. If it had been Spike who shot Tara and Buffy he would have been dust. But because Warren is human, has a soul, he can't be hurt, or beaten, or destroyed. So this raises another question is it okay to torture things that aren't human? Are the demons truly worse than the Warren's of the world? I guess it depends on your point of view or whether you're on Btvs or Ats.
TBC - sk (I have five sections, yep i know, ack! I need an editor)
[>3. The Demon Hunters: Riley & The Initiative -Torturing Demons -- shadowkat, 20:25:05 08/28/02 Wed
3. The Demon-Hunters: Riley & The Initiative Torturing Demons
Did you know in 17th century, "scientists and philosophers administered beatings to dogs with perfect indifference and made fun of (people) who believed the creatures felt pain and therefore pitied them. They insisted that the animals were like clocks; that the cries they emitted when struck were only the noises of some little spring that had been triggered by the blow, but that the animal itself has absolutely no feeling" (p. 149 from Jean de la Fontaine's journalistic account of experiments.)
Think about this: How many torturers in our history have justified their actions by stating that the object of the torture either deserved it or was "less-than" human? In Nazi Germany, the Nazi regimen believed Jews, Homosexuals, and Gypsies were not human. They were animals. This was the propaganda at the time. If they were animals, mere machines, their bodies just a "commodity" then it was okay for the Nazis to do whatever they wished.
Riley isn't so much involved in the torturing of these creatures as he is in their capture and imprisonment. He knows that the torture and experiments take place, but does not question them overly much, since he believes they are justified. He is not all that different than a solider who has been ordered to take out an opponent's military base and kill all the occupants. The Initiative and Maggie Walsh on the other hand are willfully torturing these creatures with the goal of creating their own army of super-soliders. They justify their acts with the view that these are just animals, subterrestials that deserve to die.
The Initiative's sadistic practices on Spike and the other creatures remind me a little of the recent sodomy and rape of Abner Louima, the prisoner in NYC by three cops. In this still unsettled case (it's been going on for three years now), the cops took the prisoner into a bathroom and sodomized him brutally. They felt justified in their actions because in their heads, the prisoner wasn't human, he was an animal. This can happen in jails, prisons and in our justice system, when someone commits a horrible crime, we handle it by demonizing them. The horrible crimes of Peter Stubbe in 1591 Germany were attributed to a werewolf. People could not attribute these things to a man. Same with Charles Manson. If we can demonize the criminal, we can torture him, kill him, destroy him and not feel any remorse.
In Riley's case he has no problem punishing, torturing or killing the demons. As he tells Buffy in New Moon Rising there's no difference, all demons are bad. So we kill them. Buffy of course knows there are graduations of evil and not all evil is worthy of the death penalty. She also realizes that going down that road makes her no better than the demons she fights. Professor Walsh doesn't see this, but then Prof Walsh takes the mad scientist view that if it's in the name of science and discovery, it's okay and she certainly doesn't stop with demons.
Therein lies the danger. If we treat animals this way how long until we start to treat humans in the same manner? Justifying our actions based on the stature of the person we are torturing? In our collective history we have justified torturing slaves, prisoners of war, and deformed individuals based on the fact that they looked different or appeared different from us. (Holocaust, Slavery in US and elsewhere are just a few examples.) Professor Walsh demonstrates how this may occur in her experiments on Riley and the other soliders of the Initiative without their knowledge. She justifies her actions on the view that a) their bodies belong to her, their bodies are commodities and b) she is improving them physically. Improving on nature by experimentation a common scientific justification.
It's not until OZ is captured and Riley realizes that he is more than just a beast, just an animal, that Riley sacrifices everything to save OZ and goes AWOL. For Riley the last straw is not the fact that the Initiative drugged him or the fact that they are experimenting and torturing demons the last straw is when he discovers that one of those demons is actually an infected human. Not a complete monster. And someone he is acquainted with. Up until that realization Riley just wants to kill him, doesn't even see the point in playing around with him. When he realizes it, he changes his tune and breaks with everything he knows. (New Moon Rising, Season 4, Btvs).
I guess this is why As You Were (Season 6, Btvs) and Into the Woods (Season 5, Btvs where Riley goes off to join the military again, leaving Buffy with an ultimatium) bothered me so much. Riley had left the military behind, had begun to follow a new path. Granted this appeared to be Buffy's path, but as Buffy states in This Year's Girl he doesn't have to be a solider, he can leave the military, be a demon fighter, hunt his own path just as she did when she fired the Watcher's Council the year before. Take the initiative and become his own man. So Riley leaves the military, the Initiative and for a while is no longer just following orders. But clearly that doesn't work for him he needs some one to give him a mission, rules and boundaries. (Into the Woods). And by the time he returns in As You Were? Riley is right back where he started. Fighting demons. All demons are evil. It's a war and doesn't matter what we do to win. Perhaps he's right to think this way in the Buffyverse, but his clothes, his attitude, and his assumption that everyone will toe the line for him, disrupt their daily lives, etc makes me think he's reverted to form. In AYW he appears the same way he did in The I in Team, Doomed, Goodbye Iowa, and Hush. A self-righteous solider, towing the company line. Are his actions sadistic? Not really. Does he enjoy killing those demons? I believe so. Actually I got the feeling the Sam and Riley didn't just enjoy tracking and killing those demons, they loved it. What better way to get rid of those aggressions? Than to tear apart some demons. And hey you're justified since after all they killed half a village. Exterminating them is a necessity, particularly if other governments are using them as weapons. (We don't know if the US in the Buffyverse is or not, but if we use the Initiative as an example of what the Buffyverse government is capable of? Well I wouldn't put it past them.)
TBC - sk (assuming you're still there..)
[> [>Re: 3. The Demon Hunters: Riley & The Initiative -Torturing Demons -- Rufus, 05:41:31 08/29/02 Thu
I guess this is why As You Were (Season 6, Btvs) and Into the Woods (Season 5, Btvs where Riley goes off to join the military again, leaving Buffy with an ultimatium) bothered me so much. Riley had left the military behind, had begun to follow a new path. Granted this appeared to be Buffy's path, but as Buffy states in This Year's Girl he doesn't have to be a solider, he can leave the military, be a demon fighter, hunt his own path just as she did when she fired the Watcher's Council the year before. Take the initiative and become his own man. So Riley leaves the military, the Initiative and for a while is no longer just following orders. But clearly that doesn't work for him he needs some one to give him a mission, rules and boundaries. (Into the Woods). And by the time he returns in As You Were? Riley is right back where he started. Fighting demons. All demons are evil. It's a war and doesn't matter what we do to win. Perhaps he's right to think this way in the Buffyverse, but his clothes, his attitude, and his assumption that everyone will toe the line for him, disrupt their daily lives, etc makes me think he's reverted to form.
Now Riley is no longer exactly where he started..remember he was being prepared to become another Adam...Walsh never got around to changing any of his bits to demon parts. Riley is back to the military not The Initiative....sounds like they are the same but they aren't. What he is doing now has been shown to be back to what he had wanted in his life....protecting civillians against a threat a demon threat. Notice that there was no ambiguity in his actions or the demons he was after. Gone are the experiments and attempts to harness demon power for the government, all there is left is protecting the innocent from demon attacks...."demon attacks"....specific attacks and dangers to the public....that is the difference between his stint as a Mr. Potato head...switch the bits subject for Dr. Walsh. He is back to being just an army guy out to protect what is his/ours....so he may look the same but there is that difference between bagging and tagging HSTs for experimentation and taking out a threat that is harming the public.
[> [> [>On the fence here - but I think you're right -- shadowkat, 14:14:46 08/29/02 Thu
"Now Riley is no longer exactly where he started..remember he was being prepared to become another Adam...Walsh never got around to changing any of his bits to demon parts. Riley is back to the military not The Initiative....sounds like they are the same but they aren't. What he is doing now has been shown to be back to what he had wanted in his life....protecting civillians against a threat a demon threat. Notice that there was no ambiguity in his actions or the demons he was after. Gone are the experiments and attempts to harness demon power for the government, all there is left is protecting the innocent from demon attacks...."demon attacks"....specific attacks and dangers to the public....that is the difference between his stint as a Mr. Potato head...switch the bits subject for Dr. Walsh. He is back to being just an army guy out to protect what is his/ours....so he may look the same but there is that difference between bagging and tagging HSTs for experimentation and taking out a threat that is harming the public."
I've been on the fence on this one for a while now. I almost didn't add the portion on AYW to the essay. I agree with your general point. He is acting like a cop. But AYW
confused me - at times I couldn't decide if part of what he and Sam were doing was co-opting the demon and the eggs for the US government. He's quite upset they aren't still frozen. And is tracking the demon rather than just killing it. I think and have seen it argued two ways: One (and I believe the one intended by the writers) that Riley and Sam tracked the demon to find the eggs and destroy them. That they are demon hunters. They go to hot spots, take out demons, jump to the next. And yep enjoy the adventure and the fun of taking out enemies. Nothing wrong with that.
Two - they were tracking demon and the dealer to get the eggs as weapons for own government and this is why Riley didn't fill Buffy in on everything at the start.
My gut tells me your interpretation is probably the intended one, so I'll go with it.
[> [> [> [>Re: On the fence here - but I think you're right -- Slain, 17:02:36 08/29/02 Thu
I think Riley was concerned the eggs weren't frozen because they were therefore too warm, and were about to hatch - but it's true that his organisation is a little ambigous.
Here follows more meanderings which I was going to delete, but decided to leave in anyway...
It does raise the question about killing demons in general. Vampires somehow have a get out clause, because while they are demons, they're also undead; which makes killing them seem more like a natural act. But it does beg the question - are demons just dangerous animals? If there were tigers roaming around suburban Southern California there's a chance they'd be killed, but they certainly wouldn't be done so without regret, and all efforts would be made to avoid it.
But I think the difference is that demons are not animals; not just because they're sentinent, but because they're not of this world. For many demons, their goal in life is to return home to some demon dimension; for some this means destroying humanity to do so, other do so peacefully. And while animals do not have a particular vendetta against humans, demons frequently do, even demons which are barely sentinent. Yet of course there are many demons who live with humanity, and who want to do so (the Host most obviously, but there are countless other examples).
Demons can't be analysed as if they were humans or as if they were animals; as, while all humans are basically more similar than they are different, demons are not. Each species of demon is more like a new sentient species, like the earth would be like if other upright primates other than Homo Sapiens had survived. Each demon needs to be looked at differently; some live with humans, some live off humans (like parasites), some want to destroy humans and some are ambigous. This is what Buffy does; admittedly her judgments are mostly based on whether or not the demon attacks her, or on whether it looks kinda evil, but she doesn't view demons are one indistinguishable mass.
So, are the Initiative justified, then? I think it's fairly clear they're not, because they have no concept of the good demon; in comparing demons to animals they not only deny their sentinence, but deny that demon's motives and moralities are so various; animals require food, shelter and offspring, but demons often don't require all of these.
So my concern with Riley's new job would be how much thought goes into the killing; they seem to be run by the same simple ethics (or lack of) which ran the Initiative. So while I think Riley is a Good Guy, and not convinced that what he's doing is completely right.
[> [> [> [> [>Re: On the fence here - but I think you're right -- Miss Edith, 19:08:58 08/29/02 Thu
"He's not sentinent, just destructive I believe". I think that is said by Professer Walsh when talking of demons she wants captured for experimentation in The i in Team when Buffy first joins the initiative. Therefore some demon species can presumedly be compared to animals.
And Riley did seem awfully confident in ATW with his new mission. When talking off inflicting beatings for information and when I saw his scar which was similiar to Spike's it did raise my suspicions.
[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: On the fence here - but I think you're right -- aliera, 06:09:13 08/30/02 Fri
There were postings along this line when the ep first aired. Some posters viewed Riley as a potential little bad and still do.
[> [> [> [> [>re: your fascinating meanderings , spec Riley -- shadowkat, 20:16:33 08/29/02 Thu
Which I'm glad you didn't delete by the way (while I certainly understand the temptation...my meanderings have gotten me into trouble quite a bit ;-) ).
I agree with what you've said regarding demons. I'm don't think we can think of them as animals. They are supernatural and clearly most human are unaware of their existence in Whedonverse. And clearly they fit into sub-categories which Buffy due to Giles' guidance has taken into consideration. Someone in a post somewhere, it might have been in one of Ded's essays, compares Buffy to a sheriff in the old West - keeping the peace. And I think to some degree this is what she does with the demons - they certainly seem to treat her as one.
But what I really want to discuss is your point on Riley, which touches on what has been bugging about him since he left and re-appeared.
"So my concern with Riley's new job would be how much thought goes into the killing; they seem to be run by the same simple ethics (or lack of) which ran the Initiative. So while I think Riley is a Good Guy, and not convinced that what he's doing is completely right."
This reminds me of conversations I've had over the years with professional soliders, people whose job it is to bomb or kill the enemy. They keep the peace. While they do ask questions, they try not to think too much about what they are doing. It's us or them, mentality tends to take over.
Ethics tend to get a bit clouded in times of war. And unfortunately in a war - no one is particularly good.
Riley, I believe, is a good person. But my problem with Riley has always been that he is pretending to be a leader when in truth he prefers to follow. He would rather someone else tell him who the bad guy is and set the mission parameters. Notice he is not the one who decides to take out Spike? He tells Buffy - "I've been authorized to take out the Doctor." - In other words he's been given permission to take him out or leave him alone. Would Riley have considered taking out Spike without said permission?
I got the feeling that he asks Buffy partly as a courtesy.
He clearly doesn't care either way. And that for some reason bugged me. Just as his tracking of the demon and the eggs seemed entirely about a mission assigned to him. I remember at the time AYW aired, many people speculated on whether Sam was assigned as Riley's wife. They didn't wear wedding bands. (Which made sense to me since you wouldn't in covert operations.) But it felt as if once again, Riley was playing by someone else's orders and as long as it was just killing demons (who were a threat to humans) this was okay. The other thing that bothered me about Riley - is Riley gets paid for this. He follows orders. The military establishment = Council of Watchers? Buffy stopped working for the council, doesn't get paid for killing (as was pointed out in Flooded - this would be wrong, you shouldn't be paid for saving lives.) But Riley? He gets a dental plan
and health care benefits.
I don't know, it just urked me for some reason. And I can't quite get past the fact that Riley missed the boat.
Hope that made sense. I have a feeling I meandered away from your quote.
shadowkat
[> [> [> [> [> [>Paid for Demon Fighting -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:50:41 08/29/02 Thu
Getting paid for saving lives isn't wrong. Charging the people you save for your acts is wrong, but Riley is being paid by the U.S. government, not the people in direct risk from the demons he fights.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Doyle had an interesting point on that... -- KdS, 04:54:44 08/30/02 Fri
I believe that in "I Fall to Pieces" he argued that charging people saved by AI, while you shouldn't overcharge them, brings a sense of closure to the situation. That if there isn't some kind of reward then it leaves them with a burden of gratitude and disempowerment to you, but if it's just a man doing a job then there's no such sense of unrepayable obligation.
Of course, this may just be self-serving (and I have other big moral problems with that particular episode that aren't relevant to this subthread), but it's an interesting point.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Riley... -- aliera, 06:28:57 08/30/02 Fri
And I think the main issue (SK please correct me if I got this wrong) is that Riley has gone back to following orders rather than making his own choices. He seemed to show some potential for growth in season 4 and 5 but did not fulfill that potential when he choose to leave to continue his army career. Whereas Oz went to seek a way to understand and control his beast himself, Riley left to put himself under the control of others. Also seems important that Joss has (at least in the past) not presented most authority figures in a good light.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Yes that's what was bugging me. -- shadowkat, 14:04:04 08/30/02 Fri
You and Darby hit it. It's not that he was being paid. No problem with that. Or that there was a military presence, sort of made sense.
I think it would have been easier for me to handle Riley if I felt he was the one giving the orders, in charge. But I felt he wasn't. I felt he had gone back to following orders.
That unlike OZ, he hadn't gone off to explore his own path so much as gone back to the path he'd chosen prior to volunteering for the Initiative project. A better comparison is actually Wesely, who leaves the council which gave him orders (another patriarchial based organization), becomes rogue demon hunter, joins Angel's team, gets fired, continues with Cordy and Company to build Angel Investigations, forgives Angel, lets him come back, and takes initiative to protect Connor from Angel. I felt Wes had grown more than Riley. Riley just feels like a government stooge in my mind. And please don't misunderstand me to mean real life military guys - they aren't like this at all. They do take initiative and do ask questions and do wonderful jobs. I've known several. Nothing at all like Riley. In fact several militarly people I know who watch the show really despised the Riley characters (I actually sort of liked him), they didn't. So I'm not sure we can safely compare our military to Whedonverse military.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Yes that's what was bugging me. -- leslie, 12:51:30 09/01/02 Sun
"I think it would have been easier for me to handle Riley if I felt he was the one giving the orders, in charge. But I felt he wasn't. I felt he had gone back to following orders."
Exactly. Not only following orders, but with no suggestion that he had learned anything in his "anarchist" phase. If he had gone back to the military with some new understanding of the demon world as a result of his time with Buffy and the SG, then it would be rather encouraging--he would be working not only to protect humans, but also to make sure that projects like the Initiative would not happen again; he would be reminding the military that that werewolf is Oz 25 days of the (lunar) month. No sign of that at all.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>No sign that he was doing otherwise, either. -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:46:24 09/01/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: No sign that he was doing otherwise, either. - Actuallywe do (Spoilers for As You Were) -- Dochawk, 14:04:08 09/02/02 Mon
Near the end of As You Were:
RILEY: By mission parameters I'm done here. But I have authorization to take the Doctor out
But, because Buffy doesn't want him to, Riley doesn't go to kill Spike. And from Riley's point of view, both personally and professionally, he has reason to. But, he doesn't. I think that does provide a sense of growth in Riley's character because there is no question the old Riley would have killed hostile 17 when given the authorization to do so.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>I wasn't making myself clear. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:18:17 09/02/02 Mon
That was my opinion exactly. And you have to admit, there is a great deal of merit to the kill Spike opinion, especially after the demon eggs fiasco.
[> [> [> [> [> [>The Initiative Lives! -- Darby, 08:16:04 08/30/02 Fri
The big indicator here that Riley has "returned" to his former life is that he shows no qualms about offing Spike, who he knows personally - the Spike he knows may be many things, but animal isn't one of them - and previously couldn't bring himself to kill over jealousy. In As You Were, he is willing to kill Spike after the danger had been averted and Spike has been re-"neutered."
One hopes that Riley wouldn't kill a human Doctor on American soil, no matter the authorization (and the authorizing party couldn't have known the nature of the Doctor, so what sort of organization is this?), but I'm not so sure that he hasn't gone back to the Machiavellian approach of the Inititiative, ignoring larger issues of Right and Wrong and essentially doing what he's told.
I'm ducking in briefly during vacation here, so let me say as I dance back out that this is an excellent set of essays, 'kat. Lots to think about.
- Darby, off to bike through the Catskills.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Agree - that was the difficulty I had. -- shadowkat, 13:54:35 08/30/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: re: your fascinating meanderings , spec Riley -- DEN, 11:44:09 08/30/02 Fri
'kat, police, firefighters, and other public security workers also get dental plans and benefits. The overwhelming majority of the many people I know in the military are deeply, personally committed to providing security for the population of the US. A few are like Yeat's Irish airman: "Those that I fight I do not hate/ Those that I guard I do not love." They are, however, exceptional. The structure, the orders, that you find disturbing in these systems is intended to prevent precisely such situations as "taking out" the Doctor on one's own initiative. Belonging to the military , even Special Ops, does not confer a license to kill.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: re: your fascinating meanderings , spec Riley -- shadowkat, 13:52:17 08/30/02 Fri
Agreed. I think you're right, the government had to have a presence or do something about the demon threat. It's not that they were doing something about it or the fact they have a dental plan for their working stiffs that was bugging me so much as well what Darby says above.
I'm also wondering if a little of it might not be ME?
Whedon doesn't seem to have an high respect for authority in his universe. Buffy makes fun of Riley's gadgets and once again it is Buffy who gets the monster, saves Riley and gets rid of the eggs. I was sort of wondering after seeing AYW how Riley survived those jungels. I was also
wondering why the government didn't try a tad harder to recruit or give Buffy a salary? Instead they sort of treat her like well the town sheriff.
I'm not saying military shouldn't get paid. Or that we shouldn't have one. We should, of course. I think it's just how they are portrayed in Btvs that's bugging me.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: re: your fascinating meanderings , spec Riley -- Slain, 06:27:54 08/31/02 Sat
I expect Buffy is under the army's minimum height requirement. ;)
I think Riley seems to believe that he isn't necessarily taking orders; he's in charge, and is only answerable to military staff who're more-or-less on a level with him. But I think in fact Riley is less in control now than he was in early Season 5; instead of learning more about demons, he's sidestepped the issue, presumably attempting to deal only with demons which are safely evil, like the beast Buffy kills in AYW. He's taken on someone else's morality and, not to veer too far back to existentialism, this can't help him as it isn't based on his own individual choices, but on having others decide right and wrong for him.
There are obvious paralells between Maggie Walsh and Sam, and while Riley doesn't actually take orders from Sam, she seems to represent the mothering force of the military. All this makes me wonder how honest Riley was being about his home on the range, and idylic family. Riley needs structures, and perhaps at the root of his troubles with Buffy was the fact that she didn't give him security in the moral sense, and a point of reference in a confusing and complex world; and nor should she, because Riley is a big boy now.
Riley felt insecure with Buffy, but I think that was his own obsession with fixety; not that Buffy wouldn't fix herself to his morality, but that she couldn't give him a moral compass, because she lived in a more complex world than him, in which morality was more personal, and there were few absolutes. So perhaps Riley was perfectly honest about his childhood and home; in fact his problem is that he needs to have this replicated in the women in his life.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: re: your fascinating meanderings , spec Riley & Sam -- aliera, 09:45:08 08/31/02 Sat
Interesting...it also caught my attention that Sam was trained by Riley as opposed to being already an independent competent fighter in her own right when they met.
[>4. The Vampire Hunters: Holtz & Justine -Pleasure in Punishment -- shadowkat, 20:29:05 08/28/02 Wed
4. The Vampire Hunters : Justine & Holtz Pleasure in Punishment
Last night, twisting and turning in bed, it came to me how similar Justine and Holtz's (The big bad's of season 3 Ats) relationship is to Season 2, Btvs' Buffy and Angel. They are a dark Buffy and Angel. Holtz is the dark older man from another age watching a young blond woman fighting vampires. He takes her under his wing like a father figure and in the end she must kill him. Okay, even I admit I may have gone out on a limb on that one. The twisted father/daughter relationship between Justine and Holtz makes Angel and Buffy seem like the perfect couple.
Also unlike Buffy and Angel, Justine and Holtz don't just dust their vampire prey they torture them. They live by the doctrine mentioned by Kurtz in Apocalypse Now, the only way to destroy the enemy is to become like them. Something Buffy and Angel try very hard to avoid. And J/T appear to get a sadistic enjoyment out of doing it. Their capture and torture of the vampires for training purposes is very different from the Initiative and Maggie Walsh. While the Initiative is sterile, scientific, devoid of feeling, Holtz and Justine's chamber is dirty, raw, and their acts are filled with passion. They come across as dark versions of the demon hunters: Sam & Riley or the Champions: Cordy and Angel, or the Slayer and her Watcher: Buffy & Giles. And of all the characters, I've analyzed their relationship seems to be the most clearly based in S&M metaphor.
In Marquis De Sade's novella Justine a woman seeks out and derives pleasure from pain and torture partly due to her own horrible feelings about herself. She wishes to be punished so finds someone willing to do it and half falls in love with him in the process.
Justin in Atvs Season 3, may or may not be patterned after Sade's heroine, but she certainly pursues a similar behavior pattern. When Holtz first discovers her, she is angry and wants nothing to do with him. Apparently vampires killed her twin sister, Julia, and Justine has fallen into a spiral of pain and misery. She spends her nights dusting vamps in cemeteries. Holtz offers her a way out train and become a vampire hunter. (DAD, Ats Season 3)
Their training montage is reminiscent of Buffy's montage with her first Watcher in LA shown in flashbacks in Becoming Part I (Btvs. Season 2). Except Holtz is far crueler and tougher on Justine. In one disturbing scene he uses an ice pick (awl) to nail her hand to a table.
Holtz: "We are here to determine whether or not - you - have the commitment necessary for the work at hand."
Justine: "At hand? -That's a joke, right?"
Holtz: "Why are you wasting my time?"
Justine: "What do you want from me?"
Holtz: "I just told you: commitment. Something you must now convince me you have."
The camera pans down from Justine looking up at Holtz to reveal that her left hand is pinned to the desk with an awl. (Provider, Ats. Season 3)
In the above scene Holtz has punished Justine for dusting two vampires instead of walking away as he ordered. Holtz's initial purpose appears to be to hone her into a vengeance machine. By the time he accomplishes this, he has become a father figure to her. But at this early stage, when he pulls the ice pick out of her hand, she slugs him. So the relationship is certainly not just one way or the other. Both parties are fairly abusive to each other. He hits her, she kicks him. Their battles become interesting exercises in foreplay.
Holtz is an interesting villain the puritanical demon killer. Moralistic. Commanding. Religious. Dressed in puritanical clothes when we first see him in flashbacks, he comes across as an avenging angel of death that is a perpetual thorn in the sides of Angelus and Darla. A puritan preacher that brings to mind pictures of Cotton Mather or Bram Stoker's Van Helsin. If Van Helsin's obsession was Dracula, Holtz's obsession is Angelus. And like Van Helsin Holtz uses a girl to get his pray. Justine becomes both Holtz's surrogate daughter and to some degree lover. While it is never clear whether they've engaged in sexual relations there does appear to be some sort of sexual pleasure derived from their S&M games. First the ice pick in the hand. Later we see them fighting. Practicing maneuvers as Holtz would call it. Compare this to the calm, relatively restrained martial arts training of Cordelia and Angel in his basement. Justine and Holtz are torturing vampires they've captured, training others like themselves in battling them while Angel Investigations just dusts them. The vampires remain alive and chained until Holtz literally disappears in a hell dimension and only then does Justine dust them in revenge for Holtz's abandonment. (Loyalty Forgiving, Ats Season 3).
When Fred, one of Angel's friends, meets Justine and confronts her about Holtz, she says perhaps Justine lost more than a father in Holtz. (Forgiving.) Prior to Holtz's departure, we see several displays of increased affection between Holtz and Justine, all somewhat twisted. First is when he slams into her by accident while they are torturing their vampires and training members of their team. (Loyalty.) The second is when he catches her talking to Wesely on the sly and we realize that he sent her there. He even stalks behind her, whispering seductively in her ear about how much he trusts her. The final one is when we learn he plans on taking Angel's son and raising it with Justine. He and Justine will be the kid's parents. He has set Justine up as both his surrogate son's mother and sister. (Sleep Tight.)
Justine becomes incredibly attached to Holtz all through this. But not once is he kind to her. Instead he continuously commands her to do his bidding. Often threatening her with violence or torture if she does not comply, perhaps even rewarding her with it? The ice pick through the hand, the slap across the face, the knife held to the throat. These two are bound together in hate not towards each other towards the vampires who destroyed their lives.
So why is Justine putting up with Holtz's torture?
Holtz: "So I've explained why I'm doing this. Why are you?"
Justine: "Let's just say, feeling something - is better than feeling nothing."
Reminds me a little of Buffy and Spike in Season 6, Btvs. Actually Justine strikes me as a dark version of Buffy, a dark much older version, since the actress appears to be in her thirties and far more ravaged by life. Like Buffy, Justine would just like to feel. When her sister died, her life lost all its meaning, became empty. Her sister was a part of her soul, a part of her being, possibly the brighter part. Buffy also has this deep connection with her sister. If Dawn had died instead of Buffy, would Buffy have become like Justine? More embittered towards life instead of merely depressed by it? While the sadomasochism in the Spike/Buffy relationship is subtly alluded to, it was pretty obvious in the Justine/Holtz relationship.
Holtz and Justine fight throughout their scenes with each other. Either with fists, words or mere looks. Yet by Sleep Tight their affection for one another is so apparent, that the viewer can sense Justine's pain as Holtz's disappears through the portal to the hell dimension. It is Justine that Holtz trusts to carry out his revenge plot and she does him proud. She becomes a female version of Holtz. By the end of Season 3, Ats, Benediction, Justine has inherited her surrogate father/lover's role. She is Holtz.
As Holtz states in Dad his purpose is to change Justine into himself, an instrument for vengeance. "Your life has been ruined. You can't sleep. Instead you wander the streets, making others pay for what happened to your sister. That's where I can help. I see your talent. And I see your hate. And I know that I can shape and hone you into an instrument of vengeance." (DAD, Ats Season 3) Justine somewhat sardonically suggests that this sounds like fun, Holtz insists it won't be. But it actually is, in a way. They both get off on it. The passion and the pain that they inflict on each other, the others they locate to initiate into their group and the pain they inflict on Angel. It is after all better to feel something, even if it is hate, than nothing at all.
In Benediction, Holtz requests that Justine kill him in the manner Angelus would. Using his old ice pick to make the fang marks. Justine reluctantly sticks the ice pick into Holtz's neck, forming two holes or bite marks, killing him as a vampire would. It is the same ice pick that Holtz used to nail Justine's hand to the table. The ice pick seems to connect them in their dance of pain and pleasure and revenge. It is the symbol of Justine's commitment and Holtz's willingness to do whatever it takes. Justine resists this at first, but an incredibly aged Holtz prods her, insisting she carry out his last wish. When she does do it, it's almost as if she is kissing him as each prod goes in and Justine has tears in her eyes as she does it.
Justine slams Holtz up against the side wall of the motel: "Don't make me do it. I can't."Holtz has his hand wrapped around Justine's right hand and the awl she is holding up between them.
Holtz: "We already know you can. You promised. You said you'd do anything for me. Come on, Justine. I'm not asking you to follow me into hell. Just help send me there. (Shakes her) Do it!"
Crying, Justine, her hand still covered by Holtz', stabs him in the side of the neck with the awl. (Holtz slides down the wall, still holding on to Justine)
Holtz to Justine: "Again. Again!" Crying, Justine stabs Holtz neck a second time just below the first puncture. Connor runs through a metal gate and stops as he sees Justine, running her hand over Holtz' head resting in her lap. (Benediction)
Holtz aids Justine in the act. Screaming to do it again. Placing his hand over hers to drive the pike home. And Justine complies reluctantly and in tears. The act is made to look like a vampire's kiss and in a way it is - caused by both their hands on the weapon and taking them both to hell. Holtz completes Justine's initiation into his world. Her first act was slicing Wesely's throat, as Wes had once held a knife to hers (Loyalty and Sleep Tight). But she did not actually kill Wes then. Her second is killing Holtz or rather helping Holtz kill himself. By killing Holtz, Justine has finally crossed the line and become him. The metaphor of the vampire is used in two ways here first erotically, the idea of being eaten, killed by a bite. Changed. When Connor finds Holtz he assumes Angelus bit him and burns the body to keep him from being turned. But it's not Holtz who is turned by this act, it is Justine who encourages and persuades Connor to destroy Angel by setting it up to look like Angel killed Holtz, then helping Connor destroy the body. Justine through the ice pick has now become the instrument of violence, of vengeance that Holtz desired. She metaphorically becomes both Holtz and the monster Holtz wants to destroy, Angelus.
The vampire bite is often seen as a phallic symbol, so it is interesting that Holtz forces Justine's hand with his own. He can't quite do it himself so he has her do it. But since she is reluctant, he must guide her hand. She is in a sense his puppet, his slave, willing to do whatever he asks. Even if it means killing him. As she does so, he slides down the wall into her embrace. She holds his head in her lap and strokes his hair until his surrogate son Connor discovers them. Penetrated and dead by the hand of a lover yet set up to look like it was done by the teeth of the vampire he hates.
Holtz enables Justine to feel again she is no longer empty in his presence. His touch inflames her. Justine in return provides Holtz with the ability to enact his final act of vengeance and to finally rest in peace after hundreds of years pursuing this goal.
It is ironic that each of Holtz and Justine's acts of sadism are first conducted by the very monster they are hunting: Angelus. Angelus has tortured his victims with needles and ice picks. Holtz tortures Justin in this manner. Angelus has chained victims for his own pleasure using blood transfusions to keep them alive. Justine and Holtz torture the vampires like this. And finally Angelus bites and drinks from a victim in an alley. Holtz forces Justine to recreate such a scene in an alley. Do they realize that their sadistic dance of vengeance has turned them into human versions of the very monsters they despise? Except instead of directing their sadism outwards it appears in most if not all cases to be directed towards each other.
TBC - almost there, longest one is last! SK
[> [>Holtz is a Christian -- Cleanthes, 13:34:49 08/29/02 Thu
Since in the existentialism thread I claim that Buffy is Christian, I thought I'd be fair and point out that Holtz is also Christian, although not existentialist. He and John Knox were kissing cousins, I think
Knox once wrote: "that all which our adversaries do is diabolical." He grooved in the "perfect hatred which the Holy Ghost engenders in the hearts of God's elect against the condemners of His holy statutes."
Doesn't that just sound like Holtz?
Or the Parent's Television Council....
[> [> [>Re: Holtz is a Christian -- shadowkat, 14:07:56 08/29/02 Thu
LOL! Yep, a puritan practicing Christian, but I wouldn't say a christian. Actually this is interesting.
Buffy is a "christian" in practice. Holtz is a Christian Puritain in going to church every sunday sense.
Holtz reminds me of the Puritans who hung women accused of witchcraft (I don't know why I keep thinking they were burned at the stake - watched too many bad movies on the topic probably and didn't read enough history - victim of pop culture). He is a "Christian" because he says he is and kills evil things and follows the laws and dictates of the
church. Heaven and brimstone kind of guy.
While Buffy is more christian - in the sense I think it was Rah (forgive me if I'm misquoting) - in her acts and deeds or in how Christ actually lived and taught. Or at least she tries to be.
I actually see Holtz as the devil. Tempting Justine and her followers along with the young Conner to do evil in the name of good. He is the Ats version of D'Hoffryn on Btvs.
The human vengeance demon. An interesting image.
Thanks for the reply. And I enjoyed the thread you started below.
Sk
[> [> [> [>Regarding witch burnings -- DickBD, 11:37:13 08/31/02 Sat
The ones in Salem were hanged, and one was killed by compression (covered with stones), but the ones in Europe and other areas truly were burned at the stake. So it is not surprising that you keep thinking of them in that way. Of course, most of us were aware that none of those poor women could have been witches, as this is the real universe, not Buffyverse. Great commentary, by the way.
[> [> [>Yeah, a nice Inquisition-type "Christian" -- HonorH, 17:12:16 08/29/02 Thu
Note that the priest he sics on Angelus in the flashback was an excommunicated priest from said Inquisition--the same priest who married Holtz and his wife. None of them seems to know too much about that nice itinerant preacher mentioned oh-so-briefly in the Bible. You know, the one who favored love and grace over vengeance, and the redemption of souls over religious forms. Trifles like that. But then, that guy got killed.
Nice comparison to John Knox, Cleanthes. Apt indeed.
[> [> [>Holtz's Christianity, or not -- Slain, 17:44:42 08/29/02 Thu
I've always been both fascinated and annoyed by Holtz; he's annoying because of his bearded persistence, but fascinating because he's not strictly immoral or 'wrong', I think. He's certainly more moral than the Inquistion; he, after all, understands love, and is driven by it.
In BtVS, revenge is as destructive a force as dark magic, I would argue; it clouds the judgement of the Gypsies, causing them to torture a human soul for the crimes of a posessing demon. Holtz clearly has an old testament view of the world, in which you are either with him or against him. In some ways, he does seem to be moral. His loves (for his real and adopted family) are genuine, and I don't think any truly evil character in the Buffyverse understands love.
But his attitude to forgiveness is not Christian; namely, that he doesn't seem to believe in it, not in redemption. A true Christian would forgive an souled Angel, and accept the redemption of a Champion Angel. I'm not even sure if Holtz believes he's going to heaven; rather, he doesn't seem to care, providing his he has his vengenance.
Some of Holtz's reasons are not unjustified; Angel is a danger. But I think the safety of Connor is an excuse, not a reason; revenge and the complete unwillingness to forgive, which is fundamentally Unchristian (though somewhat Old Testament), is what drives Holtz.
[> [> [> [>Re: Holtz's Christianity, or not -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:58:03 08/29/02 Thu
Not neccessarily. Keep this in mind: Christianity encompasses both the Old and New Testaments. Yeshua (commonly called Jesus) himself greatly prized the teachings of Moses, who delivered such edicts as "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". While a Christian almost by definition must believe in Redemption, they would likely be divided over whether it is open to vampires, even one's with souls. Plus, the traditional Christian stance is that only Yeshua can redeem someone, they can't redeem themselves. And, Holtz probably thinks, how could such a creature burned by crosses, holy water, and sunlight, all symbols of Yeshua, be redeemed by him?
Also, you place too much emphasis on Angel being a completely different person than he was without a soul. I personally believe that Angel does bear the responsibility for what he did when he was, as many people call it, "Angelus".
What Holtz did that was evil was his readiness to kill everyone Angel knew and sacrifice people in his attempt to torture Angel. However, torturing Angel is a far more ambigous means. I don't want it to happen, but I can respect Holtz's viewpoint that retribution must be visited on Angel.
[> [> [> [> [>Re: Holtz's Christianity, or not -- yabyumpan, 13:32:22 08/31/02 Sat
" Yeshua (commonly called Jesus) himself greatly prized the teachings of Moses, who delivered such edicts as "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".
Actually, that line was translated from the Hebrew incorrectly and on purpose. The word 'chasaph' means poisoner but was translated as Witch to keep James 1 happy. He didn't like Witches and it was a way to keep them under control. For more info see:
http://www.fionabroome.com/craft/witchbib.htm
[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Holtz's Christianity, or not -- Grant, 02:02:22 09/01/02 Sun
I'm not so sure about this. Mostly because every version of the bible I've seen translates this as either witch or something closely related, such as sorcoress. So even if the King James version of the bible mistranslated the word because of the influence of James I, I find it hard to believe that it has been similarly mistranslated in every version of the Bible to come out since then, particularly those that have come out in more recent times, when witchcraft wasn't nearly such a hot topic. Even the Latin Vulgate version of the bible, which predates the King James Version by quite a lot, uses the word "maleficos." This word can mean either criminal/wrongdoer or magician/enchanter/sorcorer, but it does not have anything to do with poison that I am aware of.
It also does seem that common sense supports the idea that this passage is about witches rather than poisoners. A number of other passages in the bible deal with witchcraft as a horrible sin punishable by death, yet I do not know of any other passages about the horrible sin of poisoning. Witchcraft was given such a status because it was considered a direct and special affront against God, whereas poisoning fit under the auspices of murder, which was already pretty well dealt with with the ten commandments in Exodus 20.
As an interesting side note, all of the more serious "witches must die" type stuff is found in the old testiment. The new testiment only has a handful of references to withcraft, and most of those are about witches being redeemed. Based on this, it is kind of a funny coincidence that the main witch on BtVS is Jewish.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Holtz's Christianity, or not -- FriarTed, 17:31:26 09/01/02 Sun
the idea that "witch" in the KJV version of Exodus 22:18 means "poisoner" relies NOT on the original Hebrew, in which the word is "m'kisufa", meaning literally "whisperer,
enchanter", but on the Greek Septuagint translation about
200 BC in which the word is "pharmakaios", meaning literally "drugger", one who manipulates minds thru use of drugs (the same word is used in the Greek New Testament, usually translated "sorcerer").
Exodus 22:18-21 also seems to be one of a triplet of commandments- the others condemning bestiality & sacrificing to other gods than Yahweh. These seem to be mandates to establish the difference between the Yahwist Israelites from the Baal-Asherist Canaanites, who were thought to include bestiality & other sexual deviations among their religious rites. The
"kisuf" root of m'kisufa may also be linked to the Hebrew
word "Nekesh", the "Serpent" of Eden- those who would lure
Israelites away from Yahweh to the Canaanite gods.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Holtz's Christianity, or not -- Arethusa, 17:53:55 09/01/02 Sun
I read in one of Laurie King's books that the more accurate translation would be "false witness," which would fit into the "whisperer" definition. Also, of course, one of the ten commandments is do not bear false witness, so it makes sense. No idea if any of this is accurate. (Does it count if I get my learnin' from mysteries?)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Holtz's Christianity, or not -- redcat, 21:39:31 09/01/02 Sun
On a somewhat interesting although minor note, almost all of the meanings discussed here, including
"whisperer/enchanter," "drugger/poisoner" and "serpent-linked," wind up being part of a
complex of attributes assigned by the Catholic intellectual elite to the European cultural
construct "the witch" by at least the late 15thC. The infamous "Malleus Maleficarum," ("Hammer
of Witches"), the most widely-reprinted and -translated of all the European witch-hunting
manuals, was written by two German Dominican Inquisitors, Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger,
under the aegis of Pope Innocent 8th. It was originally published in Latin in 1486, more than a
century before King James caused his personal and political animosity towards witches to be
made sanctified in his English translation of the Bible. Part One of the Malleus identifies and
defines the characteristics of witches, and establishes the authors' reasoning for believing that
women, especially shunned wives (and also midwives, although that's not relevant here), are
more likely to become witches than men. The following are a few of the pertinent statements
from "Part One, Question Six," [from the 1928 English translation by Fr. Montague Summers]:
"If you hand over the whole management of the house to her [a wife], but reserve some minute
detail to your own judgement, she will think that you are displaying a great want of faith in her
and will stir up strife; and unless you quickly take counsel, she will prepare poison for you and
consult seers and soothsayers and will become a witch." [p.45]
"Let us consider another property of hers [the woman as witch], the voice. For as she is a liar
by nature, so in her speech she stings while she delights us. Wherefore her voice is like the
song of the Sirens, who with their sweet melody entice the passers-by and kill them. For they
kill them by emptying their purses, consuming their strength, and causing them to forsake
God....Her mouth is smoother than oil; that is, her speech is afterwards as bitter as absinthium.
Her throat is smoother than oil. But her end [goal] is as bitter as wormwood." [p.46]
"For men are caught not only through their carnal desires, [but] when they see and hear
women: for [as] St. Bernard says: Their face is a burning wind and their voice is the hissing of
serpents; but they also cast wicked spells on countless men and animals. " [p. 47]
[this is one of my personal favorites....]: "To conclude, all witchcraft comes from carnal lust,
which is in women insatiable.... And in consequence of this, it is better called the heresy of
witches than of wizards, since the name is taken form the more powerful party. And blessed
be the Highest ,Who has so far preserved the male sex from so great a crime; for since He
was willing to be born and to suffer for us, therefore He has granted to men this privilege."
[p. 47]
Just a bit of witchy old text to chew on in a sub-thread about Biblical exegesis.....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Witches and the Voice, slightly OT -- Scroll, 22:00:22 09/01/02 Sun
This description of the woman/witch as a liar/whisperer brings to mind Cassandra from Highlander: the Series (if anyone's ever watched that show). Cassandra is an Immortal, and a witch, and one of her powers is the Voice which she uses to subdue enemies by controlling/manipulating their minds. She makes hypnotic suggestions, her voice echoes, she plays on men's innate weaknesses.
I wonder how words/voices in Willow and Tara's magic play into this description of a witch. Whenever Willow uses really dark/powerful magic (against Glory in "Tough Love", making the hitch-hiker demon solid in "Afterlife"), her incantations are simple one-word commands, in English. Versus her more benevolant magic which is rhymed and longer. Speculations anyone?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Greater than One Word Spells from Season 6...a list -- aliera, 09:15:54 09/02/02 Mon
Season 6 Spells from www.buffybrotherhood.com/oracle/spells...haven't checked these against the scripts though so for what it's worth...
Adonai, Helomi, Pine
Adonai, Helomi, Pine
Gods do command thee from thy majesty
O Mappa Laman, Adonai, Helomi
aliera's NOTE: from the Lesser Key of Solomon a spell for summoning an angel...
Come forward, blessed one, know your calling.
Come forward, blessed one.
Child of Elomina, accept our humble gratitude for your offering
In death you give life
May you find wings to the kingdom.
Willow...Bargaining part 1
aliera going on memory: but believe this was an angel's name also
Osiris, keeper of the gate,
Master of all fate
Hear us Before time, and after
Before knowing and nothing
Accept our offering,
Know our prayer
Osiris, here lies a warrior of the people.
Let her cross over
Osiris, let her cross over!
Osiris, release her!
Willow...Bargaining part 1
Child of words, hear thy makers, child of words, we entreat.
With our actions did we make thee, to our voices wilt thou bend.
With our potions, thou took motive, with our motions, came to pass.
We rescind no past devotions, give thee substance, give thee mass.
Willow and Tara...Afterlife
Opus orbit est
Et ea in medio
Tempus ad calcum intendet!
Jonathan...Life Serial
Let the spell be ended"
Jonathan...Life Serial
kazaritate tame
Willow...All The Way
For Buffy and Tara, this I char,
Let Lethe's bramble do its chore.
Purge their minds of memories grim,
Of pains from recent slights and sins.
When the fire burns out, when the crystal turns black, the spell will be cast.
Tabula Rasa, Tabula Rasa, Tabula Rasa.
Willow...Tabula Rasa
Bara bara himble gemination
Anya...Tabula Rasa
Hible abri, abri voyon
Anya...Tabula Rasa
Fata, venga, mata, warel
Giles...Tabula Rasa
Rivili!
Willow...Smashed
Cio che fu non e piu
Cio che fu fatto, disfa
Passato e il pericolo,
Finita e la prova
Metti a cose a posto!
Willow...Smashed
Potestas!
Amy...Double Meat Palace
Doma voluntatem, libera cupidinem.
Erunipe, ignem excita
Jonathan...Dead Things
Eximete!
Tara...Normal Again
Vis Zenobiae! Solvere!
Tara...Normal Again
Blood of the slain, hear me. Guide me to Tara's killer
Willow...Villains
Errotitae
Willow...Villains
Vincire
Giles...Grave
From the pit of forgotten shadows, Awaken, Sister of the Dark.... Awaken and (she is interrupted)
Willow...Grave
Proserpexa... Let the cleansing fires from the depths burn away the suffering souls... And bring sweet death
Willow...Grave
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Exodus 22:17 -- Dochawk, 21:20:27 09/02/02 Mon
According to the Everett Fox translation (which is considered among the definitive by most Jewish scholars)
"A Sorceress you are not to let live!"
Though magic was forbidden in the Hebrew Bible (a better example is the story of the "witch of Endor" I Sam 28), by the middle ages even some Rabbis performed it. The most famous story was that of the golem and Rabbi Loew of Prague.
[> [> [> [>I agree totally. -- HonorH, 18:56:13 08/29/02 Thu
I find Holtz to be a sympathetic antagonist, and a tragic one. He started out trying to do what was right, and found himself on the receiving end of Darla and Angelus' perversions. After that, he was driven almost solely by vengeance, to the point of accepting aid from a demon. He wanted Angel's soul damned, not redeemed, which certainly isn't a "Love your enemies" attitude. And ultimately, though he loved Connor, he hated Angel more. Great power for good was twisted into evil through Holtz's vendetta.
[> [> [> [>Agree - some comments -- shadowkat, 20:42:24 08/29/02 Thu
"I'm not even sure if Holtz believes he's going to heaven; rather, he doesn't seem to care, providing his he has his vengenance."
Oh, I think he knows he's going to hell. He made a deal with a demon, Saijhan to travel forward in time to destroy Angelus. Also he states to Justine - that he's going to hell but wants her to do one last thing for him before he goes there. I think he stopped caring about heaven or hell after he had to thrust his child into the sunlight and watch her burn.
"Some of Holtz's reasons are not unjustified; Angel is a danger.."
I agree. But I think the danger - justifies Wes' actions more than Holtz. Holtz doesn't care about the danger that Angel is. He just cares about the revenge. His comment to Saijhan regarding Angel's soul struck me as quite interesting:
"The fact he has a soul does change things - it makes it better. He now has something to lose." (not exact...but close, did this from memory) Angelus didn't seem to care when Holtz tortured him or his friends or took Darla. Angelus wouldn't have cared if Holtz took Connor. Angel does. To Holtz the only difference the soul makes - is the same difference it makes to the gypsies who cursed Angel - it means he can feel greater torment, greater pain. It means Holtz can hurt Angel in the same way Angel hurt him.
A way Angelus wouldn't have understood. (Because like you said, truly evil characters don't get love. Angelus never quite did - it's why the love Angel felt for Buffy drove Angelus insane, I think. It's also why Angelus doesn't foresee or understand Spike's betrayle to get Dru back in Becoming Part II.)
No, I don't think Holtz would see a soul as a possibility of redeemption. In fact, I don't believe Holtz is worried about Angel being redeemed, in Holtz' mind that's impossible. Holtz sees Angel's soul as another thing he can use against him.
[> [> [> [> [>Re: Agree - some comments -- Ronia, 16:38:56 08/31/02 Sat
Interesting thread...here's my 0.02
I tend to see Holz as an apostate christian ( I may not have the grammar just right on that one, humor me..it's been a long time since I saw bed today...) Hard to figure any specific support for that because vampires being fictional and all, it's a stretch for me to fit them in somewhere in regard to ethics ..someone who slays them is farther away yet for me to reach...but..anyway..back to my thought..Holtz was formerly a "christain" and he hunted and hunted the vampires because they were evil, and a threat to humanity...then, it got personal, he was no longer doing a job, or even making a noble sacrifice..he stepped on the toes of two of the most saddistic and obsessive vampires in history..Darla and her boy Angelus. It got personal, the two waring parties trading jabs like opponents in a great chess match..but still it was outside of Holtzs' home life..he did his duty, and went home and cleaned up, prepared for another day on the job. Until the ante was upped. Darla and Angelus cooked up a plan, they lured him away from home, and attacked his family, killing his wife and son, and vamping his daughter whom he doted on, forcing him to apply the same rule of measure to a face he loved as he did the faces of those he disacknowledged as anything besides a monster. I believe that when his family was not protected his faith was shaken, he seemed to feel that his family was exempt from the consequences of his actions..and from the murky waters he delved into...have no doubt, had he kept to himself his family would have likely seen old age, and I'm sure a man of his perception knows it. So there he sits, shaken to the marrow of his bones, filled with hatred, bitterness of spirit, doubt..and along comes a faustian opportunity...he recognizes it as such and ebraces it with full knowledge that he is embracing evil, though he lacks the ability to see around all corners. At this moment, he turned his back on any beliefs (and we really never knew what they were to begin with) he may have had because his former way of doing things has failed him. He lost. This is what makes Holtz such an interesting character for me, he is a formerly righteous man who is now a villian, and he plays the part well, he seeks Darla and Angelus to destroy them, out of rage, not duty. He will utilize any tactic that serves his purpose, he has become completely amoral. He has become what he once declared unfit to exist and hunted, and he knows it.
[> [>Justine & Julia - Marquis de Sade reference? -- Scroll, 21:42:47 09/01/02 Sun
Been a while since I posted...
I think you're right about the de Sade parallel; Joss must have deliberately chosen the name Justine for this character because de Sade's 'Justine' also had a twin sister named Juliette. Coincidence? Probably not.
This is a wonderful analysis; I can't wait to finish reading this!
Scroll :)
[>5. The Slayers: Faith & Buffy - Power &Control (ATS 3 and BTVS 6 spoilers for all posts) -- shadowkat, 20:33:53 08/28/02 Wed
5. The Slayers: Faith and Buffy Power and Control(longest section)
When you watch Buffy and Faith fight, it is like watching mirror images or a fissure of self: Faith is Buffy's darkness, including all that entails the uninhibited sexual desires, insecure daddy issues, fears of abandonment, enjoyment of slaying, uses of violence to deal with life. Both girls are similarly built and of similar size and age. One just happens to be dark haired and one blond.
Through Faith we see for the first time the dark side of the slayer, the primal, animal within the girl. From the information on BTVS and Ats (have not read Fray or any Buffy novels so I'm not referencing those), slayers were created to kill vampires and other demons. The First Slayer in both Buffy's dream (Restless) and in Intervention seems to tell Buffy two things: It's about the slay, always about the slay, the kill. That's all that is important. But at the same time, Love, Forgive, Give, Risk the Pain it takes you to your gift, which is Death. In Slayer speak = death equals love, equals peace, release. We can also have sexual deaths the orgasmic release or little death. S&M is about releasing the endorphins that are generated both by pleasure and pain, the sources for which can be stimulated in similar areas on the body. The line between the two possibly narrower than one would expect. If you can control someone's pleasure as well as their pain, if you can provide them with that release do you control them? Faith may believe so.
a. Slaying Vampires Getting off on the job
Season 3, Btvs delved into the dark underbelly of sexuality with Faith. Faith was the bad girl. To Faith life was take, want, have. Sex was violent. Men were beasts. And love was a fairy tale. You don't make love in Faith's world, you have sex. Primal, animalistic, wild sex. Faith got off on killing the demons and accused Buffy of feeling the same way. Some of Faith's dialogue reminds me a bit of Spike in Seasons 5-6.
Examples:
Bad Girls: Faith: Oh, like you don't dig it.
Buffy: (shrugs) I don't.
Faith: You're a liar. I've *seen* you. Tell me staking a vamp doesn't
get you a little bit juiced. Come on, say it.
Fool for Love:
Buffy: You got off on it. Killing those slayers.
Spike: Like you don't? How many of us have you killed?
Where Buffy is afraid to go, Faith jumps with both feet. It's not until Season 6, that we really start to see Buffy delve into this part of herself and the results weren't pretty, but Buffy never went as far as Faith. She never let herself get off on slaying. As she tells Xander and Dawn in Villains "Being the slayer doesn't give me a license to kill." And she's always been a little ashamed of herself when she does get off on it. Faith however relishes in it. Faith loves being the slayer, the Chosen One. She loves staking vamps. She gets an orgasmic thrill from it.
Faith: Tell me that if you don't get in a good slaying, after a while, you just start itching for some vamp to show up so you can give him a good (grunts and punches)!
Buffy: Again with the grunting. You realize I'm not comfortable with this.
Faith: Hey, slaying's what we were built for. If you're not enjoying it, you're doing something wrong. (BAD GIRLS, Season 3, Btvs)
When we first meet Faith, in Faith, Hope and Tricks she has lured a vampire out to an alley. Buffy has followed her convinced that the vampire lured Faith. Turns out Faith is the predator in this scenario, doing something which never occurred to Buffy. Letting a vamp come on to her so she can stake him. She even flirts a bit before doing it. Later when she tells the gang about her exploits, she enthralls them with a story of her killing a demon naked. The description is so sexual and violent that Xander is visibly turned on.
In the same episode, we see Faith beating up a vampire instead of just dusting it. Her act horrifies Buffy, who pushes her aside and kills the vamp for Faith. The act is partly Faith projecting her fear and pain onto the vamp and it is partly the release. It is an act she repeats later in Enemies,( when she kills the informant), Bad Girls ( when she accidentally kills the Mayor's assistant, jumping over the line slayers must never cross), and numerous other episodes where she hunts and kills demons. To Faith part of the fun is the kill, the fight, the battle. And up until she takes human life, she is justified in it. No one questions her actions. No one considers her insane or wrong. She's taking pleasure in it, but who cares, they are vampires. Then when she takes the Mayor's deputy's life people start getting concerned. That concern continues when they realize she killed the demon informant and finally the human professor. But would Faith have been considered out of line if the Mayor's Deputy had been a demon?
We have somewhat the same reaction to Buffy's beating of Spike in Seasons 4-6. Poor Spike is literally beaten up by everyone. Most of Season 4, she seems to punch him in the nose or someone does. In Season 5, Riley shoves a pretend stake in his chest and Buffy beats him up for her jollies. If he shows up in the wrong place, argues with her, is pissy, she punches him in the nose. The audience cheers. He is eeevil! And the writers justify it in the DVD Commentary of Primeval it's okay to abuse Spike and we can enjoy torturing him because at his core? He's inherently evil. Apparently it's okay to enjoy torturing the bad guy. Is Buffy and SG's actions regarding Spike really all that different than Faith's? Any more justifiable?
b. Faith, Xander, Riley and Boys Slaying the male
When Faith decides to have sex with Xander in The Zeppo, she has been fighting a few demons, but she hasn't killed them. She hasn't been able to get in her "slay". For Faith, slaying allows her to take control. She is the one with the power. So when she loses, she feels empty, unfilled. When Xander saves her in The Zeppo, she has rough sex with him. Strips him of his clothes, jumps on top of him, and literally screws him. It's not romantic. It's not nice. And when she's done, she throws him out the door half-naked like a discarded toy. He might have saved her with his car, but she took back the control, she seduced, screwed, and took his virginity. She slayed him.
Xander is fairly submissive in this relationship. Struggling for his own identity he has for some time engaged in a bit of hero-worship regarding Buffy. He lusts after the strong female. The woman who can slay him, throw him down. It's not until Hells Bells that we begin to understand why. Xander's mother and father are the reverse of him and Faith. The Father is the Dominant party and the mother is the Submissive, to the point in which you almost want to slap her. And Xander is terrified of becoming his father. So he picks the strong women, women who can browbeat him, who can slay him. For Xander being slayed by Faith was a wonderful experience, a connection. For Faith it was nothing more than a quick role in the hay.
Faith considers men to be beasts, as she tells Buffy in Beauty and The Beasts (Season 3, Btvs). The ones she dated were losers, they treated her horribly. Her watcher apparently was a woman who was killed by a horrible male vampire, so old it had cloven feet and whom Faith was on the run from. (Faith, Hope and Trick). Faith doesn't trust men. To Faith men serve two roles authority figure or something to be slayed. The writers don't give us much on Faith's background, so we can only guess. But it does appear Faith has serious "daddy issues". She also has serious issues with men.
The attempted rape scene between Xander and Faith in Consequences is interesting. It's part S&M and part rape. At first it appears that Xander is almost willing. He has gone to Faith to help her. He believes that they have a connection. That the sex they had in The Zeppo has elevated him in Faith's eyes. Buffy tries to tell Xander that Faith places no importance on such things and tosses men aside like toys. But Xander is sure he can reach her. Instead Faith assumes all he wants is sex, like all men, and she thrusts him on the bed and attempts to slay him sexually as she did before, almost killing him in the process. Their sexual scene reminds me of a scene in the book and later movie of the same name Rising Sun by Michael Crichton. In the book, a woman dies in the throes of passion. She is called a gasper. Gasper's apparently get off sexually by being chocked. They can only have an orgasm on the point of death, when they have been deprived of oxygen sex and death are closely linked in the Gasper's head. The person strangling the gasper gets off in being the one who has the control over life and death - who can deprive the Gasper of life.
Faith: (excitedly) You wanna feel a connection? It's just skin. (opens his shirt) I see... I want... I take. (kisses him hard) I forget. (She keeps moving above him and rubbing his chest and shoulders.)
Xander: (nervously) No. No, wait. It was more than that.
Faith: I could do anything to you right now, and you want me to. I can make you scream. (She licks her tongue over and around his face and returns to his lips, and kisses him forcefully, seizing his lower lip between her teeth and pulling at it.) (breathlessly) I could make you die.
To Faith sex is a power game. It isn't about "love". It's about power. Buffy sees it as "love". When Faith asks Buffy if she ever did it with Xander in Bad Girls, Buffy is perplexed and states, "I love Xander but I don't * love * Xander." To Faith love doesn't enter into it. Faith can't imagine love. When she switches with Buffy, literally becomes Buffy in Who Are You, she still considers sex a game of power. She flirts with Spike, plays with him, lets him know she could screw him if she so desired. But doesn't because "it is wrong" making it clear that Spike has no choice in the matter. Then she goes off to screw Riley, seeing it as nothing more than revenge sex. I'll screw Buffy's boys, Faith thinks. And asks Riley if he wants to hurt her. "You want to punish me," Faith asks. Have I been bad? Riley looks confused and pushes her sex game aside insisting on making traditional love to her. When they finish, he tells her he loves her. And Faith freaks. "Love? Why? What do you want from her?" Faith as Buffy asks. Faith, the dark side, the slayer side of Buffy is suddenly questioning herself. Is it possible she was wrong? Maybe there is love. Maybe it isn't just a power game. Unable to handle this she takes off. (Who are You, Season 4, Btvs.)
Faith prefers the game. It's safer. If it becomes more things get too close. She can get hurt. She'd rather take the physical than the emotional risk. Just as Buffy in Season 6 prefers the physical to the emotional risk. As slayers they take the physical risk all the time, its second nature to them. The emotional risk, letting someone inside their heart as opposed to just inside their body is far more frightening.
But the S&M games Faith plays with Xander and Buffy later plays with Spike are far from safe. As Angel tells Faith in Consequences:
Faith: The thing with Xander; I know what it looked like, but we were just playing.
Angel: (evenly) And he forgot the safety word. (gets up) Is that it? (walks over to her)
Faith: Safety words are for wusses.
Uh no, Faith, without safety words you shouldn't be playing at all. S&M is all about trust and Faith has none. Without trust, S&M doesn't work. That is the problem Buffy has with Spike and that is Faith's problem. Season 6 Buffy can't trust anyone including herself. Even if Spike was ensouled and the nicest guy on the planet her relationship with him would have been unhealthy, because Buffy was not in a place in which she could open herself emotionally to someone else. Buffy can't trust. It's really not as much about Spike as Spike and the audience think it is. It's really about what's going on inside Buffy. And no, I'm not saying she should trust Spike, I'm just saying she isn't open to it right now any more than she was with Riley. She could show physical love to Riley but could not emotionally open up to him that's why he left. It's also why Buffy really shouldn't be romantically entangled with anyone right now. She isn't sure who she is and whether she can trust herself let alone another person. Since her mother died, Buffy has felt like she is losing control, over her life, her body, her self and is desperately trying to regain it.
The Slayer is such a physical force of nature. The previous slayers, Nikki, the Boxer Rebellion Slayer, and The First Slayer seemed to have no voice, to be all about the act. The slay. The First Slayer appeared to be pure primal energy not needing friends, watchers, or the outside world. (Restless, Btvs Season 4) Even Kendra seemed to be emotionally detached. Buffy had to push to get her to open up emotionally. (What's My Line Part II, Btvs Season 2) These slayers were weapons. They were either all about business or all about moves. They had nothing connecting them to the world outside of their status as slayers hence the death wish. (See FFL) Death was their reward, their release and slaying the sexual act leading up to it. Both Buffy and Faith succumb briefly to this reward. Faith when she is knocked into a coma by Buffy, temporarily released from her duties. And Buffy when she leaps to her death in the Gift. Both deaths could be seen as a sort of sexual release: Buffy's falling from the phallic tower, Faith's falling after being stabbed by her surrogate father's phallic knife.
When Buffy is resurrected, she returns in an emotionally frozen state. Unable to feel. Requiring some sort of violence to stimulate her. Whether that be screwing a vampire or staking one. But I'd argue that Buffy's frozen state occurred prior to Bargaining, Buffy was somewhat emotionally frozen after Buffy vs. Dracula, when her mom first got sick, her kid sister appeared, and she had to begin to move past adolescence into adulthood. This frozen state is foreshadowed by Faith and her relationship with Xander. Faith can't trust Xander. She can't trust the SG. She can't trust the Watcher Council, who tries to kidnap and kill her three times. (Consequences, Who Are You, and Sanctuary). The closest Faith comes to trusting someone is the Mayor and later Angel in Sanctuary (Ats Season 1). Both are dark men who have some experience with death and torture. They also both treat her with a semblance of compassion and trust. Sometimes trusting someone is all it takes to obtain trust in return.
c. Faith, Buffy, Angel & Wesely fun with chains
Faith: Finally decided to tie me up, huh? I always knew you weren't really a one-Slayer guy. (Consequences)
After Angel rescues Xander, he chains Faith up in the Crawford Mansion. The chains connote lack of trust on Angel's part, but appear to have sexual connotations to Faith. Later in Enemies, Faith and Angelus (Angel pretending to be Angelus) chain up Buffy. Faith lays out some implements and suggests the fun she is going to have torturing her counterpart. She gets off on Angel's beating of Buffy and Angel's beating of her. Faith prefers Angelus. Vicious and cruel. To the understanding, compassionate Angel. Buffy of course is the opposite. But Faith calls her on it in Enemies, suggesting that perhaps a part of Buffy got off on Angelus' attraction to her. Just as a part of Buffy gets off on Spike, even lusts after Spike as is suggested first by Faith in Who Are You and later shown in Smashed through Seeing Red in Season 6. Screwing the bad boy can be a heady experience. He's dangerous. He's death. Faith loves it when a fanged Angelus kisses her and then tries to kill her. Slaying makes her horny as hell and she's not afraid to admit it.
But Faith seems to enjoy the chains less than she enjoys chaining up others. First she chains up Buffy and plays with the torture. Discovering Buffy and Angel played her and that Buffy was never truly chained, Buffy and Faith do battle and when the battle ends and Buffy holds a knife to Faith's throat, Faith says "you kill me, you become me and you aren't ready for that yet", then kisses her on the forehead. Later in Graduation Day Part I it is Buffy who has the upper hand and does appear to kill or mortally wound Faith and by doing so, in some way, incorporates part of Faith in herself as is demonstrated by the prophetic dream in both their heads. A part that she incorporates even more after Faith literally trades bodies, forcing Buffy to experience life under her darker sister's skin. The experience is not one Buffy appreciates, but it is one that changes her. (Who are You, Season 4, Btvs.) Afterwards the fragile trust she had with Riley is never fully re-established. She can't quite deal with the fact that he slept with Faith while Faith had her body. That he couldn't tell Faith wasn't Buffy. And we begin to see Buffy close off a part of herself, a part she closes off a tad more after she finds Angel comforting Faith in Sanctuary Ats Season 1. Buffy had intended to save Angel from Faith, instead she is helping Angel save Faith from the Watchers. Angel's comforting of Faith and Buffy's inability to accept it may be the second to last nail in the coffin of their romance. Angel realizes that if Buffy can't forgive Faith, she may never be able to completely accept or forgive him. Buffy realizes that she can never fully understand or trust Angel, because of what he is capable of, something Faith shares with him and to her knowledge, she doesn't. "I'm not part of your murders club."
The next victim of Faith's is Wesely, her watcher. With Wesely, Faith goes all out. She tortures him partly for her own pleasure and partly to convince Angel to kill her. It's all about regaining control.(Five by Five Ats 1) She can't quite get up the nerve to kill herself, Faith has never been a quitter. But she hates herself as she demonstrates in the pummeling of her body while Buffy still occupies it. (Who are You, Btvs 4.) She has lost control over herself, her world, everything. By capturing Wesely a former teacher and father figure, the male authority figure who failed her so miserably in Season 3 Btvs when he sent the Watcher Council after her (Consequences), Faith feels she is reasserting her power over the Watchers, over the father that left her, over her world. She tortures Wes brutally and enjoys it. Cutting away his skin cuts away the skin of those that asserted control over her. He symbolizes the SG and the Watchers, and everything about slaying that she hates.
Faith's torture of Wesely is also interesting in how it echoes Angel's torture of Giles. Both get off on the torture. Both are accused by the Watchers of doing it for their own pleasure. Wes is furious with Angel for helping Faith because she tortured Wes for her own pleasure. (Sanctuary Ats 1) Giles is furious with Buffy for helping Angel because he tortured Giles for his own pleasure. (Revelations. Btvs 3). Both tortures are barely stopped in time by third parties, Spike in Giles' case and Angel in Wes'. Both acts are purely sadistic. But they are also all about control. Who has it. When you torture someone, part of the pleasure is the power you have in eliciting a reaction, whether that is a scream, a piece of information, or a curse. Making them do something they wouldn't otherwise do. Molding them to your will. Sadists often do not feel in control in their ordinary life. They are insecure about their own power so they enjoy the illusion of wresting it from their victims.
In Btvs and Ats it's interesting how many people get tortured. Angel in Blood Money tortures Merle repeatedly for information. Hanging the poor friendly demon upside down and half drowning him. But as Lorne states in Forgiving while Angel is threatening to torture Linwood, torturing demons is acceptable humans is not. Even if they are nasty humans. Buffy's torture of the vampire in When She Was Bad with a crucifix is overlooked. After all Buffy had no other choice. And the girl was a demon. To Buffy's credit she never appeared to enjoy it, much. Angel does appear to enjoy it. Both when he tortures Merle and when he tortures Linwood. Faith also enjoys it. Why? Because of all the characters Faith and Angel have the least control. Angel is cursed with a soul. He gets happy? He loses it and all chance at redemption. He is in the ultimate Catch-22 situation. Faith is one of two slayers and Buffy already has the primo spot and Faith's made one too many mistakes, she's on her way to jail or death by Watchers, she has no control. Torturing Wes gives her a little of that control back she is able to get Angel mad enough at her to possibly kill her and put an end to her suffering. Angel doesn't comply, but hey it was worth a try. It also gets a bit of her own back at the almighty Watchers. Faith ironically doesn't really take control over her life, until she surrenders to the inevitability of it by surrendering to the police, breaking the cycle.
Buffy in Season 6 is also engaged in some sadistic acts. She's playing control games with Spike. Whipping him back and forth. First she kisses him. Then she pummels him and tells him he can never have her, he's evil. (Smashed through AYW) Buffy has lost control. The only control she feels she has is when she is pure slayer, which entails killing demons and slaying Spike. She can't kill Spike of course. But she can screw him in fifteen different ways. She can screw with his head. Screw with his body. Let him screw with hers. In her relationship with Spike, Buffy does what Faith does she projects her self-hatred on to the vampire. When she tells him he is an evil soulless thing, that he is wrong, she is venting what she fears most about herself. Someone said that fear and shame are the worst emotions these are the emotions that Buffy is feeling. Shame at being brought back alive, fear that something is wrong with her. But unlike Faith, Buffy never quite crosses that line. She breaks the cycle before it gets too far out of hand and she destroys herself and what she loves.
Buffy breaks off her relationship with Spike in AYW, acknowledging her friend, William, the man, by doing so. Buffy was screwing and torturing the monster with her sex and mind games and in doing so stripping away at the man underneath. The man she is half afraid to acknowledge and isn't really sure exists. In AYW and Hell's Bells, it appears she has acknowledged him to some extent. Prior to these episodes, in Buffy's head, Spike had no feelings he was an animal. He didn't know what feelings were. He couldn't love her. He didn't have the capacity for that. Any more than he could feel pain in her mind. He was an intelligent pet she could screw. It took Riley and the events of OAFA to make her begin to realize that she was wrong. That Spike did have feelings and what she was doing was destroying them both.
Buffy does the same thing in Normal Again saves her friends instead of letting them die. She ironically takes control of her life, by surrendering as well. Letting her friends cure her with the antidote. Instead of ignoring or trying to kill them. She acknowledges that they are real, have feelings, can feel pain. That they aren't figments of her imagination to be tortured at will or are keeping her in Sunnydale to torture her. As a result Buffy begins to slowly break from her cycle of self-hate.
In Btvs and Ats, the sadists aren't in control if anything they are being controlled by their sadism, by their own fears and insecurities. Torturing someone does not give you control over them that is an illusion. It's not until you give up control that you actually appear to have it. Willow gains control of her relationship with Tara when she surrenders it. Just as she regains control of herself, when she lets go of her sadistic rage on the hilltop in Grave. Faith regains control of herself by surrendering herself to the authorities. Holtz and Justine have only condemned themselves to their own hells hells governed by their desire for vengeance and endless cycles of punishment. They have become the enemy they hate.
Finally, S&M only appears to work when both parties are satisfied, when love and trust are involved. When you have safety words. Without these things, you may get devoured like Veruca or almost strangled like Xander.
The end of part II finally! Ugh. Sorry that was so monstrously long. I hope it made sense, wasn't redundant or a boring rambling mess. Feeling a little nervous about posting thisŠso be kind. I don't think I misquoted anyone or anything. If I did? Gently let me know and will delete before posting on my site.
Thanks for reading. Hope didn't overtake board, if so feel free to delete.
Feedback?
Shadowkat ;-)
[> [>Fantastic series of posts! Some thoughts on predatory Buffy in S5 -- KdS, 05:24:30 08/29/02 Thu
Well, I've just finished cleaning up from the point when my brain exploded - even better than the first batch!
I would say, though, that Buffy does come dangerously close to "getting off on slaying" early season 5, and reading your post I finally realised what it was that disturbed me about Buffy's persona between BVsD and FFL.
In earlier season's Buffy's quippage serves a specific purpose. It gets the enemy off balance, buoys up her own spirits, helps her survive. The problem is that by S5 we, as an audience, really can't see individual vamps as posing much of a threat to Buffy. She's killed enough of them before. Disturbingly, in some early S5 episodes, the quippage gets totally out of control. It's no longer occasional comebacks, it's a constant tirade of abuse that seems a virtuoso display of power over, and contempt for her enemy (I almost wrote "target"). I get a real sense of bullying self-indulgence and full-blown sadism from some of these scenes, (in particular the fight outside the factory in "No Place Like Home"). When I first saw "Fool for Love" my immediate impression, which hasn't been challenged by further viewings, is that Buffy is stabbed by the punk vamp because she's actually paying more attention to her penetrating rhetoric than her penetrating implements. It's not just an early-S5 phenomenon, the "Aaargh! My leg!" speech in "The Gift" really disturbed me. (If you don't get what I'm saying, try imagining a slightly different version of those lines between Angelus and some innocent girl in an alley and see how well they fit. "Ever heard the word 'vampire'? Ever heard the phrase 'Oh God! Please no!'")
There's a truly superb scene near the end of Terry Pratchett's best and darkest novel "The Fifth Elephant" in which a cop who truly believes in justice and due process is forced to personally kill a particularly vicious villain, in a state where the rule of law is nonexistent. Shocked by his own cold-blooded violence, a pun immediately springs to mind to deflate the situation. And he chokes it down, because he believes that to crack a joke over the corpse of an enemy, even one who deserved to die by any standard, would turn the act from execution into murder. (See also the one truly thought-provoking sequence in the first Austin Powers film, after the sea bass decapititation.)
Sorry if this has rambled a bit. I suppose what I'm really saying is that when you're an underdog you can get away with a lot, but if you're the top dog things may come over in a different light.
[> [> [>Some thoughts on predatory Buffy in S5 & S6 -- shadowkat, 14:44:11 08/29/02 Thu
"I would say, though, that Buffy does come dangerously close to "getting off on slaying" early season 5, and reading your post I finally realised what it was that disturbed me about Buffy's persona between BVsD and FFL."
I think you're right. And I think part of what is unsettling Buffy so much in Season 5-6 is that. Actually I'd argue she gets off on it before then in Season 3 and it's part of the reason Faith unsettles her.
In Buffy vs. Dracula, Buffy is sneaking out every night to kill vampires. She's getting off on it. Instead of killing vamps and sleeping with Riley. She does the reverse. She sleeps with Riley and kills the vamps. We see her leaving his side in the middle of the night. And we're told she's been doing it all summer. The fact she is scares her - and it's the reason she asks Giles to resume being her Watcher.
The other thing that scares her is what Dracula says. I don't think it's Dracula's bite that unnerves her as much as it is what he tells her. He says - they are kindred, related. That like him - she is a killer. Renowned. The best. A predator who enjoys the hunt. Buffy doesn't want to be called a killer. She's the slayer. But isn't it the same thing? She begins to realize it is in The Gift. After that Alley scene you mentioned, we see a frustrated Buffy argue with Giles about killing her sister, an innocent. She tells him that if she has to kill Dawn - than it's over, than that really is all she is - "I'm just a killer." (Like Dracula and Spike suggested.) I'm no different than the demons I kill. "Death is my art." "Death is my Gift." Part of the reason she sacrifices herself in The Gift - is she
would rather be a matyr than a killer. Killing Angel was hard enough, but at least he wasn't an innocent. Like Dawn.
In Season 6, Buffy is feeling the same way, worrying inside about what she's become. "I must be wrong," she thinks, "how else can I feel this way?" She only feels when she is slaying a demon or screwing Spike, which are sort of the same thing actually. Sex and Killing Demons have always been linked in the show with Buffy. She and Angel fight
the vamps - have sex for the first time - Angel turns evil and instead of sex, now they just fight...until she kills him, plunging a phallic sword through his chest. She and Riley have sex for the first time - after fighting demons in The I in Team. Kiss for the first time in Hush, after breaking up a fight. Get together in Doomed - after fighting off demons trying to start Apocalyspe.
Buffy is wondering if she can be more than a killer. And I'm sure is more than a little unsettled by the fact she enjoys the slaying so much. Faith tells her they should enjoy it it's what they were made for. But Buffy...resists this. If she starts to enjoy it too much...what does that make her? What does that make Faith?
Also on quippage - interesting. Words in BTVS often seem to be used as better weapons than stakes. Spike used them to great effect in Season 4, even was able to separate the SG with them in Yoko Factor. Words have always been part of Spike's fighting technique. It is actually what caught Buffy off guard. Prior to Spike, the vamps rarely said anything bright back. Spike and Angelus do. Their quips are worse than Buffy's. In HLOD - Spike's words act against him actually by enraging her. Just as Angelus' do in Innocence.
And of course Sunday in the Freshman gets the upper hand on Buffy with words. Words are indeed one of her weapons. And they do seem to be unnecessary ones in Season 5-6, maybe because the demons seem to be less of a threat? In Season 5, the threat is a hell-god whose quips aren't quite as effective as Spike's or Buffy's. In Season 6 - it's three nerdy humans - whose quips sort of fall flat. Actually, it is DarkWillow who finally gives Buffy a run for her money in the word dept. Apparently Willow learned more than a few moves from watching Buffy all those years.
I'm not sure I agree that the words are abusive to the demons or vamps Buffy stakes so much. Most of the demons barely register them. But they are to Spike...in fact Buffy's words may be the very thing that sends Spike after a soul.
Anyways - thanks for the book reference and the great response. You've given me the titles of two fantasy novels I've never read and now really want to read in the space of a week. Iron Dragon's Daughter and now a Terry Prachette novel.
Your ramble made a great deal of sense. Hope this one does as well. (my essays benefit from much rewrites...spontaneous responses to posts...don't unfortunately. )
SK
[> [> [> [>Re: Some thoughts on predatory Buffy in S5 & S6 -- aliera, 16:21:31 08/29/02 Thu
Agree KdS & SK.
About this bit:
"She sleeps with Riley and (then) kills the vamps. We see her leaving his side in the middle of the night."
This brought me up short about both about Buffy and the relationship.
The connection you mention between the slaying and sex reminds me of this is a pretty common sequence in romances (yep read those too) but but seems to be emphasized in the slayers we know best. Connection with death->life...gender roles flipped again? dunno, still waiting on Joss for more on roots of slayer power.
"Buffy is wondering if she can be more than a killer. And I'm sure is more than a little unsettled by the fact she enjoys the slaying so much. Faith tells her they should enjoy it it's what they were made for. But Buffy...resists this. If she starts to enjoy it too much...what does that make her?"
Hmmm...and still the sense that Buffy hasn't really recognized anything yet about herself in this regard...and another stray thought that came to mind...doesn't she actually say to Spike that their affair is "killing" her?
OT...KdS, thank you for the review. I did read it and enjoyed it very much.
[> [> [> [>Re: Some thoughts on predatory Buffy in S5 & S6 -- Miss Edith, 19:55:56 08/29/02 Thu
The demons may not be particularly traumitised by Buffy's words. But they can be seen as gloating and taking away her humanity regardless of their effect on her victims. After all how long can Buffy survie fighting in the darkness without having to reconcile herself with the darkness and possibly becoming part of it?
[> [> [> [> [>Yes, that was my exact point... -- KdS, 05:00:50 08/30/02 Fri
Nothing to do with the demons' hurt feelings, but Buffy's coarsened ones.
[> [>Re: more thoughts on Slayers -- ponygirl, 14:21:23 08/30/02 Fri
I keep thinking about the slayers in your essay, shadowkat. I wonder are they wired to seek out the connections between pleasure and pain, sex and death? It is the reason for them to kill - it's not just about duty, it's also desire - but is also the cause of their death wish. The slayer is supposed to be the dominant (in traditional terms you can't get much more phallic than a stake), but there's always that curiousity about what it would be like to submit - in wolf packs lesser members show submission to the alpha by baring their throats. Makes me also wonder about Kendra, supposedly the model slayer, whose sexuality was kept in check by her Watcher.
Well, nothing but ramblings here and I have to dash. Thanks again for the amazing essays!
[> [>Re: Buffy channelling Faith season 6 -- Betheldene, 22:08:02 08/30/02 Fri
I almost hesitate to write anything Spike/Buffy related because I don't want to start an abuse thread (who did what to who first), so please nobody take it this way.
I just was going to mention that I think the S&M relationship sometimes runs both ways. Sometimes Buffy is the masochist part. I'm thinking of Dead Things, specifically, and the scene on the balcony in the Bronze, and later that conversation with Tara where she says "Why do I let him do these things to me?", in it, she is clearly identifying herself as the victim. There are probably other instances where Buffy is kind of, unresistant, where she puts herself in the position that she reacts weakly to being overpowered by someone not as physically strong as her, that kind of fall in line with this point. (Not talking about SR).
On a side note has anyone discussed on this board whether they think that season 6 Buffy, was kind of Buffy chanelling Faith. She was having a relationship where the partner was just for sex and kind of expendable? If Faith and Spike had ever happened does anyone think it may have been a little like what happened with Buffy and Spike in season 6, but without the Buffy guilt and shame?
Interested to hear your thoughts.
Regards, Kathy
[> [> [>Ponygirl and Betheldene...interesting posts -- aliera, 10:31:11 08/31/02 Sat
Intriguing posts...I'd like to chew on these for a while in the chocolate sense...
Re: The wiring (cartesian coming up again) is something I've been thinking about because I'm working my way through some genetics and evolution (all late 1990's stuff) and there's ongoing debate (what else is new?) about wiring vs environment.
Re: Buffy switching it up (flipflopping?) the first thing that comes to mind is the conflicting urges (dualistic show anyway) life vs want-to-still-be-dead and the urge to individuation vs resistance to same (with a dollop of some sort of transference/counter-T for flavor?)...
Someone more knowledgeable bail me out here...otherwise, time to mull some more...
[> [> [>Re: Buffy channelling Faith season 6 -- Miss Edith, 12:18:47 08/31/02 Sat
I agree that the balcony scene was an example of Spike beoing the sexual aggresser and attempting to dominate Buffy. And of course there was a suggestion that she used handcuffs in that episode. But I don't remember any other examples and always assumed Buffy prefered being in the role of sadist. She rubs her writst uncomfortably and doesn't seem interested in using handcuffs again. And she clearly wasn't comfortable with being out of control in the balcony scene in DT. I felt that Buffy was the one who liked to take the iniative in their sexual relationship. In Gone and Smashed she literally throws Spike across the room and in Gine rips his shirt open enjoying his confusion and in Smashed she enters him without waiting forconsent. She liked to identify herself as the victim sure but it never came across to me that she was accurate in her belief that it was Spike "doing things" to her. Rather that was just what Buffy wanted to believe.
[> [> [> [>Re: Buffy channelling Faith season 6 -- Miss Edith, 14:35:27 08/31/02 Sat
Just to expand on my original post I would say that Spike likes to be beaten down and dominated. He has always gone for women who perceive him as beneath them. First Cecily and then Drucilla who clearly prefered Angelous and never consdiered Spike a worthy replacement. Spike has become trapped into finding such relationships normal and he seems to want the same from Buffy. He wants to worship her and be her "willing slave".
Buffy likes the rush of slaying and beating down the vamps. This was suggested in her interactions with Faith and also in BuffyVsDracula. Buffy was ashamed that she got off on the violence so likes to think that Spike was dragging her down and she was letting him do bad things to her and corrupt her. The balcony scene was an example of her being ashamed of her desire for public sex. Spike calls her on this and tells her how much she loves getting away with it right under her friends noses.
Her subconscious seems to recognise that she is avoiding certain truths. In DT Spike is in handcuffs and Buffy is clearly the dominant partner.
[> [> [> [> [>Physical vs. Emotional -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:00:02 08/31/02 Sat
No one (or almost no one) will deny that Buffy was the dominant sexual partner. However, as has been stated by shadowkat in his/her essays on sadomasochism, the sadist is not always the one with power.
For most of their relationship, Buffy initiated both sex and fighting. This is a significant weakness in the relationship powerplay, for every punch she throws and every time they have sex brings her down to Spike's level. She comes "into the darkness, with me". By presenting himself as easily availble and degrading her (saying that she came back wrong, that he's never been with such an animal, and that she was just as much a monster as he was) he broke down Buffy's wall of dignity and self-respect. The sheer act of gratifying Spike by being the sadist to his masochist gave him the power. While physically she beat him around and controlled sex, emotionally Spike was the one in control, playing with Buffy's emotions to make her come to him. Only after As You Were, when the Spuffy relationship ended, did the dynamic reverse.
[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Physical vs. Emotional -- Miss Edith, 16:03:45 08/31/02 Sat
Spike was just tactless a lot of the time I felt. E.g calling Buffy an animal in DT was clearly something he regretted based on her reaction. He was thrilled they were communicating and actually says "are we having a conversation?". Telling someone they are an animal in the sack and difficult to keep up with is usually perceived as a compliment but Buffy was oversensitive at the time.
I do agree with you in some ways. Spike did desire to bring Buffy down to his level. Hence smirking when telling her she had come back just as much a demon as he was. But this was after Buffy told him he was an evil disgusting thing and made it clear he was beneath her because of this. Therefore I saw him telling her she came back wrong as not calculated to hurt Buffy. Rather it was more defending himself and saying you are no better. Buffy was the one putting on airs so to speak. And saying "I may be dirt but you're the one who likes to roll in it" is hardly an example of well thought out put downs either. Buffy was constantly perceiving herself as superior to Spike and was free with the put downs herself.
Spike does lie his feelings on the line eg telling Buffy "Im in love with you" in Smashed. He was the one who had feelings for Buffy and was most at risk of getting hurt, whearas Buffy wished for a slittle emotional involvement as possible. In DT he asks if she even likes him. Therefore I never saw him as manipulative and controling Buffy's emotions. Although he does make an attempt at this in DT Buffy already had little self-worth. As Clem would say Buffy had issues before even getting involved with Spike. They both did which was what really doomed the relationship to failure.
In DMP Spike actually tells Buffy she is worth more and can do better than a job in fast food. All right it wasn't particularly helpful but his heart was in the right place I felt.
Spike wanted Buffy to embrace her inner darkness because he felt she was a creature of the dark and it was natural. In NA he acknowledges his belief was off-base and she was addicted to being miserable, and not to darkness at all. I never felt Spike wanted Buffy to feel bad about herself. He did want her to join him in the dark because as a vampire he couldn't see anything wrong with that.
I watched Spike's out of control emotions and never felt he was manipulating Buffy. They were abusing each other but the relatiopship was on Buffy's terms. Spike did wnat imtimacy and to support Buffy. In DT he thought he was doing the right thing hiding Katrina. He thought he was protecting his lady. Buffy was the one who only wanted sex. In DMP Spike tries to kiss her but in the restraunt she rejects his comforting words and turns away from his supportive gesture outside. If the relationship only consisted of degrading and empty sex that was Buffy's choice.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Physical vs. Emotional -- Miss Edith, 16:25:07 08/31/02 Sat
Just wanted to add in HB Spike tells Buffy it is good to see her happy with her friends and he acknowledged he could never make her happy. I don't think Spike wanted the emotionally frozen Buffy he was getting at all. He speaks in a disgusted tone in NA when telling Buffy she is "addicted to the bloody misery". In Intervention he tells Buffy he couldn't live with her being in terrible pain. Spike's love was certainly not selfless and both individuals did their fair share of f**king each other over. But it is still my belief that Spike was at just an emotionally vunerable place as Buffy was. I have heard many people talk of Buffy being in a vunerable place all seaosn and Spike took advantage of that. I agree Buffy was depressed and lost her judgement towards Spike. However Spike was in terrible pain also. It simply wasn't shown as much. The relationship was mainly shown from Buffy's perspective. We saw her dreams and we saw her shivering in her bedroom with garlic and a cross in order to ward of the evil of Spike. She did not want to face her inner darkness and projected her fear of evil on to the outside fear of Spike who she subsequently demenised. The scenes from Spike's perspective were fewer but I found them effective all the same. In Entropy he talks bitterly of being thought of as a thing and he obviously longs for true intimacy. He treats Anya very tenderly with gestures like brushing her hair behind her ears. The two also parted respectfully. Hence my belief that the relationship was mainly on Buffy's terms and she could have had more if she had chosen to emrace Spike the man, as well as the monster who could provide her with sex and a punching bag for her rages.
In SR we see how lost Spike has become. When Clem says "she dump you again" we get an indication that Spike has spend a lot of time examining the mess his life has become. Spike's feelings just didn't have the time devoted to them that Buffy's depression was given. E.g seeing her at DMP or having to take the garbage out looking world weary etc.
In Entropy Spike has little self-worth and makes no attmept to defend himself from Xander's attack and confirms in SR that he was suicidal and desperate. All season he was just as lost as Buffy. Buffy does acknowledge this in Smashed when she tells him he can't be a monster or a man and neither of them know their place in life. Spike was in the wrong thinking Buffy's place was in the dark and she would be happier there. But I don't believe Spike perceived this as dragging Buffy down and causing her pain. As a vampire I don't think he would get the concept that Buffy could not live comfortably in his dark world and he was unable to make her happy. I do agree that he did want Buffy to embrace her inner darkness. He was coming at the relationship from a different place. IMHO that did not make him a manipulaitve abuser.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Physical vs. Emotional -- shadowkat, 17:25:59 08/31/02 Sat
For what it's worth, I find myself agreeing with you on these threads, Miss Edith. I think a lot of it is in the pov. I'm not sure what ME intended though. Did they intend for us to feel for Spike as much as some not all of us do?
Not sure. I think so, or we wouldn't have had that scene with Spike/Clem in the crypt in SR. Or had the character of Clem introduced at all for that matter. When analysing this show I often find myself trying to see it on three levels
- what the writers want to express thematically (real-world themes), how they want to build and move plot and characters forward (buffyverse mythology and plot, serial style), message we the audience are perceiving from it.
To do so, have to work really hard at being objective and not let my own personal feelings for the characters get in the way. (I avoid analyzing those characters that I feel extreemly negative about, for fear of bashing them.)
So - objectively? I think you are right about Spike, and Finn is right about Buffy or what Buffy is feeling, which actually you appear to agree with. And the writers are trying to pull off the difficult task of showing the destructive nature of this relationship from two sides. Spike loves Buffy, but he also hates her - for killing the part of him that he used to love. He can't be proud of being evil with her. Buffy cares/lusts for Spike (don't know if she loves him, my feeling is she can't and doesn't love anyone including herself at this point - although in Grave she seems to be coming out of this and does actually love Dawn) and despises her lust for him, possibly hates it. Their relationship is a train wreck waiting to happen.
And Betheledane - your right S&M does flip back and forth.
the thing to remember about S&M is the power roles flip and the relationship often is about power, particularly when it is off balance as it is here. Finn is also right about my point that the masochist often has the control in the relationship. But I think Spike's control is an illusion to us and to Spike. He never had any control here or power. He never will. Buffy has the control here, the power. Why? Because she isn't in love with him. She really has zip to lose emotionally. Yeah he can kill her. But she can kill him. He would give her his life, his home, his money, save her friends, etc. Buffy would NOT return the favor (nor should she). But because Spike loves Buffy, possibly beyond reason, and Buffy does not love Spike, Buffy will always been the one in control, the one with the power. Spike can never hurt Buffy in the way she can hurt him. That's the irony of the scene in SR. The character that was hurt the most in the scene, emotionally, was the one who had the most to lose and that wasn't Buffy. Buffy may have been hurt physically and disappointed in the loss of his potential. But Spike? He lost everything, hope, self-esteem, everything in that scene.
As long as Spike loves Buffy, Buffy has the power. Buffy can destroy him. (Again very ironic - because if you watch the old episodes, love for the slayer and having a soul are the very things Spike ribs Angel about and mocks Angel for.)
Gotta fly and get dinner. Hope that made sense.
Oh thanks for the responses! sk
[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Physical vs. Emotional -- Betheldene, 23:06:27 08/31/02 Sat
I loved all these theories and discussions.
Ultimately I am still confused about who was control where and when. I think I'm flipping to the point of view that control is basically an illusion. Whoever was in control at a certain point was the one who felt as if they were in control. Control being a state of mind.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Exactly -- shadowkat, 10:55:42 09/01/02 Sun
"I think I'm flipping to the point of view that control is basically an illusion."
You're right. That's it. It's not until the characters give up control, that they actually get anywhere. Neither Spike nor Buffy have control in their relationship. It's not until Buffy breaks it off that she regains some, but even that's an illusion, because you never really have control over someone else or what they do. Best you can hope for is control over yourself.
[> [> [> [> [>Re: Buffy channelling Faith season 6 -- Betheldene, 22:51:24 08/31/02 Sat
That sounds just right. ;)
Slightly OT
I also had a theory once, that perhaps Spike has a deathwish himself, which is why he goes after Slayers, and opponents that are stronger than he is. It is probably a bit of a fan-wank(excuse me), but I had the idea that like Faith in 5X5, subconsciously he was just looking for someone strong enough to destroy him. (Maybe he was bored?)
It's not a conscious wish, because you see many times that he doesn't want to die in a crappy way (like with Riley or the Initiative.) It has to be a grand death, going out fighting.
[> [> [> [> [> [>I like this. -- Rahael, 04:19:57 09/01/02 Sun
I loved that conversation where Harmony tries to dissuade him from going after the Slayer saying that the Slayer was only going to slap him all around Sunnydale.
After all, death gives meaning to life - and half the reason that the vampires are so pitiable is that they are stuck in a limbo until someone releases them. Angel tells Buffy in Earshot that he was dying to get rid of immortality.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Hmmm...I do too -- shadowkat, 11:05:27 09/01/02 Sun
Spike has been suicidal several times in Btvs. In Doomed
he tries to stake himself and is interrupted. Later we see him wandering around in daylight quite a bit.
Also when Angelus mentions slayers - Spike becomes obessessed with them.
Death - is an odd thing in Btvs. I'm not sure it's so much an end as a new beginning for the characters. William dies and becomes Spike, Spike seeks a soul and in a sense dies again? Liam dies, becomes Angelus, who gets a soul and suffers a second type of death? When he has sex with Buffy, this kills the soul which leaves his Body and he becomes Angelus, but not the orginal Angelus, a new version one that Spike states is not operating with a full stack.
Darla dies, is made by the master, is staked by Angelus, brought back by Wolfram and Hart, killed and remade by her grandchilde Dru, has a child which changes her again providing her with a conscience, so she stakes herself to bear the child. Death = birth.
So is spike's death wish - the wish to become unfrozen? Is it similar to Peter Pan - who hunts down Wendy and wants to give up Never Never Land but Tinkerbell won't let him? In Spike's case - his Wendy is Buffy and his Tinkerbell is Drusilla? If a slayer kills him - does this break the spell and unfreeze him, so he can grow? Or move on?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Hmmm...I do too -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:52:20 09/01/02 Sun
Actually, I think Spike craves the experience of dying. In Fool For Love he says, "Getting killed made me feel alive for the very first time." I think it's characteristic of Spike that it isn't what he becomes that matters, it's the act of becoming, the actual act of transformation/death. By killing a Slayer, he both craves the transformation of self that comes from destroying the greatest warrior in the world, as well as the potential for dying, to feel the passion of death.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Hmmm...I do too -- Betheldene, 00:40:16 09/02/02 Mon
I like your idea about Spike seeking transformation/death. He is already upto his third major change if we consider William and Spike as the first two stages.
(Note this is not to say that I in any way believe that as William he was seeking to become a vampire, or agreeing to it.) :)
[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Buffy channelling Faith season 6 -- leslie, 13:04:49 09/01/02 Sun
"It has to be a grand death, going out fighting.'
Which is precisely the warrior ethos. And this, I think, is why we have to pay attention to him when he tells Buffy that Slayers all have a death wish--it isn't just Slayers, it's warriors in general, and he percieves himself as such. He's speaking from personal experience.
[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Buffy channelling Faith season 6 -- leslie, 13:07:10 09/01/02 Sun
"It has to be a grand death, going out fighting.'
Which is precisely the warrior ethos. And this, I think, is why we have to pay attention to him when he tells Buffy that Slayers all have a death wish--it isn't just Slayers, it's warriors in general, and he percieves himself as such. He's speaking from personal experience.
[> [>Wesley, Lilah, & Breathplay - Angel S3 spoilers -- Scroll, 00:02:43 09/02/02 Mon
There's a fansite for Lilah from 'Angel' that describes Lilah as a "gasper" -- they mention that she seems to get off on being strangled by Angel, and the first move towards sex in "Tomorrow" is when Wesley grabs her by the throat. Later, she indicates that Wesley's rage and frustration turns her on.
Considering the depression, the suicidal tendancies, and the self-hatred displayed by Wes and, to a lesser extent, Lilah (though both are doing a marvellous job destroying their livers with whisky) -- I'd say that Wes/Lilah have strong parallels to Buffy/Spike. The 'evil' characters are actually more emotionally involved than the 'good' characters (Lilah doesn't love Wes but admits to liking him, whereas Wes would probably kill her in an instant if she wasn't human). Both Wes and Buffy are depressed, possibly harbouring suicidal thoughts (Buffy at least isn't *thrilled* about being alive), and use sex with someone to make *some* kind of connection.
Wes has more rage and emotion than Buffy, however; she needs to feel, he wants to stop feeling. The Wes/Lilah dynamic is fascinating in how it portrays the power balance. Lilah thinks that sleeping with Wes will give her some measure of control over him (like Faith). She uses sex to seduce Wes to Wolfram & Hart; it's just business for her. But Wes denies her power with cutting words (like Buffy's puns? her put-downs to Spike?). Wes even goes so far as to say he wasn't thinking of her even when he was screwing her.
Lilah's position at Wolfram & Hart is shaky after a few bad business decisions; seducing Wes is a way to regain control over one aspect of her life. Wesley feels like the world has screwed him over; sleeping with the enemy could be his way of saying 'nyah nyah' in the face of the Powers That Be. Wes/Lilah in Season 3 is clearly a parallel to Angel/Darla (Reprise). I think it's safe to assume Wes is feeling the way Angel did in Season 2 -- angry, despairing, feeling that no matter how hard you try to be good, nothing but evil comes from your efforts -- so why bother?
I think the Wes/Lilah pairing has the potential to be the most destructive relationship ME has come up with, simply because Lilah is inequivocally evil (unlike Spike). We have a good but messed up man being pursued by an evil and messed up woman. Who has the power? Does it flip-flop? Can they continue having sex without Wes going bad or Lilah going good, or will one of them have to switch sides? Each is using the other for sex, no doubt about it, but where will they draw the line?
Speculations welcomed. The Lilah fansite is called 'Notorious Lilah': http://www.imjustsayin.net/notorious/
Scroll
[> [> [>Re: Wesley, Lilah, & Breathplay - Angel S3 spoilers -- shadowkat, 09:17:33 09/02/02 Mon
Thanks for bringing this one up Scroll! Here's some of my own wild ramblings on the topic.
Wes/Lilah is actually the main reason I'm watching Ats now and why I'll be glued to it next season. I think Lilah has the potential to get Wes to go very dark. I'm not sure I agree with you on her being completely evil, she has some problems that she is hiding from us. One is her sick mother.
We've never really been told why Lilah is at W&H but apparently there's more to it than just power, from the little hints she drops occassionally. Lilah actually may be more redeemable than say Warren. She has done some minor things to help, nothing major, killing Billy (more self interest). But Lilah reminds me a little of Lindsey and to a lesser degree Faith. Enjoying being Evil, but not truly evil?
Her relationship with Angel continues to fascinate me. She hates him, yet is strongly attracted at the same time. I see the same attraction that Faith had. I also see a loneliness in Lilah, the lonliness seeks out Wes.
The interesting part of the relationship, is Wes is a bit on a unrequited love rebound. He had fallen for Fred. Lilah is Fred's polar opposite.
I'd forgotten the gasper bit about Lilah...interesting. Wes has his throat cut and his voice is deeper, raspier as a result. Lilah gets off in being choked. Is this a continuation of ME's use of silence and voice metaphors?
(Another essay waiting to happen...)
Can't wait to see what they do next with these too. If the teasers are true...it's liable to a wild ride. Much like the film noir's of the past: Double Indemity, Maltese Falcon, to name two. And Whedon did say they were going to continue with their film noir vision for Angel which makes me extraordinarily happy.
[> [> [> [>Silence & Voice metaphors Ats S3 spoilers -- Scroll, 14:15:09 09/02/02 Mon
I think you're right, 'kat -- ME is definitely playing on speech/silence metaphors with Wesley. In the arc leading up to Wes kidnapping baby Connor, there's the pivotal question of whether Wesley will speak up about the prophecy. In "Loyalty", Angel asks him a couple of times if he's okay, and Wes puts him off with some feeble reassurances. Wes doesn't tell anyone about the prophecy -- then Justine slits his throat, and he no longer has the capacity for speech. Wesley has been silenced. He can't call for help as Angel tries to kill him, he can't explain to Fred and Gunn why he did the things he did. Wes spends 2 1/2 episodes without ever speaking (kudos to AD for still making us weep for Wes, without ever uttering a word). Wes tells Gunn in "The Price" that the only reason he survived getting his throat slashed was to explain to his friends what had happened, but unfortunately for him, nobody is interested in listening to his side of the story.
Lilah is also pretty occupied with Wesley's throat. Every time she mentions it, you can see she gets under Wesley's skin. She's the only one who is even willing to talk to Wesley or hear his point of view. Their entire relationship seems to be built on insults and bitching and cutting remarks. Words are their weapons and enticement.
BTW, funny you should mention Double Indemnity. The first (and only?) Wes/Lilah fansite is called Double Indemnity: http://www.imjustsayin.net/indemnity
Scroll
[>Rich and Satisfying! -- SpikeMom, 01:08:36 08/29/02 Thu
Wonderful job shadowkat. I've done a lot of editing and your essay is just marvelous. You've been thorough in your overview and thoughtful in your analysis. Work like this is why I came and why I stay. Brava!
[>Willow and her thing with Puppies -- Rufus, 05:34:08 08/29/02 Thu
The Wish opened up all these questions about the darker side of Willow.....the Willow with those big expressive eyes...the Willow who is never naughty. The Willow who could only see herself as a nerd...all that negative emotion and self loathing....it all came to fruition in Villians to Grave....but was first hinted at in The Wish and then Doppelgangland...notice Willow couldn't kill her dark self. But look at this scene in The Wish and wonder if she should ever own a puppy...;)
Cut to the Bronze. Cut inside. Willow approaches what can only be described as a jail cell in the basement.
Willow: Bored now.
She walks over to the wall of whips, chains and other instruments of torture.
Willow: Daytime's the worst. (runs her hand over the leather) Cooped up for hours. Can't hunt.
She takes a pair of iron shears and clinks it along the bars of the cell.
Willow: But the Master said I could play.
Inside the figure begins to stir.
Willow: Isn't that fun, Puppy?
She unlocks the cell door and swings it in.
Willow: Aw... Puppy's being all quiet. Come on. Don't be a spoilsport.
The man groans as she straddles him. She grabs him by the hair and jerks his head up. It's Angel, and he moans from the rough treatment. He seems constantly short of breath.
Willow: Guess what today is?
She runs the tip of the shears along his chin and down his throat.
Willow: Today the plant opens. It's a big party.
She licks him from the base of his ear to his forehead and runs her sharp fingernails along his neck.
Willow: You remember I told you about the plant? All those people you tried to save? It's gonna be quick for them. Not for you, though. It's gonna be slow for you.
She flips him over onto his back and straddles his stomach. He lets out a painful moan.
Willow: That's right, Puppy... Willow's gonna make you bark. (smiles)
He cries out when she rips open his shirt to reveal several very deep and bloody wounds on his chest. When she touches them he flinches hard.
Willow: Oh... Maybe I went too hard on you last time.
Behind her Xander strikes a wooden kitchen match with his thumbnail and tosses it onto Angel's chest. Angel cries out in pain.
Xander: Too hard? No such thing.
Willow: Watch it with those things. You almost got my hair.
Xander: Sorry. Got carried away.
He tosses her the large box of matches.
Willow: Don't you want to?
Xander: No, thanks, baby. I just wanna watch you go.
Willow smiles and turns her full attention on Angel. She lights another match, and the screen cuts to black. Angel screams in agony.
[>Re: Thanks SK, a six course meal...this will take a bit! -- aliera, 06:28:50 08/29/02 Thu
[>WOW! -- Lilac, 07:52:30 08/29/02 Thu
[>Thanks for an intriguing read! -- neaux, 08:39:48 08/29/02 Thu
you have spiced up another mundane day at work for me!
[>Again - fabulous essays! -- Sebastian (trying not to get caught printing them @ work...), 16:02:25 08/29/02 Thu
[> [>Wonderful work again. I enjoyed them emmensely. -- natashawitch - also trying not to be caught at work, 04:06:48 09/02/02 Mon
[>The essay is great, incidentally -- Slain, 17:51:01 08/29/02 Thu
I'm not finding length to be a problem; I've read the whole thing, and my interest was held by the quality and free-ranging nature of the writing - I don't think there's much, if anything, you could reasonably edit out. It showed insight which, I'm sure, any actual practicer of S&M would be proud of! I always judge an essay on all characters by how good theWillow analysis is; and yours was excellent - I think the extent to which Willow has sadistic tendencies was spot on.
[>Congratulations sk! -- ponygirl, 06:20:37 08/30/02 Fri
A truly amazing essay! I'm looking forward to getting into the discussion later, but must submit to work. As always incredibly impressed with your writing and inisghts.
For those of you who stayed up the other night, here's what we've been waiting for.. (S7 Spoilers) -- cjl, 07:49:03 08/29/02 Thu
From Eliza's website (http://news.eliza-dushku.com/), to be published in today's Hollywood Reporter...
Dushku staked out for 'Buffy'
Aug. 29, 2002
It's good news for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" fans: Evil vampire slayer Faith is set to return to the UPN drama series. Eliza Dushku has signed on to reprise her role as Faith this season in five episodes of "Buffy" and three episodes of the WB Network's spinoff "Angel," both from writer-producer Joss
Whedon and 20th Century Fox TV. Dushku appeared on "Buffy" alongside the show's star Sarah Michelle Gellar from 1998-2000. She also guest-starred as Faith on "Angel." The actress' busy feature schedule has kept her away from the "Buffy" franchise, but now she has committed to appear in the final five episodes of the original series this season. There has been speculation that this might be "Buffy's" last year, but reps for the studio stress that no decision has been made. Dushku's feature credits include "Bring It On" and "Soul Survivors." The actress, who is shooting "Wrong Turn," next appears in "City by the Sea" opposite Robert De Niro and Frances McDormand. She is repped by ICM and the Firm. (Nellie Andreeva)
[>I believe Numfar's Dance of joy is called for right about now. -- Majin Gojira, 08:06:38 08/29/02 Thu
[>Wow... (S7 casting spoilers and speculation) -- KdS, 08:53:28 08/29/02 Thu
I just realised that this makes at least seven characters next year whose personalities and moral status I can't even begin to guess at...
Spike/William/Randy/?????
Willow
Faith
Anya
Wesley
Angel (spending however many months in a box must do weird things to you)
Cordelia (as above on a higher plane)
Boy, things got greyed up last year.
And is it me, or does anyone else have visions of Spike, Willow, Faith, Anya, Jonathon, Amy and Andrew sitting in a circle of chairs in a church basement?
"Hello, my name is [...] and I'm evil. I haven't killed anyone for forty-seven days."
Of course, this may also answer the whole "OK, Willow's still gay, but who with?" question :-)
[> [>And hey, look at it this way: (S7 casting spoilers and speculation) -- HonorH, 12:24:34 08/29/02 Thu
After killing off Tara, if Faith and Willow become involved, there's no *way* they'd dare to kill Faith, too!
[> [> [>Re: And hey, look at it this way: (S7 casting spoilers and speculation) -- DEN, 12:33:31 08/29/02 Thu
Wanna bet?
[> [> [>Re: And hey, look at it this way: (S7 casting spoilers and speculation) -- leslie, 15:46:18 08/29/02 Thu
Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Wildly speculating here. This is an appearance that seems to have taken a lot of negotiation. For appearances at the end of S7. SMG possibly not returning after S7. Buffy and Faith have switched bodies before, and they're both Slayers....
[> [> [> [>Re: And hey, look at it this way: (S7 casting spoilers and speculation) -- celticross, 17:47:05 08/29/02 Thu
My thought...Faith dies, calling a new Slayer, giving Buffy a chance to retire, we end the show with Buffy playing Watcher to Dawn and New Slayer? *pure and unadultured speculation*
[> [> [> [> [>Am I the only one that thinks the idea of Dawn as a slayer is slightly contrived? -- Majin Gojira, 06:39:36 08/30/02 Fri
I mean, if it does happen, millions of us could easily say "We saw it comming a mile away". And I have more respect for ME than that.
[> [> [> [> [> [>I'm with you all the way, MG. -- cjl, 07:41:23 08/30/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Am I the only one that thinks the idea of Dawn as a slayer is slightly contrived? -- KKC, 08:22:32 08/30/02 Fri
Well, it's definitely contrived from a writing standpoint. But does it fit the rules of show? Without knowing more about how and why a slayer is called, that's harder to determine...
Think about Kendra, who received training from her watcher long before she was called; was her training the reason she was called, or was her calling the reason she was trained? If it's the former, then Buffy's presence in Dawn's life could certainly lead her to being called. You get the impression that very few of Buffy's predecessors had the benefit of knowing or working with a previous slayer. If the Power-That-Be(tm) are trying to keep pace with evil, maybe it would benefit them to have slayers who live longer and manage to pass their knowledge on to known successors.
Working with a previous slayer... Or two? I might argue that Dawn's got a lot of 'bad girl' potential in her that might draw her to Faith's methods and thinking. But that's getting ahead of the supposition that Dawn might be a slayer, since we haven't settled that debate yet.
-KKC, who wonders when Sir Mix-A-Lot will make a guest appearance as a Watcher, now that Buffy's moved to UPN. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Dawn and Faith -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:09:44 08/31/02 Sat
Here's what I have to wonder about: the monks' spell has probably affected Faith's memories, which means Dawn and Faith have memories of meeting each other. How did they get along in these memories? Did Dawn admire Faith, or hate her with a passion? Or somewhere in between?
[>Very juicy! Thanks! -- Dichotomy, 13:42:20 08/29/02 Thu
[>Echoing the thanks, cjl -- aliera, 13:55:17 08/29/02 Thu
[>This really scares me -- Alvin, 19:46:02 08/29/02 Thu
If she's only in the final five episodes, then wanna bet she dies in the finale and we see Dawn get chosen as the new slayer?
[> [>Re: This really scares me -- Amber, 00:12:48 08/30/02 Fri
Nah, I'm going to hold out until the very end (or at least until I see an official quote from Joss) that Dawn will never become a "slayer"
Sure I can see the Sunnydale world contining even if SMG leaves the show. And I can certainly see Dawn leading the Scoobies, but I think Dawn will have her own special "key" powers that are different from Buffy's powers/skills as a slayer.
Basically Joss and Co. have told the Slayer story, if they continue they'll tell a different story using Dawn as the focus. Look at Angel The Series, it takes place in the same world as BTVS (ie. a world where vamps are real,etc...) but it tells different stories and doesn't rely on having a "slayer" among the regular cast. If the Giles series ever actually gets made, I doubt it will have a "slayer" character even though it will take place in the same world as BTVS.
Dawn doesn't need to be a slayer just so you can build a show around her and I'm sure Joss and Co. know that.
[> [>Re: This really scares me -- change, 04:01:40 08/30/02 Fri
It could just as easily be that Buffy dies in the final episode and Faith takes her place.
Current board
| September 2002