August 2003 Archives

Fred vs Oz -- JBone, 20:12:18 08/25/03 Mon

Well, a gathering is brie, mellow song stylings. Shindig: dip, less mellow song stylings, perhaps a large amount of malt beverage. And hootenanny, well, it's chock full of hoot, just a little bit of nanny.

http://www.geocities.com/road2apocalypse/showtime.html

Results will not be up tonight. I'm really busy at the moment.

[> We have the technology. -- Arethusa, 09:02:38 08/26/03 Tue

Fred, by a nose. She's smart enough to check the lunar cycle before engaging in combat, and ususally has a trick or two up her sleeve.

[> I think this is gonna be a tight race! -- dub ;o), 20:47:34 08/25/03 Mon

I love Fred. She's just as cute as a bug in a rug. Can't wait to see her in October. But Oz, man, he's OZ! He roolz!!

There will never be another like him. I gotta go with the Wolfman.

dub ;o)

[> Ooh, tough one! -- HonorH, 20:48:26 08/25/03 Mon

On one hand, Oz is a werewolf. On the other hand, Fred survived five years in Pylea with even meaner creatures. Plus, Oz does have this weakness for smart, sweet, babble-icious girls. So I'm going to throw my vote to the physicist.

[> Re: Fred vs Oz -- Celebaelin, 20:56:56 08/25/03 Mon

The more I think about this the more I can only see it as a misunderstanding. Initially Oz is symathetic with, and vaguely interested in, Fred's intellect. Fred has talked to Willow and somehow the terms 'osier' and 'lycanthropy' seem appropriate. Unfortunately this is too much resonance for Oz and the 'I used to be a werewolf but I'm alright nowwwwwww' factor comes into play. Fred makes herself scarce and Oz progresses by default.

[> Fred is absolutely delighted to meet Oz.... -- cjl, 21:21:14 08/25/03 Mon

...and she babbles away telling him so, discussing his world travels, his friendships with the Scooby Gang, and the unique particulars of his malady. She's rounding off a five-minute dissertation on the possible affects of the full moon on the adrenal system when Oz is overwhelmed by the sheer Willow-ness of the whole thing, and starts to change. Oz strongly urges Fred to leave, and--as Celebaelin said--Fred is smart enough to listen. Oz wins the round, but both Oz and Fred are better for the encounter. (W&H patents the cure for lyncanthropy?)

[> Hmmm... -- Apophis, 21:25:06 08/25/03 Mon

Okay, Oz is a werewolf. Oz's lychanthropy is triggered by negative emotional stimuli, like, for example, being forced into a fight for whatever reason (since I can't think of a logical reason for Oz and Fred to fight). Werewolves are dangerous, rampaging beats. They aren't terribly clever, though. Fred, on the otherhand, has proven time and again her ability to improvise under duress. When confronted with the Ozwolf, she'd run, of course, but would eventually jury-rig some sort of weapon to, if not outright kill Oz, than at least incapacitate him until he became managable. As much as I like Oz, I have to give this to Fred. Afterwords, they can split a J (oh, come on, like Oz never got high).

[> Re: Fred vs Oz -- Rook, 03:24:49 08/26/03 Tue

Oz wolfs out, and Fred certainly seems to be on the ropes, until she Macgyver's the wolf man into next week.

Fred and her resourcefulness for the win.

[> For the first time, two characters who I can't decide between on emotional grounds -- KdS, 05:40:29 08/26/03 Tue

So I'll have to go by what would happen. OK, Oz has the lycanthropy thing going. But we all know that when she's genuinely threatened Fred will hide, plot, and then strike back with utter ruthlessness and lethality. Wolf-boy won't know what hit him. Probably literally.

[> There's no contest here. -- ZachsMind, 07:22:22 08/26/03 Tue

Ooh! Now here's a 'ship I could almost grok. Oz is very soft spoken and spiritual and has an almost chivalrous code of ethics, plus he's in a band which is always a plus. Fred has many qualities similar to Willow, but also has more of a tomboyishness about her, hanging with the guys as much as she does. Early Willow was quite skittish and mousy, which Fred's been on occasion too. Willow's presence is what interested him. Not just her physicality but how she carried herself and the aura about her. I think Fred's kinda like that too. She is pretty physically, but inside her shines something even more beautiful that only someone as astute and observant as Oz could understand, or perhaps deserve.

Fred does get obsessive and eccentric, but it's endearing. I think they'd hit it off well. They're both intelligent, mature people who think about big stuff. Oz is much into just hanging out and drinking in a place and the people in it. Fred enjoys her work but is in desperate need of getting out more. Fred needs someone to remind her to eat and sleep and ..well she needs an anchor, frankly. And Fred could help Oz on both the physics and metaphysics of lycanthropy, taking him perhaps even further than his travels for a cure have taken him. I dunno. I don't buy the idea of these two fighting. In fact I think they'd hit it off and just have occasional spats and quarrels. Then a few years later, Willow could be BOTH the best man and maid of honor...

What I mean to say is there's no victor here. Or rather they'd both be victors. Even if the 'ship didn't work out they'd make very good friends. I see absolutely no potential for friction here, of the adverse kind anyway. Plenty of potential for the fun kinda friction.

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble. There's no contest.

[> [> What a great ship! -- ponygirl, 11:12:45 08/26/03 Tue

Now the real question is should it be called Froz or Ozed? Or maybe Ofred for that Atwood-esque flair!

[> [> [> Please let it be... -- Celebaelin, 17:15:29 08/26/03 Tue

Froz

Tiddley pom

What? D'yawanna bet?

Don't worry about bunnies (or wols for that matter)

Tonstant weader thwowed up

sigh

[> Agreeing with KdS and ZachsMind... -- MaeveRigan, 15:23:41 08/26/03 Tue

There's no contest when Oz and Fred meet, just a meeting of minds. In fact, it's very hard for me to decide which mind would win, if forced into mental competition, because they're obviously both brilliant. Ultimately, as others have suggested, I believe Fred is more devious, and therefore I give her the edge. But neither of them really care about this smackdown thing. After this round, they're going off to discuss quantum physics, alternate dimensions, and meditation techniques over coffee. Lots and lots of coffee.

[> Monday results up -- Jay, 19:02:00 08/26/03 Tue

here.

[> Wow. An AtS regular beats a BtVS regular. This is epic, people. EPIC! -- cjl, 20:47:00 08/26/03 Tue

[> [> Not that epic, said BTVs regular hasn't been a regular for four years -- s'kat, 21:30:11 08/26/03 Tue

I'd think it was epic if Seth Green had a bigger role in BTVS, but honestly? He was barely in it. A semi-regular in S2-S3, he had maybe three major character episodes: Phases and Wild at Heart and New Moon Rising. Then gone. Not much more than a footnote. Also - his role was as Willow's significant other.

Fred? She's been a fixture on ATS for three seasons so far.
Was a character outside of just a ship. She figured out Jasmine first. And is the sole remaining female in the regular cast.

Now if Fred had beaten Willow? Or Wes beat Giles? That would be epic. ;-)

[> [> [> I still think these results are interesting and (somewhat) significant. -- cjl, 08:14:15 08/27/03 Wed

"I'd think it was epic if Seth Green had a bigger role in BTVS, but honestly? He was barely in it. A semi-regular in S2-S3, he had maybe three major character episodes: Phases and Wild at Heart and New Moon Rising. Then gone. Not much more than a footnote. Also - his role was as Willow's significant other."

Oz may not have been one of the Core Four, but I wouldn't classify him as one of the tertiary-level Scoobies (i.e., Jonathan, Joyce, Riley), either. In a TV show filled with adolescent motor-mouths, Oz's Zen/minimalist approach to Life with Weirdness was distinctive and the character was well-loved and missed to this day. I'd put Oz in the same class as beloved secondary-level Scoobs like Anya, Tara, and Cordy.

No knock on our Winifred, but after an extended false start as part of the ill-fated F/G relationship, she's only just coming into her own. I think ANGEL Season 5 will probably solidify Fred's rep as a major player in the Jossverse (especially if she interacts with a certain new player in town who I won't mention here), but IMO, she's not quite there yet.

So, yes--I think Fred's victory over Oz indicates a turning point for Buffy/Angel fandom (at least this tiny section of fandom), with AtS coming to the forefront, and BtVS slowly drifting into the background.

But let's see how the other BtVS/AtS faceoffs go.

[> [> [> [> Personally, I was never too fond of Oz -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:23:20 08/27/03 Wed

There just didn't seem to be too much to his personality. In fact, of all people ever to have a title credit in the show, the only person I'd rank him better than would be Tara.

Fred, however, had that whole quiet type with dangerous streak thing. So, yeah, I voted for her instead of Oz, the stoic and personality deprived.

[> [> [> [> Well see that's the thing, I don't think the majority share that view -- s'kat, 08:59:13 08/27/03 Wed

From what I've seen online and in interviews with the writers here and there: OZ was never that much of a favorite. Barely sells on the ancillary products.
And several fans hated him for breaking up Willow/Xander.
In fact some fans saw OZ in somewhat the same way people saw Riley and Jonathan.

While he's always been one of my all time favorite characters (I voted for Fred btw, sorry like her better), his role in the show was never that major. He seemed more peripheral. Jenny had a bigger role. So did Jonathan plotwise. Anya and Tara definitely did. As did Cordy. OZ really was little more than Willow's significant other.
(Hence the reason Seth Green wanted to move on to movies, which was a very bright move - he is taking off in the movie dept.)

So while you or I may see him as important, my take on the fanbase the last three years? Not so much. Also, BTVS is over and ATS is still going and most people online right now? ATS fans or dual Btvs/ATs fans, from what I can see.

I actually would have been surprised if OZ won. What will be interesting is to see if Fred beats Xander. Now that would be epic.

Completely OT: Help! My boss can't find the show he wants to watch -- Sheri to anyone in Raleigh, Dallas/Fort Worth, NYC, or L.A., 10:13:44 08/26/03 Tue

My boss wants to watch some show called "Heartbeat of America". It's some sort of news show hosted by William Shatner and, I guess my boss appears on a segment of it. So anyway, I'm trying to find out if it is show on cable television in any of the above locations, and if so, what cable provider/what channel. From what I can tell, it's only available on Satellite and Broadcast in the Los Angeles area... but nope, it's gotta be on cable. So help would be much appreciated!

[> Their Website... -- Darby, 10:47:20 08/26/03 Tue

At

http://www.heartbeatofamerica.tv/

has a "Contact" page, but no broadcast info. In fact, it looks like they produce corporate video products rather than broadcast shows - I think the "William Shatner and famous network news anchors present that company's story on national television" is more of a come-on than the reality, so the carriers you've found may be the whole list.

Has this issue ever appeared on "Angel"? -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:56:34 08/26/03 Tue

Something has always bothered me about the use of good demons on "Angel". It's not the moral ambiguity of them, as it is the fact that they raise a moral issue I can't recall the show ever addressing.

Quite simply, if demons can be both good and evil, and humans can be both good and evil, don't the rules about who you can or cannot kill seem a little senseless? First, you can't kill an innocent person, whether they're demon or human. If a demon does evil things, you are not only allowed to but heavily encouraged to kill them. If a human does evil things, however, they are still not supposed to be killed. Now, this last rule has been given some flexibility; Angel has gathered the blood of quite a few human villains on his hands. However, for the most part, killing evil humans is discouraged. Allowing the Wolfram & Hart lawyers to die in Season 2 was shown to be an immoral act. Fred and Gunn killing Seidel was hardly shown in a good light. Angel has had multiple opportunities to kill Lilah, Gavin, Linwood, and other evil humans that the law can't touch, but he has let them live. So the "don't kill humans even if they're evil" rule is still used on "Angel".

So, if demons are capable of being as good as humans, and humans are capable of being as bad as demons, why are evil demons instantly on the hit list but evil humans are taken off? You could argue that some demons are born with the capacity for good while others aren't, but then how does Angel tell the difference between demons who are born bad and ones who were corrupted into it like humans are?

Has this issue ever been addressed on "Angel"? I haven't seen seasons 1 or 2, and missed about half of Season 3, so I am honestly asking you: has the reason evil demons are killed but evil humans aren't ever been brought up?

[> It's a friggin' mess -- KdS, 11:23:04 08/26/03 Tue

Made worse by the fact that in certain eps demons have even been portrayed as metaphors for minority human cultures.

The only ideas I've ever had which sort of work, although they haven't been explicitly stated on the show, are:

i) That "good" and "bad" demons are both confined to restricted parts of the moral compass, so that while "evil" demons are incapable of doing anything that is truly good, except for self-serving reasons, "good" demons are incapable of doing anything really evil. This falls down spectacularly when it comes down to Pyleans.

ii) That the practical policy of AtS can be justified not so much on the grounds of mystical redeemability, but on the grounds of social good. Killing human bad guys would be socially destructive because facilities of formal, judicial social control are available, rendering killing humans undesirable vigilantism. By contrast, there are no formal ways to deal with demons who offend against the social contract, so killing them is the only option. The problem with this one, as yab once pointed out to me, is that there's not much sign of formal social control working on humans in the Angelverse...

[> [> Especially with humans using magic -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:43:32 08/26/03 Tue

Many W&H employees and other bad guys use magic to commit their evil acts. Since courts don't recognise the existence of magic, there is no way they can be punished for their crimes. And even the ones who commit prosecutable evil have got villainous lawyers to get them off.

[> [> Re: It's a friggin' mess -- Claudia, 11:48:22 08/26/03 Tue

This is a problem I also had with BUFFY, in regard to her slaying of vampire fledglings just rising from the grave. Technically speaking, they haven't done a thing, yet she kills them on the spot.

And if there are "good" and "evil" demons, why aren't vampires in the same category. Why is the presence of a soul required for a vampire to be considered good or evil?

[> [> [> It seems to work differently on Buffy. -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:03:11 08/26/03 Tue

In all of the BtVS episodes, there have been precisely four good demons who weren't in some way given a human soul. And there's even an explanation for each of them:

Whistler - while a good guy, his appearance and the fact that the character of Doyle was based on him suggests that he was actually half-demon.

Demon Book Dealer ("Enemies") - Buffy said he wasn't the threat to human kind variety; that doesn't necessarily mean he was good, just that he didn't have the power, courage, or inclination to pose much of a threat.

Clem - same logic as with the demon book dealer.

Anyanka Version 2.0 - she was willing to give up her own life to save others, but, then, she was originally human, so it's possible her human soul and conscience were carried over.

On "Buffy" demons are pretty much evil. There are some who seem harmless enough to avoid slaying, but none who seem to exhibit conscience or a sense of good the way some do on "Angel". Thus, when Buffy kills a newly risen vampire, she does so knowing that it would have gone on to kill people; that's just what vampires do. Two of her encounters with newly risen vamps in Season 7 show this. In "Lessons", the vampire seems confused, disoriented, and a generally all right guy until he's freed, at which point he immediatly tries to attack Buffy. And, in "Conversations with Dead People", Holden Webster stresses over and over that he's evil and plans to kill Buffy as well as a bunch of other. In fact, even on "Angel", vampires have still been shown to be irredeemable monsters without their souls (hence Wesley cutting off Lilah's head in case she'd been turned into a vampire).

[> [> [> [> Not necessarily -- sdev, 12:29:08 08/26/03 Tue

On "Buffy" demons are pretty much evil.

What about the consensual biting by the vampire/prostitutes? Where they evil to the extent that they deserved to be slain? I think at that point in BtVS the audience was being shown a more complex universe which included different moral possibilities in both humans and demons.

That was not a moral highground for Buffy-- to slay a fleeing vampire who is not killing to sustain herself, and to slay in a fit of jealous pique.

[> [> [> [> [> Same rule applies to them as to Clem or the demon book dealer -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:00:01 08/26/03 Tue

Their nature is to be evil, but they can choose not to do evil if they think it's in their own best interests. As Anya and Giles painted it in the Magic Box, these vampires fed off of willing victims because it meant they didn't have to bother hunting, they got money out of the exchange, and they went undetected by vampire hunters. Nothing to suggest they were doing it out of an unwillingness to hurt humans (and they did try to kill Buffy, after all).

Now, that last vampire, I think that is a little morally ambigous. She very well might never kill a human being and only feed on willing victims. However, there's no way to know that for sure without keeping close tabs on her, which I doubt the Scoobies have the resources to do. Though, speaking honestly, I think at that moment whether that particular vamp posed harm to anyone or not wasn't really on Buffy's mind. To her that wasn't the issue at hand; the issue was whether to kill her boyfriend's whore or not. I think the moral ambiguity of that scene wasn't derived so much from whether the vampire would hurt anyone or not, but rather, if she hadn't been a vampire, would Buffy have still killed her?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Clem is treated diferently -- sdev, 13:37:36 08/26/03 Tue

As Anya and Giles painted it in the Magic Box, these vampires fed off of willing victims because it meant they didn't have to bother hunting, they got money out of the exchange, and they went undetected by vampire hunters. Nothing to suggest they were doing it out of an unwillingness to hurt humans (and they did try to kill Buffy, after all).

I don't see that anywhere. The way most vampires are portrayed killing is not a chore. It is part of an enjoyable process. Isn't that your premise-- vampires want to do evil? As to their motivation, I do assume they did not want to kill. If they killed a person to get their blood they would also get all their money not just a partial sum in payment for services rendered.

Yes they did attack Buffy in retaliation for her torching their home. She committed the first act. I don't blame her for defending herself after they attacked, but she should not have attacked them in the first instance. Giles clearly tries to tell her to leave them be. Xander too is pretty dismayed, and he is not particularly sympathetic to vampires. And killing the fleeing vampire was even worse because at that point, fleeing back to Buffy, she certainly posed no threat.

Are you suggesting that in addition to being vampire prostitutes they were also killing? Only if they were killing people would killing them be justified in my mind. Their motivation in any event is irrelevant.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> They didn't attack Buffy because she burned down their place -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:58:29 08/26/03 Tue

They abandoned it first, then she burned it down.

Also, while we have no evidence that these particular vampires had killed people, we do know that they weren't opposed to it (see attacking Buffy), and that their vamp whore business sunk once word got around the Slayer knew about it. So, while you can't say that they had killed anybody, the question must arise: would they have killed anybody if Buffy had spared them?

Finally, as to vampires enjoying killing or not, it's a personal thing. Many do, some just don't seem to care about much more than the food (see the Master in "The Wish"). What I was getting at with "they don't have to hunt" is that they don't have to go through the effort it requires and probably are able to feed more often through the vamp whore program.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Again . . . -- Claudia, 14:07:54 08/26/03 Tue

[Also, while we have no evidence that these particular vampires had killed people, we do know that they weren't opposed to it (see attacking Buffy), and that their vamp whore business sunk once word got around the Slayer knew about it. So, while you can't say that they had killed anybody, the question must arise: would they have killed anybody if Buffy had spared them?]

Again, you seemed to be justifying Buffy's actions on the possibilities that these vamps might kill someone in the future or that they may have - without any evidence, whatsoever. I see no cause or justification to kill a being because it "might kill someone".

However, we all know that Buffy killed most of those vamps, because they had attacked her. And they attacked her, because she found their nest and later, burned it down. However, she had no cause to kill that vamp prostitute. None, whatsoever. The justification that the prostitute still might kill someone in the future does not hold any moral ground.

Also, why did Buffy burned down that vamp nest? What justification did she have? Since they were gone, why did she believe that she had to burn the place down in the first place?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Committing arson was immoral regardless. Tying up public resources! -- Anon, 14:36:13 08/26/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And innocent bystanders can get killed -- sdev, 17:50:36 08/26/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wasn't trying to justify the burning. Was just saying it wasn't why the vamps attacked. -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:40:21 08/26/03 Tue

And every vampire that ever crawls out of its grave not only might kill someone, but most likely will, because that's just what vampires do. The vamp whore had perhaps a little more saving grace since she had a history of using willing victims, but it is still likely she'd kill people now that her source of willing blood givers was gone.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> blood volume -- sdev, 17:15:31 08/26/03 Tue

What I was getting at with "they don't have to hunt" is that they don't have to go through the effort it requires and probably are able to feed more often through the vamp whore program.

I don't think so. The small fraction of blood they can take as prostitutes makes this laborious compared to the volume available by killing. Plus hunting weaker humans is not difficult. Here they also have to share the financial take with the head of the house or pimp. The increased difficulty in this way of life, makes me conclude that vampire prostitution is a decision not to live by killing.

Here is the dialogue showing Giles does not agree with Buffy's wanting to kill these vampires.

Giles: Well, I'm not sure this is where your efforts are best spent. Perhaps you should focus on ... a less ambiguous evil. Glory, for instance?

Buffy: You said people are dying.

Giles: They're willing victims. I mean, there are people out there who deserve your help who aren't.

Buffy: Vampires are vampires. And my job description is pretty clear. (They all look uneasy) Are you coming with me or not?

the question must arise: would they have killed anybody if Buffy had spared them?

That this is a question is the problem. "Would they" is not a moral basis for killing. That is my point(and others I believe). That was one of the original points here-- is there moral certainty that all vamps will kill such as to justify killing them as they emerge 'reborn' from the grave.

The fact that some vampires have chosen a different way of life than killing to get blood does make a crack in that moral certainty.

[> [> [> [> Re: It seems to work differently on Buffy. -- Claudia, 13:14:07 08/26/03 Tue

[Thus, when Buffy kills a newly risen vampire, she does so knowing that it would have gone on to kill people; that's just what vampires do.]

Killing someone because you know or suspect that they might kill others sounds suspiciously like Giles' explanation for killing Ben/Glory; or his and Wood's attempt upon Spike. And that kind of thinking does not really sit well with me.

[> [> [> Season Seven Vampires -- Malandanza, 00:09:04 08/27/03 Wed

"This is a problem I also had with BUFFY, in regard to her slaying of vampire fledglings just rising from the grave. Technically speaking, they haven't done a thing, yet she kills them on the spot."

If you're talking about Season Seven vampires, I might agree with out. Certainly, I agree that killing someone because of what they might do is wrong, but the Season Seven vampires are nothing like the Season One vampires. In the later seasons, vampires ceased being scary -- they provided the buffoons and lackeys. Looking back at the early vampires, it's hard to pick one out and say "this souless vampire might be good -- Buffy should spare him" while in the final seasons it's hard to find a vampire worth slaying.

One of the things I liked least about Season Seven was the way fledgling vampires were portrayed. Previously, new vampires were mindless, ravening creatures until they had fed (even Darla after her second vamping -- a feral animal, not a rational being). After feeding, the vampire integrated with the remnants of the host personality, and they become thinking creatures. The old vamps rose growling and snarling, attacking anything that moved. If Buffy killed a new vampire, she was putting down a mad dog. If she killed a sentient one, she was killing a vampire that had killed at least one person (when it fed). The new vampires, often purely for the sake of comic relief, rise with fully formed personalities almost exactly like the ones they had in life. It's a terrible break in canon, and has left Buffy open to these sorts of claims (that she's a murderer, not a slayer). Giles' old caution that you're not looking at your friend, you're looking at the creature who killed him ceases to be true -- you are looking at your friend, just a friend with cool new super powers.

[> [> [> [> Except the Season Seven vampires rose immediatly evil -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:00:09 08/27/03 Wed

The vamp in "Lessons" attacked Buffy as soon as it was free. The vampires in "Sleeper" rose and immediatly did the First Evil's bidding. The newly risen vamp in "Potential" attacked right away. And, in "Lies My Parents Told Me", Spike's mother exercised extreme verbal and a little physical cruelty to her son. And, of course, we can't forget Holden Webster, the fledgling vampire who described himself as connected to great, apocalyptic force of evil. Given that vampires in Season Seven seemed to rise with evil intentions in tact, I never had a problem with it.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Except the Season Seven vampires rose immediatly evil -- Claudia, 12:02:01 08/27/03 Wed

[The vamp in "Lessons" attacked Buffy as soon as it was free. The vampires in "Sleeper" rose and immediatly did the First Evil's bidding. The newly risen vamp in "Potential" attacked right away. And, in "Lies My Parents Told Me", Spike's mother exercised extreme verbal and a little physical cruelty to her son. And, of course, we can't forget Holden Webster, the fledgling vampire who described himself as connected to great, apocalyptic force of evil. Given that vampires in Season Seven seemed to rise with evil intentions in tact, I never had a problem with it.]

Considering that all of those vampires - with the exception of Spike's mother, Anne - were on the attack as soon as they rose, I can understand Buffy killing them.

But what if they hadn't? What if they had not attacked or done a blessed thing? Are you saying that Buffy should kill them, because they feel evil or because they declare to themselves that they are evil? In the words of the great Bleached vampire, I say bollocks to that! It's just plain murder, clear and simple

And using evil to fight evil is . . . evil.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Vampires aren't People -- dmw, 18:26:22 08/27/03 Wed

Vampires aren't people. They're not even animals. They're viruses.

They reproduce in a asexual manner, parasitically using the bodies of another species (humans.) Their generation time may be shorter than 24 hours. Even if the generation time is as long as one day, as long as there's even one vampire, the world is just 33 days away from the having human being replaced by a vampire if nothing is done to curb vampiric reproduction.

In order to survive, humanity developed a form of immune response--the slayer--to save it from this parasitical infestation of vampires. Given the threat that vampires present, the slayer eliminates vampires without waiting for them to attack humanity or not, just as your immune system eliminates viruses it detects without waiting for them to attack a cell first.

[> [> [> [> Re: Season Seven Vampires - Huh? -- Claudia, 11:52:58 08/27/03 Wed

[If you're talking about Season Seven vampires, I might agree with out. Certainly, I agree that killing someone because of what they might do is wrong, but the Season Seven vampires are nothing like the Season One vampires. In the later seasons, vampires ceased being scary -- they provided the buffoons and lackeys. Looking back at the early vampires, it's hard to pick one out and say "this souless vampire might be good -- Buffy should spare him" while in the final seasons it's hard to find a vampire worth slaying.]

Huh? I really saw no difference in the S1 or S7 vampire fledglings. They were just vampires. And regardless how scary they looked upon rising from the grave, I guess I just saw no reason for Buffy to kill without them doing a blessed thing.

[> Animals!!!! -- Nino, 11:23:50 08/26/03 Tue

That's a great question, one which I don't remember being addressed. My only idea is that demons don't have souls. Joss has said in an interview that, for example, Clem, although he is a nice guy, is a demon without a soul. Should he ever pose a threat to Buffy, it would not be wrong of her to kill a souless creature. Much like it would not be morally wrong to kill a Grizzly bear that was attacking a person, but it would be frowned upon to shoot said bear if he was safely at a distance, minding his own business. Whereas a souled creature deserves a little more respect then an animal. This doesn't necessarily mean that it is ALWAYS wrong to kill a person (Buffy's decision to sacrafice an evil Faith in Grad. Day to save Angel) but it is something that should be avoided at all costs.

Basically, it helps to think of demons as animals, and so rules about killing still apply, they are just different rules...make any sense? thoughts? comments?

[> [> I think this makes the most sense. -- Seven, 11:49:37 08/26/03 Tue

If all Demons are indeed without souls, then yes, this is the best analogy to speak of.

Slightly connected yet slightly different question:

Does Lilah have a soul? She and Angel and others have made comments that she sold her soul. Does this mean that she no longer has it? She is not a sociopath like the boy in IGYUMS but she seems to feel that she is unredeemable. If it is the case that she, or anyone else at W&H that has sold their soul, does not have a soul, wouldn't that put them in the "animal" scenario that Nino explains?

[> [> It's just that, on "Angel", there are many demons who act just like humans -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:52:12 08/26/03 Tue

Lorne, the elderly demon couple from "Double or Nothing", the persecuted demons in "Hero". If we are to treat demons differently from humans on "Angel" because they don't have souls, then how come there isn't much discernable difference between humans with souls and demons without souls. Vampires seem to be the only demon species on "Angel" that is doomed to being evil because of their unsouled state. The rest seem to have just as much choice as human beings when it comes to doing evil or good (though the ones that get the most focus are the evil ones, but that holds true for a lot of the humans on the show as well).

[> [> Re: Animals!!!! -- Claudia, 11:59:10 08/26/03 Tue

[Whereas a souled creature deserves a little more respect then an animal. This doesn't necessarily mean that it is ALWAYS wrong to kill a person (Buffy's decision to sacrafice an evil Faith in Grad. Day to save Angel) but it is something that should be avoided at all costs.

Basically, it helps to think of demons as animals, and so rules about killing still apply, they are just different rules...make any sense? thoughts? comments?]

It makes sense, but the only thing that heroes like the Scoobies and the Fang Gang are doing is objectifying a certain being, because he or she is not human. And not only does it seem wrong, it smacks of discrimination of the worst kind.

I feel that unless that being is posing an immedite threat to anyone, human or a supernatural being, the hero should refrain from killing that being . . . or demon.

Regarding Faith in Season 3 - from what I've seen in "Graduation", Buffy tried to kill Faith, because the latter nearly killed Angel. And since Faith had already committed the act, all that Buffy really did was seek vengeance against her fellow Slayer - much in the style of Wood in Season 7's "Lies My Parents Told Me". Buffy sank to a low point, in my opinion.

[> [> [> Re: Animals!!!! -- Nino, 14:39:57 08/26/03 Tue

[I feel that unless that being is posing an immedite threat to anyone, human or a supernatural being, the hero should refrain from killing that being . . . or demon.]

I partially agree. In many instances Buffy has walked into demon hangouts to get info and not made with the slaying. It seemed fair. But there are instances when she did not look the other way, and rightfully so. For instance, in "Into the Woods" before Riley leaves, Buffy encounters the girl vamp she saw feeding off of him, and almost lets her go, but then thinks better of it. Sure, the Riley incident fueled her decision, but take that away, and I still believe it was Buffy's duty to kill the vamp, even tho she posed no immediate threat. She would almost definitly kill again....she is a demon. Although the ethics are kinda blurry, it is safe to say that demons are bad.

Several essays have addressed BTVS as treating demons as "the other" and made similar claims as Claudia about discrimination. And yet I cannot help but think...demons are bad. Plain and simple. If they weren't bad, there wouldn't need to be a slayer. Sure, sometimes you get a Clem. Sometimes a vampire can have a soul. Sometimes your boyfriend is a werewolf. But unless the demon in question is taking ACTIVE measures to prevent it from hurting people (ie, Oz locking himself up, Angel eating pigs blood), then its safe to assume that demons are pretty much bastards who are gonna kill whenever they get the chance.

I think there is a mixed metaphor in there when demons are used to represent minorities ("Hero", the grey area surrounding Oz, Angel, Spike), but for the purposes of Buffy's slaying, its safe to say that demons = bad guys.

[> [> [> [> I Don't Agree -- Claudia, 15:45:04 08/26/03 Tue

[Sure, the Riley incident fueled her decision, but take that away, and I still believe it was Buffy's duty to kill the vamp,]

I don't agree. I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned Buffy had committed murder - regardless of whether her victim was a vamp or not. By accepting Buffy's act, we are advocating the murder of others, simply because they're different, whether they are . . . "evil" or not. To me, objectifying someone in order to kill them is wrong.

[> [> [> [> [> Even beings who readily admit that they're evil? -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:13:40 08/26/03 Tue

Spike: "I am still evil."

Angelus: "First off, I'm evil."

Holden: "It's like I'm connected to a great evil force that's gonna suck the world into a fiery oblivion."

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Even beings who readily admit that they're evil? -- Claudia, 17:03:17 08/26/03 Tue

It's still wrong. If that person is declaring to the world that he or she is evil, that is NO cause to kill them. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Unless that person is actually threatening someone else, the answer remains - NO.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Do you realize you are putting into question the entire concept on the show? -- Nino, 21:23:47 08/26/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Even beings who readily admit that they're evil? -- heywhynot, 08:34:22 08/27/03 Wed

Vampires aren't people. People, humans, are living. Vampires are the undead, non-living. They were created as a parting shot by the Old Ones as they were forced off of Earth. Vampires are a plague and should be treated as a health problem not a social problem.

As Giles put it in The Harvest:
"This world is older than any of you know. Contrary to popular
mythology, it did not begin as a paradise. For untold eons demons walked the Earth. They made it their home, their... their Hell. But in time
they lost their purchase on this reality. The way was made for mortal
animals, for, for man. All that remains of the old ones are vestiges,
certain magicks, certain creatures..."

" The books tell the last demon to leave this reality fed off a
human, mixed their blood. He was a human form possessed, infected by the demon's soul. He bit another, and another, and so they walk the Earth, feeding... Killing some, mixing their blood with others to make more of their kind. Waiting for the animals to die out, and the old ones to return."

Vampires are an early form of bioterrorism as a way for the Old Ones to hurt humanity & eventually allow for their return. Slayers are super-public health workers ;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Even beings who readily admit that they're evil? -- Claudia, 12:05:38 08/27/03 Wed

[Vampires aren't people. People, humans, are living. Vampires are the undead, non-living. They were created as a parting shot by the Old Ones as they were forced off of Earth. Vampires are a plague and should be treated as a health problem not a social problem.]

Are you saying that this is supposed to be a good reason to kill them if they have not done anything, or are not an immediate threat? Because if so, I have to disagree.

Makes me wonder why human beings are so moralistic about killing each other, and yet, casual and almost cold-blooded about killing beings that are not like them. I think it has to do with a herd instinct that we possess. Because another being is different, it is all right to kill them, regardless of what they have done or are doing. Isn't that bigotry? And hasn't BUFFY or even ANGEL question that kind of thinking?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Even beings who readily admit that they're evil? -- heywhynot, 12:59:54 08/27/03 Wed

Vampires are not beings, they are human bodies who have died that are infected with demon essence. They are a plague to create conditions favorable to the end of the human race. Both series have been pretty graphic in killing off vampires. Angel himself really nevers show any problem taking out Vampires. Never objects to what Buffy does. Neither does Spike. Both when souled went along on patrols including to slay rising vampires.

Other demons on earth it appears were not created for as bioweapons like vampires have been. I am not saying go herd up all demons in the buffyverse and kill them. I am saying: slay vampires. They are a plague to be contained. Spike and Angel are very rare exceptions because very unusual cirumstances arose surrounding both of them.

No one questions Wes beheading Lilah because of the off chance her body might rise again as a vampire for a reason. This is not a discussion about whether to kill animals in the wild such as wolves & disrupting the ecosystem. This is about killing organisms (well not even since vampires aren't living) introduced into our environment to eradicate us.

The existance of vampires is a threat. One infects a person, then another, and they infect others, so on and so forth. That is what vampires are.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> How can you compare killing vampires to bigotry? -- Nino, 13:00:07 08/27/03 Wed

Vampires are not real. As works of fiction, one of their most prominent traits, as far back as can be remembered, is that they are inherently evil. I don't understand any of your arguments for comparing killing "innocent" vampires to bigotry. Not only are they not human, they are EVIL. There is almost no logic to support not killing a vampire when he is not an immediate threat...they are a threat by their very nature. As fictional beings, they were created evil with no redeemable qualities, save a few Whedonverse vamps....does anyone else think its crazy talk to defend "innocent" vamps?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well...not entirely -- Ronia, 19:19:31 08/27/03 Wed

They have used "demons" as metaphors for "minorities"...I suspect the trouble lies in the inconsistancy within Buffyverse. If they want to tell a story about evil scary monsters..then it is so..if they want us to feel bad for the poor persecuted half breeds..it is so..and as a sidenote..I knew Buffy and Spike were going to be an item long before anyone believed me..I could tell by the way they had changed his hair and makeup..he was made to seem more appealing prior to us being asked to accept him in a romantic role. First he was evil and sexy..'cause the script said so..then he was weak and funny..'cause the script said so..then he was ambiguous and sexy....guess why? Buffyverse is not a consistant place and never has been..so most things, for me have to be episode specific, or I lose ground on any arguament/discussion.

[> [> BtVS a mess too -- sdev, 13:18:16 08/26/03 Tue

On the issue of how to deal with humans gone bad and accidental killing of humans, I see a mess of inconsistencies on BtVS as well.

Buffy's decision to kill Faith struck me as wrong and selfishly motivated. She wanted to save Angel. But Faith was a human and this was not Buffy's decision to make. Since when is Buffy the arbiter of human justice? This contradicts what has been shown previously and subsequently. Angel in Five By Five shows more compassion and reluctance to hurt Faith. He shows an understanding that she should not just be killed.

I also never understood why Faith was treated as a criminal for the accidental killing of the Mayor's assistant. Faith's pariah status after that pushed her towards her alliance with the Mayor and deliberate killing. Granted she should have cared and felt badly, a step towards taking greater care in the future to avoid such accidents, but it was clearly an accident. Buffy may not have done it but she well could have.

Similarly, in Dead Things, I thought it utterly ridiculous for Buffy to turn herself in for the death, Katrina's, she believed she had caused. Again this was an accident, even purer than Faith's because of the whole time wonky thing. I believe it was Buffy's sense of guilt and hatred of herself at that time that motivated her. How could the police possibly understand without knowing what a Slayer does. Giles had told her after Faith's incident that these things do regrettably occur as a pitfall of slaying.

These instances of accidental killing (supposed killing in Katrina's case) are presented as more deserving of punishment than Andrew and Willow's intentional killings. Andrew and Willow's killings are shown as deserving of forgiveness and a second chance. Andrew and Willow both deliberately killed humans yet no punishment was ever applied or contemplated. Why did neither of them face the jail and traditional justice alternative that both Buffy and Faith faced? In the case of Katrina I can suppose, as I said before, that we were meant to see that Buffy's reaction was out of proportion and irrational because of her negative state of mind. But this is never clarified. In Faith's case she is vilified for her accidental killing, and I don't think we are meant to question that moral application. Angel says, and I believe we are meant to accept, that Faith will develop a taste for killing as a result of this act, almost as if it is on par with a vampire's deliberate killing for blood. I do not think that makes any sense in the moral scheme presented before and after.

[> [> [> Re: BtVS a mess too - Faith -- Claudia, 13:39:07 08/26/03 Tue

I more or less agree with you regarding Buffy's attempt to kill Faith in "Graduation". However, I can see why Faith was regarded as a criminal over the death of the Mayor's assistant. Yes, she had killed him accidently. But she also tried to cover up the killing, failed to accept responsible for her action, and even worse, frame Buffy for the killing.

I also agree with you about Buffy's actions in "Dead Things". I can see why she would want to turn herself in if she truly believed that she had killed Katrina. The problem is that she was not really sure if she had killed the other woman and I think she was using the incident as an excuse as another attempt to martyr herself, while in the throes of a depression. With herself behind bars or whatever, she no longer has to accept responsibility for her life. And in this regard, both Dawn and Spike saw right through her.

As for Willow and Andrew - the cops really have no proof that these two had murdered other human beings. Warren's body disappeared through magic, after Willow killed him. And Robin Wood, probably temporarily under the First's influence, had buried Jonathan's body. The cops wouldn't have no body or weapon in either case; and therefore, could not prosecute either.

[> [> [> [> Re: BtVS a mess too - Faith -- sdev, 17:37:36 08/26/03 Tue

With herself behind bars or whatever, she no longer has to accept responsibility for her life. And in this regard, both Dawn and Spike saw right through her.

That is exactly the way I see it.

But I don't believe that Buffy would have been culpable even had she killed Katrina. Not all killings are either morally or legally culpable. If you are driving carefully and slowly and someone jumps out or falls in front of your car and you hit them and they die, are you morally culpable? No. That is a tragic accident. No one is at fault.

In Buffy and Faith's accidental killings, they were a product of the dangers inherent in the job-- an unavoidable collateral damage. You can try to be more careful. That is it.

I actually think it would have been morally wrong for Buffy to turn herself in. She was needed as the only available Slayer. If she went to jail, no new slayer would have been called, and she would have been locked up and unavailable for her mission.

I agree with you that Faith's cover up to Giles (not the police, see above) and blaming of Buffy was certainly wrong. My sense though is that the immediate blaming that took place incited her to that bit of cowardice and denial. I always wonder in that situation, and Faith's ultimate rehabilitation is suggestive, what might have been if Faith had been handled differently if she had been comforted instead of condemned. Killing someone, even with no culpability, must be a terrible trauma.

Andrew by the way was caught red-handed in armed robbery. Willow could have claimed to have destoyed/disposed of the body. I don't think those obstacles were the reason they did not go to jail.

[> [> [> [> [> They'd be accused of kidnapping if they did -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:42:22 08/26/03 Tue

They needed to use Andrew to get information about the First Evil and the Seal of Danthalzar. If they went to the police after that, they'd get in trouble for kidnapping Andrew and not going to the police until later.

[> [> [> [> I disagree with you about the mayors assistant -- Ronia, 07:54:21 08/27/03 Wed

I have never thought that the death of the mayors assistant was anything even close to murder. Faith and Buffy were in a battle to the death. They were being actively attacked, and the assistant walked right into the middle of it. They didn't even know he was human until after it was too late. Faith was obviously upset about it, very shaken and shocked looking. It was a case of death by friendly fire. An accident pure and simple. What should she have done, turned herself in to the police? Being a slayer puts you out of bounds with every known rule of society. Would I have liked to see a few tears and some remorse? Sure, so would Buffy. Buffy has actually been far, far closer to that distinction than Faith. She tried to compare the "Ted" situation and say she understood where Faith was coming from. She didn't though..Buffy went after Ted believing that she was going to win, she didn't know he was a robot until after she thought she had killed him. They try to clean it up by making Ted be a jerk, and by having him slap her and make inappropriate comments, but where the rubber meets the road, someone with supernatural strength attacked what she believed to be a human because he made her mad. Buffy recognized the assistant to be separate from the attackers because she was a few steps away, he popped right out in front of Faith, and I do not hold her responsible for his death. Sad truth? These things happen. Kids run out in the road right in front of cars, and the drivers have absolutely no intention of harming them, but it takes a few seconds for a car to stop and in those few seconds, lives are lost. I think the reason Faith went cold about it, was because Buffy wanted her to both feel badly about the situation and take responsibility beyond what she actually had control over. Had she just left it at feel bad, I'll bet things would have gone differently. Faith is a person who has spent her life without a safety zone. She has been scapegoated and victimized and does not trust authority. Giles and Wesley failed her and showed themselves ill prepared for the reality of a woman too young to vote who handles life and death daily. Faith has seen too much and been prepared for none. They spend hours a day training the supernaturally strong to fight better, but not to have a balance and an end zone. What can be concluded but that Faith has been treated like a tool that broke and was expendable? She was right to reject this approach to her life, unfortunately she swung wildly the other direction and attempted the victimize Buffy. The reasoning is clear, better you than me (again), but in my opinion, this was the first thing she did that was clearly wrong.

[> [> [> [> [> All Buffy seemed to want her to do was tell Giles -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:16:29 08/27/03 Wed

There was never any indication that Buffy wanted Faith to go to the police, but she did seem to think they shouldn't keep it secret from the people who knew about their Slayer status.

As for the Ted scenario, something I've always wondered about that is this: if Ted had been a human being, would he have died? We know that Ted shut off his circuits temporarily to fake his death, and he may even have fallen down the stairs on purpose. Quite simply, I don't think that, if Ted had been a human being, he would have died. Heck, a human being would have gone down hurt-but-not-injured after Buffy's first blow.

[> [> [> [> [> exactly how I see it -- sdev, 10:12:27 08/27/03 Wed

[> Hypocrisy. -- Doug, 12:01:17 08/26/03 Tue

Characters in the Buffyverse generally have an easier time killing Demons because humans look like humans, and demons don't. Even vampires usually get staked while wearing a bestial visage. Quite simply it's easier to kill something when it doesn't look like you (witness the business with Vamp!Willow). And since it bothers your conscience less in the Moral-Compass governed Jossverse it isn't evil.

[> It's an issue that's bugged me for ages..... -- yabyumpan, 12:45:46 08/26/03 Tue

Evil demons despatched without a thought while the evil humans live to smirk another day. The only human we've seen recieve any sort of punishment through 'man's law' is Faith, (apart from the humans Kate arrested).

It smacks of hypocrisy to me but I try to reason it by looking at Angel's journey. From Angel's perspective, he's got the blood of thousands of humans on his hands, he's working to atone/for redemption. I think he needs to believe to humans are superior, that they can be redeemed. We're looking at the show from his perspective and the rest of AI generally follow his lead. They don't necassarily agree though. Gunn in 'Tomorrow' said 'Yes' to killing Linwood at the drive-in, Cordy had no problem with Angel killing Holtz in 'Benediction' and Wesley IMO would do what ever needed to be done.
It still stinks, I'm personally fed up with the 'evil' humans getting away with it, but I think it's about the original massage from Doyle in 'City of...'
"It's not just about saving lives, it's about saving souls, maybe your own in the process"

[> [> Demons Evil? -- Claudia, 13:29:08 08/26/03 Tue

Are all demons inherently evil? I wish that Jossverse had looked a little more into that question, especially since one of his characters - Tara - happens to not only be a witch, but Wiccan as well. Wiccans do not believe in any inherently evil beings, like Satan or other "demons". They believe that all beings have the propensity for both good and/or evil, and that whatever that being does, good or evil, will come back to him/her threefold. This is a way of reinforcing the notion that we must all be responsible for our own actions, and willing to accept whatever consequences they may bring about.

[> [> [> Re: Demons Evil? -- MaeveRigan, 10:22:07 08/27/03 Wed

Although a full roster of demons in the Buffyverse reveals that they're not all evil (non-evil demons include Clem, Whistler, and Lorne, and maybe part of Cordelia), Tara certainly is portrayed as believing in "evil" demons, so we may have to reconsider whether "Wiccan" in the Buffyverse means the same thing it supposedly does in the "real" world.

I believe this question has come up on ATPo before, and if I remember rightly, "Wicca" as practiced by Tara and Willow is--well--pretty much whatever the writers want or need it to be for the purposes of the show and has next to nothing to do with anything "real" Wiccans believe or do.

As well worry about that as whether the portrayal of Buffy, who wears a cross around her neck in almost every episode, is fair to "Christians." ;-)

[> Whedonverse vs Greenwaltverse -- Darby, 06:20:21 08/27/03 Wed

I've said before that I think that the two honcho guys had very different drives on the shows - Joss' mythology is very metaphor-driven with less concern for longterm internal workings, while Greenwalt's focus was on a consistent world, with metaphor being less important (which is why when it did appear it could be very heavy-handed, as in Hero or She).

Greenwalt seems to accept demons as aliens from other dimensions, each with their own motivations and cultures, sometimes powerful threats, sometimes innocuous, often somewhere in between. Vampires, as continued from Buffy, are something apart, "born" as a clear threat to humans, even if they can eventually learn otherwise - and then treated differently, as in Disharmony, although her nature did win out. Some of this gray has worked its way back to Sunnydale, as part of the growing up of the characters, the moving out of the "world is black-and-white" of childhood. In a world created by adults that don't really accept such dichotomies, maybe this should go on shadowkat's list of repercussions of being on the air for a while.

Glory -- David, 11:45:15 08/26/03 Tue

Hi i know season 7 is over but I heard Glory was going to return as herself not just the first. Does anyone know how she would or have any ideas because my friend is writing a fanfic about her return and needs ideas. Thanks.

[> Don't recall the rumors you mention . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:02:33 08/26/03 Tue

But how about that, since Glory's immortal, she couldn't truly die, but only be denied her physical form, and that she could become physical again if she was somehow channeled into a living creature?

[> I recall the rumors..which were a little more than rumors (here's my spec) -- s'kat, 14:35:44 08/26/03 Tue

In a Clare Kramar interview way back in Fall 2002, Kramer who played Glory stated how excited she was about the prospect of resurrecting Glory and that she couldn't reveal all the details but it had to do with the First. And she would be in a new form.

I remember the article b/c I was both pissed at myself for getting spoiled and excited over the prospects. When I realized it wasn't going to happen? Very disappointed.

For the interview? Check back in www.slayage.com's article archives towards Fall 2002.

Here's what I thought they were going to do:
After what happened to Giles and the Watcher Council in Never Leave Me, Sleeper and Bring on The Night - I speculated that Glory was in Giles. That she escaped into Giles when he killed Ben, his act of violence towards Ben probably caused her to enter him. She had remained dormant until the First appeared and now the First and Glory were in co-hoots and Glory is the reason Giles didn't die in Sleeper and seems so weird in Bring on The Night. Perfect ironic twist. But they didn't do it.

I think Whedon intended on Clare Kramer, The Master, Adam,
The Mayor appearing more than once during the season but had no money so couldn't do it. (He says as much in the IGFN and salon.com interviews.) The Mayor was able to come back because Harry Groener did it for scale, gotta love Harry. Wonderful actor. And still in my humble opinion the best villian to grace the Buffyverse.

Hope that helps.

SK

[> [> No Glory -- Claudia, 15:38:31 08/26/03 Tue

Thank goodness it never happened! I'm sorry, but the idea of Glory returning for Season 7 does not appeal to me. I liked her in Season 5, but to have to deal with her in two seasons would have been a little too much. I would have preferred a lot more subtlety.

[> I heard that rumor -- luvthistle1, 04:29:35 08/27/03 Wed

Glory was the only one, of the 7 images that hinted that she might be returning. than an lot of people start speculating that considering Giles is the one that kill Ben, Glory might have enter his body.

Ben had stated that Glory was immortal.

Glory told Dawn she was a god, and gods are immortal.

Why did the other hell gods from glory dimension , imprison her in Ben's body, instead of killing her?

all of that lead people to believe that Glory did not die, but found a new host in Giles. If you consider how Giles was acting in season 7, at the time it made sense. people tried to argue that Glory must be dead, because the first evil can take her form. but Buffy and Spike have died, and the first evil was able to take their form because of it. yet both Spike and Buffy were still alive in that dimension.

Giles action lead people to speculate that Glory has taken over his body.

Giles action:

In Stsp: he told Buffy he was meeting with the watcher council.
In NLM: the watcher council told Buffy they haven't heard from Giles.

In Stsp: he never called to see rather or not the scoobies has found Willow.

In NLM: he was attack by bringer

In KIM: Xander get a call from Roboson saying that he Giles was attack. when awaken Giles was gone. Why didn't Giles help his friend to a hospital, and where was the dead bringer body.

in FD: Giles told Buffy he escape the bringers because he heard their shoes, on the "NICE SoFT CARPET". Yet in chosen Anya could not hear the bringer shoes on the cold hard school floor.

The biggest thing that led people to believe that Giles was Glory ( or the first) was:

HE NEVER MENTION THE BRINGER ATTACK< WHEN HE FIRST ARRIVE IN "Bring On The Night"

I wish they would have brought Glory back. It would have been great to see Glory go up against Willow, now that she all powerful.

[> [> In "Never Leave Me" the Council was lying -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:05:22 08/27/03 Wed

As soon as Quentin hung up the phone he said, "She doesn't suspect a thing."

Also, Giles might decide just not to mention the Bringer attack. After all, by that point, everyone had been attacked by a Bringer at some point. Hardly worth bringing up.

[> [> Re: I heard that rumor -- Claudia, 11:49:24 08/27/03 Wed

[all of that lead people to believe that Glory did not die, but found a new host in Giles. If you consider how Giles was acting in season 7]

It's strange that no one seems willing to accept that Giles' behavior was a result of his own personality and not some outside force. Remembering what he was liked in the years before Season 7, I was not really surprised by his behavior. I've certainly see signs of it from Season 1 to 6. He wasn't that great of a Watcher.

DB in Dido's new video (now with handy link to it) -- pellenaka, 12:28:04 08/26/03 Tue

As some of you know, David Boreanaz has a part in Dido's new video, White Flag.
Besides the music video channels, you can see it here:

http://www.dido.co.uk/main.html

Go to news, 8/22. Click video at the bottom.

[> Re: DB looking sharp in that Tux! -- Brian, 14:52:41 08/26/03 Tue

[> He looks pretty hot with a goatee and newsboy cap. -- deeva, 15:34:32 08/26/03 Tue

and I think I also glimpsed the wavy hair!

[> Yummy!! Thanks for the link. Yay...his hair is longer again!! :) -- Kate, 20:34:14 08/26/03 Tue

[> Really, really sorry, but I've got to pun: -- HonorH, 21:52:44 08/26/03 Tue

She may be no Angel, but he is!

*ducks rotten tomatoes*

[> I'm thinking he is looking very Zander-y ??(NT) -- Ann, 09:39:34 08/27/03 Wed

Angel returns to WB lineup tomorrow -- Cheryl, 13:05:24 08/26/03 Tue

Looks like the WB has put Angel back on, starting with Faith getting out of jail. Unless they started rerunning season 4 awhile ago and I've missed them? I'm sometimes slow that way.

[> Great JW interview on Season 2 ATS DVD's (link and teasers inside) -- s'kat, 14:18:47 08/26/03 Tue

http://actionadventure.about.com/cs/weeklystories/a/aa082903b_2.htm

Whedon explains to Topol why Pylea was done. Turns out I was right - it was because they lost all four of their guest players: Christian Kane, Julie Benze, Juliet Landau and Elizabeth Rohem. Yep more proof that actors can and do influence television shows. (As if we needed it. ;-)

The Pylea subplot took hits from the fans. How do you respond? I do know that itís a very sort of strange out of left field experience, but weíd had a show that had been very dark and almost relentless. And we also had the guest actors who we couldnít get for the last four episodes. So come episode 18, everybody was kind of wrapped up. So we sat there and said, ìOkay, well we still actually are contracted to make four more of these.î And rather than just riffing on what weíd already been doing, I was like, ìCan they go to Oz? Can we just go to Oz? Can we go through the looking glass and just get insane?î And we all had so much fun with that concept that we went there. It was a big shift. I think the last two episodes of that are hilarious. And I donít think thereís anything wrong with hilarious. But I think Angel had established itself as more melodramatic than Buffy at that point and to take that kind of a whimsical turn I think took people by surprise. But at the end of the day, they were directed by Tim and David. They were written by them and theyíre just two of the funniest things Iíve ever seen.

He also states how Season 2 was when they changed the show from MoTW to more emotional arcs.

Worth a visit. SK

[> [> Angel S1 repeats start on TNT on Sept 29th -- s'kat, 21:43:23 08/26/03 Tue

Info from zap2it:

"Angel" repeats begin airing on TNT on Monday Sept. 29 at 5 p.m. Beginning Tuesday, Sept. 30 you can catch repeats twice a day, Monday through Friday at 5 and 11 p.m. ET.

[> [> [> Gotta wonder how they pulled of showing "Angel" at 4:00 PM (Central) -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:14:02 08/27/03 Wed

I mean, it got lots of flack for being too violent for its late evening time slot. How do you think the PTC will handle "Angel" airing in the late afternoon?

Also, I hope that TNT doesn't mangle the "Angel" reruns like they have their "Charmed" ones. If you've ever watched "Charmed" on TNT, it's pretty obvious that sometimes they'll put a commercial break in where the original ep didn't have one, or they'll leave out a commercial break somewhere, which makes the whole thing look like it was shot by a really bad director.

[> [> [> [> Re: Gotta wonder how they pulled of showing "Angel" at 4:00 PM (Central) -- s'kat, 07:33:54 08/27/03 Wed

Actually, in US they don't get that much flak for violence.
BTVS at 8pm time slot got away with a lot. Also I've seen TNT do incredibly violent movies at 3pm. With Cable the network censors have lightened up. For example: ER and NYPD Blue are shown in syndication at 3pm and 5pm. Law and Order?
You can see all day long on certain channels. A&E shows incredibly violent tv series during the day. As does BBC America with Red Cap and Rebus.

Since we got Cable there's been more latitude. Sex however?
Not so much. ;-) It's actually quite amusing - if you've ever seen an American Soap Opera - in daytime soaps, you get pretty heavy love scenes, lots of skin, and violence?
No problem. They show it all the time. Yet for a long time, if a soap aired at 7 or 8pm, then you couldn't show the skin.

It's not at all consistent.

Regarding commercials? I bet they'll cut stuff just like F/X and Fox and UPN do in reruns for BTVS. I have yet to see a re-run of The Gift that includes the scene Spike offered Willow something to drink, or a re-run of Intervention that includes the scene where Buffy wonders if Xander might be sleeping with Spike. Both are cut to make for more commericial time.

[> [> [> [> [> Just hoping they make it as seemless as possible -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:27:18 08/27/03 Wed

I've never seen Seasons 1 or 2 of "Angel", so this Fall will be my first exposure to them. As such, I'm hoping that the edits won't be too noticeable.

Any clue why cable is subject to looser censor standards than the prime networks?

[> [> [> [> [> [> I suspect... -- KdS, 15:09:44 08/27/03 Wed

I suspect that it's because subscription channels are assumed to demand more volition on the part of people who watch them. The idea, I suspect, is that if you specifically subscribe to a channel you know what you're going to get, but that if you just idly flick on a free-to-air channel you might have no idea what to expect.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> But you can't just subscribe to particular cable channels. -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:32:08 08/27/03 Wed

They come in a package. Either you just have the broadcast channels, or you have all the cable channels. You're not allowed to pick in choose the channels you get.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not exactly - there are different packages. -- s'kat, 20:24:19 08/27/03 Wed

You can get Basic/Standard (which is oh about 50), Metro, DTV (all 500) and DTV with premium channels (which are $12-20 additional bucks a month).

You can also set up a blocking mechanism to block out certain channels, complete with password so your kids can't unblock them.

Satellite TV might be different, don't know.

sk

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You can also block kids from cable channels -- s'kat, 20:19:16 08/27/03 Wed

There's a device in the US attached to DTV and Cable Boxes that allows parents to block out certain programs on cable and also makes it impossible for kids to change it - has a password. I know b/c I saw it in the information I got on my box. (Where I live you have to have cable or satellite tv to get any reception whatsover.)

So, cable channels like FX, TNT, BBCAmerica, Bravo,
etc - have laxer (sp?) standards. While NBC, CBS, WB, Fox,
PBS, and ABC are more regulated b/c you can get all these channels (depending on where you live of course) by antenna.

Don't know what it's like elsewhere. Except according to a documentary I recently saw, Bowling for Columbine, Canada, Europe and UK seems to have less violence on their news than the US, so maybe part of this is about ratings?

[> [> [> [> Re: TNT, the Scene Slasher -- Rabel Dusk, 12:12:13 08/28/03 Thu

TNT has mangled other shows. The worst that I saw was their treatment of Babylon 5 (which eventually ended up on the SciFi network) They would actually cut to a commercial, not only in the middle of a scene, but the middle of a sentence.

Reposting presumably voy-devoured post: Buffy's S7 strategy -- Maura, 15:27:30 08/26/03 Tue

Since I started dissing Buffyís S7 plan, a bunch of people have asked me what I think she should have done. Thatís a very fair question and one to which I have an answer, so here goes:

When she first realized they were fighting the First Evil, then (after doing the immediately necessary things like rescuing Spike), she should have conferenced with the Scoobies thus:

Part 1: Fighting the FE

Question 1: How do we fight incorporeal evil?

(I know they already had some Turok-Han to worry about at that point and Bringers, etc. Iíll get to them in the minute. )

Answer 1: Probably not with physical violence. (Iíll get to physical baddies by and by.)

Q2: So how?

A2: Research time, pursuing questions like the following:
What does the FE want specifically? Why now? If it has something to do with the slayer, what?
What is the FE exactly?
Has a balance been upset? In which direction first? Too much good? Too much evil? Why? How? Does the balance need to be reset? If so, how?
What cosmological/magical/physical laws/rules/traditions/precedents govern the action of the FE?
Which of these laws etc. can be used either to
a. defeat the FE?
b. appease the FE?
c. destroy the FE?
Which goal do we want? (If it could be destroyed, for example, would that be a good thing, or would it generate a sort of Brave New Worldish, Jasmine-like order? I know they didnít know about Jasmine, but the abstract idea of evil having a place in the world isnít obscure.)
What non-physical forces can we use to fight incorporeal evil? Willowís magic? First Good? ...

Based on what answers they could find to these questions, they could begin to develop a strategy for addressing the FE.

Part 2: Fighting a Turok-Han

While working on these questions, they also have to contend with a bunch of physical baddies.

Q: How do we kill a Turok-Han?

A: They addressed this! Bravo for them! Very logical. They did exactly what they needed to in terms of finding out how the Turok-Han differ from ordinary vamps and how theyíre the same, etc.

Part 3: Fighting huge armies

Now, this part has to be based on Buffyís vision of the Turok-Han army at the end of ìGet It Done.î I donít have access to the episode right now, and I havenít seen it since around the time it aired, so my recollection may be faulty. Iím sure you guys will let me know if it is.

What I remember seeing in Buffyís vision is a very fast pan back over a pretty huge army of Turok-Han disappearing into the distance. This to me suggests that the T-H are, as far as Buffyís knows, innumerable. Literally, she has no way of counting them.

She may be facing 2000, 10,000, 100,000, millions, etc. The vision might--for all she knows at that point--be false. Or it might be a half-truth. Maybe there are only 1000 vamps but the Shadowmen want to scare her by showing her an endless army.

Now, in such a case, the wise thing to do is to err on the side of caution. If there are only 1000 vamps (or none) and sheís prepared to fight millions, she probably wonít lose anything. But if there are a million vamps and sheís only prepared to fight 1000, the FE wins.

Conference with the Scoobies:

Q1: How do we fight an army that probably vastly outnumbers us? Maybe by 10-1, maybe by 1000-1. We donít know.

A1: Probably not by assembling less than 40 people (even if most of them are slayers), giving them weapons and training and hoping they can take out maybe as many as 100 or 1000 of these guys per person. (Even 10-1 is kind of a lot to ask. Even Buffy doesnít take out 10 (ordinary) vamps at one swoop very often.)

Q2: So how do we fight this army?

A2: Research, using questions such as the following: What are the weaknesses of the Turok-Han, and how can we exploit them to kill them en masse? What about Willow and Taraís sunlight spell (as many people have suggested)?
How does the FE control them? Can we get them to disband, stop following the FE?
Can we directly destroy the Hellmouth and the vamps with it?
Bury the Hellmouth/seal so that they vamps canít easily escape?
Blow open the Hellmouth and expose it to the sun?

Once they found answers to some such questions, they could begin developing a strategy to fight this army too. Ditto with the Bringers. And same general procedure for Caleb.

In answer to the comment that Buffy was pressed for time in coming up with plan, I grant that on one level, she was, given how much careful planning and research might be needed to come up with a solid plan to save the world.

But (going by air dates) she knew they were fighting the FE in December. She knew they might be facing a giant vamp army by February. They finally attacked in May. Thatís over 4 months to learn and plan about the FE and about 3 months to plan for taking on the Turok-Han army. (Even if the air dates donít correlate exactly with events, they had a minimum of several weeks between ìGet It Doneî and ìChosenî: think of the time required for Xander to heal enough to be ready to fight.)

Thatís not the same as having to throw together a plan at the last minute. They could have begun researching questions such as those I posed above within a day or two of realizing what they might be up against. The only thing that required something like last minute planning was Caleb. Yes, he was bummer.

My pick for best bets for overall strategies:

For the FE: pursue the idea that the slayer has stirred it up. Why/How? What can the slayer do about it?

For the physical army: The sunlight spell. (Willow certainly has the power.)

A word on the scythe and amulet. I have not mentioned these useful articles because until the eleventh hour, Buffy didnít know they existed, and so they could not have been part of her 3 or 4 months of prior planning. Itís possible that they might still have been needed to stop the FE (if all their research came up dry after months of working on strategy). Just as likely, they wouldnít have been needed at all.

[> Re: Reposting presumably voy-devoured post: Buffy's S7 strategy -- heywhynot, 06:19:00 08/27/03 Wed

Finn and I responded before the thread dissappeared into the ether. I will try to quickly respond and recap what was said.

Basically the Scoobies did do research and came up with nothing. That is the point of the visit to B. Eye. They have nothing else to go on. Giles came away with as much info as he could save from the Watcher's Council. The Council collected the information over hundreds of years. The First does not leave a trail. The First is usually behind the scenes. Part of the reason Buffy did what she did in Get it Done was because they lacked knowledge. What she learned was that a large army was amassing. The Scythe coming allowed them to gain more information. They researched it & Buffy learned what she could from the Guardian. The amulet came with files, more knowledge. Knowledge that WrH had & would not be accessible otherwise. The First could not be destroyed. It is part of every living being. There is no end to fighting the First. You can stop a plan here & there, but It is always there. It is the means (the process) not the ends that matter when fighting the First.

The first order of business for the gang was surviving the initial onslaughts of the First. Then it was to figure out what was to come. They tried doing that & they learned an army was being amassed in the Hellmouth. They sealed it for the time being to buy themselves more time. They did not learn more about the First and its plans though, until Caleb showed up.

Once Buffy had the Scythe, the amulet and the knowledge that came with both, she was able to devise a plan (with some goading by the First) that gave them the best shot at winning or at least slowing the First's army down.

A sunlight spell would of been very dangerous. That is some serious messing with the natural order of things to be flooding the Hellmouth with sunlight. That is transferring alot of energy. First Law still applies, where would the energy be transferred from? Messing with the natural order, means playing with Dark Magics. Willow when playing with Dark Arts could of become an agent of the First & then what? The Hellmouth affects people and how they think and view the world. Something the First could take advantage of. Dark Willow had the ability to destroy the earth. The spell she used to activate the potentials, was one that was not affecting the natural order. The One Slayer every generation was an artificial rule not part of the natural order of the universe.

Your plan is what they did do save not use Willow. They tried to learn all they could about the First, but the answers you wanted were not out there. All the quips from Dawn about becoming a Watcher were because she was studying so much. We saw Faith once she arrived doing research. Once Caleb was in the picture, we saw them learn all they could about him. Sometimes in life you face things that you don't fully understand. Happens everyday for people with cancer, Alzheimer's, AIDS, and other such diseases. The future is always unknown yet we face it, try to learn as much as we can to predict what will happen. Entropy is always growing, we are always facing it, dealing. It is why we consume so much energy just to stay alive let alone maintain our societies & expand them,

[> [> Good points: some responses -- Maura, 15:40:50 08/27/03 Wed

Sorry I missed your original responses. Thanks for re-summarizing. You make a lot of good points.

Well, hereís where I kind of switch from criticizing the Scoobies to criticizing the writers. I think the writers probably did intend to do just what you say: show the gang doing research, trying to gather info., etc. and coming up dry. The biggest problem is that this wasnít well depicted.

Regarding Bís Eye, for instance: itís a been a while since Iíve seen that ep., but it seems to me that Anya decided that the bringing the slayer back from the dead was what had stirred up the FE. After that, no one touches on the issue again: not to question Anya, not to look for another explanation, not to pursue the issue further, i.e. Why should that stir up the FE? Thereís a fundamental lack of discussion on these issues, at least discussion thatís presented on-screen. And if weíre meant to think the discussion has happened off-screen, we should be given some indication that it has. Maybe you feel you saw that indication; I didnít.

Good point about the Watcherís Council and its info. being gone. That does put a serious kink in research efforts. But the WC was never really presented as their main source of info. Over the years, Willowís done wonders with that computer. What about that Coven in Devon? How about contacting Angel and company (before Angel showed up) to ask if they knew anything? Any other demons that could be conjured/visited to give them info.? Yes, they did visit Bís Eye and the Shadowmen, etc. They did make some research efforts. But I see no indication that these efforts were exhaustive. If they were meant to be, we needed to be given some dialogue along the lines of ìWeíve checked out every source we can lay our hands on and nothingís helping. What do we do now?î But even that I would find difficult to believe, since the potential of the Buffyverse for turning up supernatural beings with insights on various mystical matters seems almost endless.

I donít think Buffyís planning really followed the info. gathering consistently either. As I recall, she determined that (physical?) ìwarî was the way almost as soon as she realized they were fighting the FE. This was before a lot of the research efforts depicted.

Youíre right that we do see lots of people doing research. But I donít recall getting much commentary on what theyíre finding--or not finding. Even when they presumably do find things--like info. on the amuletís action or the link between the scythe and the slayer power--we arenít told about these findings. This means that we the audience have no way of evaluating how good their planning really is--at best, weíre out of the loop and being asked to accept the charactersí judgment on pure faith. This is exactly what Buffy and the Scoobies have (wisely) never done when faced with a priori authority figures, like the Watcherís Council.

The writers should have given us more. It would have taken a few seconds to throw in a line like, ìThe slayer power is contained in the scytheî or (maybe from the Guardian), ìA long time ago, the powers of evil shifted the balance of the universe, hiding away much of the force of good. The world has been unbalanced ever since.î My examples are bad dialogue, but you get the gist. If Buffy was meant to be operating on the basis of such info., we needed to know what it was. If not, her slayer activation plan is quixotic, which brings us to...

Willow and the sunlight spell. Itís funny: your objection to this is precisely the same as my objection to the slayer activation spell. Both are *huge* uses of dangerous magic with no indication of where the power is coming from or how the ìbalanceî would be upset. (Some have said the power for the slayer activation comes from the scythe, but the transcripts Iíve read do not explicitly indicate this. And even if the power was hidden in the scythe, isnít releasing it still a huge change in the balance?) So if we object to the one plan, I think we need to object to the other on the same grounds. In both cases, whatís needed is more research/discussion. Where does such power come from? How would the balance be affected? Is it worth the risk?

If the answer--for either spell--is ìno, itís not worth the risk,î the obvious choice is to find a less conventional, less force-oriented way of fighting the army. For instance, go back to the FE itself, work on finding out why itís stirred up and deal with that issue at the source. I just canít believe theyíve exhausted their research options, especially when they donít really say they have (that I recall). (Again, Iím talking about months before Caleb, the scythe, and the amulet.)

The bottom line for me is that S7 presents a dearth of basic discussion of the FE situation. Maybe we are meant to think that this discussion has happened and is just too dull or routine or intricate to be shown on-screen. However, the inadequacy of the basic planning for fighting the FE does not suggest that this is the case. The impression Iím left with--and obviously you are not--is that Buffyís ideas are pretty much being accepted at face value with almost no constructive critique or counter-suggestions.

[> [> [> Replies -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:27:04 08/27/03 Wed

First, Buffy chose to build up physical strength because the First Evil works through corporeal agents. By itself, it can do nothing. It can only affect the world by making followers do its will, and these followers can be hurt.

Second, I believe I recall several cases of people mentioning that they couldn't find any info, despite their research. They didn't discuss the info because they had zilch to work off of. The link between Buffy's resurrection and the First not being discussed is a dropped thread, I admit, and shouldn't have been done. However, the fact that it's repeatedly remarked that they can't find anything the First Evil leads me to believe that they also weren't able to find any follow up information.

Third, the Slayer activation actually wouldn't require too much power on Willow's part. Remember what Buffy said in "Potential"? Every potential slayer has the power inside them. Each of them has the Slayer strength, speed, instincts, and precognition already inside them, they just can't use it. What Willow's spell did was turn their potential power into kinetic power, allowed the potentials to access it. The only energy of her own she'd need to use would be that neccessary to essentially flip the switch in each Slayer, which I feel is manageable for the most powerful witch in the Western Hemisphere. The sunlight spell, on the other hand (as least as Willow described it in Season 5) involved creating brand new sunlight. My reply to your original post was that whatever enchantment makes sunlight lethal to vampires could be too much even for Willow. Even the amulet, a very powerful artifact, had to draw energy from the sun itself, not create new sunlight.

[> [> [> Re: Good points: some responses -- heywhynot, 16:45:13 08/27/03 Wed

Willow did not give the potentials power, she activated latent abilities/skills. The Scythe provided the means of connecting to all the potentials & what the spell would be. The Scythe was the catalyst. All the potentials had the latent ability to be a Slayer, it just needed to be activated. It is an instrument to empower, to remove limits put in place by the Shadowmen. There was a barrier to each potential being activated. Energy was not being moved from one place to another like with the sunlight spell. The one slayer/generation was upset with Buffy always coming back from death, but the rule was upset not nature. The rule of one slayer was artificial. It had nothing to do with the natural order of the universe. The sunlight spell would of been upsetting the natural order.

In terms of the research to me it seemed pretty exhaustive. Given the Coven's involvement in hunting the Potentials, Fred & Willow communicating, the visit to the BE (supernatural beings), it seems all the resources you mentioned were used. We were told a few times that they did not know anything. It would get pretty boring to hear that all the time. The First is not one whom a lot is going to be known about. That is the nature of the First.

And no we were not given all the details about the info that came with the Scythe and the amulet. They did not have the time. Plus I think they wanted to focus on the message: overthrowing rules assumed to be part of the natural order of things but actually manmade to limit individuals so that people maybe empowered. Not just thinking outside of the box but realizing that the box isn't really there and getting rid of it.

[> [> [> [> Yet more responses -- Maura, 21:30:53 08/27/03 Wed

I feel like weíre starting to repeat the same points, so Iím going to try to keep this comparatively brief and general (and fail!).

First, one specific comment...

About Willow and the slayer activation, I accept that she was channeling power, not mainly using her own. A couple of points. 1) She could have been channeling power in the sunlight spell too. The writers could make it work any way they wanted to. 2) In terms of changing the balance, a release of energy could do that, just as a transfer of energy from one source to another could.

Thatís it for me on specific plot comments.

I think that both of you have remarkably cogent explanations of how the scythe and the balance of nature and the failure of the research and so on worked. (I disagree on some points, but weíve been around this and wonít change each otherís minds right now.)

I admit that thereís a lot of S7 I havenít seen many times. So I may very well not be remembering various comments on how the research had come up dry, etc.

But I am fairly certain that in designing your explanations for the Scoobiesí actions, youíre filling in some blanks that the ìtextî itself doesnít fill in. Example: In suggesting that the sunlight idea would upset the laws of nature but the slayer activation doesnít, thereís an assumption that we know what the laws of nature in the Buffyverse are in this case. But we donít. Example: In ìGet It Done,î weíre shown that slayer power is demonic. In ìChosen,î it looks angelic. This seeming contradiction isnít resolved. How aligned is slayer power with light/dark respectively? Without knowing this, we cannot know what the place of the slayer(s) is/are in the balance of good and evil in the Buffyverse. Therefore, we cannot know if Willowís spell is going to upset that balance or not.

The fundamental problem is that we the viewers are not given enough information to judge the Scoobiesí actions. Many intelligent people, like yourselves, have developed many good explanations to justify those actions in S7. But too often, the episodes themselves donít do that.

It seems to me that this puts us in the following position. We can either assume that Buffy and the Scoobies are right and find explanations that support this, or we can read the text based solely on the concrete information weíre given, which shows us planning on the basis of little exploration of the ethical/magical/material issues involved. In my view, the former path asks us to go against much of the usual ideological position of BtVS, which invites critical questioning of authority.

An ideological note. If we are meant to think that most of the research was completely fruitless, this seems to send an odd metanarrative message, something like, ìSearching for answers to social problems wonít help you; youíll never make sense out of the evils of patriarchy or understand why misogynists are misogynistic; therefore, you just have go out and fight them tooth and nail.î I donít think this is what ME (usually) means to convey. Iím recalling, for instance, Jossí comments about why they chose to do the attempted rape they way they did: because it was important to show that rapists are people (vs. some sort of abstract ìevilî) and therefore responsible for their actions. But with a character like Caleb, for example, there is no person, no backstory that explains why he is like he is. Heís ìevil.î Discussion/understanding is refused. And so, in fact, I guess I think youíre right about the idea that the research didnít help. I guess I just find that metanarrative very disturbing.

I appreciate all the thought youíve put into this. Itís really helping me refine my ideas for my essay. Yes, discussion is a wonderful thing:)

[> [> [> [> [> What we do know about the sunlight spell . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:52:02 08/27/03 Wed

Is that Willow never finished it. After "Checkpoint" the point was dropped entirely and it never turned up over the next year or so that Willow was using magic (and becoming quite good at it). I took this to mean she was never able to make it work and so moved on.

Also, the First Evil wasn't patriarchy or misogyny or isolation. Those can be found in the people the First uses, but the First Evil itself isn't really a social ill; it's the thing behind social ills. When the First morphed into various Big Bads in "Lessons", my interpretation of that was showing how the various kinds of evil are all faces for the essence of Evil (Warren - Misogyny; Glory - selfishness/delusions of godhood; Adam - social Darwinism; the Mayor - deception; Drusilla - lunacy; the Master - religious fanaticism). You can understand and fight each of these villains/social issues, but not Evil itself.

As for Caleb, I admit he wasn't developed as many Little Bads we've seen before. But he was more developed than some. Mr. Trick was just another opportunistic vampire, the Annointed One has no personality whatsoever, and we never found out why Glory's minions followed her. What we do know of Caleb is that he despises women and isn't too fond of humanity as a whole (misogyny and misanthropy). He also had delusions of grandeur (believed himself to be above good and evil). So, Caleb, less developed than many, but more developed than some. And, considering he was only in five episodes, and that the First Evil was still around as the main villain and the principle cast members had so much to go through, I find that acceptable. Besides, when you give so many of the good guys dark sides or evil pasts or murderous tendencies, you don't need well developed bad guys as much; the most complex bad guys are also the the good guys.

[> [> [> [> [> [> quick clarification on why I brought up patriarchy -- Maura, 23:25:25 08/27/03 Wed

Sorry: I wasn't clear in my above post.

No, the FE isn't patriarchy/misogyny; it's the First Evil, the source of all evil and so on.

I was shifting rather haphazardly between narrative and metanarrative readings. In the narrative, the FE is the root of all evil. In the metanarrative, the theme of BtVS (certainly S7) is largely female empowerment (as depicted in the slayer activation), so the "evil" can be read as sexism, etc. And no, the overall metanarrative of the series isn't that reductive an allegory. BtVS has always been about a lot more: growing up, for one thing. But female empowerment is the biggest metanarrative theme pushed in S7.

[> [> [> [> [> [> An attempt to reconcile our views before toddling back to lurkers' land -- Maura, 23:43:37 08/27/03 Wed

I tremendously admire people who have the stamina for these intense board debates. Iím really not one of them, which is why Iím almost always lurking instead. Anyway, as a final gesture before slipping back into lurk mode, I want to offer a possibility for reconciling these different views of S7 planning and plotting.

I think that what it comes down to is that you guys are more willing than I am to infer information about what the Scoobies are thinking/doing. Put another way, you seem willing to give the scripts more credit than I do for implying information not explicitly stated.

Probably, there is no definitive way to determine which of us has the better reading of S7 without doing an intensive line-by-line analysis of every script that touches on the FE plot.

In any event, I really appreciate all your thoughts. Whatever my final estimation of the quality of S7ís main arc, I have to give it credit for generating this kind of engaging conversation.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What we do know about the sunlight spell . . . -- Darby, 08:47:56 08/29/03 Fri

What we also know about the spell was that Willow could do it, on a small scale, but wanted something that Buffy could use on patrol - that was presumably the aspect she didn't solve. But sending Anya or Dawn, also shown as adepts (which Buffy is not), into the Hellmouth with the spell, even the original little spell, would have been better planning.

[> [> [> A different tact (if you don't mind me butting in);-) -- s'kat, 20:54:13 08/27/03 Wed

If this is completely off topic and totally un-useful, feel free to ignore. It just occured to me when reading this that maybe ME intended Buffy's plans in S7 to suck? Up until the final plan of course. ;-)

The bottom line for me is that S7 presents a dearth of basic discussion of the FE situation. Maybe we are meant to think that this discussion has happened and is just too dull or routine or intricate to be shown on-screen. However, the inadequacy of the basic planning for fighting the FE does not suggest that this is the case. The impression Iím left with--and obviously you are not--is that Buffyís ideas are pretty much being accepted at face value with almost no constructive critique or counter-suggestions.

I'm wondering if maybe the point was that Buffy's planning wasn't working in S7? That their focus was meant to be off?
Buffy - seems to be using Watcher Council tactics up until Touched. She's treating the girls like an army. Not letting herself get emotionally involved. Issueing speechs like out of a handbook. Sending people out to bring back information - ie from The Big Eye, Anya's research on the ubervamps, Giles files. Her speechs in fact are reminiscent of Quenti Travers speech prior to getting blown up: "Fear not, we are the captains of our fate!" She also appears to force people to let go of their humanity and do whatever it takes to win the battle (Willow and the dark magic, Spike and his demon). Meanwhile the First appears to be getting stronger and stronger. IT is succeeding in isolating Buffy from her friends. Buffy is the General. She has become what Quentin Travers would want. But all through the series we are given hints on how this approach does not work.
First with Kendra who uses her slayer handbook and divorces herself from feeling which results in her death at Dru's hands in Becoming. Then with Faith, who isolates herself from others and makes herself to be better, above the rest, joining with authority in the form of the Mayor. Then with Nikki who puts her duty above her son and her life - losing it as a result. Also with Giles in Helpless who gives into Travers and almost loses everything - it's not until he goes against the Council and gives into emotion that he redeems himself and saves the day.

Buffy herself thinks she's doing the right thing, until like any good war general she leads her people right into a trap. She doesn't know their strengths or weaknesses, she's isolated herself from them. Issuing orders. Her plan is full of holes because she isn't interacting. Not sharing information. It's like the Council - where Travers isolates himself - not sharing information with Buffy, using Buffy as a soldier. And like Travers, Buffy does this with the potentials and Faith. And in doing so - she nearly loses them. She's isolated herself to such an extent, she can't quite deal with Xander's injury or be there emotionally for him. As a result they have stopped trusting her, partly because she has stopped trusting them. In Empty Places - when she tells them her new plan, she doesn't offer it up for discussion - she offers it up as an order, my way or the highway. She doesn't suggest research. She doesn't suggest alternatives. So they throw her out. Once she's gone, they do discuss alternatives and we see them plotting and working as a unit - together like in the good old days.
Giles and Willow getting information out of the Bringer.
Faith mounting a squad to get the arsenal. Robin on reserve.
Spike and Andrew on reconnassiance duty at the Mission.
When Spike and Andrew come back - Spike goes to Buffy, Andrew tells the gang what they found out. Granted they fall into a trap, a trap Buffy could have easily led them to, but - they worked together.

Buffy meanwhile, now alone with Spike - comes to an epiphany, she's been going about this all wrong. Isolating herself. But first she needs to regain their trust and to do that, she must defeat her foe herself and get what he has. She does this and saves Faith and the girls from their ambush. When she returns, things change. She no longer issues orders, she discusses. She asks not tells Giles and Willow to research the scythe. She asks Xander to get himself and Dawn to a safe place. She shares information with Faith instead of using Faith as a solider, she makes Faith her co-deputy, an equal. This is when the First begins to lose ground. Buffy is no longer isolated. She has begun to work as a member of a team instead of Generalisma Buffy. The plan while not perfect is better than the one's that came before and Buffy puts equal trust in her friends to make it happen, but she also more importantly gives them a choice. She does not order them like a General would, she asks them. As a result we get the following: Anya and Andrew get medical supplies and team up in the final battle.
Robin and Giles get transportation and team up in the final battle. Willow and Kennedy and Giles come up with a spell with the coven in England's help and use it for the potentials, Kennedy agreeing to be Willow's safety, Xander and Dawn come back and support one another in final battle,
Buffy give Spike the amulet, and with Faith and the potentials help opens the hellmouth and fights the ubervamps. Compare this plan to the plans she comes up with without their help. I think the comparison may be deliberate.

Now, this is of course assuming that your thesis is not about the fact that all the plans, including the final one are bad. If that is the case, ignore me. ;-) If not, hope it helps.

sk

[> [> [> [> I took it a tad differently -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:16:17 08/27/03 Wed

First, I don't think her plan in "Dirty Girls" was necessarily a bad plan. It involved being prepared for Bringers, vampires, or other worldly creatures; it took notice of the fact that it might be a ploy to lure protection away from the potentials; and it involved more than just charge the bad guy head on (Faith leading a small rescue party if things went wrong). I saw it to be a pretty good plan (yes, they knew a trap was set up, but Buffy's gone into traps and sprung them before with much less planning; besides, if Caleb did have a potential hostage, Buffy couldn't risk not going in). I think that's why Faith led everyone into another trap two episodes later; to show that, no matter how you plan, in war people are going to die. See, I didn't see Faith's leadership as any better or worse than Buffy's. The plan they developed in "Touched" seemed similar to and just as solid as Buffy's in "Dirty Girls". Faith also placed herself firmly in the seat of power; she said very clearly that she wasn't one of them anymore and that they should do what she said. And there were two cases of what I would call questionable tactics: the first is Giles slitting the Bringer's throat while it was linked to Andrew, the second was Faith's interaction with Robin (both in sleeping with him and ordering him to stay in what I'm not sure was an impartial manner). To me, Buffy and Faith did equally well in their leadership, but both still lead to trajedy because their conception of leadership and war was a flawed one, no matter who was in charge. So, yes, Buffy's leadership wasn't the best, as it distanced her from everyone else, developed discontent, and wasn't truly empowering to individuals. But I just think it's fair to mention that Faith's leadership was very similar, and that no one else seemed to be making any better leadership suggestions (I doubt Giles would have done much better in charge, we know that Willow can be something of a bully when in a seat of power, and the rest didn't seem like the types to really take charge).

Second, I agree that Buffy was closing herself off, which she shouldn't have done, and which did lead to problems. However, I think she did recognize that closing herself off was a problem long before "Empty Places", but thought that things would be worse if she did otherwise. This may have been what you meant, I'm not sure. Interpretations can be tricky.

[> [> [> [> [> To take a cue from Luke Skywalker... -- Earl Allison, 04:37:11 08/29/03 Fri

When you are dragging your enemy away, and he's telling you how much you're about to regret it -- when you're about to dump him into the Sarlacc pit and he tells you it's your last chance to bargain, or die, you worry.

Why?

Because your enemy is either clearly insane, or is going to kill you because he knows something you don't.

Buffy should have been MUCH more leery of an enemy that virtually invited her to his lair. Never, never, NEVER be where and when your enemy expects you to be. If he wants you to come to him, you either do so at your peril, or make him come to you. Letting your enemy pick the time and place of your confrontation is something to be avoided.

If Caleb had been killing Potentials, and blew up the Council, it implies that he knew what he was dealing with.

And if Caleb DID have a Potential as a captive, why not have Willow cast (yet another) locator spell?

I don't know, but Buffy's plan in "Dirty Girls" did seem pretty dumb, to me. Just because she lucked out in the past doesn't mean that luck will hold forever. If you know you are walking into a trap, you are taking a foolish risk that, should it pan out and people die, is one you openly embraced. If you win, more power to you. If you lose, you brought it on yourself -- that's my personal opinion.

Maybe there was no choice, but it left Buffy no less responsible, IMHO.

If Buffy had brought some pugs along, she would have been fine -- they are nature's shock absorbers (much as they hated it when I pretended to use them as such. Lord, I MISS my pugs :( ). S7 could have benefited from more pugs in it.

Take it and run.

[> [> [> [> Butt in, by all means! -- Maura, 23:39:35 08/27/03 Wed

Iím very glad youíre butting in. I think youíre one of the most phenomenal posters on the board:)

I also think youíre probably right on in terms of what the writers intended. I donít think they accomplished that intention very well--the steps are there, but they feel awkward to me. The lack of on-screen discussion of what the Scoobies really found out--or couldnít find out--about the FE/scythe/amulet/slayers, for instance, seems part of this awkwardness.

I honestly do think that all the plans were bad! But I agree that the final plan was not as bad, and I think youíre right that the writers intended us to see it as good, which most people--more or less--have.

I know Iím being scanty with my textual evidence here, in part because Iíve laid out much of it in prior posts, in part because Iím just getting pretty exhausted and am preparing to go back into lurk mode. Great debate though!

[> [> [> [> [> Thanks! A Summary/Comparison of the plans might help: S4, S3, S5, S2, S1, S7 -- s'kat, 09:44:11 08/28/03 Thu

Thanks so much for the compliment!

LOL! - on getting exhausted. Completely understand. Posting that dang 7 part essay thing almost killed me.

I also think youíre probably right on in terms of what the writers intended. I donít think they accomplished that intention very well--the steps are there, but they feel awkward to me. The lack of on-screen discussion of what the Scoobies really found out--or couldnít find out--about the FE/scythe/amulet/slayers, for instance, seems part of this awkwardness.

I honestly do think that all the plans were bad!

Would agree. There's a bit of a last-minute sketichiness about the plans that left me less than satisified as well.

Let's see if I can break it down:

Buffy's plan in Dirty Girls which Finn does a good job of defending, still was thrown together a bit too haphazardly and was not as clearly thought out as previous efforts.

In Season 1 - Willow hacks into a computer figures out where the Masters lair is. Buffy goes to rescue Jess taken by the Master as bait to lure her there. Jesse unbeknowest to Buffy has been turned into a vampire. Xander goes to find Buffy to help her. He does. They escape after discovering Jess is lost to them. They figure out how to defeat the Master in WttH by locating the annoited vampire and killing him. The MAster is still alive unfortunately.
An Annoited One - prophesized comes to Sunnydale. The gang thinks they've found him in a funeral home and killed him.
They haven't, that's just one of the Master's minions. The Master teaches the annoited one. In Nightmares - Buffy is forced to face her fear of being turned into a vampire by the Master. The Master finds Buffy's weakness. In Out of Sight - Angel provides Giles with information on the Master's plans. In Prophecy Girl Buffy decides to let the Annoited One lead her to the MAster, the MAster kills her, Xander brings her back - by convincing a reluctant Angel to assist him in finding Buffy and giving her CPR. Buffy sets up a plan where Angel and Xander fight off the vamps behind her and she takes out the MAster. The Master has meanwhile raised the monster of the hellmouth to take out the school.
Giles/JEnny, Willow and Cordelia are fighting it off.
When Buffy kills the Master - the beast retreats.

Season 2 - Buffy destroys the MAsters bones after the Annoited one attempts to resurrect the MAster using the blood of those who were closest to him when he died: Giles, Jenny, Willow and Cordy. Buffy figures it out by torturing one of the Masters minions who had been sent to distract her. Angel and Xander help once again. By Becoming - Angel has turned evil. Buffy and Willow find Angel's curse and Willow suggests re-ensouling him. Giles investigates Acathla which opens the gate to hell. Angelus also investigates it and steals it from the museum. He attempts to open it with human blood. IT doesn't work. So Angelus devises a plan employing Buffy's weak points to kidnap Giles and get the necessary information. Kendra, the other slayer, comes back to Sunnydale b/c her Watcher senses problems. Kendra brings with her a sword which her Watcher says will seal the vortex if it's opened. Giles researches the sword. While Willow researches the spell. Angelus sends an immolate-gram to Buffy to lure her off to fight him, while Dru and his minions attack her friends and grab Giles.
Willow conducts the re-ensouling spell while Buffy goes to fight Angelus. Dru kills Kendra, incapicitates Willow and grabs Giles. Spike meanwhile goes off to make a truce with Buffy in order to defeat Angelus, he doesn't fancy being sucked into hell and wants Dru back. Buffy runs into an old friend of Angel's - Whistler - who tells her in vague terms how to close Acathla. B/S strike a deal. Spike agrees to keep Giles alive and to attack Angelus when the time is right. Angelus tortures Giles for info, Spike suggests a kinder approach and has Dru pretend to be JEnny who elicits the info without physically damaging or killing Giles. Angelus discovers it's his blood that opens Acathla. They keep Giles alive in case he lied. Willow wakes up in the hospital and decides to try the re-ensoulment spell again and informs Xander to tell Buffy about it. Xander goes to find Buffy and help her, but decides not to tell her about Willow's spell, instead he lies saying Willow wants her to kill Angelus. Xander also is the one who helped Buffy find Angelus' headquarters. Xander and Buffy go in after Angel, Xander to save Giles, which he does. Buffy to kill Angelus.
When she confronts Angelus, he says she can't take them all.
Spike rises up at that moment and knocks Angelus out cold.
Giving Buffy time to dust Angelus' minions. Drusilla stops Spike from killing Angelus and they fight. Spike knocks Dru out and takes her away. Buffy and Angelus fight to the death, but before she can kill him - he opens Acathla with his blood and Willow then re-ensouls him. Buffy must now kill Angel to seal the vortex, which she does.

In Primeval S4- the gang has thorougly researched Adam. Through Jonathan they find out Adam's power source, the uranium. Through Spike - they get the map to the military fortress and figure out Adam's game plan. Through discussion and research, they realize that they need someone who knows summarian, someone who can do magic, someone with military know-how and someone with super-strength. Now how do we obtain that in one person, since clearly Adam would kill Willow, Xander and Giles with just a punch? Giles finds a spell to combine their talents. They use Buffy's knowledge of the Initiative to get into it.
They fight their way through the demons. Get to the inner sanctum. Set up a safe place to do the spell, blocking off all entrances. Buffy goes to find Adam.

Graduation Day - The plan in Graduation Day is also well researched. A demon warns Buffy that there's something big coming. The deputy mayor tries to give Buffy information on it - Faith accidentally kills him. Buffy and Faith break into Town Hall to determine why the deputy mayor contacted them. We have Buffy and Faith discover the Mayor may be up to something. Willow is told to investigate the Mayor by computer - hacking into his system. Buffy and Faith are sent to a demon who has the Books of Ascension which can provide the necessary information regarding the Mayor's plans. Faith betrays Buffy, kills the demon, takes the books. Suspicious of the demon's death, Buffy and Giles get Angel to go under-cover to find out if Faith has changed her alliances and if so, what the Mayor's plans are. Once they discover that the Mayor plans to ascend around Graduation Day, and that the Mayor needs a gavroch box to do so - they attempt to steal the box. Willow has located the box in the Mayor's office via computer. The break-in plan is simple: Willow breaks the magical seal, Buffy and Angel retrieve the box, and they get out of there. Unfortunately - they get the box but lose Willow. Forced to make a choice - they choose Willow over the box and give the box back to the Mayor. Willow meanwhile has removed the necessary information from the Mayor's books of Ascension.
Studying the books, the gang figure out the Mayor's plans include an eclispe, becoming a giant serpent, and eating the town. From Anya they discover exactly what an ascension is like. And one of the books tells them it takes the strength of a volcano to destroy a demon. Before they can consult the volcanologist, Faith kills him. Faith also poison's Angel to distract Buffy, Buffy mortally wounds Faith and sacrifices herself to save Angel - unconscious - Buffy and Faith share a dream which provides Buffy with vital information regarding the Mayor, meanwhile Angel obtains similar information on the Mayor's weakeness while at the hospital. The Mayor - Faith tells Buffy still has human weaknesses, the trick is to find it and she shows Buffy the knife Buffy used to stab her, the same knife the MAyor gave her. Angel discovers the Mayor really cares about Faith. Buffy comes up with a plan, they will form an army of sorts out of the student body. Everyone will bring weapons to Graduation and hide them under their gowns. There will be four fronts: 1. Xander - will be commander and organize the students in different groups:a)flamethrowers, b)archers, c)stakes, d)spears and other weapons. One faction takes on the Mayor, the other faction the attacking vampires. 2. Angel leads the students not at graduation, the outsiders who come at the attacking vampires and Mayor's minions from behind with stakes.
3. Buffy distracts the MAyor and gets him to follow her into the school's library, then once he's trapped, get's out. 4. Once Buffy leaps free, Giles blows up the school.

The Gift: The gang researches Glory and the key. When Buffy finds the dagonsphere, she has Giles research it. Her mother suddenly falls ill. Coming upon the security guard she'd met outside the building she'd discovered the sphere (actually he was the one who gave it to her) - in a mental hospital - now insane, she does a spell to see if it has anything to do with her mother's illness. She discovers that her sister Dawn doesn't really exist. Perplexed, she races back to the building where she found the sphere. At the building she encounters one of the monks who created Dawn from the key - as a means of hiding the key - and Glory which the monks call the Beast. Buffy has Giles secretly research the key, and the gang research Glory.
Frustrated. Buffy sends Giles to find out about Glory and the key from the Watcher's Council. The Council tells them Glory is a God. They don't know what the key does. Dawn discovers what she is - but Buffy realizes they are sisters with the same blood. Dawn is made from her. When Buffy's mother dies, Buffy goes on a quest where a Guide tells her that she most love, forgive and that death is her gift. Glory manages to snatch Dawn, before she does the Knights of Byzantine tell Buffy that Glory wants the key to go home -to open the dimension to her world. Guilt-stricken Buffy breaks down. Meanwhile Willow takes over - ordering Spike to check out Glory's flat where Spike realizes once again that Ben and Glory are one and the same and Ben is Glory's weak spot. IF they kill Ben, they take out Glory.
Spike always figures out where they can get information on Glory's ritual - he and Xander go after it. They retrieve the information from an evil demon. Giles reads it and tells Buffy that they must kill Dawn or Glory will use her blood to open all the dimensions, which will tear apart their universe. Anya suggests another way - maybe if they distract Glory until the time for the ritual is over? The ritual must happen during a specific window of time. Tara who was mindsucked by Glory and now retains a section of Glory's insane mind, they learn can lead to the ritual.
The Buffybot that Warren built for Spike can be used as a double for Buffy to weaken Glory. As can the dagonsphere.
They can also use the Troll's hammer they stole from Anya's ex. Willow also can use her magic to reverse the mindsuck on Tara that Glory performed so that Glory is sucked instead. Buffy tells Willow to do her process first - which weakens Glory enough that she doesn't see the dagonsphere and Buffybot can get a few blows in. Buffy then can take over with the Troll's hammer. The rest of the gang - made up of Willow, Giles, Anya and Spike attack the people guarding the tower where Dawn stands at the top of. Buffy manages to get up the tower when she briefly incapictates Glory with the hammer. Glory follows knocking them both down. Buffy loses her hammer. Xander knocks out Glory with a wrecking ball. Meanwhile, the evil demon Doc gets up the tower to take out Dawn. Willow magically communicates to Spike who sees him and aids Spike in getting up the tower to save Dawn. Spike fails, just as Buffy finally defeats Glory. Glory becomes Ben. Giles kills him. Buffy gets on top of the tower, but it's too late. Yet, she figures out the secret - blood. And since her blood and Dawn's is the same, she can sacrifice herself.

Now compare these plans to the plans people used in S7.
Buffy knows something is after them and killing girls.
But not what. She has the gang do research but they can't find out anything. Spike suddenly gets possessed by a trigger. Xander figures out it's a trigger based on his knowledge of film and Buffy's details of Spike's symptoms.
They also kidnap Andrew who appears to be seeing ghosts and killed his best friend under the influence of one. Andrew leads them to a seal which they hastily cover. Spike gets grabbed by a bunch of weird blind men (bringers). Buffy recognizes them as the First Evil's minions which she fought in Amends. She starts researching the First Evil and
tries once again to contact Giles or the Council. She also tries to figure out where Spike has been taken. Giles shows up with Council files, news the Council is no more, and a bunch of potential slayers. Buffy and Giles go to check out the last place Buffy saw the bringers or the First - and instead Buffy discovers a ubervamp. They rush home to investigate the ubervamp which Giles tells them is a Turok-Han or Neanderfal vampire, the vampire that vampires fear.
They research ways to kill it. Buffy almost gets slaughtered by it. Finally Buffy and the gang realize that if she can get it's head off she can kill it. So Willow, Buffy and Xander work together to trap the Turok-Han in an arena, so the potentials can see Buffy defeat it. She does so by blinding it with holy water, and twisting it's head off. Giles and Anya go to a demon eye for information on FE- it tells them that the "slayer" caused the FE to come out of hiding and take action. It does not tell them what the slayer did, they hypothesize it was their act in bringing Buffy back to life that caused all this to happen, an idea that is never followed up on - although we could theorize it meant that Buffy not letting go of the role or passing on the torch may have been the problem, b/c once she does the FE begins to become defeated. Buffy investigates Robing Wood the principal who turns out to be the son of a slayer. Next break they get is the Slayers Emergency Kit which Robin Wood gives Buffy. Buffy
uses the box to learn how a slayer was created and that there is an army of turok-han beneath the hellmouth. Apparently slayers were created by inserting demon essence into a girl - the men made her into their weapon and only allowed for one at a time, apparently to control her? OR maybe it was just too difficult to do more than that. The only knowledge they have on how to defeat the FE and it's army is to give Buffy more demonic power, make her less human, they do not see another way.
Buffy turns down the men's offer and ironically encourages her two strongest fighters to find their inner demon and help her fight this (Spike and Willow). Next thing she does is figure out how Andrew activated the seal, by killing Jonathan, so they research how he can close it, they force Andrew to relive his experiences with Jonathan, Buffy realizes she must get Andrew to show remorse and shed tears for Jonathan's death over the seal to de-activate it. She also learns blood opens the seal, tears and love close it. Then Giles returns with a device that can help them de-trigger Spike or so he thinks, the coven isn't sure. (They've been using the Coven in the Watcher Council's place to locate potential slayers, which Giles finds and brings to Sunnydale for protection and to help in the fight.) The device works and Spike is de-triggered and no longer the First's tool. Meanwhile Willow goes to LA and picks up Faith. Faith comes back just in time to deal with Caleb who is revealed to be the First's
representative. Caleb reveals to Buffy through an injured girl that he has something of hers. (Why he tells her this makes absolutely no sense. Compare to the Mayor's manipulation, Glory's, or even Angelus in previous seasons.) Buffy decides to go get whatever it is. They don't research it. Buffy goes back and tells her inner circle made up of: Faith, Giles, Willow, Spike, Xander, and Dawn, Anya is off getting info. They argue. Giles believes they need more information, that Caleb could have anything.
Xander sees a potential trap. Spike sees a bait and switch, a la Angelus' plan in Becoming. Buffy insists they try anyway. She orders Faith to do reconnaissance with her first - to determine where Caleb is hiding. A bringer leads them to a vineyard. She sets it up into three groups. Willow/Giles stay with the potentials and people at the house in case Caleb is plotting the bait and switch, Buffy/Spike go in with one group of potential slayers, Faith/Xander come in with the other group - as a rescue team. They don't check to see if the vineyard has a back door. How many bringers they are dealing with. Nor do they case the area really. (Compare to how they deal with the Mayor in Choices through Graduation Day). Buffy/Spike followed by potentials goes in blindly, are easily ambushed and beaten by the bringers and Caleb. Faith/Xander come in as back-up - same thing happens. Xander finally loses his eye. Buffy/Spike/Faith etc beat a hasty retreat. Buffy isolates herself further from the group. Next episode, Willow and Giles get information from the police on
Caleb. Buffy learns people are leaving town. From the information Giles gets from the cops on Caleb - he determins that they should check out a place in Northern California (humorously located in the Garlic capital of the world) - he assigns this task to Spike and Andrew. Buffy meanwhile runs into Caleb again at the school - who tempts Buffy again with the idea that he has something of hers. (This still makes no sense. One thing I can't fanwank.)
Buffy comes back beaten up by Caleb, she is upset with Giles for sending Spike off without asking her, and with Faith for taking the potentials and Dawn to the Bronze and into danger. After punching out Faith and yelling at the potentials, she announces her plan to go after Caleb at the vineyard a second time. The gang understandly votes her out and Faith in. Meanwhile Spike and Andrew discover that Caleb found a plaque at a monastary (okay why did Giles send a vampire to a monastry in the Garlic capital of the world? Why not go himself? Yeah I know b/c Spike can handle himself - but hello? vampire! monastry! crosses! holy water!
garlic! have we thrown the mythology out the window?)the plaque is vaguely worded and says - it is for her alone to weild, which apparently pissed off Caleb. While Buffy is off licking her wounds, (no one knows where she is by the way, as far as they know she could have left Sunnydale), Andrew and Spike return - Andrew informs everyone that Caleb discovered info on a weapon and go upset, Spike leaves to locate Buffy and help her.
Faith/Giles/Wood/Xander/potentials/Willow come up with a plan - the new plan is to kidnap a bringer to see what they know. This is a tad dicey since bringers don't speak. Anyways they grab one, by setting Kennedy up as bait. Willow uses a spell that Dawn found and manages to get the bringer to speak through Andrew. The bringer tells them it's part of a hive intelligence connected to the first and has an arsenal of weapons. Giles kills the bringer when it threatens them. Faith devises a plan to get the weapons.
She takes a small group of trained potentials with her. Leaving the rest behind. She orders Giles/Anya/Willow/Xander to locate Buffy. And Robin to stay by his phone. Faith and the potentials find a weapon's arsenal and a bomb which injures them. Buffy after getting a very moving pep talk from Spike, goes off to confront Caleb and the vineyard and retrieves the scythe. The First via Caleb indicates to her that her friends are in danger which she rushes to rescue. (Why the First does this again makes no sense. Nor does it make much sense why Caleb backs off. MAybe to get re-energized?) Buffy saves the potentials and meets up with the SG who have gone looking for them and Buffy. They bring them back to the house. Giles/Willow agree to research the scythe. Buffy shows the scythe to Faith and reassures the injured Faith. Anya/Andrew go get medical supplies. Buffy asks Xander to get himself and Dawn to safety. Buffy then meets up with Spike who agrees to check up on Caleb while she hunts the tomb that according to Giles/Willow is connected to the scythe. She finds the tomb and a guardian, who tells her the scythe is more than just a weapon and that she has other weapons if she chooses to use them - Caleb kills the guardian. Angel shows up to help Buffy fight Caleb. Buffy defeats Caleb. And Angel gives her an amulet and agrees to be front her back-up in LA if worse comes to worse. (Uhm why not get Angel to bring W&H and the back-up now???) Buffy happily goes back to the house with amulet and scythe and the file Angel brought.
She gives the file to Giles&company, and the amulet to Spike. Then she comes up with her plan. The plan is: They split up into factions: 1. The civilians (non-superpowered beings block the entrances of the school and fight bringers and escaping Turok-Han. This group is: Dawn/one-eyed Xander, Anya/Andrew, Robin/Giles. 2. Willow does a spell that spreads the slayer power to every potential in the universe. Kennedy will protect Willow from outside forces and herself. Also get the scythe that Willow needs to do the spell back to Buffy after she's done. Leaving a weakened Willow alone in the Principal's office above the hellmouth while Kennedy joins the fight below (hmmm...)
3. Buffy/Spike/Faith and all the potentials enter the hellmouth using their blood to open it - and confront the Turok-han. Spike wears the empowering amulet. They confront billions of Turok-Han.

The Turok-Han notice them and start to fight before Willow does the spell, Willow completes it - the potentials come into their own and fight bravely. Some die. They beat them back but not entirely, lots escape and the civilians are fighting Bringers coming at them from behind and Turok-han from in front. Robin gets wounded. Anya sliced in half by a bringer. Things look dicey - Buffy gets a gut wound. Confronts the First. Forces herself to rise up. And fight.
More die. Spike's amulet suddenly activates flooding the room with sunlight. Taking out everything. Buffy/Faith/everyone who is left alive and isn't Spike retreat from Sunnydale, while Spike dies taking out the hellmouth.

Hmmm. Okay, S7 just doesn't have the planning that S1-5 did.
On either the villian or the good guys sides. Methinks the writers at ME got as tired and exhausted plotting these things as we do posting. ;-)

Okay exhausted now. Hope it helped.
sk

[> [> [> [> [> [> Not agreeing -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:56:55 08/28/03 Thu

Caleb's bait plan - The First Evil and Caleb wanted the Scythe; they wanted its power (why else would Caleb get upset about the plaque?) However, while Caleb was willing to try brute force, the First realized only the Slayer could free the Scythe, so it used Caleb to lure Buffy to the vineyard, make her suspicious of it, but also use it as an opportunity to discredit her in the eyes of the potentials. When Buffy did finally get the Scythe, Caleb seemed pretty nervous, and the First's plan only worked if it could get the Scythe back later, so it told Buffy about the disastrous raid to get her to leave Caleb alive. After this, the First increased Caleb's power to help him in reclaiming the Scythe.

Buffy's attack at the vineyard - First, how do you know that they didn't check for a back way (we saw Buffy and Faith reach the vineyard but didn't seen when they left it). Second, while they did realize a trap was being set, Buffy had established a precedent of going against enemies solo (see the Turok-Han). Her plan was based around the idea that the First Evil wouldn't be expecting her to bring a bunch of potentials as well as Spike, Faith, Xander, and Dawn. Did the First give Caleb advance warning about this? We don't know, but Buffy wasn't making an unreasonable assumption. Third, since the vineyard was underground, there was no way to case it without someone going right into it. This would both alert the bad guys and put somebody in very considerable risk. Fourth, the point of the rescue team was more to get them out of there if things went wrong rather than just reinforcements (Buffy told Faith as much, though it's arguable if she listened). Fifth, when Buffy got the message that Caleb had something of hers, she had good reason to believe it was another potential, so she had to go on the attack, otherwise she might very well be letting someone die (imagine all the comments we would have gotten on this board if Caleb did have a potential hostage, Buffy didn't attack, and the potential died). Sixth, not really much research could be done. Because of the reasonable belief that a potential was held hostage, Buffy had to operate under the theory that she could only wait so long before someone might die. Seventh, with almost anybody besides Caleb, Buffy's plan would have worked. Imagine "Welcome to the Hellmouth" if a vampire as powerful as Caleb were lying in wait: Buffy and Xander would have been killed. Here are the only beings that Buffy has ever encountered who could have done well in Caleb's position: the Judge, D'Hoffryn, the Mayor, Glory, Willow, and possibly Amy. Six, that's all. The First went through great time and expense earlier to raise one Turok-Han, which Buffy could defeat on her own. Yes, the logical thing to do is suspect something even worse, but something two Slayers, a very strong vampire, and about two dozen well trained potentials couldn't handle? Seems to me that would be unlikely. Not impossible, but I'd say no more than 20% odds at best. In fact, when I saw "Dirty Girls", my thoughts went along the lines, "Wow, this is more thought out than their plans usually get. Very impressive."

Sending Spike to a monastary - That was simply a research mission, not one where they were expecting much in the way of trouble. Besides, when Giles made that call, I believe he was thinking more about who he'd rather not have around (hence Andrew and Spike are the ones to go).

Angel's second front - How do you know Angel mentioned that he joined with Wolfram & Hart? Also, at the time, Buffy didn't know what her plan was or when she would be going into battle, so there was no immediate need for Angel to be there (also, I think this was also partly rationalization on Buffy's part for trying to avoid Spike and Angel meeting).

Normal humans on surface - They knew the bulk of the Turok-Han would be underneath the Seal, and that most of them wouldn't go to the surfcae, so it makes sense to have the strongest force underground. Also, on the surface, the good guys were able to use sunlight to their advantage, acting as some compensation for their lack of superstrength.

Potentials going down before spell is complete - Odds are, based on "Bring on the Night", that the First would sense a spell of this magnitude on Willow's part, so it was best to have the potentials as close to the Turok-Han as possible when the spell goes off, so that they can't be warned.

Turok-Han army - Billions and billions seems like a great overstatement. To me it seemed to be roughly a thousand, maybe a little more, maybe a little less.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Also not agreeing -- MaeveRigan, 17:12:45 08/28/03 Thu

Because, as Joyce pointed out, there are no good plans for actually destroying Evil. Resisting it, yes. Fighting it, sure. But wiping it out--can't be done by humans, or even super-humans, in this world. That's why Buffy's only plan, in the end, has to be to do the best she can with what she's got and be open to inspiration and the too-much-maligned "deus-ex-machina": "We're going to win" by means of the mysterious amulet that does something heroic to cleanse things and by spreading the power, rather than hoarding it. OK! Once again, love makes you do the wacky, but this time, it's a different kind of love, because it's a different kind of villain.

This theory would work better in a 'verse that actually acknowledged some form of PTB's, of course. Just think of them as represented metaphorically (see deus-ex-machina, above).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Scoobies have had many deus ex machina over the years -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:48:55 08/28/03 Thu

When fighting a vampire in "All the Way", Giles tosses him so that a tree branch goes right through his heart. No way he could have planned that.

Angel just happens to know how to find the Peraganum Codex, and does so not long before its prophecied apocalypse begins to show signs.

Buffy happens to show up to save Xander and Willow when a vampire attacks them for the first time all summer in "When She Was Bad".

How, whenever Oz got loose, he never managed to kill or infect anyone.

Buffy falling for the most skilled and highest ranking Initiative commando.

Spike's the vampire Maggie Walsh decides to test her chip on.

Glory being covered by a collapsing building or hit by a truck just before she can get Buffy.

Not to mention all of the close calls with death the Scoobies have on a weekly basis.

Either the PTB are looking out for the Scoobies, or they're just profoundly lucky. Or it could be karma; narrowly escaping doom all those times is the compensation for their bad luck (Angel's happiness clause, Tara being shot, Amy knowing a dark magic dealer, etc.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> But the ones in S7 were, IMHO, so much WORSE -- Earl Allison, 03:02:36 08/29/03 Fri

I've heard this over and over, and while I suppose on the surface it seems a fair comparison, I can't really believe it.

Now, this is all VERY subjective, so maybe that's where my problem lies, but the Scythe and Amulet in S7 were among the worst Deus Ex Machina Buffy has ever had, IMHO. Add to that the Guardian's exposition and general uselessness, and it really begins to fall apart.

None of the items you mentioned to date really defeated the Big Bad and overlying arc of the season as the Amulet and Scythe did. Sure, Angel had the Codex, but it was Buffy who actually faced and killed the Master.

Sure, Kendra brought a msgic sword to Buffy in S2, but it was Buffy's skill, a Slayer's skill with a weapon, that won the day -- and most people were more concerned with watching Angel get skewered and sent to Hell.

The Scythe just ... appeared. It mystically let Buffy kill Turok-Han with ease, allowed her and Willow to make up a totally absurd (IMHO) Empowerment spell on the spot, and worst of all, would NEVER have fallen into her hands had Caleb and the First not been written with all the cunning and subtlety of a kindergartener.

The Amulet? Even worse, HANDED to Buffy from the alleged Bad Guys from another show, and when she and the others admit they don't know exactly how it works, it turns into the lynchpin of Buffy's (failed) plan. In fact, IMHO the world was saved, not because of Buffy, but DESPITE her actions. There was nothing said or implied in any of the dialogue, IMHO, to justify that Buffy or the others knew exactly how the Amulet was going to work, or when.

Yes, there were Deus Ex Machina in all seasons, but S7 was to me the King of terrible, unearned Machina -- even worse than the Summers' blood bait-and-switch of S5 or the chip/soul issue from S6.

Anyway, not attacking you, Finn, so sorry if it comes off that way :) I just think S7 was terribly written start to finish, and that the posters here are putting a lot more thought into the season than ME did. A lot of the (very clever, can't stress that enough) positions put forth here and in other threads defending ME and Buffy's actions might well be supportable with subtext and implication, but to me, there simply wasn't nearly enough on the screen for me to accept that the writers did intend them as such.

Take it and run.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> wow, finn--very well laid out! -- anom, 11:58:10 08/29/03 Fri

Esp. the part about Buffy's getting--& getting out with--the Scythe.

I agree about the plan; it seemed very good strategically (I remember thinking they were being very cautious, w/the 2nd contingent in reserve) & would've worked under most circumstances. And actually, I'm not sure it wouldn't have worked in this case. Yes, Caleb knocked both of the Slayers & Spike around pretty easily. But when Buffy gets back up--mad--she goes after Caleb, lands several solid blows, & sends him flying (maybe even knocks him out, but we don't see)--the 1st time any attack on him has had any noticeable effect. They should have followed up on this, but that's when Spike grabs Buffy & says, "We are leaving!" Buffy doesn't look happy about it, but she goes along. Why Spike gets to decide, I have no idea--not to mention why they went after Caleb one at a time. (Kinda reminds me of the way AI tried to fight the Beast.) If Buffy, Faith, Spike, & some of the Potentials had attacked Caleb together after Buffy knocked him flat, while the rest of the Potentials kept any remaining Bringers from interfering, they might have been able to kill him right then, or at least do enough damage to keep him out of action for a while. And Xander wouldn't have lost an eye. True, they did need to get the injured out, but Xander & some of the uninjured Potentials might have been able to do that while the fighting continued.

"Normal humans on surface - They knew the bulk of the Turok-Han would be underneath the Seal, and that most of them wouldn't go to the surfcae, so it makes sense to have the strongest force underground. Also, on the surface, the good guys were able to use sunlight to their advantage, acting as some compensation for their lack of superstrength."

True, but I think they could've spared 1 new Slayer at each location. And putting the 2 weakest fighters--Anya & Andrew--together was not a good idea. Maybe if they'd been the ones by the skylight (sunlight was a factor only in 1 location), they'd have had a better chance.

"Potentials going down before spell is complete - Odds are, based on 'Bring on the Night', that the First would sense a spell of this magnitude on Willow's part, so it was best to have the potentials as close to the Turok-Han as possible when the spell goes off, so that they can't be warned."

Good point. Might've helped if they'd mentioned this as a reason, although I'm not sure it applies when Willow's spell isn't focused directly against the FE. But I suspect the real reason was to increase the suspense. @>) After all, how exciting would it have been to see all the Potentials head down to the fight as fully powered Slayers? Plus, we wouldn't have had Vi's line "These guys are dust!"

And yes, "billions" of Turok-Han is a major overstatement. Certainly what we saw under the Seal didn't approach anything like, say, the population of China. It probably wasn't even millions. Which brings up the question of how long it would have taken for the FE's "army" to outnumber living humans. We never saw how new Turok-Hans come into existence--whether they can sire humans the way vampires do, or whether any new ones are being created at all. Hmm...maybe they divide like amoebas, & the reason they got weaker as the season progressed is that, unlike Slayer power, their strength has to be divided among their increasing number! Well, it's as good an explanation as any.... If they did double in number every so often, it wouldn't take them long to outnumber humans, even if they weren't killing them. But that's highly doubtful, & w/any other way of increasing their numbers, it would take a very long time before that balance would tip, even if they were killing large numbers of humans.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Just a short comment -- frisby, 10:52:47 08/29/03 Fri

Yea, but you got to love it. Buffy accepts her destiny in S1, overcomes herself in S2, becomes a hero in S3, a superhero in S4, dies in S5, is resurrected in S6, and with S7 her church finally begins. The end of the series was all that I ever hoped for. The plan? Protect humanity and save the world by founding the church of Buffy. I think of myself as a member. Are you?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just a short comment -- MaeveRigan, 13:37:52 08/29/03 Fri

Nice, frisby! I'm joining up!

A Duty? -- Claudia, 15:47:11 08/26/03 Tue

Why should vampire slaying be a duty? Was Buffy being paid for killing vampires and demons? Was there a law somewhere that because she had Slayer strength, it was her "duty" to slay vampires and demons to protect the world?

And why did she even bother continue slaying after breaking off with the Watcher's Council between Seasons 3 and 4? Even after high school, she considered slaying a duty that she did not enjoy. Why didn't she simply say the hell with that and live her own life?

[> She's one of the few people in the world capable of doing it well. -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:17:44 08/26/03 Tue

Very few people know about vampires existing, and even fewer are in any position to do anything about it. Buffy, as one who both knows about vampires and has the ability to fight them, has a duty to slay vampires, otherwise they'll just go on killing people. Now that there are lots of women capable of fighting vampires and demons, she may not have to go on slaying. But, in the past, there was no one else on the Hellmouth besides her who could do the job.

[> [> Only In Sunnydale -- Claudia, 16:58:39 08/26/03 Tue

And? So that's why it was her duty to kill vampires? It's not enough for me. Especially since she was more or less coerced into Slayer duties at the tender age of 15. I would say that she had no choice because she was young and guillable enough not to cave into adult authority.

And she was only fighting them in one location - either L.A. or Sunnydale. What about the rest of the world? Why should she be forced to fight vampires and demons when they were roaming freely in other parts of the world?

[> [> [> Re: Only In Sunnydale -- DEN, 19:13:00 08/26/03 Tue

I've always had trouble with the notion of one slayer but a world of vamps. It's a good gimmick for a one-shot presentation, a movie or a novel, but poses an AWFUL lot of problems in a developed storyline, like "Buffy's" became.The best I've been able to do is invoke "suspension of disbelief," and applaud the mass activation of slayers in "Chosen" because it evens the odds!

[> [> [> [> Re: Only In Sunnydale -- Alison, 03:52:11 08/27/03 Wed

I'm fairly sure that the Shadowmen only created one slayer because they feared what one girl with that much power might do, let alone thousands. They could control a slayer, but not an army of slayers. This same mentality filtered down to the Watcher's Council, with an added sense of tradition. And we all know how much they just loved tradition...even if in the overall scheme of things, the traditions made little sense.

[> [> [> [> Sunnydale had the most active Hellmouth..... -- Briar Rose, 13:58:30 08/27/03 Wed

With great ret-con, JW created the perfect reason why Buffy would be a fixture in Sunnydale beyond the simple explaination of "There be vamps here."

As we saw between the original movie and the first episode of BtVS the tv show, the target of her mission changed. She may have been activated in LA where there were pockets of vamp activity (anyone who lives here can attest to the symbolism of that.) But when it was over for her in LA with the burning of the Hemmery High gym? Then her Mother and Father conveniently boke up their marriage and Joyce Summers was "drawn" to Sunnydale to start over with her daughter.

It was a magnificent job of ret-con and established a pattern of supernatural intervention that finally began to take more of a part in the BtVS mythology when the First Slayer and Buffy's "Slayer-Sense" finally started to be used in the story-lines.

"Duty" is something that we take upon ourselves. There is really no way for any force in the Universe to impose it upon anyone agains their own FREE WILL. But it is the spirit and personal pride of one's self that makes us respond to the things we see that we can work to help end/change by our own actions.

The "duty" was not simply thrust upon her. She chose it. And that's part of what made the last three seasons so emotionally dramatic: Buffy Summers found that even though she didn't like the responsibility she'd shouldered, she couldn't get herself to let it go. She could have, and she began to realize that it was a matter of her personal choice and not something beyond her control. Yet she made the choice to continue to see it as her "duty."

Faith was the anti-thesis of this desire to accept personal responsibility and a personal sense of "duty" to accept her role given by the supernatural powers that had been bestowed on her like they were on Buffy.

Faith saw that she could benifit from them without feeling any type of "suty" to use them for good. Thus we have the mirror image of Self Responsibility.

The theme of the entire Buffy-verse is very simple: Personal Choice. Choice to use our gifts for the betterment of others and ourselves or to use them only for selfish gain and not care to help others.

There was nothing keeping Buffy in Sunnydale beyond her personal desire to make something of her gifts that would help others. While Faith was not personally fulfilled by using her's to help anyone but herself.

[> [> [> Just because you can't stop all of them doesn't mean you shouldn't do all of the good you can -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:55:42 08/26/03 Tue

Take a look at "Helpless". Buffy freely admits that you don't just run out of vampires. But it's not really about defeating them for good; it would be nice if you could do that, but it's unlikely. It's about doing as much good as possible and saving as many lives as you can. Just because vampires around the world don't have anyone stopping them doesn't mean that Buffy should just give up stopping the ones she can.

As far as being coerced at a young age, it didn't take much provocation to reject the Council. She quit them in "Graduation Day II" and put herself clearly in the control seat in "Checkpoint". While she was coerced at a young age, she got older, rejected the coercers, but still kept fighting the good fight.

Also, while she only has an impact on Sunnydale, that is probably the place that needs a Slayer the most. In areas far away from Sunnydale I'm betting demons and vampires aren't that common; I certainly doubt there are the almost nightly risings we see in Sunnydale. Sunnydale needs a Vampire Slayer more than any other town (take a look at how it fared without her in "The Wish"). Plus, because of the Hellmouth, Sunnydale tends to be where Apocalypses pop up. If Buffy weren't an active Slayer there, the world quite possibly would have been destroyed by now.

[> [> [> [> Re: Just because you can't stop all of them doesn't mean you shouldn't do all of the good you can -- Claudia, 11:27:07 08/27/03 Wed

One, I disagree with your argument that Sunnydale needed a Slayer the most. If that was the fact, why would Buffy be activated as a Slayer, while she was living in Los Angeles? Why was Nikki Wood a Slayer in New York City? Was was the Chinese Slayer in Peking? And why was Kendra a Slayer in Jamaica? Spike has only spent . . . five years in Sunnydale (with the exception of 1998-1999) and only spent . . . what, a little over a year as an active vampire. He had committed most of his atrocities in other parts of the world. Surely a Slayer would have been needed in those areas?

[Take a look at "Helpless". Buffy freely admits that you don't just run out of vampires. But it's not really about defeating them for good; it would be nice if you could do that, but it's unlikely. It's about doing as much good as possible and saving as many lives as you can. Just because vampires around the world don't have anyone stopping them doesn't mean that Buffy should just give up stopping the ones she can.

As far as being coerced at a young age, it didn't take much provocation to reject the Council. She quit them in "Graduation Day II" and put herself clearly in the control seat in "Checkpoint". While she was coerced at a young age, she got older, rejected the coercers, but still kept fighting the good fight.]

This all came about because the Watcher's Council became aware of her at the tender age of 15 and ensured that she would be brainwashed into their way of thinking by sending a Watcher to her - first in the form of Merrick and later, Giles. By the time she had broke away from the WC, it was too late. She had become used to the idea that being a Slayer was her duty. She never liked the job to begin with. But because of the training she had received from her Watchers, she believed that she could not walk away from it.

And this is why I suspect that when she and the Scoobies start contacting the new Slayers, she will ASK if they want to pursue the duties and lifestyle of a vampire slayer, instead of telling them that they have to, because it is their duty. After all, in "Chosen", she asked both the Potentials and the Scoobies if they would fight by her side in the Hellmouth. For once, she did not order them.

[> [> [> [> [> Did anyone ever say that where Slayers are called makes any sense? -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:36:55 08/27/03 Wed

For all we know, which potential becomes a Slayer could be completely random. The areas that need a Slayer most aren't necessarily the ones who get one. Also, it's worth noting how Darla, Angel, and Spike, all big, globe trotting vampires, inevitably found their way to Sunnydale independently. Never said there weren't vampires all across the world, just that Sunnydale has the highest concentration. Also, you've never addressed my point about apocalypses.

As for Buffy being "brainwashed". Were Willow or Xander brainwashed? Oz? Cordelia? Tara? Anya? Each of them voluntarily slew vampires when Buffy was absent in the summers of '98 and '01. They were never victims to brainwashing, in fact, Buffy tried to discourage them from getting to involved in Slaying, but they fought vampires any way. And they didn't seem to enjoy it too much either, but they did it because they felt like they had to, because they knew no one else would. If you can accept this from them, why can't you accept this from Buffy?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Did anyone ever say that where Slayers are called makes any sense? -- heywhynot, 13:53:12 08/27/03 Wed

Also, Buffy while activated in the City of Angels she was brought quickly to Sunnydale. Why Sunnydale of all places for her mom to open an art gallery? Giles implied there was something influencing that choice in Welcome to the Hellmouth.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Just because you can't stop all of them doesn't mean you shouldn't do all of the good you can -- Gyrus, 13:57:30 08/27/03 Wed

I disagree with your argument that Sunnydale needed a Slayer the most. If that was the fact, why would Buffy be activated as a Slayer, while she was living in Los Angeles? Why was Nikki Wood a Slayer in New York City? Was was the Chinese Slayer in Peking? And why was Kendra a Slayer in Jamaica?

Remember that vampires didn't really become active in Sunnydale until Buffy arrived there in WttH. Recall also that both Kendra and Faith, although activated elsewhere, both made their way to Sunnydale eventually.

Certainly, other parts of the world have vampire problems, but not to the same extent as Sunnydale (with the possible exception of Cleveland).

[> Re: A Duty? -- Cynicor, 16:35:06 08/26/03 Tue

Sometimes people feel a sense of responsibility - even when no one asks them to. Buffy may have been an irresponsible teenager once, but becoming the Slayer - and arguably, many of her personal life experiences - changed her outlook.

"Anne" in s3 shows Buffy's mindset. Emotionally distraught, she thinks that she can run away from her calling, which has cost her so much. But in the end no one tells Buffy she has to come back and be a Slayer. Helping Lily, fighting those demons, rescuing the prisoners, all this brings back to her her natural sense of protectiveness and responsibility.

And sure, the Watchers try to drill her with "You are the Slayer. Into each generation a Slayer is born. One girl in all the world, one born with the strength and skill to hunt the vampires, to stop the spread of their evil, blah blah blah." Buffy tries to fight this in S1, claiming she is retired. But despite Gile's clumsy attempts to change her mind, it is not him, but the need of others that brings her out of 'retirement'.

And re your last comment, I think Buffy found comfort in slaying, it was something - despite its hardships and occasional heartbreak - that she could fall back on, almost by rote. It was something she was (despite Faith), pretty unique at. I forget the ep, but back when Faith had arrived and was still good, Giles and her mother toyed with the idea of letting Faith take over the slaying while Buffy went to a college somewhere else. You can see her resistance to this idea. Despite her occasional complaining about how slaying wrecks her life, the sheer mindlessness of going out and beating up a bunch of vampires had become a pillar of solidity compared to her turbulent personal life. Its when the slaying gig goes past just killing random vampires in the park that you hear some of her award-winning complaining. Like she remarks in the Prom, "Great thing about being a Slayer, kicking ass is comfort food".

[> [> Re: A Duty? -- Claudia, 17:01:15 08/26/03 Tue

All of Buffy's "feelings" about slaying came from the fact that she was basically coerced into Slayer duties at 15 - when she was young enough to cave in to her Watcher's authority. I wonder if she would have done the same if she had became the Slayer at an older age. Seems to me that her personal life was a victim of the Watcher's Council.

[> [> [> Re: A Duty? -- Cheryl, 18:52:19 08/26/03 Tue

I wonder if she would have done the same if she had became the Slayer at an older age. Seems to me that her personal life was a victim of the Watcher's Council.

Which is probably why slayers are activated at such a young age. It wasn't that long ago that the mentality "children were seen and not heard" was the prevalent one. Children really had no rights. So it would have been extremely easy for the Council to mold young girls to their liking. It's only be in the last 30 years or so that women, and girls, have become independent and strong. Buffy exemplified that. I bet if the WC was still around after Buffy, they would find the Potentials a whole different breed of girls than what they've dealt with in the past.

[> [> [> [> activated at such a young age... -- Ronia, 05:34:20 08/27/03 Wed

I'm very interested in this thread and would like to post more later...but for now, just a few quick thoughts. I have noticed that the military prefers to enlist people as young as legally possible, so young that a person can find themselves a soldier before they find themselves an adult. The shpeel says something about young men and physical strength, but a quick look around will eliminate that as a possibility. Compare the gangly 18 year old with the fully mature muscles of a 30 year old man...there is no contest. I suspect the real difference between the two, is that an 18 year old is yet maleable, an older adult more likely an independent thinker with some experience in life. I think the council went for Buffy at 15 to ensure it would be in the drivers seat. I think they do not expect their slayers to live beyond teendom, and this is why they don't pay a wage for services rendered. To me, considering how many lackeys they do actually employ, and how affluent they claim to be, no other answer fills the void in which Buffy is flipping burgers. In retrospect..this may have truly contributed to their loss of power...if her needs are not met, she is forced to begin to think for herself, and in doing so, may arrive at a conclusion that they do not approve of. Whoever made the call that angel would not be helped (grad day), is responsible for the whole council losing their slayer, quite a miscall in retrospect, prior to that decision, not only did accept their authority, she was looking right at them to answer her questions about her situation. If they had helped her with her dilema, and had provided means for her to live a desireable lifestyle, she may have had a much more difficult time stepping outside of the bounds that they had set in place.

[> [> [> [> [> Why didn't they support her? -- Liam, 06:56:45 08/27/03 Wed

Like you, Ronia, I wondered why the Council didn't give Buffy financial support to get her out of the situation she found herself in at the start of season 6. It would have given them some kind of control over her, and she would have felt some sense of obligation towards them. The answer was probably a lack of imagination from the writers, which led to such things as 'Doublemeat Palace'. :(

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why didn't they support her? -- heywhynot, 10:54:48 08/27/03 Wed

Given the lifestyle of Faith & Kendra, I don't think the Council gave stipends to the Slayer. Material possesions, friends, family in their minds got in the way of Slaying. Hence the preferred way of doing things was to raise a potential so that when she was activated she wasn't "burdened" which such things. This is a group who had Buffy drugged to loose her abilities and then were going to test her & if she died, oh well, time for another slayer. Not exactly bleeding hearts.

Of course it is the fact Buffy has all these loved ones that she is able to be a fantastic Slayer. Anya was wrong in Season 7, Buffy was chosen by her friends to be special. Yes the powers came to her. The fact she lasted beyond season 1 was because Xander, Willow, & Angel choose her. They cared about her because of the person she was.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why didn't they support her? -- Claudia, 11:16:05 08/27/03 Wed

[Like you, Ronia, I wondered why the Council didn't give Buffy financial support to get her out of the situation she found herself in at the start of season 6. It would have given them some kind of control over her, and she would have felt some sense of obligation towards them. The answer was probably a lack of imagination from the writers, which led to such things as 'Doublemeat Palace'.]

I don't think that the Watcher's Council had any authority over Buffy by the beginning of Season 6, despite Giles' return to their employment. She made that perfectly clear in "Checkpoint". And knowing Buffy's feelings toward the WC, I doubt very much that she would have asked for financial support.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Different situations is my theory..... -- Briar Rose, 14:19:21 08/27/03 Wed

When we look at the difference between Kendra, Faith, Buffy and the additional information provided in the character of Kennedy we DO see that the Watcher's Council chose different ways of financially uspporting each Slayer.

Since Buffy was called before she was pin-pointed as having the possibility of being a Slayer she was never TRAINED! She was a teenager with parents who were making a living, even if not much of one for Joyce once she became a single mother.

Kendra was pin-pointed as a Slayer Potential before she was truly "Chosen" as was Kennedy and as we are meant to assume Faith.

In the case of Faith, she had no family so her Watcher was her means of subsistance and sustenance. The WC paid the Watcher. The Watcher fed, clothed and housed Faith. This was the same with Kendra.

With Kennedy we saw a different situation. She WAS pin-pointed as a Potential. She was trained by a Watcher. But she had very well off parents! She didn't need her Watcher (hence the WC) to provide her with creature comforts. She had parents to do so for her.

It was all a simple arrangment, IMO. IF the Potential Slayer had the resources to survive monetarily, then the Council didn't pay their way. If they didn't? Then the Watcher was a serrogate guardian and the Watchers Council provided financing through the Watcher's stipend.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Also.... -- Briar Rose, 14:22:24 08/27/03 Wed

By the time that Buffy actually needed the Council to financially support her, she'd burned those bridges but good.

You seem to forget that Giles was still giving her money and dealing with the little "parental" things that Joyce could no longer fulfill up until the time in OMWF when he decided to leave and force Buffy to become a true adult and take responsibility for the financial, emotional and mental needs that she and her sister had.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Strength of metaphor -- KdS, 15:13:26 08/27/03 Wed

The writers very specifically intended the overarching metaphor of S6 to be the confusion that young people get into after education when they have to make their own way in the world. Adding another source of authority in Buffy's life, even an ambiguous or unsympathetic one, would have diluted that.

[> With great power... -- Rooks, 18:52:10 08/26/03 Tue

Comes great responsibility.

With all the Spider-Man references peppered throughout the series, just had to throw this one in here.

[> duty, calling and the flypaper theory -- Corwin of Amber, 21:07:17 08/26/03 Tue

I think 'calling' would be a term for what buffy and the other slayers do. We've seen several times that they have an 'instinct', for want of a better term, to go and fight nasty things. (Think Faith heading back to the church when she was already at the bus station - makes no sense from a self preservational perspective, even increases the chance of a po'd buffy.)

Also, what makes you think they can walk away and not run into a vampire again? Would not some vampires seek them out?

And there's also the 'flypaper' effect - the slayer attracts vampires like flypaper or a bugzapper with the same effect, with happy results for the rest of humanity.

[> [> Re: duty, calling and the flypaper theory -- Claudia, 11:30:30 08/27/03 Wed

[I think 'calling' would be a term for what buffy and the other slayers do. We've seen several times that they have an 'instinct', for want of a better term, to go and fight nasty things.]

They have this "instinct" is because their Watchers had instilled it in them. It was never really about their own instinct or their own desire to go and fight nasty things. Basically, Buffy's continuation of her duties as a Slayer really came about being brainwashed by her Watchers that this was something she "had to do". I cannot think of the numerous times Giles had either nagged or lectured her about her "sacred duty" as a Slayer. By the time she had broken with the Watcher's Council, I think that Buffy really began to believe this.

[> [> [> What about "Prophecy Girl"? -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:42:10 08/27/03 Wed

Buffy gives up her role as the Slayer, and it isn't Giles who convinces her to resume it; it's Willow, who wasn't even trying to persuade her. Buffy heard Willow's description of the vampires' massacre, and that's what motivated her to go and fight the Master. Not a sense of sacred duty, but a desire to stop people from going through the pain and fear that Willow described. Giles even tries to persuade her not to fight the Master when she comes back, but she knocks him unconscious and goes ahead anyway.

[> [> [> [> Re: What about "Prophecy Girl"? -- Claudia, 11:56:09 08/27/03 Wed

Again, someone convinces her to resume her "duty" as a Slayer. If it had been Buffy's choice, she would have said bye-bye to the job. This even makes me even wonder why the Scoobies felt it was their job to assume Slayer duties, while Buffy was in L.A. during the summer of 1998, and resent her for it.

Buffy made it perfectly clear as late as "Touched" that she never wanted to be saddled with the "duties" of a Slayer. Frankly, I think she should have turned her back on it, when she had the chance.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: What about "Prophecy Girl"? -- Rook, 13:46:26 08/27/03 Wed

Being "convinced" by a desire to prevent suffering, which is what we're talking about in PG, is 100% a person's choice. Willow didn't do anything but have a natural, normal reaction to what she saw. Buffy was then left with a decision, and she made it, totally of her own free will.

It was her choice, and she elected to fight the master.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: What about "Prophecy Girl"? -- Corwin of Amber, 20:47:13 08/27/03 Wed

>Buffy made it perfectly clear as late as "Touched" that she never wanted to be saddled with the "duties" of a Slayer. Frankly, I think she should have turned her back on it, when she had the chance.

And then the world would have ended without her help, but at least she wasn't brainwashed anymore :)

[> Re: A Duty? -- Ames, 08:16:13 08/27/03 Wed

It is kind of strange that Buffy seemed to accept so implicitly and unquestioningly that slaying vampires and demons was her duty. In all other things she questioned authority and tradition, but not this. She just felt instinctively that it was right. The Watchers were just validation, not the fundamental reason.

Everyone assumes that the effect of being Chosen is strictly a physical one. But that really can't be true - how did the early Slayers know what to do before the Watchers got their act together?

When a new Slayer is Chosen, the first thing that happens is they get brainwashed by dreams that condition them to see slaying vampires and demons as their duty. The dreams probably get them to go where they are most needed too. The PTB that choose the Slayer always choose someone who's young and impressionable, and they can simply avoid choosing anyone who isn't right for the job mentally as well as physically.

What do the military do when they want to recruit fighters who will take up their mission, putting their own lives at risk to kill strangers they don't even know? They choose the young and impressionable, separate them from their family and friends, put them under extreme pressure to break them down mentally, indoctrinate them with their own propaganda, and finally give them their new mission. Hmmm, sounds a lot like creating a Slayer.

Probably the PTB deliberately send a few vamps and demons their way initially to put the new Slayer in danger and help separate them from family and friends. If they get killed instead, the PTB can always start over with a new Slayer. The military knows that the advantages of live fire training outweighs the risks, even if there are a few losses.

The only thing that maybe didn't go according to plan with Buffy was that they didn't succeed in separating her from her mother for the first few years. But remember that when it came to a conflict between Buffy's mother and the mission, Buffy chose the mission at the cost of losing her mother (Becoming 2). And while Buffy was able to latch on to a few good friends, she wanted them around only as long as they helped her mission rather than hindering it.

[> [> Different interpretation -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:20:10 08/27/03 Wed

The early Slayers lived in era where the existence of demons and vampires was common knowledge. They didn't know why they had superstrength, but they knew they had it, and that they could use it to defend their people from monsters. As time grew on and people began to disbelieve the supernatural, the Watchers' Council was around to inform Slayers of what they were and that monsters did exist.

[> [> [> Re: Different interpretation -- Claudia, 11:35:12 08/27/03 Wed

[The early Slayers lived in era where the existence of demons and vampires was common knowledge. They didn't know why they had superstrength, but they knew they had it, and that they could use it to defend their people from monsters. As time grew on and people began to disbelieve the supernatural, the Watchers' Council was around to inform Slayers of what they were and that monsters did exist.]

The episode, "Get It Done" seems to negate this. Judging from Buffy learned from the Shadowmen, it is clear that the First Slayer was given these powers AGAINST HER WILL and forced by the Shadowmen to battle vampires and other demons for them. This is clearly a first sign of the Watcher's Council own system.

When you think about it, the powers never really came from TPTB. They came as a result of the Shadowmen summoning a demon and using magic to ensure that Slayers will exist throughout time.

[> [> [> [> Of course Slayers aren't voluntarily given their powers . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:38:29 08/27/03 Wed

But they do get to choose what to do with their powers once they have them.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Of course Slayers aren't voluntarily given their powers . . . -- Claudia, 11:45:43 08/27/03 Wed

[But they do get to choose what to do with their powers once they have them.]

No they don't. Not really. They are coerced by those who introduce themselves as Watchers to use these powers. Coercered, nagged and lectured about how it is their duty to fight vampires and demons. And no matter how many times a Slayer (especially one who is not an adult) says no, that same Watcher will continue to nag, coerce or lecture them until they finally give in.

[> [> [> [> [> [> So, just because someone is urging me to do something means it's not my choice? -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:33:37 08/27/03 Wed

Suppose someone's trying to convince me to use heroin. I say no, but the guy keeps pushing again and again. I'm being coerced. However, if I give in and use heroin, it is still my choice. He couldn't make me use it; he had no power over me. While he provided the persuasion, it would still be my choice and my responsibility. Likewise, no one can force a Slayer to fight vampires. They can urge, nag, and lecture, but not force. The Watchers' power lies solely in their ability to persuade the Slayer. But it is ultimately the Slayer's choice; no one forces them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> This reminds me of my pet-peeve: The Victimization of Humanity. -- Briar Rose, 14:41:05 08/27/03 Wed

Why is it that so many people want to negate the force of Personal Choice and Free Will as being the WHY of someone doing something?

As Finn stated, cooersion and group think can play a role, but ultimatly the choice is with the individual. There is no time in human history when that has not been the case.

You can argue all you want about women recently being "empowered", and it's simply not so. Look at the Breton Laws, the Goddess religions and the Matriarcial Societies that existed long before the ERA was even thought of. Look at the women in all countries that served as monarches and warriors.

It is a certain type of narrow field of vision that wants to make arguements that women are not "empowered" or were recently "empowered" and it exists in the minds of those who choose to try and take on the mantle of professional VICTIM that hold to them.

It's like blaming McDonalds for not having the will power to not eat french fries three times a day.

It makes me sick personally..... But I digress.

As for BtVS: Yes, we saw that one instance of the Shadow Men forcing a deamon into a young woman to create a Slayer. But you are forgetting that the WiseWoman in the cave in season 7 appeared to be saying that The Powers That Be also created Slayers without that being an issue before the Shadow Men existed!

The idea that the young woman was forced into accepting the job, even while not accepting the actual "empowerment" ritual is just not supported in canon. We do NOT know that the First Slayer wasn't "Chosen" by a mystical force created by the Women's Council the Wise Woman in Season 7 alluded to and that the Council Of Watchers didn't just muck that original idea up with some arcane ritual that they alone chose.

Personally, I see the information given to Buffy by the WiseWoman as being one of the major missing pices of the puzzle that JW saved until the very end to release: Buffy only knew the half of the story where the Council came into play. That Slayers were not a "one in the Universe" phenomenon when TPTB originally created them. Thus the need for the Scythe and the ritual Willow used to return the empowerment to all that would and could accept it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: This reminds me of my pet-peeve: The Victimization of Humanity. -- Claudia, 16:38:11 08/27/03 Wed

Answer me this . . . during the entire 7 season run of BUFFY, has she ever liked being a Slayer? Has she ever came to the conclusion that she liked being a Slayer? As far as I know - she hasn't. And why? Because she considered it her duty to be a Slayer. And why did she consider it her duty? Why didn't she just turn her back against being a Slayer and lead a normal life?

You keep saying that Buffy chose out of free choice. If Buffy really had free choice to begin with, would she have decided to become a Slayer? Or would she have allowed her guilt and arguments about responsibility force her hand?

All of your arguments about free choice, etc., have not answered these questions. When you've found a good answer, let me know.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> When were women empowered? -- sdev, 07:28:36 08/28/03 Thu

You can argue all you want about women recently being "empowered", and it's simply not so. Look at the Breton Laws, the Goddess religions and the Matriarcial Societies that existed long before the ERA was even thought of. Look at the women in all countries that served as monarches and warriors.

While I absolutely agree about personal responsibility, what does that have to do with empowerment of women?

I have seen this argument before and I very much disagree. The instances you mention are just that rarities, special cases. In countries where women were monarchs or rulers the general population of women were not empowered (Elizabethan England is a good example). They had the same lowly status.

It is only in recent history that general populations of women have been treated with any degree of equality. And that is still not true in much of the world. No woman I know or have ever met would want to go back in time to the way women used to be treated.

One can accept personal responsibility when one is not compelled by law to act in a prescribed manner or to be someone else's property.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> sdev.... (and Claudia it's real life....) -- Briar Rose, 12:51:09 08/28/03 Thu

I'd hardly call at least the first half of the Egyptian Empire, the Native tribes of Europe and The Americas and the entire Roman and Greek Empires up until the "Birth of Christ"/"The attack of the Christians" as "rarities and special cases."

You have not been reading your long term history. When you look into the times that were before and immediatly following the Christ Revolution and the way it swept the globe in the Crusades, you find a very DIFFERENT role of women.

And it wasn't even that ancient in lineage. All you have to do is look at the history of the American Indian, Hinduism, African Tribal Customs in many parts of that continent and Pre-Catholic/Native Mexican Culture to see that up until maybe 170 years ago, there were many societies where women were empowered.

You have to look OUTSIDE the good old Euro-centric "history" to see the reality. Empowerment of women has always been around and on a grand scale. It's only the narrow view academia that sticks to repeating the history of the European areas that ignores this.

Claudia, the answer IS that she chose the responsibility. Ask anyone who grew up with emotional abuse or lived through any sort of abuse if they are choosing to allow the thoughts/words/actions of others to shape their lives....

With the all popular "victimization" theory - they are what "others made them" and that will never change. But that is THEIR choice. Their free will is tied up into choosing to let others control them

The answer in my case is: Only when I CHOOSE to allow it to.

I may have heard that I was fat/ugly/useless and only there to "serve" my sexual abuser and do my duty to my family. I heard it tons of times. But I CHOSE to shirk that duty because it didn't help me or anyone else.

Yes, there are times when I am too tired to argue and it seeps in to my subconcious and then I have to make the choice to get rid of it.

Buffy always had the choice. She did as those of us who refuse to be a victim have always done. She chose to take those words and turn them into a choice she could live with.

In her case, she chose to accept her "destiny" and her "responsibility." She knew it was her choice just as everyone else does. Deep inside, even the most messed up Professional Victim realizes that their own choices on how to react to what they were being taught WAS their choice. In Buffy's case the strength was in accepting it instead of just blaming it all on others for making her follow orders. She never sidestepped the difference between what was right and what wasn't.

You appear to be trying to say that Buffy and the rest of the Slayer Potentials were simply brainwashed. Well, that would be kind of hard when in Buffy's/Kennedy's/Faith's cases you're dealing with a whole bunch of strong willed teenagers. No one can tell a teenager much of anything. That's exactly when most people who were abused start to get themselves together.

Brainwashing requires intense and un-interrupted work on a one on one basis with the subject. It requires removing them from their own daily life for extended periods of time. It's the way cults work.

This is not something that happened to Buffy. She had her own free will except when she was drugged, resurrected against her will or otherwise incapacitated mentally/physically. That wasn't very often. She chose to take the mantle and we, the viewers, all saw that she knew it was a choice, even if she didn't always like the outcome of that choice.

In this life, we make choices that we might like the outcome of later. But if we're emotionally and mentally balanced adults we know that we are the one who has to change it. It's all on us. The ones who don't do that are immature and rely on trying to find scape goats to absolve them of personal responsibility for their own choices.

Buffy made the choice when she kept doing what was asked of her. But it wasn't because she was asked. It was because she knew it was the right thing to do. Many people are asked to do many things everyday. They choose what to do and what not to do. And some even choose on the side of doing what they see to be right.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> herstory -- sdev, 14:23:09 08/28/03 Thu

Even if I agreed with your take on the empowerment of women in those instances you mentioned, they are still just instances which by your own admission ended with the birth of Christ, ie: a long, long time ago.

Furthermore, have you read the pre-Christian Old Testament? Not very female empowering. When did the requirement for Hindu wives to jump on their deceased husband's funeral pyre begin? When did female mutilation begin? I am not seeing a pretty picture.

I'm sorry I don't agree with your evaluation of women's history.

I do agree that Buffy had a choice. I don't see how she was coerced in any way. Although I can see that Kendra, who was taken from her parents at a young age, was in a much more coerced position.

And I agree wholeheartedly about the need for personal responsibility. I too find the McDonalds argument ridiculous.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Uhm, actually Briar Rose is right: women and history -- s'kat, 21:41:41 08/28/03 Thu

Actually if you go to the Brooklyn Museum of Art and wander through the Egyptian Exhibit? You'll get another perspective. Women had professions. Were buried seperately from their husbands and even ruled Egypt. Queen NEfertiti,
Cleopatra to name a few. I have to admit I was astonished to see how much more advanced and privileged the Egyptian women were than say the Hebrews or some of the others.

Also in ancient Gaule? Matrilineal and Matriarchial. Women did have power. Africa was similar. It wasn't really until the Romans came in and conquered that it got more patriarchial. The Native Americans? Some tribes, not all were also matriarchial in character. So there were strong and empowered women, Westerners just don't study them much.

I know I've seen it here and there in Celtic History - where the God is actually the Goddess. And in Egyptian and Bablyonian History. References are also made in the old Testament in The Book of Judith and regarding Rachel.
Very subtle mentions. So it's really not an all or nothing gambit as you may think. It's surprising really when you start exploring it - how many women in pre-Christian times were empowered, as empowered if not more so than we.
I don't expect you to take my word for it and I don't have the energy right now to hunt down links...when you get the chance just wander through the Brooklyn Museum of Art's Egyptian Exhibit. You might be surprised.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> s'kat is correct.... -- Briar Rose, 00:02:36 08/29/03 Fri

Even though not ALL Native American or South American or African tribes were matriarchial or matrilineal, there are and were many that were.

American Indian history is one of my best researched topics. I have only found around 15 of the 40 or so recognized tribes that were not empowering their women. And most of those that were based on matriarcial lineage still are to this day in the basis of their teachings.

It is not about being back to THE time of Christ. It wasn't until the Crusades were able to reach the farthest parts of the Earth Continents that patriarcial societies became the norm.

As s'kat stated, any good museum will fill in the real information. The Bible is not a history book, some would argue that it is anything more than an elaborate fiction, and even it is filled with references to societies that were not based on male dominance and subordination of women.

But then actual research into the reality of what history can tell us? Now that removes all the arguements that so many want to use to advance an agenda of victimization of women through recorded time. The Femi-Nazis hate that type of information getting out. It hurts their arguements of righteous (if mis-placed) indignation for a "before time immemorial" persecution of women by showing that it simply isn't so and puts the blame squarly where it belongs: On the Judeao-Christian Religions and those that forced it upon the world in general.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Femi-Nazis is an offensive expression -- sdev, 00:16:32 08/29/03 Fri

Interesting. Here I am saying how great women have it today. Here you are saying they used to have it better. And yet my argument is advancing "an agenda of victimization".

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually not -- sdev, 00:08:17 08/29/03 Fri

First, the Book of Judith is not part of the Old Testament. It is not part of the canon. It is a part that is specifically excluded called the Apocrypha. I wonder which empowered gender had it excluded. Second, so what. Judith was one example of a heroine. She is the rarity I referred to, the exception not the rule.

Rachel? What "subtle" power did she have? The power to be the second wife of her husband Jacob after waiting seven years while he was married to her older sister and had to work for her father to pay for her?

I never claimed that there were no powerful women or isolated matriarchal societies before modern times. My statement was never "all or nothing." I simply consider those to be the exceptions and not the rule. Today however in the Western world, women are empowered on a widespread basis comparable to no other time in their history. More power widely distributed. That is my point and my objective.

The BAM exhibit you refer to are of Royal and privileged Egyptian women, and the Queens did not do much for the status of women in general in the society. There was only one queen. Again I said there were always exceptions within a given society. But that did not change the plight of most women in that society.

And since both you and Briar Rose agree that post-Christ women's power changed, I made the observation that that was a long time ago. Thus even by your time line women have subsequently lacked power for a long time.

I am sorry if this is not PC or is considered western centric. In my opinion it is also the truth. I repeat-- I and no woman I have ever known would choose to go back to one of those other places and times you mention.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Meant BAA not BAM -- sdev, 02:46:48 08/29/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Uhm... -- s'kat, 08:01:13 08/29/03 Fri

I repeat-- I and no woman I have ever known would choose to go back to one of those other places and times you mention.

As far as I can tell no one on this board male or female has expressed a desire to go back to those times and places, I certainly haven't. For many reasons.

As for class issues? They were tough for everyone. Men had it incredibly tough in those times. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Yes, women were victimized in history as they are today - I think if you visited Afganistan - you'd see victimized and unvictimized women, same in many places of the US. As for the multilation stuff - that also is still going on today - female circumsin is what you are referring to is my guess?? Well men have also gotten it, I have a Jewish friend who's read extensively on the topic and insists it's as bad for them as for women (I honestly have no idea), she protested doing it for her son. I do know that when Alice Walker wrote Temple of My Familar - it was women in a certain area of Africa (can't remember where)who got upset with Walker's suggestion that this was mutilation. Apparently the women priests of this area advanced it and saw it as a sacred/necessary rite of passage. (Very controversial topic, just as controversial as male circumscision is in some areas - and caused a heated battle when the book was first published and when a young girl requested political asylum from that culture - which is why I vaguely remember it. Now would I want it done? Of course not. The whole idea squicks and horrifies me, but I'm not a member of that culture. The idea of piercing your nose and or lip or breast squicks me too, hate needles.)

Truth is - if you really really want to you can provide proof that any gender, race or creed has been victimized throughout history. IT's not hard. But why? Isn't it more important to fight back and become less of a victim? Why focus so much on it? Why is it so important to make huge case about how women are constantly victimized by men?
Isn't it more constructive to attempt to change that and empower oneself?

At the risk of being flamed - I tend to not take The Bible very seriously partly b/c I own five different versions and no one seems to agree on which is the correct one - depends on which sect you're practicing in. I honestly see it as a combination of philosophical teachings, historical narrative
and parables from the cultures that wrote it, plus lots of stories. You can interpret those stories and tales in numerous ways.Some religions, Catholicism being one of them, have sometimes ordered that only trained theologians can correctly interpret these passages, the layman have a tendency to misunderstand them. (They could very well be right, who knows.) But How you interpret the passages is up to you. There is no one interpretation, any more than there is regarding BTVS, which as far as we know could be grabbed as someone's Bible.

I guess having studied myth, folklore and ancient cultures -as well as having worked with Domestic Violence Victims, my own experience somewhat disagrees with your statements. As clearly your experience disagrees with mine.

Your mileage varies from mine. ;-)

sk

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Please read this before you respond -- sdev, 13:23:50 08/29/03 Fri

With all due respect, are you reading anything I am writing? You are not obligated to, but if you would like to respond I would appreciate that courtesy.

This is what I wrote:

Today however in the Western world, women are empowered on a widespread basis comparable to no other time in their history. More power widely distributed.

I am saying how great women have it today.

This is what you wrote in response:

Isn't it more important to fight back and become less of a victim? Why focus so much on it? Why is it so important to make huge case about how women are constantly victimized by men? Isn't it more constructive to attempt to change that and empower oneself?

What about my post-- saying that I believed western women to be more empowered today than ever before-- makes you think I feel victimized? Let me state in unequivocal language: I, as a member of western society today, feel empowered as women have never been empowered before. That was precisely my point.

Why would you quote me saying I had no desire to go back in time to societies you labeled empowered if you did not understand that I thought today's situation was better?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry, appears I misread you. -- s'kat, 14:01:05 08/29/03 Fri

Since I do agree with much that you have said, it appears we are debating at cross-purposes, which is only serving to frustrate us both.

The only thing I disagreed with was what I perceived to be the view that "all women were victimized in the past". One I don't agree with. OR the view that Christianity made it better for women. Also don't agree. Clearly that was a misinterpretation. Sorry. Please accept my apologies. I did agree with much that Briar Rose stated - regarding female empowerment in older times. Much of what I saw at the Egyptian Exhibit in Brooklyn demonstrated how advanced they were. The Exhibit did not appear to make much distinction between class. IT seemed inclusive of rich and poor women.
That could be erroneous. I don't know. I'm certainly no expert.

If you don't mind I'll skip the graphic description of female genitalia mutilation - I know what it is already, I've seen the documentaries and read Alice Walker's outtakes. I agree with Alice Walker on it.

Sorry, that we appear to be misreading each other this week.
Also sorry that I pushed your buttons.

sk

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Accepted- moving forward -- sdev, 17:41:42 08/29/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Female genital mutilation (***WARNING GRAPHIC) -- sdev, 13:30:10 08/29/03 Fri

Female genital mutilation is not even remotely related to circumcision. That label is a total misnomer. What is it? Its stated purpose is to remove the clitoris of girls reaching puberty. Purpose? To remove physiologically and permanently the possibility of sexual pleasure and orgasm. Male circumcision may or may not effect the sensory perception to a slight degree. (I am not a man, but I have heard differing views) It does not deprive a man of being physically able to have an orgasm, nor is it ever intended to.

Bad as the goal for female genital mutilation is, the reality is often far worse. Because often the procedure is performed by untrained (non-medical) persons, under non-hygienic conditions, many more severe results often occur including removal of portions of some or all of the labia and infection which can result in infertility. Sometimes removal of the labia is intentional. The results often mean women/girls (they can be as young as eight) have terrible pain with intercourse and urination in addition to the intended consequence. Some die as a result of infection. The result is always permanent inability to experience orgasm and sexual pleasure.

This practice of female genital mutilation is very widespread in Africa and Muslim countries. You are correct in saying that it is defended as "a sacred/necessary rite of passage" in some societies. I am with Alice Walker (whose courage to speak out on this subject I greatly admire) and call it disgusting mutilation of children. It is forced on young girls in the name of religion. I seem to remember religious justifications for slavery and any other number of repressive practices committed in the name of religion. Mutilation is mutilation and religion is not an excuse for it.

This practice is banned in all western countries. Sometimes the practice is performed illegally in banned countries some of whom (European) have large Muslim populations and have chosen to look the other way so as not to inflame their minority populations.

If you want more information (I think it is an extremely important and tragic topic) I recommend "Princess," by Jean P. Sasson. Also Alice Walker's novel "The Color Purple." I'm sure even a perfunctory search on the web will reveal a wealth of information.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreeing with sdev -- Sophist, 10:57:16 08/29/03 Fri

As a purely factual matter, sdev is clearly and indisputably correct about the status of women in the ancient world. The suggestion that Christianity made matters worse for women is unprovable -- we lack the data to decide this. In general, it is more likely that Christianity improved the status of women, but it depends partly on what aspects of life seem more important.

What this means for the issue of victimization, I leave for the rest to debate.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Disagreeing with all y'all. Even the ones I agree with -- RandomD, 15:24:26 08/30/03 Sat

The history of the world has been, until recently -- as Rah can confirm -- primarily the history of the upper classes. As such, we can't draw any really verifiable inferences about the status of women except to note that life was, by modern Western standards, rather brutal for the masses...certainly not a happy-go-lucky carousel of human rights and creature comforts. Ancient matrilineal societies were, in large part, distinguished by little other than the establishment of a commonsensical precept: one could prove who the mother was, generally. Proving the father's identity was more problematic. This did not imply more rights for women, nor did the matriarchal societies (about which evidence is scanty and inferential at best in most cases) mean that the average woman had it good, especially if, by "good", you mean they had much freedom or power within the domestic sphere. And sex roles have always persisted -- rare indeed is any evidence that women were allowed to perform such traditionally masculine roles as hunting and the like. Then, men were generally barred, within many ancient societies, from performing more domestic tasks. With the advent of a more sophisticate mercantile and economic system, both male and female lower classes were pressed into service in the "menial" jobs, and forced to work the fields in service of the upper classes. This is a far cry, however, from the tribal system where the primary economic unit was the family. In any case, women have generally held weaker social positions for a very simple reason -- in the absence of codified conceptualizations of human rights, might was often a deciding factor, and physical strength and sex roles were often the source of how "might" was defined. Christianity was no particular plague on women's rights -- it just altered the rationales and formulations of the oppression. Which is to say, it certainly hurt women for a couple thousand years, but it was not unique in that regard. We think today that ancient societies behaved by standards that we do. Unfortunately, the context matters enormously, and progress is a very real thing. We cannot seriously contend that women haven't had it worse in the past in almost every known society. Nor can we seriously argue that the West hasn't made enormous, even extreme, advances in women's rights. Just as Western society was the first to voluntarily relinquish slavery as an economic method (by fiat of the oppressors, no less), it has also made great progress in the treatment of women compared to historical antecendents. Christianity notwithstanding.

However, there is no indisputability about sdev's statement. Women of a certain class did have it good by contemporaneous standards of the day. Ancient Egypt and Greece are prime examples. And even the commoners did well enough in certain African tribes. And Australian aboriginal tribes. It's more complex than sdev's argument suggests, and requires much more research.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> agreeing with y'all (I think) -- sdev, 18:45:20 08/30/03 Sat

I agree with your analysis.

Women of a certain class did have it good by contemporaneous standards of the day. Ancient Egypt and Greece are prime examples.

I did make this point as well. My post about Egyptian women is below:

"The BAM exhibit you refer to are of Royal and privileged Egyptian women, and the Queens did not do much for the status of women in general in the society. There was only one queen. Again I said there were always exceptions within a given society. But that did not change the plight of most women in that society." (From my earlier post)

I never disputed the existence of exceptions throughout history both as societies and individual women role models. My argument was about the breadth of the empowerment of western women being unique historically.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> some disagreement as to process -- sdev, 07:35:57 08/31/03 Sun

in the absence of codified conceptualizations of human rights, might was often a deciding factor, and physical strength and sex roles were often the source of how "might" was defined.

This statement simplifies the complexities in the changes wrought by the industrial revolution and modern western society. It is not "codified conceptualizations" that changed the reality for women. The reality that physical "might" was no longer a necessity for most occupations changed first. Intellectual might became the prerequisite, and women could compete as full equals in that arena. The change in the nature of work preceded the changes in codification.

Furthermore, especially in very recent 20th century history, the nature of the domestic job changed dramatically as well. Modern inventions drastically reduced the amount of time needed to take care of the hearth and home.

As a matter of human interest, just ask a senior citizen what the job of ironing was like in their household growing up. Everything had to be ironed--from linens to underwear, or inquire what chores had to be done to keep food cold. The changes are pervasive.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not at all -- oversimplification is the least of the dangers here -- Random, 09:42:59 08/31/03 Sun

I did study my history. Most seminal major political philosophies in this arena preceded the industrial revolution. The Renaissance, the Age of Reason and various ancillary eras were antecedent to the rise of the machines. The 19th and 20th centuries brought about deep but primarily cosmetic changes to the essential concepts as advanced by, most famously, Locke and Wollenstonecraft, as well as less-famous thinkers as Debrut, the Empiricists and various political philosophers in that vein. The fallacy here lies in assuming that modern revolutions changed basic thinking...unfortunately, the idea of sex roles being blurred is extremely modern. While mixed genders could work the machines, the actual machines and tasks assigned to each gender were often as sharply divided as before, and when the lines were blurred, this hardly made a good argument for the advancement of women. How can sweatshop labor or co-ed economic slavery possibly be advanced as an arguement that women were making strides? No, the arena of ideas still forms an extremely important, even essentially central, stimulus for change in this area. Simplification is not the problem here -- the post hoc ergo propter fallacy looms far more strongly. The Industrial Revolution did bring about significant changes in the cultural mindset...but the most important changes preceded it, and even helped usher in the I.R. Insofar as the modern inventions go, no disagreement there. But the woman stuck in the domestic sphere without recourse is still trapped, regardless of how effecient her tools are. In order for her to go out and get a job, essential changes in the cultural mindset have to be made. Economic reality is certainly a stimulus -- if the choices are starvation-level poverty or a two-income household, the woman will go to work. Such was often the case post-I.R., to be sure. But the question of what work she will be allowed (as opposed to the "will have to do" of economic chattel slavery or pre-imposed gender roles) was not one resolved by the I.R. or even modern technology. It's an evolution of thought, one that has clearly been as greatly influenced by the thinkers as by the physical realities. The laws are codified not because women are capable, but because society imposes a certain preceptual standard of rights.

OT addendum to thread as whole: As long as we're talking about oversimplification: I -- knowingly -- and others speak of Western culture as monolithic. This is a mistake of the highest magnitude, and causes enormous problems when the exceptions proving the rule are found. The aforementioned "Feminazi's" -- insulting? don't care -- for instance, are guilty of the same mistake that many others are guilty of: generalizations and lumping that make them come across as intolerant and bigoted because they fail to make the distinctions between those who deserve attack and those who don't. Hence the term. Any group who believes their social agenda pre-empts the rights of the individual to be safe from conviction of crimes he/she didn't commit is analogous to the Nazis. To speak of Western culture as something that is homogenized and tainting of all who fall into certain categories (white/male/female/able-bodied/et cetera) is to destroy any semblance of rational discourse. And certain people wonder why certain other people react badly to certain strains of P.C...it's not so great a mystery as all that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> no lack of complexity here either -- sdev, 14:18:05 08/31/03 Sun

I studied my history too, if self-declaration has any meaning. You are making my argument for me. The fact that the thinkers (Locke, Wollenstonecraft, et al) preceded the changes by centuries, and the fact that the actual changes did not occur till "extremely modern" times, proves my point, not yours. Ultimately this may be a chicken egg argument. As you state:

It's an evolution of thought, one that has clearly been as greatly influenced by the thinkers as by the physical realities.

At the least we can agree that they went hand in hand.

The aforementioned "Feminazi's" -- insulting? don't care -- for instance, are guilty of the same mistake that many others are guilty of: generalizations and lumping that make them come across as intolerant and bigoted because they fail to make the distinctions between those who deserve attack and those who don't. Hence the term. Any group who believes their social agenda pre-empts the rights of the individual to be safe from conviction of crimes he/she didn't commit is analogous to the Nazis.

I just want to be sure I understand you here. The "don't care" is that you not caring about using an insuting epithet? I'm missing something in your syntax here.

On another front, there is no "analogous" to the Nazis. If you think the term Nazism is descriptive of "intolerant and bigoted" I wonder if we studied the same history. This is my problem with the expression. The frequent misuse of the words Nazi and/or Holocaust are a dilution of the perception of those atrocities and an insult to those that suffered horrors almost unique in history and on a scale of magnitude which makes the terms "intolerant and bigoted" like mites to mountains.

To speak of Western culture as something that is homogenized and tainting of all who fall into certain categories (white/male/female/able-bodied/et cetera) is to destroy any semblance of rational discourse. And certain people wonder why certain other people react badly to certain strains of P.C

I believe I made a similar point in my post defending modern western society. And I agree with you here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Unfortunately... -- Random, 14:56:57 08/31/03 Sun

I find your implication that I'm trivializing Nazism insulting in the extreme. I do not care for such charges being leveled at me, and find it rather disquieting that you use such ad hominem attacks to make your point. You clearly don't know what "analogous" or "analogy" means if you believe that there can be no such thing as "analogous" in this case. Nor do I submit to your proposition that intolerance and bigotry did not characterize Nazism. Are you defending them in some oblique manner that I can't discern? They were horrific on a grander scale than anything since, oh, say, the 1400's and the Inquisition -- and calling the whole era there bigoted and intolerant doesn't diminish the horror...it merely accurately characterizes it. What words should I use? Grand-kablooie bigotry? A critique my word choice should be accompanied by a rationale, meaningful alternative. Until such point, don't bother telling me that my choice in phrasing indicates that I am trivializing something.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why are you spoiling for a fight? -- sdev, 16:16:12 08/31/03 Sun

Why don't we cut to the chase and get to your real agenda. You are clearly looking for a fight with me since you began posting in this thread, and here it is.

Why do I say that? Because as we both know there was no ad hominem attack except by you earlier which I kindly chose to ignore. I have always been careful in the extreme to avoid any semblance of such attacks because a) they are hurtful, mean and inappropriate b) they make one look like an ass without an intellectual, rational leg to stand on.

The comment about "femi nazi" being an insulting comment was made by me responding to someone else's use of the expression. You chose to jump on the bandwagon and defend the expression as appropriate. I responded that by overuse of the expression Nazi to include instances of "intolerant and bigoted" thought one dilutes the horrors Nazism represents. In case you missed it, that is an argument not a personal attack. How is this ad hominem? Do you even know what that term means in the course of a discussion?

I have observed you inappropriately dismiss people's points without an argument. That is derivatively ad hominem. Bald assertions that points are simplistic, untrue, irrelevant, or lack complexity, etc., without saying why are ad hominem and intellectually dishonest.

You said at the end of an earlier post, with absolutely no supporting argument or facts:

"It's more complex than sdev's argument suggests"

That is ad hominum. But I ignored it and posted about our points of agreement.

You say to me, "Are you defending them [Nazis] in some oblique manner that I can't discern?"

Quite an obtuse reading of my desire not to use the term loosely lest one trivialize their horrors. And quite a bit more insulting and ad hominem than my suggestion that the term Nazi was overused.

You claimed I proposed that "intolerance and bigotry did not characterize Nazism" (your quote), where did I say that or anything like it? Deliberate misreading of my post is also a personal attack and dishonest.

"What words should I use?"

More appropriate ones, and that is not my problem or job writing your posts for you. I can critique your use of a word without incurring an obligation to replace it. Furthermore given the way you appear to be gunning for me, had I suggested a replacement you might have labeled me patronizing.

So as I said in the beginning, do you care to state your real agenda?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My real agenda... -- Random, 17:19:45 08/31/03 Sun

Unfortunately, sdev, you make assertions here without the slightest bit of insight into my motivations. You won't, I daresay, find much support for your belief that I have some hidden agenda. My agenda is quite clear: If I choose to take exception to your admonition about word choice or analogy, it is my perogative to do so. You can certainly critique my word choice without replacing it -- but I can certainly reply to the effect that criticizing without providing either logical support or alternatives amounts to pointless provocation. So you shouldn't be surprised if I reply to that effect. And, no, I write my own posts. Quite well, in fact. In exercising your right to criticize my wording and analogies, you allow me to exercise my right to challenge your criticism. And had you given me any credit, you might have thought perhaps that I would have accepted a reasonable argument as to why my words were wrong. Or I might have disagreed -- but by providing an equally reasonable argument. You never gave me the chance.

You very baldly imply that I am trivializing Nazism by using the aspects of bigotry and intolerance as an analogy...and that is an attack on me, on my moral value and on everything that I stand for. If I were to say, for instance, that your discussion of women's conditions trivializes the suffering that women have endured for centuries, you no doubt would consider it offensive. I fail to comprehend why you cannot see why other people besides you would be offended by such sentiments. My throwaway comment apparently failed to clue you in to why I found your implication insulting...you found mine insulting -- you just can't seem to understand that other people can be insulted too.

You claimed I proposed that "intolerance and bigotry did not characterize Nazism" (your quote), where did I say that or anything like it? Deliberate misreading of my post is also a personal attack and dishonest. Luckily for me, dishonesty and personal attacks are not in the cards. To wit: "On another front, there is no "analogous" to the Nazis. If you think the term Nazism is descriptive of "intolerant and bigoted" I wonder if we studied the same history" I imagine that you are really claiming that you read the correctt history and I didn't. No, wait, that would be an ad hominem attack, and you wouldn't do that. So, instead, you are claiming the reverse, Ah, that feels better. And, apparently, we didn't read the same history, because you don't believe Nazism is descriptive of "intolerant and bigoted" according to this statement. The very essence of Nazism was thus. The Holocaust was a direct result of that. Don't confuse the Holocaust with Nazism -- one was a horrific event, the other, a political, social and philosophical movement that wasn't, unfortunately, utterly obliterated from the earth.

So my dismissing of people's points without argument...provide examples of this "observation." Furthermore, provide a reasonable rationale for believing that I engage in ad hominem attacks. I say that something is more complex than sdev's arguments suggest -- in a reply to Sophist, whom I know comprehends that I wasn't attacking him personally, despite his agreement with you. What should I have said? "It's more complex that a certain anonymous -- please, for the love of god, don't try to find out who! -- poster's arguments suggest?" It wasn't ad hominem...it was merely specifying the location of the argument. So there you have it. You obviously failed to completely avoid ad hominem -- you further imply that I am operating under some hidden agenda because, gasp!, I took exception to your posts. Could it be that I am operating under the same intellectually-honest auspices as, say, you believe that you are? Perhaps you can possibly grant that I can find your chastisement and subsequent implied imprecations upon me disagreeable for reasons other than considering you worth my time to attack. Can you see how your implication that I am trying to accomplish something subversive might...just might...be considered personally insulting? Is it so clear to you that I am looking for a fight that you cannot be bothered to establish the facts before saying so? So...are you spoiling for a fight, then?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If you feel a need to continue this, I'd suggest... -- Random, 17:42:02 08/31/03 Sun

you just e-mail me. This is far too pointless an argument to waste space on Masq's board for. I know she would appreciate it not being continued here, especially after the ruckus that just settled down (and, having spent a lot of effort and time helping settle it, I'm not in the mood to go through that again.) Sorry, Masq. I'll send an abjectly apologetic e-mail, if you want. Or just IM you despite the fact that you're way too busy! Too damned busy!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My real agenda... -- sdev, 19:02:01 08/31/03 Sun

You won't, I daresay, find much support for your belief that I have some hidden agenda."

I never expected any support. Popularity is not my agenda although I believe you recently stated it is sometimes yours. This is my agenda: intellectual discussion with like-minded people, honesty, admitting mistakes, avoiding hurting people. It is always nice to be liked and for others to agree or commend your posts, but that is secondary to my agenda.

If I were to say, for instance, that your discussion of women's conditions trivializes the suffering that women have endured for centuries, you no doubt would consider it offensive.

If you backed it up with reasons why I was trivializing the issue I most certainly would NOT consider it offensive. If that is offensive then no discussion or disagreement can ever take place. What you are describing is repression of ideas.

It's amazing what clarity a six mile run brings. I hope you and Rob, Lady starlight and Little Bit are enjoying the Dragon Con.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Since you seem insistent on inflicting this on the board some more -- Random, 19:26:50 08/31/03 Sun

despite what I considered an excellent suggestion, I will respond thusly: I didn't mean popular support, I meant evidence. Nor did I was interested in being popular and getting the support of the board. Please don't make such ad hominem imprecations without facts to back you up. Now you have implied now that I'm interested in popularity rather than in intellectual discussion as you claim to be. You will find much support -- I mean, evidence -- that I am very much interested in intellectual discussion with people who may or may not be like-minded about the issues (it gets real boring when everyone thinks alike.) You have yet to demonstrate to me why my analogy is trivializing, hence I assume you are engaging in repression. My analogy was a fair one, and I might well have used other analogies, such as the horror of the Inquisition (several millions killed because of intolerance and bigotry) or the killing fields of Cambodia (a real horror story, there, and deserving of a moment of silence) or the genocide in Rawanda, or the 20 million plus killed by Stalin's regime, or the entire cities put to the sword by early Muslim jihad and later Christian Crusades. Nazism is analogous to many things, and certainly mirrored by other horrors. It's not somehow something I can't refer to or create analogies around. I don't intend to stop making analogies to such horrors because they are extremely useful as object lessons. Condemned to repeat, I believe is the phrase.

Anyway, since I have expressed that I was offended by your remarks and you adamantly refuse to acknowledge that I might actually be telling the truth (being honest) or that you might have made a mistake, we have no more to discuss. More to the point, this is a waste of space on the board and since you have ungraciously refused my gracious suggestion to settle this by e-mail, where we might have worked out our differences without inflicting them on the board, I have no intention of continuing this conversation. Good luck in your future attempts at "intellectual discussion with like-minded people, honesty, admitting mistakes, avoiding hurting people."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Speaking for myself.... -- LittleBit, 19:35:52 08/31/03 Sun

I'm having a great time here. Sad to say though, LadyS is in Canada and not here with us. If she were I'm sure she would be having a great time too.

Thank you.

p.s. I am choosing to overlook any implication that we are jointly responsible for any posts made by any of the four of us as individuals. Believe me, each of us can and does speak for ourselves.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: some disagreement as to process -- Arethusa, 12:01:30 08/31/03 Sun

Modern inventions drastically reduced the amount of time needed to take care of the hearth and home.

That's very true. I have a dishwasher, clothes washing machine and clothes dryer. Plus a water heater and refrigerator with freezer, and electric stove. Not to mention little gadgets like mixers and slicer/dicers. They do much of the heavy work for me. So yes, modern inventions have drastically reduced the amount of time needed to do my work.

But there is only me and noone else to do the work. Based on my present economic status, one or two hundred years ago I probably would have had an indentured girl, working off passage from Ireland or somewhere else. (Of course, there would be a very very good chance that I'd be that bound girl coming over from England or Ireland, but that's another story.) I also probably would have hired a man to help around the house, since my husband has a city job.

But now there is only me to do everything that needs to be done. It stil takes hours to do the weekly ironing for the family. And while I have a vacuum cleaner and modern cleaning supplies, every bit of cleaning is done by me. Thankfully, I have a small house, but it still takes nearly all of my time to cook, clean, care for children, and run the house and family activities. Sure, I don't have to iron our sheets and underwear, but I can't afford to send the laundry out to a laundress, as I would have done two hundred years ago. And I don't have to kill, parboil, pluck and dress the chicken for dinner, but I am expected to provide the kind of variety and quality of meals that all but the wealthiest would have considered impossible. Plus I spend an inordinate amount of time caring for the machinery that saves me time.

For every labor-saving device out there, several new jobs spring up to take its place. Because I have a washing machine and electric iron, we have many more clothes than our ancestors did, and they must all be care for by me. The shoes still need to be polished and shined, buttons reattached, rips mended. The car takes me to the grocery store whenever necessary, but that means milk is no longer delivered and the fruit and vegetable wagons no longer make their circuit-a big deal when your family drinks a gallon of milk a day and your produce-full refrigerator won't hold more than two gallons.

Everything is complicated, isn't it? And contradictory, and button-pushing. But it's fascinating too.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> disengaging any buttons -- sdev, 14:39:42 08/31/03 Sun

I never meant to belittle today's mother/homemaker chores and responsibilities, but I do have a sense that many in western society today have somewhat increased leisure time. What is your opinion from your own experience perhaps compared to descriptions by older family members?

Unfortunately, servants to help with chores were probably only available to the very wealthy until a more affluent middle class developed in much more modern times.

As to expectations having increased, that is an excellent point that I did not cover. Increased standard of living is a double-edged sword for the providers thereof.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Servants and the middle class... -- Random, 15:05:48 08/31/03 Sun

The middle class certainly had access to servants, at least in most Western cultures. Victorian history alone teaches us that.

[> [> [> [> Who chooses the Slayer? -- Ames, 14:22:11 08/28/03 Thu

The message of the Shadowmen was clear: they made the First Slayer. The message of the mysterious WiseWoman was not clear. We don't know that these women ever took any active role.

Which raises the question: what role do TPTB have in all this? If they didn't choose the First Slayer, do they choose any of them? TPTB seem to use the Slayer, but there's no indication that they actually choose the Slayer.

The Shadowmen obviously have an influence that extends through the distant future, because they know that Buffy is the last guardian of the Hellmouth, and they were waiting for her. But there's no evidence that the Shadowmen directly chose any Slayer after the first one.

It looks like the choosing of the Slayer is most likely just the automatic functioning of the spell used by the Shadowmen. The spell probably said something like "when the Slayer dies, pass the power to another girl of the right age who has the right physical and mental qualities to use it".

Which in turn raises a whole other question about how a fixed quantity of demonic power was split between Buffy and Kendra. Buffy said she felt stronger after being revived in Prophecy girl. Why didn't she feel weaker? Maybe because the entire Slayer power did pass to Kendra, and what Buffy got was a new charge of power from somewhere else.

[> [> [> [> [> The Slayer power itself doesn't get passed on -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:58:15 08/28/03 Thu

Every potential already has the power inside them (see Buffy's speech in "Potential"). The death of one Slayer causes a potential's power to be activated, but it's still their own power; they had it before the Slayer ever died.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Slayer power itself doesn't get passed on -- seeve, 15:29:44 08/29/03 Fri

Here's another thought: every slayer is affected by all
the slayer power in the world. Presumably Kendra's power
affected Buffy less than her own, but it would explain why
Buffy felt stronger: she had her own charge plus an affect
from Kendra's charge. Said theory suggests that Buffy,
Faith, and the new slayers should be feeling really high
until they get used their new power.

Nifty, huh?

[> [> Watchers' Council origins? -- Gyrus, 09:24:26 08/27/03 Wed

Everyone assumes that the effect of being Chosen is strictly a physical one. But that really can't be true - how did the early Slayers know what to do before the Watchers got their act together?

I was under the impression that the Shadowmen, who created the first Slayer, were the first Watchers. Was that ever stated explicitly (or even implicitly) on the show? If not, did JW ever say anything about it?

[> [> [> Re: Watchers' Council origins? -- heywhynot, 10:48:14 08/27/03 Wed

The Shadowmen became the Watcher's Council as stated by the Guardian. Giles stated that the First Slayer did not have a Watcher in Restless. This implies while the Shadomen activated the potential in the first slayer using the demon essence they did act as the present day Watchers do (ie training her to fight, what to fight etc). After the First Slayer and a new Slayer being activated after the death of the previous, the Shadowmen or their decendents decided to be more active in shaping the Slayer into a warrior against demons & in particular vampires. The last two sentences are pure conjecture on my part.

[> [> [> [> Re: Watchers' Council origins? -- Ann, 11:56:17 08/30/03 Sat

I have always thought that the vestiges of the power of the shadowmen was brought forth in the Watchers and the Council. Was there any clear cut description of how a watcher was called? I don't remember seeing any concrete info on this. What powers did Giles have that were the vestiges of the shadowman's power?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Watchers' Council origins? -- Gyrus, 15:47:03 08/30/03 Sat

The position of Watcher is inherited -- Giles mentioned at one point that his grandmother was also a Watcher, and that the job was thrust upon Giles for that reason.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Watchers' Council origins? -- Ann, 07:25:21 08/31/03 Sun

Thank you Gyrus. Coincidentally, last nights viewing of End of Days (UPN on Fox) also remarked about the evolution of the watchers and how they came from the Shadowmen. I always thought that seemed plausible.

[> She is a good person and has a strong sense of right and wrong -- Mackenzie, 12:54:29 08/27/03 Wed

She totally could have just said to hell with it and given up. I think there were times when she thought about it. She had a very strong sense of right and wrong. Knowing that she was the only one who could do anything about the evils in the world weighed very heavily on her shoulders. She couldn't just walk away and know that people would suffer. That is what makes her a hero, not that she CAN do it but because she CHOOSES to do it.
Her friends had a simlar moral compass, after season two they took up the mantle of "slayer" and tried to fight evil to the best of their abilities. And were always ready to fight the good fight.

[> [> Re: She is a good person and has a strong sense of right and wrong -- Claudia, 16:41:20 08/27/03 Wed

"Sense of right and wrong"? What is that? Why allow something like that to ruin any chance of a normal life? She didn't really have to continue as a Slayer - especially with Kendra and later, Faith becoming Slayers.

I don't think that Buffy had the guts or nerve to turn away from a job that she disliked, deep down. And I cannot help but wonder why.

[> [> [> Buffy and boundaries... -- Ronia, 19:05:10 08/27/03 Wed

You know..I think you have a point there...Buffy is very slow to lay down boundaries in an undramatic way..in the "this is acceptable, this is not, for me, and I really mean it". She'll tend to swing from, no boundaries to completely closed off and back again. The more I think of it, the more I conclude (in an amateur capacity)that this is just one of her personal quirks. It puts her in a bad position, and it puts everyone around her in a bad position as well...they don't know if their input is welcome or just one more demand that she can barely tolerate. She'll say yes, and mean no..and also put that into reverse. Honestly, I think that this would be her disposition, no matter what she did with her life. In life, there is always a downside, and Buffy prefers the upside...she doesn't want to be "The Slayer", but she doesn't want anyone else to be "The Slayer" either. What she really seems to want is for there to be no need of a slayer, and the reality of Buffyverse just ain't cooperating. That makes her so...human for me. I loathe to chooose between to evils, I want all good things for myself, and I don't want it to cost anyone else anything, or be unpleasant, or take too long, or be the wrong color. So what does this long ramble have to do with your question, regarding Buffy and her inability to turn away from a disliked job..in a word? Fear. Fear of the unknown, of making the wrong decision, or handing off resposibility, of not being special anymore, fear of change, and fear of the downside that accompanies all decisions and lifestyle changes. That's my answer and I'm sticking to it, at least until someone else comes up with something that sounds better...

[> [> [> [> aaack! disregard spelling errors above...(nt) -- Ronia, 19:06:59 08/27/03 Wed

[> [> [> WTF? -- KdS, 09:49:04 08/28/03 Thu

I've been increasingly bemused by the discussion in this thread, and this remark needs serious amplification:

"Sense of right and wrong"? What is that? Why allow something like that to ruin any chance of a normal life?

Do you believe that self-expression and self-development in perfect isolation is the sole object of human existence, regardless of the harm it may do to others? You appear to believe that for Buffy to use her powers to save others lives and fight evil is some form of bizarre perversion, explainable only by brainwashing and mental disturbance. The truth is that if we are to have any kind of civilised society, we must show some form of responsibility for others and recognition of their right to existence. If Buffy had taken a refusist stance, she may have had a more fulfilled life in the short term, by your selfish definition of the word, but it would have been much shorter, and would have been terminated by one of several unavoided apocalypses along with the lives of every other human being on the planet.

Regardless of your opinion of the morality of Buffy's activation, given that it has happened she has unique skills to save human life. If you were walking along a dock and saw somebody in the process of drowning, would you throw them a liferaft, or would you decide that it was an unjustifiable waste of your time and leave them to drown?

If you genuinely believe your arguments here, I hope that you are never placed in a position where any other human being depends on you in any way, whether that is in an employment situation, as a relative, or simply as a fellow member of the human race.

[> [> [> [> Wildly applauding KdS!!!!! Thank you for saying what I'm thinking. -- Briar Rose, 12:56:39 08/28/03 Thu

[> Buffy loved being the Slayer. -- Rook, 13:55:50 08/27/03 Wed

She loved being THE LAW. She loved the power, the specialness of it. She got off on the power, and was very happy being the "go-to" girl in the fight against evil. Buffy loved being the one in charge.

See her conversation with Holden in CWDP, her reaction to the loss of her powers in Helpless, her threatened reaction when faced with Kendra and Faith.

Many times, especially early on, she says she doesn't want to be The Slayer, but her actions betray the truth behind her words. Any time an opportunity to ditch being the Slayer comes up, she doesn't take it. And even when she ran off to LA, she couldn't keep her nose out of the demon business. Hell, even her aptitude tests pointed towards Law Enforcement as a good career match for her personality.

In the end, Buffy was the Slayer because that's who she wanted to be.

[> [> Don't Buy that Argument -- Claudia, 16:45:10 08/27/03 Wed

Since when?? Since when did Buffy ever loved being the Slayer? She has bitched and moaned about it during the show's entire seven year run. And has complained about how it wrecked havoc on her personal life. Give me an example of when she said that she loved being a Slayer.

[> [> [> Re: Don't Buy that Argument -- Rook, 16:57:58 08/27/03 Wed

I pretty specifically pointed out that she whined and moaned about it. But you can't go by her words, you have to look at her actions and responses whenever that position is threatened.

Reread my post, rewatch the episodes I pointed out.

Being the Slayer is who Buffy is, and she enjoys it.

[> [> It was more Love/Hate -- Sofdog, 18:53:03 08/27/03 Wed

She whined about the drawbacks, the costs of being the Slayer and she loved the power of it. The flipside of saving lives is the burden of having to do it and the downer of failing from time to time.

It is a lot like any job, eh? Everything's dandy till something goes wrong. Actually, that's a lot like living in New York City...

[> Responsibility -- Grant, 00:07:16 08/28/03 Thu

BUFFY:
Well, then, maybe they won't fire me for dating him.

KENDRA:
You always do that.

BUFFY:
Do what?

KENDRA:
You talk about slaying like it's a job. It's not. It's who you are.

Whatís My Line, Part 2

ìHere's the thing. There's moment in your life that make you. That set the course of who you're gonna be. Sometimes they're little, subtle moments. Sometimes. . . they're notÖ So, what, are we helpless? Puppets? No. The big moments are gonna come, can't help that. It's what you do afterwards that counts. That's when you find out who you are.î
-Whistler, Becoming, Part 1.

ìIf all responsibility is imposed on you, then you may want to exploit the moment and want to be overwhelmed by the responsibility; yet if you try, you will notice that nothing was imposed on you, but that you are yourself this responsibility.î
-Franz Kafka

"Each of us finds an activity he can tolerate. The manufacturer of baby carriages, caught himself in the system's web and with no monopoly of greed, entraps his workers in the toils of his necessity. Dolichocephalic patriots and brachycephalic patriots kill each other, and the brains of both rot before their statues can get erected. A garbageman collects table refuse, while a senator collects evidence of the corruption of highly placed men--might one not prefer the garbage as less unsavory? Only the table scavenger gets less pay; that is the real point. I do not soil myself cheaply, I charge high fees."
-Nero Wolfe, Too Many Cooks by Rex Stout.

There are not a lot of facts about life that can be declared with absolute certainty, but one that cannot be denied is that we donít get any choice coming in to it. We are dealt our hand and we have to either play it or fold. There is no re-deal, and we canít change the game. To some, this doesnít turn out to badly. They come into life with advantages that few other people posses. They could be born into an incredibly wealthy family, or with genes that make them naturally smarter or faster or stronger than everyone else. Others get screwed over by their starting point in life. They are born into poverty, they have few physical or mental capabilities, or they have a serious genetic illness.

You donít have any choice as to which of those categories you fall into. Nobody consults you on the matte of the beginning of your own existence. Nor do you have any choice about facing one of those big moments Whistler speaks of in his quote above. You do, however, get a choice as to how you respond to both these big moments, and, perhaps more importantly, the trappings of your birth. You may not be even a remote part of the decision-making process when it comes to what is going to happen to you throughout your life, but you are the sole arbiter of how you live your life. And that is the crucial point in this discussion.

In a different reply on this thread, Rooks brought up the classic Spider-man quote: ìWith great power comes great responsibility.î This is a very well known and catchy phrase. It is also almost entirely inaccurate. Responsibility and Power have no direct correlation. Does a feeble 85-year old man committed to the idea that crime should be stopped and justice promoted have any less responsibility to stop crime and promote justice than a Superhero? Is responsibility somehow distributed in a psuedo-communist system: to each according to his ability, from each according to his lack thereof?

It simply does not work that way. Responsibility is a universal demand on us all, regardless of our ability to fulfill it. From what we saw on the show, Kendra was not as good a vampire Slayer as Buffy, and yet she took her responsibility to a far higher level, so high that she had little else in her life besides responsibility: no friends, nor family, no boys, no shirts. Willow had little real power at the end of season 3, her most effective spell was levitating a pencil, but she decided to stay in Sunnydale and bear the responsibility of fighting evil when no one, not even Buffy, would have blamed her for getting away and pursuing a normal life. Xander had absolutely no power going for him when he went to try and stop evilWillow from destroying the world, but he took that giant responsibility on his back. On the other hand, there are far too many cases to cite of people with quite a bit of power going the opposite way and forgetting that they had any responsibility but to themselves.

That is where the quote from Kafka comes in. People tend to take on responsibility not commensurate with their ability to handle that responsibility, but rather with their own estimation of how much responsibility should be taken on. We saw from the very beginning of the series that nothing and no one was able to impose responsibility upon Buffy. It was not because she was a Slayer or because the Watcherís council told her to that Buffy did everything she did over the past seven years. It was because she felt it was her responsibility and duty to do these things. That is what Kendra recognizes: that Buffy is not the Slayer (i.e. the one girl in all the world chosen to fight the vampires, demons, and other assorted evil things) because she has super power, but rather because she is Buffy. Taking on this responsibility to be the Slayer and fight evil is simply a manifestation of who she is, not of some external duty or calling forced upon her.

Buffy is therefore in many ways her own Watcher, which is her great epiphany on Graduation Day. She know that she can make up her own mind as to what is good and bad and take the responsibility to strive for the good. That is why she keeps fighting for all the years after she leaves the council. She does, in effect, say ìthe hell with that and live her own life.î However, her life is being the Slayer. And even when she tries to avoid it, as she has on occasion, she will not let herself escape the ultimate responsibility of the job.

That is why I love the Nero Wolfe quote I included above. Because it perfectly encapsulates one of the central facts of life: ìEach of us finds an activity he can tolerate.î For the vast majority, that bar is very low. They sell out their responsibility for fame and fortune. Or they just avoid any commitment whatsoever, becoming the living embodiments of the classic Burke quotation: ìThe only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.î Fortunately for us all there are a few who take upon the responsibility that so many of us let slack. These people refuse to simply settle for an activity they can tolerate, and instead assume duties far above what any could expect of them. These people are heroes, and Buffy is one of them. That is why she is the Slayer.

[> [> Great post! I'm printing it out. -- ponygirl, 07:55:52 08/28/03 Thu

[> [> Re: Responsibility -- Claudia, 10:25:41 08/28/03 Thu

It's a great post, but I have a problem with it, in regard to Buffy.

It is one thing to face responsibility or the consequences of your choices in life. Or for your actions. It is another when those responsibilities are thrusted upon you, from an outside force - like Watchers who lecture you about duty and destiny, especially when you are fifteen years old.

[> [> [> Re: Responsibility -- ponygirl, 12:01:46 08/28/03 Thu

I think the point is that we can't choose what outside forces do to us - parents, school, natural disasters, economic circumstances, super-human strength and mystical destiny are things that just happen, we rarely have any control, even as adults. The choice is in what we do with these circumstances. Buffy attempts to walk away from her responsibilites as a Slayer several times, but she chooses to return. Is it fair that she be asked to bear this burden? No, just as it isn't fair to ask a teen to look after a sick parent, or work two different jobs, or any of the things that shouldn't but do happen to children and adults. Life isn't fair, and if Buffy had refused her calling in Prophecy Girl or any other instance it would have been understandable. But she doesn't because, as Grant says, she is a hero.

[> [> [> [> Re: Responsibility -- Claudia, 13:39:29 08/28/03 Thu

[But she doesn't because, as Grant says, she is a hero.]

I don't believe in heroes. I believe in simply admiring someone, but not in heroes.

I think Buffy should have followed her own feelings in regard to being a Slayer. I don't think no answer about duty and responsibility should excuse the fact that due to her young age, she allowed herself into believing it was her duty to fight vampires and other demons. She should not have allowed herself to be forced to take up the responsibility of others who had chosen to become involved in this kind of battle. They should have taken this responsibility themselves, because this was the life they had chosen. With the exception of Giles, who had allowed his parents to pressure him into becoming a Watcher. He should have been selfish and pursue his own ambitions.

Yes, people have to learn to accept responsibilities. On the other hand, there are moments when they really need to be selfish. How can you help others, when you haven't learned to help yourself?

[> [> [> [> [> Raising an eyebrow -- ponygirl, 14:18:51 08/28/03 Thu

Hmm, so what's the age of consent for taking up the fight against evil? Voting age? Drinking age? Car rental age - 'cause that's not until 25 where I'm from. Does the age vary by state or country?

I'm also getting a sneaky wondering about whether you really believe your own argument, as KdS points out above it's headed off to a scary Ayn Randian kind of place. It certainly has created an interesting thread though! ;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages -- fresne, 16:47:15 08/28/03 Thu

Yes, this really is an interesting discussion. And as so often happens with the board, something Iím already thinking about in life shows up all over with weighty and interesting. Course, it also usually coincides with a lack of time to actually say more than hmmmÖtres uber weighty. Cool.

But, eh, she writes, she runs, she ponders the stages of adult and how such a term could possible be applied to herself. Third person no less. AhemÖ

What is choice? What is fate? What is empowerment? What do we mean by power? Responsibility? And to pull from another thread, love? Selfish. Unselfish. Agape. Caritas. Grasping the me, me. Mature, asking not. The balance towards the middle path.

It seems that to a degree, the journey towards both serving obligations and forming personal boundaries is part of the journey from childhood into maturity.

Past not leaving your block because your parents donít want your tricycled self to leave that perimeter. The rebellion of teen angst, which no one could possibly understand. Sob! Into that self that sets and gives and like standing on one foot while juggling, hard to achieve.

Finding the real you. If there is such a unicorn wonders Alice.

The JW quote that I liked the best from the ComiCon panel was something like, the concept at the end of Chosen is that, ìWe donít need heroes, because everyone is a hero.î

The freedom that comes of sharing power/empowerment/choice/opportunity, isnít that the Slayer duty is burdensome, or that Buffy will cease to be a Slayer, itís that Buffy felt, true or not, that she carried it alone. With everyone empowered and simultaneously taking responsibility for their own fate/actions/place in the sun, itís like some vasty suffrage and, as I believe Willow commented back in S2, I like having the vote. Itís a choice, obligation, responsibility, duty, privilege.

Tres.

Uber.

Cool.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Do make say think ('cause a reply to fresne deserves an off-kilter subject line) -- ponygirl, 19:38:27 08/28/03 Thu

Reading your post I was reminded that my own personal "I'm an adult now" moment was a sudden realisation that the grown-ups weren't going to swoop in and fix everything. That it was up to me to muddle through and take responsibility and screw things up on my own. Which I did, and in the process learned more than I wanted to about personal boundaries and the dangers of taking on a responsibility greater than my capabilities. Huh, that was ten years ago. Ten years of being an adult and only now do I have the maturity to understand that in another ten years I will look back on myself now and shake my head at what a kid I am.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> O beamish ponygirl! O frabjous day! - or - As You Like It -- fresne, 10:53:25 08/29/03 Fri

Ten years of being an adult and only now do I have the maturity to understand that in another ten years I will look back on myself now and shake my head at what a kid I am.

Oh, with the yeah. I think about the 21 year old, fluffy feathers, bit damp from the egg, me and my own thoughts about my maturity.

Not that Iím all that different, Iím just more me. Not quite so doughy. And for all that I feel baked, ten years from now, will I see some internal gooey center as yet unseen.

That heroes journey in which we circle round and round and up and up and with each circle, we have a better view of the internal landscape.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> down the hatchling or batter up... -- anom, 14:16:19 08/29/03 Fri

...when I left the egg, or the shell, anyway, was it just to get mixed into the cookie dough?

"Oh, with the yeah. I think about the 21 year old, fluffy feathers, bit damp from the egg, me and my own thoughts about my maturity."

Was it in my teens or my early 20s--still in the nest, at any rate--that I had that "what does it mean to be mature/how do I know if I am" stage? Pretty sure I was in high school, now that I think about it--might even have come from something I read for school. Confided some of my questionings to my dad...never a good idea. But I didn't know that yet; in fact, this may have been what made me realize it. Sure enough, next argument, he threw it in my face. Later it dawned on me that was pretty juvenile of him. Of course, at the time there wasn't a damn thing I could do about it; he was the one w/the power, which as we know is what it's about. I'm trying to remember if that was the argument about TV, the one where he turned it off & I turned it back on & he pulled the cord out at both ends & stomped up the steps w/it. Oh yeah, mature. Or have I just mixed 2 incidents up in my head? If that's the mix that went into my cookie dough, it may not bode well for my baking...trust issues, anyone? But I'm working on it--or I wouldn't even have put this part in here....

"Not that Iím all that different, Iím just more me. Not quite so doughy. And for all that I feel baked, ten years from now, will I see some internal gooey center as yet unseen."

Entirely possible. I like the "more me." Of course, too many of us tend to get doughy over time. Just remember that if the chocolate chips are all melty, it doesn't mean you're not baked. Just fresh from the oven. In fact, if they're solid, you've gone cold. OK, I'm actually hoping the analogy breaks down at this point, y'know, before the cookies go stale...but if not, a quick warming in the metaphorical microwave can work wonders. What might that microwave be? Ummmm...huh. Gee, when fresne does this, these things always work out somehow & come full circle. Well, in light of what I said in that other paragraph (& I'm starting to wonder if I should have...issues...working on it...nah, leave it in), maybe this should be taken w/a large pinch of salt. And who likes salty cookies anyway?

[> [> [> [> [> Uhm regarding Giles? -- s'kat, 19:04:00 08/28/03 Thu

With the exception of Giles, who had allowed his parents to pressure him into becoming a Watcher. He should have been selfish and pursue his own ambitions.

While that may have appeared to be the case in S1's Never Kill a Boy on the First Date - the Dark Age states differently and Dark Age is more recent. (S2)
IF you remember the Dark Age? He did rebell against his parents desires and pursue his own ambitions, leading a rock band and falling in with a bunch of dark magic practioners which included his friend Ethan Rayne.
As a result of this trip on the wild side, people were killed and the demon Eyghon was summoned. Giles became a Watcher as a means of redeeming himself for his sins. As Buffy notes at the end of The Dark Age - I don't think he feels he has a choice - it's a burden he feels he must take upon himself. Willow similarily falls into this in Season 7, wishing to redeem herself.

Sometimes we decide to do things to redeem ourselves for past sins, or what we percieve as past sins and we cannot quite forgive ourselves for: characters in the Buffyverse that fit this are Andrew, Giles, Spike, Angel, Doyle, Cordelia...

Giles wasn't pressured into becoming a Watcher, so much as he chose it out of guilt. He rebelled. (Wesely was the one who became a Watcher to impress his family.)

[> [> [> Blossom, Bubbles, Buttercup - Agent X or a Matter of Choice? -- fresne, 12:29:17 08/28/03 Thu

Yes, butÖeveryon has training thrust upon them.

I am the result of my scripting, of the responsibilities that my parents (whoíve been lecturing, training, educating) me from, really, gosh, it seems like my whole life.

I act or react to choices and stimuli based on who I am. My parentís behavior when I cried. When I laughed. When I was loud. When I was quiet. For example, it is practically impossible for me to stay home sick. If there is work to be done, you go do it no matter what. Turning green, well just cough quieter. Hot water is good for that. Stamp me a Calvinist and call me Susan. There you go. However, the fact that I am conditioned to forge on like a good little toaster and you know, spread illness, does not negate that it is my choice to do so.

I canít help, but think of a friend of mine, whose mother is actively participates in various charitable organizations. My friend, like her mother, is very active in this or that cause. Contributing every atom of her extra to making the world, well, kinder. The thing is, for a while there, she didnít have a job. Every atom of her extra needed to be spent on well, surviving. And yet, she felt guilty for not actively participating in helping others. Why? Because thatís who she was molded to be. Although, out of that seven children family, only three came out with that shape of action.

Iím also reminded of the Mint, an excellent book by T.E Lawrence/Airman Ross/whatever name he was going by when he wrote the book. I know that Iíve mentioned it before, but itís a fascinating look at what it is like to go through the military training/indoctrination/minting process from the inside. To be that lump of metal that the military process is designed to melt down and make into a shiny new cog in the vast machine.

Not that we canít rebel against our scripting. Follow the anti-scripting and do some other thing. And it isnít just our parents giving us stimuli, a framework of reference on which to build our shape. Thereís a whole world of moments, shaping our tiny selves. Then thereís the whole nature thing. One twin this, the other that.

So, if I were to take a stand on the whole choice, no choice thing. Iíd say Buffy has just as much choice as everyone else.

She could ignore her ìduty.î She could go home sick or ignore her charitable work of keeping others safe. But then she wouldnít be Buffy, the unique result of family background, birth order, culture, training, personality, and special agent S.

[> [> [> [> Matters of Choice? Is it determined? Or do we make it? -- s'kat, 19:46:02 08/28/03 Thu

Not that we canít rebel against our scripting. Follow the anti-scripting and do some other thing. And it isnít just our parents giving us stimuli, a framework of reference on which to build our shape. Thereís a whole world of moments, shaping our tiny selves. Then thereís the whole nature thing. One twin this, the other that.

Interesting...so how much of our personality/who we are is scripted by genes/parents/biology and how much by environment/peers/educational influences/societial influences and how much by our own responses to the stimuli?
OR are our responses already predicted by our scripting, are we in fact programmed to do what we do based on the genes/environmental upbringing/education? Is our fates determined? Or can we rise above this scripting or rebell against it as the case may be and become something or someone else entirely?

Is the fact (hypothetically) that one's parents aren't smart, have genetic quirks like dyslexia, and working class mean that one cannot become an astrophysicist? Well of course not. There's Einstein after all. But I'm wondering how much of where we came from - makes up who we are?
Ayn Rand was a believer in objectivism - that the individual ruled and set the course for their own destiny*(1), the universe be damned but Ayn Rand came from Stalin ruled Communist Russia - you spend a few years under a dictator who orders that all your acts be for the state soley and see what you believe - which brings me back to my point - are our beliefs and emotional responses to our surrounding based upon our own experiences like say being born under a dictator's rule or in a country under seige or in a middle income family in America with a learning disability?

It's interesting to me to speculate upon the experiences of the debaters in these threads (we know so little of each other's backgrounds - all we are are pixels on the internet, random voices with no faces no genders no...just words). Does the person who professes a deep abiding belief in romantic love - currently in love themselves? And the person who professes little to no belief in, who is deeply cynical, someone who has given up hope for having such a thing and wonders deep down inside that they may be unworthy? Is the person who sees platonic love as unselfish and erotic love as selfish - someone who just left an abusive relationship or worse yet is still in one? OR are they merely playing devil's advocate - arguing from a purely objective front?? Are not our beliefs based on experience? Are not our emotional reactions based on our own background? Can we separate these past experiences from our responses?

Wesely Wyndrom Price - one of the most fascinating characters ME has ever created with the help of the marvelous actor, Alexis Denisof, is a good example. Wes is in many ways formed by his relationships with his parents. His abusive proud father who looks down at Wes and Wes desperately wants the approval of. The absent mother, who seems almost not there. Wes' sense of failure regarding being a Watcher. His education - which borders on over-education. His need for accomplishment. HE is attractive.
He's tall. Yet up until S3 - physically awkward in his own body, stumbling over his feet. He falls for Fred - but feels unworthy of her affection, so goes towards the more accessible and less worthy Lilah, whom he believes he can possibly save not destroy. Fred - he may fear destroying.
So he gravitates towards Lilah - with the hopes of possibly saving her, because in doing so maybe he will have succeeded at something - Lilah calls him on it time and again. Uses it even against him. For Lilah also is a product of her background and environment and has made her choices accordingly.

I think also, fresne of our favorite character Sgt Bothari, which only you and I appear to have heard of ;-), a man much like the character Thomas Covenant below and there must be something odd about me for I find both characters incredibly fascinating, TC was amongst my favorite fictional characters, Bothari also is a product of his environment - abused as a child and an adult, indoctrinated by a military system to kill, rape, and torture. To even enjoy it. The system used his own genetic and family background against him - the son of a prostitute, raised and used as a sex object. Did he have a choice? It's not until the protagonist - Capt. Cordelia Naismith sees him as a hero not a monster that he becomes more than the monster he's been trained to be, he becomes in fact her hero, saving others. The book like the Thomas Covenant series raises the question - can a monster be redeemed? Can anyone?
OR are we doomed by our DNA, environment, education and indoctrination? Other sci-fic writers raise the same questions: Burgess with A Clockwork Orange, Bester with Demolished Man...and Philip K. Dick regarding memories with Minority Report, We Can Remember it For You Wholesale and Paycheck. These writers ask the same questions we are asking here - are we more than the sum of our parts? More than memories, experiences, genetics, biology, education and environment. Is there more to us than that?

Did Buffy have a choice when she became the slayer? OR was
it inevitable she'd be one due to her biology, upbringing,
environment, education, societal pressures? Or did she actually make the choice? Did the demonic energy within her choose it for her or did she? Same with Willow - did Willow choose to become a witch or was it her birthright? Was it Tara's? Did Willow and/or Tara and/or Kennedy choose to be gay? OR are such things as sexual orientation products of genetics as well (the debate is heated on this topic)?
What makes us who we are? Can we change? Or are we doomed to continue as is? Was Buffy doomed to become the slayer, Angel and Spike doomed to become vampires, Giles doomed to become the Watcher - are these even comparable? How much of our lives are determined by genetics and biology and enivironment and how much are determined by us?

sk

*1 - note on Ayn Rand's philosophy - it's been a while since I've read her books, so I may be off a bit and over-generalizing. IF so, accept my apologies.

[> [> [> [> [> You can't truly rebel against outside forces forming you -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:25:06 08/28/03 Thu

Because the decision to rebel comes as a result of the outside forces that form us. Of course, I'm looking at this from a deterministic perspective, where every action is a result of actions that came before it. As such, everything is predetermined, though far too complicated for us to understand.

[> [> [> [> [> [> So you're saying there's no choice? -- s'kat, 08:03:19 08/29/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Kinda hard to explain -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:22:45 08/29/03 Fri

I guess it comes down to this: if you had two people who were exact, physical duplicates of each other (same DNA, same blood chemistry, same scars, same haircut, same atomic structure), and each of them had the same set of memories, down to the smallest detail, and put them in situations that are identical down to the smallest possible particle, would they react in the same way? I would say they would. You might feel otherwise, and I would be grateful to know why. However, I feel that everything comes as a result of what came before. You put two reactants together in identical environments, and they'll always have the same reactions. But I'm not really adamant on getting my view across, though, because, unless we find some way to travel through time or predict the future, the existence of fate is meaningless. I do believe in fate, but I also believe we'll never know what is fated. Your day to day life doesn't change one iota whether fate exists or not, because fate can never be predicted.

(Of course, with all the quantum mechanics stuff going on, my belief may no longer be valid)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Fate and Choice -- Claudia, 08:33:10 08/29/03 Fri

Perhaps "fate" led Buffy to acquiring Slayer strength. But I feel that she could have chosen not to assume Slayer duties, if she had not been pressured by Merrick and Giles to do so with their "duty and destiny" speeches. Even when she originally made it clear that she did not want act as Slayer, both men pressured her to assuming the duties. And I cannot help but wonder if she would have given in to the pressure if she was a little older and more mature.

What I like about the show's finale is that although all of the Potentials acquire Slayer strength, Buffy and the Scoobies plan to give them the choice of assumming Slayer duties or not (at least I hope so). After all, just before the final battle, Buffy did not order the SITs and the Scoobies to help her fight the FE's army. She laid out her plan and gave them the opportunity to make a choice. Neither she, Faith, Kendra or any of the other Slayers were ever given the choice to assume Slayer duties without any pressure from their Watchers or the Watcher's Council.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wouldn't being older and more mature make her less resistent -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:59:53 08/29/03 Fri

Theoretically, a more mature person would realize that the lives and deaths of others are more important than their own happiness. If Buffy had been more mature when she was Called, odds are she wouldn't have tried so hard not to act as Slayer.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Exactly -- Clauda, 12:01:02 08/29/03 Fri

[Theoretically, a more mature person would realize that the lives and deaths of others are more important than their own happiness. If Buffy had been more mature when she was Called, odds are she wouldn't have tried so hard not to act as Slayer.]

Is that a problem? Buffy would have possessed the maturity to resist the pressure from her Watcher to assume the duties of a Slayer. Whether she would have been more happier or not - one cannot say.

But she would have been more capable of making that choice without outside pressure. Mind you, there are a great number of adults who also cave in to peer pressure and society's rules. But I think they are not as inclined to do so, as adolescents.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Exactly (Correction) -- Claudia, 12:05:01 08/29/03 Fri

I would like to make a correction to this post.

[Theoretically, a more mature person would realize that the lives and deaths of others are more important than their own happiness. If Buffy had been more mature when she was Called, odds are she wouldn't have tried so hard not to act as Slayer.]

How do you know that? What if a more mature person realized that saving the world will not help her or him on that road to self-fullfilment? Why do people think that saving others or being more concerned for others is more important than self-happiness or fulfillment? I don't value the happiness or lives of others above mine - with the exception of those dearest to me. Call me selfish if you like, but that is the way I am. If the world ends because Buffy decides not to pursue the life of a Slayer, it ends. We're all going to die one way or the other, anyway.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The line between happiness of others and self-happiness can be blurry -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:43:34 08/31/03 Sun

For example:

It might be in my best interest to kill someone so I can take their money, however, if I killed them I'd feel bad about it, which outweighs the happiness their money would bring me.

Likewise, Slaying may not be in Buffy's best interests (long hours, no pay, lonliness, endangerment), but, if she allowed others to die, she'd feel even worse (Buffy has expressed several times that she feels bad when she doesn't save someone). Giving up Slaying would only be in Buffy's best interests if she was able to close off her empathy for other people, to know that she's letting them die but not care about it. I don't know about you, but I've never gotten the impression that Buffy didn't care about the pain and death of others.

Plus, even under this scenario, it would only make Buffy happier in the short run as demons would cause society to collapse into a panic filled, bleak world(see Sunnydale in the Wishverse) and eventually end the world (which would also kill Buffy). So, even the most selfish and unempathetic version of Buffy possible would still have a reason to continue Slaying.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Quantum physicist to the rescue (-; -- dmw, 11:33:35 08/29/03 Fri

It's true that quantum randomness allows for two identical quantum systems to respond differently to the same event, I don't see how randomness would allow for free will any more than determinism would, even if you can consider humans to be a quantum system which is debatable. Penrose believes that quantum gravity effects at the subcellular level are responsible for consciousness and free will, but I don't know any physicist that agrees with him.

For some of my ideas on free will and determinism and how they're really the same thing, see my fic Endless Moments: Destiny.

[> [> [> [> [> To be or Not To Be -- fresne, 12:02:19 08/29/03 Fri

Well, Iím an American, choice is my right, so it would hard come down as a determinist. Which is really a kind of determinist thing to say.

Look, she dances, she waltzes, she sits on the vorple blade. Owe!

Both. Neither.

And ah, yes dear wounded complex Bothari. A product of his programming and yet, choosing to be his best brightest self. The protecting gargoyle rather than the driven demon. Both being a true and valid self. Both a product of what has gone before and yet that doesnít negate the power of his choice.

ìCan I help? Rhymes with I love you.î Or some such mangled quote. And kind of related to the whole selfish love, unselfish love, transformative love discussion, Bothari finds the love in which light he is the strongest, best, brightest version of himself and decides to stay there. A hopeful goal in an eros/filios/fill in blank kind of way. Why seek out mirrors, as Cordelia decides at the beginning of Barrayar, when her husbandís eyes give a truer reflection.

Okay, this leading in an all you need is love kind of direction, so Iím going to swerve a bit.

Ponder the idea of an infinity of universes based on an infinity of choices. Worlds where there are no shrimp.

Was everyone doomed to be the x of the y of the z or were they all just poor blinkered dancers in Brownian motion on the floor. Or is it even a doom.

Iím reminded, based on the female empowerment in history sub-thread, of Christine de Pizan, who, following her husbandís death, supported her family by writing poetry. Perhaps her choice was based on skills, genetics, upbringing, but that doesnít make it any less of a gutsy choice for a woman in the late 1300s, early 1400s. Was her choice to write the Book of the City of Ladies (basically, women rock whatever the period, take that, Boccaccio) the product of her up bringing and times (well, okay Book 3 is definitely a product of her period) or is it just cool that she wrote it? So, you know, whatever.

Buffy chose to face the Master and in a ìit take a village to be a heroî sort of way had the framework to help her survive her choice. Unlike the scarred Wishverse Buffy. Both were Buffy. One just had a brighter (if ugh those coats, keener) fashion sense.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: To be or Not To Be -- Claudia, 12:21:27 08/29/03 Fri

[Buffy chose to face the Master and in a ìit take a village to be a heroî sort of way had the framework to help her survive her choice.]

Would she have done it if she had never given in the pressure to assume Slayer duties in the first place and chose a normal life?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Being Someone -- Arethusa, 14:09:22 08/29/03 Fri

What's a normal life? Every time I assume someone else has what I consider a normal life, I end up finding out their life is anything but "normal." In Sunnydale, a normal life for many is being a witch or werewolf or a former murderer. And those are just the humans!

But the real issue is, it is possible to gladly take up a burden and responsibility, especially when it takes you a while to accept them. You can call it giving in to pressure, but you can also call it an altruistic and willing self-sacrifice. Perhaps we will able to find out definitively if Buffy shows up on AtS. If she is still slaying or helping slayers, we will know she willingly does her job. If she has given up helping others, we might be able to assume she felt pressured into slaying. If she's taking a break and reveals no future plans, we might have to call it a draw. :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Being Someone -- Claudia, 14:46:24 08/29/03 Fri

"What's a normal life? Every time I assume someone else has what I consider a normal life, I end up finding out their life is anything but "normal." In Sunnydale, a normal life for many is being a witch or werewolf or a former murderer. And those are just the humans!"

Let me put it this way - leading a life that you choose to live and not living one that someone else has pressured you to choose.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Being Someone -- Grant, 01:01:23 08/30/03 Sat

Let me put it this way - leading a life that you choose to live and not living one that someone else has pressured you to choose.

The problem with this argument is that you seem to assume that any of the pressure others put on Buffy was actually effectual. A look at the evidence shows that it is Buffy herself who is doing the pressuring. Whenever someone else tries to make her be the Slayer, citing duty and whatnot, she shoots them down.

Look at Welcome to the Hellmouth. Buffy had come to the conclusion at the beginning of that episode that Slaying was getting in the way of her having a normal life. She thought it was making it hard for her to have friends and that it was putting a strain on her relationship with her mom. So when Giles comes after her with the sacred duty speech, she pretty directly rebuffs him:

Buffy: Oh, why can't you people just leave me alone?

Giles: Because you are the Slayer. Into each generation a Slayer is born, one girl in all the world, a Chosen One, one born with the strength and skill to hunt the vampires...

Buffy: ...with the strength and skill to hunt the vampires, to stop the spread of their evil blah, blah, blah... I've heard it, okay?

Giles: I really don't understand this attitude. You, you've accepted your duty, you, you've slain vampires before...

Buffy: Yeah, and I've both been there and done that, and I'm moving on.

Buffy only decides to actually become a Slayer again when she sees Willow in danger. This follows an earlier moment in which she discovers that a young man was killed by a vampire. These events show her that whether she wants to slay or not, the vampires are out there killing. She did not ask to be the Slayer, and she certainly does not want to be the Slayer, but if she does not take the job then a lot of people, including some of her friends, will die. Facing this reality, Buffy decides that she needs to be the Slayer.

This is pretty much the same decision she makes in Prophecy Girl, when news of her imminent death drives her to quit once again. It is not Giles or any discussion of duty that drives her back into battle. It is only after talking to Willow and hearing about all the students killed that she realizes once again that she has a job to do. And at the beginning of season 3, when she has quit once again, she is alone without any contact with Giles or the Watcher's council. Yet when she finds some kids in trouble, she decides that she has to help them. And this makes her realize once again that she needs to be a Slayer because the world is a scary and dangerous place and she has the ability to make it slightly less so.

In pretty much every situation throughout the series, Buffy is the main source of pressure on herself. She certainly could have left the Slaying profession and led a "normal" life, and in fact she tries this a few times, but she always comes to a decision that she needs to bear the responsibility of the being a Slayer. You stated earlier in the discussion that you don't believe in heroes, and that is your choice. But to me, a hero is someone who takes on responsibility to help others when they could take the easy way out. Someone who has a gift, even if that gift is death, and decides to share it with the world at their own loss, even though they could otherwise renounce this responsibility and live a completely happy life. Buffy does this, and she makes her world a better place because of it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, to slay or not to slay -- fresne, 14:13:49 08/29/03 Fri

Well, assuming that Buffy says, ìYou are an annoying little manî to Merrick and snaps his neck or tells Joyce that there is an annoying little adult man following her around (in the Girls Locker Room!), then she never would have burned down the school gym.

Possibly spending the weekend with her mother for a girls only, lets get away and discuss emotional issues over what is happening with dad/there was a strange man following me around and I need a weekend at a spa. Stat. Oh, Cabana boy, bring me a Relaxation Tea with femme infusion. This rose cream wrap smells good enough to eat doesnít it?

She returns to find her entire school slaughtered by cultists high on PCP. And yet, out of the tragedy, she emerges renewed, with a greater discipline in her ice skating training. Despite being older than any of the other candidates, she sweeps away the competition to become a member of the Olympic team. (thatís an Olympic sport right? Otherwise, insert gymnastics.)

However, even after sweeping the Olympics, the young star with the funny name is dogged by wrestles nights. Friends talk of how she was forced to learn how to determine her own path during dreams. Thus, when visions of strangely familiar young girls fighting demons in past eras, or seemly prophetic dreams occur, she changes them into fashion shows. Pink is the new black. Or is it black is the new pink. Whatever, rhinestones are definitely out, out, out.

In her late teens/early twenties, tragedy once again visits the life of this young vibrant woman, as cancer takes the life of her mother.

Fortunately, she has friends at UCLA to support her and a thriving Ice Capades career scheduled during the summer breaks.

From there it seems as if her life is blest. A little Sister Carrie lonely perhaps, but glittering with a success in which not all here ice is water based. Bunnies are the only ones who love carats.

Oh, there are little incidents. Those strange men in black, clearly cultists, who keep trying to kill her/talk to her. Fortunately, with a firm set of restraining orders from Wolfram and Hart, the incidents cease.

Just before she and the Ice Capades were schedules to appear in Sunnydale (tiny town, but the It place to be), the entire town was destroyed in a titanic battle between mutated cultists (on PCP) and a giant Snake, possibly the result of secret government testing at secret government labs below the not so secret UC campus.

The Ice Capades rescheduled and appeared in Santa Clarita instead and life went on.

Yes, a charmed and golden Summers life. Heartwarming and uplifting for the whole family. There was even a T.V. movie and thousands of little girls with Buffy t-shirts.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, to slay or not to slay -- Claudia, 14:57:48 08/29/03 Fri

The idea of Buffy not choosing to become a Slayer really bothers you, doesn't it? Why? Why is it important to you that she accepts the duties of a Slayer? Because there would be no BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER?

What if there was an apocalypse developing someone other than Sunnydale? Do you really see Buffy hopping on a plane or ship and heading for that place? Especially between the ages of 15 and 22? I don't. Maybe the Watchers' Council have others to deal with the impending apocalypse. I find it hard to believe that apocalypses would only develop in Sunnydale. What if the Slayer lived somewhere other than Sunnydale? Should she give up her life in whatever city she happens to live in and go there? I realize that Kendra did - twice. But how often did that happened? I doubt very much that it happened a lot. And if so, why should the Watchers' Council bother continuing the tradition of forcing young girls and women to be Slayers in the first place?

Why do people have such a hard time accepting the idea of someone thinking for him or herself, instead of others? To me, such an idea smacks of society coercing individuals to abide by the rules and morals of society - especially if it really isn't necessary for that individual to do so.

No matter how much we preach about individualism in this country, it seems that the majority of people are really frightened or intimidated by that idea, or the idea of self-fulfillment. I wonder why.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Slayer in all thy orisons sins be remembered -- fresne, 15:46:41 08/29/03 Fri

Well, actually I thought I was being amusing.

I had considered having the world tragically, Tragically, be destroyed by an apocalypse on the day that her TV movie appeared. Instead, I decided to comfort myself with imaging t-shirts with Buffy written in shiny glittery letters. Like the 80s t-shirts for Strawberry Short Cake or My Little Pony, only you know they say Buffy.

Actually, Ice Capades Buffy probably inspires lots of little girls, course unless they become Slayers some of her feats would be totally beyond them, but hey, I wish I had twenty twenty vision, doesnít stop me fromÖI donít know, admiring Marie Curie in the movie Young Einstein. Fizzy beer and a nuclear bomb all in one. Wait, that was Einstein, skip that.

True that Buffy wouldnít save lives, but then neither do I. (Note to self, check to see if I can give blood again. Damn mad cowís disease. Mooooo!)

Iíll admit, for me, Ice Capades Buffy would be a really boring story. Unless, it was like Profit and really nasty and cancelled after like six episodes. MmmmÖAdrian Pasadar in a box. Pause to reflect on the philosophical implications of that.

Anyway, to be honest Iím not convinced that Merrick didnít have more impact in the leaving of his life than in the living of it, cause well, Merrick and Giles techniques werenít exactly military. The key thing is to destroy the individualís sense of self and them build them up again in the new mold.

To be honest, where I find Buffy most heroic is in her role as Enabler. The example that quietly touches other lives to the better. The heroic Xander. The brave Willow. The shower taking Angel.

And happily itís not a one way street. That moment in PG, when her friends quietly accept Buffyís near death angst. S2 Giles telling Buffy that he believes in her even if she makes mistakes.

And yet at the same time, Buffy is baking. Her edges growing firmer and more distinct. Less likely to merge with others.

So, basically, Iím all for the middle path. Boundaries, yes. Living in a social world yes. Going home early on a Friday, yes.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> mirror mirror on the wall -- sdev, 17:17:26 08/29/03 Fri

No matter how much we preach about individualism in this country, it seems that the majority of people are really frightened or intimidated by that idea, or the idea of self-fulfillment.

In that case wouldn't it be coercive to force them to be individuals when all they want to do is follow the crowd? Individual choice could be to abdicate it. Many people operate on a mirror plane. What right have we to smash a perfectly fine reflection?

[> [> [> [> [> My cop-out...err...response -- Grant, 20:41:20 08/31/03 Sun

My main response to these questions is to quote the response of a work that engages these issues of detiny and fate and free will at length:

Others apart sat on a Hill retir'd,
In thoughts more elevate, and reason'd high
Of Providence, Foreknowledge, Will and Fate,
Fixt Fate, free will, foreknowledg absolute,
And found no end, in wand'ring mazes lost.
Paradise Lost II.558-562

I can't really think of a better or more poetic way of saying that we will never be able to reason out the answer to these questions. After all, even (fallen) angels couldn't figure it out.

However, since I am already pretty far lost in the maze, I might as well point out that there is a sort of answer to these question in AtS that I really like. It comes from Faith, of all people, during the episode Five by Five, when she was completely insane and thus at her most enjoyable:

Do you ever wonder if things would've been different if we'd never met? I mean, what if you had BuffyÖ and Giles had been my Watcher. Would we still be here right now? Or would Giles be sitting in that chair? Or is it just like Fate and there's no choice and you were gonna be here no matter what? You ever think about that stuff? Fate and destiny? ÖI don't.

The idea behind this quote is that essentially it does not matter whether fate and destiny exist or not. If they do exist, then the things that are going to happen are going to happen no matter what we do, so we might as well just keep doing our thing as if we actually have free will and a choice in the matter. If there is no destiny or fate and we are the complete masters of our futures, then we don't have any reason to concern ourselves with fate and destiny. After all, did it really matter in the scene above whether Wesley was tied to that chair because of destiny or because that was the result of his and Faith's free choices? Or was the fact that Wesley was in that chair being tortured the important point, and the motivating force that got him there a mere interesting but ultimately trivial sidenote?

Anyway, perhaps the best way to sum all this up is with another quote, this time from Jorge Luis Borges:

"The future is inevitable and precise, but it may not occur. God lurks in the gaps."

I really don't think we're ever going to get it any clearer than that.

[> [> [> [> [> Bothari -- auroramama, 22:14:50 08/31/03 Sun

Cordelia Naismith changed his path because she saw him as a *victim*, not because she imagined he might be a hero. "I believe the tormented are very close to God." He acted heroically because she offered him compassion and a possibility of forgiveness, and he wanted that more than life.

I think the distinction is important, because I keep hearing that "taking the victim role" is regressive, disempowering, even dishonest. Well, if what you think you are is a monster, thinking of yourself as a victim instead can be pretty damn empowering.

I wonder -- was Susan Calvin a Calvinist? For her robots, she had the power to change their nature. Would a Calvinist admit the possibility of correcting a malfunctioning person so that they might join the Elect (or at least act like them)?

Current board | More August 2003