December 2002 posts

Previous December 2002
More December 2002

Mythology, the Buffyverse, the First, and Wolfram & Hart (some to-date spoilers) -- Darby, 07:43:48 12/11/02 Wed

As I've said too many times, I'm intrigued with the idea that at least some of what we've been told about how the Buffyverse works is a lie, and I keep expecting some corrections as we near an ending of sorts this season.

Giles told us, way back when, that the world did not begin as a paradise, that the demons ruled the planet. And that they were driven out, except for the vampire contagion. We have since learned that the true demons were incredibly formidable, dinosaurian, and yet we're expected to accept that a few puny humans shoved the lot of them through portals to other dimensions. Who has that kind of power, and what did they do with it once the demons were banished?

In Amends, "the First" was called that, with "Evil" appended onto that. But what has it done that's evil? It tried to eliminate a resouled, returned (brought back to life, esssentially - sound familiar?) Angel. And then, far as we know, it disappeared until recently (how recently? Could Doc and The Doctor have been connected to it?), and now it's back, pissed off and sort of fighting our heroes. What exactly does it want?

Here's the latest theory - the First was the "gift with purchse" resulting from the spell that banished demons from the Earth. It was the First, all right - the First Consequence of powerful magicks! An entity brought into being to reestablish a majorly-shifted Balance. This, of course, brought it in conflict with the humans responsible for it, so of course it was treated - and named - as Evil. But the job all along has been for Balance. It's a pretty unsatisfying gig, but something has to do it.

It's all syntax - one being's "recession" is another being's "correction;" one being's "apocalypse" is another being's "balancing action." Our main source of information on how the realms work has been from one side in the conflict - how much can we really trust it? Has the success of Buffy strongly tilted the Balance? She has gotten, since Glory, pretty offhand in her ability to dispatch the Forces of Demonic Evil - nothing really challenged her last year from the demon realm while she dealt with human enemies. She weathered a lot of subtle psychological challenges and emerged stronger, her battle group more-or-less intact (and one of them was able to resurrect her!). She, and they, had to be dealt with before they came up with a Final Solution - it was even time to deal with her organization, a minor faction as long as it focused on vampires but now much more a a Big Picture Player.

But the First is also a Big Picture Player (maintaining a universal balance would probably sustain a local-level label of "evil") - it's unlikely that it has been inactive since Amends. What's it been doing? Has it also been active in the Angelverse? Wolfram and Hart, being lawyers, are pretty comfortable with the "evil" label, but their motivations and actions are much muddier than that - ultimately, they seem to be working more toward holding a status quo, laying in wait for some big apocalyptic event down the road. They believe that they need Angel for that apocalypse, and being Evil, assume that he'll be on their side when that time comes, but what if they are being used as a force of balance by the First? Now, if I had my way, the Powers That Be would be an incarnation of the First, but that's too out-there a theory even for me.

Can you tell that I want this Big Bad to be something Bigger and "Badder," something apocalyptic on a metanarrative level rather than a mere threat to Sunnydale and the Scoobs (wasn't there a pop group in the 60's called that?)? I'm probably way off base, but it's keeping me occupied though reruns, and I'm thankful for a place to vent my mania.

Okay, that's it, back to your lives, people, show's over!

- Darby, slinking back into the closet to hug his bucket, because my bucket loves me...

...hey, if I can't get a "Hmmmmmm," I'll get an "Ewwww!"

[> Re: Mythology, the Buffyverse, the First, and Wolfram & Hart (some to-date spoilers) -- CW, 09:08:31 12/11/02 Wed

Actually I get more of a mental image of Odo from Deep Space Nine and his bucket, rather than Justine with hers. ;o)

If The First was born of magic, do you suppose Willow's little outburst at the end of last season had anything to do with The First's return. I keep thinking that Willow the Unpredictably Powerful and Not Necessarily Always Good Witch, would be a better spin-off series to keep the Buffyverse alive than Whoever the Ersatz Vampire Slayer.

[> [> I'll take your show! (NT) -- MinionsOfXendor, 11:31:01 12/11/02 Wed

:)

[> [> [> Re: I'll take your show! (NT) -- Rhys_Michael, 11:51:37 12/11/02 Wed

Why not both shows: "Somebody the Vampire Slayer" and "Willow the sometimes good and sometimes bad Witch of the NorthWest" or something...

[> [> Re: Mythology, the Buffyverse, the First, and Wolfram & Hart (some to-date spoilers) -- SableHart, 14:29:11 12/11/02 Wed

I've been having a problem with the Big Bad this season. I love what they've done with it so far, but in terms of overall mythology, I've found it hard to accept anything after Season 5. I read quite a few interviews last year with Joss and Marti which pretty much stated that Season 5 was the culmination of the mythology and Buffy's journey. To me, that means that anything after Season 5 has sort of been a no man's land of 'what should we do next' episodes. For me, this creates a problem with the First Evil: was it always meant to come back, or is this just something the writers have pulled out of their hats? It seems to me that if this First Evil is supposed to be the culminating baddie, there needed to be a little more foreshadowing between "Amends" and Season 7.

[> You wanted "EWWWWW!" you got "EWWWWWW!" (Some vague spoilers, I think...) -- Sara remembering where the 12 year old learned to love gross, 09:30:13 12/11/02 Wed

So does this mean that this year's big bad may finally be that result of bringing Buffy back? I was never buying into Willow's addiction making sense as the price of the dark magic, but getting the whole balance screwed up to the point that the First Evil goes on his rampage - that I can buy.

Oh, and once more "Ewwwwwww!" and I'm even going to add an "Ick!"

- Sara, who says make me go "Ewwwww" again and you may need a bucket to love!

[> Re: Mythology, the Buffyverse and The First -- OnM, 09:39:56 12/11/02 Wed

I think that we have already been presented with the power thatís big enough to transport the demons out of our
earthly dimension back in the early days-- the Key. Glory stated that the Key was ancient, and also neither good nor
evil-- it depended on how one looked at it/used it.

If the Key was used way back when, the question remains just who or what did the using. The equivalent of monks or
sorcerers among the early humans? The PtB? Aliens? Steven Spielberg? At this point it doesnít really matter, and Joss
may leave it open to debate if the issue is even ever approached in the series. As do many other things touched upon
this current season, it would relate to the ëback to the beginningí theme, for of course very few BtVS viewers think
that Dawn is no longer the Key, as she herself seems to think, and possibly also the other Scoobies.

My guess is that the First Evil is pissed specifically because of Buffy, for several reasons.

1. Buffy should be dead by now. Really. Really, really.. No Slayer (that we know of, and although it
has never been formally stated by ME, I have always thought that we are supposed to assume this) has ever
managed to cheat death this often, twice even literally.

2 Her first death/revival brought about a co-existing second active Slayer. Unprecedented, and yes, it
ëtips the balanceí, for sure.

3. The FE failed to kill/turn Angel, because of Buffy. I tend to think that one of the things Evil hates the most is
the turning of one of ëits owní to the side of good. (And now thereís Spike.)

4. She has friends, who know what she does, and support her. A Slayer is a Slayer, but a Slayer with friends is a
potential army. This is bad news for Evil. (Think Graduation Day).

5. Buffy rejects conventional ëSlayer wisdomí and has made doing so a strength rather than a detriment. Lack
of predictability means difficulty in controlling. Just ask the Watcherís Council.

6. Each year of her life as a Slayer, the Evil-ante has been upped. In season 5, Buffy gave her life (a second
time) to save the world and defeated a god. Donít think that didnít get noticed by the Evil side of the ëbalanceí.
One of my old pet Buffyverse theories is that there are only a certain number of gods allowed in the universe-- in the
(apparently incredibly unlikely) event that one god dies, another ëspotí opens up for a new one. Said new god could be
either on the side of good or evil. (Part of that ëinfinite playí game mentioned earlier this week?) You already know
who that god might eventually be if youíve read my stuff over the past few years. Evil might very well tremble at the
thought, yea, verily! ;-)

7. The FE probably hoped/assumed that Buffy would spiritually collapse under the burden of being removed from
heaven and brought back to Earth/hell, and she nearly did. But, Buffy emerged with her spirit re-invigorated and with
the realization that her friends are powerful also, and it isnít only her personal burden to save the
world. Donít underestimate this last factor-- for me it was one of the critical ëlessonsí of all of season 6.

8. Buffy caused Spike to actively seek out a soul. This has got to be really scary for the FE, or it wouldnít make
such a point of mocking Spike in the way that it has. This has got to be the FE equivalent of ëwhistling past the
graveyardí, despite its outward appearance of arrogance and control.

9. Time and again, Buffy has subverted the firmest of prophesy. The trouble with prophesies is that they tend to
lull people into inaction, by encouraging them to blindly accept the ëinevitableí. Buffy ignores this tendency, and always
has-- for example, the events of Grave and more recently the situation with Cassie. (But didnít Buffy ëloseí
those battles? No, not really-- which is the point. Buffy is learning to see ëthe big pictureí, which is more than
winning/losing a specific battle-- itís an awareness of the larger long-term results engendered from the occasion of
seemingly minor events.)

10 Buffy has faults, but she also has a ëpure heartí, as the spirit guide in the guise of the First Slayer told her,
when she said ëYou are full of love-- it is brighter than the fireí. In addition, the other revealing thing the guide stated
was that ëThe Slayer forges strength from painí. Think about this for a moment-- how much pain has Buffy suffered
over the last six years? Therefore, what must be her potential strength? Yeah, if I were Evil, Iíd be not taking Buffy
lightly either.

I donít think it is a coincidence that during the original morphy sequence in Lessons that the FE ended up ëback
at the beginningí in the visage of Buffy, and that that visage was like the one from Checkpoint where Buffy had
gotten the idea that she was the one with the power. I donít know why, but I think for some reason similar to the ëFear
Demoní from that past ep, that a lot of what the FE has to offer in the way of real power is all about how it can
influence others, not in any inherent abilities of its own. So far this season, the FE has not appeared to attack Buffy
directly. Does it know that it cannot directly influence her, that somehow Buffy has become ëuntouchableí?

If so, then the war of attrition makes sense-- if you canít battle the ëleaderí outright, you go after the ëstructuresí
around her. The proto-Slayers, the Council, Buffyís friends and associates. Spike. Maybe even the Key. And, when you
want to make an impression of just how ëpowerfulí you are, you appear in the mirror image of your most fearsome
enemy.

Anyway, I think I started one place in this response and then ended up another, but I do that sometimes. So for what
itís worth, Darby, there ëtwas.

:-)

[> [> Re: Mythology, the Buffyverse and The First -- Liv, 10:04:23 12/11/02 Wed

"Her first death/revival brought about a co-existing second active Slayer. Unprecedented, and yes, it
ëtips the balanceí, for sure."

First of all, excellent thoughts throughout!
...And it got me thinking, if having 2 Slayers upset the balance so thoroughly, maybe it was necessary for Faith to switch to the black hats in order to re-establish the balance?...

I'd elaborate, but I've got finals I've been ignoring... ;)

[> [> [> Re: Mythology, the Buffyverse and The First -- Katrina, 12:02:27 12/11/02 Wed

Since I just found myself reading Jung the other day, and this whole medieval-alchemists-talking-about-the-right-and-left-hands-of-God thing (i.e., good and evil both being parts of a same ineffable whole for balance in the universe, etc.), my pet theory lately has been that the Powers That Be, as such, aren't necessarily good. They're not Powers That Be Good, after all: they just Be. (I really like the use of PTSY, too, by the way). Rather, it may be a part of the PTBs that are working for good through Angel and the designated vision-carrier, but there may be another balancing aspect of the PTBs sponsoring evil in the form of, say, Wolfram & Hart. But please bear in mind that we lost our UPN provider and are relying on tapes mailed to us, and I've only seen a few of this season's episodes so far. So I don't know any of the current information on the so-called "First Evil." But I think it's at least possible that the First Evil and the PTBs are part of the same greater whole.

[> [> Re: A beautiful post OnM -- Just George, 14:43:59 12/11/02 Wed

I loved your post on so many levels.

OnM: "My guess is that the First Evil is pissed specifically because of Buffy"

I thought that it might be the other way around. At the end of Season 6, Buffy asks Giles why she is back. Giles says "Because you have a calling." I assumed that Buffy was back for some great purpose. Defeating the First Evil seems a sufficient purpose for a resurrection. So, I had assumed the FE had a long schedled come back and suddenly found a resurrected Buffy in his way.

However, I love the idea that the FE is coming back because Buffy wins so often that the game's not fun anymore. It fits with one of my cherished theories: That one of Buffy's most important legacies (after saving the wold "a lot") is making heroes of those around her. Without Buffy:

Willow would be a lonely nerd or VampWillow
Xander would be a lonely loser or VampXander
Giles would be a tweady watcher
Angel would be a low life alley dweller
Spike would be a Slayer hunting vampire
Anya would be a vengeance demon
And so on...

These people are not perfect. But they have found a place as heroes by following Buffy's example. Buffy's subtle heroism, putting her duty to save people above most everything else in her life night after night, is the most powerful "show not tell" on BtVS. I sometimes take it for granted. But it is Buffy's continuing heroism that has energized all these other characters to find their inner heroes as well.

-JG

[> [> [> Thanks, JG! I really enjoyed your thread on Commerce & the Buffyverse, also! Nice work! ... :-) -- OnM, 05:29:01 12/12/02 Thu

[> [> Re: Mythology, the Buffyverse and The First -- Rufus, 02:39:24 12/12/02 Thu

8. Buffy caused Spike to actively seek out a soul. This has got to be really scary for the FE, or it wouldnít make
such a point of mocking Spike in the way that it has. This has got to be the FE equivalent of ëwhistling past the
graveyardí, despite its outward appearance of arrogance and control.

Yes, mocking Spike for finding himself, having a breakthrough.....and worst of all becoming non compliant. Evil that can't even keep the lower ranks in line. Yet, the First Evil didn't kill Spike on site.....other than getting to see that actors naked chest yet again, why?

10 Buffy has faults, but she also has a ëpure heartí, as the spirit guide in the guise of the First Slayer told her,
when she said ëYou are full of love-- it is brighter than the fireí. In addition, the other revealing thing the guide stated was that ëThe Slayer forges strength from painí. Think about this for a moment-- how much pain has Buffy suffered over the last six years? Therefore, what must be her potential strength? Yeah, if I were Evil, Iíd be not taking Buffy lightly either.

The problem with this preoccupation with "purity", it only seems to be something expected of female heroes in respect to their status as a virgin....if we suddenly expected all the male heroes to be pure....well, I don't think many men would be lining up for that. But you said 'pure heart', and to have one of those is rare and the status of the heroines virginity should have nothing to do with it. With Buffy it doesn't, even Spike mentioned a fear of driving out all what was pure about her, and with the amount of times they had sex you would think Buffy would be considered a harlot. Purity, it ain't just a sex thing, it can be a state of mind.

[> [> [> Just to clarify... -- OnM, 05:25:49 12/12/02 Thu

... as you surmised, when I used the term 'pure heart' I was specifically referring to a manner of spiritual purity. I have also used the term 'grace' in similar discussions about Buffy's essential being. It's a hard concept to pin down with only language, and this is as close as I can come to it at the moment.

It most certainly was not referring to sexual 'purity', which is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, male or female.

[> [> [> [> Re: Just to clarify... -- Rufus, 05:35:03 12/12/02 Thu

You know that I didn't think that you thought of sexual purity but just was pointing out the fact that when the word purity is used the term virgin usually follows shortly after....;)

[> [> [> [> [> Well, I figured that you figured that out, but I also figured someone else could figure differently! -- OnM, 14:48:39 12/12/02 Thu

;-)

[> Not 'Paradise Lost', Not Crossovers and That Metanarrative Thing -- slain, 13:15:16 12/11/02 Wed

Firstly, on the Buffyverse and its nature - I think there's credence to the idea that First was something 'created', in a sense, by the PTB (see how I twist you words to support my own theory!). This certainly ties it in with the Judeo-Christian mythology that's always been a key element of the show; that in this way the PTB is God, and the First is Satan - perhaps literally so, even? The First was a result of the PTB much as Satan was the result of God's.

Not getting too into Paradise Lost (which, seeing as it creates absolute sympathy for the devil in non-devout readers, doesn't necessarily fit in with the idea that the First is, y'know, Evil), the First is the responsibility of the PTB, but not its equal; rather it's more like an offshoot or corruption. Certainly this fits in with the 'beneath you' aspect, with the temptation and with the appearance of the Beastie on AtS (which, incidentally, I consider to be part and parcel of the BtVS First Evil - I make my own crossovers!).

You mentioned metanarrative in your post, which as always has me pricking up my ears. My definition of metanarrative is anything which tries to rise above the circumstances of its story (or, in philosophy, of 'real life'), to discuss universal themes. What I like about BtVS is that it subverts metanarrative as well as using it; Buffy's reaction to the First Evil in 'Amends' (my favourite line in the show, even if it doesn't say that in my Meet the Posters profile), "I get it. You're evil. Do we have to chat about it all day?" powerfully subvert's the First Evil's metanarrative, which is all about it being older than time and more powerful than etc etc.

Buffy doesn't care for the meta, she's got more important things to do than worry about whether or not something is enternally evil and darker than the darkest whatever. That's why, I think, the First vanished after 'Amends'; it proved Buffy right, proved that the Here and Now is more important, and that Big Bads are never quite as Big or Bad as they think they are.

But, of course, that's all coming back to bite Buffy in the ass. 'The Gift' may have examined metanarrativesque themes in Buffy's sacrfice, but ultimately it was another triumph of little over big; Buffy wasn't concerned about the world, she was concerned about her sister first. The show has always examined universal themes (adolescence and the transition to adulthood being the big one), but where less metaphorical metanarrative is concerned, in the form of enternal conflicts and the meaning of good vs. evil, it's always treated them with less regard. Look at Giles' exposition, fascinating to the audience, but fairly boring to the characters; look at Dracula, who wants to tell Buffy about the nature of good and evil, but gets a taste of Buffy's stake (twice); there're many other examples, but always the show, or the characters at least, have better things to do than postulate.

That's why, of course, the show is so tantalising, and the metanarrative is almost pornographic in the tiny glimpses of it that we see. We're always strung along with suggestions that we might get to find out who the PTB, the First, the Slayer, souls, vampires, or anyone else really are, and how everything all fits together; but because we're never told, and because the show fakes indifference about the whole debate, we're only encouraged further.

That's what the First Evil, and hopefully also AtS, are about this season, I think; it's about the metanarrative becoming the narrative. Buffy can't fight this one by thinking little and just trying to protect her family and friends, she has to look deeper into the nature of the Buffyverse. AtS has always had a different relationship with the metanarrative; it doesn't need to be so mysterious, and doesn't seem to feel the need to subvert the metanarrative to quite the same extent; they have not one Giles, but two or possibly three or four (Wes, Fred, Lorne, Cordy), all of whom seem to have knowledge of the metanarrative, or the desire to seek out that knowledge.

That's why I think this season of BtVS, probably its last, will be more explicit than before; it can reveal these things, in the knowledge that its sister show won't suffer by making the meta more narrative.

[> Re: Mythology, the Buffyverse, the First, and Wolfram & Hart (some to-date spoilers) -- Sci, 13:54:50 12/11/02 Wed

That's a good theory -- that the First Evil is the consequence of terrible, dark magicks. But your examination of the origins of the Earthly plane in the Buffyverse missed a few minor details.

In "The Harvest," Giles said that the Demons had "lost their purchase on this reality." This implies that Demons had made some pact on this realm with a higher power -- be it The Powers That Be, the First Evil, some Hellgods. Whathaveyou. It's almost as though the Demons had stopped paying the rent for some reason, and new tenents moved in -- the Humans and modern Earthly lifeforms -- yet the old tenents didn't want to move out. Which begs the question, who's the landlord? Do Humans have a purchase on this reality? Who are WE paying the rent to -- and who's paying it, anyway?

And in "Amends," Giles said that the First was, "Evil. Absolute evil, older than the Old Ones." In other words, the First Evil predates Demons.

Personally, my pet theory is, originally, this realm was the only dimension in existence. The Powers That Be are on the side of Good and that they were the ones the Demons were paying the rent to. When time came for them to skidaddle, the Key was created -- and at that point, all the other dimensions came into being. The Heavenly dimensions, the Troll dimension, the Demon dimensions, the Hell dimensions. All of 'em, created for the sole purpose of getting all the Demons, Monsters, and Hellgods out of this realm. Some, of course, stayed; others managed to sneak back in. Not all the Demons were bad, though most are, indeed, on the side of evil. The good Demons recognize the authority of the Powers That Be and aren't here to try to break back into the old apartment. They just want a place to live. The evil Demons, though, don't recognize the authority of the Powers That Be. Instead, wheather consciously or not, they recognize the authority of the First Evil.

Now, bear with me, here, 'cos my ideas about the First Evil are a bit odd and I'm not entirely sure if I'm articulating myself correctly. My theory is that the First Evil is just that -- Evil Itself. In our world, we're often trained to look at literary characters and see them as personifications as abstract ideas. Satan is the personification of Evil in traditional Christian theology, for instance. Well, I think that the concept of Evil is actually an incarnation of the First Evil. That is to say, the First Evil is not a personification of Evil; Evil is a manifestion of the First Evil. The First Evil is Evil itself, independent of action. A noncorporeal entity that is the essence of Evil; a part of the First Evil can be found in every being that lives and breathes under the eyes of the Powers. The First Evil, in its own words, lives in us in every drop of hate. Evil has no independent existence; if the First Evil were to cease to be, Evil Itself would cease to be. At times in our lives, we all become agents of the First Evil, for we all do Evil things. It permeates everything in all the dimensions; it's the head honcho of the Evil side of the Epic War Between Good And Evil In Which Our Heroes Are Mere Footsoldiers (TM). What are its goals? Well, power for the Evil side, it would seem -- that, or it has totally rejected any ideas of absolute morality, instead seeing morality as a nonexistent thing and deciding only that it wants more power. Either way, in the eyes of a moralist, its goals are to overthrow the balance of Good and Evil for Evil's side.

In some ways, what we may be witnessing on "Buffy" could be seen as the Buffyverse equivalent of Satan's war on Heaven.

So what are the First Evil's origins? Is it one of the Powers, perhaps one that defied the other Powers, a la Satan defying God and leading a war on Heaven? Well, I dunno. I'll wait and see for that one. But I would share one little bit of theology that has influenced me on a personal level. In his book [i]How Good Do We Have to Be?: A New Understanding of Guilt and Forgiveness[/i], Rabbi Harold Kushner proposes the idea that the first sin wasn't the eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; rather, he proposes, the first sin was believing that there isn't enough love in the world to go around, that love is limited and sins can never be forgiven.

Interesting thing to ponder 'ere, eh?

[> [> Re: "purchase" on reality -- leslie, 14:16:42 12/11/02 Wed

I always thought that Giles's use of the word "purchase" here was another example of the stuffy English guy using a common word in its more obscure meaning: "purchase" in the sense of "hold," as in the kind of hold that someone slipping over a cliff has on the cliff's edge, trying to pull themselves up.

Here it is in Websters: it's "purchase #2" and definition b: "1) an advantage (as a firm hold or position) used in applying one's power ... 2) a means of exerting power." So, the demons were reaching from their reality into this one and trying to get a grip on it--a grip that slipped, but not entirely, because they were able to create the human/demon hybrid that is the vampire. In which case, the First Slayer might well be the one who stomped on their demonic fingers to get them to lose their hold.

[> [> [> Re: "purchase" on reality -- Rufus, 21:35:07 12/11/02 Wed

I always thought that Giles's use of the word "purchase" here was another example of the stuffy English guy using a common word in its more obscure meaning: "purchase" in the sense of "hold," as in the kind of hold that someone slipping over a cliff has on the cliff's edge, trying to pull themselves up.

Yes, that is how I saw it...of course remembering he (Giles) was reading a passage written or translated by another "stuffy Englishman"...;)

[> [> Zoroastrianism and Buffyverse mythology -- sloan, 20:45:25 12/12/02 Thu

Delurking for the first time, I just wanted to comment on this post specifically because parts of this theory relate to the Zoroastrian religion.

Specifically specifically the "Epic War Between Good And Evil In Which Our Heroes Are Mere Footsoldiers (TM). "

The basic foundation of Zoroastrianism (as explained by my World Religions textbook)is cosmic dualism. "the entire cosmos--heaven, earth, and the underworld, along with their inhabitants--is involved in the opposition between the powers of good and evil." I don't know if this fits in (or will fit in) with the mythology of Buffy because we haven't heard the whole story of the universe yet, but bear with me.

The concept and source of all good is personified by Ahura Mazda, the supreme god, "Wise Lord", etc. The concept and source of all evil is Ahriman. These two completely separate and distinct deities are engaged in a battle for the universe and humans are important "footsoldiers" in the coming war. Most important is human choice. Each person is free to choose good or evil.

How this relates to Buffy- ok. As a previous post said (I can't remember who, sorry) choice is very important this season. Anya's choice, Spike's choice, both rejecting evil (or trying to) and actively seeking good. Look at how upset the FE is with Spike for choosing the other side. It's appropriate that Spike is now the sacrifice which brings about a massive personification of evil because he rejected evil. Anyway-

So Zoroastrianism is where Judaism and Christianity got the idea of Armageddeon or end times or final state or whatever. Each human's choice (or "being" since we're dealing with demons and their choices) ultimately weighs in on the final battle between Ahura Mazda and Ahriman. So all these choices and actions of good are leading to the final battle, the outcome of which is the victory of good over evil. So, Perhaps the Powers that Be and the First Evil are the concepts and sources of good and evil, respectively. I'd like the Buffyverse mythology a little bit better if there was a First Good to compliment the First Evil, working at "balancing the scales" Cassie/FE mentioned in CWDP.

Actually, I'd rather the Powers the Be resemble the Hindu idea of Brahman (the ultimate reality), and the First Evil could be something like Shiva (the God of Dissolution) and the Slayers could be avatars (incarnations) of Vishnu (the God of Preservation) Wow, I really like this idea...

Which brings me to the subject of good and evil. Hinduism doesn't really have "good" and "evil" in the way that Zoroastrianism does. Brahma (the God of Creation), Shiva, and Vishnu are all parts of the Ultimate Reality, Brahman. Brahma creates the world, Vishnu keeps it going for as long as he can, stopping the gaps, and when it becomes too big of a mess Shiva destroys the world, making way for Brahma to create a new one. So Shiva isn't evil for destroying the world, it's all part of the balance. But since Buffy uses the terms "good" and "evil" explicitly this theory doesn't apply. Anyway, I've totally lost the point of my post...

Which was to compliment everyone for posting such interesting, creative, and plausible theories.

Also, I apologize if this is A. illogical, B. repetitive, or C. incorrect (as I've only had one Introduction to World Religions course)

[> [> [> Re: Zoroastrianism and Buffyverse mythology -- Darby, 05:33:53 12/13/02 Fri

Very nice insight. The additional information both clarifies and muddies the situation, which is pretty much what we do here on a regular basis. Welcome to the posting side - does that make you Good or Evil?

As for the syntax of the Buffyverse, remember that we're dealing with a group of characters who see the world in terms of Good and Evil, whether the terms ultimately turn out to fit or not. Joss has never struck me as a proponent of that kind of absolutism, and the fuzziness of the whole Battle has crept into the shows over time. It seems too late to go back to that beginning, unless it's for a re-examination from a different perspective.

[> [> [> Welcome sloan! -- Angela, 07:14:17 12/14/02 Sat

A very nice first post! There's a seed in what you wrote of the discussions we've been having recently relating Jung to some of the depictions of the characters. Buffy herself has periodically spoken to feeling a dualistic split, Slayer or just-a-girl and at least some of us saw in her relationship with Angel, Faith and then later, Spike the representation of the (insert your own prefered term here!) shadow self. We've also seen a couple of stories in which the characters are split into their two selves like Xander or assume their demon personality like Angel/Angelus. So the concept of this split, this duality has a very strong history within the story. I would go even further and say that it's one of the primary themes. So your post very definitely relates to Buffy (and Angel) at a fundemental level.

You mentioned that "Actually, I'd rather the Powers the Be resemble the Hindu idea of Brahman (the ultimate reality), and the First Evil could be something like Shiva (the God of Dissolution) and the Slayers could be avatars (incarnations) of Vishnu (the God of Preservation) Wow, I really like this idea..."

Me too and I wish that was where we were headed! In fact, I believed last year that we might be headed somewhat in that direction as much for what was happening on Angel as Buffy. This year though, I don't have that sense anymore, especially after Quentin's words. I have started to feel lately that we're going to get the story that I was looking for last year before the season began, so I have my own sort of dualistic flip-flop going on! But back to your topic...

Which brings me to the subject of good and evil. Hinduism doesn't really have "good" and "evil" in the way that Zoroastrianism does. Brahma (the God of Creation), Shiva, and Vishnu are all parts of the Ultimate Reality, Brahman. Brahma creates the world, Vishnu keeps it going for as long as he can, stopping the gaps, and when it becomes too big of a mess Shiva destroys the world, making way for Brahma to create a new one. So Shiva isn't evil for destroying the world, it's all part of the balance. But since Buffy uses the terms "good" and "evil" explicitly this theory doesn't apply.

Probably not; but, we are still hearing dialogue that speaks to something beyond the dualistic split especially if that is strictly a black/white split. We started the season not only with "It's all about power" but also with "It's all connected" and "from beneath you it devours". Those to me were the main stand outs from Lessons and at least in the second we have a more eastern perspective. The last phrase seems to bring us back to dualism. However, perhaps the reason it's devouring is exactly because it's been shoved beneath us into the closet as it were. I don't know. Very much enjoying the finding out though.

Glad you delurked!

[> [> [> [> Re: Welcome sloan! -- sloan, 23:03:02 12/14/02 Sat

Thank you Darby and Angela for your welcome! I'm so glad you both picked up on what I now realize was the reason for my post, Buffyverse definitions of good and evil.

I've always had a problem with "good" and "evil" on the show, because I don't believe in their existence. But I've managed to look beyond the superficial aspects of demons and vampires and what the show (presumably) is really saying metaphorically about humanity.

My problem initially extended from the "gray" areas of the show, the good or evil actions by evil or good individuals. But the First Evil's statement back in Amends probably answers my question, "You'll never see me, but I am everywhere. Every being, every thought,
every drop of hate." So I guess, Willow's "evil" actions during season six were just parts of the bigger Evil whole.

Argh! Which brings me back to good actions, are they a part of a bigger Good? Instead of an almost tangible Good, are humans predisposed to do good (as my textbook suggested was an idea held in Zoroastrianism, and if not predisposed, at least expected to be good)? And since a dualism has been encouraged throughout the history of the show does this mean a Good exists? (In any form, slayer-avatars, First Good, PTB, whatever)

Are we really seeing dualism? In Dopplegangland didn't Angel try to correct someone's dualistic interpretation of vampires? Nevermind, I'm really bad at coming up with examples. Anyone else interested in doing all the work and proving my theory right? Anyway, the "everything's connected" stuff at the beginning of the season is making me doubt the dualism in the show's history.

Ok, since I haven't actually had any insights since my last post I'm going to stop discussing this. Thanks again for responding to my post, it's helped me solidify my ideas, kinda.

[> Re: Mythology, the Buffyverse, the First, and Wolfram & Hart (some to-date spoilers) -- Matthew, 15:34:35 12/13/02 Fri

To go way back to something mentioned in the very first post of this thread...

You were saying, how could those pesky measly humans push out massive, powerful "we're gonna need a bigger boat" demons? I'd go back the source material that's inspired much of the Buffyverse, H.P. Lovecraft.

Good ol' Howard Philips wrote about a world ruled by the Elder Gods, or the Old Ones, or whatever. And they weren't defeated by humans. They just sort of... went away. Stopped being alive. As I recall, Lovecraft wrote that they were dead, but not dead because they are immortal. And in the Cthulu mythos, they can wake again when the stars are correctly aligned.

If you go way back to season one, I think Giles said something like "the demons lost their hold on this world." That doesn't imply humans actively drove the demons out. Maybe see the Old Ones as a tide. It goes out for a while, and the clever humans (or the Powers That Be) build dams and dikes. The tide can't come back in. But there are a few holes in the dike (Welcome to Sunnydale, population 28,345 and dropping) and they need a Slayer or other champion to plug them shut.

[> [> The demon exodus (Fray spoilers) -- Darby, 20:07:10 12/13/02 Fri

The "driving out," as depicted in Joss' Fray (also know as The Neverending Story), was quite active, and dealt with truly monstrous beasts, but like Giles' comments, was a brief exposition (with a visual).

Snow and Christmas (Long and Thematic) -- Tchaikovsky, 15:25:49 12/11/02 Wed

ëIn the bleak mid-winter
Frosty winds made moan;
Earth stood hard as iron,
Water like a stone.
Snow had fallen, snow on snow,
Snow on snow.
In the bleak mid-winter,
Long ago.í

-Christmas carol- words by Christina Rossetti.

ëAnd they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.í

-Luke 2: 16-20

ëAnd is it true? And is it true,
This most tremendous tale of all,
Seen in a stained-glass windowís hue,
A Baby in an oxís stall?
The Maker of the stars and sea
Become a child on earth for me?

And is it true? For if it is,
No loving fingers tying strings
Around those tissued fripperies,
The sweet and silly Christmas things,
Bath salts and inexpensive scent
And hideous tie so kindly meant,

No love that in a family dwells,
No carolling in frosty air,
Nor all the steeple-shaking bells
Can with this single Truth compare-
That God was Man in Palestine-
And lives to-day in Bread and Wine.í

-Christmas, John Betjeman

ANGEL
(bitterly)
Am I a thing worth saving? Am I a
righteous man? The world wants
me gone.
Weakness overcomes her, tears finally spilling out as she implores:
BUFFY
What about me? What about -
Angel I love you so much --
(sobbing)
-- and I've tried to make you go
away, I killed you and it didn't
help...
She pulls away from him and stands, anger surfacing through her tears.
BUFFY
And I hate it. I hate that it's so
hard... that you can hurt me so
much... I know everything you've
done because you did it to me. I
wish I wished you dead. But I don't.
I can't.
He is also crying, wanting so badly to take comfort in her words...
ANGEL
Buffy, please... just this once...
let me be strong.
BUFFY
Strong is fighting. It's hard and
it's painful and it's every day.
It's what we have to do and we can do
it together, but if you're too much
of a coward for that then burn.
ANGEL
Buffy --
BUFFY
Let the sun kill you! If I can't
convince you you have a place in the
world, then I don't know what will.
So die. But don't expect me to
watch, and don't expect me to mourn
for you, 'cause, I don't have... I...
They've started about halfway through her speech. Light, just a few flakes at first, but by the time she stops they are all around. She looks about her. So does Angel. They look up at the sky, almost unable to comprehend the fact that it's snowing.
-Part of the climactic scene of Amends, written, as well as heís ever written a scene, by Joss Whedon

*******************

So many, many words have been written about Christmas. How do I begin to decide which to pluck from the deluge of beautifully crafted, snowflake-like millions? It pains me to leave out the carol-singing scene from ëCider with Rosieí, or the beginning of St Johnís Gospel. And is Christmas still important in modern society? Itís certainly ëunder the delusion that itís still relevant here.í Itís a very odd festival, engendering feelings of hypocrisy from multitudes across the world. The annual visit to Church for Midnight Mass, after one too many sherries. The word ëChristí immodestly emblazoned on the name of the festival; resolutely one-faith. And yet, it has so many children as excited as about anything in the year. What is to compare with the sheer wonder of Christmas morning? Possibly only one thing. Snow.

On Saturday 7th December, I return to my home, just outside Bath, and, hypothetically, a short bus journey from Gilesí house. Itís getting cold once again. In the southwest of England, the climate could be most generously described as temperate and moist. The thermometer might brazenly hit 30 degrees Celsius and Fahrenheit once a year, but is unlikely to spend any significant time outside these two extremes. So cold isnít Scott/Amundsen cold. Just a little chilly.

The Christmas break is a time for me to talk to my family, and become a part of their life. In the case of my Mother, this involves spending a few days helping out in a small school in Chapmanslade, Somerset. The class is composed of children between four and seven, and already, emblazoned on the walls of the decorated classroom, are mentions of Christmas. Red and black stockings encapsulating meandering script about Christmas wishes. Trademark British red post-boxes with an icing of snow on top. And, psychologically, an almost paradoxical feeling of both tiredness and ebullience. The autumn term (the longest of three in Britain), is almost over, but the best time of year to be at school is just beginning. The children are tired, yet excited. Often, it must be said, a mixture that the most talented teacher can find tricky.

We compose a Christmas version of ëEach Peach Pear Plumí:
ëSnowfalls run deep
I spy a fluffy sheep.
Three Kings from afar
They spy a shining starí.

We count the decorations on the Christmas tree, and we sing ëAway in a Manger.í

And then, something quite magical happens. Earlier in the morning, teachers moaned happily over coffee cups about the cold weather. Graphite grey skies could have been drawn by a scribbling student. From grey, the most mundane of colours, comes, silently, white, the most united. All the colours of the rainbow to make perfection. Why should symbols convey the wonder of the children? Transfixed, they surveyed a gift from no-one. Or a gift from God. Snow.

**********************

Why is it that writers try to ensnare this most beautiful of phenomena? How express something that is inexpressible, a form that eludes normality? This is what writers must do. Puzzle through death and life and sex and things that shouldnít need words attached. Write about things more beautiful than their writing is, maybe more beautiful than language itself.

In my heavily sifted quotes, two use snow illogically. Two have no right to be taken seriously. For me, the second and third extracts explain why Rossetti and Whedon had to try. The Christmas story and snow have a similar, magical ability to make us wonder at the world. To be overwhelmed by its painful beauty.

Letís set some things straight here. If it wasnít for an anarchic Roman festival Saturnalia, and the ëcheer-up-weíre-nearly-thereí of the Pagan Festival of Light, Christmas would not be celebrated on 25th December. Furthermore, Jesus was born, (he was, regardless of what else he did), in the Middle East. Chances of snowfall, (let alone of Lake Galilee being ëlike a stoneí), absolutely zero. Rossetti links snow and Christmas in one of the most powerful Christmas carols. But she also writes terrible, terrible lies. Somehow, the snow in the poetry highlights the wonder of the Birth. Snow is a miracle, and birth is a miracle. Snow puts a different light on a familiar world. Birth puts a different light on a familiar world.

It doesnít snow in Southern California at Christmas. It just doesnít happen. This is suggested by the section at the beginning of ëAmendsí where the weather-forecasters predict: ëit's gonna be sunny and warm, with temperatures continuing in the high 70's throughout the holiday weekend. A little warm to light the yule log, but it should make for a very nice Christmas.í The end of ëAmendsí, from the mouth of its author is about not quite wonder, but hope: ëThe snow was not evil! The snow was good. It was hopeí. How can Angel, who knows that he is, in some sense, Angelus, live in a world against which he has performed so many horrific acts? The lines ëAm I a thing worth saving? Am I a righteous man?í are almost Job-like in their intensity and doubt. Buffy, the love of his life, cannot save him from dying, because she cannot logically argue through the certainty of past murders and carnage. Only one thing can save Angel. Hope. A blind faith that he can become righteous. He needs the hope instilled by wonder. He needs the snow to fall. And so the snow does. The snow has been seen by wise heads as being melodramatic, sentimental or sappy. To me it is perfect, because it shows what Christmas can be.

Christmas could be about the miracle of birth. A mundane but unique miracle. Every time a baby is born, it is the only time that person is born. Something unique happens every two seconds. As unique as a snowflake falling. Yet Christmas transcends specifics. It is about a tingly expectation that doesnít, regardless of appearances, arrive punctually. Itís never obvious quite when the anticipation of Christmas starts. Advertising agencies would probably hope for mid-September. And itís never obvious when Christmas itself actually starts. Christmas Eve is a part of Christmas, isnít it? You can never quite tell when Christmas is about to happen. Suddenly, you know for sure that it is upon you. You can never quite tell when itís starting to snow. But you know certainly when itís snowing. Snow expresses thoughts of modern Christmas and older Christmas so well that Joss Whedon, well-versed in irony and subverting convention, used the analogy as the punch line in the only Christmas episode to date. What does Christmas mean, exactly?

Lukeís Gospel tells the story from a myriad of different angles. If John takes the Shakespearian soliloquy approach, then Lukeís is more in style of a soap opera. In the course of two short chapters, we learn about the reactions of Joesph, Mary, John the Baptist, Elizabeth, Zechariah, the Shepherds and Simeon, (the words of the ëNunc, dimittisí). The shepherdsí reaction is important- the reaction of the everyman. They evangelised, not with the logical, cold reasoning of a Jehovahís Witness, or the tired certainty of the British Anglican Church, but out of sheer wonder, happiness of a Birth. They became child-like again- witnessing a truth that all should know. The revelation is about the world being the same, but being viewed upside down. As if the whole world has been coated in white.

Betjemanís suburban London of the mid-1900ís has its own concerns. Concerns that are still with us today. Present choosing. Decorating. Earning money to reside in distinguished hotels. But there is still a transformative, [being slightly cheeky here frisby, excuse me], effect in acknowledging this birth. If it is true, (something which may seem like merely gossip, through the repeated use of the phrase), then nothing else is important. We ignore our modern day grumbles, put down our purple and orange striped ties, and are just full of wonder again. About what here? Something simple, so simple that twelve lines explaining mundanity is rebuffed by only ëThat God was Man in Palestine/ And lives to-day through Bread and Wine.í

Even when that faith is no longer a reason to stop all the clocks, we can still learn something from Christmas. Learn it from children. Learn it from our own, old reactions, however cynicism may coat their outsides. How do we express the joy of Christmas? Through the shepherds evangelical delight. Through Betjemanís transformative question. And through snow. Because it is through wonder that we inhabit the world most contentedly. The wonder of a class of infant children, startled that something unexpected, unsought-after, has changed their environment. The wonder of Rossettiís child in the manger, with the world so harshly changed around him, changing the world himself. Through the beautiful, terrible wonder of Angel stopping from observing himself for a moment, and observing the world with eyes ready to see hope.

Snow transforms.

Snow enlightens.

In Buffy the Vampire Slayerís second Christmas episode, next Tuesday, it will be dry and warm. But hope to see some of that wonder at the world. The wonder of Dawn with her Drum. The wonder of Snow.

TCH- feeling a trifle didactic.

[> What a beautifully written post -- Rahael, 15:44:05 12/11/02 Wed

It reminds me that it is almost time to begin reading of 'The Dark is Rising' again - which is always my preferred accompaniment to Christmas.

Rahael - Too exhausted to write more, but just wanted to show my appreciation.

[> [> What a good idea -- Tchaikovsky, 15:49:11 12/11/02 Wed

I always tell myself I'm not a great fan of the fantasy genre in general- just Buffy, and Tolkien, and His Dark Materials. And maybe The Weirdstone of Brisingamen. Oh, and then there's Deep Space Nine, and...

TCH- off to re-read some Susan Cooper

[> [> [> Re: What a good idea -- Rahael, 02:42:04 12/12/02 Thu

Oh me too. I think that I tend to really go for Children's fantasy, and not adult - for example, I don't really like Tolkein, but I do love Alan Garner, Pullman, Diana Wynne Jones, William Mayne, Susan Cooper, William Corlett, Margaret Mahy, etc etc.

I grew up in the tropics - Christmas was big, but snowless. We had a huge tree which would brush the rafters - the rafters were very high! My mother used to decorate the tree on Christmas eve while we were asleep.

And presents. If my mother was out of the country, we'd get huge boxes from oversas filled with clothes, books and toys. If she'd just returned from abroad we would know that piles of new books would be hidden somewhere.

There would be piles of presents under the tree. But a present would also mysteriously materialise underneath my pillow overnight. And then a very early visit to Church, so early, it would still be cold.

During the run up to Christmas, we'd been busy making cakes - a whole family affair. We didn't have an oven, so after a cake was finished my grandfather would strap it to the back of his bike and ride to the bakery. We'd made 12 cakes, all different, the last Christmas I can recall clearly at home. We made cakes, and home made ginger beer, bread and butter pudding. It wasn't just Christmas day, but the weeks leading up to it. Evenings spent chopping up cashew nuts finely while chatting and laughing. I'll confess that my entire family's idea of Christmas was formed by childhood reading.

My Christmases past are very much a thing of childhood. Only my grandparents still live at home, steadfastly ignoring the dangers that surround them. They keep hoping that one day, we'll all come back home. We try to make an effort here, though only the little ones still get (and give!) presents. They save their pocket money and excitedly buy things for grown ups who are more touched by the care and thought that went into the buying than the presents themselves. We always try to gather for a great meal, but the ghosts of the past, and the painful absences crowd around with us.

[> [> [> [> Painful absences -- Tchaikovsky, 15:15:10 12/12/02 Thu

I think I may empathise with you after the next couple of weeks- which is the first Christmas since both grandparents on one side of the family died. In my case, there will be soemthing agonising about the same rituals played out, but without two of the main players. In a sense, I suspect the family could do with a change. An appearance of equilibrium is not advisable.

But there's always Hope, down at the bottom of the box full of misery.

TCH

[> [> [> Re: What a good idea -- Angela, 16:22:23 12/12/02 Thu

Some of my favorites also. I kind of remember Lloyd Alexander and definitelt Andre Norton, also but Cooper and Garner spoiled me for a lot of later fantasy. Seems to me that Garner wrote something recently. Wynne Jones I think has some adult books out and McKillip is another favorite, still. I always look through the juvenile section in the library and in the Year's Best Fantasy and Horror (although this last is more to try to find new people to read.) That's how I came across Garth Nix and some others. I've always been puzzled by how a book becomes labelled "juvenile fiction", so many of the books seem as deep and rich as anything to be found on the adult shelves.

[> [> Re: What a beautifully written post -- WW, 18:18:18 12/11/02 Wed

I had never heard of this series, Rah. The entire boxed set is now winging its way to me from Amazon.ca and will be here in time to see me through my two-week Christmas vacation.

Thank you for the recommendations, and glad to see you posting again. Hope you're rested soon.

dub xoxoxo

[> [> [> Re: Nicely done - 'Tis the season! -- Brian, 18:44:48 12/11/02 Wed

[> [> [> Susan Cooper all around then -- ponygirl, 18:55:35 12/11/02 Wed

The Dark Is Rising is sitting on my old bookshelf at my parents'. I think it's the same copy I first read in Gr. 4, I'll have to open it up again when I go home for the holidays.

Thanks for the lovely post TCH! It reminds me of why, despite being a non-Christian, I love Christmas. And why I love the first snowfalls of the year. It's about hope, as you say, it's about forgiveness - snow doesn't take away all the bad stuff but while it lasts it covers it all up and transforms everything into something beautiful. Christmas at its best does the same thing. Your post also reminds me of why Amends gets me every time -- just to see that for once, in all the pain and struggle, a seemingly indifferent universe can offer mercy and kindness and miracles. The final shot of Buffy and Angel walking through the streets and seeing their world in an entirely new and wonderful way... there I go, every single time.

[> [> [> [> Could we be... -- Haecceity, 20:20:14 12/12/02 Thu

...related metaphysically?

Read The Dark is Rising in 4th Grade. Check.

Non-Christian. Check.

First Snow Junkie. Check.

Admits Amends makes one a bit weepy. Check.

;) Of course, there could be thousands of us out there...

Have to admit, nothing says christmas cheer like coming in from a rollicking frolic in new snow to a big mug of cocoa and the Cooper boxed set.

---Haecceity
signing off to wish for a snow day

[> [> [> [> [> Looking forward to the metaphysical family reunion! -- ponygirl, 07:50:47 12/13/02 Fri

Though you might want to revoke my invitation when you find out that my Dark Is Rising book still bears the property of Glenwood Public School Library stamp on it. Yeah, baby, I was ba-ad.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Just offers incontrovertible (a word? A spelling?) of my theory -- Haecceity, who's shelves are full of such, 11:08:47 12/13/02 Fri

But it's not bad if no one else had checked them out since 1978, right?

---Haecceity
angling for the "adoption, not appropriation" defense

[> [> [> [> [> [> better late than never! -- luna, 10:57:14 12/14/02 Sat

I just read it for the first time last year, when my stepdaughter (who also read it first as an adult) gave it to me for Christmas. And I agree--the end of Amends is truly that same feeling of unexpected redemption and refuge.

[> [> [> Hope you like it! -- Rahael, 02:49:33 12/12/02 Thu

It's startlingly non-Christian, and pagan, while still affirming the values of Christmas, I think.

[> [> [> [> Re: Hope you like it! -- Lyonors, 12:30:11 12/12/02 Thu

I just moved into my new apartment this week, and while I was packing up my bookshelf, my mother asked me why I still toted my Dark is Rising box set around...I just kinda stared at her and shook my head. Wasn't something I could explain, but it was the first thing I put out on my bookshelf when I started unpacking...shortly followed by my namesake book "Lionors." I am definitly going to have to reread it now too, Yule is nearly here, and shortly after, Christmas! Susan Cooper manages to capture the magic of winter and Christmas through childlike eyes, and manages to give her adult readers the gift of remembering what Christmas used to be like for them.

Ly.

[> [> Wow - I thought I was the only one... -- xanthe, 08:52:18 12/12/02 Thu

I reread The Dark is Rising about this time of year too. There's just something about it that puts me in the proper festive mood - not simply to buy gifts and make merry, but to brood on winter and the nature of good and evil. It's good to know that there are others who love Susan Cooper.

[> Re: Snow and Christmas (Long and Thematic) -- Wisewoman, 19:19:00 12/11/02 Wed

I'm beginning to realize just lately that snow and Christmas are the same thing to me. I was raised in Toronto and I don't ever recall a Christmas that wasn't a White Christmas. Now I live in Vancouver and, for the last 30 years, snow for Christmas has been a rare treat.

I used to worry about reconciling my pagan leanings and my belief in "stuff" (*g*) with the North American commercial and Christian holiday season, but I long ago stopped. The tradition of a feast and festival at this time of year is universal (at least, in the northern hemisphere, lol!). That's good enough for me.

I let myself go and celebrate Christmas, Yule, the Solstice, Kwanzaa, Channukah, all of it...but none of it is as beautiful, as joyful, as holy, or as transformative (!) as it could be with snow. Sometimes I feel an actual physical ache just to see real snow fall. Usually this goes away on that one day in January or February when we have a light dusting or, more rarely, a genuine snow storm. But by then it's too late.

Of all the memories of my childhood, snow--the smell of it, the dulling of sound, the incredible beauty of it--is perhaps the one I hold most dear.

Thank you for this piece, TCH. And Merry Christmas.

;o)

[> [> Merry Christmas, everyone! -- Tchaikovsky, 07:59:24 12/12/02 Thu

Yes, I think that's my feeling as well. That snow fits Christmas so well that it is, in a sense, identical.

I'd always been a little puzzled by the emphasis of weathermen on White Christmases. Now, after confronting my thoughts, I think I know why it happens.

And I hope in writing 'Merry Christmas', I can wish everyone hope, and moments of wonder, rather than being tied to old, divisive arguments.

TCH

[> The Hope Instilled By Wonder -- Haecceity, 19:26:35 12/11/02 Wed

Five words which sum up the human desire to look up and out--to find itself mirrored and made whole in the universe. To be connected and transcendent all-at-once.

Only five out of hundreds of others that support and uplift and elucidate--that celebrate snow in their falling, that transform our world which lies snuggled beneath this blanket of ideas, dreaming of sugar plums and amends.

Lovely post, TCH. Very proud of and humbled by the Tribe tonight.

---Haecceity

[> [> Thanks and sorry -- Tchaikovsky, 15:47:32 12/12/02 Thu

Still planning to write about your Shakespeare thread, but got a thought, which expanded somewhat. Sorry.

Meanwhile, while we continue to instigate the tribe

LAT Commandments:
1. Voy is thy Board, which has brought thee out of the land of Lesser Boards, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other boards before me.

2.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, without posting it to Voy, and expanding at extreme length. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to the Unposted Writings, nor serve them: for I Voy am a jealous Board, visiting the iniquity of the First Evil upon the posters unto the third and fourth subthread of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of Voy thy board in vain; for Voy will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. If thou supposest that the board is at fault, blame thou not the imperfections of Voy; rather consider thine own failings.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy, by posting an extremely long ramble all connected by some tenuous and underhand link, imposed at the final moment in order that thou mayest include John Betjeman, or some other false prophet. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Voy: in it thou shalt not do any work besides posting, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days hath Masquerade typed up the most recent episode anlaysis, wherefore Voy blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

5. Honour thy quotes and references: that thy post may be long upon the board which Voy giveth thee. A post lacking in breadth, in width, in length, in depth, or in any other dimension thereof can be unnecessarily fleshed out with a little help from the Lord's own disciple, Psyche.

6. Thou shalt not kill a thread by omitting to post a long and often tangential reply.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. For in the threads of the Long and Episodic, and in the threads of the Long and Canonical thou mayest be tempted away from thy calling, by the worshippers of continuity; for these posters are versed in intrigue, suspense, speculation, opinion and literature, and at the hands of OnM, Zachsmind and Rufus hast many a False Thread been made spacious.

8. Thou shalt not steal a thematic thread for thine own canonical or episodic intentions.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against fellow Voy Poster. For at the hands of thy peers shall any iniquity, untruth or felony be rooted out, and the poster banished utterly.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy felow LATPs' threads, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's subthreads, nor his No Texts, nor his double posts, nor his oxymorons, nor his assumptions, nor any thing that is thy fellow LATPs'.

TCH

[> [> [> Re: Thanks and sorry -- Haecceity, 21:51:00 12/12/02 Thu

First off, ìgot a thought, which expanded somewhatî should *never* be apologized for. It is, in fact, the LAT raison díetre. And whilst commandments are helpful Iím a bit more of a general guideline girl myself. So, for the other heathens on the board, how ëbout:

As it does none harm, write what you will. Just remember that any thought you post shall be revisited 3 times over, for good or ill.

Could you define the Long and Episodical and the Long and Canonical, Iím a little confused.

Donít feel bad about not getting to the Shakespeare thread, you may have noticed, I havenít been great in responding in a LAT manner there myself lately. Unfortunately, that goes hand in hand with the LAT natureóthe need to answer every post with relevant quotage, the more obscure and profound the better, to build an idea in stages, etc. Itís exhausting and frankly a little egotistical, no? Perhaps we should develop a second side to the LATómaybe SAQ, ìShort and Quippyî, and alternate between the two.

Enjoying the thread. Now, whatís next? ;)

---Haecceity

[> [> [> [> Some arbitrary definitions -- Tchaikovsky, 01:46:32 12/13/02 Fri

My definition of Long and Episodic, (LAE), would be a post that reflects, at great length and with abundant, marvellous quotage, upon a recently aired Buffy/Angel episode. Examples of this include OnM's episode reviews, (the standard by which all LAEs are judged), the Belly of the Beast Angel review and Honorificus's Super-Evil Review.

My definition of Long and Canonical (LAC) would be a post like Darby's 'Mythology, the Buffyverse, the First and Wolfram & Hart (some to date spoilers)' which uses much relevant material from previous episodes/seasons to postulate a theory about some aspect of the Buffyverse's mythos/plot. Rufus, with his 'uncanny referencing abilities' as Rob puts it, (if he wasn't called The First Virtue, I'd think he sold his soul for them) carries the banner for this type of post, with much help from Zachsmind, HonorH, Masq (particularly on Angel) Shadowkat, (although she sometimes posts LATerally as well), and many others. This, to be honest, is probably the type of post which is most appropriate to the board.

In my less militant moments, I think that these threads enrich and diversify the board. In my more militant moments, I want to root out and destroy them all. Guess it's a mood thing.

TCH- attempting SAQ, but failing as usual

[> [> [> [> [> Arbitrary Definitions---My Favourite Kind -- Haecceity, 11:37:58 12/13/02 Fri

So, then, what do *we* do? Sort of sounds like we're the ones who drag in outside stuff and make it relate to the Buffyverse. Rather than "all roads lead to", we might be more "we bring the fun to you!" Of course, our tendency to create arbitrary definitions would help with this.

As far as I'm concerned, it's all good. I love all the other posts--makes the 'verse all well-rounded and divers-y

---Haecceity
voting for the "Vivasciously Sociable LATs"

[> Re: Snow and Christmas -- Celebaelin, 21:17:56 12/11/02 Wed

Wonderfully atmospheric, I dread to think how long it would take me to work and re-work a piece to that level of competence. Indulge your didactic analysis all you like. I've locked myself away (pro bono publico of course) with some feelings and images pilfered from your original only to arrive at 'snow coalescing from a night sky and settling to transform the world into a negative image of its' daylight form'. As you may be able to tell I'm not totally happy with that as yet but I think it's improving. To begin with I had 'itself' as the final word and I still feel 'transform' is a bit pedestrian...hmmm, 'shade' perhaps? Anyway thanks for posting, it's much appreciated.

As a final thought if El Ninio (?sp.) can result in, heaven forfend, water shortages in soggy old England perhaps a bit of snow in Bethlehem isn't impossible, although I'll grant you that if that had happened somebody probably would have mentioned it in the New Testament.

In peaceful melancholy and, as yet, an absence of baubles.

[> [> Re: Snow and Christmas -- Rahael, 01:46:00 12/12/02 Thu

Hey, Celebaelin, I really liked your post on Machiavelli - it slipped past before I could answer.

Are you in England too?

[> [> [> Re: Snow and Christmas -- Celebaelin, 20:04:28 12/12/02 Thu

Thanks, Machiavelli wasn't such a bad old stick even if he was a bit dodgy on the whole good/bad question.

Yep, the rolling green hills and semi-tamed hedgerows of Warwickshire are my abode this yuletide, although snow, if it comes at all, will probably not come until February (the people of this fair isle will once again bet on whether or not it will be a white Christmas, in the UK this is defined as any snowfall whatsoever, even literally one snowflake, being observed on the roof of the London weather centre on Dec 25th). Everybody is hoping for snow where they are of course because it somehow makes the house seem more cosy and provides a wonderful backdrop to the mounds of mashed spuds, roasted parsnips, brussel sprouts, carrots, swede, red cabbage, peas etc. etc. etc. not forgetting of course a well done bird the size, and approximate shape, of a Fiat Cinquecento. But don't forget to leave room for the plum pudding and brandy butter.

[> [> Some Yeats for comfort -- Tchaikovsky, 15:55:02 12/12/02 Thu

Actually not sure whether this is comforting on re-reading, but Yeats had his problems too. Read into this what you will:

'A line will take us hours maybe
Yet if it does not seem a moment's thought
Our stitching and unstitching has been naught'.

TCH

[> [> [> Well, I love this--might have to "appropriate" it for the LAT mission statement -- Haecceity, 20:23:00 12/12/02 Thu

'cause it's not complete without quotage!

[> [> [> Re: Some Yeats for comfort -- Celebaelin, 20:52:47 12/12/02 Thu

Yeats for comfort, Yeats for beauty and Yeats for at least another 8 lines after the title if you'll forgive the obvious pleasure with which I get to read this again.

Aedh Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven

Had I the heavens embroidered cloths,
Enwrought with golden and silver light,
The blue and the dim and the dark cloths,
Of night and light and the half light,
I would spread the cloths under your feet:
But I being poor have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly for you tread on my dreams.

Fine, right, well, feel like giving up? Without being in any way sure about this I've always thought that this was written in Egypt, don't ask me why because I don't clearly remember but I think it was a anecdote recounted by an English master at school. Aedh is a celtic name so that doesn't hold together and yet...is there something of the feel of the desert in the poem.

Native bearers speak in hushed musical tones around a camp fire, the trees of the oasis cast tiger stripes in the moonlight over the fine, parched sand. Carruthers emerges from his tent, having spent the last twenty minutes writing a final message to his beloved Dierdre and stiffening his upper lip:). He casts his eye about the bivouac and it falls upon his alter ego, the dissolute poet Evans. The latter grimly inclines his head in the direction of the tomb and Carruthers strides out into the darkness, Evans snatches up the lantern and his sword stick and follows.

[> Beyond beautiful. Snow is also a symbol of cleansing. -- Briar, 14:00:24 12/12/02 Thu

[> Oh my goodness! I just thought of poor LadyStarlight!! -- WW :o0, 15:45:26 12/12/02 Thu

LadyS, are you out there? Are we all driving you to distraction with these love songs to snow? More importantly, are you snowed in yet? My thoughts are with you, but I still miss it and think it's beautiful.

(For other posters, LadyS is in the Canadian West in an area that has snow almost 1/2 the year, so spare a thought for her. Don't we also have a regular poster from Alaska?)

[> Snow in Toronto -- Scroll, 12:43:39 12/14/02 Sat

I remember it failed to snow in Toronto last year, though the ground was still white from a previous snowfall. Thank you so much for your post. It reminded me why I love this time of year despite the mad rush of malls and garish decorations. My church puts on a skit-night, the toddlers dress up as sheep with cotton ball tails with older kids as shepherds and angels. Our parents and grandparents forget about maintaining their dignity and sing Christmas carols (badly) and our pastor makes a goof out of himself. All in fun, all in cheer. We string up lights on our tree, we go to the foodbanks, the old age homes, we carol in Chinatown in front of the markets. We pray for peace and joy. We look for miracles in each other and in ourselves.

I hope there will be snow this year. I am also going to buy myself a copy of The Dark is Rising, a book I read in grade 4 but forgot about over the years. In the midst of all the hustle and bustle, I would treasure some hours of curling up, revisiting my childhood and Susan Cooper.

New Here...Domestic Violence on AtS -- Lara, 07:13:44 12/12/02 Thu

Hi, I was searching through the site, and I came about the section on Domestic Violence in BtVS and AtS.

I noticed the 3rd Season AtS Episode "Billy" was neglected in the discussion/analysis. In this episode, women were beaten and killed because a man (Billy) "liked to watch". He would infect men by touching them, which would lead the infected to act brutally towards women.

When A.I gets word of what's going on, they jump on the case. There is a wave of domestic violence going on. One reason for a woman being killed was "She wouldn't shut up".

Now, for a majority of the episode, the women are the victims, taking it from the men- Including the tough lawyer Lilah, and a female cop.

But one woman takes it into her own hands to do something about it- Cordelia. She goes after Billy to stop him from technically hurting anymore woman. She was to go as far as to kill him. Angel stops her until he gets infected.

Then we have Wesley and Fred. Left in the hotel together, they begin to work. Wesley finds out Fred lied about Cordelia's whereabout and begins to act condensending and patronizing. He makes remarks on her sexuality and how she must feel superior to him because "she bleeds". He states he will show her blood after slapping her across the face. Wesley has been infected.

Fred makes a run for it and is slammed into the floor. Wesley makes an obvious domestic violence comment towards Fred. She takes off up the stairs and he goes after her, weapon in hand. He makes sexual advances towards her, but not before assaulting her several more times.

Meanwhile, Angel is struggling to control his sudden anger. Cordelia begs him to fight it, stressing his name in the process as if doing that would control him.

Fred runs into Gunn, who aides her. They hide in a room, until Gunn realize he is infected. After a failed attempt to leave, he orders Fred to knock him unconscious. We see the act of a man who doesn't want to go to the level of hitting a defenseless woman. She hits him once, and he grows angry, threatening to bash her head in. She hits him harder, and he's knocked out cold.

We go back to Angel and Cordelia. Angel is now getting in Cordelia's face, sort of taunting her threateningly. He raises his hand to slap her, but then punches Billy. Cordelia's flinch and slight cower at Angel's hand is noticeable.

Wesley finally breaks into the room, looking for Fred. She appears, telling him she has the upper hand. She lets go of a rope, and Wesley is thrown through the floor, unconscious.

Billy and Angel fight, with Cordelia struggling to get a clear shot of Billy with her crossbow. Suddenly, Billy is shot twice. By Lilah. She wordlessly leaves, leaving Angel and Cordelia staring at each other.

Wesley is in reclusion, brooding over his actions. Fred comes to his house, telling him it was okay because it wasn't really him. Wesley ponders if that is true before breaking down in tears.

Angel and Cordelia train quietly until she wonders why Billy's 'whammy' didn't affect Angel. He explains he's never felt hate for his victims, it was more about the pain. Cordelia is troubled that she's actually comforted by this revelation, and they share a smile before continuing their training.

In the end of a very disturbing episode, the women (Lilah, Cordelia, and Fred) prevail over their 'attackers' (Angel, Wes, Gunn, and Billy). They gave a more positive view of victory rather than the woman dying at the hands of her spouse. We see various things in this episode, from Angel's concern of Lilah's wounds and Cordelia's demand of Lilah to start acting more like a bitch to Gunn begging Fred to hit him before he hits her. We see more positive figures, and not just the dark, cold abuser and the scared, small, victim.

I hope I made sense here, and if it's been discussed before, I'm sorry. :)

[> Re: New Here...Domestic Violence on AtS -- Rufus, 07:42:40 12/12/02 Thu

In the end of a very disturbing episode, the women (Lilah, Cordelia, and Fred) prevail over their 'attackers' (Angel, Wes, Gunn, and Billy). They gave a more positive view of victory rather than the woman dying at the hands of her spouse. We see various things in this episode, from Angel's concern of Lilah's wounds and Cordelia's demand of Lilah to start acting more like a bitch to Gunn begging Fred to hit him before he hits her. We see more positive figures, and not just the dark, cold abuser and the scared, small, victim.

What I always noticed was the fact that Wesley became a very dark man when he got influenced by Billy's blood....but Gunn the one who is all macho talk realized what was happening and tried to protect Fred. I'm not saying either guy was better than the other, but it made me wonder about just how dark a place Wesley goes to and how he found his way there and just how much of Gunns talk is fear.

As for a posative view, I guess it could be said that if a man ever thinks that power gotten by the fist is the way to go, that he better consider the price of keeping the little lady in line with force. A fist may make a woman shut her mouth, but it doesn't stop her from thinking...push long enough and there is the chance you will get pushed back.

[> [> Wes and Gunn (spoilers for Supersymmetry,Apocalypse Nowish & Spin the bottle) -- shadowkat, 08:48:25 12/12/02 Thu

What I always noticed was the fact that Wesley became a very dark man when he got influenced by Billy's blood....but Gunn the one who is all macho talk realized what was happening and tried to protect Fred. I'm not saying either guy was better than the other, but it made me wonder about just how dark a place Wesley goes to and how he found his way there and just how much of Gunns talk is fear.

Actually this is the one character comparison/arc from last year continuing into this year that I find the most fascinating.

Wes is introduced to us as "geek", "wimp", and definitely not "killer" material. Yet ...there are glimmers hiding beneath the surface. We get the feeling he is ruthless.
That he will do whatever it takes to succeed. But he seems to bury this tendency in the first two seasons and only glimmers of the potential are visible- unless we look back to what he did with Faith in Btvs. It's not until Billy and much further in S3 Ats that we see more. The episodes that foreshadow it? (one with the boy with no soul in S2 which I can't remember the name of - and the kid stops Wes' exorcism by tormenting him about his father), Billy, and Waiting in The Wings (where Wes struggles with his jealousy). It surfaces in Loyalty-Tomorrow - where Wes tries to protect Connor from his father. (The dark side of the watcher - comes to the fore. Beginning to wonder about Watchers...)

Gunn on the other hand is introduced as ruthless, quick tempered, killer - street fighter. He kills pragmatically and can hold his own in a fight. (This Gange of Mine, and the episode where he has to kill his sister that I can never remember the name of) He is all attitude. In Spin the Bottle - you feel as if Wes is in danger from Gunn. But wait not so fast - Wes holds a knife to Gunn's throat. Gunn's the one who backs off.

Yet - in Apocalypse NoWish ...Wes goes out of his way to save Gunn and is literally carrying him. And is the one who uses the "guns" on the beast while Gunn uses Wes' normal fighting weapon the ax. These two characters appear to switch roles yet are NOT interchangeable in the least.

Gunn has proven to us and Fred that he has the killer instinct. Does Wesely, really? Who has Wes killed outside of demons? No one. Not really. We and Fred are led to believe Wes has the killer instinct. But all Wes has done is use Justine to find Angel, try to save Connor from Angel, boink Lilah, and help Fred find a spell to send Prof Seidel to another dimension. Gunn broke Seidel's neck.

So how deep is Wes' darkness? And how surface is Gunn's attitude? Can't wait to find out. Also and this is just a hunch, I think in some ways Gunn and Wes understand each other and appreciate each other more than Fred appreciates either of them. I'm not really a shipper for any Ats character or relationship - which btw probably is the reason Ats is easier for me to watch, (investing too much in characters causes way too much anxiety)but I've always felt that the friendship between Gunn and Wes was more honest, up front and closer than the romance btw Gunn and Fred. And the last scene in Apocalypse Nowish certainly showed that.

[> Welcome. -- AurraSing, 08:07:52 12/12/02 Thu

Disturbing yes....and sending out a message that you don't "need" to be beaten,that you can be smarter and either get away or learn to fight back. Something dark we should all think about,since it's not just women but husbands and kids that get hit as well.

Thanks for reminding me about this episode. I've stopped watching Angel because it stopped making me think and just made me mad-this ep made me squirm but it did have some good writing. Wish those days were back.

[> Re: New Here...Domestic Violence on AtS -- Lara, 15:35:53 12/12/02 Thu

Hi, I'm back. :)

Thanks for the welcome, Aurra. Recent episodes have had something to think about, and as I always say- anger is a reaction. It's better than being bored, right? ;)

I too noticed the difference in attitude within Gunn and Wes. Like it was said before, I'm NOT saying Gunn was the better man, but I took note of how noble he was in that situation. He'd rather been beaten unconscious than hurt Fred. The way he begged her to hit him was just worth mentioning.

[> [> Re: New Here...Domestic Violence on AtS -- JM, 17:47:04 12/12/02 Thu

I think that the ep had a message and trapping about violence against women, but I think the oblique theme might have been domestic violence in general, gender irregardless. I say this because Wes seemed to be the classic cowering victim in the end. I also thought this might be MEs way of visiting his bad childhood, that's been hinted at, but never directly addressed. And a good way to do that, considering the character would never be likely to have a honest conversation about it.

There are multiple focuses to the ep, but it really does showcase AD's talents. And it focuses not just on physical violence of the stronger male, but on really malicious emotional abuse from someone familiar. She's no random cab fare. She's someone he's been watching and paying attention to for months. (Though turns out he doesn't know her as well as he thinks.)

Wes's very distinct reation is one of the reasons I thought that the ep was supposed to be about something larger than just man v. woman abuse. His implied history might also have tied into the contrast between his reaction and Gunn's (which is also the very first hint about a distinction between the men in Fred's regard). Wes is quietness, sometimes timidity. Gunn is aggressive bluster. But strip a few layers, and Wes is cold steel, Gunn gentle warmth. (Then strip a few more layers and Gunn is rash murder, Wes utilitarian un-vengeful psychological torture.)

Now, with these posts, I wonder if it implied a difference in their make-up and upbringing. Gunn didn't always live on the streets. He had enough family to have a sister. His stories reference grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. He may never had a lot of parental supervision or presence, but sounds like an extended family, not he himself, raised him. One he speaks of fondly. Wes probably grew up in material comfort, and something between emotional neglect and deliberate abuse, or possibly an environment yet more damaging. Their upbringing is the foundation of the men they are today. Just not clear on the state of the finished products.

Also, welcome.

[> [> [> Wesley's childhood -- Tyreseus, 21:37:19 12/12/02 Thu

I say this because Wes seemed to be the classic cowering victim in the end. I also thought this might be MEs way of visiting his bad childhood, that's been hinted at, but never directly addressed.

I'm intrigued. I don't remember off the top of my head where they've hinted at Wesley's childhood. Could you point me to some episodes?

Wouldn't it be cool if they did an episode of one or both shows that really went into childhoods? Maybe a demon that plays on childhood fears and causes major flashbacks. It would be neat to see Xander, Willow and Cordelia in grade school, Buffy and Dawn (and maybe Gunn) in LA, Wes in England, etc. It would be a way to do some crossover without needing the adult actors to cross over. If I wasn't so tied up in another writing project right now, I'd be tempted to make my first foray into fanfic.

[> [> [> [> BTVS - THe Prom -- Helen, 01:21:03 12/13/02 Fri

I'm not a huge AtS fan, don't like what it has done to two of my favourite Buffyverse characters (but that's totally OT). We do know that Wesley had a public school education, as he reminisces at the prom about how they used to make the lower classmen dress up as girls...

Oh, totally OT, but that phraseology grates. Wes is English - lower class men is not a phrase an English person would use, he'd be more likely to say the first form or something like that. And I know Giles has lived in USA for a while now, but he wouldn't say jelly donut as he did in Doppelgangland (I have been watching some really old eps lately). He would say jam.

[> [> [> [> [> Jelly donuts -- Indri, 10:18:50 12/13/02 Fri

Eventually, in language use, you just have to adapt. I've received enough confused looks when offering people chocolate biscuits that I just bite the end of my tongue now and say "cookies". But I have successfully trained my research group to understand the word "dodgy" as in, "those results look well dodgy".

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re:Cookies -- yabyumpan, 11:38:13 12/13/02 Fri

It always bugs me when I watch 'Dear Boy' when Angel says 'Convents, just one big cookie jar'. 'Cookie jar' in 18th century England would have absolutly no meaning, although I guess 'Convents, just one big biscuit barrel' wouldn't have sounded right either! ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> If they were totally accurate with phrasing, people we obsessees drag to Angel might be confused. -- Juliet, 14:04:54 12/14/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> Key Wes eps... -- KdS, 02:57:34 12/13/02 Fri

See in particular his unsuccessful attempt to exorcise Ryan in I've Got You Under My Skin, his telephone conversation (his end only) with his father in Belonging, and the scene with the AI team discussing Fred's parents when they think Fred's gone permanently in Fredless. In a nutshell, Wes has a tyrannical/emotionally abusive father who locked him in a cupboard to punish him as a child, and even now refuses to accept that he can do anything good.

[> [> [> [> Re: Wesley's childhood -- JM, 15:05:59 12/13/02 Fri

Yeah KdS got every canonical reference, it's not a huge body of information, but it seems to be very deliberate and consistent references.

IGYUMS had two references and seemed a deliberate message from ME to the audience that this new annoyingly ineffectual and needy character was partly the way he was because he has big time father issues. For a lot of viewers this was the first time they ever saw Wes in a possibly sympathetic light.

In Untoucher S2, there is no mentioned, but several people noticed how rapidly he zeroed in on Bethany's father issues and knew exactly what to say to provoke her. He was working with very few clues and his words were extremely effective.

In "Guise Will Be Guise," a cut bit from the shooting script mentions staying out of his father's way.

In "Belonging" a five minute long distance phone conversation pretty much knocks him on his ass for the remainder of the ep and the next one. He can't focus, he can't assert. His reaction time, physical and conversational, is noticably reduced. He's looking for external validation and blaming himself for things he can't control again. It's almost a 180 from the direction he was developing.

In S3 Fredless he starts on an accidental rant on what good parents don't do, and gradually realizes that the rest AI is just looking at him in shock. And he just . . . drops it. It was a hilarious but really uncomfortable moment. And I suspect not accidentally the very next ep is Billy. He behavior is so different from every other subject we see, that I can't but think there was a point to it. He's not initially dangerous violent, but calculatedly controlling. Focusing on his authority over Fred, and her failure to be obedient. And at the end, he's so certain, as opposed to Angel's discussion, that's it was all due to something inside of him. Seemed like a cycle of violence fear. So it's all kinda canonical, for those of us who pay way too much attention to Wes.

[> [> [> [> [> AD's delivery in "Fredless" -- KdS, 03:56:13 12/15/02 Sun

What's really disturbing about Wesley's speech in Fredless is that, (correcting JM, sorry), it isn't a "rant". He's speaking calmly, clinically, very articulately, every word measured. As if it's a speech he's been holding in his mind for years and he's finally got the opportunity to let it out.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: AD's delivery in "Fredless" -- JM, 07:26:11 12/15/02 Sun

No your description was much more apt, I was looking for a quick way to describe a complex, layered scene, one which I thought was so carefully set up. Each of the four characters talking introspectively, but obstentstively all addressing the same subject. AD's delivery (which is always perfect, IMO) was low key, not outwardly emotional.

I think that these were thoughts that have been in his head for a long time. Wes seems to have put them all in a pretty dispassionate place in his mind. He knows the details of his childhood, whatever they were, he can clinically make the judgement that his father/parents were not good, at parenting, possibly at being people. He knows it's not behavior he would ever want to exhibit himself. But his emotional response is not Liam-level resentment or hatred of his father. His emotional response is a continued desire to please him, maintain some type of relationship, secure his approval. What he knows and what he feels are disconnected in his mind, and he doesn't seem to want to let his legitimate grievances inform his behavior in any way. And it's not a particularly healthy dynamic. It's not as if he's dealt, forgiven, and is trying to move on. It seems more that he can abstractly understand that his childhood was abusive, but can't let it matter, can't let it be important.

So yeah Wes wasn't ranting, or sounding emotional, but he also was clearly more revealing than he intended. Just like in IGYUMs when he mentions fathers not needing to be demons to terrorize . . . and then clams up, because he can't figure out a way to address the topic, without disclosing something about himself. Or after the telephone call, he's clearly very upset, but covers it up in front of Gunn and basically lies about the discussion.

This is something he never talks about ever, to anyone. Actually that's true of just about any personal topic for Wes. The more something is bothering him emotionally, the less likely he is to talk about it. He's incredibly private and maintaining emotional control is terribly important to him. He never told Fred, or anyone else, how he felt about her even though he seems interested at least as far back as Carpe Noctem. Cordy knows cause she saw and asked. We never see him talk to anyone about how traumatizing the events of Billy were and why they were so upsetting (except for the apology to Fred, and she did most of the talking, and he shut her out before he really broke down). He never really talks to anyone about how upset and uncomfortable he is about Gunn and Fred's relationship. I thought it was entirely in character that he tried to deal with the Connor situation alone, without telling anyone, especially as he got more and more emotionally involved, distressed, and frightened.

He never even really explains why he's so furious after the event of Sleep Tight and Forgiving. There's a lot more to it than just you didn't ask for or consider my side, so get out. And I think if he really wanted to he could have had a really knock down, drag out fight with Gunn and Fred over the summer. He could have explained how he was manipulated and betrayed by Holtz and Justine, how he was terrified of the portents that all came true, how he was trying above all to protect all of them. It might not have fixed things, but alot more would be out in the open. But Wes doesn't do things that way, because he might loose control: of the discussion and of his emotions. And control is really all he's got left now.

I think that this trait has become more pronounced over the years, as well. He's always been somewhat private about his personal life, but the real emotional walling out escalated with taking on leadership of AI. With responsibility and especially with power, the necessity for control becomes paramount. Both to maintain authority and also to keep himself from misuing that power. I think he's quite familiar with the dangers of abusing authority. With Gunn and Fred, he didn't do perfect, but he mostly tried to remain uninvolved once they were romantically involved. As the boss he could have made things a lot more difficult for them. Course he had to almost completely avoid interacting with either of them in order to control his behavior around them.

I think this personality trait of reserve and emotional distance is part of what fueled the scene with Lilah in Apocalyse Nowish. When she tells him she knows him better than Fred ever will, the effect is electrifying. His demeanor changes from long-suffering annoyance and amusement to ferociously passionate. I thinks she's right, she may not understand him but she probably knows him better than anyone ever in his entire life. It's was makes her irristable, alleviating a little of what seems to be very profound loneliness. It also gives her power over him, challenging his control. Leading to the nasty little powerplay on his part at the end of the scene.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> On Wes... -- KdS, 07:57:21 12/15/02 Sun

Another point - Wes is very self-aware. You can see it developing as part of what we assume his childhood was like. One can imagine a child who's emotionally neglected and savagely punished the way Wes was constantly examining himself to try to work out why he keeps failing. Just because he knows what's going on doesn't necessarily mean he's capable of doing something about it, but that ability to examine himself dispassionately is probably what's kept him from becoming seriously evil instead of just grim (unlike the comparable falls of Angel mid-S2, Willow end BtVS S6 and Faith). What I've heard about Wes's actions in S4 so far suggests someone who's consciously on a self-destructive path, but is still sufficiently moral not to want to take any innocent bystanders with him.

[> Re: New Here...Domestic Violence on AtS -- yabyumpan, 23:57:11 12/13/02 Fri

Intertesting and accurate perpective on the episode. For me, it was also an episode about Responsibility. Was Lilah responsable for Billy's actions by coercing Angel to break him out of his fire cell? Was Angel responsable for allowing himself to be coerced? How much of Wesley's behavior was Billy actually responsable for? Did Billy's 'Wammy' touch inflict those actions or just bring them to the surface? One of the ironies for me was that the person who took on the most responsability, Cordelia, actually had the least. It could be argued that she was actually a victim of Billy in a round about way, in The Vision Thing. As she said to him, she was the one who got tortured to get him out of his fire cell.
One of the things that I liked about the episode was that none of the above questions really got answered and even now, I still don't have diffinitive answers for any of them. It didn't raise a complex and emotive issue and give a pat resolution, it was entertaining, disturbing and thought provoking. One of the many joys of living in Whendonverse :-)

[> [> Also... -- yabyumpan, 00:47:40 12/14/02 Sat

I forgot to include Billy. How much responsability does he hold for the actions of the men he touched? Did his touch/blood 'make' them violent or did it just bring out latent violent tendencies? Is a person who sells guns responsable for the deaths those guns may cause? Can Billy's family also be held responsable by protecting him?

Help me make it through the week! (confessions of a recovering spoiler addict)... -- Thomas the Skeptic, 10:21:54 12/12/02 Thu

Last year I thorougly spoiled myself before each episode aired and thus there was the zero element-of-suspense thing going on. I finally came to my senses and realized that I was'nt having any fun. This year, I have maintained a strict no-spoiler policy, mainly because this may be the last season and I want to savor every tasty narrative morsel ME dishes out (I'm on my lunch hour, can you tell?). I'm loving it and yet... now that we're in the midst of one of the periodic dry spells that happens every season, I find myself sorely tempted to stray. I particularly need to know the fate of one Rupert Giles (especially since some of you rascals have been making some pointed hints in this regard!). Fellow Buffy fiends, please give me moral support so I won't backslide into my terrible old ways!

[> My name is cjl, and I'm a spoiler addict... -- cjl, 10:29:10 12/12/02 Thu

I've tried to lay off the stuff, really, but every time I log on to my computer, I go to Ain't It Cool News or slayage.com or spoilerslayer.com, and I gorge myself on spoilers. My addiction completely ruined the suspense of some episodes, and I wonder how I would have reacted to others if I didn't know about them months in advance. (Would I have liked the yellow crayon speech in "Grave" if I didn't read about it maybe 12 hours after IT HAD BEEN SHOT?!)

I'm already lost, Thomas. Save yourself. SAVE YOURSELF!

[> We know something you don't know...*off-key singing* -- dub ;o), 10:50:24 12/12/02 Thu

HA-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Join us, Thomas...JOIN US!!

[> [> further confessions... -- Thomas the Skeptic, 12:02:55 12/12/02 Thu

cjl, I said I was spoiler-free; I did'nt say I was fanatical! I still read slayage.com everyday, I just don't read the articles that I know will contain spoilers. I could'nt make it through a season without seeing what the culture vultures in the mass media have to say about "our girl". As for you, dub... "Satan, get thee behind me!" :) ; I asked for moral support, not to be seduced over to the dark side!

[> [> [> Tut, tut. Spoilers are hardly what makes a dark side. -- Deeva, 14:31:33 12/12/02 Thu

Now people who go on and on about their cats and dogs, who dress them up for Halloween and use photos of them for Xmas cards, that's the dark side! ;o)

[> Well, they're not called 'spoilers' for nothing! -- slain, 12:27:21 12/12/02 Thu

It might be a radical statement, but spoilers spoil the show - pure and simple, and in many more ways than just the obvious 'suspense' issue. If you like I'll post the link to the very stern article I wrote for my website ("Spoilers? Just Say No!"), which was subsequently taken down for being a little too stern.

[> [> yes, slain, please post the link! (NT) -- Thomas the Skeptic, 12:56:39 12/12/02 Thu

[> [> [> Spoilers are like foreplay....... -- Briar Rose, 13:22:15 12/12/02 Thu

I am a loud and proud Spoiler Slut and I am all for the freedom of choice that allows people to stay Spoiler-free.

But I see it like Faith would. To paraphrase: Come on! Don't you get all juiced and primed and..... grrrrrr! when you're all worked up from the spoilers?

For me - the tantalizing little tidbits make it worth while to watch the show. I want to see which ones are true, which are false, how they will pull off the idea when it reads as completely outside of the possibility of the characters and the show itself!

When I read spoilers for OMWF I was so scared that it just wouldn't be as described. I was BLOWN AWAY by how much better it was than I could even imagine! Same with Hush and Grave/Seeing Red.

I just read a spoiler for Angel that completely blew me away! It is so juicy and delicious that I am now in TOTAL withdrawel waiting for those meanies to get it on the air. ~WFW!!!!~

Good luck on your recovery! You have my total support. But for me? I'll take the long, delicious torture waiting for that final Big Ep that all the teasing leads up to.*S*

[> [> [> [> If spoilers are like foreplay... -- ponygirl, 09:49:57 12/13/02 Fri

... and we all agree that reading wildfeed is going all the way, what would the different bases of spoilage be? See after being quite bad last year, I primly resolved to stick to first base with the spoilers: promos, official interviews, skimpy episode descriptions. As the season has worn on I found myself occasionally swinging by the Trollops -- for the articles only! Then after NLM - when I thought that was going to be it until January - I got a bit crazy and went by the Spoiler Slayer. Is that second or third base? And am I deluding myself in saying that reading William the Poet doesn't count? He's just too damn cryptic to actually be spoilage!

I think I'm in denial, but still trying to be good...

[> [> [> [> [> Re: If spoilers are like foreplay... -- BriarRose, 15:19:45 12/13/02 Fri

promos (as UPN does them now *LOL), TV Guide "synopsis" and most normal types of ads for the show = Puppy Kissing

Official Interviews (depending on who's talking) ain't it cool and this board's norm = tonsil licking, slurpy make out.

SpoilerSlayer and Indy news = Under the clothes petting, but not true "Second base."

Trollops and the like = Second base and rounding Third

Script previews from insiders or directly related from inside the camp spoilers (agents and crew mostly and pretty much hard to find) = Third

Wildfeed = Homerun!!!!

But then I'm loose.*LOL

[> [> [> [> [> [> So I'm doing Puppy Kissing with Buffy this season -- HonorH, 00:22:46 12/15/02 Sun

and serious making out with Angel (which, I may point out, I get up to months later than everyone else). At times, in fact, I'm going all the way with Angel and barely holding hands with Buffy.

I'm such a slut!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> *L You go! -- Briar, 00:33:12 12/15/02 Sun

[> [> [> Your first (NT)? ;) -- slain, 16:58:18 12/12/02 Thu

Spoilers? Just Say No!

The article is specifically about Tara's death, but I also had the bathroom scene in 'Seeing Red' in mind, and in retrospect 'Seeing Red' in general was the episode most effected by spoilers. I don't really agree with some of my argument anymore (so no one bring me up on that!), and the style of the essay (for anyone who's read anything else I've written) is far more forthright than I usually use; these're the reasons it's no longer accessible through my site. Take with salt (1 grain).

[> [> [> [> yeah, duh, dopey me! but, I think I'm getting the hang of it ;) ... -- Thomas the Skeptic, 07:13:58 12/13/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> Hah! I think every single one of us did that the first time we NTed! LOL! -- dub ;o), 07:54:13 12/13/02 Fri

[> But you only have 5 days till the next Buffy. -- Deeva, a well spoiled Trollop, 14:26:23 12/12/02 Thu

Suck it up. You've made it this far you can do 5 more days. And to be honest, I've read mush of what it floating out there and not a whole lot of it is solid one way or the other about Giles. So maybe you can take comfort in knowing that we Trollops are in much the same boat except that we hear all sorts of things that go one way or the other but in the end it puts us right back to where we started which is "I dunno".

[> [> Re: Giles beguiles, but no spoiler in miles -- Brian, 14:59:24 12/12/02 Thu

Pity me, as I will be on the road next Tuesday, looking for a motel that has UPN on its cable. Fighting my way through slush, snow, biting wind, sleet, bitter cold, to finally find rest in the sweet, tender arms of BtVS.

[> [> [> How I wish I wasn't a spoiler trollop... -- Helen, 01:07:39 12/13/02 Fri

but what else can I do?

Stuck on the other side of the Atlantic, no sign of Season 7 starting on satellite, and the terrestrial airings of Season 6 suspended for SNOOKER (god how I hate BBC2 - and they'll have to cut it to death anyway, can you imagine airing Smashed/Wrecked/Gone at 6:45pm?) and desperately in need of a Buffy fix. I turn to you lovely people, spoil myself silly reading shooting script on Psyche, and just hope that there will still be some delight left for me when I finally get to see the eps - so far there always has been.

[> [> [> [> Helen - you *do* know it's on BBC2 again and cut-free on... -- Marie, 01:24:45 12/13/02 Fri

...Friday nights - after midnight, don't you? (All sports permitting, grrr!).

Marie

[> [> [> [> [> oh I know, but me not a night owl! -- Helen, 01:36:23 12/13/02 Fri

Actually it will be kind of intriguing to see whether it is even comprehensible - like when Angel was first aired on Channel 4 and you literally could not follow the plot because it had been so hacked about.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Ah, but in Wales we're more civilised! S4C's AtS eps were uncut, hee-hee! -- Marie, 03:00:18 12/13/02 Fri

We Welsh know a good thing when we see it! (Apart from taking things off for b****y eisteddfods, of course!). I occasionally taped the C4 version, just out of curiosity, and couldn't believe the stuff they cut. Heathens!

M

[> [> [> [> Helen, S7 BtVS & S4 AtS in the UK -- yabyumpan, 23:27:52 12/13/02 Fri

BtVS S7 starts on Sky on 9th Jan and S4 AtS starts on 23rd Jan. Not long to wait now.
I agree with you, I too wish I wasn't a spoiler trollop but we just have so long to wait over here and I have no self control. I sometimes wish my computer would break down just so I could stop myself from trawling through all the sites for any speck of spoiler news. That's probably tempting fate though and I'd just end up spending a lot of time visiting my mum and going on her computer! There really is no hope for me ;-)

[> Hang in there, you aren't alone! -- shadowkat, 15:27:14 12/12/02 Thu

Last year I thorougly spoiled myself before each episode aired and thus there was the zero element-of-suspense thing going on. I finally came to my senses and realized that I was'nt having any fun. This year, I have maintained a strict no-spoiler policy, mainly because this may be the last season and I want to savor every tasty narrative morsel ME dishes out .

Yep me too! I ruined Seeing Red, AYW, Hells Bells,
Dead Things, and countless other episodes for mysefl because of this.
I came to my senses prior to SR, but it was too late - if you were posting on B C &S? The spoilers were in the subject lines and I was addicted to posting essays (sigh).

So over the summer? I broke myself of the habit - I left B C & S permanently and just stayed on this board. But breaking oneself of the habit is easier said then done.
One there's the slight problem of having made close friends with a few spoiler trollops and as much as they try they can't help dropping one here or there. Then there's the time periods where you fret...CwDP did me in - I couldn't handle the fear that Spikey had gone evil, so I broke and went to spoilerslayer - luckily it didn't have much, so I didn't get that spoiled. I broke again recently b/c I couldn't figure out when the next new episode was going to air - and spoilerslayer is the best source. The 17th is right btw. Luckily I didn't get too spoiled.

I've had to stop going to www.slayage.com - b/c so many of their articles have spoilers and tabula rasa and baps and buffy cross and stake to keep myself off spoilers. But it is hard - particularly during these long periods of reruns and being left with a cliffhanger - or a cliffhanger regarding the fate of my favorite characters.

Ats is actually easier for me to avoid spoilers for.
But event that one is getting difficult now.

Hate these month long breaks.

SK (member of ex-spoiler trollops anynomous club)

[> DON'T READ TV GUIDE'S SYNOPSIS!!!! -- Sara, who made a big, big mistake, 16:15:54 12/12/02 Thu

Ignore the voices of evil whispering in your head (...and on this board - bad, bad dub!) and be strong. See how many of the 12 steps you can get through before Tuesday. Just remember that you'll hate yourself in the morning. Just say no. Keep your chin up. AND DON'T READ TV GUIDE! There are dangers lurking around every page...

[> [> Re:TV GUIDE'S SYNOPSIS!!!(Reversing the preview or TV Guide effect, read only if you saw/read) -- Dochawk, 17:08:13 12/12/02 Thu

Yes either tells you Giles is in the next episode. Here's the question: Is it Giles or is it Morphy-Giles (and Giles was killed by that axe)? Not even the spoilers know for sure.

[> [> BWAH-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Another fallen to the power of the Dark Side! -- WW ;o), 18:15:50 12/12/02 Thu

[> [> [> I will return to the side of unspoiled right -- Sara, pretending she has cheekbones and a leather coat, 18:33:53 12/12/02 Thu

and redeem myself, and get a soul, and prove my worthiness, the evil spoilage will not keep me! (Hey Darbs, we need to cancel our subscription to TV Guide - pleeeease!)

[> Hang on, Thomas! -- Dariel, 17:29:09 12/12/02 Thu

I, like you, was thoroughly spoiled last year, and swore off spoilers this year. It's so much more fun this way--I even shout at my TV screen now and then!

[> Thomas, you know you belong in the darkness with us....;) -- Rufus, Trollop Queen, 18:23:23 12/12/02 Thu

[> I hear ya, buddy. -- HonorH, 19:14:35 12/12/02 Thu

I've been desperately trying to stay off the spoilers this year. It's doubly hard because I've a spoiler-whore friend who periodically cackles gleefully at me that she knows something I don't know. The most I'll allow myself is a look at the TV Guide blurbs and next week's previews. Other than that, it's been spoiler cold turkey. It's like Willow on bad magic or Spike on human blood. Somebody tie me to a chair!

[> [> I also have an evil Spoiler Trollop friend! Mostly, I'm singing lalala w/ my fingers in my ears! -- Rob, 22:12:43 12/12/02 Thu

[> [> [> Hey! Who you callin evil? -- Rufus, 05:06:53 12/13/02 Fri

Your friend is just generous in their information sharing.

[> You could do what I do -- Tyreseus, 21:54:47 12/12/02 Thu

After being spoiled on a few episodes that I really wish I hadn't been, I swore off the juice forever. So now, when I get an itch to find out what I can expect on TV next week I read spoilers for "Smallville."

Since the writing isn't as layered and complex as BtVS or AtS, I don't feel like I've cheated myself out of the joy of surprise. Besides, I mostly tune in to "Smalleville" for those chance scenes where Clark wears a swimsuit or tears his shirt off after an explosion (like Cambell's Soup: Mmm, Mmm, Good ).

[> Inspiration to make you stronger... -- Me in DE, 22:33:17 12/12/02 Thu

My sister & brother in law live in Gallup, NM, where there is no UPN, even on their dish. They haven't seen a single episode since the end of season 5 when their friends in Pittsburg stopped taping Buffy for them. And they both are spoiler-free, and obsessively so.

I'm taping S7 for them and have acquired S6 as x-mas gifts for my brother-in-law. Even then, according to my sister, he'll only watch one episode a day.

So there is hope!

If Joss wrote "Lord of the Rings": -- HonorH (getting more insane by the second), 16:50:39 12/12/02 Thu

Okay, so Tanja Kinkel and I got fairly weird while corresponding. We're both very excited about the current seasons of BtVS/AtS, and we're also both raring to go to "The Two Towers" when it opens next week. Next thing you know, we're discussing what Middle Earth would look like if the Jossverse scribes had written "Lord of the Rings" instead of Tolkien. Tanja's friend Kathy got into the act, too, and here's the final list compiled by the American/German/English team (warning: some fairly squickalicious pairings ahead):

--Eowyn and Aragorn would have a pre or post-battle one night stand which they'd regret immediately (Aragorn because it meant cheating on Arwen, Eowyn because it showed her Aragorn doesn't really love her) and which would wreck the A/A relationship

--Saruman's idea of getting at the Fellowship would involve letting Sam find Rosie's dead body, appropriately decorated

--Frodo and Gollum would have a dark sexual relationship, and it would be open to debate whether Gollum bit the finger off to get the ring or whether he committed suicide deliberately to get his soul, err, save Frodo

--Legolas would go nuts on bad magic after Helm's Deep, and Gimli would be forced to talk him back to sanity

--Boromir would try to seduce Arwen out of resentment toward Aragorn

--Midway through the journey, the One Ring would turn into Frodo's little sister because some monks thought it could be used for good

--Gandalf would be depressed after his resurrection, leading to an ill-advised relationship with Saruman

--Arwen tells Aragorn that he must find a nice normal human girl and lead a normal life and she goes off to fight Evil in Valinor where she teams up with Frodo.

--Gandalf and Galadriel, under the influence of evil lembas, do it twice on the hull of an elven boat. They vow never to speak of it again.

HonorH again. I do apologize for the mental images, but since I'm stuck with them, so are you. Cheers!

(Disclaimer: Tanja started it.)

[> Re: If Joss wrote "Lord of the Rings": -- luna, 17:17:39 12/12/02 Thu

Aragorn goes off to start his own series on the Sylmaril channel.

[> I want to play! -- Tyreseus, 18:59:03 12/12/02 Thu

At least one, possibly more, of the orcs must convert from the side of darkness to good.

After Bilbo freaks out about the ring in Rivendell, Frodo would ask why he was "all gollumy and big-eye-ish"

More gratutious shots of Aragorn, Legolas and Boromir without their shirts on.

In the halls of Moria, the fellowship would inexplicably burst into song, and Galdalf would be forced to reveal his knowledge that he would 'die' before they escaped.

This is fun... I'm going to have to think of more. ;)

[> [> Mmm . . . LotR shirtlessness! -- HonorH, 19:28:15 12/12/02 Thu

The movie really could've used more of that. Especially Aragorn. And Boromir. And Legolas. Pretty men!

[> [> [> It would be yummy -- Tyreseus, 20:28:49 12/12/02 Thu

Especially Orlando Bloom (Legolas). A bit waifish, but very cute.

[> Re: If Joss wrote "Lord of the Rings": -- Celebaelin, 22:14:28 12/12/02 Thu

We learn that previously on LotR Glorfindel has aquired magical and martial prowess so profound that he could reduce all nine Nazgul into bonemeal without breaking sweat but is fearful of the human cost of his intervention. We do however get to see Glorfindel on camera although he is notoriously close-lipped about his private life.

[> I wanna play too! -- grifter, 02:19:02 12/13/02 Fri

You guys are funny, let¥s see if I can be too:

Lurtz and two other Uruk-Hai, Andrutz and Jonathrutz are nerd-talking all the time, and, of course, there¥s a homo-erotic-tension-thing going on between Lurtz Andrutz. Also, Lurtz would get flayed alive by Evil!Sam for killing Boromir.

Aragorn leaves Arwen at the altar in fear of becoming his abusing father. Arwen goes back to being a vengeance...uhm, -elf.

Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin combine to build the Uber-Hobbit for their battle with a human-robot-ringwraith Denethor was secretly working on before being killed by it. "You could never hope to grasp the source of our power. But yours is right here." the Uber-Hobbit says as it rips out "Boromir II"¥s evil Mithril-core. They are later haunted in their dreams by the "First Hobbit" whom they have disturbed with their ritual. The "First Hobbit" is easily defeated however, because, well, it¥s a hobbit...

[> Re: If Joss wrote "Lord of the Rings": (yes, fun, fun(possible spoilers) -- Steve, 07:56:08 12/13/02 Fri

Shelob would be killed with one well timed axe throw.

Barad-dur would actually be a maze of tunnels, not a tower.

Ents would be described as all "rootsy and woodsy"

Cool bands would do cameos in the main hall of either Rivendell or Meduseld.

Galadrial would bonk Frodo (or Gimli) before leaving Lothlorien, just so that "he could feel something real"

Everytime a character broke into a lengthy elvish lament about the War of the Silmarils, their destiny would be revealed.

Sauron, lieutant of Morgoth, corruptor of Numenor, and The Lidless Eye would be referred to by one and all as "The Big Bad"

Merry turns out to be a werewolf, although he tries to repress it for most of the time -- until the battle with the Captain of the Ringwraiths when he lets rip after seeing Eomer threatened.

It is revealed that Bilbo spent much of the return from the Lonely Mountain in a psychedlic cool aid funk.

In a particularly heartbreaking scene, Sam returns to his home on Bag Row to find the Gaffer has just died of a heart attack.

The One Ring is not discovered in a cave in the Misty Mountains, but the result of an impulse purchase by Bilbo on eBay.

Grima Wormtongue would be a lawyer from Wolfram and Heart.

Elrond, finally tiring of her hanky panky with mortals, goes to bring Arwen to the Grey Havens, but a defiant Fellowship tells him that Arwen "is family."

The Balrog is accidently summoned by Pippen would "thought it would be fun."

A number of the Fellowship's missing items mysteriously turn up in Legolas's backpack.

Any more?

Steve

[> [> You've definitely got the hang of this! -- HonorH, 17:23:29 12/13/02 Fri

Love the last one!

[> Thank you! -- Vickie, 10:42:48 12/13/02 Fri

After the Firefly news, I needed a giggle or three.

[> A link you may find...... Interesting -- Shiraz, 11:26:57 12/13/02 Fri

For those who have not yet been exposed to this:

http://home.nyu.edu/~amw243/diaries/

[> Re: If Joss wrote "Lord of the Rings": -- LittleBit, 12:16:35 12/13/02 Fri

They learn that Sauron just wants the Ring back so he can return to his own home where he is a god.

Frodo is faced with the choice of destroying his little sister (the Ring) or allowing the world to be destroyed.

His is saved from this choice by Gollum (his watcher) who sacrifices himself to destroy the Ring.

[> Those Gandalf images aren't going away. Thanks a *lot* HH -- ponygirl ;), 12:40:17 12/13/02 Fri

And don't forget a large number of fans would complain that LoTR was becoming All About Aragorn, while an equal number would complain that All Threads Lead To Frodo. A small but vocal minority would be agitating for a larger Pippin arc, while I wait quietly but hopefully for a Tom Bombadil appearance.

[> [> Re: Those Gandalf images aren't going away. Thanks a *lot* HH -- Celebaelin, 18:36:59 12/13/02 Fri

Having tried and tried to figure this out I can only suggest that both the cartoon and the recent epic find that Bom(badiling) is too risky a venture for the fantasy genre (I hate the G word but sometimes there really is no choice) after the 'Board of the Rings' character Tim Benzedrine in the Harvard Lampoon book. LotR predated the 1960s 'get back to nature and everything will be fine' idea in fact, its' writing having been suspended by the author during WWII presumably for the reason that the work was irrelevant and maybe even irreverent given the extremis of the day (that resonance is all coincidence apparently).

None of this explains the demise of the Lord of the Nazgul later on (?spoiler of the book if you didn't realise that the good guys win?). It's only a short step from the Tom thing to 'hey nonny nonny' (stealing again) and the first person to say that gets a punch up the bracket - no, I don't really know what that means either. On thinking about it I wouldn't mind finding out who Goldberry was, in her own time of course.

[> [> [> Re: Errata -- Celebaelin, 21:10:08 12/13/02 Fri

That should read "Bored of the Things" I think. I went up the pub and got beered, call me a sinner if that concept falls within your personal belief system (yah yah). Call me Ishmael if you like but only if you're having a whale of a time (idiomatic joke:-). Haven't got the hang of fizzling yet so I'm going to have to stop sudde

Current board | More December 2002