December 2002 posts
Firefly
has been Cancelled. -- Rufus, 05:52:08 12/13/02 Fri
timminear.net
Dec 12, 02] Well, it's official. After much speculation, Firefly
has been cancelled.
Tim had the following to say, "We did get word tonight, Fox
won't be ordering any new eps. That translates to 'cancelled.'
We will finish shooting the ep now in production (I'm directing,
in fact Joss came
down to the set to break the bad news to cast and crew -- we wrapped
early, but are back at it in the am), we'll finish post on all
eps, and Fox says they're going to somehow air all eps."
[> Gah! No way UPN can sweep
it up? -- neaux words can express, 06:31:14 12/13/02 Fri
[> [> Re: Gah! No way
UPN can sweep it up? -- skpe, 07:04:18 12/13/02 Fri
First 'Farscape' and now this. Its been a bad year.
[> Aren't we glad Buffy
didn't wind up on Fox? -- Darby, 07:01:43 12/13/02 Fri
That was a serious possibility during the jump to UPN.
Of course, with more affiliates at Fox than UPN has, Buffy might
be doing better in the ratings this season than it has or than
Firefly has, but with it at UPN we're talking about the form it
will take next year rather than if we'll ever see the current
arc play out. That's definitely preferable.
Isn't hindsight wonderful?
[> [> Re: Well, that
just sucks bad eggs! -- Brian, 07:14:17 12/13/02 Fri
Firefly cancelled, Farscape gone, Witchblade done in - Is there
no end to the madness!
[> Unfortunately, I saw
this coming ten miles away...(Spoilers for "The Loner")
-- cjl, 07:12:44 12/13/02 Fri
When Fox bagged the pilot because it was "too slow,"
I felt the cold, clammy hand of doom close upon Firefly even before
it aired. Fox obviously wanted a pure action series, and Joss
was more interested in a mature character drama with sci-fi and
Western trappings. I don't think either party ever truly moved
toward the other's viewpoint. Add the cost of producing an FX-heavy
series with a large cast, and that pretty much spells cancellation.
The other reason I felt queasy about Firefly's prospects is because
the origins of the series eerily echoed the origins of "The
Loner" (I believe that was the title), a 1964 Western series,
created and written by--Rod Serling. Yes, that's right, it was
his first attempt at a TV series after the Twilight Zone (the
mother of all fantasy/horror genre shows), and the networks gave
him the same guff Fox gave Joss: it's too slow, it's too character
oriented, what's this existential crap, etc., etc. It was cancelled
before the end of the first season.
Serling went on to create/produce/host Night Gallery, a series
similar-but-inferior-to the Zone in almost every way (with a few
occasional bright spots). I hope Joss doesn't feel pressured to
create Buffy clones for the rest of his Fox contract. After Angel
and Ripper finish up, I'd rather he quit TV altogether and do
the movies he's always wanted to do....
[> F**k! (sorry) --
grifter, 07:14:40 12/13/02 Fri
Can FOX really be THAT stupid?
F**king (sorry) idiots!
[> [> Well, that was
the first word that came to my lips! -- Dariel, 16:56:31
12/13/02 Fri
Just when they really got me hooked, too!
[> Ack! Stupid Fox --
ponygirl, 07:14:57 12/13/02 Fri
What brilliant minds over at Fox! Get a series, stick it on a
terrible night, don't show the pilot, complain about the "tone",
air the episodes out of order, and when the show is finally starting
to gather momentum, cancel it. It's a miracle to me that the Simpsons
is on that network and that the X-files had four or five good
years before Fox ran it into the ground. Poor ME.
(On a purely evil and selfish note, I can't help but think that
all of Joss' creative energies can now be poured into BtVS and
AtS - get some good out of Fox badness)
[> [> Exactly --
Silky, 07:46:08 12/13/02 Fri
You summed it up perfectly - and why don't the networks learn
from history. Look at Buffy - look at Star Trek!!! They are not
bright.
I purposely taped all the episodes so that I could watch them
in the order they were supposed to be shown. Stupid Fox is right.
Of course, wasn't it Fox that cancelled Kindred: the Embraced,
too? At least that came out on video.
[> [> If it wasn't for
the Firefly experiment we wouldn't have gotten Drew Goddard
-- Dochawk, 10:56:51 12/13/02 Fri
Hopefully someone will pick up Firefly (which is where Joss' efforts
will be now). But because Minnear and a few others went over there,
Buffy had to hire a new writer and we got the fabulous Drew Goddard!
[> It's the story of my
life......... -- AurraSing, 07:26:55 12/13/02 Fri
I finally get hooked on the show and wham!! off it goes. Of course
the odds were stacked severely against it from the get-go,what
with the crappy night to air and how they played around with the
episode order.....
R.I.P. Firefly,I'm going to miss you.
[> Disappointing, but not
surprising -- Cheryl, 08:21:37 12/13/02 Fri
If it weren't for Buffy and Angel, I'd give up on television all
together and cancel my cable. There's just so little out there
to watch, and then when they go and cancel something like Firefly
after just a few episodes, it's no wonder the networks are losing
viewers and going to HBO and the other cable channels instead.
[> [> This "Firefly"
news bites, but at least thank God for UPN and the WB... --
Thomas the Skeptic, 08:46:14 12/13/02 Fri
where, because the networks are smaller and the number of affiliates
less, they will tolerate less than stellar ratings and let shows
live longer (although I hear that Angel's ratings are up this
year and Buffy's have stopped declining and started leveling off).
Unfortunately, I too have been expecting this because Fox is notoriously
impatient with slow starters and there was no way Firefly was
going to spontaneously combust with audiences from the get-go.
With guilt, I also admit that I'm glad that at least the Mad Genius
will now have more time for his other two shows (if he does'nt
load up his plate with dozens of other brilliant but peripheral
projects as is his wont). Commiserating with everyone else...
[> I'd like to nominate...
-- CW, 09:07:55 12/13/02 Fri
Nobody's perfect and as I've posted at the Firefly site recently,
not everything that went wrong with Firefly was entirely FOX's
fault. But, the ultimate failure does seem to come back to FOX's
misunderstanding of what it was doing in airing one of Joss' shows.
They promoted it last summer as a space-adventure-action show,
whereas clearly Joss had a drama-comedy-set-in-space in mind.
Most of us here were expecting something like what the show was
building toward. Obviously FOX wasn't. You have to suspect that
nobody in authority at FOX ever actually watched Buffy or Angel
to see why they were popular. I'd like to nominate the phrase
"The Train Job" as a new by-word for the way people
in authority can a) not listen to competent people under them,
b) insist on having things done their way despite all warnings,
and c) ultimately put the blame on the poor schmuck who had to
do it 'their way' when things ultimately go terribly wrong.
[> [> Re: Oh yeah...I
can hear it now... -- dub, 13:03:00 12/13/02 Fri
"I'm tellin' ya, it was a total Train Job!"
Already in my lexicon...
[> check out the Firefly
board re: message from joss -- LurkerBoy, 10:06:34 12/13/02
Fri
[> [> Want to give the
original source addy to this message from Joss -- Rufus, 10:22:48
12/13/02 Fri
The message is on the Trollop Board as well but I don't have an
originating address....which I prefer to have before posting.....silly
me has no idea what the Phoenix board is or where it is.
[> [> [> Re: Want
to give the original source addy to this message from Joss
-- LurkerBoy, 10:27:42 12/13/02 Fri
Sorry - I had never heard of it before yesterday. Here is the
link.
http://www.buffistas.org/showthread.php?thread_id=13&post_id=7710
Hope this helps.
[> [> [> [> Thanks....
-- Rufus, 10:29:23 12/13/02 Fri
[> My Friday nights are
now free -- Vickie, 10:31:26 12/13/02 Fri
With my luck, it will get picked up by SciFi. The which I cannot
get.
[> Comments from Joss Whedon
re: Cancellation of FF -- Rufus, 10:32:44 12/13/02 Fri
www.buffistas.org
Thanks to Lurkerboy
joss - Dec 13, 2002 7:49:36 am EST #7717 of 7837
Kiba owes me her life.
Four AM. Can't sleep. Who'd have thought?
There's a couple of things I'd like to say. And a few things I
really can't. First of all, I'm prouder of this show and the people
I worked with on it than I can express in words, monkey noises,
or hyroglyphics. I believe this has been some fairly great TV.
And the experience of making it... I've had crew members who've
been working for 20 years say they've never worked around such
excitement, support and love. You walk on that set, you're transported.
The cast: 9 count 'em 9 incredibly talented actors who are all
decent, wonderful people. This phenomenon cannot be explained
by science.
Second of all, don't think for a second that I have given up on
this show. I think it has been mistreated shamefully, but the
Fox network has indicated that they would not stand in the way
(which they can) of my finding a new home for the show. That's
no easy prospect. But I will do everything in my power, as always,
to keep this bird in the air. Of course I'll post if there's any
news.
But even if the show goes back up elsewhere, I'm going to lose
a good portion of my crew. Production will halt, they'll need
to find new jobs. You can't imagine how that feels. How much they
brought to the table, how hard and well they worked. And their
Christmas bonus is this. As much as the cast, the staff, and my
not so secret lover Minear, I honor those guys, and hope to get
them back on board.
So for now, I proudly take my place beside Profit, The Ben Stiller
Show, the Tick, and Action. But I won't rest until I've found
safe harbour (no, not the Gregory Harrison show) for this vessel.
I've got the time.
It ain't like I'm sleeping.
-joss.
[> [> Mmmmmnnnnnnnn....."Profit".
-- AurraSing, 11:19:08 12/13/02 Fri
I remember literally howling and jumping up and down in the air
in frustration when that great but-oh-too shortlived show got
pulled. Kinky,warped and sooooo much fun. *Sniff*.
Joss,I hope you do find a new home for your baby.And I hope you've
learned never to sign with FOX again.
[> Anyone up for a post-Firefly
chat tonight? -- Wisewoman, 15:22:05 12/13/02 Fri
I'm going to post this on the ATDoFirefly board as well, but I
thought maybe we could mutually express our disgust at this turn
of events in the ATPo chatroom tonight, after the new episode
airs. I realize that will mean different times for people in different
time zones, but hopefully we can keep things going for a while.
See ya there...
disgruntled dub >:o|
[> [> Re: Anyone up for
a post-Firefly chat tonight? -- JM, 15:39:10 12/13/02 Fri
Um, could some tell me how to do this again. And when. I chatted
once in my life more than a year ago. I'd like to be there, but
I may too be sad and winey by that point. It would be nice to
talk though. Thanks.
[> [> [> Re: Anyone
up for a post-Firefly chat tonight? -- dub ;o), 18:09:49
12/13/02 Fri
Hi JM- Just click on the link at the top of the main Discussion
Board page (under the ads and title, etc, to the right) that says
"chat". This will bring up an Existential Scoobies page
with the parachat window in the bottom half of it. Once parachat
loads, put in your board name and hit the button, "Okay,
Connect."
Once you're in you might want to hit the float button on the upper
right of the parachat window so that you can still surf while
chatting.
I'm assuming people may start to show up after the show airs in
the east, so 9:00 pm Eastern time to start...
Hope to see you there.
;o)
[> [> [> [> Re:
Anyone up for a post-Firefly chat tonight? -- JM, 20:28:23
12/13/02 Fri
Found it
[> Fox didn't learn a lesson
from Buffy? Where's the patience? I was just really getting into
it. :( -- Rochefort, 18:24:21 12/13/02 Fri
[> Joss Whedon, Firefly,
Btvs, Ats and Brillant But Cancelled shows -- shadowkat, 19:08:00
12/13/02 Fri
I just finished watching Objects in Space, written and directed
by Joss Whedon - if you missed it? You missed a brillant episode
- the best one so far this year. Once again we saw poetry in motion
- a perfect juggling of point of view, character development,
suspense, and creepy action.
Whedon seems to be improving as he creates.
He wrote the screenplay for Toy Story which is funny and compact
and creepy all at once. Also a great take on work and how we are
slaves to it. Also how even when we feel we have no power/control
- we do.
Buffy The Vampire Slayer - took the idea of the female in peril
turned it upside down. Now the damsel was (gasp) the guy. The
femme fatale? A hunky guy vampire.
The hero? A petit blond. The mentor? A stuttering English Librarian
with a dark side. No one expected the concept to work. SMG was
told by Kiefer Sutherland - that if she was lucky she'd get another
pilot soon (Donald Sutherland was in the movie and we all know
how well that did.) She went off to make I know What you Did Last
Summer and well- surprise surprise she's become better known for
seven years of Buffy. The concept did NOT however take off over
night. It had to be nutured by the network, find a proper slot,
get the attention of the right demographic and the creator had
to find his voice. It wasn't really until he introduced the racy
sexy duo of Spike and Dru (vampiredoms Sid and Nancy - that Whedon
hit gold) Season 2 - took off and Whedon knew where he wanted
to go. But he got an inkling of this far earlier with The PAck
- where he discovered his young cast had far more talent than
he anticipated and could go to that dark place.
Whedon realized to create great art - required risks. If you play
it safe? You get well a million other tv shows.
He didn't want that.
So along comes Angel - another risk. Making a drama where the
lead character is well a villain. Oh - wait - you thought Angel
was a good guy? Sorry. Nope. He's a villain trying to be a good
guy. Trying to redeem himself. He's the bad guy who has decided
to become good but can slip at any moment. The Detective Noir
with a vampire as the detective.
Again they played with the concept - again it required nuturing
to take off. But it did. It's hung in there for four seasons and
has a cult following. You either like the show or you don't. And
Whedon doesn't play it safe. He doesn't cater to his audience.
And he delves into dark subjects.
Watching a recent Firefly - I realized how dark, War Stories -
last weeks Firefly had two characters brutally tortured. Angel
The Series has people brutally tortured.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer - is into well torturing people too,
mostly it's vampires - Season 2 and 3 - it was Angel.
Season 6-7 - it's Spike. And both vamp/femme fatales have to have
their shirts off continuously. (smirk - I think this is a comment
on female nudity on televison).
There's another factor of course in all this - the "foreign"
market. Can we sell the show to UK, Australia, Japan, Europe,
etc? Will they want it?? If so?
That pays a good portion of production cost and salaries.
Foreign distribution rights are very lucrative in US.
At any rate - why can't Firefly be nutured like Angel and Buffy?
Finally Whedon's chance to broach adult territory and (groan)
the dang show was growing on me, I was really beginning to like
it and have to say I prefer it to most everything else on TV.
Right now just really like: Btvs, Ats, and Firefly...even ER and
Alias are beginning to get old for me. Maybe I'm just too picky?
So why not? Was it because Fox wanted an action/space drama a
la Andromeda or Star Trek - not an existentialist character study
of people on a space ship a la Hill Street Blues or Gunsmoke?
Was it the cost? Or was it just bad timing and ratings? Did the
foreign market pass on it?
Was it just not marketable outside US? Or did that question even
come up?
Why do brilliantly written but non-mainstream series like Profit,
Action, The Tick and Loner die? And reality shows like Survivor,
Joe Millionaire (Firefly's replacement),
and The Bachelor make it? I don't know. In a perfect world there
would be plenty of room and time to have all of the above on the
air. We could pick what we want to watch.
But the world isn't perfect and people don't all share our taste.
And in a free market society majority rules - or the majority
who has the ratings boxes and the advertisers and the network
chiefs.
I'll miss Firefly - assuming of course UPN doesn't pick it up
- UPN is looking for something that isn't too pricy to put after
Enterprise or Buffy, Twighlight Zone isn't working and it wants
to build it's Sci-Fi lineup. Sci-Fi Network is another possibility.
Would prefer UPN since more people can catch it.
[> [> Re: Joe Millionaire
- Another name for prostitution -- Brian, 20:01:25 12/13/02
Fri
[> [> [> Re: Joe Millionaire
- Another name for prostitution -- CW, 20:50:41 12/13/02
Fri
That's a fair way to look at it. You get however many young women,
who will to do whatever for a chance to get on TV. You can't expect
any of these 'bachelor show' couples to last much beyond the time
the cameras go off. So it's as good as prostitution with the show
producers as pimps.
Since the whole point of Joe Millionaire is that Joe is a fraud,
I wonder what kind of hideous contract everyone had to sign to
be on that show, so that the producers and network wouldn't get
sued for gross misrepresentation by the 'winner' and all the losers
as well.
'Survivor' is contrived nonsense. But, the syndicated dating shows
and these 'bachelor wants a bride' things are all pretty sick.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Joe Millionaire - Another name for prostitution -- JM, 21:00:19
12/13/02 Fri
Actually, Survivor is classy in comparison. It's lets stage Lord
of the Flies with all the contestants aware. In Bachelor and American
Idol there was the feeeling that a lot of the contestants had
deluded themselves. By millionaire, even that's not good enough.
[> [> [> [> Survivor
defense, plus Enterprise / Firefly -- Darby, 07:48:57 12/14/02
Sat
The whole point of Survivor is that it's contrived - after
several run-throughs, the producers still are remarkably able
to manipulate circumstances to make something new and interesting
happen. And the editing is usually amazing - I know that I as
a viewer am being played for a sucker, and that just adds an element
of challenge to figuring out what's really happening.
But if you let yourself get drawn into the fun, it's a riveting
hour that leaves you some things to discuss - which is where Firefly
had gotten to.
I'm going to say something that might draw some wrath, but I think,
even without seeing the pilot, that Fox was right, but ultimately
it didn't matter. The first couple of shows had to be simpler,
accessible, and high-quality to catch viewers and generate word-of-mouth.
If the order had been Objects in Space, The Train Job, and
War Stories, I think they might have been able to do it.
Joss historically starts slowly, not a good pattern for major-network
tv.
But UPN should pay attention. As someone suggested above, a night
of Enterprise and Firefly would be a fascinating
experiment, and might develop a unique but lucrative demographic.
Can you imagine a Buffy - Angel Tuesday as well? Just a
step toward the All-Whedon Network!
[> [> [> [> [>
No wrath here...agree with you -- shadowkat, 08:46:41
12/14/02 Sat
I'm going to say something that might draw some wrath, but
I think, even without seeing the pilot, that Fox was right, but
ultimately it didn't matter. The first couple of shows had to
be simpler, accessible, and high-quality to catch viewers and
generate word-of-mouth. If the order had been Objects in Space,
The Train Job, and War Stories, I think they might have been able
to do it. Joss historically starts slowly, not a good pattern
for major-network tv.
I agree with you. If Whedon had started with The Train Job, War
Stories, (the one about breaking into the Alliance - which I think
was called Core), Objects in Space and Bushwacked - leaving Shindig,
Jaynestown, and the one where Shepard gets injured for later in
the season? Maybe it would have taken off. The problem Firefly
had was it had a smattering of western cliche/sci-fi cliche -
but so does Andromeda (sci-fi cliche), and numerous other sci-fi
shows. Firefly is actually far better, acting and production wise
alone. Whedon's slow character build up is similar to a few other
shows that also had to work hard to get an audience.
1. St Elsewhere - a character drama about the inner workings of
a city hospital - it was more interested in the characters than
plot and often spent whole episodes dealing with the daily lives
of it's characters - a departure from the medical shows that proceeded
it - which were more interested in the illness of the week or
plot.
2. Hill Street Blues which owes quite a bit to Paris (the predecessor
created by Bocho). In Hill Street - Stephen Bocho sought to redo
the cop drama from the ground up - to focus on character not plot,
to show the daily grind. But he didn't build slowly - the premiere
had two main characters shot full of bullets. A technique that
ER follows years later with the attempted suicide of one of its
lead characters in the premiere episode. But Hill Street was NOT
a ratings darling in the beginning. Actually it was tough to find
- NBC kept shuffling it around its schedule. I remember hunting
it down back in the early 80s, often watching it on Sat nights
instead of Love Boat which had begun to bore me.
Most well-written quality shows that alter tv according to the
Brillant But Cancelled doc I watched, don't start with good ratings.
They have to be nurtured.
Seinfield had a similar experience - it jumped around. I started
watching it when it was on Tues, then Wed's then finally Thurs.
It didn't have a laugh track and that bugged people. (Truly don't
get this - I hate laugh tracks.)
Survivor really shouldn't be lumped into same category as other
reality shows - it's very different and interesting.
The show deals with what we will do to each other for money and
fame and under horrible conditions. Lord of the Flies for money.
I find it hard to watch...but have friends who love it.
But UPN should pay attention. As someone suggested above, a
night of Enterprise and Firefly would be a fascinating experiment,
and might develop a unique but lucrative demographic. Can you
imagine a Buffy - Angel Tuesday as well? Just a step toward the
All-Whedon Network!
I really hope UPN grabs Firefly. It's a perfect companion for
Enterprise. Just as Angel is perfect for Buffy. And if UPN can
get Ripper? It has it made. UPN - can do the star trek (Roddenberry
franchise) and the Buffy (whedon franchise) all it needs is perhaps
Farscape and it might give Sci-Fi a run for it's money. Note to
network exec's : Do NOT, I repeat Do NOT underestimate the power
of a cult audience - they will not only faithfully watch and rewatch
every show, they'll fanatically buy products associated with the
shows, go to conventions, support the shows on the internet, write
fanfiction pushing them, etc - you basically have a group of people
who will help you promote the show and do it for free. I seriously
doubt more mainstream shows such as Friends, ER, NyPd Blue or
Alais have this level of support - although they probably don't
need it either.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: No wrath here...agree with you -- Angela, 09:08:09
12/14/02 Sat
I was struck by the demographic's aspect also of Buffy (this was
mentioned in the discussion on the sweep's recently) and possibly
Firefly; but I guess that links back to how effectively the net
works are getting the advertising dollar to support the shows...that
being said, and as much as I love Joss, something didn't click
here.
Ben and his friends (they're in highschool) watch Buffy regularly
(they watched more avidly in the past but can't really relate
to Xander anymore nor the current Spike) and they're totally in
love with the Angel show but only made it through a couple of
eps of Firefly. Maybe I'm off base but I thought the early Buffy/Angel
picked up both the younger and the older audience and that was
part of it's strength. Do we know anything about the demographics
for Firefly?
And I apologize that I haven't had a chance to read the whole
thread yet...please disregard, if this has already been discussed.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> On Seinfeld -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:22:31 12/14/02
Sat
Seinfeld may have had poor ratings when it first aired. But I've
recently watched reruns of their early episodes, and I can't help
but feel they deserved them. In it's beginning, Seinfeld really
wasn't that funny (don't take this as a diatribe against the show,
I've found many of its episodes to be hilarious).
As far as laugh tracks go, for me they serve the same purpose
that music does on dramas. I've noticed that comedies rarely have
a soundtrack playing except in transitions between scenes. The
laugh track is their sound track substitute. I can imagine that
if Buffy did away with music playing in the background that many
scenes would lose their resonance.
[> [> [> [> [>
Check the Firefly board for my reply about the broadcast order
-- CW, 11:06:57 12/14/02 Sat
[> [> Thanks for caring,
I'm coming back to read tomorrow am -- JM, 20:48:28 12/13/02
Fri
A little too depressed and depressants oriented right now
[> The gods of unbelieveable
coincidences are sick sad b******s. -- Haecceity, 21:30:41
12/14/02 Sat
So too the programming execs at Fox.
Just when I'd finally thrown my lot in as an unabashed fan (see
"Testimony of a Firefly Convert") gotten over the whole
Western awkwardness and really begun the "It's Firefly Day!"
happy morning response.
Guess I'll be joining the letter-writing campaign to UPN/WB to
pick up the show.
---Haecceity
[> [> Boston Globe article:
"The Rise of McDramas" -- akanikki, 11:19:00
12/15/02 Sun
Not sure how to post a link, but here's a story from the Boston
Globe talking about why shows like Firefly aren't making it. Joss,
get thee to HBO...
The rise of the McDramas
As franchise shows widen their presence, TV's quirky auteurs wane
By Matthew Gilbert, Globe Staff, 12/15/2002
''CSI: Miami'' and its swampy gore are a Nielsen top 10 hit, a
loud confirmation of the wonders of TV franchising. There was
a high-powered pitch meeting last year, someone said ''It will
be the same as `CSI,' only in Florida,'' and now CBS is in McDrama
heaven - the same heaven NBC has found with its ''Law & Order''
triumvirate. The creative process for ''CSI: Miami'' was fast
and factory-like, but many millions are being served - and made.
Meanwhile, in October, David E. Kelley's latest curiosity, ''girls
club,'' was summarily axed by Fox after only two episodes. The
architect of the ''Ally McBeal'' zeitgeist, the poster boy for
network ''creative genius,'' Kelley received a very public slap
on the wrist. Symbolically, it was a strike against Kelley's quirky
visionary approach, the same approach that has made industry stars
of the likes of Steven Bochco and younger talents such as Joss
Whedon of ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer'' and Kevin Williamson of
''Dawson's Creek.''
And so the classic Man vs. Machine struggle surfaces in the world
of network TV drama, and the Machine may be winning. Numbers-minded
network programmers are discovering the huge potential of McDramas,
which this season occupy no fewer than five slots in the Nielsen
top 20. While NBC took nine years to capitalize on ''Law & Order''
with sequel series, CBS waited only two to clone ''CSI: Crime
Scene Investigation'' for an instant payoff. And that payoff will
extend to syndication, where franchises such as ''Law & Order''
have a more ratings-rich afterlife than most dramas because they
don't rely on serial plots. The franchising of prime time TV has
only begun, with a European ''CSI'' already a possibility.
At the same time, network programmers are becoming less patient
with TV's drama auteurs and their hit-or-miss records. The Kelley
flop was not the only recent blow against hand-crafted projects.
Many writer-producers known for their artistic ambition have gotten
network and Nielsen - if not critical - thumbs down. Last week,
CBS canceled Michael Mann's stylized crime drama, ''Robbery Homicide
Division,'' and two weeks ago Fox gave Whedon's unique sci-fi
Western, ''Firefly,'' the ax. Chris Carter, celebrated for ''The
X-Files,'' and Williamson have two failures apiece since they
hit it big, and cult creator Judd Apatow (of ''Freaks and Geeks'')
hasn't taken a series beyond one season. Bochco's ''Philly'' lasted
a year, while David Lynch couldn't get a contract for ''Mullholland
Drive,'' the movie that he intended as a series.
Likewise, a number of auteurs are dealing with diminishing ratings
and the threat of cancellation. A strong viewership continues
to elude J.J. Abrams, creator of ''Felicity,'' whose ''Alias''
loses to NBC's ''Law & Order: Criminal Intent'' every Sunday.
And of course, Aaron Sorkin is a hyphenate in trouble, as ''The
West Wing'' faces backlash from viewers and critics.
TV auteurism reaches back to writer-producers such as Rod Serling
and, on the comedy side, Norman Lear, whose series depended on
their distinctive vision and not network decision-by-committee.
''Auteurs are looking for a new way to move forward in terms of
personal expression,'' says David Bushman, television curator
for the Museum of Television & Radio in New York. They are the
small-screen equivalent of movie directors such as Quentin Tarantino
and John Sayles, who represent the antithesis of the sequels and
Tom Cruise projects that are destined to clean up at the box office.
Their talents are formidable, and when they strike the right chord,
the result is timely and top-notch television on the order of
Bochco's ''Hill Street Blues.''
But the pressure is on at the networks, as viewership steadily
declines. With MTV's ''The Osbournes'' and its video music awards,
FX's ''The Shield,'' Lifetime movies, and almost all of the HBO
series, viewers are turning to cable in ever-increasing numbers.
The networks don't have the luxury of time to develop an audience.
They are in damage-control mode, and franchises are looking mighty
good.
''If you are a network programmer watching the erosion of audiences,
you need as many winning pieces as possible, as soon as possible,''
says Stacey Lynn Koerner, senior vice president of broadcast research
at Initiative Media. ''It's about how to fill limited shelf space.
If you have Tide, why not have Tide with bleach? You know you
have a winning combo with one, so bring audiences to another.''
Franchise series tend to have a significant built-in audience,
especially when a show such as ''CSI'' introduces the ''CSI: Miami''
cast in one of its episodes. They're presold, unlike an unusual,
genre-twisting series such as ''Firefly.'' A network promotional
team faces a hard road bringing viewers to ''Firefly,'' even with
the Whedon imprimatur. ''From the maker of'' helps but goes only
so far. Whedon's ''Angel'' has a small, loyal viewership more
because it's a ''Buffy'' spinoff than because Whedon's name is
attached to it.
''It's a tough environment out there for auteurs,'' says curator
Bushman. But, he adds, ''It has always been a struggle for the
auteurs in the network environment.'' He points out that ABC did
give Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz three years to improve
the ratings for ''Once and Again,'' and that NBC has made a commitment
to Graham Yost's ''Boomtown'' despite its mediocre ratings. Franchising
isn't going to completely erase originality on the networks, he
says, particularly since the networks need fresh shows from which
to clone.
Still, Bushman says that the networks have become more wary of
risky ''creative'' projects, and a number of network auteurs are
bringing their ideas to cable outlets such as HBO. ''It's an attractive
option. They benefit from HBO in terms of freedom of content,
and they don't have to deal with the Nielsens.'' Bochco and another
''NYPD Blue'' producer, David Milch, each has his own HBO project
currently in the works. ''They see what David Chase is able to
do with `The Sopranos,''' Bushman says, ''and they must be envious.
He's outside the box in such a great way. He doesn't even have
to worry about it being a mob show - if he wants to do marriage,
he does marriage.''
HBO is gaining a reputation as the antifranchise channel, as it
makes hits out of original concepts such as Alan Ball's ''Six
Feet Under'' and Larry David's ''Curb Your Enthusiasm.'' Tom Fontana,
formerly of NBC's ''Homicide: Life on the Street, '' has won enormous
support from HBO for his transgressive prison drama, ''Oz,'' which
enters its final season next month. ''And it's not only about
content,'' says Koerner. ''It's about the way HBO does business.
They commit to the concept and to the creators, and then they
let them go ahead.
''A lot of people who gravitate to HBO are uncomfortable at first
because they're not used to all the freedom. It's atypical of
the business models that creative people are used to.''
Matthew Gilbert can be reached at gilbert@globe.com.
This story ran on page N1 of the Boston Globe on 12/15/02
Open Letter
to Joss -- SingedCat,
20:38:29 12/13/02 Fri
Dear Mr. Whedon,
I was very sorry today to hear about the cancellation of Firefly.
I know the show was very important to you, and though I'm not
big on 'fan mail', I really wanted to let you know something.
In the time I've followed your shows and, to some degree, your
career, I've come to deeply respect the way your productions are
regarded in the industry. Your crews have a reputation for being
tight and professional, yet as closely knit as families. I understand
that most people who have worked one of your shows would be pleased
to return, and (especiallly) in Hollywood I think that is something
to be proud of.
From the first time I saw Firefly, I knew you were trying something
very risky, and respected it. The work that went into the show
was obvious. My friends and I are often used to 'tolerating' new
shows for a few months, while kinks are worked out and actors
become comfortable with their characters and each other. I have
to say I've never seen a show bridge that gap so fast. My friends
and I eagerly discussed what each new episode revealed about the
crew, speculated on their characters, and wondered if the show
would make it halfway through the season. Our regret that it hasn't
is an ironic but sincere accolade.
Whatever happens next here, please know that your work is good,
sink or swim; it's not said often enough in the industry, but
it's true, of course: cancellation doesn't invalidate the merits
of a show. Though it does make it shorter.;)
Here's my point: I don't know what your status is now in Tinseltown,
or who will stop calling you or working for you or believing in
you because of this. I don't care, and the Joss Who is My Hero
in my head wouldn't care either-- though I suspect him of oversimplifying.
What matters to me is that somewhere in California there is a
talented guy with some fascinating ideas, who has a pretty damn
good idea of how to tell an interesting story, and to make
the creation of that story fulfilling for the people he tells
it with. What matters to me, I guess, is that you inspire me.
What matters to you is, I believe, currently surfacing.
Rock it.
[> Well said. Seconded.
-- Wisewoman, 21:28:57 12/13/02 Fri
[> Thirded. -- Rob,
00:52:46 12/14/02 Sat
[> [> Well said --
skpe, 06:40:03 12/14/02 Sat
[> What you said! --
MaeveRigan, 07:02:05 12/14/02 Sat
[> I agree (NT) -- pellenaka,
07:52:07 12/14/02 Sat
[> Well stated and I agree!
-- Briar Rose, 13:52:03 12/14/02 Sat
[> Firefly is too good for
Fox -- DickBD, 15:39:23 12/14/02 Sat
I know all networks have their quirks, their faults, but Fox is
particularly bad. The commercials are the loudest. Without getting
into the politics of the thing, it is basically a low-class operation,
in my estimation, well in keeping with Murdock's tabloid mentality.
Good shows, of course, make us forgive such things. But they aren't
going to get good shows if they give such a brief time for a quality
show to build an audience. Didn't they have a similar problem
with 24 last year?
In any case, it is my fervent hope that the show catches on with
a "good" network.
[> I never saw Firefly,
but I agree with the sentiment muchly -- slain, 16:41:28
12/14/02 Sat
[> Well Said!... --
Nightingale, 08:07:31 12/15/02 Sun
and if you post this over at the Fox Firefly board, there's a
good chance that cast/crew members will see it. They seem to post
there pretty regularly. I don't know if they lurk over here, but
it would be nice if they did!
-NG
ps. Getting this involved in the stories of tv shows (like Buffy)
and the fate of a tv show (Firefly) is out of character for me
as well - I guess I've been moved by surprisingly excellent story-telling
in an increasingly diminishing set of choices (Joe-Millionaire!???).
Since the quality of BtVS and AtS has been so high, I guess I
just feel that Firefly deserves that chance - certainly its writers
have a history of drawing an audience!
And this board, in particular, has convinced me that there are
intelligent and thoughtful individuals 'out there' who enhance
the experience of watching these fine shows. I've never posted
to a board like this or spent time in chat (it's fun in there!)
before I found ATPo (and it took me almost a year to build up
the courage to do so!). So, thanks to you all.
Where does
the demon come from? - a question for ZachsMind and anyone who's
interested... -- Thomas the Skeptic, 09:52:31 12/14/02
Sat
I was dipping into the archives this morning and I read most of
the fascinating posts from a few days back about the nature of
the vampire and/or the soul and a question occurred to me that
nobody seems to have addressed: where does the demon that takes
over the dead human's body come from? Does it exist, somewhere,
before taking up residence in the host? Is it created at the moment
the sire mingles its blood with its victim? Or, is it present
in some fashion in the sire's body and is communicated, somewhat
like a chain letter, from host to host? As regards this last question,
I think I have some kind of pantheistic, Transcendentalist oversoul
concept in mind. If that were the case, would that mean that in
some way, all the vampires in the Buffyverse share the same demonic
spirit ( did'nt Webster the vampire say " I feel connected
to a greater evil..."?)? I suppose what caused all these
questions to occur to me is that, when I thought about these posts,
I reflected on all the old philosophical connundrums about souls:
are they born or eternally existent? If eternal, why don't we
remember anything from previous lives (my apologies to reincarnationists
and believers in past life regression)? If eternal, does that
mean they are in some way fragments of God... you get the idea.
I address this question to you, ZachsMind, because I agree, for
the most part, with your take on the vampire's nature. If you,
or anyone else, care to respond don't feel like your answers have
to be "canonical"; I'm not looking for chapter and verse
citations as much as opinions. Alas, I won't be able to participate
as I'm about to leave for the day but I'm eagerly awaiting reading
any reactions when I return!
[> Re: Where does the demon
come from? - an anecdote as part of an answer. -- David
Frisby, 11:14:39 12/14/02 Sat
Stepping somewhat outside of the buffyverse for an anecdote that
might spark an approach to answering your question, I recall Carl
Jung's famous (or notorious) recounting of the beginning of his
break with his mentor Sigmund Freud. They were arguing about the
existence of demons and such with Freud contending such notions
were nonsense. Jung replied he could have raised a fearsome demon
from hell right then at that moment very easily if he were to
have slapped Sigmund very hard (perhaps adding a profanity). The
point is that demons are an old psychological explanation of the
explosive passions, forbidden desires, pitiful despairs, uncontrollable
appetites, and general emotional states that arise from the id
or the unconscious or the collective unconsciousness or what have
you, and that possess our thought and/or action, ripping us out
of our usual states of mind in ecstasy or enthusiasm or psychosis
or madness. The demons are aspects of our primal animality but
also of our repressed instincts or even our civil consciousness
gone wrong -- a simple heuristic for explanation.
In the buffyverse demons are -- well, let's have someone else
take a stab at that!
David Frisby
[> [> Actually they're
pretty much what you said -- slain, 17:08:48 12/14/02 Sat
I'm not a Freudian, fairly extremely so, and I don't believe in
his mythology; however I do think it's true that the demons in
the Buffyverse represent many of the things that Freud would have
considered as the 'Id'. That is, demons are metaphors for aspects
of the human condition; often the 'dark' side. Immorality, violence,
selfishness, uncontrolled lust. They're often more than that,
but within the feminist ideology of the show it's central that
it's Buffy, a woman, who slays them. Looking at it from that angle,
demons are very often (I'd argue most of the time) representative
of the 'dark side' of men; that's why most demons are male, and
why even the evilest of females don't present the same kind of
menace.
I'm not as enthusiastic in the less metaphorical side of the Buffyverse,
and in answering questions like "What, literally, are demons?".
But because there's no concrete answer, and because even Joss
might not have one, there's much appeal in speculating about the
physics of the Buffyverse; though at times I kind of wish Joss
would publish his "Big Book of the Buffyverse", with
explanations to these questions. Well, maybe only after the show's
finished!
But my answer is that vampire demons come from a demon dimension,
where (like souls) they float around doing nothing much; then,
when a vampire is unborn, they get sucked into the human body.
Originally vampires were nasty things running around on the earth,
but at some point their demon bodies and demon souls got separated,
so that it became possible for a demon soul to be incarnated in
a dead (empty) human body, creating a hybrid. Does that make sense?
Does anything?
[> [> [> a pseudo-theological
view. IMOO... -- Briar Rose, 00:19:35 12/15/02 Sun
Although I completely agree with frisby and slain's versions as
to what the Buffyverse Vampire infecting Deamon might be... I
have to say that there is a metaphysical arguement to be made
that the deamon that would infect a Vampire is actually an infinite
being(s).
In the natural science aspects of nature religions (and known
science actually agrees to a point): Everything is made of energy.
Now when I say 'everything' I mean everything! There is
energy reaction in soil, the human body, spirit(as shown by brain
death versus bodily death, psychokenisis and other less easily
verifiable and well documented kinds), water, stone and air as
well as each mineral and plant and even anti-matter has some electrical
standing, it absorbs and many times allows pass through, but doesn't
create energy.
Energy has no known beginning and no known end. It just is.
In this line of thinking, it's easy to make the connection that
spirit of all kinds is infinite. Since spirit is nothing more
than kenitic energy - and since energy is not capable of "end"
- then it stands to reason that spirit energy is without end.
It can transmutate and bend, but it can not (as to all knowledge
we have now) "end."
As someone who has had past life experiences (and none of that
someone telling me I was Cleopatra or whatever weird stuff!*L)
I have to say that (IMO) it is highly conceivable that the deamon
energy spirit that creates a Vampire is truly "immortal"
as is all spirit energy.
And to take this a step farther - all the energy in the Universe
is inherently neutral that isn't tied to psycho-kenitic energy.
In the case of the infecting deamon spirit energy that causes
possession and creates a Vampire it is evil energy. When energy
is put to a use, it then becomes something not neutral. On the
good side electricity can either be harnessed for lighting a light
bulb or on the bad for starting nuclear fission for a bomb, and
also the basis of Magick and other occult/religious practices
where energy is used as a tool in various ways. To use it to harm
makes it 'evil' to use it to heal makes it 'good.'
I have to disagree with the Freudian and Jungian take on this
- I believe from my experiences that evil spirits do exist. That
they do exist outside of the Id. They are spirits that were the
"Warrens" of the human world as welll as various "devils"
(for lack of a general word that everyone would relate to) that
are also based in negative energy from various non-human entities.
These human and 'entity' beings are also infinite, as are the
residual spirit energy of all beings.
Now the theological question that I am wrangling with is different.
I know that past lives are real. I also know that there are such
things as Ghosts and that the spirit lives on. I have sat with
too many dying people talking to loved ones that have past and
the conversations are definitely not them hallucinating! I have
also heard from too many passed loved ones audio wise to not believe
that. So how does the spirit move into another life, yet still
have the ability to converse with me/them when it's been 10 years
or more since their death?*L
[> "PH33R my l33t UB3RSOLE!"
The Kamikaze Demon Spirit. -- Harry Parachute, 17:36:36
12/14/02 Sat
My subject rocks some chestnuts...but uh...anyway...this is almost
a hijack, I'm thinkin'. But I'm basing it on the question raised.
Back in S4, Adam had a chat with a group of Vampires in the episode
"Who Are You?"
Adam: You fear death. Being immortal, you fear it more than
those to whom it comes naturally. Vampires are a paradox.
Vampire: Ok, we're a paradox. That's cool.
Adam: Demon in a human body. You walk in both worlds and belong
to neither.
My immediate response to this was limited to "Load of Horsepucky".
Every single vampire Buffy has come across launched him or herself
at her with the full knowledge that there is a snowball's chance
in Hell they're coming out of this undead. There were also instances,
say in Becoming Part 1 and When She Was Bad, where vampires have
doomed themselves to horrible death in order to send a message
to the Slayer or delay her.
But then I started thinkin' and realized that they only got this
kamikaze spirit when going up against the Slayer by her lonesome.
They've run from the Initiative, they got scared off by Adam,
heck, they've even run from the Troika. But when it's just the
Slayer, they never back down.
So...here's my thinking.
We've got the Demon aeons ago who mixed his blood with a human,
making the first vampire. The vampire mixed his blood with another,
then another, you know the story. What I think we've ended up
with is, if not a collective consciousness, a collective spirit.
A big, evil, though finite soul that's in all vampires, as Thomas
said.
And when one of these agents of Demonic-Soul come in contact with
the Slayer...I'm guessing they have a sort of sudden awakening
as to their purpose that overrides all the fear they would normally
harbor towards death.
Now, when you think about the "Big Soul" there are a
few ways you can go, but I think I'll stick towards the Eastern
Religions. Western isn't something I have a good grasp on (and
neither is Eastern, really, but it's more fun :P ) but if someone
else wants to take a stab with Spinoza or Xenophanes or whoever,
go nuts.
On the one hand you can take the positive view and say that the
big soul is an actual "something" like the Hindus do
with the Atman or those who practice Yoga with the Purusa/Prakrti
(soul/matter) dualistic split. The demon soul is there, but the
reason the Vampire still thinks of himself as a seperate entity
is due to the weight of the material world and his ego, or ahamkara
as Yoga would have it, of his or her former life.
On the other you can take negative view encompassed by the Buddhists
and say that it's all an illusiory load of crap. There is no soul,
not even a monistic conceptualization of one. Everything is fleeting,
nothing is eternal, and the quicker we accept it the happier we'll
be. The only thing unifying us is that we're all in it together.
If you think of the Demon Spirit as a twisted form of Buddhist
Tradition, you could argue that they really are connected through
being "souless".
And then there's the very dangerous and risky path of understand
that the Tantrics are a part of: Not renunciation, not indulgence,
not a middle-path, but a complete integration of opposites that
unifies the spirit with matter without nullifying either. You
need a guru to do it right, and it's a general rule among most
gurus that those of the western world cannot be taught Tantra.
We've been raised in an environment that's too objectifying and,
as a result, can't break it down or "turn and face the monster".
If you take a wrong step in Tantra, you end up insane. The act
of being sired in the Buffyverse, from a tantric point of view,
could be the result of a failure when faced with the destruction
of the mind/matter barrier, which creates an evil inhuman monster
devoid of moral constraints.
I have completely forgetten what I'm talking about.
Oh, right. The questions about the soul.
are they born or eternally existent?
I'm thinking they kind of have to be eternal if you really want
to qualify it as a soul. If something has a beginning, it has
an end...and if the soul ceases to be, it's not really a soul,
is it? Unless your concept of a soul is different from mine. *shrug*
If eternal, why don't we remember anything from previous lives?
Different schools of thought will give you different answers...but
I think it's important to consider that memories might only be
a property of the mind, and not the soul.
Beyond that, some will say that the soul forgets because it gets
trapped by the physical world and the natural self-defense mechanism
of associating the self with the body giving us constant deception.
Buddhists don't really believe in the soul...so their concept
of reincarnation is a little weird.
One analogy is the sea. A wave comes up and it's "Bob".
Then it goes down. Next wave comes up and it's "Sue".
Same stuff, different wave.
Another analogy that expands on it is linked to the idea of impermanance
and the constant change that occurs in a person's life. Say you
get on a train. You travel a bit. Then you get off. Now if you
believe that you're the same person that got on the train, then
you've been reincarnated...cuz hey, you're not.
I have teeth in my Junkfist[TM] <-> Make coat salad NOW.
[> [> Uh...you've been
drinking again, haven't you? -- Sophomorica, chewing on draft
of Sophie's paper, 17:45:09 12/14/02 Sat
[> [> [> I am one
with the drinking. There is no drink. Look at the kitty! --
Harry Parachute, 17:52:24 12/14/02 Sat
[> [> Drink more often.
Results good. *pondering* -- The Second Evil, 00:43:04
12/15/02 Sun
[> I'll take a stab at it
if you don't mind = metaphorical stab -- shadowkat, 20:14:40
12/14/02 Sat
I tend to agree with david frisby's post, I see the demon and
the soul as metaphors in the Whedonverse.
where does the demon that takes over the dead human's body
come from? Does it exist, somewhere, before taking up residence
in the host? Is it created at the moment the sire mingles its
blood with its victim? Or, is it present in some fashion in the
sire's body and is communicated, somewhat like a chain letter,
from host to host?
The demon that takes over the dead human's body comes from the
id - it's the universial monster that hides within the earth -
the hellmouth, the first, the original sin, the dark part of the
soul (if you prefer) or the shadow. Literally? It came from the
first vampire, the first pure demon who infected a human - this
btw is the one common link between all vampire stories that I've
read from Bram Stoker to Ann Rice to Joss Whedon. The vampire
is the cursed human - the human's blood is infected by the demon
and the demon soul inhabits it. In Ann Rice's novels - the first
vampires are created when a spell goes awry and a demonic force
that is called finds it's way into the blood of its victims -
so that the victim's blood combines with the demon and the victim
mutates into a vampire. The vampire is a combination in Ann Rice's
novels at least of the human and the demonic force - it has the
same traits, same weaknesses, same desires as the human as well
as the demonic force of the beast infecting it. In Dracula - the
blood was similar to a craving and the vampire was a man who had
been evil in life and was cursed to an evil existence. (Vlad the
Impaler). Each writer changes the vampire slightly to fit their
own fantasies and imaginings but following items stay the same:
What kills the vampire.
What the vampire lives on.
What created the vampire.
How it creates more of its kind.
It is usually cursed and evil.
Undead
Outside of that? Things vary.
Whedon admits he see vampires as cool. He also admits that demons
are meant to represent the fears and longings of the human characters.
Back to your questions:
1.Does it exist, somewhere, before taking up residence in the
host?
Yes - it exists in the Sire or the vampire or demon infecting
the new host. Think of it this way - the sire's blood is filled
with portions of the demonic essence like say the Aids virus (not
literally, metaphorically and no, I don't think Whedon is comparing
vampirism to AIDS) - when this essence is sucked or transmitted
to someone who has lost enough blood to literally die without
a transfusion stat or possibly will die anyway - they become infected.
They take of the new blood when they have literally begun to die...so
the ability to refuse it? Ain't there. It would be a bit like
having no oxygen and then someone offering you air but the air,
without you knowing it, is toxic and will mutate you into some
undead creature.
2. Is it created at the moment the sire mingles its blood with
its victim?
Yes. IT is first buried and then rises the next night empowered
a new creature. (See Lie to Me as proof of this)
But it becomes a vampire the moment it sucks from the sire and
mingles the blood. A sexual act.
3. Or, is it present in some fashion in the sire's body and is
communicated, somewhat like a chain letter, from host to host?
Uhm yes...it is present in the sire's body and communicated from
host to host like a chain letter. (see above)
If that were the case, would that mean that in some way, all
the vampires in the Buffyverse share the same demonic spirit (
did'nt Webster the vampire say " I feel connected to a greater
evil..."?)?
Yes, that's what I believe at any rate. Jesse, Webs, Spike all
the vampires state this - they feel connected, a part of something
greater than they are, something powerful. Whether this something
is the first or the hellmouth - I don't know. But like the human
soul connects humanity to life or the greater good if you prefer.
The demonic soul connects demons to the greater evil. This puts
our ensouled vamps in an unique position - hence the shanshu prophecy
(the one about an ensouled vampire causing the outcome of the
apocalypse) - they unlike the demons and humans - are connected
to both sides. One side pulls them to do evil and gives them cravings
and one side pulls them to do good and gives them guilt and promises.
Imagine being pulled by your id and your super-ego at the same
time? Or if you hate the psychoanalytic approach? Imagine being
pulled by your blood in one direction and your spirit in another.
And the heart that connects them struggling to decide, hence all
the heart and web imagery.
I reflected on all the old philosophical connundrums about
souls: are they born or eternally existent? If eternal, why don't
we remember anything from previous lives (my apologies to reincarnationists
and believers in past life regression)?
How about a combo of both? I think they are eternally existent
since they are part of something that is, while at the same time
some souls are younger then others...just as a child's genetic
makeup is a combo of it's parents DNA, it's brand new but it's
parents clearly aren't. Souls I think are similar in a way. As
for memory? Why don't you remember when you left your mother's
womb and made your first cry? (Or if you do, my humble apologies,
I don't.) If we were to remember every little thing? We'd go mad.
Memory tends to fade as you grow older - go into a nursing home
sometime and see how many people over the age of 80 remember their
childhood and the ones that do? See how many remember what they
did yesterday. It's hard enough for me to remember my social security
number let alone what I did the last time I was alive. Just because
I can't remember being born, does that mean I wasn't? Just because
I can't remember a past life - does that mean there wasn't one?
I guess my point is that memory is not necessarily something you
can count on. I wish it was - make my life much easier.;-)
I think we remember what is important and let go of the unnecessary
details. Sometimes what's important is values or concepts not
who were the roles or masks that we once wore. The core personality
remains in each incarnation... or journey the soul takes - who
the soul is at its core, the masks, personas, professions, accents
- they drop away with time.
Visit an old folks home - I think you'll see what I mean - the
person as they age becomes more humble, more mellow, less concerned
with bravado, more at peace with who they are, more their core
self, the soul begins to shine through all the layers and when
they die? All you see is the empty body or shell the soul left
behind...or at least that's what I've observed so far.
If eternal, does that mean they are in some way fragments of
God.
I guess it depends on what you consider "god". I believe
the soul is a fragment of God. I believe that all life is part
of God - and that's where God is inside the stars, the universe,
the flowers, the fragments of sand and our souls.
And when life ends - it is recycled within that energy which is
"god" and begins again - a never ending cycle - or circle.
Something that is so unbelieveably simple that it is beyond our
present capability to understand it, because we humans are complicators.
Well that's my ten cent opinion for what it's worth.
SK
[> [> Re: Schisms
-- Celebaelin, 22:22:41 12/14/02 Sat
It seems that there is a division of opinion between the idea
of vampirism resulting wholly from external infection with a portion
of a larger corrupting entity on the one hand and of its' being
*of itself* a corruption or perversion of an extant human soul
on the other. In the latter case the human soul that becomes the
animating spirit of the vampire is not *necessarily* related to
the original human soul that was present in the body, but the
persistence of human memory in the vampiric form suggests that
it is. It also seems to me that Bram Stokers treatment implies
the siring process requires some perceived flaw to be present
in the victim. My reading of the sources leads me to believe that
in this interpretation the flaw comes in the form of volition,
or at the very least consent under duress. This is consistent
with the notion that the victim must drink of the blood of the
sire, I'm sure that a demon such as a vampire, being so close
in form and mental process to a human being views this process
as we would i.e. as being highly symbolic of the nature of siring
as a whole.
Even if the mingling of the demonic and the human depends upon
there being a predisposition towards vampiric/demonic behaviour
in the nature of the victim the complicity of the human participant
does not preclude the idea of vampires as a sort of composite
entity united by their demon blood. Of course if we use humans
as an example many things unite without any spiritual link being
present music, sport, geography, shared knowledge etc. If we consider
the genetics of altruism we find that related individuals find
significant advantage in self-sacrifice for the common weal reproductively
speaking. Vampiric proliferation is not mediated by DNA so the
numbers in terms of interrelatedness are difficult to assess,
but if we assume that all vampires are equally imbued with demonic
property then killing another vampire is equivalent for vampires
as a whole to killing oneself. On the other hand punishing members
of the vampire community for killing other vampires is futile
and only perpetuates the period of internecine conflict. So if
vampires kill each other, and we know they do, they are doing
so either i) because they're idiots, ii) because the human portion
of their thought processes is predominant or iii) because they
don't have, or don't know they have, a collective interest in
furthering the number of vampires in existence (in fact quite
the opposite).
A few more scattered thoughts on this, what happens to the human-demon
composite animating spirit when the vampires material form is
destroyed? The human soul has long gone elsewhere we are told
(otherwise it could not return, only resurface) but does the demonic
portion cease to exist or does it drain back into some kind of
hell-dimentional resevoir/power reserve. What becomes of the human
memories held by the now dustified vamp? Presumably they are lost
to the infernal realms as well. Any ideas?
[> [> [> Re: Schisms
-- shadowkat, 21:07:42 12/15/02 Sun
A few more scattered thoughts on this, what happens to the
human-demon composite animating spirit when the vampires material
form is destroyed? The human soul has long gone elsewhere we are
told (otherwise it could not return, only resurface) but does
the demonic portion cease to exist or does it drain back into
some kind of hell-dimentional resevoir/power reserve. What becomes
of the human memories held by the now dustified vamp? Presumably
they are lost to the infernal realms as well. Any ideas?
Well according to Darla in Season 2, Ats - I think it's Darla,
The Trial, or one of those episodes - when asked where she was,
she says - it was nothing. When she got dusted - she went to a
void of some sort, no memories of it, nothing. So perhaps that's
where evil goes? To the void? The abyss? That would be a type
of hell. And I think, could be wrong about this - but I think
this is what the First evil wants to cause - a void, nothing.
So if vampires kill each other, and we know they do, they are
doing so either i) because they're idiots, ii) because the human
portion of their thought processes is predominant or iii) because
they don't have, or don't know they have, a collective interest
in furthering the number of vampires in existence (in fact quite
the opposite).
I think - that it depends on the vampire and the sire. The Master
believed in creating more vampires but if they failed him? They
sacrificed themselves. Sort of a survival of the most deserving
metaphor.
So they kill each other - based on well the same reasons lions
or animals or man might kill one another - out of desire for territory,
power, control? Angelus kept Spike and Dru alive for power - he
desired a family and torturing them was part and parcel of that.
He didn't really care if they lived or died except to the extent
that they furthered his own desires. Darla created Angelus for
a companion. Yet we don't really see her create anyone else. Dru
similarily does this with Spike. Angelus creates Dru not to further
his race or power so much as the desire to torture Dru, the idea
of turning a good virtuous soul into an evil insane thing is just
too delicious to resist. So no, I don't think vampires think like
demons or military initiatives - they aren't after getting more
recruites. That's the First Evil's objective possibly.
Vampires - I think act more like immature teenagers - who build
ganges for power and have fun - more similar to the vampires in
the Lost Boys and in Ann Rice's books than in Bram Stoker's.
Not sure if that adds anything or not.
SK
[> [> [> [> Re:
Darla and Persistence of Memory (with added Energy and Freud/Jung
Supplements) -- Celebaelin, 22:06:30 12/15/02 Sun
Had forgotten about Darla (wierd, Darla - Dali - Persistence of
Memory!). Her human memories return, this complicates my perception
in fact as I would not have expected them to. Pehaps the Stoker
idea of the soul at rest after steaking is exactly what she is
describing or perhaps she is describing being in limbo for what
is, cosmically speaking, the blink of an eye whilst the appropriate
final destination is decided. Or maybe the magic somehow re-constitutes
all that was once Darla the vampire like a Star Trek matter transporter.
As a quick point of information for Briar Rose energy cannot,
as you quite rightly say, be created or destroyed but it can be
converted from one form to another, including energy to matter
and matter to energy conversions. Energy transfers are also not
100% efficient and energetic interconversions involve losses,
usually in the form of heat. Life processes are about 38% efficient
incidentally but since we're on a free ride from the Sun what's
important is that it happens at all not that were only taking
advantage of a localised matter/energy store that would otherwise
just radiate heat off into the universe.
Trying not to give a biased opinion. My 'big print' version of
Freud vs. Jung says that Freud was the convinced materialist who
complained that psychical research into 'spooks' had more credibility
and prestige than his psychoanalysis. Jung was altogether more
sympathetic starting in 1911 a journey into the "religious
libidinal clouds" (a phrase that indicates association with
Freuds' theories about the universal application of the concept
of repressed sexuality). But in 1916 he reports seeing a whole
crowd of spirits in his own house, over the next three days he
writes the "Septem Sermones". Rightly or wrongly Jung
never entirely extricated himself from the 'black tidal mud of
occultism' probably because he was affected by his previous experience
of seances in the 1890s.
[> [> The question we're
always trying to answer -- luna, 18:30:31 12/16/02 Mon
...is not so much where vampires originate metaphysically or even
physically (we could probably teach a good course in vampire biology
by now), but where in us they come from. Why has this image seized
us so powerfully, across so many cultures?
The origins of fascination with the image of the undead is explored
in a very interesting way in Julian Jayne's Origins of Consciousness
in the Development of the Bicameral Mind (either the equival of
Veilikovsky or some lite vacation reading, depending on your take).
But why the bloodsucking? Is it some kind of old sexual symbolism,
is it realistic (sed on real parasites), wht is it?
I don't have a good suggestion--hope some of you do.
[> [> [> I have a
quasi-explanantion -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:31:33 12/16/02
Mon
There are some people who call themselves Sanguirans (not sure
if I spelled that right) or HLVs. HLV stands for Human Living
Vampire. These are ordinary human beings, with nothing like psychic
powers, superstrength, magic, and they certainly aren't in any
way undead or demonic. However, they do have a peculiar desire
to consume the energy of other creatures through the consumption
of blood. They sometimes get animal blood or find people, usually
close friends, who are willing to donate some of their blood in
order to help their compulsion. From what I've read, this doesn't
seem to be a psychological problem (although there are cases of
people with mental problems imitating vampires); rather, most
Sanguirans treat it as a condition that it's possible they were
born with or caught through some as yet unknown infection. If
HLVs exist throughout cultures, and have done so for thousands
of years (not sure if they have, but they might), it could explain
why the legend of vampires keeps appearing across the globe: the
vampire tales are exaggerations of Human Living Vampires.
[> [> [> Re: Vampire
Legends and Disease -- Celebaelin, 21:04:53 12/16/02 Mon
The 'realistic' origins of both vampire and werewolf myths are
in a large part founded on a medical condition called poor-fear-eye-er-sis
(?porphyriasis probably if its' root is in the Greek for purple,
as implied by deoxygenated blood?). This is a genetic disorder
in which the sufferer is unable to synthesise one of the proteins
in the biochemical pathway that leads to heamaglobin (I think
the deficiency is in forming the haem group of heamaglobin i.e.
the iron containing prosthetic group rather than the protein chain
per se but don't trust me on this off the top of my head if you
want to be definitive). Exposure to sunlight (Ultra Violet I think)
aggrevates the condition leading to a withering and eventual loss
of extremities roughly equivalent to, say, frostbite. Ingestion
of garlic further inhibits heamaglobin synthesis and could prove
fatal. Decapitation or a steak through the heart would work too
if you're really committed.
The condition is particularly common, relatively speaking, in
Transylvania, the steak through the heart thing comes from the
Transylvanian King Vlad the Impaler as I'm sure everybody knows
(Vlad Dracul i.e. Vlad the Dragon). Drinking blood would be a
good source of haem and would therefore alleviate the symptoms
of the anaemia. It doesn't have to be human blood but human would
probably be best (minor chain folding differences for accomodation
of the prosthetic group for the technically minded) and given
the not exactly tolerant nature of human beings to abnormality
your night-time journey through the forest might become more hazardous
than at first seems obvious to the modern observer.
There are other contributary elements from folk-lore/folk-history
such as the spontaneous appearance of cannibalistic individuals
struggling with their inner animal e.g. Shock-Headed Peter, but
I think the obscure form of anaemia explanation is pretty convincing.
[> Dusting off a pet theory
of my own as a response -- ahira, 22:26:00 12/14/02 Sat
Let's see, about a year ago I made my first post on this board
about vampires in general. It had some elements of this current
post in it. I put forward the demon as a sort of voyeur type concept.
The first vampire was created by the last demon to leave the earth
plane mixing blood with that of a human and transferring some
demon energy to create the first vampire. What if it was more
than just that. What if that demon made a link to allow a portion
of itself to remain on earth. A last act of defiance you could
say. This link allowed the demon to enjoy all the fun the vampire
was having. As new vampires are created, the demon energy transferred
makes the host body ready for a demon peeping tom to hook up.
Okay, the reasons for my need of a theory spurred this. If a demon
way back when transferred some energy, how are all the vampires
since then accounted for? Is the source self renewing? Was the
amount so great that it can be spread out over many vampires?
etc. Going along the lines of conservation of energy and such,
not being created or destroyed. And the other main thrust came
from the vamps on the show. Some being very much the person they
were before, with others having their original personality much
more submerged.
So, my thoughts take me to this. Sire creates new vamp, transferring
a spark of it's energy to create the host and not really being
diminished by the creation. This host is open to a demon for joining.
(also kinda helped me with the time between death and rising being
variable) The new demon provides the rest of the energy in building
the link. This allows the new vamp to rise and have the strength
and other powers. Plus, lets the demons that were kicked from
earth a way to get some play with the little mortals fun back
in their lives. Making demons individuals, they can be of different
power levels, drives, desires, etc. Leads me to the various vampires
being more or less of what they were in the amount of influence
that comes through the link.
Just my take on things. Have fun with it.
[> Re: Where does the demon
come from? - a question for ZachsMind and anyone who's interested...
-- Rufus, 03:43:03 12/15/02 Sun
where does the demon that takes over the dead human's body
come from? Does it exist, somewhere, before taking up residence
in the host? Is it created at the moment the sire mingles its
blood with its victim? Or, is it present in some fashion in the
sire's body and is communicated, somewhat like a chain letter,
from host to host?
The last demon to leave this reality bit a human, infected, possessed
the human form...the infected human bit another, killing some
bringing others over to the hybrid demon state. All we know is
that the originating demon at one time existed....we know that
it for whatever reason had to leave.....we also know that the
bite was done in anger and vengeance...of course having the unexpected
effect of creating the vampires we know of in the Buffyverse.
The infection causes the demon hybrid to be created, but doesn't
exist outside a body but inside a infected host. It doesn't matter
if the originating demon is here or long dead...the gift remains
and keeps on giving.
[> [> Thanks ever so
much for all this yummy food for thought! -- Thomas the Skeptic,
16:47:15 12/15/02 Sun
I just got back in and was extremely gratified that so many people
had responses to my humble queries. I don't have time right now
to respond to anyone's post in detail but I will say that I had
thought of some of these ideas but there were so many more novel
ones that, collectively, youse guys have set off an explosion
of ideation in my head! Once again, the reason I love coming here
so much. Til next time, thanks again!
(Old Stuff
- Season Six) So, if the Judge had touched Warren, would he...
-- Erin, 14:29:37 12/14/02 Sat
Hey all; first time posting here. I'm sorry for dredging up such
an old topic, and sorrier still if it's been discussed at length.
I watched "Seeing Red" on FX for the first time a few
days ago (they didn't show the last three episodes of S6, for
some reason).
What I realized as Warren was shooting up a good portion of the
Scooby Gang was the he's probably the only character, outside
of Angelus, who has never been shown having a second thought for
anyone outside of himself. So, my question is: if the Judge had
touched Warren, would he burn?
I'm not talking about a soul here, incidentally; that doesn't
seem to be the defining factor. Soulless creatures can burn, as
we were shown. I'm talking about *humanity*: Love, compassion,
etc. and I've never seen evidence that Warren can feel anything
in that capacity. His expressions of "love" seem particularly
hollow to me; I don't see how you could have less regard for an
SO.
I guess I was just curious to see if the general feeling was that
Warren had any sort of conscience working beneath and against
his actions, or if most think he was an all-out sociopath. Andrew
seems to have been the most likely candidate for his loyalty up
until one point, but Warren didn't seem to mind leaving his "friend"
to rot in prison.
Actually, maybe Darla is more similiar to Warren than Angelus,
now that I think about it; she always seemed to care less about
A's fate than he about hers (IMO), as when she left him to fend
for himself against Holtz.
-- Erin, who thinks humans are scary...
[> Interesting thought
-- Finn Mac Cool, 14:43:35 12/14/02 Sat
I think it is quite possible that Warren was a pure sociopath:
a person with a total lack of conscience. However, it has been
said before that all vampires are conscience free, and yet Dalton
burned at the Judge's touch, so just having no morals doesn't
cut it. Also, Giles stated in "Surprise/Innocence":
"Only a true creature of evil can survive it (the Judge's
touch), no human ever has."
My guess is that Warren would have burned if the Judge touched
him because he still had humanity in him: he liked to watch movies;
he enjoyed comic books; he wanted to have sex. Angelus, on the
other hand, didn't hold with such things. Everything he did had
evil motivation. His sole pleasure was in destroying good and
doing evil. His seduction of Drusilla seemed to be more about
hurting Spike than anything else; he raped women because he wanted
to torture people, not to satisfy personal urges; his entire "relationship"
with Darla was about pushing each other to new heights of cruelty.
That, I think, is the difference between Angelus and Warren.
[> [> Excellent answer
-- Sophie, 16:07:47 12/14/02 Sat
[> [> I agree with Finn.....
-- Rufus, 07:32:09 12/15/02 Sun
In season 2 Dalton the bookish vampire was a demon but he loved
reading....giving him enough humanity to go "poof" when
the Judge touched him.
[> [> Re: Interesting
thought -- Cleanthes,
13:06:00 12/15/02 Sun
I think Warren appreciated Andrew's toadying too much not to burn
at the Judge's touch. No, Warren didn't want a relationship with
Andrew, but, well, Warren did like favoring Andrew over
Jonathon.
[> [> [> Hmm, Andrew.
(some S7 stuff here; be warned) -- Erin, 08:44:30 12/16/02
Mon
That is true; Warren obviously liked the control he had over Andrew
(Andrew's *so easy* to have power over; plus there's whatever
homosexual underpinnings that will no doubt never be confirmed...yeah).
Still, I'm not sure how much of the favoring was just about manipulating
Andrew into continuing to help him. Warren needed Andrew for his
demon-summoning ability and Jonathan for his magic. I sometimes
don't think Warren realized just how far Andrew would go for him,
either. Like in S7...
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
a
n
d
s
t
u
f
f
...he's willing to kill Jonathan because "Warren" tells
him too.
Ya'know, this is veering wildly off topic, but I really have to
wonder what the heck they're going to do with Andrew now that
they've brought him back. I'm not even sure I understand why he's
back. It's quite possible the writers just liked the characters,
and this was a way to have Jonathan, Andrew, and Morphy!Warren
onscreen again. In fact, I think that's what it was.
But first of all: the FE bringing the Nerd Duo all the way from
MEXICO? Jeez, why? Was there some reason that Jonathan in particular
needed to be sacrificed? Is it due to some cosmic law that Andrew
must always be (pardon the language) evil's little bitch? I am
glad to have seen the three actors again (although poor jonathan...;_;),
but it just doesn't seem Andrew has much to do with the plot this
season, and I can't think of an easy way to get rid of him. Or
maybe he'll just dissapear one episode, and they'll be some offhand
comment that he went to jail. Or something.
Anyway, this thread's down so far I might be talking to myself,
but it has been grating on me.
"That'll do, pig!"
[> [> Wow, great answer.
Ya'know, Angelus seems like a special case, even among demons.
-- Erin, 08:16:51 12/16/02 Mon
(Bleh...should've checked back sooner!) That's a great answer.
It's also true, now that I think about it, that Angelus is especially
single-mindedly evil, even compared to most other demons.
A good portion of the other vampires seem to be motivated by very
human traits. I don't need to even start with Spike; he obviously
wants to be loved and to belong, and likes having fun and hot
wings, cigarettes, etc. Harmony's another good example, both alive
and vamped, she wants to belong to one group or another, and like
many people latches on to whatever charismatic personality is
available to her: Cordelia, Spike, the vamp motivational speaker,
etc.
And while many won't agree, I honestly think Dru, my poor Dru,
really did love Spike. Maybe in a twisted way, but I think she
did, and possibly still does. I even believed some of her blabberings
to Darla, that maybe she missed and wanted a family. She made
Spike in the first place because she was lonely. And she does
like her pretty things.
Darla's a little more iffy. From the first two seasons, I'd thought
she was motivated by love and/or jealousy, and Angelus was much
worse; but then, from some 'Angel" flashbacks, I started
thinking that she was actually worse, and Angelus wasn't so bad.
But then, she later seemed unhappy about being used by Angel,
like a cheap whore. I don't think someone with no humanity would
care. So, maybe she's more human than I thought.
I guess I also took "No Humanity" to mean no 'positive'
human qualities (Love etc.), but I'd forgotten about Dalton; I
guess 'neutral' human qualities do count too (liking novels and
comic books, and dolls, and purple unicorns, for that matter.
;) What I don't know, is if or why 'negative' human qualities
count, too: anger, hatred, wanting revenge, etc. And if so, than
Angelus didn't have those qualities. Perhaps his focus on Buffy
was pure sadism, and not really 'personal', as I'd thought.
The one thing I'm not sure about, though. I remembered Giles's
line about no human surviving, but I still take that with a grain
of salt; a lot of the things said early on have been taken to
task. I still wonder if a human as devoted to Evil, as RELIGIOUSLY
devoted, as Angelus was wouldn't burn. Of course Warren doesn't
qualify; his main motivation was wanting power over others, not
causing suffering; he just didn't particularly care if others
suffered in the process.
Actually, the other person I thought of in terms of lacking humanity
was Ethan Rayne; he claims to worship Chaos, the way Angelus worships
Evil. But, I don't know enough about him to really say. Is spreading
chaos all he really cares about? And I unfortunately haven't seen
the episode of Angel with the sociopathic/soulless little boy,
so I can't say if he'd "qualify", either. Ditto for
not knowing much about Lilah Morgan.
Which really makes me wonder just WHY Angelus is so darned evil.
The person he was, Liam, didn't really seem as bad to me as Warren,
Ethan, Lilah, and some others have seemed. Sure, he wasn't the
greastest guy ever (he seemed a bit of a womanizer, for one thing,
and had 'Daddy' issues), but evil? I don't know. Maybe there's
something else going on there?
Maybe the First Evil knows. ;)
[> [> [> A few pet
theories -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:09:54 12/16/02 Mon
First, I think that Angelus's attacks against Buffy were very
personal. However, it was personal because of his complete disgust
for love and goodness, which Buffy stood for in his mind. And
that is what I'd clearly call an inhuman trait.
Second, I don't think Ethan Rayne is truly devoted to evil. He's
devoted to chaos, true, but not openly to evil. Here's my take
on it: people are naturally motivated to do good; in the Buffyverse
that's what being a souled creature is all about; however, some
people have very skewed senses of right and wrong (see Ethan Rayne
and Chaos), and others have descended near to or completely into
sociopathy, the lack of conscience (Lilah Morgan and Warren probably
fall into this category). However, no human being is truly devoted
to evil for the sheer sake of evil. Even people like the Manson
Family weren't truly devoted to evil; rather, they had a desire
for rebellion, or power, or violence-lust that led them to cook
up a weirdo ideology. Vampires, on the other hand, are motivated
in the opposite way. Their natural draw is to do evil in the same
way humans are naturally drawn to do good. However, just like
humans, vampires have varying degrees of conscience. Some, like
Spike and Harmony, are almost completely amoral. A few others,
like Angelus, are so consumed with their evil impulses that their
humanity vanishes and they become creatures of pure evil.
Third, I do think that Drusilla loved Spike, albeit it's hard
to tell since she rarely makes a great deal of sense.
Fourth, if the demon spirit and the human soul really are two
seperate entities, as Mutant Enemy has said before, than even
a very good person could become Angelus level evil when changed
into a vampire.
Fifth, about Darla. We know from what Angel said just before she
died that Darla had never loved anybody until Connor's soul began
affecting her. So that at least is one human aspect Darla didn't
have. As for feeling like a "cheap whore" after what
happened with Angel, it could be that, since she was already pregnant
with Connor, he was already starting to affect Darla, making her
feelings more human.
Lastly, most of the long-lasting demons haven't been as totally
devoted to evil as Angelus. However, I think that several stand
alone episode demons are (the Hansel and Gretel demon from "Gingerbread"
comes to mind immediatly).
One more comment
about the Magic of Snow (OT by now) -- luna, 08:00:59 12/15/02
Sun
Oops! The thread I'm replying to is archived already. At any rate,
one of the other wonderful descriptions of snow that fits with
Amends and with Cooper's Dark Is Rising is the end of James Joyce's
The Dead.Some don't see the wonder in this, but I do:
A few light taps upon the pane made him turn to the window. It
had begun to snow again. He watched sleepily the flakes, silver
and dark, falling obliquely against the lamplight. The time had
come for him to set out on his journey westward. Yes, the newspapers
were right: snow was general all over Ireland. It was falling
on every part of the dark central plain, on the treeless hills,
falling softly upon the Bog of Allen and, farther westward, softly
falling into the dark mutinous Shannon waves. It was falling,
too, upon every part of the lonely churchyard on the hill where
Michael Furey lay buried. It lay thickly drifted on the crooked
crosses and headstones, on the spears of the little gate, on the
barren thorns. His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling
faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent
of their last end, upon all the living and the dead.
[> Re: Beautiful. Thank
you, luna. -- Wisewoman, 08:21:59 12/15/02 Sun
[> Yes, beautiful! (and
a quick reply to TCH) -- Rahael, 15:18:35 12/15/02 Sun
A very fine short story, and this from a big fan of short stories.
I see the thread has been archived, and I missed my chance to
reply to TCH - I hope you have a wonderful Christmas, poignant
though it may be.
The Self Unseeing
Here is the ancient floor,
Footworn and hollowed and thin,
Here was the former door
Where the dead feet walked in.
She sat here in her chair,
Smiling into the fire;
He who played stood there,
Bowing it higher and higher.
Childlike, I danced in a dream;
Blessings emblazoned that day;
Everything glowed with a gleam;
Yet we were looking away!
Hardy
[> [> Re: Thanks, TCH
-- Brian, 18:37:35 12/15/02 Sun
In the quiet fall of snow
The world as we see it falls away,
And white and sparkling cold caresses us.
To warm our core
With its petals of innocence and wonder,
And we are renewed and redeemed by our surprise.
And in this gentle encounter we touch infinity,
And are briefly, lovingly, one.
Merry Christmas, Posters All
Peace, Brian
[> [> [> Tempted to
annotate this! -- Tchaikovsky, 03:41:42 12/16/02 Mon
This is a lovely little piece.
I really like the counter-intuitive 'To warm our core'. Snow is
a mass of contradictions. It's entirely natural, like rain and
clouds, but seems somehow special and different. And while it
is cold, it gives warm feelings.
'We are renewed and redeemed by our surprise'.
'The world as we see it falls away.'
Exactly. Thanks
TCH
[> [> [> Re: TCH
-- aliera, 05:09:54 12/16/02 Mon
TCH - I'm working on a Book for my family for Christmas called
the Yule papers...it's mainly writings about the history and mystery
and myth of the holidays of the season; but, I've included a demi
chapter on snow with explanations from the website:
www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/natral/natural.htm
which I know my Dad will enjoy, and a few writings and poems.
If it's all right with all of you, I'd very much like to include
the last thread and this?
"How full of creative genius is the air in which these are
generated! I should hardly admire them more if real stars fell
and lodged on my coat." -- Henry David Thoreau
"The
[> [> [> [> I would
be honoured -- Tchaikovsky, 07:37:04 12/16/02 Mon
And it sounds like an excellent Christmas present.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I would be honoured -- aliera, 10:25:21 12/16/02
Mon
Thanks! A little something for everyone and lots of links...and
I am doing the illustration which they've been bugging for for
a while...I haven't drawn anything for the family since the last
child was born (I usually do an illustrated fairy tale the first
Xmas...script the text and then 8 1/2 x 11 sketches to go with.)
This shaped up a little bigger than I planned... up to 200 pages
so far and not done yet; but I keep finding so many wonderful
things like your post (and everyone's additions.) I do appreciate
the permission! I think when you find something lovely like the
board you want to be able to share it, so this was perfect. :-)
[> [> [> [> Fascinating
web site in your message -- luna, 11:42:15 12/16/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Fascinating web site in your message -- aliera, 12:10:22
12/16/02 Mon
Isn't it cool? I'm into the poetry myself; but, I know my Dad
will love it...and it supplies all those answers to the "Why"
questions the kids so love to ask... that always left me feeling
nonplussed. LOL. Loved your post...is it OK to include?
[> [> Thanks- and love
the poem -- Tchaikovsky, 03:37:55 12/16/02 Mon
[> And it snowed here last
night! -- ponygirl a little chilled, 07:18:49 12/16/02
Mon
I'm going to save all these lovely thoughts and poems for later
on the winter when I'm cursing the salt-streaked muck that all
this pleasant white stuff inevitably turns into.
[> Request for Snow Help
-- Wisewoman, 14:33:02 12/16/02 Mon
Okay all you snow lovers, could you help a poor, deprived West
Coaster out?
Any of you who've read Gaiman's American Gods may remember
the scene early on where Wednesday asks Shadow to think hard about
snow, about a snowstorm specifically, and Shadow does and it starts
to snow--well, maybe you could spare a minute or two in the next
week to concentrate on some snow for Vancouver for Christmas?
Just, y'know, now and then, let the thought of big, white, fluffy
flakes falling on my little cottage in East Vancouver float through
your mind. What harm could it do? In the unlikely event that we
get snowed in, I promise never to reveal the source of the weather.
Even if you don't much want snow in your neighbourhood, you could
send some my way. Think of it as a kinda Christmas charity project...Toys
for Tots, Snow for Dub, that kinda thing...
I'll be workin' the mojo my own self but if years passed are any
indication weather magick is not my forte, eh? It just doesn't
make any sense for a Canuck in Canada to have to live through
another green Christmas.
Okay, enough with the whining! I promise to give weather reports
from this neck of the woods starting on Saturday, December 21
(Yule, Winter Solstice) so you can keep track of whether your
weather efforts are bearing fruit, so to speak. And I'll
be eternally grateful and in your debt, weather-wise. Thanks!
Season's Greetings
;o) xoxoxoxox
Talking about
Xander (Season 7 spoilers) -- Deb, 11:36:31 12/16/02 Mon
I must admit that I have never cared for Xander that much, but
coming in as late as I did, I never saw the Xander of Seasons
1 and 2 until recently. Xander just always seemed to say insensitive
things, and try to speak for people, and when he was surprised
by something, he would get angry. But I must admit that using
his mouth to save the world last season seems to have softened
him a bit -- given him more self assurance, and he doesn't think
or speak for Buffy anymore. He has more faith in her and her judgements.
He also isn't dissing Spike nearly as much. He's come to an amicable
"ship sinking" with Anya. And he takes his work as seriously
as he used to take Buffy's. He just seems to have grown up a lot,
and it's nice to see, because I really didn't like him at all
the past two seasons.
Any other Xander thoughts out there?
[> Regarding the Xander/Spike
truce... -- cjl, 11:58:24 12/16/02 Mon
I've found the sudden absence of Spike-directed Xander snarkage
interesting, since Xander has shown on at least three occasions
this year that his hostility remains intact: Spike's return in
Beneath You, all the Xander/Spike interaction in STSP, and the
"hi, roomie!" opener of Sleeper.
Before Sleeper, I attributed the ceasefire to Xander's experience
in Selfless, where he was forced to argue on the side of the mass
murdering demon--in this case, Anya. If anything would make Xander
shut up about Spike, I thought that would be it. But then, after
working together like a well-oiled machine in "Him"
(7.6), Xander is practically flipping out about having Spike as
a roommate.
But that's not the weird part..
In the SAME EPISODE, Xander gets Anya to babysit for Spike, and
Anya is nervous. Xander gives her a smile and a wink, tells her
it's daytime, and she'll be all right. Huh? I can only think back
to S6 Xander, who wouldn't have left his pet goldfish with Spike,
let alone his still-beloved ex-fiancee, whether it was day, night,
or a solar eclipse. And ever since then, Xander has quietly supported
Buffy's one-woman Spike rehabilitation program, even ignoring
Anya's deliberate provocation in NLM.
So...I'm confused. Either it's inconsistent writing, or something
is weird with Xander. There are rumors about the X-man on other
boards, but I have no reason to believe them until I see something
up on the screen. Maybe he's just matured, and we're seeing the
first signs in the development of SuaveXander from "The Replacement."
[> [> I don't see it
as that inconsistent. -- HonorH, 12:26:05 12/16/02 Mon
Remember, Xander wasn't interested in having Spike as a roommate
in "Him". Not at all. He was still hostile then. Xander's
never been big with the vampire love, going all the way back to
Angel. Still, when he's been forced to work with Angel or Spike,
he's done pretty well. In "Him", too, Spike wasn't interested
in returning the snark, which makes snarking much less fun, as
Anya noted.
"Sleeper" opens with Buffy's revelation that Spike's
possibly been feeding on people. Hence the downturn in Xander's
temperature. As far as Anya goes, Xander gives her sunlight to
sit in and a stake, which does make her basically safe. He also
knows Anya can take care of herself. By the end of that ep and
throughout NLM, he's not happy about the Spike sitch, but he's
willing to trust Buffy. That's basically where he's been all season.
He doesn't like Spike, doesn't trust him, but will work with him
when forced to, and is trusting Buffy's judgment about him. It's
not that inconsistent.
[> [> [> Sounds reasonable.
And for all we know... -- cjl, 12:42:48 12/16/02 Mon
Xander is still wrestling with the events of "Selfless,"
and how they've affected his world view. (We've never had any
dialogue to that effect, but that would mean 25 seconds less screen
time for the other characters....) After experiencing the long-delayed
(but well worth the wait) karmic payback for "Becoming,"
part of Xander might be saying, "I don't know what the hell
to think anymore," and just clams up and goes back to his
tools whenever Spike is mentioned.
I think I mentioned in an S6 thread that Xander has to learn to
shut his mouth until his brain catches up to what funnels into
his ears. Wonder of wonders--has that finally happened?
[> [> [> Re: I don't
see it as that inconsistent. -- JM, 14:43:50 12/16/02 Mon
Hope I'm not restating anyone's thoughts, since I'm trying to
avoid excessive spec (not that there's anything wrong with it
LOL). Seems that Xander's behavior is about trying to be respectful
of Buffy. The attempted rape happened to her and she has every
right to decide how to deal with the aftermath. The most supportive
thing that Xander can do to help her deal with such a significant
violation of her trust is to show that he trusts and respects
her wishes and her judgement. And he's been pretty consistent
about it too. He'll honestly voice his concerns and reservations,
about what must be a very uncomfortable situation for him too,
but he leaves it at that. The scene that really underlined this
for me was when Dawn and Xander first found out that Spike was
back and that Buffy knew. They're upset, but Buffy says they'll
talk about it later. Xander responses "Whenever you want
to." (Or something to that effect.) Although Dawn's rejoinder
was clearly pissed and snarky, Xander sounded sincere to me. Buffy
wasn't ready to discuss it, he was respecting it.
I think that's one of the things he learned last year, maybe the
big thing. Willow wasn't respecting anyone's rights to their mental
health or to their eternal rest or ultimately to their right to
exist. Dawn wasn't respecting those shop owner's property rights
(see Anya's very emotional reaction). Buffy was involved with
someone she pretty clearly didn't respect much. Xander had a tendency
to treat Anya with less that total respect. He held off announcing
the engagement even though it upset her, he continued to frequently
correct her in public, he didn't have the necessary respect for
her, either before or after the attempted wedding to make an honest
explanation about the doubts and fears he was having. When it
came to the subject of Spike, Xander certainly didn't treat Anya
or Buffy with much respect as adults with the right to conduct
their own sex lives. And granted there were a lot factors contributing
to all their behavior, but a large part had to do with failure
treat others with respect, due in large part to each individuals
lack of personal self-respect. Xander was at ground zero for Willow's
implosion on the matter. Unlikely that he didn't get some epiphanies
out of it. So he regressed a little in "Selfless" he's
still come quite a long way.
[> Xander, I think, has
grown up the most. -- HonorH, 12:15:04 12/16/02 Mon
When Buffy was introduced, she'd already been forced to grow up
early because of being the Slayer. She's changed a lot--lost whatever
innocence was left to her, learned to be harder, learned to be
softer, gained more responsibility--but really, she had less growing
up to do than anyone.
Willow, otoh, was an innocent when introduced. She seemed to grow
up quickly, taking on responsibilities and gaining confidence
by leaps and bounds. However, starting with "Restless,"
we started to see that some of what seemed to be maturity was
her covering up for what she felt like inside--the shy little
geek girl she remembered and despised secretly. All that came
to a head in S6. She used magic to make herself feel better, and
she was really like a spoiled child with a toy she thought was
better than anyone else's. Finally, at the end of the season,
she was stripped bare, deconstructed right down to the ground.
It looks like this season, she's concentrating on growing up the
right way, the real way.
Xander is a different story. You could trace him from beginning
to end, but let me just give an overview: young Xander, Xander
of seasons 1 and 2, was basically a teenage boy. Brave, selfish,
hormonal, sweet, given to blowing hot and cold at a moment's notice,
and very loyal to his friends. He was still something like that
in S3, but with a lot of war wounds and hard-earned lessons that
were pounded into his head by the end of the season. His big step
in S3 wasn't playing captain of Buffy's forces at graduation;
it was buying Cordy her prom dress. That was him apologizing sincerely
to her for what he'd done, and his way, too, of letting go of
all the baggage of their relationship, good and bad. S4 Xander
was all about being stuck in one place, trying to figure out who
he was. He was 19 and couldn't figure out what he was supposed
to be, or where he fit in with his friends. That changed in S5--he
found a job he was good at, moved out of his parents' house, and
realized he truly loved Anya.
S6 Xander, IMHO, was about him finding out where his weaknesses
still were. He let himself be talked into the resurrection of
Buffy, in spite of the fact that he had deep reservations about
it. He had a blind spot for Willow's growing greed and abuse of
magic (and other people). He feared becoming his father so much
that he left Anya out of fear that he'd hurt her. Tara died, Buffy
was shot in front of him, Willow went mad, and Xander felt useless.
However, at the end of the season, he was the one who came through
for all of them. He saved the world, and he saved Willow's soul.
I see S7 Xander as being steadier, more in control, more sure
of himself than ever. He still has his faults--blind spots regarding
Spike and Anya, in particular--but he seems to be more aware of
them. He mostly serves in a backup capacity. He's become Buffy's
Trusted Lieutenant even more than Willow has, but he's also perfectly
okay with that. In fact, he seems to appreciate her trust more
than ever. Also, note the way he is with Dawn--teenage girl histrionics
are enough to send most men screaming into the night, but he loves
Dawn enough to brave them, and do it well. He's still got a ways
to go, but he's become a fine man already. How many 22-year-old
guys can one say that about?
[> [> Re: Xander, I think,
has grown up the most. -- MaeveRigan, 12:54:04 12/16/02
Mon
Really like your Xander biography, HonorH. "I like the quiet"
is a good motto for him--it's too easy for people--not just fans,
but Xander himself--to overlook his gifts.
[> [> Re: Xander, I think,
has grown up the least (Spoilers through 7.9) -- Sophist,
13:02:29 12/16/02 Mon
Since I seem to have the job of providing reality checks when
it comes to Xander (at least on this Board), let me respond to
both this and Deb's post. Who knows, maybe we can have a controversial
thread on a topic other than he who shall not be named.
Let's start with whether Xander has really accepted the "sinking
ship". It's clear that he has not. In BY, we had the following
exchange:
NANCY
You know the feeling when your ex is constantly ruining every
part of your life and it just doesn't stop?
XANDER
Yes.
Then, in NLM, we get
XANDER (cont'd)
She killed him. But she did it real slow. See, first she stopped
his heart. Then she replaced it with darkness. Then she made him
live his life like that. He still had to go... do his job and
see his friends and get up in the morning and go to bed at night
but he had to do it all... empty. (beat) With nothing to look
forward to. Ever.
Plus we had the whole episode of Selfless and Xander's behavior
towards Anya there. So, no, I don't think he's "over"
Anya or "resigned" to it. In fact, I'd say his comments
in BY and NLM show that he still fails to accept his own responsibility
for the breakup. If that's a test of growing up -- and surely
it is -- then Xander has yet to pass.
As far as his trajectory in the series overall, I have a very
different view of it. In a post on May 24, 2002, I described it
like this:
My wife says that S1 Xander was a weenie. This is harsh. Jonathan
was a weenie. Xander wasnít very effective, but he had
a sense of humor and loyalty to friends that gave him courage.
Nonetheless, he might well look at Jonathan one day and say to
himself, ìThere, but for the grace of Buffy, go I.î
Xander had flaws in S1. Looking back, we can now see themes played
out later: his brutal conduct toward Buffy in The Pack and his
harsh reaction when Buffy rejected his proposal of a date. We
forgave the former as the demon, not the true Xander (wonder if
Xander will do that with Spike about SR?). We (I) could empathize
with asking out the beautiful hero even though we all could see
he had no chance, and his resuscitation of Buffy let us forget
his crass reaction.
In S2 Xander seemed no different ñ maybe even to get better
ñ until the writers did him at once a huge favor and a
terrible curse: the weenie started dating Cordy, the hottest girl
in school (well, not to me, but to most everyone else I guess).
Knowing what we know about the Jossverse, itís inevitable
that Xander would pay for such hubris. And pay he did. Now Xanderís
faults started coming more and more to the fore. His humor stopped
being funny and started to be sardonic; the kind of humor that
highschoolers adopt and some never grow out of. He showed signs
of being judgmental and self-righteous (Passion; Becoming). By
the end of the season, these faults led him to betray the girl
he worshiped, even as he helped the tortured Giles to safety.
Xander took more lumps from the writers in S3. Judgmental now
became his middle name (Dead Manís Party), and self- righteous
a regular guest (Revelations). And ate followed hubris when he
cheated with Willow and lost Cordelia. There should be a sunrise
after a sunset, but Xander didnít get his. He reacted bitterly
to Cordelia (in fairness, she returned it full measure), and was
still so full of himself (or so needed to believe in himself)
that he couldnít see that Faith was just using him (Consequences).
When he got the chance to prove his worth in The Zeppo, made up
with Cordelia in The Prom, and fought bravely with the rest of
the students against the mayor, I thought the sun might again
shine on Xander.
It didnít. Starting with S4 he became more isolated from
the rest of the SG. They each acquired significant others, who
naturally took time away from friends (though only Buffy, as usual,
got blamed for this). Willow and Buffy went off to college and
shared a room, but Xander remained a townie. He hopped from job
to job, never fitting in. Xander became nearly as peripheral as
Giles in S4, as the show focused on Riley, The Initiative, and
Willow/Oz/Tara. Worse yet for Xander, Spike came back into the
mix. Xander took this as an opportunity to abuse the evil undead,
apparently unaware that he could hurt himself while doing so.
Since the lesson of The Zeppo didnít take, Xander got another
chance in The Replacement. This time it worked better. He got
a stable job as a construction worker and settled down with Anya.
This may have reduced his participation with the SG; more likely,
the need to integrate Dawn and get rid of Riley were more important
in reducing his screen time. The season arc gave him little to
do in any case ñ what could he accomplish against a god?
The lack of real accomplishment made it easier to overlook his
virtues and focus on his continued abuse (less and less deserved)
of Spike, and the increasingly worrisome condescension toward
Anya.
S6 didnít treat any of the SG very well, and Xander came
off worst of all (at least until Villains, when Willow got pride
of place). His self-doubt returned, followed by self- loathing.
His bigotry remained as unattractive as ever, as did his judgmental
and self-righteous attitude. This time, unlike previous seasons,
Xander actually paid a price for his faults. He (at least temporarily)
lost Anya. How big a price this is depends on how much you believe
he actually loved her; Anya certainly has made harsh accusations
about that.
By the end of S6, the writers had a real problem with Xander.
His role in the SG had become more and more marginal. He no longer
showed the ties of affection to Buffy and Willow that were so
obvious in S1-3. His faults were on conspicuous display, but his
virtues had been minimized for a very long time. How were the
writers going to get us back to sympathizing with him?
Well, they're trying to make him more sympathetic this year, but
my suspicion level is high. Something's up with Xander. I don't
know what it is, but I don't think he's grown up and I don't think
we should trust him. My gut sense tells me he's trouble.
And just for the record: I don't agree with you about Willow either.
She is the grown-up, not Xander. But that's another thread.
[> [> [> Hm. --
HonorH, 14:15:41 12/16/02 Mon
Well, I don't agree with you at all on either Xander or Willow,
as you might've guessed. Not sure if arguing will do either of
us any good. Willow *is* much more of an adult this season, but
as of last season, she was badly regressed into a very selfish
childhood.
For the record, I do agree Xander hasn't gotten over Anya. Not
at all. He's handling things with her better now, which is good,
but he's still very much in love with her. I disagree, though,
that he doesn't get how much of the breakup is his fault. He accepted
full responsibility for it from the first. However, he rightly
called Anya on her line in "Beneath You" when she blamed
him for turning her back into a demon and "making" her
do what she did to Ronnie. Sooner or later, no matter how much
someone hurts you, you've got to start taking responsibility for
your own actions.
[> [> [> About "Beneath
You" and "Never Leave Me" -- Finn Mac Cool,
14:40:42 12/16/02 Mon
Has anyone ever considered that in "Beneath You", when
Xander agrees with Nancy about ex-boy/girlfriends that constantly
ruin your life, that maybe Xander was talking about HIMSELF? That
he saw himself as the guy constantly ruining Anya's life?
As for "Never Leave Me", there was a great deal of self-pity
on Xander's part, but it didn't really feel like he was blaming
Anya to me. It just didn't give off that tone.
[> [> [> [> Re:
About "Beneath You" and "Never Leave Me"
-- Sophist, 16:37:05 12/16/02 Mon
Has anyone ever considered that in "Beneath You",
when Xander agrees with Nancy about ex-boy/girlfriends that constantly
ruin your life, that maybe Xander was talking about HIMSELF?
Given the context, I would say definitely no. The natural reading
of his response would have it refer to Anya. Besides, Nancy had
just hit on him and he was hoping for a date with her. He was
sympathizing/identifying with her.
As for "Never Leave Me", there was a great deal of
self-pity on Xander's part, but it didn't really feel like he
was blaming Anya to me.
Well, he described it as something she did to him (an act of vengeance),
rather than something he did to himself. I'd call that blaming
Anya.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: About "Beneath You" and "Never Leave Me"
-- HonorH, 17:18:00 12/16/02 Mon
--As for "Never Leave Me", there was a great deal of
self-pity on Xander's part, but it didn't really feel like he
was blaming Anya to me.
-Well, he described it as something she did to him (an act of
vengeance), rather than something he did to himself. I'd call
that blaming Anya.
You know, I just can't see Xander as being that self-deluded.
In "Normal Again," he was blaming himself. In "Entropy,"
he was blaming himself. He's still apologizing right up to "Selfless".
Never once has he even implied that he thought the way their relationship
ended was Anya's fault (and if you can contradict me on this,
please quote me chapter and verse). He was trying to scare Andrew
and ended up giving us some insight into his own frame of mind--that
he feels empty without her. Also note that the whole spiel begins
with him talking about "this guy" who really, really
hurt her.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: About "Beneath You" and "Never Leave
Me" -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:25:12 12/16/02 Mon
Here's how you can tell that he wasn't blaming Anya:
When Xander's just trying to bluff Andrew, he has a certain, non-chalant
tone of voice that he uses for saying that she was a vengeance
demon and could kill him, or when he added "and then she
ripped his guts out". He uses that particular tone when trying
to bluff Andrew, but when talking about "the guy's"
heart being replaced with darkness and the torment of it, his
voice changes and he's no longer looking at Andrew. All his stuff
about Anya inflicting pain was done in his non-chalant, bluffing
for Andrew voice. When he talks just about the pain, it's in his
serious, self-reflective voice. As such, you can't take it as
blaming Anya since all his talk about the horrible things Anya
did was clearly part of the bluff, while the talk about his suffering
was serious.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: About "Beneath You" and "Never Leave
Me" -- Sophist, 18:44:49 12/16/02 Mon
Never once has he even implied that he thought the way their
relationship ended was Anya's fault (and if you can contradict
me on this, please quote me chapter and verse).
You mean other than the two examples I just provided?
Remember how Xander behaved towards Cordy after Lover's Walk?
Hardly a paradigm of accepting responsibility (in clear contrast,
I might add, to Willow, who did accept her responsibility). I'd
say his comments in BY and NLM were perfectly in character with
the Xander we saw in S3. And that means he hasn't grown up very
much inside.
I'm telling you, Xander is waaaay too serene these days. There's
a lot of inner turmoil there, and I think we're going to see severe
consequences later on. No spoilers, just my gut.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> But what you quoted proves nothing! -- HonorH,
19:56:07 12/16/02 Mon
He has never *blamed* Anya for their breakup. Never. Nada. No.
The two instances you speak of? They could be interpreted as him
blaming Anya for his life being ruined, yes. However, they could
also be interpreted as him feeling the breakup itself has hurt
him badly. They could be interpreted as him saying he feels a
shadow of Anya on everything he does--he goes to work, goes out
with his friends, does everything in a day with the emptiness
Anya once filled inside him. I don't think you can take his NLM
speech in particular as him saying, "Anya is to blame for
the way I feel." He's introspectively saying how he feels.
As for his behavior toward Cordy, he did try to apologize in the
hospital. She wouldn't have any of it. When she started insulting
him, he did give it back, yes. He hasn't done that with Anya.
To a large degree, he's taken it. He's been willing to work with
her, hold the snark. Yes, there was the screaming fight in "Entropy,"
but all exes are entitled to one of those. He's told *everyone*
he knows he's to blame for the end of their relationship, and
his statements in "Normal Again" and "Entropy,"
talking about how he feels, show a self-awareness that he's to
blame for the pain he feels.
I'm not saying he doesn't feel internal turmoil. I'm not even
saying he doesn't harbor some free-floating feelings of resentment
toward Anya. A bad breakup tends to cause that. What I am saying
is that he *isn't* S3 Xander anymore. He's way more responsible
in every way. S3 Xander was, let's face it, a bit of a prick.
S7 Xander simply isn't.
Maybe our povs on the character are just too far apart to come
to any agreement on this matter. I don't deny he's still got personality
problems (who doesn't?), but I do feel that his character progression
has been logical, and part of the serenity he shows now is from
growing up, finding his place in the world, taking responsibility
for his actions, and, yes, saving the world.
[> Just Curious (Spoilers
and Speculations S7) -- Deb, 13:42:12 12/16/02 Mon
What are the other boards saying about Xander? I've chalked up
his civility to a boost in self-esteem, but I've not seen the
entire history. He was quick to come up with the "Sleeper"
solution. That kind of shocked me. I was expecting an earfull
regarding Andrew's neck wound first, at least. . . And all those
tools hanging around the apartment. Perhaps he is hosting the
spirit of a Mason. There also feels to be some connection between
him and Johnathon . . . that Zen calmness and acceptance. Wondering
about *Superstar* . . . not too deeply of course. I need another
nap.
[> [> In the spirit of
the season, cjl refuses to disclose probably baseless Xander spoilers.
-- clj, 13:47:17 12/16/02 Mon
They're interesting, and would explain a lot, but I'm not sure
of the source and don't think spreading them any further does
anyone any good. And besides--it would be WRONG. If and when things
with Xander take a decidedly odd turn (oh, say, late January),
then I'll spill. 'Til then, I'm keeping my mouth shut.
[> [> [> Ok. Don't
shoot me but I just had more thoughts. (Spoiler and Spec. S7)
-- Deb, 14:00:19 12/16/02 Mon
I can't help it. It just popped into my head. My fever weary head,
and I don't know if it is evil to have these thoughts, so if it
is evil to have these thoughts, don't read this post. . . . beneath
this are speculations that are munching MY chocolate . . . down
there, below this.
WARNING: MUNCHING SPECULATIONS TO FOLLOW
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just who was the client that Xander had a meeting with in "Sleeper"?
The only job he has referred to is the school, and he is in the
basement a lot. Another person that he is reminding me of is Zen-like,
roll with the punches, Principal Wood who is also a "sleeper."
Now I really got to go for real, more munching thoughts or not.
[> [> [> For my own
spec on this? See my Xander post above. -- s'kat, 19:27:34
12/16/02 Mon
[> The age old question
- are these future spoilers, or references to already aired episodes?
-- slain, 15:52:37 12/16/02 Mon
[> [> Already aired.
It's safe. -- Sophist, 16:31:17 12/16/02 Mon
Current board
| More December 2002