I'd like to hope that people could tell the difference between
fantasy and reality but you are right some seem to have taken
different storylines too seriously. This is what gets a bit frightening
for me....should actors not take roles because of how a group
will react? I would never have thought that the Tara we saw in
Conversations with Dead People was anything but the first. If
the writers and actors didn't worry about who Dawn saw (a dead
mother should rate up there with a dead lover)then why treat Willow
any differently? I would have thought that the First was that
much more evil for trying to use Willows emotions in such a cruel
way, I wouldn't have thought the writers were out to hurt me personally.
I just found Ms. Bensons words about "Tara going bad"
confusing as she wouldn't have been "Tara", unless there
was more to the storyline than that one visitation.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Maybe (just a silly idea) -- dream, 10:04:30
12/23/02 Mon
**unless there was more to the storyline than that one visitation**
Since one of the themes of the season seems to be that evil is
in all of us, maybe we will find that there is some connection
between the evil in each of the manifestations that the First
Evil takes. That is to say, maybe the First Evil manifests itself
through the evil that was in the person whose form the FE is taking?
As in, the FE can only appear in your form if a) you are dead
and b) there was evil in you to begin with. Since there is evil
in everyone, that leaves the playing field wide open - but could
require some dramatic acceptance of this fact if the FE appeared
as Buffy to other Scoobies.
On second thought, probably stupid. I'll post it anyway.
In any event, I thought the scene worked fine with Cassie. I liked
the idea that Willow was too tainted to see Tara - that seemed
to be an idea that would ring true to Willow's sense of shame.
And Amber Benson may just have felt like she didn't want to get
involved in the muck again. It's not fun to piss people off, whether
you feel they are justified or not. I can understand that - and
it's just a tv show. A single appearance on one episode of a tv
show at that.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Agree with Dochawk -- Rochefort, 23:12:10 12/22/02
Sun
The evil/dead lesbian issue was the most valid and widespread
critism of joss's handling of Tara. I can see Joss saying "Well
you can't tell me what to do," once. But then bringing her
back appearing to be evil... :( You'd hear the type writers clicking
about the homophobia, and could you blame them?
I also quite agree about Spike. If Spuffy starts again (which
I personally think it shouldn't, but that's just me), Joss needs
to tread carefully.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Rational Fans......Doc you were right.....TV Guide Ask
Matt reference no spoilers -- Rufus, 01:54:47 12/23/02
Mon
Ask Matt
Roush Room
ASK MATT
December 23, 2002
Question: As a viewer of Buffy the Vampire Slayer from the
beginning, I have to totally disagree with the praise of the treatment
of Willow's character. This was a delightfully feisty, smart,
quirky character who had a lifelong crush/love for Xander, then
Giles, then Oz, then back to Xander and finally back to Oz. Suddenly,
she becomes a lesbian!? She falls for the most boring character
the show has ever seen? There have been many more believable homosexual
characters on TV ó Willow was never one of them. And the
constant "now that I'm gay" comments seemed more like
an effort on Joss Whedon's part to have viewers somehow forget
the first four seasons. I know some point to alternate-universe
Willow as the basis for the change. Space does not allow for a
full rebuttal of that, except that repeated viewings don't support
it, except as wishful thinking. I understand that viewership for
Buffy is down. No surprises there. The show lost its way after
season four. Put a stake in it! ó Lois S.
Matt: No one can say this column doesn't let all sides of an issue
be expressed. My understanding ó and I'm a Buffy fan, not
a scholar (or much of a web crawler) ó is that Joss intended
all along to introduce Willow's sexual orientation as an evolution
of her character. This was riskier than it now seems in retrospect,
and clearly it didn't meet with universal favor. Few things on
this show do. But without this relationship, we might never have
been treated to that beautiful song, "I'm Under Your Spell,"
from the classic musical episode.
Question: I was going to keep my mouth shut regarding the quality
of gay characters on TV, but after the reference to Willow from
Buffy the Vampire Slayer in your Dec. 16, 2002 column, I could
not help myself. I love BtVS, and even though Willow's sexual
orientation change was foreshadowed, I still could not help but
think it was another example of the "this show does not have
a gay character ó better put one in" syndrome. Do
you concur? Do you think that shows do this for political correctness,
or for future plot points? And if said characters are just inserted
for plot points, is it no wonder that they tend to be less "real"
than others?ó Da5id
Matt: Seems to me there are still so few significant and believable
gay characters on TV, especially in smart shows aiming at a relatively
young audience, that Willow's evolution seems more truly dramatic
and provocative than politically correct. Joss isn't one of those
producers who specialize in "very special" message episodes
ó something to be thankful for, if you ask me. Generally,
though, you're right that when a token character representing
a major social issue is awkwardly inserted into a series, it often
feels forced and false.
**************************************
I believed that Willow was gay, I wasn't upset about it in the
least. But these comments remind me just how far apart some viewers
can be from each other when it comes to different issues. I also
didn't find Tara boring, unless being kind isn't dramatically
stimulating. I still wish Amber had come back in Conversations
with Dead People but these comments remind me that some are just
as happy to see her gone. *sigh* They also remind me of how just
a short year or two ago just how many wars were fought over Willow
being gay.
[> [> [> Re: Sorry
Rob I disagree. -- slain, 06:02:46 12/22/02 Sun
As I guess has been said in the posts with the casting spoilers
in them, Tara was taken out because of contractual-type things,
as opposed to because of a creative decision by the writers. Personally
I always say that giving the fans what they want is always a really
bad idea (hence the fact that Season 6, which pretty much messed
up the world of shippers everywhere wasn't well recieved by many;
it didn't do what the viewers wanted, thank god.)
So while I personally am inclined to be glad, like Rob, that we
didn't see Tara as the First, I think you're probably right to
say that it would have been a better, and more powerful scene
with Amber Benson. But, as with 'Beneath You''s altered shooting
script, I can't really say that for definite, only having seen
one version on screen. For some reason what's only on paper tends
to look better, with the benefit of the imagination.
[> I love shooting scripts!
-- Scroll, 15:48:23 12/22/02 Sun
"Dawn peeks through the little window at the cooking marshmallow.
(if it's possible to actually get a shot into a working microwave
we could actually see the marshmallow swell to massive proportions...
they do that.)"
How much do I love these writers?
[> I was waiting for this
one! (spoilers for 7.10 too) -- ponygirl, 20:24:57 12/22/02
Sun
Such a good script! Though I have to agree with Rob, it would
have been just to devastating to see Tara - our Tara!- do that
freaky thing with the smile. Also I think it would have weighted
Willow's scenes far more heavily than the others-- everyone's
going through pretty heavy stuff this episode, but the impact
of having Tara there for the entire show seems to throw off the
balance a bit. JMHO.
What I found really interesting were the extra bits of Buffy dialogue.
Her continuing worry about what her friends would think of her,
her characterization of herself. Interesting that her response
to Holden's question about whether she was still attracted to
Spike was to say she couldn't let herself get that low again.
Not the question being asked, as a therapist would note. I really
think Buffy's issues about being both above and beneath the people
in her life are somehow going to come into play in a major way
later on in the season.
For some reason reading the script reminded me again of some thoughts
I had about BOtN. I was so reminded of Weight of the World when
watching that episode. We see the attempts to waken Andrew, much
like Buffy at the beginning of WOTW (and did anyone else think
a fugue state was an odd thing for Dawn to mention?), we have
Spike a prisoner as Dawn was, and like Dawn he affirms his faith
in Buffy at the end of the episode. And we get Buffy once again
being burdened with the fate of everyone and everything. She certainly
doesn't go catatonic, but I was reminded that in WOTW her paralyzing
guilt wasn't because she realized she couldn't beat Glory, but
because for a moment she wanted to fail. Could Buffy's fear now
be that, after all of what she went through last year, she might
slip and want to just let it all end? So that she could rest?
If anything BOtN illustrates exactly what Buffy was talking about
in CWDP -- her friends love her, but Buffy is still alone: Willow
is too afraid of herself to offer help, Giles (if that is Giles)
too damaged to offer hope, and Xander just keeps cleaning up the
surface damage. Buffy doesn't get to have the self-doubt or the
despair. She has to save them. On some level she must hate them
for that. And hate herself because of it.
[> How about that Plant?
Spoilers for CWDP -- Rufus, 22:45:06 12/22/02 Sun
From Amends season three...psyche's transcripts
Giles: These letters contain references to a, a, an ancient
power known as The First.
Buffy: First what?
Giles: Evil. Absolute evil, older than man, than demons. It could
have had the power to bring Angel back.
Buffy: These guys, (picks up one of the letters with sketches
of the eyeless priest) I-I saw them in my dream. I, I fell asleep
up there.
Giles: You had another dream? With Angel? (Buffy nods) What happened?
Buffy: (evasively) Oh, we don't need to get sidetracked. Who are
these guys?
Giles: Um, they're known as the, uh, (sits) as the Bringers o-o-or
Harbingers. They're high priests of The First. They, uh, they
can conjure spirit manifestations and set them on people, influence
them, haunt them......
Giles: Um... Yes, but, uh, more, more posturing, I'm afraid. Um,
(reads) 'For they are the Harbingers of death. Nothing shall
grow above or below them. No seed shall flower, neither in
man nor...' (gestures that it goes on and on) They're rebels and
they'll never ever be any good. Nothing specific about their haunts.
Buffy: Let me see that.
Giles hands her the book.
Buffy: (reads) '...the Harbingers of death. Nothing shall grow
above or below...'
Cut to the Christmas tree lot. Buffy kicks open the gate and marches
straight toward the dead trees. Once there she studies them for
a moment. The camera lifts straight up, looking down at the six
trees that have died arranged in a circle. All the trees around
them are fine.
Shooting Script for Conversations with Dead People.....
Dawn nudges a plant into place to cover the damage to the wall.
INT. SUMMERS HOUSE - LIVING ROOM/KITCHEN - NIGHT
The cacophony continues: TV over CD over (o.s.) radio. Dawn stands
in the middle of the living room, looking around, confused. (by
the way, the plant that she put into place to cover the wall damage
is all black and dead now, but we call no special attention to
this.)
So, anyone remember if that plant appeared dead after Dawn placed
it in front of that wall? If so, what does that mean about the
appearence of Joyce?
[> [> Wow! Great catch!
I honestly don't know what to think! -- Rob, 08:21:04 12/23/02
Mon
[> [> Re: How about that
Plant? Spoilers for CWDP -- Darby, 14:06:26 12/23/02 Mon
I also noticed in Bring on the Night at Buffy's cubicle,
next door to the principal's office and over the Hellmouth, she
has a perfectly healthy plant on the shelf.
Clue or set-dressing error?
[> [> [> Re: How about
that Plant? Spoilers for CWDP -- shambleau, 15:16:08 12/23/02
Mon
Clue that the Harbingers aren't hanging out at the hellmouth,
that's all. They're over at their old haunts, the other cavern,
where Buffy fell in.
[> [> [> All plant
life around me tends to turn brown and die....should I be concerned?...;)
-- Rufus, 18:46:32 12/23/02 Mon
[> [> remember, the stuff
about the plants... -- anom, 23:04:08 12/23/02 Mon
...& the "Nothing shall grow" applies to the Harbingers,
not to the FE itself. And maybe not to places where they visit
briefly, but to where they live...if that's the word.
So Buffy's alive-&-well plant at the school doesn't contradict
this. On the other hand, the death of the plant Dawn moved requires
some explanation...maybe it's more related to whatever was manifesting
as Joyce &/or the thing trying to keep her from communicating
w/Dawn. Which may mean that at least 1 of them wasn't the First.
The Harbingers didn't show up at the Summers' house for another
couple of episodes, & it sure didn't look like they'd been hanging
out there enough to cause plant death as far back as CWDP (2-3
days before?). Hmm...anyone notice if the plant was restored to
health after all the CWDP stuff was over, like Dawn from her cuts?
[> [> [> Re: remember,
the stuff about the plants... -- Rufus, 00:16:16 12/24/02
Tue
I'm thinking that the Harbingers are the appetizer, the FE the
main course....so I think that maybe plant life can't live around
either....the harbingers only a signal of what is to come, or
wouldn't you think we would have seen one the guys in the house
with Dawn. That also makes me wonder about the Joyce thing.....could
Joyce be a result of Dawns magic and not the FE at all?
Let's revive
the Joyce conflict that I seemed to have missed out on...
-- Juliet, 15:34:49 12/21/02 Sat
The "Is dream!Joyce evil?" thread was archived before
my busy life slowed down enough to let me come here, so...
Remember Amends? With the Bringers/FE going inside Buffy's and
Angel's dreams?
They all involved dead people (Angel's victims, Angel himself,
and Buffy, who had been dead once before this) and manipulated
using what would get to the two of them the most. In Buffy's case...seeing
Angelus again. If she isn't completly over it five years later,
she certainly wasn't then. And in Angel's case, it's a double
thing...seeing his past victims tell him what a failure he is
(seeing a repeat pattern with Spike this year) and killing Buffy.
So, by showing Joyce in Buffy's dreams, the First might be trying
to feed her false information. It's found a weakness of hers (her
mother) and a vehicle to get this information across, since her
mother showing up in broad daylight wasn't believable to asleep-Buffy
in BOTN ("You're not her," or something like it was
repeated several times by Buffy before she woke up.) She's always
trusted her slayer dream things, and by using them Buffy will
a) believe them a little more strongly than she would if the FE
manifested itself in her living room and b) make Dawn's Joyce
vision seem credible to her (i'll go with the FE was joyce theory
here) as well.
And now, and off-topic (slightly) note: I read the Amends Shooting
Script to check my facts, and this little thing jumped out at
me:
JENNY
Trouble sleeping?
ANGEL
You're not here.
No real signifigance, it's just interesting that Spike and Angel
both deal with it the same way.
[> Re: Let's revive the
Joyce conflict that I seemed to have missed out on... -- ZachsMind,
21:34:51 12/21/02 Sat
Joyce: Is she real or is she Memorex? That is the question.
I missed the latest debate on this too cuz I've been away from
the board awhile. Christmas time's kinda busy where I work, and
I've also been spending some free time playing with a game called
FREEDOM FORCE. It's got a "Buffy Mod" by the way, but
I can't get the darn thing to play. Looked like it'd be fun to
run around in there as Buffy, Spike or Angel beating up on baddies,
but the Mod didn't come with instructions and I obviously did
something wrong. No matter. I'm back, at least for now, and I
wanna weigh in on this argument too.
At this point, either possibility is equally valid. Whedon obviously
doesn't want us to know. Whether it's the FE or if it's really
her soul, we can't assume that means everything being said by
the dream and vision of Joyce is truth or lies. If it's really
Joyce, it's probably all true, because so far as we know Joyce
never lied when she was alive. She'd need an external motivation.
If it's actually the FE, everything she says can all be true,
some of it could be lies, and it could all be lies.
Further, to take a page from the nerdy trio & quote from Star
Wars (Kenobi in Return of the Jedi to be precise), "everything
said was true, from a certain point of view." Ben couldn't
tell Luke that Vader was his father, because Luke wasn't ready
for it yet. Something similar can be going on here. If Joyce is
real, she can't tell Dawn much about the future, but she can tell
Dawn something that might be about the future, in hopes of getting
Dawn to change her actions and commit to a different course of
action, which would alter the future as Joyce sees it, hopefully
for the better.
Personally I like to believe that Joyce is the real deal, but
I know how Whedon likes to play one side of his audience against
the other, and keep us guessing. So whichever way it ends up going
I'll probably end up pleasantly surprised.
One of the things that I believe validates my belief that Joyce
is the real deal is by comparing Joyce's appearance to that of
Cordelia's from Angel this season, when she was doing all that
oneness with being stuff. Cordy was glowing. Joyce was glowing.
Cordy's eyes turn white when she's getting a premonition. Joyce's
eyes were white at some points during Dawn's confrontation with
the Undeterminable Evil at the Summers home in the episode "Conversations
With Dead People." I think Whedon may be consistent in when
he has someone's eyes change color. When they turn evil, the eyes
go black, like when Willow tinkers around with dark magicks. When
the eyes go white, the character is drawing from the opposite
equivalent. Not "white magic" perhaps, but in a general
vague sense, "the good stuff" magick.
So if Joyce is evil, it's possible we'll find later on this season
in Angel that the Cordy which has come back to the gang on the
WB series is actually evil, but she just doesn't know it yet.
I don't see that as quite as plausible, so I veer towards the
argument that Joyce is not evil, because Cordy's not.
Of course that makes the assumption that Cordy & Joyce went to
approximately the same place with all that lightness and oneness
of being and that may be as far fetched as all the rest of it.
It can also be assumed that Joyce is SOMETIMES the real deal and
sometimes not. When she appeared to Dawn in CwDP, she might have
been the real deal. When she appeared to Buffy in her dreams in
BoTN, she may have been the FE. The opposite is equally as possible.
The Joyce that appeared before Dawn may have been evil, and the
one talking to Buffy might be real.
Taking this even further, the GILES that we see may be a normal
guy who just happens to have not had an opportunity to touch anything
when we see him on screen. He might be the FE, AND he might be
the equivalent of a First Good, conjured by the ladies back at
the witch's coven. It's possible that the axe went THROUGH Giles
in that flat in England, because we know he's got his own connections
with the magicks now, thanks to the ladies at the Coven, and also
due to his own past, much of which is still shrouded in mystery.
We know he dabbled in demon summoning, and once introduced that
weird hitman demony guy to his wife. Before becoming Buffy's Watcher,
Giles led an ...interesting life.
However, Giles DID enter that flat by bursting through the door.
I believe he also touched his friend who had fallen, so we can't
assume he was immaterial at that time, unless it was at the point
of his getting hit by the blade that the ladies of the Coven intervened.
He may have also fallen, and the ladies of the Coven found his
dead carcass and used it in a ceremony to bring Giles back in
spirit to combat the First Evil on its own playing field.
OR Giles could just be very very dead, RIPPER the BBC tv series
will NEVER happen, and what we're seeing now is yet another apparition
of the First Evil bonehead.
We simply don't know. Whedon's keeping it all incredibly vague
on purpose. We'll find out the truth to all this when he's good
and ready, and probably not a second before. Not that we spoiler
whores & pimps won't be on the lookout at every conceivable opportunity
to find the truth before it airs on UPN.
We'z just funny dat way. =)
[> Re: Let's revive the
Joyce conflict that I seemed to have missed out on... -- ANGELINA,
21:39:51 12/21/02 Sat
Please see my new post below, in answer to Caroline, Sophist,
Tost and Finn Re: The First Good-Back to the Beginning-Replies
to All-Spoils & Spec -- Angilina, 21:31:46 12/21/02 Sat - This
sure is an interesting debate! Cannot wait to see where it leads!
Whither Spike
(Spoilers for Season 7, past and FUTURE) -- bl, 21:09:03
12/21/02 Sat
I have a theory about where Spike is headed. Again and again
ME has blackened PreSoul, Pre-chip Spike. Made him worse than
I ever guessed, worse than I can accept. So bad I feel differently
about him. Now David Fury has his rape issues and was there and
in charge of breaking the season's scripts while Marti was off
with her new baby. It sounds like he had a large hand in the season.
But I'm beginning to be afraid there's more than Fury's Spike
hatred and rape issues involved.
Too many times they are putting terrible things about Spike
in the show...even more have been in the shooting scripts...
Like:
The original Shooting Script for Beneath You...
Spike says he was once this really nice guy but then says "Yeah.
I've been ... well come on, Let's face it, been a one-man slaughterhouse,
last hundred years. Raping. Murdering. And for what? (heat) Kicks."
There we go..the first attempt to retcon Spike as a serial
rapist and torturer. Killing for kicks, not for food. But Joss
rewrote the scene and that never made the second cut.
BUFFY You have a soul.
SPIKE I do indeed. And it's killing me.
SPIKE (cont'd) God hates me. You hate me. I hate myself
more than ever.
SPIKE (cont'd) ... So I could be the kind of ... (laughs)
... Person ... you could care for, the man you would come to ...
the man you could love.
He wanted to become a man Buffy could love.
And so now he has a soul, a soul that is killing him.
If she does love the man with the soul will it kill him?
In Bring on the Night there's more retconning of Spike's past...
The First, as Spike, tells the vampire to go ahead and kick
Spike. "=You= always liked that, didn't you?" it says
to Spike, then morphs into Drusilla. "Kick a dolly when he's
down," it says. "That was always your style."
So it's telling us that Evil!Spike liked to kick victims while
they were down. What happened to brawling Spike, just fists and
fangs against a mob?
"Little girls tear so easily," "Dru"
says, "Like pink paper. Till then, we'll have our way with
this one."
I'm not sure if this is how Spike used to tear girls or if
the girls are the slayers the First means to tear.
We also got Never Leave Me and as bad as what made it to the
screen was, the shooting script was much worse...
Spike tells Buffy she has no idea what he is capable of...that
she never met him..." See, you don't know me. You only
met hamstrung-Angel-Spike. You only met conditioned-chip-Spike.
(pause) You never met the real me. "
But didn't she meet him. In School Hard. in Halloween, in What's
My Line. And easily defeat him?
SPIKE Do you know how much blood you can drink from a girl
before she'll die? I do. See, the trick is, if you drink just
enough... if you damage them just enough... you can keep them
alive for weeks. You can make yourself a plaything. I used to
set up shop in their houses... I used to be so good at it -- I
knew how to damage them just enough so that they could still cry
when I... Because it wasn't worth it if they couldn't cry. Do
you know what I used to do to girls Dawn's age?
Most of that didn't make it to the screen..but some did...
SPIKE This is me, Buffy You have to kill me before I
get out.
Huh? before he gets out? Before the real Spike gets out?
Spike RAGES at his chains. You have to kill me.I am destroying
everything around you. I am killing off every piece of you that
is good and pure. And in the end, after everything is gone and
you have nothing else... I will come for you and I will --
Is this the plan? Is this what ME has in store for us? For
evil Spike to get out and come for her?
BUFFY There's a man in there underneath that monster. A
man who -- even when he had no soul -- struggled to find redemption.
You're alive because I know he's in there --
SPIKE -- I'm killing you --
BUFFY-- and I believe in the man he can be.
Now as a redemptionist I love reading that. Even though most
of it did not make it to the screen. But there's something else
there too. A threat. A promise. The Future? Spike as the Big Bad?
Spike gets his chip out, finally, in a few episodes. Then if something
makes him lose the soul will he turn into something worse than
Buffy can imagine. Will Spike be the real Season 7 Big Bad? Finally
back to destroy Buffy and everything around her. A final kick
in the teeth for all us redemptionists? A final slap from ME?
Instead of the noble death many of us feared for Spike, is it
an ignoble death that is awaiting him?
ME, at least in the shooting scripts, have gone to some length
to set up the Spike Buffy never met as much worse than most of
us suspected. I can't understand that unless it is foreshadowing
the return of unchipped evil Spike bent on killing Buffy, a Spike
foreshadowed by Angel's "To kill this girl you have to
love her." Back to the beginning, back to Buffy sending
the vampire she loved to hell? The Spike who sang " First
he'll kill her, then I'll save her. No, I'll save her, then I'll
kill her." He's done the saving. Repeatedly. Is the killing
coming?
[> Uhm.. Spike was BAD,
m'kay? -- ZachsMind, 22:14:27 12/21/02 Sat
Before the soul. Before the first time he was in Sunnydale, Spike
was BAD. Bad with a capital BAD. From the moment Dru turned him
to the moment he first laid eyes on Buffy, Spike made The Grinch
look like a pious priest. Spike was dark as they come. He didn't
start losing his Big Bad status until he went up against his third
slayer and fell short of killing her.
He was a vampire. He was evil.
There's no retconning going on here.
Sure, yes, he kicked people when they were down. He did it for
kicks. He probably got his raping, pillaging and murdering done
for the day before most english blokes have had their first cup
of tea. This is nothing new. We've already known this for years.
This is not a new side of Spike. Recent episodes are only reaffirming
the Spike we saw hounding the high school back in season two.
He used to be that guy. Maybe a part of him always will be that
guy. The point of the character arc with Spike now is that he
can CHOOSE to stop being that guy. Now he's got a choice but it's
not gonna be an easy one.
I know some fans of the series wanna paint Spike as deep down
having that chivalous thing going throughout his history, and
there is a part of him that's noble. A noble vampire. He had to
have something about him greater than the average turned human.
Most vampires don't survive the first year of their undead existence.
Heck, most in Sunnydale don't make it to their first kill, cuz
of the Slayer. So many of them get staked or get fried by the
sun or decapitated. It takes a special breed to survive long enough
to enjoy their immortality, and it takes some nobility. Some way
of getting connections and making friends despite the vampiric
tendencies towards evil, chaos & carnage.
But make no mistake. With or without a soul there's still an evil
in Spike, as much as there's still an evil in Willow looking for
an opportunity to take over. Probably moreso. Spike's not the
hero here. He's not THE good guy. At best he's the Redemptive
in this scenario. He will either redeem himself by season's end
or die trying. OR he'll just turn and Buffy will stake him.
Marsters' contract ain't up yet though, so my money's on the redemption.
=)
[> [> Was not! WAS NOT!
WAASSS NOOOTT!!! -- bl, 22:48:17 12/21/02 Sat
Not compared to most vampires.
At least not till all this NEW retcon this season.
But seriously folks. They are rubbing our noses in the bad now.
Taring what you claim was already evil. Making Spike not just
Angelus Mark II but worse than Angelus. That is new. And doesn't
it further tarnish Angelus's specialness? For the Angel/Angelus
fans. That is a retcon. In that mine Angelus talked about the
kill as art, as slow. Spike only wanted to go fists and fangs
against a mob. Now ME has him tormenting girls for weeks. When
has Spike ever had that kind of patience.
[> [> Re: Uhm.. Spike
was BAD, m'kay? -- Doriander, 04:03:19 12/22/02 Sun
Itís interesting, either side of the fence have complaints.
You know Iím glad we have posters like you and SK.
Evilista rant to follow.
I do think in ME mishandled Spikeís arc, whitewashed his
viciousness the turning point being ìThe Initiativeî,
the bedroom scene with Willow.
ìIíll scream!î
ìBonus!î
Horryfying. Thatís Spike getting his kicks. After the break,
it turned, and suddenly Willow is all cavalier about almost getting
killed, offended even. I admit I laughed. But was it scandalous?
Absolutely.
From then on Spike was comic relief. Itís frustrating to
hear Giles call him ìharmlessî, and Spike reasserting
his badness played for laughs. I think what theyíre doing
now is not so much retcon as remedying more than 2 seasons worth
of softening the character. They did a good job of it that some
fans took to accepting only this Spike, and not the one who relished
divulging his hired help Marcusí activities to Angel.
Spike: [...] ìYou like kids, donít you Marcus?Ý
-Ý Well, likes to eat.Ý (leans in close to Angel)Ý
and other nasty things.î
Angel thrashes in his chains and Spike pulls back with a satisfied
smile.
I know for a fact that they struggled with the character in S4.
He was brought in replace Cordy but that didnít work out.
I think the problem is this very concept of him as Cordy in the
first place. Cordy, though a bitch, can plausibly be integrated
into the SG. Spike? Not so much. To me him going to Gilesí
for help didn't make sense. Why the instinct to approach Giles?
They then played it by having Spike negotiate in a lightbulb moment;
info in exchange for refuge. That I buy.
So he became Willy the snitch, the wacky neighbor, general nuisance
much like the current Andrew. They dismissed him as harmless,
inconsequential. How glad was I that they made him the fall guy
when they wrote themselves into a corner (Yoko Factor). But after
that they didnít stake him. Didnít buy that. Didnít
buy Buffy not staking him when he tried to get his chip out in
OoMM. She was shaken in ìCrushî so I bought why she
didnít kill him. Demon eggs, she had so much going on with
him that I kind of bought it. Ditto Sleeper.
Did ME screw up? Kind of. Their problem was how to turn Spike
into a character that can sustain a status as a regular. As a
Spikephile, Iím all for him as a regular, but make it so
that it makes sense. In some ways they succeeded, in some itís
obvious they contorted the other charactersí reactions
to him in order to keep him. And thereís the rub for some
fans I think. As a result, IMO, only Spikeís behavior and
arc made sense, while the integrity of other characters was compromised.
This is the problematic aspect of Spike. Heís either become
the most fascinating character, or he ruined the show for you.
P.S. I gleaned from interviews that JM is a staunch evilista with
regard to souless Spike. I believe that when FFL/Darla came along,
his desire was for the character to react horribly on being spurned
by Buffy, then midseason move to AtS to make Angelís life
a living hell (Iím under the impression he reeaally enjoys
working with DB). He and JW actually discussed this, JW said heíd
think about it, then the network biddings happened. Much as Iím
beginning to like Spikeís current arc, itís always
with regret that I wonder would it have turned out better if JW
was swayed by JMís argument.
[> [> [> An excellent
post -- Earl Allison,
03:07:08 12/23/02 Mon
You took anything I might have wanted to add, and did it beautifully!
Well done!
Take it and run.
[> [> [> Re: Spike
"was" bad but "can" be good! -- David Frisby,
05:46:30 12/23/02 Mon
Your post and the one you respond to are both very interesting!
I personally seem to see the buffyverse fans as also either feeling
Spike is the most interesting arc these days, or ruined everything.
And of course, I'm on the side of the Buffy/Spike romance and
love etc. But my point for this post is to affirm what you say,
that Spike was "indeed" very very bad, but that's the
point, that's the theme, that's the archetypical story that so
appeals. For example, Clint Eastwood's greatest movie, _Unforgiven_
ends with the narration about the mystery of the evil evil man
who through a woman becomes good, a good husband and father. Even
Tony Soprano falls under the same rubric, but with a terrible
twist. There are other examples of the power of love to redeem.
The issue also brings to question whether "any" evil
however evil is forever unredeemable. Or, on the contrary, whether
a spark of good exists in each person, such that redemption remains
possible, even for, let us say, Lucifer? Xena was pretty bad before
Hercules showed her the light. I think it's one of the greatest
themes. Buffy believes in Spike, in what he can become. Joss and
Co might likely shatter my hopes and faith, but I too believe
in the future viability of the two. The institution of marriage
generally (and all that it represents) in that upon which the
destiny of humanity turns.
David Frisby
[> Spike got his name by
(allegedly) torturing victims with railroad spikes... -- CaptainPugwash,
05:03:58 12/23/02 Mon
Evil, Good,
and all in between (spoilers through BotN, future unspoiled spec,
and crackpot theories) -- Rattletrap, 06:47:50 12/22/02
Sun
Hmmmmm.
That's the most I can muster after two viewings of the new episode.
This is the sort of episode I always find frustrating because
I can see the canvas and the brushstrokes of paint on it, but
I'm too close to figure out what the larger picture is. In terms
of action, this episode moved the plot along only a few inches;
in terms of things to think about, ruminate over, and chew on,
however, it has provided plenty, and I think we'll be discussing
this one 'til May or even beyond.
My own (unspoiled) crackpot theory on Giles:
Giles is alive, he is on the side of good, he believes what he's
doing is right. He has been influenced by the First, but doesn't
really realize it.
The evidence:
As several posters have observed, he doesn't really interact with
anything physical in this episode, except leaning on the counter
(and walking on the 2nd floor of the Summers' house, does that
count?), but I think this is a red herring intended to keep us
guessing. I think Giles was spared by the First because what he
believes is good work is actually playing right into the hands
of the First. Think about it: He has just taken action to concentrate
most of the future slayer hopefuls in one place where they can
be conveniently eliminated in one fell swoop.
There have clearly been potential slayers in the past that slid
through the cracks and went unnoticed by the council, and there's
no reason to believe there aren't this time. The question is does
the First have better information than the council? Can the First
track down the ones that got away, too?
On Buffy's "War" speech:
First, my crackpot theory that I'm 98% sure is wrong: What if
Buffy was killed by the NeanderVamp? The Buffy that gives the
war speech at the end would be a manifestation brought on by the
First, that could explain why it seems to be playing into the
First's hands. I'm pretty sure this is wrong, but it is food for
thought.
Second, my crackpot theory that I'm 99% sure is wrong: preemptive
apocalypse. A part of me understood Buffy's "war" speech
as advocating a preemptive apocalypse--destroying the world so
the First never has a chance to. On a second viewing, I'm pretty
sure that isn't what's intended, but there's always that nagging
1%. Am I crazy?
Third: The thing nobody's saying.
The Buffyverse does seem to have pretty definite sides of good
and evil. They are not always clear, and there is a large amount
of gray area, but there is still a definite good and a definite
evil. The First is powerful because it is a transcendent evil--something
that exists within everyone. If this is true then, by extension,
it is probably also true that there is a fundamental good that
exists within everyone.
Buffy told Holden in CWDP that the jury was still out on whether
or not God exists. I don't think the ME writing staff will come
out with a hard theological position or anything, but we may see
more evidence of a transcendent good, an intelligence, perhaps
the force responsible for "calling" slayers.
Okay, enough crackpot speculation for one morning. I've got more
to say, but I'm not quite ready to assimilate it yet.
So what do you guys think? Am I completely crazy?
'trap
Willow: Well crazy is such a strong word
Giles: Let's not rule it out, though
[> Definite goods and evils
-- Rahael, 10:40:02 12/22/02 Sun
I agree with you - Tara is definitely 'good' and Warren, not.
The Buffyverse has always placed a high premium on certain values
- honesty, courage, wit, good humour in the face of darkness,
compassion, and so on.
It's interesting that in this season, with such a definite and
ultimate evil, there is so much confusion and misdirection, as
Lurkerboy has pointed out so well. I think both your posts are
usefully complementary!
[> [> Good, Evil and
War Speeches -- Buffyboy, 01:56:35 12/23/02 Mon
As is often the case I find myself in basic agreement with Rahael
and would like to elaborate on her point by making a number of
additional comments.
In the Buffyverse there are plenty of actions that are just plain
wrong. To chose just two examples, when Warren shot Buffy and
killed Tara what he did was evil, there was simply no moral ambiguity
involved in his action whatsoever. And when Andrew killed Jonathan
this was also unambiguously wrong. There are obviously countless
more examples of such clear-cut cases. There are also plenty of
actions in the Buffyverse that are simply good, the right thing
to do. Everytime Buffy pulls a Vampire off of an innocent person
she doing the right thing and when Tara killed the demon attacking
Willow in Bargainings there was again no moral ambiguity. Nothing
Iíve seen in Season 7 comes remotely close to undermining
examples such as these as well as many many more. Of course that
are also plenty of examples of actions that are morally ambiguous
in the Buffyverse. This time I will mention only one example:
in Selfless, when Buffy decides that she must kill Anya there
is plenty of room for debateówitness the discussion of
her action on this board that ranged from claiming that Buffy
was as heartless a one of the victims of the Spider Demon to the
claim that she was finally just doing her job and should have
killed Anya long ago. Whatever oneís opinion on this particular
matter, this is a clear example of that gray area of moral ambiguity
so often mentioned. The point is that morally gray areas do not
undermine or subvert the distinction between right and wrong,
though they certainly do complicate the world and probably have
become more frequent as the Buffyverse has aged.
What Iíve been talking about so far have been actions.
Actions that are sometimes good, sometimes bad and sometimes itís
not so clear. Yet there are persons who initiate these actions
and they too can also be good or bad. Here Rahaelís comment
seem unassailable: ìTara is definitely 'good' and Warren,
not.î This judgement does not of course mean that every
action of Taraís was goodóremember her spell in
Family which could have had absolutely disastrous consequences
but in fact did not. And it also does not mean that every one
of Warrenís actions were bad, though here Iím hard
pressed to think of a good one. The point is that that there are
persons in the Buffyverse who are good and persons who are not.
And though it is important to acknowledge that even good person
sometimes do bad things and that even sometimes bad person do
good things, that this acknowledgement in no way undermines or
subverts the distinction between a good and a bad person. Of course,
like the case of morally ambiguous actions, there are certainly
persons in the Buffyverse somewhere in between being good and
bad. Here Jonathan is a good example. He did a number of extremely
bad things and also quite a few good ones. Was Jonathan really
a bad person like Warren? Probably not, but this is certainly
a position about which one could argue. Similar to the fact that
a good person is capable of doing bad things persons like Jonathan
complicate the dynamics of good and bad persons in the Buffyverse
but in no way undermine the moral distinction itself.
Finally, thereís the First Evil. As I see it, and here
Iím in no way as confident in what Iím going to
say as I was above, the First is profoundly two sided.
(1)Itís an external evil like the Big Bads of Season 1
to 5 and thus out to more or less destroy the world to realize
itís own purposes, and thus like these previous Big Bads
can conceivable be defeated, i.e. it can be prevented from achieving
its purpose.
(2)But, like the evil of Season 6 which manifested itself internally
in every one of the Scoobies to some extent and of course most
dramatically in Willow, the First Evil is also internal, a part
of each and everyone one of the Scoobies. Since the First Evil
stands behind all evil by somehow making a particular example
of evil possible, it is an inevitable part of the Scooby Gang
through each and every Scooby member since none of then are without
evil--this was part of Joyceís message to Buffy as I understood
it.
This two-fold nature of the First makes defeating the purposes
of the First Evil an extraordinarily precarious undertaking. Itís
not enough to simply ìkick its assî, though I certainly
wouldnít want to rule this out as part of the solution,
because of the fact that the First Evil isnít just an external
threat, itës also internal to the Scooby Gang itself. Buffyís
ìWar Speechî understood this difficulty much better
than many have given it credit for. Buffyís speech isnít
simply a war speech like Henryís St Crespinís Day
speech. In this speech, typical of all war speeches in this regard,
Henry tries to rally the troops against an external enemy (the
French) with a clearly illusory offer of recognition for their
courage and envy upon the part of their ìbettersî:
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he neíer so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crespinís day.
Buffyís speech, thought certainly containing elements of
more typical war speeches, is unlike Henryís admonition
to his troops to say nothing of George Wís war on terrorism,
in one crucial dimension. She not only attempts to rally the troops
against an external enemy, but also against aspects of themselves.
In what is clearly the *heart* of her speech she say this:
From now on we wonít just face our worse fears, we will
seek them out.
We will find them and cut out their hearts one by one.
Until the first shows itself for what it really is.
And Iíll kill it myself.
There is only one thing on this earth that is more powerful than
evil and thatís us.
Any questions?
The issue boils down to what ìworse fearsî refers
to. Are their ìworse fearsî only the First Evil as
that deceptive shapeshifter with its lackeys, the Bringers, the
uber-Vamp and whatever else the First can conjure up? I certainly
donít think so. Willow clearly fears herself, the magicks
that we now know are an integral part of her; Xander fears the
only thing heís good for is perpetually repairing the Summersí
front window; Giles fears heíll fail as Buffyís
advisor; Anya fears she has no self and will once again just go
along the easiest path; Dawn seems to fear Buffyís betraying
or abandoning her; and Buffy herself fears that thereís
so much pressure on her that sheíll never have time to
sleep (rest) again. Weíve known some of this since Nightmares,
a lot of it since Restless and got even more of it all last season
and some of this. Without facing these internal fears, these internal
evils or that aspect of the First Evil that is them, the Scoobies
war against the external aspects of the First Evil would be doomed
to failure. As I see it, this is Buffyís message.
Finally, thereís Buffyís penultimate line: ìThere
is only one thing on this earth that is more powerful than evil,
and thatís us.î Here Buffy reaffirms the distinction
between good and evil with the not so comforting realization that
evil is not just something ìout there.î This reaffirmation
is rooted in the hope of being more powerful than evil in either
its external or internal manifestations. As Buffy said at the
beginning (of this season): ìItís about power. Whoís
got it. Who knows how to use it.î
[> [> [> Bring on
the Nightmares (Spoiler for BoTN) -- Sophist, 08:55:19
12/23/02 Mon
Excellent job. I just wanted to add a comparison between Buffy's
lines in BoTN:
From now on we wonít just face our worse fears, we will
seek them out. We will find them and cut out their hearts one
by one.
and the ending of Nightmares:
Buffy: Come here, Billy.
Billy: I, I don't...
Buffy: You have to do the rest.
Billy slowly comes around the bed and over to the Ugly Man.
***
Buffy takes Billy's hand. He looks up at her.
Buffy: No more hiding.
Billy looks down at the Ugly Man. Buffy lets go of his hand, and
he reaches for the Ugly Man's neck. He peels back his face and
a bright light streams out. In the next instant everything is
back to normal. The Ugly Man is gone, Buffy is herself again,
Xander and Willow are in their
regular clothes and the hospital is functioning. Buffy smiles
and feels her face. Willow breathes a sigh of relief. Billy wakes
up.
[> anyone else getting vietnam-era
echoes from 'trap's 2nd theory? -- anom, 11:15:42 12/22/02
Sun
"Second, my crackpot theory that I'm 99% sure is wrong: preemptive
apocalypse. A part of me understood Buffy's "war" speech
as advocating a preemptive apocalypse--destroying the world so
the First never has a chance to."
So Buffy was saying "we have to destroy the world in order
to save it"?? The global village? I'd agree w/the odds' being
99% against. No, make that 99.5%, or maybe 99.9%. But...maybe
someone listening to her thinks she meant that! That someone might
try to put what she thinks is Buffy's plan into effect &,
in the confusion (things always get confused, don't they?), may
come close to succeeding.
So who might that be? I think we can rule out Willow; she's already
tried to destroy the world, or "at least" kill all the
humans, to save it from suffering rather than destruction. I don't
think she'd try again. On the other hand, now that I've said that,
it occurs to me that Willow's the one who heard the First say
it's "not a fan of easy death." Maybe if she thinks
there's no other choice, a quick, easy death is preferable to
the First's plan. But I doubt it. [In fact, the fact that the
series has already dealt w/that excuse for destroying the world
makes it unlikely anyone will try it for that reason.]
Xander isn't any more likely. After all, he stopped Willow. And
from all we've seen of him, I think his mindset excludes the possibility.
Giles...hmm. Maybe I just don't want to believe he would. Besides,
we saw in S5 how far he was willing to go to save the world--he
could justify to himself killing Dawn--an innocent--to prevent
her use as the Key.
What about Dawn herself? This may be more of a possibility. She's
not sure if she's good. We've seen a more threatening side of
her this season. On the other hand, in The Gift, she was ready
to be the one to jump off the tower to save the world, so I doubt
she'd consider destroying it as a means to that end. (However,
I do suspect--speculation only, & not new spec at that--her status
as the Key will play a major role in saving the world from the
First.)
That leaves the 2 Slayers-in-training. We don't know that much
about their personalities yet. The American one (sorry, can't
remember her name) wants to get her hands on weapons & seems pretty
aggressive; maybe she's the type to take matters into her own
hands, even the wrong way. I didn't get much of a feel for Molly.
So I'd say it remains an open question for both of them.
'Kay, guess I didn't get too far w/that possibility. But then
again, I don't think it's that much of a possibility. Maybe someone
else can pick it up from here....
[> [> Re: anyone else
getting vietnam-era echoes from 'trap's 2nd theory? -- Rattletrap,
12:08:26 12/22/02 Sun
I'm glad someone picked up my Vietnam reference. I can just envision
Curtis LeMay saying "Let's apocalypse them back into the
stone age . . ." (or maybe not). Let the record show that
I never said it was a _good_ idea :-)
[> [> [> oh, so it
was deliberate! w/ot (not evil) spanish poetry -- anom, 14:32:09
12/22/02 Sun
I wasn't sure. Thanks for confirming it.
"I can just envision Curtis LeMay saying 'Let's apocalypse
them back into the stone age . . .' (or maybe not)."
Probably not, since in this case "them" is, or at least
includes, us. I mean, their "us." The Scoobies' "us"--you
know what I mean. I hope.
OT on "them" being "us": My favorite poet,
Antonio Machado, wrote (among many other things) numerous short--really
short--poems, pithy 3-line things like:
"Con el t de mi canciÛn
No te aludo, compaÒero;
Ese t soy yo."
"With the you of my song
I allude not to you, friend;
That you is me."
OK, that's in the singular, & has the 3rd instead of the 2nd person,
but now do you see why I got a little confused above? @>)
To sleep,
perchance to profit ... (Very nearly OT, but perhaps interesting)
-- OnM, 10:26:11 12/22/02 Sun
OK, just on a little break here to read the Sunday paper in between
working on my ep. review for Bring
on the Night, and I find this interesting article, and thought
Iíd share..
Other than Buffy not having slept for several days because of
her demanding job, this article is pretty much
OT, but it does strike me as a subject worthy of discussion, and
itís several weeks until new eps debut. So,
if youíre in the mood, feel free to comment.
The article can be found at:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/4784035.htm
Here is a very small exerpt:
In this country, sleep is for weaklings, and the attitude
is reinforced not only in corporate suites, where
hard-driving managers arrive early and stay late, but in movies
and books, and even on the comics pages,
where lazybones like Dagwood Bumstead snooze away their lives.
Now, why this triggers a very hot button with yours truly, is
that sleep is my personal drug of choice.
Furthermore, over the last half century that Iíve been
paying attention to, a distict trend in Western society
(especially American society), is for those things that are initially
purported to ëmake our lives betterí to
instead take over our lives completely and then make us a servant
to them.
Take cell phones, for example. A colleague at work has one, and
my perception is that the phone keeps her
on a ridiculously tight leash, and Iím not sure she is
even truly aware of itís pervasive control at this point--
she has come to accept the abnormal as normal.
So, after the future business community decides that sleep is
ëa luxury we can no longer affordí in the race
to ëremain productiveí, will future proles come to
be conditioned to look down derisively on those ëlazyí
persons who elect to snooze a third of their lives away, ëNeanderthalí
fashion?
With any luck, Iíll be safe in the arms of The Big Sleep
by then. Or just wish I was.
Your thoughts?
( Meantime, back to Sleepless in the Buffyverse, which Iíll
probably have up tonight or tomorrow
sometime. And no, thatís not the title. ;-)
[> Re: To sleep, perchance
to profit ... (Very nearly OT, but perhaps interesting) --
Wisewoman, 13:35:23 12/22/02 Sun
Hmmm. I get the squicks at the thought of using this drug for
military purposes, and that's probably already happening. OTOH,
I feel emergency room physicians should be provided with
it, posthaste, along with long-distance pilots and other professionals
in whose hands we routinely place our lives.
I have a sleep disorder: obstructive sleep apnea. Several years
ago I fell asleep at the wheel while driving through the mountainous
area of the Coquihalla Highway, returning from a trip to Kamloops.
I was doing about 80 mph when I suddenly realized my eyes were
not only closed, but I was dreaming! It was one of the most terrifying
experiences of my life, but if it hadn't happened I might never
have discovered that I had apnea. Most sufferers are unaware that
they stop breathing and wake up every few minutes all during the
night; they only notice they're tired all the time.
I now use a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine
at night, which is a major pain in the butt, but allows me to
sleep for much longer periods than a few minutes at a time. I
still very seldom get an uninterrupted night's sleep though. Most
days I'm tired by about 2 in the afternoon. (Of course, this has
been more noticeable since the aneurysm and may be part of the
recovery from that.)
Yada-yada-yada, the point is, I'd like to give the stuff a shot,
not so's I could stay up for days, but just so I could have a
full day of feeling awake, alert, alive, and fully attentive.
OTOH, I wish there was a similar drug with as few side effects,
and non-addictive, that would allow me to sleep through the night
once in a while.
The only major objection I can see to extended use of Provigil
is that it's not just sleep that human beings need; it's dreaming.
(Unless it's one of those urban myth, apocryphal thingies that
we go nutso insane if we don't dream? Darby probably knows.) The
drug may take the place of a good night's sleep as far as the
way you feel, physically and mentally, goes, but it can't take
the place of your dreams, even for those people who believe they
never dream...
dub ;o)
[> [> It's no urban legend
-- CW, 16:46:46 12/22/02 Sun
I was at a student at a university back in the 60's whose psych
department was big into sleep studies. One thing they did was
to keep gently disturbing subjects as soon as instruments indicated
REM sleep. Often they didn't even completely wake up. They were
given extra sleep time to make up for the time they'd been actually
awake. Within days virtually all of the subjects were bananas,
although theoretically they'd all had their usual total sleep
time. Certainly, getting awakened every few minutes could be maddening
enough so a control group was simply disturbed at regular intervals.
The control group showed none of the hallucinations, and other
bad effects the test group showed. Thankfully, all of the test
group returned to normal as soon as the REM sleep disturbing part
of the test was over.
[> [> [> wonder how
that fits in with... -- anom, 21:07:39 12/22/02 Sun
...the report I read a long time ago about a man who lost the
ability to sleep after--I don't remember now, either an injury
or a stroke. Doctors were sure he couldn't survive without sleep,
but he lived for many years after this happened. I don't remember
how long he survived, though, or how long ago it was. I wonder
if he had REM sleep while awake, as many narcoleptics do.
[> [> [> [> Educated
guess -- CW, 07:07:54 12/23/02 Mon
I wouldn't know about the person your talking about or even the
narcoleptics. But I'd be willing to make a preliminary guess that
brain activity, associated normally with REM sleep, was the source
of the hallucinations while awake in some subjects of the study.
The problem is the brain is usually so busy when we're awake,
it might be hard to tell without some fancy statistical analysis.
[> [> [> Re: It's
no urban legend -- yabyumpan, 11:38:42 12/26/02 Thu
I can attest to the lack of sleep making you 'crazy' thing. A
couple of years ago I did 16 nights continuous at work, covering
for a collegue's holiday during the summer. Sleeping during the
day is pretty difficult anyway (for me at least), trying to sleep
when it's light, not having very good blackout curtains at the
time plus just the general hubbub noise of daytime. I was probably
getting about 6 hours sleep a day but in 2 hour stints. By the
end of the 16 days/nights I was bordering on flipping between
muderously psychotic and despairingly suicidal. Not an experience
I would wish to have again. It took me about a week to get myself
balanced again. I learnt my lesson and would now never do more
than the allotted 7 nights on the rota and I've also got some
very good blackout curtains and effective earplugs!
[> [> Re: To sleep, perchance
to profit ... (Very nearly OT, but perhaps interesting) --
Lilac, 18:37:17 12/22/02 Sun
WW, I am interested to hear you successfully use the CPAP. I have
been trying to get my husband to deal with his apnea for years,
so far with no success. He doesn't fally asleep while driving
(so far, thank god) but he has been known to fall asleep during
things like the grand finale of the stage show Stomp, something
I would have believed impossible if I had not seen it myself.
[> [> [> Re: To sleep,
perchance to profit ... (Very nearly OT, but perhaps interesting)
-- WW, 11:08:16 12/23/02 Mon
Lilac, I was sure I responded to your post yesterday, but it's
not here, so I guess I hallucinated it!
I hope your husband gives the CPAC a try. They're hard to get
used to at first--I used to wake up in the morning and find mine
humming away in a corner of the bedroom, were I'd hurled it, unknowingly,
during the night. Now, though, it acts like a trigger--I put the
mask on and I fall asleep!
In addition, it terminates snoring immediately, helps if you have
a cold, and prevents gastro-esophagal reflux disease--what more
could one ask??!!
;o)
[> [> okay, now I'm scared
-- Caroline, 09:12:31 12/23/02 Mon
I don't have any sleep disorder that I know of (except sleep deprivation
but that's my own fault) but I have often had the experience of
driving home and parking my car without any recollection of how
I got there - ie I don't remember the roads, the turns, where
I stopped etc. It's like I'm in my own little world and don't
wake up until I'm ready to get out of the car. I also am really
good at focusing or concentrating on something and thus able to
block out a host of external stimuli (including my mother yelling
at me to do the dishes while I'm engrossed in a book). I know
that the brain must select/discriminate a subset of actions/thoughts
etc to focus on consciously at any on time, otherwise it would
be inundated - which is one theory I've heard about autism which
does not allow the sufferer to do this. But sometimes the capacity
of my own brain to put driving home into some non-alert part of
my brain does freak me out.
[> [> [> Nothing unusual
-- Cactus Watcher, 15:39:01 12/23/02 Mon
Just as you can walk without thinking about it, an experienced
driver on a familiar route, can drive utterly without thinking
about it. The problem comes when you start ending up places you
didn't plan.
My brother used to get into a near trance at times watching television.
It would take considerable effort to get his attention away. Like
you he was just capable of tuning the rest of the world out...
Of course, he developed a 'serious' disease later in life... He
became a compulsive channel-flipper. Arrgh!
[> Re: To sleep, perchance
to profit ... (Very nearly OT, but perhaps interesting) --
Dichotomy, 14:06:31 12/22/02 Sun
Aaaaah---sleep. It drives me crazy when I comment on not getting
enough sleep and someone says something completely asinine like
"It's all in your head--mind over matter," or "You
can sleep when you're dead." I know how much sleep I need,
thank you very much!
I think maybe the pendulum will start to swing back to a more
reasonable view of sleep. There is all sorts of new research (or
rereporting of old research--not sure which) on the importance
of sleep in physical and mental performance. And I don't recall
any studies on the necessity of dreaming, but I just know that
it must be. Maybe when some "hard-driving manager" makes
a collosal, corporation-killing mistake due to sleep deprivation,
there'll be an "a-ha" moment, and one by one we'll catch
up on a little needed shut-eye.
I, for one, love my slumber. I've had some pretty cool dreams
(some involving Spike, god help me) during my precious REM sleep.
If I'm to be labeled a Neanderthal, then so be it. I'll simply
smile knowingly at my detractors, yawn and settle in for a night
of rejuvinating rest and free entertainment, simultaneously.
[> Ah, blessed Sleep!
-- Darby, 14:55:48 12/22/02 Sun
Sleeping is a fascinating phenomenon. Not everything does
sleep (as the article says), unless you define the term so broadly
that it loses all meaning.
For a long time, it was thought that we sleep to keep from getting
sleepy, that it was just an instinctive urge to get us through
the night, quite literally. Since, it has been found that many
things, like those mentioned in the article, happen during our
sleep cycles, but whether those are things that have to
happen during sleep - in other words, if we could somehow stay
awake, would your body adapt and do them eventually while you're
awake? - no one really knows, because you can't keep a "normal"
person awake indefinitely (maybe you can with this drug) and there
aren't enough "non-sleepers" available to support a
study.
According to current theory, there is one critical system that
requires sleep to work. We store our daytime experiences in kind
of a brain anteroom, and then put things into permanent memory
while we sleep. This is most likely the process that produces
dreams (and why you can usually tie aspects of dreams to things
that have occurred recently, and why, as the article mentions,
sleep is tied to skill-learning) - kind of a free-flow associative
thing happens, as files are opened (and our storage is very modular,
so we open all sorts of files even storing a perfectly normal
day). And no, WW, we don't go insane without sleep, but we become
more and more scattered and incoherent, presumably as our temporary
storage gets overfilled and possibly produces spurts of dreamlike
processing even while you're awake.
As an aside, REM (rapid-eye movement) may not be us "looking
around" in dreams, but may be reflective of high-speed processing,
similar to how we look about (supposedly in certain directions
when accessing certain types of memories) when we're thinking.
There's lots of weird associations and dissociations, physical
and mental, happening during these times, and the internal imagery
may be much less psychologically telling than people think.
But the fact is that probably we have circadian rhythms that are
partially set by our sleep schedule, so using the drug to stay
awake indefinitely would probably have quite a few effects, some
obvious, some subtle, and probably very different for different
people. It sounds like some fraction of the public, as usually
happens, will become an uncontrolled study group for this.
- Darby, remembering the Saturday Night Live bit with the
Coneheads, newly human, greatly alarmed that they were becoming
spontaneously unconscious once a day and not regaining consciousness
for hours.
[> [> Re: Ah, blessed
Sleep! -- Copper, 14:34:20 12/24/02 Tue
More on the necessity of sleep from a health e-newsletter:
Adequate Sleep and Heart Health:
Researchers in Japan found that men who worked over 60 hours per
week had a doubled risk of having a heart attack compared to men
who worked less than 40 hours per week. Those who worked longer
hours also slept for shorter periods of time. Men who slept for
less than five hours for two or more days each week increased
their risk of heart attacks by two to three times compared to
those who obtained adequate sleep. In addition, men who took few
days off from work and/or had few vacations were more prone to
having a heart attack. The researchers concluded that the heart
attacks were the result of increased blood pressure due to inadequate
sleep combined with the increased stress caused by overwork.
Liu Y, Tanaka H. Overtime work, insufficient sleep, and risk of
non-fatal acute myocardial infarction in Japanese men. Occup Environ
Med 2002 Jul;59(7):447-51,
Research presented at the Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional
Sleep Societies showed that women who slept for less than eight
hours each night had an increased risk of suffering a coronary
event. This risk increased as hours slept decreased, with those
sleeping five hours each night having an 82% greater chance of
having a coronary event than did those who had eight hours of
sleep. The population studied was women aged 45 - 65 enrolled
in the US Nursesí Health Study who did not have coronary
heart disease at time of enrollment (71,617 women).
Ayas N. Sleep Duration an Independent Predictor of Coronary Heart
Disease in Women. 2002.
[> [> [> Re: Ah, blessed
Sleep! -- Darby, 16:26:37 12/24/02 Tue
Maybe they tried to control for all of the other factors at play
with the workers (I don't know if that's even possible), but connecting
the heart attacks causally or even particularly to the lack of
sleep seems like a huge leap to me. My first point-of-blame would
be a combination of the stress connected with such jobs and the
aids many probably used to keep themselves going.
It's one of those times where, without the details of the actual
study, you can't be sure whether the conclusions make any sense
at all.
[> [> anecdotal support
for sleep's role in learning -- anom, 18:35:38 12/26/02
Thu
Warning: 1st contains digression on Jewish stuff. If you don't
need to learn about how scriptural readings are done in Jewish
services, just skip it.
Numerous years ago, I was trying to learn to chant haftarah trope.
Digression (warned you!): In certain Jewish services, readings
from the Torah & the Prophets (haftarah) are chanted to different
melodies, indicated by a notation system of "trope marks"
over & under the words to stand for short note sequences. The
same marks have different values in the different melodies (tropes).
The sequences are combined in various ways & applied to each verse
(end digression).
I already knew the usual Torah trope (there are others used on
certain occasions), & that was probably complicating the task.
A friend had gone over the marks w/me & made a tape of a sample
, in which the names of the trope marks are sung to their note
sequences, & a haftarah sung in the trope. I played the tape & went
over & over the sample but just couldn't get it down. It was pretty
late by the time I gave up for the night.
The next morning, I hadn't been up long when I could hear the
sample in my head, correct from beginning to end. I was amazed.
It's been there ever since, ready to supply the tune for any haftarah
I've volunteered (or been volunteered) to read.
If sleep researchers say sleep consolidates learning...I believe
'em.
[> Re: To sleep, perchance
to profit ... (Very nearly OT, but perhaps interesting) --
matching mole, 15:05:39 12/22/02 Sun
A hot button for me as well. I'd have to solidly agree with you
about the misuse of technology in the 'improvement' of people's
lives. I remember seeing an ad for a laptop when they first came
out showing someone working on the beach. Does this mean that
people with laptops can take more vacation time? No it means that
they end up working during the vacation time that they have.
My wife and I do have a cell phone but its use is almost wholely
restricted to use when travelling and making long distance calls.
However I am surrounded by undergraduates who seem to be unable
to exist without them. My mind really boggles that anyone would
desire being so accessible to the rest of the world.
And I agree, sleep is really unappreciated.
[> [> "Brent's Rule"
and the nature of sleep deprivation = loss of profit. -- Briar
Rose, 16:23:19 12/22/02 Sun
This same attitude toward profit driven means of avoiding sleep
to make workers perform beyond normal human conditions was (very
limitedly, unfortunatly) explored a few years back when the subject
of entertainment related employees having such high rates of deadly
accidents on and off work site was first brought into the media.
The "poster boy" was a movie technician named Brent,
who drove his car into the wrong lane of traffic on Pacific Highway
and finally plowed through a guard rail to his death around Malibu.
His was the third such death in a year's period. Technicians who
had worked 70 (or more) hours straight with no actual sleep breaks,
that died while trying to return home or caused accidents with
fatal results on the set. Two of the most well known cases were
the accident on the set of the X-Files that killed two camera
men and the incident where a news caster was fried when her tech
crew put up a live feed dish into electrical wires after a 48
hour shift. And it also came to light much earlier with the "Twilight
Zone" accident that took the lives of two children and an
actor (who's name escapes me, unfortunatly. Vic Morrow?)
Having known quite a few people in the technical end of the entertainment
industry and spending many nights worrying that my mate was coming
off a four day shoot and praying that this wasn't the night that
he took a header off the 101 South from lack of sleep, I became
rather involved in the passing of "Brent's Rule." "Brent's
Rule" would have provided the needed incentive for the film
and TV industry to make sure workers didn't work more than 48
hours without at least 12 hours off (presumably enough time for
them to catch at least 8 hours sleep) by not only financially
penalizing companies that broke those rules, but also by forcing
IATSI (and hopefully SAG and AFTRA) sanctions against companies
that continuously broke "Brent's Rule."
Unfortunatly - it was never given a chance. "Golden Time"
is what many techs live for. After that first 48 hours of constant
work, they make three times their reg hourly. Most are more satisfied
to snort the coke or take the uppers and get that pay check. I
got into a heated pen match in the LA Times with four techs that
refused to even listen to the reasons of personal and public safety
that Brent's Rule addressed. My mate asked me to stop my campiagn,
because he didn't think that it was worth losing Golden Time pay
for either.... He'd prefer to ruin his health and accept responsibility
of killing innocent people instead of take a pay cut.
So here's the arguement I made and still make when I have a chance
- This type of work schedule not only ruins their own health,
but have any of you ever tried to drive in entertainment industry
areas when these sleep deprived idiots are on the road????? I
have! Studio City and North Hollywood are to be avoided at all
costs between the hours of 6am - noon & 9pm and 1am! A lot of
the techs (and others)have been there from 5am Monday morning
to Midnight on Thursday with no sleep. And I am certain that they
are more of a public menace on the highways than cell phone users
ever would be! They are incoherant, amped up on happy pills, many
times semi-delusional AND using the cell all at the same time.
It isn't just the entertainment industry either - when I worked
at a computer software manufacterer, I was regularly doing 17
hour days and coming in for 7 days a week doing those hours. And
my coworkers were doing 24-48 hour stints because they were the
doing the heavier tech work, I was more of a Junior Programmer
and still doing those hours. The AM/FM stations were even worse....
But I had hoped that the media would make a case with Brent's
Rule that would force other industries to re-think their profit
focused time scheduling for their employees. Since America is
now a "media driven" society and 'as goes Hollywood,
so goes the world' seems to be the mind set - I had hoped this
cause would bring some balanced thinking to this area of our lives.
Unfortunatly - I was wrong.
As this relates to Buffy.... I can see where the actual actors
and techs would never question the validity of the Scoobies not
having slept in 3 days or so. They are very likely doing it in
their real life while playing these characters and the techs around
them certainly do it regularly.
It's not just the entertainment industry, as WW said - your doctors
are doing it as well as your pilots, your security forces and
your emergency response teams! People with actual lives in their
hands! I just wish others would join what I see as a valid movement
to reform the mind set of employeers and employees alike. To push
an agenda that asks - Is that Golden Time or over time really
worth your Life and the life of others?
[> [> [> Flying and
the FAA -- Caroline, 08:33:33 12/23/02 Mon
Thanks for this post, I did not know that sleep deprivation is
a problem outside the medical profession (I had an operation several
years ago and my last question before I was put under was to ask
the people in the operating room when they last slept!). But I
do want to correct your points about sleep deprivation among pilots.
The FAA has strict rules on the number of hours commerical pilots
can work in one day which includes a limit on flight time. That
applies to all pilots, no matter where they are flying to. I often
do long-haul flights across the Pacific (West Coast to Australia)
that often last 12-14 hours in the air. There is always a second
full cockpit crew ready to take over for the second shift. There
are also rules about how much time must elapse between shifts
which requires a certain length of time for a layover. I know
many pilots and I know how careful they are in checking their
planes before they take off and that if they do not think a plane
is safe they will not fly it - whether they are flying their own
small private planes or large commercial ones for their employers.
Airlines can't risk the huge lawsuits that would come as a result
of accidents - that would have a worse impact on profits than
following FAA rules.
[> [> [> [> Caroline
- you're right... I was actually thinking the ground crews. On
small carriers.... -- Briar Rose, 13:12:53 12/23/02 Mon
One of my "adopted brothers" and his sister run a small
(but well known) carrier service with her husband and his family.
Jeff works ground crew, doing all the servicing inside and out:
Changing the seating, painting and refurb for the outside and
inside of the plane and helping out with fueling and mechanics.
He and the mechanics regularly work 24 hour shifts 3-5 days a
week, many times three on and 1 off. In Jeff's own words because
of this they have had two planes go down in the past 18 months.
Both were declared mechanical failure.
There have been sanctions placed against them... But they are
still in "the process" because it appears they aren't
the only ones with this standard practice among small and mid-sized
commercial carriers and it's difficult to prove that mechanical
failure isn't the fault of the part and not the crew.
I agree that most pilots with larger commercial airlines have
better standards, as well as most crews on the larger carriers....
But I can only comment on what I know personally. I refuse to
fly with them even though I have free passage if I want it. I
value my life a little more than that at this age.*L
[> Thanks for the responses
so far! -- OnM, 18:32:55 12/22/02 Sun
I had hoped this would be an interesting topic.
BTW, got involved in some other things today, so the BotN ep review
probably won't be up until Tuesday evening-- I have another long
work day tomorrow, so likely no time to finish it then.
Stay tuned!
[> [> By another name
Speed -- Rufus, 01:39:04 12/23/02 Mon
I get nervous every time someone comes out with a new miracle
pill. I find that I'm very cautious about any cheerleading adverts
for yet another miracle drug. Here is just one writeup for this
latest pill....
From
THE GOOD DRUG GUIDE
"...modafinil ('Provigil') is a memory-improving and mood-brightening
psychostimulant. It enhances wakefulness and vigilance, but its
pharmacological profile is notably different from the amphetamines,
methylphenidate (Ritalin) or cocaine. Modafinil is less likely
to cause jitteriness, anxiety, or excess locomotor activity -
or lead to a hypersomnolent 'rebound effect' - than traditional
stimulants. Subjectively, it feels smoother and cleaner than
the amphetamines too.
Current research suggests modafinil, like its older and better-tested
analogue adrafinil, is a safe, effective and well-tolerated agent.
It is long-acting and doesn't tend to cause peripheral sympathetic
stimulation. Yet its CNS action isn't fully understood. Modafinil
induces wakefulness in part by its action in the anterior hypothalamus.
Its dopamine-releasing action in the nucleus accumbens is weak
and dose-dependent; the likelihood of dose-escalation and tolerance
is apparently small. Modafinil has central alpha 1-adrenergic
agonist effects i.e. it directly stimulates the receptors. More
significant, perhaps, is its ability to increase excitatory glutamatergic
transmission. This reduces local GABAergic transmission, thereby
diminishing GABA(A) receptor signalling on the mesolimbic dopamine
terminals.
Modafinil is proving clinically useful in the treatment of narcolepsy,
a neurological disorder marked by uncontrollable attacks of daytime
sleepiness. Narcolepsy is caused by dysfunction of a family of
wakefulness-promoting and sleep-suppressing peptides, the orexins.
Orexin neurons are activated by modafinil. Orexinergic neurons
are found exclusively in the lateral hypothalamic area, but their
fibers project to the entire central nervous system. Genetically
modified orexin-knockout animals offer a model of human narcolepsy.
Experimentally, modafinil is also used in the treatment of Alzheimer's
disease, depression, attention-deficit disorder, age-related memory
decline, idiopathic hypersomnia and everyday cat-napping.
Prudence, however, should be exercised in drastically curtailing
one's sleep. Prolonged sleeplessness weakens immune function.
Animals tortured in sleep-deprivation experiments eventually die
from massive bacterial infections of the blood..."
I don't mind a drug used for medical purposes, it's when a drug
is used for convenience that it gets troublesome. The last paragraph
sums up why I'd be uncomfortable about this drug being overperscribed.....people
need to sleep to have a functioning immune system.....I don't
see anywere in the glowing reviews about applications for this
drug, the assurance that someone using this drug for other than
perscribed use won't harm themselves.
[> [> [> but no drug
used other than for its prescribed purpose.. -- Helen, 01:49:55
12/23/02 Mon
can be assured safe. Even aspirin (actually, especially aspirin).
I often have to remind myself that "drugs" as in illegal,
allegedly dangerous things are exactly the same class of thing
as "medicines" - good for us (allegedly).
[> Re: To sleep, perchance
to profit ... (Very nearly OT, but perhaps interesting) --
cjc36, 10:19:00 12/23/02 Mon
I have to be at work at 4am. Sleep is a coveted thing to me, and
I LOL'd when I read the "drug of choice" line. How true
for myself.
I remember seeing one of those Discovery Channel docu's on brain
disorders. One of the patients/victims was a man who devloped
a brain disfunction that destroyed his brain's 'switch' for REM
sleep. What this did to him wasn't pretty - like a cross between
Alzheimer's and a stroke patient. His upper-brain reasoning soon
left him and he eventually died within six months.
Someday, hopefully, Americans will learn that sleep isn't indulgence
or lazyness - its necessary.
On Reality
and Nature (and, you know, vampires n' stuff) (spoilers up to
"BotN") -- LurkerBoy, 10:28:12 12/22/02 Sun
This essay, like all great works of art and literature, began
while drinking. I was talking with a friend about our favorite
newspaper cartoons. My friend, who was obviously delusional, insisted
on "Peanuts". I had to inform him that, in fact, "Calvin
& Hobbes" was clearly superior, for the following reason.
One of the Sunday afternoon strips showed Calvin having an argument
with his father. Suddenly, Calvin is 'cursed' with the ability
to see two sides of an issue simultaneously, and his entire world
becomes Cubist. The simple act of seeing something from another's
viewpoint has altered the very nature of his reality. All this,
mind you, in the Sunday funnies. Yes Virginia, I'm getting to
Buffy, but first we'll take a brief detour into Poe.
Among the many revolutionary aspects of the works of Edgar Allen
Poe was his popularizing of the concept of the unreliable narrator.
For those of you who blew off your Comp 101 class, the unreliable
narrator is a specific literary device whereby the reader is told
a story from the vantage point of someone who, either deliberately
or not, is not in possession of any kind of "objectivity",
thereby making who the narrator is just as important as what the
narrator is saying. Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado"
is a perfect illustration of this. The reader is give small clues
along way, but it isn't until the end of the story that we are
able to see the full extent of the narrator's psychosis.
This approach opens up a very large can of literary and philosophical
goodness, not the least of which is: If I cannot trust what I
am being told, do I make up my own truth? Do I doubt everything,
become a nihilist and jump off the nearest freeway overpass? Do
I blindly and passively accept whatever is put in from of me on
a moment by moment basis, accepting as 'truth' whatever is occurring
in the present? Jesus, I think need to lie down for a second...
...and we're back. All of this, believe it or not, leads me to
"Buffy". In a post to Rob the other day, I casually
asked Rob if he thought that all the red herrings this season
were detracting from the overall enjoyment. His answer, which
I agree with, was "no", but it got me to thinking about
all the questions people have about this season. I thought I'd
write* a little essay on this season, with the thesis being something
along the lines of, "In borrowing the literary device of
the unreliable narrator, Joss Whedon is again pushing the boundaries
of what constitutes episodic television." Or something like
that. I really haven't decided. If there is one thing I learned
in grad school (and trust me, it really wasn't much more than
that), it was to never let a thesis get in the way of some really
good evidence.
*By the way - as for me 'writing' this? It brings to mind Truman
Capote's scathing review of Kerouac's On the Road - "It's
not so much writing as typing."
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is a show rooted in metaphor.
Each episode (hopefully) uses some sort of metaphor or idea as
a springboard for the actual plot. As Whedon said, If we want
to talk about fear? Have a fear demon. Want to talk about lust?
Have a lust demon. This concept applies to the overall season
arc as well, probably best seen during season 6, when it turns
out that the Big Bad is really nothing more than the Legion of
Dorkness. The *real* Big Bad are the Scooby's themselves - each
on is their own worst enemy. This idea is reflected in Whedon's
stated theme of that season, "Oh grow up." The Scooby
gang, like many of us in our early 20's, needed to make a lot
of mistakes in order to grow out of what is undoubtedtly an awkward
period.
Season 7, on the other hand, seems to be taking a slightly different
approach. Prior to this, the battle lines were drawn pretty clear
- the Scooby Gang vs. the Big Bad. We never had any reason to
doubt that what we were being shown was anything other than what
it was. The only exception that I can recall is Ben from season
5. It must be noted, though, that although Ben turned out to be
fairly important at the end of the season, it didn't change the
basic idea - Buffy vs. Glory. Starting with "Lessons",
however, we have been given every reason to doubt what we see
on the screen.
The idea that the Big Bad of season 7 (apparently the First Evil)
can take the shape of any person who is deceased, or once was
deceased changes all that. Now, every person that comes on the
screen is suspect. This is because the First Evil can prey on
the minds of even the living. The following is a brief and almost
certainly incomplete rundown of the characters in season 7, and
the questions that Whedon has raised about them, either intentionally
or not:
Buffy - We assume Buffy is alive, although we have seen the First
Evil morph into her several times in the season.
Spike - Well, he's dead and he's insane. At least those two things
are clear. Like Buffy, Spike has been seen as a form of the First.
Willow - Nothing has hinted that she is anything but alive and
First free, although she has her own demons to worry about.
Dawn - same as above, minus the demons.
Xander - same, with the caveat that although it is clear that
Xander is alive, some have tossed about the idea that Xander could
be being influenced by the FE, though there is nothing to support
this.
Jonathan - RIP, little one.
Andrew - clearly alive, but just as clearly under the influence
of, well, just about the last person that talks to him. Has redefined
spineless.
The two remaining Slayers in Training - seem pretty safe.
This leads us to the last two characters, the two characters which
got me to thinking about all this.
Joyce Summers - clearly dead. What is entirely unclear is whether
she is an agent of the First, or whether she is genuinely interested
in helping Buffy. This season, her character has been very deliberately
written so as to make it impossible to determine. There is evidence
for both sides.
Giles - This season, Giles has represented Whedon's foray into
the literary wilderness. Giles has been written so that we don't
know if he is alive, or an agent of the first, or both, or neither.
Now, I'm no statistician, but just looking at the list above tells
me that, when combined with the number of different directions
the story could still go, there are probably an infinite number
of possibilities as to the 'reality' of the characters.
The characters of Giles and Joyce present us with the biggest
number of problems. Like the unreliable narrator in a piece of
fiction, the viewers are being led down a path that is more and
more uncertain. It should be pointed out that there is a difference
between a misdirect, a red herring and an unreliable narrator.
A misdirect would be, say, Spike's speech at the beginning of
"The Initiative" (I think), when we are led to think
that Spike is going to come gunning for Buffy when he is downed
by the Initiative [which still cracks me up, btw. I mean, what
a way to go]. A red herring would be, for example, in the episode
"No Place Like Home" (and several that preceded it),
when we are given clues specifically to make us think that Dawn
is a threat to Buffy and her mother, when in fact she just a harmless
little Key.
I would argue that the events up to and including "Bring
on the Night" are starting to wander into the territory of
the unreliable narrator. One could argue that we aren't there
yet, that everything that we have seen so far are just an inordinately
large number of red herrings designed to confuse the hell out
of us. If so, Mission Accomplished! However, I would disagree.
The whole idea of the First being able to present itself in so
many different forms is woven in to very heart of this season's
story, and therefore constitutes a planned out decision by Whedon
to make us question, at all times, the nature of what we are seeing
on the screen. From the start (actually the very end) of Lessons,
we are told that what we see *isn't neccesarily* what we see.
(Yes, I am aware that I have just walked blindly into the Minefield
of the Nature Of Objective Reality. Watch as I pull out Warren's
rocket pack and jet safely away. I am not smart enough to navigate
my way through there.) But the point is that this is one of the
hallmarks of the unreliable narrator - making the viewer/reader
question the nature of the story itself.
To my knowledge, nothing like this has ever been done on television
before. And no, I'm not talking about the whole, "It was
all a dream" thing. That's just retarded. I'm talking about
introducing a concept whereby the characters AND the audience
can never be sure of what they are seeing. This is, to me, a rather
radical notion - one that would bump up this season to the top
of my 'best season list' even without all the great individual
episodes.
I could be proven completely wrong during the next episode, though.
That's sort of the point. I don't know, *nor can I know, based
on what I can see*, what is going to happen. Wicked cool. Oh yeah,
I just realized I wrote this entire essay without using either
"postmodern" or "Meta". My grad school professor
would be so disappointed.
Any comments would be welcome, especially considering I wrote
this at 4:30 in the morning, and I am starting to feel like a
mental patient. Not one of the funny ones like you see in the
movies, either.
LurkerBoy, who, come to think of it, should probably change his
posting name.
ps - remember the Calvin & Hobbes cartoon I led this whole thing
off with? I forgot to tell you how it ended. After being overwhelmed
with it all, he focused as hard as he could and, "POP!"
Everything snapped back in place, now drawn in the normal 2-d
world of Calvin. He looked up at his father and said, "I
still think you're wrong", and walked away. I think there
is a lesson for Buffy in there somewhere.
[> Great post! -- Rahael,
10:34:13 12/22/02 Sun
And I love Calvin and Hobbes too!
More thoughts later.
[> Re: On Reality and Nature
(and, you know, vampires n' stuff) (spoilers up to "BotN")
-- Darby, 11:26:21 12/22/02 Sun
Interesting post. There have been a few shows that have tried
to venture into this area - The Prisoner, Babylon Five
come to mind, and I think even a comedy or two. I think this is
part of the plan to muddy up the Buffyverse. First, the lines
between Good and Evil are all smudged over (which makes a BB named
Evil ironic at the very least); now I think we'll find out that
a lot of what we've been told, by characters, organizations, and
research sources, is unreliable, and has been since the beginning.
You're right - it is like grad school!
- Darby, who often tells students in introductory courses that
I'm lying to them, just before I lie to them. Better to know now
than later...
[> [> The Fat Grey Line
-- LurkerBoy, 15:42:58 12/22/02 Sun
You bring up an excellent point about Joss bluring the lines between
Good and Evil. In season one, the line was very clear (which also
had the effect of giving the character of Angel such resonance).
As the show has gone on, the line has become blurred to the point
where an "evil" vampire becomes the love bunny of the
hero of our show (no, not Clem, the other hero), and a "good"
character is feeling blue and to make herself feel better, attempts
to destroy the world. It's all so, well, postmodern.
DAMMIT!! I *knew* I wouldn't get through this thread without saying
that. Boy. Talking about posting in another post. How meta.
[> Very interesting post!
-- Dichotomy, 14:30:49 12/22/02 Sun
I'm also loving (in a tortured sort of way) that I can't possibly
know what's going to happen. It's all I can do to stay away from
the spoiler boards, and I don't know how much longer I can hold
out. Help!
[> [> So well thought
and I agree with every part.... -- Briar Rose (speculating
some), 15:41:47 12/22/02 Sun
This season has taken all that we know about the Buffverse and
is turning it upside down.
Even more blurring between the good and evil (which is when I
really started to get fanatical about the show - end of season
5) and the growth of the characters.
I have a strong feeling that we just might be headed down a path
where the First Evil is ALSO the First Good. The diachotomy not
having been over looked in the past by the writers, just not placed
into one completely One is All is One entity. Such as the Glory/Ben
evil was turning into that same "duality of power that maintains
the balance of the Universe" sort of idea.
I have a sneaking suspicion that this season will deliver bad
guys in white hats and good guys in black hats - that ultimatly
will all become balanced souls in grey hats. Average Humanoid
types in other words.
[> [> [> Re: OK, now
you've got me thinking about Repulsion -- Brian, 16:43:15
12/22/02 Sun
[> More on the unreliableness
(spoiler for the film 'Fight Club') -- slain, 17:30:59
12/22/02 Sun
When I think unreliable narrator, I think books first; Salman
Rushdie, for example, where we're never sure how 'real' events
are, or how coloured they are by the narrator's own ego and perceptions.
In David Lynch films, we have a similar thing; the much underrated
'Lost Highway' uses that device, making a film which is completely
seen through the confused perspective of one man. 'Fight Club'
did the same thing, basing itself around a world which is not
'real' except in the perceptions of the main character. Of course
that's postmodern in the sense that postmodernism would assert
that a work of fiction is never 'real', so it's self-defeating
to try and make a world that's real; it won't be, it'll always
be coloured by perceptions.
In Buffy we've got a world which is explicitly not real and doesn't
attempt to resemble the real world (unless of course you're British,
where I'm told we're chock-full of vampires, werewolves and the
occult), but which does attempt to be believable. In other
words vampires are real, in the Buffyverse. We've had some episodes,
most notably the conceptually brilliant 'Normal Again', which
have explicitly used an element of the 'Fight Club' or Lynch-style
unreliable narrator; but they've always had a solid 'real' base.
That is, while we might be briefly led to doubt the reality of
Buffy's world, we still have the more objective view of the Scoobies,
reminding us that vampires are 'real' in the Buffyverse, and that
Buffy's mental hospital is a hallucination.
'Conversations with Dead People' was an interesting episode, in
that perhaps for the first time we lost the solid base; all we
had were three separate characters their own points of view. I
think because that hasn't been resolved, and probably won't be
for some time. Everything the First Evil does is based on individual
perceptions, on things only the individual can see. So we lost
the objectivity, and the main plot becomes based on these unreliable
narrations. We have some objective 'facts' - the alphabet-eyes
people from the First, for example, but that's pretty much all.
The rest in the character's heads.
I think, therefore, the reason why we're questioning Giles and
Xander's realness is that we haven't really seen what their perspective
is; we've had Buffy's, Dawn's, Willow's and Spike's, but not their's.
Perhaps this is a new twist on the idea of an unreliable narrator;
Giles and Xander become more unreliable, because as they
haven't been shown as being unreliable and as being capable of
being influenced by 'unreality'. That Buffy and Dawn might have
seen the real Joyce rather than the First isn't important in this
sense; what's important is we know that, like anyone, they can
only see things from their own perspective. Because the show is
questioning the reality of the Buffyverse, Giles and Xander become
suspicious because they can only see the 'reality'.
*
And as for a name... well, howsabout 'Calvin'? It strikes me as
very appropriate for this board - it sounds like a reference to
a famous theologian, but it's really a reference to a cartoon
strip!
[> [> Agree. Good posts.
-- shadowkat, 12:38:55 12/25/02 Wed
First on the name to Lurkerboy/Calvin: Calvin&Hobbes? Although
I think you already chose Calvin. Shame to leave Hobbes off though.
My all time favorite Sunday Comic strips: Calvin & Hobbes and
Bloom County (briefly sequaled by less popular Outland).
Part of what made them so great was the cartoonists ability and
genius in allowing them to end and not outlast either the artists
creativity (and become redundant and repetitive like so many other
Sunday cartoons) or change into a watered down version of what
made them great.
The other thing that made them great, besides the ability to take
a bow and leave the stage, is the ability to break the enevelope,
cross-barriers, and not give a dang what people thought. These
guys took risks. Which is what they have in common with Whedon
who is willing to give his audience the opposite of what they
think they want. You want comfort? Nice easy sci-fi? Tough. That's
not Whedon's show.
Regarding Btvs and unreliable narrator? Agree very much. Have
been saying all season that it's all about your pov or which one
you're in. Same Time Same Place - is principally in Willows, with
X -D/B. A little Spike thrown in. We are continuously placed in
Spike's off and on all year. Only episodes we aren't ever really
in his pov is CwDP and most of Beneathe You. Most of the others
we are placed in it for at least ten seconds. Xander's we spend
more time in his pov in the beginning of the season, far less
after HIM.
I think we were mostly in Andrew's pov in Never Leave Me, which
was odd and slightly jarring.
But all this keeps reminding me of a line that is repeated in
Lessons:
"It's always real." This line is stated at least twice.
First by Buffy to Dawn when slaying the vampire at the beginning
of the episode. And last by Dawn to her new-found friends in the
basement when referring to the vengeance spirits attacking them.
Interesting line.
That makes two lines repeated in Lessons:
1. Who's go the power? It's about power. (Buffy and the First)
2. It's always real - Buffy and Dawn. Buffy even asks Spike in
that episode if he is real. An ironic line which he laughs at
because he no doubt is wondering the same thing about her - and
they almost touch each other - both wondering if the other is
a mirage. Spike we learn later has more reason to doubt if Buffy
or anything in that basement is real, than Buffy does.
The unreliable narrator/what is real theme is set up early on
in the first episode of the season and consistently re-examined
in every episode.
Consistent themes in each episode are:
1. What is at the heart of the matter? Trust your heart.
Rip out the heart.
2. Everything is connected by spider webs or roots or
cell phones
3. It's always real. What is real? Is anything? Can we trust what
we see? What is reliable? Check the rear and side view mirrors,
check the carpet fibers, and most important check the pov that
you are in!
4. We are who we are no matter how much we appear to have changed
- duality, good and evil mixed in a package of blood and bone?
What is our identity?
5. Power - who has it and what does it mean to have it.
sk
[> [> [> that's a
great line, sk! -- anom, 21:09:40 12/25/02 Wed
"Everything is connected by spider webs or roots or cell
phones"
Love this juxtaposition!
[> I agree with everything
you said (and am flattered that I partially inspired this essay)...
-- Rob, 18:43:00 12/22/02 Sun
...and I would just like to add that another aspect of the "unreliable
narrator" that, I think, could very well make this season
the very best one is that it all but DEMANDS rewatching episodes.
All "Buffy" seasons have rewarded repeated viewings
of episodes, to catch little nuances and moments and symbols that
might have gone over our heads on the first viewing, but a year
where every single moment can be called into question will require
repeated reviewings at the end of the season, to fully appreciate
the intricacies of the puzzle. And that's pretty darn brilliant,
on the behalf of the writers. I'm sure an episode like "Conversations
with Dead People" and "Bring On the Night" will
take on whole new levels of meaning once we actually know what
the hell is going on...if we ever do! It also gives the writers
an enormous challenge, to make sure that, in the end, everything
holds up to such scrutiny.
Rob
[> [> Oh, and coincidentally
regarding Calvin and Hobbes... -- Rob, 18:57:02 12/22/02
Sun
...I just bought two collections of Calvin and Hobbes strips at
the discount section of Borders yesterday!
"The Essential Calvin and Hobbes" and "The Authoritative
Calvin and Hobbies"
I am such a huge fan of the strip. No other strip but "Peanuts"
comes as close to truly understanding the mind of a child, but
I would argue that "Calvin and Hobbes" surpasses "Peanuts,"
not only in humor but in depth. The idea that a strip could celebrate
the joy of being a kid, many times a bratty kid, and simultaneously
grapple with some of the weightiest philosophical issues around
is nothing short of amazing.
Rob
[> [> [> And something
I always loved about Calvin and Hobbes -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:30:50
12/22/02 Sun
Was that Calvin seemed to think more about philosophy than anyone
else in the strip, asked the most questions, often deep ones,
and truly grappled with the major issues of life. And yet in the
end the conclusions he reached only served to justify his selfishness,
laziness, and cruelty towards others.
[> [> [> [> Re:
And something I always loved about Calvin and Hobbes -- d'Herblay,
21:30:01 12/22/02 Sun
About a week or two ago, I had a strong urge (kicked off by what
I cannot remember) to quote one particular strip. The urge has
not quite subsided, and there seems to be no time such as the
present. I could not find this strip online, so you'll either
have to dig out your copies of Attack of the Deranged Mutant
Killer Monster Snow Goons (a seasonal favorite) or make do
with my transcript:
CALVIN: You know what I've noticed, Hobbes? Things don't bug
you if you don't think about them. So from now on, I simply won't
think about anything I don't like, and I'll be happy all the
time!
HOBBES: Don't you think that's a pretty silly and irresponsible
way to live?
CALVIN: What a pretty afternoon.
The more perceptive of those who know me may be able to tell
that I have adopted Calvin's philosophy to a disturbing exte --
hey!! It's snowing!! White Christmas, here I come!!
[> [> [> [> [>
Oh, sure, rub it in!! (Dub's snow report) -- Wisewoman,
09:23:34 12/23/02 Mon
Well, let's see...the Environment Canada report says the temperatures
are getting lower, but predicts cloud and possible rain showers
for Christmas day. But the Yahoo report, which presumably originates
in the U.S., says there's a chance of snow showers on Christmas
Day and Boxing Day...
C'mon guys...THINK SNOW!!!
;o) dub
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Oh Dub......I've got up to 16" of the stuff to trade
for that mountain now. -- Deb, 14:00:23 12/24/02 Tue
We weren't expecting anything, but Santa saw fit to give us more
than our fair share. You'll take the ice too, right?
[> [> [> Re: Oh, and
coincidentally regarding Calvin and Hobbes... -- Lilac, 08:08:28
12/23/02 Mon
One of my daily internet stops is
http://www.ucomics.com/calvinandhobbes/
where they run the daily Calvin and Hobbes strips, in the order
they originally appeared. Some of them I remember vividly, some
are like new to me. It almost makes up for the early retirement
of their genius creator.
[> [> [> [> Thanks
for the link! That's great! -- Rob, 08:19:24 12/23/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> Calvin
& Joss - Two of a kind minds? -- tomfool, 09:59:37 12/23/02
Mon
Thanks for the link. The first page brought back such a flood
of C&H memories that I clicked to the Sunday strip from yesterday.
The dialogue was kind of striking in that it could easily be a
summary of Spikeís whole redemptive arc (minus the Santa
stuff):
Calvin: "I wish Santa would publish the guidelines he uses
for determining a kidís goodness. For example, how much
does he weigh motives? Does he consider the kidís natural
predisposition? I mean, if some sickeningly wholesome nerd likes
being good, itís easy for him to meet the standards! Thereís
no challenge!
Heck, anyone can be good if he wants to be! The true test of oneís
mettle is being good when one has the innate inclination towards
evil.
I think one good act by me, even if itís just to get presents,
should count as five good acts by some sweet-tempered kid motivated
by the pureness of his heart, donít you?"
The middle stanza exactly sums up the question that Spike presents
to the viewers. How much credit should we give to Spike for going
against every evil inclination in his vamp self to ëbe goodí?
To paraphrase, should one good act by Spike, even if itís
just to get Buffyís love, count as five good acts by the
average human guy (without the innate inclination towards evil)?
I think Joss and Calvin are asking the same questions.
Calvin would probably make a pretty good Buffy analyst.
Hope youíve all been good this year (no matter what guidelines
you use) and Santa treats you right. Happy holidays!
ëfool
[> [> [> [> [>
Xander = Binkley? Buffy and Bloom County -- Caroline, 18:26:09
12/23/02 Mon
I love C&H but another comic I think is relevant here is Bloom
County - here's my character comparison:
Xander = Binkley. Both have a sad family life, are basically the
butt-monkeys of their collective 'verses and have a thing about
attracting demons/monsters (Binkley's closet anyone?)
Willow = Oliver. Both are brainy and do all sorts of scientific
experiments. Have similar parents.
Milo = Buffy. Ringleaders.
That leaves the Major, Steve, Opus and Bill the Cat.
The major would have to be Giles 'cos he takes Milo out to train
him in the ways of hunting and fishing but is otherwise lax in
the parenting role of his charge. There's a bit of Opus in Giles
as well 'cos both give us the exposition.
Steve would have to be Spike - both pretty boys past their prime
going for younger women and always being left by them. And Spike
has a bit of Bill the Cat inside him too - cos Bill is a lot of
a monster.
Whatcha think?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Xander = Binkley? Buffy and Bloom County -- d'Herblay,
22:32:24 12/23/02 Mon
Hmmmm . . . Steve Dallas . . . obnoxious, shallow, venal . . .
definitely Anya, to my mind. Of course, Steve Dallas may be my
most important sartorial influence, and I'm still convinced that
he and Doonesbury's Uncle Duke are the same character. Not that
I'm complaining . . . Uncle Duke may be my most important moral
influence.
Does this make Dawn Ronald Ann? Introduced way too late and integral
to the ill-advised spin-off?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Sigh...I miss Bloom County -- Dead Soul, 23:05:48
12/23/02 Mon
Did Adam and Eve have navels?
I'm Stormee, with two "ee's"
I'm appalled, with two "pp's"
Dead (and wondering what happened to all my old Bloom County books)
Soul
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Steve Dallas - Anya or Spike? -- Caroline,
20:53:53 12/28/02 Sat
I did give that some thought - but the deciding factor for me
was the amazingly close parallel between the aliens trans-reversing
Steve's brain and Lurky giving Spike a soul. Both became bleeding
heart liberals, kind to puppies and underdogs of all kinds. One
can only hope that Spike is desouled in the same way Steve is
un-trans-reversed.
Good point about Ronald-Ann and Dawn. One hopes that ME will learn
from the failure of Outland.
[> What's particularly perverse
about S7 and the series as a whole... -- cjl, 08:20:27
12/23/02 Mon
If we only had unreliable narrators (in the traditional literary
sense) to worry about, the Scoobs would have no problems. Joss
and the rest of ME are hitting us with LEVELS of unreliability!
Level 1 - The unreliable narrator. Storytelling from a character
who does not necessarily reflect the point of view of the author,
or the protagonist. Holden Webster is a perfect example. We see
Buffy through his eyes, but at the same time, we know he's connected
to the Big Honking Evil that permeates the very earth of Sunnydale.
How much value can Buffy (and the audience) gather from his insights
without falling into a trap?
Level 2 - Reliable narrators with unreliable information. One
of the great mysteries of BtVS over seven seasons has been: How
much of the previously stated mythology is actually true? Every
time we think Joss has permanently enshrined a facet of Slayer
lore in the canon, someone comes along and rips it right out.
Slayers coming back to life, and two slayers alive at the same
time. A vampire going to Africa to regain his soul. (Lots of Giles
squinting through his glasses at the Watcher Handbook, and saying,
perplexed: "This is unprecedented.") How many more imperishable
truths will be trashed before the end of this season?
Level 3 - The unreliable narrator disguised as reliable narrator.
This is where the First Evil comes in and really messes with your
head. If you can't be sure anybody is who or what they say they
are, everybody becomes a suspect. Is that really Joyce or is the
FE hitting Buffy through her dreams? Why isn't Giles touching
anything, and what's with the fatalism? (Did he catch it from
Cordy?) Is Spike really Hero!Spike now, or is he ready to go on
another rampage the minute Buffy trusts him completely? And why
is Xander standing there, being so mature and helpful? Huh? Why?
Level 4 - Reality: What a concept! With the whole "wonkiness
of time" aspect popping up in BotN, and Joyce's pleading
for Buffy to both "get some rest" and "wake up,"
the "objective" reality of the series has been called
into question for the first time since "Normal Again."
Is Buffy an inmate in the asylum, and the monsters and demons
truly only metaphors? Or is Buffy's "dreamstate" a metaphor
in itself, and she needs to awaken to the true state of her universe?
Heck if I know.
Great thread, lurkerboy. But here's a "nature of reality"
queston for you: if you're writing threads now, you're technically
no longer a lurker. Shouldn't you change your name?
[> [> Re: What's particularly
perverse about S7 and the series as a whole... -- what is
a "name" anyway..., 09:39:20 12/23/02 Mon
I just read slain's reply to me and the name "Calvin"
was suggested. Even if I didn't like it (which I do), I am WAY
too lazy to come up with anything better. I am Calvin, the poster
formerly known as LurkerBoy.
But to your post - wow. Really good stuff. I particularly like
what you said about level 2 stuff, reliable narrators with unreliable
info. I just noticed this the other day. I wonder how many times
in the history of the show they have used the old saw, "Such
and such is just a myth. It doesn't really exist." Only to
have it, of course, exist. I can think of two off the top of my
head. The Gem of Ammara, and most recently the Uber-vamp (can't
think of the name). In both cases the set up was exactly the same.
I'm not saying that they have overused this, but if I were them
I would tread lightly.
About your 4th point, I don't even want to go there. I can't.
My head would go all "Scanners". The reason I am so
disturbed by what you wrote is because I was thinking about this
while watching the episode, and I pushed it out of my mind. Probably
because I can barely keep everything straight in my head as it
is (or I think it is). If Buffy is dreaming, or hallucinating...I
just don't know.
Television scripts, "Buffy" in particular, are a little
like a short story in the sense that every single line has to
be there for a reason. For what I saw, there were an awful lot
of references to 'sleep' in that ep. By several different characters.
I am waiting to see where they go with this. As long as they go
somewhere. If this issue never comes up, I am going to be dissapointed.
I would be forced to accuse ME of something I never have before.
Lazy writing. Because this wouldn't be a misdirrect OR a red herring,
because there wouldn't be any payoff. Like a joke with no punchline.
But I will give ME plenty of time to prove me wrong.
Especially about the "Scanners" part. Yeech.
Calvin
Oh my God! I almost forgot about the best use of an unreliable
narrator in the whole series. "Superstar"! How could
I have forgotten that one? I'm an idiot.
[> [> Re: What's particularly
perverse about S7 and the series as a whole... -- shambleau,
12:09:09 12/23/02 Mon
I may have missed the discussion of the "time wonkiness"
of BotN you mentioned in Level 4, cjl, but I certainly noticed
it. I tried to calculate how much time could have passed between
CWDP and BotN, and I couldn't get it to work out to anything later
than November 18th, and that's being generous. How can it be December,
much less close to Christmas? I know "close" is relative,
but it sounds like BotN takes place in mid-December, at least.
This may just be a case of ME screwing up the timeline again,
of course. Marti's notoriously fuzzy on that stuff.
Still, why the seemingly gratuitous time announcement at the beginning
of CWDP? Why the "wake up, Buffy" from Joyce? The Spectrum
magazine reviewer has always claimed that the ending of NA was
true, not a one-off misdirect, and there's always been a small
segment (me, for example) of fandom that agrees, or is at least
willing to entertain the possibility.
I don't think they will ever show that Buffy is still in the asylum,
by the way. Still, I love that they've put in hints that she might
be. I don't even care if they're inadvertent screw-ups and they
don't mean anything. Just by being there, they've added one more
level of interpretation to a show that's got tons of them, and
that's amazing to me.
[> [> [> I wasn't
sure whether...(BOTN spoiler) -- Rob, 09:08:02 12/24/02
Tue
...Buffy's line that she didn't realize it was Christmas already
was a metanarrative joke, about the fact that the time constraints
of a TV season force these sorts of time jumps, whether it is
realistic or not. Or whether the line was meant to seriously point
to the fact that something is going wrong with time.
Rob
[> [> How long has Wood
been burying poor Jonathan, anyway? -- cjl, 11:15:00 12/24/02
Tue
I mean, if we place CwDP, Sleeper, and Never Leave Me at mid-November
and BotN near Christmas-time, that means Woodsie has been burying
Jonathan for about four weeks straight. Unless he's been burying
something else out in the (ahem) woodshed...
It's probably ME joking about the continuity glitch, but who knows
what they'll spring on us before the end of the season.
[> [> [> It's a conspiricy!!
(spoilers up to 7.10) -- Calvin, 17:07:18 12/24/02 Tue
Now, I am well aware of how much thought ME puts into the continuity
of its shows. If not, we would not all be here. But when it comes
to a word here or there, and we all question the overarching significance
of it, it makes me think of an old saying (paraphrased): if forced
to choose an explaination between conspiricy and stupidity, choose
stupidity. Point being, everyone makes mistakes. Including ME.
Take, for example, the exploding Watchers Council building. They
were clearly two different buildings, but it was just a production
mistake.
OR WAS IT!!!!
Yes, it was.
[> [> [> [> Re:
It's a conspiricy!! (spoilers up to 7.10 and maybe beyond)
-- lolamellor, 08:12:03 12/26/02 Thu
Never done this before, but this has been driving me mad- this
wonky timeline business. Yes, there have been continuity flubs
previously on Buffy, but in general, I have found its continuity
to be more carefully attended than on just about any other programme.
What I keep coming back to is this: CwDP begins very distinctly
with a time and date stamp, something that so far as I know, has
heretofore never been deemed necessary. And yes, it's a tricky
little trick- by the time BotN airs in N America, it is now December
and near Christmas- for the viewer! But a good bit of airtime
is spent between Giles and Buffy discussing this seemingly innocuous
and banal subject, and to me it feels rather deliberate. As has
been mentioned in this thread, ME is known for their seemingly
throwaway clues (Miss Muffet counting down from 7 3 0) to future
events; remember the fun psychological toying there was to be
had during Series 5?
It could be just a little acknowledgement that we had to wait
so long for the new installment, and on some level that joke is
probably intended, but something is nagging me that there is more
to it than that. I find the theories positing that the Asylumverse
comes into play again quite interesting, though I should be fairly
disappointed if that is the direction in which it moves. I have
gone so far as to find a whole shedload of spoilers about upcoming
episodes, things I really did not want to know yet pertaining
to details of the upcoming storylines, but alas in vain. There
was nary a hint of what the deal is about the timeline lapse.
I think it's tied in with the dream stuff, but I'm trying desperately
to avoid the possibility of a) exceedingly sloppy writing- whatever
one thinks of particular writers' merits, could they really have
let the side down that badly? or b)that it's gone all St Elswherey.
Anyone have any pearls of insight that will match my little black
dress of frustration? Promise to protect them from contact with
hairspray and harsh cleansers.
[> [> [> [> [>
It's not near Christmas -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:02:22 12/26/02
Thu
Otherwise there would be trees in the lot. All we know is that
it's December in the Buffyverse (a continuity flub, but not an
enormous one).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> maybe that's because... -- anom, 22:22:50 12/26/02
Thu
...after the trees died last time, the people selling them decided
to find another place to sell them? I'm trying to remember what
else happened there that might have been...discouraging.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> In real life 'close to Christmas' is around...
What? the 4th of July for adverts.*L -- Briar Rose (spoils
for Season7), 00:59:00 12/27/02 Fri
They never actually showed anything that would say it was Christams
in the homes that I remember. Was Dawn in front of a Christmas
tree?T
What I did see was shots that showed store windows dressed with
Santa Clause and lights and some evergreens. An EMPTY Christmas
Tree lot (since they start selling Christmas Trees in California
just after Thanksgiving (talk about a fire hazzard in the making!)
it would be rather insynch with the idea that it was just before
Thanksgiving, IMO. The signs are up but no green to be found yet.
Giles didn't mention having any problems getting flights. So snow
in England and on the Eastern seaboard wasn't an issue yet - so
not after Thanksgiving (this year anyway) and the CoW blew up
on a dreary, but not snowing day.
I don't think that they're too far off the time line at all. They
stated the date for CWDP as a starting point and picked up the
next day in the next ep. But then moved out of sequence for Bring
on the Night. Not much out of squence, mind you. Just enough to
progress the story line.
It is actually a natural flow when you consider Giles had to steal
the papers, get the SITs in order and travel to Sunnydale. And
Willow & Dawn were already calmed down from the aftermath of CWDP
with NLM and including Spike's meltdown having been a long gone
forecluesion moving conveniently into Andrew's capture in the
lull before the storm that was the arrival of the SITs. Robin
Wood already stated that he keeps tabs on the areas around the
school regularly - so no reason to believe that he's still burying
the same body at all.
Now if they come back on January 5th with Christmas still in progress
or hop to That Evil Holiday That Shall Not Be Named in February?
THEN I will worry that ME is truly slipping.*L
[> "Trust the Tale,
Not the Teller " (D.H. Lawrence, I think) -- Haecceity,
22:47:46 12/27/02 Fri
Have been away from the board for awhile, so doing a bit of catch-up
reading and must say I really enjoyed this look at an ongoing
complication/enrichment of the Buffyverse--Gotta love the meta!(especially
when it's "im" rater than "ex" plicit)
Lots of narrative theory goodness in your post--going to have
to print it off and go think some more about it to answer properly,
but wanted to welcome you to the board and thank you for a great
first post. Plus, your "voice" is fun and rollicking--thanks
for delurking.
---Haecceity
P.S. Can I call you neo-Calvin? "'cause it's the funnest!"
And, you know, all philosophical/cartoony and such.
[> [> Re: "Trust
the Tale, Not the Teller " (D.H. Lawrence, I think) --
Calvin, 14:45:34 12/30/02 Mon
Thanks. Reading the replies to this thread makes me think that
I might do an essay on the use of meta- everything in the Buffverse.
Calvin, still laughing over "neo-Calvin" because it
makes him combine John Calvin, Calvin of the comic strip, and
Neo from the Matrix.
Current board
| More December 2002