February 2002 posts
A Quick Question for Waiting in the Wings -- Wolfhowl3, 05:09:12
02/09/02 Sat
Angel said that he first saw that ballet in 1890, and that it
moved him to tears, even though he was evil at the time.
Now please correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Angel resouled,
prior to 1880? We know he had a soul when Spike snuffed his first
Slayer during the Boxxer Rebelioun.
Thanks
Wolfie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A Quick Question for Waiting in the Wings -- matching
mole, 05:59:18 02/09/02 Sat
I believe (going on memory which may not be completely reliable)
that the Boxer Rebellion was about 1900 and Angel had been resouled
very shortly before that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A Quick Question for Waiting in the Wings -- LadyStarlight,
06:29:35 02/09/02 Sat
You get a cookie, mm! According to a Yahoo search, the Boxer Rebellion
took place in 1900, and was over probably before 1901.
And I think that Angel was souled in 1898 or thereabouts. Wasn't
there a bit of dialogue between Darla and Angel, where she says
something about him having been gone for a couple of years?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> In B1 Angel was re-souled in 1898 -- Sophist, 08:47:45 02/09/02
Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Souls & Ballet -- La Duquessa, 10:32:52 02/09/02 Sat
I noticed that dates too, and that got me wondering...what was
Joss trying to say with that? That some things transcend evil?
I would think that since art is rooted in human expression and
emotion that a purely evil creature would have no appreciation
for it. Art is used as a way to connect with the heart with the
gut, to bring out a universal human truth and feeling...all things
unimportant to a vampire.
I vaguely remember Angel mentioning, sometime in Season 1 of Angel,
that he had met Baudelaire--now there's poetry I can see a vampire
enjoying, if not quite understanding. But ballet?
I'm not expressing my thoughts well, this am ( not enough coffee)...but
Angel's comment really struck me and I've been trying to decide
since then if it was just a toss-off (Joss--toss off? Naw!) or
if there is a deeper meaning that we should be considering--I
am remembering the scene in Frankenstein where the monster approaches
the little girl with the flowers--as he reaches for her, he is
trying to reach for his own humanity that he has lost, or maybe
never even had...I doubt that Angel was much into ballet when
he was Liam...(Well, I don't think they had ballet as we know
it in the 18th century, but I'm sure there was some equivilent--opera,
I suppose.)
All this also made me wonder--does Spike still write poetry???
Could Spike still write poetry? Or does poetry require a soul?
(Like we once thought love did?)
Sorry this post isn't up to the stupendous level of everyone else's
but I thought I'd throw the idea out there and see if someone
with a bigger brain than moi might have a comment or two...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Souls & Ballet -- MrDave, 21:18:12 02/09/02 Sat
I think that the 'Bohemian Ideals' of Beauty, Truth and above
all Love transcend the soul. ME has repeatedly treated the soul
as something of a concience. But concience (or lack, thereof)
does not heighten or dampen our appreciation of Art (in any form).
Without a soul we might not feel bad that VanGogh was in a nuthouse,
or that Michaelangelo ruined he health painting the Sistine Chapel,
but we appreciate the craft.
Spike (our Bohemian in residence) loves passionately and HE has
no soul. He appreciates beautiful things (witness his decorating
attempts...primitive, but tasteful). He probably does still write
poetry. But like William he likely hides is away. Fearing that
others will use it to humiliate him. Spike can take a beating
like ..er...a man. But he can only really be hurt by humiliation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Spike does have a soul -- a demon's soul. Same was
true of Angelus. -- bookworm, 11:46:32 02/10/02 Sun
Way back in the first season, Giles explained that a demon's soul
took up residence in the body of the human that had been vamped.
No reason that demon soul couldn't be a fan of ballet or poetry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My disturbing thought of the early morning.....Spoilers for Dead
Things -- Rufus, 05:09:10 02/09/02 Sat
Something had been bugging me about Dead Things, not Buffy and
Spike having sex under a rug, or with handcuffs, or at the Bronze.
I also didn't think much more about Willow and her addiction.
What bugs me the most is how Katrina died.
It was bad enough that the poor girl was forced to be a sex slave
on her knee's for the creepy one, but I was wondering how they
found the body. What made me think of that was Jonathon masquerading
as Katrina.....she/well he had on a jacket and slacks...but Katrina
died in that Maid costume. So, what was the body clothed in when
found. The disturbing part of that for me is that she may have
been treated like a dressup doll for by the Troika. That would
have been a very hard thing to do, change clothing of the person
you have just killed. It would also add a level of evil to the
guy that was able to keep his lunch down changing Katrina from
the "maid costume" to the clothes she was in when Warren
first saw her. Also leave the "costume on" and how do
you explain a suicide of a woman wearing such an obvious getup....assuming
the cops found and talked the the patrons in the bar she was last
seen in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My disturbing thought of the early morning.....Spoilers
for Dead Things -- myra, 07:23:17 02/09/02 Sat
I think Warren would be perfectly capable of doing such a thing
(changing Katrina's clothes after he killed her), we *are* talking
about the guy that suggested summoning a demon to 'devour' the
body. He also doesn't seem to be bothered by the whole I-attempted-to-rape-and-killed-a-girl
thing, the main thing he worries about is getting caught.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My disturbing thought of the early morning.....Spoilers
for Dead Things -- DEN, 08:19:02 02/09/02 Sat
It's surprising what people can do on automatic pilot in high-stress
situations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> He also didn't seem disturbed to see Jonathan
walk around as Katrina. Didn't bother him at all. -- Rob, 08:51:47
02/09/02 Sat
Which means...
He's evil!
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Warren's not evil.... -- Malandanza, 17:54:11
02/09/02 Sat
...he's just misunderstood. And, anyway, the whole thing was Katrina's
fault.
Consider that Katrina's primary complaint against Warren was the
sexbot. Yet Warren had discarded the sexbot voluntarily after
he met Katrina. She's blaming him for something he did before
they were committed (not that there's anything wrong with having
sex with an inanimate object -- but then, it's just like Katrina
to be so judgmental). Warren tried to keep Katrina away from the
'bot after it went on a rampage to protect her (he didn't have
to worry about April attacking him) but she wouldn't listen and
allowed her jealousy to run away with her, even imagining a relationship
between Buffy and Warren. So how does she go from admiring the
bright young man she met in her engineering classes (even coming
home with him to meet his mother) to ridiculing him for his fashion
sense and mocking him for hoping they could repair the relationship?
I feel certain that I wasn't the only one with tears in his eyes
when Katrina abused him in public. Sure, she can do as she pleases,
but to behave as arbitrarily and hurtfully as she has is definitely
an abuse of free will. It was poetic justice to have it taken
from her.
And then the scene in the lair -- when she saw what pains Warren
had taken to get her back, inventing whole new branches of science
just to win her approval (no matter how much she doesn't deserve
him) why didn't she realize that this is the man for her? He has
the hopeless devotion of a beaten and abused dog, still loyal,
yearning only for some indication of affection. No -- this heartless
vixen physically assaults Warren and his friends and threatens
to bring the full force of the law down upon them. What resulted
was a terrible accident -- but an accident set into motion by
Katrina.
That's not to say that Warren doesn't have his faults. I mean,
he's tried to kill her and her friends, he's tasered her and chained
her up, threatening to kill her if she doesn't admit that she
loves him, he's tried to break her apart from her friends, to
keep her only for himself, he's degraded her and made her believe
that she's worthless, he sacrificed a platonic friendship for
lust and preyed upon her when she was emotionally distraught...
oh, wait -- I'm confusing him with Spike again.
Nevermind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> *snickering* -- VampRiley, 18:12:32
02/09/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Warren's not evil....oh really.....
-- Rufus, 19:52:07 02/09/02 Sat
Say what you like about Spike but get one thing straight, when
it comes to Katrina and Buffy there is no comparison. Katrina
had no power or choices and Buffy has both. Katrina was zapped
then murdered when she tried to defend herself. Buffy has had
sex with a fellow of her own choosing that she keeps going back
to see time and time again. Katrina's situation is closer to real
life in that frequently a woman is beaten down when she tries
to speak up for herself or leave a bad situation. You could see
what happened when Buffy wanted her way...she beat the hell out
of Spike. Spike may be evil, but he has no soul, no moral compass...what
happened to Warren?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> LOL. Ah, dry Arizona humor. -- mm,
19:54:03 02/09/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> You've been reading the "Get
People To Respond To Your Posts" advice, haven't you? --
Traveler, 20:20:17 02/09/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My disturbing thought of the early morning.....Spoilers
for Dead Things -- LeeAnn, 08:54:20 02/09/02 Sat
My disturbing thought was how Katrina got in the maid's uniform
in the first place. She seemed so out of it. Was Warren able to
tell her to put the uniform on and watch while she removed her
clothes and put on the fishnet stockings etc. Or did he undress
and then dress her himself and probably rape her at the half way
point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turnng points and S4 -- DEN, 09:23:18 02/09/02 Sat
On watching the first two eps of s4 on FX, I was struck by what
seems a major "road not taken" by the series--the decision
not to develop the college-experience story. Let's consider the
possible threads had s4 been taken as a "year of change"
1. Buffy's search for an identity could be introduced/developed
long-term in the college contex. SMG does that kind of angst as
well as anyone. Let her twist in the freshman wind for a few more
eps!
2. Willow could emerge from high school nerd into college star--a
very logical probability. She could even become a guy magnet:
IMHO, her brains, looks, and offbeat personality would make her
catnip at any university. That gives flexibility to the Oz storyline.
It offers real opportunities to develop the relationship with
Tara along lines more sophisticated than "gay now."
It also challenges the Buffy/Willow "sidekick dynamic"
without depending so heavily on the magic/power issue.
3. There's room to do more with core characters set adrift by
the actual s4. Explore Xander's getting a life and Giles's new
situation--a Giles/Olivia/ Joyce thread, and the scoobies' reaction,
offers fascinating possibilities
4. Tara and Anya have some space to become more than their respective
mannerisms, more than stammering and malapropisms. Tara can even
have a back story with real suspense!
5. the "scooby rift" can be developed instead of postulated,
perhaps left open as a teaser for s5.
6. A year along these lines gives the gang a physical, structural
context: the university, as an alternative to the growing physical
isolation of the later seasons.
That does not mean the long-term story line needed to be abandoned--just
pushed back by unraveling the "Initiative" stories from
the "college life" ones, and increasing the latters'
number. Introduce the "evil government" arc towards
the end of s4 by teasing us with "men in black, then develop
it in 5. S 6 is the "sacrifice arc;" s 7 becomes "grow
up; and the series could be wrapped up on a high note.
Would such a season have been boring or deriviative? The cast
during s4 was worked-in, and at the peak of its form for "scoobage,"
the fast-paced, witty interaction about everyday events that gives
the show much of its appeal. College provides an ample source
of scenarios for the "monster as metaphor" story lines
that are the series' core--many of us can think of a dozen without
trying! If a "big bad" is needed (i'm not at all sure
one is), ME's creative energies surely were up to the challenge.
By s4, moreover, it is clear that the series' core audience draws
heavily from the college-educated and college-bound, who may be
presumed to appreciate that setting.
A reconceptualized s4 might also have averted or delayed the growing
emphasis on season arcs, which in turn detracts from non-arc eps.
Except for a few stand-alone classics like "Hush" and
"The Body," these become "fillers" and the
season splits into halves.
I'm essentially suggestng ME lost confidence in its ability to
take the show beyond high schol. In consequence it threw two story
lines, college and the Initiative, into a single season. Not only
were both left hanging, but the show ever since has been put under
unnecessary stress.
Here ends the two cents' worth of a frustrated producer on a long
Saturday. Thanks for your patience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I agree -- matching mole, a nerd and proud of it, 12:30:15
02/09/02 Sat
That was a disappointing aspect of season 4 to me - that the college
aspect wasn't played up more. Both 'The Freshman' and 'Living
Conditions' were excellent episodes in my opinion (Living Conditions
is an all time fave). They really encapsulated the atmosphere
of college life just as many S1, S2 episodes did for high school.
It does seem like there was great potential for a college arc
and a bunch of stand-alone episodes that was never realy exploited.
Very few shows have college settings, presumably because the college
experience is less general than high school (also maybe the college
educated watch less television?). I've always thought this left
a great potential source of interesting stories untapped. But
perhaps one of the reasons the 'Oh grow up' theme hasn't resonated
all that well with me is that my experience with university was
so different from the Scoobies. For the first time since the start
of my teens (or even earlier) I met people who I could really
relate to (and I basically stopped associating with my high school
acquaintances almost immediately). My courses (especially after
first year) fascinated me. The whole thing was a blessed release
after high school. Growing up seemed pretty damn easy to me (or
perhaps I've never grown up at all). I guess this just shows a
lack of imagination on my part (and that I am a hopeless nerd).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I disagree... -- Rob, 18:41:02 02/09/02 Sat
I found S4 to be practically perfect in every way. I thought the
plotting was perfect, as was the extent to which they did and
did not explore college life.
I have the cool situation of being the exact age as the Scoobs.
I entered college, therefore, the same year they did. It may just
be because I had a very difficult first year of college, but I
was glad that the whole year didn't focus on the college life.
I wanted some escapism from college, dammit!
With that said, the first episodes of the season, the most college-focused,
were tailor made for me. "Living Conditions" is for
me, as well as mm, a favorite episode. It really struck a chord
with me, because as Buffy was dealing with her roommate from hell,
I was dealing with one at the same time. I totally identified.
My roommate didn't play Celine Dion non-stop, but something almost
as horrifying...Blink-182. Aaarggh! My ears!
I'm also, by the way, glad that the Initiative and college stories
were the same year. College is a time when people question values
and begin to see the graying of the world, in terms other than
black and white. The Initiative's experimentation on demons was
a perfect counterpoint to the changes the Scoobies were experiencing.
For the first time, Buffy realized that all demons may not be
all evil; or there at least may be ways that are too cruel to
deal with even inherently evil creatures. I thought the fifth
season, also, was the best plotted season of the show's run to
date, so I'm also glad that the Initiative story line was done
by then. I am not one of those who didn't like the Initiative
story. I personally loved it. But I wouldn't do a thing to change
any of the fifth season, so I'm glad it was wrapped up by that
time.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I disagree... -- JM, 19:06:40 02/09/02 Sat
At least one other joins me in the light, or in everyone else's
opinion joins me in the dark. I too love season four. I never
really got the generalized hate for it. And wasn't even aware
since I didn't get on-line until last season. When I re-watched
it on FX I was blown away. They did some really interesting things
that season, that were unique and totally unexpected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I disagree... -- grifter, 00:58:04 02/10/02
Sun
I, too, loved season 4. Never got why it was bashed by most fans
so much. I´m about the same age as the SG, and started university
that year (it´s quite different here in Austria, but it´s
still the same basics as in the US).
I had to take a break from studying to do my civil services, and
man was I glad! I was getting extremly bored with university,
and it was a welcome break (that I´m still enjoying till
June).
So, all in all, it was ok for me that they didn´t delve
deeper into the college-thing, because, again, it mirrored my
own life. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: some old farts liked it too -- Anne,
05:03:15 02/10/02 Sun
I thought I'd chime in here because I'm older than most of the
people on this board, so I thought you might be interested to
know that you don't have to have been college age during season
4 to love it.
The shows were generally lighter and less serious than in the
other seasons; but many of them were also, to me, howlingly funny.
As somebody who loves to laugh and doesn't get to do so as much
I'd like, that's just fine. And it included "A New Man",
the only really generous, delicious slice of Giles/Spike interaction
they've served out so far.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Season Four Fans of the World Unite!!!
-- Rob, 08:06:05 02/10/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> College, Knowledge, and Season 4 (I disagree) -- manwitch,
12:24:13 02/10/02 Sun
I didn't think Season 4 was attempting to be an exploration of
College life, so abandoning that road doesn't bother me.
I read too much Foucault, so I thought Season 4 was about Knowledge,
what it is, where it comes from, what legitimates it, how its
used. So it seems appropriate that the Initiative and College
would be linked. Just as there was an emotional hell underlying
the High School, so was there a perversion underlying the College.
Knowledge acquired and used for inhuman purposes. Categories and
classifications used merely to categorize and classify. Knowledge
for the sake of Knowledge. Such knowledge is a dead end. It is
not a productive contribution to human life. College, as an institution
of impartial learning necessarily contains this perversion as
a seed within it. It cannot of itself prevent this abuse. It takes
a human being to use knowledge towards human ends. Knowledge for
its own sake is a-moral, as likely to be used for greed, profit
or power as it is to be used for kindness, creativity and compassion.
Or it may be used simply because its interesting, without regard
to the human consequences. It is interesting to me that both the
college and the Initiative were State-sponsored institutions,
i.e. part of a system, an inhuman or non-human system, one whose
main interest is to perpetuate its own authority.
The kind of knowledge that the scoobies used in Primeval to overcome
Adam was not the kind of knowledge that College or the Initiative
could ever either acquire or disseminate. And Buffy's final words
to Adam indicate just that.
"You can never hope to know the source of our power. Your's
is right here."
The end of season 4, and its message ("Behind the divisive
categories and classifications of our empirical and scientific
knowledge, there is an underlying truth of the power in our unity
beyond all") seems to move quite gracefully into Season 5,
where that is in fact the ultimate truth that Buffy must grasp
at the most visceral level possible. When Buffy realizes that
she is in a realm of knowledge that Higher Education cannot grasp
or even address (Dawn is not my sister, yet she is), she appropriately
leaves behind this flawed and incomplete institution. When she
realizes that she and Dawn are one and the same, she appropriately
leaves behind the world of forms altogether.
No institution, not one, has fared well against Buffy. She has,
almost without exception, never accepted an institution as the
authoritative source of knowledge about herself or her humanity.
Not high school, not the Watcher's Council, not the City Government,
not the Police, not College, not the Initiative, not the Hospital.
The only source of knowledge that Buffy really accepts as authoritative
is the knowledge that comes from the experience of love and human
interaction.
What does College as it has so far been depicted have to offer
Buffy that she should stay there and explore it? So far, the only
answers seem to be of the mundane sort. "Well, she could
get a better job." "People gotta go to college."
Etc. Her knowledge of herself and her humanity is beyond what
College or the College Experience can give her. So why stick her
there?
Note: I'm talking about my view of the TV show Buffy, not about
the worth of College. I had such a great time in college, I was
there for like 10 years.
That was a little joke.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> *Season 4 and 5 spoilers above*. Sorry. -- manwitch,
12:30:14 02/10/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Faust or Foucault? -- Sophist, 12:46:08 02/10/02 Sun
Some great points here. Don't you think that the Initiative was
more Faustian in it's use of knowledge than Foucaltian? I always
saw Faust's rejection of Gretchen (love) as the key to his Fall.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Faust or Foucault? -- manwitch, 05:21:20
02/11/02 Mon
Please explain more. In reading too much Foucault, I have left
out some other greats. My knowledge of Faust is something like,
"That's Goethe, right?" or "Did he sell his soul
to the devil?" or "That's an opera, isn't it? But by
whom?" So, I can't help but see it as more like Foucault.
If you will overlook my ignorance, I would love to hear your thoughts
on it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Faust -- Sophist, 09:52:16 02/11/02 Mon
Ok, this is a challenge -- compress a book length epic to a few
sentences. Here goes.
Faust is a learned man, much like you might envision a scholastic
from the middle ages. He has an insatiable thirst for knowledge
and can never learn enough. The devil comes to him and offers
him knowledge in return for his soul, a bargain Faust accepts.
There are several versions of what happens after. In Goethe, Faust
is able to escape the consequences of his bargain only if he reaches
a point at which someone/something captures him so completely
that he utters the words "Verweile doch, du bist so schon"
(Tarry awhile, thou art so beautiful; sounds better in German).
In some versions, Faust does utter these words about Gretchen,
the woman he loved, because he realizes that knowledge alone is
incomplete without love. In others, he fails to realize it until
it is too late.
Hope that makes my point clear. If not, well, I'm just being too
obscure, not for the first time. If you ever decide you just have
to learn German, learn enough to read Faust; it's worth it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I envy you -- Anne, 17:01:05
02/11/02 Mon
You must have more than a little German if you know enough to
read Faust -- I know; I've tried. I got through the Prologue back
in the days when my German was a little less rusty. I thought
it was hysterically funny in a way that doesn't translate at all
well into English and really wanted to be able to go on. But when
I got into the body of the thing even a dictionary couldn't save
me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I got better marks for persistence
than talent. :) -- Sophist, 21:13:18 02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: College, Knowledge, and Season 4 (Fresh perspetive)
-- DEN, 15:36:52 02/10/02 Sun
I really appreciate your analysis of the close linking of the
College and Initiative themes. I did not propose to criticize
the general pattern of the show. Indeed I liked S4 and the Initiative.
I questioned, however, whether extending the S4 dual arc over
two seasons might not have been preferable, in the sense of developing
some promising lines actually left open or unexplored. I still
think so--but thanks to you and other posters, I'm not nearly
so sure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Turnng points and S4 -- fresne, 13:11:39 02/10/02 Sun
Mainly, I just wanted more UC Santa Cruz in jokes. MN is an alumni
and I went to Porter (the college that kept throwing parties).
Then again we're talking a school where you shop for classes,
get narrative evaluations not grades, the campus is a few buildings
in a huge redwood forest, and there are strange people who live
out there and shower in the science buildings, it might not resonate
with everyone's experience.
However, a take back the night, damn demon potluck, parade, through
the nice creepy woods might have made a nice light episode. And
hey, Lost Boy's jokes also possible.
Though, other than too much Parker, didn't really have a problem
with S4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OT: Our own personal Hellmouth in BC :o( -- Wisewoman, 10:16:11
02/09/02 Sat
Don't know if any of you in the US are getting reports on this,
but all hell has broken loose in Port Coquitlam, a suburb just
east of Vancouver.
For the last twenty years female sex trade workers have been going
missing from the Downtown Eastside skid row area of Vancouver.
Their friends and family have had little help from the police
in finding their whereabouts. The police attitude seemed to be,
"Hookers come and go [pun intended]. There's no body, ergo
no crime to investigate."
Just recently John Walsh brought the situation to light on "America's
Most Wanted." Then Gary Leon Ridgway was arrested in connection
with the Green River killings and Vancouver police thought maybe
he was their man, but indications are that that isn't the case,
although he was known to cross the border into BC from Washington
state.
By January of this year the list of missing women in Vancouver
had grown to 50. Just a couple of days ago, police got a warrant
to search a house on a pig farm in Port Coquitlam, on a firearms
violation. Apparently while in the home they found i.d. and other
items related to at least two of the missing women. This led to
a larger search warrant for the entire 10 acre farm, which has
basically been used as a land fill dump for years. It's owned
by two brothers in their 50's, described as "greasy biker
types" who nevertheless have a considerable fortune in land
and other holdings. They previously drew the attention of authorities
when they held parties at a hall called "Piggy's Party Palace,"
located close by the farm. Word is that one of them would cruise
around the downtown Eastside and round up sex trade workers to
attend the "parties" with the promise of free booze
and drugs. In fact, the older brother was charged with unlawful
confinement and attempted murder in 1997 in the case of a women
who was handcuffed at the farm and stabbed repeatedly. She escaped
and almost bled to death at the side of the road before being
picked up and taken to hospital. Inexplicably, all charges against
the man were dropped in 1998.
Now it's a waiting game...the property has been fenced off to
press and family members of the missing, and the police are giving
brief press conferences twice a day. Meanwhile they're moving
in heavy excavation equipment, trailers for command posts, and
porta-potties, so it looks like being a long search.
Really made me realize the difference between discussing Katrina's
murder in the light of philosophy, and real life. In fact, it
made me nauseous...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Dude? That's gotta suck. Big time. -- VampRiley, 18:06:31
02/09/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> If you want to see what Sunnydale would be like stripped
of its metaphors... -- A8, 23:36:21 02/09/02 Sat
...I would recommend you rent "Bully." It's a very sobering
look at real monsters and the people who sire them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: OT: Our own personal Hellmouth in BC :o( -- matching
mole, 11:52:25 02/10/02 Sun
Terrible and tragic. I know how you must be feeling. I grew up
in St. Catharines, location of the Paul Bernardo murders (for
non-Canadians this was one of the most notorious sex/murder cases
in Canadian history). Although the crimes took place years after
I had moved away it was like a punch it the gut to realize that
such horrific events had occurred in a place I was so familiar
with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: OT: That's it exactly, mole -- WW, 13:44:42 02/10/02
Sun
And as the media has been quick to point out, that particular
area of BC has already spawned one serial killer, Clifford Robert
Olson, who preyed on young boys.
St. Catherines is such a beautiful little town (I grew up in Toronto),
it seems so unfair that it's now associated with the horror of
Bernardo and Homolka (who is about to come up for parole, I believe).
I was really glad to read that they'd razed the "pink cottage"
to the ground.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sorry to hear... -- Eric, 05:35:27 02/11/02 Mon
I'd hoped a place as sophisticated as Canada would've tossed the
hoary "disposable human" law enforcement philosophy
that reigns in the third world and many parts of America. (It
happened in the Green River murders mentioned above, and a case
in Alaska) Currently I reside in an Okie burg that caters to it
too.:( In the modern world nobody should just "disappear".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sigh ... -- verdantheart, 06:35:53 02/11/02 Mon
This sort of story makes me so sad--that people are considered
less important because they're prostitutes, homeless, or in some
other marginalized state. I've no doubt that's why it took so
very long for authorities to catch up with the Green River Killer.
(I'd have thought there would have been more publicity surrounding
his capture, but I've heard nearly nothing beyond a blurb!) Police
in San Diego (where I used to live) were unofficially convinced
that a series of prostitute murders in that city were connected
to the Green River killings, but nothing came of their investigation,
either. I have no idea whether these cases have been closed now
that the GRK has been captured.
Your situation sounds sad indeed. If it turns out that this is
a "body farm" it looks like it could have been uncovered
much earlier (since soemone escaped) and lives could have been
saved. Reminds me of the fellow who escaped the one serial killer
(Dahmer, I think), but the police never followed up and looked
more closely at the guy (was it because the incident involved
homosexuals?).
Again, sigh. Good luck to your community.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You want to talk about nightmares?? Real life *is* scary......
-- AurraSing, 09:45:05 02/11/02 Mon
Popped by to see what's what and spotted this item.....my brother-in-law
moved his family to a nice townhouse in Port Coquitlam about 4
or 5 years ago from their small town life outside of Calgary,much
against his kids and wife's wishes.
Right away trouble ensued because within about a month of moving
to the area,a young girl was kidnapped out of her bedroom and
murdered in one of the communities not that far from Port Coquitlam.My
niece (all of twelve at the time) had screaming nightmares about
what happened and ending up sharing bunk beds with her little
brother because she was terrified to sleep alone for the better
part of a year.....
Well,guess what ?? The townhouse they live in is barely 2 minutes
away from the infamous "pig farm" and in fact both my
niece and nephew spent several summers riding their bikes over
property sold off for housing development by the owners. Both
of the kids are having nightmares now and kids who attend a school
that was built on former farm property are terrified.
The long term affects of this story will be far reaching if evidence
of bodies is found on the farm,because it's possible that the
brothers have got off easy on previous charges because they could
afford good lawyers.....by selling off land that could contain
evidence to the fate of 50 missing women.There's nothing like
a few tons of cement to cover-up clues.
I can't picture what it would be like to be scared to walk the
streets and wake up most nights in a cold sweat because of your
bad dreams,yet evidentally such is the case for my poor niece
and nephew.Monsters do indeed walk amongst us...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Yikes! -- WW, 18:11:30 02/11/02 Mon
That's a little too close to home.
We have, not just monsters, but real sicko's here--my sister-in-law
was home alone in Maple Ridge yesterday morning and the phone
rang...the call display showed "Robert Pickton." (name
of one of the owners of the pig farm)
She absolutely freaked and my brother had to call the police and
the phone company when he came home. The phone company said they
didn't know how someone could make that show up on call-display,
and that my brother should call the number back and see who it
was. It was a machine shop in Port Coquitlam, and they said they've
never heard of Robert Pickton.
The police took down all the information and said they'd get back
to them...so far, nothing.
It can't be that difficult to hack into the BC phone company computer,
but what possible sick motivation would you have to have to do
something like that? I'm just hoping it was a random incident,
and not someone playing with them deliberately, 'cause my brother
is fit to be tied.
And so it goes...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NYC Get Together -- Kimberly, 10:24:59 02/09/02 Sat
For those of you in NYC, which would be the best Path exit to
take to Two Boots? We seldom go into the city and can't quite
figure it out.
Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: NYC Get Together -- darrenK, 11:47:44 02/09/02 Sat
34th street.
Then take the F train downtown.
Get out at the 2nd ave. stop.
This will put you out on E. Houston street.
Walk East two long blocks to the corner of Ave. A and Houston.
Make a left.
The restaurant is at 37 Ave. A between 2nd and 3rd streets.
See you there.
dK
The rest. is at 37 ave. A between 2nd and 3rd streets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> btw, I'm not coming -- vampire hunter D, 13:47:35 02/09/02
Sat
I've decided that a 5 hour drive is too far to go. Plus I wouldn't
get home till almost 2 in the morning.
And Darrenk sent me bad directions. Dude, I'm in Pennsylvania.
I have no clue where the New Jersey Turn Pike is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> New Jersey is the S shaped state between Pa and NYC
-- darrenK, 14:55:39 02/09/02 Sat
Dear Keith--
I can't help but feel a little defensive about your attack on
my abilities as a navigator, especially since I've given a couple
of other people directions.
From your post I can see that you've never actually driven into
Manhattan from Pennsylvania. NYC is at the extreme southern tip
of New York State and New Jersey is actually between New York
City and ANY destination in Pennsylvania.
The very famous New Jersey Turnpike MUST be used to enter Manhattan
from any southern or eastern destination as it feeds all of the
the entry points to lower or midtown Manhattan including the Holland
Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel and the George Washington Bridge.
You even need to use the Turnpike if you want to cross into Brooklyn
by way of Staten Island.
The only way to avoid using the Turnpike to enter Manhattan is
to enter through the Bronx from the North. To do that from Pennsylvania
you'd have to drive VERY far out of your way. That route is only
advisable if you were coming from upstate New York or Connecticut.
Since you don't seem to trust other people's directions, I recommend
that you stop asking for them and learn to use mapquest or even
an atlas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Wait! We're not talking York, England?! Do I
need the Turnpike for that? ;) -- mm, staying put in central Ohio,
15:04:12 02/09/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> how do i get there from LA? -- SheWhoShallNotBeNamed,
15:41:42 02/09/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> You've told me everything except where the turnpike
is -- vampire hunter D, 16:23:38 02/09/02 Sat
I'm sure this is common knolwedge in NY or NJ, but not in central
PA. ANd I don't appreciate the insulting and belittling tone of
your post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Poking my nose in where it doesn't belong....
-- Wisewoman, 17:29:24 02/09/02 Sat
...but, really, vhD, you are the reigning master of the insulting
and belittling tone in posts. I'm surprised you're so sensitive.
darrenK was only responding to the tone of your post.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I didn't intend mine to be that
way -- vampire hunter D, 20:51:47 02/09/02 Sat
All I said was theat I don't know haow to get to the NJ Turnpike.
He then went on to deliberatly inult me, like I'm stupid for not
knowing how. Like he thinks everyone in the world should know
how to get to his local streets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: NYC Get Together -- alcibiades, 17:48:46 02/09/02 Sat
When is this meeting in NYC?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> If no one gets staked on THIS go-round... -- Darby, 19:39:13
02/09/02 Sat
If this turns out well - maybe even if it doesn't - I'd like to
be on the list of "I was interested and within commuting
distance but just couldn't work it out this weekend."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ditto -- Earl Allison, 06:50:37 02/10/02 Sun
I'd love to have dropped in, since I'm not very far away (just
20 miles north of Boston, MA), but bad things at work are keeping
me tied to the desk :(
My best to all who go, enjoy!
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 20 miles north of Boston - That puts you
in Peabody? -- Brian, 09:42:25 02/10/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> How was it? -- cknight, 08:33:24 02/10/02 Sun
how was it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shocking realization (Only a spoiler if I'm right) -- RichardX1,
19:47:20 02/09/02 Sat
Has anyone else here realized that the Groosalugg is Connor?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> How do you reckon that? -- Leaf, 19:56:42 02/09/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> EWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!! -- Apophis, 19:59:10 02/09/02 Sat
That would be messed up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> personal theory (spoilers) -- Apophis, 20:10:56 02/09/02
Sat
While you can look above to get my opinion on Connor and Groo
being one and the same (to summarize: ewwwwwwww!), I have a somewhat
similar theory. What we have is 1) a baby with an identifying
scar on his cheek (assuming that the cut he recieved scarred over),
2) a villain with very personal reasons to hurt Angel in a very
personal way, and 3) a demon with the ability to, in some fashion,
travel through time. I'll bet $1,000,000 (note: bet not valid
in Milky Way Galaxy) that Connor gets raised by Holtz or Sahjan
in another dimension and comes back to kill Angel (all this riding
on Sahjan's ability to go backwards in time, which, in retrospect,
I realize hasn't been established; his future knowledge may well
have been due to precognition)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: personal theory (spoilers) -- Cynthia, 05:09:53
02/10/02 Sun
Nah. My theory is that Holtz kidnaps Connor and he and Justine
raise him in England during the Victorian era. Where as an adult,
by the name of William,he gets rejected by Cecily and vamped by
Dru.
It would be the ultimate irony, wouldn't it? And the greatest
pain. Sorta a cosmic payback for the pain Angelus/Angel has inflicted
on others. Would explain alot about Spike too in why he seems
to be so different than other vampires.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Too Perfect! -- La Duquessa, 11:28:48
02/10/02 Sun
Oh please I hope they make it so...would that not be a most delicious
irony?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> problem w/that is... (spoilers) -- anom, 11:48:55
02/10/02 Sun
"I'll bet...that Connor gets raised by Holtz or Sahjan in
another dimension...."
...that doesn't go w/the personal history the Gruselagg told Cordelia
in Pylea, or especially w/his personality. After all, he could
have lied about the 1st, but I don't think he could fake the 2nd.
Being raised by a cruel, humorless sadist single-mindedly bent
on vengeance couldn't possibly have led to his being that rather
sweet fellow we saw, oddly innocent despite having successfully
battled numerous fearsome types trying to get himself killed because
he couldn't deal w/being different...OK, so the innocence doesn't
go w/the story he told either. But (my last-ditch argument) Gru
doesn't really seem all that smart--how could he be the child
of 2 parents as intelligent as Angel & Darla? (So there.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> clarification -- Apophis, 13:10:42 02/10/02
Sun
I was proposing a different fate for Connor, not the Gruselagg
theory. Gru's unnaturally blue eyes exclude him from the running
(in my mind, at least).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Another reason to 'Kick the baby!' ;-) -- Nevermore,
13:53:34 02/10/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> So, that would mean that...........spoilers for ATS -- Rufus,
22:22:42 02/09/02 Sat
Cordy is all ga ga over a guy she has changed the diapers of.....ewwwwwwwwww.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> My point exactly -- Apophis, 22:26:08 02/09/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> How is this possible? -- Dichotomy, 13:22:25 02/10/02 Sun
I don't think Gru is Connor, but that aside, if he is, how can
baby Connor and Gru be in the same time period and dimension at
the same time? I'm sure there have been instances of just such
a thing happening (or not being able to happen), but I don't recall.
Anyone?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: How is this possible? -- Darby, 19:19:47 02/10/02
Sun
There are no physical laws precluding the same object occupying
the same time repeatedly (partly because any object is not just
its 3-D mass signature but a unique time signature and well -
Connor at age 3 months is not physically the same entity as Connor
at age 3 months and one second, let alone as an adult), if you
get past a general acceptance that time travel - backward, at
least - isn't possible. Heck, the old "law" of 2 objects
not being able to occupy the same space has become more of a "strong
suggestion" under quantum physics. The "2 beings, same
time" rule is, as far as I know, a sometime science fiction
construct that has been accepted as real - like anything that
gets passed around enough.
Time is fun stuff, but nobody really knows how it works - or why
it works, even. There are some interesting theories about various
universes with different time laws existing in the same place
as ours - not quite different dimensions, but similar. And I just
learned that gravity fields slow the passage of time, a wonderful
concept for science fiction application but pretty useless in
this discussion; just thought it was interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thanks, Darby! -- Dichotomy, 12:30:06 02/11/02
Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren as FOIL for Spike -- Spike Lover, 20:37:11 02/09/02 Sat
Ok, I apologize ahead of time if this subject has already been
posted. I have not seen this website in a few weeks.
Well, kids, the writers seem to be responding to all of the viewers
who have claimed that Spike can not be a good 'mate' for Buff
because he is a souless, evil creature.
Dead Things seems to be about comparisons as the dialogue echoes
other dialogues from eps past.
1) Buffy beats Spike w/out mercy in the alley. 'A soulless, evil
thing like you could never know how I feel.' Spike takes the beating.
In the end he allows her to go. He does not try to kill her or
bite her. (I said he does not try to kill her; I did not say he
did not try to keep her from going to the cops.)
Katrina says a few things about Warren and his time w/ the sex
bot. She beats the trio up (and ironically is also trying to go
to the police). Warren uses deadly force to stop her from going.
I think clearly the writers are giving us a comparison between
a soulless creature and a souled human being, both w/ a disfunctional
moral compass. In my very biased opinion, Spike is coming out
better.
Look again: in 'Crush' Spike has tied up Buff and demanded that
she declare her love for him. She replies that the only chance
he had with her was when she was unconscious.
That is exactly Warren and the trio's plan with the device, and
not specifically w/ Katrina, because they were just going to pick
a woman to use it on. I wondered if it even occurred to the trio
to do what William the struggling poet had done, -attempt to actually
win a woman's affections and risk rejection. Although similar
in sexual history, William (the 1800's nerd) has more honor than
these bozos. Perhaps that is unfair. William strove to be and
was 'a good man'; the trio is trying to be 'supervillians'.
So, hypothetically, which would you rather see Buffy with? the
soulless, evil creature called Spike or the souled, 'misdirected'
human called Warren.
I really liked this episode because of the honesty. They really
called a spaid a spaid in the Katrina scene. Sex Slave has such
a nicer ring to it then RAPE Victim and yet that is exactly what
the trio was plotting. Kudos for the surprise on Jonathan's face
when she explained that it was rape.
I also LOVED the final scene w/ Tara, when Buff finally told someone
who she was involved with. Could shame be her real problem? Kudos
to the writers for having Tara ask the one question we all WANT
to know. 'Do you love him?' and for adding "it is okay if
you do. He has done a lot of good and he does love you."
Kudos also for having Buffy admit that 'using him' is wrong. For
realizing it is not who she is/wants to be. But it may be what
she has allowed herself to become.
I am curious to see where she will go now that she knows she is
not substantially changed. She can not make the excuse for herself
that it is ok to act this way because she is part demon. Interestingly,
she rejects using the excuse that she is acting out from all the
stress she is under. (That takes maturity.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Does anyone actually believe Tara? (*S6 Spoilers*) -- manwitch,
09:48:14 02/10/02 Sun
"She can not make the excuse for herself that it is ok to
act this way because she is part demon."
I love Tara, and I think she is sincere in telling Buffy she's
ok. But I don't know that I believe it. Are we supposed to accept,
after weeks of seeing Spike can do this but it isn't a problem
with his chip, that the explanation is a simple as what Tara gave?
No way.
Plus, we need to remember some earlier unanswered questions.
Xander to Willow: What were we into back there Wil?
Willow doesn't answer.
Angry Spooky Buffy Ghost to Willow: Did you cut the throat? Did
you pat it's head? The blood dried on your hands, didn't it? You
were stained. You still are. I know what you did.
Tara to Willow: What was it talking about? Did you understand
it?
Willow: I understood the words, but, no.
Willow lies. Even if the Buffy Ghost was saying nasty evil things
for its own purposes, we know that Willow lied to Tara.
Something is still "out there" about that spell.
I like your points on the Spike/Warren comparison. Definitely
the soul is not in and of itself the source of good. I also was
really impressed at the impact of Trina saying "rape."
Cuz I felt like I, too, had been suckered into the idea that turning
women into their sex slaves was a silly goofy idea for these child-like
doofusses. But its always been rape. That was a really well-done
and well-deserved shock.
I would love to see Buffy with Spike. Love the other. Love your
enemy. Spike is her first man-thing that doesn't attempt to put
limits on her. (Hand-cuffs maybe, but not limits).
I'm definitely hoping to see Jonathon come over to the good side.
He's sort of being set up to be the "X" factor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Does anyone actually believe Tara? (*S6 Spoilers*)
-- Wiscoboy, 11:27:37 02/10/02 Sun
The only time Tara has lied to the group is when she had a
misconception of self perpetuated by her family. I think the simple
reason for Buffy's "wrongness", and why Spike can now
strike at her is that since she was pulled from Heaven, she is
no longer borne of this world. In effect, she no longer is on
this earth because of natural reproduction, but is here thru her
"mystical" birth. Therefore, Tara is being truthful
when she tells Buffy that coming back as she did changed her molecular
structure, making her invisible to Spike's chip. As to whether
Buffy has become immortal(discussed in a much earlier and high-level
thread) thru this birthing, only Joss and the writers know where
they're taking this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
just saw dead things... -- bodhi, 20:46:43 02/09/02 Sat
just saw the episode, dont know about other thoughts but anybody
else have a problem with katrina's death? how did buffy or spike
not figure out that the body wasnt fresh. spike, whos been around
the dead for centuries, couldnt even tell a freshly killed body
vs. one thats been dead for AT LEAST an hour. rigor mortis sets
in as early as ten minutes in some cases (dependent largely on
external factors like temp)....
another thing, anyone else getting largely annoyed with buffy's
bratty little sis dawn?
oh like the idea below on ANGEL - connor being one of those two
other fools (gru or the vamp killer)....angel taking on the whole
goofy father role is also annoying, they need to kill connor off.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> oh well -- bodhi, 21:14:17 02/09/02 Sat
just scrolled down the rest of this discussion board and realized
that others too felt the same way i did...oh well, disregard the
above...
but hey, i would still like to state that dawn is annoying as
hell and they really need to do something about her...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Dawn is fifteen -- Vickie, 22:58:57 02/09/02 Sat
I think annoying is in the job description.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dawn is fifteen...so what, that gives her
a license to be an idiot? -- MayaPapaya9, 13:58:32 02/10/02 Sun
Um, as someone who's 16, allow my to respectfully take offense!
I too agree that Dawn is selfish and complete brat and I was just
starting to like her this season too. I hoped she was developing
a sense of maturity but nooooo, she has a brattiness fit at her
poor troubled sister who already has so many other problems to
deal with. The stupid girl is ditching school when her home situation
is so unstable. She needs to get over herself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Dawn is fifteen...so what, that gives
her a license to be an idiot? -- CW, 15:58:22 02/10/02 Sun
You're right, course. But, many of us who are older remember the
middle-school/junior-high years of our lives as the time when
we personally were guilty of the most disgraceful behavior. We
may have done worse things on occasion in our lives later, but
we generally acted the worst and treated others the worst during
those years. At 15, Dawn should be growing out of it more than
she's shown. At 16 you are, no doubt, well on the way to boring,
responsible adulthood. ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks, CW -- Vickie, 10:46:52 02/11/02
Mon
For getting my virtual foot out of my mouth for me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The cold body thing is NOT a plothole... -- Rob, 07:59:38
02/10/02 Sun
Tanker posted this farther down, but I'll reprint it here:
"Steven DeKnight [the writer of this ep] said on the Bronzebeta
board that they thought of adding a scene where we see the Trio
preparing Katrina's body so it's not cold (whether through magic
or weird science he didn't say), but they decided it would slow
the action down too much. They did think of it."
Hope that clears things up. :o)
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The cold body thing is NOT a plothole... -- bodhi,
09:18:55 02/10/02 Sun
thats bull man, i am really getting sick of the whole magic business
on this show. it gives limitless possibilities, explanations...you
can explain everything or do anything with magic. if any villian
on the show had half a brain, buffy and company would have been
wiped out by now....or vice versa...
and why couldnt they just have warren or someone say, "prepare
the body." five syllables, hardly slows the show down. and
it would cover this "plothole".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The cold body thing is NOT a plothole...
-- manwitch, 09:59:34 02/10/02 Sun
They were also in a series of temporal folds that could have something
to do with it. Perhaps they couldn't tell how much time had elapsed.
That said, I sorta agree with you. I also don't think stuff that
is edited out can be used to explain stuff that isn't otherwise
explained. The audience shouldn't have to work out what the explanation
probably is. This particular "plothole" is not a stumbling
block for me, although I asked my wife the same thing (Can't Spike
tell whether or not that's fresh?). I don't really ask this show
to be rigorously consistent in its literal plotline as long as
it stays consistent in its spirit, its "ness." And I
liked that episode a lot.
But what doesn't make it into the final piece, doesn't make it
into the final piece. My opinion, anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The cold body thing is NOT a plothole...
-- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 18:19:58 02/10/02 Sun
Maybe the Terrible Trio just had a very large slow cooker . .
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The fact is, with only 42-44 minutes to play
with, sometimes they need to take out important stuff. -- Rob,
19:37:17 02/10/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> And... -- Rob, 19:42:34 02/10/02 Sun
Dude, I really think you should chill. I really don't understand
how you could "get sick of the whole magic business on this
show" because...face it, this is a magic show. It is a fantasy.
It doesn't have to follow the rules of the real world. This is
the Buffyverse. Rules don't apply here.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: And... -- bodhi, 21:22:15 02/11/02
Mon
hey robbie, little quick on the trigger finger arent we? take
it easy man, no need to get aggressive...i can see that you are
very passionate about the show.
anyways, all i am asking for is 5 syllables, but in the grand
scheme of things, those 5 syllables could very well add another
2 seconds to the 42-45 minutes....so, i guess that would be too
much...
i dunno, i just think the genius behind buffyverse was to create
a world that is "fantasy" yet the moral/ethical and
some physical rules somehow manage to apply. otherwise it would
be random chaos. the episodes have to make sense to me...feel
the shows gone too far, the magic and other sh*t has gotten outta
hand. hard for me to explain, but the shows lost something...only
seen a few good episodes this year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Couldn't disagree more! But sorry
for biting your head off...Virtual handshake. :-) -- Rob, 14:32:01
02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If no body wants me here then just say so! -- vampire hunter D,
21:00:37 02/09/02 Sat
darrenk treats me like I'm an ididot. Wisewoman tells me I'm he
reigning king of insulting posts. Sounds to me like my opinion
is at best unappreciated or just unwelcome here. Well if taht's
the case, then just tell me and I will leave.
And btw: I have never intended to deliberatly insult anyone on
theis board. I like you guys too much to do so. I just say what
I honestly see as the truth. If that is an insult, then sorry.
The one person here who I don't like enough to insult I just ignore.
(SO what was with that comment WW?
(and in case you didn't getit yet, this post was made while I
was drunk)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Whoa! Calm down, D! ;o) -- WW, 21:19:59 02/09/02 Sat
Again, I'm surprised at your sensitivity. I accept that you don't
intend to deliberately insult anyone, but a posting board such
as this is a medium where the written word can often be misinterpreted--that's
why "smilies," or emoticons were invented, to give other
people a clue as to your state of mind that might not be obvious
from your words.
As an example:
"darrenK gave me bad directions."
"darrenK gave me bad directions! ;)"
One is a bald statement that can be interpreted as being critical
of darren, or even angry with him; the other implies a certain
sense of humour about the situation, which is less offensive.
I'm not suggesting you should start using smilies all over the
place, I'm just trying to point out how any of us can offend someone
else without realizing it.
And, of course, the danger of inadvertently offending someone
is only multiplied if you post while drunk (unless you're Marie!).
So why don't we discuss this tomorrow, when you're sober? It probably
won't seem nearly as important then...
;o) (a winking smile indicating understanding and affection)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hey! (and is there an emoticon for "Shamefaced
grin"?! -- Marie, 05:29:54 02/10/02 Sun
(And vhD - don't worry about it! I often think that people wouldn't
get half so upset if only the typed word could show the nuances
of speech. We love you, really! - me especially, 'cos now someone
else has posted drunk!(said with a grin!))
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: an idle thought on emoticons.... -- mundusmundi,
13:05:48 02/10/02 Sun
Anybody else here despise them? I cringe at the thought of classic
writers of the past living in an era in which they were employed.
Imagine Fitzgerald:
"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly
into the past.";););)
On the other hand, given the constraints of this medium, I do
admit they are useful. The only post that's ever halfway angered
me -- written, ironically, by one of the smartest people here
-- would have benefitted greatly from a simple emoticon. (If I
remember correctly, dubdub, you responded to that one with far
greater magnanimity than may have been deserved. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: an idle thought on emoticons.... -- anom,
12:45:59 02/12/02 Tue
"Anybody else here despise them?"
I hate the basic one (you know the one I mean)--that's why I use
the mutant cyclops @>). I think it has to do with overexposure
to it in the '70s. On the other hand, I kinda admire the creativity
of some of the variations--one drawback of my mutant version is
that I can't make it wink: )>) ? Nah.
"Imagine Fitzgerald:
'So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly
into the past.';););)"
LOL! (how ya feel about net abbr's., mm?) But at least you don't
see emoticons in books even today, unless they're about the Internet.
Not yet, at least--or maybe I just haven't seen them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The end of the turnpike? Special nice vibes out to WW --
darrenK, 00:12:05 02/10/02 Sun
First off, I won't deny that the tone of my post was somewhat
arch, but I was put off by the tone of your post.
I e-mailed you directions on how to get to the gathering, but
you only told me you were coming from PA, you didn't say where
in PA or that you needed directions from your house or town. The
turnpike usually provides a nice generic place to start a set
of directions into Manhattan.
If you needed more help, you should have e-mailed me for a clarification.
Instead you posted on the board that I'd given you bad directions
like I'd done it intentionally or had refused to clarify them.
I tried to help you and instead you chose to try and embarrass
me. So I felt that your post wasn't only insulting, it was ungrateful.
I don't know where you live, nor do I know the exact highways
that connect you to the Turnpike, but I would have been happy
to help you find out, if only you'd have asked.
This is a misunderstanding about directions to a gathering you
couldn't come to anyway and should not affect whether or not you
continue to participate in discussions here on this board where
ALL have ALWAYS been made so welcome.
I'm sorry for my part in blowing this thing out of proportion
and I really don't want it to continue.
Thanks to WiseWoman for making large with the peaceful and friendly.
It's appreciated. Obviously, the WW moniker is well earned : )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: If no body wants me here then just say so! -- JM, 06:05:06
02/10/02 Sun
Yikes, the posting while drunk. There really ought to be citations
for that sort of thing. Might keep me from doing it.
Because I then have to go through the morning after ritual of
looking for those posts. So far, the only damage I've done is
confused logic and bad grammar. Think I'll stick to fanficing
while under the influence.
(Note: Wow, tone is hard to achieve. This was meant to funny and
commiserative, not lecturing. Or confessional, even in the slightest.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I like your posts... -- Malandanza, 08:57:16 02/10/02 Sun
Especially this one from a few days back:
Shul: Life is not made up of Black and White Morality.
Nor is not made up of eternal Shades of Grey.
Life is filled with light when your eyes are open, but filled
with darkness when your eyes are closed.
vhD: I've tried opening my eyes. And all I saw was people trying
to pluck them out.
Optimism meets vhD... a classic stuggle!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Hmm ... I've seen this ep. Did somebody hex the beer?
:-) -- Dedalus, 09:31:23 02/10/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> hey I like vhD -- Nevermore, 13:42:31 02/10/02 Sun
Me being a (The?) regular eccentric on this board, I can sympathise
with your pisd-offness vhd ;-) Maybe people just don't like originality.
Please continue loitering!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> All's well that ends well...I hope! -- Grace, 20:28:04 02/10/02
Sun
Not to but in on the NYC crowd, but seems like the transition
from "on-line friends" to "in-person friends"
didn't go too well (from the postings anyway....)
any attempts at trying again? or a recap of how the "actual"
meeting went? I am a little saddened by the hurt feelings etc.
that came from this seemingly great idea.
If you feel like sharing--I would like to know if you all staked
and made up?
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: All's well that ends well...I hope! -- Edward,
20:03:59 02/11/02 Mon
Kimberly actually did post a short message that night, it's gone
off to archives now.
Kimberly and I certainly had a good time and we hope that the
others did as well. (Our son age6 fell asleep after taking about
3 bytes of pizza, but that was not a comment on the company, but
the time.)
There was good food, and conversation with 8 adults (and one sleeping
child) and I know we would be interested in doing something like
it again, although the commute to the city is a little bit out
of the way for us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I think I can speak for the others and say that
we also had a good time -- d'Herblay, 20:49:39 02/11/02 Mon
After Kimberly, Edward and their son began the long treck home,
the remainder (anom, darrenK, Rahael and myself) slouched westward
with the intent of securing Rah's Region 1 DVDs. (She's a completist,
that Rahael. She has all of me.) After that, the four of us bent
ears and elbows at a local bar. We continued to discuss Buffy
(among other things) before finally dispersing at one a.m.
My thanks to all who showed up. Those who could not make it were
sorely missed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> had a great time, wish you'd all been
there!... -- anom, 21:29:37 02/11/02 Mon
...well, maybe not all at once--woulda gotten crowded. (How many
posters are there anyway?) I was sorry to see later that there
were some inquiries that didn't get answered in time (I don't
use the computer on Shabbes & our out-of-towners had limited access,
due to the primitive conditions here in NYC). But we could have
a good time even without them, right? OK, not as good a time,
but still...I'd go to another local/regional get-together.
Maybe every poster who takes a trip should alert the board & we'll
have a welcoming committee wherever we go!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Dawn a clone? -- LeeAnn, 06:21:39 02/10/02 Sun
Dawn was made from Buffy's blood, which I take to mean her genetic
material. Is Dawn articulating Buffy's unspoken thoughts, that
Buffy doesn't want to be here, that she was happier where she
was, that she wants to go back?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Yes and no... -- Darby, 08:05:31 02/10/02 Sun
No in the strictest sense - she was created to be a sister, and
that's what she is (as a clone, she'd look like a young SMG, and
that's obviously not true).
It seems, though, now that the Key thing is of the past, that
she may be representing what Buffy would have been like without
the whole Slayer gig - and the important Giles role in her life.
If so, I think she's a bit more extreme than she should be - Buffy
may remember herself as an annoying mini-Cordelia, but the way
she stepped into her Slayer role speaks volumes about the inner
Buffy,
But maybe not. Let's compare Dawn to aspects of post-Slayer Buffy.
Dawn is self-absorbed. Buffy? Check. Dawn can actively ignore
when she's hurt others feelings. Buffy? Check. Dawn can purposely
try to hurt other's feelings when they don't give her the emotional
support she feels she needs. Buffy? Check. Dawn often ignores
possible consequences for more-or-less instant gratification.
Buffy? Check. Dawn has really long hair...finally, a significant
difference!
Chime in - when Michelle was hired, it wasn't to be the Key and
then die. What do you think the longterm plan was for Dawn (and
don't beat "replacement Slayer" to death with a stake)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Just the facts -- manwitch, 09:09:20 02/10/02 Sun
I offer no conclusions. But...
Some sort of "power" accepted Buffy for Dawn as either
an identical or equivalent sacrifice of blood.
Buffy, in Season 1, didn't really want to be the slayer. The end
of Season 1 is her real acceptance of the Slayer Calling. She
dies to the whining child that wants normalcy and comes to life
as the Slayer. She's 16.
Dawn is currently 15 (A small point that the show nearly screams
at us every epidsode). There is clearly some sort of equivalency
between her and Buffy, and its at the level of Blood. Slayer Blood
has long been noted to have special properties in the Buffyverse.
If Buffy's blood is the same as Dawn's (The Gift) than can we
assume that Dawn's is the same as Buffy's?
Sarah Michelle Gellar's contract is up at the end of Season 7
(n'est-ce pas?), the season in which Dawn will be 16.
I would also ask, what is the plan for Buffy? Is she to continue
on as the slayer until she is finally killed? Kinda depressing.
Or will she be let out of her contract, so to speak? Let someone
else take over? Doesn't immediately look like it'd be Faith, who
is busy taming a prison population somewhere. And if Faith doesn't
die, there's no other Slayers, according to Joss. Where else could
someone get Slayer blood? Hmmmmmm.
Note: I still don't think the whole key issue has been adequately
resolved. The "energy" incarnated in Dawn still has
something to offer, or the monkees wouldn't a kept it alive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: If Dawn is a clone, will she attack? Sorry,
Episode Two j/k -- Dedalus, 09:33:05 02/10/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Yes and no... -- Apophis, 10:25:29 02/10/02 Sun
The way I understood it, Dawn was a being of energy (possibly
sentient, possibly not) that was transmuted by the monks into
a being of matter. Her body was based on, but not cloned from,
Buffy's DNA. Hence, they are similar enough to be sisters, but
not identical twins (which is, essentially, what a clone and its
template are, despite the age difference).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stricken from the Record (BtVS fiction) -- matching mole, 14:45:11
02/10/02 Sun
Here, after a long delay is the next installment. Hopefully anyone
still interested won't have completely forgotten the plot (such
as it is). This is set in the time period of Smashed and Wrecked.
I reckon that I'm about halfway through - I'll take a break until
the current round of new episodes is over and then start again.
Dedicated to everyone on this board who's ever had to sit through
a favulty meeting and to Wisewoman who has always had something
kind to say about each installment.
A couple of explanatory notes for those who may not know.
Extension Agents are people associated with universities whose
primary task is to provide services to members of the larger community
(e.g. teach farmers about new strains of crop plants, new pest
insects, etc.)
Research One refers to a system of classifying universities in
the U.S. Research One institutions are large, with extensive graduate
programs. A successful research program is generally the most
important aspect of a faculty member's career at such an institution
(as opposed to teaching).
Red Green refers 'The Red Green Show' a strange and deliberately
unsophisticated Canadian comedy program that is seen on public
television in the US
Stricken from the Record
Shadows on the Bottom of the Sea Part V
"I hereby call this meeting to order." The Chair of
the Department of Eldritch Studies glanced at her watch before
surveying the room. A substantial number of ornately carved seats
around the mahogany table were empty. "Where is everybody?"
A seven foot tall demon dressed in robes of crimson and black
with a face of awful beauty replied, "Mark said he was coming
down with something. I'll bet he stayed home today."
"And you know that both F'thrula and Gordon never show up,
Janet," said a short bald man seated at the far end of the
table who was using a laser pointer to trace the outlines of the
curvaceous demons stitched onto the heavy drapes that sealed out
the California sunshine.
"Yes, thank you Anton," the Chair's tone was frosty.
She turned her gaze from the bald man to the tall demon, "and
you as well, Crachthyon. What about Annabelle?"
"Always late." Anton put down his pointer and started
doodling on his note pad.
"Carnoth of the Red Tower?"
"Didn't you hear?" A rather nondescript man in a cardigan
spoke. "Carnoth was killed last Thursday."
"Oh no." The Chair put her face in her hands. "That
makes four new vacancies this semester. The dean will never let
us keep all those lines. Not with the current budget."
"Was it...?" Crachthyon turned his glorious and terrible
visage to the man in the cardigan.
"Yup." The man nodded. "Slayer."
Crachthyon glared. "Were you completely uninvolved in this
unfortunate incident, Doug?"
Doug raised his hands and held them out for Crachthyon to observe.
"Squeaky clean. See?"
"That's exactly the problem. As an extension agent for the
forces of Good you have a conflict of interest."
"Are you accusing Douglas of unprofessional ethics?"
The Chair frowned at Crachthyon.
"No, certainly not," Crachthyon said hastily. "My
apologies, Doug for any implied criticism. It's just that faculty
with certain philosophies seem to suffer particularly high rates
of attrition. I am now the only member actively involved in Evil
left in the whole department. And my own survival is largely due
to the highly theoretical nature of my research."
"Hey. I'm Evil too," protested a young woman who had
not previously spoken.
"Sorry Patricia." Crachthyon inclined his head. "I
wasn't intentionally ignoring you. But you must admit that your
commitment to Evil is half-hearted at best. Didn't I see you petting
a kitten last week?"
"You could interpret that as indicating a fondness for gambling."
Anton was drawing a crude sketch of three kittens playing poker.
"Sounds pretty evil to me."
"I can assure you," Doug interrupted, "that I can
keep my responsibilities as an extension agent for the forces
of Good and those as an adjunct member of this department entirely
separate. All conflicts are filed with the departmental ombudsman."
Doug looked at the one being at the table who had not yet spoken,
a five foot long blob with corkscrew eyestalks and eight feet,
all encased in Doc Martens. "This year I have filed eighty
five such reports. My extension responsibilities have caused me
to foil a number of schemes hatched by Carnoth in his capacity
as the extension agent for Evil but my loyalty to the university
and my belief in academic freedom would never allow me to harm
another faculty member."
"How about a graduate student?" Anton didn't look up
from his doodling as he spoke.
"A graduate student, eh? That's a very different story."
Everyone chuckled at Doug's comment.
"If we could get down to business." The Chair shuffled
the papers in front of her. "I'd like to introduce a new
member of our office staff." She gestured to a rather amorphous
demon adhered to the wall to her left. "This is the THING
WITH 57 EYES, a recent immigrant to Sunnydale. It appears to have
an outstanding work ethic and a very good memory. It assures me
that it can recall the events of an entire meeting with no need
for short hand."
"Everything?" Crachthyon raised one magnificent yet
horrifying eyebrow. "Couldn't you forget about what I said
just now? Doug is a valued colleague even if he does misguidedly
toil against the forces of darkness and I wouldn't want folks
to think I was disrespectful."
"I don't think I can just forget things sir. Would it be
O.K. if I just don't write it down in the official minutes later?"
"Yes, yes that's fine, THING." The Chair seemed anxious
to move on. "So can we have a motion to officially welcome
THING to Eldritch Studies?"
"I move to welcome the THING WITH 37 EYES to the Department
of Eldritch Studies, Madam Chair."
"That's 57 EYES, but thank you Crachthyon. Anyone care to
second the motion?"
"I'll second it." Doug grinned at Crachthyon.
"All in favour?"
A muted chorus of 'ayes' followed.
"Very good." The Chair turned to the secretary on the
wall. "Let the record show that the vote was unanimous.
"Is there any old business?" She looked around the room.
"Anything left from last time?"
"Can we speed this up, Janet?" The bald man looked up.
"I have a class in half an hour."
Janet glared at Anton. "If there is no old business then
I will start the new business with a brief report on my meeting
with the Dean. Unfortunately the news is far from good. UC Sunnydale
has had its budget slashed by 1.2% and he is asking all departments
to cut back. If we are to have any hope of hiring new faculty
to fill our vacant lines we must economize in other areas. Starting
immediately we will have to start charging faculty grants for
use of the departmental copier. The office and magical supplies
cabinets will be kept locked and faculty must record material
that they remove to prevent a recurrence of past abuses of departmental
resources. The basilisk lips in particular are being used at a
staggering rate. Please limit yourselves to no more than seven
per month."
"Seven?" Anton stopped doodling and glared at Janet.
"Who uses seven basilisk lips in a semester? Somebody's been
using seven in a month?"
"The month before last the department supply was depleted
by over 160 basilisk lips. That is approximately fifteen per faculty
member."
"I've only used half a dozen in the past year." Anton
shifted his gaze from being to being around the table as if he
were an interrogator brought in to uncover the notorious basilisk
lip waster.
"Some people have active research programs." Patricia
met Anton's gaze defiantly.
"Be that as it may," Janet said wearily, "the department
can only afford to supply each of you with seven lips per month."
"If other faculty don't use their full complement, will the
excess be available for those who need them?" Patricia asked.
"Let's look at how many get used next month. We have used
up most of the year's stock in one semester. Shall we move on?"
Janet picked up a paper from the top of her pile.
"What am I supposed to do until then?"
"You could go down to the magic shop and buy your own if
you really need so many. The next item on the agenda is..."
"This is really irresponsible." Patricia broke in, raising
her normally quiet voice to a shrill pitch. "It shows a real
lack of concern for the special needs of Evil faculty. The slayer
is known to spend a significant amount of time at the magic shop.
One of my graduate students presented data to that effect at our
last symposium. If I were to go to the magic shop I would be placing
myself in significant danger of being slain."
Crachthyon started laughing. She stared at him coldly. He managed
to compose himself. "I'm sorry Patricia. I really am. Evil
is no excuse for lack of manners and collegiality. But I can't
help it. You need to get out more. Unless your Evil starts to
consist of more than giving Anton a nasty rash and erasing all
records of your library fines I doubt that you are in much danger
of being slain."
Patricia gasped, her jet-black hair quivering slightly. "Janet
I must protest. This is inappropriate behavior. Crachthyon is
defaming my accomplishments in my chosen field. In front of my
peers."
"Oooh! You're both so evil!" Anton's voice dripped sarcasm
as his pen moved furiously across his pad of paper. One of the
kittens now had hair that was very similar in style to Patricia's
severe cut.
"Alright, Patricia, please calm down. I'm sure arrangements
can be made for you to obtain the basilisk lips you need. And
Crachthyon, please desist from personal attacks. Evil is no excuse
for incivility."
"He just said that." Anton actually smiled.
"Well he should listen to himself then." Janet snapped
and fixed Anton with a glare that was two levels nastier than
the earlier one.
"On to other business," Janet continued. "Are all
the routine magicks working normally?"
"Yes, I believe so." Anton flipped through the pages
of his pad until he found the one he wanted. "The Glamour
of Cretinism has been renewed on all the relevant government agencies.
There seems to be little danger of a second 'Initiative' fiasco.
The Office Hours curse has only allowed three undergraduates to
enter our department in the last five years."
"What about the Nerdly Lure? That was supposed to be implemented
over a year ago when there was concern that the Slayer would leave
the university." Doug opened his notebook and appeared to
be looking for something. "The last thing I heard she had
dropped out completely."
"She was back on campus a month or so ago." Anton frowned.
"The spell must be taking a little while to kick in."
"I believe she was on campus for little more than an hour
and left after being assaulted by those three irritating would-be
super villains." Janet joined the discussion. "She has
yet to return. Perhaps the spell should be checked?" Anton
frowned and nodded agreement.
Janet pulled a letter from the bottom of her pile of documents.
"I have here a communication from Association of Genii. Apparently
one of their members came across a reference to the Necronomicon
on out web site and was most offended."
"I guess that was my page." Patricia had slight hints
of both defiance and hesitation in her voice. "I have a quite
extensive section on deconstructing the mystical text." Crachthyon
rolled his violet and gold eyes in their orbits. "But I don't
see how it could offend anyone."
"Apparently you refer to the author as the Mad Arab Abdul
Alhazred." Janet's voice stumbled as she read the unfamiliar
words. "Is that correct?"
"More or less."
"Well the genii take exception to that description of the
author."
"But that's the whole point. Writing the book drove him mad."
"Well what would you like me to say to the genii? Or perhaps
you would like to respond?" Janet asked the second question
with a not inconsiderable amount of hope in her voice. "You
could probably explain it far better than I could. Tactfully too,
I'm sure."
Patricia held out her hand for the letter with a resigned expression
on her face.
"Now on to the main business of the afternoon." Janet
pulled out her own pad of paper and put it on top of her pile
of documents. "The next item on the agenda is a discussion
of any new supernatural phenomena in the Sunnydale area and initial
assignment of interesting demons, monsters of fable, witches,
and so on to the appropriate member of the faculty. Extension
members, unfortunately meaning Doug alone at this meeting, will
comment on any practical problems arising from the new arrivals.
Are there any observations to report?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Stricken from the Record (2) -- matching mole, 14:48:58
02/10/02 Sun
"Well, to state the obvious, there's an Old One in town."
"Is that an old one in the recently archaic meaning, i.e.
a demon, Anton? Or do you refer to the transdimensional beings
the predate the existence of our entire reality?" The slug-like
being with the spiral eyestalks spoke for the first time. Her
voice with deep, melodious, and distinctly feminine.
"What do you think, Mel? No one has used the term old one
for demons in at least five years. I'm talking about the big tentacley
thing that exists simultaneously in several planes."
"Just keeping the record straight." Mel wiggled her
eyestalks. "An Old One. With capital letters. How delicious.
I never thought I'd get one of those on my life list."
"I take it that the arrival of this Old One is a significant
event?" Crachthyon turned his captivating yet sinister features
towards Mel.
"Theoreticians." Anton directed a sneer at Crachthyon.
"The Old Ones are at the heart of it all. Almost first in
the cosmic scheme of things. Only the Elder Gods are more ancient."
"Gee, and I always thought it was the younger gods who were
older than anyone." Crachthyon sneered right back. "Being
old certainly hasn't resulted in very original names."
"If you're the first then by definition anything you do is
original." Doug chimed in.
"I think that's enough banter." Janet stared at them
over the top of her snake bone spectacles. "Is anyone interested
in pursuing the Old One as a research project? Does he/she/it
fit into anyone's existing research? Does the Old One represent
a threat to any existing project?"
"A threat?" Doug chuckled. "That's completely up
to it."
"I don't think we have enough information to answer your
questions, Janet. Is this Old One acting for good or evil? Or
does it have more complex motivations?" Crachthyon spoke
calmly and smoothly. "If it is evil then I would of course
like first claim at studying it."
"The Old One is beyond good and evil as you know it. You
might as well ask if the heart of the sun is friendly."
"Oh grow up, Anton. Do you really buy any of that crap? Beyond
good and evil? Next you'll be arguing that a book is just ink
and paper. Pick a side!"
"Crachthyon that's enough." Janet's statement didn't
come out quite as forcefully as she might have wanted. Several
of the faculty were starting to mutter. It was quite amazing how
much noise three or four mutterers could make.
"Would you like some detail on the Old One?" Mel's voice
cut through the background discussion. "Maybe that would
clarify things a little."
"Please." Janet waved her hand vaguely in Mel's direction.
"And could you strike the last few comments from the record,
THING?"
"Starting where, Dr. Delorme?"
"I guess everything back to where I started asking questions."
"...Do the Old Ones represent a threat, etc."
"Exactly. Now if you could continue, Mel."
"Well the Old Ones exist in many dimensions simultaneously.
Each has a mass equivalent to a medium sized planet. Like Neptune,
say. Of course only a small amount of that is present on any given
plane. They are only actually aware on a few planes, possibly
only one, at a time. Thus their forms usually appear to be sleeping."
"Are they dangerous?" Doug glanced over at both Anton
and Crachthyon as he asked this.
"You betcha, honey." Mel seemed to relish the question.
"Their transdimensional properties render them virtually
invulnerable to any sort of conventional physical or magical trauma.
They generally do not act in a manner we would consider as actively
malevolent but they do not seem to regard other beings as really
existing in any meaningful way. Things that only exist in a single
plane are beneath their concern to be consumed, crushed, or ignored
as suits their momentary purpose."
"Sounds like Evil to me. Ignoring the rights of others, wreaking
havoc, all the bad stuff." Crachthyon was delighted. "I'm
sure I could get a grant to pursue this Old One in depth. I could
use it to demonstrate my work on the fundamental Evil at the heart
of the multiverse."
"You haven't been in the field in years, Crach. There's an
awful lot of slime out there. Not to mention blood, mucus, and
other complex fluids." Doug's voice was deadpan. "And
I'm not sure if just not caring makes you evil. That means a locomotive's
evil? I spent a half an hour talking with the Old One today and
that's what it reminded me of. An out of control locomotive speeding
down the track towards a chicken coop." He grinned. "We're
the chickens."
"Thank you, Doug." Patricia's voice sounded more pained
than normal. "I was able to grasp the point of your little
analogy without explanation. Despite its crude nature."
"So you perceive this Old One as a threat, Douglas?"
"A potential threat, Madam Chair. Given the capabilities
that Mel has described there is little we could do to prevent
any action it might choose to take. I doubt that even the Special
Vice Provost for Apocalypses could accomplish much in this case.
The Old One has tenure in a big way."
"Really?" Patricia smirked. "At a Research One
institution?"
"In the universe, baby," replied Doug doing a reasonable
Frank Sinatra imitation. "It's here to stay until entropy
plays the last song."
"Ewww." Mel's eyestalks came half uncoiled. "Knock
off the science talk. There's a time and a place for everything."
"Could we stay on topic for five seconds if it's not too
much to ask." Janet looked at her watch.
"Yes madam Chair." Doug's voice was deadpan, again.
"Do I understand correctly, Douglas that you have had direct
contact with this Old One?" Janet tried to keep her voice
as calm as Doug's.
"Yeah, it interviewed me."
"It...interviewed you?" Crachthyon raised both of his
glorious and grotesque eyebrows. "That's what I said. Sat
me down, handed me a Double Meat Special and started asking questions."
"What did it ask, if I may be so bold?" asked Crachthyon.
"That is if it's not a violation of professional ethics for
me to ask."
"Mostly it asked me how I liked Sunnydale."
There was a long silence and then Janet spoke up. "And you
replied, how?"
"It's on the beach, housing is cheap, and 'Red Green' is
on PBS twice a week. What more could I ask for?"
"I find it difficult to believe that you were so flippant
to an Old One." Mel giggled. "Although the idea is delicious.
Most likely it asked you about demons and the like?"
"Just the general atmosphere. Nothing specific."
"I suggest," Janet looked straight at Doug who stared
back innocently, "that we all keep our eyes and other sensory
organs alert for information concerning the Old One. Based on
Mel's statement it seems that there is little we can do to drive
away this creature so we should try and learn as much as possible
about its intentions. Are there any other newcomers to report?"
"A ghoul and a necromancer." Doug shrugged. "Pretty
small potatoes. The necromancer seems to have vanished."
"There are a couple of potentially interesting humans as
well," Mel chipped in. "They seem well informed on matters
arcane. One is a former Watcher. She doesn't seem to be up to
much. Just acting like a tourist."
"Sounds suspicious to me. The Watcher's council has ruined
at least three of my experiments." Patricia glared at Anton
who was smiling. "It's not funny."
"I quite agree," said Janet. "Perhaps you could
look into it then, Patricia? Get the details from Mel. And what
about the other, Mel?"
"She claims to represent seem some sort of demon liberation
group according to my sources. Her goal appears to be removal
of demons to a protected area to keep them apart from humans."
"This must be stopped at once." Patricia and Anton spoke
simultaneously. Then Patricia continued alone. "All of my
research will be ruined if she continues with this irresponsible
behaviour."
"I agree that this sounds like a very serious challenge to
our program. The Hellmouth-Sunnydale interface is unique opportunity
for cutting edge Eldritch research." Janet stopped for a
couple of seconds, staring at the enormous wrought iron chandelier
suspended from a chain that protruded through the ceiling tiles.
"Perhaps Doug...and, um, Crahthyon? Could the two of you
investigate further? With your opposing viewpoints I trust the
two of you to decide on a solution that will satisfy the entire
department."
"Very well." Crachthyon sounded glum. "As the lone
representative, rather almost the lone representative of evil
I must agree. Although I'm not trained for this sort of work."
"Relax, big guy." Doug smiled. "I'll make sure
the young lady doesn't hurt you."
"And now, for what has become our traditional closing topic."
Janet stacked her papers into a neat pile in preparation for departure.
"Have their been any new developments in the Spike/Slayer
situation?"
"Janet I really don't see what this has to do with departmental
business. Ever since the Initiative contaminated Spike with that
technology," Anton grimaced as he said the 't' word, "he
has not been part of anyone's research. In fact there was a motion
made last year that he be surreptitiously 'sacrificed' before
he disrupted any more of our studies. Only his close association
with the Slayer and her companions prevented us from taking action."
"Oh come on. You can't deny the fascination. A vampire, evil
in nature but prevented from acting on his impulses falls in love
with his mortal enemy. She in turn appears to be no longer completely
human." Patricia's hand played with her ebony bangs as she
spoke.
"And then he takes off his shirt and you get your jollies
Patricia." Anton grinned. "I don't see the eldritchness
of the situation, except for the Slayer not being human which
could be investigated through other means."
"It could lead to new insights into the nature of evil,"
Patricia replied.
"But it could be argued that Spike is no longer evil, honey."
Mel's voice was sooth as slime. "I prefer to consider the
situation as one of redemption."
Crachthyon cleared his throat, a sound reminiscent of canary songs
slowly fading out with the onset of carbon monoxide poisoning.
"Studying those that turn from the true path can teach us
much about the ways of evil. You should read my paper on the effects
of stochastic properties and dynamic equilibria on messianic apocalyptic
trajectories."
"Math." Anton made yet another face. "I still think
that this more to do with an appreciation of pecs and cheekbones
than immoral equations."
Patricia merely smiled while Crachthyon's face turned the colour
of a fine Burgundy wine slowly turning to vinegar in an ancient
French abbey housing a nameless terror.
"I think the big guy's blushing."
"Nonsense, Doug. Evil blushes at nothing." Crachthyon's
voice suddenly lost its luster and menace. "It's just hot
in here."
"He is blushing!" Mel's voice was rich with delight.
"Who'd have thought it, eh?" Doug chuckled at Crachthyon's
obvious discomfort. "The evil Crachthyon a prude? Or could
it be?" The beautiful and terrible demon's face had turned
the colour of the blood fungi of the Boureth hell dimension after
a particularly disgusting meal. "I think it is." Doug's
normally laconic tone was almost gleeful. "Not that there's
anything wrong with that."
"Crachthyon's private life is his own business," Janet
said firmly.
"Oh, I agree completely, Janet." Anton stared at the
discomfited Crachthyon. "I'm just curious that a self-professed
evil-thinker, if not an actual evil-doer, would be so reticent.
I'd think that the love that dare not speak its name would fit
in well with his world-view."
"Perhaps his is a more austere evil." Anton had given
the second kitten a rough rendering of Crachthyon's features.
"Anyway I think that being gay is now included under Good
nowadays." Patricia's tone was superior.
"I believe it is a matter of personal interpretation and
thus morally relative." Janet made her voice as loud as possible
without shouting. "If there is no..."
"Did someone mention moral relativity? I'm just in time."
An attractive young woman with pale purple skin and two pupils
in each eye breezed into the room.
"Annabelle you are almost an hour late," Janet responded.
"If you must be tardy please do not interrupt."
"But she's the extension agent for Moral Ambiguity. Who better
to fill us in on how Crachthyon's sexuality fits into the big
picture." Doug pulled out the chair beside his and gestured
for Annabelle to sit down.
"I think this conversation and the meeting will end now."
Janet picked up her pile of papers. "THING could you strike
the last exchange from the record? Ambiguity may be useful in
the field but it has no place in a faculty meeting, unless you
are trying to confuse the administration."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Stricken from the Record (2) -- Rendyl, 10:22:55
02/11/02 Mon
Color my day officially made. :)
Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: In a past life... -- WW, 08:45:49 02/11/02 Mon
...I had to take minutes of Faculty of Science meetings at Simon
Fraser University.
This first part gave me cold chill flashbacks!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: In a past life... -- Brian, 10:57:59 02/11/02
Mon
Oh, Matching Mole, you made my day. You brought back all those
silly faculty meetings I suffered through. Very real stuff, and
very funny!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I feel your pain -- matching mole, 11:00:00 02/12/02
Tue
Before our recent move my wife and I were part of an extremely
disfunctional biology department. At the worst times faculty meetings
were the thing most dreaded. The person I felt most sorry for
was the department's administrator, a wonderful woman, who had
to sit there silently writing down the most god awful stuff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> "Hey. I'm Evil too,"--a parodic parallel -- anom,
18:37:09 02/11/02 Mon
This was sent to an email list for Jewish progressives. I was
thinking of posting it here, & matching mole's marvelous missive
gave me the perfect opening. (Can't wait to see the next installment,
mm!) Sorry 'bout the forwarding formatting, but hope you enjoy.
> > ANGERED BY SNUBBING, LIBYA, CHINA SYRIA
FORM AXIS OF JUST AS EVIL
> >
> >
> > Cuba, Sudan, Serbia Form Axis of Somewhat Evil.
> >
> > Other Nations Start Own Clubs.
> >
> > Beijing - Bitter after being snubbed for membership
> > in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria
today announced they had
> > formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they
said would be way eviler
> > than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President
Bush warned of in
> his State of the Union address.
> >
> > Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed
the new axis as
> > having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right.
> > They are Just as Evil...in their dreams!" declared
North Korean leader
Kim Jong-il.
> >
> > "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at
being evil... we're the
> best."
> >
> > Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being
excluded,
> > although they conceded they did ask if they could join
the Axis of Evil.
> > "They told us it was full," said Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad.
> > "An Axis can't have more than three countries,"
explained Iraqi
> > President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule,
it's tradition. In World
> > War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil
Axis. So you can
only have three.
And a secret handshake. Ours is wicked cool."
> >
> > THE AXIS PANDEMIC
> >
> > International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration
was swift,
> > as within minutes, France surrendered.
> > Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate
status in
> what became a game of geopolitical chairs.
> > Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the Axis
of Somewhat Evil,
> > forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the
Axis of
> Occasionally Evil, while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established
> > the Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally
Disagreeable.
> >
> > With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable
clubs
> > filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied
to be called
the
> > Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly
Won't Be Asked to
Host
> > the Olympics; Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the
Axis of Nations
that
> > Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts
About
> > America.
> >
> > Meanwhile Spain, Scotland, and New Zealand established
the Axis
> > of Countries That Be Allowed to Ask Sheep to wear Lipstick.
> > "That's not a threat, really, just something we
like to do," said
> > Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.
> >
> > While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't
perhaps
> > making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval
for most axis,
> > although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of
Countries whose
> Names End in "Guay," accusing one of its members
of filing a false
application.
> > Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied
the charges.
> > Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any
Axis, but
> > privately, world leaders said that's only because no
one asked them.
> >
> > =====
> > James Longley
[don't know who he is or if he originated this, but the message
I got it in had a link to http://www.littleredbutton.com (I went
to the site but couldn't find anything related--it might be incompatible
w/my Opera browser).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> OMG!! That's the best laugh I've had in weeks!! ;o)
-- dubdub, 20:13:03 02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The above is from The Onion www.theonion.com (VERY
funny!) -- vandalia, 23:38:15 02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Actually, it's from SatireWire.com (not quite
as funny) -- d'Herblay, 00:38:25 02/12/02 Tue
Here's the original.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willow, Tara & crossing the line -- JCC, 15:03:55 02/10/02 Sun
I've heard a lot of people say that Willow croosed the line in
"All the Way" when she cast the spell to make Tara forget
the fight.Although I agree with that,maybe Tara's reaction was
a bit hasty. Does anyone remember "Family" when Tara
cast a spell that put the whole group in danger? Willow didn't
even get angry. Maybe Tara should take a leaf from Willow's book.
Willow has been exploiting magic a lot, but can she be blamed.
A lot of pressure was put on her in Season 5. Buffy telling her
that she was the only one who could hurt Glory went to her head
& the group kept expecting her to do spells for them. She also
had to use her magic to save Tara after Glory brain sucked her.
Willow crossed the line in raising Buffy, but Xander, Anya and
even Tara not only encouraged this, but helped out. Willow thought
her friend was suffering in hell and felt she had no other choice.
After the encouragment she recieved from the group in S5, it was
a big change for Will to have people she loves like Giles & Tara
tell her she is an idiot for using so much magic....
Comments? Opinions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow, Tara & crossing the line -- grifter, 15:39:15
02/10/02 Sun
The problem is that Tara cannot trust Willow anymore. Willow had
to stop using magic, but how could Tara trust that she would?
She had to fear that Willow would manipulate her brain so she
wouldn´t know about Willo´w´s magic-usage. It
took the combined shock of Tara leaving and Dawn nearly dying
because of Willow to get her to realize how wrong her ways were.
And, apart from that, it´s not like Tara and Giles have
only recently started to worry about Willow. Giles warned her
as early as s1/ep3 that magic was dangerous. Tara was concerned
with Willows progress in s5. Willow didn´t "cross the
line" in a giant leap, but rather in small steps.
Tara did the exactly right thing in an "abusive" relationship
as theirs: Go away.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow, Tara & crossing the line -- Cactus Watcher,
15:40:17 02/10/02 Sun
I think the general feeling is that Tara used her magic in 'Family'
to hide something, but that Willow used her magic in 'All the
Way' to win/avoid the argument with Tara over her use of magic.
In both cases the object of the spell was to manipulate someone,
so you have a point. But, I think it's pretty clear that Willow
was more intent on changing Tara to her liking, where as Tara
just wanted things to stay the way they were.
Willow pretty much was running the Scoobies to suit herself at
the time they raised Buffy. Tara was certainly on her side, and
all of them wanted Buffy back. But, it was largely Willow's decision
to do the spell, despite the fact that the others particularly
Xander had reservations.
It's interesting that fans are so loyal to Willow, that it's hard
for many of them to see that some of the things that have been
going on are her fault. There are plenty of things the other characters
are to blame for, but Willow has her share.
Willow has shown flaws before. Remember how many times she accused
Xander of having emotional problems in the first few seasons.
In fact she was just showing her sadness and frustration over
her own emotional problems. It looks like there is nothing wrong
with magic. But, Willow is not in well enough in control of herself
to use it with out risk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow, Tara & crossing the line -- alcibiades,
18:36:07 02/10/02 Sun
It's been pointed out elsewhere that the kind of mindwipe that
Willow did on Tara is quite similar to the kind of mindwipe that
Warren did on Katrina. Don't like the opposition coming from your
(ex) girlfriend, give her no option as to what to think. Willow
does this not once but twice, the first time during a simple fight
when such a reaction is completely OTT, the second time after
Tara has told her if she doesn't change her act viz magic, Tara
will leave her. Willow doesn't want to change, doesn't want to
consider that she is in the wrong, so she attempts to wipe the
burgeoning thought from Tara's mind that she might leave, because
she wants Tara to love her as she is. And if that includes taking
Tara's free will away from her, that is fine with her at this
point. She doesn't stop to consider even to brood about the right
or wrong of it. She just acts.
It's not unlike Katrina telling Warren, you make me want to vomit,
and him saying, are you sure about that, then zapping her, and
her next words are, I love you, Master.
The parallel to Tara and her demon spell, I believe, is Buffy.
Tara throws up a demon hiding spell so the SG won't see her true
face, her part demon aspect.
Buffy in Season 6 has been hiding in the shadows, because she
doesn't want her friends to see her. Buffy even tells Tara, The
way they would look at me... I couldn't. That's more or less what
Tara was afraid of in Family as well. The way they would look
at her, the rejection.
Xander in Gone has told Buffy point blank that anyone who wants
Spike would have to be a loser or certifiably insane. In Restless
when Buffy is supposed to be looking for her friends, she puts
on a mask, and Riley tells her now you are on your own.
alcibiades
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow, Tara & crossing the line -- Shabidoo,
03:01:13 02/11/02 Mon
In regard to Willow being more culpable than the others in raising
Buffy, let's not forget her sparkly "Boss of Us" plaque.
The others had put trust in Willow to lead them responsibly. Although,
the Scoobies, including Tara, are to blame for trusting her blindly
and for unnecessarily selecting an unproven leader when Giles
was already on hand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow, Tara & crossing the line (Spoilers) -- Robert,
23:26:21 02/10/02 Sun
"I've heard a lot of people say that Willow croosed the line
in "All the Way" when she cast the spell to make Tara
forget the fight.Although I agree with that,maybe Tara's reaction
was a bit hasty. Does anyone remember "Family" when
Tara cast a spell that put the whole group in danger?"
There are a couple subtle but important differences. Tara took
full responsibility for her act and did not offer excuses. She
agreed to leave as repentance. This coupled with the known extenuating
circumstances provided the gang with sufficient evidence that
Tara could be trusted.
Tara performed her spell in response to the threat of losing her
dear friends (through discovery of her being a demon). Willow
performed her spells because she was losing control. She was fixing
her spell mistakes with more spell mistakes. The result is that
Tara knows she cannot trust Willow.
The damage is compounded by Tara's terror of losing her mind.
In "Blood Ties", Tara was most terrified by the prospect
of being mind-sucked. In "Once More With Feeling", she
sang about how hurt she was to be so manipulated after having
been mind-sucked.
Please note, that Tara did not condem Willow and that there is
possibility of reconciliation. Willow must prove that she can
again be trusted before such can occur. We saw the beginnings
of reconciliation in "Dead Things".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
on the subject of hair -- vampire hunter D, 18:48:51 02/10/02
Sun
Ever notice how everyone always has perfect hair? No matter how
wild the sex, or violent the fight, Buffy never has a hair out
of place. Spike I could understand, with all the gel, but why
isn't Buffy's hair ever mussed? It not only her. All the girls
can wake up and have perfect hair after being in bed for hours
(one scene that comes to mind is when buffy gets out of bet and
goes into Dawn's room. Both have perfectly brushed hair despite
sleeping on it). NOw, I don't know how it is for any of you, but
when I had long hair it was a real mess when I got out of bed.
Has anyone else noticed this? m I beeing to nit-picky?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: on the subject of hair -- Apophis, 20:12:39 02/10/02
Sun
Due to the fact that there is no such town as Sunnydale, California,
we can assume that BTVS takes place in an alternate universe.
If this is the case, then it's safe to assume that this universe
opperates under different laws of nature. One of those laws apparently
states that the hair of females is unaffected by non-deliberate
alteration. See? There's always a logical explanation for everything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: on the subject of hair -- Grace, 20:16:59 02/10/02
Sun
Re-run on FX not too long ago where Buffy wakes up with her hair
kinda messed up(knotted in the front). She is embarassed b/c Angel
is there but it is smoothed down with the brush of a hand.
It is an attempt at realism at least!.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The Prom -- Cactus Watcher, 06:11:16 02/11/02
Mon
It was on broadcast TV recently, too. ;o) Amazing how after a
wipe of her hand and it was all back in place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hair and change -- Caroline, 20:20:52 02/10/02 Sun
Hold on. Remember back in season 1, Buffy was meeting Angel at
the Bronze but came up against beasties on patrol and did have
messy hair with straw in it - which I think Cordy commented on?
And you gotta admit that Buffy's hair looked pretty scraggly coming
out of the grave in Bargaining. And in her 'Life's a Show' scene
in Once More with Feeling, her hair got onto her face and she
had to flick it away! And I don't know if you noticed in that
first scene in Dead Things, Buffy's hair (shock, horror) WAS NOT
FLICKING ALL THE SAME WAY!!!!!!
Now there must be some correlation to her emotional state in all
of this:
Mussy hair in season 1 - jealous of Cordy for moving in on Angel.
Mussy hair in Bargaining - torn out of heaven, crawled out of
the grave.
Mussy hair in OMWF - offered herself as replacement to go to hell
(kinda like suicide, hmmm?)
Mussy hair in Dead Things - boinking a vamp!! Oh the huge moral
quandary!
I'm sure other board members will think of many more deeply significant
correlations. But what I find most significant is the fact that
Buffy CUT HER HAIR!!! You know that a woman only does that when
she is contemplating a major change in her life. There's definitely
foreshadowing here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> If you have long hair (OT) -- verdantheart, 07:40:35
02/11/02 Mon
My hair is below my waist. I find that sleeping with it in a ponytail
really reduces the tangling. (A nightcap is ideal, but a real
turn-off, apparently.) I highly recommend a ponytail and a good
supply of detangler.
It's interesting how many compliments you get if you have long,
shiny hair (particularly at my age). Most of the compliments come
from women, but I think most men are a little shy about complimenting
a woman lest the compliment be taken the wrong way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: If you have long hair (OT) -- Rendyl, 10:10:25
02/11/02 Mon
You have my admiration...or maybe my sympathies? (grin)
About the time mine is long enough to accidently sit on I seem
to be overtaken by this psychotic frenzy of 'oh gawd I am nothing
but hair!' and 'aghhh, I look like cousin IT', which leads to
whacking it off or having it whacked off. Then I return to normal.
I can't sleep in a ponytail but sleeping in a braid seems to keep
it untangled. I also found this great de-tangling brush that my
daughter and I use. Snarls that I would normally say were impossible
to get out come out in a few brush strokes.
Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> You must have thicker hair than I do ...
-- verdantheart, 13:44:21 02/11/02 Mon
Mine is fine and straight, straight, straight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Bottom Line - Men like long hair
on women -- Brian, 03:16:58 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Zevon speaks... -- OnM, 21:16:09 02/10/02 Sun
I saw a werewolf with a Chinese menu in his hand
Walking through the streets of Soho in the rain
He was looking for a place called Lee Ho Fook's
Going to get himself a big dish of beef chow mein
Werewolves of London
If you hear him howling around your kitchen door
Better not let him in
Little old lady got mutilated late last night
Werewolves of London again
Werewolves of London
He's the hairy-handed gent who ran amuck in Kent
Lately he's been overheard in Mayfair
Better stay away from him
He'll rip your lungs out, Jim
I'd like to meet his tailor
Werewolves of London
Well, I saw Lon Chaney walking with the Queen
Doing the Werewolves of London
I saw Lon Chaney, Jr. walking with the Queen
Doing the Werewolves of London
I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's
His hair was perfect
Werewolves of London
Draw blood
............ Warren Zevon
*******
So there ya have it. It's metaphysical!
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: on the subject of hair -- skeeve, 10:09:55 02/12/02
Tue
In Buffy's case it might be that her supernatural healing ability
includes her hair.
Also, in I Robot, You Jane, Buffy had an electrifying experience.
Buffy askd her friends to be honest: "How's my hair?"
Just fine, they lied.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faith and Hedorah (the Smog Monster): Monsters in the same mold?
-- Goji3, 19:20:37 02/10/02 Sun
Crazy...it just hit me...
I was reading the thing on whether Faith is evil or not and it
struck me like a bolt of lighting.
Everyone says Faith's reasons for turning bad was because of her
bad childhood, but that alone did not cause her to turn evil.
Neglect did. The scoobies never really reached out to her, and
she really needed it. Almost everytime I see her on the show I
only think of one thing... "Awww...she needs a hug".
They helped 'Create' her as she is today (yet, they don't seem
to aknowledge that for the mostpart). to quote Lisa Simpson (on
Bart's missbehavior) "...That little hellraiser is the spawn
of every shrieking comercial, every brain rotting soda-pop, every
teacher who cares less about young minds then about cashing their
big, fat paychecks. No, Bart's not a monster...You can't create
a monster and then whine when he stomps on a few buildings".
(Plus, she had a few lose screws to begin with).
Faith is the product of neglect....Just like Hedorah: the smog
monster. Born out of the filth of our waste and the neglect of
it, it rises up to remind us of our mistakes and their deadly
consequences. Faith, unfortunately, didn't get her message out
to the scoobs. for they continued to neglect her. it should be
noted that this view is supported (for the mostpart)in the "Monster
Book" but is not mentioned on this site(!).
Well, another Monster-type down...very few left to go...(I'm waiting
for an 'unstoppable force of nature'-type monster...but I doubt
we'll see it...budgetary reasons and so forth)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Faith and Hedorah (the Smog Monster): Monsters in the
same mold? -- Scroll, 09:33:08 02/11/02 Mon
That's an excellent comparison of Faith and Bart and Hedorah the
Smog Monster (though I have no idea who Hedorah is). I'm a Faith-sympathiser
so while I certainly still hold her responsible for all the evil
things she did, I think Buffy and especially Giles had a hand
in the way she turned out. If we assume Faith was called at age
15 like Buffy was, she would've only been 15 when her Watcher
was killed and she arrived in Sunnydale on the run. I don't know
what Watcher policy is on meeting the needs of Slayers but I doubt
Giles would've let Dawn at age 15 stay at a dingy motel the way
Faith was. How in the world did Faith pay for rent and food? Definite
neglect there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> So, if Faith goes bad again should we call Mothra to save
us? ;-) -- vampire hunter D, 12:39:41 02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet more forensics (spoilers for Dead Things) -- Darby, 19:55:18
02/10/02 Sun
Just looking at the Psyche shooting script mentioned down below...
Several people have asked how no one would realize that Katrina's
time-of-death wouldn't match Buffy's encounter in the woods. In
the script, that is addressed in the scene right after the police
station -
XANDER
According to this, they place the
time of Katrina's death almost a full
day before you saw her in the woods
I don't remember the line - was it in the broadcast version?
As for Spike being able to tell the difference, that's harder
to explain, but his nose was bloodied and he was a bit distracted
(and if he had noticed, would she have believed him?). If he had
been thinking, he should have bitten her to further confuse the
issue - and get some blood, it's been established that he can
feed on a corpse - another "two birds, one stone" issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: If day-old bread tastes stale... -- WW, 20:40:46 02/10/02
Sun
I cringe to think what day-old blood would be like, even for Spike!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Another reason to not have him do it... -- Darby,
20:57:12 02/10/02 Sun
He'd have been sure to know the difference then.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Yet more forensics (spoilers for Dead Things) -- Cactus
Watcher, 06:36:46 02/11/02 Mon
Spike heck, what about Buffy? She's been around the freshly dead
and in the morgue, the not so freshly dead. When I first watched,
it seemed like a day had passed. The quote from the script confirms
it. Even after a few hours, rigor mortis would have set in, unless
the nerds used some process (or magic) I'm not familiar with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Spurious rigor mortis (re: forensics) -- vandalia,
09:03:05 02/11/02 Mon
Rigor mortis is a temporary condition of the body after death,
not a permanent one.
Rigor mortis is the the stiffening and contraction of the muscles
due to chemical reactions that take place in the muscle cells
after death. It typically follows a predictable pattern. Rigidity
begins in the small muscles of the face and neck and progresses
downward in a "head-to-toe" fashion to the larger muscles.
The entire process takes about 8-12 hours. At that time, the body
is completely stiff and is "fixed" in the position of
death. Then, the process reverses itself, with rigidity being
lost in the same fashion, beginning with the small muscles and
progressing to the larger ones. This process begins 18 to 36 hours
after death and is usually complete within 48 hours. So, rigor
is only useful in the first 48 to 60 hours after death.
The reason for the rigidity, is the loss of adenosine triphosphate,
or ATP, from the muscles. ATP is the compound that serves as energy
for muscular activity and it's presence and stability depend upon
a steady supply of oxygen and nutrients, which are lost with the
cessation of cardiac activity. The later loss of rigidity and
the appearance of flaccidity (relaxation) of the muscles, occurs
when the muscle tissue itself begins to decompose. Rigor is one
of the least reliable methods for determining time of death because
it is extremely variable. Heat quickens the process, while cold
slows it. Obese people may not develop rigor, while in thin victims
it tends to occur rapidly. If the victim struggled before death
and consumed much of his muscular ATP, the process is hastened.
(from http://www.dplylemd.com/guest-articles/medicine-forensics/timely-death.htm)
So argue that Spike would have more experience with dead bodies
(though I have to wonder how long he's hung around after the deed
was done. I mean, what's the point? He's gotten what he came for)
but the rigor argument doesn't wash.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spurious rigor mortis (re: forensics) --
Cactus Watcher, 09:49:44 02/11/02 Mon
Er, wait a minute. Buffy doesn't have to establish the time of
death, just realize Katrina was dead long before the fight. How
did the nerds trick up the wound on the back of Katrina's head
so that it looked like it was fresh? Given Katrina's body type
there is a good chance the corpse would be going through rigor
at the time Buffy found it, just as the article you quote states.
Both Buffy and Spike should have known the body wasn't fresh,
if they had been paying attention instead of panicking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spurious rigor mortis (re: forensics)
-- vandalia, 13:16:06 02/11/02 Mon
Possibly. The article states that struggle before death accelerates
the rigor process (which Katrina did do) and that the guidelines
are not a good way to establish time of death as it varies so
widely and is dependent on so many factors. As for knowing a body
is 'fresh' or not, I think that depends. Seeing as most of the
corpses they've seen have been exsanguinated, there's probably
a big difference in condition of the body, but I'm getting squicked
so I'll just leave it there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spurious rigor mortis (re: forensics)
-- Sebastian, 15:03:46 02/11/02 Mon
also. you have to take into effect that buffy was still zonky
from the 'david lynch' demons.
so take moderate to severe temporal disorientation and add that
to the shock of thinking she accidentally killed someone - and
it's fairly clear buffy was not thinking straight. and spike was
more focused on getting the soon-to-be-a-basketcase slayer out
of there before she totally crashed.
i doubt anyone out there could be calm and collected after thinking
they accidentally killed another living being. even buffy. *especially*
buffy - since she values human life and her responsibilties so
seriously.
just my thoughts.
- S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spurious rigor mortis (re: forensics)
-- Rufus, 23:14:04 02/11/02 Mon
From the Shooting Script..
Buffy, ragged and weary, has assembled with the gang. Dawn sits
on the stairs, apart from the group. Xander scans the Sunnydale
newspaper.
XANDER
According to this, they place the
time of Katrina's death almost a full
day before you saw her in the woods.
WILLOW
Was she some kind of Zombie?
Anya appears with a musty tome.
ANYA
I don't think so. Is this what you
saw?
She shows Buffy an etching of the Rwasundi demon.
BUFFY
Yeah. That's it.
ANYA
The Rwasundi. Very rare. Their
presence in our dimension creates a
kind of localized temporal disturbance.
BUFFY
That's why time want all David Lynch?
ANYA
Right. Human perception is based on
linear chronology. Being exposed to
the Rwasundi for more than a few
seconds causes vivid hallucinations.
And a slight tingling of the scalp.
WILLOW
So that's it. These things just made
you think you killed her.
XANDER
She was probably dead long before you
stumbled across her.
BUFFY
It wasn't the demons. It was Warren.
He knew Katrina. He had something to
do with this. I know it.
WILLOW
How can you be sure?
BUFFY
(softly)
Because you always hurt the one you
love.
I wouldn't get too picky about forensic science when it comes
to this show. Buffy thought she killed Katrina because her perception
of reality and time were distorted, only coming back to her senses
when she heard the cop at the desk say the victim's name. For
the story the only thing that really mattered was that Buffy at
first thought she killed Katrina......and is it me, but is Xanders
super power of late that of sitting at the Magic Shop with a newspaper
propped in front of him? Says Rufus who agree's with Jonathon
that there is a definate link right back to Warren in regards
to Katrina.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Super Xander -- CW, 08:00:09 02/12/02
Tue
Never underestimate the power of the press. ;o) No, I don't expect
Buffy to be a forensic scientist, and I'm happy with the story
as is (neither Buffy nor Spike knows Katrina has been dead for
awhile). I just wonder why people picked on Spike saying he should
have known. I think if most of us thought we'd had accidently
killed someone, in Buffy's place we'd: a. either run away like
bunnies, or b. try so hard to convince ourselves that the person
wasn't really dead (ala The Body), that we would discover evidence
that the body wasn't fresh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Eeeeeek bunnies........:):):)
-- Rufus, 08:39:14 02/12/02 Tue
It at least had my husband and I having a good conversation about
crime scenes and lividity. There just isn't time to be absolutely
correct on a plot point that may never come up again. We did laugh
about the blow to the back of the head. I still say that Warren
may not be taken down by the Slayer but by his own inflated ego...and
that trail that leads straight to him, the ex-boyfriend.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thanks - -- Darby, 10:41:35 02/11/02 Mon
I though about looking up rigor patterns (I couldn't remember
them) while I was posting, but I got lazy.
Gotta say, the ATP thing is probably a dated explanation, though
- it doesn't really make any sense. Muscle's natural state is
NOT contracted, it needs ATP for that. Besides, I've dealt with
rigor in animals, and it is pretty obviously a temporary solidity
in both muscle and joints, and ATP has no real function in joints.
If I had to guess (and maybe now I'll actually look this up),
I'd suspect osmotic causes. In smaller animals, it rapidly progresses
to a drying out (they never really relax).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Follow-up -- Darby, 07:44:25 02/12/02
Tue
And this will probably only matter to me, but...
The ATP thing is iffy, just a long-standing but unconfirmed assumption
having to do with muscle's unique ability (in animal tissues)to
perform temporarily without oxygen.
The non-oxygen thing produces ATP and releases lactic acid.
Rigor mortis comes from the two primary molecular players (trillions
and trillions of them) in muscle connecting in a gel-like fashion
and "gumming up" the whole thing (what happens to the
joints doesn't seem to be understood at all). That might be because
of the lactic acid buildup, which has something to do with ATP
levels, but the connection has, so far as I can find, never been
experimentally confirmed.
I think that I just raised the geek bar...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O, Ye of Little Faith* ... Thoughts on *Dead Things* ... ( ***
Spoilers *** ) ... Pt. I -- OnM, 20:29:16 02/10/02 Sun
The episode is from Season 4, number 15 - This Years's Girl. The
show opens with the usual
'teaser', which goes like this (italics and bold are from the
shooting script):
The scene is set in Buffy's bedroom. We open with a ripple of
white, filling the screen. The ripple flows
past us and settles - it's a bed sheet. Buffy is in her room (her
old room, not the dorm) and she's making the
bed, along with somebody else.
B: Smell good, don't they?
We see holding the other end of the sheet: FAITH. And the two
women talk like they're old friends. They
make the bed slowly, in sync, like they're performing a ritual.
F: What?
B: Clean sheets. Like summer.
F: I wouldn't know.
Now they ritualistically fold in the corners...
B: Right. I forgot.
F: I noticed.
Buffy looks at a clock on the wall. Her face falls.
B: I wish I could stay, but-
F: You have to go.
B: It's just, with...
F: Little sis coming. I know.
The bed is made. Couldn't be neater.
F: So much to do before she gets here.
B: (glancing at clock) Now I really have to go.
F: So go. Don't let me keep-
Faith stops - looks at the bed, disappointed.
F: Damn. Just when we made it so nice.
Close-up of the bedsheet. Plop! A single red drop of blood hits
the fabric, staining it. Then another drop of
blood. Then another, and another. The drops start to flow...
The camera angle changes to look at Faith. Now looking down at
herself, maintaining her casual tone.
Buffy is holding a knife in Faith's stomach. Faith is bleeding
on the sheets. The stain spreads...
F: (sighs): Are you ever gonna take this thing out?
As if in answer, Buffy's expression goes hard and cold-blooded
as she rips the knife up, hard, killing Faith.
Faith's expression turns to total shock, she opens her mouth to
scream but before we hear a sound we--
Return to the 'real' world. It was all a dream, and up until now
we assumed that it was Buffy's dream. The
interior is that of a hospital room. We see a machine, monitoring
a heart beat. The iridescent green line
skips just a little bit higher, just once, then settles down into
a steady, regular beat. Continues.
*******
It may seem strange coming from someone who uses lots of words
to describe thing, but I have the
greatest of admiration for those writers who manage to say a great
deal with very few. This scene that I've
just excerpted from TYG contains a simple three word sentence
that still breaks my heart every
time I hear it, or even read it. In response to Buffy's seemingly
innocuous statement about the smell of
'clean summer sheets', Faith replies, I wouldn't know. Now how
can you sum up the existential
dilemma that is Faith in anything more succinct that that? Buffy
even seems to understand this, a curious
thing since this is suppossed to be Faith's dream, and Faith supposedly
sees Buffy as her enemy. Why
would you give credit for sympathy or understanding to someone
whom you reputedly despise?
The latent reproach comes back quickly, when Buffy, understanding,
sadly answers, Right. I forgot.
Faith gets in a dig, although not in a overtly cruel fashion,
especially considering what takes place moments
later in the same dreamscape: I noticed.
Even persons who were not big fans of Season 4 as an entirety
usually admit that this ep, and it's bookend
Who Are You?, are both brilliant and provocative works, and represent
BtVS creativity at it's
peak. These two past episodes have a great deal in common with
the current week's masterpiece Dead
Things, both in the philosophical and social themes that are explored
and in the ultimate significance to
the future development of the characters. Even though the character
of Faith has been nearly unseen since
willingly committing herself to the hands of the human criminal
justice system two years ago, her persona
continues to affect the Buffyverse in strange and mysterious ways.
There are precedents and parallels in
just about in every scene of Dead Things, and the linked psyches
of the two living Slayers are only
one such example, albeit the most noticable one.
I think I'll follow through the show in approximately scene-order,
and detail what stood out to me as the
story unfolded. I won't begin to claim to cover it all, as the
already significant amount of board postings
earlier this week have illustrated, this ep is one part of the
sixth season that won't fade from memory
anytime soon.
The teaser open with a slow, twisting and turning camera pan over
what appears to be, and is soon
confirmed as, a room within Spike's crypt. The camera approaches
and glides over a bed, which is still
neatly made (tidy for a creature of the dark, isn't he?) and we
simultaneously hear sounds of-- a struggle? a
fight? -- we aren't sure. The camera makes a final circling movement
as it closes in on Buffy and Spike,
who are lying on the floor, obviously having just completed an
erotic encounter of an enthusiastic sort.
Spike is visibly naked from the waist up, his lower half covered
by what appears to be a rug. Buffy is also
under a rug, in this case with only her shloulders and head visible
above, but apparently equally naked.
The metaphor is both funny and sad at the same time. During an
argument, Spike had made a comment to
Buffy some episodes back about how 'if I'm dirt, you're the one
who like to roll around in it, Slayer'. We
now get to see this concept literally visualized-- dirt swept
under the rug. But is it true? Writer DeKnight
immediately undermines the metaphor by having Buffy engage in
what actually passes for a civilized, even
friendly conversation with the creature who is supposed to be
her enemy. If he's dirt, and she
disingenuously enjoys 'rolling in it', then why do they seem so
meant for each other, at least at this
moment? Spikes answer, of course, is what we would expect from
him, and later on in the scene at The
Bronze, he voices it directly to his unlikely lover.
After the opening credits and the usual annoying slew of commercials,
we see Buffy cheerfully handing a
Doublemeat Palace meal to a customer, enjoining them with 'Doublemeat
is Double sweet!' while her
older co-worker looks at her strangely. Apparently surviving the
fast food experience is no longer worse
than surviving death, and Buffy has decided that enabling a professional
rapport with the general public
works as well for grilling as for... er, slaying. Tara then appears,
and Buffy retires with her to an
unoccupied section of the Palace to discuss what Buffy is certain
is her 'wrongness'. Tara is startled to
hear Buffy state her fears, and quickly assures her that 'nothing
is wrong', but agrees to research the
matter anyway when she realizes that Buffy is obviously deeply
troubled over this issue.
The next scene we see Andrew and Jonathan in the 'van o'crime'
talking by radio to Warren, who is
dressed well and in some obviouly classy bar or resturant. In
the teaser, we had seen the geek chorus with
their lateset invention, a mystically charged silvery sphere that
is supposed to turn any woman who
encounters it into a 'willing sex slave'. As Warren cases the
room, the two unter-geeks squabble with each
other about the appropriate female to select for the evenings
'entertainment'. Warren spies none other than
Katrina, his ex-girlfriend, and movong over to where she's seated,
drops a lame pickup line. Katrina turns
and is not at all happy to see her ex, nice suit or no.
One of the parallels drawn in this episode is between Katrina
and Buffy, the most obvious one being that
the way Katrina treats Warren is the way that Buffy should be
treating Spike. Katrina has quite obviously
sussed out, even before this current meeting, that Warren is the
worst of bad news, and she makes her
position resoundingly clear in a rapid fashion-- she has no further
interest in Warren, now or in the future.
Warren's response is to pull out the 'cerebral dampener' and release
it's magical energies on Katrina. She
gets a dazed look on her face, and begins to call Warren 'master'.
Cut to Buffy walking in the front door of the Summers' house,
where Dawn and Xander are dancing in the
living room as Anya watches from the couch. Buffy worriedly asks
if 'we're all singing again', referring to
the events in Once More with Feeling, but is assured that it's
just a practice dance for the wedding.
Buffy plops down on the sofa, expressing how tired she is, and
Xander and Anya both comment on how
she does indeed look like she's 'getting pounded'. Buffy manages
to avoid looking excessively guilty,
knowing just how accurate that euphanism actually is, and declines
Xander's offer of free drinks and
recreation at The Bronze, stating that she wants to stay home
with Dawn.
Dawn, however, has already made plans to stay the night at her
friend Janice's house. Buffy objects, but
Willow allows that the sleepover is legit, and Dawn exits after
commenting that 'I didn't think you'd care,
you're never home anyway'. Buffy feels even more guilty, and decides
to accept Xander's offer after all.
We return to the geeks who have had Katrina dress up in a maid
costume and serve them drinks. They are
crowing about how 'cool' this is, to have their very own human
sex-toy. Katrina is standing still,
unreactive to the egregiously sexist comments while Andrew downs
a sip of the champagne and comments,
making a face, that 'crime tastes funny'. After hearing Jonathan
describe Katrina as 'cute', Warren angrily
rebuts that she is far better than that, describing the desirable
physical attributes of his ex, then claiming
'dibs' on her to the conternation of the unter-geeks who somehow
got the idea that Warren might let them
have her first. (Yeah, right).
Warren and slave Katrina retire to another room, where they begin
kissing. Warren has Katrina repeat the
words 'I love you, master' several times, then after an obviously
meaningless response of 'I love you too,
baby', he commands her to 'get on your knees'. She does so, but
the spell from the dampener is wearing
off, and she suddenly recoils from him, angry, and wondering what
the hell is going on. Out in the main
portion of the new lair, Andrew and Jonathan are 'dueling' with
Star Wars-ish 'light sabers', as Kartrina
storms into the room, followed by Warren. She accuses them of
attempted rape, which of course is exactly
what was happening, and Jonathan and Andrew seemed shocked at
this little insight. Katrina threatens to
sic the police on the trio, and storms up the stairs, but Warren
strikes her on the head and inadvertantly
kills her doing so. Jonathan and Andrew freak, but Warren immediately
takes charge, and begins planning a
way to cover everything up.
Those used to having the denizens of the Buffyverse speak primarily
in metaphors were no doubt taken
aback at this intrusion of bloody reality into the show. I personally
found it curious that the TV-14 warning
that appeared at the beginning of the program sited only themes
of 'sexuality' (S) and 'suggestive dialog'
(D), and not a 'V' for violence. This episode had quite a bit
of realistic violence in it, not the usual kind
directed at mythical demons and monsters. It is a long-term convention
in both television and film media
that you can bonk someone on the head, or puch them in the face
and all that will happen is that they get
knocked out and wake up later with a headache. You are welcome
to ask any emergency room doctor
about what happens in the real world if you strike a pesons cranium
with sufficient force, and this time we
got to see an example of that. We also got to see a quick summation
of the underlying moral core of the
three geeks in the wake of Katrina's ugly death.
Warren barely falters for a minute before he begins to concoct
a plan to deflect the attention of the
authorities from himself and his co-conspirators. He speech and
behavior provide absolutely no evidence
that the woman he 'loves' means anything to him except as a piece
of incriminating evidence to be
disposed of. I referred to this man as 'evil' in one of my prior
episode commentaries, if there was ever and
doubts as to the accuracy of this evaluation, those thoughts can
be safely laid to rest. If Warren were ever
to gain truly significant levels of power, we may long to see
the likes of Glory again.
Andrew also confirms my earlier opinions of his psyche-- he is
highly suggestable and easily influenced. He
currently lacks Warren's total amorality, but he could easily
grow into it without much effort, given time. If
you have a tape copy of the show, pay special attention to his
face when slave-Katrina refers to him in a
complimentary way and calls him 'master'. He really believes it,
and his expressions betray that fact
clearly, all of which goes to show that you can be very smart
in one way and be a total, mindless idiot in
another. Current events have pushed him a long way in a negative
direction, perhaps even over the edge.
Jonathan is the only member of the trio to express genuine remorse,
although he is intelligent enough to
realize that his two companions have gone anound the bend and
that appearing to disagree with them--
especially Warren-- could leave him as dead as Katrina. He goes
along with the plan to dispose of her body
(now chillingly referred to as 'it' by Warren) and frame Buffy
for the murder. What his future actions will
be will certainly be determined by whether or not he allows his
fear for his own safety and/or freedom to
sway him from doing what he knows to be the right thing to do.
This is another parallel with the path previously traveled by
Faith. I am impressed with the writers being
able to draw a resonance between the behavior of different characters
within their universe without ever
exactly repeating themselves. Jonathan is Faith, just as Buffy
is Faith, but the situation that proceeds each
defining moment and the reactions afterward are examples of the
possible paths that can be taken. All three
of these characters (Riley is actually another, but he isn't in
the story at the moment, so we'll let that
example be for now) 'touch the darkness', and the results of that
touch define them. The following scene is
from Angel, Season 1 - Sanctuary:
It's the interior of Angel's apartment, it's nighttime. Faith
sits on the edge of Angel's bed, rocking
slightly, zombie girl, hair in her eyes, those eyes vacant, her
stare turned inward. As the camera pushes
slowly in on her she jerks slightly, plagued by... (We see flashes,
her internal POV.)
... Disturbing images from her past. She stakes the Mayor's assistant.
Touches the wound. Looks at the
blood. Buffy's voice haunting her...
Buffy: You killed a man...
Faith: I don't care.
But she does care and we can see how these memories, flooding
back on her, disturb her.
F: (tortured, weak): No...
She has to get away from them. Her breathing quickens. Through
sheer force of will she throws off the
feelings. Transforms, hardening.
F: (then, hard): No.
Her eyes flash determination. She rises.
We see Faith's bag being tossed on the bed, ready for packing.
In a wider shot, we see Faith packing the
bag, muttering to herself. She doesn't take long. She grabs her
shoes, puts them on the floor in front of
her. Angel has appeared in the threshold.
Angel: Faith --
She stands into her shoes, grabs her bag. Moves past him.
F: Leave me alone.
He dogs her.
A: You're in no condition to leave here.
She keeps her face away from him, doesn't want him to look at
her. She's leaving.
A: You go out that door now, you'll be running for the rest of
your life -- and my bet is it'll be a pretty
short run.
F: Doesn't matter.
A: It does matter.
He catches up to her, grabs her by the arm. Tries to make her
look at him. She won't.
A: It matters to me.
She jerks her arm away from him, furious, ashamed that he ever
saw her at her weakest.
F: Why are you doing this? Why are you being nice to me? STOP
IT!
He keeps his hands off of her for the moment, but doesn't move.
Looks at her. Finally she looks back at
him, gets all tough and blustery.
F: You gonna stand aside -- or do we throw down? I mean, am I
your prisoner here, or what?
He looks at her with something like pity.
A: No. You're not my prisoner.
F: So I'm free?
A: Don't know about that. (as he steps aside) But the door's open.
She moves past him, toward the exit.
A: Where you gonna go? (then) Back into the darkness?
She doesn't turn back, but that rattled her. She stutters in her
step.
A: I once told you you didn't have to go into that darkness. Remember?
That it was your choice. Well,
you chose.
We're moving up behind her, taunting her.
A: You thought you could just touch it. That you'd be okay. Five-by-five,
right, Faith? But it
swallowed you whole --
She's frozen to the spot. He's right up behind her now.
Angel: So tell me -- how'd you like it?
A beat. Then she whirls around again. This time leading with her
fist. She connects, cracking him hard
against the jaw. His head snaps back, but his expression doesn't
change as he looks back to her. Hers does,
however. Deep sadness.
Faith: Help me.
*******
And there's another line that haunts you, as it has come to haunt
a number of inhabitants of the Buffyverse:
You thought you could just touch it. That you'd be okay. But it
swallowed you whole.
And so it can. Faith wasted over a year of her life and left behind
a trail of death and destruction before she
understood her true nature, and accepted it. Jonathan is at a
crucial point now, as was Faith in the days
after she killed mayor Wilkins' assistant. He has the benefit
of lacking Faith's arrogance, although he
carries many similar her inner insecurities. We will have to wait
and see what path he chooses.
( ~ Continued in Part II ~ )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: O, Ye of Little Faith* ... Thoughts on *Dead Things*
... ( *** Spoilers *** ) ... Pt. II -- OnM, 20:35:10 02/10/02
Sun
*******
( ~ Continued from Part I ~ )
*******
Returning to Buffy, who is with her friends at The Bronze, she
declines to dance with them, and on the
excuse of getting her drink refilled, wanders off, then upstairs
to meet with Spike. We have to assume that
the meeting is not accidental, since it has been long since established
that Buffy's 'spider-sense' alerts her
to the presence of vampires in her midst. I very much liked how
the tone of the music alters as Buffy
slowly ascends the stairs, changing from the light motif of the
dance tune to a darker, more somber strain. I
also liked how she ascends into the 'darkness', yet another ambiguous
choice on the part of the
writer.
She moves to the railing overlooking the dance floor (From Fool
for Love: 'A dance? Is that what
you think this is?') and watches her friends, below, who seem
happy, living in the moment. Spike
approaches her from behind, begins to speak softly to her, taunting
her, fondles her thigh, moves his hand
up under her skirt. She tells him Don't..., he replies Stop me...
. She doesn't. The activity
intensifies as they 'sneak', still she offers no resistance and
even closes her eyes, losing herself in the
pleasure. He exorts her to look at her friends, asks her to wonder
what they'd think if they knew what was
happening, how she enjoys getting away with this. That she is
'of the shadows', like himself.
There have been legitimate questions raised as to whether Spike
was acting for or against Buffy's best
interests in this scene. There is no question that the tone of
voice he employed as he once again rolls out
his 'creature of the night' characterization of our heroine was
rather 'sinister', but I can honestly say that I
have no clue as to his real intent. On the one hand, Spike is
not 'redeemed' at this point in time, he has
merely done some good things. On occasion, he has done some things
both good and selfless, but they all
(directly or indirectly) involved Buffy, who he is in love with,
and that makes his motivations highly
suspect when considered from any external, moral frame of reference.
On the other hand, it is my strongly held opinion that Buffy will
not be able to grow as a person and accept
herself until she is willing to come to grips with the darker
elements of her nature, and redirect them in a
positive or at least harmless way. I feel that the far greater
time that has been spent this season addressing
sexual issues is neither accidental nor just an attempt to boost
ratings, it is an appropriate subject for
characters who are entering the early stages of adulthood. I don't
think that the significant number of
references over all of the last five years to 'unconventional'
forms of love and sexuality are accidental,
either, and that we as viewers may find that the inclusion of
a lesbian relationship in the ongoing evolution
of the show is only a first step to exploring the idea of an even
greater social taboo-- a female whose
'normal' sexuality includes aspects of D/S or S/M. There is no
question that Buffy is held up as a highly
positive role model in terms of her metaphorical effect on the
realverse, it would be incredibly audacious to
suggest that such a role-model could entertain such a lifestyle
choice, and be accepting of it.
Whether his reasons are selfless or self-serving, Spike seems
to be attempting to help Buffy divest herself
of her denials. It does speak to the selfless side of the equation
to note that Spike's actions in attempting to
prevent Buffy from turning herself into the police result in him
willingly absorbing a horrendous physical
and emotional battering from someone he sees as bent on seeking
punishment for what was at worst a
tragic accident, and he has good reasons for trying to stop her,
love interests aside.
Looking at the situation from outside the fourth wall, Buffy's
insistance on 'accepting responsibility' for
Katrina's death is honorable on it's face, but below the surface
her motives are just as questionable as
Spike's. Dawn picks up on some of this when Buffy goes to tell
her about turning herself in. Dawn knows
instinctively that Buffy would never deliberately harm someone,
so her understandable fears about being
'left behind' mix with incredulity that her sister would give
up so easily. Buffy, of course, is falling into the
trap of associating cause with effect where none actually exists.
She sees her willingness to have sexual
relations with Spike, and worse yet, enjoy them as proof that
she has 'come back wrong', and that her
moral core has become corrupted. She sees Katrina's death as some
manner of divine retribution for
'betraying' her calling as a warrior for good.
We shouldn't be surprised at this-- Buffy's insistance on allowing
the world to end in The Gift
rather than sacrifice her sister's life pretty much spells out
that Buffy will always draw a line in the sand
that she will not cross. While I believe that if in the final
decisive moments that there was no other choice,
she would have allowed Dawn to kill herself to save the world,
if would have indeed been the end for her
as well-- I can't live in a world like this. Her mistake is in
thinking that the PTB actually express
concern about her sexual proclivities as something that renders
her inherently positive moral outlook
inoperable. Knowing Buffy as we do, we reject this concept as
an absurdity, but in the realverse this exact
presumption does indeed destroy the lives of real people whose
only 'crime' is to be sexually
unconventional.
Speaking of the PTB, I had to wonder if this was not another one
of the occasions when Buffy caught the
benefit of another move made on her behalf. While not as openly
dramatic as the snowfall in
Amends, I was struck by the fact that the timing of Buffy's entrance
into the police station was
exactly perfect in tipping her off that Warren, not she was behind
Katrina's death. Were the PTB acting
through Spike? Was it all just coincidence? We'll never really
know, unless the Jossgod speaketh, so I'll let
it up to you all to decide.
Perhaps the Jossgod has spoken in one way-- Tara, once again,
is presented as the voice of reason and
compassion, an emotional centering force for the people around
her. That Buffy chooses her as the one
individual she feels she can unburden herself to is very revealing
of what the writers intend for the future of
the character. Tara has a lot in common with Giles in this regard--
she understands the balance required in
dealing with human frailities, that people have inner conflicts
which stubbornly resist resolving, and that
dealing with these problems requires guidance and not judgementalism.
Tara has great personal strength,
but it's a quiet strength, so it can be easy to miss. Many BtVS
fans have wondered about the significance
of Tara appearing as the spirit guide in Restless, perhaps over
an entire year later we will finally get
to understand her place in the Buffyverse as the rest of the current
year unfolds..
One remaining comparison to Faith is in order here-- Tara is a
complement to Faith, an opposition from a
personality standpoint. One of the great mysteries still unresolved
to date in the ongoing study of the
vagaries of human behavior is why two people, both raised in an
oppressive or even abusive home
environment, end up taking such different paths in their later
lives. Many episodes ago, Willow pointed out
to Tara just how remarkable it was to display such a sense of
caring and compassion for others when she
herself was the victim of so much mistreatment. Willow appreciates
that the experiences Tara suffered
would harden and embitter most individuals (Faith being a perfect
example).
As I mentioned in a post I made earlier in the week, shortly after
Dead Things aired, I have to
admit that I am a sucker for these intensely dramatic shows, and
the ending of this one was certainly both
dramatic and heartbreaking. Balancing this out is the knowledge
that just as Willow finally came to terms
with her own problems in the aftermath of Wrecked, Buffy has made
the first significant step in
dealing with her own 'demons', no pun intended. Buffy may fear
that she is like Faith, that her trysts with
Spike are indicative of the presence of evil in her soul, and
that her friends will abandon her if they discover
her 'horrible secret'. I don't even think that Spike really thinks
this, and the beating he took, and the look
of horror on Buffy's face when she realized what she had done
to him, states that very clearly. The jury
may still be out on whether or not there is any genuine love for
Spike in Buffy's heart, but only a highly
moral person would feel ashamed to 'use' even an evil creature
for her own selfish pleasure. It is a mark of
an advanced being that they show compassion even for their enemies,
that deserving or no, one does not
lower oneself by countering evil with evil.
Everything else is working out the kinks.
*******
From This Year's Girl:
Willow: It's good you guys have such an honest relationship.
Buffy: I told him the story. Vagued up some details, but no flat-out
lying.
W: That's fair. How'd you handle the Angel-y parts?
B: Did some editing. Not that I'm trying to hide anything from
Riley, it's just - that's a longer conversation,
and I had a Faith-Hunt to do.
W: Any luck?
B: Couldn't find her. Don't know where I'd place that in the luck
continuum.
W: At least you're not alone on this. Right now I'll bet every
cop in Sunnydale's looking for her.
B: Pressure's definitely high. If I were her, I'd get out of Dodge
post-hasty.
Standing right before them, blocking the way, is Faith. Smiling,
cocky, arms folded across her chest and
waiting for them like she owns the campus.
Faith: You're not me.
*******
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> My printer overfloweth..... -- Rufus, 23:55:35 02/10/02
Sun
Just loved what you said about Andrew "believing" what
the mindcontrolled Katrina said....it was pathetic that the only
way a woman could say that to him would be if she were rendered
almost unconscious. The human evil that we are seeing shows how
tempting doing the wrong thing can become. The Trio has found
that they can do anything if they don't get caught..."crime
tastes funny"..it may have tasted funny to Andrew but I think
he's developing a taste for it anyway.
Now to Buffy beating the shit out of Spike....it was brutal, bloody,
wrong.....and she only found something out about herself. She
couldn't hurt herself so Buffy hurt the "one she loves"...just
like Warren did. Some people can continue to go on like that just
like Warren did, and some finally try to find out what is wrong
with them. With Buffy it isn't how she came back...it's her...she's
done some wrong things and enjoyed it because she thought she'd
never get caught. Unlike the Trio, Buffy understands that using
someone, even just a demon, is wrong and there are consequences
for it eventually. Thinking she had killed an innocent human was
a wake up call for Buffy, one I hope she follows up on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Speaking of printers.... -- Kerri, 16:40:51
02/11/02 Mon
Mine screwed up twice while trying to print OnM's post. While
my printer may not agree I thought the essay was terrific as usual!
Great job!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The printer must be possessed...:):):)
-- Rufus, 17:38:44 02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That was great! Thanks! -- dream of the consortium,
06:51:29 02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Just outstanding! -- Sophist, 10:23:18 02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Buffy's proclivities -- Dariel, 21:18:53 02/11/02 Mon
A very nice essay. Although I do have a different take on Buffy's
newly acquired (as far as we know!) sexual proclivities of the
S&M variety.
In OMWF, Spike sings "...whisper in a dead man's ear, doesn't
make it real" or something like. Meaning, Buffy can say (or
later, do) anything to Spike, because he isn't real/doesn't matter.
She doesn't have to hide with him.
In most of her life, Buffy is numb because she is fighting her
feelings about that life. She's not happy to be back, but she
trys to take care of Dawn, trys to be concerned about Willow.
But,as Buffy told Tara, the only time she feels anything is when
she's getting it on with Spike.
With Spike, I think, she is expressing the rage and pain that
she can't let anyone else see. She beats him up, bites him, and
who knows what else, to let out some of that frustration. And
Spike, like a good masochist, takes it and maybe even likes it.
He doesn't judge her, he's not even real.
Trouble is, what is she going to do with those feelings if she
stops venting them on Spike? Maybe then she'll have to do something
about her sucky life. (#1 on my wish list: Go on strike until
the Watcher's Council forks over a paycheck!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When does no mean NO? (Spoilers for DT and other episodes) --
Robert, 21:12:06 02/10/02 Sun
Some people here have stated that Buffy mistreated Spike and he,
therefore, deserves her apology. I absolutely do not agree.
Spike hounded and pestered Buffy ever since "Crush"
in season 5. Buffy said "no" and she meant it. She even
puncuated it with well placed punches. Ever since her resurrection,
she has clearly been vulnerable, but she still said no. In fact,
she still says no when she manages enough self-control to do so.
Spike is like the friend who pushes a drink under the nose of
a recovering alcoholic. Whose fault is it ultimately if such an
alcoholic falls off the wagon as a result? We know whose problem
it is, but morally the friend is to blame. ME set the scenario
such that Buffy was doomed to have a sexual relationship with
Spike. I see the relationship as being one of master and slave
-- Buffy is not the master.
The fact that Buffy is not strong enough to enforce her will regarding
her relationship with spike is definitely her problem, but it
is not her fault. She has nothing to apologize for. Buffy was
quite clear in "Dead Things" that sex with Spike was
not her wish or desire.
Would it be possible for Spike to manipulate Dawn into having
sex with him? Damn right it is, and it would be rape. Whether
you think that the same word applies to Buffy's situation or not,
I believe a little more compassion is called for. Spike can take
care of himself and has been doing quite well for the last five
episodes.
Now that Buffy cannot blame her wrongness for her relationship
problems, where does she go from here? She can't fix it herself,
so she will have to ask for help, and it will be interesting to
see how she does this. Xander, Willow, Tara and Anya did not save
Buffy when brought her back in "Bargaining". They merely
condemed her to hell. I'm guessing that they will soon have a
chance to save her. Will they have the compassion to do so? This
may be the bigger event than any dealings with the "big bad"
(or any "little bads").
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: When does no mean NO? (Spoilers for DT and other episodes)
-- MrDave, 21:54:42 02/10/02 Sun
It Occurs to me that this is exactly the same event that occurred
between Willow and Amy as well. And Willow was left with no choice
but to accept the magic. And was riteously angry afterwards.
She severed that relationship pretty quickly too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: When does no mean NO? (Spoilers for DT and other
episodes) -- Robert, 22:43:16 02/10/02 Sun
"She severed that relationship pretty quickly too."
Yes! And, Willow is a stronger person than Buffy. More importantly,
Willow's relationship with Amy was no where near as deep as her
relationship to Buffy and Dawn and the rest of the gang. I've
seen a vulnerability in Buffy throughout the entire series. This
is one the features about BtVS I find so endearing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Another analogy (Spoilers for Life Serial) -- Robert,
23:08:29 02/10/02 Sun
I see a similarity between Warren and Katrina's relationship with
that of Spike and Buffy. Warren wants to dominate Katrina, but
she has way too much strength of character to put up with that.
Thus, Warren kills her. Spike however is able to dominate Buffy.
Back in "Life Serial", the dimwit trio added the goal
to their whiteboard of making Buffy their sex slave. They don't
appear to have followed up on it. Warren merely wants to kill
her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Have to disagree on Warren.... -- Rufus, 23:35:58
02/10/02 Sun
I believe that Warren did feel the closest thing there is for
him to love, in regards to Katrina. Warren couldn't take the idea
that Katrina didn't want him, he felt deserted, mistreated. When
he resorted to a mind control device to get what he wanted, he
proved that he didn't have a clue what love means. He couldn't
understand no, and found that if he had to use a short cut to
the word yes, well, what the hell? Warren killed Katrina because
of his fear of detection by the authorities, and anger over Katrina
saying no again. It wasn't an intentional planned killing, but
a immature tragedy. He just proved how removed he is from humanity
in how fast he moved into cleanup mode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Have to disagree on Warren.... --
Robert, 23:58:02 02/10/02 Sun
"I believe that Warren did feel the closest thing there is
for him to love, in regards to Katrina."
I'll accept that. I just don't think that Warren's idea of love
is anywhere near my idea of love. In "I Was Made to Love
You", he told Katrina to shut up rather than coming clean.
He was expecting unconditional love from Katrina without providing
respect. His relationship with Katrina was always one of manipulation
and damage control. It just got a little more brazen in "Dead
Things".
"He just proved how removed he is from humanity in how fast
he moved into cleanup mode."
Yes and I happen to believe he always was in cleanup mode. In
"I Was Made to Love You", he dumped April onto Buffy's
lap. In "Flooded" he dumped a demon on Buffy's doorstep
and in "Dead Things" he dumped a corpse onto Buffy's
conscience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Have to disagree on Warren.... --
Malandanza, 09:53:02 02/11/02 Mon
"I believe that Warren did feel the closest thing there is
for him to love, in regards to Katrina. Warren couldn't take the
idea that Katrina didn't want him, he felt deserted, mistreated.
When he resorted to a mind control device to get what he wanted,
he proved that he didn't have a clue what love means. He couldn't
understand no, and found that if he had to use a short cut to
the word yes, well, what the hell? Warren killed Katrina because
of his fear of detection by the authorities, and anger over Katrina
saying no again. It wasn't an intentional planned killing, but
a immature tragedy. He just proved how removed he is from humanity
in how fast he moved into cleanup mode."
I also think that Warren felt affection for Katrina. Even back
in IWMtLY, we saw Warren trying to talk to Katrina (just before
Spike showed up) and in this episode we saw him trying again.
The comparison between W/T and Warren/Katrina are obvious, of
course. The main difference is that Willow was a little more subtle
-- it would have been just as wrong for Warren to erase the "I
hate Warren" feelings from Katrina's mind to get her back
as it was for him to erase her free will entirely.
However, I think the main point of the episode was to revisit
the Buffy/Spike relationship. You said previously that the difference
between Warren/Katrina and B/S was that Buffy was exercising her
free will by seeking out Spike while Katrina was forced. But I
think if we look back to Crush (and, yes, I know Spike has changed
since then -- Glory's torture, sharing the baby-sitting and slaying
responsibilities, etc.) the setup has some striking similarities.
To start with, Katrina echoes the "you're beneath me"
comments when she tells Warren her only mistake was lowering herself
to his level. Next, both Buffy and Katrina end up in basements
not of their own free will. Only lucky circumstances save the
women -- Harmony's intervention allows Buffy to escape while the
shot duration of the love-slave spell allows Katrina to break
free. Both have the same reaction -- they fight their way free.
And that's where the similarity ends -- Buffy escapes not because
of free will, but because she is powerful enough to force Spike
out of her way. Katrina dies because she isn't a superhero.
As for Buffy seeking out Spike, I see parallels between B/S and
B/Parker. With Parker, Buffy was manipulated into sleeping with
her -- using the I'm-a-sensitive-guy-you-should-sleep-with-me
approach. Spike manipulates Buffy as well, only he makes her feel
worthless and tells her that he's the best she'll ever do. Buffy
repeatedly tried to see Parker again, even after it was clear
that he had no further interest in her and she repeatedly sees
Spike even though she knows it's wrong. Yes, Buffy has free will,
but free will means sometimes making the wrong choices (otherwise
we could all be replaced by computers) and Spike, like Parker,
does everything he can to influence Buffy's decisions to her detriment
and his benefit.
As to Warren moving quickly into cleanup mode -- so did Spike.
The very next episode after Crush (when he chained Buffy in his
basement and threatened to murder her if she didn't say she loves
him) he shows up at the Magic Box trying to charm his way out
of the situation. That didn't work? He put in his order for the
Buffybot.
So, yes, Warren does have problems. He wasn't in love -- he was
obsessed. He's evil. But he's also Spike minus the leather duster
and the accent. Like Spike said to Dawn -- it doesn't matter what
you start out as, it matters what you are now. And right now he
is a manipulative, possessive sadist who gets off on tormenting
the person he "loves".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Have to disagree on Warren....again!
-- grifter, 10:26:14 02/11/02 Mon
Why is it so hard to believe that Warren loves Katrina? Evil people
can love too! He may be obsessed with her in an unhealthy way,
but, for me, it was pretty clear that he had the feeling "love"
for her. Not in an idealized way, the way you SHOULD love, but
in a way some people DO love. His actions are not in Katrinas
interests, but then, few people act the way their partners would
like them to act (though, oc, this being an action-oriented show,
it´s not an "I-wanna-watch-football-while-the-wive-wants-to-go-for-dinner"
problem). His bodylanguage and way of talking after killing her
just screamed "damn, I have just killed the woman I love",
but his mind got working faster then his heart could keep up.
After only a few seconds his behaviour changes and he is in problem-solving-mode.
He´s scum, but he still loves Katrina.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Have to disagree on Warren....again!
-- Robert, 11:11:21 02/11/02 Mon
"He´s scum, but he still loves Katrina."
Yes, but by your description, Warren's love seems remarkably similar
to how I love my computer. If someone stoled my computer I would
be annoyed at the bother -- probably more than the annoyance Warren
showed at having scragged his ex.
I regret that we are stuck with an imprecise word such as "love"
to try to describe such a fundamentally important aspect of our
humanity. I will grant that Warren was beginning to love Katrina
to the extent that he found that a real girl friend was better
than a skankbot. He never loved Katrina to the extend of bestowing
her anything like respect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Have to disagree on Warren....
-- Etrangere, 12:48:47 02/11/02 Mon
>>However, I think the main point of the episode was to
revisit the Buffy/Spike relationship.
I agree with that. But what's funny is how some think Spike is
the abuser in this relationship, and others thinks it's Buffy.
Truth is they both act a little as victims between each others,
but I don't really see anyone guilty for that, but themselves.
They have to learn self-respect, that's all.
>>Only lucky circumstances save the women -- Harmony's intervention
allows Buffy to escape while the shot duration of the love-slave
spell allows Katrina to break free
That's where you're wrong. Spike was the one to set Buffy free
in Crush as as she could fight back Drusilla, and that despite
his threat to kill her if she wouldn't give him a crumb.
>>Yes, Buffy has free will, but free will means sometimes
making the wrong choices
The choices you make for you are the good choices for you. You
don't decide what's good for Buffy for her own sake, she does.
>>He wasn't in love -- he was obsessed. He's evil
I'm with grifter there. I don't see any correlation with being
evil and being incapable of love. If life could be that simple
!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Is that you, Stranger? ;o)
-- WW, 17:33:15 02/11/02 Mon
Nice touch. Like the new nickname.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> But it's not anymore
the name of Sandor's horse :'( thanks, though :) -- Etrangere,
18:43:23 02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Have to disagree on Warren....
-- vandalia, 12:52:40 02/11/02 Mon
Buffy escapes not because of free will, but because she is powerful
enough to force Spike out of her way.
Katrina dies because she isn't a superhero.
Beg to differ, here: Buffy escapes because Spike chooses her over
Drucilla, who was trying to kill her while she was chained up
and Spike was busy getting Harmony off his back (literally). Spike
unlocks her manacles and stands with her against Drucilla (again,
literally). This inspires Drucilla's 'poor Spike, even I can't
save you now' comment before she runs off.
As for Buffy seeking out Spike, I see parallels between B/S and
B/Parker. With Parker, Buffy was manipulated into sleeping with
her -- using the I'm-a-sensitive-guy-you-should-sleep-with-me
approach. Spike manipulates Buffy as well, only he makes her feel
worthless and tells her that he's the best she'll ever do.
Again, we must be watching two different shows. Spike didn't manipulate
Buffy into sleeping with him, unless getting into a knock-down
drag-out fight is your idea of manipulation. We know (and more
importantly, Buffy knows) that that is how you push Spike's buttons.
It has _not_ been shown to be a way to push Buffy's (though its
been hinted at, and Spike himself may suspect). She is the one
that initiated the sex, not Spike. Then afterwards, _she's_ the
one who wants to run out after having her fun, and he's the one
wondering what he did wrong. If anyone is manipulating anyone
in this relationship, its Buffy with her 'I want you but only
til I have you then I hate you until I want you again what do
you mean talk there is no us let's have sex' approach to the relationship.
I have yet to see Spike make her feel worthless (feel bad, yes,
feel worthless? You don't tell someone they're amazing if that's
what you're trying to do) but Buffy feels bad because Buffy thinks
that what Buffy is doing with Spike is wrong, yet she continues
to do it.
and Spike, like Parker, does everything he can to
influence Buffy's decisions to her detriment and his benefit.
How exactly is it to Buffy's detriment? Does he try to influence
to his benefit? Damn straight, most of us do when we're directly
involved. But Spike's help has saved her and her friends (and
the world) numerous times. He tries to get her to talk about how
she feels about what she's doing, and she has none of it. He asks
her if she even likes him, she says sometimes, he says 'but you
like what I do to you.' So he does what she seems to like. Is
this relationship all kinds of messed up? Yes, but not for lack
of trying on Spike's part.
As to Warren moving quickly into cleanup mode -- so did Spike.
The very next episode after Crush (when he chained Buffy in his
basement and threatened to murder her if she
didn't say she loves him) he shows up at the Magic Box trying
to charm his way out of the situation. That didn't work? He put
in his order for the Buffybot.
Key words here are 'threatened' (Spike is past master at threats,
almost as bad as Buffy is at the 'I never want to see you again,
same time next Tuesday?' thing). Spike could have let Drucilla
kill Buffy. He didn't. Warren killed Katrina, period. Full stop.
Therein lies the difference. When the chips were down, Spike couldn't
let the woman he loved be hurt, even though he put her in the
situation where she could have been in the first place. As for
'charming his way out of it' at the Magic Box, that's a far sight
from getting Harmony and Drucilla together to concoct a plan to
make Dawn think she killed her sister after the deed was done.
And it also didn't work. Giles told him to 'get over it' and Spike
tried the best way he knew how -- not by kidnapping Buffy again,
but by having a substitute created (which one could argue Harmony
was for quite some time beforehand. But I suppose it would have
been better had he just found another girl who looked like Buffy
and satisfied himself that way). Was it gross and obscene? Yes.
Hello, vampire. On the grand scale of thwarted vampire love this
ranks just slightly below his 'kidnap Willow to make her do a
love spell to get Dru back.' Like all Spike's best-laid plans,
this gang aglee, but the only one hurt by it (besides Xander's
eyes) was Spike. The same cannot be said for Warren.
So, yes, Warren does have problems. He wasn't in love -- he was
obsessed. He's evil. But he's also Spike minus the leather duster
and the accent. Like Spike said to Dawn
-- it doesn't matter what you start out as, it matters what you
are now. And right now he is a manipulative, possessive sadist
who gets off on tormenting the person he
"loves".
Again, I beg to disagree. A sadist is someone who likes inflicting
pain. Spike seems to like receiving it ('the way you make it hurt
in all the wrong places'), which makes him a masochist. Possessive?
To a certain extent, I guess. But aren't we all? Someone who 'gets
off' on tormenting the person they love? Yeah, he was all over
that mocking her about digging her way out of her coffin, and
making fun of her when she came to ask him to help her with Dawn
instead of getting up and putting his own desires on hold to get
dressed and look for her, and the way he kicked her out in 'Gone'
when she came willingly to him (invisible or not) even under the
strain of considerable...pressure by her not to because she wasn't
'all there' sure mark him as someone who loves tormenting the
person they love. You want to talk about tormenting, how about
calling someone who you've initiated two clinches with an 'evil,
disgusting thing' and insulting them at every turn (when you're
not jumping their bones)? Has Spike been manipulative in the past?
Oh yeah. Has he been vicious? ('What did it take to pry apart
the Slayer's dimpled knees?') You bet. But we haven't really seen
a vicious Spike towards Buffy since he professed his love for
her. (With the possible exception of the 'You came back wrong'
fight, which could be argued either way, especially with his 'I
wasn't planning on hurting you... much.') Does this mean Spike
is good and pure and redeemed? Not by a long shot. The monster
and the man are at serious war within him right now. But refusing
to acknowledge that is as unjust as putting the onus of Spike's
behavior on Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Victims and victimizers .
. . -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 17:44:58 02/11/02 Mon
. . . are often the same people. There is some of both in Spike
and Buffy; they both use and are used by their significant other,
they can show great kindness and self-sacrifice and immense pettiness
and self-absorption.
Like real people, in a way. Perhaps that is why so many people
watch.
The best recent example I've seen of this duality, victim/victimizer,
in recent mass media was the movie some two years ago, "Election."
ALL the main characters are both, depending on the circumstances;
some, of course, come out of the film's events better than others.
Check it out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Whoa! Where do I start? -- Sarah, 21:55:57 02/10/02 Sun
This season we've seen Buffy repeatedly seek Spike out. In Afterlife,
All the Way, and Life Serial, she went to him in friendship, and
he respected that. No pushing her for anything further. If anything
he treated her with absolute reverence. And then of course we
come to OMWF.
It is at this point when the relationship changes. But again,
who changes it? It is Buffy who follows him out into the alley
and kisses him. From that point on she is clearly the agressor
in the relationship. At least the physical agressor. The only
thing Spike tries to force her to do is talk to him. We see this
in Tabula Rasa, Smashed, and Gone. But it is Buffy who is the
physical agressor. In TR he just looks at her, and finding her
unresponsive, he leaves, she follows, and she kisses him. In Smashed,
she throws the first punch, she kisses him first, and she initiates
the sex. In Gone she goes to his crypt, slams him against a wall,
and rips his clothes off. He also tells her to leave, and she
attempts to shut him up by performing oral sex on him. Hardly
the acts of someone who is not strong enough to enforce their
will.
I find this idea that Spike has some sort of hypnotic appeal that
forces Buffy to submit to his will to be frankly rather funny,
but even more than that, slightly insulting. It is taking the
power of Buffy's decisions away from her. You maintain that Spike
can take care of himself, I maintain that Buffy can as well. What
Dead Things was saying more than anything else was that Buffy
was responsible for her own actions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Whoa! Where do I start? -- Robert, 22:39:06 02/10/02
Sun
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I will rebut only a few
of your points, because I don't have time to research them all
and on some of them I agree with you.
"In Smashed, she throws the first punch, she kisses him first,
and she initiates the sex."
Buffy did throw the first punch, but Spike initiated contact and
worked her insecurities against her. The question of who initiated
sex is complicated by the question of when sex actually began.
I would argue that the foreplay began even before the fighting
did.
"I find this idea that Spike has some sort of hypnotic appeal
that forces Buffy to submit to his will to be frankly rather funny,
but even more than that, slightly insulting."
I do also and this is not what I believe is being portrayed. Spike
and Buffy's relationship is a metaphor for the wife abusing husband.
The wife is physically free to leave at any time, but psychologically
not able to. Such relationships do exist and I have personal experience
of one such.
I believe that Buffy does not want this relationship with Spike,
but psychologically cannot end it herself. She needs her friends
and family to provide her the will to break with Spike.
How long would Willow stay off the magic, if Tara started using
spells on her the way Amy did? Amy could not exert much emotional
control or influence on Willow -- Tara most certainly could. Willow
needed the support of friends and family to stay off the magic.
Buffy rid the house of all magically related nick-nacks, to provide
Willow just such support.
Spike and Buffy's relationship could eventually become something
closer to one of truly mutual respect. But it isn't there yet
and I hold the ending on "Dead Things" as evidence of
my arguement.
"... responsible for her own actions."
Everyone must be responsible for there own actions, but it is
not that simple. Some states allow the arguement of "battered
wife syndrome" as a mitigating arguement for spousal murder.
This is acknowledgement that psychological domination can place
an otherwise intelligent educated person into a hopeless situation.
By hopeless, I mean that the person has no hope. Buffy, at this
time, is severely lacking in hope. Who will provide her hope?
Tara, for a start!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Whoa! Where do I start? -- Rendyl, 06:15:57
02/11/02 Mon
***Everyone must be responsible for there own actions, but it
is not that simple***
Actually it is. To use your alcoholism example I can have a friend
who is trying to not to drink. I can help but ultimately that
friend -must- make the choice. No matter how badly I think they
need to stop or stay stopped in the end the only person who can
decide that is them. To offer them a beer would be at best inconsiderate
and at worst rude and possibly cruel. But it still would not be
my responsibility to make sure they did not drink. I am always
disturbed when one persons problems or bad choices are made out
to be another persons fault.
Buffy can break Spike in two. Something that is missing from most
abusive relationships. Most 5'2" women need firepower to
effectively fight back against a 6ft guy. As for the 'wife beater'
theme, take a good look at who is a bloody pulpy mess and still
comes back for more, in the hope maybe she will love him.
Buffy (or what we have seen so far) needs Spike to help her feel,
not neccessarily to love her. In most abusive relationships there
is the 'but he really loves me and is sorry' aspect that is very
much missing with Spike and Buffy.
Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Whoa! Where do I start? -- Robert,
07:58:31 02/11/02 Mon
"To offer them a beer would be at best inconsiderate and
at worst rude and possibly cruel. But it still would not be my
responsibility to make sure they did not drink."
This is not exactly what I was trying to communicate. There is
a difference between responsibility and blame. The alcoholic is
responsible for his actions, even while drunk. On the other hand,
for a true alcoholic, the attraction of alcohol is very powerful.
An unscrupulous person can use this to sabatage the efforts of
a recovering alcoholic. I maintain that, in this case, responsibility
and blame do not go to the same person. This is the sense I am
trying to get across about Buffy's situation.
"Buffy can break Spike in two."
Yes, but only physically, while Spike can break Buffy emotionally.
Spike couldn't get away with this before Buffy took the swan dive
off the tower.
In no sense is Buffy the abuser of Spike, simply because Spike
lets Buffy to hit him. Spike knows what he is and is comfortable
with himself. He has no friends or family to tie him to Sunnydale.
He would have no difficulty walking away if the situation became
not to his liking.
Buffy's friends and family can help put her back together again,
except they don't yet know the depths of her despair.
"Buffy (or what we have seen so far) needs Spike to help
her feel, ..."
This would tend to support my argument that Spike has an emotional
hook into Buffy. Do you think this dependence is a good thing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Whoa! Where do I start? -- Sarah,
08:10:38 02/11/02 Mon
"Spike knows what he is and is comfortable with himself."
I don't see this at all. Spike hates that he loves Buffy. One
of the reasons this relationship is happening is because they
both relate to the idea of belonging no where. In Crush Spike
tells Buffy that he knows what he feels for her is wrong. In Dead
Things he tells her that he's tried not to love her. He is in
no way comfortable with what he is. I see Buffy as much more able
to walk away from this situation than Spike. He is the one who
is hopelessly in love and unable to say no to her. I personally
think Buffy is getting to that same place, but she isn't there
yet. Really we're seeing Buffy going through all of the emotions
we saw Spike go through last year. He fought as hard as he could
to deny his feelings for her, and that's what Buffy is doing right
now. I don't buy the addiction metaphor, but if we're going to
apply it, I see Spike as much more addicted to Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Whoa! Where do I start?
(spoilers) -- Rendyl, 09:58:54 02/11/02 Mon
***In Crush Spike tells Buffy that he knows what he feels for
her is wrong. In Dead Things he tells her that he's tried not
to love her. He is in no way comfortable with what he is.***
Much as I sigh over it (cause ya know..cheekbones) I agree. Loving
Buffy, being involved with Buffy, is dangerous for Spike. It is
bad for him and it may even be seen as a 'death wish'. It should
point up just how unconventional a pairing it is when even Spike
thinks it is wrong. I still think not being able to kill Buffy
(or any humans for that matter) may have driven Spike over the
edge. Maybe he -needs- to love her to justify all that he has
lost because of her.
I still think an abuse metaphor or comparison is difficult because
of the people involved. Spike is a vampire. Sex and relationships
follow different rules and patterns. The only thing he has to
go on is 'well, it worked with Drusilla, I can try it with Buffy.'
Buffy is not girl-normal. Any relationship she is in is going
to have its odd moments.
As for being dependent on Spike (rob), is it wrong to depend on
other people? I depend on the people I care about and they depend
on me. I do not consider it a failing in myself or in them.
Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Analogies are dangerous -- Sophist, 09:32:36
02/11/02 Mon
because there is often an important distinction that can get lost
by the seeming similarity. I don't like the analogies being made
to alcoholism and magic. Amy's spell on Willow was done to Willow
by Amy with no option for Willow to exercise her will (pun maybe
intended). Alcoholism involves a disease in which we suspect that
the will is unable to operate.
"Manipulation" differs from both of these. For one thing,
it's probably impossible to distinguish it from "persuasion".
The former is just a pejorative way of expressing the latter.
I think that we tend to see "manipulation" only after
we have already decided for other reasons that we don't like the
relationship.
The bigger problem is that if we say that a person is being manipulated,
we are denying that that person has free will. While I'm willing
to do that in cases of physical force (Amy and Willow, for example),
I find it much more problematic in the case of "psychological
domination". This runs dangerously near the attitude that
"I can decide what's best for you." It denies the integrity
of the other person.
I better be clear here. I do NOT believe that you are adopting
this attitude. It's not at all clear where ME is going with B/S,
and there are aspects of Buffy's vulnerability that make her ability
to exercise her will open to dispute. But while there is some
evidence to support your view, I agree with Sarah -- Buffy is
the one who has controlled this relationship. I prefer to see
it as an exercise of her own free will until definitively shown
otherwise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Analogies are dangerous -- Robert,
10:48:48 02/11/02 Mon
This is a wonderful response. There definitely are dangers to
over extending analogies, metaphors, parables, etc. Sometimes
it is the only way I can communicate an idea. As an electrical
engineer, I am barely literate by the standards of this board,
so I must use those few tools I do have.
I had written a rebuttal, but decided I was mostly repeating that
which I had already written. To do so would only devolve the discussion
into an argument, which I hope to avoid. I want to thank all those
who responded. I am impressed by the different interpretations
of what we all see in this show. Maybe our interpretations will
converge as we see the remainder of the season story arc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> When it doesn't mean "yes." -- bookworm, 16:45:13
02/11/02 Mon
Buffy's behavior is the very definition of the term "mixed
signals." She says "no," but goes in search of
Spike. She says "no," he says "stop me," and
she doesn't stop him from taking her from behind because she doesn't
really want him to stop. In this relationship, "no,"
means "yes," and saying "no," may be part
of the kick because she knows he isn't going to stop pushing.
The relationship is complex and definitely very screwed up --
equal parts love, aggression, masochism/sadism, desire, unhealthy
possessiveness and desperation -- but it is light years away from
master-slave. Who's the master? Who's the slave? Both of them
by turns. Spike's as much a victim of his love for Buffy as she
is of her desire for him. Buffy's capable of throwing Spike across
a room, punching him in the nose or staking him if she truly doesn't
want him to touch her. She's punched him and thrown him out of
her house since the sexual relationship started. If it were a
willing Dawn, it would be statutory rape at the very least. It
would be closer to forcible rape because Dawn doesn't have the
physical strength to fend off Spike or any other amorous vampire.
If she says no and he ignores her, she couldn't enforce it. On
the other hand, she's only a year or two younger than Buffy was
when Buffy's cradle robbing creature of the knight boyfriend took
her virginity and went evil. Liam died when he was 27 or 28 --
a good 10 years older than Buffy. So, did Angel rape Buffy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> technically -- Vickie, 17:10:52 02/11/02 Mon
In California, the age of consent is eighteen. Buffy, at seventeen,
couldn't legally give consent.
So, technically, it was statutory rape. (legal eagles here, correct
me if I'm wrong!)
Dawn is two years younger, and arguably a whole lot less mature
(hard to believe when you remember Buffy in The Witch, but) than
her sister at the same age.
Question to the great minds on this board: Was Buffy fifteen,
or sixteen when she was called? That is, did the whole Emery High
thing (the movie) happen during her freshman year? Or was it in
the first half of her sophomore year? (Remember, WTTHM happens
mid-year.)
I'm thinking sophomore, but I defer to your wisdoms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> She was fifteen and a freshman when she was
called. -- bookworm, 17:53:56 02/11/02 Mon
The series started during her sophomore year, when she was sixteen.
She slept with Angel on her seventeenth birthday.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> But my question was -- Vickie, 21:04:04
02/11/02 Mon
Was she called earlier that same year (sophomore year) or the
previous (freshman) year?
See, season 1 was a half season. A mid-season replacement. So
it's possible that the whole movie plot happened early sophomore
year.
It's also possible it was freshman year. I don't see evidence
one way or the other.
You're right about the Angel timing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Buffy was fifteen and a freshman when called
-- Scroll, 08:25:48 02/12/02 Tue
In S4's A New Man, Buffy tells Riley she'd been a Slayer since
age 15. And in The Witch (S1) she tells Xander and Willow that
she'd been slaying for over a year already. I don't know where
the movie fits in the timeline of the tv show, especially since
I think the movie Buffy was in her senior year. Oh well, Joss
sucks at math.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> technically -- Vickie, 17:15:54 02/11/02 Mon
In California, the age of consent is eighteen. Buffy, at seventeen,
couldn't legally give consent.
So, technically, it was statutory rape. (legal eagles here, correct
me if I'm wrong!)
Dawn is two years younger, and arguably a whole lot less mature
(hard to believe when you remember Buffy in The Witch, but) than
her sister at the same age.
Question to the great minds on this board: Was Buffy fifteen,
or sixteen when she was called? That is, did the whole Emery High
thing (the movie) happen during her freshman year? Or was it in
the first half of her sophomore year? (Remember, WTTHM happens
mid-year.)
I'm thinking sophomore, but I defer to your wisdoms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> apologies for the post post -- Vickie, 17:17:37
02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Buffy & Spike and unhealthy relationships
-- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 17:50:42 02/11/02 Mon
Maybe we should all just conclude that we have a "creatures
of light and darkness" co-dependency thing going on here
and move on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taming Spike -- LeeAnn, 21:14:56 02/10/02 Sun
I'm not religious so talk of souls and redemption just confuses
me. I think of vampires, not as serial murderers, but as man-eating
tigers and of Buffy as a tiger hunter. We can't have man-eating
tigers roaming the streets or man-eating vampires roaming Sunnydale.
It is the man-eating part that makes it necessary to slay vampires,
not the vampire part. Tigers are dangerous to humans. Humans have
long demonized anything that is dangerous to them, from lions
and tigers and wolves to other humans. The Watcher's Council might
have demonized...demons. Is Spike a serial murderer or just a
dangerous predator? Does he need to be redeemed or merely tamed?
The changes we have seen in Spike remind me of the words of the
fox in Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's The Little Prince. The
little prince asks the fox,
"What does that mean--'tame'?"
"It is an act too often neglected," said the fox. "It
means to establish ties."
"To establish ties?"
"Just that," said the fox. "To me, you are still
nothing more than a little boy who is just like a hundred thousand
other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your
part, have no need of me. To you I am nothing more than a fox
like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then
we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the
world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world . . ."
"My life is very monotonous," he said. "I hunt
chickens; men hunt me. All chickens are just alike, and all the
men are just alike. And in consequence, I am a little bored. But
if you tame me, it will be as if the sun came to shine on my life.
I shall know the sound of a step that will be different from all
the others. Other steps send me hurrying back underneath the ground.
Yours will call me, like music out of my burrow. And then look:
you see the grain-fields down yonder? I do not eat bread. Wheat
is of no use to me. The wheat fields have nothing to say to me.
And that is sad. But you have hair that is the color of gold.
Think how wonderful that will be when you have tamed me! The grain,
which is also golden, will bring me back the thought of you. And
I shall love to listen to the wind in the wheat . . . "
The fox gazed at the little prince, for a long time. "Please--tame
me!" he said.
"One only understands the things that one tames," said
the fox. "If you want a friend, tame me . . . "
"What must I do, to tame you?" asked the little prince.
"You must be very patient," replied the fox. First you
will sit down at a little distance from me--like that--in the
grass. I shall look at you out of the corner of my eye, and you
will say nothing. Words are the source of misunderstandings. But
you will sit a little closer to me, every day . . . "
So the little prince tamed the fox. And when the hour of his departure
drew near--
"Ah," said the fox, "I shall cry."
"It is your own fault," said the little prince. "I
never wished you any sort of harm; but you
wanted me to tame you . . . "
"Yes, that is so," said the fox.
"But now you are going to cry!" said the little prince.
"Yes, that is so," said the fox.
"Then it has done you no good at all!"
"It has done me good," said the fox, "because of
the color of the wheat fields."
"Men have forgotten this truth," said the fox. "But
you must not forget it. You become
responsible, forever, for what you have tamed."
Spike has been tamed by his love for Buffy. He has established
ties, first with her, then with Joyce and Dawn, then with the
Scoobies. The more tame Spike becomes the more ties he establishes
with people, the more of them have become unique to him. People
are slowly ceasing to be just Happy Meals with legs. He sees more
and more of them as special, not as interchangeable snacks. Two
years ago in Lover's Walk Spike threatened to put a bottle through
Willow's face and kill Xander and we believed him. It seems unlikely
that today's tamer, more "tied" Spike, even unchipped,
would do such a thing. Willow and Xander are no longer ciphers
to him. When Spike goes to test his chip he doesn't try it on
any of the Scoobies but on alleygirl, someone with whom he has
no ties.
As Spike became tame Buffy's step called him like music out of
his underground crypt. Even when she punched him or mocked him
he would seek her out, patrol with her, hang about outside her
house, sneak into it, protect her, help her, suffer torture for
her, was willing to die for her. She had tamed him, even if it
was not deliberate. The tamed Spike became a friend and every
day it seems she sits a littler nearer to him.
As Spike has been tamed so he has tamed Buffy. Despite having
killed hundreds or thousands of vampires, for Buffy this vampire
has become unique. For every time Spike threatened and planned
to kill the slayer and then preferred to dance rather than to
strike so there was another time when Buffy swore to kill Spike,
promised to kill Spike, tried to kill Spike but then never did.
Never pursued him when she had the advantage. Never tried as hard
as she could. Almost like, I have a hangnail, I can't go chase
and kill Spike. The real reason seemed to be: it's fun fighting
with Spike, bickering with Spike, even tormenting Spike. If I
kill him I'll miss the fun. Who else ever made her as angry, as
engaged, as passionate as Spike? As her step calls him out of
his crypt so his calls her into it.
The more Spike has been tamed by his love of Buffy the more she
and he need each other. As women once were said to have the function
of taming man, civilizing the beast, so Spike's relationship with
Buffy has tamed him, turned him into a man by treating him like
a man. He even has furniture now and more than outfit. The fox
says, "what you tame you are forever responsible for."
Spike behaves as if he were responsible for Buffy, even when she
is unwilling or disdainful of his help. When will Buffy feel a
comparable responsibility for Spike, the vampire she has tamed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Normality vs. Abnormality, Instincts and the Soul, and Spike/Angel
-- Charlemagne20, 21:59:28 02/10/02 Sun
IN the Buffyverse there is good and there is evil that is automatic
and irrefutable but the lines between good and evil are not so
clearly drawn as they are in our world. In our world we can equate
fairly standardly "good=normal" and "bad=abonormal"
It is not normal behavior to kill people and drink their blood
for instance, to rape women with magic balls and kill them, it
is not normal to turn into giant snakes and eat high school students.
However Demons are not really animals because they possess logical
rationalizing systems of judgement no matter whether they possess
a soul or not. Spike proves demons can act in a certain manner
and demons such as Doyle and the Buddhist warrior demon all lean
towards the idea they can be good if they wish and some demons
are in fact naturally good or at least not malignant (balancer
demons for instance) BUT I believe we can safely say that Good
is UNNATURAL for demons.
It is rightfully a difficult concept to understand but aside from
likely being regarded as a particularly "holy" individual
in Hell the Master was a perfectly sane and valuable member of
the community, the same with Demon Darla, Drucilla, Angelus, The
Judge, Moloch, etc. Demon religion, government, and family relationships
all revolve around evil and the striving for greater evil just
as the opposite is true for humans.
However Demons like Spike, Whistler, Fire Girl, and Angel are
distinctly ABNORMAL among their breed and the equivalents of the
Geoffrey Dalhmer and Hitlers among their breed no doubt. Think
about it this way they not only rebel against every traditions
demons have but these demons furthermore actively hunt down and
MURDER "normal" Demons for acting in a way they're people
have venerated for millenia and Demon "souls/spirits"
likely draw them too naturally
Thus spike and warren are Taoistic examples of the relationship
between man and demon. Warren has denied his natural feelings
of humanity and love and sympathy in order to gain power. People
always refer to temptations to evil but the same feelings no doubt
draw demons and evil men to good like moths to flame. Spike is
drawn to repress his evil instincts because of the sense of community
buffy and her friends give him and the power he gets preying on
demons.
Not to mention the trauma from the chip and he was never a particularly
religious/stable member of the community to begin with.
Angel is an exception among demons because near as I can tell
he is a being from both worlds. He is drawn to evil as a Demon
but also drawn to good which more or less makes him torn in two
directions and only concious choice to do evil making him who
he is (I think this is a better system than he is a human in a
demon body). In a way Angel is schizophrenic.
Spike is psychopathic and anti-social among demons two very distinct
different mental illnesses as demons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Normality vs. Abnormality, Instincts and the Soul,
and Spike/Angel -- yez, 10:34:15 02/11/02 Mon
I have to disagree with the assertion that most demons are drawn
to evil, badness, etc. I don't think we know that for a fact.
Drawing that distinction from BtVS slayer would be like watching
a cop show and reasoning that most humans must be criminaly inclined
-- in both cases, you see a disproportionate number of "evildoers."
The demons Buffy goes after -- or that come after her -- are typically
in the "evil" category. They're trying to take over
the town, open the Hellmouth, kill her, etc. On "Angel,"
this idea is explored a little better, I think, and it's clear
that there are many kind of demons, many which are benign.
Even on Buffy, "Into the Woods" showed that there are
some vampires that are fine without creating chaos or destruction,
that choose instead to engage in mutally-beneficial relationships
with humans. They only go after Buffy when their operation is
threatened. We also know that all manner of creatures patronize
Willie's, and Buffy doesn't see fit to raid that place on a regular
basis, perhaps indicating that there are some "other"
creatures that don't pose immediate threats to humans or human
order.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Normality vs. Abnormality, Instincts and
the Soul, and Spike/Angel -- Rufus, 17:33:17 02/11/02 Mon
When JW made his comments on good and evil, he was talking about
the souled vs the soulless....so all we have to figure out is
if the vampire is the only soul-free demon and if the soul only
takes into the consideration the human soul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Taming Spike -- on-topic Masquerade, 22:13:19 02/10/02
Sun
This is an interesting perspective on Spike, but here's another
one.
I think your idea relies on a very old-fashioned idea, that "taming"
is a good thing. In recent years, animal activists have argued
that what "taming" does is make animals subservient
to the needs of humans, and that the relationship is just plain
"unnatural". The animals no longer live in their natural
environment according to their nature-given instincts.
Tamed animals on this perspective have simply "given up"
any hope of freedom and adapt their behavior to pleasing their
masters and living day-to-day. They may appear "happy"
and content with a lifestyle that demands little of them (like
a pet or a caged animal in a zoo) or a lot of them (working animals),
but what could they and their descendents become,out in the wild,
living as nature intended them to?
Spike, a sentient being, is of course not animal-like in his intelligence
and emotions. But that makes the idea of "taming" even
more insidious. Humans coerced into slavery were "tamed"
and lived out their lives as best as they could under circumstances
that constricted their choices as individuals, and their ability
to grow as individuals "untamed".
Spike's growth as an individual is best judged when he acts freely,
not because he has been "adopted" by a human who has
expectations from him, but because his behavior comes from inside.
Free Spike. Send him away from Buffy and take out his chip. If
he can evolve, then kudos for him. If he continues to kill, all
we can do is what we've done with humans and animals that pose
a direct threat to our lives--imprison him or stake him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> So Masq, you telling me to put away the collar and
leash?:):):) -- Rufus, 23:29:00 02/10/02 Sun
I think the idea of taming is one that only describes the start
of the process that Spike may be going through. It started when
he put down that shotgun and sat by Buffy. He came from out of
the shadow into the porch light to be with Buffy. Now Buffy being
the sole motivation for Spike being a good boy only goes so far.
For me to see him as safe to be around humans he has to understand
why people aren't just happy meals on legs, he has to like more
than the decorative trappings of humanity. Spike has to come to
value more than just Buffy. If I see Spike connect the value of
the survival of humanity and fight for it because he believs in
it, then I'll be much closer to seeing him as more than Buffy's
pet demon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Taming Spike -- LeeAnn, 00:11:32 02/11/02 Mon
"Tamed animals on this perspective have simply "given
up" any hope of freedom and adapt their behavior to pleasing
their masters and living day-to-day. They may appear "happy"
and content with a lifestyle that demands little of them (like
a pet or a caged animal in a zoo) or a lot of them (working animals),
but what could they and their descendents become,out in the wild,
living as nature intended them to?" -Masquerade
It's true that many domestic animals and animals in zoos have
terrible lives. I don't consider them tamed so much as enslaved
or imprisoned since they have no choice. I grew up in a world
without leash laws where dogs were free partners who did as they
chose but chose to be with people while at the same time hunting,
fighting, and coming and going as they wished. Much as many cats
still do. I was thinking of the relationship between the little
prince and the fox, between the wolf/dog and early humans, between
Joy Adamson and Elsa the lion. Creatures who were free yet still
tame, who were free yet enjoyed and benefited from their interactions
with a one or a few humans. Creatures who loved and trusted across
a species boundary without coercion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Taming Spike -- Darby, 09:58:02 02/11/02 Mon
First off, great post, LeeAnn - I almost skipped by it, figuring
that we've collectively beaten the topic to death, but this was
a fresh perspective that I really enjoyed.
Masq, there is no "intent" to Nature, and it isn't fair
to make a blanket judgment about domestication or zoological confinement.
Domestic animals are not somehow "separate" from Nature,
anymore than humans are - they have just entered into, and adapted
to, a set of relationships that their ancestors didn't experience
but were predisposed to. Domestic animals - pet-types especially
- are drawn from heirarchical social species where humans can
become the alpha-pack-member (there's a reason why foxes are not
generally domesticated). A dog, or a cat, or a horse is following
base instincts adjusted by many generations of selection (by humans,
true, but the process is indistinguishable from what the environment
would do "naturally"). Our ideas of what is and isn't
"natural" are no more valid than domesticators' ideas
of what is "valuable" - it's a perspective call, artificial
in both instances.
Domestication is not easily equated with slavery unless you can
show that the basic nature of the animals is devalued, as clearly
happens with human slavery - is a dog somehow less than a wolf?
Again, it's debatable but certainly not clear.
Confinement is another thing - I think that confinement that produces
torment in the confined is a terrible thing, but confinement with
mimicry of proper surroundings is fine. Many animals in the world
wander only insofar as they have to to find food - snapping turtles,
for instance, tend to sit (sometimes for years) in the same spot
if enough food wanders by, moving only if conditions change or
for reproductive purposes. I mention this because I have a snapping
turtle in a tank with fairly little wandering room, and have no
reason to believe him to be tormented as long as the food supply
continues (my painted turtles, who are naturally swimmers and
pursuit hunters, I have in a much larger tank more suited to their
"natural" habits). The same types of considerations
work for many animals - a bit of room and, if needed, social interaction
and enough food and they become content (why would they not be?).
We may feel guilty, especially when we run across the instances
where animals' needs are not considered (an unfortunate fact of
many zoos and such, and a disturbing number of research laboratories),
but it doesn't make the idea universally evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Taming Spike -- yez, 10:30:53 02/11/02 Mon
Wonderful post, Lee Ann, thanks for sharing that. I agree that
recognizing individuals among other creatures generally makes
it harder to kill or eat them.
I just thought about how, when Spike discovered his chip was malfunctioning
and he makes that attempted threatening call to Buffy to demand
she meet him in the cemetary, he calls her the generic "Slayer"
-- not her name as an individual.
The trick, of course, is in whether Spike can generalize those
ties to all humans, not just the Scoobies, as Buffy's responsibility
is to the human world, not just her friends...
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Taming Spike -- LeeAnn, 10:50:50 02/11/02 Mon
The trick, of course, is in whether Spike can generalize those
ties to all humans, not just the Scoobies, as Buffy's
responsibility is to the human world, not just her friends...
- yez
I agree. Only when Spike can generalize his ties to Buffy, Dawn,& the
Scoobies to all humans will he truely be tamed..or redeemed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Taming Spike -- Kat, 17:50:54 02/11/02 Mon
Wow. Really fantastic post. For some reason that story really
moved me: very beautifully written, and very applicable to Spike.
Sigh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Post Article on Sci fi including BTVS.... -- Rufus,
03:33:49 02/11/02 Mon
www.washingtonpost.com
Sci-Fi's New TV Generation
Complex Mythology, Aliens and Youth Are Keys to Success On UPN,
the WB
By Tracy L. Scott
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 10, 2002; Page Y07
Target an audience with unstable viewing habits, discover their
joys and fears and create programs that will make them feel they
belong to a unique clique.
This formula has been used by youth-oriented newcomer networks
UPN and the WB. The result is a new breed of sci-fi dramas featuring
protagonists with whom young viewers can relate and identify.
In the process, the networks may have found the secret to creating
successful sci-fi shows, which have generally -- with some exceptions
-- had difficulty attracting an audience on the more established
networks.
NBC, for instance, tried this sort of programming in the early
1980s. "V," about visitors from another planet, aired
for nine months in 1984, and 1983's "Manimal," centered
on a superhero with the ability to transform himself into animals,
aired for three. "Sleepwalkers," from 1997, aired twice
on NBC.
For one season in 1990, CBS telecast "The Flash," about
a chemist endowed with superhuman speed. More recently, CBS's
"Wolf Lake," which premiered this fall, aired only four
times.
By contrast, the WB's "Charmed," about three sisters
who are witches and vanquish demons, is in its fourth season.
UPN's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," whose young heroine
uses supernatural means and lots of action to eliminate evil-doers,
is in its sixth.
Some of those behind these successful shows describe them as blends
of two genres, sci-fi and drama. "It's like 'Party of Five'
with monsters," said Marti Noxon, executive producer of "Buffy"
(Tuesdays at 8).
Despite the programs' focus on unreal characters, viewers still
connect with the humanity of these fictional figures and the topics
addressed in the shows.
"We relate to these alien characters more than we relate
to the human characters," said Jason Katims, executive producer
of "Roswell," a drama about young aliens living in New
Mexico. It follows "Buffy" on the UPN schedule.
This idea of telling stories from the point of view of non-humans
is a notable difference when comparing these newer series to classics
such as "Star Trek," according to Katims, who believes
the most significant element -- which younger viewers seem to
appreciate -- is that these outsiders are attempting to find their
place in society. They are not like the rest of the world and
are struggling to find their niche, he said.
"Buffy's" Noxon agreed. "The notion of being different
and more special than your peers is very appealing to young viewers,"
she said. "It's that notion of, 'If only they could see the
real me.' It's wish fulfillment. We project ourselves in that
role and imagine there's something wonderful about us that people
don't know and can't see."
David Greenwalt, co-creator and executive producer of "Angel,"
the "Buffy" spinoff series about a good vampire, said
these sci-fi dramas take real-life situations that most people
have experienced and exaggerate them.
Greenwalt, whose series airs Mondays at 9 on the WB, recalled
an episode of "Buffy" in which a high school student
literally disappeared. "We have all been in a situation where
we felt so insignificant that we thought we must be invisible,"
he said. "We can take that metaphor another step.
"People want to escape, but to something real. They want
to escape and feel better."
Brad Kern, executive producer of "Charmed" (Thursdays
at 9), seconded the idea that viewers like to think of themselves
as being in a better place. "There is so much harsh reality
in everyday life," he said. "These shows allow the audience
to imagine. People secretly want to imagine."
"People are looking for [heroes] in their lives and in themselves,"
said Alfred Gough, co-creator and executive producer of the WB's
"Smallville," about Kryptonian Clark Kent's youth in
Kansas (Tuesdays at 9).
Noxon said she thinks the complexity of the storylines helps these
shows hold their audiences. They tend to center around "a
complete universe with its own complex set of rules and mythology,"
she said. "The result is a complex, layered universe . .
. It's something [viewers] can hook into from week to week, where
they are going to feel like they understand the rules and the
way the game works."
"We have stalker-like fans," said Greenwalt, referring
to the many Internet fan sites that dwell on many facets and nuances
of these sci-fi dramas and, in some cases, serve as cyberspace
gathering points for viewers.
Noxon does not feel the complexity of the shows will prevent new
viewers from catching on.
"Sometimes [having such complex storylines] can be a negative
because people may not have the patience, but I believe the questions
are answered quickly," she said. "It helps to watch
more than one episode."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Washington Post Article on Sci fi including BTVS....
-- pagangodess, 05:11:45 02/11/02 Mon
Notice that Joss Whedon's name is not even mentioned. "Angel"
is said to be David Greenwalt's show. Marti and David do a great
job, but I just felt that Joss's name should have been mentioned.
pagan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Washington Post Article on Sci fi including BTVS....
-- Rendyl, 05:50:24 02/11/02 Mon
***Target an audience with unstable viewing habits, discover their
joys and fears and create programs that will make them feel they
belong to a unique clique.***
Sniff. I may have unstable viewing habits but at least I would
know enough to do some homework on the genre before turning my
story in. 'Wolf Lake' had all the elements the author cited as
what a sci-fi show needs to succeed but it also aired an episode
I suspect the censors had kittens...or wolfpups..over. Instant
cancellation.
Of course Greenwalt's stalker fan site comment was a perfect topper
to the authors implication that the audience has problems. Sigh.
Just once it would be nice if they would assign a piece like this
to someone who actually watches one of the shows.
Okay, 'nough grumbling. Maybe Rufus can send me a chocolate fix
as I am in withdrawal.
-Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> "stalker-like fans"? -- Vickie, 07:53:44 02/11/02
Mon
"We have stalker-like fans," said Greenwalt, referring
to the many Internet fan sites that dwell on many facets and nuances
of these sci-fi dramas and, in some cases, serve as cyberspace
gathering points for viewers"
I think we've been insulted!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: "stalker-like fans" - And Proud Of It
-- Rachel, 08:35:19 02/11/02 Mon
I play and re-play...Analyze and speculate...Discuss, affirm,
and refute. I wear my stalker-fan status with pride! Something
tells me that you, dear reader of this post, do the same. It surely
is a reflection of the show's quality writing and the show's themes
that touch on so many nerves of so many fans, stalker or otherwise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> insulted maybe...but by whom?` -- anom, 11:42:12 02/11/02
Mon
"'We have stalker-like fans," said Greenwalt, referring
to the many Internet fan sites that dwell on many facets and nuances
of these sci-fi dramas and, in some cases, serve as cyberspace
gathering points for viewers"
Did Greenwalt say that's what he meant by "stalker-like fans,"
or was this the reporter's (mis-?)interpretation? No way to know
from the article.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disaster in the Desert -- Cactus Watcher, 05:53:46 02/11/02 Mon
Fans in Arizona lose out big time this week. Basketball again
on Tuesday night. The new Buffy ep. 'Older and Far Away' will
not be shown until next Sunday according to the schedule. Worse
still, I see no listing at all for the next Angel episode, 'Waiting
for in the Wings,' although the following episode, 'Coping' is
listed at the proper time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Disaster in the Cold White North -- Sebastian, 09:00:12
02/11/02 Mon
i feel your pain, CW.
i was up last night doing some writing, when a preview for tuesday's
'buffy' came on and the speaker added to the tagline 'to show
after tuesday night's bucks' game.'
...which means the show is being pre-empted and may not show *at
all* if the basketball game here ends at a weird time.
so it goes without saying that i am super anxious....
- S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Disaster in the Cold White North -- Penguin, 09:04:58
02/11/02 Mon
Buffy is scheduled to air on Tuesday at 10:00 pm in the Milwaukee
area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Disaster in the Bleak MidWest -- Brian,
13:43:29 02/11/02 Mon
Buffy is being usurped for U of Louisville basketball this week.
Oh, the pain. And only the Lord knows when the local affiliate
will show the makeup, if ever. They try to hide such scheduling
from the fans. Go figure.
Truly - February is a short, cold, brutal month, and at its center
is a heart with an arrow through it. Time to bleed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> At least you guys get to see the new ep...
-- DaveW, 20:02:03 02/11/02 Mon
I think my local UPN affiliate is dropping that programming in
favor of the WB. Until a new affiliate comes online, I'm Buffy-less.
Argh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Rock on, Penguin! Thanks! :-) -- Sebastian,
09:55:35 02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Disaster in the Desert -- Raven_NightDragon, 17:18:21
02/12/02 Tue
Go on and whine. I live in the St. Louis area, which has no UPN
afiliate. I don't get to watch Buffy until the following Saturday
after it airs when the local WB station shows it, and it is almost
always at a different time because they are always showing hockey
and baseball games and other assorted crap. Kind of makes it hard
to plan my day sometimes. So have to watch it late one week? Eh,
cry me the river. People have it worse than you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> And there are little children in Ethiopia who don't
get to watch "Buffy" AT ALL!!! -- d'Herblay, 20:05:53
02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Bottom Line : Sports bad - Buffy good! --
Brian, 03:23:07 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
forget the chip -- leslie, 08:57:32 02/11/02 Mon
All this discussion about Spike's chip and how he would behave
without it and whether he loves Buffy and vice versa... you know,
I am coming to the conclusion that the chip is just a big fat
red herring.
Spike had the dream in which he realized he was in love with Buffy
immediately after a surgeon spent quite an amount of time rummaging
around inside his skull and concluding that he couldn't remove
the chip. Two words: brain damage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Except... -- Darby, 09:26:00 02/11/02 Mon
Vampires don't get lasting damage from standard sources, which
a metal scalpel qualifies as. You can shoot them and stab them
and they just Energizer Bunny it back into the fray; there's no
reason to expect them not to "bounce back" from messy
brain surgery (in fact, Spike said as much during the unsuccessful
procedure to remove the chip).
Kind of begs the question, what did that mob in Prague do to Drusilla?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Prague Mob -- grifter, 10:04:49 02/11/02 Mon
I always thougth of Drusillas illness being more emotional then
medical...those people not being nice to her, hurting her in the
wrong way...she didn´t like that, and so she went into pet-mode
to feel save and protected by Spike...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> So Angel was a placebo? -- Darby, 10:13:15 02/11/02
Mon
Spike went to awfully great lengths to find and initiate a cure
for a psychological malady. I mean, it could be, but it doesn't
seem to fit the facts.
And how exactly could a mob hurt Dru's feelings?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: So Angel was a placebo? -- grifter,
10:34:42 02/11/02 Mon
Hmm, not exactly a placebo...Dru has been wounded emotionally
and physically, the physical wounds healed, but the emotional
wounds remained...and I bet she enjoyed having Spike as her "knight",
so she could have unconsciously wanted to remain weak.
Maybe the ritual was a placebo, maybe it healed her physically,
maybe emotionally, I dunno...just always made more sense to me
that it was more of an emotional scar she was carrying...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Prague Mob -- Scroll, 10:23:24 02/11/02
Mon
The most likely reason for Drusilla's growing weakness is a magical
one. The Prague mob could've hit her with a spell or poison similar
to the one Faith used on Angel (G1). Spike took Drusilla to Sunnydale
to allow the "energy of the Hellmouth" to restore her.
That sounds like a mystical cure for a mystical illness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Except... -- leslie, 12:18:51 02/11/02 Mon
Who knows what a vampire's brain is like or what its recuperative
properties are? How many of them have had brain surgery? Obviously,
something has to go on with the brain during the time between
when they are "killed" in the process of becoming a
vampire and when they emerge from the grave. (Is vampirism in
fact a side effect of severe oxygen deprivation? Now there's a
theory to run with....) Certainly in humans, recovery from brain
damage is different than recovery from other forms of physical
damage.
On the one hand, it would seem that vampire brains must have vampiric
recuperative powers, yes--given the number of blows to the head
Spike has recieved, his brain must be able to recuperate or he
would be a vegetable by now, permanently concussed. However, when
people recover from head injuries (at whatever rate), they often
exhibit marked personality changes.
Personally, however, as a mythologist rather than a neurologist,
I think that surgeon poked that bit of the brain that is responsible
for conversion experiences. Like Saul on the road to wherever
the hell he was going (am I exhibiting my complete lack of Christianity
here?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Paul on the Road to Damascus (metaphor and discussion)
-- Charlemagne90, 12:52:18 02/11/02 Mon
There is no part of the brain responsible for conversion experiences
given that the differences between them are highly so and the
vast majority are *GASP* people realizing that they arn't enjoying
their lives and getting something from religious community or
connection to the Big Guy.
However you raise an interesting point with Paul/Spike connections.
Saul by the way was the First King of israel and while a great
warrior and righteous man in the beginning (aside from massacres
in the name of God recorded so lovingly by historians) eventually
fell from grace to King David according to the tale. Paul on the
other hand traditionally is a young Rabbinical student of Jerusalem
who in his possible first mentioning in the Bible was responsible
for the matyring of Saint Stephen. The first Christian apparently
killed for his faith that we know about though it seems more allegorical
than fact as with most things the very story indicates highly
this was perhaps a common occurence.
Paul heading to Damascus on a business trip (the Bible makes some
heavy indications he was supposed to get permission to attack
christians in their homes from a religious leader there) then
saw Jesus and was blinded by the experience. Fumbling his way
through Damascus he eventually found one of Jesus's disciples
who spoke to him at length to which Paul became the unofoccial
13th disciple and in a way Judas's replacement symbollically.
Where as Judas persecuted Jesus and fell from grace, Paul did
so (my apologies your right-Saul was I just remembered Paul's
Jewish name while Paul was his Romanized) and achieved it.
In many ways both Spike and he bear some resmeblances with angel
bearing perhaps a bit more so of a resembelance as he achieves
through miracle redemption and enlightment followed by "toning"
with Whistler
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Paul on the Road to Damascus (metaphor
and discussion) -- Vickie, 13:22:41 02/11/02 Mon
While I do not contest the validity of spiritual conversion in
some cases, there is a form of temporal lobe epilepsy that give
the sufferer the subjective experience of a rapture. Mark Salzman's
book Lying Awake deals with this in detail, telling the story
of a Carmelite nun who discovers that (at least some of) her intense
spiritual experiences are due to epileptic seizures.
To bring this back on topic (sorry for the digression), your point
that Paul came to redemption through his intent on evil acts is
very potent for this season. How many characters are doing ill,
but have the potential for real redemption and growth? Buffy,
Spike, Jonathan, maybe Willow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Sorry, premature post -- Vickie, 13:24:57
02/11/02 Mon
That should have been "How many characters have been doing
ill, and have been placed in a position for growth and redemption
because of those acts?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Paul on the Road to Damascus (metaphor
and discussion) -- leslie, 15:04:18 02/11/02 Mon
That's right, Damascus. I wanted to say Ephesus. Except that Paul
was originally named Saul, and changed his name with his conversion
(much as William became Spike?).
As Vicki noted, there does seem to be a temporal lobe function
that produces the feeling that is usually associated with conversion--that
is, the Saul/Paul type of sudden, ecstatic conversion, not the
slow realization that your mind is changing on a certain subject.
Also, this sudden conversion is associated with visions, and the
line between dreams and visions is extremely blurry.
One aspect of the show that I have always enjoyed is its portrayal
of dreams, which are so often either telepathic or prophetic.
In any case, they are always true--at least the ones that make
it onto the screen (the dumb day-to-day dreams are merely narrated,
not visualized for the audience). Within this framework, Spike's
reaction to his dream about Buffy seems as much as though he is
being given orders from beyond his self as it is of suddenly realizing
something latent that his subconscious has spewed forth. (Notice:
no question of "Hey, Harm, you'll never guess what I just
dreamed... what an idiotic dream, I can't believe I dreamed that!
Ha-ha-ha... ha..." Nope. Just: "Oh god, NO!")
There is a lovely little Irish legend about the first man to write
down traditional Irish lore in the seventh century, a man named
Cenn Faeladh. He was involved in the Battle of Magh Rath, and
received a blow to the back of his head which caused him to lose
his (literal translation) "brain of forgetting." This
meant that he forced to remember absolutely everything he heard.
The only way he was able to maintain his sanity was by essentially
downloading his memories onto the page. I love the concept that
forgetting is an active function of the brain. But also, when
you're dealing with "folk concepts of the brain," what
happens is not always neurologially logical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Redemption doesn't have to have a spiritual
aspect, -- Sophist, 13:49:52 02/11/02 Mon
it just has to be a resolution to undertake moral action in the
future. At least, that's how I see it. I see this as consistent
with Saul/Paul if you take away the visions.
If others attach a spiritual dimension to it, that could explain
some of the disagreements on the Board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I don't think vamp brains really care... --
DaveW, 18:04:21 02/11/02 Mon
It doesn't seem to me that a vampire's brain would necessarily
be the seat of its consciousness. It's been stressed over and
over again that vampires are demons inhabiting a human body; I
always assumed this meant that their consciousness existed before
insertion and might continue to exist afterwards. Kind of a para-anti-soul.
In that case, it doesn't really seem to me that their consciousness
would depend on neural tissue. They obviously have access to what
used to be stored in the victim's brain, but that doesn't mean
they require that tissue to be intact to continue functioning.
Although I suppose the fact that a chip in Spike's brain can use
his perceptions to dictate his behavior implies that the stuff
between his ears is still doing something. OTOH, vampires in Buffy
don't breathe, but functioning neurons require a ton of oxygen.
Hmm. I've confused myself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Except... -- MrDave, 19:54:31 02/11/02 Mon
I got the impression that it was a fire...something deadly even
in small amounts to Vampires...and something from which they don't
seem to heal from quickly. Even Spike tooks a long time to recover
from the fire in the church when he restored Dru.
Vampires can be badly wounded enough so that they cannot heal
at all. We've seen a vampire with one eye, and another who was
missing a hand. Some things just don't regenerate.
BAck to the discussion at hand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: forget the chip -- Robert, 11:22:27 02/11/02 Mon
"Spike had the dream in which he realized he was in love
with Buffy immediately after a surgeon spent quite an amount of
time rummaging around inside his skull and concluding that he
couldn't remove the chip. Two words: brain damage."
We are given no direct evidence of it, but I hold a different
interpretation for Spike's behavior. I believe that Spike has
always been infatuated with Buffy. At first, this infatuation
manifested as a blood lust. He "got off" of killing
slayers. Buffy was different. She refused to allow him to kill
her, but the infatuation was still there.
After the chip was installed, Spike had closer dealings with the
scooby gang and, consequently, began to view them as something
other than "happy meals with legs". I believe that the
direction of his infatuation was already beginning to change.
When Spike finally lost hope of ever losing the chip, his infatuation
turned to lust and later (maybe) love.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symbolic Look at Angel 'Provider.' Spoilers: A:S2,3 and B:S6-DMP.
-- Age, 09:31:00 02/11/02 Mon
Sorry if I've already done a symbolic look at this ep.
Perhaps this episode is about the American fairy tale about money.
If we just get enough of it, everything will be fine. There is
a reference to not being all about happy endings; and the Fred
beheading/prince/black and white decor of the boat are an allusion
to Pylea and its oppositional thinking and fairy tale world. It
seems that the type of thinking this place represents has not
been done away with in this ep: Angel to some extent is still
following the same dance steps, and hasn't changed the program.
The Nahdrahs as skeleton/robots may represent the spiritual death
of those who reduce the value of human endeavour to a dollar amount
in the mistaken idea that all their problems will be solved this
way. It's the reduction of life to the 'Antiques Roadshow' approach.
Certainly the 'Buffy' episode 'DoubleMeat Palace' (palace/prince
motifs) that this is paired with shows the banality of commerce
where the immediate needs of the public are met by fast food to
make a buck; but, how could such an endeavour satisfy in a lasting
way human needs of people, giving them something of lasting value
rather than a quick fix as Angel's solution to his dilemma seems
to be? And do we get a criticism of American commerce in the replacement
of the middle manager by Sam who has reversed the process of valuation,
ie instead of people being valued for the things they possess,
the things are valued for the people who possess them?
(In regards to the money issue, how can either Buffy or Angel
be a champion if one is setting out to make money by helping people,
and the other is making money by working long hours? One has changed
the mission; the other has no time for the mission. How do you
as an adult/parent with responsibilities continue to act in a
socially engaged way when you have mouths to feed? While the work
of the mission has become relatively easy through experience,
what has become hard is finding the time(Angel finding the watch?)
to fit in all your commitments.)
The teaser of 'Provider' is meant to show us that money cannot
buy us a ticket to being saved (from our demons.) The guy in the
phone booth may have had every credit card under the sun(or the
dripping moon as the case may be), but that did him no good. If
being saved is dependent on a good cash balance or on the right
phone number on a flyer, then this is a sorry world.
Whether the Fang gang was out to make money or help others, they
would have been equally exposed had they taken on cases in the
way they did. It is this kind of all or nothing approach to life,
as symbolized by Pylea, that the episode was showing to be at
fault. There seemed to be things connected to this: obviously
Angel's obsession with making money; Holtz's obsession with making
an army; Sam's obsession with getting the watch; but there were
also scenes which defied a clear cut reduction to type: who is
really using whom in the Justine and Holtz scene? Who is the victim
and who the perpetrator, the stalker or the poisoner?
Is it then this all or nothing approach to life that left Holtz's
family exposed to Angelus and Darla? And when Angel tells Cordy
that he shouldn't have left her and Connor alone, are we hearing
an echo of this? And now by trying solely to create the financial
heaven(haven) of money, money, money, does Angel almost lose those
near and dear to him. In not seeing the differing values of things,
and making choices based on them, and by reducing everything to
one issue, the very people that Angel or Holtz wanted to protect
or raise were destroyed or nearly. Did Holtz place every ill in
his life, reduce every issue into the figure of the vampire, like
Ahab and the white whale, such that he mistakenly thought by wiping
them all out he could create a sort of heaven, but which led to
a kind of hell for himself as the flames of Caritas suggest? We
have to set limits. How do we set limits? It doesn't seem as if
Angel is able to set priorities until the end of the ep. (I might
ask if Sam was used to show the single mindedness of Holtz who
doesn't have something of sentimental value of his own to get;
unable to retrieve something of value, Holtz will be pressed,
I speculate, to take away something of value to Angel(that's just
speculation and not a spoiler.) Are we meant to feel sympathy
for Holtz?)
The ep brought up an interesting question about what work is supposed
to be about. We all help one another and get compensated for our
time; it is a means of showing the value of what we've done for
society. Angel's approach to helping people is as a means of helping
oneself only through providing a service(Angel was already doing
this at the beginning of season two but it was rather setting
out to kill what the demons represented in himself; he has graduated
in his growing up period from killing demons to helping himself
by helping people, but it seems the same structure of thinking
needs to be deconstructed.) It is valuing people and their problems
only in terms of how they can provide us with revenue; as opposed
to setting out to help others with the compensation being only
the remuneration that is necessary(if possible.)
But that is the basis of commerce and competition isn't it? Commerce
sets out to provide a service or a product to make a profit. Not
only this but shareholders are removed even from the process of
providing a service such that their aim is simply to make a profit,
using all concerned in the process to do this. (Although it is
naive to think that their investment of money(and therefore faith
in the enterprise of the company) isn't a big help, a founding
help. But what I'm getting at is the intention. The intention
is to make money, not help people. How do you protect yourself
from the vampires of this world without becoming one yourself,
as is the underlying theme of the Holtz arc?)
In the ep Sam sets out to use Angel; Holtz sets out to use Justine;
and Angel sets out to use the Fang gang and his clients as he
mistakenly thinks that he can make everything a top priority and
meld his interests as a father to his mission and to his making
money. Instead of seeing these as separate issues, he reduces
them all to one thing. By reducing these three issues into one,
he cannot begin to set priorities. The three separate issues are
then connected together as if they were a triangle or a pyramid.
In fact the stalker/poisoner subplot reinforces the idea of the
triangle by showing Gunn's and Wes's rivalry. Also the Harlan,
Sam, Angel relationship suggests a triangle, as does the decor
of the inside of the barge. (Actually, the three top priorities
are making money, finding out about Holtz and the mission. I assume
in my analysis that finding out about Holtz is symbolic of the
protector role of father.)
The Fred rescue scene shows us what happens when you put separate
issues together: you put, and could lose, all your chickens in
one basket. It is Angel who has to save the day (because he got
everyone in this mess) after Sam's lesson somehow sinks in(the
listening to the voice mail is Sam's message finally being heard
by Angel(the connection to himself is made by what Cordy says)
because it is this which leads Angel to the boat that symbolizes
putting all the disparate pieces together(his team/family all
in one basket, so to speak) as Fred puts all the pieces into one
pyramid(triangle). Instead of Fred losing her head(as Angel has
figuratively by going a little crazy, like Sam and Holtz,) it
is the prince of robotic death, the symbol of reducing real human
life, as symbolized by Fred, to a cash amount who is decapitated
instead, ie the prince represents reducing real life to the symbols
representing it, like money or numbers or even words. In fact
Cordy's trying to give the money back for Fred's head shows us
how much more important Fred's head is than the money(for the
Nahdran prince and therefore Fred, it's not a matter of money,
but of life and death.) (Note the use of the head/intelligence
in regards to Fred seems to be a recurring motif.)
What Angel has tried to avoid is the conflict and struggle between
the separate issues. He has tried to take the easy way out by
making them all one thing. But his priorities as father, champion
and bread earner will always need to be juggled. That is part
of the lesson of growing up, the theme for both 'Buffy' and 'Angel'
this season. You have to be flexible; it's not a matter of all
or nothing as the Pylean allusion suggests.
Finally, some miscellaneous comments:
Angel goes to the vamp lair looking for a material treasure, and
finds instead the symbolic lesson of the watch(tempus fugit, time
to grow up for Angel and time having stopped for Sam etc). He
then crashes the boat, coming down to earth from his version of
financial heaven so to speak, to help the human beings(facing
the hell he's created) that he treasures. The Nadrah boat/barge
may be a parody representing the element of the Pylean fairy tale
world where one sails off into the sunset and has a happy ever
after...on a barge, as symbol of commerce(this may be yet another
Monty Python reference.) And the pyramid that Fred makes may be
a symbol for the all or nothing attitude: it is all at one end,
the base, and nothing at the top.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Willow; Growing Up; Season Five and Six. B5,6 A3 Spoilers
to last week. -- Age, 11:25:12 02/11/02 Mon
I didn't want to start another thread, but something just occurred
to me. Willow's addiction is part of the growing up theme of this
season as she takes responsibility for it. Much criticism was
made of turning Willow's problem with power into a simple metaphor
for addiction, and I agree with much of it, but there is a possible
reason why this avenue was taken.
Back in season five, as I suggested in other postings, Whedon
makes the point that none of who we are has anything to do with
us as we didn't pick ourselves before birth, and even free will(whatever
that is, if it exists) is determined anyway. Whedon does this
by showing that Dawn's real life, as written down in her diaries,
is a fiction, ie she's simply part of a reproductive chain, the
link between generations. Buffy(as Dawn represents her) had to
come to the realization that her ferility also meant her mortality,
and do the first half of growing up which is stop running from
death because it's a part of you(in season six, Whedon is having
his title character stop running from life. The vampire is a person
who is running from both.) This is why the Dracula scene at the
beginning of season five points at Buffy finding out who she is:
season five and six are two halves of the process of growing up:
stop running away from death(five) and stop running away from
life(six.) In season five Buffy has to withstand the animal instinct
for self preservation such that she would sacrifice herself as
a human being(Dawn.)
In doing so she gets herself into the position of using the Key
to unlock the other door of her growing up period, the door of
hell, her repressed demonized side as she begins to become the
whole person that an adult is. The portal that Glory had opened
was to a hell dimension: when Buffy fell through it down: she
was symbolically going to hell, underground, and wakes up to the
hell. By doing so Buffy has been tricked into opening to a side
of her she'd prefer not to see.
Now, Willow also has been masking a side of her she doesn't want
to see: her addictive nature(as has Cordy on 'Angel'). And this
is why Whedon turned the power problem into an addiction: as Dawn
shows in season five, we have nothing to do with our characters,
but to be an adult we have to take responsibility for who we are
or someone else will(patriarchal society) or real tragic events
will occur if we don't. But, that doesn't mean that we can simply
rid ourselves of our character, ie take responsibility once, do
a little breathing exercise and whammo! everything's fine. Sometimes,
as the addiction problem shows through the genetic connection,
the taking responsibility is a life long practice. We are a certain
character and we have to deal with it every day. In fact Willow's
addiction is a metaphor for having to take responsibility for
ourselves every day. It is a life long practice. It isn't something
we do once and then forget about whether it's an addiction or
the choices we make etc.
Willow's power problem has been turned into an addiction in order
to be an enduring metaphor for our having to take responsibility
for ourselves every day. I think Whedon had to make this statement
in order to recognize the huge influence of our genes and upbringing
on who we are, and to acknowledge how difficult life really is
for many people. This is then a different kind of heroism, if
such a word is to be used, a quiet heroism, a more adult type
in which the effort you put in(as parents do for their children)
goes unseen as the results of effort are invisible and/or expected:
you don't save the world in some grand gesture, you stop yourself
from hurting others. Your 'normal' life then takes a tremendous
effort to maintain; and no one sees you do it. Living in this
world is the hardest thing.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The Zen Koan of the Key. Spoilers Season Five and
Six. -- Age, 15:05:49 02/11/02 Mon
How is Dawn the key?
In season five Buffy is brought to the edge of despair; this makes
her sense of self vulnerable. In the season finale Buffy must
rescue Dawn from Glory or the world will be destroyed. Dawn then
is the mechanism, the key which opens the door to Buffy's divided
psyche(as symbolized by Glory/Ben.) In having to rescue Dawn(Buffy,
whole, before the fall into bifurcation as symbolized by there
only being Dawn left to represent Buffy) Buffy takes on Ben/Glory
and pummels the oppositional thinking out of herself symbolically
through pummeling Ben/Glory literally. This deconstruction of
oppositional thinking, this breaking down of the wall, as symbolized
by Xander's wrecking ball taking out Glory and the wall, this
bringing down of the barrier, as symbolized by Spike's being allowed
back in Buffy's house(invitation of her demonized half out of
her subconscious), this destruction of the opposition as symbolized
by the defeat of Ben/Glory, is necessary before Buffy can open
the door to hell(the portal), and descend into the under world(or
have it come up as the hell imagery of Sunnydale in 'Bargaining'
suggests.) Buffy has a moment of selflessness on the tower and
then throws herself over in a cross position symbolizing the whole
self. In fact I don't think that Buffy actually consciously did
anything here. The events of the season were such that they helped
blow away the wall of her divided self.
Dawn is the key that unlocks the door because it is through having
to rescue her that Buffy unlocks the 'demonized' aspect of her
psyche. She comes back different, not wrong, because she is now
different. She just doesn't realize what's happened to her.
It goes further than this though: the dilemma of how to stop the
world from ending and save Dawn is like a zen koan that doesn't
have a logical resolution. Like zen the resolution comes in letting
go of oppositional thinking, the self: Buffy and the world are
one.
The key to Dawn as key is the symbolic portrayal of her as both
a person and a link in the reproductive chain. She is both a person,
a form, and also a code, formless in an ever changing race of
human beings. She is both herself and not herself at the same
time in the sense that she is this body/person who thinks, feels,
eats etc, but none of what she is, because she never chose to
exist as Dawn, has anything to do with her, but is a result of
the reproductive chain code. She is for all intents and purposes
a person and not a person at the same time in the same way that
ever changing form cannot be a form, but the ever changing formlessness
requires form to change. This gets expressed as Dawn the energy,
the key, the formless; and Dawn, the girl, the form. This is buddhism.
This is possibly why a Buddha statuette has been on the counter
of the Magic Box; or why at the beginning of season two of 'Angel'
Angel takes the place of the buddhist demon protecting the young
woman. This may also explain why Buffy meditates before she sees
the unreality of Dawn's existence as form in the ep when she tries
to find a magical reason for her mum's illness(death as part of
the reproductive chain.) Or why at key moments(like when Dawn
finds out she's the key,) a Buddha figure is prominent.The basis
of buddhism, and I would think most religious practice, is to
express the whole self, and let go of the oppositional thinking
that artificially divides the self through repression.
If we take Willow's addiction as an example, she is not divided
from it; it is not her enemy that she must repress, but an aspect
of herself that she acknowledges, and is learning to manage. It
is nothing to be ashamed of or repressed as bad. It is a part
of her that as an adult she will learn with much ongoing effort
to manage in order that the unmanaged consequences that would
come from denial never happen, and no one, including herself,
is harmed by it.
A friend of mine who doesn't watch the series, but has been inundated
with my analysis(as you can imagine)suggested that the dichotomy
between the human beings and the vampires is to be found in Dawn
as key. The human beings are attached to form, not seeing the
formlessness, hence they see their reflection in the mirrors;
the vampires on the other hand have had their sense of self blown
away, and have given up to the instincts of the animal, the reproductive
chain, the formlessness, the code of everchanging life, hence
they don't see themselves in the mirror(as most animals do not.)
The humans see only the person, but the vampires have no self
and are simply the instincts. Dawn represents as the whole person,
both.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Zen Koan of the Key. Spoilers Season
Five and Six. -- JM, 15:42:48 02/11/02 Mon
Thanks, Age. I am always interested (and intimidated) by your
posts, but this one I enjoyed the most. Thanks for giving a look
at an issue and an ep that most people dont' seem to appreciate.
(Don't know whether you like them, but you certainly gave them
a deep look.)
I have been the most at odds with the reaction to the addiction
story line. I think the evil Willow storyline was all fan spec.
This I find much more interesting than a Willow goes evil storyline,
mostly because the majority of evil people started off damaged
and wrong, not generous and giving. That said she is a woman with
faults, one of them never having had to provide her own moral
compass. She's always strived to please authority figures, teachers,
parents, Giles, even Buffy. When she lost these compasses (I'm
arguing that Giles probably withdrew emotionally quite a lot after
the blow of Buffy's death) she bravely stepped up to assume responsibility,
but she also made some very bad, selfish decisions. And I think
her reckless exploration and emotional dependence on magic was
what led to the place where she was confronting powers strong
enough to become physically addictive. Think of the difference
between marijuana and heroin. One, if I understand correctly,
is sometimes addictive to some people, the other, frequently addictive
to most people.
I think the addiction storyline realistically explores how a good
person could be involved in some very, very reckless behavior,
but at the same time it isn't giving her a free pass. What she
chose to do when using magic is very illustrative. Raising Buffy
and mind-wiping Tara demonstrated her emotional dependence on
magic as a way to make problems go away, escapism. It worked about
as well as most forms of escapism. If the real issue were her
physical addiction to magic, she could have met that need with
spells far less invasive to other people, but equally as fulfilling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks. Spoilers B-S1,5,6; A-S3. To
last week. Arc Speculation. -- Age, 22:32:55 02/11/02 Mon
Thanks for your reply.
As you point out, there are reasons(yes reasons, not excuses)
why people are destructive and self serving.
I see what you mean about Willow. Your analysis certainly fits
in with the theme of growing up, as it does with Buffy's escape
from life at the end of season five. As you say Willow steps in
to take up the void left by Giles and Buffy, and finds herself
the authority figure. As Rufus said(I think it was Rufus quoting
Campbell,) different attributes can be brought out under different
circumstances; and, as Whedon is no longer giving Buffy an out
because she's now an adult, he has stripped Willow of her authority
figures for the same reason. She had to figure something out for
herself.
What surprised posters like myself is that Willow seemed to be
masking her lack of self worth with the power and that through
an arc she would come to see that Willow without magical power
is okay. It is possible that the writers intended the addiction
to get the arc more into our world just as the three nerds are
not supernatural metaphors, but human beings using magic as a
form of creating a child's fantasy world, an escape of sorts.
For Willow, it may be a combination of seeing that she has been
able to wield such power with the confidence she gains from stopping
herself from wielding the power that convinces her that she's
not so bad. The drug metaphor shows us and Willow the difference
between having real power to manage oneself and being powerless
to stop using power. Having power is easy; you don't have to examine
yourself: that's the lesson we got from Glory last year who began
the first half of the theme about power; this is why the child-adult,
the adult who doesn't responsibility is so dangerous to children
as the first season ep 'Nightmares' shows us.
Whedon has thus given Willow the opportunity to prove her self
worth to herself, as opposed to others. What she's left with is
the knowledge gained of an addictive nature(the price of magic,
the price of growing up), but with a renewed sense of self by
taking responsibility and doing something about it. Just as she
became the authority figure in the Scoobies, she will become the
authority figure of herself. It's hard to do; it will take great
effort and support, but it's necessary.
Of course the Willow addiction story fits in very well with the
overall arc because Whedon had to have the Scoobies take responsibility
and become adults as a contrast to the three nerds. As I mentioned
above, I think he wanted to ground Willow's problem in the real
world, just as Xander's contribution to the theme of growing up,
his impending wedding, is grounded in our reality; Buffy's also
has a realism about it: physical abuse.
I think what we may be seeing being played out this season is
the Scooby gang(including Cordy) dealing with the damage done
to them by their father's behaviour. Cordy has freed herself from
the reliance on the riches and distant adulation as a substitute
for real emotion that her father gave her; Buffy has to free herself
from the pattern of neglect/abandonment by her father, a pattern
she seems to be acting out with Dawn. And Xander has to deal with
the idea that his father instilled in him of marriage being a
hell through endless arguing and fighting. Willow, it seems, because
we didn't see too much of her parents got the wild card, so to
speak, the metaphor of the perpetual taking responsibility.
We do tend to think in terms of what we like or don't like. But
I find reading the postings on this board to be helpful if I don't
like an ep. I begin to see aspects that I hadn't considered, especially
in terms of character.
Thanks for your reply.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks. Spoilers B-S1,5,6; A-S3.
To last week. Arc Speculation. -- JM, 08:45:35 02/12/02 Tue
Ooh! More good points. I think that was what I was trying to get
at. I think Willow is growing stronger as a character by doing
something much harder than wielding great power. She is choosing
not to wield it. That takes a lot of self-control, constantly
imposed. And you're the only one who knows whether you're actually
keeping with the program. You're your own ultimate authority.
Just in defense of the Whedon-verse and fathers. There do seem
to be a preponderence of bad dads, but I'm don't think it reflects
father issues necessarily. (Don't know Joss from Adam, but all
the interviews where he mentions his he seem admiring and talks
about following in his father's footsteps in showbusiness and
getting his advice on his earliest scripts.) I think it's more
of a dramatic tension. Because of changing gender roles and societal
pressures, it's the harder, more complex parental relationship
to dramatically convey. In real life both parental relationships
are equally difficult to experience, but in a theatrical tradition,
we know what makes a good mom, that's Joyce, and a bad mom, that's
Catherine Madison. Father's are a little fuzzier, especially in
relation to their adult children, finding that point between too
stern and too ineffectual. Giles was probably the best portrayal
of a good father figure and even he had some major issues. It
still isn't clear that his decision to leave, tough love, was
the correct one.
That said in defense of these particular parents. Well, we know
that Xander doesn't much like either of his parents. Both of them
were raucously fighting up above in The Replacement. His mother
does seem somewhat neglectful, though not entirely unkind, based
on comments from seasons one through four.
Well, we only have Buffy's point of view for what happened with
Hank. Technically Joyce and Buffy left him for Sunnydale. After
one extremely distant summer and one summer where she ran away
and made no effort to contact him, I can imagine that their relationship
experienced some strain. Especially since she has a secret from
him that she is able to share with her mother, and someone filling
in on a daily basis in a quasi-father role. With his only child
only occassionally in touch and in college, Hank had every right
to go on with his own life, find a new partner -- even a coworker
--, and possibly start a new family. The relationship probably
began before Dawn came into existence and changedd everything.
We don't know where he was in Spain, or what he was doing. It
could as easily have been important work that resulted in constant
travel as "gallavanting." Yes, he was extremely hard
to contact, but we do know that he and Dawn were talking this
year. The Scoobs probably tried to keep him away from the 'bot,
so now he thinks his oldest daughter is avoiding him, and can't
figure out why Dawn really doesn't want to live with someone she
only thinks she remembers. I am sure he is sending money, just
probably not enough to maintain an entire nother household. Which
is probably the reason that Buffy can work at DP. She only needs
to come up the difference. (I'm not trying to fan wank here, just
pointing out that Buffy isn't the most impartial witness.)
Willow seems to have more issues with her mother for being controlling
and distracted/distant. Though the relationship seems to have
improved. We don't know much about her dad, except that he was
strict, but she seemed to speak of him fondly. I think her major
parental issues are that she sought approval and attention through
obedience. When those controls are gone, it's not clear on what
basis she should model her behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I see your point. Spoilers
for B-S3 AS2 -- Age, 10:44:46 02/12/02 Tue
Thanks for balancing out the perspective. The impressions of fathers
as you said may be filtered through the perceptions of their children
on the show. One could also bring in Liam's father who only had
the best of intentions for his son, but was incapable of carrying
out the lessons he wanted to instil in his son. Hence the son
sees his father only in the way that my posting above suggests
and seeks revenge for perceived ills. And you are quite right,
Hank may have felt left out of Buffy's life, felt that this was
what she wanted. But, he's still her parent and has a responsibility
to keep the relationship going unless it is truly understood that
it is not. In third year the relationship begins to fade as Hank
misses the ice capades. It's a small thing, and Hank may have
thought that as Buffy is growing up missing this would be no big
deal. But it was. And what about her birthdays? Much of Buffy's
relationship with her dad has been left unsaid, as it has with
the rest of the Scoobies.
I do see what you mean about both parents, especially in Xander's
case, but it isn't his mum and dad who come down to rip his heart
out in his dream, it's just his dad. And Cordy references her
dad in regards to her little princess problem and then its sudden
and profound undoing.) Buffy's gulf is with her dad.
But again I do see your point. These fathers are not bad people,
they are real people who have certain perceptions of their own
about life. Also, having looked at this issue again after reading
your reply, Willow's mum('Gingerbread') balances out Buffy's father;
and we do get both parents arguing in Xander's case. And we have
to wonder what Cordy's mum is doing too.
Thanks for your perspective.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Parent/Authority
Spoilers for B-S6 -- Age, 12:46:23 02/12/02 Tue
What you are getting at in your posting touches on another aspect
of growing up: seeing the maligned parent, here the father figure,
in a new light, seeing the parent as a human being and not the
all knowing authority figure. And in doing so forgiving that parental
figure at least in your own mind, for your own sake if not for
his or hers. This ties in with your comment about Giles: there
was much debate as to whether he was right or wrong in leaving
Buffy. But, having read your posting, I see that this was probably
intended: did Giles do the right thing or not? We don't know;
he doesn't know. There is no right or wrong thing. He just had
to decide what he thought was best as an adult and act on it.
As Giles says to Buffy when he tells her she has to deal with
Dawn by herself in 'Once More with Feeling', you just do the best
you can. This IS a deconstruction of the myth of having to be
attached to ideals and measuring up to some external code.
As Rufus suggested in his reply, 'normal' life isn't the ideal
that Buffy has been clinging to. There seems to be this profound
gulf between what we think life should be and what it is, between
the heaven Buffy wants to create of her world, and the perception
of it as hell full of demons and things that we'd like to consign
to bump only please in the night of the subconscious. As Rufus,
I believe, suggested in an earlier posting, Buffy as slayer represents
that which we just don't want to know about. She is the deconstructor
of our myths, our perceptions that turn problems into demons that
have to get so profoundly strong before we act to do something
about them.
The very fact that these problems or issues are demons expresses
an attitude towards them. Instead of doing as Willow has done
and become one with her addictive nature, we have separated ourselves
from what we don't want to face. But it's understandable as life
is tough and life is full of pain, and we are only human. The
very fact that life isn't a utopia means that to grow up is profoundly
difficult, or for some people darn near impossible.
In fact, getting back to Willow, Whedon is using her as a symbol
of what it means to be an adult: you become your own authority,
taking responsibility as a daily practice.
Thanks once again for your reply.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Parent/Authority
Spoilers for B-S6 -- Rufus, 19:04:44 02/12/02 Tue
Rufus is a she.....;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My apologies.
-- Age, 19:51:59 02/12/02 Tue
I guess it's not just Willow and Buffy who are stuck on stereotypes;
I assumed too much from your user name. My apologies.
Thanks for setting me straight.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I
thought my emoticons would give me away.....;) -- Rufus, 21:52:36
02/12/02 Tue
I don't have red hair either...it's the name of my cat and she
is a girl as well....(so much for the SPCA knowing an inny from
an outie).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Clarification of Buffy Explanation in Postings
of this Thread. Spoiler S6 to Present. -- Age, 22:58:05 02/11/02
Mon
My symbolic explanation of what's happening with Buffy is really
simply speculation based on interpretation of symbolism. As far
as I can tell we don't know yet whether Buffy has opened up to
anything or whether she will. None of the above explanation for
Buffy is based on spoilers for future eps; the explanation therefore
may be incorrect and thus irrelevant.
I just wanted to make that clear.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Willow's addiction -- Rufus, 21:54:50 02/11/02 Mon
Buffy has been chasing a "normal life" for six seasons
now. I don't know what she thinks normal is, but for many of us
normal is what you grow to accept as your life. We love things
like Norman Rockwell, that painter that illustrates life like
we would love it to be, commercials that show us the wonder of
unity of family....but for many of us growing up was a process
of accepting the life we have without constantly grieving for
what we may never have had. Buffy wants a normal life with a family
that's together and the dream date with a regular guy and all
that seems to fall readily into her arms is demons. Then we get
to Willow, normal, geeky, smart, talented....powerful. Willow
started BTVS in a jumper from Sears and a sweet disposition. She
was almost as invisible as Marcie the invisible girl. The first
love Willow has is a werewolf, who finds he turns into a monster
only by the moon, and the presence of Willow. Willow then found
Tara, who was more beaten down than Willow had been. What does
Willow do, but vicimize Tara when the going got tough. Willow
found that power was the one thing she had over everyone, she
became the big gun. Then she set about re-creating her life past
and present. Willow can't accept herself as a geek, can't look
at the truth of her life. When she started messing with power
to make life bearable, she ceased living it. Willow is an addict.
An addiction that may have been in the family. Addictive personalities
don't always become drug or booze abusers, sometimes it's something
like eating, shopping, gambling, or perfection, that the addictive
person uses to make life easier to live. They become so focused
on the one thing they do that blunts the truth, that everything
else no longer matters. I don't care that they used magic as the
addiction, it makes sense when you listen to just how upset Willow
gets anytime she is labelled a geek. Power is what Willow found
that makes life easier to live, but in the end the power is actually
making it so the person withdraws from life. because the truth
be told, to some people no matter what clothing Willow wears or
spell she casts, she will always be the geek. It's time for Willow
to get used to that fact and get on with living her life unfettered
by one word.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Methodica's poll made me remember... -- Cactus
Watcher, 07:41:08 02/12/02 Tue
from Restless, Tara's line in Willow's dream- "If they find
out what you are, they'll punish you." Didn't have quite
the same impact until this season. ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Yes, I had to dig up Restless again --
Rufus, 08:35:56 02/12/02 Tue
Look to some of the stuff Giles says in Willow's dream
GILES: (offscreen) All right, everyone! (Buffy looks excited.
Sound of
Giles clapping hands for attention) Pay attention! (Everyone gathers
around
Giles) In just a few moments that curtain is going to open on
our very
first production. Now, everyone that Willow's ever met ... is
out in that
audience, including all of us. That means we have to be perfect.
(Shot of
Willow looking upset) Stay in character, (Willow sees something
hairy
behind a prop. She stares) remember your lines, and energy energy
energy,
especially in the musical numbers!
(Shot of Buffy looking really excited.)
WILLOW: (whispering) Did anyone see that?
GILES: Acting is not about behaving, it's about hiding. The audience
wants
to find you, (We see Harmony behind him, wearing vampire face,
grabbing his
shoulders and trying to bite him) strip you naked, and eat you
alive, so
hide. (to Harmony) Stop that. (She stops)
GILES: Now, costumes, sets, um, the things that you, uh, you know,
uh, you,
um... (Shot from above. We see the cast gathered, Harmony still
jumping up
behind Giles trying to bite him) you hold them, you touch them,
uh, use
them, um...
HARMONY: Props?
GILES: No.
RILEY: Props?
GILES: Yes! (Points at Riley) It's all about subterfuge. (To Harmony)
That's very annoying. (To everyone) Now go on out there, lie like
dogs, and
have a wonderful time. (Shot of Riley looking excited) Now, if
we can stay
in focus, keep our heads, and if Willow can stop stepping on everyone's
cues, (shot of Willow looking anxious) I know this'll be the best
production of "Death of a Salesman" we've ever done.
(To Harmony) Stop it.
(Loudly) Good luck everyone! Break a leg! (Pushes through them
and leaves)
(Excited chatter. Willow frowns.).................
BUFFY: (straightens up) Play is long over. (Stares at Willow)
Why are you
still in costume?
WILLOW: Okay, still having to explain wherein this is just my
outfit.
(Gesturing to her clothes)
BUFFY: Willow, everybody already knows. Take it off.
WILLOW: No. No. (Looks around nervously) I need it.
(Buffy rolls her eyes.)
BUFFY: Oh, for god's sake, just take it off.
(Spins Willow around and rips her clothes off.)
BUFFY: That's better. It's much more realistic.
(Suddenly all the desks have students in them. Buffy turns and
goes to take
her seat.)
HARMONY: See? Isn't everybody very clear on this now?
(We see Anya sitting next to Harmony, giggling. The whole class
is giggling.)
(Shot of Willow in her nerdy schoolgirl outfit and long straight
hair from
BTVS first season. Holding some paper.)
ANYA: My god, it's like a tragedy.
(Shot of Buffy looking at Willow.)
OZ: (to Tara) I tried to warn you. (Gives Willow a disgusted look)
ANYA: (still giggling) It's exactly like a Greek tragedy. There
should only
be Greeks.
I wondered what the heck they were talking about but now I have
to wonder if the "costume" Willow is hiding from, just
her geek self.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Denial in DMP -- Malandanza, 08:35:38
02/13/02 Wed
"I wondered what the heck they were talking about but now
I have to wonder if the "costume" Willow is hiding from,
just her geek self."
Here's something from the shooting script for DMP:
WILLOW: You shoulda seen their headquarters, it was like, the
nerd natural habitat.
Such contempt! Season One Cordelia couldn't have said it better.
And her words belie her actions -- in the previous episode she
had a clear fascination with the Troika's laboratory. More Warren/Willow
parallels -- neither wishes to be seen as a nerd, so comments
reminding them of who they are are the worst insults.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Willow's addiction S6 Spoilers. -- Age,
15:17:00 02/12/02 Tue
I see what you mean about deconstructing the myth of normalcy
as an ideal. It is this deconstruction of myth that Buffy's slayer
represents: into each generation a slayer is born is a metaphor
for each new generation's right and responsibility, upon arrival
at adulthood, to examine the culture it was born into, and accept
or reject it. That's why there's always been a slayer. This particular
slayer is examining and deconstructing the myth of male dominance
as our society doesn't require that structure anymore. We can
never effect real change in our lives if instead of seeing what
is, we are constantly in our ideal heaven, perceiving what is
as if it were a hell to run from. That isn't to say we shouldn't
strive, or that we should simply accept what is. What I mean is
if we'd kept to the myth that men weren't meant to fly, or God
would have given us wings, we never could have seen what was and
changed it into a flying machine.
It does seem that both Buffy and Willow are attached to stereotypes
about their lives, ideals that they must strive to get, or ideals
that make them hide themselves away. Perhaps too the price of
magic, the price of growing up is losing the innocence of these
ideals through the knowledge gained about what is.
I think that your last line fits in with Whedon's own evaluation
of this year's theme: 'Oh grow up.'
Age.
Who was in charge, seasons 1-5? -- Rochefort, 09:43:35 02/11/02
Mon
I know Marti Noxon is in charge of Buffy this season with Joss
overseeing both Angel AND Buffy, but was Joss more directly in
charge of Buffy in previous seasons? Does Marti Noxon have more
reign this time? The only episode I've REALLY liked this season
was OMWF though I also liked Tabula Rasa. Every time I read an
interview about Buffy this year it's Marti Noxon Marti Noxon Marti
Noxon and she's sounding simplistic and deranged. Which makes
sense to me since I think this WHOLE SEASON (except OMWF) is simplistic
and deranged.
Should I be blaming UPN or Marti Noxon? Or has she ALWAYS been
the lady in charge and she's just doing more annoying work now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Who was in charge, seasons 1-5? -- Cactus Watcher, 10:02:48
02/11/02 Mon
After season FOUR Joss announced, he was not going to exert the
same control over the show as he did in the first four seasons.
If you blame Marti Noxon for season six's faults, she's also partly
to be blamed (or to be praised) for season five. She's done a
lot more interviews (probably at UPN's urging) than Joss ever
did. You can expect when there are that many interviews that they
will sound repetitive and simplistic, after all, the interviewers
ask the same stupid questions over and over.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Once More in Defense of Marti Noxon -- darrenK, 12:23:12
02/11/02 Mon
This is my second time as Marti's defender so I should probably
save this post for future need.
According to everything Joss and Marti have been saying, Joss
still controls the story and is with the writer's breaking every
single episode, so if you have a problem with the season, you
should still blame Joss as much as anyone else.
Marti now has day-to-day oversight of production. This makes her
the showrunner in Hollywoodese but that doesn't have a huge effect
on the story per se, especially in this case where there is another
more significant executive producer, it does affect casting, set
design, sound design, et. al.
But something to remember is that Marti wrote 7 episodes of Season
2. She's been a producer of the show since Season 3 and wrote
such seminal Buffy episodes as The Wish, I Only Have Eyes for
You and Forever.
My point is that no matter what you think of this season, Marti
Noxon has always been as much a part of what's right about Buffy
as Joss has.
I too lament Joss not having more time for the show, only because
I want more Joss authored and directed episodes, but any breakdown
in quality is as much his fault as anyone's.
Also, as others have written to me as I've pounced on this season's
weak spots, it's not time to judge this season yet. Last season
seemed slow until Blood Ties, after that the show became a freight
train.
It's easy to blame the switch in showrunners for the changes in
Buffy, but all the evidence says that they would have gone this
direction, even if Joss was the primary showrunner, after all,
it's his direction.
Not to mention that all the writers, directors and cast members
are pretty much the same team they've had in place since season
3.
As a side note, Joss plays less of a role in Angel then in Buffy.
David Greenwalt the former co-executive producer on Buffy is the
showrunner for Ats.
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> P.S. Marti named the Scooby Gang -- darrenK,
12:27:18 02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Once More in Defense of Marti Noxon -- Rochefort,
13:00:53 02/11/02 Mon
Thanks, both of you, for the extra information.
I didn't know she came up with "Scoobies" so I will
finally have to admit, that with that and the cup of tea line
she does have a good deal of wit, though I am far from admitting
she has any subtlety. (or profundity). But I will, once again,
re-open up my closed mind and try not to scape goat.
Anyway, you make great points. It's just I'm getting so frustrated
with this season. And like you, darrenk, I want to see more JOSS
episodes! His episodes just go a step above everything else. OMWF
deals with many of the same themes as the season as a whole but
so....POW! ZAP! FWAZOOM! Whereas much of this season can be watched
while dusting.
Doesn't he LOVE Buffy anymore? What projects could be more important
to him!? He's only got a season and a half left! He should sit
his butt down and bring his hero in for a safe and wild landing.
(oh. And I had assumed all ready that Joss wasn't as involved
in Angel as Buffy. That show has a strong stench of Josslessness.)
Oh! and a question! I tried to identify the first time Scoobies
was USED! I can't find it. They never decided to call themselves
that as far as I can tell. They just started referring to themselves.
Does anyone know what the context of the first "scooby"
usage was?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> By Xander in S. 2 ep "What's My Line"
pt 1 -- Masquerade, 13:30:15 02/11/02 Mon
To Cordelia, "If you want to be part of the Scooby Gang...."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: By Xander in S. 2 ep "What's
My Line" pt 1 -- Darby, 09:20:37 02/12/02 Tue
Although maybe it was a costumer that initiated the idea - Willow
has wearing a Scooby Do T-shirt before the term was ever mentioned
(don't remember which ep, just that I noticed the T and then the
reference later while watching the sequence of reruns on FX).
Which came first, the shirt or the term? The recent interview
with the Nerds of Doom (see other thread) suggests that the writers
quickly pick up and run with concepts that arise while the show's
being shot through a season, so I vote for the shirt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Once More in Defense of Marti Noxon
-- Amber, 00:48:24 02/12/02 Tue
I think it's also important to remember that both Joss and Marti
have said in numerous interviews that this season would be different.
Whether "different" is good or bad depends on the viewer.
We're not following the same pattern as every other year. There
is no Big Bad, no big mystery that the Scooby's are trying to
solve before time runs out. After defeating a God there can't
be too many demonic threats that will make the Scoobies quiver.
The sense of urgency that we have seen in other seasons isn't
there.
I watch the show every week, but a friend of mine who doesn't
get UPN has it taped for her and has been watching this season
6 eps. at a time, (when someone gives her a 6 hour tape.) She
says that if you have the patience and your feeling frustrated
by the slow pace, this makes Season 6 much more interesting.
Overall I don't think time is moving as fast for the Scooby's
this year. The first three episodes seem to take place within
days of each other, where as, in other seasons the time between
ep. 1 to ep. 3 seems more like a few weeks.
Before complaining about this season remember that there was a
lot of frustration and negative comments about the show at the
beginning of last year before anyone understood what Dawn was
and how Ben and Glory fit into the big picture.
I'm optimistic that "Dead Things" is like the "Blood
Ties" of last year, and will kick this season into gear.
Buffy's been sleepwalking through life, but maybe now she'll wake
up and we'll see where things are going.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust and S&M games (spoilers for Dead Things.) -- bookworm, 18:07:18
02/11/02 Mon
Why do you think Spike brought out those handcuffs in the teaser?
And why did Buffy apparently let him cuff her? Reading between
the lines, it seemed like Spike had more in mind than sex play.
He was trying to establish trust, deepen the bonds between them.
He cuffs her, makes it impossible for her to fight back, and he
doesn't do anything to her but make love to her. He lets her cuff
him in turn, trusts her not to stake him. Later in the episode,
when she thinks she killed Katrina and he says, "Trust me,"
it was like he was referring back to that bondage game. Since
she let him cuff her, it looks like she really does trust him
with her life and it terrifies her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Trust and S&M games (spoilers for Dead Things.) -- Rachel,
07:18:51 02/12/02 Tue
Spike will do whatever it takes to show Buffy that he loves her.
He is always dramatic in his approach, though. Simple conversation
(re Buffy's room decor) is not going to do it for him. I've often
wondered what might have happened if he hadn't blatently pointed
out that he and Buffy were conversing naturally. Instead, what
Spike does is to pull out a pair of hand-cuffs. Buffy, who's Never
means Yes, plays the game. Spike clearly is capable of a full
range of emotions, including love. Tara realizes this but Buffy
would rather call him a Thing than recognize that he loves her.
She is using him and she knows it. Okay, I'm getting a bit rambly
here, so I'll come to a point: I think that Buffy does trust Spike
with her body. What Buffy doesn't trust is her friends. She's
so afraid of what they would think if they knew about her and
Spike. She reminds me of the Buffy of Seasons 1 & 2 -- the kid
who wanted to fit in but had so many secrets about who she really
was. She and those Scoobies could use some team building exercises.
(But maybe not involving handcuffs -- there's a thought...Spike
as a motivational speaker).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Trust and S&M games (spoilers for Dead Things.)
-- manwitch, 10:43:54 02/12/02 Tue
Interesting. I don't disagree, but the first thing I thought of
when Buffy said "Never" in response to Spike's trust
question was that Buffy's legs are, among other things, lethal.
Just cuz she indulges, she doesn't forget the deal. I took her
seriously. But maybe she was just playing along.
Plus, would it be wrong to suggest that being able to love someone
you don't trust is a step forward in love?
Just a thought. I offer no opinion. Just the question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Trust and S&M games (spoilers for Dead Things.)
-- Rachel, 13:29:28 02/12/02 Tue
"Plus, would it be wrong to suggest that being able to love
someone you don't trust is a step forward in love?"
Making oneself vulnerable is a step forward in love. If this is
an extension of the above idea, then I agree. Not knowing entirely
what the other person will do with your feelings and your body
but giving of yourself anyway is one critical aspect of love.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Trust and S&M games (spoilers for Dead Things.)
-- manwitch, 10:45:38 02/12/02 Tue
Interesting. I don't disagree, but the first thing I thought of
when Buffy said "Never" in response to Spike's trust
question was that Buffy's legs are, among other things, lethal.
Just cuz she indulges, she doesn't forget the deal. I took her
seriously. But maybe she was just playing along.
Plus, would it be wrong to suggest that being able to love someone
you don't trust is a step forward in love?
Just a thought. I offer no opinion. Just the question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLL - .-=Most watch Episode=-. -- Methodica, 20:06:33 02/11/02
Mon
I recently managed to get almost every ep of Buffy onto my laptop
so I been watching alot of the show as of late. I noticed however
the Ep's I been watching alot of are not really the ones I like
the best. I curious to know which Ep's everyone like's to watch
the most. The one I have been watching the most personally is
Restless not my 1# Fav (FFL is) but there has been a bunch of
things in it that have been bugging me for awhile same with Graduation
as well.
Anywho its late im off to sleepy land
Methodica's Most watched
1# Restless
2# Tabula Rosa
3# Fool For Love
4# Blood Ties
5# Graduation Part 1 (The one where buffy stabs faith)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: POLL - .-=Most watch Episode=-. -- OnM, 21:28:58 02/11/02
Mon
These are the ones that I've watched the most, ordered by number
of times seen (never actually counted, just an estimate)
#5 - The Gift - 5 or 6 times
#4 - Restless - 6 or 7 times
#3 - Becoming Pt II - 6 or 7 times
#2 - Fool for Love - 7 or 8 times
#1 - Prophecy Girl - 8 to 10 times
I watch all eps at least twice, once 'live' then on tape. Since
I've been writing reviews this season, I watch it a third time
for good measure, and besides, why not?
'Fool for Love' and 'Becoming' are my #1 and #2 favorite eps,
although they are so close it's hard to call. 'Prophecy Girl'
is a fav too, but it's mostly a matter that it's from season 1,
and any time it gets repeated I tend to watch it, thus the higher
count.
So there! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: POLL - .-=Most watch Episode=-. -- LeeAnn, 01:16:14
02/12/02 Tue
#1 Becoming Part 2
#2 Fool for Love
#3 Dead Things (already)
#4 Once More with Feeling
#5 Tabula Rasa / Smashed - tie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Well, I havn't been counting, but......... -- vampire hunter
D, 03:53:32 02/12/02 Tue
Here are the ones I think I watch most:
The Body
Blood Ties
The Gift (but only when drunk, so the plotholes don't get in the
way of the felling)
Bargaining (both parts)
Tabula Rasa
Of course, this is only because until recently Season 5 was the
only one I had, and havn't had time to go back and watch my favorites
from previous seasons since aquiring them. And I still don't have
my favorite ep, which is Bothered, Bewitched, and Bewildered
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Well, I havn't been counting, but......... --
manwitch, 04:43:08 02/12/02 Tue
Prophecy Girl (the ultimate Joseph Campbell episode)
Halloween (love Willow's (first) coming out party)
Restless (does it get better than that?)
Intervention (Oh yeah. I guess it does)
Tabula Rasa (The most underrated episode ever)
Its just so easy to watch these, and see something new everytime.
And it never gets less entertaining. I kept my list to five, like
ev'body else, but Lover's Walk, The Wish, and No Place Like Home
get a lot of play time at my place, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: POLL - .-=Most watch Episode=-. -- Scroll, 06:01:02
02/12/02 Tue
1) Restless (I've watched it three times in a row in one sitting!)
2) Family (I know, not the best ep but I love Amber)
3) Graduation 1 & 2
4) Earshot
5) Hush
I love the whole Angelus arc of S2 but can't watch those eps too
often without feeling depressed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: POLL - .-=Most watch Episode=-. -- Brian, 07:05:04
02/12/02 Tue
1. Amends
2. Hush
3. Faith, Hope, & Trick
4. Becoming
5. The Gift
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: POLL - .-=Most watch Episode=-. -- Cactus Watcher, 07:13:44
02/12/02 Tue
1. Restless
2. Fool for Love
3. Helpless
4. Graduation parts 1 and 2
5. Once more with feeling
The Body is a better piece of work than some of these, but I can't
watch it if I'm the least bit depressed. For me Restless and Fool
for Love are the pivotal episodes of the whole series. Helpless
showed in a much simpler way than the Gift, the extent of Buffy's
courage and love of family. It also was the begining of Buffy's
understanding that the world she lived in was not all black-and-white.
The love-hate story of Faith and Buffy makes Graduation 1 and
the first third of part 2 worth watching over and over. The rest
of part two is fine, but not so gripping. Once More with Feeling
is what I now use to get people more interested in Buffy. Sad
to say, everybody loves that ep., but usually they can't see that
the rest of the series has much of the same energy, spice and
intelligence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: POLL - .-=Most watch Episode=-. -- Sebastian, 08:26:19
02/12/02 Tue
'dopplegangland': vampwillow - need i say more?
'forever': buffy's speech to dawn at the end is almost word for
word what i told my best friend when i broke down over the loss
of my own mother.
'tough love': who *wouldn't* go on a suicide mission to exact
venegance if someone viciously attacked your lover?
'primeval': the resolution of the *very* tedious adam story arc,
but also served as the prologue for things to come = 'restless'
and the arc of S5.
'passion': i feel this is the ep that ended buffy and the scoobies
'age of innocence' regarding combating evil. this was the first
time they realized that they could lose to evil at a terrible
cost.
strangely, 'the gift' left me unaffected. however, i can only
watch 'the body' once every few months just because several scenes
(particularly dawn and anya's 'reaction' scenes) are just too
realistically raw. and 'dead things' looks to be a soon-to-be
'most watched'.
just my thoughts.
- S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: POLL - .-=Most watch Episode=-. -- Darby, 08:40:52 02/12/02
Tue
I've got Once More With Feeling on a tape that I slap in when
I can't find something on the History Channel or the Learning
Channel (or Dennis Miller, when available)that's interesting enough
but tedious enough to go to sleep to, so I've probably seen it
(or at least parts of it) more than 50 times.
Nothing else even close.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: POLL - .-=Most watch Episode=-. -- Vegeta, 12:20:20
02/12/02 Tue
These are in no particular order:
Hush
Doppelgangland
The Body
Bargaining (Pt 1&2)
Fear,Itself
"Hush" is probably the episode I've veiwed most often.
Since I use it to reel in people unfamilar with the BtVS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Five I rate, and three I don't! -- Nevermore, 10:03:37 02/12/02
Tue
i don't own season 5 so haven't notched up any tape usage there!
My five most watched:
Doppelgangland, Something Blue, Who are you, Nightmares and The
Zeppo.
Just out of interest - here are the episodes I can't stand! -
I Robot,You Jane, Bad eggs, Go fish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: POLL - .-=Most watch Episode=-. -- Wynn, 14:47:34 02/12/02
Tue
Definitely my most watched episode is Once More With Feeling.
Others include Something Blue, Fool for Love, The Zeppo, Prophecy
Girl, and Restless.
My least watched episode (or the episode I like the least) is
Where the Wild Things Are.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: POLL - .-=Most watch Episode=-. -- terrapin, 16:36:08
02/12/02 Tue
Here's my list in no particular order:
Once more with Feeling
The Body
Doppelganland
Restless(It's own category of greatness)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: POLL - .-=Most watch Episode=-. -- JBone, 16:42:25 02/12/02
Tue
1. Restless
2. Becoming, Part I, II
3. Welcome to the Hellmouth/ Harvest
4. Surprise/Innocence
5. Graduation Day, Part I, II
I haven't revised my top ten list since before season 5. But there
are a couple episodes on my most watched that didn't make my top
ten before The Body and The Gift. I've rewatched Restless countless
time looking for everything everyone else mentions, and Becoming
because I never saw it coming. I've rewatched the series premiere
a lot because what happened there affects what happens for the
following year and a half. I've viewed Surprise and Innocence
additionally because I never saw it coming, and I kept coming
back like a addict. And finally, I kept watching Graduation Day
because it kind of was a precursor for Restless.
Charging up the charts is Once More With Feeling, The Body and
The Gift. Some other honorable mentions should include: Tabula
Rasa, Triangle, Primeval, Doppelgangland, The Prom, Earshot, and
The Pack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: POLL - .-=Most watch Episode=-. -- A8, 13:35:34 02/13/02
Wed
1.) The Body
2.) Once More with Feeling
3.) Restless
4.) Doppelgangland
5.) Triangle
Honorable mentions to Tabula Rasa, Hush, Pangs, Bad Girls, Primeval
and The Wish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Correction, actually... -- A8, 13:37:59 02/13/02 Wed
...I would probably place Family as #5 on my list and move Triangle
down to the honorable mentions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope you have a merry little . . . um . . . -- d'Herblay, 21:02:02
02/11/02 Mon
As my clock creeps up on midnight, I just wanted to make sure
to wish all my friends here joy and happiness on this Mardi Gras/Chinese
New Year/193rd anniversary of the births of Abraham Lincoln and
Charles Darwin. So much to celebrate! Light up the firecrackers!
Examine the finches! Have a cyber-Sazerac on me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I shall consume a fastnacht and think of ya'all, just not
right this minute ... -- OnM, 21:15:54 02/11/02 Mon
... since I already had two earlier this evening!
Appreciate the thought!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Gung Hay Fat Choy and Sun Neen Fay Lok to you too!
-- Deeva, 21:22:48 02/11/02 Mon
Major eating going all around my house. End of the year dinner.
First meal of the new year. First dinner of the new year. Not
to mention all the snacking on symbolic good luck food. I just
blew whatever weight I lost from the other new year. Also seeing
how I'm still single I'm still raking in the red envelopes! Heh-heh!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Gung Hay Fat Choy and Sun Neen Fay Lok to
you too! -- Cactus Watcher, 07:25:36 02/12/02 Tue
Sounds great! Can the rest of us be honorary Chinese? Happy New
Year! ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> An entangled bank, clothed with many plants... -- matching
mole, 08:17:24 02/12/02 Tue
How wonderful to be wished the best of Darwin's birthday on the
AtPoBtVS board.
The final words of 'The Origin of Species' might well apply to
aspects of the Buffyverse as well.
'Thus from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most
exalted object of which we are capable of conceiving, namely the
production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur
in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally
breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet
has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from
so simple a begininning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.'
Thanks, d'Herblay. I'll inspect some finches if they come to my
feeder, otherwise I'll have to settle for House Sparrows.
Enjoy the day, all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> New Cocktail Recipes? -- darrenK, 08:44:09 02/12/02 Tue
In honor of all these special occasions, perhaps we should come
up with the recipe for a new cocktail?
It can be called the Darwin and it should be so potent that only
the fittest could possibly survive the drinking of it.
Or perhaps it should be called the Vampire Slayer?
I've got it! A shot of absinthe (made from worm wood), set on
fire and dropped into a Bloody Mary. It could be garnished with
a big stake of celery.
Somebody stop me please.
dK
P.S. d'Herblay, which one of you has the pictures? I'd like some
copies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I have the pictures -- Rah - back and not happy about
it, 13:58:09 02/12/02 Tue
The photos are mine. I will develop them when I finish off the
roll. I wish I could digitize them but that would involve me making
illegal use of brand new and still being monitored office equipment.
So I was thinking that I could snail mail them to someone who
was a) interested in seeing them b) could digitize them for wider
distribution.
Just liked to say how much I enjoyed meeting up with various board
members in NYC - Kimberly, Edward and Josh, Anom and DarrenK.
Thanks for a great evening. But more particularly Anom and Darren
for their company on numerous, very enjoyable occasions.
There's someone else I'm missing too, but the less said the better
otherwise I'd get miserable again. Nothing to celebrate for me
today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hon, I've got a scanner, if it's any help...
-- dubdub, 16:57:03 02/12/02 Tue
...seems a long way to send the photos just to get them on-line,
but if that's what you mean by digitizing them I'd be happy to
do it.
Looking forward to hearing from you--hotmail me when you get a
chance!
;o)
xoxoxox
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thanks! -- Rahael, 18:45:24 02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Cleveland, anyone? -- darrenK, 19:06:55 02/12/02
Tue
Yeah, I had a lot of fun too. We'll have to arrange bigger gatherings.
NYC is sorta central, but just to be fair we could have the next
one in Cleveland.
Rah, I have access to many scanners if you want to send them to
me. It seems funny to have to ship them across the Atlantic in
order to zing them over the Internet. But that's life for ya',
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Woo hoo! -- WW, 08:56:17 02/12/02 Tue
Just got to work to discover that one of the big hotels we deal
with regularly has come in with grills, etc., to serve us all
a big Fat Tuesday Pancake Breakfast, complete with Zydeco music!
Gotta love it!! Gung Hay Fat Choy!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> wb! -- mundusmundi, 10:04:01 02/12/02 Tue
I almost considered catching a red-eye to NYC for the big too-doo,
but then I picked up a Columbus Official Visitors Map, which lists
as my town's feature attractions: the Columbus Metropolitan Library
(Visit the Library Store!); Easton Town Center (shopping, much?);
the Santa Maria replica (strange it doesn't mention the harbor);
and Scioto Downs. Quite a cultural undertaking was to be had,
needless to say....;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Almost moved to Colombus -- matching mole, 11:30:42
02/12/02 Tue
a year and a half ago. Now I see what I'm missing out on. Urbana
doesn't have a replica of the Santa Maria (or a body of water
large enough to float one on) and our library has no opportunities
for capitalist consumption (in fact it is called the Urbana Free
Library, presumably to put any thoughts of shopping to rest).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yikes! Both mm's in the same town? I don't think
I could handle that... ;o) -- dubdub, 13:43:48 02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> And... -- Darby, 10:35:23 02/13/02 Wed
You've got a bigtime fencing competition there this weekend -
one of my fencers will be rolling into town tomorrow for the Junior
Olympics.
Is there a lot of fencing in Columbus (for those who aren't fencers,
that's not as dumb a question as it sounds)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> One of my colleagues fences, so could be. --
mm, 16:43:44 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spike, sex and shame -- Buffy's sexual awakening? -- yez, 08:39:21
02/12/02 Tue
Short on time, so can't really explore this as I'd like to, but
wanted to put it out there to see if others have thoughts on it.
(And if others have already raised the issue, I apologize -- must've
missed it.)
My point is basically that Buffy's relationship with Spike is
in many ways a brilliant telling of a character's sexual awakening,
and of how she reconciles lust, various sex acts, foreplay, etc.,
to her image of herself, to the image she feels her friends have
of her, to what she believes is acceptable and normal behavior
for who she is.
Buffy's having great sex that includes rough play, bondage, etc.,
and she's having it with a vampire, and it creates a radical conflict
with what she thinks is proper behavior. So she rationalizes that
she MUST NOT have come back right. If she were truly a good human
girl slayer, she wouldn't be capable of such "nasty,"
socially unacceptable things. She wouldn't allow a nasty demon
to "do those things to [her]."
Buffy, IMHO, is actually quite insecure about her sexuality. That
isn't unusual for people at that age (and many other ages), but
I think it's not often explored in this kind of genre.
It seems to me that most female action heroes (and perhaps it's
true of males, too) tend to be portrayed as fairly well-attuned
to their sexuality -- they wear sexy outfits, use sex appeal as
power, etc. -- (e.g., Charlie's Angels, Xena, Dark Angel, Rita
from "Thieves", etc.). Even Faith had that sex appeal
going.
But with Buffy, neither the audience nor the foes are really assaulted
by sexiness/seduction that way. Some of that is sure to have started
as a function of the slayer's age. Still, even at the age she
is now, how often do we see her slaying in a long coat or in sweats?
You just don't get that same kind of "I'm kicking your ass
and looking really hot while I'm doing it" thing that you
often see on other shows.
And as far as Buffy's sexual relationships go, she's had quite
a lot of fairly tramautic experiences -- her "first"
goes evil and makes her feel inadequate; another lover treats
her as a one-night stand; a big passion night with Riley turns
out to be supernaturally-induced, and he later claims that she
"drove" him into the arms of a vampire "prostitute,"
so to speak. Those kinds of things really aren't big confidence
builders.
It's all just more character texturing that I find fascinating.
Anyway, I could go on and on, but actually can't. So, for your
consideration...
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike, sex and shame -- Buffy's sexual awakening? (s6
spoilers) -- Darby, 09:10:11 02/12/02 Tue
Great point about the parallels between a more typical 20s woman
and Buffy, whose entire sexual history is known to the audience
(how often is that true for a TV character?). And it got me thinking...
Spike likes it when Buffy doesn't treat him like a "thing"
emotionally, and the impression we're being given is that he doesn't
treat her like a "thing" sexually.
In fact, we are shown that when he wants to tweak her feelings,
he suggests that he is. And when Tara suggests that Buffy's might
really be using Spike as a sexual "thing," it brings
about a near-breakdown.
It brings another layer (ignore the pun and it'll go away) to
the arc. When this started, Buffy couldn't feel vulnerable because
she was convinced that she didn't really need Spike - if he deserted
her, which was the pattern of her relationships, she had no investment
in him anyway, would probably give him up before he gave her up
(I wonder if the writers had even given this sort of backstory
motivation to Parker?). She has even distanced herself from Spike
on other fronts to keep that option more available - since when
did "having a conversation" not factor into the Buffy-Spike
relationship?
But gradually, it seems like she has come to realize that this
is essentially the same as Parker's m.o., even while she has become
more bound (yeah, yeah, handcuff joke) to Spike. But Buffy is
not Parker, and it will be interesting to see, once she decides
that this user is not who she wants to be, how much she can pull
away from this dead thing that has insinuated himself into her
life.
Not sure I go along with your point connecting the sexiness of
the character and the wardrobe - Buffy certainly dresses to be
ogled, it's "beautiful people TV." But the character's
/ actress' general gorgeousness (aside: it really pops out on
the DVD) is, usually, not overt and not played by Buffy, not "using
sex appeal as power," as you said, which is definitely true
(except mostly with Spike, interestingly enough, going WAY back).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The Scoobie look -- yez, 10:18:01 02/12/02 Tue
Darby wrote: "... Buffy certainly dresses to be ogled, it's
"beautiful people TV." But the character's / actress'
general gorgeousness (aside: it really pops out on the DVD) is,
usually, not overt and not played by Buffy... "
It's all so subjective... The only characters I find physically
gorgeous are Cordelia, Spike, Faith, and sometimes Tara. The rest,
I find all kinds of cute in varying degrees at various times,
but not gorgeous. I've always kind of liked that, *relatively*
speaking, it's *not* "beautiful people TV," IMHO. I've
come to think more of the characters/actors are cute as they've
become beloved to me, but I still often feel they're quite funny-looking,
some of them.
And as far as the Scoobies' wardrobes go, I've always been impressed
by how realistic they are -- including how cheap and unflattering
the outfits can sometimes look, particularly Buffy's. But yes,
sometimes she does wear ogle clothes -- but I wouldn't say that
was the norm.
I'm somewhat ashamed that one of my strongest reactions to "Bargaining"
came when I saw the dress and shoes they'd buried her in. I thought
it was really unbecoming, and kept expecting some comment from
Buffy on how they could do that to her.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Scoobie look -- Sebastian, 11:44:17
02/12/02 Tue
i have to agree with all the points _yez_ has made.
i've never gotten the impression that the show was 'beautiful
people tv' either. there are certainly physically beautiful people
on the show - but i always felt a strong point was that actors
on the show were *distinctive* looking more than beautiful. alot
of the characters' physical merits are subjective depending on
who is looking at them. a stark contrast to, say, 'dawson's creek'
or 'felicity' where characters can be defined as 'attractive'
by conventional standards.
i've read interviews with cynthia bergstrom (the show's costume
designer) and she and her assistants have always dressed the actors
to reflect the *character* - not just to make the person look
more attractive or to highlight a particular designer or trend.
and if you think about it - each character does seem to have a
very orginal way of dressing that has undergone a realistic evolution
as both show and character progressed.
i would contrast this to another 'cult' show, 'sex and the city',
where clothes are deliberately chosen as a focus for attention,
rather than to reflect who and what the character is about.
although i would have to concede that S6 seems to be exception,
where it seems the female characters (particularly anya and buffy)
seem to be dressing in what is clearly more higher-end outfits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Scoobie look -- Doriander, 12:20:55
02/12/02 Tue
Slightly veering from the topic here, but yes, I think distinctive
is the keyword. It goes beyond the look, I appreciate Scoobie-speak
as well. Each character has a distinct manner of speech. Compare
this to Dawson's Creek, where characters are implausibly articulate,
that instead of seeing characters I see one voice, the writer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Scoobie-speak -- yez, 14:12:37 02/12/02
Tue
Don't get me started on the way they talk. The cutesy, fake stuttering
is epidemic on BtVS, and is one of the few things I despise about
it.
And even though I'm all "power to the lesbians," the
Willow/Tara scenes sometimes nauseated me, what with all the baby
talk. Yuck.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Scoobie-speak -- Doriander,
15:37:40 02/12/02 Tue
I'm with you on the nauseating baby-talk. But I think that the
stuttering was written into Tara's character, I don't know about
Willow.
Just to be clear though, what I meant to point out earlier is
that the characters are written with individuals in mind, each
have a distinct voice: Xander speak, Buffy punning, Spike double
entendres, tactless Anya. The actors themselves do a great job.
It contributes greatly to the characterization, along with the
individual Scoobie look.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy was wearing PRADA
in season 3. Cheap? not my definition. -- Rahael, 16:36:39 02/12/02
Tue
Buffy's outfits are usually out my price range. Spike's duster
is from Hugo Boss.
If it looks cheap (highly subjective) its expensive cheap.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> correction --
Rah, 16:42:32 02/12/02 Tue
Spike's is from Armani. After all, Hugo Boss wasn't around in
1977. Angel's is from Hugo Boss.
I love the clothes on BtVS. Very inventive, often great. Since
Season 4, I've loved Buffy's personal look.
Half my wardrobe is 'Buffy clothes' and the other is 'Cordelia
clothes'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The clothing!
-- Deeva, 21:18:46 02/12/02 Tue
And I thought that I was crazy for buying the clothes that appeared
on Buffy. The cream lace shirt with bell sleeves from this season
that Buffy wore. The minute I saw it, I was obsessed until I finally
got it! Laundry by Shelli Seagal. It was on Friends, too. And
the burgundy leather pants. I'm somewhere between Cordy, Buffy
and Willow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay,
gotta sheepishly join the BtVS/AtS clothes fanclub. Can't resist.
-- yuri, 00:22:28 02/13/02 Wed
whoever's in charge (and I don't feel like looking that up right
now) is really on point. They really got the peasant look down
this season (like the creme shirt). Most recently I really enjoyed
Buffy's outfit at the Bronze in DT, mostly b/c of that amazing
necklace that was just so perfect for the scene. Sorta S/M-y,
sorta bound up, but so chic. (Okay, I was going a little over
board there.)
-yuri (twirling her hair with her finger and sucking on a designer
blow pop.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
uh, j/k, _cynthia bergstrom_ is really on point. /gotta read the
whole thread before ya start, ri./ -- ri, 00:31:28 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike, sex and shame -- Buffy's sexual awakening? --
skeeve, 09:20:31 02/12/02 Tue
"another lover treats her as a one-night stand"
Actually Parker was worse than that.
In a mere one-night stand, one night of sex pretty much is the
relationship. Parker worked on Buffy incessantly for a couple
weeks. Parker dumped her after one night of sex. Sex was not the
relationship. Sex did not extend the relationship. Sex ended the
relationship.
Had Parker and Buffy's relationship been a one-night stand, Parker's
"analysis" would have been more or less correct.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike, sex and shame -- Buffy's sexual awakening?
-- Brian, 03:42:35 02/13/02 Wed
As I recall my 20's, it was a time of lots of sexual experimentation.
I think Buffy is just working out some normal sexual feelings.
Of course, for her, there is a whole layer of supernatural stuff,
guilt, slayeness, bad relationships in the past, bad sexual relationships,
lots of feeling "is it me?" when relationships fail.
Eventually, she will realize that it is not her, it is just the
complexity of physical sex as part of love. Perhaps Spike and
Buffy will be a great couple who work and live and love on a mutual
level of understanding. Time will tell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some thoughts on Fear, Itself (spoilers included) -- Anneth, 08:54:49
02/12/02 Tue
Fear, Itself was rerun on FX last night, and as I was watching
it I realized that it quotes the Wizard of Oz once the house traps
B, X, W, and Oz.
The winding road up to the "party" room is the land
of Oz, and the yellow brick road, all at once. It's totally enclosed
and seperate from "the real world", has its own rules,
and things are not what they seem.
As soon as they figure out something's amiss, B drops her red
riding hood, and her red-checked costume and pigtails mirrors
Judy Garland's costume very closely. B becomes Dorothy; she's
pretty much in charge of the group, the one they look to, and
the reason they're all gathered together in the first place. (Well,
sort of - they do coax her into going to the frat party to try
to keep her from moping about Parker. And the reason she's mopey
at all is because she's afraid that the people who should love
her (Parker, Angel, in a way) don't. Very much like Dorothy's
existential crisis.) Also, Buffy's bright white tennis shoes bring
to mind Dorothy's silver slippers, although there's no overt heel-knocking...
Willow becomes the Tin Woodsman; she's covered in metal armor
and is *very* sensitive, which is why she lashes out at B.
Oz is the Cowardly Lion - he's terrified when he realizes he's
becoming the werewolf, and we see him cowering and trembling on
two different occasions.
Xander, then, is the Scarecrow... but I can't really think of
any parallels. I haven't read the Wizard in a long time, I guess.
Giles is the Good Witch of the North (Comes to the rescue with
his magic chainsaw).
The itty bitty little demon is the Wizard himself - he creates
a huge, terrifying image in the minds of those who seek him, but
it turns out he's really quite harmless - pay no attention to
the man behind the curtain!
In the end, the four companions learn to trust themselves just
a little more.
What do you think? Have I seen David Lynch's _Wild at Heart_ once
too often?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Some thoughts on Fear, Itself (spoilers included) --
Grace, 09:08:33 02/12/02 Tue
Pretty cool. Xander--the Scarecrow only wants a brain. Xander
has an inferiority complex about not being in college etc. and
this is quite close to not thinking he is smart enough to hang
out with the others.
One question--what about Anya's bunny costume?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Some thoughts on Fear, Itself (spoilers included)
-- Anneth, 09:40:42 02/12/02 Tue
One question--what about Anya's bunny costume?
Toto?
giggle. Maybe not. Um... I wondered about that, then decided it
best to remain quiet and see if anyone else could come up with
anything. And yeah, your analysis of Xander as the Scarecrow is
spot-on! (It was too obvious for me, clearly - if it had been
a snake...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Some thoughts on Fear, Itself (spoilers included) --
Darby, 09:32:49 02/12/02 Tue
That's why this board vastly outstrips the other ones I've seen
- so many people with such different backgrounds so actively thinking
about what they've seen.
I never would have seen the parallels on my own, but now that
you've pointed them out, it hardly seems like it could be accidental.
And now I'm looking for similar homage clues in other eps...this
is a very symbiotic relationship we have in this place...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Some thoughts on Fear, Itself (spoilers included)
-- Rachel, 10:21:46 02/12/02 Tue
Right on, Darby! I'm as much a fan of this board as I am of buffy....Color
me happy to be a tenant of this symbiosis. Seeing eps through
another set of eyes is quite fun. Plus, the vicarious viewing
really helps through a tedious day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Some thoughts on Fear, Itself (spoilers
included) -- Marie, 03:47:38 02/13/02 Wed
I'm as much a fan of this board as I am of buffy....Color me happy
to be a tenant of this symbiosis. Seeing eps through another set
of eyes is quite fun. Plus, the vicarious viewing really helps
through a tedious day.
Oh, I can't tell you how much I echo these sentiments! Though
I guess I just did...
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I believe it. Good observations. -- Traveler, 12:11:21 02/12/02
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: thoughts on Fear, Itself Extensive Spoilers for BS4,
S5; AS2. Including Finales. -- Age, 19:36:07 02/12/02 Tue
I think the allusion is there. 'The Wizard of Oz' was used the
next year on both 'Buffy' and 'Angel.': 'No Place Like Home',
'Spiral', 'Over the Rainbow'(if my memory serves me correctly;I'm
lousy with title names.) Angel ends his own season two with: 'There's
no place like...' 'Fear Itself' was probably setting the template
for the next season. Whedon seems to think things through years
in advance.
Willow as tin woodsman would make sense because she's going to
get her heart ripped out, so to speak, with Oz leaving. And Tara's
going to come in and restore it. Although it's not as if Willow
truly loses her heart(as the tin wood man doesn't really need
one) because she doesn't let her sorrow lead her to a place of
vengeance only.
Xander, as already been pointed out in one reply, believes that
he will be invisible to the others because he lacks the brain
power they have by going to college. Xander, like the scarecrow,
finds that he has smarts that you don't get with a diploma.
Oz is the cowardly lion because he's about to run away, out of
fear at what he might do as an animal. He goes off to find out
how to manage his animal within. He has the courage to face his
inner animal and deal with it, as the cowardly lion has courage.
Anya is the Wicked Witch of the East/West(life, bunnies represent
new life from death, ie mortality). The wicked witch of the east(dawn/birth/childhood)
may represent that person who doesn't want to grow up or at least
childhood(dead already under the house because Dorothy has already
decided to start her journey to adulthood.) The munchkins represent
the potential for either having new little people,ie Dorothy as
mother, if she makes the journey or staying as a child herself
if she doesn't. Toto the dog represents Dorothy's animal nature.)
The Wicked Witch of the West represents the fear of death(sun
sinking in the west) which is something one has to deal with when
it comes to growing up and facing ones own sexuality. Hence the
use of 'The Wizard of Oz' in both series the next year because
both dealt with what it takes to become adults, especially Buffy
who had to accept that for the next generation to live on, she
as the previous generation must die. Of course Anya is afraid
of death. The bunny suit is the scariest thing that Anya can think
to wear; it is of course the scariest thing she can wear because
it represents death.
Buffy of course was just about to go on a journey down the path
to adulthood.
It seems then highly likely that your interpretation was intended
by the writers.
I felt that the Scoobies didn't take their fear of separation
from one another seriously as they pushed on with their personal
Initiative(squashed what they thought was a little fear/problem
into their subconscious), and so let the problem grow larger with
it becoming symbolized by Adam. They then had to go down into
their collective subconscious, the Initiative complex, and excise
the idea that personal Initiative meant they had to split up as
friends.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is Dawn going to school? -- skeeve, 10:12:44 02/12/02 Tue
If she is going to high school, it's presumably not the same one
that Buffy went to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Hopefully not the School Trailers -- Rachel, 10:46:10
02/12/02 Tue
I don't know but it must have been hastily constructed. Have you
seen those depressing trailers that kids go to school in these
days? Overcrowding issues are probably to blame, rather than a
giant exploding snake. But I suspect that Dawn attends school
in a makeshift group of trailers while the school is being rebuilt.
In every episode that the original school library was destroyed,
I felt such a pang. Buffy's high school was better designed that
most of today's industrialized school-factories. One of the reasons
it's so easy for Dawn to skip school is likely due to a lack of
an inspirational school atmosphere. I've heard those trailers
can get pretty hot and stuffy. And what would have become of the
clubs, sports, etc. after the big blow up? I haven't seen the
first part of season six, so I'm not sure if it was addressed.
We came to know Buffy at her school but I don't know nearly as
much about Dawn's school life. When I was her age, school pretty
much defined my daily existence. Maybe this is one reason why
we find Dawn so bratty. We just see the home side of her. If that's
all we had see of Buffy then we might have drawn the same conclusion.
Buffy shut her mother out of her life for a good part of the first
two seasons. It was at school where Buffy The Person came out.
Long answer to your short question...Actually, I didn't even have
the answer...Sorry!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Hopefully not the School Trailers -- Eric, 15:17:34
02/12/02 Tue
If Sunnydale really resembles Santa Barbara, there's a high school
in the suburbs called San Marcos. It is more "modern"
(circa 1960's) than the downtown one (circa 1920). In the few
eps showing the old Sunnydale High, no indication of rebuilding
is evident. And if you look closely at the library before it blew
up you'll notice the shelves are bare - Giles would never incinerate
his occult book collection - or any other book for that matter.
And personally, I've attended both types of high schools and loathed
them equally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vamp a Wolf? -- Mac, 10:22:50 02/12/02 Tue
If a vampire is bitten by a werewolf (or vice versa) would the
vamp become a werewolf (or vice versa) and why?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vamp a Wolf? -- Apophis, 11:38:07 02/12/02 Tue
I figure that, if a vampire got bitten by a werewolf, nothing
would happen. Lycanthropy has been likened to a disease on the
show, and the undead, being dead and all, are traditionally immune
to diseases. As for vice versa; that's been on my mind for a while.
My guess is vampirism would cure the lycanthropy, leaving a "normal"
vampire. If not, though, the resulting creature would be darn
near unstoppable on the right nights, combining the resiliance
of both a vampire and a werewolf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I agree, plus... -- Isabel, 12:39:31 02/13/02 Wed
If the vamping of a werewolf were possible. Perhaps they would
be near unstoppable at the next full moon, but they'd die the
very next day when the werewolf returned to "normal."
The wolf would not be thinking of shelter. He'd be an unconscious,
exhausted vampire at sunrise.
"Poof"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vamp a Wolf? -- Cleanthes, 20:04:02 02/12/02 Tue
While certainly not dispositive of the issue, in the Buffy the
Vampire Slayer boardgame from Milton Bradley, Veruca and Oz cannot
be vamped, as they're already demons, according to the rules.
Nor can any other demons. Nothing on the shows indicates that
demons can be vamped. Whether werewolves are somehow demonic is
debatable, though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Whoa!! -- d'Herblay, 20:08:39 02/12/02 Tue
Cleanthes? Is that really you? Post something in Greek so we know
for sure . . .
Been missing you.
Who is responsible for what? -- manwitch, 10:24:26 02/12/02 Tue
There was a nice thread going down below, I think it was the When
does No mean No thread, that I kinda missed out on cuz I have
a job and they expect me to work rather than check the Buffy posts.
Kinda sucks. I wish I could find a way to just get whatever I
wanted without having to work for it. I could be like a "supervillain."
Anyway.
There was a brief exchange down there about responsibility that
got me thinking.
"You are responsible for your own actions, but its not that
simple."
"Yes it is that simple."
That was the basic gist of the exchange.
So I just wanted to suggest that "Yes, its not that simple."
You are responsible for your own actions, but you are also responsible
for other's actions, and other people are also responsible for
your actions. It's a giant tangled web of responsibility.
I would argue, politely and with an awareness of my own ignorance,
that BtVS offers explorations and representations of different
approaches to morality and moral responsibility.
Angel takes responsibility for his own actions, sort of. His soul
holds itself morally accountable for what his soul-less (or soulful)
body does. The body itself is not responsible. The soul behind
it is. And therefore it judges its morality not on the acts of
the body per se, but the intent, or lack of same, exhibited behind
the action. Its important to Angel to intend the good, and he
is horrified, and holds himself responsible for Angelus's intentions
of evil. His responsibility is of the nature of atonement and
apology.
Spike takes responsibility for his own actions, but in a different
way. He takes responsibility for his actions in the doing. His
intentions don't really concern him. Acts, whether good or ill,
are a form of expression. He takes responsibility precisely by
not apologizing. To Spike, apologizing disowns responsibility.
It pretends that he was in some way separate from his action and
free to have (should have) acted differently. The moral value
of the act is not really relevant to how or whether he owns up.
Spike's form of responsibility seems to be of the nature of "This
is what it is. If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Buffy takes responsibility for her own actions, but in an extremely
complicated way. She takes responsibility also for the actions
of people she loves, and they take responsibility for hers. This
is because Buffy's moral center out of which she judges and initiates
moral conduct is not just in Buffy. It is dispersed throughout
her network of loved ones. Indeed, her very identity is made up
of these relationships, and this is why she has been a successful
slayer. We've seen what happens to Slayer loners. Buffy can't
just be responsible for herself, because her "self"
is made up of Giles and Willow and Xander and Anya and Dawn, Joyce,
Spike, Oz, Angel, Cordelia, and whoever else (in no particular
order). Her sense of self comes from her relationships with these
people, their experiences together, what they say to and about
each other, and their love for each other. So she is not free,
as Spike is, to simply take responsibility for her own actions
in isolation. Nor is she free to judge herself on her own internal
(and also isolated) intent, as Angel is. Her responsibility can
only be "owned up to" (good english dude) through the
same network of relationships that make up her identity. Buffy
can't take responsibility for herself without the whole network.
Everybody needs to take responsibility for Buffy, and for everyone
else. Their problems, just like their selves, do not exist in
isolation.
I would expect that in order for Buffy to resolve her issues,
not just Buffy, but the whole gang, will have to own up to what
they've done, most visibly represented in Buffy's return. Just
a guess. Maybe it's a "duh."
As a final aside, just cuz I think its interesting, I will repeat
that Angel's morality is consistent with the moral thought of
the Enlighenment, and of Kant, approximately mid 18th century,
coincidentally when he was vamped. Spike's sense of moral responsibility
is consistent with late 19th Centruy thought, particularly Nietzsche.
Spike, oddly enough, was vamped in the late 19th century.
Buffys morality, her identity based on dispersion and "de-individualization"
is very akin to post-modernism, Foucault and Lyotard, late 20th
century, the time that, incidentally, Buffy is from.
I think the show is exploring these ideas and representing them
in different characters, which is why it can appear that there
are conflicting moral standards or even universes in the same
Buffyverse. Because there are, just as there are in our universe.
My own, incredibly biased read is that the show is suggesting
that Angel's morality is admirable, Spike's is seductive, and
Buffy's is what is necessary today.
Oh well. Just some ramblings over lunch. Do with it what you will.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Excellent. -- Sophist, 10:39:15 02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Faith and a "What if?" -- Darby, 10:47:09 02/12/02
Tue
I'm trying to avoid working today, and you people are giving me
too many good excuses.
Faith's moral compass was, at first, totally internal, filtered
through her feeling that her role in Life gave her a different
set of rules. It was only her interaction with Buffy and the Gang
and their moral judgments that really turned her to "the
Dark Side."
What if Buffy hadn't come back to Sunnydale? Assuming that Faith
survived her first week there, even if she had still killed the
Deputy Mayor and owned up to it (and I think that she would have
to her watcher, later if not sooner), is there any reason to think
that a Council investigation wouldn't determine "reasonable
losses, accidental, please just don't do it again if you can help
it?" That was the impression Giles gave about similar casualties
to past Slayers.
I guess what I'm asking is, was Faith's turn to evil a direct
result of her contact with Buffy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Faith and a "What if?" -- vampire hunter
D, 13:28:16 02/12/02 Tue
Ok, I'm writing this as I'm thinking on the fly, so bear with
me if this makes no sense at times.
I do agree that Faith's turn was due in part to the gang's treatment
of her. Faith was never really accepted by the Scoobies. And after
the accident, they all seemed to be judging her and came down
pretty hard on her (except for Angel, but I'll get to that later).
Faith was also jelous or envious of Buffy (the better Slayer,
friends who cared for her, and a family). These two factors in
Faith's mind put her at odds with the Scoobies. The only one she
did trust was ANgel, who she tried to turn to her side. So, I
think she decided if she had to be against the gang, than why
not join their enemy. Later, the MAyor was so much like a father
to her that she was more than happy to do what he asked (seeking
daddy's approval).
After Faith woke from her coma, what drove her then was a sense
of anger and fear directed at Buffy (due to Buff's attempt to
kil her). Also, a loathing of herself and what she did also drove
her to some of her more extreme actions (that was why she took
Buffy's body. Not just to hurt Buffy, but to stop being herself).
btw, this is part of why I think Faith was never truely evil,
that she obviously hated herself and what she did.
inLA, I think her violent oputbursts were an attempt at 'suicide
by cop' (force the police to kill her). Then, when she found out
Angel (the only person she ever really trusted other than the
Mayor) she decided on 'suicide by Angel' (she said it herself
"Please kill me"). That was why she hurt Wes and Cordy,
to provoke Angel into killing her (and Angle wouldn't take the
bait because he knew she wasn't really bad).
So that is my view of why Faith did what she did. And notice,
none of it was out of real evil. She's just a poor girl with a
lot af anger, bot at herself and others. Maybe she can get some
counseling in prison and come out better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Good food for thought, thanks. (NT) -- yez, 10:53:27 02/12/02
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> damn. that was wonderful. quick Q: do you agree with the
show's ranking and qualifying of morality? -- yuri, 12:50:15 02/12/02
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Well, thanks, manwitch -- JM, 12:56:48 02/12/02 Tue
Now I am forced to confront the fact that I am actually an evil
villain, since I am checking (and posting) from work. Just not
a supervillain, since I am still forced to do some work to get
the things I want.
Actually, beautiful post. I think it's very accurate and understanding
and also that it affirms a moral approach that is much more complicated
than simply declaring that Buffy needs to learn to not care what
other people think. That sounds like a self-affirming and non-judgemental
way to live, but the truth is that other people's opinions and
emotions are often relevant and important. It is somewhat arrogant
to assume that we are the only ones who have a handle on the truth
of our existence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Who is responsible for what? -- JBone, 16:08:53 02/12/02
Tue
that I kinda missed out on cuz I have a job and they expect me
to work rather than check the Buffy posts. Kinda sucks. I wish
I could find a way to just get whatever I wanted without having
to work for it.
I am right with ya there brother! I get home everyday, invariably
check the board, and especially lately, have a ton of reading
to check out. I freely admit I don't read everything. But still,
the amount of stuff I want to check out is obscene. If I end up
responding to anything, it's after a generous supply of beer takes
effect. This one has me responding early. I'd like to do some
of this at work, but luckily, I'm too damn busy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffy's Birthday -- Scbydu2001, 10:38:35 02/12/02 Tue
I have a question regarding Buffy's birthday. In the preview for
tonite's ep, Spike says"Do you ever think of not celebrating
your birthday?" I know that on her 17th Angel went bad and
that on her 18th she had to fight that strong vampire without
her powers, but what happened on her other bdays? Thanks to all
who can help.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy's Birthday -- Doriander, 11:52:32 02/12/02 Tue
19th b-day, nothing tragic happened, the ep was Giles-centric
so it dealt with his sense of alienation. (A New Man)
20th b-day, Dawn finds out she's the key and cuts herself. (Blood
Ties)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy's Birthday -- Scbydu2001, 08:19:12 02/13/02
Wed
Thanks alot Doriander :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I don't agree about her 19th... -- Isabel, 13:06:33
02/13/02 Wed
That was certainly a Giles centric episode, but that's because
he got turned into a demon by Ethan Rayne. The one she hunted
down and almost killed, ironically, because she thought it had
eaten Giles.
I seem to remember Riley apologizing to Buffy at her party for
something. Buffy commented that he'd still be able to pound all
of her toes with a hammer and it would still be her 'bestest birthday
ever.' The next day Giles got turned into a demon.
Granted, a lot of this action did not happen at her party or on
her birthday, but it was the beginning of Buffy's alienation from
Giles. It was at her party that Giles started to realize that
Buffy wasn't keeping him in the loop about ANYTHING anymore. Riley,
the new boyfriend, was one of the secret commandos he was investigating
because Buffy asked him to a month before. (Buffy hadn't told
him to stop.) Maggie was the new favorite adult/authority figure
in Buffy's life, while Buffy called him an unemployed slacker.
Plus, Buffy did not tell Giles that Maggie was also the head of
the Initiative until after he'd met the "harpy."
I have to add that one of my all time favorite scenes, period,
is Giles politely asking Spike to stop the car so Giles the Fyoral
demon can chase the screaming Maggie down the street. Then he
gets back in the car and happily asks Spike to drive on. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Greenberg issues challenge - meaning of "Older and Far
Away" -- voyageofbeagle, 11:00:41 02/12/02 Tue
At the Bronze today (Tuesday), Drew Greenberg wrote:
"And hey, I'm gonna go out on a limb and leave you guys with
a challenge... There's a pretty big and none-too-subtle hint in
tonight's ep about the title, at least in terms of where it came
from... the trick is gonna be going to the source and figuring
out what it means and what it refers to... it'll take some work
for anyone interested, but I promise it'll be worth it. For anyone
who's up for it."
Any thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Isn't it a literary reference? -- Dyna, 12:07:57 02/12/02
Tue
I have been known to hallucinate about this kind of thing, but
ever since I heard this episode title I've had this vague sense
that it's part of a quote, but I Just. Can't. Dig. Up. the full
line, or remember why I think so.
Anybody out there have access to a searchable literature database?
*Sigh.* [smallwhinyvoice] I miss grad school! [/smallwhinyvoice]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I thought it was an old song lyric... -- Darby, 12:15:42
02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Dont know answer -- it does remind me of song -- Neaux,
12:25:11 02/12/02 Tue
This isnt the right answer but the title reminds me of
"GET OLDER" by Mathew Sweet
Who cares if they don't think your cool?
They make everything about rules
And your older than that now
Get older
The world will fall into its place
You may be sad
When you get older
You might be happy just to stay
Who cares if you don't know what you want
'Cause they don't know what they've got
And you cannot resist
Get older
Your memories won't slip away
And you'll be glad
When you get older
That you were happy for today
Who cares?
Get older
The world will fall into its place
You may be sad
When you get older
You might be happy just to stay
Resist
Get older
Your memories won't slip away
And you'll be glad
When you get older
That you were happy for today
Who cares?
If you don't know what you want
If you don't know what you want
If you don't know what you want
If you don't know what you want
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Drew Greenberg issues challenge - meaning of "Older
and Far Away" -- dream of the consortium, 12:27:04 02/12/02
Tue
Well, here's the thing. The usual phrase is "over the hills
and far away." Of course, the expression "over the hill"
has come to mean "old", so "Older and Far Away"
is presumably a play on that. It was an old tune - I know that.
What I have forgotten is that it was from The Beggar's Opera.
Here's the quote:
And I would love you all the Day,
Every Night would kiss and play,
If with me you'd fondly stray
Over the Hills and far away.
Now, here's the interesting bit -looking this up on Bartleby.com,
I found this phrase is actually attributed to something earlier
still -
O'er the hills and far away.-D'Urfey: Pills to purge
Melancholy
Which sounds appropriate, but more research is required. Unless
someone knows something about D'Ufrey? I'll get on it in the meantime...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Beggar's Opera (Ice and Flame) -- Rahael, 18:43:52
02/12/02 Tue
I'll put my money (virtual, of course) on it coming from the Beggar's
Opera, hugely popular in 18th Century England, and influential
still (i.e Brecht's version).
Mainly a satire on English politics and particularly Robert Walpole,
it suggested that the doings of the highly political class could
be compared to the doings of a bunch of robbers and low lives.
But the heroine Polly, finds herself drawn to the disreputable
high way man Macheath.
Polly says:
Can Love be control'd by Advice? Will Cupid our Mothers obey?
Though my Heart were as frozen as Ice, At his Flame 'twould have
melted away.
Other relevant verses seemed to stand out for me.
Macheath:
Youth's the season made for joys,
Love is then our duty;
She alone who that employs,
Well deserves her beauty.
Let's be gay
While we may,
Beauty's a flower despised in decay
Let us drink and sport today,
Ours is not to-morrow.
Love with youth flies swift away,
Age is naught but sorrow.
Dance and sing,
Time's on the wing,
Life never knows the return of spring
And of course, with the scoobies made prisoner in their house,
there is a similarity to the theme of prison/entrapment in the
Opera. Plus there's the spontaneous bursting into song (though
that's really OMWF)
The quote is much likely to have come from the BO than any earlier
formulation of it. The Opera drew upon existing folk songs. Its
the Opera that is influential in literature today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> So what exactly is the hint given in the episode
itself? -- iphi, 04:55:18 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Beggar's Opera (Ice and Flame) -- dream
of the consortium, 06:50:58 02/13/02 Wed
I would tend to agree with you, though I was momentarily wooed
by the title of "Pills to Purge Melancholy". I don't
remember much about The Beggar's Opera - saw it once over ten
years ago and retained almost nothing. Okay, not almost - actually
nothing. People sang, and parts were funny. But I like the quotes
you've come up with. So, please, let me know if you found a reference
in the episode. (I won't see it until tonight, and would probably
miss the reference anyway, even if it were terribly obvious to
those in the know.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Beggar's Opera -- Rahael, 07:35:54
02/13/02 Wed
Well, I've skim read Beggar's Opera twice.
Once to find juicy quotes for an essay about Walpole. The second,
last night to find juicy quotes for the above.
Neither reading took more than 15 mins altogether (a lot of rude
words about women seemed to leap up at me. Am I allowed to mention
them on this board? Better not). Added to the fact that I haven't
seen 'Older and far away' yet. I get to wait even longer than
you. Could be weeks or months till I get to see it.
And I'm severely jet lagged. urrgh. I think my brain has now officially
stopped functioning.
However, what the quotes I found seemed to emphasise were the
themes of 'Carpe Diem', the passing of time, and the power of
love. Also theme of 'oh grow up'. And the sense of the absurd
yet tragic nature of life that seems to pervade BtVS, especially
during this season.
But this is all speculation. We don't as yet know if this is indeed
the source for the title. But it's literary and Early Modern so
proved irresistable to me.
As for what it might portend (a mischievous suggestion): Macheath
ends up on the gallows doesn't he?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Drew Greenberg issues challenge - meaning of "Older
and Far Away" -- dream of the consortium, 12:41:57 02/12/02
Tue
Okay, here are the two versions of the song, the late (Gay) and
the earlier (D'Ufrey). D'Ufrey apparently wrote a collection of
songs, many of which John Gay used in the creation of the Beggar's
Opera. A pretty lengthy desciption of the Beggar's Opera can be
found at
http://www.uoregon.edu/~rbear/beggar.html
John Gay - Beggars Opera
MacHeath:
Were I laid on Greenland's coast,
And in my arms embrac'd my lass;
Warm amidst eternal frost,
Too soon the half year's night would pass.
And I would love you all the day.
Ev'ry night would kiss and play,
If with me you'd fondly stray
Over the hills and far away.
Polly:
Were I sold on Indian soil,
Soon as the burning day was clos'd,
I could mock the sultry toil
When on my charmer's breast repos'd.
I would love you all the day.
Ev'ry night would kiss and play,
If with me you'd fondly stray
Over the hills and far away.
Over the hills and far away...
Duet:
Were I laid on Greenland's coast,
And in my arms embrac'd my lass;
Warm amidst eternal frost,
Too soon the half year's night would pass.
And I would love you all the day.
Ev'ry night would kiss and play,
If with me you'd fondly stray
Over the hills and far away.
D'Urfey: Pills to purge Melancholy
Our 'prentice Tom may now refuse
To wipe his scoundrel Master's Shoes,
For now he's free to sing and play
Over the Hills and far away.
Over the Hills and O'er the Main,
To Flanders, Portugal and Spain,
The queen commands and we'll obey
Over the Hills and far away.
We all shall lead more happy lives
By getting rid of brats and wives
That scold and bawl both night and day -
Over the Hills and far away.
Over the Hills and O'er the Main,
To Flanders, Portugal and Spain,
The queen commands and we'll obey
Over the Hills and far away.
Courage, boys, 'tis one to ten,
But we return all gentlemen
All gentlemen as well as they,
Over the hills and far away.
Over the Hills and O'er the Main,
To Flanders, Portugal and Spain,
The queen commands and we'll obey
Over the Hills and far away.
I have no idea what to make of any of that, but I'm about 80%
sure one of those is the intended reference. I guess I'll have
to wait for tonight's hint - which I sadly won't see until tomorrow
night, by which time everything I could possibly think of to say
will already be posted. Sigh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Tolkien and Zeppelin connection -- yez, 12:51:57 02/12/02
Tue
This stems from Dream's theory that "older" is a reference
to "over the hill."
Is it just a coincidence that this happens to be the name of a
role-playing game website that uses some actor images from BtVS?
(http://communities.msn.com/OvertheHillsandFarAwayHomepage/welcome.msnw)
Another website said that the tune the phrase is from was popular
during Colonial and Revolutionary America. Was it sung by any
characters on the show?
It's also apparently a Led Zeppelin song which at least one website
says is a reference to Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings."
(http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2406/othafa.html)
Some verses: " Hey lady-you got the love I need
oh
Maybe-more than enough oh
Darling Darling [darling]
walk a while with me -
oh you've got so much-
Many have I loved
Many times been bitten
Many times I've gazed
Along the open road"
Also, "Tolkien once wrote a poem titled "Over the Hills
and Far Away" that can be found in the
Book of Lost Tales 1," per (http://www.auburn.edu/~speedhe/overhill.html).
Passing the baton now.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The (an?) answer is posted on the Kitten Board. It fits
perfectly. -- Sophist, 13:11:24 02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The (an?) answer is posted on the Kitten Board.
It fits perfectly. -- dream of the consortium, 13:24:29 02/12/02
Tue
Do you have the link?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> What the heck is the Kitten Board? -- Darby, 13:30:21
02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What the heck is the Kitten Board? -- Wisewoman,
13:41:25 02/12/02 Tue
A posting board similar to this one called "The Kitten, The
Witches, and the Bad Wardrobe," devoted to the Willow/Tara
relationship. (The kitten of the title is the MIA and greatly
missed Miss Kitty Fantastico.)
Great people over there, but if it ain't Willow/Tara, then they
ain't interested, so the discussion is not as diverse as it is
here.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> link (http://fractalcore.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro&number=74&category=24)
-- yez, 13:33:57 02/12/02 Tue
I guess this is it...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Can you just tell us?Please?!Too lazy to do do much
digging. ;o) -- Deeva, 13:58:14 02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Here it is (drumroll) -- Sophist, 14:25:46 02/12/02
Tue
"Vow in the Grove", Edward Rodrigues.
"Cathy suddenly wished she was older, and far away. She decided
her desires could not be fulfilled on this miserable farm. The
party was a nice memory, but it reminded her of times that would
never return, especially with her father. She longed to dance,
but not in a hoe-down in a barn in the middle of Ohio. She wanted
to meet a rich prince in a castle on a tall cliff in the middle
of an enchanted forest. She wanted to dance in a fanciful ball,
dressed in a flowing gown, with the music of a large orchestra
in a magnificent room decorated with fine art. The whole world
would watch as she and her handsome prince glided across the floor.
It was a lovely fairy tale, but sometimes they came true. More
than anything, she wanted to get away from Selville."
Not sure this is it, but it sure fits with Buffy right now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I doubt it -- voyageofbeagle, 14:31:45
02/12/02 Tue
This work (which I also found via a google search) is self-published
and only available on-line. I kind of doubt that something so
obscure is what DG was referncing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Probably not the connection, but -- Vickie, 13:43:15 02/12/02
Tue
It reminds me of the Grateful Dead recording Old and In The Way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Drew Greenberg issues challenge - meaning of "Older
and Far Away" -- ponygirl, 14:41:38 02/12/02 Tue
There's a James Taylor song called Long Ago and Far Away. It's
also the title of his biography. Please note: I do NOT own any
James Taylor (though I may have inadvertantly sung along to Fire
and Rain).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Empire of the Sun? -- voyageofbeagle, 14:49:03 02/12/02
Tue
Apparently in tonight's episode they are discussing "Empire
of the Sun" In Dawn's class (the book, not the movie). I've
not read the book, but really enjoyed the movie.
Any connection there for anyone who's read the book?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Empire of the Sun? -- fresne, 15:30:47 02/12/02
Tue
The movie pretty much captures the plot. Young British boy, cut
off from parents (certain amount of abandonment feelings), fends
for himself in WWII China/containment camps. He's a bit of a scamp.
Gets into random bits of trouble. Wanders off on his own a lot.
The movie really captures the feel of the book, particularly the
author's literary obsession (the book is based on the author's
childhood experiences) with cement, dead leaves, bunkers, abandoned
swimming pools and empty houses.
Btw, well worth reading.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Empire of the Sun? -- ponygirl, 06:15:13
02/13/02 Wed
Hmm, don't know how the quote fits in but the movie certainly
echoes Dawn's state of mind. It's kind of a dark version of Hope
& Glory where the boy finds his wartime experiences, in this case
being in a prison camp,more of an adventure than a horror. But
in Empire the boy quite wilfully chooses the fantasy over reality
to the point where he reaches for his toy plane rather than his
parents and loses them. It's one of Spielberg's better movies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Dunno if this is it, but it's a powerful piece nonetheless...
-- OnM, 16:25:37 02/12/02 Tue
...and apparently part of a much longer ongoing work.
So, here's my contribution:
http://www.thischildsjourney.com/words_main.html#
The 'older and far away' refers to the author's mother.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I found that too- -- yuri, 00:06:58 02/13/02 Wed
and decided it probably wasn't what we were looking for, but I
thought it rang with something quite Buffy and enjoyed it nonetheless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> hah, "nonetheless." You know how you
get words stuck in your head sometimes? -- yuri, 00:08:22 02/13/02
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Ooooh oooooh! -- Jen C., 22:37:04 02/12/02 Tue
Maybe it refers to Giles...you know....older (than the scoobies)
and far away?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> and also.... -- Jen C., 22:57:56 02/12/02 Tue
He was the only scooby that wasn't there at the party!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> anyone else suprised that (spoiler?) -- yuri,
00:11:58 02/13/02 Wed
he didn't call? (Wasn't sure if that was sufficient spoilage to
not put in the subject line.) No one even mentioned him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Drew Greenberg issues challenge - meaning of "Older
and Far Away" -- Gwyn, 02:41:13 02/13/02 Wed
It's a long shot but if you accept that the grave is about as
far away as you can get...referring to Buffy....
"She is older than the rocks among which she sits; like the
vampire, she has been dead many times, and learned the secrets
of the grave".
Walter Pater (1839--94) talking about the Mona Lisa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Mendocino C&S suggests Thoreau, Walden, If a man does not
keep pace with his companions -- iphi, 06:06:27 02/13/02 Wed
...perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him
march to the beat that he hears, however "older and far away".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> "however measured or far away" (but the
allusion rings true. Thanks.) -- drive-by posting, 10:32:44 02/13/02
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Maybe I'm nuts... -- Isabel, 14:04:57 02/13/02 Wed
But it makes me think of the song "Superstar" by the
Carpenters.
Long ago
and oh so far away,
I fell in love with you
before the second show.
Your guitar
it sounds so sweet and clear,
but you're not really here,
it's just the radio.
Don't you remember
you told me you loved me, baby.
You said you'd be coming back this way again, baby
baby, baby, baby, baby, oh baby.
I love you.
I really do.
____
I can't remember the rest. That was off the top of my head. I
hate searching for lyrics on the internet, but I'm pretty sure
that's right.
Why could I be nuts? (I hope my insanity is at least original.
I haven't caught up on last night's threads yet.)
I don't think "Older and Far Away" as a title has anything
to do with Buffy herself. I think it has to do with William and
Cecily.
Let me explain: The actress who played Cecily is Halfrek. And
Halfrek called Spike William, therefore Halfrek was Cecily. (Probably
obvious, I know.)
A long time ago, and oh, so far away from Sunnydale, William and
Cecily knew each other. The song "Superstar" is told
by a fan, who may or may not have had a one night stand with the
Star on the stage. It could theoretically be all in the fan's
imagination.
'I fell in love with you before the second show.' Love at first
sight by someone in the audience, who bought another ticket and
came back to see the Star again. William was in Cecily's audience,
one of a circle of admirers, not in center stage with her. He
was definitely at the edge of the group. He loved her from a distance,
probably fell in love with her the first time he saw her. He seemed
to make her uncomfortable and it looked like she tried to keep
him at arms length. And he kept coming back.
'But you're not really here, it's just the radio.' In the song
the person is listening to a recording made by the Star, not the
real thing. Neither William nor Cecily were in Buffy's house.
Spike and Halfrek are the demons made from William and Cecily.
So the former Star is seeing the echo of the obsessive fan and
the not-quite-so-former obsessive fan sees the echo of the formerly-favorite
Star. But they're both recordings and for the most part, eternal.
That's it. I figure Halfrek remembers William's declaration of
love. I don't think his 'death' had much to do with why she's
a 'justice' demon. But you never know.
Maybe we won't see much Halfrek/Spike interaction in the future.
It probably depends on what ME's plans for Spike and Buffy's relationship
are.
Should I be worrying about guys with butterfly nets?
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Further thoughts on Maybe I'm nuts...Spoilers -- Ishkabibble,
18:50:09 02/13/02 Wed
I expect Hallie to serve as Spike's epiphany. He could learn from
her that Cecily didn't choose to reject William, (maybe she was
obliged to because she had been bethrothed to another man by her
parents since arranged marriages were the thing back then). As
the consequence of having given up her true love, William, Cecily
becomes a justice demon, particularly against parents who mistreat
their children. How might it affect him to realize that Spike's
whole reason for existance, for turning into a Big Bad killing
machine, for reviling everthing about William, was based upon
a lie; that in fact, William had been loved and valued by Cecily
just the way he was? Do you think that could be the beginning
of Spike coming to accept the kinder, gentler, aspects of his
charater?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something funny on fast food -- OT -- Anne, 13:47:14 02/12/02
Tue
Somebody sent me this in an email and, since it's relevant to
the whole fast-food theme, I thought I'd post it here (it's probably
one of those things that's making the rounds and everyone's seen
it, but still . . .)
This is an actual job application that a 17 year old boy submitted
to McDonald's in Florida... and they
hired him because he was so honest and funny!
NAME: Greg Bulmash.
SEX: Not yet. Still waiting for the right person.
DESIRED POSITION: Company's President or Vice President. But seriously,
whatever's available. If I was in a position to be picky, I wouldn't
be applying here in the first place.
DESIRED SALARY: $185,000 a year plus stock options and a Michael
Ovitz style severance package. If that's not possible, make an
offer and we can haggle.
EDUCATION: Yes.
LAST POSITION HELD: Target for middle management hostility.
SALARY: Less than I'm worth.
MOST NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENT: My incredible collection of stolen pens
and post-it notes.
REASON FOR LEAVING: It sucked.
HOURS AVAILABLE TO WORK: Any.
PREFERRED HOURS: 1:30-3:30 p.m., Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday.
DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIAL SKILLS?: Yes, but they're better suited
to a more intimate environment.
MAY WE CONTACT YOUR CURRENT EMPLOYER?: If I had one, would I be
here?
DO YOU HAVE ANY PHYSICAL CONDITIONS THAT WOULD PROHIBIT YOU FROM
LIFTING UP TO
50 LBS?: Of what?
DO YOU HAVE A CAR?: I think the more appropriate question here
would be "Do you have a car that runs?"
HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY SPECIAL AWARDS OR RECOGNITION?: I may already
be a winner of the Publishers Clearing house Sweepstakes.
DO YOU SMOKE?: On the job no, on my breaks yes.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE DOING IN FIVE YEARS?: Living in the
Bahamas with a fabulously wealthy dumb sexy blonde super model
who thinks I'm the greatest thing since sliced bread. Actually,
I'd like to be doing that now.
DO YOU CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE IS TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST
OF YOUR
KNOWLEDGE?: Yes. Absolutely.
SIGN HERE: Aries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thanks -- pagangodess, 19:10:07 02/12/02 Tue
I've had it sent to me before, but lost it when my PC crashed.
Thanks to you I have it again. Now I can send it to some people
who can have a really good laugh at it.
Thanks again,
pagan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> LOL. Two thumbs up! -- VampRiley, 20:18:10 02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME gives us HOPE again...now ain´t that nice? (Spoilers
for "Older and Far away") -- grifter, 15:35:33 02/12/02
Tue
Now ain´t that just the cutest thing? After torturing us
(but in a good way!) with a dark and gloomy season so far, with
everything we thought we knew about our favorite show getting
smashed apart (See how cleverly I used that episode title? See?
Ah, I suck...), we finally get an episode with HOPE (and I´m
writting it big because it just looks more impressive) written
all over it.
Dawn and Buffy are starting to work their issues out. Luckily,
I was starting to get bored by annoy-y-Dawn. I hope Buffy will
see how much Dawn needs her and how much Buffy needs her!
Willow resisting the urge to use Magic (bad Xander tempting her,
btw!). And it´s SO obvious now that she and Tara will get
together again. Tara was SO hilarious tonight, I´m glade
she´s back on the show.
Xander telling Anya that they´ll solve the being-stuck-in-the-house
problem. Can´t remember the exact wording, but I see anachronism
to a certain wedding-thingie here!
Their current situation in the episode seemed HOPEless, what with
being trapped with a murderous demon in the hosue, but their relationships
seemed very HOPEful. Nice.
What I wanted to add was that I loved Anya´s reaction to
the discovery of Dawn stealing her stuff: I expected her to be
mad and angry at her, but she was just shocked. Really, deeply,
shocked at how Dawn could do this. Also very nice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: ME gives us HOPE again...now ain´t that nice?
(Spoilers for "Older and Far away") -- pagangodess,
18:58:20 02/12/02 Tue
I'll agree that it was a great episode. A lot of things came out
of the dark, so to speak. But...where do they go from here. Buffy
and Dawn still have issues to work out, although it should be
easier now that they know what the problems are.
I'm not sure I'm liking the new Tara. What happened to the shy
and stuttering Tara. This one even pokes fun at Spike! Not that
it wasn't funny, it was, but it just didn't seem like the Tara
we know. Maybe she's finally comming out from under the Willow
shadow. I'll disagree with you about them getting back together
though, in Tara's eye's Willow, although having made good progress,
still has a long way to go.
I will have to rewatch the ep. but it seemed like Spike was expecting
an apology at one point and Buffy just didn't get it.
EC's performance was really outstanding tonight. I've never seen
Anya so truly distraught, so truly terrified. She was really good
in "The Gift", but this was better, for me anyway. You
say it has to do with the upcomming wedding, I won't guess on
that yet. And you are right about Anya's reaction to the discovery
of Dawn's shoplifting, it surprised me too. She was very heartbroken
and betrayed.
Poor new guy, Robert? can't remember his name, but it echoes "Never
Kill a Boy on a First Date".
There is HOPE, this ep had lots of plot points that have been
foating about come up to the surface.
It's still too soon since I saw the episode, that's why my thoughts
are scaterred (like you haven't noticed :)).
ttfn
pagan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: ME gives us HOPE again...now ain´t that
nice? (Spoilers for "Older and Far away") -- Doriander,
19:04:20 02/12/02 Tue
I don't know if this fits in the thread, but I just have to ask
if anyone else is wondering, is Hallie Cecily? Because if she
is, it's just a little too soap opera for me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: ME gives us HOPE again...now ain´t
that nice? (Spoilers for "Older and Far away") -- darrenK,
19:12:33 02/12/02 Tue
Yeah, I hope it's not Cecily.
It used to be that there was a small number of people who knew
the truth about the demons and the vampires. And Buffy was one
of the few whose lives touched the supernatural.
Now, every other person seems to become a demon, a sorcerer etc.
They've got to keep with the exclusivity and the mystery
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> If she was, would Spike not have noticed?
-- pagangodess, 19:27:59 02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Well, she IS older and far away from home...
(spoilery speculation) -- Traveler, 20:16:03 02/12/02 Tue
Seriously, the veins would make her somewhat hard to recognize,
and he did give her a funny look. Who else would call him "William?"
Also, the title of the next episode is "As You Were."
Ceicily knew Spike as a mortal better than anyone else.
Personally, I don't fear this becoming a soap opera. I trust Joss,
Marti, and the other writers far too much to worry about it. Also,
keep in mind that if she is Ceicily, she isn't there to create
some sort of bizzare love triangle. She is there to tell us (and
Buffy) something about Spike. How will he deal with having his
bad boy image tarnished by his bookish past? Does he still have
feelings for her? She, as much as Dru, made him what he is. Will
he thank her for it or kill her? Remember, she's a demon, so he
can hit her. Quite frankly, I'm looking forward to this episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: ME gives us HOPE again...now ain´t
that nice? (Spoilers for "Older and Far away") -- Wisewoman,
19:50:14 02/12/02 Tue
Well, there was definitely some sort of recognition there on Spike's
part, maybe not of Cecily, but of Halfrek the Demon. It's possible
he's run into Halfrek before in his 100+ years. The tricky bit
is that she called him William, which would mean she'd run into
him before he was turned, or they knew each other well enough
for him to tell her his original name...either way, it's a mystery!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: ME gives us HOPE again...now ain´t
that nice? (Spoilers for "Older and Far away") -- Terrapin,
20:23:47 02/12/02 Tue
I thought that this episode turned out to be ok. I first thought
that it would be cheasy. But it really gave us a little hope and
happiness. It temporarily drove off the feelings of disgust and
depression. Especially the way Buffy and Spike interacted. The
feeling wasn't dark as it was before when they were together.
Although, maybe that's because they didn't have sex. It was more
humorous and how they normally would act towards each other.
I especially liked Anya's part. She really came out as being a
lot more human and not just acting stupidly. She really came through
when she tries to get Willow to try a spell so they can escape.
That was real. I also noticed that she was truly hurt and betrayed
when she found out that Dawn was stealing from the magic shop.
But she still gives us some of her great humor, which I love.
I was also glad to see Tara in this episode. Her and Buffy have
really bonded and made a true friendship. I think that Tara is
really helping Buffy. Buffy can now avoid the temptation of boinking
Spike. I liked when Tara kinda rescued Buffy from Spike's comments
and seduction. It was funny too.(getting ice for the cramp in
his pants) I'm starting to believe now that there is hope for
Willow and Tara. I'm really happy that Willow is not giving into
temptation. She's been pretty damn strong.
I'm not going to comment on Dawn right now. I just thought it
was clever to use the wish purpose on the pain that Dawn has been
battling.
Halfrek and William. Well I can guess that their relationship
or whatever they had didn't end up in a bloody mess. Because we
know that she doesn't punish men.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: ME gives us HOPE again...now
ain´t that nice? (Spoilers for "Older and Far away")
-- Mystery, 06:40:36 02/13/02 Wed
Maybe William was abused by his father and she brought "justice"
upon him?
I still think hope that she's Cecily. She'll let everyone know
about pre-vamp "William the Bloody". We know the story
but the Scoobies don't (maybe Joyce did, cuz she did treat him
better than most, almost sympathetically, but she took that secret
to the grave). And Cecily would make sense, in the Victorian period,
children, especially female children, were only valued as things
to marry off and carry on/increase the family fortune. Cecily
was obviously taught to look for money and ignore true love, and
she probably lacked parental love in someway. Perhaps she was
being forced into a marriage she didn't want and punished her
parents, bringing the attention of D'Hoffryn. That would work.
And as Halfrek, now knowing she turned away love ("William")
for something her parents wanted, would regret it, think about,
so that when she did see him again (with a hottie makeover) she
would recognize him.
Ok, you're all right. It is a soap opera. But Buffy/Angel, Buffy/Riley,
Cordy/Xander/Willow/Oz, Veruca/Oz/Willow/Tara, Buffy/Spike, Giles/Jenny,
Giles/Joyce etc wasn't?
(Oh wow, I just realized something now that Angel and Cordy are
together that just makes the whole relationship chart REALLY messed
up. wow.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Angel and Cordy's relationship?
(Spoilers for Waiting in the Wings) -- Isabel, 14:22:05 02/13/02
Wed
I realize that I just watched 'Waiting in the Wings' once, but
it ended with Angel and Cordy NOT together. Spoilers and rumors
have been flying fast and furious, but at the end of WitW, Cordy
ended up in Groo's arms with Angel watching sadly.
Angel may want to have a relationship with Cordelia, but he hasn't
gotten her to understand that yet. I wonder if he and Buffy got
together because she did much of the pursuing and talking in the
beginning?
As for Cordelia, everything she heard from Angel and the rest
of the gang seemed to express that none of them found her attractive.
On one hand, she's got Angel really not wanting to make out with
her, and on the other, she's got handsome, adoring Groo. What's
a girl to do?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: ME gives us HOPE again...now ain´t that
nice? (Spoilers for "Older and Far away") -- Anne, 04:30:24
02/13/02 Wed
I'm with you on Anya. She's been my least favorite character,
because to me she's been so formulaic: bunnies, greed, speaking
her mind. Here she came across as a real three-dimensional being,
and I thought Caulfield was extremely impressive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the hell was that?! (Spoilers for 'Older and Far Away' --
vandalia, 20:38:00 02/12/02 Tue
Alright, I'm obviously already in disagreement with some posters
about this episode, so I'm just going to rant.
Dawn is fifteen years old, not eight. Not ten. Yes, I'm sure we
were all inconsiderate brats at at least some point in our teenage
years, but great googly-moogly, the whole house is in mortal danger
and Dawn stomps off because people 'don't want to spend time with
her' against their will by being trapped in a house? And what's
all this 'child' nonsense? She is not a child. She's almost sixteen,
for crying out loud!
This episode starts showing us just how terrible poor Dawn has
it, as her sister gets 'called to work' (her slayer job, no emergency
beefslinging, though I did in fact think that at first it was
a booty call by Spike, which would have justified Dawn's reaction).
Buffy does the concerned but overworked mom thing as she heads
out the door; I'm surprised she didn't remind Dawn to brush her
teeth. Dawn does the 'I'll be okay, sitting here alone, in the
dark, like a dog. You go ahead!' stiff upper lip guilt thing.
Then she wanders on over to the Magic Box to get a little face-time
with the Scoobs. Those horrid, unfeeling brutes put things like
earning a keep and staying on the wagon above shopping with Dawn
(who has at least one friend, Janice, who I'm sure could've gone
with her, but if we look at Janice why, that ruins the whole plot,
so we can't do that, no) so Dawn is apparently forced to go by
herself and shoplift to fill that gaping attention hole left by
her sister's... friends. Yes, not being able to hang with your
sister's friends is now a cause of juvenile delinquency. Would
that I had known such a handy excuse was right around the corner
in my formative years; I too might never have had to pay for lipstick
again. Somehow, though, I got the idea that STEALING was WRONG,
even without the benefit of having a twenty-one-year-old hold
my hand while I wandered the big store with the shiny, candylike
tubes of lipstick/jewelry/leather jackets to prevent me from taking
what I wanted.
Then we get to the party itself; Dawn is once again trying to
fit in with the older kids (at this point I might've snuck a beer,
but apparently stealing stuff is much more age-appropriate, nevermind
what the statistics say about kids and alcohol. And when did Buffy
suddenly become the youngest Scooby? Everyone's ready to make
a beer run, even Xander, who at the time of Giles' leaving had
to fall back on the 'the homeless guy wouldn't buy a can of Old
English for us' excuse not two months ago). She listens politely
enough, then as Buffy is opening her present (noticing the security
tag still on the coat) and tells her she likes it, Xander and
Anya wheel in Xander's hand-made weapons chest. Buffy immediately
goes to coo over the chest, which of course upsets Dawn mightily.
Oh God no, how dare Buffy like something her friend obviously
spent hours crafting with his own hands better than her five-fingered
discount leather jacket, which she told her she loved? Dawn, the
ever-persecuted. She just gets worse from there, and the thing
is, everyone goes along with it! Even 'say what I think' Anya
cuts her some serious slack in order to goad Willow into magicking
them out of there. (she does pile on later with the 'punitive
damages' thing, though how she thinks she's going to get money
out of broke Buffy God only knows. I'm assuming she'll go the
much more socially-acceptable route of child labor).
Dawn proceeds to get pissy about everyone treating her like a
kid with Anya, everyone wanting to 'leave rather than be in the
house with her' (at this point, I'd say they have ample reason
to want to get away, Dawn's just icing on the cake) and the Scoobies
once again make with the understanding 'we were all teenagers
once' schtick which I don't buy for a minute. See, I was a teenager
too, and the last thing I remember wanting to do is spend time
with my parents, my siblings, or my sibling's friends (well okay,
maybe sometimes I'd tag along with my sister). Now granted, I
had not lost my mother and almost lost my sister, but I rarely
saw the former because of work (or because I was out when she
was home) and I never once pulled the 'I want you to not work
so you can stay home with me.' Of course, I had impressed upon
me at a young age just how important work was to things like bill-paying
and roof-keeping and food-buying. Apparently Buffy's money troubles
(she has no excuse for 'saving the world' ignorance) have just
slid right by Dawn.
Dawn doesn't want to be treated like a child. Hallie (Halfrek,
who, if she isn't the same actress that played Cecily will cause
me to eat my hat) says 'none of you could feel this child's pain
because you were too wrapped up in your own lives!' Well excuse
the hell out of Buffy's friends for having their own lives, including
such selfish pursuits as _doing their jobs_ and _trying to get
their own lives in order vis a vis addiction_, or in Buffy's case
_working a crap minimum wage job to try and keep a roof/food/clothes
yadda over a certain ungrateful kid's head_ while _trying to keep
people from being killed_ in her off hours. So is Dawn a kid or
not? She's a teenager, in that nebulous between area, but so far
she's been acting like an eight-year-old.
Don't get me wrong, there were parts of this I liked. I like 'Clem'
the floppy skinned demon (though it made absolutely no sense for
Spike to bring him by). I liked Sophie from work (how many people
have I known like that). Richard looked like a BackStreet Boy
Stand-in, floppy hair and all. Halfrek I like, I just don't know
if she's supposed to _be_ Cecily (I would guess since she recognized
Spike and called him 'William' and he seemed to recognize her,
though maybe they met again after they were both demonized; Hallie
fixed her hair and seemed flustered, which Cecily never would
have done with William. Unless of course she's fallen under the
Spell of Spike in a 'that's definitely not the way I remember
him' high school reunion sort of reaction. She's certainly got
a better eye for William than I did; when Spike first appeared
in Fool for Love as William I didn't recognize him at first).
I did like Anya's performance in this episode (and agree with
her 'she's possessed' comment re: Dawn).
I think the biggest problem I had with the episode was the stupid
lesson at the end. You Should Not Neglect Your Children, Even
if They're Not Yours, Not Really Children or You Lose Your Job
or Business and Thus Make Yourself (and the Child) Homeless or
Fall Off the Wagon Back Into Addiction. What a nice, guilt-free
message for all those parents (and their friends) struggling,
working multiple jobs just to try to make ends meet. Hopefully
Dawn will be getting more attention than she can possibly stand
soon, sweeping the floors and restocking the shelves of the Magic
Box under Anya's watchful eye (complete with pat-down at the end
of the day to make sure she isn't absconding with any ill-gotten
booty).
Was Dawn being neglected? I don't believe so, no. If she was lonely
she could have just said something (and it belies her 'I'm going
to Janice's her mom's making tortillas' comment of last week when
she blew Buffy off. If she wanted to spend time with her so badly,
she could've made the effort then). Even if she didn't see Buffy
as she claims, there is this invention she may have heard about:
its called 'paper'. You take this other invention called 'a pen'
and it makes marks called 'language.' I'm sure they studied it
in history. It allows you to get your entire point out without
being interrupted, yet the other person can read it at their leisure
and even answer you in the same way! We've seen Dawn leave notes
for Buffy on the 'fridge before (like when going out with Willow)
so this isn't exactly a stretch. A simple 'I really need to talk
to you, wake me up after patrol' would have done the trick.
Was Dawn 'troubled?' Obviously. However I think she could use
more 'tough love' and less sheepish looks of 'golly, we were being
selfish and ignoring sweet little Mary Su-er, Dawn, weren't we
guys?' and I hope we see that in upcoming episodes, and I also
think she could have been a lot more understanding of her older
sister. Heck, if she wants to spend time with her so bad, she
could've gotten a job at the Doublemeat on the same shift, which
would have the added benefits of bringing in more money and keeping
her out of trouble.
Alright, rant over. Back to your regularly scheduled philosophical
arguments about the meaning of Dawn's star necklace in the counselor's
office.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What the hell was that?! (Spoilers for 'Older and Far
Away' -- Rahael, 20:55:39 02/12/02 Tue
Yes, Dawn is acting immaturely. But then she has recently been
bereaved (almost doubly). Losing your mother is a big deal. She
wants to hang around with the Scoobies, and have people and security
and love around her because she's lonely.
She wants Buffy and the others to notice how she's feeling without
her having to articulate it, because that's what your mother does.
And Buffy is not the emotional bedrock right about now. Increasing
anxiety does not bring out the best in anyone.
But why so angry at Dawn? I mean, what marks Buffy out always
is the ability of all characters, even the villains to have an
appealing side. To appeal to the viewer's sympathies. And Dawn's
angry because Buffy doesn't want to be there, doesn't want to
look after her. The most insiduous fear of any child who has suffered
a bereavement is that they have done something wrong, something
to make their parent go away. And Buffy wishes to do voluntarily
what Joyce did involuntarily.
Where does this leave Dawn anyhow? She knows deep inside that
she's not real, that she has no real connection to anyone in Sunnydale.
She nearly caused the end of the world, and made Buffy sacrifice
her life. And now she thinks Buffy doesn't want to leave her.
Willow is in cold turkey, Tara's in the background, Anya is Anya.
Giles has left too.
I'd just say she was feeling abandoned and alone. Hence her immature
behaviour.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What the hell was that?! (Spoilers for 'Older
and Far Away' -- vandalia, 22:29:45 02/12/02 Tue
Yes, Dawn is acting immaturely. But then she has recently been
bereaved (almost doubly). Losing your mother is a big deal.
Rahael, I am the last person you need to tell this to.
She wants to hang around with the Scoobies, and have people and
security and love around her because she's lonely.
She has friends of her own to hang out with that are not her sister's
friends. We saw some of them in the Body, All the Way and just
last week, so we know at least one of those friends is still hanging
out with her. If she's lonely she needs to vocalize it to someone
other than a vengeance demon in the guise of a guidance counselor.
She wants Buffy and the others to notice how she's feeling without
her having to articulate it, because that's what your mother does.
Maybe on Party of Five, but Joyce was never the Amazing Kreskin
when it came to understanding Buffy. Perhaps Dawn's relationship
was different, or perhaps Dawn was coddled and spoiled because
she was the youngest and its now showing.
And Buffy is not the emotional bedrock right about now. Increasing
anxiety does not bring out the best in anyone.
And a little understanding for the sister that gave her life for
you then was dragged out of heaven because her friends couldn't
stand being without her only to face a life full of grown-up worries
is too much to ask of Dawn, because she (just like Buffy!) lost
her mother and is feeling a little lonely? I don't think so.
But why so angry at Dawn?
Because she's a spoiled, ungrateful little brat who can't see
past the end of her own nose and has what is apparently the world's
most short-term memory when it comes to people doing things for
her like saving her life and sacrificing themselves for her?
I mean, what marks Buffy out always is the ability of all characters,
even the villains to have an appealing side.
Which is another reason I'm so angry, because Dawn really hasn't
for almost the whole season, yet they're trying to make it look
like she does just because they say she does. SHOW me, don't tell
me. If I saw Dawn's own friends blowing her off, I might buy the
whole 'I'm so lonely' thing. If I saw Dawn tell Janice she wanted
to be with her sister that night they made plans, I might pity
her for being neglected. But Dawn isn't being neglected, and if
she's lonely, she need to articulate that, not steal, stay out
late, and act like a little bitca to people who are taking time
out of their lives to be with her. Are these things teenagers
do to get attention? Yes. Does that make them right? No.
To appeal to the viewer's sympathies. And Dawn's angry because
Buffy doesn't want to be there, doesn't want to look after her.
I disagree. It may not have been at the top of her list of things
to do when she turned 21, but she's said she doesn't want to be
dead and she does want to look after Dawn, or else she'd let SDDS
take her away with naught but a friendly wave, wouldn't bother
working at the DMP, and wouldn't care if Dawn went to school or
not. She has done all these things, and I'm willing to give Buffy
a little slack for being exhausted from working all day and slaying
all night and having to clean up after her little sister (have
we ever seen Dawn do a lick of housework, by the way? Nearest
I can remember is Buffy sending her up to check for dishes in
her room).
The most insiduous fear of any child who has suffered a bereavement
is that they have done something wrong, something to make their
parent go away.
Yet I haven't seen much evidence of this. Nothing Dawn did 'made
her mother go away.' Her mother died of complications from surgery,
not because Dawn didn't come home one night and her mother died
in a car accident while looking for her. And again, Dawn is not
a child, per se. She's almost sixteen, and while sheltered until
very recently, in that very recently she's almost died and had
to face quite a few mature situations, yet none of it seems to
have rubbed off on her or stuck. If you're referring to her doing
something wrong to make Buffy go away, again, I'm not seeing this
guilt manifest itself in anything Dawn has said or done. Provide
references, please.
And Buffy wishes to do voluntarily what Joyce did involuntarily.
Perhaps initially but she got over her death wish at the end of
'Gone.' Now she just needs to rediscover her life wish, which
I think she's doing with the revelations at the end of 'Dead Things.'
Again, I hardly think asking for a little slack for the resurrected
is out of line.
Where does this leave Dawn anyhow? She knows deep inside that
she's not real, that she has no real connection to anyone in Sunnydale.
She nearly caused the end of the world, and made Buffy sacrifice
her life. And now she thinks Buffy doesn't want to leave her.
Willow is in cold turkey, Tara's in the background, Anya is Anya.
Giles has left too.
This would seem to me to not garner acting like a brat and demand
that people spend time with her (or that them not having time
to spend with her is All. About. Her. Maybe that trait runs in
the family though, because Buffy's suffered from it more than
once). Again, if she were oh, eight, I could understand her behavior
re: people don't want to spend time with her because of other,
more pressing obligations. But if at sixteen she hasn't realized
that work=money=survival in our capitalist society, then its time
for her wake up call. Not one excuse as to why people were 'leaving'
her was invalid: all of them had to do with responsibilities.
Thus her reaction was uncharacteristically childish and immature
to the point of regression. If she's really that bad off emotionally
then she should probably be confined to a mental institution,
because there are millions of latchkey kids in this country who
have it much worse off than Our Miss Summers, dead mother or no,
and yet they seem to, if anything, grow up too fast, not regress
to the point of infantilism.
Maybe I'm just jealous; my upbringing didn't allow for such indulgences
as Dawn's flouncing off to sulk every five minutes whenever something
didn't go my way and complaining that everyone was too busy working
to make time for my precious self. The world didn't revolve around
me; it appears Dawn hasn't quite gotten that memo.
My biggest gripe, however, is that its just not following what
we know about the character: Dawn _knows_ that there are money
problems. She _knows_ her sister is working a crap job for little
pay and still _has_ to be the Slayer in the meantime. She's _shown_
faint glimmers of understanding how much it sucks to be Buffy
right now without the whole rescurrection thing hanging over her
head. Yet she still insists on making it all about her wants and
her needs and her desires without stopping for a moment and actually
listening to how it sounds to everyone else. Even this I could
handle, it wouldn't be unheard of in a teenager, but to go the
one step further and _validate_ Dawn's feelings objectively in
the show smacks of insincerity and unbelievability.
Was anyone else reminded of the little kid in the Twilight Zone
movie that had all those powers and kept his family virtually
hostage in their own home by this episode?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What the hell was that?! (Spoilers for 'Older
and Far Away' -- terri, 01:33:13 02/13/02 Wed
where is spike in all this? in the beginning of the season, he
seemed to have true caring feelings for dawn. i am disappointed
that he has not been more aware of what is happening with her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> good point, i mean where is spike? --
sapphiretoes, 02:20:11 02/13/02 Wed
I have to agree with you. spike and dawn were really hanging out
a lot. plus, spike has always been really observant of people,
think, something blue, noticing how upset will was. but maybe
he's just too involved/obsessed with the buffster to even notice
what's been going on with anyone else. but i am glad that he's
not using his friendship wiht dawn to see buffy. that does give
him a lot of character. enough of my ramblings, off to bed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Xander spelled it out ... -- Earl Allison, 02:22:38
02/13/02 Wed
Xander pretty much said as much when he asked about the cornfield,
referring to the classic Billy Mumy "Twilight Zone"
episode where little Billy had the power to make his wishes reality
-- and to send those he didn't like "to the cornfield."
It was again brought up and "remade" for the "Twilight
Zone" movie, but with a happier, and therefore less dramatic
(IMHO) ending.
Also, I agree about Dawn -- no matter her feelings, I would have
smacked her when she started her "God forbid anyone spend
time with me" bit -- surely even Dawn could see the problem
here? And you're right, to have the story VALIDATE Dawn's persecuted
feelings was a bit galling.
Otherwise, though, a great episode. Dawn's brattiness was the
only negative, but not enough of one to really impact my enjoyment
of the story ...
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Xander spelled it out ... -- fresne,
07:27:37 02/13/02 Wed
Well, one hand validate yes.
On the other, Halfrek is clearly a nit wit. It's kind of like
being given moral lessons by Harmony. I mean thus far, Halfrek
has mistaken a summoning to a wedding as a death wish, sealed
Dawn in a house with limited supply of food, and trapped herself
in said house without realizing it.
While watching the episode, I was pretty annoyed with Dawn for
similar Get over yourself reasons. Then I slept on it and all
of a sudden remembered that I was just that depressed at the exact
same age for similar reasons. Course, I wrote a long depressing
fantasy novel instead of stealing, but you know.
And then I think isn't that the message that Earshot gave, only
from a different perspective. When your a teenager, only your
own pain is real and you don't realize that the reason no one
seems to care, is that they are all in pain. The only solution
being to get older and farther away from the pain. To learn to
reach out.
If Dawn had just said something earlier. Used her words. Told
Buffy how she felt. Made the emotional connection. After all Buffy's
not telepathic.
Although, they both could use a guidance councilor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> good points, fresne! -- anom, 20:33:48
02/13/02 Wed
"It's kind of like being given moral lessons by Harmony."
lol! & I loved your quote of the title:
"The only solution being to get older and farther away from
the pain."
...& the whole comparison w/Earshot. Nice. & succinct!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thank You! -- Isabel, 14:45:33 02/13/02
Wed
I was trying to figure out the cornfield reference. All I could
think of was 'Children of the Corn' (which I have never seen)
or 'Field of Dreams.' (Which I have.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I give you the definition of... a teenager!
-- Solitude1056, 18:53:09 02/13/02 Wed
But why so angry at Dawn?
Because she's a spoiled, ungrateful little brat who can't see
past the end of her own nose and has what is apparently the world's
most short-term memory when it comes to people doing things for
her like saving her life and sacrificing themselves for her?
Yup, that would be a real teenager!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Gee, Sol -- Vickie, 10:24:35 02/14/02
Thu
When I said something remarkably like this, I got a serious comuppance
from one of our teen-aged posters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> What Dawn Needs -- Spike Lover, 20:12:49 02/13/02
Wed
Well, yeah. I think she is acting maybe more like a 13 or 14 year
old then a nearly 16 yr old. I agree she probably needs therapy.
I had therapy at her age. Therapy would help- It could build her
confidence so that she would feel 'okay' about being alone. It
would give her someone who would take her side. Talking is good.
I have to wonder what the writers are planning. It seems that
Dawn's snottiness is suppose to be one more link in her chain.
That chain is getting to be pretty long. The stealing, the lying,
the rebelliousness, the smart mouth, the angry attitude.
How would you have the writers rectify the problem? It looks to
me like they are going with the "Brady Bunch" Solution-
of 'Confessing to Buffy what the problem is and now the problem
is instantly solved.' I don't know any other way that the 'politically
correct' tv people solve problems. They don't believe in corporal
punishment and Dawn is too old now for it anyway. I don't think
grounding will work. I think the only good solution is to have
the welfare people take her away, or maybe send her to bootcamp.
What do you think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What Dawn Needs--Reruns -- Sophist, 20:53:20
02/13/02 Wed
Some possibilities:
1. Dawn is a tragic victim of neglect. The SG owe her a big apology.
Afterwards, they all watch Pangs together.
2. Dawn made big mistakes. Intervention time. Throw another Dead
Man's Party.
3. Dawn's a brat. Send her to FamilyHome for the summer.
4. Dawn's pain screams across dimensions. D'Hofryn offers her
Anya's old job.
5. Dawn is Becoming like Xander. She not only gets away with it,
but she gets to sit around and make offensive and judgmental comments
about all the others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What the hell was that?! (Spoilers for 'Older and Far
Away' -- VampRiley, 21:22:27 02/12/02 Tue
I too was bothered by The way Dawn acted. Maybe she's headed to
Arkhamville. She's only been a person for about a year and a half,
someone who she has thought was her mother isn't coming back,
the one person she feels closest to is away much of the time...I
think the girl might be slippin'. I was actually shocked by Dawn
complaining how getting out of the house would get them away from
her and then storming off. She says she doesn't want to be treated
as a child, but she's acting like one. Everyone has somewhere
they need to be and their desire to leave makes them want to leave
(not to mention that not being able to leave a house means that
there is something very wrong going on) and Dawn takes it as a
personal. Maybe she has unresolved abandonment issues.
I also didn't like when Halfrek got on her soapbox, trying to
make them feel guilty for what they have to do. It's not their
fault they have bills and responsibilities. I would have like
for someone to say that. It's like when Xander said back when
they found Willow at The Bronze drunk, "We all have pain.".
And in this instance it involved commitments. And Dawn was making
her pain out to be much worse than everybody elses. But she is
a teenager. This happens on ocasion.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> ROFL. I gots one comment... -- yuri, 23:40:13 02/12/02 Tue
I've found Dawn on several occasions to be nearsighted and self
centered to the point of becoming extremely irritating, and I
agree that it escalated so far in OaFA as to warrant some great
googly-moogly-ing. I agree with pretty much all your points about
how Dawn is getting too much sympathy, but I can't let Buffy off
the hook so easily.
Dawn is being infantile, yes, but Buffy is being almost equally
emotionally immature. The role reversal in this ep of the scene
where Dawn leaves Buffy behind feeling sad and neglected shows
that. She didn't even realize the similarity, apparently. I'm
not trying to trivialize the things she's going through, but I
think it's sugar coating it, or maybe deep frying it, to say that
Buffy is giving Dawn a reasonable amount of the emotional support
she needs. Buffy needn't spend hours playing cards with Dawn,
but she could look her in the eye and tell her she loves her in
a non-flippant voice once in a while, sometime when it wasn't
because Dawn was upset or Buffy felt like it _needed_ to be said,
but just because. This wouldn't just be healthier for Dawn, it
would be healthier for Buffy.
ps -- though there seems to be some debate below, I don't think
there'll be any hat eating. And why on earth would the person
who played Cecily be playing Halfrek and not be playing Cecily
who became Halfrek? ow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn is old enough to work at DMP too, that would be
quality time together -- B, 05:15:08 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Bringing Clem -- neaux, 05:23:58 02/13/02 Wed
--"I like 'Clem' the floppy skinned demon (though it made
absolutely no sense for Spike to bring him by"
It made absolute sense.. because it shows that if Spike is going
to crash the party, the rest of the gang won't realize He's goo
goo ga ga over Buffy. He brings the friend as a cover, so to speak.
He can still MACK on Buffy, but use his friend to hang out with
part of the time.. Its the classic party cover.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Bringing Clem -- verdantheart, 08:04:47 02/13/02
Wed
Plus, it gave him someone to hang with when Buffy was unavailable.
I can't see him relaxing with Xander after all ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Bringing Clem -- leslie, 10:24:43 02/13/02
Wed
I thought bringing Clem was kind of a nice touch. Every other
time we have seen Spike with other supernatural entities, except
for the kitten poker episode, they are minions, enemies, or lovers/"family."
Spike hanging out with Clem seems to show him integrating himself
into the "nice" demon world--the ones who are not particularly
evil but simply "other"--and making friends--i.e., relationships
on a level of equality rather than power over or power under.
Though I have to admit, when I saw Clem, I was kind of hoping
Spike was going to give Buffy a kitten for her birthday.... (I
think not having him give her a present was a really wasted opportunity--my
god, the implications that could be wrung from the most minor
gift!)
That said, I *really* want to know how Hallie became a vengence
demon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Bringing Clem -- Terrapin, 12:29:37
02/13/02 Wed
Ah bringing Clem. Well remember when Buffy said that she doesn't
want to be one of those losers who didn't have friends outside
her clique, well I thought about that when Spike brought Clem.
He also wants to show that he can make other friends. However,
both Buffy and Spike really didn't seem that interested in their
new friends.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Bringing Clem -- leslie, 16:23:24
02/13/02 Wed
Except that, while I wouldn't imagine that Spike and Clem are
what you would call bosom buds, we have actually seen them hanging
out and playing cards before. Which is, if all of the movies I've
ever watched are correct, an even older form of male bonding than
watching football games. (Being a girl, and a very very very bad
card player, I wouldn't know from personal experience. But would
the movies lie to me?!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Bringing Clem -- juliaabra, 17:07:59
02/13/02 Wed
hey yeah!!! why didn't spike give buffy a prezzie? and how did
cecily/halfrak go all justice-y? does is have something to do
with william/spike? i hope this gets addressed and not dropped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What the hell was that?! (Spoilers for 'Older and Far
Away' -- Mystery, 06:12:50 02/13/02 Wed
I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this or not, but Dawn ISN'T a
teenager. Not really. Technically she's less than two years old.
She has memories of growing up and everything, but I don't think
she has the experience to deal with emotions and rampant teenage
hormones. She walks, talks and looks like a 15 years old, but
she's not used to being a human. Just look at how obnoxious and
selfish Anya was at first. Dawn's a little younger than Anya became,
never had previous human experience like Anya, or 1000 years of
consciousness like Anya, but she did have all kinds of traumatizing
problems: She found out all her memories are suspect, that she's
not really a human but a blob of energy, a hell-god is trying
to hurt/maim/kill her family (the Scoobies, Joyce and Buffy being
family), then the stable factor in her life (Joyce) dies, then
her sister/matrix dies, then the Buffy-bot (surrogate Buffy) is
destroyed. When Buffy comes back you find out that she's was in
a better place where she NO LONGER WORRIED ABOUT DAWN.
Oh and lets not mention that somewhere in Dawn's subconsciousness,
the only reason anyone worried about her was because she was 'the
key'. She's 'not the key' anymore. Why would anyone care? They're
actions toward her reinforce that belief, even if it's wrong and
self-centered. Teenagers are like that, everything is the end
of the world for them.
Now she shouldn't get off easy, nor am I denying that I wanted
to trottle her and yell "get over it!!", but Halfrek
is right in saying that they should also reassure Dawn of their
love. It doesn't have to be in constant supervision but at least
acknowledge her as she is: someone who they love and care about.
Teenagers/kids don't see the subtle kind of love, everything is
dramatic for them.
You know, where the heck was Halfrek when I was a teen? *sigh*
lol
Also here's a quick theory: Dawn has also at times shown amazing
maturity as well as dumbfounding immaturity. Maybe her maturity
level directly cooresponds to how mature they treat her. ya know:
the more responsiblity they give her, the more together she is.
The more they treat her like she's 2 the more she acts like it.
We don't know how the monks made her able to emotionally respond
to people around her, for all we know her emotions could be a
reflection of how people feel about her. And by ignoring her,
she's losing her persona. I dunno, just thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Big chuckles. :) -- yez, 07:10:41 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What the hell was that?! (Spoilers for 'Older and Far
Away' -- Malandanza, 07:11:19 02/13/02 Wed
"Dawn is fifteen years old, not eight. Not ten. Yes, I'm
sure we were all inconsiderate brats at least some point in our
teenage years, but great googly-moogly, the whole house is in
mortal danger and Dawn stomps off because people 'don't want to
spend time with her' against their will by being trapped in a
house? And what's all this 'child' nonsense? She is not a child.
She's almost sixteen, for crying out loud!"
I agree that Dawn has been behaving like a spoiled brat -- but
this is consistent with her character since the beginning of Season
5. She was the baby of the family and treated as such. Before
Dawn knew she was the key, everyone was being very careful of
her feelings. After she discovered the truth, they were even more
careful. After Buffy's death, she had the Scoobies, Giles and
Spike all competing to give her attention. Now that Buffy's back,
Buffy is, again, the center of the universe. And what does Dawn
have to do to get attention? Almost getting raped, killed and
vamped only got her a stern talking-to from Giles -- no punishment
and she still gets to hang out with Janice. Add to that the guilt
because her sister died for her (that we have never seen her talk
about -- that has to be eating away at her).
"This episode starts showing us just how terrible poor Dawn
has it, as her sister gets 'called to work' (her slayer job, no
emergency beefslinging..."
I think the neglected Dawn arc is less about Dawn and more about
Buffy -- turning into her own mother. Joyce also spent a great
deal of time away from the house (working at the gallery -- more
than just a 9 to 5 job). Joyce rarely disciplined Buffy and was
clueless as to Buffy's nocturnal activities. On those rare occasions
when Buffy actually got caught doing something wrong, Joyce administered
a slight punishment apologetically -- she was no disciplinarian.
"See, I was a teenager too, and the last thing I remember
wanting to do is spend time with my parents, my siblings, or my
sibling's friends (well okay, maybe sometimes I'd tag along with
my sister).
Hanging out with family isn't why younger siblings tag along with
older siblings -- it's to hang out with the "cool" older
friends of the older sibling -- hopefully, to be treated like
a peer.
"I think the biggest problem I had with the episode was the
stupid lesson at the end. You Should Not Neglect Your Children,
Even if They're Not Yours, Not Really Children or You Lose Your
Job or Business and Thus Make Yourself (and the Child) Homeless
or Fall Off the Wagon Back Into Addiction. What a nice, guilt-free
message for all those parents (and their friends) struggling,
working multiple jobs just to try to make ends meet. Hopefully
Dawn will be getting more attention than she can possibly stand
soon, sweeping the floors and restocking the shelves of the Magic
Box under Anya's watchful eye (complete with pat-down at the end
of the day to make sure she isn't absconding with any ill-gotten
booty)."
Anya took her job seriously -- Halfrek doesn't seem to have the
same work ethic (she says that half the time she doesn't know
if she's maiming the right person...). On top of that, Hallie
is a PC vengeance (sorry, Justice) demon -- she probably leaves
each of her clients with a moral lecture. But vengeance demons
aren't supposed to make you feel good about yourself -- it is
vengeance, not justice. They make you suffer disproportionately
to the crime. Was Dawn in pain? Apparently -- Halfrek heard the
pain much as D'Hoffryn heard Willow's in Something Blue. But I
agree with you -- Dawn does need "more 'tough love' and less
sheepish looks of 'golly, we were being selfish and ignoring sweet
little Mary Su-er, Dawn, weren't we guys?' "
And I think working for Anya will be a good thing for her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What the hell was that?! (Spoilers for 'Older
and Far Away' -- skeeve, 09:50:59 02/13/02 Wed
"Anya took her job seriously -- Halfrek doesn't seem to have
the same work ethic (she says that half the time she doesn't know
if she's maiming the right person...)."
Anyanka had some problems in that department, too. In Triangle,
Anya mentioned some repeat customers that were so repetitious
that after a while they should have gotten the idea that maybe
something was the matter with them. Anyanka granted their wishes
anyway.
Neither Cordelia nor Dawn was asked if she really wanted her wish
granted. Cordelia at least realized that something bad had happened.
Presumably Halfrek is no longer invited to the wedding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Geez, Mal, you just wrote a good chunk of my review
for me! Thanks!! ... :-) -- OnM, 12:28:09 02/13/02 Wed
As regards Dawn, I honestly can't think of a single thing you
commented on that I disagree with. Your analysis pretty much nails
it, methinks.
( OnM surreptitiously stashes Malandanza's post in black leather
coat pocket after removing security tag... )
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What the hell was that?! (Spoilers for 'Older
and Far Away' -- Rufus, 22:10:20 02/13/02 Wed
But vengeance demons aren't supposed to make you feel good about
yourself -- it is vengeance, not justice. They make you suffer
disproportionately to the crime.
That's the thing about vengeance...it is all about pain and suffering,
getting even, making sure the one you want vengeance on suffers
as much or more than you have. Once we get into vengeance territory
I get uncomfortable because vengeance is be so irrational as it
only begets new vengeance. And vengeance demons, they take advantage
of the pain of others for their own pleasure, or in Hallie's case,
the mistaken belief that they are doing something to improve the
situation. They curse someone, and I've never considered a curse
a good thing. I did laugh at Hallies need to erase the vengeance
and insert the name justice, like a curse it intended to be fair.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Agree, 100% -- Sarah, 07:46:24 02/13/02 Wed
I think my main problem with the whole Dawn storyline is the fact
that it's being shoved in our face that Buffy should be a responsible
"parent." I'm sorry but Buffy is not Dawn's mother.
She's her sister, and they're only 5 years apart in age. They
should be working together as a team.
Dawn is old enough to understand that they're in a precarious
position as far as Social Services is concerned. If she really
wants to stay with Buffy, why isn't she helping? Use that time
when everyone is "neglecting" you to study so your school
doesn't call Social Services. Maybe get a babysitting job and
cut down on the shoplifting.
I just see constant guilt being heaped on Buffy, with the intention
that she needs to take care of everything, and no one else seems
to be concerned with helping her. Willow-"You just came back
from the dead? Well, guess what? You're broke, and now that you're
back I leave it all up to you, even though I'm living in the house
with you, YOU need to figure out how to pay the mortgage. Whew!
That's a load of my shoulders." Dawn-"Social Services
might take me away? Well, you need to spend more quality time
with me and be a better mother. See ya later, I'm gonna go skip
school and go see about a five-finger discount." Buffy's
not blameless, but she's not the only character who needs to try
and fix things.
And can I just say that I can't believe that Dawn is lonely. That
house is like Grand Central Station. And for the record, I hardly
ever saw my mom when I was fifteen. Between school, sports, babysitting,
and friends, I was hardly ever home. And really, how can we feel
sorry for Dawn, when we went through three years of high school
with Willow and Xander, and saw what REAL cluelessness is in the
parents department. Now those were kids who were being negelected.
And Halfrek-"I heard her pain everywhere I went in this town"?
What? This is Sunnydale. Call me crazy, but there are kids in
a lot worse pain than Dawn even in towns that aren't on a hellmouth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What the hell was that?! (Spoilers for 'Older and Far
Away' -- verdantheart, 08:12:50 02/13/02 Wed
Just a comment. Perhaps all the teens you've met have been very
mature. That has not been my experience. Some I've known have
been quite irrational. Teens, heck, I've known plenty of (mostly
house-) wives who've been quite irrational about being "neglected"
as their husbands have had to work very hard on business trips.
They don't want their husbands to quit their jobs and stop the
money train, however ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What the hell was that?! (Spoilers for 'Older and Far
Away' -- Robert, 08:31:54 02/13/02 Wed
"I think the biggest problem I had with the episode was the
stupid lesson at the end. You Should Not Neglect Your Children,
Even if They're Not Yours, Not Really Children or You Lose Your
Job or Business and Thus Make Yourself (and the Child) Homeless
or Fall Off the Wagon Back Into Addiction."
I don't agree. The lesson I took from it is that you shouldn't
talk to vengence demons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> And here I was thinking... -- Solitude1056, 19:01:36
02/13/02 Wed
the real lesson was: don't talk to guidance counselors.
Bleah.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What the hell was that?! (Spoilers S5and S6) -- Rendyl,
08:34:35 02/13/02 Wed
As Mystery said (and which seemed to get lost) Dawn is not normal.
Dawn is not a teenager. It can be argued that Dawn is not even
real. Her reactions and behavior will be influenced by all these
things.
Some people handle tragedy and adversity well. Others do not.
Dawn has lost her father, her mother is recently dead, Buffy was
dead (to save Dawn-like that isn't huge guilt) and Dawn is struggling
to find out not only who, but -what- she is. I am willing to cut
her a little slack.
Pain and loss do not go away just because time passes. Each person
deals with death very differently. Dawn is obviously having problems
with it. Maybe Buffy and the rest are not equipped to deal with
it but at least now they know there is a problem.
I don't think the 'invisible girl' redo was an accident. I get
strong 'do you even see me?' vibes from Dawn lately. And if they
don't even see her how hard is it for her to worry maybe she will
cease to exist.
None of the Buffyverse characters are flawless. If they were it
would be a little dull. That needs to apply to Dawn as well.
Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Not just Buffy's birthday - but the anniversary of Dawn
learning of her non-existence (SPOILER-y) -- Sebastian, 09:50:08
02/13/02 Wed
while i do agree that dawn's behavior has bordered on being emotionally
autistic this season - something has to be taken into consideration.
last night's ep was a year to the DAY dawn learned she was the
key. not only was it buffy's birthday - it was the one-year anniversary
dawn learned of her false existence.
i would say that's got to reopen alot of old wounds for dawn.
everyone on the board is in agreement that last year's 'bloodties'
was the ep that got things moving along at a breakneck speed for
the season. all the major shakeups take place following that ep
(dawn's discovery about her neo-existence, joyce's death, tara's
violent attack, yadda-yadda-yadda) but if we turn that around
and see that from dawn's perspective - it's also the episode that
her life took a dramatic downward turn.
buffy's birthday - and the knowledge of what happened the year
before - has got to refresh a lot of painful memories for her.
prior to last year's birthday, she thought she was a normal fifteen-year-old
girl. and almost immediately after learning she was no such thing
- terrible things start happening to her, family and friends.
i would imagine that such a reminder is going to put her in a
very negative frame of mind. psychologically it is natural for
a person to start reliving bad experiences when you come close
to such an anniversary date.
the reason i thought this was her reaction ('getoutGEetOutGETOUT!')
in 'OaFA' when buffy and the scoobs confront her, was almost *identical*
to her reaction in 'bloodties' when buffy and joyce try to assuage
her feelings. the episode seemed to be retouching upon the events
of last year: her issues with existence. last year on that date
she found out she did not 'exist' in the normal sense - this year
she feels as if they are not treating her as if she exists AT
ALL.
we know this is not the case - but consider the emotional fragility
of a normal fifteen to sixteen year old - and then double that
due to the things dawn has been through in the past year.
i would also think she is probably thinking 'so what's going to
happen THIS year to send everything to the crapper?' i would certainly
be a little apprehensive if i were her.
once again, i'm not justifying dawn's attitude - it *has* been
very grating the past several episodes - but it makes sense for
her to be lashing out in such a juvenile manner.
as a sidebar, i was blown away by emma caulfield's performance
last night. her confrontation with both willow and dawn showed
both nuance and power - and shows that anya has more depth than
has previously been shown. and her scene with xander was touching
as well. it just shows they really have neglected xander and anya
this season and I hope the weeding ep gives them a lot of needed
screen time.
just my thoughts.
- S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Good points. And about Anya ...(some spoilers) --
Darby, 10:09:41 02/13/02 Wed
...I'd made the screaming connection but had forgotten the birthday
context.
Good points about Anya, too. The problem there is long-term, though
- why is Anya such a good girlfriend? She was formerly a jealous
witchy human, spent a millenium being exposed to the more horrendous
aspects of male urges, and yet seems no longer jealous or even
particularly high maintenance beyond her social ineptness (the
"trapped" scene underscores how little she does normally
need for emotional support).
So who shows up for the wedding? The Anya we know existed once,
or the Anya we've all gotten to know over the last two seasons?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Excellent points, Sebastian! You convinced me of your
take on it. :) -- Dyna, 15:07:14 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I think you are on to something. Spoilers for Bloodties.
S6. -- Age, 09:00:31 02/14/02 Thu
Sebastian,
I would direct you to read my Full Metaphorical posting in reply
to Caroline's message further down in this thread as I make reference
to what you say in your posting about 'Bloodties.'
Whedon paired Dawn's finding out about the Key in 'Blood Ties'
with Buffy's birthday because without being a link in a reproductive
chain(the Key, the link between generations), no one can be born.
Birthday is the celebration of the person who was born, but in
order to be that person, we also have to be links, reproductive
things. Dawn's still had issues regarding this dual nature of
humanity. Am I just a thing or am I a person too?
Thanks for your insight.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Not just Buffy's birthday - but the anniversary of Dawn
learning of her non-existence (SPOILER-y) -- Sebastian, 09:50:09
02/13/02 Wed
while i do agree that dawn's behavior has bordered on being emotionally
autistic this season - something has to be taken into consideration.
last night's ep was a year to the DAY dawn learned she was the
key. not only was it buffy's birthday - it was the one-year anniversary
dawn learned of her false existence.
i would say that's got to reopen alot of old wounds for dawn.
everyone on the board is in agreement that last year's 'bloodties'
was the ep that got things moving along at a breakneck speed for
the season. all the major shakeups take place following that ep
(dawn's discovery about her neo-existence, joyce's death, tara's
violent attack, yadda-yadda-yadda) but if we turn that around
and see that from dawn's perspective - it's also the episode that
her life took a dramatic downward turn.
buffy's birthday - and the knowledge of what happened the year
before - has got to refresh a lot of painful memories for her.
prior to last year's birthday, she thought she was a normal fifteen-year-old
girl. and almost immediately after learning she was no such thing
- terrible things start happening to her, family and friends.
i would imagine that such a reminder is going to put her in a
very negative frame of mind. psychologically it is natural for
a person to start reliving bad experiences when you come close
to such an anniversary date.
the reason i thought this was her reaction ('getoutGEetOutGETOUT!')
in 'OaFA' when buffy and the scoobs confront her, was almost *identical*
to her reaction in 'bloodties' when buffy and joyce try to assuage
her feelings. the episode seemed to be retouching upon the events
of last year: her issues with existence. last year on that date
she found out she did not 'exist' in the normal sense - this year
she feels as if they are not treating her as if she exists AT
ALL.
we know this is not the case - but consider the emotional fragility
of a normal fifteen to sixteen year old - and then double that
due to the things dawn has been through in the past year.
i would also think she is probably thinking 'so what's going to
happen THIS year to send everything to the crapper?' i would certainly
be a little apprehensive if i were her.
once again, i'm not justifying dawn's attitude - it *has* been
very grating the past several episodes - but it makes sense for
her to be lashing out in such a juvenile manner.
as a sidebar, i was blown away by emma caulfield's performance
last night. her confrontation with both willow and dawn showed
both nuance and power - and shows that anya has more depth than
has previously been shown. and her scene with xander was touching
as well. it just shows they really have neglected xander and anya
this season and I hope the weeding ep gives them a lot of needed
screen time.
just my thoughts.
- S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Grrr! Argh! My apologies in posting that twice. --
Sebastian, 09:57:45 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> How'd you do it in CONSECUTIVE SECONDS? -- Darby,
10:25:40 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> didn't you see my eyes go all spooky-black?
magick, of course? ;-) -- Sebastian, 13:55:36 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Confirmation on actress identity (Spoiler for OaFA) -- Belladonna,
10:00:17 02/13/02 Wed
I just looked it up. It is the same actress who played Cecily
that plays Halfrek. Her name is Kali Rocha. Good eye, Vandalia!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Death of Family. Spoilers for S6, 'OAFA'and S5 --
Age, 10:02:39 02/13/02 Wed
You said:
Yes, I'm sure we were all inconsiderate brats at at least some
point in
our teenage years, but great googly-moogly, the whole house is
in mortal
danger and Dawn stomps off because people 'don't want to spend
time with
her' against their will by being trapped in a house?
The set up of being trapped in the house was a metaphor for the
mortal danger that their idea of being a family was in. This is
why Tara echoes Buffy's words from 'Family' last year when she
says to Anya that she'll have to go through her to get to Willow,
just as all the Scoobies said this to Tara's father and brother.
This is also why the demon/sword was not slain when Buffy went
out on patrol: the patrol as more important than Dawn and family
was exactly what needed to be slain, and couldn't be done outside
the house, but in the new symbol representing the family of the
Scoobies: the house itself. The problem here is the gulf between
the actual and the metaphorical. On one level, because this is
a TV show, we know as an audience that none of them was in mortal
danger, and can appreciate the situation purely for its metaphorical
content. On the other hand they were in mortal danger and needed
to be in order to show that Anya's fear of death still needs to
be worked through. One might also argue that the writer was using
Dawn's blindness to the mortal danger around her to show how blind
the Scoobies have been to her, ie her emotional condition is likened
to the metaphor of being in a house(personal space) that you couldn't
get out of, and you can't talk to anyone(phones dead) and you
are isolated and no one in your community(your family) sees what's
happening and comes to help(this is what it was about because
the set up was caused by Halfrek expressing Dawn's pain.)
I think the writer was trying to show how events of the past year
have split the group up such that the solidarity of the extended
family established in season five was at its lowest point. Buffy
jumped off a tower like an adolescent to commit suicide, ie to
hell with everyone else, and was yanked back to a hell in part
of her own making(yes, Halfrek's inability to make a grand exit
was a criticism of the grand gestures and self involvement of
the adolescent, but just as Whedon gave his adolescent Buffy an
out last season by allowing her suicide to save the world, he
gives his adolescent Dawn the opportunity to have her feelings
vented through Halfrek first. It's be the adolescent, get your
feelings out and understood, grow up, take responsibility for
the thieving and move on.)
As others have pointed out, Buffy is clearly not without blame,
as are the other Scoobies. They as young adults have a responsibility
to help this adolescent. They have to make room in their lives
for her(this may be expressed metaphorically in the ep by the
volume of people in the house, but Dawn's having to go up to her
room to get attention, ie making room for her.) They clearly have
shown that she's not important enough to do this. And Dawn has
picked up on this: Buffy would rather be dead than with her; the
Scoobies all have their lives. It's not a family anymore and Dawn
fills the void with cheap thrills in stealing which if she's very
lucky will give away her pain of loneliness for her, get her some
attention even if it's negative(which is the attention she does
get in the ep.)
It seems strange that the only reason these Scoobs get together
anymore is to celebrate a birthday. Wow! The only way these so
called family members will stay in the same room with Dawn is
if they are celebrating someone else's birthday.(Or that's how
it seems to Dawn. whether it is true or not.)
Quite clearly Dawn got the idea that she just wasn't important
anymore. It goes to show you just how important she felt being
part of this family is. Instead of wandering off with her friends
all the time, she actually wanted to spend some time with people
she admires and looks up to like a young woman, her mother figure
now, who spends her time working long hours to support them and
saving the world, a friend who is a powerful witch and who is
now taking responsibility for her addiction, a powerful vampire
who treats her with kindness, two friends who are taking the scary
road to matrimony and a friend who, mature enough in her perspective,
had to leave because she needed her partner to manage her life.
What has been lost is the sense of community/family that was created
back in season five when the Scoobs didn't allow Tara's dad to
lie to her daughter or let her brother smack her down. Wasn't
Xander's and Anya's actions towards Willow like smacking her down,
making her do something she didn't want to do, and this is why
Tara intervened? And do we simply tell Dawn that she's a spoiled
brat, reducing her down(smacking her down?) to a stereotype rather
than seeing her feelings and then having her take responsibility
for her actions?
Social values on which the concept of stealing is based mean absolutely
nothing if there is no community or family. In this episode, the
sense of family was restored and Dawn's cry for attention was
changed into the socially valued crime of stealing. She was made
to feel once again an important part of a family that she believes
to be important to her and to the world in general, and in that
moment her actions became judged as stealing, and she was made
to take responsibility for them.
This is what Halfrek's role was. Dawn opened up to Halfrek, she
opened up to someone who already realized Dawn's pain and was
willing to do something about it; it's just that her method of
effecting change was adolescent and meant as a device to create
the metaphor of Dawn's adolescent reaction. Dawn couldn't open
up to Buffy because she reckoned that she shouldn't have had to:
if Buffy truly was her mother and if Dawn truly was part of a
loving and understanding family this loneliness and alienation
wouldn't be happening in the first place. She was looking at Buffy
as if she were a mother figure and not a flawed human being. Dawn
was expecting too much of Buffy. She was innocent, naive. The
price of using magic it seems this season is knowledge even for
Dawn. Dawn hasn't grown yet to see that she has a role to play
in understanding the adults. They are still learning too. She
is attached to the opposition of child/adult: they are the adults,
so they should know everything and be all wise; and, it doesn't
serve to help her out of this structure of thinking when Anya
treats her so patronizingly in the beginning of the ep. Nor have
the Scoobies been helping her to grow into adulthood by constantly
keeping things from her as if she were too young, ie a child.
And we then have the same character, Anya, confirm this child/adult
oppositional thinking in Dawn by being hurt at Dawn's actions:
she reacted as a human being with feelings, not just an authority
figure. Dawn just didn't realize that these adult figures she
admired could be hurt by her. The gods themselves do tremble...with
fear of death in Anya's case.
So, I think that Whedon gave Dawn the benefit of the doubt in
this arc of hers, but the safety nets for all the characters are
being removed as in Willow's case. They cannot remain children.
They have to begin to see things from another person's point of
view because we aren't all the same. They have to take responsibility
for themselves.
Quite clearly the star motif is important in this episode. Tara
herself points out the stars at the end of the ep to highlight
the child to adolescent process that is underlying this year's
arc; and they fit in with the ep title, 'Older and Far Away,'
as if the star of the first half of the season, childhood heavens,
is drifting far away as they become older not only in age but
in perspective. They have a new star to follow, the guide to adulthood:
Tara.
In the final analysis I think Whedon is pointing to another way
of looking at the world in which we all have a responsibility
to one another. It's not just Dawn's fault, nor is she blameless.
It's just that this is the way things are and can we see what
is and effect change?
Whedon himself, if other postings I read are correct, said that
the season theme is 'oh grow up.' Allowances can be made for people
to some extent, but we do have to grow up at sometime. I think
the whole family of Scoobies was put in danger to symbolize the
family itself being in mortal danger(they were being isolated
and taken out one by one.)
It also reflected the idea that they all were to blame for not
setting priorities in their lives that would accomodate Dawn.
In some ways Whedon is saying that Dawn's an adolescent and has
an excuse, but now it's time to grow up; but so too do the adults.
They have to shut the door to some things and prioritize the world
because if we call what we have a family, then we have to work
at it in the same way that Willow has to constantly work at not
doing magic(hence the use of Willow's addiction in this ep.) If
we're all out making money and slaying the world etc, then what's
it all for if there's no family to do it for?
Age.HBäHB"IBDJBôJB?KBTLBMB´MBdNBOBÄOBtPB$QBÔQB"RB4SBäSB"TBDUBôUB?VBTWB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Correction. And Where did all those Symbols by
my name come from? Spoilers as Above -- Age, 10:28:23 02/13/02
Wed
One line should read, adolescent to adult transition, not child
to adolescent.
Quite clearly the star motif is important in this episode. Tara
herself
points out the stars at the end of the ep to highlight the adolescent
to
adult process that is underlying this year's arc; and they fit
in
with the ep title, 'Older and Far Away,' as if the star of the
first
half of the season, childhood heavens, is drifting far away as
they
become older not only in age but in perspective. They have a new
star to
follow, the guide to adulthood: Tara.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> But Dawn has not always been left alone -- Vickie,
10:40:32 02/13/02 Wed
Age said:
"It seems strange that the only reason these Scoobs get together
anymore is to celebrate a birthday. Wow! The only way these so
called family members will stay in the same room with Dawn is
if they are celebrating someone else's birthday.(Or that's how
it seems to Dawn. whether it is true or not.) "
Just last week, we saw Xander teaching Dawn to dance while Willow
and Anya watched. Clearly, all three were there, discussing wedding
plans. Dawn didn't make any comments about that being unusual.
She only said that Buffy is not often there.
Certainly, how it seems to Dawn is the most significant point
(as you have said).
In DT, Willow even said (at the Bronze) that resisting her urge
to do magic is much easier when she's not alone--implying that
she has been (or feels that she has been).
So maybe Dawn is acting out for the whole group? In a family,
often one member becomes the black sheep and expresses the negative
and unacceptable feelings of the whole. Certainly, with the exception
of the couples (Xander-Anya and Buffy-Spike), our gang has been
hanging out solo much more than formerly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: But Dawn has not always been left alone
-- Elizabeth, 11:36:39 02/13/02 Wed
I found it interesting that Dawn echoed Buffy from last week's
episode. Last week, when Tara said that Buffy didn't come back
wrong, Buffy said "Than why do I feel like this?" and
when Buffy told Dawn this week that she wasn't alone, Dawn asked
"Than why do I feel like this?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Alone: Spoilers S5, S6 to OAFA -- Age, 11:37:22
02/13/02 Wed
I see your point. It may just go to prove that I have as short
a memory as Dawn does(which I do.) The main focus of her anger
is towards Buffy, and perhaps she generalized it to the other
Scoobies, made it bigger in her mind to bring it to a head; also,
this generalization may have been needed to make the statement
about family in general. The reference to 'Family' of season five
seems to suggest this theme.
What occurred to me after posting was the slide into savagery
that Xander and Anya exhibited: they were willing to put their
own safety above the welfare of their friend. The family was going
down that slippery slope into the chaos of every man for himself
in which taking others' things is not judged as stealing, but
the right of the powerful. Tara had to step in to remind them
what family is. Perhaps that's her role with Spike as well? Of
course at some point we have to ask Willow if she's willing to
sacrifice her sobriety to save her friends.
I hadn't considered dysfunctional acting out. Certainly one member
of the family acts out the troubles of the dynamic, and even attempts
to bring cohesion to the chaos by uniting the dysfunctional parties
together in common purpose. The co-dependency of the acting out
only serves to maintain the dynamic and doesn't get at the cause
because the child is dependent on the adult for so much and is
too afraid and not equipped to begin getting at a root cause.
That's if my understanding of dysfunction is correct.
It's an idea worth looking into.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Bright star, would I were steadfast, as
thou art -- Rahael, 13:03:10 02/13/02 Wed
I'd like to introduce another 'star' image, or resonance for the
repeated star motif. It is Keat's poem. Its first two lines are
ones that automatically come to my mind when I have read Age's
previous posts highlighting it.
"Bright star, would I were stedfast as thou art--
Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night
And watching, with eternal lids apart,
Like nature's patient, sleepless Eremite,
The moving waters at their priestlike task
Of pure ablution round earth's human shores,
Or gazing on the new soft-fallen mask
Of snow upon the mountains and the moors--
No--yet still stedfast, still unchangeable,
Pillow'd upon my fair love's ripening breast,
To feel for ever its soft fall and swell,
Awake for ever in a sweet unrest,
Still, still to hear her tender-taken breath,
And so live ever--or else swoon to death."
That star is both old, and very far away; it is almost eternal.
We gaze up at it in awe, but it also chills us a little. It seems,
to us from earth at least to be still, unchanging, uncaring of
our mortal passions, pain, fear and love.
Dawn, like most teenagers is wracked by passions, mood swings,
great emotional tidal waves. To her Buffy sometimes seems to have
the quality of the cold, bright star who is admirable but untouchable.
Giving off light, but dead inside. In Forever, she accuses Buffy
of not caring, but it is simply a misperception. Buffy's attempts
at coping often involve pushing others away, going it alone.
The Bright star also embodies many other qualities which appear
admirable. It is steadfast, unchanging. But what we see in the
characters trapped in that house (locked in by the key who no
longer has anywhere else to unlock) is that human beings can be
inconstant, changing, capable of surprise. They all undergo great
emotional see saws. They are capable of change. Human beings may
aspire to the bright star's steadfastness, but we must be in constant
flux and change. Keats' poem contains both images of change and
movement (the breathing of the lover, death, the water) and constants
(the star). I actually haven't seen the episode yet, so I could
be talking rubbish. Would be interested in others' comments.
All the characters in that house have displayed great nobility,
and great selfishness in the past and now, and probably in the
future. That is the human condition. Learning about moral choices
involves making mistakes. We saw Willow displaying a great and
admirable fortitude of mind - and we saw Anya panicking. Dawn
is the person who offered to jump off the tower when she realised
the implications of her continuing to bleed.
Dawn's attempt to lock everyone in, to freeze them echoes earlier
themes in this season.
On a sideline, re earlier debate with Vandalia. I can accept that
the acting might have been poor, the writing, the actual lines
ineffective or unsubtle. But I still can see Dawn's side, and
don't in the least feel like slapping her. Just as Willow's stance
is understandable, as is Anya's anger, just as we can see Buffy's
point of view, we can see Dawn's. All their behaviours have a
context.
Vandalia, you ask for concrete references of Dawn feeling neglected,
lonely (even though she has friends like Janice. To actually state
that she feels lonely, to face the camera and say "I miss
my mother", because if an emotion isn't articulated, it must
not exist. I can't think of a more concrete example of feeling
abandoned than to wish that people wouldn't go away. Or someone
who feels neglected to resort to petty, obvious criminal activity.
I have always been able to articulate my emotions. Doesn't mean
everyone can. This is the same girl who tore up her diaries to
express her feeling of despair, to symbolise the huge lie of her
existence. The girl who cut her arms to see whether 'she was real'.
Reminds me of Buffy who ran away to LA rather than tell her friends
what happened in Becoming. She had great friends - why did Buffy
feel so isolated or lonely? Because even in the biggest crowd,
you can feel utterly alone.
So we see Dawn act out. So she doesn't act the way people should
act. She acts the way that fallible humans can act. In a way,
she's trying to affirm her very humanity by acting selfishly.
Buffy our 'heroine' feels so wrong, she attacks Spike in a way
she was shocked at Faith doing to a hostile vampire. We are seeing
all our well-beloved and often noble characters act in ignoble
ways this season.
Even Tara acted wrongly in 'Family'. The second person after Buffy
who affirmed Tara's place within the gang? It was Dawn. THe same
Dawn who gave Spike a chance when no one else would. The girl
who cleaned, and cared for the ressurrected Buffy with great tenderness
and understanding. Imagine being all understanding, having lost
Joyce, burying Buffy, and coping with your sister coming back
strange, withdrawn, despairing, facing the prospect of poverty,
having a background that she cannot reveal to anyone but the Scoobies?
And then losing quality sister time because your sister is having
sex with someone she purports to despise? Anger, resentment, selfish
behaviour could be a natural reaction. Hey, no one pays any attention
when I behave well, so why not try behaving badly? Willow the
magic addict is getting all of Buffy's platonic care and attention.
Spike the evil chipped vampire is getting her physical love.
Dawn looks up at that bright star/diamond who is her sister, and
aspires to be that way. But even Buffy can't live up to that moment
in the Gift.
Of course, I am taking huge leaps to arrive at this view of Dawn.
Nowhere does Dawn say - "I'm jealous of the attention you
are paying Willow", or say "Janice and non-Scooby people
will never understand what I went through". But then I'm
the kind of person who takes a big leap from 'star necklace' to
Keats. And who comments on episodes she actually hasn't seen.
But I resolutely affirm my right to be sympathetic of selfish
Dawn, and selfish Buffy! We can't all be paragons of perfection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Bright star, would I were steadfast,
as thou art -- JM, 15:33:59 02/13/02 Wed
But that's exactly what she is saying re Willow (without words)
in Gone when she has her first real bratfest about the candles.
I'm the good one here. I didn't get wrecked. I didn't bring you
back from the dead. I didn't crowd you, and you're still not doing
things my way. Thanks for articulating it so well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Bright Star. Metaphorical Look
at OAFA Spoilers for S5. S6 to OAFA -- Age, 19:59:16 02/13/02
Wed
Because perfection is just an idea.
Rahael, you certainly know how to draw from these images a meaning
that seems to describe the arc itself. I'm thinking of the moment
on the tower being a pinnacle. No, Buffy can't live up to that
again because she isn't the same Buffy. She may have a different
pinnacle depending on what goes on in her life, but at the moment
what she did is an ideal, an ideal not to become attached to because,
as you said, all is change and flux.
Yes, the image of hell doesn't seem to be restricted to Buffy
herself. We have seen Willow's hidden side surface, and I was
shocked by Anya's panic that made her turn on Willow. Whedon certainly
knew what he was doing when he reinvigorated the plot device of
bringing the title character back from the dead. But the price
these characters are paying for opening up to their repressed/hidden
sides is balanced by the different perspective they will get about
themselves and others, if they take responsibility. I'm assuming
a lot here; I'm not sure how Whedon is going to take this.
You certainly found yet another aspect of the star/diamond metaphor
this season. It ties in with the idea presented to us of the slayer
always being alone. Buffy does tend to pull back to cope alone.
She did this, as you said, right after Joyce's death. The Keats
poem highlights the difference between the cold far removed coping
and the warm immediate kind.
I want to take another quick look at the metaphor to see what
the writer might have been getting at in this ep.
This week's ep is a natural consequence of last week's in which
Buffy first says she wants to be with Dawn; and then says she
has to leave. This confirms Dawn's idea to herself that Buffy
doesn't care and would prefer to be elsewhere. Dawn tells Buffy
to go because she's not really here anyway. It is this problem
between Buffy and Dawn which gets resolved this week.
As this week's ep begins...
Buffy, instead of staying with Dawn, goes out on patrol, leaving
yet again. Dawn doesn't want this, but she doesn't voice her feelings.
Hence we have the set up for the problem from last week.
On patrol Buffy is attacked by a demon that can appear and disappear,
representing the idea that Dawn has of Buffy from last week, ie
that Buffy's not really here, or that there is still a question
of whether she's here or not, ie what to believe: perhaps even
whether Buffy is just going to take off when she goes out and
not come back. Buffy has chosen to go out slaying instead of dealing
with Dawn's perception of their relationship. Buffy, it seems,
must go through the near disaster in the house(nearly losing her
collective family) to bring her to her senses and make it clear
to Dawn that she's come back fully to her.
Buffy manages to take the demon's sword, a symbol of slaying(which
due to the circumstances has created more of a problem) and believes
that in the fight the demon has run away. There is thus the idea
of running away added to Buffy's adolescent reaction to the sword
as cool. Buffy doesn't see the problem with her going out slaying
when in fact, as the demon has become the sword(representing the
problem that Buffy's choosing to patrol before solving her familial
problem is) it is right under her nose and she's blind to it(as
she was blind to the demon becoming the sword.)
Back from patrol, Buffy brings the sword, symbolically bringing
the unresolved problem home with her, but as I said she just doesn't
see this. It is Buffy(though not exclusively) who puts the Scoobies
in mortal danger by bringing the sword home; it is her blindness
to and her inability to deal with the problem which endangers
the Scoobies.
Dawn, instead of opening up to her sister again, keeps her feelings
to herself, putting on a happy face. In doing so, the pain she
obviously feels gets worse until she targets all the Scoobies
for it. Halfrek, a child's justice demon, disguises herself as
a guidance counsellor in order to bring Dawn's pain to the surface
and have it expressed. Dawn makes a wish that the Scoobies wouldn't
leave; she does this instead of opening a channel of communication
with the person she thinks doesn't care about her(in Dawn's mind
Buffy says she wants to stay but she goes out anyway. What is
the reality?)
Through Halfrek's spell something is felt to be wrong, but no
one truly sees what. Tara then does the release spell which frees
the demon/sword representing Buffy's blindness and her choice
not to deal with Dawn before patrolling. This development in metaphorical
terms is like Buffy getting a reflection from others that there's
something wrong. I might add that the release spell also could
have been an attempt to run away from the problem, to get out
without dealing with the issue at hand.
Once the demon is released, it is able to melt into the walls
and reappear. It is thus associated with the house(symbol of family)
and still maintains its mercurial properties, ie is it really
there or not like Buffy. It is this undealt with belief(and really
an aspect of the first half of the season where Buffy wasn't really
there, but going through the motions) which is locked in the house
with them all, ie this question of whether Buffy is really there
or not is killing her family.
Buffy hasn't convinced Dawn that she really is there with her
as mother figure/sister. This is why in the patrol scene we got
yet another image of the angel: is Buffy really there or is her
head still in heaven? Of course being locked in the house is a
metaphor or expression for how Dawn feels: trapped and alone(among
many as Rahael points out) cut off from her community and family.
She feels trapped and alone because Buffy hasn't convinced Dawn
that she really does mean to stay for real.
Within this situation created by both Buffy and Dawn we have the
rest of the Scooby family. But do they act like a family? They've
faced much worse, like a god for example, yet this demon in the
walls seems to be more immediate more pressing. There is created
a real sense of panic, a panic I might add partly related to Xander's
and Anya's wedding; it seems to me that Anya's claustrophobia
is related to her up coming wedding. This commitment is supposed
to be till death do us part and it is the death part that frightens
her badly.
Meanwhile Dawn is seeing that all the Scoobies want to do is leave....her.
She doesn't see that they want to escape the death that haunts
them in the walls. It's in the walls and she can't see it; she
is blind to it because like Buffy it's not really there for her.
Had Buffy dealt with the situation then this unreality demon would
not be haunting the house. She wouldn't be in a situation where
her family was in mortal danger, figuratively and literally.
So, Dawn reacts to the attempt to leave by telling them how she
feels in an angry way and rushing up to her room, to her very
own personal space, making room for herself, so to speak. The
Scoobies come in to find out what's wrong and the uncovering of
the problem goes on from there. Anya in her panic(violating Dawn's
space and then turning on Willow) asks us to consider how near
this family has come to being killed, with Tara intervening on
Willow's and Dawn's behalf, alluding to the creation of this extended
family back in season five.
Once Dawn's feelings are known and her way of dealing with her
alienation is found out, theft, the adolescent approach to dealing
with the problem as symbolized by Halfrek is slain symbolically,
and Dawn once more part of a family must take responsibility for
her actions. It just remains for Buffy to slay her own demon representing
her problem, and then they can all leave(Halfrek's exit is meant
to be a criticism of the adolescent's grand gestures.) The Scoobs
leave, looking at the stars, and Buffy shuts the door, demonstrating
to Dawn that she's back for real. Buffy has been given her real
birthday gift: her family back.
I am glad Rahael that you have a better memory than I do and can
quote very lovely and pertinent poetry to bring depth and understanding
to this issue, and balance out the perspective of these characters
who have indeed been noble many times. We see this balance being
expressed in Tara's action. Her act to save the family who adopted
her balances out(though not intentionally) their act of saving
her. Their noble act of kindness has had a consequence at the
very time it was needed. Buffy's and the Scooby gang's suicide
and resurrection spell have had an enormous consequence for them
in this dark hellish season. But, as Keats poem points out, there
is one warm and bright star, this human being, Tara, who has come
out in their night in an immediate and noble way to help them
through the dark. Tara had been brought into the family, coming
under the powerful (sun)shine of Willow's magic(Tara's song in
'OMWF'), and then decides to shine herself as the star.
In 'Family' two deliberately caricatured figures attempt to smack
down Tara and turn her into their slave through a lie about being
a demon. In trying to hide from the Scoobies, Tara puts all of
them at risk. She blinds them to what she thinks she is, to a
dark side that really doesn't exist. And it requires the enlightenment
of a dark figure, Spike, to reveal the truth. In that ep did we
get the template for season six? In the revelation of truth and
the interplay of dark and light figures are we seeing a deconstruction
of the ideal as norm(as Rufus, I believe suggested.) Are we to
conclude by contrast to the caricatures of Tara's father and brother
that indeed we human beings are complex creatures?
Whether or not my interpretation is correct, the basis of this
series is metaphorical; it does provide us with clues to the motivations
of the characters and to the themes. Whedon has provided us with
a rich literary text to explore and draw our conclusions. Metaphor
is a tool at our disposal in the discussions we have here on this
board.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bright Star. Metaphorical
Look at OAFA Spoilers for S5. S6 to OAFA -- Caroline, 07:22:40
02/14/02 Thu
I've been reading the posts by Age, Rahael etc above with great
interest and I think that I'd like to throw another metaphor into
the mix. There's been a lot of house/door metaphors in the last
few episodes. The house fell down in smashed, there's the whole
door scene in dead things and now everyone is trapped in a house
in older and far away.
Houses can represent several different things. The house as womb
is symbolic of a haven, safety, security. However, it can also
become its opposite - trapping and suffocating. The house can
also be a metaphor for identity, for selfhood. When houses come
crashing down (like a deck of cards) then we know some form of
destruction and hopefully transformation is taking place relating
to identity, roles and personal perspectives and beliefs. That
appears to have been the role of the metaphor in smashed. In dead
things, the door represented the barriers that we put up, the
denials and repression that we maintain. In OAFA, the house was
initially a haven for Dawn (she got everything she wanted, no-one
left her) but later become a trap for the others. It was an extreme
response by Dawn - she wanted a global, omnipresent, suffocating
mother, someone who would completely stay and be unable to leave
her. As for the scoobies - they did indeed bring their problems
with them and were given an opportunity to explore them - Willow
and temptation, Anya and her humanity etc.
I think that the prevalence of this metaphor is to show how everyone
is walking around inside their own 'house', their own mind and
unable to really 'see' anyone else's needs, feelings, desires.
Gotta go, much work. Thanks for the insights.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Full Metaphorical
Look: Reality in OAFA Spoilers for S5, S6 to OAFA, A2, A3 'Provider'
-- Age, 08:49:40 02/14/02 Thu
Thanks Caroline,
A friend of mine with whom I analyze 'The X-Files' refers to this
tendency towards being in ones old world as each person living
in his own box. It is somewhat same thing, as houses are the boxes
we inhabit and decorate with ourselves, our beliefs, our desires,
our activities, our secrets, our lives. However, in this series
the house is distinguished from the box, as we can see in the
gift of the empty box that Xander and Anya give to Buffy. Thanks
for highlighting this.
I have missed half of what 'OAFA' is saying; Sebastian above was
on to it by suggesting the allusion to 'Bloodties' and Dawn's
unreality. In this posting I'm going to explore this:
As you know I believe that the arcs and episodes each week of
both series are linked together. The paired episodes, 'Provider'
and 'Double Meat Palace' were both about making money, but aspects
of 'Provider' had to wait until 'OAFA' to be explored on 'Buffy'.
The aspect of 'Provider' which had to wait until this week was
touched on both by Sebastian in this thread when he talked about
the anniversary of Dawn's discovery of her 'unreality' in 'Bloodties'
through the allusion of Dawn's 'Get out, get out, get out;' and
by my metaphorical interpretation of 'OAFA' showing the demon
to represent unreality.
In 'Provider' Angel has realized that he has three main responsibilities:
making money, being a father and the mission. He mistakenly believes
that by reducing them all to one thing, making money, he can solve
them all. In this way he takes the easy way out(the adolescent
way) of dealing with the conflict between them, the constant need
to juggle them as priorities. What he does is reduce the human
beings he treasures to symbols, mistaking the symbols, money,
for the real thing. Thus in 'Provider' Angel has to be reminded
what is real and what is not by the lesson Sam provides of the
value of the watch: instead of the watch itself having value,
it is the human being associated with it who is the treasure.
It's the same with Fred: it isn't the $50,000 that's important,
it is Fred's head. Angel is taught to realize that the human is
the one who is real, not the money, and saves his family who,
like Buffy's in 'OAFA' has been collected together and is in mortal
danger.
In 'OAFA' there are two types of unreality being undone through
the process of the plot. I only saw one of them initially in my
metaphorical interpretation, not understanding the significance
of Buffy's REAL birthday gift, having her family back. The first
unreality is Buffy's misunderstanding, just like Angel's in 'Provider'
that things, rather than people have value. The writer makes this
abundantly clear(although I didn't see it!) when he has Buffy
leave Dawn without dealing with their problem and shows her adolescent
reaction to obtaining the sword; in this way Buffy has shown that
the human being for whom she's gone out slaying is not as valued
as the object she uses to do the slaying. This is then reinforced
in the birthday when Buffy fails to understand the importance
of Dawn's gift, Dawn's feelings and therefore family, when the
empty box(empty as metaphor) for putting weapons(again things
for slaying, ie slaying things more valuable than human being
Dawn whose gift, the leather jacket, has only value through its
being from Dawn as it isn't 'good' like slaying weapons(it was
stolen) and it wasn't hand made as the box was) is brought out.
Buffy, like Angel, has to go through a dire situation in which
her friends are put in mortal danger to learn what is real and
what is not: the human beings are real, not the things you get
at a birthday. This is exactly the lesson that Angel has in 'Provider.'
This ties in with what Sebastian was saying about 'Bloodties.'
In 'Bloodties' Dawn discovers the fiction of her life, of her
being simply part of a reproductive chain, the key, the link between
generations. In this sense we are all unreal, fictions of DNA.
But, Whedon in 'OAFA' is saying that even if this is so, even
if all is constant change, we are real in the sense of being persons,
albeit constantly changing ones with a consciousness etc. And
we do, just as Dawn needs to know from Buffy, that we matter,
that we are valued as part of a human family, ie that we are not
just reproductive things.
The other unreality is Dawn's in that she doesn't know whether
Buffy is really back or not. This is Buffy's fault yet again because
Buffy last week said one thing(she wants to be with Dawn) but
then was going to go away, confirming in Dawn's mind that Buffy
didn't really mean that she was back. Dawn already voiced her
beliefs, her emotions and her concerns to Buffy last week; it
was up to Buffy the adult to take responsibility and do something
about that, but instead she leaves once again to go out on patrol.
Hence the object of the patrol, the sword, having more value than
Dawn the human being. This is also why Buffy's valuation of the
sword as cool is meant to be seen as adolescent.
During the process of the plot, Dawn's feelings are uncovered.
Dawn comes to see that Buffy is really back to stay; and Buffy
comes to understand what's really important, the human being,
and not the mission itself which is simply there to help the human
being by dealing with those creatures who will harm humans. In
this way, Buffy shuts the door to the value she places in things
by literally shutting the door, and shows Dawn she values her
for real(ie as the other poster suggested through the 'Bloodties'
allusion, that Dawn's feelings as a human being are real to her
and that she, Buffy, is really here to stay.)
By looking at the metaphor we can see the intention of the writer.
In my opinion the validation of Dawn's feelings were necessary,
and the focus of this ep. Buffy had to show that Dawn as human
being(not just key, not just reproductive link) was real to Buffy,
that her feelings were important, or Buffy would lose exactly
what Angel would have lost in 'Provider', her child, and her whole
extended family. It was Buffy's lingering adolescent attitude,
like Angel's in 'Provider' as symbolized by the Pylean allusion
of beheading/prince etc, that was at fault here, and threatened
to destroy her family.
One more word about this, in 'Bloodties' Dawn comes back and says:
this is blood, it can't be me, I'm not this key, I'm not a thing.
Dawn still needed to have her doubts about her human identity
dealt with. Her other mother died, her biological mother(Buffy)
committed suicide and now is not really back emotionally; so,
Dawn has gotten the message that it just may be that people don't
really see her as a human being, she's just the key, a thing,
a reproductive link in the chain of life and death. It doesn't
matter then if she steals because she's not real, only real people
can steal. If someone judges her taking things to be stealing,
then they judge her to be a human being. Judge her To be real.
To have importance as a human being. This is why a simple judgement
against Dawn for the stealing doesn't get at the human being that
Dawn is. In getting Dawn to take responsibility for the stealing,
Buffy is actually validating Dawn's importance as a human member
of the family and society in general.
What Whedon is saying by pairing Dawn's identity issue with Buffy's
taking responsibility as an adult is that despite our being products
of DNA, we assume responsibility for ourselves because we are
human persons also, or else we do remain as children or things,
vampires or robots.
Thanks Caroline for adding to the discussion about metaphor.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: One Additional
Comment OAFA Spoilers for 'Blood ties' S5, S6 -- Age, 09:08:18
02/14/02 Thu
I posted this small comment above in reply to Sebastian, but I
think it should also be placed as here to qualify my Full Metaphor
posting.
Whedon paired Dawn's finding out about the Key in 'Blood Ties'
with
Buffy's birthday because without being a link in a reproductive
chain(the Key, the link between generations), no one can be born.
Birthday is the celebration of the person who was born, but in
order to
be that person, we also have to be links, reproductive things.
Dawn's
still had issues regarding this dual nature of humanity. Am I
just a
thing or am I a person too?
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Refinement
of the Metaphor. OAFA Spoilers for S5, S6 to Present. -- Age,
09:28:24 02/14/02 Thu
It occurred to me that I still haven't seen what the metaphor
of 'OAFA' really is.
Okay, the slayer represents perhaps the sexual/aggressive aspect,
the animal, let's say. In Buffy choosing to do slaying instead
of being with Dawn, this is a symbolic rendering of Buffy thinking(or
Dawn believing that Buffy's thinking) that Dawn's just a reproductive
thing and not a human being. This symbolism is reinforced in the
unreality demon who comes back into the female symbol, the house,
the womb, as a phallic symbol, the sword, representing our natures
as reproductive things only.
Buffy then has to show Dawn that she doesn't value things over
her in order to deal with Dawn's belief that she may just be the
key, a link, and not a person. In shutting the door to the outside,
Buffy shuts the door to the idea that we are simply links, things,
turning the house from simply being the symbol of the womb to
a home with a family of persons in it. Thanks to Caroline for
her insight into the house as metaphor.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
What This Means to Anya. OAFA Spoilers for S5, S6 to Present.
-- Age, 10:15:23 02/14/02 Thu
If we are under the symbolism of the womb and phallus in the house,
ie reproduction, then it makes sense that there's a birthday.
However, the previous generation has to die to make way for the
new; therefore, not only do we have to have a birthday, but we
have to have the theme of death, mortality. Hence Anya's panic
at their mortal danger.
The very fact that the house is a womb/phallic metaphor means
that indeed they are all in mortal danger because we are as reproductive
links born to die, and this scares Anya to the point where she
loses her sense of being a person and gives into her instinct
for self preservation like Ben did last year. She became the very
animal which the house was representing through the womb/phallic
imagery.
Again Whedon is reiterating the need to manage our animal aspects
in order not to lose our identity as human beings and become either
vampire or robot.
Incidentally the bunny image is the scariest costume Anya can
find because bunnies are a symbol of reproduction, fertility,
and therefore mortality. Bunnies represent death. This is why
in 'Once More With Feeling' she claims that either bunnies or
midgets are responsible: both, through the allusion to 'The Wizard
of Oz' represent the potential for creating new life and hence
our inherent human flaw, our mortality.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What This Means to Anya. OAFA Spoilers for S5, S6 to Present.
-- Caroline, 10:34:42 02/14/02 Thu
Yay, lunchtime, more time to post.
Age, you read my mind about Anya. She is trapped, there's basically
a phallic demon walking around with a phallic sword terrorizing
everyone in the womb and she does come up against her own mortality
and humanity. Her panic did strip her of the veneer of civilization
that she has acquired and much of the omnipotence of being an
immortal demon. We've discussed in an earlier thread about each
of us reaching down into the depths of our beings and integrating
our dark sides and Anya was doing this here.
I'm now starting to see some parallels between Anya and Spike
in this sense - neutered demons discovering themselves. Both ripped
out of a demonic Eden and having to confront and cope with an
uncontrollable world. Gotta go again but hope to explore this
and more elements soon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Key Ideas. Spoilers for S5, S6 to OAFA A3 Possible Spec
about Season. -- Age, 12:49:02 02/14/02 Thu
Hi Caroline,
Thanks once again for your insight.
I see your point about Anya and Spike. This can be applied to
Angel as well. He even says at one point how easy and simple life
as a vampire is. In season two of Angel and season five of Buffy
the reference to childhood was made at the beginning of both(as
I never cease to say, the two are linked)and the rest of their
seasons was their collective fall from the Eden of simplicity.
We have Holtz and the nerds on the other hand ridding themselves
of complications. Another poster suggested that Warren has been
in getting rid of complication mode since we saw him, dumping
his problems on Buffy. And Holtz has divested himself of any human
complexity through his single minded desire to revenge himself,
making his peoblem Angel's.
Whedon certainly understood what he needed to do to get his characters
to adulthood. He needed to unlock that door. In Rahael's posting
she suggested that Dawn as key locked them in in 'OAFA'; I would
suggest that Dawn as key, by locking them in inadvertently actually
acted as the key which unlocked Anya's mortal side. Again, just
like in season five when she unlocked Buffy's hidden side, Dawn
isn't just called the key for symbolic purposes, but acts as the
mechanism itself. This shows the degree to which the metaphor
has been thought out and the quality of writing.
We should not then be surprised that it is Dawn as key who unlocks
Willow's hidden side in 'Wrecked' as it is she who accompanies
Willow and is involved in the crash.
I can't believe how well thought out this is!
All the characters had to go to hell because that's where they
had consigned aspects of themselves as vilified in their own mind.
But, in bringing back Buffy, this was a symbolic opening to the
possibility of their opening to their own dark side. The key,
Dawn, had never gone away, and was just waiting to be used, figuratively.
In bringing Buffy back from childhood and making her become an
adult, the price for using that magic was becoming adult themselves.
I'm going to reproduce here and expand on my reply to Rattletrap.
I think the comments are relevent to this part of the thread.
I get the impression that this episode may have relied perhaps
too much on its metaphorical content to convey its meaning. Having
said that we were told what the metaphor means by Halfrek's speech
about Dawn's pain, ie she's a human being with feelings, not just
a reproductive thing.
Perhaps the difference in opinion about this episode lies in what
each of us have become attached to as values. But I must say that
I've been surprised at the criticism and suggestion of the use
of physical force or even just stereotyping especially as this
ep clearly alludes back to 'Family' in which the Scooby Gang defend
Tara from both physical force threatened against her and from
the stereotyping that the caricatures of Tara's father and brother
represent. In my opinion 'Older and Far Away''s main aim is to
suggest the opposite of these approaches which are in effect the
same thing: beating down with ideas or beating down with fists.
The title 'Older and Far Away' refers in part to Tara. This incorporates
Rahael's Keats poem: Tara is older and far away from the stereotyping
and physical violence(of child-men who want to create a heaven(as
Buffy created her childhood heaven, her Eden, by suicide amongst
the stars so to speak) for themselves using women, creating a
hell for them) of her own family, with these guiding stars(of
her own biological family) being only a twinkle, a glimmer in
the past that's far behind her, and in being far away from this,
she is the immediate human star that is guiding the Scoobies in
the dark. In other words, she's not the far glimmering star of
her biological family, but the immediate star of her adopted human
family. She is not the star of childhood in the sky or of her
stereotyping, physically abusive biological family, but the immediate
human star of Keats' poem.
In effect, 'Older and Far Away' shows us the difference, as it
did in 'Family' and 'Bloodties' between the simple animal basis
of blood/genetics as a tie to family and the bonds that we create
with one another as human beings. It is the difference between
family as a group of animals and family as a relationship between
human beings.
Joss Whedon has made his series into a metaphorical text, giving
us the richness we deserve as human beings. We are not just things
to be beaten down.
Thanks again Caroline, and I look forward to reading your thoughts...whether
still in your mind or in a posting.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dawn as the Key in OAFA
-- Etrangere, 11:36:52 02/14/02 Thu
About all those architectural metaphoras, I always think that
Dawn is the Key between Buffy and Spike, as being the person that
allows them to be linked. (The door in Dead Things was interresting
for that. Closed, but a door = communication through a wall, made
me think of Pyrame and Thisbee) It was even more clear and general
in this episode.
In OAFA Dawn, the Key, has closed the house, but she opened the
comunication bewteen people. Willow and Tara, Anya and Xander,
Buffy and Spike, and offcourse Dawn and Buffy, they have really
talked there more than they do usually.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks, Age. -- Traveler, 12:03:37 02/13/02 Wed
I felt some compassion for Dawn, despite her bratiness, but I
couldn't explain why. For some reason, I just haven't been able
to organize my thoughts recently, so it's always nice to have
other people do it for me :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thanks, Age. Spoilers: BS6, DMP, OAFA and
AS3, 'Provider.' -- Age, 13:28:59 02/13/02 Wed
It seems that the triangle of priorities in the 'Angel' ep 'Provider'
which Angel lumped all together as a possible solution to finding
time as an adult for all responsibilities had to wait until this
week to be dealt with on 'Buffy.' The two series in my opinion
are linked each week and by season arc, but just changed somewhat
to fit the characters. The triangle in 'Provider' was fatherly
responsibilities, the mission and making money, with the making
money being used as a solution to all three responsibilities.
Buffy already got herself a job in 'Double Meat Palace'(the ep
paired with 'Provider', hence the link); so now she had to set
her priorities between the three: Dawn, slaying and making money.
She just needed all the Scoobies to be put in mortal danger (as
the Fang gang had been in 'Provider' when they all turned up at
the boat) to get her to re-orient her priorities, ie if she doesn't
balance her priorities she could lose all that she treasures.
If we look at the Angel arc we see something similar in the Holtz
revenge plot: he was out doing his job saving the world from vampires,
but what about the family he was saving them from? If you are
out all the time making money or saving the world, then you lose
the family for which you are doing those activities as symbolized
by Holtz's loss.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Death of Family. Spoilers for S6, 'OAFA'and
S5 -- Rattletrap, 09:20:44 02/14/02 Thu
Thanks Age, wonderful analysis as always.
I seem to be on the lonely side of the fence here as someone who
loved this episode and especially Dawn's story (and MT's performance
of it). I found myself echoing many of Age's sentiments--this
girl has had an extremely tough life. Her position has most of
the problems of being the slayer, but none of the advantages of
superior strength and healing. She still must deal with constant
danger from supernatural forces. More to the point, she can never
give her friends or her teachers a completely honest answer when
they ask "What did you do last weekend?" This sort of
thing is not conducive to building strong friendships, yet, as
OaFA demonstrated, she also is not really accepted as a full-fledged
part of the Scooby Gang. I find Dawn's self-centeredness and immaturity
to be fairly (almost hauntingly) realistic portrayals of a 15-year-old
girl, and things that are hardly absent in her older sister. Those
things don't diminish my enjoyment of her story.
I find myself on a more populated side of the fence in thinking
Tara/Amber was brilliant in this episode, especially her good-natured-yet-pointed
needling of Spike. I still haven't decided what I think about
Anya, I'm reserving judgment there.
Sorry for the rambling, just needed to get my $.02 in
'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thanks. Spoilers for S6, 'OAFA'and S5 --
Age, 11:17:26 02/14/02 Thu
Thanks for your comments, Rattletrap
I get the impression that this episode may have relied perhaps
too much on its metaphorical content to convey its meaning. I've
been refining the metaphor and I think I've finally gotten to
it in this thread(Full Metaphor, Refinement of Metaphor, What
it Means to Anya postings.)
Having said that we were told what the metaphor means by Halfrek's
speech about Dawn's pain, ie she's a human being with feelings,
not just a reproductive thing.
Perhaps the difference in opinion about this episode lies in what
each of us have become attached to as values. But I must say that
I've been surprised at the criticism and suggestion of the use
of physical force or even just stereotyping especially as this
ep clearly alludes back to 'Family' in which the Scooby Gang defend
Tara from both physical force threatened against her and from
the stereotyping that the caricatures of Tara's father and brother
represent. In my opinion 'Older and Far Away''s main aim is to
suggest the opposite of these approaches which are in effect the
same thing: beating down with ideas or beating down with fists.
The title 'Older and Far Away' refers in part to Tara. This incorporates
Rahael's Keats poem: Tara is older and far away from the stereotyping
and physical violence(of child-men who want to create a heaven
for themselves using women) of her own family, with these guiding
stars(of her own biological family) being only a twinkle, a glimmer
in the past that's far behind her, and in being far away from
this, she is the immediate human star that is guiding the Scoobies
in the dark.
I enjoyed this episode very much as well.
Thanks for your comments. Joss Whedon has made his series into
a metaphorical text, giving us the richness we deserve as human
beings. We are not just things to be beaten down.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks. Spoilers for S6, 'OAFA'and
S5 -- Caroline, 11:45:07 02/14/02 Thu
More on Tara,
She is also older and far away in terms of the maturity she has
gained since the break-up with Willow. In Once More with Feeling,
Tara only saw herself having and self-worth or ability to attract
via her relationship with Willow (see the I'm under your spell
song) and was rudely awakened when she discovered the Lethe's
bramble/forgetting spell. But, as shown in her rejection of Willow,
and in Older and Far Away, her time apart from Willow has really
helped her to grow and mature. She stopped projecting all her
good qualities onto Willow, or seeing her good qualities as coming
from Willow. (Tara's arc has been quite different from the other
scoobies - she first confronted her dark side back in Family last
season.) In OAFA, she showed levels of confidence, maturity, humour
and comfort with herself that we have not seen before. And that
really puts her in a different league than the scoobies and Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Death of Family. Spoilers for S6, 'OAFA'and
S5 -- Rattletrap, 09:21:49 02/14/02 Thu
Thanks Age, wonderful analysis as always.
I seem to be on the lonely side of the fence here as someone who
loved this episode and especially Dawn's story (and MT's performance
of it). I found myself echoing many of Age's sentiments--this
girl has had an extremely tough life. Her position has most of
the problems of being the slayer, but none of the advantages of
superior strength and healing. She still must deal with constant
danger from supernatural forces. More to the point, she can never
give her friends or her teachers a completely honest answer when
they ask "What did you do last weekend?" This sort of
thing is not conducive to building strong friendships, yet, as
OaFA demonstrated, she also is not really accepted as a full-fledged
part of the Scooby Gang. I find Dawn's self-centeredness and immaturity
to be fairly (almost hauntingly) realistic portrayals of a 15-year-old
girl, and things that are hardly absent in her older sister. Those
things don't diminish my enjoyment of her story.
I find myself on a more populated side of the fence in thinking
Tara/Amber was brilliant in this episode, especially her good-natured-yet-pointed
needling of Spike. I still haven't decided what I think about
Anya, I'm reserving judgment there.
Sorry for the rambling, just needed to get my $.02 in
'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Double post with one above. I see Voy is busy
being Voy again ;-) -- trap, 09:43:59 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Homoerotic Underscoring -- VampRiley, 12:27:34 02/13/02
Wed
Did anyone else get a vibe of homoeroticism from Spike's talk
about breakfast to if Buffy's new grown up friend works out that
underscored it or is this just me?
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I think it was just you (Spoilery) -- Isabel, 15:28:05
02/13/02 Wed
Sure Spike implied that he'd like to eat Richard for breakfast,
but I think he meant it in the traditional vampire-victim way.
Plus it would have the bonus of eliminating a rival for Buffy's
affections, one who actually has a pulse and she keeps cooing
that he's 'cute' and 'nice.' A rival her friends obviously approve
of already.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I was thinking that... -- VampRiley, 15:34:08
02/13/02 Wed
...I just couldn't get the way it sounded out of my head, no matter
how many times I watched it.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I was thinking that... -- JM, 15:37:17
02/13/02 Wed
I think that Richard was getting that vibe too.
Have I got a thread for you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What the hell was that?! (Spoilers for 'Older and Far
Away' -- maddog, 13:35:28 02/13/02 Wed
I think any child reference was refering to how she was acting...she
wasn't acting her age...and that was the whole point. And in that
vein I think Dawn didn't realize how much danger the whole house
was in. She was SO wrapped up in her own life, her own problems...that
she was ignoring the big picture.
Have you forgotten that the other characters are adults? THey
have responsibilities. They work their time with Dawn in and around
that(though I know Buffy wasn't, the rest were). And don't give
us this "Dawn's forced to do" concept. She wasn't forced
to do anything. She took her situation and CHOSE to act out.
The only reason Dawn wants to spend time with Buffy and her friends
is cause that's all Dawn knows. We've seen a total of one friend
of hers...let's face it, she doesn't have anyone else. And also,
just because you didn't want to spend extra time with your parents
doesn't mean some people aren't the exact opposites. I know plenty
of people that are extremely big family people...who'd love to
take the day off and spend it with a parent or both.
You do well contradicting yourself...first you say you can't believe
they don't have time to go to the mall with Dawn but when Hallie
bitches about it, they're adults and they have lives....you might
wanna make up your mind there.
I think you're oversimplifying the moral of the story...it's not
that black and white. Like everything else this season...neither
side is completely wrong. Dawn's not being payed enough attention
to, no doubt about it. And unless she gets friends of her own
then there needs to be more love coming from the Scoobies. HOWEVER,
Dawn's gone overboard...they can't spend every waking moment with
her and she can't just run out and start stealing things when
they don't have time for her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I agree with most of Vandalia's post. HAM-HANDEDNESS. --
Rochefort, 14:24:21 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Maybe *we're* Dawn, too. (spoilers for OAFA) -- yez, 10:57:30
02/14/02 Thu
Or maybe it's just me, but I found that my reactions to the episode
have kind of paralleled Dawn's.
I've been frustrated this season by how little interaction we've
seen between the Scoobies -- they're all usually off dealing with
their own things instead of working together from a central location
like they used to; I've been hoping they'd get back to the old
structure somehow. And I've been bored with all the time spent
on relatively mundane things, like being trained at a crappy job
and wedding planning, and frustrated that these things seemed
to dominate episodes instead of action, interaction, mystery,
etc. And when I first learned about the "we're all trapped
in the house" plot, I thought, "Great, now they *have*
to interact, and things will be like they were."
But it wasn't nearly as much fun as I thought it would be. In
particularly boring moments, like Dawn, I also found myself thinking,
"Okay, just get out, get out, get out already."
In the "Empire of the Sun" thread above (which, I understand,
is the source of the "older and far away" line and was
the novel being discussed in Dawn's class), someone mentioned
that the author tends to have his characters embrace disaster
and use it to free themselves, grow, etc. If the breakup of the
family is the central problem, as Age asserts, then maybe we and
ME, like Dawn, need to make the most of this "disaster"
-- parental abandonment and the Scoobies growing up -- instead
of trying to recreate what has changed. Like the characters, ME
also had to deal with "abandonment" by parental figures
-- the actors that played Joyce, then Giles, not to mention what
seems to be the (more or less) absentee creator, Whedon.
I'm just not sure this makes good TV, though...
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Maybe *we're* Dawn, too. (spoilers for OAFA) --
anom, 15:44:17 02/14/02 Thu
"Or maybe it's just me, but I found that my reactions to
the episode have kind of paralleled Dawn's."
Not just you--see my post above about "the real metaphor..."
& who Dawn stands in for. Although I don't really feel that way
myself, it seems a lot of viewers do. I like how people can reach
the same point by different routes--yours is somewhat more personal,
but a lot of people want the "absentee creator, Whedon"
not to stay away from the house so much. Joss is the one person
I don't think anyone on this board would tell to "get out,
get out, get out"!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Older and Far Away": Season Six's Upward Climb Continues
(spoiler for OAFA) -- Rob, 20:50:57 02/12/02 Tue
I am so glad that "Older and Far Away" was such a great
episode, because it reaffirmed my hopes that the brilliant "Dead
Things" would lead to a killer second-half of the sixth season.
The mid-season slump is officially defeated, in my book. This
episode was just riddled with great stuff, and it gives us another
"Buffy-birthday-from-Hell" to add to our list! What
with having her first lover turn into a demon the morning after
one year to having her powers taken away another year, I'm hoping
Buffy wises up and goes into hibernation on her next birthday!
With that said, I would like to give the new writer, Drew Z. Greenberg
a big fat, heterosexual kiss on the lips for such a great episode...!!!
There was so much great material...
For starters, it was full of surpises and twists that, continuing
last week's trend, actually surprising and twisty! Having the
demon be released from the sword by Tara's spell...Pure Genius!
Having Halfrek appear, only to get gutted in the stomach...Perfect
Act Three Closer (yes, a tease...but still perfect!)!!! And having
Dawn's secret stash revealed in such a startling matter...What
More Can I Say?
Now, I do not know how much of the story is decided in committee,
and how much is actually from the writer's mind...but I must say,
I really do feel like Mr. Greenberg really does know these characters.
This is the second episode he has written, and the second where
the characters have really been pushed to their limits...inspiring
them to act in, sometimes surprising, but totally convincing ways.
This episode reminded me that Anya is capable of true human emotion,
not just witty untactful one-liners. The scene where Anya discovers
Dawn stole from her could have been played up for laughs. Or,
in the opposite extreme, Anya could have been furious at Dawn.
But Emma Caulfield, and the script, were brilliant low-key. She
was truly hurt by what Dawn did to her. It was a quiet, beautiful
reaction, that, actually reminded me a great deal of how she acted
in "The Body."
Another great character moment was Tara's defense of Willow. What
a powerful scene that was! Tara was probably the most animated
and strong we have ever seen her in that scene, with the arguable
exception of her facing Glory in "Tough Love". Similar
to "Tough Love," she is inspired to be strong in order
to defend her friends, or in this case, Willow, the woman she
loves. It was so great to see Tara act this way. Again, I see
it totally in character...even shy people can be pushed to their
limits some times and come out with the most surprising things.
Trust me. :o)
The fact that they were trapped really upped the ante on an emotional
level, and inspired the characters to act ways they haven't in
a long time. This is, in fact, one of the first situations in
a long time where the entire gang of characters were truly worried
that they may not make it. I would say the last truly threatening
moment was in "Bargaining." Yes, there were particular
characters in Danger, i.e. Buffy in "Doublemeat Palace,"
but the stakes were so much greater here. Xander was actually
harmed, as was poor Richard (that one didn't last long! lol).
And Anya was truly reaching her breaking point. The scene where
she began to feel claustrophobic and started taking off her clothes
was so human, and heartbreaking. And we finally had again a perfect
Xander-and-Anya scene...something that I, for one, think hasn't
occurred since "Once More, With Feeling." A moment where
we're reminded just why these two are so perfect for each other.
Xander consoling Anya WAS that scene!
Being trapped in the house together literally and symbolically
forced the characters to deal with more issues that they had been
avoiding. I am beginning to suspect that the first half of the
season was about the alienation of the core group from each other
due to unspoken feelings, and the second half will be about breaking
those barriers by confronting the reasons for which the avoidey-ness
began! Buffy and Dawn started to have a dialogue last week, and
that naturally progressed into this week. And could there have
been a more perfect time for Dawn's thievery to be revealed? I
can't wait to see the future consequences of that (and to see
whether anyone then realizes that that is why Sweet thought Dawn
had summoned her).
Although I very greatly enjoyed "Older and Far Away,"
I do not think it's the best episode ever. But I would definitely
rank it in between the Very Good to Excellent side of the meter.
It accomplished its deceptively simple goal of continuing to get
the audience interested in the story again. If "Dead Things"
is the episode that finally amplified the season-long story arc
and got things into order, "Older and Far Away" is our
first example of an episode in the "new and improved"
second half of the sixth season. If the episodes continue to get
better from here (or even stay at this level), I will be very,
very happy. This year lacked serious threats to the SG, at least
in the first half of the year. Now, I see true, serious threats
returning, not the least of which I predict will come from Warren
in the upcoming weeks.
Now, the most threatening thing, however, will be having to survive
the next two weeks until "As You Were" airs. Like Willow,
we're all about to go through withdrawal!
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> And a big wet one from me, too. Despite my irritation expressed
below. -- yuri, 00:02:20 02/13/02 Wed
and perhaps because of it, since I find that interesting as well.
Anyhow, I had one comment about the claustrophobic Anya scene
-- she starts taking of her clothes in a heated frenzy. Sound
like something Xander would enjoy? Sorta like the topic of one
of his sharp one-liners? Well, not new improved and in love Xander
who tells her to keep her clothes on and leaves to get her a glass
of water. Not even an "I had a dream like this once,"
or even "If only we weren't magically sealed in a house with
a demon stuck in its walls..." Very nice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: And a big wet one from me, too. Despite my irritation
expressed below. -- Rob, 04:57:56 02/13/02 Wed
Yes, that was very mature of him. He could tell how serious she
was being, and didn't feel it was the right time for a joke. It
looks like he'll turn out to be a great husband for her...
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: "Older and Far Away": Season Six's Upward
Climb Continues (spoiler for OAFA) -- Caroline, 10:02:07 02/13/02
Wed
Hey, I loved the first half of the season! Lots of great heavy
psychological stuff that was wonderful grist for the analytical
mill. I still maintain that the whole magic/addiction thing has
not gone well but Buffy's arc has been strong and consistent throughout.
But I do agree with you on OAFA. Fun,with great twists. And the
only thing I want to add to your analysis is how much I enjoyed
the minor characters. Hallie is a scream, Sophie was so adorably
young and immature (reflecting on Buffy's friend-making skills),
Clem the lovable demon (moral ambiguity in the Buffyverse?) and
poor clueless Richard - so nice, so not right for Buffy.
I thought Hallie's final comment about you only have time and
each other was significant, perhaps even foreshadowy. Time has
been a big thing this season - the time Buffy spent dead, time
going wonky in life serial and dead things, Buffy not knowing
what day it was when the social worker came, the time thing in
wrecked, 'time turns kittens into cats' etc.
Current board
| More February 2002