February 2002 posts
Any thoughts on the black leather coat? -- Anne, 05:51:42 02/13/02
Wed
The first thought that entered my mind when Dawn took out the
black leather coat and tried it on was "Spike". I don't
know what to make of this but it can't possibly be accidental
that the item they chose to have Dawn steal, try on for herself
obviously liking how she looked in it, and then give to her beloved
sister, was something so rampantly reminiscent of Spike's trademark.
Anybody have any thoughts on this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Woops spoilers above -- Anne, 10:42:28 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: black leather coat: Dawn's identity -- Lupe, 11:04:19
02/13/02 Wed
Interesting thought regarding the black leather coat and a tie
in with Spike...Here are my random ramblings on the subject:
When Dawn tried on the coat, I actually thought more of Buffy
than Spike. Buffy herself has worn quite a lot of black leather
coats (we'll ignore the reality of how much leather coats cost
- unless, of course, everyone's wardrobe was shoplifted). Dawn
tries it on, but she's not Buffy: she's not the superhero of the
family. And yet without any super powers, Dawn has many of the
same trials that Buffy had as a teen. Until Buffy came to Sunnydale
and ended up with friends who knew her Slayer secret, her life
and the life of most Slayers was destined to be a lonely one.
Buffy bucked this rule and so we have a Slayer with friends. Now
look at Dawn. It's the same dilemma: how can you have close friends
when you have a huge secret? Buffy has the luxury (necessity,
though, really) of having friends who know and can share her secret:
but Dawn only has Buffy and Buffy's friends. Dawn needs her own
circle of friends, friends her own age, but how can she find people
she could confide in not just about her sister being a Slayer,
but also her very own bizarre existence as a girl formed from
energy by monks? Oh yeah, and a vampire with computer chip in
his brain is her main babysitter. And plus all that other stuff
about magic and monsters. How very isolating!
I also have read some people post that surely Dawn would have
seen the tag on the coat when she wrapped it. I agree - but that's
the point. Dawn's stealing has been a cry for help all along.
With no one noticing, she had to make it more obvious. On the
one hand, yes, she was afraid for everyone to find out: but at
the same time all along what she wanted was for ANYBODY to notice
(especially Buffy).
So back to the coat itself: if it was actually a representation
of Buffy, then we have Dawn "stealing" that identity,
trying it on, only to find it's not really her. Oh sure, it fit,
but it wasn't her. But when you have been created mystically,
how do you know who you really are? And isn't that every teenager's
dilemma anyway: who am I, really? And don't we all "try on"
many different personas along the way (and certainly those of
older siblings)? She also tried stealing bits of others, too:
Anya's earrings, Willow's shoes, etc. But none of those things
can give her the answer to who SHE is.
Dawn needs her own identity, and her own friends, and her own
life! Although I think Buffy would initially be freaked for Dawn
to share any "family secrets," she needs to realize
that Dawn needs a support system, too. The trick will be finding
someone who could be trusted with those secrets, or even believe
them in the first place. Makes you realize how so very lucky Buffy
is to have her circle of friends.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: black leather coat: Dawn's identity -- a, 11:25:38
02/13/02 Wed
Or maybe, just maybe. she stole something to advance the plotline
and it doesn't mean a bloody thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: black leather coat: Dawn's identity -- maddog,
13:06:36 02/13/02 Wed
Leaving the tag on was definitely deliberate...I think this was
the breaking point for Dawn. It's not like she's been completely
hiding the fact that everything she had lately was stolen...if
that were the case she would have taken the tags off all the stuff
she stole from the magic shop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Tags and stealing (spoilers) -- LadyStarlight,
14:38:47 02/13/02 Wed
Taking the tags off the items she stole would have made the stealing
'real'. As long as the tags were on, she could pretend that she
could take them back, undo the damage, make things 'right'.
Also, taking the tags off would have made the feelings behind
the thievery 'real' as well and something to be dealt with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's and Dawn's secrets: parallels --
Lupe, 15:13:30 02/13/02 Wed
maddog writes: "It's not like she's been completely hiding
the fact that everything she had lately was stolen" - that
totally made me think back to the episode when Joyce finally learns
the truth about Buffy being the Slayer:
********************
(from Becoming, Part II)
BUFFY
I told you. I'm a vampire slayer.
JOYCE
Well, I don't accept that!
BUFFY
Open your eyes, Mom! What do you
think has been going on for the last
two years? The fights, the weird occurrences -
how many times have you washed blood
out of my clothes, you still haven't figured it out?
******************
I could totally hear Dawn saying something similar: Open your
eyes, Buffy! All those missing things, me sneaking in late, I
give you a coat with the tags still on it: when were you ever
going to figure it out? Buffy even says something similar to Joyce:
tell Anya you didn't do this (or something like that). Ah, the
denial!
If the stealing had been about stealing - just taking stuff to
have - sure she would have removed the tags, and maybe never get
caught. But it was never about the things that she stole, or getting
away with it - it was about getting noticed: wanting to know that
someone cared enough to see what was going on. Buffy was really
hurt and pained that for two years of being a Slayer her mom never
realized what was going on. Sure she kept it a secret - but she
still would have wanted Joyce to pay close enough attention to
see what was going on. Again, this is classic teenage stuff revisited:
why don't my parents know who I really am? Why can't they see
what's going on?
And many troubled teens will also find a way to externalize their
inner feelings in a way to try to communicate. The "bad"
or acting out behavior is the cry for help: a way to make visible
an inner turmoil. Dawn feels empty, alone - the stealing of things
is just a way to externalize and show these feelings to the outside
world since she isn't able to find a way to communicate those
feelings directly. (At least that's what I learned in Psych 101).
Ironically, Buffy and Joyce's "heart to heart" ended
in complete opposite to Buffy and Dawn's:
*******************
Again from Becoming:
JOYCE
I'm not letting you out of this house.
BUFFY
You can't stop me.
She tries to leave and Joyce grabs her arm -- Buffy flings her
hand off -- Joyce tries to grab her again and Buffy pushes her
hard against the wall. Goes to the door.
JOYCE
You walk out of this house,
don't even think about coming back.
*********************
But for Dawn, just when everyone is finally able to leave the
house, Buffy shuts the door, not having even set a foot onto the
porch. For Buffy, her "coming out" was all about leaving
that house. For Dawn, it's about staying.
Anyway - I thought there were some interesting parallels there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> great insight re: joyce and buffy parallels
-- juliaabra, 17:03:50 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: thanks, because... -- Lupe,
17:54:39 02/13/02 Wed
...today has been only the second time I've ever tried posting
on this board and after the response I got from "a"
above ("maybe it doesn't mean a bloody thing"), I was
feeling a little discouraged. I don't claim to have especially
insightful (or even coherent) thoughts, but this is a board for
discussion of "All Things Philosophical", not "All
Things Meaningless," right? I mean, sheesh.
So: thank you for your post to me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: thanks, because... --
DEN, 18:21:51 02/13/02 Wed
Lupe, stay with it! Sometimes I think a person needs at least
an MA to post on this board--but most regulars are both friendly
and helpful most of the time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> ah, yes, the dreaded rude/indifferent
response, or worse(!!!)... -- yuri (pride to wannabe philosophers
everywhere!), 22:17:19 02/13/02 Wed
no response at all! Known to paralyze the "post new message"
muscle in anyone recently delurked.
I don't think you need it, but I personally wouldn't mind a AtPoBtVS
support group/tutorial for those of us struggling to keep our
heads above the confounding and quick moving (though beautiful
and intriguing, of course) waters that are the great minds of
the board. We could watch a clip of Buffy, and then the tutor
would say "okay, class, what did the blossoming flower on
Willow's shirt represent in this scene? Can anyone relate Spike's
behavior to one of the philosophers we reviewed last week? What
did the nuances of Buffy's facial expressions connote in terms
of her current morality? How many references were made to monotheistic
religions, and why? And can anyone relate the plot arc to the
workings of a transistor radio?"
Oh, and btw, I'm glad you mentioned the tag being intentional
and cry-for-help ish. That's the first thing that went through
my mind when I saw it. I knew a girl who admitted the only reason
she stole was to get caught, and was insanely frustrated because
she never did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> aug, didn't mean to
connote that anyone else is a wannabe philosopher. Just that I
am. -- yuri, 22:19:06 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Rule one.....don't feed trolls......
-- Rufus, 02:26:57 02/14/02 Thu
Lupe, I saw the response to your above post, the one lettered
reply is a troll. Ignore trolls as they are only here to create
problems. Once you've been on the board for awhile you will begin
to know them from the regular posters, namely the rude, one sentence
post with a non-name.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah... Where's TrollBot
when you need her? -- Marie, 04:16:52 02/14/02 Thu
Lupe - I had a snotty response to my first post, too (actually
not from a troll, but a regular poster!), and it was a long time
before I ventured to post again. Now I don't take any notice,
though there *are* times I think I should put a "c"
in the middle of my name!
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yeah... Where's
TrollBot when you need her? -- Rufus, 05:56:01 02/14/02 Thu
Just as long as it wasn't me that was rude...I hope, I do have
abrupt moments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rufus -
never you! -- Marie, 06:59:40 02/14/02 Thu
I don't want to say who it was, 'cos he/she's been very friendly
since that long-ago occasion, but you never forget your first
time!
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And again,
I say... -- Lupe, 11:18:17 02/14/02 Thu
Thank you! Thanks to Juliaabra, Yuri, Rufus and Marie:
Yeah, I know I'm supposed to ignore the Trolls, I was just feeling
a little crappy yesterday, so I let it bother me more than I should.
You guys didn't have to go out of your way to respond to me, but
you did - so, thanks!
Personally, I'm not sure I can even aspire to be a philosopher,
but I am really good at overanalyzing and making things more complicated
than they need to be, so that might count for something! I always
love reading the posts here - it really adds to my enjoyment and
appreciation of the show. So, I hope to start adding in my own
2 cents here and there...
Hope to see y'all around the board!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> no, marie, you're
neither invisible nor unnoticed... -- anom, 16:05:57 02/14/02
Thu
"...there *are* times I think I should put a 'c' in the middle
of my name!"
You don't need to do that, we "c" you!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: no,
marie, you're neither invisible nor unnoticed... -- Marie, 01:28:29
02/15/02 Fri
Heh! I knew one of you bright sparks'd get it!
(And thank you!)
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Take it from one the regulars
to probably never realize their full philosophical potential...
-- VampRiley, 14:52:12 02/14/02 Thu
My actual available time to post and attempt philosophical waxing
has gone down to next to nothing since the summer, which mightily
sucks. But when I come across a post, like this one, I do my best
to make time to explain how we are, although I'm not the HelloBot.
I've been around since Masq first put up a Discussion Board when
it was at insidetheweb.com. And since then, there have been the
full gamet of people that have posted, whether they were "especially
insightful" or not. We are very tolerant.
Trolls are bad.
Very bad.
You stick around long enough, you will learn how to easily spot
them and avoid the headache that follows. Please don't feel like
you can't say what you feel. Most of us here are very polite.
Welcoming with open arms,
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Blood and Tags. -- Rufus, 02:22:45 02/14/02
Thu
I remember when Joyce first found out about Buffy's slayer status,
she tried to deny such a thing existed, even when a vampire attacked
her outside her home. The truth is something that isn't always
accepted as a fact if it is painful enough for the person to wish
it wasn't real. This thing this year is that the SG are becoming
adults and with that finding out that that new status may include
some adult with blinders on thinking. Buffy said to Dawn something
to the effect of "tell her you didn't do it" and then
looked inside the gift box to really see that store tag for what
it was. By the time the Vengeance errrr Justice demon arrived
they didn't need her to see how much they had missed in their
passion to get on with their lives. Buffy said that her most important
job was Dawn, someone she had reduced to a mundane chore, something
to get done, ticked off a list, then get on to better things.
Buffy wasn't the only one guilty of that as we can see by Anya's
obsession with her wedding. All things stop at that wedding and
god help anyone that disturbs the progress of the traditional
wedding celebration. Of course "cold feet" ignored as
well. Dawn may have been a brat, but she was created by her surroundings.
Part of growing up for the Gang will be including Dawn in their
lives as more than a burden to be watched over.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW do you see? -- Rochefort, 06:57:52 02/13/02 Wed
Now....really guys, after THAT episode you have to admit this
season is a BIG BIG BIG step down in quality from last season.
That was yet ANOTHER poor story boarded, stupid line'd, silly
plotted, unfunny season six episode.
But I figured out what's going on. Joss is working directly on
The Firefly. This new show, I think for Fox. He's writing and
directing it.
So he's IGNORING poor Buffy. And, I don't know if any of you can
provide any information on this, but I'm SURRE he's taken some
of his crack writing staff over to Firefly with him leaving us
with newbies and scrubs. : (
Buffy is still great, don't get me wrong, but we've got to convince
Joss to come back and get his heroine out of this mess! I mean
yesterday's episode was just ridiculous! It was like watching
a 60s Batman...
"Think Robin, the whole thing is such a riddle."
"A riddle! Batman! The Riddler!"
"YES Robin! And where did it all take place?"
"The sea?"
"Yes, and what starts with C!"
"Holy ferocious feline, Batman! CATWOMAN!"
I mean that was about the equivelent of Buffy working out what
happened with Dawn, "Good lord, DAWNY! You talked to a GUIDANCE
COUNSELER!? YOU DIDN"T MAKE A WISH DID YOU! OH DAWNY, TELL
ME YOU DIDN"T MAKE A WISH!"
good lord.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Maybe, maybe not. (OaFA spoilers) -- Darby, 07:46:40 02/13/02
Wed
I've got to admit, I enjoyed the episode, but mostly for the group
interactions and a chance to at least see the main cast do something
more than hang in the background.
However, I have to agree with you about the logic of the whole
thing. And why would Buffy be so aware of how vengeance demons
work? She, and everybody but Anya (who should have been the one
to figure it out), is only dimly aware of the events of The Wish,
and there's no indication that anybody but Xander has heard (or
listened to) Anya's tales of wishing and cursing (isn't that an
old Dusty Springfield song?).
I have to disagree with several posters, though, who see little
logic in Halfrek's actions. We've been shown that, as a demon,
she's a ditz! How much do you think the "Dark Powers"
care if she's "cursing the wrong guy" or the wrong parents?
It's ironic that Anyanka was actually more of a "Justice"
demon than Hallie, but didn't hide behind the label.
What won't make sense is if the fallout from these events is all
on the adults and not on Dawn.
I still choose to think that, rather than showing Joss' indifference,
he and the rest have chosen a path that just isn't really working.
He likes to shake up his audience, and there was purpose here,
but I don't think annoyance was what he was shooting for. This
is more like Chris Carter's X Files, which wandered purposely
but seriously astray long before cast problems sank it, rather
than David E. Kelley's shows, which have quickly shown neglect
whenever he shifts focus from them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Maybe, maybe not. (OaFA spoilers) -- Andy, 09:42:06
02/13/02 Wed
"I still choose to think that, rather than showing Joss'
indifference, he and the rest have chosen a path
that just isn't really working. He likes to shake up his audience,
and there was purpose here, but I
don't think annoyance was what he was shooting for. This is more
like Chris Carter's X Files, which
wandered purposely but seriously astray long before cast problems
sank it, rather than David E.
Kelley's shows, which have quickly shown neglect whenever he shifts
focus from them."
I'd have to agree with this. I do believe that while Joss probably
isn't doing much if any rewriting anymore, he is still overseeing
the show and is paying attention to how it goes. I have no reason
to doubt him when he says that he draws up plans for each season
well ahead of time and approves what gets on the air. But he's
also a writer who's always been very sure of himself and absolutely
committed to the directions he takes regardless of what his peers
or fans think. I think that's a very laudable quality for an artist
to have but sometimes you get situations when maybe the direction
that's been chosen isn't to the liking of everyone and then problems
can come up because Joss probably isn't going to bend just because
other people don't like what's going on.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Maybe, maybe not. (OaFA spoilers) -- maddog, 12:58:53
02/13/02 Wed
How could the fallout escape Dawn...at the very least she'll be
working at the Magic Shop until her 18th birthday. And then there's
the trust issues with Buffy. I somehow doubt she'll escape this
problem.
Though I haven't read below I still don't understand what isn't
working...it's definitely been a different path they've taken
this year to show us the problems...but then again we're not dealing
with external problems. They're not only within the group, but
within themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Disagree! Disagree! Give me something good to eat! -- grifter,
07:53:19 02/13/02 Wed
1. What are you on? and 2. Where can I get some?
Naw, sorry, seariously, I couldn´t disagree more...season
6 is the best season yet IMHO.
The way Buffy figured it all out was a little lame, I give you
that, but was it lamer then "Giles looks it up in a book"?
Not really.
And also, it mirrored nicely (as has the whole season so far)
how Buffy feels now...the supernatural stuff? Not a problem anymore...she´s
got that down. It´s the personal stuff she can´t figure
out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I agree to disagree err um.. agree to the above post
-- neaux, 07:57:14 02/13/02 Wed
I thought the episode was great..and I agree with grifter..
I also think to have an episode finally bringing many unanswered
questions answered is a good one..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> And Giles is AWESOME! -- Marie, 08:21:29 02/13/02
Wed
Remember:
They can't help her. This is a bloodstone vengeance spell.
from "The Witch", S1.
Giles knew what was wrong with Buffy without even having to open
a book - he just had to take her pulse!! That's pretty cool, *grin*.
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Completely agree with grifter, neaux and Marie (NT)
-- Caroline, 10:07:05 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Completely agree with grifter, neaux and
Marie (NT) -- Chris, 14:17:00 02/13/02 Wed
As a relative newcomer to Buffy, but having watched all the previous
seasons on Fx, I also don't agree that season 6 is artistically
inferior to 1-5. What I do think is that writing and televising
the "oh grow up" theme is more difficult than what Joss
was doing previously. While, I don't think every episode this
season has been superior, taken overall, IMHO, S6 has been topnotch.
As an adult, I think I relate better to this season than any other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Right there with you Chris(NT) -- Caroline,
14:28:00 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Unevenness, thy name is Season 6 --
LeeAnn, 04:35:32 02/14/02 Thu
I think Season 6 has had the best and worst episodes ever. So
you can call it the best season or the worst and still be right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Bad road building. -- cjc36, 06:12:58
02/14/02 Thu
The ground work isn't being handled properly, I think. Okay, we
got a big 'revelation' episode with Dawn's problems, but it was
handled so badly. Remember Dead Man's Party? That was classic
Buffy angst. Here in S6 it's just lame.
Willow's magick addiction? Perhaps, to be fair, an evil!Willow
seemed too trite to M/E. But they didn't *build* roads for addicted!Willow,
did they? If they had, it'd been accepted, I think. Not once in
any previous season did we see a psychotropic effect happen as
consequence to magick use. Willow liked the power of magick, but
it was never, until S6, shown to be a high-giver. Bad planning,
folks. They showed us, up to and peaking with the kitchen encounter
with Giles early this season, a Willow increasingly unconcerned
with the people involved in her magick dealings. And we fans hated
her for it! But, sorry, it was addiction. Not evil. Not the next
Big Bad (unless M/E's plans are more long range.) But enough with
this addiction thing, please.
Joss obviously isn't as involved as he had been. But I still don't
think the people he has working are complete dolts, either. I
do think they can pull the thing out of the fire. Just realize
what you have (very talented actors) and give them great stories
to tell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Bad roads smoother than you
remember -- Sophist, 09:21:08 02/14/02 Thu
You said: "Not once in any previous season did we see a psychotropic
effect happen as consequence to magick use." Actually, Giles
said exactly that about summoning Eyghon all the way back in S2.
And the physical effects were clearly foreshadowed by Willow's
nosebleeds and headaches in S5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bad roads smoother
than you remember -- Rattletrap, 12:02:38 02/14/02 Thu
This exchange from Becoming I has always seemed, IMO, to foreshadow
Willow's future problems:
Giles: Um, well, this, um... certainly points the way, but...
the ritual itself requires a greater knowledge of the black arts
than I, I, I can claim.
Willow: Well, I've been going through her files and, and researching
the black arts, for fun, or educational fun, and I may be able
to work this.
Giles: (very concerned) W-Willow... channeling... such potent
magicks through yourself, it could open a door that you may not
be able to close.
Buffy: I don't want you putting yourself in any danger, Will.
Willow: And I don't want danger. Big 'no' to danger, but I may
be the best person to do this.
I think Joss and Co. were already formulating a storyline about
the negative consequences to magic back as early as S2, given
the above dialogue and the Eyghon story. These elements almost
vanished in S3, but seemed to be revived in S4 w/ "Something
Blue" especially. This is why, for me, S6 doesn't show any
significant deviation from what's gone before, just the same story
taken to its logical conclusion.
Just my $.02
'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bad roads
smoother than you remember -- cjc36, 01:28:44 02/15/02 Fri
The warning from Giles on opening doors one cannot close could
mean anything bad, from, yeah, addiction (but was that anyone's
first guess back then?) to demon possession (my first guess).
Did I guess wrong? I guess so :). It's just that this swerve,
by itself, isn't bad. Angelus's curse and how he came to be in
S2 was a swerve, but the payoff was excellent--a play on the boy
turning bad after the first night.
Anyway, since the magick-addiction has been handled with as much
subtlety as if Willow had a coke problem, then the metaphor-ness
of past BtVS is missing for me. Perhaps we're overloading on young-adult
problems 'cause we're missing a traditional-style Big Bad to mix
with said problems. Or maybe Joss has backed away from the show
and the mix of comedy-horror-soap drama he has a master's ear
for escapes the day-to-day staff.
I dunno.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bad road building. --
Simon A., 18:20:16 02/14/02 Thu
Interestingly enough, I come to somewhat the same place but I
take the completely opposite route. ISTM that the one of the problem's
that they're having is the fact that they build up a possibly
interesting story arc and then do little with it. While magic
was never shown to be psychotropic before, it was certainly shown
to be dangerous and corrupting. They build up Willow's addiction
kind of gradually, and then we get dreck like wrecked, an episode
completly lacking in sublety, which doesn't fit well with other
eps.
my 2¢
They've been building up the "Dawn is turning into a juvenile
delinquint all season, and we get this as the cilmax. It is an
episode that thematicly centers on her, and yet she hardly talks.
Pouts: yes, screams: yes but actually talks: not much and mostly
banalities.
On the other hand Buffy breaking down to Tara last week was an
excellent climax to the "Buffy's conflicting feelings about
her relationship with Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: NOW do you see? -- maddog, 12:50:17 02/13/02 Wed
*rolling his eyes*
Does everyone hear themselves bitching? Could people be any more
pouty? People...the show's changed...just because you don't like
it doesn't make it bad...just means you don't see the neccesity
of the change. We've read countless articles...Joss sees EVERYTHING...so
stop blaming Firefly, and the cartoon, and Ripper and just face
the fact that he's decided this is the way the show needs to go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> it's not the new direction... -- Rochefort, 14:14:27
02/13/02 Wed
It really isn't the new direction that I think I'm feeling lacks
quality. As has been said above, the episode had some good things
but suffered from poor writing. Direction shmirection, that was
poor writing. Poor pacing. Not witty. And not subtle.
I don't care about Big Bads. I LIKE the focus on the characters
INNER struggles but these inner struggles are not being handled
in interesting ways.
Spike and Buffy's ambiguous relationship seems to be cast in terms
of "sexual addiction" or "sadomasochism" and
it could be SO MUCH MORE THAN THAT. Yes, I think their relationship
should suck, but it should not conventionally suck.
Willow's addiction to magic has been building for SEASONS and
SEASONS! As has her need for power. I've been WAITING for the
build up, loving the build up, and in a few crappy unsubtle episodes
the drug metaphor that has always been there was paraded about
like a fat guy in red polka dot boxer shorts. Willow "hit
bottom" when the scooby gang had only just identified the
problem, and her hitting bottom was not believable.
I LIKE the trio. I think they could be interesting villains. And
they're a heck of a lot better than poofy looking demons who vanish
into the walls. (wha?) (great waste of special effects by the
way)
Oh and another example of poor writing in that episode. The friend
for Buffy was absolutely stupid and they stabbed him for NO reason
and then forgot about him for the most of the episode, remembering
to help him limp out of the house at the end. Holy yawn. Maybe
Buffy can start introducing a new character each episode that
can get stabbed. His entire character had no pay off except Spike's
jealousy and usually Joss makes sure to have so much more than
that.
Dawn's stealing problem, too, was built up for episode after episode
and her LONLINESS was built up in episode after episode and we
had to put up with sooooo many scenes of her stealing and sooo
many mooooore scenes of her whining and pouting so that we could
all have this GREAT pay off last night of a messy revelation with
no punch, no fun, and no drama.
Oh, by the way, I entirely agree that David E. Kelly's shows fall
apart when he isn't paying attention to them. More so than Joss's
do. But I really think this is not a question of new directions
but a question of here to for unseen ham-handedness in many of
the plot arcs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I just wish I had some of everyone's conviction.
(O/T, not important at all.) -- yuri, 22:31:12 02/13/02 Wed
I read Vandalia's message and am like, "oh, yeah," but
read her opposition and think that they've made an excellent case,
and read Rochefort's and say "you know, he's right"
but then read grifter's and decide that I've finally figured out
my opinion. but no, it just goes on and on into oblivion. It's
nice to have convictions, makes stuff simpler and easier to sort.
I should be less impressionable, I know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> It's called "Short Episode Syndrome" -- vampire
hunter D, 13:02:29 02/13/02 Wed
The writers tried to do more than they had time for in a 44 minute
episode. So for Buffy to figure out what's wrong and still have
time to fix it before the show ends, she had to make this leap
of intuition. I agree that there had to be a better way to do
it (maybe Dawn telling Buffy about here meeting with the guidance
councelor and mentioning she the wish she made without even realizing
that was the key to it). And why is it so unbelievable that Buffy
would have some idea how vengence demons work (you make a wish
to a stranger and they make it come true)? After all, that would
be what they know about Anya's first visit (she did tell them
this in Doppelgangland). So while it is a stretch, it is not that
unbelievable.
And btw, I think this was a good ep was a good idea that suffered
from bad writing at times. It could have been better. But still,
not bad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Rochefort smells right. The scoobygangsters smell "wrong."
-- theonewhonose, 13:08:29 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> the *real* metaphor!...or is that what it is? -- anom, 12:52:07
02/14/02 Thu
"Joss is working directly on The Firefly....He's writing
and directing it....So he's IGNORING poor Buffy. And...I'm SURRE
he's taken some of his crack writing staff over to Firefly with
him leaving us with newbies and scrubs."
Wait! That's it! The characters' not being able to leave the house
isn't a metaphor for the responsibilities of parenthood. It's
not even a metaphor so much as metanarration: The actors/the fans/maybe
the newbie writers?/the show itself want Joss to stay home with
BtVS! So Dawn is not only an alter ego for Buffy the character
but for "Buffy" the show, & by extension to all of us
who are involved with it.
If only we could make Joss stick around all the time...then he'd
make everything all right again!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Nice! Suddenly I like the episode! JOSS COME HOME!
-- Rochefort, 16:54:15 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Brilliant, anom! ;o) -- dubdub, 18:07:19 02/14/02
Thu
I only hope there's a possibility that you're right...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anybody notice on last night's ep... -- KDM, 08:45:31 02/13/02
Wed
I'll start off by saying that I really didn't like last night's
episode, as it seemed incredibly choppy and sloppily put together.
However, it did have its moments, as all Buffy episodes do (even
the stinkers). One thing that I noticed in watching the episode
however, was that Spike truly seems to have developed a sort of
loyalty to members of the Scooby Gang. First off, the moment he
heard Xander cry out for help, he rushed to go and assist him
against the demon. Then there was the part where Anya began her
tirade against Willow. Like Tara, he looked annoyed when Xander
asked Willow to go back to using magic, and it looked like he
was about to get on Anya's case as well before Tara beat him to
the punch. Though last night's ep. was a real bad egg in what
has otherwise been, IMHO, an excellent season for the show, I
really enjoyed seeing some of the changes in Spike that were apparent
throughout the episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I noticed :) -- Traveler, 11:55:57 02/13/02 Wed
But then, Spike has been helping them out for some time. Remember
at the beginning of the season he saved Gile's life. Dawn wasn't
there and Buffy was dead, so he didn't do it entirely for either
of their sakes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I noticed :) -- JM, 15:17:06 02/13/02 Wed
I didn't so much notice with Xander, I'm just so used to see Spike
in the thick of the fight, but I agree with you that it's indicative.
I did however notice his reaction to Anya's attack on Willow and
liked him for it. Though Anya's definitely got a lot of good points.
(Also drummed home how scared of herself and magic Willow is.
I'm thinking that though it was addictive it wasn't altoghether
pleasant. I don't think she was exaggerating the relief and the
negatives of doing magic to Buffy in Wrecked. Not all addictions
are pleasant. Think cigarettes. By the time your badly hooked,
you're also experiencing a lot of negatives, and very little genuine
enjoyment anymore, you're too inured to the sensation to get that
old hit anymore. This is not a PSA. Take it from a current smoker.)
Spike's concern for Willow is a great moment of continuity, for
it's Spike who sends Buffy back to comfort Willow in Wrecked.
Makes me think that TR was telling, he's just not instintively
evil anymore.
Sorry can't agree with the rest though. Loved last night. Partly
because as a kid, about Dawn's age, I had a recurring fantasy
that a bunch of friends and strangers would get snowed in and
we'd have to make it work. Then I actually got snowed in with
my best friend. Reality not as much fun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I noticed :) -- Isabel, 16:32:29 02/13/02
Wed
I wonder feels he has something in common with Willow now. She
won't allow herself to do magic because she can't stop herself
from losing control, but she WANTS TO and it eats at her.
Spike's a vampire who hasn't drunk fresh human blood in a year
and he's having an affair with a woman he can sink his teeth into.
And it's not just any blood, it's Slayer blood. He's thought about
it, "If you don't stop being such a b*tch, the next time
I just might bite you!" But he loves Buffy. He knows that
if he bites her, he has to kill her or she WILL kill him. He doesn't
want her dead, but he's got to sense that blood just under her
skin.
So I think he's got a bit of empathy with Willow's struggle. If
they ever deactivate that chip, this could be a practice run in
self control for him.
Older and Far Away - the image. (minor spoilers) -- Darby, 10:22:39
02/13/02 Wed
This may not be it, but I think I may be in the neighborhood.
Many have remarked on the star motif to this latest ep. Because
of the distances involved, when we look up into the sky, the farther
away a star is, the longer the light has travelled from it - the
light is older.
As I look back over what growing up I've done, it seems to be
all about perspective. My perspective for day-to-day circumstances
has definitely improved, but I'm losing some perspective on my
earlier life (I judge Dawn more by teenagers I know than my own
teen years, which are harder and harder to really grasp emotionally)
as I get older and farther away from it.
And isn't the ep about the connection between the older characters
and an emotional distance from Dawn?
Man, I think it's in here somewhere...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Older and Far Away - the image. (minor spoilers) --
Rachel, 10:50:33 02/13/02 Wed
I think you're on to something, too. If you'll humor me some sci-fi-babble...Einstein's
special theory of reletivity postulates that there is nothing
new under the sun. All the mass/energy we have in this cosmos
has always been and will always be. It might be said that we're
all "mystical keys," like Dawn, because to keep things
balanced our physical mass had to suck energy from somewhere.
And when our physical mass ceases to be, that energy is re-deposited
elsewhere.
Buffy's essence has done a fair bit of back and forth over these
six seasons, what with dying and coming back twice. As a result,
she must be more in touch with her roots than the average Jane.
(Her roots being whatever we come from before we get our bodies).
Birthdays mark time's passage. If we think of time in a linear
fashion, then the older we get, the farther away we travel. From
what, exactly, I'm not sure. But I suspect Buffy knows, having
been across the great beyond.
Them's my mid-day ramblings...Hope it made a modicum of sense!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Yeah, whatever the hell Rahael just said..;)... and.......
-- Rufus, 01:01:49 02/14/02 Thu
As I look back over what growing up I've done, it seems to be
all about perspective. My perspective for day-to-day circumstances
has definitely improved, but I'm losing some perspective on my
earlier life (I judge Dawn more by teenagers I know than my own
teen years, which are harder and harder to really grasp emotionally)
as I get older and farther away from it.
That brings to mind the conversation that Dawn had with Anya,
where Dawn insists she understands what Xander and Anya are talking
about in respect to setting Buffy up with a guy. Anya, in a very
patronizing way pats Dawn on the head, ignoring her. That is so
ironic when you consider that Dawn as a human is relatively new,
but, as the Key she is way older than even Anya. I guess people
only consider the packaging when they make their judgments of
others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> aargh! -- The real Rahael, 02:21:12 02/14/02 Thu
This is very worrying. There's a Rachel on the board and I'm Rahael
which is just another version of Rachel anyway. Though Rachel's
post was neither pretentious, poetry quoting nor big with the
over analysis. So not so easy to confuse as mine, surely!
Solutions anyone? I'm unwilling to abbreviate my name. I like
Rahael.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Best solution, teach Rufus how to spell...:):):)
-- Rufus, 03:36:19 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> No, no, Rufus - we need to teach you how
to read! As for you, Rahael... -- Marie, 03:52:14 02/14/02 Thu
...everyone else here CAN read, so don't change your name!
(Rufus, I hear chocolate is good for the reading-genes).
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Oh I know, chocolate is good for
everything......:):) -- Rufus, 05:54:18 02/14/02 Thu
No I read the name right and went ahead and spelled it the way
I was used to here. But send me chocolate, just because, and if
there is anything else you want me to screw up just send more
chocolate and I'd be happy to oblige...:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Chocolate and Unique Names
for Everyone!! -- RaChel, 06:13:39 02/14/02 Thu
Rahael -- keep the name, it's a good one. But then, I might be
biased. Maybe I could make my "C" stand out. I entirely
support bolstering the gene pool with chocolate, too. 100% behind
that one! But will Godiva improve my spelling?
RaChel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sending some right now, and
also to Raphael... -- Marie, 06:56:10 02/14/02 Thu
... yeah, okay, that was my feeble way of saying "I want
an excuse to eat some chocolate, too!"... and who the heck
am I kidding, I don't need an excuse..nibble, nibble... eat'n
dribble...
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sending some right
now, and also to Raphael... -- RaChel, 06:59:28 02/14/02 Thu
In honor of St. Valentine, let us all raise a chocolate bar. Here's
to The Slayer...Cheers!
Rachel (not Rahael, not Raphael, just me)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sending some
right now, and also to Raphael... -- Rahael, 08:48:35 02/14/02
Thu
mmm....Godiva choccies!
No danger of me pining away with all these goodies. Thanks Rachel
(and Ruf and Marie!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> you don't like it shortened, rahael? -- anom,
18:55:32 02/14/02 Thu
"I'm unwilling to abbreviate my name."
OK--no more Rah, Rah, Rah!
"I like Rahael."
Who doesn't? @>)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Awwwww! -- Rahael, 05:56:08 02/15/02 Fri
I like Rah Rah Rah too!
Just prefer that others call me that, rather than me proclaiming
myself as such. Kind of adds to the charm! Does that make sense?
Cyber chocolates to Anom! (Since peanut butter pie is too salty
for the anomalous one!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Perspective vs. POV -- Humanitas, 12:31:40 02/15/02 Fri
My perspective for day-to-day circumstances has definitely improved,
but I'm losing some perspective on my earlier life (I judge Dawn
more by teenagers I know than my own teen years, which are harder
and harder to really grasp emotionally) as I get older and farther
away from it.
There is certainly some truth in what you say. However, I think
that part of it is also in the Point Of View we are given on the
characters. I, too, jusdge Dawn more by other teens than by my
own experiences, but when I go back and watch the old episodes,
I'm drawing more on my own experiences in judging Buffy. My suspicion
is that this is a deliberate choice on the part of the writers,
to emphasize that Buffy is becoming an adult.
Or, it may simply be that my experience is different from yours.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anya as Albatross (***SPOILERS*** for OaFA) -- Wisewoman, 12:41:15
02/13/02 Wed
I'm not going to get involved in the debate on the quality of
Older and Far Away, but I did want to make mention of one thing
that bothered me in the ep.
Anya freaks and turns out to be claustrophic--okay, that could
happen to anyone. Believe me, I know claustrophobia! Xander is
understanding and talks her down; he's very loving and concerned.
I'm really liking this interaction between them.
Then, Xander gets slashed by the demon's sword. He's basically
lying on the floor, rolling around in agony and gnashing his teeth
in pain, when Anya approaches in a sort of daze--no alarm, no
running to his aid, just "Xander?"
So he makes the supreme effort and struggles to his feet as quickly
a possible, masking his pain as well as he can, in order to, once
again, comfort her!
I love Anya. I did my character post on Anya. She's one of my
faves. Last night I couldn't have cared whether she lived or died,
quite frankly. And it wasn't EC's fault; she was brilliant, as
usual, it was what she was working with in terms of the scripted
situation.
I'm hoping things start to come together a little better in the
next couple of eps, but I'm fairly worried...
:o|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Anya as Albatross (***SPOILERS*** for OaFA) -- Sebastian,
13:53:42 02/13/02 Wed
forgive my ignorance, but i don't understand the 'albatross' reference.
is that in reference to anya being the possible 'scooby death'
this season?
educate me, please. :-)
- S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Rime of the Ancient Mariner... -- dubdub, 16:19:57
02/13/02 Wed
...it's been a long time, but I think he killed an albatross and
then had to wear it around his neck; it's a cliche for a kind
of worrisome burden, which is what I fear Anya is becoming to
Xander.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Albatross defamation! -- matching mole, 19:42:10
02/13/02 Wed
Although I understood the Coleridge reference my mind went immediately
to a Monty Python sketch in which some guy is selling Albatross
on the street. 'Albatross! Get yer albatross!' The kind of thing
Anya would do if she thought she could make a buck at it.
Seeing an Albatross on the open ocean has been a dream of mine
so I felt compelled to answer your post WW even though I really
have nothing to say (haven't even seen OaFA yet).
m. mole who is listening to the Arrogant Worms and thus probably
a touch off kilter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: ROFLMAO!! -- WW, 20:33:41 02/13/02
Wed
I did actually consider specifying that I was not referring to
the MP albatross, but I thought it might prove confusing...what
a fool I was!
;o) (who has never seen an albatross, or a condor)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> how can it be defamation when... -- anom,
18:09:01 02/14/02 Thu
...an albatross was considered to be a sign of good luck? I think
they used to fly alongside ships (maybe for whatever edibles were
tossed overboard). But it was bad luck to kill one, & that's what
the Ancient Mariner did. The other sailors hung it around his
neck to mark him. I don't know if that was a real custom, or just
something Coleridge made up. Musta smelled awful after a coupla
days!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: how can it be defamation when...
-- matching mole, 11:29:34 02/15/02 Fri
yeah, I know I didn't really think it through very logically.
I could argue that comparing Anya to an albatross was the defamation
but I am fond of both Anya and albatrosses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> worrisome burden(?) -- yuri, 22:51:27 02/13/02
Wed
don't remember it as such, really. Is that typically what it's
supposed to imply? I don't feel like Anya was a worrisome burden
to Xander, I felt that he gains from the love he gives her and
the ability he has to soothe her. Sometimes it's a burden, but
in this episode I felt it was a gift, like when a friend or lover
is really truly upset and you're the one who knows how to calm
them down - it feels good.
I thought the albatross was more a reminder to be guilty and feel
ashamed for something done wrong, in which case I don't understand
the reference. I trust WW though, and know it makes sense in some
way I haven't figured out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: worrisome burden(?) -- WW, 07:02:48
02/14/02 Thu
In Coleridge's original sense you're right on the meaning of the
albatross to the Ancient Mariner, but like most ideas that become
cliched, the meaning has become bastardized. The last time I actually
heard someone use it, they were referring to a person they'd hired
as a favour who turned out to be a dud, and now he was "an
albatross around my neck."
The only sense of guilt there is that it was something the person
had brought on themselves that became a burden they had to carry,
which could be said of Xander/Anya if you see Anya as albatross--Xander
has freely chosen to "wear" Anya around his neck.
In general I agree with you--I don't see their relationship this
way, but that moment when Xander had to leap to his feet and comfort
her through his pain just seemed to me to be more than should
be accepted. He deserved to be the comforted, rather than the
comforter.
And thanks for your trust! I hope it's not misplaced...
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> ah I see. bastardly bastardized.
too bad. and I may misplace my keys and wallet, but not much else.
-- yuri ; ), 23:26:32 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Anya as Albatross (***SPOILERS*** for OaFA) -- JM, 13:59:14
02/13/02 Wed
I think it was supposed to be jarring. It's very at odds with
her usual behavior. When there is danger he is the first person
she looks for and she never fails to throw herself into a fight
in his defense. Olaf, Glory, Bargaining. Tonight she only stumbles
out, blindly seeking him, terrified of what she'll see.
The usually vibrant and deliberately cheerful young woman is sullen,
distracted, and hovering on the edge of hyperventilating. Anya
is very freaked out by the fact that they are trapped, reminders
of mortality are looming, and the threat is intangible. (I am
wondering if this is a fear of marriage metaphor.) It is notable
that as soon as the danger materialized she was a spitfire once
more.
I don't think it was so much out of character as an illustration
of what lies under the facade. Some of cheery, sunny Anya is entirely
natural, some of it a projection of an acceptable persona. She
is trying very hard to be human, fit in, and secure Xander's approval.
Under so much strain, she can't pull it off anymore. Last night's
Anya was a woman who would believably curse her lover and take
up a career as a vengence demon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Anya as Albatross (***SPOILERS*** for OaFA) --
Sebastian, 14:16:39 02/13/02 Wed
ironically, i thought last night's ep was the first time it seemed
that anya was not trying to 'act' human. the only other times
she seems 'nonacting' is during intimate moments with xander.
other times she has (or wanted to) show anger/resentment/dissatisfaction
she is usually adjusting her behavior to seem more 'properly human'.
(for example, her 'i am unthreatened. proceed.' line to dawn in
'forever', which turned out to be terribly ironic due to last
night's revelations...)
in 'OaFA', her fear, anger and resentment were genuine and not
something she was concentrating on fixing to 'blend' in. and this
time she didn't have someone (xander) reining her in.
even her tone of voice - particularly in the pivotal 'confrontation
scenes' - were remarkably different from her slightly robotic
way of speaking.
just my thoughts.
- S (a posting machine today, it seems...) :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Anya as Albatross (***SPOILERS*** for OaFA)
-- Rochefort, 14:29:55 02/13/02 Wed
I agree that Anya's actions were one of the only good things about
this episode. It was, as was everything else, ham-handed, but
I have been perturbed since Anya's beginnings with Xander that
the Anya of season three and the first part of season four seemed
to very quickly go bye-bye for cheery cheery ditzy money bunny
girl. If it hadn't been handled so badly I think a realization
that Anya has been hiding TONS of her old demon traits would make
THE most interesting plot of the season. Ain't it part of love
to realize what a demon the other person can be? And also to start
not being able to hide one's own demon-ness? oooh, spooky. Of
course, unless Joss comes back it's going to be handled like this
episode was... and it just hurts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> very, *very* well said! -- Solitude1056,
18:07:50 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> And another thing... (and more ***SPOILERS***) -- dubdub,
20:42:06 02/13/02 Wed
What about the whole self-fulfilling prophecy hooey that's been
going on around Buffy's Spike-addiction for the last few eps?
I mean, in Smashed and Wrecked we had all her double-entendre
discussions with Willow about addiction, and her continually working
herself around to, "But it hurts people, so it's wrong,"
while we were all saying, "Huh? Who does it hurt??!!"
Well, see, now we know...it was hurting Dawny!! Of course, Buffy
didn't know that until last night, but hey, she must have been
subsconsciously intuiting it weeks ago...yeah, right.
Okay, rant over, until another sore point pops into my mind.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Anya and the amulet -- Simon A., 17:52:51 02/14/02 Thu
Whan Anya was going for Halfrek's(sp?) amulet, did anyone else
momentarily think that the episode was going to get very interesting?
(*sigh*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> D'Hofryn gave Willow his talisman. She may still have
it. Hmm. -- Sophist, 20:29:35 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: D'Hofryn gave Willow his talisman. She may
still have it. Hmm. -- Simon A., 04:05:28 02/15/02 Fri
I was trying to get a good look at the talisman when they rern
the ep thursday on FX to get an idea ow whether we've seen it
in Dawn's loot box. You just don't get a good enough look.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did anyone else have a problem with...(spoilers for OAFA) -- darrenK,
14:40:56 02/13/02 Wed
...with Buffy--out of the blue--deducing that Dawn has had a confrontation
with a Vengeance Demon?
In Sunnydale, there are a million things that could keep you trapped
in your house. It could have been a new Stuck-in-house-ray built
by the Trio. It could have been a spell by Amy, or by Rack, or
by Ethan Rayne. It could have been a whole new Demon King summoned
by Xander when he tried to do a "Happy Household" spell.
The fact is, high schools all over the US hire new guidance counselors
EVERY day, why is this one any different?
That would be the last thing I would think of. Yet Buffy figures
it out in under 15 seconds.
And other things bothered me...
One minute Dawn was freaking out, the next minute she's fine again.
There's a whole little subplot about the stealing, but there are
no ramifications, no big talk from Big Sis. Buffy barely even
reacts to the situation.
Dawn and Spike didn't say a word to each other. They didn't even
look at each other, yet from Blood Ties to Bargaining their relationship
wasn't only close, it was the most interesting on the show. Now,
the writer's have dumped it in favor of SexFest 2002. Are they
worried that the sensitivity Spike shows Dawn will undermine their
attempts to keep him ambiguous?
Instead it just looks inconsistent. The Scoobs were Spike's friends
all summer. He was a suitable companion and baby sitter for Dawn.
But now he can't have a friendly scene with anyone but Buffy?
LAME.
I just don't think Drew Z. Greenberg has the magic. He's lame
on the magic.
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Did anyone else have a problem with...(spoilers for
OAFA) -- manwitch, 14:51:24 02/13/02 Wed
Tara's interaction with Spike was delightful. And I thought very
friendly. No one else seemed particularly hostile to him. Spike
did come to Xander's aid, without Buffy present.
Spike has seemed to cool on the scoobies since they kept him out
of the loop about Buffy's resurrection. But I think he does ultimately
want their acceptance.
I think Buffy has redefined his relationship with them. Until
she comes out, what can he really do?
I think some of the things that bother you are exactly what the
rest of the season will resolve. It's supposed to be bothering
you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Like fungus on a banana, low-quality writing bothers
me. -- monkeypants, 15:22:03 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I thought that bananas just turned black and
shriveled up. -- Deeva, 16:14:00 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> (points at his monkey-shirt) Kiss the
zookeeper for bad bananas and you'll get more. -- monkeypants,
17:15:15 02/13/02 Wed
MONKEY-SPEAK UNIVERSAL TRANSLATION:
Praising low quality lowers the quality of the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Did anyone else have a problem with...(spoilers for
OAFA) -- Deeva, 16:12:41 02/13/02 Wed
Yeah. The whole Dawn & Spike "not really all that close anymore"
thing is weird. They went through all that trouble in the beginning
of this season to set up that Spike spent the WHOLE summer fighting
with the Scoobs and watching over Dawn, all for what? It looks
like it's been ditched but maybe it will be picked up on again,
when it's convenient. But it does look a little sloppy. Makes
you wonder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> OK, in defense of the episode... -- Traveler, 22:17:48
02/13/02 Wed
I too would have loved to see more Spike/Dawn interaction, but
I can see how that would be difficult for a number of reasons.
First of all, Spike has not been welcome in the Buffy household...
at least, not for long. This last episode was the longest amount
of time he has spent there, probably ever. So, he wouldn't have
had a chance to talk with Dawn unless he sought her out (not likely,
because Buffy would freak) or Dawn sought him out. But she never
really had a strong enough reason to, since she wants her sister's
love/company, not Spike's.
In OaFA, Spike obviously wanted to help Dawn, but the show was
really about Buffy and Dawn's relationship, so he got pushed to
the background. And frankly, there were just too many people and
too much going on for us to see all of the character interaction
we might have wanted in a 45 minute episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Did anyone else have a problem with...(spoilers for
OAFA) -- mundusmundi, 17:08:51 02/13/02 Wed
This was a bad episode that I enjoyed, as opposed to the recent
string of bad episodes that I could barely finish watching.("Doublemeat
Palace," "Wrecked.") Like Darby wrote, I think
I was just grateful for the cast interaction -- nonsensical plot
developments bedamned -- though not giving Dawn and Spike any
dialogue together was a big mistake. What's the point of putting
two of your best actors who have arguably the show's best chemistry
in the same room for nearly an entire episode if you're not going
to take advantage of it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn/Spike -- LeeAnn, 03:36:32 02/14/02 Thu
Why no Dawn/Spike interation:
1. Dawn is a whiney brat who NO ONE wants to interact with. Her
whine can shatter glass and call dogs from 3 miles away.
2. JM can have chemistry with air. Remember when he almost stroked
her hair in "Tough Love." There is already Spike/Dawn
fanfiction. ME might want to discourage that.
3. Dawn had a crush on Spike. Don't want to fan that flame.
4. Can't have Dawn so comfortable with Spike that she drops by
while her sister is boinking him.
5. Doesn't JM do most of his scenes at night while most of the
other actors do theirs during the day? So isn't it as much logistics
as anything that keeps him out of their scenes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dawn/Spike...also -- manwitch, 05:29:05
02/14/02 Thu
Spike was staying with dawn over the summer and into bargaining
precisely because he had failed to do so in the Gift. It was a
promise to Buffy. Buffy's back.
Spike left the house when the gang barged in and revealed what
they had done. Prior to that, only Spike and Dawn had responded
to Buffy's return with compassion. Spike was particularly notable
in contrast to the other scoobs.
When Buffy accused Dawn of having a crush on Spike in Season 5"'s
Crush, Dawn responded, yeah, like he'd ever notice me. Now Buffy
is back. Who is Spike gonna notice. Especially now that he's gettin
a li'l bit o' what he wants.
Spike has continued to look out for Dawn, as he did in the Car
Crash episode whose name is too much like one of the other one's
for me to remember right now, and, I believe, the Halloween episode.
So my jury is still out. I don't see him abandoning Dawn, necessarily,
nor do I see the show dropping that relationship. To the degree
that Spike has missed it in his obsession with BuffySex, he was
appropriately included in the curse.
And now going off on a tangent regarding how I feel about a lot
of the posts I've been reading, not really this thread here per
se, Older and Far Away was about what it was about. It was not
about what it was not about. Its not the writer's fault if some
viewers wanted to watch West Wing or 7th Heaven during the Buffy
timeslot. There are so many layers to this show, and judging character
or plotline consistency based on the most superficial layer, that
of what you actually see, just seems to me to be willingly throwing
the whole show out the window. There's a lot going on here, and
its worth working it out. Just becaue its not immediately visible,
doesn't mean it isn't there and it isn't tighly written. I hope
that doesn't come off hostile. I don't mean it that way. People
have the right to not like it or to think it sucks. But I think
its jumping the gun. People have the right to think Shakespeare
sucks, but their opinion isn't a reflection on Shakespeare.
I'm just saying take the time to work it out. My apologies in
advance to all those that may take offense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Dawn/Spike...also -- Rufus, 05:52:09
02/14/02 Thu
I agree with you, this show has layers that make it hard to determine
what they are doing with the story at times. Upon a closer look
you can see that much of what Buffy is doing this year is going
through the trial of learning how to live in this world, be a
part of it. That's where an episode like DMP comes in, Buffy was
in what seems to be a degrading, soul killing, job. She hated
it. But part of learning to live is learning that we have to start
at the beginning sometimes. Xander had to start in a menial job,
numerous menial jobs before he found out what he was meant for,
what makes him feel good about himself. Buffy is now finding that
out. Slaying is a job that is not of this world, people don't
understand that there are monsters to slay, so Buffy really only
gets a certain amount of identity from what no one knows she can
do. For Buffy to be part of this world she has to experience it,
live it, even the parts that suck. These will all be just stops
in what she may find will give her as much satisfaction as slaying.
Another part of Buffy coming back has been her reluctance to become
too emotionally involved in her surroundings including her friends.
Spike was the first to detect that she came back differently and
mistakenly deduced that she came back wrong. Buffy in her discomfort
in her own skin lept at that to give her the excuse to give in
to her inner cravings....one of them turning out to be Spike.
After Dead Things, Buffy found out that she is just the same old
Buffy, and with that realization came a great shame. She had been
perhaps, no perhaps, she had been using Spike because out of anyone
she knew, he made her feel alive. This year is about growing up,
and growing up may be harder than is seemed just a year ago. When
Buffy was on that platform last year she knew the hardest part
of life was living it, participating in life. Season six has been
about Buffy through trial and error, recapturing that drive to
live. Whereever Buffy was she may have felt complete and at peace
but what kind of peace was that? Or was it only an illusion created
to keep Buffy at a stage of non being that was just as tempting
as the power addiction Willow faces, the need to stay children
the Geeky Peter Pan Gang cling to, or was is just a pause in the
trials Buffy has gone through for some much needed rest? OAFW
brought Buffy back to the reality that she is responsible for
not just herself and Slaying, but to the sister who had become
an afterthought. Learning to live again isn't going to be easy,
but it will reap a reward that may be at first disguised by pain.
I'm loving season six and I feel when it is concluded that we
will at the very least be surprised by the consequences of bringing
a loved one back from beyond.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Dawn/Spike...also -- Deeva, 12:15:40
02/14/02 Thu
There's no offense to be taken, nothing to apologize for. You
don't sound hostile, just a little fed up, which I get. I think
that what we're all just basically whining (what else do you call
it when you love a show this much?) about or for is just more.
More of everything. And, as you point out, it's just 45 minutes.
We're just sitting here on our hands wanting more, when we know
it's not possible. It's great. Keeps us tuning in every other
week (sure feels that way, huh?). Just think, if they gave the
viewers exactly what they wanted, would everybody still watch
every single show. Nope. I can think of more than a few shows
where the writers did exactly just that. I could watch an ep.
a month maybe and nothing really dynamic would have happened to
any of the characters. Boring and mindless. But that's what a
lot of people want, something that does not challenge them. I'm
all for entertainment but it's nice to be challenged. To go in
and immerse yourself in something that seems to be one thing but
is another. When I really think about the mythology and all the
stories involved, it appears to be endless and never-ending. Very
beguiling.
I'm not really trying to defend people who feel negatively about
this season or this particular ep. or whatever. I myself don't
hate or dislike any of the episodes. I measure it all with many
degrees of like-love. I like where the writers take us every time,
sometimes I don't understand the direction but I eventually get
on board. I always say that I'm just along for the ride. If I
didn't like the route or the scenery then I should've got off
sooner. But I like it just fine and the snacks are good, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A silly idea but then something a bit more serious -- jbb, 17:26:54
02/13/02 Wed
This is my first post to this forum, but I've been reading for
nearly a year now. I've been hesitant to speak because the eloquence
and thoughfulness of of the regulars can intimidate one who lack
the same qualities, but here goes!
First the silly part. There's been some talk about the decline
of the quality of writing, especially this season. Some have commented
that the cast is less that enthusiastic about the scripts (ie...
saying "eeewww" upon reading them) and phoning in their
performances. SMG being most notable in this respect.
Wouldn't it be nice to see the regulars unite and approach Joss
to tell him enough is enough. "If we can't have scripts that
are worthy of this show then we can't continue to perform".
This would force ME to change the status quo or cancel the show.
I know this is professional suicide for the actors and something
that would never happen but it's fun to contemplate.
On a more serious side, perhaps Joss is not capable of guiding
a series that is not set in an adolescent setting. Is that why
he brought in Wesley, umm I mean Dawn? Was he making an attempt
at returning the show to its High School roots? Or perhaps he's
bored with his eldest child and wants to move on to (back to)
what he does best. Why else would he be pursing the animated series?
My gut feeling is that Joss is perfectly capable of continueing
his brilliance in a twenty-something setting but chooses not to.
I wish he would.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hmm, I agree. Perhaps, a petition, you think? -- Solitude1056,
19:09:21 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Truth is immune to community opinion (he said strategically)
-- Gorgias, 21:59:13 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Two notches too subtle for Sunnydale. (Excellent!)
-- platonic friend, 23:58:40 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Three. -- pf, 01:19:11 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> She said "eeeeew?" (hadn't heard.) dare I ask
in reference to what? -- yuri, 22:58:30 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Clarify the "eeeeew," and perhaps I can
help. -- new philosopher tutorials & support group, 02:18:00 02/14/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The majority of the board opinion . . . -- votecounter,
15:06:44 02/14/02 Thu
. . . has a Whedon-knows-what-he's-doing-and-I-like-it-well-enough
bias, so don't expect much comment.
There are a few intrepid souls, however, who think the show is
off-the-rails ("ham-handed" etc).
I am among the second group, but if you want to be popular with
the crowd, you might want to invert your perceptions and sing
a different tune -- even if it defiles your soul to do so.
(wink)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'm all for revolution... -- Rochefort, 16:49:26 02/14/02
Thu
I think the actors should revolt against these scripts, yes.
And then the proletariat should too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Someone should write the Anti-Hamhanded Party Manefesto.
-- votecounter, 00:46:03 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who liked OaFA? (spoilers/review) -- Tillow, 18:14:27 02/13/02
Wed
I've never posted an episode review on here but I couldn't believe
my fellow posters had such different opinions. I'm usually right
in sync with the general tone of this board. I thought it was
a great follow up to Dead Things.
Of course Dawn is in severe teen angst. She has severe issues.
Many teens go through a lot less and end up doing a lot worse
than stealing a few magic charms. And she is crying out for attention
and help from Buffy's friends because these people are not just
her sister's friends, they are her family. Dawn has friends but
Buffy's circle is tighter than friends. They deal with life and
death on a daily basis and they are more than likely the only
people that know Dawn's true origins. And they are all ignoring
her and treating her like a child. It was a good ep for her. We
get to see her in school. The theft plot is finally exposed in
a dramatic way. Buffy and Dawn make a connection and open the
lines of communication. She gets a champion of sorts in Halfrek
(ok and how bizarre is that?) And Dawn says clearly "I'm
through being talked to like a kid." That's great because,
Buffy was off answering her calling at your age Dawn. Great ep
for Dawn. Would have liked to have seen some Spike interaction
but Buffy does throw the "Stay with Spike" line in there.
I thought Anya was fabulous. Being so newly human and experiencing
everything for the first time, she is often the mirror for us.
This time it was just the full range of human emotions. It was
like being on a carnival ride and EC pulled it off perfectly.
I admit I was freaked out when she went after Willow and worried
about how she would react to Dawn. But when she immediately had
the tenderness to calm down and talk to Dawn in a way that would
reach Dawn. "This is how you say thank you." I mean
this is Anya! She was more hurt by her trust being betrayed than
the money! She's growing up...
Then we have Tara. I mean, not a lot has to be said about Tara
besides, where did this new and improved model come from and please,
please can we keep her. "In your pants?" "Maybe
you want to put some ice on that.." And again in the Scooby
confrontation with Dawn, "Do you know something cause we
want you to feel like you can tell us?"
Willow. I have my doubts about what is happening with Willow's
character overall but I had no problems with what happened this
episode.
As far as overall character grouping: Clem walks in and no one
makes a fuss. Clem and Sophie chillin' on the couch and dancing.
Are we finally seeing shades of grey in the Buffyverse like we
do on Angel? Spike is back with the Scoobies. He saves Xander
without hesitation, he moves to defend Willow under Anya's verbal
attack. We have demons and humans playing poker. I was thrilled
to see the Buffy and Tara interaction and it really worked. It
also helped Buffy to be a little lighter. She has a confidante
besides someone she's sleeping with.
Spike and Buffy! Loved them. Again no one blinks that Spike is
there. I loved how Spike didn't really take Richard as a serious
threat (and really now, why would he???). Spike covered for her
with Tara, trying to keep their secret even though that's not
what he wants. As mentioned before, he was part of the Scoobies
in planning and action though a little lacking in the Dawn affection.
They end up playing cards in the morning (no one cares that Buffy
isn't threatening to stake Spike?). She asks him to watch things
downstairs and he agrees with a nod of the head. Their 'working'
partnership is still in tact through it all. And was it just me
of did Buffy seem more than a little curious about the nature
of Halfrek and Spike's relationship. And is it me or did the ease
with which Buffy dealt with Spike make it seem like maybe they
were the 'norm' for her particularly with convenient normal guy
walking around asking questions and making judgements. Hmmm....
I was really very surprised about Halfrek's reaction to William.
Was it just me or did her raw demony little face just blush. (I
know spoilers so that's all I'll say here!! So hard to hold back!
No it's not all a lovefest...
I thought spellcasters anonymous was silly. Dawn going to the
mall by herself? How? I thought Spike's "oh shut up he's
sweet line" was a little too 'super' for Spike... particularly
after the bronze scene of last week. I mean it's just not something
he would say and it felt like it slowed the show down a bit. And
Buffy picking up on the Wish by herself was a tad flimsy. But
we allow...
I thought it was refreshing and funny. It moved some important
plots, set up some new ones and brought some of the secondary
Scoobies to the forefront. Good for DG!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I adored "OAFA," as evidenced in my post a bit
farther down... -- Rob, 19:26:02 02/13/02 Wed
I said I wanted to give Drew Greenberg a big, fat heterosexual
kiss on the lips...So that pretty much sums up my feelings about
the ep. ;o)
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I knew you would Rob, just didn't see your post! :)
-- Tillow, 18:00:08 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Anyone who liked OaFA? (spoilers/review) -- Traveler,
21:56:20 02/13/02 Wed
I just watched OaFA for the second time, and for some reason enjoyed
it more. Maybe the first time I was hoping for more Spike/Buffy
interaction. Maybe I found Dawn's attitude a little extreme. But
the second time, I just relaxed and took it for what it was worth,
and gained much more from the experience.
For example, I think the Spike/Tara interactions are REALLY interesting.
Spike's used to being treated like a bad boy. Tara doesn't condemn
him as Buffy did, nor does she fear him. Rather, she smiles knowingly
and makes inside jokes at his expense. No wonder Spike is nonplussed
by Tara this episode. He probably doesn't deal with this reaction
often.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Loved it for Tara alone! -- grifter, 10:53:39 02/14/02
Thu
Hey, I´m a kitten-boarder, what do you expect of me? :D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roundtables can be carried too far - spoilers for OaFA -- Solitude1056,
18:22:17 02/13/02 Wed
Ham-handed to say the least... that, and the feeling that the
writers are raising issues and then dropping them completely (see
Halfrek's doubt-raising visit, or Buffy's fast acceptance of Dawn's
stealing without much reaction, or even the cast o' characters
last night that seemed to conveniently disappear when it was time
for a Scooby Powwow!), or letting the characters solve things
*much* faster than ever before ("oh, it was Warren who did
the deed, not me!" or the even worse and far-fetched, "gee,
is your guidance counselor a vengeance demon?"). Altogether,
I don't care if folks say Joss has a hand in things - the episodes
are beginning to feel like one of those horrible experiences in
high school when the "creative writing" teacher has
each person write a chapter and then hand it to the next person
- only now we're getting that feeling from commercial break to
commercial break.
(Note: I wouldn't have been surprised if Anya had put two and
two together to figure out it must've been a Vengeance Demon -
that being her line of work, after all - but as others have mentioned,
it did seem bizarre. This is a town where a hundred, a thousand
different non-realistic things could be the reason a bunch of
people are trapped in a house... what made Buffy think it would
be a vengeance demon? If we'd had a scene with Anya prior to the
convo, or perhaps an indication of how Buffy made that intuitive
leap, then maybe I would've gone for it. But otherwise it seems
just like Buffy's made two too many "intuitive leaps"
that have conveniently turned out to be the exact key to solving
the week's puzzle. Bleah, I say, bleah!)
I mean, hello, can we make Dawn and Anya - two potentially charismatic
characters - any more disconcertingly schizophrenic from scene
to scene? (And what was with Anya trying to take her shirt off,
anyway? I was expecting her to proposition Xander suddenly, which
at least would've been more like the Anya I know and adore.) I
agree with the lack o' Dawn/Spike interaction... I would've thought
that Spike ignoring Dawn would've been an additional sore point
for Dawn, since Spike was such a constant presence during Buffy's
hiatus. And while I can groove with the idea that Spike's completely
fixated on Buffy for the SexFest2002 (as someone else so eloquently
put it), would it have taken that much screen time to show Dawn's
reaction to being ignored, yet again? Instead, without her reaction,
I'm vaguely suspicious that it didn't even occur to ME that Dawn
would even care - and that seems way out of character for her.
Sheesh.
I mean, are these writers even reading each other's weekly scripts?
Are they asleep on the job? Could they stop turning all the wonderful
characters into one-note clowns? Let's see:
Dawn: whiny and sullen.
Willow: drug addict.
Spike: buffy-sex-obsessed.
Xander: 'adult', aka 'the boring one'
Anya: money-obsessed (alternating with appearance-obsessed)
Buffy: self-obsessed, sex-obsessed, spike-obsessed, money-obsessed,
obsessed, blah blah blah.
Tara: sole bright spot left, and that seems due to the fact that
her complexity is rooted almost solely in the fact that her motives
aren't clear (is she still in love, is she getting over Willow,
etc etc).
On top of all that... are my housemate and I the only ones who've
noticed that the Scoobies are losing their distinctive voices?
Careful listening reveals that it's getting harder to guess who-said-what,
in terms of the specific voices and phrases that each character
used to have. Man, what I wouldn't give for a solid "good
lord!" and some frantic glasses-polishing.
*sigh* How soon til Joss writes another episode? ;-(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> But you're not bitter, right? (more spoilers for OaFA) --
Traveler, 23:00:28 02/13/02 Wed
To summarize, I can see your point. I disagree. I agree, but I
don't know why it bothers you.
The fact that Buffy figured out what Warren did wasn't that worrisome
to me. That is exactly the sort of intuitive leap that people
sometimes make. Spike had just said "you always hurt the
ones you love," and Warren was a good example of that for
many reasons. However, I have to agree that Buffy didn't just
make a intuitive leap to figure out that the counselor was a vengance
demon; she strapped on a jet pack and flew there. I suppose that
Buffy probably knew from Anya that there was a new vengance demon
in town, but still. She kept asking Dawn leading questions as
if she already knew their answers. That was bad writing, but is
it really enough to destroy the episode so thoroughly? I don't
think so.
As for Spike, I must disagree completely. He obviously was very
concerned about Dawn, but he was pushed to the fringes by the
others. Maybe he could have gotten Dawn to open up, but this episode
was about Dawn and Buffy's relationship, not Dawn and Spike's.
Buffy had to be the one to get through to Dawn, or else the healing
process couldn't begin.
As for having "schizophrenic" characters, I have to
ask, what did you expect? All of the character on the show are
having a major identity crisis, Anya and Dawn most certainly included.
Personally, I think this is what makes the season so interesting.
The characters are stepping out of their normal roles and becoming...
something else. Half the fun is just watching their journey and
wondering where it will take them.
Finally, I would like to mention that there were a lot of good
things about this episode. The Spike/Buffy interactions may have
seemed like same old same old, but I noticed some subtle and important
differences between this and other episodes. Tara/Spike was a
new and very interesting element. A lot of people noticed how
Tara has gotten a lot cooler, and I can't help but wonder if the
time she spent away from Willow has been good for her. Perhaps
she will be less dependant on Willow now, should they get back
together. I even liked some of the changes in Anya. She panicked,
but it was a controlled panic which motivated her to act. She
was mean and selfish, but she said hard things that needed to
be said. Also, a number of plot hooks were set up, and one important
issue was addressed, namely Dawn's problems/stealing. Buffy's
reaction was entirely appropriate. She was shocked and horrified,
but not angry. Remember, she loves her sister, but she also has
been feeling incredibly guilty about the job she has been doing
as "mother." She probably blamed herself more for what
was going on than she blamed Dawn. This is also consistant with
her character.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this was the best episode of
the season, or even a particularly strong one. However, I don't
believe it (or its writer) deserve the harsh criticism you have
heaped upon them. They have their flaws, but they also have notable
strengths, just like most things human.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> To celebrate trivial felicities in accidental monkey-doo
formations is an unworthy pastime. -- monkeypants, 00:33:25 02/14/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Is someone channeling the deceased Buffybot?
(exercises in dadaism) -- Darby, 07:34:36 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> We are fans here. Constructive criticism, even
negative, is appreciated. Bashing is not. -- OnM, 07:40:59 02/14/02
Thu
If you cannot respect this, there are other forums where you may
engage in this activity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Perhaps a course in forum etiquette for the
multiple-personalitied? -- Wisewoman, 08:24:43 02/14/02 Thu
We're about the most tolerant group around but, hey, even we have
limits...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> "Perhaps it has something to do with
the rhetoricity of Masquerading." -- Lyotard in tights Redux,
13:48:16 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> When philosophers bunch like bananas, someone
must shake the tree. -- monkeypants (flashing his Propriety-Breaching
License), 13:08:11 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Point/Counterpoint: Two Excellent Posts Above -- mundusmundi,
07:37:51 02/14/02 Thu
I'm somewhere in between on this particular episode, though more
in tune with Sol's view of the season as a whole. Traveler, though,
raises some compelling arguments, especially in addressing the
good things about the ep (Tara's character development, why it
had to be Buffy who reacted, etc.)
My biggest qualm, however, concerns the claim made by some posters
that it is the changing nature of the characters that accounts
for much of the erratic behavior that we are witnessing. My problem
with this line of reasoning is that it always gives the writers
an avenue of escape out of any seeming inconsistency. I believe
Sol's point about Buffy's newfound leaps of intuition wasn't that
it's ruining entire episodes, but that it's only one example of
a larger problem -- a growing laziness -- with a few of this season's
scripts. (Of course, returning to the subject of loopholes, I
suppose Greenberg or whoever could say, "Erm, well, y'all
wanted Buffy to come back with new powers -- here they are!"
;)
My throwaway comment about no Spike/Dawn scenes in another thread
was apparently less clear about a similar point. I can buy that
Spike might ignore her. What I find out of character is that Dawn
wouldn't even attempt to talk to the her guardian over the summer,
or get angry with him. (It's a good point, whoever wrote it, that
maybe there is a concern about fan shippiness; though one might
wonder, especially concerning this season, since when has ME become
shy?) I'm not endorsing a D/S re-lay-shun-ship; I'm endorsing
a D/S dynamic. You've got two great actors there, both of whom
are growing static, losing the shadings that made them interesting
last year. I'm reminded of when Howard Hawks made Rio Bravo and
included an incongruous but enjoyable singing duet between Dean
Martin and Ricky Nelson. Hawks defended the scene with something
like, "You've got all that talent together in one room --
what's the point if you don't use it?"
Despite this, as I've said elsewhere, I kinda liked "Older
and Far Away." They didn't fully exploit the metaphor they
had concocted, but at least they had a metaphor this time, so
I apprecate the effort. Again, great posts from both Traveler
and Sol (among others), with thought-provoking comments. Keep
'em coming.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Regarding Dawn/Spike interaction -- Annie, 08:29:10
02/14/02 Thu
I remember reading an interview (possibly over at The Buzz, though
I'm not sure on that) where Drew Greenberg was questioned on this
very point. Basically, his reply was that as long as we didn't
see any evidence to the contrary, we should assume that everything
was status quo. (This is obviously not verbatim!) Hence, Dawn
and Spike's relationship hasn't changed; we're just not seeing
it portrayed on screen.
This, IMHO, is not how storytelling works. If it's not shown or
at least alluded to on screen, it isn't there. I suppose an argument
could be made for there being only 43 minutes in an episode and
a lot of stories to tell, but still - it wouldn't take much to
get points like these across.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The transcript for that interview is at
the Succubus Club..quote and link inside.. -- Rufus, 08:43:15
02/14/02 Thu
www.thecuccubusclub.com
09Jan02
FROM CLAIREL: IN THE REST OF SEASON 6, WHAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP
WILL WE BE SEEING BETWEEN SPIKE AND DAWN, AND BETWEEN SPIKE AND
THE OTHER SCOOBIES?
Drew: I love the relationship between Dawn and Spike, too, and
I think a lot of us really do. The difficulty of only being able
to present one hour a week is that you have to service the story
that's being told, and you can assume that the relationship between
Spike and Dawn is still what it was. And every chance we get,
we try to put in a little moment with them, but there are only
43 minutes in an hour.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: the function of plot holes -- leslie,
09:29:48 02/14/02 Thu
The idea of having a "seamless narrative" with no noticeable
plot holes is a very modern (i.e., post-Enlightenment) concept.
However, plot holes can provide a very important function in analysing
a narrative. (What I am about to say derives from a vaguely Freudian
approach to the study of mythology and folktales, supplemented
by a certain irreversible Levi-Straussian bent on my part. So
be prepared for a certain amount of academic pretentiousness here!)
When you are dealing with a medieval or ancient narrative, especially
one that has been transmitted over a long period of time, there
tend to be huge, gaping plot holes that you simply cannot ignore.
There are also very small, subtle weirdnesses that often derive
from some smart-ass scribe along the way substituting a word for
what was in the original, or making the highly popular "scribal
error." To wit, modern scholar reads text and says, "Hey,
this story doesn't say what I think it should say: scribal error!"
In any case, these holes and wierdnesses are often termed "cruxes,"
and present, metaphorically, a "crossroad" in interpretation.
The easy way out is to just go with scribal error. However--bringing
in the vaguely Freudian part--why did the scribe make *that* error?
In fact, some scribal errors look remarkably like classic Freudian
slips. In which case, the crux can be not only two-dimensional
(on the face of the page, as it were) but a three-dimensional
intersection, the door that brings you deeper into the underlying
meaning of the narrative. This is how I think about it, anyway--there
is this web of words that lies on the page, that presents you
with a charming, weblike pattern that you can look at but also
keeps you on *this* side of the narrative, it's public persona
as it were. The crux is a hole in the web that allows you to slide
underneath the text and get at its narrative unconscious, its
true meaning. Often, as Levi-Strauss pointed out, what's missing
is the key--the presence of one pole of a binary opposition implies
the presence of the other end of the pole, even if you can't see
it.
As I've said before, the thing about BtVS is that it is, like
myth, "good to think with," and it is full of cruxes.
Some of them literal (I do notice that people aren't using crosses
to ward off vamps quite so much these days, though.) The problem
arises when you have a script that is too crux-y. It's a little
too easy to get away with "I meant that to be enigmatic"
as an excuse for bad writing.
For instance, in OaFA, what was Richard doing there? He was not
a character, he was something to arouse tension with Spike and
to get slashed by the demon. I can suspend my disbelief that vampires
exist, but I can't bring myself to believe that a normal human
being could sustain a cut to the side of that magnitude and not
bleed to death in the 24 hours that elapse before they can get
him to the hospital. The thing is, that plot hole does open up
the underlying meaning of what's going on here--that the point
is the relationship between Spike and Buffy, her choice between
a "normal" and an "unnatural" lover--but it's
*so* obvious that we feel cheated--we knew this was the problem
all along, we don't need to have it pointed out to us with bells
and whistles and flahsing lights. The attraction of the show is
not the fact that it has cruxes, but the subtlety of its cruxes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: the function of plot holes --
Darby, 10:59:57 02/14/02 Thu
First, a measure of my ignorance: I thought the opening Levi-Strauss
reference was a clever slant on "blue jeans philosophy."
Guess not, huh? But how can you know you're dealing with a polar-opposite
quantity with no view of the pole? And if you know, the implication
of the other end gives no real inference into its true existence,
does it? It should be there, but is it really?
Anyway, the Richard thing works due to the way the blow was delivered
- it was a broad swipe across the chest from almost full extension
distance, producing a long, nasty cut but not a particularly deep
one. He may have needed a hundred or so stitches, but some tape
and pressure in the house would have kept it from being a life-threatening
situation.
Since the demon and the sword were part of the same "stuff,"
though, there are possible infection implications - nah, they
probably won't go there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: the function of plot holes
-- leslie, 15:39:14 02/14/02 Thu
"But how can you know you're dealing with a polar-opposite
quantity with no view of the pole? And if you know, the implication
of the other end gives no real inference into its true existence,
does it? It should be there, but is it really?"
Well, this *is* one of the reasons some people think old Claude
is full of crap.... The orthodox answer is that the oppositions
are self evident--raw/cooked, animal/human, female/male, culture/nature,
and so on. One very interesting analysis I heard at a folklore
conference several years ago pointed out that traditional myth
works on the theory of "nature is to culture as animal is
to human as prey is to predator" and that stories of alien
abduction are both interesting and disturbing because they posit
that "nature is to culture as human is to alien as prey is
to predator". I think this works very well with the relationship
of humans and vampires--human is to vampire as prey is to predator--but,
at least in the Buffyverse, you could make an argument as to who
is "nature" and who is "culture"--humans certainly
seem to regard themselves as "culture" and vampires
as "nature (red in tooth and claw)", but the mythology
of the vampires themselves, as is explicated in the stories Giles
tells of the origin of vampires, suggest that the vampires and
demons regard themselves as "culture" and humans as
animal-like vermin.
So in terms of the other end of the pole, it isn't just any old
pole where you can infer the presence of its opposite end--it's
the big poles. If you've got nature running around all over the
place, and no culture anywhere in sight, then you can assume that
the myth is, in fact, about the opposition of nature and culture,
even if you can't see the culture. You're on slightly shakier
territory when you have a myth that runs ramapant with forks--are
we dealing with missing knives, in a myth that may have something
to do with aggression and stabbing versus cutting? Or is this
one of Levi-Strauss's myths about the origin of table manners
(which is, in fact, the title of one of his books).
Again, it is worth remembering that someone criticized Levi-Strauss
about whether it was valid for him, as a French academic, to be
making statements about what is "really" in South American
Indian myths. He said, "If I see it, it is there." Structuralism
is a useful tool, but needs to be used with caution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow! That's pretty weird...
-- Darby, 20:31:23 02/14/02 Thu
...It's odd that of the prime examples you give - I'm only guessing
that they're the prototypical examples from the philosophy - most
of them don't strike me as being polar opposites at all, certainly
not self-evident. Must be that my world-view is very different
from L-S'.
Animal / human - polar based on what? In what way are they supposed
to be ends, and of what spectrum?
Female / male - I can see how they get viewed as opposites, but
I don't like the implications at all. It kind of highlights the
inherent problem - if your perspective is to see the world as
full of opposites, then opposites are everywhere you look.
Nature / culture is missing a pole - there's no real link to put
them in opposition to each other. I can't get any closer than
to say that culture is a reflection of nature, but what you've
shared may explain why a recent push to apply the term "culture"
to animal behavior is getting such resistance (like any terminology,
it doesn't seem to matter to the animals much).
Just to be clear on this, I am in no way levelling any criticism
at you, Leslie - I'm just having some fun exploring an area that
I don't get much chance to experience any more. Thanks for the
opportunity.
And I'm sure that my background and experience makes me resistant
- maybe overly so - to seeing the world in these terms, so to
some extent I'm doing what I think Levi-Strauss was doing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> delightfully head-scratching
debate. thanks. and the merit of plotholes -really interesting.
-- yuri, 23:29:57 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Purity and Danger
-- Rahael, 05:50:12 02/15/02 Fri
Interesting indeed!
I must say that I found structuralism interesting but dated. There
have been many useful critques and adjustments made by post-structuralists.
I only spent a couple of weeks on anthropology as part of my history
degree, so I am by no means the person to comment on this, and
I am pretty sure that Leslie is formidably well informed on this
topic! But anyways.
I found some part useful, other parts not. For example, a structuralist
view of human culture would deny an element of change that is
at the heart of a historical perspective of human culture. One
could argue that views about men/women and race have changed considerably
over the course of the 20th century, and that the old dichotomies
are being broken down.
I would say the dichotomy between Nature and Culture is something
I have encountered, in a very specific time and place. In 18th
Century England, the growth of large cities (which finally were
able to maintain their own population growth) led to a split between
the idea of the city (cultured, urbane, sophisticated to some,
sinful, corrupt, dangerous, polluting to others) and that of the
Country (rural, unsophisticated, unlearned, backward to some,
pure, possessing integrity, patriotic to others). This split can
be found in the literature of the period, and was deeply influential
in politics. In Tobias Smollet's Humphrey Clinker, Matthew Bramble
notices the 'dirtiness' of Bath, both in terms of actual dirt,
and the danger presented by the rise of a middle class, which,
shock, horror! could pass for their betters. He actually faints
at the unpleasantness of the whole experience. He then travels
on to Scotland, and contrasts it with the moral integrity and
cleanliness he notes there. The air is literally purer. In Jane
Austen's Mansfield Park, the virtues of Mansfield (a symbol for
England) are contrasted with the sinfulness of London. Mansfield
may be under bad management, but it's the visit of the charming,
attractive but ultimately immoral Crawfords which leads to the
undoing of the Bertrams. The Crawfords are from London, and are
depicted as having no understanding of the rhythms and values
of the countryside.
Of course, most of the people who argued that the countryside
was somehow superior in value (especially politicians) actually
lived in the city. It wasn't actually important as a physical
dichotomy, but as an ideological one. So I think these dichotomies
which are employed time and time again in human cultures are inherently
contradictory and contain tensions. Precisely because life is
not easily split into neat pairings. It's just that we often find
it too attractive not to do so. For example, Spike has to be either
good or evil. Buffy has to be either human or demon, or so some
viewers think.
I agree that man vs animal is an uneasy opposition to make. We
are after all animals. But you only need to look at the furore
that Darwin's theories still create to see that human beings wish
to see themselves as fundamentally different. We attach a value
judgement to the concept of humanity. We talk of 'humane' behaviour
even though we know that human beings are capable of mind bogglingly
awful behaviour. So when one group of human beings want to subjugate
another set, they automatically start 'dehumanising' them. I won't
resort to the usual example. But let's look at anthropology itself.
When early pioneers of anthropology explored more 'primitive'
human cultures (what an opposition there! Primitive vs civilised)
they thought that these tribes had a simplicity which must make
them socially backward. They must still be in the state that European
civilisations had long 'evolved' away from. By studying them,
they thought, they would find out about the origins of European
social groupings. Instead, time has taught us that these 'face
to face' societies were governed by rules as complex, and subtle
as more 'indirect' ones. Europe's encounter with the 'Other',
and the language in which it was couched falls under man/animal
dichotomies. There is the famous case of the very well educated
former black slave in 18th Century London who was dismissed by
some as a 'clever parrot'. The implication being that black people
were not capable of real intelligence. They were closer to animals
than humans. How else could slavery be accomodated into paternalistic
Christian societies?
The anthropologist who I found really inspirational re examinations
of dichotomous thinking is Mary Douglas, especially her emphasis
on 'pollution' and the dichotomous split between clean/dirty.
Going back to the theme of dehumanisation. Let's look at the caste
system in India. The 'untouchables' are precisely that because
they are 'polluted'. Their job involved in 'dirt' - cleaning the
toilets of those more fortunate than themselves. People avoid
them because they fear that it is contagious. This of course has
been used to justify an incredibly unjust and (personally speaking,
apoplexy inducing) social set up. The fear of 'dirt' is insiduous
in many different cultures. In modern western society, we are
becoming so 'sterile' as to actually make ourselves more vulnerable
to diseases. Whenever people describe a group of people they are
disturbed by, the idea of a general 'uncleanliness' soon crops
up.
So of course oppositions are only perceived. We perceive them
there because we are inclined to do so.
I am interested in your comment about culture arising from nature.
I would argue that the idea of 'nature' itself (which changes
from society to society, and which changes over time) is actually
a part of human culture. Once, western societies perceived the
natural world in a very teleological way. From a nature there
for human exploitation, a nature which had to be fought, controlled
and tame, to a growing appreciation of the wilderness, and now
to a view as human beings as destroyers of nature. Of course,
how we define culture itself is a controversial topic. Once could
see it as arising from specific 'artifacts' or one could see it
as a shared understanding, an elaborate code and idiom which one
participates in.
I myself think that we should avoid viewing things in dichotomous
terms. It's much more interesting to see things in their manifold
complexity. But its important to understand why and how people
resort to them.
A small Buffy example would be Buffy's need to see herself as
'wrong'. She can't accept that she, Buffy is capable of both good
and bad. That she always has been thus. In her view, Vampires
like Spike are 'bad', she is 'good'. This season, ME have been
muddying the waters, to Buffy's discomfit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This is
fun... -- Darby, 08:10:37 02/15/02 Fri
And I've kind of run out of things to add, but it occurs to me
that the distinctions we're discussing mimic perspective stages
the adolescents and adults are supposed to progress through. If
so, then the underlying biology would lead to a perpetuation,
in different groups, of the ideas somewhat independent of culture.
Sort of the way that certain philosophies tend to attract persons
of a certain age range in other areas as well.
Just to clarify, "culture" the way it seems to be currently
defined zoologically is a set of behaviors that are superficially
the same (dealing with the "same" situations) but that
vary between different populations, mostly of primates but now
being more broadly applied as the basic idea draws support. Almost
exactly the pattern of spread that you outlined in your history
of these ideas.
Since I'm running dry, I may not post another response, but I'd
love to hear what others have to say on the subject(s). Anybody
still out there?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Purity
and Danger -- leslie, 08:31:42 02/15/02 Fri
I am writing very hurriedly because I am waiting for the airport
shuttle--but me, I think the thing about nature/culture is that
culture is human as opposed to "animal" nature, yet
because, as you point out, humans are animals, I would argue that
culture is part of nature, not vice versa. And therefore, culture
is something that nature creates--animals *are* capable of culture,
because we are animals and we have culture. When I get back from
this blasted wedding, I want to go further into the question of
mediation and the relationships among humans, vampires, and demons...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dichotomies
(getting further OT) -- matching mole, 10:09:12 02/15/02 Fri
I'm going to leap into this discussion although I have absolutely
no training, formal or informal in anthropology at all, although
I did know that Levi-Strauss was a person as well as a corporation
making denim clothing. Not surprisingly, as we are both professional
biologists, I am in strong agreement with Darby's sentiment that
considering humans and animals or nature and culture as opposites
doesn't really make much sense from a biological perspective.
Humans and gorillas have vastly more in common with one another
than either do with sharks much less with sea anemones, fungi,
or bacteria.
I think that both Leslie and Rahael raised excellent points about
nature: Leslie that culture is a part of nature and Rahael that
views of nature have changed culturally. From my point of view
nature is everything: the organic and inorganic constituents of
our planet and the interactions between these constituents. Under
this view all of human culture and economic activity is clearly
a subset of nature. Both of the cultural perspectives of nature
that Rahael describes (if I understand them correctly) view nature
as something distinct from human society, either something lesser
to be exploited, or something purer to be preserved. Although
I am far more in sympathy with the latter view than the former
they both have serious short-comings when making practical decisions
about human interactions with the rest of the world. The exploitive
view applies the rules of economics to human activities post 'extraction'
(i.e. when moving resources into the human component of the world
economic system) but ignores what is going on pre-extraction.
The preservationist view (in its extreme form) ignores the necessary
interactions between humans and the rest of nature.
I agree with Rahael that dichotomies are usually simplistic. I
offer up the a few biological examples. First, the nature/nurture
debate over human behavior. Quantitative geneticists (people,
like my wife, who study the genetics of complex traits influenced
by many genes) will tell you that most characteristics of organisms
are influenced both by genetics and the environment and that the
interactions within and between the two can be very complex. Studies
that purport to have found a gene for homosexuality or for watching
TV are often naively interpreted. These particular genes may have
an effect on human behavior but they act in the context of the
other genes found in a particular individual and the environment
experienced by that individual leading to widely varying outcomes.
A second example, probably less familiar to non-biologists is
community ecology theory. Community ecologists try to explain
the number and kinds of species present in any particular area.
A simple example would be why does one patch of desert have seven
kinds of lizard and another have twelve? This has been a hotly
debated area of biology because quite a few different explanations
have been offered and no one explanation seems to have universal
explanatory power. Attempts to test mutually exclusive ideas (a
dichotomy) have not given consistent results. From the point of
view of scientists seeking basic principles this is frustrating
but it makes perfect sense to me. Community ecology is based on
complex interactions between components that are themselves complicated
and all of this takes place within a unique historical perspective.
Sounds a lot like studying humans doesn't it? It doesn't seem
surprising that there isn't a single unifying principle (like
gravity or DNA).
Finally a more explicitly human oriented example involving the
creation/evolution non-debate. To avoid offending anyone I would
like to preface this by saying that my contention here is not
with those who have a religious belief in a special creation and
for that reason disregard scientific evidence for biological evolution
(or have a belief in both evolution and special creation). I don't
share their world view but respect their view to have it. I am
contending with those who misuse science to serve ideological
ends, i.e. the 'creation scientists'. One of the most common claims
of creation scientists is that the fossil record lacks any evidence
of transitional forms between 'kinds' of organisms. In other words
we don't see something that is half way between a bear and a seal.
In fact the fossil record is full of transitional specimens. The
transition from 'reptile' (I'm putting the word reptile in quotes
for technical reasons) to mammal is so well documented that deciding
where to draw the line is basically arbitrary. Similarly the fossil
bird Archaeopteryx has a skeleton that is indistinguishable, except
for the modified forelimbs, from that of many other small dinosaurs
of the era. The fossilized feathers link it to the birds. When
confronted with these examples Creation Scientists resort to an
irrational dichotomization. Archaeopteryx is a bird because it
has feathers therefore it can't be a transitional form. The other
small dinosaurs are 'reptiles' because they lack feathers. It
has been pointed out that under this scheme no transitional forms
are possible except perhaps nonsensical ones (a relative of Archaeopteryx
with one feathered wing and one scaled wing?).
I guess the point of this long-winded exposition is that if dichotomization
proves so unsatisfactory on these purely pragmatic issues (I am
saying that the questions have pragmatic answers not that they
don't have moral aspects) how much more unlikely is it to prove
accurate in more complex situations such as those we see on BtVS
and AtS? Humans seem to like to view things dichotomously which
seems to me to be unfortunate and self-defeating in solving the
complex problems that surround us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks leslie, Darby, Rahael and the mole -- mundusmundi, 10:37:32
02/15/02 Fri
Admittedly, I don't understand half of what you're talking about,
but I'm enjoying the discussion anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Ditto! ;o) -- dubdub, 10:46:06 02/15/02 Fri
Damn, I love you guys!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Can't agree more : culture is the natural state of
men, nature is a cultural concept -- Etrangere, 13:11:25 02/15/02
Fri
And I just wanted to add that in Buffy, Season 4 was especially
dealing with this concepts, using the pattern of the tale of the
fall from the Garden of Eden for several characters. (Opposition
between a state of nature without concience and the learning of
morality)
If anyone's interrested, I can translate from french the analysis
I had done about that :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> I'd like to see it! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 13:45:21
02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Purity
and Danger -- leslie, 08:32:57 02/15/02 Fri
I am writing very hurriedly because I am waiting for the airport
shuttle--but me, I think the thing about nature/culture is that
culture is human as opposed to "animal" nature, yet
because, as you point out, humans are animals, I would argue that
culture is part of nature, not vice versa. And therefore, culture
is something that nature creates--animals *are* capable of culture,
because we are animals and we have culture. When I get back from
this blasted wedding, I want to go further into the question of
mediation and the relationships among humans, vampires, and demons...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Purity
and Danger -- Rufus, 01:19:30 02/16/02 Sat
A small Buffy example would be Buffy's need to see herself as
'wrong'. She can't accept that she, Buffy is capable of both good
and bad. That she always has been thus. In her view, Vampires
like Spike are 'bad', she is 'good'. This season, ME have been
muddying the waters, to Buffy's discomfit.
I kinda see it as Buffy learning about the complex nature of good
and bad by checking out what has been swept under the carpet....:):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: the function of plot holes --
Rahael, 12:14:33 02/14/02 Thu
That was great! I really enjoyed your exposition on 'cruxes'.
As for Levi-Strauss, I often wondered whether I was the only person
who saw the label on the jeans and thought "wow, a fan of
the raw and the cooked" Only for a split second, of course!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Point/Counterpoint: Two Excellent Posts
Above (spoilers for Gone) -- Sophist, 08:52:59 02/14/02 Thu
Plotholes, real or not, seem to bother some posters quite a bit.
I don't see this as a new issue. Plotholes have existed since
S1. In IRYJ, Buffy follows a car on foot and arrives at the same
time. There are many others. Why are we willing to suspend our
disbelief about vampires, but not about whether Spike should have
noticed that Katrina's body was cold? There are plotholes in Shakespeare,
but we overlook them because we value other things.
As far as character interaction goes, I think some degree of patience
is justified. Sure, there could have been interaction between
D/S. Maybe it'll happen in two weeks. It's not clear that it must
happen NOW, even if there seemed to be a natural place for it.
Character development is a long term process, not an event for
a particular episode. Besides, there are so many aspects to each
character (a tribute to the show's richness) that someone can
always justify a particular behavior. Hey, I justify Spike (to
the horror of many) and others have justified Dawn (to my shock).
There are many times when I've watched an ep and thought "eh"
because I didn't see all the implications of it. When someone
pointed them out, or when the season played out, I had to re-evaluate
it and realized only in retrospect how good it was. While I don't
think S6 is the strongest season, I count 3 classic eps (OMWF,
TR, and Smashed), and it isn't over yet. The best part is, I've
discovered this Board and am getting so much more out of even
the eps I think are weaker.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I can see both sides of the coin -- Solitude1056,
08:30:32 02/14/02 Thu
Yet I remained unconvinced that the episodes are as flawless as
some of the ones I've seen from previous seasons. The "on
the other hand" part of me pops up to remind myself that
not every season has continually flawless episodes, though...
but they do all have consistently excellent writing, even if the
plots or demons were a bit hokey. And that's what bothers me most
- the voices are starting to all sound more similar. One of the
biggest joys of discovering this series was that each character
had a distinctive voice. It just seems that with the new writers
- who may have the basic groove thing down otherwise - they need
more work on cultivating a distinctive voice for each character.
It's not an easy thing to do, which is why I give newer ME writers
credit for trying, but I do have standards. Coming up with a witty
pop-phrase and saying, well, this is a Spike thing but it's really
Anya who needs to make the announcement so we'll have her say
it instead..? Nope, that doesn't work when each character speaks
differently, intuits differently, reacts differently. But that's
sort of what it feels like is going on, from a writer's viewpoint,
observing the current season... and that's just shoddy craftsmanship.
The demonic metaphors are still (kind of) holding up, if less
clear than they used to be (for various reasons). But the continuity
sucks rocks at points - harsh, but there's been some truly crummy
examples this season, the likes of which we haven't seen since
season 1 when Joss was still working out the kinks on how-to-direct.
ME seems out-of-practice with ensemble scenes, leaving characters
adrift in "other rooms" for the sake of convenience,
and of course, there's that pathetic Buffy-guesses-the-answer
sitch twice now. Okay. Yeah. I could forgive all that as momentary
lapses of skill - if only they'd bloody well keep the voices distinctive.
Otherwise we're floating into Charmed or soap-opera territory,
where it's all melodrama, big finales, long buildup/fast letdown,
and a few demons in our after school special about bad parents
and various addictions. The characters always drove the plot before,
not the other way around.
Okay, okay, rant over. Mostly. But I'm not going to stop grumbling
about the way the voices are all starting to sound the same...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I know *exactly* what you mean, Sol. -- Marie,
08:57:24 02/14/02 Thu
That's how I write my fiction about these characters - I 'hear'
their voices in my head, and very often I write a line for someone,
and it turns into a line for someone else, because it sounds more
like them. Also, when I read other people's stuff, I 'hear' them
(the characters) speak as I read, and sometimes it doesn't sound
quite right... which can be excused in fanfic, but not in ME's
case.
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> You´re complaining about the voices??
-- grifter, 10:51:36 02/14/02 Thu
What´s up with that? I had to watch BtVS up until now in
GERMAN! BAD german! Eeek! ;)
I can understand what you mean though, even though I didn´t
notice it. The language and voices are a big part of the whole
BtVS-experience, but by far not the biggest concern I have. It´s
actually quite a compliment for BtVS if the voices are problemo
numero uno!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I know *exactly* what you mean, Sol.
-- purplegrrl, 12:29:59 02/14/02 Thu
***That's how I write my fiction about these characters - I 'hear'
their voices in my head***
Exactly, Marie. I think that's how most of us wrote last summer's
experiment in group fanfic.
And I agree somewhat with Sol that the characters are losing their
distinctive voices. There were a number of things that bothered
me about "Older and Far Away" that I think Sol pointed
out fairly well. To me, Richard and Sophie seemed almost too deus
ex machina -- brought in to highlight the problems with the Scoobies,
like we don't know what they are. What would be amusing (at least
to me) is if we find out in the next episode that Richard and
Sophie really hit it off during the time they spent alone in the
kitchen and now they're dating (Xander could casually mention
it to Anya or something). It would redeem OaFA somewhat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> or even...!!! -- Solitude1056, 13:03:29
02/15/02 Fri
Sophie and Clem were dating - now *that* would be a hoot! ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> A philosopher who admires the pretty smoke as the
house burns down, thereby pins on a MOCK-ME sign. -- monkeypants
(translating his 1st post into philo-speak), 20:53:37 02/14/02
Thu
MONKEYPANTS' PRESS SECRETARY AMPLIFIES:
Monkeypants -- having tapes of every episode of BtVS
and having watched each twice -- believes the series
is now completely "un-coherent."
Shows are allowed to change. Change is good.
But it is possible for a given set of creative
individuals (who work on deadline, after all)
to completely lose the delicate balance
that makes a work of art (and BtVS has been that)
great.
Unlike junk/average TV, a TV work of art . . . is
very sensitive to incompetence.
A work of art monkeypants loved, now makes him cringe.
He noww watches it like a trainwreck.
HE BELIEVES: When "trainwrecks" are cheered, you
encourage more trainwrecking.
I.E., Praising BtVS as it is now, lowers the quality
of the world.
In such a circumstance, mockery is the only truly
philosophical response.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Nice try, mp -- Paracelsus, 08:35:06 02/15/02
Fri
It's odd that we never had the benefit of your observations during
the stage when you felt the show was a work of art (and BtVS has
been that).
Whether the quality of the show diminishes, plateaus, or increases
immeasurably has little effect on it's potential to induce philosophical
debate. That's why we're all here. Why are you here?
Forgive me if I suspect that your mission has more to do with
mocking those you feel are unworthy of the designation "philosopher"
than it does with honestly critiquing the show. If you'd been
here for any length of time you'd realize that there are few of
us with the temerity to claim such a designation. Do you claim
it?
And why so obviously avoid the leslie/Darby/Rahael "plothole"
discussion?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re:The unresolved- spoilers for OaFA -- LeeAnn, 03:17:22
02/14/02 Thu
The worst thing about this episode was that it fluffed off the
beating like it was unimportant. Like it was nothing. No apology
necessary. No amends required. I found that very troubling. It
was like Beaten!Spike was an elephant in the parlor and Buffy
kept pretending it wasn't there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Seeing that's he's healed a bit, they probably had
that talk (apology?) between the episodes. -- Rob, 10:04:40 02/14/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Seeing that's he's healed a bit, they probably
had that talk (apology?) between the episodes. -- JM, 13:00:44
02/14/02 Thu
Actually ME has a tendency to do that quite a lot, and although
frustrating I kind of admire it artistically.
The ones that I noticed most, because I cared most, were a Giles/Buffy
reconciliation post "Helpless" and what happened when
Wes went back to work after "Billy." (Some others might
include the summer Buffy was dead. And what happened with Angel
between hearing the news and leaving for Sri Lanka, what happened
when Willow came out to her parents.) I think it's interesting
that ME builds up these huge emotional moments and then occassionally
steps away and only lets us judge them by their aftermath.
By the Zeppo, Buffy and Giles had reconciled and never spoke of
the Cruciamentum again. But whatever conversation got from that
night to the next week is reflected in the subtly changed power
dynamic in the relationship and in Giles slightly detached attitude
that comes to the fore when Wesley shows up. After the traumatic
events and ending of Billy on Angel, I was shocked to rejoin the
action in the next ep, several weeks down the line (I assume)
with only an off-hand mention of the events and no discussion
of their effects. But I recently rewatched the first six eps of
the season and AD projects a noticeably different demeanor. Early
season three Wes is much more forceful, and at the same time,
the most comfortable we've ever seen him in his own skin. After
the events in Billy for a number of episodes, he is more subdued,
less forceful. He's not uncertain of his position a la Belonging,
but a certain focus that he had earlier in the season is clearly
missing, he is as often reacting to Angel's as leading himself.
I just think that it's an interesting way of handling some of
the emotional bang ups in the story line. Instead of milking every
situation to the dramatic hilt, they wind us to an emotional pitch
and then the next week change the tune. Not everything receives
a concrete, visible resolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I saw a little Spike bitterness. Doubt Buffy
apologized. -- Traveler, 13:42:26 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> just wanted to add my support... -- Rochefort,
17:04:37 02/14/02 Thu
I of course agree with all you've said. I'd been trying and trying
and looking for various specific writers to blame but the show
has just lost it's central genius who has always made what was
a cute idea into a brilliant and intricate myth. This episode,
on the heals of the last four or so, just clinched it for me.
AND i miss Giles too.
Check out a post below where someone (I can't remember who) says
that this episode was in fact a metaphor from the writing staff
directly to Joss. Basically, "YOU'VE ABANDONED YOUR CHILDREN!
COME HOME! BE WITH US! We act like snotty one dimensional choppy
15 year olds when you're gone!"
Oh and to further back up the few of us on this board who are
getting increasingly unsettled, the people on this board are die
hard Buffy loving fiends. I've never seen critism of the show
on this board get anything but boo'd down. This is the first time
I've seen an actual "Something is wrong" force rallied
and get some support.
I think Solitude's question is the important one: When is Joss
writing another episode? : (
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> oh, so now you're saying... -- anom,
20:04:27 02/14/02 Thu
I also said Dawn was a metaphor for the show itself, & also for
us fans ('cuz we want Joss back too!). But:
"...the people on this board are die hard Buffy loving fiends."
You mean it's Spike who's a metaphor for the fans? @>[
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> touche. well said. : ) --
Rochefort, 13:54:42 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Joss' absence -- Rahael, 06:16:05
02/15/02 Fri
Just an interesting snippet I came across yesterday, in , I think
a Drew Greenberg interview or some such.
That powerful scene in Dead Things where Buffy beats up Spike.
Apparently in the original version, Spike's face was terribly
disfigured. Much more blood, much more brutality. The reason why
it was toned down was because Joss decided against it. Seems to
signify a pretty hands on presence if he steps in on such a minor
detail.
As for the whole 'Something is wrong' or 'Buffy is always wonderful',
well, its pretty obvious I usually fall into the latter camp.
But must we have camps? Surely the whole point of this board is
that we have civilised and intelligent discourse where people
actually listen to others' opinions and change their minds occasionally?
Must we conduct a week by week campaign where we are on opposite
platforms?
Though I may disagree with people, I am always interested in what
they have to say. I like arguing! I don't read posts and think,
anti Buffy or pro Buffy Season 6, but Well argued and funny, or
boring and banal. I hope no one on the board actually boos people
down whatever their opinion. That would just fall under the secondary
category of posts.
When I do post, I only really post to say what I thought was interesting.
I never really do so to say that the ep was boring or badly done,
simply because I can't write posts on the second variety in an
interesting or original way. Simple as that. How many poems could
I quote to describe the banality of an episode?
Anyway, I enjoy Buffy on many levels. Episodes like OMWF, Restless,
Dead Things, Hush, Innocense, The Gift I enjoy in a different
way to other eps. Buffy is like a large banquet, with many different
dishes.
As for the Season 6 is derailed line of thought, that's simply
something I can't comment on yet. What inclines me to the 'wait
and see, it'll be ok' approach is the fact that I loved Season
4, which seems be widely disliked. I wasn't on the internet at
the time, which is a relief, because I wouldn't have enjoyed it
as much when I did see it (in a two day binge when the box set
came out).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Go, Rufus! Your posts often
save me so much typing! -- Marie, 06:28:30 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks Marcie!! -- Rahael,
06:37:55 02/15/02 Fri
Aha! Chocolates all round!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Gee, it's nice
to be blamed for good things I didn't do.....:):):) -- Rufus,
07:14:51 02/15/02 Fri
I'll take chocolate anyway I can get it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! So sorry!
Bad me! Retires to corner to contemplate her badness! -- Marie,
08:11:54 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Empire of the Sun -- Sophist, 21:15:24 02/13/02 Wed
At the end of the book:
"For all their affection for him, they seemed older and far
away." Refers to his parents.
Trouble is, I haven't read the book. What's the metaphor here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Empire of the Sun -- Iphi, 00:53:35 02/14/02 Thu
It's about growing up in difficult circumstances, without parents.
It refers to the parents of the boy Jim, which is the main character
of the book.
He has to survive when he gets separated from his parents (I think
in Japan during WWII).
The sentence is actually the last sentence of the book, after
he is reunited with his parents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Empire of the Sun -- matching mole, 06:12:42 02/14/02
Thu
I haven't seen OaFA yet and it's been years since I read Empire
of the Sun but I have read the majority of J.G. Ballard's fiction.
A consistent theme in his work is the psychologically fulfilling
properties of disaster (the other book of his that has been filmed
is 'Crash'). Characters that resist disaster and try to regain
some sort of 'normal' life are portrayed as missing the point.
The 'hero' turns his back on them and embraces the disaster reaching
fulfillment even if it may mean imminent physical destruction.
My interpretation of the last line of Empire of the Sun would
be that while Jim's parents experienced the internment as an ordeal
to be survived, Jim experienced it as psychologically liberating.
Hence they were 'far away'. But as I said my memory of the book
is a little vague and is highly influenced by statements of Ballard's
that I've read about his actual (as opposed to fictionalized)
experiences in China during WW II.
I'll have to wait and see OaFA to see if I see a connection. Anyone
else?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Empire of the Sun -- alcibiades, 11:10:08
02/14/02 Thu
It's the reconciliation scene between Jim and his parents after
Jim has spent the war interred in a Japanese prisoner of war camp
in China, away from his parents. His mother lost hold of his hand,
and thus lost hold of him while they were evacuating from China
at the beginning of the war.
It's the most moving scene in the movie.
He's spent the interim period learning how to survive among an
adult population i
No one has responsibility for him, he can't rely on anyone adult.
He learns what people are like in terrible, extreme circumstances.
It's like a coming of age story for a Holocaust child, only a
little less extreme.
When Jim and his parents reconcile post his resurrection from
what they must have thought was his death, you feel so intensely
that his parents will never surmount the divide between who he
is now and what he has learned. And that it will be impossible
for him to live the kind of life they have in mind for him --
privileged British boarding schools
and all that. The horror and the reality that he has lived through
-- with no niceties covering them up, shielding them, masking
them -- is just too intense and overwhelming for him to be able
to fit back into his social niche.
And given his future notorious career, that appears to have been
true.
Of course, he did write the book as an adult, and hindsight is
20-20. It probably was not at all clear to him as a child. Just
as it is not at all clear to Buffy now.
There's a link to an article about Ballard in Spike Magazine,
which I had never heard of, but apparently has nothing to do with
BTVS. And it is pretty clear from Ballard's comments that the
emotional chaos we've been seeing ever since Smashed, with everyone
imploding, and all the alienation and violent behaviour has been
influenced, or is at least running parallel, to Ballard's vision
of human existence.
http://www.spikemagazine.com/0899ballard.htm
alcibiades
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Ballard and Buffy -- matching mole, 12:50:24
02/14/02 Thu
Well I'm glad that someone else mentioned this first! After writing
my first post in this thread earlier today I was really struck
by how Ballardesque a lot of season 6 seems. Episode titles (Smashed
and Wrecked), an actual car accident as a pivotal (and apparently
generally positive in a cathartic way) event, emotionally disconnected
people for whom the inner landscape has surpassed the external
world in importance. Even the general atmosphere of many of the
episodes - sort of dreamy, disconnected, and decidedly non-urgent
are reminiscent of Ballard. Not that I'm implying a conscious
connection, just, as alcibiades said, a parallel. And, from my
point of view, a most unexpected one.
I found the Spike article very interesting, especially to compare
with Ballard's comments of about twenty years earlier. He seems
to view his WW II experiences much less positively now (meaning
when the article was written which was about three years ago)
than he did then. I'll definitely have to go back and reread Empire
of the Sun at some point which is much less clear in my mind than
many of his works from the 60s and 70s.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> A light bulb goes on. Thanks. -- Sophist,
13:01:12 02/14/02 Thu
Thank you very much for this post and the one above about B/S,
which was very insightful.
I assumed the reference to Empire was intended to show us Dawn's
state of mind, coming as it did in Dawn's english class and in
an ep in which her state of mind was the central issue. Your summary
makes it pretty clear that the writers had Buffy in mind (which
maybe should have been obvious since it was *her* birthday).
The transition from real life to concentration camp seems like
a reasonable analogy to heaven/earth. I'd like to see a full analysis
of the season arc from someone who has read Empire. Hint. Hint.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Empire of the Sun -- Lupe, 18:44:07 02/14/02 Thu
"It's about growing up in difficult circumstances, without
parents.
It refers to the parents of the boy Jim, which is the main character
of the book.
He has to survive when he gets separated from his parents (I think
in Japan during WWII).
The sentence is actually the last sentence of the book, after
he is reunited with his parents."
Major disclaimer: I've never read Empire of the Sun, but that
little detail isn't going to stop me from speculation, spurred
by the description above!
My thought is this: that in a figurative sense, Buffy is being
"reunited" with her parents (specifically Joyce). I
observed some parallels between Dawn's secret being revealed,
and Buffy's own secret as the Slayer being discovered by Joyce
back in Becoming Part II. (I wrote some about this under the "black
leather coat" thread, so I'll try not to be too repetitive).
In OAFA, Buffy now assumes the role of caretaker. There is the
same initial denial by both Joyce to Buffy and Buffy to Dawn.
But what's interesting is how the role of the house-as-metaphor
has a different outcome. In Joyce and Buffy's encounter, Joyce
forbids Buffy to leave (resonate, much?), but she is powerless
to keep Buffy in the house. Buffy leaves (and ultimately leaves
for the whole summer in LA - the first of Buffy's disappearing
acts), with Joyce telling her to not come back. Fast forward to
Dawn and Buffy's encounter. First, thanks to the vengeance Demon,
we have Dawn getting Joyce's wish: Buffy is forbidden to leave
and this time Buffy really can't walk out that door. But after
the wish is voided, we see everyone trailing out of the house
with relief, but NOT Buffy. Dawn and Buffy's encounter is ended
with Buffy closing the door of the house, leaving them together
inside. How older and further away is Buffy from when she was
on the other side of this situation with her mom? Buffy is taking
on the mother role for Dawn in this episode in a more affirming
way than we've seen for some time. And in some ways, I feel she
has even handled herself with more grace than her own mom. Perhaps
she can remember just how painful it is to have had a secret that
you really wished someone would love or care enough about you
to have noticed. Joyce ignored the blood stains and weird occurances
for two years: Buffy missed signals of trouble from Dawn, too,
but maybe she's going to step up to the challenge from here.
It's not very clearly thought out, but perhaps someone could take
it a little further?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Empire of the Sun -- Rufus, 01:27:24 02/15/02
Fri
I never read the book either but watched the movie with Christian
Bale(actors name I think).
It's good to remind everyone that Dawn is a girl who lost her
whole family, I even think the father, as he bailed emotionally
a long time ago. Also consider the fact that Dawn is lonely, alone,
frightened, so she does something that gives her a rush and the
hope that someone will discover her capacity to do something bad.
The tags left on just illustrate how the thefts had nothing to
do with wanting the items for personal use as much as a series
of trophies that remind her that on one level she is real. When
Buffy was brought back she acted more impersonal than the Buffybot,
only wrapped up in her pain of coping with her return. Dawn personalized
that to mean that Buffy rejected specifically her. The fear, panic
that she would again be left alone should remind us just how new
Dawn is to this reality, the only reality that could make her
understand the concept of lonliness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Empire of the Sun -- Rattletrap, 07:53:55
02/15/02 Fri
Good point, Rufus. I posted a similar thought farther down the
board, but I think it's buried in archives now, so I'll reiterate:
Dawn's life has all of the problems of being the slayer, but few
of the benefits. She faces the constant threat of death, kidnapping,
and injury from supernatural forces that her older sister does,
but lacks the superior strength, healing, and reflexes to protect
herself. She also carries this deep, dark, secret knowledge about
what really goes on on the world that she can never really share
with her friends and classmates. She can't really give a fully
honest answer to the "What did you do last weekend?"
question that opens so many of our conversations. Without honesty
on this most basic level, it is difficult to build stable and
lasting friendships, as Buffy learned long ago. Dawn's situation
is compounded because she is still not really accepted as an insider
in the Scooby Gang, as OaFA so poignatly proved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OT: Happy Birthday d'H!! -- ????? (I wonder who!), 04:53:49 02/14/02
Thu
Soul's joy, now I am gone,
And you alone,
-Which cannot be,
Since I must leave myself with thee,
And carry thee with me-
Yet when unto our eyes
Absence denies
Each other's sight,
And makes to us a constant night,
When others change to light ;
O give no way to grief,
But let belief
Of mutual love
This wonder to the vulgar prove,
Our bodies, not we move.
Let not thy wit beweep
Words but sense deep ;
For when we miss
By distance our hope's joining bliss,
Even then our souls shall kiss ;
Fools have no means to meet,
But by their feet ;
Why should our clay
Over our spirits so much sway,
To tie us to that way?
O give no way to grief,
But let belief
Of mutual love
This wonder to the vulgar prove,
Our bodies, not we move.
Best of dearest, be my valentine!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Methinks I lied all winter, when I swore / My love was infinite,
if spring make it more. -- d'Herblay, 06:09:07 02/14/02 Thu
Always your valentine . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Awww! Happy Birthday! And try not to pine away! --
Marie, 06:19:34 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Happy Birthday to you Herb, and Happy Valentines day
to everyone....:):):) -- Rufus, 07:48:03 02/14/02 Thu
Who can knock a day celebrated with lots of chocolate...;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> dang! didn't i tell you... -- anom, 12:16:01 02/14/02
Thu
...these two were all sweet together? ...poetry & everything....
Happy birthday, d'Herblay.
Happy Valentine's Day, Rahael & d'Herblay.
And happy Valentine's Day to all...all those who want it, anyway...you
know who you are/n't....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ditto all that... -- darrenK, 12:47:57 02/14/02
Thu
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Now that was nice! :-) -- OnM, 07:44:39 02/14/02 Thu
Many gracious more years to you, d'Herb!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Happy Birthday! -- Vickie, 08:08:42 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ah. So you two didn't hit if off? ;o) -- dubdub, 08:20:41
02/14/02 Thu
Just kidding, folks. Isn't it nice to have something to celebrate
on Valentine's Day (aside from d'H's birthday, of course!)?
All the best to both of you, and Happy Valentine's Day to everyone.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A Happy Birthday on Valentine's Day to a Real Sweetheart
-- CCat, 11:53:28 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Many happy returns of the day d'H -- matching mole, 13:30:42
02/14/02 Thu
and lots of chocolate for everyone! except dogs and presumably
by extension werewolves
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Happy Bithday! -- Kerri, 14:06:53 02/14/02 Thu
Much peace and happiness in the year ahead :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Happy Bithday! d'H & Valentine Wishes to All --
Brian, 14:55:52 02/14/02 Thu
You all make the old man of the board just smile and smile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Happy Happy HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!! -- Dedalus, 14:56:41 02/14/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Happy Birthday -- Kimberly, 15:23:27 02/14/02 Thu
Happy birthday to you, d'Herblay. And to all those who are celebrating,
Happy Valentine's Day.
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Gotta chime in with an "awww" and a "/very/
Happy Birthday," too! -- yuri, 22:54:50 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> To d'H -- Masq, 09:16:13 02/15/02 Fri
So sorry I forgot to wish you a happy birthday in chat yesterday!
I'm so muddled at the end of my work day....
So... Happy Birthday! : )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Enjoy your 30s, they're much more kewl. -- mundus, 10:33:09
02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the no interaction btw. Dawn and Spike in OaFA, I think
you guys are forgetting something... -- Rob, 06:45:54 02/14/02
Thu
Some people have said that they believe it is lack of character
continuity that had no interaction between Dawn and Spike, who
had developed a bond previously. But remember, that was before...Before
Buffy and Spike. Lately, Buffy has had no time for Dawn, mostly
because she has been boinking Spike. Therefore, Spike has had
no time for Dawn, either. I noticed a real change in his attitude
towards Dawn, ever since OMWF, when he said, "I hope you
burn...You and the little bit." He has cut himself off from
the Scoobs and Dawny even more since his relationship with Buffy
started. Yes, I'm sure he still feels protective over Dawn, but
at the moment he doesn't have time for her. His mind's taken up
with Buffy, as well as his time.
So I don't call it bad character continuity. I call it perfect
subtextual/psychological continuity.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> To add to that... -- Rob, 06:47:57 02/14/02 Thu
In many ways, Dawn symbolizes all the responsiblities, and real
life concerns that Spike has been trying to lure Buffy away from.
He could therefore view her as a threat to their relationship.
Just some more thoughts...
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: To add to that...also... -- Marie, 07:05:53 02/14/02
Thu
Spike took a great deal of responsibility for Dawn because of
the guilt he felt at not managing to save Buffy. Buffy is now
back. He's relaxed his vigilance. And, don't forget, Dawn is the
one who realised that Spike had a crush on Buffy ("Crush").
He might be concerned that she would guess that he and Buffy were
now more than friends if he was too much in her (Dawn's) company.
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Great remarks and to add to that ...(spoilers
for OAFA) -- truelove, 07:16:40 02/14/02 Thu
Once it was established that there was a bond betweeen Spike and
Dawn, it was neglected because they didn't feel that they had
to restate it.
We see it in "Wrecked" when Spike insists on finding
"the girl" and taking her to the hospital while Buffy
deals with Willow, and again in OAFA when Buffy tells Dawn, "Go
be with Spike".
But Dawn is growing up. She's not quite "Lil Bit" and
not quite more. Spike is keeping his distance because Dawn is
changing, he's involved with Buffy, and Dawn hasn't come to him
lately with any of her problems.
It will show up again though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> This all works, except -- Vickie, 08:06:00 02/14/02
Thu
I don't think Spike is worried that the others will find out.
I think he would like them all to know, so long as Buffy doesn't
think he revealed it (because then she would have to stake him).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: This all works, except -- Marie, 08:33:58
02/14/02 Thu
Hmmm... well, you could look at it that he knows Buffy doesn't
want to tell them, so he's biding his time and staying away from
Dawn, just in case. I'd think he'll find a way to let the cat
out of the bag, if necessary, but actually is hoping, and wants,
Buffy to tell everyone, thus proving her love for him. Does that
make sense?
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Sure it does...With Spikey, there
are always complex, underlying psychological mishmashes of reason!
-- Rob, 09:52:00 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: No interaction btw. Dawn and Spike in OaFA - go back
to the Bronze -- Lijdrec, 07:23:10 02/14/02 Thu
The scene in the Bronze between Buffy and Spike reminded me of
the attitude of some men towards their girlfriends/wives to dominate
and isolate them from all outsiders. Spike was attempting to isolate
Buffy from her friends and her family - Dawn. It seemed an attempt
that was a reversal of Spike's character development, but it was
a reminder of his true nature.
Unlike the norm though, Spike is using sex as his weapon of isolationism
because it is Buffy's one way to 'feel alive'. He was attacking
Buffy's emotional stability, using sex to assert that feeling
in her and then using that feeling with him to isolate her from
her friends and her family - Dawn.
It is no wonder that Buffy would lash out at him as she did at
the Police station. And even here Spike used her emotional instability
to his advantage by relenting to the beating that she gives him
and using it to try to convince her that she is wrong, dark, bad,
etc. and in love with him. Buffy was put through an emotional
wringer in DT - yes, by the Troika - but Spike was the main instigator
of the torment. It is rather amazing that she recovered her composer
for OaFA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: No interaction btw. Except that Dawn wasn't at
the Bronze. -- truelove, 08:18:47 02/14/02 Thu
Buffy and Spike weren't thinking of Dawn at all.
Nor was she at the Bronze.
That's the point. She's on the back burner.
No one was thinking about her.
And most lovers want to come before their mate's friends.
In "Spiral" he refers to them as a family --
"You, me and lil sis". He wants the whole package.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> He did want "the whole package," but
now he actually has Buffy...and wants her to himself. -- Rob,
09:53:22 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: He did want "the whole package,"
but now he actually has Buffy...and wants her to himself. -- alcibiades,
10:55:13 02/14/02 Thu
Nah. That was the Bronze. I think he realized he was emphasizing
the wrong message and so has changed his approach. In OaFA, Buffy
still wants to isolate their relationship in his crypt (obvious
liminal space), he's the one insisting on normalizing their relationship
in Buffy's house, out with her friends.
He tried it before in Gone, when he came to her house in the morning
in the bright light of day. She's the one relegating their relationship
to the dark, shadowy liminal places. Spike wants normalcy, she's
the one can't deal with being out.
Even in OaFA, their one on one meetings are all in the hallways
or entrance foyers, the liminal spaces of the house.
Besides, it's now pretty clear that Joss is using Empire of the
Sun, and the portrayal of the extremely alienated Jim as the Buffy
template for Season 6. The point is her experiences (not Spike,
he was NOT included in the resurrection spell because he might
have objected) have completely isolated her from her friends.
In the Bronze scene, Buffy was alone up there in the liminal space
gazing down feeling completely and utterly alienated from her
friends, not belonging, before ever Spike approached her. All
he did was articulate exactly what she was feeling. And he was
right. That is why she goes to him.
As Drac says to Buffy: You know why you can't resist? Because
you don't want to.
The irony is that Willow couldn't bear losing Buffy whom she loves
(Willow pattern we have seen in Something Blue and Tabula Rasa);
she has brought her back, but since magic always has consequences,
it's permanently altered their relationship. That's the price
that has to be paid. And it has nothing to do with Spike. He's
not the one who bolluxed that up.
alcibiades
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Totally Agree -- Kevin, 12:36:59
02/14/02 Thu
I agree...
Spike wants a regular relationship with Buffy. He made that clear
in Gone when he threw her out of his crypt. She's the one who
has wanted to isolate the relationship from her friends and family.
Since she refuses to take the relationship into the light, as
it were, he joins her in the darkness upstairs at the Bronze.
He didn't draw her there, she placed herself there. He's just
working with what she'll give him.
I don't think Spike interacts with Dawn as much anymore, not because
he doesn't care about her, but because he knows Buffy won't tolerate
it while she's resolving her involvement with him. She's trying
to keep him away from the rest of her life right now and he doesn't
want to piss her off while they work it out. Every time Buffy's
given him the opportunity to help with Dawn he's jumped in without
hesitation to take care of her.
I think a lot of the time/attention issues with Dawn would help
be resolved if Buffy would normalize her relationship with Spike
so that they spent time together at her house around Dawn rather
than Buffy always going away to be with him and isolating both
herself and Spike from Dawn and the Scoobies. Dawn already accepts
Spike and he's shown himself to be loyal to her. Buffy's the one
with the issues of coming out with the relationship, not Spike.
Just my two sense...
Back to lurking now
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Interaction btw. Dawn and Spike counterproductive -- Ishkabibble,
14:06:47 02/14/02 Thu
Any interaction between Dawn and Spike (or anyone else) would
have diluted Dawn's belief that she is being abandoned. The writers
wanted to depict how she FEELS neglected, whether or not she actually
is being neglected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Great point -- Sophist, 14:32:03 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gift-Givers VS. Non-Gift-Givers -- RaChel, 06:56:19 02/14/02 Thu
Willow, Xander/Anya, Dawn: Gave gifts. Central characters.
Richard, Sophie, Clem: No gifts for Buffy. Fluff characters.
But what about Spike and Tara? Certainly they're central, so why
no gifts? Well, Spike was a Beer Bringer, so maybe that counts
for something. And Tara made food and gave the gift of being a
supportive friend. Nah, that's lame. I want to see Spike's and
Tara's gifts!! Maybe, since Buffy gave her life to save the world
and was resurrected, she's like Jesus and baby Jesus only rec'd
three gifts from the Magi at his birthday. Hmmm...that's pretty
lame, too.
p.s. -- Oh, I get it...Spike/Tara interaction was a gift to the
viewer. Buffy will just have to enjoy her box, massager, and stolen
leather coat.
Rachel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Or Spike was waiting until they were alone to give her his
present! -- Marie, 07:07:48 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> i think he tried to, but tara walked in on them....
-- anom, 20:10:18 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Gift-Givers VS. Non-Gift-Givers -- Vickie, 09:41:26
02/14/02 Thu
Didn't Tara have a package in her hand when she came into the
house? Maybe we just didn't see Buffy open it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yes, I believe she did... -- Rob, 10:00:26 02/14/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Well, an excuse to watch OaFA again! --
Rachel, 10:05:44 02/14/02 Thu
I've said it before and I'll say it again, for me the Slayer is
in the details. I like to re-watch episodes by letting the dialogue
just wash over me while I focus on props, scenery, body language,
etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> As if you needed an excuse! ;o) -- Rob,
10:42:56 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sophie brought something. -- nay, 12:16:00 02/14/02 Thu
she had a gift bag in her hand when she came in or was that just
her perse?
Now your going to make me rewatch it just for that scene. Ohhh
drat! (playful sarcasm) :)
~nay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Gift-Givers VS. Non-Gift-Givers -- AZ, 06:37:38 02/15/02
Fri
Newbie here, but have been lurking for a bit.
In regards to what Spike gave Buffy for her birthday, I would
argue that he gave her something so important *last* week that
another gift would have been completely redundant.
If Spike had not taken that beating in the alley last week, Buffy
would have walked into the police station before the policeman
got the phone call that the body was Katrina. Buffy would not
have made the connection between Katrina and Warren, and still
believing herself guilty of Katrina's death, she would have turned
herself in. Either the cops would have believed that she *did*
do it (and remember, Buffy has quite a history with the Sunnydale
PD of being a troubled and violent teenager), or they would have
assumed she was insane when she started talking to them about
the demons and the time distortions in the woods. Either way,
I suspect Buffy would not have been free to celebrate her birthday
with the gang at all - either a jail cell or a psychiatric hospital
would most likely have been in her future.
So I think that what Spike gave Buffy was her freedom - and he
really *didn't* need to give her anything else.
Furthermore, of course, I doubt Buffy would have accepted any
kind of personal gift from him, since she doesn't count him as
a "friend" (vide the speech she gave him in the hallway
about being insane to think he could hang out with her "friends"
- obviously he does not fit in that category) and she will not
acknowledge him as her lover.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Gift-Givers VS. Non-Gift-Givers -- pagangodess,
07:02:40 02/15/02 Fri
I'm going to beat Wisewoman to the punch and welcome you to this
board.
Great post, AZ! Although, I must say that, in light of the 'lighter
incident' (lighter, as in the thing that gives flame to light
up a cigarette), Buffy may not have accepted a personal gift from
Spike, she would have kept it just like she did the lighter (well,
until Spike took in back).
Keep posting
pagan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> can't treat these things like real life (spoilers
for dead things, wrecked) -- anom, 11:48:38 02/15/02 Fri
"If Spike had not taken that beating in the alley last week,
Buffy would have walked into the police station before the policeman
got the phone call that the body was Katrina."
Someone wrote the same thing earlier, but it was archived before
I could reply: The only reason the timing worked out that way
is that it was in the script.
Within the world of the show, Spike had no way to know how long
to delay Buffy's entering the police station--he didn't even think
they'd find Katrina's body! He didn't have much choice about how
long she'd hit him before she walked away, either. So it certainly
wasn't intended as a gift, & he probably still doesn't know what
happened in the police station.
In the real world, writers do this kind of thing all the time.
Coincidence abounds in scripts. If anything, the BtVS writers
provide reasons for timing more often than most, but they still
rely on coincidence much of the time, for the good or ill of the
characters. Think of Dawn overhearing just the wrong part of Buffy
& Joyce's conversation about her reaction to finding out she was
the Key, or how Buffy & Spike just happened to be close enough
to hear her scream when the demon attacked her & Willow in Wrecked
(even though they were looking for her). The writer needed to
time the cop's conversation so Buffy would hear just the right
info at just the right time, but the events around it could have
been written in many different ways. I wouldn't credit Spike for
the way the writer chose to set it up.
Gifts : what they brough with them in the house (spoilers from
OAFA) -- Etrangere, 14:10:53 02/14/02 Thu
"If we can come up with things that Jim lost during his years
in Shangai and things he gained"
Age has already made a clever analysis of the different meanings
of what Dawn gave to Buffy and what Xander did. I want to add
a few more things about that : the chest is about Buffy-as-the-slayer,
providing protection to Xander. The is about Buffy-the-person,
her appearance. It's also very armor-like. Does Dawn want to provide
protection to Buffy ?
Spike brought beer, I think this is related to Spike being the
"King of Cups" / King of Hearts. Spike can only brough
his heart to Buffy :)
But in this episode, the people they brough to the party is more
important than the actual gifts they brough to Buffy.
Xander & Anya brought Richard, so as to make Buffy's life similar
to theirs. (Anya said, so as we can have something to talk about)
They imposed the whole situation to Buffy without concerting with
her. This episode also showed they were concient of the gap that's
been created between them and the Scooby Gang. Also, what Anya
said (we're just sitting here, doing nothing) is a very good description
of what they've been doing this season :)
Buffy brought Sophie, and Spike brought Clement aka Clem. And
there I say wow ! Buffy brough Wisdom and Spike brought Mercy
and Gentelness (ethymological meaning of this names) ? That's
interresting !
Something that strikes me with it, is also that it's kinda the
reverse of what their role should be. Spike used to be the Truthteller
(Wisdom), and Buffy as the White Hat should be the one bringing
Mercy.
We had Dead Things ending with Buffy pleading to Tara not to forgive
her, and Spike proves with that that he has already forgived her.
Sophie makes me also thing of the Gnostic Myth about Sophia. That
Archonte has fallen into the material Earth because she was curious
/ flawed and thus gave mankind it's divine spark or soul. Isn't
this similar to the position of Buffy ripped from Heaven to be
prisonned on human flesh ?
If Spike brings forgiveness to Buffy who so dearly need it (since
she can't forgive herself anything), does Buffy brings Spike the
moral wisdom / conscience / soul that he lack as a vampire ?
Other thoughs ?
And can we say they lost somethin' ? (regarding the quote)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Good observations! -- Traveler, 14:17:34 02/14/02 Thu
I love the symbolism that you've found. If I may nitpick, you
might want to polish spelling and formating a bit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> For spelling, I'm french, sorry; I'll try to make
effort for the formating, thanks :) -- Etrangere, 14:55:37 02/14/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Very interesting, thanks. -- yez, 14:21:16 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Very interesting, especially about the names! -- Dyna, 15:35:16
02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Gifts : what they brough with them in the house (spoilers
from OAFA) -- Terrapin, 15:50:24 02/14/02 Thu
Don't forget Willow's gift!!!!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Oooopsies -- Etrangere, 01:13:21 02/15/02 Fri
How could I have forgotten it ?
Thanks for reminding me it :)
Willow's gift is about release of Buffy-the-Slayer's job. Does
Willow want Buffy to be there to help and protect them (as the
resurection from Bargaining means) or does she want to be the
one saving the day ? (as in Fear, Itself) I think that's a clue
Willow hasn't giving up the idea of being Super-Willow; except
she's more ready to rely on technology for it.
As for the obvious sexual implications of the gift, I think they
were more to get the Spike's raising-of-an-eyebrow. I think. As
Xander said, I don't think Willow thinks about Buffy in that way
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Gifts spoilers for season 6 toOAFA Arc speculation.
-- Age, 18:15:52 02/14/02 Thu
Yes, good observations: using the gifts to suggest the human relationships;
then carrying that over to the people. It presents us in a symbolic
way what each person brings in terms of what's invisible to see,
the ideas they carry about themselves or desires. There's certainly
contained within the choice of gifts the idea of the human meaning
being more important than the gift itself.
These writers seem to understand and take the opportunity to create
meaning; and, if you don't follow through on metaphor rigorously
a meaning different from the one intended could be made.
I am not familiar with the gnostic myth of Sophia, but from what
you say it sounds similar. There is Buffy falling from heaven
to a hell, to the world of darkness, it having been unlocked by
the key. (Your comments about the Key in the thread below show
the complexity of this metaphor.) If Whedon has equated coming
to life(literally done by the magic of the resurrection spell)
with taking responsibility for ones whole self and becoming an
adult, an authority unto oneself, then Buffy as Sophia has been
the catalyst for the Scoobies having to grow up as they pay the
price for bringing her out of childhood heaven and into the world
of knowledge(repressed or otherwise): if she is not allowed to
stay in childhood heaven, then they too must face the darkness
of themselves and grow up also. She has been the spark, the little
twinkle of a star that has begun this burning process of growing
up by descending from the heavens, now Older and Far Away from
the stars of childhood.
The people that Buffy and Spike bring may point to what the other
may need; they may also indicate where they are now in the sense
that Spike has forgiven Buffy, and Buffy has sought out Tara.
The two aspects of Sophie's name may work together: the fall brings
knowledge and wisdom. Caroline(sorry, I stole another one of your
ideas) suggested that Spike and Anya have been ripped out of their
own versions of heaven by being chipped and made human. For a
vampire who bases his heaven on power and predation, the fall
would bring him to mercy, clemency. For a human being whose heaven
is based on innocence/repression, the fall would bring her to
knowledge/wisdom as Buffy's desire not to be forgiven indicates,
ie she knows something about herself. I'm not sure of this; perhaps
Caroline could expand on her ideas and include Anya in this.
Your comment about Sophia's curiosity reminded me obviously about
the cat and curiosity killing it. Buffy has been wearing the picture
of a large black predatory cat on her tops. Having opened the
door to the dark world, this world may be explored; the cat representing
what's to be found in this dark world then is killed in the sense
that it is accepted as oneself. It is not seen as separate in
the same way that Willow's addiction is not her enemy, but an
aspect of herself she is learning to manage. I'm not sure if this
is what's happening; it remains to be seen.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> More though about Clemency vs. Vengeance : Tara & Halfreck
-- Etrangere, 05:30:12 02/15/02 Fri
Thanks for your comments, I hadn't catch the cat thing, that's
interesting :)
I just wanted to add, about the whole Clemancy / Forgiveness thing
that the theme is found other places in the episode with the discussion
of Tara and Anya about Willow and offcourse Halfreck as a Vengeance-or-Justice
Demon.
When Tara says "You don't make people do what they do not
want to do" to defend Willow, she defends the one that made
her do what she didn't want to do, using magic to manipulate her.
Again, Tara is a figure of compassion without though of vengeance.
With that she's put in opposition with Halfreck, who claims to
be a Justice Demon, and says they deserve what happened to us.
Does justice means that we should be punished for past wrong ?
Or helped to overcome what makes us do wrong ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Great point! -- Sophist, 08:45:57 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Karma and Vengeance. Spoilers for B S5,6
and A S2,3. to Present. -- Age, 20:38:23 02/15/02 Fri
Whedon may be using Holtz on 'Angel' to make a similar point.
He is the vengeance 'demon' come to make Angel pay for his past.
Perhaps Holtz is blaming Angel alone for what happened to his
family when it may have been his obsession with catching A and
D that not only gave the two vamps the idea to hurt him through
his family, but in fact left his wife and daughter vulnerable
and open to their attack. I'm not excusing what Angelus and Darla
did, but Darla's paid the price by taking responsibility for what
she became and by doing something about it through the self sacrifice,
ie she became an adult and dealt with her dark side; and, Angel
has been in hell himself.
How is destroying Angel's family(if this is Holtz's intention)
going to do justice to the memory of the family he lost? Is it
that just as Buffy has to forgive herself for whatever she feels
she's done wrong, Holtz has to get to the point where he can forgive
himself, letting go of the vengeance which may be his way of keeping
himself from accepting his part in his wife's and daughter's deaths.
Like Warren of the three nerds, Holtz may not be taking his share
of the responsibility for the death of his family, running away
from it, putting it all onto Angel just as Warren is dumping his
complications onto Buffy, as other posters have pointed out.
Both series seem to be either exploring or using the consequences
of opening up to darkness as a way of dealing with loss: the Scoobies
did the resurrection spell to bring back back Buffy; Buffy killed
herself as a response to her mum's death; and Holtz made a pledge
with a demon to be ruthless in his vengeance.
The difference between the two series seems to be that Angel has
already faced(literally) his dark side in Pylea; just as Tara
had faced hers back in season five(another Caroline suggestion.)
Buffy's season five led to the opening to her darker side this
year; whereas it seems that it is Angel's karma from when he was
Angelus, his darker aspect, which is catching up with him.
It seems interesting that Angel goes to the buddhist monastery(to
suggest karma) in his opener to deal with Buffy's death, but ends
up fighting the demons in the monastery who have taken up refuge
there away from the world. He fights the urge then to give into
darkness as a way of dealing with loss, having already gone that
route before.(Thus the darkness aspect of the 'Buffy' arc is contained
in Holtz's vengeance. Note as I've said in other postings the
Buddha figures in 'Buffy' and 'Angel' in recent seasons.)
If we look at the story of the Buddha for a moment, it is related,
as is the Eden myth(alluded to in the 'Buffy' S6 opener) to the
idea of being ripped out of innocent heaven of a child(the ripping
out of a heaven is related to all the characters.) The prince
one day sees that there is suffering in the world, and must leave
the sanctuary of the palace in order to investigate the human
condition, leading to the enlightenment experience under the bodhi
tree. The ascetics at the time were trying to deny themselves,
purify themselves through abstinence; but the Buddha realized
this was a form of running away, a form of denial. He took food
and water. This may relate to Whedon's theme this year about taking
responsibility for the whole self, growing up and suffering as
a catalyst for wisdom.
The demons pretending to be monks in Angel's season opener have
done the opposite of what the Buddha did. He moved away from childhood
sanctuary; I think this is what Angel did also as symbolized by
his letting go of Buffy, his adolescent love: the movement this
arc in 'Angel' is towards adulthood as it is in 'Buffy.' This
movement is then confirmed by the one and only off camera meeting
of the two title characters after Buffy is resurrected. They burn
their bridges so to speak.
It's interesting to note in passing that earlier this season we
had the notion of hurting Angel through Cordelia, just as Angelus
hurt Holtz through his family.
How we deal with karma(if such a cosmic mechanism exists; 'Angel'
is fiction and can use any form of the supernatural as if it were
real), how we deal with karma changes how the karma will affect
us. It is not simply an eye for an eye. It is perhaps, getting
back to what you were saying, the opportunity to see what a person
has done wrong by experiencing the pain for him or herself. It
is not then simple vengeance, with the perpetrator deserving the
punishment, but an opportunity to learn. This then may be the
reason for Whedon's suggesting the concept of karma as the value
of gaining something through suffering as opposed to Holtz's simple
vengeance whose goal may be to punish and take away.
This relates also to what I have been saying about oppositional
thinking. The person is deemed bad and therefore judged worthy
of punishment. But, in karma the opportunity is to learn. There
aren't opposites, but just people with the opportunity to learn.
Even so called good karma will lead to suffering because attachment
to the good feeling of the riches will bring suffering.
As we are on the subject of buddhism, your excellent analysis
of season four above- (I saw it in terms of patriarchy with Adam
as patriarch of man and Riley as Christ restoring the true Faith/faith
in the church which is faith in oneself as authority, and missed
the Eden aspect completely. It's only recently that I realized
that the series is simply a set of heavens and hells based on
oppositional thinking)- made me think about the don't know mind
of zen buddhism. When you spoke about Adam you said that he couldn't
begin to be his own authority because he knew everything already.
Zen buddhism begins with not knowing, letting go of categories
and names.
Attachment to name and form gives us the falsehood that Dawn was
under believing she was simply a person unto herself; attachment
to emptiness gives us a falsehood that Dawn was under believing
herself only to be formless energy, the key. Oppositional thinking
would separate these two into real entities when in fact form
is emptiness and emptiness is form. But I'm sure if you are familiar
with yin yang symbols, you don't need a lesson in zen buddhism.
One last thing, have you analyzed Whedon's 'Alien Resurrection'
film yet?
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, Spoilers for Season 4 in above
too. -- Age, 20:39:55 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Karma and Vengeance. Spoilers for
B S5,6 and A S2,3. to Present. -- Etrangere, 05:59:47 02/16/02
Sat
Wow, very interresting, thanks for this thougths
I'm still in the beginning of S2 for Ats, so I haven't seen already
the events you're talking about, though I've heard about it. ME's
already shown with the Jenny Callendar and Enyo that wanting to
take revenge on Angel was very different to wanting justice, and
how revenge was destructive, only repeating the cycle of violence.
That's what you wrote made me think about.
Can't say I know much about zen boudhism, just got a very general
idea :) but as I said lower I like the way you think about the
desconstruction of oppositionnal thinking, it's a very interesting
way to see it, and certainly enlightening. I'm a student in sociology
/ anthropology and the first thing you have to learn for that
is not to think in term of occidental society / primitive societies
as two opposite things. That's what it makes me think about.
Whedon's made a Alien the Resurrection movie ? I though his script
wasn't accepted and that why he hates Caro & Jeunet because he
didn't like what they did with that movie ? (poor Whedon, probably
won't check and watch Amelie Poulain, then... oh, more french
bashing in BtVS :)
Or is the script he wrote available somewhere ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Alien Resurrection Spoilers
-- Age, 15:49:48 02/16/02 Sat
Yes, the cycle of violence.
Perhaps someone else can confirm if Joss Whedon wrote it. It looked
like his name in the movie's credits. It just seemed that the
Eden fall(re-creation) theme was covered in the movie, and the
alien(animal)/human duality, ie the whole person.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Alien Resurrection Spoilers
-- fresne, 08:43:26 02/17/02 Sun
Yes, he did write it. However, he feels that the director, actors,
etc. didn't read it/play it the way he had written it. There were,
shall we say a lot of cuts.
(http://www.planetavp.com/alienshive/amr/scripts/a4script.html)
Therefore, he hates the movie a burning passion.
Which is odd, because actually, I love the movie. Beyond Ripley+basketball=cool,
I love the whole mother, maiden, crone thing. With various female
characters shifting between roles. The replacement of Mother (the
computer) with Father (the computer). The whole concept of transformation.
Becoming what you weren't. Going beyond design. I could go on,
but really I would need to rewatch it with a pen and paper. It's
just such a dense chocolate slice of a movie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Gifts : what they brough with them in the house (spoilers
from OAFA) -- Rufus, 23:58:29 02/14/02 Thu
If Spike brings forgiveness to Buffy who so dearly need it (since
she can't forgive herself anything), does Buffy brings Spike the
moral wisdom / conscience / soul that he lack as a vampire ?
Oh, I liked your post very much. Gifts are seen as wrapped packages
with goodies inside, just as one would see at a birthday party,
but sometimes gifts come in different forms. There was much made
about Buffy needing to apologize to Spike for beating him, never
taking into consideration that he would already have found it
in himself to forgive her on the spot. I took note of the names
of the guests that Spike and Buffy brought and noticed also that
these people/demon were drawn to each other,eventually dancing
together making me think that wisdom is nothing without the ability
to be merciful. Also ironic that a demon could have a name and
disposition that matched it.
Then I would like to mention the sexual relationship that Buffy
and Spike have, it may not be the reason they are ultimately meant
to be together. They are opposites in every way...human/demon,vampire/vampire
slayer, male/female, souled/soulless, alive/undead....so what's
the point of their attraction? I think part of it may be that
the vampire is a person who is cursed. A curse is a...."An
appeal or prayer for evil or misfortune to befall someone or something.
The evil or misfortune that comes in or as if in response to such
an appeal: bewailed the curse of ill health". Meaning to
me that the vampire is the result of a wish similar to the ones
that keep the Vengeance/Justice demons so busy. The old one that
bit the human creating the vampire wanted the worst evil to happen
to the hated inheritor of this reality. The Slayer was the human
response to this evil wish.....but one that never defeats the
threat completely. So in a way both Vampire and Vampire Slayer
are victims of circumstance, innocent of any misdeed that would
cause such misfortune. Both destined for an unhappy end. Could
the attraction of Buffy and Spike have more happy consequences
than sex, or are they just two more victims of vengeance that
never ends?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Gifts : what they brough with them in the house
(spoilers from OAFA) -- Etrangere, 05:21:12 02/15/02 Fri
I certainly don't think it's all about sex. I believe it's all
about learning something & enlightment from each others. But I've
already wrote a three part analysis about that, and the whole
yin-and-yang pattern of their relation ship :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Gifts : what they brough with them in the
house (spoilers from OAFA) -- Rufus, 05:42:18 02/15/02 Fri
The sex part was part of a larger question about what happens
to people in situations not of their making. Both Buffy and Spike
were victims of something larger than them. They became part of
a battle that neither of them started. Are they fated to only
have this brief respite before starting the battle in earnest
again, or did this story have a point beyond the emotions of vengeance
that begat the Vampire and the Slayer. Are they only playing a
pre-destined part, or are they going to rewrite their lifescript?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Gifts : what they brough with them
in the house (spoilers from OAFA) -- Etrangere, 14:15:48 02/15/02
Fri
Interresting take
It's hard to guess what's destiny part in BtVS, because it's so
much more a theme of AtS, and it's difficult to separate the foreshadowing
from fate.
I think the best way to freedom is through knowledge, so you could
say that the enlightment they bring one to another is a bringer
of freedom, and with knowledge of herself, Buffy becomes free
from her Slayer's doom (die young) and Spike from his Vampire's
self (the whole redemptionist take) and that together they can
reach a unity / synthesis bringer of peace in this everlasting
fight of slayer and vampire.
Fray seems to indicate that Buffy would be the one ending the
eternal fight against demons.
This is mostly opinion, though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Gifts : what they brough with
them in the house (spoilers from OAFA) -- Rufus, 18:53:18 02/15/02
Fri
Fray seems to indicate that Buffy would be the one ending the
eternal fight against demons.
Regarding Fray, if a slayer removed all the demons, then how did
the lurks or vampires re-surface? So while I think that peace
can be achieved for a time, there's always something that will
ensure that war will again break out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> About Fray -- Etrangere, 06:04:18
02/16/02 Sat
Haven't gone farther than book 5 of Fray, but don't you think
it's interresting that it's twins, one male, one female, who are
the slayer together, and that one is a vampire ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: About Fray*******Spoilers
for Fray******** -- Rufus, 19:37:46 02/16/02 Sat
What I find the most facinating is that they split the power between
the two....the female gets the physical strength, the male the
dreams....also when her brother is turned into a vampire, he instincutally
knows to bite the "lurk" to become a vampire. Also the
"lurks" don't know what they are and it's the brother
that begins to organize them to "prepare the way for the
old ones"....Issue 5 is out next month, #7 in May, and the
final #8 is in July.
I also found that the origin of the slayer was interesting. The
Watchers and the slayers are linked in that it was the ancestors
of the Watchers that did the original spell to create the Slayer..and
that after the demons were banished from this reality all the
Watchers slowly went insane. I find that all so ironic given that
whoever the slayer was that banished the magics and demons from
this reality couldn't have known that man would have screwed it
all up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Yin Yang Slayer/Vampire. -- Age, 20:01:16
02/15/02 Fri
Sorry, couldn't resist the opportunity to repeat this:
The basic metaphor of the series is a yin yang:
the slayer as female holds the phallic symbol to show she's not
entirely devoid of masculine characteristics, and the vampire
must guard his heart in order to emphasize that despite the repression
of what the heart represents, the vampire is not entirely devoid
of the feminine either. Or put another way, Buffy has power that
is usually attributed to the male; while the vampire has the weakness
usually attributed to the female in oppositional thinking based
on male dominance.
Deconstruction of oppositional thinking.
I would like to read your yin yang posting analysis of Spike and
Buffy.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Yin Yang Slayer/Vampire. -- Etrangere,
05:13:07 02/16/02 Sat
Yeah, I like the way you think about this, Age. Sometimes I have
trouble following your point, but it's always very interresting
symbolism and rich though to ponder.
I had posted the thing about B/S here some time ago but it's somwhere
in the no man's land before archive.
It's still on the Big Bad board so you can see it there, with
added though about Dead Things : http://pub19.ezboard.com/fjmdotcomrefugeeboardfrm5.showMessage?topicID=67.topic
I also do think the "put some ice on it" commentary
by Tara of OAFA can be include in the whole Fire & Ice metaphora
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> A thought provoking essay. Thanks.
-- Traveler, 15:04:01 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll-Call! Season Six--Love it or Hate it? -- Rob, 10:26:07 02/15/02
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'm in the "Love it" camp (with some mild reservations
about certain areas) -- Rob, 10:27:17 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Love it, Hate it, Love it, Hate it, Love it, Hate
it. -- LeeAnn, 05:25:07 02/16/02 Sat
It's been great.
It stinks to high heaven.
I can hardly wait for the next episode.
I can hardly stop myself from puking during some of them.
Some of the writers have done great episodes.
Other writers have completely ignored previous events and character
developments.
I wanna kiss Marti Noxon for Spuffy love and Naked!Spike.
I wanna have DeKnight's baby for Dead Things.
I wanna have a hit put on Marti for allowing the writer of OaFA
to pretend the alley scene had no major significance and having
Buffy and Spike all firty.
Whiplassssh!! Season 6! Needing air bags now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Loving it (details within) -- Len, 10:30:11 02/15/02 Fri
Actually, I'm thinking on a character level it's one of the STRONGER
seasons. We're seeing all of the Scoobs dealing with issues that
they haven't dealt with in the series.
You may quible over whether you LIKE what's happening to the Scoobs,
but I don't think you can say it's anything we've seen before.
The issues that Buffy and Willow are grappling with are wholly
consistent with the characters and take them places we have not
seen them go. The way Joss has weaved all of the plot threeads
into the overall theme of dealing with young adult issues has
bene superb.
Clearly we're seeing characters who have grown since seasons 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5 (whether or not you like the way they've grown).
And where they'll end up really is a question for genuine speculation.
Look at the recent "Dead Things." Would you ever have
guessed that we would see a scene like the one at the end of it
based on where Buffy was in Season 3? It is not clear that when
the dust clears on s6, we'll be back to the same old thing. For
a show to accomplish this in the SIXTH season - when other shows
are usually dying and recycling old plots, is magnificent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Love it -- Sarah, 10:40:15 02/15/02 Fri
I'm so much more involved this season. And for the first time
I'm really empathizing with Buffy. I used to watch primarily for
the other characters, and would get fed up with Buffy's self-involved
attitude, but this season I really feel for her. The Willow-addict
stuff is kind of lame, but I choose to believe that they're going
somewhere with it, and there will be a big payoff down the road.
If this doesn't happen, talk to me at the end of the season. The
only weak point for me is Dawn. If we could just ship her off
to Hank I would have no complaints.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Love it! (I'm up to Tabula Rasa 6.08) nm -- abt, 10:43:04
02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> How about "ambivalent, and somewhat disappointed?"
-- WW, 10:48:30 02/15/02 Fri
"Hate" is just too strong a word...that could never
be my attitude to BtVS, I hope!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yeah, that'd be my pick -- Andy, 10:52:22 02/15/02
Fri
It seems like whenever someone sets up a love/hate division on
something, I always end up falling in the middle :)
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I'm punching a chad under this one. -- Darby, 11:18:23
02/15/02 Fri
Some of the good ones have been very good, and some of the others
have made me question - "Okay, is this really bad or just
Buffy-normal-comparative bad?" I still have myself convinced
of the latter, thanks to review and analysis from this board.
Makes we wonder, though - given a similar mix of personalities,
could a "parallel universe" board be doing the same
thing with Charmed?
Disclaimer: I actually like Charmed (hey, I'm easy), but don't
consider it in Buffy's depth league.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Me, too, but would add to my vote "... so far."
-- yez, 11:53:11 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Put me down as "ambivalent, and somewhat disappointed,
but eternally hopeful." -- Solitude1056, 12:58:55 02/15/02
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yes, I'm here. But I don't LIKE feeling this way.
I want to LOVE it. So I'm pissed -- Rochefort, 13:51:21 02/15/02
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Love it with one reservation -- Anne, 10:53:35 02/15/02
Fri
Overall I love it (I'm one of the few people who think the show
has improved pretty much steadily with each season) but I guess
I do feel at the moment that they dropped the ball a bit with
OAFA. I realize that I may feel differently about that once I've
seen the whole season, but right now it seems to me that things
had reached too desperate a point of tension with regard to the
Buffy/Spike relationship in "Dead Things" to just take
a time out on it, which is what they essentially did to my mind.
(And of course, matters are made considerably worse by the fact
that we are getting yet another rerun next week). However, they'll
pretty obviously be picking up the threads, and as I say a broader
perspective on OAFA may change my mind even on that episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hmmm see my Elimi-date response (inside) -- Neaux, 11:07:13
02/15/02 Fri
if this was the gameshow Elimi-date.. and each person represented
a season of Buffy on the show Elimi-date.. I guess I'd picky the
slutty season 6.
Doesnt mean I entirely love it.. but it sho' is good for now!
^_^
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Depends: which S6 are we talking about? ;) -- mundusmundi,
11:08:08 02/15/02 Fri
So many eps have veered so wildly from what came before that I'm
having trouble finding a common thread. Best I can do is go episode
by episode:
Masterpiece: Once More, With Feeling
Excellent: Bargaining, Afterlife
Good: Tabula Rasa, Dead Things
Not Good, But Guilty Pleasures: Smashed, Older and Far Away
Mediocre: Flooded, Life Serial, All the Way, Gone
Damned Near Unwatchable: Wrecked, Doublemeat Palace
What I'm seeing so far is a season that IMO started unusually
strong, got derailed by Troika inanity, elevated things to a new
level in early November and has taken a disconcerting plunge since.
I give a special gold star to Steven DeKnight, whose somewhat
flawed but redeemable "Dead Things" shows what "Blood
Ties" did: that he is generally a good writer who seems to
understand the concept of the show. I'm not sure what to give
Drew Z. Greenberg. Utterly undisciplined, his method of scriptwriting
seems to be to smack his head open like a pinata and write down
whatever falls out. He's not very good, heavens no, but both his
scripts this year are filled with oddities that are occasionally
interesting if never totally developed. Oh, well, 8 eps to go.
I'll reserve judgment, if not brickbats when warren-ted, until
then. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Using your ratings... -- Rob, 11:24:32 02/15/02 Fri
I have a very different opinion about the eps, for the most part!
Here's mine:
Masterpiece: Bargaining, Once More, With Feeling, Dead Things
Excellent: Life Serial, Smashed, Older and Far Away, Tabula Rasa,
After Life, Gone
Good: Flooded, Doublemeat Palace
Not Good, But Guilty Pleasure: All the Way
Mediocre: Wrecked
Damned Near Unwatchable: None
And for the record, I've become Drew Z. Greenberg's biggest fan.
Oh, well, guess we can't agree on anything...or almost anything!
LOL. :o)
I actually am in an interesting position of loving almost every
episode on a stand-alone basis, but not being sure if I love the
overall story arc as much as most years.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> We are in the minority of enjoying S4, so that's
something :) -- mm, 11:29:25 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Oh, yeah! Of course, despite our differences,
we'll always have the "Season-4-Lover" bond in common.
-- Rob, 11:32:34 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Depends: which S6 are we talking about? ;) --
Rattletrap, 12:02:25 02/15/02 Fri
Generally like it, but I see mundus' point that it has been a
bit like a small, hyperactive puppy--bouncing all over the place,
first one place, then another (my words, BTW).
I would rate this season's episodes as follows:
Masterpiece: Once More, With Feeling
Excellent: Bargaining, Afterlife, Dead Things
Good: Flooded, All The Way, Tabula Rasa, Smashed, Dead Things
Not Good, But Guilty Pleasures: Doublemeat Palace, Gone
Mediocre: Life Serial, Wrecked
Damned Near Unwatchable: none
Compared to other seasons through this point (i.e. ~ 14 episodes)
1. Season 3 -- my personal favorite, I can still watch all these
episodes thinking ME never really put a foot wrong all the way
through
2. Season 4 -- not my favorite season, but the early and middle
episodes were some of the strongest of the season, before the
Adam story really developed
3. Season 6 -- I'm curious to see where all of this is going,
I've never been quite so uncertain; and I'm pretty sure the SG
feels the same way
4. Season 5 -- pretty consistently solid; few thoroughly brilliant
episodes, but no real terrible ones. The "Checkpoint"/"Blood
Ties" duo put the mid-season on a strong note.
5. Season 2 -- this season, although one of the greats in the
shows history, was astonishingly mediocre through most of the
early episodes, but redeemed by the brilliance of the 2nd 1/2
of the season. Perhaps the lesson here: have faith, redemption
can happen at any time :-)
Anxious to hear everyone else's assessment.
'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Kind of like a rollercoaster --love it! oh, hate it! oh
love it! -- Lilac, 11:12:43 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> curious, intrigued, perplexed and annoyed (in other words,
in the middle) -- Sebastian, 11:13:44 02/15/02 Fri
i agree with _len_ that this season is more character driven.
the most it has been since S2 (and splashes of S5). it's good
to finally get inside the scoobies' heads again and wondering
what they are thinking that goes beyond 'how do we defeat the
big bad?'
but i also agree with _darrenK_ that it has focused a bit too
much on SexFest 2002 (that was great, btw, and almost got me in
trouble at work because i laughed so hard reading that).
but there has also been the sloppy writing snafus and very clear
plot-holes - which is not like M.E. - who are usually very good
at cleaning up the 'bugs'.
i would rate the season a 'good to adequate' (a 7 on a 1 to 10
scale). it has lacked a certain...verve...i guess. that electricity
that has made the other seasons so memorable. i'm hoping there
is a reason behind this - and that it will become clear with the
next set of new episodes.
but i also think i'm a little spoiled since the last part of S5
was so epic, and i keep waiting for that 'goose-bump' effect...
just my thoughts.
- S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I agree...I do miss that epic, goosebumpy thingy I
got from "Buffy" in past years. -- Rob, 11:29:07 02/15/02
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I miss the goosebumpyness too. -- VampRiley,
11:59:08 02/15/02 Fri
But there is only so many apocalypses in a row I can take before
my head explodes. I glad this season went this way. There are
other things that gone on besides them that occur in people's
lives. Just as long as this show doesn't become 90210, I'll be
happy. Not that i ever watched it.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I wobble somewhere between blind adoration to "that
was nice". -- Deeva, 11:26:35 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Liking it more all the time but -- matching mole, 11:52:06
02/15/02 Fri
it depends on how things work themselves out.
I know that I'm in the tiny minority here in that I didn't like
season 5. Among my varied reasons for this is that I hadn't really
found Buffy herself to be a very interesting character and S5
was too Buffy-centric compared to the earlier seasons (I love
S1-S3, like S4 only slightly less). The recent episodes have actually
made Buffy the character more interesting to me than ever before(haven't
seen OaFA yet). Also there is a tone of honesty and lack of artifice
to Gone, Doublemeat Palace, and Dead Things that is very appealing
(I can't really put my finger on it). Have to wait and see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: So shoot me -- I wish they had pulled a 90210 and...
-- Rachel, 12:33:32 02/15/02 Fri
kept the gang in high school for another year or so. I love the
high school years. Thrilling, breathless, many monsters, a complete
lack of addicted-to-magic-Willow (my least fav story line), and
Giles! Of course, as someone else has pointed out, how many save-the-world-from-apocolypse
eps can one do...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I disagree. I think the show improved immeasurably
once the gang left high school. -- Rob, 12:39:35 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: So shoot me -- I wish they had pulled a 90210
and... -- DEN, 08:24:07 02/17/02 Sun
A real problem with continuing the high school setting was the
actual ages of the main characters. it was increasingly difficult
even at the end of s3 to preesent them even marginally convincingly
as HS students.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> My mantra: trust the writers, trust the writers -- ponygirl,
13:15:17 02/15/02 Fri
I'd agree that this season seems to have had a lot of ups and
downs. My reaction reminds me of season 4 where while I still
appreciated the quality of the show I wasn't too happy with the
direction the characters were going. The drifting apart of the
Scooby gang was painful to behold but it all paid off brilliantly
in the end. Watching s4 in reruns I completely appreciate how
necassary everything was, even Riley!
At this point I have a lot invested emotionally in the characters
so it's hard to watch them go through dark places, but it makes
me respect ME all the more for taking them there. I will say that
I didn't think the writing or direction on OaFA was as polished
as we're used to, there've been too many repeats and I hate hate
hate the Willow addiction storyline. But -- I'm sure it's all
going to pay off in a glorious explosion of puppies and peaches
in the end. We're just passengers on this crazy ride.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ditto here -- Traveler, 17:05:09 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Kitten poker, explosions of Puppies, oh my......:):):)
-- Rufus, 01:05:23 02/17/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> It's getting better. Still not as good as last season --
vampire hunter D, 13:33:12 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: More or less loving it I guess ... maybe. -- Dedalus,
13:48:17 02/15/02 Fri
I agree with Rob's enthusiasm on most points. I did, however,
more or less hate Doublemeat Palace.
It's just been uneven. The way it started out was just great,
so powerful. OMWF was indeed a masterpiece. I don't know. It just
seemed to hit a major mid-season slump after Smashed. That's not
uncommon, even for this show, but it's usually not quite so noticeable,
nor does it take more than an episode or two to recover from it.
I do think Dead Things got us out of it, though, and this week
wasn't bad at all. I thought to begin with it might top season
five, my personal fave probably, but I highly doubt it now.
Still, even bad Buffy is good Buffy. I'd rather watch DMP again
than most regularly scheduled network shows. The one thing that
has left me totally scratching my head is the whole Willow/magic/drug
thing. I have no idea if they are going somewhere with that, or
if they've already been. I don't have a clue what that was about.
At least in retrospect. Even though for the first time I hated
Will at the beginning of the season, she was really interesting
and a bit scary. But I can't judge till the fat lady sings. I
remember on Usenet last year everybody was screaming when Joyce
was going to be okay. "All that with her tumor, and that's
it?!?!?!" And, you know, look what happened. I don't know
if the ground is about to drop out from under Willow like that.
Overall, it's been very good. I just have to divide my attention
between it and the upcoming SW Episode Two, which can be difficult.
:-)
"We decided to come and rescue you." - Anakin
"Good job." - Obi-Wan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: More or less loving it I guess ... maybe. -- Dariel,
15:31:56 02/15/02 Fri
The one thing that has left me totally scratching my head is the
whole Willow/magic/drug thing. I have no idea if they are going
somewhere with that, or if they've already been. I don't have
a clue what that was about. At least in retrospect. Even though
for the first time I hated Will at the beginning of the season,
she was really interesting and a bit scary.
The sad thing is that the magic/drug metaphor is not a bad idea--they
just botched it (so far) and made it too physical. Drugs can give
you a feeling of power, and can make it easier to deal with difficult
situations. It's just that the drug, like power, becomes an end
in itself.
BTW: I too liked Willow's little foray into "better not piss
me off" teritory. Let's hope for a repeat performance!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Very True ... -- Dedalus, 12:37:43 02/16/02
Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Usually by the second time I've watched an episode, I love
it. -- Traveler, 17:02:49 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'm Groovin along -- fresne, 17:17:53 02/15/02 Fri
Can I belong to the, as long as all these issues get resolved
this year, lovin it camp.
There's just something about a plot where after years of toil
and struggle, our heroes actually have wear and tear. They aren't
so shiny and new. They shouldn't be. They've pushed aside issues
for years to deal with the big bad and now those issue bite back.
Okay, I'll admit that I don't get the physicallity of Willow's
magic addiction because, well, I still want to get at the issue
of Willow's self perception of herself as a geek in cool gay clothing.
However, I have faith.
Hmmm...guess it boils down to that the more years of the show
that there are, the more there is to contextually discuss. They've
reached a point in the series where I'm disturbed, confused, examining
each item for shades of meaning reaching back to S1, and loving
every minute of my confusion, disturbance, examination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I like it -- Isabel, 20:33:38 02/15/02 Fri
I've loved some episodes and thought others were a bit weak, but
over all a thumbs up from me. I have a few minor complaints (So
Buffy's broke and Willow's not paying rent?/What happened to the
art gallery?, etc.) but overall I'm happy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Love it. -- Spikesbitch, 21:34:35 02/15/02 Fri
I think Buffy improves every season. Season one was pretty mediocre
and season 2 had way to many below par episodes in the first half
of the season. Season 3 had a strong overall arc and good individual
episodes and by exploring more adult issues improved the quality
of the show overall. I thought season 4 was suberb. Ok Adam basically
sucked but there were many wonderful episodes to make up for that.
A New Man, Something Blue, Living Conditions were all hilarious.
Hush was brilliantly creepy. Restless ios one of my favourite
Buffy episodes ever (I am a Farscape fan and love bizarre episodes
like that). Who Are You also generated some real drama. It was
also fab to have Spike and Anya as regulars. I cannot understand
why people feel the show dropped in quality.
Season 5 was also excellent. I loved Glory and her minions and
found Dawn to be a great addition. The whole key story was so
inventive. I was also moved by Joyces tumour and loved the Spike/Buffy
love affair that developed.
Season 6 looks set to be the best season yet as it deals with
internal character problems. The Willow addiction story is disapointing
but I am convinced there will be a pay off. I am loving so many
episdes this season. OMWF, TR, DT, Smashed etc. The nerds are
an amazing way of exploring darker territory with an examination
of what human evil is capable off. And I love the Spike redemptiopn
story.
My only real complaint about this season is Dawn's whinning and
her temper tantrums. I couldn't believe the way they were rewerded
in OMAFA by Buffy spending time with her because she yelled loud
enough. A great lesson to install in her for the future Buffy!
If Dawn's key powers are explored and the whole Dawsons Creek
whining teen angst story is dropped then this season will have
achieved close to perfection for me. Well providing the Willow
story has a twist in it which I am convinced it does. I would
also like to see a return of Doc. JMO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> See my 02/15 CMotW column (just posted) for my response,
10-Q veery much! :) -- OnM, 21:56:00 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> its good, season 5 was better -- chuk_38, 08:40:19 02/16/02
Sat
right now, i am in the category that goes, 'new buffy, great'.
But i am not totally in love with this season,. . . yet.
it is true that all i have seen up to is once more with feeling,
and if the rest of the season turns out shiy, then we can atleast
look at OMWF and say, that was a totally great episode.
and to be truthful, i am still kinda comparing it to last year,
which no show on earth could ever beat.
why, oh why did they do season five, in season five. It would
have been much better if they had done the 'glory' storyline in
the last season they were going to do!!!
coz absolutely nothing could beat the fifth season of buffy.
anyone agree with me?
but i am sure that season six, will turn out great, like anyother
buffy season has done.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> After watching OaFA I'm loving it even more -- matching
mole, 18:44:49 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who left the door of the Loony Bin open again?? -- GreatRewards,
16:13:22 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Go away for half an hour and all chaos breaks loose! --
Masq, 16:18:02 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thank you to whoever cleaned that garbage off the board!
-- GreatRewards, 16:28:54 02/14/02 Thu
It's nice to know the board is cared for so diligently!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yay Masq! -- Vickie, 16:36:35 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> You're welcome -- Masq, your friendly neighborhood
website hostess, 16:43:49 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What's goin on? What happened? What'd I miss? -- JBone,
16:54:55 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> www.universe-people.com -- Masq, 16:59:26 02/14/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> What the hell was THAT?! -- pagangodess, 10:02:45
02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Reminds me of the "Fawlty Towers" ep where Basil
put up an ad that said, "No Riff-Raff"! -- Rob, 17:13:42
02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Not very "philosophical" -- unless we broaden
thread to: Totalitarianism & Board Inbreeding -- Diogenes (in
disarray and indecently clothed), 17:27:32 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> You must excuse my frend, he values philosophy over
fellowship. -- Gorgias (offering Diogenes a clean cloak), 21:00:54
02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I missed the chaos and looniness? -- neaux, 04:33:19 02/15/02
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> It's not too late to catch up... -- WW, 09:08:00 02/15/02
Fri
...go to http://www.universe-people.com and you'll get the general
idea of what we were dealing with-- five or six long posts in
the space of about five minutes!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Goodness -- how odd! -- Lilac, 09:42:59 02/15/02
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OT - Two poems for Valentine's Day -- Brian, 16:16:39 02/14/02
Thu
TOI (1966)
In your nakedness
I slide and bump
And liquefy
Dissolve
Disintegrate
Toi, je meurs
Dans la sueur
I mingle
Dans le cheveu
I caress
And find my way
Along your dark passages
Past nooks
Past muscle
I slide and bump and sip
Et je deviens
Toi
Dans le sang
De l'ame
My roots root
And grow
Toi Moi
Nous nous existons nous-meme
Ensemble
Toi Moi
SONG (1970)
Who is this dark primitive
Who lies upon my bed?
Her dark body thrashing in the darkness.
Was she the same creature
Who, moments before,
Stood in my room, dressed in purity,
Her white gloves clenching and unclenching,
As her whiteness fell to the floor?
With what strange pattern with her words does she weave?
How can her dark hair cascade down to catch my breath, and drown
me?
What gentle mystery do I embrace, and find myself forever lost
in?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Opening one's heart . . . -- f.p., 00:42:52 02/15/02 Fri
. . . in an unpoetic place.
Only poets hear.
(Your lines gave me the only Valentine's Day thoughts
I've had. Thanks.)
Valentine's Day sucks! -- vampire hunter D, 18:14:33 02/14/02
Thu
For most people, it's a time to spend some quality time with the
person you love. Forme, it's just another smack on the heat reminding
me just how big of a loser I really am.
There was no point to this. Just pointing out how I feel about
this depressing holiday.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Happy Valentine's Day vhD -- A Friend, 18:25:10 02/14/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Happy V-Day, vhD -- celticross, 19:11:28 02/14/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Valentine's Day sucks! -- MayaPapaya9, 20:51:43 02/14/02
Thu
I know exactly how you feel. I chose the weekend before Valentine's
day to let one of my good friends know that I have a crush on
him, and he told me he "loves me as a friend." He could
have saved time by just shooting me. It was actually all very
Buffy-Xander from "Prophecy Girl" except I think I handled
myself with more dignity than Xander did. At least I hope so.
Anyways, I feel your pain. Valentine's Day can bite me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> If it helps to know you aren't alone... -- Marie,
07:55:33 02/15/02 Fri
...I still cringe when I remember the time I asked out a guy I'd
had a crush on for years, and he said no. He was very kind, but
I couldn't look at him after that without dying inside, when I
saw him (though I actually turned and walked the other way if
I saw him in the street!). It was years ago, and I've never asked
another bloke out since.
You guys have all my admiration for plucking up the courage to
do it time after time!
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The courage comes mainly from continuous rejection.
-- VampRiley, 09:14:50 02/15/02 Fri
When your young, your first rejection can hurt like nothing else.
But after years of rejection, it soon becomes non-bothersome.
The back again and again is many times caused by peer pressure.
But much of a man's linguistic socialization is more heirarchical
than a woman's. So that also helps.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: If it helps to know you aren't alone...
-- MayaPapaya9, 15:30:03 02/15/02 Fri
Thanks Marie...the saddest part is, I still haven't given up on
this. I still feel like it's going to happen some day. I don't
know. I guess I'm either too optimistic or too trusting or both.
I don't know how to be anything else. But it leads to getting
hurt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: If it helps to know you aren't alone...
-- JBone, 17:25:19 02/15/02 Fri
A few years ago, I was one of those saps who kept plugging at
it despite get shot down constantly. Then I figured out that I
was making myself miserable over what? Girls that I was never
going to have anything in common with? Since then I've led practically
a monks life, only without the religion and a lot drinking and
drugs (I've quit the drugs since then, I just got too damn paranoid.)
Which monks probably do anyway, but I don't kid myself into thinking
I have some religious high ground to work from. Anyway, I live
my life how I want, when I want, give my computer a good home,
and if romance comes my way, I'll take it. Otherwise, I ain't
killing myself over it. My family periodically questions me about
who I'm seeing or whatever, but that's why you move 1500 miles
away from home.
Peace, Out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Happy V-Day, vhD!!! -- Deeva, 21:05:26 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Valentine's Day sucks! -- pagangodess, 06:44:40 02/15/02
Fri
Valentine's Day is more hype than it's worth. Take from a florist
who served throngs of men standing in line yesterday. I have more
rose thorns in my hands than I can count!
The worst part was that most of the guys were buying flowers not
because they wanted to, but because they felt they HAD to.
We don't really celebrate this day at my house for 3 reasons.
First, because I work insane hours to make everyone elses V-day
for them, secondly, if my husband brought me flowers, I would
have to stake him (like I want to look at another red rose) and
thirdly, because who said that this must be the one day of the
year to show your love.
Don't feel bad vhD and MayaPapaya, there are 364 days unaccounted
for.
This makes me think, I must rent that movie with David Boreanaz
called 'Valentine'(I think). Well, in a few weeks, maybe.
G, this is longer than I meant it to be. Thanks, for letting me
rant.
pagan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re:Valentine/Boreanaz--Don't do it!! -- Wisewoman,
08:04:22 02/15/02 Fri
Saw Valentine last night on TV--aaaaarrrrrrggghhhhh!!!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re:Valentine/Boreanaz--Don't do it!! -- Brian,
09:41:44 02/15/02 Fri
Absolutely agree with you, WW, although it does have one funny
line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: He's no angel...? -- dubdub, 09:54:55
02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re:Valentine/Boreanaz--Don't do it!! -- Brian,
09:43:24 02/15/02 Fri
Absolutely agree with you, WW, although it does have one funny
line. The rest of the movie is a waste of your time and your hard
earned money!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> regard it as eye candy and stuff yourself with
popcorn while watching it!! -- purplegrrl, 14:36:59 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Turn off your brain and it's fun -- Isabel,
18:45:42 02/15/02 Fri
It's not a movie with subtexts. It's not a movie with continuity
either. Did anyone else notice that the body size of the killer
(in the killer outfit) was quite different than the body size
of the person who was revealed to be the killer? I think that
they changed their mind at the last minute or were too cheap to
use the actor/actress in the murder scenes.
Maybe I liked it because I got to watch Denise Richards meet her
doom. :) And a little David Boreanaz is a good thing. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I couldn't agree more! -- shaglio :(, 07:30:24 02/15/02
Fri
I know how you feel, dude. I'm 28 and I've yet to have a relationship
that encapsulated the VD holiday. But the way my friends talk
about VD, maybe that's a good thing. But still, I have no girlfriend,
no job, and my friends are never around because they're with their
SO's (hell, my roommates don't even bother with me. Can't they
see my pain?). This is becoming a very depressing world for me.
Oh God! I'm starting to sound like Drizzt now. I guess I'll end
this transmission now before I persuade myself to do something
stupid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Let's All Take A Deep Breath -- Dedalus, 07:41:43 02/15/02
Fri
Now, go look in the mirror and say, "I'm good enough, I'm
smart enough, and dog-gone, people like me."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> No I'm not, No I'm not, and No they don't -- vampire
hunter D, 13:00:18 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Alternate plan of attack. -- Darby, 07:47:24 02/15/02 Fri
Somehow, my SO and I have never really celebrated much in the
way of "sweetie" holidays (that still doesn't mean it
isn't weird to see the current one represented as "VD")-
we don't even exchange gifts in December (we do go out for our
anniversary) or even for birthdays (just humorous cards). I like
"stealth" gifts, out of nowhere when the mood strikes
(note to pagangodess - sometimes a sign advertising roses at a
good price is all it will take). There's nothing like the reaction
you get when someone comes home to a gift for no reason other
than you wanted to get them something. Of course, my wife is very
low maintenance, and is not the type to suspect guilt for some
transgression (hell, I'm sneakier than that - she knows all of
my transgressions), so this might not work for everyone.
And Mayapapaya, my heart goes out to you. For all of the idea
that speaking out should be a good thing and you should feel better
for not continuing to hold it inside(and it is, occasionally),
the reality of it is seldom like Buffy, where the friendship continues
essentially unchanged and the one who spoke up quickly gets over
it. But I can't help but feel that it's better to really know
where things stand (depending, I guess, on how willing you are
to accept it). Let us know after equilibrium returns, is it really
better to be fester-free?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hallmark holidays -- Robert, 08:07:14 02/15/02 Fri
Just because Hallmark pushes a holiday doesn't mean you have to
respond.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
th motivations of Faith -- vampire hunter D, 20:30:23 02/14/02
Thu
ok, part of this was posted before, but it quikly disappeared
into the archives. So I will now explain my view of what drove
Faith and why she did the things she did.
First, Faith seemed have a lot of anger. I don't know where this
came from, not knowing much about her past. But this was why she
seemed to enjoy fighting, like she was venting her rage on the
undead. She also had a problem trusting others. This is most clearly
seen in her attitudes towards men. Her use-then-discard attitude
seemed to come from a sense of distrust (does anyone else think
she may have been sexually abused? Or at least got hurt real bad
by a guy). But she couldn't even bring herself to trust Buffy,
who was the one of the few members of the group who tried to be
friends with her. In fact, the only ones who faith ever seemed
to trust were Angel and the Mayor (and notice, Angel, the only
Scooby she trusted, she tried to convert to her side after joining
with the Mayor).
I also think that Faith's anger was made worse by a lack of impulse
control. SHe just seemed to act on a whim with no thought of anything
beyond what she felt like doing at the moment. I think those flashes
where she imagined stabbing Willow and slashing Angel (but didn't
actually do it) [see Who are you and Sanctuary] were typical for
Faith, and before her time as Buffy she seemed to act on those
(like the fight she started in that club in LA).
These I would say were the cause of hte accidental staking of
the Deputy Mayor. Her anger and lack of control led her to get
to into fighting for fighting's sake (she didn't seem to care
for helping people, just killing). THus, she just attacked everything
within range when she fought. And gods save the innocent bystander
who got tooclose.
but what turned Faith to help the Dark Side was the gang's treatment
of her. Out of all the gang, Buffy was the only one who was friendly
to her after their first encounter. Everyone else rarely talked
to her, and then it was usually Slayer related or wanting something.
But she was never accepted as part of the group. And all this
did was reinforce her lack of trust of her.
Faith also seemed to be jelous and envious of Buffy. Buffy was
the better Slayer. She also had friends who cared for her and
a family (just look at what she said in This years Girl. It's
obvious she wished she had a mother like Joyce). This only made
the Scoobies reaction to her accident worse. They all reacted
by seeming to condemn her or come don on her (even they migh have
honestly thought they were 'helping' her). Angel was the only
one who tried to talk to her the right way, let her talk when
she was ready' while everyone else wanted her to talk and be ok
NOW. But (and this is my opinion) Faith was not ok with what happened.
I think Faith is, underneith all the rebelios attitude, a good
and caring person who was traumatized by her accidental slaying
of a living person. What she needed was a little time and some
understanding (which is what Angel offered), but onlyu recieved
what seemed like scorn from the Scoobies.
This and her jelousy of Buffy seemed to her to put her at odds
with the Scoobies. So why not join the Scoobies enemy. And the
mayor, to his credit, was kind and supportive of her. He started
to become a father to her (just a Giles became one to Buffy).
This made her more than willing to do whatever he asked, even
commit deliberate murder, almost as a way of seeking "daddy's"
approval. But she was not acting out of evil or malice no matter
what she did.
After Faith woke from her coma, she seemed to be driven by a sense
of anger and fear directed towards Buffy (due to buffy attempt
to kill her). Also, she now seemed to loath herself for what she
had done (again, Faith is a caring person who was hurting over
hurting innocent people) and this drover her to even more exptreme
actions. Her taking of Buffy's body was not just an attempt to
hurt Buffy, but she honestly wanted to BE Buffy. Remember, faith
seemed to envy Buffy for having friends, a family. Also, Faith
seemed to think if she could be Buffy, she then wouldn't be herself,
the girl who murdered people. Her experience as Buffy, however,
experiencing having friends who trust her, a mother who loves
her, and b/f who loves her (and is not there just for sex) also
seemed to reinforce her inner nature (which I believ to be good).
Towards the end, she was fighting to save people because it's
the right thing to do, which morally is a major step up for her.
Unfortunatly, this only made her hurt worse when she was put back
in her own body, and she felt she was now a murdrer again.
In LA, Faith's actions seemed to be an attempt at 'suicide by
cop' (she was trying to provoke the police into shooting her).
But then she learned Angel, the only person other than the Mayor
she ever really trusted, was in town. Her plan then became 'suicide
by Angel' (she was now going to trust him with her death). She
said this herself "I'm bad. Please kill me". Her hitting
Cordy, and troturing Wesley, were simply attempts to provoke Angel
into killing her. Luckily, ANgel didn't allow himself to take
the bait, and again attampted to give her the help she needed.
And it worked.
So, that is my view of why Faith did the things she did. And notice,
none of it was out of evil or with a malicious intent. She is
not a villain, just a poor girl with a lot of anger and pain.
Maybe in prison she can recieve some counseling and when she comes
out better.
Man, why couldn't I have done this during the Anniversary posting
party?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Good Post! -- Malandanza, 07:55:08 02/15/02 Fri
I don't any real disagreements with anything you've said, but
here are some additional thoughts:
"Faith also seemed to be jealous and envious of Buffy. Buffy
was the better Slayer."
The jealousy went both ways -- Buffy was afraid that Faith was
the better slayer. There was a brief period of time when both
girls were training and Buffy suddenly developed a work ethic
-- she was afraid that Faith would outperform her on the physical
tests. Also, consider who's the better slayer from the standpoint
of a demon/vampire/whatever -- who are you more afraid of? The
slayer who only reacts to problems or the slayer that actively
hunts all things not human (even pursuing them into their sanctuaries)?
Faith was younger than Buffy, relatively new to the game and lacking
the support group that Buffy has always had -- but she still was
quite effective.
"I also think that Faith's anger was made worse by a lack
of impulse control. She just seemed to act on a whim with no thought
of anything beyond what she felt like doing at the moment. I think
those flashes where she imagined stabbing Willow and slashing
Angel (but didn't actually do it) [see Who are you and Sanctuary]
were typical for Faith, and before her time as Buffy she seemed
to act on those (like the fight she started in that club in LA)."
The psychotic flashes have helped bolster my belief that the First
Slayer influences the psyche of the slayers much as a vampire
is influenced by the demon inside. Buffy has a tight control over
her emotions and is quite good at repressing things that trouble
her -- the First Slayer would have an uphill battle influencing
her. And yet, we have seen Buffy move gradually towards a more
Faith-like existence. Buffy has made comments that sound like
Faith would have made them ("When I'm fighting, it's like
the world goes away") or acted like Faith would act (the
massacre of the vamp-hookers in the alley, Buffy the huntress
in Season 6, and her current sexual peccadilloes). Faith has less
control over herself -- whatever dark force (and we frequently
see the source of Buffy's power portrayed as dark) influences
the behavior of the slayers would find it easier to affect Faith.
So I agree that the psychotic flashes have been present from the
beginning, but I don't think that they are the result of mental
illness, but rather of spiritual influence.
Faith's turn to the dark side is as you suggested -- a result
of the lack of compassion from the Scoobies. Also, of course,
the overreaction from Wesley -- calling in a hit-squad to abduct
her and remove her to England fro trial (assuming they didn't
decide to summarily execute her). Partly, I think she joined the
Mayor for protection (from the WC) and partly to "prove"
to her ex-friends who decided that she had become evil what real
evil is. The Mayor as surrogate father was just a bonus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: th motivations of Faith -- Marie, 08:03:08 02/15/02
Fri
Great post - it's made me nostalgic for Faith. I wish ED had more
time and could be brought back in, even if only as a recurring
character.
I always wanted to go and give Faith a hug - if ever there was
a girl who needed a mother, it was her. If Joyce had taken more
of an interest, and encouraged the girl to spend more family time
with them, I think she would've turned out a lot differently.
And, come to that, so might Buffy.
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Faith & Dawn - Product of Neglect? -- Scroll, 08:28:07
02/15/02 Fri
I posted something similar below, but I'll reiterate: While I
don't excuse Faith's evilness, she's definitely a product of neglect.
Faith was 15 when she became the Slayer. When she arrived in Sunnydale,
her Watcher had been killed and she was on the run from Kakistos.
I don't know Watcher policy on supporting Slayers (I think the
WC should pay off Buffy's mortgage) but Giles would've never let
Dawn at age 15 to live in that dingy motel--with no invitation
clause as protection against vampires!
It's good that Anya has uncovered Dawn's klepto tendancies. Now
if they can all deal with it by showing her they love her no matter
what, Dawn might be able to break the habit.
Here's something else: Faith made bad choices partly because the
Scoobies wouldn't accept her. Without a support group like Buffy
had, she couldn't handle her accidental killing of Alan Finch.
Spike, while he gets along with the Scoobies, doesn't have any
real support regarding his moral behaviour. If he did, maybe he'd
eventually understand why Buffy was so anguished over the accidental
death of some innocent bystander (Katrina).
(BTW, anyone who ever says Faith was evil because she's killed
humans, please note that Buffy killed humans as early on as "The
Pack". Remember the zoo keeper? Sure he was possessed by
a primal hyena spirit--but so was Xander only a few seconds before
that. And Buffy still fed him to the hyenas.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The zookeeper.. -- Marie, 09:01:05 02/15/02
Fri
...was killed in a fair fight. The old archaeologist Faith murdered
didn't stand a chance. No comparison, imo.
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The zookeeper.. I completely agree!
-- Scroll, 10:08:53 02/15/02 Fri
I completely agree. Buffy has never *murdered* a human the way
Faith has. But I doubt Buffy, being the moral person she is, could've
shrugged off killing a human very easily, even in the heat of
battle. I wish Season 1 could have addressed this, though I suppose
it was too early in the show to deal with dilemmas of that magnitude.
I just wish we could have seen how Buffy wrestled with killing
the zoo-keeper and the evil Watcher, Gwendolyn Post. It might
shed a different light on our interpretations of Dead Things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> We saw it in a slightly different
context... -- Darby, 10:30:28 02/15/02 Fri
With Ted. I've always thought that Buffy's experience with Ted
was a huge influence on how she reacted to Faith's situation -
she actually remembered what it felt like to kill someone with
Slayer power in a moment when she let her control slip. No matter
that Ted came back, and she learned he was an android - she would
have had vivid memories of that day or two when she thought she
had killed a "defenseless" human being.
The zookeeper put himself in harm's way - the classic TV "I'll
kill you! I'll kill you! Oops!" method of letting the villian's
own evil momentum put them into a position where ironic justice
is done. And I don't think that Gwendolyn Post qualified as a
"civilian." Rationalizations all, but who among us can
go a day without a juicy rationalization?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I forgot about Ted, thanks!
-- Scroll, 10:43:28 02/15/02 Fri
You're right, I forgot about "Ted". Perhaps Buffy's
experience with Ted helped push her to hand herself over to the
police so quickly in "Dead Things". While she does acknowledge
that the police of Sunnydale are 'deeply stupid', she also believes
they're there to uphold justice.
In "Ted", "Consequences", and "Becoming",
we see her being questioned by the police because they think she's
done something wrong. But in "Dead Things", she's the
one who takes the initiative. I think that really says something
about Buffy as a moral person... even if some people might argue
that she was trying to punish herself and run away from responsibility--her
"Please don't forgive me!" to Tara.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Handling hereself over
to the police -- Steve, 13:01:40 02/16/02 Sat
I think Buffy handling herself over to the police in "Dead
Things" was wrong because the police have no authority in
this matter. Since they don't recognize the existance of Vampires,
Demons etc. (at least not publicly) they can't judge if Buffy
should be sanctioned for actions she committed while performing
HER Duty, as protector of humanity from the supernatural.
If Buffy had accidentally hit someone with her car (non supernatural)
that would be something the police would have authority and understanding
about. But lacking any formal structure, the closest thing Buffy
has would either be the Watcher council, or perhaps the Scoobies.
They would be able to judge Buffy's guilt or innocence in this
matter.
Buffy is like the Police Officer for the supernatural. And like
a police officer, sometimes in the performance of their duties,
accidents happen and innocent people die. So what happened when
that occurs? An inquest is held.
Obviously in this cause, Buffy would be cleared. There was no
neglegence, and no intent to harm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: th motivations of Faith -- Sophist, 08:34:58 02/15/02
Fri
I think the abduction by Wesley was more important than her treatment
by the SG. You are quite right that the SG ignored her after her
first appearance. They felt jealous of their own relationship
with Buffy and worried that Faith would interfere with that.
However, they only learned of Finch's death after Faith tried
to pin it on Buffy. It's a pretty natural reaction for X/W to
treat that unsympathetically. That being said, Xander did try
to help. His effort was inept and counterproductive (no more so
than his other "interventions" -- he's really lousy
at this), but his motives were good. At that point, Faith wasn't
able to see past his words to his heart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Faith, Buffy's darker half -- Rahael, 08:55:31 02/15/02
Fri
One of the writers (I think Doug Petrie) commented on the Season
3 DVDs that ME wanted to explore Buffy's darkness. However, they
thought that if they went too far, they would alienate fans. So
they brought Faith along.
From then on, I've always looked at Faith as really a part of
Buffy herself. Its also clear that in Season 6 the writers have
finally started looking at Buffy's darker half, but this time,
trusted fans to go along with them.
No where is the Faith/Buffy symbiosis more clear than in Season
4, with the whole switching bodies thing. That's almost a metanarrative
point, because they really are the same person. Buffy, with all
her good qualities, neglected or unneglected always had the potential
to make terrible decisions as Faith did.
So perhaps that's the dynamic that underlies Buffy and Faith's
fascination/repulsion toward each other. Buffy's anxiety toward
Faith's attractiveness for her boyfriends could really be a comment
on her own fear of the more aggressive side of her sexuality,
something which is coming out this season. Faith's use of Xander
seems to resemble Buffy's use of Spike. Buffy's stabbing of Faith
might be seen as an attempt to 'kill' off that part of her, which
she fears. I think its quite interesting that she offers Angel
Faith's blood, but gives her own in the end, really the same thing
metaphorically speaking.
Faith's longing for acceptance (given to her by Angel in sanctuary)
echoes Buffy's scene with Tara in Dead Things. Buffy's relationship
with Giles is really the Mayor/Faith relationship turned on its
head. We all know that Buffy has a 'bad side' which she represses
(When she was bad, Bad Girls). This season might be her journey
to accept herself, an acceptance encapsulated by the image of
her kissing Faith on the forehead in her dream in Graduation Day.
But that image shows that side of her dormant, sleeping. This
season it's waking up, resurrected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Faith, Buffy's darker half -- Scroll, 09:02:19
02/15/02 Fri
I'm hoping that at the end of this season, once Buffy manages
to integrate her 'darker' half into herself, she'll be able to
better understand Faith and maybe realise she can forgive her.
Of course, I doubt Eliza Dushku will ever return to Buffy... But
it would be really neat if they could show some kind of reconciliation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Faith, Buffy's darker half -- Elizabeth, 09:42:23
02/15/02 Fri
Rahael said "Buffy's anxiety toward Faith's attractiveness
for her boyfriends could really be a comment on her own fear of
the more aggressive side of her sexuality, something which is
coming out this season."
I agree, however, I seem to remeber that both Buffy's first sexual
encounter with Angel and her first sexual encounter with Riley
occurred after a fight of some sort. This also reminds me of when
Faith, can't remeber the episode, but she said something to the
effect of slaying makes her horny... And when Faith slept with
Xander, there was a hint of S&M sex to that...maybe their sexual
preferences have something to do with being the slayer. Any thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sex with Riley intercut with fight -- Anne,
11:28:30 02/15/02 Fri
It's not just that she had sex with Riley after a fight: they
actually intercut the scenes of the fight and the scenes of the
sex. (The I in Team). Can't get much clearer than that. There
was also at least one episode after that in which Buffy and Riley
are out stomping and smashing vamps, get all hot and bothered,
and run for the nearest bed. It's absolutely not anything new
that Buffy makes a very strong connection bewteen sex and violence,
though of course with Spike they wouldn't have worried about finding
a bed . . .
Frankly, I think the problem with the Spike sex is not the roughness
per se, but the fact that it seems to be being used for purposes
of mutual degradation. Not only that, I would say Buffy is using
it to actually keep Spike at a distance. By keeping the sex violent
rather than tender (except at the very beginning of that dream
in Dead Things, interestingly enough) she's trying to deny any
emotional component. That's why, though I admit to being a B/S
'shipper, I think the best thing they could do in the short run
would be to break up. You can't get there from here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> sex/violence and slayer submission --
abby, 13:17:07 02/15/02 Fri
(first post: be gentle :)
The intercut fight/sex scene with Riley was my first big gripe
with the show- the only other thing that came close to my discomfort
was in Ted when he hit her, while we thought he was actually human.
I'm not particularly comfortable with the subject as a whole;
merging sex and violence- but being in England I haven't seen
the buffy/spike action yet. However, from what I've heard/read
etc their 'relationship' has had definate character motivation/development
so it makes more sense, as it were, that what we were seeing in
s4.
On the slayer action= horniness topic, I think a primary factor
is the Slayer's desire to be dominated. The way I see it, Buffy
and Faith are pretty much invincible in a traditional, physical
sense: their strength, agility, mental determination etc. The
act of fighting is one of the only times they are 'challanged',
but inevitabley they defeat their opponant which leaves them wanting.
This battle is a turn-on as it is a time when they are not in
control: their natural dominance is briefly threatened.
This also links to buffy's attraction for riley: an apparent physical
equal, and also the initial spike/buffy sparks: he was a challange
to her, an equal who had proven himself capable of beating her.
Sadly, from what I've read, this is no more due to his love/devotion
etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: sex/violence and slayer submission
-- vandalia, 13:40:51 02/15/02 Fri
Actually I look at it more as a healthy manifestation of the slayer
'death wish' so eloquently pointed out by Spike in _Fool for Love_.
Victorians often called sex (orgasm) the 'little death' and being
in control and 'winning' (not dying) all the time would seem to
become exhausting for Slayers to the point where they deliberately
(consciously or no) screw up enough to be killed as an escape
from their duty. By winning in battle and 'losing' (losing control,
being submissive) in bed, they get their 'death wish' fufilled,
yet live to fight another day.
On a related note, its been said a surprising number of people
in powerful positions in their public lives have a need to be
dominated in their 'private' (sex) lives. It could be that same
need of 'sweet release' from always having to be the strong, in
charge one is being manifested in the desire for domination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: sex/violence and testosterone
(season 6 spoilers) -- Anne, 14:42:42 02/15/02 Fri
By winning in battle and 'losing' (losing control, being submissive)
in bed, they get their 'death wish' fufilled, yet live to fight
another day.
Interesting interpretation, although I would say the evidence
suggests that Buffy does not necessarily take the submissive role
with Spike -- looks like they kind of alternate.
Another thing along these lines that it is worth remembering is
that one and the same hormone, in both sexes, is responsible for
both sexual libido and aggression: testosterone. No, I'm not trying
to argue that S&M sex is the norm or that people ought to beat
each other up when they make love. However, that there is to some
degree a kind of natural connection between sex and violence seems
to me to be an unavoidable, if uncomfortable, conclusion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Adrenaline -- VampRiley,
19:59:41 02/16/02 Sat
It sharpens mental acuity, your relexes are quicker, etc. All
the good things for the fight or flight scenarios. It's like when
your arguing with someone. As the intensity of the argument increases,
your heart starts beating faster and more adrenaline is being
pumped into your system. That's why a lot of arguments, physically
violent or not, sometimes leads to sex. That's its connection.
Or it just might be sadomasochistic.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Durn it, once again general season
6 spoilers in my above post -- Anne, 14:25:27 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hey Masq, any chance we can put this up with the Anniversary
Caracter Posts? -- vampire hunter D, 13:10:33 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> If I recall... -- Masq, 13:17:18 02/15/02 Fri
Brian did a poem for Faith for the First Anniversary Character
Posts.
I believe many of these will be updated next summer for recurring
characters. We haven't seen Faith (so far) this year, but if Brian
doesn't mind, there could be an essay version of the Faith post
added for 2002.
You might want to get his OK, then edit and flesh out your post
a little based on your previous version in the archives and other's
comments. Sound like a plan?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: If I recall... -- Spikesbitch, 20:22:03
02/15/02 Fri
I always felt Faith was mistreated. In F,H and T we see her longing
for acceptance. She tries to impress the scoobies with tales of
her slaying exploits but also wants to bond with Buffy by including
her in the discussion (asking what her toughest kill was). She
also flirts with Giles and seems keen to meet Buffy's mother "dying
to meet the fam I'm in". However Faith was IMO sorely neglected.
She was treated as a temperory fad and soon dropped by Willow
and Xander. We never see any evidence of her being invited to
socialize with them in the bronze and she is treatred as second
best to Buffy. Giles sees her as a slayer rather than an individual
(he had the same attitude to Kendra and obviously views Buffy
as an exception). Buffy raises concerns about Faith's mental health
and Giles dismisses them rather glibly "shes just a plucky
fighter who got carried away, she doesn't have a life here like
you do". Joyce was interested in Faith because she wanted
someone to take over the slaying for Buffy. If I were in Faiths
position I would be hurt and insulted if I was expected to be
the slayer so that Buffy could have a normal life and question
why my right to a normal life was dismissed just because I hadn't
had the same educational oppurtunities. Mybe Faith was happy slaying
but I'm sure she still found the idea of substituting for Buffy
in a life threatening job insulting. It was snobish to dismiss
Faith's chance at a normal life just because she wasn't college
bound. A bit of encouragement may have helped Faith focus on connecting
with life and people. She was treated as a spare part and a killing
machine and her feelings were ignored with a staggering lack of
sensitivity.
And Bad Girls was not murder, it was manslaugter. Buffy should
have been more understanding. Faith was defenceive because she
perceived herself to be in Buffy's shadow and thought Buffy was
seen as perfect in comparision with Faith. Instead of being self
righteous Buffy should have opened up about the incident with
Ted.
And I always assumed from various references that Faith was sexually
abused. She sees sex as a game and has little respect for men,
viewing them as users only after what they can get. Eg in 5by5
in reply to we can get you off "you don't know how many men
have promised me that". And she suggests she has used chains
when Angel chains her up in Consepuences. In Who Are You she seems
disassociated from Buffy's body when she attempts to seduce Riley
but I would suggest that she always treats sex like that. "Am
I a bad girl do you want to hurt me" is in my mind the most
definitive statement we have regarding Faith's backgrounnd. We
know her mother was a neglectful alcholic and I assume Faith comes
from the Bosten slums.
Buffy was jealous of Faith from the beginning and like I said
the scoobies lost interest in Faith after treating her as the
latest new thing in F, H and T.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Add away - Cool by me -- Brian, 02:02:04 02/16/02
Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: th motivations of Faith -- Goji3, 06:59:24 02/17/02
Sun
Wowza! This expands on what I said earlier. Good Job. You took
the words right out of my brain! (I still like the Faith-Hedorah
connection though. Anytime I can Link my two favorite TV/Movie/Media
Icons is a happy day...I should really post that Gamera/Buffy
connection I made once...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angel and Drusilla -- abt, 06:56:18 02/15/02 Fri
I hope we see Drusilla on ATS again one day. (I'm up to 3.08 Quickening).
Angel said himself that what he did to Drusilla was the worst
thing he did, so I think that he'll somehow have to make it right,
maybe kill her. Sometimes I get the feeling with Drusilla that
she somehow knows that there's something terribly wrong with her.
It seems like the story of Angel's relationship with Drusilla
isn't complete yet. She's a psychic, so I wonder how she would
view Angel's relationship with Cordy, his new psychic girl. Jealousy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel and Drusilla -- Rufus, 07:11:21 02/15/02 Fri
I absolutely agree about Dru on ATS. Dru was the worst thing Angelus
ever did. It was torture, that Angelus thought would be even better
if she could live in perpetual torment. I have a question about
that though. If Dru as a vampire no longer cares about what once
made her what she was, that gentle loving woman, then how is she
in torment?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel and Drusilla -- pagangodess, 07:21:55 02/15/02
Fri
I think it was in 'What's My Line', where Dru tortures Angel and
babbles things like 'can't enjoy tea and cakes like mummy made,
because of you (Angel)'. So, I'd say even if she's not exactly
tormented about being the way she is, Dru still resents Angel.
Maybe I'm wrong. Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel and Drusilla -- abt, 07:41:39 02/15/02 Fri
It seems as if the things that he did to her when she was still
human, still hurt. Remember how revamped Darla II was annoyed
at W&H for what they put her through when she was human?
It's strange. If it hurt you when you were human, it still hurts
when you're a vamp, so if Angelus kills your dad and then turns
you, your father's death still hurts you, even if once turned
you happily kill the rest of your family yourself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Angel and Drusilla -- LeeAnn, 08:16:17 02/15/02
Fri
I never understand why Dru tortured the souled Angel for kiling
her family then once he was souless seemed happy to see him and
let him take the crippled Spike's place in her bed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Angel and Drusilla -- Yellowork, 08:46:47
02/15/02 Fri
I don't know why we are suddenly expecting Dru to behave according
to a readily accessible external rationale. She is after all undead,
insane and precognitive, three aspects which surely serve to obfuscate
her mind from the vantage point of the viewer. To me, Dru is an
interesting character because her interests and obsessions are
not linear; rather, they seem to rise up in circles. This explains
why she would leave Spike at one point and then try and rekindle
the relationship three years later; so, if she still keeps resentments
against Angel, these may take some time to resurface, no? Is this
not caught up with the way in which Dru experiences the world,
which is not simply linear and moment by moment?
As for cheating on Spike with Angel, this leads me to wonder just
how far in advance Dru sensed the coming of the Spike / Slayer
liaison. Was this Spike's torment, not illogically presented three
years before the crime it was meant to retribute?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel and Drusilla -- truelove,
09:21:16 02/15/02 Fri
Drusilla was so sick that Spike brought her back to Sunnydale
and her sire for a transfusion, I thought.
As Angel, he was unwilling to do so. As Angelus, he was
alright with it. And as Angelus, very willing to destroy the world,
Buffy and you name it. Although not said, it seemed that Angelus
was ready to move up to a Hell God.
Spike came into more and more contact with the Slayer Buffy though,
and Dru picked up on the vibes. And Spike made a deal with the
Slayer to get Dru out of Sunnydale, but in doing so, somehow forged
a bond between the two that did not escape Drusilla. Once back
in LA, she said that she and Spike were "ashes". She
could see the slayer dancing all around him, laughing. The Chaos
demon (?) with slime dripping from his antlers was Dru's choice
to make Spike jealous, but it didn't work and she left Spike.
How much Dru knew in advance is fascinating to contemplate, I'll
agree. And what she may know now is also of great interest to
the show. Go Dru!! Just love the character.
Spike returned to Sunnydale on a new quest in Hellmouth and
once again had to contend with Buffy. In one of the funniest scenes
ever, we see Spike and Joyce having a cuppa and Spike asking for
"those little marshmellows" while boo-hooing over Drusilla.
Whether or not he was falling for Buffy, he knew better than to
polish off her mother. And he develops a liking for Joyce that
carries through the seasons until her death.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> torturing soul -- purplegrrl, 15:13:04
02/15/02 Fri
***I never understand why Dru tortured the souled Angel for killing
her family then once he was souless seemed happy to see him and
let him take the crippled Spike's place in her bed.***
I think Drusilla tortured Angel because she could. She somehow
sensed that Angel would sit there and take it and not fight back.
In a sense it's kind of like she is a child pulling the wings
off butterflies!! Or playing with her food!
Also, to paraphrase Darla, Angel has that nasty, dirty soul.
When soulless Angelus returns, this is the creature that Drusilla
knows. She can relate to him. In her way she loves him. Angelus
taught her torture, and she uses what she knows to play Angelus
and Spike off each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel and Drusilla -- Darby, 08:59:54 02/15/02
Fri
The impression I got was that when Dru tortured Angel, that's
exactly what she was doing - she was "playing" the traumatized
child because she knew that the image would visit psychological
torment on Angel. She remembered the events, including her pain,
but wasn't really hurting anymore about it. And she wasn't really
angry with Angelus - it was just a way to get at Angel's source
of pain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel and Drusilla -- TomSr, 07:29:31 02/15/02 Fri
Totally agree. Drusilla's story certainly isn't over and I would
hope one day its completed, but not on Buffy. The story could
perhaps start there but its Angel that needs to finally deal with
the monster he made. Much as I love Drusilla this would probably
end in her death---I don't want her redeemed though, there's been
enough of that, not everyone can be "saved".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel and Drusilla -- Philistine, 01:01:58 02/16/02
Sat
While I agree that "Angel ... needs to finally deal with
the monster he made," I think Spike and Dru have some unfinished
business to resolve first. Not so much as before Crush, but still.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel and Drusilla -- truelove, 07:43:25 02/15/02 Fri
Wow! Interesting topic. I don't think Dru would be jealous of
Cordy and Angel as she wasn't jealous of Darla.
I do think she feels left out now that Spike is with Buffy.
And she must harbor some resentment after Angel set her and Darla
on fire. As the vampires can remember their past,
Drusilla must remember what Angel did to her loved ones.
Interesting that she mentions the cakes that mummy made.
Dru has been shown as trying to keep the "family" together.
And, like Spike, as a vampire who can love.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel and Drusilla -- Spikesbitch, 20:38:07 02/15/02
Fri
I assumed Angel meant the "eternal torment" line in
reference to Dru going through life insane (which lets face it
can't be much fun).
She has always had the little girl lost thing going on and I felt
that she was sincere in Whats My Line when torturing Angel. She
seemed to be totally in the moment and very angry. She loves Angelous
because she is majorly screwed up. He taught her everything she
knows about adult sexual relationships as she was planning to
be a nun originally and would not have had much contact with the
opposite sex. In "Darla" she asks Angel to hurt her
as he no longer does. I took that as a reference to sexual intercourse.
Angelous raped Dru ("eyes like needles...snake in the woodshed")and
warped her thinking on what a healthy realationship consists of.
She sees torture as love and I'm guessing sex hurts her but she
considers it all part of the game. Angelous is her abusive father
figure who she both loves and hates. She calls him daddy in Reunion
and begs him to hurt her. Like many abused children (although
because of her insanity a very extreme case obviously) she despeately
loves her tormenter and wants to please him.
I never understood Angels guilt over Darla who was the one that
sired him for goodness sake. I always saw Dru as by far his worst
sin. Every time I see that scene in "Darla" with Dru
cowering in the corner and Angelous leering at her my heart breaks.
Angel felt guilt in Lie To Me and as Dru perceptivly notes is
unable to hurt her. Yet he has no problem setting her on fire
in his own series. Harsh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have done it! -- pagangodess, 07:16:31 02/15/02 Fri
As I've mentioned before, my circle of friends does not include
any BtVS fans. Until recently, that is.
I've been able to convert on of them! I'm so proud of myself and
thought I'd let you know, that I have brought another one over
to our side. She watched one ep. and saw Spike (hey, whatever
it takes), now she's hooked. She even said to me one day, as we
were discussing 'Charmed':
"...'Charmed' does not have nearly the depth that 'Buffy'
does...".
Her words, not mine. Now she's getting so addicted that she's
been trying to catch up on previous eps on the Space Channel.
I don't think she's ready for this board yet, but I'm working
on her.
happy pagan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> World domination is in sight! -- Marie, 07:37:15 02/15/02
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> One devotee at a time, we inch closer to Buffy-dom! -- Deeva,
09:01:50 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A message of minimal importance (but I feel compelled to say it)
-- Darby, 08:30:56 02/15/02 Fri
Let's see how many of you are like me...
You may have noticed a new name recently on the board -
"monkeypants"
Did the vaguely insulting but largely inscrutable message lines
(with NT) bother you? They did me. What was going on here? Is
this someone whose whole purpose was to lob vague insults without
engaging in any kind of discussion?
Then I noticed down in the "Roundtable..." thread a
posting with an actual message beneath the condescending title.
It's from Thursday and probably easy to miss way down there.
There appears to be a person under the attitude!
Is this comparable to driving a car (yeah, I know - huh???)? It
was much easier to be irritated to the title-writer, who lacked
any kind of real persona beyond being a general annoyance - kind
of like that anonymous person in the other car. But now, I'm not
so sure.
It's probably not my place, but I'm taking a shot - monkeypants,
if you're still around, welcome. Ranting is fine, taking (polite)
potshots at the philosophical discussions (I know mine slip over
into pretentious if not pompous sometimes) is fine, but we do
appreciate it when visible participants actually talk to (rather
than snipe at) us.
Now, I'm a bit nervous about this - I still consider myself a
newbie, and if I've crossed over some netiquette line here, I'd
appreciate it if the experienced posters would let me know.
At least I'm not beaming messages in from the Mother Ship...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A message of minimal importance (but I feel compelled
to say it) -- Paracelsus, 08:55:58 02/15/02 Fri
I could be more welcoming of "monkeypants" were it not
for the suspicion that he/she is also represented by the names:
forensicpoetry, gorgias, platonic friend, new philosopher tutorials
& support group, votecounter, lyotard in tights, allbuffynewswire.com,
defenderofthefaith, Gosh Weedin, GW's pathetic assistant, The
original apocryphist, Sockrates, Aristippus, Douglas Adam's clone,
Heisenberg's Clone, multi-media/social-interaction theorist in
black hat, theonewhonose, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. (I apologize
if I've inadvertently included the nick of an innocent newbie
mired in this web of egocentricity.)
I'd definitely be more welcoming if he/she didn't tie up so much
of the board responding to/congratulating him/herself.
I'd be infinitely more welcoming if he/she actually engaged in
some serious debate even vaguely linked to philosophy in BtVS,
rather than in his/her apparent mission to destroy the pretensions
of those he/she feels are unworthy of so doing.
And I don't think your post of minimal importance at all, obviously.
:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Here's a message from a non-newbie: Thank you for posting
this! :o) -- Rob, 09:36:32 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The "cast of characters" has been technologically
blocked from further drama by the host. -- public notice, 10:16:03
02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Clever turns of phrase do not a good philosopher make.
Your empty, shallow rants are unwelcome here. -- Rob, 10:31:09
02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The "cast of characters" has been technologically
blocked from further drama by the host. -- The Host, 10:32:30
02/15/02 Fri
I'm wondering what other posters think of this action on my part.
I value the civilized discussion we have on the board and don't
like to see disruptions of it from people who don't feel inclined
to join in with us in the manner to which we've become accustomed.
I saw this "technological blocking" as a temporary measure,
one I'd like to lift (if it's even working properly!) after a
few days. I really hate censoring people who might warm up to
us and join in or decide the board is not for them and go their
merry way.
I think Darby's approach of being welcoming is better than censoring,
but there is our peaceful, enjoyable discourse to consider...
any thoughts?
Masq
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Censoring is usually bad, but... -- Rob, 10:42:26
02/15/02 Fri
...this "cast of characters" is being disruptive for
the sake of being disruptive. Monkeypants, forensic poetry, or
whatever he/she/it feels like calling him/her/itself this week
knows he/she/it is annoying people, and is deliberately persisting
in her/his/its behavior, despite the intelligent people of the
board kindly asking him/her/it to cease and desist. I say, censor
away, Almighty Masq! ;o)
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Freedom and responsibility -- matching mole,
11:11:43 02/15/02 Fri
I see two separate issues here which you have laid out nicely.
First - is blocking access by the offending parties justifiable.
Absolutely. Im ny view freedom to express yourself comes with
responsibility not to overly interfere with the expression of
others. As long as the gibes were combined to a single thread
I found them mildly amusing and didn't interfere with my ability
to follow other trains of thought. As they proliferated they became
more of an annoyance. Presumably the proliferation of messages
was also speeding up the rate at which threads were being archived.
Second - is blocking access the best strategy? That seems a much
harder question. Darby's invitation to engage in a discourse does
seem like the ideal way to go but whether it will work or not
seems questionable. One of the things I love about this board
is the polite way people express themselves (expressing my Canadianess
here). Besides making things pleasant and encouraging more shy
souls such as myself to express themselves I think it also gets
people to express more of their individual natures because of
a spirit of trust. The offenders don't seem interested in that
kind of interaction.
I've been fairly critical of recent BtVS at times and I am much
more interested in having someone who loves season 6 (like Rob)
tell me in detail why he likes it than getting a bunch of fairly
content free cracks. Perhaps monkey pants should be urged to write
a parody of BtVS mocking in detail what he/she doesn't like. That
would probably be more entertaining, more informative, and interfere
less with other discussions.
This is basically a long winded way of saying I don't really know
what the best way is to encourage rogue posters to combine their
freedom of expression with responsiblity to the forum they are
using.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Hmmm... -- Masq, 11:54:08 02/15/02 Fri
I don't think monkeypants, et al's problems were with season 6.
I think his/her problems were with this board. A lot of gibes
implying we were pretentious and exclusionary. That is just his/her
opinion, of course, but instead of presenting his/her opinion
in a straight-forward way, s/he chose instead to post chip-on-the-shoulder
one-liners under various names. It's hard to deal with someone
who choses not to engage us in something resembling a mature manner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Question for Masq - -- Darby, 12:01:26
02/15/02 Fri
As the Oz (the all-seeing one, not the hairy-once-a-month one),
can you confirm the suspicion up above that monkeypants and forensicpoetry
were one and the same? Because I found the latter irritating,
but at least felt like they were (semi)legitimately trying to
advance a point of view. The approach got on my nerves, but I
wouldn't blame someone else for that...well, I would but I'd feel
guilty about it...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Question for Masq - --
Masq, 12:56:19 02/15/02 Fri
Hmm, I think "Oz" is not the metaphorical title I'd
like
booming voice "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
I kind of liked being called "The Host", 'cause then
I resemble a green demon with red horns and have friendly terms
of endearment for everyone, but can still get a little psychic
insight into their true identities.
The answer to your question is yes. And many and asundry other
one-liner new-name posts in recent days can also be attributed
to this individual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: forensicpoetry -- Brian,
12:59:58 02/15/02 Fri
I don't know about his other messages, but anyone who can write
Shakespearean sonnets is ok in my book. I went to his website
and really found it interesting, plus the haiku battle was lots
of fun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Just wondering, Masq -- Lilac,
14:24:50 02/15/02 Fri
How can you tell these are all coming from the same person? Is
there something, aside from patterns in name selection and content
or lack thereof in the messages? Not that I am planning on sneaking
around, but I am curious.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just wondering,
Masq -- Masq, 14:33:30 02/15/02 Fri
I have access to the ISP numbers (internet service provider, eg.
AOL, Earthlink, etc + individual computer identity) of the computers
people are posting from.
I could choose to make them visible on the public board like they
are at the Bronze Beta site (or at least used to be!), but I chose
not to. The primary reason for having them publically viewable,
as I understood it at the Bronze, was to enable people to report
rude and unruly posters to their Internet Service Providers.
I think we have a decent enough level of friendly discourse here
that we don't need to go posting "Mommy and Daddy's phone
numbers" under people's names just to keep them in line.
: )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you... --
Lilac, 14:54:56 02/15/02 Fri
both for the interesting information, and for the privacy that
you provide here. In the few months I have been coming here, I
have been impressed both by the caliber of the discourse and with
the overall courtesy of the vast majority of posters. I guess
this is why it is such a shock when someone behaves less than
well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmm... -- matching mole, 12:15:51
02/15/02 Fri
I'll buy that (what the implication of the gibers was), especially
as I founnd many of the gibes somewhat cryptic and I stopped paying
attention to their content very quickly. In which case I think
that shutting them down was the only viable option. If we agree
that we are pretentious and exclusionary then we should modify
our behaviour or disband. If we don't agree (and I think that
this board is exemplary in lacking pretension and exclusiveness
while maintaining intellectually entertaining converstation) then
the only options are to engage the disrupters, ignore them, or
exclude them. Ignoring them or engaging them didn't seem to work
so it seems like excluding them is the only way to go. Unfortunate
but necessary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmm... -- Rob, 12:35:16
02/15/02 Fri
I don't know how monkeypants could ever think this board "pretentious
and exclusionary." This is the only "Buffy" board
where I was instantly, warmly welcomed and praised from the date
of my first posting. I felt instantly at home here. This board
has none of the "alliances" or cliques that plague other
boards. We all, for the most part, like each other here, and are
open to each other's opinions, whether we agree with them or not.
Total open door policy.
And what a strange way for a poster who thinks us "pretentious
and exclusionary" to express himself or herself. He or she
effectively alienated and isolated himself or herself, by making
extremely pretentious statements that were astoundingly devoid
of true depth or critical analysis, besides the one-sided, thin
observations that "the show ain't the same no more!,"
and further, attacked or, at the very least, irritated other members
of the board.
Rob
P.S. All these his and hers, while gramatically correct, are giving
me a major headache! ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay. Just what people
are saying we're pretentious and exlusionary? -- VampRiley, 17:58:08
02/16/02 Sat
This is the ony message board I go to for two reason:
1st - I love everyone here. I think this place is great.
2nd (which comes from recent events) - I don't have much time
to go to others. I used to, but I just don't have the time anymore.
So, who are they?
Preplexed from Philly,
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> VR, I stand accused
(perhaps understandably) . . . -- Jim Boke Tomlin, 20:47:34 02/16/02
Sat
See my long reply to you below. . . but the "trial"
is sort-of still in the works.(smile)
(The lynching party planning is well underway.)
BOTTOM LINE: There may or may be anything educational
to come out of this. But if it does,it will be one hell
of an enlightenment. (big serious grin)
Boke (www.boke.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Freedom of speech does not guarantee an audience
-- Vickie, 12:08:15 02/15/02 Fri
Old saying (that I will probably mangle): "Your right to
wave your arm ends an inch from my nose." Monkeypants has
every right to his/her/its opinion of us and the board. He/she/it
has the right to express that opinion, even here. Once that expression
interferes with the legitimate goals of the board, then his/her/its
arm is getting too close to our noses.
A critical point, which has been made by others, is that we were
all open to discussion of Monkeypants' POV. The poster was not.
He/she/it didn't want discussion, just mockery. Sometimes clever
mockery, but it was taking up all the bandwidth and pushing out
some good posts the rest of us wanted to read.
I think you did the right thing, Masq. Including the part about
being concerned about it. You wouldn't be the board hostess-with-the-mostest
if you weren't worried that you were abusing your power.
Tie in to BtVS (and getting back on topic): This is why Willow
is a power addict and Our Hostess is not. Masq is concerned to
not overuse her power and not over control us. Willow never even
considered (until her crash) that her will should not be obeyed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thanks, Vickie -- Masq, 12:58:29 02/15/02
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Masq. is an addict.....why didn't anyone
tell me?;) -- Rufus, 18:46:43 02/15/02 Fri
Yup, Masq did the right thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Michelle at the BC&S is far more
restrictive than Masq is... -- OnM, 22:15:26 02/15/02 Fri
...when it comes to allowing rude or disruptive posts.
It's a matter of common civility, and there is nothing wrong with
insisting on that.
IMO, a line has been clearly crossed when the show, the writers,
the producers and contributors to this discussion board are simultaneously
likened to animal excrement.
It is certainly possible to be occasionally rude or mocking (such
as in clearly satirical offerings) without intending insult, but
in order to do so 'safely', intent must be known in advance. Preferably,
this takes time, and a longer term/regular presence on the board,
so that others in the community gain a sense of the poster's intentions
and general demeanor. Such was not the case here. What started
as a humorous and obviously satirical series of posts rapidly
degenerated into simple verbal cruelty.
My sincere thanks to Masq for acting in a restrained and appropriate
manner considering the circumstances.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Michelle at the BC&S is
far more restrictive than Masq is... -- Rufus, 23:22:34 02/15/02
Fri
We do have to remember that Michelle is up front about a few things
before you post...read the rules....in the rules she states that
the Cross and Stake board is a fan board so blatant bashing is
restricted..she also informs us that some very young people(the
ones you and I call children)will be posting....I always keep
that in mind when I'm there. Here I expect the majority who post
here are adults(though some trolls have me question the word adult)
and there is more leeway....but that is never an excuse to forget
manners and the fact that we are here on Masq's suffrage. :):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> One other thing to consider... -- Isabel,
20:03:16 02/15/02 Fri
Some people don't like calm discussions by people who are on pretty
good terms with each other. Just because we like it here, they
want to take that cameraderie from us.
If you throw a party and one of your guests gets drunk and disorderly
to the extent that they're bothering the rest of the guests, are
you not within your rights to ask that person to leave? Call them
a taxi, find their ride, but tell them they're not welcome until
they can behave.
Just wanting to reassure you. It's not a discussion when one person
stands in the middle of the floor arguing with themselves. You
made the right call.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Would the world be better if Socrates had chosen not
to offend the Athenians? -- Jim Boke Tomlin (graciously un-exiled
. . . for the moment), 08:43:27 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> That assumes we are the Athenians and you are
Socrates... -- Masq, 10:18:35 02/16/02 Sat
metaphorically speaking, of course. And that is your assumption,
if I may say so. Stay a while. Get to know us. Live in our city
for a month or two and befriend us just a little. You may change
your point of view. And if you don't, well, that's your perogative.
Welcome, at any rate.
Masq
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Appreciate your tolerance... Brief reply
to "assumption" -- Boke, 12:29:05 02/16/02 Sat
This is 2002 . . .
My rhetorical question was exploring the "valuation"
of
offense & the nature of philosophy. Historically reflected.
(he said strategically, but truthfully)
www.boke.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> (2) What do Buffy scripts & Plato's dialogues
have in common? -- Boke (laying subtextual foundation), 12:40:26
02/16/02 Sat
COMMENTARY:
Yes, another purposefully rhetorical question . . .
but ultimately for a philosophical purpose.
CONTEXT: "Voicing" via multiple "characters."
www.boke.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Shouldn't that be, " What do Buffy
scripts , Plato's dialogues, and your posts have in common?"
-- Wisewoman, 14:31:12 02/16/02 Sat
COMMENTARY:
Yes, another purposefully rhetorical question . . .
but ultimately for a philosophical purpose.
Then state your purpose. You have established no basis of trust
in which to conduct a Socratic dialogue.
CONTEXT: "Voicing" via multiple "characters."
One voice/many characters--and that would appear to be all you
have in common with Plato, or Whedon for that matter. They were
successful, at least, in maintaining the illusion of multiple
characters. I'm sure you'll admit that "monkeypants"
(et al) wasn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Did you find that forensicpoetry
and monkeypants spoke in the same voice? -- Boke, 15:07:03 02/16/02
Sat
You have established no basis of trust in which to conduct a Socratic
dialogue.
I respectifully disagree with you with regards to
the necessity of trust in a philosophical dialogue.
(It would seem complete strangers may cross paths and
have one.)
On the arguable question as to whether an "untrustworthy"
person has any place in a philosophic dialogue (as
opposed to a legislative assembly), I might find that
even more enjoyable (smile) . . . their ideas are open
to judgement. (Though I might slip my wallet in an
inside pocket. )
But more to the point, the question of whether my behavior
was "untrustwothy" . . . . on a board hosted by
Masquerade the Philosopher . . .
. . . well, I leave that for the bigger picture.
And of course, "the bigger picture" is not yet clear.
I.E., my motive/intent.
Excuse my long-windedness. (smile) By the way, I will
always be grateful for the abrasive (but delightful)
young woman who once-upon-a-time mocked me for my
long, legalistic posts.
For without her . . . I would never have tried
making arguments in rhetorical verse. So,
bless her heart. (warm smile)
Boke (www.boke.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> EXHIBIT A: forensicpoetry's
2nd post from 02/01/02 -- Boke (for referennce/no longer available
on site), 15:22:14 02/16/02 Sat
Date Posted: 11:26:23 02/01/02 Fri
Author: forensicpoetry
Subject: Saving the Buffyverse with Buffy-verse
[rhetorical verse in Shakespearean sonnet form]
Saving the Buffyverse with Buffy-Verse
With "DoubleMeat" we've semed to reach a low
(though some would not agree, that's how I'd vote).
And Willow's lost in space -- her gift's her foe.
It's time this series bought a brand new coat.
My goal is not to criticize the team
that's brought the world such beauty, joy, and fun;
but rather bridge our minds, and so redeem
the Buffyverse, before The Foe has won.
The Foe? Why Time itself -- pure Entropy.
A hundred episodes is quite a stretch.
And now we've crossed that border, sailed that sea
(and Buffy out of Heaven we did fetch!)
So global human wisdom is required
to make it better than if B. retired.
Boke (www.boke.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes. -- WW, 16:00:50 02/16/02
Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Only moneypants could
"fittingly" reply to this, but he is on vacation. (smile)
-- Boke, 16:13:32 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> EXHIBIT B: forensic
poetry's post of 2/6/02 . . .which SOMEBODY liked;) -- Boke (for
reference / no longer available on site), 17:16:41 02/16/02 Sat
COMMENT: Note the "evolution" of forensicpoetry's "character."
Nude-Platoon Drill Sargeant Review (of BtVS)
No Time for Sonnets
Count off -- one, two.
Count off -- three, four.
Come on Joss, it's time to go
from UPN to HBO
Since Buffy's clearly lost her wits,
time to flash her perky t*ts.
Give Spike's cute buns equal time.
No more Shakespeare. Porny rhyme!
Count off -- one, two.
Count off -- three, four.
We're watching now a diff'rent show.
Hey, that title has to go.
No more vampires to be slain.
Call it, "Buffy Goes Insane."
Good-Sex is evil, it must pay.
Beat your lover ev'ry day.
And cry because it it a sin. . .
Suffer girl -- it's UPN.
bokeunderapseudonym (www.boke.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Did you find that forensicpoetry
and monkeypants spoke in the same voice? -- d'Herblay, 16:12:24
02/16/02 Sat
Yes: the same voice; the same smug half-cleverness; the same self-satisfied
tone; the same self-congratulatory manner; the same over-use of
parentheticals; the same cramped little margins (which you really
should fix -- they're going to look like hell in the archives).
This points out the central difference between the writing staff
of Buffy (not to mention Plato) and yourself: each writer is able
(with differing amounts of success) to create separate, distinct
voices for their characters, but each signs only his or her name
to his work (for, were "Drew Z. Greenberg" only another
one of Joss's pseudonyms, a hell of a lot of the analysis of "Older
and Far Away," including yours, would have to be completely
rethought); you have created only one unified (and tedious) voice
but must change your name to create the illusion of dialogue.
And this is what most irritates about your manner. Instead of
trying to convince others of your point of view, instead of reaching
for consensus, instead even of trying to understand the points
of view of others, you have tried to create the illusion of consensus
through giving yourself your own amen corner.
This serves as rebuttal to your comment: "I respectifully
disagree with you with regards to the necessity of trust in a
philosophical dialogue." You haven't been engaging in dialogue;
you have been writing monologues. At least Plato gave different
voices to Alcibiades and Aristophanes than he did to Socrates.
As for the "bigger picture," "I.E., [your] motive/intent,"
I wonder why you feel it is necessary to have any motive or intent
other than to be entertaining and to be entertained. That is all
any of us intend to do. You seem to entertain and to be entertained
by only yourself. That is fine, but there are plenty of hermitages
and asyla more suited for such solipsisms than this community.
I will not comment on how we differ from Athenians. As to how
you differ from Socrates? Well, they're just not making hemlock
like they used to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Have carefully read
your full post, though it is not designed for easy-reading ;)
-- Boke, 16:28:26 02/16/02 Sat
I kindly suggest that if my style of post irritates you,
it is a simple matter not to read them.
But in any case, I have read every word of yours carefully
and will weigh them in the balance. Ultimately, I accept
the situation that making everyone happy is impossible.
But trust me, although it may seem I have no concern,
I daily carry the weight of "the world's opinion" in
my heart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> relative volume and value
of pictures vs. words -- anom, 00:04:21 02/17/02 Sun
". . . well, I leave that for the bigger picture.
And of course, "the bigger picture" is not yet clear.
I.E., my motive/intent."
If it isn't clear after all the verbiage you've imposed on this
board, it's because you've chosen to keep it obscure. Having (finally)
read this thread through to the end, I still find it unclear.
If you want people to know your "motive/intent," or
what you would like this board to be, why the hell don't you just
tell us? If you don't want us to know, why the hell not? The whole
process you've gone through comes off as manipulative, despite
your "(grins)" & "(warm smiles)." Some of
us don't have as much time on our hands as you evidently have.
Yes, we're free to ignore your posts if we find them offensive
or (as I did) merely irritating (hence the "why the hells"
above), & I got to the point where I did just that, but they have
taken up so much space on the board that they drove posts I did
want to read into the archives before I got to them. I decided
to go back to reading at least this thread because it looked as
though something useful might be coming of it. Having done so,
I just feel my time has been wasted.
You also come off as arrogant for coming across a board that numerous
people--those who started it & those who coame along later--have
contributed to building into what it was when you found it, coming
in from out of nowhere & deciding it should be something else,
& trying to make it that without consulting us, its community.
If you want change here, try open discussion. From what I've seen,
you didn't even read the FAQ, especially the parts about suitable
topics for discussion & Masquerade's posting name, which you've
made much of as a basis for behaving as you have.
To sum up: Your "bigger picture" isn't worth even a
thousand words, let alone the far greater number you've expended
in your convoluted efforts to convey/avoid conveying it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> postmodern (verbal)
"big pictures" are collage . . . and simulations --
Boke, 00:42:10 02/17/02 Sun
The path that I chose
is not one that I plotted.
I was responding.
Boke www.boke.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: postmodern
(verbal) "big pictures" are collage . . . and simulations
-- anom, 09:57:36 02/17/02 Sun
"The path that I chose
is not one that I plotted.
I was responding."
There's more than one way to respond. You had choices both in
the path you took & in how you traveled it. I notice that what
you haven't responded to is any of the points I made in my post.
From what I've seen, you respond to yourself more often than to
anyone else. (Who was it who once said that this board wasn't
solipsistic? Lately it's been approaching that status.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> INTENT: Review this
social envioronment with respect to openness to participative
innovation. -- Boke (giving anom one clearer answer), 01:21:24
02/17/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> EXHIBIT C: forensicpoetry's
2/3/02 4-sonnet post (Why "Talk" in Rhetorical Verse?)
-- Boke, 00:29:13 02/17/02 Sun
COMMENT: This 4-sonnet sequence "makes a case" for why
you might consider trying to compose your next "philosophical
argument" in "rhetorical verse"
GREEK CHORUS: "Your poetry sucks."
A 5-YEAR-OLD MAN: "I can write better than Shakespeare .
. .
him being dead, an' all."
BRONZED WISEPERSON: YBMV (Your beagle may vary.).
Saving the Buffyverse . . . with RHETORICAL VERSE
(aka What's With All This "Poetry" Crap? or Rhetoric
v. Philosophy: Round #623 )
[ a 4-sonnet sequence in Shakespearean sonnet form]
(1) ALTHOUGH I'VE LET THE MISPERCEPTION FLOAT
that I'm attempting poetry -- that's wrong.
You never write a poem to win a vote.
True poets rarely write a hit pop song.
A poem expresses with great sublety
a private view with metaphors unique.
Few readers will agree on what they see.
Great poetry's beyond a glib critique.
No -- what I'm writing is pure rhetoric,
but like a work of art within constraints
inscribed in sonnet's format I must pick
the words that fit "my case," so as one paints . . .
. . . one's argument, you're always in suspense
of your conclusion, 'til you reach the fence.
(2) BUT IF "THAT'S ALL IT IS," WHAT IS THE POINT?
There's several, so let's go one by one.
The first: though formal verse seems out of joint
with our computer age, is that it's fun
The second (more important) it's concise.
Philosophy assumes we have the time
for a long walk through reason to a vise
of uncontested Q.E.D. -- but rhyme . . .
. . . is no more arbitrary than the path
philosophers trace though their knowledge sphere.
Logicians think an argument's like math.
But if most TV-watching jurors hear . . .
. . . long-winding clarity, they will tune out.
A sonnet guarantees a short, quick route.
(3) AND NOW FOR REASON THREE TO WRITE IN VERSE --
it says you've taken time and care to speak.
To make it fit iambic, you rehearse
the possibilities, and then you seek . . .
. . . the best among your options to express.
Which leads to number 4: and that's surprise.
You may discover that you must confess
the point you thought you'd make was in disguise.
A "silly rhyme" can force you to new views --
to thoughts you'd never have without "the rules."
Ironic'ly the freedom that you lose
is amplified, returned. So it's not fools . . .
. . . who would make sonnet-arguments.
(So make slams of my "poetry" past tense.)
(4) THIS IS A SONNET SEQUENCE. Sonnet 4
shall be the peroration of my case.
As should be clear by now, I could write more --
but then somebody'd smack me in the face.
I smile at that, but that is what this is.
I slap the status quo upside the head.
I answer questions for which there's no quiz.
I ask why it is that we feel so wed . . .
. . . to tiny-type, prose paragraphs on screen.
Like passing notes in high school typing class.
Come on! Dress up our words like Halloween!
Or must we stay the same as Latin mass?
So last: "I mock you with my monkey pants."
Don't stand there scowling -- get out here and dance!.
Boke(www.boke.com)
[who has now written himself down from a leaded java high]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> EXHIBIT D: Gosh Weedin's Buffy
Script Teaser (Anti-Dawn Satire) posted 2/8/02 -- Boke, 00:56:00
02/17/02 Sun
COMMENTARY: One method of "arguing against" a series'
current trajectory, is to make the "insanity" manifest.
So here is an argument in TV script form.
TEASER
SUMMERS' KITCHEN - DAY
SPIKE smokes in through the BACKDOOR, throwing off his BLANKET
and sees . . .
SPIKE
Bloody hell!
ANGLE ON PADLOCKED REFRIGERATOR AND KITCHEN CABINETS
BACK TO SCENE
BUFFY enters on Spike's heels, purposivly carrying what looks
like an AUTO BATTERY CHARGER. It is. She sets it on the island
and plugs it in.
BUFFY
(calling)
Dawn!
SPIKE
As I was saying, bloody hell!
BUFFY
(harshly, as usual)
More silence, please.
DAWN enters half-scowling, half-about-to-cry (as usual).
Stops at the sight of "the new kitchen additions." Eyes
widen.
Hands make tight little balls from the stress of surprise.
Buffy pulls a stool over by the island. Motions.
BUFFY
(to Dawn)
Sit. Take off your shoes.
SPIKE
Bloody hell?
BUFFY
(to Spike, sharply)
Shhh!
(firmly)
Dawn, sit.
Dawn hesitates, but then complies. Easing onto the stool she
slips off her SHOES.
Buffy kneels and begins taking off Dawn's SOCKS.
BUFFY
(with pathos)
Dawn, I love you.
(a breath)
But I have a sacred duty.
(a deeper breath)
I can't save the world like this.
Buffy gently takes one of Dawn's feet in her hands.
Like a mother, kisses the top of it.
BUFFY
(continuing)
I can't save the world . . . and buy you pizza.
Buffy clips a BATTERY CHARGER WIRE to Dawn's big toe.
DAWN
Buffy!?!?
SPIKE
Bloody hell?!?
Buffy clips the charger to Dawn's other big toe.
BUFFY
It's energy Dawn. Trickle charge.
Pennies a day. Get used to it.
TITLE SEQUENCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> COMMENT RE Thread's
"simulated posts" which followed -- Boke, 01:10:28 02/17/02
Sun
COMMENT: The "simulated pattern of posts" which grew
from this thread was intended to illustrate a pattern
of dialogue based primarily on posts that would fit within the
100 character topic line.
NOTE: If a large number of participants were involved
(say 100), the only time-practical method of discussion/
commentary would be to restrict most posts to 100 char.
SO they could be read at a glance.
FOR THE RECORD: I had not used a VOY.COM forum before,
and I was also using this post collection to discover
the most effective "archetecture of dialogue."
ALSO NOTE: Although most of the posts were mine,
not all of them were. (e.g., the first praise post
was not mine, and another helpful user suggested
I use a different type face.)
THERE HAVE BEEN some complaints about the space
this "simulated thread" took up. But I spent
many hours attempting to make it an interesting/
informative (and making an Anti-Dawn case, fully
Buffy related) illustration.
My appologies to those who found it without value.
It was, I assure you, a one-time only exploration.)
Boke (www.boke.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> (3)"I've got a theory" that the most-fitting
philosopher-type evolves to fit the social environment. -- Boke
(still humming tunes from Buffy the Musical), 15:45:33 02/16/02
Sat
I present, for consideration (and derision)
that monkeypants could be "the most
fitting" philosopher type for this social
environment.
Futher comment, if warranted. (smile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> P.S. I composed/downloaded my cellphone
ring-tone to play: "Going Through The Motions." -- Boke
(Fan enough for ya?), 15:52:57 02/16/02 Sat
NOTE: If anyone wanted it, I'd be happy to give it to you,
but the last time I looked AT&T didn't provide a way for
users to compose a ringtone and let anyone else download it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Okay. I'll bite. Please explain about
monkeypants. -- VampRiley, 17:49:54 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> The Evolution of Monkeypants: Unmasking
The Mystery ("episode guide")LONG -- Boke (a halo suspended
above his head), 20:21:05 02/16/02 Sat
Much appreciate your bravery, V.R. (smile)
Although a complete picture of the "MonkeyPants Episode".
may not be quite be ready for complete, dead-on revelation --
the pieces of the puzzle should slowly becoming clear
to you form the posts above and below.
But to reward your request (and although your asking may not
seem a big deal, your are bucking some significant
"social pressure" to villify monkeypants/me)
I will see if I can collapse it down to managable size.
Evolution: from forensicpoetry to monkeypants
ACT I: forensicpoetry posts "rhetorical
verse" (sonnets/haiku)
which makes a few people
surprisingly angry. (Although articulate,
the response contains too much subtle
personal/level attack.(Not just ideas
and style, but the person who posted it.)
COMMENT:Although I am still not quite ready
to reveal the complete "big picture" on
my posting "rhetorical verse," I will
simply say that the unnecessary viperous
response revealed (based on my experience)
an environment that might easily scare off
new posters, unless they conformed closely
to the board regulars sense of propriety.
ACT II: forensicpoetry "evolves" into a less
formal versifier. (Shooting for satirical humor.)
NOTE: It could be kept in mind that my current
feelings about BtVS -- no matter my status as
an episode #1-infinity fan -- is that the
show is off the rails at this time. One goal
is to discover an effective way for Buffy's
auidence to more effectively provide useful
feedback to the writers. (Yes, that is
"blasphemy," but the world is changing . ..
and I believe such effect is possible.)
BUT: If all fans are happy, their can be
no effective pressure for reform.
GIVEN: The majority of this (highly articulate)
forum, leans in a "whatever-Whedon-does-is-OK"
direction (thought not all), there is some
social pressure not to rock the boat
too much ... and thereby alienate
the board regulars.
MY GOAL: See if their was a way to
"unbalance" the status quo enough ...
to allow more vigorous support of more
critical Buffy trajectory analysis.
WHICH LEADS TO: Satire and Mocking
(but with the requirement that it
be done with sufficient style --
or at least really clever banana jokes --
to have some force.
ACT IV: Gosh Weedin's Satirical Buffy Teaser Script
(AND "simulated multi-character dialogue")
THE PURPOSE OF THIS SATIRICAL EXPERIMENT:
was to attempt to find a new way to
"mock" the most flawed elements in the
Buffyverse design.
PART II: The "simulated" multi-character
dialogue. THE PURPOSE (was not to "fool"
people) but rather to ILLUSTRATE a new
form of one-line-at-a-time discussion
(that would be more suitable if we had
100 people on the board in a thread
at a time.)
ACT 5: postmodernman's List Top 5 shows and
how to fix them. This is a "postmodern form"
(believe it or not) of discussion . . .which
is based on the postmodern genre of lists.
(If that doesn't make sense, don't worry,
it's something that fan be read about in
literary criticism literature.)
RESULT: Some participation of regulars, but
I don't think anyone undertood the point
at the time . . . and it would take some
plain ol' long-winded explanation that would
have destroyed the fun of it (at the time.)
ACT 6: AND LAST . . .what you've been waiting for.
Why after all that did "monkeypants" evolve
in all his offensive glory.
IN BRIEF: At the moment the board has two
strikes against it in terms of its beingg
a good environment for the two things I'd
like to see possible here.
(1) Figuring out new ways to have
conversations (among more people)
by transcending some of the "old rules"
of forum dialogue that have been around
for ages.
(2) Create a more tolerant environment
for those who love the show . . .but are
really, really, absolutely positive, the
show is going to hell in a handbasket.
BOTTOM LINE: monkeypants (being a monkey), and
I'm sure you remember the line Oz said: "I mock you
with my monkeypants" evolved to play the jestor part.
By being free to be rude, he can -- if people will calm
down and laugh (goodness, he's a monkey, after all),
will allow the board to examine it's standard
operating procedure for conversations . . .
... and hopefully help pave the way for new forms
and tolerance for broader perspectives.
Well, that's much more than I meant to write -- and
probably not the whole story. But it's damn close enough.
Again, my thinks for your sticking your neck out.
Boke (www.boke.com)
P.S. Please excuse all stupid sentences, no time to rewrite.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> monkeypants theory (in a nutshell)
-- Boke, 20:33:49 02/16/02 Sat
Whew, that was long. (smile) Try this:
All social enviornments get stuck in the ways.
("The way we do things" gets "taken for granted.")
One simple definition of a philosopher is a guy/gal
who continually asks "why" we do things the way we do.
This upsets people who are used to they way things are,
and often get very mad at philosophers.
(1) Socrates was convicted and sentenced to death.
(2) The Roman emperor banned ALL philosophers
from all of Italy.
My "theory" (at least for literary purposes) is that
a certain style of philosopher will be more effective
in helping keep the "status quo" from getting stuck
. . .
and all I can say, after a couple of weeks of "playing
around" . . . was that it dawned on me . . . out of
the blue . . . that monkeypants was the best
fit for this board.
boke (wwww.boke.com)
[way more than you wanted to know]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> P.S. It was the Roman
emporer Domitian who took the next step & baned all philosophers
from Italy. -- boke, 20:59:18 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> As someone said below, "Nice
try." -- Wisewoman, 21:00:55 02/16/02 Sat
Let's see if I can sum this up: someone (and I really can't remember
who) responded negatively to some of your first posts--
(Although articulate,
the response contains too much subtle
personal/level attack.
Too much for you, obviously, although as noted above, we've not
run into problems before. I guess we didn't realize we needed
an "objective" arbiter of when "subtle" becomes
"too much." We'd been floundering along with the illusion
that we actually had some sense of what constituted worthwhile
discussion. Good thing you came along...
Skipping ahead:
IN BRIEF: At the moment the board has two
strikes against it in terms of its beingg
a good environment for the two things I'd
like to see possible here.
(1) Figuring out new ways to have
conversations (among more people)
by transcending some of the "old rules"
of forum dialogue that have been around
for ages.
(2) Create a more tolerant environment
for those who love the show . . .but are
really, really, absolutely positive, the
show is going to hell in a handbasket.
Again, thank goodness you found us in time to disabuse us of the
notion we had of ourselves as a tolerant and congenial community.
I'm sure we'll all hasten forthwith to create the kind of environment...[you'd]
like to see possible here.
I'm curious--do you troll the Internet like some kind of avenging
angel, righting wrongs wherever you find them, or did we just
get lucky?
Get a life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Stumbling upon . . .
"Masquerade The Philosopher" -- Boke, 21:41:15 02/16/02
Sat
Once in every generation one girly-man in all the world
. . . etc. etc. (smile)
Like poor Buffy's, my fate is a thankless job . . .
rewarded with -- it would seem -- at least one
ressurection.
I am fortunate enough to have a life of giving my
attention to whatever attracts it the most strongly.
I have often been baffled by the "paths" that leads
me through. But I am always surprised by the things
I gain.
E.G., If nothing else, some helpful soul told me that
"font face=verdana" makes all the difference" .
. .
and to my great joy, they were right.
Not on the order of being inspired to writing sonnets
by a previous "antagonist," perhaps. But tiny treasure.
Who knows, perhaps you may insprire me to some path
I would never have considered . . . simply by expressing
your disapproval.
The Lord works in mysterious ways.
CLOSING SERMON: (smile) "Love your enemy."
I say that to me more than you. And we simply
don't know each other well enough to be that.
So God Bless, (with complete sincerity)
Boke (www.boke.com)
"Blessed are those who are not offended by me." J.C.
(smile)
P.S. Oh yes, I was intrigued by the title "Masquerade the
Philosophy" and a land where no one seems to know what either
word means. (very big grin)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> But, but... -- Darby,
21:43:13 02/16/02 Sat
I think I may have been one of the respondents who was less-than-gracious
- I remember that one of the early poems seemed like a snipe rather
than a commentary, and accused ME of somehow exhibiting an elistist
attitude toward fast-food workers when it seemed obvious that
they had experience as fast-food workers. I remember having one
of those "What the hell-?" moments.
I posted just a subject line that was, I thought, incredulous
but now I'm thinking was more mocking then it should have been.
Now how ironic is that? Maggie Walsh has nothing on me! But I
do apologize, seriously. And if it wasn't me you were pissed at,
or only me, I don't think anyone's reaction was "alienate
the newbie" here.
Okay, I'm going to get editory here, boke - my impression is that
you're trying way too hard, and way too fast, to get up commentary
that seems to be striking the majority of the population here
as less "Here's a topic I'd wish we could discuss,"
and more "Look at me! Look at meeeee!" Now that last
is a mix in everybody's postings, but your stuff didn't seem thought
out (and if jesters didn't carefully plan out their jibes, the
severance pay involved an axe), and what thought that was behind
it (and I'm coming to realize that there is that) was totally
nonevident to most of us. A nonsequitur is just that.
I would not characterize this last, historical overview post that
way, though. And maybe I'm in a minority and there's a crowd grinding
their teeth behind me, but I would appreciate it if you'd take
some time and flesh out the details of what you're trying to say
- what in your mind is the postmodern posting board? I'm not sure
what to say about your "hell in a handbasket" point,
though, because you would not be the lone voice on that here;
you might be on point, but a number of posters have expressed
similar opinions. But my personal opinion is that you don't have
to try to be so ***clever*** with it. This is a conversational
group - if you'd like to initiate a change, you need to start
by conversing.
Just keep in mind that we kinda like the board - the community
here - the way it is, but we certainly can't have thought of all
of the ways it could be improved.
You really have me curious.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But, but...
(Wasn't your post that was rude) -- Boke, 22:23:11 02/16/02 Sat
Thanks Darby (especially for the post that set up this thread
. . . for an "episode-capping" climax. (smile)
Rest assured it was not your one-liner response
to my first (Sonnetized Beef) post. Believe it or not,
(and you probably may) I have a preference for one-line
posts . .. when the point can be encapsulated that way.
THE ATTACKS I am referring to, are not the fact that
someone (Eric, I believe was the worse) disagreed with
"the point" I was apparently making with the sonnet.
RATHER my concern with was the spread from attacking
the ideas, to a personal attack. An articulate one,
and not silly name calling . . . but a subtle,
mean-spirited attack.
That is never called for, and when I have moderated
discussions that is the kind of behavior I am looking for. Espeically
if others join the attack.
NOTE:: If you've studied social dyamics (social
psychology), none of this behavior is unusual --
it is how social groups define insiders/outsiders.
Each group has its its primary "rule enforces."
On this board, I know who they are.
yada yada yada
RE "CLEVERNESS"
Darby, all I can tell you is I spent may years
writing long, articulate, "law-level" arguments . .
.
UNTIL I learned the "futility" of it . . . especially
in the Internet age.
RULE 1: Be concise.
RULE 2: Be memorable.
RULE 3: Don't worry if everyone doesn't understand.
They never will.
Again --way, too many words. I am "breaking" my own
rules
to write all this out in detail . . . that will be
mangled in peoples minds ... not because anyone is
dumb, but because we are different.
Anyway, thanks again. Without you,there would not have
been this "last roundup." (Ooops, I shouldn't have
said that. Now they'll lynch you. :)
Boke
www.boke.com
[Fear not, we are near the end of the episode aftermath.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> P.S. interpreting
"alien"/clever communication -- Boke, 22:56:56 02/16/02
Sat
Try imagining
an alien visitor
was talking to you.
It would behove you
to snatch the gist of his speech . . .
It might save the world.
Boke www.boke.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> To Masq and the ATPoBtVS
Community-at-large... -- Wisewoman, 23:23:30 02/16/02 Sat
My apologies for the above post. Sarcasm is the lowest form of
wit. I allowed myself to indulge in exactly the sort of flaming
that we pride ourselves on resisting. I have no excuse.
I'm sorry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'd noticed your
grace . . . -- Boke, 23:36:47 02/16/02 Sat
. . . in skimming posts randomly.
You seem "a white hat." (sincere smile)
Boke
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Black Hats
-- Malandanza, 08:45:23 02/17/02 Sun
"The majority of this (highly articulate) forum, leans in
a "whatever-Whedon-does-is-OK" direction (thought not
all), there is some social pressure not to rock the boat too much
... and thereby alienate the board regulars."
I believe that you are mistaken in this regard. The regulars love
debate and if everyone on this board were part of ME's amen corner,
there would be no debate. It's not that we think that anything
JW does is great, it's that we remember being pleasantly surprised
by the twists and turns in plots that that we thought were heading
nowhere. I have never seen an example of intelligent debate alienate
any of the board regulars -- alienation requires a certain amount
of persistent ignorance and insult on the part of the poster.
Furthermore, there is no set faction of regulars with a monolithic
point of view -- in fact, agreement on serious issues is something
of an exception to the rule (just browse through the archives
for verification -- particularly the summer archives when the
debate changes from reacting to the latest episode to more philosophical
matters).
"MY GOAL: See if their was a way to "unbalance"
the status quo enough ...to allow more vigorous support of more
critical Buffy trajectory analysis."
Perhaps this was your intent, but it seems as though you need
to analyze your methods -- you created a "circle the wagons"
atmosphere with your "subtle, mean-spirited" posts and
have succeeded in creating a censorious consensus where none existed
before. Congratulations.
"RESULT: Some participation of regulars, but I don't think
anyone understood the point at the time . . . and it would take
some plain ol' long-winded explanation that would
have destroyed the fun of it (at the time.)"
The regulars have debated most points pertaining to BtVS in the
past -- including whether or not BtVS and AtS is an elitist show
(supposedly, the intention of your first poem was to discuss elitism).
If we do not participate in a debate, it is sometimes because
we have heard it all before -- and settled the issue in our own
minds.
"NOTE:: If you've studied social dynamics (social psychology),
none of this behavior is unusual -- it is how social groups define
insiders/outsiders. Each group has its primary "rule enforces."
On this board, I know who they are."
I believe that you are mistaken about who the "rule enforcers"
are on this board. Literally, it is Masq (but she is a benevolent
dictator -- as her clemency proves). I suspect you are referring
to a group of regular posters who, while having no power to censor
posts or ban posters, have the de facto power of discouraging
debate. If this is the case, let me assure you that you have not
yet met them. The people who you believe to be persecuting you
are not "rule enforcers" on this board any sense of
the word.
"RULE 1: Be concise.
RULE 2: Be memorable.
RULE 3: Don't worry if everyone doesn't understand. They never
will."
Rule 4?: Be unintelligible -- people often confuse non sequiturs
and rambling ambiguities with profound thoughts (or maybe this
is merely a clarification of Rule 3)
Rule 5?: Instead of making a single post containing 3 or 4 related
ideas, make 3 or 4 posts per idea! The narcissistic thrill of
seeing your own name dominating a message board clearly outweighs
the advantage of a single posting and has the added advantage
of making it difficult to respond to. When someone does respond
to one of your snippets, readers have difficulty following the
discussion since they would have to sort through a dozen messages
to find the context of the original remark -- thus, debate is
discouraged.
If you're serious about wanting to be apart of this board, I'd
suggest going through Masq's site and reading through the archives
before judging what kind of people we are.
If anything I've said has offended you, let me assure you that
it does not lie near my conscience. I am, after all, one of the
"Black Hats" of the board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It okay, Wisewoman.
These arn't normal circumstances. As for Boke... -- VampRiley,
07:55:25 02/17/02 Sun
I have class work that I need to get done right now. But I will
have a response to what you have recently posted sometime this
afternoon to early evening. Hope you're still around then.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks,
VR ;o) -- WW, 09:23:37 02/17/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No problem,
Luv. Anytime. Now, as for Boke... -- VampRiley, 14:11:51 02/17/02
Sun
First, if I have put off or offended anyone, regular posters or
not, please let me know the how, when and what it was about so
I can keep from doing it in the future.
Now, what I want to do is tell you about me. Normally we have
learned about each other slowly throughout posting and most times
not to such detail. But, I want to let you know where I'm coming
from.
Screen Name: VampRiley
D.O.B.: 8/27/79, 8:42 a.m.
Occupation: College Student-Anthropology (Undergraduate), A.A.
(Liberal Arts), GPA 2.83 (so you know I'm smart)
Residence: the suburbs of Philadelphia.
Ethnicity: Black, Puerto Rican, Dutch, German, Irish, Native American,
East Indian, Italian
Physical Description:
Eyes: dark chocolate Brown (though they seem to have gotten a
bit lighter recently, I don't know why.)
Oval shaped, metallic framed glasses (got nearsightedness)
Hair: dark chocolate Brown (so dark that it has been confused
for Black. I have also dyed my hair, going to the two extremes
of Platinum Blonde and jet
Black. I would have done Navy Blue, but I could never find any.
I stopped, not because of the price, but because I just couldn't
keep buying it.)
Height: around 5' 9" or so
Weight: 200 lbs. (much of it comes from having a stocky skeletal
system and working out)
Other Characteristics: Goatee (no top or bottom lip hair, just
on me chin), White skin but speaks with what would be considered
mainstream, proper
English and a bit of a North London accent with a bit of cockney
that comes and goes (though I'm not english, at least I don't
think I am)
Parents: non-practicing Catholic (father) and a now, non-practicing
Lutheran (mum). Me, I was raised Lutheran but now I'm Agnostic.
There's too much info
going in all sorts of directions for me to know what to believe.
Musical Interests: Incubus, Marilyn Manson, Lil' Kim, Dave Matthews
Band, Lifehouse, Al Greene, Babyface, Barry White, Da' Brat, D'Angelo,
Bush, Blink 182, Morcheeba, Mya, Usher, Dream, Staind, Linkin
Park, Fuel, Puddle of Mudd, Oasis, Lorna Vallings, P.O.D., Smashing
Pumpkins, Saliva, Soul Decision, Sprung Monkey, Sting, Tantric,
U2, Velvet Chain, Verticle Horizon, Tyreese, VAST, Radiohead,
Puff Daddy, Micheal Jackson, Joe, Mystikal, Korn K's Choice, Lenny
Kravits, Limp Bizkit, Gorillaz, Garbage, Foo Fighters, Everlast,
Eve, Deftones, Eagles, Devics, Eminem, Enrique Iglesias, Dexter
Freebish, Crazy Town, D-12, Cari Howe, Carl Thomas, Brandy, 3
Doors Down, 9 Days, Monica...As you can see--wide range.
Now. As to your "Much appreciate your bravery, V.R. (smile)",
if you were being sarcastic, fine. But, it has nothing to do with
bravery. If I post a question about
something, there is no bravery involve. It's because I wanted
to ask it.
But to reward your request (and although your asking may not seem
a big deal, your are bucking some significant "social pressure"
to villify monkeypants/me)
I'm not "bucking" anything. If I want to know something,
I ask. I don't shy away just because my asking may not seem popular,
at least not popular to you. And I'm certainly not saying anyone
should villify you or monkeypants.
COMMENT:Although I am still not quite ready to reveal the complete
"big picture" on my posting "rhetorical verse,"
I will simply say that the unnecessary viperous response revealed
(based on my experience) an environment that might easily scare
off new posters, unless they conformed closely to the board regulars
sense of propriety.
There is a portion on board etiquette in the FAQ section for a
reason. The reason is this type of communication. Unless you know
the type of person the poster is, it
is very hard to tell how the words are being thought of. The use
of emoticons is a big help and little descriptions ("bowing
his head in shame" or "looking up happy
again") are also helpful. Sometimes, some posters are too
sensitive or they take what has been replied the wrong way. Us
regular posters, and many of the newbies, like coming here for
civil, respectful dialogue about this corner of television. I'm
a member of The Dark Ages mailing list. I chose the "recieve
individual mail" option to see if there might be anything
interesting, and there is. But there are also many that are a
part of that same list that go around saying mean and insulting
things to each other. But that is all done in fun. And those that
throw the barbs back and forth at each other know that.
NOTE: It could be kept in mind that my current feelings about
BtVS -- no matter my status as an episode #1-infinity fan -- is
that the show is off the rails at this time. One goal is to discover
an effective way for Buffy's auidence to more effectively provide
useful feedback to the writers. (Yes, that is "blasphemy,"
but the world is changing . ..and I believe such effect is possible.)
BUT: If all fans are happy, their can be no effective pressure
for reform.
GIVEN: The majority of this (highly articulate) forum, leans in
a "whatever-Whedon-does-is-OK" direction (thought not
all), there is some social pressure not to rock the boat too much
... and thereby alienate the board regulars.
MY GOAL: See if their was a way to "unbalance" the status
quo enough ...to allow more vigorous support of more critical
Buffy trajectory analysis.
WHICH LEADS TO: Satire and Mocking (but with the requirement that
it be done with sufficient style --or at least really clever banana
jokes --to have some force.
ACT IV: Gosh Weedin's Satirical Buffy Teaser Script (AND "simulated
multi-character dialogue")
THE PURPOSE OF THIS SATIRICAL EXPERIMENT:was to attempt to find
a new way to "mock" the most flawed elements in the
Buffyverse design.
PART II: The "simulated" multi-character dialogue. THE
PURPOSE (was not to "fool" people) but rather to ILLUSTRATE
a new form of one-line-at-a-time discussion (that would be more
suitable if we had 100 people on the board in a thread at a time.)
ACT 5: postmodernman's List Top 5 shows and how to fix them. This
is a "postmodern form" (believe it or not) of discussion
. . .which is based on the postmodern genre of lists. (If that
doesn't make sense, don't worry, it's something that fan be read
about in literary criticism literature.)
RESULT: Some participation of regulars, but I don't think anyone
undertood the point at the time . . . and it would take some plain
ol' long-winded explanation that would have destroyed the fun
of it (at the time.)
ACT 6: AND LAST . . .what you've been waiting for. Why after all
that did "monkeypants" evolve in all his offensive glory.
IN BRIEF: At the moment the board has two strikes against it in
terms of its beingg a good environment for the two things I'd
like to see possible here.
(1) Figuring out new ways to have conversations (among more people)
by transcending some of the "old rules" of forum dialogue
that have been around for ages.
(2) Create a more tolerant environment for those who love the
show . . .but are really, really, absolutely positive, the show
is going to hell in a handbasket.
BOTTOM LINE: monkeypants (being a monkey), and I'm sure you remember
the line Oz said: "I mock you with my monkeypants" evolved
to play the jestor part. By being free to be rude, he can -- if
people will calm down and laugh (goodness, he's a monkey, after
all), will allow the board to examine it's standard operating
procedure for conversations . . .
... and hopefully help pave the way for new forms and tolerance
for broader perspectives.
All social enviornments get stuck in the ways. ("The way
we do things" gets "taken for granted.")
One simple definition of a philosopher is a guy/gal who continually
asks "why" we do things the way we do. This upsets people
who are used to they way things are, and often get very mad at
philosophers.
(1) Socrates was convicted and sentenced to death.
(2) The Roman emperor banned ALL philosophers from all of Italy.
My "theory" (at least for literary purposes) is that
a certain style of philosopher will be more effective in helping
keep the "status quo" from getting stuck . . .and all
I can say, after a couple of weeks of "playing around"
. . . was that it dawned on me . . . out of the blue . . . that
monkeypants was the best fit for this board.
You want to discover an effective way for Buffy's audience to
more effectively provide useful feedback to the writers? Fine.
By all means do that. It's a good idea. But it isn't 'blasphemy'
as you call it. All fans of anything are never happy at the same
time. And while what the fans think is taken into consideration,
the writers should never panhandle to what the fans want. The
writers are the ones telling the stories, not the fans. That's
where fanfiction comes in.
As for your 'whatever-Whedon-does-is OK' statement, that is not
entirely true. Even back when Joss was doing episodes of season
1, which seemed a little too much like stand alones, they were,
and still are, great episodes. He was in a sort of "learn
as you go" type of mode as he got his footing. And BtVS and
AtS have both come back again and again, getting better and better.
Joss has spent so much time and energy to getting what he wants
these shows to be. They are his babies. And as any parent knows,
you want what's best for your baby and you do whatever you feel
is in the best interest of them. Even when things happen, they
lead to new an different things. Seth Green wanted to leave, which
lead to the introduction of Tara. Anthony Stewart Head wanted
to spend some more time whith his family in England which lead
to Giles leaving for England. I think it has been very good for
the story, though I do miss him and all his glass lens cleaningness.
It isn't so much 'whatever-Whedon-does-is OK', as it is "Joss
hasn't let us down and we are sure that he isn't going to"
(quoting meself). There have been some times where it hasn't been
as great as it could have been. Joss has even said so himself
(Maggie Walsh and Adam, for example. At least I think he said
something about the final fight scene with him and Buffy. It's
been so long, it's hard to remember. Anyone know?) But overall,
the entire run of both shows has been excellent, in my humble
opinion. And hopefully with Ripper and the the animated series
coming soon, we will be able to enjoy more of the writers' brilliance.
Because that is what they are - Brilliant.
Your "goal" is what I take major, and I do mean major
offense to. That and calling us pretentious and exclusionary.
We're nothing but an experiment to you. You don't really care
about us. You don't even know who we are. You remeind me of Liam
Neeson's character in The Hauting, with Lily Taylor, Owen Wilson
and Catherine Zeta-Jones. Laim Neeson's character wanted to get
a bunch of people to this supposedly hauted house to conduct an
experiment in fear by saying it was about sleep deprivation.
You say that you like it when people write what they want to say
in the subject line. You like it when people are concise. If you
were up front with us to begin with, you might have had a better
chance at getting a good result. But you knew, and don't tell
me you didn't know, what was gonna happen if you posted the way
you did, It was for that specific reason, I suspect, that you
did it the way you did.
Not everyone likes to be concise, many can't. Of anyone who has
ever read anything I have written and posted it to the board,
when I'm describing a scene, I am anything but concise. I go for
describing body language and movement, tone of voice, the words
themselves or lack there of, etc.:
1) My short, little, about half a page fic about Buffy using a
dustbuster after dusting a vamp.
2) My opinion of the scene where Riley found out that Professor
Walsh tried to have Buffy killed.
3) My opinion of the exchange between Willow and Giles about the
ressurecting spell and Willow's use of Magick.
Just to name three.
Sometimes being concise is good if there are a lot of post to
go through and you don't have a lot of time. But many times, being
concise can be a bad thing. By being concise, you lose the feelings
that the author is trying to convey to the reader and miss the
whole intent, even if they are up front about it at the begining.
You don't come as yourself. You hide behind the guise of a philosopher.
All you care about is throwing a wrench into the mix to see what
would happen, hoping that it would turn out the way you want it
to be. Now, I have posted under other names, LiamK was my major
one (I have been asked if I was puppydog [ARE YOU PUPPYDOG?!!!]
Those that know, get what I'm talking about). I also posted under
a couple others but that was just to ask certain questions not
to make comments like "To celebrate trivial felicities in
monkey-doo formations is an unworthy pastime." or "A
philosopher who admires the pretty smoke as the house burns down,
thereby pins a MOCK-ME sign." Now, the second one, I'm assuming
is in reference to how you feel about how you think that Buffy
is "off the rails at this time". But the first one,
I don't even know what it means. I'm not going to try to figure
it out and I don't want to know anyway.
You like change, well, so do I. I welcome change. Not in everything
but, in a lot of things. There are two things that I believe in.
The rest I'm not sure about:
1) Everything has a polar opposite: left, right, up, down, good,
evil, etc. Without one, you would know the other. And in some
instances, between the opposites are combinations of the two.
2) There is a balance. Take any side of something (good and evil,
for example) The numbers may not be exactly equal, but there is
a balance to the amount of each side. It may not be apparent all
at one time. But throughout time, it can be seen.
I believe in change so much that, if I didn't, I would be dead.
And I'm not talking about dead figuratively speaking, I'm talking
a rotting corpse kind of death.
Like poor Buffy's, my fate is a thankless job . . .rewarded with
-- it would seem -- at least one ressurection.
I am fortunate enough to have a life of giving my attention to
whatever attracts it the most strongly.
I have often been baffled by the "paths" that leads
me through. But I am always surprised by the things I gain.
So you think your doing us a great service? All you're pretty
much doing is waisting the times of others and, as Rob posted
today, you're pushing other threads to the archieves with so many
posts like this.
Anyway, thanks again. Without you,there would not have been this
"last roundup." (Ooops, I shouldn't have said that.
Now they'll lynch you. :)
THE ATTACKS I am referring to, are not the fact that someone (Eric,
I believe was the worse) disagreed with "the point"
I was apparently making with the sonnet.
RATHER my concern with was the spread from attacking the ideas,
to a personal attack. An articulate one, and not silly name calling
. . . but a subtle, mean-spirited
attack.
That is never called for, and when I have moderated discussions
that is the kind of behavior I am looking for. Espeically if others
join the attack.
NOTE:: If you've studied social dyamics (social psychology), none
of this behavior is unusual --it is how social groups define insiders/outsiders.
Each group has its its primary "rule enforces." On this
board, I know who they are.
You're damn right there are 'rule enforcers'. You want to think
we're pretentious and exclusory? Fine. Go ahead. But that just
means that you don't know us, any of us, at all. Add this to what
I've already told you about myself up above:
I'm not historically, literally or philosphically inclined. I
know some of you are thinking: "Anthropolgy contains all
of these." Well, I'm only an anthropology major who leans
towards the side of cultural and archaeological anthropology as
opposed to the linguistic and biological side of the field. Sociobiology?
I can't believe anyone actually believes that crap. But I'm still
not big on history and literature like many others here. But I
did come up with something during the chat on Friday night. I
don't know if anyone has ever said this before, I never have.
And I thought of it in an instant:
We all had lives at one point. Life killed them.
How's that for philosophy?
I've been going to All Things Philosphical on Buffy the Vampire
Slayer and Angel: the Series since the section on "Examples
of the Explicit Harnessing or Exchange of Energy" on the
Magic in BtVS page (it's no longer there, been gone for quite
some time.) I was here when the Discussion Board was first put
up at www.insidetheweb.com. And I've been here since it moved
to www.voy.com. And not once in all those years have I felt like
I was an outsider.
I haven't really been much of a contributor except in my discussions
of the shows. I din't become a part of Dark Alchemy or do a character
analysis because I didn't want to take the chance of doing something
crappy and lower the quality of the things on the site. The only
thing I have done was post about socialization and vampirism and
certain vampires. I tried to be concise there by limiting my discussions
about Harmony and Spike over the last couple of seasons. It was
about seven pages long. I got a couple of replies, partly due
to posting it to the board at the begining of Thanksgiving vacation.
I have only myself to blame. But when I've looked at it in more
detial, much more detail, I found what I was saying could be easier
seen if I had added more detail. And I have never been made felt
like I was being attacked, whether subtle and mean spirited or
by name calling. Now, there have been times where attacks have
happened. There is no getting around that. But that is mainly
due to the fact that this medium of communication, many times
with total strangers, is extremely limited. And there is no insider/outsider
groups here. Unless, of course, you want to count those that try
to screw with our polite discussions.
The closest I've come to arguing with a poster that could have
escalted was with Raven Eye over Gunn's old gang and their tactics
and beliefs in That Old Gang of Mine. There were so many things
I would have said if I was actually face-to-face with him. But
I did stop myself from sending it to the board.
As for Wisewoman's question, why do I get the feeling that you
do feel like you're an avenging angel? Here, I'm drawing a paralell
between you and Foucault. Foucault believed that the English language
was inherantly biased towards women and people of color. For me,
they're just words. It all depends on the meaning of the intent
behind their useage. And just like I believe what happened with
Foucault, I believe if you look hard enough, you find whatever
you want to see to justify your view. Take for example, Earth:
Final Conflict. All the Taelons have White skin and this White
Supremacy group went on national television saying that the White
race is the superior race throught space or the galaxy or something
because the Taelons happened to all be White, though the Taelons
denied their claims. Granted, this board is about Buffy and their
universe, but this example helps explain my point
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> About
"puppydog" -- d'Herblay, 21:01:31 02/17/02 Sun
First of all, VR, I thought that was very well said. And while,
despite our apparent "group-think" here, I cannot speak
for every poster, regular or not, you have never done anything
to put me off or offend me.
As one of the people in chat who asked if you were now or had
ever been "puppydog," let me emphasize that we did not
mean to seem accusatory or condemning. A number of people who
go to chat often occasionally enter the room under an assumed
name, to test the waters. I have been known to do this. I did
it more often back when I was courting Rahael: I would poke my
nose in and see if she were in; if she was not, I would leave
before I could be dragged into any tedious discussions with, say,
mundus or someone of that ilk. Other chatters were doing the same
thing, to the point where entrances into the chat room became
games of "What's My Line?" (the game-show, not the episode).
Right before puppydog made his or her appearance, I had emailed
a couple of board/chat regulars asking if they wanted to hang
out with Rah and me. Both these chatters have been known to use
pseudonyms when entering the chat room. So, when puppydog came
in, I assumed that he or she was one or the other of the people
I had mailed and proceeded to make jokes about his or her choice.
"He comes when he calls!" and, after some silence, "Speak,
boy, speak!"
Well, perhaps puppydog did not find this congenial. Who would
blame him or her? Anyway, he or she high-tailed it out of there,
leaving us wondering who had been behind the name. You were the
next person to come in, so we asked only out of an interest in
resolving the mystery. I never thought you might be offended by
it; in fact, I've been more concerned with making my apologies
to puppydog. But please accept my sincere assurance that I did
not mean to offend you by suggesting that you might be puppydog.
And puppydog? Please accept my apologies as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Taking offense to being called puppydog never crossed my mind.
-- VampRiley, 21:23:10 02/17/02 Sun
Offense never entered into the equation. I thought it was kind
of funny. I had never heard of someone using "puppydog"
before. When I was asked about whether or not I was puppydog,
I thought it was kind of cute. It also brought up images of where
VampWillow was holding Angel's head back with a fist full of hair
in The Wish.
I was hoping that Boke would respond to my post before I went
to bed. Gotta to into the city for a class and have to take the
bus down. So, I can't be staying up till 3 a.m. waiting. I really
wanted to hear what he had to say, if anything.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> (Sorry V.R., Boke is banned. Your message will be forwarded.)
-- proxybot, 00:43:06 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> THANK YOU! Thank you, thank you, thank you!! ;o) --
dubdub, 06:18:25 02/18/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Gee, and I always sign in as myself.....:) -- Rufus, 22:34:43
02/17/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Addendum
-- VampRiley, 21:32:39 02/17/02 Sun
Dozens, and I do mean dozens and dozens, of times, I have gone
out of my way to not only welcome, but to explain a few things
about this board. Like this just recently:
Date Posted: 14:52:12 02/14/02 Thu
Author: VampRiley
Subject: Take it from one the regulars to probably never realize
their full philosophical potential...
In reply to: Lupe 's message, "Re: thanks, because..."
on 14:52:12 02/14/02 Thu
My actual available time to post and attempt philosophical waxing
has gone down to next to nothing since the summer, which mightily
sucks. But when I come across a post, like this one, I do my best
to make time to explain how we are, although I'm not the HelloBot.
I've been around since Masq first put up a Discussion Board when
it was at insidetheweb.com. And since then, there have been the
full gamet of people that have posted, whether they were "especially
insightful" or not. We are
very tolerant.
Trolls are bad.
Very bad.
You stick around long enough, you will learn how to easily spot
them and avoid the headache that follows. Please don't feel like
you can't say what you feel. Most of
us here are very polite.
Welcoming with open arms,
VR
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
How could I not love a guy with the name of Riley? -- Rufus, 22:41:47
02/17/02 Sun
Trolls are bad, very bad....you are very good...:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> (4) PONDER: How many 1st-time posters express
some "fear & trepidation" in venturing here? -- Boke
(NOT asking for a raising of hands), 16:53:10 02/16/02 Sat
And/or still carry the sting of a "rough" initial response.
NOTE: Simply standard social dynamics in operation.
Human nature. Not evil. (Usually.)
Boke (www.boke.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: (4) PONDER: How many 1st-time posters
express some "fear & trepidation" in venturing here?
-- Malandanza, 18:55:29 02/16/02 Sat
"And/or still carry the sting of a "rough" initial
response.
NOTE: Simply standard social dynamics in operation.
Human nature. Not evil. (Usually.)"
To a great extent, I think it depends on what the first time poster
says and how he says it. An initial post that is polite is typically
regarded more favorably than if the same post had been made by
a regular or semi-regular. I, for one, expect more from a dH,
OnM, Sol, etc., post than I do from a post by someone new to the
board. I believe that this is generally the case and certain regulars
(particularly Rufus, WW and OnM) take special pains to welcome
new posters delurking for the first time. And sometimes the new
person mistakes this initial civility for an intimacy that does
not really exist -- in their subsequent posting, they begin to
wonder why their ideas are no longer sought after and take liberties,
meant as jokes between peers, that offend rather than entertain.
In real life, a friendship does not often spring forth fully developed
from a single introduction and it is no different on the 'net.
So we end up with people whose feelings are hurt because no one
is responding to them (yet the purpose of posting should not merely
be to hear people say nice things about your ideas, but to share
your ideas with others) and others who alienate the very people
whose good feelings they are trying to court.
Of course, sometimes a first time poster posts a message that
is clearly offensive. Some of these people may deliberately set
out to stir up trouble, but I believe that most of them are people
who are easily offended and, indeed, are only happy when they're
being offended. Perhaps it's my Christian upbringing, but I believe
that in the latter cases it's best to make them as happy as possible
as quickly as possible.
I suspect that if you took a poll of posters who remember their
first post, you will discover that the vast majority felt they
were treated well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks, & special thanks for illumination
of misinterpretation of "initial civility" -- Boke,
19:19:48 02/16/02 Sat
(Excuse me if I'm mangling the essence of your post)
The "problem" of "presumption of initimacy"
in reaction to well-meaning kindness of "regular," .
. .
is something I'm glad you highlighted.
Again, my thank.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> (excuse sloppy post with missing
S's. Typing too fast.) -- boke, 19:25:33 02/16/02 Sat
... kindness of "regulars"
... Again, my thanks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> long time lurker; rare poster --
Wilder, 20:13:02 02/17/02 Sun
... and I always get nervous - fear, trepidation, damn where's
my thesarus - when I post, just because I am so regularly impressed
with the other posters. And like my non-linear offerings to be
in a parallel league.
(And I'm a bad speller.)
There's way too many boards that have fanboys and girls littering
up with lines like: Angel&Buffy4evah!!! and Cordy's Hot!!!!
and VampiresSuck!!!
About a year and a half a go, I stumbled upon this humble lil
posting ground and made it a reg. link, so I could sneak off while
at work and read up on my favorite vice ( or virtue). There's
a few of us here at my place of employment that sneak off behind
the water cooler and discuss all things related to the Buffyverse.
Every now and then I'd toss in a tidbit gleaned from here ( all
with proper attribution; I'm no plagerist)
But, back to the point, I've never thought I was treated badly
here, and I'm not even one of the regulars nor a first-timer.
Actually, the worst I've ever encountered is the lack of a reply
to a post.
I've not lurked about in a while b/c of fears of being spoiled,
only only just today returned, and found to my shock, this recent
banter brought about by some Boke fellow.
Dear, sir, this is one of the best places to read insightful discourses
into plot points of two very well-written and acted television
shows.
Esp. for the lack of teens writing in with "Spike is so kewl."
So, Boke, with absolute fear and trepidation of your replying
to my post with a couplet or haiku, all I can ask after reading
(skimming) some of your last remarks ... give it up, get a new
alias, and trying starting over.
Or find some other board to harass. I can give you a list if you
want.
Wilder
*BuffyNSpikeRock!*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Another shock for you regarding
spoilers -- Rufus, 21:10:51 02/17/02 Sun
We now have a seperate board with a link at the top of the page
for the Spoiler Trollups...so you can start lurking without (hopefully)
being spoiled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! Nice to see you again,
Wilder ;o) -- WW, 21:53:53 02/17/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Hey, Wilder! I remember you!
Thanks for dropping in... -- OnM, 22:33:44 02/17/02 Sun
...and good to see you're still with us!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> (5) DIALOG THEORY: If 100 people were participating
in one thread, how would the rules change? -- Boke (revealing
a subset of "intent"), 20:52:21 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> 6.BOARD-META: What is the social function of
a "Masquerade"? -- Boke, 22:02:17 02/16/02 Sat
INDIRECT COMMENTARY / DISREGARD WITH IMPUNITY
(really an aside that wobbles across the topic)
If you ask me why I have allowed so much of my attention
to be focused here (against the will of so many [smile]),
I would simply say the combination of two words:
philosophy AND Masquerade
There is probably no way to say this that doesn't sound
like some kind of insult, but the fact is that I was
truly "seduced"by the possibilities/implications of
a site in the hands of someone who had chosen that
word pair as an identity.
OK, here's the "insulting" part.
If I see something that implies "very high quality."
BUT it is not living up to -- yes, what I perceive --
to be its promise. . .
. . . well, I just have to stick my nose in long enough
to see if either I'm wrong . . .or their is some little
"shove . . .which is none of my business, of course . . .
. . . except that the world is so often bogged down
in "low quality" . . . and people accept it ...
and that's just very sad.
If this be an insult, so be it. My eyes see smart, articulate
people in a "high quality" named place . . .
. . . but yes, something is missing.
Nothing criminal. Just the standard inertia that
infects good ideas . .. and allows them to go
stagnant.
LONG DELAYED BOTTOM LINE: If the ideal of philsophy
AND the full possibilieis of MASQUERADE (and its
implications for perfecting public dialogue via
reducing natural "social corruption") can be brought
to full fruition here . . .
. . . well (smile) it would be very nice.
boke (www.boke.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> 7. "BLESSED BE" THE END (smile) Returning
to my preferred style. -- Jim Boke Tomlin, 22:38:27 02/16/02 Sat
We choose who we are.
Or we let others decide.
My voice now returns.
Bokewww.boke.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Boke, can you please stop clogging up
the boards? You're pushing everyone else to the archives. -- Rob,
10:19:25 02/17/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> EPILOGUE: Without protest Boke was blocked from reading
or writing in this land...for all eternity. -- final public notice
(i.e., THE END), 22:52:04 02/17/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thank God -- Liquidram, 23:35:33 02/17/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Amen! Thank you, Masq. -- mundus, 05:51:49 02/18/02
Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> But... -- Darby, 07:13:37 02/18/02 Mon
Okay, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that Boke had actually kinda
sorta opened up a dialogue here, and deserved a chance beyond
this thread (which was about him, after all, so should we blame
him for filling it up?) to show a willingness to come at least
to the fringes of what we all seem to agree on as civility here.
And, you've got to admit, in this thread the civility frayed much
more on this side than on Boke's.
I am new, and very naive about this whole troll experience (& not
enjoying this new paranoia in regards to new posters), but, again,
I feel compelled to say it: please allow for a learning curve.
Maybe it's a dumb thing to expect it, but isn't this thread progress?
Just to be clear, I may be just as annoyed with Boke as many of
you, and I don't know that he'd ever put up much that I'd understand,
much less respond to. I just feel that this latest reaction is
confirming his impressions.
Well, folks? Thumbs up or thumbs down?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: But... -- Malandanza, 09:56:49 02/18/02
Mon
I hate to see anyone banned (especially since there's a nagging
fear in the back of my mind that I could be next), but Masquerade
did give Boke a second chance -- and he immediately went back
to doing exactly the same things that got him banned in the first
place. As for opening a dialogue -- it is difficult to have a
conversation with someone who answers their own (rhetorical) questions
and posts so prolifically (he posted about 30 times in this single
thread) that no one can respond appropriately. His tactics cut
off debate while he paid lip service to openness. Yes, there's
a learning curve to interacting with any group, but I see his
actions as analogous to introducing himself to a group of friends,
then monopolizing the conversation with pedantic lectures about
why they are so close-minded, petty and cliquish. What sort of
reaction did he expect?
Even then, I'd say leave him unbanned -- mocking him may not work
(he seems impervious to logic) but few unpopular posters can withstand
being shunned -- except that he seems to yearn so desperately
for a banning. Here's a quote form George Barnard Shaw (The Devil's
Disciple):
Burgoyne: It is making too much of the fellow to execute him:
what more could you have done if he had been a member of the Church
of England? Martyrdom, sir, is what these people like: it is the
only way in which a man can become famous without ability.
In other words, Boke is happier for being banned from our exclusionary,
shallow pseudointellectual debates. We are happier now that he
has been banned. There's a net increase in the happiness of the
world -- so where's the harm?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: But... -- Cactus Watcher, 11:52:35
02/18/02 Mon
Thanks to local scheduling of the last Buffy I missed most of
what happened between the board and Boke, last week. But, I can
tell you it was annoying last night to see so much space taken
up by Boke's self promotion. We all wander on and off the topic
and generally have a good time when we post here. But, to put
it bluntly we do, beneath it all, share a fondness for the Buffy/Angel
saga. Boke's only interest from the forensicpoetry business onward
was to get into meaningless arguments about how sensible it is
to spend time talking about these shows. Frankly, I don't care
how sensible it is. Many of us including me have advanced university
degrees and have taught in college. I don't feel like we have
to defend what we doing here for pleasure to anyone. If someone
wants to briefly to challenge us and say, hey, there are more
constructive ways to spend one's time; I say fine. That's fair.
But when thread after thread gets pushed into the archives early,
because one person with a chip on his shoulder wants to carry
on a monologue, we all are effected. It's Masq's board and she
did what was necessary. In her place I would have done it sooner.
Not every reply to every post is going to sound friendly. People
do a good job here of reminding egotistical folks like me, that
other opinions can be valid. We try to be welcoming to newcomers
and listen to what others have to say. If we sound pretentious
to some people, well frankly, I'd rather be a smart-ass than a
dumb-ass. Whether it's those of us with big degrees, or the teenagers
still looking to get through high school, we like the tone of
the conversation here. There are plenty of other places to post
and other topics post on, if the way we are doesn't suit everyone.
I agree with many others who've said in one way or the other that
we want to be inclusive as possible, and we want others who share
our interest in Mutant Enemy's product to join in. That does not
mean that people should be able to endlessly post advertisements
for other websites or continually verbally abuse people who have
tried to respond thoughtfully. It's pretty clear Boke was doing
both. The fact that he knows about Buffy and Angel is not enough
to excuse his behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vampires before the first feed. spoilers to B6.08, A3.08 -- abt,
10:29:05 02/15/02 Fri
I've just seen 'Tabula Rasa'.
There seems to be some difference between a vampire just out of
the grave, and then after its first feed.
In 'Tabula Rasa' Spike is a vampire (although for a while he doesn't
know it), but a vampire without any memory of feeding.
I'm also thinking of a flashback of Angelus' before his first
feed, where he is with Darla, who is telling him what to do.
And also of Darla mark II, in ATS s2, there seems to be some sort
of difference in her between when she wakes up in the greenhouse,
and then after she feeds off that guy in the street.
What does the first feed do? Awaken the bloodlust, begin the addiction?
Does it purge the last bit of conscience, or simply prove to the
vampire that the conscience isn't there as a restraint anymore?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vampires before the first feed. spoilers to B6.08, A3.08
-- Darby, 10:54:42 02/15/02 Fri
Well, if you accept vampirism as a metaphor for sex, which seems
commonly accepted in terms of BtVS, both could be true.
After the urge is consummated (maybe this is just a guy thing),
the experience itself seems to be the driving force behind "Again!
Again!" Does that change the nature of the lust?
And a lot of the conscience- related negatives can seem to be
less important (but I expect that there's no universality there).
At least no one in some sort of white mask has come up and stabbed
you. Even Buffy seems less guilty as her perv-vamping has gone
along, and there the conscience issues are intense.
It's a very interesting question. My first response was that they
just wake up with the bloodlust (see Buffy the vampire in Nightmares,
an iffy but possible reference), but as I read your whole post
I began to agree that the urge is somehow changed by the first
experience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vampires before the first feed. spoilers to B6.08, A3.08
-- yez, 11:15:53 02/15/02 Fri
It's a good question.
We know that, like all animals, hunger overtakes vampires at some
point. We also know that vampires don't need *human* blood to
survive, but once they have a taste for human blood (and perhaps
the entire experience of feeding off humans), they seem to prefer
it.
I haven't seen all the eps. you've mentioned, but my belief at
this point is that there are probably several reasons behind the
vampire-human blood connection.
Like all animals, socialization may play a part in determining
feeding behaviors -- so, for example, sires "teach"
new vamps to seek out humans to satisfy their hunger. They're
taught that this is the preferred prey.
You can also look at so-called "man-eating" animals
for a parallel. Those individual animals may learn that humans
are easy prey. Or maybe they learn that they prefer the taste
and/or the hunt of humans.
Also, I think that whether or not you consider an animal, including
humans, as a food source, it must change the way you behave toward
them.
To me, the food source issues explain a lot more about vampire
behavior than pure good vs. evil discussions.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vampire socialization -- Darby, 11:24:28 02/15/02
Fri
The vast majority of vamps we've been shown are running at first
on instinct - basic vamp-sire behavior is "make 'em and leave
'em." (I was trying to make some play on "Wham, bam..."
but couldn't come up with anything that wasn't wildly inappropriate.)
They emerge from their graves with sires long-gone as a general
rule.
This leads us to yet another question - why do vamps often wind
up hanging with each other? They must seek each other out once
they've risen. Is it protection, pack-hunt mentality of a true
yearning for others to interact with? To pick up a thread from
below, do vampires have culture?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Vampire socialization -- yez, 11:39:44 02/15/02
Fri
Good point.
Well, we know that, like other predators, they have a keen sense
of smell, and we know they can smell blood. Perhaps the world
really is a box of chocolates, and they just sink their fangs
into any morsel they can catch until they find the ones with the
fillings they like the best -- which, if the vamps on Buffy and
Angel are representative, are humans.
Also, vamps buried within city limits who are hunting for food
are probably more likely to stumble upon humans before other kinds
of wildlife, to follow an absurdly realistic line of reasoninng.
As to whether they have culture, it sure seems that way. Not only
do we see the old clique of Darla and Angel's, but there are a
lot of references, even in passing, to "nests" of vampires.
And the specific groupings seem to make a difference on the communal
behavior. For example, Angelus et al. seemed to reinforce each
other's cruel and sadistic natures, including world domination
schemes ("Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?).
On the other hand, we've been shown groups that don't seem to
go to such an extreme. The den of iniquity Riley was patronizing,
for instance, seemed much more benign. And in the recent ep. where
Dawn went "parking" with a vamp, those guys' intent
seemed a little less diabolical. Relatively speaking.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Cliche play -- pr10n, 11:47:18 02/15/02 Fri
Something along the lines of, "Fight, bite, good luck tomorrow
night"?
Why can't I just stay lurked?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> :D -- yez, 11:51:26 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Blood Preference...... -- Rufus, 18:31:46 02/15/02
Fri
From the Shooting Script for Disharmony.......
ANGLE: Angel pours some blood into a mug and hands it to Harmony.
She drinks and grimaces.
HARMONY
Eww. Tastes funky.
ANGEL
It's pig's blood.
HARMONY
Uck! Well, that's gonna go
straight to my hips.
(then)
How do you stand this?
ANGEL
You get used to it.
HARMONY
I mean, how do you stand everything?
Being what you are. How can you
deprive yourself of the taste... the
sensation of rich, warm, human blood
flowing into your mouth...
Angel appears to be stirred by her sensuous description.
HARMONY
Bathing your tongue... caressing your
throat, with its sweet, sticky--
GUNN (O.S.)
I'm back!
Angel snaps out of his reverie and breaks away from Harmony.
There is clearly a taste preference going on here, but I always
say that has to do with how the vampires were created. Season
one the Harvest..
Giles: The books tell the last demon to leave this reality fed
off a human, mixed their blood. He was a human form possessed,
infected by the demon's soul. He bit another, and another, and
so they walk the Earth, feeding... Killing some, mixing their
blood with others to make more of their kind. Waiting for the
animals to die out, and the old ones to return.
Vampires are part of a vengeance thing. The last demon leaving
that nifty parting gift to the world. If vengeance has a taste
it would be blood. Vampires can survive on animal blood, but for
taste reasons and something a little more emotional...the thing
that does the job the best is human blood....plus can you see
a bunch of "pigs" as creatures of the night....they'd
make a lousy demon army.:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've gotta ask....Do you believe vampires really exist? -- Rachel,
12:25:05 02/15/02 Fri
I didn't know anything to speak of about vampires prior to watching
BtVS. (I knew that some stories/movies had been made about them.)
Since reading this board I get the idea that there is a whole
vampire culture out there, with a set of rules handed down from
generation to generation...or something like that. Would it be
too silly of me to ask if you believe that vampires really do
exist -- and a show of hands for anyone who thinks they've met
one and lived to post the tale?? I'm sure I could run a Google
search and come up with many vampire pages. But of our merry band
of posters, who's a true believer?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'm with Alyson Hannigan on this one -- Vickie, 12:33:44
02/15/02 Fri
"I'm just going to say yes. Because if I say no and there
are vampires, they're going to say 'Oh, right?'"
I think the implication is that she'd be a target. ;-)
I don't believe I've ever met one. But I'm notoriously slow on
the uptake.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I'm with Alyson Hannigan - Regarding cast/crew
-- Rachel, 12:38:22 02/15/02 Fri
Speaking of the cast/crew, have you ever heard the rumors that
surrounded Bela Lugosi, the classic horror film actor? That he
really was in with the devil? Hmmm...Just where does ME get their
story inspiration. Could it be...Satan? Okay, enough with the
Church Lady impressions. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I make it a strict policy of not disbelieving anything that
can't be definitively unproven. -- Rob, 12:37:52 02/15/02 Fri
Therefore: vamps, werewolves, the afterlife, God...
Sure, nobody's proven that they do exist, but nobody's proven
that they haven't either. I keep an open mind, and, like Vickie,
I'm with AH on the vamp issue.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vamps, Werewolves, the afterlife, God.... -- Rachel,
12:54:12 02/15/02 Fri
Now there's a new combo meal deal!! (May I add non-caloric chocolate...I
want to believe) It's funny how we passionately discuss the relevancy
of BtVS to our own daily dramas -- but are quite casual about
an actual belief in the story. (That's how I feel anyway) I'm
coming to understand, finally, how ancient legends are a vessel
for self-discovery and communication. But, maybe because I'm a
product of the information age, I want to see a real vampire!
From behind the safety glass, though. My neck is not a meal deal.
Rachel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Depends on who you ask -- Philistine, 23:22:11
02/15/02 Fri
For some reason, "My neck is not a meal deal" brings
to mind Becoming p2; "... billions of people walking about
like Happy Meals with legs." Maybe it's just me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I make it a strict policy of not disbelieving
anything that can't be definitively unproven. -- Len, 13:29:21
02/15/02 Fri
By that token you also believe in the tooth fairy and talking
fingernails.
The existence of vampires would contradict too many things that
we know about the universe. So, I think, the assumption that they
do NOT exist is a fairly well founded one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> And you don't believe in talking fingernails
and the Tooth Fairy?!? ;o) -- Rob, 18:30:29 02/15/02 Fri
But there's also the fact that vampire rumors and tales have been
going on for centuries. Originally, the people were very serious
about it, and there are all sorts of occult books in the Supernatural
section of your local Barnes & Noble, some of them giving documented
examples of real vamps...So ya never know.
And, for the record, I do believe in talking fingernails. lol.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Vampires, mummies, and the Holy Ghost -- Apophis,
14:42:46 02/15/02 Fri
Like Jimmy Buffet, I fear the things inside of my head. Seriously,
if vampires exist (and they might, at that), I doubt they bear
any resemblence to what we'd expect. I'm more inclined to believe
in shape-shifters (were-things), anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> In other words, you believe in nothing, because -
-- Shiver, 05:53:02 02/16/02 Sat
Any good student of the scientific method knows that it is nearly
impossible to prove anything with certainty - you can only disprove
with certainty, by finding one exception to a hypothesis or theory.
Any rule that seems to be "proven" is just something
that hasn't had its exception found yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I believe in everything and nothing...I'm a
very complex person. :o) -- Rob, 11:50:55 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I don't know -- vampire hunter D, 12:58:43 02/15/02 Fri
I hope there are vampires. Then one of them can turn me. ANd for
those of you who are with Aly, don't worry. If the vampires come
for you, you could always turn to me for protection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> If not... -- LadyStarlight, 12:58:59 02/15/02 Fri
....then why is there a variation of the vampire and werewolf
mythos in almost every culture that I've heard of?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That's what bugs me. -- VampRiley, 13:18:54 02/15/02
Fri
You can't really say just because so many people believe in something,
doesn't mean it's true. Everybody thought the world was flat until
it was proven otherwise. And there is the side of how can so many
people be wrong. Everyone believes in gravity and they're right.
It does exist. Agnosticism can be a real pain sometimes. I have
a non-practicing Catholic for a father and a now, non-practing
Lutheran for a mother and I was raised Lutheran. Now, I'm Agnostic.
If I get to the pearly gates (if they exist), how can they fault
me since I live in this era?
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: If not... -- Tomtom, 16:44:46 02/15/02 Fri
If you go by the culture standard then you have to give creedance
to thinsg like the biblical flood, because every culture's past
has some gigantic flood like that of the bible. I don't see a
flood like that ever happening and I don't see vampires as being
real.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: If not... -- LadyStarlight, 17:45:17 02/15/02
Fri
I've done a little bit of research on Flood myths and such and
some experts concur that that particular set of myths are based
in fact; that there was a time of severe global flooding. Not,
perhaps to the extent of the Biblical story, but severe nonetheless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That's true... -- Rob, 18:33:32 02/15/02 Fri
Every culture, some of which had no contact with each other, came
up with some sort of vamp or werewolf myth. If there wasn't some
source, or some truth, where did all of these similar reports
come from?
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Some possibilities. -- Darby, 20:19:33 02/15/02
Fri
The idea of someone "returning from the grave" is probably
based on instances of people thought dead rising back up (we still
see stories today - there was one on my local news this week).
As I understand it, headstones supposedly were a way to hold them
down. There are genetic conditions that convey extreme sun sensitivity,
and there have probably always been various types of blood cults.
The idea of humans having animal qualities, up to and including
transformation, are fairly easy to tag to certain diseases and
a belief in natural transformations (it was accepted that objects
could turn into other objects, both animate and inanimate, because
the equipment didn't exist to really see their true origins).
There is a reason why wolves were probably the first domesticated
animals - they fit well naturally into a human social model; the
reverse may be true as well, if only on a desire basis - look
at other stories, such as Romulus and Remus, to see a definite
connection.
As for the Flood, it's sometimes hard to believe that human settlement
goes back beyond the last ice age. Oral traditions based on the
stories of the rising waters (it was recently found that much
of the Black Sea basin was dotted with settlements before the
rising waters forced everyone away) could very well have persisted
in many different cultures - how many wouldn't be affected by
a sea level rise of many meters?
Add in the rising evidence of much more prehistoric intercultural
contact than was previously thought (the "Ice Man" of
Italy / Austria possessed artifacts suggesting a thriving wide-ranging
trade in Central Europe 5300 years ago), and stories from one
area could very well have affected other cultures as well.
If you get a chance, listen to Eddie Izzard's bit on the building
of Stone Henge ("the greatest henge in all the world!")
to get a good flavor for how the reality of what our ancestors
could do doesn't match our image of how "primitive"
they were.
Or probably how isolated we think that they were.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Vampire Culture -- Wisewoman, 13:11:03 02/15/02 Fri
It depends on your definition of "vampire." I'm skeptical
that vampires like ME's, Bram Stoker's, and Anne Rice's, complete
with magical, mystical powers exist, but I know that there's a
whole sub-culture of "human" vampires in existence.
Seems to be an off-shoot of either the Goth subculture, or Nouveau
S&M, but there are individuals out there who indulge themselves
in scenarios similar to the one we saw Riley delve into--dark
little private clubs where they gather with others to drink human
blood. To my knowledge, no one dies (some participants are willing
to part with a non-lethal portion of their blood) and certainly
no one is turned, or becomes immortal.
The vampires I think you're talking about are much more mythical/legendary,
and if you haven't run in to a lot about them then I highly recommend
Anne Rice's books, well, the early one's anyway: Interview with
the Vampire, The Vampire Lestat, and Queen of the Damned.
Caution on Internet vampire research, though--you'll run into
a lot of the "human" vampires in cyberspace!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Well, that depends... -- Darby, 13:20:30 02/15/02 Fri
Do I believe in the classic Dracula-based image from literature,
movies, and TV? Nah, they break too many fairly serious rules.
I'd let 'em get by with one or two, but as critters they're a
no-go, kind of like (in fact, a lot like) the classic Loch Ness
monster.
Do I think that legends like vampires and werewolves (or Nessie)
have some real root, some past incident that started the runaway
rumor train to the current image? Sure. Still trying to figure
out vampire bat symbolism from central Europe when vampire bats
are strictly Central / South American, though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> It was my impression -- matching mole, 13:42:18 02/15/02
Fri
that the bat aspect was added after the European discovery of
vampire bats in the New World. That it wasn't part of traditional
European vampire mythology at all (a Bram Stoker addition? - I
don't remember if there were bats in the original Dracula). But
I am ready to stand corrected by someone who knows more than I
do about vampire mythology.
For the record I am not a believer in vampires. I am defining
the word belief to mean unquestioning acceptance. More accurately
I would say that I think vampires are highly, highly unlikely.
More unlikely than there being a god or an afterlife but less
unlikely than the universe being created a week ago Thursday by
an omniscient being called Evelyn. All probabilities purely subjective.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Should say omnipotent -- matching mole, 14:33:04
02/15/02 Fri
instead of omniscient in the next to last sentence. That's what
I get for trying to be clever
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: It was my impression -- Apophis, 14:49:07
02/15/02 Fri
There were bats in Dracula. Quincy Morris (the Texan) mentions
that he saw a vampire bat in South America (though he claimed
it was unnaturally large). Dracula turned into a bat, as well
as a wolf, mist, and dust. In European tradition, bats weren't
associated with vampires, though they were seen as symbolic of
night. Some Romani saw them as symbols of good luck. I read a
whole article on bat symbolism in heraldy (spelling?), but I can't
remember where.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I believe, but not in the classic sense.... -- Wolfen Moondaughter,
19:16:45 02/15/02 Fri
I believe in psychic vampires, people who drain you of energy,
for certain-- I've known too many! (Charles de Lint wrote a faboo
book about that caled "Yarrow"...) And I'm sure that
there are people out there who are ALIVE and drink blood. As for
the "goes all toasty in the sunlight varaiety', THAT I'm
not so sure on. I don't really think so, but anything in the usnivers
is possible. Human definitions and "scientific laws"
really don't count for anything outside of ourseleves.
I will say that I believe in the possibility of psychokintetic
powers, and believe in the POSSIBILITY of Shapeshifting. We're
all just molecules floating in space, after all (a great movie
about a science and philosophy discussion, see "Mindwalk",
by Capra!). At the very least, I consider myself a Therionthrope
(spiritual shapeshifter).
And hello, I'm new here :) I like this place!
_Wolfie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I've gotta ask....Do you believe vampires really exist?
-- Eric, 20:19:09 02/15/02 Fri
I do not believe that the classic Stoker or even medieval type
vampires exist. If I did, I'd have my own Buffy vamp defense kit
at home (now there's a marketing inspiration). That being said,
I'm far from witnessing or understanding all the world's nature
and depth. I once read a book on supernatural creatures that point
out that while their scientific existence was doubtful, their
_legal_ existence was concrete. Medieval, Renaissance, and later
accounts by reputable clergy, military officers (knights), and
town officials testify at length on vampiric activities.
BTW, has anyone noticed that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is gradually
trivializing vampires? Since Buffy has grown so powerful newer
"Big Bads" are necessary. Buffy may actually slay the
vampire's pop culture attraction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vamp defense kit -- Isabel, 20:57:40 02/15/02
Fri
Sorry Eric, that's not an original idea. Last summer I visited
a Ripley's Believe it or Not museum in Niagara Falls, Ont. One
of their exhibits was a Vampire Defense Kit circa 1900 or so.
Aimed at people who had read Bram Stoker's Dracula and were going
to be traveling in Eastern Europe. If I remember correctly, it
had a cross, a gun with silver plated bullets, a magic potion
(holy water I presume) and, of course, a wooden stake.
BTW, I could be wrong, but I don't think vampires exist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Was A Teenage Key -- Dedalus, 14:05:21 02/15/02 Fri
I just had to post this about Dawn. Like Joss, I do think MT is
a powerhouse as an actress. Season five demonstrated this in any
number of episodes. And as for the character, I really loved her
ever since Real Me. That ep doesn't get much credit, but for me,
it was incredible to watch it unfold. Just plop down a totally
new character out of the blue, and, for me at least, by the time
RM was over, it felt like she had been with us the whole time.
Not an easy thing to do.
There has been some criticism of Dawn laterly, whether with how
the character has been delegated to the status of no-plot, or
with her presentation as extremely childish. I don't know. I felt
her characterization in Bargaining, After Life, and even All the
Way was quite good. The one bit of criticism I will agree with
is her total lack of interaction with Spike. Yeah, I know he's
with Buffy, and I'm not saying it's a big failure on the part
of the ME team, but I just miss their scenes together.
At any rate, I was remembering what she told Spike in Bargaining
- about how she's "not the Key anymore," or if she is,
she doesn't open anything. And that got me thinking. This has
probably been noted in a post below somewhere that I missed, but
look at Dawn last season. I mean, she was several meters beyond
the forefront of attention. EVERYONE's attention. Gods, demons
- mortals, immortals, all in a desperate race to get to her first.
What happened to her was going to affect the entire universe.
All the Scoobies were looking out for her all the time. People
were killing and being killed for her. Her sister died saving
her. She was quite literally the center of attention.
And then - WHAM. All that - over. Gone. Done with. Just a regular
teenage girl. Only she's not. And she knows that. That would be
enough to shake anyone up. Not to mention, dealing with her mother's
death, of course that would give anyone abandonment issues. And
then dealing with her sister's death and rebirth. Who could even
begin to get their minds around all that? I would be thinking
Dawn would be feeling very insecure right about now. Very much
alone. Because she really is. She doesn't seem to have many close
friends at school, if any. Who knows how they reacted to her terminal
meltdown in The Body right in front of everyone?
And, not to be making excuses, but perhaps the writers are writing
her a bit childish this year because she IS childish. Lest we
forget, she may be wrapped up in a young teenage skin, but in
her incarnation as Dawn, she's not even two years old yet. I seriously
think the ME team might be trying to remind us of that.
Basically, my sympathy for Buffy extends to my sympathy for Dawn.
Both have been through more than their fair share of late. I do
hope for some Spike/Dawn action, though.
For some reason, I feel compelled to add I didn't mean that last
part in a sexual way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Excellent post, Ded...It really helped me understand Dawn's
motivations this year a lot better. -- Rob, 18:26:49 02/15/02
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I Was A Teenage Key Spoilers for S5 and S6 to 'OAFA.'
-- Age, 19:37:46 02/15/02 Fri
Last week's 'Buffy' had Buffy saying she wanted to be with Dawn,
but then, in an echo of her words from the tower, saying she had
to go away. All of Dawn's fears about her identity as a human
being crystallized. Oh, okay, I'm just the key, not important,
not your sister. I'm just this thing(equivalent to biological
entity, blood, animal) that Glory used to unlock the portal.
Buffy's jump off the tower last season was ambiguous: on the one
hand it was saving the world(and saving Dawn); on the other hand,
it was suicide(and leaving Dawn.) It is this ambiguity which got
expressed in the demon of 'OAFA' as one moment it was there and
the next it wasn't. It expressed the question of whether Dawn
really was a human being(one whose actions could be judged as
stealing) or simply a thing whose actions couldn't be judged because
a thing/animal is not a moral agent. Buffy had to confirm to Dawn
her identity as a human being by not leaving.
In a thread below I realized that Dawn is still acting as the
key. Rahael's mention of Dawn as key locking everyone in got me
thinking about this. Dawn as key opened up the portal to hell,
to the dark side(for Buffy) on the tower that is season six. But
the key never went away; therefore Dawn as key opened Willow to
her dark side by being the person Willow takes along to the magic
dealer and then in the car. Then in 'OAFA' it is Dawn's locking
them in the house that opens Anya to her dark side.
This opening to the dark side happened when the Scoobies did the
resurrection spell, opening to darker aspects of themselves as
a way of dealing(or not dealing with) loss(of Buffy in the same
way that Buffy dealt with the loss of her mother by committing
suicide.) It just needed the turn of the key, so to speak, to
unlock what they'd been hiding in the shadows.
One last comment. Last year Dawn began her life in innocence thinking
herself only a person(as we all do.) Then she discovered she wasn't
real, wasn't a person, just a key, a tool, a thing, a reproductive
thing, a link between the generations. She discovered that her
life is a fiction. Once she does that, her value, her being the
centre of attention isn't because she's a person, but because
she's the key. The only person who truly stands up for Dawn as
a person is Buffy, and then she leaves too. The attention that
Dawn got last year was ambiguous. On the one hand it did make
her the very centre of the world, but on the other hand it didn't
reinforce her identity as a person. That was done by Buffy, and
it was Buffy again this year who had to confirm Dawn as person
and not just thing.
Age
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Make my post look bad, why don't ya! :-) -- Dedalus,
12:35:18 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Beginning : Themes of Season 4 (1) Introduction -- Etrangere,
15:58:20 02/15/02 Fri
Or how there were a lot of good ideas to begin with that weren't
too well executed :)
I remember having read an explanation of name of the Initiative
based on the irony to apply such a word to people that didn't
know much but follown orders. I propose another one : Initiative
comes from initiare from latin "to begin". That word
of beginning is the one that starts a quite known book and gave
its name, in the hebraic tradition, to the first chapter of this
book, Bereshit, or in english, Genesis.
A Season Big Bad isn't named Adam by coincidence.
One of the problem with the way the story arc of season 4 work
is that there is too little episodes about it. In every other
seasons (excepted S1) there's a dizain of episodes more or less
directly about the Story Arc and its Big Bad. Season 4 has only
5 : The Initiative, The I in Team, Goodbye Iowa, the Yoko Factor
and Primeval. Plus Restless, somehow.
So we have to check on the other episodes too. Usually, even if
they're not about the Story Arc directly, the other episodes support
it thematicly. (For exemple in S2, a douzain of episodes deals
with boy or girlfriend being a threat for their date, or people
whose dark side is discovered)
By analysing the themes of each individual episodes of S4 and
their titles, we've got three principal themes that appear clearly
:
1. A act of creating / naming a new humanity
2. A state of primordial wilderness, amoral and happyly ignorant
3. A rupture with this state brough by awakeining to conscience
One of the rules of fairy take is that we found, at a smaller
scale, the same story told several times that is the story of
the whole fairy tale. And the story that tells Season 4 is very
clearly the one of the creation of man and its expulsion from
the garden of Edan for discovering of Good and Evil. The crucial
point of that Season and of this theme (like Innocence was for
Season 2) is Goodbye Iowa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: In the Beginning : Themes of Season 4 (1) Introduction
-- Rahael, 16:22:57 02/15/02 Fri
Agree entirely, Etrangere!
That's how I saw Season 4, and why I liked it so much. You had
the theme of forbidden knowledge (Buffy found out too much about
the initiative) and loss of innocence. You had the temptation
of man by woman (Buffy seduces Riley away from the initiative
with forbidden fruit).
The scoobies go to university, where knowledge resides. We also
have a group which categories, names and investigates the demon
world (just as Adam named all the animals).
There was quite an extensive discussion of this in an Age thread
a while back. Its probably waiting to be archived though. How
Adam and Eve, as portrayed by Milton *needed* to rebel in order
to truly use their god give reason to become moral agents in the
world.
It also fits that in the following season, we have the theme of
ultimate sacrifice and rebirth. I would write more, but I'm posting
in my own unpaid time as apposed to my usual paid work time!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: In the Beginning : Themes of Season 4 (1) Introduction
-- JM, 09:28:05 02/16/02 Sat
Should probably finish the thread before I drop in my two cents.
I love season four quite a lot, but I agree there is a kind of
disjointedness about the season long arc. I've heard several rumours
that the season originally was planned to go in quite a different
direction but had to be retooled at the last minute when Lindsey
Crouse (Maggie) bowed out without notice. Originally she was to
be the big bad and Adam was a to be a tragic Frankensteinian figure
that would ultimately help the Scoobs fight her. Considering how
much they had to rework, I think ME did a rather good job.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> That's news to me about LC..... -- Rufus, 01:07:18
02/17/02 Sun
Her leaving when she did made no real sense to me, I felt that
she was the big bad, and that Adam was okay but for me kinda boring.
Did have his moments though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> In the Beginning : Themes of Season 4 (2) to Create the
Human, to Name the Man -- Etrangere, 16:35:45 02/15/02 Fri
If we have a look at the titles and themes of the episodes, we
find a handsome of them dealing with the idea of renewal of Man.
The Freshman, A New Man, This Year's Girl, and even Who Are You,
Living Condition, Superstar, New Moon Rising...
The Initiative is at the source of the creation, or the recreation
of three important characters from this season : Adam, Riley and
Spike (Five if you count Forrest and Graham, but they have probably
more of a value of Riley's doubles). The evolution of this three
characters is contrasted the one with the others all along the
Season, sometimes in parallele, sometimes in opposition.
The similarities are quite clear between Adam and Riley, Professor
Walsh's two "babies". During the first confrontation
between those two characters, Adam says to Riley : "But after
you met Maggie, she was the one who shaped your basic operating
system. She taught you how to think. How to feel. She fed you
chemicals to make you stronger. Your mind and body. She said that
you and I were her favorite children. Her art. That makes us brothers.
Family." (Goodbye Iowa) This helps us to define what it is
that create man : to form someone, his mind, his body, his feelings.
It's not only about makes him exist, but to determine his way
of dealing with existence, the terms of one's interraction with
one's life.
Spike being an almost accidental result of the Initiative, his
case is more ambiguous. The Initiative probably didn't mean to
keep him alive very long, and it's only because of his evasion
that his re-creation was really made. (Spike is probably too much
of a self-made-man to let himself be remake without a word :)
But Initiative's intervantion by implanting him the chip is still
enought to force him to redefine what he is and to change totally
his behavious. We do see him put in parallele with Riley first
in Something Blue, Doomed and Goodbye Iowa, then with his alliance
to Adam in the Season ending. Restless puts him back in parallele
with Riley.
The last case of human recreated in Season 4 is Faith, through
the double-episode This Year's Girl / Who Are You. She is even
symbolicly reborn for the occasion, coming out from a grave in
the dream before her awakening.
Offcourse it concerns also at least a little the heart of the
Scooby Gang, who through their first year in College have the
occasion to reinvent themselves, to redefine their identities,
their role in the life they look forward to, this definition leading
them to the dispersion that marks their relationship in the Season.
But as it has already been a lot analysed, I tried to see where
else it did apply.
So what does characterise the action to make Man ? Keeping in
mind what Adam said, I think it the idea of definition, hence
of name.
The Genesis describes the creation through word, God says, and
vlam so it is. "BUFFY: She pieced you together from parts
of other demons. ADAM: And man. And machine. Which tells me what
I am . . but not who I am." (Goodbye Iowa) Giving a name
to something, it means giving its origin, its role, it singularity.
It's giving it a fonction. (Remember Anne : "I'm Buffy the
Vampire Slayer, and you are ?") Paradoxally it's from the
mouth of a child, once out of the Initiative, that Adam discovered
the answer to this question : "You're a monster." Yet
he seems indeed to refer to Walsh's pans and to try to follow
them : "Mother wrote things down. Hard data, but also her
feelings. That's how I learned that I have a job here. And that
she loved me." And this is more important about what is Adam
than what he is made of.
This idea of name comes back, in a way that stroke me, in Restless
: "RILEY: Buffy, we've got important work here. A lot of
filing, giving things names." That's probably a reference
to the moment when Adam gives name to every animal of the creation.
By doing this, he removes a part of the wilderness, of the unknown
intrinsic that is a part of them. In short, he gains control on
them. "RILEY: Baby, we're the government. It's what we do."
Names give control : remove the speech from a town, and it falls
in anarchy. But it's also a restriction of possibilities :
"WALSH: So this is what it is.. talking about communication
talking about language... not the same thing. It's about inspiration...
Not the idea, but the moment before the idea when it's total.
When it blossoms in your mind and connects to everything. It's
about the thoughts and experiences that we don't have a word for."
(Hush)
Freed from words, the couple of Anya / Xander, Buffy / Riley and
Tara / Willow are able to communicate more easily than with them.
And in Fear, Itself, the fears once named, identifyes, taken in
the light, do not seem so threatening anymore.
Changing one's name, is-it changing one's being ? Can you be freed
from what you are by changing your identity ? That's the question
of Who Are You. Playing Buffy's role seems indeed to allow Faith
to reinvent herself, but Sanctuary proves one can nor escape to
the consequences of one's identity.
As for the First Slayer, she has not even a name ("TARA:
I have no speech. No name.") and Buffy shows how much it's
a limit. The answer is probably somewhere in a balance between
the freedom of the absence of name, and the responsabilities that
goes with the power that gives the name.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> In the Beginning : Themes of Season 4 (3) The Garden
of Eden : an Amoral Heaven -- Etrangere, 17:08:12 02/15/02 Fri
If we listen to this dear Maggie, "These are the things we
want - simple things. Comfort, sex, shelter, food. We always want
them and we want them all the time. ID doesn't learn. ID doesn't
grow up. It has the ego telling it what it can't have, and it
has the super-ego telling it what it shouldn't want, but the Id
works solely out of the pleasure principle. It wants. What ever
social skills we've learned, how ever much we've evolved, the
pleasure principle is at work in all of us. - So, how does this
conflict with the ego manifest itself in the psyche? What do we
do when we can't have what we want?" (Beer Bad)
This is the state in which Adam and Eve are in the origin, devoid
of a moral conscience they do not know what they should do and
what they want, everything they want, is at reach in the Garden
of Eden. Heaven is the absence of guilt. (Ironic when you think
about Angel)
The best advocate of this state of nature (Cave Buffy not being
too inclean on vocabulary:) is indeed Veruca in Wild At Heart
: "I can help you, Oz. You're scared. I was, too. But then
I accepted it. The animal, it's powerful, inside me all the time.
Soon, you just start to feel sorry for everybody else because
they don't know what it's like to be as alive as we are. As free."
What she proposes Oz to join, this is it. Freedom from moral principles,
of society's rules, a return to a primordial and animal state.
Veruca isn't bad in se, she'd be more properly called amoral.
"You're an animal. Animals kill." She has no cruel intentions,
she just doesn't care about what she does. What she wants, she
takes. For her it is only about obeying her nature, and this nature
is wild. She thinks any ethical rule is equivalent to an artificial
prison, and she can't understand the idea of it being interiorized
by Oz, which is the reason why she blames Willow for his behaviour.
"She's the reason you're living in cages. She's blinding
you. When she's gone, you'll be able to admit what you are."
If almost everything is said in this episode, the seductive character
of a wild state that doesn't care about humanity's rules is yet
again underlined in Where The Wild Things Are (another indicative
title) in the Spike and Anya's nostalgy for their ability to killing
and the guilty pleasure taken by Buffy and Riley in their forced
sexual prison.
Adam too describes with a certain skill the wild and ferocious
part of the Garden : "ADAM: You feel smothered. Trapped like
an animal. Pure in its ferocity, unable to actualize the urges
within. Clinging to one truth. Like a flame struggling to burn
within an enclosed glass. That a beast this powerful cannot be
contained. Inevitably it will break free and savage the land again.
I will make you whole again. Make you savage." (yoko factor)
It's ironic to see how Adam, who in appearence is so self-controlled,
is in reality such a slave of his meurtrious impulse, just like
any demon. He shows that technology used wildly isn't so different
from nature in it amorality. The Initiative is thus another figure
of the Garden.
Concerning the three principal creation of the Season, their Garden
of Eden are quite present symbolicly : Riley brings Buffy in a
pic-nic in Something Blue, Spike attacks Buffy in a parc of the
campu in the Harsh Light of Day ("SPIKE : Birds singing,
squirrels making lots of rotten little squirrels."), Adam
kills a child in the wood in Goodbye Iowa. And idem for Faith,
who has an oniric pic-nic with the Mayor (which allow us to get
a traditionnal snake in the garden :) before her awakening. For
each of this characters this moments stand for a time of happy
ignorance and unchallenged obediance to their nature. Something
Blue is the one moment when Riley goes out with Buffy without
their mutual secret identities going in the way. Harsh Light of
Day is the only moment (with the brief apparition of Wild at Heart)
when Spike is free of his chip, free to revel in his predatory
vampiric instincts. For Adam it's oddly his one moment of freedom
before being define as a monster and the moment that defines him
as a monster. As for Faith, her pic-nic with the Mayor represents
the only time when she was feeling accepted, happy, without having
to repress her most savage pulsions... before Buffy came spoiling
that.
This Garden of Eden, which is equivalent to the law of the wild
jungle, we have a few representations of it all along the Season
: Two pic-nics, the parcs of the campus (which by the way means
plain), a house invaded by plants, the Iowa.. a state of innocence,
of simple and natural please, of complexeless wildness and a freedom
from the usual laws and what they imply. But if this state is
always looked at with nostalgy, it's because it doesn't last.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Excellent Stuff! -- Rahael, 17:47:09 02/15/02
Fri
I seem to have jumped the mark rather! Hey, I might be doing that
right now, prempting another instalment. But great analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> In the Beginning : Themes of Season 4 (4) Out
of Heavens : Science and Conscience -- Etrangere, 17:51:45 02/15/02
Fri
I said before that Goodbye Iowa was the crucial point of this
season's theme, it is because it cristalises exactly the instant
of the fall of man out of heavens for the three concerned characters
who are Adam, Riley and Spike. Hence its title by the way, the
Iowa and its ferile plans will there be our Garden of Eden, and
this is the time to say goodbye to it.
Riley's case is the clearest. In The I in Team, he bites the apple
given by Buffy-Eve. It's in response to this that Maggie Walsh
acts. But behind this, it's offcourse because Buffy stands for
the power to think for oneself, in short an interriorized concience
and not autoritary, a knowledge of good and evil. (Knowledge was
analysed in sexual term as early as the Freshman : "Willow:
It's just in High School, knowledge was pretty much frowned upon.
You really had to work to learn anything. But here, the energy,
the collective intelligence, it's like this force, this penetrating
force, and I can just feel my mind opening up--you know?--and
letting this place thrust into and spurt knowledge into... That
sentence ended up in a different place than it started out in.")
The betrayal and the death of Walsh causes Riley's tearing out
from his Garden : he doubts of Initiative's autority, or as you
could put it, he think for himself. "RILEY: I thought I knew.
But I don't. I don't know anything." (Goodbye Iowa) So it's
about rejecting the prejudiced knowledge given to him by the Initiative,
the identity made by Walsh (he refused to listen to Adam's files
about him) so as to forge his own.
Forrest stands for the part of Riley that keeps on blindly following
the Initiative, who doesn't leave the Garden. (This is not a coincidence
that his name means forest) He preferes to reject the responsability
of his problemes on Buffy-Eve over doubting of what he's been
told, and he considers the deamons as mere animals. It is thus
normal that he ends on Adam's side.
For Spike, Goodbye Iowa marks definitly his reject from the demonic
world when he's seen being thrown out of Willy's bar, which here
plays the role of the Garden. Offcourse, Spike has not yet a true
knowledge of good and evil, it's the chip that plays this role
for him. However, it lead him to choose the side of "Good",
beginning with Pangs, then in Doomed, by his own choice, even
if for it was lead by purely selfish reasons. Pangs is already
a little mirror of this expulsion from the amoral heaven : the
title can be seen as a pun, meaning both hunger pangs (when we
see a starving Spike wandering) and moral pangs, or as to say
qualms. Can we associate the two of them is the question his case
ask. Is the incapacity to feed, to kill, enought to create a moral
conscience ? Probably not. But I think Spike stands here, in a
quite ironic way, for most of humanity who most of the time doesn't
act for the good because it's the good (which is the hero's mark);
but because it's what they have interest to do in society for
purely selfish reasons. Offcourse, once could say he goes on in
redemption way after that.
Concerning Adam, his cas is more ambiguous. Out of room 314 (
I've checked by curiosity what there were on the verse 3.14 of
the Genesis. That's the one describing the snake's punishment
to walk in the dust. I'm not sure it's relieving, but if it is
it's quite interresting. The Mayor was alreasy in S3 an autoritary
figure assimilated to a snake, that the Initiative is another
goes on the theme. It's also coherent with Walsh acting through
jealousing against Buffy, made me think that the snake is sometimes
seen as an incarnation of Lilith, coming to take revenge on Eve
for her rejection by Adam ), despite his "design flaw",
Adam doesn't reject Walsh's plans, quite the contrary, he accepts
totally her definition of him and decide to set her plans up :
"ADAM: I have a gift no man has. No demon has ever had. I
know why I'm here. I was created to kill. To extinguish life wherever
I find it. And I have accepted that responsibility. (Who Are You)"
Adam seems totally deprived of moral conscience, incapable to
think for himself. "ADAM: I'm aware. I know every molecule
of myself and everything around me. No one - no human, no demon
- has ever been as awake and alive as I am." It's because
Adam KNOWS already everything he has to know about himself and
the world that he is unable to LEARN anything, to develope an
interiorized morality. "ADAM: I've been thinking about the
world. I wanted to see it. Learn it. I saw the inside of that
boy and it was beautiful. But it didn't tell me about the world.
It just made me feel. So now . . . I want to learn about me. Why
I feel? What I am?" (Goodbye Iowa) Adam's every tentative
of analyze can not allow him to understand this why, by default
he shoose Walsh's file as a guide, loosing thus the occasion to
think for himself. Paradoxally, ignorance is thus a path toward
a more complexe knowledge than the Initiative's "science
sans conscience".
Tara is therefore right to stop Willow's spell to find demons
around her : "With your knowledge may we go in safety. With
your grace may we speak of your benevolence."Yes this knowledge
from Thespia would allow security, but the time of security is
passed, they must walk out of the Garden and know good from evil,
humans from demons by themselves. Because knowing who's the demon
and who's the human isn't indicative anymore of who makes the
good and who makes the evil.
If we go back to the other cas of expulsion from heaven of the
Season, apart from Pangs that I've already talked about, there
is Faith in Who Are You and Jonathan in Superstar. In both this
cases, the characters were trying to reinvent themselves, to recreate
a new identity using magic. If both this cases are failure in
appearance, they however allow them to discover a knowledge of
good and evil that makes them go out of the Garden. Indeed both
of them takes the decision, after a bad beginning, to assume the
responsability that comes with their new identity and act for
the good / save lives. And it's this decision that lead them to
the failure of their tentative. But the journey they've made here
is far from a failure and allow them actually to discover themselves
a new. If they don't forget this knowledge : Faith showed then
in Five by Five and Sanctuary that staying on the path isn't that
easy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> In the Beginning : Themes of Season 4
(5) Conclusion : Nature or Culture ? -- Etrangere, 18:09:11 02/15/02
Fri
The use of the theme of the fall from the Garden of Eden allows
ME to articulate with a certain nuance the dialectique between
Nature and Culture. Despite it's amoral aspect, the Garden isn't
totally condamned. On the contrary, Where The Wild Things Are
shows how much with too much repressing of it (censuring the children
from any sexual ideas) we only makes it stronger. Chase the naturel,
it comes back arunning. (Ok, how do you say this saying in english
exactly ?) The case of Oz in New Moon Rising seems also to show
this : the more he tries to control his inner wolf, the more in
uncontralable. Pangs condamn the occidental invasion of America,
but it refused to consider that it justifies revenge on the present
american society. Buffy and the Scoobies use their own primordial
energies to defeat Adam, before having to submit this primordial
energy in Restless. The Garden has its place, which musn't be
too repressed, or too accepted.
Culture is also presented with ambiguity. The out of control technology
of the Initiative isn't not in the end so different from the barbary
of the Garden. Nothing very original with the idea that knowldedge
should go in pair with ethical conscience, offcrouse, but to show
that knowing too much can inhibe learning is an interresting way
to condamn prejudices and false opinions.
I'll end with theme of Name which seems the most enigmatic of
this season and is also what englobes the better the relation
ship between Nature and Culture : Names is an aknowledgment of
what is, of Nature, yet doing so, is makes it a cultural fact.
There it is, you asked for it Wise Woman :)
I hope it wasn't stuff you already all talked about ad nauseam.
Rahael, thanks for the compliment :) I'm afraid it's my fault
if you though it was over each times, 'cause I was posting it
as soon as I was translating it while I should have made it in
one time only. Well, whatever...
I though about it, because what you all said about Nature and
Culture was very close (if more deepened) to this conclusion,
so I was thinking it was funny to see how you could relate any
philosophical though with BtVS.
OK, I think that from now i gonna write directly in english and
then translate into french... much easier. Tired now :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: In the Beginning : Themes of
Season 4 (5) Conclusion : Nature or Culture ? -- Gwyn, 18:40:43
02/15/02 Fri
Never mind the translation quirks...this is some of the best analysis
of Buffy that I have ever read..*very* insightful and thought
provoking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Amazing! -- Vickie, 21:38:55 02/15/02
Fri
My onlie suggestion: don't worry about the language thing. Your
very clear expression, with the occasional felicitous malapropism,
only makes us think more carefully about your point and how different
it might appear in your culture.
Which is, for me, not that different from my own really. But I
often discount the real differences.
Thank you! Sleep well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> My goodness ... -- kristi, 05:47:42
02/16/02 Sat
This is indeed one of the most thought-provoking analyses I've
ever read, not just on BtVS. I would love to hear your thoughts
on the other seasons as well, Etrangere, but I'll understand if
I have to wait a while for it. :) In any case, thank you for sharing,
and reminding me what I enjoy so much about this show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> That was wonderful, Stranger! Thank
you so much ;o) -- Wisewoman, 11:30:58 02/16/02 Sat
I feel like I've had a thought-provoking whirlwind tour of all
of season 4, without even turning on the TV. Your analysis is
very astute.
Perhaps you would consider having it edited and placed in the
essays section of the Existential Scoobies site? I think it would
be a welcome addition.
Thanks again,
WW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That was wonderful, Stranger!
Thank you so much ;o) -- Etrangere, 07:49:21 02/17/02 Sun
thanks, all of you, happy it pleased u :)
yeah, it certainly needs editing ! But i really would be honored
to place it in the essay section :)) I'll try to correct the most
obvious errors and then let u do with the weird english ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Offering my services
as copy-editor ;) -- LadyStarlight, 08:04:55 02/17/02 Sun
Etrangere, I'd be honored to help out with the editing. Contact
me at the above address to work out details, if you want. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! Okay, either me
or LadyS ;o) -- WW, 09:05:38 02/17/02 Sun
I see she's volunteered to edit, and I'd be happy to help out
as well.
Great!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Name with-held by request -- manwitch, 08:12:53 02/16/02
Sat
Really nice. A pleasure to read your stuff.
I would ask you, is the view expressed of nature and culture truly
ambiguous? Or is a comment being made about a specific type of
culture and its relationship to nature?
I think its no accident that Adam "knows" his purpose
is to destory every living thing. Nor that the Initiative and
its approach to knowledge (Classify and Categorize, i.e. Name)
produces Adam.
As you point out with Oz, that sort of knowledge doesn't even
exist in precarious balance with nature, it denies nature.
Grrr. Arrrgh. I am being summoned by my better half to go get
bagels and go grocery shopping. So I will bail on fleshing out
the idea.
But I am suggesting that Buffy Season 4 is making a specific comment
on a particular culture, and its relationship to nature and to
knowledge (of nature and self). In contrast to Adam, Buffy's knowledge
comes from the other tree, the knowledge of the tree of eternal
life. She taps into the power of a source that is antecedent to
Adam, antecedent even to the Garden. Buffy's knowledge doesn't
come from naming or controlling. It comes from love and interaction.
Its a sort of knowledge that is truly creative (perhaps suggestive
of the creation of Dawn who is sorta the child of Buffy and the
scoobies), whereas the knowledge of naming and classifying is
only destructive. It may appear to be creative, but it really
only limits, narrows experience, destroys possibility.
And Buffy is so awesome, that she even transcends the tree of
eternal life. "You aren't the source of my power," she
says. "And I don't sleep on a bed of bones."
I think Buffy is "reccommending" if you will, a specific
sort of culture, a specific attitude towards knowledge, its nature,
where it comes from, and what legitimates its authority.
Any thoughts? Anyone need a bagel, while I'm out?
Again, I love your posts. I am offering this attempt to engage
as the most sincere compliment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Name with-held by request -- Rahael, 12:56:02
02/16/02 Sat
Manwitch, I was away when you brought up Foucault re Season 4.
Its something I've been pushing for a while as well. The way that
the initiative investigate the demon body, their desire to categorise
and organise knowledge, and thus derive power.
I would also suggest that the bank of television screens that
Walsh uses to watch over everything is both an image of God (watching
Buffy and Riley have sex and realising that Buffy must die, just
as God sees Adam and Eve try to 'hide' themselves under clothes
and realises that they have transgressed) and an image of Foucault's
panoptican.
But the Foucauldian image par excellence comes this season. The
image of the Buffybod being quartered by the biker demons is surely
straight out of the scene described by Foucault in chapter one
of Discipline and Punish?
A further comment to Etrangere on her truly excellent essay. You
point out the consistent theme of the search for self identity
and self realisation (who am I?). I'd like to point out that the
very last ep of the season's seminal scene, where Tara tells Buffy
that she doesn't know who she is, that she doesn't know what is
to come, really hits this point home. As does Buffy's other comments
to Riley and human-Adam. "I'm not a demon" "Aren't
you?".
I love the point you make Manwitch, about Buffy's knowledge versus
the Walsh's knowledge. This is clearly brought out when Buffy
reprimands her when Walsh is cruel - Walsh purports to study human
nature, and yet pain and sadness does not concern her. When Riley
tells Walsh that Buffy's heart was true, Walsh laughs at him.
Yet this dismissal of Buffy was to prove fatal for Walsh and Adam.
She is something that they can *never* know: love, compassion
and loyalty. And that's a deeper kind of knowledge. Its interesting
that Adam's weak point is his nuclear heart. Buffy goes straight
for it.
In 'A New Man', Buffy 'knows' who Giles is when she looks into
his eyes. An interesting ep, considering how the ultra civilised
Giles is 'turned' into a monster. This happens again in Beer Bad
with the three snobby and pretentious students. As you say, Oz
too battles with the demon inside, as does the newly chipped Spike.
And finally, I'd really like to hear Etrangere's thoughts on Restless.
Is there a significance in the way that the First Slayer harvests
certain body parts which define our very humanity? Xander's heart,
Giles' brain? (I keep forgetting what the others are) Does Willow
have the very life just sucked out of her?
Season 4 is a wonderful Buffy season. I have watched my S4 box
set as frequently as any other season. And I have thought far
more about its deeper meaning than seasons 1-3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Name with-held by request -- Dyna, 14:23:44
02/16/02 Sat
"And finally, I'd really like to hear Etrangere's thoughts
on Restless. Is there a significance in the way that the First
Slayer harvests certain body parts which define our very humanity?
Xander's heart, Giles' brain? (I keep forgetting what the others
are) Does Willow have the very life just sucked out of her?"
Earlier in the dream Willow is stabbed in the hand, in the scene
where she's pursued between the curtains of the stage. I don't
know its significance, but my thought at the time was of the way
that Willow always joined hands with Tara in order to do magic.
I thought of it again this season, when in "After Life"
Willow snatches her hands from Tara's while doing the spell, and
unlike in the past when their combined power was greater, this
time dropping Tara's hands seems to be the trigger for Willow's
eyes to go black.
Maybe the hand represents Willow's ties to others?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Foucault. -- Age, 19:53:52 02/16/02 Sat
First let me compliment Etrangere's tour de force analysis of
season four. I shall be re-reading it for some time to come(with
jaw firmly on ground.)
Rahael,
Do you have a reading list for Foucault as I must admit having
no knowledge.
Also, are you familiar with the poem, 'Naming of Parts' by Henry
Reed? It popped into mind when reading the postings of this thread.
I don't know if it applies.
Okay, did I mention the wow of reading Etrangere's analysis?
Thanks Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Foucault. -- Rahael, 12:42:33 02/17/02
Sun
I've been racking my brains, Age. I read Foucault's 'Discipline
and Punish' and found the 'Foucault Reader' ed. by Rabinow to
be of use.
Critiques of Foucault I just came across in numerous history books
and articles, during my degree. But I think there's a lot of stuff
out there in the internet.
I found Foucault very interesting. But I only used his analysis
up to a point - it can all become very claustrophobic taken to
its logical extent.
I think I know the poem you mean. Its a first world war poem,
isn't it? Quietly moving.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Foucault reading list -- manwitch,
05:54:18 02/18/02 Mon
I totally agree Rahael. I thought about the panopticon all the
time during season 4, and I still think that's what Spike's chip
is. The modern soul.
I'm very confident that Joss is on familiar terms with D&P.
If someone had no knowledge of Foucault at all, I would suggest
starting with either Madness and Civilization, or Introduction
to the History of Sexuality. Discipline and Punish is super and
important but its a tough read in spots. But if you want to, give
it a go.
There's a great book called Foucault's Nietzschean Genealogy,
by Michael Mahon that is really helpful at sorting out what Foucault
is up to and its relationship to Nietzsche.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Name with-held by request -- Etrangere,
07:45:07 02/17/02 Sun
Thanks again for the comments Rahael :)
>>And finally, I'd really like to hear Etrangere's thoughts
on Restless. Is there a significance in the way that the First
Slayer harvests certain body parts which define our very humanity?
Xander's heart, Giles' brain? (I keep forgetting what the others
are) Does Willow have the very life just sucked out of her?
Haven't yet tried to make an analysis of Restless... I'm currently
waiting for what Whedon will say about that :) (yeah, we lucky
europeans, DVD s4 is soon coming around)
The part the First Slayer was stealing were obviously the ones
where their power was from in the spell from Primeval (heart,
brain, breath/spirit) and only Buffy was unharmed. (her hand weren't
hurted until Bargaining:) and what also really puzzle me is that
the one who got his hand cut (Buffy's power) was Lindsey in To
Shansus in LA, and I can't think its a coincidence but I really
can't begin to guess what it means...
To go back to your question, it could be that what she's stealing
is their kind of knowledge : the heart of Xander you knows loyalty
and caring for his friends, the brain for Giles who's the book
smart, the spirit for Willow who always in moral dilemnas to stand
for compassion (before Tara replaces her with that) and Buffy,
the knowledhe that brings her friends (the card with the two hands
which revels later to show them)
For all of them, the dreams shows they don't know as much as they
think they do : Willow's hiding, Xander's running away, Giles'
intelligence is useless, and Buffy's alone. It was a warning.
They have yet to overcome this insecurities, to learn more. Even
after their knowledge sufficiant to win against Adam, it won't
be in the future. There's always still to learn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Where do we go from here? Season 4 and
Season 6 -- manwitch, 06:15:31 02/18/02 Mon
I like your comments on Restless. That the insecurities still
must be overcome. They think they know, but they don't. etc.
My feeling for Season 6 has been that they are all "Walking
alone in fear." The fear of these very insecurities that
are revealed in Restless.
Usually in Buffy seasons, the last few episodes of the season
begin to set you up for the next year. What's interesting in Season
6 is how much of it still goes back to Restless. The most obvious
being the moment of Spike as Randy Giles while they say bizarre
stuff about a land shark.
But more substantively, what you are saying, is I think the key
to this season. They have to find a way either past the fear,
or past the self-imposed isolation that is their response to it.
My suggestion is its the latter. There will always be fear and
insecurity, but they need to find the confidence in each other
to get past the isolation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Name with-held by request -- Etrangere, 07:33:45
02/17/02 Sun
Yes, I agree, manwitch. I think it was really about presenting
two kind of knowledge, and showing how much moral knowledge was
as important if not more than scientific one.
I think it was Rahael who mentionned how the "You think you
know, what you are, what's to come, you haven't even begun"
was revelant to that aspect. The important part here isn't only
that Buffy hasn't finished learning what she is, it's that she
thinks she knows. It's very closed to something Riley said too
in Goodbye Iowa : "I though I knew, but i don't, i don't
know anything."
We always think we know, we always have assomption about the world,
us how things work. And thus we forget to listen, to see, to open
our mind to new knowledge.
We never really know.
"The only thing I know is that I don't know anything"
Ultimely, that's what it is about.
In S4, Buffy and Scoobies were the keeper of Balance, they weren't
there to fight the demons as they used to be, but to keep the
balance between the demons and the Initiative. The Initiative
though they knew that demon was evil, or could be considered as
animals, so had to be killed or could be used as tools.
But even demons, for the scoobies, didn't deserve that. That's
why they choose to protect Spike from the Initiative.
Thanks for your comments :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: In the Beginning : Themes of Season 4 (1) Introduction
-- Rattletrap, 05:43:30 02/17/02 Sun
Great insights Etrangere! If you have time, you should take a
look at OnM's 1st Anniversary Character post on Riley (follow
the link at the top of the page). He, too, uses an Edenic allegory
to describe the relationship between Riley and Buffy in S4 that
seems to make your case that much stronger.
Thanks
'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Read it a long time ago and really love it, one of
the best character analysis -- Etrangere, 07:47:00 02/17/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still say it's weird without the kittens (spoilers for Older
and Far Away) -- JBone, 19:19:46 02/15/02 Fri
I usually don't respond to the initial posts after a new episode
because I like to re-watch that episode at least once, if not
two or three times. This way I can read the posts of those who
see things differently than me and I can try to watch it again,
and try to see if I'll change my mind. This (Older and Far Away),
is a classic episode for that. Through Smashed, Wrecked, and Gone,
I was disappointed. If this was any other series on tv, I would
have lost interest. I'm not going to break down what I didn't
like, I just felt let down. But since I am a fan of Buffy the
Vampire Slayer, and know what kind of highs and lows of drama
and comedy flow from the show, I'm going accept these shows and
embrace them for the overall good that will undoubtedly come.
Finally DoubleMeat Palace came along. Not a great episode, (good
name for porn) I grant you, but for some reason, I liked it more
than Gone, etc. I found encouraging things here. Dead Things was
another step up the ladder. Okay, we're starting to get something
going here. And now Older and Far Away comes along, the best hour
of BtVS in 6 episodes, and damn near everyone on the board is
trashing it. It may be that I don't judge everything by what the
blonde guy with Clem does or says, but I thought as an ensemble
episode, the cast acquitted themselves very well.
There's a lot of talk about how the writing is subpar since Joss
has turned over the everyday stuff, yet I'm amazed by those who
like something and give credit to Joss regardless to who wrote
or directed the episode. Usually I wave these off as the same
people who pound the board on Wednesday, and don't come back until
the next new episode. But lately there are some names that I respect
attached to the posts. Which really makes me wonder what everyone
else is seeing or not that I'm not seeing or am. It was awkward
for me at first, but I've come to adopt the ME (Mutant Enemy)
tag, not to single/slight out those responsible when there is
something I like or don't like. Joss is ultimately responsible,
but he's not the only cock in the henhouse.
About OaFA, I guess I have to apologize to "blonde guy with
Clem" fans, because I absolutely love Anya. I don't care
if she is wrong, right, vengeancey, or miraculous lovey, she is
all right with me. Any screen time this chick gets, she swallows
it whole. As always, Buffy just keeps adding layers and layers
and... hey, did I tell you, I love Anya? Damn Xander for stopping
her from taking her shirt off. I see a lot of people being kind
to Tara, and I like this too, but she wasn't as kind to the blonde
guy with Clem as most of you thought. She was screwing with him.
She was doing it with velvet gloves on, but she was screwing with
him nonetheless. And I loved it. I liked how Willow lit up after
Xander talked to her about inviting Tara to the party. It has
some underlying desperate tones that I expect to be addressed
later in the year, but for the night, Willow gets some sweetness.
I think that Tara is discovering that she likes who she is, regardless
of Willow. As for Dawn, well, this is the big point of the episode
isn't it? As delinquents go, Dawn is an amateur. One last thing,
Xander working up crew shifts isn't that unheard of. On "unskilled"
labor crews, if someone (anyone), shows that they can probably
handle the job, they'll get a shot at it. Moving up initially
is easy if you're competent, but you hit your ceiling rather quickly
without any higher education.
Finally, the blonde guy with Clem may not be responsible for how
miserable Buffy is feeling lately, but she won't feel any better
until she can get away from him. These may be her issues, but
this is life. If you have ever said the words "it's me, not
you," you know you saved someone else from a really awful
relationship. There ARE points in your life when you realize whatever
is going on needs to stop if only to get yourself right.
p.s. I see Clem as a kind of a tribute to Merle and even Morn
of Star Trek DS9 (are my geek creds coming out now?). Morn was
a character that was just background for six seasons, with these
wild stories of his personal life. Whenever he was on camera,
he was a bump on a log, but off camera, he was a wildman, untamed
by the wilds around him. One of the best in-jokes ever invoked
on a series.
Good Party!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Good post -- mundusmundi, 07:50:12 02/16/02 Sat
And point well taken on the writers. I do think that it's possible
to discern an individual writer's style, regardless of how much
or how little Whedon brushes up the script; and I do find it interesting
to compare their styles along with strengths and weaknesses regarding
characterizations, themes and so forth. (Since we're not privy
to any script meetings, of course, this is admittedly based on
circumstantial evidence crossed with pure speculation.) In a way
it's like sports: when things are going well, everyone praises
the teamwork; when things (for some) start to go less swimmingly,
fairly or unfairly, there's a temptation to start pointing fingers
at someone to blame.
Now, where is that Greenberg fellow? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I still say it's weird without the kittens (spoilers
for Older and Far Away) -- fresne, 07:59:31 02/16/02 Sat
"Clem as a kind of a tribute to Merle and even Morn of Star
Trek DS9"
You know, great minds think alike. When my housemate saw the preview
she asked who the demon was.
My response, "Obviously Morn has stopped by." Possibly
they are brothers. fresne contemplates a huge complex back story.
Wait, I should be discussing Buffy, shouldn't I. Yes, well I'm
particularly intrigued by the newer improved Tara. The break from
Willow has been good for her in more ways than one. It takes confidence
to give someone a hard time. Comfort in your own skin. Also, note
she wasn't clinging to old friendships at the party. Striking
out to sit at the poker table. Three guys and Tara, Miss Kitty
Fantastico long missing. Hmmm...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I still say it's weird without the kittens (spoilers
for Older and Far Away) -- JBone, 10:17:46 02/16/02 Sat
You make a good point about Tara at the poker table. I saw that,
but it didn't click for me. She showed a confidence that's surfaced
from time to time, but this time it seemed more steady.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I still say it's weird without the kittens (spoilers
for Older and Far Away) -- Rochefort, 08:56:38 02/16/02 Sat
Without a doubt I prefered this episode to Smashed and Wrecked.
And like you, I prefered DMP to them too. Without Joss, I think
the writing crew is better off sticking to light and funny campy
"goosbump" like episodes like DMP because Smashed and
Wrecked were just puke inducing. That being said, I think the
reason so many people are finally getting upset isn't so much
the one solitary episode of Oa-Fa but the fact that it was at
the end of a looooong line of crud, and we've been being verrrrry
patient and unlike Smashed and Wrecked where the content was goofy,
Oa-Fa just had a bunch of messiness and surface errors: subject
verb agreement problems, missing commas, incorrectly formatted,
rambling and disjointed prose. It was easier to see that no one
is running the ship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I still say it's weird without the kittens (spoilers
for Older and Far Away) -- JM, 09:20:02 02/16/02 Sat
Sorry, just have to back JBone up. I thought it was a great ep
(though I must insist that additional viewing are almost always
required for proper opinion formage). As well as great pacing
and unexpected character development, the segment between when
Dawn closes the door after Sophie and Spike and Buffy realize
they can't leave is just fabulous. The surrealism of the whole
night captures both the unreal world of the spell and the communitas
of those real world parties that overlast. Where you find yourself
bonding intensely with someone you will probably never speak to
again. It had a real Breakfast Club vibe. The morning after shot
is just the best. With Buffy and Spike sitting on the ground calmly
playing cards and Clem, Dawn, and Xander mersmerized by cartoons.
Also am I the only one who thought Clem and Sophie make a cute
couple? Maybe we'll see them at the wedding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Also... -- Traveler, 14:40:58 02/16/02 Sat
I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here, but not everybody hated
smashed and wrecked. Smashed especially had a lot of favorable
posts when it first came out. Personally, I thought it was bloody
brilliant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> of course not out of turn. -- Rochefort,
15:10:33 02/16/02 Sat
I just watched Smashed again just now. I didn't like it, again.
But I wanted to make sure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I still say it's weird without the kittens (spoilers
for Older and Far Away) -- Malandanza, 17:35:37 02/16/02 Sat
"I see a lot of people being kind to Tara, and I like this
too, but she wasn't as kind to the blonde guy with Clem as most
of you thought. She was screwing with him. She was doing it with
velvet gloves on, but she was screwing with him nonetheless. And
I loved it."
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought Tara was going out of
her way to mess with Spike. I think this brings us back to the
ending of Dead Things:
TARA (cont'd): It's okay if you do... He's done a lot of good,
and he does love you...and Buffy, it's okay if you don't. You're
going through a hard time, and you're...
But while Tara is reassuring Buffy that's she's okay in spite
of her relationship with Spike, it seems clear in OaFA that Tara
doesn't believe that the relationship is okay. I think Tara will
be finding reasons to spend more time with Buffy -- maybe meeting
her when Buffy gets off work. Tara's presence alone is sufficient.
I do wonder what's going through Spike's head and what he'll do
to try to get Tara out of the way -- maybe some Willow/Tara manipulation
-- it would be amusing to see Spike playing matchmaker between
the two in an attempt to distract Tara. But I suspect it will
be a bit nastier (more like The Yoko Factor) and I think in a
Tara/Spike match-up, poor Spike will get the worst (how cool would
it be to see Tara tossing a couple of curses his way while sweetly
inviting him to stay away from Buffy?)
It's nice to see Tara getting a chance to repay Buffy for defending
her in Family.
I'm anxiously awaiting the shooting script to see what the writers
intended the Spike/Tara scenes to mean.
"Finally, the blonde guy with Clem may not be responsible
for how miserable Buffy is feeling lately, but she won't feel
any better until she can get away from him."
Absolutely -- the ending of Dead Things highlighted how unhappy
Buffy is (I wonder how Hallie heard Dawn's pain over the cacophony
of Buffy's pain), but, for me, Buffy's dissatisfaction with her
life really hit home in DMP -- the alley sex scene was not Buffy
having a good time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I still say it's weird without the kittens (spoilers
for Older and Far Away) -- JBone, 19:13:57 02/16/02 Sat
You know, I'm one of those fans that wasn't won over buy Tara
completely until OmWF. I've never cut her a clean break. And I
never thought that I would express the thought that the mid-season
absence of Tara would be "sorely missed", but here I
am, saying these things.
I think Tara will be finding reasons to spend more time with Buffy
- maybe meeting her when Buffy gets off work. Tara's presence
alone is sufficient.
I said upwards in this thread that Tara has a confidence that
I'm really enjoying. Tara's mid-season absence belies how pivotal
I believe her presence will be once this season comes to a head.
And as long as it's this Tara, and not the scooby-gang ass kissing
Tara that I'm more used to, I'm going to love it. I think what
kept me watching BtVS early on was that the title character was
confident and capable. And all the core characters at times reflected
these same qualities over the run of the series. Now it's Tara's
turn.
Changing subjects just a little bit, but isn't it just like Willow
to join a support group. Oh, oh, I've got a problem, I better
join "fill in the blank" anonymous. I just mean that
it's really organized and structured.
Now that I think about it, new friends is a real theme in this
episode. Willow has her new support group. Dawn has her new guidance
counselor to talk to. Xander, Buffy, and Spike all bring "new"
people to the party. Tara strikes out from the "girls"
to join the "guys" at the poker table, and is slowly
becoming Buffy's newest bestest bud. But unlike the rest of you
(wink), I'm probably thinking too much about it.
I can't believe I'm still writing, but I was just watching the
scene of Buffy's party in full swing, with the dance music playing,
and everyone having fun. The look of contained joy on Dawn's face
just strikes me. I remember those days, when I was first appreciating
"grown-up" parties, and how I just wanted EVERYONE to
be around. It's funny what this show can stir in you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Buffy's OTHER backup (spoilers for Older and
Far Away) -- JBone, 20:00:18 02/16/02 Sat
Since I already gushed about Tara, I thought that I might gush
about Buffy's other backup, Anya. In some ways the first half-hour
belonged to Tara, and the last half-hour belongs to Anya. She
went through an incredible range of emotion and character building
that leaves me cheering.
I don't think I can properly break it down, so I'm going to jump
ahead to when Anya finds her stolen merchandise in Dawn's care.
She is truly injured by what she finds, and after she chases Dawn
down the stairs to confront her again. Buffy at first tries to
placate Anya, not wanting to antagonize her. Why, I have no idea,
Buffy doesn't need Anya. Does she respect Anya more than us? Or
is she that beholden to Xander to give Anya that much respect?
Anyway, I digress, Buffy stands by Anya's side as she puts two
and two together figuring out what is happening. And after the
sword demon attacks Hallie, Anya dives into battle surprising
everyone, whipping up on sword demon. She throws everything she
has at him until she is tossed aside. And then feels responsible
enough to help Xander with Richard (or do we call him Dick?) to
the emergency room.
Good Party.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's OTHER backup (spoilers for
Older and Far Away) -- JBone, 20:13:53 02/16/02 Sat
I also meant to mention Anya taking "point" in dealing
with Hallie. This makes sense on many levels, mostly because Anya
knows her. But still, she is representing the group at this point,
sufficiently well enough that no one tries to stop her or take
the position from her. Buffy offers a "flank," for her
but that's about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I still say it's weird without the kittens (spoilers
for Older and Far Away) -- Traveler, 00:38:50 02/17/02 Sun
"But while Tara is reassuring Buffy that's she's okay in
spite of her relationship with Spike, it seems clear in OaFA that
Tara doesn't believe that the relationship is okay"
I'm not so sure about that. Gently ribbing Spike is a far cry
from saying that Buffy shouldn't be with him. At worst, she seemed
to be telling Spike to cool it with the foreplay attempts during
Buffy's party.
"Absolutely -- the ending of Dead Things highlighted how
unhappy Buffy is (I wonder how Hallie heard Dawn's pain over the
cacophony of Buffy's pain), but, for me, Buffy's dissatisfaction
with her life really hit home in DMP -- the alley sex scene was
not Buffy having a good time."
Certainly, that scene was disturbing, but we have seen that Buffy
enjoyed sex with Spike every other time. As has been posted by
many others, Buffy likes the sex with Spike, but she doesn't like
liking it. She wants to be good and pure, and she doesn't like
the idea that she could be like an animal or even (gasp) a vampire.
Certainly their relationship is in a bad place now, but only time
will tell if it will improve or end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classic Movie of the Week - February 15th 2002 ... ( sorta kinda
) -- OnM, 21:34:52 02/15/02 Fri
*******
1 ) You can't win, you can only break even.
2 ) Due to entropy, you can only break even at absolute zero.
3 ) You can't reach absolute zero.
............ Rankama's Three Laws
*******
Question: What do you call a guy who graduated at the bottom of
his medical school class?
Answer: Doctor.
*******
It might be normal for Sunnydale, but I'm not grading on a curve.
............ Buffy Summers
*******
Score one for the glorified bricklayer.
............ Xander Harris
*******
OnM: Humm. OK, well, it'll have to do...
Evil Clone: (Banging the cellar door open/shut and striding into
the room): What'll do? And by the way, we're outta chips again.
Didn't I tell you to stock up?
OnM: No stockpile would be a match for your appetite. I should
have never modified that gene that allows for better salt and
fat tolerance. Anyway, I'm busy, so grab some Doritos and go away.
E.C.: Yeah, like when has that ever worked. (Starts looking over
OnM's shoulder at the monitor screen, reads for a few seconds).
Humm. Kinda lightweight flick for a classics column, don't you
think? It has it's moments, but I'd hardly grant it full classic
status. Grant you, Shue is eminently boinkable, is that going
to be the primary focus of the review?
OnM: (sighs): No, that's not it. Get your mind out of the gutter
already.
E.C.: 'From my mind to your mind', ain't that the line?
OnM: No Vulcanisms, please, this isn't a Trek site.
E.C.: Ooooo, touchy. I get it. It's deadline time, and you're
on a plan B mode. Original idea didn't pan out, huh? Tsk... how
sad. (grins evil grin).
OnM: (sighs more deeply). Yes, if you must know, it is a contingency.
I had planned to originally re-review 'Brazil', the first CMotW
that I ever wrote, because it's such a great movie and that column
was really way too short to do it proper justice. But, considering
the events of this current week, I decided to postpone that one
until later, and instead try to do something more relevant.
E.C.: And it backfired? No, wait, you had to work unexpectedly
this last Wednesday, didn't you? So, no time to review the film
you had as first choice. (starts to giggle) Hee hee. The life
of the working man. Hee hee hee.
OnM: (grimaces): Keeps you in sodas and chips, doesn't it?
E.C.: Hey, I'd be glad to help out, if it wasn't for those pesky
child labor laws. Employers tend to frown on hiring a 3/4-year-old,
ya know?
OnM: Never mind. Yes, it's plan B. Now I have to do something
to make this interesting, and hopefully at least gain some metaphorical
or analagous insights related to Older and Far Away.
E.C.: Well, the film's not a bad film, it just isn't a classic.
What happened, the choice seemed like a good one until you actually
saw the film over again?
OnM: The situation with Dawn is that she feels abandoned, but
even though those feelings are real to her, the simple fact is
that the adults in her life have other, equally serious responsibilities
to engage their lives. She hasn't matured enough yet to completely
realize that fact on an instinctive level, so she's very demanding
of other people's time. In a way, she still needs 'babysitting',
even though she would vehemently deny it.
E.C.: Hey, she's 15. Time to grow up, already!
OnM: You should talk. Anyway, it isn't that simple. Western culture
tends to stretch out the duration of adolescence beyond the basic
biological changes due to the staggering complexities of the society
the adolescent must adapt to and live within. I intend to get
into it some more when I do the weekly ep review this weekend,
but anyway it seemed like an appropriate choice, until I watched
it again last night. I still enjoyed the film, it had many funny
moments, but it is unquestionably pretty thin.
E.C.: So call in sick. I'll give you a note from the doctor. (giggles
again).
OnM: No, I'll find a way to make it work. I'm on to an idea now
that I can use it as an example to answer those who are complaining
that the show is 'failing' when in reality it isn't even remotely
close to doing so. Perception becomes hopelessly entangled with
expectation, and sometimes those expectations aren't entirely
fair.
E.C.: Ahh. The 'it sucks, so let's shit on the writer/director/producer'
riff. So why isn't it their fault?
OnM: It's easy to find fault, because there always is some, somewhere.
It depends on just how closely you want to look. The question
is, do you suddenly start slapping your spouse around for misplacing
the car keys after 5 1/2 years of a great marriage, or do you
just figure sh*t happens, and move on? I prefer the latter.
E.C.: Yeah, but you're a delusional romantic. The points many
of the posters made are very valid, so you're saying, what, Greenburg
had a bad day, so he's off the hook? And where is Joss, anyway?
Busy with other projects while his staff tanks the show?
OnM: You think the show is tanking?
E.C.: (pauses) No, I'm just saying, it could.
OnM: Could isn't did. There has never been a 'bad' episode of
Buffy. The weakest of any of them, and no question, there have
been weak episodes, still had numerous good elements to it. Even
Beer Bad or Where the Wild Things Are. Burning the toast doesn't
mean that the house is on fire.
E.C.: Hey, I really liked 'Beer Bad'-- 'Don't make Cave-Slayer
angry'. Hee hee. Sarah still looked hot even when she was de-evolved.
Plus the Thomas Aquinas reference. Hee hee...
OnM: Exactly my point. This is art, and you do need to grade on
a curve. Plus, reality does intrude on the creative process, it's
both ridiculous and disingenuous to deny it. Vampire Hunter D
made the point in a post earlier this week that the episode could
possibly have been much smoother as originally written, but ran
way too long and they had to seriously cut it for time. Thus,
Buffy intuits the vengeance demon link faster than otherwise seems
reasonable.
E.C.: Ya know, one thing that trips me about the DVD's of Season
One? You really tend to notice the breaks in the action when they
cut for what would normally be a commercial break. It makes me
painfully conscious of how the show is so rigorously forced into
the structure of a four act play, each and every week. That's
gotta be a manifestly horrendous bitch to write for that restrictive
a format.
OnM: I doubt I could do it. When I write, I have a vision to present,
and I want to have complete control over content, style and format.
I don't want some studio exec or copy editor looking over my shoulder
and saying, OK, this is too long, it's not long enough, this needs
to be juiced up, this needs to be toned down.
E.C.: That's why you aren't a pro. They have a job to do, and
they accept the limits imposed in order to get a least a part
of the vision out there. Sometimes they succeed in getting more
than a part out. You're so spoiled, you can always have your way.
OnM: (sighs) If only Buffy was on PBS.
E.C.: Oooo, that'd work. Creative control, just no viewers. Especially
the younger fans, who avoid PBS like the plague.
OnM: (somewhat angry): Hey, I watched lots of PBS even when I
was younger. I even sent 'em money!
E.C.: Grow up, dude. If Joss had put Buffy up on public TV, it
would have been dead in the water after season one. The show needs
the youth market to support it, and that's the essential, unpleasant
reality. No commercials, no Buffy. So it's a teaser and four acts,
42 minutes, end of story, take it or leave it. It's like Dawn
and Buffy-- one of these days Dawn is finally gonna grok that
Buffy is selling her soul by working that shitty job and trying
to grab some fleeting moments of pleasure with Spikey-boy because
she loves her sister, and is trying as best she can to care for
her without going completely wacko herself. Buffy used to feel
the same schizo feelings about her mother, now she's learning
first-hand what it's like. It's like Maher says, you gotta get
over yourself.
OnM: (bummed at the inarguable logic of the matter): Yeah, yeah...
At least they let Once More with Feeling run over by 8 minutes.
Gotta give UPN credit for that one.
E.C.: Once and done, over and out. Move on. Speaking of which,
don't you need to get that Plan B up and running?
OnM: Yeah, I guess. I'll come up with something. The deadline
approaches, and my fans await my rampant cleverosity.
E.C.: (getting up off the couch and heading for the kitchen):
All three or four of them, right?
OnM: (returns to tapping at the keyboard): The latest reports
suggest it's actually up to six or seven now, I'll have you know,
Mr. Cynic.
E.C.: (with a Pepsi Twist and bag of Doritos in hand, heading
for the basement door): Oooo, the big time. See ya! (basement
door opens/slams shut, the sound of feet descending stairs rapidly
diminishes)
OnM: (pauses from tapping keyboard, leans back in chair, ponders
quietly): OK, plan B... plan B... hummm...
*******
It's been a strange week, and it's not over yet.
Back in January, when I was roughing in some plans for CMotW in
February, I visualized a clean, concrete, focussed plan of action
to make for a lively and entertaining month for my fellow movie-obsessed
readers, and of course all the more normal people who drop in
here anyway. But, best-laid-plans etc., we have arrived back at
the launching pad for more of the typical columnar chaos, so first
off, sorry about that.
The reason for attempting advance planning in the first place
is that despite my valiant and ongoing efforts to fit these weekly
excursions into my life in some smooth and coherent fashion, they
resist doing so, and sometimes rather emphatically. So, I reason
(all spiffy and logical-like), if I just plan ahead, I'll have
a much better chance of having me run the column, rather than
the column running me.
I never learn. I always think that something will be the exception,
and it never is. It's no different than my day job. For example,
I meticulously design and plan a system installation, including
the requirements for the equipment cabinetry. Months later, after
showing up at the customer's home with the equipment I find (just
one possibility out of many) that the cabinetmaker has changed
the cabinet design without notifying me, and now something-- or
many things-- no longer fit. Is this the cabinetmaker's problem?
No, because he a) doesn't give a whit for my problems, since he
doesn't even like the idea of my nasty electronic gear violating
the pristine interior of his beloved masterpiece and b) the extra
charges for the extra work now involved will make the customer
angry at me, not him, so no skin off his wallet.
I bitch. I accept. I move on. Life is short, and getting shorter.
So, while I had planned for a really cool flick to present for
your consideration this time around, circumstances prevented me
from getting a copy of it to view again prior to committing bytes
to hard drive. No biggee-- I scanned down my list of available
titles and came across a film I remembered with fondness when
I viewed it last, like about 7 or 8 years ago. The topic was adequately
close enough to the subject matter of this week's Buffy ep, and
it wasn't anything heavy-duty, just a nice little warm fuzzy for
you to curl up with over the weekend. I retrieved the disc from
my library, loaded it in the laserdisc player and settled back
to viddy.
As the plot got rolling, I began to realize that time and memory
can change the way one views things, and being 7 or 8 years older
and farther away from Adventures in Babysitting has not left it
with that ever-smoothening sheen that denote the presence of the
true 'Classic'. Yes, it's still often very funny. The heroine
of the film, Christine Parker (played by the attractive and engaging
actor Elisabeth Shue) is perky and intelligent and as the title
itself suggests, intrepid and adventurous. I liked her from the
Back to the Future movies, and I liked her here. The plot is flimsy,
but it propels the action adequately. In due time, the villians
are all vanquished and the happy ending appears forthwith. What
more can you ask?
Well, I guess my standards are higher now. Eight years ago, I
would have given Adventures a good solid 7 or 7 1/2 out of 10.
Today, the marks would be closer to 5 or 5 1/2. Decent, but as
already detailed, not worthy of special notice. So why are we
noticing it?
Because it is important to realize that not everything needs to
be excellent, and as it has happened, the previous five days have
meandered into a very good week to make just that point. This
isn't brain surgery, dear friends, and if you or I or anyone else
starts making with the mockery every time a creative work isn't
a 10 out of 10, then all of us are the ultimate losers. We are
losers because we have lost the ability to enjoy a simple, uncomplicated
pleasure. Demands for partaking of the creme de la creme at all
times eventually exclude all emotional or intellectual interaction
because it's a one-way street towards perfection and perfection
is unattainable. Disappointment increases, bitterness eventuates,
mockery prevails. And who needs that? Not me, that's fer shure.
So in that spirit, I respectfully request that you take this eminently
adequate filmic offering in the spirit in which it was created,
and enjoy a few happy hours of unchallenging entertainment. Next
week, I will return with something or other (now there's a promise
you can rely on!) and we can wind up the grey cells and meddle
with the petulant once again.
To all the glorified bricklayers amongst us...
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technical intravaganza:
Adventures in Babysitting is available on DVD. (The review copy
was on laserdisc.)
Directed by Chris Columbus, the film was released in 1987 with
a running time of 1 hour and 39 minutes. The aspect ratio of the
film is probably 1.85:1 but since my copy happens to be the cropped
(pan'n'scan, 4X3) version, I can't tell for sure. Likewise, no
info about special features on the DVD is available, sorry. The
screenplay was written by David Simkins, cinematography was by
Ric Waite, with editing by Fredric Steinkamp and William Steinkamp.
The original music score was composed by Michael Kamen and is
extraordinarily... uhhh, adequate. The soundtrack is mastered
in standard Dolby Surround Stereo, although it may have been remastered
for Dolby Digital 5.1 on the DVD. ( Check your local listings
).
Amazingly, if the IMDb is correct, this movie was made available
in both 70mm and 35mm prints. Wow.
Cast overview:
Elisabeth Shue .... Chris Parker Maia Brewton .... Sara Anderson
Keith Coogan .... Brad Anderson Anthony Rapp .... Daryl Coopersmith
Calvin Levels .... Joe Gipp Vincent D'Onofrio .... Dawson ('Thor')
Penelope Ann Miller .... Brenda George Newbern .... Dan Lynch
John Ford Noonan .... Handsome John Pruitt Bradley Whitford ....
Mike Todwell Ron Canada .... Graydon John Davis Chandler ....
Bleak Dan Ziskie .... Mr. Anderson Lolita Davidovich .... College
Girl at Frat Party
*******
Miscellaneous:
Since I've already rambled on plenty so far, I'll keep the objets
d'misc short and pointy.
Item 1: Some comments that were made in an ATPo chat I had earlier
this week deserve a follow up, regarding the availablility of
some of the titles I have suggested over the past year, especially
where the pickin's are excessively thin at ya'all's local video
rental emporiums. This is an important issue, so next week I plan
to spend a little time discussing it. In the meanwhile, see the
Question of the Week, where I am soliciting for greater input
from the board-at-large on this topic.
Item #2: I have finally gotten out to see the critically acclaimed
film that is still in current release, A Beautiful Mind. My thoughts
thereupon same are now easily expressed--
This is a magnificent film. It's Ron Howard's best work to date,
and he has produced many brilliant films during his career as
a director. GO SEE IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
*******
The Question(s) of the Week:
Do you find the selection of films at your local video rental
stores adequate, or do they mostly seem to stock only the 'popular'
movies? If the selection is not to your liking, have you discovered
some workable/practical alternative methods of getting to see
the movies that you are really interested in? Have you had trouble
finding/renting any of the titles that I have suggested over the
last year?
Please post 'em if you got 'em, take care, and I'll see you next
week!
*******
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A gorgeous, workmanlike brick wall, nice
work! -- Vickie, 21:50:13 02/15/02 Fri
regarding the QotW: My usual video place only has recent/popular
stuff, plus a random sampling of classics and older titles. Fortunately,
I live where there are MANY video places. And Amazon.com is only
a clickety-click away.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hey I saw that one and to prove it..........Spoilers for
the movie inside...:) -- Rufus, 01:29:05 02/16/02 Sat
Blame my stepson for this one, but I saw Adventures in Babysitting
and quite enjoyed it. Not because it was great theatre, or had
a profound message, but because it was a bunch of kids in an impossible
situation. The running gag about the Babysitter looking like a
scrubbed down version of a centerfold escaped my stepson, and
the reference to Thor through a child's eye, were just fun.
As for getting movies I want, there are a few placed I can order
movies from, and the local Blockbuster has a decent supply of
the usual stuff. For most of the stuff you have suggested I would
have to order online.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - February 15th 2002 ... (
sorta kinda ) -- Rattletrap, 10:44:01 02/16/02 Sat
Interesting choice this week, OnM. I saw Adventures in Babysitting
when it first hit video and was left with about the same impression
you were--not a 10, but a fun ride and quite enjoyable. My personal
favorite part was Albert Collins' cameo appearance in the southside
blues bar.
I especially like your larger point that not everything can be
a 10 (if for no other reason than it renders the grade meaningless).
Sometimes those of us who think too much (myself most definitely
included) have to be reminded of this every now and then.
In answer to the question of the week: Around here, anything other
than major studio, popular movies--forget it. The indie/art house
movie market in central Oklahoma is almost non-existent at both
theater and video level.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Okay, maybe not Classic, but definitely a guilty pleasure!
-- WW, 11:26:08 02/16/02 Sat
I remember being so surprised that I enjoyed AiB so much. There's
something about that "things deteriorating faster than you
can cope" plot that really appeals to me, especially when
the main character remains optimistic and capable. It's a kinder,
gentler take on that movie with Griffin Dunne and Rosanna Arquette,
"After Hours?" "After Midnight?" "After
Dark?" Yeeesh, I gotta start takin' the gingko biloba again!
There are speciality video shops in Vancouver, particularly in
Kitsilano, where you can rent virtually anything...we're so cosmopolitan,
LOL!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> After Hours...You were right the 1st time.That's why
you should never change answers on a test! ;) -- Rob, 11:47:21
02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thanks, Rob! ;o) -- dubdub, 14:39:54 02/16/02
Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> yeah, I got yer movies right here! -- Solitude1056, 14:47:38
02/16/02 Sat
Not like me to pinchhit for a company, but hey, Video Vault is
worth it. Used to work there, when it first opened in Georgetown
(Washington DC). Now it's based back in Alexandria, Virginia...
with rental by mail, 3 videos at a time. A range like you simply
can't find anywhere else. There's a website, but it seems to be
down for redesign. Give them a call & they'll mail you a catalog
listing of all the cult, foreign, horror, indie, blah blah blah
movies that you'll never ever EVER find at a Blockbuster!
1-800-Vault66
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I have happy memories of this one -- Isabel, 15:25:35 02/16/02
Sat
It's eminently quotable and loads of fun. Definitely one of my
guilty pleasures. (I never met cute frat boys when I had to babysit.
sigh.) Ah fiction.
Speaking of quotes, not to be nitpicky, but isn't Xander's quote
"The Glorified Bricklayer picks up a spare."?
As to the question of the week, define adequate. I'm sure most
people are happy with what they find there. A lot of people don't
like older movies that weren't box office draws in the first place.
Unfortunately, I like a wide range of movies, from recent and
popular to arty and foreign. So I am disappointed on occasion.
I've been looking for "Winding Roads" for over a year.
(James Marsters has a supporting role. I wanted to see if he could
do something other than Spike.) Nobody's got it. "Return
to Oz" is another grail quest I've been on. It's about 15-20
years old and stars a young Fairuza Balk as Dorothy. Nada. I definitely
remember seeing that on video. "Winding Roads" may not
be on video since it's independent, but I don't see why not.
DVD is compounding the problem. Not that I don't like DVD, in
fact I prefer it if there's a choice, but my local video stores
are gradually switching their stock to DVD and are selling the
old videos. But they're not replacing the video titles they're
getting rid of with DVDs.
As for alternative methods, I am reluctant to buy a movie that
I haven't seen in case I don't like it. There's still tv or maybe
a friend'll have them on tape. I've rented 3 on your recommendation,
The 5th Element, Undercover Blues and Bound. I don't remember
difficulties, but I did get a weird look from a friend when I
rented Bound.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: question of the week -- neaux, 16:01:48 02/16/02 Sat
I used to live in Chapel Hill, NC the college town of UNC where
videos were rented a plenty.
The best Porno/Anime/Asian film/Art Film selections in the state
and probably the whole East Coast are at this small independently
owned chain called VISART. A big shout out to Visart!!
Now I live 10 miles away in Durham.. with not even a Blockbuster
in site. My wife and I must resort to renting the popular movies
off Time Warner Cable. And I must buy my anime from Suncoast...
major bummer..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> It was liked canned peaches.... -- Dichotomy, 16:15:40 02/16/02
Sat
....perfectly pleasant, enjoyable and, while sweet, it wasn't
junk. Not like grilled salmon on a bed of mushroom risotto with
field greens, but not a Twinkie either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if Faith stopped being a slayer? -- abt, 23:44:27 02/15/02
Fri
I saw Tabula Rasa yesterday, and I started thinking.
Slayer dies, new slayer activated.
What if Slayer un-dies, other slayer de-activated?
First time she died Xander brought her back a normal way.
What if one of the consequences of resurrecting Buffy magically,
was to un-Slayer Faith?
I started thinking all this because in Tabula Rasa Buffy sounded
like Faith when she said "And I seem to be pretty strong.
Wicked strong." Maybe the slayerness got taken out of Faith
and put back in Buffy with a little bit of Faith still mixed in.
It does lead to an interesting question:-
Last time we saw Faith she was in prison, trying to redeem etc.
How would she cope with not being the Slayer anymore?
Would it make it harder or easier for her?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What if Faith stopped being a slayer? -- chuk_38, 04:25:15
02/16/02 Sat
i personally think that it would make it a lot harder for her
to redeem herself
for one, while she still is in prison, she couldn't defend herself
against the 'inmates', like she has been doing.
and especially, when she gets out(we all have our fingers crossed
here).
how the hell is she supposed to go around killing evil things
and saving innocents when she is an 'innocent' herself, as in
she has no powers atall to try and help other people, never mind
helping herself. It is exactly like angels predicament in ' i
will remeber you'. If he becomes human, he can't do his job, and
hence is useless to the powers that be.
well that is just my opinion, others may see it differently.
chuk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> She's never going to be an innocent -- Rochefort,
08:44:02 02/16/02 Sat
Faith has spent all her cookies.
Remember when she jabbed that knife into the gut of the poor old
professor? If we're letting Angel off the hook because he was
a quote-unquote "vampire" at the time that he killed
all those people and also Jenny, why would Buffy and Sunnydale
let Faith off the hook? Cause she was a quote-unquote "psycho"?
Angel won't be renewed long enough for Faith to be redeemed. Slayer
powers or no Slayer powers. And if she DOES leave jail, she should
stay in Los Angels-land under the benevolent rule of Mayor Angel,
of the sticky up hair. They can eat jelly donuts together and
laugh about the old times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: She's never going to be an innocent -- chuk_38,
09:00:59 02/16/02 Sat
i feel that i have to disagree with you on this one,
it is true that Faith has done some unforgivable things in the
past, but is it any wonder that she didnt try to destroy the world
with the way her life was going.
the world was most definately against her from day 1
- alcoholic mother (never good)
- death of her watcher (problably her only parental figure)
-kicked out of school(or mabaye just dropped out)
-had no friends untill the scoobs, and even they kinda ignored
her
-her slaying abilities/actions were always in question with buffy
around
-just look at her last watcher, wesley, i mean wesley!
so the way that i see it is that, no one was there to tell her
she was doing wrong, so she couldnt differentiate between them
and when a strong parental figure like the mayor came along the
temptation was problably too much ignore. so away she went and
became his lackie.
it wasn't her fault he was evil, and killing the man in the room
was done because that is what 'daddy' wanted, so she felt what
she was doing was right, in a way.
i see her as the most innocent of the scoobs, ever
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Faith will be redeemable when she finally
forgives herself -- Brian, 09:10:45 02/16/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: She's never going to be an innocent
-- Rochefort, 09:31:28 02/16/02 Sat
THE MOST INNOCENT OF THE SOOBS EVER!? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?
What exactly did Xander or any of them ever do to even come close
to meeting the path of blood and murder of Faith. I'm all for
people getting second chances, AND for being understanding about
people having hard things in their life, hard childhoods, and
needing extra special help. But really... XANDER had a cruddy
childhood, too. He occasionally slept on the sidewalk. I mean,
we can use bad childhood to explain perhaps, inability to have
meaningful untorturous relationships, or being sort of mean in
general, or being an emotional basket case, having low self esteem,
... but stabbing? stabbing? Stabbing? stabbing stabbing stabbing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Touchy-feely -- Hauptman, 02:36:27
02/17/02 Sun
Yeah, I guess that is all too touchy-feely. She is innocent because
she had it rough doesn't exactly fly. I would like to see them
get around it, though. Not cleanly, of course. I would like, for
example, for Faith to get out and get framed for a murder and
have everyone go medevil on her, but she takes the high road and
doesn't kill the scoobs and Angel Investigations when they come
a knocking. Yeah, Faith on the high road. Still guilty, though.
I love her, but she did kill that guy in cold, cold blood.
Uh, but didn't Buffy stab her in the stomach. Attempted murder
and she got away scott free. Who's a little criminal now?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Honorable Judge Comte de Rochefort
Presiding... -- Rochefort, 09:31:25 02/17/02 Sun
Nice point, council. (considers) O.k., lock them both away.
Next case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Faith killed humans and faced human justice;
when she's released certainly be interesting as Slayer -- Dochawk,
10:14:53 02/16/02 Sat
F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What if Faith stopped being a slayer? -- maddog, 11:28:12
02/16/02 Sat
nope, even Marti Noxon has said in interviews. the only way a
slayer is called at all is when one dies...technically Faith is
"the slayer" but we all know that's not possible...and
even if she were out there somewhere Buffy would still do what
she does...not because she has to, but because she couldn't live
with herself if she didn't(knowing the gifts that she had).
so again, no...no reactivation...someone would have to kill faith
in jail(and unless she's shacked up with a demon I don't see it)
to see a new slayer(or possibly re activated).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What if Faith stopped being a slayer? -- yabyumpan,
14:39:30 02/16/02 Sat
I don't really understand why Faith's still in jail (except that
she's unavailable and may not fit in with BtVS plots). It was
made very clear when the council came to take tell Buffy about
Glory in S5 that they are very powerful, esp Re. beurocracy (bad
spelling, sorry), I would have thought that Giles would have let
them know when Buffy died, he's still a watcher, it would be his
duty etc which means they were left with no slayer for 3 months.
As they didn't know that Buffy was going to be reserected it would
seem that they were content to leave the world effectivly slayerless
untill Faith died, which with her being in prison may have been
even longer than normal, keep her head down etc she could last
for years in prison. I'm sure that the council could have got
her out, to me it doesn't make sense that they didn't.
Sorry this is a bit garbled and the spelling is c**p, it's been
a very long day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> On the one hand... -- Isabel, 15:56:45 02/16/02
Sat
I don't think Giles trusted the Council and he doesn't like working
with them. I think he considers himself more Buffy's Watcher not
the Council's Watcher. To paraphrase Buffy, they're in England,
they can't see what he's doing. He also said it was important
for the world and underworld to think Buffy was alive. Telling
the Council would be letting the cat out of the bag. I'm pretty
sure they never told the Council that Dawn is the Key.
Since the last time the Council had anything to do with Faith,
they sent a hit team to kill her. I'm pretty sure that they don't
expect her to be cooperative with them even if they get her out
of jail. Since both of their attempts to kill her failed they're
probably just hoping she'll die soon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current board
| More February 2002