February 2002 posts
Halfrek and Spike -- Gustavo, 05:36:41 02/24/02 Sun
I read Joan's transcript of Older and Far Away yesterday and noticed
that Anya's demon friend, Halfrek seemed to know Spike.
I think she might be Cecily 'cos, you know, same actress.
Maybe it's too obvious, but you still have to consider that.
Gustavo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Spoilers for OAFA above -- Sophist, 07:55:27 02/24/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Halfrek and Spike -- vampire hunter D, 12:30:14 02/24/02
Sun
I have considered it, and think it's just a coincidence. ME has
a tendency to reuse actors, having them play different characters.
For example: the MAster/the Judge. Kralik/Rack. And I'm not sure,
but I think Amber Benson played the cheerleader who spontaneouly
combusted at hte beginning of "the Witch" (could someone
who has the DVD go back and look at that girl and tell me if I'm
right or way wrong).
But I do think there is a point in showing Hal's interest in Spike.
She's going to make Buffy jelous, the same way Spike got jealous
over Richard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> wasn't the Judge Brian Thompson? -- SK, 13:11:55 02/24/02
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Halfrek and Spike -- Gustavo, 13:48:56 02/24/02
Sun
Yeah, maybe you're right. But the doubt is still here. I still
think she knows him from somewhere, even if it is from somewhere
else.
I don't really know who played the combusting cheerleader, whose
name was Amber (Psyche Transcripts), I should see the episode.
And SK is right, the Master and the Judge were played by different
actors, but Luke (the Master's Vessel) and the Judge is another
matter.
Gustavo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> funny coincidence -- Maxwell, 18:10:53 02/24/02 Sun
No Amber Benson did not play the "combustible cheerleader"
but by what I assume was just a freaky coincidence the character
was named "Amber" and she trained with some big fancy
cheerleading coach named "Benson".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Halfrek and Spike -- Dochawk, 14:03:34 02/24/02 Sun
Until proven otherwise they are the same person.
1. Halfrek called him William, not Spike. She knew him before
Dru turned Spike
2. ME may reuse actors (rarely over 5 years actually), but not
in this kind of condition and they are famous for introducing
characters innocously and then bringing them back. Amy, Jonathan
and Warren are the best examples. remember that Joss plans seasons
out several years in advance, so it would not be suprising that
this was planned when Cecily was introduced.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yeah! -- Spike Lover, 20:30:59 02/24/02 Sun
... And that "Ford" in Season 2 episode "Lie to
Me" who had cancer- really didn't because he was actually
an alien from Roswell, NM named Max. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Halfrek and Spike -- Dariel, 20:52:10 02/24/02
Sun
Yes, and it would be just like Spike to get tangled up with a
vengeance demon. Love the boy, but good sense is not his strong
suit. At least when it comes to himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
angel's curse -- mala, 08:04:51 02/24/02 Sun
I am a faithful follower of both Buffy and Angel and have a few
questions about his curse. I thought that if he experienced one
true moment of happiness he would become evil again. Now that
the baby is here, he is smiling and happy all the time. Does the
curse apply only to sex? Because he sure seems pretty 'joyful'
around his son. Anybody have any answers. Just thought it was
a bit odd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: angel's curse -- Anonymous Poster, 10:48:24 02/24/02
Sun
I think Angel's curse depends moreso on a lack of sadness than
on happiness. I've always found it arguable that Angel's moment
of true happiness came as a result of sex, or perhaps more precisely
at the moment of climax. However, to pull ourselves away from
simple physical activity and consider the emotional nature of
sex, we do have what would seem a more morally acceptable (not
that moral standards pull much weight with me) reason. That Angel
is sharing a moment of happiness with Buffy. Sex with the person
you love is like a conversation with the person you love or a
walk in the park with the person you love. All very good things
made better by the proper partner.
That said, why is it sex that defines Angel's curse? It's not
strictly sex -- we have seen that in AtS, Angel has sex with Darla
without any curse-related repercussions -- his climax was not
induced by happiness but sought out by desperation, in many ways
the kind of sex that Buffy seems to be having right now. On the
other hand Angel has become Angelus in AtS due to a drug-induced
euphoria.
What seems to distinguish sex/drugs from other forms of happiness
in my mind is a sense of emotional and moral release. Guilt, responsibility,
etc. has plagued Angel from the time he got his soul back. In
fact, the crux of his curse is that he becomes unhappy due to
the guilt that he feels. If ever he atoned for his guilt, he would
become Angelus again and thus Angel could never be redeemed. At
the point of climax, one could imagine that, at that specific
point in time, Angel found a brief release from the burden of
guilt and responsibility and felt only happiness. Likewise, a
drug-induced euphoria in terms of "reducing inhibitions"
is likely to be equated to a reduction in feelings of responsibilities
and thus to a relaxing of his feelings of guilt and whatever other
saddening preoccupations he may have. Having his son about him
doesn't free Angel from feelings of guilt or sadness (I gather
from the post on Angel that he is still lonely, for example) and
therefore would not fulfill a curse where true happiness is defined
as happiness without sadness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: angel's curse -- witch hunter, 14:43:24 02/24/02 Sun
why dont the scoobies or angel's new posse ever think of a magic
spell to forever banish angel's demon self to some other dimension
where it cant come back? or some kind of permanant housing spell
for his soul in his body?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The Angel Epi-pen -- Darby, 16:27:03 02/24/02 Sun
You'd at least think that there would be several caches, in L.A.
and Sunnydale, of the materials and spell copies to put Angel's
soul back if it ever flits away again. Angel Investigations should
have soul drills to prepare!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spike and Buffy -- Mala, 08:08:43 02/24/02 Sun
I don't know why Spike loves Buffy or why she loves him. I do
know they are about the hottest couple on TV. While I loved Angel
and Buffy, Buffy and Spike have much more chemistry together.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike and Buffy -- Yellowork, 08:21:42 02/24/02 Sun
I love the Spike - Buffy thing too; I especially like how it is
not just the men, but the relationships that also change. The
Angel thing was typical teen trauma (thank goodness); Owen was
ill-timed crush and both Riley and Scott were attempts to do 'matoor',
with Parker in between as ill-considered rebound guy. This is
great; Buffy sort of wants it to be Angel again, knows it can't
be, but doesn't know what else to do; Riley / Scott type affairs
don't ever look like they are going to light her fire, do they?
There is a real feeling of innocence lost; with Angel it was very
innocent, with Spike things are in some ways similar, but that
only serves to underline how tainted and corrupt things have become.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike and Buffy -- wiscoboy, 12:25:33 02/24/02 Sun
I believe the love relationship between the two is still a one-way
street(Spike towards Buffy), if that. Spike's actions and feelings
tend to side many times towards obsession, approximating that
of Angelus' before he was swept into the vortex, although rather
than wanting to destroy her, he wants to protect her at any cost(to
the detriment of the relationship at times). I don't really believe
Buffy is in love with Spike. She has come to trust him and feel
comfortable with him(also she never has acted like she can hurt
him emotionally). Add the fact she believes she came back "wrong",
and therefore not "right" for any NORMAl(a.k.a. LIVING)
person, and you end up having a girl using sex to escape(if only
temporarily) her situation with Spike(a non-person = also wrong)
who she doesn't truly believe she can hurt(outside of killing)physically
or emotionally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike and Buffy -- Spike Lover, 20:21:29 02/24/02
Sun
Yeah, and it makes me want to see Buffy's teeth kicked in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike and Buffy -- wiscoboy, 12:26:39 02/24/02 Sun
I believe the love relationship between the two is still a one-way
street(Spike towards Buffy), if that. Spike's actions and feelings
tend to side many times towards obsession, approximating that
of Angelus' before he was swept into the vortex, although rather
than wanting to destroy her, he wants to protect her at any cost(to
the detriment of the relationship at times). I don't really believe
Buffy is in love with Spike. She has come to trust him and feel
comfortable with him(also she never has acted like she can hurt
him emotionally). Add the fact she believes she came back "wrong",
and therefore not "right" for any NORMAl(a.k.a. LIVING)
person, and you end up having a girl using sex to escape(if only
temporarily) her situation with Spike(a non-person = also wrong)
who she doesn't truly believe she can hurt(outside of killing)physically
or emotionally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike and Buffy -- lotusocean, 05:17:37 02/25/02
Mon
how's it all going to end, tho? i have a sneaking suspicion that
spike is going to end up killing buffy since everything comes
in threes -- it would be his third dead slayer and the third time
she dies, this time for real/forever at the end of season seven
-- how's that for going way out there??
whaddya think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joss Intent? -- Dochawk, 18:04:16 02/24/02 Sun
In the emoticon thread that is due to disappear, Rahael and Darby
(among others) began a discussion regarding the nature of our
interpetions of art, specifically BtVS. Rahael argues beautifully
that Joss intent is the most important factor (I hope I am paraphrasing
accurately). I wonder if you think that Joss and ME are aware
of many of the wonderful deconstructions that appear here, as
they are writing the show. I do believe that some of them are
aware of the hero journey and Campbell (though I certainly don't
have any real evidence of this). But do you think that they knew
of the meaning of "Tara" in Buddhism? There are many
otehr examples I have seen in the last month. How much are we
overlaying our own backgrounds and knowledge onto BtVS and do
you think its fair?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> All's fair in love and art... -- OnM, 19:10:09 02/24/02
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> About Tara -- Solitude1056, 19:36:58 02/24/02 Sun
I'm almost convinced that Joss fully intended the Hindu Tara to
overlap in the character Tara's metaphors. If you look at the
script for Restless, he clearly states:
ANGLE: TARA
Appears opposite Buffy on the dune, walking toward her. She is
dressed in Indian garb, midriff and skirt. Again, preternaturally
calm.
(emphasis added)
So I'd say, yeah, ME is fully aware of Green Tara. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What is the meaning of "Tara" in Buddhism? (NT)
-- Belladonna, 19:41:12 02/24/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> look in the archives, or do a websearch - there's
loads o' pages on her. -- Solitude1056, 20:05:55 02/24/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The One who Liberates.... -- Caroline, 20:11:27 02/24/02
Sun
Tara is a buddha and appears on earth as a female bodhisattva.
She's revered in the Mahayana tradition, esp. Tibetan, in the
tantra path. In art she is depicted as very calm and serene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> And a bodhisattva is -- Caroline, 20:17:04 02/24/02
Sun
a being who undertakes a journey of liberation for the benefit
of all sentient beings, and keeps being reincarnated to take on
the suffering of sentient beings - at least this is the definition
from the Mahayana path of buddhism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thanks! -- Belladonna, 21:55:59 02/24/02
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: And a bodhisattva is 'OAFA' and 'Couplet'
S6 spoilers -- Age, 10:25:56 02/25/02 Mon
In looking for links between 'OAFA' and 'Couplet'(mostly the declarations
of loneliness and the reaffirmation of family) I noticed the display
in the Magic Shop that probably has been mentioned before: there
is what looks like a bodhisattva statue with two suns either side
of the figure to symbolize perhaps the illumination and management
of the whole self. On the right from our perspective is a cobra
(Willow's snake) rearing its head; while to the left is a depiction
of tiny stars (the idea of the faraway heaven.) The suns as depicting
the whole self are contrasted to the vilified side of the self
which, like the cobra, has been rearing its head this season and
to the desire for the heavenly concept of self or life to which
the characters seem to be attached.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: And a bodhisattva is 'OAFA'
and 'Couplet' S6 spoilers -- Caroline, 10:46:06 02/25/02 Mon
And, I find it interesting that in Hindu, Tibetan and Bablylonian/Western
astrological traditions, the sun is the symbol for the self, for
the potential that one struggles to get in touch with throughout
one's life. It is, so to speak, the god within us all. I've noticed
that statue several times and thought that perhaps one of the
reasons that it's there is to help the scoobies realize that they
need to look within their own sun/self for salvation, not in temptation
of some external experience of heaven - sex, personal love, magic,
or regression to blissful ignorance (my take on Buffy's death
state - she just didn't seem to be able to face the morally ambiguous
world she found in The Gift, thus her great willingness to sacrifice
her physical life).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> "willow's snake"? -- anom,
20:36:39 02/25/02 Mon
"On the right from our perspective is a cobra (Willow's snake)
rearing its head...."
What makes the cobra Willow's snake? Or didn't you mean that it's
specifically the cobra that's associated w/Willow?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "willow's snake"?
Spoilers for OAFA and Bargaining. S6 -- Age, 20:41:03 02/26/02
Tue
It was a suggestion of an allusion to the snake that comes out
of Willow's mouth in 'Bargaining.' Usually it is the cobra that
is associated with the head rearing up; and it was used to suggest
the vilified aspect of the Scoobies rearing its head this season.
In other words, the image incorporated these two meanings.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Those who return in pure compassion to
the wheel (S6 spoilers) -- Anne, 14:09:46 02/25/02 Mon
Ever since first looking at this Tara thread a wonderful phrase
that I read somewhere has been tugging at the fringes of my mind,
and it finally came to me: "Those who return in pure compassion
to the wheel . . ." It comes from Ursula K. LeGuin's "The
Lathe of Heaven" in a description of the protagonist George
Orr. Of course, it is also a beautiful characterization of any
bodhisattva.
I find it interesting because it puts it in such a way that one
can contrast it clearly with Buffy and her attitude about her
return from heaven. She returns kicking and screaming to the wheel,
scarcely in pure compassion . . .
still, whether the writers mean this contrast or intend to do
anything with it, only time will tell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> plantation -- skeeve, 07:51:35 02/25/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> the o'haras were buddhists?! -- anom, 11:21:24
02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Joss Intent and Art -- Lupe, 22:31:25 02/24/02 Sun
Sometimes I wonder this, too - how much really is in the show,
and how much do we either overanalyze or project onto the show
all this additional meaning. But here's how I look at it: are
there other tv shows that could generate this much philosophical
discussion? Sure there are other shows which have generated a
lot of fan following, "cult hits" and what not: but
what other show can really stand up to this degree of examination
on so many levels? I don't watch that much tv other than Buffy,
so I don't know, maybe there are other shows that can be deconstructed
(feel free to enlighten me), but my impression is that Buffy is
unique because it was created specifically to tell stories using
metaphors, and I don't think anything else out there does anything
even remotely like that. Do we sometimes go far or stray from
what the writers were really thinking? Maybe, but then I sometimes
thought my English teacher overanalyzed some of those "great
classics" we read in high school, too. "All's fair in
love and art:" yes, I think Buffy is art, and therefore,
all is fair!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Joss Intent? -- Mr. B, 22:51:13 02/24/02 Sun
I think its fair, but I also believe too much is considered a
metaphor. Sometimes the show is metaphored to death, every little
act doesn't always mean something heavey. Freud even said sometimes
a cigar is just a cigar. You could ascribe meaning to anything
if you try hard enough.
Most people who are watching Buffy don't watch it for metaphors
and that's ok in my opinion. What does it really matter to someone
that Tara represents some Buddist idea? That's the brilliance
of the show---it can be watched just for fun/escape like any tv
show, and it can be watched by some for its subjective meaning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Joss Intent? -- Rufus, 01:47:20 02/25/02 Mon
How much are we overlaying our own backgrounds and knowledge onto
BtVS and do you think its fair?
Since when is life and fiction fair?...:):)
ar·che·type:
An original model or type after which other similar things are
patterned; a prototype: "'Frankenstein'... 'Dracula'... 'Dr.
Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'... the archetypes that have influenced all
subsequent horror stories" (New York Times).
An ideal example of a type; quintessence: an archetype of the
successful entrepreneur.
In Jungian psychology, an inherited pattern of thought or symbolic
imagery derived from the past collective experience and present
in the individual unconscious.
Many people including myself have seen facets of the Heroes Journey,
but is that because of the fact I read Hero with a Thousand Faces,
or because inside my mind is the memory of the hero that this
story has been able to touch? How much of our reaction to this
show is from our learned experiences and how much from our deeper
collective memories? I think there is a healthy combination of
both. We can all identify the hero, the shadow, the trickster,
we just don't always describe them in the same way. I believe
that the people on the show are smart enough to do research on
both the names and functions of their characters, and sometimes
the personality of an individual character will evoke an emotional
response that was unintended. If that happens then they have to
scramble to make that character fit into an archetypal pattern
that is acceptable given the circumstances.
The fact that the Buffyverse has been created begs that it also
be deconstructed. It seems to be a normal function of being to
question what is established knowledge. I think this makes it
possible for us to evolve our thinking past the static norm.
As for the show being more than meets the eye, well, everything
is more than meets the eye. With Joss it's how his eye interperts
what his story will say, that we get to enjoy such lengthy discussions
about more than just a "cigar"....;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Joss Intent? -- Mr. B, 02:32:57 02/25/02 Mon
"As for the show being more than meets the eye, well, everything
is more than meets the eye. With Joss it's how his eye interperts
what his story will say, that we get to enjoy such lengthy discussions
about more than just a "cigar"....;)"
I understand where you come from, but even what the eye of Joss
interprets does not give everything a layer, its all in the eye
of the beholder including this conversation on the meaning of
it all. :-) Everything is nothing and nothing is everything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Joss Intent? -- Rahael, 03:09:38 02/25/02 Mon
This is a very difficult question! Yes, I do think Joss' interpretation
of the show is of more interest and more credible than my interpretation
of the show.
But the show is successful because it is metaphor driven, and
metaphors aren't successful unless they are flexible, and allow
multiple meanings to be read. I think Joss knows precisely what
he is doing. His stated intention for the show is that it was
to mean more to the viewer than the other television shows you
watched, that you would want to own the characters, internalise
the story. In order for that to happen, you need to allow a creative
space for the viewer to add their own story in. Therefore, our
speculation and our personal reactions are part of the reason
for the show's success, part of the way the show is designed.
Even if you weren't sitting at home spotting the metaphors, it
still has an effect on you. Mr B points out that many viewers
who watch the show don't care about the metaphors. I've converted
4 of my close friends to Buffy viewing (the latest one was yesterday!
He watched OMWF and departed with my season 2 tapes!). One of
them is metaphor blind; the other three picked up on the resonances
straight away. But the show was compelling to all four of them
for the same reason. Buffy is not passive viewing - it involves
you and invites your participation in its imaginary world.
I am interested in how this works, and how Joss manages to create
this effect. I am interested in his views. If he says something
about a scene or a relationship contrary to the way I had seen
it, I would abandon my earlier reading. At the same time, I would
value my own personal reaction to the story.
Buffy's powerful narrative creates both a communal and individual
experience. There are some things common to the cultures of all
the viewers who watch, or at least readily available ideas and
concepts; other reactions are created by your own personal background.
Both of these meshed together create my Buffy viewing experience.
Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity are such an interlinked part
of my personal background that I am unsure how much of it is my
individual interpretation, and how much is actually present in
the show. I am on much surer footing with the Western literary
canon, Biblical mythology, folk tales, fairy tales, films and
pop culture references because I know that this is a resource
available both to the writers and viewers of Buffy.
I know that even if Joss is only indirectly influenced by a 19th
century Gothic novel, or a commonplace of Western literary thinking,
it is still fairly credible to see its imprint on the show.
I have to say that watching the DVD commentaries (far superior
for Seasons 2 and 3 than for season 1) only spurred my prediliction
for overanalysis. Not only Joss' comments, but also Doug Petrie's
and David Fury's. They really had thought a lot about the imagery
and ideas they built into an episode. Joss by the way is still
clever enough not to state his intentions in a definitive way
- I think he tries to allow as many valid interpretations of his
show as is possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> 'The Reader Over My Shoulder' -- Rahael, 03:27:58
02/25/02 Mon
I always think this is an amusingly apropos poem re the creater/critic
relationship.
The Reader Over My Shoulder
You, reading over my shoulder, peering beneath
My writing arm - I suddenly feel your breath
Hot on my hand or on my nape.
So interrupt my theme, scratching these few
Words on the margin for you, namely you,
Too-human shape fixed in that shape: -
All the sayings of things against myself
And for myself I have well done myself.
What now, old enemy, shall you do
But quote and underline, thrusting yourself
Against me, as ambassador of myself,
In damned confusion of myself and you?
For you in strutting, you in sycophancy,
Have played too long this other self of me,
Doubling the part of judge and patron
With that of creaking grind-stone to my wit.
Know me, have done: I am a proud spirit
And you forever clay. Have done!
Robert Graves
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Multiple interpretations -- verdantheart, 13:48:35
02/25/02 Mon
That's why I love Buffy -- and Shakespeare. As I was creating
a paper for a Shakespeare class once, I found myself in opposition
to the preponderance of criticism I found about the play. For
other plays, I found widely differing opinions (Hamlet, anyone?).
The ability to find so much -- and even so much that is conflicting
-- in a work of art serves to make it all the more compelling
and fascinating. Analyze on!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> My Complete Overanalysis -- neaux, 05:28:56 02/25/02 Mon
You can read too far in to things. Yes that is true, but any show
that encourages reading between the lines, a history of the episodes
and external referencing... these things are exciting to the viewer.
Tara. My first analysis of her or maybe I read it here on this
board (I cant remember) was that Tara was "a rat" spelled
backwards.
Is this overanalysis?
But when she is introduced in HUSH, and the fact that Amy was
in the previous episode SOMETHING BLUE turning from rat into human..
was this foreshadowing Tara's arrival?
And I saw a commentary of FX saying the producers of BTVS are
always trying to create names of characters and demons by jumbling
letters around of their pet names and such.
Maybe this is overanalysis. But to me it still is as exciting
as ever.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> It takes two to makes meaning -- Etrangere, 06:32:56 02/25/02
Mon
The one who tells and the one who understands.
I have no doubts ME puts a lot of symbolism and references intentionnaly.
Yet, we probably overanalyse sometimes things they had no intention
to put.
Does it mean we're wrong to analyse it ? Don't think so. First
because they could very well put those things unintentionnaly,
unconsciously and yet, they could be there.
Second because the writers are no islands, and there's a lot in
their culture that are a part of what makes the subtext of the
show.
What about if it goes the other way ? If the writers makes a very
subtle metaphora and absolutly nobody sees it apart from the writers.
Is still their intent important ? Or does it mean the metaphora
is not very well done ?
I think the only thing that matters about any analysis we can
make from the show is if it has a good ground, if it's well argumented
so that most people can see it and if it makes sense with the
show.
Yeah, I think the work of art in itself is more important for
the meaning than the artist himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Shakespeare & Galsworthy -- Brian, 07:09:28 02/25/02
Mon
When I was teaching drama, I used to tell my students that if
one could have asked Shakespeare about the symbolism in Hamlet,
he would have smacked you with a wet cod. "I write only what
sells, what entertains. I've got a job to do. Fill those seats
every weekend. Compete with bearbaiting and cockfighting. Don't
talk to me about symbolism. Talk to me about what sells!"
Or as John Galsworthy, when asked about the particular meaning
of one of his books,replied, "Don't ask me: I only wrote
it."
But neither of those positions can deny the pleasure of textual
analysis. To each his own; to each type of enrichment there is
always validity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Well said. I agree. -- yuri, 07:34:50 02/25/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> "I'd call that a radical interpretation of the text."
-- Sophist, 16:10:46 02/25/02 Mon
To put this issue in a different context, the LA Times today reported
an interesting study. Researchers showed college age men (the
usual suspects) pictures of women smiling and asked how they interpreted
the woman smiling at them. The men generally saw it as a sexual
come-on. In contrast, the women who were smiling and other women
viewing the smile interpreted the smile as a neutral gesture.
I interpret this study as a warning about the use of emoticons.
:)
The quote in the subject line is, of course, Oz speaking to Willow.
I wonder whether Joss was making a point about his own authorial
intent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Excellent point! -- Caroline, 12:56:33 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffy...Comfort Food? -- Teri, 08:08:53 02/25/02 Mon
Had a really unexpected bad BAD experience Saturday night. One
of those pull the rug out from under you feet then rip your guts
out sort of things? (sounds sort of buffyesque, don't it?)
Anyway...
I don't know, it was just one of those things that happens that
you just feel like it's going to be a really long long time before
you feel normal...and like OK again. One of those things that
you wake up the next morning and it hits you like a ton of bricks
and it's everything to get up and start the day and get stuff
done.
But I did. And as I was getting stuff done, I popped in a Buffy
Tape. (first six eps of season 4) And of course I spent more time
watching then getting stuff done BUT by the middle of the day...I
felt normal again. Like yeah, that SUCKED but OH WELL! Ya know?
Weirdness.
AND!! I still feel okay!...
So I guess my question to pose is...what is it about watching
a show about a girl facing and fighting real demons (well as real
as you can get in latex I spose!:)) that makes you feel better
able to face and fight your own?
OR Is it just me? (if it is that's okay...I'm perfectly COMFORTABLE
with that...:-))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> growing up with buffy -- neaux, 08:24:04 02/25/02 Mon
I can say that Buffy helped me to survive growing up. When I graduated
from college (gasp!)back in 1997 I had to find a job for fear
that I would move back with my parents.. something I dreaded.
I had lived with my best friends, a townhouse of 4 guys. We all
graduated in 97 and were ready to start our lives. I happened
to find a job near my college town (hurray!) yet my roomies were
all leaving by the time the lease was up in August. I had to find
new roomates.
I eventually found a room for rent in my college town, with 2
girls! That intimidated me. My new job intimidated me. How was
I to adjust?
with Buffy.
I cant recall if Buffy started in 1997 or not. But I remember
watching it and loving it. I became a tv hobbit.
A year later, one of my girl roomates got married and we got a
new roomate. Another girl who was a Buffy fanatic.
Having someone to watch buffy with totally rocked too! I felt
good about being myself, growing up.. and being addicted to tv.
Watching the scoobies go through high school drama.. helped me
deal with my own drama.
in that sense I got to grow up with Buffy.
now if only it was season 6 when I was just finishing college,
I probably would have totally felt comforted in Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Xander's Rule -- Brian, 08:36:48 02/25/02 Mon
When faced with upseting news, stress, or that awful feeling that
life and I are completely out of sync, I relax with a few episodes
of Buffy and remember Xander's sage advice: "What would Buffy
do?" and I'm OK.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: growing up with buffy -- bienbizare, 09:18:58
02/25/02 Mon
I graduated from college in May and struggled to just find a job.
Now the best I have is a really pointless and monotonous temp
job for a HMO. I'm definitely feeling and understanding the struggles
of this season, and it is kind of comforting to realize that it's
not just me that has gone through this crud. (reading this board
also helps me greatly to get through the day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The Buffyverse speaks to all who care to listen... -- Grace,
09:45:47 02/25/02 Mon
I too have turned to Buffy in times of stress. The last six months
of my life have been quite hard. My husband took a job cross-country
and left me behind to work 60 hours a week at a stuffy law firm.
I hated it more than words. My attempts at being a corporate/bond
attorney was making me quite dark and forced me to question the
purpose and direction of my life.
There was Buffy to speak to me. I watched the musical over and
over again understanding what it meant to be "going through
the motions." Like Buffy, I began to engage in reckless behavior
(wild drinking nights, but without the kitten poker) in an attempt
to find something which made me feel alive. Watching Buffy (this
kick-ass women who had the ability to save the world) struggle
with her purpose and existence made me feel like I wasn't alone
in the world. I even related to being pulled out of heaven (I
had worked as a judicial law clerk for 3 years and found this
very rewarding. Any lawyer will tell you--being a law clerk is
as close to being in heaven in the law as you can be). I left
that job to take an (almost) 6 figure salary to find out that
it sucked more than words can describe! I had lost the fire and,
like Buffy, I wanted it back.
I am glad to say that I have moved on. I left that hell-job, moved
to CA to be with my husband and am now practicing law at a place
where the people are ... well, just my type of people. I think
Buffy too will find her happiness...
The short of it is that the Buffyverse speaks to any person who
cares to listen. It is an allegory for the human experience. In
this lies its brilliance. Thanks be to the Buffyverse!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Buffyverse speaks to all who care to listen...
-- Teri, 10:25:54 02/25/02 Mon
Amen Sista!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy...Comfort Food? - Yep! -- Eric, 17:25:15 02/25/02
Mon
Can't say Buffy is getting me thru major trauma. But I am temporarily
located in really depressing place. It ain't the worst place to
be. (It just takes me a couple minutes to think of worse.) But
Buffy does get me by.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> For me, it's more the familiarity that gives comfort --
yuri, 20:30:20 02/25/02 Mon
than any specific aspect of Buffy. It's something that I know
very well but still has enough complexity to be enjoyable over
and over again. However, it's a plus that BtVS is a really amazing
show, as opposed to, say, Dawson's creek, which is also familiar
and comforting to me (only because for years it has been targeting
my age group and my friends talk about it and watch it together,
so inevitably I've seen several episodes, not because I really
like the show). In times of high stress and angst, all I crave
is a sense of regularity, a knowledge that things do maintain
and go on throughout any inner turmoil of mine. Even a show that
I abhor as much as DC (no offense, of course, it's all MHO), can
give me that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hell yes -- MayaPapaya9, 20:36:05 02/25/02 Mon
I can't express how many times I've felt down and I put in a Buffy
tape, usually from the first or second season cause I'm that age
right now, and it's helped incredibly. Especially episodes like
Innocence and Passion. Sarah is just such a good actress that
I feel like her pain is coming from inside myself. Or something.
I'm not sure how to put the phenomenon in words.
Also, you know how you sometimes are so down about something,
but for whatever reason you can't cry? And you know once you cry
you'll feel better, but you can't bring yourself to do it? Whenever
I feel like that I watch Becoming Pt. 2. I cry every time, without
fail, and I always feel a little stronger afterwards. I've already
mentioned this on the board before but there's that one part that
I've repeated to myself so many times when problems seem overwhelming:
"Angelus: Now that's everything, huh? No weapons... No friends...No
hope. Take all that away, and what's left?
Buffy: Me."
(And then of course she kicks his undead ass.)
It's like, no matter what you're facing, no matter how impossible
it may seem, you always have yourself to rely on even if the rest
of the world completely abandons you. And that's more than enough.
So...in conclusion! Yeah Buffy is a great comfort food. And no
calories involved! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality of postings -- SF, 09:03:24 02/25/02 Mon
I live an isolated life at the tip of the African continent and
I am "not young" anymore. I began watching "Buffy"
only at season 4. Season 6 is being sent to me by a friend in
the UK. When I am down, which happens a lot, I come to this board
to read what you all are saying as I know one else who is watching
the show. I am delighted with the quality of analysis, ideas and
depth of knowledge of philosophies, religions, myths and ledgends
you posters bring to the board. You are a lifeline to be treasured.
Don't tell me you are all under 20!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Demographics -- Darby, 09:10:04 02/25/02 Mon
We come in all types and varying expiration dates here. You can
get a hint of the variety by skimming through the "Meet the
Posters" pages (see link above).
Welcome! We love new skulls to bounce our ideas around in, and
love new ideas to keep our own heads humming.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thanks. Last time we checked, the median age was 37. --
Masquerade, 09:11:01 02/25/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Quality of postings -- matching mole, 09:22:27 02/25/02
Mon
Thanks for the kind words and welcome to the board! I'm relatively
new to the board myself but I don't know if there has ever been
a South African (or any kind of African) poster before. You may
be the first! The posters on this board vary widely in age. If
you check out the Meet the Posters link you can find out the ages
of some of us. Very few that I know of are under twenty. I'm 40
and there are several posters in their 50s.
Off topic - I am a big fan of cacti and other succulent plants,
a hobby I developed when I lived in Arizona. It has been a dream
of mine for a few years now to visit southern Africa - world succulent
headquarters!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> OT - Cacti -- Brian, 09:51:31 02/25/02 Mon
Hey. Matching Mole, I had a big collection when I lived in Southern
California during the 60's. Had to give them up when I moved back
to New England. Succulents of the World Unite!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hmmm--you guys should be talking to Cactus Watcher!
;o) -- WW, 10:17:46 02/25/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: OT - Cacti -- matching mole, 10:19:25 02/25/02
Mon
I can relate to your story. I had about 200 plants in pots on
my back porch in Phoenix along with a bunch of hardier species
growing in the yard. Only a fraction got moved to Illinois with
me. Several of my friends got a lot of free plants!
Obsessions can take many forms besides Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> That's why I call myself... -- Cactus Watcher,
10:27:17 02/25/02 Mon
I have a small backyard devoted to a cactus garden. I have a number
of varieties of yucca and a few agave. I only have a few other
succulents because I have to take them inside from mid spring
to late fall. The summer here in central Arizona is rough even
on cacti. Right now I'm in the midst of winter weed season. Once
it's full spring where most of you are, we get summer weeds which
aren't nearly as bad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> OT - Backyard Cactus Garden - I would
love to see it! -- Brian, 11:02:04 02/25/02 Mon
Backup Story - I tried to grow some cacti in Boston, and Boston
was not kind to cacti - I switched over to green, leafy plants
of an independant nature.
Side Story - While living in Connecticut, I grew two grapefruit
trees from seed. I still have them in Kentucky, but I fear they
are reaching the end of their life cycle.
(They're 26 years old.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I'm very envious -- matching mole, 14:38:05
02/25/02 Mon
I'm reluctant to continue such an OT thread but given the low
level of board activity today - why not? Had I been on the board
before my move, CW, you probably would have been the recipient
of free plants!
The thing I miss most about Phoenix (as opposed to Arizona as
a whole) is being able to grow weird plants in my yard. I had
a fair amount of success growing some succulents in the garden
by planting them in an area that was shaded in the afternoon by
my neighbors garage and an overhanging pomegranate bush. Various
Aloes were the most successful but I had a few others as well.
I don't envy you the weeding, I remembering poking my hands numerous
times trying to weed around the base of Agaves!
In desperate attempt to link this to Buffy I will say that my
back porch did have a chamber of horrors aspect to it at times
- flowers that smelled like rotting meat, flowers that looked
like tiny buildings with passageways to direct ants into them,
plants with sap caustic enough to burn the skin of sensitive peple,
weird contorted shapes, and of course spines everywhere. Probably
several monster ideas in there somewhere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Africans on the board -- vampire hunter D, 11:47:21
02/25/02 Mon
Mole, a few weeks ago when we had the "Where are you"
thread, a girl named Sharon said she was form SOuth Africa. Now,
SF could be Sharon, but then again it might be someone else (I
don't even think SF said whether they are male or female). ANd
SF never mentioned SOUTH Africa, just Africa. In fact, I looked
at his/her email adress, and it's a .za. That to me looks like
either Zambia, or Zimbabwe.
However, this does not take away from how cool it is that we now
have African posters. Now, if we can get an Asian, and get Voxpopuli
to come back, then we'll have someone on every inhabited continent
(Hey, if there is anyone in ANtarctica, we shouild get tehm too).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> .za stands for South Africa -- matching mole,
12:02:58 02/25/02 Mon
or at least includes South Africa. I don't know why this is but
I've ordered seeds from a company in South Africa and they had
a .za on the end of their email. I also made the assumption based
on the 'tip of Africa' statement.
Of course I could be completely wrong - if I am I hope that SF
will step in and correct me. I had forgotten about the South African
responder in the 'where are you thread'. Thanks for reminding
me. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: .za stands for South Africa -- SF,
23:54:49 02/25/02 Mon
za does indeed stand for South Africa..in it's French form -Zuid
Afrique. As the Cradle of Humankind is now considered to be in
Southern Africa, it seems appropriate that Buffy's vision quests,to
commune with the First Slayer, should take place in the desert.
Are any of you Succulent "fans" keepers of Cycads?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> cycads -- matching mole, 05:29:28
02/26/02 Tue
I had three when I lived in Arizona, two of which I planted and
left behind. The third is a seedling Encephalartos ferox, from
your part of the world (although this particular individual originated
in California). It is still alive although something bit off all
its leaves on my back porch last summer! It's grown one new leaf
since then - looks very sad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: .za stands for South Africa
-- CW, 06:14:51 02/26/02 Tue
I tried a Cycas revoluta, but there isn't enough shade in my yard.
Several people have them in the area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Africans on the board -- Darby, 15:08:58
02/25/02 Mon
Sharon is/was from Johannesburg.
We do have Tracton from Israel - that counts as Asia, right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'm 21...Is that ok? ;o) -- Rob, 15:54:49 02/25/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ooops, I'm 20 ! You think i shouldn't be allowed here
? my young mind will corrupt the other's ! -- Etrangere, 17:10:28
02/25/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> We have 16-year olds and 52-year olds. -- Masq,
18:02:02 02/25/02 Mon
The only prerequisite is ocassionally thinking too much!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I'm 53. Which is why I'm not giving my
name. -- Anonymous, 13:23:42 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm 53. Which is why I'm not
giving my name. -- Masq, 13:37:33 02/26/02 Tue
But could you possibly be our poster who aims his/her ocular organs
towards certain succulents?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> 53? Post proudly - You have
a half century of wisdom to share -- Brian, 15:33:13 02/26/02
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O/T I'm baaaaaaack! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 10:14:22 02/25/02 Mon
Hah! Bet most of you didn't even notice I was gone, did ya? Three
whole days spent away from my keyboard, troubleshooting a mega-conference
for 400 eager-beaver new teachers, yikes! I'm glad to be back.
Found the following bit of humour while surfing and though it
was perfect for us...enjoy:
"The Heavy Thinker" (By an anonymous Internet source.)
It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties
now and then to loosen up. Inevitably though, one thought led
to another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker. I
began to think alone - "to relax," I told myself - but
I knew it wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important
to me, and finally I was thinking all the time. I began to think
on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix, but
I couldn't stop myself. I began to avoid friends at lunchtime
so I could read Thoreau and Kafka. I would return to the office
dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are
doing here?" Things weren't going so great at home either.
One evening I had turned off the TV and asked my wife about the
meaning of life. She spent that night at her mother's. I soon
had a reputation as a heavy thinker. One day the boss called me
in. He said, "Skippy, I like you, and it hurts me to say
this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don't
stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job."
This gave me a lot to think about. I came home early after my
conversation with the boss. "Honey," I confessed, "I've
been thinking..." "I know you've been thinking,"
she said, "and I want a divorce!" "But Honey, surely
it's not that serious." "It is serious," she said,
lower lip aquiver. "You think as much as college professors,
and college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on
thinking we won't have any money!" "That's a faulty
syllogism," I said impatiently, and she began to cry. I'd
had enough. "I'm going to the library," I snarled as
I stomped out the door. I headed for the library, in the mood
for some Nietzsche, with a PBS station on the radio. I roared
into the parking lot and ran up to the big glass doors... they
didn't open. The library was closed. To this day, I believe that
a Higher Power was looking out for me that night. As I sank to
the ground clawing at the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra,
a poster caught my eye. "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining
your life?" it asked. You probably recognize that line. It
comes from the standard Thinker's Anonymous poster. Which is why
I am what I am today: a recovering thinker. I never miss a TA
meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last
week it was "Porky's." Then we share experiences about
how we avoided thinking since the last meeting. I still have my
job, and things are a lot better at home. Life just seemed...
easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Welcome back -- Vickie, 10:17:02 02/25/02 Mon
Hi, I'm Vickie and I'm a thinkaholic.
snerk!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: O/T I'm baaaaaaack! ;o) -- Darby, 10:31:05 02/25/02
Mon
I read your inclusion.
I'm trying not to think about it too much.
If we decide not to think, have we fallen off the wagon?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Some of us noticed. -- Cactus Watcher, 10:39:48 02/25/02
Mon
We missed the ;o) at the end of all your posts! You MUST look
in the recent archives for the discussion we had on emoticons.
That was a great story, too... As long as I don't have to think
about it...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> oh boy, good laugh. And yes, do look at the emoticon post.
-- yuri, 20:41:10 02/25/02 Mon
Though I wasn't around enough to tackle and contribute, either,
I thought of you and wondered why you didn't have your two cents
in there!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hah! That's wicked (and could apply to so many here, *grin*)
-- Marie, 05:56:20 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question for the girls -- vampire hunter D, 12:20:14 02/25/02
Mon
I was over on the trollop board, and saw a pic of the bridesmaids
dresses from ANya's wedding. ANd this lead me to a question: Why
do girls have to torture their bridesmaids like that? Do you hate
them or something? I have yet to see a gyt make his Best Man look
that stupid. SO why do girls have to do that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> SPOILERS IN ABOVE POST -- neaux, 12:30:00 02/25/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A question for the girls -- leslie, 12:54:47 02/25/02
Mon
Because it's TRADITION!!!
Actually, it is at least theoretically descended from the idea
that evil spirits tended to lurk around weddings (vengence demons,
perhaps?) and would attack the bride, so she and her attendents
would all dress the same way so the spirits couldn't identify
the real bride. (This is why bridesmaids dresses are now supposed
to be less fancy versions of the bride's dress. The bride wants
her individuality, tradition says "oops, that's dangerous!",
and so the difference is split.)
Alternatively, in cultures in which the groom is supposed to "abduct"
the bride (all in good fun, of course), the bride and her attendents
dress similarly to make it harder for the groom and *his* attendents
to pick out the right bride. (The opportunities for wackiness
to ensue are endless here...)
In practical terms, it's to make the bride look good.
At the risk of blowing my own horn, see _Happy is the Bride the
Sun Shines On: Wedding Beliefs, Traditions, and Customs_ (Contemporary
Books, 1995) by (cough) Leslie Jones. Not in bookstores much anymore,
but available from Amazon and B&N. Sadly, the editors made
me include only *happy* wedding beliefs. There's tons others all
about prognostications about which of the couple will die first,
or omens that your husband will beat you, and all kinds of fun
stuff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> so..give us some dirt the editors wouldn't let us
see(NT) -- Simon A., 20:10:47 02/25/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: so..give us some dirt the editors wouldn't
let us see(NT) -- leslie, 09:25:22 02/26/02 Tue
A lot of it is fairly self-evident, at least if you've spent a
lot of time researching superstition (which I have) or pondering
the literalness of metaphors on BtVS (which we all have). If you
prick yourself with a pin and blood falls on your wedding dress,
your husband will beat you to death. The first one of the couple
to exit the church will be the first to die; the first to get
out of bed after the wedding night will be the first to die; if
a black bird (crow, etc.) flies by as the wedding party leaves
the church, the first one of the couple to see it will be the
first to die (or, the side that the bird is flying on indicates
the first to die--i.e., if it flies on the groom's side, he will
die first, ditto bride's side). Bad luck for a black cat to walk
in front of the bride everywhere in the world except for Britain,
don't ask me why. Bad luck to see any black animal on the way
to the wedding ceremony (incidentally, my parent's black lab merrily
accompanied my ex-sister-in-law down the aisle when she and my
brother got married, but these days, the fact that they remained
married for 10 years doesn't seem like *that* much of bad luck).
(Then there was the daughter of friends of my parents; everyone
was assembled on the patio, which overlooks an incredible view
of the Green Mountains in Vermont, waiting for the bride to appear,
when instead her cat Arnold, the hugest cat in the world and completely
white, came marching down the aisle with a mouse in his mouth,
which he proceeded to sit down with and eat right in front of
the judge. But hey, he was a *white* cat, so that was good luck!)
Less dire bad luck--make sure you are standing with your feet
parallel to the direction of the wood when you take your vows,
or your marriage will be "cross-grained." The person
whose hand is on top as you take your vows will be the dominant
partner in the marriage. In ceremonies where the couple kneels,
if the bride's train falls over the groom's feet, she will be
the dominant partner in the marriage. Also, the first of the couple
to exit the church door after the ceremony will be the dominant
partner in the marriage, which, given the death portent superstition
already mentioned, means that you essentially trade longevity
for power.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thanks for sharing. -- CW, 10:46:51 02/26/02
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A question for the girls -- Cactus Watcher, 13:01:04
02/25/02 Mon
I hope the ladies won't take offense, if I say everyone wants
the bride to look the best. The bridesmaids are friends, but also
part of the color scheme. No one cares if the groom just looks
like the guy who happens to be standing next to the preacher.
The groomsmen are there to keep the groom from fainting, and to
make him too self-conscious to answer the question "Do you
take..." with "Are you out of your mind?"
And thank your stars, you've never seen a wedding with pink tuxedos!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Pink tuxedos!! -- Deeva, 13:09:19 02/25/02 Mon
I've never seen one of those. But I do remember powder blue with
ruffles (I was REALLY little) and one wedding, that I don't remeber
at all but mom has photos, burgundy tuxedos with grey ties. Yeeshhh!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A question for the girls -- celticross, 13:37:14
02/25/02 Mon
But there's a difference between following the color scheme of
the wedding and dressing one's bridemaids in ugly, unflattering
dresses. The colors of those dresses aren't bad, it's the hideous
style.
However, we all know Anya slavishly follows the norm, and it's
become a cultural joke that bridemaids have terrible dresses.
My personal theory - the dresses weren't that bad to begin with,
but wedding pictures come back to haunt us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> It's part of the stupid "princess" crap that girls
grow up with. -- Deeva, 13:04:07 02/25/02 Mon
"It's your day!!" "Princess for a day!" "Like
a fairytale!" Blah, blah, blah. Believe me. When you're fed
this stuff for, like, all your life, you eventually buy into it.
Plus, it's a weird cycle, like an awful rite of passage. If it's
been done to you then you in turn return the"favor".
Well, at least that's what I see here in the States.
I have coordinated a few of these events for my friends and even
the most level headed of them fall prey to some of the "princess"
behaviors. I'm there to snap them out of it. I always like that
part. I have to say that the more events I do the more attractive
eloping becomes. Besides, Vegas is a pretty fun town.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: In the 70's we were all Clothing Criminals --
Brian, 13:41:09 02/25/02 Mon
I recall at my wedding, I wore a beige, Edwardian cut
Tux with milk chocolate brown lapels, cummerbund, and bowtie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> More princess crap.... -- Isabel, 16:59:44 02/25/02
Mon
Another benefit of Vegas is you can get married any way you want
to... Which is not a benefit if one of your best friends wants
an Elizabethan Wedding. At the Excaliber, no less. Not only did
I have to travel 1500 miles for this, I had to help make all the
costumes. We're talking 10 different sets of Elizabethan garb.
The wedding was in early Sept. and my dress was velvet and brocade.
A/C was the only reason I wasn't unconscious.
And the men got off worse than the women. They wore tunics and
'pansied slops.' Those are trousers that tie at the knee. The
bride had wanted tights, ruffled collars and those stuffed shorts.
All heads turned as we walked across the gambling floor... but
then they went back to gambling because they figured we worked
there.
Sometimes I fantasize about doing to her what she did to me, but
I could have refused. And there were fun moments. But I agree
that eloping sounds like a good plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A question for the girls -- NightRepair, 22:07:45 02/25/02
Mon
My friend's boyfriend said to her "If we get married, you'd
better not make Sarah one of your bridesmaids" (Sarah is
a very attractive friend)
My friend said "Why not?", to which he replied;
"Well you don't want her to look better than you on your
wedding day".
I think it's true. No girl wants to be outshone on her big day.
Crappy bridemaids dresses will help ensure this doesn't happen!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highlight of my vacation -- MayaPapaya9, 17:33:50 02/25/02 Mon
So I was down in Southern California last week, shopping, tanning,
eating and visiting colleges. We went to UC Irvine, UC San Diego,
Pitzer (one of the Claremont colleges) and University of Redlands.
At Redlands, imagine my shock when, as the tour guide reeled off
the names of famous allumni, he said, "The creator of the
show Buffy the Vampire Slayer..." I immediately woke up and
said, "Joss Whedon?? Joss Whedon went here?" And he
smiled and said indeed he did. Well, wow!!! I actually walked
around the campus where Joss Himself lived and studied for four
years! What an incredible coincidence! Anyways just thought I'd
share :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Highlight of my vacation -- matching mole, 17:57:12
02/25/02 Mon
Pretty cool story. When my wife lived in Riverside we'd go to
Redlands to shop at the Trader Joe's there but that's not quite
the same thing. Unless Joss worked there while he was a student...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> hate to Burst Your Bubble -- Dochawk, 19:50:22 02/25/02
Mon
But, Joss didn't go to Redlands. He graduated from Wesleyan University
in Connecticut.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: hate to Burst Your Bubble -- MayaPapaya9, 20:22:25
02/25/02 Mon
Maybe one of them was graduate school? Cause the tour guide specifically
said Joss Whedon went to Redlands. Did Joss even go to grad school?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> A Short Version of Joss Bio -- Dochawk, 20:27:58
02/25/02 Mon
Joss Whedon was born on June 23, 1964, to parents Tom and Joss'
mom. He has two brothers, Zachary and Jed. Joss remembers fearing
both his father and one of his brothers, and has stated that his
mom was "whupass personified."
He spent his youth in Manhattan and his final year of high school
at Winchester, a British school for boys. He graduated from Wesleyan
University, in Connecticut, in 1987.
Joss went on to great deeds. He worked in a video store, wrote
spec scripts, and married the beautiful Kai Cole. His "big
break" came in the form of a job as a screenwriter for Roseanne.
Screenwriting, for Joss, is the "family business." His
grandfather worked on The Dick Van Dyke Show, The Donna Reed Show,
and Leave It to Beaver. His father was involved on The Dick Cavett
Show, Alice, Benson and Golden Girls.
After Joss left Roseanne, he worked on movie scripts, receiving
an Oscar nomination for Disney's Toy Story and writing the screenplay
for the movie Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Later, the producers of
the movie, in which he was disappointed, approached him about
doing a TV version with more creative control.
In 2000, Whedon was nominated for an Emmy for writing the episode
"Hush." He currently resides in California with Kai,
four cats named Vinnie, Agravane, Tok, and Sanjha, as well as
several small men who perform slave labor in his basement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I thought Joss was gay? -- Elmra, 23:41:43
02/25/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: hate to Burst Your Bubble -- d'Herblay,
20:33:03 02/25/02 Mon
David Greenwalt graduated from the University of Redlands. Greenwalt
was the original show-runner on Buffy (and is credited with co-creating
Angel). Take a story, pass it down from campus tour guide to campus
tour guide, and pretty soon you have Joss Whedon going to Redlands,
or the library being built with a bequest from a mother whose
alumnus son died on the Titanic, with the codicil that every student
pass a swimming test (a story I heard on tours of at least two
separate campuses during my college application process).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Ohhhh...oh well. David Greenwalt's awesome
too!! -- MayaPapaya9, 20:37:51 02/25/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was I the only one? (Spoilers for Loyalty) -- VampRiley, 19:24:37
02/25/02 Mon
That couldn't stop laughing when the plastic hamburger came to
life?
Or have I just lost it completely?
Tell me I have, please.
:-P
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Worked for me (Spoilers for Loyalty) -- Darby, 19:37:06
02/25/02 Mon
Kinda reminded me of the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters.
A great image.
I was impressed with the "noirishness" of this ep. I
know they're all supposed to be in that genre, or at least in
that neighborhood, but this seemed moreso. Even the bar scene
with Lilah had the feel of a 40's film.
And, of course, what the heck is going on? Good ending! And thank
the PTB that they didn't drag this new prophecy out for weeks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Was I the only one? (Spoilers for Loyalty) -- agent156,
19:40:59 02/25/02 Mon
I thought it was pretty funny as well. It had to have been that
cheesy on purpose. There's no way anyone could have not noticed
just how cheesy it was. I wonder why they chose to do it that
way? Perhaps to juxtapose with the seriousness of the message
being delivered? Or maybe just for a little humor in all the solemnness?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> perhaps to add to Wesley's surreal state of mind (spoilery)
-- Masq, 09:32:53 02/26/02 Tue
They are setting him up to go over the edge with protecting Connor
from Angel. Nothing adds to your sense of unreality than animated
hamburgers prognosticating doom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: perhaps to add to Wesley's surreal state
of mind (spoilery) -- zargon, 20:20:49 02/26/02 Tue
Thanks for the laugh of the day, Masq!
And to add something to the thread...it reminded me of Angel about
to jump in the empty swimming pool in "The Trial"..where
he tells Darla "I'm either coming back with a cure - or you're
about to see something kinda funny."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Was I the only one? (Spoilers for Loyalty) -- Doriander,
20:00:33 02/25/02 Mon
I laughed. What is it with ME and fastfoods?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Was I the only one? (Spoilers for Loyalty) -- Apophis,
20:32:16 02/25/02 Mon
It was such a cool effect, yet such an utterly ridiculous thing
to do with it. I loved it.
PS- Was I the only one who paniced at the end and wasn't assured
that Angelus was back until the preview? That last comment freaked
me out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> should say "wasn't back" -- Apophis, 20:33:30
02/25/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Was I the only one? (Spoilers for Loyalty) --
La Duquessa, 21:02:19 02/25/02 Mon
No...you weren't the only one to panic! Then, and also earlier...I
kept thinking about that one moment of perfect happiness when
Gunn and Angel were playing minature hockey--what if Angel was
having so much perfect happiness that suddenly he flipped?! It
would be just like ME to hit us when we least expected it...
Also, I am wondering if the reason they were showing Angel drinking
all those glasses of blood was so that it wouldn't seem like a
plot hole when his head was gushing at the end...Nice of ME writers
to think about us obsessives!
But I did miss Queen C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Not the only one (Spoilers for Loyalty) -- Deeva, 23:04:56
02/25/02 Mon
It was a stroke of genius!! To have Wesley recite an incantation
(is that the right term?) to a smiling cartoon burger/drive thru
station was completely brilliant! I couldn't believe my eyes for
about a minute. After that I was giggling every few seconds. My
boyfriend finally had to come in and see what was happening.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Loved it. Does this mean tDMP holds some vague forcast?
A pigcow explains to Buffy TheMeaningOfLife? -- yuri, 23:27:18
02/25/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts on Loyalty (Spoilers for Loyalty and preview for next
week) -- agent156, 20:54:09 02/25/02 Mon
I thought this was a great episode. It left a lot of lingering
questions and all kinds of possibilities.
Why was Wesley unwilling to tell Angel about the prophecy? It
was apparent that he is still too hurt with Gunn and Fred to have
told either of them, but that doesn't apply to Angel. Was he simply
worried about how Angel would react? But in telling him, even
with the reaction, it might help to avoid the whole thing coming
to pass, which he obviously wants to do. Placing all of the burden
on his own shoulders just doesn't seem like a very sensible thing
to do.
What is the demon guy that brought Holtz into the future really
doing in all this? It appears that he is not telling everything
that he knows. We still don't even know why he wants Angel dead
(err deader?). His response of having his reasons is very vague
and cryptic. Does he know something about the outcome of all this
that he is trying to prevent or maybe cause?
Also could Angelus possibly be making a return at some point?
The burger guy said something along the lines of "the vampire
will devour the son." That sounds like Angel will be feeding
off of Connor as opposed to some other form of killing him, and
feeding off a human seems more appropriate of Angelus than Angel.
Also the line at the very end of the ep about the snack just reeked
of Angelus.
And did the events of this ep along with the preview for next
week's ep, strike anyone else as being a bit like Oedipus? Wesley
visited an oracle-like thing which gave him bad news about Connor's
fate, and now he is going to try to avoid the fate by taking Connor
away somewhere. This could be exactly what leads to the prophecy
being fulfilled.
Just my thoughts anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Thoughts on Loyalty (Spoilers for Loyalty and preview
for next week) -- La Duquessa, 21:11:09 02/25/02 Mon
I agree that the Timeshifter Demon is not coughing up all his
intel, but then I wonder if maybe his problem with Angel is not
something Angel did, but something Angel does...After all, what
better way to get rid of a problem than to get rid of it before
it is a problem?
I was very proud of Wes in this ep. When you consider where he
started out, in BTVS, his progress is remarkable. Perhaps even
more progressy than Cordelia, who at least never had to overcome
screaming like a woman! I do agree, though, that he probably should
have told Angel. I am assuming that he didn't because Angel wouldn't
have believed him, and he wouldn't want to put Angel on guard,
just in case...and also, he probably didn't want to want to believe
the prophecy either, until the bitter end.
I was also wondering, though, about Lilah's little plan that is
already in progress. Did you notice that during the earthquake
she was the only one that did not budge? Almost like she knew
what was going on...I didn't tape the ep, so I can't remember
if her meeting with the Timeshifter was before or after Wes went
to the Burger Loa (a Burger Loa is much much better than a Burger
King!), but could the Loa's intel be a set-up? Perhaps Lilah and
the T.S. Demon are trying to get Conner away from Angel and they
are using Wes to do so...after all, we never did find out what
they did with Connor's blood...perhaps they bought off a Loa and
cooked up a few little portents...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Thoughts on Loyalty (Spoilers for Loyalty and
preview for next week) -- agent156, 22:12:07 02/25/02 Mon
Lilah did seem a bit unshaken by the earthquake. Could it be that
Wolfram & Hart have more of an interest in the whole matter than
just her little vengence on Angel? They do have psychics working
for them and could know about the prophecies. They seem to know
about the Apocalypse, and if this event is in any way tied in,
they may already know about it and simply trying to influence
it to turning out in their favor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Lilah has the Nyazian prophecies now -- Masq,
09:47:42 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Thoughts on Loyalty (Spoilers for Loyalty and preview
for next week) -- Apophis, 21:19:40 02/25/02 Mon
Wes was hardcore this episode. I think he's not telling Angel
about the prophecy in order to preserve his quasi-happiness (not
too happy, though). He's thrown himself into his work after the
Fred/Gunn thing. Despite his occasional resentment of Gunn, he's
trying to do the right thing and let them be (although he's become
a bit more preoccupied with field safety). He's developing some
martyr issues concerning the Connor prophecy.
What did Sahjan mean when he said the doctors were looking for
the wrong things in Connor's blood?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Thoughts on Loyalty (Spoilers for Loyalty and
preview for next week) -- Corwin of Amber, 21:37:23 02/25/02 Mon
>What did Sahjan mean when he said the doctors were looking
for the wrong things in Connor's blood?
Good question. Makes me wonder if Angel is actually the biological
father. Maybe Darla was just a surrogate...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Thoughts on Loyalty (Spoilers for Loyalty and
preview for next week) -- JBone, 21:51:40 02/25/02 Mon
Okay, none of this is really well thought out, I'm just thinking
and rippin. And ready for sleep.
If this was some kind of game that required strategy, I would
see a lot of positives for the AI side of things. First of all,
Wesley's isolation, I loved it. But the whole time I was thinking,
"how much would he keep to himself if Cordy was around?"
Which I believe is why the isolation worked so well. For now,
Wes is alone. Cordy has become everyone's sounding board or confider,
and Wes has taken advantage of her confidence more than anyone
on the crew. She's missed clues here and there, but she has been
more than willing to talk to Wes about everything.
Secondly, Angel is already onto Holtz, not to the degree Wes is,
but he has an idea that something is up. Besides, Holtz is not
a "bad guy", that quote maybe very important later on.
Think more later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thoughts on Loyalty (Spoilers for Loyalty
and preview for next week) -- agent156, 22:18:44 02/25/02 Mon
Perhaps Holtz will end up not being such a "bad guy"
as you put it, but his actions so far are rather vague towards
that end. What are his reasons for going after Connor? Is he planning
on saving Connor from Angel to make up for not being able to save
his own family, or is it simply a way of getting revenge on Angel?
I think that may be a part of what gave Wesley pause when talking
to Holtz. He realizes that with the prophecy, Holtz taking Connor
could possibly be a good thing. But he also knows that Holtz wants
revenge on Angel and as such can't be fully trusted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Thoughts on Loyalty (Spoilers for
Loyalty and preview for next week) -- JBone, 22:51:59 02/25/02
Mon
Besides, Holtz is not a "bad guy", that quote maybe
very important later on.
is actually what I said, I wasn't postulating that Holtz IS a
bad guy, but the fuzzy grey that seems to surround his character.
And I believe that Angel is the one who said this (correct me
if I'm wrong), I haven't had a second chance to view the episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Thoughts on Loyalty (Spoilers for Loyalty and preview
for next week) -- Valhalla, 21:43:34 02/25/02 Mon
I couldn't decide whether to sympathize with Wesley over not telling
Angel or not. On the one hand, the translation was a terrible
shock and the sleep deprivation didn't help. It's easy to make
really bad decisions on little sleep while thinking they're quite
brilliant. On the other hand, Wesley of all people should know
how tricky prophecies are -- he was a Watcher! And how obscure
any sort of Oracle-type figures are (no reason to think Burger
Loas are any different).
The only thing that made sense to me is that Wesley thinks Angel
will experience a moment of true happiness as Connor grows, and
taking Connor away is the only way to keep him alive and spare
Angel the horribleness. Although, oddly, if that's true, then
telling Angel would probably save Connor's life, since then Angel
would be always worried about the prophecy...
I still don't get what the snack comment meant, though - any guesses?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Thoughts on Loyalty (Spoilers for Loyalty and
preview for next week) -- JM, 21:58:33 02/25/02 Mon
I'm thinking tricky phrophecies are the reason Wes didn't tell
Angel. He can't bear to impart the news, plus he's two copies
off the original. He can't be sure. So instead he internalizes
and slowly goes mad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thoughts on Loyalty (Spoilers for Loyalty
and preview for next week) -- agent156, 22:04:39 02/25/02 Mon
That may be true that he stil wasn't sure, but if so, then after
talking to the Burger Loa he should have told Angel. No matter
how tricky prophecies might be, this one involves Angel and as
such he is entitled to know.
If nothing else, the more people working to keep the prophecy
from coming true the better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Thoughts on Loyalty (Spoilers for Loyalty and
preview for next week) -- Kimberly, 06:07:13 02/26/02 Tue
My husband's guess is that he was referring to his own blood.
I find this less than convincing, but it's a guess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thoughts on Loyalty (Spoilers for Loyalty
and preview for next week) -- RandomVistor, 18:11:54 02/26/02
Tue
I agree that Angel is talking about his own blood. The first time
I saw the episode I was so caught up with all the references to
the prophesy that I atomatically assumed that Angel was talking
about Conner. When I rewatched the episode, Angel doesn't seem
as sinister as I thought and he is also looking down to where
Conner's legs are and not Conner's face. If you remember, the
blood dripped down over Conner's legs. I think Angel was just
being ironic when he made that comment.
Plus, this would explain next weeks preview where Angel is concerned
about his son, and not in a "I want to eat him" kinda
way. And, with Wesley's lack of sleep inhibiting his judgement,
he would have seen Angel's comment as a threat to Conner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A couple of guesses -- Philistine, 11:08:47 02/26/02
Tue
The first time I heard the "snack" comment, I thought
maybe Angel had gotten his Big Happy on while sitting in there
talking about Connor. The previews didn't seem to bear that out,
though.
My current thought is that it was a stupid, tasteless, thoughtless
attempt at a joke - I've been known to stick my own foot in my
mouth that way, sometimes clear to the hip! But I'm starting to
lean toward the idea someone posted above, that it was an hallucination
on Wesley's part brought on by severe stress and fatigue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions about Faith and Dru (not related) -- Rynn01, 21:41:17
02/25/02 Mon
I have 2 questions that I decided to put into 1 post instead of
2 one sentence posts.
1)Everyone says that ED is to busy to come on the show long enough
to kill Faith off. Why? Could the directers not work it where
her scenes are done at one time? They do this for movies, can't
they do this for the show? I love Faith, don't want to see her
die, but it's not as if we actually see her now, so bring another
slayer on board.
Of course, if Joss wanted to do this, I guess he would make it
happen. Just wondering if there is another reason why this can't
be done.
2) What actually happened to Dru? I only started to watch Angel
mid season last year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question about Faith -- Belladonna, 21:49:08 02/25/02
Mon
I don't know anything about Dru...I just started watching Buffy
recently, and haven't gotten to Angel yet. I've read several interviews
that indicate that ED is willing to come back to Buffy, if the
story was right. I think some of these interviews were pretty
recent. I, of course, cannot remember where I read them, or who
was intervied, sorry. Maybe Joss doesn't want to go there right
now. Maybe next season?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question about Dru -- CW, 06:30:26 02/26/02 Tue
During a visit to Sunnyale to try to convince Spike he could over
come his chip, she got caught in a plot of Spike's to force Buffy
to acknowledge he can be good now. Seeing he's hopelessly in love
with Buffy, in the end Dru has slunk off into the night to await
her next appearance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willow's future -- Rynn01, 22:14:05 02/25/02 Mon
I'm sure this subject has been brought up before, but I'm just
wondering what is going to happen to Willow w/o magic. I am a
huge Willow fan, but she's just not the same w/o magic. We don't
know if we have seen a big bad this season, but how can they fight
major villins w/o her magic? More than likely Tara will die, Giles
is gone, so that doesn't leave any magic for the SG. I miss wicca
Will. Could (gasp) the writers have written themselves into a
corner here w/ her addiction? There doesn't seem to be a way around
it. Any thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow's future -- agent156, 22:27:21 02/25/02 Mon
Pessimistic much?
The writers have a way of throwing twists at us they we don't
see coming. And I seriously doubt they would have made such a
big mistake as to have left themselves nowhere to go. Have faith
in them. One story direction that you don't like does not a bad
show make.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow's future -- grifter, 07:19:03 02/26/02 Tue
Since Tara definitly won´t die, i don´t see the no-magic-problem...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow's future -- skeeve, 08:37:22 02/26/02 Tue
As I see it, Willow's abstinence was a bad idea to begin with.
Willow wasn't using too much magic. She was using it recklessly.
Ending Willow's abstinence without making her feel guilty and
without having the other Scoobies pounce on her needn't be terribly
subtle. A life or lives need saving. Willow is the only one available
and able. Willow does the deed. Willow does not get high or start
turning people into chairs.
That said, given that she still thought that abstinence was a
good idea, she made the right call in OaFA. So did those that
backed her up. The situation was not yet life threatening. It
wasn't obvious that Willow could have done any better than Tara.
For that matter, tried a second time, Tara's spell might have
worked. There weren't any more imprisoned demons to release.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow's future -- Vegeta, 13:08:30 02/26/02 Tue
I think the whole idea of Willow's "magic" abuse being
equated to "drug" abuse (i.e. quiting cold turkey)is
absurd. She just used it too often and for arbitratry reasons
(like party decorating in ATW). Magic is about the only thing
that has allowed Buffy and the Scoobies to survive and triumph
over many of the big bad's (Adam & Glory) up til now. Since the
big bad's seem to becoming more powerful as time goes by, it would
be awfully foolish to abandon magic now.
Also, I am squarley on Xander and Anya's side as far as the OaFA
arguement goes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Who needs magic anyway? -- Philistine, 11:41:49 02/26/02
Tue
The Scoobies got through most of the first four seasons with little
(and more often NO) sorcerous assistance - somehow I think they'll
get by.
Personally, I don't mind the reduction in the SG's magical firepower
one bit. Not because I feared the show was turning into "Willow"
instead of "Buffy," but because it made things too easy.
In RL, I'm all in favor of making things easy; but in fiction,
I want to see people struggling!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self fulfilling prophecies -- Corwin of Amber, 22:19:52 02/25/02
Mon
I don't know where exactly the term 'self fulfilling prophecy'
comes from, but the idea is this: one hears
a prediction about the future, horrid as these things
usually are. The subject of the prophecies then drives
themselves crazy trying to prevent the prediction from
coming true, actually fulfilling the prophecy along the
way. I think the classic is the Greek story of Oedipus,
who was prophesied would kill his father and marry his
mother. I won't go into that, look it up if you don't
know the story. Which brings me to Wesley. I have a sneakingsuspicion
that he may actually be fulfilling the prophecy as he casts about
for a solution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Self fulfilling prophecies (spoilers for Loyalty above):
Just like Buffy in Prophecy Girl. -- Sophist, 08:29:10 02/26/02
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loyalty (Spoilers) -- agent156, 22:58:31 02/25/02 Mon
A rather aptly named episode as it dealt with questions of loyalty
in several different places.
Gunn has to make some kind of choice between his work and Fred.
He claims to want both, but he knows that that may not always
be possible or plausible. When it he really gives it some consideration
he decides that his loyalty lies with Fred.
Cordelia, beginning with last ep, has turned her attention to
Gru, and now while she is on vacation, hasn't called about any
visions or anything. This could certainly appear to those at AI
that her loyalty doesn't lie with them, atleast not right now.
And Wesley's loyalty is obviously still up in the air. He didn't
tell Angel about the prophecy and he gave pause to what Holtz
said. He wants to do what he feels is right, but isn't sure as
to what exactly that is.
It's interesting that for each of them, their loyalty does not
currently lie with Angel. Could this be an ominous sign of things
to come?
Lilah's loyalty is equally in question. She would appear to be
going against Wolfram & Hart in conluding to kill Angel, but it
isn't certain that she is being completely forthcoming in her
dealings with Sahjan. And if the firm finds out about her actions,
who would she side with?
Holtz would appear to have chosen not to remain loyal to Sahjan.
His focus has certainly shifted (though perhaps not his desired
goal) from merely just killing Angel as Sahjan would like to something
involving Connor.
And where do Sahjan's loyalties, if any, lie? There has been no
indication that he is working for someone, but with his mysteriousness
towards his reasons for wanting Angel dead and his knowledge of
something about Connor, he seems to be working towards some desired
end. He sure is going through a lot of trouble just to get some
vampire that it would seem could not have done anything to him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Loyalty (Spoilers) -- Doriander, 23:58:01 02/25/02 Mon
Sahjhan's motives baffle me too. He has knowledge of people's
destinies. It appears he is to Holtz as Whistler was to Angel.
In Becoming, we see flashbacks of Whistler rescuing a desolate
Angel, giving his life purpose. Fastforward to Angel reverting
to Angelus, with plans to end the world. Whistler then came in
contact with Buffy, and revealed that they "didn't see her
coming." That the powers thought Angel was there to stop
Acathla, not bring him forth. So he tells Buffy the particulars
of how to stop Acathla herself, because Angel couldn't.
Sahjhan in a way did the same thing to Holtz. Sahjan recruited
him to kill Angel. But Holtz wants to exact revenge on Angelus,
not just death. And here they clash. So Sahjhan comes in contact
with a different agent that could do the job, Lilah.
Sahjhan definitely knows something about the prophecy, and he's
role is either to thwart it, or make sure of its fulfillment.
Just like Whistler.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Blood and Loyalty (spoilers, spec & confusion) -- bienbizare,
06:45:04 02/26/02 Tue
Maybe this is kind of to obvious to discuss, but wasn't there
an over-emphasis on blood in this ep? Angel was seen drinking
twice (in a clear glass to make it even more obvious what he was
doing), and then there is the issue with Connor's blood, Angel
bleeding at the end, the prophecy, etc.
Also, the questions about what is in Connor's blood that is so
important added to the hints that the father will drink the son
are nagging at me. It's all too obviously out there to not be
really important. But what? What?
It is all getting so interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing
how everything comes together.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Prophecies P*ss me off..............Spoilers for Loyalty --
Rufus, 04:31:55 02/26/02 Tue
In Couplet we get Wesley trying to figure out a way to discern
the reason for Connors existence. Prophecies, they piss me off,
they are bits of information that may or may not be exact, may
not paint the true picture of what is to happen. In the Buffyverse
should be taken with a grain of salt (remember that Codex in BTVS).
ANGEL
What about Connor?
WESLEY
He shouldn't exist.
Angel goes a bit stony, defensive.
ANGEL
His birth was foretold. How many people
can say that?
WESLEY
He has a role to play. That's true. But we
still don't know what that role is. We can't
be afraid to ask the questions, Angel. Because
your enemies -- his enemies -- certainly won't be.
ANGEL
Holtz.
WESLEY
Yes. Amongst others.
ANGEL
(a beat, softening)
You're right. We have to be prepared.
WESLEY
I'm glad you agree. However, now that
we've lost the Nyazian prophecies...
ANGEL
We both know where those prophecies
went. Maybe it's time to stage another
assault on Wolfram and Hart.
WESLEY
That might not be necessary. Not yet,
anyway. There should be other sources.
Ancient works accumulate scholarship
and commentary over the years.
ANGEL
You think someone else may have
already done the work for us?
WESLEY
That's my hope. I've been looking
into it. I just... I felt you should know.
They no longer have the exact writings but translations based
upon those writings in the Nyazian prophecies. I remember how
Wesley made a boo boo about Angels shan shu, I feel that he may
have made one about these translations.
Wesley starts. Angel is at the doorway, holding Connor.
WESLEY
Yes. You startled me.
ANGEL
We didn't mean to.
WESLEY
I thought I was alone.
ANGEL
(gazing at Connor)
Yeah. So did I.
Angel picks up one of Connor's toys that he left here earlier.
Moves off with his son.
Wesley sits there. Looking after him for a moment. CAMERA FINDS
his notes...
..."The father will kill the son."
Something is bugging me about this prophesy....is it exactly correct?
The Loa said that Angel would devour his son. We know that vampires
don't eat flesh but drink blood. I think that perhaps mixing minute
amounts of Connors blood into Angels routine blood supply may
be what the prophesy is talking about....wouldn't drinking Connors
blood also be considered devouring? The Loa also mentioned heartbreak
and betrayal in Wesley's future....that could be the result of
trusting in the wrong person to attempt to protect Connor. Wesley's
mental state isn't making him any smarter. He is exhausted and
concerned, plus hurting over his loss of Fred. I feel that the
prophesy is incomplete...there has to be more he didn't take the
time out from his panic attack to look for. The Loa said that
he only had to ask the question, did he ask the right one? I think
we have another one of those confluence of events that will have
a much different result than the prophesy indicated to Wesley.
If Angel is to devour the son, has he done that already unknowingly?
Wesley couldn't have stopped that.....but he could have taken
the time to make sure that there wasn't more to that prophesy.
The tragedy of all this is that instead of telling everyone what
he had found and trusting them to help look for all the answers,
Wesley only withdrew into himself and gave into his worst fears
about Angel. His perception of being alone didn't help him in
planning for the outcome of what he knows. Question....does anyone
feel that Holtz gives a rats ass about protecting Connor? I think
we have another example of "creative revenge", the gypsies
who cursed Angel would have been overjoyed and in awe of the determination
of Holtz to retaliate without using reason or mercy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Yes. -- Marie, 05:53:42 02/26/02 Tue
I absolutely agree. Ever since the first season of BtVS I've distrusted
anything that is Prophesied-with-a-capital-P. Now, when anyone
says anything at all about a prophecy, I actually take it for
granted that something entirely different will happen, so I don't
worry.
Actually, hmmm... one of these days, they're going to double-bluff
me, and it WILL happen! Oh, heck, now I've got myself worried!
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why Prophecies P*ss me off..............Spoilers for
Loyalty -- Cactus Watcher, 07:04:14 02/26/02 Tue
Wesley is notorious for jumping to the wrong conclusions, and
acting without consulting anyone in the local group who might
be able fill in details he really needs to consider. For example,
he treated Faith like a criminal when she accidentally killed
the mayor's assistant, not bothering to consider what Buffy and
Angel knew about the situation. When he first arrived in LA as
the 'rogue demon hunter,' it was only hunger that made him realize
he needed Angel. I'm not sure he's ever realized that at that
point without Angel's experience he was largely just getting in
the way. Then, of course, on the return of Faith he was too trusting.
Then shanshu business... Unfortunately, Wesley gets trotted out
everytime someone has to do something massively stupid. No wonder
we cringe, when he starts interperting prophecy all by himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why Prophecies P*ss me off..............Spoilers
for Loyalty -- Solitude1056, 07:16:08 02/26/02 Tue
Which is why I prefer the new Wesley, and yet can see it as being
very realistic that this time around he doesn't want to do a whole
song & dance about the prophecy until he's absolutely certain
that he's gotten it right. His mistake about "shanshu"
was an understandable if confusing one, and this time around he
wants to be sure he's covered all the bases before deciding what
to do. In some ways, he's preempting anyone else's right to participate,
but I think his isolation is further hampering his ability to
let other folks in on what's going on.
(Hey, and I was really grooving on how well Wesley can stare down
Holtz and a whole ring o' feisty folk. He's come a long way from
"stand over there and scream like a girl," baby.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Why Prophecies P*ss me off..............Spoilers
for Loyalty -- CW, 07:27:16 02/26/02 Tue
I kept getting the feeling in the scene with Holtz and the gang
that Wesley wasn't there so much to confront them as for them
to lure him into their plot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Yes, that's why I thought Wes was there
in the first place. -- yuri, 21:51:13 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> One thing that occurred to me... Spoiler for Loyalty --
Isabel, 07:52:22 02/26/02 Tue
Do we even know that the 'Father' is Angel and the 'Son' is Connor?
Wes' relations with his father were abusive in the extreme, to
the point that Wes has extremely shaky self esteem. Angel did
not have a happy relationship with his own father, could that
impact on his ability to be a loving Dad?
Could the abuse they suffered have 'killed' something inside them?
You're right, prophecies are tricky things. Plus what level of
translation is Wes working on? He made a screw up when he had
the original text. What if 1000 years ago, one of the researchers
translated one word wrong? Then what Wes has concluded is flawed.
That is assuming that propecy is a compelling force over free
will in the universe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Just an idle thought -- Rahael, 08:10:50 02/26/02 Tue
There was a fascinating exchange of posts between Caroline and
Fresne re Greek myths in the Buffyverse. The most famous father
who ate his children was of course Kronos.
But I haven't seen the ep; haven't even read the wildfeed yet.
But the whole blood and revenge and familial strife thing seems
very Greek tragic. And just as Shansu turned out to have a very
creative spin on the whole 'dying' thing, I think that the prophecy
that Angel is going to 'kill' Connor will have a sting in the
tale.
And to go completely off topic, though my maternal family were
Christian, they continued to pay attention to the Hindu worldview
in which they were immersed. So we all had our very detailed horoscopes
set when we were born. My sister's birth, apparently was very
unlucky for my mother. In fact the literal translation was that
she was a 'devourer of her mother'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Angel and Atreus -- d'Herblay, 12:14:49 02/26/02 Tue
Well, time devours all, certainly, but the son-devouring father
who comes to my mind when I hear "blood and revenge and familial
strife . . . Greek tragic" is Thyestes, brother and cuckolder
of Atreus. Atreus, robbed of his wife and his kingdom by Thyestes,
served up his three nephews to their father at a banquet in his
honor. Of course, Thyestes would go on to have more sons, and
eventually you end up with both The Iliad and The Oresteia. The
story was also a source for Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, where
the title character pulls the same trick on his enemy Tamora.
This all fits with the father devouring the son, though not killing
the son. Remember, though, that Lilah and Sahjan do have Connor's
blood. There is an old (Russian? Klingon? I think the Angles may
have attributed it to the Saxons) proverb which goes, "Revenge
is a dish best served cold." Connor vichyssoise, anyone?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The story of Atreus also appears in Dune --
Sophist, 14:31:04 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Holtz -- Masq, 09:13:52 02/26/02 Tue
Holtz is starting to bug me, just as he's bugging Sahjan. He's
supposed to be so hot for revenge, personal revenge against a
particular vampire, but he's building armies and hanging around
lurking in the shadows.
This may serve the purpose of dragging out the story line until
May, but it seems a little artificial to me within the context
of the story.
And to make it worse, he lets his army see the good side of the
humans in Angel's group, he lets them witness the fact that Angel
does good and has a soul, and no one is protesting Holtz' mission.
Maybe I just don't understand people who suffered loss and seek
revenge, but this seems stilted to me.
Anyone got any ideas on Holtz' plan, his state of mind, or the
state of mind of his followers?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Holtz -- Teri, 09:58:28 02/26/02 Tue
Very interesting point and you could be right about them dragging
the story line out but now that you bring it up I'm sort of seeing
it differently.
I think Holtz motive for taking his time on killing Angel and
building his army could have something to do with his subconscience
need to keep Angel alive. See if he kills Angel then his act of
revenge is over and once that's over all he's left with then is
the pain of loss. Same with the others. In keeping Angel alive
he is able to keep the feeling of anger and vengefulness alive
covering up the pain that's underneath that surface. Pain he may
not be willing to face. I think it's almost as if he'd rather
torture Angel for the rest of his days. I think this would ultimately
give him more satisfaction then his death ever could.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Good point.... and to add.... -- Liq, 10:13:58
02/26/02 Tue
I honestly believe that the whole Wesley-story at this point is
a big fat red herring - or should I say, I hope it is. Between
last night's ep and the promo for next week, we have a storyline
apparently shaping up into one that is just a tad bit too obvious.
Even the damn TV Guide says that Wes takes Connor to protect him
from Angel, but the baby is kidnapped by Holtz. Huh? Do I need
to watch it now?
Wes believes the baby is in danger (Angel's folding baby clothes
and giving colic advice to new mothers... now THAT is scary....
damn evil too if you ask me.... vacumn cleaner indeed.)
Angel's closing comment "At least there would have been something
to snack on." Terribly frightening except for that goofy
little "dad" grin he was wearing, not to mention he
had been heating up the baby bottle when the quake hit. Shaking
in my boots, I'll tell ya.
Wes interprets the prophecy taken from the very rare volume (Here's
three to choose from - you fancy the blue binding or the red?)
Holtz was also a father. (The father kills The Son)
Angel calls Holtz "one of the good guys". He honestly
understands Holtz's pain at this point.
Hamburger Man tells Wes about betrayal. Will Wes betray or will
he BE betrayed? HM sensed Wes's desire for death. Wes asked the
wrong question. (Anyone remember what happened in Interview With
a Vampire when Armand said this same line to Louis?)
Obviously very important is the fact that Cordy and Lorn were
very much Gone last night. They are not on Holtz's surveillance
cameras or photo board.
And Fred next week? I think we are about to see what Fred is really
made of. She kicked vampire ass to save Gunn and now she's apparently
showing some leadership skills when Connor is missing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Spoilers for next week's Angel (beyond
the promo) in above thread -- Masq, 10:32:13 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> TV Guide aren't spoilers - they
are usually LIES :) -- ShamedLiq, 10:55:49 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm a manic non-spoiler monk
-- Masq, 11:17:27 02/26/02 Tue
I watch previews, which are out right lies, especially on UPN,
but I have been really mad at myself when I read TV guide, which
in my experience, spills the beans I didn't want to hear every
time.
*sob*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm a manic non-spoiler
monk -- Cactus Watcher, 14:59:58 02/26/02 Tue
I'm with you. Last season I barely looked at any web sites for
fear of being spoiled, but I did usually read the weekly preview
on the official Buffy.com site. Then along came I Was Made to
Love You. The official web preview gave away the fact somebody
was going to die. I knew as soon as Buffy walked in the door,
that Joyce was dead. I was mad at the WB for blowing the secret
and at myself for letting myself be spoiled.
Speaking of which, see you all next Sunday. Have fun tonight!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Good point.... and to add.... -- Teri,
10:44:20 02/26/02 Tue
SPEAKING of Hamburger Man! Was I the only one having a hard time
controlling laughter throughout the dialougue between him and
Wes. I kept thinking to myself...SHUT UP! I'm trying to listen!
But then the chuckling just wouldn't stop....
Good thing I taped it...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Angel's snack -- Dochawk, 12:07:46 02/26/02
Tue
Am I the only one who thought that Angel was talking about his
own blood and that Wesley totally misinterpets it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> No, you're not... -- Rufus, 12:14:39
02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> My son said the exact same thing
-- Liq, 12:45:50 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Holtz -- matching mole, 10:27:09 02/26/02 Tue
Holtz is baffling me rather than bugging me. His actions, ever
since he didn't shoot Angel in the alley haven't made a lot of
sense. If he just wanted to kill Angel then he should have done
it, so why train all these flunkies to kill vampires? Maybe he
wants to put A.I. out of business with a little old-fashioned
capitalistic competition.
My best guess is that Holtz has some plan to drive Angel back
to the dark side so that killing him will seem a more straightforwardly
'good' act. Either that or he has some other purpose beyond killing
Angel that will be revealed later.
AtS season 3 is beginning to remind me a lot of 'The Maltese Falcon'
although in an inexact way. It seems clear that, just as in tMF,
no one is as they appeared to be initially and that the Falcon
(Connor) isn't what it appears to be either. Other than that it
seems as clear as a big patch of San Francisco fog that's found
its way south to L.A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> LA can have our fog. Please, have some -- Masq,
10:34:45 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Holtz -- VampRiley, 15:18:13 02/26/02 Tue
As for Holtz's followers, Justine said it. "What's wrong
with revenge? It's all some of us have left."
If that's true, then I really feel sorry for them.
As for Holtz's state of mind, I picked up on a vibe. Maybe it's
just me, but I think Holtz just wants it all to end. Let's look
at him for a second:
1) He was a highly skilled and popular (or is it feared) vampire
hunter. He and his group killed hundreds of them before he did
his suspended animation thing.
2) He had a wife, a son and a daughter:
"Was it your hands that held down my beloved Caroline as
she was violated and murdered?"
"That wrapped themselves around my son's neck and snapped
it like kindling?"
"Was your's the hands that clutched at my daughter as she
was turned into a creature damned for all eternity?"
"Angelus is in him. The beast will re-emerge. You've seen
it. You know it. And that is why you are here."
"You're afraid he gonna kill the child. And you're right."
"I don't need prophesy to tell me what is plain. So long
as the child remains with the demon, it's not safe."
"Well, I must have misunderstood. And here I thought it was
just a simple blood vendetta. When what you really want is to
protect Angel's son."
"You don't believe me?"
"Hmm. Not sure, really. Could be the low scary voice that's
giving me trouble."
"It's time to make a decision, Mr. Wyndam-Price. My army
is strong and will only increase in number. Fight against us and
this war will become a bloodbath."
"This isn't war. It's revenge."
*********
"Look. I can't know what's been like for you any of you."
"You might soon enough. When I put my son's body into the
ground, I had to open the coffin just to know he was really in
there. You also may discover that a child's coffin, Mr. Wyndam-Price...it
weighs nothing."
3) He's been put in suspended animation for a couple hundred years,
his feelings of not being able to save his family heavily on his
mind.
4) He has to try to adjust to new surroundings and a new Angel.
And now he knows that Connor exists.
I agree with rufus in that he did seem like a cult leader. He
is using the pain and misery of his followers to get what he wants.
When he wakes up in the 21st century, what he wants is revenge
against the one who killed those closest to him. Then he sees
Angel, not only holding and not trying
to kill a baby, he sees him wanting to protect it. He sees Angel
being the father that he was. Now, Sahjhan has probably told Hotlz
about the gypsie curse on Angel
and about how he can go evil evil again. So what Holtz now wants
to do is find a way to get the baby away from Angel because he
feels like a failure in not being
able to save his own family. He hopes now that he can try to make
up for it by saving this one. He wants Angel staked for his vengence,
but maybe he can find some redemption in saving Connor from someone
he believes will eventually kill the child.
But I also see him as struggling. He has been around for a little
while, his world's been taken away from him. He just wants to
be able to save Connor and rejoin his family
in what he believes is heaven. He misses them a lot, and because
of his sadness, he is dragging his feet and moving slowly. He
is still trying to deal with what he has
lost. It's only been a few years form his perspective. And his
sense of failure is very dominate in his mind and no matter how
hard he tries to push it all away and
concentrate on the matter at hand, he can't shake the feelings
of not being good enough. Even how they died is still very vivid
in his mind. Clear to the last detail.
Maybe that's why he's taking so long.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> State of Mind -- Rufus, 11:31:02 02/26/02 Tue
A few things I noticed about last night. Holtz seemed more like
a cult leader than righteous leader. His prime objective to make
Angel suffer, like the gypsies did. Creative revenge is what Holtz
is about, not the protection of mankind, though he would argue
that that is a benefit of what he does. He expects his followers
to be as "willing" to die for the cause as Fred was
willing to for Gunn, missing the fact that it was her love and
loyalty that made her come back and help, not anger. He has chosen
broken people to follow him, he can manipulate them easier than
the unpedictable demons that were paid to accompany him before.
He is a piece of manipulative work, uninterested in the suffering
his followers brought to this cause, only using their pain to
get them killed in the name of his vengeance. As soon as he became
more interested in the torture of his opponent than the protection
of humanity, Holtz became a liability, it's what contributed to
his families death. It's what will contribue to his downfall.
He stopped being a "good guy" long ago and just another
player of a sick game. His words last night about a childs coffin
weighing nothing didn't play for me...if he spent a little less
time enjoying the pain he inflicted on demons and more time caring
for those around him, I'd care about him more. But Holtz was a
guy with a mission, a group of followers, and a dream to eradicate
demons. Family was at the bottom of his priority list, so much
so he never even thought to leave them well guarded against being
used as hostages. He's just another creep with a cause that will
get many people killed for nothing but revenge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Information from the WB for "Sleep Tight"
spoilers for next week.. -- Rufus, 11:53:42 02/26/02 Tue
The WB
All New | Sleep Tight | 9/8c
Angel's (David Boreanaz) angry behavior and sudden cravings for
human blood frighten Wesley (Alexis Denisof) enough for him to
kidnap the baby to keep him safe. Unfortunately, Wesley's plan
to protect Connor falls apart when Holtz (guest star Keith Szarabajka)
takes the child for revenge against Angel. Charisma Carpenter,
J. August Richards and Amy Acker also star. Terrence O¿Hara
directed the episode written by David Greenwalt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Come on Rufe... didn't I just get smacked
down for exactly this same description? -- SulkingInCA, 12:38:39
02/26/02 Tue
...of course, I did forget that itty bitty little word ... "SPOILER"
in my header ... which I suppose is whole different story....
I made Masq cry.... *snif*
;) lj
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I may be bad but I mark my bad with
a spoiler and a link to where the trailer will show. -- Rufus,
13:13:41 02/26/02 Tue
I guess I'm just a lesser bad than you...;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> We could call you "The
3,348th Evil" -- Masq, 13:31:08 02/26/02 Tue
Unless there's another number you prefer....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Have we started numbering
those like me who are all "purity and goodness"????;)
-- Rufus, 13:36:32 02/26/02 Tue
I suck at evil....I think...:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> those like me..."purity
and goodness"????;) -- VampRiley, 14:31:25 02/26/02 Tue
You're one of them!
You have a soul?!
Nooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!
It can't be!
Saddened in PA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Prophecies Are Tricky Things -- Dochawk, 09:25:54 02/26/02
Tue
I agree prophecies in the Buffyverse botehr me because they are
never what they seem. We can't even be sure that what the Loa
was talking about is the same as what Wesley read. Lets look at
the Loa's exact words "The vampire will devour the son (or
sun?)" Obviously we are meant to believe that the vampire
is Angel, but there sure are alot of other vampires running around.
And of course we all think the son is Connor, but there is no
surety of that either. Wesley sure looks like he has been working
on the texts, so that he has a more complete picture, but as we
all know narrow angle thinking is not appropriate in the Buffyverse.
Otehrs have already talked about the earthquake, fire and blood,
and I have little to add. Finally there is the prophecy of betrayal
and pain. I think Wesley will be the betrayer (a self-fufilling
prophecy) and cause his own pain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why Prophecies P*ss me off..............Spoilers for
Loyalty -- leslie, 10:21:01 02/26/02 Tue
First off, I think it is not insignificant that the loa Wesley
consults is Legba--he's the master of the crossroads, yes, but
he's also a trickster, and you just can't trust them tricksters--they're
tricky!
Secondly, the ambiguity of prophecy--that's how prophecy works,
here in this world, not just the Buffyverse! One of my favorites
is a Greek general (can't remember who) who consulted the Delphic
oracle about whether he should invade Macedonia. The response
was that if he did, "a great army would be destroyed."
"Hot-cha!" he thinks, "I'll massacre them!"
And it's only when he's standing in Macedonia amid the ruins of
his own army that the "Duh!" moment finally arrives.
The thing is, of course, that people read into (ambiguously worded)
prophecy exactly what they want to see there. Legba says the prophecy
is that the father will "devour" the son, Wesley has
translated it as the father will "kill" the son. Right
there we have to ask why Wesley chose that translation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Slight correction to your example -- vampire hunter
D, 12:30:07 02/26/02 Tue
I am familiar with that myth, but it was King Croesus of Lydia.
What the Oracle said was "If your army crosses" whatever
"River, A great kingdom will be destroyed." So Croesus
sent his army ove that river, and Cyrus of Persia went on to rule
the Near East.
Sorry, but I like to see people be more correct with the details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Slight correction to your example -- leslie,
15:05:54 02/26/02 Tue
Thanks for the correction--I am remembering information that is,
well, old and far away.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Prophesy is a poor guide to the future -- vampire hunter
D, 12:31:44 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Prophesy is a poor guide to the future -- leslie,
15:16:44 02/26/02 Tue
Another thing to remember about prophecy in the real world: this
is how you do it (especially political prophecy): you exist at
date A, let's say, for sake of argument, 1914. You want to make
a "prophecy" that will influence the looming war in
Europe. So, you write something that is meant to look like it
was composed in 1743, which prophecies the French Revolution,
the Napoleonic Wars, Queen Victoria, the unification of Germany,
and a couple of other fancy bits, like maybe the invention of
something that could be, but maybe isn't, the railway system and/or
heavier-than-air flight. Then, having established your credentials
("Well holy cow, all those things *have* happened!"
says the reader in 1914), you proceed to write in exactly the
same style and mode, what you think will/should happen in the
upcoming war. This was a highly popular method of political propaganda
in the medieval and early modern periods. They started some serious
execution of false "prophets" around the Tudor era,
and it began to drop off.
Which lends credence, in my opinion, to the idea that Sahjan is
the author of the prophecy, and he doesn't necessarily have to
have time-warped in order to have done it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OaFA available on shooting script site -- verdantheart, 06:09:46
02/26/02 Tue
here, in case you're interested. Been waiting for that one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> There are a LOT of interesting little differences between
the script and the show -- Traveler, 12:56:55 02/26/02 Tue
It looked to me like the actors and director had a large hand
in determining how this episode turned out, for good or for ill.
Unfortunately, Buffy's little leap of logic was always there,
so we can still blame Greenberg for that, at least :P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Looked to me like the difference was decided by the
same crew that does the cutting on the FX reruns -- Anne, 14:01:08
02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Agreed that the shooting script was more coherent
than the show -- Caroline, 14:05:13 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Shows how much editing and direction can change a
script -- ponygirl, 14:55:19 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can the demon starve? -- LeeAnn, 07:04:29 02/26/02 Tue
Giles once said that "A vampire isn't a person at all. It
may have the movements, the memories, even the personality of
the person it took over, but it's still a demon at the core. There
is no halfway."
Since I'm not religious and don't believe in souls I have trouble
buying that. You, you as a person, are the sum of the personality,
mind and memories that are stored in your brain. Your brain is
"you." The ghost built by these biological circuits
is "you." Cut off your arm, you are still you. Change
your face, change your height, change your gender, you are still
you. Become a violent murderer, are you no longer you? The Buffyverse
tells us vampires are not. Angelus was not Angel. But Spike is
always Spike.
Certainly Spike was never an ordinary vampire. He fought more
for fun than for killing. He didn't like torture. "I've never
been one for the pre-show," he tells Dru after he has let
her torture Angel. The Judge tells him he stinks of human affection
and jealousy. He loved and was loved, even if it was by his insane
sire Drusilla. In Becoming Part 2 he allies with the Slayer to
save the world, because "the truth is,[Spike says] I like
this world...It's all right here." Spike eats food. He likes
music, TV, sports (Manchester United), dog racing, his soaps,
his cigarettes and his beer. He likes human things, not mindless
vampire cruelty and death. He has been shaped by the personality,
mind and memories of a good man and that affected much of what
he did for 120 years. If there is a demon inside him, and Giles
tells us there is, then that demon must have been frustrated by
William's resistance to its desires even if that resistance wasn't
total.
What must the demon feel now? The body it occupies would never
completely surrender to its appetites and now those appetites
are rarely satisfied at all. Yeah, Spike may get in some violence,
kill some demons and vampires but only while trying to protect
humans from them or because it is part of his lust/love/devotion
to that icon of good, Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. Doesn't the demon
choke on that? Is the demon inside the chipped, lovelorn Spike
starving, is it weakened by being deprived of its cruel food?
Is the shell that was William emptying out as the demon inside
wastes away? And if the demon is diminished, what's left? What
replaces the demon? Certainly as it dwindles, the personality
that was William reasserts itself, becomes stronger. But only
William?
In Crush Spike raves at Buffy, You think I like having you in
here? Destroying everything that was me, until all that's left
is you, in a dead shell. (scoffs) You say you hate it, but you
won't leave.
A vampire is a dead shell occupied by a demon, but Spike claims
that his dead shell is more and more occupied by ...Buffy. Is
some part of her soul, her goodness, beginning to occupy the space
left by a weakened, starving demon, her essence invited in by
William's mind and memories, by his desire for love and his ability
to feel it.
Has some small part of Buffy taken up residence in Spike's dead
shell? And has that made possible the connection between them?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Can the demon starve? -- Teri, 08:47:18 02/26/02 Tue
Awesome post! And some really good questions that I've been pondering
for a while regarding what the Buffyverse take is on vampires
and ESPECIALLY the vampire called SPIKE!
The line that first gave me a clue was in "Lie To Me"
and what Buffy told Ford when he told her he wanted to become
a vampire so that he could be immortal, she told him:
"Well, I've got a news flash for you, braintrust: that's
not how it works. You die, and a demon sets up shop in your old
house, and it walks, and it talks, and it remembers your life,
but it's not you."
I guess my take on this line is that William's personality then...who
William was, is gone. Completely. And the Demon, Spike, is a completely
different being with the ability to draw on the dead memory of
William's life. But Spike is not William. Spike is Spike.
I also take it if this be the case then it must take the Demon
that takes over the dead shell a while to sort of come into being
if you will. I think that's why in Fool For Love when Angel has
Spike pinned to the wall and he's calling him William, he says..."It's
Spike now!" Then Angel starts asking him when did you start
talking that way and etc, etc. I believe he was asking these questions
because he was observing the fact that William/Spike had been
changing and what's interesting in Spike is we see that this change
in his personality seems to be causing them (demons..) PROBLEMS!
In essence I then saw Spike the Demon being "different from"
even other demons from the get go of the beginning of his being.
So I guess what I see is not William's dead essence or personality
taking over the Demon that is Spike and I don't see the Demon
Spike being crushed or starved at all by anything, but what I
do see is Spike being good on his own because he is and always
has been something very different from the other demons.
As far as his comment in Crush. My take on that has always been
that it was just an expression of obsession. In Crushed BTVS shows
in more ways then one that Spike is clearly obsessed with her.
So I looked up the definition to see what that really means and
found it kind of interesting. It says that obsession is:
1 : a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable
idea or feeling; broadly : compelling motivation
In Fool For Love Dru tells Spike she sees Buffy "floating
all around him." and I took this to mean that she was seeing
the fact that Spike's mind was preoccupied with Buffy even if
he was on the other side of the planet from her. So I understood
when he told Buffy that she was "living inside him him"
to mean that this preoccupation was taking over his being. Which
is what obsession is very much like. It takes over and takes precedence
over every other thought one might have...crushing in essence
who you are since who you are is your thoughts, hence his comment
about her destroying everything that is him until all that's left
is her.
I think the "unreasonable idea" part of the definition
comes in where he says "You say you hate it but you won't
leave"...that to me is his warped take on his own obsession
with her.
It also says it's a "compelling motivation," hence the
drive I see in Spike to do good due to the fact that his obsession
with Buffy compells him to do what it takes to make some sort
of connection with the object of his obsession. But I also think
if Spike were just like all the other demons he couldn't do it.
I think the fact that Spike seems to have always been different
from all the other demons enables him to do things other demons
couldn't or WOULDN'T want or couldn't even be driven by a force
as strong as obsession to do.
Just my take!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Can the demon starve? (loyalty spoilers) -- Dochawk,
09:42:06 02/26/02 Tue
I don't think the writers can be more clear about vampires. Again
last night, Wesley and Angel explain to the Holtzbanger that a
vampire can't change, their very nature is evil. I don't think
Spike's desire of human luxuries (or his ability to love) make
him particularly unique among vamps. We saw with James on Angel
that vamps can be totally devoted to another vamp. The only thing
that makes Spike unique is the chip in his head.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I thought that was intended as irony, given the example
of Angel. -- Sophist, 09:49:31 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Spike's still evil (slight as you were spoilers) --
Apophis, 11:49:58 02/26/02 Tue
According to the wildfeed, Spike's still got his hand in the evil
cookie jar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What we once were informs all that we become.... -- Rufus,
12:11:55 02/26/02 Tue
The vampire is more than just a demon as a puppet master in a
hollow shell. The vampire is the soul of a demon used to infect
a person, corrupting them, making them act against their nature.
But there is something about the vampire that makes one think
twice, they do human things, things that only the person that
once was would contemplate. What struck me was the Pylea arc on
ATS, the demon in pure form was an animal, primative, there to
maim and kill, with no real plan other than survival. But if you
supplement a human with the demon soul, they are a demon, but
they are still themselves minus the conscience. They can still
love, still want creature comforts, but they also have become
dangerous animals out to feed and destroy, make the way for the
old ones to return. Some of them, that is.
What is facinating about the chip in Spikes brain is that it only
tells him that he "can't hunt, can't kill" people hands
on, it doesn't compensate for what a vampire can do through others.
At first Spike was bent on finding out how to return to normal,
again do what he is made for, killing. Then he got motivation
to do something else, fight demons because he loves and wants
to impress the one he loves.
The vampire was all about chaos, a gift of destruction for mankind,
left by some resentful demon who was forced to leave this dimension.
But vampires are not a perfect creation. They may be soulless
but they also contain the potentials for both man and beast...they
can do what the more primative demon could not, change their mind,
ignore the genetic urge to make a cozy nest for the Old Ones,
and find a new urge to follow.
But Spike is still an evil demon, but he is also a demon who is
less dangerous than some of the people (with a soul)walking the
streets. What we don't know is if the vampire can change or if
Spike will become a well or not so well exception to the rule,
like Angel. We could argue that the soul is needed for a vampire
to ever be good, but I could counter that with what I know about
mans capacity for cruelty and evil...with soul. So we are in a
waiting pattern..is Spike just a "serial killer" (quoting
Buffy in Crush) in prison? Or is he something more...a hint of
hidden order in a being of chaos? Yet still will they find yet
another freaking prophesy that fortells a demon who betrays his
own kind? I don't know, but as much as I don't trust Spike, I
find his actions way easier to predict than the Gang of Geeks
who seem to be blundering their way to a toasty place in hell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What we once were informs all that we become....
-- Teri, 12:44:11 02/26/02 Tue
Great point about the geeks. And I completely believe that's a
BIG part of their purpose in this season other then the one Marti
claims them to be (a picture of complete irresponsibility). What
I'm saying is..I think TPTB are trying to make a point with them
on this very subject. Does a soul=good? Doesn't in the real world.
But in BTVSverse? Seems to be the idea they're selling us at times
with Angel...maybe they're changing their tune by using the geeks
to change it. Guess we'll see!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Are we grading evil on the curve? -- Malandanza, 20:46:47
02/26/02 Tue
"At first Spike was bent on finding out how to return to
normal, again do what he is made for, killing. Then he got motivation
to do something else, fight demons because he loves and wants
to impress the one he loves."
Spike didn't start fighting demons to prove himself to Buffy --
he fought them because they were the only things he could kill.
If Buffy had a curse placed on her so that she could not harm
demons and vampires but still went out on patrol -- hunting evil
humans to get her violence fix -- I doubt anyone would be cheering
her on. Motivations count. When Spike does good, it is a sort
of incidental good -- he is there for the killing (and the sex
that follows the killing when he's out with Buffy).
Furthermore, he seems somewhat indiscriminate in who he kills.
Consider when Dru returned and Spike led the slayer to the vampires'
nest. He was planning on killing them simply to have an excuse
to seem useful to Buffy. Did he know these vampires? They recognized
the slayer, but not Spike so it seems unlikely. Of course, we
can argue that all vampires are evil and the two vamps deserved
a dusting (well, all vamps except Spike, right?) but it still
seems rather manipulative. The vamps had been living in Sunnydale
for quite some time and hadn't attracted the slayer's notice --
they had to have been keeping a low profile (which means not eating
people -- just Jiffy Pop and rats' blood -- and maybe a stray
cat or two). If Giles could be concerned for the vampire brothel,
shouldn't we feel some sympathy for these two vamps set up to
die because Spike wanted a date?
Okay, Spike doesn't torture people. Well, not physically -- he's
pretty accomplished at inflicting psychological abuse (and he
enjoys it). His evil tends to be petty and selfish -- not world
destroying schemes. So maybe Spike is less evil than some humans
with souls, but he's still pretty evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Are we grading evil on the curve? -- Rufus,
01:57:50 02/27/02 Wed
Don't remember saying that Spike wasn't evil...what I said is
that he stopped trying to kill people to impress the one he loved.
He adapted by killing demons (Doomed). If he didn't love or want
Buffys attention he would have found a way to kill through someone
or thing else. He could have still killed Buffy. His motivations
aren't pure, but at least they have brought him to a point considered
impossible for a vampire.
If you want to grade evil on a curve I'm afraid mortal man would
still win out because, with a soul they have that head start towards
good. They kill much more efficiently than vampires, and they
kill for reasons that make no sense, at least vampires are killing
partially to get a meal. It also doesn't mean I'd be inviting
them over to make friendly with them.
You say the good that Spike does is incidental, I don't agree.
I think that this character is going through a growing up of a
sort. He is showing that he is capable of loyalty, he is able
to work past that genetic imperative to make way for the old ones.
Will he end up a hero type in the end..who knows? The lack of
a soul gives Spike that natural inclination to do the wrong thing.
Vampires are an eternal adolecent that can't think past what they
want to consider consequences. I feel his relationship with Buffy
has brought out qualities he forgot he had. I also believe that
in one moment he could screw it all up and have to be destroyed.
I'm sappy enough to hope that Spike can become something, someone
better than he has been for decades, but practical enough to know
when to pull the plug and dust him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Can the demon starve? -- LeeAnn, 12:34:11 02/26/02 Tue
I think what it comes down to is that I can't accept that anything
is pure evil. No human is. No animal is. So no matter what Joss
says, no matter what the rules of the Buffyverse are, I can't
accept it. I can think of many people more evil than Spike, even
more evil than Angel and they all fall within the common range
of human variablity. They were not unique. And they all had good
as well as evil in them. So it does not matter what Joss or the
writers say I simply cannot accept it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Absolutely right. Spoiler for Dead Things. -- Sophist,
13:53:08 02/26/02 Tue
It's probably impossible to do evil solely and exclusively. It
never made much sense to me to call someone evil until after their
death. At that point, we sum up the good and bad they did in life
and (sometimes) can apply a general characterization. Until then,
people do good deeds and they do bad deeds; it only makes sense
to talk about specific deeds, not some undefined essence of the
person.
I think that was Tara's point to Buffy about Spike in DT: "He's
done a lot of good."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dreaming (SPOILERS FOR LOYALTY) -- luminesce, 07:10:40 02/26/02
Tue
I certainly got suckered into Wesley's dream at the beginning
of Angel last night...bought it completely, right up until the
symbolic blood on the hands scene.
What I want to know is whether anyone thinks, as I do, that the
last scene may have been (in part) also a dream....a wounded,
sleepless, terrified Wesley pushed too far by stress, the earthquake,
and everything else. It would make a certain amount of sense for
him to continue to lose touch with reality.
(And if that time-shifting demon and Lila are ganging up to mess
with his head by shifting time around on him, like the Triad did
to Buffy, it makes even *more* sense.)
Thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dreaming (SPOILERS FOR LOYALTY) -- CW, 07:15:39 02/26/02
Tue
The important thing in the dream for me was the hammering home
of the blood on Wesley's hands. He needs to procede with caution
and obviously won't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Fantastic episode (spoilers) -- Hauptman, 08:18:17
02/26/02 Tue
Wow. I loved this episode. It's getting harder to compare Buffy
and Angel. I love the Holtz vs. AI thing. And I think teh potential
for this story line is unlimited in gutwrenching. We may see something
truely disturbing by the end.
Questions: excuse me if this has been discussed already, but didn't
Angel say that he was very happy while he was talking about his
future as Connor's father? And isn't that a big no, no. How does
this curse work exactly? Can Angel change into Angelus a little
bit at a time? That last comment about having a snack gave me
chills. What did he mean, that he could have had Connor as a snack?
As mentioned further down in another string, I think Leela was
unfased by the earthquake. She is becoming an interesting and
complicated character. I just don't get why she wants Angel dead.
She seemed willing to have sex with him (course it wasn't him,
but she didn't know that). Is she a woman scorned.
Also mentioned below, Sahjan is a time traveler. Doesn't he know
what happens in the future? What is he afraid of?
I loved when Wesley said, "Oh, you are good. I liked the
part about loneliness." It's a cheap thrill, but I like it
when my favorite characters aren't taken for a ride, when they
are aware of trickery. I wish the whole AI gang could have been
there, but Angel just appearing behind the woman was perfect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Fantastic episode (spoilers) -- GreatRewards,
09:48:56 02/26/02 Tue
Two things:
I have to agree that this was an excellent episode (enhanced by
the fact that I didn't see a wildfeed beforehand!).
As for Sahjan, I think you're on to something there. I started
suspecting his motives during thsi episode, while he was "chatting"
with Lilah. Perhaps his "history" with Angel is not
something in the past, but something in the FUTURE. I'm betting
that it's not so much a revenge thing for Sahjan, as it is some
sort of attempted prevention. Angel plays a part in something
in the future that goes bad for Sahjan, and he's here to see that
it doesn't happen!
Did I say this was an excellent episode?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Angel's curse and the source of happiness --
yez, 09:52:54 02/26/02 Tue
Hauptman wrote:
"Questions: excuse me if this has been discussed already,
but didn't Angel say that he was very happy while he was talking
about his future as Connor's father? And isn't that a big no,
no. How does this curse work exactly? Can Angel change into Angelus
a little bit at a time?"
I've been wondering about this. It seems strange that a moment
of true happiness can only be generated by sex. So far, Angel's
been very concerned about Connor -- his existence, making ends
meet, his health, worrying about his ability to parent. But in
this episode, we did see out and out happiness and enjoyment,
more carefree delight. You'd think that had at least as much potential
as sex for causing the big switcheroo.
I was thinking about how Wesley first translates the prophecy
as "the father will kill the son." Yet the Loa (sp?)
uses the word "devour." And "devour" is often
used metaphorically to mean, instead of literally eating, to take
in hungrily, as in words and ideas. We have been seeing Angel
devouring Connor in this sense.
Like the prophecy of Connor's birth, the words do not always mean
what they might imply. That Connor "will not be born"
was literally true, but did not mean he would die.
It'll be interesting to see what word play the writers hit us
with.
I was also thinking it might be interesting if Angel were ever
faced with the choice of Connor's death from whatever reason.
Would there be a part of him that was tempted to turn him into
a vampire? I don't know if it's possible to think straight when
faced with the prospect of someone you love dying...
Also, what would happen if Connor inadvertently drank Angel's
blood, for example, if it dripped from the wound into Connor's
mouth? I'm not exactly sure of the rules for turning people, but
would it be possible to inadvertently sire a vampire? If Angel
were fed Connor's blood, for example, then Angel's blood dripped
into Connor's mouth?
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Has anyone seen John Q, yet? -- GreatRewards,
10:02:22 02/26/02 Tue
It's a prime example of how "far" a father will go when
faced with the potential death of a child. I doubt that I would
have even imagined the actions that John Q took in the movie,
but I made the comment to my wife afterwards that "if I was
ever forced to make the choice of going to prison for ANY number
of years or watching my little girl die... I'd choose prison in
a heartbeat!"
If Angel had to choose between Connor dying and turning him...
I bet he'd turn him. There's always the chance that they could
figure out a way to get Connor's soul back into him before he
did anything bad. If it can be done once, it can be done again.
You know what they say: Like father, like son.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Has anyone seen John Q, yet?
-- yabyumpan, 10:48:30 02/26/02 Tue
If Angel did turn Connor wouldn't Conner forever remain a baby?
It seems that Vampires don't age so turning him at this age before
he's even got teeth, while not a "good" thing wouldn't
he just end up being an eternal baby who needs blood instead of
milk?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, and -- CW, 10:52:35 02/26/02
Tue
I can't remember whether it was Spike or Angel who once said specifically
that to be turned, one had to be near death.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe it was Dracula
-- CW, 10:55:33 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sorry, I must not have been clear....(spoilers) -- luminesce,
08:37:02 02/26/02 Tue
What I was asking was whether anyone agrees with me that the last
scene, where Angel is dripping blood onto Connor's blanket, looks
up at Wesley and says "I thought we were going to be trapped.
At least I'd have had a snack" is (or at least could be)
another one of Wesley's dreams.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sorry, I must not have been clear....(spoilers)
-- GreatRewards, 09:52:38 02/26/02 Tue
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I believe that might
be right. However, when I watched the ep, that didn't even occur
to me.
Instead, I simply assumed it was a perfectly harmless comment
by Angel, regarding something completely NOT Connor, that Wesley
simply misunderstood, given the circumstances. They do that a
LOT in this show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sorry, I must not have been clear....(spoilers)
-- Dochawk, 11:56:50 02/26/02 Tue
I think the snack he was referring to was his own blood. It was
gushing and he could have collected it to drink.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Gee, the things one thinks of during lunch
hour....;) -- Rufus, 12:13:24 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Gee, the things one thinks of
during lunch hour....;) -- O'Cailleagh, 18:33:23 02/26/02 Tue
I haven't yet seen the ep but I know that a vampires blood, having
no life-force, would not feed a vampire...especially his own blood.
And yes, turning a baby would result in an eternal vampbaby.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Ewww! -- Isabel, 19:45:58 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sorry, I must not have been clear....(spoilers)
-- mundusmundi, 06:38:27 02/27/02 Wed
Interesting question. It certainly had a dreamlike feel. I suspect
it's meant to be taken as reality, though -- an episode that began
with a dream ends by crossing over into a very real nightmare.
Great eppy from start to finish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some possible "prophecy" translations (Spoilerish) --
GreatRewards, 09:40:40 02/26/02 Tue
Ok. We all know that Wesley has translated the prophecy and gotten:
"the father will kill the son"
But we also know that Wesley has been known to err slightly on
the whole "prophecy translation" thing. Perhaps he's
erred again. here are some possible "correct" translations
to the prophecy:
"the father will kiss the son"
an understandable mistake on Wesley's part, mixing up the Nyazian
symbol for "kiss of life" with the one for "kiss
of death" or "kill". excusable and plausible.
"the father will kill the Don"
Angel gets mixed up in the L.A. Mafia and is forced to "take
out" a rival family's leader. He's heard to mumble "You
mess with me, you mess with my whole family!"
"da fadder weel keel da mon"
Gunn reunites with an old friend who had been living in exile
in Jamaica and had started a Ska band. Gunn decides to quit Angel
Investigations to join his friend's group, but Angel finds out
that Gunn's "Friend" is really a Rastasnian Demon, seeking
Gunn for a Bimillennial sacrifice. Angel saves the day.
"the father will kiss the sow"
Angel finally convinces Gru that his country needs him and that
he should return to Pylea and fight for his rightful place on
the throne. In an emotional scene between Angel and Cordy, she
admits hers feelings for Angel and they fall together on the bed
in a passionate embrace... "stay tuned for scenes from next
week's all new Angel'!"
"the father will kill the sun"
Frustrated beyond belief that he's unable to play 'catch' with
his sun in the park on Saturday afternoons, Angel finally snaps,
invoking an ancient spell that extinguishes the sun. Unfortunately,
since all life on earth is dependant on the sun, Angel succeeds
in destroying humanity once and for all... "stay tuned for
scenes from next week's all new... um... Gilmore Girls."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: ROTFWL -- Brian, 09:52:36 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Here it is... -- Masq, 09:17:21 02/27/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ahhh. Thank you Masq! -- GreatRewards, 09:28:03 02/27/02
Wed
I was concerned that perhaps I'd inadvertently put something offensive
in my post and that it had been removed because of complaints.
Can you tell me why it disappeared?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> See above thread reply. -- Masq : ), 10:23:47
02/27/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I read this and thought it was hilarious -- WW, 10:24:10
02/27/02 Wed
I should have posted that at the time, and then it probably would
have stayed around longer!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ditto -- matching mole, 10:30:19 02/27/02 Wed
I was just about to post the same thought and WW beat me to it.
Some might take exception to comparing Cordelia to a sow but I
happen to like both pigs and the charismatic Queen C. Very, very
funny especially the Ragnorak imagery at the end (and that's about
as far as I can go in terms of discussing mythology).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: ROTFLMAO -- Kitt, 10:40:38 02/27/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Owww, my sides hurt. Thanks for the laugh!! -- Deeva, 11:45:50
02/27/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Heeeee-larious! -- Dichotomy, 14:53:01 02/27/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toys R Us ... you know. (Spoilers for Angel) -- neaux, 11:17:28
02/26/02 Tue
I dont want to grow up, I 'm a toys r us kid.
Dealing with the kid in us? Its funny to watch Angel and Gunn
playing hockey and Angel break a window. Kids will be kids I guess.
and Wes is left to play the adult?
Each character show their relationship with the "kid"
in a way I think. And there is foreshadowing as well.
Angel and Gunn playing hockey was the first example.
When Angel shows his jersey for Connor.. its cute. Later we see
Fred in her own JERSEY at the fairgrounds. She too can play the
cute kid.
The fight scene at the carousel... another kiddie coinciwinkydink?
I think not.
(this scene also reminded me of "Something Wicked this way
comes" for some reason)
And finally Angel plays cutsie teddy bear with Connor..
and a similar cutsie talking hamburger converses with Wes. a la
Ghostbusters.. (cute images are easier to deal with)
This episode is more about Connor that the characters seem to
realize.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Good observations. -- Traveler, 12:10:45 02/26/02 Tue
Especially about Fred. I keep getting the nagging feeling that
she hasn't grown up. I'm curious to see how this will affect her
relationship with Gunn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
the prophesy and time travel -- zilla, 11:42:21 02/26/02 Tue
My husband had an interesting thought...what if the prophesy was
created by the time traveling demon himself? He may have created
it for his own purposes, that of which we know nothing about yet.
My thought on the whole idea was that since the prophesy said
the father will kill the son, what if Holtz came into the future
through a pact with the time traveler and took Connor back to
raise him as his own, or so Angelus thinks. And what if it turns
out that when Angelus kills Holtz's son it is really Angels son
but he (Angel) does not find that out until now. I like to think
it is more complicated than it actually is. Any thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What books did you guys read when you were children? -- Arethusa,
12:00:55 02/26/02 Tue
I'm curious about what books you guys read as children, especially
ones that formed your tastes as adults.
My favorite, many times reread, was The Wizard of Oz, and I read
all the fantasy books I could find.
Later I read every book in my junior high library that had a reference
to magic in the title, and many more English Victorian and Edwardian
childrens' novels, which helped me form a (slightly old-fashioned)
moral sense.
So here I am-readaholic, fantasyaholic, and lover of all things
in the Buffyverse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Oops! -- Arethusa, 12:04:51 02/26/02 Tue
I meant "children's." Bad grammar and punctuation drive
me nuts!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- verdantheart, 12:22:44 02/26/02 Tue
I guess that the fact that I discovered HP Lovecraft early on
would say a lot about me ... All kinds of fantasy/horror, less
science fiction, including:
Tolkien
Ray Bradbury
Lord Dunsany
Poe
Stephen King (starting in college)
Oh, and of course Dracula is one of my most read novels! I read
that the first time when I was rather young ... (Also on the most-read
list: Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House and Peter Straub's
Ghost Story)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- Deeva, 12:23:41 02/26/02 Tue
Too many to really go through but my absolute all time favorite
author was Roald Dahl. I loved "Fantastic Mr. Fox" & "Jame's
& the Giant Peach". He's got a really great sense of darkness
and yet still kept it kid-like but not in the talking down to
you way. I first read these when I was about 7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- d'Herblay, 12:50:17 02/26/02 Tue
When I was four or thereabouts my mom bought me (at my loud insistence)
D'Aulaires' Book of Greek Myths. This opened up a world of wonder
and pretension to me, and soon I was flipping the pages of my
father's old Lit Hum texts. I was a bellicose little brat, so
my favorite god was Ares. I must admit that I completely missed
the point of the scene in The Iliad where he is discovered in
flagrante delicto with Aphrodite.
Add to that every dinosaur book ever published, and you end up
with a precocious ankle-biter with a speech impediment, a tendency
to transpose syllables, and far too much Greek floating around
his head. It's a wonder I ever made myself understood. I was still
pronouncing Sisyphus "suffices" at age 17, and I once
lost a signed Robert Bakker original sketch because I pronounced
paleoscincus puh-LEE-oh-sin-SUS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Scientific pronunciation -- matching mole, 14:12:34
02/26/02 Tue
You were robbed d'H! Most scientists these days have little or
no training in Greek or Latin. I have none. Pronunciation seems
to be largely a matter of convention and it is not that unusual
to find someone who pronounces a name somewhat differently than
you do.
By pure coincidence I did my Master's thesis on a charming little
lizard with the generic name Scincella. My advisor pronounced
it with two hard'c's and rhymed the first syllable with sink.
The second syllable was just like Ella in Ella Fitzgerald. Everyone
else I met pronounced the first syllable skin (to rhyme with thin)
and the second sella. Later I asked a humanist friend of mine
with latin training and she gave me a third answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> To be fair to Bakker . . . -- d'Herblay, 15:49:34
02/26/02 Tue
. . . I was still pronouncing "Aeschylus" as if his
name were a pronouncement by an Austrian skier (I Schluss!!) so
who knows how I mangled Paleoscincus. But he had said "So
close, so close," when I yelled out "Nodosaurus!"
and I was mispronouncing P. a good three minutes before anyone
came up with the "correct" pronunciation.
I had a little bit of revenge though. He decided to limit the
guessing of a later drawing to the young'uns and proceeded to
draw a stegosaur. As the ignorance of our local youth became more
and more apparent, I called out, "Diracadon laticeps,"
one of the more obscure species of stegosaurs. Bakker fixed me
with a cold look and said, "Smart ass."
He still signed my copy of The Dinosaur Heresies, though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 1986 year of nintendo -- neaux, 12:51:24 02/26/02 Tue
yeah... I was a nerd who read for class assignments, to get good
grades. Reading for leisure was abruptly ended in 1986. I believe
I was 11 or 12.
Video games have stole my soul. But yeah, for English classes,
I read the required reading... and only occasionally would I read
and that would be from the Fantasy Section.
I did go through a phase where I read the LANDOVER series by Terry
Brooks. and the Jurassic Park phase where I read Creighton.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- vampire hunter D, 12:51:28 02/26/02 Tue
In the 5th grade (the farthest back that I have vauge memories
of) I read War of the Worlds and Around the World in 80 Days.
6th grade, I was reading the Chronicles of Narnia and Moby Dick
And between 8th grade and high school, I read the six Dune books.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- Lilac, 12:55:39 02/26/02 Tue
Throughout my childhood I would read literally anything I could
get my hands on. When I was very young, I got an illustrated volume
on Greek mythology. This got me into Bullfinch's and Hamilton's
works on mythology, and I would read anything related to Greek,
Roman, or Norse mythology. I was very into "A Wrinkle in
Time" when I was somewhat older, maybe 11. I was very gratified
when I read it to my son for the first time when he was 4 and
he LOVED it. It was a nice experience to share.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- Kimberly, 13:03:40 02/26/02 Tue
Pretty much anything I could get my hands on, with emphasis on
science fiction, fantasy, mystery, astronomy, mythology and fairy
tales.
And, it's still true; just ask my husband. (Most men cringe when
their wives go into clothing stores; mine does when I go into
a book store.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- Brian, 13:17:33 02/26/02 Tue
I started with comic books: Superman, Batman, WonderWoman, EC
Horror Comics, Disney & Looney Tunes. Then, onto fables and fairy
tales. I got my library card when I was eight and started devouring
Sci-Fi and Mysteries. Read Hardy Boys, Tom Swift Jr, Rick Brant,
Ken Holt, and even Nancy Drew.
Moved on to Perry Mason, Ellery Queen, The Saint, Shell Scott,
and ever Sci-Fi paperback I could find. By high school I was reading
classical novels. In college, I discovered theatre, and consummed
play after play.
Today, I read mostly mysteries with an occasional Sci-Fi story.
I still try to read one classic novel a year. Just finished Jane
Austin's Emma. Most of the mystery books I read have a strong
female protagonist. Finding Buffy was like coming home!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What books did you guys read when you were
children? -- Vegeta, 13:29:07 02/26/02 Tue
I'll list what little I remember favorably:
The Dragonlance series of novels
Stephen King (starting in like 6th or 7th grade)
Tons of D&D and AD&D manuals (being from the home of role playing
games tends to do that to you)
I remember "On a Pale Horse" by Piers Anthony (I think
that was the author) was good.
Also, I remember there was a series of books about a cat and dog
that were trying to stop undead vegetables or something... Two
of the titles were "Bunnicula" and "The Celery
Stalks at Midnight". I don't remeber the author but I thought
you BtVS fans would get a little kick out of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- B, 13:07:30 02/26/02 Tue
When I was very young my favorite was the Wizard of Oz.
In 2nd grade I read all the Little House on the Prairie books.
I read all the Anne of Green Gables books.
Another favorite was Alice in Wonderland.
I loved RL Stine and Christopher Pike, and Lois Duncan.
In 8th grade I read Gone with the Wind.
In high school I got into Stephen King and Kathleen Woodiwiss
for leisure, and in school read Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights,
Rebecca, lots of Hemingway and Steinbeck
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- Anne, 13:33:15 02/26/02 Tue
Hokay:
The Pooh books, Thurber's fantasies (The Thirteen Clocks, The
White Deer, The Story of O), the Narnia Chronicles, also by C.S.
Lewis the misnamed "Space Trilogy" and a fabulous retelling
of the Cupid and Psyche myth called Till We Have Faces, a hauntingly
beautiful book by Margaret Wise Brown, written for an older age
group than her usual toddler books, called The Dark Wood of the
Golden Birds, Charlotte's Web and Stuart Little (the movie was
an abomination); T.H. White's The Once and Future King (Disney's
"Sword and the Stone," taken therefrom, was another
abomination); Tolkien of course; everything by Edward Eager; everything
I could get my hands on by E. Nesbitt; Rumer Godden's Two Under
the Indian Sun, The River, and The Greengage Summer, the Laura
Ingalls Wilder books (the TV show was an abomination), Ray Bradbury,
Robert Heinlein, Wind in the Willows, and Dickens' Christmas Carol.
(I think of the latter two especially as the first place I learned
certain words -- I remember the first time reading the line "an
errant mayfly swerved athwart the current . . ." in Wind
in the Willows and not understanding a thing.
Those are just the ones that rise to the top of my head -- and
any one of which, by the way, I can reread today with pleasure.
There are many many others. The library was just on the corner
and during the summer I used to go and take out about five books
a day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- Goji3, 13:36:22 02/26/02 Tue
hmm....
I have several (odd) favorites. One being "Raptor Red"
by Robert Backer. The author, a distinguished Palentologist, really
gets into the mind of the animals as intelegent beings. It's really
neat.
The others are the first two in the Randomhouse 'Godzilla' series
by Marc Cerensi. "Godzilla Returns" and "Godzilla
2000" .... What? With a name like Goji3 and with the post's
I've started, would you expect anything else?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- matching mole, 14:00:29 02/26/02 Tue
Depends on what you mean by children
Early on (up to about age 9) - Chronicles of Narnia, Roald Dahl
(like Deeva 'James and the Giant Peach' was a particular favourite),
Enid Blyton (Five Children and It), Lloyd Alexander, Hardy Boys,
old children's books that belonged to my parents' childhoods,
almost any kind of story with an animal (e.g. The Jungle Book,
Black Beauty, Charlotte's Web, a whole series of books about talking
farm animals). Probably lots of other things that I don't remember.
Next came, Lord of the Rings, Watership Down and virtually all
the science fiction and fantasy in the young adult adult section
of our public library (John Wyndham, Andre Norton, Heinlein, Edgar
Rice Burroughs, and Ursula LeGuin are authors that stand out in
this period). I also read lots of 19th Century and earlier lit
with a sf/fantasy/horror connection no matter how tenuous (HG
Wells, Dracula, Frankenstein, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Dr Jekyll
and Mr. Hyde, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Gulliver's Travels)
as well as 'adventure' fiction from the same era especially if
it had some animal connection (Three Musketeers, Count of Monte
Cristo, Swiss Family Robinson, Moby Dick - boy was I disappointed
that I had to read so long to get to the whale). Also several
more modern books such as 1984, Lord of the Flies, Animal Farm.
Quite a lot went over my head in those days.
At some point I exhausted the Young Adult section and started
getting out adult books about a year before I was supposed to
(age 12?).
In High School I became a fan of all sorts of very different authors,
'new wave' science fiction writers like J.G. Ballard, Michael
Moorcock, and Philip K. Dick, British humourist P.G. Wodehouse,
H.P. Lovecraft.
Throughout this entire period I was reading non-fiction - mostly
on animals. I started reading Gerald Durrell's tales of his childhood
and animal collecting adventures starting at about age eight and
they remained favourites for years. Mostly it was non-narrative
stuff - 'Owls of the World', 'Reptiles and Amphibians of North
America' Things like that.
Late in my high school years I began reading more mainstream fiction
- Robertson Davies and Graham Greene most notably. Once in university
I began bingeing on Victorian and early 20th C authors (Dickens,
Conrad, Hardy, Bronte's). I guess I became an adult sometime in
that period - if I can bring myself to confess that such a horrifying
thing ever happened to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- Peanut, 15:07:05 02/26/02 Tue
>a whole series of books about talking farm animals
Almost certainly the "Freddy the Pig" series, which
was at least a couple dozen books by Walter Brooks. Awesome stuff
for kids. Freddy the Detective, Freddy goes to the North Pole,
Freddy and the Men from Mars, Freddy and the Perilous Adventure...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Freddy the pig -- matching mole, 16:39:31 02/26/02
Tue
That's them. Thanks for the reminder. There was one where the
animals take off for Florida or something. Really captured my
imagination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> More about Freddy -- dream of the consortium,
08:27:05 02/27/02 Wed
Freddy the Pig was a favoriate of mine, too. They've just be re-printed,
or rather, the series is in the process of being re-printed, one
at a time, in really lovely replica editions. I bought a couple
for my niece for Christmas and didn't want to give them up.
I believe the Florida one was Freddy and the Perilous Adventure.
Freddy the Detective and Freddy the Politician were my favorites,
along with one I've forgotten the name of which featured a hot
air balloon.
Other books I loved: Suess, the Frances books, then Lewis, L'Engle,
Bradbury, Heinlein (Time for the Stars was my favorite), Frances
Hodgson Burnett, the "shoes' series (ladies, you probably
remember these - Dancing Shoes, Skating Shoes, and so on), Anne
of Green Gables. All rather obvious, I'm afraid. The Westing Game
and the others by that author whose name escapes me. There was
a book of Greek folk tales that I was obsessed by and would do
anything to find again - it included a version of the Lear story
in which the youngest daughter insults her father by telling him
she loves him like salt. When he shows up at her door years later,
she recognizes him and cooks him two meals, the first without
salt, the second with. Oh, there was a series of old children's
books by Mrs. Molesworth I used to love which included a book
called The Cuckoo Clock, in which a girl enters a magical world
through a cuckoo clock. I adored a book called "The Thirteenth
is Magic", but it is now a collector's item, $500 on Alibris,
so I guess I won't have the chance to read that again.
I never read Mary Poppins, but I read an American version about
a babysitter (a man this time), who caused magical things to happen
when he smoked his pipe (the faucets ran soda pop). Mrs. Higgle-Piggle
(is that right?), who lived in an upside down house. Magic is
definitely a theme. I hated Nancy Drew, and The Little House on
the Prairie books, and most of all Judy Blume. I did like a writer
called Barbara Corcoran, who, I assume now, was a Judy-Blume type,
just a few years earlier.
Okay, that trip down memory lane is sending me to Powell's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Oh, and do kids still read.. -- dream
of the consortium, 08:32:50 02/27/02 Wed
the Guinness Book of World Records? I wasted vast stretches of
my childhood fascinated by how long fingernails could grow and
how many eggs a man could eat in a minute.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- Sebastian, 14:49:56 02/26/02 Tue
i read *everything* when i was little. my mum would buy bags and
bags of second-hand books from the library. i remember starting
out with judy blume, lois duncan and the narnia series when i
was in elementary school.
by middle school, i was reading stephen king, piers anthony (the
early xanth series), david eddings (the belgariad and the mallorean)
and various comic books (x-men, wonder woman, etc...)
by high school i was reading robert jordan (wheel of time series),
tad williams (memory, sorrow and thorn), julian may (the jack
the body-less trilogy) and *still* various comic books. as well
as actually *enjoying* high school lit such as 'the scarlet letter',
'wuthering heights', and 'great expectations'......
now, i read whatever i get my hands on. within the past few months
i've read some of the classics: 'mary shelley's frakenstein',
'dracula' (duh :-) ), 'return of the native', 'tropic of cancer',
'portrait of a lady', and 'les liaisons dangereuses'....
....and some contemporary: 'alias grace' by margaret atwood, 'lip
service' by m.l. rose, 'the fig eater' by jody shields, and 'becoming
madame mao' by anchee min...
and i always tend to enjoy stories with strong female characters
- whether they be good or of ill intent. i got LOTS of stares
in high school for liking madame defarge in 'a tale of two cities'.
:-P
- S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- Simon A., 15:03:00 02/26/02 Tue
What come immediately to mind are everything by Edward Eagar (knight's
castle, half-magic etc..) the Heinlein Juveniles (Citizen of the
Galaxy, Door into Summer etc,) and Scolastic Press editions of
The Mad Scientist's Club, and The Blue Man
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- leslie, 15:42:02 02/26/02 Tue
When does childhood end?
Oz, Nancy Drew, Narnia, Noel Streatfield, Joan Aiken, anything
to do with ending up someplace Other. Then Tolkien, Agatha Christie,
Ngaio Marsh, Margery Allingham, P.G. Wodehouse. All varieties
of mythology. Somewhere along the line I read a fantasy called
_Excalibur_ by Sanders Anne Laubenthal, based on both the European
grail quest myths and the Welsh legend of Madoc, and that began
my nearly fatal (in a career sense) romance with medieval Welsh
literature. Jane Austen. Louisa May Alcott. Dumas. Dashiell Hammett
and Raymond Chandler. A long period of reading trashy literature
of the period about 1910-1940--especially E. Phillips Oppenheim.
Travel books of the same period, especially to places in Central
Asia.
I would say the movies were just as influential as the books,
though. Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, anything with Fred & Ginger,
the Thin Man movies (I still have a massive crush on William Powell),
Mel Brooks, early Woody Allen, Beatles movies, The Maltese Falcon
and The Big Sleep, Bringing Up Baby, The Awful Truth--all movies
I watched with my parents.
I did not become a folklorist specifically because of Rocky and
Bullwinkle, but Fractured Fairytales certainly made me the *kind*
of folklorist I am today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- Eric, 15:46:46 02/26/02 Tue
In no particular order: The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillian,
The Narnia Chronicles, a great deal of Robert H. Heinlein, The
Shannara Series, The Xanth Series, Many Nancy Drews, some Hardy
Boys, the Prince and the Pauper, The Old Man and the Sea (greatest
book report book EVER), Star Wars by G. Lucas (and his licensed
imitators), several (it shames me to admit here) of Mack Bolan's
Executioner series, many of Warren Murphy & Richard Sapir's The
Destroyer Series, almost everything Ray Bradbury ever wrote, Isaac
Asimov's Foundation series and many of his short stories, some
Stephen King novels-notably The Shining and Firestarter, Hawthorne's
Scarlet Letter (I was forced to by school), almost everything
by H.P. Lovecraft, the complete Peanuts from 1963 to 1980, ditto
Doonsbury from roughly the same period, Richie Rich comics (when
very young), Orwell's 1984, several Star Trek novels - mostly
Alan Dean Foster's, some of the highly derivative Dragonlance
series, attempted to read Dune, about three biographies of Amelia
Earhart, William Manchester's Goodbye Darkness, Fear and Loathing
in Las Vegas by Hunter S. Thompson (and collected articles), several
Harlan Ellison short stories, Winnie the Pooh, most of the Dr.
Seuss ouvre, Harriet the Spy, The Great Gatsby, and this is pretty
much just what I can remember on the fly. I also went through
a "Mulder" from seven to eleven I devoured every single
book on magic, Magick, witchcraft, UFOs, assorted monsters, ghosts,
psychic powers, demonology I could get my grubby fingers on. A
similar fascination with military history got me reading another
exhaustive list.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- Rahael, 15:52:16 02/26/02 Tue
I didn't start my voracious reading habit until I learnt to read
English, round about the time when I was 7 or 8. Until then, I
used to pester my family to tell me stories - when I went to join
my mother in England my supply of story-telling-relatives dried
up, but I soon realised that books could provide endless entertainment
with virtually no persuasion. I used to read things like Enid
Blyton - C.S Lewis, Lewis Carroll.
By 9 years old, a decisive change in my reading habits - I was
stuck in the middle of a war zone, with a house filled to the
brim with books. Enid Blyton was no longer satisfying me. Between
the ages of 9 and 11, I read a rate of a book a day. Austen, Dickens,
Dostoevsky, George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, Pushkin, Jules Verne,
GB Shaw, Lorca, Tennessee Williams, Guy de Maupassant, Maxim Gorky
and James Thurber were favourites. The most beloved single book
I possessed was a thick '19th century Russian Gothic Tales'. It
had stories by Tolstoy, Lermentov, Pushkin etc. The stories were
haunting, frightning and fantastical. Set the basis for my fascination
with fantasy. But I also read anything and everything I could
get my hands on. Including the Bible (cover to cover, hundreds
of times), books on evolution, Marx, History and Feminism. I did
most of my first reads of the classics during those years.
Of course I missed a whole lot. Firstly, I was too young to appreciate
them. Secondly, the Tale of Troy loses something (or perhaps it
gains?) when you read in between the quiet of one bombing raid
and another. I read them through a prism of fear, and an urgent
need to see a world, any world, that was not the one I lived in.
Between 11 and 16 I lived in safety in London - every book I bought
I wrote my name and location on the flyleaf, to represent my physical
safety. In these years I read lots of children's books by Diana
Wynne Jones and Margaret Mahy, as well as rereading old favourites
and new in the Western canon. War and Peace stands out. I learnt
to love both poetry and Shakespeare for the first time. I also
started doing light reading - science fiction and crime.
Between 16-22, I read, and am reading loads of children's books
- Pullman, Mahy and Wynne Jones still feature in my life. Other
stand out books were Ulyssess (18) Tristram Shandy (20) and A
La Rechere du temps perdu (19-20).
At the moment, novels have been displaced by poetry - Graves,
Larkin and Shakespeares' sonnets.
My books, my reading were the one shining light through many dark
years - they gave my past a coherence and continuity that they
might have otherwise lacked. In short, my reading saved my sanity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- Sophie, 16:59:17 02/26/02 Tue
When I was very young, my favorite books were by Richard Scary.
I think my interest in urban planning stems from his book-world
of people, cars, and cute little houses all jammed together. As
I got older, I read every Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys mystery. Then
moved on to Agatha Christie murder mysteries.
In college, I read even more British murder mysteries - Dorothy
Sayers, Michael Innes, John Dickson Carr, et. al. My repertoire
expanded to include a variety of Victorian era British authors
including Wilkie Collins, Charles Dickens, Sheridan Le Fanu, and
Bram Stoker. I tried a few French authors, but they never really
caught on for me. The French concept of "you're guilty until
proven innocent" thing never quite worked for me. Despite
this, I managed to read several books by Georges Simenon and Sebstian
Japrisot.
My older sister was intensely interested in vampires, which sparked
my interest in the subject. I have read a number of non-fiction
books about vampires, and have fallen asleep watching the old
B&W Dracula movie countless times.
Other books that I have read include: the Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Galaxy by Adams, the Lord of the Rings "trilogy"
by J.R.R. Tolkien, Journey to the Center of the Earth by Jules
Verne, and Don Quixote by Cervantes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- Dariel, 20:22:06 02/26/02 Tue
When I was really young, any book that had a horse in it! Then
I became an astronomy nut, and it was anything about the planets.
Still later: Lord of the Rings, of course. A Wrinkle in Time.
Tons of science fiction, some fantasy. Favorite books: The Martian
Chronicles, Dandelion Wine, both by Ray Bradbury.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- Rufus, 06:52:42 02/27/02 Wed
Gee, I read lots of different stuff....Little Women, Anne of Green
Gables, Shakespeare, lots of mythology, Bradbury, Heinlein, Bugliosi,
Stephen King, James Herriot, Peyton (Flambards), Dickens (fave
Christmas Carol), Agatha Christie, Trixie Beldon, Nancy Drew,
History books and biographies....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What books did you guys read when you were children?
-- Darby, 09:57:51 02/27/02 Wed
When I was really young, anything and everything to do with dinosaurs.
Then comics (I'm one of those oddballs who still has comics from
his youth - comics people out there will go "Oooo!"
when I admit that I've got a copy of Amazing Fantasy #15 and many
more from that era). Then science fiction when the science part
was still important (I took a science fiction course in college
and was mightily disappointed) and 30s-40s pulps, then fantasy,
then most of the classics "children's lit," like the
Narnia books, that other people have mentioned.
Now it seems like the only serious stuff that I read are science
journals and this board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview with Marc Blucas...Spoilers -- Rufus, 12:20:11 02/26/02
Tue
www.tvguide.com
Buffy Alum Soldiers On
Tuesday, February 26, 2002
This is a big week in the career of actor Marc Blucas. Tonight,
after a year-long absence, he reprises his role as Buffy Summers's
wholesome ex-beau Riley Finn on Buffy the Vampire Slayer (8 pm/ET
on UPN). And come Friday, he can be seen on the big screen opposite
Mel Gibson in the brutal Vietnam drama We Were Soldiers.
"[The back-to-back gigs are] nice for me and my family,"
Blucas admits to TV Guide Online, "but the verdict's still
out on whether anyone else thinks it's nice or not."
Well, as far as his small-screen comeback is concerned, the modest
6'2" hottie need not worry about receiving a warm reception:
Buffy fans have been drooling for Riley's return ever since he
left his Chosen One in tears at the Sunnydale Heliport. Of course,
there is one obsessed Buffy disciple who almost certainly won't
be rolling out the welcome mat: the Slayer's current love slave,
Spike.
Blucas - who turned the big 3-0 last month - reveals that Buffy's
latest dalliance with the undead is one of many things that Riley
"gets caught up to speed on." But he points out that
his alter ego hasn't exactly been cooped up in a cabin writing
poetry during his time away, teasing that Riley "drops a
bombshell" of his own.
Although Riley's Hellmouth homecoming is short-lived (read: one-episode
only), Finn-ites can get a second helping of Blucas just by going
to the cineplex to catch Soldiers. But brace yourself: His on-screen
counterpart, too-eager-for-his-own-good Lt. Herrick, meets an
untimely end. And making matters worse, director Randall Wallace
(The Man in the Iron Mask) chose to shoot the wrenching death
scene in extreme close-up.
At the time, the cameraman warned Blucas that when the movie made
it to the big screen his mug would be super-sized. "He commented,
'Your face is going to be like 60 feet wide on this one,'"
the Summer Catch star recalls.
Making the sequence even more of a challenge, he says, was the
fact that Lt. Herrick was a real person. "He has a family
that's going to see this movie," he says. "And more
than anything, I just wanted to make it an accurate depiction.
I've never seen anyone die in person and I hope I don't have to."
- Michael Ausiello Buffy Alum Soldiers On
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Interview with Marc Blucas...Spoilers -- Mr. B, 16:41:23
02/26/02 Tue
What Buffy fans have been drooling? Most Buffy fans (on the net
at least) have an irrational hatred for Riley that borders on
fanatacism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Interview with Marc Blucas...Spoilers -- Valhalla,
22:25:21 02/26/02 Tue
Yeah, the only thing interesting about his appearance on the show
tonight was the effect on Buffy - he's still the same old boring
Riley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone ever wonder this about the undead? -- Non-Hostile Seventeen,
12:23:16 02/26/02 Tue
This just dawned on me the other night but why the heck can almost
every vamp fight so well? I can buy that they're much stronger
as vampires than they were as humans but being strong doesn't
necesaarily translate in being able to fight. Very few vamps get
wiped out right away by the Slayer. The usually put up some semblence
of a fight. Are the undead feeding on karate dojos or is it something
else?They all seem to have a similar style. Might it have something
to do with the demon inhabiting them, a sort of Vampire Fu or
Tae Kwon Demon fighting technique?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Fighting Techniques (Spoilers for Fray) -- Darby, 12:32:06
02/26/02 Tue
According to Joss in Fray, Slayers receive some sort of subliminal
(although it causes dreams) input from all of the previous Slayers,
which informs their fighting styles. Perhaps something like that
is coming into the vamps as well?
Eventually I'm going to put up a post about the mythology add-ons
from Fray and Tales of the Slayers. There are a lot of weird little
details that are bothering me...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Oh Goody......when?....:):):) -- Rufus, 13:15:45 02/26/02
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I hope it's soon. But if not...I can wait. -- VampRiley,
15:35:58 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Not all. Harmony could barely manage in a girl fight --
vampire hunter D, 13:25:55 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Not all. Harmony could barely manage in a girl
fight -- Mr. B, 16:38:58 02/26/02 Tue
Yeah, but if the shows would ever be consistent with their vampires,
Harmony should be able to kick any human's arse from here to the
hellmouth. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Anyone ever wonder this about the undead? -- Eric, 15:05:11
02/26/02 Tue
Vampires pretty much go with the skills they had in life. Which
means that if your a black belt you can kick some butt, but if
you're Harmony you're a powderpuff. But they do get super strength
and healing powers that border on (or actually are in some stories)
regeneration. This can do a LOT for their self confidence. Not
having to worry about getting hurt can do a lot for your fighting
technique. So even vamps like Harmony can adjust.
BTW, there are martial arts schools in the U.S. and overseas that
train stunt men and women to fight in movies and TV. Next time
you see Buffy smack a vamp so hard he flies into the air, does
a 360, and lands on a hard surface you're probably watching a
graduate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As You Were -- Angelina, 18:10:06 02/26/02 Tue
How much more is Buffy supposed to take? This is too unfair. She
should have stayed "dead". Now what the hell are they
gonna do with Spike? This is too much for me. I gotta go lie down
and get a life!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> My Sentiments exactly!! -- Belladonna, 18:31:47 02/26/02
Tue
I know, I know! I hope things start to look up for her soon. *I*
can hardly take this...what about her? And poor Spike. Okay...time
to remind myself that these are fictional characters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My Sentiments exactly!! -- MayaPapaya9, 21:03:32
02/26/02 Tue
Oh god! My poor, poor girl. Loads of dirty dishes, rejected from
college, her ex boyfriend is wonderfully happy and married...ohhhhh
god. And she's still trying to be strong. It's just heartbreaking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: As You Were (SPOILERS here and above) -- Robert, 08:52:54
02/27/02 Wed
>> "This is too unfair. She should have stayed "dead".
"
Actually, I think that this is the first really positive episode
in a long time. Regardless of anything else Riley has done previously,
he did give her hope when she hit rock bottom. She is now showing
the strength to take the initiative, namely breaking off with
Spike. What I found fascinating is that she completely kept her
dignity when she broke up with Spike. Calling him William was
classy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> ...I said something similar -- Goj3, 13:15:07 02/27/02 Wed
...When I first started watching the show, I picked up the feeling
that Joss was going to tourture Buffy in every way he can think
of (emotionally at least). This grabs out attention and keeps
us watching.
Because...after all...who wants to see a place where happy endings
are the only endings? something that wouldn't be around for very
long, that's what.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor Spikey! (Spoilers) -- Mari_Star_99, 18:37:46 02/26/02 Tue
Wow!
Did anyone else feel bad for Spike? The passion in which he told
Buffy he loved her. It reminded me of the Gift.
"Til the end of the world...even if that happens to be tonight"
He was on the verge of tears when Buffy and Riley found the eggs.
I don't think our Spike made a HUGE step back by guarding the
eggs, but definitely a small step back. However, he was truly
upset about thinking he had lost Buffy. He probably ran away to
cry. Later, when she did break up with him. She was very sure,
clam. Buffy is definitely going to be strong here. She didn't
deny wanting Spike, and she didn't deny loving him. She said she
can't love him, a distinction that I'm sure every B/S shipper
will point out! JM proves yet again that he is a great actor showing
despair
"I thought you'd be snooging Riley"
to hope
"He's gone"
to heartbreak
"It's over"
to need
"I'm not complaining"
to confusion
"Its killing me"
Many thanks to Doug Petrie. A really great eppy tonight. Of course,
the break up is the major plot development. Of course, it raises
the question will B/S get back together?
I think: Yes. Why?
1. ME wouldn't spend all this time getting them together and just
give it up after a few eppys.
2. (And this might be quite reach here, or just a desperate shipper
but...) The fact that Buffy was rejected by UCSD, where her favorite
class was poetry. Then Buffy barges in on Spike reading... Poetry?
They didn't show that it was poetry, but he did get the nickname
William the Bloody for nothing you know!
3. As serious as She was in the crypt. The way SMG said those
words
"I'm using you... I'm selfish"
I didn't buy that she doen't love him. That was actually the kindest
thing she has ever done for Spike. I felt like she was trying
to protect him, as well as herself from the destructive patttern
they got into.
4. She really, really seemed sorry.
Anyway, that's my take on tonight. What do you guys think.
And a question to all the philosophers and subtext analyzers
What was the significance of Spike being the "Doctor"?
Does this have anything to do with Doc, joel Grey's character?
ME is so carefull, it could'nt have been a coincidence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Poor Spikey! (Spoilers) -- MayaPapaya9, 21:06:54 02/26/02
Tue
I know! I was blown away by how kind Buffy was being to Spike.
She called him William! Even though I so want them together, I
think she did the right thing. It'll be better for both of them
in the long run if she can deal with him honestly. But ohhh god,
poor Spike. I know just how he feels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Poetry and William(Spoilers) -- Ishkabibble, 21:51:28 02/26/02
Tue
I'm so pleased someone else has brought up the William and poetry
thing. About 6 weeks ago I posted on Trollop Central my speculation
which goes something like this:
When Buffy withdrew from college, she was shown doing so with
only one of her several instructors. It just so happened to be
her poetry instructor named Professor Lillian. I noted at the
time that Lillian is amazingly close in spelling to the name William.
I suggested that we may see William teaching at the college some
time down the road.
It seems awfully coincidental that in this episode, Buffy has
just now received a rejection letter from college, stating that
the deadline had passed. Ergo, she can reapply on time for the
next session.
It also strikes me that William was a bloody awful poet...doesn't
mean he couldn't teach it though. Someone else posted along similar
lines, that "those who can do; those who can't, teach."
So, if a future episode has Spike teaching poetry as Professor
William (probably in S7), and Buffy just happening to take his
course......somebody owes me chocolate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> UCSD - Sunnydale? In real life, it's San Diego -- verdantheart,
05:46:45 02/27/02 Wed
I ought to know; I went there ... not the most pleasant few years
of my life ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: UCSD - Sunnydale? In real life, it's San Diego
-- leslie, 13:40:53 02/27/02 Wed
Yes, and just to touch on the realities of attending a UC, wherever
the hell(mouth) it is--she's never gonna get enough financial
aid to support both her *and* Dawn. They're going to expect her
to mortgage the house, and we've already seen that that won't
fly. On the other hand, if it's a UC with a folklore program,
I can see some rather interesting work-study opportunities opening
up for her... I keep having this vision of her taking Folklore
101 and fulfilling the fieldwork requirement by writing a paper
on vampire folklore--that is, the folklore that vampires have!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wild Theory about B/S (Spoilers!) -- Mari_Star_99, 18:49:30 02/26/02
Tue
OK found this at FanForum, by someone called Parradox. I don't
know it I belive it ...But it is possible!
Fasten you set belts children it is going to be a bumpy ride!
BUFFY DID NOT BREAK UP WITH SPIKE!!!!!!!
That was halfrek pretending to be Buffy.
There was a very large pendent, that could be all vengence demony,
on Buffy's neck!
This would explain why she called him William!
Cecily/Halfrek only knew him as William.
Suppsoidly Buffy and Spike talk next week, lets see what happens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Wild Theory about B/S (Spoilers!) -- Angelina, 19:04:56
02/26/02 Tue
Oh I hope you are right, but I don't know. I think she called
him "William" because she truly felt sorry for him and
truly does care for him, but knows she cannot continue in their
destructive relationship. I think by calling him "William"
his true name, she was really saying goodbye to him as a sexual
plaything, and seeing him for what is truly is. Prehaps their
friendship will florish now. Either that or they will become mortal
enemies again. I just feel so bad for both of these characters
right now. I feel like screaming! Then I remember, ahhhhhhh, this
is a TV show! But the entire cast is doing such a fantastic job
this season. Did I hear that next year was going to be BTVS last
season? Please say it isnt' so! Poor Spikey. Poor Buffy, and I
want to KILL Riley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I feel the exact same way eom -- Mari_Star_99, 19:08:05
02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Not Me! -- DEN, 20:37:26 02/26/02 Tue
I say "Go, Riley!" Living well is the best revenge!
Watching Buffy's cautiously flirtatious, cautiously hopeful behavior
until Sam showed up helps remind us that what goes around, comes
around; and that payback is indeed a bitch! I think Riley meant
every word he said to Buffy about Buffy before wafting away on
his black helocipter. But he wouldn't be human if he didn't enjoy
the sitution a LITTLE bit. The poor SOB certainly earned it!
And I want Riley to come back so we can see more of Sam--a real
soldier's lady, tough, hot, and empathetic; Xena without the butch!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Wild Theory about B/S (Spoilers!) -- maddog, 21:39:19
02/26/02 Tue
I'll be disappointed if that's the case. I thought the purpose
of having the Riley situation was to show Buffy that she had to
move on and grow up. And staying with Spike at this point in time
is neither.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STOP FEELING SORRY FOR SPIKE! (spoilers for As You Were) -- Apophis,
18:55:48 02/26/02 Tue
I don't wanna be disrespectful to anyone here, but it baffles
me as to how anyone can say "Poor Spike" after what
he's done. He was going to sell demonic super-soldiers to warlords!
These demons were going to be dropped on villages! He's like an
arms dealer: sure, he's not killing anyone directly, but what
does he think's gonna happen when those creatures are deployed?
This is not to say that I don't like Spike; I have no problem
with a relapse of evil. I just want people to acknowledge that
he is, in fact, still largely evil.
Buffy finally putting her foot down is a good thing. How can anyone
doubt that she was indeed using him after they're second intimate
encounter in the episode? She's depressed about Riley's new life,
so she goes to Spike for a little physical self-esteem. She knows
Spike will worship her, so she uses his devotion to make her feel
better. I have no problem with a Buffy/Spike relationship, but
said relationship will only be valid when it has actual feeling
behind it on both fronts. So far, Spike's just been Buffy's equivalent
of morning coffee, a pick-me-up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I WILL NOT! -- Mari_Star_99, 19:05:59 02/26/02 Tue
Our Spikey dosen't have the best judgment in the world, but it's
harder when you don't have a soul. But think about... he was probably
trying to make money for Buffy. Remember DP
"I can get you money...this place will kill you"
Was it right for him to guard the eggs? No. Does he really love
the Buffster? Yes, I believe he does. For Spike love sure does
hurt!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Save some for Buffy (SPOILERS for AYW) -- DEN, 20:47:04
02/26/02 Tue
When Riley bursts into the crypt, Buffy reaches her absolute low
point in the show's entire history. Her half-articulated hope
of getting Riley back has been flushed; she engages in sleazy
rebound sex with an unredeemed undead; and her lover makes a fool
of her when she tries to defend him against being an arms procurer
for terrorists. Is her closing scene with Spike the first step
in recoering her self-respect?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Nope. I'll continue with my fav. bumbling vamp. -- Deeva,
21:48:22 02/26/02 Tue
Poor Spike. He tries and he tries but to no avail. He is operating
without a soul here. You know when people say that someone means
well but they actually don't know any better? I think that he
is like that, he doesn't really know any better. So he might be
clueless in how to give exactly what Buffy needs, a guy she can
depend on but still be her match. He is aware of her problems
and does offer in his own weird way to help her but she doesn't
want or really need a knight in not so shining armor to sweep
her away from her troubles. Sure, it's an easy thing to want but
that's just setting you up to be dependent on another person to
make your problems go away.
Yeah, I know that he is still evil but not to the same degree
he was from the beginning. Don't know if he could chose to be
that evil anymore. It would take something truly painful to motivate
that kind of passionate hate.
I don't deny that Buffy is using Spike. For whatever reasons,
she uses him. She knows that he is always there for the taking.
Did it make her any better using someone who clearly was in deeper
than she was? No. Is she doing the right thing by ending whatever
it is that she has with Spike? Maybe. She, and he, may come to
find some answers about themselves and the other in this time
apart.
Eh, so sue me I'm a hopeless B/S shipper. I'll wallow in it all
I want. Hmm...smells like vanilla and cigaettes. *g*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Nope. I'll continue with my fav. bumbling vamp.
-- DEN, 21:58:10 02/26/02 Tue
Deeva, I really like your linking of having a soul and having
a clue. There have been some really great, very profound threads
on this board discussing exactly what a soul is or isn't. But
you get to the heart of the matter: someone without a soul really
doesn't know any better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Is that an excuse? -- Apophis, 22:15:02 02/26/02
Tue
Should Spike be forgiven a century of violent murder because he
didn't know any better? If Spike (or the those who write him)
wants "redemption," at some point he's going to have
to admit that a lot of what he's done was wrong and actually regret
it. Right now, he admits that his actions were wrong, but he revels
in this. He's proud of murdering children (re: his story to Dawn
in Crush).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> No. -- Deeva, 22:33:36 02/26/02 Tue
I wasn't talking about his actions previous to ever having met
Buffy. I won't pretend to know that answer to that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a thought about Angel, Conner, and the Time Shifting Demon --
Wolfhowl3, 19:41:47 02/26/02 Tue
They said that the father will kill the son, but they never said
why.
People have also said that the time shifting Demon wants to kill
Angel because of something that he is going to do.
If you think about the timing of Conner's birth, and when the
time shifting Demon brought Holtz to, makes me wonder if the reason
that he Want's Angel dead is because he wants to save Conner's
Life. Why he wants to do that, I don't know, mabey Conner is destined
to be evil and Angel is forced to kill him to save the world or
something.
This kind of makes more sence in my head. hehe
What do you think?
Wolfie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: a thought about Angel, Conner, and the Time Shifting
Demon -- Terri, 21:11:25 02/26/02 Tue
i thought the prophecy was "the father will consume the son".
isn't that what all parents do more or less?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: a thought about Angel, Conner, and the Time Shifting
Demon -- Valhalla, 22:12:48 02/26/02 Tue
I haven't checked my tapes, but I believe what Wesley wrote on
the paper as a translation was 'The father will kill the son',
and the Burger Loa said 'The vampire will devour the son.'
Someone else pointed out that 'The father' might not be Angel
-- there are other fathers around.
A friend of mine thinks that Connor will get turned into a vampire
and Angel will be forced to kill him, since for all the people
gathered around Hoyt (Holt? ) have lost people to vampires, and
that would be poetic justice in their minds. I have big hopes
for the rest of the season now that we're back to the sweeping
epic scope stuff.
I thought the show was great - I'm a big sucker for that kind
of world-shaking drama - and I'm really glad because I thought
Angel was getting kind of draggy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: a thought about Angel, Conner, and the Time Shifting
Demon -- Goji3, 13:07:08 02/27/02 Wed
I'm not even going to try and guess, For all we know, Connor IS
Holtz. Which is actually plausable with a time shifting demon
around, but probably unlikely.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: a thought about Angel, Conner, and the Time Shifting
Demon -- O'Cailleagh, 17:24:09 02/27/02 Wed
Thats exactly what I was going to say...about Connor being Holtz
I mean............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disappointed Buffy/Spike shipper complains (spoilers for AYW and
next week's preview) -- Traveler, 21:14:23 02/26/02 Tue
Well, the Big Question has been answered. Buffy doesn't love Spike;
she was just using him. So naturally, the only healthy thing to
do was dump him and move on. If this were the long a short of
things, I would have been disappointed, but I would have gotten
over it. But I was also disappointed in Spike. He had to know
what those eggs were going to be used for, yet he did it anyway.
He may not have actively been trying to kill people, but he was
willing to help others do so for profit. Apparantly, Buffy didn't
really change him all that much. At base, he's still just an evil
vampire.
Buffy's reaction was really just that much more damning. By calling
him "William," she recognized him as a man, not a "thing."
But when she says "that's just you" to excuse his actions,
she suggests that he can never be anything more than a vampire.
With the same words, she forgives him and damns him. No, I don't
see redemption anywhere in Spike's future. It has been suggested
before that Buffy must leave Spike in order for him to be able
to "prove" that he has changed, but I don't see how
that can logically happen now. The deal with the eggs didn't strike
me as a new or one time thing. Most likely, Spike had similar
deals going throughout his relationship with Buffy. After all,
how else did he pay for all his nice furniture, candles, and whatnot?
Don't try to tell me he scavanged it all from a garbage dump.
Before, I had hope for Spike, and I could respect him for what
he was trying to do. Now I can only pity him. His love is real,
but his life is base and meaningless. And I can only see things
getting worse. According to the preview for next week, Spike will
bring a date to Xander and Anya's wedding. The only motive I can
think of would be to make Buffy jealous, which really just makes
him look even more pathetic. We know that JM has a contract for
season 7, but why would Spike be there? He isn't really friends
with the rest of the scooby gang, and he hasn't even paid much
attention to Dawn. Now that he isn't dating Buffy, what's the
point? Will he eventually get over Buffy and find a girlfriend
who is as amoral as he is? I've always disagreed with the people
who said that Buffy should stake Spike because he's evil, but
now I'm starting to wonder. If he continues to sell weapons of
mass distruction and other evil vampire things, shouldn't she
kill him? God, this episode really depressed me. I would love
for someone to show me another side to this story, because I don't
like the one I'm looking at.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Finally, someone who's not mushy about Spike -- Apophis,
21:19:49 02/26/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Disappointed Buffy/Spike shipper complains (spoilers
for AYW and next week's preview) -- MayaPapaya9, 21:59:04 02/26/02
Tue
Well, okay. First of all, just because you don't love a person
NOW doesn't mean you never will. Relationships have often been
known to go from utterly platonic to anything but. My own personal
experience proves to me at least that whatever you feel for a
person now can change incredibly over the course of a year. Just
because Buffy SAYS she "can't" love him right now, doesn't
mean that she never will. So this is not the end-all of Buffy/Spike
optimism.
Now, what might happen is that later this season, Spike will have
to do something massively courageous and brave and prove his redemption
once and for all. In order to do this though, he has to actually
be redeemed. So here's the question: Do we really WANT a redeemed
Spike? Part of what I adore about him is his evilness. Pre-Smashed,
I hated seeing him down on his knees, begging Buffy to love him,
and not being able to fight back. Evil is part of who Spike is,
and I like him the way he is. I'm not sure if I want him to change.
At any rate, his redemption through some sweeping heroic gesture
might be one option to keep their relationship going. I just hope
they handle it well.
But I think in some form or another, the Buffy/Spike relationship
will still exist. I mean, their friendly behavior in Older and
Far Away makes me think that they are pretty good together, as
SOMETHING. They have that chemistry. Maybe kind of in the post-Intervention
way, with them respecting each other and helping each other. Anyway
I don't think this is the end. Then again, I always have trouble
accepting the end of something I hold dear, so maybe this is just
rampant optimism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Disappointed Buffy/Spike shipper complains (spoilers
for AYW and next week's preview) -- DEN, 22:06:26 02/26/02 Tue
It's important for the "redemption" issue to keep in
mind that Spike was dealing in the Buffyverse equivalent of nuclear
or biological weapons. That's a long way from the penny-ante,
relatively comedic, nature of his "evil" behavior the
rest of s6--a counterpart, in a way, to the arc of the Three Nerds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Disappointed Buffy/Spike shipper complains
(spoilers for AYW and next week's preview) -- Simone, 02:11:44
02/27/02 Wed
It's also important to note that he seemed clueless as to what
he had down there. If Buffy and Riley hadn't shown up, Spike would
probably be baby-demon chow by now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Disappointed Buffy/Spike shipper complains
(spoilers for AYW and next week's preview) -- Deeva, 08:52:14
02/27/02 Wed
Well, while I love Spike I don't know if I believe that he's that
clueless. He knew what was done there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Disappointed Buffy/Spike shipper complains (spoilers
for AYW and next week's preview) -- LorneLover, 02:02:24 02/27/02
Wed
I'm not sure a redeemed Spike would work well, even Marsters stated
in Cinescape recently Spike would be a "patsy" if he
was ever redeemed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Disappointed Buffy/Spike shipper complains (spoilers
for AYW and next week's preview) -- Lilac, 03:07:05 02/27/02 Wed
I thought this episode was handled very well. Buffy had to break
off the relationship, because it wasn't doing good things to her.
I say that even though I really love Buffy & Spike together. I
thought the actual breaking up speech she gave was very well done.
Some thing I hope gets resolved -- I agree with whoever said that
Spike seemed genuinely not to know how dangerous what he had was.
I hope that there is more discussion of what exactly he thought
he was doing and for who. The whole selling lethal demons to foreign
governments really doesn't feel very Spike-like, not immediate
enough. I would like to see this situation fleshed out a little
more.
I thought it was significant that Buffy told Spike that she "can't"
love him, not that she doesn't love him. These seem like very
different conditions to me. I also thought her addressing him
as "William" at the end was touching -- she was addressing
his heart, not the "Spike" armour he has built for himself.
Over all I felt the episode moved things along in ways they needed
to be moved. I was glad that Commando Ken and Barbie won't be
a regular thing -- they were a bit much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy's return -- Brian, 03:13:40 02/27/02 Wed
Although I was disappointed at the breakup of Buffy and Spike,
I was pleased that Riley was able to give Buffy back her "soul",
her reason for being, her Slayerness. She got her self-respect
back, and that can only be a good thing.
I noticed that in the final scene between Buffy and Spike, she
looked like the Buffy from Season Four, with a healthy flush on
her face. Amazing what makeup can do. I thought for the first
time in Season 6 she really looks Alive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's return -- Rufus, 04:07:08 02/27/02
Wed
Oh, they had to break up, they didn't have a relationship other
than meeting for sex. If they had kept going on like that they
would have eventually ended up hating each other. Buffy did the
right thing, the only thing she could and still have self respect.
She finally made a choice about where she wanted to be...and that
is in the light. I don't think that is the end of Buffy and Spike,
just the end of the sexcapades.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> William Re: Disappointed Buffy/Spike shipper complains
(spoilers for AYW and next week's preview) -- verdantheart, 06:52:00
02/27/02 Wed
My take is that Buffy addressing Spike as "William"
expresses that she is acknowledging him as a person, not a thing.
While she "used him," treated him as a sex toy, she
continually called him "a thing" (thereby making it
better to treat him like a thing). But she can't in good conscience
treat a person as she has been treating Spike. She would never
have considered treating a human male as she has treated vampire
Spike. And while there are still indications that her actions
are still about how she feels ("it's killing me"), the
fact that she is addressing Spike as a person is a signal that
there may be some growth taking place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> William Re: Disappointed Buffy/Spike shipper
complains (spoilers for AYW and next week's preview) -- Rufus,
06:56:36 02/27/02 Wed
If Buffy only thought of Spike as a thing it would be easy to
use then discard him, but she clearly doesn't. She can't shut
him up, and she can't kill him, but she also isn't willing to
become a creature of darkness for him either. The guy will have
to find a way into the light.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Yep, after a struggle -- verdantheart,
09:18:55 02/27/02 Wed
Down deep, I believe subconsciously Buffy has always recognized
Spike as other than "a thing." That's why she harped
on it so much. She couldn't allow herself to use him and consciously
think of him as a person at the same time. Painting him as a "thing"
allowed her to treat him, well, frankly and crudely, as an elaborate
dildo. When it became impossible to deny consciously what she
was doing to a real person (as she began to recognize in "Dead
Things" and as emphasized by her addressing him as William),
she realized that it was "killing her." No matter how
compliant he was to being mistreated, Buffy realized that she
could not continue to take advantage of Spike's feelings for her
without hurting herself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yep, after a struggle -- Deeva,
10:23:40 02/27/02 Wed
When all this turmoil in Buffy about Spike started happening,
the qoute "Me thinks that the lady doth protests too much."
kept popping into my head.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The answer is in the title -- ponygirl, 07:24:47 02/27/02
Wed
I find hope in the title. Calling the episode As You Were was
very significant-- we had the three characters Buffy, Spike and
Riley all trying to return to old roles and failing miserably.
Buffy, trying to go back to her s4 flirty kitteness with Riley,
only to find out he's married, trying to be the strong fighter,
but generally getting knocked around and finally killing the demon
when she wasn't supposed to.
Spike trying to be the Big Bad again, going back to his snarkiness
and adolescent attitude as soon as Riley walks in, even to quoting
lines from their final converation in Into the Woods to him. But
he couldn't manage the villian role anymore, first screwing up
with the eggs, then storming out in near tears.
And Riley, seemingly happy and whole in his new life. What happened
to all the shades of gray he had discovered while working with
the Scoobies? He's back to the boy with the toys, loving his gadgets,
only giving Buffy enough information to get her to help. How convenient
that the demons were nothing more than "killing machines",
I'm sure the government's interest in them was pure and true becuase
we've never seen them have dark motives when it came to demons
have we? Finally Riley's euphemism laden offer to kill Spike for
Buffy was truly chilling. She was right to be horrified that he
would think so little of her.
I think this episode showed how much these characters have changed
and how impossible it is for Buffy or Spike to go back to their
old roles. I hope that Buffy's resolve-face at the end signalled
a start for her to re-evaluate her life, but I don't think she's
quite there yet. She's still in the woods, and seeing only trees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> buffy's 'you can't go home again' epiphany -- Sebastian,
10:29:52 02/27/02 Wed
everyone...please bear with me. i only saw half of last night's
episode, and garnered the rest from wild feed and last night's
chat.
i post on here frequently, but this is my first *major* post so
i'm a little (actually very) nervous...being one of the 'little
kids' on here and all...
i agree with much of your post, ponygirl. i think the title was
a reference to how the characters (buffy, riley, spike) have changed
since they were all together.
it made me think of the quote 'you can't go home again'. once
you have left it - you are never the same.
i think buffy saw riley as an attempt to return to the person
she was pre-dawn/joyce's death/her own death/and resurrection.
we can all agree that s5-onward has gotten much more complicated
in terms of concepts and what is right and wrong and good or evil.
prior to s4, with the obvious exception of faith, we had clear-cut
scenarios of what was good and evil in sunnydale.
i think buffy saw riley as an escape back to who she used to be
- before she was forced to view the world in mind-numbingly shades
of gray. buffy has always *realized* the world is not just good
or evil - but she never really had to confront it head-on (even
with the scenario of angel/angelus, it was more a matter of angel=good
and angelus=bad). but since s5, she has been forced to view the
world in very complicated terms on a very personal perspective
(her argument with giles about sacrificing the world or killing
dawn in 'the gift' is a clear example of that).
riley re-enters the picture, and buffy sees a chance to be who
she *was*. college student. girlfriend. normal. all the things
she used to be - and wants to go back to. it is even present in
the how she refers to herself. she refers to herself as 'a girl'
when she is talking to riley in the first half of 'as you were'.
but the longer riley stays in sunnydale, the more she realizes
that is not the case. riley not just has a new girlfriend - he
has a *wife*. worse, they seem to have a healthy relationship.
there is a sense of balance between them. they respect each other.
but what must really sting is that riley respects the strength
in sam the way he never was able to do with buffy. sam can 'dress
down' riley - and riley accepts it in a good-natured way. he doesn't
feel emasculated by sam's confidence and stength.
he's seemingly dealt with the issue of being with someone who
could be stronger than he is. and he has done so withOUT with
buffy.
in the last scene, riley says buffy is the strongest woman he
has ever known. note the word: woman. riley - as well as buffy
- as has always referred to buffy as a girl. buffy has been quite
good at using the girlish side of her character in various scenarios
- be it with giles, riley or whomever. but she isn't a girl anymore.
she hasn't been for quite awhile now. she's a woman. an adult.
she has to own up to her responsibilities just as giles wanted
her to. she has up to this point by getting a job and dealing
with dawn. but she hasn't with spike. she had not owed up to the
fact that she was using him. she was avoiding the issue all together.
she didn't have to really deal because he was 'a thing.'
but with calling him 'william' she makes a step. she justifies
his existence as a person. she accepts the fact that she has been
using a person with feelings - not just a thing. it is much easier
to beat up on something if you see it as nothing. buffy finally
admits that spike is not a thing - he is a person - and it is
wrong for her to view him as otherwise. she was using spike much
the same way as spike used the buffybot - as a way to escape the
reality of what the person really was about.
she also admits that stopping herself is going to be hard. further
proof that she sees him as a person. she doesn't attempt to toss
him away the way she has before - she now knows that this is going
to be a difficult process. that it is not as clear-cut as she
would want it to be.
the way she looked in the end scene told me alot. her make-up
was brighter, her hair blonder. she was wearing a green peasant-style
blouse - which made me think of the style of dresses worn in britian
when spike/william was not of the undead. she comes to him as
_buffy and NOT _the slayer_. she comes to him as one person to
another.
this time she doesn't toss him away. she ends the relationship
- be it sexual or otherwise.
spike. now i do feel his character was portrayed a little inaccurately
in this episode. i doubt that a vampire who was as notorious as
spike is this colossally stupid. but in this misstep is a point.
spike is wrong for buffy. that is the point of the egg scenario.
it is to show that he is irresponsible. they are not compatible
as a long-term couple. buffy is typically a very moral person.
spike tends to be amoral. he will do good or ill if it benefits
himself. such a coupling cannot stand the test of time, unless
one of them makes a change.
a few more points. at first i did not like the portrayal of sam.
i thought she was too perfect. but then as i was thinking - that
was the right way to do it. who has not seen an ex they wanted
to get together with - only that ex has moved on...and by *appearances*
that person seems perfect? it think we were seeing sam more from
buffy's perspective. i have no doubt that sam has fallacies, but
we were supposed to become more aware of buffy's inadequacies
in this episode - so she could finally determine what to do with
her life. sam needed to be a 'perfect' foil for buffy - it was
a catalyst for buffy to start making changes.
>>Finally Riley's euphemism laden offer to kill Spike for
Buffy was truly chilling. She was right to be horrified that he
would think so little of her.>>
i have to disagree with that, however. i thought riley was asking
buffy if it was okay with _her_. i think he was trying to display
that he still considered her feelings. he could have easily dusted
spike as part of the mission's objectives - but knowing that buffy
has *some* sort of relationship with spike stopped him short.
he clearly still has a spot for her in his heart - and would not
want to deliberately hurt her.
just my thoughts.
- S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: buffy's 'you can't go home again' epiphany
-- ponygirl, 11:47:47 02/27/02 Wed
Hey Sebastian, thanks for replying to my post. It is indeed scary
to take the plunge out of lurkerdom, I rarely do it myself. Have
to disagree with you on some of your points about Spike (damn
my ever-loving B/S heart!). I don't think Spike is the problem
with Buffy, I don't see her owning her responsibilites as you
say. Yes, she has the job, she does the slay, she tries to make
sure Dawn has dinner, but she seems to simply be going through
the motions again. She can't focus enough to get the garbage out
on time or remember if it's a school day or not. She's letting
everything overwhelm her rather than taking control. Her admitting
that she's using Spike was a step for her, but she still can't
take responsibility for her emotions, and that applies to her
whole life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: buffy's 'you can't go home again'
epiphany -- Rufus, 12:09:56 02/27/02 Wed
BUFFY: He's everything I hate. He's everything that ... I'm supposed
to be against. But the only time that I ever feel anything is
when ... Don't tell anyone, please. Dead Things
Buffy has a problem, the only one that has made her feel better
has been Spike, but Spike is everything she is supposed to be
against....he is the enemy..one that has gotten closer to her
than Riley ever did. For her it's easier to call her relationship
with him "using him" because then it means she never
felt anything for him past lust. But it doesn't erase the fact
that she wants him, even after finding out he screwed up with
the eggs. The best way for her to get her act in gear is to seperate
herself from him because when she is with him she can escape her
feelings of insecurity. It's easier to think that she used Spike,
instead of dealing with any deeper feelings she may have developed.
Riley offered to take him out and she was horrified at that thought,
the thought of killing someone she had been so close to. Her anger
at his antics was gone when she went to tell him it was over.
One thing that this does is bring these characters to a point
that will eventually prove if Spikes love is indeed genuine and
above vengeance, and if Buffy's feelings are only that of lust.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: buffy's 'you can't go home again'
epiphany -- Sebastian, 12:58:05 02/27/02 Wed
(((((But it doesn't erase the fact that she wants him, even after
finding out he screwed up with the eggs.))))
AND..
((((but her anger at his antics was gone when she went to tell
him it was over.))))
that's exactly my point. buffy is one to feel strong emotion if
she feels someone she cares for betrayed her. look at the way
she reacted with angel/angelus and vamphooker/riley (even with
giles when he poisoned her in 'helpless'). she exhibted everything
from rage to pain.
with spike's antics - she sees it as par for the course. now it
can be argued that she is going into this with eyes wide-open.
i concur with that - but the point is that she doesn't care *what*
spike does. she worries about the continued effect it will have
on *her*. this is not selfishness - but a healthy fear that she
is growing more out of touch with what is currently wrong with
her life.
being with spike justified her apathy to everything. before she
realzied she came back 'right' she had a way to justify her behavior
as 'wrong'. now that she knows that she is still herself - and
having riley affirm that she *is* indeed strong if she applies
herself to the task.
she is using spike as an escape. spike is a way for her to forget
things: who she is, her responsibilites, what spike is, etc....
((((Riley offered to take him out and she was horrified at that
thought, the thought of killing someone she had been so close
to.))))
perhaps she also realized it would be a too convinient way of
dealingwith a problem. instead of taking it head-on - she has
someone else clean up the mess for her. maybe what giles told
her before he left for home is starting to sink in. she realizes
she can't have someone be the adult and make things all better.
((((Buffy has a problem, the only one that has made her feel better
has been Spike, but Spike is everything she is supposed to be
against....he is the enemy..one that has gotten closer to her
than Riley ever did.))))
we also have to note that buffy has never said that spike makes
her feel _better_. he has helped her forget things, allowed her
to push things *aside* - but he has *not* helped her feel like
a BETTER person.
i don't think any relationship is healthy unless that person makes
you feel positive. yes, spike has shown a kanck for getting closer
to buffy more than any other man. but that doesn't make him the
better for it. he has use that opportunity to make her question,
doubt and feel ashamed of herself. not once has he said 'buffy,
you need to get your life together' or 'buffy, you need to focus
on dawn more'. the closet he ever showed that sort of concern
and compassion was in 'afterlife' and 'once more, with feeling'.
but all of that changed after 'smashed'. now, he is exploiting
that closeness - and that is wrong.
its easy for a person to get close to you - but it means nothing
if it is having a detrimental effect on your emotional well-being.
her relationship with spike has not forced her to TAKE CHARGE
of her life. since she has begun having sex with spike, we have
not seen buffy making proactive atttempts to feel better as a
person. if anything she has been either in a holding pattern or
sliding downward. she has not taken the steps to ascend to the
next level - to improve herself.
and i think last night's dissolution is the first step in that
process.
just my (further) thoughs.
- S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: buffy's epiphany--spoily
speculation -- leslie, 13:22:07 02/27/02 Wed
Interesting point about Spike not making Buffy feel "better,"
but I would argue that he was, in fact, making her feel better
before they started having sex. That was when there was a feeling
of intimacy between them, because he was really the only one who
understood what she was feeling. And although I want to see the
relationship between Spike and Buffy evolve, I was surprisingly
happy with the outcome of this episode, because it felt like they
were getting back to communicating and not just screwing each
other, literally and figuratively. The hysterical denial was gone.
I don't think that Buffy felt betrayed by Spike's egg-sitting,
however. His complete lack of interest in the eggs really argues,
for me, that he didn't know what they were and was just out for
a buck--and *that* is what Buffy knows is his "real"
self, why she is not furious and betrayed but just annoyed once
more at his trouble-making proclivities. If Spike were the truly
evil sociopath everyone wants him to be, he wouldn't be using
those eggs as a money-making ploy--he'd be planning to use them
himself, just like evil Angel wanted to awaken Acathla. And in
fact, I am starting to have serious doubts about his reputation
for evil even pre-chip. For instance, when he first arrives on
the scene, Angel warns that Spike is ruthless, never stops till
he's finished what he sets out to do, and specializes in destroying
entire families. Well, golly gosh gee whiz, who is it that we've
seen doing that? Not Spike: Angelus. Little bit of transference/projection
there? And there also seems to be some rather noticable discrepencies
between the autobiography he narrates to Buffy and the flashbacks
the audience sees. ("I was always baaaad..." Cut to
William asking the butler for rhymes. I'm sorry, the narrating
voice is not self-mocking or ironic here--he's trying to impress
her.) He's a hunter, not a serial killer.
I just hope that in addition to breaking off the sexual relationship
with Spike, Buffy has also quit that damned job. And can there
really be any doubt that Spike's date for the wedding is Halfrek?
How else can this whole William-vs.-Spike thing come out into
the open?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Can't agree about Spike --
Sophist, 13:53:42 02/27/02 Wed
You say:
"i don't think any relationship is healthy unless that person
makes you feel positive. yes, spike has shown a kanck for getting
closer to buffy more than any other man. but that doesn't make
him the better for it. he has use that opportunity to make her
question, doubt and feel ashamed of herself. not once has he said
'buffy, you need to get your life together' or 'buffy, you need
to focus on dawn more'. the closet he ever showed that sort of
concern and compassion was in 'afterlife' and 'once more, with
feeling'. but all of that changed after 'smashed'. now, he is
exploiting that closeness - and that is wrong."
Two counterexamples: he cared for Dawn when Buffy went to Willow
after fighting the demon in Wrecked; he tried to convince Buffy
not to work at the DMP using exactly the reasoning you say he
never used. There are others as well.
Whether Spike is good for Buffy is a very complicated question.
But I do agree that a breakup might be necessary even if I don't
like the way it was handled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Can't agree about
Spike -- Sebastian, 14:39:02 02/27/02 Wed
(((he cared for Dawn when Buffy went to Willow after fighting
the demon in Wrecked)))
true. but anything that takes place off-screen cannot be reasonably
be used in an arguement. if they had shown dawn and spike interacting
- i would concede that point. but there has been no interation
that we as viewers have seen since 'bargaining 1&2'.
(((he tried to convince Buffy not to work at the DMP using exactly
the reasoning you say he never used)))
in that very same scene he was also taunting her about being a
demon - badgering her with something he knows bothers her. he
may not be doing it deliberately - but it is still a mind-f*ck
all the same. and no matter how you look at it - that's wrong.
don't get me wrong - i'm fascinated by spike's character and feels
james marster does a masterful job in showing his complexities...HOWEVER,
i also feel the relationship is still an unhealthy one.
ever since 'smashed' spike has shown a tendency to be more harmful
than helpful. alot of this could be do to writing inconsistencies
(which has been prevalent throughtout s6), but even so, his behavior
makes me uneasy.
there has been a mutual seduction going on between the two since
'smashed' - but to examine spike's part, there is a very clear
sense of him trying to emotionally manipulate buffy. almost to
the point of sabotaging her sense of self.
he knows she's a wreck psychologically at this point. so why he
would assist in making it worse but ***telling her she is a demon
and to give in to her dark side***?
he loves her. yes. but not in a healthy way.
- S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike and Buffy's
emotional health -- yez, 15:26:31 02/27/02 Wed
For me, this transition to Spike trying to lure Buffy "into
the darkness" isn't as much about him trying to take advantage
of her insecurities as a reaction to Buffy refusing to allow Spike
into the light with her, so to speak.
"Previously on Buffy," we've seen Spike be more than
willing to help in Buffy's mission to do good, and to be a part
of her life with the Scoobies. After Buffy came back, we saw him
-- out of all the Scoobies -- helping her face life again and
being a nonjudging listener for her; he's the only one, for example,
that stops Buffy's combustion dancing.
Even in AYW, he seems to want to go into the house with Buffy.
It's only after she refuses to allow it that he start with pure
sex stuff outside business.
So for me, the unhealthy effects of the relationship on Buffy
are less about Spike than about Buffy's choices. Either way, something
had to change, but I don't think it's fair to write it off as
Spike's doing.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Can't agree
about Spike -- Sophist, 17:03:17 02/27/02 Wed
Not to be too picky, but Spike took care of Dawn onscreen in Wrecked.
He first went to her while Buffy was fighting the demon, then
left with Dawn when Buffy stayed with Willow during her breakdown.
My larger point, though, was not that you are wrong, because Spike
certainly has tried to lure Buffy to the dark side. I'm inclined
to agree with yez about why he has done so, but the evidence could
go either way. My point was only that Spike has acted for good
as well as bad even since Smashed. I think it important to see
both aspects of his character, which is what makes the relationship
so fascinating to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> a couple of unrelated thoughts bouncing off
your great post -- anom, 22:49:10 02/27/02 Wed
"but what must really sting is that riley respects the strength
in sam the way he never was able to do with buffy. sam can 'dress
down' riley - and riley accepts it in a good-natured way. he doesn't
feel emasculated by sam's confidence and stength."
Thanks for pointing that out. Why doesn't he? It hadn't occurred
to me that their relationship doesn't seem to be what he was looking
for when he left Buffy because she didn't need him enough. Does
Sam need him? Maybe Riley had to come to terms w/how sick his
"need to be needed" was (it may not always be unhealthy,
but when you turn to vamp hookers & endanger your life, something's
wrong) & work it through before he got involved w/Sam. Or maybe
she did need him the way he wanted at first--she started out in
the Peace Corps, not as a commando. She could have looked like
just what he was looking for when he & his crew came to the rescue
after her infirmary was decimated. Maybe he had to adjust as she
got trained & became more confident & able to take care of herself.
Maybe they had an argument whose groundwork had been laid w/Buffy,
& he didn't want to go through a breakup over the same issue again.
If so, the irony may be that Riley is now someone who could be
w/Buffy on her terms but isn't available to her anymore.
"they are not compatible as a long-term couple. buffy is
typically a very moral person. spike tends to be amoral. he will
do good or ill if it benefits himself. such a coupling cannot
stand the test of time, unless one of them makes a change."
OK, this may seem weird. You know what this reminds me of? I know
there's some Spider-Man fans out there. Remember when he got involved
w/the Black Cat? (For those not in the know, she was a villain
w/some feline abilities--at some point in her career some cat
DNA was actually supposed to have gotten mixed in--anyway, high
strength/agility, platinum blonde wig, skintight [aren't they
all?] black costume w/white furry trim.) Both very attracted to
each other despite being on opposite sides, wanting to be together
but not to give up their own ways. At one point she makes some
blatantly amoral comment--about stealing something or breaking
in somewhere--& he says something like she can't keep doing that
kind of stuff "if we're going to be a couple." It was
so incongruous it's stuck with me all these years (since early
'80s)--just the idea of them as "a couple." Needless
to say, it didn't last...seems like a parallel, if not a profound
one at all....
...so can I ever get taken seriously on this board after this?
@>)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current board
| More February 2002