February 2003 posts


Previous February 2003  

More February 2003

Andrew and Season 7 (spoilers for everything aired, kinda long) -- trebor, 18:40:08 02/09/03 Sun

Sometimes free time can be a hassle. Even worse, free time while trying to work an early shift on 2 hours of sleep. During one of my many lulls at work, I started thinking about Andrew's role in this season's BtVS. Call me crazy.

Andrew is everyone's favorite whipping boy, though his relationship with the fans seems to be growing more to *may* love-hate. Last season, he was the weak link in the troika. Didn't have the nasty evilness of Warren, and wasn't as well liked as Jonathon had been... plus his complex issues had been done and done better through Willow in seasons past.

However, with his return this year, I think he falls into the back to the beginning theme that Joss wanted to lay down for this season, especially if it's BtVS's last.

Andrew has turned from an evil character, into a character searching for redemption. His quest isn't all that different from Spike, Willow and Anya. The underlying theme is each of their "free will". It's assumed that Spike is at one end, had no soul, no free will, no control of his urges. He has the furthest to come on his road to redemption. He also might have the most to lose. Backstory in BtVS and AtS, we know that it took Angel almost a hundred years to deal with his soul and the repercussions that came with his curse. Spike might not have as long. He's been an observer and fighter of evil for the last three years, because he couldn't be evil. His ambiguity into getting the chip may have helped his heeling, and seeing how Angel has handled and Buffy's helping hand are going to encourage him along at a more rapid pace. He doesn't have time, but he has more help.

Andrew represents the opposite end of that spectrum. He had all of his free will, but still chose to enact the Troika's evil. It peaked when he killed his last and only friend. His redemption doesn't seem real to the Scoobies, more of a cry for attention... but he has the least to redeem. His evil, compared to Spike, and compared to Anyanka and Willow is minor.

The Scoobs aren't so ready to forgive and forget, because they're only familiar with evil Andrew. They know he's a liar and a weasel. Where they're will to trust Spike because he appears harmless, Andrew has killed on his own, albeit under control of the First. A person who was one of the legendary Vamps and murders and a man who couldn't kill a pig, and only killed his only friend to bring back his idol.

We can also fit Anya and Willow into this graph. Willow is seeking her fit in life... she's very powerful, but afraid to use her powers. She's afraid to start a relationship, because she needs to redeem her love for Tara. But Willow was souled, and she had free will, although under the delusions of a very powerful drug. Here, her voyage is again the opposite of Spike's... the Drug of Power led Willow to cloud her free will, while Spike's chip prevented him... or maybe enacted a pseudo-will is a better choice. Looking back, it's no coincidence that Spike and Willow faced their journey's parallel to one another.

The Troika reflected three of Willow's emotional or life stages. This was archived somewhere, and my HTML sucks, so I'm not going to link it. I'll try to sum it from memory, so apologies if I'm off... but Warren represents evil, powerful Willow. Cold and heartless. Vengeful for whatever reasons be it the feeling of being ignored or a lover's death. Jonathan represented Willow's past, he was her link to her geeky high school persona. Insecure, timid, unsure of who they are. But, Andrew represented her deepest insecurities. Coming out of the closet, budding wicca/witch, gray area.

I was very upset when Jonathan was killed, he was one of my favorite minor characters, and Andrew at the time was a weak character. But, looking now, Andrew had to be the one to help us watch Willow redeem herself. Her reflection of the Troika in this case is most definitely Andrew, the deepest secrets and insecurities, as they struggle to live with what they've done, and what they could be as they are redeemed. I find this comparison just amazing, and wish I would have noticed it earlier.

Andrew doesn't have as strong a comparison to Anya, but we can put Anya on this graph, closer towards Spike. She was a very powerful Vengeance Demon, who became human and loved it, learned and lived it. She fell in love with Xander. We know what happened, we know Anya tried to go back to her previous life. She was scorned, hurt by Xander... but there was still love (or something... I'm not sure Joss believes in love) that prevented her from following through on her true vengenceness (did I make up that word?). A humanity existed inside her once she became a Vengeance Demon that she was unable to fulfill her duties. She was unable to live with herself after slaughtering a frat house. Andrew was the same, not as deep, when he realized he was friendless and being manipulated by FEwarren.

Willow and Spike need to find their inner redemption quickly. They're going to be key players in this fight against the first evil. Anya and Andrew don't know what their roles might be. They're under no hurry for redemption. They also get the least help from the rest of the Scoobies, and they have to do the most actual inner soul searching. This is why Anya's story arc has been so slow, and could explain why she was so easy to latch back onto the scoobies... they were all she new of her human life.

Andrew is also important because we can see fragments of Xander and Dawn in him. The Xander similarities are fairly obvious to this group I think, so I'll be "short(er)" here... but basically, Andrew sorta of is an image of what Xander could have been had he not become a Scooby... the fourth nerd. However, this could also be Dawn's future.

Dawn and Andrew were both.... well, ignored is probably the best word for it. It's been three years, and we still don't know who the real Dawn is, other than a big ball of energy. The lack of attention led to whiny Dawn last year, and part of that same theory applies to Andrew. He was a supervillain, who got overshadowed by EvilWillow~! and then got ignored. Worse than that, he was the ignored one of the Troika. Dawn doesn't have a redemption to pursue (viewers who hated Whiny Dawn don't count!), but together they need to find their purposes in this, and future Sunnydales.

Yes, lack of sleep and a boring Sunday at work can lead one to figure out how Andrew really is the glue of the Season 7 Scoobies. I hope, that when we view the rest of the episodes, and review the past ones, we can truly take this remarkable character in a second light.

Don't flame to hard!

Trebor, delurking for a little post.
[> Re: Andrew and Season 7 (spoilers for everything aired, kinda long) -- Sophist, 20:17:27 02/09/03 Sun

His evil, compared to ... Willow is minor.

I'm not sure I can agree with this. Andrew killed his best friend. Willow killed someone, true enough, but Warren was a double murderer, attempted rapist, and guilty of several other serious crimes. Andrew participated in most of those crimes (except the murder of Tara and the attempted murder of Buffy). Willow's other crimes are all attempts. They were serious indeed, but the crimes weren't completed. Andrew's were. I'd say he has further to go.
Getting to There From Here - Thoughts On *The Killer in Me* ... ( ***Spoilers 7.13*** ) -- OnM, 21:57:14 02/09/03 Sun

*******

Buffy could definitely use a game of Frisbee, in my opinion.

............ Haecceity

*******

Nothing really matters / Nothing's all we need / Everything I give you / All comes back to me

............ M. Ciccone

*******


Evil Clone: Uh-oh. This doesn't look good.

OnM: That's 'cos it isn't. 3:45 PM on a Sunday afternoon, and I'm still not sure how to get a handle on
The Killer In Me. I don't have two weeks to fiddle about and come up with a theme like I did last week, I
need to commit something reasonably intelligent to hard drive and then get it posted-- after all, a brand new ep
will be up this Tuesday.

EC: Why not? There's no rule that says that. Even jenoff posts late sometimes. And while she's been
very speedy here of late, Masq has on occasion taken quite a while to get her analyses up. Dochawk will just
have to get a life after all, ya know.

OnM: (peeved): Hey, now don't be going all Shatneresque on my friend Doc! And as far as 'getting a
life' goes, believe me, I've got a life. That's why I prefer living around this fantasy one.

EC: Hummm, 'K, guess I can't argue with that one.

OnM: I don't want to put it off, because I know that if I do, it won't ever get done. Something
always comes up, and the delay gets delayed and then delayed again. That's what happened last year, and
I still have never finished my reviews of Hell's Bells and Normal Again.

EC: Whaddaya mean, you posted gobs of stuff on Normal Again and even tried to do a
big ol' summer group writing project based on it that... that... (pauses) oh, yeah, that never got done either, did
it?

OnM: I rest my case.

EC: Well then, stop resting and do a fanfic-review like you did last year. If you can't directly analyze, do
it indirectly and hopefully no one will notice the subterfuge.

OnM: I'm ashamed to admit that doing that already occurred to me. Not the subterfuge part, but using
that particular writing device again. I hate to repeat myself though.

EC: As if Joss never repeats himself? There's only one real story here, in all 6 1/2 seasons, right?

OnM: There may be only one real story, but that is the gift involved-- tweaking and turning things
around so that what is old appears to be new again. Building a mythical universe where all is ultimately related,
structuring layers that reveal new depths even after multiple viewings. Like last night when I was watching the
DVD version of Graduation Day and suddenly had a new insight about the Dawn = Buffy + Faith
potentiality.

EC: Start with that, then. Most ATPo-ers are as hopped for speculation as you are.

OnM: No, I do want to talk about it, but only towards the very end of the review. Killer in Me
wasn't a Dawn-centric episode like Potential was. *Killer in Me is the beginning of a mini-arc where
it appears that we will finally start to get some critical info as to where the season will be heading during the
second half. You know, whether Spike will get de-chipped and what effect it will have on him if he does,
whether Buffy will lose or maintain the balancing act between Slayer-self and Non-Slayer-self, whether Willow
will get past her grief over Tara's death and learn to control her magical nature, etc.

EC: Not to mention the distinct possibility of actual new Slayer-historical-stuff being revealed. You
know, pick up the ball that was carelessly dropped back in season five?

OnM: I don't think it was carelessly dropped, it's just that the time wasn't right. Buffy understandably
wanted to learn more about her heritage, but I'm not sure that the result would have been well received at that
time. Painful as it was, the spiritual death/rebirth arc had to come first. That's why the S5 big bad was Glory, a
god. Metaphorically, Buffy has to choose whether to follow the logic and reason of the father, or the logic and
reason of the mother. The reason of either is compelling, and either one could have brought about a solution to
the problem at hand. But only one would have left Buffy's soul undamaged, and that was the choice that she
made, that she had to make. She was true to herself.

EC: Ya lost me, dude. I think that you've got too many overlapping themes here for clones and other
normal-type folk to follow.

OnM: I know, it's hard to express what I'm getting at. The entire Buffyverse is still evolving, even now
as we are approaching what will probably be the end of the main grand story. There are themes that link to other
themes that in turn link to stuff we don't know yet. You know something is happening, but you don't know what
it is.

EC: And who you gonna call, right, Mr. Jones?

OnM: See? The most innocuous statement yields some additional or extended meaning. Like the
'Ghostbusters' ref which *Killer in Me* utilized. I caught it, of course, but didn't really think about it much in
metaphorical terms until Age posted his/her usual brilliant deconstructions and I realized that there were ghosts
all over the place in this program. You know, is Giles a ghost or something like one, the ghost of the Initiative
that Buffy and Spike descend into, the Spirit Guide that the proto-Slayers will seek out on their vision quest, the
ghost of Tara that haunts Willow and keeps her from moving on.

EC: Now that is spooky.

OnM: See, I really enjoyed this episode, but to me it was just because it was well paced and I enjoyed
the film work and editing. When the show ended, it was obvious that this was a two-or-more parter, and that I
would just have to wait for the remainder of the parts to air before I could really form some coherent ideas about
'what it's all about'.

EC: Some things were resolved, though. We know Giles isn't the First Evil, and that Willow has finally
started the process of letting go of Tara and accepting at least the possibility of another relationship. And
Spike is finally gonna get that pesky chip removed.

OnM: Don't count on that.

EC: The de-chipping? Oh, come on, that's a done deal!

OnM: I repeat, don't count on it, at least not in the way that we will expect it to happen. I did, in fact,
write a mini-fic that explored the moment when Buffy confronts Spike with the options to remove or repair his
electro-chemical soul and exist only with the metaphysical version he recently regained.

EC: OK, so post that. Buffy, Spike, fanfic-- can't go wrong!

OnM: It was OK, but I deleted it.

EC: Arrrghh.... must you be such a martyr? Probably would have been good for half the review space!

OnM: It's really easier to do as a summary of options, and that takes up a lot less space. It's just that I
think that everyone will simply assume that Buffy will tell Spike that she will have the chip removed, and after a
few stunned moments, he will gratefully accept the offer. I question this, though. Consider:

1. Buffy decides to remove the chip. She tells Spike she will do so. After a thoughtful pause, he gratefully
accepts, since after all, 'she believes in me'.

2. Buffy decides to remove the chip. She tells Spike she is having the chip repaired. He is somewhat disappointed
that she doesn't trust him enough to remove it, but as he thinks about it he realizes that she is only being careful--
after all, he is keeping himself chained up in her basement whenever she isn't around. At some future point in
time, of course, he will find out that Buffy had the chip removed.

3. Buffy decides to remove the chip. She tells Spike, but Spike emphatically doesn't want the chip removed-- he
feels he isn't ready to be free of its influence. (See 'chains' in #2, above). Apparently deferring to his wishes, she
tells him that she will have the military docs repair it. She then tells the docs to remove the chip, but to tell Spike
that it has been repaired.

4. Buffy wants to remove the chip, but is fearful that Spike may still hurt someone unintentionally, soul or not.
She feels guilty about her choice, but has the docs repair the chip. She doesn't tell Spike that there was an option
to remove the ship, so he's not really upset-- the pain is gone, and as far as he knows, it's just back to the
same-old-same-old. Buffy, however, feels an increasingly crippling degree of guilt as the weeks move on that she
didn't back up her previous inspirational words with actions. Eventually she confesses the deception to Spike.
(Spike does get the chip out eventually, but not until later in the season, possibly at or near the very end.)

5. A variation on #4, except that Spike insists the chip not be removed, and Buffy agrees, but then feels
increasingly guilty that she didn't follow her instincts.


OnM: Now, I think most viewers will presume that what will happen will be the #1 option, and while I
freely admit that I don't have a problem with that, I think that it would be a missed opportunity to add some
complexity to the remaining story arc.

EC: (chuckling): Hah! You mean more angst and suffering! And they call me evil...

OnM: What is this year's major story theme? Power, right? And how it will be used? What I was trying
to get at a short while ago was that Joss may sneak all these traditional religious images into his Buffyverse, but
Joss isn't a fan of what he refers to as 'the sky bully'. I think that Joss wants his characters to devise the nature
of their own godhood, be that for good or for evil. I think that Joss wants Buffy to grant Spike free will, not use
her power to choose for him. Buffy recognizes that Spike has the potential to choose, he just needs a little help in
realizing that. She understands that allowing this action could bring about tragic results, but to her the
empowerment aspect is more important. It's like the point when your child grows up, and you have to let them
go, and trust that they will live wisely. Sentient creatures must choose their own spirituality, they can't have it
handed down to them as a de facto occurrence.

EC: And so Glory represents this kind of god?

OnM: Yes. Glory wants other beings to serve her, sees this as the natural, rightful state of her existence.
She commands, they follow. She dishes out, and they have no choice but to take. Some beings embrace this
form of power by utter, unquestioning submission. If a god wants them to live and be happy, fine. If a god wants
them to suffer and die, that's fine too-- greater purpose and all that, ours not to question why.

Buffy holds her god, or gods to a higher standard. In The Gift, she tells Giles that if Dawn has to die to
save the world, then that world is no longer one that she wants to live in. Giles means well, but in his despair that
Glory cannot be defeated, he counsels Buffy that there is no other choice but to allow Dawn to die. Giles has
accepted the belief that the will of god cannot be challenged. Buffy does not accept this.

There is a price, of course, but Buffy willingly accepts it. And curiously, while Willow (who, like Giles, accepts
the 'conventional wisdom') fears that Buffy has been trapped in 'hell' after her death, Buffy in fact is in what she
interprets as 'heaven'. So, Buffy becomes her own god in a way. She creates a spiritual universe and then places
herself within it.

EC: I dunno. A self-actualizing spiritual frame of reference? Kinda solipsistic, isn't it?

OnM: No, it isn't about the individual saying that nothing exists outside of themselves, it's about
deciding on how you wish to relate to the universe around you. Do you relate in a positive fashion because you
think that's what your god wants? Then it's just as valid to relate in a negative fashion because you think
that's what your god wants. Just ask your friendly neighborhood religious terrorists.

EC: Ooo! Ooo! Did you see that thing in the *Inquirer* on Bobby Fischer? Wasn't that a trip?

OnM: Yeah, a bad trip. What a waste of a brilliant mind. I posted a link to it on the board earlier,
thought the rest of the ATPo gang would find it just as fascinating and disturbing.

EC: Jew-hating is so outré. Now me, I'm an equal opportunity misanthrope. Personally, I think we just
oughta kill everyone and give the world back to the plants.

OnM: Yes, well, let's put that plan on hold for now. As an alternative, we could seek to design better
gods, ones that distribute power, not consolidate it. Gods that are more flexible, less absolutist. Gods that
recognize that the principle matters only so far, and beyond that the heart must lead.

EC: Heart? Define 'heart'. Your brain is having a serious new-agey incident here. I may need to barf.

OnM: I know what I mean, it's just hard to define clearly in words. Joss doesn't ever define it directly
either, because he can't. It's not a definable concept, only a peripherally illustratable one. The BtVS story puts it
together a block at a time, until someday there will be an entire building. What it'll house will be Joss's best
attempts at defining heart. Or maybe to borrow from Theodore Sturgeon, it's a 'slow sculpture', a bonsai.

EC: Your parents didn't happen to do a bunch of drugs just before they conceived you, did they?

OnM: (glaring angrily) Hey! And even if they did, what does that make you?

EC: Science's answer to god?

OnM: (long pause): OK, time to change the subject.

EC: Hah! Score one for the Cosmic Muffin!

OnM: (wearily): They'll never get the reference. Let's move on.

EC: (grinning evilly): Whatever.

OnM: So we have Spike getting de-chipped, maybe, and then there is the thing with Willow and
Kennedy. Now, I like Kennedy, and she may just be the right person for Willow, but I admit to a bit of
uncertainty when it comes to judging her actions in this episode. For someone who has been pretty gung-ho on
the Slayer thing for the last several episodes, I found it a little surprising that she would fake the flu in order to
dodge the visionquest trip and pursue her other 'mission'.

EC: So you think she's evil?

OnM: No, but I'm not sure what I think. Is this supposed to be a mirror for Buffy in the 'follow your
heart' theme? I'm even wondering whether or not Buffy put Kennedy up to the whole plan-- she seemed to be
tweaking Willow quite a bit with the 'tea' innuendo. Does Buffy think that Willow will become more self-assured
and gain better control over her emotions if she begins to put Tara's death behind her and get on with her life? Is
this another 'I've got so much strength, I'm giving it away' action?

EC: That's pretty devious.

OnM: Buffy is almost always much smarter than many her credit for. She understands that Willow is the
kind of person who really needs the intimacy/ego-reinforcement of romantic love to reach her greatest potential,
and since she can't provide that directly, she helps along what she already sees going on between Kennedy and
Willow. She probably sees the visionquest trip as secondary to getting her old friend back on the mend.

EC: Speaking of old friends and lovers, how about that Riley? I mean, he didn't actually show up in
person, but there he is helping Buffy out again. He even tells his men to help out 'ass-face'. Hee-hee. Ass-face.
What a wit. Gotta love the guy.

OnM: It's pretty revealing that Riley has this absolute trust in Buffy. Add to that the same high degree
of trust in Buffy that we are seeing from Spike, Xander, Giles, and more recently the protos, and it's evident that
Buffy holds the absolute confidence of quite a great number of people. That should be potentially scary for her,
but she seems to be handling it very well. The ME tradition would be to build that up and then pull the rug out,
but I'm not sure about that this year. I think even if she faltered along the way now, it wouldn't shake the
confidence of anyone around her. Is this why the FE is laying low for now? Is the trust level too high to exploit
Scooby and proto weaknesses at the moment?

EC: Oh, they'll have to do something to trip Buffy up. She's been on a roll for several eps now-- it can't
go on. Isn't the birthday ep due soon? Time for the gut-wrenching misery and horror d'annum?

OnM: Be careful. Some people should avoid Latin.

EC: (puzzled) I thought that was French.

OnM: Don't think it's spelled that way, then. I think ME will pull a real big surprise twist this year and
actually give Buffy a happy birthday. Just to freak everybody out.

EC: When's Dawn's birthday? Isn't this one sweet sixteen?

OnM: Sweet may not be the word to use unless spontaneous human combustion is the subject. Dunno
when her birthday is. Have to ask and see if anyone on the board knows for sure.

EC: So what else? Is that it?

OnM: Not too much else. Some little things, like how Anya calls Xander 'Harris' until the others go out
the door and then calls him 'Xander'. Another quick little Faith moment when Giles tells Dawn to whack Vi on
the head with her notebook and Dawn says "On it" with that serious, focussed look on her face. The funny line
where Giles misunderstands the intent of the other Scoobies after they tackle him at the desert campsite, and
wonders why they think he's evil for not touching the girls.

EC: (chuckling): That was delightfully perverse.

OnM: Also continuing to very much like Tom Lenk's work as Andrew. Gradually adding those
characteristics that make him more three dimensional and sympathetic, while not forgetting that he's still has that
evil mushroom factor working for him, as shown when he grabs 'Warren' affectionately once he's sure it isn't the
FE.

It was nice to see the Initiative brought back into the story line again, although apparently that government
honcho who ordered it to be 'filled in with concrete', 'burned down' etc. didn't get his orders carried out. Victim
of a vendor lobbying effort? (Wait! Don't burn it down yet-- we'll have a new upgrade to fix those pesky
software bugs in just another month!) Or maybe the funding just fell through. Riley seems to have amassed quite
a good-size cluster of people under his command since we last saw him, hasn't he?

Then another great funny line with Buffy and the "Government conspiracy - I knew it!" bit.

EC: There's always a conspiracy. And sometimes a talisman, too.

OnM: Err, right...

EC: So anything else?

OnM: That's about it. As I said, nothing really especially deep this week, but very enjoyable
nevertheless, and well done technically except for one minor gripe, which was that I found it hard to follow the
Warren/Willow and Kennedy dialog at the very end, where she's mostly Warren and is brandishing the gun and
all. I was left with the impression that they had to cram the scene into a shorter time period than they had
originally written it for, like perhaps it had been about 30 seconds longer. I had to play the scene back about four
times before I could understand what Willow was trying to say in regards to having betrayed Tara by not
thinking about her for a moment when she first kissed Kennedy. It is clear after you listen carefully, but only after
that. Expanding the dialog just a bit more might have avoided that.

EC: Or maybe you were still busy wondering how they got from nighttime to day so fast. You know,
it's night when Willow goes to see the Wiccans, and then Amy snaps her fingers and poof, there's Kennedy in the
Summers' back yard, and it's daytime. Classic S7 patent pending time wonkiness again?

OnM: Good point. That was very odd. But, I'm letting it go, just like the other small stuff. It still could
be some kind of parallel universe thing, who knows.

EC: We done? I'm getting hungry.

OnM: You're always hungry. When you aren't sleeping, that is. But yes, that about wraps things for this
week, except for that little add-on to the Dawn DNA theorem I mentioned back near the beginning of our chat.

EC: Ah yes. What new flight of fancy has your giant squishy brain latched upon, pray tell?

OnM: (sighs quietly): Ever since I came up with the idea that the monks made Dawn out of the
Slayer, and not simply out of Buffy, my assumption was that the spell that formed the Key into flesh
took the metaphysical DNA, or whatever, about equally from both Buffy and Faith. One of the things that I really
liked about this idea from a dramatic standpoint is that the day must eventually come when Buffy discovers this
fact, and has to deal with the thought that her beloved little sister, the person whom she thinks is the 'better part'
of herself, is in reality part of the woman who was her enemy, who went dark and then evil, and betrayed her
calling and her fellow humans. The woman who, despite her apparent more recent moves toward atonement and
redemption, she still does not really trust or forgive. Facing the fact that Dawn is part Faith brings up the fears
that Buffy has always had regarding her own interior darkness.

EC: Yeah, yeah, we got that. You've changed you mind? She's not part Buffy and part Faith?

OnM: It's even more twisted than that. Dawn isn't half Faith-- she's more like 90% Faith.
There is Buffy in her, but only a small proportion, and the only reason that Dawn isn't 100% Faith is that
Faith allowed Buffy to contribute a portion of herself, as a gift of reconciliation.

EC: (After a long pause-- very long): You are wacko. Really. And I'm 90% you. Oh gods, I'm
doomed... My brain is getting squishier by the second, I can feel it. I can feel it going. Dave...

OnM: No, no, hear me out. I was watching Graduation Day, and the dream sequence comes on,
and there's Buffy and Faith, the cat, the 7-3-0, the whole ball of wax. Seen it 20 times already, still find it
transfixing. Then suddenly something clicks in my head that didn't register before, and I cue the scan back button
on the remote, and watch the portion before the dream sequence again.

EC: And?

OnM: We're in the hospital, as you know, out in the corridor. Buffy and Faith are both unconscious in
their respective rooms. Angel wants to stay with Buffy, but Giles tells him to go, that the sun is almost
up. He reluctantly leaves, and then the gang goes to check on Buffy.

But we don't see them enter the room, instead we jump cut to the start of the dream sequence. Buffy is there,
and she sees Faith. There is the thing with the cat, which as I mentioned in a previous post on this subject, I
believe to represent Dawn. Faith does the 'lot of new things in my head, counting down from 730 etc. riff, and
Buffy comments ruefully about 'riddles'.

EC: Still nothing new here. What's the big revelation? What did you 'miss', if indeed you did miss
something and aren't just over-analyzing as per usual?

OnM: The dawn. The light of Dawn. Faith is facing the window, in fact she's standing right in front of
it, looking out. The light of dawn is flooding her body, very intensely-- her face is actually over-exposed,
they pushed the lighting so far. This is the clue, it wasn't just a cool, dream-state lighting effect. The light is the
clue, and the fact that just before the dream, Giles establishes that it is sunrise.

The monks made the Key into flesh, modeling her on The Slayer. But Buffy isn't the Slayer.

EC: (genuinely shocked): Get out! Sure she is!

OnM: Maybe not. Several very astute ATPo posters have pointed out that Buffy may be the Slayer in
deed, but not in the true metaphysical sense. She has retained her Slayer physical powers and attributes after her
first death, but the metaphysical energy that is The Slayer now rests within Faith. Joss has stated that only
Faith's death will call another Slayer, and until he contradicts this, I accept it as 'canon' for the Buffyverse.

EC: (getting it): Whoa...

OnM: Whoa indeed. Time wonkiness. Slaughterhouse Five-ish time wonkiness. The dream is
synchronous in that it is sunrise that bathes Faith in light, but the dream is a prophetic one. Faith appears to have
forgiven Buffy for what has transpired between them, and vice versa, but this hasn't happened yet. But it
will.

EC: It has happened, it will happen, all the same thing.

OnM: In the dream, when Faith is bathed in light, the monks are molding the Key into Dawn. When
Faith reaches out to touch Buffy's cheek, she connects Buffy into the metaphysical mold-- "Take what you
need". Dawn picks up Buffy's 'DNA' through Faith's touch.

EC: In The Gift, Buffy can save Dawn because she 'shares Dawn's blood'. But only because...

OnM: ... Faith shares this spiritual moment of love and forgiveness with Buffy. Faith saved Dawn. Buffy
was the instrument. Recall that after Buffy awakes from the dream, she goes over to the next room, and kisses
Faith tenderly on the forehead. God works in mysterious ways.

EC: Huh.

OnM: Yeah, huh. Still think I'm wacko?

EC: Definitely. But it's really cool wack. I thought Joss was an atheist?

OnM: Athiests works in mysterious ways, too.

EC: Amen! Time for dinner now, let's go eat!


*******

I never told you that I would / Live inside your fence
That I wouldn't go dancing / That there wouldn't be suspense
I never told you to start / Counting on me
To go making plans / Or to lose any sleep but

I always told you / Look after your heart
Keep it protected / And out of the dark and
I always told you / To make it foolproof
And baby / I always told you the truth

I never told you that I would / Be here tomorrow
That we wouldn't shed tears / That there wouldn't be sorrows
I never told you that I would / Do what you wanted
But I tried to tell you that / I'm slightly haunted

............ Lynn Miles


*******
[> Holy crap, that was great! Too bad they don't give out Pulitzer Prizes for ATPo posts. -- Rob, 22:27:40 02/09/03 Sun

[> I like your Evil Clone. What's he doing on Friday? -- Honorificus (Who Has Her Own Sycophant Clones), 22:44:56 02/09/03 Sun

[> [> What or who, sweetie? -- E.C., 19:59:13 02/10/03 Mon

;-)
[> [> [> Both, I'd hope. -- Honorificus (Who Never Needs A Reason), 00:09:52 02/11/03 Tue

Here's my talisman. Gimme a chant sometime.
[> I love you, OnM. -- Marie, 01:29:49 02/10/03 Mon

[> [> Well ... gosh. -- OnM, 20:32:20 02/10/03 Mon

;-)
[> It's 'Waiting for Godot' on speed -- Tchaikovsky, 04:48:19 02/10/03 Mon

On Dawn's birthday- I think it's safe to say that she's already sixteen. There's the lines:
'What I mean/ I'm fifteen/ So the queen things illegal',
in 'Once More , With Feeling', and even with the occasional wonkiness of the time-line (cf Buffy's birthday being moved about the episodes within the season), it would seem that we're now a good few months after that point in this year

Actually, to be painfully pedantic:
At the end of 'All the Way', which is set on 31st October (Halloween), Willow bewitches Tara. In the first montage of the musical, Tara finds the flower in her bed, meaning that 'Once More' starts on the 1st November. So Dawn is 15 in early November Season 6 (2001).
'Bring on the Night' takes place in December (qv Buffy's throwaway line (?) to Giles about 'not realising it's December already), so more than a year has past, and Dawn MUST have celebrated her 16th birthday by now.

Hope that clarifies that one little point, (if in laborious detail). Incidentally, I don't think we've ever seen a Dawn birthday, although one assumes she has a (fake) one.

Great 'review' as ever.

TCH
[> [> Dawn is definitely already sixteen... -- Peggin, 06:04:09 02/10/03 Mon

In Real Me (which had to take place before the school year began, since Joyce wanted Buffy to take Dawn shopping for school supplies), Joyce and Buffy were discussing the fact that they didn't want to leave Dawn alone, and Dawn said: "Babysitter? I'm fourteen! I'm old enough to be a babysitter!" So, I guess Dawn's birthday has to be sometime in the summer, before the school year begins.
[> [> [> Possible Birthdate For Dawn -- Rhys, 09:56:18 02/10/03 Mon

Let's see if we can figure out approximately when Dawn's birthday is.

Dawn was fifteen the following year in OMWF, which started on the evening of October 31st with Buffy singing "Going Through The Motions" in the graveyard. It continued into November 1st (Tara woke up with a bit of Lethe's Bramble on her pillow, after a fight with Willow on Halloween on the previous episode) with "I've Got A Theory," "They Got The Mustard Out," and "I'm Under Your Spell." November 2nd--"I'll Never Tell," "The Parking Ticket Song," "Let Me Rest In Peace," and "Does Anybody Even Notice." The night of November 2nd, Dawn sings/tells the demon Sweet, "NO YOU SEE/
YOU AND ME/WOULDN'T BE VERY REGAL/WHAT I MEAN/I'M FIFTEEN/
SO THIS 'QUEEN' THING'S ILLEGAL."

So we know that Dawn's birthday is no later than November 2.
But that still gives us a lot of leeway.

From Peggin:

"In [Season 5's] Real Me (which had to take place before the school year began, since Joyce wanted Buffy to take Dawn shopping for school supplies), Joyce and Buffy were discussing the fact that they didn't want to leave Dawn alone, and Dawn said: "Babysitter? I'm fourteen! I'm old enough to be a babysitter!"

Where I live, school supplies generally become available in late July and go on half-price sale around the third week of August.

Dawn is fourteen circa late July to mid-August 2000, and is fifteen on November 2, 2001, a year and three months later. The only way that this makes sense is if Dawn had just had her fourteenth birthday in July or August, prior to going shopping for school supplies.

And what is the first episode in which Dawn appears? Buffy vs. Dracula. The script is dated August 23, 2000. The Buffy Timeline (http://members.aol.com/lostgiant/buffy/seas5.htm) gives the dates for Buffy vs. Dracula as August 21-23, 2000 (Monday through Wednesday) and the dates for Real Me as August 30 to September 1, 2000 (Wednesday to Friday). Dawn would be going to school by the following Tuesday, September 5, 2000, as that would be the Tuesday after Labor Day.

Since Dawn first shows up on the night of August 23, 2000, it may make sense to regard that as her "birthday." That squares with her going shopping for school supplies the following week and with being fifteen years old on November 2, 2001.

I think this birthdate would make her a Leo on the cusp of Virgo.

Does this sound possible?
[> [> [> [> Re: Possible Birthdate For Dawn -- Peggin, 14:03:58 02/10/03 Mon

There's nothing wrong with your reasoning, but I have to respectfully disagree. There's only one day that could be Dawn's birthday -- it has to be July 30th :-)
[> [> [> [> That date, incidentally -- HonorH, 14:40:12 02/10/03 Mon

is just about perfectly nine months after IWRY, if we assume Buffy went down to LA right after Thanksgiving. Makes you think, doesn't it?
[> [> [> [> [> so, following HH's line of logic.... -- WickedGeneologist, 15:53:55 02/11/03 Tue

errr, wait - I just noticed that.... you speculatin' Dawn's got a little Angel in her? umm, which means she's related to Connor, too. Part vampire/part slayer essences? kewl.

::now pondering on what it would be like if Dawn and Connor dated::

::now holding stomach::


'scuse me sorry
[> [> [> [> [> [> You okay there? (more wild Dawn theories) -- HonorH, patting WickedBuffy's back, 19:05:49 02/11/03 Tue

Actually, there wouldn't be any vampire in Dawn, since Angel was human on The Day That Wasn't. *If* Buffy conceived on that day and *if* the monks somehow got ahold of that embryo to use as Dawn's template, it would make Dawn technically Buffy and Angel's daughter. It would also make Dawn and Connor half-siblings, and hey--they both have brown hair, blue eyes, and fair skin, and they're both pretty as can be.

OTOH, if my extraordinarily far-fetched theory is wrong, I for one think they'd make the cutest couple ever. However, given their combined lineage, I think they'd also be an apocalypse waiting to happen if they got together.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm not really ok, thanks for patting -- WickedDespondant, 14:27:03 02/12/03 Wed

but aside from that, yes, I agree with you. But, and I don't remember this - when Darla and Angel conceived Connor, was Angel in vamp mode or not? I can't remember his face.


::sob and I'll use the patting to console myself that last night 5 minutes into Buffy - the sound went out on cable for the entire show..... I couldn't even get captioning to work. WHAT TORTURE!!!!! I'm still reeling.
[> [> [> [> Birthday? More like CreationDay for Dawn. -- WickedWondering, 17:51:10 02/10/03 Mon

Appearance Day? ... did she take a while to conjure so there is some lapsed time while with the monks?

ConjuredDay? ... did she spontaneously spring full-grown from Buffy's metaphorical forehead? or did she grow in a magical flask and take awhile.

but Birthday? nawwwwwww. At what point is she considered "born". The moment she ceased being The Key and became a Real Girl?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Birthday? More like CreationDay for Dawn. -- Peggin, 18:40:22 02/10/03 Mon

No, we're talking about her Birthday -- or, more correctly, the day that Buffy and Joyce and Hank remember as Dawn's birthday. They day they would celebrate her growing another year older. The date that would be on the birth certificate that the monks conjured up for her.
[> [> [> [> [> [> ahh, thank you Peggin! -- WickedDense, 19:47:18 02/10/03 Mon

Now I wonder how meticulous the monks were to the tradition of birthdays and celebrations. Did they randomly choose a day or does it have some kind of meaning in the Buffyverse order of things.

Sometimes it's so hard to figure out what means something in the scheme of Buffyverse things and what means absolutely nothing.
[> [> Would that make it "Pausing for Godot"? -- Haecceity, being a smartass & reeling over OnM's post, 07:44:06 02/10/03 Mon

[> [> Hey TCH! -- Rob, 08:00:00 02/10/03 Mon

Just curious, when is the next leg of your Angel Odyssey gonna be posted? I'm chompin' at the bit to read the next one. :o)

Rob
[> [> [> Wow, thanks -- Tchaikovsky, 08:16:38 02/10/03 Mon

Rob

This gives me a chance to say a thousand thank you's to yabyumpan, without whom the Odyssey may not have started at all, (and certainly would have been a lot more expensive for me!). She has lent me her videos for Season One, and will be doing the same for Season Two soon.

So the Odyssey should be up-anchoring in the next couple of weeks. I'm definitely looking forward to it, as the majority opinion seemed to be that Season Two is a little better than Season One. Will keep you posted, (literally).

TCH
[> [> [> [> Cool! :o) -- Rob, 09:05:08 02/10/03 Mon

[> Re: Getting to There From Here - Thoughts On *The Killer in Me* ... ( ***Spoilers 7.13*** ) -- Rattletrap, 05:47:40 02/10/03 Mon

Great thoughts, OnM (and EC).

I've liked your Dawn = Faith + Buffy idea from the get-go, and I love this new twist on it. Just one suggestion: Maybe instead of Dawn being 90% Faith and 10% Buffy she's 70-30. That would make some nice sense in context and still wouldn't change your basic idea.

Just my $.02, anxious to see more development on this season

'trap
[> OnM you're the coolest! -- ponygirl, 07:06:56 02/10/03 Mon

[> Brilliant, as always! -- dream of the consortium, 07:55:56 02/10/03 Mon

Just a quick question (or series of questions): You relate the cat in Graduation Day to Dawn. Do you also link Dawn to Miss Kitty Fantastico? Do you read anything into the fact that that cat, who played such a big role in Restless, just completely disappeared? Do you remember (I certainly don't) what her last appearance was - if it was Restless, that would make the cat disappear right before Dawn appears, yes?

Why does this particular post make me feel so dorky? The obsession with cats strikes me as unfortunate....
[> [> Miss Kitty Fantastico was in "Family" -- Peggin, 14:12:05 02/10/03 Mon

She was in the scene in the beginning when Tara was telling Willow a story.
[> [> Cats in BtVS -- slain, 15:28:03 02/10/03 Mon

I'm certain there's an embryonic essay here.

Cordelia (doesn't) become a cat in 'Halloween' - cats are sensual, but also, you know, catty.

Willow and Tara get a cat. There's a conversation in Season 4, which I found very funny, where Willow claims to be "more of a dog person". But clearly she comes round to being a cat lover. Are cats a symbol of her sexuality?

Demons like Clem, as we know, eat cats. Cats are a symbol of... erm... free-trade slave labour in the Far East. Clem represents an obese white businessman, devouring the workers for his own ends. Spike represents a Western consumer, and Buffy represents a well-intentioned liberal, trying to free the kitten-workers but unwittingly allowing them to fall into the clutches of the demons.
[> [> [> Hee hee -- KdS, 15:37:07 02/10/03 Mon

And don't forget the zombie cat in Dead Man's Party

(No-one should be capable of missing the crude visual pun of two lesbians playing with a small cat ;-)
[> [> but Willow & animals? -- WickedBuffy, 18:15:27 02/10/03 Mon

Speaking of the disappearing Miss Kitty Fantastico(how would you fit that on a pet-tag?), anyone noticed Willow and her relationship to animals?

First, does anyone else ever have pets other than Willow?
but on to the mysterious list I am faxing to PETA

Her fish die a horrible death at Angelus' hands
She keeps a rat who is actually a human and doesn't try incredibly hard to change her back
Miss Kitty Fantastico simply disappears
That sharply dressed monkey playing the cymbals simply disappears
Her boyfriend turns into a mutated wolf

Anymore examples of her strange relationship with animals no one else seems to have?
[> [> Meow. -- OnM, 20:47:13 02/10/03 Mon

No, I think that Miss Kitty Fantastico is symbolic of someone or something else, but I've never really been sure who.

Best guess at this point is that MKF is representative of the 'true nature of magic'. This might explain why Willow 'doesn't know her name yet', but Tara declares otherwise.

If it's a person, then MKF is Buffy and she'll reappear when Buffy fully re-integrates her psyche.
[> Worth the wait -- slain, 09:35:07 02/10/03 Mon

That final scene in the Summers' garden definitely needs rewatching - I thought it was supposed to be less than clear, and more about emotional intensity than the details of the lines, but on rewatching all of Willow's speech makes perfect sense in the context of the reading that it's all about Tara, and that Warren really isn't an issue.

The resurrection of the Initiative caves seemed a bit of a waste of money. I think it would've been better, or at least funnier, if Buffy had gone to the flower shop in person, and met the Black Ops [who were inexplicably wearing green] there. But I guess it was felt that the episode needed some external, as opposed to internal, monster fighting. Still, with my picture quality I couldn't tell what the hell was going on in the darkness, so I kind of missed out on that.

Your wacky Faith theory does have some credence in the fact that Dawn looks as much like Faith as she does like Buffy; I mean, if they'd really wanted her to look like a Summers, they could have made her blonder (Sarah's not a natural blonde either!) - but they chose to keep her a dark brunette. Hmmm.
[> [> Re: Worth the wait -- Rob, 10:54:20 02/10/03 Mon

"Still, with my picture quality I couldn't tell what the hell was going on in the darkness, so I kind of missed out on that."

Too bad, because I thought that that was one of the best filmed and staged fight scenes they've had all season. The dark made it seem much more creepy and visceral and dangerous than usual, and that deformed demon was quite scary, IMO.

Rob
[> Adding to the superlatives. -- Caroline, 09:36:27 02/10/03 Mon

[> Adding to the chorus and a different interpretation -- tomfool, 09:55:19 02/10/03 Mon

OoM, Great stuff as always. Add me to the chorus of woo and hoo. Not much to add, but I do have a different interpretation of the GD dream sequence. Here's the scene in question (from Psyche):

BUFFY
How are you gonna fit all this stuff?
FAITH
Not gonna. It's yours.
BUFFY
I can't use all this.
(Faith stands before her, looks at her with quiet regard.)
FAITH
Just take what you need.
(Buffy nods.)
FAITH (cont'd)
You ready?
(She puts her hand to Buffy's cheek.)

I'm sure this has already been discussed many times, but it seemed to me that this part of the dream sequence isn't about Dawn, but a conclusion to the S3 Buffy/Faith arc. This arc is about Buffy discovering and exploring the darker side of both her personal self and her Slayer self. Faith has allowed Buffy to walk on the dark side and gutting Faith is the culmination. From this moment, Buffy is no longer pure as the driven snow - it's clear to us viewers and at least partially to Buffy that from here her path will always have some gray side streets that must be navigated. Things will never be black and white again.

The 'stuff' referred to is the darker aspect of Faith's personality and the darkness that's part of being a slayer. Faith intuitively knows that being a slayer requires embracing the darkness, at least partially. Her offer to Buffy - "Take what you need" is her gift. She's allowing Buffy to embrace and accept the dark part of herself that's needed to make her a complete person and a complete Slayer. It also starts to set the stage for the Slayer power being rooted in darkness.

The touch of the cheek represents that transfer and Buffy's embrace of the darkness. And just as Buffy is given some darkness, Faith must be getting some light back from Buffy. Of course this is just the first chapter of the B/F arc, with chapter two playing out in S4. S7 looks to bring (the final?) third chapter.

(Warning: usual caveat about the well-know future casting spoiler for late S7. Other than that I'm completely unspoiled and the following is totally spec.)

I think the return of Faith will be the vehicle ME uses to complete the story about the mystery of the Slayer power source. Buffy and Faith will both progress toward a middle ground. Buffy will finally become whole and reach a point of self knowledge that accepts her dual nature and Faith will complete her own arc of redemption and return from the dark. Of course if we get a spin-off with ED, there may be quite a few more chapters to come.

Sorry, just don't see the Monks being active in creating Dawn two years ahead of when she appears, although I do agree with the concept that Dawn is a mix of both Buffy and Faith. I just think it's more integrated into the concept of Buffy embracing her own dual nature.

Once again, thanks for the review. Even in a 'down' week, it's still my favorite read of the week.
[> [> But... -- Rob, 10:57:56 02/10/03 Mon

There are Faith's "Little Miss Muffet" and "Little Sis" lines, which link it to Dawn. I'd assume that turning the Key into human form and manufacturing the false memories could be a long process that very well could have begun 2 years before.

Rob
[> [> [> I read the dream sequence as . . . -- tomfool, 11:26:10 02/10/03 Mon

a two-parter. I agree that the first part of the dream that you refer to is definitely about Dawn and that's been confirmed by Joss. But I think it's a prediction of Dawn's arrival two years later, not a signal that the process has started. I also agree with OnM about the lighting on Faith's face tying into the Dawn prediction.

But then the later part of the dream moves on to a separate topic - the conclusion of the Faith/Buffy arc as I described above.

Just my read. I'd actually be surprised if ME had all of the details of how they were going to explain Dawn's appearance worked out two years ahead. The concept for sure, just not the details that would include a two-year memory construction period. But I admit that it's a pretty big plate of speculation on my part.
[> [> [> [> Re: I read the dream sequence as . . . -- Rob, 12:42:10 02/10/03 Mon

"But I admit that it's a pretty big plate of speculation on my part."

Isn't that all we can really do here? ;o)

Rob
[> [> [> [> Re: I read the dream sequence as . . . -- OnM, 20:19:58 02/10/03 Mon

*** The 'stuff' referred to is the darker aspect of Faith's personality and the darkness that's part of being a slayer. Faith intuitively knows that being a slayer requires embracing the darkness, at least partially. Her offer to Buffy - "Take what you need" is her gift. She's allowing Buffy to embrace and accept the dark part of herself that's needed to make her a complete person and a complete Slayer. It also starts to set the stage for the Slayer power being rooted in darkness. ***

I believe that you are quite correct about this. I have just layered the 'DNA transfer' speculation on top of it.

Note that my theory does not hold up unless one accepts that the Slaughterhouse Five style time viewpoint is valid, which quite honestly is a stretch, and I very much doubt that even Joss set up the detailed endgame of S7 way back in S3. However, it would be possible to retrofit in the theory I've outlined at a later time in the story without violating any known characteristics of the Buffyverse.

If the dreamscape exists outside of (normal, linear) time, then the reconciliation of Buffy and Faith can happen in the distant future (S7 from our POV) without conflicting with the monks making Dawn out of Faith (S5 from our POV).

I just liked the idea of Buffy's betrayer turning out to be the one who 'saved' her sister. It also resonates with how Buffy 'saved' Faith from a continuing downward slide into darkness by the 'accident' of Riley sleeping with her.

But, I am well aware of the fact that I consciously try to out-ME ME, and such is very likely the case here-- your version is far more plausible.

It's really fun being devious, though.

:-)
[> [> [> [> [> Nothing wrong with layers and this season sure has a SH5 feel, so maybe -- tomfool, 08:15:37 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> Re: different interpretation (season 3 & 5 spoilers only) -- Robert, 12:47:35 02/10/03 Mon

>>> Sorry, just don't see the Monks being active in creating Dawn two years ahead of when she appears, although I do agree with the concept that Dawn is a mix of both Buffy and Faith.

I don't believe that OnM was claiming that the monks were already at work on the Key. Rather that Buffy was receiving a prophesy regarding Dawn. By definition, a prophesy violates causality. Presumably the prophesy comes from an agent (possibly the powers-that-be) existing outside of time, thus having knowledge of events past, present and future. At the time of the prophesy, the monks may not have even known of the impending threat of Glorifies, thus they may not yet have begun planning ways to protect the Key.
[> [> [> Prophesies and DNA (season 3 & 5 spoilers only) -- tomfool, 13:52:24 02/10/03 Mon

First, apologies to OnM for twice misspelling your name (OoM, OmM). In my slightly dyslexic brain, I always think of yoga chanting when I see your handle. (Although I like the real entomology of 'objects in mirror' a lot better.)

To address your comment, Robert, I agree that OnM does characterize the sequence as prophetic and we may be just splitting hairs with regard to the timing of monk-slayer-DNA-Dawn construction. My main point is a difference of interpretation of what's happening in the final part of the dream.

OnM: Whoa indeed. Time wonkiness. Slaughterhouse Five-ish time wonkiness. The dream is synchronous in that it is sunrise that bathes Faith in light, but the dream is a prophetic one. Faith appears to have forgiven Buffy for what has transpired between them, and vice versa, but this hasn't happened yet. But it will. EC: It has happened, it will happen, all the same thing.

I agree up to this point.

OnM: In the dream, when Faith is bathed in light, the monks [ARE] molding the Key into Dawn.

This was the source of my time references.

OnM: When Faith reaches out to touch Buffy's cheek, she connects Buffy into the metaphysical mold-- "Take what you need". Dawn picks up Buffy's 'DNA' through Faith's touch.

Here's where we disagree. I don't think this is about Dawn at all. It's all about F/B. I think Faith is gifting Buffy with her darkness/integration. She's telling her that it's ok to embrace the darkness, but she doesn't have to move very far in this direction, only to embrace as much as she needs to reconcile her true nature. There's no DNA flying around yet.

OnM/EC: In The Gift, Buffy can save Dawn because she 'shares Dawn's blood'. But only because...Faith shares this spiritual moment of love and forgiveness with Buffy. Faith saved Dawn. Buffy was the instrument. Recall that after Buffy awakes from the dream, she goes over to the next room, and kisses Faith tenderly on the forehead.

I can't quite make the leap to Faith saving Dawn through the instrument of Buffy. I read the Buffy kiss as a thank you to Faith for helping her start to deal with the duality of her nature, the beginning of her integration. I do agree with the forgiveness part. Faith is starting to forgive Buffy and Buffy is starting to forgive Faith.

Maybe Buffy is saying goodbye to her first 'sister' Faith (the evil twin, if you will) and the stage is being set for her new sister, Dawn, who represents the integration of Faith and Buffy. See, I'm not really too far away from OnM. I'm thinking more of a 50/50 split.
[> Could I borrow your brain once in a while? -- Dichotomy, 10:56:21 02/10/03 Mon

Maybe once a month? Once every three months? Please? It would make Buffy-watching (and movie-watching, too) a totally different experience.

Very cool post!
[> Since no one else said it, I'll do the honors..... KABOOM! -- Solitude1056, 15:54:26 02/10/03 Mon

I boggle.


In Graduation Day (Part II)...

INT. FAITH'S APARTMENT - DAY

Buffy is on her feet, in her street clothes. Entering the room to find it empty.

The window is still broken. Clothes and weapons are laid out on the couch - there are packing boxes everywhere. Moving day. A cat jumps onto the bed. Buffy looks at it.

BUFFY

Who's gonna look after him?


Faith crosses behind Buffy, replies:



FAITH

It's a she. And aren't these things supposed

to take care of themselves?



BUFFY

A higher power, guiding us?



FAITH

I'm pretty sure that's not what I meant.



She turns to the window.


Every time I've seen that scene, I've been struck by the fact that Faith says, "I'm pretty sure that's not what I meant," immediately prior to her looking out the window - as if what she did mean is outside the window. (The) Dawn, or light?, is that which guides us and takes care of these things?

I go back to boggling now...

[> Taking Votes and Kicking References -- The Second Evil, 18:54:44 02/10/03 Mon

So, let's see.

EC: Hah! Score one for the Cosmic Muffin!

OnM: (wearily): They'll never get the reference. Let's move on.

Never to be undone, I hereby list the results of my highly unscientific tour of the internet while googling Cosmic Muffin. Feel free to vote for whichever of the following you think OnM is referencing... and remember, kids, this is OnM's brain we're discussing, so feel welcome to make your own connections.





Bwahahaha.
[> [> TSE -- You have mail. -- TTE, 20:23:28 02/10/03 Mon

[> [> National Lampoon, "Deteriorata," 1972 -- The Fourth Evil (b), 05:29:45 02/11/03 Tue

[> Dawn -- Dochawk, 00:24:27 02/11/03 Tue

Wonderful as always. its worth waiting for. And by the by, I have a life, too much of one it seems some days. Gets in the way of the Buffy obsession.

And Dawn as being made out of Faith? Well just for starters, it doesn't make sense for the story, its Buffy's story, not Faith's (well not yet anyway, there is the fact that if we learn they are sisters, MT/Dawn could be in the potential Faith spinoff). And where exactly did we learn that Dawn was made from Buffy? I truly can't remember the episode and i have just watched about half of season 5 looking for it. In "No Place Like Home" we learn that the monks took the key energy and made her human, sent her to Buffy and placed the memories in her. Nothing about Buffy or The Slayer being her source. And Giles repeats this info in the information he writes in "Blood Ties". In that episode Buffy tells Dawn that her blood is Summer's blood, but that doesn't prove much. And of course in "The Gift" we have metaphysical evidence that somewhere they have the same blood. Course according to your theory Hank could have jumped and closed the portal (and we would have lost our most inconsequential yet truly important character, think how much Hank has meant to Buffy's development and we virtually never see him). Would have saved us lots of angst in Season 6 and Buffy wouldn't have money troubles (since she and Dawn would have inherited everything). So where does, she is made of the Slayer come from? I'm sure you've told us before, but I can't remember, been too busy doing other stuff this week.
[> [> Re: Dawn -- Peggin, 06:35:19 02/11/03 Tue

And where exactly did we learn that Dawn was made from Buffy? I truly can't remember the episode and i have just watched about half of season 5 looking for it. In "No Place Like Home" we learn that the monks took the key energy and made her human, sent her to Buffy and placed the memories in her. Nothing about Buffy or The Slayer being her source.

We were never actually told that Dawn was made from Buffy. Buffy came to that conclusion all on her own. The fact that Buffy's death could close the portal in place of Dawn's seemed to support the idea that Buffy's conclusion was correct, but I don't think it really does. It wasn't Dawn's physical body that opened and closed the portal. It was The Key, something that had nothing to do with the physical form that Dawn had been "pressed into". Even if Dawn was an exact clone of Buffy, the possibility that Buffy and Dawn share the same DNA would not explain how Buffy's death would close the portal.

I may have posted this theory on this board before (I know I've posted it before, I'm just not sure if it was here), but I think what happened was that Buffy felt a very profound connection with Dawn. Buffy is very intuitive sometimes, and she just *knew* that she had more of a connection with Dawn than just someone the monks has selected to take care of her. Because of this intuitive knowledge that they were connected, I think Buffy made a leap of logic that Dawn's body had been made from hers. But I think Buffy was wrong. I think that the real connection between Dawn and Buffy (which would also be a connection between Dawn and Faith) is that The Key is the source of the Slayer's powers.

The Knights said that The Key served no purpose other than destruction, but the monks wanted it protected, and thought it could be used as a force for good. In Restless, the First Slayer described herself as "I am destruction, absolute, alone" -- in other words, a purely destructive power that has been channeled as a force for good.

I don't think Dawn was made from Buffy and/or Faith; I think that, in effect, they were made from her.

As for Dawn's physical body -- if I'm right about The Key being the source of the Slayer's powers, then the spell the Scoobies did in "Primeval" was calling upon the Key. It could be that this spell was directly related to Glory nearly finding The Key and the monk's needing a new place to hide it. Since it was the spell that caused the need for Dawn to be created, I think the monks created Dawn from the DNA from each of the four people who had done the spell. So, I think Dawn's DNA is equal parts Buffy, Willow, Xander, and Giles.
[> [> My best shot -- Tchaikovsky, 08:31:16 02/11/03 Tue

Pesky research. I'll never be a Willow or a Dawn. I'm not sure whether we're ever told for definite that Dawn IS Buffy, but there are these lines from 'The Gift', which I imagine due to the context we're supposed to believe.

GILES
(quietly)
She's not your sister.

BUFFY
No. She's not. She's more than that.
(trying to articulate it... )
More than family... my sister, my daughter...

XANDER
She's your sister and your daughter?

BUFFY
She's me. The Monks made her out of
me. I hold her and I feel closer to her
than... It's more than just the memories
they built, it's physical, it's... Dawn is a
part of me. The only part that I...

Maybe still inconclusive.

TCH
[> [> [> Yes, I mentioned that (the correct version) -- Dochawk, 11:26:19 02/11/03 Tue

I mentioned what Buffy said in the Gift and that she gets a metaphysical agreement by the fact that she could close the portal (I wonder would any sacrifice have closed the portal? Any human sacrificing themselves? Someone sacrificed against their will? There is an awful lot of leeway for interpretation here that I never really considered.). the question is where did Buffy get that information? The monk died, so unless another monk showed up there was no more from that source and the Watcher's Council clearly didn't know about Dawn being the key or that Dawn was a constructed human (hmmm someone smarter than me should look at Dawn vs the Buffybot vs April since they are each constructed humans). So my question remains, Buffy made a leap in knowledge that I no longer find supported onscreen.
[> [> [> [> Metaphysical Agreements -- OnM, 17:04:33 02/11/03 Tue

*** I mentioned what Buffy said in the Gift and that she gets a metaphysical agreement by the fact that she could close the portal (...) The question is where did Buffy get that information? The monk died, so unless another monk showed up there was no more from that source and the Watcher's Council clearly didn't know about Dawn being the key or that Dawn was a constructed human. (...) So my question remains, Buffy made a leap in knowledge that I no longer find supported onscreen. ***

Short summary style version:

1. Buffy has a long history of intuitive leaps. Sometimes they are wrong, but more often then not they are correct-- or at least partially.

2. Buffy has always had prophetic dreams, although they vary greatly in how often they occur.

3. As you say, her ability to close the portal in The Gift tends to give 'metaphysical agreement' to her intuition.

4. I think that the direct handling of the subject of #3 has been dropped deliberately to give more impact to the eventual Dawn = Faith + Buffy revelation when it happens.

5. Instead, ME is dropping more subtle hints that Buffy's intuition about Dawn=Herself is only partly correct. The primary ones are the now numerous occasions where Dawn has been portrayed as having very Faith-like moments. A more recent one by another character was Anya's 'off-hand' quip about how she 'never got' the 'Buffy-Dawn-blood' thing.

6. The primary 'proof' for my theory is the shared dreamscapes that Buffy has had with Faith, and of course the events of Restless.

7. And of course, it is still only an unproven theory. I am not now, nor have I ever been spoiled as to the potential truth of my idea.
[> OnM, You're Our Plato! And Rambling on Art and gods and Creation in General -- Haecceity, 05:55:02 02/11/03 Tue

Okay, one caveat first-there is all likelihood that I've spent too much time with my nose buried in The Portable Greek Reader this week, and it might be slightly colouring my perceptions of the universe, Buffyverse and (I'm pretty sure), everyday objects-for instance, I was staring blurrily at the cereal box this morning and yep, definitely Greek to me.

For those of you who've not been forced by fate or inclination to read dusty old Greek tomes...The Timaeus is a work by Plato which starts off as a dialogue between Socrates, Timaeus, Critias and Hermocrates (This bit is rather amusing, btw, with a rather petulant Socrates demanding to be told a story, much in the way of a five year old whining for a bedtime tale)---though the dialogue doesn't last long. It's a device, you see, for giving Timaeus a reason to expound on the manner and meaning of the creation of the universe. Now there's no evil clone, but you see where I'm going with this, right?

*********************************************************************************
There may be only one real story, but that is the gift involved-- tweaking and turning things
around so that what is old appears to be new again. Building a mythical universe where all is ultimately related, structuring layers that reveal new depths even after multiple viewings... The entire Buffyverse is still evolving, even now as we are approaching what will probably be the end of the main grand story. There are themes that link to other themes that in turn link to stuff we don't know yet. You know something is happening, but you don't know what it is... it isn't about the individual saying that nothing exists outside of themselves, it's about deciding on how you wish to relate to the universe around you... we could seek to design better gods, ones that distribute power, not consolidate it. Gods that are more flexible, less absolutist. Gods that recognize that the principle matters only so far, and beyond that the heart must lead... It's not a definable concept, only a peripherally illustratable one. The BtVS story puts it together a block at a time, until someday there will be an entire building. What it'll house will be Joss's best attempts at defining heart. ---OnM
**********************************************************************************
"What is that which always is and has no becoming: and what is that which is always becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is. Now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created...all sensible things are apprehended by opinion and sense and are in a process of creation and created...Which of the patterns had the artificer in view when he made the world-the pattern of the unchangeable, or of that which is created?" ---Timaeus
**********************************************************************************

So, I guess what I'm saying is that even the most brilliant of folks often need a frame to hang their theories on. Sometimes it's easier to think with yourself if you can address the characters inside your head directly. Isn't all art a rumination on the meaning of existence? Every character/act of dialogue the way humanity talks to itself? What I love about your posts, OnM, is this fearless tendency to ruminate on the meaning of the universe through the prism of the Buffyverse. It is, of course what (in my opinion, anyway) brings us to the Buffyverse and this board-the opportunity to freely expound on the meanings of life we've found in our day to day existence, our reactions to art and each other-the refining process of sifting the universe for golden nuggets of meaning, the sharing of stories and selves.

"We are the bees of the (bl)invisible. We wildly collect the honey of the visible, to store it in the great golden hive of the universe."---R.M. Rilke

The most amazing thing about the board and 'net communication is our bodiless-ness-online we are consciousness alone-on this board we are consciousness together. And I could completely write my thesis on alter-egos and their importance on this board. The most significant point being how often we refer to them as "demons" or "evil clones". Going back to the Greek concept of Daemon, of course--
"An integral part of the self, the daimon nevertheless seeks a dwelling place beyond its normal limits-it seeks reunion with the transcendent. It is the portion of the self that communicates between Heaven and Earth." ---The Daimon & the Angel: Looking for the Sources of Inspiration

We come full circle and it's all connected, especially at this hour of the morning;)

Although I can already imagine Honorificus' reaction to the above re: dwelling places, interior design and minion housekeepers;)


**********************************************************************************
"A hero reconnects her people with the gods and with life." ---M-L von Franz
**********************************************************************************

Of course anyone spending any time at all examining the Buffyverse is inevitably going to come up to the Creator/God precipice and the immensity of the view it proffers. Funny how any rumination on any art leads us a circular dance to this lookout point, no? I really liked your wondering on the design of gods and human/gods interaction in the Buffyverse, for in a story space it's not necessarily conventional godheads we're discussing, but writers as creator gods. I read once, in a book I can no longer recall (sucked at notation, remember? Though I'm pretty certain it was something on comparative creation myths), that creator gods are seen almost invariably as creating creators, that the point of creation was continued creation. So your views on Buffy's creating a personal spiritual universe and placing herself within it was especially interesting, especially if you go back to the idea of characters as a way for a writer (creator god) to talk to himself.

"Individuals are agents of choice in a field of forces that will tempt and challenge them; dispassionate penetration of the meanings of things and circumstances is indispensable; higher wisdom is available to human beings, although its availability implies nothing about our capacity to make good use of it. The will of the gods and that of human beings interact in mysterious ways, the gods at times entangling us in fatality, but more often leaving us to work out our lives." ---Have You Been to Delphi



Okay, this is getting way too long and deep in the only way things at 4 a.m. can be deep-that is, immensely shallow by afternoon. Isn't that a thing? "True at first light, a lie by noon." Hemmingway, right? Not that he's a fellow I quote much;)

My material point is this: I love your posts tremendously, OnM, they make me think long rambling thoughts and don't drag as much as the Timaeus ;) Keep up the good work and let that evil clone out more often-he's loads of fun.

As for the whole Buffy/Faith Generation of Dawn Dream-Wiser minds than mine have answered in some detail, so I'll just quote a lyric, OnM-style:

it's memories that I'm stealing
but you're innocent when you dream...............Tom Waits


---Haecceity
Off to read even more Greek, if that's possible.
[> [> Pretty amazing yourself, Haecceity! To the printer I go! -- ponygirl, 06:30:32 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> Huh? I'm Mickey Mouse's dog??? Well, I... oh, wait, *Plato*. Never mind. -- OnM, 08:38:12 02/11/03 Tue

Thanks!

I have to admit that I've been surprised (in a very positive way, of course) by the response to this particular ep 'review', since while writing it I made a conscious effort to suggest that I really didn't have all that much to add to the discussion of the ep itself, and was really just making stuff up as I go, hoping to at least be entertaining.

Once again, this seems to offer substantial evidence that you can create something and not really know what it is until someone outside your own head takes it out for a drive.

Great stuff, Haecceity, and keep it coming, whatever the hour. It's 11AM-ish here, and it still makes sense to me.

:-)
[> [> 'kairos' -- Angela, 09:22:47 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> [> THAT was the term I was looking for! Thank You! -- Haecceity, 11:28:09 02/11/03 Tue

Had a VERY early start here this morning and wrote the above with minimal to microscopic consciousness. So imagine if you will my pacing up and down trying to figure out this term I wanted to use--the visual involves a "it's your best hair ever" 'do, Freudian slippers and a stumbling mumbling figure going "the Greeks have a word for it...they have a word for everything...but I don't have the word...just one lousy word...Why don't I have a Greek dictionary...Why don't I have a dictionary...it's got something to do with rhetoric...remember rhetoric class?..."
(at which point MY evil clone said "remember sleeping through rhetoric class?" Then she Bwa-ha-ha-ed and buggered off, leaving me to pace again, but now feeling guilty as re: class attendance, like, 6 years ago! Forget Joyce, my daemon's number one with the guilt trip!)

At any rate, the word I was looking for was Kairos. So THANK YOU Angela!
[> [> [> [> Re: -- Angela, 12:07:57 02/11/03 Tue

No problem. Blame Jung.

I was split-screened w/ your essay and one from another site that was quoting Jung defining 'kairos' and the quote...eerie twilight zone music plays in the background...
[> [> [> [> [> Good advice. When in doubt, blame Jung :) -- Haecceity, 13:58:07 02/11/03 Tue

"Sorry, Officer, but Jung said that to be in a situation with no way out is the beginning of the individuation process, and I want to grow."

Knew all that quotage would come in handy one day. ;)
[> very impressed & got stuff to say about it...but time isn't cooperating -- anom, 22:35:48 02/11/03 Tue

So I just wanted to get that on the record before the thread's pushed off by the new episodes! Bravo yet again, OnM!
Sociopolitical bloodletting (FUTURE AtS spec) -- KdS, 06:57:07 02/10/03 Mon

Would have added this to the AtS thread that got archived as I wrote this post:

In the aforementioned thread there was some debate about the possibility of a tragic end to the Wes/Fred/Gunn triangle. I must admit, I'm afraid that a violent end to one of the few matter-of-fact interracial relationships on TV might provoke an political eruption on a bigger scale than the DeadEvilLesbian business (unless Wes gets offed, but the opinion in the thread was that Fred or Gunn was more likely on grounds of artistic effectiveness). Anyone else worried?
[> Re: Sociopolitical bloodletting (FUTURE AtS spec) -- Tess, 07:11:54 02/10/03 Mon

I don't think they are going to off one of the cast characters, but I do think the days of the Fred/Gunn relationship are numbered.
[> Only read if you have seen the TRAILER for this week (trailer spoils) -- neaux, 08:07:57 02/10/03 Mon

well if you saw the trailer read below, if you haven't don't read further!!




TRAILER SPOILERS BEGIN HERE:
While the trailer could be a mislead, There is a scene with 2 characters digging what looks like a grave at night next to a tree. One of the characters is obviously GUNN.. I don't know of any other characters with silhouettes of Bald Heads.

So Yay! Gunn should live.

But I am suspecting the love triangle may come to an end, but I don't think any of the three characters in the triangle will die. or may I stress, I HOPE neither of these three die.

as for the interracial relationship, all is not lost. I would like to think Gunn and Gwen could hook up!! May my wishful thinking become a reality!
[> [> Re: Only read if you have seen the TRAILER for this week (trailer spoils) -- Arethusa, 08:32:41 02/10/03 Mon

Same warning-don't read if you don't want to know information from the trailer.













Right-that seems to be Gunn. But it looks like he's burying someone in secret, and the only person who'd have to be buried secretly is Lorne. Although it could be that it's daytime and he can't get anyone to conduct a funeral because of the city-wide panic.

There's another scene with Angel grabbing someone and banging his/her head very hard on the cage's bars. You can see who it is in slo-mo.
[> [> [> Wacky idea -- KdS, 08:40:36 02/10/03 Mon

Is it this grave scene that started all the character death rumours? Because if it is, maybe nobody's dying at all. Let's face it, Angelus hasn't shown himself to be of immediate use, the soul's walked, and nobody wants him hanging round the Hyperion being snarky - so why not take a leaf out of Connor's book from last year and stick the *^&% underground until he can be useful again (in a reinforced coffin and several loops of chain, naturally).
[> [> [> [> Re: Wacky idea -- Arethusa, 09:10:57 02/10/03 Mon

No, the voiceover for the trailer said someone was going to die. "Before it's over, someone will die. And there's an ending you can't miss." Bwahahha.

Heck, it could be the Beast who dies for all I know.
[> [> [> [> No, it's the voice-over (spoilers for 4.12 trailer) -- Masq, 09:12:10 02/10/03 Mon

During the trailer, the announcer says, "someone will die" or words to that effect.

And the spoiled people on the board have suggested they know who this person is.

Of course, they could be yanking our sweet, unspoiled chains! ; )
[> [> [> OK, let's stop this nonsense (no major spoilers, but confirming the 4.12 trailer v/o) -- cjl, 09:32:31 02/10/03 Mon

Yes, I'm a spoiler whore. So, in order to clear the air...

Somebody's definitely kicking the bucket in 4.12 (and not Justine's bucket, either). It's a major character. A lot of people will hate the events of 4.12, but on reflection, you'll wonder how you missed the signs...
[> [> [> [> It's not nonsense... ; ) -- Masq, 09:36:02 02/10/03 Mon

It's how we unspoiled people have our fun. You spoiler whores can go share spoilers in another thread! Let us speculate!

It's a grand old tradition in serial television.... ; )
[> [> [> [> [> I hope it's not ... No spoilers beyond the Trailer here, just my spec. -- Wolfhowl3, 09:40:37 02/10/03 Mon

Not Lorne, Don't kill Lorne!!!!!

He just got upgraded from Recurring Guest to Full cast, they can't kill him this quick!

I hope that it's going to be Cordy that gets killed, and even Vamped! I want Evil Cordy!

Wolfie
[> [> [> Are you sure he's... (spoilers for trailer) -- Masq, 09:59:31 02/10/03 Mon

burying somebody and not unburying somebody or something?

I guess we'll know Weds night, I just have to keep speculating here, or I'll start poking around other websites for spoilers.

And that's NO fun after the spoiling's been done!
[> [> [> [> Re: Are you sure he's... (spoilers for trailer) -- Arethusa, 10:21:47 02/10/03 Mon

They could be digging someone or something up. I'm overspeculating for the same reason: It keeps me out of trouble. Even episode reviews have spoilers now! And I'm enjoying this unspoiled season much more than last year's spoiled one. The downside-I'm reduced to watching the trailers in slo-mo, like some Oliver Stone conspiracy nut. Now that I think about it, BtVS did have a magic bullet, didn't it? ;o)
[> [> [> [> [> Trailers in slo-mo : ) -- Masq, 10:37:55 02/10/03 Mon

That's funny! I just did the same thing with the "Calvary" trailer about an hour ago! I think I know who's head is getting hit against the cell bars.

I did the same thing with the trailer before "Apocalypse Nowish". I remember we were all trying to figure out who was in bed with who. I did the slo-mo thing and figured out it was Connor and Cordelia, but didn't believe it was going to turn out to be a real event (maybe a dream or fantasy). And I swear to god I did NOT recognize that it was Lilah that Wesley was with in the trailer. It was the pig-tails and glasses. Who'd of thought that was Lilah!
[> Re: Sociopolitical bloodletting (FUTURE AtS spec) -- lunasea, 08:39:23 02/10/03 Mon

What is the WB's target audience? How many Afro-American shows do they have? Not really their audience. I wouldn't worry about a backlash. AtS hasn't been sucking up to the African American community like they had to the gay one.

Gunn is toast. I just can't wait to see how they write it. It has already been foreshadowed.

Besides Wes and Fred kiss better.
[> Re: Sociopolitical bloodletting -- Rahael, 09:07:17 02/10/03 Mon

This answer might not make any sense. Jetlagged. Slightly spaced out.

If there were to be a violent end, consistent with the Othello parallels (and that rider is pretty important to my reaction) there would be much spluttering from my corner. But muffled splutterings.

Violent and tragic and non-Othello like fine by me. Suspect that Othello parallels mean that it won't play out with Gunn destroying Fred in some way. Because you know, now that they've deliberately invoked it, more powerful to subvert it than play along with it.

PS - read Watchmen a week or so ago. Very interesting, and much provoking of thought. I like Sandman better. Would be interested in comparing notes at some point. Oh, and borrowing my next set - I loved the last three a lot.
[> [> Spoilers up to Soulless above -- Rahael, 09:09:47 02/10/03 Mon

[> [> Re: Sociopolitical bloodletting -- Arethusa, 09:26:13 02/10/03 Mon

And showing the tug-of-war over Fred would be more interesting for the characters than fighting over Fred's death. How would Lilah react if Fred actually became a serious threat? (Assuming Lilah returns, that is.)
[> [> Re: Sociopolitical bloodletting -- slain, 10:23:10 02/10/03 Mon

I haven't read KdS' post - still none the wiser about what FUTURE speculation means (does that mean future spoilers or just speculation about the future, which seems like a pleonasm*, as isn't all speculation about the future?).

But anyway my instinct is that they won't play out an Othello scenario, where it's specifically Gunn that loses Fred - I'd be very disappointed if they do, as they'd only be confirming what was established in the play (which I really don't like), that while Desdemona can love Othello, Othello isn't 'developed' enough to love her. It would be even worse if Wesley then got Fred - but, as that would be the equivalent of Willow running off with Xander after Tara's death, I really can't see that happening. M.E. don't like to have their stories limited by staying away from cliches, it's true - if a cliche fits the story, they use it. But if we look at the characters of Wes and Gunn - their race, education and upbringing aren't what's really important here.

They're very similar people - both are insecure about how they conform to their own stereotypes, for example. Wesley as the bookish, upper class Englishman with no real experience of life; Gunn as the streetwise but uneducated muscle. Both of them are insecure - they both need the validation of being champions, or at least of helping champions. Their clash at the moment is all about the ways that they're similar, not the ways that they're different; when they fight each other in 'Soulless' they're the same, fighting over a girl but neither of them really considering her opinions. The fact that Gunn accidentally hits Fred doesn't so much tip the scales in Wesley's favour, as level the field; both of them want Fred, because they're so similar that they love the same things about her. The tragedy here, and in this way we're coming back to 'Othello' I suppose, is that neither of them listens to what Fred has to say.

* What linguists have when they get really, really excited
[> [> [> KdS's post is safe to read :) -- Rahael, 10:50:23 02/10/03 Mon

Speculation only. I agree with all your points.
Some random thoughts (spoiler KIM & Souless) -- lunasea, 08:02:16 02/10/03 Mon

I did it. I actually went spoiler-free for AtS. It wasn't easy and I missed the boards, but it was worth it.

Here are my random thoughts that have been accumulating since I haven't been able to post for a few days.

1. The true tragedy of BtVS: When they turned Sid Vicious into Phil Collins (and not the cool Miami Vice/In the Air Phil Collins. We are talking the Disnified one), that is a true tragedy.

2. The Killer in Me was just stupid. It went against everything the series stands for. Fairy Tales are a common motif on the series, in that life ISN'T a fairy tale. The show takes genres, like fairy tales, and turns them on their head. In "Gingerbread" Hansel and Gretle are the BAD guys.

Then there is the arc of Buffy and Angel's relationship. The point where Buffy admits that she wants to see Angel involves a fairy tale. The line is significant enough that it appears on the artwork for the box set of S2:

This isn't some fairy tale. When I kiss you, you don't wake up from a deep sleep and live happily ever after.

My adorable husband, who isn't an irrational Buffy/Angel shipper, thinks that for BtVS to reverse their long standing position on fairy tales it is pretty significant. Gotta love foreshadowing. I just thought it was cheesy and even the shipper in me can't get beyond that.

3. Angelus is just as dissociative as Angel. Great continuity there. It was rather amusing to hear Angelus talk about how Angel blocks things out that he can't handle, like Angel is a different person/vampire. Then he asked what it was about the fantasy. The dynamics of his conversation with Wesley was wonderful. I look forward to reading the various spins on it.
[> What about Hush? -- Caroline, 09:12:16 02/10/03 Mon

In what I would call one of the best episodes in BtVS history, Buffy enacts the fairytale - she destroys the box, regains her voice and screams, thus destroying the Gentlemen.

Sometimes the writers don't necessarily subvert the fairytale if the theme or psychological dynamic of the fairytale fits with the story they are trying to tell us. Sometimes, the characters have to 'ask the right question', like the knight on the quest for the holy grail, in order to find the right solution and in doing so learn something valuable about themselves and their situation. Kennedy and Willow had to 'ask the right question'.
[> [> Re: What about Hush? -- lunasea, 09:56:05 02/10/03 Mon

Thus revealing Buffy's secret identity to Riley. There was a twist to that fairy tale. In the Fairy Tale it is a beautiful princess who saves the day.
[> [> [> Re: What about Hush? -- Caroline, 20:40:36 02/10/03 Mon

The fairytale was not subverted in Hush - it was acted out, with a remarkable weaving of the fairytale and the plot. Buffy, as the princess, saved the day as you mentioned. With the revelation of Riley's secret, there was no subversion of the tale but a plot development that fitted very symbolically with the fairytale. Buffy and Riley were keeping secrets. This was made manifest by the Gentlemen stealing the 'voices'. When the secrets of both were exposed in their fight against the Gentlemen, Riley destroyed the box that held the voices trapped and Buffy screamed - destroying the Gentlemen, restoring 'normalcy' to Sunnydale and restoring the voices that had been silenced by secrets. As Peggin, dream and I have stated, the fairytale and the plot development were integral and had a high level of symbolic symmetry in revealing psychological and emotional components of the characters and their development.
[> [> [> [> Re: What about Hush? -- lunasea, 07:38:31 02/11/03 Tue

As Peggin, dream and I have stated, the fairytale and the plot development were integral and had a high level of symbolic symmetry in revealing psychological and emotional components of the characters and their development.

As you believe. It is your interpretation and this is mine. I see the Fairy Tale context subverted in the same manner that Joss subverted the blond female victim in horror movies. I particularly liked what they did with Little Red Ridding Hood. I find the message not in the symmetry, but in the differences.

The subversion, in this case, was that Buffy knew what the scream would do and didn't do it out of fear. Do you think that the Princess was this way?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What about Hush? -- Darby, 08:09:20 02/11/03 Tue

I have to agree - in Hush several fairy-tale conventions were twisted, not the least of which was that there was no actual fairy tale behind the plot (so far as I know), unlike the other examples being discussed here. Hush hooked up the princess with Prince Charming, but he was barely adequate as a fighting minion when it came down to it - the princess defeats the bad guys. But when you think about it, isn't PC pretty much just the muscle in the tales, too?

I don't dispute the additional imagery of speech and silence and secrets and all that, but don't see how that ties into the fairy tale aspect - it's just more of the layers that one expects from a good Buffy ep.

And does anyone else see this as setting up the anti-"happily ever after" motif that took another year to play out?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What about Hush? -- Caroline, 08:39:18 02/11/03 Tue

So, I'll have to differ with you on this - I happen to see many connections between the symbolism of the tale and the plot. I also think that Riley was actually more adequate than the regular human beings were in fighting the Gentlemen (I'm going to have to watch that final fight scene again to make sure of this). I also remember Giles saying that the Princess in the fairytale saved the day - so not much of subversion there. What was telling about the happy ever after was that even after they regained their voices, Buffy and Riley sat across from each other and were silent. The fact that they couldn't speak to each other even after the silence/secrets symbolism was gone was indicative of their later break-up. (Too bad I didn't make that connection when I was watching - I thought it was bad that they couldn't talk but didn't connect it up to their subsequent breakup).
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What about Hush? -- lunasea, 08:50:59 02/11/03 Tue

but he was barely adequate as a fighting minion when it came down to it

I liked the look Buffy gave him when he smashed the wrong thing.

And does anyone else see this as setting up the anti-"happily ever after" motif that took another year to play out?

Me, Me, Me!!! (she says raising her hand and jumping up and down).

Why use the convention of the magic kiss now? We are all looking for Kennedy to die. It is too obvious. They have to be setting something up with this episode. I thought maybe some people would have some suggestions about what this is foreshadowing, besides the obvious.

Instead they want to defend the fairy tale.
[> Re: Some random thoughts (spoiler KIM & Souless) -- Peggin, 11:00:54 02/10/03 Mon

The Killer in Me was just stupid. It went against everything the series stands for. Fairy Tales are a common motif on the series, in that life ISN'T a fairy tale. The show takes genres, like fairy tales, and turns them on their head. In "Gingerbread" Hansel and Gretle are the BAD guys.

What are you talking about? Gingerbread specifically said, point blank, that fairy tales are real:

Giles: Uh, wait, wait a minute. Uh... Uh, there is a fringe theory held by a few folklorists that some regional stories have actual, um, very literal antecedents.

Buffy: And in some language that's English?

Oz: Fairy tales are real?

They are saying that, while the details might be wrong, the fairy tale itself had basis in fact. Hansel and Gretel were real -- or at least there were a lot of people throughout history who believed they were. Those people found two dead children and were led to believe that witches had killed them. They never saw the two children turn into the monster. Their account of a witch killing two children was a completely accurate account of the events as they had witnessed them.

Gingerbread suggests that fairy tales are based on real events, but that the details might be wrong. If there are stories where a spell is ended by a kiss, maybe the story has less than complete information as to *why* the kiss ended the spell. Nothing in that episode suggests that the event never happened or that no kiss ever ended a spell. In fact, the episode explicitly states just the opposite of that. The Killer in Me does not contradict anything in that episode even a little.
[> [> Re: Some random thoughts (spoiler KIM & Souless) -- lunasea, 12:32:13 02/10/03 Mon

Gingerbread said that our interpretation of fairy tales was wrong and childish/innocent. It took the innocent children of Hansel And Gretle and made them into the bad guy. It went along with the idea that people would grasp any explanation, no matter how implausible, for the strange goings on of the Hell Mouth. The parents were ready to demonize their own children in order to give their world order and security.

Since when do we get "And they lived Happily Ever After" on the show? I was really expecting that at the end in fancy script.

All the stories that ended with a Kiss, ended with a very specific type of kiss, the kiss of true love. Are we saying that Kennedy/Willow are in the Buffy/Angel category already? It wasn't the kiss the broke the spell, but love, in the stories.
[> [> [> Re: Some random thoughts (spoiler KIM & Souless) -- Peggin, 13:50:42 02/10/03 Mon

Gingerbread said that our interpretation of fairy tales was wrong and childish/innocent.

I'd call that a radical interpretation of the text.

The "reality" in Gingerbread was every bit as childish as the original fairy tale. Either way, it's still a tale of one being who was unquestionably a monster killing someone who was unquestionably innocent. The only difference between the two stories was who was the innocent and who was the monster.

If the writers had intended to tell us that the original interpretation was childish, then they would have needed to put *some* moral ambiguity into the "correct" version. They would have needed to make it questionable whether the people who were being burned as witches were really innocent of wrongdoing or whether the monster really was a monster. Just flipping around who was the monster and who was the innocent does not make the story any less childish.

All Gingerbread said was that fairy tales are based on reality, but sometimes they have been interpreted incorrectly.

The kiss had nothing to do with true love or happily ever after. Willow believed that even thinking about moving on without Tara meant forgetting that Tara had ever lived which, in her mind, was the same as killing Tara all over again. Because of Amy's hex, this feeling that she was killing Tara turned her into Tara's killer.

At the end of the episode, the #1 thing on Willow's mind was Tara. When Kennedy kissed her, it wasn't a "kiss of true love" and it didn't make Willow forget her grief. If anything, it was the opposite. The kiss didn't work to end the spell because it was true love, or even because it was a kiss. It worked because it made Willow realize that continuing to live and considering having a relationship with someone new didn't mean she had to stop loving Tara. When someone you love dies, you never forget them, and you never stop loving them, but that doesn't mean you have to give up the rest of your life to honor their memory. Willow can still love Tara, and will for the rest of her life, but that doesn't mean that continuing to live is a betrayal of Tara.

Maybe Willow could have gone to a psychiatrist and had a nice long therapy session that would have worked through the reasons why she had put this curse on herself, but that would have been boring. Kennedy's kiss did that in a moment, because rather than explaining to Willow that she could kiss other people and still retain her love for Tara, it *proved* it to her.

All the stories that ended with a Kiss, ended with a very specific type of kiss, the kiss of true love.

So, because the stories say it was true love, it must be true? Just because the story may have been based on real events does not mean that every detail was right. If Sleeping Beauty has any basis in fact, it could very well be that she was saved by CPR. Just like the story of Hansel and Gretel, the story was true, the details were wrong.
[> [> [> [> Re: Some random thoughts (spoiler KIM & Souless) -- lunasea, 16:38:36 02/10/03 Mon

The kiss of true love isn't some plot device. It is the point of the fairy tale. It isn't some detail. Without it, the whole thing becomes pretty meaningless.

And Willow didn't kiss Kennedy. Kennedy kissed Willow. Big diff.

Actually, in Gingerbread, it was a fear demon. It didn't kill anything. It fed off the fear and paranoia it created. Another big diff. At least it made me ask who was the monster, the demon or the parents. I didn't like how easily they were forgiven. They weren't under a spell, just egged on.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Some random thoughts (spoiler KIM & Souless) -- acesgirl, 17:34:04 02/10/03 Mon

"And Willow didn't kiss Kennedy. Kennedy kissed Willow. Big diff."

No, Kennedy initiated the kiss, but Willow kissed back. The kissing was mutual and I think it goes to illustrate Peggin's point that it wasn't the kiss itself that reversed the spell but, rather, Willow's willingness to accept the kiss.
[> [> [> [> [> [> So... -- Shiraz, 07:41:54 02/11/03 Tue

A some complete stranger, with no real understanding of what happened, or what's going on, was able, in the space of minutes, to get Willow to overcome a boatload of guilt and regret?

Very much not buying it.

Now if someone who knew and loved Tara, like Dawn for example, had triggered the spell's reversal through their own love of Willow I'd accept this explanation.

However, as it stands its a very poorly done cliche.


-Shiraz
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Some random thoughts (spoiler KIM & Souless) -- Peggin, 18:34:41 02/10/03 Mon

Actually, in Gingerbread, it was a fear demon. It didn't kill anything. It fed off the fear and paranoia it created. Another big diff. At least it made me ask who was the monster, the demon or the parents. I didn't like how easily they were forgiven. They weren't under a spell, just egged on.

How could you watch that and think that any of those people weren't under a spell. Forgetting for a moment that the shooting script is very clear on the fact that the "kids" had some kind of hold over all those grown-ups, well, as Buffy said to her mother, "Mom, dead people are talking to you. Do the math!"

Do you really think Joyce, in her right mind, took instructions from two children who she had seen *dead* and decided to kill her own daughter? Why would she be concerned about the "death" of two children who were sitting in her home talking to her? Joyce was sometimes a little clueless in the first couple of seasons, but I can't believe anyone would even suggest that she would do something like that while *not* under a spell.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Some random thoughts (spoiler KIM & Souless) -- lunasea, 07:57:40 02/11/03 Tue

These are the same people that believe that vampires are a gang on PCP or that they were all wandering around with pick-axes because of a gas leak. Snakes were all over the school because of a sewer back up. What about the guy that took his mother's birth control pills and went psycho? How many flimsy excuses are used on the show that people eat up?

That is exactly what the fear demon did. He gave the parents a flimsy excuse for something horrible and they ate it up, including Joyce. Joyce was particularly susceptible because as she says "Since when does it matter what I want? I wanted a normal, happy daughter. Instead I got a Slayer."

It happened in Salem, as the show points out. Parents turned in their children because it gave order and explanation to their world. Are you going to say that these parents were under an actual "spell?"

Look at the lynch-mob mentality that engulfs this country every times something happens. Angel explained what caused the hysteria. A spell was not required, beyond the demon hiding its true form. If the people were under a spell, it wouldn't have been genuine fear. What other fear demon has had to put a spell on people? Fear is pretty easy to get out of people.

Giles says: Some demons thrive by fostering hatred and,
and, uh, persecution amongst the mortal animals. Not by, not by destroying men, but by watching men destroy each other. Now, they feed us our darkest fear and turn peaceful communities into vigilantes.

No spell required. At the end, Willow's mom blocks out most of what happened. No spell required there either. Typical human reaction that Giles talks about S1.

If you dismiss the parents' actions by a "spell" it looses the extreme relevancy that show has to today. Then again, I want to set up a virtual torch store on the net because of how people react to the horrors we face.
[> [> [> [> Not all kisses actually "save the day, sometimes it's accidental. Snow White "Spoiler".*L -- Briar Rose, 02:37:54 02/11/03 Tue

In the non-Disneyfied version, the only reason why the Prince's kiss saves Snow White is because he knocks the bit of poisoned apple loose from her mouth with the kiss. If the Dwarves would have checked her mouth, the kiss wouldn't have been necessary at all.

Moral of the story is: True Love's Kiss didn't save Snowy, a happy accident during that kiss did.
[> [> [> [> [> Same thing with the real "Sleeping Beauty"... -- Peggin, 03:51:14 02/11/03 Tue

In the original Grimm's tales, Sleeping Beauty was going to wake up after 100 years no matter what; the prince just happened to show up and kiss her at the moment she was waking up.

The only place you're going to see "love's first kiss" is in the Disney versions, and, cute as some of the Disney movies are, most of them have only a surface resemblance to the original story. Most of them are watered down and "child proofed" versions of tales that were originally intended for adults and frequently rather gory. Imagine Disney showing the part at the end of Cinderella when a couple of birds came and pecked out the stepsisters' eyes for being so wicked.

Even the term "fairy tales" is a bad translation. The Grimm brothers called their collection of folk tales "Märchen", which just meant tales of wonder, or fantastic stories.

The only "fairy tale" I can think of where love actually did end the spell was Beauty and the Beast, and that was more of a fantasy novel than a true fairy tale. The Grimms' tales were folk tales that had been told by word of mouth for so many years nobody had any idea who had created the story or how the tales had come to be. Beauty and the Beast, OTOH, had an actual author and is not nearly as old as the Grimms' tales.
[> [> [> [> [> [> And for more on "Beauty and the Beast" and the differences between Disney & the real version... -- Rob, 09:06:59 02/11/03 Tue

...you can check out my lengthy essay at the Existential Scoobies here.

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And for more on "Beauty and the Beast" and the differences between Disney & the real version... -- lunasea, 09:35:31 02/11/03 Tue

I am aware that Disney cleans things up. I could also point out that when Fairy Tales were originally written true love wasn't really believed in. That is a more modern view that gets tacked on them.

However, I seriously doubt that Kennedy has seen or read anything but the Disney/modern versions. When she talks about Fairy Tales, she isn't talking the horrifying actual Grimm Brothers stuff. She is talking about how a kiss saved the day. She is talking about Sleeping Beauty and Snow White, the Disney versions.

Fairy tales and horror movies are about teaching people how to behave morally. Horror movies really are just an update to Fairy tales. No big revelation there.

However, what Joss does with them is. He takes these tales designed to get people to behave by scaring them and changes them into stories about empowerment. Little Red Riding Hood slays the Big Bad wolf with her ingenuity. The Princess screams, not out of fear, but to save the day. He uses the symbols and themes present in those tales, and turns them into relying on your self. He makes them into Anti-Fairy Tales. He turns Cinderella into Cinderelmo.

Willow didn't do this. Kennedy's comments about "bringing Willow back to life" did not ring right with me because the person empowered was Kennedy, not Willow. Her comment about "I am good" just made me go blech. I don't care about Kennedy or what she figures out. I used to care about Willow. I want to again. This show didn't help that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Fairy Tales and Morals: OMWF -- Rahael, 10:05:15 02/11/03 Tue

Another subverted fairy tale - Hans Christian Anderson's Red Shoes is about vanity and sin. How excessive love of a pair of beautiful red shoes (perhaps symbolising sexual immorality?) are worn to church and an angry angel reacts by making her dance and dance. In the end she has to cut off her feet before she can rest.

In OMWF the fairy is a demon. But he still brings hell and punishment and burning.

The person who halts Buffy's dance to the death is Spike, who is a symbol of dark sexuality. And the curtain falls on a kiss.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And for more on "Beauty and the Beast" and the differences between Disney & the real version... -- Arethusa, 10:55:54 02/11/03 Tue

Willow didn't do this. Kennedy's comments about "bringing Willow back to life" did not ring right with me because the person empowered was Kennedy, not Willow.

But it was Willow who was finally able to let go of Tara, to look forward and continue living. Willow's greatest barrier to growth/power was her inability to let herself feel the pain that change (and growth) brings. Kennedy was just the agent of that change; she didn't change or become more powerful.
[> [> [> [> [> Even more disturbing is another version of the story that implies necrophilia! -- Rob, 09:11:38 02/11/03 Tue

The Prince does not kiss Snow White, but falls so in love with her body that he has his guards lift the coffin and take her back to the castle. Umm...okay! While the casket is being ridden to the kingdom, somehow it hit a bump or fell, dislodging the errant piece of apple from her throat, and awakening her.

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Even more disturbing is another version of the story... That IS disturbing.*L -- Briar Rose, 17:02:47 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> [> Re: Some random thoughts (spoiler KIM & Souless) -- dream, 09:40:23 02/11/03 Tue

***All the stories that ended with a Kiss, ended with a very specific type of kiss, the kiss of true love.

True love - not such a hot concept with the Buffyverse. Lots of loves, all different, all equally true sounds more like it.

***It wasn't the kiss the broke the spell, but love, in the stories.

And here it's something closer to compassion, not "true love." I consider that in itself an interesting variation.

***Are we saying that Kennedy/Willow are in the Buffy/Angel category already?

Over-the-top, crazy melodramatic adolescent love? No, I think both Kennedy and Willow are way too mature for that now. I think they have a chance for something more meaningful ;) - I'm ducking & hiding now.

Sorry, just tweaking you a bit. I don't really think the show supports the idea of one true love, though. They are going for something a bit more complicated and, in my mind, more true. We love different people at different times in different ways and if we strive to be good, we will try to love them as truly as possible. Willow and Tara had a true love - and maybe Kennedy and Willow can have one, too. That's pretty subversive in itself, in a culture where people talk relentlessly about "the ONE" - as in, "I think s/he might be the ONE" or "I'm still looking for the ONE."

It's no accident that Kennedy fell for Scarlett O'Hara at five. Scarlett was, if we all remember, so obsessed with her idea of her one true love with Ashley Wilkes that she couldn't see Rhett in front of her. Kennedy clearly sees herself in a Rhett-like role (personality-wise, that fits.) Or maybe she sees herself coming in after the don't give a damn speech and convince Scarlett she has THREE true loves!
[> [> [> [> Re: Some random thoughts (spoiler KIM & Souless) -- lunasea, 11:58:25 02/11/03 Tue

True love - not such a hot concept with the Buffyverse. Lots of loves, all different, all equally true sounds more like it.

Interesting position seeing as practically every writer, including Joss himself, as well as the SMG have used this phrase when describing Buffy and Angel. True love caused Angel to loose his soul. (great twist on the Fairy Tale version. Didn't take anything but being with Buffy. It took a heck of a lot more with Cordy) Haven't seen it used for any other relationship, including Spuffy. The Ultimate Star Crossed lovers don't work if it isn't true love. S2-3 fall apart if they are just "Over-the-top, crazy melodramatic adolescent love."

Becoming and Graduation becomes really really really stupid. So does Pangs and Forever in later seasons. Even the placement of Angel in The Yoko Factor was significant. Why that episode? I like to ask that. They could have put that exchange anywhere. Then they place Five-by-five/Sanctuary in the appropriate place. Their placement wasn't important.

No, I think both Kennedy and Willow are way too mature for that now.

Willow remotely mature? Oz was great. He could handle her and made her a better person. Tara was a textbook example of co-dependency. OMWF put it so well.

And Kennedy it just a predator. I wouldn't call her mature either.


I will not say that ME believes in ONE true love, but they do believe in true love. It is interesting that there are all these new babies and engagements/marriages over at ME now. I do believe they believe that kind of love is special and rare. I love hearing Joss talk about Kai. I also think it would take a lot for them to write it again.

But now that we can have our crossover, maybe they won't have to write a new couple. They already wrote the perfect one. They just have to get them to uncross the stars, themselves, not with circumstances. :-D
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Some random thoughts (spoiler KIM & Souless) -- dream, 12:56:52 02/11/03 Tue

***I will not say that ME believes in ONE true love, but they do believe in true love.

Well, that's fair enough. I'm not saying that Angel and Buffy didn't have something special. But I think it was supposed to represent the type of love one often experiences with first love - gut-wrenching, passionate, hugely important in your development, but not necessarily the person to build a life with. Star-crossed lovers are usually young for a reason - at a certain level of maturity, you just won't go there with someone who is completely not possible for whatever reason. Or you'll work out a compromise. Generally, not very romantic. And I do think ME tries to emphasize the importance of more than one type of love in someone's life. If Buffy were given the choice to save Angel or Dawn, who do you think she would choose? My guess is Dawn, though you could certainly make an argument in the other direction. Willow's love for Tara didn't negate her love for Oz - or for Xander for that matter, and even if Kennedy turns out just to be a fling, it might be a positive, healing fling. Never underestimate the power of a good fling (defined as a casual relationship in which both parties understand the point is fun, not deep love).

I guess what irks me about the idea of true love is that I don't really think love is a noun. You don't find love, you make it (wait-that sounded wrong). You build it. I love my boyfriend. There are probably about one hundred other men in a five mile radius I could love just as much. But I don't. I love him - every day, even when he drives me nuts. I work at it sometimes, because that's what it requires. I am sure sometimes he has to work, probably quite hard, at loving me. I can be terribly unlovable. Does that mean we have true love? It's true as long as we keep working at making it true. Was it true for Buffy and Angel? Yes, once - but they've grown and changed. I can't imagine them wanting each other now, except as a fantasy, except for the ideal image they probably still carry of each other. I don't think that invalidates the depth of the feeling they had for each other in earlier seasons. What I liked best about that story, though, was that it didn't end with being star-crossed lovers. That would have ended the story at Becoming. Instead, they continued, and they got jealous, and avoided each other, and fought, and misunderstood each other and realized it wouldn't work despite the depth of feeling. What was opera became painful reality. What can I say? I'm a thirty-year old divorced woman - I tend toward the cynical.

Okay, the Willow maturity thing was just a bit of teasing on my part. I can't help it - I always found Angel annoying, so Buffy/Angel shippers tend to bring out the worst in me. Forgive.
[> [> [> [> [> [> What Boreanaz thinks about the subject. Spoilers for Truly, Madly, Deeply. -- Arethusa, 13:47:42 02/11/03 Tue

"For Angel, the love of his life is definitely Buffy," David notes. "But he's trying to become human again. You see, he lost his innocence early on. He never really got a chance to experience what it is to be a man. He lost that and he identified so much with Buffy because there are so many similarities. And she brought that out in him. Now that the shows have separated, I think that if you got the characters back together again there would be an interesting mix of how each one has developed, although the underlying love would always be there. That's very strong, and you can't take that away. So who knows how that would work out? If the shows were to somehow go back together (or if crossovers were to start up again), then that would be great for the audience. I know they would love to see that. But is it great for the characters? I don't know, because they've evolved and changed over time.

From Buffy the Vampire Slayer magazine, interview by John Reading.

Whedon has said much the same thing-Buffy and Angel have changed, and their relationship would change also. There's a lovely little British movie called Truly, Madly, Deeply. A young woman is shattered with grief when her boyfriend dies-and then he comes back as a fairly annoying ghost. She gradually realizes that she's been idealizing the relationship and their love wasn't a perfect love, and is final able to let go, and go on with her life.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't let go -- lunasea, 14:47:49 02/11/03 Tue

She gradually realizes that she's been idealizing the relationship and their love wasn't a perfect love, and is final able to let go, and go on with her life.

But it doesn't have to be that way. Why are there two options talked about? Every time my husband goes away, we both grow. When we get back together we get to become reacquainted. It is amazing. Our love changes, it grows even deeper.

We have seen how many relationships on the show deteriorate? This is one that we saw tragically end. What a beautiful message if they can find a way to make it work rather than just be friends.

I don't want to see Buffy/Angel because they are so romantic or I am a romantic. I think it is a stronger statement and makes the characters stronger. One level of strength is moving beyond it. I think it takes even more strength to make things work.

What Buffy said in Amends is almost word for word what the Spirit Guide told her in Intervention. She talks about the pain of love and she talks about strength. I don't see giving up or moving on as an option. Amends took the shows apart and since we will get our crossover, what better way to bring them back together, with each of them wanting to make amends to each other?

What stronger testament to her strength is there than this?

It isn't about romance. It is about strength. It isn't about power, but making yourself totally vulnerable to another.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Some random thoughts (spoiler KIM & Souless) -- lunasea, 14:29:28 02/11/03 Tue

Star-crossed lovers are usually young for a reason - at a certain level of maturity, you just won't go there with someone who is completely not possible for whatever reason.

But that is what I wonder what the writers are thinking about and where they are going. The theme for S5-7 is the message of the Spirit Guide. Turn love/pain into strength. We have seen her do that with Dawn (Lessons). We are seeing her doing with Spike (NLM on). We have seen her do it with Willow (STSP).

What has been the most love/pain Buffy has dealt with? I don't think Buffy/Angel or anyone are completely not possible. Instead it is a question of how much strength you can find to work things out. I want to see both heroes have that much strength. I don't want the stars to just uncross. I want Buffy and Angel to force them to uncross.

Some what Buffy to move on. I want her to find the strength to fight for what she wants. Same with Angel, since he is as much a character as she is now.

If Buffy were given the choice to save Angel or Dawn, who do you think she would choose?

Dawn in a heartbeat. It isn't about how she loves more. It is about Dawn being a young human girl full of potential and Angel isn't. I am not sure if Angel could live if Buffy choose him over Dawn. It would rip them apart.

[quote]You don't find love, you make it (wait-that sounded wrong). You build it.[/quote]

So why are you so dead set against Buffy and Angel doing this for themselves? They have extraordinary circumstances so there really aren't 100 other people for them.

[quote] Yes, once - but they've grown and changed. I can't imagine them wanting each other now, except as a fantasy, except for the ideal image they probably still carry of each other. [/quote]

My husband goes to sea for 3 months at a time. He comes home to find a different woman each time. Some of the changes he has discovered are more radical than even what Buffy has gone through. Does that mean that he doesn't want me any more? Same thing with him. I can see Buffy telling Angel that she has changed and Angel telling her that she hasn't; she has become the woman that he always knew she would grow into.

They saw each other's hearts. That is a constant. No one in the entire Buffyverse sees these characters as well as they do. They can even see each other better than they can themselves. I can't see them ever not wanting each other.

What can I say? I'm a thirty-year old divorced woman - I tend toward the cynical.

I am a 31 year old (born exactly 2 months later than David at the same hospital) happily married woman with 2 amazing children. I tend towards the paradox.

I forgive. Different people like different characters. I find Spike after S4 to be incredibly annoying. I want SID BACK!!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Some random thoughts (spoiler KIM & Souless) -- Caroline, 14:51:09 02/11/03 Tue

dream, I agree with what your interpretation of what ME is showing us. I think that ME even spoofed the melodramatic love that Buffy and Angel had for each other back in the day - I particularly remember in the Zeppo when Buffy and Angel were having a moment - tears, pain, anguish, rising soap opera music and the Xander comes in, the music stops, Buffy and Angel turn around, Xander realizes he's interrupting and as soon as he leaves, the music swells yet again, the tears and anguish return etc. My take on this is that ME built in the melodrama and almost extreme nature of that love, partly to show that it wasn't real. It showed such a high level of idealism in Buffy about love and I think that is why it is so hard for her now to let go control, to heal the old hurt and to learn to trust again. Many of us, like Buffy, have experienced the pain and loss of that pure, innocent and blind first love and find it difficult to move on from it. Thanks dream for putting it so well in your post.
[> [> Also, I think the point is -- dream, 12:37:59 02/10/03 Mon

that fairy tales and magic operate in the same way. They make emotional and psychological truths material. Kennedy realizes that by offering Willow emotional support in a physical form, she can help Willow take the emotional step she needs to take to break the physical effect of the spell. (Note that this is not supernaturally intuitive of her. Amy just handed her an enormous hint by telling her that the punishment was chosen by Willow's subconscious, and she also knows that the trigger of the spell was a kiss.) This idea - of magic making the psychological/spiritual/emotional manifest - has been at the heart of Buffy all along. I was surprised at how many people were bothered by the fairy tale line. Maybe the associations between "fairy tales" and "happily ever after" are just too strong. But, as I am sure everyone here knows, an awful lot of real fairy tales had pretty dark endings. (True, a good number ended in weddings and princes, but sometimes life has happy endings, too.)

I am reminded of what a college professor of mine said once (very distinguished, bushy white eyebrows, think Robertson Davies) when a student complained that a certain piece of writing wasn't "realistic." He looked out from under those eyebrows and said very sternly, "Of course it's not realistic. We don't want realism. We want something better than realism. We want fairy tales."
[> [> [> Gotta go with dream on this one. -- HonorH, 00:01:35 02/11/03 Tue

Joss has used fairy tale archetypes plenty of times on his show, but each time, they've been used with a twist. In this case, part of the twist was that it was a lesbian couple and thus about as un-Disney as you can get. Another part was that it wasn't "happily ever after"--Kennedy's kisses, and Willow's acceptance of them, signaled a transition in Willow's life, not a happy ending. There's no such thing as a happy ending when your lover has been murdered in front of you. But Willow can be happy again, and it doesn't mean betraying Tara. That's the message of the story.
[> [> [> [> Yes, isn't it nice.... -- dream, 05:37:30 02/11/03 Tue

that there's a show that can get accused of not being subversive enough when a lesbian kiss breaks a spell - because it plays too much into fairy-tale cliches? That's a good sign of progress!
Back to the beginning - the middle - and the recent past (Spoilers to KIM and silly spec) -- Silky, 07:51:24 02/10/03 Mon

Well-known future casting spoiler in paragraph 6. I try to stay unspoiled but I can see that it will be a challenge from now until May.

Joss told us S.7 would take us 'back to the beginning' and UPN advertised 'Sunnydale High reopens.' I waited for the humor and lightheartedness to reappear as well, having been mislead by the ME/UPN ploy. But, am I the only one who thinks S.7 is darker than S.6?

Anyway, we have been taken back to (reminded of) many of the events of earlier seasons. Sunnydale High, The First (Amends), the Initiative and Riley, Buffy killing Angel (Becoming II), Amy the bad witch, Willow's insecurity, Xander's lack of female companionship, Buffy's dedication to being slayer and her desire to protect her friends and Dawn. The Master, the Mayor, and Glory have yet to appear for more than a second, and the nerd trio never really disappeared. Dru returned as an apparition of the First, and Joyce has returned to Dawn and to Buffy in her dreams. I'm sure you all can think of many more examples. I hope Buffy doesn't have to return to the DMP!

So, what other people and events from Buffyverse past will return this season? It is what I am enjoying most because the retcon and revisionist histories and slow/strange pacing and not so great editing haven't enthralled me as Buffy episodes usually do. (Angel on the other hand - wow!)

It has occurred to me to wonder if Principle Wood has a connection to Mr. Trick.

Casting Spoiler Ahead!! And some non-serious speculation...

The regular press has indicated the ED will return as Faith - another blast from Buffy's past. I also wonder if Spike will find out now that it was Faith, in Buffy's body, who told him at the Bronze (in Who Are You) that she would 'squeeze him until he popped like warm champagne.' I hope so, because I think it will be a very funny moment if done correctly. Plus, as one of the people who liked the Buffy/Spike dynamic to a point, I was thinking a Spike and Faith interaction might be interesting....
[> Re: Well-known casting spoiler -- Rob, 09:15:47 02/10/03 Mon

"The regular press has indicated the ED will return as Faith - another blast from Buffy's past. I also wonder if Spike will find out now that it was Faith, in Buffy's body, who told him at the Bronze (in Who Are You) that she would 'squeeze him until he popped like warm champagne.' I hope so, because I think it will be a very funny moment if done correctly. Plus, as one of the people who liked the Buffy/Spike dynamic to a point, I was thinking a Spike and Faith interaction might be interesting...."

I'm actually most looking forward to the interaction between Faith and Willow. Willow, even before Faith went evil, was jealous of her and Buffy's relationship. Afterwards, she really hated her, and being kidnapped in "Choices" didn't help. Now that Will has grown and changed so much (and so has Faith), I think how they relate to each other now could be fascinating. I'm also eagerly awaiting some awkwardness between Xander and her, not to mention Buffy and her.

Rob
[> [> Re: Well-known casting spoiler -- Masq, 10:12:58 02/10/03 Mon

Personally, I'm waiting to see it finally revealed that Willow has always had a secret thing for Faith. Who was she really crying over in that bathroom after Xander admitted to sleeping with Faith?

You know that kind of steamy steaming hatred doesn't come from nowhere! ; )
[> [> [> Re: Well-known casting spoiler -- CW, 11:10:41 02/10/03 Mon

Maybe she was crying over both of them. She was confused about her sexuality, then. And darn it, they both left her out of all the fun. ;o)
[> [> [> [> ROFLMAO! -- Rob, 13:01:37 02/10/03 Mon

But I'm sure Faith would be up for it, if Will and Xander both happened to run into her that night. ;o)

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Oh, I just went to a scary visual place! ;- D -- Masq, 13:16:15 02/10/03 Mon

[> [> [> The inevitable embarrassing conversation near the end of S7 (well-known casting spoiler) -- cjl, 13:39:39 02/10/03 Mon

(Willow, Faith and Xander settle in on the Summers living room couch and have The Talk.)

FAITH: Wow. I had no idea.
WILLOW: Yeah. It was kinda intense.
XANDER: Will--you shoulda said something.
WILLOW: What was I gonna say, Xander? It's not like I could talk about this kind of thing with you. Or Buffy. Or anybody.
FAITH and XANDER: I had no idea you felt that strongly about me. (To each other) Hey! She wasn't talking about you! (To Willow) Which one us WERE you talking about?
WILLOW (springing off the couch): Kennedy! Hey sweetie, need help with those groceries?
[> [> [> [> Thanks for that: a chance to do a spell by myself -- pr10n, 14:09:20 02/10/03 Mon

[> [> [> Re: Well-known casting spoiler -- KdS, 15:33:34 02/10/03 Mon

Author: KdS
Subject: Wow, I thought I was the only would-be S7 Willow/Faith shipper
In reply to: Masq 's message, "Re: Well-known casting spoiler" on 15:11:48 02/10/03 Mon

Shall we call it Wraith?
[> [> [> [> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ;-) -- KdS, 15:41:01 02/10/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> What do you mean, Season 7??? (well-known casting spoiler0 -- Masq, 16:05:23 02/10/03 Mon

I was a Season 3 Willow/Faith shipper.

OK, actually I was one of those big Buffy/Faith shippers at the Bronze posting board during season 3, except for during The Wish/Doppelgangland when I became a vampWillow/Faith shipper.

Now I'm actually kind of a Kennedy/Willow shipper, but when Faith gets back, I might have to jump ship to...

Wraith!

Or is that Waith?

Fillow?
[> [> [> [> [> Willith -- Arethusa, 16:33:39 02/10/03 Mon

Kinda like Lilith, only Willowy.
[> [> [> Re: Well-known casting spoiler -- WickedBuffy, 17:38:23 02/10/03 Mon

Trying as hard as I can, really trying - but I still can't imagine absolutely *anyone* except Faith on Buffy. errrr with WITH dang it, it's just semantics!

Can't even see Spike in the picture!

... and what about poor Andrew? Who do people 'ship him with? (excluding Warren)
[> [> [> [> A 'ship for Andrew -- Masq, 18:36:16 02/10/03 Mon

In Potential, there is a scene where the potential slayers are getting ready to head out with Buffy and Spike to train. Andrew's whining because he doesn't get to go. They're all standing in the kitchen.

One of the potential slayers--Vi, I think, is just staring at Andrew like she's lost in thought.

And I swear I thought the next scene would be Buffy opening a closet and finding Andrew and Vi making out.
[> [> [> [> [> Hate to say it, but I'm becoming a Dawn/Andrew 'shipper! -- Rob, 19:56:57 02/10/03 Mon

I was also a Dawn/Horny Demon Boy from Hell's Bells shipper, but he never appeared again. Too bad.

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ewwww..... -- Masq, 20:12:26 02/10/03 Mon

Dawn could SOOO do better than Andrew. I kind of liked her with that vampire in "All the Way", but he could fit in an ashtray after the way he treated her on their date!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I know, I know, but I like their repartee... -- Rob, 20:40:03 02/10/03 Mon

...even though it mostly involves him saying something weird, and her either staring at him in consternation or threatening to swat him like a bug.

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sometimes that's how things start... -- Haecceity, 21:47:05 02/10/03 Mon

...when you're in high school. Remember that great line from "Bringing Up Baby" (Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant)?

'Cause I don't, exactly--but it goes something like "The love impulse frequently displays itself as conflict". And after the example of Amanda beating up boys she likes and Buffy beating up boys she likes...and all that Dawn picking on Andrew constantly...

Although personally I was beginning to wonder if they were foreshadowing her killing him;) Oh well, kiss or kill--a time-honoured theme in the Buffyverse.

---Haecceity
off to wash her eyes after reading all these dirty posts;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's scary, Rob, but.... -- WickedBuffy, 22:00:06 02/10/03 Mon

"even though it mostly involves him saying something weird, and her either staring at him in consternation or threatening to swat him like a bug."


I know several couples exactly like that. I kinda like the idea of them together just because I'm getting a bit bored with the same old-same old ones on the show. It doesn't sound interesting to me to imagine Warren and anyone, or Jonathan and Dawn - but Andrew and Dawn - sparks and nerdy oOoO
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Cordy and Xander anyone? -- Helen, 07:28:30 02/11/03 Tue

"I hate you!"

"I hate you!"

kiss kiss kiss.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Of course, the difference is... -- Rob, 07:36:45 02/11/03 Tue

....Cordy was all talk. I really do believe that Dawn would kill Andrew in a heartbeat. lol!

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Also, Xander was something resembling a normal human male. -- HonorH, 07:55:21 02/11/03 Tue

I don't think Andrew's quite decided yet.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I know, I know, but I like their repartee... -- slain, 10:46:13 02/11/03 Tue

Well, Andrew's both warm-blooded and breathing, so that's points in his favour. And it would be nice if he didn't conform to the obvious repressed-homosexual stereotype (sometimes I think Andrew is lost on the way to a Kevin Smith movie). They must be keeping him around for some reason - at the moment he's reprising Spike's role in Season 4 (bad guy tied to chair), but I think mostly he's there to reflect on Xander - we keep seeing instances of Xander saying something geeky in response to Andrew, then changing his mind and becoming very cold.

So I'm wondering if Andrew isn't there to highlight the way that Xander, like Willow in Season 6, has turned his back on his old self in pursuit of appearing more self-confident, but hasn't necessarily become happier and truer because of it. I expect, like Spike, whether or not we see Andrew mature depends on how the writers perceive the viewers to feel about him. And of course, if Andrew does mature, ala Spike, from bad guy to fully-rounded character, there's a reasonable possibility that he might end up falling for one of the Summers, too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Isn't there an orientation problem? -- TCH, 10:29:25 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> Re: A 'ship for Andrew -- Tyreseus, 21:48:20 02/10/03 Mon

Maybe they can bring back Scott Hope or Larry. (Whatever happened to Larry? Am I forgetting something or did he disappear after graduation?)

I could totally write a fanfic, though, about RJ (from "Him") and Andrew getting together after all of RJ's luck with women falls apart. They could discuss being "kinda evil" and RJ's eyelashes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Larry (possible spoiler for Graduation) -- WickedBuffy, 22:06:07 02/10/03 Mon

Didn't Larry get his neck snapped by The Mayor as Monster Demon during the High School graduation melee?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yep. -- HonorH, 00:06:15 02/11/03 Tue

Confirmed in "Smashed," when Willow tells Amy, "Number one, Larry's gay. Number two, Larry's dead."
[> [> [> [> I'm with you. -- HonorH, 00:04:58 02/11/03 Tue

Me, I'm hoping for a Buffy/Faith kiss before all is said and done. I mean, really: Faith wants Buffy so bad, and I think Buffy wants Faith more than she'd readily admit. They're just . . . hot!
[> [> Re: Well-known casting spoiler -- Cheryl, 19:57:06 02/10/03 Mon

I'm actually most looking forward to the interaction between Faith and Willow. Willow, even before Faith went evil, was jealous of her and Buffy's relationship. Afterwards, she really hated her, and being kidnapped in "Choices" didn't help. Now that Will has grown and changed so much (and so has Faith), I think how they relate to each other now could be fascinating. I'm also eagerly awaiting some awkwardness between Xander and her, not to mention Buffy and her.

I've always wanted to see a scene between Faith, Buffy, and Riley (or just Faith & Riley), but that's not likely to happen. One more disappointment in my life. :-(

Current board | More February 2003