February 2003 Archives

February 2003 posts

Previous February 2003
More February 2003

Putting the ARRRRgh in R&B (First Date Trailer Spoils only) -- neaux, 11:22:43 02/10/03 Mon

Well if you seen the trailer for the next Buffy, you know what I am talking about.

R & B singer turned Actress with a 'tude.

and from what I understand from the trailer she is a meanie.

So depending how many people on the board Know who Ashanti is.. She is an R&B Pop singer who has obviously taken the UPN Stairway to guest stardom.

I was wondering the opinion of the board on this choice of casting.

Is this a really good actress making her amazing debut on a great show or is this a blatant guest star role to bank on the african american woman who watches UPN Tuesday?

I'm hoping the episode is entertaining.. I just fear that maybe the writers are trying to do an Aliyaah turned Queen of the Damned.

Opinions?

[> If she's as good as the girl who played the Aprilbot, I'll take it. -- cjl, 11:42:40 02/10/03 Mon

I don't think we need an Emmy-worthy performance for this role. (Still, I hope Joss and Marti had at least one read-through to see if she could keep up with Nic Brendon.)

[> Not that I put much stock in their reviews, but... -- Rob, 11:55:30 02/10/03 Mon

...Ain't It Cool News gave the episode 4 stars, and was, I believe, their best reviewed ep since "Never Leave Me," so I have high hopes. These are the same people, though, who gave Conversations with Dead People 2 1/2 stars because it "wasn't funny enough," as well as to "Beneath You," for the same reason, so they're not always the best judges. I tend to disagree with their low-rated eps, and more or less agree with their high-rated eps. It is a good sign though that even such a snarky site as that didn't rip apart Ashanti's performance, 'cause you know that's the time of thing they'd normally love to attack.

Rob

[> (She) guest starred on Sabrina the Teenage Witch -- pr10n, 12:48:05 02/10/03 Mon

(I was watching with my kids, you know?)

Ashanti had a lot of presence and she held her own with Melissa Joan Hart (who of course is not teenaged but may be something of a witch...a).

Is she a Disney-machine star, a la Britney Spears? "Sabrina" is a Disney cog of long standing, but BtVS isn't -- as far as we know (cue malevolent organ chords).

[> [> Re: (She) guest starred on Sabrina the Teenage Witch -- neaux, 13:58:47 02/10/03 Mon

Date Posted: 13:43:56 02/10/03 Mon
Author: neaux
Subject: What is holding Ashanti back.. her ties with Murder Inc.
In reply to: pr10n 's message, "(She) guest starred on Sabrina the Teenage Witch" on 13:43:56 02/10/03 Mon

I don't know how many of you are hip to the rap game... But Ashanti is Murder Inc.'s signature songbird of the label.

Murder Inc. is a record label founded (from what I understand) by Irv Gotti, a man with ties to the drug world. Murder Inc. is currently under investigation by the F.B.I. for accusations that Irv Gotti founded the company with actual Drug Money on loan from a Drug Dealer. So, the F.B.I. raided the company about a month ago.

How does this relate to Ashanti? well she is the Biggest star except for maybe Ja Rule under the label company. Ja Rule has of course recorded with the likes of J-Lo and has many songs with Ashanti. The two are very much together in almost all accounts.

One of the biggest fears of Ashanti as a guest star would be that that Ja-Rule would appear as well...

Ja-Rule is the biggest joke currently in the rap game. Why? Jealousy of money maybe from going pop.. but more likely his desire to sing instead of rap.. a decision that has ruined his rap cred.

Currently, New Artist and top selling CD Rap Star this week 50 Cent released his new album which features major major major disses of Murder Inc and Ja Rule. To be honest, they are some of the funniest skits ever produced on a Rap CD since The Chronic with Dr. Dre.

So That's one of the reasons I feared Ashanti's performance. That somehow someway.. UPN reeled in the whole Murder Inc into Buffy. That would have made me cry.

[> I liked Aliyaah in Queen of the Damned -- Masq, 13:14:29 02/10/03 Mon

Of course, I didn't know who she was outside of that movie, and still have never heard anything she sang.

[> [> oh I do too -- neaux, 13:32:08 02/10/03 Mon

I might have phrased my sentence poorly,
I meant that I feared that the writers would be using Ashanti as a knock off role of Aliyaah in Queen of the Damned.

whereas, the writers would have seen the movie and therefore said.. "Hey I got a brilliant idea.. lets do the same thing on the small screen."

not downing Aliyaah.. other than I'm probably butchering the spelling of her name. :(

[> [> [> Re: oh I do too (speculation based on BtVS 7.14 trailer) -- Masq, 14:10:46 02/10/03 Mon

I don't know anything about Ashanti, but I got the impression that the character she will play in the ep is just a "pretty face" to attract Xander that then turns out to be the First Evil. The First Evil with a sense of humor.

As for Aliyaah, I have this perfect image in my head from "Queen of the damned" of her and the actor who played the King Consort sitting frozen on their thrones. It was a useful image to have because I just got done reading "Blood and Gold" by Anne Rice. Easy to picture what was going on in that book using images from that movie.

Just a bit o' Masq trivia for your Monday afternoon. : )

[> [> [> [> Masq... -- Rob, 22:05:05 02/10/03 Mon

Just wondering what you thought of "Blood and Gold." I was very into Anne Rice in high school (Actually, a hunger for more vampire mythology after I finished the first few books is what got me to turn on "Buffy" in the first place! And boy was that a different interpretation of vamps than she has!), but after reading the first 7 or 8 books in the series, grew a little tired of the repetition. But I've heard good things about the past few books, so I was thinking of starting up again. Was it worth it?

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Pardon me jumping in... -- Alvin, 03:03:45 02/11/03 Tue

But I just have to say that I think Rice is suffering from what I call Tom Clancy disease. An author comes along and has several good books in a row and they become immune to the editor. I mean, what are the odds that some editor will tell a big author like Rice or Clancy "You need to cut out about a third of the book. These scenes don't add anything to the story." Half of being a good writer is having someone able to point out flaws, and big authors have become such stars that the editors are unable to reign them in. I mean, the author's name alone is going to sell books so what control does the editor have?

[> [> [> [> [> For me, it's the characters -- Masq, 06:58:42 02/11/03 Tue

I don't read all of Rice, just the vampire series and some of the witch series (also enjoyed "Servant of the Bones". That was good). Her more historical stuff and erotica stuff doesn't interest me.

I was originally drawn in by Louis, who, other than Barnabas Collins, is one of the original tortured vampires with a conscience (Nick Knight post dates both of them). I liked Lestat as well, although I'm less impressed by flashy charasmatic vampires than dark broody ones (fill in the blanks about my preferences in the Buffyverse!).

I also love the characters of Marius and Armand. Marius is the main character in "Blood and Gold". And Alvin's right, Rice has stuff in there that just doesn't seem to add anything to the novel. Similarly ponderous is her "Merrick" a vampire/witch mythos combo novel.

But I read anyway, and other than the thick melodious prose, I think it's gotta be for the characters--their moral ambiguity, their sexual ambiguity, and the fact that each and every one of them apparently has a soul and conscience in tact and behaves according to his or her own personality and conscience and history.

I remember being a little disappointed with the Buffyverse vampire metaphysic at the beginning of the show. The idea that they were "possessed" by a demon and not the original person anymore made it seem kind of a cheat for those of us who want to see vampires struggle with their existence. Which is why, over the years, I've pushed hard to argue that Angel and Angelus are the same person. Otherwise, there's no angst.

And I gotta have angst!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: For me, it's the characters -- Rob, 07:32:33 02/11/03 Tue

"I remember being a little disappointed with the Buffyverse vampire metaphysic at the beginning of the show. The idea that they were "possessed" by a demon and not the original person anymore made it seem kind of a cheat for those of us who want to see vampires struggle with their existence. Which is why, over the years, I've pushed hard to argue that Angel and Angelus are the same person. Otherwise, there's no angst."

I agree! In fact, it took me quite a while to adjust to the Buffyverse concept of vamps, only for the show, once I got used to it, to eventually question that very concept and the reinsert the moral ambiguity itself! I loved Louis, too. I thought it was fascinating that he retained his human mind and morals after being vamped and was never able to separate himself from his humanity, as Lestat encouraged him to do. I grew to really like Lestat, as well, though, in "Tale of the Body Thief," where he was kind of knocked down a peg. I also read the first two Mayfair Witches books, which actually scared me a little where the vampire chronicles didn't. And like you, I also read "Servant of the Bones," which I liked a lot. And tried to read her historical novels, but just couldn't get interested. If I'm going to read melodrama, I want there to be some supernatural stuff in it, darn it! ;o)

Maybe I will go back to reading her again. I really did love the first 5 Vampire Chronicles. I think it's when she started the "New Tales of the Vampires" series that I started to lose interest, although I did like "The Vampire Armand." I know what you mean about not having a good editor. The pacing of "Pandora" and "Vittorio the Vampire" felt kind of off, and I didn't, by the end of the story, really get the point of reading it. By the end, they were just like her previous stories, and added little to the mythos. I find that in many cases where she tries to tell in more depth a story she told in short form in an earlier novel, it ends up actually not adding much more than what we already knew.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: For me, it's the characters -- Masq, 09:06:57 02/11/03 Tue

A lot of "Blood and Gold" is a retread of the Queen of the Damned, Pandora, and the Vampire Armand. But it does fill in the gaps between these eras of Marius' life and gives his point of view of the events previously told from his lovers' points of view.

I read it just because I like Marius, and it kept me reading full steam until the end.

"Merrick", which is a vampire/Mayfair Witches combination, is a little slow at the beginning, but does touch rather significantly on two characters I like, Louis and David Talbot. And it catches us up with what's going on with Lestat after the events of the Vampire Armand.

I guess I don't mind Anne Rice's retreading as much as others do, because I am one of those people who likes to inhabit a universe and keep in touch with what's going on with all the people I know in that universe. I see Anne Rice as creating a large canvas with all her novels, and filling in blanks over here and over there, and of course showing bits she's already shown in the process to do that. But in the end you get this big, huge, magnificent picture.

Not unlike the Buffyverse and all its incarnations, past, present, and hopefully, future.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: -- Angela, 09:52:36 02/11/03 Tue

Marius is Ben's favorite character from the movie for his dialogue: Hellllo, David. The ambiguous sexuality (the little of it there was) went right over his head and of course, the old ones stuff was unintelligible (I diss not the movie though I love it). I'm a Lestat fan in the books (plenty of angst) and a fan of the actor who played the character named Lestat in the movie. ;-)

People kept trying to get me to read the books but I'm very resistant to "suggested" books soooo Lestat followed Jean Claude who is mixed in with but probably followed Angel on Buffy. BTB Have you read Rice's most recent? This was to intro a new vamp, I think, and bring Lestat in also. And how do you feel about Louis's increased powers? (I seem to remember he got stronger (Merrick?) which is kind of awkward w/ the whole damsel part although not the angst part, of course.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Blackwood Farm? -- Masq, 10:06:56 02/11/03 Tue

No, I haven't. I think I got turned off by the description of the weird "goblin" part of the plot. Anne Rice always gets kind of too out there for me when she strays from the vampires and witches into monstery stuff. I couldn't get through Ramses the Damned, and I put off reading Servent of the Bones until I was stuck in Heathrow airport and bored as sin. I liked the Body Thief guy, but Rice was veering seriously close to Jumping the Shark on that one. She managed to pull it off somehow, though.

As for Louis' new powers, I guess that's another reason I'm putting off reading Blackwood Farm. Louis was force-fed his increased powers, not by choice, and not really by Merrick, David, and Lestat. He was force-fed his new powers by Anne Rice, probably so she could take the character in a new direction. I'm all for keeping a character interesting, but tell me--is Louis still interesting, or is he becoming corrupted by his increased power?

[> Re: Putting the ARRRRgh in R&B (First Date Trailer Spoils only) -- grifter, 15:51:52 02/10/03 Mon

She actually was ok.
Nothing memorable, but then her role wasn't meant to be either.
Wouldn't recommend switching careers though(but I've never heard her songs, so I'm not one to judge).

[> Think it's more like the male demo lookin' for hot women in leather studded THONGS.*L -- Briar Rose, 02:17:47 02/11/03 Tue

Quick note to Briar Rose on Buffyverse Wicca -- WickedSlowTyper, 16:54:22 02/10/03 Mon

Wow, I was replying to your post on the front board, and when I went to post it, it had already been teleported to the archives! Not sure how to get hold of you, so here, I wanted to make sure you saw my appreciation for your input.

my post:

Heya, I appreciate you setting me straight about the Buffyverse twists on Wicca. They use the word so much, and refer to it that I thought they knew what they were talking about. Then I'd get confused when it didn't line up with what I'd experienced or heard.

Don't mean to get into an argument about the Wiccan Rede or if it's a religion or a spirituality, though. It seems kind of odd that it's such a basic part of the show and they don't have a consultant or advisor correcting these things? Y'know, like they do on medical or police shows.

The inconsistencies just pop up out of nowhere and startle me out of the Buffyverse for a moment when it happens, and I HATE that! I want to be totally immersed in it, uninterrupted for the whole show.

[> Re: Quick note to Briar Rose on Buffyverse Wicca -- Jean, 19:58:07 02/10/03 Mon

In all truth on BtVS willow does not follow wiccan. She follows what would be closer to Witchcraft. I know most of you think they are the same but they are very different. Witchcraft has no threefold law or Creed that they most follow this is shown in I think "wild at heart" where Willow begins to curse Oz and Veruca. Wiccans will not curse the believe it will come back on them times three(hence threefold law). There is more like Willow continual reference to magick as the "black" or "dark" arts. Wiccans believe that magick has no true nature just what that witch wants. But truly the only thing in common is that followers of both wiccan and witchcraft is they call themselves witches. Any questions or comments and most importantly criticism is welcomed please e-mail me.

[> WST... It's a big hang up with me too. Finn & Jean are also right.... -- Briar Rose, 02:01:11 02/11/03 Tue

I cringe every time the word Wicca is used in the BtVS script when they should have used Witch/Witchcraft and have from day one. The spells and rituals are close enough in a vague "Pan Witchcraft" way - but no banana.*L As I said, if I hear one more mention of Lavender for a scrying ritual when the uses for lavendar are normally for healing, love and spiritual blessings/psychic protection I will literally spew Pepsi through my nostrils. And don't get me started with Yarrow for a forgetting spell, when they called it something else entirely.*L

I will readily admit that it HAS taken away from my enjoyment of the show. I get a little ticked when any group is maligned by their beliefs being misrepresented in such a way that the uninformed could use it as a way to start another Burning Time. My only way around it has always been to fill in the word "Witch" and hold my breath for a moment until I can move on and get past the gaffe.

I believe the last "count" that was made by The Witches Anti-defamation League (yes there is one!) was something like 120 different "confirmed" Earthbased/Pagan/Witchcraft related theologies that function as religions, this isn't even counting different "Family Traditions", only groups that have set places of worship, have applied for tax exempt status and signed up for enough financial grants or advertising that they are KNOWN and countable.

Wicca is not the same as any other Witchcraft theology/religion. And most Witchcraft traditions are not the same as each other either. Some are based on cultural differences and deities, some are mixtures of other religions. Like Wicca is.

Anyone can call themselves a "Witch" and be of any theology or a combination of theologies - and the most widely spread group of Witches are "Lone Practitioners" and many of those are "Family Tradition." Not all Wiccans call themselves Witches either.

When I started asking around about WHO ME was going to for their information on Witchcraft (what they were calling "Wicca" and I knew was definitely NOT Wicca) and I learned that they hadn't been working with Panpipes Magickal Marketplace and their staff I stopped trying to figure out where they were getting their information from, because it definitely isn't from one of the most respected and widely used resources.

From my (very limited admittedly) exposure to "Magick: The Game" and "Dungeons and Dragons"... I would say it's much closer to those ideas than anything "real world" in the widespread Magick Community. I never got into the whole "Magick..."/"D&D" thing because I have been practicing Witchcraft almost all my life and the ideas they had were so far off I couldn't get into it.

The Wiccan Rede (Thanks for that spelling, Jean 'cause it didn't look right, so I misspelled it Reed) is way different than most Witchcraft religions'... But I will add that "First Harm None" is part or whole of almost all Witchcraft Traditions, it just is said in many different ways. The Hippocratic Oath was based on the Witta [Wit'ah: meaning Wise, one who is using the ways of the Wise - feminine, European](Not WICCA!!!!! No relation) "by law" of First Harm None that was posted over all the apothecary shops through out Europe and the UK long before there was an actual "Medical Field." The local medic was a Witch, one who understood the strains, uses and mixtures of herbs and other plants to heal.

Somewhere I have a LONG document I wrote up with research on the root of Witch and what it means and what the traditions came from. But I won't bore you with that either.*L

Willow's spells (again): control, power, understanding, awareness -- anom, 21:03:10 02/10/03 Mon

[I think my curse has changed. I don't seem to get bounced from chat anywhere near as often as I used to (hope I haven't just called that one back down on myself...); on the other hand, lately I've had a high rate of working long & hard on a post only to have the thread archived when I try to send it. (& yes, I do refresh the board shortly before to make sure the thread's still there!)

This post was intended as a reply to one of manwitch's posts in jenni's thread addressed to frisby & several other posters. I was thinking of asking Masq to bring the thread back, but that never lasts long, so I'm just gonna post it separately--see if it lasts any longer as its own thread. At least this way it can't disappear before I post it!]

"In SB, Willow performed a spell to have her will done. It worked. Someone will have to explain to me why it should be thought of as unsuccessful, because it seems plain as day to me that the spell worked."

Well, I'd say it went wrong. Not sure that's the same as being unsuccessful. Or maybe it's more that once she'd performed the spell, Willow didn't know to use the results.

"So one could argue that she lacked the expertise to know what the spell really was that she was performing, or how it would work her will, or how to recognize that it had worked, and therefore her use of an otherwise successful spell shows a lack of experience, understanding and control. I'm again saying that it shouldn't be assumed. And it still doesn't reflect on her ability or power to do the spell. It reflects on her understanding and awareness of what the spell is."

I agree. I thought I remembered that spell as including something like "Whatever I bring all my passion to bear on, may it come to be." But that's not what I found in Psyche's transcript:

"Willow: Harken all ye elements, I summon thee now. (She drops something into the bowl/pentacle in front of her.) Control the outside, control within. Land and sea, fire and wind. Out of my passions, a web be spun. From this eve forth, my will be done. So mote it be."

Whether I remembered it wrong or Psyche's transcriber saw an incomplete version--can anyone w/a tape of the episode as it was originally broadcast ('cause we know stuff gets cut in the reruns) confirm this?--it's certainly played that way once the spell is cast. When Willow says, "It is my will that my heart be healed. Now," she says it kinda flatly. No passion. And nothing happens. Same w/the book not speaking its words, & the Q-Tip not getting...unbendy. She seems forlorn & deflated. There's nothing behind her will, & it doesn't get done.

It's not till her friends come by & aren't sympathetic enough--can't stay with her, don't give her slack for responsibilities she's let slide, defend her other friends, or even try to comfort her when she doesn't want to hear it--that we see any strong emotion in her. When she gets upset, there's passion in the things she says. And they come true.

An aside: ME may be stretching things here; when Willow tells Giles "You don't see anything," is she really willing that to happen? Or when she tells Xander "You're a demon magnet"? I don't think that's her will being done; it's the way she sees things, unlike the case w/Buffy's finding Spike right away & their getting married.

OK, back on topic. Yes, the spell worked. Willow certainly had power. But she didn't know how to exercise it. Did she have control? "Control the outside, control within." There are 2 possible meanings of "control." In the sense that what Willow says (w/enough passion) happens, she does control what's going on. In the sense of controlling how the spell works & how she's using it, she doesn't. Control of the outside, yes; control within...I'd say nope, despite the words of the spell. When she tries to use the spell, she shows that she doesn't have an adequate understanding of how it works. She doesn't realize her passion has to be behind her will for it to be done. And when the passion is there, Willow isn't thinking of the spell when she says the words that cause enough chaos to draw D'Hoffryn's attention. She doesn't have any awareness that what she's saying is taking effect through the spell; she certainly doesn't intend it to. Control, power, understanding, awareness...all are necessary to do magic right. Willow has the power, all right...it's the other things she's been lacking. When she's more focused & has all 4, her magic works better.

[> Are we talking about REAL spells here or spells as outlined by the Buffy-Verse? -- Briar Rose (The Vocal Witch*L), 02:10:56 02/11/03 Tue

I could go into a long and drawn out explanation of the why's, how's, what's and when's (Let alone Who's and Where's*L) that are different between REAL magickal practice and Buffy-verse magick - but I won't unless the discussion is actually about that.

(Man I need spellcheck!)

[> [> strictly buffyverse -- anom, 08:58:49 02/11/03 Tue

My post was originally intended to be part of jenni's thread (which I only had time to read half of), which developed a subthread on how to assess the effectiveness of Willow's spells, in which I was replying to a post by Manwich--uh, sorry, manwitch.

However, since this is now a new thread, maybe a (not-too-long?) comparison of Buffyverse <=> realverse magic/k would be relevant, if you don't think it belongs in WST's thread (the one starting w/the "quick note" to you).

"(Man I need spellcheck!)"

"Spell"check? Hey--that's what Willow needs!

Willow's function in Btvs's narrative structure (Spoilers up to KIM) -- shadowkat, 09:14:29 02/11/03 Tue

First off you would not believe the computer hell I went through to get this baby posted. I wrote it yesterday, a glitch in my windows system ended up locking me out of winword so that I almost lost the essay and all my other word files. Can we say panic? I emailed and called tech support, who finally gave me simple solution this morning. The emailed solution was incredibly complex - 17 pages worth, the phone solution simple - and voila I didn't lose my 14 page essay after all. It would have been posted yesterday afternoon if it weren't for these problems. ( Oh and the Aimee Mann concert I went to last night - and yes she played excellent renditions of This is How it Goes, Pavlov's Bell, Invisible Ink, Wise Up, Save Me, and Sweet Home Alabama. )

Anyways hope this baby was worth the effort and doesn't read like redundant goobley-gook.

INTRO:
Willow's function in Btvs: The Best Friend

With all the negative Willow posts on the boards this year, I thought it might be interesting to re-examine what Willow's role is in Buffy Universe and compare that role to other similar characters in fiction and mass media. If Xander falls into the side-kick role then Willow is the "best friend".

What is the function of the "best friend" in a narrative work?

The best friend not to be confused with the side-kick, is often the hero's confidante and contrasted with the hero or heroine in appearance, fashion, skills, actions, desires, etc. Everything the hero is - the best friend is the opposite of, except of course in two important areas: if the hero is a man, the best friend is a man. If it's a heroine, then the best friend is a woman. And of course the "best friend" like the hero/heroine is NOT evil, they strive to do good as well, even if they often are not as successful as the heroine is at accomplishing this task.

Why the best friend should be the same gender? The reason for this - is to visually contrast the two characters. The best friend will often start below the heroine in some fashion, and this is best displayed if they are the same gender, it also helps that there's no romantic attraction, although in the case of both Xena: Warrior Princess (the romantic attraction between Gabrielle and Xena) and in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Willow's discovery that she's gay in later seasons) this may not always be the case.

The best friend contrasted with the sidekick: In Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Btvs) the side-kick is Xander. In Xena Warrior Princess (Xena) - it was Joxer. The side-kick is often the comic relief, the person who clumsily aids the hero, but and a huge but here - if a "best-friend" character is in the show, the side-kick will rarely be the hero's confidante, oh the heroine/hero will occasionally confide in the sidekick, but never entirely - partly due to the fact that side-kick has a crush on the hero themselves - so is unlikely to be much help in the romantic department. (Side-kick can also be one of heroine's closest friends, but does not act in the same role as the best friend in the narrative structure of the work.) Examples include the female reporter character in Smallville, who has a crush on Clark Kent, and is jealous of Clark's love interest. Joxer in the Xena series, who starts out with a crush on Xena and gradually forms one on Xena's best friend - Gabrielle. When the side-kick and the hero/heroine are of the same gender or there is no sexual tension on either side, then you can have a combination of Side-Kick/Best Friend, which is the case with Batman and Robin. But this is rare with a six character cast. In Star Trek - Spock was Kirk's best friend, the one Kirk often confided in and discussed problems with, but he wasn't really a side-kick.

The Best Friend -is the person the heroine confides their romantic woes to, whose shoulder they'll often cry on, and often acts as a mirror for their mistakes. The best friend may even be a case of the old adage "but for the grace of god go I" in that whatever happens to the heroine the opposite happens to the best friend. Their behavior and paths are often the polar opposites of each other. Example: Lex Luther in Smallville, has money, a horrible relationship with his father, and almost no friends - Clark has several friends, a warm loving relationship with his father, and little money. In Btvs: Willow is introduced as the wallflower, the girl no one sees, the intellectual, she who spends all her time with books, while Buffy barely reads, prefers athletic pursuits, and everyone notices her. Buffy isn't afraid to flaunt her body, Willow, by comparison, seeks to hide hers. In the unseen pilot, Willow was played by a heavyset actress. Hannigan who was later cast in the role of Willow, is dressed in frumpy, oddly colored clothes and made to look geeky in contrast to Buffy's trend-setting leather jackets, Jackie O coats, short skirts and sex-appeal. Also Buffy is all about athletics and high kicks and physicality while Willow is completely mental, relying one her brains and often not even noticing what she's wearing. (EX: Willow to Buffy in Wild at Heart (S4 Btvs)"Why didn't you tell me I looked like a Christmas Tree in this shirt?", Buffy responds: "I thought that was what you were going for.")

In ordinary fictional works - we often have the heroine in the failed marriage rushing to her best friend's door, or the hero calling his best friend for advice. In Gothic genre's the best friend is either the individual who gets killed instead of the hero/heroine or becomes seduced to the dark path or is the Judas Isacariot/Benedict Arnold character. In Martin Sorcese's controversial The Last Temptation of Christ or Andrew Lloyd Webber/Tim Rice's Jesus Christ Superstar - Judas is depicted as Christ's best friend and betrayer. Judas takes the opposite path from Christ and ends up in a hell of his own making, selling his soul, while Christ sacrifices himself for the world and goes into heaven. A combination of envy, hero-worship, sympathy, and love all wrapped up in one. Benedict Arnold in some fictional renderings of George Washington's biography is depicted as Washington's close friend and betrayer. While Washington becomes the First President of the US, Benedict Arnold goes into exile. In The Gothic novels such as Dracula, Mina Harker's best friend and confidant, Lucy, is turned into a vampire by Dracula. ( A vampire who feeds on small children.) Mina just barely escapes Lucy's fate - but through Lucy sees what may have been. In Smallville - Clark Kent gets to become Superman and Lex Luther gets to become well Lex Luther - the evil genius who tries to destroy the world. And in Btvs, Buffy gets to become the chosen one who sacrifices herself so the world can live and Willow becomes DarkWillow, the witch who tries to destroy the world so she can end its suffering. (More on that contrast later.)

But the best friend's fate is not always a tragic one. In some cases the best friend has it easier than the heroine, while the heroine is unlucky in love, the best friend has long-lasting relationships. Or while the heroine is put in the position of saving everyone, the best friend plays the damsel. Willow in Seasons 1-2 often is placed in the position of damsel, whom Buffy must save. In Seasons 3-6 - Willow has the long-lasting, sweet relationships, while Buffy's love life is filled with conflict and angst.

In Buffy The Vampire Slayer - Willow fulfills the function of "best friend" - the writers deliberately contrast and/or parallel Willow's path with Buffy's, using her to either place greater emphasis on Buffy's woes or on Buffy's privileges. It is also through Willow, as is often the case with the best friend, that Buffy comes to realizations about herself and her own journey.

As the heroine's best friend, Willow also serves as a guidepost for the audience. The majority of the audience can't really identify with the Buffys of the world - we aren't popular, we aren't athletic, we don't consider ourselves pretty, the guys don't fall over themselves for our attention, we aren't the hero or the Homecoming queens - so the writers give us a sort of placeholder in the best friend to identify with. Through Willow, we, the audience, are vicariously Buffy's best friend. It is to Btvs' credit that Willow has not become a Mary Sue and that she fulfills the other functions of best friend as detailed in the sections below.

In conclusion, Best Friends can function, nemesis, represent another angel of the hero. Towards the beginning of the series, before her friendship with Buffy truly develops, Willow functions as a damsel (explained in Part I). Once the friendship develops and the series moves forward, Willow begins to take on other roles as the best friend in the narrative structure, such as confidant and rival. (See Part II). Then finally, this being a gothic horror series, she moves into the category of nemesis, Willow's choices are sharply contrasted with Buffy's. (See Part III) Through these stages the best friend can often teach the heroine things about herself. Instead of turning Buffy evil - you turn the "best friend" evil briefly. Instead of making Buffy explore a sexual relationship with the side-kick or a close childhood friend she always had a crush on and experience the negative repercussions of that choice, Willow does. This way, you protect your heroine from a negative image. Willow takes it on instead. Through the best friend, you can often depict the paths the hero shouldn't take, what the hero shouldn't do and the struggle going on within the hero. You can also do the opposite, through the best friend - you can show the path that the hero should have taken and how a stable relationship may have worked for the hero.

TBC - four parts...SK
(PS- This Hacceity is a long post. It has to be at least four parts long to qualify.;-) )

[> I. Willow as Damsel (Season 1 Btvs spoilers only) -- s'kat, 09:18:13 02/11/03 Tue

I. Willow as the damsel

In Season 1 Btvs - Willow is the damsel. She is the reason that Buffy fights her fight and more importantly, she gives us, the audience, an initial reason to identify with and like Buffy. In Welcome to the Hellmouth, Buffy is fighting her calling. She wants to go back to what she was prior to becoming the slayer. The cheerleader, Miss Popularity, who was surrounded by friends and knew the right clothes to wear, and the right things to say, basically the carbon copy of Cordelia Chase and other "popular" girls depicted in the series Popular, Clueless, etc. But she meets Willow, the antithesis of everything she used to be. Willow wears the wrong clothes, has the wrong hair, says the wrong things, is attempting to be invisible but stands out, and no guy in his right mind wants her when Cordy or Buffy is in the room. Buffy first meets Willow outside the library, Cordelia has just asked if Willow's look is the "softer side of Sears". Instead of echoing Cordy's criticism, Buffy befriends Willow, asks Willow if she can help her catch up in her classes and where the Library is so she can get books. Cordelia criticizes Buffy for her friendship with Willow - stating, "hate to disrupt your downward mobility." Willow offers to fix things by disappearing, but Buffy turns her down, asking to be Willow's friend. Buffy's first act is to give up popularity by befriending the underdog.

Throughout Welcome to The Hellmouth, Buffy is resisting her calling as slayer. No one can convince her to embrace it, not Giles and not Angel. Willow does. When Giles attempts to convince her that she has no choice, it is Willow that convinces her to actually pursue it. Willow - who has gotten herself in danger due to Buffy's encouragement, Buffy told Willow moments before "to seize the day" with the first guy who flirted with her. To flirt back. Unfortunately that guy turns out to be a vampire. And Buffy is forced to embrace her calling to save Willow. This scene is echoed in the final episode of Season 1, Prophecy Girl, where once again Buffy is questioning her calling and refuses to be the slayer in the prophecy, turns down both Giles and Angel. It is Willow who changes her mind. Buffy's all prepared to nix the whole thing, when Willow calls her and tells her about her traumatic experience finding the bodies in the student lounge. While comforting Willow, Buffy realizes her calling, that she alone can stop the vampires and that she can't run away. Willow is too weak to fight them, but Buffy can fight for them both.

TBC.......

SK

[> Part II: Willow's Romantic Life Contrasted With Buffy's (Spoilers to S6 Btvs) -- shadowkat, 09:22:29 02/11/03 Tue

II. Willow's romantic rivalry with Buffy, contrast in love-lives
(Okay so I'm bad at titling things...)

A. Xander/Willow/Buffy Love Triangle - the Best Friend's Crush

The Best Friend often has a crush on the side-kick who in turn has a crush on the heroine. Through Willow - the writers explore what it's like to be attracted to a boy and not have him interested in you. They can't do it believably with the heroine, so they do it with the best friend. The Best Friend will often have the polar opposite path from the heroine's - if it will serve in some way to emphasize a thematic point about the heroine's journey. Buffy, being the heroine, indirectly chastises and rejects Xander for not returning Willow's feelings. The fact Xander has feelings for Buffy, makes her rejection of him ironic and fitting.

In Witch when Xander works up the courage to discuss his feelings with Buffy, she tells him before he can get a word out, that he's like one of the girls to her. Just two scenes prior to this, Xander had told poor Willow that she's just like one of the guys.

Later in The Pack, when Xander crushes Willow, telling her that she means zip to him, Buffy rejects him, letting him know what an ass he is for treating Willow in this manner.
Part of the reason, Buffy never goes for Xander in High School - may very well be her close friendship with Willow. But from a writing perspective - I think it is used as a contrast, Willow gets to have the unrequited crush and when it finally comes to a climax in Lover's Walk, Season 3, Willow pays the price for it, but not as powerful a price as Xander, who is punished for not seeing Willow until now. Buffy learns from Willow's experience, not to engage in sex with friends or even go there. Something she conveys to Faith much later in Bad Girls, when Faith asks if she's ever "done it" with Xander. Buffy states quite clearly -" no, I've found that doesn't work well with friends". In Lover's Walk - Xander/Willow's brief make out scene costs Xander - Cordelia and Willow almost loses OZ.

B. Angelus Season 2 story arc - with Willow/Xander and Buffy

Another parallel of Willow and Buffy's love lives is seen in Surprise/Innocence, Season 2. When Buffy is betrayed by Angel's comment that she's no good in bed and not worth the trouble, a comment that had resulted from Angel's loss of his soul, Willow is similarly betrayed by Xander's kissing and making out with Cordelia, Willow's nemesis. Willow's betrayal is far lighter than Buffy's.. Willow's love-life in this instance is used to emphasize the pain of Buffy's. Willow is also used as the damsel in the scene. Ironically - Willow ends up in Angelus' clutches because of her argument with Xander over Cordelia. But it is Xander who stops Angelus' with a cross, placing Willow between the two men - Angelus who is intent on "biting her" - a symbol of sexual penetration and the other, Xander, holding up a "cross" a symbol of chastity. Buffy comes in at the last minute and is the one who is kissed by Angelus in the scene, as well as the one who lost her virginity with horrible results - while Willow maintains her innocence, neither kissed nor penetrated.

It's telling that it is Willow who tells Buffy to seize the day with Angel in Surprise, and Willow who is amongst the first to reap the consequences of Buffy's actions. And it is Willow that Buffy confides to about it. Later, when Angelus kills Jenny in Passion - it is Willow who is standing by the phone sobbing, while Buffy sits on the floor, pained. It is Willow who ends up reaping the consequences of Jenny's death - taking over Jenny's classes at the school and Jenny's role in the gang as techno-wizard. Just as it is Willow's pets (the goldfish) that Angelus kills to get at Buffy. Willow in all three cases is sort of held up as a mirror to Buffy. Each hit Angelus makes is reflected on Willow's face, and seen in Willow's spirit. Buffy's desire to restore Angel's soul, and not kill him, is reflected through Willow's determination in the Becoming arc, while Buffy is physically shown attempting to kill Angelus. Taking this a step further - in Becoming Part II - Willow is the one in the hospital, demonstrating metaphorically Buffy's weakened spirit and sick heart. When Willow regains consciousness - Buffy makes a truce with Spike. When Willow figures out how to do the spell and restores Angel's soul, Buffy defeats Angelus.

C. Willow's Stable Relationships & Emotional Reactions to Lost Loves

In seasons 2-5, the writers provide Willow with the more stable less angst filled relationships. When Willow's relationships do end - Willow's reactions are usually the polar opposite from Buffy's.

1. Willow/OZ vs. Buffy/Angel

In contrast to the Buffy/Angel relationship - Willow/OZ is almost smooth sailing.
OZ like Angel - has a monster inside him. We don't learn about OZ's monster until right after Angel's loss of his soul. OZ is a perfect contrast to Angel. Just as Oz/Willow is a perfect contrast to Angel/Buffy. Oz/Willow demonstrates how B/A should have conducted themselves. The moral mirror so to speak.

When Willow wants to make out with OZ in Innocence, OZ puts her off stating how empty it would be, she'd just be doing it to make Xander jealous. He would rather wait, he wants to take things slow, get to know her first. Contrast this with Angel, who not only kisses Buffy in Angel Season 1 turning into a vampire immediately afterwards, but a year later, sleeps with her in a fit of passion and literally loses his soul. When OZ eventually sleeps with Willow in Season 3, after two full years, it is a sweet, warm, experience and both remain the same afterwards, (Graduation Day Part I).

Phases - the episode after Innocence, reported in the TV guide at the time as An American Werewolf in Sunnydale, we see the monstrous side of OZ. Unlike Angel's monster - OZ is relatively harmless and can be knocked out by Willow with a dart gun. OZ's transformation like Liam/Angel's is caused by a bite. Oz's monster is also one that in gothic literature has sexual connotations. His monster also devours it's prey and almost kills Willow. The difference is unlike Angel - when OZ turns into a werewolf, he is pure animal. Not evil per se and not necessarily a killer. Also unlike Angelus - OZ can be safely contained, his transformation is limited to a period of the year or to his own unstable emotions.

Angel turns into Angelus after Buffy and Angel copulate in Surprise. OZ turns into a werewolf as Willow and OZ are contemplating taking their relationship to the next level. Throughout Phases - Willow asks OZ if he would like to seriously date her. She confides in Buffy and Cordelia about how OZ doesn't appear to be sexually interested in her. When she confides this to Cordelia, OZ literally smashes into the Bronze in his werewolf form. Meanwhile OZ's friends keep asking him if he's done it yet with Willow and make wolfish comments regarding their relationship. When Willow finally confronts OZ, he is attempting to chain himself up because he is afraid of what happens when he becomes the wolf. Willow's confrontation interrupts him and almost gets her killed. It is Willow who eventually sedates OZ with the dart gun, just as it is Willow, in later episodes, who keeps him caged.

In contrast, Angelus freely kills people in the episode. Buffy's friend Theresa is killed by Angelus not OZ, although she initially suspects the werewolf. She discovers the truth when Theresa becomes a vampire. Another thing both monsters have in common - they can turn someone else into a monster as well. Except that when you become a vampire - you must die first. Werewolves just need to be bitten. Of the two - the vampire remains the most lethal. Angelus - can't be contained and by the end of the season, while OZ sits lovingly next Willow's bedside helping her conduct a spell, Buffy is forced to send her lover to hell.

When Buffy loses Angel - she goes literally to hell, running away from Sunnydale to LA. Falling into a hell dimension with a bunch of run-aways and fighting her way out of it. (Anne, S3) Returning to accusations from her friends and family and finally reuniting with Angel, only to have him choose to leave her at the end of Season 3, because it is best for them both and if he stays, he fears he'll only destroy her. Compare this to Willow and OZ, in Season 4, Wild at Heart, Btvs, OZ betrays Willow by sleeping with Veruca in his wolf form, kills/devours Veruca and almost hurts Willow. Buffy stops him. And OZ takes off to parts unknown. OZ leaves town partially to protect Willow and partially to find himself, just like Angel leaves - partially to protect Buffy and partially to find his own path. (Graduation Day Part II, S3) Neither man is willing to re-enter his girlfriend's life without having first tamed the monster within.

Willow's reaction to OZ's departure is the polar opposite of Buffy's. Buffy leaves town when Angel is killed. She retreats from herself and everyone else. Willow does the opposite, she unleashes and vents her emotions. Buffy inadvertently sends herself to hell.(Anne) Willow inadvertently sends everyone else. (Something Blue). As Buffy states to Giles in Wild at Heart, I just hope Willow doesn't go to hell like I did. Willow doesn't, she does the opposite. Showing how the alternative - unleashing our pain on others is no more effective than it internalizing or running away from it. Willow's hellish reaction is played for laughs (Something Blue) while Buffy's is played for drama (Anne/Dead Man's Party). Buffy's internalized pain is shown through the metaphor of the zombies or as Xander states - you can't just bury things Buffy, they have a way of rising up and attacking you. Willow's externalized pain is shown through the metaphor of her magic, when the spell she casts to wipe away her pain only unleashes it on everyone else. The audience justifiably finds Buffy's trauma more moving and more sympathetic, while we rage at Willow's. Yet both reactions, while exaggerated, are realistic ones. And at the end of both Something Blue and Dead Man's Party - it is Willow and Buffy who apologize to each other and share an understanding.

At the end of the year - when OZ and Angel do, briefly return, both women have found someone who doesn't have a monster inside that needs to be tamed. Willow has moved on to Tara, while Buffy has moved on to Riley. Tara and Riley are the polar opposites to OZ and Angel. Neither has a "true" monster inside. They just have imaginary ones - Riley's chip implanted by a woman he trusts like a mother and Tara whose "family" has implanted the idea in her mind that she's a demon.

OZ comes back to Sunnydale - thinking his monster is tamed, but moment he gets around Tara - it comes out, to the extent he can barely handle being in close proximity to either Tara or Willow without literally becoming the wolf he detests. When Angel returns in Yoko Factor - he similarly shows his bestial side, fighting Riley, and getting into a brief argument with Buffy. Both Angel and OZ leave town again - going back to their new lives, leaving Buffy and Willow with their new loves.

2. Willow/Tara vs. Buffy/Dawn

Get your heads out of the gutter: I'm not discussing the sexual relationships here. In Season 5 DVD commentary, the writers state that the love story of season 5 is Buffy's love for her sister, Dawn. Throughout the season, especially towards the end, we see Willow taking care of Tara, defending her, protecting her, healing her. At one point in Tough Love: Willow tells Buffy that "Tara's my girl" to which Buffy responds, by stroking Dawn's hair, "I get that." Willow - "I know you do." In the middle of Tough Love, after a hell-god, named Glory, has mind-sucked Tara, Dawn convinces Buffy that Willow would go after Glory by comparing what happened to Tara to what Glory might do to Dawn.

Tara like Dawn wonders at one point if she's human. In Family Tara puts the gang in danger by casting a spell to hide herself. Buffy casts a spell in The Real Me, which reveals that Dawn isn't really her sister. Tara is proven to be human, while Dawn is proven to be a key made human. Willow is seen forgiving and accepting Tara even though she put everyone in danger. "She just made a mistake," Willow states, "we all make mistakes." Buffy similarly accepts Dawn, even though she has within her the ability to destroy the universe. "She is a part of me, innocent, human."

Willow is also seen throughout the season as defending Dawn's mistakes and spastic actions to Buffy. While Tara identifies with Buffy's struggle to be Dawn's mother. In The Body - Willow like Dawn struggles with what to do. Dawn doesn't believe the death is real. Willow keeps hunting the right clothing. Tara, out of all the gang, identifies with Buffy and tells her that her mother also died. Later in Tough Love, Tara again identifies with Buffy, and states that being responsible for a sibling, for someone else is hard. Willow identifies with Dawn, who she feels is being either neglected or harshly criticized. It's not until Willow and Tara's roles are flipped at the end of Tough Love, where Willow is placed in the role of mother and caregiver and Tara in the Dawn role - that Willow suddenly understands Buffy's predicament and through her the audience as well.

In The Gift - Willow tells Buffy that although she knows it's selfish, she can't help but put the regaining of Tara's mental capacity first. Buffy reassures her, stating that is what she should do. In fact Buffy's purpose to save Dawn no matter what in the Gift echoes Willow's purpose to save Tara, by putting Dawn's welfare first, above everyone else's including her own. As Willow sacrifices herself to take Tara's mind back from Glory. Buffy sacrifices herself for Dawn. In Willow's case, she survives, the energy flows through her without destroying her and it is spiritual or "mental energy" symbolizing Willow's strength. Buffy's gift is purely physical, her fight with Glory is physical and her rescue of Dawn and the world is the sacrifice of her body, her blood in exchange for Dawn's - a greater price than Willow's. Through Willow's sacrifice for Tara, Buffy sees what she must do for Dawn.

Another contrast - Tara's death brings out the worst in Willow - she delves into dark magic both times that Tara is robbed from her: first in Tough Love, when she goes after Glory, then a year later in Villains when she goes after Warren. Buffy retreats inside herself when she thinks she killed Dawn in Spiral. When Dawn is in danger both in the Gift and Once More With Feeling - Buffy sacrifices herself. Willow unleashes and throws the fire at everyone else while Buffy internalizes and throws herself into the fire.

TBC....

SK

[> Part III: Willow flipping to dark side (Spoilers to S6) -- s'kat, 09:25:27 02/11/03 Tue

III. Flipping Willow or best friend as nemesis, the dark path, alternate choices

Numerous fans were dismayed by Willow's actions in Season 6, Btvs. They felt the writers choice to flip the character of Willow to the dark side was both out of character and a poor decision plot-wise. But, if you look at Willow's function in the overall narrative arc - the decision was inevitable and necessary to emphasize issues going on with Buffy. They couldn't entirely flip Buffy to the dark side, Buffy's the hero, remember? So they flipped the character that parallels Buffy's journey, whose relationships and choices are often the exact opposite of Buffy's, Buffy's best friend, Buffy's spirit: Willow. In horror and gothic genres the best friend is often the character who is tragically flipped to the dark side.

In Bram Stoker's Dracula - the heroine, Mina Harker's, best friend Lucy is the one Dracula turns into a vampire. Through Lucy, Mina sees what she could become if she gives into Dracula. In Btvs, Willow is changed through grief and vengeance and pride into Dark Willow, a raging sorceress bent on destroying the world. (Grave) Buffy who goes through a similar amount of grief back in Season 5, becomes Christ-like, a savior bent on saving the world. (The Gift)

Even their purposes and speeches are contrasted. Willow states in Grave - that the world is suffering, how can any one bear it, she must put an end to all of it. Save the poor souls from the pain. Put them out of their misery. Buffy in contrast, states in the Gift - that the hardest thing in life is to live. But it is also incredibly important. Even with all the pain and suffering, the love we have for each other makes it worth it. The fight is worth it.
Buffy ironically releases herself from the pain and by doing so saves the world. She stops living so her sister can continue to live. Willow on the other hand, wishes to kill the world with her pain, freeing both the world and herself from the pain of life. Buffy just releases herself. Ironic. Since it is Willow who pulls Buffy back to life, not once but twice, and forces Buffy to handle the pain and ultimately joy of living. The first time Willow does this is in Weight of The World, when she enters Buffy's head and pulls her out of her catatonia. The second time is in Bargaining, when she literally pulls Buffy out of the Grave. Ironically at the end of Season 6 - Willow literally sends Buffy back to her Grave, forcing Buffy to fight her own way out of it, to decide to face the pain of life and continue the struggle, to save the world by living as opposed to dying. To see life as a beautiful thing as opposed to a hell. Through her dark magic and desire to destroy the world, Willow in Grave demonstrates to Buffy how dying or the destruction of either yourself or those around you is not the way to end pain or save others, all it does is make things worse. (See Bargaining S6 - where the gang is struggling to keep the balance in Buffy's absence. The biker demons in Bargaining, invade Sunnydale because Buffy is dead, making the town a hell on earth.) Willow also demonstrates to Buffy by killing Warren - that seeking vengeance on others does not relieve grief or pain. It just takes you down to their level. (Villains, Season 6) If Season 6 is truly the dark night of Buffy's soul, what better way to bring it to a head then have Buffy's best friend and the caretaker of her spirit, Willow, give into her darkest impulses?

Through Willow - Buffy's sees the consequences of an addiction to power. Sees how power can change a person. Corrupt them. It is Willow who tells Buffy what a slayer truly is about - the power. It is Willow who shows Buffy the consequences of taking out your pain and suffering on others and forces Buffy to acknowledge her own monstrous behavior last season. In Two to Go - Willow calls Buffy's bluff, tells her friend that she's no better than Willow, that she used a vampire to feel, that she tried to kill her friends, that she just wants to be dead. Willow literally rubs Buffy's face in it - by giving into the temptation to let the power and grief wipe out everything, Willow shows Buffy the path she should not take.

Also it is Willow who makes Buffy question her own calling in Villains. Being the slayer does not give me a license to kill, Buffy states. Willow believes it should. We kill those who are dangers to us. By taking Willow's actions to the extreme, the writers demonstrate what could happen if Buffy gives into the dark side of her own nature.

TBC - assuming you're still with me...

SK

[> Part IV: Willow's skills (witch/intellect) contrasted with Buffy's (Spoilers to 7.6Btvs) -- shadowkat, 09:30:18 02/11/03 Tue

IV. Willow, the witch, the intellect vs. Buffy the slayer, the athlete

The contrast between Willow and Buffy's powers and skills has been the source of many posts, most of which have been pretty negative on Willow. What many posters seem to forget is Willow's purpose in the story. Buffy is the heroine. Willow is the "best friend".
The best friend often envies the hero's skills and abilities. The best friend will often appear to be taking short cuts or not appear to be working as hard as the heroine to become powerful. The best friend's attempts at saving the world - will not be as heroic and often have disastrous consequences. The best friend's faults will be emphasized over the hero's and will often appear to be the one tempted to do evil. Example: Ionalus in Hercules is tempted to become the Hero, but everything he does has horrific results. Same with Gabrielle in Xena, who in her attempt to save the world, she is seduced by Darhawk and has an evil child. The best friend is not allowed to take the hero's place in the story. When she tries to - she becomes the villain, the hero's nemesis.

Willow's intellectual acumen and studies to become a witch compared to Buffy's fighting skills and studies to be a slayer:

Of the two - Willow actually is seen working far harder on her studies than Buffy is and by herself. Willow unlike Buffy has no mentor willing to aid her in her endeavors. Her father ignores her. Giles fondly pats her on the head or tells her how great she is. But not once in the series does Giles appear to be mentoring Willow. Buffy on the other hand seems to be under Giles' constant supervision. Buffy would love to give up her calling, but Giles keeps pulling her back, keeps telling her to train. Also Buffy's mother, Joyce, notably gives Buffy emotional support in Season 3 and 5. Willow's mother barely seems to acknowledge Willow's existence. (In Gingerbread S3: Willow to Buffy: "At least your mother takes an interest in your extra-curricular activities." And as if to prove Willow's point, Willow's mother's comment on her hair: "Did you do something to your hair?" Willow: "I cut it three months ago.")

In Choices - Buffy realizes she has to stay in Sunnydale, has to fight evil. Willow chooses to stay in Sunnydale, chooses to continue to study witchcraft - in order to use her powers to help Buffy in her fight. And it is Willow who tells Buffy that she doesn't have to fight evil - but chooses to do it. Just as it is Willow in Reptile Boy who tells Giles that he is expecting too much from Buffy and should back off. And it is Willow who makes sure Buffy graduates from high school and learns her studies.

Buffy and Willow complement each other - where Willow lacks in athletic prowess (not everyone is coordinated enough to become a black belt in Tae Kwon Duo) Buffy lacks in the ability to research information or understand complex intellectual concepts such as physics, magic, etc (not everyone is a "brain" or "nerd" either). Willow stays in school. Buffy leaves to take care of her sister and physically fight the big evil. Willow tutors students, Buffy considers being a cheerleader. One is not necessarily better than the other nor has one done more work than the other. They both work on what their talents/gifts are.

In Becoming - Willow is shown coming into her own finally as a witch just as Buffy has to make the most difficult choice in her career as a slayer. Willow grants Angelus the gift of life while Buffy grants him death. Willow curses him with remorse as Buffy sends him to hell.

Willow prior to Becoming II is the one who discovers an alternate way of stopping Angelus, one that does not involve Buffy killing him. She locates Jenny Calendar's spell which will curse Angelus with a soul. She is also the one who defends Buffy's choice to re-ensoul Angel to Xander and encourages Xander to pass on to Buffy this final hope. Xander in the role of side-kick, who has his own romantic feelings for Buffy and Willow, refuses to pass on this hope and to support Willow's choice to re-ensoul Angel. By letting Buffy believe her "best friend" would tell her to kick her lover's ass, Xander reaps the punishment he deserves - Buffy's retreat from Sunnydale in Becoming and her comments in Selfless. If he passed on Willow's message of hope - Buffy may not have left.

The side-kick will often challenge the hero's choices, while the best friend normally supports them, almost unconditionally. The best friend aids the hero, empowers them emotionally and spiritually. Willow does this via her witchcraft on numerous occasions - including Becoming, Choices, The Gift, Weight of The World, Showtime, and Primeval.
The symbolism of Willow grabbing Tara's hand in HUSH to keep the Gentleman from entering their hiding place - also represents how Willow helps Buffy. Whenever Buffy needs an additional wallop of strength she stretches her hand out to Willow. Or as we see in Same Time Same Place, S7 - whenever Willow needs strength, Buffy stretches her hand out to Willow.

It is Willow who supports Buffy when Giles, Xander, and Faith turn against her for hiding Angel from them in Revelations. And Willow is the one who brings Buffy literally back to life in Bargaining. Willow also heals Buffy of the poison in Normal Again. It is Willow's significant other, Tara, who comforts Buffy during Dead Things and informs Buffy that there is nothing wrong with her. The Best Friend provides the spiritual support. When the best friend removes that support - the heroine is weakened. When Willow goes wonky at the end of S6 in Two - to -Go and Grave, Buffy is rendered powerless to stop her. Literally finding herself back in the grave at the end of the season, Buffy has to fight dirt monsters - externally fighting the same war Willow is fighting internally within herself. The reason Buffy cannot be the one to defeat Willow in Grave - is that Willow is in a way Buffy's spirit, her strength, it must be the mentor and side-kick who convince the best friend to not destroy the world, not the heroine. In Dracula - it is Jonathan Harker and Von Helsing who release Lucy from her fate - not Mina, who merely learns from it.

TBC in Part V, the conclusion - yes, there's an end.

SK

[> V. Conclusion: Where is Willow going and how it affects Buffy (Spoilers for Killer in Me Btvs7) -- shadowkat, 09:34:26 02/11/03 Tue

V. Where is Willow going? (Spoilers to KIM, S7 Btvs)

Since what happens to Willow often reflects in some way Buffy's internal journey, I predict that Willow will not be the one who goes dark this season, who gives into her power. Buffy most likely will. But unlike Willow of Season 6, Buffy won't go all the way...she will face her own monster and through the example of her best friend - come out of that confrontation intact. She may even be able to do what her best friend has not been able to do- give up the power.

Willow, as Buffy's best friend, represents Buffy's spiritual heart. Buffy's relationship with Willow over the years demonstrates Buffy's compassion and ability to choose less violent ways to solve problems. Willow will often be the one who finds the compassionate way of dealing with a problem. In seasons 1-5, Willow pushes for non-violent methods. It's when Willow becomes violent and stops being compassionate that Buffy starts to lose track. This happens in Season 6, in Bargaining, when Willow stops listening to her heart and gives into the power. Likewise, Buffy stops listening to her spirit, and gives into her dark impulses. When Willow is finally reached by Xander on the bluff, Buffy is finally able to come out of her depression and see the beauty of the world around her. When Willow returns from England - it is Buffy who grants Willow her strength. And in Selfless - when Buffy believes the only solution is to kill Anya, it is Willow who comes up with the alternative.

In Killer In Me, S7, when Willow recreates Warren's act with Kennedy - it is Warren's violence against Buffy that she recreates not the stray bullet through the window. It is the violence of Warren's anger at Buffy and through Warren her own at both Buffy and herself for letting it happen, for causing Tara's death. Buffy turns a spiritual corner - because Buffy, whether she acknowledges it or not, took some blame on herself for Warren's attack. Just as she partially blames herself for Spike. The reason Buffy and Willow's stories are paralleled in Killer In Me - is that both women are forced to come to terms with the person who hurt them most last season and why. For Buffy - it's Spike's ability to hurt her that she correlates with her behavior last year and the attempted rape. The chip regulates his ability to hurt her and others. The chip that is currently killing him. Last year she let the fact that the chip no longer worked on her - give her an excuse - she jumped to the same conclusion Spike did - she let the killer in her take over with him and as a result unleashed the killer in him. Willow never took her magic or what she did with it to Tara very seriously. She believed her magic was just an addiction. When Warren accidentally kills Tara - this corresponds to Willow's assertions that she accidentally erased everyone's memories in Tabula Rasa, she accidentally hurt Dawn in Wrecked. It was just an accident she claims. So when Warren claims he accidentally hurt Tara - Willow goes bonkers. But something else is also going on here, a correlation between Willow's guilt and Buffy's. Willow could save Buffy - not once but twice, in Villains by removing the bullet and in Bargaining by bringing her back from the grave. Willow could not save Tara, either by resurrecting her or by removing the bullet. Buffy can live, but Tara can't. Why? This fact must on some level bother both women. Warren feels the same rage - why does Buffy always win, why does Buffy live. It's Buffy's fault, his ex-lover Katrina died and left him. In the back yard - Willow accuses Kennedy, a potential slayer who could be a placeholder for Buffy, of killing Tara, of causing Tara's death. And it is the Buffy stand-in, Kennedy, who frees Willow from her rage, by kissing her - an act of compassion and forgiveness and finally acceptance. Buffy meanwhile is faced with the choice of releasing Spike from pain - the removal of the chip, the question being will she release the killer in him or by believing in him and removing the chip - grant him the same release Kennedy symbolically grants Willow?

In conclusion - the best friend, in this case Willow, is a mirror to the heroine's journey. Through their actions and pains, we get another picture of the hero's choices. Often the best friend's choices complement the hero's, they re-emphasize the hero's pain and grief. Through Willow - we see what would happen if Buffy gave into her dark impulses. Through Willow - we see the difference between forgiveness and vengeance. We also see how Buffy can draw strength from her spirit and how it can lead her astray. Of all the characters in Btvs, Willow is possibly the most important to Buffy's journey, it is through Willow that we often identify with and may even judge Buffy's path.

Thanks for reading. Not sure how much sense this made. Hopefully just a little food for thought. Feedback welcome as always!

Disagree? Agree?

SK

[> [> Absolutely Magnificent job, SK. Thank you. -- Sophist, 10:03:50 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> 'Just a little food for thought' -- Tchaikovsky, 10:14:13 02/11/03 Tue

Several things:
1) KABOOM

2) Where did that last half-hour go?

3) How come Sophist can read so quickly? I reckon there's some harnessing of dark forces going on.

4) This is the best exploration of Willow as a part of the narrative structure I've ever read- possibly the best essay on Willow period. There are several parallels I'd overlooked, which you mention: Buffy/Dawn and Willow/Tara, Oz against Angelus, the 'grave' symbolism of the beginning and end of Season Six, the complementary yin/yang type physical/mental dichotomy between the two. I found many of the exterior references enlightening as well.

5) KABOOM

6) I'd been wondering what you were doing for the last few days. Seemed like you hadn't filled up your daily 10,000 word quota! Now I know

7) Will perhaps argue a couple of points later

8) KABOOM

TCH

[> [> Much agreement. Truly great, shadowkat. Thanks. -- Arethusa, 10:36:32 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> Tome Printed -- I'm going to lunch early. I may return late. THANKS! -- pr10n, 10:36:43 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> Wow! That was great! -- ponygirl smoking a metaphorical cigarette, 11:21:58 02/11/03 Tue

Really amazing job! And I agree with your take on Willow's journey and its parallel to Buffy. I do kind of look forward Buffy briefly giving into the temptations of the dark side, she needs those moments that Willow had in Two to Go/Grave, where all of the resentments get to come pouring out. I think Willow is still reeling from the anger she found within herself towards her friends, but it was necessary to give it voice. We got a taste of Buffy's anger in Selfless, but I think there's been a lot of stuff building up for years.

Oddly enough your essay made me feel sorry for Xander. The guy who wants to be everybody's best friend, but ends up the sidekick, the comic foil. His journey is both darker and more commonplace than either Buffy or Willow's. His rise in status at the start of the season seems set aside, he's now the guy who fixes the windows and sweeps up. The connection to Willow that saved the world in Grave is a joke by TKIM ("Aquaman underoos"), his contributions are largely unacknowledged -- he may be able to see what's around him, but who is seeing him?

Actually now that I think of it I'm a little worried about Xander.

In any case great work, SK!

[> [> [> Xander...a victim of the constraints of narrative structure -- s'kat, 13:44:04 02/11/03 Tue

Oddly enough your essay made me feel sorry for Xander. The guy who wants to be everybody's best friend, but ends up the sidekick, the comic foil. His journey is both darker and more commonplace than either Buffy or Willow's. His rise in status at the start of the season seems set aside, he's now the guy who fixes the windows and sweeps up. The connection to Willow that saved the world in Grave is a joke by TKIM ("Aquaman underoos"), his contributions are largely unacknowledged -- he may be able to see what's around him, but who is seeing him?

I think we have to keep in mind that Whedon structured Btvs as a "woman's journey" to offset all the "male" journeys he was seeing on television and film. The focus primarily being on the girl, with the guys in the background. He wanted to put forth a positive female role model and pop culture icon, who wasn't big boobs, high kicks and eye candy for the boys - a la Xena, Charmed, Baywatch, etc. The scantily dressed babes with spandex who date the nerdy guy and fulfill his fantasies. Or ignore the nerdy guy but show lots of skin, so he doesn't mind. Whedon, according to interviews, (latest in The Face), wanted the powerful characters to be women and the fantasies explored female. So while Xander is important - he must always come second or possibly third to that purpose. Angel the Series is the opposite - that's the "guy's" journey, where the women play second banana. Hence the reason Wesley seems more developed than say Cordelia, and Gunn possibly more than Fred. Truth is? It's impossible to cover everyone in depth. In Star Trek - Uhura was barely noticed. In STNG - we got very little of the women's journeys, lots on the guys. Tons on Number 1, very little on Doctor Crusher. It's part of the whole television narrative structure and inherent constraints on that structure. Considering those constraints, ME has done a marvelous job with Xander, providing him with many deep moments and lots of character development. He is actually one of the most developed side-kicks in TV. Certainly more developed than his counter parts on Smallville or other related shows and media. Joxer comes possibly closest to this level of development. And that is the mark of a truly good writer.

I wouldn't worry too much about Xander. Or feel too sorry for him. In some ways he has it easier than Willow and Buffy. For more of my thoughts on his journey see archives in Dec for Xander as side-kick or my site for my essay on him.

Thanks for the response btw! SK

[> [> [> [> Re: Xander...a victim of the constraints of narrative structure -- ponygirl, 14:12:51 02/11/03 Tue

Oh I agree, I just keep hoping for the long-lost Xander arc. It would be nice to see Xander's heart of darkness-y issues dealt with if this is the last season. If his extraordinary speech to Dawn is the end of his issues about his status in the group, that's fine, it's a good place to end. However I can always hope for more. And of course the sleeper!Cordy vs. sleeper!Angel talk has me all conspiracy minded.

Is the Joss interview in the current issue of The Face btw?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Xander...a victim of the constraints of narrative structure -- s'kat, 14:34:04 02/11/03 Tue

Is the Joss interview in the current issue of The Face btw?

I think so. I sort of glanced through it quickly while waiting for a friend in Barnes and Noble. My brother told me that Spike has been appearing in all the pop culture mags and went hunting for it on a whim. He wasn't in it. But there was a lengthy article on Whedon and whether this is Btvs' last season and how Whedon felt about it. He said pretty much the same vague things he's said in all the other interviews. With final note - being "my goal was to create a positive female pop culture icon and I've done that."

Agree would like to see the long-lost Xander arc myself. Dang it. Why can't they let him go a little dark for a little while? Not dark as in Hells Bells. No dark as in The Pack or Sleeper dark...it would be fun and NB is so good at that. Oh well. I'll take what I can get.

SK

[> [> [> [> [> Xander, Joxer, and the Sidekick Blues -- cjl, 14:51:48 02/11/03 Tue

At least Xander gets some action; Joxer pined away for Gabrielle for almost the entire series.

Interestingly enough, though, Joxer did break out of his sidekick role in the last season, getting a life during Xena and Gabrielle's 25-year sleep, with wife, kid--the whole works. But even then, the Sidekick Principle applied. When our heroines woke up and met up with him again, Joxer fell back into his old role, even though he'd outgrown it. In order to resolve the tension between two-dimensional role and a potentially three-dimensional character, the writers had a choice: either Joxer would have to fully establish himself as an independent character, or die.

Let's just say Joxer wasn't around for the series finale.

I think Xander has a much better chance of survival. He may be the sidekick, but he does have a character arc of his own, however underdeveloped over the past three years.

Besides, isn't the point of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that everybody who struggles through the trials of life is a hero in his or her own right? Joss has taken great pains to massage the usual rules of narrative and give sidekicks like Xander a backstory worthy of a major character in another series. Wouldn't it be great if the series ended with all of the secondary Scoobs--Willow, Buffy, Giles and Spike--fulfilling their metaphorical roles in Buffy's story and simultaneously triumphing in their own?

[> [> [> [> [> [> cjl: from your keyboard to Joss's ears -- pr10n, 15:13:18 02/11/03 Tue

I heard an interview with sf/f writer Orson Scott Card just today, where he said his heroes start at the level of keeping commitments: plain folks who stick it out until the end.

Extraordinary people can be heroes, a la the Buffster, but within every normal individual's life are occasions to be extraordinary. Heroes are the ones who don't give up under those occasional crises.

So here's to all the non-Buffys rising to Scooby Valhalla or Nirvana or 2.8 Children-dom.

[I am more and more convinced of my own Pollyanna-ness, but eh, I like the happier endings. It's what I'd write for my own life, if I could.]

[> [> [> [> [> [> I wish Xander could have a ditty like Joxer did, though. -- WickedBuffy, 18:18:35 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> Just wondering about viewer preferences -- Sophist, 13:21:56 02/12/03 Wed

SK's post identifies and separates the roles of sidekick and best friend. I wonder if our preferences for particular characters relate to those roles. For example, I prefer Willow to Xander on BtVS (duh). On Xena, I preferred Gaby to Joxer. Any Xander fans who preferred Joxer? Any counterexamples?

Or maybe it's just me and redheads....

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I happen to like sidekicks. They have a long, esteemed tradition... -- cjl, 14:08:39 02/12/03 Wed

Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, Prince Hal and John Falstaff, Xena and Joxer, Buffy and Xander--the hero and the noble fool. They're a classic team.

But there are variations within my preferences. I have to confess I got aggravated with Joxer's clown act after a while. He was such a good-hearted person with such natural good humor (kudos to Ted Raimi); I was hoping he'd achieve a smidgen of self-awareness and switch from unintentional comic relief to professional jester. Maybe start his own travelling theater troupe, and put on a couple of Gaby's plays. I wanted him to be able to laugh at himself and have that work for him, rather than be the butt of the series' humor. But most of all, I wanted him to get away from Gabrielle and find a woman who appreciated him. Because Gaby wasn't going to change her mind. Ever.

Xena, Gabrielle, and Joxer should have been B/W/X, but Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert never wanted to distract the viewer from the Xena/Gabrielle relationship with a third major character. Joxer (much as I love him) was doomed to remain Xena's comic foil, and Joxer never achieved Xander's near-three-dimensionality. I respect Rami and Tapert's creative decision, but if I'm honest with myself, it detracted from my enjoyment of the series. (JMO. YMMV.)

Clearly, I enjoy Xander more than Joxer, and Willow 100x (1000x!) more than Gaby. Part of why I enjoy Willow more than Gaby is precisely because Xander is a more three-dimensional character. We see more facets of Willow's personality when she interacts with Xander in his various emotional states and levels of growth. (And it's not just Xander; we see Willow's developing relationship with Giles, Angel, Dawn, Spike, Tara--so many beautiful colors of the rainbow.) I liked Renee O'Connor, but her interactions with Joxer were always limited, because Joxer's character was limited. Again, I understand the creative decision, but I don't necessarily agree with it.

To sum it up:

Willow and Xander forever!

A hearty singalong of "Joxer the Mighty" for Ted Raimi!

And for next Christmas, a series of big budget motion pictures for Xena and Gaby!

[> [> No argument--This is long. Epic. Gargantuan. And Brilliant. -- Haecceity, 11:50:20 02/11/03 Tue

Of course you realize that response has an inverse quality, right? Something this thorough is going to prompt quite a few NT replies at first while the rest of us marshall our words;) I'd been wondering what you were up to the last few days...:)

Thank you for doing such a bang-up job on this subject--it HAS been overlooked in all the "Willow should/n't be punished more" storm of posts since our favourite little redhead went all veiny and tried to kill us all.

Want to talk more about the importance of foil designations, but this silly school actually expects me to go to the classes I'm paying for, so will have to rejoin the discussion later. I'm certain this one will be around, even if there IS new Buffy tonight!

---Haecceity
Who, OK was KIDDING when she said her trifling post was long. It was just subjectively unending:) With puppies.

[> [> [> LOL! Thanks...assuming -- s'kat, 13:55:02 02/11/03 Tue

the Btvs new episode tonight and Ats' tomorrow night don't send the essay to the archives fast. Which they probably will, there's some killer stuff coming up. Dang. Would have been so much better to have posted this Monday evening as planned.

*******************************

Well it was either write an essay or get snarky with the Willow threads that had started to annoy me. Much more constructive to write an essay and logically address the issue. right?

Thanks for the compliments. Looking forward to seeing what you have to say on character foils.

SK

[> [> Bedtime reading for me...thanks! -- Angela, 12:10:00 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> Re: V. Conclusion: Where is Willow going and how it affects Buffy (Spoilers for Killer in Me Btvs7) -- slain, 13:45:16 02/11/03 Tue

Also it is Willow who makes Buffy question her own calling in Villains. Being the slayer does not give me a license to kill, Buffy states. Willow believes it should. We kill those who are dangers to us. By taking Willow's actions to the extreme, the writers demonstrate what could happen if Buffy gives into the dark side of her own nature.

I expect as you were writing this you noticed the other parallel - Faith. In Season 6, Giles (and to an extent Tara) take on the same role Buffy had in Season 3 to Faith - they try to tell Willow about how power is dangerous, how the individual overestimates their own ability to judge right and wrong and to use power correctly. Similarly Buffy tries to persuade Faith that their power doesn't make them special, necessarily, or give them the right to do what they want and to enjoy its use. But of course, as Buffy admits in CWDP, in reality she does understand Faith and by extension Willow; she knows the feeling of thinking you're superior and that you have the right to judge.

Both Buffy, Willow and Faith deal with their power in the same way; they try to escape it. When Buffy falls, she abandons or loses faith in her calling (the end of Season 2, and throughout Season 6). Willow tries to completely cut power out from her life. Faith, while she doesn't become like Buffy in 'Anne', separates herself out from the world of heroes and slayers. When Willow runs away from her power/darkness, it backfires and she endangers others. When Buffy does, she endangers her friends, but ultimately returns to the status quo without much harm being done.

We don't know what's happened to Faith, but I have a feeling her path will parallel Buffy's. While Buffy has fallen into darkness, to an extent, she's mostly only hurt herself; and when she tries to escape her power, she can return to it of her own volition. Unlike Faith and Willow, Buffy never loses herself in her power exactly, never becomes driven by it. Unlike them, she seems to have a choice. But for the first time, in Season 7, we're seeing Buffy really become immersed in her calling; she's no longer being taught and lectured by Giles. The question is, Is Buffy being true to her nature, or is she trying to escape from something (darkness, evil, duality, whatever) which, like Willow, will eventually backfire?

I can't see the show going in a direction where Buffy can't handle her power, and in some way gives in to it. I think, because that's been done with two female characters, they'd really be undermining the basis of the show. However, what I can see happening is what I think you imply, which is Buffy coming to some kind of realization about herself, and embracing the Faith/Willow aspects of her personality, without necessarily having to fall apart in the process - but, not just that, without having to give up her power.

Secondary characters present an opportunity for the central character to learn from them; since Faith, Buffy's fear has been of becoming like her. I think that's sustained her, and kept her a better path; she's always wary about overuse of her power, and of thinking of herself as superior. Similarly I think Buffy learns from Willow in Season 6 the value of family and disclosure; a lot of Willow's problems result from her being self-contained, and of not trusting in her friends' (Giles, Tara in particular). But she also learns that power isn't something that she can, or indeed should escape; in terms of gender roles, in 'Anne' Buffy becomes a fairly powerless woman, and in terms of society she no longer has any leverage.

She willingly loses her power - which is ultimately selfish, because she has responsibility to her friends and family, saving the world aside. Willow gives up her power and causes greater harm because of it - because the need for power, like darker emotions, isn't something that can be put aside and concealed. But Buffy is no longer a typical Slayer - she isn't the pupil, she's the teacher. She's become a combination of Slayer and Watcher, and perhaps there's a way for her to give up her power without becoming powerless. Through the potential slayers, she can defer her power, and genuine wisdom that most Watchers weren't able to provide, to the next generation.

Anywho, nice to see some excellent Willow analysis. Also, bonus points for the use of the word 'copulate'.

[> [> [> Thanks and on Faith/Willow/Buffy -- s'kat, 14:26:31 02/11/03 Tue

Well you found one of the gaps I discovered while re-reading. Kudos. The Faith thing.

Willow's reactions in Season 3 to Faith are interesting - they are the counter to Buffy's almost all the way through.

When Faith first appears - Willow really likes her and is even speaking in Faith short-hand. "Get with it B" she tells Buffy in Faith, Hope and Trick. Then when Buffy begins to get close to Faith, (Bad Girls) to the extent that Faith begins to supplant Willow in Buffy's life or appears to - Willow takes the opposite approach to Faith - she hates her. She hates her even more when Faith hurts Buffy. And unlike Xander - wants Faith dead. (Interesting - Xander wants Angel dead, Willow wants Faith dead...)
And Willow never veers from this. All the way up to S4
in Who Are You - Willow wonders why stop the Watchers from killing Faith. She ironically says this in front of Faith, who at the time is in Buffy's body. Faith fantasizes killing Willow as Buffy and Willow catches the F/B expression, but doesn't know how to respond to it. Later it is Willow's significant other - Tara- who realizes the Faith and Buffy have switched bodies and it is W/T who come up with a way to switch them back. Willow's reactions to Faith show us how Buffy feels towards Faith or wants to feel or perhaps shouldn't feel? They give us the alternative.

However, what I can see happening is what I think you imply, which is Buffy coming to some kind of realisation about herself, and embracing the Faith/Willow aspects of her personality, without necessarily having to fall apart in the process - but, not just that, without having to give up her power.

I agree...I think this year Buffy may come to the brink, but won't go over like Faith and Willow or Angelus did.
She will pull back, she's the lead and the hero after all. Also by giving up her power - I'm not really talking about what empowers her, I'm talking about..that external/physical concept of power. Buffy's true power has never been the superstrength, the superspeed, or the ability to throw a great kick. That is not the power at the heart of most martial arts. The power is the ability to draw from within, to know when to attack and when to defend.
The ability to make decisions with heart, mind and soul.
Her power is her love, compassion. We see it in Angel Season 1 when she decides, perhaps foolishly, to put down her weapon and give him the opportunity to kill her. In Consequences, when she pushes Faith out of the way of a falling crate. In Sleeper - when she decides not to stake Spike. And in Real Me - when she goes back and apologizes to Dawn. Often Willow's compassion is contrasted with Buffy's brute strength - to show differences in power, but
we also see the reverse - Buffy's compassion vs. Willow's wiccan strength. Figuring out when we should show compassion and when we should use brute strength...is often
the problem, and that is the balance we all strive for in life.

Thanks for your reply and for discussing the Faith part.
I realized I left it out after I wrote it. Maybe because I see tons of cool comparisons/contrasts/links but aren't sure what to make of them yet.

For example:
I think the biggest difference between Faith's relationship to Buffy and Willow's is that Faith is more Buffy's dark twin/shadow self than Willow truly is. Faith is so much like Buffy - actually Faith is ultre-Buffy, the attractive girl, guys go for, doesn't study, pure athlete - sort of the opposite comparison to Willow/Buffy, where Willow isn't athletic at all. So in the female Btvs character spectrum we have: Faith--Dawn--Buffy--Willow--Tara?(Jenny)---Anya
Not sure.

Anyways great post.

SK

[> [> [> [> Re: Nearness to Buffy's story -- Just George, 18:10:47 02/11/03 Tue

Shadowkat: "Faith is so much like Buffy - actually Faith is ultre-Buffy, the attractive girl, guys go for, doesn't study, pure athlete - sort of the opposite comparison to Willow/Buffy, where Willow isn't athletic at all. So in the female Btvs character spectrum we have: Faith -- Dawn -- Buffy -- Willow -- Tara?(Jenny) -- Anya
Not sure."

I'm not sure what you mean by "female Btvs character spectrum"? On what axis of comparison do you put Faith > Dawn > Buffy > Willow?

I've seen these characters (along with Giles and Xander) as orbiting Buffy. They are close to her on some axis (to create a point of contact), but far from her in others (to create contrast). I think Buffy's boyfriends (Angel, Riley, and Spike) can fit a similar model. In this way they all say something about Buffy's story.

The girl/boyfriends of these close in characters (Tara, Jenny, Cordy, Anya, Oz) are harder to connect to Buffy because they are not a part of Buffy's story directly, but through intermediaries. As much as we might like them, these girl/boyfriends would not be a part of Buffy's story without their romantic connections to the close in characters.

I suppose this is one way to categorize characters, their nearness to Buffy's story. In this model Faith is more a part of Buffy's story than Anya, even though we have seen Anya a lot more. Faith's character has more to say about Buffy's character than Anya's does.

-JG

[> [> Wonderful Analysis - Thanks! -- Nascent, 17:02:21 02/11/03 Tue

I've only been lurking about this board a bit for a few weeks, but I've really been enjoying your insights into the show. Thanks for delving into what makes the Buffy/Willow dynamic so fascinating.

Unfortunately, it also just makes me all the sadder that FireFly couldn't stay afloat on FOX. It would've been nice to see JW's considerable talent for creating interesting, challenging and ultimately sympathetic characters - lovable Chekhovian fools - brought to bear in a true ensemble work, which is what he seemed to be attempting with that show.

As strong as the cast of characters and the actors who portray them on Buffy are, the constraints of this "Hero" narrative structure have always bothered me just a tiny bit. It would have been great to see Whedon develop a story where each character truly can be as heroic or as monstrous as any other character depending on how heavily fate falls upon their head on a given day. It just seems like a more democratic form of storytelling.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems from a writer's standpoint that having to build the whole story around one central mythic hero's journey can just stunt and/or warp the characters' growth. It doesn't necessarily lend itself to the most realistic character development. There are certain traumas that the writers would just never put Buffy through, so the Willow character - as you've pointed out so well - many times has to get her hands dirty to show the dark path Buffy could've or would've taken had things played out just a little differently.

Ah, well - it's a minor point all in all, and it's probably just my issue anyway. Great post nonetheless.

[> gonna refill the inkjet & buy a ream of paper for this one! -- WickedTome-viewer, 13:03:15 02/11/03 Tue

The Dissociation of Angel/us (spoiler up to Soulless) -- lunasea, 10:13:16 02/11/03 Tue

I am going to make this into an actual essay, but I just wanted to throw it out and get some feed back. Thanks for anything you can add.

I love reading the evil Cordy theories. It is fun to see how people see the show and the characters. I haven't found anything she has done to be that out of character, enough to say that she is evil (or more evil than she is normally). If anything, one thing they are doing is taking her off the higher realms pedestal she was on. It will be interesting when this finally gets exposition. Maybe Skip will explain it. I would love to see Whistler on both shows. He could do it.

However, they make about as much sense as Buffy dying in a fit of despair in "The Gift" or Giles being something else. It is all about the story. Evil Cordy doesn't contribute to the story, the story of ANGEL. It clutters up that story. It is a distraction and a misdirect to keep the audience away from the plethora of clues that have already been given. Just like BtVS hasn't been renamed The Spike Show, AtS hasn't been renamed Cordy (she already turned down her own show).

The clues that have been given aren't in one particular episode. They are in how Angel sees things episode to episode. For example, in "Habeas Corpses" Angel doesn't know what is going on with Gunn/Wesley and Fred. Somehow he has since figured that out and Angelus uses it wonderfully in "Soulless?"

The biggest thing that rang with me in "Soulless" was how Angelus viewed Angel. I wasn't quite expecting "Innocence," but the difference was great and completely in line with Angel's development. The last few episodes just highlighted how dissociative he had become.

Multiple Personality Disorder is now known as Dissociative Identity Disorder. It isn't too far a stretch to say that the one who cut the power at Gwen's/Killed Manny and killed the Savayan Witches was Angel/us.

We are assuming due to the graphic nature of the kills it is The Beast. Do you remember "Innocence?" Jenny's uncle Enyos wasn't exactly tidy. Those killings are completely within what Angelus would do, especially if he wanted it to look like the Beast had done it.

What do we know about how the Witches were killed:

1. It was brutal
2. They had been dead for a while, before Angel lost his soul and was locked up.
3. It wasn't just the witches, but the entire family

Add in:

1. Angel was greatly upset by what he saw at Connor's and got violent.
2. He was missing for some time before coming back to the hotel. He wasn't at Connor's long and Connor's isn't that far from the hotel (I would say it is walking distance for Cordy and Angel walks fast).

If Angel really is taking Angelus for granted, it isn't too far a stretch for him to be suffering from DID. The conflict with Cordelia is taping into his rage/the demon. It wouldn't be hard for the demon to temporarily reassert control and for this to be completely blacked out in Angel, just like The Beast is, just like Buffy is.

The entire FAMILY was killed. That is Angelus' MO. Was the family killed to set up Connor's heaving, or was it to tell us who did it? Supposedly the Beast can't get near the witches. Angelus said that and it was repeated by the Fang Gang. Either Angelus lied (possible), The Beast found a way around it (possible) or Angelus did it (probable).

Back at Gwen's Angel said he didn't smell Connor. He assumes it is the Beast by the nature of that attack. He doesn't say he smelled him. I would think that the Beast would reek. Angel isn't going to pick up his own scent. Also Gunn points out that Angel didn't smell what was spiking his blood.

Angel is the bad guy, but not because he is a Sleeper or controlled. His demon is able to reassert itself because he is denying it can.

Evil Cordy is interesting, but an Angel that doesn't have full control even with a soul because of denial, that is a story.

[> Forgot the part about the soul (spoiler for Soulless) -- lunasea, 10:30:08 02/11/03 Tue

The soul. Why did Angelus give away the stuff about the Priestesses? To get the gang out of the hotel. Tell them how to defeat the big bad and they go out to save the day, like the champions/chumps they are. He already knew the Priestesses were taken care of, since he did it. Fred, Gunn and Lorne were left behind to look at the monitor. That was probably the time that the soul was taken. Angelus could have friends who could have taken it rather easily. He might have even conned Gwen into it (not really important who, just that Angelus knew about it). What is important is that Angelus knew he was safe and wasn't going to get resouled. Could be Angelus bravado, but I don't think so. In that time when Angel decided to do this and he got stuck in the cage, Angelus saw his opportunity, reasserted himself temporarily and arranged for the soul to be taken so he couldn't be resoulled. Even Willow can curse him if his soul isn't free. In that bottle, Angelus is safe. Now he just has to escape. Time is his friend.

[> Not sure I buy... (spoilers up to "Soulless" and a bit o' unspoiled speculation) -- Masq, 10:56:22 02/11/03 Tue

Not sure I buy that Angel(us) killed the Svea Priestess family or even Manny, but I do think that Angel was the "sleeper" agent, not Cordelia.

I believe the Beast made souled Angel forget about how they met originally because otherwise souled Angel would have known how to banish the Beast. Likewise, the Beast used Angel(us) to get into Gwen's apartment (turn off the electricity, drug Cordelia) and the Beast himself killed Manny. Then he made Angel forget about it later.

As for Cordelia, there's a lot of things that need explaining--why she was taken to the Higher Dimension, why she was brought back when she was, why she lost her memory when she got back, why the heck she would ever sleep with Connor. But I think the answers to those things (well, maybe not the Connor thing) are tied up in the plan the Powers that Be have for Cordelia. They are using her to help defeat the Beast, she is not herself the sleeper agent of the Beast. It makes no sense to the larger drama.

There is a much simpler explanation for the missing soul in the jar, and who will allow Angelus to escape, and that is Connor. Barring the question of how Connor could get the soul out of the safe, he has a real motive. A conscious motive. A motive full of the angst that is central to his character. He wants to kill his father.

A wind-up sleeper Cordelia doll being responsible would not only be a dumb plot development, it's totally unnecessary and I think below ME's usual writing standards.

I guess time will tell what's up and who's right. These are just my feelings on the matter.

[> [> Re: Not sure I buy... (spoilers up to "Soulless" and a bit o' unspoiled speculation) -- lunasea, 11:36:32 02/11/03 Tue

A wind-up sleeper Cordelia doll being responsible would not only be a dumb plot development, it's totally unnecessary and I think below ME's usual writing standards.

But a wind-up sleeper Angel isn't? Where's the story?

I agree Connor has the motive. He doesn't want to see Angel restored because then he might just have to love the guy. As long as he sees Angelus as his father, he can hate him. As Angel tells Buffy in "Angel," "Feels good, doesn't it? Feels simple." That is Conner in a nutshell. If he loves Angel, he will be being disloyal to Holtz (gee and the parallels with BtVS just keep coming). It is really hard not to love Angel. Conner almost wants to keep him alive to keep the hate alive. He didn't kill him when he had the chance. He sunk him to the bottom of the ocean.

If Connor did it, though, why would Angelus assume that he was safe? Why did Connor go to the home of the Priestesses? That was probably when it happened. Does Connor know the combination? He wasn't there when it was opened.

Small problem with the "make Angel forget things ideas," the Beast dealt with an unsouled Angelus. Who would have thought that Angel would get souled? You are saying that before The Beast rose he cast some sort of spell on Angel so that Angel would forget things? Why would he assume that Angel wouldn't join him. Why not cast a spell to make him join him? Why would the Beast have to risk discovery by killing Manny himself? If Angel cut the power and drugged Cordy, he could have killed Manny also. K.I.S.S.

Cordy will get her exposition. It will be short and sweet to keep the focus on Angel. Then Cordy will feel like a fool. I like Cordy as a fool. She and Spike would be a great couple.

[> [> [> Angel as sleeper -- Masq, 12:03:55 02/11/03 Tue

The Beast didn't have to put the forget spell on Angel until he came back in the present day. Angel could have had that memory for 100 years and thought nothing of it because he barely met the Beast at all in 1789 and then the big clompy demon was gone.

Once the Beast emerges from Connor's birth spot, he puts the whammy on Angel to make sure they don't remember how to banish him. Then the Beast goes and kills the Svea priestesses so they can't put the whammy on. The Beast doesn't kill Angel because he thinks he can use him. Same goes for Connor.

As for Connor, Angelus isn't afraid of him. He can use the kid's anger to get the kid to open the cage. Connor himself takes the soul because he wants to keep his father all Angelus all the time so he can kill him. He could never get himself to kill souled Angel, as you say.

Angelus knows what Connor is up to. He know his son will do what he needs to do to ensure that Angelus stays around and that Connor gets the chance to kill him. Angelus is like, "bring it on, boy!" because, like I said, he isn't afraid of Connor. Connor's a little hot-head who thinks he can take him, but Angelus is convinced he can get past the kid with no problem.

As for Angel being the sleeper, I think the Beast has used the memory whammy on him once or twice and that's all we're going to see of it--it's a minor plot device.

What the Cordelia-conspirators want to argue is that Cordelia is being used by the Beast in a major plot way. That the Beast is giving her false visions, that the Beast made her knock out the electricity and Angel to help kill Manny, that the Beast made her steal the soul from the safe, that the Beast is making her personality all wonky, that the Beast made her sleep with Connor. This is the part I think is lame.

[> [> [> [> Spoilers above to "Soulless" and unspoiled spec -- Masq, 12:06:04 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> Re: Angel as sleeper (spoilers, natch) -- RichardX1, 12:14:36 02/11/03 Tue

>>He could never get himself to kill souled Angel, as you say.<<

What's more, he couldn't get away with it. Angel has friends, family even. If Connor were to dust Angel while he had his soul, then he'd have Wesley, Cordy, Gunn, and Fred all out to kill him. But if, say, Angel's soul were removed and then happened to become lost, and Angelus escaped?

*****

Connor: "We have no choice... we have to kill him."

Wesley: "I'm afraid he's right."

Gunn: "Fine... let's do it."

Cordelia: "... okay."

(Connor smiles)

*****

[Note: I have not been given advance knowledge of any future Angel episodes beyond the promo at the end of last week's ep, so any similarities between the dialogue I just wrote and anything that happens in the show's future is totally coincidental.]

[> [> [> [> [> It would never be that logical ; ) (speculation based on last week's AtS trailer) -- Masq, 12:25:03 02/11/03 Tue

I don't think Connor would consult the others before acting, I think he'd just act and defend himself after the fact. The conversation would happen like this:

Connor (defensively): "I have no choice! I had to kill him."

Gunn: "Damned right. Angelus killed (fill in the blank). If I'd had the chance, I would have killed him myself!"

Wesley (with genuine regret): "I'm sorry it had to come to this. I really wish we could have found a way to restore his soul."

Cordelia says nothing. She only glares at Connor, knowing his motives were less than a noble protector.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It would never be that logical ; ) (speculation based on last week's AtS trailer) -- lunasea, 12:54:20 02/11/03 Tue

You make it sound like the little pip squeak would actually succeed.

I see Connor about to deliver some near fatal blow (with Angelus laughing) and Faith stopping his hand midair and Angelus escaping, maybe even with a kiss or at least a witty remark. Then I see her giving Connor the ass kicking he so badly needs and I so badly need to see. There will be lots of dialogue during the fight as Connor asks her why she is helping that monster and Faith talks about how Angel saved her and she won't give up on him.

I am unspoiled except for the Faith appearance, but who doesn't know that one?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well-known casting spoiler above and in this post as well -- Masq, 13:04:08 02/11/03 Tue

My take on Faith and Connor's interaction is a bit different. I posted this somewhere below (in archive 2 by now)

Connor's issues and behavior all about self-hatred. He hates himself for being the son of two demons he believes are unequivocally evil. Holtz put that in his head. The key to "straightening out" Connor's behavior is for him to the souled Angel within himself, rather than the Angelus within himself. A butt-kicking by Angelus or Faith or anyone won't change his attitude one bit. It will only make him more of the same.

What I'd like to see with Connor/Faith:

"I'm just looking forward to Connor's reaction to the idea of a Slayer. He has so many identity issues with having vampire parents and vampire-like skills, that meeting another human being in a similar situation would be healthy for him. After he gets over whatever mixed-up emotional reaction he might have to the idea at first, it might actually make him feel better about himself.

Faith isn't as well-studied in slayer origins as Buffy or Giles, but she probably has wondered from time to time why there are Slayers and how they come upon their powers. She may have wondered if there is a demon origin to slayers, as we have on this board.

Plus, she's had a tough road in her life, and some of that goes back to her parents.

Connor's not a Slayer, but a screwed-up issues-having kick-butt Slayer's about as close to whatever kind of thing he is as anything else in the Buffyverse."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well-known casting spoiler above and in this post as well -- lunasea, 14:07:54 02/11/03 Tue

Interesting take. Think maybe Faith and Connor could do the old bump and grind? It might be something actually "real" in his life.

Not sure how much time we are going to have to straighten out Connor. Maximum pain and conflict would be caused in Angel with his death.

We might even want to rev him up a bit with a serious ass kicking before he gets a clue or dies, which ever serves the story best.

[> [> [> [> [> [> yet from my crazed perspective... -- WickedBuffy, 16:34:21 02/11/03 Tue

"Wesley (with genuine regret): "I'm sorry it had to come to this. I really wish we could have found a way to restore his soul."

On BtVS and on Angel, they've found different ways to get Angels soul back in him. Even the time Buffy sent him to Hell, Willow and the rest were feverishly working on the spell to resoul him.

It seems totally out of characters for them to give up on Angel, they never ALL do, even after he does nasty (killed Jenny) things that affected people close to the action. It's never unanimous.

And Connor wants to kill Angelus. Not Angel. He seems to realize Angel and Angelus are two totally different entities - which is a big leap in evolution from when he first came on the scene with blind hatred for anyone in that body. Connor quotes Angel to Angelus to taunt him that Angel is superior to Angelus. (shades of Holtz! it sounds familiar.) That Angel is his father, Angelus isn't. Connor would spend alot of time trying to figure out how to kill Angelus without killing Angel - but at this point in his relationship with relationships, he wouldn't kill his fathers body.

Umm, and how do we know that someone can't just summon the soul out of that bottle without even having to be near it? We don't know where it goes when it's gone, if it "thinks" or has any power on its own. Angels soul could be whole 'nother character. Willow summoned it from someplace, The First (supposedly) grabbed it and put it back in Angel ... there are other options regarding the soul not explored yet that were used other times. Not simply "Jar stolen. Must find Jar." ::thinkin' outside the box::

errrr ::...the jar::

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> That was a hypothetical dialogue (this is actually spoiled speculation) -- Masq, 16:44:19 02/11/03 Tue

I imagined that Connor would only defend his decision to kill Angel after the fact to the Fang Gang. He would never defend it before hand.

But of course I don't think it's part of the plan this Season to kill off Angel. And even if my dialogue were actually going to happen, I imagine it was preceded with many attempts to restore his soul, which Connor just ignored to go poof daddy.

My theory is that Willow will come to LA and restore Angel's soul. She used the orb of thessela to get his soul where she needed it to be last time, and she can do it again. Even better, 'cause she's more powerful. Doesn't matter where the soul is floating around at. She'll find it.

Angel's soul floating down the street like a stray scrap of paper in the wind. Now there's a funny image!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> my crazed hypothetical spoiled dialogue speculatoring -- WickedThesaurus, 18:12:08 02/11/03 Tue

awwww, I just think they should focus their multi-talented energies on getting a spell/magick/scary bear song to lure the soul back to wherever they are standing at the moment. (Still don't think Connors gonna try to off Angelus - he might fight him defensively, but not go in for a kill.)

...and, on a more serious note, I think I found Angels soul (bright pink) tucked neatly under my car windshield wiper when I came out of the store today.

In fact, there seemed to be hundreds of souls stuck to car windows in that parking lot. An entire herd of them! Everyone might want to double-check on where theirs is.

umm herd of souls? clutch of souls? pod of souls? what's the term? gathering?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That was a hypothetical dialogue (this is actually spoiled speculation) -- RichardX1, 07:11:26 02/12/03 Wed

>>I imagined that Connor would only defend his decision to kill Angel after the fact to the Fang Gang. He would never defend it before hand.<<

I don't know... he has been trying to displace Angel throughout this season: taking over as head demon-killer at Angel Investigations over the summer, going after Cordelia (and holding it over Angelus' head when he finally bagged her), and wearing Angel's shirt last week. I could see Connor trying to convince the AI gang that Angel is lost and Angelus must be killed, so that he could finally get the last thing that belonged to his father: the family/team.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It would never be that logical ; ) (speculation based on last week's AtS trailer) -- RichardX1, 06:52:45 02/12/03 Wed

Still, you see my point: Connor's theft of Angel's soul had as much to do with covering his own ass as it did with dealing with his own conflicted emotions.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as sleeper (spoilers, natch) -- lunasea, 12:40:00 02/11/03 Tue

Actually, if Connor does that I have a feeling that not one, but two Slayers will be after him. I really can't see Faith just resorting to a taser gun either. Someone does need to teach jr that he should respect his father. A good ass kicking from Faith is just what I NEED to see.

I also don't see the gang agreeing on what should be done. Whatever Wesley says, Gunn will say the opposite.

And you left off Fred. I see her saying they shouldn't and Wesley agreeing with her. It isn't Angel's fault and they don't want to kill the possibility of bringing Angel back. That will just make the triangle that much more fun.

Cordy will try to keep Hell Spawn in line, but I doubt she will have much luck. With any luck, he will end up kibbles and bits.

[> [> [> [> Re: Angel as sleeper (spoiler Soulless) -- lunasea, 12:24:43 02/11/03 Tue

Once the Beast emerges from Connor's birthspot, he puts the whammy on Angel to make sure they don't remember how to banish him. Then the Beast goes and kills the Svea priestesses so they can't put the whammy on.

Why would The Beast think that Angel needs a whammy? Also, I was under the impression that the Priestesses were only dead a few days and The Beast has been around longer than that. He had to collect all the totems and that took time. Why wouldn't he go see them first?

By sending Angel to see what Cordy/Connor were doing, he may have been trying to bring out Angel's rage/demon. It isn't like we haven't seen demons try to convince Angel to be evil before.

Somehow because we expect it to be Connor, I don't think it will be. It does make sense. Angelus was definitely goading him into it, and not just opening the cage. That is why I don't think he did it. Too obvious.

Often these "minor plot developments" are what drives the arc and what people can't stop talking about are really the minor plot developments.

I agree with the lame part about Cordy though.

[> [> [> [> Personally, I favor the quadriplegic nun theory -- fresne, 15:06:49 02/11/03 Tue

developed over years of watching Murder She Wrote. Basically, you identify the character who physically or morally or both could not possibly have done it and that is the guilty party, which I suppose at this point would be Gavin the undead lawyer. Only mostly dead and ready to blave.

Of course, then there's the Jessica Fletcher is big old Framing People Murderess theory, because come on, can it be a coincidence that that many people just happen to be murdered just when Ms. Fletcher, who looks suspiciously like the accomplice of Sweeney Todd, shows up in town? I think not. What happened to Mr. Fletcher anyway?

[> [> [> [> [> I guess that means that... -- Masq, 15:15:18 02/11/03 Tue

Fred's responsible. The character who was enthralled with heroic Angel, who is least likely to be able to defend herself against Angelus, who in fact, was almost bit in the jugular by Angelus and saved by cage bars and a dart-gun, she is the one who stole the soul and will help Angelus escape.

I like it. She's hot on the trail of revenge, just like she was with Professor Seidel. Go get'm girl!

[> Not even close -- Rufus, 13:42:55 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> tease!.... -- Masq ; ), 13:54:55 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> [> But of course.......spoiler question -- Rufus, 14:34:28 02/11/03 Tue

I just got my season one Angel.....I just had to find a way to celebrate.

A further tease....some of you have gotten close to what is going on...so a question....Why did Angel almost hear Cordy in his mind before he saw Cordy where she "belongs" as a higher being?

[> [> [> [> I'll play, but ??? -- Masq, 14:43:52 02/11/03 Tue

Answer one question first. When did Angel almost hear Cordy in his mind?

I do remember a point where Angel is on top of a building watching Connor fight, and Cordelia is trying to talk to him, and she thinks he hears her, but he doesn't hear her at all. He's talking to Fred and Gunn. That's at the beginning of "The House Always Wins".

Previously, in "Ground State", he is in his room looking through the axis of Pythia, and comes out and tells Fred and Gunn that Cordelia is in a better place. Cordelia says "What are you, deficient?". Again, no indication that Angel heard her almost heard her.

So I don't even know which time you are referring to. I need to know when Angel almost heard Cordy in his mind to know Why he almost heard her.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'll play, but ??? -- Rufus, 14:56:11 02/11/03 Tue

Remember I said almost...at least that's what Cordy thought....from The House Always Wins....

ANGEL
I know you're there, watching me.

CORDELIA
Oh my God! Angel, you can hear me? I so love you. You don't know what it's been like-

FRED
We weren't spying...

CORDELIA
Oh, for crap's sake!

23 EXT. HIGHER DIMENSION - NIGHT
Zoom up through clouds to show Cordelia's face, bathed in soft blue-white light.

CORDELIA
You're picking up on it, too, aren't you, Angel? Something's wrong with those people. They could probably use your help. So that's got me wondering... where's that keen sense of perception as far as I'm concerned? What am I, out of the range of your super-vampire senses? Angel!

There was a tease going on that Angel could hear Cordy, but what if it were actually true? What did Angel really see that made him feel that Cordy was where she belonged, except that we saw a Cordy that wanted to dump the bad Philadelphia Cheese gig and get back to the living, real, world. Hmmmmmmm.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Does this mean -- Masq, 15:11:23 02/11/03 Tue

...that answers about why Cordelia was in that dimension, why she came back when she did, why she had no memory, et al. are forthcoming?

I don't need to be spoiled, but I do need to know they're gonna answer this stuff eventually. I hate having to say, "why this happened isn't clear" so much in my episode analyses. I like to have the answers to give to people, not a list of theories.

And so you're saying that when Angel saw her through the axis of pythia, he saw more than just her glowing happily like she belonged there. You're saying he saw more? And is what he saw something that Cordelia forgot?

Or something Angel forgot? Because he seemed to be content with leaving her in the higher dimensions, but he was sure glad to see her back at the beginning of "STBethlehem"

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Are they going to answer some of this eventually.....Yes -- Rufus, 15:20:37 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> How soon? ;o) -- Rob, 15:30:02 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't expect much before ep 16 but so much will have happened that you won't care. -- Rufus, 16:55:02 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Does this mean -- Wisewoman, 15:39:02 02/11/03 Tue

And so you're saying that when Angel saw her through the axis of pythia, he saw more than just her glowing happily like she belonged there. You're saying he saw more?

I thought what Rufus was saying was what I've been wondering about all along--how come Angel saw Cordy as just "glowing happily like she belonged there," when we know she was bitching and moaning to get out all along? Certainly every time we saw her she was, anyway.

Inquiring minds want to know! (Not really...)

;o) dub

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, well I want to know! -- Masq, 15:45:01 02/11/03 Tue

But don't tell me!

"She likes to be teased." --Angel, What's My Line, pt 2

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well put it this way it will be a looooong spring break. -- Rufus, 16:51:31 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> Re: But of course.......spoiler question -- lunasea, 14:57:57 02/11/03 Tue

Interesting idea. The "higher realm" reminded me of typical representations of a neural net. I think I even saw a couple of glial cells.

But how does that explain the dissociation that Angel/us is showing, which wasn't show earlier?

[> [> [> [> [> I covered that in my post on Demon possession and MPD -- Rufus, 15:29:56 02/11/03 Tue

Conversebuffyverse

[> [> [> [> [> [> Rufus... -- Masq, 15:52:07 02/11/03 Tue

Is your memory theory (Angel forgets some of what Angelus does due to memory fragmentation/trauma/dissociative personality) based in part on future spoilers that you've read?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> No -- Rufus, 16:49:32 02/11/03 Tue

I was thinking of the episode Sleeper and how the situation of Spike could be explained.....so happens it does work for Angel as well.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks -- lunasea, 08:40:36 02/12/03 Wed

Since you are a spoiler whore was that actually what is going to be given eventually or was that just brilliant deduction/speculation on your part?

One thing though, it isn't called MPD any more, for the reasons that you have stated. It is DID: Dissociative Identity Disorder.

I wonder at what point ME came up with this. Last season they had to eat a psych text book to write S6 of BtVS and it really showed. They weren't writing from their hearts and it didn't flow right. I wonder if they came across this then and decided to run with it.

Until recently Angel/us was pretty integrated. When he came back S2 of BtVS he didn't refer to the stuff Angel did as "he." It was always "I." That was one thing I liked about vampires. We may view them as demons in human form, the vampires saw themselves as stronger more powerful versions of their human selves without the hassles.

The way the psychics' minds blew apart felt important to me. It didn't just seem to be a plot device for why they couldn't get at the information. A lot of things felt important, like how Angel was without a destiny.

If they are really heading in this direction with Angel, it has to be one of the boldest things I have seen on TV. Buffy's dark night was nothing compared to this. I can't wait to see Angel recover from this. Act 3 will be amazing.

[> [> [> [> We assume! Our eyes lie!......spoiler question -- WickedDoubter, 16:47:26 02/11/03 Tue

How do we even know for sure it was a Higher Place Cordy went to?
Maybe it was just planted in her head it was a higher place, but it wasn't - and that's why Angel saw her thru that axis - and maybe-nearly heard her a few times - she never was that far away.

Why did Lorne cringe so violently when he saw into Cordy's mind? If it was such a Higher Place, wouldn't he have just fainted with pleasure at what he saw? (I still think Lorne is a much bigger player in all this than we realize yet/why didn't he tell everything he saw in Cordy's head right away, or in Angelus' Teddy Bear tune?)

I think both Cordy and Angel are red herrings in all this.

[> Not even close... -- Rufus, 13:44:58 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> Are we playing Cluedo, now? -- slain, 13:56:35 02/11/03 Tue

I say it's Colonel Wesley in the pantry with the candlestick.

[> [> [> How about Wesley in the closet with a bucket and some darts?...;) -- Rufus, 14:44:46 02/11/03 Tue

Reminds me of Wesley's past....the one mentioned in IGYUMS in season one.....

Ryan (in demon voice): "*You* do something? What makes you think you can do anything?"

Wesley: "In odorem suavitatis. Tu autem effugare, diabole. Appropinquabit enim judicium dei."

Ryan (demon voice): "You couldn't even 'watch!' (Wesley stares at Ryan) Everyone knows you got fired because you couldn't do anything right. Nothing is going to make him proud of you."

Wesley: "Skimming the surface of my mind - *very* good. But a mere parlor trick. Here's one for you (Puts down the bottle of Holy Water and thrusts a cross into Ryan's face) How many crosses am I holding up? Omnis spiritus immunde. In nomine dei."

Ryan in Wesley's voice: Mb>"All those hours locked up under the stairs and you still weren't good enough. Not good enough for Daddy, not good enough for the Council."

Funny how Wesley has come far enough to use some of his Dad's tricks on Justine (I wonder if Wes even got a bucket). On ATS it's about the father, on BTVS it's about the mother. Fathers past and present have a more important part in this season than ships.

"The Killer in Me" Revisited -- Darby, 10:50:52 02/11/03 Tue

Glad my shallow commentfests don't really compare to OnM's deep-ranging analyses...so don't try, anybody...please?

The Giles-croakyBuffy exchange was almost back to the old rhythms. Almost.

I'm still thinking that Buffy hides her bite scars at every opportunity from the girls.

I wonder how long it took to set up that everybody-screams-at-the-vamps shot from Tabula Rasa. No wonder it's in the credits.

I agree with several folks here that Kennedy's booty-before-duty attitude seems out of what little character we've seen.

So Willow's lack of self-esteem apparently makes even a clumsy seduction with a side of creep work. The conversational parts are okay, though.

Having all of the female guests seems to have improved the beauty make-up in general. We don't get to see Willow's freckles, though.

The kiss-makes-Willow-Warren. Did the promos always spoil such interesting twists? I don't remember that from previous years.

Sorry, I don't think Adam Busch picked up Willow's speech cadences or body language. He wasn't Warren, but he wasn't Willow, either. AH did better when she was supposed to "be" Warren.

The whole Spike-remembers-the-Initiative thing is too inconsistent with the way things were. Nothing about the workings of the chip were confirmed when he escaped (even Riley had to confirm it was working much later for Maggie), which he couldn't have done if the thing had already booted up. And he never successfully found the way in from above, and knew nothing of the druggings until he knew enough to avoid them - I'd grant that he might have been there longer than the old episodes made it seem, and might have been drugged without remembering it, but here he's remembering specific chip effects and purposeful druggings from while he was in there. Sorry, doesn't work.

So, um, they lifted an open grate covered by loose dirt? The prop guys couldn't find a solid trap door?

No problem with the intent to fill in the Initiative never being carried out, but the leaving of major evidence behind goes contrary to the whole "erase the evidence" vibe, a much more major plothole. An empty government building, even an underground one, fine if it's been cleaned out, but one full of beastie carcasses? Too many implications if it were stumbled upon. And there was no way they left soldier remains there - but the human-looking stuff could have been demons still (hard to explain the skeleton in the lab coat, though).

How many times can they play the bit where the second one in falls klutzily?

It's be neater if Xander was looking for Promethea rather than League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

The Robson phone call plays too much from the viewers' perspective on the scene - it was the way we would have described it, not the way wounded-guy-on-the-floor was likely to. It could have been more realistic and still worked.

Nobody's seen Giles eat? He never enters or leaves except when the door's been opened? No bathroom breaks (hard to do that and not interact singly with a door or a flushy thing)? For weeks??? They've played this beyond all reason.

I guess it stand to reason that a Wicca group meeting regularly on the Hellmouth might get a bit less clueless over time, but this is what they try to tie into the continuity? I'd have rather seen Spellcasters Anonymous! But if Willow still expected them to be clueless ("Hey...this is new."), why would she have gone there for help? If she went looking for Amy and wound up there, that would have made much more sense. But if Willow didn't expect Amy there, or anybody who knew something substantive, isn't it a huge coincidence that Amy was now a member and just happened to be the bad guy here?

Amy definitely changed the course of the spell with Willow, but I'm not convinced that she really cast it originally, even though she takes credit for it (and denies the later effect's hers, obviously a lie). It would have more resonance if, as in Same Time Same Place, the spell was all Willow's, rooted in her fear and guilt, and Amy just put an accentuation whammy on it. Doubt that's the official story, though.

Must've been a helluva government battery pack to keep the emergency red lights on for years!

Okay, the Bringers can find Potentials, and they really want to kill them, so the whole lot goes to the desert with just Gloomy Giles for protection? Huh? If the Knights could find Dawn out there with no visible scrying, why couldn't the Bringers track them there? How can a roomful of writer geeks miss this stuff?

Sorry, shadowkat, but if the writers can't keep a purposeful shift of POV consistent with Willow/Warren - and it broke down bigtime toward the end - it's hard to believe that they're purposefully doing subtle things with it in the other episodes. They can't seem to keep their own POV straight. Just my POV, of course.

Amy knowing what Kennedy was is a clue, but we know already that the Sunnydale under-community is full of gossip, and Buffy told Clem about them. Wouldn't we expect Amy to know about the newbies, if the script wasn't required to make a big deal about it?

Still got no problem with Giles "touching" line. I suspect a Joss-added line here.

So now, to kill a vamp, we've got stake to the heart, fire, sunlight, religious stuff sometimes, and wonky Microsoft products...

At least they can't sit on the resolution of the chip thing for weeks and weeks and weeks. Can they? They could just bring Spike and Buffy back without telling us what happened, but they wouldn't do that, would they?

I do like Amy becoming her mother, but not literally. Subtle. I hope.

The Willow-Kennedy closing scene makes absolutely no sense to start - the gun, the backyard, it's all device and no sense. The resolution could have been done just as dramatically with less melodrama. Who'd Willow expect to find in Buffy's yard, anyway? Was it all Amy's spell - at least that might make some sense. Willow's dialogue through the scene works very well, but the gun is more hindrance than help. I do like how it plays out - Willow's guilt, and the real source ("abandoning" Tara rather than killing Warren), were very reasonable and AH played it very well.

Overall? Some good stuff, some not so good stuff, but more floundering than they ought to be doing.

[> Re: "The Killer in Me" Revisited -- Dochawk, 13:58:26 02/11/03 Tue

I agree with you on an awful lot of this Darbs and that's pretty unusual. ME strongly needs a continuity editor (I know several fans who would do the job for free!) especially for Drew Greenburg episodes. He feels like he didn't even bother to watch the old episodes (or remember them), you'd think that when he got the story break he would have watched those season 4 episodes, but I guess not (which differs from Drew Goddard who obviously watched the old episodes with love, the Scott Hope line still impresses me). I really though this episode stretched my abilities in disbelief. still liked it alot though (anything Willowcentric will get extra bonus points from me).

As for the promos. the WB is worse (Joss even publicly complained about them when the Gift aired, didn't the promo show Buffy jumping?) A more recent example for the WB, Wo-Pang being present when Angel wakes up without his soul in the promo. Anyone who watched closely really had the conceit ruined for them and that was the whole goodness of the episode.

[> Re: "The Killer in Me" Revisited -- Malandanza, 16:41:33 02/11/03 Tue

"I agree with several folks here that Kennedy's booty-before-duty attitude seems out of what little character we've seen."

We saw that Kennedy didn't believe in magic at all -- much like Riley. The trip to the desert to commune with the spirits must have seemed a bit ridiculous to her. (Although I'm not sure why she would be so skeptical about magic since she'd been raised by watchers). In the meantime, the house has been so filled with potentials that she's barely had a moment alone with Willow. So skipping out makes sense not from a "booty-before-duty" attitude but from a "booty-before-stupid-mystic-ritual-with-a-bunch-of-giggling-teenaged-girls" standpoint. Buffy's description of the ritual would have supported Kennedy's own opinion.

Why didn't she go anyway? Do her duty, no matter how silly she might think it is? I think Kennedy believes that she belongs with the Scoobies rather than the potentials. Look at all the years of training she's had -- why should she be subject to the same rules as a bunch of new recruits? I think there is arrogance at work -- but that Kennedy will have an attitude readjustment imposed upon her at some point.

At the same time, I do feel somewhat sympathetic for Kennedy. She has spent her life training to be a slayer and this is likely to be as close as she actually gets. What does she do with the rest of her life?

"But if Willow still expected them to be clueless ("Hey...this is new."), why would she have gone there for help?"

Willow did meet Tara there. Even if she thought the campus Wiccans were still a bunch of "blessed be wannabes,"
there's still the chance that among the wannabes are people like Tara and Willow with some measure of real power who she could talk to after the main meeting. As for heading to Spellcasters Anonymous -- those are people with magic addictions. Asking them for help would be like showing up at an AA meeting and asking if anyone would like to go bar hopping with you.

[> [> Also, about the Coven -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:31:03 02/11/03 Tue

Willow called them the "campus coven". Since she's attending classes again, odds are she's heard stuff about them.

OT regarding Second Coming -- KdS, 11:25:53 02/11/03 Tue

No particular BtVS resonances (apart from the obvious one of the everyday human being thrust into mystical power and responsibility) but did anyone else in the UK watch The Second Coming the other day? Absolutely fantastic acting all round, especially Eccleston, Sharp and the guy who played Satan (whose name I missed). Also some of the scariest demons I've ever seen, with minimal special effects, and sleight-of-hand with prophecy to make ME seem maladroit. The rest of the post is philosophical and deeply spoilery, so if you have it on tape and haven't got round to seeing it, please don't scroll down.

It seems to me that the idea of the "death of God" really seems to be floating around popular fantasy right now, with Second Coming following Pullman's trilogy and Preacher. Russell T Davies went even farther than the other two by making God deliberately kill himself to free humanity to exercise their free will without supernatural interference. It astonished me that there wasn't more kerfuffle in the papers this morning. Come to think of it, I could probably write an essay about the continuing differences in UK and US popular culture as revealed by comparing Preacher and Second Coming (yes, I know Garth Ennis is (Northern?) Irish, but Preacher is far more American than Celtic).

[> LOL. I just posted about this. Look further down the board -- Rahael, 11:29:40 02/11/03 Tue

Agree about the acting. Riveting.

And I think there maybe more Buffyverse parallels than we think because Davies is not unaware of BtVS. There are posts in the archives a long time ago.

[> [> Russell T Davies -- Tchaikovsky, 11:55:49 02/11/03 Tue

In The Guardian this Saturday there was a long section in the Magazine about the best things on television, with an (incidentally and irrelevantly) very interesting article by Mark Lawson. Then they looked at various different figures and there inspirations. Each person, (presenter, executive, writer etc) had to name their favourite show ever and now.

Russell T Davies plumps for:

Ever: 'Pennies from Heaven', which I've never heard of- someone older and wiser will have to fill me in.

Now: Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

The only mention of either Buffy or Angel among the 50 people, and one of relatively few American shows mentioned.

Thought acting was good, but never quite got over the premise of 'Second Coming'.

TCH

[> Haven't seen it, just like the implicit black humor of the second coming being OT:) -- Haecceity, 11:54:11 02/11/03 Tue

[> [> But your comment is "NT" . . . there'd be a punch-line here if I understood Biblical hermeneutics -- d'Herblay, 15:10:23 02/11/03 Tue

Bought your Angel DVD yet? -- Rob, 14:47:47 02/11/03 Tue

Just brought my bouncing baby Angel DVD boxed set home, popped it in the player, and am about halfway through "City of..." but I just had to post to say WOW. Now, I don't know yet about the extras. Haven't watched them. But the presentation is incredible. The cover art kicks the crap out of the Buffy sets (except for the lack of Wes on anything but the booklet...what gives?). I don't love how the disks themselves look. Although if you lay them out, they spell "Angel," it looks a little bland. I prefer how "Buffy" put a different character on each disk to this.

But...besides that, WOW. I was knocked out by the menu alone, which is so professional, so classy...and easier to figure out the order of the episodes than the "Buffy" sets. So far, the picture quality is impeccable. I'd say about equal to the Buffy: Season 3 set, and maybe even a little bit better in the darker scenes. There's no show, after all, that does nighttime scenes better.

I can't speak about the quality of the commentaries or the documentaries. I'm waiting till I'm done watching all the eps in the best format ever before delving into those. But from the moment the menu started up, my jaw dropped at how amazing it is. Masq, if you haven't pre-ordered or bought it yet, you're going to be one happy little camper when ya do!

Rob

[> Hugging mine right this minute! -- WickedEcstatic, 14:54:07 02/11/03 Tue

[> Mine was delivered to my door..... -- Rufus, 14:57:28 02/11/03 Tue

And I got it without paying postage....I know the small things make us happy...;)

[> I pre-ordered in December -- Masq, 15:04:42 02/11/03 Tue

Mine's probably in the mail right now, coming from amazon.com. I ordered Angel S. 1 and Buffy S. 3 together, so I'll get both next week.

I plan to be a happy camper, but the sight of Glenn Quinn in "City Of..." is not something I'm looking forward to. My heart'll be all ripped out by the time I get to "Hero", and after that episode I'll be a wreck!

I did like the "In loving memory" tribute to him... was it after "Long Day's Journey"?

On the plus side... Kate! Miss that gutsy gal.

[> [> Re: Glenn Quinn -- Rob, 15:18:47 02/11/03 Tue

One tiny faux pas is that the actor bio does not have anything about his death. Apparently, the sets were all completed and packaged before the tragedy occurred. Maybe they can have some sort of tribute to him in the next set?

And yes that was a very lovely tribute to him at the end of LDJ.

I was sad when City of started, seeing Doyle, but then he put a smile on my face with his "Get a job, you lazy sow!"

Rob

[> [> Amazon -- WickedBuffy, 15:42:18 02/11/03 Tue

I pre-ordered mine then, too and wasn't expecting to see it until next week or after. But it was in yesterdays mail! From Amazon. Is your Buffy set slowing it down maybe?

[> [> [> Actually, it's the other way around -- Masq, 15:48:32 02/11/03 Tue

I could have gotten Buffy s. 3 in January, but I wanted them shipped together to save money (no skin off my nose, I have it all on tape anyway).

But, according to amazon, which I just checked, it's all in the mail now. Of course, I have it coming to my work address, which only does pick-up M-F 8:30- 5 pm. It might delay it one day, but it's a heck of a lot easier than trying to deal with my apartment complex manager!

[> Just got mine... -- Humanitas, 16:30:50 02/11/03 Tue

Maybe this will help ease the pain of a terminally scratched 2nd disc on my BtVS S3 set. (Still waiting on the replacement...)

Should Spike pay? when is it time to let go? (spoilers 7.14, and rest of Season 7, some S6) -- Clen, 15:41:09 02/11/03 Tue

Clearly this will be the topic that will be debated until the end of time, but I will ask it nonetheless:

Now that we know that Principal Wood is the next Deadwood Dick (or, the Robin Hood of vampire-killing, take your pick), and we also know there is bound to be a showdown w/ Spike, the question is, should Spike pay? By pay, I mean of course die. He's already atoning for the recent stuff he's done, but Wood brings up the interesting notion of vengeance for stuff done a long time ago, at least as far back as they can make it while still trying to make it personal for someone.

Should he die? I think no. I not only think there is a lot left of his character that Marsters could bring out and do a good job of it, but also that Spike's redemption could be better served by working it out in his own head. William's big thing is that he had all these problems that he was trying to work out in his head, his ineffectuality with women that he tried to solve with poetry, etc. But this got put on ice for a while. But now this is the chance for him to work it out, and if he dies, he will never work it out.

However, DO I think he will die? I'm sadly leaning towards yes. Maybe not next week, but by the end of the season. First of all, they already have a tortured vampire trying to do good, and he has his own series with his name in the title and everything. Also, since getting his soul back, Spike seems rather, how shall I put it, "delicate" this season.
If Wood makes a strong case, Spike would gladly bare his chest, as he already did for Buffy in Sleeper. Then Buffy would say no, then Spike would decide to make some sacrifice to save the day. Or maybe Spike would convince Buffy to let Wood do it so he can finally "rest in peace", as per OMWF and Beneath You. I think Spike dying would be for the benefits of Buffy's development (whether she keeps up the role or not). She and he both have to learn about giving up. Not in the sense of losing, but in the sense of handing over the reins of responsibility to someone else.

The writing is on the wall for Buffy, and for all of us in terms of letting it go: Dawn is taking her place as the young schoolgirl learning to kick butt, the SITs are taking her place as the Chosen one, Willow is letting go of Tara in KIM, Spike comments on the chip in KIM and says that it (the chip?, Spike?) wasn't meant to last that long and that is something both he and Buffy have in common, Buffy says in First Date that she isn't ready for Spike to not be in her life yet, the list goes on and on.

Maybe in S6 Buffy learned not to lie down and die but to stand up and fight, maybe this season Buffy will learn when it is time to pass the torch and when to lie down and die. Spike could be a wonderful demonstration of just such a concept.

[> also -- Clen, 15:52:31 02/11/03 Tue

it occurs to me that the show really was only meant to go up to S5. But it was so loved, that it was brought back for a few more. So perhaps there is a message for us as well in terms of "letting it go".

yowzers! (7.14) -- lynx, 18:02:38 02/11/03 Tue

[> oops - maybe 7.15 -- lynx, 18:07:55 02/11/03 Tue

[> Jane! Jane! Jane! (1st D. spoilers) -- Darby, 18:27:07 02/11/03 Tue

Now this is more like it!

We needed Giles back - everybody else falls in line when Giles is Giles.

It's nice that we don't have to suspect Wood anymore, and the twist is good continuity.

But did they really make that huge gaffe in the car????

[> [> What gaff? But what about "comment on orientation"?! -- yez, 19:37:57 02/11/03 Tue

I really, really liked the episode and really, really laughed a lot, but the immediate BUT that comes to mind for me is the slight sting of Giles' "No time to comment on orientation" line. I felt like that was meant for the audience. And yes, it's true -- why talk about Willow when all this heavy shit is happening. But one of the great things about the show has always been that it does talk about and through Willow and all the other characters; for me, that's when the show's been at it's best. And for all the talk of Buffy's sacred duty and potential and the sin of wasting it that we've heard about for all these seasons, the show is in the same position when it comes to defeating the evils of social prejudices, like homophobia, racism, etc.

Maybe I'm overreacting, but that line kind of stung because I'm guilty of wanting to know more, wanting to see more of Willow's "orientation" storyline -- because it speaks to me like so few other shows on the air right now do.

OK, rant over. No matter what, I love this show, and I loved this ep.

So what was that gaff?

yez

[> [> [> Vampires 101 -- Darby, 20:13:44 02/11/03 Tue

In the car, Wood looks at Spike - in the rearview mirror. Except, of course, that Spike can't be seen in a mirror! Right then, Wood had to know Spike was a vampire, not later in the basement. Could everyone at ME involved in that scene - including Marsters - have forgotten the no reflections thing?

I was prepared for Wood to be hiding the fact that he couldn't see Spike in the mirror and knew then, but unfortunately they went out of their way to show us his moment of realization in the basement.

On another note, using the First to reveal Spike's role is too simple (and how easy would it really be to confirm on a 20-year-old case with at best peripheral witnesses and a much longer list of Billy Idol copycats?) - wouldn't it have been more interesting to put Spike in a position to figure it out and confess, or at least give Buffy one more thing to confide?

[> [> [> [> lol -- yez, 20:59:45 02/11/03 Tue

_uo?�t didn't even register with me. That is quite the slip up, though.

I think having Wood's Mom/FE deliver the news is important because I suspect this is going to set up the big conflict for Wood -- believing Buffy when she says Spike's changed over the vision of his dead mother finally naming her murderer.

Also, it sets up the reciprocity factor. However Wood might feel about the FE (and this ep. establishes that his intentions were to fight on the side of "good," if we're to believe what he says to Buffy and to the FE) the FE has done him a favor, and in fact, fulfilled one of his deepest wishes -- to avenge his mother.

I think those two factors set up for some nice dramatic tension. But we'll have to wait and see how they use it, I guess.

yez

[> [> [> [> [> One further thing not yet resolved though? -- frisby, 05:17:03 02/12/03 Wed

It seems Wood is on the side of the good, but, what are we to make of that knife at the beginning, and "whose" blood was it? Some arbitrary demon's? Or?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, that's right... Dunno. -- yez, 06:01:22 02/12/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> Re: Vampires 101 -- Jay, 21:08:01 02/11/03 Tue

Hey, woh now, they never showed Wood seeing Spike in the mirror. Only Wood looking for Spike in the mirror. Wood was highly suspect of Spike being a vampire long before he brought out the big bumpies. Personally, I'm disappointed that Wood didn't bring it up in the car. But with a Slayer at his side who knew the non-reflecty, he was giving a much longer leash than he usually does. Of course, I don't know for sure, I'm just trying to explain what I saw.

[> [> [> [> Read that scene totally different. -- HonorH, 00:31:05 02/12/03 Wed

To me, I thought it was obvious Wood *did* realize Spike wasn't reflecting, and the vamp-out in the basement only confirmed his suspicions--and confirmed Buffy knew as well. Which obviously didn't sit well with him.

[> [> [> [> [> That's the way I read it, too, HonorH -- Dead Soul, 01:56:17 02/12/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ditto -- leslie, 09:25:17 02/12/03 Wed

Wood looked in the rearview mirror a couple of times; I was expecting him, with his newly revealed vampire-hunting skills, to immediately comment on Spike's lack of reflection, but instead he asked how Spike and Buffy were acquainted. The fact that it wasn't just one look but a couple seems to argue that it was deliberate. Plus, remember earlier, at the restaurant, Buffy said something to the effect of "almost all" vamps being evil or the enemy or something like that--she clearly left the window open for the possibility of vampires as allies, and there did seem to be a slight "radar up" reaction from Wood. Yet, from his point of view, not knowing Spike is a vampire and presumably not having had any meaningful conversations with any, here is someone who shows up to tell the Slayer that a friend is in danger, is clearly along to assist in aiding the Slayer's friend, and furthermore, is reacting remarkably like a not-quite-ex-boyfriend. I would think that from Wood's pov, all of that would be a strong argument against Spike being a vampire. So to me, the "He's a vampire" comment definitely read as a confirmation of a suspicion.

Oh, and by the way, am I the only one seeing something slightly Oedipal in Woods's attraction to Buffy? Here he finally gets to have a relationship with a Slayer, which on some level is a fulfillment of the relationship he never had with his mother? Wouldn't the idea of fighting alongside his mother have been the kind of fantasy that would have dominated his life, especially after being raised by a Watcher to be a slayer himself? And now, the woman in his mother's place turns out to prefer his mother's killer and he seems to be contemplating killing Spike, the "Bad Father"--if that isn't Oedipal, I don't know what is.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Completely Agree -- Rahael, 09:48:27 02/12/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> I don't think the line reading fits that - guess we need to see the script -- Darby, 05:42:09 02/12/03 Wed

It's possible that there were no stage directions for the mirror-look, and of everyone involved, that actor was least likely to realize that he shouldn't have been able to look at Spike that way. It may have been editing before anybody even saw it, if then...

[> [> [> [> [> [> And here I thought... -- ponygirl, 07:20:02 02/12/03 Wed

... that the car gaffe was Spike saying Willow had done a locator spell though he had left before she had done any such thing. Maybe they got Spike a cell phone too? Good catch, though, interesting. I'm not big with the trusting Wood at this point. This is the guy that left Jonathon in a shallow grave after all.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> How did Spike know where to find Buffy and Wood? -- Walking Turtle, 09:21:18 02/12/03 Wed

While watching the show - Wood's reference about the 5 vampires looking for him because of his actions hunting vampires caused me to wondered why Spike didn't know about these actions of Wood?

Is he that isolated from other Vamps and Demons? --- or ---

Were both 1) Spike knowing where to find Buffy and Wood and 2) knowing where to find Xander gaffes

--- or ----

clues that Spike knows more than he is letting on.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well -- ponygirl, 09:37:00 02/12/03 Wed

Spike said he could track her scent. One of those vampire abilities that seems to come and go (I think Angel's used super sniffing powers on occasion), or maybe Buffy really loaded up on the perfume for the date ;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very observant - I just retired and am discovering fun of *lurking* -- Walking Turtle, 09:55:20 02/12/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well lurk no more and post away! Welcome! -- ponygirl, 10:07:11 02/12/03 Wed

Current board | More February 2003