February 2003 posts

Previous February 2003
More February 2003

Why I'm peeved at "Calvary" (spoilers) -- Scroll, 20:42:20 02/12/03 Wed

(Okay, after having written this, I realise I ranted more strictly necessary. Hopefully you'll all take this with a grain of salt.)

I'm peeved. Mainly because they killed off Lilah, whom I simply adore. Buh-bye, sweet bitch. We'll miss you lots. Here's hoping Wesley will take a page out of Giles' book and do the flaming baseball bat of vengeance gig. "It's all fun and games until you burn down the lair!" RIP Wes/Lilah. You were the only relationship on either show that I could actually believe in.

Now on to other matters: What is up with the weirdness that is Wesley/Fred? Now I'm a huge Wes fan, and I've actually grown fond of Fred and Gunn. I like Gunn more than Fred, mainly because while he's being kinda of a territorial ass about Fred, at least I know where he's coming from. He loves Fred and doesn't want to lose her. But Fred! What the hell are you doing?! As much as I love Wesley and would marry him in an instant, I have no idea why she would want to! I can understand the murder of Prof. Seidel putting a crimp in her relationship with Gunn, but I don't see how that equates to Fred suddenly looking at Wesley with speculative eyes. I mean, Wes was just as much involved in that murder; you'd think she would feel almost as much guilt looking at Wesley. Maybe I'm thinking too hard. Or maybe Joss needs to clear this up. I just don't understand why Fred is suddenly looking at Wes like he might be her new boyfriend.

Unfortunately, I got spoiled regarding Cordy being evil so I spent most the episode looking for signs. What I want to know is how is she evil. Is she being controlled by an external force? Has she been brainwashed? Is she a doppleganger and the Real Cordy is off somewhere in floaty-ville? And why doesn't she want Angel (I was going to write Angelus, but I change my mind; Angel is Angel is Angel, souled or not) to know that she is evil?

Okay, one more reason for my being peeved at "Calvary". It was a pretty good episode and I was glad to see Lilah again, but I'm kind of disappointed that Joss killed her off. Not just because she's a great character, but because of what she represents.

Guys, think of this. Ever since the very first episode of Angel, there has been one ever-present force at work in Los Angeles. One evil that just won't go away because it is ingrained into society. An evil that thrives on ruthless competition, cutthroat business ventures, and corrupt employees doing dirty deals. Wolfram & Hart is dead.

Every employee has been killed, even the ones off sick the day the Beast rampaged through their L.A. office. The extra-dimensional offices have been decimated. Their network has been collapsed. Lilah, their last surviving employee, has been murdered by one of the "Good Guys" in the one place she should have been safe: the office of Angel Investigations.

I realise this season has shown the end of institutions. First the Watcher's Council bites it big time, then W&H gets demolished. The streets of L.A. are a warzone. Yes, the apocalypse is really here. End of the world. Only it's not. We all know the world isn't going to end. We know that, come May, the White Hats are going to stop the apocalypse just in the nick of time. And we know (if we take Fray as canon) that the Watcher's Council will be rebuilt. The seeds have already been planted in Giles, Xander, Willow, and the others. We have the Fang Gang which will, one way or the other, continue doing good in L.A. So why, oh why, couldn't Lilah have been spared! Wolfram & Hart will eventually rebuild itself; having been around since cave-man days, I don't see W&H vanishing into oblivion entirely. If this is the last season of Angel, I can understand why Joss is willing to kill off W&H. But if not, then this was a serious mistake (IMHO). Lilah didn't have to die; if she couldn't be redeemed, she could have started rebuilding W&H.

Scratch that: Why couldn't Lilah have been redeemed? Not totally redeemed, but she could've been integrated. Lilah brought such a dark tinge of grey into the mix, and that grey will be sorely missed (by me, if no one else). Yes, the Evil!Cordy thing was shocking and explains a lot. But Evil!Cordy isn't grey. Or at least, doesn't seem grey at all to me. Saint Cordy is still a saint, just not in control or absent. Evil Cordy is evil. But Lilah was grey. Very dark grey, and fun. Angelus is fun, but he's not grey.

So here's me waiting (im)patiently 'til my other grey girl comes a-calling.

[> Re: Why I'm peeved at "Calvary" (spoilers) -- Utopia, 21:05:33 02/12/03 Wed

I know our Lindsey left town in a fit of redemption, but I wonder, do you think he was left alone by The Beast? (Or whoever killed all the out of town firm employees.) Do you think it's possible that W&H will live on in him? He did try the redemption thing once before with those psychic kids and then had an evil relapse, and we know he hates poverty.

Just a thought, for all of me who'll miss them evil lawyers.

[> At this moment it's uncertain if there will be a fifth season of AtS -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:07:59 02/12/03 Wed

If this is the last, go for the nihilism full throttle.

If it's not, I think that rebuilding Wolfram & Hart will play a major role next season. After all, so far as we can tell, only the section of Wolfram & Hart in this dimension has been decimated. There are still extra-dimensional outlets for the Senior Partners, and sooner or later they'll portal themselves over here.

[> Re: Why I'm peeved at "Calvary" (spoilers) -- s'kat, 21:20:51 02/12/03 Wed

Why couldn't Lilah have been redeemed? Not totally redeemed, but she could've been integrated. Lilah brought such a dark tinge of grey into the mix, and that grey will be sorely missed (by me, if no one else). Yes, the Evil!Cordy thing was shocking and explains a lot. But Evil!Cordy isn't grey. Or at least, doesn't seem grey at all to me. Saint Cordy is still a saint, just not in control or absent. Evil Cordy is evil. But Lilah was grey. Very dark grey, and fun. Angelus is fun, but he's not grey.

Completely and utterly agree. I may never forgive them for killing off Lilah. She was such an interesting character with so much potential. When I was speculating on this with a spoiled friend last week (who I will NEVER play poker with - I'm not spoiled) - he asked me what good would come of killing Lilah, there's so much they can do with her regarding Wes - so much more torture, and she's evil. Hmmm in retrospect he was giving me a hint - Ats is killing off all the evil people not the good. While Btvs keeps killing the good, with the possible exceptions of Jonathan, Warren and Webs depending on your pov. So of course the grey nasty would die as opposed to the good characters. Although I still think killing Fred off was a missed opportunity for tons of story goodness. Think of the angst? The level of pain? So much better. Lilah? Not so high. Dang it. Except to the fans. Killing Lilah punishes the fans, it doesn't punish the characters on the show. What's the point? (Feel as if I'm echoing Lilah's question to Angelus - "why kill us? We're the bad guys! Like you!" Angelus - guess you just weren't bad enough.)

I'd heard rumors they were going to explore Lilah's background, even her relationship with her mother. And I was just dreaming of a Wes/Lilah/Fred/Gunn quadrangle. Also so wanted to see Lilah/Angelus deal. Very unhappy.

Regarding Fred? Why is she attracted to Wesely? Well a better question is what the heck does she see in Gunn?
Outside of the whole protector/nice guy thing. They have zip in common. He doesn't understand anything she says. He couldn't understand the whole supersymmetry thing. He didn't understand why she chose the fate she did for Seidel.
He doesn't understand what she went through in Pylea. He doesn't understand her background. What does she see in him?
I've never understood the Fred/Gunn relationship. Or for that matter - what does Gunn see in Fred? Zip in common here. Gunn and Cordy - that would have made sense to me.
Even Gunn and Kate would have worked. Gunn and Fred - works as well as Cordy and Wesely worked for me.

Wes and Fred have tons in common. They speak the same language. Last year in Provider - the evil demons who wanted a brillant brain had contacted Wes, when he wasn't available they went for Fred. Wes actually had a copy of the journal Fred's article on supersymmetry was in.
Wes went to the conference - and understood it and what it meant to Fred. Gunn had no clue what it meant and felt foolish. Wes and Fred came up with the dimension idea both times - together. They both are scholars. They both feel they have no place outside AI. Gunn had his gang. They have chemistry.

The only thing I can see bringing Gunn and Fred together is they are complete opposites and well up until now Gunn was a nice guy who wouldn't hurt a fly and so was Fred in each's head. They idealized each other. Wes - I don't believe idealizes Fred anymore than Fred really idealizes Wes.

Both Cordy and Angel saw Fred and Wes together. The Gunn/Fred thing seemed bizarre to them.

Not that I particularly care one way or the other. Just my ten cents for what they are worth. sk

[> [> Re: Why I'm peeved at "Calvary" (spoilers) -- grum, 21:38:07 02/12/03 Wed

Perhaps Fred is closer to Wesley the grey than we have been led to believe. Maybe she's playing off her look of purity and the guilt thing is for not feeling as badly as Gunn does about the murder. See Willow and Tara for an example of an "impure" character drafting off the back of a more pure one. Fred was with Gunn because he was what she wanted to believe herself to be? I'm not as up on Ats since the cable is lacking in my home and the WB is only the faintest of whispers through the rabbit ears, so some nights I get it others not so much hence missage of episodes.
Btw shadowkat, been reading your essays lots of good stuff there hope to get chance to reply to some of your ideas, and of course finish reading the rest.

[> [> Re: Why I'm peeved at "Calvary" (spoilers) -- Scroll, 21:51:15 02/12/03 Wed

She was such an interesting character with so much potential.

Yes, this is exactly why I'm peeved. Lilah has so much potential for future stories and I don't find the reason why she was killed, nor the context or the possible consequences, to be serious enough to justify killing off this character. Well, I suppose I'm biased. In fact, if Angel had been the one to kill her, I think it would've been even more dramatic. Yes, they wanted to show Cordelia was evil. They still could've done that without having Cordy doing the actual stabbing. And Angel killing Lilah ratchets up the angst between Angel and Wes (again). I can't foresee (I'm not spoiled, just pessimistic) that Cordelia herself will ever have to feel justifiable guilt over all the people dead because of her, whether she's a sleeper agent or a doppleganger or whatever. But Angel himself has a tendency to carry guilt for murders committed by "Angelus". Lilah's murder would've had consequences. (I hope we have a season 5!)

I agree with you that Gunn and Fred have nothing in common. Late Season 3 that really bothered me. Now it doesn't because we see tension between them because of it. We see Gunn's feeling inferior because he's not a "brain". That's okay, it's compelling television. Hmm, maybe I'm just slow. Now that I've started to like Gunn/Fred, Joss is taking them away from me. *sigh* Like so many other things...

And, not to get into a shipper debate, I'm just voicing my extreme confusion and cluelessness... I really don't understand what Wesley sees in Fred. I really, really don't. I like Fred, I do. I just don't know why Wesley does.

[> [> [> LOL! What does Wes see in Fred? -- s'kat, 06:28:02 02/13/03 Thu

Well I agree with everything you said on Lilah, although I do believe Cordy will reap the consequences. And Wes is going to believe it was Angelus - she framed him for it a la Holtz. Oh Cordy is going to pay for everything eventually, I think. But probably not in the way we want or expect.

Not really a Fredshipper. (Actually they killed the only female character I truly shipped for on Ats. (sigh) I had prepared myself for Fred's death, was all resigned to it too, dang it.) At any rate - I think Wes sees the same things in Fred that Gunn does. She's a lot like he is. Smart. (Book smart) Wanting to do the right thing, doing the wrong one. And as grum states below - there could be a little of that impure attracted to pure going on. Wes in some ways fulfills the role on Angel that Willow fufills on Btvs. And like Willow - is attracted to the seemingly sweet, intellectual. It's combo of commonality of interest, background, and the ruthlessness in each that attracts them, I think. I have more troubles understanding what Gunn sees in Fred actually, than what Wes does. I think they misstepped with Gunn - he should have stayed freelance on the outside. Never made a lot of sense to me why he left his gang where he was the leader and in control for AI. But hey that's just me.

[> [> [> Mmmmmmm, Lilah! (spoilers) -- Darby, 07:27:17 02/13/03 Thu

Was anyone else thinking, during the chase around the hotel, what a kick Lilah might be as a vampire?

What would happen if Angel found Lilah, nearly dead from her wound, and gave her some of his blood? Would it change the process, give us a different sort of vampire?

Lilah, the vampire with a very tainted soul?

It seems like something more has to happen with Lilah, or what was all of that stuff with her oozing Beast wound, and being the only W&H employee spared? Was it only to make we slightly-spoiled types unsure if she was the one with the target on them?

Confused now.

[> [> [> [> Lilah! (spoilers) -- Arethusa, 08:19:06 02/13/03 Thu

We might see Lilah again-remember, Holland Manners' contract with W&H went beyond the grave, and as a high-level executive Lilah probably signed away her soul, first born, saleable body parts, and anything else the firm could think of.

[> [> [> [> Re: Mmmmmmm, Lilah! (spoilers) -- s'kat, 14:06:58 02/13/03 Thu

Oh I was thinking it. I was wondering - come on Angelus turn Lilah into a vampire - what better way to torture good old Wesely?? Sick the vampire Lilah on Fred and Wes.

Also kept wondering about her oozing Beast wound and the
whole thing about why bring her back.

So you aren't alone there.

SK

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Mmmmmmm, Lilah! (spoilers) -- JM, 17:43:05 02/13/03 Thu

Yes, but vampire Lilah he would have to concentrate on destroying. With dead, cold, corpse Lilah he will have to confront the fact that he FAILED her. He tried once again to keep someone safe and managed to deliver them to the enemy. And he has only her cold, dead, inarticulate corpse to explain this to. Not the more satisfying, if horrifying, for word guy, barely discernable simulcrum of the woman who knew him better than anyone. Face it, the only basic difference between vamp Lilah and human Lilah would be strength and sustenance. (All spec.)

Spec too, the wound isn't normal. Continually festering, like the last remnant of her human conscience. The last, undeniable remnants of their intimacy. (Loved how Fred registered when she appeared just how comfortable Wes was around Lilah. Almost unguarded. Has SHE ever seen him like that?)

Bringing her back. Barrier to Fred and Wes. Even if they get it on. Lilah's corpse will be between them. She will never be the resolved and fully rejected ex.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mmmmmmm, Lilah! (spoilers) -- Tess, 20:20:02 02/13/03 Thu

""Spec too, the wound isn't normal.""

At first I thought she was just spared because Conner chose that moment to attack the Beast and than Wes saved her, but they seemed to have made a point of drawing attention to the wound, and the manner in which the beast made the wound seemed very specific. Plus the weapon which killed Lilah was made out of the bones of the Beast.

Maybe that's the way the Beast makes little beasts. Nahhh, probably not. My favorite evil person is probably just dead and gone.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ahh..but we Lilahshippers keep hoping -- s'kat, 21:56:56 02/13/03 Thu

We few...we merry few..we band of buggered.
And boy are we a sadistic bunch. There's at least five of us on the board who are hoping Lilah gets vamped, comes back as zombie to haunt Cordy or comes back as First evil or a senior partner. Now that's evil. Methinks we could outdo ME in the nasty evil department if we wanted to. LOL!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ahh..but we Lilahshippers keep hoping -- Masq, 12:30:53 02/14/03 Fri

I think we ALL hope she comes back in some form or another. As long as it's not lame.

Anyone here who's not a Lilah fan? I mean, among people who know who Lilah is?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> In keeping with tradition..... -- yabyumpan, 12:57:27 02/14/03 Fri

of being at odds with most people's views of the characters....

"Anyone here who's not a Lilah fan? I mean, among people who know who Lilah is?"

Tentatively raises hand ;o)

She always came across as too much of a cliche and a cliche that i really don't like...Femme Fatal. The only time I found her remotely interesting was in the scene with Angel in the bar in Sleep Tight.

It's not really just about Lilah, I tend not to find the 'bad guys' interesting, period. Maybe from working in Mental health, the Probation service and in my personal life, I've just met and personally known, too many. I don't find them interesting just pathetic.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can I put myself down for Ghostly Manifestation? -- Doug, 16:34:27 02/14/03 Fri

I want someone to get haunted by her ghost, have her come back as a snarking restless spirit.

[> [> A defence of Gunn (Spoilers up to Calvary) -- Rahael, 03:40:49 02/13/03 Thu

Okay. I really really disagree with this:

Regarding Fred? Why is she attracted to Wesely? Well a better question is what the heck does she see in Gunn?
Outside of the whole protector/nice guy thing. They have zip in common. He doesn't understand anything she says. He couldn't understand the whole supersymmetry thing. He didn't understand why she chose the fate she did for Seidel.
He doesn't understand what she went through in Pylea. He doesn't understand her background. What does she see in him?
I've never understood the Fred/Gunn relationship. Or for that matter - what does Gunn see in Fred? Zip in common here. Gunn and Cordy - that would have made sense to me.
Even Gunn and Kate would have worked. Gunn and Fred - works as well as Cordy and Wesely worked for me.

Wes and Fred have tons in common. They speak the same language. Last year in Provider - the evil demons who wanted a brillant brain had contacted Wes, when he wasn't available they went for Fred. Wes actually had a copy of the journal Fred's article on supersymmetry was in.
Wes went to the conference - and understood it and what it meant to Fred. Gunn had no clue what it meant and felt foolish. Wes and Fred came up with the dimension idea both times - together. They both are scholars. They both feel they have no place outside AI. Gunn had his gang. They have chemistry.

The only thing I can see bringing Gunn and Fred together is they are complete opposites and well up until now Gunn was a nice guy who wouldn't hurt a fly and so was Fred in each's head. They idealized each other. Wes - I don't believe idealizes Fred anymore than Fred really idealizes Wes.

Wesley so idealises Fred. He's got some weird madonna/whore complex going with the two women he has fallen in love with.

And remember WiTW? Remember how he gazed at Fred, how sweet he thought she was?

Culturally, Fred and Gunn may not have all that much in common. BUT. Most of the people in AI, apart from F, G and Lorne have something in common - Sunnydale. Fred and Gunn are from different worlds - literally so in Fred's case.

And most of the people in AI are misfits, who don't belong elsewhere.

Just a personal note re cultural backgrounds - I've never had anything much in common culturally with any of my boyfriends. Not at all. Did that invalidate all of them? No.

I strongly feel that Wes and Fred are really wrong for each other. Let's sit back and watch the tragedy and angst!

I mean, Wes has so many commitment issues. He moons around Fred, whom he can't have. He goes for Lilah whom he knows that he will never end up with because she's 'evil' and there are 'lines'.

I can see that this is all completely personal. Just wanted to pipe up and say that not everyone sees the F/G relationship the same way. After W/T, they were my favourite relationship in the Buffyverse.

That said, I'm glad that Gunn dumped her.

[> [> [> Re: A defence of Gunn (Spoilers up to Calvary) -- Miss Edith, 05:09:23 02/13/03 Thu

Wesley does have an idealised view of Fred, and it would never work. I liked Fred and Gunn in season 3. The pancake kisses were cute dammit.

Gunn became a real jerk over Wesley but I was to my shock rooting for Gunn in Calvary. In Soulless Wesley was a real slimeball kissing Fred and playing on Gunn not feeling good enough for Fred, "Face it Gunn you can't give her what she needs". In the middle of fighting an apocolypse too, making the moves on your fellow fighters girl for shame! Wesley lost the moral high ground there all right. I had been taking Wesley's side and felt Gun was acting childishly with his sniping towards Wesley. But Wes was an utter arsehole there.

I still couldn't sympathise with Gunn in that episode though as Fred points out he acted like she wasn't even there so he could score points with Wesley. And with him yelling Wesley takes what he wants "doesn't matter who it belongs to". Treating Fred as his property was not endearing in the slightest! But I felt he handled himself in Calvary very maturely. I liked his interaction with Conner as well. I would still rather that it was Gunn or Cordy that died rather than Lilah though *sigh*.

[> [> [> [> Re: A defence of Gunn (Spoilers up to Calvary) -- Miss Edith, 06:16:57 02/13/03 Thu

Just wanted to add that on the show Wesley's unrealistic view of Fred was pointed out to him by Lilah so I can't see Wesley/Fred going anywhere as a couple. We have a grayer Wesley emerging and Lilah mocking his interest in Fred "I'm good, and I'm pure" not to mention commenting that she knows Wesley " better than she ever will". I really hope the writers don't go there with Wesley and Fred. IMO she is part of his more innocent past that he longs to hold on to, but he doesn't see the real Fred. Look at how oblivious he was in season 3 with regards to her feelings for Gunn. He really doesn't seem to know Fred well at all.

Mind you all the males seem to have an idealised view of Fred with Gunn saying murder isn't in Fred's heart (that would be why she was planning to carry out a murder until Gunn prevented her???) Maybe Fred's slightness just brings out the protective vibe in males? On of her earliest appearances was as the damsel in distress being saved by Angel, the knigh on horseback.

[> [> [> [> [> Yes. (Spoiler , Cavalry) -- Rahael, 06:22:26 02/13/03 Thu

You make some very good points.

Plus there was the whole 'keep the glasses on' comment. That was a WTF moment. LOL.

Actually Angel seems to have a pretty good understanding of Fred. He's the one who coaxes her out of her room, and there was the hilarious moment in Habeas Corpses when he told Cordy to stay in the Hyperion, he wanted her to be 'safe', and in the next beat said "Get a move on, Fred!"

I'm hoping that the dumping of Fred is the prelude to Gunn moving on from his insecurity and recent unhappiness.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: A defence of Gunn (Spoilers up to Calvary) -- Peggin, 06:30:05 02/13/03 Thu

Just wanted to add that on the show Wesley's unrealistic view of Fred was pointed out to him by Lilah so I can't see Wesley/Fred going anywhere as a couple.

In the long term, I agree with you. I'm just saying that I can understand Fred being disenchanted with Gunn after he killed Seidel -- IMO, she was right to want to send him through the portal and give him a taste of his own medicine, and Gunn was wrong to take that away from her. I can also understand Fred being a little drawn to the guy who actually did respect her right to make that decision. But, in the long run, I don't think a relationship between Fred and Wesley would work out until or unless Wesley stops idealizing her.

[> [> [> Re: A defence of Gunn (Spoilers up to Calvary) -- maddog, 10:07:10 02/13/03 Thu

You did well until the end there. First off, don't even think for a second that Wes is FROM SUNNYDALE. Wes was there for 6 months, maybe a little more, and when he was there he didn't bond with Angel and when he tried with Cordy it was this mixed up thing that ended bad. So he's not part of their world either.

And Wes doesn't have committment issues. He never would have started up with Lilah had EVERYONE not turned on him. But they did. And he found comfort elsewhere...as hollow as it is. In Sunnydale it was all about Cordy until they realized it wouldn't work. And in LA it's been about Fred. But she fell for Gunn. Again, not exactly his fault.

[> [> [> [> Re: A defence of Gunn (Spoilers up to Calvary) -- yabyumpan, 11:02:31 02/13/03 Thu

He never would have started up with Lilah had EVERYONE not turned on him. But they did. And he found comfort elsewhere...as hollow as it is.

First off, I think that Wes being the grown man that he is, has got to take responsability for his actions, including sleeping with Lilah. It was his choice, his decision. To blame every one else is like saying that he's a puppet just reacting to other peoplpe's opinions and actions towards him.

Secondly, with the lying and not trusting and taking Connor and never apologising for screwing up, the others had pretty good reasons for turning on him IMO. He abandoned then way before they abandoned him.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: A defence of Gunn (Spoilers up to Calvary) -- Miss Edith, 14:20:19 02/13/03 Thu

Wesley was not given the chance to apologise. His first contact with the gang after having his throat cut was Angel trying to kill him. Fred then turns up at the hospital when Wesley can't even speak, and she makes it clear he is no longer welcome back in the hotel if he values his life. And Gunn used Wesley's help in The Price, but was rude and made it clear he was not interested in making amends. In that situation I don't think I would have found it very easy to suddenly start groveling either. And Cordelia cut Wesley off completely simpering that Angel's feelings were all she cared about. Yes Wesley did screw up, badly. I saw his actions over the summer as his way of making amends. Even then when he returned Angel to the hotel he was accused of not caring.

And personally I don't think he needs to be blamed for sleeping with Lilah. I am more shocked that he dumped Lilah for Fred. But that's my bias showing. Fred's cute but Lilah is hot! I think sleeping with a sex partner that could be considered unwise is hardly the worst way Wesley could have acted out his pain. He started a new business, and got on with his life instead of moping over people who made it clear they wanted nothing to do with him. I think he handed himself reasnably well after the stabbing and his life getting swept up from under him. A lot of us would have just sat at home and become even more miserable.

[> [> [> [> [> yab, I actually agree with you! -- Scroll, 16:51:11 02/13/03 Thu

First off, I think that Wes being the grown man that he is, has got to take responsability for his actions, including sleeping with Lilah.

I totally agree with you on this, which is strange since we don't usually agree when it comes to Wesley. I don't think we can blame anybody except Wesley and Lilah for their sleeping together; this really had nothing/very little to do with the rest of the Fang Gang. OTOH, I personally don't think Wesley was wrong for sleeping with Lilah. I don't think it was a smart decision, or a healthy decision. But I don't think it was evil either. They slept together for many selfish reasons and actually came out better for the experience in the end (IMHO). But yes, only Wes and Lilah should take responsiblity and/or blame for their relationship. Though I don't remember anyone casting blame at all...

Secondly, with the lying and not trusting and taking Connor and never apologising for screwing up, the others had pretty good reasons for turning on him IMO. He abandoned then way before they abandoned him.

Er, well I get where you're coming from but I don't totally agree with this. Oh well, 1 out of 2. It's a new record!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh Crap! Now I KNOW there's an apocolypse acomming ;o) -- yabyumpan, 18:44:09 02/13/03 Thu

Re: Responsability.
Moving away from W/L and on to fandom in general. I've noticed that if someone's favorite character does something that the fan doesn't think is right, there is a tendency (although generally not on this board) to blame someone/something else for it. For me, taking responsability for your own actions is not only a sign of maturity but also shows that you're in control of your own life. When fans hold other people responsable for a character's actions I find that disrespectful to the character in question. I think it's everyone's right to screw up, make bad decisions, act 'out of character'. It's one of the places from which personal growth takes place. To deny a character that responsability and therefore the chance for growth doesn't feel fair to the character.
People screw up, it's what we do. There's no map or manual to tell us how to do this life thing, we just have to find our own route and hope for the best. Like a child who doesn't know the meaning of the word 'hot' until they get burnt. It's all part of the learning process which just never stops.
For me, it's not the 'screwing up' that's important, it's how we deal afterwards that makes the difference. That's my main problem with Wesley but I'm not going to get into that again now, I think everyone knows how I feel. As to W/L, while I don't think it was 'wrong', I do feel that sleeping with the person whose job it is to detroy you and the people you used to call friends, highly suspect. She's not just an 'evil bitch''what fun', she hatched a plan to try to get Angel to eat his son and she had no problem with the idea of taking Connor and dissecting him while he was still alive. The fact that Wesley thought it was ok to sleep with someone like that just lowered my view of him even more. Being 'lonely' just doesn't cut it. I'm sure there are other 'evil skanky lawyer bitches' who could have given him 'comfort' or encouraged his feelings of faliure or low self worth or abandonment or what ever the complexity of reasons were that he slept with Lilah.

Ok, that's it. I've refrained from posting anything negative about Wesley for ages and now I've done 3 posts in one day! Time to put all that back in the box and lock the lid down, me thinks. :o)

[> [> [> Re: A defence of Gunn (Spoilers up to Calvary) -- s'kat, 13:17:01 02/13/03 Thu

I posted on this but voy appears to have eaten it. Will try again.

I'm not really a shipper I guess. Must be a plotter or maybe a sadistic/masochistic shipper? Plotters or sadistic shippers like angst filled, conflicted, horrible relationships, that are impossible and will never work but have so much storyline and horror potential. Shippers like happy relationships with flowers, and nice pancakes and lovey-dovey looks where the two characters ride off happily together in the sunset. For me? The more angst ridden, the more impossible the ship - the more I seem to like it. (With a few possible exceptions: Giles/Jenny, but even that had conflict.)

I don't dislike Gunn, nor do I really disagree with your points - I just don't find them that interesting to watch story wise. Ever since they put him with fred, Gunn felt under-used. As if the writers lose his character when they put him and Fred together.

From my pov: Gunn's storyline didn't really get interesting again until Supersymmetry when Seidel died. It was at that moment that I began to like the Gunn/Fred relationship - before then? I found it dull and rather pointless plotwise, sort of background. I guess I'm a masochistic or sadistic shipper - the more painful the relationship - the better in my opinion - more storyline possibilities. I don't want to watch happy relationships -that's not what I watch a horror show for.

So I like Wes/Fred relationship for all the negative reasons you mention above. That they are impossible together. That it would never work.
That Wes carries too much baggage and Fred is too insecure.
I find that conflict fascinating to watch.

I also don't see Wes idealizing Fred as much as everyone else does. Has everyone forgotten that telling conversation between Fred and Wes in his home and in the car on her way to kill Seidel? Wes wasn't shocked by her desire to murder Seidel. He probably believes she did it. And he agreed with her that Gunn didn't have it in him. I think Wes underestimates and possibly idealizes Gunn. Wes and Fred are frighteningly alike if you think hard about it. They share some of the same dark issues and need for intellectual approval. Both are similarily ruthless. And both have a tendency to idealize people. But I'm not really sure they idealize each other as much as we think. Could be wrong. I was after all wrong about who they killed last night.

At any rate...don't misread me. I don't think Fred would be happier with Wes at all. I just think it's more interesting storywise. See? not a shipper, a plotter.

[> [> [> [> Re: A defence of Gunn (Spoilers up to Calvary) -- Rahael, 16:51:42 02/13/03 Thu

I guess so.

Guess I'm just a sappy shipper after all, LOL.

It's just that, look at Wesley with Lilah. Their feelings for each other run much deeper than they will admit. I distrust, therefore, Wesley's profession of love for Fred. I don't think he really can care for her as much as he does for Lilah. Lilah is the one he's spending time with, kissing, having sex with.

So yeah, I can see how there will be maximum angst for Fred and Wes. Fred will feel all conflicted, and Wes will be missing Lilah and feeling guilty. (Hey, they can have angst and not even get to be together!)

But my basic point was not about all that, simply that it's not so impossible to understand what brought Fred and Gunn together. I don't think it's incomprehensible, nor do I think that they had nothing in common.

Plus, I like the angst as much as you do (I was a Wes Lilah shipper y'know). One of the reasons I liked Seeing Red ;).

[> [> Re: Why I'm peeved at "Calvary" (spoilers) -- leslie, 17:21:57 02/13/03 Thu

"I'd heard rumors they were going to explore Lilah's background, even her relationship with her mother. And I was just dreaming of a Wes/Lilah/Fred/Gunn quadrangle. Also so wanted to see Lilah/Angelus deal. Very unhappy."

First a disclaimer--I am completely and totally unspoiled as regards AtS. However, it strikes me that here's Lilah lying unconscious and bleeding most lusciously from the neck while a hungry Angel is on the prowl just down the hallway--time enough to grab a little snack and vamp her at the same time?

[> [> [> Oooh ...from your lips to ME' s ears -- s'kat, 21:50:50 02/13/03 Thu

First a disclaimer--I am completely and totally unspoiled as regards AtS. However, it strikes me that here's Lilah lying unconscious and bleeding most lusciously from the neck while a hungry Angel is on the prowl just down the hallway--time enough to grab a little snack and vamp her at the same time?

So am I. Although seriously tempted towards the spoilers just to see if this baby is possible. I'm scared to hope.
Lilah would make one killer of a vampire. She was a vamp without the teeth living. One can only imagine what she'd be like sans soul. Oh please. We need another female vampire in the mix. I miss Darla. And the Lilah/Angelus/Cordy/Wes/Fred/Gunn - quad would be too juicy to miss.

[> My take on the Fred/Gunn/Wesley situation -- Peggin, 21:25:49 02/12/03 Wed

As much as I love Wesley and would marry him in an instant, I have no idea why she would want to! I can understand the murder of Prof. Seidel putting a crimp in her relationship with Gunn, but I don't see how that equates to Fred suddenly looking at Wesley with speculative eyes. I mean, Wes was just as much involved in that murder; you'd think she would feel almost as much guilt looking at Wesley.

I'm not sure if this is what the writers were going for, but if I had been in Fred's position, I think I would be acting exactly the same way with respect to Gunn and Wesley.

Professor Siedel had screwed with *Fred*'s life. He had tried to kill her more than once, and he was the reason she had spent 5 years in a place she considered hell. If anyone had the right to kill the bastard, or to send him through one of his own portals, it was Fred, NOT Gunn. By killing him, Gunn took that away from Fred's. IMO, Gunn's apparent position that it was somehow okay for him to kill the professor, but that if Fred did it she would be tainted in some way, made him come across like the big macho man protecting the little lady. He stripped her of her power and treated her like a child. It was a very chauvinistic, paternalistic thing for Gunn to do. And even if I had previously been in love with him, his actions would make me question whether I wanted to be with him, because it would make me feel like he didn't consider me an equal.

Wesley, on the other hand, helped her. He didn't judge her decision and he didn't try to take anything away from her. He didn't feel the need to protect her from herself. IMO, unlike Gunn, Wesley treated Fred like an equal rather than treating her like a child. He showed that he respected her to make her own choices and to fight her own battles. He was willing to lend a hand, but he didn't feel the need to take anything away from her.

[> [> Re: My take on the Fred/Gunn/Wesley situation (Spoilers, Calvary) -- Rahael, 03:48:30 02/13/03 Thu

Neither of them had the right, whatever Seidel had done. So they are both completely in the wrong. Gunn for what he did, Fred for what she did, and her inability to face up to her own dark wishes. Why do that, when you can be resentful of Gunn?

I think SuperSymmetry goes hand in hand with "Billy". Both Gunn and Wes have serious issues. They have growing up to do.

I also think Fred was attracted to Gunn precisely because of his paternalism, because of his protective attitude. This is the woman who dreamed of the prince on a white horse. But she found out that perhaps that's not what she wanted after all.

[> [> Furthermore -- Darby, 07:13:04 02/13/03 Thu

Gunn was worried about what killing the Prof might do to Fred, but how's Fred supposed to feel about being responsible for Gunn committing murder? That's part of the equation.

I agree with your take on how Wes' respect of Fred's independence (he did try to talk her out of it, sort of, but made it obvious that he was pure Supporto-Guy) did shift her attitude toward him and them. Her feelings of inferiority were magnified, first with Angel and then with Wes, but he was treating her as an equal, something she might have hoped for but had no reason (we know she had reasons, but she didn't) to expect. She had been an equal with Gunn, each complementing the other as they ran AI through the summer, and then he just takes over when he decides she won't be able to handle the Seidel situation. Two important things changed in that episode, one driving a wedge between F & G, the other forging a bridge between F & W.

- Darby, borrowing liberally from Sara's take on everything.

[> [> [> Why Fred switched to Wes & dropped Gunn -- WickedBuffy, 09:24:50 02/13/03 Thu

here's my analysis:

Remember what Fred was like when she was first back from Pyrea?(sp?) Very frightened, but also practically primal. She worshipped Angel like a tribal god, since she saw him as saving her.

As she slowly was growing back into a more socialized state of mind, (and lost the Angel worship thing), she got to choose between Gunn and Wes. She chose Gunn. Why? Because she was still not completely how she was prePyrea, she had little faith in her mental or social skills or herself. While Wes was attractive too, she was more comfortable with Gunns simple way of seeing things and his brute strength - the more animal way he went about things (as compared to Wes). It more matched the place she was at in her healing evolution.

By the time her old professor popped up, Fred was almost back to full-Freddom. While much earlier what Gunn did would have impressed Fred, now it didn't and him taking her choice away was the last straw. Fred had reached full Freddiness - self-esteem based on herself and not on someone else, and Wes the Brain became the most attractive.

If Fred had met Gunn and Wes before she was whisked away in the portal, just from what we know about her, don't you think she would have chosen Wes first?

[> [> [> [> Goodness! (Calvary spoilers) -- Rahael, 09:48:11 02/13/03 Thu

As she slowly was growing back into a more socialized state of mind, (and lost the Angel worship thing), she got to choose between Gunn and Wes. She chose Gunn. Why? Because she was still not completely how she was prePyrea, she had little faith in her mental or social skills or herself. While Wes was attractive too, she was more comfortable with Gunns simple way of seeing things and his brute strength - the more animal way he went about things (as compared to Wes). It more matched the place she was at in her healing evolution.

So let me get this. Gunn - brute strength, simple, animalistic?

Wesley - civilised, sophisticated, intelligent ?

And Fred has 'evolved' away from Gunn to Wes?

I feel like I'm watching a completely different show to everyone else.

Wesley has his moments of simplistic thought, brutality and savagery.

Gunn is often kindhearted, gentle and compassionate.

But I'm not going to defend Gunn here anymore. I've said my piece.

[> [> [> [> [> Totally with you Rah (but you now that) ;o) -- yabyumpan, 10:35:46 02/13/03 Thu

Going back to the begining of S3, before the whole Wes badness and when Fred formed her initial attraction:

Wesley - Still pretty uptight, distant, worships from afar, treats her as something fragile

Gunn - Friendly, takes time to get to know her (they'd been having breakfast together for ages before WiTW), funny, kind.

Gunn may be seen as the 'muscle' of the group but he's often the one who can see through the trees to find a solution to the problem. In Rof it was Gunn who was able to see that all the pieces of the map made a pattern and there have been many other instances of Gunn's clear thinking. Where the others can get caught up in complexeties it's Gunn who can cut to the chase. It's not one being smarter than the other, more like street/life smarts as opposed to book learned. Both equally as valuable and needed.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Totally with you both. -- Arethusa, 11:19:17 02/13/03 Thu

I think that after her Pylean adventure, Fred wanted someone who made her feel protected and safe. Then a big, good looking guy starts to pay attention to her, get to know her, helps look out for her.

Fred: "It -it's not like we've said anything or... but he's so sweet... and commanding, and I feel so comfortable around him...(Looks down) I mean, I don't even know if he feels..." (WITW)

After Gwen "killed" Gunn, Fred told him:

Fred spins to face him: "Well, who else was gonna do it? Who else was gonna hold everything up after you left me all alone? (Gunn just stares at her) You died and left me all alone!" (Ground State)

I can easily see why Fred fell for Gunn, and why her feeling for him changed after they killed Seidel. But I can't imagine that she's falling for Wesley. She might turn to him for protection and security, but emotionally he could not give her the same support Gunn used to be able to give her. I think.

quotes by psyche

[> [> [> [> [> Exactly! umm, I like Gunn, too btw -- WickedCursed, 11:00:54 02/13/03 Thu

They are both what I said and what you said - neither negates the other. I completely agree with the traits you mentioned, too. I was speculating from Fred's POV based on what we've seen of her.

The evolving I referred to was meant to mean "returning back to her regular, prePyrea self." (Maybe there was a better word than evolve - I in NO way meant it in a hierarchal society of lesser thans and more thans.) Develop back into her Freddiness? Re-become her old self?

And this is from Freds unique personal preferences, not a generalization of society as a whole. Personally, I would want to date Gunn because that's the kind of person I am and I like.

But, my last question - who do you think Fred would have chosen if she'd met them before the vortex events?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Exactly! umm, I like Gunn, too btw -- Rahael, 11:55:44 02/13/03 Thu

Well, I'm afraid I'm still going to have disagree with your analysis. I have never seen Gunn as simple, or animalistic nor that Fred was drawn to him during her 'primal' state.

Remember when Angel first meets Gunn's gang, he falls into an intricate and lethal set of traps. No one who was simple could construct that. Gunn looked after the safety of some very young people. He's organised, a leader, cares for others and is responsible. He gives up power to help Angel. He has the courage to leave the familiar behind and be led by someone else, because that's what will help others.

Gunn was the person who points out that Wolfram and Hart had to be putting up Darla somewhere. He's the one who found the Svea in the phone book.

Just because someone isn't formally educated doesn't mean that they aren't clever. Gunn probably didn't get a chance to go to school.

I must admit that your comments touched a nerve - the words animalistic and simple. I've had people tell me to go back to the jungle (accompanied with monkey noises). I've had people ask me whether I could speak English, kindly explain historical references, talk slowly etc. And I've been very formally educated!!! In History! I know who Madame Defarge is!

I've also been in a number of interracial relationships and I once overheard some very unfortunate comments about myself and my boyfriend at a party, much in the vein that the F/G relationship is discussed. I was so traumatised that I stopped dating white men for about 5 years. Not consciously, but I realised how much it had affected me in hindsight.

I think Fred would have fallen for Gunn even before she went to Pylea. I mean, he's drop dead gorgeous!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> If it makes you feel any better Rah -- Arethusa, 12:28:47 02/13/03 Thu

I've had men speak slowly and define words to me too. And I was a fricking English teacher at the time! And boys used to make barking noises at me in high school, to signify they thought I was a dog (American high schooleses for unattractive). It's nice to know the deeply clueless can be open-minded enough to insult white people too.

Gunn might have dropped out of school at 12, when he started hunting vampires. He gave Wes a "you are deeply stupid" look when Wes asked him where he went to school in Spin the Bottle.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If it makes you feel any better Rah -- Miss Edith, 15:39:29 02/13/03 Thu

Not just an American term. I was barked at in my school in England and called an ugly dog. Isn't it nice how some things can pass the cultural divide.

And Gunn and Fred made a sweet couple. I feel Gunn was to an extent seen as the tall handsome man to rescue Fred (she crushed on Angel for similiar reasons). But I always saw that as simply the first superficial reason for the atttraction. There was a lot more to it than that. Look at episodes like Double Or Nothing. Gunn being sweet and sensitive was clearly a major part of his appeal, hence Fred's shock when he was cruel to her in that particular episode. Fred was shown to be warming up to Gunn because of his bashfullness. Off the top of my head there was the conversation in That Old Gang Of Mine with Gunn telling Fred he was happy to escort her to Caritas because she was a pretty girl, and Fred being flattered. I could definately see Gunn's appeal, and to me in season 3 he was a prize catch. Yes he can be over protective, but that's wrapped up with the loss of his sister and he definately has issues there. In the party in First Impressions he behaved similarly to a girl there who was injured. Feeling responsible, like it was his job to take care of her. In season 4 I have seen a more chauvinistic attitude which has not pleased me, but it's all rooted in his upbringing and the fact that he did seem to be Alanna's (sp?) protecter. That was specifically mentioned by the vampire version of his sister.

I mentioned before that I have lost sympathy for Gunn this season. But he is a great guy really, everyone can be a jerk sometimes. He winds me up at the moment, but it doesn't take much to redemm characters in my eyes. Just have some all lost and snively, I'm a sucker for that (hence my Spike fixation in seasons 5 and 6). I am still rooting for Gunn and Fred, although part of me thinks he's better off without her. Her fickle behaviour has not impressed me lately! But they did make such a cute couple.

I can see why Rachael questioned the wording of your post WickedBuffy. While there was apparently no offence meant the talk of Fred becoming more socialised and evolving past Gunn who behaves in a more animalistic way did cause me to raise my eyebrows. It's good that these statements can be picked up on, and we can find out exactly what was intended by the poster. I have my moments of poorly worded posts and if someone does have a problem I hope they do mention it, if what I say could be misconstrued. Gives us a chance to explain what we were getting at, and clear up any misunderstandings.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you, Miss Edith! -- WickedWording, 16:59:49 02/13/03 Thu

Thank you for explaining that so nicely, Miss Edith.

I appreciate your calm wisdom and also the way you worded it. If I am misunderstood, I *do* want to know so I have the opportunity to make my thoughts clearer to whoever is reading them. I don't like being misconstrued either, especially to the point of OT accusations and am glad I had the opportunity to clarify it. (Did I?)What I meant and what was interpreted was a shock to me.

It's all a learning curve for me, and this was enlightening in several ways. I'll probably make mistakes again, inevitably, but I will be more careful about rereading my wording after this. (Umm, actually shorter posts might be safer for me!)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank you, Miss Edith! -- Miss Edith, 17:21:49 02/13/03 Thu

Don't be put off from posting. I thought what you had to say was very interesting. I am not overflowing with tact on occasion either. I'm sure everyone understands you didn't intend for your post to be taken in the wrong way. I just wasn't sure exactly what you were getting at as the wording was a little unfortunate, and then when you explained to Rachael your point it cleared up any misunderstandings for me. I'm glad we got it out in the open and you had the chance to explain what you were intending to say.

Please do keep posting, we really are a friendly board and it's always nice to have more people to contribute. Long posts are welcomed on this baord, gives us all more to discuss.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Heh. Better is not exactly the right word -- Rahael, 16:14:56 02/13/03 Thu

What about mutual disappointment all round at the ignorance and/or cruelty that can often be displayed?

Dog, as Miss Edith says, means the same thing over here. Though when I was at school it was moose. Okay. Sometimes I'm just glad that I was at a single sex school for most of my education over here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah, the universal language of schoolyard bullies. ;) -- Arethusa, 17:34:12 02/13/03 Thu

I think "moose" has a certain charm. Maybe it's the Bullwinkle connotations.

Wicked, if you read this-I've put my foot in my mouth several times. I'm more carefull now. I'm glad you're continuing to post.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ah, the universal language of schoolyard bullies. ;) -- WickedBuffy, 18:02:18 02/13/03 Thu

"Wicked, if you read this-I've put my foot in my mouth several times. I'm more carefull now. I'm glad you're continuing to post."

Thank you for the encouragment, Arethusa, I really appreciate it.

And I've been told a few times that I may as well dip my foot in chocolate each morning when I get up - since I put it in my mouth so often.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Namaste, namaste -- WickedBuffy, 13:08:39 02/13/03 Thu

I'm sorry that how you interpreted what I wrote was taken so personally, I thought I was being clear. And, it saddens me that you or anyone else has to go through such negative experiences, though I know they happen and keep happening. But this wasn't one of them - emphatically.

There is absolutely no way I could have known that you would have assumed this had anything to do with looks, though. You also assumed the terms I used were negative. I clearly wrote that the comparison was NOT heirarchal or however I spelled it, and her choice was a matter of personal preferences. From what I've seen and interpreted about Freds personality, and attempting to speculate why she broke up with Gunn and is now with Wes, I came to the personal conclusion I wrote about. My opinion.

Communication can be a touchy thing. How I used "simple" wasn't meant as "stupid" as you accuse me of - when Wes makes a plan or even a move, he has to do deep research, formulate theories, make diagrams, etc. It is complicated. Gunn, on the other hand, *simply* uses his intuition with what he already knows to come to a decision. Neither way is right or wrong, it's just how many steps they take to do something.

Wes relys on his brain - his built-in computer stuffed with info from years and years. That is what he trusts. Like a machine. Gunn relys on his intuition, what he knows from the streets, and instinct. Not like a machine, but like what humans are - animals. Is either "better" or "more important" than the other? I don't think so.

I have never asked anyone any of those questions you experienced nor has it ever crossed my mind to ask them or any similar to them.

Personally, I prefer someone who lives from their gut and not their head. No matter what they look like. I'm not hung up on another persons looks or plumbing. And in my opinion, based on her adulation of her professor and love of acedemics, I still think Fred would have chosen Wes prePyrea.

My post had nothing to do with looks, but I am sorry it touched off a nerve that upset you so. It was never my intention. I hope this helps clear the air and you will be able to read the post as I had intended.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks -- Rahael, 14:29:47 02/13/03 Thu

I didn't take it that personally. I was just trying to explain some of the implications of what you might be saying. It wasn't one word, I guess it was an unfortunate group of words used together, explicitly contrasted with another group of words that played into a very alarming and common trope. And I just used a personal explanation to show how common and *unreasonable* such descriptions were.

Because it's such a common trope, such words are automatically reached for sometime. I didn't really think you were implying what it could sound like, viewed with an uncharitable eye - if I did, I'd have said so.

I mean, I'm surprised that no one has ever described Connor as having 'brute strength' or 'an animal way of going about things' - after all, he grew up in a brutal world, wore animal skins as trophies, and carried off that man's finger as a kind of trophy as well. Well I'm not so surprised - the tropes don't come that easily, or aren't associated with him.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're quite welcome! -- WickedBuffy, 15:20:34 02/13/03 Thu

Equivocation sucks, eh? We read what we want to read into things, which is probably why there are so many websites about subtext. ;>

(and another example of why "Standardized Testing" is such a dilemna.)

How an individual interprets words or even a group of words can elicit a plethora of emotions based on that persons individual perspective - it can even become automatic.

But, as my dad always said "The essence of communication is intention". (He probably stole that.)

Now, about Connor - the first word that pops into my mind when I picture his face is "feral". I don't think of him as having brute strength, though. But then my mind picture of "brute" is something like a bear or gorilla. To me Connors strength is more like a jaguar.

It's your question, you could test your trope theory on the boards by asking people to briefly describe him. If you don't want to, I don't mind doing it - but it's your idea first. I'd just be interested in seeing what adjectives are used for him as opposed to other characters. Will he be difficult to describe? or cliche? a mix?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You're quite welcome! -- Rahael, 16:08:18 02/13/03 Thu

What Miss Edith said!! -

While there was apparently no offence meant the talk of Fred becoming more socialised and evolving past Gunn who behaves in a more animalistic way did cause me to raise my eyebrows. It's good that these statements can be picked up on, and we can find out exactly what was intended by the poster. I have my moments of poorly worded posts and if someone does have a problem I hope they do mention it, if what I say could be misconstrued. Gives us a chance to explain what we were getting at, and clear up any misunderstandings.

As for what I wanted to read into words, believe me, I usually like to look at stuff and see poetry references and metaphors that aren't there, rather than disturbing ideas that make me a little disappointed. I'm always relieved that they aren't there.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No worries, then! They weren't there. -- WickedBuffy, 16:53:42 02/13/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There was a whole set of posts on Connor as animal -- Masq, 15:25:16 02/13/03 Thu

After the episode "Slouching Towards Bethlehem" in which Connor was equated with a bear cub or lion cub. His apartment was a den; he was a feral animal sneaking into the (more) civilized home of his father. He takes the woman Cordelia back to his den. It is full of stuffed and mounted animals as a decorative motif. He has booby traps everywhere like he's expecting to be hunted. He guards over her, then slips in bed with her and follows his instincts (when he has his hand on her breast).

Oh yes, Connor was very animalistic when he first came to Earth and even after he'd had a whole summer here, and people on the board noticed. It's probably in the archives somewhere.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's the ep I saw tonight! -- Rahael, 15:50:22 02/13/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Aw, c'mon... -- Masq, 16:56:53 02/13/03 Thu

You don't want to approve the reply that's not (NT)???

It seemed more conversational.... ; )

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Aw, c'mon... -- Rahael, 17:17:07 02/13/03 Thu

I wanted to return to the topic when I could give a fuller answer - knew I couldn't get inot it at midnight!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Cool, I look forward to it! -- Masq, 18:07:12 02/13/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Do people still seeConnor like that? -- WickedBuffy, 17:02:53 02/13/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There was a whole set of posts on Connor as animal -- Shiraz, 09:45:58 02/14/03 Fri

O.K. I'll bite:

There's a huge difference between being compared to a Lion or a Bear and being called "an animal".

True, on the surface they mean the same thing, but when a person is called something specific they are usually being compared to some trait associated with the animal. (i.e. bear = strength or fierosity, lion = bravery or noble bearing).

Being called "an animal" or "animalistic" usually refers to a set of very negative character traits (violence, slovenliness, unchecked appitites, etc.).

-Shiraz

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Point taken -- Masq, 10:55:34 02/14/03 Fri

Although I'd still like to hear Rah's thoughts on the comparison.

The fans may call Connor or Gunn "animalistic" in very different ways that were not complementary to Gunn, but I don't think these fan views are very accurate to the way the two characters are portrayed by the writers.

Connor was deliberately given an animal-like subtext in his initial appearance and in "STBethlehem", complementary though in might be (and I don't think it IS that complementary. He was given that subtext because they wanted a character that realistically grew up in a hell dimension with only one other human being for a role model. Connor is portrayed as quite primitive in many things).

Gunn is not portrayed by the writers as animalistic in either way--complentary or not--but as a sensitive, moral person, and a much clearer and innovative thinker than the rest of the AI team.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> yes exactly -- Rahael, 15:44:25 02/14/03 Fri

The subtext was there for Connor. He seemed to be a kind of Mowgli figure (though unluckily, he got Holtz rather than Baloo!). In Season 3 when he first enters the scene he wears animal skins etc. Yesterday after watching Slouching, we laughed at the way Connor set about beating the intruder. As KdS says, with the casualness of someone chopping onions.

I was thinking about this, and had so many thoughts that I'm still working on them! But i think Connor is *fascinating*. He's a little wild, but so needy, so needing love, so wanting a family. He spots a group of people in a car, and the first person he approaches is the teenager. He wants to check whether he's okay. He seems to both want to protect him, and be him. He's drawn toward families, and yet suspicious of AI.

I was thinking today that Holtz might ultimately have laid down the foundation for Angel being an incredibly important, and towering figure in COnnor's life. After all, didn't he make Angel/us the centre of Connor's world? Brought him up telling him about this mythical figure? He passed on his obsession to Connor.

He also must have told Connor about his family, the family he lost to Angelus. I think his character has been portrayed beautifully, and acted really well.

Which is why I am so interested and fascinated with the whole show. Every single character, from Gunn, to Connor, from Angel to Wesley, from Fred to Lilah, they are complex, multifaceted and very interesting. There's a lot of ooohing and ahhhing from me. I'm getting all my buttons pushed (in all the right ways!)

I have tons more thinking to do. Bah! I need these eps on tape with me so I can rewatch them when I need to!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> and more (inward and outward monstrosity) -- Rahael (vague spoilers, S3), 15:53:16 02/14/03 Fri

What's also interesting to feed into this debate is that the idea of monstrosity is essential to COnnor's world view. His outer wildness at the start is in ironic counterpoint to Angel's inner monstrosity, the one Connor is fixated on. And then, at the end of the season it all gets turned around, as we find that the real monstrousness in Connor isn't inherited from Angel but from Holtz, who carried him into a demon dimension (works well as a metaphor too).

(I really really like this character. So much conflict and turmoil and sweetness all rolled into one!)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I know you're try to minimize your spoilage this season... -- Masq, 16:02:07 02/14/03 Fri

But since you've seen "Soulless" it's probably OK. Have you read my moral ambiguity of Connor?? I think your insights about his need for family are so right on the money.

Connor fascinates me too. Something about that combination of impulsive heroism and vulnerability, deep anger and relative innocence that draws me in.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I've been keeping track -- Rahael, 16:10:38 02/14/03 Fri

of your comments on Connor, and I think you've pretty much been a big subconcious infleunce! That said, I was prepared to find him infuriating and irritating. Instead, when I actually watched his entrance and subsequent storyline I was so drawn to him. And that's why I liked S3 so much. I love Angel. And yet, the show put me in the position of watching him being sunk to the bottom of the ocean, and not being able to dislike the person doing it.

I find it very elegant also, how AtS has developed the idea of 'families', both good and bad. The Fang gang. AI. The families they ran away from. The new one they're trying to create. And in a sense, they are all emigres. That's probably one of the reasons why it's starting to be so compelling to me.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Goodness! (Calvary spoilers) -- Peggin, 08:27:04 02/14/03 Fri

So let me get this. Gunn - brute strength, simple, animalistic?

Wesley - civilised, sophisticated, intelligent ?

And Fred has 'evolved' away from Gunn to Wes?

I agree with you that this is not an accurate assessment of either Gunn or Wesley. But, although I think the "simple" and "animalistic" parts may be taking it too far, I do think there is support in the show that this may be how *Fred* sees the two of them.

When Fred's parents came looking for her, she introduced the whole gang to them. Angel was the Champion, Cordelia was the Heart, Wesley was the Brain, and Gunn was the Muscle. This wasn't just her first impression, it was after she already knew the gang for several months, so I think this was the way she actually saw them.

I want to make it clear that I think Fred was *wrong* to see Gunn (or, really, any of them) that way -- to define the entire person according to a single personality trait -- because I think each of them have all of those traits to some degree. But it was the labels Fred gave them, and maybe that's how she really saw things. Maybe, in her mind, she never thought of Gunn as much more than the Muscle.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Goodness! (Calvary spoilers) -- Rahael, 09:30:18 02/14/03 Fri

I see what you mean.

I'd of course have to wait to get my DVDs at some point to be able to look over Fred/Gunn again, but I remember early eps in their relationship and being pleasantly surprised by Fred. I did however, have a pause moment when Fred said that in Fredless.

I think that while I liked the F/Gunn relationship, and that it added something to the mix, it wasn't helpful to Gunn in the long term. He underestimates himself a whole lot. Dare I hope they have a juicy storyline for him coming up? In AtS that just means tragedy!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Goodness! (Calvary spoilers) -- Arethusa, 10:19:08 02/14/03 Fri

I think it's not so much that Fred thinks of Gunn as the muscle of the group, as he's a warrior for good, a knight in shining armor. Which is why the murder of Seidel ruined her relationship. If she just thought of him as the muscle of the group, she wouldn't have been so distressed at his fall from grace.

Plus, she made that comment very early in their friendship.

(Maybe I just don't want to think ill of Fred?)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's a good point (Calvary spoilers) -- Rahael, 10:32:58 02/14/03 Fri

That she was shocked by what happened suggests that she does not think he is brutal nor unthoughtful.

One of the nice things about their relationship was their easy and comfortable camaraderie, with flashpoints of great emotion such as Ground State. It's different from the high romance of B/A, from the electricity of B/S, the orgasm friendness of X/A.

[> [> [> [> What Rah said...ditto -- Darby, 10:31:27 02/13/03 Thu

[> Re: Why I'm peeved at "Calvary" (spoilers) -- Miss Edith, 03:24:19 02/13/03 Thu

OMG You killed Lilah! You bastards! Wesley and Lilah were the two characters I was really hoping would survive unscathed. I was hoping "St Cordelia" would be killed off to enusre maximum angst for Angel, not to mention I haven't cared for her recently. Gunn was also an option as it would have caused guilt for Wesley and Fred, not to mention although he is very hot he has been so whiny lately I would have gladly seen him killed off (although he wasn't as irritating in Calvary as he has been). But Lilah! Nooooo! Why, oh why? And if Wesley starts dating Fred now I will be very upset. I found Wesley and Lilah interesting together, I was hoping for a reunion damm it. Still at least I can take consolation with the fact that she went out with a bang. I hope Wesley is broken up, and seeks vengeance.

And am I the only one that liked Fred and Gunn together? Yes they were cheesy with the pancake kisses but I found it sweet, not sickly. I was the only one wasn't I lol. I thought they had a million times more chemistry than Angel and Cordelia anyway. But then Angel has more chemistry with Wesley than with Cordelia. The only person I ever believed Cordy had sparks with was Xander.

I'm glad Angelus is still around, what a magnificant bastard David plays him as. He seems totally in his element, and I loved his melodramatic impression of Angel "I've gotta go save the world". But the threat to let loose the Irish Brogue, now that was just cruel lol. And his threat to rape Fred over and over until she dies gave me the shudders. That was a shout-out to Firefly's first episode right? I find the focus on violating women slightly distastful personally. I've had enough off that from Buffy season 6. And lol who is Angelus trying to convince. Drooling all over Wes and then adding "If I swung that way". I wonder how much Angelus/Wesley slash is being written as I type this? Talking of slash this is O/T but I di read a theory that Gunn was put with Fred to distract viewers from his chemistry with Wesley, but as Fred is the female version of Wesley the vibe just became even stronger. There is so much homoerotisism in Angel. "It's not him you wanna screw, it's him" indeed.

And Cordelia being evil was pulled off nicely. I prefer when characters have a reason for acting strangely, rather than just for a one-off joke *coughGilescough*. But there is no way Cordelia will ever replace Lilah, my favourite bitch (grr still bitter). And when Angelus was singing "Teddy Bears Picnic" and "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head" was I the only one who wanted him to sing Sympathy for The Devil?
"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm an man of wealth and taste, I've been around for long, long years...Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name, but what's puzzling you is the nature of my game" etc. It would have rocked if Angelus was a really good singer (unlike Angel) and burst into a rocking rendition of that song. Okay maybe it would have been dumb but I would have enjoyed it anyway.

The explantion for Angel/Angelus was lame. Angelus wasn't around when the amnesia spell was cast? Where was he then? Angelus and Angel are the same people, they share the same memories damm it. I hope there's a better explanation forthcoming. In conclusion though best season of Angel yet.

[> [> Agreed! (Spoiler, Calvary) -- Rahael, 03:52:08 02/13/03 Thu

I found G/F sweet. And so agree re Angel/Wesley. Hehehehe.

(oh, and just thinking about paternalism etc - Willow wasn't all that respectful of Tara when she cast a spell on her. I feel that Gunn's was a minor sin. His real sin was killing Seidel.)

[> [> [> Re: Agreed! (Spoiler, Calvary) -- Peggin, 04:59:22 02/13/03 Thu

(oh, and just thinking about paternalism etc - Willow wasn't all that respectful of Tara when she cast a spell on her. I feel that Gunn's was a minor sin. His real sin was killing Seidel.)

I agree that Willow's actions were worse than Gunn's, but that hardly makes Gunn's actions acceptable.

Also, when the characters are faced with supernatural situations that could never be handled by human law, I think they have not just the right, but a moral obligation to take matters into their own hands. If he'd been shooting his students, or locking them up in a secret prison somewhere, that would have been different; it would have been something human laws could have handled. But what were they going to do about someone who was using trans-dimensional portals as his weapon of choice? This guy was destroying the lives of innocent people, and he had no intention of stopping. We have no idea how many people are dead by his hands, or how many are still trapped in some version of hell with no way of escaping. IMO, he had to be stopped, and what were they going to do? Go to the police and file charges that he imprisoned Fred in a hell dimension for five years? Somehow, I don't think so. There was no way for the human justice system to deal with the creep. I think Siedel needed to die every bit as much as any vampire they've ever killed, and I have no problem with them killing him.

OTOH, I wouldn't have any problem with Gunn's actions if he had taken the other position. If he had been trying to stop Fred from killing the guy because he honestly believed killing him was the wrong thing to do, that would have been an attitude I could have respected. But Gunn's actions has nothing to do with right or wrong. Gunn didn't intervene because he believed killing the professor was morally wrong, he intervened because he didn't want his vision of Fred as his pristine little girlfriend getting tainted.

[> [> [> [> Can't agree (Spoilers Calvary) -- Rahael, 05:25:26 02/13/03 Thu

But those are for personal reasons. I don't feel that it's justified to take away a human being's life, especially without a judicial process (and even then, no). They could simply have pushed him through the portal without killing him.

SS occurs in a show where a gang who goes on an indiscriminate demon killing spree are shown as evil. (Were AI irresponsible then? Stopping the gang from murdering the demons - think of all the crimes the demons might have committed! Didn't they need to be stopped?)

No, Gunn and Fred became the Macbeths, and their shared complicity in the murder the poison in the cup.

Plus, I think Fred finds it more comfortable resenting Gunn for being patriarchal than facing up to the fact that she was prepared to murder.

As for the pristine little girlfriend, I happen to think murder is something that should be above honourable and moral human beings. And it is Fred who constructs the fairy tale in her mind. The cave, the damsel in distress, the handsome warrior. Don't get me wrong. She's one of my favourite characters. So is Gunn. I find them interesting. But I can see where they are both coming from, and find them sympathetic.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Can't agree (Spoilers Calvary) -- Peggin, 05:42:31 02/13/03 Thu

They could simply have pushed him through the portal without killing him.

That's what Fred was trying to do! It's was Gunn's idea to snap the guy's neck first.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Ahhh! -- Rahael, 05:55:40 02/13/03 Thu

I was so traumatised by the reports of what happens in that ep, what two of my favourite characters do, that I refuse to watch it.

Gunn, oh, Gunn! Damn it. Okay, AtS really is starting to resemble a Greek tragedy. Lack of trust and suspicion and jealousy corrupting everything that's good.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spoiler for Supersymmetry above -- Rahael, 05:57:56 02/13/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> Macbeth (spoiler supersymmetry) -- Rahael, 06:08:44 02/13/03 Thu

So the fact that Fred drew back at the very last moment, does that heighten the Macbeth parallel?

Is Gunn reluctant to deal with Seidel, or is he gung ho all the way?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Macbeth (spoiler supersymmetry) -- JM, 10:21:56 02/13/03 Thu

Hmm... haven't finished the threads but I wanted to respond to your questions. I'd really encourage you to eventually watch the episode, it's very powerful. And very, very complex, I think. So much is never articulated that a lot of it is filtered through the viewer's interpretation and faulty memory. So here's mine. Also it does the best job of any ep in illustrating every side of the rectangle and each relationship's strengths and weaknesses.

The murder scene. Fred makes it clear to Gunn that she's not executing Seidel, she's giving him the same chance he gave her. (And it rung true to me that this sort of proportional justice, preemptive banishment, was something that Wesley could sign onto, while condemning the morality of, considering moments before he also had nearly become another of the professor's victims.) In fact she even tells Gunn that she's not killing the professor outright, because it's what he asked her to do. (When she first figured out his connection to Pylea, she was thinking axes to heads and Angel and Gunn weren't convincing her not.)

However, looking at the portal, Gunn says there's no way the professor will survive. He doesn't see any distinction between sending him into it to be killed by the trip/something else and doing the deed yourself. He says "If you do this, I'll loose you." And she hears, I'm not sure that she changes her mind, but something in her eyes seems to flicker. She seems to understand for the first time, that this is not just about her and her pain and the weight of her conscience she's willing to bear. But I don't think that Gunn sees any of this, he's too busy dragging the professor out of the vortex. (I fully think that until the next second, he was committed to saving the professor's life, if only because it was right.) And then he looks at Fred, and decides there is no alternative, and snaps Seidel's neck.

And it's hard to tell, did she change her mind? Was he doing this out of mercy, resignation, as a gift and token of his devotion? To save himself the pain of seeing the center of his universe only as a murderer? It was generous and also presumptuous. Because now the center of Fred's universe is a murder. And things have never been the same. And Gunn won't honestly recognize or articulate what is at the heart of Fred's withdrawal from him. (And personally I think that this is some blowback from staking his sister. He knows even the pain of justified, necessary killing. He thinks he was saving her, she thinks he was daming them both.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you!! -- Rahael, 15:39:03 02/13/03 Thu

okay, you kind of restored my faith there. As I was travelling from work to Yaby's to watch a double billing of BtVS and AtS, I was getting down hearted about my favourite show. I reviewed the character of Gunn and kept trying to reassure myself. Wondered whether I was fanwanking my way to excusing AtS. I was getting ready to junk it in and tell myself I was a fool for caring so much about a tv show.

Supersymmetry is next week. I guess this thing is part of the whole 'my reading of the show getting lost'. I watched Selfless and fell in love with BtVS all over again tonight. Now I'm just going to reserve judgement on both shows and keep on watching them, recovering my love and the way they speak to me. And reading eloquent, complex, moving posts such as yours, too.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank you!! -- JM, 17:09:22 02/13/03 Thu

I was floored by "Deep Down," but "Suppersymmetry" was my first "Wow" moment of the season. My first, "I can't believe they did this/I can't believe anyone on TV did this" moment. Ranks up there with Darla staking herself. Not in moral inspiration, but in shock, tradgedy, pathos, and sacrifice. I am consistently surprised that this ep doesn't rank higher in people's estimation in general. I've enjoyed other episodes better, but I think this ends up being the best and bravest ep this season.

There was a poem I remember as a teenager being both repulsed and fascinated by. (Will have to borrow my Mom's books again to cite it.) It was about the narrator choosing his/her lover over Salvation (in the religious sense). Being willing to trade consumated passion for an afterlife in Hell. And that's how Gunn's act struck me. He kills Seidel while, at the moment, being entirely convinced of its immorality. He subsumes self and soul for love.

BtVS seems to discourse quite a lot on romantic love, AtS less so. But Gunn killing Seidel ranks up there for me with Buffy's killing of Angel, if just on an emotional level. (I know that this is practically blasphemy.) Buffy renounces love for the needs of the world. Gunn renounces the moral demands of the world (the social contracts that make it work) for the needs of the heart. I KNOW which is the more admiral. But I'm pressed to choose which is the more affecting.

And it makes perfect sense that the domestic, earthly bliss of their relationship couldn't survive the crucible of a passion without boundaries, without degrees. I'm not sure that Gunn would take it back either way. He may have sacrificed the relationship, but he believes he saved Fred.

Glad you liked. Hope you will enjoy the episode. In the way that it is painful and agonizing and effective.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow -- Rahael, 17:50:58 02/13/03 Thu

Now I certainly am.

Damn, JM, you need to post on AtS more frequently. Like every time there's an ep.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL -- JM, 18:41:54 02/13/03 Thu

Thanks so much for responding. I was afraid this got a little too low on the board. Yours is a name I always look for. You're on my A list. If I can't finish all the threads, you're on of the one's I scan for. (D'Herblay [sp?] too.)

I love AtS, and try to keep up with the posts. I am convinced that BtVS has a richer symbolic universe, but that doesn't keep me from loving AtS just a little bit more. Maybe for superficial reasons. (And it's not the title character, I didn't get him till "Dear Boy." Thought that was an illuminating experience.)

I'd love to participate more on the best board on the 'Net, but AtS was preempted three weeks ago. Never recovered. That's how slow I post. My best times come during hiatus and summer, when the pace slows. Thanks for the encouragement. I remember my very first post on this board. Little did I know the addiction I'd succumbed to.

PS I fully believe peace on Earth will be achieved when you English enjoy same time broadcast of ME content. (And we American's "Manchild." My girlfriends and I were very upset about the mouse. I've imagined a fanfic where she survives. Okay, enough OT much. Go Angel.)

PPS Also read Valarru (sp?) below. Guess I'm not the only one.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL -- Rahael, 03:45:00 02/14/03 Fri

Thank you for the very flattering compliment.

I totally agree re the airing of eps on both sides of the Atlantic! Especially because I don't get downloads like some other non-American posters here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: LOL -- Miss Edith, 16:01:31 02/14/03 Fri

Downloads are a convienient way of seeing episodes you are desperate for. But nothing beats watching them on the tv, and I am not the most patient person at waiting for episodes to air. Still we get the DVDs first over here at least.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lag time between seeing episodes in US and elsewhere -- s'kat, 22:37:19 02/13/03 Thu

You know we forget here in the US that our friends in UK and elsewhere don't see the episodes at the same time we do. I know I do. Just as I often forget I'm discussing this show with people around the world - the internet's ability to connect us all like this boggles my mind.

I think that you need to watch the episode yourself before you really consider what we all write about it. Because we see the episodes so differently. I know it would drive me nuts if I was in the UK and wanted to interact on the boards, but couldn't until I saw the episodes but didn't want to be spoiled on them. But I also recall what happened last year on B C& S - a spoiler board during the Seeing Red debacle.

What happened was the satellite feed for Seeing Red was released instead of Entropy that week. So everyone who could download that feed via computer etc? Saw Seeing Red two weeks before it actually aired. That ruined the episode for me. People were talking and posting about it on the boards as if it had aired for everyone, including complete summaries and rants. I had to leave B C & S - part of the reason I ended up on ATp full time - to try and get away from it all - and it appeared here as well, there was no escaping it.

When I finally saw SR - my take on the episode was so different than what I'd read on the boards, I was flabbergasted. It shocked me how differently people viewed that episode. It also made me realize that never again would I read a summary, a wildfeed or someone else's post until I watched the episode myself and judged it with my own eyes. Because it does make a difference. A big difference. Seeing Red proved that to me.

I honestly think you'll see Supersymmetry and every episode this year in both Ats and Btvs differently than others did, because of what experience and knowledge you bring to it.
I know that I see most of the episodes differently. I certainly saw Supersymmetry differently than many people did. It remains one of my all time favorite Ats episodes.
I adored it. It and Soulless are my favorites this year.
Actually I've loved most of Ats this year. Great year IMHO.
And Btvs? Notice the huge discrepancies between viewers there - some of us loved Sleeper, some hated it. Some loved BoTN, some hated it. Must be a tough thing to wait so long
to see what the rest of us are discussing. My sympathies.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's a real problem this season for me -- Rahael, 04:35:07 02/14/03 Fri

You expressed that very well.

I'm finding it far more frustrating this season than I did last, I don't know why.

I also agree that descriptions of the ep filtered through various comments on the ep after it has been screened are really misleading! I find that my personal interpretation is often totally different.

It's like a Rashomon moment!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Still it makes for an interesting perspective -- ponygirl, 09:25:16 02/14/03 Fri

And you're always amazingly perceptive, especially considering you haven't actually seen the episodes!

I know how much knowledge of spoilers can change my viewing experience, yet at the same time certain episodes I can only appreciate after I've know how things are resolved. Too much anxiety!

In any case it will be interesting to see what you think after finally seeing the divisive Him, or CwDP which had so many great purely visual touches.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I've actually seen both of those -- Rahael, 09:52:40 02/14/03 Fri

Courtesy of Etrangere.

Actually, seeing it once, after hearing about it and posting about it is a very strange experience! It's kind of hard to lay aside your preconceptions and just watch. I find myself saying to myself, "Oh, so that's what so and so objected to" and "this is supposed to be really funny!"

Which is why it's great to see them again. Him is next week! I do recall that my instantaneous reaction to seeing it was "Gosh, the entire thing is a commentary on Buffy's attraction to Spike!". An inappropriate relationship with a charismatic guy in the workplace?? The magic jacket?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Beautiful post, JM. -- Angela, 18:24:10 02/13/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> Response on "That Old Gang of Mine" -- Peggin, 06:47:56 02/13/03 Thu

SS occurs in a show where a gang who goes on an indiscriminate demon killing spree are shown as evil. (Were AI irresponsible then? Stopping the gang from murdering the demons - think of all the crimes the demons might have committed! Didn't they need to be stopped?)

*Some* of the demons may have needed to be stopped, but not all of them. The gang was killing indiscriminately, with no regard for anything but their own fun. If I stand on a street corner and shoot 100 random bypassers, if I later find out that some of them were murderers, rapist, drug dealers, etc., it hardly justifies my actions.

The gang did kill evil demons, but they also killed some that were harmless, and some that weren't evil at all. Their motivation taints all of their actions. The fact that some good may have come as an indirect side effect of their killing spree doesn't make their actions acceptable.

Motivation matters. If someone is killing demons because it makes the world a better place, then I have no problem with it. In fact, I applaud. But if they're doing it because that's how they get their jollies, then I don't care how many evil demons they remove from the world, their actions are evil, plain and simple.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Response on "That Old Gang of Mine" (Spoilers ffor TOGoM, Natch) -- Rahael, 07:01:01 02/13/03 Thu

Yes, I agree - that's why I stressed the indiscriminate nature.

But I should imagine that Fred was strongly motivated by a need to punish the person who was responsible for sending her to Pylea. I don't think she can have been disinterested. And I think, from the rot that set into their relationship, it was the murder that caused the badness. And hence, it is clear that it was bad for them, to have set out to do this.

I think the gang were driven by a dangerous notion that they were right, protecting society, and were entirely justified, and therefore, Gunn was a traitor to them. It's not just jollies. They are frightening because they have an ideological motivation. They started off because they were trying to make the world a better place. They applauded themsleves. And they lost their way. The act of killing is a corrupter in itself, in a way that is insidious and often realised all too late.

Honourable men and women can turn into monsters in the process.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ack. And spoilers for Super symmetry as well, above -- Rahael, 07:10:39 02/13/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Back to Supersymmetry (spoilers for that ep, of course) -- Peggin, 09:01:20 02/13/03 Thu

But I should imagine that Fred was strongly motivated by a need to punish the person who was responsible for sending her to Pylea.

That was part of her motivation, but she was also very clear that vengeance wasn't her sole motivation.

From her conversation with Wesley:

WESLEY: Fred, you do know that everything Angel and Gunn have told you is true. Vengeance will have a price. And once you've acted, you can't go back. You have to live with your actions forever.

FRED: He's a serial killer.

And, from her conversation with Gunn:

GUNN: I promise we'll stop him. We'll find some other way.

FRED: Don't you see? He'll never stop! He'll do it again!

Sure, she wanted some payback. But it was pretty obvious that it was more than that. He'd done it before, both to her and to a number of other grad students, and he had proved that he'd do it again. Vengeance was part of it, but Fred also wanted to keep it from happening again to some other grad student.

IMO, the worst part about Gunn's attitude was that he started out saying they could find another way, and then he killed the guy himself. I could have respected him sticking to his moral position that it was wrong. I could have respected him standing aside and not interfering with Fred's decision to banish the guy. But the way he actually did things just struck me as paternalistic and degrading.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Back to Supersymmetry (spoilers for that ep, of course) -- Valheru, 17:17:01 02/13/03 Thu

IMO, Gunn killed Seidel as an unselfish act, perhaps the most unselfish act we've seen on either show since Angel dumped Buffy. This doesn't mean Gunn acted fairly. He certainly undermined Fred's ability to decide her own actions. But Gunn knew that killing Seidel himself would probably destroy his relationship with Fred. He did it anyway. For her.

Motivation is important. Fred was going to kill Seidel (or send him to his probable death elsewhere) for vengeance. Gunn knew the pull of vengeance. He knew that while the goal might be justifiable to Fred, the consequences were beyond her understanding. Remember Angel's talks with Buffy and Faith in "Consequences":

ANGEL: She killed a man. That changes everything for her.
BUFFY: (shakes her head) Giles said with counseling, they might not even need to lock her up.
ANGEL: That's not what I mean. She's taken a life.
BUFFY: I know.
ANGEL: She's got a taste for it now.

then later, with Faith...

ANGEL: Hmm. (faces her) But I know what it's like to take a life. To feel a future, a world of possibilities, snuffed out by your own hand. I know the power in it. The exhilaration. It was like a drug for me.

[snippage]

ANGEL: Faith, you have a choice. You've tasted something few ever do. (stands up, paces) I mean, to kill without remorse is to feel like a god.
FAITH: (struggles angrily) Right now, all I feel is a cramp in my wrist, (yanks at the chains impatiently) so let me go!
ANGEL: (crouches) But you're not a god. You're not much more than a child. Going down this path will ruin you. You can't imagine the price for true evil.

Now, I know there is a big difference between Faith and Fred. But just because Fred wasn't on the verge of going evil as Faith was doesn't mean that Fred wouldn't have faced consequences for her act. Once you kill a person, it becomes easier to kill again. The more you kill, the easier it gets, until you get to the point where you kill people like you kill flies. Fred probably wouldn't have gone that far, but who knows? Fred sure didn't. And neither did Gunn. Gunn wasn't willing to stand by and watch her go down that road, so whether it was fair or not--whether is was good for his own heart or not--he stepped in and did it for her. She got her justice, but not her murderous vengeance.

This is just one of the many times Joss has shown us both sides of a wrong. He always goes to great lengths to show us the reasoning behind decisions, then goes to equal lengths to show us the pain that follows. The most painful things that've happened to the characters in the Buffyverse started out as good ideas that turned out wrong. There's no such thing as 100% wrong when it comes to these characters. It's what makes it them so compelling.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great post -- Rahael, 17:57:04 02/13/03 Thu

And I couldn't agree with you more here:

Once you kill a person, it becomes easier to kill again. The more you kill, the easier it gets, until you get to the point where you kill people like you kill flies. Fred probably wouldn't have gone that far, but who knows? Fred sure didn't. And neither did Gunn. Gunn wasn't willing to stand by and watch her go down that road, so whether it was fair or not--whether is was good for his own heart or not--he stepped in and did it for her. She got her justice, but not her murderous vengeance.

A funny in First Date that I haven't seen anyone else mention (SPOILER for said ep) -- Dead Soul, 01:03:55 02/13/03 Thu

(Sorry if this has been mentioned before and I missed it)

When Wood asked Buffy what she was doing that night, she said "Watching some reality program about a millionaire." (OWTTE).

A poke at Fox for cancelling Firefly to show Joe Millionaire?

[> Allusions and various observations. (Spoilers for FD) -- Deb, 02:28:53 02/13/03 Thu

I don't mean to hijack, but I don't know where to put, and not into starting a new thread to die an early and brutal death.

Car Scene:

1. Spike is sitting in the backseat right behind Wood and Wood looks into his rearview mirror several times. Wouldn't he notice that he can't see Spike in the mirror?

2. Spike tells Buffy Xander is in the basement of the school, because Willow did a locator spell? Something afoot, or Spike just lose his sense of smell (not able to track Buffy and having to come back to the house for help)?

3. Buffy quickly answering Wood's question that she and Spike "work togeter." Is this a sign she is hiding her past relationship with Spike again, or is she trying to avoid raising the vampire issue because she does put NYC Slayer and Wood together?

Am I Projecting?

or does Spike's eyes seem overly moist in many scenes?

Question I can't find answer for:

What happened to Spike? When he left the house to go get Buffy, the back, upper right part of his shirt was shredded and there was.......blood?

What I Would Do If I Was Spike:

I'd leave, or at least move out, until needed. The end-of-show sofa conversation between S/B was disturbing. Echoes of the First's "I'm not through with you yet." Then there was Buffy's truly ambivalant response to the question of Principal Robin and where he fits into the scheme of things.

Fashion Disaster:

That "thing" Buffy wore on her "date." Black, spider-webbish, long and over jeans piece of knit(t)ing from Hell with her waist length leather jacket on top. What was she thinking?

Modeling and Mirroring:

Andrew's response, "You're a peach" to Dawn after she compliments him on his courage. Giles and Spike beginning with "Hey!" Anya speaking for internal Spike? (Conflicted but intense emotionalphrenzia.)

Highlight:

Seeing Giles emotionally engaged and acting alive. Guess all that touchy-feely last week woke him up from his slumber.

Where Have I Heard This Almost Exact Speil Before?

Buffy's take on what she feels about Wood versus her take on how she feels about Riley in "Someting Blue."

Truth Spell?

Xander is a demon magnet. It's his gift. But he goes into his date "blind" just like Giles is blind in SB?

Critical Assessment:

BtVS as the signifier signifing the signifier that signifies the signified. Or is it signifier signifing the signified that also acts as signifier that signifies the other signifier? One sad realization related to this: BtVS might have a cult (Did I say might?) following for years, but eventually nobody, except a few, will understand any of the allusions.

[> [> Oh dear (First Date spoilers) -- Dead Soul, 04:08:30 02/13/03 Thu

If you're worried about your post going straight to the archives, you couldn't have picked a worse place to put it. My posts have the life expectancy of a SHS principal.

Hope you saved it for reposting later.

But to the point. My assumption is that Willow did the Xander locater spell while Spike was fetching Buffy and that she'd told him the location via cell phone, after making sure that he took one with him.

I liked the black spider's web thingie, but, you're right, not under that jacket.

And no one in RL understands my allusions now, so I'm already used to it.

Dead (and ambiguously dressed) Soul

[> [> Re: Allusions and various observations. (Spoilers for FD) -- CW, 06:36:02 02/13/03 Thu

Mirror trick. I suspect a mistake both by the director and actor. The person sitting directly behind the driver is the most difficult to see in the rear view mirror, it was dark, and I can understand someone unconsiously using the mirror for what it's there for and not noticing something wasn't right in the backseat. But, the way the action went Wood looks up at the mirror then addresses Spike. It looks very bad. My guess is that if SMG or JM had noticed what was going on they might have spoken up and said 'don't do that!'
O weel.

Can Spike really track Buffy across town by her scent? Maybe the Intiative, mark II, put a Buffy-homing, you-can-see-this-vamp-in-the-mirror chip in Spike, in place of his old one. ;o)

[> [> About the shirt -- ponygirl, 06:44:49 02/13/03 Thu

Spike's shirt did look a bit odd when he turned to go find Buffy but it wasn't blood. I paused the tape and it was a heart-like stencil pattern, along with some black markings on the arms. I have seen guys' shirts like that before so it could have been a fashion thing, however I thought the placement of the pattern was interesting it matches up with Angel's tattoo. More parallel fun?

[> [> [> A tattoo shirt, was what it looked like. Continuity gaffe was in AtS w/Lilah's shirt.*L -- Briar Rose, 16:11:13 02/13/03 Thu

I would love to have the secret to getting that big blood splotch off in 0.9 second of screen time in real time!

[> Let's help keep this thread going ;o) -- CW, 06:17:15 02/13/03 Thu

I wasn't sure what the purpose was, whether it was a a jab at FOX or a playful admission that the world would rather watch mindless 'reality' than ME's more thought provoking product.

[> [> Speaking of Mindless...some fanfic and keeping the thread alive -- fresne, 15:14:23 02/13/03 Thu

Well, here I'll do my (OT) part to keep the thread going, which therefore may or may not sneak under the radar.

So, my housemate and I decided to write a fanfic in which yes, following recent discussions, Mary Sue is the main character, and it's kind of embarrassing. I mean why would you want to do that to yourself? On the other hand, look, shiny bouncy hair.

She starts out in Sunnydale and over the course of the story discovers that she is a proto-slayer, kryptonite mutant, immortal, has magic powers and then it gets really silly.

Naturally, the story resolves how to deal with the First Evil and in fact the nature of the First Evil, because umm...she's Mary Sue, there's nothing that she can't do, but quite possibly several things that she shouldn't.

The Mary Sue Files

[> Re: A funny in First Date that I haven't seen anyone else mention (SPOILER for said ep) -- s'kat, 08:34:49 02/13/03 Thu

Oh I noticed that too. And I think it was the only big pop culture reference in the episode.

Why do Btvs' characters watch:

1. PAssions (most of Season 4 and 5)
2. Jackass (Bring on the night)
3. Millionaire or Reality Shows (First Date)
4. CSI (Mentioned in Sleeper)

These are the shows mentioned on the series. Although I think they might have mentioned West Wing once.

[> [> Yet another funny in First Date that I haven't seen anyone else mention (SPOILER for said ep) -- ponygirl, 09:05:05 02/13/03 Thu

Probably reading waaay too much into it (but then that's why we're here) but I was wondering at the significance of Xander's Red-eye drink. Aside from sounding like caffeinated death, it made me think of the red-eyed shaman on AtS and of course Seeing Red. Xander goes for the sleepy-making cocoa instead, he's really been the only one complaining about lack of sleep this year. Also the maps that were decorating the coffeeshop gave it more of a war-room feel, like the CoW's conference room or the AI office, rather than a soothing coffeehouse vibe.

[> [> Re: A funny in First Date that I haven't seen anyone else mention (SPOILER for said ep) -- Oneeyedchicklet, 09:24:16 02/13/03 Thu

SMG mentioned watching some reality show a couple of weeks ago when she appeared on a talk show. At the time I was a little miffed that she would publicly admit watching that show, given Firefly's recent demise. I probably expect too much, but I wish she could give a little more thought to the message she sends in her private life. Not that I don't like thongs, (reference to another one of the talk show topics) but women have a long way to go to be taken seriously and she seems to sabotage herself every time she speaks.
(I just started to write "in real life, Willow would take her aside and mention some of this to her", so you know how skewed my perception is!!)
My new mantra "It's just a television show, It's just a television show"
Chicklet

[> [> [> Non-PC Slayer -- luna, 10:34:34 02/13/03 Thu

Buffy has always dressed in very super-fem styles, very revealing, etc.--I think that's part of the whole thing about her, the irony, etc. In fact, Andrew mentioned finding thongs in Buffy's room in this ep. So SMG is not breaking the character here. I think one point of Buffy is that women can be taken seriously if they behave seriously--it's not the outside package, but the action. Walking the walk--or staking the vamp.

Her name is Buffy, after all--how non-serious can you get?

All that said, I too thought the millionaire reference was a Firefly dig.

[> [> [> [> PC is way over rated anyway. -- Briar Rose, 16:17:19 02/13/03 Thu

[> [> [> Re: A funny in First Date that I haven't seen anyone else mention (SPOILER for said ep) -- s'kat, 12:23:08 02/13/03 Thu

Keep in mind - actors don't watch as much television as we do. They work 18 hour days and hey, if you just got home from working on a tv set all day long - would you want to watch tv? I don't think so. And if you did? Wouldn't you want to watch something completely different that what you worked on.

Also what they do watch tends to be really baaad tv. I remember in a Marsters interview - him stating that SMG and Whedon share a love for bad tv shows. SMG was into Passions and then Whedon got hooked - hence all the references to it. They know they are bad tv shows, that's why they love them. The badness. I have a brother who studied film and briefly worked in it and has friends who do- who gets off on bad tv too. Methinks it's an industry thing. (Which btw should make us all question the Emmys and the Oscars...LOL!)
Could be that after working your ass of on a tv show - it helps to watch something bad, to make yourself feel better?
People are by their very nature extreemly competitive, and acting is a very competitive field, I'd think you'd want to watch something that makes you feel better like a bad soap or a reality show? (Hmmm this could explain the Nielsens...they are giving the boxes to actors. (just kidding!! Really!! No need to defend the Neilsens again.) )

[> [> [> [> Re: A funny in First Date that I haven't seen anyone else mention (SPOILER for said ep) -- leslie, 17:14:03 02/13/03 Thu

My father was addicted to watching bad or campy tv shows to rewind from writing. During his first novel, in the early 70s, it was Batman reruns. The last few years it was The Andy Griffith Show. (TVLand and Nick at Night were godsends for him.) Me, I am addicted to the original Perry Mason series, despite the fact that I have practically memorized many of them and there's no surprise in whodunnit! And let's not get into my passion for Bad Anthropology movies.

I think there are two attractions for this kind of thing, weirdly complementary. One is that they're completely mindless, but at the same time, while you're sitting there staring blankly at the screen, you find yourself wondering "now, why is this so bad?" and there's part of your mind is subconsciously thinking about the conventions of writing, acting, directing, whatever, and how you would do it differently.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: A funny in First Date that I haven't seen anyone else mention (SPOILER for said ep) -- s'kat, 17:34:26 02/13/03 Thu

One is that they're completely mindless, but at the same time, while you're sitting there staring blankly at the screen, you find yourself wondering "now, why is this so bad?" and there's part of your mind is subconsciously thinking about the conventions of writing, acting, directing, whatever, and how you would do it differently.

Yep. That's it. Oh the amount of bad tv I've watched in my lifetime. Daytime soaps. And lots of nighttime shows.
Battlestar Galatica. Ahhh...bad tv. Mindless entertainment.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Cattlecar Overactica. Ah, those were the days. -- CW, 21:16:26 02/13/03 Thu

[> [> Another TV allusion to ST -- Deb, 11:50:52 02/13/03 Thu

Xander and Andrew alluded to Star Trek's Enterprise. Undressing SB mentally, which coming from Xander, made me feel a bit strange. Xander has alluded to Enterprise before when Buffy mentioned something about the female Vulcan.

Regarding the scene: I don't think Giles was giving the gang due credit. When people are stressed out, humour concerning the scary, stressing stuff is normal, human reaction. Not that being gay is scary, but they used it as a parallel to having to choose sides for the coming war of good vs. evil or dark grey vs. light grey or red versus blue.

And the Millionaire allusion was probably a stabe at Fox for Firefly, but also comment on what people will watch. Of course people "comment" about my TV tastes in regards to Buffy/Angel.

At last!!!! Theories, speculation and spoilers up to AtS 4-12 -- yabyumpan, 01:32:45 02/13/03 Thu

Thoughts on Cordelius and other stuff.

I'm so glad Evil Cordy is out of the bag now, I've known about it for ages but had to hold off posting until it actually aired. Some theories about Evil Cordy (some are mine and others are stuff I've picked up from spoiler boards over the last couple of months)

Cordelius - Who? What? When, How? Why? So many questions..... some possibilities

1. The demon part of her has now become fully formed with the real Cordy trapped inside. It would mirror Angel/Angelus and might explain all the inconsistencies of her character with the demon battling for control. I t would beg the question though "Why hasn't Cordy said anything about feeling something strange happening to her?"

2. This is a Clone/Pod Cordy with enough memories to get by but not all of them, the real Cordy is still up in glowy Land waiting to be rescued. This ties in with the 'Invasion of the body snatchers' film she was watching in RoF (I think) It also might tie in with Angel's dream in Deep Down on the cliff where Angel and Cordy are both aware that it isn't real.

Angel: "Cordelia. - I didn't think you were coming."
Cordy: "You know me better than that. Better than anybody."
Angel gives slight laugh and sticks his hands his pockets.
Angel: "I don't know if that's true."
Cordy: "Yes. You do."
Cordy slowly walks over to the edge.
Cordy: "It's so beautiful here."
Angel, watching her: "Yes. Yes, it is. - Just the way it should be."
He frowns as we get a quick flash of him and Connor tumbling down the bluff.
Angel: "But it's not. This isn't how it happened."
Another flash of him and Connor, fighting.
Cordy: "I know. - I like this version better."
Angel: "It was Connor. He was here. He..."
Flash of Connor tazering Angel.
Cordy puts a hand against the side of Angel's face.
Cordy: "I can't remember what it was like - not knowing you, not being close to you. I'm in love with you Angel. Deep down I think I have been for a long time. I needed you to know that."

This might have been Cordy trying to let Angel know that the version that would be coming back isn't the 'real' her and he should realise that as he knows her "Better than anybody" ( It would also work with the theory that whatever happens in the opening episode foreshadows the rest of the season)

3 This is Cordy but with out her soul which is still hanging out in glowy land. She's always

4 It's the 'real' Cordy but she is being controlled/manipulated. This ties in with the 'Skip is evil' speculation. After 'Billy', Skip got fired from the PTB and is now working for the other side. He tricked Cordy into accepting becoming part demon in 'Birthday' and tricked her again in 'Tomorrow'. She spent the summer being 're-programmed' then sent down in time for the apocalypse. Doesn't explain 'bored Cordy' in Glowy land unless she was unaware of being programmed. Maybe Lorne's spell in StB acted as a sort of 'Manchurian Candidate' trigger. That would add to a tie in with BtVS.

5 She's the same old Cordy as always, she's become evil because she's pissed at having to wear the same outfit all summer. She finally just snapped. The Beast agreed to become her minion because he's pissed at having to wear Gene Simmons's cast off boots. Together they're going to destroy L.A. then head off to Paris for the spring collection.

Other thoughts/theories

Lorne

When Lorne read her in STB, Cordelius implanted some sort of 'psychic chip' which can control what Lorne reads when people sing. When he read Angelus in last nights ep, Cordelius made him think he sensed his soul.

When Cordelius through the powder over Angelus, it either gave enough of an illusion of a soul that Lorne was fooled or the spell did actually give him back his soul, but only temporarily.

Lorne is the actual BIG big bad this season and Evil Cordy and the Beast are his minions.

The rest of the FG

Well done Gunn, at last! I like Fred but a guy can only take being messed around for so long. It's sad as I do like them as a couple and I'm sorry that Gunn's hurting but I hated the whole W/F/G triangle. Hopefully that's done with now.

Fred, don't go there girl. He's been sleeping with Skanky Lawyer Bitch for the past 6 months, he didn't respect you enough to tell you about the prophecy or about Connor sending Angel to the bottom of the ocean or that he was searching for Angel or the information he had on Cordy. He's not worth it.

Wesley, Wesley, what are you trying to prove? Deciding to bring Angelus back without a moments thought. Excited about meeting Angelus, did you really think you could get the better of him? You may be all grey and rugged now but you're no match for the evil that's Angelus. Pretty quick in deciding to go for the kill now Angelus is loose aren't ya? Maybe you don't want another one of your 'failures' roaming around L.A.

(Apologies to all Wesley lovers, which seems to be every one but me, I just had to get that off my chest. Haven't had a good Wesley rant in ages. I'll put my anti-Wesley thoughts back in the box now);o)

Lilah.....Bye.....I'm liking Evil Cordy already. Sorry to all Lilah lovers (again, pretty much every one but me, she irritated me only slightly less than Wesley) but Femme Fatal, so last season. She always reminded me of Cruella DeVille with better make up.

That's it for now. Thoughts, comments, squashed tomatoes :o)

[> Re: At last!!!! (Spoilers, Calvary.) -- Rahael, 04:14:53 02/13/03 Thu

I'm so excited about all of these developments. Can't wait to find out what happens next.

I have no idea what's up with Cordy, though I can't wait for Cordy-Angelus evil snarkage.

Am going to try to arrive early in order to have maximum Angel discussion before 'Selfless' airs!

(and now that Cordy and Lilah are kind of out of the picture, I think I'm going to be a Wes/Angel shipper. LOL)

Awww - I really liked Lilah. In one season she rocketed up to becoming one of my favourite characters. She's what Cordelia (BtVS S1) might have been if she hadn't known the Scooby gang.

[> Re: At last!!!! Theories, speculation and spoilers up to AtS 4-12 -- Zero, 04:39:26 02/13/03 Thu

yabyumpan said:
//
1. The demon part of her has now become fully formed with the real Cordy trapped inside. It would mirror Angel/Angelus and might explain all the inconsistencies of her character with the demon battling for control. I t would beg the question though "Why hasn't Cordy said anything about feeling something strange happening to her?"
//

I wondered the same thing, then I remembered that in Reign of Fire (I think) Cordy made a comment about "wanting to warn Angel but the words wont come out". Likewise with leading Connor to the place where the Beast was about to arise. Was the whole thing a setup where she got the Beast to arrive where Connor was born then lead him there to see it, or was some evil part of her making her want to go there, but without knowing why?

Kinda agree with you on Lilah, but mainly cause she represented the last of W&H, who I thought were pretty awful villains. They had potential, but they ended up useless and incompetent, with Angel strolling into their building to chat with Lilah anytime he wanted.

[> That is the best spec ever!! (possible spoilers for aired Angel eps) -- Rob, 08:38:56 02/13/03 Thu

For what it's worth, re: Cordy, an evil part of me wishes it was #5, just because it would be funny. Just j/k! No, I I'd go with #2, and that fits in really well with the dream from "Deep Down," as you showed.

Re: Lorne. I don't know. I've heard the theories, but I just can't see him being all evil. This is the guy who was ostracized by his family for not being evil enough (kind of like Scott Evil in the Austin Powers movies lol). He had a club where violence wasn't allowed! I can't see him being the Big Bad, unless there's a huge reason I'm missing. Cordy I could see as being evil, because she hasn't been herself this season. Lorne hasn't shown any change in character. The only true strangeness was the people-eater that he counseled in the hotel in "Slouching Towards Bethlehem."

The only other clues I think would be this ep, where he said Angel had a soul. But again, he really might have thought it. Other clue? Um... Not telling what he got upon reading Angelus when he was singing. Again, though, maybe he was telling the truth, and it really was too disturbing.

If Lorne is evil, too, what I thought was (a) Cordy's song sent the evil into Lorne or (b) um not the real Lorne? The Lorne that was rescued from W&H wasn't the real one?

Am I making any sense?

Rob

[> [> Lorne (possible spoilers for aired Angel eps) -- Darby, 08:59:10 02/13/03 Thu

If Lorne weren't somehow corrupted and Angelus didn't somehow know, why would Angelus sing where Lorne could hear him? He has no real idea (neither do we or, I think sometimes, the writers) just how detailed a read Lorne gets from those sessions.

[> [> [> Wow - good point, Darby! -- WickedBuffy, 09:40:52 02/13/03 Thu

Didn't even think of that - why would Angelus willingly sing for Lorne? He had to know ahead of time that Lorne would think there was a soul. I don't think Angelus and Cordellius are in cahoots, in fact I think Angelus is being manipulated by Cordelius.

I was thinking that maybe the dark magic spell Cordelius did somehow affected Lorne to misread, but that still doens't explain how Angelus knew, unless there was an anonymous message in all that swirling spell mist he got that whispered "go for it". (Might have even suggested to him the whole fake Angel plan!)

Or, of course, Lorne is under an evil spell - he is demon - he might be more easily manipulated because of that.

And, just like Lilahs death looking like Angelus did it and casting suspicion on him again, Lornes misreading will put a suspicious light on Lorne, as well.

While Evil Cordelius evilly prances on.

[> [> [> [> Re: Wow - good point, Darby! -- Darby, 10:06:21 02/13/03 Thu

Thanks, but I was talking about the singing in Soulless, when we knew it was Angelus, and he knew who was watching (he can hear them), and yet he was singing in his cage. I suspect he was passing messages. That's also why he knew what was going on, but only sort of. If Angelus knew about Betrayer!Cordy, their private conversations would have been quite different. He knew about Lorne, but not Cordy.

[> [> [> [> [> The song -- DickBD, 12:49:00 02/13/03 Thu

I wonder if there was any significance in the song. It sounded sinister, but I think it was THE TEDDY BEAR'S PICNIC, an old children's song. The "big surprise" is the gathering of animated Teddy bears. I thought at the time that it was a little joke that Angel was singing a song that sounded sinister but actually was not.

[> [> [> Re: Lorne (possible spoilers for aired Angel eps) -- Tess, 10:49:13 02/13/03 Thu

If Angelus had refused to sing, it would have been just like him saying, 'You got me. I'm still Angelus.' I felt more like he shrugged his shoulders and put happy thoughts in his mind and 'became' Angel while singing because he didn't have anything to lose by doing it and everything to gain if it worked.

As for Lorne, I need to rewatch all of his readings but I don't think he ever read how evil or good someone was as so much as the turmoil they were currently feeling and glimpses of the future that would arise out of those feelings. So if Angelus played Angel during that song, he'd read Angel's future, not Angelus'.

It seems this proves that Angelus can become Angel just as easily as Angel can play Angelus.

[> [> My theory on Lorne (Calvary spoilers) -- Masq, 09:37:23 02/13/03 Thu

Why did Lorne read Angelus as Angel and why did Angelus have no compunction about singing? My theory is that the spell the gang did was not a soul-returning spell, as we've figured out, but a mojo to put a kind of "aura" glamor on Angelus so that when Lorne read him he got "Angel" vibes. Then Angelus acts like Angel for the group (and does a hell of a good job--scary!), and they all buy it.

Cordelia got that vision from whatever's pulling her strings. It was a plan to get Angelus out of the cage. Angelus played along, hoping for the best, and he got out.

Lorne was duped. He's as good a guy as they come.

[> [> [> Re: My theory on Lorne (Calvary spoilers) -- Angela, 10:28:16 02/13/03 Thu

That makes sense. We were thinking that it was to do with whatever the souleater took from Connor and that the spell would have worked if the Souleater already contained Angel's soul.

I didn't really make too much out of the Lorne thing, partially because Lorne said: "the aura's changed" and something to the effect that the "vibes scream soul." He doesn't say Angel and I don't get the sense that he could identify Ange's soul specfically just whether or not there is a soul there. In terms of aura, same thing; it's not that specific either. Good aura...bad aura. Healthy aura...sick. And in this case...completely changed.

[> [> [> [> Does that mean... (Calvary spoilers) -- Darby, 10:38:37 02/13/03 Thu

...That Angelus may have some aspect of Connor's soul locked inside him?

[> [> [> [> [> No....It probably means... -- Angela, 14:14:22 02/13/03 Thu

that I misinterpreted what I saw based on what I wanted. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> Yes, but... -- MaeveRigan, 12:20:30 02/14/03 Fri

...not enough to do him any real good, or Connor any real harm. Maybe!

The theory is the Soul-Eater sucked some soulish-ness (whatever that means out of Connor and that's what EvilCordy's spell transferred to Angelus, and what Lorne read.

Works for me, anyway.

[> Re: At last!!!! Theories, speculation and spoilers up to AtS 4-12 -- Yoda, 10:58:26 02/13/03 Thu

Here is a twisted theory. What if Angelous is really Angel pretending to be Angelous. Remember when Angel pretended to be Angelous to find out what Faith was up to. Maybe when they restored his soul Angel decided to pretend to be Angel pretending to be Angelous in order to fake out an evil Cordeilia.

[> [> Re: At last!!!! Theories, speculation and spoilers up to AtS 4-12 -- yabyumpan, 11:15:55 02/13/03 Thu

"Here is a twisted theory. What if Angelous is really Angel pretending to be Angelous. Remember when Angel pretended to be Angelous to find out what Faith was up to. Maybe when they restored his soul Angel decided to pretend to be Angel pretending to be Angelous in order to fake out an evil Cordeilia."

I like it :-) It would explain him going after Lilah and not Cordy. Angel has always held back from killing Lilah because she's human and he's got to be 'good'. By pretending to be Angelus he can kill her her and get away with it by saying he didn't have a soul, except that Cordelius beat him to it.

Something else I've just thought of, why did he go for Lilah and not Cordy?

A couple of possibilities : He just wanted something to eat, he's saving Cordy for some evil fun later. Or, Cordy put some sort of mojo in him that prevents him from hurting her, we don't know how for Cordy's manipulations can go and who they are affecting. There's just so many possibilities.

[> [> Good one, Yab, but what about Cordy?(some spoilage) -- WickedBuffy, 11:19:03 02/13/03 Thu

That went thru my head, too - but then I couldn't figure out why he would hit Cordy so hard, sending her into the cell. And then later, actually shoot her with an arrow? And why all that playacting when he went out to look for food and shook that lil girl vamp?

Unless he knew Cordy wasn' t the real Cordy and thought that he was being watched wherever he went by The Beasts Boss, so had to act Angelus 100%??

[> Re: At last!!!! Theories, speculation and spoilers up to AtS 4-12 -- 110v3w1110w, 11:54:24 02/13/03 Thu

IMO cordelia was the same as angel they were both demons with a soul somehow cordelia has lost hers probably as punishment for breaking the PTB's rules while she was in that white place by helping angel when he lost his future and is now just a plain demon and so is angel now that he has lost his soul to. i knew there was somthing off about cordelia as all season she has been to loving and understanding and full of empathy and that just isn't cordelia

[> Yab - You're not alone, but I add Fred to that list too - and maybe Gunn.*L -- Briar Rose, 15:59:23 02/13/03 Thu

Sorry - but the characters just don't get me excited in this series as much as in BtVS.

Fred has annoyed me since her first appearance. Landing her in LA hasn't changed her much even now. She's still a girly girl and makes me cring. (Okay - she does carry off the flowing haired warrioress look from a distance, but that's it!)

Gunn I want to strangle half the time. His raging testesterone is just not jelling with the "All for one and one for all" team effort of the Fang Gang that is being portrayed, especially this season. It's no wonder Angelus picks him and Wesley and Fred to set up with anger-fest 2003. None of those three have anything more than ego invested in working together and even at that - they don't work together as much as hang onto Angel and Cordy like drowning seamen.

Wesley just doesn't carry off "I'm bad" because the actor reminds me of some stiff shirt that's dressing up for Halloween in the part. It doesn't have much reality to the performance. I LIKE the actor just fine - just not the way the writers play Wesley now.

Lilah outlived her usefulness to the plot about two years ago. Way overdue for her slayage. Wesley and Lilah? Bleech. That was more a plot device to make Wesley appear more "I'm bad" and nothing more. Sexual proclivities don't make one "bad" in my book. Many dominant types are woosies in the real world. It's the idea of the fantasy for Goddess Sake, being what you WISH you were in the RW!

At least I've finally found parts of Connor's character to LIKE. Because he was also on my "not a fave" list for his first half season.*L It was like watching Season 5 Dawn with a Penis.

[> Re: At last!!!! Theories, speculation and spoilers up to AtS 4-12 -- lunasea, 18:27:01 02/13/03 Thu

I think the fun part is that whatever is going on with Cordy probably won't end when Angel gets resoulled. I am completely unspoiled, except for the well known character appearances.

The big question for me is why she didn't tell Angelus who/what she is. She has spent how many episodes pulling Angel/us' strings? This is some elaborate scheme. Why? Is it elaborate enough to factor in an eventual resoulling (after Angelus has done lots of stuff for Angel to feel guilty about)?

Go Angelus. Fun to be had for everyone. It will be great, but the real story has yet to be revealed.

I would go with #2 for what is going on with Cordy. Also #2 for why Lorne misread Angelus.

As for Wesley, he needs a serious lecture from Buffy about what sort of things ex-Watchers need to let the Slayer know about. Special vampires being missing all summer, that merits a phone call. If said vampire is going to be desouled, again pick up the phone. Eternal darkness and vampires running all over LA, pick up that goddamn phone already!!! I hope she lets him have it eventually.

Angel didn't get his soul back. It wasn't in the eyes. Have to see those golden eyes before I know my champion is back.

[> [> Re: At last!!!! Theories, speculation and spoilers up to AtS 4-12 -- Tess, 20:06:30 02/13/03 Thu

""I think the fun part is that whatever is going on with Cordy probably won't end when Angel gets resoulled.""

I've stopped reading the spoiler boards so I don't know much past the well known casting spoiler, but I would imagine that if Cordy hasn't been exposed by the time Angel is resouled than Angel would figure out that Cordy is evil based on the fact that he knows he didn't kill Lilah, and who else would that leave as the guilty party?

As far as Wes notifing Buffy about Angelus and the LA apocalypse, that kinda goes both ways. Remember when Wes got upset because Giles didn't notify him that Faith had regained consciousness. For that matter no one bothered to tell Cordy that one of her old best pals, Harmony, was now a vampire.

Why would anyone in LA know there are problems in Sunnydale? And how could anyone in Sunnydale not know there is trouble in LA and not suspect the first? But based on how Angelus obsessed on Buffy last time around, she does deserve a heads up. And imagine how the information that Angel has lost his soul and is killing again will effect Buffy now that she dechipped Spike.

[> [> [> Re: At last!!!! Theories, speculation and spoilers up to AtS 4-12 -- lunasea, 20:24:03 02/13/03 Thu

As far as Wes notifing Buffy about Angelus and the LA apocalypse, that kinda goes both ways. Remember when Wes got upset because Giles didn't notify him that Faith had regained consciousness. For that matter no one bothered to tell Cordy that one of her old best pals, Harmony, was now a vampire.

I'm not talking about calling up Angel's old girlfriend/love of his life and telling her what is going on. I am talking about THE SLAYER, the one whose sacred duty is to protect... well we all know the opening to the show by now, I hope.

Wes and Cordy are personal matters. Buffy should know purely for professional reasons. Vampires are running rampid in LA. The Slayer should know about this. The most dangerous vampire is on the loose. The Slayer should know about this. That vampire was missing and could have been reeking havoc. The Slayer should have known.

In "The Wish" Giles calls up the Slayer to come to Sunnydale when the Master has control of the town. As was said in "First Date," Who you gonna call?

To be honest, I hope that Angel and Buffy both yell at each other for not asking for help, not only now but in the past. Angel only went a few hours away so that he wouldn't be too far to help. He just didn't want to bump into Buffy. He could have moved back to NYC if he wanted or Detroit or gone back to Europe. He didn't. He stayed where he could help if needed. I don't think Buffy understands that. She feels completely abandonned and Angel never wanted to leave her completely. She forced the issue in IWRY. They both have a lot of things to straighten out.

[> Pod. -- slain, 08:55:30 02/14/03 Fri

I'm going for pod-Cordy, myself - the feeling I get is that Cordy's still stuck up there somewhere, shouting "God, what is she wearing?! How can they not tell she's evil!?". I can believe that the body is Cordy's, but I don't think Cordy herself is anywhere to be found.

Lorne is my green love-muffin, and in no way evil. Possibly controlled by the forces of evil, but, hey, who isn't these days?

On another note, does anyone else remember those crossover rumours? Am I the only person still convinced that our big bad in both series is the First Evil? If Lorne and/or Cordy are functioning as sleepers, that would fit its methods, as would its apparent omniscence. Even if crossovers are impossible, there's no reason why AtS and BtVS couldn't fight it independently.

[> [> Re: Pod. (spoiler Calvary) -- lunasea, 10:15:15 02/14/03 Fri

Cordy's actions are too varied and she is too cognizant to be a Sleeper. Spike isn't aware of why he is doing things. Cordy seems to be quite aware. The Cordy that killed Lilah was no sleeper.

LINGUISTICS 101: Robin Wood builds the Ark of the Covenant, etc. -- linguistics BA (Bad- Ass!), U. of Oregon, 05:08:44 02/13/03 Thu

Forget the Robin Hood sounds-like. There is a wealth of allusion in the actual name of Robin Wood, from the tenuous to the definitive. Tenuous first:

In English folklore, there is a mischievous elf or fairy, upon whom Shakespeare based 'Puck' (midsummer's...), who plays tricks on people. His name is 'Robin Goodfellow.' If we do a little inter-translation, we can make a case for Robin Wood being an allusion to this jokester.
The French for 'Wood' is 'bois' (as in Boise Idaho). In colloquial French, 'robin' refers to a false judge or advocate, much like the word 'shyster.' So 'robin wood' can be 'robin bois' in French. Since 'bois' is pronounced 'boy', we can go bi-lingual and say 'robin wood' is 'robin boy,' or 'robin (good)fellow,' the mis-representer, or shyster. Perhaps Mr. Wood is not what he appears to be....

BUT WAIT!!!!! There is a more definitive allusion, which also leads us to the idea of 'falsity.' Get this!!!:

Ask yourself: What kind of wood makes the best stake? Obviously, it should be hard, and durable. There is a type of tree, of the family 'leguminosae,' common in the U.S., that has exceedingly hard and durable wood which is often used for posts and table legs, as it is highly lathable. These trees are known as 'locusts,' and coincidentally (or not!!!) belong to the Genus ***"Robinia."*** They have delicate leaves, thorny branches, and dense clusters of heavily-scented flowers. The best-known variety is Robinia pseudacacia, or 'false acacia,' and is commonly known as the 'black locust tree.'

Now it gets complex: The black locust, as a leguminosae, has pods that appear much like a pea pod. By extension, any similar legume-tree has come to be called a 'locust,' including the carob tree. Thus, carob beans have come to be known as 'locust beans,' and the extract from these, often used in making candy, is called 'locust bean gum.' True acacia trees of the species 'Acacia arabica' also contain a similar resin, called 'gum arabic.' In addition, the species 'Acacia catechu' produces catechu, a substance high in tannic acid, used in leather processing.

Now, in Catholicism, a person receiving formal instruction on the fundamentals of the church (the 'catechism') is called a 'catechumen.' And so we shall explore the connections here...

The "Arabici" were a 3rd century Christian sect who believed that the body and the soul were inseparable, and both died at death. Similarly, on judgement day, they believed the body would return to life, as well as the soul.
(This would not bode well for Spike or Angel, would it??)

The "Acacians" were a 4th century sect led by the 'heresarch' (great speaker of heresy) Acacius. They believed that the Father and the Son, God and Christ, were separate entities, with separate souls or 'essences.' Thus, Christ was part of creation, not God incarnate. The church answered this by the theory of the Trinity, where God was one essence, manifest in three bodies, or persons. (Compare to Liam/Angelus/Angel or William/Spike/Spike w/soul).

The acacia tree, like the black locust, has very hard, durable wood that becomes black like ebony with age. The bible calls it "incorruptible wood." Because of its beauty, durability, and strength, it was the wood used to build, among other things, the wooden parts of the tabernacle, the altar of halocausts, the altar of incense, the table of the loaves of proposition, and, of course, the ARK OF THE COVENANT. (It was also, quite likely, the wood worn by Jesus as a headpiece as he approached calvary to be crucified. This is a clue as to the meaning of "acacia!!") It should be noted, again, that 'Robinia' is a 'false acacia.'

In addition, the carob plant is called, colloquially, "St. John's bread." FYI, It was St. John of the Cross who, around 1580, wrote a treatise entitled "The Dark Night of the Soul," wherein he explained his philosophy of salvation. His axiom was that, in order to be filled with God, one's soul must first be emptied of all earthly things. When one is completely purged of all the sins that one has lived - especially those that are generally hidden or denied - then one may be filled with God to the extent that one may actually "obtain a share in God's omnipotence." This, among other things, was an explanation of the miracles performed by saints.

Another plant that ties in here is the trillium, or Trinity flower, so called because it is a single flower surrounded by three leaves. The trillium, as well as the related flowers 'cuckoopint' and 'jack-in-the-pulpit,' are commonly called...."wake-robins!!"

Related to the 'Acacia arabica' is the 'Acanthus.' The root of both Genus names is the Greek akakia, or ake. Yes, as per the clue above, you guessed it! - 'ake' means'thorn' or, in a more general translation....'spike!!!' (the flowers of the acacia are clustered on a 'spike.')
Is Robin Wood, then, like the locust tree, a 'false Spike?'

Finally, if you look up 'wake-robin' in the Webster's unabridged, you find this definition of the cuckoopint:
"Any of a number of plants of the genus Arum, with variously colored, hoodlike leaves arching over flower spikes." Spikes!!??? If this is a coincidence, it is one heck of a synchronicity!!

So, in summation, we have:

Robin Wood = Robinia tree = black locust = carob bean = false acacia = false spike.

acacia arabica = 'incorruptible wood' used for Ark of Covenant = tanning your hide = learning about Christianity = gum arabic, an organic adhesive = two early Christian sects concerned with body/soul duality, one claiming no duality, the other asserting duality even for God himself = crown of thorns = spike.

Carob = St. John's bread = writer of "dark night of the soul."

Robin Wood = wake-robin = trinity flower = spike.

I am not quite sure how to deal with all of this info - but isn't it bizzare that 'Robin' refers to two unrelated, unsimilar plant (wood) phenomena, both of which are defined using, as a central feature, the actual word "spike"??!! And that the actual 'wood', or tree, called 'Robinia' carries the same name - 'locust tree' - as both a tree called by the name of the writer of the "dark night of the soul" axiom, and a tree whose genus and species are the names of two sects dealing with body/soul integration??

I'm sure there's more here, by extension at least (ie carob = 'locust' = plague = false chocolate flavoring = fills up Buffy, but doesn't satisfy her)

I hate to say so, but I am getting one very overwhelming intuitive sense of how this will play out.... There is only one way to re-integrate Spike's body and soul, and that is for him to wear the 'crown of thorns' and sacrifice himself somehow. I think he is likely going to die a noble death, perhaps saving another(s) life by losing his own. This would be the logical end to his "dark night" and would assure that his soul goes to heaven, which would possibly be a first for a vampire, and would really screw up the world-view of the FE.

[> Ling 101 - NOT!! This is definitely grad-level work. -- Aquaman, 06:06:56 02/13/03 Thu

[> Actually, this is Philology 101 -- Cactus Watcher, 06:59:09 02/13/03 Thu

And sorry about your back-side problems.

I'm kidding, of course!

I doubt anyone at ME was ever thinking that throroughly about the character Wood, but you did dig up some interesting stuff!

From one who knows the diffence between linguistics and philology. ;o)

[> TTMQ = 12.5 on a 10-point scale -- dub ;o), 09:52:13 02/13/03 Thu

...or, as Willow has told us, it's all connected.

;o)

[> Re: LINGUISTICS 101: Robin Wood builds the Ark of the Covenant, etc. -- leslie, 10:37:56 02/13/03 Thu

Have you ever considered a career in folklore and mythology? Come over to the dark side! If you're still at UofO, go over to the folklore department and talk to Sharon Sherman or Dan Wojcik....

[> [> Re: LINGUISTICS 101: Robin Wood builds the Ark of the Covenant, etc. -- MaeveRigan, 11:01:32 02/13/03 Thu

Dark side, indeed! Linguistics B.A.'s speculative conclusion is probably right (who knows?!), but the convoluted route by which it was reached...It's all in Jung, all in Jung. What do they teach them in these schools? ;-)

[> [> Re: LINGUISTICS 101: Robin Wood builds the Ark of the Covenant, etc. -- Ete, 16:51:19 02/13/03 Thu

"Have you ever considered a career in folklore and mythology"

There's folklore and mythology career in the US ??!! Damn !

[> Awe-Struck: Cupids with blazing arrows flyng around inside my head. -- Deb, 11:28:12 02/13/03 Thu

What a post! We have come to the same conclusion, but your linguistic argument is so much more fun to read than it is for me to write a critical analysis. It takes a lot less time too!

Thanks!

[> Re: LINGUISTICS 101: Robin Wood builds the Ark of the Covenant, etc. -- s'kat, 13:57:28 02/13/03 Thu

I like what you have here and it does seem oddly coincidental but I tend to agree with Cactus Watcher on this one.

I think Robin Wood may have come from another source - it's the name of a film criticism professor who has written lots of stuff on feminism and film which is referenced by Slotkin. Wood also wrote stuff and possibly taught at Whedon's college. One of Wood's papers was on teen slasher movies and how the girl is always the victim. And in an interview - Whedon briefly refers to it. The interview was the one in NY Times Magazine I believe and it was on Firefly and Btvs way back in September. Lots of people commented on it - see archives Wood - back in the fall, specifically end of Sept when Lesson premiered. This does not mean that the name doesn't have more than one meaning.

[> Ye gods!! and assorted goddesses...art thou, mayhaps, a trickster figure too? -- Random, 14:30:27 02/13/03 Thu

Such...ah, I'm searching for a word here...such...such... virtuosity in philology (Cactus Watcher was right -- it's philology, but since philology compasses linguistics in many cases, I'm not gonna quibble semantics, especially not until I see what you can do with the field of semantics :-) ) But nice work, anyhow. I haven't been this impressed since I was a TA and one of my students turned in a paper that argued for Freud's influence on Baudelaire. When I talked to her, it actually took me a few minutes to realize that she had no idea that said influence was chronologically improbable at best. But it was a truly excellent paper that almost convinced me that history had fudged some dates, so I gave her an A+ for rare genius...because genius need not be concerned with such petty details as logical possibilities and empirical causality. In any event, U. of O. has now contributed a major semiotic event in the annals of Buffy CritLit. Bring us more. Deconstruct the Scoobies. Clem. Richard Wilkins. This is fun.

~Random, back from a week-long ski trip and ready for St. Valentine's Day. I've already decided to post a long exigesis of something when I have the time --probably no later than Sunday. Be warned.

[> [> Re: Ye gods!! and assorted goddesses...art thou, mayhaps, a trickster figure too? -- Trickster, of course, 15:45:32 02/13/03 Thu

Let's see; what CAN I do with semantics?!?

Philology, semiotic, semantics, linguistics... Is somebody arguing the field-of-study taxonomy of such a semantically acrobatic tragicomedic play-on-words?

I could say that all four words are, literally, identical propositions; Love of words, having to do wth signals, study of the nature of meanings, scientific study of language. If not completely identical, at least intersecting so often and completely as to render distictions impossible, especially those tricky ones - philology and linguistics. But that would be cheesy.

So what I'll do is tell the truth and say that I used the word 'linguistics' because....nope, no clever twist of words. There was another post that addressed the name Robin Wood, and it used the word, and I started a new thread because that one was on its way to the archives, and this is a new thread....albeit unravelling from a blurry tapestry.

Thank god that someone (Random - it figures!) understands the fullness of omnipotence one receives when one passes thru the dark night of the soul, and into the land where causality is something I am doing right now, all the time. Far from lacking the burden of causality, I am constantly overwhelmed by the great responsibility I carry.

If humans fell from grace due to KNOWLEDGE of good and evin, then linguistics is the source of all the evil in the world. But, as the literal meaning of philology is 'love of words/language,' It is arguable that philology was the temptation to original sin, as the lovers of words sought knowledge of these words...Hence, philology is the First Evil. Linguistics is just the creator of demons...Ooh control myself...stop...do not analyze magic spells as language-loving evil....stop....

[> [> [> On language, the FE, and going home... -- Random, 16:59:45 02/13/03 Thu

And yet...if you are arguing that, for a higher consciousness, language is indistinguishable from thought-patterns, you are embracing a reversion of causality. Or, more precisely, a causality that is both obvious and traceable, but the components cannot be easily assigned to one category or the other. Does thought precede language (in the immediate sense, not the historical) or is thought predicated upon language?

Semiotics...ah, those grand old days of Eco and whoever happened to be the latest in obtusity or obscurity. That particular word lies at the center of our semantical exchange. The signs and the signifiers and the signified: all are central to communication, yet peripheral to understanding, since grokking a concept is a hermetic, individual act. Or so I would argue. But I do grant that only a pedantic academic (which I am no longer...pedantic, perhaps, but out in the real world) would bother to distinguish between the four. Linguistics or philology can be catch-alls. But semantics can trump all of them, for it is, in many ways, the gradual deconstruction of all language, including the very words to describe language. Heh, heh heh...

And consider "linguistics" derives from lingua "tongue" and, food for thought, it parallels the apparently unrelated "linga" -- Sanskrit for the penis, masculity (better known to Kama Sutra readers as "lingam", matched with the female "yoni.") Have we, perhaps, found a new paradigm for the discussion of Buffy and feminism?

It's about power -- and the FE (as somebody -- Finn Mac Cool?) has noted recently, language could quite possibly be at the center of it all. The FE's power lies in words -- lacking corporeal form, it must goad, manipulate, use words to make others act in ways they would not otherwise do. If the FE had any real access to formidable physical resources, it wouldn't be bantering with the Scoobies. It wouldn't be sending a few dozen harbingers and an occasional ubervamp to knock the hapless potentials around for a while before Buffy shows up and slaughters the minions. Indeed, it only seems to have real power when the Scoobies make the first move -- locating spells, or deliberate attempts to record and observe it. Perhaps the FE manifests only in opposition or conjuration. If thought and language are power, so too must be volition and self-expression. The drums are beating (metaphorically), and they are likewise a form of communication. The FE even falls back on a rehash of the Yoko Factor...can there be any doubt that what we are watching unfold now is not "the big fight" but the denouement of the millenia-old conflict quest of humanity to come to terms with its own identity as a thinking creature that nevertheless harbors many primal, cruel instincts. Andrew's throw-away "evil impulses" line may not have been as much of a red herring as it seemed. Evil is a mode of higher thought, after all. As is good. It's all semantics...until you're on the receiving end of an act of evil or good. It's about how we relate to each other. Power alone is generally meaningless, until directed by some form of volition. If the FE seeks to eschew good/evil in favor of power, it must clearly have a semantical ace up its sleeve.

What if it's attempting to undo the procession of history? That is, what if it isn't trying to conquer or destroy the universe, but reduce it once more to its primal state? If the FE has been around forever, perhaps its motives are of the most banal type: it's bored and wants to go back to the peaceful existence before the Great War between Good and Evil made everything terribly exciting, but tiring.

So...why wipe out the Slayer line? In the greater scheme of things, the Slayers have been damned effective in combating evil...but they can't possibly be making that big a dent. Just one girl, in one place at a time. How many hapless souls have died amidst the carnage of the demonic activity in Cleveland while Buffy has been whiling away her time in Sunnydale? What the FE is eliminating is the continuity and tradition surrounding the Council and the Slayers. Much as Buffy has done over the years, though for entirely different reasons. Breaking with the Council. Not staying dead. Hmmm...

The FE is less a general or a hero for Evil than Loki, the great trickster. It will eventually betray everyone, its own allies included. D'Hoffryn and his ilk best watch their backs. Unlike the previous Big Bads, the FE doesn't appear to be of the "unleashing hell on earth" ilk. The FE is like the great serpent (wolf, in some cosmologies) that devours the universe and is reduced to devouring itself when everything else is gone. Come endless darkness...

~Random, feeling expansive and rambling and a little silly and wanting to hear what Sophist has to add.

[> [> [> [> ROFL. -- Sophist, 20:39:20 02/13/03 Thu

Too bad you missed the great meme/culture debate. You could have chimed in on my quotations of Steven Pinker. Love the lingua/lingam association. For several reasons.

[> [> [> [> Re: On language, the FE, and going home... -- Darby, 07:53:08 02/14/03 Fri

On a semi-related note, have the Bringers been depicted vocally this season at all? In Amends, it was established that they were crucial in linking the First here, and they were all with the bones and talismans and the chanting, but this newest incarnation seems to have lost its voice. Just sayin'...

Also, percolating somewhere in the back of my skull is the question of thought and language, and the notion that complex thought requires complex language. There just aren't enough examples of children raised with no language...does anybody else want to lock some kids in separate rooms and do experiments on them?

Just me.

[> [> [> [> [> Children and Language -- Rahael, 08:08:32 02/14/03 Fri

Okay. I couldn't resist this opportunity! I haven't quoted a poem for ages.

Children are dumb to say how hot the day is,
How hot the scent is of the summer rose,
How dreadful the black wastes of evening sky,
How dreadful the tall soldiers drumming by,
But we have speech, to chill the angry day,
And speech, to dull the roses's cruel scent,
We spell away the overhanging night,
We spell away the soldiers and the fright.

There's a cool web of language winds us in,
Retreat from too much joy or too much fear:
We grow sea-green at last and coldly die
In brininess and volubility.
But if we let our tongues lose self-possession,
Throwing off language and its watery clasp
Before our death, instead of when death comes,
Facing the wide glare of the children's day,
Facing the rose, the dark sky and the drums,
We shall go mad, no doubt, and die that way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I'd been missing your poems -- Tchaikovsky, 08:48:58 02/14/03 Fri

Although you have the slightly evil habit of not attributing them, so I have to go to google, type in the first few lines, and then find out from the site. Then I get lost in all the poems around the particular one, and lose myself an hour of my time!

I know the top of the board's getting a little bit crowded, but I think the line
'There's a cool web of language winds us in'
is as good a line for this board as any, and can be read in at least three or four different ways when taken out of context- all of them vaguely relevant.

TCH- also worried that Darby is locking babies up in laboratories as we speak.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Whoops! -- Rahael, 09:12:26 02/14/03 Fri

That bit of evil is completely accidental!!

The poem is of course by Robert Graves.

But I'm still evil. Right? Right?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Whoops! -- Random, 09:52:51 02/14/03 Fri

Yes, sweetie, you're still as evilicious as they come. Indeed, I muttered several imprecations to that effect against you when I reached the bottom of your post and discovered that you hadn't attributed (though I did guess that it was approximately from the last fifth of the 19th century to the first third of the 20th.) Fond of Graves -- his mythohistorical literature not quite on par with Yeats (one of my personal gods, along with Eliot, Arnold, Duras, Strand, Marvell, Donne, Plath, Rich, the Pearl poet...oh hell, bunches of others -- I'm quite the pantheist) but still quite interesting. Anyhow, I'm off for the day, but will still vote that Anya's idea of a menage a trois with the two Xanders was more interesting than Riley's suggestion of locking them in separate rooms. Question: if, as Anya suggests, having sex with both Xanders would technically be monogamous, would Willow "snuggling" with VampWillow technically be autoeroticism? Hmmm...stick that in your semantical grab-bag of fun! Oh, and Sophist...you got a dirty mind :->

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Moi? I'm not the one imagining scenes with Willow and VampWillow. Wish I had, though. -- Sophist, 10:14:30 02/14/03 Fri

Current board | More February 2003