February 2004 posts
My analysis of "Damage" is up --
Masquerade, 22:44:02 02/02/04 Mon
Lotsa juicy quandaries and ambiguities here.
Replies:
[> It's a fascinating episode. -- Arethusa, 06:06:07
02/03/04 Tue
While physical empowerment might not be the most important type
of empowerment, it's a necessary one. A free mind is an important
consolation for an imprisoned body, but a free mind and
body are necessary for empowerment to mean anything.
[> [> Re: It's a fascinating episode. - s'kat, please
read? -- Masq, 09:59:34 02/03/04 Tue
I wasn't sure about putting s'kat's whole post there (in the last
section of my "Damage"
analysis), including the part about physical empowerment,
because of the way she worded it. I'm sure she didn't mean that
empowerment with women shouldn't be physical at all, but that
it's about MORE than the physical. I was going to change her words
around a bit, but didn't feel comfortable doing that, either.
I like the ideas implied there, that empowerment isn't JUST physical,
hence why I kept that part. But now I'm thinking of either adding
your post above to it, or asking s'kat what she meant by that
and rewording it according to what she says.
[> [> [> Also... -- Rob, 10:09:56 02/03/04
Tue
I don't know if you'd want to add this, but on the pro-releasing-the-power
side, there's also the very real possibility that had Buffy not
released the Slayer power the way she did, Dana would have been
doomed anyway--murdered by a Bringer.
Rob
[> [> [> Just for fun: -- Arethusa, 11:19:21
02/03/04 Tue
Arethusa's Hierarchy of Empowerment Needs:
1.Physical/Safety-This need must be met before any other methods
of empowerment are achieved. If the body is physically powerless,
the person cannot act on any other means of empowerment. This
includes everything from protecting one's self from domestic abuse
to performing spells. Fred's feelings of powerlessness in Supersymmetry
stemmed partially from fear that she could be sent back to Pylea
against her will. It also , IMO, helped draw her to Angel and
later Gunn. She did not resume her academic work until she felt
safe.
2.Love and Esteem-Power is also obtained through a network of
family and friends that provide love and reinforce self-esteem.
Although already physically powerful, Buffy became much more powerful
when she knew she was not alone in her struggle, and could face
physical and emotional challenges with her friends' assistance.
Tara also became more powerful when she had Willow to remind her
of her self-worth.
3.Self-Actualization-"People who have everything can maximize
their potential."* Once Buffy knew her physical and love
needs were met**, she was able to seek her own potential, and,
on a metaphorical level, all women's potential.
*http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.HTM
**By providing strength to other slayers, she increased her own
feelings of safety, and by overcoming her abandonment issues,
she was able to feel worthy of love.
[> [> [> Re: It's a fascinating episode. - s'kat,
please read? -- s'kat, 11:59:39 02/03/04 Tue
I wasn't sure about putting s'kat's whole post there (in the
last section of my "Damage" analysis), including the
part about physical empowerment, because of the way she worded
it. I'm sure she didn't mean that empowerment with women shouldn't
be physical at all, but that it's about MORE than the physical.
I was going to change her words around a bit, but didn't feel
comfortable doing that, either.
Ah, that's why you kept my name out of it. ;-)
What I meant was that empowerment is more than just physical.
In our society - we tend to think of power as just a physical
quality. Often limiting it to just that. Who has the bigger gun?
Who can kick who further across the room? Or beat who up? If you
aren't physically powerful - you are at risk. We are only powerful
if we have the "physical" ability to kick someone across
the room. I learned long ago in fights with a younger sibling
that there were better more efficient ways to win, without ever
lifting a hand or getting a bruise. The most powerful people I've
known are often the ones who never lift a hand or gun or weapon.
Personal experience has taught me that power can come in all shapes
and sizes, and more often than not the most powerful people are
the ones who appear to be "physically" weak. It's difficult
to put into words without people leaping to conclusions or extremes.
An example might be Willow, who turned out to be due to intelligence
and her knowledge of magic to be more powerful than Buffy. Willow
was the one villian Buffy couldn't beat. The only power strong
enough to counter Willow's was compassion and love.
Hmmm, another way to put it? Hilter, an evil man, was physically
weak but had the power to motivate millions to do his will. Hawkings
- the physicist - can't get out of his chair, but his mental capacity
has the power to figure out secrets of the universe. Those who
think you have to have "physical" power to be strong?
Need to read their history books, some of the most powerful people
in our society never punched a soul, couldn't lift a rock and
would certainly not win a fist fight. Jesus Christ comes to mine
along with St. Teresa de Avilia, Barbara Jordan, Sandra Day O'Connor,
Margret Thatcher, Queen Elizabeth I, Charles Dickens, Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, to name just a few. These people didn't use the
power of fists to change the world, they relied on other skills.
Not sure if that helps, masq.
Go ahead and credit me for it.
sk
[> [> [> [> Re: It's a fascinating episode. - s'kat,
please read? -- Arethusa, 12:35:45 02/03/04 Tue
Hawkings is a good example of what I mean. If there were no voice
synthesizer, computers or assistants, how much good would his
enormous mental and emotional strength do him? Likewise, how much
good would other forms of strength be if a large man with a hard
fist stood over you and beat you every time you tried to use them?
Willow would have been killed before she ever spoke a spell if
Buffy hadn't been around to physically protect her.
I don't disagree with you at all. It's just that there's a barrier
to strength that most people don't even realize exists because
they've never be physical disempowered (sorry, horrible word).
Metaphorically, women can just realize that they can choose to
be strong. In the real world, they don't always have that choice,
and this need must be met for the other forms of strength to be
put into use.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: It's a fascinating episode.
- s'kat, please read? -- s'kat, 12:48:17 02/03/04 Tue
I don't disagree with you at all. It's just that there's a
barrier to strength that most people don't even realize exists
because they've never be physical disempowered (sorry, horrible
word). Metaphorically, women can just realize that they can choose
to be strong. In the real world, they don't always have that choice,
and this need must be met for the other forms of strength to be
put into use.
Again I'm not saying you should have freedom like you mention
with Hawkins. But I find the image at the end of
Damage to be interesting. We have a team of beautiful, well built
women who are strong standing behind a physically weak man. Whose
the one with the power here? Andrew, the physically weak man that
they are backing up. That's female empowerment? Are these tough
girls any different than having a team of women with guns standing
behind him?
That's not empowerment to me.
Cordelia's struggle with her visions and attempts to rise above
the pain - was empowering. Buffy's ability to kick a vampire across
the room? Nope. Buffy's ability to figure out that her friends
could help her and decision to share power? Empowering. Willow's
use of power to heal or to help, empowering. Fred's ability to
find a way of coping with Pylea and bravery in helping Cordelia
at the expense of her own life? Empowering. Not sure if that clarifies
or not. Again the best depiction of power I can think of is Jesus
who never raised a fist in his own defense and was brutally tortured
yet inspired millions.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I understand. -- Arethusa,
14:04:05 02/03/04 Tue
And yet, when he felt it necessary, Jesus picked up a whip and
cleaned out the temple with moneylenders inside it. Cordy, I think
became confused between realizing her potential and meeting her
self-esteem needs. But that's just splitting hairs.
It all began with a girl who could kick ass, who could take back
the night. Whedon could have shown a girl who metally and emotionally
was powerful, but he deliberately chose a girl who was vulnerable
and not studious, who was very very strong. And then he surrounded
her with people who were strong in their own ways. All were important,
including Buffy's way.
[> [> [> [> Forms of Power -- Dlgood, 18:54:38
02/03/04 Tue
Personal experience has taught me that power can come in all
shapes and sizes, and more often than not the most powerful people
are the ones who appear to be "physically" weak.
In my experience and studies (Internation Relations & Military
History) power does indeed come in many forms. More often and
not, the most powerful people, are those who are able to identify
whatever resources they have on hand, and then put those resources
into the field in order to achieve whatever objectives and goals
were set forth.
Might, for lack of a better term, be it physical or economic,
is merely the simplest and most blunt form of power. Clearly,
it's not the only one.
Influence, charisma, willpower, wit, intelligence, creativity,
leadership skill, friends and allies, and so on... There are many
forms and sources of power. In "Graduation" for example,
Buffy puts all of her resources to use - not just her might -
in order to defeat the Mayor. Giles' knowledge. Xander's military
skill. Cordelia's social influence. All of these things are far
beyond her phyisical might, and yet are they not all "her
power" in battle against the Mayor?
We see this again in "Primeval". Wittingly or unwittingly,
Buffy has cultivated her "power" by going beyond the
obvious of physical might. Might may have been the most obvious
form of Buffy's power, but it was never the true source. And in
the end, not even the strongest aspect.
Dr. Kissinger wouldn't last a round with Joe Frazier, but I don't
think there's much doubt who had more power.
And in "Damage" having the army of slayers isn't Andrew's
real source of power, in his staredown with Angel. That's a show
of brinksmanship, but it isn't the story. Andrew overpowers Angel,
but his real power lies in Buffy's influence upon Angel.
It's not Andrew overpowering Angel by using threat of force. It's
Buffy overpowering Angel through diplomacy, and using Andrew as
mouthpiece.*
* Unless, of course, Andrew is bluffing, and overselling Buffy's
role in this entire situation. In which case, Angel is still overpowered
by Buffy's diplomatic influence. Whereas Andrew draws power from
his ability to bluff.
[> [> [> [> [> Good points. I agree with you
here. -- Jane, 22:02:28 02/03/04 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Forms of Power -- frisby,
05:51:40 02/04/04 Wed
Interesting. So wisdom is a form or mode of power? And perhaps
beauty too? Homer's Paris had to choose between power, wisdom,
or beauty (Hera, Athena, or Aphrodite) -- I wonder if he knew
that the latter two were merely aspects of the first? and if he
had, whether he would have chosen differently, thus becoming more
like Hera-cles?
The power that Angel exhibits ("order" as Masquerade
refers to it in her analysis of the episode) contrasts with the
power Spike exhibits (something like earth energy or animal power)
is fascinating, and I'd not realized it before. It's almost like
Nietzsche's Apollonian / Dionysian opposition. And the fact that
the latter (Spike) defeats the former (Angel) 'in the end' 'overall'
is worthy of much deep thought -- although Apollo (or the 'day
wisdom') seems in many respects and for the most part superior
to Dionysos (or the night wisdom), but that's because "the
world is deep, deeper than the day can comprehend" ----
My vote is for Buffy and Spike -- in the end!
[> Angel's reaction -- Vickie, 09:40:40 02/03/04
Tue
Great stuff, Masq! It was only in reading your analysis that something
occurred to me. Shouldn't Angel and the others have been grieving,
at least a little?
They all know the "one girl in all the world..." stuff,
as they tell Andrew when he attempts to fill them in on the slayer
"mythology". But they clearly don't know about the events
in Chosen.
So shouldn't they be keenly aware that, if Dana is a slayer, either
Buffy or Faith has died?
Presumably, one of the Scoobies did let the LA crowd know that
they had survived the fight with The First. Perhaps getting the
call forwarded to Wolfram and Hart made the caller reluctant to
give details. But Dana's calling should have made them assume
one of the existing slayers had met with a fatal happenstance.
It didn't bother me at the time, but in retrospect it's very weird.
Angel, in particular, should have been very aware of what it should
mean that a new slayer has been called. And he's clearly still
attached to Buffy (witness the intensity of his reaction to Andrew's
barbs late in the episode).
So, what gives?
[> [> Re: Angel's reaction -- Masq, 09:53:19 02/03/04
Tue
So shouldn't they be keenly aware that, if Dana is a slayer,
either Buffy or Faith has died?
I thought the same thing. I think the way the mechanism worked,
only one slayer is called after another one dies, so when Buffy
died the second time, it didn't produce yet another slayer. Kendra
was Buffy's only successor, Faith was Kendra's successor, so Angel
and Wesley should have been thinking, "Faith is dead."
But with the necessity of finding this girl and taking care of
the havoc she was causing, as that conclusion formed in their
heads, there was no time to mourn. They would have if Andrew had
not arrived and told them the rest, about all the Potentials being
activated.
[> [> [> Re: Angel's reaction -- Vickie, 10:15:25
02/03/04 Tue
Well, yes, of course we know that Buffy's death won't
call another slayer. But the way S7 of 'Buffy' presented it, the
characters themselves weren't aware of that, so it seems likely
Angel and company wouldn't be either.
[> [> [> [> Not neccesarilly -- Finn Mac Cool,
14:14:28 02/03/04 Tue
I think Buffy was just phrasing it that way to make an impression
on the potentials. It made them pay more attention than "if
this girl in an upstate prison dies, one of you could become the
Slayer".
[> [> [> [> [> Here's a thought -- DorianQ,
20:30:29 02/03/04 Tue
How do we know another Slayer WASN'T called? The only reason we
knew about Kendra was because her Watcher sent her to Sunnydale
to stop a great power (Drusilla) from rising and Faith came because
she was going to the safest place she could think of after Kakistos
killed her watcher. Since the Council didn't know about Willow's
immersion into the Black Arts and then getting blown up before
they could move against the First Evil, there really wasn't any
pressing need to sent another Slayer to Sunnydale. Even if Giles
did know who and where the new Slayer was, it makes sense (at
least to me) to try and keep her hidden as a backup plan in case
Casa de Summers got overrun by Bringers or Turok-Han and Buffy
and the Potentials were killed. That's pretty much what they did
with Faith in prison. I think Joss said that there just wouldn't
be another one on the show. It's possible that they tried to get
another actor hired to play a Slayer for Season Seven but that,
like a lot of the plans for that season, fell through. I guess,
just from the way that Buffy and other characters talked about
it, it seemed that it was a red herring from Joss to say that
there wasn't one. Of course, it's all a moot point now after Chosen.
[> [> [> Interesting -- Irene, 12:49:55 02/03/04
Tue
It's interesting. The only one who knew about the new system of
Slayers was Spike. Right?
[> [> [> [> Apparently so -- Masq, 10:05:54
02/04/04 Wed
You think Giles would have given Wesley a call. But Giles still
doesn't quite see Wesley with the respect we've come to. Perhaps.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Apparently so -- neil,
13:27:40 02/04/04 Wed
How about super evil law firm with access to everything in the
world simply sent Angel and co. a memo over the summer and voila...Angel
finds out and he doesn't really make a big deal about it?
[> [> [> [> [> [> not necessarily --
anom, 20:31:58 02/04/04 Wed
How about Buffy told him? He did know she was in Europe...makes
sense she'd have mentioned the Sunnydale surprise. Also that W&H would've
kept up w/events, in Sunnydale & beyond, where new Slayers were
cropping up.
[> [> i'm not sure some of them didn't know already
-- anom, 11:38:08 02/03/04 Tue
After all, Angel had been in touch w/Buffy since Chosen, as he
tells Spike in Just Rewards--she must have said something about
what had happened. And Spike certainly knew that the old way of
passing Slayer power on had been overthrown. It's also hard to
believe W&H didn't keep up w/those developments. Without some
prior knowledge, it would be quite a leap from "little Sunnydale
surprise" to Angel's description of the results of the Scythe
spell (hell of a lucky guess if he didn't know), & Wes didn't
look surprised when he said, "Brilliant stratagem."
It looked to me like they played the scene ambiguously...maybe
those 2 knew but the others in the conference room didn't. Maybe
not. Maybe they knew but hadn't realized all the implications
yet because it hadn't impinged on their lives directly until now.
[> [> [> I agree -- Pony, 12:21:42 02/03/04
Tue
I think Angel at least knew about it. He made the leap from crazy!Dana
to Slayer very quickly and displayed no surprise during Andrew's
explanation. I expect Buffy told Angel but he failed to tell the
others, it matches up with his behaviour in Just Rewards when
the gang was very surprised to hear about Spike's role in Sunnydale.
[> [> [> Re: i'm not sure some of them didn't know
already -- Irene, 12:55:44 02/03/04 Tue
"After all, Angel had been in touch w/Buffy since Chosen,
as he tells Spike in Just Rewards--she must have said something
about what had happened."
Maybe Buffy never told Angel after the events in "Chosen".
Even with slayer army does
solve more problems or make more? -- angel, 08:32:24 02/03/04
Tue
First there are thousands of species of evil/good demons but will
the new Wather Council have slayers tell which are threats or
not. What if a good demonwarrior like Kamal in Season 2 of Angel
was just killed would a slayer care if he was on their side. There
are powerful forces of darkness with large cults or armys meaning
for both demon or vampires or humans. So alot of beings will after
them now and not all of hem can be found right now.
Replies:
[> It is definitely too early to say -- Doug, 10:45:47
02/03/04 Tue
On the plus side They have got a lot of muscle, one badass witch,
and a small cadre of very experienced scoobies with good intentions;
along with what seems like a fair pile of money and resources
from the old Watcher's council.
On the negative side they have few experienced operators, possible
battles over resources with Roger's Watcher's council (assuming
they aren't the same institution), they don't appear to have much
in the way of non-mystical capability to locate targets or new
slayers (despite their lack of trust for W&H they were still completely
dependant on either a W&H psychic or a souled vamp tracker to
catch Dana), and their ethics are most likely going to require
some form of "power sharing", which is dangerous when
97% of your membership has no expereince with the job before six
months ago.
It's entirely possible that the new slayers will adopt the simplest
code of conduct available "kill demon, not kill human".
What happens when they run into a demon like Kamal or Lorne; or
a human like Warren or Ethan Rayne? And then we'll have a Crusade
or a Jihad and our other heroes over on AtS wil be in quite the
quandary. You may say that the Scoobies would stop that from happening,
but if power and authority are being shared then how could they
stop a majority decision from the new membership?
Perhaps some of the scoobs will teach their trainees to observe
and judge individually rather than just go with the categories.
The main problems with that are: A) it takes longer, and people
could die in that time, B) walking in talking can be at least
as dangerous as walking in swinging, C) Slayers lack special abilities
that aid in discerning the guilty from the innocent, other than
their own human faculties, but they have speccial abilities for
combat and therefore should be using the abilities they have.
And is there a standard curriculum for these new slayers? Or will
each one have their own guidelines? Will Xander and Faith, for
example, have the same view of what is important for a slayer
to know? If not then that whole issue of good demons and bad humans
could result in slayers taking each other out over questions of
conduct. And then what will this new organization be?
Which one is worse; Too much solidarity, or too much chaos?
I honestly don't know.
There's a quote that a poster named Teenes over on the
Television Without Pity Angel forums said came from a Joss Whedon
interview in a recent magazine article. Unfortunately I don't
have the magazine so I can't verify it or even give context, but
here it is anyway:
When good people don't agree on how to accomplish something they
can become enemies.
Let's forget the entire W&H corruption angle for a moment, and
just focus on what the characters of AtS should try and do. What
do they do against the Crusade; and what do they do against the
chaos? What do they do when someone tries to hack Lorne into teeny
tiny bits? Should they let it happen because the perpetrator's
a Slayer? Should Fred and Knox design ways of nullifying the enemy's
powers so that they can be driven off? Or should Spike sharpen
up those fangs of his, and be prepared to add number 3 to his
slayer kill slate? Can he live with himself after that? If any
of the others do that could they live with themselves?
Or do they stand aside, and care only for those who are pure-bred
human?
If it's chaos then things are a little more interesting; with
slayers moving around trying to accomplish their own goals then
individual slayers could be either allies or enemies. Wes may
find himself playing watcher to a slayer yet.
I may seem overly down on these new slayers, maybe I am in fact.
I am not trying to say that they are automatically all going to
fall to evil, but there are questions about the spell in "Chosen"
that have Not been answered onscreen, and there are some questions
about what exactly is being put together currently that are also
unanswered. I'm not going to say that what we've seen is a recipe
for disaster; I am however goiong to say that what we've seen
has all the ingredients of a disaster. How the ingredients are
put together and how they are cooked have yet to be seen. The
intentions behind the decision to create the new slayers were
good ones, and that counts for something. But good intentions
have been known to lead to hell along with other places.
Discussions about Slayers have this tendancy to lead to accusations
of sexism. Believe me when I say that I would say all of the above
about an all-male organization just as readily. I try to be an
equal-oportunity cynic.
[> [> That post probably came off as extremely negative
-- Doug, 11:37:58 02/03/04 Tue
I'd expected everyone on the board to jump in to poo-poo the idea
that the consequences of the "Chosen" spell might outweigh
the rewards. I've noticed that this board tends to be rather positive
about the multitude of new slayers, so I wrote out the possibilities
for catastrophe more fully so as to explain my uncertainty in
the face of the general board opinion.
It is entirely possible that Buffy and her friends will be able
to create an organization that will be fully capable of providing
resources and information to the new slayers, support and train
them, while still allowing them freedom to use their own judgement;
and that would also ensure that slayers would not step on each
others toes by providing a means to arbitrate disputes.
However that possibility doesn't negate the other possibilities,
or the barriers that may make those other possibilities more likely.
More harm than good? Well that's always a rather subjective question.
Who's judging?
[> [> [> There Will Be Problems -- Claudia, 12:17:24
02/03/04 Tue
I am quite certain that Buffy's new army of Slayers will present
problems in the supernatural world . . . and as Dana's presence
has shown, in the mortal world, as well. Problems and situations
were bound to pop up. And consequences, as well.
When the Shadowmen created the Slayer line, years ago, their actions
also produced consequences and future problems. Just as the WC's
system of handling Slayers, eventually produced problems.
After all, nothing is perfect in this world.
[> [> Re: It is definitely too early to say -- auroramama,
13:46:25 02/03/04 Tue
Probably misquoting, but, "Here's a novel thought: who cares?"
I do care, actually, about innocent demon victims of simplistic
Slayers, or unwitting victims of insane Slayers. But if we're
considering condemning the general idea of making more Slayers,
as opposed to leaving these girls without special powers, well,
booooo. The world right now is full of people with the unmagical
power to beat the crap out of other people. How well are they
using it? Not very. Do people get murdered by stronger (or better
armed, or less sane) people? All the time.
There's a lot of stuff I'd worry about before I worry that giving
a few thousand girls the power to act like thugs is going to radically
change the amount of thuggery in the world. Disarm the bastards
who have the power now, and I'll think about the downside to empowering
Slayers.
Is that more like it, Doug?
[> [> At least we finally know how many Potentials
-- Ames, 15:56:13 02/03/04 Tue
Lots of speculation earlier that it was somewhere between dozens
and millions. According to Wesley, who should know as an trained
Watcher, it's "hundreds, possibly thousands". I guess
hundreds on several continents is a more manageable number than
millions.
[> [> Re: It is definitely too early to say -- skeeve,
08:19:44 02/04/04 Wed
There will be problems,
but there won't be supernaturally big problems.
I don't see any reason to suppose that the number of deaths
due to Slayers will be any greater than the number of deaths
due to school massacres.
Even if it were boys getting the power,
I'd expect it would be a lot less.
Why shoot your enemies if you can beat them up every day?
[> Little bit o' both, I reckon -- Sofdog, 15:34:36
02/03/04 Tue
The "Chosen" spell was meant to be. It was part of Buffy's
destiny to change the nature of the Slayer dynamic. I used to
think it was 'the Slayer's' destiny and if Buffy had not risen
in "Prophecy Girl," this path would have fallen to Kendra.
But that's moot. The point is, if it weren't meant to happen,
it would not have happened.
Calling all the Slayers to power will have many consequences.
That's the risk of all living. Some will be good, some bad. Some
team players, some lone wolves. Some will subscribe to Faith's
approach to power and some will be good rule followers like Buffy.
That's people for ya. Free will, product of circumstances, and
latent personalities culminate in different ways for everyone.
It has to be assumed that a portion of the Slayers will never
be located by the Buffy's team, or will refuse to have anything
to do with them.
It was, after all, about choices.
The possibilities opened up by "Chosen" and "Damaged"
are amazing. I wonder at the nature of new so-called Council.
Buffy and Giles could head a very interesting organization. Perhaps
the surviving old Council could work in tandem with them. If it
were exploited, the greatest legacy of Buffy's work could be the
development of an organization that respected the individual choices
of its operatives. Otherwise what was the purpose of "Chosen."
To keep the Slayers alive in an immediate sense, sure. But there
must have been a greater purpose intended. Not by the Scoobies,
but by the PTB.
[> On another note ... -- Mighty Mouse, 20:38:54
02/03/04 Tue
Usually this isn't brought up (and probably somewhat supports
the notion that Buffy might've made a mistake in her rashness,
although that isn't my intention) that much, but everyone should
recall that Buffy didn't put this spell into action to essentially
just "shake things up" in general, but as a direct reaction
to the First's plans. The First was about to unleash an army of
Turok'Han upon the Earth ... Buffy, while having been "good"
in the past, could not, even with the Scoobies and the Potentials,
be good enough to repel the Turok'han. They would be slaughtered.
The best way to beat the Turok'han and the First, to ensure that
the Ultimate Evil which chose to "tip the scales" would
fail, was to activate Slayers all over the world. If she and the
others fell, there would be at least hundreds if not thousands
of girls out there who could at least do some damage to the plans
of the First. Some would theorize that they would be useless without
people to guide them, but considering a mass army of demons would
come to annihilate the Earth, I'm sure some people would figure
out things pretty quickly, and I'm sure there are some Watchers
still out there who could have helped guide them (not to mention
Angel 'n co.) in handling this. Although this was all proven moot
by Spike going all "inferno" on us. :-)
Anyway, I guess I just mean to say Buffy was thinking of the "then
and there" instead of the long term ramifications of activating
the WHOLE line.
[> [> Re: On another note ... -- Irene, 08:40:00
02/04/04 Wed
"Anyway, I guess I just mean to say Buffy was thinking of
the "then and there" instead of the long term ramifications
of activating the WHOLE line."
I guess she didn't. But at least she and the Scoobies are dealing
with the consequences of the act. Taking responsibilities for
their actions.
When you use magic, or do just about anything, there will always
be consequences. There were consequences from the spell in "Chosen".
Just as there were consequences from the Shadowmen's creation
of the Slayer line.
[> [> [> Could you be more specific? -- Sheri,
11:52:26 02/05/04 Thu
"When you use magic, or do just about anything, there will
always be consequences. There were consequences from the spell
in "Chosen". Just as there were consequences from the
Shadowmen's creation of the Slayer line."
Your assessment seems a bit... vague. What exactly do you mean
by consequences to the Shadowmen's creation of the Slayer line?
What are the consequences?
Sorry, that I don't have anything to add to your statement, but
perhaps another poster will have something to say. I know that
a little farther up this thread, Claudia writes, "When the
Shadowmen created the Slayer line, years ago, their actions also
produced consequences and future problems. Just as the WC's system
of handling Slayers, eventually produced problems." Perhaps
she has some insights to offer? You both certainly seem to be
thinking the same thing!
[> [> [> [> Re: Could you be more specific?
-- Mighty Mouse, 22:22:33 02/06/04 Fri
Well, I would view the consequences pretty much as the survival
of the human race pretty much came down to THE Slayer instead
of humans fending for themselves. Now, this isn't necessarily
a bad thing as Slayers are more powerful and thus much more capable
of handling the Demons. However, humanity is quite unpredictable
... and we have a tendency to throw things out of whack. Case
in point: Buffy Summers. She died twice and came back both times.
Thus, the balance of good & evil was put "out of whack"
(Wowzers, I said it twice!), the Slayer line was troubled (there
was never supposed to be two Slayers at once), and the First was
given the opportunity to take the remaining balance and shatter
it.
[> Re: Even with slayer army does solve more problems or
make more? -- skpe, 07:21:22 02/04/04 Wed
I would think that one consequence would be that the same people
(government?) that recruited Marci would find a bunch of super
strong and impressionable girls very desirable for 'executive
action' teams and would start drafting and training them
Hope for her yet - Spoilers
up to Damage -- Athena, 00:09:18 02/03/04 Tue
After rewatching Damage, I noticed that once Dana is given an
explanation about her Slayer memories by Spike, she hesitates.
In her own way, she seems to make the effort to consider his words,
since they fit in with what she has derived from her visions,
opposed to the doctors that simply treated her as utterly insane.
It also pushes her on the first step towards sanity in which she
is able to realise that Spike is not the man in her memory.
Though she makes that distinction between memory and reality and
still attacks him, her actions are not monsterous in the strictest
sense. Nor is she "too far gone to help" as Spike claims;
rather, it essential to look at her actions before she attempts
to kill him, in which she waits until he admits that he killed
Nikki and the Chinese Slayer.
Up until this point, Dana has been killing relatively indiscriminately,
now she becomes a Slayer attempting to kill a bad vampre. The
same goes for Angel, who attempts to save the said vampire. Unless
she has had some pretty specific visions from the lives of Buffy,
Kendra, or Faith, how is she supposed to understand the idea of
souled-vampires?
Now she with other Slayers, girls who can understand her visions
in a way that nobody else can. I wouldn't be surprised if some
of the reason she was in the mental institute for so long was
that no-one could help her with them.
Do the new Slayers dream
of Buffy's life? (spoilers Damage) -- Ames, 16:04:11 02/03/04
Tue
It seems that the new Slayers dream of the past lives of all the
previous Slayers who have died. Buffy is a previous Slayer who
has died. Does that mean that the new Slayers have all experienced
her life in their dreams? Up to what point? Her first death or
her second?
Did Dana experience Buffy's life? If so, I wonder about her attitude
to Spike and Angel. And maybe Andrew was a little off base when
he said to Angel "not one has ever dated you" about
the new Slayers backing him up.
Did Faith experience Buffy's life before ever meeting her? Hey,
wouldn't that put a spin on her attitude to Buffy! But if so,
she never mentioned it.
Replies:
[> Re: Do the new Slayers dream of Buffy's life? (spoilers
Damage) -- Katrina, 17:42:13 02/03/04 Tue
I was wondering about this myself. The only place I can recall
Buffy ever having any dreams about the lives of past slayers was
in the movie, not in the series. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
I don't recall this ever being suggested in the series.
[> [> Re: Do the new Slayers dream of Buffy's life? (spoilers
Damage) -- Ames, 17:54:37 02/03/04 Tue
The dreams were in The Origin, Joss Whedon's canon retelling of
the movie in "graphic novel" form. I guess they were
pretty much over by the time Buffy showed up in Sunnydale. Her
memory of them must have been hazy though - she didn't seem to
remember anything from the viewpoint of the Slayers Spike killed
in Fool For Love. Dana seemed to remember it though.
[> [> [> Re: Do the new Slayers dream of Buffy's life?
(spoilers Damage) -- Mighty Mouse, 20:27:19 02/03/04 Tue
Hasn't it been pretty much established that it's the Potentials
are the ones who have the dreams, and then they start to fade
away once they are called? Which would sort of explain why Buffy
never really had them in the Series, and it was never commented
on by Faith & Kendra. Then again, the Potentials from Season Seven
never really said much along those lines. But I guess they're
deciding to elaborate on the plot point that was originally left
in the Movie and the Comics.
[> [> [> [> Re: Do the new Slayers dream of Buffy's
life? (spoilers Damage) -- Majin Gojira, 10:28:13 02/04/04
Wed
By all appearances, only a select few Slayers have Slayer Dreams
beyond the norm. Buffy is a mild example. Dana is an extreme example
theiroff.
[> [> Re: Do the new Slayers dream of Buffy's life? (spoilers
Damage) -- skeeve, 08:22:59 02/04/04 Wed
Giles mentioned "the dreams," but didn't say much about
them.
[> Re: Do the new Slayers dream of Buffy's life? (spoilers
Damage) -- Darby, 07:37:01 02/04/04 Wed
I was kind of hoping that Dana was going to recognize Angel and
plant a big wet one on him - wouldn't that have been a more interesting
twist than a continuation of the slugfest?
- And have made Angel's decision about whether to cede her to
Andrew more complicated...and potentially Whedonesque?
At last! Part 3 - Faith in
Sunnydale -- Brian, 20:16:28 02/03/04 Tue
FAITH IN SUNNYDALE
Redeemed and renewed
Faith wonders what's next
As she rides quietly in Willow's car.
There on the road
She first encounters Sunnydale's darkness.
Its touch is cold and sharp
Like a dagger to the soul.
But in equal, healing light
She meets Buffy once more.
The First is afoot,
And must be stopped,
And no one knows how.
All these young girls,
All these Potentials;
Which one will be picked?
And how can they not all die.
Buffy is spurned,
And Faith becomes leader.
Her mind reels in surprising dread.
She wonders at the responsibility,
From self to being selfless,
All the boundaries are stripped from her soul
No longer alone, but head of a clan.
Everyone looking to her for a plan.
She leads as she must
To win their respect and their trust,
But plans go wrong.
Faith sings a desperate song,
And finds comfort in arms so strong.
Has he touched her beauty?
Has he known her face?
Has he discovered her hidden place?
When Buffy returns she has a plan
Faith and she finally bond,
Slayers by chance, heroes by choice.
There in the depths, in the bowels of the earth
They meet their final foe
And by sharing their power
They defeat the ancient evil, the First
And his world comes crashing down.
Now outside the disaster zone
Faith rediscovers that she's not alone
With that one word "Surprise"
Faith realizes she's finally home.
Replies:
[> Re: Nicely done -- the weedy one, 21:25:12 02/03/04
Tue
[> [> Re: Keeping the thread alive -- Eden lover,
04:27:35 02/04/04 Wed
[> [> [> Re: Masq, any possibility of moving this
to the Fatih character site? Thanks -- Brian, 11:12:27
02/04/04 Wed
Here are all three parts of the Faith character update:
FAITH IN PRISON
Faith watches the blood rinse from her hand.
She's tired from her last prison yard stand.
But her thoughts are calm, almost guilt free.
"After all, the knife-wielding bitch had come at me!"
Now Faith sits quietly against the cold stonewall
Her thoughts are calm, but her washed hand weaves a pattern in
the air.
There was no Angel today come to call.
For him, she knew, she would sacrifice her all.
He's never missed a week; she thinks, and strokes her hair.
How did he come to know her heart so well?
He always spoke the truth; he, too, had traveled the dark road.
He had touch her heart
As no man had ever done, except one.
And he in his love, and in his guile
Had seduced her thoughts anew,
Had encouraged her twisted view,
Until her life had run to rue.
Once again, she looks inside her soul
And realizes that it's no longer black.
Angel had let in the light,
Given her a sense of worth and right.
The sky to the south is too dark for day.
There is some menace she can tell.
Suddenly, she hears a distant bell;
A jailer has come to lead her from her cell.
Imagine her surprise upon sitting down
To see Wesley, not Angel, wearing an even grimmer frown.
Seconds later, the glass is shattered, broken
Faith is once more on the run
But this time it's towards, not from.
FAITH IN LA
She passes the test.
Seems to have laid Wesley's fears to rest.
And now she meets the gang:
Connor, so young, his innocence like a red-hot flame,
Glowing and glowering, wondering who to blame.
Gunn, big with dark, flashing eyes
Wears his honesty like a disguise.
A welcoming smile from oh so cute Fred.
Her cheerfulness masks her inner dread.
And out into the smothering dark she goes
To reclaim the soul of her mentor, her friend,
Her ally in the dark struggle for redemption's grace.
To find and destroy the Beast, face to face,
To subdue Angelus by battle in the endless race.
In the dark alleys of unnatural night
She finds only the pain of broken fight.
The Beast breaks her body like pale, thin glass
Saved by Angelus who caps his stony, arrogant ass.
Ignoble relief and self-loathing grief,
Bloodied but unbowed she must retreat
Watches her blood course down her feet.
Her rage explodes, dark, destructive, and so needed.
But no time for rest, no time for bed.
Only time to regroup and try again.
Another sally and ignore the pain.
And in a dark warehouse
She faces her fears; she rediscovers her tears;
She holds her own; she knows now that she's not alone.
She feels sharp teeth; death makes its moan.
But the trap is set; Angelus makes his groan.
She saves her friend, but into unending darkness
She slides.
Drugged and beaten,
Down and down and down she falls,
Past reality, past fantasy into the land of dreams,
Into the rough past and path of Angelus and Angel.
She becomes witness to their wrath.
Two sides of the coin, separate but joined.
Forever in a dance of good and evil,
She struggles to find her own breath.
Coma bound she battles her demons
While Lorne narrates her decline
He knows she won't, she'll never be fine.
But Faith is made of sterner stuff
And she and Angel find their victory
To stand, to fight, and never to yield.
The truth for them is in the endless battle
Not in the reward.
Bruised and battered, tempted and tried,
Together from their darkness they have emerged
Sins and demons, never defeated, but finally purged.
FAITH IN SUNNYDALE
Redeemed and renewed
Faith wonders what's next
As she rides quietly in Willow's car?
There on the road
She first encounters Sunnydale's darkness.
Its touch is cold and sharp
Like a dagger to the soul.
But in equal, healing light
She meets Buffy once more.
The First is afoot,
And must be stopped,
And no one knows how.
All these young girls,
All these Potentials;
Which one will be picked?
And how can they not all die.
Buffy is spurned,
And Faith becomes leader.
Her mind reels in surprising dread.
She wonders at the responsibility,
From self to being selfless,
All the boundaries are stripped from her soul
No longer alone, but head of a clan.
Everyone looking to her for a plan.
She leads as she must
To win their respect and their trust,
But plans go wrong.
Faith sings a desperate song,
And finds comfort in arms so strong.
Has he touched her beauty?
Has he known her face?
Has he discovered her hidden place?
When Buffy returns she has a plan
Faith and she finally bond,
Slayers by chance, heroes by choice.
There in the depths, in the bowels of the earth
They meet their final foe
And by sharing their power
They defeat the ancient evil, the First
And his world comes crashing down.
Now outside the disaster zone
Faith rediscovers that she's not alone
With that one word "Surprise"
Faith realizes she's finally home.
[> [> [> [> I assume you mean the Existential Scoobies
site (Lady S? 'Bit?) -- Masq, 12:11:40 02/04/04 Wed
Talk to Lady Starlight or Little Bit. It would either go with
the Faith 1st anniversary character post, or it would go in some
other section like fiction or essays.
But it would be a welcome contribution!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks for the tip! I will
email Lady S -- Brian, 12:50:07 02/04/04 Wed
Yet another BTVS/Angel alum
on "24" -- Vegeta, 09:33:47 02/04/04 Wed
If you caught "24" last night you can add Manjet (of
the Ra-tet) to the ever growing list of Buffyverse alum on "24".
The list includes:
Gavin
Jasmine
Quinten Travers
Principal Wood
and I believe there are a few more, however I cannot recollect
them now.
Replies:
[> Re: Yet another BTVS/Angel alum on "24"
-- Freki, 12:49:31 02/04/04 Wed
Eric Balfour played Xander's friend Jesse in the Buffy premiere,
and was also a computer guy on 24.
[> [> Re: Knew I forgot someone, thanks... -- Vegeta,
13:03:32 02/04/04 Wed
[> [> Leonard Roberts ("Forrest") dropped by
this season, too -- d'Herblay, 16:14:58 02/04/04 Wed
Angel cast on ON-Air with
Ryan Seacrest TODAY! This Afternoon! -- neaux, 10:11:54
02/04/04 Wed
Yes a horrible Ryan Seacrest show!! But the cast of Angel is on
today!
RYAN Seacrest
hope its worth watching!
Replies:
[> Let us know what happens, pretty please! -- Pony,
10:20:53 02/04/04 Wed
[> the guys of Angel -- neaux, 14:26:55 02/04/04
Wed
well it was a brief interview.. but David, James, Andy and J August
was there to support the 100th episode.
David spoke about his baby.. James spoke briefly about joining
the cast. Andy said little.. and J August spoke highly of David's
Directing skills.
they also gave away some spoilers for tonights show.
it was cool to see them in an interview though.
Gruding Apologies and Clarifications
on a previous utterance -- HarryParachute, 17:49:24 02/04/04
Wed
Alright.
When I made that pejorative post a while ago where the lil' ol'
word "feminazi" slipped out, I realize now that that's
akin to trolling a flame-bomb into the forums. Part of me knew
it, but I was a feeling a little cheeky because that was my birthday
and all...so it became a semi-sadistic present to me, coming back
to the boards and slapping something spicy on it.
But .. it was wrong. The web's a place of anonymity and strange
disembodied text, and you don't when someone's being slightly
tongue-in-cheek or whether they're foaming at the mouth in a beer-stained
wife-beater in a room with Cat Scratch Fever blaring.
Now, to put any fears to rest? I's a Vassar Film Student who watches
Buffy. I can assure you I've run the feminist/Marxist/racial gauntlet
and that I'm not one of *them*.
Since then I've unlocked the secret mass monkey-slaughter level
in Manhunt. So now that there's a bit more time on my hands and
a bit less booze in the bloodstream, I'm gonna back up that feminazi
thang before the 100th episode airs, as it wasn't an arbitrary
insult.
Btvs always carried a strain of fascist ideology, the enemies
of its world often inherently evil due to their lack of the ethereal
and vague "soul". Buffy's fight was a fight to protect
the human race and its purity from the cancer of Vampirism, a
social disease that propagates itself insidiously through the
mixing of blood. The fear of Vampirism is rooted in the fear of
miscegenation.
When this threat of the Other is not physically combated, it is
denounced in both Btvs and Ats through the trope of the Tragic
Mulatto, the doomed mixed-race individual who, in not belonging
to the world, is either miserable and to be pitied, ala Peola
of "Imitation of Life" or wrathful and to be hated,
like Gus of "Birth of a Nation". Both in Buffy and Angel
there have been examples of the unnatural fusions of demon and
human that, in their unnaturalness, was either a problem to be
dealt with or eventually met their end.
In Buffy there was S4's Adam, a hybrid of man, machine, and demon.
From what I've heard, the original plan for the monster was to
treat him as a victim of Maggie Walsh, a sad, Frankenstein creature
that mourns his own existence, with the Professor as the main
villain of the fourth season. When Lindsey Crouse dropped out,
Adam filled her role and masterminded a plan to build a new race
through the combination of demons, humans, and technology .. an
army of abominations that would be the ultimate manifestation
of sin in the Buffyverse.
There is also the case of S6 Willow who, out of following the
similar trope of the Evil/Dead lesbian, witnesses the death of
Tara and then imbues herself with unnatural dark magicks, becoming
a host for and combining with forces that she should remain separate
from, lest she is transformed into something impure. "There
are limits to what we can do." Says Buffy in "Villains",
"There should be. Willow doesn't want to believe that. And
now she's messing with forces that want to hurt her, all of us."
Ultimately Willow is humbled and talked down by Xander, the paragon
of normalcy, champion of the status quo.
And I'm not even going to get into the hair turning black and
white for evil and good .. or "nifty" .. magic.
In Angel, the big city cousin of the small town Buffy, the half-breeds
suffer an equal fate, though their portrayal is somewhat softened
in the lights of the metropolis. Doyle threw himself on the proverbial
grenade to save his kin and friends, removing himself from a world
in which he never belonged. I have yet to see Seasons 3 or 4 of
Angel, so I'm not sure exactly how Cordelia and Connor factor
into the theory. From what I've heard and read about it, it seems
to fit.
Now this all leads up to that spell in "Chosen" and
the activation of Potentials around the world.
The activation gave purpose to young, impressionable people looking
for direction in life from all over the world, the chance to be
saved from bourgeois mediocrity, a new life dedicated towards
the noble aim of protecting the people from the barbarians at
the gate. This New Order champions the vitality of the youthful.
Where there was meekness, now there is bravery. Where there was
dull normalcy, now there is noble cause. Where there was uncertainty
in whom you are and what to do, now there is that crystal clear,
diamond pure certainty Col. Kurtz would so admire. The enemy lurking
in the shadows must be killed before they can tear at the fabric
of the world, the best defense a good offense, so that a Final
Solution can be achieved .. oh, and nevermind the bodies of the
seemingly human vampires. They vanish .. turn to dust .. as the
war machine rolls ever forward.
That's fascism: The notion that boys become men, or girls women,
through the crucible of war. That's what Buffy was about. Coming-of-age.
Becoming a better person through combat. I accepted that because
it was a singular case. Now that it's gone from a personal duty
to a global movement? I'm no longer able to accept the metaphor.
Yes, I understand that Buffy and Angel rely heavily on metaphor.
Yes, I understand it's aiming for female empowerment. But the
form and structure it assumes to deliver that message is decidedly
Naziesque. So much of Buffy and Angel rely on metaphor that when
you can no longer accept it, when it has too big an ethical impact
for you to chalk it up to creative license, there's a general
feeling of "ick".
So...when Angel's team ran into Andrew and his steely-eyed Slayer-Squad
who took Dana into custody, I had ick. Their confrontation was
a confrontation of Small Town and Big City, of idealism and pragmatism.
This season of Angel is a season of sacrifice, compromise, and
the responsibility of big choices. Angel's dealing with the issues,
Buffy is not. She's still off in the Small Town realm of ideals,
where all that matters is the metaphor, the absolute, the concept,
the place where the full scope of ramifications, the revolving
nature of revolutions, the interwoven Foucaultian shifts of power,
are never fully confronted. No skeletons in the closet. No dead
bodies after a successful death-squad hunt. Just dust under their
feet and a little voice in their head that says, "Don't worry,
you're just actualizing yourself. You go girl."
But this confrontation takes place on Angel, not on Buffy. Two
different worlds. Two different standards. AtS universe = AtS
Horizon of Verisimilitude for all parties involved. That's my
big problem, I think. I understand the scene was meant to further
alienate Angel from his earlier self, but on this show, in this
world, the Slayers shouldn't have the other world's leniency.
It feels like a violation. It alienates not AtS, but BtVS. The
latter feels like it's in some crystallized holding pattern when
it doesn't involve itself in the framework of the Angelverse.
When we're dealing with sacrifice, compromise, and responsiblity,
BtVS has a lot on its to-do list when it steps onto Angel.
Just for example, Buffy didn't give others the choice to become
Slayers. They were drafted. They were drafted physically when
they were given new responsibilities with their powers. They were
drafted mentally when they were forced to share the memories and
visions of past Slayers. What happens to those Slayers who don't
want to define themselves and establish their significance in
life by being violent killers? Will they live their lives plagued
by mental images of blood, death, and fire, their spider-sense
ever tingling?
.. Anyway, that's why Feminazi was uttered.
The spell of Chosen was realistically terrifying, though it bypassed
the ramifications with the metaphor and ideal of Female Empowerment,
much like the practical terrors of fascism are swept under the
rug by the ideal of the perfection of self.
They used a loaded metaphor, I used a loaded phrase. It's fair,
I think.
Btvs and Ats aren't alone in having this stuff at their core.
A good deal of Sci-Fi and Fantasy have some form of fear of Miscegenation
or Fascist ideals of purity and growth through battle against
monstrosities. One only needs to look at Lord of the Rings for
the Fantasy. In Sci-Fi there's the Matrix, Alien, Predator, the
Terminator series, both Time Machines, and Blade Runner that come
to mind off the top of my head.
.. and .. yeah .. tired of looking at the screen. Forgive rambling
and typos.
Replies:
[> incoherent rambling inspired by your post -- Corwin
of Amber, 19:51:30 02/04/04 Wed
Funny how different people can view the same thing, interpret
it differently, and yet come to the same conclusion on something.
To me, the central metaphor of BTVS was that the demons, vampires,
werewolves and other whatsits were always representations of obstacles
to becoming an adult. Vampires = desire to stay an irresponsible
teenager, exemplified by the James Dean-esque Spike. Watcher's
Council = the Authorities. And so on. But the scene where the
Tween Terrors face off against the Fang Gang bothered me a lot,
and I finally figured out why. Despite all the blather about empowerment,
ultimately what Buffy did to those girls is the same thing that
the Shadowmen did to the First Slayer back before, well everything.
She's even forming a "new" Watcher's Council to make
sure that the girls "use their power responsibly" and
"aren't alone". I'm sure the Shadowmen and the first
Watcher's Council used similiar reasoning, at least at first.
What we've seen is just an example of history repeating itself.
[> [> Just to be clear about the metaphor thing.
-- HarryParachute, 20:24:19 02/04/04 Wed
I'm not arguing so much that the metaphor is fascist, it ain't.
I'm talking more about the means and structure that the metaphor
is carried as having an uncomfortable fascist undercurrent.
But yeah, agreed, things go round and round inevitably. And if
the Slayers are centralizing then keeping the ideal will become...problematic
at best.
[> The First was the one who gave the Potentials no choices
-- Pip, 03:43:14 02/05/04 Thu
Just for example, Buffy didn't give others the choice to become
Slayers. They were drafted. They were drafted physically when
they were given new responsibilities with their powers. They were
drafted mentally when they were forced to share the memories and
visions of past Slayers. What happens to those Slayers who don't
want to define themselves and establish their significance in
life by being violent killers? Will they live their lives plagued
by mental images of blood, death, and fire, their spider-sense
ever tingling?
I think that's where you are not paying attention to the metaphor
at the end of Season 7. Season 7 had Buffy facing the vision of
an Apocalypse, where a vast army of Ubervamps would sweep over
the whole world. What that image said to me was - 'the world is
facing Total War'.
Now I'm not personally old enough to remember Total War, but my
parents and grandparents both remember the Second World War in
Britain. And from what they've told me, questions of 'personal
choice' in a Total War are completely moot. You have no choices
about whether or not to participate. There are bombs dropping
on your head. You have no choice about mental images of blood,
death and fire - because those things are happening to you anyway.
The Potential Slayers were in that situation. They had no, zero
choice about whether or not to participate. Their equivalent of
bombs dropping on their heads were the Bringers coming to cut
their throats. Had Buffy lost, the Bringers would have been joined
by Ubervamps.
Buffy's activation of all the Potentials is rather like a Total
War draft, yes. But ultimately, she was giving them the power
to fight back effectively. The First had already drafted the Potentials
into the war, by having Caleb send the Bringers to kill them.
What Buffy was doing was giving them the powers to fight. Rather
than just sit and wait for the bomb to drop.
Buffy's activation of the Potentials was both an immediate tactic
(for one thing, it gave the amulet time to activate) and a 'what
if we lose' fall back position. Had her small team lost that battle,
the success of Willow's spell meant there would still have been
a possibility of winning the war.
As to 'will the activated Potentials be affected by this for the
rest of their lives', the answer is 'yes, of course they will'.
I know people who were children in World War 2, and they still
have nightmares about the cities they saw burning. Again - that's
what happens to people caught up in a war. War is about the negation
of choices. And it tends to affect people rather permanently.
But it was the First who made the original decision to bring the
Potentials into that war - not Buffy.
[> [> Moral Agency -- HarryParachute, 07:59:37
02/05/04 Thu
To say,
It was the First who made the original decision to bring the
Potentials into that war - not Buffy
Is to say that it is the First is responsible for Buffy's actions,
not Buffy. This delegation of responsibility to an outside source
removes the sense of being a moral agent, of realizing and shouldering
the consequences of your decisions.
In a similar way, you could argue that Truman is not responsible
for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese
Empire was.
Or, and forgive the scenario, if a hijacked commercial airliner
is headed for a skyscraper, a commander could launch a surface
to air missile at it while not being responsible for the deaths
of the passengers.
You can choose whether to believe such things or not, but I don't
think that this applies to Buffy S7, for two reasons.
One, Buffy refused the power offered by the Shadowmen and in doing
so put herself in a position where it seemed the correct course
of action to activate all Potential Slayers.
Two, the amulet. It got the job done, not the Slayers. The Slayers
bought time, but a warding spell might've accomplished the task
just as easily.
The point of which being that young people are put into a position,
subject to changes both physically and mentally, that they do
not need to be in.
This goes back to my point that now we're in Angel's world of
taking responsibility and dealing with the ramifications for big
choices and big positions of power. There are pros, cons, and
moral ambiguities when this happens, as we're seeing in Angel.
All we've seen from Buffy is a clear-cut picture, mainly through
the metaphor of female empowerment, that her actions and their
results are unequivocally good.
[> [> [> It isn't terribly simple -- Pip, 10:39:07
02/05/04 Thu
Is to say that it is the First is responsible for Buffy's actions,
not Buffy. This delegation of responsibility to an outside source
removes the sense of being a moral agent, of realizing and shouldering
the consequences of your decisions.
But an equally invalid argument is to remove a moral decision
from its context, which you are consistently doing.
Example: I shot and killed someone who was not pointing any weapon
at me. Am I morally guilty of murder?
Placed in context. I shot and killed someone who was not pointing
any weapon at me. It's the middle of a war, they were in enemy
uniform, they were armed and they were moving towards a group
of allied soldiers. Am I morally guilty of murder?
In the first case, most people would answer 'yes'. Once they were
given the context, most people would change the answer to 'no'.
Buffy was in the usual wartime situation - very little time to
make decisions, not entirely clear what the enemy plans are (for
example: what if the First had decided 'to heck with kill all
the potentials first, lets use a Bringer's blood to open the Hell
Mouth tonight'), and a set of options for moral choices that consist
of 'distinctly dodgy', 'slightly evil' and 'seriously, seriously
evil'.
You argue that she refused the power offered by the Shadowmen,
and so put herself in the position where she had no choice but
to activate the Potentials. But you fail to see that this was
actually the first part of the same moral decision, and
that this decision was shown within the Buffyverse to be correct.
The offer of the Shadowmen was the 'same old same old'. There
will be one Slayer in all the world, blah-de-blah-de-blah. We'll
just soup up that Slayer, so she's extra extra powerful.
The trouble with that option is that Buffy had previously shown
that this pressure, of being the only one who could save
the world, was quite literally killing her. In Season 5 she went
into a catatonic state. Then she chose to die herself rather than
kill her sister. When she came back, it took her most of Season
6 to decide to live, and in Season 7 the pressure again sent her
into a state of withdrawal. Further argument that the 'one Slayer
in all the world' is a bad way to go is the situation with Nikki
Wood and her son Robin. There, the Slayer had to make a decision
between her responsibility to the mission, and her responsibility
to her son. And the stated point that it was Nikki's watcher
who took Robin in suggests that she was Robin's only relative.
If there had been more than one Slayer available, she would never
have needed to make such a decision. She could have withdrawn
from active service while Robin was small.
So Buffy throughout Season 7 was feeling her way to the idea that
'one Slayer' is wrong. It puts too much pressure on the One Slayer,
it means the world is largely unprotected if the Slayer is incapacitated
but not dead, and it allows the Slayers no life whatsoever outside
slaying. It also doesn't give much protection against Evil Slayers
like Faith. Expanding the Slayer base solves those problems. If
there is more than one Slayer, rogue Slayers can be dealt with
and they are not threatening the entire world by removing
the one force for good. If there is more than one Slayer, Slayers
can ask others to 'take up the slack' while they deal with personal
responsibilities. A Slayer's illness is not a major disaster.
It didn't just seem the correct course of action to activate
the Potentials - it was the correct course. The world was
made much safer (by and large) and the Slayers were individually
under far less pressure - certainly under far less pressure than
they would have been when they were being chased by squads of
Bringers with no Super Powers to help them fight the Bringers
off.
Arguing that it was the amulet that got the job done is a bit
of a specious argument, imo. Firstly, the amulet was an unknown
quantity. The dialogue in Chosen (from http://vrya.net/bdb/index.php
) is:
ANGEL: I don't know everything. It's very powerful and probably
very dangerous. It has a purifying power .. cleansing power ..
possibly scrubbing bubbles. The translation is .. anyway, it bestows
strength to the right person who wears it.
BUFFY: And the right person is?
ANGEL: Someone ensouled but stronger than human. A champion.
So for all Buffy knows, the dratted amulet could simply give the
hellmouth a nice bubble bath. Or it could be a super-powerful
weapon, but without the power to actually close the hellmouth.
She doesn't know the amulet's powers when she goes in to fight,
so she picks a tactic that will allow her Secret Weapon to be
used, but doesn't rely on the thing. Cause it's such a Secret
Weapon, she doesn't actually know its Secret [grin].
And let's be very clear about this: on the previous occasion where
Buffy had acquired a very powerful weapon for her side (Spike,
when she found out that he was being triggered and so could work
on removing the trigger), the First's tactic was to send in a
task force to take the weapon from Buffy. This tactic was repeated
when Buffy got hold of Axcalibur. The First sent in Caleb to try
and get the weapon away from Buffy. It would have been very reasonable
of Buffy to consider that there might be an attempt to take the
amulet from her. That if this weapon was going to be used, it
was best to use it as quickly as possible.
You can choose to think that wartime moral decisions are made
in some shining isolation, with endless time to choose and the
available options clear and distinct - truth is, they're often
more like 'there is a car driving at speed towards my checkpoint,
it might be either drunk kids or a member of the enemy forces,
and I have 3 seconds to decide whether or not to shoot.'
Buffy's decision to activate the Potentials was one of those decisions.
She had two powerful weapons, and her enemy knew she had them.
Her enemy had also shown previously that it had the power to make
a surprise attack on her base of operations. So she had to come
up with a plan to use them quickly. The plan she picked was to
make a surprise attack of her own to get one weapon into position,
whilst using the other weapon to both increase her available firepower,
and ensure that the failure of her surprise attack wouldn't
mean that her side was left completely defenceless.
So it might not be the best plan? It was the best one she could
come up with in the time available, under great pressure, and
with people dying around her.
You think that 'young people are put into a position, subject
to changes both physically and mentally, that they do not need
to be in.' ? Well, I'm afraid that is something you
worry about After. The. War. Because if you lose those
same young people will be in a position of being dead. Dead, dead,
dead. Or maybe they'll just be turned into vampires - but whatever
happens, mental and physical changes are going to happen to them.
I think that Buffy's Watchers Council is a sign that Buffy is
worrying After The War. She's trying to provide support to her
new Slayers. But be very clear about this: Buffy did not put herself
in the situation of having to choose to activate the Potentials;
she was put in that situation by the decision of the First
to start a war.
If there had been no war, no deaths of Potential after Potential,
would Buffy have decided to activate the Potentials without asking?
Or you can choose to believe that:
GILES: Yes, it's terribly simple. The good guys are always
stalwart and true, the bad guys are easily distinguished by their
pointy horns or black hats, and, uh, we always defeat them and
save the day. No one ever dies, and everybody lives happily ever
after.
Because, yes, it's terribly simple in BtVS. The good guys never
made or had to make any messy moral decisions, and the bad guys
didn't look exactly like Buffy and her friends, and, uh, they
knew they would always defeat them and save the day. No one ever
died (apart from Joyce, and Tara, and Anya, and the Potentials,
and ...), and the Scoobies would all live happily ever after (with
no permanent injuries).
Buffy showed a really clear-cut picture, didn't it?
[> [> [> [> "Because it's wrong."
-- HarryParachute, 15:25:09 02/05/04 Thu
But an equally invalid argument is to remove a moral decision
from its context, which you are consistently doing.
Not for all people. If you're going to go the route of an absolutist
Kantian framework rather than that of a particularist, context
doesn't matter.
In the murder analogy, a conscientious objector, say a Jain or
a Theravada Buddhist, wouldn't kill a soul. Even if others would
die they would not break the precept of ahimsa, non-violence.
Buffy took a similar stance of a fixed moral wrong based not on
scenario in S5 when she refused to even discuss the option of
killing Dawn. If the scenario were put into context, she should
be killed. She's going to destroy the world and, in following
the logic of "Buffy isn't responsible for the Slayers being
drafted, the First Evil is", Buffy wouldn't be responsible
for the death of Dawn, Glory would.
There are plenty of moral decisions that, regardless of context,
would be considered wrong by most people: Killing the unarmed
and defenseless (Infanticide for example), betraying a trust/treason,
rape, torture, slavery, etc.
I don't think that Ôwartime moral decisions are made
in some shining isolation, with endless time to choose and the
available options clear and distinct'. I think that people
make the best choices they can and then have to live with them.
Forever.
And Slayers are going to have to live with their predicament.
Forever.
Maybe I'm still not being clear on this.
In my eyes, when Buffy and friends cast the spell they turned
young people who were merely temporary targets by singular centralized
enemy, young people who could go back to their lives once the
fight is over, into permanent soldiers who are "called",
in the inescapable, mystical sense, to battle endless enemies
for the rest of their lives. For them, there is no After The
War.
Kendra: You talk about slaying like it's a job. It's not. It's
who you are.
In a metaphysical sense, Buffy isn't sharing the burden. Each
girl becomes a Slayer in her own right, equally powerful as Buffy,
equally attuned to the images that are powerful enough to make
a girl go from catatonia to complete psychosis while developing
a multiple personality disorder.
Nikki Wood couldn't leave her mission behind. Maybe this is because
she was alone in it, maybe it's because it's a physical impossibility
to turn away from it .. but in the first moments after the spell
is cast, doubt is replaced by focus and certainty in each Slayer.
They know their purpose, and it's one of blood and glory.
So, in the end, there's a large part of me that views Buffy's
decision as one of those wrongs that are just not validated by
the context. Those affected by her decision been robbed of their
past lives and forced, enslaved, into a life of endless battle.
I've got to catch a train so I'm just gonna rush through the last
part of this.
The amulet's purpose was vague .. but it worked. Willow could've
put up a shield long enough for it to do the job. Roaming the
world are champions of good no doubt looking for a fight like
this, say grassroots Watchers with a taste for vengeance, and,
most importantly, Buffy's got an Ex-Boyfriend a phone call away
who's in with lotsa people who got that nifty napalm stuff ..
people who've chosen to lead a life that involves the constant
threat of grisly death or worse.
[> [> [> [> [> They don't have to fight the
battle -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:42:01 02/05/04 Thu
One Slayer in the world at a time managed to keep the world safe
for humanity (yes, there were other demon fighters, but it is
pretty clear that she is one of the more effective ones). With
thousands of Slayers in existence now, it will probably be possible
for many Slayers to simply choose not to fight, or will only have
to fight a few demons in their lifetime. Those who fight will
probably only be those who choose to fight. Yes, the Slayers we
saw seemed to express a sense of purpose. However, if that purpose
is related to the Calling, it's probably either temporary (wearing
off after the initial rush) or already ingrained into them when
they were still potentials.
I've also gotta point out that, in LMPTM, Buffy admitted that,
if she had to make the choice from "The Gift" over again,
she'd probably choose to let Dawn die to save the world. And I've
always been of the opinion that the choice she made to not let
Dawn die was not strictly a moral choice, but more of an emotional
choice. For example, I believe that stealing from people is wrong,
but if it was from someone I really, really hated, I might do
differently.
Finally, I think that, even if activating all the Slayers was
wrong, it was still justified given the extreme circumstances.
Consider this: in "Innocence", the Scoobies stole a
rocket launcher in order to stop the Judge's Apocalypse. Many
(if not most) people in the world would say stealing is wrong,
but it was a necessary course of action in saving the world from
the Judge. I see the "Chosen" decision as working under
the same concept. Sometimes possibly unethical things must be
done to prevent a greater wrong. While not everyone agrees, I
think that such a moral philosophy doesn't work that well in the
real world (such as it would have in the example above).
[> [> [> [> [> Re: "Because it's wrong."
(Spoilers for AtS 'Damage' ) -- Pip, 18:45:54 02/05/04
Thu
If you're going to go the route of an absolutist Kantian framework
rather than that of a particularist, context doesn't matter.
An absolutist Kantian framework, which specialist terminology
you forgot to explain, being (I hope) the idea that there is such
a thing as a system of ethics that can exist in a vacuum. The
reason can be completely divorced from the body - and should be
(according to Kant).
It's a good ethical system for robots. Or anyone who just wants
to not have to think. Please use moral framework provided, no
deviations allowed. [grin]
Incidentally, when you said 'not for all people', you didn't seem
to notice that my original argument wasn't claiming to be true
for all people. I said 'most'. I am actually aware of Jains. And
Quakers. And others who would rather die than kill someone else.
That's why I used the word 'most', with its different meaning
to 'all'.
Buffy took a similar stance of a fixed moral wrong based not
on scenario in S5 when she refused to even discuss the option
of killing Dawn.
You do remember that she'd changed her mind about the rightness
of that action by Season 7? It's in Lies My Parents Told Me
Maybe I'm still not being clear on this.
In my eyes, when Buffy and friends cast the spell they turned
young people who were merely temporary targets by singular centralized
enemy, young people who could go back to their lives once the
fight is over, into permanent soldiers who are "called",
in the inescapable, mystical sense, to battle endless enemies
for the rest of their lives. For them, there is no After The War.
Okay, maybe I'm not being clear on this. The situation Whedon
set up in Season 7 was one where the world was about to be invaded
(by the Ubervamps - remember them?). That kind of situation (which
is frequent in history) is not like Vietnam, where American soldiers
could survive and go home to Mom and Pop, even though the war
was lost. There is no After The War if you lose an invasion. You
can't go home - there is no home. There's no life to go back to.
Ask any refugee. Even if you win - well, I do have experience
of being a merely temporary target (as a civilian caught up in
a low intensity war). And do you know what? You may be a temporary
target, but the after effects are permanent.
Those affected by her decision been robbed of their past lives
and forced, enslaved, into a life of endless battle.
You argue this point of view from what evidence? There is a point
in Season Three where Giles quite seriously considers the possibility
of Buffy having time out to go to college away from Sunnydale.
Because at that point a non evil Faith is available. That
doesn't really suggest that the new Slayers face a life of endless
battle. It suggests that Nikki Wood couldn't walk away because
she was the only Slayer
Similarly with your rhetoric about the Slayers knowing their purpose
is one of blood and glory. You're taking this out of context.
The context is that the new Slayers are just about to fight the
enemy forces. We don't see much sign of any desire for blood and
glory in the 'Slayer rush' scene, where we see the Slayers who
aren't in a combat situation.
I think, to be honest, that you have set up a situation where
the new Slayers are 'enslaved' rather than 'empowered', without
any actual evidence that this is the case. Then you are arguing
that this situation you have set up is wrong. You also set up
a situation where Roaming the world are champions of good no
doubt looking for a fight , again, without any real evidence
that this is a general case. You then argue that this second hypothetical
situation proves that Buffy's decision was wrong.
In Damage , Andrew arrives at Wolfram and Hart without
any backup of Slayers. Angel's description of this in the dialogue
is:
He's sendin' his top guy to retrieve her.
Note the word 'retrieve'. From the start, the new Watcher's Council
has asked to take charge of Dana. Wesley asked for Giles's help,
Giles has sent someone to get Dana and take her to the other Slayers.
It's Angel who breaks that agreement. It is not until Angel
has made it absolutely clear that he is not keeping to the original
agreement that the new Slayers emerge from the shadows.
If you read the dialogue, you'll see that Andrew actually gives
Angel two chances to keep to what Wesley had agreed with Giles.
It's not until it's quite clear he won't that the new Slayers
emerge from the shadows. Nor do they leap into a fight.
Far from 'roaming the world looking for a fight', the Slayers
in Damage behave very responsibly. They don't leap in fists
flying. They wait. No force is even threatened or hinted at until
Angel has made it perfectly clear that he thinks a verbal contract
isn't worth the paper it's written on. The opportunity to settle
this without a fight is also offered, even after Angel has broken
W&H (LA)'s word.
There is only one Slayer in Damage who is 'roaming the
world looking for a fight'. Dana is mentally ill, was ill when
she got the Slayer power, and a plan for her retrieval was put
in place immediately the New Watcher's Council found out about
her. One versus twelve. And the roaming is stopped as quickly
as possible. In fact, the only reason she was free to 'roam the
world' is because someone mucked up her meds before the New Council
located her.
Part of what Whedon was trying to do in Season 7 (and there are
signs that he's continuing the theme in AtS Season 5) is play
around with the 'one hero' myth. Very popular myth - there is
a problem, and there is one Chosen One who can deal with it. Season
7 simply asked: 'er, why? Why does there have to be one Chosen
One? Why not lots?' A similar theme is continuing in AtS, with
Angel having a nervous breakdown because he might not be the One
Shanshu Hero. The thought that he and Spike might both have Destinies
with a capital D doesn't seem to have occurred to him. The thought
that having a second Champion around might be really handy also
doesn't seem to have occurred to him. (Haven't seen Episode 100,
so I don't know if that changes things).
So partly it's about empowerment, and partly it's about the (false)
idea that there can be only one hero, only one winner.
And in the real world, you don't always choose to be a hero. Sometimes,
life chooses you.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well said, Pip -- fidhle,
19:37:46 02/05/04 Thu
Thanks for your well reasoned response. I agree completely.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well said, Pip
-- Jane, 22:36:00 02/05/04 Thu
Absolutely agree with you Pip. Thanks for a response that is rational
and sensible. I like your point that sometimes you don't get to
choose your destiny; your destiny chooses you.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ditto.
-- phoenix, 01:58:47 02/06/04 Fri
[> I'd hate to see a heartfelt apology -- Pony, 09:01:44
02/05/04 Thu
Reading your post my first instinct was to go for the glib something
I've obviously succumbed to in my subject line. However I do feel
a need to explain why I have no wish to respond to the points
in your post yet am still extremely disturbed by it.
You say that you want to offer an explanation for your use of
the word feminazi as well as further your opposition to Buffy's
actions in Chosen. In the course of your explanation you also
manage to bring in racial politics to question the entire premise
of the series. That, with an almost throwaway line about Tara's
death suggests to me that you're simply looking to start a heated
debate, but I give you the benefit of the doubt. There have been
many thoughtful posts about the reasons and consequences of Chosen,
some in the sub-thread you started. As well the archives contain
many eloquent posts on the often murky nature of racial politics
on both series. I assume you've read at least a few since you
bring up the Tragic Mulatto theme which has been discussed before.
I don't wish to rehash points others have made so well.
You use words carelessly. You acknowledge that terms like miscegenation,
Nazi and Final Solution are loaded ones. They are not loaded terms
they are knives. They slice through your argument until all I
can see are the blades. You offer your educational background
as though your choice of university gives you a liberal street
cred, but I have seen nothing in your writing that demonstrates
any understanding of the words you use so casually to give weight
to your arguments. After reading I am left not with any intellectual
stimulation but a feeling of physical queasiness.
So I wish you well with your discussion, there are already some
thoughtful posts to read, but I for one have no desire to engage.
[> [> I bought my mother Global knives. They rock.
-- HarryParachute, 10:36:49 02/05/04 Thu
Granted, there's a standing rule in netiquette that the first
one to bring up Nazis loses, but you have to play the cards you're
dealt.
Nazi leads into fascism leads into purity leads into mixed race
leads into the trope of the Tragic Mulatto leads into the trope
of the Evil/Dead lesbian. Those last two are practically kissing
cousins thanks to psychoanalytic post 17th century categorization
and classification.
Now is my lack of understanding based in the terseness of my responses?
Do I need footnotes? Should I crack open old books and handouts
so I can accurately quote bell hooks and Kathlene Rowe? Must I
put these concepts in historical socio-political context?
Or is the evidence of my deficiency based on how carelessly I
throw these incendiary "sharp" words around with no
reverence for their taboo?
If it's the former bunch, I come here to screw around and talk
about a frickin' TV show I and you watch, not to write a thesis.
If it's the latter bunch...well...then I guess I am deficient.
If I smell it, I say it.
So, sorry for the blades and indigestion.
I haven't been here in a while, so I don't know about the posts
concerning the Tragic Mulatto trope, this is just something we've
been discussing in class. Which archive they at?
[> [> [> Essentially -- Pony, 11:43:14 02/05/04
Thu
I feel that you are throwing in words not to explain your position
but to make your argument sound more important. For me the end
result is that I don't pay attention to your points just those
particular words. I probably shouldn't have said anything at all
since you can argue away using any methods you wish, but I thought
you should know about a probably unintended effect of your post.
[> Burning Bridges or "The Circle Game" --
sdev, 22:04:05 02/05/04 Thu
A few months ago the term Femi-Nazi was used on this Board. I
objected and another poster gave a vigorous defense of its use.
No one objected, not even the poster who first objected to your
use and who had participated in the earlier thread. Does this
signal a change of opinion here? Is Femi-Nazi now deemed an outlawed
phrase, no longer an acceptable term? What wrought this change
in attitude in the course of a few months? How was anyone to know
of the change? Did the earlier accepted use lead to the current
use. I confess to being confused myself as to what is acceptable.
I am somewhat skeptical of the convenient but implausible conclusion
that there has been a change of heart. Alternatively and hypothetically,
is it possible that the problem is not the term per se but who
is using it that matters here? Perhaps some people have Femi-Nazi
use entitlement privileges and others don't. On what basis is
that distinction between users made?
The above hypothesis offers a disturbing picture of what could
be described as a Board with no "absolutist Kantian framework"
but with the ethical scheme "of a particularist" based
on the who not the what of the particulars. (It is possible to
apply that framework to Buffy's decision to protect Dawn in Season
5 as well). On the Board that ethical scheme is troubling at the
least. It might even be characterized as a double standard or
in stronger terms as selectively repressive.
The quote defending the term Femi-Nazi appears below:
The aforementioned "Feminazi's" -- insulting? don't
care [emphasis added] -- for instance, are guilty of the same
mistake that many others are guilty of: generalizations and lumping
that make them come across as intolerant and bigoted because they
fail to make the distinctions between those who deserve attack
and those who don't. Hence the term. Any group who believes their
social agenda pre-empts the rights of the individual to be safe
from conviction of crimes he/she didn't commit is analogous to
the Nazis. To speak of Western culture as something that is homogenized
and tainting of all who fall into certain categories (white/male/female/able-bodied/et
cetera) is to destroy any semblance of rational discourse. And
certain people wonder why certain other people react badly to
certain strains of P.C...it's not so great a mystery as all that.
http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/archives/aug03_p14.html
Addendum: If anyone thinks I am defending the use of the term
Femi-Nazi you have missed my point. I have already spoken on that
subject in the discussion linked above. As a result of my above
hypothesis, any additional discussion on my part will be via e-mail
to sdev8@nyc.rr.com.
[> [> Hmmm? -- Random, 03:16:58 02/06/04 Fri
Alternatively and hypothetically, is it possible that the problem
is not the term per se but who is using it that matters here?
Perhaps some people have Femi-Nazi use entitlement privileges
and others don't. On what basis is that distinction between users
made?
The above hypothesis offers a disturbing picture of what could
be described as a Board with no "absolutist Kantian framework"
but with the ethical scheme "of a particularist" based
on the who not the what of the particulars. (It is possible to
apply that framework to Buffy's decision to protect Dawn in Season
5 as well). On the Board that ethical scheme is troubling at the
least. It might even be characterized as a double standard or
in stronger terms as selectively repressive.
Since you're quoting me on the issue (incidentally, I was defending
the right to use a term, not using it myself), I'm curious whether
your above statement implies that I am exempt from criticism and
debate. It does seem so, but I may be misreading. If so, I can
understand your desire to right this wrong. However, you would
be sadly mistaken if you did believe this. No-one on this
Board is exempt, certainly not me. Search the archives some more
-- there have been some rather rousing disagreements on many issues,
mostly to do with the shows. Here, for instance, I disagree with
much of what HP is saying, and agree with Pony that he's baiting.
I may rather enjoy talking to him in chat, but that's not going
to stop me from disagreeing with him. And there are many posters
here who have engaged in long, hard debates with me and never
for a second considered letting me get away with perceptions they
considered short-sighted or illogical.
I'm sorry you seem to have gotten that impression.
[> [> agree with you but not with the theory -- manwitch,
10:11:22 02/06/04 Fri
I don't come here much. So I wasn't privy to that thread in which
"Femi-Nazi" was used. I would have supported you. (Heh.
So he says now).
Funny how things come full circle.
People have the right to use the term feminazi, I suppose. Personally,
I find it an offensive term for a number of different reasons.
I am not clear on the history of the word, but if it was not coined
by Rush Limbaugh it is certainly one of his favorite terms. And
its common usage is rhetorical. It does not have any substantive
definition. Its purpose is to, in argument, characterize any feminist
position as exclusionary, shrill, and intellectually indefensible.
Its a play on the word "feminist." It has nothing to
do with "nazi." That term is added simply to associated
feminism with the distaste of nazism. It has been surprisingly
effective. Even women today are afraid of calling themselves "feminist."
But the usage was arguably different. The use of the term along
with what Pony saw as Buffy bashing prompted her response. The
post where you questioned the term was discussing women's empowerment
in history. I'm not getting hung up on the distinction here. The
use you objected to would have offended me to. But in this case,
using the term feminazi to bash a feminist show offended me too
and I therefore chose to stay out of the thread altogether. HP
subsequently claims not to have been bashing, but merely raising
a point about the images through which the metaphor was conveyed.
Ok.
In this thread, as in the earlier one between you and Random,
the term Nazism is being bandied about. I confess, sdev, that
I must agree with you there. But that's my education and background,
for whatever its worth, plus or minus. To me, nazism is not fascism.
Nazism does not "lead" to fascism. Nazism is not "intolerance"
or "exclusion." And it is certainly not "the belief
that manhood is formed in the crucible of war." Intolerance,
exclusion, the crucible of war, racial purity, violence, these
were all around for many thousands of years in a wide variety
of cultures. Nazism, and even fascism, are developments of the
twentieth century only. They are distinct and for a reason. So
I can't really buy into arguments that throw the term around in
a more colloquial way. To me the analogies being made either in
HPs points about Buffy or even, Random, if you'll forgive me,
in Random's points about "feminazi," don't work because
they are, in my view, oversimplifying or completely misrepresenting
the term. Not that I don't get the points being made. But I can't
help but see the language used as, at best, hyperbole, and at
worst inflammatory.
Random, if you are reading this, I'm not intending to dump on
you at all, and I hope no one will take it that way. I get your
point, but I have a personal need for a more detailed argument
when charges of "nazism" are tossed about. I'm hung
up on the word, basically. I also don't really accept "feminazi"
as a real term with real meaning. Its function is, as near as
I can tell, always rhetorical and dismissive. Because I
get stuck on these things but still get the point being made,
I try to stay out of these conversations. My sensibilities do
not and should not put any contraints on your arguements or choice
of words.
HPs point is pretty clear, even though I think the analogy fails.
What's the point of getting into an argument about what characterizes
or defines nazism?
But HPs tone is pretty clear, too. Pony wasn't wrong to be offended.
Everyone has a right to express their opinion, and HP certainly
does. But that right should not be confused with the expectation
that no one will ask you to account for it or that it won't reflect
on the person expressing it. If there's a misunderstanding, it
can get worked out if the parties wish it. So I guess I'm not
sure your hypothesis about the board holds up. People get to post.
Others get to respond. I don't see any institutionalized repression
going on here.
But what can you say? People are going to use words based on their
understanding, ability and desire. That's what I do. Sometimes
we don't really know what we're saying but think we do. Sometimes
we don't really know what someone else is saying but think we
do. Sometimes we get it wrong. I guess that's why general civility
is maybe worth valuing.
I remember when I first started posting, the board prided itself
on how open and inclusive it was to new ideas, new posters, etc.
For the most part, that seemed to be true. I get a little sad
when I see these bouts of hostility take over the board, this
one here and the one above. I mean, the very fact of this forum
means we all have at least one common interest, right? Maybe we
can start there and work through the rest. We aren't ranked here.
We don't have to be better or sharper or more clever than anyone
else. Its just a discussion board.
We all come to this board with different backgrounds and different
educations. We are all smart enough to present the same ideas
and arguments in either a biting fashion, or in an open and inviting
one. We choose how we do it.
[> [> [> Thank you -- d'Herblay, 10:29:46 02/06/04
Fri
[> [> [> Let me just add -- Sophist, 10:52:56
02/06/04 Fri
that it particularly distresses me that some of the best posters
(I mean sdev and Random) are getting involved in these issues.
At the risk of fogeyism, I'll say that I don't recall any debates
like this until fairly recently (Lunasea being the first instance).
That's too bad; I think they have cost the Board valuable posters.
That's not to say that I like or value the "offending"
posts or posters. I don't. But there's a simple solution to part
of the problem: if a poster offends you -- whether by tone or
substance -- more than a few times, STOP READING HIS/HER POSTS.
DAMMIT. Don't try to change his/her style; s/he has to live with
his/her own decisions. That applies to s'kat and Lunasea and it
applies to Random and Claudia and to anyone else if the shoe fits.
"Ignore him and he'll go away" didn't work for Buffy
in Passion, but it's an effective strategy on a board like this.
The threads are market driven. If no one responds, they die. Every
response just keeps the offending post on the main page that much
longer.
The occasional use of "offensive" terms or expressions
creates its own difficulty. Personally, I find it easiest just
to ignore them. If I believe a person may not have understood
the full implications of a term, or that I might have misunderstood,
I'll explore that. Again, though, I don't see much point in trying
to force another person to change his/her ways.
I don't post much because I don't watch AtS. I still enjoy the
Buffy discussions, but the more threads I have to skip because
they consist of little more than pissing contests, the less interest
I have in sifting the chaff.
[> [> [> [> Some thoughts on ruffled feathers and
board etiquette -- Ronia, 13:14:43 02/06/04 Fri
A few years ago I landed on this board with a plop. I was new
to the internet and inexperienced with board dynamics. I read
a small..mostly tongue in cheek thread about how to get around
parents who didn't approve of the show and climbed up on a soapbox
in a way that embarrasses me to this day. Funny thing was, that
the response was enormous. It was a monster thread that went on
for days. Probably shoved far more worthy posts into the void
land of archive. I haven't changed my opinions about parental
authority, but I have become more sensitive with regard to forum
appropriate discussion. In my case, the board moderators were
both patient and merciful, they did not intervene, and I have
found other posters both accepting and welcoming even though they
may disagree *provided that the posts I offer are offered in an
appropriate manner*. I don't think that it is possible to divorce
what is being said, from how it is being said. If the post is
incoherant or makes use of terms that serve no function outside
of being offensive it is reasonable to expect to be called on
it. Sometimes though..I do think this crosses some boundary into
board politic hell. I have been following a few of the more recent
flame wars and I think..that although often well phrased, Sophist
is correct in calling them a pissing contest. This board has suffered
lately from more than a passing few of these and it makes me very
sad to see it. The discussion and debate available here have been
a horizon expanding experience for me as well as the only medium
I have time for and access to. So, yes..I have a vested interest
in seeing this board restored to health. Sdev brought up an interesting
point..I disagree with his/her conclusion, but I think it is worth
a second look, because it's a serious issue. Sorry, sdev, I can't
quote you, but I'll do my best to accurately sum it up, if I bungle
it, please correct me. Basically it boils down to this..can anyone
discuss anything on this board, and expect an unbiased reaction
from other posters. I'd say no, probably not. I'd also say that
there are at least two causes for this, probably more..but I'm
going to deal with these..because I consider one legitamite, and
the other inhibitive and destructive to the board. The first cause
is that shoot from the hip posts, that are emtion based, emotion
driven and full of opinion masquerading as fact are not well tolerated
and will probably be picked to shreds if it is responded to at
all. This is, in my opinion, entirely appropriate and healthy.
It lays the tracks for good dialogue. I have often looked at the
sad carcass of my arguament and realized that it died, because
it was weak, not because another poster was being unkind. The
other cause though..does have a bit more squick to it. I am not
the most skilled and articulate poster here..I freely admit it.
Although it hasn't happened to me personally, there certainly
is a potential for someone more skilled, to shoot down my attempts
without consideration because they disdain the topic, me personally,
or just because they can. There is no way that can contribute
to a healthy board. It is inhibitive, it does erect boundaries
that may chafe some posters into backround furniture, when they
were previously the lifeblood of the party so to speak. I don't
know what tool of measure to apply in order to distinguish between
the two..they lie very close together. I'm glad I'm not a board
moderator. I do think though..that the best way to avoid things
like this is by looking inward, and by not replying with haste.
If we are not willing to consider our motives, our methods, and
our effect on the board and fellow posters, in my opinion, we
don't belong here. We should leave in disgrace and strut off pontificating
into the sunset.
[> [> [> [> [> Heh. I remember that thread.
-- Sophist, 13:28:35 02/06/04 Fri
On a related point, I have noticed that sometimes the most controversial
posters start the longest and most interesting threads. I sometimes
wish they could do so in a different way -- Darby has a talent
for doing it the right way -- but that fact should give us all
pause in reflecting how to respond.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Do you? Ack! Where's a
mind wiping god or organization when you need one ;-) -- Ronia,
13:36:22 02/06/04 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Some thoughts on ruffled
feathers and board etiquette -- LittleBit, 16:29:56 02/06/04
Fri
I started to reply to your post.
Then I thought, okay... this is in a thread that's about freedom
of speech and personal responsibility... and there are those in
it who have clearly stated what discussion is not offensive, so
that's out... and then I need to remember the general audience,
and what I've seen offend or upset people... and I come to the
conclusion that I could post "I like the show" and someone
would object because of a character, a plot line, an arc or my
phrasing.
The bottom line? This is a regular part of my posting routine.
The usual result? No post at all.
[> [> [> Well... -- Random, 11:40:37 02/06/04
Fri
I am gratified that you dared to disagree with me. The institution
is crumbling.
That said, I have no problem with your disagreement. I consider
several of your points debatable (not the least of which being
the "oversimplifying" and "completely misrepresenting",
but you can look at it as you please.) Me, I was arguing for the
freedom of analogy. You may disagree on the relevance in terms
of severity, but that's not the same as disagreeing on the relevance
period. Not entirely certain that I understand your argument concerning
the existence of the terms "Nazism" and "fascism"
only in the 20th century. (Fascism is actually considerably
older, under different names, and even gained its modern nomenclature
from the "fasces" that represented the Roman Empire.)
So the terms are new, but everything they connote are much, much
older? Should we search our dictionaries for a word, or more likely,
several sentences, that means the same thing but isn't on the
forbidden list?
In any event, I'm not married to the word. I honestly care very
little about it. My primary reactions have been to the very thing
you're talking about: I remember when I first started posting,
the board prided itself on how open and inclusive it was to new
ideas, new posters, etc. I remember that too. Now I'm looking
at a screen full of people lecturing each other on how their feelings
have been hurt. I feel quite free to disagree with the frivilous
use of feminazi. After all, it's not a word I ever recall using
of my own initiative, absent a direct antecedent usage. I would
consider it sloppy and poor writing in many cases. That doesn't
mean I offer a blanket condemnation of a word that was clearly
chosen for a reason. But there was a time when debate wasn't constantly
being interrupted by hues and cries, when substance outweighed
semantics. If I disagree with a term, I analyse it critically,
not base my disagreement on its "offensiveness" and
try to dissect the motives of the writer. Oh, certainly, the thread
referenced from August is an exception -- but it's an exception
based on making the exact point that I'm talking about. Call it
a "meta-exception." But the threads just keep erupting
in "how dare you say that?!?" and debate on the actual
substance is lost. Semantics and hurt feeling supplant philosophy,
and I'm quite bored with reading posts that refuse to look past
those. Repeatedly.
Meh, I'm sick of it (not of you, manwitch, your posts are quite
intelligent even when I disagree strongly. But, of course, I'm
disagreeing with your analysis, not your damned word choice. Or,
rather, when I do disagree with it, I'll make my point and drop
it, not continually and repeatedly taking your word choice personally.)
I'm sick of being chided for suggesting that a word choice isn't
the damned end of the world. And I'm sick of the Board. I miss
the good posters of old, who are either gone, reduced to writing
ambiguous NT posts of affirmation, or caught up in these
idiotic conflicts that are no longer about the damned shows. I'm
sick of the fact that I was working on a response to your excellent
po-mo IRYJ essay (and had lots of disagreements to go along with
my agreements) and allowed myself to get sidetracked. And watched
it get archived. And gritted my teeth in frustration.
What's the point, really? I don't feel any of it is much worth
my time anymore. If I want self-righteousness, I'll tune into
Congressional filibusters on C-span.
[> [> [> [> ooooo. please post it as its own thread.
-- manwitch, 12:35:01 02/06/04 Fri
My siblings say I have a "moral superiority" complex.
I don't mean to, exactly. Its just that they're so immoral. So
to the degree that I do seem self-righteous or seem to chide (even
though you graciously exempt me), I will say that I would much
prefer reading your thoughts on po-mo IRYJ to being a self-righteous
chider.
Its the hope of catching such a thing that keeps me checking in.
Hope at some point you can tear yourself away from riveting C-span
and post it as its own thread.
[> [> [> [> [> I'll work on it this weekend
-- Random, 13:17:38 02/06/04 Fri
And I'm sorry. I really, really didn't mean you. You made your
point. I'm not bothered (much) by that. It's the repeated
and didactic reiterations of a point that transform it from debate
to chiding.
[> Some Comments; Spoilers for Buffy-S1 to 'Chosen' ; Angel
to 'Damage' -- Age, 01:42:52 02/07/04 Sat
It doesn't necessarily follow that because ÔBuffy' has inherited
a certain meaning from an earlier era due to the vampire myth
that that meaning has been embraced, and in fact doesn't the series
conclude by underscoring that fear of miscegenation is not intended
through the romantic liaison between Wood and Faith?
The rigid oppositional thinking that you propose may have begun
the series, vampires and demons as strictly evil, but this was
to portray the perspective of the characters who, much younger
in age, would have thought more in terms of black and white. However,
season four saw the Scoobies entering the adult world after high
school, with the series showing a deconstruction of the rigid
oppositional thinking as demons were downgraded from inherently
evil to being approximate to animals. In this season the hybrid
Oz is saved by Riley who acts AGAINST his career as soldier due
to the influence of Buffy and the Scoobs, and is declared an anarchist.
Season five begins with Buffy hunting down vampires, acting more
like one of them, out of fear of death. If she's quick enough,
if she gains enough power, she'll even be able to stake death
itself, as the device, Glory the immortal childish female hellgod
delusion, represents; but Buffy has to make a choice, the same
choice that is put forward throughout the series: she has either
to grow up and realize that death, mortality is part of her, and
not some feared vilified other she can stake; or she can pretend
that she can stay young forever, become as like Glory, sacrificing
Dawn, the representative, described as Buffy's daughter, of the
next generation that could never have life without the death of
the former.
Season six continued the deconstruction of oppositional thinking
with the writers putting a wholly human face on the Big Bads of
the season, the three nerds, the children who don't want to grow
up. The three Scoobs are quite clearly shown that they are not
the paragons of virtue and purity that would see them in rigid
opposition to the evil vampires: Buffy's liaison with Spike; Xander's
being behind the events of the musical episode and Willow's abuse
of magic. Not only this but we have the introduction of demons
such as Clem(ency) who could through his name represent that which
those who are inherently evil could never have. And all this playing
out as Spike's redemption arc is beginning.
Season seven shows the last ditch reaction of a fascist metaphor,
The First, with its army that will exterminate the human race.
It is fascist (if I can bend the meaning of it somewhat) in that
it is trying to prevent the mixing not of races, but of sexes.
There being more than one slayer is the deconstruction of a belief
system, the belief that only one woman in all the world could
be strong. This physical strength, traditionally defined as a
male attribute, could not be allowed to show up in more than one
woman for fear that the rigid oppositional definition of men and
women would be seen to be violated. The true outsider, the vilified
other in ÔBuffy' is the feminine (and women) as symbolized
by the movement at the beginning of the series of Buffy and her
mum to the male dominated suburbs. The opposition in ÔBuffy'
isn't racial, but gender defined. (Note here that the slayers
in ÔDamage' are headed not by a woman, but by a feminized
male, Andrew, in fact the quintessential representative of the
male culture vilified other in his nerdness, his homosexuality
and in the allusion to Christ, a figure associated with the feminization
of a culture through the number of slayer accompanying him. The
slayers, though super strong, have ceded power in this instance
to Andrew the male, suggesting the continuation of the power sharing
that Buffy began in ÔChosen'.)
So, I think that Buffy and her Scoobies, having gone through their
change in perspective over the period of the series would not
build an army of strictly good versus evil, the pure versus the
impure. In fact the slayers assert their strength in ÔDamage'
only because they are defending one of their own from what would
have been perceived as a continuing victimization by Wolfram and
Hart; and who can blame them as even Angel is a victim of Wolfram
and Hart having been made the offer to join the firm when he was
most vulnerable.
I think the term feminazi misses the point; the slayers do not
represent a feminist movement or even an ideal of feminism, but
simply the change in our culture, exagerated to make dramatic
TV, where women now can be strong if they want to or can be. The
slayer power is foremost physical because the attribute most denied
to women in a male dominated society was physical strength. The
movement of the series has always been towards equality and deconstruction
of oppositional thinking told through a representation of the
feminization of what has been a male dominated culture bringing
true equality where women can embrace male attributes and men
can embrace female ones.
Having said that, it would be na·ve to think that the literal
creation of a bunch of super women wouldn't entail some problems,
(having power isn't a panacea as season six already warned us);
Whedon gives us one type of problem in ÔDamage.' However,
I tend to view the series metaphorically, ignoring the exageration
that is necessary to create an action packed drama. For me the
spell cast in ÔChosen' simply represents the change in our
society, the deconstruction of the male/female oppositional culture.
I want to make it clear that I am not in favour of censorship.
If you use the word feminazi, that's up to you. And I can understand
your concerns when on the face of it Buffy seems to be creating
an army of super strong women. But I think the conclusion you've
come to goes against the basic theme of the series itself. The
movement has been away from fascism not towards it. Whedon's main
theme of people having to grow up and take responsibility for
their lives is anarchic in nature. It basically says that we govern
ourselves. (And I would suggest that the focus on gender in ÔBuffy'is
a subcategory of the anarchic theme, for if we are having to follow
an imposed definition of what a male or female is, then we are
no longer free to be ourselves. We would be like puppets, the
walking dead, being possessed by a culture as if for example we'd
been possessed by a demon.)
Age.
[> [> I'd like to print-and frame-this post. ;o)
-- Arethusa, 05:27:43 02/07/04 Sat
I especially liked:
The slayer power is foremost physical because the attribute
most denied to women in a male dominated society was physical
strength.
I tried to say this earlier, in my clumsy way.
And:
The movement of the series has always been towards equality
and deconstruction of oppositional thinking told through a representation
of the feminization of what has been a male dominated culture
bringing true equality where women can embrace male attributes
and men can embrace female ones.
because sometimes we forget that Giles and Xander were freeed
from cultural dictates too.
Thanks.
Current board
| More February 2004