January 2002 posts
Giles interview at ign.com -- neaux, 04:37:44 01/14/02 Mon
I dont know if this was posted or not but here is the link
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/317440p1.html
its a 10 question interview...
. Buffy DVDs available in Australia (I'm not sure if this is of any use to you all) -- NightRepair, 05:58:39 01/14/02 Mon
All this talk about Buffy DVDs has got me slightly bewildered. Do you mean to say that they haven't released seasons 2 + 3 on DVD in the US? That's crazy, in Australia we haven't even got Season 6 on air yet, but the DVDs (and videos) for seasons 2 and 3 are certainly out. Also Season Four has recently been released on video (I just bought it!).
I don't know if this is of use to anyone, but I thought I'd put it out there just in case... There is an auction site www.ebay.com.au where both season 2 and 3 DVDs (and lots of other buffy stuff) are up for sale. I think they're around US$90 each and I think you need a specific kind of player to be able to play them in the US though. You might also want to check out www.foxmovies.com.au which gives you a rundown of what has been released and when.
Hope this might help someone.
[> Re: Buffy DVDs and syndication -- OnM, 07:26:09 01/14/02 Mon
In the US, after a TV show has been on the air for so many years, it becomes eligible for syndication, that is other networks or stations can purchase the right to air earlier episodes.
Fox, the studio that 'owns' Buffy, had the release of DVD's pushed back two years so that the syndication deals could be made first. The reasoning is that sale of the DVD's would lessen the monies paid for syndication deals.
Thus, it is only literally this week that we are seeing the release of BtVS Season 1 on DVD in North America.
You are correct, not all DVD's will play on all DVD players, because of a thing called region coding. The politics/economics of this are too involved to get into here, so I won't!
Crazy? No comment on that either!
[> Re: Buffy DVDs available in Australia (I'm not sure if this is of any use to you all) -- maddog, 07:32:22 01/14/02 Mon
There's a very simple reason that we don't get season 1 until tomorrow and that's syndication. If F/X didn't have the rights and weren't playing all 5 seasons twice we'd probably have more of them out now. Doesn't seem fair but that's business. But it's ok, cause we'll be getting them soon.
[> [> I bought my first DVD player 4 years ago, and I've desperately wanted Buffy DVDs since. About time! -- Rob, 11:13:44 01/14/02 Mon
[> Re: Buffy DVDs available in Australia -- got 'em -- squireboy, 20:51:02 01/14/02 Mon
I'm in Canada (in dvd terms, Region 1, same as USA). I bought the Season 2 dvds as soon as they became available in Australia (region 4). I bought a dvd player for my pc (cheap!) and tinkered with the software in order to make it "region-free" or "multi-system" in the terms of the dvd world.
You can buy home dvd players that are multi-system as well, but they are more expensive, and I'm not sure the expense would be worth it if all you would play on it from Region 2 (UK) or 4 (Oz) would be the Buffies, since the eps will be available here in time (June for Season 2 -- does that mean December for Season 3 perhaps?). On the other hand, the Season 3 dvds have been available in Oz since October '01 and I'm not sure my instant gratification monkey can wait until December '02 for Season 3 (my favourite season, by far) if I can have them shipped from Oz in a few weeks for essentially the same cost as buying them here, since the Australian dollar is down.
Looking forward to picking up the Region 1/Season 1 dvds tomorrow ...
squireboy
Getting Busted at Work (the forums and worktime) -- neaux, 06:56:00 01/14/02 Mon
Just a question I thought I'd ask..
How many people here surf these forums during work.. trying not to get busted... (like me)?
I personally find these forums help me get through my workday. Heck I'm even taking my lunchbreak tomorrow to go get the Buffy DVD.
[> Re: Getting Busted at Work (the forums and worktime) -- maddog, 07:20:12
01/14/02 Mon
me...but I kinda go back and forth...I read a post or two, reply to one maybe...then hit my work, then go back a few minutes later...hence my 6 billion posts at the bottom of this page.
[> Re: Getting Busted at Work (the forums and worktime) -- Marie, 07:30:14 01/14/02 Mon
Blimey, if I couldn't look while at work, I'd have to retire! I occasionally come to the board at weekends, child-permitting, but don't have time most evenings.
I have very nice, kind, generous bosses, who one day will realise that, while I'm quietly industrious, I'm not actually, er, working!
M
[> [> Re: Getting Busted at Work (the forums and worktime) -- grifter, 08:31:23 01/14/02 Mon
I mostly look here during worktime, but since my co-workers donīt like to work too much either and my boss is in another building and never bothers us I have no problems...
I figure, since this is kinda slave labor anyway (my country forces me to either work in civil services for a year or join the army for 8 months), itīs ok...not like they could fire me or anything ;)
[> [> [> Re: Getting Busted at Work (the forums and worktime) -- Rob, 10:30:34 01/14/02 Mon
Work? What work?
They pay me, as office assistant at a title company to post on this messageboard! Or they might as well, since that's basically all I do while I'm here. Do you know what I should be doing right now? Typing up a policy. Instead I'm typing about not typing the policy!
Oh, and in regards to the Buffy DVD set, I am actually calling in sick to work tomorrow so I can buy the set and watch it during the day!
I know! Bad me! Bad me!
Rob
[> [> [> [> Re: Getting Busted at Work (the forums and worktime) -- Deeva, 11:21:47 01/14/02 Mon
I, luckily, have a boss who is very aware that I bust my ass doing anything that they ask me to do. I'm a production coordinator in tv advertising, so it's good to know how to do a million things. So whenever she sees me sitting at my computer, it's "research". *Heh!*
[> [> [> [> Rob, I admire your style! -- Brian, 12:16:41 01/14/02 Mon
[> [> Quote of the week -- Masquerade, 12:05:42 01/14/02 Mon
"I have very nice, kind, generous bosses, who one day will realise that, while I'm quietly industrious, I'm not actually, er, working!"
LOL! That one works for me, too! : )
[> [> [> Oh, thank you! I made Quote of the week! -- Marie, 01:11:44 01/15/02 Tue
And on the day I have to go to hospital, too! And that just goes to prove what I think of this board and work - my bosses are thinking how dedicated I must be to come in and check out my e-mails when I'm going in for a (very minor) op. in a couple of hours, and I'm thinking "Better check the board in case I'm away for a couple of days."!
I'll be back...
[> [> [> [> Dedicated workforce...... -- Rufus, 22:52:55 01/15/02 Tue
You just keep them thinking you are the most dedicated worker they could have. I'm beginning to wonder just how many people are tuning in here when they are tuning out at work....
Can you have a laptop in your hospital?
[> Re: Getting Busted at Work (the forums and worktime) -- Shaglio, 11:35:15 01/14/02 Mon
I spend the entire workday (off & on) here reading posts. Unfortunately I can't read most of the longer posts since my boss could walk into my cube at any moment and catch me. I only come here during work hours because if I come here from my home computer, all the purple "read" posts are back to the blue "unread" status which drives me bonkers. I don't remember what I have and haven't read and having the links turn purple is very helpful. Unfortunately, it seems like the majority of people post at nights, so when I read them in the morning at work, the posts are either outdated or somebody already responded with what I would have said.
Now, hopefully my boss isn't a Buffy fan or I'll be looking for a new job. So, Mr. Burkhardt, if you read this I wrote it from my home computer.
[> [> Re: Getting Busted at Work (the forums and worktime) -- neaux, 12:54:25 01/14/02 Mon
LOL... I have the delimma of having 2 computers... A Macintosh for my graphic design work and a PC for those nasty word/excel files. Since my PC is sorta hidden in my cubicle.. I use the PC to view the forums.. and keep something graphically related to JOB on my macintosh (which is in plain view) doh!!
[> [> [> possible solution -- Shaglio, 13:20:27 01/14/02 Mon
I should have my company buy me one of those polorized privacy screen cover things in case my boss walks in. I could just click to another program on the task bar before he gets a chance to get a good look at my screen. Of course, I would have to explain to them why I felt I need the polorized screen. D'oh!
[> [> [> [> I'd be able to get away with it, if not for... -- Sheri, 13:34:25 01/14/02 Mon
...the back stabbing bitca who insists on telling the manager everytime I use the internet. (And biggest annoyance: I only go online during my lunch break! So what's it to her???)
[> [> [> Re: Getting Busted at Work (the forums and worktime) -- Brian, 13:55:10 01/14/02 Mon
As my job is high pressure sales, I use the Buffy board as a stress reliever. I read a couple of posts at a time throughout the day. Keeps me focused and productive, and I never feel like taking an axe to my annoying colleagues.
[> Re: Getting Busted at Work (the forums and worktime) -- verdantheart, 05:52:03 01/15/02 Tue
Until I get an Internet connection at home that I don't have to dislodge my husband to get at, I'll be sneaking a peek at work. Fortunately I get here early, so there's not much chance of getting busted unless I come back during noontime and linger too long.
However, management is well aware that non-job-related surfing occurs. They report that most of it is pointed to either porn sites or LDS (religeous) sites, LOL!
[> [> Re: Getting Busted at Work (the forums and worktime) -- Shaglio, 06:46:14 01/15/02 Tue
Who in their right mind would surf porn sites at work?!?!?! That's just asking for trouble. At least I'm smart enough to do that at home.
[> Well, I don't have to worry about THAT problem anymore -- Shaglio, 12:50:20 01/15/02 Tue
Because I just got laid off today. So now that I'm checking the forum from home, all the links are blue again!!!! Time to start reading from scratch :(
[> Well, I don't have to worry about THAT problem anymore -- Shaglio, 12:50:38 01/15/02 Tue
Because I just got laid off today. So now that I'm checking the forum from home, all the links are blue again!!!! Time to start reading from scratch :(
[> [> My sympathies, Shaglio -- Rahael, 05:08:24 01/17/02 Thu
Sorry to hear that....hope you become a wage slave very soon (that is, if you want to!)
[> [> [> Re: My sympathies, Shaglio -- Shaglio, 05:57:20 01/17/02 Thu
My severence package will last for 2 months, so I'm officially on vacation!!! At least I'm not one of the people left behind doing 3 times as much work as we were before. And maybe I can get a job closer to where I'm currently living. This is a turning point in my life - I just have to make sure it turns for the better. Unfortunately, daytime TV sucks. What time is Buffy on FX in the morning?
[> [> [> [> 7 - 9 EST (hope you're used to early rising!) -- Darby, 06:09:20 01/17/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> Re: 7 - 9 EST (hope you're used to early rising!) -- maddog, 09:57:47 01/17/02 Thu
It just has to be taped so you can sleep in, and then when crappy tv is on during the day you can watch it then.
Willow = Faith (some spoilers) -- Darby, 07:31:08 01/14/02 Mon
Now that "Willow the addict" has started her "recovery," people have started to notice that the addiction metaphor is breaking down. With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that it never was quite an addiction metaphor, but a replay of what we saw happen (picked up in progress) to Faith.
Faith had a power that made her "better" than regular people, which she used, more and more, as an excuse to abuse others and satisfy her desires. She probably was never the empathetic person that Willow was (is?), so the descent of Willow has been that much slower. But wasn't the Amy / Willow escapade a clear example of "Want. Take. Have." ?
But Faith's problem was never that she was addicted to her power, it was that she was misusing it. This was obvious by constant comparisons to Buffy, whose same abilities had not taken her down the same path (it's ironic that, when Buffy feared such an outcome, it was Willow who assured her that some people don't have it in them - I expect that Willow would have placed herself in that group as well; also, Willow was more threatened by Faith than anyone but Buffy, and we assumed it was a friendship / jealousy thing...). We have a parallel for Buffy here with Tara - Tara is not a metaphor for a "social drinker," which she would represent if this really were an addiction story, she's a metaphor for responsibility! It's been easy to miss because Tara isn't Willow's equal in power, the way Buffy was with Faith. But her willingness to use her power, as seen in Bargaining, is obvious when she thinks it necessary.
What's the theme this season? "Oh, grow up!" We've been lead to believe that Willow was already mature beyond her years, but think about this - right from the start, she had no trouble illegally hacking into systems (she had already been doing it prior to Buffy's appearance), using her "powers" for things frowned upon by the "adult" establishment (so what she did to the DMV system in Gone is not a healthy development - it's a replacement of her early vice for her current one). She has never lost her adolescent need to be accepted by the "cool" people. To hammer this home, we now see Willow paired compatibly with Amy, who has not advanced past her high-school sophomore attitudes toward magic.
Willow can't "cure" her "addiction" by going "cold turkey" - as everyone has predicted, she's going to need her power eventually to save her own or somebody's life. No one ever suggested that Faith totally give up her super-strong violence because they, and we, all knew its usefulness when properly applied.
Maybe then we'll be shown what's behind the curtain. It may take Tara (the most insightful female character) to clarify what she's actually been saying all along. What we've been hearing is "using too much magic" equal to "drinking too much." What we should have been hearing is "using magic improperly." Willow doesn't need to surrender her skills, she just need to use them responsibly, before she takes that Faith-like one misstep that sets her on a path she can't get off.
[> Re: Willow = Faith (some spoilers) -- maddog, 08:15:46 01/14/02 Mon
While what you're saying makes sense and lends quite well to the non addiction case there's one point that I disagree with...and that's that "everyone" is predicting a cold turkey recovery. I think the consensus is the exact opposite, I think most people are seeing this as becoming a failed cold turkey try, making her slip back into it eventually.
[> [> No, what everyone's predicting is... -- Darby, 08:34:40 01/14/02 Mon
...that she will have to use her magic in a life-or-death situation. It was this suggestion (and it comes up in several posts) that got me thinking about how this was not really an addiction metaphor (unless you count an artist who "needs" it to be creative, but that doesn't hold up either - how often does someone need their drug-of-choice to save someone's life?). And if it isn't addiction, what might it be and how does it fit into the season arc?
And once you drop the assumption, all sorts of interesting parallels appear elsewhere...
[> [> [> oh ok, sorry, misunderstood -- maddog, 10:35:43 01/14/02 Mon
[> Re: Willow = Faith (some spoilers) -- DEN, 10:18:45 01/14/02 Mon
I like the "misuse" concept, though I've been more comfortable with the "addiction" metaphor than many posters. Willow has used magic not for the sake of the power, or for what the power can do, bu to "fill the hole in her soul." Many addictions do begin the same way. But the comparison is limited no matter how many bottles of water the scripts have Willow drink.
I suggest that Willow has never been portrayed as mature, but rather as highly skilled. She's extraordinarily bright, and a world-class hacker, but from the show's first episode her emotional life has been depicted as at best a case of arrested development. Her relationships with Xander, then Oz, are cases in point.
To someone in that position, magic (or its real-world equivalent) can be a passport to a whole new world. I've compared Willow to a teenager who becomes an ace fighter pilot, but still has acne, suffers from angst, and thinks his worth depends on his ability to shoot down planes. Athletes, musicians, even doctors and (whisper) professors often manifest the same pattern--men, I find, more often than women, which is perhaps why it's harder to see in Willow. Sometimes yes, the only "cure" is that of an addict: to turn one's back entirely. But there can be other solutions as well. They're called "growing up," and it's never too late for that!
[> [> I'm curious about the whispering... -- Darby, 11:12:28 01/14/02 Mon
...DEN, are you living in fear of your own professors (certainly a valid lifestyle choice) or did I somewhere mention that I'm one?
- Or are you psychic?
[> [> [> Re: I'm curious about the whispering... -- DEN, 11:34:30 01/14/02 Mon
Try the fourth option. I'm a professor too, and often need look no further than a mirror to illustrate my general point!
[> Re: Willow = Faith (some spoilers) -- DEN, 10:25:22 01/14/02 Mon
I like the "misuse" concept, though I've been more comfortable with the "addiction" metaphor than many posters. Willow has used magic not for the sake of the power, or for what the power can do, bu to "fill the hole in her soul." Many addictions do begin the same way. But the comparison is limited no matter how many bottles of water the scripts have Willow drink.
I suggest that Willow has never been portrayed as mature, but rather as highly skilled. She's extraordinarily bright, and a world-class hacker, but from the show's first episode her emotional life has been depicted as at best a case of arrested development. Her relationships with Xander, then Oz, are cases in point.
To someone in that position, magic (or its real-world equivalent) can be a passport to a whole new world. I've compared Willow to a teenager who becomes an ace fighter pilot, but still has acne, suffers from angst, and thinks his worth depends on his ability to shoot down planes. Athletes, musicians, even doctors and (whisper) professors often manifest the same pattern--men, I find, more often than women, which is perhaps why it's harder to see in Willow. Sometimes yes, the only "cure" is that of an addict: to turn one's back entirely. But there can be other solutions as well. They're called "growing up," and it's never too late for that!
[> Excellent post, Darb -- Masq, 11:02:22 01/14/02 Mon
Before the so-called "addiction" metaphor supposedly took off in Smashed and Wrecked, there was a debate here over whether it was an addiction metaphor or a responsibility metaphor. Then the resp. metaphor fell by the way side after the addiction metaphor seem more apropos. But I think you're right that it's time to bring the responsibility metaphor back up, because while magic can be addictive like a drug, so can overeating. But you don't stop eating cold turkey, you learn moderation.
[> [> Re: Excellent post, Darb -- DEN, 11:22:24 01/14/02 Mon
Part of the problem is that magic in the Jossverse is not like eating--not even, arguably, like sex. It's an unusual, specialized skill, based on a cultivated talent. And to someone possessing such a skill,using it can be like a drug, with the same pattern of exhilaration and crashing, the same desire to "do" whatever it is again as soon as possible, and the same problems with walking away (think Michael Jordan). So "addiction" and "responsibility" can overlap.
[> Re: Willow = Faith (some spoilers) -- skeeve, 15:51:10 01/14/02 Mon
Even in the Buffyverse, for most folks magic wouldn't be like food. Giving it up wouldn't mean death. Willow lives in Sunnydale and is part of the Scoobies. She is going to need magic to deal with a big bad. I see couple of them on the horizon: Amy and the guy with the invisible playpen. To deal with the latter, Willow might have to be even more powerful than she already is.
Willow does need to give up casting spells on unsuspecting innocents just for her own convience, amusement, or petty vengeance. Drawing the comparison with Faith might be the way to go.
Where did the magic stuff go? The trash? Storage? Somewhere else? Some of the "magic" stuff should have gone into Dawn's room.
Even if Willow goes from uber-witch in need of intervention to uber-witch that's really nice to have around, Willow and the other Scoobies are still mortal. Sometimes they even have to rest. Having more than one trustworthy uber-witch around would be a good thing. Putting Willow in teacher mode would be a good thing.
BTW whatever happened to Mr. Pointy?
[> Re: Willow = Faith (some spoilers) -- Liz, 16:58:20 01/15/02 Tue
I very much liked the analogy between Willow and Faith. I hope that Willow ends up having the friends that Faith needed, but never quite got.
I really didn't like the addiction metaphor, especially in the way it was played in "smashed." In retrospect it does make sense, because she's not just being reckless and abusing her power--she really was using it for everything. In a way, she really couldn't stop. Not because it was a physical need, exactly, but because she thought that it was the only way to do things. It was easy.
My real problem with it is this: they've been playing the drug metaphor REALLY hard. How are they going to take that back? If Willow is supposed to learn responsibility and be able to use her powers reasonably and helpfully, which I am hoping is what happens, then how are they going to take back the drug metaphor?
Magic had always been part of Willow's growth as a character and a person. It had meant a flowering of herself. Then she took it too far and went off the deep end, and that all made sense as well. But if she says it's too dangerous and just cuts it out of her life, I think that's a disappointing way to resole it. I'm hoping that she can learn to make it a part of herself without losing herself to it. If she does, how are they going to work that into the current metaphor? Or are they going to just drop the metaphor?
[> Re: Willow = Faith (some spoilers) -- Malandanza, 19:29:47 01/15/02 Tue
I think that equating Faith and Willow is a bit strained. Faith had a much tougher life than did Willow.
"Generally he was bad, for India offers many chances of going wrong to little six-year-olds." (Wee Willie Winkie, Rudyard Kipling)
First, let me say that I am a firm believer in Free Will and do not think that a troubled background excuses antisocial behavior. However, I do think that Faith's background explains much of her behavior -- there were "many chances of going wrong" in Faith's part of the world and Faith chose several of these paths. Willow has less of an excuse -- as a suburbanite with upper-middle class parents, her flirtation with crime has been more of a game -- more like rich kids playing at being gangbangers. She has more in common with the Troika than she does with Faith.
On the other hand, there is something to Anya's comment about good people going very bad when they face a moral crisis. I don't believe that there is a causal relationship -- that being moral makes one more likely to fall further into depravity than would a person who had been dabbling in decadence for years -- rather, I think of it as a case of never having been tempted. Consider that had Willow grown up in Faith's neighborhood, she would have been regularly been tempted by drugs, sex (there were some funny scenes in season 3 where Faith shocked her friends by assuming that everyone was sexually active), alcohol -- growing up in Sunnydale, there was no real pressure on her in these areas. Willow's "good-girl" image results not from an ability to resist whatever temptations are thrown her way, but because she's never really been tempted -- until recently, with Rack. People who face temptation at an early age either resist (following the path of virtue) or succumb (following the path of vice) -- people who are secluded from temptation gain the outer appearance of virtue -- but until they have been tested, we do not know whether the virtue is real. Thus, a person with a weak will who seems virtuous (because she has never known vice) appears to fall dramatically.
I also believe that there is more to the slayers than just a girl with supernatural powers -- I believe the First Slayer has some influence over the girls, much as Angelus rests in the back of Angel's mind. Of the three slayers we have seen, I believe that Faith was most like the First Slayer -- primarily because she lacked the ability or the will to control this outside influence the way Angel controls Angelus. Kendra was well taught and tightly regulated her emotions, giving her more control over her actions and Buffy, in many respects, also has a tight control over her emotions (and when people suggest that Buffy needs to loosen up a bit, I am reminded of Bad Girls and the beginning of season five where she hunted instead of patrolled). I believe that the slayers need control in a similar manner that Angel does (perhaps not quite as extreme) and much of the WC's training is geared towards keeping the slayer from giving in to their primal side. Remember that in Restless Giles mentions that the First Slayer never had a watcher (and we know that she slept on a bed of bones -- presumably not vampire bones).
Willow doesn't have influences pushing her towards darkness. Her magical abuses stem from self-indulgence and a lack of responsibility. She has never had to accept responsibility for her actions. He friends would be there to bail her out -- a concept alien to Faith. If Willow is immature for her age, Faith was old beyond her years. Faith's remorse was real -- Angel saw that. Try as she might, this lost child from the slums of Boston could not escape her conscience. So far, we don't know that Willow has ever truly regretted her actions (she certainly hasn't mended her ways until recently -- and even that may not last).
[> [> Re: Willow = Faith (some spoilers) -- Darby, 20:05:13 01/15/02 Tue
First, I'm not comparing the characters, but rather the theme.
But it's odd, you start out saying you disagree with the comparison but what you've written seems to indicate that you do think Faith and Willow are comparable. The way that the characters themselves are different leads to the same theme being played out in slightly different ways with each of them, but as you say, it's all about giving into temptation. I'd add that there's an additional undercurrent of "I can do this, I'm better than the riff-raff" that is a projection over a profound lack of that feeling. Faith really didn't feel that she was worthy of the power (or the responsibility, really) of the Slayer, but that very power allowed her to hide her inadequacy. She had a prior history of giving in to temptation to provide herself some self-esteem (her sexual predatory nature screams power-trip), but so did Willow, it's just that the temptations and the way they played out were different.
I kinda sorta agree with your assessment of the power of the Slayer, but I see it as less of a spiritual effect and more of a physical one - the power alone, whether you see it as magical or some accelerated physiology, has its effects on the bearers in all of their appetites: hunting, sex, even eating. To me, the image of the First Slayer represents that raw, primal power, but I don't see that actual psyche somehow bouncing around inside them. That's been shown in Buffy's journey, her slow coming-to-grips with the implications of her power - I've always seen the First Slayer as more of a writer's concept when explanations were needed than anything else. I expect we're seeing the same thing from different viewpoints, and the effect is the same.
The one thing I can't agree with is the statements that "Faith was old beyond her years." I think that Faith represents the opposite - the teenager with a lifetime's worth of experience without the emotional development to gain perspective from it, the classic "bad girl." You believe what many peers believe about the bad girl, that they are mature, that they can handle more because of what they've been through, but I think that Faith was supposed to show (and here the theme is different from Willow's) the child within that facade - blustery, impulsive, certain that bad things won't happen to them, oblivious to consequences and powerfully out of control when things don't go their way. There was a clear path to Faith's remorse, but it had to be gradually pulled from some deep, buried place by involvement of friends (again, you were right there, and I think the themes are meshing or will soon).
I guess what I'm saying is that I think that ultimately we agree but our underlying assumptions are different. It's a somewhat loose match, I think, but a pertinent one, and I mostly raise it as a counter to the "addiction" image, which I think more and more is a red herring.
Hmmm, maybe that's why it has run parallel to the Buffy-Spike stuff when the comparisons didn't seem appropriate. I have to think on that some...thanks...
[> [> [> Re: Willow = Faith (some spoilers) -- Malandanza, 08:05:25 01/16/02 Wed
"But it's odd, you start out saying you disagree with the comparison but what you've written seems to indicate that you do think Faith and Willow are comparable."
It's not so odd -- I frequently contradict myself. :) Part of the problem is I write these stream-of-consciousness rambles while my thoughts are unorganized -- by the time I've finished, my thoughts have become more coherent and have (usually) evolved somewhat.
I don't think that being a slayer had much of an effect on Faith's development -- Kendra died at the end of season two and we met Faith at the start of season three -- Faith hadn't been a slayer very long when she came to Sunnydale (even assuming her watcher found her immediately after Kendra's death). Faith without slayer powers would have been very similar to Faith with her powers.
"Faith really didn't feel that she was worthy of the power (or the responsibility, really) of the Slayer, but that very power allowed her to hide her inadequacy."
I have to disagree with this point -- Faith loved being a slayer -- she reveled in the slaying. The slaying allowed her an escape from her miserable existence and gave her a sense of purpose. Her conflicts with Buffy arose, not from a sense of inadequacy, but a belief that others did not think she was worthy. It is pride and repressed guilt, not an abuse of power, that drove Faith down the wrong path.
"To me, the image of the First Slayer represents that raw, primal power, but I don't see that actual psyche somehow bouncing around inside them."
In season 4, in both the Angel and Buffy episodes, we saw brief psychotic flashes where Faith imagined herself killing Willow and Angel. My feeling is that these images represented the influence of the First Slayer -- pushing Faith toward destruction (but I am almost alone in this assumption). Buffy has managed to suppress these dark impulses to a great extent as Angel has suppressed Angelus.
"The one thing I can't agree with is the statements that "Faith was old beyond her years." I think that Faith represents the opposite -- the teenager with a lifetime's worth of experience without the emotional development to gain perspective from it, the classic "bad girl." You believe what many peers believe about the bad girl, that they are mature, that they can handle more because of what they've been through, but I think that Faith was supposed to show (and here the theme is different from Willow's) the child within that facade - blustery, impulsive, certain that bad things won't happen to them, oblivious to consequences and powerfully out of control when things don't go their way. "
When I say that Faith is old beyond her years, I am not speaking of emotional maturity. I see Faith as having a worldliness and cynicism not usually found in a 16-year old girl. I think that Faith was sure that bad things would happen to her -- she had the attitude that all people were out to get her, so she had to hurt them before they had a chance to hurt her. She was alone in an indifferent (or actively malevolent) world. Certainly, her treatment in Sunnydale did little to dispel her beliefs -- Kendra had a Watcher to care of her, Buffy had Giles and her mother -- Faith was left to fend for herself. Probably, she ate dinner a few more times with Buffy than we saw (I remember twice, in FH&T and Amends) but she was still essentially a street child, left to her own devices.
Far from being "oblivious to the consequences," Faith was aware of the consequences. She tried to escape her problems by flight -- as if she could physically outrun her furies. Her out-of-control rampage in L.A. was a further attempt to repress her conscience -- by keeping herself so busy, drowning out all other emotions, that she didn't have to think about the path she had taken. I don't remember if it was Buffy or Faith (I think Buffy) who said that when she was slaying, it was "like the whole world went away" (not sure of the exact quote). I would also point out that Faith is almost unique among the characters for having finally accepted full responsibility for her actions (hence, the prison sentence).
So, I don't think that Faith's abuse of power and Willow's abuse of power are analogous -- primarily because they came to the same place by very different paths. Faith is more sinned against than sinning. I would say the comparison is like two young people being arrested for shoplifting -- one, a street child stealing because she is hungry, the other a rich kid stealing out of boredom. Yes, they commit the same act, but the street kid will be more likely to end up in jail, the rich kid will, at worst, get a strong reprimand and some community service.
I feel sorry for Faith -- there were forces beyond her control encouraging her to take this path -- I have trouble feeling sorry for Willow, who failed because of her own weakness and in spite of forces trying to keep her from this path. (And I'm still not sure Willow has shown any real remorse -- she was rather indignant when Xander suggested that she had relapsed even though she almost been caught using magic for trivial purposes).
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow = Faith (some spoilers) -- dsf, 19:21:47 01/16/02 Wed
I have to say a word for Willow here. Sunnydale isn't your average rich suburban experience. The body count seems a lot more like the sort of place a Faith would come from. Of course affluence makes a huge difference in many respects, but in terms of stress, Willow has been on the firing line of a war. She's been in there fighting. She's lost people that mattered to her -- Jesse, whom she seems to have known as long as Xander; Jenny Calendar, a mentor and role model; and Buffy, her best friend. She took on the task of taking care of an insane lover for the rest of their lives. Her own life's been threatened on a weekly basis. To sum up, her existence has been far more pleasant (despite her outcast status within the society of her peers), far richer with friendship and love, than Faith's; but I don't agree that it's been much safer, or that Willow hasn't had to face life-and-death issues.
I don't think that maturity is a single scalar quantity, like mass. The idea that Buffy and co. need to "Grow Up" because they're immature seems inadequate to me. There's a lot of good, productive, mature people out there who will *never* have to face some of the things the Scoobies confronted as adolescents. There are ways in which all the characters need to grow up, but if I had to average out the maturity of any given Scoobie, I don't think I'd rank them below the average adult.
That being said, Willow had more choices and more competent help with them than Faith ever did. (The evidence suggests that Angel could have helped Faith if he hadn't been interrupted; eventually, of course, he did.) Willow hasn't murdered anyone. But then, she never wanted to.
Dawn Sharon
[> [> Re: Willow = Faith (some spoilers) -- maddog, 10:07:33 01/17/02 Thu
I was with you til that last paragraph...I believe Willow does have those bad influences...Amy and Rack. They aren't constant but they are bad influences.
Questions about TV promo for this week's ep (Spoilers) -- RabidHarpy, 07:32:41 01/14/02 Mon
I was watching the BtVS rerun this weekend and they played a promo for Tuesdays episode - now, for those of you who are spoiler trollops, the BAPS site outlines episodes 12-14 (somewhat), but what I saw in this trailer had NOTHING to do with anything I read on BAPS (by the look of it). They showed Buffy in a wakeful yet catatonic state with Willow and Spike trying to wake her up, (Spike slugs her with little result). The theme showed Dawn having similar markings put on her face as Willow wore during the resurrection spell, and Glory/Ben were featured in the clip. According to this promo, Buffy goes into shock and keeps saying that she "killed Dawn", (they even showed a brief scene with her holding a pillow over Dawn's head)... huh?
Firstly, has anyone else seen this promo?
Secondly, wasn't this week supposed to be "DoubleMeat Palace"?
Thoughts? Comments? URL's where I can read more about this pending ep...?
Thanks! :)
[> Ooh! I almost forgot! (More Spoilers) -- RabidHarpy, 07:36:57 01/14/02 Mon
There was a very brief shot of Buffy sitting on the bedside of someone who looked quite battered and bruised - it was GILES!!! He was wearing a grey sweat suit and was sitting at the edge of the bed beside her with his glasses off - he looked very intense... (YAAAAAAY! GIIIIILES!)
[> [> Re: Ooh! I almost forgot! (More Spoilers) -- maddog, 07:50:35 01/14/02 Mon
You must have missed a post or 5 around here...this week isn't new...this week they're showing the final two episodes from last season(which by no coincidence is why F/X hasn't played them)...which has Buffy go into that catotonic state that Willow has to go get her in...she thinks by letting Glory get to Dawn that she's in effect killed her and Giles was bruised up in that chase with those knight guys. So yeah, those are from last year. Doublemeat Palace will air on the 29th I believe(next week's is a repeat of Bargaining, the two hour premiere from this season).
[> [> Sounds like the teaser for 'The Gift' -- Marie, 07:52:11 01/14/02 Mon
So it looks like you're getting a repeat, not a new episode.
[> Re: Questions about TV promo for this week's ep (Spoilers) -- Darby, 07:51:02
01/14/02 Mon
They're rerunning the last 2 eps from last season, The Weight of the World and The Gift, picking up from Buffy going catatonic in the desert after Glory gets Dawn.
So if you're taping, set for 2 hours this week!
[> OH! (Don't I feel silly now?!) Thanks! -- RabidHarpy, 08:06:23 01/14/02 Mon
It's been far too long since last season, (and I'm thinking I may have missed this episode... although parts of it looked familiar...) I was sure I saw the ep where Buffy first went catatonic - doesn't she keep looping or something? I remember her pulling a book out of the bookshelf and then suddenly she was a little girl again... and the run-in with the "First" Slayer... Maybe I'm just not remembering things correctly...
Thanks for clearing things up! :)
(So, I have to wait until January 29th for a new ep? *Sigh*)
For fun...The Top 10 Things I Never Thought I'd Hear Myself Say One Year Ago Today -- Rob, 10:26:58 01/14/02 Mon
10. They actually made "Buffy the Musical!" (and pulled it off with flying colors!)
9. It's January 2001 and the first season DVD set of "Buffy" just came out in America!
8. Willow is an addict.
7. Giles returned to England for good.
6. Buffy may not be human anymore!
5. Jonathan is a villian!
4. Willow and Tara broke up!
3. Xander is getting married!
2. Spike and Buffy are meant for each other!
and the #1 top thing I never thought I'd hear myself say, one year ago today...
1. My favorite show is on UPN!
Thanks to Joss, Marti, and Co. for providing us so far with a half-season full of surprises, twists, and turns.
I can't wait to see what the new episodes will bring on Jan. 29th...
Rob
[> Re: For fun...The Top 10 Things I Never Thought I'd Hear Myself Say One Year Ago Today -- xodarap, 14:01:47 01/14/02 Mon
I'm curious what made you think: " #2. Spike and Buffy are meant for each other! "
Was it a particular episode that did it for you from this season?
[> [> Re: For fun...The Top 10 Things I Never Thought I'd Hear Myself Say One Year Ago Today -- Rob, 17:25:11 01/14/02 Mon
My reasons are many. I don't have time at the moment to respond, but if you check out the essay I wrote, "For Who Could Ever Love A Beast?", which is located in the Fictionary Pages of this site, you'll know why. I also wrote an essay, entitled, "Buffy and the Angry Inch" that explains my reasoning. It's back in the archives, from a few weeks ago.
Rob
[> [> [> Re: For fun...The Top 10 Things I Never Thought I'd Hear Myself Say One Year Ago Today -- grifter, 01:09:01 01/15/02 Tue
I donīt have a list, no sir, but I have a #1 at least:
1. The Nerd Troika are my gods!
Sky censering Buffyy -- Naomi, 12:42:40 01/14/02 Mon
Does anyone have an e-mail address where we can register our complaints? I want them to show an unedited version after the watershed as otherwise I will never get to see Buffy and Spike have sex (and yes I know that I need to get a life)
[> Maybe it'll be on the DVDs ; ) -- Eric, 14:21:14 01/14/02 Mon
What if....Buffy's NOT the Slayer? (briefly potentially spoilery) -- luminesce, 13:12:28 01/14/02 Mon
How's that for a provocative post title?
Okay, bear with me. We've all been wondering what it means that "Buffy came back wrong." We all have read the spoiler that suggests that, when she does find out what that means, it will be the worst news she could get. And we've all been wondering: Immortal? Soulless? Angel? Devil? What?
Well, what if what she is is...something entirely new?
Consider. She dies. Possibly on her death her "Slayer" title is relinquished. The whole "Slayer" prophecy "one girl in all the world" thing then reverts either to Faith, stuck in prison somewhere, or to some new, as yet unseen Slayer who was called during the time that Buffy was dead.
So, she comes back. And the Slayer gig has been picked up. Maybe Buffy still has all those Slayer type attributes (strength and healing and so on)....but she's not really the Slayer any more. She's something new. Something no one has ever seen before. Something no one can predict.
Wouldn't losing her identity--even an identity she's kicked against as much as she has against being "The Slayer"--and being entirely alone--without anyone who is at all like her, or who has ever been like her, or anyone who can even help advise her/understand her/interpret her--be the worst thing that could happen to Buffy?
Is the only worse thing than "Having a Destiny" not having one?
[> I have to disagree... -- Goji3, 13:40:34 01/14/02 Mon
Well, Joss said that there would be no new slayer. My theory is the exact opposite of that. Now, she's ALL slayer, not really human anymore. Like what that demon in "The Replacement" was trying to do to Buffy. Split her into her 2 halfs, the human side, and the Slayer side. Now, she's all slayer. She remembers how she acted before (as human) but cannot feel it, and is, well, "going through the motions" of being 'human'. this would also tie in to how Buffy, while beating on Spike, said that she was hardly trying. The Buffy we have is 'Slayer Concentrate', in the words of Riley "Pretty Unkillable"
Well, that, and I think she's suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder (Which sypmtons include a lack of remorce and empathy. Sexual Promiscuity, Inability to maintain attachments, irresponsibility in obligations to others. - Which were revealed in "Gone"), which would Tie into the theme of "Oh, Grow Up" for this season.
[> [> question -- liZ, 13:46:34 01/14/02 Mon
How would Antisocial Personality Disorder tie in with the "Oh, Grow Up" theme?
I'm not being flippant--if you meant a connection but didn't say it then I'd like to hear it. I'm personally a bit confused by the theme of the season.
[> [> [> Re: question -- Goji3, 13:25:53 01/15/02 Tue
Well, It's like this. Since Antisocial Personality Disorder is pretty much shuving off of responsibilities, Buffy learning to accept those responsibilities would be her "Growing Up".
[> Re: What if....Buffy's NOT the Slayer? (briefly potentially spoilery) -- Eric, 13:59:47 01/14/02 Mon
I'm not sure that not having a destiny is a bad thing. Granted, the Slayer destiny has its advantages. But Buffy has struggled against it almost since day one because it seems to be so limiting - especially in the life span department. Without a Slayer Destiny she can shape her own individual Buffy Destiny. This may entail some pain and whining on her part since shaping your own destiny takes real work. But I'd think that coming from a formal destiny she resented she'd get over it REAL quick.
By the way, if Marie is reading this, thanks for the book recommendation.
[> BAHHH! -- Shul, 19:36:42 01/15/02 Tue
Bahh Humbug to you!
Buffy will always be the one and only slayer!
Kendra lasted like 15 seconds, Faith was more killer then slayer. Buffy IS the only slayer period,
Well damn, i was going to turn this post into something really clever, witty, and funny. But it all sort of degenerated into this drivel..... It all started when i was viciously attacked by a cute and fuzzy kitty.
It was going to be great! If only i could remember what the hell i was going to say.....damn!
Thanks to all who posted on this -- Conor MacManus, 13:21:20 01/14/02 Mon
Thanks to all of you who posted on this topic. The suggestions are great. I will be doing a section of the class on the hero journey (joseph campbell, etc) and will perhaps tie buffy into that.
Caption competition? -- Nevermore, 13:32:50 01/14/02 Mon
I keep on looking at the picture at the top of this posting board - which season is it from and what the hell is going on in it!? Maybe it's time for a caption competition. :-)
[> Re: Caption competition? -- CW, 14:42:50 01/14/02 Mon
It's from Pylea (last couple of episodes of Angel last year), and it's already captioned perfectly. Lorne is the green guy up front. Lorne's mother has just told the guy in the background (Joss Whedon I'm told) to do the dance of ... Guess you had to be there. ;o)
Villains (spoilers for S6 thru "Gone") -- Humanitas, 15:57:48 01/14/02 Mon
If being Evil means never having to say you're sorry, then it becomes increasingly clear that Warren is Evil. Soul or not, he acts more and more like a vampire every time we see him, in the sense of not having any moral repercussions to his actions. Jonathan and Andrew are twits, but they have boundaries which they will not cross of their own accord. Warren doesn't seem to have those boundaries, or at least he keeps shoving the line father out beyond where he stands at any given moment.
Alone of all the villains we've seen this season, Warren scares me. The bikers were merely chaotic - nothing we haven't seen and dealt with before. The artificial demon of "After Life" was also pretty simplistic, in that all it wanted was to survive. Sweet sang, danced, and set people on fire with their own passions - clearly evil, but not scary. And Rack is merely a tempter - he offers people what they want, for a price. I certainly feared for what would happen to Willow, but I never feared Rack, himself. But Warren, now, he's another story. He just doesn't care about much, does he? I think that's what sets him apart from the other villains this season. They all had some sort of passion, some need that made them explainable. What the heck does Warren want?
[> Re: Villains (spoilers for S6 thru "Gone") -- CW, 16:09:04 01/14/02 Mon
Agreed. It would be nice to find out what Warren's problem is. We don't know what he wants or if there is something driving him toward evil. Most the time he's just messing around like the other two. But, he's always the one willing to take that extra step in the wrong direction.
[> Re: Villains (spoilers for S6 thru "Gone") -- pagangodess, 19:48:56 01/14/02 Mon
Agreed, also. Warren is scary. He's not in this for 'chicks, chicks, and more chicks', Johnathan and Andrew are. Warren has a hidden agenda of which the other two know nothing about. He said he wanted to take over Sunnydale and then what? Only time will tell, I guess.
pagan
[> Re: Villains (spoilers for S6 thru "Gone") -- robert, 06:40:49 01/15/02 Tue
My wife and I are speculating the following scenario.
Jonathon and Andrew are apparently resigned to their status as geeks. Warren clearly is not. Who else is unhappy about being just a geek ... Willow. The troika is going to break up, because Warren attempted to kill Buffy and lied to his partners about it. I am thinking that we will find Willow and Warren commiserating over a beer and that Warren will suck Willow back into bad habits.
Ultimately, I think that Willow and Warren will team up and that this will end in a death -- probably Tara's, since this would be so tragically poetic. Only then will Willow sincerely acknowledge her actions and repent.
Does this scenario seem reasonable to anyone else?
[> [> Re: Villains (spoilers for S6 thru "Gone") -- CW, 08:18:38 01/15/02 Tue
Could be done. But if Willow is to blame for Tara's death, even by association with Warren, I don't see her being able to recover anything of what she'd lose. Would Dawn ever forgive her? Would Buffy or Xander ever really trust her again? If it takes Tara's death for her to recover from her problems, she might well have to leave Sunnydale for her recovery, in other words leave the show. It's not an option I'd like to see.
[> [> Re: Willow and Warren -- Malandanza, 18:17:17 01/15/02 Tue
Jonathon and Andrew are apparently resigned to their status as geeks. Warren clearly is not. Who else is unhappy about being just a geek ... Willow. The troika is going to break up, because Warren attempted to kill Buffy and lied to his partners about it. I am thinking that we will find Willow and Warren commiserating over a beer and that Warren will suck Willow back into bad habits.
Ultimately, I think that Willow and Warren will team up and that this will end in a death -- probably Tara's, since this would be so tragically poetic. Only then will Willow sincerely acknowledge her actions and repent.
I have also thought that Tara's death would be the only event that would halt Willow's careless use of magic -- however, the combination of recent events (bringing Buffy back from heaven, the break-up with Tara, the amnesia spell, loss of control with Amy and Rack and nearly killing Dawn) has, I think, served the same purpose. In Gone, Willow was well on the road to "recovery." And, actually, I think it was the accident with Dawn that turned the corner for her -- prior to that, Willow was sorry for herself and sorry she got caught, but not truly sorry for her actions.
I don't see Willow and Warren teaming up at all, but I do think Warren serves a purpose -- he shows us the path that Willow was following. Willow's use of magic for selfish and trivial reasons is analogous to Warren's use of technology. Neither of them cared about possible consequences (Warren's comment about the malfunctioning Freeze Ray was that it was a prototype, and he apparently did not originally know that there were side effects of the invisibility ray). So, too, with Willow's most recent spells -- the attempt to shift everyone that wasn't a 15 year old girl into an alternate dimension, the amnesia spell, and the wild casting spree with Amy. Each is more concerned with his own ability to create the desired effect (the right spell or gadget) than whether or not he should create it, what the consequences might be or whether or not the spell or device is overkill.
At this point, I don't know that a significant Willow relapse would serve any constructive purpose. As for Willow and Warren working together, I find it unlikely. We got to see a little of the old Willow in Gone -- the same girl who got caught by Faith because she stopped to look at the Books of Ascension was caught by the Troika as she examined Warren's schematics. While I'm sure she finds Warren's toys interesting, Willow is sufficiently sanctimonious that I doubt that she would join him in schemes that are so obviously wrong -- by that, I mean that she knows the difference between right and wrong and expects her associates to choose right, even if she does not always do so herself.
More interesting to me would be Willow and Warren facing off during the season -- his brain vs hers -- hacking each other's systems, sabotaging each other's plans, etc.
As for any of the members of the Troika having excepted their status as geeks, I'd say that the very fact that they are trying to be something that they are not (supervillains) shows that they are unhappy with their lot in life.
A Slew of Questions-ON topic, but long. -- Eric, 16:08:15 01/14/02 Mon
Now the vampire with a conscience thing is relatively new in fiction. But this is a characterization inferred from legends where vampires were created by deals with the Devil or suicide. Mostly they're creatures imbued with a demonic spirit. Or they are soulless machines with a driving urge to feed-more like zombies than anything else but using memories and personality traits like a simple computer program. In one modern role playing game vampires are normal people that have vampiric powers and limitations, but are driven by a need for blood much like an addict. Any evil they do is a direct consequence of how they serve this need and based entirely on their own humanity. Some aspire to overcome the bloodlust, but most revel in it. Humans do make the best villains. Now I've made it clear before I thought Spike a truly dreadful choice as Buffy's beau. He's a repulsive killer - an opinion based on past eps and, oddly enough, the book Spike & Dru: Pretty Maids All in a Row. I felt that Spike was never properly contrite in his role as a mass murderer, unlike Angel. But on further reflection, why should he be?
Vampirism in the Buffyverse works like this: A vampire is a demon spirit that inhabits a body after "whole sucking thing". This spirit acquires the individual's body, personality (including a personality's shadow aspects), knowledge, and personality. But the soul, which in the Buffyverse is responsible for moral decision, goes bye bye. The demon spirit then goes on a killing/slurping spree using the best of its host's abilities. So why is Angel so earnestly seeking redemption and why should Spike? After all, with the ability to make moral decisions gone and replaced by one deliberately seeking evil or at least amoral goals how could either hold themselves responsible? Or be held responsible? If somebody stole your car to go drunk driving and killed somebody, how long would you hold yourself responsible? Now I admit this isn't so cut and dried. Spike and Angel were both to some degree complicit in their desire to become vampires. But even then there was no way they could see the full cost of their decisions.
In this light, Angel's gypsy curse is incomprehensible to me. If anything the Rom would probably consider vampires a force of nature, much like a hurricane or earthquake. The fact that they could put a face on it just makes it easy for revenge. But why would they choose such an inane revenge for Angelus? Why torture Angel instead of Angelus - especially in a manner where Angel has no rational reason feel tortured as a result? Certainly they could have found an adequately devious way to make Angelus their "puppy" forever. Another question is why can't Angel's curse be tailored differently? The true happiness key is a poetic touch, but why couldn't Willow change it to something more difficult? Good and Evil in the Buffyverse. In another post somebody posted that they hated Buffy's judgementalism. In a way this disturbs me. Buffy HAS to be judgemental. Buffy is a warrior who must make quick distinctions between Good and Evil. This is pretty important in a world where Good and Evil (with the appropriate capitals) really exist. Like the warrior's symbol, the sword, she must cut through the BS to the heart of the matter. And she's quick to ignore demons and vampires living without Evil or at least apocalyptic agendas. There is real use and wisdom in being judgemental provided that judgement is not considered infallible. Its been said that the average person tends to see things in black and white. Academics, however, have the knowledge and wisdom to see things in shades of grey. But in doing so academics can make a mistake the normal person cannot: they can mistake midnight for noon. Buffy is quite an average person in this respect. Fortunately, being the heroine, she's almost always right.
Darby, apology accepted, but wise or foolish I WAS knee jerk and worse-OT.
[> metaphysics of vampires (calling all rabid philosophers) -- Liz, 16:39:49 01/15/02 Tue
Here is my take on the metaphysics of vampires--I have no idea if this is right at all, this is just what I have put together. You become a vampire: you die--your soul, your continuous consciousness that you call yourself goes away to wherever. In your place there is now a demon. This demon has all of your memories and information about the world. It has your intelligence but in terms of morality and probably in terms of a couple other things, it is a newborn creature. It is born with hunger and strength and it has no reasons for not just taking what it wants. But the thing is, this vampire is born with your memories. It thinks it is you. Your consciousness may be gone, but it thinks that its consciousness has been around for as long as you've been alive. It thinks that it is you, but now strong and set free. Generally vampires look with scorn on the humans that they were.
I think that the same thing happened with Angel: his soul was called back, stuffed into his body, and what happened was that his human soul gained all of the memories of his vampire self. His soul looks back and sees itself doing everything from his previous human life to his vampire life and beyond. To his mind, it's all him. Now he can tell himself that it wasn't really him the same way you can tell a vampire that he was never really that human who died. But that's not the way he experiences it. That's not how it works in his own mind. He looks back and remembers doing all of those terrible things.
I think that the gypsy curse made a lot of sense. When someone hurts you, what do you really want but to make them understand that they hurt you? To make them really feel compassion and be sorry? The curse accomplishes that. The being who did those things looks back and is sorry.
Angel-with-a-soul wasn't _really_ there when Angelus did those terrible things. And that makes a difference to the outside observers--Buffy was willing to forgive him once he came back, and so were the others eventually. The outside observer can look at the facts of soul separation and say that they were different people. But I think on the inside, Angel thinks it is all him.
So if the gypsys were outside observers, they perhaps were wantonly cruel to the human soul. But they really wanted that being who did the acts to suffer. They wanted there to be _a_ consciousness that recalled those specific acts and regretted it. To achieve that they would be wantonly cruel--that seems in the nature of the thing. "It is not justice we serve. It is vengence."
But that's Angel. The really interesting thing is Spike.
This is my thinking, and I could be totally wrong: Vampires are rational, thinking beings. They obviously learn. They obviously develop personalities and become constrained in their behaviour by those personalities. They grow and become more complex than they were before. I think that vampires _could_ learn to be moral. It is within the realm of possibility. But there's no reason why the ever would. Vampires learn and grow but they have such vastly different lives from humans that the do not learn the same things. That's why I think that vampires _can_ love, because they do develop complex relationships, but that this love is not predictably the same as the way humans might love. Vampires learn different things because they have different experiences. They might start to look like they're being moral, but they're not predictably doing it the same way as a human might, with the same reasons.
Now Spike, because of some weird circumstances, is starting to move in human circles and try to be loved by a human. It's _possible_ that he might start learning morality and really develop into a moral being, even without a soul. Or it's possible that I'm all wrong and that he could never do this without a soul. OR it's possible that he could learn it but he won't--that simply isn't what he'll take from this experience. I have no idea what's going to happen with him. I can't wait to see.
For the rabid philosophers: Are vampires Kantian persons? They do have rationality. They can learn. Quite possibly they are capable of developing a good will (they are just usually deprived of the circimstances). If this is all true, is it morally right to kill them? From a Kantian perspective. Personally, I think our heros would be forced to be utilitarian and just kill them because they are an extreme threat. But from a Kantian perspective, this is not OK. Thoughts?
I also have a hard time with the extremes of good and evil in the Buffyverse. However I never had a problem with Buffy herself. I never considered her to be judgemental and self-righteous. Or somewhat righteous, but not to a fault. She always seemed to operate out of common sense. She always seemed to look around and see pretty clearly, choosing what she really thought was best. She's been thrown into a few complex situations, and she tended to look on them with sadness. (Like the Thanksgiving with the Shumash Tribe or her friend with cancer in "Lie to Me". By 4th season she was berating Riley for having the attitude that all demons were bad all the time.) However while Buffy herself didn't bother me, I was sometimes bothered by the simplistic notion of absolute evil. Though, surprisingly, I wasn't bothered very much. Usually I can't stomach that sort of thing at all. I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps it's partly because the metaphors sank in more than I gave them credit--Buffy is generally battling herself and her own fears, and the fact that she kicks ass and does it with humor is satisfying and admirable.
[> [> Re: metaphysics of vampires (calling all rabid philosophers) -- RichardX1, 14:13:23 01/16/02 Wed
Actually, the revelations of vampiric metaphysics in Pylea bring to light an interesting (and highly plausible, considering the "religious" beliefs of the writers) theory:
When a person dies (normally, or becoming a vampire), the soul departs. However, the soul is no more "concious" than the demon spirit that replaces it. The conciousness, the mind, the psyche--that is embedded within the electrochemical circuitry of the brain. The soul/demon-spirit merely allows the mind to operate, the way electricity allows a computer to run programs. The main difference is that, unlike a soul or demon, electricity has no "moral polarity", for lack of a better term.
[> [> [> Re: metaphysics of vampires (calling all rabid philosophers) -- Liz, 18:59:51 01/16/02 Wed
This might be a a stupid question, but what's Pylea?
And yes, I can see the total plausibility of the soul not being the consciousness, and that consciousness is just the electrochemistry of the brain. That makes just as much sense... I think I was just trying real hard to do away with the religious importance of the soul and it's influence on morality :)
[> [> [> [> Re: metaphysics of vampires (calling all rabid philosophers) -- RichardX1, 13:41:17 01/17/02 Thu
>>This might be a a stupid question, but what's Pylea?<<
Pylea is that alternate dimension that Angel & co. went to at the end of last season--the home dimension of the Caritas Host ("Lorne"). Turns out that in a realm of such moral absolutes, A being as grey as Angel (vampire with a soul) could not exist as normal. So, whenever Angel tapped into his demon-powers, he became a monster.
On that note, one cannot help but wonder if a (metaphysically) normal vampire (Spike, Drusilla, Darla, etc.) would retain their intelligence in Pylea or just automatically go bestial as soon as they arrived.
[> [> Re: metaphysics of vampires (calling all rabid philosophers) -- Eric, 15:10:46 01/16/02 Wed
I think the way you construe a soul's relationship with consciousness, memory, and morality go a long way towards explaining Angel's predicament. While not actually guiding the hand that killed women and children may absolve him to others, certainly remembering those events keenly as his own conscious choices (and done with great relish) causes real remorse.
But the Gypsy Curse still serves no real purpose except as a prime example of vengence going Too Far. Such a lust for vengence usually hurts the innocent, but even the most vengefull really want their target to suffer as well-not some convenient proxy.
Spike is another matter. He wants to move in human circles primarily to be with Buffy. His attempt to use the Scoobie gang (firmly rebuffed) is a prime example. I have to say that he is definitely a wild card in this show. Mysteries abound with him. I mean, why does he love/lust for Buffy? Why hasn't he been staked? Its quite possible the line Giles laid down about the nature of the Buffyverse and the demon dimensions isn't entirely accurate.
Now I'm not a rabid philosopher, but if my knowledge of Kantian Ethics hold true, its perfectly OK to kill vampires. For a Buffyverse example:
Buffy ponders whether killing vampires is moral using Kantian Ethics.
1. First she asks herself what rule(s) she'd be following:
A. I'm the Slayer and Slayers kill vampires
B. Vampires, with some exceptions, live by killing humans, of which I am one. Most vampires enjoy their this. Killing them is necessary to protect humanity.
2. She asks herself whether these rules should be followed by everyone, all the time as a Universal Law. She reasons:
A. All Slayers should strive to do their job.
B. Everyone would agree to A, and nobody wants to be killed by vampires. Especially me.
3. She concludes it is OK to kill (most) vampires.
Kantian Ethics are not universally useful in their strictest definition. For example, Kant considered lying under any circumstances the worst moral sin. The Buffyverse would have come to an abrupt end if, in answering Glory's questions about The Key, Buffy had been compelled to tell the truth.
[> [> [> attempts at Kant -- Liz, 19:09:12 01/16/02 Wed
I'm not really an expert in Kant, either, but here's the problems I see with staking vampires (according to Kant):
Universalizability: Ok most all humans would agree that staking vampires is OK. But the vampires wouldn't. The question is whether the vampire's opinion counts. Does the vampire count as a person?
Kant seemed to think that humans were infinitely valuable and should be considered persons because they were capapble of reason. They are capable of reason and free choice and creating value in the world that they see. Vampires can do all of this. Of course there's a bit in Kant where he says that reason and choice in values is good because it can lead people to have a good will and want to do good things by their own free choice. If vampires are truely not able to have a good will, then this is all moot. That's why our wild card Spike is so interesting.
If vampires are in all ways persons, then it's not just Ok to go about killing them all. It might be _necessary._ It might be expedient. It might be the only thing one can really do in this situation if you don't want all of the humans (who generally do not go around mass slaughtering) to die.
But that's a utilitarian solution. It's based not on what's right, but on what's overall best for the world. It is the end that justifies the means--the mass killing of vampires, who are persons. If they are, that is. That's what Kant would see it as. Of course Kant himself would come up with some reason why vampires weren't persons.
Personally I think it's necessary to go killing all the vampires. But if they really aren't just mindless evil animals, then perhaps it's not quite _right_ to kill them, just necessary. In which case the humor and flippantness is not entirely appropriate.
Except I think that the show kind of deals with this. In the 4th and 5th season I think things got a little more complex for the characters. Spike adds fun, too. I think that possibly what the characters say about vampires might just be what they tell themselves in order to bear it. And that their moments of doubt are interesting.
Or I could be way off.
[> [> [> [> Re: attempts at Kant -- MrDave, 21:40:00 01/16/02 Wed
The question is whether the vampire's opinion counts. Does the vampire count as a person?
No, a Vampire counts a demon. Demons are the "old" tenants, not the new ones. We (as humans) inherited the Earth from the demons and they are ticked off about it. If the topic is human ethics, then the demon (as an outsider) has no stake (okay forgive the pun) in the question or the outcome.
Consider, also that the demon has taken the life of the human. Stolen his vote, without proxy. Since it is conceivable that there are EXACTLY as many vampire-demons as there are humans (since they can can only enter this realm on the death of a corresponding human) their vote is automatically vetoed on the grounds that that would be stuffing the metaphysical ballot box.
If vampires are in all ways persons, then it's not just Ok to go about killing them all. It might be necessary....It is the end that justifies the means--the mass killing of vampires, who are persons.
Lets look at this from the reverse perspective. Vampires do not need humans to survive (they can survive indefinately on animal blood). They are immortal so procreation is strictly to replace those who are destroyed in accidents or by violence. So the vampire is only neccessarily dependant on Humans as a one-for-one exchange in procreation. Assuming (this IS a theoretical model, right?) that there is a sufficient supply of humans who are destined to die by disease, cultural condemnation (the criminal) or choice (there are a lot of people who would willingly go vamp i.e. LtM), why would a vampire with "reason and choice" choose to kill an unwilling victim?
I think that vampires are both victims of stereotyping and lack a moral compass to determine the "rightness" or "wrongness" of any given action. Vampires feel, but on the few occasions that Angel has managed to become human again, it is the little things like "pleasure", "joy", "sensation" that impress him the most. His soul provides him the moral compass to feel regret and angst (witness Darla's last few hours for another example of the value of a soul).
So. If the average vampire doesn't count for an ashtray full of compassion, then they are fair game in my book. Not to say that there aren't exceptions. Any vampire that can demonstrate that his "reason and choice" are being used to further good aims (and this is good in the sense of protection of the inheritors of Earth--humanity) can be counted as an ally and is the beneficiary of the consideration that one would give a man.
"I know I am a Monster. But you treat me like a man" --Spike
[> [> [> [> Re: attempts at Kant -- Eric, 15:51:53 01/17/02 Thu
Kant's view that humans are infinitely valuable itself refutes the value of most vampires. They may have a human reasoning capacity, but due to their demon nature they have no free choice. They are compelled to do Evil. And even if its not evil from their point of view, its certainly evil from ours. However, in some other vampire mythologies I mentioned they would.
Question about Angel's ability to make a new vampire -- Grace, 18:41:23 01/14/02 Mon
Just wataching BtVS reruns on Fx where Buffy's friend from LA wants Spike to make him a vampire and got to thinking that Angel would do it for him and he wouldn't have to kill Buffy...
But, can Angel still make a vamp? Is this ability hindered by his soul? Would the new vamp be evil? Any insight would be great. Thanks.
[> Re: Question about Angel's ability to make a new vampire -- Deeva, 18:52:41 01/14/02 Mon
Yes, Angel can still make a vamp. But Angel would not choose to make anyone a vamp. But Angeleus wouldn't hesitate to do so. So that means yes, his ability is hindered by his soul.
And yes, this new vamp would be evil because it's soul will have left the body.
[> Re: Question about Angel's ability to make a new vampire -- Dawn, 03:03:27 01/15/02 Tue
I agree with Deeva that Angel would never have changed Ford, but from Frod's point of view...
Ford probably didn't know that Angel was a vampire. He didn't even know about Spike and Drusilla at first - he just came to Sunnydale hoping to find vampires. He had to blackmail the blonde vampire into telling him where to find Spike, and Willow and Xander told Ford in the Bronze that Angel was Buffy's 'Special Friend' - it's highly unlikely he would have considered the possibility of the slayer dating a vampire. And although Angel has a renowned reputation in the underworld, I don't think a high school boy would have heard of him.
Hope that answers your question.
Is it just me, or was there absolutely zero chemistry between Angel & Cordy? -- Source, 23:27:58 01/14/02 Mon
[> Just you. Go Cordy and Angel! :-) -- Erik, 23:39:08 01/14/02 Mon
[> Re: Is it just me, or was there absolutely zero chemistry between Angel & Cordy? -- beekeepr, 00:01:13 01/15/02 Tue
NOT just you--zippo, de nada, niente, doo-dah, bupkiss
[> I have to agree with Erik -- Dawn *newbie!*, 02:56:43 01/15/02 Tue
I've always thought that there was a lot of chmeistry between Angel and Cordelia, even in Season Two of Buffy The Vampire Slayer. I loved the scenes between them in that Season especially, in particular their scenes in 'Some Assembly Required' and 'Halloween'. Angel was the one Scooby who never seemed to fight with Cordelia, and most of the time actually really got along with her. Just a thought - coincidence that Cordy, who fancied Angel, and Xander, who fancied Buffy, ended up together?
[> [> Is this your first post? -- vampire hunter D, 12:21:42 01/15/02 Tue
If so, welcome!
[> Chemistry? I'm confused -- matching mole, 06:08:28 01/15/02 Tue
They had almost no time together (in an interactive way) in the entire episode. Just the brief scene where he gives her the birthday present and she's holding Connor. Cordelia spends more time interacting with any one of the other main characters in the epidsode than she does with Angel.
[> [> And I suppose... -- GreatRewards, 06:12:19 01/15/02 Tue
That liplock was nothing???
I didn't see her swapping spit with any OTHER characters on the show (although I wouldn't have minded if she and Fred... uh.. never mind).
[> [> [> Re: And I suppose... -- matching mole, 06:49:03 01/15/02 Tue
Angel was completely bonkers at the time! I saw this as a sacrificial act of mercy by Cordy rather than anything overtly romantic on her part. Even if it was how can there be chemistry between two people when one of them doesn't really know the other one's there?
[> [> [> [> Have to agree with matching mole -- CW, 07:19:24 01/15/02 Tue
It wasn't THAT kind of love scene. And it was effective.
[> [> [> Regarding the kiss -- Source, 09:27:39 01/15/02 Tue
Regardless of the reason behind the kiss, IMHO, there is no romantic chemistry between the actors. Their friendship vibe is strong and beautiful; however, the kiss did not leave me with that warm, fuzzy "ooooh" feeling.
Actors who share chemistry can heat you up with a mere look at each other. Again, IMO there was no sense of that at all during the AU scene.
[> [> [> [> Re: Regarding the kiss -- WW, 13:04:35 01/15/02 Tue
I agree. Actors who have chemistry can heat things up even when one of them isn't there (Gone)!
Angel and Cordy, well, love them both, but it's kinda...eeeewwwww, y'know?
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> but that's also cause of ME, not the characters (I think) -- Solitude1056, 13:47:40 01/15/02 Tue
Up until now, DB and CC have played to the brother/sister vibe, as I stated elsewhere. The tension that gets introduced when both of them start to realize any sexual attraction is when I'll make judgements about their screen-heatyness. Both have displayed that ability, and who knows, they may have it with each other but been repressing it all this time for the sake of the storyline. But I definitely can't see them all passionate graspy D/A or even B/A type storyline - Cordy's just not that kind of person anymore. Frankly, I'm starting to wonder - after reading someone else's post about Angel's need to suffer over his lady love(s) - whether Cordy's sudden invulnerability to the visions and spontaneous lack of suffering will reduce Angel's passion. He's still got that shining armor habit, y'know.
[> [> [> [> Re: Regarding the kiss -- robert, 13:18:36 01/15/02 Tue
"however, the kiss did not leave me with that warm, fuzzy "ooooh" feeling. "
And, I'm thankful for it. This was not a scene of passion, rather of compassion.
[> [> [> [> Re: Regarding the kiss -- robert, 13:54:26 01/15/02 Tue
"however, the kiss did not leave me with that warm, fuzzy "ooooh" feeling. "
And, I'm thankful for it. This was not a scene of passion, rather of compassion.
[> dan, are you out there? -- LadyStarlight, 06:11:56 01/15/02 Tue
I believe that I predicted C/A smoochies before the end of the season, so.....are you dancing the Dance of Shame yet? ;)
(come back to chat, I miss you.)
[> A Dud -- Grace, 07:31:13 01/15/02 Tue
No chemistry. The love seem more like brother and sister than hot, sexy love. The writers will need to start increasing the sexual tension b/w the two and show us some more skin (maybe some hot sparing scenes?) before this romance will have the same dramatic impact as A/B or S/B.
As for this episode--pretty lame. A's insanity was over-acted and not believable. The episode was a dud. Hope the next one is better.
[> [> Re: A Dud -- Solitude1056, 08:42:21 01/15/02 Tue
A's insanity was over-acted and not believable.
It's a rare actor who can play crazy and not end up looking like he's chomping on the scenery. For better or worse, the cast on the ME shows just aren't at that caliber of performance yet. AB, for instance, is an excellent actress but even her stint as a member of the vegetable patch was hard to swallow at times, but she managed to keep it relatively low-key.
I thought about it after the episode and realized, now that would be hell, to have the visions, be human-based, and be unable to die. Talk about the living dead! No brain, probably no chance of it ever coming back, no sanity, and no chance of going into a coma and just leaving all the pain behind - and after a point, no realization that death might be a way out. Yikes. Given that, I'd hate to still be acting and be faced with trying to present that level of mindless insanity. Perhaps playing Angel rainman-style might've been an option, but that's a hard one, too - not to mention it might've gone right over the heads of the majority of fans who need that HEY WOW, HE'S CRAZY flashing neon light provided by stereotypical crazy-acting behavior.
So given the limitations of the actor(s), and the difficulty of playing insanity anyway, I'd say ME made the point. Not my favorite scene (in an episode I otherwise really enjoyed), but it was necessary to drive the point home. Even though I wish the AtS writers would get back into that film noir style they had the first season, I think the writers and cast are hitting their stride and settling in for some good old-fashioned heavy-duty plot twists real soon. Now if only they could all get out of the same "let's hit the audience over the head with this metaphor" rut that the BtVS writers seem to be in, we'd get along fine... ;-)
[> [> [> Re: A Dud -- verdantheart, 14:44:52 01/16/02 Wed
Funny. You see actors collect awards all the time for playing insane (and I usually think, for overplaying ...). However, I've seen enough of James Marsters to believe that he has great potential (much of which we haven't had the opportunity to see). That's why, as much as I like seeing him as Spike, I'd like to see him in other roles.
[> Well, I don't hate the idea of them together. They've piqued my interest. -- bookworm, 08:11:30 01/15/02 Tue
That must be a sign of chemistry. Right now I think Cordelia is still in friendship mode and isn't thinking consciously of Angel as a possible romantic partner. Who on the show knows better than Cordelia what happens when Angel falls in love and has sex? Cordelia's far too blunt and far too practical to indulge in Buffy-and-Angel style histrionics over her great, star-crossed love. When she lost Doyle tragically, she mourned but got on with her life. Angel's the one who's inclined to brooding and romance and idealization of women. Cordelia started looking good to him not when she got the visions, but when she started SUFFERING from them and sacrificing to help others. Now she's worthy of the great, suffering, masochistic Angel. He gets the kick of agonizing over Cordelia, saving her, and suffering himself to keep her with him. He's putting her on that pedestal he had Buffy on when he first met her. The difference is that if anything happens with Cordelia, it will be built on a much more real, solid foundation than Angel's relationship with Buffy. He knows she can be a tactless bitch. Cordy's seen the havoc Angelus wrought, she's seen him with Darla, she's mocked his great love affair with Buffy (complete with hand motions and voices) to devastating effect, she's scrubbed his floor after he blew up a demon, she's cooed over his baby. If SHE falls in love with him, it's going to be about more than, "Hello, salty goodness." She's going to love all of him in a way that Buffy never did.
[> The Angel Cordelia vibe - spoilers I guess -- fresen, 08:49:00 01/15/02 Tue
No, they don't have any chemistry. They don't vibe one another. Pings being the normal reaction to an attractive person of the gender to which you are attracted. Vibes being a steady stream of "you are so cool" pings. An electrical excitement, that says okay, datable. For a really good example of vibing see the Secret Adventures of Jules Verne, in which every single character vibes every other character at one point or another. Men. Women. Dirigibles. I've never seen such a viby cast.
Actually, it was kind of an interesting thing in Birthday to say, okay here's two really attractive people, who just have no physically attractive tension. Huh. I mean Angel can cast longing looks. Cordelia can kiss Angel. But its there or it isn't. And here's Fred, who can generate vibes from any guy in about five seconds. Huh. Fred/Angel. Fred/Wesley. Fred/Gunn. Heck, Fred/Host. I could go for just about any pairing. Why? Vibiness.
Not that Angel and Cordelia aren't going to go way of coupledom. The writers have so decreed. And I'm sure they'll be a pretty couple and will genuinely care for one another. It's just so very, sigh, bland.
[> [> The Angel vibe - get ready to throw things. -- Darby, 09:09:56 01/15/02 Tue
I like DB, I really do - he has a lot of range. But the one thing I haven't seen him do believably is generate "heat" with an actress. He's come closest with Julie Benz, but I'm inclined to think that a lot of that heat was relected - she does a helluva femme fatale (enough to impress Steven Spielberg, if you're following current rumor).
I never really bought the B/A 'ship - it was on the page but not on the screen. By comparison, James Marsters projects a real connection in his scenes with Sarah, just as he did with Juliet, even with Mercedes occasionally; it just seems to be part of his repertoire.
David does good relationships on other levels - there's a definite connection between Angel and Cordy, or Angel and lots of the other characters, but the "heat" isn't there (which for Angel and Wesley is probably a good thing).
From a plotting standpoint, it's hard to imagine how the writers could justify moving Cordy into the lovey-dovey camp with Angel - she had never been the romantic, ignore-the-flaws type. In fact, she focuses on flaws. And she knows all of Angel's, including that pesky homicidal quirk.
As an aside, if completely losing yourself in an act of passion ("perfect happiness") led to a total loss of self and dire consequences, could you ever completely surrender to such a moment again? I don't think that sex will ever be a potential curse-revoker to Angel, but I'll repeat what I've said before - being a Daddy can lead to equally perfect moments of happiness that you don't see coming.
[> [> gack! it's fresne's evil twin! -- Solitude1056, 09:10:10 01/15/02 Tue
I agree what you mean, and I'm wondering if it's just CC and DB, or if it's a groove for their characters (the metaphor of brother/sister) and the actors have learned to play up that aspect and downplay any pings or vibiness. At the same time, I'm more comfortable with envisioning an Angel/Cordy relationship - as a longterm item - for that specific reason. Hell, I remember my first major longterm relationship, pings, vibiness, pain, agony, major highs and total lows from beginning, middle, to the last gasp at the end. I don't know about the rest of you, but there came a point in my life where spending every day on a high or low jag over a relationship just got a bit old. My relationships now are far more solid, functioning, and with far less histrionics. Of course, people see me now with my SO and sometimes mistake us for the closest of friends, but perhaps that's because we lack the tension that's such a crucial part of a really passionate vibie life-or-death kind of thing - neither of us is worried that the relationship is going to come to a screeching halt at any minute, so we're not spending every minute proving something to ourself or the other person. That kind of tension is what makes Buffy and Spike such a fun thing to watch, but its relative lack is what made Tara and Willow such a wonderful couple, at the same time. (Well, until the end there, but anyway.)
Two things: one, someone commented that if Angel & Buffy were the Romeo & Juliet pairing, then perhaps Spike and Buffy are the Othello & Desdemona pairing. I wonder, then, what Cordy and Angel are - something much more concrete. Perhaps Taming of the Shrew? Perhaps Angel is the Katerina figure, since Cordy is way too self-aware and tangible to not know her own heart? Hmmm. No, she's not deceptive nor manipulative enough to coax someone into loving her. Naw, she'd still be Katerina, I guess, to Angel's Petruchko. Either that, or they're the classic comedy-of-errors kind of relationship, with who-knows-what crazy silliness going on around them while they're both in disguise and trying to figure out if the other person is also the person they love and what is this thing called love anyway. Etc.
And the second thing: Fred's vibiness is part of what makes her such a perfect foil to Cordy. I mean, hell. Cordy's the classic beauty - always has been. She's got the long legs, the tiny waist and curvaceous hips 'n ass, and that million-watt smile, and of course, the eyebrows. Fred is much more the cutie, skinny legs, big eyes, and all, quirky and nonlinear. Fred brings out the protector element in the guys around her, despite her ability to think circles around the rest of the characters... while Cordy is the opposite. She can punch, kick, and fight with the rest of them (did you check out the superwoman on the birthday cake?) and throws a mean verbal sparring at the same time. Mentally she's brighter than most (as evidenced by her HS SAT and grades back in Sunnydale) but she's no Fred. In that sense, I think the two of them as friends is an unlikely but believeable combination, and it also means that competition is lessened because they're aware of their differences. I like that, since I'm tired of shows with bickering females competing over a limited number of unattractive and spiritless males.
In that sense, the Angel/Cordy pairing as a bland, comfortable functioning relationship is a nice change for both characters. After Cordy & Xander's difficult ending, and of course the longstanding love/hate/love thing between Angel and Buffy, I'd think both Cordy and Angel are more than ready for a relationship where things are a bit saner and more reliable. If either of them were to jump headfirst into another love/hate relationship based on passion and secrecy, I'd be far more bored, cause I've seen that one before. I'd much rather see them work on an adult relationship based on caring and mutual satisfaction and stability. Besides, we've still got Fred, Wesley and Gunn to provide us with the vibie pings bouncing off the three of them as the two guys try to figure out who's going to work up the nerve to ask Fred out first. ;-)
[> [> [> Re: gack! it's fresne's evil twin! -- Tellab, 16:12:45 01/15/02 Tue
Spike and Buffy=Othello and Desdemona? Care to elaborate? Not a challenge, I'm just intrigued because I'm not clear on the comparison.
[> [> [> [> Spike & Buffy as Othello & Desdemona -- Solitude1056, 19:24:05 01/15/02 Tue
I'll need help from whomever first posited this (for some reason I'm thinking Age, but I could be wrong). The idea goes like this. If Angel/Buffy was the "my one true love born of my one true hate," and that's what put them together and tore them apart, then continuing the Shakespearian theme might give us Othello as the next step. In that case, Othello aids Desdemona in her city's fight, and they love each other deeply (if not wisely) but it's a third party's jealousy that causes Othello to kill Desdemona.
However, now that I think about it, I wonder if this wasn't, actually, the storyline instead for Riley/Buffy... since it's Spike's jealousy & interference that caused Buffy to "kill" Riley - or at least the relationship. it's a bit more of a stretch, but the dynamic of jealousy from a third party destroying an otherwise decent relationship is a classic one. Alternately, of course, we could posit that Spike's jealousy (and his infamous comments about Buffy needing a monster in her man) were what drove Riley to "kill" his infatuation by burying it in passionate exchanges with other people/vampires. Or something.
I dunno... I'm kinda hoping whomever first came up with the idea will jump in here and save me. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike & Buffy as Othello & Desdemona -- Carol B. (a newbie), 20:46:18 01/15/02 Tue
Ok, I'm going to come out of lurkdome for a second. (Since I love a good Shakespeare discussion :-).
I think, as far as Shakespeare couples go, Spike & Buffy more resemble Benedick & Beatrice, (from "Much Ado About Nothing.") And you're right on the Othello & Desdemona comparison for Buffy & Riley.
Benedick & Beatrice's love/hate relationship (at least at the start of the play) fit Spike & Buffy's love/hate dynamic much better. B & B also had a past history, like Spike & Buffy, that wasn't exactly plesant, yet they both know each other well enough that they engage in a "merry war" of verbal sparring, like S/B have done since they first met.
(Though as far as the rest of S/B's relationship goes, I think it might be heading more in a Rhett & Scarlett from "Gone With The Wind" direction. :-)
As for Angel & Cordy, it could be me, but I see them as maybe being more of a Hermia & Lysander type of thing. (From "A Midsummer Night's Dream".) It will be outside forces mostly keeping them apart (or trying to), and not the internal dynamic itself. But it won't really be filled with much angst.
I love this board. You all have such indepth discussions, I had to jump in for at least a moment. Hope I didn't sound stupid or anything. :-)
Carol B.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike & Buffy as Othello & Desdemona -- mrdave, 23:48:29 01/15/02 Tue
I have always seen Angel and Cordy as more like Prospero and Miranda from the Tempest. Prospero/Angel goes to extraordinary lengths to find happiness for his "daughter" Miranda/Cordy. But when all is said and done, he puts her through as much pain as he does happiness (although in the end she is left with true happiness).
I don't see a romantic involvment between Cordy and Angel. It wouldn't work. Cordy loathes the idea of Angel's curse (although she accepts it) and being the QueenC she would never admit that she might not be able to trigger Angelus. Angel knows that cordy has a lot more to her than meets the eye. He's always known it. But he also respects that Cordy is "alone in the crowd" at all times. She builds barriers between herself and others. Being eternal he would not build a lasting relationship unless it was a total surrender (if it wasn't, why bother?).
Just thinking out load ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike & Buffy as Othello & Desdemona -- mrdave, 23:49:50 01/15/02 Tue
I have always seen Angel and Cordy as more like Prospero and Miranda from the Tempest. Prospero/Angel goes to extraordinary lengths to find happiness for his "daughter" Miranda/Cordy. But when all is said and done, he puts her through as much pain as he does happiness (although in the end she is left with true happiness).
I don't see a romantic involvment between Cordy and Angel. It wouldn't work. Cordy loathes the idea of Angel's curse (although she accepts it) and being the QueenC she would never admit that she might not be able to trigger Angelus. Angel knows that cordy has a lot more to her than meets the eye. He's always known it. But he also respects that Cordy is "alone in the crowd" at all times. She builds barriers between herself and others. Being eternal he would not build a lasting relationship unless it was a total surrender (if it wasn't, why bother?).
Just thinking out load ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Since the HelloBot bailed, I'll say "Hello Carol! Stick around!" -- PoorSubstituteForTheRealThing, 08:51:24 01/16/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the wecome! :-) [n/t] -- Carol B., 21:29:54 01/16/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> Wow, Sol! I'm Flattered. -- Isabel, 19:18:51 01/17/02 Thu
It was me. I was answering a post by Racoon and I followed my wandering train of thought to Othello. Age, when he/she posts, usually makes my head go 'KABOOM.'
I like your interpretation. Spike as Iago. I feel that Riley would have been the better Othello character. All his little comments to Riley were what pushed Riley to act out. And if Riley hadn't rejoined the army, he could have gotten turned and then (tried to) kill Buffy. Buffy would never have taken Spike's word on anything regarding Riley.
I like Carol's analogy to Benedick and Beatrice. (A comedy, why don't I think of Shakespearean comedies when I think BtVS.) Plus it has the benefit of not ending in bloodshed. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> And with the first half of S6? -- Solitude1056, 21:31:05 01/17/02 Thu
Then Much Ado About Nothing is semi-appropriate (more so than for other seasons, at least). As someone once described MAAN, it's a rather silly play. There's a heroine named Hero, the two main characters fall in love based solely on overheard gossip, there's a bad guy who does bad stuff purely for the purpose of doing bad with no other motivation proscribed, and a lover who one minute loves and the next minute hates and then just as quickly loves again. Altogether, a rather silly play - but the bad guy correlation also rings true. Buffy didn't start to see Spike as much of anything until Dawn told her that he was sweet on her (even if it made Buffy want to avoid him altogether, it's still that third-party interference kind of plotline). Mostly, though, we've got bad guys this season who don't have a clear motivation - in fact, it's been repeated several times that they just decided one day that, gee, they'd like to take over Sunnydale. Why? What for? Other than the simple list of goals, their motivation has been pretty unclear, and the result, as Anya put it, has been... lame, and revealed through a comedy of errors as much as the night watchmen quickly (if in a silly manner) uncloaked the Bastard's machinations. So, yeah, maybe this season is a comedy of errors, at least when it comes to Buffy's love/sex life. (Hey, or maybe it's just Joss realizing that the post-ressurection bit can be rather dark at times, and comedy is needed so we're not overwhelmed along with Buffy & company.)
[> [> [> Re: gack! it's fresne's evil twin! -- fresne, 22:19:54 01/15/02 Tue
No, just fresne trying to type when I really ought to be writting about E10K and E4500 consolidation. Sigh.
I would have to qualify that I see vibing as being more than durm and angst, although that can be an aspect. Willow and Tara are very viby. Vibes are in the shared glance. The little touches. The luminence of regard. As I watch S2, Giles and Jenny. Mmmm...good vibes.
Part of what was frusterating about Riley and Buffy is that though they often pinged, they rarely vibed.
And its not always about attraction. Although, it does seem to be the genesis of most of the world's slash fiction. Its just about electricity.
Or is it that I'm selfish. Desiring suffering for my own amusement. Nahh.
[> Just you im afraid =) -- Shul, 20:01:32 01/15/02 Tue
Though i must admit i see how one could become enamored of this opinion.
It seems to me that cordy and angels chemistry seems to be less loinial passion and more kindness and respect. Angels attraction (supposed) would seem to me to be completely in-mesh with the framework set down by joss and the writers. For instance Angel has a child*, therefore if he is looking for a relationship, the primary attribute that he would look for would be a good mother. Cordelia seems to me to have grown into a person that would make a very good mother. Furthermore with angels curse inflicted impotence, it seems sexual attraction has to take a back seat (at least in angels case).
No as for cordelia wanting angel....thats a little harder to say, both if she wants any relationship at all and if she does, does she want one with angel. It has never been a possibility, so therefore not an issue with cordelia, she has had slightly bigger concerns then sex or relationships(it is possible). Mainly the vision-quakes, now that these are out of the way, she can devote some time to love.
But Why cordy and angel??? why?
Well let me tell you, there are 3 main reasons.
1. Angel has a child, sooner or later he is going to want.....u guessed it, a mother for him. MOMS RULE! (least my mom does)
2. Cordelia vision quakes are over and she can, and probably will start looking for love now that she has a future without mind-blowing vision-quakes. Angel is not an obvious choice, but not neccesarily a bad one.
3. The writing tends to be leaning in that direction
=)
WOOHOO no more talky now, buffys on.
Current board
| More January 2002