January 2002 posts
Buffy DVD vs. PS2 -- neaux, 05:12:22 01/23/02 Wed
Ack!! My nightmares have come true!! Buffy Episode 11 will not work on my PS2! and I had to take my DVD to work and play it on my G4 computer to watch it.
man I need to get a real dvd player.
is anyone else having this problem.. (or have a PS2) that is watching Buffy.. This is the 4th DVD that I own that has conflict with the PS2.. and the new drivers dont help either.
[> Re: Buffy DVD vs. PS2 -- maddog, 06:46:01 01/23/02 Wed
Not personally, but I have a friend who's had similar problems(though the only one I can remember is Shrek).
[> Yeah... -- MayaPapaya9, 16:17:10 01/23/02 Wed
When using the PS2 I noticed that at the middle/end of really long movies, it starts to break up or pause itself every five minutes or so, and then it gradually gets worse and worse until you just cannot tolerate it anymore and you turn it off. But the other day I was watching the Moulin Rouge DVD (YES!!! Love this movie! I wish I had enough money to actually buy it) on it and it worked fine! Even after the movie, for the extra interviews and Making of... parts, it worked fine. So I don't know. Maybe I just lucked out.
Who is the creepiest villain in the Buffyverse? -- Wolfhowl3, 07:13:54 01/23/02 Wed
My vote would have to go to The Gentlemen from Hush. I think its the smile on their rotted faces, and the fact that they make NO Sound!
Cast your voet, I would like to know what you think?
Wolfie
[> Re: Who is the creepiest villain in the Buffyverse? -- maddog, 07:30:36 01/23/02 Wed
I'd have to agree...with Doc coming in a close second...not only did he look like a crazy old man, but he was a vicious demon of some sort too. Ugly monsters don't get to me...I'd assume cause there have been so many of them over the years.
[> [> Re: Who is the creepiest villain in the Buffyverse? -- chuk_38, 08:04:06 01/23/02 Wed
another vote here for the gentlemen
[> [> [> Re: Who is the creepiest villain in the Buffyverse? -- Darby, 08:14:30 01/23/02 Wed
...and yet another Gentlemen vote. It's the only ep my sone refuses to watch, but he's seen enough that I can freak him out with a plastic smile, head tilt and hand gesture (yeah, I'm evil).
[> [> [> [> Re: Who is the creepiest villain in the Buffyverse? -- Brian, 08:16:15 01/23/02 Wed
The Gentlemen with the hand swish,swish,swish - chilling
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Who is the creepiest villain in the Buffyverse? -- Kimberly, 08:22:34 01/23/02 Wed
And another vote for the Gentlemen. The incredible, oppressive silence gets me every time. Brrrrrr!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Who is the creepiest villain in the Buffyverse? -- Marie, 08:49:55 01/23/02 Wed
Of course, the Gentlemen, but for me, also, the Bug Man (Kookookachoo!) from What's My Line 1 and 2 deserves an Honourable Mention of the eewww-factor variety, mainly because of a nasty experience I once had with an ex's bowl of maggots (left in my fridge - I'll say no more!). Still makes me shudder.
Marie
[> [> Re: Who is the creepiest villain in the Buffyverse? -- Calluna, 09:42:57 01/23/02 Wed
Principle Snyder. Especially in the Talent Show episode. 'Nuff said.
[> [> [> Snyder all the way -- MayaPapaya9, 16:13:04 01/23/02 Wed
My bitchy teachers don't scare me anymore after seeing him on TV. (Shudder)
[> [> [> [> Re: Snyder all the way -- maddog, 09:15:13 01/24/02 Thu
I wanted to say that anyone human or at least look human should scare us too...cause we can relate to them in some way...and then all of a sudden they get mean...or downright ruthless...so that includes Snyder, the mayor, Ethan, maybe even Faith...she really didn't have anything to live for...the mayor was her only friend...people with nothing to live for can be dangerous.
[> [> [> [> [> No way ! Ethan is hot ! :) -- Stranger, 09:50:34 01/24/02 Thu
And actually the evil I found the creepiest are the ones that makes you evil, that makes you loose the control of yourself and let grow the darkest places of your own mind. But that's quite for the same reason than the one you gave.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No way ! Ethan is hot ! :) -- maddog, 11:14:27 01/24/02 Thu
I'm not talking looks...I'm talking about demeanor...the way they carry themselves...their attitudes.
[> [> [> Re: Who is the creepiest villain in the Buffyverse? -- Nevermore, 04:17:45 01/24/02 Thu
Definitely Snyder - before he got munched on by a snake I was so convinced he was going to turn into some sort of a monster he was so vile - but no - my worst fears: just a horrible little human :-0
[> Re: Who is the creepiest villain in the Buffyverse? -- Earl Allison, 09:27:10 01/23/02 Wed
My vote goes to Mayor WIlkins, pre-Ascention, pre-immortality/invulnerability. The man was HUMAN, and still had no concern for human life. That, and he was incredibly confident, like Luke Skywalker just before almost being pushed into the Sarlacc pit confident. Anyone who can face down someone like Angel or Buffy, or plot the wholesale murder of an entire town's children in the same breath as he checks his Day Planner is, to me, far scarier than an inhuman monster. I'd be worried if I had someone for all intents and purposes outmanned and outgunned, and they were as confident as he was -- nevermind his aversion to germs and his genuine paternal affections for Faith. He was so human despite being a demon that it was scary.
The Gentlemen run a close second for their silence and horribly creepy "manners," bowing and nodding as if they are the epitome of politeness -- of course, in demon circles, they probably are ...
Take it and run.
[> [> Re: Who is the creepiest villain in the Buffyverse? -- Eric, 10:08:49 01/23/02 Wed
I agree. Especially since creatures like The Mayor are loose in our universe. Minus the whole "I wanna be a giant snake" thing.
I do have to add a plug for Drusilla, the only villain that can look menacing while holding a puppy. And a special mention to the demon that specialized in hospitalized children.
[> [> Re: Who is the creepiest villain in the Buffyverse? -- Rattletrap, 10:09:00 01/23/02 Wed
running with it . . .
Ditto Earl, the Mayor followed closely by the Gentlemen. Harry Groener always amazed me for his ability to take a seemingly innocent statement like "I have complete confidence in you . . ." and make it sound like a bone-chilling threat. I don't recall him ever threatening violent harm to anyone, but it was vaguely and subtly implied in everything he said, which make him infinitely scarier.
Just my $.02
'trap
[> [> Re: Who is the creepiest villain in the Buffyverse? -- maddog, 11:34:06 01/24/02 Thu
Wilkins wasn't human...he'd been living for a couple hundred years. We're talking at least part demon there. He never really stood down Buffy and/or Angel. By the time he met Angel he was invincible. I wanna say the same's true with Buffy(he had Faith go after her). But I'd need to rewatch my tapes to remember.
[> Re: Who is the creepiest villain in the Buffyverse? -- Deeva, 10:37:47 01/23/02 Wed
The Gentlemen hands down!! Watching "Hush" still freaks me out. You know what the capper is? The "golf clap" that they all do about mid-way through. Creepy, ookey, and scary! Very clever of Joss to make these demons polite. Bet you good ol' Mom never thought that good manners could be represented like this! The way they float so smoothly, the head and hand gestures, the super scary Kathy Lee-esque smiles! Guys I'm creepin' myself out here!
Der Kinderstod is a real close 2nd.
[> [> Am I the only one who though the Gentlemen were cute ? -- Stranger, 11:56:07 01/23/02 Wed
And my vote goes to the Thesulac demon from Ats. Scary, it makes me paranoid.
Agreed Liz, i though Ted was very frightening, but not really because of Ted himself.
[> Re: Who is the creepiest villain in the Buffyverse? -- Liz, 11:25:00 01/23/02 Wed
I came up with an answer instantly but then I read everyone else's answers. There are just so many to choose from. Everyone is creepy.
But the only one who makes my blood run cold every single time I see the episode is Ted.
[> Re: Who is the creepiest villain in the Buffyverse? -- JCC, 11:55:09 01/23/02 Wed
The demon in "Afterlife" was pretty creepy.Possesing people,taking the form of others...Something a little scary about it.
[> Wolfram & Hart are scary -- grifter, 13:39:48 01/23/02 Wed
Evil company that has it's dirty hands in anything, and is, apparently, trying to bring on the apocolypse...oh, wait that's Microsoft...still scary though...;)
[> there's just something about litle kids -- sapphiretoes, 14:02:39 01/23/02 Wed
my vote goes to the little kids/demon from gingerbread. anything that can look so innocent but be so wicked and cause so much trouble are just frightening. i guess there's just something about evil children...
but the gentlemen are definately the creepiest
[> Kralic from Season three..Helpless -- Rufus, 20:13:46 01/23/02 Wed
Cause he was a monster before he became a vampire, no one had to turn this guy into something he was not.
But for unreal monsters I like The Mayor the best cause he is just so darned polite and .......clean..;)
The guys from Hush and their lap dogs are second.
[> [> Kralic creeps me, too. -- CW, 09:10:00 01/24/02 Thu
[> Drusilla the Mad -- LeeAnn, 04:29:39 01/24/02 Thu
When Dru offers the Judge her minions as party favors and he burns up that vampire who reads and is full of human feelings, and then she stomps her foot and shrieks "DO IT AGAIN!!! DO IT AGAIN!!", it totally creeps me out. Still. She's at least as cruel as evil Angel plus totally mad. Totally creepy.
[> [> Do it again!! Do it again!! -- SpikeShipper, 05:04:33 01/24/02 Thu
Yeah, that one.
[> [> Re: Drusilla the Mad -- Sebastian, 10:37:49 01/24/02 Thu
hmm.... i actually laughed when i first watched drusilla's 'do it again' tirade - but to be honest, most scenes with dru/juilet landau have always made me laugh.
i always felt she injected a black humor into her character's role. where james marster's spike (s2) was more 'cheeky', jl always showed that dru had a mad sort of cleverness about her.
but i'm digresssing. i would have to say the creepiest villian for me was the 'maggot assassin' from 'what's my line.'
total ick.
- S
[> [> [> Re: Drusilla the Mad -- LeeAnn, 20:07:45 01/24/02 Thu
The 'maggot assassin' never really creeped me out because on Buffy he was made of nice clean dry little mealworms like you can buy to feed lizards instead of slimy, stinky, icky, yucky, gross, living-in-living-or-dead-flesh maggots.
[> The Gentlemen and der Kindestod from KbD -- JBone, 05:41:06 01/24/02 Thu
[> Angelus -- Shul, 16:40:20 01/24/02 Thu
Because his evil is more human then the rest, and therefore ten times more creepy.
Buffy, Spike and "Eyes Wide Shut" (Spoilers, in general) -- Darby, 08:41:30 01/23/02 Wed
Sorry, no Kubrick-Joss comparisons - they might be fun, but I stopped trying to figure Kubrick out decades ago. I like his work, but he went all Heinlein in his old age...
No, it's this article from Entertainment Weekly at
http://www.slayage.com/news/020123-sex.html
go, look, read...
This is the first mention I've seen of "computer masking" on Buffy. Does anyone know what this refers to? I'm sure we all can guess, but does anyone actually know the particulars?
Also, the implication seems to be that we all should stand in line at the grocery store and discuss the prurient details of current Buffy episodes so as to drum up more popular interest. You've got your assignment, folks!
Remember, "nekkid" is only a word in certain select regions.
[> Re: Buffy, Spike and "Eyes Wide Shut" (Spoilers, in general) -- (formerly lurking) myra, 09:00:17 01/23/02 Wed
I remember having read somewhere that they were forced to cut parts of the sex-scene at the end of "Wrecked" as well as 'mask' the last few frames (Buffy and Spike in the basement, having fallen through the floor)with computer generated dust. I can't find the exact article, but I'm pretty sure that was the 'computer masking' Entertainment Weekly speaks of.
*relaxes into non-lurk mode* Glad to be of service :).
[> Clarification -- Darby, 10:04:29 01/23/02 Wed
Don't you hate it when someone makes some obscure reference and never explains it?
Sorry, I assumed that everyone would know that parts of Eyes Wide Shut were computer masked (standing spectators blocking sexual acts) to avoid an NC-17 rating. Why I made that assumption, I couldn't tell you.
For those of you who looked at the subject, read the post, looked at the subject, then went "Huh?", sorry, sorry, sorry.
And for the many of you who knew the connection immediately...please ignore this.
[> Based on what we've seen so far, this seems so implausible! (Unless maybe it's spoilerish?) -- Dyna, 10:15:36 01/23/02 Wed
So far, we've had one scene in which the actors were fully clothed, and one in which there was only one visible participant. I don't see any opportunity there for the use of "computer masking," unless it was to disguise the fact that you could see JM's butt a little through the sheet in the crypt scene. (What? I wasn't staring at it! I just noticed!) Which still wouldn't be a use of masking, because they didn't mask it. Uh, anyway--
Since EW is usually pretty accurate, I can't decide if I think this little tidbit is a bit of sensationalized exaggeration from someone at UPN, or if it's spoilery for some future episode. It's hard for me to believe that SMG, who supposedly refuses to do nude scenes, would not only participate in one but allow herself to be filmed in a way that would subsequently have to be "edited" by UPN. It seems like the pros at ME would be able, though their usual quality direction and editing, to create a version of the show that doesn't violate UPN's nonexistent standards of decency. Hey, doesn't UPN have no standards & practices department? Who would even be doing this "computer masking," then?
It almost sounds like UPN is making up prurient stuff to attract viewers, doesn't it?
[> [> Re: One possibility... -- WW, 14:17:56 01/23/02 Wed
EW could be referring to the scenes in "Gone" where Invisible!Buffy lolls on the bed talking to Spike. The easiest way to have the sheet appear to be covering a body would be to computer mask the body it was actually covering (which probably wasn't SMG's anway).Same technique could have been used to "inflate" Tara's clothing so Willow could hug "her."
The irony here would be that EW completely missed the significance of Buffy actually being invisible, in favour of reporting that ME had to computer mask someone's body during a sex scene.
Just a thought...
;o)
[> [> [> Computer Masking -- Daria, 20:56:48 01/23/02 Wed
The puff of smoke at the end of Smashed was the altered scene. There was an article at Zap2it.com.
[> [> [> [> I knew I'd read it somewhere! -- Isabel, 19:17:43 01/24/02 Thu
If I remember correctly, UPN demanded that ME cut 15-20 seconds of Spike and Buffy... um, you know. ;) Plus the scene in the basement was filmed as a more full body shot and it had to be cropped down to just their heads and shoulders so we couldn't see what else they were doing. Then they added the CGI smoke to vague stuff up a bit more.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I knew I'd read it somewhere! -- Anne, 14:00:33 01/25/02 Fri
Yeah, but it's still a bit of a mystery because by the time they'd done the cropping it's hard to conceive of anything they could be covering with smoke (or am I being some kind of innocent here?) I've never seen a more fully clothed sex scene -- and more power to it; they got the sexuality out of the character dynamic rather than bare flesh, always more interesting to me.
[> [> Re: Masking in graphic programs -- LeeAnn, 04:14:33 01/24/02 Thu
You know how in Gone Buffy's body under the covers just barely blocks Spike's naughty bits? It sounds like the scene was filmed without the Buffy part, just JM and the camera, and then the Buffy part was put in later to block them. Just barely. Or so I would guess from how I use masking in graphic programs. Once you have masked an object and copied it, you can then move it wherever you want.
So...on a HD somewhere, that scene exists without Buffy's covers just barely blocking...the NC-17 bits.
[> [> [> Re: Masking in graphic programs -- hopeful, 07:23:21 01/24/02 Thu
Which version do you think we'll get on the DVD (when we get it in 2010 or whenever (talk about a way to increase sales)
A pic of MT & JM at a UPN party. -- Deeva, 10:00:37 01/23/02 Wed
Found these pics over at E! online. Is it just me or is James wearing a belly shirt?
http://www.eonline.com/Celebs/Outabout/Archive2002/020123.html
[> Isn't that THE tank top with a shirt over it? -- Dichotomy, 10:23:30 01/23/02 Wed
[> [> You might be right. Someone should tell him to expand his wardrobe just a tad. -- Deeva, 10:40:54 01/23/02 Wed
[> [> [> Aw, c'mon. He's a guy. We don't have vast and varied wardrobes like girls do. -- vampire hunter D, 17:48:44 01/23/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> Re:Looks kinda gay though. -- LeeAnn, 20:04:46 01/23/02 Wed
Is it PC to hope not?
[> [> [> [> [> To hope not what? -- Deeva, 21:53:33 01/23/02 Wed
That he might be gay? What's wrong with that? It wouldn't matter. But I think from what I can gather, that is out there, all signs point to him being hetero.
[> [> [> [> No, he might not have a vast wardrobe but come on now. There's like a million pics of him in it. -- Deeva, 21:50:17 01/23/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> Re: No, he might not have a vast wardrobe but come on now. There's like a million pics of him in it. -- Tellab, 01:56:07 01/24/02 Thu
Perhaps Spike's preference for a very limited wardrobe is brushing off on him. Heh. Anyway here's my math:
artist=experimental with wardrobe, notice chains jewelry, hanging tank top
+
musician=more often than not has a flair for extreme attachment to a certain article of clothing
+
guy=as someone pointed out, limited wardrobe, could care less about fashion
+
indie=not up with stylists and PR people, doesn't allow himself/herself to get besmurched by pop culture (e.g. claims doesn't watch a lot of TV hence not up with developments in fashion)
+
fashion nazi=MBTV's pet name for BTVS' resident stylist that have sabotaged any hope for fashion enlightment
=
JM's style sensibility
[> He's getting way too thin, he looked much better in S2 -- pagangodess, 20:23:30 01/24/02 Thu
Willow as evil mastermind -- Jack Shadow, 11:22:04 01/23/02 Wed
I was watching "Phases" on FX recently and was struck by the following bit of dialog:
[Larry]{Gay jock guy, still in closet, trying to find out how far Oz got with Willow}
Let me guess - that little innocent schoolgirl thing is just an act, right?
[Oz] Ya, she's actually an evil mastermind. It's fun.
It seems to me that most major plot events are indicated years in advance, ie Joyce's death from a blood clot, etc. This would indicate that Joss was at least playing with the idea of Willow as the big bad.
There has been some interesting speculation of what you do for a villain after Buffy has defeated a god. Part of growing up is that sometimes old friends end up on the opposite side of an adult conflict. No one is quite so hard to fight as a good friend who knows you well, but has completely turned on you. The challenge for Buffy would be to redeem Willow rather than killing her.
Thoughts?
[> Re: Willow as evil mastermind -- JCC, 11:49:51 01/23/02 Wed
It's an interesting thought.You're point about what to do after glory is a good one.
But maybe you shouldn't read too much into little remarks like that.
[> [> Re: Willow as evil mastermind -- daring, 12:11:09 01/23/02 Wed
The problem is to make Willow "evil" you would have to change who she is, who the character we know and love has been for the last 6 years. I think she can be addicted to magic, push her magic too far which might have some "evil" consequences, but to make her evil just wouldn't make sense. We already have 2 characters who have had their basic personalities changed (Angel and Spike) by "mystical" means, they could use that out.
Faith had some evil in her before she went to the mayor, so becoming evil was just a further step in her development. For Willow, it does not follow and ME would lose a great deal of good will that has devoloped for Willow over the years.
A
[> [> [> Re: Willow as evil mastermind -- MayaPapaya9, 15:57:25 01/23/02 Wed
Wow, imagine the season finale if Will was the Big Bad. Final confrontation between Buffy and a black-eyed Scary Willow. It would be this amazing, emotional fight and an incredible climax where Buffy has to defeat her best friend...ooh. Exciting!! This could really work out.
[> [> [> if something happened to Tara... -- manwitch, 06:15:49 01/24/02 Thu
We've seen that Willow can be pretty scary when Tara is threatened (by someone else).
If something happened to Tara, and if Willow blamed Buffy for what happened...Willow could be quite plausibly terrifying. (And we would still love her).
I have no reason to think such things, other than the Rumor Mill saying that a scoobie will die this year and that Tara has no contract yet. I know nothing about the veracity of such rumors.
[> [> [> [> Re: if something happened to Tara...(possible spoilers above) -- maddog, 11:10:42 01/24/02 Thu
I would think if something happened to Tara by season's end Willow would end up blaming herself.
[> [> [> Re: Willow as evil mastermind -- maddog, 09:22:30 01/24/02 Thu
Maybe a better way to put it then would be a temporarily evil Willow...a girl that's lost her way and may be able to set back in her place by a season finale type confrontation with Buffy. So she could be filling a need without making her a permanent bad guy
[> Interesting Theory...I'll have to mull that one over -- maddog, 09:09:24 01/24/02 Thu
Possible Buffy/Angel crossover? -- Laurie, 13:07:39 01/23/02 Wed
This article seems to suggest it's still possible (yay!)
http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_501732.html
[> Yeah. But not till S7. -- Deeva, 13:36:28 01/23/02 Wed
[> We Buffy fans know the virtue of patience! :) I'm so excited! -- MayaPapaya9, 16:06:04 01/23/02 Wed
[> Re: Possible Buffy/Angel crossover? -- Lijdrec, 05:17:19 01/24/02 Thu
Could be the ends of seasons BtVS-7 & AtS-4 would see a move towards some common apocalyptic struggle; but I think you'd only see that in a movie - or movies?!
Buffydomitis Survey (poll) -- Shul, 15:00:30 01/23/02 Wed
Ever since i changed my homepage to ATPoBtVS homepage, i cant turn on my frilling computer without spending at least an hour posting or reading posts from this wonderful forum.
I have diagnosed myself with an acute case of Buffydomitis Type IV.
I was wondering if anyone else is suffering from this condition out there.
Maybe we could form a support group, we could meet on wednesdays and talk, I'll bring the cofee.
[> Me too -- MayaPapaya9, 16:09:54 01/23/02 Wed
Everyday I come home from school, eat something and sign on to check this board! I love everyone here. I've been looking for something like this for so long, and I'm really glad I finally found it! I'm grateful for all you people who make me feel NORMAL for being so devoted to this show. Everyone else laughs and thinks my obsession is cute. They just do not understand...hahaha.
[> I'm definitely sick -- Vickie, 16:32:09 01/23/02 Wed
Hello, I'm Vickie and I've got Buffydomitis.
(Please pass the coffee.)
[> Re: Buffydomitis Survey (poll) -- Hopeless...., 21:39:51 01/23/02 Wed
I realized how bad it was when I visited relatives for Christmas/New Year. The expressions I saw when I told them Buffy was the greatest on TV thing since Stir Fried Chicken. Especially when I told them it was full of Deep Philosophical Meaning. And I NEVER should have told little sister I wanted a Buffy Action Figure for Christmas. The horror, the horror.
[> [> The Horror!! -- Deeva, 15:12:26 01/24/02 Thu
I didn't even ask for an action figure and got one anyway! You wanna know why that's so bad? I'm surrounded by people who do not know how to take hints. Around my birthday and xmas they ALWAYS ask me what I want and I usually tell them exactly what to get. So that's a clue how bad I've got it if my family and friends can pick up on it.
I'll take a hot chocolate with tiny marshmallows, please.
[> Re: Buffydomitis Survey (poll) -- Kimberly, 05:40:23 01/24/02 Thu
(Raised hand). I go through acute withdrawal pains when I can't check this board. I know the URL by heart. Any time I read ANYthing these days, I'm seeing if it can match up to Buffy (and I'm a literalist).
Pass the tea please. (Can't stand coffee.)
[> with you all the way here! -- maddog, 08:51:57 01/24/02 Thu
[> [> Re: color me addicted & pass the expresso, please! -- Brian, 09:38:49 01/24/02 Thu
[> [> [> Espresso? What sort of fancy-pants twelve-step meetings are you used to? -- d'Herblay, 13:12:54 01/24/02 Thu
[> Re: Buffydomitis Survey (poll) -- Rufus, 16:26:13 01/24/02 Thu
There are specific supplies one needs before they are proper addicts in my opinion. First, what's this about freaking coffee???? Chocolate folks....we must remember the chocolate..without it meetings are impossible...then you have to have a mascot.....a cat of course..in a pinch a "kittybear" will do....then there is the much needed guard dog (member of family, friend, husband) who guards you against being troubled with petty life related problems while the show is on. And so you can understand some of the hard core addicts a copy of "Hero with a Thousand Faces" and "Power of Myth" should be close to your computer at all times.....and those who don't know those books loose points and have to do pennance by getting ME more chocolate....I will take into consideration those who have downloaded all the transcripts and shooting scripts to their hard drive as at least being headed in the right direction. So, Wednesdays are a good day for a meeting as long as it's after the Succubus Club ends at 7pm pac.
[> Re: Buffydomitis Survey (poll) -- Isabel, 19:43:42 01/24/02 Thu
I get unhappy if I get behind in reading the board. For the whole month of December I had 2 different Buffy calendars on my wall because the calendar company added months to the 2002 calendar. I took down my college degree because Spike was December 2001 and I needed the nail. (Sob, I need help.) ;)
Plus a friend gave me a set of the Buffy chocolate bars in my stocking. Buffy, Willow, Xander and Spike. It was fun asking my friends if they wanted to eat some Willow. (Oddly, they looked uncomfortable.) They're the ones who think it's a fun show and I obsess a little bit much.
[> [> "I needed the nail".....LMAO.......:):):) -- Rufus, 19:50:00 01/24/02 Thu
There is a place called the hardware store....go buy nails....then you will never have the nail dillema again....well....unless you run out of wall space..:):):)
We should have a pathetic addict story contest.....the winner gets to give ME more chocolate.
[> [> [> But that would mean missing a episode of buffy! -- Shul, 12:25:29 01/26/02 Sat
Or worse, missing an oppertunity to post here!
[> [> [> Re: "I needed the nail".....LMAO.......:):):) -- Isabel, 15:03:25 01/26/02 Sat
"There is a place called the hardware store....go buy nails....then you will never have the nail dillema again....well....unless you run out of wall space..:):):)"
I have nails, but you're right about limited wall space. But the real reason was it was only for a month.
I love Spike, but I'm not spackling for him. ;)
[> [> [> [> LOL........"spackling"....we now know the limit of your obsession....;) -- Rufus, 18:58:12 01/26/02 Sat
I'm sure there are some out there that would pass the spackling test......:):):)
Chat junkie in need of a fix -- vampire hunter D, 17:35:16 01/23/02 Wed
can anyone help me?
[> Re: Chat junkie in need of a fix -- Nevermore, 04:21:48 01/24/02 Thu
Only unless you log in early in the morning (or 3pm GMT)- that is only if you want to be bored by me again ;-)
Question about the three geeks in season 6 -- Veronica, 17:40:28 01/23/02 Wed
Sorry if you all have already discussed this: (i'm new to the board)
So, I know who Warren is, and obviously Jonathan..but who is the third geeky guy? Was he on any past episodes?
[> Answers about the three geeks in season 6 -- vampire hunter D, 17:45:51 01/23/02 Wed
Andrew was never in any episode before Flooded. However, his brother Tucker was teh guy who tried to send those Hellhounds to attack the prom back in season 3.
Oh, and welcome to our board. We like it when new people join us. Feel free to post more, and join us in the chatroom.
[> [> Re: Answers about the three geeks in season 6 -- Veronica, 17:59:31 01/23/02 Wed
Thanks for your help! I thought that the name Tucker sounded familiar...
A Valediction Contemplating Mourning - Giles -- fresne, 17:55:38 01/23/02 Wed
Odd, what threads can generate ideas. Manwitch and Liz (and ahem I) started an interesting discussion down at the bottom of the imperfect world thread about Giles, his choice to kill Ben, and the essential sadness of the character in season 6.
Some background
manwitch
"He (Giles) debased himself to save her, and she was never for a moment thinking about saving herself.
I don't think its an accident that Tara calls him a "killer" before she leaves to go to the big day. Its the very term Buffy has been agonizing over when she says, "Maybe the slayer is just a killer after all." But Buffy turns out not to be a killer. Giles is. Tara doesn't call him a Slayer, or a Champion. She calls him a killer. And the purpose for which he killed ends up an illusion anyway. Buffy sacrifices herself to save the world. Giles act neither saves the world nor Buffy. I'm sure that is not lost on him. I think it would have been easier on him to have done what he did if he could believe that he had saved the world, or that he had saved Buffy.
Liz
"It had not really occurred to me how Buffy's sacrifice was an additional blow for Giles because he had just killed to save her. I saw him killing primarily for her and I saw him thinking that it was a wrong thing to do, but for some reason I had never thought out how her death would rearrange that event for him. Gods.
Yet another reason why he is so wrung out in 6th season."
And on with the show:
So, my housemate and I have just gotten the season 1 DVD. And watching it (as with the FX reruns), I had forgotten, just how excited Giles was to be on the Hellmouth. Everything was an adventure. The way he positively gleams in the Harvest when he lists all of the other creatures that they will face.
This is a man, who having briefly resisted his destiny, has now whole heartedly embraced it. Has embraced the idea of destiny. Of saving the world for Christmas and puppies. Has spent years of study, consider just how many demon's he recognizes by description. He is like that first year engineer, freed from years of school ready to get out in field and get his hands dirty. I was actually surprised at how young he looks and acts by way of contrast.
Of course, I am now six years closer to his age, which probably helps, but Giles bubbled in a scholastic English kind of way. As Liz mentioned in her post, on the DVD, Joss talks about why they selected ASH for Giles. He brought a youth to the character. He's not done growing yet.
Which in Joss speak means that Giles hasn't yet had the emotional stuffing knocked out of him.
I see Giles as a man who, up until that time, hadn't had much experience with children or teenagers. Who intellectually understands what it means to be a Watcher, but does not yet understand the emotional cost.
He's beginning to understand in Nightmares. He stands over Buffy's grave and says that this is his nightmare.
Before he met Buffy, it was easy to say that Buffy had a destiny. That she must face the forces of darkness. But that's different from the reality of sending a young girl into the night to fight older, possibly stronger creatures on a daily basis. His view point changes from here is the Slayer, chosen by destiny, to here is Buffy. Witty, sometimes brash, sometimes insecure. Here is a person.
The fact that all Watcher Slayer relationships end the same way ceases to be a line in a book. Starts to take an emotional toll.
In season 2, he stands over Jenny's grave and says that since he became a Watcher, this is the first person he's buried that he was close to. After all he got lucky before. Prophecy Girl Buffy was only dead a few minutes. And even then, Giles wanted to go down into the earth and face her destiny for her.
And the seasons, they come and go. Season 3, with a loss of the destiny that he fought against. Season 4, with its sense of emotional ties breaking. Loss. Uselessness. His dream with its overturned baby carriage. Giles has no adult friends. Since the destruction of the school, he has lost of his ties to people his own age. He has no family. Except these children. This girl. How does the saying go, "how unhappy the man who outlives his own child." And yet, he knows its inevitable.
And then we have Season 5. I'd have to say, that Giles and Buffy are closer here than in any other season. In BvD, he was getting ready to go back to England. To try and find a life. But Buffy stopped him. Told him that she couldn't do this without him. The same words that she told him after Jenny's death. After he attacked Angel and nearly died.
They start practicing together again. Only this time, instead of Buffy resenting the practice sessions, she embraces them. She wants to learn. They are reading and discussing the same books on history, vampires, the Slayer.
For Buffy and Giles, it's that moment of Renaissance when a child returns home from school, work, whatever, and starts to relate to their parents as adults.
And in S5, for the first time, Giles is the first to know what's going on behind the scenes. Buffy tells Giles that Dawn isn't her sister. That Dawn is the Key, whatever that is. She tells him about Glory. There's no prevarication. No lies. Straight on, he's first to know.
Then everything goes to hell. Make that Hell. The plot screws just keep getting tighter and tighter. Joyce dies. Glory is close on their heels. Giles is fairly seriously injured. Dawn is kidnapped. The world is going to be destroyed. Giles and Buffy have, really, their most serious confrontation of the entire series.
It's not about lying. Keeping secrets. Emotional Betrayal. It's about a fundamental difference of opinion. Buffy will not kill Dawn, even to save the world, or logically speaking their little chunk of the world.
It's an emotional/intellectual conflict that they never get to resolve. I hadn't really thought about it before, but Giles killing Ben is in many ways an outgrowth of his conviction that Dawn would have to die to save the world.
Buffy won't kill Dawn. Buffy won't kill Ben. Well, Giles could kill Dawn (or could he?). Can kill Ben. Giles is still trying to slay Buffy's demons for her, except now that time is past.
If Spike replays Buffy's death in his head every night, I wonder how Giles replays events. Does he see himself killing Dawn. Killing Ben. Saving Buffy as he teaches Chi to the Buffybot. Talking about how he got Buffy killed.
The Giles of Season 6 is so very tired. Buffy's back from the dead, but she's not the hard fought strong person that she was in Season 5. This Buffy couldn't defy the Council. This Buffy has no direction. No focus. Is full of secrets.
We discuss Willow's shell shock and Buffy's, but consider Giles. Like the military commanders who have sent one too many brave children to their deaths for ideology, he can't do it any more.
And as I said in my imperfect world post way down in the depths, I am very curious as to what emotional effects six seasons on the Hellmouth have had on Giles. I want to see him away from Buffy, and the Scoobies and Sunnydale. I wonder if he would ever willingly take responsibility for another person again or if he will pull away from command. His retreat in TR is literally a retreat and his body language as he leaves says that he knows it.
I want the Watcher series and I want it now. Or you know, soonish.
A Valediction Contemplating Mourning - Giles -- fresne, 17:59:18 01/23/02 Wed
Odd, what threads can generate ideas. Manwitch and Liz (and ahem I) started an interesting discussion down at the bottom of the imperfect world thread about Giles, his choice to kill Ben, and the essential sadness of the character in season 6.
Some background
manwitch
"He (Giles) debased himself to save her, and she was never for a moment thinking about saving herself.
I don't think its an accident that Tara calls him a "killer" before she leaves to go to the big day. Its the very term Buffy has been agonizing over when she says, "Maybe the slayer is just a killer after all." But Buffy turns out not to be a killer. Giles is. Tara doesn't call him a Slayer, or a Champion. She calls him a killer. And the purpose for which he killed ends up an illusion anyway. Buffy sacrifices herself to save the world. Giles act neither saves the world nor Buffy. I'm sure that is not lost on him. I think it would have been easier on him to have done what he did if he could believe that he had saved the world, or that he had saved Buffy.
Liz
"It had not really occurred to me how Buffy's sacrifice was an additional blow for Giles because he had just killed to save her. I saw him killing primarily for her and I saw him thinking that it was a wrong thing to do, but for some reason I had never thought out how her death would rearrange that event for him. Gods.
Yet another reason why he is so wrung out in 6th season."
And on with the show:
So, my housemate and I have just gotten the season 1 DVD. And watching it (as with the FX reruns), I had forgotten, just how excited Giles was to be on the Hellmouth. Everything was an adventure. The way he positively gleams in the Harvest when he lists all of the other creatures that they will face.
This is a man, who having briefly resisted his destiny, has now whole heartedly embraced it. Has embraced the idea of destiny. Of saving the world for Christmas and puppies. Has spent years of study, consider just how many demon's he recognizes by description. He is like that first year engineer, freed from years of school ready to get out in field and get his hands dirty. I was actually surprised at how young he looks and acts by way of contrast.
Of course, I am now six years closer to his age, which probably helps, but Giles bubbled in a scholastic English kind of way. As Liz mentioned in her post, on the DVD, Joss talks about why they selected ASH for Giles. He brought a youth to the character. He's not done growing yet.
Which in Joss speak means that Giles hasn't yet had the emotional stuffing knocked out of him.
I see Giles as a man who, up until that time, hadn't had much experience with children or teenagers. Who intellectually understands what it means to be a Watcher, but does not yet understand the emotional cost.
He's beginning to understand in Nightmares. He stands over Buffy's grave and says that this is his nightmare.
Before he met Buffy, it was easy to say that Buffy had a destiny. That she must face the forces of darkness. But that's different from the reality of sending a young girl into the night to fight older, possibly stronger creatures on a daily basis. His view point changes from here is the Slayer, chosen by destiny, to here is Buffy. Witty, sometimes brash, sometimes insecure. Here is a person.
The fact that all Watcher Slayer relationships end the same way ceases to be a line in a book. Starts to take an emotional toll.
In season 2, he stands over Jenny's grave and says that since he became a Watcher, this is the first person he's buried that he was close to. After all he got lucky before. Prophecy Girl Buffy was only dead a few minutes. And even then, Giles wanted to go down into the earth and face her destiny for her.
And the seasons, they come and go. Season 3, with a loss of the destiny that he fought against. Season 4, with its sense of emotional ties breaking. Loss. Uselessness. His dream with its overturned baby carriage. Giles has no adult friends. Since the destruction of the school, he has lost of his ties to people his own age. He has no family. Except these children. This girl. How does the saying go, "how unhappy the man who outlives his own child." And yet, he knows its inevitable.
And then we have Season 5. I'd have to say, that Giles and Buffy are closer here than in any other season. In BvD, he was getting ready to go back to England. To try and find a life. But Buffy stopped him. Told him that she couldn't do this without him. The same words that she told him after Jenny's death. After he attacked Angel and nearly died.
They start practicing together again. Only this time, instead of Buffy resenting the practice sessions, she embraces them. She wants to learn. They are reading and discussing the same books on history, vampires, the Slayer.
For Buffy and Giles, it's that moment of Renaissance when a child returns home from school, work, whatever, and starts to relate to their parents as adults.
And in S5, for the first time, Giles is the first to know what's going on behind the scenes. Buffy tells Giles that Dawn isn't her sister. That Dawn is the Key, whatever that is. She tells him about Glory. There's no prevarication. No lies. Straight on, he's first to know.
Then everything goes to hell. Make that Hell. The plot screws just keep getting tighter and tighter. Joyce dies. Glory is close on their heels. Giles is fairly seriously injured. Dawn is kidnapped. The world is going to be destroyed. Giles and Buffy have, really, their most serious confrontation of the entire series.
It's not about lying. Keeping secrets. Emotional Betrayal. It's about a fundamental difference of opinion. Buffy will not kill Dawn, even to save the world, or logically speaking their little chunk of the world.
It's an emotional/intellectual conflict that they never get to resolve. I hadn't really thought about it before, but Giles killing Ben is in many ways an outgrowth of his conviction that Dawn would have to die to save the world.
Buffy won't kill Dawn. Buffy won't kill Ben. Well, Giles could kill Dawn (or could he?). Can kill Ben. Giles is still trying to slay Buffy's demons for her, except now that time is past.
If Spike replays Buffy's death in his head every night, I wonder how Giles replays events. Does he see himself killing Dawn. Killing Ben. Saving Buffy as he teaches Chi to the Buffybot. Talking about how he got Buffy killed.
The Giles of Season 6 is so very tired. Buffy's back from the dead, but she's not the hard fought strong person that she was in Season 5. This Buffy couldn't defy the Council. This Buffy has no direction. No focus. Is full of secrets.
We discuss Willow's shell shock and Buffy's, but consider Giles. Like the military commanders who have sent one too many brave children to their deaths for ideology, he can't do it any more.
And as I said in my imperfect world post way down in the depths, I am very curious as to what emotional effects six seasons on the Hellmouth have had on Giles. I want to see him away from Buffy, and the Scoobies and Sunnydale. I wonder if he would ever willingly take responsibility for another person again or if he will pull away from command. His retreat in TR is literally a retreat and his body language as he leaves says that he knows it.
I want the Watcher series and I want it now. Or you know, soonish.
[> Re: A Valediction Contemplating Mourning - Giles -- Liz, 21:13:11 01/23/02 Wed
Apologies that I'll probably repeat things here that I said in other posts at other times, buried in there somewhere.
In season 1 Giles was very excited to be on the Hellmouth and to be a watcher. And I think you're right that he had intellectual understanding of this, but he wasn't really prepared. But then it's also notable that if Buffy had been a normal slayer, like Kendra apparently was, then things would have been quite different. It wasn't all due to the realities of really being a watcher over a slayer. There was also the reality of Buffy.
He meets Buffy and the first thing she does it tell him to leave her alone. She refuses all authority. She listens to herself and her own morality and she does things for her own reasons. She'll listen to Giles because he knows more, but she doesn't take orders. And Giles very quickly relinquishes control to her. He gives her the information and he tries to direct her training and such, but when it comes time to battle something she is calling the shots.
Throughout the show I see him progressively question himself and what he knows. He knows that he loves Buffy, and that starts to be the only thing he knows for sure. In "Helpless" he made a deliberate choice in the matter, and was subsequently fired. While that had to sting, I think it didn't really matter to him just then because Buffy still thought of him as her watcher. The watcher's council could go to hell because her opinion was the only one that mattered.
Giles consistantly seemed willing to put himself aside for her. When Buffy came back in season 3, everyone was glad to see her but they were also really mad at her. She had to have a thrashed out argument with everyone. Except Giles. He just blinked away tears while no one was looking and said that he was just glad she was back.
The problem with Giles is that Buffy is the center of his life. She becomes his emotinal center and she is the point of his work. He doesn't have any other reason to be in America. He likes the other kids, especially Willow, but he doesn't ever really become close to them. All there is is Buffy. Everything else had been ripped away (Jenny, the council, the school library, even Olivia is put off by the danger of his world). But Giles is not the center of Buffy's world. And he just accepts that. In 4th season there was some resentment and pain, but only because he was being ignored completely. He was going to leave but once Buffy said she needed him again, he was back in a flash and happy to be back.
Then in 5th it all went crazy. And yes, they are closer in 5th than at any other time. And then she dies. I remember an interview with James Marsters where he says "What I'm thinking now is, 'I killed her.'" Giles must think the same, only probably even more complicated. How does he dream it each night? So many possibilities.
Then he finally pulls himself together enough to attempt to get on with things and go to England. He JUST gets up the nerve to do it and two days later they call him to say Buffy is alive. The man is wrecked from the start.
This is the repetetive part, as I said all this before somewhere:
When he got back, he very convincingly loved her and was glad to see her. He convincingly seemed ready to hand himself over to her again. In the past he's been willing to do anything for her. Why then would he go if she wanted him to stay?
I'm still not sure on this. Partly he had already let her go. Partly he was unable to get through to her. Partly he was increasingly uncomfortable in the group in general.
But since he tends to put her before himself and since he sang only of her interests in the musical, then maybe it's this: He thinks he got her killed. He thinks he was not a good watcher and that she would have been better off without him. Now personally I think that Buffy was in a hard place and that it's OK for her to depend on someone for a while. But what did he see? He saw her getting weaker because of him. He saw her getting screwed up because of him. The old Giles, Giles the steadfast watcher, might have tried to encourage her or change things around so that she would get stronger. But I think he couldn't handle it any more. He was emotionally ravaged.
So he loses her and then when he can almost start to deal he gets her back, only to lose her again of his own volition, hurting her in the process. In its way it's as bad as Buffy and Angel in 2nd season.
Now what happens to him? I also really want to know this. I want to see what happens on the Giles series. I have a feeling from the few things I've heard that he's going to be a loner for a while. I can't see him accepting a position of authority again.
But what I'm very curious to see what happens on the 5 episodes that Tony Head is still in this year. I believe he signed for a half season. What are they possibly going to do?
[> [> Does anyone know how we will see Ripper in the US? -- manwitch, 06:04:54 01/24/02 Thu
Is there an arrangement with a network, or will it come in little groups on Mystery or Masterpiece Theatre on PBS? Or will we just not get to see it?
I too am very interested.
I agree about Giles youth and eagerness in the beginning. I too broke out my season one DVDs last night and watched the joss commentary.
I was struck by Giles enthusiasm as he rattled off the things and handed Buffy a book about each, "werewolves, incubi, sucubi." And I thought he was like someone who had read everthing there is to read about skydiving but had never actually been in a plane, and was making his first trip ever to the airport. I mean, I know its established later that he did some magic and dark arts and stuff. But I still felt that we were being shown a marked contrast between the knowledge one gets from books (which is important as the show makes clear) and experience. This whole 6 year experience has just taken the life out of Giles. He must be exhausted. The whole group. That's why I love the end of Tabula Rasa. The difference between Giles leaving in Bargaining, and Giles leaving in TR just hammers home what they've all lost.
[> [> [> Re: Does anyone know how we will see Ripper in the US? -- cynesthesia, 10:10:21 01/24/02 Thu
manwitch,
My best hope for seeing Ripper in the US is probably BBCAmerica, which I think is available many places here on cable. It seems like it would be a better fit with the programming they run than with PBS. As soon as I hear the series actually is a go, I plan to make a pest of myself by e-mailing them to air it here. :)
cynesthesia
[> [> [> [> Re: Does anyone know how we will see Ripper in the US? -- Rufus, 18:28:43 01/24/02 Thu
We have BBC Canada and hopefully they get Ripper when it's out. Giles is a great character. His curse is to watch his life's work die no matter what he does. A Watcher can only do so much..but in the end it's the Slayer that does the dying. It's like a parent surviving a child, hard to deal with. Giles may be in England but I feel that his mind is never far from Sunnydale. I wonder if his leaving is partly to spare himself the pain of Buffy dying again...the first time was bad enough.
As for Ben, Giles did what he had to do, what his training prepared him to do.....do what the hero can't...make that hard choice...then live with the what if's. Giles didn't kill Ben in the heat of a battle, but in the end when both Glory and Ben had said "uncle"...he thought ahead to the possible scenario's of letting Ben survive, and with the chance that Glory could return and destroy the world to get even with Buffy, was a situation he couldn't risk. At first Glory only wanted to go home, her damage localized to a small area, if she ever got back into control of Ben she would possibly destroy the world to feel the momentary joy of revenge. Giles did the right thing. But even I'm not comfortable with it.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles leaving, I feel that his mind is never far from Sunnydale -- Dochawk, 12:02:24 01/25/02 Fri
I agree, Giles heart remains in Sunnydale (when he boards the airplane in Bargaining, he wonders if he will even find a life for himself in England and the second time he leaves its even worse. He leaves only under the misguided notion that it will help Buffy take on adult responsibilities. But, a 20 year old in American society does not usually take on adult responisbilities. They are still exploring their place in the world, learning about the world and how to interact with it (if you go to medical school this lasts until our 30's). Given his relationship with the Scoobies though, doesn't it feel odd that he is not coming back for the Wedding? (actually I think its odd that Cordy isn't coming either, when we last see Cordy and Xander together, Xander has spent some of his saved money on Cordy's prom dress, they parted as friends, well passed the lover stage). For Giles not to come back for the wedding, the only reason I can think of he is afraid he won't be able to leave a 3rd time.
[> [> Re: A Valediction Contemplating Mourning - Giles -- maddog, 08:39:45 01/24/02 Thu
Not only was he emotionally ravaged but he was frustrated because as long as he was around she defaulted to him. By taking himself out of the equation he felt she would have to learn to handle it on her own.
[> Re: A Valediction Contemplating Mourning - Giles -- maddog, 08:06:36 01/24/02 Thu
Well first off I believe Manwich is dead wrong. Unless Ben dies, Glory comes back. He said that right before he killed him. She may not have been able to open a portal but she could still cause major damage...and without Buffy she wouldn't even have a viable adversary.
I like your reference to a military commander. That really fits well. It's funny, I agree with your conclusion, just not the beginning where you say his act was for not...because Glory would have returned in Ben had Ben not been disposed of.
[> [> Re: A Valediction Contemplating Mourning - Giles -- Marie, 08:35:20 01/24/02 Thu
Absolutely! You know, I've always been puzzled by posts which condemn Giles for his actions in "The Gift". He knew that Buffy, busy trying to get to her sister, couldn't kill Ben - a young man she had once been attracted to, who had, in times past, been kind to her and Dawn and Joyce. A human being who had helped Giles when Giles was injured, Glory notwithstanding. Giles knew that Glory, if not right at this moment, would be back. Through Ben. If Ben lived, it was quite likely that they would all die because of that fact at some time in the future, even if Buffy managed to save Dawn and close the portal without dying herself. Once Glory was back to full strength.
They had a once-in-a-lifetime chance of defeating her, and the only way she wasn't coming back was to kill her conduit to this world. Giles didn't kill Ben to save Buffy or the world. He did it purely and simply so that there could be no possibility that Glory would ever return. I think that was one of the most selfless things Giles had ever done.
Marie
[> [> [> Re: A Valediction Contemplating Mourning - Giles -- Malandanza, 09:54:55 01/24/02 Thu
" You know, I've always been puzzled by posts which condemn Giles for his actions in "The Gift". He knew that Buffy, busy trying to get to her sister, couldn't kill Ben - a young man she had once been attracted to, who had, in times past, been kind to her and Dawn and Joyce. A human being who had helped Giles when Giles was injured, Glory notwithstanding. Giles knew that Glory, if not right at this moment, would be back. Through Ben. If Ben lived, it was quite likely that they would all die because of that fact at some time in the future, even if Buffy managed to save Dawn and close the portal without dying herself. Once Glory was back to full strength.
They had a once-in-a-lifetime chance of defeating her, and the only way she wasn't coming back was to kill her conduit to this world. Giles didn't kill Ben to save Buffy or the world. He did it purely and simply so that there could be no possibility that Glory would ever return. I think that was one of the most selfless things Giles had ever done.
I'm not sure Glory would have been back. In many ways, she was less emotionally mature than any of the Scoobies (even Willow) -- consider the depths of despair to which the other characters have sunken when they have been hopeless (Willow after Oz left, Buffy entering her catatonic state when Glory takes Dawn, Noir Angel, etc.) How would Glory have been able to cope with the certain knowledge that she would die in a mortal body? Vengeance? Maybe. If she ever recovered from her defeat. Also, remember how dependent she had been on her minions -- minions who were all but eradicated in the final battle (and would any that were left return to a fallen goddess?) Who would help her find Buffy and her friends? Who would bring her people to brain-suck? And, having been defeated once by her adversary, would she even be willing to fight again? Emotionally, I think Glory was finished.
As for murdering Ben, I think Giles' gloating speech before killing him recalls the Ripper more than the watcher. It reminded me of the Mayor trying to kill Buffy because of what Buffy had done to Faith.
Finally, what do you think Giles' reaction would have been if Buffy had returned (for whatever reason) to see him killing Ben? What excuses would he have been able to offer her?
[> [> [> [> Re: A Valediction Contemplating Mourning - Giles -- maddog, 11:06:02 01/24/02 Thu
How could she not be? She and Ben kept going back and forth. The only way to stop that was to rid the world of Ben...no Ben, no Glory. I don't think emotional maturity has much place here. It's a power thing. If she had the power to switch back(and Giles certainly seemed to think so), then she could have built her strength back up...all she would have needed is a random brain to suck. She can build her minions back up. I don't think she'd be concerned with Buffy either...the key's gone...the main concern of hers was the key. That's the main reason she would go look for Buffy. And it's not there now. Let's face it, it took quite a few shots from different people to take out Glory. First Willow reverse brain sucked her...then she fought the Bot, then she had that orb thing take a way a bunch of her power, then she fought Buffy, then she got hit with the wrecker...she was the most powerful adversary out there. And one with an ego...She would have been back.
I wouldn't consider that speech gloating either. He was telling Ben essentially, "I'll do what I have to because I know Buffy could never." But yeah, I did see that stare...definitely Ripper qualities. I think he would have used the same excuse for killing Ben as he gave Ben...."if I don't kill you Glory comes back and we can't have that." I'll bet Buffy would have eventually understood.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: A Valediction Contemplating Mourning - Giles -- manwitch, 14:30:26 01/24/02 Thu
Yeah. This whole thread started in reference to some stuff written in a different thread regarding "ends justify the means" ethics.
In that context, I was not condemning Giles. I was asking another poster to evaluate their own "moral theory" in light of certain things that happen in the Gift.
Even so, I don't think I'm wrong, obviously. Giles is a great guy, but he did something that has a "moral pricetag" if you will. He knows that.
If he's just dancing a jig because he thinks he saved the world from Glory, that would just reduce his character in interest and stature. The whole point is that people have to make difficult decisions, rather than simple ones, and that they know their actions have a cost.
This show isn't escapist entertainment. Its real life.
[> [> [> A Compass Bending to Remove - Giles -- fresne, 12:15:11 01/24/02 Thu
Marie
"I've always been puzzled by posts which condemn Giles for his actions in "The Gift"
Ah, but therein lies the beautiful complexity of the thing. It is an action which can polarize opinion.
Personally, I neither condemn nor condone his action. Because it is both wrong and right at the same time. Consistency or clarity, thy name is not fresne.
For a moment, compare Giles and Ben. Ben summons demons to do his killing for him. Really for no reason. The mad people are annoying, attention getting, but no threat. Just, well, depressing, given where he works. Ben bloodies minions, but in the end doesn't kill them. Consider that these are minions who won't fight back. Won't defend themselves. It seems such a half measure. It won't prevent the minion from talking. So, why do it?
By contrast, Giles kills Ben with his own hands. And yet, kills him subtly. Smothers him. This is not only an efficient way to kill him, but it will leave no mark. Buffy need never know. There's a terrible efficiency there.
I say that killing Ben is wrong, not because of any of my beliefs (they are irrelevant to this), but because I believe that Giles sees it as morally wrong. Otherwise, he wouldn't give that speech where he contrasts Buffy (who does not kill innocents, who is a hero) with himself. He wouldn't clean his glasses first to prepare himself. He wouldn't kill Ben in such a non traceable way.
We have Giles positing himself as the one who will do the thing that Buffy won't do. Kill Ben to protect Buffy. Again think about his speech. Not that Glory will destroy the world if he doesn't kill Ben, but that Glory will make Buffy regret her mercy. (All of a sudden the S2 line, "the Quality of Mercy is not Buffy" comes to mind.)
I certainly think that Giles sees killing Ben as necessary. Necessity and morality need not be mutally exclusive in a persons head. Thus we make characters that are complex.
And to completely repeat previous statements, at the same moment that Giles compromises his morals (right or wrong) to save Buffy, Buffy sacrifices herself for the person that Giles told her to kill.
Thinking back, the last time that Buffy was in this position, Giles wasn't there to tell her to kill Angel. Giles was the one who had to be rescued from the key.
I liked Malandanza question of what would Giles had said, if Buffy had interrupted him. Keep in mind, after knowing each other for five years, after a S5 in which they have gotten emotionally closer, Giles and Buffy have just had a really serious fight. Buffy threatened to kill Giles if he hurt Dawn. Think about the emotional repercussions to that. Things weren't quite right between them yet.
Consider a scenario where there is no Doc, Dawn is saved before the ritual begins. Now consider that BtVS is a show that plays hardball. Actions tend to have repercussions. Would that Buffy have trusted Giles with Dawn again?
And I wonder, why does Giles keep trying to go back to England? Perhaps, he wants to start over again. Going east to the land of his youth. Trying to turn back time to when he was that younger self, filled with enthusiasm. When he wasn't responsible for a child that he has already buried once. Not to live Buffy's life, killing the Bens of the world for Buffy.
He wants to find out if he has a life. To live it.
[> [> [> [> A Compass Bending to Remove - Giles -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 13:16:19 01/24/02 Thu
Concur. I recall that when I was in college (more years ago than I am pleased to count) I and my friends had the idea that adults were fools; couldn't they see the difference between the right and wrong decisions?
In practice, often the decisions are between something bad and something really bad. Thus Giles and Ben; between murder or the high probability of Glory's return to disrupt the world. Should Giles do nothing he would bear some responsibility for any future damage done by Glorifica returna; should he kill Ben he would have to bear all the responsibility for that. He makes the less bad choice, as there is no "right" choice.
[> [> [> [> Re: Double effect and moral action -- DEN, 14:03:16 01/24/02 Thu
fresne, my compliments on a terrific post. There is a way of addressing the "Ben dilemma." It's called "double effect," and was best enunciated by the Jesuits during the Counterreformation of the 16th century. Its basic argument is that in an imperfect world, very few acts are clearly moral or immoral. To assert that one can inerrantly perceive the good is indeed to commit the sin of presumption. Not to act is also sinful if evil may result from passivity (the sin of quietism). The moral individual correspondingly wills the good, acts with the intention to further the good, and simultaneously acts to minimize the wrongs that might result from that action.
This counsel was intended for those like rulers or soldiers, who had legitimate public responsibilities. It remains the essential basis of public morality in the West. Giles is not a designated public representative, but in the circumstances of BtVS he can, IMO, reasonably invoke the argument.
Films like "Dawn Patrol" and "12 O'Clock High" have compellingly addressed the pain felt by those who send others to fight and die. Since the 60s that image has been largely replaced in our culture by ones of manipulators in high places coldly sacrificing innocents as pawns in power games. Thanks for reminding us where Giles fits: like the general in "!2 O'Clock High," he's burned out from what he's had to do.
[> [> [> [> Great post! -- Rahael, 14:06:56 01/24/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> Re: A Compass Bending to Remove - Giles -- manwitch, 14:41:40 01/24/02 Thu
I agree with fresne yet again.
I would just want to add for people who think Giles was just rumbling along doing what obviously needed to be done with no concern over the consequences, that the show makes clear that a contrast is being made. Earlier I mentioned the use of the word killer, and its repetition as to how it applied to Buffy and then to Giles. Its not accidental. Its not that the writers couldn't think of another word.
Also in that episode, the word "monster" appears twice. Once in reference to Ben, and once in reference to Spike. But what's interesting there is the contrast in how Buffy and Giles treat monsters. Buffy treats her monster, Spike, like a man. Giles kills the other monster, Ben, in relatively cold blood given the immediate circumstances.
I think its just silly to pretend that we aren't being asked to notice this contrast. No one I have heard or read is saying Giles is a bad guy, they're saying he made a tough choice, and it has consequences for his character regardless of how or whether its justified. That's why we love Giles and find him interesting.
[> Re: A Valediction Contemplating Mourning - Giles -- ponygirl, 09:11:35 01/24/02 Thu
That was great! Posts like these are why I check this board every day. Giles has always been a fascinating character and like everyone else I am eagerly awaiting the Ripper series (get a move on BBC!). More than any character, except maybe Angel at the end of season 3, Giles needs to continue his journey away from the others. Giles has been conflicted about his life for a long time now. In Restless we see him confused about a view of himself as a father, paternal to Buffy, but unable to help Olivia. Over the last few years Giles has been searching for a life for himself, yet he rejects the role that would be easiest for him to assume - that of father to Buffy and Dawn. While I do believe that Giles loves Buffy as a father he is also someone who has sacrificed most of his emotional life to duty. And he did his duty, he sent Buffy to her death. His grief was genuine but I imagine there was- like Buffy in Weight of the World - a bit of relief. He had done his duty, he had faced the thing he had feared the most and now he was done. I think his reasons for leaving were valid in terms of forcing Buffy to face up to her responsibilities, but it was also an escape for him. He knew that he could not face Buffy's death again. I imagine this emotional failure will haunt him for a long while.
[> Great post -- now answer me this -- Sophist, 13:33:43 01/24/02 Thu
In what way is Giles leaving Buffy analogous to Tara leaving Willow? To me, it's really hard to know when you should let someone solve a problem herself, rather than holding her hand and helping her solve it. Giles and Tara both left without hesitation. Were they right?
[> [> As virtuous men pass mildly away - Giles and Tara -- fresne, 16:24:37 01/24/02 Thu
Dull sublunary lovers might say, yes or no, right or wrong, but in keeping with my general thought on this thread, both.
And I would contend that neither left without hesitation. Both of their songs said that they didn't want to go, but that they had to.
"In what way is Giles leaving Buffy analogous to Tara leaving Willow?"
Well, beyond the obvious Joss has them sing a wonderific duet together about leaving Buffy and Willow, hmmm...I don't know, while on one hand neither wishes to leave, their songs speak of different reasons for going.
Giles sings of being unable to reach Buffy, which she sadly proves, "Did you say something?" I think the lines, "I wish I could /Lay your arms down/And let you rest at last," is particularly telling. Laying your arms down and resting is another way of saying dead. Not that I think he consciously wants Buffy dead or anything, but I can see where he wants an end to his responsibility. He wants to play the father and lead her, and yet when you lead, you also stand in that person's way. Giles is tired. He has played the father for quite some time. If Buffy's way is uphill, so is his.
Now I'm afraid that I'm not the best person to say when you should lead people and when you should let go. My answer is always let people solve their own problems. Pushing is acceptable, but never pulling. My family's just not big on the handholding.
Tara, upon discovering the truth of the forget spell, sings, "Willow, don't you see? / There'll be nothing left of me." Tara wishes that she could trust, "That it was just this once." Tara further sings about being unable to deal with the disgust brought on by her new knowledge. Tara still loves Willow, but Tara can no longer trust Willow implicitly. Willow is the person who completes Tara, who pulls her into the sunlight, who opened a world of magic and friendship. All of a sudden that world, which seemed like it was built on granite, is built on sandstone.
So, I don't see Tara leaving Willow because she wants Willow to stand on her own two feet, but because Tara foresees a total dissolution of self if she stays.
One similarity between Giles and Tara's motivations is their tiredness.
Given what we do see, I wonder how much work Tara did behind the scenes to try and curb Willow's magical impulses. What a blow to discover that negotiation, discussion, her relationship, meant nothing.
Think of all the years that Giles has watched Buffy grow into an adult. And now, after he failed to preserve her from death, after he failed to notice that Willow was planning black magics under his nose, after he failed to notice the Summers' financial problems, Buffy is just sitting there. Doesn't hear the cries around her. Doesn't hear him. Giles doesn't know what to do. He can't reach Buffy. Can't find the right words that will make everything alright again.
And okay, here's something, Giles had the emotional strength to kill Ben (again, an act with a moral cost), was strong enough to bury Buffy and move on, but isn't strong enough to see Buffy hurting and not help her.
Perhaps, like Tara, he has reached that last emotional wall that he can't pull himself over. All he can do is withdraw and try something else.
It's a retreat and a defeat to leave, full of tear-floods and sigh-tempests and yet absence removed from that which elemented it doesn't mean that they don't love. Merely that they find themselves in a dark wood and the true way is lost.
[> [> [> Loving all those Donne quotes! -- Rahael, 03:51:28 01/25/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> Good - the Spheres told me to do it (NT) -- fresne, 12:01:24 01/25/02 Fri
[> [> [> Re: As virtuous men pass mildly away - Giles and Tara -- manwitch, 05:42:31 01/25/02 Fri
Being more of a contemporary non-fiction reader, Donne doesn't readily come to mind. But when Giles left, I kept thinking of a quote from Richard Rorty.
"What matters is our loyalty to other human beings, clinging together against the dark, not our hope of getting things right."
I know he thinks he's leaving to help Buffy stand on her own, but I kinda tend to agree with Buffy when she says to him, "you're wrong." I think ultimately, Giles left because he had to leave, not because she needed to stand on her own. Which doesn't make him bad, just human.
I see Tara's leaving differently. I think Tara is really leaving Willow for the sorts of reasons Giles claims to be leaving Buffy. Nothing Tara has done is helping Willow stand up to her "magic" issue. Discussing, asking, arguing, ultimatums. Tara must feel that her presence is not only dangerous to herself, but it isn't doing Willow any good. I see Tara as thinking, "The best way to help Willow recognize there are consequences to this abuse of magic is to give her some consequences she can't ignore. Maybe if she loses me, that's the best thing I can do for her at this time."
I mean, Tara is devastated by leaving Willow. I don't see how she could do it unless it was her love for Willow that was motivating it, at least in part. I know Willow has crossed some lines, and there's anger and confusion, but their love for each other isn't gone.
[> Re: A Valediction Contemplating Mourning - Giles -- Kerri, 17:36:38 01/24/02 Thu
I think Giles' mind set after Buffy's death was a bit like Buffy's at the prospect of having to kill Dawn. To Buffy Dawn was everything good about the world and herself, pure and loving, her child. Buffy was this to Giles.
BUFFY: I loved him so much. But I knew ... what was right. I don't have that any more. I don't understand. I don't know how to live in this world if these are the choices. If everything just gets stripped away. I don't see the point. I just wish that... (tearfully) I just wish my mom was here.
with the thought of losing Dawn (who, to Buffy, represents everything worth fighting for) Buffy doesn't know why she fights or what all her sacrafices were for. If the world can take this away from her then she doesn't understand why the world is worth saving.
But in the end Buffy doesn't have to kill Dawn. Her battles are worth something, and she understands why this is the work that I have to do. The Gift leaves Buffy understanding herself, why she fights, why life is worth living. One of her final words are:
Tell Giles ... tell Giles I figured it out. And, and I'm okay.
But Giles doesn't hear. He doesn't learn Buffy's lesson. There is too much pain and loss to understand what Buffy understood at the moment of her death, and chances are at that time it wasn't something Buffy could fully convey.
So now Giles is in the same place Buffy was. He sees himself as a killer, and everything that he fought for is gone. Yes, he killed Ben to save the world, but is it a place that's really worth saving if it means Buffy had to die.
I was confused when Giles left, because his reason for leaving seemed so inadequit. Buffy took more than enough upon herself, and a little help while she got back on her feet certainly wouldn't have hurt. And while Buffy was hiding from life, Giles didn't have very much to do with that.
So, why would Giles leave when Buffy really needed him? I don't believe he thought it was for her good. Maybe he tried to convince himself of that but it wasn't the reason.
I wonder if he would ever willingly take responsibility for another person again or if he will pull away from command. His retreat in TR is literally a retreat and his body language as he leaves says that he knows it.
He is retreating. He doesn't want to take responsibility for Buffy. And I don't think he could at the moment, because Giles is as lost as Buffy is now. He never resolved his issues about the world not being worth saving the way Buffy did. Giles tells Buffy that she needs to fight, to try to go on, but I'm not sure deep down he believes that.
[> [> Re: A Valediction Contemplating Mourning - Giles -- manwitch, 05:19:31 01/25/02 Fri
"Tell Giles ... tell Giles I figured it out. And, and I'm okay.
But Giles doesn't hear. He doesn't learn Buffy's lesson. There is too much pain and loss to understand what Buffy understood at the moment of her death, and chances are at that time it wasn't something Buffy could fully convey.
So now Giles is in the same place Buffy was. He sees himself as a killer, and everything that he fought for is gone. Yes, he killed Ben to save the world, but is it a place that's really worth saving if it means Buffy had to die."
I think this is really insightful. I know people might say, Giles always knew the slayer would die in action, but as we've all been discussing, there is a great gulf between "knowledge" and "felt experience." And the toll on him is, well, you can't help but notice the title of the next series isn't "Giles" or "Watcher." Its "Ripper." Giles has some stuff to work out.
[> This thread really clarified my thinking -- Sophist, 09:38:56 01/25/02 Fri
As usual on this board, one thread contains a whole series of insightful comments. I never understood Giles leaving (within the Buffyverse, of course; I know ASH was leaving the show). The reasons he gave don't make much sense in terms of Buffy's needs. They make all the sense in the world, however, in terms of his own emotional state. The analysis of that is outstanding.
Great points about Tara also. She herself was in real danger if she stayed, so her leaving served the double purpose of a shot across the bow to Willow and a safe harbor for herself.
These 2 departures have now created the necessary dramatic space for Buffy to re-connect with Willow. Although Giles may not have forseen this when he left, Buffy seems to have found the strength to stand on her own long enough to help her friend. That will supply a purpose for her life that she hadn't been able to find after her return. That small purpose -- rather than some grand design -- fits perfectly with the existential sense of her final speech in the Gift. She may not fully understand why she keeps rolling the stone up the hill, but life is just this, it's living.
Another persistent theme on the show is the need for friends as an essential condition for the exercise of our humanity. (I'm thinking Cicero/Aristotle here.) If Buffy can revitalize her friendship with Willow, Willow in turn can lend strengh to Buffy. That friendship can then provide the center of gravity for the SG as a whole.
Now, if JW can just work in a few references to Donne......
[> [> Thy firmness makes my circle just, And makes me end, where I begun -- fresne, 11:02:21 01/25/02 Fri
"Another persistent theme on the show is the need for friends as an essential condition for the exercise of our humanity."
Which puts me to mind of an oddity of the English language (there are so many). The word enabler.
In current speak, it is bad to be an enabler. We speak of Giles leaving so he will not enable Buffy's co-dependant behavior. We speak of Tara leaving so that she will not enable Willow's use of magic.
And yet, there is that older meaning to enabler. An Enabler (emphasis on the caps) is someone who enables others to reach into themselves and find that best part of themselves. Not in a "Do it for the Gipper" or "try a 110%" or even "Wind Beneath My Wings" sort of way. That sort of burble-age comes from the outside. An Enabler is someone whose own behavior helps you to clarify your own nature and desires. Makes you desire to be the most you that you can be.
I think that is part of the inherent discomfort in Giles and Tara's departures. We want them to be Enablers, while they fear the diminishment that comes of being an enabler.
[> [> [> The better angels of our nature -- Sophist, 12:48:30 01/25/02 Fri
And the tragedy is that when they left so as not to enable, Buffy and Willow lost what they can Enable. There's always consequences.
[> Yay! I finally got to have this conversation! But one lingering question: -- Liz, 14:11:08 01/25/02 Fri
After talking at people for a long time about Giles I'm glad that I finally got to have this conversation, and thanks to everyone for their insights.
But what I still wonder is this: What in hell is going to happen when Giles returns? Because I'm pretty sure that Tony Head signed on for a half season--11 episodes. He has been in six. So. How are they going to handle his return? I guess he'll most likely bein the last five, because that's the climax and because probably Tony would want to travel in for one chunk instead of scattered episodes. So I suppose I have to resort to that old staple, "We have no idea that's why the whow is so intriguing."
But the way we've interpreted Giles so far, any kind of return to Sunnydale will be hard on everyone. How are they going to handle that? Are they?
(By the way, if you actually know the answer to that because of priviledged spoilers, I don't really want to know. If you have speculation, go to it.)
[> [> And though it in the center sit, -- fresne, 17:25:23 01/25/02 Fri
Yet when the other far doth rome,/It leanes, and hearkens after it
Clearly, however far Giles and Tara go, at least in the short term, their hearts lean back to those they have left behind.
What will happen when Giles returns is contingent on several things.
The main crux is what happens to Buffy et all in the interim. Does Buffy pull herself to together? Does she melt? She has at least finally reached a point where as, "The breath goes now," she says no. However, Giles doesn't know that yet. And of course the essential difficulty of the emotional toll that Hellmouth duty takes won't/can't be resolved by any new resolution to life on Buffy's part.
I'm inclined to think (as we are always saying that Spike needs to do), that Giles need time away to find himself again. If everything seems to get striped away for Buffy, so, to for Giles. He has to find out who he is again. Suddenly parallels to post WWI T.E. Lawrence spring to mind (given his complete reinvention of self after the war).
If the new show is indeed called Ripper (it seems to vacillate whenever I read of it between names) then I'm even more intrigued by Giles' return to an earlier self. Consider, on BtVS he isn't known by his first name. His name is Rupert Giles, but even we never call him that. It isn't Mr. Giles anymore. It's just Giles.
By turning from his last name (associated with Sunnydale, the West, death, where the sun sets), to a new/old version of his first name (his souls form bending eastward, to England, that green and gentle land of his birth), he is reinventing himself. Starting over from the point where he choose to become Giles.
Ripper was wild. Uncontrolled. Not stuffy. Giles never seems to be called anything but stuff. On top of any emotional burdens, he must feel that he is calcifying from the skin inward.
So, the other item that will affect how Giles' return plays out is what happens to him in England. Is Ripper in the works? Will it take place in the time that he is in England? Given that the actor wishes to live in England, clearly the character will never return permanently to SunnyD.
It's likely that it will play out that he has given all that he has to give in this arena. That he needs something else. And that Buffy really no longer needs him to guide her by the hand through the woods dark and deep.
[> [> [> Re: And though it in the center sit, -- manwitch, 05:52:08 01/26/02 Sat
I expect if giles does come back, Buffy will eventually let him go. Whether she does so out of compassion, recognizing that Giles needs to go, or whether due to some future occurrence she sends him packing, I don't know. My guess is that she will "grow up," and release him from his bonds to her. He did more than he was asked to do for her, and she will accept that.
But I expect the "Ripper" aspect will be that Giles needs to come to terms with Ripper. Not necessarily to control and subdue it, but to recognize and acknowledge it, forgive it, and use it for human purposes. Not unlike Angel.
[> [> [> [> Re: And though it in the center sit, -- fresne, 08:03:04 01/26/02 Sat
"I expect if giles does come back, Buffy will eventually let him go."
Okay, that would just be lovely. And really a big step on the way to becoming an adult for Buffy. Recognizing Giles as adult with emotions of his own. Someone with needs that don't coincide with her own. Someone who genuinely needs to go his own way in life.
And since, we started by examining the dualism of the two in the Gift, it would rather make a nice complete circle of mutual letting go.
And yes, I totally agree. Giles needs to accept Ripper so he can be someone with a full name again. The more I think about the existence of a Ripper past, the more I wonder at the Giles persona, which he has adopted/become. Stuffy, stuttering, shy and tweedy. The utter antithesis of what he must have been in London. A persona he more and more sheds as the series goes on.
And just as aside there, since squatting was (not sure if it still is) legal in London, I imagine that Ripper and friends didn't have a flat. I imagine them having taken over some huge old tottering Georgian house for their days of London debauchery. Full of holes between floors, graffiti on the walls. Perhaps a stairway to the underground, which is merging London architecture a bit, but whatever. Mainly because I want to see Giles go there now. One of those, this was me and is and always will inform me moments.
[> [> [> [> [> I see Ripper as a member of the Hell-Fire Club, take 2 (NT) -- Sophist, 09:42:02 01/26/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> Ripper... in "Performance"? -- Solitude1056, 11:00:50 01/26/02 Sat
Naw... he was never the gentle artist type a la Jagger - but I can easily see him playing the hired hitman. But that house in Performance? Okay, ten years later & a different generation, but still... that's it. And you're right - now that I'm finally responding to this thread - that if they're calling the series "Ripper" as opposed to the earlier-reported title of "Watcher" ... that does signify a certain change in the weather for our favorite tweedy guy. ;-)
The Vision Thing (Spoilers thru Provider) -- RandomVisitor, 19:42:51 01/23/02 Wed
I was thinking back to when Doyle was still alive (remember way back when, in the first season), well anyway, Doyle was half demon, like Cordy is now, but he still experienced pain when he got the visions. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but didn't he used to get monstrous headaches after each vision?
Anyway, what I'm wondering is why doesn't Cordy experience any pain at all. I mean, she doesn't even flinch when she has the visions, and I remember Doyle flinching a lot.
Does anyone know the reason for this, I'm just curious, not really biting my nails or pulling my hair out or anything, but it kinda bothers me.
[> Re: The Vision Thing (Spoilers thru Provider) -- Apophis, 19:59:38 01/23/02 Wed
I figure that Doyle experienced pain durning the visions because they were his penance for ignoring his kinsman's request for help. Since Cordy has yet to be responsible for the massacre of her family members (kind of), she doesn't hurt. Besides, Doyle's visions hurt, but they weren't cumulatively fatal, as his demonic nature allowed him to withstand their effects. Cordy got a package deal: no death and no pain.
[> [> Re: The Vision Thing (Spoilers thru Provider) -- Wolfhowl, 21:16:25 01/23/02 Wed
a good theroy, but I think it's more like this.
We don't know what type of Demon Cordy is becoming. She doesn't grow blue spikes on her face when she sneezes, or anything like that.
I think the PTB thought that they gave Cordy enough pain, and turned Cordy into a demon with whom the visions don't hurt at all.
What do you think?
Wolfie
[> [> [> Re: The Vision Thing (Spoilers thru Provider) -- Lijdrec, 05:21:04 01/24/02 Thu
IMHO - the part of Cordy that was demonized was her brain. Kinda makes one wonder what powers she might manifest during her visions as other sections of her demonized brain are awakened. Could it be that she will develop powers akin to that of a witch?
[> Re: The Vision Thing (Spoilers thru Provider) -- maddog, 07:29:56 01/24/02 Thu
I'd say that just means that the powers made her part demon and that demon must be able to handle it where whatever type demon Doyle was just couldn't...ie they planned better this time. :)
Angel and Cordy -- Arethusa, 20:07:00 01/23/02 Wed
I'm suprised so many people think Angel and Cordy might start a romantic relationship. We've seen Angel begin to have feelings for Cordy, but her feelings are a different story. Just because she loves him doesn't mean she'll fall in love with him. Not only does she prefer someone "more spendy and less broody," but she might just know him too well to fall for him. Cordy never forgets anyone's faults, and never fails to remind anyone of those failings.
Cordelia also knows Buffy was the One True Love, and it is not like our Cordelia to settle for second best. Perhaps this is why the writers said Angel is in for a world of pain (if I remember correctly).
[> Re: Angel and Cordy -- maddog, 07:25:14 01/24/02 Thu
I think it's speculation combined with the fact that Cordy is great with Connor combined with how Angel feels. Sometimes you don't think about something until it presents itself to you. So you never know. Did you see broody Angel in that episode? Since Connor he's been this bundle of hapiness. So she'd have to love him despite his faults. It would be yet another positive character development for her. Remember, people don't always stay the same.
[> [> Re: Angel and Cordy -- Comstar, 10:03:38 01/24/02 Thu
On at least a couple of occassions this season and last, Cordy has reminded Angel that she is or wants to be prepared for the possibility of his becoming evil again. To me, that much forethought on her part has been one of her biggest positive character developments. For her to fall in love with an Angel she fully expects to have to fear again is certainly possible, but it would seem to be a large, disappointing step back.
[> Re: Angel and Cordy -- Liz, 10:45:55 01/24/02 Thu
I don't know Angel episodes by heart and I don't know the title of this one, but the one where that boy was having men beat women:
Angel explains why it didn't work on him. Cordy says something like, "I'm getting used to being comforted and creeped out at the same time."
Now that I've typed it out it doesn't really look like much. But it really looked like a turning point at the time.
[> Re: Angel and Cordy -- vampire hunter D, 12:26:58 01/24/02 Thu
Well why shouldn't they? Hell, the way they act, you'd think they were already married. He should just bang her and get it over with.
Going through the Numbers -- MrDave, 20:29:09 01/23/02 Wed
I noticed that there were a lot of numbers in the "Becoming" episode...especially on the characters. I looked through the archives but didn't find anything adequate to explain the numbers.
I mentioned this to a co-worker who suggested this (without knowing much about Buffy). This explaination made a LOT more sense!
(NOTE: Much of this is adapted from the works of Michael S. Schneider author of A Beginners Guide to Constructing the Universe)
Numbers have archetypes that are associated with them. These archetypes correspond to the places these numbers are found in nature.
The number seven (Dawn wore a seven in "Bargaining Prt 2") is the "virginal" number. It is prominant in religious and philosophical systems. It is associated with that which we cannot grasp or that which transcends the material world.
The number eleven (Xander wore an eleven on his jersey) is a Universl number. It represents Unity in diversity. Strength in adversity. It is the number of the stability of the universe.
The number thirteen (Willow wore a thirteen) is the "magic" number. It is the number of a witches coven. It is considered "unlucky", and is considered an abberation because it transcends twelve (the "perfect number") and is prime.
In "Life Serial" Buffy wears an eight. Eight is the number of renewal. It is making the journey and returning again. It is the same thing again with a new perspective (i.e. the octave scale).
I did not recall (or could not find reference) to other numbers on clothing. But this "numbers as archetypes" made complete sense to me.
[> Re: Going through the Numbers -- Marie, 04:09:15 01/24/02 Thu
I seem to remember that Marti Noxon (or someone) gave an interview in which she stated categorically that, despite what fans might think, the numbers on the clothes in that episode were nothing but a fashion statement. "Numbers are in!".
Marie
[> [> Re: Going through the Numbers -- manwitch, 06:11:24 01/24/02 Thu
the other minor problem is that Willow wore the number 11 and Xander wore 13.
But I don't believe Marti Noxon.
[> Re: Going through the Numbers -- pagangodess, 16:31:29 01/24/02 Thu
I also noticed the number theme and it bothered me for some time. At first, I thought it might be a date, but it doesn't fly. I like your version of things, it seems to make sense.
pagan
OT: A Party I Would Have Loved to Attend -- Wisewoman, 20:55:54 01/23/02 Wed
In 1950, Alan Watts left the Church and his first wife to begin a new life in Millbrook, New York with Dorothy Dewitt. After a memorable New Year's Eve dinner at their small farmhouse with Joseph Campbell, Jean Erdman, and Luisa Coomaraswami, Alan Watts left for California in early 1951 with his new wife to accept a teaching position at the Academy of Asian Studies in San Francisco. (From the Alan Watts site, http://www.alanwatts.com)
The following is page 131 from Indeterminancy by avant-garde composer John Cage:
Alan Watts gave a party that started in the afternoon, New Year's Eve [December 31, 1950], and lasted through the night and the following day. Except for about four hours which we spent napping we were never without food or drink. Alan Watts lived near Millbrook. His cooking was not only excellent but elaborate. There was, for instance, I forget just when, a meat pie in the shape of a large loaf of bread. Truffles ran through the meat, which had been wrapped first in crepes and then in the crust, in which had been inscribed in Sanskrit "OM."
Joseph Campbell, Jean Erdman [Campbell's wife], Mrs. Coomaraswamy, and I were the guests. Jean Erdman spent most of the time knitting. Alan Watts, Mrs. Coomaraswamy, and Joseph Campbell conversed brilliantly about the Orient, its mythologies, its arts, and its philosophies.
Joseph Campbell was concerned at that time about the illustration of his Zimmer book, Philosophies of India. He was anxious to find a picture which would include certain and several symbols, and though he had searched his own library and several public ones, he was still looking for the right picture. I said, "Why don't you use the one in Jean Erdman's knitting book?" Joseph Campbell laughed because he knew I hadn't even seen the picture.
Mrs. Coomaraswamy said, "Let me look at it."
Jean Erdman stopped knitting and gave her the book. Mrs. Coomaraswamy began interpreting the picture, which was of a girl in a sweater standing in a landscape. Everything, it turned out, referred precisely to the subjects with which Joseph Campbell was concerned, including the number in the upper right-hand corner.
Can you imagine being a fly on the wall for that particular gathering?
;o)
[> Great story, dub dub. Thanks for sharing. -- mundusmundi, 05:51:28 01/24/02 Thu
[> [> coolness! I see I'm not the only one who calls her dub-dub! ;-) -- Solitude1056, 06:57:25 01/24/02 Thu
[> [> [> I think you are responsibile for the "dubdub" meme, Sol. The punctuation seems to be unfixed, though -- d'Herblay, 07:01:17 01/24/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> I am? Oh. Hm. Wow. Okay, I'm just losing my mind. ;-) -- Solitude1056, 07:21:51 01/24/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> Huh. I'd always thought it was d'Herblay who dubbed dub dub. How dubious. -- mm, 12:19:27 01/24/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> Between dub-dub and Monty Python's Spanish Inquistion, I think y'all're abusing silliness :-))) -- Kimberly (with a big grin), 12:24:56 01/24/02 Thu
[> Re: OT: :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) -- Dedalus, 08:00:01 01/24/02 Thu
[> [> Re: I knew that would bring you out of hiding, Ded! ;o) -- dub dub, 09:03:47 01/24/02 Thu
[> [> [> Ok, dubdub, now what can you do to bring back Cleanthes? -- d'Herblay, 13:19:32 01/24/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> Re: We might have to get OnM to work his mojo on Cleanthes... -- dubdub, 13:45:53 01/24/02 Thu
Several months back he had an arcane ritual that called forth long-missing posters...don't think it involved deer slaying or regurgitating serpents, though.
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> Normally be glad to help out, but it might not be safe to do any mojo-in' at the mo... -- OnM, 20:39:46 01/24/02 Thu
...since here in my locale, a group of fire police have refused to offer their usual traffic control assistance to the annual YMCA-sponsored triathlon because they feel that the 'Y' is promoting the teaching of witchcraft to children by reading Harry Potter stories to them.
Of course, I'm a secular humanist, not a witch, but I don't think they'll care to debate the fine points anyway.
(Hummmmm-- is the Cheesesteak Chant truly witchcraft, or just an invitation to secular indigestion? Greater minds than mine will have to determine this, I fear.)
8p
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey! I read about that on CNN today! -- WW, 21:02:25 01/24/02 Thu
It made the big time. Didn't realize that was in your neck of the woods.
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not sure that 'neck' is the portion of the anatomy in question ... ;) -- OnM, 05:57:02 01/25/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OT Political Rant -- Wisewoman, 14:04:21 01/25/02 Fri
Some of you may know that I work for the union of teachers in BC. The 45,000 teachers of the province have been without a contract for almost a year. They do not have the right to strike as they have been declared an "essential service" by the current provincial government. This afternoon, the provincial Liberal government is reconvening in the Legislature in order to force a settlement that may well remove the union rights and maximum class size provisions in the contract, as well as drastically reducing the number of specialist teachers available for English as a Second Language students and Special Needs students. At the same time, the government has hinted that it intends to re-open contracts previously signed with nurses, paramedics, and various other health care workers in the province.
This is the same government that last week announced the loss of 11,500 jobs in the Government Employees' Union, as well as raising the cost of a transit pass for senior citizens from $40 per year to $480 per year.
The meeting of the legislature is broadcast on local TV. They began this session with the member from Kamloops leading the assembly in a prayer.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> O.K., the use of "Liberal" there is in name only...? -- Masquerade, 16:18:42 01/25/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You got it, Masq -- WW, 17:23:11 01/25/02 Fri
BC politics is an exercise in, well I guess you'd call it the semantics of party naming? The rest of the country has provincial parties that pretty much mirror the big national parties: the New Democratic Party (fairly far left), the Liberal Party (pretty much centre, with a lean to the left), and the Progressive Conservatives (leaning to the right, precariously about to tip). In reality, the federal NDP never stand a chance of forming the government so it's pretty much a two-party system, much like the US.
In BC the provincial two-party system boiled down to the provincial NDP (again, fairly far left) and the Social Credit Party (slightly to the right of Attila the Hun). These two parties battled each other into submission over many years, allowing the previously unheard-from provincial Liberals to sweep up the middle and win a landslide victory last May.
After they won, we kinda noticed they were just the Social Credit party with a different name...
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> You've gotta be kidding............ -- Rufus, 23:54:56 01/24/02 Thu
The police and fire department are supposed to be impartial..they are there to serve the public. I've got all the HP books and I don't think the content is intended to teach magic to kids. If they hold that standard to everything kids read then they better first clear out all the Fairy Tales because they frequently include magic. Did none of these people ever consider the words metaphor, or fiction when they came to their conclusion about this one series of books?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Did none of these people ever consider the words (to be) metaphor? -- OnM, 06:06:51 01/25/02 Fri
No. It isn't the job of the sheep to think in metaphors. It's their job to get sheared, and rejoice in it.
On a somewhat less mean-spirited note, it has been my observation over the course of my life that the ability to understand the concept of metaphor is simply not present in some individuals, just as the ability to read well or have a sense of humor is not. It may be a talent, or possibly a skill, or of course have elements of both involved, but I have noticed that some folk just don't possess it.
(Did I say 'possess'? Sorry, that was meant to be literal, not metaphorical or involving the supernatural in any way).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Did none of these people ever consider the words (to be) metaphor? -- WW, 06:19:50 01/25/02 Fri
Well, that explains it. I have a very dear friend, an older woman, and we see each other every week. We get along very well and often read the same novels and rent the same videos, etc. I'm always a little puzzled when she admits she's missed the "subtleties" in a book or film I've enjoyed. Now I realize she's speaking of metaphors and/or analogies. They go right over her head. (Fortunately she's not the reactionary jerk that some people are!)
Hmm. The hardwiring of the brain is indeed a mysterious and sometimes frightening thing.
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Metaphor Blindness -- Rahael, 06:35:46 01/25/02 Fri
I have two close friends, both of whom I introduced to Buffy.
One works abroad so hasn't had a chance to see the programme before; when she came back for Christmas, we watched Innocence, The Gift and OMWF together. She got the metaphors immediately. I didn't even have to explain a single plot detail, despite the huge gaps between the episodes - she caught on immediately (who says Buffy was that complicated). The allowing vamps into one's house she interpreted as representing emotional openness/closedness, and so on.
The other doesn't get a single metaphor in the series. She watches it like a soap opera. When I wax lyrical about some beautifully subtle visual metaphor she stares blankly at me. She watches Buffy for escapism. This is a show about vampires, and the vampire slayer. Full stop.
As for me, I can't watch/see/read anything without seeing a metaphor. It's my way of imposing order in an orderless universe!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Metaphor Blindness -- Kimberly, 08:38:00 01/25/02 Fri
Metaphor Blindness is not totally incurable. Why do I say this? Because BtVS and this board are curing me of mine.
I've always watched things and just went along with the literal story. I might (if there was anything there to work with) think about the philosophy, ethics, psychology, etc., that was shown, but it never occurred to me to view the story and characters as metaphors.
Along comes Buffy. The wonderful metaphors still don't hit. Then I find Masquerade's wonderful site and enjoy it immensely, but I still miss the metaphors. Then, after watching The Gift, my husband and I went searching for reassurance that Buffy would be back next season. In that search, we found this board. And all of its wonderful, metaphorical goodness. So, now, I can see the metaphor of what I watch. (No TV except ME shows, though. I'm spoiled.)
It can be cured. However, the cure involves effort and thought, two things most people don't seem to want to spend. So, we're stuck with literalists who can see the metaphors and poetry in neither Harry Potter nor The Bible.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Reminds me of a Python sketch (I'm sick, I can't stop) -- matching mole, 09:38:01 01/25/02 Fri
Last night I pulled out my ancient copy of Monty Python's Matching Tie and Hankerchief (to my knowledge the world's only 3 sided record) and listened to it for the first time in years. One of the sketches was an interview with an eminent (but fictitious) Shakespearean actor. When asked about various roles he evaluates their difficulty by the number of words he has to say (Lear is over 8,000 while Romeo is only around 4,000). When questioned about a particular role he replies 'I don't want you to get the idea that it's simply a matter of the number of words. Getting them in the right order is equally important.'
Reading your post I thought that this was a great metaphor for not 'getting' metaphors.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Reminds me of a Python sketch (I'm sick, I can't stop) -- Kimberly, 10:47:39 01/25/02 Fri
Yep. "Not to be, to be, or . . . " just doesn't quite have the same impact. :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Let Me Tell You A Story .... -- Dedalus, 12:15:22 01/25/02 Fri
The people who worship the metaphor don't know what they're doing. They don't know Yaweh is a metaphor. The only problem with Yaweh is, he didn't know it either!
Joseph Campbell and the Power of Art
Anyway, I am not "hiding" my beloved dub dub. I have merely been hibernating over at TheForce.net. Yes, haunting the halls of the Jedi Council Forums. There is all sorts of Attack of the Clones info that is coming out, and quite frankly, the actual movie is going to be so good come May 16th I might actually implode. Now, I have complained endlessly (mostly to Rahael at chat) about the type of posters that hang out there. I basically have to hang out there to talk SW though, for the simple reason there are no other big SW forums on the web.
It's interesting, but all the TPM gushers know what a metaphor is, but all the TPM bashers don't. This is what you are talking about. They just don't get it. I've spent the better part of two years trying to explain to some of them what a metaphor is, so metaphor blindness is a real thing. At any rate, when we start discussing all the great symbolism in SW, they just say we're "reading too much into it." They also say we apologize for Lucas' inadequacies as a filmmaker by making up all these "hidden meanings" for movies that don't really exist. That's right. Hidden meanings.
Not only am I stuck with people who don't know what symbolism is, they don't even know the WORD "symbolism."
Sigh. Makes me miss you guys all the more, but I am on major Buffy burn-out.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, just stop by when you need a refreshing taste o' folks-who-get-metaphors. ;-) -- Solitude1056, 12:17:52 01/25/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm actually going to have to watch TPM -- Kimberly, 12:25:32 01/25/02 Fri
No particular reason I haven't, either. Didn't feel well when hubby and son went to see it in the theaters and have never felt like sitting down and watching the tape. Maybe I'll wait till number 2 comes out and watch both in a marathon.
Don't be a stranger.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm actually going to have to watch TPM -- Dedalus, 12:37:53 01/25/02 Fri
I shouldn't be such a stranger. I do haunt the chat rooms from time to time. And of course, everyone is welcome to email me at Dedalus47@aol.com or paul_floyd7us@yahoo.com. I am not even around my computer that much, for lately I've been moving around and having to stay with sick relatives and the like.
Anyway, you give me hope Kimberly. :-) May I suggest getting the TPM DVD or renting it and then watching Episode Two a day or so afterwards? That would be interesting.
You know, when you think of all the battles, bloodshed, torture, and debates that have erupted for no other reason than people fail to see that, like Goethe said, all is metaphor, it almost blows the mind.
"Myth is metaphor. It's good. No one knows what the hell a metaphor is." - Joseph Campbell
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Insisting on DVD over VHS. Hunh. You got a player you can spare? ;-) -- Solitude1056, who's sticking with VHS for now (cheaper!), 14:32:55 01/25/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Check your local video stores. A lot of them rent DVD players now. -- Isabel, 17:37:41 01/25/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No, see, that would cost $$$, and right now my savings are dedicated to a certain university... ;-) -- Solitude1056, 18:57:16 01/25/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dedalus! -- grifter, 15:58:36 01/25/02 Fri
Can you please tell me your username on TheForce.net? I'm kind of a Star Wars fan, but have never thought of it "that way" (you know, the philosophical one, not the dirty one). Now you've gone and made me all interested in what you had to say. ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dedalus! -- grifter, 16:10:52 01/25/02 Fri
Ok, don't bother, you're Dionysus, right? ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dedalus! -- Dedalus, 13:54:08 01/26/02 Sat
No. Although I do know Dionysus. Sort of. He seems very bright, so I appreciate the compliment. Actually, most of the people I know have gone to greener pastures.
I'm Ded-Man right now. I started out there as Dedalus. What the old timers know me as. But Dedalus had a tendency to get banned a lot, so now it's Ded-Man. And I'll most likely be hanging around the AOTC forum.
Btw, we had one of the greatest philosophic SW threads of all time, called Random Symbols, Ivory Tower stuff, but alas, it's gone now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Have you been a naughty boy.......... -- Rufus, 18:55:52 01/26/02 Sat
Getting all banned and everything.....whatever could such a nice lad have said to make them toss you out?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh damn! ;) -- grifter, 14:20:03 01/27/02 Sun
Hehe, I really hope you take my confusing you with Dionysus as a compliment. ;)
What he said in one of the threads I read really sounded like it more belongs here than this mostly incredibly dull board (no offence, you know I don't mean you with this...).
Willow Questions/Theories -- Eric, 21:30:12 01/23/02 Wed
Once more I must demonstrate my lamentable lack of a satelite dish. Its been clear through F/X re runs that Willow has become quite a powerful witch. And here on the board I've word that she's been mis using, even abusing this power and that magic is an addiction for her. My question is: Is casting spells an addiction for her, or is it the power itself? She's always been more or less at the mercy of her parents, school, friends, social expectations. With powers that can now challenge even Buffy, is it any wonder she displays an urge to control people and things? Power has proven to be addictive in the past.
(BTW this type of danger is broadly hinted at in several types of fantasy. Except in stories where magic is as common as dirt, the most powerful good magicians seldom use it except for very important matters. In formal magick lore, talented members of certain Buddhist monastic sects gain magic powers after years of meditaion. However, they characterize these powers as "demons" that are among the last and greatest hurdles before enlightenment. When a monk gains a power, he and his peers gather for a brief ceremony where he demonstrates it to show he's reached a certain spiritual level. Then that power is never used again.)
[> Re: Willow Questions/Theories -- manwitch, 06:09:10 01/24/02 Thu
I think Willow comes to "hide" behind magic, as she used to hide in Eskimo Parkas or Ghost costumes. She is very unsatisfied who with who she (thinks she) is at the core of her being. Magic allows her to feel like she's something else, so she overuses it and uses it for the wrong things. It becomes a selfish thing.
[> [> Re: Willow Questions/Theories -- myra, 06:51:08 01/24/02 Thu
I agree with manwitch, Willow uses (used) her magic to get away from her highschool image, that of a nerdy schoolgirl. She revels in the power she suddenly has and gets carried away by it. She has to learn how to control it since she can't just give up on it (she's a powerful witch and her magic should be used for the greater good), hopefully she now sees that what she's been doing is wrong and has the strength to get her control back.
[> [> [> Re: Willow Questions/Theories(S6 Spoilers) -- skpe, 07:02:19 01/25/02 Fri
I think that that willows magic use is portrayed as more then just a power trip, especially the sessions with Rack. He even calls her 'strawberry' ,(the street name for some one who sells themselves for drugs). And she is definitely acting stoned when she wrecks the car and hurts Dawn
[> Re: Willow Questions/Theories -- maddog, 07:00:29 01/24/02 Thu
It's the power. She's stated that if she loses her magic then she feels ordinary again like she felt like in high school. The magic is just a means to an end. Her way to stay up somewhat equal to Buffy.
[> Re: Willow: Witch or Sorceress - natue of the addiction -- Lijdrec, 07:40:26 01/24/02 Thu
Since the S2-BecomingII spell that she cast to re-soul Angel I have always been of the opinion that Willow was not a true Witch in the Buffyverse sense. While she had been studying the arts, I cannot remember that she showed any innate powers before that spell.
People who use magick in the Buffyverse seem to be divided into three catagories:
1] People with no power, but nonetheless do master and cast magical spells. Giles, Jenny Calendar, and perhaps Jonathan are persons who fit into this catagory.
2] Sorcerers are people to whom a power has given in order to serve that which bestows the power. Ethan Raines is the best example, he served chaos.
3] Witches - Persons with natural, perhaps hereditary abilities. Tara, Amy, and Catherine Madison are the best examples.
So what catagory does Willow fit into and what does that mean for her 'addiction'. It all goes back to the spell Willow cast in Becoming. Giles told her that casting such a spell or "channeling... such potent magicks through yourself, it could open a door that you may not be able to close." Something definitely happened to Willow during the casting of that spell, the physical effects and speech in the original tongue. The question is - was it the awakening of her natural abilities or was it a higher power (The Powers That Be?) bestowing upon Willow the abilities that she needed to perform the spell. Or was it a combination?
You can certainly make the case that the spell might have awakened her natural abilities, but I find the timing of the spell to be rather too coincidental with elements of the fight sequence between Buffy and Angel. The spell is necessarily tied in with the Champion status that the PTBs, as represented by Whistler, foresee for Angel. In my mind the PTBs certainly see it as necessary that Angel's soul should be restored if he is to be resurrected as a Champion in their employ.
When Willow is saying the spell she at first quite well. As time goes on she becomes breathless, almost unable to continue. She then begins to speak the spell apparently in its mother tongue. All this is at a time when Angel has the upper hand in the battle. One might argue that if the PTBs are interfering with casting of the spell, that they are accelerating Willow's casting and perhaps bestowing that power upon her.
One other thing happens after Buffy takes the upper hand in the battle and it appears that her victory over Angel is imminent. Buffy then wounds Angel, striking the sword from his hand. At that point there is a mystical reaction in Willow, she physically reacts, and she presses home the completion of the spell. This may be because some higher power (TPTB) finds it necessary that Angel have his soul returned to him before the Slayer can strike the fateful blow. Whistler and the PTBs had not foreseen that Angelus would return to bring forth Acathla, but they still had need of him.
So I am of the opinion that some higher power (TPTB) was using Willow during the casting of the spell that restored Angel soul. The Powers may have bestowed upon Willow some power in order to complete the spell. This would make her a Sorceress. Or it is possible that the power that was bestowed upon her may have awaked some innate ability, but where was Willow's ability demonstrated before Becoming?
Either way any such power that was bestowed upon Willow could also be taken away. This might weaken her magical abilities and aid her in lessening the effects of her 'addiction'. It would also necessarily mean that Willow has abused a granted power and that in itself may have consequences for her.
[> [> Re: Willow: Witch or Sorceress - natue of the addiction -- maddog, 08:24:29 01/24/02 Thu
What makes Tara and Willow different? They both seemed to have dabled in magic. Why is Tara in one category and Willow in another? I'm in agreement that she certainly looked like she had help when she started speaking the latin like it was second nature. And your assessment makes sense. However, I don't think it changes her from being a witch. I don't see, how she doesn't fit into that category. Even if the powers helped her in that one situation it doesn't mean they had anything to do with the other spells she's cast...if anything what they did that day by helping her was boost her confidence.
[> [> [> Re: Willow: Witch or Sorceress - natue of the addiction -- manwitch, 14:13:16 01/24/02 Thu
I think Willow is definitely powerful in her own right. Everybody mentions it. She has the gift.
I think the analogy would be to Gandalf in LOTR. He'd best not take the ring precisely because he's powerful. He has to be more careful than a weaker soul about what powers he uses.
[> [> [> Re: Willow: Witch or Sorceress - natue of the addiction -- Eric, 01:55:33 01/27/02 Sun
Practicing magic traditionally requires a peculiar mixture of intellectual, emotional, artistic, spiritual, and mental abilities/characteristics. And in Willow's case (as mentioned above) she is certainly endowed with the most of these qualities. Being close to the Hellmouth (and possible aid from the Powers that Be) certainly helps. But the essential foundation must be there or EVERYONE in Sunnydale would be slinging spells. Actually, most could. Even Xander has cast a spell. But only the truly skilled and practiced like Willow do it to optimum effect. Tara on the other hand is merely practiced. She can do it, but she's mentioned that Willow has already outstripped her in experience and power. Bear in mind that with a power that confounds understood physical laws, this could change. Anya, for example, was once a fairly powerful witch in her own right. But she remembers nothing of those powers. If Willow is in fact deriving some of her strength from the PTB, she might be in for a let down. Then "all" she could do is hack computers and do minor spells.
[> [> Interesting ideas. -- CW, 09:15:34 01/24/02 Thu
[> [> [> Re: Doing good and doing well -- DEN, 11:39:17 01/24/02 Thu
There's an old joke that everybody wants to see God and make a million dollars--but not in that order. Willow's power, as several posters have said, helps her compensate for her feelings of inadequacy (contrast the Eskimo costume and the overalls with the outfits of S6). But unlike let us say drugs or alcohol, Willow's magic has real consequences. Those consequences have regularly been valuable--indeed essential. In that sense Willow is like a person with a scarce real-world skill that imposes high stress, brings high external rewards, and is usually accompanied by high tolerance for certain kinds of lapses in judgment or behavior. I've compared her to a fighter pilot. A surgeon will work too: think of Mandy Patinkin's efflorescently eccentric Dr. Jeffrey Geiger from a few years back.
The problem is that Willow can't channel her "career success," that is her use of power for good, to sustain her sense of self-worth. The "hole in her soul" remains--and requires increasing "hits" of success (magic)if Willow is to remain ordinarily stable.
That's why the addiction metaphor can't just be dismissed as poor plotting. But if the S6 theme is "grow up," Willow is like a lot of people whose increasing career success fails to bring them peace or happiness. In that context Tara's leaving sustains an interpretation parallel to the "abusive relationship" one. It also serves as a metaphor for the scenario of "your work means more to you than I do." And learning to use magic appropriately in the context of the metaphorical "family" of the Scoobies will be the kind of step many posters on this board have or will experience.
[> [> [> [> Re: Doing good and doing well -- Rufus, 17:13:09 01/24/02 Thu
Willow's power, as several posters have said, helps her compensate for her feelings of inadequacy (contrast the Eskimo costume and the overalls with the outfits of S6). But unlike let us say drugs or alcohol, Willow's magic has real consequences. Those consequences have regularly been valuable--indeed essential. In that sense Willow is like a person with a scarce real-world skill that imposes high stress, brings high external rewards, and is usually accompanied by high tolerance for certain kinds of lapses in judgment or behavior. I've compared her to a fighter pilot. A surgeon will work too: think of Mandy Patinkin's efflorescently eccentric Dr. Jeffrey Geiger from a few years back.
I look at two episodes, Halloween and Restless, when I think of what Willow is about. In Halloween, Willow gets dressed as the type of sexy girl that she is uncomfortable being, with a short skirt and makeup, she covers herself with a ghost costume. In Restless, Willow is wearing clothing that we are used to seeing her in, but Buffy says ...
BUFFY: (straightens up) Play is long over. (Stares at Willow) Why are you still in costume?
WILLOW: Okay, still having to explain wherein this is just my outfit. (Gesturing to her clothes)
BUFFY: Willow, everybody already knows. Take it off.
WILLOW: No. No. (Looks around nervously) I need it.
(Buffy rolls her eyes.)
BUFFY: Oh, for god's sake, just take it off.
(Spins Willow around and rips her clothes off.)
BUFFY: That's better. It's much more realistic.
(Suddenly all the desks have students in them. Buffy turns and goes to take her seat.)
HARMONY: See? Isn't everybody very clear on this now?
(We see Anya sitting next to Harmony, giggling. The whole class is giggling.)We see Anya sitting next to Harmony, giggling. The whole class is giggling.)
(Shot of Willow in her nerdy schoolgirl outfit and long straight hair from BTVS first season. Holding some paper.)
ANYA: My god, it's like a tragedy.
Willow may be dressing differently but her insecurities are running the show. Her misuse of power is due to immaturity and inability to accept herself. I mentioned that I see Willow as similar to a child prodigy. She has power but not the experience and maturity to use it wisely. To Willow, the power is her, what she wants to be...respected and admired instead of seen as a geek. In a year of growing up it makes sense that she learn to use her power instead of abusing it for gain.
[> Re: Willow Questions/Theories -- skeeve, 13:39:40 01/24/02 Thu
Willow needs something ego-feeding to do on a regular basis. Magic stuff works, but when there isn't anything useful to do, Willow has a habit of using it anyway, sometimes on innocent bystanders.
Buffy has too much to do: take care of Dawn, make a living, and slay vampires.
There's a solution to both these problems: Willow can take over Buffy's slaying duties. She can fly and "throw" a mean pencil. With a box of pencils, she could dispatch a whole mob of vampires from perfect safety. With Buffy's supernatural physical abilities, she could certainly make a living. There is one construction company that she can't go back to, but that shouldn't keep her from making a living elsewhere. I'd suggest professional athletics, but I'm not sure there is anywhere a woman can make a real living that way. Buffy wouldn't have to stay in Sunnydale, which is why this won't happen. How much is Picabo Street making in endorsements?
[> [> Re: Willow's "addiction" -- leslie, 11:18:58 01/25/02 Fri
I see Willow's "problem" with magic as being much more analogous to an eating disorder than a substance addiction. It isn't something that she could, or should, simply stop doing, just as you can't just stop eating the way you would stop drinking, for instance. Part of maturing is learning how to moderate your more excessive impulses, and this is exactly what Willow needs to do--her talents are too valuable to simply abandon, but at the same time, there is a price to be paid for them and she has to figure out how much she can pay. Live within her magical budget, as it were.
As for the source of her powers, I'd point out that both Willow and Tara appear to obtain their powers primarily through the worship of a goddess: Aradia. She's the deity to whom most of their spells are addressed as petitions. Carlo Ginzburg, in _Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches' Sabbath_ (1991), is pretty interesting on the evidence for worship of this goddess under numerous variations of her name, throughout medieval and early modern northern Europe. (He's also got some interesting stuff on werewolves in there, too.)
[> [> [> Great! Another fan of Ginzburg! -- Rahael, 11:59:39 01/25/02 Fri
Not without his faults, but a great social historian. I haven't read Ecstasies, but 'The Cheese and the Worms' was one of the few books on my reading lists that I bought my own copy of.
Also, his book on the Night Battles (I think the Italian title was translated as such into English) is a pretty original analysis of witchraft, as well as being the kind of subtle social history that I like.
Ginzburg and Keith Thomas are a bit dated now, but for anyone looking for seminal, highly readable historical analyses of witchcraft and magic in early modern Europe, they must be first choice. Oh, and I liked Robin Briggs' 'Witches as Neighbours' too. Another own purchase rather than library borrowed copy.
I can remember reading Witches as Neighbours, the Cheese and the Worms, and Thomas's Religion and the decline of Magic and feeling stunned at the end.
[> [> [> [> Re: Great! Another fan of Ginzburg! -- leslie, 12:12:25 01/27/02 Sun
_Ecstasies_ basically starts from the material Ginzburg used in _Night Battles_ and develops it further. I have some quibbles--the Celtic material he gets into, for instance, is fine as far as it goes, but as a Celticist, I know that there's even more there that would actually be even more pertinent to his argument--but it's a very provocative book. I also tracked down one of his references, to a monograph called _Witches and Fairies at the Boundary of South-eastern and Central Europe_ by Eva Pocs (Folklore Fellows Communications no. 243, Helsinki, 1989), which is just a treasure-trove of folk belief in Aradia-like goddesses.
Angel & Buffy Rumours from the UK Re Spike -- Aven, 05:23:11 01/24/02 Thu
Have heard that future seasons will see a good deal of Angel back in Buffy (Source quoted as Joss!). Find this very worrying for Spike's character, because he fills the vampire-lover role at present & cannot see them needing two in the show. So either Spike goes back to bad, and hey, that's been done before, and so has a spin-off - or they dust Spike and I will never watch the show again!
[> Re: Angel & Buffy Rumours from the UK Re Spike -- manwitch, 06:06:11 01/24/02 Thu
I think it would be hilarious to see good spike and good angel try to work together.
[> [> Re: Angel & Buffy Rumours from the UK Re Spike -- myra, 06:29:42 01/24/02 Thu
Hmm, I don't see how Angel could appear frequently in BtVS without leaving his series, and you have to admit, 'Angel:the series' without Angel just wouldn't be the same :).
The whole idea sounds pretty implausible since Joss said crossovers with 'A:ts' would be "something we might get into next year if things have cooled down between the two networks."
But I'm right with you being more than a little pissed off if Spike goes dusty.
[> [> [> Re: Angel & Buffy Rumours from the UK Re Spike -- Wildheart, 18:16:26 01/24/02 Thu
I am looking forward to angels reaction concerning Buffy and Spike, I dont think that Joss would bring in Angel to distroy there relationship
1) it will be good to see how buffy truely feels about Spike having angel there
2) I will love to see angels reaction to the reformed/ "good" spike That is going to be good
3) It will not happen till next season cause there is to many character development archs happening this season on both show to do any cross overs
As for them dusting spike I dont think that will happen this season because Joss doesnt do this much character development to kill off the character, I think that he is going to kill them all in 7, so Spike will probably join the rest of the gang.
[> [> [> Spike vs. Angel -- Rochefort, 13:54:41 01/25/02 Fri
Well... maybe Spike can guest star on Angel again, then. We can resolve it that way. Spike can dust him and put him out of his broody misery (not to mention ending the show on a fabulous post-modern note: Spike wins Buffy, by killing Angel and his bloody poofy show.) Stake, dust....credits.
[> Re: Angel & Buffy Rumours from the UK Re Spike -- maddog, 06:25:25 01/24/02 Thu
Two problems with that...first off, if it goes past season 7 then I think there will be a lot of people surprised. So the pluralization of the rumor makes me suspicious. And secondly, the most we've heard from Joss over here is that it's possible that the two networks will make up so to speak and that MAYBE next year we'd see a crossover, but that he's trying to make them their own entities.
[> Re: Angel & Buffy Rumours from the UK Re Spike -- Erik, 15:17:03 01/24/02 Thu
Would you really stop watching is Spike was killed? I certainly wouldn't, this isn't the Spike show, and if it meant that in order to move the story along Spike had to die I would still be there. Ratings and popularity be damned.
[> [> Re:Random Rumours -- LeeAnn, 03:57:55 01/25/02 Fri
Erik: Would you really stop watching is Spike was killed?
Yeah. I tried watching before Spike but never could get into it. But a random 3 minutes of Spike (Fool for Love) got me watching and after that I became a fan.
[> [> [> Re:Random Rumours -- Anne, 12:57:00 01/25/02 Fri
I'm mostly with you -- I'd probably at least try watching a few more episodes if they killed off Spike, but I'm not so sure the show would retain my attention. I got interested in the show in FX reruns last November, but only after I started noticing the Spike character. I also think Joss Whedon would have to be a bigger fool than I take him for if he kills off Spike for any reason other than Marsters getting some film offers. It is possible, though not I think very likely, that the writers could come up with a more interesting character than Spike. But there's no way in the world they're going to find a better or more charismatic actor to play him.
Ted Theory -- Calluna, 10:31:04 01/24/02 Thu
I suddenly occured to me, do you suppose that the human 'Ted' and Warren are related? Or at least Warren knows about Ted's work? It would kind of explain why Warren knows so much about the creation of life-like robots who have a distinct tendancy to be psychotic (not including the Buffybot).
Also, who on the BtVS crew has "Robo-fear"? There's been an awful lot of evil robots. "Malcom", Ted, April, and Adam.
And sort of OT, what's the difference between a robot and an android? Just wondering.
[> robots and androids -- matching mole, 10:42:23 01/24/02 Thu
I don't know exactly what the technical definition of a robot is (a computer capable of performing 'manual' tasks perhaps). The term android means 'like a man' and refers to robots that closely resemble human beings. Ted and the Buffybot were both androids. So robot is a general term and androids are a specific category of robots (as I understand - willing to be corrected).
[> [> Adam would be a cyborg, I guess -- Stranger, 16:44:47 01/24/02 Thu
[> Re: Ted Theory -- skeeve, 13:10:35 01/24/02 Thu
On a more serious note, Buffy's behaviour in Ted wasn't illegal or immoral. She tried to kick Ted out of where he wasn't supposed to be (her bedroom) and get her diary back. Ted resisted and was winning the fight until he heard Joyce. That is when he threw himself down the stairs and played dead.
Where the Powers That Be be. (Or 2, 2, 2 universes in 1!) (possible S6 Buffy, S3 Angel spoilers) -- Darby, 11:37:25 01/24/02 Thu
I had an bit of an odd thought, so of course this is the perfect venue for it...
Joss and the writers obviously have at some time been comics readers - mainstream, super-heroes-beat-up-bad-guys comics. We've talked before about parallels between changes in the approach to mainstream comics over time and the variations in approach to Buffy and Angel.
I'd like to suggest that, in the same way that different "breeds" of comics are in the same world but not of the same world, so it goes with the two shows, and this leads (or led - more on this later) to basic differences in the actual universes (I'm driving myself a little nuts using universe in the plural, but if quantum physicists can do it, so can I).
What's the underlying "drive" in Buffy's world? The Watcher's Council? Nope, not been really a force since Buffy's initial introduction to Giles, and every time it has tried to exert any authority it's been slapped down. In the Buffyverse, people are heroes because it's something that they can be, and doggone it, it's just the right thing to do! Kind of like the classic super-hero types, from the 1930s up to maybe the 1970s. Buffy's world isn't really our world, it's a unique and idealized version - "grit" and "noir" have no real place there. Monsters exist, but no one wants to believe in them, and that's enough of an explanation.
But with Angel, the world is different. The great evil is a law firm, there is a thriving underground of demon-types who mostly don't seem to bother anybody. Although not overtly shown (hinted at strongly, though), in Angel's Los Angeles many people seem aware of the creatures they share space with, but aren't too alarmed about it. And in this world, why would anyone in their right mind be a hero?
This was actually always a problem with Angel, and in the Buffyverse he (and only he) needed some driving force to make him a Champion. The Powers That Be are not an integral part of Buffy's world (I don't think that they've ever been mentioned there, and events of obvious intervention seem to be linked only to Angel), because they aren't needed to produce heroes there - they are uniquely Angel's, whose back story required string-pullers (are we assuming Whistler was their agent?) to explain why he'd ever help the Slayer in the first place (think how much more involved and slow a process making a hero out of Spike has been). The absolutes of Buffy's world are moral absolutes held in the hearts of the characters; in Angel's world, the absolutes need physical presences with powerful abilities. This is one reason why, even though we know as Buffyholics that the season arcs on the two shows parallel, the themes play out so differently that more casual watchers of the programs wouldn't notice.
But how long can Captain Marvel exist in a world of Wolverines and Punishers? Are we seeing a movement of Buffy into a more realistic world over the course of this season and next, in preparation for a move to film? In this case, it almost seems that the season arcs are moving in opposition - as Buffy moves into a world of real-life problems and increasing numbers of grays between the blacks and whites, Angel seems to be getting somewhat more simplistic, which is muddying the motivations of characters on both shows. As this happens, the motivations of the string-pullers in that world are getting more fuzzy. There's a balance in there somewhere, but I'm not sure that the writers have found it yet.
Maybe it all comes down to the difference between high school and adult life - the world did seem a more absolute place when I was 15.
As usual, I started with an idea and wandered across the countryside with it, but I think that the idea is still here somewhere. Comments?
[> Where the Powers That Be be. (Or 2, 2, 2 universes in 1!) (possible S6 Buffy, S3 Angel spoilers) -- maddog, 11:53:04 01/24/02 Thu
I'm still convinced that TPTB are in Sunnydale too, but are just not used. Why would it make sense for Angel to leave Sunnydale, enter LA, and all of a sudden have them? It wasn't all about Angel to begin with. The powers sent Whistler there initially to help Buffy...and in the process become more part of humanity. Just because they haven't continued to help her doesn't mean they don't exist.
[> Subjective and Objective Worlds -- matching mole, 16:19:54 01/24/02 Thu
I really liked your allusion to comic books - I know just what you mean - based on my early 70s experiences reading Marvel Comics. All the numerous Marvel characters exist within the same fictional universe but their personal realities are quite different reflecting the prevailing themes of each title. Spiderman is realistic, emphasizing the everyday world in which Peter Parker lives and how his identity as Spiderman messes up his life. Simultaneously and in the same city are the Fantastic Four - living at the top of a sky scraper and busily occupying themselves with jaunts to other dimensions and saving the world from Dr. Doom or Galacticus. The members of the FF have their personal problems but they are not nearly as connected to the mundane world as Spiderman's are. Do these two comic books remind anyone else of BtVS and AtS?
The difference between Spiderman and the Fantastic Four is largely one of perspective. The two comics both have a pseudo-scientific view of the world and were (are?) firmly set in contemporary New York. They are subjectively different worlds but objectively the same.
However if you delve further into the Marvel Universe you find a very complicated cosmology indeed. The Norse Gods are real. The gods of ancient Greece are real. Various vaguely Lovecraftian beings lurk in sundry dimensions. Various aliens with god-like powers roam the galaxy (the Kree, the Skrull, Galacticus himself). There is the cosmic cube. There is an alternative version of earth on the other side of the sun. Hell exists and the Son of Satan (as well as a motorcyclist with a flaming skull head who has some connection with the bad guy downstairs) roams the earth.
Having all this stuff around is very convenient but it is sloppy. If Satan and the Fantastic Four both exist then conceivably Satan could meet Reed Richards which seems bloody unlikely. The Marvel universe is objectively inconsistent, largely because they try to be too completely consistent and cram so much into one fictional universe.
ME seems (thankfully to my mind) less concerned with making everything completely consistent than Marvel is. AtS and BtVS clearly occupy subjectively different worlds. Presumably they occupy subjectively the same world but our powers that be don't seem particularly concerned with crossing the 't's and dotting the'i's so that the viewers can see that for themselves.
[> [> Whoops -- matching mole, 16:30:42 01/24/02 Thu
last sentence should read as follows (*** denoting changed word)
Presumably they occupy ***objectively*** the same world but our powers that be don't seem particularly concerned with crossing the 't's and dotting the'i's so that the viewers can see that for themselves.
[> Grrrr Arghhhh! -- Shul, 16:50:03 01/24/02 Thu
Dog nabbing bisquik muncher! I was twying to saa dat! Usa beets me to da punch. U speek besster then meez toooz.
:< rargh!
[> Re: Where the Powers That Be be. -- Kerri, 21:14:08 01/24/02 Thu
The absolutes of Buffy's world are moral absolutes held in the hearts of the characters; in Angel's world, the absolutes need physical presences with powerful abilities.
Buffy has never listened to what authorities tell her about her life or herself. She makes her own decisions. If she follows her destiny its because she has chosen to do so, realizing that the power is within her.
Angel wants to be told he is a hero, a champion, he needs it. Angel doesn't like to take responsibility for his action, as we see in his claims that Angelus is a completely seperate entity from Angel.
For a striking comparison look at the way Buffy and Angel take the prophecy of their deaths. Now I know the most obvious contrast is how much Buffy wanted to live while Angel was content to die. But beyond that was Buffy not wanting her life to be controlled, while Angel was content to have his future told to him.
So maybe the answer to why we don't see tPtB is Buffy is because she doesn't need or want them while Angel does.
But one more important contrat to look is Angel and Spike. Angel was changed by an outside force, Spike from within. Also notice how there are no propheciues about Spike, he's an unknown. Kind of off on a tangent but interesting contrast.
[> [> Re: Where the Powers That Be be. -- manwitch, 06:21:50 01/25/02 Fri
I agree. Angel is in contrast to Spike, not Buffy. Angel is from a different culture (mid 18th-century) than Spike (late 19th). Consequently Angel's world is ruled by the theories and ethics of Kant. Spike's by Nietzsche. Buffy is late 20th century. A lot of Sartre, but also some Lyotard.
At least, that's my too-structured association of them with the great philosophers.
If the idea had any merit, however, you might say that speaking figuratively:
Angel's moral universe therefore requires that in order to act good, he must have a soul, and that in order for his moral action to have any purpose, a god power (the Powers that Be) must exist to ultimately bestow upon him the boon in accordance to his worthiness.
Spike and Buffy live in a world where God is Dead. Spike doesn't need a soul or Powers that Be to legitmate his actions. And as for Buffy, even if the Powers that Be did show up in Buffy's house, she would show, let's say, "incredulity."
I think you are right. She just doesn't need them.
[> [> [> Re: Where the Powers That Be be. -- MaeveRigan, 06:58:39 01/25/02 Fri
Loved this correlation of Buffy/Angel/Spike with their respective centuries' philosophical perspectives. This is the kind of thing I come to ATPoBtVS for (along with all the other wackiness, of course). More, please.
[> [> [> Re: Where the Powers That Be be. -- Rufus, 07:02:59 01/25/02 Fri
Spike and Buffy live in a world where God is Dead. Spike doesn't need a soul or Powers that Be to legitmate his actions. And as for Buffy, even if the Powers that Be did show up in Buffy's house, she would show, let's say, "incredulity."
Buffy is too busy doing her "work" to pay the PTB's much mind. God isn't dead to her as much as she doesn't have much time in her schedule to give much thought to a higher power. I think she did say to Whistler something the the effect of...
Buffy: (exhales) You don't have anything useful to tell me, do you? What are you, just some immortal demon sent down to even the score between good and evil?
Whistler: (impressed) Wow. Good guess. (grins)
Buffy: (steps up to him) Well, why don't you try getting off your immortal ass and fighting evil once in a while? 'Cause I'm sick and tired of doing it myself.
Whistler: In the end, you're always by yourself. You're all you've got. That's the point.
Psyche's transcripts season 2 Becoming 2
I find it hard to take that Angel gets so much intervention from the PTB's and Buffy seems to be alone in her struggle. If anyone deserves more help it's Buffy.
Angel's perfect moment companion (OT but nice) -- Liq, 16:46:50 01/24/02 Thu
Saw this, thought it fit the discussion below.
The Cost Of Kids
We have seen repeatedly the breakdown of the cost of raising a child, but this is the first time I have seen the rewards listed this way. It's nice, really nice!
The government recently calculated the cost of raising a child from birth to 18 and came up $160,140! That doesn't even touch college tuition.
For those with kids, that figure leads to wild fantasies about all the money we could have banked if not for (insert your child's name here). For others, that number might confirm the decision to remain childless.
But $160,140 isn't so bad if you break it down. It translates into $8,896.66 a year, $741.38 a month, or $171.08 a week. That's a mere $24.44 a day! Just over a dollar an hour.
What do your get for your $160,140?...........well,
Naming rights. First, middle, and last!
Glimpses of God every day.
Giggles under the covers every night.
More love than your heart can hold.
Butterfly kisses and Velcro hugs.
Endless wonder over rocks, ants, clouds, and warm cookies.
A hand to hold, usually covered with jam.
A partner for blowing bubbles, flying kites, building sandcastles, and skipping down the sidewalk in the pouring rain.
Someone to laugh yourself silly with no matter what the boss said or how your stocks performed that day.
For $160,140, you never have to grow up.
You get to finger-paint, carve pumpkins, play hide-and-seek, catch lightning bugs, and never stop believing in Santa Clause.
You have an excuse to keep: reading the Adventures of Piglet and Pooh, watching Saturday morning cartoons, going to Disney movies, and wishing on stars.
You get to frame rainbows, hearts, and flowers under refrigerator magnets and collect spray painted noodle wreaths for Christmas, hand prints set in clay for Mother's Day, and cards with backward letters for Father's Day.
For $160,140, there is no greater bang for your buck.
You get to be a hero just for retrieving a Frisbee off the garage roof, taking the training wheels off the bike, removing a splinter, filling the wading pool, coaxing a wad of gum out of bangs, and coaching a baseball team that never wins but always gets treated to ice cream
regardless.
You get a front row seat to history to witness the
first step,
first word,
first bra or jock strap,
first date, and
first time behind the wheel.
You get to be immortal.
You get another branch added to your family tree, and if you're lucky, a long list of limbs in your obituary called grandchildren.
You get an education in psychology, nursing, criminal justice, communications, and human sexuality that no college can match.
In the eyes of a child, you rank right up there with God.
You have all the power to heal a boo-boo, scare away the monsters under the bed, patch a broken heart, police a slumber party, ground them forever, and love them without limits, so one day they will, like you, love without counting the cost.
May you ENJOY YOUR KIDS (and grandkids) !!!!!!
[> Thanks, I really needed that today, Liq! (no text) -- pagangodess, 19:43:35 01/24/02 Thu
[> And, when they're old enough, you can re-watch BtVS and AtS from beginning to end with someone new! -- Marie, 01:36:33 01/25/02 Fri
[> Thanks for the teary smile -- Kimberly, 05:49:12 01/25/02 Fri
You get the wonder and joy of watching a child learn something you now take for granted (at the moment, it's reading).
You get special, personalized art for your cubical walls. My favorite is the portrait of me he made.
Nice things to remember when said child is enticing you to murder. ;-)
Thanks Liq.
chat? Please? -- vampire hunter D, 17:39:42 01/24/02 Thu
Current board
| More January 2002