January 2003 posts


Previous January 2003  

More January 2003

Has anyone learned anything (spoiler action for S7)? -- DL, 08:53:38 01/06/03 Mon

I don't often type (lurker at heart), but New Year's Resolutions to change must be acted upon.

After S6, we're left with kind of a feel good situation, where Buffy and Dawn (in my humble opinion) grow closer, Willow seems to take positive steps after Veinapalooza, and Spike regains his soul. I think that between Xander and Anya, the mere fact that they're talking is probably a sign of it. There seemed to be some bonding while slapping Andrew around.

But how much growth actually has occured in the characters? I still see them running away from each other, and living within themselves, kind of like S6, where their worst enemies were themselves. And even though there has been some effort by all characters to right themselves, there are so many things (First Evil) that are rocking the boat. So I have to ask again, are the characters changing?

Just one man looking for intelligent opinions to brighten his day.
[> I think Willow has... -- Wisewoman ;o), 10:21:52 01/06/03 Mon

I haven't looked at the Scoobies in this light, but what immediately comes to mind is that Willow seems to have learned quite a bit, even if she's not really dealing with it all that well yet. She seems to be suffering post-traumatic stress when it comes to being possessed by Evil, and her reactions are emotional and on a gut level when she feels there's any chance of being taken over again. She's learned she can't just turn her back on magick because it's a part of her now; but she hasn't yet learned how to control it and make it work for her instead of against her. I'm pleased to see that she hasn't reverted to shy, insecure, computer-dweeb Willow. That would have been a bit hard to take after all she's been through. We seem to have a sadder, wiser Willow, who is still feeling her way.

And welcome! Glad to see you posting...

;o)
[> [> Philosophizing on human nature and growth.... -- Briar Rose, 15:29:33 01/06/03 Mon

In a way the act of truly maturing requires people to finally learn to live within themselves and not to always be guided and persuaded by others - no matter how much those others are loved and respected by us.

I see the Scoobies as having finally found the balance where they can keep their own counsil and still work as a team when required to.

When Giles sang in OMWF (just the gist here) "To take you by the hand... Lay your arms down.... But I'm standing in your way..." He hit on the one moment in the true maturity arc that everyone goes through. Yes, we would all like to have a parent or other authority figure make all our desicions for us forever. Even when we finally make the break from the "parent" we have our friends that surely act in a "group think" that we manytimes allow to form our own opinions and actione even if we don't see it the same way they do, we conform and allow them to led us. Also nice! No need to truly decide or own future. We could do this forever (and many choose to do so....) But if we always did? We would never explore our own inner power.

Last season, each of the Scoobies realized that even though their friends and family love them, want the best for them - they have inner needs and ideas and opinions that noone outside their own heads and hearts can ever hope to understand or even empathize with. And whether the final decision is right or wrong - there are some mistakes that have to be made to grow. The worst that happens is you get hurt, or someone else does.

That was how I always saw Veiny Willow in Season 6... An amped up version of course (This IS Buffy after all.*L) When she started it was purely about the fact that she had finally decided that Buffy was not going to act against Warren, Jonathan and Andrew. Willow took a stand based on anger, her personal sense of justice, pain and annoyance wiht the staus quo. She went against Buffy. She saw the Nerd Squad as just as evil (if not more so, since they had souls and should be held to a higher standard) as anything Buffy had Slayed before - yet Buffy was loathe to do so.

This was also the story line behind Xander jilting Anya. Also the pull that Jonathan made away from Warren and Andrew. The stance Buffy took where she was fine with going against Willow and Xander and Dawn's opinions in letting the human courts deal with The Troika. Let alone her lessening dependance on Giles and The Counsil's guidance and anyone else's ideas of what was right or wrong about Spike and her's relationship....

Taking a stand for one's own convictions against those you love and respect because you find that you have a different need/path/opinion from them.

In the Buffyverse - this is always treated with amped up consequences, it's a fantasy show! In real life our decisions rarely include killing the world. But how many times have each of us come to a personal decision that practically does the same thing in the real world model?

Sometimes we do have to choose to "kill" many relationships to live ourselves. This is what Tara went through in her decision to "kill" her family from her life. By killing their influence, she created a power within herself that would allow her to grow and ultimatly find her sense of maturity at that point and beyond.

Ultimatly - we all have to answer to ourselves. This is the lesson that Buffy and the rest have moved through. Now they know that even though each may have different opinions and ways of dealing with tough times, they can work together IF they all see a common goal can be reached that way. And they have a better understanding of how each of them plays their part in that team.

Until we each understand our strengths and weaknesses (which we learn through that seperation of ourselves from the pack in order to mature) we can never even begin to acheive our whole potential. Nor can others learn what our place in their world and path is....

Now I will begin to pontificate if I don't end this here.*S* So that's all from me!
[> [> thoughts on Willow -- Flo, 23:37:05 01/06/03 Mon

It occurs to me that Willow is the only Scooby who has developed a primary relationship with a real human, Tara, who existed outside the Scooby world. And her relationship with Tara is what has moved her to grow in the deepest ways -- getting into magic, pulling herself out of magic, experiencing cathartic rage, and breaking into underlying grief. I wonder if it's possible for the other Scoobies, or anyone for that matter, to really push into deeper growth if they continue to interact only with the people they knew in high school.

Buffy did much of her growing up in S4 - S6, but she is perpetually holding off on owning her darkness, which IMHO prevents her from really growing. Maybe her relationship with Spike will eventually catalyze this for her.

Xander's failure to grow up so far has been discussed -- I'll reiterate that his inner demons seem to be comprised of the fears (particularly of inadequacy) that kept him in his parents' basement, out of college, and away from commiting to Anya. We see him move past some of this as he gains confidence with his work as a carpenter, but for the most part he is avoiding the real work of growing up, which involves some degree of emotion. This was pointed out a while back by Clemency -- Xander evokes emotional discharge and growth in Buffy and Willow, but never opens his own emotional process.

I think that all the characters have learned some things, but in different arenas and to different degrees.
Sharing My Annual 'Word of Wisdom' (on 'Buffy')! -- David Frisby, 10:54:06 01/06/03 Mon

My new year's letter to family and friends each year includes a word of wisdom. This years's takes "Buffy" as its text, so I thought you other posters and/or lurkers might find it interesting. The entire letter (including this piece) is posted at: http://mypage.iu.edu/~dfrisby/history/xmas2002.htm . The letter calls it a "mad monstrosity" but I'd love to hear what y'all think of it. I've worked on it for over a year.

[Drawing primarily from Joss Whedon & Nietzsche, the setting for this piece pictures the "Powers that Be" telling about the power of truth, through an oracle, to Buffy (the vampire slayer) & Spike (the soulless vampire). Before any action proper begins, we learn Buffy fears she's lost her 'fire' & is turning to stone so to speak, thus becoming too hard to love, & also that Spike loves Buffy & hopes to become the miraculous 'spark' that rekindles her fire thus preserving her humanity. As the piece begins we need to understand they're now on a general vision quest to recover her fire & restore his soul, but that the immediate task they provisionally face is learning how to fight 'The First,' a supreme evil mysteriously threatening to open the mouth of hell & end their world. Their spirit-guide (Giles, who is Buffy's shamanic watcher, a "super-librarian of the occult") has sent them to the divine oracle at which they now stand, the sacred spot where the mystical energies of the earth converge, to find out the secret truth of that evil power, & we hear them ask the oracle to truly speak its mind in response to this burning question: "In what way might we overpower 'The First' & so save humanity from its evil aim?" We now read what was thus spoken.]

"The power of truth can rival all other powers, but to win the heart & hand of the truth of the world is a very hard task both in thought & in deed. Evil has from the first marked that way as forbidden, or futile at best. Not as an adventure but only as a destiny does that task ever emerge & the one chosen prevail. Otherwise, all challengers however heroic venture astray in their art & aim. Harder yet though for a champion triumphant at that task is to then live in their world with that truth, & all else that is thereby engendered. Victory there demands first of all that which is hardest yet, the marriage of 'fire' to 'spirit' during a drama that develops deep within the darkness of the soul. Fire blazes in the blood when earth & heaven are engaged, & spirit roars in the body as the inner & outer worlds interpenetrate. Within the event of a lifetime, pain is the language of the soul, the nature of that flesh & blood as it quakes & erupts, but joy is the music of love sung by our soul as a gift to our life. This love, or the truth of our humanity, turns on the history of a promise (marriage), the nature of a gift (children), & the future of a task (mortality). To bear the burden of that responsibility, a soul must forge strength from that pain & should steel a joyful conscience, but in so doing dangerous forces of darkness are incarnated putting at risk our very humanity. Hot anger invokes demonic strength but burns our spirit out, leaving only a dense dead stone or scattered dark dust, & cold reason spells out eternal demands but hardens our heart, thus suffocating & extinguishing the fire of life. The justification for such a risk comes from the trust that the enlightenment inspired by our love will through our own natural history transfigure that truth of humanity into a truth fit for knowing the world: we then learn that we are able to truly live deeply & really love life in this beautiful world as a noble part of the earth only when we finally are able to feel that speck of darkness in our soul to be but the first part of the greater creative good. Therefore the soul does not at death necessarily return to the ocean as a drop of water losing all identity while becoming the whole - on the contrary - if properly joined in marriage with a speck of dust, the drop is transformed into a wonderful but unique snowflake that finds its eternal home high on the mountain of truth, a solid part of the world of the earth. And thus we then laugh & know that not 'The First' but 'Soul' is first. And last, we then actually sing to our love about how we feel, dance for our love on the way to joy, & fly with our love to a place of heaven. Thus the power of truth is the greatest power on earth, & the greatest truth of this world is simply a love that is loved in return."
[> Not One Comment? My Year's Work? Archived? Disappointed here.Maybe it's madness afer all. -- David Frisby, 06:51:42 01/07/03 Tue

[> [> No no! I enjoyed what you wrote -- ponygirl, 07:19:56 01/07/03 Tue

I just find my brain has turned to gloppy pudding of late, and I didn't trust myself to make an intelligent comment. Thanks for sharing David, good thoughts, lovely writing.
[> [> [> Thank you! My madness taunted my monstrosity was simply ignored. I'm okay now. -- David Frisby, 09:34:28 01/07/03 Tue

[> Sorry too, I meant to tip my hat to the powerful feelings your post evoked. -- pr10n, 07:42:18 01/07/03 Tue

[> Re: Sharing My Annual 'Word of Wisdom' (on 'Buffy')! -- Rahael, 09:20:51 01/07/03 Tue

I was trying to think of a good poem to give you in return, and have not yet come up with anything appropriate!

Maybe I will later on - but your words on love, the song of joy, the only sure truth - those especially resonated with me.
[> I just got around to reading it and the message is deep. -- Deb, 22:33:08 01/07/03 Tue

But I've been pondering that to love is enough and to be loved in return is like icing on the cake. I know Mozart said "Love. Love. Love. Love is all you need." (John Lennon is not the originator of this.) That's rather ambiguous. Do you need to love or to be loved or both? The Beatles said: ". . . in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make." (or vice versa) But can one take love? Sounds kinda scary to me. Then there is "Love Stinks. Hell ya'" Have had those moments also. Does love keep us together, or do we turn love loose and if it is recipricated, it will return on its own?

I really don't know love at all.

Of Geez. My mum's record collection is engrained in my brain. At least I'm not quoting her one time favoriate song with the lyrics: "Have you got cheating on your mind? Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa."

Please don't take this post as out of the context it is presented, which is total questioning of the nature of love and what is its truth? "I've looked at love from both sides now . . . it's loves' illusions I recall. I really don't know love at all." "I can't take this feeling anymore."

"You take it on the run baby
If that's the way you want it baby
Then I don't want you around
I don't believe it
Not for a minute
You're under the gun so you take it on the run

You're thinking up your white lies
You're putting on your bedroom eyes
You say you're coming home but you won't say when
But I can feel it coming
If you leave tonight keep running
And you need never look back again"

Now this is the crux. Still loving, but sending them packing for good.

Ah maybe it's just good enough to feel.
[> [> But is a love that's not returned 'true' love? -- frisby, 11:29:11 01/08/03 Wed

My line reads that the greatest truth is a love that is loved in return. A love that is not returned is not a true love, so to speak, with regard to the formula and analysis. It's similar to the Socratic paradox that no one "knowingly" does evil (that's like someone "willingly" drinking poison while not desiring to die -- it's nonsense). The point is that true love "is" returned, at least eventually. As stated on another recent post, Buffy's greatest power may be redemption of others through love. A vampire (Spike) now has a soul -- because of love. Love moves all things, especially in the realm of the soul. The philosophers disagree about almost all of the major things, but the most important ones all agree with regard to the absolute importance of love. Philosophy "is" a species of love, the love of wisdom. And what is love? ........

I like that line from the musician Leonard Cohen, I think, a song on the future: something like "love is our only known engine of survival" -- when love goes all that remains are hot demons or cold vampires -- love keeps us human, makes us human. Love is in our blood. (Don't believe me, ask the poets, the musicians, they agree with the philosophers)
[> [> [> To love , without expecting love in return, is enough alone -- Deb -- the know it all, 14:05:23 01/08/03 Wed

in the same way that to forgive another is freeing ones' self. You forgive another, you forgive yourself. It's all connected.
Spike's London accent -- Yellowork, 12:27:17 01/06/03 Mon

There are lots of different accents in London: it is more complicated than North vs. South. There is North-West (most like ASH), North-East, East, South-East, South, and South-West. Spike's accent is honestly a bit all over the place, but I would say more North or East than South London. South London was once described memorably by Angela Carter as the 'bastard side of Old Father Thames', a statement which is even more accurate since the process of gentrification began in earnest in parts of East London, leaving Brixton and the like far behind. So VERY loosely, the accents North of the Thames are more "prosperous" (posher, more WASPy or preppy I suppose).

Don't forget, this is still one of the biggest post-industrial cities on earth, so the variation is huge! On the other hand, all these accents share features, such as the long 'ah' sound which means we say 'arse' instead of 'ass', and pronounce the word 'castle' CAH-sel instead of CASS-el for example. The problem is, when JM has a flat American 'A' sound instead of a long 'ah', it comes more like a North of England or Midlands accent. Another thing: Londoners often say 'love', but NEVER say 'pet'. It is a lovely phrase, but only used in the Northern and Western parts of the British Isles.

To be a proper Cockney, well Mockney really, Spike should drop his ts for glottal stops (like in Arabic words such as Shi'ite), so you get bu ' er instead of butter and nu ' er instead of nutter. Otherwise, he sounds too posh: though I am aware they have factored in William's toff origins on that one :-)

Wanker and bollocks get you far all over though, and things change: a few years ago, 'minging' (dirty, ugly or smelly) was restricted to parts of Scotland; now, it is common usage in London, proudly used by the likes of Bermondsey wench Jade Goody on Big Brother 3. Can anyone guess what a 'kebab' is? (Note: in England and Scotland, we say KEB-ab, not ke -BAHB).
[> Interesting post... on accents -- shadowkat, 14:10:07 01/06/03 Mon

I'm horrible at discerning the tonal differences between accents - but what you said is fascinating particularly in relation to some of the stuff Marsters has admitted to in his interviews.

According to interviews on www.spikespotting.com, Marsters based his accent on two different English actors: the first was an actor from North London who played Caliban in a Seattle presentation of The Tempest. (I'm pretty sure it was Seattle - might be California). Before he auditioned for Spike - he ran lines with this actor and copied the actor's accent. Then he met Anthony Steward Head and Head informed him that they don't say arse, they say ass like everyone else. Marsters admits Head might have screwed up the accent, since Head isn't from North London and Head's accent is a combination of public school training and
comes from Bath or thereabouts. Marsters also states that he used Monty Python - and those guys all went to Oxford so their accents aren't really valid either.

I think Joss Whedon got the terms from his days in English Boarding Schools. (Btw i read on the BAPS site that the song Early One Morning was apparently the in song at British prep and public schools in the 70s and 60s. And Whedon may have picked it up there. Odd - I thought Whedon was in his thirties? Although I suppose it could be late 70s.)

At any rate - I think the accent is probably a hodgepodge of ASH, this other actor, Monty Python, and Whedon/writers words - hence the reason for it being all over the place.

Still a fascinating post on accents.

PS: Have you noticed how the accent has subtly changed since Spike got the soul? It seems a little less cockney somehow. Again I'm not great at picking these things up, so maybe I'm just imagining the difference.
[> [> Wondering about William's accent? -- luna, 14:59:00 01/06/03 Mon

Since I don't have a taped version of Fool for Love, I can't check on this, but hopefully William the Bloody poet, in his brief scenes, had yet a different accent.
[> [> [> Re: Wondering about William's accent? -- shadowkat, 19:54:00 01/06/03 Mon

He did - it was actually more like the accent he uses in portions of Lessons in the basement, in the part of Beneath You when he's in the basement and at the end of Beneath You in the church. In Beneath You - Marsters subtly shifts accents three times - switching from affected cockney - which slain states - in the Bronze, the cockney he used in School Hard (almost has a Southern nasality to it - so not sure if it's true cockney or an Americanized view of it) - to the more realistic authentic modern version he uses in Sleeper with Anya and with Buffy in her house and on the street in Beneath You to the 19th century William in the church. It's so subtle that I kept wondering if I was imagining it. So happy to see I'm not the only one who picks up on it.

In Fool for Love - it's obvious. So much so that Angelus asks him why he changed his accent. "I'm not your mate and when did you start talking like that??"
[> [> [> [> Re: Wondering about William's accent? -- Yellowork, 09:41:17 01/07/03 Tue

I actually think JM's accent would be OK, if he were allowed to develop ONE: but as everyone has pointed out, the character of Spike requires these 'subtle shifts' which I don't think are feasible for anyone, no matter how good a mimic, unless you are really familiar with each one.
[> [> I don't think you're imagining it -- slain, 15:07:06 01/06/03 Mon

The way I see it, JM's accent works because, partially unintentionally, he sounds like someone with an affected upper class accent, with an affected punkish cockney accent superimposed on that; which fits his character as I see it: a lower middle class young man trying to fit into the upper echelons, then becoming a 'working class' vampire trying to show his distaste for said echelons. If you also add in some fanfiction, and say that William was originally from the Midlands, then you've got the complete package; a mix of Midlands and two London accents, which is exactly how JM talks as Spike.

So his accent in Season 7 relates to his character's stripping away of his affected Spike persona, to something more recognisably authentic; hence less of the cockney. Whenever JM is speaking quietly or intimately, he speaks with a William-type accent, but whenever he's exercising bravado he uses the Spike-accent; look at BY, where we have the fight scene in the bar (pure working class South London) and the intimate scene in the crypt (upper class, or perhaps more accurately 19th romantic upper class; the way I imagine Percy Bysshe Shelley might have spoken).
[> [> [> Re: I don't think you're imagining it -- zantique, 18:07:55 01/06/03 Mon

yeah i agree totally with slain's post - Spike's accent always reminds me of a young Mick Jagger's - a nice middle-class LSE boy trying to sound all tough and working class (as was the fashion...) Also Spike's past adoption of the punk ethos would favour further working-class identification/affectation.

Another time the ME/JM have used this to demonstrate Spike's subjectivity shifting towards good+souled Spike/William is in the scene in Sleeper in which Anya pretends to seduce Spike in his closet - he sounds all butch and Cockney as he grabs her wrist but shifts up a register and becomes all proper once he learns her 'intentions' and clutches the sheets to his chest protecting his virtue all William-like.
[> [> Re: ass and 'arse' -- Marie, 07:51:50 01/07/03 Tue

Then he met Anthony Steward Head and Head informed him that they don't say arse, they say ass like everyone else.

I find this hard to believe, though if he said it, how can I argue?!

My own father was a 'genuine Cockney', and would never have used 'ass' - perhaps he'd've use something on the lines of "You fathead!", if he meant to call someone an idiot. (Or, to be precise, "You bladdy fa'ead!"!). 'Ass', in my opinion, would be far more likely to be used by someone with Giles's accent, a la "You silly ass!" and would be taken as 'donkey', not the part of one's anatomy associated with 'arse'.

Marie
[> 'Jim comes up an asks furra cup a rosie' -- Celebaelin, 17:54:33 01/06/03 Mon

The title of this post is lifted from the track 'Tea' on the "Stop!" CD by Sam Brown and translates roughly as

"James approached me cordially and requested a cup of tea."

Having lived a matter of yards from Lambeth Walk (FYI "Me and My Girl", pearly Kings and Queens etc., a quarter of a mile from the houses of parliament, CENTRAL London) for a while, I know a smidgin about cockneys (no sarcasm intended) and my thought is that if Spike's accent was supposed to be an indication of his familiarity with the old London and old Londoners it would surely contain some rhyming slang from time to time? Only rarely would writers be able to find and use the phrases that are currently in use of course but some things never change, and if Spike's knowledge dated from the 1860s or 1870s maybe... Whitechapel, Lambeth and Vauxhall could easily have been good hunting grounds. We don't hear this with Spike however, we hear recieved pronunciation and traces of the precise diction of the poet, or a relatively mild and passingly accurate regional accent, a blend of Midlands and a trace of the North East ('pet' or 'petal' ['pe'al'] is pure Geordie - Newcastle [NyuwKassel] but in the North East Midlands ie Leister [Lesster] you would get 'luv' or 'mi duk'). So there's a hint that he's travelled around, no surprises there. If I was trying to place Spike though I would tend to come a little bit further South and West to, well, roughly around where I am I suppose, I hadn't really thought about that until now because I hear that kind of accent from virtually everyone, all day, every day.

As a quick aside 'a propos' of nothing except drawing a distinction between arse and ass "You silly arse" or "Stick it up your ass". Perhaps "A half-arsed attempt" or "A dumb assed move".

Oh, and I should probably say in no uncertain terms that 'in' songs at English Public Schools were more likely at Joss' time to have been of the Sex Pistols/Clash/Damned or Blizzard of Oz/Motorhead/Whitesnake variety. You could stick with Bach and Mozart I suppose but personally I found them rather creepy and not very now (but I have to admit Bach Rocks, especially the presto double from the B Minor Partita).
[> [> U find Mozart 'creepy'?? -- Deb, 02:31:31 01/07/03 Tue

You must have been listening to Leopold.
[> [> [> Re: U find Mozart 'creepy'?? -- Celebaelin, 13:41:25 01/07/03 Tue

Whilst not pretending to be an expert on Mozart what I was trying to say was that I find young people who love Mozart creepy, ish?, maybe?, if that's OK with you.
[> [> [> [> Anything is alright with me. I was just curious. -- OK, 16:07:45 01/07/03 Tue

I was introduced to Mozart at a very young age when I began studying music. None of my peers thought of Mozart as creepy. Actually, his music is quite fun (He did have a sense of humour in his composing that only the inflicted musician would understand. He had a way of creating impossible woodwind "fingering" combinations that lent to a whole section of instruments crashing to the floor, and induced some of the foulest language and embarrassed laughter I have ever been a part of.) and moving and scary and, as my daughter says "real."

No. I have no problem. To each their own.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Anything is alright with me. I was just curious. -- Celebaelin, 23:00:39 01/07/03 Tue

Absolutely, each to their own. Their own in my case being the 'lesser trvelled' concerto for flute, harp and orchestra K299 in C Major. The compare and contrast nature of the piece is, to me, an unexpected joy. Bit of a strings man generally, especially 6 electrical ones with distortion, a little reverb and an obscenely loud amplifier. Y'know, why pay 200,000 pounds for a Strad. when you can get so close to the sound for 12,000 using a Strat. So, not in any way dissing the most exellent and entertaining WAM just saying that music is in your ear (the dots and stuff were only ever intended as a rough guide see Messers Vai, Malmsteen and Satriani for details) not in someone elses perception of what is the right music to listen to. Thanks for posting.

Mad axe-man Celebaelin action figure now available only $21.12 plus p&p.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ohh. A string man eh? -- Deb, 00:44:30 01/08/03 Wed

First may I say your concerto choice is exquisite, but please don't misunderstand that I am not into sonic reverberation. I am a woman of extremes. Oh, and I agree that music comes from within. My parents just wanted me to have a bit of classical training, and I must admit that my childhood goal was to play in an internationally acclaimed symphyony, but I also wanted to play the clubs and improv.

Nice meeting u.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Diddle diddle diddle diddle ping pang pong GRAUNCH blap -- Celebaelin, 08:58:51 01/08/03 Wed

[> Curious and so OT, again. -- Deb, 02:20:15 01/07/03 Tue

Do people in London speak from the back of the throat? In linguistics last semester, we studied regional dialects. Very interesting findings for Northwestern Missouri. (Where I am in Kansas City.) Whenever I've traveled, people either asked me if I'm from Boston (never understand that one) or if I'm British. 180 years ago when Europeans began moving here, the area had a mid-northern Atlantic dialect. Now people here speak from the back of their throats so the "a" is pronounced "ah". We don't say "CAN-sus" but "Khanz-us." for Kansas. This dialect change came about because of numerous allergies, and because of constant extreme temperature changes. The AMA says KC is second in USA for allergies, but I can't imagine any place worse than this. We also pronounce "Missouri" very similarily to "Mi(z)sery" but substituting an "ou" for "er". Of course, in St. Louis they say "Miz-ur-ah" which is oh so wrong. But, then again, they didn't have a football team, with the winningest record in the 1990s, THAT NEVER went to the Super Bowl.

And I wonder why I'm having dreams about riding a rollar coaster where everyone else moves, but I just sit in my seat going nowhere.

Sorry, not sleeping tonight.
[> [> Re: OT, again. More on MO -- CW, 08:50:59 01/07/03 Tue

Since President Harry Truman from Independence (Next door to Kansas City for the geographically underpriviledged) pronounced it Mizzura, I don't think it's a Kansas City thing. Generally the more educated the person from MO and particularly the more educated the parents of the person are/were the more likely you are to hear Mizzuri from them. An old farmer from Chillicothe would think you were a foreign spy if you said you were born in Mizzuri. I admit to having said both. Ordinary folks seemed quite comfortable when I said (while there)I lived in Mizzura, but went to the University of Mizzuri.

Now if you can explain why folks in KC say things like 'forty highway' instead of 'highway forty' you've learned something about dialects.
[> [> [> Because it is not 'technically' an highway now because of I-70. -- Deb, 16:28:53 01/07/03 Tue

It's the name of the road: Forty Highway. "Highway" is used in street names since the term "interstate" is used for actual highways, unless they are state highways then it is Missouri 9.

The term "corridor" is used often for "boulevard" often also.

Actually, a vote was taken a couple of years ago (Only in Misery) to decide the correct pronunciation of Missouri. "ri" won.

There are five different major dialect regions in Missouri, which is quite confusing: Upper South, Hoosier Apex (Upper North, Missouri Apex, Lower/Middle North and Southwest. Since many of these division lines follow interstates, your urban/rural observation is more than likely correct.
[> [> [> [> My carpetbagger ancestors pronounced it -- Cleanthes, 17:53:01 01/07/03 Tue

Miss (very "SSS" soundy) ura.

Which dialect uses this pronunciation?


Oh, I was born upstream in a hospital on the bank of the river that gives her name to the state. In that state they call the river "Mizzuree", as does the state to the north of there, and the state to its west, the latter one having the longest stretch of this particularly long river.

I've pronounced "didn't" as "dint" all my life, window as winda and "gold" as "gowl(e)d". I'm told these are South Dakotisms, but maybe not.


Of course, the answer to the question, what is her Misery? is, "Illnoises"...
[> [> [> [> [> LOL! I always wanted a carpet bag. -- Deb, 21:54:27 01/07/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> Re: My carpetbagger ancestors pronounced it -- CW, 07:59:46 01/08/03 Wed

Very interesting. I don't think, I personally have never heard any American-born English speaker pronounce 'Missouri' with 's' instead of 'z'. I guess it's something they picked up in the south, since you say Dakotans don't do that for the river.
[> [> [> [> Re: Because it is not 'technically' an highway now because of I-70. -- CW, 07:26:06 01/08/03 Wed

Well, the street name part of the explanation sounds good. The 'no longer a highway' part doesn't. I don't think it holds for US 24 now and I know neither US 71 or US 50 did within my memory. US 40 was replaced by I 70 before I was old enough to care about such things. We used to joke in college to the folks from KC that they should call it 70 I. The local use of the reversing of 'highway' and the number for the old US numbered highways now extends well into Kansas (and no doubt eastward into MO as well) where the old highway numbers are still important for many roads. But, again it makes sense that it began as a local custom for naming the streets that connected with the old highways through the countryside.

When I was young my family was one of the few in our area, that ever said 'ri' in 'Missouri,' but both Of my parents went to college. The fact that most people prefer 'ri' now is as perfect example that langauge does change over time, even within life times.
[> [> [> [> [> Oh my God! No one would understand your directions here anymore! -- Deb, 13:55:46 01/08/03 Wed

It's Fifty Highway or just Fifty, the 35 Corridor, North or South, and 71 is a brand new corridor that actually connects all the way north from south now. The Grandview Triangle is now just the Dreaded Triangle because Grandview didn't want the reputation anymore. 210 is 210, and it's Twenty-four Hwy.

There are no state hiways; Just piles of concrete rubble arranged around pit mines. When you cross the Lexington Bridge, you can still see the river through the holes on the surface. The ASB Bridge is now the Heart of America officially, but it's still ASB. 435 is the Second Loop and 635 is the Outer Loop. But then KCI is really MCI, which has nothing to do with British Com. and Sprint is The Sprint Campus now. And it's four lanes all the way to Smithville Lake. And of course, the Penis Building is still pulsing every night. Still at least 50 new fountains a year with red or blue water, depending on the season. Urban sprawl is from Lawrence to Sedalia and St. Joe to Butler. Can't walk anywhere anymore. There's a Wal-Mart around the corner from the Jesse James Farm.

So boring. Sorry. I can't wait to exit this place, though I will miss the 10 minutes from departing the plane to my car in the parking lot. How many people can say that they only have to walk across 20 feet of airport from plane to street?
[> Re: Spike's London accent -- gally, 06:29:20 01/07/03 Tue

Thank you very much for posting this thread. At the weekend, I made a post (the first ever for me!) asking for help about this, but no-one responded and it disappeared.What shame I felt! I'm not sure if it was just a coincidence or not, but thanks, anyway. It was very helpful. When you say that ASH has a mainly NW London accent, do you mean as Giles, or the actor's real accent he might use when giving interviews or perhaps appearing in 'Manchild'? And the mention of Jade Big Brother was v amusing to me- I have tried to describe her horribleness to my American pals who have never seen her since last summer!
[> [> Re: Spike's London accent -- Yellowork, 09:50:26 01/07/03 Tue

I meant the two accents he uses as Giles, really. I have heard him interviewed on UK TV twice: once, with Johnny Vaughan a 'Mockney' presenter, he was wearing an earring and had an accent like the one in 'Band Candy'; the next time with an Irish presenter, he was pretty much Giles as on the show. As far as I know, he is not actually from London, but has been fairly deeply contaminated thanks to his stage work there.
[> [> I would have answered -- luna, 10:01:25 01/07/03 Tue

Ilove learning about the variety of British, etc., accents on the show, so I would definitely have responded if I'd seen it! Sorry I was out of computer range.
[> [> [> Thank you! It's the thought that counts, and is appreciated:) (NT) -- gally, 06:35:43 01/08/03 Wed

[> California accents -- luna, 10:04:12 01/07/03 Tue

Now what about all those California accents? I guess Cordelia is the closest anyone came to classic Valley Girl, but I really don't know much about it. Although I used to live in California, it was up north, so I don't know the southern styles of speech. Any thoughts? Or is California accent an oxymoron?
[> [> Ship Arriving Too Late To Save A Drowning Witch - Frank Zappa 'Valley Girl' (NT) -- Celebaelin, 14:41:37 01/07/03 Tue

[> [> Re: California accents -- deeva, 16:12:43 01/07/03 Tue

I think that for a lot of people in California ( I'm definitely one) we generally have what is termed, in Broadcast standards, "California flat". It's pretty even with not too much emphasis on one thing or the other. As for what people think is a Southern California accent or really "Valley Girl" as in San Fernando Valley, that's just a really highly over emphasized usage of a few words (like, for sure, whatever) But you'll notice that these are all terms that have become so mainstream because of media use so it's not specific to SoCal anymore.

Growing up in Northern California a lot of people commented on how I sounded like I was from the Valley, including people from the Valley! So it's not a regional thing anymore. It's an exposure thing now.
Dawn Summers and the Inflationary Theory of the Universe -- ZachsMind, 15:44:07 01/06/03 Mon

How does Dawn work? We honestly don't know, of course. We do know from observation that she is "the Key." That before August of 2000, Dawn existed not in a humanoid form, but as energy. What kind of energy, Whedon has left open to speculation, and so herein we find ourselves lost in speculative fiction limbo. Is Dawn "magic?" Well maybe. However, that's the easy way out. Just a green glowing orb of magical energy. It's a cop out. Since when has Whedon taken the easy way out of anything?

What Dawn's supposed to be able to do is use her very existence to open & close a specific portal - the portal between the BuffyVerse & the GloryVerse. As we understand it this can only be done at a certain time under certain conditions and with the season five finale, that opportunity (known as The Alignment) has come and gone. For all intents and purposes now, despite her origins, Dawn's just an ordinary girl (genetically linked to a super Slayer but otherwise plain as newly fallen snow). Or so it would seem.

Enter Alan Guth to the mix. Mr. Guth is a physics professor at MIT, and many call him The Father of Inflationary Theory. What the heck does that mean? Well Guth theorized a new way to approach the Big Bang theory - that at the very beginning of time (we're talking fractions of a nanosecond after zero time) there was about twenty pounds of matter which somehow expanded in an explosive way to create what we know to be the universe today. That everything in the universe today originally came from that little twenty pound ball - like a big bowling ball that just blew up. We don't know why. Sometimes science & fiction are mutually speculative.

Well, Guth has also been toying with this idea that it is *theoretically* possible to "create a universe in your backyard." Guth and a couple other eggheads have this idea that there might be a region of this universe in which similar conditions to The Big Bang that created our universe might exist. Is it possible to create a universe using this universe as a starting off point, and after the initial inflationary expansion, this innerverse would separate from this universe and go off on its own? Is it possible that this has already happened?

Now granted, what Dawn's purpose was allegedly (for purposes of season five), was to create a dimensional rift between the Buffyverse & the GloryVerse (that was allegedly gonna rip up the BuffyVerse universe in the process and la de dah dah). However, Glory made it very clear she'd seen Dawn before, eons ago when it was just a bright green swirly shimmer. It's logical to assume that if Dawn was needed to open a door between the BuffyVerse and the GloryVerse, then The Bright Green Swirly Shimmer, was probably present at, and had something important to do with the making of the GloryVerse FROM the BuffyVerse. I mean if she was THE key that would open up Glory's universe, Dawn must have been present at Glory's creation. She must have been there when someone or something first invented the GloryVerse - and forged the lock between Glory's reality and Buffy's.

What I'm suggesting is that eons ago, before Glory became the goddess of her little universe, Dawn was this Bright Green Swirly Shimmer which somehow made a little Big Bang in Buffy's universe that instigated the GloryVerse, just as Alan Guth postulates in his work A Universe In Your Backyard. Guth describes in his essay that in order for there to be this creation of one universe inside another, there is a need for a "false vacuum." He explains it thusly:

"I've recently been working on wormholes and on the question of whether it's in principle possible to create "a universe in your backyard." A few years ago I worked with Steven Blau and Eduardo Guendelman to figure out what would happen if there were a region of an inflating universe in the midst of our universe. We found that the question could be answered very cleanly and unambiguously, since the behavior is determined by general relativity. The only new ingredient for this problem is an idea from particle physics about a certain kind of matter called a "false vacuum," which is the driving force behind inflation. We discovered that a large enough region of false vacuum would create a new universe, which, as I described earlier, would rapidly disconnect from ours and become totally isolated."

Of course he then goes on to say that such a false vacuum would be over a thousand times larger than the density of a an atomic nucleus. That present day science has no way to properly create such a thing as a false vacuum. Even if we could, we certainly couldn't put twenty pounds of false vacuum together fast enough. If not created fast enough, this false vacuum turns into a black hole and everything gets sucked into it. Something has to be present at the creation of the false vacuum which makes it expand really super-fast.

Maybe that something was Dawn?

IF Dawn was present at the creation of the GloryVerse from the BuffyVerse, it's possible that she was this (presently by today's science) unquantifiable element which instigated the inflation of the false vacuum, thus creating Glory's little pocket dimension. That would explain why she was referred to as "The Key" to Glory's universe. It would also explain why she was so darn important to so many people, and why the Knights of Byzantium wanted to destroy her.

Any thoughts?
[> Actually, the Alignment destroyed all barriers. -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:29:50 01/06/03 Mon

All Glory cared about was a way back to her own universe, but Giles and the Knights of Byzantium made it pretty clear that Dawn's blood spilling during the Alignment would break down the barriers between all universes. All worlds would blend together, not just Buffy's and Glory's.
[> [> Finn's right General Gregor said it in Spiral season 5 -- Rufus, 18:41:57 01/06/03 Mon

From Psyche's Transcripts for Spiral....

BUFFY: That's it? That's Glory's master plan ... to go home?

GREGOR: You misunderstand. Once the key is activated, it won't just open the gates to the beast's dimension. It's going to open all the gates. The walls separating realities will crumble. (shot of Buffy no longer smiling. Shot of Dawn) Dimensions will bleed into each other. Order will be overthrown and the universe will tumble into chaos ... all dark ... forever.

And from Psyche's Transcripts for The Gift

GILES: The key was ... living energy. It needed to be channeled, poured into a specific place at a specific time. The energy ... would flow into that spot, the walls between the dimensions break down. It stops, the energy's used up, the walls come back up. Glory uses that time to get back into her own dimension, not caring that all manner of hell will be unleashed on earth in the meantime.

Buffy looks grim.

ANYA: Um, but only for a little while, right? The walls come back up, uh, n-no more hell?

WILLOW: That's only if the energy is stopped. And now the key is human ... (looks over her shoulder at Buffy) ...is Dawn.

GILES: (reads from book) "The blood flows, the gates will open. The gates will close when it flows no more." (removes his glasses) When Dawn is dead.

It may be a limited event but what would happen if all the barriers between dimensions were open for longer than they started to be in The Gift?
[> [> [> hmm...so maybe giles was right after all -- anom, 23:07:50 01/06/03 Mon

Remember when a bunch of us were asking why the interdimensional walls wouldn't go back up when Dawn's blood clotted rather than not until she bled to death? I think what Rufus quoted may answer that question:

"The key was ... living energy. It needed to be channeled, poured into a specific place at a specific time. The energy ... would flow into that spot, the walls between the dimensions break down. It stops, the energy's used up, the walls come back up."

The energy had to be used up. If the energy equals Dawn's blood, that sounds like it really would have to all flow out.

Oh, & about the walls only being down for a short time? That's why Doc was careful to make "shallow cuts"--he wanted to keep Dawn bleeding for as long as possible, to give Glory plenty of time to get back to her own dimension. One of Glory's minions also said something about its not being a quick death for Dawn (contradicting Ben, who was trying to tell her it wouldn't be so bad & would be over soon). Meanwhile, the dimensions would be bleeding into each other, also for as long as possible.

So yes, the walls would be restored, but by that time a lot of damage would already be under way, & it would continue even after the dimensions were separate again.
[> [> That's what the prophecies warned, but it's not what happened... -- ZachsMind, 18:55:51 01/06/03 Mon

When the character Doc (played expertly by the incomparable Joel Grey) cut Dawn and she bled, the portal between BuffyVerse & GloryVerse opened, but everybody was still there. Had it broken down ALL barriers, there wouldn't have been a season six.

I think the Knights of Byzantium, and the prophecies that Giles read, told the Worst Case Scenario because prophecies historically go for sensationalism. When prophecies have seemed to be realized in history, the interpretation of the prophecy in hindsight seems more down to Earth than what everyone was expecting. The Knights wanted to destroy Dawn because they feared the worst of her potential. I don't think they properly understood it, because they were going on what they were told, and what we actually saw didn't 100% gel with what they feared, thanks in no small part to Buffy and the Scoobies taking Glory down and preventing the disaster. Perhaps had Buffy not jumped, and the portal was left open, eventually all the barriers would have broken down between dimensions, but we'll never know that.

There was a documentary some years ago which looked at all the outlandish concepts brought up in the Star Trek franchise, and then the documentary went to actual scientists and discussed the feasibility of it all. In that documentary Leonard Nimoy commented that he was once talking on a cellphone, and some fans of the show walked by and pointed out it was Spock on a communicator. It's actually intriguing to see how close true science has come today to some of the stuff theorized in scifi over the past century. Writers contemplated rocketships almost fifty years before NASA made that fantasy a reality. Arthur C. Clarke practically invented the concept of a communications satelite decades before Sputnik. There are scientists today still trying to find ways to make the robotics that Asimov wrote about a part of life.

I guess I'm trying to validate Dawn's place in the Buffy storyline from a speculative scientific perspective. And of course it's not gonna gel 100% with Alan Guth's theories, because I doubt Joss Whedon had any of this in mind when he concocted the idea, but I just find the correlation interesting.
[> [> [> That's not necessarily what happened. -- CW, 19:10:58 01/06/03 Mon

All we really know is that there was a breaking down of the dimensional barrier in Sunnydale. It's just as possible that none of the monsterous things that appeared near the portal were from Glory's dimenion, as it is that all of them were.

Giles was fairly convinced the knights were correct about the possible results of using the key. I'd go with his assessment.
[> [> [> [> Crossover that didn't -- KdS, 05:06:34 01/07/03 Tue

Can't point to the source, but I read somewhere that the original plan was for the dragon that got out into Sunnydale to pass in and out of Pilea first in There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb. Depending on who you listen to the idea was dumped as either too confusing or too expensive. But it does suggest that there wasn't just a portal opened between Sunnydale and Glory's home dimension.
[> Chronology -- tomfool, 17:58:52 01/06/03 Mon

I like the theory ZM. But there's one small problem. The chronology presented by ME conflicts with one of your assumptions. You wrote:

It's logical to assume that if Dawn was needed to open a door between the BuffyVerse and the GloryVerse, then The Bright Green Swirly Shimmer, was probably present at, and had something important to do with the making of the GloryVerse FROM the BuffyVerse. I mean if she was THE key that would open up Glory's universe, Dawn must have been present at Glory's creation. She must have been there when someone or something first invented the GloryVerse - and forged the lock between Glory's reality and Buffy's.

But The Key isn't as old as Glory, so couldn't have been 'present' at Glory's creation.

From Psych (Bloodties):

DAWN
So this Key thing. It's been around for a long time.

GLORY
Not as long as me, but yeah. Just this side of forever.

Assuming Glory isn't lying, Glory is older than the key. It's a small line, but I read it as ME cannon. Sorry. I still like the theory.
[> [> Actually General Gregor stated Dawn was created after Glory. -- Rufus, 18:48:49 01/06/03 Mon

From Psyche's Transcripts for Spiral season five


DAWN: What about the key?

BUFFY: Dawn.

DAWN: I want to know.

GREGOR: The key ... is almost as old as the beast itself. Where it came from, how it was created ... the deepest of mysteries. All that is certain is that its power is absolute. Countless generations of my people have sacrificed their lives in search of it, to destroy it before its wrath could be unleashed.

DAWN: But the monks found it first.

GREGOR: Yes, and hid it with their magicks.

BUFFY: Why didn't they just destroy it? If the key is as dangerous as-

GREGOR: Because they were fools. They thought they could harness its power for the forces of light. They failed, and paid with their blood.

DAWN: What do I do? What was I created for?

GREGOR: You were created ... to open the gates that separate dimensions. The beast will use your power ... to return home and seize control of the hell she was banished from.

You may want to remember some of the characters associated with light imagery this season.....Giles, Joyce.
[> [> Ewww... That means it's the reverse.. -- ZachsMind, 19:14:53 01/06/03 Mon

If Glory existed BEFORE Dawn, that means the GloryVerse existed before the BuffyVerse. The doors between realities would have been created when the BuffyVerse was made from the GloryVerse. IF we are to look at this from the Alan Guth perspective.

"The first question to look at is what would happen if you had a small patch of inflationary universe in the midst of our universe, never mind how it might have gotten there. Let's pretend that it exists, and ask how it evolves. It turns out that if this patch is big enough, it will grow to become a new universe, but it does this in a very strange way. It doesn't - and this is very important for environmental purposes - displace our universe. Instead, the patch forms a wormhole and slips through it. From our universe, it always appears very small and looks more or less like an ordinary black hole. But on the inside, the new universe is expanding and can become arbitrarily large, creating new space as it grows. It can easily become large enough to encompass a universe like the one we see. In a very short length of time, a small fraction of a second, it completely pinches off from our universe and becomes a totally isolated new universe."

In this speculative Alan Guth scenario then, eons ago somewhere in Glory's universe, a region of space had an accumulation of a false vacuum, and somehow Dawn's initial essence was created to guide it into existence by causing the false vacuum to accumulate and then expand at an incredible rate, thus creating Buffy's universe; initially stemming from Glory's reality but then becoming isolated and branching off on its own. Perhaps the entire reality of Buffy was invented by Glory's enemies in Glory's hell dimension, in order to trap Glory inside.

..Buffy's entire reality coming from a decadent hell dimension? I don't think I like the sound of that. It makes my head hurt. =) Still, I predict (this ain't spoilage it's just spec) at some point in season seven, we're gonna have to see Glory again, IF and only if I'm even remotely right.
[> [> [> No -- Rufus, 19:42:10 01/06/03 Mon

Glory may be old but it was never established that she was older than The First. Also, if you remember what Giles said in Bring on the Night the First can take on the visage of someone who has passed away.

From the Shooting Script for Bring on the Night

BUFFY (cont'd) (to Giles)
What do the records say about The
First?

GILES
Very little. It can change form, but
only appears in the guise of people
who've passed away.

WILLOW
Our "ghosts."

GILES
Also, it's not corporeal. It can't
touch or fight on it's own. It works
through the people it manipulates and
its followers, The Bringers-

Glory wasn't a vampire so the "passed away" thing doesn't apply.....she died with Ben.
[> [> [> ...and not necessarily -- Flo, 00:23:49 01/07/03 Tue

I agree with the head-hurting part -- it is possible that the Buffyverse was created to contain Glory. But it certainly isn't probable. Given that universes may be forming and pinching off from other universes within nanoseconds, there must be many possible universes from which the Gloryverse and the Buffyverse could have originated. The Buffyverse was more likely just a convenient spot to send Glory and, given the many ways we've seen beings move between dimensions on both BtVS and AtS, it's likely that she was sent through a portal rather than through the full-blown use of the Key.

I still like the theory...
[> Saw 'The Gift' the other day, and have observation and question. -- Deb, 01:29:03 01/07/03 Tue

Spike runs up the tower and Doc sticks the knife into him, removes the knife and tosses him off the tower. He then cuts Dawn. At the time the show originally aired I had more than 200 "research papers" (oh God, never laughed so hard in my life!) to read and grade, so I missed stuff.

But it struck me the other day that Spike's blood would be on that knife. You just don't wipe blood off of something. Even when you think it is all gone, it's still there. So, was the same knife that was used on Spike also used on Dawn? Does this mean anything? Speaking from a writer's point of view, if it didn't mean something then it would not have happened. Doc could have just tossed him off the tower, with a soulful look from Spike first, and that would have been that. So the question: Was Spike's blood mixed with the blood of Dawn? Also, if so, to what consequences?

The powers of the Slayer and the lineage began in darkness, before Dawn. The "old ones" came from the darkness, and are the ancestors of the vampires. Everything created from darkness came before Dawn.

I did have a place I was going to here, but I forgot where it is, but it had something to do with season 7. If anyone understands what I've said and can figure where I was going, feel free to take it from here.
[> minor nit to pick -- skpe, 05:14:43 01/07/03 Tue

I think this is a very interesting theory and have waited for Joss to do sumthing with Dawn for a while now. But I have an OT nit to pick with one of your statements.
'There was about twenty pounds of matter which somehow expanded in an explosive way to create what we know to be the universe today. That everything in the universe today originally came from that little twenty pound ball - like a big bowling ball that just blew up'
Pounds is a measument of weight (the attraction between two bodies) in a universe of one super massive particle the concept has little meaning. The mass of this original particle is the same mass as the current universe, (really big) just scrunched down to supper high density.
reflections on Showtime (no spoilers) -- Clen, 07:50:25 01/07/03 Tue

So as to give someone something to read, and give me something to do on a Tuesday morning, these are my general thoughts and impressions without specifics:

overall I found it very frustrating and irritating. I had the most moments of wanting to jump through the tv set and beat someone's ass that I've had in a long time. let's just call it inner turmoil, I had lots of inner turmoil. and it seemed that the commercial breaks got longer and more frequent in the second half, once I was positive there was only 5 minutes of show, then another 5 minutes of commercial. and what was the first commercial in that sudden break? that Campbell's soup kid with the freckles whose only purpose seems to be the most irritating little bastard to his poor beleaguered father. more inner turmoil.
yet, a little more of the kind of the humour that I like, some interesting pairings of characters, and one of the more satisfying endings I have seen in a long time. it was worth it.
[> I'd label the above 'vague spoilers' or 'non-specific spoilers' (spoilers 7.11) -- ponygirl, 08:00:15 01/07/03 Tue

But since I've seen the episode no skin off my cybernose. I do have a question for you, one that's been bugging me since last night. In the flashback scene was that supposed to be Buffy's voice? 'Cause it sounded NOTHING like her. I'm going to wait on my thoughts until I see the episode again tonight, right now I'm not a happy camper, but that voiceover thing is really disturbing me.
[> [> I would say they werent spoilers (ok, let's say vague spoilers, and this message has ACTUAL spoiler) -- Clen, 08:26:52 01/07/03 Tue

like, it's not a spoiler to say, "Buffy fights bad guys in this episode", unless you count choppier commercial breaks as a spoiler. but ok, I will do it your way in the future.

Which flashback scene? Let me think.....oh, ok. You mean the telepathic plan? (shrugs) sounded like her to me. it might have been dubbed oddly to make it sound more telepathic-y (like some people sound different over the phone), but I didn't notice it.
[> 'Okay, I GET it...' (actual spoilers for Showtime) -- Darby, 18:47:17 01/07/03 Tue

At about the 3/4 mark, I was planning my "Bored now!" post. If the ep ended with the UberVamp alive, that's what it would have been. We're treading water, I was thinking, and my arms are getting tired.

But sorry, my first impression is that someone has replaced our own Buffy with a doppleganger who would have a hard time outthinking a rutabaga. That was a plan?

More later.

Oh, one more thing - why'd it take me til tonight to realize that the UberVamp was the "Grrr! Arrgh!" guy???
[> [> OMG! I did NOT notice that!!! -- Scroll, 19:29:29 01/07/03 Tue

re: UberVamp being the ME "Grr! Argh!" guy! Wow, talk about breaking down that 4th wall -- or else (don't know a film term for this) having the writers literally step into their show a la Sweet, Numfar, Parking Ticket Lady, and Mustard Man.

As for the ep, I don't think Buffy was rutabaga-ish. I do wonder at the risk she took at drawing the UberVamp for a showdown -- if she had lost, things would've gotten REAL BAD (TM). She took a page out of Spike's book: she gave a little object lesson. A gutsy but very necessary object lesson for the SITs.

OTOH, I think the writers/actors could've telegraphed their misdirection a bit better. Besides the shot of the silent Scoobies in the kitchen, we didn't get any foreshadowing that it was all part of the plan. Not that I need/want clues so I can "see it coming" -- but I needed more significant looks between B/X/W so that later I could go back and say, "ooh, I get it now!" Unfortunately, I don't have a VCR right now so I can't rewind and examine those scenes.

Nonetheless, very happy to finally have a new Buffy. Can't wait for next week and a brand new Angel!
[> [> I didn't realize until you said it...don't feel too bad -- Clen, 19:34:47 01/07/03 Tue

I found myself getting really annoyed that noone seemed capable of motivating the SITs and just let them be by themselves and whine. I started to make up pep talks to myself. Evidently noone in the SG is much of a general. Buffy was at a loss, and her only plan was to kill grrrarrgh while they watched at a safe enough distance that they wouldn't get in the way. Not a dazzling plan, not quite as coordinated as the end of S5, but plausible. But I still think they need a general. Xander would be great because he has never even had the potential for superpowers and yet has made it 7 seasons. Giles too I suppose. Maybe Giles could give the pep talk and Xander could be the prop. Then again, if the Slayer is always alone in the end, maybe a one-on-one would be better than a group hug. Ah hell. Still, so whiny, no matter how they make it stop, it must stop.
[> Re: would I be too harsh in saying...... -- curious, 19:45:22 01/07/03 Tue

Please keep Mr. Fury away from the remainder of this season's Buffy. I didn't necessarily find the plot contents all that bad, but the painful dialogue was truly unbearable. I haven't actually disliked an episode of Season 7 until now. The only thing remotely interesting this episode was the mystery surrounding Buffy's undeadness. And wasn't that Buffy who initiated the telepathy. I had no idea she could do that, but I do seem to recall she was quite a dream psychic in earlier seasons. I always thought it was bit of a shame they dropped this potential rather abruptly.


Chanting for Drew Goddard now.
[> [> Not even close to being too harsh! (spoilers) -- Flo, 20:16:07 01/07/03 Tue

I strongly agree that Fury should be stopped, or at least be assigned a co-creator. This ep was big on the action bang, but so sadly missing the richness of character development (through dialogue and 'moments') that has kept me hooked on BtVS for years. And Buffy's militaristic pep rally speeches don't count as character development. If this is to be the last season of the show-as-we-know-it, I would like to see some resolution with these characters in a real way before I say good-bye to them all.


I will say this, though, the plot threw me a couple of times. I was genuinely amazed to find Eve dead. It may have been fun to play more on the possibility that other characters might be the FE -- but, as mentioned, all these newbies fighting for airtime was quite enough.
[> [> [> Re: And about the FE in its numerous guises (Spoilers) -- curious, 20:29:08 01/07/03 Tue

You're right about Eve. I didn't see that coming either. I'm wondereing if we get to see the scene when the FE will materialize as Buffy right in front of everyone. I'm really interested in the gang's reaction to that revelation. As for Buffy's "militaristic" persona, I was actually wondering if maybe Willow ressurrected the Buffybot with a Wishverse chip in it.

Now with regrads to David Fury, (if ME insists on his contributions) I was thinking maybe "co-writer". That way the senior writer can keep an eye on his umm, creations. (God I'm being mean. Its the FE working through me. I swear it.)
[> [> Thirding that... (spoilers) -- Solitude1056, 20:49:39 01/07/03 Tue

I haven't seen anyone else mention this, so I will:

why the hell did Buffy feel it necessary to yammer on for nearly a paragraph while the ubervamp - a creature who so far as had zero conversation with anything? And, of course, while the ubervamp is supposed to just stand there and stare at her?

It reminded me of all those grade-B movies where the bad guy says, "but first, before I kill you, I'm going to lecture you about how I tricked you and won the day," even if Buffy's supposed to be the good guy... Instead, I found myself repeating Joyce, including the eyeroll: "Were you planning to slit my throat any time soon?"

Jeez, the whole episode was mostly talk, talk, talk. Eve/FE yammering at the proto-slayers, at Spike; Andrew blathering on at Dawn, Xander, Buffy; Kennedy chattering at Willow; topped off with Buffy lecturing the ubervamp. Oh, please just shoot me now.
reflections on Showtime/7.11 (SPOILERS) -- Clen, 08:18:54 01/07/03 Tue

What can I say, it's a Tuesday there's nothing to do and I feel like downloading my thoughts on the episode. I'm not giving a walkthrough or anything, just what I found interesting. If you need to be spoiled, read on, otherwise, you can respond tomorrow, all the same to me.

I found most of it irritating. All those proto-slayers (well most) are so whiny. It's like having another half dozen Dawns. I know ME is always holding that original theme of the girl-hero in mind, so it is important to show that transition from insecurity to confidence, but Dawn is enough for me, I don't need another 10 transitions. Besides, all those minor characters at once, battling for lines and screen time, must have been hell. My pick for whiniest is the black girl: Nora? Something like that. I think she plays a student in Boston Public (not China Jesusita Shavers, the other one, I think with dreds). She whined the most. Well, I suppose Anne or whatever her name was whined the most, but it was on purpose, so I disqualify her and crown Boston Public the queen! Yay her.

I'm happy they found some time for humour. They seemed to throw some humour into some characters that haven't had much, not really. I'm noticing this season, considering all her fears and worries, Willow's only outlet for humour seems to be sexual tension, first with Anya, now with that cute proto-slayer. This is good, since things have been so grim for her lately, she deserves it. Might Willow be a little horny? I wonder if some intimate relationship might just be the source of strength she needs to take control again of her own magic. And Dawn was even harder. The only humour she had in the past involved her being the butt of it, since she can't overcome her inferority to everyone else. But now they have someone even more of a liability than her! Andrew. MT should be grateful; now she can actually have an argument with someone and win.

I'm happy things have finally been explained the way they are. It goes back to the beginning in a more literal way than the play on words involving "the First" as the bad guy. Personally, I'm happy they tied back in getting killed by the Master to the plot. I had always thought it was just some sort of consequenceless thread dangling in the wind (besides Kendra). Good to see ME keeps these things in mind like the fans do, it would have been easy to just forget about it.

Did it seem like they were toying with the idea of SMG leaving? First they have SO much conversation amongst the proto-slayers about who will be the next to be called, and it's only a matter of time; then they set it up so there is no way out for Buffy: First Evil can't be destroyed, and it's only taking advantage of Buffy's mess, plus the First Evil has not been trying to kill Buffy so far, so is there no hope? Certainly seems that way... (big sad emoticon in my brain). On the other hand, within the show itself, the ubervamp was being set up as undefeatable, then Buffy basically asserted that where there's a will, there's a way, and killed it. So does this mean that even though there is no hope, they WILL force a way through it and have another season with SMG? I guess that's a question that can't be answered for now, but that's what it made me think of.

Speaking of that, I liked the ending. I guess I'm in the camp of Spike-Buffy fans, so to see him come get him worked out really nicely as a scene for me, played out well, but not overplayed. But if we think of Buffy as the female on the hero's journey, isn't rescuing the princess from the evil castle somewhere near the end of it? That also seems to suggest her story is almost over.
[> change him to her in that last paragraph (NT) -- Clen, 09:08:05 01/07/03 Tue

[> My impressions? (spoilers) -- AurraSing, 09:23:12 01/07/03 Tue

None of this ep was very moving or even very funny.I'm sick of Andrew,found the SIT's annoying (the oh-so-obvious blonde one even more so) and the ending was far too predictable.What ever happened to leaving us guessing or even wondering what the heck is going on?

The only high spots of the hour were the hints from the Eye on how the FE might be hurt (the Slayer line problem) and the unheard dialogue between the Scoobs that finally showed some teamwork,even if the end result (the fight with the uber-vamp) was all action with very little reaction,at least on my part.

I'm hoping ME has something more entertaining up their sleeves for Feb sweeps.
[> [> Re: My impressions? (spoilers) -- Clen, 10:02:38 01/07/03 Tue

I can understand how someone would be sick of Andrew (I am not, but I get how someone else is). But you see how his character is gradually being trusted more? There's a window of character development available for him, or maybe he might just get cacked. Right now he's still a dork, but maybe this experience will improve him.

I agree SITs were annoying, although the sexual tension angle gave me pleasant enough dreams, Willow has good taste.

Maybe the ending could have been predicted, but I still found it satisfying. Maybe that betrays what I like about the show, but I think they acted it well enough to not ruin it.

I think you are too harsh. You can't have EVERY episode leaving the viewers in the dark, that would be too X-Files-ish for my tastes. All they did was wrap up a few of the issues. The ending is still uncertain, and the uncertainty of Buffy's fate has been opened up, all the more appropriate considering the speculation on the fate of the show itself. The whole time it has been Buffy's friends that have made her such a successful Slayer, have helped her to beat evil. Now, as Anya pointed out, her friends actually created a problem. The show is not a failure for me, for those two points above all: working SMG speculation into the plot, and flipping her strength into her weakness.
[> [> [> Well,boredom will do that to me every time. -- AurraSing, 10:45:23 01/07/03 Tue

I don't believe the show is a failure (I still watch it,don't I?) but I don't look forward to it with the enthusiasm I used to. After the rocky road of season 6,I was hoping for some more cohesive storylines and less attention to the sadness of the respective characters but instead I've found myself not overly caring what happens next to anyone because we seem to be running in place this season.Buffy and Spike are still revolving around each other and their respective guilts,Anya and Xander are still feeling conflicted over each other,Giles is an enigma and Willow is caught between her needs and her magic.No-one has really moved on much at all and while I realise that is somewhat like real life,I also watch BTVS more for than what I would get on one of those "reality" tv shows,in that I would prefer the storyline moved ahead and was not so mired down with the angst and the drudgery of it all. The FE is a threat but for some reason it feels like I've been here,done this all before.Why? Could it be that every season "It's the end of the world as we know it" has become too common a catch phrase?

Is it ME's fault I don't find the show as exciting anymore? It could be changes within me making the storylines seem somewhat boring and the characters feeling dull.I've outgrown other tv shows like "ER" and such. Or I could be expecting too much from a show that I've been watching for so long-most tv dramas that hit the 5 year mark often hit the doldrums and reduced ratings-why should BTVS be any different? It's still very watchable but in my case just not as absorbing as it used to be.
[> [> [> [> you're probably right -- you just don't like it anymore -- Clen, 10:53:53 01/07/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> Which sucks. -- AurraSing, 11:13:23 01/07/03 Tue

I've stopped watching Angel,Firefly got cancelled...I'm left with only one other primetime drama show I watch on a regular basis-Alias.

Which is why I was hoping ME would come out of the gate and suck me into their world again this season but it's been a mixed bag overall.Ah well,I'm hanging in there and hoping.All I can really do right now,right?
[> [> [> [> Re:But have you considered that it may not be about ... -- curious, 20:17:42 01/07/03 Tue

"the end of the world as we know it", but about the shifting of power and the balance of it. My first impressions after this eppy was a shifting of cosmic balance brought about by Buffy's wrongful ressurrection allowing for The First to surface. So I'm wondering if S_7 is really about rectifying and maintaining balance. Though at what cost? The big question is, why does Buffy's presense make such a difference here. I'm assumming that there was a more elaborate conversation that went on off the screen in which Buffy's name was specifially mentioned. I have to admit that I thought the mention of The Slayer may have meant Faith also.

Overall though, I would have to sympathize with you. I do find myself still having some occassional tinges of intense dislike for anything post "Smashed" with the exception of "Normal Again". I have to admit that I turn to dramas such as BtVS for something just a bit more than "reality". But don't give up on it yet, we still have another half season to go and even a bad BtVS is better than no BtVS. I'm guessing that I'll miss it like crazy when the Series ends.
[> [> [> Re: My impressions? (spoilers) -- 110v3w1110w, 12:18:12 01/07/03 Tue

andrew is a good example of why buffy is so dangerous to the first. while the other slayers killed evil buffy redeems it
[> [> [> [> another thought i had -- 110v3w1110w, 12:26:20 01/07/03 Tue

maybe its because buffy redeemds evil she has survived so long while the other slayers died the people she and the rest of the gang have redeemed (anya,angel,spike,andrew,evil willow and even cordelia to some extent and from what i hear faith will be back soon) have all fought with her and helped her win a battle against evil at one point and buffy would have probably died with out their help. this is why i found her making the decision to kill anya so hard to belive.
[> [> [> [> Re: My impressions? (spoilers) -- Clen, 14:00:19 01/07/03 Tue

well, a lot of the redemptions you mentioned usually followed at least one failed attempt at slayage. Buffy usually only redeems evil after the fangs have been removed, with the possible exception of Cordelia. With fangs in, she usually goes for the kill. Andrew has never had much in the way of fangs, but he's human anyways, so she only ever wanted to give him a beating and send him to jail. frankly, Buffy's just not very good at killing her friends.
[> [> [> [> Wow! Very good point. -- frisby, 18:24:38 01/07/03 Tue

Good point: the redemption of evil, transforming it into good, as more powerful than the defeat of evil, killing or destroying or repressing/oppressing it! The idea of sublimation (found in Nietzsche and transmitted through Freud and Jung) comes to mind with regard to one's own dark passions. Then again, it seems The First "did" try to turn Spike -- but failed. Somehow, Buffy enlightens, turns from within, really redeems. (I think Hesse taught this in _Sidhartha_ too?)
[> [> [> [> [> yeah, I like that part -- Clen, 19:26:07 01/07/03 Tue

the part about it being more powerful than defeating evil is good, because, like I said, Buffy seems to have more luck redeeming them than killing them.
I wonder, is it best to directly oppose the evil first, before moving for redemption? Does that give your move for reconciliation real value because you have shown that you disapprove of what they do before showing them what you would approve of? Or can you go straight for redemption?
[> [> [> [> [> [> directly oppose, before reconciliation and redemption -- frisby, 09:03:20 01/08/03 Wed

Buffy said to Andrew (before letting him run loose): Ever see "Misery" meaning she threatens and directly opposes and makes sure the other knows what she can do if she so chooses. Going straight for redemption I think fails. One needs to give the other a choice between defeat and switching sides (and then be able to back it up, and like in the case of Spike, even give that choice several times, before the time they make becomes real). Buffy saves, when she can.
[> [> [> [> [> [> What is mercy? -- Celebaelin, 17:57:54 01/08/03 Wed

I can't comment directly in any useful way on contemporary program content as the UK showings are roughly a season behind the US (tabula rasa has just aired) but wrt the nature of evil it seems likely to me that mercy will be considered as a sign of weakness or inadequacy and will not meet with any response except aggression. Evil will most likely oppose mercy *on principle* even though the concept of principle itself is foreign to the majority of evil entities (the nature of evil is rooted in excess) in one or all of it's forms (hmmm, getting a tab biblical). So if evil only conceeds to shows of strength then it is necessary first to defeat it and then, if possible, to redeem.

btw
The Seven (Classical) Virtues

Three Cardinal
Faith
Hope
Love (Often translated as Charity, but this is a Middle English word which means Love for ones fellows)

Four Philosophical
Justice
Prudence
Temperance (This means moderation in all things not abstinance necessarily)
Fortitude

It's a tough list. Even so from a certain point of view anything else is 'above and beyond the call of duty'.
[> [> [> Or, Kennedy has good taste! -- Flo, 20:17:17 01/07/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> but, does Kennedy have a good taste? stay tuned! -- Clen, 11:24:19 01/08/03 Wed

Joseph Conrad and why Season 7 fails..(brief) -- bl, 19:17:24 01/07/03 Tue

I was reading the intro to Conrad's Heart of Darkness* and came across this quote of his:

"a work of art is very seldom limited to one exclusive meaning and not necessarily tending to a definite conclusion. And this for the reason that the nearer it approaches art, the more it acquires a symbolic character."

It made me realize that the more symbolism and ambiguity I find in Buffy, the richer it seems. This season has been unsatisfactory to me for several reasons but maybe the main one is its cartoon, comicbook-like sensibility. The lack of ambiguity. The lack of subtlety. The lack of symbolism. (Well they did try that spark/flame thing but seem to have let it drop.) The lack of art. (JMO)

*I may be too old for Conrad just like there was a time I was too young for Jane Austin. I'm secure enough in my own taste (or lack of it) that I no longer read things because they are supposed to be "great literature." My last rereading of Odysseus (the new translation by Stanley Lombardo) was interesting to me only in how my view of the events has changed through the years, how I found myself deconstructing the story. Now I see Odysseus not as a hero but as a fearful and feared murderer, a man who could force slave women to clean up the corpses of their lovers then hang them in cold blood, a man who was so feared that once any king realized who he was, would be loaded with gifts, drugged and sent on his way. I guess the lesson of Troy reverberated throughout the Mediterranean. The lesson being, "Don't mess with the Greeks or they might spend a decade destroying you, your city and everything around it." And after reading about half of the new translation of Beowulf I put it down. I hadn't realized when I first read it that all it really consists of is fighting and bragging. It's just too male for me. And boring. Indeed, the skill of Seamus Heaney's translation made clear how much I didn't like the story, found it limited and dull. Even Grendal and his mother, who seemed horrific when I was young, now seem minor figures. Maybe because a lifetime of monster movies has desensitized me. I mean, they're not much compared to the "Alien." Or maybe the new translations eschew poetry in favor of clarity. Maybe I liked them more originally because older translators tried for the poetry and succeed enough to touch me. (I recommend Lattimore's translation of the Illiad. He tries for the poetry.)
'Showtime' crib sheet (spoilers for 7.11) -- Jay, 19:28:44 01/07/03 Tue

I liked the action reset at the bus stop. It seems like there was suppose to be even a longer break in between episodes here, but I'm not complaining.

Kennedy + Willow = Cute. Proto-slayers staying up, scaring the wits out of each other was decent. Anya and Giles are the new Sipowitz and (fill in the blank)? It works enough for me. I think BX were understating it some with the ripe comment about what's his name's smell. I understand what's going on with Willow, but what gives with Dawn? I like how the First infiltrated the Protos as one who was killed. A nice little vicious bit of espionage. First Evil gets some props for that one. It was also nice to see some of the Slayer mythology questions explored, even if it was done by characters who have fewer answers than the audience.

Is there a point to all these Andrew scenes? Should I be paying attention to him or to those in the scene with him? Riddle me this, riddle me that, what the hell does the multi-eyeballed mean? I'll think about that one later. Are there enough girls in this show? Xander must be loving this. And Andrew has turned into Spike circa season 4. Former bad guy comic relief. More on the big dining room meeting later.

In this act my cable once again starts giving me those second, second and a half glitches. Damn cable. Nice hair Anya. Showdown in the middle of the street. Is anyone other than our heros and that demon Anya and Giles talked to left in Sunnydale? I was distracted by my cable Tourettes, but did this act seem short to anyone else?

Welcome to Thunderdome. I'm a sucker for these kind of stages. But since when can Buffy speak telepathically? It's well established that Willow can do this, but since when can Buffy, or Xander in the kitchen for that matter? Back to the lesson. Other than the Ubervamp looking like he's jumping off trampolines, I love a good knock down drag out fight where the good guys win. And Buffy freeing Spike, well, she might as well. He desperately needs a shirt.

Overall, I enjoyed it. I don't think they stopped the trend of introducing more questions than they answer yet, but this episode seemed to be at the fulcrum point. I also enjoyed the title of the episode uttered by Sweet, and if I'm not mistaken, I believe Mr Trick said it once himself. Research.
[> Sipowitz and Simone -- Scroll, 19:50:14 01/07/03 Tue

And don't ask me who they are because I only know from watching "Highlander" which referenced them (pair of detectives?)

I quite enjoyed the SIT session of mythos-explaining. Especially liked Kennedy's line about how she might be getting too old to be called (thus giving the subtle green light on Willow smoochies). I really, really didn't see it coming (re: Eve being the First). Though now that I think about it, her name "Eve" is rather indicitive of the season's "Back to the Beginning" theme.

Loved Eyeballs, very creepy and snarky. Actually seemed more like an AtS demon that crossed over to Sunnydale. I'm really eager to find out what exactly, and how exactly, Buffy's being alive is an imbalance. We know she's not the "real" slayer. How does the issue of two active slayers affect the slayer power/source? I want to know...

As for Buffy's telepathy, I think she was merely thinking really hard, "Hey, Will? Can you hear me?" And Willow, with her witchy powers, tuned into Buffy's brain wave frequencies. Or something :)

And yes, yes, yes about Spike needing a shirt.
[> Re: 'Showtime' crib sheet (spoilers for 7.11) -- The One With the Angelic Face, 20:13:32 01/07/03 Tue

Well, we have seen already that the others can communicate with Willow. In "Bargaining," it's established and I believe the first time Will communicates telepathically with any of the Scoobies is in "The Gift" with Spike (if it happened before that ep, then I forget). I assume that Willow has established some sort of mental link between her and her friends that allows Buffy to open the communication like she did in "Showtime." I must say that was clever, because the first time the scene ran, I was confused as to what Xander was reacting to.
[> telepathy (spoilers for 7.11) -- darvangi, 20:23:59 01/07/03 Tue

I didn't have any trouble with the telepathy scene. In the premiere ep for S6 (Bargaining) we see Willow speaking telepathically to Xander who replies out loud, after which Willow reminds him he doesn't need to speak out loud because she can read his thoughts. Surely Buffy would have been alerted to this ability of hers by now.

Agree with you on the Andrew scenes, though. His sci-fi references and neurotic babbling are losing their charm fast. He's turning into a one trick pony and, as such, they need to lessen his screen time. He was much more palatable when paired with Jonathan.

Also feeling that same strangeness about the lack of anyone in Sunnydale but the scoobies and villains. A passing car every now and then would be nice. Or maybe a pedestrian - they're cool too. When they showed all the people in the streets in 'Sleeper,' I was shocked because we haven't seen the townies much of late, except for the students in school. I bet a quick scene of Buffy the Guidance Problem Slayer with some students would have made the empty streets at night not stick out so much.

It was VERY nice to see Buffy being confident and in charge. A nice return to heroic form after having been away from it through much of last season.
[> [> Re: Andrew (spoilers for 7.11) -- Robert, 21:08:31 01/07/03 Tue

>>> Agree with you on the Andrew scenes, though. His sci-fi references and neurotic babbling are losing their charm fast. He's turning into a one trick pony and, as such, they need to lessen his screen time. He was much more palatable when paired with Jonathan.

Given the amount of screen time devoted to Andrew, I think we are being set up. I am guessing that Andrew will end up being one of several crucial factors in defeating the first evil.
[> [> Re: telepathy (spoilers for 7.11) -- Jay, 21:16:47 01/07/03 Tue

I've thought about it a little bit, and I'm willing to let the telepathy scenes slide. For now. But the scenes with Andrew, I need someone to explain to me why they're needed. Mostly, I've believed them to explain whatever character was being examined in the given episode. This one isn't jumping out at me. I probably should re-watch again.

I am thinking that the fact that there are no witnesses in the streets or around the construction site lite up like a Christmas tree at night inform what may come in future episodes. Almost as much as what Giles and Anya may reveal in the future anyway. Two men enter, only one will leave.
Some very interesting thoughts on 'Showtime' (speculations and minor season 7 spoilers, I think.) -- Deb -- 'shipping rant also', 21:49:37 01/07/03 Tue

First of all, I know everyone who knows me well accusses me of being too sensitive of hearing and, well, smelling, and various other senses. Am I crazy, because I swear on my great-grandmother's quilts that in 7.10 and 7.11 there is background talking in a couple of scenes. In "Showtime" it is during Spike's first scene with FE during the dream and he escapes and comes upon Buffy. Not long, very hard to make out on my machine. I can't remember the scene from 7.10, but it also involved a Spike scene. My daughter swears she hears the voice also.

With the blatant telepathy in "Showtime" (also in "The Gift between Willow and Spike), it does not seem so far fetched that the reason WHY Buffy knows Spike's time in running out, and where the cave is, and that the UVamp is guarding, etc. is because Buffy and Spike are communicating using telepathy. He can give her information she needs, like what the UVamp's weakness is (surely he's noticed over the weeks and weeks of torture, and had a suggestion.)

The final scene, Spike's rescue, it also appears that though we are not hearing anything, Spike and Buffy are also "talking". Watch his face when he notices her cut face.

WARNING: Tangent

Didn't feel "shippy" at all to me, well at least not in season 6 sense: More mature like "Geez, now we are friends. Who would have thought?" I could go into this more, but when ships set sail, I just stand on the dock and wave bye-bye. "See you later -- together and sailing smoothly, or arriving separately on floating remnants because the ship sunk like a rock." My life has no room for "shipping" of any one's right now.

"Am I in my cabin dreaming, or are you really scheming,
To take my ship away from me?

You'd better think about it, I just can't live without it.
So, please don't take my ship from me.
Yeah, yeah, yeah ...

I can feel the hand, of a stranger,
And it's tightening, around my throat.
Heaven help me, Heaven help me,
Take this stranger from my boat.

I'm your captain, I'm your captain,
Although I'm feeling mighty sick.
Everybody, listen to me,
And return me, my ship.
"I'm the captain. I'm the captain.
So return me my ship."
-- Grand Funk Railroad, I'm Your Captain


"The wind in the wires made a tattletale sound
And a wave broke over the railing
And every man knew, as the Captain did, too,
T'was the witch of November come stealing.

. . . . .

The Captain wired in he had water coming in
And the good ship and crew was in peril
And later that night when his lights went out of sight
Came the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

Does anyone know where the love of God goes
When the words turn the minutes to hours . . . . .
- - Gordon Lightfoot -- The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.


SEA OF LOVE -- Honeydrippers

"Do you remember when we met
That's the day I knew you were my pet
I want to tell you how much I love you
Come with me, my love
To the sea, the sea of love
I want to tell you how much I love you
Come with me, to the sea
Do you remember when we met
That's the day I knew you were my pet
I want to tell you how much I love you"

END OF NAUTICAL TANGENT

This could also explain why we aren't getting a lot of answers, or seemingly not getting them. The FE was amongst them tonight, and that possibility must have been quite obvious to the Scoobs from the beginning, once they figured out it was the FE. So spoken communication had to be limited to mundance and misleading, which would explain a lot about Giles. Dawn does appear to be out of the loop.

Perhaps in BOTN, it was not a "solid" Giles but an astral projection. Much safer for him in gathering up the SITs. Perhaps he had been working in this manner even earlier, as in the "is Giles dead or not? ending." The coven could be assisting him in this.

Other things: Andrew is comic relief but also a trickster. Do you notice that Dawn treats him quite simularily to the manner that Buffy treated Spike in season 4? Several comments to and about Andrew signified comments made about and to Spike in earlier eps. Loved "Shields Up."

Did I miss someting, because I don't know where Giles and Anya were during the big showdown.

Overall, I thought this ep. did provide some answers, and I was so happy to see David Fury write an ep. where he does not blatantly screw with Spike. Just keep him out of the Spike-heavy eps.
[> OK. so it's not so interesting. ; ) -- Deb, 00:45:59 01/08/03 Wed

[> Some responses...(Spoilers for Showtime) -- shadowkat, 07:41:16 01/08/03 Wed

I don't have as much problems with Fury as others do, since I loved Sleeper...and Crush. But that's not really relevant. ;-)

Some interesting points here - though. (For my own complete impressions on this episode see my post below).

1. First on shipping? Completely agree. I think it can get a bit tiresome. And like you? I tend to go where the writers go on it. Nice poetic rantings though - better than the usual comments on shipping and far more interesting.

2.TELEPATHY:

a. The FE was amongst them tonight, and that possibility must have been quite obvious to the Scoobs from the beginning, once they figured out it was the FE. So spoken communication had to be limited to mundance and misleading, which would explain a lot about Giles. Dawn does appear to be out of the loop.

Yes - this makes sense, I think. When Buffy realized the FE could pretend to be any of the proto-slayers or anyone who once was dead, she formulated a plan with Willow and Xander where the FE could not listen in. She even states that they should assume that the FE is always one step ahead of them.
And she's running out of time to save Spike. She's figured out that Spike is important somehow to the FE.

The telepathy could very well be Willow's ability - an ability to link them which was explained in Bargaining, first showed up in The Gift, and arose again in Two to Go - Grave. In fact they use two of Will's abilities in this episode - the barrier wall and the telepathy. Will fights her own fears of using magic to do it.

b.With the blatant telepathy in "Showtime" (also in "The Gift between Willow and Spike), it does not seem so far fetched that the reason WHY Buffy knows Spike's time in running out, and where the cave is, and that the UVamp is guarding, etc. is because Buffy and Spike are communicating using telepathy. He can give her information she needs, like what the UVamp's weakness is (surely he's noticed over the weeks and weeks of torture, and had a suggestion.)


Do Buffy and Spike share a link? I don't know. While the shipper/romantic in me thinks it would be cool. The plotter and realist knows it's far-fetched. People first brought up this possibility in OAFA. Nope sorry, just bad editing. Wish it was something cleverer. Here I think it's the same thing - bad sound editing/looping in the sections you heard voices or a bad cable feed? I remember hearing the feedback in the kitchen scene with Anya in BoTN where Anya appears to be muttering to herself. Also in the telepathy flashback - that's deliberate and obvious - Dawn mentions to Willow - you planned this? And we go into Will's pov and flashback to it. Again pov is used heavily here - we're in Dawn's then jump to Willow's then go to Buffy's then to Spike's.

Also - Buffy clearly comes up with the way to defeat the uber-vamp on her own. We hear her mention it to the gang in the living room where she says - "must be some other way to kill this thing? Sunlight? Beheading?" So i seriously doubt Spike needed to tell her. Also the only character who is ever shown to sucessfully telepathically link to a vampire is Willow. Buffy can't do it in Earshot, why would she be able to now?

No - the end scene isn't telepathic so much as just a quiet moment of understanding between them, I think.

3.Perhaps in BOTN, it was not a "solid" Giles but an astral projection. Much safer for him in gathering up the SITs. Perhaps he had been working in this manner even earlier, as in the "is Giles dead or not? ending." The coven could be assisting him in this.

I think you may be right here. The more I think on it - the more convinced I am that Giles is a projection maintained by the coven. I think it also emphasizes a point made in Restless: "you never had a watcher". I'm not sure the slayer needs one. The fatherly guide who in reality isn't that useful and just serves to put more pressure on us. Think about it for a moment - Dad's think they are helping, but more often then not - they are telling us what to do and how much they are counting on us. And what we did wrong.
There comes a time in which we have to do this ourselves and they can only support us as a kindly ghost in the back of our brains.

4. Dawn is out of the loop? I'd have to agree. I think Dawn was in the loop before Willow returned. Now Willow has displaced Dawn. Wonder how Dawn feels about this? Anya has also to some degree displaced Dawn.

5.Other things: Andrew is comic relief but also a trickster. Do you notice that Dawn treats him quite simularily to the manner that Buffy treated Spike in season 4? Several comments to and about Andrew signified comments made about and to Spike in earlier eps. Loved "Shields Up."

Agree. I think Andrew is a trickster. Serving a similar purpose to EVe's. The asker of uncomfortable questions and teller of uncomfortable truths - this is the role Spike served in Season 4. (Unfortunately, either Marsters is a more charismatic actor than Tom Lenk or Spike is a more gripping character than Andrew - b/c when Spike did it - it was well interesting and funny, when Andrew does it - it has a tendency to be annoying - at least to me. Hoping I'll get past this small problem.) Question is - where the heck is ME going with him. Somehow Andrew being another sleeper doesn't quite work for me. FE couldn't do much with him when he was willing and able. Andrew makes a rather pathetic minion, worse than Glory's monks.If I was the FE I'd cut my losses and try someone else. Because let's face it - the weakest among the SG could take Andrew.

I think Anya and Giles were still close to the oracle and getting back from that destination?

SK
[> [> Yeah, I know, total nitpicking here -- Sarand, 10:12:28 01/08/03 Wed

Not disagreeing with your point that Buffy came up with how to kill the ubervamp on her own. However, when she was trying to come up with ways to do it, she did not mention beheading (or fire, for that matter) but said "bacteria?" It struck me at the time, partly because it was one of the few humorous lines of the episode and because she was not listing all the traditional ways we know to kill a vamp. But I agree, I don't think that she was getting the information from Spike.

With regard to Giles being a projection of the coven, interesting idea. The only thing that makes me question that, though, is that when the coven called to relay the info about a new slayer in town who turned out to be Eve, it sounded from Willow's end of the conversation that the coven was asking to speak to Giles. Would they have done that if they were somehow projecting him?

As for the parallels between Spike and Andrew, could they stop being so damned obvious? This time it was the comments on Andrew's body odor (similar to if not exactly like the references in STSP to Spike's odor). Please, if you're going to tie someone up for days and not give them a chance to bathe, of course they're going to smell bad.
[> Re: Some very interesting thoughts on 'Showtime' -- diamond in the rough, 11:45:39 01/08/03 Wed

Didn't feel "shippy" at all to me, well at least not in season 6 sense

This to you is a bad thing, Deb?
[> [> No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No ship. No ship -- Deb, 13:04:16 01/08/03 Wed

I'm not ready for a ship. Too many ship wrecks to hope for ship. Just "on the job" ship, please. Share some laughs, assist with the deadlines, tell off-color jokes, take turns making the coffee, hang out at the same bar during lunch, tease (without harrassing) each other, cover each others' arses, say good-bye at the end of the night, go home, shut the door, lock the door and take a cold shower. No ship!!
No ship!! Rhymes with No Chip!! No Chip!!
[> [> [> OK, thanks for clarifying. -- diamond in the rough, 13:22:09 01/08/03 Wed

Current board | More January 2003