January 2003 posts

Just don't read this if you don't feel like a downer right now. -- Deb, 00:38:44 01/11/03 Sat

"If you have been an ATPoBtVS&AtS Forums Poster for long enough that you can answer #8 and #9, then you're ready to join our honor roll of Existential Scoobies. Use the following list, assembled by OnM, as your starting point."

This is the beginning of the end: An elitist board. (Nothing personal OnM.)

I've made way too many posts here in the past 6 months or so, and there is no way I can answer questions 8 and 9, nor for that matter, any of the other questions without changing my answers every day. (First 3 I can handle fairly well.)

I hope that there can be some way of . . . actually, I really don't care. I didn't even want to be listed in the first place, but my daughter *encouraged* me. I guess I really hope that the PTB on the board will reread this, and deconstruct the text to see that being able to join "the honor roll" defines the intent of this forum as competitive.

Regrettably, this means I will have to spell-check and grammar check what I write, and worry about being a nit-wit compared to the likes of those posters I admire. 'Well, no one responded to that post. I never expected I'd receive a failing grade for that. I thought it was interesting. If I get too many more of those, I'll be yanked from the posters' "honor roll"!' Also, I hate Scooby Do.

If there is one thing about Buffy I dislike, it is the commercial use of the "Scoobies" when SMG building upon that further in the movie, and the tons and tons of marketing crap that's everywhere. And now she's going to do another movie? This is too connected for me.

Back to the issue at hand: Then there are those who find it difficult to make that first post. Most people are not so fool-hardy as me: 'She whom cannot shut her mouth.'

I'm sorry if anyone believes that I am "rabble-rousing." It's my nature, to be passionately indignant -- and pretty much passionately everything else. BUT I am desparately attempting to find a nice, dark, soft place in ambivalance so I can live my years out "comfortably numb."

Favorite Quote: "I hope you don't think this antidote's gonna rid you of that nasty martyrdom. See I figured it out, luv. You can't help yourself. . . . You're addicted to the misery. That's why you won't tell your pals about us. Might actually have to be happy if you did. They'd either understand and help you, God Forbid, or drive you out where you could finally be at peace, in the dark, . . ."

"Oh, my God!" "Shut up Spike!"

I think I'll shut up too.

[> Wait a minute.....spell check, grammar check?? -- Rufus, 00:53:52 01/11/03 Sat

There are just as many styles of posting as there are posters. I bang off a post in whatever time it takes and send it (trying to fix tags of course d'H). I don't feel that many people will hover over my words with a red pen, and if they do they should thank me for helping them remember their editing skills......the bill will be in the mail, like that cheque I sent...;) If I haven't been yanked from the "Meet the Posters", then I can't see where anyone will.

[> I think you missed a post. -- Sol 1056, 01:25:00 01/11/03 Sat

archived already, of course

I don't know about spell check, but I do know of some folks who sometimes go wacky and split their infinitives.

[> Incidentally... -- Sol 1056, 01:35:40 01/11/03 Sat

I agree about the whole Scoobies thing. Originally I liked the title - marginally - and then the movie came out. Now it just seems a little on the, uh, well, I don't know. However, I didn't pick the name, I've just done the webpages for over a year now. And I've never heard anyone come up with something better - 'groupies' seems even worse than Scoobies, in case anyone cared what I thought.

Actually, I could tolerate Scoobies with gritted teeth, but when folks started talking about Dawn and the Scrappies, I had visions of an ATPoBtVS-spin-off pages called the Essentialist Scrappies and nearly had apoplexy... but in a good way. Really.

I am so in a Zippy mood, and this topic doesn't help. Enlightenment is in the spin cycle.

[> Re: Just don't read this if you don't feel like a downer right now. -- bl, 02:38:40 01/11/03 Sat

This is the beginning of the end: An elitist board. (Nothing personal OnM.)

It was already an elitist board. I resigned myself to that long ago. And having my Spikecentric, Spuffy-loving ass ignored. But that's okay. A lot of the posts are still great to read.

[> Re: Just don't read this if you don't feel like a downer right now. -- Rahael, 06:18:49 01/11/03 Sat

I kind of understand what you feel.

I don't think the board is particularly elitist - I've never seen a forum so scrupulous about not using grammar and spelling against someone - it only happened once, and that got dealt with.

But that's my opinion - others might disagree.

The problem I have is a personal quirk - I don't like 'belonging' anywhere. Whenever this idea comes up I get really really agitated. I'm the malcontent; the person who refuses to join in group hugs - I remember one occasion after finals where I just got really embarrassed and said 'no. no group hugs for Rahael' and walked away quickly.

I don't know - I just grew up with the knowledge that I didn't belong to two different groups, both of whom defined themselves against each other. And not belonging meant you were eligible to be murdered. I grew up learning to fake being one or the other depending on the circumstance. Changing my name. Changing where I grew up. Changing who my parents were. Lie after lie after lie. All because who I was undesirable. So maybe I grew up suspicious of everyone who did belong in a group. I'm not one of those people who long to see the Scoobies all together and fighting evil together. Maybe why I like the dynamics - the more tense, the more conflicted dynamic - of Angel Investigations. Especially the way in S1, where Angel cooked scrambled eggs for Cordy and the newly arrived Wesley. A symbol of acceptance, hospitality and open, inclusive friendship.

As for no responses to posts - well to be absolutely honest, I'm not about to respond to yours until I have something long, lengthy and non terse, non disagreeing to say!!!!!!

And 99% of the time, I'm hugely relieved to see that no one has responded to my posts. I'm way too controversial to not feel afraid when I see a response.

On an aside, I tended to interpret Qs 8&9 as referring to other posters, because my inferiority-superiority complex simultaneously prevents me from seeing any of my posts as either strange or cool. Plus, I'm the uncoolest person around, and by extension, so are my posts!

[> [> You can't be the uncoolest, 'cause I am! -- Sara, the tragically unhip, 19:33:47 01/11/03 Sat

Can't blame anyone who has a suspicion of groups, and yet being part of something can be fun too. I don't think that "meet the posters" really does much more than give us a chance to put each other into more context, which isn't necessary but is nice. Each of us have different questions that are more throwaway answers than others - I can't give a specific favorite thread because I can't remember them - got a mind like a sieve, enjoy 'em, somehow retain a general feel, and lose all details. The only reason I knew a strangest thread was because Darbs participated in the wouldn't die memes thread which was entertaining to watch - kind of like a horror movie - "The monster that ate Chicago" kind of thing. Anyway, I'm rambling, which is par for the course, but I think the meet the posters page should just be a fun thing.

Sara, singing along with Bob Marley "Don't worry about a thing, cause every little things gonna be alright..." (be glad you can't hear - my voice is terrible)

[> [> [> Re: You can't be the uncoolest, 'cause I am! -- shadowkat, 19:48:44 01/11/03 Sat

LOL! Now we're competeing for uncoolness status? I love the posters on this board. If you and Rahael count yourselves as uncool? Than I must be too...I certainly fit all of the criteria.

Like you - not a joiner of groups. Tend to be suspicious of groups. Didn't send my profile in for the longest time, was really uncertain how to answer some of the questions - but someone on the board requested I do so, more than once, and feeling flattered I did. (Yes - my ego is small and flattery will get you everywhere, pathetic I know.) Personally I see it as fun and it's kind of the board runners to take the time to do them. Most sites don't. B C & S just lists names after you've posted a long time and meet criteria.

Also not a group hugger or touchy-feely person. Feels insincere to me somehow...so get where Rahael is coming from on "group hug" thing.

And if you've read my posts? Well grammar mistakes, misspellings abound. I keep praying the grammar police won't get me. ;-) (While I have yet to see any of these mistakes in either yours or Rahael's posts. Or the rambling stream of consciousness that I'm quilty of.)

Sort of did like the meme post though - well when I understood it, most of it I'm embarrassed to say was way way above my poor plebian head. I still am uncertain what a meme means. (Another distinction, that makes you gals far cooler than you know. ;-) Unless of course understanding what a meme is - is what makes one uncool? ;-) )

SK

[> [> [> [> I'm uncool and don't understand memes! -- Sara, the tragically not too bright and unhip, 20:05:22 01/11/03 Sat

I probably understood even less then you did sk, and I had one of the participants explaining it to me in detail, infinite detail, a whole lot of detail...better stop here before I get myself into real trouble.

[> [> [> [> [> LOL! Oh I doubt that.. -- shadowkat, 20:25:15 01/11/03 Sat

You actually participated in the thread...if you'll notice I just frolicked with fresne on the meaning of dance metaphors and Buffy. ( a rarity - I usually idiotically try to contribute - I wisely chose not to this round. Methinks i've become more addicted to posting on the Atop board than I am about either tv show...whatever will I do when the tv shows end or cease to interest me??)

But just to check?How's this for understanding? Meme - is the idea that languages and cultures have their root in biology? so Meme is the genetic name for that biological process where language lies? Uhm that made 0 sense. Methinks I still have no clue and have probably frustrated the poor scholars on the board that tried so hard to educate us all. (Don't be frustrated...I'm dense on some things - important things like science, math, anything with numbers...but quite good at stuff like popular culture and movies - stupid brain.)

Would it surprise you to learn that as an undergraduate in college I wrote this very ambitious paper comparing Molly Bloom in James Joyce's Ulysess to Caddy in Faulkner's Sound and The Fury using Jungian and Freudian psychology? Now before you get impressed - I didn't know much Jung and Freud. What I knew - I got from some Neumann myth books and Jung's Man and his Symbols. I went so far above my own head and apparently my advisors - that they gave me an A-. (Silly advisors - they should never have suggested I throw Jung and Freud into the mix.) But - five years later? I threw the thing away because I couldn't figure out what in the heck I was trying to say. It was beautifully written - but, alas made no sense. (sigh) Did I learn my lesson? Nope. Still try to tackle things that are far above my own head. Yep, I'm suffer from a tragic condition - a tendency to bite off more than I can chew, or being overly ambitious. It gets me into all sorts of trouble.

At least others are bright enough to know NOT to write about something they don't entirely understand as opposed to me - who tackles it anyway in the hopes that somewhere in the process of writing it all down it will make sense and I'll figure it out, even if I frustrate and confuse everyone else in the process. I call it dumb academic bluffing..for want of a better phrase. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> The board is the most fun part of the entire Buffy experience! -- Hello, My name is Sara and I'm ATPoBTVs&AtSolic, 20:30:21 01/11/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> I secretly love it, you know -- Rahael, 20:39:55 01/11/03 Sat

Belonging, that is. It just leaves me horribly conflicted. Seems so hard to achieve, for me at least. The meet the posters thing didn't cause me any of this kind of concern (it pleases me to see my name there, always), it's just a concern that I often feel going through life, so I can kind of see where other people are coming from, if something triggers it.

Have to say that being part of a 'group' at college was at once the most rewarding and yet painful things I experienced there. I get the warmth, and the support and the companionship that it provided, but it concerned me, when I felt inconvenient feelings and situations were suppressed or ignored. We'll ignore this problem, because it's too painful to look at. Well the problem (not me or generated by me, I hasten to say! lol) imploded on all of us at the end, and everything got very very complicated.

SK, flattery works on me too! bwahahaha. Oh, and my posts are simply littered with typos, grammar errors (you think Darby corrects your misspellings Sara? dH is always making fun of my grammar!)and sometimes when I'm typing, I miss out entire words. Sound-alikes are a pitfall for me too. I know there's a name for that, but it's eluding me - homophones?.

Have to say also that this place isn't hierarchical in the least. I'm not discounting the fact that there are people who feel they are on the periphery here (and I do feel that, very often) and people who feel in the thick of things (again, I feel this also, very often) but it's a circle of involvement, and it's purely voluntary, the level of engagement. For me, it really depends on my shifting moods and feelings. Times like tonight, I just remember how much I know about so many of you, and how connected I feel (to use a phrase of Aliera's) to you guys.

Oh, and as for memes? I'd contend that the best example of a meme is the word 'meme'. ;)

Rahael, who is proudly unhip and who currently has raging insomnia. 4.30 am for goodness sake.

[> [> [> [> [> LOL...me too..ohhh book recs? Anyone?? -- shadowkat, 21:09:46 01/11/03 Sat

Oh do I identify with everything you said above.

Groups and suppressing of inconvient feelings, etc..yep had experiences like that.

Also have the same problem with alike sounding words.
I keep confusing affect and effect for example. Also I have to keep correcting your and you're, its and it's. It truly is horrible and embarrassing. Also the number of words I've deleted because I couldn't figure out if a) they are in fact a word (I inherited a little gift from my mother called malapropisms - I tend to create words or combine words and make my own and assume they are part of the English language. Plus the fact that I had French as a child and have a tendency to combine those words as well.)
b) correct spelling of the word (too lazy to look in the dictionary at my elbow..)

I'm actually very impressed with your typing - I just saw the commentaries you wrote up and my lord - how did you manage to transcribe that as well as you did? I'm amazed.

Would agree this board - of all the ones I've seen seems to be the friendliest and the least hierarchial. Also the broadest range of topics. Plus I've met so many friends here with similar interests - who provide me with the chance to flaunt my "geeky" side, for want of a better word.

I always thought meme meant same? Does it in French? Where's Ete?

Finally and most important: book recommendations - I got 25 gift certificate for xmas to buy books, so can break my moratorium on book buying but am flustered as to what to get? There are so many.

I was considering Tristram Shamby (never read it but everyone spoke so highly of it), another Lois Macmaster Bujold (loving Cordelia's Honor - great book) but not sure which one, Diana Wynn Jones (has she written any adult books or are the kids quite good so doesn't matter and which ones?), and any other recs? (Sorry didn't keep the ones everyone made before.)

SK (who should be in bed too...12:17 am and having slept badly last few nights..)

[> [> [> [> [> [> "même" means "same" -- Ete, 05:21:23 01/12/03 Sun

But meme is another word, I think.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Plus c'est la "meme" chose -- Sophist, 08:42:18 01/12/03 Sun

I like the French translation, but that wasn't how it was being used.

A "meme" is just an idea, any idea. "Meme" was chosen (can't resist the puns) because it sounded like "gene" and, of course, because ideas are held in "meme"ory. Anyway, the theory is that ideas/memes evolve like genes and become more or less populous in their environment (whatever that is -- perhaps a freeform environment of all ideas/memes, or maybe the environment is the human brain; the theory is a little vague) according to the principles of natural selection.

The debate was on at least 2 fronts: whether memes do exist and behave like genes; and whether cultures (perhaps defined as a collection of memes) also survive or evolve according to principles of natural selection.

Confident that I've clarified nothing, I repeat here the phrase from the subject line.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That actually made sense - I've got it! By George I think I've got it! -- Sara, who will have forgotten what meme means by tomorrow..., 09:02:45 01/12/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> Book recs? Anyone?? Someone -- fresne, 09:10:19 01/13/03 Mon

Piping up because after weeks of not a lot to say, I er, have something to say.

Okay, not a whole lot to say.

Getting the important thing out of the way, re: Lois McMaster Bujold, read either Warrior's Apprentice or Young Miles (a compilation book like Cordelia's Honor, which contains the Warrior's Apprentice) next. WA was one of her first books and in many ways is the least polished of the series and yet, when I re-read it, one of the more emotionally raw. Mostly, I'm jumping up and down waiting for you to get to Memory so we chew it over in comparison to S6.

Okay, I'm better now.

Actually, if hadn't been busy depriving myself of sleep and forgetting to eat last week, I'd have percolated up during the whole Buffy needs sleep and is therefore not on the top of her game in BoTN. Although, whenever that sort of thing happens, I always come to a better understanding of why religious ascetics fast. There's nothing quite like sitting at work and feeling that you've come to the calm transcendent center of self and dammit I need to go eat something and possibly take a nap.

Anyway, I say there's nothing wrong with creating new words. After all, if we don't do it then it will be left all sorts of people entirely unsuited to birthing supple-ing new perangulations of the language. I think of it as my own anti-1984, which was, come to think of it, almost twenty years ago. Huh...

Yeah and then there's my bizarre desire to put '''' in any word ending in s. It's part of that never ending struggle that is the reason why I have a sheet of paper next to my computer that defines Affect v. Effect, eg vs ie, Its vs It's, How to say logon / vs \, and Press vs. Click vs. Select. Okay, the last two aren't generally relevant.

Random social hugging thing. Put me down in the not liking them category, which is unfortunate since my social circle is hug addicted.

fresne - who loves all her posts equally, at least to their faces. I wouldn't want to stunt their emotional development.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL...and a chance to thank you and Ete -- shadowkat, 10:08:53 01/13/03 Mon

I want to thank you for that Lois MacMaster Bujold rec - I just finished part one of the two part Cordelia's Honor, and it is one of the best sci-fi's I've read in some time.
I also read part of her afterword and her point that she basically just decides what is the worste possible thing I can do to these characters - then does it - is the best advice I've seen for an aspiring writer. Pain creates conflict and resembles life.

Since my local Barnes and Noble does not have Warrior's Apprentice or Young Miles - I must go out and order them.
Ugh. What got me to buy Cordelia's Honor was the post in which you described how Cordelia deals with the monsterous Bothari in the attempted rape scene - you were right it was the best one on torture/rape I've seen in sci-fi or romantic fiction. She didn't romanticize it and she showed both the person being used as rapist (the supposed monster) and the victim to be more complicated people. It felt, real.
I've already recommended it to two friends. In some ways Bujold reminds me of Sherri Tepper's Grass.

I've begun to honor this board's book recommendations. This past fall the books I've enjoyed the most or have even finished without giving upon were recommended by members of this board. They include Obsidian Butterfly (aliera),
American Gods (Rob and Ete), and Cordelia's Honor.

Anyways..it may take me a while but if Memory isn't too far down the series, I'll order it too. Thank you again for the recs. SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> Recs -- Rahael, 09:19:54 01/13/03 Mon

Obviously, I'd recommend both Tristram and DWJ highly! She writes for three broad age groups. Children, Young Adult, and Adult. Of the adult books, the one I most enjoyed was 'Deep Secret'

Some of the other ones DWJ I liked that you might enjoy are 'Fire and Hemlock', 'Hexwood' and "Tale of Time City'. However, in order to reduce my guilt in case you don't like these, why not try your local library? You'd be able to find out whether these are to your taste before parting with the gift certificates!

As for typing - I'm quite a good typist actually. The reason why I sometimes miss out entire words when I type is because I type quickly while I'm thinking and if I miss out a word mentally, that's what ends up on the page. Of course with the commentaries, someone else is speaking so its even easier.

My typos are a result of my idiosyncratic way of typing - I taught myself. Basically figured that it had to be the same principles as playing a piano, and went on from there. I have atrocious handwriting that even I can't read and it became necessary quite early on, to type up study notes.

I'll admit a shocking fact - I don't own a dictionary. I just go along on blind instinct. When I was younger I used to read with a dictionary and make myself look up every unfamiliar words, but at some point I got lazy and lost the habit. Because I learnt most of my english by reading books, I often know when I should be using a word, without understanding the full depth of its meaning. I've learnt it contextually. I never expected that I'd have to speak it as my primary language one day!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you and on the typing...learning english - Wow. -- shadowkat, 10:17:44 01/13/03 Mon

Thanks for the recs. Yes - must use local library more and get past negative views of such institutions due to my horrible work experience. (I worked for a Library Reference Company.)

You taught yourself English and Typing?? I'm incredibly impressed. You write as good if not better than people who learned English in classrooms and typing through a typing teacher. If piano helped you figure out typing. You must be a wonderful pianist. And you do it without a dictionary? Very very impressed. Thanks for sharing this. It's inspiring.

SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, but I think it's undeserved! -- Rahael, 10:39:34 01/13/03 Mon

I first started learning English through the best way to learn any language - immersion into a culture which only speaks that langauage and that language only. I was here in England for one and a bit years (my mother was out here doing research for awhile, and i joined her for the last two), and when I went back I kept on reading English because I'd discovered the wonderful world of books, and there were many more wonderful children's stories in English than in my mothertongue. (Learned to love libraries too!)

Most of my vocab, and writing style of course was learned in the intervening years as I grew up and my reading tastes matured.

I used to get piano lessons (singing, elocution and dancing too - What a Drag!)- I was very moderately gifted - nowhere near the league of my little cousin, who is a bit of a prodigy. When I got to England my father wasn't as fussed as my mother's family had been about such things and allowed me to give it up. So umm, can definitely say that my typing is now more advanced than my piano playing. It's really very easy - if you are used to the concept of your fingers finding keys automatically, and you force yourself not to look down, it doesn't take more than 2 weeks tops to get to a fast speed.

(But from sometime this year, I'll have a decent piano in the house. Who knows whether I'll be able to pick it up again? I think the neighbours should be very very afraid)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rah, I never realized English wasn't your first language. -- Rob, 13:47:42 01/13/03 Mon

I have to say how impressed I am, as well. I never would have been able to tell that it wasn't. Might I ask what your native tongue is?

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Rah, I never realized English wasn't your first language. -- Rahael, 14:58:30 01/13/03 Mon

There's a big honking clue in my poster's profile, if you want to look it up ;) It literally is my 'mothertongue'. I never learned to speak my father's language - both were completely different, with different alphabets and scripts and everything.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Because who can resist book recs -- ponygirl, 12:53:00 01/13/03 Mon

There are so many interesting discussions going on on the board right now and I feel completely out of it. In a bit of recovery from having my family visit me this weekend -- my jaws are slowly starting to unclench. Unfortunately their visit coincided with a nasty cold snap here in Toronto which the car-riding, slightly warmer climes-residing members of my family did not enjoy. Ernest Shackleton probably heard less complaints about the cold.

Anyhoo book recs are something I can wrap my brain around. I'm a third of the way through Ian McEwan's Atonement and it is jaw-droppingly good.

If you liked American Gods you might want to try Gaiman's Neverwhere. I had big ambitions about doing an essay comparing BtVS' s5 and Neverwhere over the holidays, but got distracted by eating and shiny presents. I'd love to hear your take on linkages between Xander and Richard, or Spike and the Marquis de Carabas!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I secretly love it, you know -- Sara, 21:13:59 01/11/03 Sat

People are the best and the worst part of life, so it makes sense that belonging and not belonging are kind of issues. Having been tragically unhip from birth, I didn't do alot of belonging to groups until adulthood, and I must admit I do like it, maybe more than I should. It was a real thrill for me when I started really interacting with people on this board, just like when I make friends at work, or at other things I participate in. It's one of the things I find fascinating about this, the connections we're all making to each other, and the way we interact and make relationships purely through words. It's like the art of the letter is being recreated, which is highly ironic for me to be participating in, because I'm a terrible correspondent.

Well, it's past midnight, so I'm going to go to bed after saying "Go to sleep, Rahael!"

- Sara, now singing "lullabye and goodnight, with roses bedight, with lilies bespread..."

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I secretly love it, you know -- Rahael, 09:32:50 01/13/03 Mon

Worst. correspondent. ever. (But I love writing!)

My grandmother writes me lovely letters every month. I'm deeply ashamed to say that I'm a YEAR behind. I feel terrible guilt when I think about how many letters I owe people. However when she wrote and said "come to the warzone. There's this really nice man I want you to meet. His parents are very keen!" I wrote back pretty quickly. There was hyperventilating involved.

I get a huge buzz being around other people. If I've been solitary for too long I absolutely have to go and get my fill of other people's company. Then there are days when I don't want to speak to *anyone*. Just happy, calm, blessed silence.

[> Re: Just don't read this if you don't feel like a downer right now. -- Cactus Watcher, 07:26:00 01/11/03 Sat

Deb, we have misunderstandings here just like all friends do. I got on Sol's case the other day, because I thought the timing was bad for a 'report now so we know you're still alive' session, and partially because people like WW had their MtP profiles removed for not answering those questions. I understood why Sol did what she did, but I didn't like it. I'm pretty sure mine was left on because (if my memory serves) I mentioned reasons last November why I wouldn't reply to them. Between that argument and stragglers posting it looks like that thread is going to last long enough that my first concern will be satisfied.

Sol is a good person. I can remember a week when this board was going nearly berserk with attacking trolls and near trolls. Sol was the one who stepped up and said it was getting out of hand and we needed to stop or we were certainly going to turn into a bunch of elitist jerks. I think Sol made a mistake this time, but is trying to make it good.

No one makes more spelling mistakes than I do here. It's not because I can't spell, but because I'm mildly dyslexic, and it is nearly impossible for me to correct all the mistakes I make no matter how much time I try to proofread. People here have been very understanding, believe me. They laugh when I make a huge goof, but it makes me laugh, too. Practically everybody here leaves out words and makes mispellings. That should be the least of your worries here.

We intimidate newcomers sometimes, because we are who we are. We're adults and teenagers who act like adults. We talk in complete sentences and use words that the average sixth grader may not understand. We have a lot of people in grad school or who been through grad school. And sometimes the folks who've taught themselves are just as imposing in their thoughts and writing as those of us with big degrees. But, the key is, here we try to listen. Sometimes, as in Etrangere's case, one has to complain a little before we understand why some posts are the way they are. But, Deb, just give us a chance, we'll try to listen.

We've been through it all before. Stick around, stop worrying and enjoy.

[> On your second point... -- KdS, 10:12:40 01/11/03 Sat

I've been accused of being a conspiracy theorist on this board [still think Alias is a CIA plot ;-)] and I don't think that the Scooby Gang phrase was a deep dark plot to promote SMG's movie career - timing's off for a start.

If you're that concerned we could always follow what the Verve did in a similar situation and put a little button on the front page reading "Hanna-Barbera suck" ;-) (No offense to any H-B fans present)

[> Relax. -- AurraSing, 17:15:41 01/11/03 Sat

If you feel intimidated sometimes,just picture all of us sitting here typing in our underwear.

Worked miracles for me!

[> [> What? Not nekkid? -- Good advice. -- Deb, 18:20:55 01/11/03 Sat

[> Just some clarification -- Deb, 18:18:50 01/11/03 Sat

There is no issue regarding spelling, grammar, whether anyone is reading, etc. (I have a strange sense of humour.) It has more to do with Rah said, about not wanting to "belong" in a formalized, hierarchial, sort of way. It's also about all those who do a lot of reading, but not as much posting. Reading is as important as posting, sometimes maybe more so. The paragraph with instructions on entering ones'self broke it down further to even more sub-groups, and presented a possibly not-so-welcoming expectation. And gallons no, I never even meant to hint that OhM was a green meanie (Hated "Yellow Submarine" too.)

As for "Scoobies": I feel more like a Free R(adical) most of the time. As for SMG: I, for the most part, separate actors from characters. It's a lot easier getting into the message. But, the truth of the matter is that one's body of work is connected, and it really bugs me that she goes from Buffy to "Scoobie Doo"? It's nice to walk into stores, and not be bombarded by Buffy paraphanalia. The show might be about pop culture, explored from various angles, but it's not overly exploited in merchandizing. Other than Buffy calandars, and too few well written novels for adults, Buffy is not in my face at Wal-Mart and elsewhere. (Okay, one thing: The "comic book" art work in The Slayer issues is really, really, really bad -- at least what I have seen. Yuck, yuck, yuck, yuck, yuck. Yes, I realize someone out there likes it.) All this Scooby Doo crap is turning my stomach. So I ask myself: Why would a serious actress with critical respect, and enough money to live comfortably for a lifetime or two, stoop to such vulgarized material and then reap more from the popular masses through the sell of lunch boxes, valentines, posters, clothing, etc., etc., etc. But then again, I've seen her in a couple of interviews where they have cut back to the interviewer's face after a SMG answer and it appears that the interviewer is as baffled as I am at the response. I'm not saying she a "bad" person (personally I think people over-rate their *evilness* factor). I just don't understand *why*?

And then there is this place where I am living emotionally right now. Sometimes the cards life deals really drives home the fact that death catches up to everyone -- can be quite comforting. Don't misinterpret this as a call for help. I'm on the fighting for a better quality of live side, but it does get old after awhile with the grieving and processing and knowing you'll never know in this life why (and how) people you love can end their existance here so quietly in one never-ending act that just lingers like a mummy's hand. You can't do a thing about it once it occurs because you are not in the loop. You just get to watch it over and over and over.

I've been a writer since I was 8 years old. I'm published, but it's for the most part very dry journalistic, non-fiction stuff where I can remove myself from what it written and the topic. I have manuscript upon manuscript in plastic tubs, though, that are much more graphically emotional, and not "removed" at all. I tone them down greatly before submitting them. I've been told by numerous publishers that I am afraid to speak to the audience truthfully about things and feelings. Supposedly, that's the only thing that's holding me back. So I have a confession. I've been using this board -- practicing being honest. I'm still not quite there, but I've been trying. Possibly not the best venue for this practice. So what am I afraid of? Buffy is in the same situation. Something about her life didn't play out as "normal" in society't pov, and people who supposedly loved her locked her away in a psyche hospital. After my NDE, my family did the same thing to me, and the only way I got out was by just not talking about anything to do with it, or questioning life in any manner. If anyone asked me about it, I pretended it was just all a bad dream, and I was much better now. I really tried hard to behave and act just like I did before, but I couldn't even remember how that was. But what is really the saddest part of all? When I was telling my family that we had problems, serious problems, I was punished. Now, after the abuse, addiction, violence and suicide have become very obvious -- so much so that it cannot be ignored any longer, my family turns to me to give them the answers, but it's too late for my generation and my parents' generation, etc.

I like Spike. He's so open and willing to find ways to change himself, even if it's a pain in the ass for others. But he puts himself in pain also. I think, if it would help move the process along, he would literally cut himself wideopen and just let everything that's hidden inside come pouring out for all to see if that's the way it is. He's quite willing to die if that is the consequence of being honest with himself. I just wish I had that much courage.

Lastly, don't be concerned about me getting into a snit and not coming back. I come back because I want to. Someday I won't come back, but that's just how life works. We all move on. I won't be moving on soon -- unless someone tells me to leave. There is just too much good stuff coming down the pipe this season, and there are too many great people here.

[> [> A note on SMG: -- HonorH, 19:08:09 01/11/03 Sat

Though she's very well-respected for her work on Buffy among its fans, the truth is, she's only at the beginning of her movie career. Someone probably sold her on, "It'll be fun and boost your profile," and besides, her fiance was in it with her. I mean, look at her body of work in the movies so far: "I Know What You Did Last Summer" (teen exploitation horror), "Cruel Intentions" (more teen exploitation and lots of sex), "Simply Irresistable" (poorly received, though I'll admit to thinking it was cute), and now, "Scooby-Doo". Not exactly Oscar-caliber. But the fact is, it did raise her profile, and let's face it: she's got a career. This is part of it. Practically every actor has some film that they wince at now, even respected actors. I mean: Dustin Hoffman in "Ishtar". Need I say more?

(Or how about Alyson Hannigan in "American Pie" and "American Pie II"? Or Eliza Dushku in "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back"? Or David Boreanaz in "Valentine"? Or Christian Kane in "Just Married", which is currently attracting flaming reviews?)

Point is, there's no reason, IMHO, to respect SMG less because she chose to take part in that movie. Hopefully, she'll work in projects that are more worthy of her talents now, but the fact is, she's putting in her time. Just like all our favorites will probably have to do before they're well-known. In a few years, "Scooby-Doo" will be forgotten in favor of better films.

[> [> [> Agreeing Honor H on this -- shadowkat, 20:49:42 01/11/03 Sat

A bit more on this...I read or rather scanned an article on SMG's movie choices in one of the trades a while back while waiting for a friend in Barnes and Noble.

The mag said that SMG first turned down Scooby Doo and wondered why Freddy agreed to it. But he talked her into it, partly because it was fun and a nice change from what she was doing - give her the chance to do some comedy, also free trip to Australia, and they could spend time together -she works 18 hour days - 7 days a week and they rarely spent time together. Also it might raise her profile a bit.
Her last film Harvard Man - which she agreed to take a pay cut on because it was with a well-known and quality script writer James Toback who did Bugsy - turned out to be a dismal failure and after less than a week in theaters showed up on video to mixed reviews. It was filmed in less than two weeks and the actors were given no rehearsal time and forced to act their scenes very quickly.

Acting is, as I'm sure many people on this board can attest to, an impossible profession to succeed in. I recently saw Pierce Bronsan on Inside Actors Studio and he told his audience how he is somewhat indebted to the Bond films - they pay his rent, get him out there - because at the end of the day - that's what it comes down to, a job. This is very true.

Think of the competition out there? You're lucky to get a movie role and get it into theatres. You're lucky to have a primetime drama. Very few actors ever get this. I know people in NY who would kill for it.

(This is a bit off topic of SMG but I just have to support my favorite childhood cartoon.) Also on Scooby Doo? Don't get the hubbub. I loved Scooby Doo as a child - it was a wonderful cartoon and had cool characters. Yes I was oblivious to certain overtones, but so what? One of things I like on Btvs is the reference to the Scoobies - don't see as commercial so much as a riff/joke on Warner Brothers Cartoons - Whedon likes to do that - it's part of his style to metanarrate on pop culture.
And his show was on WB at the time. They also comment once or twice on the road-runner cartoons - in Grave and in Goodbye Iowa. Marti Noxon came up with the term Scoobies over four years ago - and I loved it. A sarcastic riff on the cartoon and on the fact that many people criticized BTVS as a similar concept when it was anything but. It also fit with the character of XAnder who is a tv geek to come up with it. Existential Scoobies is also a cool idea IMHO.
So...again different tastes for different folks - makes life interesting, although since we feel an odd need to battle constantly over them - makes world peace seem somewhat impossible. ;-)

[> [> [> [> Yay for Scooby Doo -- slain, 20:23:14 01/12/03 Sun

I loved the series, and while I can sympathise with the Scoobies issue (I can't stand 'spuffy', 'xuffy' or any other other Uffy-based fan terms), I really can't stop myself from using the term. Personally I hated the film probably considerably more than Deb, because it seemed a cynical attempt to cash in on the series without even trying to bring any of it to the screen beyond the superficial. But I think I'd have disliked it anyway, seeing as it wasn't even remotely funny and had a plot which didn't come close to something you could call 'a narrative'.

I still think Sarah is the best actor on the show, but ('Cruel Intentions' aside, which I liked despite its annoying message) she does have almost as bad choice in other roles as Alyson Hannigan... or, for that matter, anyone else on the series. Except Tony Head. I rather liked the BBC-produced 'Manchild' and you've gotta admire those classy Nescafe ads... plus he's done Rocky Horror, so that exonerrates him somewhat.

Ruffy... I wonder if anyone ever used that? Probably not.

[> [> [> [> [> Uffy 'ships -- HonorH, 22:45:25 01/12/03 Sun

I think Buffy's gotten the business end of every 'ship out there. I've seen not only Spuffy, but Xuffy, Wuffy, Guffy, Anyuffy, Tuffy, and, believe it or not, Duffy. Incest apparently isn't a taboo for some ficcers. Bleah. Plus the ever-popular OMCuffy and OFCuffy, of course. Heck, I've even seen some Uffies with people Buffy never met on the show. Wouldn't be surprised if we were to see an UVuffy sooner or later. Personally? Aside from the canonical Anguffy, Puffy, Ruffy, Spuffy, and the pseudo-canonical Fuffy (for those of us who always thought Faith and Buffy were one second away from shagging each other senseless), though, I never bought into any of it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! I'm sure you're correct about UVuffy. -- Deb, 08:02:26 01/13/03 Mon

I need to go read his/its journal. Poor thing.

Duffy is just so, so eeeewwww.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Uffy 'ships -- slain, 09:33:15 01/13/03 Mon

I'm not sure if it's good or not that I can't work out what OMCuffy, OFCuffy or UVuffy are.

Puffy. Heh heh.

Oh, I've just worked out UVuffy. Ew.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think... -- KdS, 09:54:05 01/13/03 Mon

OMC and OFC stand for Other Male/Female Character

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yay for Scooby Doo and the whole uffy thing -- shadowkat, 09:20:19 01/13/03 Mon

I share your dislike for the Movie version of Scooby Doo, but to be fair to both Btvs and Atpo - the term Scoobies and Existential Scoobies was coined over four years ago, which was long before anyone new about the movie or that SMG was doing it. Live action movies of cartoons simply do not work. It didn't work for Rocky and Bullwinkle, it won't for Scooby Doo. Or for that matter Looney Toons. But this does not keep people from doing them.

I also share your dislike for spuffy, xuffy, etc - I hate shipper names. Despise them. They sound degrading to me.
So I seldom if ever use them. Also never understood why we didn't do Buke or Bike, Bander, Biles, Billow? Or how about Wara, Wander, Woz? Or Xanya? Anywho...ships to me are a dicey topic. There's the group that loves them but is scared to death to admit to it for fear that they'll never be taken seriously again and the group that hates them so much they will take any opportunity to launch into lengthy discourses about it. (sigh). Until I went online in Dec 2001, I didn't know the term existed. And my first reaction upon discovering the debates on it was well - okay people are nuts. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, "Xanya" has been used. -- HonorH, 13:17:27 01/13/03 Mon

And for the Spike/Anyanka scene in "Entropy"--Spankya! Which makes me *really* glad they didn't go for Willow/Anyanka, come to think of it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> You've hit on a number of actual 'ship names, sk; but just for the record... -- cjl, 13:51:55 01/13/03 Mon

I've seen these in active rotation on various boards:

Spuffy - Spike/Buffy
Tillow - Tara/Willow
Xanya - Xander/Anya
Ganya - Giles/Anya
Spankya - Spike/Anya

I'm not immune; this is my own invention:

Wanderlust - Willow and Xander during S3 grabbiness

Oh, and a favorite on BC&S:

Boodles - Buffy and Noodles (the Ubervamp)

But it's strange--B/A has always been B/A. Cutesy nicknames never caught on. Same for Willow and Oz and Xander and Cordelia. Maybe the first time you're in love is special, even if the experience is vicarious. (Yes, it's a mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, shipper world...)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't forget ConCord! -- HonorH (ducking and running), 13:59:54 01/13/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You've hit on a number of actual 'ship names, sk; but just for the record... -- diamond in the rough, 14:08:16 01/13/03 Mon

But it's strange--B/A has always been B/A.

Actually, I've seen B/A referred to as Bangel on several boards. Not that I think it's a particularly good name.

[> [> [> Re: A note on SMG: -- Miss Edith, 04:53:28 01/12/03 Sun

I can understand Sarah wanting to raise her profile with some popcorn blockbusters. But personally I feel she needs to back away from the Scooby Doo franchise now as I can't see the sequels being too successful.

I would prefer to see her stretch herself with more of a challenge. Yes she had a chance to try comedy for Scooby Doo but I wouldn't have though she would want to get tied to the franchise. The film I personally enjoyed the most which starred Sarah is Cruel Intentions. She really sold me on playing the evil character in the film who was manipulative and used drugs. A very different role from Buffy and really showed that Sarah does have talent. A live action childrens cartoon is not going to convince her critics.

[> [> [> [> SMG Career -- cjc36, 07:19:34 01/13/03 Mon

I think her movie choices have been limited to what she could fit inbetween Buffy hiatuses.

I've never seen any of SMG's movies. Never really felt the need to. Maybe I like her staying "Buffy" in my mind. Or perhaps she hasn't done anything in movies I've felt needed my 8 dollars. Anyway, I can catch her acting her self silly every Tuesday, and now on DVD - from early season's histronics to this newly discovered, near Gillian Anderson understatement thing she's found in the last few seasons - she's got a rare acting talent, no question. Funny, dramatic, sad, touching, angry, bitchy, whatever, she can do it. I've no problem with her taking the Scooby Doo role. Kirsten Dunst has taken roles like that.

I guess I'm saying that I don't need to see her in a Scorsese Ocscar-thing (not that that's a bad thing) to know she can *do* it.

And if anyone is worried about early choices - look at Cameron Diaz, who's first role was in The Mask, her latest Gangs of New York.

Rambling Thoughts & Spec (Season 7 spoilers, esp. Showtime) -- heywhynot, 05:56:01 01/11/03 Sat

First off, I must say I have enjoyed each season, but this one is shaping up to be one of best, but like all season's will need to wait until the payoff at the end. Sorry for my rambling thoughts, need people to bounce my ideas off of.

I find it interesting that we now have had Adam and Eve on the show. Both died and have returned as manefestations of the First.

Eve being the First Evil, I think it fits on the more women in power & pro-equality theme that has been there since the begining of the show, which I enjoy greatly. The first wife of Adam is said to have been Lilith (though this was something added to the Judeo-Christian faiths). Lilith was made from the ground up it is said, like Adam and demanded to be his equal. She was expelled or escapes from Eden (depending on your viewpoint and translations). After that she is placed into consorting with demons, vampires (either as the first or as their queen or as the daughter or lover of Dracula). Eve of course then comes from Adam's rib and doesn't have the same claim to equality, thus Adam has a partner. Lilith the one pushing for equality is therefore presented as being evil in the patriarchal cultures. Being that this show is pro-feminist, the flipping of Eve as the First makes sense. Not to condem Judeo-Christian thought but rather to make people think and go hmmm.

I think Giles is on the side of good. Just have that feeling.

I don't mind the SITs being scared and showing it. They are Buffy before season one. (Back to the Beginings and all). FX just replayed the first season and Buffy even knowing she was the slayer was freaked, especially upon learning of her death upon the hands of the Master. To have them not be scared and whining would of struck me as a poor showing.

I still think it is funny that Buffy the least trained Slayer in ages is the one who is out living longer than any other Slayer. (albiet with a little help from her friends, but her not training plays into why she is open to Willow, Xander, etc. helping her, forming the Scooby Gang. Heck even Spike has pointed this out). Buffy is not the Slayer, she is THE SLAYER.

I am thinking Faith's fall was what opened the door for the First. Buffy's exists because TPtB forsaw the fall of the Slayer at sometime. The best chance at combating that was the Buffy to Kendra to Faith lineage. Buffy's unorthodox slaying approach insuring that she would be around for Faith's fall. I think Faith's redemption is the key to beating the master. Spike's redemption just being the key to showing it can be done. If Spike, why not Faith mentality. The First tries to smash hope, to get people to give into despair, to give up. Hence the First wanting to corrput Spike is not so much about getting a powerful agent but to put doubt into the Scooby Gang. Willow being plagued with doubt about whether she can truely atone for her sins, whether Faith can walk the side of good once more. Is it me or did the First start having a more active role upon Kendra's death and Faith being chosen?

Of course it is the fact that Buffy dies and is reborn that eventually leads to Faith. The paradox of it all.

Based on the First wanting to plant the seeds of doubt, to give up hope, I am torn on how to view Joyce. On one hand what she has said about evil can be clearly seen as breaking the fighting spirit of Buffy and Dawn. Heck she has planted doubt into Dawn's head. But of course, she can be seen as quashing false hope which can only lead to despair. The First distorts people's views on reality to get them to loose hope. Joyce was pointing out reality. True hope has to be based on what is possible. One must have faith that a positive outcome will come but such an outcome does require effort. To destroy the First Evil is not possible. What is possible is keeping the First from winning. That has to be the goal of the Scoobies. In the past it has been about destroying the Big Bad (the Master, Angelus, the Mayor, Adam, Glory, & to a certain extent Dark Willow) to keep evil from winning. The Scoobies have to wake up from this dream.

Maybe this is where Normal Again comes into play? Interesting it is Joyce's words that allow Buffy to escape back to the Sunnydale World. Still not sure if the whole series isn't a dream, but that can be a whole other post.

The Dark Willow situation though goes both ways, Dark Willow as she ways is gone but not destroyed because Evil always exists. Willow still has the potential to do evil and be Dark Willow once more. The Scoobies did not truely destroy her in that sense. The First appearing as those that have gone, underscores this. Evil doesn't go away it keeps coming back. The question is do you give into evil or do you keep fighting. Keep the hope, the faith.

[> More of same. (Season 7 spoilers, esp. Showtime) -- Darby, 08:26:20 01/11/03 Sat

It's because she lives.

Could it be because Faith lives? A product of the wacky two-Slayers-at-once circumstance, a Dark reflection of the Light Buffy, was the Slayer line tainted because Buffy was unwilling to finish her off?

What we may be seeing is an attempt to wipe out all the protoSlayers of a proper age so that when Faith dies, the power reconcentrates and rebalances in Buffy (it'll have nowhere else to go). And, if Buffy can stay alive until a new Slayer comes of age (and there might be an 11-year-old for whom that won't be long), the power will continue on the course it was meant for.

One Evil, one Slayer.

Probably not, but it was fun to speculate.

[> Re: Rambling Thoughts & Spec (Season 7 spoilers, esp. Showtime) -- Dariel, 13:12:35 01/11/03 Sat

I don't mind the SITs being scared and showing it.

I didn't mind that either. Or, I didn't mind the concept, but hated the whining while I had to listen to it! The SITs acted like a bunch of normal teenagers. They didn't take Buffy's word for it when she said things would turn out okay because they don't just automatically believe authority figures. They needed proof. Unlike Anabel, they are not little automatons.

Being that this show is pro-feminist, the flipping of Eve as the First makes sense. Not to condem Judeo-Christian thought but rather to make people think and go hmmm.

Although, in the end, Eve does get humankind thrown out of the Garden. We just can't help ourselves, it seems!

Hence the First wanting to corrput Spike is not so much about getting a powerful agent but to put doubt into the Scooby Gang.

Not sure I agree here. I don't think the Scoobies would be that demoralized by an evil Spike. It's not like any of them expected much from him in the past. There's something about corrupting a souled vampire, or at least nuetralizing one, that is important to the First.

OMG!! I'm the example nose!! (Completely and totally O/T) -- Wisewoman, 19:02:54 01/11/03 Sat

Remember when I got my nose pierced last summer? I just did a google to locate the piercer (who has since left the tattoo parlour where I had it done) and he has his own website now with several (extremely graphic, in some cases) photographs of his work. Do not go there if you are at all squeamish about piercing. BUT...I am the example nose piercing! Aaarrrggghhh!! I just about fell off my chair laughing. He blanked out my eyes so I guess that guarantees my anonymity? (Fat chance!)

So, here's the url to just my nose (LOL) and nothing gross, if you're interested...

http://www.vancouverleather.com/taylor/graphics/face013.jpg

dub ;o)

[> Even with that pixelation... -- Cactus Watcher, 22:56:53 01/11/03 Sat

If I get back from the monitor and squint I can sort of guess what your eyes look like... Well, the ring looks better on you than it would on me.

And another poster-name acquires a face. Collect them all... Er or something like that.

[> [> LOL! -- dub, 11:28:41 01/12/03 Sun

I noticed that too, when I left the room and then walked back toward the monitor, I thought the pixilation had disappeared.

I had the ring in for about six months while the whole thing healed up, but now I sport a much more discreet little sparkly stud. What is it they say, "No fool like an old fool...?"

;o)

Teenagers, moral ambiguity, and the Jossverse -- Doug (formerly Doug the Bloody), 20:29:33 01/11/03 Sat

Ok, in a post that just dropped off the bottom of the page (while I was typing this post up) Shadowkat wrote:

"Look at this from a writing standpoint for a moment - you create a petit blond superheroine who's raison d'etre is to slay demons, the demons represent her own and her friends and classmates fears. The demons are the bad guys. You introduce into the mix a male fatal - a mysterious stranger who helps but irony of ironies turns out to be a vampire, but he's not all bad - he has a soul and wants to be good.
You have to do something to make him different from the others - otherwise, you'll end up a) confusing your audience, very bad in fantasy shows and b)causing your heroine to look like a murderer and she's the hero remember? Role model for all these teens. And your show is being marketed to teens and young adults. Now you have tons of lee-way in here, but the one rule you can't break without the whole deck of cards tumbling around your head is: Vampires - which your title character slays - being anything but evil or something she must slay to protect the world and keep it in balance. This is not Buffy - Sheriff of Sunnyhell, or Buffy the Series, or Buffy's Law & Order, this is Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Huge difference."

Now, I found this interesting because it reminded me of some thoughts I had a while back on why so few guys at my Highschool watched Buffy or Angel, so if you are still reading that you have some vague and/or morbid interest in hearing my menaderings on the subject.

Incidently, there will be minor spoilers for "Apocalypse Nowish" and "Serenity" in this post

I've gotten out of Highschool fairly recently, but while I was in Highschool I did try converting people I knew to the show. Interestingly enough, among those who I tried to convince the soul was emblematic of their problems with the show. Most of the people I talked too were SF&F fans and, just like alot of the teenagers I've met, they loved moral ambiguity. The soul destroys all that. The moment you create that strict dichotomy any kind of moral ambiguity is just window dressing; and that is why I could never convince one of my friends to watch more than a few episodes, because ultimately all it was to them was a campy show with a artificial level of moral simplicity, some excellent dialogue, but nothing really solid to hold their interest.

Now, I've found that there were more female fans of the show, so maybe you meant young women rather than young adults in general.

But for most of the young guys I've known the ambiguity is gravy. It reflects the emotional cofusion that most male teenagers feel. When we start to understand that not all of our beliefs about our lives are true, and once we understand that there are no certainties left. There is an urge to lash out, but no clear enemies, and no "socially acceptable" means of handling emotional stress. So the moral ambiguity strikes a chord, and if it's done well it can stimulate both emotion and intellect; because thinking about the character will get them thinking about themselves. Maybe it's totally different for women and the metaphors on the show are a picture perfect depiction of the experiences of a young woman, but I wouldn't know.

The last reason given for why the people I knew didn't watch Buffy, was that it wasn't true to the way Highschool was. Maybe that is more a question of were the writers went to school vs. where me and my friends were, or maybe it's just that the way schools are run since the writers were there has changed, or maybe the lens of memory distorts; but I really think that the writer's don't "get" teenagers, or Highschool.

I just find it interesting that the writers did this, when coming up with a character who may-be-a-hero-or-may-be-a-murderer is likely to get a lot of young SF&F fans interested. You can see that the writers do understand this, because on AtS Angel is always talking about breaking arms to get information and wanting to torture Gavin except he wouldn't shut up. Yet the the writers originally put the soul-no soul dichotomy in; when all it seemed to do was make the show less interesting and more black and white. Some while they willing to make AtS a more grey place to suit their change of sub-genre BtVS is still straining under the weight of the gypsy cursed soul. You can't tell me Joss doesn't understand this when he had Malcolm Reynolds blow a cop's brains out on Firefly.

This is not intended as a bash, either of anyone here or of the show. This is more me thinking out-loud on some issues I'd been thinking about for awhile.

Comments, criticisms and opinions are all welcome.

[> Interesting window into teenage males -- Sara, who needs more info on that every day, 20:51:29 01/11/03 Sat

I really found your comments about handling emotional stress and moral ambiguities very helpful. Having a soon to be teenager who's already going through some of this - I know it's a problem working out what to do with anger and frustration when there aren't any acceptable places to vent. I'll be showing your post to him tomorrow. Thank you!

[> Re: Teenagers, moral ambiguity, and the Jossverse -- shadowkat, 11:39:23 01/12/03 Sun

Interesting. Partly because I've had the opposite experience. The women that I've tried to get to watch the show - see it as a show for teenage girls or not adult enough - partly for the reasons you stated above. The whole soul thing brought up in Season 2 bugs the heck out of them. I think they are wrong, but since their taste runs to Seventh Heaven and West Wing and Melrose Place - we take the safe way out, we don't discuss it. I've come to the conclusion that no matter how strongly you believe something to be true - there is someone out there who has the opposite experience and belief and is just as right as you are.

The soul destroys all that. The moment you create that strict dichotomy any kind of moral ambiguity is just window dressing; and that is why I could never convince one of my friends to watch more than a few episodes, because ultimately all it was to them was a campy show with a artificial level of moral simplicity, some excellent dialogue, but nothing really solid to hold their interest.

Odd. I don't think this is true, although I can see how you saw that in my above post.

This is what happens when a writer falls into the trap of a brillant metaphor. Innocence/Surprise and the brilliant metaphor of having the guy go all evil when you sleep with him. They've been trying to write themselves out of that corner ever since.

Personally I see all sorts of moral ambiguities going on. To the extent that a soul seems to just mean that you have a conscience, that you can feel guilt and remorse. ie - you may still leave towels on the floor of someone's bathroom but you'll feel really badly about it. But in order to see that in this show - you have to watch a few episodes. My friends didn't see it until OMWF - the older episodes, weren't as ambiguous to them.

And from the numerous essays and posts on the net debating the soul metaphor - I would say it is hardly as black and white as it looks. Or very clear. Actually very ambiguous. We've had at least two villains with souls. Actually five. Lindsey Walsh, Warren, Faith, The Mayor, and DarkWillow - not to mention Ethan Rayne. So nope - the soul doesn't completely destroy it. Regarding Vampires? The soul metaphor was meant to distinquish them - vampires were most likely meant to be metaphors - for adolescence or that resistance to growing up and desire to lash out which you so aptly describe in your post. But looking back? I find some of the ensouled villains to be far worse than the soulless vampires.

The last reason given for why the people I knew didn't watch Buffy, was that it wasn't true to the way Highschool was. Maybe that is more a question of were the writers went to school vs. where me and my friends were, or maybe it's just that the way schools are run since the writers were there has changed, or maybe the lens of memory distorts; but I really think that the writer's don't "get" teenagers, or Highschool.

The show started in 1996. I graduated from high school in the 1980s so it fit my high school experiences more or less.
Course I went to a subarban high school. Buffy goes to a high school in a small town. It's not going to be similar to an urban one...all high schools are different.
The characters certainly fit people I knew in high school and know now. The popular girl who feels alone. The class clown, the nerdy boy, the wallflower girl...these people didn't exist for you? Hmmm. Okay maybe not perfectly - but no show ever has. Well maybe Boston Public - but that show makes me cringe - it has a sermon every five minutes - let's pound the audience over the head with our message shall we? (Sorry not a David E. Kelly fan.) Most tv shows actually glamorize high school too much. Have no clue what high school is like now. OTOH - Buffy is a fantasy show - unless your high school was on a hellmouth and had vampires, nope probably nothing like it. Personally I found the high school metaphors in Buffy to be more or less accurate and at times generalized - my favorite was the girl who feels so invisible she disappears. But honestly? Is there any show on TV right now that depicts high school realistically? Even the non-fantasy ones? The only ones I've seen that came close were possibly Freaks and Geeks, My So Called Life and Btvs. Everything else focused on gorgeous popular kids in their late 20s playing high school students. Or abused teachers. But I haven't watched any recent high school dramas.

I know that when Btvs was introduced in 1996 - WB marketed it to teens, something that sort of annoyed Whedon later and his cast. Part of the joy of switching to UPN - was they could finally change the audience to twenty-somethings. They always felt it was more of an adult show with adult themes. But you can't control network brass. Whedon wanted to write a show for young women that men could also enjoy. But the target audience was "women". (He appears to have succeeded - I know lots of men and boys who watch this show obsessively online. Go to Bronze Beta and Buffy Cross and Stake, ACIN, and other boards.)

I know quite a few men - actually know as many men as women who watch the show. My brother watched it even more faithfully than I did and his friends watch it.

Back to moral ambiguities and souls - i think they have this year made the whole thing more ambiguous. We see Buffy struggling with her slaying duties - in CwDP and in Sleeper, where she even apologizes to one of the vamps.
She's beginning to realize that things aren't so black and white any more.

What you've described oddly enough is also happening to our heros:But for most of the young guys I've known the ambiguity is gravy. It reflects the emotional cofusion that most male teenagers feel. When we start to understand that not all of our beliefs about our lives are true, and once we understand that there are no certainties left. There is an urge to lash out, but no clear enemies, and no "socially acceptable" means of handling emotional stress. So the moral ambiguity strikes a chord, and if it's done well it can stimulate both emotion and intellect; because thinking about the character will get them thinking about themselves. Maybe it's totally different for women and the metaphors on the show are a picture perfect depiction of the experiences of a young woman, but I wouldn't know.

It may surprise you to learn it's not all that different for women. In Season 6, Willow lashed out big time almost taking the world with her and was far more destructive in her wrath than Angel has been on ATs. I think if you watch or have seen Season 6 - you'll see that Buffy and Willow basically did everything you mention above. Buffy has done it in the past. Btvs has shown characters ranging from Faith to Anya - acting out with this type of stress time and again. In fact last year - many male fans were complaining that Buffy was too dark or exhibiting negative behavior.

So no, it's a)NOT totally different for women and b) the metaphors on the show do not exhibit that view at all! Or didn't you watch Villains through Grave? Or see Dead Things? Or Smashed? Or OMWF? Or Hells Bells? Or Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered? Or the Zeppo? or Superstar? Any of these episodes show clearly that the main heros are not depicted as black and white, and very ambiguous.

The soul dichotomy is just one theme in the show and only about vampires. I have yet to understand why people focus so much on it - especially when there is so much else going on. Angel after all has the same problem and you overlook it on Angel.

[> [> Re: Teenagers, moral ambiguity, and the Jossverse -- Sophist, 12:22:52 01/12/03 Sun

So no, it's a)NOT totally different for women and b) the metaphors on the show do not exhibit that view at all! Or didn't you watch Villains through Grave? Or see Dead Things? Or Smashed? Or OMWF? Or Hells Bells? Or Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered? Or the Zeppo? or Superstar? Any of these episodes show clearly that the main heros are not depicted as black and white, and very ambiguous.

I assume the "you" in this means Doug's friends, since it's clear he himself does not feel this way.

I find his report of teen attitudes very interesting. I have a 19 year old daughter who began watching the show at 12. She loves the show and I would not say her reaction is at all similar to those Doug describes.

OTOH, I am very sympathetic to the criticism about the soul issue. For one thing, I saw Angel's situation in exactly the same black and white terms, and am still inclined to today. For another, I was very disappointed that ME chose to give Spike a soul rather than explore his development without it. (That does not mean I'm unhappy about his portrayal in S7, it just means I would have liked to see a different, more ambiguous story.)

You are right, though, in pointing out that Angel's story was hardly the only one. The moral ambiguity surely existed with the other characters throughout S2-3. Was Xander right to date Cordy? Was Willow right to react as she did to that? Was Buffy wrong in failing to kill Angelus? Should Xander have lied to Buffy in Becoming II? How about Buffy's flight to LA? The reaction of her friends in DMP? The whole Faith storyline?

While the Angel line was prominent, I think the mistake made by Doug's friends was in focusing on that to the exclusion of all else. Putting aside the moral issues, the dialogue and the metaphors ought also to have been grounds for watching.

[> [> [> Agree..well said. -- shadowkat, 14:37:31 01/12/03 Sun

I agree with all your points. I was referring to Doug's friends and to some extent people I've known who had troubles getting into the series based on the whole Angel with a soul = good, Angelus without a soul = evil.

OTOH, I am very sympathetic to the criticism about the soul issue. For one thing, I saw Angel's situation in exactly the same black and white terms, and am still inclined to today. For another, I was very disappointed that ME chose to give Spike a soul rather than explore his development without it. (That does not mean I'm unhappy about his portrayal in S7, it just means I would have liked to see a different, more ambiguous story.)

I'm still struggling with this one. I can't decide if the writers just inadvertently wrote themselves into a corner on it with the whole she sleeps with a guy and he turns evil idea. And have been trying to write around it ever since. I think they'll be attempting to find a way of making the issue more ambiguous on both shows this year.
Hence the decision to pick the middle road last year by having Spike choose to get a soul. OTOH - a valid case can be made that we are giving these writers far too much credit and the whole soul thing is intact and black and white and won't change. Don't know. But turning Spike evil with a soul? Wouldn't make that issue work for me. Not after everything the character has been through. It would probably disappoint me even more than the fact they gave him one. The only thing that saved the whole soul-giving thing for me, was the fact he chose one. If they'd cursed him with one - I would have been very disappointed.

Ubervamp--where is the heart? -- SLT, 22:10:07 01/11/03 Sat

Many have assumed that the Ubervamp/Turok-han could not have been killed by a stake through the heart because it didn't dust when Buffy staked it. However, while Buffy has dusty accuracy when fighting regular vampires, if the ubervamp is a different species so to speak isn't it possible that the heart is in a slightly different location and therefore Buffy missed it?

[> Re: Ubervamp--where is the heart? -- Cactus Watcher, 22:23:22 01/11/03 Sat

Couldn't say one way or the other. But, Faith's nemesis Kakistos also required something more than a simple staking with the usual tools. Presumably as you suggest the heart of Turok may still have been vulnerable, but finding it might have been a chore. Perhaps the older the vampire the more elusive its heart is. If that makes any sense.

[> Left butt cheek. -- HonorH, 23:16:42 01/11/03 Sat

Oh, wait, that's Lorne . . .

[> [> My thought exactly -- pellenaka, 02:59:05 01/12/03 Sun

[> [> Anatomy -- Celebaelin, 05:13:59 01/12/03 Sun

Nope, you have to use your physical strength to rip the jaw off, breaking both condylar processes and ripping away the muscle down as far as the sternum, tearing the carotid sheaths bilaterally if you're lucky (interesting spray effects). The gaping hole in the throat is now just large enough to access the unusually well protected and slightly offset heart. Whether the scumbag finds this painful or not is difficult to tell as the range of facial expression is somewhat limited at this point but, to borrow slightly, it go poof pretty quickly anyway.

God Bless

C

So what did The Slayer actually do? (S.7 speculative with Showtime spoilage) -- ZachsMind, 22:51:38 01/11/03 Sat

I kinda get the feeling that by season's end, IF any of the SITs actually survive, it's gonna boil down to a toss up between Kennedy and Rona as the successor. The others were hired by casting to be cannonfodder. Why do I guess this? No spoilage here. It's based on acting prowess. Of those available, I can only imagine those two able to carry a series. In fact, the actress playing Kennedy seems to be almost impersonating season one Buffy. Review the scene in Willow's bedroom near the start of Showtime. Kennedy's vocal inflection reads to me as if the actress was playing the scene AS Buffy. Like she was playing that role. Except for the sexual subtext, I could imagine Buffy in that bed looking down on Will.

Dawn's not gonna be the next Slayer. Again, no spoilage here. It's just too easy. And Whedon's never been one to take the easy way out.

Much of the crappy scenes between the SITs early on in this episode was purposefully put in for plot exposition, so we could learn more about each of them and where they each fit in the scheme of things. Now we know which ones had Watchers and which ones didn't. We know that Kennedy is the oldest among them. Roni never had a Watcher, and barely understands what's going on, but she's plucky and she's got a mouth on her.

I figured early on that there was something weird about Eve. I mean the actress was doing the accent almost purposefully fake. She slipped in and out of it a lot. Either she's really a bad actress or she figured she's dead this episode so why put any effort into it? She was already written out of the script just when she got hired. Still, her turning out to be The First was a pleasant surprise, spoilage or not.

I got zero sexual tension from the scene between Dawn & Andrew. I don't see them ever getting together. There's just no chemistry there. If they want Andrew to be a love interest for anybody, the writers are gonna have to find a way to give him more dimension. Right now he's still just cardboard. He doesn't have enough range as a character. He's comic relief. The actor could do it, but they need to give him more meat to gnaw on than movie references.

Maybe this episode was filler, but there was something very important which was covered. The Eye Guy:

"The opportunity has only recently presented itself... The mystical forces surrounding The Chosen Line have become irrevocably altered. Become unstable. Vulnerable... The First Evil did not cause the disruption. Only siezed upon it. To extinguish the lives of The Chosen forever."

The Slayer caused the disruption. The Slayer is responsible for letting this happen. Okay fine. Sure. So what the hell is that supposed to mean?

We were led to believe this disruption was Buffy's second death. That's incorrect. Anya led us to believe that the fault falls upon Anya, Xander, Tara & Willow for bringing Buffy back. If the disruption was caused by Buffy's second death, then the Eye Guy wouldn't have said it was The Slayer's fault. Buffy had nothing to do with that.

Further, if it had anything to do with Buffy's death, then The First would have started this immediately after season one. The First didn't show up until Amends which I believe was season three, and it wasn't doing diddly about the Slayer line back then. It was after Angel back then. And let us not forget she's died at least once since. Buffy died on the table in "Two To Go" when Willow kicked all the doctors out of the room and pulled the bullet out of Buffy's gut herself. That makes three times Buffy's died. At least. And none of those times was it ever her fault. It wasn't something she did.

We also have to take into account that "The Slayer" may not have anything to do with Buffy. Buffy may not be "The Slayer" that the Eye Guy was talking about. I mean, Buffy is OUR Slayer but she's not THE Slayer. From the perspective of The Chosen Line, Buffy hasn't been "The Slayer" for six years. Kendra was the Slayer, and then Faith.

When they leave the Eye Guy, Giles says the Eye Guy made it clear "in his rather enigmatic way" it's not because Buffy died, "but because she lives again." And yes of course Giles is always supposed to be right but I question this one. If Giles is right, that would make the Eye Guy a liar. Because as I said before, Buffy being dead or alive again isn't her fault. Whatever has caused the disruption in the evil line, it was an action caused by The Slayer.

THE Slayer, according to The Chosen Line, is Faith. It could simply be that Faith took the life of an innocent. That she turned to evil and embraced it when she looked at the battle field between good & evil and took sides with The Mayor. However, again, that was back in season three so why did the First wait until now? Faith's also allegedly turned herself in. She's chosen to accept punishment for her crimes, which should have negated this 'disruption' unless Whedon wishes to say that there is no such thing as redemption. That there was no going back when Faith took a human life.

There's also the Freaky Friday thing that Buffy & Faith did in season five. Maybe when the girls flipped brains and Faith was running around as Buffy while Buffy was running around as Faith, maybe that caused the disruption.

It's something that Faith did. I'm certain of that. She IS the true Slayer. Probably something recent. Something that happened off camera which will be brought to our attention either in Angel or Buffy later this season.

Or as usual I could just be full of mud.

[> Re: So what did The Slayer actually do? (S.7 speculative with Showtime spoilage) -- Dariel, 11:27:43 01/12/03 Sun

Saying that the Slayer caused the disruption is not the same as saying the Slayer is to blame. The Eye could mean that she (Buffy) "caused" the disruption by living. Which is exactly what Giles says.

Of course, the Eye could be lying through its (nonexistant) teeth!

[> Re: So what did The Slayer actually do? (S.7 speculative with Showtime spoilage) -- Cheryl, 15:02:06 01/12/03 Sun

I just finally got to watch Showtime last night so I'm still digesting, but my initial thought was that because Buffy lives, Spike now has a soul - thus creating an imbalance between good and evil. The FE first made its appearance in Amends and went after Angel (vamp with a soul who's trying to do good because of Buffy). Now the FE is spending all this time with Spike (weeks by now), not killing him even after Spike tells it he won't go back to being evil. Why doesn't the FE have Spike killed?

Not to mention that because Buffy died before and was brought back, a new slayer was called so there are now 2 slayers - more imbalance. No wonder the FE is pissed.

What I don't get is why the FE is so intent on killing the SITs but not Buffy (FE specifically tells UberVamp to kill everyone but her). Wouldn't it make sense to kill their leader? Then it would be so much easier to get to everyone else.

[> [> Re: So what did The Slayer actually do? (S.7 speculative with Showtime spoilage) -- Juliet, 16:46:13 01/12/03 Sun

I don't know why exactly either. I've been trying to figure it out for almost a week now.

I do think that Buffy's order in "Bring On The Night" was wrong. The First is going to want all the SITs dead before Faith and Buffy. That way, there's no chance another one will be called (unless the Council missed another one).

Maybe it thinks then it can have Buffy and Faith kill each other? Faith might be in a prime position for manipulation.

[> [> To make it even more confusing.... -- Briar Rose, 23:32:22 01/12/03 Sun

FE specifically tells UberVamp to kill everyone but "her"

The FE never says "her" = Buffy.

As many brilliant posters have stated in the past week - not only are we hearing things from a very limited perspective, but there are a lot of euphamisms being used with no qualifiers as to the exact target of the pronoun.*L

"Her" could be anyone from Anya to Dawn to Buffy to Willow.

"Something has caused a disturbance around the Slayer line" which is directly related to "the Slayer" but not necessarily because of her own action. That it was a personal action/choice of "the Slayer" was never signified by the Oracle, only by the limited vision and insight of Giles and Anya. (And I agree Giles is definitely not infallible and never has been!)

So this disturbance could be caused by anything. Some of the many choices could be Buffy's resurrection, Spike's en-souling out of love for Buffy, Joyce's death and Dawn's attempt to resurrect her, Dawn's very existance, Faith's calling into action, Angel leaving Sunnydale, allowing Willow/Jonathan/Warren/Andrew/Spike to live after their crimes, sending Glory back by Buffy swan diving into the rift or even Anya bouncing back and forth in being a deamon. Let alone whatever Faith's been up to these past few years or what happened while Buffy was in "heeeee - au - ven." There is no way of speculating because it's just too broad at this point. Maybe it's none of that. Or all of it! Maybe it's simply that Buffy is almost 25, an anceint in Slayer terms.*LOL

"The Slayer" could be Buffy or Faith or even one of the para-Slayers. Especially if Dawn's existance is the problem around the Slayer line. It isn't even clear if The All Knowing Eye is a deamon who lies or tells the truth according to some.... But he certainly didn't use any form of solid identity on WHOM he was referencing in any part of this dialog.

[> [> [> Re: To make it even more confusing.... -- ZachsMind, 12:49:36 01/13/03 Mon

"(And I agree Giles is definitely not infallible and never has been!)"

I agree with your agreement of my agreement. *smirk* Having slept on it, I'm contemplating a possible exception. Almost without fail, anything that comes out of Giles' mouth in the immediate breath following the words, "OF COURSE!" is 100% accurate. There may be a time when I am in error here, but I don't recall a time when he ever got something wrong in one of those moments when he reacts like "if it'd been a snake it woulda bit me".

I mean he HAS been wrong before, as I mentioned, but not immediately after one of his "I coulda had a V-8!" moments.

The moments with the Eye Guy, and immediately after he and Anya left that domain, there was no utterance of "OF COURSE!" from Giles. He was just as befuddled about it as we were and was at that moment trying to grasp what the Eye Guy laid down before them. So what he said there was mere speculation. He might be right, but he could just as easily be proven wrong. Giles would be the first to admit it's all hypothetical at this point. They need more evidence. The Eye Guy pointed them in a direction, but didn't really give them anything solid to go on.

What would happen if Buffy dies before Faith? Nothing. Buffy's died three times and there were no further changes to the Chosen line after Kendra appeared in season two. What would happen if Faith dies before Buffy? Provided there's still another SIT out there, the Slayer line would theoretically move on to the next most likely potentiate. Buffy's out of the loop. However, so long as "SHE" lives, there is some uncertainty about the Slayer line, from the perspective of the Eye Guy, and from the perspective of The First Evil. We don't know who that "SHE" is.

The Eye Guy referred to "The Slayer" and "The Chosen Line" but never mentioned anyone by name. The First told the UberVamp to kill everyone but "her" but there were a lot of hers she could have been referring to. This reminds me of those old Logic Puzzle games I used to be addicted to when I was a kid, but there's not enough clues to work up a good graph, much less solve it.

[> [> [> [> Ooh! Ooh! Major revelations! (I just LOVE logic puzzles!) -- ZachsMind, 13:33:50 01/13/03 Mon

The First told the UberVamp to kill everyone BUT "her." The UberVamp was definitely trying to take out Buffy. He didn't attack any of the others in that final scene in Showtime, so that means we can scratch Buffy off the list - she was not the "her" that The First told the UberVamp to spare.

We can rule out Andrew & Xander cuz they aren't female. We can rule out Anya because she wasn't there. Giles was both not there, and male so scratch him off too. So that leaves Willow, Dawn, Rona, Kennedy, and the couple three other females who were there. Willow's NOT a potential Slayer, so we can rule her out.

This means The First was talking to the UberVamp about either Dawnie or one of the SITs. Now, if we are to make the assumption that this individual The First wanted to spare is the same one that's the reason for an uncertainty in the Chosen Line which the Eye Guy was talking about, that narrows us down to ONE.

Back in season three's Graduation Day and then again in season four with This Year's Girl, when Buffy & Faith shared a dream or two and had that weird Miss Muffet moment about making the bed, counting down from seven three oh, in hindsight it's obvious the two of them were talking about Dawnie, and Faith passed everything that she was onto Buffy in that dream, figuratively speaking.

Of those remaining from the above, Dawnie's the only one who has a link with both Buffy & Faith via those weird dreams. And I STILL think there's a reason why Dawnie looks more like Faith than she does Buffy. Blood was spilt in the dream. Memories & "stuff" was transferred between Buffy & Faith, and Faith did that Freaky Friday thing on Buffy switching bodies with her, so by sheer logic I determine the real person causing the disturbance in the Chosen Line is the fact that DAWN yet lives, when she was SUPPOSED to die back in "The Gift." Buffy went through the portal in Dawn's place, and THAT's what's screwed everything up. It's not that Buffy lives, it's that DAWN lives.

Dawn may or may not be the next Slayer, but she's definitely a disruption to the Chosen Line. Check it:

The First has all the SITs killed (except for Dawnie who may or may not be one).

The First then kills Faith.

This will make The First Slayer whoozit thingy seek out the next available candidate. Once all the SITs are killed, there's only one possibility left. Genetically, that would be Dawnie. She's got Buffy's DNA, and is also somehow connected to Faith. However, Dawnie's not really human. She's a mystic ball of energy made to appear human and Willow already knows how to undo that. She figured that out back when she went evil.

The First would then coerces Willow to undo the magic spell that keeps Dawnie together. Dawnie ceases being human. The First Slayer's magicks get trapped inside a green glowing energy ball thingy for all eternity - end of the Slayer line.

I love it when a plan comes together.

[> [> [> [> [> Could it be the FE isn't trying to END the line? -- Vickie, 15:27:00 01/13/03 Mon

All of your posts made me wonder, could the FE be trying to CHOOSE the next slayer, not end the line? That is, if it gets all the potentials but one killed, then kills both Faith and Buffy...

Or, would the chosenness revert to Buffy if there were no more candidates? And what would that do to her?

(ramble, ramble, mumble incoherently)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Agree with you Zach except for one thing.... -- Briar Rose, 17:15:05 01/13/03 Mon

Willow just might be the "her" simply because she DOES have the key (no pun) of how to strip or redesignate the Key/Dawn's power. There has to be a reason why the FE is purposely trying to invade Willow's magickal power and person.*S*

If he could assume that killing Dawn would also release the mystical energy inside her (which is all physical death is and Joss and company have never denied that Universal Truth as far as I can tell) then Willow would be the logical candidate to be spared to force into the redirection of that energy into a usable form FE could take advantage of.

[> Re: So what did The Slayer actually do? (S.7 speculative with Showtime spoilage) -- John, 20:46:07 01/12/03 Sun

ZachsMind wrote: " 'The opportunity has only recently presented itself... The mystical forces surrounding The Chosen Line have become irrevocably altered. Become unstable. Vulnerable... The First Evil did not cause the disruption. Only siezed upon it. To extinguish the lives of The Chosen forever.'

The Slayer caused the disruption. The Slayer is responsible for letting this happen. Okay fine. Sure. So what the hell is that supposed to mean?"

I'm new to the forum, but I've been following this thread and similar thoughts since the showing of Showtime.

I think the change that occurred is that Faith is in prison, and thus can't participate in the great battle FE is setting up and also most likely will not die anytime soon, thus she will not call forth the next slayer. A perfect time to try to get rid of the SIT's and end the chosen line forever.

Current board | More January 2003