January 2003 Archives

January 2003 posts

Previous January 2003
More January 2003

Questions on Cordy (spoilers to 7.9 and speculative) -- random_visitor, 20:02:22 01/22/03 Wed

Recently I have been thinking about Cordy and a lot of things don''t add up, and the more I think about her the less I think it's her.

1. How did she get back here? The last we saw, she was pretty much settled as a higher being, and the Angel gang made no attempts to remove her. Then when they asked her how she got there, she had no memory. So fine, she can't answer that then. But then she gets her memory back, and she never tells anyone how she got back to earth. (unless I missed something in a past episode - which I am almost positive that I didn't)

2. She tells Angel they are in love but she can't accept his past actions as Angelus!?!? What kind of weak argument is that? She always knew what Angel used to be like. Heck, she even experienced Angelus first-hand in Sunnydale, and in Season 1 of Angel. Plus, if you really love someone, you have to accept that they have a past, even if it is dark. (Buffy did in Amends - she never stopped loving Angel, no matter what he did to her) Cordy only saw what he did to others, it was never actually done to her. This whole statement/reason of hers seemed like it was designed to push Angel away.

3. And as a previous poster has commented on (I can't remeber the name, sorry) Cordy seemed to be almost flaunting that she and Conner had slept together in HC. She knew about Angel's super sense of smell and she never hesitated to meet with Angel, almost like she wanted him to find out.

4. Why did she not use any of her new demony powers to help fight the Beast? They might not have done any good, but at least she could have tried.

Anyway, those are the most pressing of my questions and it gives me an uneasy feeling about her. She doesn't seem to be that same person she was before she went to a higher plane. There just seems to be an inordinate amount of secrets that are surrounding her, and she's not talking.

[> Re: oops, meant spoilers up to 4.9 and speculative (NT) -- random_visitor, 20:03:55 01/22/03 Wed

[> A couple replies on Cordy -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:57:38 01/22/03 Wed

Well, Cordelia admitted she had always known about Angel's past, but she said "there's a difference between knowing it and feeling it". I got the impression that her visions of Angelus's life were her seeing them through his eyes and through his thoughts. She thought everything that Angelus thought, and she felt everything that Angelus felt. Being inside the mind of one of the most evil vampires to ever (un)live would cause a mental breakdown in most people; it's now wonder she can't really stand to be around Angel.

As for never telling anyone how she got back, she says that her memories had been fading rather rapidly. She couldn't remember much from before her return, and presumably couldn't remember her return at all.

[> Glad you are asking these questions, Spoilers I have read -- Mackenzie, 06:46:53 01/23/03 Thu

I must admit, I am a spoiler slut. I love to read as many spoilers as I can. One has come to my attention that I am not sure about. It has been said that the Beast is just a minion of a much more evil being and that being being Cordy. It has been said that she is the true Big Bad this season, that she is all demon and all bad. I don't know that I believe it, but like you, I am suspicious of her actions this season.

Long Day's Journey Into Night with Ra (Spoilers Tonight's Ats) -- shadowkat, 20:16:24 01/22/03 Wed

Uhm...WOW. Okay, I'm really loving Angel right now.

(First off didn't watch with close-captioning so all name spellings are by well phonetic memory (and I have an audio dyslexia, wierd I know) so please excuse any and all errors. Thanks. Also didn't proofread - so sure there's all sorts of misspellings and typos. Sorry.)

Did some research before posting this on the Sun God Ra - out of curiousity more than anything else. Ra features prominently in this episode, where we learn that THE BEAST is systematically killing the Ra-tet - or the five that make up the power of RA which deals with the sun. Each has a different orb or power source that The Beast is Stealing.
First it takes out Muskatet - the little girl that linked the earth bound W&H with the Senior Partners in the other realm. Then it takes out the shaman priestess, and then a priest that Gwen Radon is meeting, removing a glowy box, then Panjabtet (sure that's wrong), and finally goes after Many - or Manatet who carries the orbs. (OT: By the way did anyone think about Warren and his orbs during this episode?)
Angel and Gwen find out from the last one - Many - that The Beast wants to obliterate the sun and make a demon playground on earth. Hmmm interesting, does this remind anyone of Becoming and Angelus' plans with Acauthla? Suck the world into hell? Did me.

So the symbol at the top of the book Wes is looking in is an Egyptian symbol for Ra.

Here's what I found out:

From very early times Ra was a sun god. He took on many of the attributes and even the names of other gods as Egyptian myths evolved. He is often pictured as a hawk or as a hawk headed man with a solar disk encircled by a uraeus on his head. He is often pictured wearing the double crown of upper and lower Egypt. http://members.aol.com/egyptart/glossary.html#r

and

An aspect of the sun god Re Auf was a ram-headed god who wore the solar disc and traveled at night through the Underworld waterways in order to reach the east in time for the new day; however, he still had to fight off the creatures of the Underworld. http://touregypt.net/featurestories/re.htm

I wasn't able to find the others. But the symbol the Beast uses of falcon wings with an orb in the center is the same symbol seen on first web site - symbolizing RA.

In this episode, Cordelia has a vision - a vision that compells her to face Angel who is furious with her and tell him what she's seen. But it's more of a memory than a vision for Cordelia. She can't remember all of it, just bits and pieces that are filtered through the episode.
At first she jumps to the same conclusion everyone else does that the answer the little girl Muskatet stated lay within them is Connor - Connor's the link. But as the show progresses she realizes it is actually Angelus the Beast is talking to. The memory she's having is Angelus. The person's head she is in is Angelus. The Beast is telling Angelus they don't have to be enemies - he should join them.
She realizes this after the Beast blocks out the sun, after they throw the Beast into a porthole but the Beast escapes and addresses Angelus.

Backing up a bit...Angel teams up with Gwen to find the other members of the Ra-tet and what is going on. Manatet as mentioned above tells them. Orbs is mentioned. Orbs is a power associated with the sun. The Sun is a male god - patriarchial - as opposed to the Earth - usually a female entity. In Btvs - the entity the gang is fighting is the Hellmouth - the FE, the earth has teeth. The Sun keeps the demons in darkness. The Beast in Ats arises out of the Earth and is using an ancient ritual to block out the sun and create hell on earth. This is a bit different than the First's plans - it wants to obliterate existence.

Previously in Habeas Corpus we discussed how the little evil girl represented order and The Beast chaos - seems to be true - she is part of a group of higher beings who maintain the order and power of the sun. The last being to be killed is a man - who is also immortal to an extent.
Angel offers him protection - and Gwen uses her place to do it, her place is equipped with a Panic Room (now I've seen the movie Panic Room and my first thought was so not a safe place), at any rate Panic Rooms are supposedly impossible to get into. But just in case they guard it. Two teams. Gwen and Gunn, Angel and Cordy. Gwen and Gunn talk - and Gwen figures out Gunn's pain. They actually sort of bond.
Angel and Cordy avoid and end up falling asleep or so we thing. And while they are asleep - the Beast has come and torn apart Many, taking his orbs. It's clearly an inside job, one of the Gang had to betray them. Who?

Once again the team leaps to the conclusion: a)Connor or b) Gwen.

The Beast goes to Connor's apartment to do the ritual and knocks Connor out of it. Not interested in a)Connor's presence or b)his death. Angel and Gang try to stop it.
They fail. He doesn't need the metal falcon wings to do the ritual just the orb - which he swallows when he completes it. Shoving him into a portal a la Professor Seidel does not work. The Sun is swallowed in LA. Darkness falls.
The Long Day's Journey into Night is completed.
At the end of which we finally get the answer to our question, which by the way raises additional questions and answers others on both shows.

Who was the inside job? Angelus
Who is the best talking to in Cordy's memory? Angelus
Whose memory? Angelus

But Angel has no memory of the BEAST. Angel has no memory of working for it.

Remind you of anyone? Remind you of anything?

Spike. He has no memory of the First Evil. The First Evil is somehow working his strings. Ensouled Spike - was not at fault. Angel - ensouled Angelus has no memory of The Beast. Ensouled Angel is not aware. Yet when drugged - Angelus emerges. With a trigger song - William the Bloody, the demon emerges.

In Becoming: Angelus - wanted to turn the world into a devil's playground when he last emerged and no humanity was left in him - Willow returned his soul and he went to hell as Angel.

Is it just me? Or ar both shows revisiting the issues raised in Season 2 Buffy - revisiting Becoming and Innocence? That was the year the Whedonverse changed forever. Kendra died - Faith got Chosen. Angel became Angelus and went to hell. Spike turned against his nature and helped Buffy save the world. Willow called up the forces of magic and cursed Angel with a soul. No one has been the same since.

Long Day's Journey Into Night reminded me of two episodes: Becoming and Sleeper/Never Leave Me. Why do they keep bringing up the events of Becoming in both shows this year?
In Selfless - they talk about sending Angel to hell with a soul and Xander's lie. In Deep Down - Angel mentions his ex sending him to hell for a 100 years. Is the reason - the non-crossover event of last season?

In Tomorrow - the last of the Ats - Connor, who Angel trusts - separates him from his family and sends him to a watery Grave - a hellish place. In Grave - the last of Btvs last year - Spike fights for and wins his soul. In Becoming, Spike leaves town with Dru after saving the world, Angel gets cursed with a soul and sent to the hell dimension. And Buffy leaves town.

So now...five years later...they seem to be revisiting it.
Or am I reading too much into this?

Why can two evil beings control the demons in two ensouled vampires? What does it mean to be a vampire with a soul?
Who is the essence of the man, the demon or the soul?
Dr Jekyll or Mr. Hyde?

In myth the Sun God Ra - went into the underworld for twelve hours - bringing light to the dead...demons and gods towed his boat. In order to reach the east in time for day.
He is depicted as a ram-horned god...not unlike our beast.

Here the sun is gone underground, swallowed. And Angel is blind to memories of Angelus. He remembers some but not all.
Wes believes to learn how to defeat the Beast - they must access Angelus - the demon. But will this really work? Does blotting out the soul = son in Angel, help you to find a way to defeat the darkness?

And what about Connor? is he also part of this? Is he the brother of the Beast or a harbringer of it? Or is he the key to destroying it?

Connor reminds me of Dawn in this episode, he believes its him - but it's not, it's his father. Just as Dawn believes she has "potential" but it's not her.

Before I end this rambling riff - a brief nod to Long Day's Journey Into Night and the ending dedication to Glenn Quinn who played Doyle. Both shows spend a lot of time discussing the addiction metaphor through vampirism. This episode did it as well. Angel is drinking blood - and it's what brings out Angelus. Just as in Eternity - the drug awakens Angelus.
Spike - gets back on the "juice" with a trigger. In Ats - the drug metaphor is well alcohol, in Btvs - it feels like heroine at least for Spike. Glenn Quinn died from an overdose of drugs, it is a sad death, and unfortunately not an uncommon one among talented actors, River Phoenix, James Belushi come to mind. Long Day's Journey Into Night is the title of an Eugene O'Neill play about an alcoholic and dysfunctional family. It too deals with what happens to the human soul when it retreats into drug abuse or psychosis.
It's an interesting metaphor. Be curious where they go with it.

Thanks for reading.
Agree? Disagree? Hope made sense. (Also hope I didn't get the Eugene O'Neill reference confused with another one - didn't have a chance to look it up, so kindly correct me if I'm wrong, same on any egyptology mistakes. Thanks)

SK

[> Ugh - tons and tons of typos..sorry! Spoilers for Btvs Season 7 and Ats 4 -- shadowkat, 20:24:43 01/22/03 Wed

[> The Voy Beast just ate a VERY long response of mine. -- Rob, 21:11:03 01/22/03 Wed

Now I don't have time to retype everything!

Basically it came down to I agree with everything you said...Particularly interesting that the only 2 known vamps with souls are both being manipulated by an evil force against their wills and memories to undermine those souls.

I also questioned whether the sun being blocked out thing means we should expect darkness in Sunnydale next week, or whether that would take longer to spread there. Did anyone else get whether the sun was being blotted out for the whole earth there or only over LA for now?

This was a GREAT episode. Wish you could have read my longer response. I really liked it. *sob*

Rob

[> [> Re: The Voy Beast just ate a VERY long response of mine. -- shadowkat, 21:18:30 01/22/03 Wed

Wish I could dang it. Completely understand - voy's been eating mine of late too - so I've gotten in the habit of copying the longer ones just in case and posting without proofing. Evil Voy - it's probably in league with the FE and the Beast.

I also questioned whether the sun being blocked out thing means we should expect darkness in Sunnydale next week, or whether that would take longer to spread there. Did anyone else get whether the sun was being blotted out for the whole earth there or only over LA for now?

Yes - I caught it, paid extra attention, because I was trying to figure out how the writers were going to get around this. Clever writers, they found a way. According to Many - it would only block out the sun in LA then gradually move across California, then the continent, then the world. So it's a slow progression. The spell doesn't obliterate the sun - it blocks it, sort of like an eclispe and just as an eclispe is seen differrently around the world, this is.
I think that's what they based the idea on.

So rating wise? A? A+? 9 or 10. I'm going for 9 now, may go up to ten later depending. Hate rating this things.

[> [> [> Me too. I think I'd rate it 9 out of 10, because... -- Rob, 07:58:49 01/23/03 Thu

...although I do love Angel, his petty attitude that dominated the first half of the episode got on my nerves. Now, I know he has his reasons, but I just hate when he gets into his distance-himself-from-all-his-friends-and-then-just-treat-them-like-his-employees mode, and all of that trying to make Cordy jealous, etc. It annoyed me, although who am I to talk? If Cordy had done what she did to me, I don't know if I'd be reacting any differently.

But the rest of the ep was so fantastic...and even Angel's obstinance was necessary to the story...that I'd also give it a 9 or a 10. Probably a 9 because of the minor annoyance. Then again, the oh-so-annoying potentials on Buffy didn't get me to drop my Potential rating. I hate rating eps, too, especially because sometimes I'll watch an ep I rated lowly and realize I like it more than I thought, or vice versa. Ratings are just a state of mind. ;o)

And thanks for the blotting-out-the-sun clarification. I heard it the first time Manny said it on the show, but I didn't really get it. And after I'd rewinded Wesley and Fred's first scene discussing the Ra-Tet like 5 times to understand exactly what they were talking about, it was too late for me to do that for the sun thing too. I have a night class this year on Tuesday AND Wednesday night. I hate not being able to watch the shows until I get home at 10:30! If I were home earlier, I'd do what my instinct tells me--rewatch each episode immediately after seeing it the first time.

Rob

[> [> [> [> Ahh the difficulty of ratings -- shadowkat, 08:42:08 01/23/03 Thu

Won't reiterate the whole Potential thing...you already know my difficulties with it - didn't change on rewatching, although the character of Rona is growing on me.

Ratings are hard. Here's my system:

I compare the episode in my head to other episodes I've seen over the years and how I rated them and if that episode hits the same marks those did, has the same rewatchability quotient and same enjoyment ratio, without any flaws - gets that rank.

I also put letter grades and use the numbers to correspond.

A+ =10
A=9
A-=8
B+=7
B=6
B-=5
C+=4
C=3
C-=2
D=1
F=0

Here's what I consider a 10 episode:

Once More With Feeling - no errors, every single character's story is advanced. The characters drive the plot not the other way around. The characters drive the theme. I'm in the story never jarred. Each piece of dialogue moves it along. It is equal parts humor and tragedy. The plot gets advanced and the characters stories do. I learned something new. No awkward breaks in editing or production (first cut of the episode, ignoring network problems).

Solid 10

Other solid 10s:
Innocence - also advances plot, character, etc.
The Body
Becoming Part I & II
Dopplegangerland
Room With A View - ATs
HUSH

Now a 9 - usually means something was off slightly, either there was a character moment that didn't connect for me, I was confused by something, it's usually a gut level thing, but whatever it is...it just doesn't rank up with the top ones.

Examples of 9's

Tabula Rasa - struggled a little with how these characters were portrayed sans memory, Spike seemed incredily weird for a vampire? Angel in Spin The Bottle worked better for some reason...
Beneath You - good example actually, there's something jarring here in the editing or writing - it's subtle, but something about the ending and the rest of the episode just didn't quite mesh. I loved the ending - it made it a 9, without that ending sequence in the church? I'd give it a 7 or 8...because something about the monster, spike's jumping from personality to personality - which was wonderful - just jarred me so that I found on rewatching - I'd fastforward to the end.
The Wish - also feels like a 9 to me, not sure why.
The Gift as well - something is slightly, ever so slightly off, not much - it's on the cusp

8 - well these are episodes that are wonderful explorations of character - do everything right, but...there's something off. And someone on the board has made a criticism - a fair professional criticism of it - I can't refute but a minor one.

Examples: Sleeper, Never Leave Me,
Supersymmetry - I loved this episode, but people are right there are some shifts in logic regarding continuity in Fred's storyline that just don't quite work. Darby and cjl are the best at finding these problems.

When we get below 7 - it's easier - the episode just didn't hit all my points. It didn't move me. So much of it is really just personal opinion. Now if the episode didn't move me for purely personal reasons but I can't find anything fair or professional in my criticism to point to - and I check the board for this as well - then the episode gets a ranked higher than normal.

Example: Same Time Same Place - I wasn't overly fond of it but production wise, story wise, character wise it hit it's marks - which gives it an 7/8, can't make it higher since I have no interest in rewatching and got bored in places. It felt slow to me. Although the comic moments with Dawn and the Spike scenes and the scene at the end with Willow and Buffy? Are almost worth taking it up a notch, but since I didn't hit me the same way as Beneathe You - have to keep it at 7 or 8.

House Always Wins is an example of a 5/4 - it didn't really move me. I have no interest in rewatching it. It didn't move the characters, plot or much of anything forward. Although it did get Cordy out of the other realm but not in a way that made any logical sense. While fun in some places - didn't make me laugh really. And felt choppy.

Double or Nothing - is a 3, worst episode on Ats. Confused me on the whole soul canon, jokes fell flat, it just didn't work for me.

As You Were - same thing - a 5. For all the reasons why? Check the archives...don't have time to fill in gaps.

That's how I do it. Half truly gut reaction/personal opinion, half fair/professional criticism, often stolen from brighter heads who can see this stuff.

Truthly? I hate doing it...because I often change my mind. An episode I would have given a 10 last year, might get a 5 next year. Annoying but true. sigh.

SK

[> [> [> [> [> Agree on all your points and... -- Rob, 10:09:57 01/23/03 Thu

...I also find it hard to decide whether to rate an episode against other episodes or on its own merits. Should an episode that I think did everything perfectly, such as I Only Have Eyes for You but was not an experimental masterpiece like Hush or Restless or The Body or OMWF, be not graded as a 10? Or should each episode be taken by itself?

I loved STSP, for example, and I would grade it a 10, taken on its own merits. But I'm aware that it is not a masterpiece along the lines of one of the aforementioned eps. So I guess, using your system, I'd give it an 8 or a 9. But just grading on living to the best of its own potential, I'd give it a 10. So problematic!

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe we should give two ratings? -- shadowkat, 11:42:02 01/23/03 Thu

One rating based on how the episode ranks compared to all the other shows in each series. Ie. How Same Time Same Place might rank against a Hush or OMWF.

And then a rating based on how it would rate on it's own merits, if OMWF or Hush did not exist.

This would be: Selfless = 10 on own merits.
Selfless compared to everything else ---maybe 9 not sure might give it 10 both rounds, I loved it that much.

Better example: Deep Down -- 10 on own merits
9 or 8 next to everything else?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> My 2 lists of ratings: -- Rob, 19:38:35 01/23/03 Thu

Okay, the taken-on-their-own-terms ratings are right after the ep name. The comparison ratings are in parenthesis.

Buffy:

Lessons 10/10 (7/10)
Beneath You 10/10 (8/10)
Same Time Same Place 10/10 (9/10)
Help 7/10 (7/10)
Selfless 10/10 (10/10)
Him 4/10 (2/10)
Conversations with Dead People 10/10 (10/10)
Sleeper 8/10 (7/10)
Never Leave Me 8/10 (7/10)
Bring on the Night 9/10 (7/10)
Showtime 7/10 (6/10)
Potential 10/10 (7-8/10)

Angel:

Deep Down 8/10 (7/10)
Ground State 10/10 (9/10)
The House Always Wins 6/10 (4/10)
Slouching Toward Bethlem 7/10 (7/10)
Supersymmetry - 10/10 (8/10)
Spin the Bottle 9/10 (8/10)
Apocalypse Nowish 8/10 (7/10)
Habeas Corpus 10/10 (8/10)
Long Day's Journey 10/10 (9-10/10)

I know that some of them may not seem to be consistent. Why for example Sleeper and NLM, which I ranked as 8/10s on their own merits have the same 7/10 comparison rating as my 9/10 Bring on the Night. I can't answer. It's all just gut feelings.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm...my ratings, for comparison purposes (Spoilers to 7.12) -- shadowkat, 09:01:49 01/24/03 Fri

First off, before I do this: here's how - I'm going to try and do this on a "fair/professional" as opposed to personal basis. ie. - Did the writer/producer/editors/set designers/actors acheive what they set out to do or did somewhere along the line make a mistake as we tend to do in what they wished to convey. Because sometimes - they may set out to do something, do it brillantly, even though I don't really enjoy it. Next question - was it entertaining to (my memory at least) more people than just me? And finally was I entertained. Sort of curious to see if I can do this.

You're ratings are in regular, mine in italics to set them off. My explanations in regular print.

Buffy:

Lessons 10/10 (7/10) 9/10 (7/10)

Why? Kitt and Carlos were the weak links in this episode. I didn't care if they lived or died. They weren't really there and the acting was less than up to standard. Also both seemed somewhat stereotypical. We needed to care about them. Btvs we know can do this - see Witch - where we do care about Amy. Or The Wish - and the kids who help Giles. Or even past episodes with Dawn - the Body, the boy and girl in that episode - I wanted to see again, or Janice. These kids stand out. Kitt and Carlos...felt off and took away from the episode. When the episode was over, the consistent criticism on all the boards - was about them. Even reviewers stated - high marks but for these two characters.

Beneath You 10/10 (8/10) 10/10 (8/10)

This is a hard one. I'm almost gave it 9/10 on it's own merits because it doesn't live up to what Selfless did.
There's something wrong with it. I can't pinpoint it - except to remember that the criticism on the boards remarked on it too - even if we didn't know someone else wrote & directed the church scene - it feels different from the rest of the episode, slightly. Also the transistion between Anya/Xander - Buffy/Spike feels a little jarring at times. As did the transistion from London to Sunnydale - it's slight though. The episode also confused the audience on how to relate to Buffy - which I'm tending to forgive because I believe this was deliberate, the writers want us to have ambiguous feelings about the lead character right now, no wrong word, not ambiguous, just a slight sense of unease. So if you felt that in any way - they did their job.
Also you're supposed to feel Buffy's confusion regarding Spike - which works.

Same Time Same Place 10/10 (9/10)8/10 (7/10)

This was a stellar episode in many ways. It took risks. But it was slow paced due to the risks. The beginning - where we see no-one appear at the airport then back up and do it with Willow. Then the house - same. Then the construction site. It slows things down. There are also a few inconsistencies - glaring ones: the time didn't work for several viewers - was unrealistic according to people who've done transatlantic flights (but I excused that), the biggie was in the Spike scene - where he is talking to both at the same time and claps in one and not the other discussion. The Spike scene while brillant in many ways, is confusing and flawed in others - where are we in time? If just next week - he's healed pretty fast. Although if he'd still been injured, the lines directed towards Spike wouldn't have worked. What worked was the Gnarl demon - best villain to date, creepy and effective. Posable Dawn also worked - and displayed the acting abilities of MT to great effect. But point of view was unclear - were we in Xander's(my belief - it works the best) or Dawn's (not that well she's separated from the others too often) or Buffy's (also not as well...) or all three? It should have been clearer - I think. What worked? Willow - every scene Willow was in - worked. And the ending worked. So if it weren't for those missteps - which happen when you try something that innovative in a short period of filming time - it would have gotten a 10/10.

Help 7/10 (7/10) 7/10 (6/10)

Close agreement with you here. What is wrong with Help?
The peripheral characters again - I should have been more into them. Wasn't. I think ME is deliberately picking actors who look like actual teens and actual people as opposed to attractive film and tv stars. I think they are also deliberately down-playing them as a sort of metanarration. It's a gut feeling. My problem - it was more entertaining watching Harmony, Larry, Percy, Scott Hope, Marcy...etc. The kids who torment Cassie and set up the ritual seem like a pale shadow of the boy's in Reptile Boy - of course that was deliberate. As was the whole sometimes you can't save them message - which felt a bit heavy-handed.
Cassie - herself - seemed a tad too nice in places. Also the production value and lighting seemed off. OTOH - it did get across Buffy's internal struggle between slayer and counselor well. But the episode itself just felt flat. This I think is a gut reaction. What was good about it? The Xander/Willow research scene. The Buffy/Xander scene with Dad that was a metanarration on so many other episodes and also spoke volumes about both characters projection of their father issues on to Cassie. The Spike scenes in the basement and in the ritual with Cassie worked. What didn't work so well was the ritual, Cassie herself, the scenes with Cassie/Dawn/the boy, the kid who played the villain.
Buffy's counseling scenes actually worked better for me on a second viewing.

Selfless 10/10 (10/10) 10/10 (10/10)

This episode worked for me. The only thing i can think of that could bring it down to a 9 - is some of the inconsistencies with Anya's past and the fact that they couldn't just break the amulet. This was confusing. Also Buffy's assumption she had to kill Anya as opposed to breaking the amulet and how she tried to do it. After seeing OAFA we knew differently. Now - this may have been deliberate actually - Buffy isn't Ms. Research and she may have forgotten and it fits with the Buffy in The Wish who is "pure slayer" and her first instinct is I kill the vengeance demon - Giles figures out that you crush the amulet. Why Anya doesn't realize this is unclear. Unless - it is impossible for a vengeance demon to smash her own amulet and in order for Anya to really make a choice - she had to pay a price. Reversing what she did - couldn't be as easy as it was in The Wish - continuation of metanarration on past seasons, seeing what happened in childhood through adult eyes. If this is the case - then it was brillant.
Everything else from production value, editing, use of visuals, dialogue, song, etc worked - it moved every character forward, the characters drove both plot and theme.
Excellent episode.

Him 4/10 (2/10)6/10 (5/10)

I rank this one higher than you do for several reasons.
First the derivative aspects are deliberate - it is in a way a satire of tv gimmicks, the split Charlie's Angel's 70's TV screen which is now done on 24, the use of the sappy love music, the love at first site motif. It also does an excellent job of metanarrating on all of Buffy's past romantic relationships : Anya's - he's my best friend (Riley relationship), Dawn's (it is real love, I love his soul, I'll die for him) - (Angel), Willow's - he loves me for what I am, I'll change him to fit my needs (Spike/Angel), Buffy's-(he is my lover, I don't love him but he wants me of course) (Spike, RJ even), and at the same time it metanarrates on all the ships. The episode also metanarrates on past episodes such as Witch and cheerleading and wanting to be like your sucessful Mom or Big Sis - but unlike Witch - the results are sillier, more real, less idealized. More emotionally painful. And it metanarrates on Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered - showing the same things - the results are siller and more wrenching. Then it does an interesting thing with Xander and Spike - reminding us of who they once were and how they moved past it and how neither wants to go back. At the end of the episode, we knew something about every character. It was in many ways brillant in that respect. Also had moments of hilarity - the whole struggle over the gun scene. That said I still have troubles watching Dawn's cheerleading try-out and Buffy's seduction of RJ - but I was supposed to.
Him may not be overly entertaining but it accomplished what it set out to do. Even if it felt derivative of other shows in places.

Conversations with Dead People 10/10 (10/10)10/10, (9/10)

Not up to the same standards as Selfless. There were problems here. One - I think might be the substitution of Cassie for Tara ...which they admittedly couldn't control. I think this may have worked better if Willow knew the girl more. But Willow had only seen a picture of Cassie. It worked for the audience of course. But I remain on the fence - since Willow was supposed to be blown away. OTOH, maybe it works better that she wasn't otherwise her realization that it isn't really Cassie may not have worked. On the fence. The whole Dawn bit was a tad over the top, creepy as hell but I think maybe if could have toned down a bit? In comparison? Buffy and Webs and the Spike scenes were a work of art - brillant - 10 quality all the way. Jonathan and Andrew - not clear why Jonathan was back there digging up the seal...and I know people I had to explain this scene to. PErsonally I think it juxtaposed well. But I can't take it up to the same level as OMWF and The Body and Selfless. The song alone however almost takes it there.

Sleeper 8/10 (7/10) 8/10 (7/10)

This is a hard one. I loved this episode. I know people who despised it, which is why I can't put it at 9 or 10. But why did they despise it? The songs worked. But the fight scene in the Bronze wasn't as well choregraphed as other fight scenes. I had to explain to someone how Spike staked the vamp. It was confusing how he picked up the song - since Oh Susannah and Early One Morning sounded the same to many viewers. Anya's attempt to seduce Spike - while interesting, entertaining and showing the difference in Spike, was arguably out of character for Anya. Why does she appear so insulted he didn't go along with her as opposed to relieved? She thinks he's a serial killer? Fury's insistence on the serial killer/drug metaphor was a tad heavy handed at times and probably pissed off viewers who a) know about serial killers and b) know about drug abuse.
If this is the case...uhm guys, they are going to keep doing it. Just a warning. The basement scene - why didn't the vamps who rose up out of the dirt just kill her? Probably because Spike was their sire and they were following him and they were just fledglings? Marsters and Gellar saved the episode for me, along with Amy Mann. Also the acting from the peripherals - the vamp in the Bronze and the girl on the street were much better than usual and intriguing. I also loved the use of the old English folksong. And Spike collasping in tears at the end, horribly upset, worked for me - who wouldn't be. Cliff-hanger with Giles and the harbringer.

Never Leave Me 8/10 (7/10) 9/10 (8/10)

Going a bit higher on this one. Another episode I loved. The parallels between Anya/Xander/Andrew and Buffy/Spike were brillant. Characters pushed plot forward and theme.
Everyone that was focused on was used. Yes, Willow and Dawn were background - but you can only do so much.

Problems? The editing mistake with the exploding Watcher Council building - use the same building! The fight with the bringers - sort of awkwardly filmed. Dawn and Willow were off slightly according to some viewers.

Bring on the Night 9/10 (7/10) 8/10 (7/10)

Tried to do too much, I think. Was a confusing episode, was no doubt supposed to be. Introduced three peripherial characters that had almost no personality. Actually had way too many peripherals. Drusilla - a fan favorite - wasn't used as well as she could have been - instead of psychological torture - they resort to trying to drown the vampire - which uh makes no sense, since vampires can't be drowned, they don't breath. I guess he could choke on water?
The ubervamp - while sort of fun looking, wasn't all that scarey. And the fight was slow and not griping like her fight with Angelus, or Spike, or even the Gnarl. Acting wise - one of Gellar's best performances to date. Giles seemed off and damaged. We had the sensation of being in a waking dream inside Buffy's head - an interesting and risky gimmick. But the episode didn't so much push the plot forward as confuse the viewers. I may find it better later - but it doesn't work on it's own and it isn't helped by the episodes following it. Also production/editing values seemed choppy in places. We had no real sense of time - granted neither does Buffy apparently who hasn't slept in days - but it's hard on a viewer. Wood appeared to have been burying Jonathan for a month...although he could have gone home and just gotten around to returning the shovel.
Way too many problems in editing/production/ etc.

Showtime 7/10 (6/10) 7/10 (6/10)

I agree on your rankings here, I think. It accomplished what it set out to do. The telepathy scene while a little confusing on who was able to do it, does make sense in rewatching. And the last scene sells it. My problems with it are minor - the Giles/Anya scene and whether Giles is corporeal or not, the too many characters problem, the annoying accents, the big fight...all have been put better than me on the board.

Potential 10/10 (7-8/10) 7/10 (6/10)
Uhm see Solititude's review and mine for the reasons why.

Okay...maybe will do Angel later...getting burnt. SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My 2 ratings on Angel so far -- shadowkat, 13:58:40 01/24/03 Fri

Since this thread hasn't been archived yet - which surprises me, I'll give my take on Angel...not sure anyone will notice - I think people have moved on to the newer postings by now ;-).

Angel has been kicking butt this season. Outside of a few minor things in House Always Wins - this series has almost 0 flaws in editing/production/writing/acting/directing/cinematography or sound. It is cleanly done. Odd, considering how it went through a bit of an upheavel during the summer - with two executive producers jumping ship, maybe that's why it's so good - Whedon and Minear felt the need to give it extra attention and gave the production reigns to Jeffrey Bell who is proving to be more than up to the job. You may not like the characters, you may not like the ships, and you may find the story far too dark for your sensibilities (not you Rob, speaking generally) but I dare you to find a flaw in production, writing, FX, plotarcs, visual style, acting,
and editing. It's not choppy. And each episode feels like watching a noire film.

Now for Angel - I'm less emotional. Not a shipper for the show. Not emotionally invested too much in the characters. (That's Buffy - and even there, I'm less shipper than plotter according to Zachsminds definition - I like the funhouse ride - I get turned on by angst and darkness, happy relationships bore me - I'm more interested in a relationship that comes naturally from the plot or even moves it forward, when it stalls it or causes the story to repeat itself - ugh. I stop watching. Neither Btvs or Ats have ever fallen into that trap, came close once or twice, but pulled out very well.)

My ratings in bold, criticism in regular.

Angel:

Deep Down 8/10 (7/10) 10/10 (9/10)

Why is Deep Down good? The dream sequences of Angel's are visually stunning and give us both foreshadowing regarding Angel's character and insight into how he feels about his friends and family. Unlike Lessons - we know in Deep Down what each character was doing during the summer, what their relationships are with the other characters and the problems lurking underneath the surface. Each character pulls us in - no one is wasted. The peripherals: Lilah, Justine, Lorne, the monsters in the street - all serve a clear purpose and you feel something for them. Justine's relationship with Wes - is incredibly dark, but also insightful - showing us that both characters have entered into an S&M sort of relationship, Justine went back to one, Wes has proved he literally is ruthless - something to keep in mind. The imagery of the boat at sea, the use of outside locals, the twists and turns...I honestly can't find anything wrong with it. The only thing that might take it down to a 9 overall - is the pacing...but I'm on the fence there. Also philosphical goodness - the whole upstairs/downstairs speech of Angel's - amazing.

Ground State 10/10 (9/10) 9/10 (8/10)

an equally gripping episode, visuals, everything in play.
Best character introduction seen in a while. Problems?
Well a few - the whole immediate chemistry with Angel seemed a little contrived, although I saw sparkage. Also the bit about where Cordy was...seemed a little hokey...but not greatly so. Overall - I might push it up to 10/10 on own merits.

The House Always Wins 6/10 (4/10) 6/10 (4/10)

Would agree with you on this one. It felt out of character and like I was watching another show. Jarring in the flow of the season. The unexplicable sudden return of Cordelia with no memory. Angel's loss of will and destiny. The cheesiness of the dialogue. Good moments? Best by-play between Fred and Gunn in a while. Also fantastic scene between Wes and Lilah, Lilah not even on the screen. Boreanze seemed to be walking through most of it unfortunately...Lorne did save some scenes and his singing is always worth a view.

Slouching Toward Bethlem 7/10 (7/10) 8/10 (7/10)

The fact I can barely remember it - probably means it has to be a 7 overall. But the visuals are still up to standard. And the focus on the Angel-Cordy, Cordy - Connor relationships and potential triangle is fascinating. There's also some good scenes with Wes. Fred/Gunn aren't memorable - literally - I can't remember what they did here.
What made me lift it to an 8 was the whole singing sequence with Cordelia and Lorne - then Lilah's tricking of Wes and the gang to get the information. Brillant and wonderful.
The episode is even better when we glance back at it and notice how ironic Lilah's actions are - she can't read the data, it destroys the minds of the psychics, by removing it from Lorne - she saved his life, and even if she could? Clearly it would not have helped her.

Interesting possible bit of info here - apparently no one can handle Cordy's visions and memories anymore but Cordy without their heads exploding.

And oh least I forget - we are reminded of two things regarding Cordy 1) she can't sing and 2) her theme song has not changed - it's still all about her love for herself - "The Greatest Love of ALL - is for yourself" - vanity which appears to be biting her at the moment. Very interesting character episode.

Supersymmetry - 10/10 (8/10) 9/10 (8/10)

One of my favorites. I loved this episode. But it had so many things wrong with it. First the whole Seidel thing with Fred - didn't work well with the continuity of the storyline. Or what we knew about portals from Pylea, we had to do summersaults making it work on the board. Next - the fact that Fred and Gunn totally misread each other seemed a little contrived. Fred's character didn't entirely make sense and as a friend pointed out to me, she is written all over the place this season - scarey, not scarey, weak, killer, brain at everything under the sun...gets a bit confusing. OTOH that could work - after all can we ever truly categorize anyone? The other difficulty with it was the superstring theory which worked and didn't depending on how much you knew. It worked wonderfully for me, but more knowledgable parties brought up how a)no way it would be in a popular journal and easily read by Wes and b) no way you'd have that small an audience for the two top minds in the field. But these are small matters - keeps it in the A category.

Spin the Bottle 9/10 (8/10) 9/10 (9/10)

On the fence here as well. I'm tempted to give it 8/10 on overall, except I think it did what Rebecca Rand Kirshner tried in Tabula Rasa, a little better. Granted Joss made the task easier on himself - his characters just became teens, but at least Angel still had the bloodlust, Spike seemed to not have any of bloodlust and reacted to being a vampire way too well...Angel's reaction made more sense.

What it did right? It was hilarous - the comedic moments which were largely physical worked. We learned new things about the characters and what they felt about each other on a gut somewhat juvenile level and we got to compare that with adult behavior. It also foreshadowed later events and pushed the plot forward. Cinematically - no errors.

Problems? Well once again Fred's character makes no sense.
The whole bit about Angel's fears of traffic but having no problem with other modern things seemed sort of odd. But outside of that - very little wrong with this.

The voice-over technique which got started here - worked very well. Nothing really to complain about.

Apocalypse Nowish 8/10 (7/10) 9/10 (8/10)

Granted a bit over the top and some out of character moments. But are they? Cordelia - has always been somewhat compulsive, has a tendency to throw herself at people and well in horrible moments of stress does stupid things, like kiss the nearest available warm body - Wes in Graduation Day, Xander in What's My Line, as just a few examples... heck it's how she got her powers to begin with. So maybe not so out of character as we think. OTOH - it does have a high squick factor, but no higher than seeing Buffy sleep with the 243 year old Angel? Well maybe it does. That's a quagmire. Anyways - I think people rank this one low based on that act alone. And so do I. Everything else? Pretty much worked. It was a little hokey that the eye of fire or whatever it was called like X marks the spot on a treasure map but whatever.

Habeas Corpus 10/10 (8/10) 9/10 (8/10)

Another episode that I loved but the fact that it was copied from Resident Evil - took it down a notch. That is the only thing however that I disliked about it. Everything else worked. It pushed plot forward, it taught us new things about characters, had a really cool title which worked thematically. Top notch episode. Tempted to raise it to 9 overall.

Long Day's Journey 10/10 (9-10/10) 9/10 (9/10)

Another episode that I loved. See my review above in this same thread. Only draw-backs? maybe all the superhero junk and the throwing off info at us? Just not quite at the level of Deep Down or Selfless. But incredibly close.

Okay that's my take for what it's worth, hopefully the thread's still alive when I post. SK

[> Since you asked, S'kat (spoilers for 4.9, 7.12) -- Scroll, 21:54:51 01/22/03 Wed

Here's a repost of my "Connecting Buffy and Angel" post from further down on the main page, with some of the Buffy portions cut out.

*****

Sleeper Agents

1) Our first was Spike, pawn of the First Evil. All anyone had to do was hum a little English ditty and Spike became a cold-blooded killer, siring an army of vamps at the FE's bidding. Is Spike still under the FE's thrall? Is his chip still working? I ask this because I remember a distinct "Argh!" of chip-induced pain from Spike when he killed a Harbinger. (Which begs the question: Are the Bringers human after all?)

2) [...]

3) My vamp hero, Angel. Within him lies the deadliest vampire of all: Angelus. And it appears Angelus has come out to play -- cutting Gwen's surveillance, drugging Cordy's tea, murdering Manny the Badly Dressed Totem. Then again, when did Angel have a chance to drug Cordelia's tea? I thought she had made it herself. Maybe we have two sleeper agents on our hands.

Angelus knew the Beast from Way Back When. What kind of deal did these two devils make that the Beast let Angelus live? And why can't Angel, who has the exact same brain Angelus has, remember meeting the Beast? (I'm of the opinion that getting a soul doesn't mean getting amnesia.) While I appreciate Wesley's suggestion that the only way to find out the Beast's plans is to ask Angelus, it would be very foolish to think the Best First Plan is to drop-kick that pesky soul from Angel's body. Seriously, try hypnosis first! You never know, it might jog some repressed memories!

Rousing Speeches

1) Buffy giving her weekly pep-talk to the potential Slayers, all profound and sincere and motivating.

2) Angel giving his once-in-a-look-it's-a-blue-moon pep-talk to the Fang Gang, all grumpy and pessimistic and demoralising. (I very much like the mocking of Buffy's militaristic speeches.)

*****

In my "Connecting Buffy and Angel" thread below, amber reminded me of an interesting shooting script line from "Bring On the Night" that was cut from the final product. When dream-Joyce tries reassuring Buffy, she says, "The sun sets, but the sun always rises... Except in L.A., as of late." (My memory is vague, but I think I got it right.)

As amber convincingly posits, "Long Day's Journey" appears to be a direct accompanyment to "Bring On the Night". The tone of these two eps seem similar, with the Good Guys taking a real beating and with no real victory in sight. Unlike BOtN's follow-ups, "Showtime" and "Potential", I think we're going to see things get a hell of a lot worse for the Fang Gang, befor things get better.

Angelus. How I've missed thee... Shadowkat, you're so right about the deliberate references to BtVS Season 2. It makes absolute sense that Angel's loss of soul and evil rampage are finally being brought up again. Remembering S2 allows the writers to address Spike, now souled, and all of Buffy's issues surrounding Angelus. It reminds us that Angel and Cordelia never really had a fair chance because of his happiness clause. (Thank you, Lorne, for finally, finally bringing this up! Though you get points off for using the word "Champion".) If Wesley succeeds in bringing back Angelus, Connor is gonna have a hell of a time adjusting. He'll see that he really is "the spawn of evil" and I can't wait to see the repercussions of that. (Poor guy, he's worse off than even Dawn!)

Other things I liked. Manny was a wonderful metaphor, and a really bad dresser in the grand tradition of Whistler and Doyle. In fact, maybe it was a tip to Doyle/Glenn Quinn. Liked the Panic Room because I knew it wouldn't keep Manny safe. Loved the mystery of who killed Manny because despite being (slightly) spoiled, I really thought it was Gwen for some opportunistic purpose. I liked how everybody worked together, though there was still some snarkage. But I must say, I'm a little disappointed in Wesley -- and he's my favourite character, so I can't believe I'm saying this. Wes, you may like Fred. I'm not an ME writer so I can't change that fact. But please, please don't get between Fred and Gunn! I expect better of you!

That said, this episode knocked my socks off :)

[> [> Here's another connection (spoilers for all aired eps) -- Scroll, 22:39:53 01/22/03 Wed

I can't believe I nearly forgot this one, but the repeated references to ancient Egypt on Buffy have proven to be foreshadowing on Angel. I'm just going to copy Sang's post from November:

***

Interesting article on Slayage.com (spoiler for 7.6 and 7.7 ) -- Sang, 12:38:37 11/16/02 Sat

There is an article about CwDP on Slayage.com review page. At the end of the review, there are two paragraphs discussing about the seal Jonathan and Andrew dug out. I don't know how reliable this is, but pretty interesting.

"Okay. The seal that Jonathon and Andrew uncovered in the Sunnydale High basement was a goat-head in a reversed pentagram. This symbol can be identified as the seal of Baphomet (not the name J & A gave it, but bear with us). Originally ascribed to the Knights Templar, it was adopted by the Church of Satan in 1966. The one noteworthy adjustment to the image here was that it had signs of the zodiac around it, instead of the Hebrew letters that spell Leviathan (Leviathan being the name commonly associated with a biblical beast that devours you, um, from beneath, but usually in the ocean). This seal is also associated with the goat of Mendes, Mendes being a city in ancient Egypt where fertility worship of Ba'al was practiced.

Ba'al, in his deified form, is known as Nimrod, the Sun God. Ellen found reference to biblical passages referencing Nimrod: A mighty hunter before the Lord, and they also suggest that it was not wild beasts that Nimrod was hunting, but men. Having hunted them he would enslave them and have a tyrannical hold over them -- much like a vampire turning out sires. By Holden's admission, we know that Spike is out and siring (assuming again that it's actually Spike, and not an imposter). Now, if you're open to the idea that Joss and his writers are feeding us tiny hints even when we have almost no chance of catching them, check this out: At the beginning of "Him", when Buffy moved Spike into Xander's apartment, Xander was of course all too ready to insult Spike. He always has been, right? It's not like they're friends. But of all the words he could have used to bash our William with (and you KNOW the X-Man has quite a vocabulary of clever putdowns), what was his name of choice this time?

Nimrod."

You can read the full review at the link below

http://slayage.com/reviews/buffy/0707_conversations.html

***

Nimrod, the sun god? Coincidence? Maybe. Other examples include the test on ancient Egypt in "Help", and W.B. Yeats' "Second Coming" which references the beast, presumably from Egypt, slouching towards Bethlehem to be born.

Like Willow says, "It's all connected..."

[> [> Some additional points - great post -- shadowkat, 08:07:19 01/23/03 Thu

I finally got to read it down below last night and did a few responses. But in case you missed them, here's more.

1.Angelus knew the Beast from Way Back When. What kind of deal did these two devils make that the Beast let Angelus live? And why can't Angel, who has the exact same brain Angelus has, remember meeting the Beast? (I'm of the opinion that getting a soul doesn't mean getting amnesia.) While I appreciate Wesley's suggestion that the only way to find out the Beast's plans is to ask Angelus, it would be very foolish to think the Best First Plan is to drop-kick that pesky soul from Angel's body. Seriously, try hypnosis first! You never know, it might jog some repressed memories!

First things first - let's you and I check our biases for the vamps at the door. I swear what I'm stating below has zip to do with my biasis for Spike. And can be interpreted more than one way. ;-)

There's so many possibilities here. For a while, like Darby I was convinced they'd met in the hell dimension Buffy sent Angel too - which would connect nicely to my theory that what happened in Becoming is what first caused the disruption - after all the FIRST makes it's very FIRST appearence in Amends - the season after Becoming.

But the flashback/memory Cordy sees seems to state something different. So my theory? He met the Beast shortly before he regained his soul. It could be among the last memory he had or and this connects nicely to Spike actually, The Beast - tempted Angelus then erased the memory from the mind leaving it only with the demon - just as The First triggers the "demon" in Spike. It's possible that the Beast doesn't have control over Angelus so much as a pact which the demon that is Angelus has always kept from the soul that resides alongside it - using it as it's ace in the deck? Remember the difference between Angel and Spike in the soul metaphor - it's very important. Angel was cursed with one. Angel is more of the adult. Angel's soul doesn't make him grow up so much as it makes him reign in his vicious impulses - in Angel the soul metaphor works almost like well a compass would - or a sponsor for an alcoholic. For Spike - the soul is about maturity and reigning in the baser impulses, the soul has made Spike grow up. So, to control the demon in Spike - The First needed to torture it and trick it and use a trigger song - after all this demon has gone against the First's intentions too often already in the series and is unpredictable (Becoming again). (This can be interpreted in numerous ways - as weakness, as strength, whatever - but it is worth remembering that when the Judge went to burn Angelus - he didn't hurt him at all - there was "no" good in him. When the Judge went to burn Spike and Dru in Surprise, Spike got scared and had to push him back and the Judge stated - they stunk of humanity - of jealousy and affection and was barely calmed when they handed him their minion instead - proving that vampires can retain a portion humanity or goodness for the Judge to burn out.) For Angel - the loss of the soul turned him into Mr. Hyde - a creature who cared only for itself and cruel destruction. The animal - that Buffy describes in Potential. The difficulty Buffy has always had and we the audience struggle with through her is the beloved Angel becomes this creature without a soul while other vampires don't. Why? It is by the way the same dilemma Angel struggles with. Why is the vampire without the soul he becomes more wretched and evil than all the others? What does that say about him as a man?
(It is an interesting question - and one the dots noir fiction and anti-hero fiction - where the hero of the piece can, if he chooses, also become the worst killer, depraved villain on earth. See Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name Sergio Leon series, Mel Gibson in the Mad Max series, The Wild Bunch, and the Humphrey Bogart movies...for examples.)
And can such a vile creature ever be redeemed? If Drusilla got her soul back today, she'd have a better chance - that is how vile a creature he was...and that is why the idea of redeeming him is such an interesting and challenging task for a writer - it would be akin to trying to redeem Mr. Hyde.

What was the bargain? There's several possibilities. Just as when this happened - well several possibilities. It could have happened before the soul or closely afterward. If it happened closely afterward - the deal was made when Angelus overwhelmed his soul briefly and maybe the bargain was that the Beast would free him from the curse? In which case Surprise/Innocence sort of rushed the whole thing and the reason Angelus wanted to open Acathula had something to do with his bargain with the Beast.

Or it could be the whole pregnancy idea that I think amber or one of the posters below suggested. Angelus was given the ability to have a son. But because he got a soul - he a) didn't remember this or want one, b)Darla wouldn't have anything to do with him until she was resurrected and realized that maybe if she seduced him, he'd become Angelus again (ironic - having the child and then the Beast showing up seems to be causing that to happen...Darla is probably laughing in the void). So the whole son deal does sort of work actually and it explains why the Beast refuses to kill Connor.

Another link here - we got the whole Star Wars thing which Andrew keeps alluding to in Btvs but oddly enough works better on Ats (which tends to avoid alluding to pop culture too often - another reason I'm enjoying it more at the moment - I prefer allusions to myth and literature than to pop culture...even if I'm more of a pop culture junkie ;-) )
At any rate - in that mythos, you have the Father who becomes the most evil thing in the universe in league with The Emperor who is even more corrupted, ie the Devil Incarnate, and the son - who both wish to tempt but succeeds in saving his father's soul and redeeming his father in the end. Is this how they plan on redeeming Angel?
(I really hope not - been there, done that, and well it seems too easy.)

1) Buffy giving her weekly pep-talk to the potential Slayers, all profound and sincere and motivating.

2) Angel giving his once-in-a-look-it's-a-blue-moon pep-talk to the Fang Gang, all grumpy and pessimistic and demoralising. (I very much like the mocking of Buffy's militaristic speeches.)

Yes. I actually preferred Angel's speech and chuckled during it, catching the nice riff on Buffy's. "Demolished is probably too strong a word...Beaten. And yes demoralized..but I'm your leader and we need to band together..." something like that. If I had to choose? Uhm stupid as it would ultimately be - I'd follow Angel based on his speech alone. Maybe not as moving but certainly more sincere. ;-)

It reminded me of what I truly love about the guy - his reluctant leadership and hero stuff. Okay...guess we need to do this now.

In my "Connecting Buffy and Angel" thread below, amber reminded me of an interesting shooting script line from "Bring On the Night" that was cut from the final product. When dream-Joyce tries reassuring Buffy, she says, "The sun sets, but the sun always rises... Except in L.A., as of late." (My memory is vague, but I think I got it right.)

Saw that. Frist to explain the whole sun thing, I listened closely to Many on this one. The spell doesn't obliterate the sun, it blocks it out, forming a sort of cloud that slowly passes over the continent blotting out the sun, so the demons no longer have to hide from it. Not unlike a radioactive cloud or a cloud of pollution or one from a volcano, except the air is unaffected and theres no rain. The sun is still out there, it's just been hidden from us, it's rays blocked by the cloud. I think the whole sun thing is easily described as akin to an eclispe. So first it blocks the sun in LA then slowly across the continent and the world. Moving from West to East across the planet, which is why the sun is blocked in LA but not Hong Kong. If you think about it, it's a lot like an eclispe - where one part of the planet sees the eclispe and the other is unaffected by it. Because it's not the sun itself that is changed, but the portion of the planet it's rays are going to that is. Reminds me a little of the RA legend - where the sun god goes underground for twelve hours to travel to the east and rise.

And see my post in your threads below on American Gods and Many the Totem - Midday.

SK

[> [> [> One disagreement (spoilers for aired eps) -- Scroll, 09:18:58 01/23/03 Thu

For Angel - the loss of the soul turned him into Mr. Hyde - a creature who cared only for itself and cruel destruction. The animal - that Buffy describes in Potential.

s'kat, I agree with you that Angel's soul and Spike's soul work as metaphors in very different ways. However I don't see Angelus (or Angel sans soul) as an "animal". In fact, I see Angelus as often much more clever and intelligent than Angel, perhaps because he doesn't hold himself back. Yes, Angelus is evil personified. Dru and Spike were certainly less evil than he was. But I don't think being "evil" is the same thing as being an "animal". The Angel-Beast in Pylea was an animal; Angelus is not.

That said, ITA that "It's possible that the Beast doesn't have control over Angelus so much as a pact which the demon that is Angelus has always kept from the soul that resides alongside it - using it as it's ace in the deck?" This could make things more interesting than my initial assumption that Angel is a Sleeper agent like Spike. And it might work except we've never had any indication before that the demon in Angel can hide its thoughts from him. I mean, the demon is Angel. Angel is still a demon, he just also has a soul. So from my perspective (and I could be proven wrong next week) is that whatever is causing Angel's anmesia must be an external factor. I just can't see how Angel's demon can block a memory from Angel's brain -- it's not like the "demon" in Angel has its own separate brain. Read Rufus' theory above on Multiple Personality Disorder. It's interesting, but I very much disagree. Of course, we'll find out next week. :)

As for the sun being blotted out, yeah, what you said makes sense and is similar to what I was thinking. It just wasn't very clear at the end because the Fang Gang kept talking about how the sun was "gone", though I can accept they were skipping the physics of it and simply describing how it felt to them...

[> [> [> [> Some very good points...I think you're right here -- shadowkat, 09:44:13 01/23/03 Thu

s'kat, I agree with you that Angel's soul and Spike's soul work as metaphors in very different ways. However I don't see Angelus (or Angel sans soul) as an "animal". In fact, I see Angelus as often much more clever and intelligent than Angel, perhaps because he doesn't hold himself back. Yes, Angelus is evil personified. Dru and Spike were certainly less evil than he was. But I don't think being "evil" is the same thing as being an "animal". The Angel-Beast in Pylea was an animal; Angelus is not.

You're right. Note to self - not everything Buffy says is true. ;-) Buffy kept describing them as thoughtless beasts or animals, and Spike kept wincing. LOL! Angel probably would have been wincing too. Spike is right when he tells Buffy in Never Leave Me that she has no idea what she's dealing with. She doesn't. Nor did she with Angelus.

We know. But we forget, the other characters, with possible exception of Cordelia aren't privy to what happened with the fanged four in the past. I often wonder how Buffy would handle this knowledge? But that's off topic.

What I love most about Angelus is exactly what you stated above, it's why I became interested with the character to begin with, if he had just been an animal would never have worked.

Also agree - being an animal isn't the same as evil. You can have evil animals and good animals...on these shows.
And neutral ones. Werewolves are animals and men and not inherently evil. Thanks for pointing that out.

That said, ITA that "It's possible that the Beast doesn't have control over Angelus so much as a pact which the demon that is Angelus has always kept from the soul that resides alongside it - using it as it's ace in the deck?" This could make things more interesting than my initial assumption that Angel is a Sleeper agent like Spike. And it might work except we've never had any indication before that the demon in Angel can hide its thoughts from him. I mean, the demon is Angel. Angel is still a demon, he just also has a soul. So from my perspective (and I could be proven wrong next week) is that whatever is causing Angel's anmesia must be an external factor. I just can't see how Angel's demon can block a memory from Angel's brain -- it's not like the "demon" in Angel has its own separate brain. Read Rufus' theory above on Multiple Personality Disorder. It's interesting, but I very much disagree. Of course, we'll find out next week. :)

I think I agree with you here...don't know either. Rufus theory sort of works - that Angel couldn't handle the knowledge that he slaughtered a whole village of people, masses of them, and blocked it out. Maybe similar to what happened to Many?? OTOH - not sure if that's where the writers are going. I'm not sure. Will have to wait and see.
Problem with Rufus' posts is I know she's a spoilerwhore and has read the script/wildfeed/etc before I see it (not spoiled at all on Angel or much on Btvs) - so when I read Rufus' posts not sure how much is pure spec and how much is based on the spoilers. So I tend to automatically give all of Rufus' theories the benefit of the doubt, nine times out of ten she is spot on. So sitting on the fence on this one.
And it helps that her theory supports the idea that it's Angelus' ace in the hole.

Okay gotta go. later - sk

That said, ITA that "It's possible that the Beast doesn't have control over Angelus so much as a pact which the demon that is Angelus has always kept from the soul that resides alongside it - using it as it's ace in the deck?" This could make things more interesting than my initial assumption that Angel is a Sleeper agent like Spike. And it might work except we've never had any indication before that the demon in Angel can hide its thoughts from him. I mean, the demon is Angel. Angel is still a demon, he just also has a soul. So from my perspective (and I could be proven wrong next week) is that whatever is causing Angel's anmesia must be an external factor. I just can't see how Angel's demon can block a memory from Angel's brain -- it's not like the "demon" in Angel has its own separate brain. Read Rufus' theory above on Multiple Personality Disorder. It's interesting, but I very much disagree. Of course, we'll find out next week. :)

[> Long Day's Journey -- oceloty, 22:07:36 01/22/03 Wed

Thanks for the interesting post, shadowkat.

What I find really interesting is how well the terrible, awful things the Beast has done match up to Angel(us)'s prior ambitions. Get rid of Wolfram & Hart -- check. Perform an obscure ritural to turn the world into a demon playground, even if it doesn't make sense for the food supply -- check. Taunt the good guys about their love lives -- check. Plus, mysteriously return from a hell dimension. Check, and hmm.

[> Great work, SK Lots of goodness on the God, but JOHN Belushi died, James is alive & well.:) -- Briar Rose, 01:22:07 01/23/03 Thu

[> Family ties........ -- Rufus, 05:28:22 01/23/03 Thu

Only the totems know their purpose.....hmmmmm and Manny called Mesektet (little girl in the White Room who liked trouble but not chaos) family. Makes one consider the yin and yang of families. Manny, "Manjet, sacred guardian of the Shen, keeper of the orb of Ma'at and devotee of light. So, does that mean that Mesektet and her kitty cat sibling were devotee's of darkness? If so what does destroying them do to the order of things?

[> [> Re: Family ties........ -- Scroll, 08:50:24 01/23/03 Thu

Manny called Mesektet (little girl in the White Room who liked trouble but not chaos) family. Makes one consider the yin and yang of families.

Yeah, I noticed this too. Considering the importance of family in Angel, I think this is a pretty telling statement. No matter how angry Angel is with Cordelia and Connor, they're still his familiy. Wesley might've been an outcast but when push comes to shove, he's with the Fang Gang trying to stop the apocalypse. They're all so different, with various strengths and weaknesses. Hopefully the gang will start pulling together for real. I think we'll see Connor and Cordelia coming back the hotel soon. (I don't know this for certain, it's just an educated guess, no spoilers.)

If Manny is a representation of Angel with a soul, then maybe the other Ra-tet totems are metaphors for other things in the Angelverse. For example, Angela in a thread below talks about the different Egyptian gods.

Angela wrote:

"According to the legends, [Sekhmet] came into being when Hathor was sent to earth by Ra to take vengeance on man. She was the one who slaughtered mankind and drank their blood, only being stopped by trickery (this story can be found under Hathor's story). She was, thus, the destructive side of the sun, and a solar goddess and given the title Eye of Ra."

This seems to describe Angelus pretty well, though there is more to Sekhmet (see Angela's post) that doesn't fit Angelus.

"*Ma'at* Goddess of Truth, Balance, Order...
Ma'at, unlike Hathor and Nephthys, seemed to be more of a concept than an actual goddess. Her name, literally, meant 'truth' in Egyptian. She was truth, order, balance and justice personified. She was harmony, she was what was right, she was what things should be. It was thought that if Ma'at didn't exist, the universe would become chaos, once again!"

I'm reminded of Angel's words to Connor in "Deep Down" about how nothing in the world is the way it ought to be, but that Champions are the ones who show the world what it can be.

I can see how destroying these totems, even the evil little Mesektet, would destroy the balance and order of the world. End destruction.

[> [> [> ^ Oops, spoilers for all aired eps in post above -- Scroll, 08:58:48 01/23/03 Thu

[> All the world's a stage (Spoilers Tonight's Ats) -- ponygirl, 09:51:39 01/23/03 Thu

I have to say that visually this was one of the best AtS episodes I've ever seen, and this show has always been known for its wonderful lighting and framing.

One shot is really sticking with me, especially in light of all the O'Neill stuff you bring up sk. The image of Angel and Cordelia sitting in two matching chairs, separate but side by side under the broad proscenium-like arch in Gwen's pad. Earlier they had sat in two matching chairs in Angel's room, so the repetition is notable. What did it mean to have the two of them perched on those chairs and frozen in that frame? They are connected because the chairs match but clearly separated, their positions are equal but possibly opposed. It reminded me of Gertrude and Claudius in some versions of Hamlet. Or of the Emperor and Empress cards in the Tarot.

I'm actually thinking of watching the episode again with the sound off, there seems to be a whole other visual language going on.

[> [> Re: All the world's a stage (Spoilers Tonight's Ats) -- shadowkat, 13:32:13 01/23/03 Thu

Agree on the visual language.

The scene where we see Gwen again - it's dimly lit, sort of flat, deserted, creepy landscape, with three people isolated on the plain. First Gwen. Then the shaman, all in dark tone, with gold costume, then just when the shaman considers killing Gwen - the Beast kills the shaman.
The way it was filmed was elegant and creepy at the same time. It also made me feel Gwen's sense of isolation.

Also Gwen's pad - isolated, enclosed, claustrophobic. No windows. Only one or two doors. Getting there - cramped hallways and stairs with a voice over by Cordy complaining about it when she says she found the place. Okay here's a tatic Ats has adopted recently that I'm beginning to love, interlaping exposition with actual action. Instead of having a scene where Cordy complains about the apartment in the hotel, they banter, then we go to the stairwell and climb up to it in silence. They overlap the banter and Cordy's complaint over them climbing the stairwell. Exceedingly well done.

You're comment about the sitting. Gwen and Gunn in contrast aren't both sitting. Gwen is pacing. Talking. And when Gunn doesn't respond - she asks if she's boring him or if he doesn't forgive her for killing him. Gunn says no, was spacing out and she kneels in front of him and discusses Wes and Fred with him. They interact in the scene.

In Cordy/Angel - we have two sitting, turned away from each other and drinking. Gunn and Gwen weren't drinking.
Next scene - and it's blurred frame before it - they are being woken up, we're clearly still in Cordy and Angel's pov here. Brillantly done.

This is one of numerous reasons that Angel The Series is blowing me away this season.

[> [> [> Interesting...and I read the stuff above -- shadowkat, 13:58:34 01/23/03 Thu

Thanks for the Egyptian stuff in response to Finn above.
Seems to fit in with some thoughts I've had.

Not sure what to make of most of this myself quite yet.

But the whole Yeats poem and the story by Achebe fell very true to what is going on in both Btvs and Ats. Except Btvs is taking the lighter take and Ats the darker, more noirish one.

I like this :The chi is an individual's personal god, whose merit is determined by the individual's good fortune or lack thereof. Along the lines of this interpretation, one can explain Okonkwo's tragic fate as the result of a problematic chi-a thought that occurs to Okonkwo at several points in the novel. For the clan believes, as the narrator tells us in Chapter Fourteen, a "man could not rise beyond the destiny of his chi." But there is another understanding of chi that conflicts with this definition. In Chapter Four, the narrator relates, according to an Igbo proverb, that "when a man says yes his chi says yes also." According to this understanding, individuals will their own destinies.

It's an odd melding of personal choice and destiny that make sense somehow and I think is a theme in both series.
Angel has a destiney - but it is willed by him and the direction it goes, is up to him. When his will is removed, aka House Always Wins - the destiny goes to whomover the House chooses. But Angel gives up his will. Same with the vamping - when Liam and William succumb to being vamped they give up their will and give themselves over to darkness, to the destructive "fire" that: Just as fire feeds on itself until all that is left is a pile of ash, Okonkwo eventually succumbs to his intense rage, allowing it to rule his actions until it destroys him.

Similarily - the actions of Spike and Angelus are destructive.

Trying my hand at this, but uncertain:

***Superhero refs many, many...I think I counted eight.

Each were pretty snarky as well. My take? Is it is meant in an ironic sense. Again the theme about "power", they superhero has power - but has a flaw that can demolish him or her. Angel and Gwen both have power but if they touch anyone they demolish the person they love. Gwen fries the person with her touch. Angel has a moment of happiness and becomes Angelus - evil incarnate or he can kill you with a bite. Both can be contained - Angel with sunlight and crosses, Gwen without no electricity to plug into.

Neither are true heros - both tend to do for themselves first, their are reluctant or reformed or anti-hero.

***three refs to the sea

Angel was sunk at the bottom of the sea in Deep Down. The sea is known as a cleansing influence and a watery grave, where we are forgotten. A untamed force of nature.

***O'Neill's LDJ (there's a sea refs in the play too)the rest is down below in another thread

The family that swallows itself whole?

***Lorne offering blood that taste fresh from the jungular and then reminding Angel of loss of bliss ie Angelus

Lorne reminding us of Angel's addiction --which the beast could be using against him, blood, a parallel to the FE and Spike, and reminding us of what can turn Angelus loose.
Better to have you broody than happy.

***Fred reminding us the Red Girl is evil

The Beast - is devoring totems regardless of their good/evil state.

***The Beast is awfully good at manipulating for a Beast

Perhaps the Beast is not a Beast so much as A Devil?

Burned out...and no time...leaving the rest to someone else. ;-)

Thoughts on Angel 4.9 (no spoilers for the 4.10 promo, though!) -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:27:34 01/22/03 Wed

Just a few random thoughts:

1) Angel was sketching the Beast early in this episode. And in "Ground State" he made some excellent sketches of Cordelia and the Axis of Pythia. I'm wondering if anyone else was reminded of the sketchings he left in "Passion" to make his killings much more creepy.

2) There were an awful lot of mentions of superheroes or superpowers in this episode. While "Angel" is in no way foreign to such references, it just seemed to kick into gear with Gwen back in the picture.

3) Why did Angel give the Axis to Gwen? I mean, I know she isn't evil in the way that most demons are, but she is still a professional thief. I'd at least expect he wouldn't just give it to her.

4) Wow, the beast certainly isn't low profile. First it kills a dozen or so celebrity-esque people, causes fire to rain down on LA, slaughters hundreds of Wolfram & Hart employees (who presumably have friends or family wondering where they are; and people might get suspicious if a well known, though not respected, law firm suddenly dissapears), then we find out that the fires and earthquakes it caused have killed literally THOUSANDS of people, and now it's blotted out the sun in LA, and soon the world. I'm wondering if ME is going to do an arc where the public at large is forced to acknowledge the existence of the supernatural (if the "bump in the night" things really do take over, they'll have to in order to live).

5) Turns out that the White Room girl was the method Wolfram & Hart used to contact the Senior Partners. Does this mean that W & H's influence on earth is gone? DOUBT IT! The Senior Partners will find another way, or the surviving lawyers across the world will find some other way. I've got a feeling Season 5 will see the return of Wolfram & Hart stronger than ever. And, at the very least, they have branches in other dimensions that could send some of their staff over to rebuild Wolfram & Hart on earth.

6) When they mentioned the fourth Ra-Tet member was in death valley, and we saw that other guy, I figured he was a tourist in the wrong place at the wrong time. I know it's bunk, but it's just a vibe I got.

7) Have "Buffy" or "Angel" used actual figures from mythology before? I mean, there are references to gods, but never any gods that existed in an earthly pantheon. Ususally they rely on their own mythology. The Ra references are thus peculiar, and could anyone tell me if there really is an Egyptian myth about the Ra-Tet?

8) I know that the detective genre has gotten less relevent to Angel with time, but when the last Ra-Tet was killed, and the conclusion was "it's impossible", I got a sort of "locked-room mystery feel".

9) The Beast didn't kill Angel or Cordelia, even when they were unconcious, and it could have snapped Connor's neck instead of throwing him out a window (which it had to know wouldn't kill him). So the Beast either wants the AI team alive, or it has the old stand-by of being so confident it doesn't bother to kill them. Of course, the end of episode revelation gives this some new undertones, which brings me too. . .

10) I loved how they revealed what Cordelia's visions were about. The intercutting between her recollection and Angel facing the Beast were wonderfully done. And the moment when the Beast says ". . . Angelus" and we cut to the Angelus of long, long ago. That was a great moment.

11) On a related note, did anyone else get sort of a sleeper agent deja vu when Wesley talked about the Beast having a power over Angel? Just wondering.

12) Lastly, the most potentially important line of the episode, the Beast tells Angel/us "our power is incomplete apart", or something to that same effect. So the Beast, despite his awesome power, needs Angelus, or at least wants him for something. Yet more impending doom on the horizon.

Those be my thoughts. Comments, questions, nitpicks?

[> on #7.... -- Briar, 01:13:50 01/23/03 Thu

There is a Raatet but I haven't seen it layed out in precisely this type of; Human, Animal, Spirit, Earth, Sky arrangement and the Scarab is Immortality and can be used for almost any if the Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. I don't remember it being used for Raa though as a personal symbol. Bastet, Isis and Osiris are more commonly associated with the Scarab and it was a sign of the Kings.

Sure they have - Buffy and Angel have used Hecate, Osiris, Isis, Bastet, Horus and many other ACTUAL Gods and Goddesses of many different theologies. In fact that is one of the reasons I enjoy the show. Granted they tended to ignore the underlying reality and theology of Wicca and Witchcraft to often which was a downer at times..... They are getting better at that and it makes me very happy.

Reading the fan sites devoted to Willow, Jenny, Tara and the Magickal side of BtVS and Angel show many more references that are harder to catch in the actual lines and representations found on both shows.

Raa was the Egyptian God of the Sun and took responsibility for it's path acoss the sky, thus letting life continue. It fits perfectly with the story they are telling on Angel.

[> [> and on #3... (spoilers) -- KKC, 01:55:14 01/23/03 Thu

About Angel giving the artifact back to Gwen? That was the agreement they struck when he was negotiating the use of the Axis. Gwen stole it 'fair and square,' and Angel just wanted to borrow it briefly (and it didn't matter from whom.) It was probably an easy decision to make, given that the Axis was owned by evil forces, and Gwen isn't 'evil' per se, but maybe amoral.

In Angel's world, the many shades of grey force the good guys to make compromises that look terrible when viewed out of context. Giving up the Axis turned a potential enemy into a potential ally, as we saw in last night's episode. What's $33 million between two folks with superpowers anyway?

-KKC, wondering if Angel is a popular enough show to spin off a video game. An RPG, maybe?

[> [> Re: on #7....and Ma'at (longish) -- Angela, 06:20:44 01/23/03 Thu

Most recently on BTVS Minerva and Athena (Althenea) and the Plieades, although this later may be a reference to the chanelling thing.

Re: the Egypt references here's a place to start, Joss does funky stuff with spellings so his refs aren'e always easy to track, plus some like turok-han come from video games not myth but here goes :

*Ra* is the father of the gods and the creator of Egypt. Ra ruled wisely and Egypt prospered for 360 years until he began to show signs of aging. He began to shake and dribble and soon lost the respect of both man and god alike. Unrest broke out and harvests failed and Ra decided to give up the mortal world and retire to the heavens where he lives in the glorious sunboat, *Manjet* by day and by night sails through the underworld in *Masektet* to bring light to the souls of the dead.

When Osiris (I threw this in because of the nod to Angel as Osiris with the "fish in the sea" reminder from Lorne also a Fisher-King ref), the great-grandson of Ra came to the throne of Egypt he found that the population were highly uncivilized and barbaric, fighting, killing and even eating one another. He went out amongst his people and taught them what to eat and how to grow food. He introduced laws and taught the people how to worship the gods.

*Sekhmet*, Powerful One, Sun Goddess, Destructor...

"The good god, the lord of action, Neb-Ma'at-Ra [Amenhotep III], Beloved of Sekhmet, the Mistress of Dread, who gives life eternally. The son of the God Ra of His own body, Amenhotep, ruler of Waset (Thebes), Beloved of Sekhmet, the Mistress of Dread, Who gives life eternally."
-- Inscription on a statue of Sekhmet

The lion-headed goddess Sekhmet (Sakhmet, Sekhet) was a member of the Memphite Triad, thought to be the wife of Ptah and mother of Nefertem (though the motherhood of Nefertem was in dispute - Bast and Wadjet (Edjo) were touted as his mother in their respective cities).

Associated with war and retribution, she was said to use arrows to pierce her enemies with fire, her breath being the hot desert wind as her body took on the glare of the midday sun. She represented the destructive force of the sun.

According to the legends, she came into being when Hathor was sent to earth by Ra to take vengeance on man. She was the one who slaughtered mankind and drank their blood, only being stopped by trickery (this story can be found under Hathor's story). She was, thus, the destructive side of the sun, and a solar goddess and given the title Eye of Ra.
Being mother of Nefertem, who himself was a healing god, gives her a more protective side that manifested itself in her aspect of goddess of healing and surgery. Part of her destruction side was also disease and plague, as the 'Lady of Pestilence'... but she could also cure said ailments. The priests of Sekhmet were specialists in the field of medicine, arts linked to ritual and magic. They were also trained surgeons of remarkable caliber.

*Ma'at* Goddess of Truth, Balance, Order...
Ma'at, unlike Hathor and Nephthys, seemed to be more of a concept than an actual goddess. Her name, literally, meant 'truth' in Egyptian. She was truth, order, balance and justice personified. She was harmony, she was what was right, she was what things should be. It was thought that if Ma'at didn't exist, the universe would become chaos, once again!

For the Egyptian believed that the universe was above everything else an ordered and rational place. It functioned with predictability and regularity; the cycles of the universe always remained constant; in the moral sphere, purity was rewarded and sin was punished. Both morally and physically, the universe was in perfect balance.

Ma'at was reality, the solid grounding of reality that made the Sun rise, the stars shine, the river flood and mankind think. The universe itself, all the world around them, was sacred in the ancient view. "Ethics" is an issue of human will and human permission. It is a function of the human world of duality. What is "ethical" for one group is sin for another. But Ma'at, the reality that made all groups what they are is transcendent of ethics, just as a rock or a flower is amoral, a-ethical, without "truth or falsehood." How can a flower be "false" or "ethical." It just is. How can the universe be "ethical or moral, right or wrong"? It simply is. That is Ma'at. Despite being a winged goddess (like Nephthys), she was judge at the Egyptian underworld at the Halls of Ma'ati or Halls of the Double Ma'at. The dead person's heart was placed on a scale, balanced by Ma'at herself, or by the Feather of Ma'at (her symbol that she wore on her head was an ostrich feather).

This meant that the concept of "truth" meant for the Egyptian the the rational and orderly working of the universe rather than its diverse phenomena. The Egyptian, then, believed that he or she understood how the universe operated; all phenomena could be explained by an appeal to this understanding of the rationality of the universe. I cannot emphasize strongly enough how important this concept of ma'at is to subsequent history. This idea that the universe is rational and that the "truth" of the universe is the underlying rationality and order of the universe rather than its diverse phenomena, passed from the Egyptians to the Greeks. The Greeks called the underlying order of the universe, logos, or "meaning," "order," "pattern."

The early Christians adopted the logos in order to explain the moral order of the universe; the first line of the Gospel of John is, "In the beginning was the logos , and the logos was with God, etc." But the concept for the Greeks and the Christians was more or less the same as ma'at . The Egyptians believed that the ma'at of the universe was a god that benevolently ruled all aspects-human, material, and divine-of the universe; the Christians would likewise make the underlying rationality of the universe into God: "And the logos was God."

Although the Ancient Egyptians did not give us a clear definition is given of ma'at, they believed that ma'at could not be taught, but that only through living and constantly abiding by ma'at could they realize and fully understand ma'at. In essence, it is only through living ma'at, can one understand ma'at.

The concept of ma'at is the foundation of all order in Creation; it is the basis for life--socially and spiritually. Everything within Nature is aligned by ma'at: the movement of the stars, the rotation of the planets, the growing cyles of plants, the lives of animals, the flowing of the rivers, and the changing of the seasons.

And everything is subject to ma'at, including the Neteru themselves.

In the First Time, ma'at was the prevailing force that kept isfet (chaos/disorder) in check. However, with the passing of the First Time, ma'at had to be constantly established and maintained, especially within human society; unfortunately, humans were prone to move towards isfet, which deteriorates ma'at.

The concept of ma'at affected the morality of the Ancient Egyptians. Ancient Egyptian texts (from the First Intermediate Period) instruct the people to keep ma'at, to do ma'at and to speak ma'at. If one were to consistently try to achieving ma'at, one was guaranteed a journey to the West.

No on reaches the salutory West unless their heart is righteous by doing ma'at. -Petosiris

The concept of ma'at was just not about order in Creation, but was also tied to social order. In Kemet, it was one of the duties of the Pharoah to establish and maintain ma'at and keep isfret from arising. In other words, to maintain order within the society, within Kemet, and within all of Creation. Because humans tend to stray towards isfet, social order is affected by isfet. Like order in Creation, social order needed to be constantly attuned and connected with ma'at.

Order (regardless of within the social structure or Creation) must be constantly re-established and actvely reaized time and time again. It is only through proper behavior and active engagement is that ma'at is obtained.
However, ma'at cannot be so rigid that it restricts all forms of behavior. The concept of ma'at is a free-flowing idea with certain guidelines, as shown in the Negative Confessions.

Isfet
The Ancient Egyptians did not believe that isfet could be completely obliterated. They understood that isfet would always exist, and that people would always be susceptible to isfet; isfet would exist as long as humans exist. Ma'at only seeks to balance out the destruction that isfet causes. They believed that evil, lies, injustice, and irrationality (elements of isfet) are only successful in the short-term, and "...if the end has come , Ma'at remains." (Ptah Hotep).

However, even the Ancient Egyptian did not view isfet in the same way that modern people view "evil."

Ma'at imposes obligations on all of the social classes; some more than others. Those who had higher social standings have a bigger responsibilities to ma'at and to those people who were below them. (The Pharoah had one of the biggest responsibilites to uphold and be ma'at.) People who had to constantly struggle to survive had less of a responsibility to uphold ma'at versus someone who had plenty.

A concept that comes closely to the concept of ma'at is karma. The concept of ma'at strives to balance out the forces of isfet, and to keep them at bay because that strive to constantly destroy the order of society and Creation.

Apologies that I was in too much of a rush to annotate.

[> [> [> Wow, very helpful and interesting! -- Scroll, 08:26:36 01/23/03 Thu

*Ma'at* Goddess of Truth, Balance, Order...
Ma'at, unlike Hathor and Nephthys, seemed to be more of a concept than an actual goddess. Her name, literally, meant 'truth' in Egyptian. She was truth, order, balance and justice personified. She was harmony, she was what was right, she was what things should be. It was thought that if Ma'at didn't exist, the universe would become chaos, once again!

(Paraphrasing) Angel in "Deep Down": "Nothing is the way it ought to be. The world is harsh, cruel. But that's why there's us. Champions. To show the world what it ought to be, to show it what it can be."

Angel is definitely a "champion" of Order, which is probably why the Little Red Girl saved him from the Beast.

[> [> [> [> Remember what she said in the White Room -- Rufus, 20:33:42 01/23/03 Thu

Girl: "They were all about torture and death. You can relate. Well, they caused a lot of trouble. Don't get me wrong. I like trouble. But I hate chaos. So we changed 'em." from Forgiving

Manny said they were family the five.......so were the five the we that changed Sahjhan made him immaterial? I made a post about order in respect to Buffy.....it's all connected to Angel.....order, magic, love.

[> [> [> Thanks again-great stuff. -- Arethusa, 09:02:02 01/23/03 Thu

It's fascinating how belief systems develop from the physical world of the believers. The Egyptians saw the (relatively) orderly and dependable flooding of the Nile evry year, bringing them the silt that grew crops and let them create a complex society. Less hospitable environments helped create angrier, less dependable gods.

[> [> [> Stuff for Rob to save for the day when... -- Masq, 11:03:10 01/23/03 Thu

He finally gets to annotating "Long Day's Journey". Methinks sometime in 2020?

[> on #2 ... -- neaux, 04:33:34 01/23/03 Thu

As great as it is to have Gwen back..

her lack of ability to do anything remotely relevant with her powers in fighting the Beast was a MAJOR LET DOWN.

Was there even a Spark???

[> On #9 (spoiler 4.9) -- Angela, 05:42:24 01/23/03 Thu

He also didn't kill Gwen.

[> I forgot #13! -- Finn Mac Cool, 06:29:10 01/23/03 Thu

13) Lorne said to Angel "Sure you couldn't find perfect happiness with Cordelia, but there are plenty of other fish in the sea". Did anyone else find this phrasing odd since Lorne should know perfect (or "true") happiness isn't exactly the best thing for Angel?

[> Re: Thoughts on Angel 4.9 (no spoilers for the 4.10 promo, though!) -- Kay, 09:35:14 01/23/03 Thu

#2 It does seem that Angel and Gwen make a lot of superpower references. Maybe an ode to her being very X-men-ish. And it's a way of showing and expressing their connection, especially for Gwen, both of them being 'freaks' For Angel it was also a way to push Cordy's buttons, since she was obviously jealous and snippy.

#8 Very much had a body in the (typically English looking) library vibe. And like all good mysteries, the culprit is the last person you would suspect.

#9 & #12 Well, the AI really hasn't done much damage to the Beast, so he has reason to be confident. Also, perhaps the Beast doesn't know that Angel is a good guy now or that he doesn't remember him and while the Beast may want to eliminate the competition, he may not want to eliminate a recuit. Also they didn't show what Angelus's answer to the Beast's offer was, but there is a good indication that he may not have said yes.

[> Re: Thoughts on Angel 4.9 -- maddog, 11:58:39 01/23/03 Thu

I think he gave it back to her because he knew she'd protect it from the likes of Wolfram and Hart. She may be a theif but she knows who the real bad guys are.

Those Wolfram and Hart employees may not be normal. Hell, they turned into mummies when he did kill them. My guess is that they're possibly manufactured people. No strings, no baggage.

If Angel and Cordy weren't in the room that lead to where the last of the Ra-Tet was I'd say you're mystery theory would have been more prevalent..but the fact of the matter is there were two people in that room on watch. It throws off the possibilities.

I'd say the reason he didn't kill them is because he knows they can be useful. Remember, he said, "you don't have to fight me".

And the most important part of the show...the fact that they dedicated such a powerful and revealing episode to Glenn. I really thought that was great.

[> [> On #3 -- Vickie, 13:25:27 01/23/03 Thu

I thought the implication was that Gwen had sold the Axis to pay for her swank pad. Not that she was protecting it from anything.

[> [> [> Re: On #3 -- Tess, 15:44:19 01/23/03 Thu

""I thought the implication was that Gwen had sold the Axis to pay for her swank pad. Not that she was protecting it from anything.""

I think Gwen had the pad before she was given the axis. Afterall, she does love a hefty commission. I took Angel's comment about the Axis to be a jab at Cordy because Gwen has the wealth that Cordy's been wanting to regain since the start of Angel.

Buffy vs. Xander : Metis vs. Sophia (spoilers thru to Potential) -- Matthew, 21:02:06 01/22/03 Wed

This episode puts on display one of the key differences between Buffy and
Xander, and one of the things that could eventually get Buffy killed.

In Greek, there are two words that are usually translated into English as
wisdom: metis and sophia. But they have divergent meanings.

Metis is, in fact, one of the defining features of Buffy and all the
Scoobies. It can be thought of as "cunning wisdom," the ability to get out
of tough situations with a quick plan. We see the Scoobies use metis
constantly, in every clever quip and bad-guy smashing plan. One of the best
examples of metis is Buffy's killing Kralick with holy water while she was
powerless. Metis is associated with exactly that kind of cunning. It should
also be obvious that metis is essential to the long-term survival of the
vampire slayer.

(To go on an off-topic ramble, Athena, the Greek goddess of wisdom, was
born when Zeus slept with the titaness Metis. When she turned out to be
pregnant, Zeus turned Metis into a fly and ate her, because of a prophecy
that any son of hers would be greater than the father. A little while
later, Zeus was walking with Hephestaus, craftsman and token ugly god, when
he got a splitting headache. "Hey, Hephestaus, would you mind smashing my
skull open to let out the pain?" Zeus said. A hammer blow later, Zeus's
skull was cracked wide, and Athena stepped out full grown and wearing
armour. She was later the patron of Odysseus, who built the Trojan horse,
blinded and tricked the cyclops and appeared at his own house in disguise
to polish off Penelope's suitors. Metis kicks ass.)

The other kind of wisdom is a more spiritual variety, called sophia. The
most common ancient use of this term was religious, as in The Spirit of the
Holy Wisdom. This abstract idea was revered almost as a seperate deity by
early Christians and Jews. Hence the biggest and grandest church in
Constantinople, built by the great Emperor Justininan in the 500s AD, was
the Hagia Sophia, dedicated to holy wisdom.

>From general context, sophia can be seen as "wisdom of the heart," or
"wisdom tempered by compassion" and that's how I'm using it here to compare
Xander and Buffy.

I have to admit, I love what the creators have done with Xander's character
since the third season. Before this, Xander was deficient in both metis and
sophia. He was the crappiest fighter, had no superpowers and wasn't
necessarily all that caring towards his friends. His failing to tell Buffy
about Willow's soul-return spell at the end of season two was an example of
that lack.

Then, around the time of The Zeppo, Xander all of a sudden has an epiphany
and starts to become the Heart he has been ever since. His defeat of the
zombies was an example of metis, but his decision not to tell anyone about
it is his first act of sophia. It doesn't matter whether the other Scoobies
know about his victory, what is important is whether Xander knows he can
make a difference.

In The Freshman, Xander begins a tradition, now into its third season, of
keeping the other Scoobies on track emotionally. It is Xander, not Giles or
Willow, who gives Buffy the strength to take out Sunday. He is the Heart
when they call on the First Slayer. He tries to help Buffy avert the Riley
catastrophe, and comforts her when she fails. The Yellow Crayon Speech
saved the world. And most recently, he gave Dawn the three-hankie speech at
the end of Potential.

Not that Xander is perfect in that regard, as we saw when he dumped Anya at
the alter. But even there, he was doing it out of a misguided attempt to
protect her, not for his own selfish reasons.

Buffy, on the other hand, lacks sophia. To put it bluntly, she has a stupid
heart. How many times has she made exactly the wrong emotional decision,
and gone with it anyway? (Angel, Parker, Riley, Spike. That's four times
right there.) In fact, her heart-on-her-sleeve method of dealing with the
world may have actually reduced her store of sophia. Toward the end of
season five, she told the Scoobies that she sent Angel to hell, but she
can't do that again. She can't kill Dawn, she would rather see the world
ripped in two. Of course, this kind of character leads to much drama. A
lead character who always made the right emotional decision wouldn't be
much fun to watch.

The same lack of sophia holds true for most of the other Scoobies. Willow
is definitely deficient in that respect. To solve her problems, she has
tried to use grand gestures (trying to seduce Oz after her dalliance with
Xander) or magic (most of seasons six, parts of season five and four). She
is now coming to a kind of middle path that seems to be leading her to
wisdom.

Tara was a character with a good grasp of sophia. Too bad no one listened
to her until it was too late.

I may be nuts, but I think Anya could actually be fairly wise, in a sophia
way. When she can find the right words, she sums up things very well, and
she is definitely the show's designated truth speaker right now. She also
had the most profound thing to say about the death of Joyce in The Body.
What she lacks is human experience, and she's accumulating that as fast as
anyone else.

Back to Buffy... from her recent actions, it seems like her lack of sophia
may be undermining her again. She doesn't seem to see how she's getting
caught up in the battle, and the effects it may be having on both the
potential slayers and her own family and friends (Dawn abandonment again,
hasn't noticed if Giles is alive or dead). My speculation for the end of
the series, maybe the end of this year, is that Buffy will have to
eventually learn a bit more wisdom of the heart. If she does, she might be
able to finally balance her slaying with her personnal life. In fact, she
might learn it by trying to teach it to the potentials. They say the best
way to learn anything...

[> I agree with this. -- HonorH, 23:12:19 01/22/03 Wed

One thing that worries me currently is that Buffy may be swinging away from the decision that saved the world in S5, her greatest moment of sophia. She's a great field general, and she's certainly doing her best with the potentials. BTW, speaking as a sincere Dawn fan, I have to say I don't think Buffy's abandoning or ignoring her again. That perception was Dawn's, and by the end, she'd accepted that the potentials, who are in immediate danger, have to take priority for now.

Back from digression: I absolutely think the collision of Buffy's heart and her head will be central to this season. As the Slayer, she's at the top of her game. But I don't think the Slayer will defeat the First. Buffy may foil its plans, but not as the Slayer. Just my completely-unspoiled feelings.

[> I like this, but have one disagreement -- luna, 08:27:59 01/23/03 Thu

I think that perhaps "Wisdom of the Heart" is wiser than it appears, and that Buffy, at least now in her relation to Spike, is showing it. I would think that "Wisdom of the Heart" does not mean picking the right lover (as in self-help books, etc.) but seeing where true friendship and compassion lie, caring not about your own happiness but how you can help someone else, and I believe that is what is happening now. with Buffy and Spike: she sees the man now, not the monster, and is no longer drowning in self-destructive sex but is reaching out to someone who has literally been to hell to become a better person. That seems like real sophia to me. That is heart.

Slayers' Legacy (spoilers thru to Potentials and Fray comic) -- Matthew, 21:04:08 01/22/03 Wed

Just like to point out a link between Potential and Fray (yes, spoilers for
both. Go read the comic.)

Last night for the first time, we see that even potential slayers have
access to some "slayer powers." They seem to have a rudimentary ability to
fight, at least when under pressure. That fits with what we know about the
slayers' legacy in the pages of Fray, by Mr. Joss Whedon himself.

In Fray, the young slayer has all the strength, speed and fast healing that
Buffy possesses. But she has nothing else. What else is there, you say?
Well, there are the natural fighting abilities. Buffy has martial arts
skills she has never been taught. Slayers also have an intuitive
understanding of archaic weapons. This could be because other slayers in
the past have been taught those skills, and they are passed along. For
example, future slayers after Buffy might all know how to operate a rocket
launcher without being told. Then there are the prophetic dreams.

In Fray, the slayer legacy has been split because the slayer was born with
a twin brother. He's now a vampire, and has access to her prophetic dreams
and slayer lore, making him a tough monster. And if Dark Horse can actually
tie down the artist and MAKE HIM FINISH THE LAST TWO DAMN ISSUES, WE'LL ALL
KNOW HOW IT ENDED!!! And I can stop writing in caps.

Now, it seems that this division between the physical powers and the legacy
is more discrete than we have been told. The potentials automatically have
the legacy, in part. The change from potential to true slayer is only one
of degree.

That begs a few questions. Does the legacy go away after the potentials
pass a certain age, or will they have it until they die? Imagine being a
potential who never know she was one, having a strange itch in the back of
your mind, a restlessness, a belief that you have a great purpose, but
never knowning what it is? Interesting.

I should mention here my lovely and intelligent girlfriend Amber's theory
that Buffy might voluntarily give up her powers to end the series. She
might divide the power among the remaining potentials, so there is no "one"
slayer anymore, but a group of somewhat powerful young women working
together. That would nicely subvert the First Slayer's "we are alone"
attitude and Buffy's constant Peter Parker refrain. ("I wish I'd never been
bitten by that radioactive spider! No one else understands! Sob!") It could
also undo the metaphysical upset that Buffy's resurrection caused... maybe.

[> Two big ideas here (spoilers thru to Potentials and Fray comic) -- pr10n, 22:53:28 01/22/03 Wed

[Someday, when ATPoBtVS poster roll is called up yonder, I shall proclaim THIS to be my favorite topic -- "Whatever shall happen to Buffy?" And no I don't want to wait 11 eps to find out, but I probably will.]

I found two ideas in this great post that were new (to me) and think-making:

1. The change from potential to true slayer is only one of degree. Five or six or seven potentials who have at least rudimentary ideas about fighting evil AND some idea of their powers, led by Buffy et al., may just be a severely evil-butt-kicking group. I mean if Amanda can JediKnight her way through Bonches de Bringers with half a flagpole and a little backup, then the Scoobies have better odds.

2. Buffy might voluntarily give up her powers to end the series. Me likey. No death, no Hellmouth cork, no reset or retcon... just, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Former!). That might be a fine reward for her service and sacrifice and leadership -- a normal life. Babies? Weight gain? Maybe she'd welcome the change. Marriage to a handsome comic-book collector? Eh?

[Cue RantMode: Like that hasn't been done enough yet... Highlander! Uh, uh, Sheri S. Tepper! Uh, SHANE fercrisake!

Rising boom shot of XANDER in dusty Sunnydale street.
XANDER: Buffy! BUUUUFFFY! Come back, Buffy!
Long shot over Xander's shoulder as Buffy walks out of Sunnydale...

Sorry. Even I'm embarassed.]

[> [> Re: Two big ideas here (spoilers thru to Potentials and Fray comic) -- Rahael, 04:27:48 01/23/03 Thu

That might be a fine reward for her service and sacrifice and leadership -- a normal life. Babies? Weight gain? Maybe she'd welcome the change. Marriage to a handsome comic-book collector? Eh?

LOLOL

[> Great post! -- Rahael, 04:26:01 01/23/03 Thu

A lot of interesting ideas and information. I'm eager to learn about Fray, mostly because you can kind of understand how Joss thinks about the Buffyverse, and the Slayer nature, but tangentially.

[> Don't hold your breath for Fray anytime before the season/series finale. -- Rufus, 05:05:41 01/23/03 Thu

Soon it will become clear why.

[> [> Re: Don't hold your breath for Fray anytime before the season/series finale. -- darrenK, 05:40:28 01/23/03 Thu

It had occured to me that maybe there would be something in the last two issues of Fray that had to wait to be seen.

Do you know something I don't?

dK

[> [> [> Fray and Buffy.........spoiler about a connection between the two. -- Rufus, 07:37:33 01/23/03 Thu

Nope, all I know is that Joss had lots on his plate and the last issues have been delayed twice. However there is something coming up that supports something that has already happened in Fray.

[> [> [> [> Observations about Fray, Buffy and Angel (Spoilers for Fray issues 1-6) -- darrenK, 17:32:12 01/23/03 Thu

After reading this thread I went back to reread Fray issues 1-6 and I noticed a few things that are awfully interesting...

1. In the much-discussed issue#3 panel where a shadowed slayer, presumed to be Buffy, faces down the demon hordes in a final showdown, the demon at the back of the panel is almost identical to the beast in Angel.
2. The slayer in the panel mentioned above is referred to as "the last" to be called before Melaka Fray. This, of course, makes the shadowed slayer more likely to be Faith adding a level of irony to the current Buffy storyline as it means that none of the potentials who are being trained will become the Slayer.
3.Urkonn himself bears a strong resemblance to the Beast, including the cloven hooves.
4.The very first page of issue#1 shows a sun that is covered in darkness.
5.The demonic forces behind Urkonn want to stop the current vampire infestation until they are ready to make their own intrusion into the Earth. They are obviously hoping that Fray can seal the breach that allowed the vampire intrusion. How such a breach is sealed will have great bearing on the last few episodes of Buffy, if that is indeed when the original seal is put in place.
6. It is declared by Urkonn that "a slayer must be a leader in a time of war." A time of war is, of course, what's currently being faced in Buffy and what is about to start at the end of Fray#6. Since the season ending episode of Buffy is traditionally on the third Tueday in May-this year that will be May 20?and the Dark Horse website is listing the release date for the last issue of Fray as being May 21, 2003, then Fray and Buffy will be fighting wars to vanquish the forces of demondom in tandem. I realize that this wasn't supposed to be this way, the last two issues of Fray were due for release of a year ago, but considering that the two endings parallel each other I can't help but think that their interrelationship will be even more important.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Observations about Fray, Buffy and Angel (Spoilers for Fray issues 1-6) -- Wisewoman, 18:07:27 01/23/03 Thu

I have felt for some time that one of JW's greatest tricks was to fight back against all the spoiler leakage that he's purported to hate by blatantly revealing the biggest spoiler of them all, how BtVS will end, years before the final episode.

It's like he's saying, "You want spoilers? I'll give you spoilers! MWA-ha-ha-ha-ha!!"

;o)

[> [> [> [> [> [> The danger of the UberSpoiler (OT) -- pr10n, 19:07:19 01/23/03 Thu

Right on the money -- "Choke on that, you spoiler-teria types."

But herein lies a cautionary tale: Julian May's Remillard Saga.

I loved these books and wrote my own vampire fiction 15 years ago using some of May's style as my model (and lo, it did suck mightily). Julian May is a ferociously intelligent and well-read woman who wrote great dialog and super entertaining characters (YMMV). And she knew how to tell a story, with scope and action and sidebars and throwaways -- a lot like Joss, of course.

In Book 1 of Series 1 she told the end of the whole series, 8 books and 15 years later, because it was supposed to be "history" to the characters (as Buffy is history to Fray). Then in Book 4 of Series 1 she quotes the climactic scene of galactic battle, relays conversations between the principles... the EXACT ground she has to cover when she writes the final book some 12 years later.

And it doesn't quite work, for whatever reason: the sheer time between publications, or how well I knew the story (the "spoilage"), or how she changed as a person and a writer -- the last volume felt droopy compared to the other books. It still rocked, make no mistake, but the story lost a step somewhere.

Here endeth the lesson: I don't think Joss has the same issues. Less time will have passed between Fray and Buffy Exeunt, and the details of the "Last Slayer" and "Whatever She Does" are vagued up such that knives are out on this board and elsewhere.

One thing May had going for her, though: pretty much free rein on her story. No Kuzui, no WB/UPN, no Fury... well, ok Fury.

Let us pray that Joss is given carte blanche to finish strong. "MWA-ha-ha-ha-ha!!"

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the recommendation O/T -- Wisewoman, 19:41:32 01/23/03 Thu

I've read some Julian May and enjoyed it, but I haven't read the Remillard Saga. Didn't she do the Pleistocene Saga, or something like that? I loved that one.

I'll have to look for the Remillard Saga. Thanks!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: continues plug O/T and thanks gracious WW -- pr10n, 20:21:34 01/23/03 Thu

The Pliocene Exile books are Part 1 of the Remillard Saga, so you already started all unawares. Part 2 is called "Intervention" (in one volume hardback and two volumes paperback) about the near-future beginnings of super-psychic humanity, and the influence of the Remillard family (hence the name). Part 3 ("Jack the Bodiless", "Diamond Mask", and "Magnificat") are about humanity's entry in Galactic society.

Of course, wackiness ensues.

[Good Lord! I'm a geek! When did that happen?]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I always get those 'P' eras mixed up LOL! -- dub ;o), 20:49:23 01/23/03 Thu

[> I'm confused -- Sofdog, 07:07:10 01/23/03 Thu

What of Buffy's martial skills was not taught? In the early seasons we see her training with Giles all the time. In the later seasons there is heavy emphasis of her slacking off, then returning to training. And in S.5, "Checkpoint" the Watcher's Council tests her fighting skills and admonishes Giles for not having taught her by the book.

For that matter we've also seen evidence that Giles trained her in various weapons. Wasn't there an incident with a fighting staff, and then they moved on to the crossbow in Season 1? We never saw it, but at some point Giles must have trained her in swordfighting as well ("Becoming").

[> [> Re: I'm confused -- amber, 13:03:49 01/23/03 Thu

We've certainly seen Buffy practice with weapons, but have we ever seen her have trouble with a particular weapon? In most cases Giles would introduce something new, Buffy would reluctantly give it a try, and immediatly, with very little effort, kick Gile's butt with the new-weapon-of-the-week.

I've always felt the slayers have a sub-conscious knowledge about using weapons. The weapon training from the Watcher's council is just another way they make themselves feel important. We've seen plenty of examples of how the Watcher's (as a group, not Giles in particular) are completely out of touch with what goes on in the field of battle. Look at the stupid things that Quentin wants Buffy to do in Checkpoint. Fighting a vamp based on the Japanese words Giles yells at her? How effective is that, when the Slayer's natural reflexes are more reliable than anything Giles could tell her to do in the heat of battle.

I think in general the slayers have natural abilities, the most effective training is simply for them to get in shape, build up muscle, etc. We've never seen a slayer frustrated by a new weapon. They always find a way to use it, even if it isn't the correct way. What may not be sub-conscious is knowing how particular vamps or demons will fight, what their motives will be, etc. Providing that kind of knowledge is where the watchers are useful.

But I can certainly agree that there is likely a build up of knowledge, based on the collective slayer experience. It's possibly one of the reasons why slayers are so good at sensing when a vamp is nearby. Like in "Welcome to the Hellmouth", when Giles tries to give Buffy a bunch of advice on how to pick a vamp out in the Bronze and she basically looks around for a second and says "that one, he's a vampire." It's very likely that that ability is based on collective slayer knowledge.

[> [> [> Re: I'm confused -- Vickie, 13:53:29 01/23/03 Thu

amber said: "The weapon training from the Watcher's council is just another way they make themselves feel important. We've seen plenty of examples of how the Watcher's (as a group, not Giles in particular) are completely out of touch with what goes on in the field of battle. Look at the stupid things that Quentin wants Buffy to do in Checkpoint. Fighting a vamp based on the Japanese words Giles yells at her? How effective is that, when the Slayer's natural reflexes are more reliable than anything Giles could tell her to do in the heat of battle. "

I thought that was mostly the point. The WC was testing to see how well Buffy follows orders, not how well she fights. They learned she doesn't take orders too well, unless from someone she knows and trusts.

[> Another interesting idea here -- Arethusa, 08:35:40 01/23/03 Thu

That begs a few questions. Does the legacy go away after the potentials
pass a certain age, or will they have it until they die? Imagine being a
potential who never know she was one, having a strange itch in the back of
your mind, a restlessness, a belief that you have a great purpose, but
never knowning what it is? Interesting.

Rent "Unbreakable," starring Bruce Willis and directed by M. Night Shyamalan. That possibility is explored in the movie. It's really great.

[> Re: Slayers' Legacy (spoilers thru to Potentials and Fray comic) -- maddog, 09:37:29 01/23/03 Thu

That idea of Buffy giving up her powers has been suggested before....though the recepient was always thought to be Faith. But I like the idea of spread out powers. I just couldn't see them having no slayer at all. I also like the idea of her HAVING to give up the powers to save the world. Like her final gift would be to sacrafice the only life she's known for the past 7 years. The speculation alone gives me jitters.

question on slayer lineage and about spike -- shelby, 22:30:07 01/22/03 Wed

I am confused because the last couple episodes, buffy has eluded that if she dies another slayer will be called? now Kendra was called after buffy died the first time, then faith to replace kendra, wouldn't faith have to die before another is called regardless if buffy is dead or alive?

and this erks me that no one ever points out that even when spike didn't have a soul, he was still less evil then angelus. whats up with that...

[> You're right -- keriann, 06:04:44 01/23/03 Thu

You've got the lineage right... Hmmm...

Maybe the writers want us to forget about that so we can be sufficiently startled at something to come...

[> [> Re: You're right -- gds, 07:02:15 01/23/03 Thu

Actually there is room for doubt on this. This has NEVER been said in BtVS or Angel. This 'fact' of linage comes from an old interview with Joss. So there would be no story inconsistency with having Buffy still in the slayer linage. Furthermore, it could be argued that Buffy's mystical death/resurrection restored the linage lost in her non-mystical death/resuscitation. The First seems to believe that Buffy still has the slayer linage since it has been deliberately avoiding killing her. The most plausible explanation is that the irrevocable change in the slayer line is in fact that now there are 2 slayer lines.

[> [> [> Re: You're right -- Cheryl, 07:46:18 01/23/03 Thu

Actually there is room for doubt on this. This has NEVER been said in BtVS or Angel. This 'fact' of linage comes from an old interview with Joss. So there would be no story inconsistency with having Buffy still in the slayer linage. Furthermore, it could be argued that Buffy's mystical death/resurrection restored the linage lost in her non-mystical death/resuscitation. The First seems to believe that Buffy still has the slayer linage since it has been deliberately avoiding killing her. The most plausible explanation is that the irrevocable change in the slayer line is in fact that now there are 2 slayer lines.

And isn't it interesting that every time Buffy has returned from the dead, she has retained all of her slayer powers? That's what first threw off the balance between good and evil - that she was STILL a slayer even after she died and a new slayer was called. (Alternate reality: Season 6 could have been very different if she had first come back without her powers and she no longer felt she had a purpose and drifted for awhile until her powers slowly returned.)

I think Buffy has a higher purpose than just being a slayer and we won't find out what that is until the end of the season/series. I've been really thrown this season by all the talk of the slayer line following Buffy instead of, or in addition to Faith, but after reading all of these wonderful posts I realize there are a number of directions ME could be going in (although with all the other quirkiness I'm still considering the possibility that everything that's happened since CWDP is happening in someone's head).

[> Possible Faith is disqualified? -- luna, 08:19:58 01/23/03 Thu

I too have been having problems with the idea that a new slayer would be called if Buffy dies again. First, looks like they'd catch on that she doesn't STAY dead and it's hardly worth the trouble to get a replacement up and running if she's just going to bounce back.

Second, and more seriously, Kendra is dead, so Faith is the only living successor to Buffy, but maybe her evil actions earlier have disqualified her. Are slayers allowed to go bad? That could create some real problems! I'd think there would be some kind of way to eliminate rogue slayers, and the suggestions that they're looking for a successor to Buffy hints at that.

Or maybe Faith is dead and we don't know it.

In any case, it's fairly morbid for Buffy to have to work with these people whose presence clearly implies that she is expected to die soon?!? Or maybe this is much-delayed reaction to her death in the Gift (two years later??!?)?

And finally, who calls the slayer? She is Chosen--by whom? COW no longer exists, so who's running the show?

[> [> Re: Possible Faith is disqualified? -- WickedBuffy, 14:03:33 01/24/03 Fri

Faith is in the true lineage of Slayer powers to be passed on, though, since Buffy's were already passed on to Kendra. (Maybe each new Slayer gets a brand new package of slayer powers all their own and that's why Buffy still has hers.)

I keep thinking Buffy doesn't have to die (though as said before, she doesn't stay dead long) - it's about "power", as The First disguised as Buffy said in the final words of Season Six. Power seems to be core in everything that's going on.

Buffy can lose her slayer power package, then the lineage is back to balanced AND she finally gets what she always wanted from the *very first*episode - a normal life. A complete cycle. Then the next Slayer starts up withher own set of inner demons. (And I think Buffy will get to choose the next slayer, and just like her mom's ghost said... when the time comes, Buffy will not choose Dawn.)

[> [> [> Does Buffy really want to be normal? -- Peggin, 06:15:36 01/25/03 Sat

Buffy can lose her slayer power package, then the lineage is back to balanced AND she finally gets what she always wanted from the *very first*episode - a normal life.

Buffy has said that she wants a normal life more than a few times, that's true. But I'm not sure that she really does want that. When Kendra showed up, Buffy was initially upset about having to share the "Slayer" title. In Helpless, Buffy totally freaked out over the idea that she may have lost her powers.

Buffy might be happy going back to being "normal" if it came along with the same complete ignorance of all things supernatural she had before she found out she was the Slayer. But I don't think she'd be even remotely happy to be simply "normal" in a world that she knows is populated with vampires and demons and other creatures of the darkness.

[> [> [> [> Re: Does Buffy really want to be normal? -- WickedBuffy, 16:26:21 01/26/03 Sun

I get the feeling Buffy loves the power, hates the job. Major conflict. TE keeps bringing "power" up - and power is neutral. It's just a tool, it's how you use it that makes the difference. As Buffys power grows because she takes it more seriously, she also seems to be considering herself a type of "judge" more and more. Deciding who can die, who can't die. "I boinked Spike so we all need to risk our lives to save him over and over again!" but if it was Clem? nawww.

[> Re: question on slayer lineage and about spike -- maddog, 09:00:03 01/23/03 Thu

There are many other posts on the slayer lineage topic...read down further and it might help you with the different theories.

As for Spike, you'll have to define when you think he was less evil than Angelus. Because I can rememember flashbacks when Spike didn't give a crap about who or what he went after and Angel had to set him straight as to how to kill and not get mobbed in the process. So at that point I'd say Spike was definitely more vicious.

[> [> Re: question on slayer lineage and about spike -- leslie, 09:17:10 01/23/03 Thu

"As for Spike, you'll have to define when you think he was less evil than Angelus. Because I can rememember flashbacks when Spike didn't give a crap about who or what he went after and Angel had to set him straight as to how to kill and not get mobbed in the process. So at that point I'd say Spike was definitely more vicious."

I think that depends on how you interpret that scene. It seems to me that Angelus wasn't objecting to Spike's viciousness so much as his carelessness--he wanted to brawl with a whole bunch of people in public rather than kill quietly--in fact, he seemed to want to fight rather than kill. Waste of energy, in Angelus's opinion.

[> [> [> Re: question on slayer lineage and about spike -- amber, 12:36:49 01/23/03 Thu

In that episode Spike also comments to Angelus "When's the last time you were in a fight where you weren't certain you were going to win." or something to that effect. Spike likes that possibility he's going to lose when he goes after someone, Angelus on the other hand, tortures people to the point where they have no chance of winning.

Overall, I think Spike and Angelus are equally viscous. I'm pretty sure that once turned, William did kill his victims with railroad spikes, earning the name Spike. Spike likes to go straight for the kill, Angelus likes to torture people (re: Giles in Becoming.) We've heard lots of references to Spike's past violence on the show, but it is rarely shown. On the other hand, because Angel has his own show, we been shown more examples of how bad Angelus was.

If the old saying is true about a picture being with a thousand words, then perhaps that's why the audience may see Spike as tamer than Angelus. Personally I think their both viscious, they just have different killing styles.

[> Who was more evil (Angelus or unsouled Spike)? -- Robert, 12:21:16 01/23/03 Thu

>>> and this erks me that no one ever points out that even when spike didn't have a soul, he was still less evil then angelus. whats up with that...

First I must make an assumption about who you are referring to when you write that no one ever points .... I assume you meant those of us who post on the board, as opposed to the characters on BtVS and AtS. I hope this discussion will lessen your feeling erked. I do agree with you that Angelus was more evil than unsouled Spike.

My evidence is that Angelus was not merely a killer as Spike was. Angelus was an artistic killer. He enjoyed torturing his prey in creative and horrible ways first. This he did to Drusilla as Angel explained in the episode Lie to Me, and this he did to Buffy for the entire latter half of season 2. Let us not forget how cruelly he treated Holtz and his family in the episode Heartthob. In addition, Angelus had pretensions of destroying the world -- of launching the apocalypse. Spike merely wanted to have a good time, without interrupting his supply of happy meals with legs.

On the other hand, the evilness of unsouled Spike can not be neglected either. In addition to all the people he slaughtered for fun and food, he also killed two slayers.

[> [> Re: Who was more evil (Angelus or unsouled Spike)? -- shadowkat, 13:14:15 01/23/03 Thu

On the other hand, the evilness of unsouled Spike can not be neglected either. In addition to all the people he slaughtered for fun and food, he also killed two slayers.

So why does killing a slayer mean anything more than killing tons of other people? Let's say he just killed the two slayers no one else...hmmm.

I guess I don't see killing the slayers as being as horrendous, because that is well like killing the hitman who is coming to kill you. Or two hitman's from opposite sides attacking each other. From a vampire perspective, the slayer is the boogie man, the thing they fear most. It's what they run from. Because as Buffy tells WEbs - "I'm gonna win." It's a rare thing to get the upper hand on a slayer.

So...killing a slayer is I guess similar to a crook killing a cop in our society, except that cops don't try to kill crooks. Therein lies the difference. So while I agree, Spike was evil without a soul - he killed and preyed on women and was partially responsible for the Judge, I'm not sure the killing of a "slayer" is the same as killing a innocent. I can forgive the killing of a slayer. That is in a sense self-defense. Even seeking them out? Self-defense.
Buffy would have staked Spike if he hadn't escaped all those times. Heck if I was a vampire - the first thing I'd want to get rid of is the human that has supernatural powers that can kill - also much better fight - since as Buff puts it in Potential - it's a fair fight. Spike fighting Buffy is a fight amongst equals - it's fair. Spike fighting Xander or Dawn is not a fair fight - it's a vampire fighting a normal human without their supernatural abilities.

OTOH - I would not be at all surprised if Whedon and Company were going for the "cop killer" metaphor with Spike. Whedon is obsessed with the idea of having a former cop killer redeem himself by working with cops to save others. He even wrote a screenplay on it called Suspension.
So it is more than possible that in Whedon and his writer's heads killing a slayer is the same as killing a cop in our world - doesn't quite work for me...but hey, doesn't matter, since it appears to work for others and I admit I can get a bit picky on this stuff.

The trouble with the Angel/Spike argument is it is unwinnable - it comes down to which character you happen to like and that can't always be based on anything debateable, it's a gut thing. I love both characters at the moment almost equally. And in different ways. And I think, while Angelus is really far more frightening, both are pretty evil. If I had choice which one to meet in a dark alley?
I'd pick Spike over Angelus - just because it would be quicker and I'm less likely to wake up a vampire. But I wouldn't want to meet either of them - at any point in their unsouled/chipless existence.

[> [> [> The way I see it...and you can take this any way you like... -- cjl, 14:07:15 01/23/03 Thu

If unsouled Spike wanted to get somewhere or get his hands on something, and you were in the way? He'd rip you in two, do a little juggling act with the pieces for his minions, then march on to his destination.

If Angelus fixated on you (for whatever reason), he wouldn't touch you--at first. No, first, he'd kill your spouse, your kids, your parents, your siblings, your pets, your favorite teacher, and the guy who used to walk what's left of your pet. Then he'd leave little notes detailing how he'd kill you. You'd move to Cancun, hoping to lose yourself in the sunshine; and then, one moonlit night on the beach, years later--Angelus would casually saunter up to you, smile that charming lopsided smile, and snap your neck.

Angelus is more evil.

[> [> [> But. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:08:00 01/23/03 Thu

I got the impression from Spike that he actively sought out Slayers to kill. This is a little different from the standard cop killer thing, since criminals usually avoid killing cops unless they have to. Also, while killing a Slayer doesn't make Spike more evil, it does make him more dangerous. Oh, wait, there is the argument that, when one Slayer dies, the new Slayer isn't effective for a while. Thus, vampires get a brief break from intense slayage, which leads to more killings.

[> [> [> [> yep which supports my thesis -- shadowkat, 14:24:57 01/23/03 Thu

I got the impression from Spike that he actively sought out Slayers to kill. This is a little different from the standard cop killer thing, since criminals usually avoid killing cops unless they have to. Also, while killing a Slayer doesn't make Spike more evil, it does make him more dangerous. Oh, wait, there is the argument that, when one Slayer dies, the new Slayer isn't effective for a while. Thus, vampires get a brief break from intense slayage, which leads to more killings.

Which is why if I was a vampire - the first thing I'd do is try to figure out how to take out the slayer. Common sense.

But methinks Spike did this for a different reason - he has a bit of a death wish - he likes to challenge the odds.
Which is why Angelus who is only about a century older, had it up to here with him. He says - the moment he heard about the slayer and how this girl was the one thing vamps had to fear - he sought her out. I'm sure Spike drove Angelus nuts on the topic. Just like he runs around in the sunshine at times and started killing demons. Reckless is Spike's middle name. He reminds me of a young hoodlum or junior mobster. Nothing can kill me, yeah, I'm indestructable!!

And the deathwish - does make him more dangerous. Lots more.
Spike is probably the most dangerous vampire Buffy has been up against next to Angelus and Dru. Because Spike had no fear of her and enjoyed, actually got off on fighting her.
It gave him a rush. She met her match in Spike and is very lucky he got grabbed by The Initiative and chipped. And that he fell in love with her. Hate to think what he might have come up with if it hadn't been for those two things. Because Buffy is somewhat the same way now - not afraid of vamps and staking them gives her a rush. Faith saw it. That isn't really evil, so much as I think natural. It does however make her dangerous at times and put her in danger. Nor do I see either's behavior as akin to cop killing - like you said - crooks don't seek out cops to kill them or vice versa, but trust me the writers will attempt to make the connection and I'll groan very loudly. But oh well.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: yep which supports my thesis -- Silky, 19:14:23 01/23/03 Thu

SK said: He reminds me of a young hoodlum or junior mobster. Nothing can kill me, yeah, I'm indestructable!!

I've always seen him as a wannbe gang member, doing whatever he thinks he needs to do to be accepted by whatever group -- vamps/demons, the Scoobies. Poor Spike - he just wants to belong.

Rash, impulsive, easily frustrated, jumping right in. Evil or not, Spike is a lot more fun the Angel/Angelus.

[> [> [> [> [> i'm not usually a freudian, but... -- anom, 22:52:47 01/23/03 Thu

"But methinks Spike did this for a different reason - he has a bit of a death wish...."

...you mean in Fool for Love, when he tells Buffy every Slayer has a death wish--that's projection?

I've always questioned whether we can take Spike's word for this...now I know why!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: i'm not usually a freudian, but... -- shadowkat, 09:13:58 01/24/03 Fri

Uhm actually...I think it's both. Buffy does have a death wish, all slayers do - think about what she says to Giles in Grave: "I was done, finished." Think about the dreams - "miles to go before you sleep". Also the show is mostly her projections on to the other characters.

So he is "ironically" right - if it is a projection.
She has had a death wish. She doesn't have one now.
I think this year's about something else. Season 5 and 6
were somewhat, not entirely about the death wish. And no, that doesn't mean I think she committed suicide in The Gift, I don't think she did. I think she did the only thing she could think of to save everyone. The one life that was the least precious to her at that moment was her own - not sure that can be considered suicide or a death wish exactly.
That said she could still have had one - a wish for all of this pain to end.

Spike still has a death wish. Not sure what that says about Buffy yet.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> small niggle about the death wish (spoilers) -- Pilgrim, 11:43:18 01/25/03 Sat

Yea, I love it when the board turns to dicussion of Spike!
Not sure I agree that Spike, at least in his souless phase, had a death wish, although it's an interesting concept. Interesting because it would make souless Spike even more complex than I think he is--perhaps he has a death wish because underneath that demon possession is a good man who is horrified by the demon's behavior? or something? I don't really see it though.

I don't see souless, pre-chip Spike as being conflicted about anything. He lives in the moment--he's ecstatically happy to be bad, to kill people, to cause chaos, to laugh and scratch with Dru. He's ecstatically, operatically miserable when Dru leaves him--he complains in Lover's Walk that she didn't care enough about him to kill him when she left (which was over-the-top melodrama and very funny stuff, imo). It stikes me that his own future non-existence is a concept he just doesn't trouble his head about (although, obviously he cares very much that Dru stay "alive.") For Spike himself, if he's dusted, he's dusted, wtf. He says to Angel in Fool for Love something like, the only thing better than running from the mob would be gettting caught by it. I don't see that as a death wish, but as a strong, probably psychotic attraction to the rush of violence. Part of what makes souless Spike so much fun for me is the irony that he is so totally _alive_ all the time, by which I mean living in the moment. Even while he represents death, he's death come to play. Can a being who is on such easy terms with the concept of his own non-existence be said to have a death wish? I don't think so.

Chipped Spike is different, I think. The more time he spends with humans, and the more he learns to begin to care for them (at least for Buffy and Dawn), the more he sees death as they see it--not as fun and games but serious business. I think he gets a lesson about death when Joyce dies, and an even stronger lesson in the agony of separation from the beloved when Buffy dies at the end of season 5. As the concept of death comes to mean something important to him, I think he _could_ form a death wish, but imo he doesn't. For me, Spike is too closely associated with adaptability and desire to despair of existence. He never seems to give up on anything he cares about, he keeps finding new ways to express or satisfy his desires, and he can be very creatve in an amoral (and immoral) way about this. Faced at the end of season 6 with an existential dilemma of major proportions--I am nothing, he believes--he keeps desire alive and keeps on going.

I'm less sure about ensouled Spike. In Sleeper, he says he needs Buffy to kill him, he can't stand the pain of guilt anymore. He wants oblivion, he wants to forget. (Btw, I really think Spike must have been complicit, at least a little bit, in allowing himself to be manipulated by the First. "I did what you wanted. Now make me forget again.") That's definitely a death wish, he's suicidal here, but I suspect it's temporary. Played for pathos this time, instead of comedy. I'm hopeful that Spike's basic characteristic--never give up, never give in--will reassert itself soon.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike was suicidal at least once before -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:39:39 01/25/03 Sat

He tried to commit suicide in "Doomed", due to despair at being without Drusilla as well as his total inability to hurt, kill, or frighten anymore. But, as you say, he found a new way to express his un-life. He was still able to be menacing to the Scooby Gang, but in a more psychological way (making Xander and Willow feel inadequate), as well as discovering that his lust for violence could be taken out on demons.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Problem with Spike -- shadowkat, 21:39:38 01/25/03 Sat

Is I can't quite figure out what's in the writers' collective heads regarding the character. Every time I think I got him nailed they throw another curve into the works.

I'm not unconvinced you're wrong here. Actually of the two of them - Buffy/Slayers in General and Spike - I'd say it was buffy/slayers in general with the death wish. Spike as a vamp probably is a lot like Webs - doesn't care. Webs says it perfectly - hey, I'm dead, only thing on my mind is if so and so went to my funeral and when I'll get to see her again - definitely bitable.

The writers have been writing these vampires in an interesting manner - not predictable and not consistent really. In fact each vamp seems to not only have it's own modius operandi, it also has it's own personality, own take on death, etc. Comparing them is enough to give one a headache.

Spike fascinates me - partly because I just can't figure out what he's going to do next or why or what the writers will do to him. I'm a little nervous right now, because I'm afraid we're going to relive the Season 2 Angel arc - and I really don't want to. You know - B/S get close, she saves him a few times, he flips on her, turns all nasty, she has to kill him...sigh. Been there done that. Or they'll do the old - he's evil - kill him without the closeness, thinking that's a nice twist on the theme, nope. Or they'll do some other wierd variation on it as a metanarration on the whole thing which I'm sorry is just lame. There's so many possibilities. What I have figured out - and if I get the opportunity I'll write an essay post on it sometime in February/March - is that they are using him as male fatal/damsel - where the heroine has to keep deciding whether she a)should save him, b) can save him, c) will save him and what the consequences are of doing it and dealing with the those consequences. Which is fascinating up to a point and very similar to what they did with Angel in Seasons 2-3. What I can't quite figure out - is how this would effect the larger picture and what it means for the character of Spike? Or if Spike really is just one more tool for examining Buffy's psychological journey?

Don't really know at this point.

SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Problem with Spike -- Pilgrim, 07:25:38 01/26/03 Sun

Agree with everything you wrote here. Was it you who wrote the essay some months ago about the tension in the writing between Spike as a metaphor for some element of Buffy's journey and Spike as a character in his own right who needs and has his own development arc? I thought that was brilliant. He performs different functions for the story in the various episodes.

I agree that they're using Spike as the damsel in distress (pretty tough on a guy who cares so much about his macho image), but I wonder if they haven't played this archetypal story out now. If Spike is the powerless "female" character who has been saved by the powerful "male" hero, what would it say about male/female relationships if the "damsel" remains powerless and the hero has to keep saving "her." I hope somehow the writers will work through the male/female relationship, the power struggle, the power sharing, in a way that I think they missed in the Buffy-Angel relationship--that story got artifically truncated when Angel left the show. Spike may be a pig in some ways, but he's always _there_ and (I don't know if this level of subtlety is possible for a tv show) I'd like to see Spike both develop his own character (some good, some bad), but also be Buffy's eternal rival, her opposite, her shadow, her friend, her equal. Can Buffy allow herself to have a truly equal relationship with a man (or with anyone, for that matter), a relationship where she doesn't control him but isn't controlled by him either? It would be the mirror image of what the two characters had in season 6, I think, where they both took turns controlling each other in disasterous ways. This is what I'd like to see the writers explore in the B/S part of the story, but I'm not really hopeful that they'll go this direction.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Problem with Spike -- shadowkat, 11:37:17 01/26/03 Sun

Don't think it was me that wrote that essay...can't quite remember it.

I agree -I agree that they're using Spike as the damsel in distress (pretty tough on a guy who cares so much about his macho image), but I wonder if they haven't played this archetypal story out now. If Spike is the powerless "female" character who has been saved by the powerful "male" hero, what would it say about male/female relationships if the "damsel" remains powerless and the hero has to keep saving "her." I hope somehow the writers will work through the male/female relationship, the power struggle, the power sharing, in a way that I think they missed in the Buffy-Angel relationship--that story got artifically truncated when Angel left the show. Spike may be a pig in some ways, but he's always _there_ and (I don't know if this level of subtlety is possible for a tv show) I'd like to see Spike both develop his own character (some good, some bad), but also be Buffy's eternal rival, her opposite, her shadow, her friend, her equal. Can Buffy allow herself to have a truly equal relationship with a man (or with anyone, for that matter), a relationship where she doesn't control him but isn't controlled by him either? It would be the mirror image of what the two characters had in season 6, I think, where they both took turns controlling each other in disasterous ways. This is what I'd like to see the writers explore in the B/S part of the story, but I'm not really hopeful that they'll go this direction.

I'm not either. My difficulty is I can't tell if their intent with Spike is to just explore all of Buffy's dark issues and id, or something more. How many times will they have her rescue him? Or help him? Before he starts doing it himself? It was in some ways the same problem I had with Season 3 Btvs - the only problem had with it - was the continuous use of Angel as this sort of damsel character.
It wasn't until Angel literally left and got his own show that we moved past that and Riley took the role of damsel.
Now it's Spike? While Spike is actually more interesting in the role - because unlike Angel (we really don't know if Buffy will save Spike or even cares about him enough to bother - obviously she'd save Angel, that was a given, whether or not she should?? (shrug) ) and unlike Riley (who, well she obviously cared about and SHOULD save) - Spike doesn't really fit the obvious categories. In fact I can't help but wonder if her friends and associates aren't questioning her motives on the whole saving Spike thing a bit. I certainly am. OTOH - there comes a time when you address these questions then move on, otherwise it gets redundant and dull.

I'd like to see some of what you mention..but since their overall arc has to do with Buffy's spiritual awakening...I don't have much hope at this point. We shall see... they have surprised me before.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike's death wish -- KdS, 09:46:17 01/26/03 Sun

I think the confusion here is because you're interpreting "death wish" as being suicidal depression. Spike is, briefly, suicidal in Doomed, but the death wish he talks about (undoubtedly projecting his own feelings on the Slayers) in Fool for Love is something quite different.

[Quote from Psyche]

Death is your art. You make it with your hands, day after day. That final gasp. That look of peace. Part of you is desperate to know: What's it like? Where does it lead you?

Earlier in the speech he admits that Slayers might feel a craving for oblivion, but that isn't his main point. If anything, Spike's death wish is the absolute opposite of a craving for oblivion. His whole unsouled life is driven be a craving for sensation - violence, sex, passion, drugs, adrenalin. He doesn't really want to be dead, it's just that he feels that the ultimate thrill might be the one that would be too strong for him to survive. More like the craving for sensation, whether pain or pleasure that drives Buffy's sex with him in S6, or the characters in Cronenburg's Crash.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> As he said about his siring . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:25:59 01/26/03 Sun

"Getting killed made me feel alive for the very first time."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> still doubting -- anom, 21:50:25 01/25/03 Sat

"Uhm actually...I think it's both. Buffy does have a death wish, all slayers do - think about what she says to Giles in Grave: 'I was done, finished.'"

But that was after she'd found out what it was like to be dead (at least, the death she had). It doesn't mean she wanted it before she knew what it'd be like. And it doesn't necessarily imply other Slayers do. Spike said so, but he could've been wrong...or projecting.

"Think about the dreams - 'miles to go before you sleep'. Also the show is mostly her projections on to the other characters."

I'd say it's her pov of the other characters (in the wider sense, not just whose view the camera shows us) rather than her projections. She certainly didn't consider Spike a trustworthy source, even though she asked him how he'd killed the 2 Slayers--& we're shown how reliable his info is/n't (Spike: "I've always been bad"/cut to wimpy-bad-Victorian-poet!William: "...but I'm a good man"). And the dream is one out of who knows how many (has any of the others shown evidence of a death wish?); "miles to go" is subject to interpretation; & again, it doesn't necessarily apply to all Slayers.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think you're misinterpreting it - not 'suicidal', something else -- shadowkat, 15:28:55 01/26/03 Sun

All I can tell you is in the DVD commentary in both FFL and Story of Season 5 - the writers allude to the fact that there is a bit of a death wish - nothing major, not like they are committing suicide.

What Petrie says in the DVD commentary of Fool For Love is that Spike is telling Buffy what she doesn't want to hear, but Spike is so spot on that she reacts violently to it.
Then he parallels it to Spike learning from Drusilla something he has to hear but doesn't want to hear.

These poor girls - whose lives are going out and fighting demons, it gets exhausting after a while and yes sometimes they want to stop. This doesn't stop them from being heroic, if anything it makes them more so - because they fight it back. Buffy - after her MOM dies, shuts down, and believes all she can do is usher in death...when she sacrifices herself in one way she fulfills Spike's statement but not quite in the way he meant, it's very ironic - because Spike says when you do - I'll be there and have myself one good day - and he is there and it's probably the worst day of his existence, one he relives every night until she returns. Buffy on the other hand - has the good day - she transforms - it's not suicide, it's not death, so much as moving forward. So it's the flip of Spike's statement. Spike was right but ironically wrong at the same time.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> One good day. -- Sophist, 16:07:20 01/26/03 Sun

Thank you so much SK -- you just pointed out something that probably was obvious to you, but that never occurred to me: the ironic juxtaposition of FFL and The Gift. Between manwitch's post last night and this one, I've had a great 24 hours.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> thanks so much for the compliment -- shadowkat, 19:15:47 01/26/03 Sun

I've also enjoyed manwitch's post so am happy to put there with him. Am also very glad the above made sense...

thanks. SK

[> [> [> How do you define evil? -- Peggin, 14:21:42 01/23/03 Thu

If I had choice which one to meet in a dark alley? I'd pick Spike over Angelus - just because it would be quicker and I'm less likely to wake up a vampire. But I wouldn't want to meet either of them - at any point in their unsouled/chipless existence.

I agree with this. I wouldn't want to run into either one of them. If I had to choose, I think I'd choose Spike, because I figure it might be over more quickly (although in Never Leave Me, I was left with the impression that Spike used to like to torture and rape his victims before he killed them, so I'm no longer quite so sure about that conclusion). But, either way, I'd be just as dead, so I'm not sure I'd call either one less evil than the other.

But, really, I think it depends on how you define "Evil".

Angelus seemed almost religious in his evilness. I mean, if a vampire's moral compass is just pointed in the opposite direction from a human's moral compass, then being evil is the "right" thing to be, right? And Angelus seemed very deliberate in doing the "right" thing. It wasn't just about having fun, it was about inflicting as much pain as he could and making the world safe for evil. (I'm not saying Angelus didn't enjoy what he did, but it seemed like he got more pleasure from doing things he knew to be evil than he got from the actual fighting and killing, if that makes any sense.)

Spike, OTOH, struck me as more of a force of nature -- total chaos. He was in it for the fun of it. He didn't seem to particularly care if what he was doing was evil or not. If that sometimes meant turning against his own kind, that was fine by him as long as he could have fun doing it. He wasn't being evil deliberately to further the evil cause or anything. In Becoming, Part 2, it didn't even seem to occur to him that it was evil to try to kill the cop, or to be happy for Drusilla that she killed a Slayer -- in both cases it took a look from Buffy before he realized that she would see something wrong with it.

So, which is worse? Deliberately doing things specifically because they are evil? Or doing evil things because it's bunches of fun?

[> [> [> [> Re: How do you define evil? -- WickedBuffy, 19:25:31 01/26/03 Sun

Can it be both?

I can only define what is evil in the specific context it's being used in, no generalized definition - can't 'cause the world is too many shades of grey.

Then again, some specific situation that I might define as "evil", wouldn't be considered "evil" by someone else. From differences in culture, family, environment, biology all that makes "evil" as slippery to define as "good".

imho :>

PS I would rather run into Spike, too. Angelus seems to devolve while Spike is seeming to evolve. I think I could take Spike.

Current board | More January 2003