January 2003 Archives

January 2003 posts

Previous January 2003
More January 2003

we havent asked why... -- masio, 11:50:57 01/24/03 Fri

The Uber Vamp never killed Buffy. In BOTN (?) the Turok-han beats the living $#!+ out of the Buffster but just leaves her there. This fact plus the FE's comment to the Uber Vamp "Kill everyone but her" (Or something like that) could indicate that the FE wants Buffy alive for some reason.

Am i way behind? This seems rather obvious so mabe thats why no ones talking about it. It just seems odd that The turok-han wouldn't kill her when he had the chance

Anywho, just food for thought

[> Re: we havent asked why... -- WickedBuffy, 14:15:08 01/24/03 Fri

Yah, that's right! Kill the rest and leave Buffy. Which could support the theory that The First wants Buffy for something - but is it Buffy's power or is it Buffy herself wielding that power?

The First loves trying to get people on it's "side", like Angel, Spike, Willow etc., and use them as its Agents. With Buffy on it's side, she could wipe out Faith and any new Slayers that arise, thus leaving the world the First's playground.

Like The First said as it morphed from the Master into Buffy at the very end of Season 6:

"....You still don't get it. It's not about right. Not about wrong.
(Cut from the Master to...)

Buffy: It's about power. "

[> [> Re: we havent asked why... -- Thranduilion, 14:58:35 01/24/03 Fri

'Scuse me while I butt in here. :)

*bump*

I agree that the First seems not to want Buffy dead, at least not yet. It's a scary thought that it might want to bring her over to its side, though it would also be an explanation for Ghost-Joyce's "She'll be against you" to Dawn. However, add in Giles' and Anya's discussion of what the Beljoxa's Eye told them. The First is able to act now because the mystical forces surrounding the slayer line have been irrecovably altered, because (according to Giles) Buffy lives again. And still. So if Buffy's resurrection caused the shift that lets the First act, it's conceivable that her death (again, which would be kind of redundant, but you know) could prevent the First from finishing its plans. I'm starting to think that perhaps what the First is able to do differently now is _find out_ who the Potentials are, because of this 'change in the mystical forces'. The Bringers seem to be darn good at finding all the Potentials, better even than the good guys. Rhona hadn't been found, or at least hadn't been sent a Watcher, and yet the Bringers found her and tried to kill her. The good guys thought Dawn was a Potential because their methods are a little vague, but the Bringers knew instantly that it was Amanda they were after. So maybe the First doesn't want Buffy dead yet because it could lose this ability to find the Potentials.

That sort of leads me to another question I've been thinking about. It's been sort of assumed that the Slayer line no longer goes through Buffy. Her death in "The Gift" didn't call another Slayer, as far as we know. But she and everyone else (Dawn mentions it, for example) are talking as if the next Slayer (who is probably one of the girls in the house) will be called when _Buffy_ dies, not when _Faith_ dies. What's going on there? One wonders, yes, one wonders. :)

Thran

[> [> [> Re: we havent asked why... -- WickedBuffy, 17:02:27 01/24/03 Fri

Yah, I don't know why the Scoobs haven't though of that part about the Slayer lineage - except they are pretty narrowly focused on Buffy the Slayer and pretty much have always emented her in that role. Even when Kendra first came, no one really mused on "wow, two slayers, wonder how that's going to work in the lineage thingie."

Ever hear anyone say, during a particularly tough fight "wow, sometimes I miss Faith when she was on our side" or "wonder what Faith is up to now?" or any reference to her at all? It's as if she's wiped from their minds completely.

I had a different take on the Joyce-ghost comments to Dawn. I'm now thinking that maybe when she said "when it comes down to it, Buffy will not choose you." I'm paraphrasing, sorry... also about being against Dawn. Anyway, my current theory is that Buffy isn't going to die, she's going to get to choose the next Slayer, and she's NOT going to choose Dawn, even though Dawn really wants it. (I still think Dawn is a potential and that light was in her. I saw that, never saw Amandas side.)

Then Evil will once again be balanced 9never killed, impossible), Buffy won't have her slayer powers and she's get to have the normal life shes always wanted. She is way past slayer age now, anyways, isn't she? Maybe she can be the first retiree!

WB

are the AI crew being misled (Angel spoilers) -- Duo, 14:14:47 01/24/03 Fri

"The answer lies among you". The AI crew was pretty certain that meant Connor, until Cordy had her vision that led them to believe it was Angelus. But, what if the person linked to the Beast is...

Cordy?
She was the first to even know of the Beasts pending arrival, and she didn't tell Angel what was coming.

She was there at the Beasts emergence as well as Connor. Right after that, she slept with Connor.

She was living in the loft where the Beast performed his sun-blocking spell

Angel and Cordy were both guarding Manny, and Cordy has some deadly hand-to-hand skills as well as all that glowy-demony goodness going on.

When Angel first fought the Beast, he said (I think) "Do you think He can protect Her?"

Theory-Maybe Angel and Connor are the keys to defeating the Beast. Connor is connected to the "Tro-Clon (sp?) and that still hasn't been well explained. Maybe the Beast is controlling Cordy and using her to sow dissention and generally demoralise the AI team. Plus, now they are going to release Angelus, which may be part of the Beast's plan alltogether.

[> Re: are the AI crew being misled (Angel spoilers) (Hmmm!) -- frisby, 15:12:38 01/24/03 Fri

Cordy as the final big bad? Will Willow be the key to her defeat? Her "hit del-iver" to the final degree? Interesting possibility. And what if she has Connor's child? Complexity reigns! I guess there's no chance for Wesley and Cordelia to finally get together?

[> [> this is great -- masio, 16:04:46 01/24/03 Fri

You may be on to something Duo

This is So Whedon-y its sick.

Its just like Joss to put the answer right in front of our faces and then say "Nyah, na-nyah na-nyah, nyah! I Fooled yous!"

the part about the Beast doing the ritual in Cordy's home is key. AI (wesley i think) made it a point to say something like, "The Beast must have to perform the ritual in the place where he lives "(referring to Conner)

This is an obvious (now anyway) attempt to make us forget that CC lives there too

Not sure if this is the answer(never am in the buffyverse) but this is definatly a good theory, Hats off to you Duo

Masio

[> Maybe... -- ZachsMind, 18:20:50 01/24/03 Fri

Maybe it's not even Cordy. It's obviously not The First Evil cuz she can touch things (and boy did she touch Connor, huh?). Maybe the real Cordy is still up in that Powers That Be place yelling for someone to come get her cuz she's still bored.

[> [> Re: Actually.... -- Yu Yu Hakusho, 20:31:31 01/24/03 Fri

Its like a giant chess match; the powers that be move one way (snatching Cordy and bringing her back) and the forces or darkness move another (hello Beast). For all we know, taking Cordy out of the picture for a few months was just a throw away move to manuever everyone into postion for the latest big bad. Makes me wonder though, who are the knights, who are the kings, and who are simply pawns.

Saturday morning Quotoons... -- ZachsMind, 09:23:12 01/25/03 Sat

When I was a lad, it was Saturday morning cartoons. Now it's quotations. I'm just getting too old.

We must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves awake, not by mechanical aid, but by an infinite expectation of the dawn. - Henry David Thoreau
"No. I don't wanna sleep."
Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson
Dawn: When men of reason go to bed. - Ambrose Bierce
Not knowing when the dawn will come I open every door. - Emily Dickinson
Let every dawn be to you as the beginning of life, and every setting sun be to you as its close. - John Ruskin
"...people have a tendency to go away and, I miss them. And sometimes I wish I could just make them stop. Going away."
The breeze at dawn has secrets to tell you; Don't go back to sleep. You must ask for what you really want; Don't go back to sleep. People are going back and forth across the doorsill where the two worlds touch. The door is round and open. Don't go back to sleep. - Rumi
"She still thinks I'm Little Miss Nobody, just her dumb little sister. Boy, is she in for a surprise."
Most people do not consider dawn to be an attractive experience, unless they are still up. - Ellen Goodman
"Oh, it's so pure! Such pure green energy! It's so beautiful."
Faith is the bird that feels the light when the dawn is still dark. - Rabindranath Tagore

[> Well, that woke me up. -- Wisewoman, 11:58:22 01/25/03 Sat

Yep, you guys are really on to something here. And it was so obvious.

D'oh!
;o)

[> Whew! I *am* a man of reason after all! (or at least I used to be) -- OnM, 16:14:17 01/25/03 Sat

Great stuff, Zach!

:-)

Dawn-Key Kong: Dawn is still the key and a threat to the First. -- Slay-Bells, 16:17:05 01/25/03 Sat

Evidence that Dawn is still the Key:
1) In "The Gift" it was Buffy's blood that sealed the rift, Dawn kept most of hers.
2) Evil Willow threatened to turn Dawn back into the Key at the end of season 6 in "Two to Go" in the scene at Rack's.
3) When the First Evil "started chomping" in CWDP it specifically attacked Dawn and Willow. It attacked them because Dawn and Willow are both threats to it.

[> RE: Dawn-Key Kong...ROFLMAO! -- Rob, 16:34:21 01/25/03 Sat

[> There's another 'clue' or rather a reminder... (spoilers for Potential) -- ZachsMind, 18:01:49 01/25/03 Sat

It's very subtle. When Willow made the Potential Slayer Locator Spell and it appeared to go awry, Dawn went to open the door cuz it stank of sulphur. The glowing blob which Willow's spell concocted suddenly shot across the room and went through Dawn as it exited out the door. As it passed through her, it made her glow like there was a sphere inside her ribcage.

It made them think she was the potential Slayer, but that glow was actually the magic orb which is still inside her, hidden by the monks' spell that made her human.

I was hoping back when Spike was going mad, that they'd show us Dawn looking through his eyes. Like an Over The Shoulder shot or something, and he'd see the glow, but I guess The First wasn't driving him quite as mad as Glory drove Tara.

[> [> Re: There's another 'clue' or rather a reminder... (spoilers for Potential) -- Utopia, 18:41:42 01/25/03 Sat

I don't think Dawn stopped being the key when the portal closed, I think that no one was looking for her or trying to open portals so it just wasn't an issue anymore.

Also, I got the impression from the monk saying that the key was molded into flesh that ALL of Dawn was the key, not that she had some sort of object hidden inside her ribcage. I mean, if the key was a physical orb in her body, why didn't Glory just tear it out of her to use it in the ceremony? Why bother with the whole blood ritual thing?

Anyway, the glow that passed through her was the same color as Willows spell, which leads me to think it was just the locator thing dawdling so the audience would be mislead and the episodes hijinks could proceed.

Still, I agree that Dawn is probably going to be important, the first wouldn't have messed with her if that wasn't the case. I think....Unless it was just being malicious and trying to cut off Buffys sources of emotional support. Yeah.

[> [> [> Dawn's nature & speculation (spoilers for S5-7) -- Fred the obvious pseudonym, 23:29:52 01/25/03 Sat

As I've said before and will suggest again, keys can lock as well as open.

The Hellmouth is quite an opening.

Buffy can guard it, but not close it. If Dawn were to sacrifice her human self to do so, Buffy would certainly oppose this. As the image of Joyce said in CWDP, at the end Buffy will choose against Dawn.

[> [> [> That's a definite possibility.. -- ZachsMind, 11:28:07 01/26/03 Sun

The obvious orb glow coming from Dawn's midsection as the orange energy went through her may have had nothing to do with the thing inside her. Yes, all of Dawn IS the energy. The monks turned energy into matter, but the power of that energy is still there, locked itself in a way via magic. I'm reminded of a couple Willow moments. First in the season five episode "The Replacement" when Xander was made into two by a demon's spell. Willow simply put the two into one by doing a very simple 'dispell magic' spell.

WILLOW: Actually, it's not that hard. Your natural state is to be together. Toth's spell is doing all the work of keeping you apart. I just have to break it. So you two ... [takes them both and positions them inside the chalk markings] stand right here. Side by side. We don't want you to end up with two fronts, now do we?
XANDER: Are you sure you know how to do this?
WILLOW: (exhales) Here we go. Brace yourselves.
[The two Xanders close their eyes and prepare.]
WILLOW: Let the spell be ended.
[Closeup of a single Xander, still with eyes closed.]
XANDER: You gotta be kidding. "Let the spell be ended," that's not gonna work.
[He opens his eyes and sees there's only one of him.]
XANDER: Oh!
[Willow smiles proudly.]
ANYA: I liked it the other way. Put him back.

Easy as pie. The magic of Toth was all that altered Xander's natural state of existence. When Willow undid the magic that Toth had done, everything returned to normal. The same can happen with Dawnie. The other Willow moment was in the season six finale, when she told Dawn it wouldn't be hard for Dark Willow to turn Dawn back into energy.

WILLOW: I understand the crying, you cry because you're human. But you weren't always.
DAWN: (hurt) Yes, I was.
WILLOW: No, please. You're telling me you don't remember? You used to be some ... mystic ball of energy. Maybe that's why you're crying all the time, Dawnie. 'Cause you don't belong here.
[Dawn finds herself backed up against the wall, gasping anxiously.]
WILLOW: Wanna go back? End the pain? You'll be happier. I'll be happier. We'll all be a lot happier without listening to the constant whining.
DAWN: (tearful and angry) Willow, stop...
WILLOW: (mock-whining) "Mom!" "Buffy!" "Tara!" "Waah!" It's time you go back to being a little energy ball.
[Dawn looks very scared.]
WILLOW: No more tears, Dawnie.
[Buffy stands in the doorway.]
BUFFY: I think you need to get away from her.

Dark Willow made it sound painfully simple. My guess is all Dark Willow had to do was undo the magic spell which has created Dawn. She casts a 'dispell magic' spell on Dawnie and suddenly she's nothing but green energy. But would Dawn revert to a green orb, or would she still have the shape of Dawn and glow all over? The monks' spell which turned Dawn into matter is a mystic spell that's going against the grain of the universal natural order. Dawnie's natural state is that of an orb of energy. Deep down it's all she really is. The monks' spell is the only thing making her something different than her normal state of being, and if that were dispelled, Dawn would revert to her original form, like a rubber band that's been pulled to its extreme and then let go slack.

The Slayer Locator Spell wasn't designed to show Dawnie's true nature, but it was designed to study the true nature of all potential potentials and figure out which one was the real Slayer. It makes sense that along the way to Amanda, it would inadvertently see the true nature of Dawn.

It's just a theory. I'm only saying... =)

[> [> [> [> Re: That's a definite possibility.. -- Utopia, 18:46:30 01/26/03 Sun

I'd always assumed that it would be difficult to revert Dawn to Key form...After all the monks would've wanted it to be as tricky to locate as possible. The spell was probably designed to be extremely hard to break. (Tragic/comedic image: If it were as easy as Willows "let the spell be ended" spell I could see..um...accidents happening in the magic shop ala the releasing of Olaf the Troll.)

On the other hand you're right about Willows threat in season six. Hmmm..If crazy people see Dawn as green energy, that probably implies that she *is* constantly being held in that form by a spell.

Right, but knowing the typical way the show goes I still think that the SIT beacon spell didn't really do anything with Dawn. She was just directly in it's path when it headed for Amanda. They were probably leaning against the door at the same time and the glow of the spell bled through.

You're theory is more interesting though. Has more pizzazz.

[> Theory on the nature of The Key -- Peggin, 08:09:14 01/26/03 Sun

A couple of weeks ago (before I started posting here), I posted a theory on the conversebuffyverse mailing list about the nature of the Key. This is a somewhat expanded and modified version of that post.

I loved season five as a whole, but there were a couple of things that were never really explained to my satisfaction:

1) If the Key had only one purpose, and that purpose was one of destruction (as the Knights of Byzantiam were convinced) then why did the monks feel the need to protect it? Wouldn't it have made more sense to destroy it?

2) I have no problem with the idea that Buffy knew, on an intuitive level, that there was some real connection between her and Dawn. But it seemed like a kind of a leap of logic to get from that feeling of connection to having certain knowledge that Dawn's body was created from hers. Also, even assuming that Buffy was right, and that Dawn's body was made from hers, it wasn't Dawn's physical body that was the Key, it was the mystical energy that existed before "Dawn" was created, so "The monks made her out of me" still doesn't explain why Buffy's blood had the right mystical properties to close the portal.

I've also seen a number of complaints from other people to the effect that they had expected season five to be all about exploring the origins of the Slayer, and they felt like that story was dropped in favor of trying to explore Dawn's origins.

I recently came up with this theory which, if true, would mean that all of these questions were actually answered in season five. It would be like Joss gave us 99% of the puzzle pieces, but he just never showed us what the finished picture looks like.

I think the vital clue to figuring out the truth about both Buffy's origins and the good purpose that the Monks believed the Key served, is found in one simple statement of Buffy's. "She's me."

BUFFY: She's more than that. She's me. The monks made her out of me. I hold her... and I feel closer to her than... It's not just the memories they built. It's physical. Dawn... is a part of me. -- The Gift

If it's even partially true that "Dawn is Buffy", then in exploring Dawn's origins, we actually were exploring the Slayer's origins.

As I said, I can believe that Buffy felt a real connection to Dawn, some kind of physical or spiritual connection that went way beyond just being appointed as her caretaker. But it was never really explained to my satisfaction how Buffy could be so convinced that Dawn was made from her. What if Buffy got it wrong? She felt the connection and, because she is older than Dawn, she assumed that Dawm must have been made from her.

But is Buffy really older than Dawn? Dawn is the Key. She is as old as time itself. Dawn is really the one who came first.

GREGOR: The key is almost as old as the beast itself. Where it came from, how it was created the deepest of mysteries. All that is certain is that its power is absolute.

...

BUFFY: Why didn't they just destroy it? If the key is as dangerous as-
GREGOR: Because they were fools. They thought they could harness its power for the forces of light. They failed, and paid with their blood. -- Spiral

Dawn is the Key, a power that has only one purpose -- to destroy. So, why would the monks want to preserve that? How about this: just because something was created for the sole purpose of destruction, does that necessarily make it a bad thing? Can a purely destructive power ever be harnessed by the forces of light.

The answer, as we had already been told point blank in Buffy's "Restless" dream, is YES.

TARA (speaking for the First Slayer): I live in the action of death, the blood cry, the penetrating wound. I am destruction. Absolute. Alone. -- Restless

The essence of the Slayer, of all Slayers, just like the essence of the Key, is one of absolute destruction. The essence of the Slayer is a destructive power that has been harnessed for the forces of light. A good guy whose power is rooted in darkness.

BUFFY: I'm the good guy, remember?
DRACULA: Perhaps, but your power is rooted in darkness. -- Buffy vs, Dracula

So, when Buffy assumed that the connection between her and Dawn was because Dawn had been made from her, what if she got it backwards? Maybe Dawn wasn't made from Buffy -- maybe Buffy's Slayer powers, the powers of all the Slayer who ever were and ever will be, were created from the destructive powers of the Key. This would make Buffy part Key herself, which would explain why her death closed the portal, and it would also explain why the monks believed it was essential that the Key be protected.

This would also explain why Dawn showed up when she did.

GLORY: Well... the last time I caught a peep it was a bright green swirly shimmer. Really brought out the blue in my eyes. But then those sneaky little monks pulled an abracadabra, so now it could look like anything. -- Blood Ties

In Primeval, the Scoobies called on the source of the Slayer's powers, and in Restless, the source of those powers took on the form of the First Slayer and attacked them. If The Key was the source of those powers, then it could very well be the Scoobies fault that Glory nearly found the Key. When they did that spell and tapped into those powers, Glory "caught a peep" of the Key, but before she could get her hands on it, "those sneaky little monks pulled an abracadabra". They wanted it protected, so they sent it to the person who had the best chance of protecting it. But they had other reasons for sending it to Buffy and for altering her memories -- she and her friends were the people who had put the Key in danger of being discovered in the first place.

This doesn't preculde the possibility that Dawn's body may have been made from Buffy's. Maybe the spiritual essence that gives Buffy her Slayer powers came from The Key, but the DNA that makes up Dawn's physical body came from Buffy. But Dawn is clearly not a clone of Buffy. It can't be as simple as Dawn just being made from Buffy. My guess? She was made from the four people who did the spell in Primeval. She certainly is smart like Giles, she's good with the computer stuff like Willow, and she's got Xander's somewhat geeky tendency to make pop culture references (e.g., "To Serve Man is a cookbook"; "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.").

How could this come into play now, in season seven? Giles (or something that looks like Giles) told Buffy that The First is trying to wipe out the entire Slayer line. But, if the powers of the Slayer were originally created from the destructive powers of the Key, then that means that, as long as the Key exists, they have a way to create a new line of Slayers. That might also explain why The First wants Willow either dead or completely sworn of magic -- I would imagine that it would take an incredible powerful witch to access the powers of the Key and do a spell that would create a new line of Slayers.

Of course, now that I've come up with this theory, I just know that ME isn't going to do anything even remotely like this, because I have never once guessed right about what they intend to do. Still, it's fun to look at the clues they leave us and try to figure out what they plan to do next.

[> [> Now This really is fascinating -- BEV, 09:35:18 01/26/03 Sun

forget all the Candylandi-chakra-om who do vodoo chanting above. This is my kind of noodling. good specs, clean and well laid out. thanks!

[> [> [> Thanks, BEV. Glad you liked my theory -- Peggin, 21:05:25 01/26/03 Sun

[> [> great ideas, peggin & fred! -- anom, 22:05:11 01/26/03 Sun

Just 1 quibble: It seems like too much of a leap to say that the spell calling on the power of all the Slayers throughout history was when "Glory last 'caught a peep' of the Key." I can't think of any evidence of that, although I do like what you derive from it about why Dawn was sent to Buffy & her friends & that she may be made from all of them.

[> [> [> Re: great ideas, peggin & fred! -- Peggin, 03:39:10 01/27/03 Mon

It seems like too much of a leap to say that the spell calling on the power of all the Slayers throughout history was when "Glory last 'caught a peep' of the Key."

That wasn't part of my original theory. It was something I added later, when I thought about Glory saying that she had last "caught a peep" of the Key shortly before the monks "pulled an abacadabra". It occured to me that maybe calling on the power of the Key had made it glow or send off vibes or something, making it easy for Glory to find and forcing the monks to find a better hiding place for it.

Xander's unrevealed super-powers (jokey X/B ship, S6 minor spoiler, unlikely future spec.) -- Celebaelin, 10:05:32 01/26/03 Sun

Is the Ep. in which Buffy is made invisible called 'Invisible', surely that would make sense? Anyway, it was shown on BBC2 on Thursday and Friday and in both the Bowdlerised and non-Bowdlerised versions when Xander walks into the invisible fire-hydrant there is a distinct metallic CLANG. Does Xander in fact have metallic legs? Can we expect, at some future date, a reveal of the "Go go Gadget knees!" variety? Will it be this element of Xander's personality that finally touches Buffy deep inside, brings her heart to her mouth yet again over a male and unites them in a perfect blend of love and passion. Is is this a sound effects oversite, or an homage to cartoon shorts, or an inverted TV Batman reference?

C

Dum de dum de dum Inspector Gadget!

(Holding my breath and licking Marie-Rose dressing from a prawn at the same time, ah, les Anglais quelle delicatesse, I bet that sounds better than it reads, mush dash - the Fawlty Towers Ep. 'Gourmet Night' is currently showing on the Beeb, good old Auntie.)

[> Re: Xander's unrevealed super-powers (jokey X/B ship, S6 minor spoiler, unlikely future spec.) -- ZachsMind, 11:12:08 01/26/03 Sun

It's a little known fact that when a fire hydrant is hit with an invisibility ray, it makes just that clanging sound when it goes up against flesh. This is yet another example of Whedon's writing team going above and beyond in their research for the series, and the results falling flat on an audience that's never heard an invisible fire hydrant.

[> [> Ooh! Oooh! (Spoils Xander's description of Anya in 7.9) -- pr10n, 12:22:08 01/26/03 Sun

The CLANG! is foreshadowing: Perhaps it's because he's heartless, the Tinman, you know?

He says that Anya tore out his heart and left a dark emptiness, or an empty darkness, and then if he cries he rusts. "Oil can!"

[> [> [> Re: Ooh! Oooh! (Spoils Xander's description of Anya in 7.9) -- ZachsMind, 15:22:27 01/26/03 Sun

If Xander's the tin man, that would make Oz the cowardly lion, Willow the scarecrow, and Buffy would be Dorothy. I guess that means Giles is Toto. Or maybe Giles is the scarecrow, Willow's the cowardly lion..

I dunno if I like the direction that's going.

[> [> [> [> Re: Ooz! Oooz! (Joss is the Baum) -- pr10n, 18:04:56 01/26/03 Sun

I think the problem here is how well it works:

Buffy = Dorothy, the hero
Xander = the Tinman, for his heart
Giles = Scarecrow, for his Brain (Mind)
Willow = Lion, for her Courage (Will)
and Spike = Toto, because:
1. He's love's bitch
2. He's on the leash (chip)
3. Harmony says "I thought I could change you... You're the dog."

You're right, ZM, it's hard to read it more than once. Forget I mentioned it.

[> [> Believe the accepted FX notation is 'Puddingified Jelly Splosh' -- Celebaelin, 16:05:37 01/26/03 Sun

[> [> [> Want some of what you've got -- luna (deprived), 18:32:30 01/26/03 Sun

Consolation for a re-run week (Angel Odyssey 1.12-1.14) -- Tchaikovsky, 10:30:13 01/26/03 Sun

Actually, I think the whole consolation part is probably more correctly applied to manwitch's post below this one, but maybe I can hang onto the coattails of its brilliance in these three short reviews. Or more probably not.

1.12 Expecting

This episode was interesting inasmuch as it gave Cordelia some of the limelight, which to me currently seems to be the episodes which do best. I personally find Angel's character too enigmatic to take up the centre stage. He was conceived as a shadow to Buffy, and I wonder whether the pattern people have been mentioning recently in Angel, where they enjoy the minor characters' developments outside of Angel's immediate story, is somehow a consequence of a slight deficiency of him in the title role. Buffy, such a powerfully realised character, makes her series All About Her, while Angel's essential foil status allows other characters to be more interesting.

The specifics of this episode. Wesley and Angel as Laurel and Hardy in the initial scene I enjoyed, although even in only his third episode, I was starting to get tired of Welsye as amusing comic relief. His character needed to shed the superficiality.

Cordelia in this episode. First of all, it may just be me, but I notice a fairly strong resemblence between Charisma Carpenter and Michelle Trachtenberg. They have extremely similar facial expressions, and the cadences and intonations in their voices also often match up. I hadn't noticed this before, and I wonder if it is somewhat to do with Cordelia's new circumstances. In LA, she'sthe baby of the group, and has a habit of babbling on endearingly but aimlessly, somewhat like Dawn. It's the insecurity and seeking of validation in the characters that perhaps makes the resemblence more than a co-incidence.

I couldn't quite tell, (but assumed that someone had told Charisma) whether Cordelia was a virgin up until this epsiode. The dismay and denial when she wakes up, and the whole idea that she was somhow being punished for having sex, made me believe that it might have been. We've never been told specifically one way or the other whether she had sex in Sunnydale, although to me her lines in 'Out of Mind, Out of Sight' and her relationship with Xander suggest maybe not.

There was a lot of sneaking up in this episode- ANgel to Cordelia to start with, then Angel to Wilson and finally Wesley to Angel. I take this as being more than a co-incidence, and actually hitting on the idea that turns in life can come very unexpectedly. Of course, the idea of becoming surprisedly pregnant after a one-night-stand (although it may have been more in real life), is not unusual- it's just that ME shrinks th timescale to heighten the sense of disorientation.

The lines from Cordelia and Wesley:
C: Oh God, I'm being punished
W: You're certainly not being punished
both showed Cordelia's vulnerability in the scene, and also, to me at least, were an obvious flashback to Giles' scene with Buffy at the end of 'Innocence'. Here, Wesley for the first time shows a slightly more rounded character.

And of course, the bit at the end where Cordelia pretends to have learnt all the wrong lessons ('Sex is bad. All men are evil') is a classic subversion. Instead of moralising some abstract rule, we instead get a beginning of trust between the three characters.

1.13 She

I was extremely disappointed with this episode overall. There were some 'look, this is funny' moments which didn't quite come off for me (Wesley's ridiculous dancing, the opening the coffee conceit). I did enjoy Angel's dislike of mobile phones, (I don't have one myself), and his knowledge of Manet and Baudelaire.

But my main criticisms were with the style and the plot. The style reminded me of a Star Trek episode. Suddenly invent another world with a nasty side and a wronged side, (the women with the bit in the neck extracted). Then show the women aren't whiter than white. Leave a beacon of authority, (Angel/Picard) to sort it out. The same vibe came from what they were wearing, and many of the sets.
I personally felt the plot was a trifle over-complex. There was a lot of showing without explaining. It reminded me of the Hitchcock line: 'Never confuse the audience. When they're confused, they can't emote'. I felt like this, and it's worth remembering that the majority of people only watch the episode once.

I thought the dialogue and characterisation was minimal and substandard, and that the idea of a patriarchy had been done better before on the two series.

1.13 I've Got You Under My Skin

I thought this was one of the best episodes of Angel I've seen thus far, and it made me feel much less depressed than during 'She' where I wondered whether I might give up on the series.

The episode's premise is dark and haunting. There's real pain in every character- the terribly dysfunctional family, the taunting of Angel and Wesley, and Cordelia's vision. Wesley's father issues were only hinted at, but I'm fascinated and eager to find out more about them. I felt like I was interested in the character of Wesley for the first time, (he's been extremely 1-dimensional so far).

There's plenty of characterisation and tidy thematic plot which would have made the episode excellent on its own. Cordelia's support for Angel about Doyle at the beginning. The intelligent if guessable mislead of the child, not the father, being possessed. And some really good performances by theminor characters.

But I was a little bit puzzled by something. Why does the episode begin with the apparently entirely irrelevant reference to Doyle? Was it just to highlight the beginning of a Cordelia/Wesley ship? And why does the episode end, instead of back at Angel's appartment, with Angel's conversation with Seth, and the three surviving members of the family hugging? It seems odd and untidy.

And then suddenly everything fitted into place, and I realised how stupid I was being. Of course! The family that Angel helps IS Angel Investaigations. Just as manwitch contends below that Faith IS Buffy. And it all fits. Angel is asked his relationship to Cordelia in 'Expecting', and responds 'I'm family'. Here, we are shown that they really are. The four members of the family to date have been Angel, Doyle, Cordelia and Wesley. Angel, the head of the family, tries to keep them together. He is the embattled Father, Seth, trying to do his best. Doyle is the possessed child. And, of course, at the end of the episode, we see how the family of the exorcised child react to the loss of the boy, just as we see how Angel Investigations react to losing Doyle. Now, the only thing that the 'real' family have is each other. They have to struggle through, with just the Mother, Father and child. In the same way, so does Angel's group, with Angel as Father, Cordelia as Mother and Wesley as Child.

The tidiness of this correlation raises it from a beautiful dark, brooding meditation on your responsibilty for children, personal actions and their consequences and how events can cleave even happy families, to a really excellent episode, up there with 'Hero' and 'City of' as my favourite so far.

And now I've finished this, I can allow myself some more Sunday evening viewing. Splendid.

TCH

[> Don't worry TCH -- KdS, 11:21:56 01/26/03 Sun

Now you've got past She there are no more really crap episodes for a considerable period of time (at least IMHO).

Unfortunately you'll have to put up with Wes as comic relief until mid-S2 - the worst aspect of AtS at this time is the wild swings back and forth in his intelligence and manual dexterity depending on whether the writers are taking him seriously or not.

[> [> Also don't worry re: Angel... -- Rob, 11:50:43 01/26/03 Sun

His character is given some VERY INTERESTING things to do in the second season. Unfortunately, you may want to beat the crap out of him. But that's a different story!

Rob

[> Just because Buffy's a rerun doesn't mean Angel is -- Masq, 12:10:07 01/26/03 Sun

New Angel ep in North America, Weds 9 pm

[> [> Schedule for Sweeps for ATS and BTVS.....no spoilers, not even for titles -- Rufus, 13:00:15 01/26/03 Sun

Jan/28-Buffy repeat
Jan/29-Angel Episode 10

Feb/4-Buffy Episode 13
Feb/5-Angel Episode 11

Feb/11-Buffy Episode 14
Feb/12-Angel Episode 12

Feb/18-Buffy Episode 15
Feb/19-No Episode Of Angel

Feb/25-Buffy episode 16
Feb/26-No Episode of Angel

Episode 13 of ATS to air in March now

Episode 14 of ATS to air in March

Episode 15 of ATS to air Mar/26

[> [> [> It is highly possible that we get the last 10 episodes of Angel in a row -- Dochawk, 13:18:17 01/26/03 Sun

Especially since the WB doesn't want to put Angel on during sweeps (a REALLY poor prognostic sign for season 5). It would allow Angel to end before the series finale on Buffy which makes it more likely to have crossovers.

[> [> [> Sure about this? -- shadowkat, 15:00:44 01/26/03 Sun

I heard that Btvs episode 16 was airing the second week in March?

And that Ats is skipping partly to catch up with Btvs?

[> [> [> [> Not sure about Angel, but... -- Rob, 17:25:48 01/26/03 Sun

I heard that Buffy would be new all 4 Tuesdays in Feb.

Rob

[> [> [> [> Re: Sure about this? -- Dochawk, 21:12:56 01/26/03 Sun

Well actually Buffy is going to have to wait for Angel. The actress in the well known casting spoiler has to finish up in LA (episode 4.15) before she can appear in sunnydale (episode 7.18) or fans will really wonder. If Buffy goes through sweeps as scheduled, they will be on 7.17 before Angel 4.14 airs. If UPN and the WB are really coordinating I would be in shock, but it sure looks that way to set up both series for long runs through April and May.

[> [> Yes, sorry -- Tchaikovsky, 04:19:16 01/27/03 Mon

Being in Britain, I don't see either, but tend to read the Buffy threads, as I understand them. With the Angel threads, I rarely have any idea what people are talking about, even if they often seem to be beautifully written.

TCH

[> Re: Consolation for a re-run week (Angel Odyssey 1.12-1.14) -- yabyumpan, 16:50:19 01/26/03 Sun

Agree with most of your analysis of all three eps. With regards to Wesley, one of the things I liked about season 1 was the comming together of these three 'outcasts' from Sunnydale. None of them fitted in with the Scoobies, they were tolerated at best, hated and ridiculed at worst (with some reason, admitedly). When Wesley first came in contact with Angel and Cordelia again he's still in a lot of ways, the prat-falling idiot he was on BtVS but he's also picked himself up from being sacked by the WC to become a Rogue Demon Hunter, determined to do his bit in his own way. What he finds with Angel and Cordelia is their gradual acceptance of him, their growing fondness and respect. It's within this atmosphere that he can finally gain confidence and grow. While the prat-falling may be annoying I think it's also important as a way of showing just how different these three are and how living in a big city where every one is an 'outcast' in some ways, can create a bond which wouldn't have happened in a small town.
The second half of S1 always brings to mind an image of 3 people trapped together on a life raft, who eventually reach the shore in TSILA.

Probably didn't explain that that well but the growing fondness of these three for each other is one of my favorite things about the season.

[> Hors d'ouevre for this week's Angel, (Angel Odyssey 1.15-1.16) -- Tchaikovsky, 05:03:51 01/27/03 Mon

Trust me to write an entirely inappropriate post title. Oh well, hope this is better, (although I've almost certainly spelt 'hors d'oevre' wrongly)

1.15 The Prodigal

The mark of Tim Minear's genius is that without him having written any Buffy episodes, and with only three episodes of Angel penned, I already built myself up for a brilliant episode, just from seeing his name on the credits. I think that as a result of this, I wasn't as entirely knocked down by this episode as I may otherwise have been, but it still stayed in the tradition of great Minear efforts.

Let me start with a few unconnected thoughts:

-The cello. I've already mentioned how much I love the theme tune of Angel. Vickie, (I think), told me to look back at 'Amends' and notice the 'cello there in relation to Angel's suffering. Now I've realised that, Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf style, this is definitely true. Here in this episode, the 'cello is used in the flashback sequences. Clearly, the characteristics of the 'cello's sound are an audio shorthand for Angel. A very appropriate one.
-Darla. I have to say that, despite my knowledge that she returns later in the series' run, I was pleased to see her. She also seemed to be a much more interesting character than the ditzy schoolgirl from the first season of Buffy. There, she was just a reflection of Buffy. Ironically, she, the monster, was the thoughtless blonde, while Buffy, the apparent victim, was actually streetwise. Here it seems like Darla has been invested by Minear with some of the vampiric charisma and wisdom of Spike and Drusilla.
-Clearly the lines 'What we once were informs all that we have become. The same love will infect our hearts, even if they no longer beat. Simple death won't change that.'
are one of those powerful, universal comments which reflect back and forth through the seasons like a light on a glitterball. It's applicable to every character, and could have been uttered in most situations.
-Kate not doubting that Angel had not bitten her Father? A real sign of trust. In those firts few seconds of grief, it is impossible ot be objective. I personally would have imagined Kate believing it was Angel who killed her Father.
- There's a really wonderful piece of lighting work in this episode. The 1753 Ireland scenes are often exceedingly light. Of course, once Liam is a vampire, he will never see the light again. The deliberately light palette of the scene emphasises both literally and metaphorically Liam's descent into darkness

Clearly, though, the thematic centre of the episode is about fathers and their children. The episode title, 'The Prodigal', is an interesting one. There are layers of meaning. On one hand, the lack of the word 'son' allows both Angel and Kate to somehow fit the allusion of the son who loses all his money on gambling, and then comes back home. On the other, the lack of son makes one wonder whether we're exploring the parable or the word. The prodigality of the son in the parable is irrelevant, because the Father forgives, and loves each child equally, despite his failings. In real life, this is mcuh less true. Liam's Father will never forgive Angel for being prodigal. Instead of welcoming him home after his revellings, he claims Liam is not a man but 'a terrible disappointment'. In Kate's case, the rejection is even more bitter. Her only failing is not being her own mother. Mr Lockley will never forgive Kate for the loss of his wife, something entirely beyond her control.

So in a sense, the episode is not really about Angel and Kate at all. Or if it is, it's about the consequences of a lack of forgiving in their fathers. In the episode, nothing is simply a demon. Kate's Father is killed by his own lack of trust in Angel, (which is itself a reflection of his lack of trust in Kate's judgement). Angel's Father is killed at least partly by his lack of forgiveness. Angel's vampire form comes only from a certain rashness and sense of adventure. It's the mistakes of the past which haunt the present.

At this point, I have to admit that despite some of the pwerful sentiments, I still the miss the general cheery mawkishness of sections of Buffy. Cordelia and Wesley's tiring and often irrelevant repartee to me don't match up to the Scooby Gang's humour. There is a general lack of humour in this series. I can understand this, as Angel's journey is a dark one, but it just means that it sometimes lacks a certain balance. There is, consequently, a necessity of making every episode's plot, characterisation and theme hit dead on, because there's no shying away from the often breakneck pace of the plot development. This is a challenge which, in the best episodes, allows the themes even more power. In the ones where it seems slightly less perfect, there can be a feeling of boredom, for me at least.

1.16 The Ring

In this episode, we are given what is, on a surface level, a homage to the then recently released Gladiator. Because of the comments after 'Showtime', I did keep thinking 'Two men entre' one man leaves', but here that's really not the allusion. It's about the rather ancient and primal idea of a powerful patriarchy being able ot make an underclass fight. Of course, there's a re-appropriation of the demon metpahor as a result of it. On Buffy, demons represent inner fears, and personal battles, (stop right now and read manwitch's essay, if you haven't already). Here, the demons seem merely to be slaves, who react to their captivity in varying ways. In a wink to the more pedantic fanatics of the Jossverse, this lack of cohesion is noted at the end as the gang realise they have just freed demons, rather than some supressed Jewish tribe in Israel, (can I say that what they did, being like Moses, was Mosaic? Sorry.)

I was pleased to see the beginning of a development in Cordelia and Wesley's help to Angel. Instead of largely floundering about uselessly, there was a real purpose in their plans, even without the rallying influence of their leader. It reminded me of the Scooby Gang for the first time. Also, the interplay between the two, at times verging on affectionate, [in a Cordelia-Wesley way, not C/W, I hasten to add], was quite touching.

We see Lilah for the first time, and of course, having been somewhat spoiled about the developments in the next three seasons of the Odyssey, it's odd to look at Wesley and Lilah as they are at this stage. Very much opposite. In fact rather like Buffy and Spike in 'School Hard'.

My final thought may be a little discomfiting for fans of boxing. I'm not entirely sure how much to read into this, or not. But I did keep getting the feeling that subtle (and sometimes less subtle) hints were being dropped about pugilism in this episode. The title of the episode, 'The Ring', is surely a double entendre with the metal restraint and the arena where the demons fight. The number 21, rendered XXI, is both another suggestion of the allusion to 'Gladiator' (Roman Numerals), and also somwthing else. Where is 21 important? Well, it's obviously to do with coming of age, but it also reminds me of Blackjack. 21 is the key number. But Blackjack is related to casinos and voyeuristic sleaze. There's the greed aspect to it. And then, the round things which keep the demons fighting. A reference to that round thing called money, anyone? The thing which keeps Mike Tyson fighting and biting when it's clear he should be sunning himself and going to a psychiatrist? There were too many references for me not to believe that there was a deliberate hint of a dangerous voyeurism in the money-motivated sport of boxing. And those shadowy Don King/Frank Warren like figures in the background.

Two sold episodes. Coming up soon is an episode called 'Five by Five'. Now who does that remind me of?

TCH

Anyone else thinking about Chloe? (Possible spoiler thru 7x12) -- WickedBuffy, 16:45:08 01/26/03 Sun

I'm sorry if this has already been rehashed, but the search function is down and the other one only came up with a brief mention of this.
I understand the actress playing Chloe (sit) had a job conflict and couldn't be in "Potential", but it seems really odd they couldn't work around it. When Buffy had to go host Saturday Night Live, they at least made it work out by turning her into a mouse. Has anyone heard anything official from Joss about this? It must have really been last moment if they couldn't even pretend she was in bed with the flu or something. The writers always seem so clever to take care of emergencies like this - yet this was just left wide open glaring inconsistantcy.
D'ya think it's part of the plotline?
::confused::

[> Re: Anyone else thinking about Chloe? (Possible spoiler thru 7x12) -- Tyreseus, 20:24:37 01/26/03 Sun

I was thinking that they could have covered it by adding Chloe's name on the line about Giles being away tracking down another potential. But then, that might have begged a question about putting SITs on dangerous assignments.

[> [> Re: Anyone else thinking about Chloe? (Possible spoiler thru 7x12) -- Dochawk, 00:54:16 01/27/03 Mon

How about she just wasn't old enough to go to a demon bar :). I am sure we will hear an explanation during episode 7.13.

[> Re: Anyone else thinking about Chloe? (Possible spoiler thru 7x12) -- Tyreseus, 20:39:59 01/26/03 Sun

I was thinking that they could have covered it by adding Chloe's name on the line about Giles being away tracking down another potential. But then, that might have begged a question about putting SITs on dangerous assignments.

[> Dun-dih-Dun-dih-dih-Dun, C-H-L-O-E! -- Cactus Watcher, 07:11:28 01/27/03 Mon

I'm kind of wondering if there isn't a budget concern as well. Each extra actor with a speaking part in an episode is a considerable expense. With Amanda joining last episode and a Chinese potential slayer presumably on the way, we may notice 'missing girls' or 'silent girls in the background' more and more as the season progresses.

If you are old enough to know what my subject line refers to, don't admit it.

Angel's LDJ and the movie VERSUS -- neaux, 12:26:13 01/26/03 Sun

Ok.. Last night I just saw one of the Best Movies EVER made. that movie was Versus.

VERSUS (Japanese year 2000 RYUHEI KITAMURA Dir.) is a classic. I'm so happy I was able to see it at the Nevermore Horror Festival. Its a Tarrantino-esque zombie movie that's more action that scary, more bloody and gratuitous than not, more comedic than serious and 150 times Cooler than the Matrix. And with all those things going for it, it still has a story better than any top comic book writer could dream up. Lemme tell you straight up that this movie is low budget. but its funny how some movies are so lo-budget and are still better than most Hollywood movies today.

I really want to know if anyone else has seen this movie. Because I would love to discuss the parallel between this movie and Angel's current storyline. The way Angel's storyline is setting up in LDJ it is eriely similar to VERSUS.

Plotlines involving portals, destiny, seers of the past and future, Champions vs. Demons, Immortality, choosing sides, Good vs Evil and the badassness factors are evident in both.

I hesitate to elaborate in detail actual plotpoints because I fear Angel might actually steal their story from Versus. But if anyone else has seen this film, and would like to discuss the twist ending, I would love to speculate Angel's season ending this year following Versus' storyline.

the basic narrative syntax of buffy - an applied linguistics view -- steven, 18:03:06 01/26/03 Sun

I learned a scientific methodology for analyzing syntax and semantics in unknown languages, for example, in order to facilitate translation of exotic languages spoken by indiginous peoples. One of the first things you realize as you apply the method is that these languages sometimes say things that simply cannot be translated into English, or any modern Western language. First, there are often coding paradigms which we just don't have- our language is not as rich as we'd like to think, nor as universal in its treatment of relationships like verb tense, or spacial orientation. Second,there is the fact that certain abstract concepts aren't even agreed upon by all of us - like evil, ie - so how can we know what word or phrase to use to mean evil in, say, the language spoken by Iban headhunters in Borneo? When we talk about good vs. evil in a show like Btvs, are we even on the same wavelength? It's not a matter of who is good or evil, but WHAT DEFINES good or evil. No, I'm not going to go into a hippy tirade about relativity!!! - I'm a true scientist, which means I DEFINE good and evil, and they are not relative at all...

This is not a theory. It is syntax. Theories are abtracted from events with analogous patterns, as a means to try to explain the patterns. Syntax is a simple statement of the form of the patterns themselves. All of the theories on btvs will ultimately be imperfect, even if the writers are strictly following a structured plan. But the syntax of the narrative will hold if the analysis is done correctly - unless the writers change the nature of the characters and plots altogether. SO -

Btvs has the basic syntax:

(Power+) > entropy+ > Power- > Power(+max) > entropy0

In fact, this is the narrative syntax of almost every story you've ever heard that is in the realm of 'good vs. evil.'
What it means is : Well, it's sort of a restatement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, anthrpormorphized. It says that an outside force is causing chaos to a group trying to be cool, so the cool folks create somehow a link to the outside, and have their own agent, of greater power than the others, which restores equilibrium. Further:

'Will' is defined as one's ability to act as intended.
If two wills exist in the same context, but are mutually exclusive, only one can manifest, or neither (compromise).
If one will is able to manifest more completely than the other due to a differential in the strength(or cunning)of the two wills, this differential is called 'power'.
Though it has never existed, most of us raised in the judeo-christian tradition can envision a society where all people somehow have equivalent power, and sacrifice equivalent will. This is the syntax of the Jewish Covenant, as well as the US Constitution. (NOT of capitalism, of course!)

'Entropy' is defined as the amount of disorder in a system. Entropy always increases in a closed system, unless energy is transfered from outside of the system. This, of course, causes more overall entropy of the system inclusive of the inside and the outside.

Power is measured as a differential, so a Power+ implies a power-.Entropy is a gradient, measured only in relation to itself, so that entropy+ simply means that entropy has incresed from its former level. Entropy0 is equilibrium. Entropy-, again, can only be achieved from an import.

SO- The closed system is humanity, which strives for equivalence of power. It remains in equilibrium, because humans have the same capacities, but never quite gets perfect. But then, an external agent with far greater will and capacity enters the system, and causes a major differential in power, which creates exponentially increasing entropy. Humans, as a closed system, cannot slow the entropic increase -

SO- Humanity needs external energy. Now, if the agent of this energy were to come from completely outside the system, that agent could, potentially, created negative entropy, and make things all better - this would be the second coming of christ, ie. Please note that Jesus' first appearrance did not create perfection, it just helped restore equilibrium. This is because Jesus, like Buffy, is OF THE SYSTEM, a sort of half-human/half external entity - neither of them, of course, have fathers that stick around. But the external energy Buffy possesses is greater than any other - the slayer is, by definition, the greatest will on earth (+max) greater even that all the other wills combined, if it comes down to it. The only thing that makes her power different from the other powers that bring chaos is that she is bound to only exercise her power over other powers that impose - mainly, the external, non-human powers. The slayer absolutely cannot be out-powered - she can only be defeated if it is her will to be defeated. Again, just like Jesus.

Now, lots can be got from this. We can define evil, in the context of narrative, as: Power+ >entropy+ > power-
Or, a will imosing itself at the expense of another will.
Evil, then, would be a gradient, its value equal to the incresa of entropy. Death is the ultimate entropy+max, from the point of view of the living, at least, so killing someone would be evil+max. In the closed system.

But btvs has another thing: (power++) > entropy++ > power--
Or, an external will of a higher order of magnitude. This is a different evil - It could be called '[evil]', in the symbolism of math, this would mean 'the absolute value of evil.' Satan is the christian sign for this. This allows for a reversal of the gradient measure of evil, as such:

Power+max>(entropy++max > power--)= evil--max:power--=[evil]

Or, in the context of absolute, external evil, an act with the same structure as evil, but involving only the external power, is defined as the maximum negation of evil. Hero, Savior, Slayer, and this syntax also fits James Bond (his villains are best when they are WAY out there, madmen, and Bond is outside the system - no family, just a number, and a liscence - of course - to kill.) , also think of the quiet town where some manson-type killer is terrorizing, or the town in the old west where the banditos are ravaging, and in rides the cop or Clint Eastwood, the hero, to kill the bad guys, or take them to jail for ever. But the next bad guy is always there, because only equilibrium is reached - evil cannot be destroyed altogether, because - and this is important! - once you leave the system, like if Buffy goes into hell, (or a citizen becomes a vigilante,
or whatever) then the system is redefined, the outside is no longer external, and the negation of evil is therefore no longer in effect. If Buffy goes to hell, and kills the master, ie., she is evil. And retuning to the closed system will not change that measurement, even though all those within the system take the negation for granted. Her power on earth as a human is absolute, and heroic. Her power in hell is only possible if she becomes evil.

This is already very pedantic, so i won't go on with all the ways this structure applies - it fits across the board -anomalies will all somehow have to fit in the structure, or else the series would become a different series, in practice.

I will only add that i did not call the negation of evil 'good' for a reason - it is heroic, in the narrative. 'Good' is not its negation, it is something else entirely. If you're interested......

[> Cool, and I am interested in your views on good;) -- Drizzt, 20:05:38 01/26/03 Sun

[> Re: the basic narrative syntax of buffy - an applied linguistics view -- lunasea, 07:47:06 01/27/03 Mon

'Entropy' is defined as the amount of disorder in a system. Entropy always increases in a closed system, unless energy is transfered from outside of the system. This, of course, causes more overall entropy of the system inclusive of the inside and the outside.

I guess what I object to is the term disorder. Entropy is also "The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity." This would be the ultimate order, a progression to the natural state of things. Energy is required for maintainance because it is unnatural.

Why do we say that point X is more disordered than point Y? Because we want point X more. It has nothing to do with some empirical concept "order" but everything to do with the subjective idea of "desire."

This so called equilibrium isn't true equilibrium. It is the desired point. True equilibruim would be that inert state of uniformity.

You define evil as a will imposing itself at the expense of another will.

Since that equilibrium isn't true, it is itself the imposition of will at the expense of those wills that don't agree where that equilibrium should be.

And that is how our Constitution works. It rests on the theory that all men are created equal, but the practice of it is far from that theory.

[> [> let's not mix metaphors here. -- prometheus, 08:55:42 01/27/03 Mon

When i read steven's bit, i was amazed - obviously a nice bit of logic, obviously prettty much on the money - but just as obvious was that it would not be undderstood by most.

Take the previous thread. It argues epistemological concerns with steven's definitions - which would be cooll, if it were in the same context. But lunasea seems to be argueing about reality, for some reason. I believe steven was only talking about stories - if he was talking about reality, it was only about how we VIEW reality in terms of , say, our narrative called 'history.'

You can't argue definitions with somebody who has been explicit in stating that he is making up the definitions himself.

Unless i miss the point entirely, this whole thing was about how we define things and judge things from within our own little bboxes, and lay meaning on top of chaos so that reality will be as we wish it to be. Isn't that what myth and adventure fiction is all about?? isn't that why we watch Buffy?? The same act is evil here and now, but heroic there and then - not because we change our deinitioon of evil, but because we changge our definition of the players and the context - we create 'the other' and 'disorder' when we want to kill, and call ourselves heroes.

this is why those who hate often de-humanize their enemies -
because evil easily avoided if you say the person you killed was a savage, or whatnot.

If Steven is saying what i think, then we could apply this syntax to, say wars, and see:

WWII was heroiccally fought by america, they were 'the greatest generation', etc. truman dropped a nuke (2!) and is a national icon. Why?? because we were fight against true evil, nazis, japanese, genocide mongers, the holocaust, etc. They were not quite human, so destroying them was heroic.
Vietnam, on the other hand, was a dirty little war, the soldiers came back to protests, were 'baby killers', etc. Why? because it turned out - and people saw it on the news, before it coulld get whitewashed - that the vietnamese weren't all that aggressive, that they were being slaughtered by us indescriminantly, no battlefield of strong men - just farmers nd children and old women fighting a guerilla war against all odds. They were not 'the other' - a hundred years ago, the fact that they were non-caucasian would have beeen enough to excuse killing them, but not anymore.

BUT - this isn't to say that these two wars were REALLY like this - its just that we narrate the story this way. it is the NARRATIVE of WWII that we conceive when we think of that war - unless you were there. then you REALLY want to follow the syntax, don't you?

Buffy has taught me a lot about reality - but only by metaphor or abstraction. Cool as it is, it is still fiction, and our conceptions of 'REAL' evil or the 'actual' nature of thermodynamic systems aren't necessarily relevent - in the classic stories, the good guy doesn't win by contemplating the implications of quantum mechanics - he wins by defining the situation without hesitation and acting without doubt, or as though there were no doubt.

i'd like to see some people apply this syntax to the show, as opposed to reality. It works:

ie - take adam, who Buffy couldn't even knock off balance at first. How could this be?? because adam was like buffy - half of this system, half without - but technoogically enhanced. He was an intentionally created slayer - but of course went bad. he had no spirit, only matter.
Buffy beat him by invoking the SPIRIT of the slayer - which, in steven's take, means that she is the greatest will, period. stronger than all others put together, if necessary. As it turned out, she could even twist the laws of physics and stop bullets in midflight, if necessary.

Gee, if Buffy could stop bullets in a fictional realm, I guess she can also decide for herself what the 2nd law of thermodynamics means......

[> [> [> Sort of OT:Why we watch, how we interpret narrative forms, is it our own projections? -- shadowkat, 10:07:16 01/27/03 Mon

Haven't finished reading steven's post yet - printed it off, one of the few I've done so lately, I'm trying to save on printer fluid...ugh! Too many good posts.

But there's something you mentioned that was lurking in the back of my mind as I was jumping around the board.

Unless i miss the point entirely, this whole thing was about how we define things and judge things from within our own little bboxes, and lay meaning on top of chaos so that reality will be as we wish it to be. Isn't that what myth and adventure fiction is all about?? isn't that why we watch Buffy??

**Okay...what comes next may seem really non-sequitor to the above, so bear with me. I do agree with your statement in a way, it is one of the reasons I watch. So what comes next should not in any way be interpreted as a "judgement" on the above posts. It's more a general feeling.

No matter how much we claim not to be judgemental, I have yet to read a post on this board including my own which isn't. It's in our nature as human beings, we can't divorce judgement from our viewing. And when we watch something, we often feel the need to project our own beliefs on to it. Something I think the writers may have metanarrated on in Ats and Btvs last week with Andrew's comment about Eve and Manny's about not speaking college boy. It's human nature.
We analyze everything, break it down, place it into boxes that support our belief systems, if it doesn't - we may not watch it or may just find another reason to watch.

Manwitch's post below impressed me partly due to the disclaimer, that this was by no means the only way or the true way of interpreting the show, just happened to be one he'd come up with. The people who responded to manwitch argued it was. Manwitch continued even in his response to people to question if that was true.

Here you and in a way steven appear to be doing the same...questioning how we watch and analyze the show and how we judge things.

When i analyze Buffy - I do it for pleasure or to figure something out that is puzzleing me, I certainly don't get paid for it, wish I did, nor does anyone ask me to do it nor do I get a credit from a college course...and in most cases the analysis has something to do with my own personal views and beliefs or something i'm struggling with. We all watch it I think for different reasons of course.
Some because it seems to have a religious doctrine which they practice and they find deep philosphical meaning in it. It may even reveal things to them about religion or their own spirituality that they can't find elsewhere right now. Some because of a particular character they closely identify with whose journey oddly echoes their own. Some just for the pure entertainment of it. And some for the reasons you suggest above. (You can tell peoples reasons or mantra for watching by how they respond to posts.)

It is interesting to me that the group that strongly insists there are no souls and no God loves the show as strongly as the group that insists there are souls and there is a god. Which means...that these two views can co-exist in the world. They don't have to compete for space.
Christians watch alongside Buddhists and both find precepts from their own theological background reflected in the show.

A person specialising in syntax can analyze the show on that basis beside someone arguing it based on reality.
Someone can argue that the show metanarrates on pop culture forms while another insists it metanarrates on literature.

I think the reason we all watch Buffy and Angel is it doesn't preach to us, it is ambigous enough that we can project our own views onto it and analyze it in many different ways, and it has characters with journeys that each of us strongly identify with. Also the stories in of themselves are entertaining, unpredictable, and speak to us on a deep personal level. It DOES NOT matter if we agree on the message being conveyed or if the message is Buddhist, Christian, Judism, Hindu, or just moral in character or all of the above...what matters is that something about this show compells us to connect with one another to discuss it, that is the magic and that is why it has lasted 7 years and sells DVD's.

[> [> [> [> Re: Sort of OT:Why we watch, how we interpret narrative forms, is it our own projections? -- ponygirl, 12:51:10 01/27/03 Mon

Just taking a break from work to say, another nice post sk! Sigh. It seems to be a given that the amount of work I have to do corresponds with the number of thought-provoking long-mulling over type posts on the board.

In any case, I agree with your reasons for why we watch. For myself they can range from all of the above to one or more often from episode to episode, mood to mood. One of the things I like about BtVS is the number of interpretations available. Each viewer brings something unique to the mix and takes away something equally subjective.

And while I will google myself silly looking up every reference and source, as though Buffy is some sort of puzzle I can put together, deep down I'm glad we're never going to have a Grand Unified Theory of Buffy. I don't think Joss is ever going to come out and say Buffy was based entirely on transcripts of the Watergate trials or something less nonsensical. Even manwitch's lovely essay is open to debate and can't cover everything -- there's Buddhism to be sure but there's also Greek drama, fairytales, feminist theory, a thousand and one movie/comic book references, and Party of Five with a rocket launcher.

Oddly this causes me to remember my all-time favourite ending to a series, Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol comic. I won't go into detail but he ended his run on the book with essentially a Normal Again ending, one of those it could have all been a delusion or maybe not, we'd never know for sure. But the really brilliant thing Morrison did was to suggest that we weren't supposed to know, that the act of demanding an answer to every question, a solution to every mystery, a key to every lock would destroy the reality that we readers so wanted to believe in. That uncertainty allowed hope.

I hope that doesn't sound like I think it's wrong to analyze and interpret. Just the opposite. Ambiguity as you say sk, allows us to project, it allows us to find so much in the show. I guess this is just the long way around to saying I agree with your post!

OZ: Buffy is all of us. We think. Therefore, she is.

[> [> [> [> Re: Sort of OT:Why we watch, how we interpret narrative forms, is it our own projections? -- lunasea, 13:12:58 01/27/03 Mon

I think the strength of the show is that the ensemble casts represent various schools of thought themselves, which allows for multiple consistent interpretations.

I was trying to get away from analyzing Buffy and Angel, when I finally found a hook for Giles. Ripper will be an amazing show. Here is what I discovered.

AtS and BtVS are about good/evil and what is humanity. Each character gives a different perspective to this. People identify with different characters because different characters answer this from different perspectives.

Typically an ensemble cast is based around characteristics. There is the one who cracks jokes, the one who is straight, the smart one, the jock, the popular one, etc. The Buffyverse has conferences about it because its ensemble cast isn't just based on this. It isn't a single world view. People like the character that illustrates their view.

Buffy: We are good at our core. Buffy doesn't have a dark side. She isn't like you or me. Her moments of greyness are because she can't handle the world or circumstances, because it isn't light. Her mission statement is The Prayer of St. Francis.

Angel: We have a strong good side and an equally strong dark side. These two sides are at war. His moments of greyness are because of this battle. Angel is better able to handle the world, as he demonstrates in Epiphany. His mission statement in Deep Down reflects this.

Spike: We have a very dark side. We can do good actions, but their motivations don't have to be good. Fairly Randian character. His moments of greyness are because selfish motives can lead to beneficial actions.

These three characters have different natures. They work together to show the three main perspectives on human nature. To give any two the same nature takes away from all three. They can have different natures because they are different types of creatures, a supernatural human, a souled vampire and a regular vampire. In one coherent universe, they can show three completely different perspectives. Such is the ensemble nature of the show.

Then we have the human characters.

Willow: Isn't about good and evil in a cosmic sense, like the above three are. She is about how our self image impacts whether we do good or evil. Whenever her world view/ego is threatened, she turns to the "Dark Arts." In Primeval she is spirit, but her character is about the effect of identity on spirit. This is where her greyness comes from.

Xander: Isn't about good and evil in a cosmic sense, either. He is about how our relationships with others impacts whether we do good or evil. Whenever his connections to others are threatened, his actions aren't so good. In Primeval he is heart, but his character is about the effect of relationships on heart. That is where his greyness comes from.

Willow and Xander are the two perspectives, self v others and how those things cause us to act.

Then we have the wonderfull character of Giles. He isn't any of the above. What is left?

Giles: Lack of good and evil natures. Lack of self v others. He isn't so much what he has as what he doesn't. As I am writing this, I have Who's Next on. His theme is definitely "Behind Blue Eyes."

He is a facade, but not even he is sure what lies behind that facade. He has all this anger and feelings, but he is so scared of them, he won't deal with them. He shoves the past aside and tries to concentrate on a better future.

Angel and Giles are great when taken together. Any two characters are. Since I am in a Giles mood, I will do him in relation to the other characters.

Giles and Buffy: Buffy lives in the present. Her actions are steered by a strong conscience, so she doesn't have to worry if what she does is good for the future. Giles lives in the future. His actions are not steered by a srong conscience, so his only guide is his intellect. He has to constantly be thinking about how what he does will affect things. That makes him a great planner and Buffy not so good at it.

Giles and Angel: both men have not-so-good pasts. Angel has a strong evil nature and has to constantly battle it. This leads to tremendous self-doubt. Giles nature isn't quite evil and he can just ignore it. It doesn't lead to self-doubt, but it doesn't make him feel good about himself. It is a button that Ethan can push. Both men have to think about their actions, since Angel's impulses aren't only good and Giles doesn't have impulses. Even when Giles goes after Angelus, it was very controlled and not impulsive.

Giles and Spike: Giles' motivation is a better tomorrow. He does what appears good for this reason. He doesn't do it for goodness sake. Same with Spike. Spike's motivation is selfish. He does what appears good for this reason. He doesn't do it for goodness sake. Giles is concerned with the ramifications of his actions, so he thinks about them. Spike doesn't, so he is impulsive.

Giles and Willow: This one really deserves its own post. It gets into the contrast between Ripper and Evil Willow. Willow is probably a lot like younger Giles. The difference between Willow and Giles is that there was no Xander to reach him.

Giles and Xander: Xander mainly annoys Giles. Giles admires the heck out of the heart of Buffy, it is the one thing he probably wish he had, but Xander's which doesn't have a higher purpose, is a nuisance.

Anyone else have any comments on the true ensemble nature of the cast of characters or Giles?

On a separate note, I analyze the show because I want to be able to create my own universe that has the pull of the Buffyverse. I like seeing how the shows are like a Mandelbrot series, with the entire season encapsulated into the season premier. I like seeing the misdirects and how to maintain my focus. I like writing from the characters, rather than the plot. It has shown me how to put the heart back into my own writing.

I think the writers get a big chuckle when we go this in depth. I bet they all think "I am not that deep." Most of it isn't conscious, but mythos comes from the transcendent function.

[> [> [> [> [> 'Good/evil' - a unity ... the most misunderstood concepts of all time -- steven, 15:01:08 01/27/03 Mon

All of the talk about moral ambiguity is interesting and worthwhile, but based on nonsense. not that nonsense doesn't tell us much about the world.....

The biggest non sequiter ever spoken was the proposition that good and evil are a polarity, or dichotomy, of two opposite values. Semantics of complex abstractions like this are arrived at by parsing the critical attributes of the concept - that is, the minimal bits that must be present to confirm an interpretation. If you think about it, evil has very concrete attributes - must be destructive in some way, must be 'done to' another entity against it's will. So, I think we all can agree that no matter what, an 'evil' act requires, at least, two entities, one an agent and one a patient, and a transitive action. Is there anything else?? All other factors are mitigating -they don't define evil, they just make it more or less so.

That is the first misunderstanding: That something is evil or not, like it's on or off. Evil is a gradient concept. If we are objective and not self-justifying, we can agree that certain acts are inarguably evil, and then talk about mitigations, like defense, larger goals, unintension, etc. This allows us to see that there is NO OPPOSITE OF EVIL - just a scale of minimal evil to maximal evil. Fighting evil IS evil if fighting is evil - it is just goodandevil...

And this is the rub - this is the knowledge of good and evil that caused the fall of mankind - good isn't at odds with evil, it is a totally separate and unrelated concept, and the same action can be both good and bad, without ambiguity. The ambiguity arises from misunderstanding the concepts. Evil is a gradient, and can be defined objectively from outside the system of the event - that is, a person other than the agent or patient of evil can define the event as evil without actually becoming part of the act. There is no negative evil, except in the narrative syntax of heroes. But that is a fallicy...an act is either evil or not, and being 'not evil' is NOT equivalent to being 'good.'

Not so with good. Good is not definable objectively. It is by definition a relative concept, definable only by a person who is inside the event frame to be labled. Whereas objectively defined evil is gradient, good is 'differential' in nature, and, unlike evil, can have a negative value. (bad, or negative good - they are the same thing, so good and bad aren't really polarities, either - consider hot and cold - is 'cold' really any different than 'less hot'? At what point does 'less hot' become 'cold'? - there is no point. it is a comparative concept, not a stative concept. if we think we know hot when we feel it, it is only because our bodies maintain a tempurature that acts as our constant point of reference...)

In other words, 'good' is what the judger of goodness says is good - and this ain't because good is an ambiguous concept, it is because THAT IS the nature of differential, subjective valuations. To make this very cleaR, let me use a math model to show the syntax:

Good-+ = event : will.

This reads: The differential value of 'good' is equal to the proportion of identity between the will of the valuator for a given event, and the actual event.

So if i want you to say 'you're a genius,' and you say 'you're a genius', that's very good. if you say 'whatever', that's not so good. If you say, 'you are a freaking idiot who should never be allowed to speak again'...that's not good at all.
GOOD IS ONLY DEFINABLE FROM INSIDE THE EVENT, because to define good, you have to have a vested interest. Otherwise you might say, 'well, good for you...' but not really give a rat's ass. You can, of course, have an altruistic will, and good would then be measured as good for someone else - but only because that someone else's good what what you desired.

This, then, is the problem - what if someone has a will to do an evil act?? If they then do evil, and do it as desired, then evil IS good. Not 'seems' good, or 'self-deceptively' good - it IS JUST PLAIN GOOD, no ambiguity!! This is the nature of, say, spike, who enjoys the evil, seeks it, and so it is good, and there's nothing you can say about that. The only reason the humans think he is not good is because their will for him is to not do evil, so their will is not fulfilled by actual events. Like I said, it is all dependent on the reference frame. Humans, in real life and Buffy, tend to consider themselses the prima facie good of the universe, so they have managed to take their will as a universal, and the satisfaction of that will unquestionble. That is why we think good is the opposite of evil - because WE can't be evil, we are the center of the universe!! If we kill a vampire, it satisfies our will to not be eaten by vampires, so it is good. And since we are the only opinion that counts, we say such a killing is not evil. But to the vampire....

To be pedantic about it one last time - since evil is an event frame that, in itself, can be viewed as a singular event that can be embedded into the equation that judges good, it is almost a given that any individual who intentionally commits an evil act will consider such an act 'good'. The nature of the slayer is not 'good that opposes evil.' it is 'evil that opposes evil and is therefore self-defined as good.' same can be said of all heroes. The only evil that is not good is the evil done by impulse or insanity or ignorance or accident, etc. we usually call the state of someone who is evil but not good 'regret' or 'remorse', etc.

The knowledge of good and evil allowed mankind to create a history of atrocities perpetrated by heroes. Only the vanquished are defined as villains in the narrative of history. Only the external, non human can be absolute villains in the narrative of myth. Buffy upsets this rule of myth by letting us get to know outsiders who are not evil - kind of like racists being confronted with intelligent, caring, decent, or kind people of color. And what happens if you see that the villains think they are good, and with self awareness you see that to them, you are just like them, to you??

There is no choice but to admit that we are all goodandevil.

You still kill the bloody vampires, though. Nobody's willing to die just because you empathize with your killer. But you do have to be sure they are intending harm... and , perhaps, that they cannot be changed....

There is, of course, the issue of 'initiation' - the reason Buffy can be max.good-min.evil is that she is re-acting, defending. When she 'hunts' it is questionable. When she abuses chip-controlled spike it is nasty. When xander hates angel in spite of his non-evil, remorseful behavior, it is appalling. But it is generally acceptable to kill the vamps and demons so long as they follows the rule "don't start none, won't be none..."

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: 'Good/evil' - a unity ... the most misunderstood concepts of all time -- prometheus, 16:02:13 01/27/03 Mon

i was right - i wasn't totally getting you before. To be honest, I am kind of a hippy relativist, and when you said that evil was objectively definable, it appalled me - not for any reason, i guess, except absolutist opinions apall me in general. But i thought you sounded like a, let's say evolved perso, so i assumed you were only talking about stories, and buffy, and not reality. I liked you better that way - made you 'more good' - the way i wanted you!!!

But you really were talking about reality, i see that now. I also think i'm appalled ever so much more by the fact that i think i agree with you..ugh! You're definition of good was right where this relaivist thought it should be. And that made me take another look at the rest-

I think you are taking some of what you know implicitly for granted, and you should know that even someone educated and liberal and open minded - and all the other good things i consider myself to be! - even i misread your entire point because i was unaware that i was taking certain things for granted too. I love when i catch myself being stupid or prejudiced or whatever, it makes me feel like i'm wiser now than i was just before. Since you really didn't intend to show me the bad i saw in myself that made me feel good to see, do you get credit for teaching me, or do i get credit as student and teacher, and you were a tool???!!

Anyway, what i realized was, i guess the easiest way to say it is that i thought you were talking about people when you were talking about evil. and i just can't get into the notion in the real world that people can be evil - there is always a mitigating factor or two. I guess maybe the nazis came close, as a whole, but individually, i wonder how much abuse and pain went on...not to excuse them or anything,i just think that understanding the causes of violence will help end violence more than saying the person is just plain evil, a bad seed. I just can't abide by the notion that a person can be evil, or that evil can be concretely defined except in myth.

But you weren't talking about people, were you??

You are obviously educated in grammar, so you should have realized that you talked of evil like it was a thing, i guess i'm saying that you used the noun evil. When you said evil. But when you talked about evil, i realize now, you called it an act - like it was a verb, not a noun. So i looked at your formulas again, and i see now that, whether you intended it that way or not, your definition of evil only calls individual actions evil, as does your good. Is this what you meant, or did it just work out as good for me??!! according to my take on your equations, a person or thing or animal or inanimate asteroid or whatever cannot be evil, it can only be the actor of an evil action. I guess if the action last a lifetime nonstop, the person might be evil in hindsight, but that never happens, i hope!

It also is implied in your syntax that redemption and transformation are possible, even necessary. A person can do evil, think it's good, but then realize that the other didn't think it was so good, and if they empathize, they will be remorseful, will likely be less likely to do it again than most "normal" people, because remorse and guilt are heavy loads. Hence the character of Angel. And, i guess real peple who are remorseful probably take a while before they feel like they can be happy and good again, because they would be afraid of making the same arrogant mistake again if they are not self-critical. That was the most appropriate curse for a remorseful man - you can't be happy ever again, because you can't be trusted to not be evil if you like yourself and your situation. I imagine like a guy that accidentally kills a child by falling asleep at the wheel, or maybe who had a few beers. The guy with the beers will feel more remorse longer, all things being equal - not really, just for arguement's sake!!! Will he ever let it go?? Angel kind of had beers - he willingly agreed to join Darla in her world, but, we assume, he had no real idea what he was signing on for. But he was the worst of the worst once he got there, by all accounts. Like a guy who thinks he is going to have a few beers, but gets slipped a mickey, then drives a car and kills dozens of babies and puppies. Then sobers up, realizes the evil he did, and what...??? What would anyone do if they were angel?
I think i've had too many girlfriends who told me they felt like they didn't deserve to be loved, because they weren't good people. they thought they were bad for the past. I thought they were good because they were always good to me. Seeing what happened to angel makes me wonder if i didn't just make them feel worse by loving them or being kind when they thought they needed to be unhappy to be good.

that digressed - but that's the fun of this game, isn't it? so tell me - were you doing good accidentally, or doing good on purpose - did you mean to only talk about actions as evil? Can people be evil, in your beliefs?

[> [> [> [> Re: Sort of OT:Why we watch, how we interpret narrative forms, is it our own projections? -- yabyumpan, 16:23:52 01/27/03 Mon

Agreeing with everything SK posted above and adding another way of watching and analysing the shows.

I watch from the gut, my response to the shows (mainly AtS) is emotional/feeling. It's why i don't post that much and when i do, my posts tend to be quite jumbled. I tend to think in images which my poor brain can rarely articulate into words. It's like looking at a beautiful image or listening to an amazing piece of music which makes your stomach turn and brings tears to your eyes. It's a primeval response which touches something deep inside where words, thoughts and ideas don't exist.

I love comming to this board and reading people's thoughts, ideas and interpretations of the shows. A lot of the time i agree with what's been written and i'm grateful that someone can put into words what i may be feeling.

What I'm trying to say in my usual inarticulate way is that, as SK said, there are many different ways of seeing the shows, all of which are valid, but there is also another way of viewing which has nothing to do with ideas or philosphies but is purely emotional, and that can rarely be adequatly expressed in words.

[> [> [> [> [> Actually well said -- shadowkat, 16:29:22 01/27/03 Mon

What I'm trying to say in my usual inarticulate way is that, as SK said, there are many different ways of seeing the shows, all of which are valid, but there is also another way of viewing which has nothing to do with ideas or philosphies but is purely emotional, and that can rarely be adequatly expressed in words.

Actually I think the emotional one may be the most valid - it's why I come back, it's why I can't schedule anything on Angel or Buffy night and have a tape in the VCR at the same time I watch and why I rewatch...because the first watching is often pure emotion.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sort of OT:Why we watch, how we interpret narrative forms, is it our own projections? -- professor, 18:31:11 01/27/03 Mon

Dear Lunasea: (and evryone else, of course)

I apologize in advance for being somewhat dismissively critical of your physics. Please know that my intention is to have you feel good about seeing your own assumpttions and beliefs that can affect the way you interpret things, much like Prom. was saying about himself. In fact, I am impressed at your audacity and creativity. You obviously have picked up on the physics you know through pop culture, rather than mathematics or science studies, and you made intelligent extrapolations from what you read. But if good and evil can be the same, so can intelligence and misconception.

So are matter and energy, and in thermodynamic systems the single "stuff" that exists is energy. When you say entropy is "'The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve to a state of inert uniformity'" (and when you put it in quotes directly following another obvious citation) you are saying a meaningless proposition, at least as far as physics, and the world it describes are concerned. First, matter isn't a part of the equation, and if you inserted such a proposition into a theory of the universe, current thermodynamic theory would simply not be possible in that universe. Second, the universe is not really covered in the laws of thermodynamics, since it is a theoretical system with no external, and therefore would theoretically exhibit entropy eternally. Yes, eternally. Without stop.

Third, the term 'evolve' is generally not applied to entropic events, since the word is used in science to mean a development of higher ordering - it is synonymous with negative entropy in the biological use, which is how we generally apply the metaphor to non-biological events. You can't evolve entropically any more than you can live deathfully. Unless you're a vampire, or the slayer. I guess Buffy isn't subject to thermodynamic events, either.

Fourth, "states" don't exist in these concepts...it is equivalent to matter that has no energy, which is impossible given the theory of relativity. If energy became what we call a state, it would theoretically vanish from existence. matter is energy. there is no predication, only unity. Fifth, "inert" is just another way of saying "without energy," which, again, would simply mean "non-existant." So "uniformity" would be hard to achieve - since nothing exists anymore.

Here's where your understanding went askew, i wager:
You read the physics in english, and all these nouns and nominal-accusative statements failed to allow you to see that in order to understand what is being said about the world by physicists you have to forego the concepts of matter and energy and time and space that you live with evry day of your life. They are a "matter of fact" - yes??

the universe IS energy, whether we experience it as temporally diffuse (matter) or temporally compact (energy).
This means that the universe, and every event that comprises the universe, is constantly in motion. The universe is a matix of vectors, of energy in various states of motion - various directions, various magnitudes, various velocities. This is important if you want to understand entropy. Whether you like the concept of disorder or not, it has a precise definition in physics theory that is very informative. I think that, again, you don't like the word 'disorder' because you see it as a duality of states, either/or disordered/ordered. actually, entropy is just like good - it is a differential measurement, not a gradient or stative one. Entropy doesn't imply an increase in disorder on some objective scale, where this much disorder is better or worse than that much disorder. It is simply a statement of how thing CHANGE. The universe is all motion, entropy states the changes that occur in the interactive matrix of energy that is the universe. "disorder" simply means that the energy vectors are random, unpatterned, and entropy states whether the vectors are more or less random, and by what proportion.

The theoretical tendency toward state you described as entropy is actually an implied "almost" in modern physics. Understand that when you state propositions in the calculus, you can describe a limit, wherein you estimate closer and closer to an unreachable place, without the inconvenience of having to arrive. So the limit of the state you described would actually be a statement of maximum order, or neg entropy. Sorry - you got it totally backwards. Very very nearly inert energy would be very little energy of very little magnitude in very fear direction moving real slow - highly predictable, very orderly.

The entropy in the actual universe would not tend to the inert, it would tend toward the chaotic, random. But never stop. Which means that all the energy would either expand and accelerate and diffuse forever - not very inert - or else tend toward the inert state you described, but never ever really get there, and, at some point, the approach towards that state would be negatively entropic, which is not possible without external energy, and the universe ain't got no external energy. Which means either it yo-yos into chaos, or explodes in a big bang, or whatnot. it gets sketchy.

I realize i haven't mentioned Buffy, really, but i assume that since we're all talking about metaphor and symbolism, the insights my physics knowlegde gives me into the show are limitless, and i hope you will use this information as a very rich and powerful mythology, which is what btvs and physics are, really.

Oh one more thing - equilibrium is simply the balanced state of a closed system of two forces that are equal and opposite to each other. It does not imply peace and harmony and uniformity, it implies "mexican standoff," but can involve bullets flying and equal killings on either side. And that is what Buffy restores to humanity When she kills the external enemies. And that is sort of what our laws do, as evidenced by the ongoing civilization they operate to maintain. Of course, there are some things the laws do in real life that appear to be the seed of our collapse. But in Buffy, everything's cool again when the baddies are gone. until they come again...

Willow's moral compass and lack of accountability for her actions -- Miss Edith, 01:22:24 01/27/03 Mon

I've been rewatching my DVDs and I couldn't help noticing Willow has always been able to justify immoral or illegal acts to herself quite easily. She seems to be able to convince herself what she is doing is right simply because she is Willow and knows best. She was involved in hacking computer systems before she even met Buffy because she liked the challenge. She sneaks into the morgue in BATB to perform an autopsy, steals files from the mayor. Yet she seems clueless about her breaking of rules "I'm very seldom naughty". In FHAT she is bodily hurled off campus because she fears detention. Yet she has left campus dozens of times before that, just not in plain sight. It's like she thinks rules are wrong, and they don't apply to her, she is simply concerned with getting in trouble with the authorites. "They're laying in wait to arrest me, and mar my unblemished record".

This is a bit O/T but I was having a discussion on a Farscape boards when a fan of the villian challenged the differences between the hero and the bad guy, pointing out that the villian Scorpuis was revealed to have a worthy cause, but simply goes by the idea that the end justifies the means and treats others as collotaral. This person made the point that the hero had been involved in immoral acts. I thought about this and finally concluded that the real difference was that the hero John felt guilt when for instance he was blowing up a building to save lifes. He was going by the idea that the end justifies the means as the research he was destroying could destroy the universe. But he was not deluding himself into believing that made what he was doing morally right. He knew he was committing an evil act killing people for the greater good. What made the villian Scorpuis more frightening was that when he committed immoral acts he never thought of them as immoral. He always found a way to justify whatever he did and was incapable of acknowledging he was in the wrong. I do see some of that point of view withen the character of Willow. Willow has a sense of right and wrong certaintly but she seems to define it based on what she thinks is right and wrong. I would say there is a disconnect in Willow. It's not that she thinks rules are stupid, she simply believes in every case that she is the exception and she can arbitarily choose which rules to follow. It seems to give her no pause that her inner and outer realities don't match. She has always been brainy so when potentially dangerous information falls into her hands such as in Ted she doesn't question the fact that she has no business with Ted's robat parts. "I just want to learn stuff" and she feels she is entitled. In Flooded Giles scolds her by pointing out others have tripped up with magic and she protests "They're the bad guys, I'm not a bad guy". Again evidence of Willow seeing herself as special and entitled to break rules.

Willow does have an appearance of sweetness to draw viewers in so her character has escaped the bitch accusations that have plagued Buffy in recent seasons. But if we examine her character more closely a darker side does emergee. When she mindwarped her friends in TR, or her spell went wrong in Something Blue my impression was that she felt bad her friends were hurting, and wanted to bake cookies so she could make it up to them, become sweet adorable Willow again. But being afraid of hurting people is to me different from having a moral compass and acknowledging what you did was very wrong, and over stepping your boundries of power. Does Willow understand being in the wrong or in SB once she was forgiven would the issue have been completely over for her. I would argue yes and she would not let it continue to inform her life.

In TR Willow was unhappy with being judged harshly. Buffy had thanked her in AfterLife for ressurecting her, and Willow seemed to give no more thought to the unpleasant way Buffy was raised. When she discovers the truth about heaven she decides to control her friends minds so she can avoid suffering any nasty consequences. If people don't know she has done something wrong, then it doesn't count/won't bother Willow. Breaking rules secretly is fine as long as you keep your actions hidden. If you are caught time for the regret and attempts to win people over. Look at her smile in TR as she performs the spell. When it ends and people are looking at her angrily then Willow gets a guilty expression on her face. Yet in Smashed she is telling Amy the rat that Tara left her for no good reason. I don't think even Willow realises her regret is because she has been found out and people might not love her any more. Has she ever regretted doing something because it is inherently wrong or is it always about the effects doing naughty things has on Willow?

To use another example in Flooded Willow is boasting to Giles and we were all shocked when she threatens him for pissing her off. But IMO in the early days if Willow had been confronted by Giles in a similiar situation and Giles had said "Think what you've done to Buffy" Willow would not have felt guilty and prosessed the incident internally. She would have felt put upon and be upset about Giles being mad with her, feeling the need to make amends. But she would not have recognised her acts as bad for their own sake, regardless of how they caused others to look at her. In season 6 she had the confidence to tell Giles to back off as she is powerful but I wouldn't say her behaviour had altered so radically in her acceptance of consequecnes. She is more outwardly rebellious but even in season 1 I don't feel she would have felt guilt if Giles had told her she had committed a wrong towards Buffy. She would have looked ashamed on the surface but really her responses would be directly linked to the reaction of others towards her.

In Smashed she is making the people in the Bronze dance to her tune with Willow as the master puppeteer. She is doing this for the sheer amusement factor, and this to me reflects the Willow who won't change for others, but will change them to her liking instead. In TR she mentally abuses her lover "how could you violate my mind like that" because of her insecurity and need to be loved. Willow needs approval and validation from others and unfortunately she has grown up with a friend like Xander who does follow her leadership and see Willow as right more often than not as she is his intellectual equal.

I guess what I'm really picking up on is that everyone around Willow seem to believe that sweet=innocent. Even the viewers have overlooked a lot of Willow's past behaviour because Alyson does play her in such a wonderful way "Cookies see a very not evil thing that I did". I can't help seeing a core of selfishness though. Buffy left Willow and ruined her summer "I needed someone to talk too and you were my best friend"(Dead Mans Party). In Wild At Heart Oz has hurt her so she will curse him to never feel love or peace again. He doesn't deserve to as he hurt Willow. Tara's death meant no one could ever look at Willow again and make her feel wonderful so Warren must pay. When she cheats on Oz she is desperate for Oz to forgive her, and make her feel better. Oz calls her on this, pointing out she is showing a lack of consideration for his needs. Just things I've picked up on rewatching earlier seasons after the dark magic Willow in season 6. What do others think?

[> I think I entirely agree. Great post! Really articulated some of my recent thoughts on Willow. -- Helen, 03:33:57 01/27/03 Mon

[> Re: Willow's moral compass and lack of accountability for her actions -- Peggin, 05:09:56 01/27/03 Mon

I completely agree with all of this. For a long time now, I've thought that Willow is the most selfish, self-involved character on the show.

I see this attitude emerging as early as I, Robot -- You, Jane. It's one of my least favorite episodes, but it gives some pretty good insight into Willow's character that ties into all you just said. Buffy made a very reasonable comment that maybe Willow ought to meet her new "pen pan" before she got all relationshipy with him, and Willow got defensive and claimed that Buffy just didn't want her to have a boyfriend. The whole attitide was like, how dare you question anything I do?

I also thought it was interesting that Moloch seemed to get the rest of his minions through some kind of mind control, but with Willow he seemed to be trying to get her to join him of her own free will. Perhaps an early sign that Willow could easily be seduced by evil?

[> Re: Willow's moral compass and lack of accountability for her actions -- Pilgrim, 05:52:35 01/27/03 Mon

Thanks for your post--very helpful in seeing Willow's behavior as consistent and integrated with her more basic motives/desires. I guess I'd only push to interpret Willow as more complex--in addition to what you point out, she also has her moments of caring about others in a way that doesn't necessarily feed her ego or her need for approval from others. I'm thinking about her choice at the end of season 3 to stay in Sunnydale and fight the bad guys. You could read that a number of different ways--demon-slayage made her feel important, she was afraid to go away, she believed she could become a more powerful witch by staying in SD--but I think she really gave up something she wanted, to go away from home and attend one of the best schools, in order to stay and help not just Buffy but others too, with little recognition and knowing she'd be working in Buffy's shadow. I'm not saying she's Saint Willow, and I agree that she seems not to know herself very well--before the finale of season 6 she didn't seem to get that just because she's basically a good guy, she can still do bad things (I remember when I discovered this about myself, sometime in college--I think a lot of goodie-goodie kids go through this, being surprised at how badly they can mess up). But she is still basically a good guy, imo.

[> Re: Willow's moral compass and lack of accountability for her actions -- cjc36, 06:48:43 01/27/03 Mon

Some of Willow's actions are selfish. But is this any different than any of the other Scoobies? Xander (been discussed on an earlier topic, sure, but he does do some selfish things), Buffy with the secrets and dodges regarding touchy subjects like dating vampires, and even Giles at least in regards to the demon his university buddies raised coming back to claim his prize.

Willow gets a lot of criticism in DMP for telling Buffy that Willow needed her to be in her life. So? Remember, Willow had no knowledge of Buffy having to kill a *cured* Angel - she just figured Buffy ran off. The gang didn't know that entire summer what had transpired in the mansion between B/A. And the fact that Angel was cured didn't occur until Buffy was back in school during FHAT. So Willow being a bit touchy from being abandoned is understandable. Wrong, overall, but understandable. Buffy had yet to share her crushing loss with the others. And that, too, is perfectly understandable. Buffy was suffering from some serious post-traumatic stress.

Willow is not a saint. I do love her character, though, for her lush inner voice. Joss and Alyson have given the character a unique personality. And I don't totally disagree with the take on Willow here, it's just a bit 'zealous prosecutor"' tone about it, I guess. To me she feels more real than a lot of TV characters. Not all sunshine and light, no, she does do most things with a bit of self-involvement, a "What will I get out of this?"

But she has been there for Buffy when it counted. Save for last May (okay, she *was* the bad then) every major May battle had her right in the mix. And she went inside Buffy's mind to save her, and generally took over the Scoobies until Buffy snapped out of it. Nobody asked her to, she did what she had to do.

Raising Buffy could've been selfish. I'm not sure. I do think that if it was, she even deluded herself. Her single-minded desire to get Buffy back seemed genuine. And her grief when Xander told her the Osiris jar had been busted seemed true, also. At that point, Buffy was really and truly dead to her, and Willow grieved. Not because *her* spell didn't work, but because Buffy was gone.

I do think Willow came down for real in Wrecked. This was her zero moment. She would either die or get better from that point. Her crying jag was so well played by AH that it was a bit uncomfortable to watch. But it was real. I've seen my share of drunks on a crying jag. 'Tant pretty.

This season she's back about ten steps. She can do magick, but FE can hijack it whenever it wants, it seems. That leaves her to do the cyber crime stuff and BnE. On one regard, I ignore stuff like that - TV shows have file rat type characters (X-Files the Lone Gunman) who get the information by breaking and bending rules and laws. Its more of a TV necessity than real life. In her universe, things like that are not quite as serious as they are here. (In her universe, one can use rocket launchers in mall movie theaters and not have one cop come by the house later). I do concur that if one is to look at Willow from 'real world' rules, she is a happenin' cyber criminal who disregards laws with abandon. I guess I grade on a curve.

Maybe its her shy smile. :)

[> [> Re: Willow's moral compass and lack of accountability for her actions -- Miss Edith, 14:57:41 01/27/03 Mon

I guess I was just noticing that Willow does seem to get away with a lot more than the others because of her shy smile. In DMP Buffy had killed Angel. As far as Willow knew the spell didn't work and Buffy killed Angelus, the evil version of the man she loved. Very traumatic experience, backed up by Buffy's response of running away for three months. Yes Buffy did escape her responsibilites and I can understand her friends feeling the need to call her on it. I am just considering the different reactions. Xander reminds Buffy how much her mother had worried about her all summer "did you even think about that", he tells Buffy he owes it to Willow to hear her out "what you did was incrediably selfish and stupid". But from what I can remember Willow's focus was not on Buffy's behaviour as such. It was on the fact that Buffy forgot to write to her, and that her best friend left her alone all summer. I would classify that as self-involved.

Willow grieved in Barganing because Buffy was gone and Willow missed her. She couldn't cope with losing someone she loved so she made the decision to bring them back. She tried to do the same after Tara had presumedly gone to heaven in Villians. Willow deluded herself that Buffy was in hell because that's what Willow wanted to believe. Willow wanted to be the big hero who saved her friend. I am not saying her grief wasn't genuine, just that again I do see self-involvement. No attempt to find out where Buffy really was, just the initial reaction of Buffy is gone and I must get her back. In AL once Buffy has thanked Willow and assured everyone she is happy to be back Willow is satisfied with that. Again no attempts to really look at her friends pain. Giles tells her "look what you've done to Buffy"and Willow says she saved Buffy completely forgetting Buffy digging her way out of the coffin. I don't rememeber it ever being mentioned again. Fair enough they were all involved in the spell but it was Willow who was behind the spell "no ones backing out period" and they wouldn't have done it without her involvement. It felt to me like Willow was in charge and the others were her minions backing her up almost. In AL Willow smiles when Tara says it was all Willow who brought you back so I do think she needs to take responsibility for the horrific ordeal Buffy went through because the spell wasn't thought through.

I like Willow too and if she was a saint she would be very dull. I'm just noticing a lot of instances that I brushed off in the past and wondering if everyone cut Willow a little more slack than she deserved.

[> [> So do I, cjc....*S* -- Briar Rose, 17:08:44 01/27/03 Mon

Even though I see the arguements made by Miss Edith and Helen and others as having a very valid basis in their own view on Willow and Will's actions.... Namely that the Universal Order shouldn't be mesed with. This is a very moral and classic way of veiwing metaphysical activites, and for your own conscience, you are right in your views and I think you have valid points in your arguements.

However - I see it more as you do, cjc. Willow works with PURE INTENT. Is it "illegal" to hack computers for info and perform autopsies without a license? Sure! But her INTENT is that breaking rules to help a greater cause is warrented. This ambiguity always used in fiction of the adventure/fantasy/psychological thriller genres. The "Heros" always have to make judgement calls based on good/bad related to "Greater Good" issues.

Just as most of the spells people mention as being so "bad" in Grave and Two to Go are seen by some of us as beyond immoral and by others of us as based in very moral (if exceedingly Primal) INTENT.

Something Blue was actually one of the few times Willow did anything metaphysically that was purely from selfish motives. And even then, she had one of those "Witch flu" outcomes that showed that TPTB will not allow total self promotion in any spell. And for the many who bring up that she "wished" Oz and Veruca eternal loneliness and pain, remember that Willow did NOT complete the spell! Thus part of why everything went wonky. One intent counteracted the other intent.

As cjc said, there is a point in everyone's life where they have to face who they are, who they have been and who they want to become. Sometimes I see in posts where different age demos of veiwers seem to judge the characters differently because they have either "Been there, done that" and empathize or "Not relating because haven't crossed that bridge yet" and can't see the different choices of the characters and how they react to them being portrayed by the writers.

In the whole - Willow is simply dealing with what each of the Scoobies is dealing with in the words of JW - "Growing up. Learning more about themselves." Willow's just has a metaphysical edge to her growth. Every one of them has made bad errors in judgement and decorum. While growing up takes place mistakes are always made along the way.

It also helps me to analyze the motivations portrayed when veiwing each character's growth to remember not only my own life and the triumphs and mistakes I made, but that the writers are using hind sight from their own lives to create characters that are younger themselves than the writers are now.

JW has stated many times that this is a series of portrayals (taken on an epic scope and blown out of proportion, of course) of HIS life. That Xander IS JW, that Willow and Buffy and Cordelia and Angel and everyone else involved in the protrayal of this story are parts of people he was or knew while growing through the phases he's portraying through these characters.

What I always see in JW and the rest of ME's writing staff in the character of Willow is the INTENT she places into whatever she does. And in the metaphysical world, as in the real world, what our intent is matters more than what we actually do.

A great example is Resurrecting Buffy. Willow did it with pure intent. She truly believed and said very often that Buffy died an "Un-natural death" and was "In a hell dimension." Both extremely true from the remaining Scoobie's veiwpoints and purely logical conclusions when the void Buffy jumped into was caused by Glory trying to escape to a Hell Dimension and what was coming out of that rift visually pretty much screamed "Hell Dimension" to everyone, including Willow (and me, BTW*L).

The intent Willow used for raising Buffy was not entirely selfish. Nor was it all based on greif. Anya and Xander agreed, as did Dawn and Tara and even Spike, albeit begrudgingly. Buffy had given the penultimate Gift to the World. But the world was now without a Champion because of it. SO to leave Buffy in what everyone assumed was a Hell Dimension didn't serve Buffy or the World at large in any positive way. Getting her back was intended to reverse a wrong. And it's very telling to me that Tara even agreed with the logic being used in this particular case of Willow's metaphysical meddling with situations.

[> [> [> Re: So do I, cjc....*S* -- Miss Edith, 18:31:09 01/27/03 Mon

Willow to me breaks rules and defies traditions whenever they get in her way. Yes she is often in the right but the questionable behavier is still there and is easily justified by Willow to herself and others. Even the shy Willow from the high school years has been shown to cheat, lie and sneak around. Look at her attitude towards Cordelia. Xander is snarky to Cordy's face, Willow subtly tricks her into deleting homework, feeds her nasty lemonade, calls her a skanky ho behind her back but is at pains to avoid being seen as mean or petty. She makes snide comments in Invisable Girl about Cordy being terrorised because the person doing it must have met her. Willow then looks abashed,smiles her sweet smile and says "did I say that" causing everyone to see her as sweet and adorable again. She even fears being seen as a slut in Phases if she makes the first move with Oz. Willow was in the early seasons passive aggressive, but very capable of being manipulative in her attempts to control others, and simmultaneously appear to be a nice girl on the surface.

She even managed to successfully manipulate herself into believing she is very seldom naughty. Hence when she did gain control through magic use Willow continued believing she knew better than others, and could do what she wanted, provided she wasn't caught. In TR she promised Tara no more spells and then the very next day changes clothes with a spell as soon as Tara has left the house. Willow is then in the clear to behave as she wishes without having society or loved ones super impose their views on her because she's Willow and knows best.

[> [> [> [> THAT's why I love Willow so! -- cjc36, 01:46:00 01/28/03 Tue

Miss Edith, that's why I love Willow so much! She's smart, sneaky, and there's more going on behind that smile than just...more smile.

As far as Cordy-revenge stuff...hey, who hasn't either dreamed of, or actually have *committed* little acts of vengeance against their HS oppressors? I wasn't picked on like Willow in HS, but there were a few folks who never missed an opportunity to make me look the fool. Vengeance is mine, sayeth my imagination. And that's where it stayed. Willow is truly (S1-S3, at least) the Revenge of the NerdGirl. I can live vicariously through her "The Deliver key" thing. Very sneaky.

Again, not all sunshine and light with Ms. Rosenberg. And I guess I've always figured the shy smile stuff to be an affectation. Still adorable, though. Maybe more so in that I'm aware it's kind of a fake, "What, li'l ol *me*" thing.

Perhaps we need one, great cleansing breakdown from her where she addresses her own internal darkness? Closest thing to me was Wrecked, but it still didn't get the total job done. "Magick" as psychotropic compound was still a scapegoat.

[> [> [> Enlightened self-interest -- cjc36, 05:37:56 01/28/03 Tue

QUOTE BY BRIAR ROSE: ....Sometimes I see in posts where different age demos of viewers seem to judge the characters differently because they have either "Been there, done that" and empathize or "Not relating because haven't crossed that bridge yet" and can't see the different choices of the characters and how they react to them being portrayed by the writers....END QUOTE

Briar, I think you've hit on something here. I'm in my mid-30s, and look at the Scooby Gang as a reflection of my group at the same late-teens to mid-20s age. We were "one for all" until something came up and tore one of us away. We schemed and plotted at times over girls and jobs and such, but at the end of the day we love the hell out of each other. Some of the friendships faded; despite the selfish horseplay, none blew up in our faces. Most People - real people - operate by what I've heard described in political writings as "enlightened self-interest." We do good, but there's a greater prize there, too. It's not all altruism. It seldom ever is.

I forgive the Sins of the Scoobies because I've kinda been in *emotional* situations like theirs myself. I guess most people have. I've also been the victim of someone else's selfishness. It's the 'real life' buried in the fantasy of BtVS.

[> [> [> The issue of intent is precisely what ME are exploring... -- KdS, 07:04:20 01/28/03 Tue

As I see it, the portrayal of Willow through S5-6, (and probably earlier than that) was an exploration of the pitfalls of an intent-based morality. Yes, the purity of one's intent is important, but the problem comes when some people (not accusing you personally Rose) like Willow use intent as an excuse for evading responsibility for the predictable bad consequences of their actions. On several ocassions which Miss E has discussed in detail Willow acts recklessly with potentially disasterous results and then assumes that since her intents were pure she can make it all up with cookies or their emotional equivalent. She never considers that there might be a pattern and that she needs to work out the potential unintended bad consequences of her actions.

Intellectually, I have no problem with permissive systems of morality like "An it harm none do as thou wilt". The problem is that to be genuinely moral you have to think very carefully and clearly about the potential consequences for other people if things go wrong, and some people can allow their desires to blind them to the fallout if things don't go the way they plan.

[> Re: Willow's moral compass and lack of accountability for her actions -- lunasea, 06:50:52 01/27/03 Mon

I agree with you and what you have said has helped me on something I am working on. The way I see it Willow was temporarily vamped S6. The stuff that you mention shows why evil Willow was a logical progression for her to take.

The difference between evil Willow and S1-5 Willow is that something is causing how Willow feels S1-5. Her feelings are attached to something. When that goes away, so do her feelings. When she goes evil, she leaves those causes behind. Nothing can reach her until she is dosed by Giles.

[> Re: Willow's moral compass and lack of accountability for her actions -- Malandanza, 08:20:01 01/27/03 Mon

I thought I'd chime in and add my agreement to almost everything you've said.

Looking at Willow's motives for her frequently naughty behavior, I think they are varied.

First, I have to agree with Willow's mother from Gingerbread

WILLOW: Mom, you're not paying attention!

MRS. ROSENBERG: And this is your way of trying to get it. Now, I've consulted some of my colleagues and they all agree. This is a cry for discipline. You're grounded.

When Willow behaves herself, scant attention is paid to her, she's "old reliable." When she misbehaves, she's the belle of the ball -- like at the end of Something Blue. And secrets seem sexy to Willow, as she intimated in Revelations. When she's doing something wrong, she gets a secret thrill because it's wrong. She's giddy.

Sometimes the trouble she gets into is a result of other issues -- like Doppelgangland where she is angry with Principal Synder for forcing her to help Percy, angry with Percy for leaving his work for her to do and angry with herself for not being able to stand up to the bullying. She lashes out at her friends out of simple transference not because they called her reliable, then turns to magic to make herself feel better. Doppelgangland turns into BBB with Willow playing Xander's part -- in both episodes, the main character turns to magic out of frustration -- an inability to deal with their emotions. Neither spell works out, but neither character runs to Giles immediately with a confession -- in both cases, the spell has to negatively impact them before they do the mature thing and accept responsibility. Of course, no one died in BBB, but otherwise, Willow was showing all the emotional maturity of Xander.

I agree that Willow thinks that rules are good, but they don't apply to her. The best examples I can think of for this behavior are the instantly broken promises she makes. When Tara is brain-sucked in Tough Love, Willow promises Buffy she won't do anything rash, the promptly attacks Glory and leads Glory to Dawn. She knew she was wrong, because later in the season she threatens anyone who tries to do anything "paybacky" to Glory. In Tabula Rasa she immediately breaks the promise she made to Tara about not doing the spells (or perhaps this was just equivocation, since I don't recall her specifically promising not to do the forget spell on Buffy or reapply the forget spell on Tara). In Doppelgangland this memorable speech by Willow shows she knows better than to play with magic for frivolous reasons, yet does so anyway:

WILLOW: I believe these chicken bones are mine. Magic is dangerous, Anya. It's not to be toyed with. Now if you'll excuse me, I have someone else's homework to do.

Then there are sidekick issues -- which we first see in Fear, Itself but don't come fully into fruition until the showdown in Season Six. I believe Willow pushed herself to become as powerful as possible in as short a time period as possible, whatever the risks to herself and her friends, partly out of a desire to be Buffy's equal.

It is the commentaries from Bad Girls, however, that I think give the greatest insight into Willow's insecurities. She watches Buffy, her best friend, drift away from her, drawn to the much cooler Faith and can do nothing about it. From that point on, Willow has an implacable hatred for Faith -- mirroring Xander's hatred for Angel. Irrational, driven by jealousy and insecurity, yet also understandable and a little sad. We a return to this concern in Earshot where Willow worries

WILLOW (V.O.): She's hardly even human any more. How can I be her friend now? She doesn't need me.

So Willow strives to be indispensable to Buffy and in her efforts to be so, gets into all sorts of trouble along the way. Her power gets ahead of her ability to control it and instead of harnessing primal forces to assist her friend, she ends up controlled by these very forces.

Of course, Willow got it wrong. None of her friends care how powerful she is -- she could be completely ordinary and they would still love her.

[> [> outlaws -- prometheus, 09:25:37 01/27/03 Mon

we need to keep in mind that, even in real life, we make a distinction between outlaw and criminals. but if there were demons in our world, would we really want a fellow human to let a demon get away with a murder or two because they were reticent to hack into a computer network, or steal a car, or whatever??

but re. willow, i've always thought of her like a child - a child is too naive and too dependent on others for support and validation to be held accountable as though an adult - hence, juveniles are treated differently in our justice system, as are the insane, those under traumatic stress, severe emotional situations, those acting in defense, etc. Like the fool who can tell the king the truth, because he is a fool. willow is too innocent and childlike to be criminal - even when she went evil, it was more of a child's tantrum then an adult's premeditated act.

Willow doesn't need to be acccountable for what's been done - she just needs to grow up and not act impulsively in the future. And we see the potential in her to be a fine adult, so we forgive the tantrums and such.

[> [> [> This post reminds me -- Sophist, 09:56:54 01/27/03 Mon

of Buffy's comment in Doppelgangerland:

Buffy: (to Xander, proudly) See, I told you. Old Reliable.

Xander nods and smiles. Willow is not amused.

Willow: (sourly) Oh, thanks.

Buffy: (taken aback) What?

Willow: 'Old Reliable'? Yeah, great. (reprovingly) *There's* a sexy nickname.

Buffy: Well, I-I didn't mean it as...

Willow: No, it's fine. I'm 'Old Reliable'.

Xander: She just means, you know, the geyser. You're like a geyser of fun that goes off at regular intervals.

Willow: (disgustedly) That's Old Faithful.

Xander: Isn't that the dog that, that the guy had to shoot...

Willow: (incensed) That's Old Yeller.

Buffy: Xander, I beg you not to help me.

[> [> Re: Willow's moral compass and lack of accountability for her actions -- Miss Edith, 15:22:10 01/27/03 Mon

Think of all the criticism Xander gets for his unfair attitude towards Angel. His lie in Becoming is still being brought up today with people accusing him of being unfair to Buffy, and letting jealousy cloud his thinking.

Willow's attitude towards Faith as far as I'm aware hasn't achieved anywhere near the same level of scrutiny. Most people seem to think Willow began hating Faith because she turned evil. I would say Faith turning evil gave Willow the excuse she needed to hate Faith. I saw Willow's jealousy in Bad Girls and Consequences when Buffy begins bonding with Faith on patrol. Then when Faith almost kills Xander Willow says Faith belongs in jail. Seems fair enough but she also makes the point that "I'm not the most objective I know. I have an issue with Faith sharing my people" suggesting her reaction is linked to Xander sleeping with Faith. In Dooplgangland Willow is gleefully telling Buffy how much saner Buffy is than Faith "Just don't mark the box that says I sometimes like to kill people". She has an emotional reaction of anger with the pencil as well. So I would say Willow already hated Faith and used the incident with the mayors assistent as an excuse for Willow to feel comfortable hating Faith openly, and avoiding accusations of spitefullness. And by and large it succeeded. It just interests me because on the surface Xander and Willow's attitudes are similiar. Xander is jealous of Angel, so is pleased when he discovers Angel is a vampire and therefore assumes he is less of a threat in the episode Angel and tells Buffy she would be out of her mind to date a vampire, she must kill him etc. In the same way I would argue that Willow wanted to cut Faith out of the inner group and was therefore doing her own secret happy dance and "I told you so" that Xander did openly in episodes like Enemies over Angel being evil.

People seem to make excuses for Willow because of her sweet demeaner and I can't help feeling Willow would have avoided a lot of her later problmes if she wasn't so sweet and good at winning people over. Look at Giles and his anger with Xander in BBB, yet Willow constantly misuses magic and simply gets stern fatherly warnings. No anger from Giles that I saw until Flooded. Giles even says Willow was the finest of them all and much much better than Xander.

[> Balance -- Rufus, 16:26:25 01/27/03 Mon

In Lessons Giles told Willow something that she should pay attention to......

WILLOW: I don't have that much power, I don't think.

GILES: Everything is connected. You're connected to a great power, whether you feel it or not.

WILLOW: Well, you should just take it from me.

WILLOW: I deserve a lot worse. (they stop walking) I killed people, Giles.

GILES: I've not forgotten.

WILLOW: When you brought me here, I thought it was to kill me. Or to lock me in some mystical dungeon for all eternity, or ... with the torture. (frowns) Instead, you ... go all Dumbledore on me. (Giles smiling a little) I'm learning about magic, all about energy and Gaia and root systems...

GILES: Do you want to be punished?

WILLOW: (softly) I wanna be Willow.

GILES: You are. In the end, we all are who we are ... no matter how much we may appear to have changed.

Willow followed a dark path when she decided to misuse power, use it for her own amusement....and as usual she waited for punishment. Giles and the coven did the opposite, they taught her about the interconnectedness of everything. Why? Why not just punnish her? The answer is that no matter how far Willow strayed from the path, she is still Willow, still the girl that can break hearts with her tears. Her lesson will end when she realizes that she is still who she always has been, she never needed costumes, props, to become recognized....she is always who she has been. It's all connected....good/evil, light/dark, love/hate....and Willow is about to learn something about her choices in a world that can be so harsh. Willow may have become dark, but Xander saw only the compassionate friend he grew up with....she never left, she just ignored that part of herself.

[> Willow's control issues -- Miss Edith, 17:58:12 01/27/03 Mon

Look at Willow's relationships and the fact that she seems to deliberately choose people who won't question her. The easy-going Oz, "As Willow goes so goes my nation". Tara was seen by Willow almost in sole relation to how she affected Willow. Her purpose seemed to be mindless adoration of Willow. Look at AfterLife and her nervous reaction when Xander questions Willow "Willow is a very powerful witch and she would never..." When Tara started asserting herself Willow was not happy. In Tough Love Tara has lost her mother and is offering opinions on what Buffy must be going through. Willow starts a fight because she hasn't lost her mother, and therefore her opinion isn't being treated as valid she feels. This problem progresses. Willow tells Tara to keep her mouth shut when her judgement is questioned in All The Way. Willow is at that time using a spell to make the people around her shut up in the Bronze and at the end Willow just doesn't want to fight anymore so she uses a forgetting spell for her convienience. When caught manipulating Tara's mind she ignores Tara's fear of being violated, lies to her to lull her suspicions, and then wipes Tara's mind again. The image to me is of Willow feeling Tara the little woman doesn't know what's good for her so Willow must condescendingly impose her judgement upon Tara.

Willow does occasionally defer control in the earlier seasons. Like I said with Faith she gives her opinion but acknowledges she isn't being objective and defers to the combined judgement of Giles, Buffy, and Angel admitting she has issues. When Willow's power begins to eclipse the other scoobies in late season 5 that is when she runs into problems. What disturbs me the most about Willow is the contempt I see of others opinions and the suspicion that Willow feels if everyone would just let their lives be decided by Willow they'd all be happier. .

And I agree on the surface Willow being a scooby it is understandable when she is rifling lockers, cutting class, hacking government websites etc. But she was breaking laws before becoming a scooby with her hacking. And her interest in Ted's robat parts suggested to me that Willow felt entitled to special privaleges, rather than thinking she was a scooby and it was all right to break the occasional law whilst fighting the good fight. Look at Doppelgangland. Buffy is talking about how she could be Faith and Willow says "No way some people just don't have that in them". In Willow's mind there's the bad guys, and there's the good guys that know best and can handle power without becoming corrupted by it.

I am not saying that Willow is a power hungry monster,or that I hate the character. Selfish motives are common, everybody has them. The problem is Willow is too arrogant to recognise them as such and gets indignent with people who call her on it for doubting the purity of her motives. When she wipes Tara's memery Willow offers the altruistic motive for her actions, she wanted them to be a happy couple and not fight any more. But Willow does not recognise her control issues or the wrongness of choosing to dominate Tara in the manner that she did. Willow rationalising selfish behaviour because she believes she has good intentions (sometimes correctly) is a real danger. She assumes the power to fix things comes with a knowledge of what needs to be fixed. In Forever she cannot understand Tara admitting it is possible to ressurect Joyce, but just because they could do it doesn't mean they should. Hence the resurection of Buffy happening just because Willow wishes it so.

[> [> Posts Like This Remind Me... -- Nascent, 21:00:44 01/27/03 Mon

Of that Oscar Wilde quote:

"Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike. "

[> [> [> Re: Posts Like This Remind Me... -- Miss Edith, 21:32:24 01/27/03 Mon

That's the thing I don't personally dislike Willow at all. I posted after rewatching the earlier seasons and wondering if I did cut Willow too much slack in the past. Willow's flaws do seem to get overlooked because Aly plays her in such a cute way. Watching in hindsight after Willow's magic binge in season 6 I did pick up on Willow's control issues in the past, even as far back as season 1. Analysing a character doesn't mean I dislike the character though.

[> It's Universal -- Idler, 19:18:08 01/27/03 Mon

I agree with cjc36. I think that you could take any of the Scooby's great "falls" and then backtrack through previous episodes to note that they'd always displayed tendencies along those lines (e.g., Xander professes attachment for Cordelia and then cheats on her--later he proposes to Anya and dumps her at the alter; Buffy combats her as-yet-unrealized fears of the Master's return by deliberately flirting with Xander, thereby hurting Xander, Angel and Willow--later she deliberately misleads Spike, romantically, to cope with her confusion about being resurrected, etc.).

In Willow's defense, Buffy and Xander both used her to a great extent for her academic gifts (she not only does a large portion of the Scooby research, she also unofficially tutors them in high school). She may have good reason to not feel fully valued as a friend in her own right--in the case of Buffy in particular Willow may have wondered occasionally, in high school, whether Buffy would spend free time with her was she not tutoring her in, well, everything (History, French, Chemistry...). I think it's a shame that she didn't continue in college (at least that we can see) because it would have provided a real world avenue for her strengths (remember how Buffy and Willow initially switched places in terms of self-confidence when they began attending college?).

So, they're all complicated mixtures of good and bad, but Willow is certainly not the most selfish of the characters. I think that she tends to feel intensely but to repress a good deal as well--the sweet talk/smile persona, I think, is not so much a mask over selfishness as it is a somewhat awkward public face for poorly understood, often unrecognized emotions. I think that her bashfulness when her "episodes of expression" are over are due more to a vague feeling of shame at her display (she's basically shy) than a calculated/insecure grasp for approval.

And as for breaking rules--isn't that something that we must all learn to do as independent, free-thinking adults? Figure out how to live as individuals in a given social structure? Buffy herself is reknowned for following rules only according to her internal moral compass.

[> [> Very Good Points - Thanks for Posting -- Nascent, 20:57:04 01/27/03 Mon

[> [> [> Seconding Nascent, Idler , Great post! They all have issues as we all do in life. -- Briar Rose, 00:53:02 01/28/03 Tue

Sometimes I think that it becomes a matter of judging people (in this case characters) by what we see in ourselves.

I know that I used to have major issues with anyone who was self-assured and appeared to be "over confident" when situations didn't lend themselves to them seeing themselves that way, in my opinion. The people who laugh a little too freely and loudly, who are constantly in the company of people who are the best and brightest and never seem to have a bad day, even when they are covered in mud and it's obvious that they are not having a great life to outsiders.

To my ever-lasting shame - I figured out that it was because they were probably JUST like ME!*L I am a shy person. Debilitatingly so when I was younger. So to cover it, I became a very outwardly self assured and confident person. I was judging these other people as being "fakes" because I felt like a fake and it bugged me when I perceived I was seeing it in another.

But finally I found my inner confidence (I was much like Willow when I was younger, without the access to computers) and self esteem. Once that happened, I was finally able to accept that not everyone IS a fake who is confident and self assured! And that sometimes "Faking" is the best way to cope anyway. Amazingly, by faking it you can teach yourself to truly feel it inside. Much like CHOOSING to smile in the face of depression, and finally you actually feel like smiling. So I no longer projected my own issues onto others.

And I definitely agree if we were to take each Scoobie and break down every aspect of their personalities (especially the "bad" aspects) not one of them would be any worse than the other.*L Heck - even Giles has major personality faults, and so did Tara and Angel. That's partly why I think BtVS and Angel have so enthralled me: Real People in Unreal Situations.

I care about them because they are real enough to be people I could actually know.

Good/evil and Angel: Will ME go there -- lunasea, 05:53:43 01/27/03 Mon

This is the first thread I am starting, but I figured I'd jump in with both feet.

BtVS and AtS have both dealt with good and evil from various perspectives. The only one really left is that there is no good or evil. Are both shows heading in that direction?

First a little background on how I view a vampire.

Ever want to smash someone's face in? Sure you have. We all have. Thing is, we don't.

Here is how my 6 year old describes what happens. I told her about the small voice inside of us, the conscience. It will let her know what is right and what is wrong. If she listens to that, she won't get into trouble. That night she told me that it was hard to hear her small voice because she had a large voice in her tummy that told her bad things to do.

A vampire doesn't have that small voice. In Angel we focus on the after effects of the conscience, namely the guilt he feels because he has done all that stuff. A vampire only has the large voice. In a vampire, that large voice is even larger because of the demon.

But where does that large voice come from? They really don't develop that too much S1-3 on BtVS. Blame in on the devil/demon seems to be adequate to the needs to the show. The vampire retains the personality and memories of the human, but that is about it.

Then Angel gets his own show. It was supposed to be a detective series, so where Angel's big voice comes from wasn't important. Angel's redemption lay with saving souls. It was entertaining, but the writers remembered that they liked character development and returned to it.

They killed off Doyle and gave us episodes like "The Prodigal." We got to see where Angel came from. We finally got to really see Liam. We saw what informed Angelus. We saw the cause of that big voice.

Then Spike becomes a major character. He needed his "The Prodigal" to explain him. We got "Fool for Love." What a sensitive, sweet poet. That wasn't what they were trying to show. Flashbacks serve to show where present situations are coming from. Becoming does that rather well. So do several episodes of AtS.

The purpose of "Fool for Love" was two fold. In terms of the arc, it was to get Buffy to doubt her own goodness/darkness. In terms of Spike, it was to show where his big voice comes from, since we would be seeing more of it S5. It wasn't the sensitive poet that we were supposed to keep in mind. It was the FOOL and his motivation. The title isn't "Sweet Sensitive Poet and the Heartless Slayer."

That episode aired the same night as "Darla." We got to see where she came from also, but it also cast a different light on the events told in "FFL."

Vampires aren't just evil creatures. Their big voice is very vampire specific. Jesse and Dru are two other vamps where we see what informs them. Same thing with Harmony. Wouldn't it be fascinating to see where the Master comes from?

So we have vampires with various big voices. They have nothing to keep that big voice in check. When they want to hit someone, they do.

We get more about what informs the vampire in "The Prodigal." Angel is lashing out because his father always put him down. Without a soul, he can't see this. He thinks killing his father is a victory and showed how had the power. Angelus has been created from Liam's issues. Once that happens, the issues are gone, but the big voice remains.

"Billy" was an amazing episode (of course what else would you expect when Tim Minear and Jeffrey Bell team up) that really dealt with this. We all have those moments where we want to smash people's faces in. We all have moments of hate, moments of anger that cause this. Vampires don't. All they are left is what that causes. All they are left with is the big voice.

Because of that, they are powerless to silence it. The conscience fights the big voice, but only by dealing with what causes the big voice can we silence it forever. Thus we get AtS.

That is a vampire. Angelus has the big voice created by Liam and has to lash out against anything that big voice says to. He has no real choice. He really does lack free will. He is blinded by that voice, a slave to it. Same with Spike. Same with Dru.

The only real thing left for Angel is to understand where Angelus comes from. If he does that, will he really see himself as evil any more? He will finally be able to forgive himself. If he is willing to address the issues that form his big voice, he may even be able to kill the demon within him.

Do you think that ME is willing to go there?

[> Re: Good/evil and Angel: Will ME go there -- skpe, 07:06:10 01/27/03 Mon

An interesting post, Steven in his post below has offered one take on an answer. But where ME will go is anybody's guess

My evolving theory on Cordelia (Spoilers up to 4.9, future spec) -- Masq, 06:33:26 01/27/03 Mon

Note: All speculation herein is not based on spoilers for future episodes.

"I guess we should have known back when Cordelia started doing that glowy thing that the Powers were up to something..." --Fred, Ground State

One of the more amusing reactions to episode 4.9 was the notion that when Cordelia went blonde, her personality went whacked--"Saint Cordy"--and that when she went back to being a brunette, she became something resembling the Cordelia we knew in seasons past.

Well, Cordelia started changing before the episode where she went completely blonde ("Double or Nothing", when she and Groo return from Mexico). The changes in Cordelia that so many objected to started in the episode "Birthday", when Cordelia was made part-demon.

Someone on the board was complaining last week about how Cordelia seems to have lost those demon powers she first started showing in "The Price"--the glowy thing that allowed her to defeat the Sluks infesting the hotel, and that allowed her to give Connor his "soul colonic". In "Long Day's Journey" (4.9) she makes a point of saying she's just a "mere mortal" again, without any superpowers like Angel or Gwen. And the goody-St. Cordy personality is thankfully missing as well.

Here's my newly refined theory about what's going on with her. I think the Powers that Be (the ones on the show) knew about the Beast coming way back around the time of Connor's conception in Season 2. As I have posited elsewhere, he is the "messiah" who is going to help defeat the Beast, with his father possibly being less than a help.

Knowing Angelus's past with the Beast, and the possibility that Angel might actually be a liability in the fight rather than an asset, the PTB's created Connor to fight the Beast. Hence, miracle child. But they also needed someone to hold the knowledge about how to fight and defeat the Beast. That's Cordelia. Skip comes to Cordelia in "Birthday" as part of their plan to whisk Cordelia away to the Higher Dimensions where they will give her a panoramic view on the whole situation--Angel's past with the Beast, the reason for Connor's birth, and just how the Beast can be fought.

Skip's job in "Birthday" was to persuade Cordelia to chose this role--to choose to be made part-demon to serve the PTB's. After this, Cordelia goes through a gradual physical and psychological transformation that will enable Cordelia to enter the Higher Dimension when the time comes. Cordelia's actions--killing the Sluks, Connor's soul colonic--were almost incidental to this true purpose. They simply serve to show to the audience that this transformation is taking place. Her "powers" seem to come out of nowhere from our perspective because, like Cordelia and the gang, we don't have the whole picture about what's going on. It's possible they aren't really "powers" at all (i.e., skills to use in fighting evil), just a side-effect of her gradual transformation into a higher being.

When Cordelia is fully prepared to enter the other dimension, Skip appears again and tells her she has "outgrown" the earthly level of existence. Cordelia is whisked off ("Tomorrow"). Her "schooling" in the Higher Dimension isn't pleasant. She is told about Angelus' past and about the Earth's dark future under the Beast. Cordelia isn't the best student ever. I mean, she's still Cordelia. She wants to return to a normal life and be human again.

Cordelia: "It's all right. I'm a higher being."
Connor: "Was. You're not anymore."
Cordelia: "No, I'm not." --Apocalypse Nowish

Cordelia is returned when the Powers that Be believe she has learned all she needs to. When she is returned, she is human again. Almost completely human except that the visions still aren't as painful as they used to be. She may be part demon still, but Cordelia is no longer a higher being because the PTB's don't need her to be one.

In her present, limited mortal state, Cordelia can no longer remember what happened to her on the Higher Plane. The trauma of being returned, in fact, has made her forget her identity and her life.

Without her memory, Cordelia only has a sense of forboding to tell her what she used to know in the higher dimension. Something bad is coming, and she's afraid of it. She doesn't know who to trust, except Connor. She tells him in "Slouching Towards Bethlehem" that she doesn't know why she trusts him, but she does.

Cordelia soon gets her previous life memories back with her friends' help. But she also has contained within her mind all the Angel Investigations team needs to know to fight the Beast--everything she learned on the Higher Plane. Lorne senses much of this when he reads her in "Slouching Towards Bethlehem". But this knowledge is still locked up inside of her and she is only aware of it through visions and her emotions. Without the actual knowledge of what is coming, she is frightened and paralyzed.

She doesn't remember it because, if she did remember all of it, or even a meaty portion of it, her head would probably explode like one of the Wolfram and Hart psychics when they tried to read what was in Lorne's head.

But this knowledge is slowly given back to her through visions of the Beast, and instincts about where he will emerge, etc. Memories of Angel's past as Angelus also trickle back to her slowly. In "Apocalypse Nowish" they only serve to make her more frightened. The key memory--Angelus meeting the Beast--returns in "Long Day's Journey".

I predict that more of what Cordelia learned about Angelus, the Beast, and Connor's destiny will trickle out as they need it.

Some people have commented that they think Cordelia is a "sleeper" agent for the Beast, doing his will without knowing it. I think something similar but opposite is the case. She is the sleeper agent for the Powers that Be.

Now, of course, Cordelia will probably show super powers in the next episode and prove part of my theory wrong. But not all of it!

[> Re: My evolving theory on Cordelia (Spoilers up to 4.9, future spec) -- frisby, 07:37:20 01/27/03 Mon

Well reasoned, based on what we've be provided, but, what about her thing with Connor? Did that happen (from the ME point of view here) just to set up anger and jealousy, or (as in the case with Darla), was it so as to create another being (meaning Cordelia is pregnant)? That is speculation to a degree though, and there's no solid evidence, but then again, we often assume many things even though there's nothing solid to back them up. Still, the idea of Cordelia as a sleeper for either the Powers that Be or for The First (or the Beast, or evil generally) seems likely -- we'll know more when we learn who killed that fifth totem (I suspect Cordelia was involved if not Angelus). I also wonder about the dynamics between Cordelia and Faith and again between Cordelia and Willow in future shows. Good analysis though!

[> [> Re: My evolving theory on Cordelia (Spoilers up to 4.9, future spec) -- Isabel, 08:29:51 01/27/03 Mon

I just watched Long Day's Journey last night and I was wondering if anybody else thought it was Cordelia. It seemed too fishy that they fell asleep. Angel and the Beast can't/don't seem to be able to make someone fall asleep non-violently. (That also goes for Gwen and Gunn as well.) Cordy, on the other hand, may still have some higher power mojo left for just this purpose. She's the one having dreams about pod people.

[> [> [> Re: My evolving theory on Cordelia (Spoilers up to 4.9, future spec) -- Angela, 11:49:05 01/27/03 Mon

Hey long time no see! More snow last night eyah!!! OK, back to topic...I actually hadn't thought too much about it until reading Masq's post and them I was just really struck by all the oddities, most of which seem to imply a negative connection.

One sort-of positive that crossed my mind and is that the PTB are manipulating Cordy in a sort of need-to-know kind of way, and that this is a metanarration on the writers (PTB) and the audience (us). They reveal things based on the needs of the story and what they want us to believe at any given moment...same with Cordy.

I also wanted to apologize...I kept meaning to write you back but between the board, tolkien boards, other boards, the job responsibilities, the teenager, the three dogs, etc... time has really gotten away from me!!

[> [> [> [> Hi there! (Post contains unspoiled speculation on Angel) -- Isabel, 14:18:20 01/27/03 Mon

No need to apologize! Life gets hectic sometimes. Hope everything is fine. Re: the snow. I had to drive home in that last night. I can honestly say that the snowplow drivers in Rensselaer County were watching the Superbowl and not plowing or salting the roads. Yuck indeed.

One thing about the Beast. I'm kinda glad he can talk. It makes him a bit different than the Uber vamp on Buffy. And I'm still wondering if the thing he seemed to take out of Lilah had to do with the 'blocking out the sun' ritual he did last week or if he's got another use for it. Or I'm imagining things and he just stuck his finger into her stomach because she's soft like jello and makes fun screaming noises.

My totally wacky, UNSPOILED speculation-- (Bearing in mind that I haven't read any posts for last week. Somebody else could have come up with this...) Somehow Beastie's going to get his hands on Cordelia and injure her in a similar way to Lilah. And 'Hey presto!' She's pregnant! And gasp, the father isn't Connor! (Assuming Beastie took an embryo/zygote fathered by Wes from Lilah.)

On the one hand, more manipulation of Cordelia by powerful beings to move the story. On the other, Charisma and the wardrobe people don't have to conceal her pregnancy anymore. Toss in a third hand and there's instant chaos. Cordy knows she hasn't slept with anyone else, but Connor and Angel probably wouldn't believe her. Unhappiness abounds. Beast is happy.

The only thing that might create more chaos at A.I. would be if the Beast did that to Fred. There would be blood on the walls.

Sorry for the ramble.

[> Re: My evolving theory on Cordelia (Spoilers up to 4.9, future spec) -- lunasea, 08:41:45 01/27/03 Mon

Interesting idea. Most of the Cordy theories are interesting and would be interesting to watch, but they don't fulfull the number 1 requirement of any theory, what does this do to develop Angel (or contrast with him)?

Any theory about what is happening on either show has to answer how will this develop Angel (or Buffy). Both shows are written the same way. They aren't written around the plot. They tried to do that on AtS and decided they didn't like writing that way.

Why would Cordy have to be a Sleeper agent (though it would parallel Buffy nicely)? The PTB could just send her the necessary visions. (seeing the beast rise was a vision, not a memory) She was brought up there to see his *entire* life (probably minus time in hell and time as Liam). Why? The only thing she remembered was how much Angelus enjoyed what he did. Why did she remember that?

The Beast is like the Ubervamp. It just serves as distraction and to get out heroes to not act according to their nature.

Connor's purpose: to die at the hands of his father and for his father to have to deal with this. One of his first actions as Angelus is to kill his father. One of his last will be to kill his son. It is by killing his son that Angel will learn where Angelus comes from and finally be able to do what Cordy couldn't, forgive him.

That develops his character.

[> Those PtB seem pretty damn useless, if you ask me! (Spoilers up to 4.9, future spec) -- Marie, 08:53:42 01/27/03 Mon

Can't speak from seeing the episodes you mention, but from reading your post it seems to me that the b****y PtB just don't get things right, do they?!!

Why the bejeebers couldn't they have sent Cordy back safe and sound, memories and powers intact? They're the ones with the power - unless they're really the Powers-that-be-pretty-useless-actually!

What the heck was the point in taking her and training her if they couldn't send her back, memory-whole?

Marie

[> [> I don't think the PTB are all-powerful -- Masq, 09:41:28 01/27/03 Mon

People keep thinking the PTB are gods who can do everything. But they've never claimed to be gods. Just beings with some power who want to make things right. I think they have serious limitations, but good intentions.

[> [> [> The Powers That Be and The Ellimist -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:30:04 01/27/03 Mon

The PTB on Angel remind me of a series of science-fiction books I used to read called "Animorphs". This series included a very powerful creature called the Ellimist. He appears able to do almost anything: destroy whole planets, violate the laws of physics, alter the course of time. In essence, he seems to be all-powerful, but he isn't. That's because another all-powerful entity called Crayak exists. The Ellimist and Crayak are enemies, and both can do practically anything they desire. So, what happens when you pit one all-powerful creature against another? They reach a stalemate in which neither can win, but the stalemate has horrible results. The clash of their power once destroyed most of the galaxy, which wasn't good for either of them. So Crayak and the Ellimist developed a series of rules and fought each other not in all out warfare, but as though they were playing a chess game, using species like humans or aliens as their pieces. While both the Ellimist and Crayak can interfere with people and help or hinder them, they have to be careful how much they do, since the rule is the more power one of them uses, the more the other is allowed to use. So their goal is to accomplish the greatest benefit for their side while interfering as little as possible. I think the Powers That Be and the Forces Of Darkness on Angel are similar. Both are pretty much all powerful, but are opposed to each other. They can't beat one another in direct combat, so they use people like Angel, Cordelia, or Wolfram & Hart to fight their battle on a smaller scale. I also envision that every time the PTB help Angel Investigations in some way, the Forces Of Darkness get to interfere just as much. Which is why the Powers seem less than all powerful; they can't use their full power without giving the bad guys the right to use all of theirs.

[> [> [> Re: I don't think the PTB are all-powerful -- Rattletrap, 18:43:18 01/27/03 Mon

Perhaps a pinball analogy:

The PtB can control the game somewhat with their flippers: e.g. they have certain people they can rely on to fight on their side, certain people they can communicate with. On occasion they can even bump or slightly tilt the machine to make things happen all over, but always careful not to go to far and cause the whole thing to shut down completely. They can play the game, and play it well, but there are still dozens of variables that are outside their control.

Is something like this what you're thinking, Masq? I like the idea.

[> Cordy is a trigger?? (LDJ and this week's trailer spoils) -- neaux, 10:50:09 01/27/03 Mon

Ok. Well from the trailer, I know that the gang needs Angel to turn into Angelus to find out more on how to fight the beast. Well my question is this, HOW Are they going to do this?

Is it that Angel needs a "happy" or that Angel needs True Happiness. It would be disturbing yet interesting if Cordelia had to have intercourse with Angel to bring about this change.

But I think Angel's current onset of anger toward's Cordelia would ultimately nullify this attempt at TRUE HAPPINESS. I mean seriously who is really happy having intercourse with someone you are pissed at. So my question is, could Cordy really be the trigger or not?

As my theory on how the season will play out, I'm sticking with my VERSUS theory that it will follow the storyline of VERSUS. But since no one on this board seems to have seen this movie, I might be the only one here.

[> [> A 'happy' drug temporarily returned Angelus in Season 1 -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:53:22 01/27/03 Mon

However, once the drug wore off, Angel's soul became dominant again. They might do the same thing and give Angel a drug so that Angelus emerges, but will subside in time.

Of course, if Angelus got free, he might start popping pills to keep his soul down. That could be interesting considering the alcohol/addiction metaphor that's sometimes used with Angel.

[> [> [> I thought I recognized someone from the trailer. (spoiler from next week's trailer) -- Isabel, 14:29:20 01/27/03 Mon

In Buffy season 3, the Mayor hired some Demon Sorceror guy in 'Enemies' to remove Angel's soul. The sorceror double crossed the Mayor because he owed Giles for introducing him to his wife, so he didn't remove the soul.

He wore a dark blue robe and head covering, didn't he? I thought I saw a guy who looked a lot like that talking to Wes in the trailers. Maybe that's how they'll do it. Wes was in Sunnydale when it happened so he knows about it.

I'm probably wrong though.

[> [> [> oh.. thanks FMC! -- neaux, 15:02:52 01/27/03 Mon

I still havent seen some eps of season 1.. so I'm anxiously awaiting it's return on DVD.

Amends - thoughts (spoilers for Season 3) -- Sophie, 09:30:39 01/27/03 Mon

Buffy - Amends

I hope this isn't repeating anything as I have not read the postings here closely, lately. I have been watching the Season 3 DVD's and just got to Amends and had some thoughts to share since it relates to Season 7.

Sartre - existentialism definition of responsibility - Sartre states that because we have freedom, we are responsible. We cannot shirk that responsibility unless we are stripped of our freedom, i.e., to be unable to leave or commit suicide.

This must be the crux episode for the whole Buffy/Angel serieses (or however you plural series).

The First Evil brought Angel back from the Hell dimension that Buffy had sent him to via Acathla at the end of Season 2. We learn that the FE brought Angel back to lose his soul with Buffy and then kill her. Angel, being a good existentialist chooses to commit suicide because he feels strong responsibility for his horrible past behavior, but his plan for suicide (sit outside and die when the sun rises) is thwarted by a sudden snowstorm that prevents the sun from shining in Sunnydale that day. Angel is thus unable to commit suicide, thus he is relieved of his responsibility for his past evils. At this point Angel can move on, he can begin to live in the world and do good, which is what he goes on to do - see Angel series that starts simultaneously with Buffy season 4.

One other thought - ever notice how Oz is like the most awesome male ever to walk the planet earth? He is mature, in control of his body, sweet, and gentle and understanding and - you get the picture. Then Tara - she is also sweet and kind and loving and -. Willow's choices of lovers are such a contrast to Buffy's choices of lovers.

Just tossing these ideas out for you guys to chew on....

Sophie

[> Re: Amends - thoughts (spoilers for Season 3/7) -- Vickie, 10:57:49 01/27/03 Mon

Good thoughts, Soph. Willow really does have great taste when it comes to her loves.

Something that bothered me when rewatching Amends was the physical interaction of The First. It's minor, but when FEJenny "comforts" Angel, she holds him in her arms and smoothes his hair. This contradicts our season 7 description of The First's limits. I think we'll just have to overlook it, or assume we're in Angel's POV and he thinks he feels her arms. Otherwise, the retcon is pretty difficult.

[> [> Not so. -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:00:34 01/27/03 Mon

The First Evil did the same thing with Spike's hair in Season Seven.

[> [> [> Doesn't this still contradict what we've been told? (still S3/7 spoilers, kinda) -- Vickie, 16:07:53 01/27/03 Mon

Even if we've seen the FE interacting physically with people, haven't we been told that it cannot? And doesn't this interaction contradict what we've been told?

In Amends, Giles says that the first is "not a physical being." This season he said something like "It can only take the shape of one who's passed on, and cannot act physically." (Apologies for inaccurate quote, Psyche isn't up to this episode.) He himself has been behaving such that we are supposed to wonder if he is being impersonated by the first.

Giles hasn't been seen on screen touching anyone (though I really thought he took Anya's hand when they went through the portal to Beljoxa's eye). He hasn't handled many physical objects, though he has leaned on walls and furniture. He has handled his glasses, though FEDrusilla handled her skirt--perhaps a parallel action.

Still, I thought the reason the FE needed its minions was that it could not act directly.

[> [> [> [> Could be another illusion. -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:22:45 01/27/03 Mon

Maybe they didn't feel the First's touch, but it just skimmed a millimeter over them.

[> [> [> [> [> Angel's hair moved. -- Vickie, 16:59:59 01/27/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, Angel's hair definately moved. I watched that very closely! -- Sophie, 17:50:05 01/27/03 Mon

So exactly where/when/from Who (in Season 7) do we learn that the FE can't touch. Is touching something different from picking something up? Maybe we missed a hair-splitting philosophical something, sort of like assuming continuity of existence when somebody is out of sight -

Sophie

Current board | More January 2003