January 2003 posts


Previous January 2003  

February 2003

Who else guessed what was going on in the last 10 minutes (Major spoilers) -- Yu Yu Hakusho, 17:12:45 01/30/03 Thu

Up until Angel killed the Beast, I had no idea what was going on. Then I realized; its too easy, and it doesn't make sense. We saw Angelus come out in the promos, and no way Joss and company would screw us over that badly. Then it hit me: This is a fantasy, a way for him to achieve perfect happiness. And sure enough, bam, Wang-Po is still alive, and Angel never left the cell. Gotta hand it to them, the writers did a bang up job. I almost wish I hadn't figured it out, cause the ending would have been so much more shocking. Damn, that laughter echoing through the room was awesome.

Great episode, but I was a little disappointed we only saw Angelus for a minute. Still, that was the best mindfuck I have had since the Usual Suspects (awesome movie).
[> Only spoilers for AtS 4.10 above -- slain, 17:35:05 01/30/03 Thu

Didn't guess myself, but I don't watch the promos so I was none the wiser about Angelus appearing at all.
[> Re: Who else guessed what was going on in the last 10 minutes (Major spoilers) -- lunasea, 05:46:30 01/31/03 Fri

Even if you knew that was how they were bring Angelus out, the best surprise was what Angel said as he was loosing his soul.

I wasn't prepared for that.

I was hoping in my heart that he thought Cordy was like Buffy (she isn't) and that was why he was mooning after her like a puppy dog. Still, I was prepared for that to be wishful thinking. The writers went to an awful lot of trouble to build Cordy up. The lines after Angel used the Axis of Pythia made me gag.

But no more. I was right and Cordy is history.

Now I just need the "Buffy realizes that Spike wasn't capable of good without a soul and that she really doesn't know who he is" speech. I love when the shows run parallel like this. Maybe we can get Cordy and Spike together.

My only disappointment was it didn't strike anyone that if Wu-Pang can restore souls, he can do it without the curse. Have to see how that pans out.
What it takes to make Angel happy (Spoilers for Awakening) -- Tess, 21:55:47 01/30/03 Thu

One of the things that struck me about Awakenings is that in Angel's mind, Cordy's actions seemed to be a version of his past relationship with Buffy. The things she was saying and doing where things that Buffy would have said or done. I'm not sure if that's because its still all about Buffy or if he's projecting his only experience with a relationship on how he thinks things should be with Cordy.

In Angel's dream there was one Wes/Fred moment when Wes caught Fred's hand to move the light closer. Yet there were no Fred/Gunn moments. Does this mean that in Angel's opinion Fred should be with Wes, not Gunn?

Speaking of Wes, it was interesting that his successes and mistakes were almost even in Angel's mind. He messed up bringing an 'evil' shaman, but suceeded by deciphering the writing on the body. He kept Cordy from ringing the bell only to ring them himself. He knew about the hebrew whatever they were talking about but still hit the wrong one. Very representive of wanting someone back but being afraid to trust them.

One other thing that struck me as interesting is the way Angel passed the sword to Wes before running after Conner. Not sure why, but both times I watched the show that shot just seemed meaningful.

As for Conner...cool fight scenes. Not sure if they are having a double do all of his fights now or if the actor is just getting better, but his fights the last few episodes have been great.

I expected that Conner was going to find it a little less easy to work his mojo on his dad after the night it rained fire, and I think hearing his father tell him to 'get over it' shocked him, and of course piled the resentment that much higher. Conner's quick agreement to kill Angel if things go bad might have been a way to reassert his control. It was nice seeing Angel trying to reach out to his son again though. The silence after Angel said he loved Conner seemed to go on forever. You could almost feel Angel's fear over how much worse their relationship would be after Conner met Angelus.
[> I may have just been hearing things... -- ZachsMind, 23:04:46 01/30/03 Thu

I don't record Angel. I tried recording one or two eps but usually have no desire to rewatch them. I'm more of a Buffy fan. However, there was a moment just as Angel was losing his soul, in bed with Cordy, when I thought I heard him say "Buffy." It was very brief and just before he fell out of the bed. I wasn't sure if it was intended or just my ears playing tricks on me.

It's not like I'm a B/A shipper by any stretch of the imagination. I don't really want to see the two of them get back together. So it's not like it was wishful thinking. Did anyone else hear that or am I alone in this?
[> [> You didn't hear things -- Scroll, 00:32:25 01/31/03 Fri

[> [> I saw it on close captioned - it's there. -- shadowkat, 08:33:08 01/31/03 Fri

Here's the exact wording:

He feels the moment of perfect happiness. Pain hits his eyes and realization...

"Buffy...(lengthy pause)No.. Oh God..No.."

Which could mean numerous things.

1. Buffy is the last memory Angelus had before getting the soul back

2. Buffy is what he associates with losing a soul

3. He accessed something at that moment that affects Buffy

4. He still has deep-seated romantic feelings for his ex, but may not love her

5. The writers are playing with us and the B/A shippers, evil writers

6. He does still love Buffy and that's the memory.

I have no clue.
[> [> [> Re: I saw it on close captioned - it's there. -- maddog, 10:59:41 01/31/03 Fri

My best guess is that he's remembering the last time he felt that way, which was with Buffy...and it hit him what he'd done.
[> [> [> Going for #2 and a whole lot of #5! -- ponygirl, 11:21:12 01/31/03 Fri

I think the key is that Angel doesn't say Buffy until the pain hits. If he'd said it while still with the happies it would be a whole different story, but I took it to be a "when have I felt this soul-stripping pain before? Oh yeah - Buffy" utterance.
[> [> [> I would lay money on number five... (latest Angel ep spoilage) -- ZachsMind, 11:42:17 01/31/03 Fri

The writers are playing with us but we also have to keep in mind within the context of the story & character of Angel, that everything from the point of the ninja mystic weirdo guy saying something like "let's begin" to the point where Angel lost his soul, everything was happening inside Angel's head. This is very revealing. Several times through the course of the events that transpired, Angel or someone else was echoing sentiments he delivered to Connor in that speech about Champions.

Angel: "What you did to me - was unbelievable, Connor. - But then I got stuck in a hell dimension by my girlfriend one time for a hundred years, so three months under the ocean actually gave me perspective. Kind of a M. C. Esher perspective - but I did get time to think. About us, about the world. - Nothing in the world is the way it ought to be. - It's harsh, and cruel. - But that's why there's us. Champions. It doesn't matter where we come from, what we've done or suffered, or even if we make a difference. We live as though the world was what it should be, to show it what it can be. - You're not a part of that yet. - I hope you will be. I love you, Connor. Now get out of my house."

This is a running mantra that's probably put on a permanent loop in Angel's head. The repeating soliloquy that Angel hears even when we don't. The world is not as it should be, but champions exist to show the world what it can be. It's what keeps him going. It's his reason for existing despite everything falling down around him. It's where he gets his strength and courage and determination and stamina. It's why he didn't give up that Christmas day in Sunnydale years before, and ironically it's Buffy that told him to get a clue.

Angel: Am I a thing worth saving, huh? Am I a righteous man? The world wants me gone!
Buffy: What about me? I love you so much, and I tried to
make you go away. I killed you and it didn't help. And I hate it! I hate that it's *so* hard. And that you can hurt me *so* much. I know everything that you did, because you did it to me. Oh, God! I wish that I wished you
dead. I don't. I can't.
Angel: Buffy, please. Just this once... let me be strong.
Buffy: Strong is fighting! It's hard, and it's painful, and it's every day. It's what we have to do. And we can do it together. But if you're too much of a coward [i.e. if you're not a champion] for that, then burn. If I can't convince you that you belong in this world, then I
don't know what can. But do *not* expect me to watch. And *don't* expect me to mourn for you, because...

And then is snowed. The Powers That Be underlined and highlighted Buffy's words in Angel's mind. She said it in her way. Angel has reworded it to accomodate how he thinks, but the sentiment is the same. Being a champion does not mean wine & roses. It's supposed to be hard, because champions face the bitter struggle so that the average person doesn't have to. They're our pitch hitters.

Buffy's not much of a speechmaker, as has been plain most recently. I've noticed some fans complaining about how her speeches have sucked in season seven. Y'know what? They always have. Because she's not a political speaker. She just grits her teeth, and gets crap done. Her speeches are supposed to bite. That's consistent with her character. However her words also have meaning, although jumbled in HOW she gets her points across.

Angel took her words about how life is hard but you do the best you can and you keep fighting, and he created this "champion" mentality that is what keeps him going. The fictitious reality created to make him lose his soul was built around that framework because that's how his brain works. Actually, had he stopped for a moment and contemplated, he'd have realized that things were going a wee bit too easily, and he could have broken out of the spell. He just wants things to work out towards a happy ending so badly... Kinda like a lot of us fans, eh? =)

However, in order to retrieve his soul, this very mantra had to be used against him, because it's not just sex that causes Angel to achieve the moment of happiness that makes him lose his soul. It's that feeling that just for a brief moment in time, everything seems right. Everything seems as it ought to be. It's what Buffy made him feel - that so long as the two of them were standing side by side facing the world, they'd get through it together. He liked that sense of security and certainty.

The gypsy curse likes that he likes it. I mean, how better to torture someone than to keep that carrot just out of his reach before wrenching it away again. And when this is all over it's gonna put a new rift between Cordy & Angel, cuz now Angel knows that it's not really Cordy that Angel loves, but the fact that Cordy reminds Angel of his lost link to Buffy. Cordy's always been a sort of "anti-Buffy," a near Bizarro-world mirror image of Buffy. Angel loves Cordy because she's as close as he thinks he'll ever get to Buffy again.

This means he doesn't really love her for her. Cordy can't love Angel because of what he really is (Angeles) and Angel can't love Cordy because of what she's really not (Buffy).

Cordy's been saying she can't love Angel because of everything he did as Angeles. I don't buy it and haven't from day one, cuz Cordy already knew what Angel did as Angeles. She's been around long enough to have seen it. Fact is, when she was up there in her omnipresent gilded cage, she saw EVERYTHING including what Buffy & Angel were together. She wouldn't admit it to Angel, but she doesn't like being the consolation prize.
[> [> About that name he uttered... (spoiler Awakening) -- Tyreseus, 17:21:48 01/31/03 Fri

Okay, so I've kept silent on the subject so far, but I just got to thinking. We're debating about what Angel meant when he spoke Buffy's name, but we're kinda missing a point.

In the fantasy vision, it wasn't Buffy who prompted his moment of happiness. If Buffy was really his first and "one" true love, shouldn't the episode have involved her following him to LA, vowing to never let him go again? Now, I know there's that whole seperate show/ seperate network thing, but that's beside the point. Wouldn't we expect Buffy to somehow figure in to Angel's "perfect happiness" fantasy? I mean, at least a phone call or some nudie pics sent via email with a note "I just defeated the First Evil. You know, the thing from which all evil came. Thinking of you. B.A.S."

$.02 and change.
[> Re: What it takes to make Angel happy (Spoilers for Awakening) -- lunasea, 05:37:05 01/31/03 Fri

Angel was definitely thinking of Buffy. In the scene where they consumate their relationship, she had Buffy hair and Buffy clothes. It was great. I was bouncing, I was so excited. Then he said her name. I was in heaven. I hope it is also the first word out of his mouth when he gets his soul back. It was last time.

By the way, what did they do, go to the old prop closet and get the sword from Acathla? That was no 3rd Century sword. It looked more like the sword a certain virtuous knight used. I will have to go back and check for certain, but I am pretty sure that was the sword from Becoming. Rather fitting.

If you haven't seen S1-3 of Buffy, go out right now and get the DVDs. There will be tons of s2 & 3 references on both shows this year. More and more plot devices and references will cross over. These shows are being merged to the ultimate series finales. Amends seperated them and it is bringing them back together. Have I said how much I love Joss?

Sorry Cordy and Spike. As Xander told Cordy, "No one will ever get between those two." Leave it to 2 Buffy writers to write it. Steven is the best writer Angel has right now (besides Joss of course). I hope they use him lots and lots. (though the Tim Reaper has to write at least one Angelus episode, perhaps the one that Lilah gets hers) I miss him on Buffy, but his style fits Angel more. His visual sense and how one scene flows into another is amazing. It is a visual word association.

As for what happened, my predictions (and I had a migraine, so I didn't take notes), what happened in Angel's dream will play out in what happens now that Angelus is here. Everything from how he will get out of the cage to how he will get resouled was there in that episode. Now I just have to watch to see how they flesh them out.

For example, Wesley is the first one he really interacts with once he is out of the cage. Poor Wes will be the first target of Angel/us. Then I liked Bondage fun. Wes rescued Cordy from it. Prediction, same thing will happen again.

Every kind word, every pep talk will translate to Angelus' evil sardonic wit. Watch it. The show is like a Mandelbrot series. They did it for the "Trials" and they will do it again (and Buffy is doing it with Spike's trials S6. Each of the trials he faced is playing out this season. The first trial was the demons with hands of fire. That would be Buffy's love. She is the hand and her ability to love is like the fire.)

Connor was pretty independent the whole episode. Think the group will have trouble keeping Connor a team player? Gunn and Fred weren't in it too much, but Angel/us should keep his focus on the three people who annoy him most, Cordy, Connor and Wes.

That episode couldn't have been any better.
[> [> Great posts lunasea and Tess. -- Angela, 06:48:05 01/31/03 Fri

Agreed. And it pleased both me and my fifteen year old (a rarity) although now that Angelus is back; he doesn't want to wait for the next ep! I'm teaching him the "be careful what you wish for" mantra.

I also just lost a post in this thread; not sure if it will show up again so in brief...Wesley's main problem is not that he's sometimes wrong but that he seem to just not be able to remember that he's sometimes wrong. Also "not a team player" along with Elecktra girl. And everyone will have a part to play, we hear. Annnd, are we just taking it for granted that there was a Chinese Soul-extracting Shaman hanging about LA? Or we all just assume at this point that the Beast set this up? Poor Spikey truckin' all the way to Africa for his re'install.
[> [> [> Re: Great posts lunasea and Tess. -- Tess, 07:38:32 01/31/03 Fri

It seems at this point that everything can be found in LA. But I'm not ruling out that the shaman was placed there by the bad guys. Also not ruling out that the Angelus isn't going to play along with the bad guys like they think he will.
[> [> [> [> Re: Great posts lunasea and Tess. -- Angela, 07:59:27 01/31/03 Fri

You think the bad guy had a bad idea? This is a pretty strong link to season 3 then with the Shaman and the Mayor trying to bring Angelus back. Didn't work out too well that time. ;-)

What do you think is the link between the Beast and the Gang? Angel? Conner? Cordy? All? This has been what I've been wondering a lot about....
[> [> Angel, Oedipus and 'ships -- Caroline, 08:00:11 01/31/03 Fri

This is not a bashing of AtS (as you will see), more of an exploration of the evolution of my views about the two shows and my views on Angel and his relationships.

I'm not a regular viewer of Angel but I've been persuaded to watch the show due to some of the promptings of several posters here (esp the people in chat who gave me a tongue-lashing and threw things at me). I had objections to the first season, I thought the Darla thing was bad and the Cordy higher being thing equally bad but with the possibility that this is the last year of BtVS and the chance that some cross-overs might occur, I've taken up viewing Angel as a regular things.

I was rewarded with the wonderful ep this week. I was initially amazed that everyone appeared to be working together and forgiving each other in the ways I wanted it to happen and then mad as hell when it looked as though Cordy and Angel were going to do the dead. Angel left Sunnydale 'cos he knew the consequences of getting squishy with the woman he loved. Cordy was there and saw first hand what Angel did. I'd worked up a high level of indignation and thought longingly of the yoga class I had skipped to watch. Needless to say, the final moments were a complete 'gotcha' and I enjoyed being reeled in.

I'll turn now to Angel and his relationships. In the perfect world Angel concocted inside his head, the family that he wanted to have had problems but they worked through them. 'Brother' Wes is seen as an equal, someone who could and had really hurt him but someone he was quickly prepared to forgive once absolution was requested. Son Connor has also hurt him considerably, but Angel is quickly prepared to forgive him once Connor stops eyeing Angel's bone. (I guess Connor never really learnt the lessons of his Oedipal stage as a child and must learn it now that Dad is in his life). Angel wished the Oedipal stage to be resolved in an ideal way. One day Connor will find his own path and move beyond the need to challenge Daddy's potency but that day is not now. Fred and Gunn appear to be more peripheral and I agree with the poster above that in Angel's view, it appears as though Fred should be with Wes.

As for Cordy, she certainly is the mother in the Oedipal triangle happening here. From the episodes I have seen of Angel, I do not doubt his love for Cordy. (I would also be open to other's views on this issue but this is what I have seen). His jealousy and pain over her time with Groo, his noble actions is wishing them well, their actions at the ballet, and then Cordy's revelation of their love which was prevented in 3:22 by Angel's immersion into the sea reveal (to me) a progression of their feelings for each other that seem real to both. I'm sure that Angel has fantasized many times about being able to fully be with Cordy and was prevented from being with her by the same things that stopped him from being with Buffy.

The fact that Angel has repeated the pattern with Cordy as with Buffy suggests that Angel did not successfully resolve those issues in his relationship with Buffy. (History repeats itself compulsively when we cannot learn from it). He has transferred those feelings to another woman that fitted his projections well. Like Buffy, Cordy has certain powers (her visions). She is devoted to Angel and the struggle and sacrificed a normal life to that struggle. But I would say that Cordy has surpassed Buffy in one way. Cordy developed a maternal relationship to Angel's son, thus giving Angel a further dimension for his projections and feelings. And it's what made the Oedipal triangle possible. It doesn't matter that Cordy is not the biological mother, she is the symbol. In this situation, Angel is offered the opportunity, through his relationship with his own son, to heal and redeem the relationship with his own father. He is now the father and can appreciate the perspective that his father had with less pain and judgement. Through the other members of the gang, he can redeem relationships with his siblings.

Angel has been trying to create a family all along. It is interesting that it didn't just take the big O with Cordy to get him to lose his soul. Everything had to be right in his family. He needed a rapprochement with his brother, son, and wife. He needed to forgive them and have everything right in his world. The sex with Cordy was symbolic of that union. The reason it has to be sex that frees Angel's soul is that sex takes us out of our bodies, out of our minds where nothing else matters. It is the 'little death' that temporarily blots everything out. If we contrast this to the same experience with Buffy, we see that it really only took union with Buffy to free Angel's soul. This indicates that Angel's life is based on a whole lot more than a romantic relationship. His life now encompasses a great deal more and he has much more to fight for and much more to lose.

I'm fully enjoying the psychological complexity that the writers give us on both shows right now. In terms of psychological development, I see all the signs the writers are giving us pushing Buffy to Spike and Angel to Cordy. But I don't think that that in itself is really an important question (or answer). What is important is that each of these characters actions is consistent with their psychological development. I really don't care if S/B or C/A or any other configuration happen or not. What I'd like to see is the psychological obstables preventing them from fully gaining an understanding of themselves and the reasons for their compulsive behaviour. Right now, having Angel and Buffy, with everything that they have gone through in the last few years, suddenly see that they belong together would negate the psychological growth they each have undergone and the journey that the writers are taking us on. Buffy and Angel have each created a world they can interact with that helps them to deal with the issues and struggles relevant to them now. Spike (at least in season 6) was a more appropriate foil for Buffy to work out her depression, desperation and longing for nothingness. Cordy is the perfect foil for Angel's family issues. Right now, I see Buffy and Spike progressing to be friends and partners rather than lovers but I don't see Buffy in Angel's life given where they are in their own struggles. I think that Angel would say to Buffy that he is in love with someone else and needs to go with that - the same sort of thing Buffy said to Angel when she was with Riley.

I think that once Angel learns what he needs to, the curse on his soul will no longer exist. That may be symbolized by shanshu and then he can have his heart's desire. But whether Buffy is his heart's desire is another thing. It appeared to me that if he was still in love with Buffy, he would have made love to her in his dream. But his fantasy was Cordy and he only remembered Buffy when he was losing his soul. He said 'Buffy no' (at least that's what I heard) in pain and horror at losing his soul again. It's logical that he remember the previous time he lost his soul in the same circumstances. As for any Buffy-love on Angel's part, I didn't detect it. He had resolved his issues with each member of his family - brother, son, wife - Wes, Connor, Cordy. Right now, that's where his salvation lies. One never forgets one's first love but it doesn't have to be the last.
[> [> [> Thank you, thank you. -- Arethusa, 08:47:42 01/31/03 Fri

You said what I've been wanting to say, but didn't quite know how. For Buffy and Angel to get back together, the show would have to ignore all the development their characters have gone through for the past four years. Buffy even said that that kind of relationship doesn't last-it burns itself out-in "Seeing Red."
[> [> [> Re: Angel, Oedipus and 'ships -- lunasea, 09:15:09 01/31/03 Fri

Angel transformed Cordy into Buffy in his fantasy. She spoke like Buffy did. Her hair was like Buffy's. Her clothes were like Buffy's. The Sword was even a lot like the sword from Acathla.

Angel is attracted to Cordy because he thinks she is like Buffy (see how he reacts after he uses that Axis of Pythia). The Cordy we know isn't.

Same thing with Spike and Buffy. Buffy is ready to forgive Spike for every evil action he took as a vampire, but he still gets credit for all the good. Buffy doesn't even know souled Spike, but she is all ready to believe in him.

Angel left because he thought certain things mattered and that Buffy should have them. Buffy left because she agreed. For them to get back together, they would have to realize what is actually important. I think that is an important step for both of them.

For Angel to want to work things out with Buffy, he would have to stop being the selfless Champion and just do what feels right. He would have to stop being scared of what feels right. I don't see that as regression.

I see his return to Buffy as indicative of the change he needs to make, namely not trying so hard and clinging to labels/images of himself because he is scared of Angelus.

I see Buffy's return to Angel as indicative of the change she needs to make, namely turning love/pain into strength. She needs to love, give, forgive. Who better to do that with than the person she loves the most (she can feel him when he is around. You don't give up on that).
[> [> [> [> Re: Angel, Oedipus and 'ships -- Caroline, 10:00:25 01/31/03 Fri

I'm finding your post rather confusing, perhaps because I cannot follow your reasoning at all. I'll try to respond to your assertions by point.

1. You write: Angel transformed Cordy into Buffy in his fantasy. She spoke like Buffy did. Her hair was like Buffy's. Her clothes were like Buffy's. The Sword was even a lot like the sword from Acathla.

I didn't think that Cordy looked like Buffy. Buffy's hair has never been that short or that colour. In fact, Cordy's hair was brown rather than the blonde highlights that she had previously and her hair was chin-length - Buffy's hair has never been that short. Perhaps CC wants to grow out her hair in real life and has found a good 'in-between' cut? As for the clothing, she looked very casual, not like Buffy's Jackie O look back in S2/3. The only resemblance I found was the coat. That looked like the coats that Buffy wore in S3 but it looked more like a trench than the more formal Jackie O style woolen coats Buffy wore then. The function of the coat obviously was to hide CC condition - with the camera angles she couldn't walk around with a big handbag!

2. Your write: Angel is attracted to Cordy because he thinks she is like Buffy (see how he reacts after he uses that Axis of Pythia). The Cordy we know isn't.

Cordy is not Buffy. Buffy would have stayed and tried to slay the beast. Cordy protested when Angel wanted her to leave to fight the beast but she left. Cordy, in Angel's delusion, is the person that Angel wants her to be to make him happy. That is, he wants her to realize that he is the one for her, not Connor.

3. Your write: Same thing with Spike and Buffy. Buffy is ready to forgive Spike for every evil action he took as a vampire, but he still gets credit for all the good. Buffy doesn't even know souled Spike, but she is all ready to believe in him.

I would argue that Buffy and Spike have a relationship that is psychologically separate from Buffy's feelings for Angel, and far more relevant for her current struggles. Buffy applies the same moral code to Spike as she does with Angel - a soul can make you good. (And she fell for Angel before she knew him so I'm not sure that length of time or knowing someone extremely well is relevant for falling in love). But while she unquestioningly accepted Angel as good, she does not unquestioningly accept Spike as good - she only does so because she has seen how hard he has struggled to become a man worthy of being believed in. Angel only had to possess a soul to be believed in. We've had a lot of questioning in S7 of Buffy about the nature of the soul, and how choice and free will is still an important component of behaviour. I wonder if Spike's quest for a soul will as a vampire will lead Buffy to question whether Angelus could do the same thing? I'm wondering what implications that will have for future plot development but it's a further pointer to how Spike and Angel have different characters and different issues (once again, see shadowkat's character analyses for more).

4. Angel left Buffy because their relationship was at an impasse. He couldn't give her what she needed and he would turn evil if she gave him what he wanted. This impasse (to me) is indicative of a psychological situation where two people may love each other very much but cannot make the changes necessary to be together. For Angel, it's about forgiveness and atonement. Buffy can't give him what he needs there. For Buffy, it's about her journey and her path to self-knowledge - Angel could not help her in S2/3 and I don't think he can help her now. They are a tragic case of a couple who may have loved each other very much but aren't compatible, aren't what the other needs. If Angel can gain the forgiveness and atonement that he needs with Cordy et al in this current situation (symbolized by shanshu) then I would predict that he would be with her. I don't see how anything that Buffy is doing now will further Angel's psychological development and self-knowledge and vice-versa.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel, Oedipus and 'ships -- lunasea, 11:10:27 01/31/03 Fri

I didn't think that Cordy looked like Buffy. Buffy's hair has never been that short or that colour. In fact, Cordy's hair was brown rather than the blonde highlights that she had previously and her hair was chin-length - Buffy's hair has never been that short. Perhaps CC wants to grow out her hair in real life and has found a good 'in-between' cut? As for the clothing, she looked very casual, not like Buffy's Jackie O look back in S2/3

Not the entire episode, the bedroom scene. Since when did Cordy have wavy hair. Nice of her to go out and get it done before her and Angel consumate things. It was subtle, but it was there. It wasn't a complete metamorphosis into Buffy. It was a nice subtle blend.

And the shirt? Cordy in a sleeveless purple shirt? Yuck. That was so not Cordy, but it was very Buffy. I am not one of those people that usually pay attention to the clothes. I really don't care what they are wearing, but sometimes it is important. The hair really stood out and that made the shirt more noticable (especially because it isn't a good way to hide a pregnancy).

Cordy protested when Angel wanted her to leave to fight the beast but she left.

When Wesley dragged her off.

When I say that Cordy is like Buffy, I am talking about all that higher power crap. He actually thought she belonged up there. Yuck! He thinks she is not selfish and helps others because of her good heart.

I would argue that Buffy and Spike have a relationship

I would argue that Spike and Buffy don't have a relationship :-)

I wonder if Spike's quest for a soul will as a vampire will lead Buffy to question whether Angelus could do the same thing?

That goes on the assumption that Spike had free will and made some grand informed sacrifice in order to be good. Hopefully Angel will show up and put her straight soon. I am tired of this.

We will have to agree to disagree with #4. That isn't where I see the writers going at all. There are no psychological problems with Buffy and Angel as a couple. The stars are just crossed. The question is can they uncross them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> How long have you been watching the show? -- Rufus, 15:00:30 01/31/03 Fri

Cordy has had long, short, straight, wavy, blonde, brunette..hair at any given time. There is no way that you could confuse Cordy with Buffy....Angel gasped out the name "Buffy"....what that really will mean we don't know yet. Oh, and she has worn a purple, sleevless blouse in Reunion....Angel gave it away to Anne...he made it up to Cordy by buying her some new clothes.

As for a relationship.....Buffy and Spike do have one, though it's not a romantic one at this time. He obviously matters to Buffy, so to say they don't have a relationship is just focusing on the romantic aspects of ships.

That goes on the assumption that Spike had free will and made some grand informed sacrifice in order to be good. Hopefully Angel will show up and put her straight soon. I am tired of this.

Spoken like a true shipper. You don't like the idea of Buffy and Spike so you assume the worst of the partner you don't want for Buffy. Angel and Spike are very different characters and the fact that Spike went to get a soul, even for Buffy, shows that he certainly isn't the worst of the worst like Angelus was. I'm not saying he's a boyscout either....but.....nevermind you'll have to watch the next few Angels to get an idea of what Angelus's fixation is.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How long have you been watching the show? -- CW, 19:56:27 01/31/03 Fri

Just to back up Rufus, I believe I remember that during the episode "I Will Remember You" Cordelia and Buffy had exactly the same hairdos, Cordy's being brown and Buffy's blond. There was certainly not the slightest hint of equating the two then.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sinking Ships -- Wisewoman, 18:28:32 01/31/03 Fri

I can't find it now, but I'm sure I read you admit that you are a huge B/A shipper, lunasea. Anyone who is a huge [whatever] shipper seems destined to view everything on both BtVS and AtS through the lense of that 'ship. (Believe me, this board has experienced examples of 'shippers of all kinds, although the 'ships don't seem as overwhelming here as in other places.) Ultimately, those 'shippy lenses distort. I think your obsession with "Cordy as Buffy" in Awakening may be an instance of just this distortion.

Step back and think about it for a minute...as a huge B/A 'shipper, wouldn't you be threatened by Angel having a physical relationship with anyone other than Buffy (and vice-versa, of course)? Even the angry-Darla-sex must have been difficult for you, and heck, he hated her!

I'm just suggesting that you may be reading things into Awakening that weren't there, trying to buoy up a 'ship that appeared, yet again, to be sinking (B/A). This doesn't say anything about the big picture...maybe it's destiny that Angel and Buffy will finally end up together, happy and content, and that's fine with me and indeed, with most of us here I think. But I also think we have to kinda wait until we have any real indication that that's gonna happen before the B/A 'shippers start celebrating...

dub ;o)
[> [> [> Re: -- Angela, 09:27:28 01/31/03 Fri

Excellent post Caroline. I'm happy (for us) that you missed yoga; hope you don't mind too much. I agree on the character development for both heros. I guess that ultimately I wish this for all of the shows characters; but realize this would leave no show of course. In terms of the relationships, I enjoy them but they are not the main part of the show for me (although in certain seasons they can certainly assume a prominence as they did in BtVS S6 and they seem to be doing here) and I think it is in the back of my mind always that Joss has never given us a "permanent" romantic relationship...I don't expect one. I realize though that there are as many differnt views on this as their are people. Ben, my cohort in Angel watching, much prefers Gwen and if he had to pick a second it would probably be Lilah. In the current gang, Angel has made steps towards building a family in a way that I don't think he was ever able to do with the Scoobs. This topic came up with Spike too last season. The dreams (at least in the past) on the shows seem to have special signifigance. This year we already have at least three, Angel in Deep Down, Cordy, and now Angel in Awakening. The title itself is interesting, referring to the awakening of Angelus, the awakening/awareness in Angel; but, the Shaman says *he* serves "the Awakened One" which seems to refer to the Beast?

Which brings me to my main point of interest. I asked above but I don't know if you saw it...do you have a take on the Beast?
[> [> [> [> The Awakened One (speccy spoilers) -- Tess, 16:24:10 01/31/03 Fri

""the Shaman says *he* serves "the Awakened One" which seems to refer to the Beast?""

I didn't catch this the first time around but it is an interesting phrase. My guess is that the Awakened One is not the beast. The awakened one could be another way of saying someone who had been a sleeper. And I think neither Conner or Angel are the true sleepers.

I agree with someone in another post who said that all sorts of useful hints about the beast and how to defeat it were probably just revealed to us.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Awakened One (speccy spoilers) -- Angela, 17:29:48 01/31/03 Fri

The awakened one could be another way of saying someone who had been a sleeper.

That's the allusion that caught me up. And I'm back and forth on Who which is probably what's intended. There are some things that seem to be built off the Beast of Revelations, including a head wound but I don't know if the answer would be there or not. There is more than one beast mentioned in that passage; but I don't know if that's important or not. The Beast marked his victims on the head or hand (I think). Conner was marked on the forehead and Ben reminded me that Angelus was in the habit of marking his victims on the hand. To be honest I don't recall, not watching Angel as much as he does. Both the Beast and Angelus can be said to "speak with the tongue of the serpent" and are skilled at manipulation. "Our strength is useless divided" seems to imply a prior time when it was combined, but could also be a reference to impending division. Sorry about the ramble; I'm working on a project right now so I'm mostly stray thoughts.

Other references that caught my ear "tooth of light", bosh m'ad, the hebrew nine perhaps a kabbalistic reference? and on a slightly different note there was also a reference to the Bobby Russell/Vickie Lawrence song, or perhaps because Lorne doesn't like Vickie it's a reference to the movie.

Anyway, thanks for the response...I'm sure this will all make some sort or convoluted sense later!
[> [> [> Excellent post. Some additional pts on family.( Spoilers to Ats 4.10) -- shadowkat, 09:39:29 01/31/03 Fri

You have managed to put into words many of the things I thought about the dream sequence and why I found it be both fascinating and far more interesting than the last time Angel lost his soul. You also explained very well why a romantic reunion between Buffy and Angel would not work for me as a viewer of both shows.

I too felt that the Buffy utterance at the end of the dream was more something he associated with the losing of his soul or possibly as you imply above - a recognition on the character's part that he has fallen into the same trap he did before - he gave into the desire to make love and lost the soul - the things he did wrong with Buffy have been repeated here. He probably believed he had already worked through them with Darla, so he was past them. Because to be honest - I think his issues with Buffy really start with Darla. The writers do an interesting thing way back in Season 2 - (and if you weren't watching Angel - you probably missed it and admittedly the episode wasn't great) in Guise Will Be Guise - Angel visits a swami who is not a real swami but does give Angel some good advice - a sort of pseudo epiphany. Darla dumped Angel when he got his soul - treated him like dirt, like he wasn't good enough - he clearly still harbors issues regarding this and the swami says one way of tackling it would be to find a petit blond, whose like a daughter to you (ie much younger), court her, get her to fall in love with you, then do the same things to her that Darla did to you. (Which sort of is the whole B/A tragedy). Well it goes deeper than just Buffy of course and much deeper than Darla dumping him - if that was all it was then the whole Darla story arc would have played out differently - remember that arc climaxed with Angel firing his colleagues and losing his human family while Darla and Dru were attempting to rebuild their vampire one with Angelus at the head, Darla believed if she slept with Angel - she'd have the vampire family back, instead Angel went the other direction - he went back to his human family and Darla briefly joined it when she had his son - that is important and more or less proves the whole Buffy romantic thing, from Angel's pov, was always a mislead. We have to remember the last time this happened we were seeing the story from Buffy's pov. Now we are seeing it from Angel's. The lack of family - is Angel's real issue and it is an issue repeated over and over and over again. It was at the center of the Darla arc and it is at the center of the Connor/Holtz arc as well.

Looking back over the Angel's past history - we see this theme repeated over and over again.

1. Liam is portrayed repeatedly in the series as the prodigal son - a drunken lout who womanizes and goes against his religious father. Even in Spin the Bottle - Liam referrs to his father as overbearing and overly religious and is resentful of him.

2. Vamped Liam gets the name Angel from his little sister - before he kills her, she invites him in. He proceeds to kill his entire family and the village. Darla tells him that by killing his father - his father will always rule him, that his father won. (The Prodigal and Dear Boy)

3. When Angel joins Darla - he tries to get along with the Vampire Father - The Master - but has the same problems and takes Mommy with him, she goes against the Master's wishes.
(Darla)

4. Angel and Darla form two vampire families, but it is clear that is not Darla who wants them or Darla that forms the families but Angel. And Angel sires a girl - who sires a boy. James and Elisabeth (Heart-throb), there's Penn (Somanbulist), and of course Spike and Dru (who are with them for 20 years - possibly the longest time he had a vamp family. And Spike in many ways fits the role of both Wes and Connor but as a vampire and with Angelus. How much you want to bet Angelus treats Connor a little bit like he did Spike? Dru fits the roles of Fred and...oddly enough Buffy - which they parallel in Season 2, when Angelus dumps Buffy and sleeps with Dru. Buffy also parallels Darla. )When Angelus gets the soul - he becomes an outcast from his vampire family - they will no longer accept him. (Darla, Becoming) This outcast status possibly is the reason that Angelus decides to suck the world into hell when he loses the soul again - the rage at being an outcast in both worlds for so long - comes to the fore. Because as much as Buffy loves Angel - she never gives him the one thing he wants most - family. As we see in Season 4 - Pangs, Angel on the outside of the glass. We also see in Btvs with all the scenes where Angel can't be reflected, the mother not knowing him, his inability to get in Buffy's house to save Mom, while Spike is sitting there chatting with her in Lover's Walk, the inability for him to ever truly be admitted into the world of the SG. PArt of the reason he leaves Buffy is that he knows he will always be outside her world. He believes it's because he's a vampire, but when he turns human in IWARY - he realizes it will always be so. As a human he can't fight beside her or really protect her or be part of her world either. He will have her, yes - but not the "family" he craves.

5. It is interesting to note - that Angelus' m.o. is killing families. With Dru - he kills her family first then vamps her. With Buffy he goes after her friends and family first. With Holtz - it's Holtz's family - which is why Holtz realizes the best way to destroy Angel is through his family. The one thing Angel cares the most about is that: family.

6. When he goes to LA - Angel starts to build a family. He is not the lone private eye or equalizer. He is head of a group. Cordelia actually is able to give Angel something Buffy never could - a sense of belonging in the world - a connection to it. He can protect her. She fits more of the mother role than the child or sister/equal. And Cordy makes sacrifices for Angel not for the world. She keeps the visions in Birthday for Angel. She takes care of Angel's child Connor, when Darla dies. Heck Cordelia even takes care of Darla - Darla and Cordy come to an odd understanding. Cordy also brings in other family members - if it weren't for Cordelia we wouldn't have Wesely, Gunn, or Fred. It's Cordy who convinces Gunn to stay and join them in Season 2. It's Cordy who encourages Wesely to stay in Parting Gifts. When Angel fires all them - they begin to work out of Cordy's apartment. And it is Cordy who has the vision about Fred and takes them to her. So when Angel returns in Deep Down - his first goal is to get Cordy back because in his head - Cordy is what brings his family together. Just as when he was soulless - Darla was the one who kept the family together. Darla and Cordelia are also a lot more alike than Buffy/Darla. They are snarkier, speak their mind and well a tad more into clothes, image, vanity.
In some ways I see Darla as a dark Cordelia.

In sum - Angel's main issue is not his first romantic love, but his family - the fact that he murdered everyone in his biological family - a fact he repeats a least once a year in the series. And it is through his current family - the one that is not tied to him by blood but by love and shared experiences that will save him. That's important by the way - the shared experiences. Fred, Gunn, Wes, Cordelia, Lorne and Connor all share a love for Angel and a love for each other - which, with the possible exception of Connor, was of their own choosing.

Something else that you said which I found interesting:
1. Shanshu

I think that once Angel learns what he needs to, the curse on his soul will no longer exist. That may be symbolized by shanshu and then he can have his heart's desire.

We keep assuming it will make him human - but what if the shanshu just removes the curse, allowing Angel to reach happiness without losing his soul. Maybe by making peace with the issues that create Angelus, the ones we see that he has and tries to resolve in the dream, - the curse will be lifted?
[> [> [> [> One of favorite aphorisms from Franz Kafka... -- cjl, 09:46:49 01/31/03 Fri

"The Messiah will come when he is no longer needed."

Applied to Angel:

"Angel will shanshu when he no longer desires it."
[> [> [> [> [> LOL! Probably very true. -- s'kat, 10:04:49 01/31/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> Re: Excellent post. Some additional pts on family.( Spoilers to Ats 4.10) -- Caroline, 11:34:59 01/31/03 Fri

Thanks shadowkat, I knew that I could rely on you to deliver. I'm amazed that having missed so much of seasons 2 and 3 of Angel, I still managed to distill the themes that I did. I think that is a tribute to the quality of writing and depth of understanding of their characters that the writers have, as well as the consistency of the psychological development. Even when there are particular things that occur that I don't necessarily like, I am always drawn in by the psychological progress of the characters.
[> [> The Sword -- Duo, 09:09:19 01/31/03 Fri

actually it was the sword of Robin Hood.

http://www.extremely-sharp.com/es/catalog/10063.html
[> [> Re: What it takes to make Angel happy (Spoilers for Awakening) and a welll marked later spoiler -- Dochawk, 10:47:11 01/31/03 Fri

Though I am not much for the shipping, I agree with almost all the plot points you mention. I agree that they are using alot of references from the first three seasons and are working towards a smashing Buffy finale (I hope its a 2 hour finale). The recent change in Angel scheduling suggests that maybe even the WB is cooperating in making sure Angel finishes before Buffy this season. Warning future spoiler below;

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E











As for your supposition of mirroring season 2. the fact that Willow will crossover and do the resouling is certainly supportive of your theory.
[> [> [> Re: What it takes to make Angel happy (Spoilers for Awakening) and a welll marked later spoiler -- Rufus, 12:11:54 01/31/03 Fri

There may be some mirroring of season two going on but that doesn't mean that Buffy and Angel will ever reunite in a romantic way. People change and what we see is aspects from season two are shown and we get the reaction from the Scoobies from the perspective of being older.
[> Re: What it takes to make Angel happy (Spoilers for Awakening) -- Alison, 06:41:58 01/31/03 Fri

I agree with you abt how Angel sees Cordy..I think hes subconciously trying to make Cordelia Buffy...perhaps its because Buffy once compared herself to "Spordelia"...he may see her having the potential to become like Buffy....
[> How many AI's were directing Angels dream? -- WickedBuffy, 14:20:25 01/31/03 Fri

Was the whole Unreality experience only coming from Angels subconscious or could it have been affected by the others as well? Everyone was very focused on Angel while he was "out". With all the different types of power in the room focused on what one man was dreaming, maybe some of them helped shaped certain parts of it.

For instance Gunn, who seems the weakest mentally to me, seemed like a bystander. While Wes and Fred, both more experienced in the occult/magic type of mental work and very intense thinkers, interacted more with more subtext - looks, hand touching, etc. And the romantic ending of the dream seemed more like something Cordy would imagine than Angel. And Cordy reeks of powers from being "up there". It was almost like reading the end of some Harlequin romance!

It just seems to me that it wasn't *just* Angel who was creating a perfect happiness, other psyches seemed to throw in a few things that would make "them" happy. And the strongest ones affected the dream more than the "weaker" ones.

So it was almost an interplay of each persons p.o.v. moving the characters around and doing the little things (For instance, Wes's subconscious: Angel hands the sword to Wes - yahhh Wes is trusted. Or Connors subconscience: Connor saves his father and really kicks some demon a**.

The frequent "do it this way, no that didn't work" parts were where two peoples ideas of what would make it a good dream bumped into each other.

I'm sure there were more, just a thought. :>

Then again, at the very point before full consciousness when Angel turned into Angelus, could Angelus look right into everyone elses psyches for a brief moment and collect enough information to destroy them? Wouldn't put it past the clever devil!
[> [> WickedBuffy stimulates a wicked thought (unspoiled near future spec) -- KdS, 14:26:54 01/31/03 Fri

Some people have been talking about the "bad fanfic" aspect of Angel's dream. Are we going to see a take-off of that style of fanfic where Mary Sue the therapist turns up and points out all the characters' mental hang-ups to them? With Angelus telling the home truths in most sadistic style?
[> [> [> Re: WickedBuffy stimulates a wicked thought (unspoiled near future spec) -- WickedBuffy, 14:48:51 01/31/03 Fri

Angelus Soprano... I can see the two shows bending together well.

But, seriously - maybe I missed a sentence in the show, did the shaman create the dream? did he just say "Abracadabappy, have Angel dream some happy"? and left it at that? (And was that the same guy who pretended to take Angels soul before but really didn't so they could trick Faith into telling them about Graduation? or they just shop at the same mall.

At least we can be thankful Joss opted out of making the dream be a musical.
Gollum and the high-voltage Saint (Thoughts on STSP and Ground State) -- KdS, 10:17:43 01/31/03 Fri

No real parallels between BtVS and Ats this week, or at least not that I noticed.

On Same Time Same Place:

A solid episode, if not quite as good as I was expecting. Largely, I think I over-estimated how interesting the repeated scene gimmick would be. I was expecting Willow to be more perpetually apologetic, but I now suspect that she probably drove everyone berserk with that immediately following Grave, before her trip to the UK.

One interesting feature of both episodes was the giving away of intriguing pieces of information in an almost throwaway manner. In STSP, it's Anya's admission that vengeance isn't as rewarding as it was before her period as a human. The whole scene with the two characters who've behaved worst with a soul bonding was excellent.

The torture of Willow wasn't as extreme as the impression I got from posts on the board from US viewers. Even so, it was one of the most sinister scenes on the show for a while. There was some oddly choppy editing in the discovery of the flayed corpse, WIllow's torture, the killing of Gnarl and the "previously on" flashback to Warren's death which made me suspect that the episode was censored by Sky. Have to check when the video comes out or wait for the uncensored late-night BBC showing. One has to say that Buffyverse karma/repercussions of witchcraft is unusually rapid and literal ;-)

Another feature of the episode that intrigued me was the way it returns to the old BtVS style of playing potentially very dark material for laughs - in particular the "poseable Dawn" scenes which I actually enjoyed. I have to say that the new competent Dawn is one of the best features of S7. Similarly the remarks about Spike's BO which upset some Spike-lovers didn't annoy me.

I must admit, I felt that the final scene was slightly off. The dialogue between Buffy and Willow was marvellous, especially the matter-of-fact acceptance of Buffy's initial doubts whether Willow had flipped out again and done the flaying. I think I have two main problems, which may just be down to my tendency to be harsh on Willow:

i) Isn't using magic to heal non-life-threatening injuries a slight return to the use of magic to make your environment perfect that was Willow's problem to start with?

ii) OK, Willow thought something subconsciously and caused it to be literally manifested through uncontrolled magic. Shouldn't she and Buffy have been much more worried than this than they were?

On Ground State

Something of a reverse here, as I watched with very low expectations thanks to some hostile reviews and was pleasantly surprised.

Disasterous costume apart (When she asked her client if he thought she looked cut-price I made a silent and very crude mental response) I liked Gwen. It is slightly problematic that we haven't previously had any non-mystical superhumans in the Buffyverse, adding X-Men style mutations would make things a little too complicated. Maybe she's some kind of demon hybrid. Despite the surface superhero references, I find her more reminiscent of a 1930s pulp fiction gentleman crook - especially the sexy female servant in the tuxedo. Maybe the lady swings both ways. A little too cliched Bad Girl to begin, but it's early days yet. I was amused by her comments about who's allowed to use the word "freak" in her confrontation with the client. I think someone was riffing on a whole lot of discriminated-against minorities there.

The key fact thrown away here - that Angel knows about Wes and Lilah and is currently prepared not to force the issue with Wes. His sense of smell was earlier aluded to in Dear Boy with the bleached blonde, but it looks as though it really was a good thing that there was no crossover mid-S6/S3.

And once again - Fred's development has gone through a quantum leap since S3. She still has issues though - I liked her horror at Gunn abandoning her.

Of course, the plot of Ground State left me humming "Danger:High Voltage" in the car all the way home. Will there be fire at the gates of Hell before the seasons end?

Thanks again, yab!
[> Re: Gollum and the high-voltage Saint (Thoughts on STSP and Ground State) -- Rob, 10:41:27 01/31/03 Fri

"Isn't using magic to heal non-life-threatening injuries a slight return to the use of magic to make your environment perfect that was Willow's problem to start with?"

No, I don't think so, and the reason is she's not doing a whammy spell that POOF! makes everything all better. She's drawing on this more spiritual earthy form of magick she learned in the coven to help heal herself at a slow rate. She is learning to implement the magic here as she should--as an aid, not as a problem-solver.

"OK, Willow thought something subconsciously and caused it to be literally manifested through uncontrolled magic. Shouldn't she and Buffy have been much more worried than this than they were?"

Perhaps, but I think that's all part of the Willow-not-being-fully-trained-but-learning thing. I think it was meant more as a warning that Willow cannot abandon her magic or just ignore it. It's a part of her, that she has to learn how to deal with.

Personally, I thought the ending scene was absolutely perfect. It so beautifully reaffirmed the bond between Buffy and Willow, and I loved the whole idea of the warrior allowing her friend to share some of her strength.

"On Ground State

"Something of a reverse here, as I watched with very low expectations thanks to some hostile reviews and was pleasantly surprised."

Really, where did you hear negative reviews for that ep? I remember back when it first aired, most of the posts here, at least, were raves, many leaning towards the "Best. Episode. Ever." or Top 10 title.

Rob
[> [> Re: Gollum and the high-voltage Saint (Thoughts on STSP and Ground State) -- Liam, 10:59:54 01/31/03 Fri

I found 'Same Time, Same Place' to be, overall, slow and boring.

Things I liked:

1. Dawn getting more likable, particularly her comments about Willow being to blame for the current problem, and saying that people should ask for help if they need it. That said, I did smile at her temporary paralysis.

2. I dislike graffiti, so had little sympathy for the person being killed.

3. The subtle reminders of Tara's death.


Things I disliked:

1. I don't like to shout, but DOES EVERYONE IN SUNNYDALE NOT LOCK THEIR BACK DOORS WHEN THEY GO OUT? I can understand people leaving doors unlocked when they're at home, but when they leave...

2. Anya the hypocrite: She confronts Willow about all the stuff she did; but she is back being a vengeance demon, inflicting suffering on many. Her having problems with this gets no sympathy from me.

3. Buffy seems impossibly cheerful when she finds out that Dawn's paralysis might be permanent. I thought that Dawn was the centre of her life. :)

4. Willow having a few strips of skin torn off her doesn't constitute sufficient punishment for what she did.

5. Willow subconsciously cast a spell? Perhaps she should be sent back to England for more retraining, as this sounds dangerous.


I thought that 'Ground State' was enjoyable.

1. Gwen was an interesting character.

2. I loved to see Wes with his own crew.

3. The Wes and Lilah, Wes and Angel scenes were good. I found Lilah's 'evil errands' comment amusing, though a little too like Dr. Evil. Her 'Mrs. Robinson' comment about Connor was appropriately gross.

4. The Gunn/Fred relationship is still giving me problems, as Gunn appears to be completely emasculated, complaining about a burnt finger.
[> [> [> Re: door locking -- Robert, 11:29:27 01/31/03 Fri

>>> 1. I don't like to shout, but DOES EVERYONE IN SUNNYDALE NOT LOCK THEIR BACK DOORS WHEN THEY GO OUT? I can understand people leaving doors unlocked when they're at home, but when they leave...

Maybe and maybe not. I know people in Eugene, Oregon who do not lock their doors when they leave. When I lived in Mountain View, California, I never locked the doors to my cars -- mostly to avoiding the breaking when the theives were breaking and entering.

Actually, I would be more inclined to lock my house doors when I am home, than when I am gone. To have stuff stolen is irritating; it has happened to me. But I would far rather lose my stuff than my life. Having locked doors at least assures me that I will be awaken while someone of breaking and entering.
[> [> [> [> I can vouch that I am among the people who don't lock their house doors, EVER! -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:43:44 01/31/03 Fri

[> [> [> Re: punishment (Thoughts on STSP) -- Robert, 11:53:06 01/31/03 Fri

>>> 4. Willow having a few strips of skin torn off her doesn't constitute sufficient punishment for what she did.

It wasn't punishment, sufficient or otherwise. The torture Willow suffered at the hands of the Gnarl demon may have been grand cosmic irony, given how Willow flayed Warren, but it wasn't punishment. There was no connection between the Gnarl demon and Willow, or anything Willow had previously done. There was no causal link between the two events. Whether Willow receives punishment for her crimes in this life or the next remains to be seen.

To believe otherwise is to accept the heresy that when bad things happen to us, it is punishment from God for something (known or unknown) that we did, or our parents did, or our grandparents did, etc. The is different from saying that there are consequences for our actions. If I pound my hand with a hammer, it will hurt a lot. The pain is a consequence of the action with the hammer, not a divine punishment. There is a causal link between the two events. Similarly, if I engage in promiscuous unprotected sex, I stand a good chance of contracting AIDS. Unlike like certain fundamentalist preachers would have you believe, the AIDS would not have been divine retribution, but merely a consequence.
[> [> [> Re: likes and dislikes (Thoughts on STSP) -- Robert, 12:07:12 01/31/03 Fri

>>> 2. I dislike graffiti, so had little sympathy for the person being killed.



This is reason to like the episode?



>>> 2. Anya the hypocrite: She confronts Willow about all the stuff she did; but she is back being a vengeance demon, inflicting suffering on many. Her having problems with this gets no sympathy from me.



Anya has always been a hypocrite. Until the episode Selfless, Anya had not even begun to come to grips with her veagence demon past. Did you dislike every previous episode where Anya showed hypocracy?



I appreciated Anya very much in this episode. She behaved pretty much as she always behaved. Even in the episode The Body, Anya's speeches were more about her own discomfort and confusion than with the pain others might be feeling, or for the loss of life Joyce suffered. But even with all this, Same Time, Same Place was the first time Anya revealed that she wasn't happy with her veagence existance. In addition, for all the reasons she might have found to be angry with Willow, Anya's behavior was driven more by her feelings of loneliness and isolation.
[> [> jenoff hated it -- KdS, 14:03:25 01/31/03 Fri

Who you gonna call (spoilers Awakening) -- lunasea, 10:58:29 01/31/03 Fri

I have seen various theories about why Angel called out Buffy's name at the end. Let's see if we can get them together into one thread.

I am a huge B/A shipper. Joss wrote 2 star-crossed lovers and that only works if they are perfect for each other. Episodes like "Forever" only serve to reinforce what they mean to each other. All the psych stuff that people want to pile on top of them about why they aren't perfect isn't what the writers put there. They tried to make the perfect couple. I will accept that. Not everyone likes the same things. Some people still think that Spuffy is a good idea.

Angel did turn Cordy into Buffy when they made love. Since when does Cordy have wavy hair. Nice of her to go out and get it done before they finally do it. Also, that purple shirt was so not Cordy, but it was classic Buffy. I was half expecting the Buffy/Angel theme in the background.

Thing is where was the L-word that entire scene? Compare that to "Surprise" "I love you. I try not to, but I can't stop." In Angel's fantasy, he can't even bring himself to say I love you to Cordy (if he did, I must have blocked it out. They forgave each other. They admit they want to be together. Where was I love you?)

Then he has his most desperate hour. He is loosing his soul. He calls out Buffy's name. Why? Simple. He needs help. He called out Buffy in "Surprise," because he needed help and he did the same in "Awakening."

That is why Buffy and Angel belong together, they can completely depend on each other. Compare what Buffy says in Amends to what Cordy says in Apocalypse Nowish. Then compare that with what Cordy says in Awakening

When Angel looses his soul, reality comes rushing back. In those seconds, Angel turns to the one person he trusts, Buffy.
Great article about the future of the Buffyverse (only 2 CASTING spoilers AtS--1 is well-known) -- Rob, 11:19:44 01/31/03 Fri

From Watch with Kristen (formerly Wanda) from eonline.com:

Keeping the Faith: That's apparently what the producers of Buffy are hoping to do, as they have approached Eliza Dushku (aka baddie-turned-goodie Faith) about the possibility of doing a spinoff next fall. Mutant Enemy sources tell me Dushku met with Buffy producers on Wednesday to discuss a Faith show.

Word is that Sarah Michelle Gellar has pretty much decided not to sign on for another season, so Joss Whedon and Co. are heavily weighing spinoff possibilities--and Faith the Vampire Slayer appears to be the front-runner. There's just one issue, though: Does Eliza want to do it?

Last week, I had the pinch-me pleasure of visiting the Angel set, as they taped what looks to be a stunning upcoming episode. (Stay tuned for all the juicy goodness from that visit, including a sitdown with David Boreanaz and Charisma Carpenter.)

Both Alyson Hannigan and Eliza were on hand as guest stars, and though I wasn't able to ask specifically about a Faith spinoff, they did offer up a bit of insight.

When asked if she still plans on going back to school, Eliza replied: "Each year, I say I'm going to go to school next year. And it's inevitable that I'll end up getting my education. But I love working--I'm a worker bee at heart. I love coming here. It's such a stimulus. When I'm not doing anything, that's when I'm freaking out. I get neurotic and analytical and like, 'I need a shrink!' I'm trying to figure it out. I'm definitely conflicted as to what happens from here."

I also asked Eliza if she wants to stay in TV or do more film. "It's been nice working on Angel, because it shoots here in Los Angeles," she said. "I can drive myself to work, then drive home and visit my friends or my brothers. But it's also kind of cool to shoot off and do a movie for three months. You're in, you're out, boom, you get the final product. I don't necessarily love one more than the other. TV can be a long commitment, but at the same time...you never know."

Ain't that the truth, sister! So, it looks like we'll just have to wait patiently (grrr, argh!) to find out whether the "conflicted" Eliza is here to slay.

As for the rest of the Scoobs, Hannigan mentioned she's "not sure" about the spinoff thing, saying, "It really depends on what it is, and who's involved."

But she says James Marsters and Nicholas Brendon would definitely be on board. "Nick is like, 'I'll be a janitor or something!' And I'm, like, "Don't you care what it is? C'mon, Joanie Loves Chachi didn't really work so well.' But he's, like, 'Nope, don't care. I'll be a janitor!' "

____________________________________________________

I just need to say here, how frickin' awesome would a "Faith" spinoff be? I'm jumping up and down just thinking about the possibility of it happening.

Rob
[> Awesome is the word. (Same spoilers) -- CW, 11:53:58 01/31/03 Fri

As long it doesn't turn out to be Faithy Loves Xandy . ;o)

I could see Alyson in the mix, too. It might be better to start off with fresh roles and a fresh story and let Eliza do her thing without us worrying about whether it was true to BtVS.
[> Oh Nicholas... -- Calvin, 12:58:00 01/31/03 Fri

I love how unconflicted Nick Brendon is about the possibility of doing a spin off. While trying to avoid talking out of my butt, I think it's interesting that he seems to have no illusions about his post-"Buffy" future. He seems, well, desparate for the show to continue in one form or another. Funny. No SMG 'I want to do movies' thing for him.

Calvin
[> [> And good for him! -- Rob, 13:04:19 01/31/03 Fri

He knows where he's loved and the unlikelihood of much fame past "Buffy." He accepts it, and it sounds pretty gratefully, and wants to stick with the franchise as long as possible. And I say, go Nick!

Rob
[> wow -- yez, 14:10:30 01/31/03 Fri

Oh, man -- first with the Faith, then with the hope...

I think Faith would have even stronger spin-off possibilities than a Spike-related spin-off. Faith was such a well-written, -developed and -acted characte, and so is Spike, but I think the Scoobies sans Buffy could, I think, be worked into a "Faith-based" show very credibly, as a pretty reasonable case could be made that they saw themselves as having a mission to help the Slayer, especially to honor Buffy's memory if Buffy should happen to bite the silver bullet, finally and for good.

But I'm not going to think about this a second more. I'm just going to get all excited and then all disappointed if it falls through. Low expectations -- the key to relative happiness.

yez
[> Re: Great article about the future of the Buffyverse (only 2 CASTING spoilers AtS--1 is well-known) -- WickedBuffy, 14:55:38 01/31/03 Fri

dang it, a gavrok spider ate my first post...

I think Faith the Vampire Slayer would be absolutely incredible! And Xander could start as an initiate to be a Watcher - there's a big old world of things we don;t know about them that could be shown thru that. Plus, his temperment and acting would favor that kind of role. (Janitor? psha!!)

And Dawn would leave the show to do 12 spinoffs of Harriet the Spy, so she'd be in biz, Willow could pop in and out to visit Kennedy, and Spike - Spike must never leave! But he really needs a challenge now - it's like he['s run out of them.
[> [> Re: Great article about the future of the Buffyverse (only 2 CASTING spoilers AtS--1 is well-known) -- Dochawk, 15:04:57 01/31/03 Fri

Xander is the heart, not the brain. He never gets anywhere on the research (except when he summons Sweet). He is not watcher material. His intellect just isn't with Giles or Wesley. Willow is, but I doubt she'll want to be on Faith the Vampire Slayer, I still think she'll be going to Angel, if Angel exists next year. Spike, torn about whether he would be a watcher, but Restless predicts it.
[> [> [> ok, ok, so Xander's the Tinman .... -- WickedBuffy, 15:17:22 01/31/03 Fri

I agree with you about the brains, though I thought he was getting better at research. He's just so much more than repairing windows, though.

There just seems like a whole lot of adventring they could do by opening up the whole Watcher theme. And maybe there are "other" types of jobs within Watchers who need the heart and the abiity to see clearly how things are. That way Xander could be training and not have to leave wherever FtVS would be five by fiving.

The Coven could be a new arena, also, all kinds of potential run-ins, romances, differences of opinions, ect between the two factions.
[> [> [> [> Wrote previously, net no go, figure that? Amen. -- Ihinnar3, 16:40:13 01/31/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Wrote previously, net no go, figure that? Amen. -- WickedBuffy, 22:43:47 01/31/03 Fri

in Xanders immortal words: ummm, huh?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Lost posts -- Ihinnar3, 05:40:32 02/02/03 Sun

When Wizard of Oz comparisons were 1st suggested I typed in some thoughts, twice, but both times the net connection was severed during posting, OK? I'm not tempting fate again, I'm sure the universe can live without my comments without oceans running dry, planets colliding, earthquakes or eclipses.
[> [> Re: Great article about the future of the Buffyverse (only 2 CASTING spoilers AtS--1 is well-known) -- leslie, 15:59:54 01/31/03 Fri

"Spike must never leave! But he really needs a challenge now - it's like he's run out of them."

Hmm, a newly ensouled and trying-to-be-good Spike interacting with a jailbird, been-evil-done-that Slayer? Sounds like challenges galore. And I don't see them exactly hitting it off from the get-go.
[> [> [> The next generation? -- Caroline, 18:27:15 01/31/03 Fri

I do understand the appeal of this type of spin-off but I'm wondering if after 7 years and having been through a whole hero's journey with Buffy, whether I could be that interested in another slayer's journey. I know that Faith is a different character with different pysche, challenges etc but I think they need to come up with a different twist on the buffyverse like they did with Angel rather than BtVS the next generation. I'm also unsure how they would make it consistent with the backstory on Fray. And I kinda would like them to go out on a high and not franchise the idea like Star Trek which has made some abysmal choices about some of its series.
[> [> [> [> If it has Joss, I think it'll be good. And if it doesn't have Joss, I don't think it's canon. -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:32:03 01/31/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> AMEN! Agree w/ Caroline completely. No STNG for Buffy. -- Briar Rose, 16:39:22 02/02/03 Sun

I love the characters. I love the actors. But I just don't think they can do "Whoever the Vampire Slayer" and not end up with repeating themselves, throwing off the entire Joss-verse (Fray is directly tied to Buffy or someone not FAR after her....) and leaving it all rather messily ham handed and taking away from the epic of what BtVS story was and is.

Moving to a show with a center of "The Watcher" or "The Coven" or like with Angel: Paranormal Investigation and Extermination 'r' Us gives the characters not only a chance to continue in the story (depending on whether the actors choose to) or to create different characters without it seeming like they are extra baggage. (As is often stated to be the problem with all them SITs running around lately.)

I would truly rather see BtVS die an honorable and dignified death ending on a hgh note, than have ME bring out a "filler" show to please the Network PTB and fans who will miss Buffy as we know it.

Some shows can't be co-opted. IMO Buffy is one of them. It was a show that can never be re-produced with characters that can't be replaced. I love all of ME/Joss's stuff so far (well maybe not Firefly*L) and want to see more of it. But let the epic end where it has a natural ending. No need to try and re-tell the same story because it's been done to the best of the writer's ability.

As for the actors.... SMG is Buffy, will always be Buffy and will always have the satisfaction of knowing that this little slice of genius and style was un-precedented in network TV. That it was a a one shot thing and that no one could ever take it away from her or any of the actors and writers. And that's a career high point - to be un-followable, un-challenged and un-copy-able.
[> Ties in with something I saw (spin-off rumours) -- KdS, 15:21:22 01/31/03 Fri

I saw something on a spoiler board the other night about detailed press rumours of a mooted Faith/Spike/Xander spin-off. I can see the actors going for it - NB and JM are probably the regulars least likely to escape the cult ghetto, and ED has made some truly disastrous film choices after leaving BtVS. The problem I can see is justifying it. I can see Souled Spike and Faith hitting it off - both with an excessive love of combat, self-destructive tendencies, sadomasochism and Evil Mentor issues to deal with. (Not angling for a 'ship here - it'd be an important step in both their developments to have a close relationship with a person of the opposite sex without penetration being involved.) The only problem is what would cause Xander to team up with them - he hasn't exactly had overall positive interactions with either of them.
[> Why Xander is the most logical choice for sidekick: -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:26:49 01/31/03 Fri

1) Xander is the one least likely to draw attention away from Faith. Two major contenders seem to be Spike or Willow, but both of them have their own large, angst-filled arcs that could get in the way. Xander would have his problems, sure, but they'd be on a smaller, more human level.

2) Xander has the least backstory that needs to be filled in. Dawn and Anya (though she's almost automatically disqualified since she said this is her last year at ME) are both fully human, but inevitably their origins would need to be brought up on the Faith spinoff, and people might get irritated who aren't as familiar with Buffy as we are. With Xander, all that needs to be expositioned about him is that he knew Buffy the Vampire Slayer and fought beside her.

3) Xander actually DOES have reason to team up with Faith. While he isn't very close to her, they had this working together vibe when they set out to kill Angel in "Revelations", as well as the fact that, after they slept together, Xander felt he had some sort of connection to Faith, which he brought up again during Season 4. While I doubt he'd pursue sex with her again, he might still feel like he should be involved with her life.

4) Then there's how that same sexual past affecting Faith. She has always treated the men she's slept with as objects to be used and discarded. Actually persuing a friendship, complete with respect, for Xander would be a huge growth in her developement.

5) Finally, there is how Xander could work as a contrast to Faith. Ever since the beginning, perhaps Faith's biggest flaw has been that she doesn't have any faith in anyone or anything. She basically thinks that the world and everyone in it is trying to screw her over. That's why any spinoff with Faith almost NEEDS Xander; he represents the heart, something that Faith deeply needs in her cynical, dis-trustful world view.

Sure, he's not the most character or the one with the most connection to Faith, but look at Cordelia and Wesley on "Angel". Of course, there is still some hope for Dawn, in my opinion, but that all depends on how her interaction with Faith on "Buffy" goes.
[> [> Re: Why Xander is the most logical choice for sidekick: -- Corwin of Amber, 19:55:41 01/31/03 Fri

Plus, XANDER HAS A JOB!

And Spike is already his freeloading roomate. :) That's two thirds of the setup for a bad sitcom already...
[> [> Re: Why Xander is the most logical choice for sidekick: -- ahira, 22:44:43 01/31/03 Fri

You could also throw in this idea. After having been part of fighting the good fight for so long, could he really give it up. He knows the evil that is out there and has the courage to want to do something about it. I do not see Xander as someone who could head off to the sidelines with so much yet to be done.
[> [> [> If Xander were the next Slayer, how long ... -- WickedBuffy, 10:22:29 02/01/03 Sat

would he make it and based on his past, how would his demise occur? ;>

My vote is within 2 episodes and it will be on a beautifully romantic moonlit date with Veruca's kin.

Either that or Dawn trips and accidentally stakes him as she tries to break her fall.

Then again, he might make the fatal mistake of thinking since he's the SLayer, he can date vampires, and realize just a moment too late that it's *not* just a super-hickey he's being given by his gf.
[> [> [> [> Remember, Buffy wasn't exactly the best candidate, either. -- Juliet, 17:34:11 02/01/03 Sat

Request for examples: self-determination and violation of same in the Buffyverse (AtS 4.10 spoilers) -- Masq, 12:42:52 01/31/03 Fri

I'm in the middle of my "Awakening" analysis, and one thing that struck me was Angel simply telling Wesley "No," when Wesley just marched in there with the shaman saying, "It's time to lose your soul now!" Angel's right to self-determination was added to the list of reasons for and against the moral dilemma of whether to turn Angel into Angelus.

Now Angel ultimately agreed with what Wesley wanted to do, so "Awakening" is only a potential case of the violation of self-determination. But that sent my philosophical brain spinning off in the direction of the topic of self-determination itself. Immediately, Willow's "forget" spell on Tara sprung to mind as a significant example of the violation self-determination in the Buffyverse.

So now I'm adding a whole section on it. Here is the intro blurb:

"What is self-determination? The simplest answer is that it is the ability, and the right, to make decisions for yourself, rather than depending on, or being forced to follow, the decisions of others (family, friends, strangers, authorities, etc) regarding you.

Self-determination is an important concept because without it we cannot explain what is wrong with acts like rape, assault, and murder, etc. But with it we can: these acts violate the self-determination of the victim. On the other hand, there are certain times we try to curtail an individual's self-determination, for example, when we try to prevent them from committing rape, assault, and murder on others. Individual liberty ends where it significantly and harmfully interferes with another person's self-determination.

Now, one can argue that self-determination is ultimately an illusion. We are all bound by the limitations of the circumstances we find ourselves in. Our obligations to others, our physical and psychological limitations, the limitations imposed by the environment around us. But to say that self-determination is a complete illusion is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The importance of some self-determination is made readily clear by instances in which it has, or could have been violated:"

And here are some of the examples that sprang immediately to mind:

* Should Slayers have a right to turn down the job?
* Demon rights: when should demons be allowed self-determination? ()
* Tara and Willow, Tabula Rasa
* The attempted rape in SR.

Any other examples from BtVS and AtS that people can think of?
[> Re: Request for examples -- lunasea, 12:51:53 01/31/03 Fri

I will give it some thought, but Warren turning Trina into a sex slave comes to mind.

What about "The Gift" when Buffy won't let Dawn jump.

Lots of Magic references, from what Amy's mom does in "The Witch" to Love Spells in BBB to Willow almost cursing Veruca and Oz. The Dark Arts has a definite connotation about removing self-determination. It was interesting that it resulted in Willow no longer able to control her own actions (such as the spell she unconsciously cast in STSP or what will happen next week).
[> [> Re: self determination in 'The Gift' -- Robert, 14:02:56 01/31/03 Fri

>>> What about "The Gift" when Buffy won't let Dawn jump.

I agreed with all your other examples, but this one is more difficult, because it is symmetrical. Since either Buffy or Dawn could make the sacrifice and close the opening, it becomes a question of who goes first. If Dawn had wiggled free of Buffy's grasp and taken the leap off the tower, then she would have symmetrically deprived Buffy of the choice (and thus her self-determination).

Therefore, by definition, somebody was going to be deprived. It was merely a question of who went first. Since Buffy was bigger and more powerful and carried the greater moral responsibility, she went first. Dawn was completely free to jump off the tower afterwards, but it would have been a senseless death and, thus, a suicide.

Stated another way, circumstances dictated that someone would be deprived of their own self-determination.
[> It's more attempt than violation -- CW, 12:57:03 01/31/03 Fri

But, in Checkpoint on Buffy, both Giles are told to do things the Council's way or else. Giles and Buffy were threatened with losing contact with each other forever, if they didn't agree to submit to the Council's will. Of course, it turned out to be a bluff that failed when Buffy realized where the real power was. Then it was Buffy's turn to extinguish the Council's ideas of freedom of operation for the time being.
[> Re: self-determination and violation of same in the Buffyverse (AtS 4.10 spoilers) -- Rob, 13:02:07 01/31/03 Fri

The insertion of Spike's chip.

Inca Mummy Girl--Ampata being sacrificed

Choices--Willow chooses to stay in Sunnydale not because of Buffy but because she herself wants to help make a difference in the world

The enslaved demons in "The Ring"

The way humans were treated in the Pylea arc

Dennis being encased behind a brick wall by his mother, to keep him from marrying the girl she didn't like in Room w/ a Vu

Helpless

Wesley's imprisonment of Justine (Deep Down)

Am I getting the proper gist?

Rob
[> L, CW, and R--yes these are all great, keep'm coming, all! -- Masq, 13:07:51 01/31/03 Fri

I have a feeling that this is a major theme in the Buffyverse....
[> [> A few more off the top of my head... -- Rob, 13:15:09 01/31/03 Fri

Normal AGain...Buffy is literally given the choice of two completely different lives (and realities).

Also, of course, "Birthday"

Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered--firstly, girls self-determination is taken away when they are "forced" to fall in love with Xander (also happens in "Him" with R.J); secondly, even better, Cordy's speech to Harmony and the other former Cordettes that she doesn't follow other people's standards of what is acceptable. She makes the rules, she loves Xander, and she will date a geek if she damn well pleases! She won't let the standards of the other popular girls stop her from dating Xander.
[> [> Trust -- lunasea, 13:23:33 01/31/03 Fri

I would say that trust is a big theme to the show and this often plays out in violation of self-determination.

Who should you trust, what should you do if that trust is violated, who shouldn't you trust. That seems to be central to almost every BtVS episode. It is also pretty key to AtS.

It is one of the things that really drew me to the shows.
[> [> Re: L, CW, and R--yes these are all great, keep'm coming, all! -- Wisewoman, 14:43:15 01/31/03 Fri

I have a feeling that this is a major theme in the Buffyverse....

Isn't it a major theme in all drama? Every story needs conflict and most conflict has an element of restricted self-determination or cohersion, i.e. you want to do something that someone else doesn't want you to do, or someone wants you to do something that you don't want to do...

;o)
[> Re: self-determination and violation of same in the Buffyverse (AtS 4.10 spoilers) -- slain, 13:22:16 01/31/03 Fri

Well, we can think of vampirism, or more specifically vampirism where the victim is turned, as a violation - or not. For example, when Dru turns Wiliam, it's not a violation necessarily (though William doesn't know what he's getting in to). When Spike tries to turn Willow (or was he merely going to kill her?), that is. Then there are borderline areas, such as Dru and Darla in AtS S4; Darla the vampire seems glad to be back, but I'm not sure if Darla the human would have chosen vampirism, despite what she'd earlier said. The cirumstances of the turning seem to make a difference to the vampire; when they choose to be turned, they seem to have a greater connexion with their human life, as it was the circumstances of their human life which gave them the motive. In that case it's not really a violation, as they determine themselves. Though a case could be made that it is, because the human soul dies; but of course that depends on whether or not the vampire is the same individual, or a different individual in the same body.
[> [> A quibble and a question. -- Arethusa, 13:31:03 01/31/03 Fri

Angel said that you think you can resist (drinking from the vampire), but you can't. Darla decided Liam would become a vampire, just as Drusilla (and W&H) decided Darla would become one in LA. I'd say the only voluntary vampire on either show that I can remember is Billy Fordham.

Another case: In "Heroes" Doyle refuses the Brachen demon who asks for his help. The demon dies, and when another Brachen demon asks for help in LA, Doyle no longer feel he can refuse because of the guilt he's been trying to drink away ever since. If his conscience coerces him, is that self-determination?
[> [> [> Re: A quibble and a question. -- slain, 14:06:16 01/31/03 Fri

If a vampire decides it wants to turn you, then you can't resist - I doubt if Spike had changed his mind then Dru would have stopped. So that considered I'm not sure whether or not Angel, Darla (with the Master) and Spike, who did seem to choose, could be considered to have exercised self-determination. Existentially speaking, they didn't, because they allowed others to determine their existence (they allowed others to turn them into something they originally weren't). Perhaps it's a case of the victims thinking they've deterimed their own selves, but being tricked into a Faustian pact.

Hopefully someone else can answer the second question - my memories of AtS is usually very patchy, even though I saw the thing twice through, thanks to reruns!
[> Are Vengeance Demons 'employees' or slaves? -- cjl, 13:22:25 01/31/03 Fri

D'Hoffryn recruits Aud/Anya in 880 a.d., catching her at her most emotionally vulnerable moment, then "freezes" her into that state of perpetual anger by demonizing her. The Vengeance Demon, if Anya is a prime example, then does the bidding of D'Hoffryn (and by extension, the Lords of the Lower Orders), but thinks she's a mojo-slinging example of Girl Power, taking it to the Man (literally).

However, when Anya is re-demonized between Hell's Bells and Entropy, we see the flaw in this "mutually beneficial" relationship. Apparently (don't ask me how), Anya's emotional growth over the past three seasons stays with her even after she transformed, and she sees the essential emptiness of her vocation.

Is D'Hoffryn understanding of the situation? Does he respect Anya's decision to side with humanity, remove her powers and send Anya on her way? No, he acts like a...demon. (Or Tony Soprano on a really bad day.) He treats her like a cheap whore, virtually calls her one, and roasts Halfrek just to make his point. Accepting the vocation of vengeance demon is like making a deal with the devil--only most vengeance demons aren't aware of the fine print....
[> Also need examples of limitations to self-determination -- Masq, 13:23:38 01/31/03 Fri

For example, the one I gave above, does a Slayer have a right to decline the job.

Where does someone's right to self-determination cease?
[> [> Re: Also need examples of limitations to self-determination -- Len, 13:39:47 01/31/03 Fri

A being's right ceases to some degree, arguably, when they choose to commit evil. At least that's what our society believes - that's why we have jails.
[> [> [> Faith in Prison -- Wisewoman, 14:31:41 01/31/03 Fri

Faith's right to self-determination ceased when she murdered Lester Worth. It just took a while for the consequences to catch up with her.
[> [> [> [> If Faith came before Judge Judy -- WickedBuffy, 15:07:48 01/31/03 Fri

It wasn't premeditated murder, it was an on-the-job- accident. Like the police trying to shoot a bad guy and accidentally killing an innocent. But because Slayers aren't included in our legal system, Faith ::sob:: gets the book thrown at her. Sure, she covered up her remorse and didn't turn herself inb and hid the body... but maybe a lawyer could have gotten her out saying she was mentally insane after the fact and that her horrible childhood had affected her judgement.

I didn't see Buffy getting in trouble for not turning her in, though.

It's so wierd when Buffyverse and this one overlap at times. You can never predict which way it will go - reality or Joss.
[> [> [> [> [> You're talking about Alan Finch -- Peggin, 15:13:24 01/31/03 Fri

Lester Worth was the guy Faith stabbed in Graduation Day, Part 1 because he had information on the type of demon the Mayor planned to turn into.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Exactly...thanks, Peggin! -- dub ;o), 17:36:02 01/31/03 Fri

[> [> Limitations to self-determination (spoilers for this week's Angel) -- CW, 13:47:03 01/31/03 Fri

The biggest examples of limits are Angel + true happiness. Buffy was aware there were risks and problems in being involved with Angel before it blew up in their faces. Season three was a constant struggle between their desires to be together, and their knowledge it was a dangerous business.

In Eternity, Angel tries unsuccessfully to convince the actress that her most fervent wish is a mistake. It's a brief visit from Angelus that convinces her.

In the current episode of Angel, his free will is turned loose in his dreams, and it leads him straight back to being Angelus.
[> [> Re: limitations to self-determination -- ponygirl, 14:16:35 01/31/03 Fri

Does a Slayer have the right to walk away? Well, there's the whole with great power comes great responsibility arguement, but what if a Slayer could be stripped of her powers? Buffy turned down this opportunity in Normal Again, but I think if she had been offered this option (without the kill your possibly imaginary friends clause) in the first season she would have taken it. Marti in her CBC interview suggested that BtVS is a metaphor for Joss' experience growing up different. No one asks to be born exceptional, or even born at all for that matter (something Dawn could certainly put to the monks), so while the question of whether the Slayer's destiny is a violation of her right to self-determination is extremely valid, I'd say that the larger message is that we are all born with certain attributes and that it is the responsibility of the individual to make the most of her abilities. To deny one's self out of fear, or a desire to conform seems to be a kind of violation as well.
[> [> Thinking about 'Anne' -- Tyreseus, 16:35:00 01/31/03 Fri

I have a hard time thinking about the Slayer's right to choose/decline their fate without reflecting on the episode "Anne."

Here Buffy attempted to self-determine her fate by disappearing from Sunnydale and starting a new life. She left her slayer role behind until Chanterelle/Lily/Anne recognized her and came to her for help. Even then, Buffy was willing to walk away from Lily's anger and blame. However, in the end, Buffy's own phsychological makings limited her decision to leave the role of slayer, protector of the weak behind.

Of course, the demonic factory was another prime example of stripping away someone's self-determination. Not just self-determination, but also self-identity and hope/desire. This raises the question for me, though, was it the loss of choices that led to the loss of identity for the slaves or vice versa? It seems identity and self-determination are intricately tied to one another.

You cited Willow wiping Tara's mind. Well, the violation was about both removing identity and the right to self-determination. Many of the other examples brought up on this board also point to the identity/self-determination connection. Spike as big bad or neutered puppy, Angel/Liam/Angelus, etc.

Still looking at "Anne," both Buffy and Lily engage in self-determinating behaviors we wouldn't have expected with a change of name (therefore identity). Buffy assumes the identity of Anne to escape her slayer duty and persona. Instead of being the ass-kicking heroine, she is the impassive waitress who accepts sexual harrassment. Whereas Lily takes up the name Anne as a symbol of empowerment, finally deciding to make choices for herself. Prior to this episode Lily let others lead her and make decisions for her. But in her battle against the demons, she assumes control of her own life and begins to make decisions for herself. Buffy, inspired by Lily's example, also chooses to return to Sunnydale and take up the mantle of slayerhood once again.

But did Buffy really have the choice to return? She simply *is* the slayer, no matter what name she takes or role she plays. No one else can do what she can do. As she explains to Angel in "Helpless" when she thought her power might be gone, "I know what goes bump in the night. Not being able to fight it... What if I just hide under my bed, all scared and helpless? Or what if I just become pathetic? Hanging out at the old Slayer's home, talking people's ears off about my glory days, showing them Mr. Pointy, the stake I had bronzed." Something psychologically keeps Buffy choosing to fulfill her role as slayer. Is this actually self-determination on Buffy's part or do slayer powers come with some sort of mystical coercion that prompts them to fight for good?

We can look at Faith in season 3 as a counter to that assumption, but when she reappears in "This Year's Girl" and "Who Are You," a few days spent in Buffy's body has Faith acting for the side of good once again, being drawn towards it. A slayer may become cynical and power-hungry, but every example we've been shown on screen ultimately has them working for the side of good.

Anyway, not sure how on topic I am at this point, I feel like I've rambled off the original point I set out to make. So with that ungraceful conclusion, I'm out.
[> [> [> Re: Thinking about 'Anne' -- Vickie, 16:51:50 01/31/03 Fri

Oh yes.

"But did Buffy really have the choice to return? She simply *is* the slayer, no matter what name she takes or role she plays. "

Kendra said "You talk about slaying like it's a job. It's not. It's who you are." And she learned that from watching Buffy.
[> [> [> More thoughts about 'Anne' -- Tyreseus, 17:04:40 01/31/03 Fri

Just as an addendum, the Lily character also illustrates how comfortable it can be to give up your self-determination. She felt sheltered and secure when Rickie was telling her what to do. Sure, she made the choice at some point to give up her own decision-making ability, but that's exactly what she did. On the other hand, when she was kidnapped by the demons, she learned how bad the extreme of giving up self-determination is.

We've all felt comfortable at some stage in life where someone took the burden of decision making from us. Maybe when we were young and our parents told us what we were going to do. In relationships, some of us like it when our partner decides which restaurant to go to. We constantly sacrifice our right to make our own decisions.

But I think you're looking at the point where someone makes decisions for us without our consent in those things. There are even times when this is a good thing. Willow and Xander prevent Spike from staking himself in "Doomed." Surely, Spike's potential dustiness didn't qualify as a threat to anyone else, so why not let him do it, but they didn't. they took away his right to suicidal self-determination.

So what we end up with is a difficult line to determine... at what point is it "okay" to violate someone's right to choice? And how much of our own self-determination are we willing to give away?
[> [> [> And now I choose to start typing... -- Random, 13:30:58 02/01/03 Sat

Well, I'd think that saying she is the Slayer is a state of affairs that requires clarifying distinctions. Saying that Buffy is the (actually, "a") Slayer isn't necessarily parallel to saying, for instance, Buffy is a female. In the latter -- barring certain types of surgery and/or radioactive chromosomal mutation -- the question of whether she has a right to walk away from her fate is a moot point. Biology, as they say, is destiny. So defining a trait/attribute as intrinsic isn't necessarily the same as saying that external repercussions from said trait are unavoidable. Certain traits allow for the exercise of free-will. To use the biology example above (and to contradict myself somewhat), she has no volition with regards to her XX chromosomal makeup, and very little with regards to her generally feminine appearance. Yet she can choose to act out in manners that are societally proscribed as "masculine" or "male." Equally true are the fact that she can act in "feminine" ways, and the fact that she is, to some degree, pressured to act thus. An entire generation of feminist theorists have spent countless womanhours wrestling with the idea of social predestination. Thus the issue of self-determination is a sticky one. Buffy's Slayerness is an example of nondetermination in its genesis -- she didn't choose to become a Slayer, and it's doubtful that the Hemery High Buffy ("Buffy beta .75" I call her) would have chosen the path if it had been offered to her to accept or reject as she wished. But the one of the primary themes of BtVS and AtS -- especially S1-3 BtVS -- has been the fact that she does have a choice. How she deals with this choice is one of the major sources of tension in the show. By Season 2, it's not -- as Ford would understand -- a good choice. Yes, she knows what goes bump in the night...but she can choose to live with her fear and hide under the covers if she wants. She may be compelled -- but mere fear or duty are not, in and of itself, compulsion. Merely motivators. There's no evidence of coercion, unless...

...some have posited -- and I disagree, but that's unimportant -- that there is a cosmic swirl of evil around the Slayer ("Cosmic Swirl of Evil" is hereby trademarked -- maybe I can sell it to a soft icecream maker). The argument, as most of you know, runs along the lines of, "The Slayer's presence attracts evil, thus she is necessary no matter where she is because she is needed to fight off the evil that she attracted in the first place and everything just goes around in a madcap and merry Hindustani cycle of karma." So I can see her being coerced into being the Slayer by a rather paranoia-inducing grand scheme of things. Once one is given the choice between doing the right thing and dying, your right to self-determination has pretty much been ameliorated. Ford, on the other hand, had a choice between doing the wrong thing or dying. An even less enviable choice than Buffy's -- but hers doesn't involve robbing others of their self-determination, which makes all the difference in the world.

That, I think, is as good a working definition of the limits of self-determination as any in the Buffyverse. The distinction between slayworthy and non-slayworthy demons lies not so much in their evilness, but in the reality that they either have or inevitably will rob someone else of self-determination -- i.e. kill them. Thus killing Angelus was a complex issue -- the man was robbed of self-determination, freeing the demon who robs others of their self-determination, and it's an open question as to how much self-determination the demon had, and....

It would be a mistake, I think, to confuse a reality with an inevitability. Yes, Buffy has always chosen -- with a few time-outs and such -- to be the Slayer in the end. That doesn't imply that it was inevitable. In fact, there's a Latin phrase in deductive logic that describes that particular fallacy. Unfortunately, I cannot for the life of me remember it.... We can say that Buffy has always chosen to be a blonde, thus it is inevitable, and no power on earth could have maneuvered her into the hair-colouring aisle of the drugstore.

It's interesting to note the limits of self-determination and the limits to the allowances made for it. In S7 BtVS, especially, there has been a certain amount of dialogue about free-will and how to treat villians who lack it. If vampires lack true self-determination (feed or die) then what does that mean for the morality of the Slayer's activities. Probably nothing -- their choice would be akin to Ford's choice. Pitiable creatures, but dangerous. (Of course, Spike and Angel have both demonstrated the mere possibility of surviving without killing. The fact that they were both subject to coercion -- Angel's soul, Spike's chip -- certainly mitigates the issue, but doesn't negate the fact that it's at least within a vampire's capabilities.

Geez, I ramble on. I suppose I figure that the more I write, the greater my chances of saying something that actually makes sense. If I do, I suppose Rah will give me the affirmation I need. *chanting under my breath* I need the affirmation, I need the affirmation, I need the...and so it goes.
[> Let's start at the beginning -- CW, 13:27:05 01/31/03 Fri

As soon as Buffy walks into the library in Welcome to the Hellmouth, it's a battle between her and Giles over her right to do what she wants to. Part of the reason Buffy is successful is that Giles never does convince her to toe the line. It's her convictions that get her through not orders. Contrast this with the strictly authoritarian society of the vampires in the Harvest, which fails partly because it can't 'think on it's feet' when the underlings are away from the Master.
[> Angel/Angelus & Spike/William -- Len, 13:30:46 01/31/03 Fri

Great topic!

I guess the absolute main example would be, depending on your view of what they actually are, vampires themselves. Is the entrance of the Vampire demon into the body of a human a violation of their self-determination?

The self-determination question comes even more into focus in the examples of Angel & Spike.

With respect to Angel, we have Liam's soul and the vampire demon together in Liam's body. So you can argue that Angel is impinging on the selfdetermination of the vampire demon Angelus. Angelus must sit back and against his will see the body he is inhabiting do things that he detests.

This same conflict presumably resides within Spike - between the vampire demon Spike who inhabits William's body and William himself. The conflict is less marked because in this case, the Spike demon had been acting against his inclination to do evil and has been doing good. So both the demon and humans interests are aligned. That aside, we also have the basic issue of the chip impinging on the vampire demon Spike's self determination.
[> Do Hellhounds have self-determination? -- neaux, 13:33:44 01/31/03 Fri

My quick answer is no. But its sad the first thing I thought of when you mentioned this topic were the Hellhounds from Season 3.

They were forced to watch Prom Night! And listen to bad Disco music!! So after constant subjection to this horrid audioandvisuals, of course they have no choice but to kill prom goers!!

I plan on becoming a defense attorney for hellhounds.
Any takers?
[> [> Hellhounds don't kill people-people kill people. Blame Tucker. -- Arethusa, 13:44:57 01/31/03 Fri

[> [> [> LOL - slogan of the N.H.A., no doubt -- slain, 14:08:20 01/31/03 Fri

[> Re: Request for examples -- ponygirl, 13:48:19 01/31/03 Fri

Well, it gets into the whole demon rights thing but Buffy's statement in Potential to Andrew about Spike not having free will seems to speak to this self-determination issue. I took her statement to refer to Spike's crimes while under the control of the FE, but a case could be made, especially in light of her statements in the same episode about vampires' animal nature, that this lack of free will could apply to any unsouled vampire, at least when it comes to the urge to kill.

Spike's chipping by the Initiative certainly interferes with his self-determination, but of course the behaviour it modifies - his ability to hurt and kill others-- represents the ultimate violation of another's self-determination. However the Scoobies seem to draw a line, they oppose the removal of Spike's chip but they protect him from futher experimentation and confinement by the Initiative. Once his ability to interfere with others self-determination is limited his own is respected.

Oz is also physically confined by the Initiative, his rights negated in their minds by his werewolf status. Oz also voluntarily confines himself during the full moon, he makes clear to Veruka that this is a choice on his part. However she does not share his view, she seeks to hunt and be free while a werewolf. Since there is the possibility that she could hurt people while in this state her decision interferes with the rights of others. Veruka's death solves what could have been a real problem for Buffy - would she have had to forcibly confine Veruka? Or could Veruka by removing herself to remote areas have satisfied her desire for freedom while not endangering others?

All the love spells used throughout the series (BB&B, SB, Him) certainly interfere with an individual's self-determination.

Cordelia's visions, while something she eventually chooses, were imposed on her. The fact that they caused her pain suggests a sort of behaviour modification by the PTB - if you help people the pain goes away - and certainly binds Cordelia, seemingly permanently, to Angel's mission.
[> [> determining the self -- manwitch, 07:10:25 02/01/03 Sat

"especially in light of her statements in the same episode about vampires' animal nature, that this lack of free will could apply to any unsouled vampire, at least when it comes to the urge to kill."

This is interesting, and really highlights some of the philosophical issues involved. Is free will the same as self-determination? Is a soul required in order to have the right to self-determination? If so, then Spike's few good choices prior to his soul are as irrelevant as his bad ones.

Angel clearly feels that he is responsible for Angelus. At least in terms of his guilt. He likes to psychologically separate himself from Angelus, but if he really believed that, then what is he atoning for?

It also raises the question of what is a self? Is a self a soul? Is a self a body? In postmodern theory, a self is a sort of node, a point of intersection of many, sometimes conflicting, messages. Consequently a postmodern self is dispersed throughout a network of connected points of communication. Selves overlap.

I've always felt that Angel suggested the first sense of self, the soul. His soul holds itself responsible for the actions of the unsouled body. So, I think, at least in Buffy, Angel felt Angelus had free will, and therefore self-determination, and chose poorly. I think from our perspective that's mildly unfair, as to us Angelus is a different thiing altogether. But does Angel's soul feel that its self-determination is violated by Angelus, or is Angel's soul the prison that holds Angelus in?

I always felt that Spike suggested the second, the body. Its very easy to excercise your will on a body. Spike's imprisonment and chip. But to a degree, Spike's sense of love also imprisons him. Spike, is always a bit of dog. Love's bitch, as he says. Is his love for Buffy a violation of his self-determination, or its source?

And I always felt that Buffy suggested the third, the dispersed, postmodern soul. That's why any attack against anyone connected to her is an attack on her and her identity. Its also why she is so resourceful, because her self-determination includes many self-determinations. For example, the spell at the end of Primeval did not impinge on anyone's self-determination, it simply redefined self. When Buffy goes to face the master, she's not being coerced, she has redefined self to include Willow, and she won't allow that self-determination to be threatened. Same thing with Dawn at the end of the Gift.

Interesting thing about Dawn. She is the product of an IMMENSE violation of self-determination. Everyone's memories and realities have been changed without their consent and against their will. But unlike Superman, where they are all pissed off about it, with Dawn, they are not. Well, Buffy has a brief transition, but no one wants it back the way it was.

It seems that self-determination must always take place within a context. We are all born against our will. Is our whole life therefore a violation of our self-determination? At what point does it become our responsibility to stop whining and determine ourselves? And how shall it be done? As Whistler points out, the big moments are gonna come. Nothing you can do about that.

There will always be a tension, between what we want to do (Spike: I want to save the world) and what we have to do (Buffy: I have to save the world. Again), or between what we can do and what we can't. So what do you do when you know that? What do you do when you know that sometimes, you can't help?

I think you've hit on it Masq. I think this is one of the major themes, explored in every way throughout every episode, probably of both series, although I am less conversant with Angel. But I think there is an answer that comes up repeatedly. You try. Greater or lesser acts that show someone you cared, or maybe just show you that you tried. That's how Buffy and Angel determine themselves. Angel's soul is committing an incredible act of self-sacrifice, surrendering its own self-determination, to show that he cares and is willing to try.
[> [> [> The act of growing up -- ponygirl, 12:06:06 02/01/03 Sat

"It seems that self-determination must always take place within a context. We are all born against our will. Is our whole life therefore a violation of our self-determination? At what point does it become our responsibility to stop whining and determine ourselves? And how shall it be done? As Whistler points out, the big moments are gonna come.
Nothing you can do about that."

What is growing up if not the acquiring of self-determination? Childhood and adolescence are times when we are subject to the wills of others-- parents, teachers, just about anyone older-- it is a long imperfect process to come into our own. We are not responsible for the situations we are born into, but at a certain point we are expected to take responsibility for our own actions, otherwise we spend our lives in reaction to external forces. To me the essence of self-determination, and adulthood, is in acknowledging the influences that mark us, but not ceding ultimate control to them.

I think Jonathon's speech at the end of CwDP sums up the growing up/self-determination theme pretty nicely: the hurts that he suffered in the past don't matter anymore, he is not expecting any sort of reward or acknowledgment for his actions. He is there simply because he has decided that it matters to him.

I agree Masq has identified a HUGE theme for both series. Brilliant post, manwitch!
[> Wesley/Angel -- Len, 13:49:18 01/31/03 Fri

Wesley's choice to steal away baby Connor without consulting Angel seems to strike me along the lines of an impingement on Angel's right to self-determination (to the extent that choice of childrearing is a fundamental part of a person's being).
[> Does all of OMWF count? -- Cheryl, 13:59:45 01/31/03 Fri

Since Sweet forced everyone to sing about things they would've kept secret otherwise.
[> [> And most of Superstar? -- Wisewoman, 14:40:00 01/31/03 Fri

[> [> [> 'You weren't socks!' --Jonathan -- Masq, 15:01:20 01/31/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> LOL! One of my favourite lines... -- dub ;o), 18:06:41 01/31/03 Fri

[> [> That's a good question -- Peggin, 14:54:10 01/31/03 Fri

Usually, I would say that it's a violation of free will to force people to say or do things they don't want to say or do. But the spell in OMwF really didn't do that -- the things the people said and did were already inside them, the spell just brought it out of them. It really only made people do and say things that at least a part of them already wanted to do or say. But I'd still say that it violated their free will, because there was also a part of them that had previously decided, for one reason or another, not to act on that impulse.

Every word Xander and Anya sang to each other was the absolute truth, yet neither of them wanted the other to know how they felt. Forcing them to sing, even though every word they sang was the truth, took away their right to make that decision.

Every word Spike sang to Buffy about how he felt was the truth, and I don't think he would have gone into vamp face and broken up that funeral if doing so wasn't still very much a part of his nature. But he didn't want her to know how he felt, and I don't think he would have attacked those people (and he certainly wouldn't have done it in front of Buffy) if the spell hadn't forced him to act on his inner impulses.

Buffy had made a very deliberate choice that she didn't want to burden her friends with the truth of what they had done to her, and the song took that choice away from her.

I also don't think Buffy would have ever kissed Spike if it wasn't for the spell. There had to be some part of her that wanted to kiss him, or the spell could never have made it happen. But Buffy also had plenty of valid reasons to not want to give in to that impulse, and the spell took her right to make that choice away from her.
[> How about all of Season 6 BtVS? -- Sofdog, 14:04:47 01/31/03 Fri

A lot of Buffy and Spike's interaction in Season 6 fits the bill. She keeps refusing to sleep with him and he keeps wheedling and she changes her mind.

Historically, Buffy is a big waffler, but this one certainly treads the line.
[> How about all the examples of possession? -- KdS, 14:21:15 01/31/03 Fri

Jenny and others by Eyghon in The Dark Age
The FE's mind control of Spike in S7
Wes and others by Billy in Billy

Come to think of it all of Ethan's schemes have involved forcibly altering people's nature or personalities.

And what about the Kathy/Buffy/Demon Dad triangle in Living Conditions? Kathy tries to steal Buffy's self-determination to get away from dominating parents. Move on to all the other over-controlling parents and lovers in the two series - Catherine Madison, the McLays, Pete in Beauty and the Beasts, the abusive father in Untouched, the abusive boyfriend in In the Dark, James murdering Grace when she tried to split up with him, Dr. Meltzer?
[> Re: Request for examples -- Peggin, 14:27:11 01/31/03 Fri

Now, one can argue that self-determination is ultimately an illusion. We are all bound by the limitations of the circumstances we find ourselves in. Our obligations to others, our physical and psychological limitations, the limitations imposed by the environment around us. But to say that self-determination is a complete illusion is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

They had a pretty good discussion of this problem in Life Serial, in Willow's sociology class.

MIKE: Social Construction of Reality. Who can tell me what that is? Rachel.
RACHEL: A concept involving a couple of opposing theories, one stressing the externality and independence of social reality from individuals.
MIKE: And the flip side? Steve?
STEVE: That each individual participates fully in the construction of his or her own life.

The discussion between the teacher and the students explains the two extremes of how reality is created. Reality is both something we have the ability to participate in creating and something that is external from us. There are some things that life throws at us that cannot be changed, and at times we may have a limited number of choices, but we still have choices. Trying to struggle against the externally imposed constraints will get you nowhere, but you can't sit back and just let life happen, you still have to make choices.

You see this happen later in the episode, in the scene in the Magic Box. Buffy was forced into a situation where all of her choices revolved around finding some way to satisfy the customer, but she still had a fair number of choices as to how to solve the problem (or not). She could choose to stab the mummy hand, or to cut off it's fingers, or to wrestle it into the bag and later let it strangle the customer. She could choose to try to ignore the problem by crying, or by taking Giles's glasses, throwing them on the ground and stomping on them. So, even though, as far as we know, there was only one "right" choice Buffy could make in this situation (ordering a new mummy hand), the spell did not force her to make that choice.

Another, earlier example of this sort of thing is at the end of Choices. The difference is that here, Buffy's choices were not limited by the spell, but by her own morality. Buffy tells Willow that she's a Sunnydale girl, and she has no choice, but that's not factually true. In terms of Buffy's personal morality, that may be true, but it's not literally true. If Buffy was selfish or self involved, she could easily have chosen to leave the Hellmouth undefended and gone off anywhere she wanted to attend college. Buffy's own morality was the only real limit on her ability to make a different choice.
[> Fascinating topic - coercion, violations, self-determined?(Spoilers Btvs 7.10, Ats 4.10) -- shadowkat, 14:54:04 01/31/03 Fri

The simplest answer is that it is the ability, and the right, to make decisions for yourself, rather than depending on, or being forced to follow, the decisions of others (family, friends, stangers, authorities, etc) regarding you.


Now, one can argue that self-determination is ultimately an illusion. We are all bound by the limitations of the circumstances we find ourselves in. Our obligations to others, our physical and psychological limitations, the limitations imposed by the environment around us. But to say that self-determination is a complete illusion is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The importance of some self-determination is made readily clear by instances in which it has, or could have been violated:"

Okay first of all will throw out a personal example.
Last year after months of corporate bullying, I decided to determine my own fate and resigned. I had tons of choices: I could stay with the company and wait to be fired or see what happened and continue to take abuse, I could self-destruct and hurt the company and myself, I could leave and hurt the company before I left - say destroy a database I'd developed or I could leave and make copies of key files, write out instructions, train someone else on the database and resign with my dignity intact. All of these were choices - none were forced upon me. (Although one could argue I was coerced into making the one I did by the corporate bully.)

I've been reading Finite and Infinit Games by James P. Carse who states that regardless of game - no one can be forced to play it. You can be selected, but you can not play against your will. Or can you?

In Btvs and Ats - does anyone really play against their will? If they did how would this affect the outcome?

Examples of self-determination in both:

Spike choosing to help Buffy save the world in Becoming. Buffy choosing to save the world in The Gift - she had three choices - let the world self-destruct, kill her sister, or sacrifice herself.
Spike choosing to get a soul - he had several choices - get the chip removed, stay in Sunnydale, just leave town, stake himself, kill Buffy, getting the soul was not a violation.
Willow choosing to curse Angel with a soul, choosing to go after Warren.
Tara choosing to forgive Willow
Xander leaving Anya at the alter
Anya choosing to become a vengeance demon again then choosing to take back her wish and giving it up.
Cordelia choosing to be a higher being? Well she didn't have all the information - but yep she made a choice, she had several options - she could have met Angel, she could have gone home, she could accept Skip's offer.

Examples of violation

The chip being implanted in Spike - a kind of rape or castration metaphor, probably the most obvious

The chip implanted in Riley? Not entirely - Riley did choose to be part of the Initiative and all it entailed, so his wasn't quite a violation at least not in the strictest sense of the word.

Willow's mindwipes of Tara and her mindwipe of the SG

Willow's resurrection of Buffy - Willow pulled Buffy back, Buffy was never given a choice in the matter - actually Willow's violations out-do everyones in a way.

Willow cursing Angelus with a soul - similar to Spike being castrated by a chip. Neither vamp chose it. Which curse is worse to the vampire may be a matter of perspective - would love to see the two discuss it over some blood. Both times Angelus was cursed with a soul - was a violation of his being. Angel, in contrast, wasn't violated when he chose to give up the soul in Awakenings - no one forced him to do it, he freely chose it. Self-determined choice. In Surprise on the other hand - it was a violation - since he did not know why or how it would happen and did not freely choose it and the violation was made on him by Jenny's uncle and relatives, not really Jenny who also didn't really know the particulars. Question is - would cursing Angelus with a soul again - be a violation?? Would it be a violation if Angelus chose it (assuming that's possible)?

Anyanka's mortality in The Wish - a violation by Giles when he smashes her amulet. Not that she didn't deserve it.

Spike's attempted rape - not quite a violation, more an interrupted one, since Buffy stops it and Spike clearly did not understand that he was doing it until it was too late - their relationship was a tad violent and confusing. So would say half a violation?? Or maybe an attempted violation stopped by Buffy?

Willow's killing of Warren? Clear violation

Warren's killing of Tara, shooting Buffy, and death of Katrina - all violations

Willow's taking power from Giles - partial violation - Giles seemed to want it. Same with Rack - rack also appeared to choose it. Also Rack's violation of Willow - again Willow appeared to choose this, although coercion could be defined as a violation.

Hmmm coercion - this could make the AR and the Bronze Scene in Dead Things - violations. Do we define coercion as taking away self-determination? If so, then Cordy and Wes coerced Angel into becoming Angelus - which means he didn't do it freely and it wasn't self-determined? If that's true than maybe Spike's decision to choose the soul wasn't completely self-determined - because Buffy's comments about how he was a soulless thing all year and worthless because of it - could be described as coercion? How strictly or narrowly do you define free-will or self-determination any way??

FE's violation of Spike - forcing him to kill against his will in Cwdp - Never Leave Me. the Beast's violation of the Sleeper Agent on ats, which I still think might actually be Cordelia not Angel.

Do the slayers choose their role or are they coerced as well by Watchers?? The Watchers appear to choose it, or do they? Giles mentions being coerced by his family to be a Watcher. As does Wesely.

If you are coerced into doing something is it truly self-determined? If so, maybe my choice to leave my job wasn't self-determined as I thought?

Hmmm.

Uncoerced acts.

1. Willow using magic - not really coerced in the beginning

Can't really think of anything else. Drawing a blank.

Now confused. Hope it helped a little Masq.

SK
[> [> Magical violation -- Vickie, 16:09:37 01/31/03 Fri

It's interesting. Pretty much everyone mentions Willow's mind-wipe of Tara in All The Way and Tabula Rasa (where she affected the entire SG in error, having targeted only Tara and Buffy). I agree with these opinions.

But nobody mentions Tara's blind-to-demons spell in Family, which is arguably an identical thing. The difference, of course, is that Tara seemed to immediately realize what she did was wrong, while I'm not certain Willow has even now.
[> [> Re: Fascinating topic - coercion, violations, self-determined?(Spoilers Btvs 7.10, Ats 4.10) -- Cheryl, 20:40:58 01/31/03 Fri

The chip implanted in Riley? Not entirely - Riley did choose to be part of the Initiative and all it entailed, so his wasn't quite a violation at least not in the strictest sense of the word.

This one kind of bugs me. I still see that as a violation. Joining a special military operation doesn't equal 'use me as a lab rat in your diabolical plan.' I think Riley was definitely violated. He was drugged without his knowledge and implanted with a controlling device that took away his free will.
[> The Curse of Self-Determination -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:22:44 01/31/03 Fri

As can be seen above, there are numerous examples of self-determination being violated in the Buffyverse. However, after reading your post, my mind went to the one character I can think of who prefers his self-determination to be violated: Andrew.

Andrew isn't a sleeper agent, nor has he been hypnotized or possessed in any way. While Warren and the First Evil have exerted influence over him, it has all been through suggestion. As exhibited by his refusal to kill any more people in "Never Leave Me", Andrew has the ability to refuse orders, it's just that most of the time he prefers being an order taker. His life seems a lot easier without self-determination; there's no pressure to make decisions, and no one can blame him when he does something evil. I guess it's best expressed in these lines from "Potential":

Buffy: Spike didn't have free will. You do.

Andrew: I hate my free will.

I just feel that, with the many examples of self-determination being violated, I figured you could use at least one case of the opposite: a character with self-determination who wishes it could be otherwise.
[> Another angle -- Tchaikovsky, 15:48:17 01/31/03 Fri

Wow, this quesiton has got quite a response. I don't presume to add anything to the original question, considering the quality and quantity of the replies, so I will try to put another spin on it- before leaving to become an active member of the Hellhound Lobby.

When is it that people, by their self-determination in previous issues, disqualify themselves from the usual rules? When is it a violation stops being an illiberal gesture and starts to be a protective step to either the person who hads disqualified themselves or society in general.

A few headings for this:

1) Alcohol. In the Buffyverse, imbibing tends to negate peoples rights to self-determination. It's OK for Xander and Giles to ignore Buffy in 'Beer Bad', (OK, that was exaggerated, metaphor beer). It's alright for Willow to be quickly ushered home in 'Something Blue'. In these examples, the protection of the person's life AFTER the distortion of their judgement that the right to self-determination has given has finished, is more sancrosanct than their personal liberty at this point.

2) Being a vampire. Vampires have no right to self-determination because of their very state. In the demon overcoming them, they lose their own liberty. In a sense, it's a double disqualification. The person is forcibly denied their self-determination by their sire, and then subsequently denied self-determination by humans. However, the vampire is not human in the construct of the Buffyverse, and therefore this impingement can be largely discounted.

3) Extremes of grief. Giles is denied his right of self-determination in 'Passion'. Buffy attempts, (and partially succeeds) in denying it to Willow towards the end of Season Six. Interestingly, Riley is not immediately restrained from acting on his own initiative, (entirely unnecessary pun, sorry), at the end of 'The Yoko Factor', and is only just saved. In these situations, Buffy feels that the grief ditorts their view, and therefore they are disqualified, usually for their own safety. Also, nobody told Dawn not to act on her thoughts of extreme grief in 'Forever', triggering one of the creepiest scenes in any medium ever.

4) Childhood. Of course, one of the most important aspects of the wonderfully observed mother/daughter relationships in Buffy is about a disqualification of self-determination. In the Joyce-Buffy relationship in the first two seasons particularly, Joyce routinely denies Buffy's self-determination because of her inability to make the right decisions, because she is young. There is a very similar vibe between Buffy and Dawn in Seasons 5-6. In fact, Buffy's epiphany in 'Grave' is at least partly to do with this. Dawn doesn't need to be protected from the world: in other words, to have her decisions made for her, and to be routinely violated on grounds of disqualification as being too young. She needs to be shown the world: given her self-determination, and advised as to how to use it.

5) Drugs/addiction.
Not a big fan of this one, but it deserves a mention. 'Band Candy' is essentially light-hearted, and Buffy basically ignores the adults. But clearly the Willow arc in the early part of Season Six, (the late part is more to do with losing Tara), is all to do with how far Willow can push an addiction before she loses her right to liberty. For Buffy, this comes after Willow endangers someone else's self-determination, Dawn's right to live, in 'Wrecked'. Some of the reactions are more ot do with simple love, but at this stage, Buffy realises that Willow is in no fit state to make her own decisions. One wonders whether Buffy's intervention is too late.

A common theme running through these seems to be the idea that people have the right to self-determination until they violate someone else's at which point they somehow lose it.

But, on a fundamental level how are we to judge? We live in the game of 'natural selection'. The cat denies the mouse self-determination, and the lion the antelope. Our innate self-awareness adjusts the rules somewhat, but it is still a difficult question how we allow liberty. If it was at all simple, laws wouldn't constantly changed and be argued over. It is the point at which self-determination ceases to be a right that an action becomes unlawful.

TCH- whose post ended up in a different place from where it started out.
[> what about ben and glory? -- Flo, 18:11:11 01/31/03 Fri

The line between manipulating someone, which occurs at least a wee bit in every interaction and relationship, and removing their self-determination is way beyond the scope of my thesis-writing, light-deprived mind at this point. All I can muster is the example of Ben and Glory. Which of them has the right to self-determination? This points to the importance of embodiment in the self-determination question. Even in the case of vamps, the question is actually: Who gets the body -- the demon or the soul of the person? Can we have self-determination without bodies? And if so, then, theoretically, we always have the choice to leave our body rather than stay in it when it's being limited or manipulated by someone else.

I can't think past this point of the issue, however, so someone else may need to pick it up from here!

--Flo, who didn't know getting a master's degree would turn her mind to mud
[> Another example -- Peggin, 21:10:12 01/31/03 Fri

In Graduation Day, Part 2, when Angel is dying from the poison, Buffy told him to drink from her. Angel said that he wouldn't do it. Buffy then proceeded to punch him a few times until he vamped out and bit her.

Is this an example of Buffy denying Angel the right to free will? Or is it a case of Angel giving in under pressure? How much difference does it make?

Legally, if you force someone to make a choice (for example, a choice to sign a will or a contract) under extreme duress, their decision is not considered legally valid. So, even if Angel vamping out does indicate that he changed his mind, could it still be a violation of Angel's right to self determination?

Assuming that Buffy did deny Angel his right to free will at that moment, another related question is whether Buffy had the right to undermine Angel's free will because it was a matter of life or death.
The Scoobies' Different Sides (possible spoilers for season7 and for the most recent AtS ep. longish -- Purple Tulip, 17:39:10 01/31/03 Fri

After watching Doppleganland tonight for only the second or third time, something occured to me: We have seen a different persona of each of the major characters, with the exception of Dawn (but given enough time, then I think that it will happen as well). Here goes:

Buffy: We see Buffy at different times acting unlike herself (Beer Bad, When She Was Bad, all of season six, etc.), but we only actually see another solid Buffy form in Intervention and the beginning of season six when Spike brings about the BuffyBot. The Bot is supposed to Spike's play-thing and is built for his amusement because he can't have the real thing. But the Bot also represents the side of Buffy that we don't get to see, maybe the side that she wishes she could be more like. The Bot is happy-go-lucky, carefree and able to pretty much do what she wants---all things that Buffy herself would like to be able to do.

Willow: We see a second version of Willow in Dopplegangland, when vampWillow pays Sunnydale a visit. She comes about when Willow is feeling defensive and uncomfortable with who she is, and we are allowed to see a side to Willow that she wasn't in touch with before this epsiode, but certainly was after (as we see in season six). VampWillow represents boldness and moxy and a sexuality that Willow is not comfortable with nor ready for ("And I think I'm kinda gay," will play-in later on in the series when Willow becomes more like vampWillow with the sexuality and the strength).

Xander: Xander tries many times and many different ways to show that he is special and different and that he has some sort of power too. But we don't see an actual physical form of his other persona until "The Real Me," when he is split in half. Xander then becomes the bumbling, clumsy, joking version that he is comfortable with, as well as the well-dressed, smart, suave, rich, sexy man that he has always wanted to be. In some ways, the goofy Xander will become the more responsible and secure Xander that we see now in season seven.

Giles: We haven't actually seen another physical version of an aspect of Giles' persona, ( as of yet, but I have to wonder if we might when it is revealed just what happened to Giles with the bringer) but we have seen him as not himself in Band Candy, when he reverts back to his rebellious days of being Ripper. Ripper is everything that Giles has tried so hard not to become. He represents that part of him that doesn't want to be repsonsible and just wants to have fun be carefree---something that his job as a watcher has never allowed him to be.

Anya: With the demons and vampires, it is different. We see the other sides to them, but not as physical forms. With Anya, we have Anya the, money-loving, rabbit-fearing, quipping human, and Anyanka, the vengeful, feminist, killing demon. For her, it is a constant struggle between being normal and being powerful---she wants both lives. She is afraid of not fitting into the human world, but of also being exiled from the demon world (which she already has been, and now she doesn't have Xander, which leads me to believe that she is at a crossroads and we will see her character choose between her two lives).

Spike: Spike's a little different, because we have seen both his life as William, but we have also seen a somewhat physical manifestation of his other side, which is that of the FE as him. Spike's double persona could be seen as the evil killer, the pre-soul, pre-chip Spike (which the FE represents) who just wants to be the biggest badass that he can and cause as much damage adn destruction as he can because that is all he knows to do. And we also have souled Spike, the Spike that we are seeing now, who is more like William and just wants to love and try to have something normal and do some good in the world. In my opinion, this internal struggle between trying to be good and trying to be bad is one that we have seen with Spike since his character arrived on the show---but now that struggle has become external and we can really see him battling with himself.

Angel: I guess we could throw Angel into the mix here too, and say that we have Angelus, pre-souled vamp, and Angel post-souled Liam. This is not a physical manifestation, as it isn't with vamps and demons, but an inner stuggle with the bad sometimes besting the good (take the most recent Angel episode). He, like Spike and Anya, is trying to find who he should be and how strong he is to live a life of good and how easy and comfortable it would be to just go back to his old self.

With each of these different personas that we are shown, we see a side to each of these characters that they may not have known even existed. They each represent a different aspect that they each wish that they had, but is really with them all along. And what is interesting, is that Xander is the only one who had a side shown that expressed being more responsible and taken more seriously (in a good way). SO in a sense, the other characters would really rather be more like him, more carefree but they are each bogged down with some burdone, some responsiblity and struggle because of the individual powers that they all have (or supernatural, to be more specific). Xander is the only one without a supernatural power, but he has something that the rest of them would like to posess: normalcy.

So, these are just some ramblings that I needed to get down before they slipped out of my head. Hope someone has some comments and ideas!
[> what if powerful IS normal? -- Flo, 18:22:14 01/31/03 Fri

I like this assessment of character development! It seems that woven into each character is this tension between being powerful and being normal. I would love to see each character come into their power, as in the case of Xander, or fully own their own power, as with Anya, without sacrificing happiness. Buffy seems to have chosen power over happiness or "normalcy," but what if the divison between the two is simply a social construction? I wonder if it's possible to achieve both.

Current board | February 2003