January 2003 posts


Previous January 2003  

More January 2003

Nightmares? Dreams? Are we awake or asleep? Impressions on Showtime (SPOILERS 7.11) -- shadowkat, 20:18:52 01/07/03 Tue

First off - I know there are going to be a lot of fans who hated this episode for the same reasons they loved Lessons and Help. I didn't hate the episode. It wasn't a favorite, but it did intrique me a great deal and it certainly held my interest more than any other show I've tried to watch this week including Smallville, which is playing in the background behind me.

Major spoilers ahead!

Nightmares, Dreams, Awake or Asleep? What is real?

Before watching Showtime - I did a fan obsessive thing - I rewatched Conversations with Dead People through Bring on the Night and once again was struck with the feeling we had entered Buffy's nightmare. Bear with me while I go back in time and talk about past episodes.

Point of view is such an important writing tool this season. First, point of view - is a device where the narrative is told through the eyes of one or more characters or in some cases an indvisible view - which means no particular character is narrating it and we are watching the action from an invisible narrator who is commenting on the action - Lorne, the green demon in the lounge commenting on the action after the fact, in Spin the Bottle, Ats would be an example of this. In Btvs - the writers go out of their way to put us in the action and pov is always in the eyes of one of the regular characters. This character in essence becomes our narrator - we only know what they do, only see what they see. And what they know and see is often not very reliable and can be confusing depending on their state of mind.

From the very beginning of Season 7, we and the characters are told not to trust what we/they see . We're also told that what happens and what we see on the screen depends on whose point of view we're in and how reliable that pov is - since we only know what that character knows - nothing more. Except to the extent of moving the plot forward. (Ex - Giles getting a possible ax to the head - but we aren't told more b/c after that point - we never enter Giles pov again - so we just know what Buffy does.)

Same Time Same Place made more sense once you realized you were primarily in Willow and Xanders point of view - and only knew what Willow and Xander found out or were privy too. Selfless was almost entirely in Anya's point of view with a few minor exceptions. Sleeper mostly in Spike's. Him in Dawn's. And Bring on the Night? Mostly Buffy's. And the fact it was mostly in the point of view of a character who had not slept for over two nights is telling. Have you ever gone without sleep for an extended period of time? After a while the world takes on a surreal state. You can no longer figure out if you are dreaming or awake. What we learned in Bring on The Night was what Buffy knew, we were inside Buffy's head, to the point that we were privy to her dreams and nightmares. The only exception - was possibly Spike's pov in that episode - although that could also have been in Buffy's nightmares. Because Buffy was beaten, beyond tired, beyond scared - the pov was unreliable, it was foggy and surreal. And confusing. Because that was how Buffy felt.

Showtime - is very different than Bring on The Night. We are no longer limited to how Buffy felt. We no longer just see through her eyes. Actually I think we aren't in her pov much at all in this episode, instead we're in everyone's around her. If you think about it - we rarely spend time with Buffy alone here. The pov has shifted - we are now in Willow, Xander, Dawn, Andrew, Kennedy, and the First'pov. In Bring on The Night - we followed Buffy around and really focused more on what she saw with a few minor exceptions. In Showtime we follow everyone else - Anya, Xander, Willow, Dawn, the SIT's, Andrew, and Spike. Even in the end when Buffy saves Spike - the pov seems to be more Spike's than Buffy's. We see a little of her view but not much. The pov is more indivisible in this episode.

And the peripherial characters in Showtime ask a lot of interesting questions - questions that the writers refuse to answer for us. Questions we've been asking all year long ourselves. Some of them rather annoying questions.

Let's examine a few of them, I found these interesting since they literally could have been taken off the Buffy fan boards:

1. Why are slayers only girls and not boys?
2. Why do you need to rescue Spike? Isn't Spike the vampire who had been killing people? Shouldn't Buffy just kill him? Why does she care about him? How can he possibly help us?
3. Why has Buffy never been able to slay Spike? Isn't that a failure? (Andrew to Dawn and Xander, also the slayer's in training ask this.)
4. Andrew to Dawn: "Spike has killed more people than I have, why is he redeemable and not me? Why does she want to save him? Why is he important?"
5. Is that all we do - wait for one of us to be called so we can die?
6. What slayer will be chosen? How is this done?
7. How can we defeat the First?
8. What do you mean Buffy is the one who altered the mystical forces? Caused the disruption? Was it because she died? Or is it because the SG brought her back? That she doesn't die?
9. What type of magic can you do?
10. How does evil taste? (Kind of chalky)

All this time we've been wondering what a slayer is, how one is chosen, how the watcher's know which will be next. (Well not all of us, I admit it's never intrigued me that much...but whatever.) All this time we've been trying to figure out if Buffy hates Spike so much why is he still alive? If she doesn't love him - why save him?

These questions remain unanswered.

In Bring on the Night - the SG and the audience wonder why the First didn't have the ubervamp kill Buffy and Spike. We wonder the same thing in Showtime. The first tells us:
1. I'm not done with you yet. and 2. Think of it as a game.
You have to choose a side.

In Showtime - the oracle says Buffy defied the odds. She survived. She didn't die as prophesied. It disrupted things so the First decided if she could tempt the fates - it could too.

Now let's drift for a moment back to Restless and Buffy's dream...in her dream Buffy denies the hands. She denies her calling. She denies the First slayer. I'm not just a killer she says. I breath, I talk, I laugh, I have friends, and I'll be a fireman when the floods roll back - I do not sleep on a bed of bones. In Giles dream - just before he's scalped, after he watched Spike do his puppet like poses and after he sang his exposition and addressed Xander, Willow and watched Anya's act - he told the First Slayer - of course you never had a watcher.

Watching Showtime...listening to the oracle and the first and the slayer's in training discussing how they were fated to die...it occurred to me what was happening here and it is well brillant. Up until now - Buffy's path has been dictated to her. In Season One - she is told she is the slayer and must save the world and will die. It is prophesied. In Season 7 she meets Cassie who says - I am fated to die Friday. Buffy does everything possible to stop it, but Cassie dies anyway. She feels helpless in the face of fate. Yet, as her sister points out - she did help, she gave Cassie purpose and hope. In Season One Prophecy Girl - Buffy lives to save the world because Xander revives her.
She is stronger than ever. Another interesting thing about Cassie and Buffy - both have Daddy issues. Cassie's parents are divorced and can only see Daddy on weekends, so are Buffy's in Season 1. Daddy issues - this also keeps cropping up. In Season 2 - Angel is fated to save the world not Buffy according to Whistler. But Buffy has changed this so that she is the one with a little help from Spike, who must save the world by sending the fated champion to hell.
In Season 7 - Buffy feels she must kill Anya to save the world, sees it as similar to what happened with Angel, but it's not similar, Anya can undo what she did. It's not so simple. There are choices. In Season 3 - Another slayer shows up - Faith, because Buffy had died, then her replacement Kendra died. Faith feels displaced by Buffy.
And goes dark. We see what would have happened if Buffy never appeared in Sunnydale - so clearly Buffy was fated to come there. But Buffy continues to defy fate. She saves Angel by giving her own blood, her own life. She pulls the school together to fight the Mayor and defeats Faith. She also fires the Council and no longer pays attention to them. She graduates.
In Season 7 - Buffy gathers slayers in training, who don't understand their roles and are being killed off because Buffy is still alive? They seem displaced too somehow.
In Never LEave Me the Council explodes. In Bring on The Night - Giles lets us know how useless he and the council have truly become - they seem to know nothing. In Season 4
she combines powers with her friends and invokes the first slayer. In Season 7 - she telepathically devises a plan with Xander and Willow to defeat the ubervamp and go save Spike. In Season 5 against Giles' advice she sacrifices herself instead of Dawn to save the world. She lets her blood close the gap. And she accepts the help of a vampire to help her save a world. A vampire, soulless and supposedly evil, promises to protect her sister and does. In Season 7 - she decides to believe in that vampire who has become ensouled and against the odds saves him and teaches her sister to fight demons, to kill. In Season 6 - against the odds - buffy's friends bring her back to life and Buffy has sex with a vampire. The vampire against all odds goes to get a soul while Willow almost loses her's in vengeance. In Season 7... we're told Buffy should never have been brought back and Spike's soul has changed him.

All along Buffy has gone against fate. Has been the wild card. Unpredictable making up her own rules.

Season 7 seems to metanarrate on all the seasons and I wondered why. I think I know now. It lies within a little speech that Spike gives to the first.

The first: Do you know why you're still alive.
Spike: Thought you hated existentialism Dru...

What is existentialism? What is post-modernism? I think it's the forging of our own path through life without the aid of prophecies or religious doctrine. Figuring out who we are based on what's in our gut. Setting our own rules.

Buffy has begun to set her's. And is that power? The power to live your life by your own rules? Your own choices? To set your own path? To choose your friends? Your family?
Is it really possible to do that?

Other questions plaguing me today...

In Bring on The Night - Drusilla/FE calls Spike Daddy.
Is that why Buffy must save him? Is he inside her head some representative of her father? A man she must redeem, must save? The male fatale as damsel in distress? Instead of Daddy saving the princess - in the fairy tale the princess saves Daddy? Blond and 100 years older than Buffy?

Principal Wood's comment to Buffy's question what movies do you like followed by the First's comment to Spike in Bring on The Night: "I like mysteries - getting to what lies underneath it all in the end" and the first "Think of it as a game".

I think that's what is going on here - I think those are clues to us the audience - Think of this as a game, the writers are telling us, a way of determining what lies underneath all the metaphor and mythos in the end.

Back to my questions or rather the questions of those whiny slayers in training and Andrew the schmuck:
1. Why must Buffy save Spike? It seems to be her central goal in the episode. The one goal the First doesn't want to happen. The First keeps tormenting Spike with the fact that it won't. And it's what Spike prays will and is amazed when it does. Why is this important? Why are the writers turning the fatal into the damsel who the hero desires to save?
Could it be that in saving him, in helping him redeem himself - she is in some way saving a portion of herself - Like Frodo does with Gollum in Lord of The Rings? Redeeming the darkness in herself? Or could it be that in saving him - she is somehow dealing with her father's abandonment and Angel's and Riley's - taking that second chance? If I can make the evil vampire good - than I'm not just a killer after all?

2. Why is Buffy's life disrupting things? Perhaps the fact that she doesn't follow the rules. The plan. The balance is disrupted because she keeps jumping outside of the borders of the game?

3. How are slayer's called? And what is the role of the slayer? Is it a license to kill? Is that what Dawn desired - a license to kill? Or is it more? A type of balancing act?
Maybe that's the problem - man tried to control something mystical. Maybe you can't predict who will be called. Buffy certainly took them by surprise. Maybe the balancing act is in the heart not the head like the Watchers wish?

4. Is magic evil? Is living after your supposed to die evil? Should Buffy's friends have brought her back?
I don't know. It doesn't appear to be that black and white.

5. Why was it important for Buffy to kill the ubervamp in front of SIT's? She says she's losing them and she needs their confidence and she needs to kill it to save Spike.

6. When did Buffy learn how to do telepathy? Assuming sometime between Season 5 and Season 7?

And finally - What is real here? Is this just a dream?
Are we inside Buffy's head?

I don't know the answers yet. I'll need to time to ponder and think this through. All i can really do is guess. But I think or rather believe there's a ton going on here under the surface...if I can just unscramble it in my brain to make sense of it.

Hope this ramble made sense. My apologies to those of you who are bored and hate this season, all i can say is I disliked Season 1 and didn't start to seriously watch the show until midway through Season 2. We just have different tastes (shrug).

Agree? Disagree?

SK (who will return to this after she's thought about it some more.)
[> Spoilers Btvs Season 1 - 7.11 in above, also Spin bottle Ats. -- shadowkat, 20:26:07 01/07/03 Tue

[> Great Post! (NT) -- Minions of Xendor, 20:30:45 01/07/03 Tue

:)
[> you think a lot -- Jay, 21:47:01 01/07/03 Tue

I'm gonna need a map to figure all this out.
[> Re: Nightmares? Dreams? Are we awake or asleep? Impressions on Showtime (SPOILERS 7.11) -- deeva, 22:24:22 01/07/03 Tue

As usual, shadowkat, you have turned out an excellent post. Plenty of questions with some of your answers to them. I also didn't really love BtVS until the 2nd season happened. The 1st season was interesting enough to keep me watching but I didn't become really involved until the 2nd one. I would like to add a bit to your answers.

#5 Why was it important for Buffy to kill the ubervamp in front of SIT's? She says she's losing them and she needs their confidence and she needs to kill it to save Spike.
The proto slayers (I forget who started this but I like this term!) spend almost 2/3 of the episode doubting themselves and Buffy. The scene in the dining room of Summers' Sleep Away Camp where nearly all the girls are virtually pelting Buffy & willow with questions was very interesting to see. All their fears and worries were stoked a bit by FE/Eve but they come to full bloom here. Why is their training, with the exception of Rona who states she never had a Watcher, so spotty? How long have some of these girls been waiting? didn't they get a handbook like Kendra did? Or was her training on the extreme side of the spectrum? Well, I didn't think I would end up asking so many questions when I thought I was merely adding bits. Oops, my bad. ;o)


# 6 When did Buffy learn how to do telepathy? Assuming sometime between Season 5 and Season 7?
Perhaps Buffy learned how in Same Time, Same Place. She did assist Willow in the meditation/mending. It is only natural that they discover a mental/telepathic link this way.
[> [> I'll try posting this again! Telepathy -- Helen, 02:45:29 01/08/03 Wed

We know BUffy has a certain pre-cognitive abaility, and that in Earshot (Season 3) she became uncontrollably telepathic to the extent that she was going crazy. But I don't think Buff has learned to do telepathy, I think its all Willow.

Will demonstrated that she was telepathic in the Gift and Bargaining Part 1 (interestingly, she was able to communicate with Spike mentally when Buffy was not able to with Angel in Earshot - don't know if this is a goof or just a demonstration of her superior abilities). She was able to tap into the Scoobs minds, and to "talk" back all they had to do was think. So neither Xander nor Buffy are telepathic, just Will. I think.
[> [> [> note to self - scroll down to other threads before posting -- Helen, 03:43:21 01/08/03 Wed

[> [> [> Re: I'll try posting this again! Telepathy -- Random (no time to post my thoughts on Showtime, but...), 15:23:06 01/08/03 Wed

Okay, I've seen the issue of telepathy a couple times on posts here, so I just want to note that, while it would've made more sense for Willow to speak first, I imagine that Helen's explanation + an added clarification of "Buffy thought really, really hard" seems reasonable, if not spectacular. My second point is that there's a substantial difference between Buffy's telepathy and Willows. Buffy could only read minds, but not communicate with them. Willow can communicate in a manner that approximates talking, but we have no evidence she can read minds except when the other person reciprocates, i.e. makes a conscious effort to communicate. Thus she can communicate to Spike and hear his reply -- instead of a "reflection in her" (Angel's metaphor in "Earshot"), Spike's thoughts are being emitted, generated ab initio An approximation would be Buffy having sight (seeing the contents of peoples' minds -- yes, I know she was "hearing" them, but bear with me...) but being deaf and dumb, while Willow could hear and speak, but couldn't actually see the contents of people's minds, only hear what they chose to send her way. Okay, the metaphor is a little confusing and odd, so I think I'll go lie down now.
[> Wake me when it's sweeps (SPOILERS 7.11) -- ponygirl, 07:11:56 01/08/03 Wed

No not really, but with BOtN and now Showtime I feel like ME is rushing headlong towards the Good Stuff to come, using these episodes to set up some necessary elements but not much more.

Thoughtful review as always shadowkat. I agree something is going on with POVs here. In Showtime I really got the sense that we were being told a story. Not just in the sense of the audience watching as we normally do, but as though the events of Showtime were a reconstruction, a flashback being explained at a later date, much like the telepathy scene. We even had Andrew prompting the narrative along: "Giles, how *will* Buffy save Spike?". Yet for some reason Buffy doesn't seem to be contributing to this tale, we don't see much of her alone, we only hear her words when others are present. When we hear her thoughts they are in another's voice (who was that speaking? Kennedy? Rona? Dawn? Faith?). Is Buffy not available at some later date? Or is there an even more bizarre explanation?

No answers to any of the questions, my only certainty is that there is a big, possibly reality-altering, twist coming that's going to change our perceptions of the episodes we've seen. I'm a little scared to see what shape that twist is going to take though, almost want to put it off a while longer and enjoy the speculation. Just a bit of frustration at this episode though. Wouldn't have been so bad if Buffy's big plan to defeat the uberVamp hadn't been "kick its ass, despite it having kicked my ass completely during our previous encounter."
[> Please read my Post on the Welcoming Comittee -- neaux, 07:31:18 01/08/03 Wed

Posted above I pretty much explain the intent of the episode. As you learn by the end of the episode, this was a lesson for the SITs.

The SITs speak for any viewer that has not watched season 1-6. If you are a viewer or an SIT that doesnt know much backstory or are confused by backstory.. its time for a lesson in vampires. "Vampires for Dummies" is what I posted in the Welcome Comittee Post.

So this episode shows the standard ways to kill a vampie. Lesson 1 indeed.

We only need to wait for more episodes to see how training and the story proceeds.
[> Awake, by a hair. (spoilers 7.11) -- Calvin, 08:09:50 01/08/03 Wed

I am now going to post a point by point rebuttal to each and every one of the points in your post.

Just kidding. That would end up being a Tolstoy-esque epic. Instead, I just want to go over a few things. First off, my initial reaction to the episode left me pretty flat. Not quite "Him", but not a whole lot happened either. Instead, this seemed to be a 'move the story arc along' episode. So let move said arc slong...

Shadowkat, I have loved the things you have had to say about point of view in the series, espically this season. I agree, I don't think that pov was especially important in this episode, something more along the lines of a traditional, 3rd person narrator. But I wonder, do you think that a problem with this episode is the lack of any perspective? I found myself scratching my head at the end of the second act wondering, 'So, what are the writers trying to *tell* us? What is the point? Where are they taking us?' Very mushy. By the end of the episode, they answered a few questions, but I still think that telling this particular story could have used a more specific, driving pov. (BTW, who wrote this? I didn't see the credits, but it feels like Fury to me.)

The other ineresting aspect to the show is Buffy herself and her capacity for leadership. Can you imagine a season 1 or 2 Buffy playing the part of the commanding general? Not a chance. Which leads me to season 6. I have been thinking a lot about last season. While I still think that there were some individual episodes that didn't work out quite so well, I grow more and more impressed with what they tried to accomplish. It's only in the last couple of episodes that we have seen the results of last season - amazing levels of character growth in every one of the scoobys, but no one more so than Buffy herself. Every epsiode this season has validated the trials of season six.

A few final scattershot comments:

- I'm sorry, but Andrew has a point. Why is it okay for the Gang to be concerned with Spike and his oh-so-important redemption, but Andrew himself is beyond redemption? I don't get it. I think ME needs to address this. (Oh yeah, I thought for *sure* that Andrew was going to bite it. A newbie who was watching the show for the first time asked me, "I thought you said he was a minor character? He has more dialogue than anyone but Buffy." To which I replied, "That's because he is going to die." I was very suprised, to say the least.)

- I know this has already been addressed by now and will be again in the future, but what was the deal with the telepathy? All they had to do was have Willow speak first. Instead, it just looks like really sloppy writing. I don't normally spend a lot of time thinking about little details like this, but this really bugged me for some reason.

- They are *really* going to need to start thining the proto-Slayer herd a bit, aren't they? And while I hate even hearing the word "whiney" now, even in real life, the combined effect of all of the uncertainty in one room is, I will admit, a bit much. You have made your point, ME, let's keep it moving.

- Speaking of proto-Slayers, has there ever been a more awkward piece of dialogue that the one between Kennedy and Willow? I almost hit the mute button, it made me so uncomfortable. What are they doing with Kennedy? If they are trying to make Willow deal with her feeling for Tara by giving us the opposite of Tara - well done! If, on the other hand, they are genuinely trying to show us a spark between these two characters, well, I can't even think about that. and it's not a ship thing. I couldn't care less about any specific relationship, but this is just wierd.

- Remember Xander? Wasn't he cool?

- It's really time, overtime actually, to address the Giles thing. Enough with the speculation.

- Anya. I just love her.

sk, thanks for all the great thoughts.

Calvin
[> [> Ack! I wrote a long response and voy ate it -- shadowkat, 09:54:07 01/08/03 Wed

i hate it when that happens!!

Okay trying again. (note to self, this time copy response before sending).

- I'm sorry, but Andrew has a point. Why is it okay for the Gang to be concerned with Spike and his oh-so-important redemption, but Andrew himself is beyond redemption? I don't get it. I think ME needs to address this. (Oh yeah, I thought for *sure* that Andrew was going to bite it. A newbie who was watching the show for the first time asked me, "I thought you said he was a minor character? He has more dialogue than anyone but Buffy." To which I replied, "That's because he is going to die." I was very suprised, to say the least.)

I answered this question above on a response to Rufus. The story is NOT so much about redemption as growing up. Andrew still acts like a little kid who doesn't understand why nobody likes him. Spike on the other hand has broken free of his arrested state and is growing up. Beginning to take responsibility for his actions. "I can barely live with what I've done" he tells Buffy in Sleeper. He asks her to kill him, but accepts her explaination for not doing so. It's because he cares about what he's done. If you watch closely he not only see him take responsibility for it, you see him deal with it maturely over time. He no longer reacts with snarky comments or quips. He maturely tells Buffy what he thinks and does it calmly without snide put-downs. He doesn't whine or complain when she ties him up - instead asks that she make it tighter. He is finally starting to grow up. The whole vamp metaphor in btvs is arrested development - with Spike they are showing how a juvenile delinquent grows up. Andrew who has a soul, was never a vampire, has chosen to remain a little kid. He retreats into his fantasy world of sci-fi movies and comics referring to their logic to help him in all scenerios, he whines that people don't like him, he still resents the people who rejected him. He killed the only person who cared for him. Jonathan. And he did it - so he could fit some fantasy in his head. He did it with his facilities intact. He was not connected to evil like a vampire at the time, he was not under some trigger device, he chose to do it. And he did it in the worst and most cowardly way possible. Jonathan in contrast had finally grown up - he tells Andrew in Two to Go - "Grow up!" Jonathan began to take responsibility for their actions. Andrew never has.
Jonathan no longer resented the high school or the people who hurt him, he'd moved past it, he had begun to understand. Spike also finally moved past it and begun to understand. Andrew hasn't. Andrew still asks a child's questions. Whines when he is tied up. And acts much like the child Spike was in season 4 -with one major difference, Andrew isn't a vampire, he can grow up. Spike had to get a soul, had to learn to do so. It's not about who should or shouldn't be redeemed. It's not a frigging contest. It's about growing up and taking on your responsibilities. Taking responsibility for who you are and deciding to do something about it. Deciding to become a better person. To become an adult.

I agree on most of your other points.

Yep a Fury episode - but he's written some good ones too: Fear Itself, Choices, Helpless (which he seemed to reference here), Crush, Bargaining Part II. This one was weaker - but I liked it okay. Not my favorite but I'd give it a B-.

Also on pov? I think it was confusing - they just kept jumping around. One minute we are in the proto-slayers, the next Andrew, the next Willow, the next Spike, the next Anya, the next Dawn - I would have almost preferred a third person indivisible or removed. Or one driving pov. The only pov we were never in was Buffy's. Three episodes this season appear to have done this: STSP, SelfLess, and Him - in all three she comes across as slightly driving and cool.
I think the confusing pov is a fault of the writing.

Also the telepathy was done sloppily. They could have made it clearer. We were in Willow's pov in the flashback. But it didn't make much sense to me that Buffy would think to try telepathy. Willow maybe. But Buffy?

Agree on Giles - enuff spec already. Spill. Is he a projection? Real? Dead? What? feeling impatient.

Anya was good in this epsiode. Not annoying like she'd been in BoTN. Actually i've liked her on and off all season.

Xander didn't register for me as much as Willow did. Felt more Willow centric. Xander was more centric in Never Leave Me and possibly BoTN?

And please trim down the herd of proto-slayers. I didn't like them when there were only three. Only one who has much interest to me is Kennedy, who i actually like better than Tara. Don't see much chemistry, but i didn't see much with Tara either.(Personal tast I guess.)

Hopefully this will post. If not, c'est la vie.
Thanks for the response.
SK
[> [> [> What Would (a) Jedi Do? More on Andrew. -- Calvin, 12:11:13 01/08/03 Wed

A few comments. On the one hand, you are absolutely right about Andrew in the sense of his being 100% accountable for his actions, and his inability to see that. On the other hand, what does Buffy and Co. do? Kill him? No. Why not turn him in to the police? Because the First will kill him? This seems more likely. But wait - why would the First want to kill Andrew? Because he had/has a part to play in the goings on, apparently. But isn't that the reason why Buffy claims she wants to rescue Spike? ETA - I should say that is *one* of the reasons why. Buffy also thinks Spike can help in the coming...thing. But again by the same token, shouldn't the Scooby's realize that while it may not be ideal, Andrew could actually be of some help. After all he could, you know, "summon demons...and planning...and stuff"

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to apologize for Andrew. Far from it. I'm still pissed about Johnathon. I just think there is an unresolved inconsistancy here. I just think they should either allow or force Andrew to face what he's done and attempt to, well, grow up, or get rid of him. Personally, I like Andrew and so I want him to stay, but from the characters perspective I think they should get rid of him. (I just went back up and re-read what you wrote, and now I'm not so sure. I'll have to think on this some more, because I think it's important, both from a character analysis perspective and a plot perspective.)

I think that's hysterical that I was actually able to guess the writer sight unseen. That's either great or really pathetic. My money's on pathetic.

Calvin
[> [> [> [> LOL! figuring out the writer...and more on Andrew -- shadowkat, 13:36:43 01/08/03 Wed

(Not that pathetic...it had Fury's stamp on it.)

Well kudos - you got me thinking about Andrew now, a character that I'd rather not spend too much time thinking about - since, well of the Trioka, he was the one I was least interested in.

I'm going to take the Spikester out of this analysis since i think he clogs the issue for me and try to look at it from another tact.

On the other hand, what does Buffy and Co. do? Kill him? No. Why not turn him in to the police? Because the First will kill him? This seems more likely. But wait - why would the First want to kill Andrew? Because he had/has a part to play in the goings on, apparently.

The question I guess is what part does he have to play. I keep asking myself the same question: Why did the writers choose to keep Andrew of all the members of the Trioka alive, besides the fact that he clearly makes them laugh. (Writers have a tendency to think they're jokes are funnier than we do...or maybe they see Andrew as satirical take on themselves and their own geekiness?) I think he's partly still alive because up until now Andrew is only referred to as "Tucker's Brother". We don't know who he really is and that's what the season is about - stripping away the layers and determining who we are at heart. Identity.

Andrew like Dawn also fills a very important metaphorical role in the series - that of the alienated teen outsider. The person who feels worthless, unliked, unloved, ignored. How many times have people this season told Dawn she was either worthless or would never win or be loved? (Him, CwDP, Anya's speech in Him, Help,) Andrew has the same problems. He isn't killed because well, what's the point, he's rather harmless.
They don't take him seriously. He isn't turned into the police because they can't really prove his crimes and if they could? The first might just break him out and use him again. They keep him because maybe he can give them insight into the first. Of the Scoobs it's interesting to note that its the two who feel the most worthless and are struggling for identity - that seem compelled to torture Andrew. Isn't that true in life? Pick on the person further down on the totem poll than you are? Kick the dolly when he's down as the First points out.

The First may want to kill Andrew - for the same reason it killed Jonathan and Eve - because it can. Because Andrew is no longer useful to it. Or maybe you're right - because Andrew could prove to be useful. Sometimes it's the character or person that you don't notice, who isn't flashy, who seems the most unlikely, who surprises you the most. Andrew seems to connect to Xander - to speak Xander's language - perhaps he is the key to Xander's story somehow and possibly Anya's?

He also holds the role of the most immature boy - we need at least one with all these little girls wandering about.
At the very least to provide contrast.

And maybe there's something to being able to summon demons. Maybe Andrew might be a reminder to Willow and Buffy and even Xander of where power can lead you to - a reminder of Warren and his arrogance? Remember what Andrew tells Xander:
"So how long have you followed Buffy?"
Xander - i don't follow her, she's my best friend.
Andrew clearly doesn't see a difference. And remarks: "Huh. Well she has shiny hair. Does she make you stab things?" To Andrew - one is either minion or leader. He doesn't get the in between. He stills sees the world in blacks and whites in comic book colors.


I just think there is an unresolved inconsistancy here. I just think they should either allow or force Andrew to face what he's done and attempt to, well, grow up, or get rid of him. Personally, I like Andrew and so I want him to stay, but from the characters perspective I think they should get rid of him.

Interesting. I don't like Andrew - but your comments got me to rethink this. Maybe Andrew should stay around. Maybe it isn't so cut and dry. It's not should we force him to face what he's done (because as we learned with Faith - you can't really do that now can you? Willow certainly wasn't able to with Warren. Nor did the SG accomplish it with Jonathan in Superstar - if they had, Jonathan may still be alive today.). You can't make someone feel remorse or feel quilt or take responsibility. You can punish them sure. But believe me - I met a few men behind bars who still believe they are innocent after killing people for money - being punished hasn't changed their minds any. If they were afraid of being punished? They wouldn't have done it to begin with. Nor can you force someone to grow up. They got to decide to on their own. Faith eventually did in Sancturary Ats Season 1. Spike eventually does in Seeing Red. I'm not sure if or when Andrew will. Maybe in some way - his journey will parallel Dawn's? Because he's not the only one who needs to find his way here - Dawn does to.
And maybe he'll be her contrast??

So maybe they shouldn't get rid of him. Maybe by trying to help him, by not killing him or turning him over to the police, by protecting him - they in some way acknowledge him as a human being, more than just "Tucker's brother" or the First' and Warren's minion. Maybe that makes the SG better people somehow?? (shrugs)

Don't know. But my gut tells me that getting rid of Andrew, as much as I might wish they would, is not the answer.
[> [> [> [> [> Andrew as Gollum -- cjl, 13:56:41 01/08/03 Wed

When I posted my "Buffy and LOTR" post on BC&S, someone chimed in that, rather than Spike or Faith, the most likely parallel to Gollum in the BtVS cast is Andrew. That makes a lot of sense.

Think about it: I can't see any other reason why Joss and ME are keeping him around. He's NOT going to have a redemption arc. It would be like Harmony adding on 150 IQ points and questioning her entire shallow (un)lifestyle. Like Harmony, Andrew approaches his existence on such a superficial level, that it's completely against the grain of the established character to expect such a radical level of growth.

Like Gollum guiding Frodo, Andrew will follow his new leader (Buffy) and try to fit in with the Scoobies as they try to use his knowledge of the FE to their advantage. But once a big power payoff gets dangled in front of his eyes, Andrew will betray them all. Like Gollum, though, the act of betrayal might actually do them all a favor....
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Andrew as Gollum -- shadowkat, 14:12:33 01/08/03 Wed

When you first mentioned this theory - I fought it, because well I hate the character of Andrew. Of every character ME has developed and created over the years on both shows - Andrew grates on my nerves the most. And I love, adore, the character of Gollum in the movie verision of Two Towers. (I didn't like Gollum as Tolkien described and wrote him, but the character portrayed by Andy Sekis (sp?) and CJI wizardry? Broke my heart. ) So to compare these two rankles me as much as comparing Spike and Andrew...sigh. Enough irrelevant ranting. Sorry had to get it out of my system.

I think you are right. I think Andrew is Gollum in the piece. And he does to some extent echo Spike, but as the lost cause. As Gollum echoes Frodo, the lost cause or more to the point Bilbo Baggins who came far closer to becoming Gollum yet was able to give up the ring and it's quest.
But of all the arguments on the board regarding Andrew - including Rufus' this one works the best for me:

Think about it: I can't see any other reason why Joss and ME are keeping him around. He's NOT going to have a redemption arc. It would be like Harmony adding on 150 IQ points and questioning her entire shallow (un)lifestyle. Like Harmony, Andrew approaches his existence on such a superficial level, that it's completely against the grain of the established character to expect such a radical level of growth.

Like Gollum guiding Frodo, Andrew will follow his new leader (Buffy) and try to fit in with the Scoobies as they try to use his knowledge of the FE to their advantage. But once a big power payoff gets dangled in front of his eyes, Andrew will betray them all. Like Gollum, though, the act of betrayal might actually do them all a favor....

I think you may have hit the nail on the head as to why FE doesn't kill Andrew outright, although it tried just as Sauron tries to kill Gollum. And as to why the SG don't.
For the same reason Gandalf cautions Frodo not to.

I think Andrew...may be the new Harmony character in Btvs and used in Btvs in the same way Harm was used in Ats. In Ats Harm is to some extent contrasted both with Angel and with Cordelia. In Btvs Andrew is to some extent contrasted with Spike, Dawn and Xander - but from your post I just came up with another option - Buffy and the desire for power. Perhaps that's the true contrast? Maybe Andrew is in some way shape or form being contrasted with Buffy and Dawn?
And like Gollum's failing leads Frodo to a certain inevitable end - Andrew's will lead Buffy and her sister?
Don't know -- not being able to remember what Gollum does in Return of the King doesn't help. (Sorry I read those books 20 years ago...all I really remember is what I see in the movies.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Gollum in "Return of the King" (major LotR spoilers and BtVS spec) -- cjl, 14:42:47 01/08/03 Wed

For those of you who have forgotten: Frodo, Samwise, and Gollum arrive at the base of Mount Doom and look like they're about to complete their quest to destroy the Ring. Unfortunately, Frodo's will has been eaten away by the Ring, and he places it on his finger, ready and willing to wield its Evil Power.

At that horrific moment, Gollum realizes that Frodo "betrayed" him, and he battles with an invisible Frodo for possession of the Ring. Gollum/Smeagol BITES OFF Frodo's ring finger, finally regaining his Precious. For about two seconds. He accidentally tumbles into the fiery pits surrounding Mount Doom, destroying himself and the Ring.

I'm anticipating a similar fate for Andrew. One member of the cast will be presented with an incredible temptation, a false gift of power; Andrew will try to take it for himself (and "become a God," as FE/Warren promised)--and the power will consume him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> BtVS spec without the RoTK spoilers... -- shadowkat, 15:06:44 01/08/03 Wed

One member of the cast will be presented with an incredible temptation, a false gift of power; Andrew will try to take it for himself (and "become a God," as FE/Warren promised)--and the power will consume him.

yup this fits with my gut impression as well. Right now I'm betting on Xander just because he's the only member of the cast who hasn't had to deal with this temptation yet.

Buffy did in Bad Girls, The Gift, and numerous other episodes. Willow - been there done that. And I think this could hit upon Anya in some way...in fact we could end up with Anya stopping Xander - so Andrew gets it instead?

Or maybe we'll have Dawn be the tempted one? Will have to be a central member who has never had power and feels weak.
Spike is out - b/c well vampire, has had power, now trying to be a man. Willow - similar - has had power, now trying to get past it. Buffy - yep also has power. Anya - yep had power too, gave it up. This leaves Dawn and Xander.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: while we're on possible Gollum and Andrew parallels... -- leslie, 16:11:40 01/08/03 Wed

...even before he bites off Frodo's finger and the Ring with it, Gollum betrays Frodo and Sam to Shelob, the spider who has a damned good claim to being the "first evil" of Middle-earth.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmm, lots of Spider references (S7 spoilers, specs) -- Scroll, 16:47:29 01/08/03 Wed

There's the boy spray-painting "Spider" in the construction site before Gnarl kills him, the big spider demon in "Selfless", Holden Webster whose nickname is "Webs" -- so maybe Joss has been re-reading LoTR.

My guess for Scooby most likely to grab for power would be Dawn. Xander has never really wanted power; he saw what power did to Willow and Faith. And Dawn going against Buffy would fit in with what Glowy!Joyce told Dawn in CwDP re: that Buffy would be against her.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spiders...dang...yep I think that works (Spoilers for Stephen King's IT) -- shadowkat, 18:30:47 01/08/03 Wed

I just hope they don't go for a huge CGI Spider in the end, I really hate Spiders. Dreading RoTK for Shelob which I thought was in The Two Towers?

At any rate - this works with another horror novel - Stephen King's IT where the morphing evil is in fact a huge Spider. The imagery this season has been huge on Spiders,
the weblike manhole cover, the words on the wall when the Gnarl attacks, Holden Webs Webster, the idea of sucking blood, being drained of blood, the torture device Spike hangs on when he is being bled, the idea of everything being connected.

Also isn't there a Native American Myth about Spiderwoman creating the world? Can't remember. I know I read it somewhere. Stupid brain - has a horrible indexing system.
Ah-hah found it in Campbell's The Hero with A Thousand Faces (I find Campbell hard to read...but here is the reference): Navajho Myth - Spider Woman is a grandmotherly little dame who lives underground - except here she is considered helpful and can control the movements of father Sun with her web. The hero under her protection can't be harmed. (Hmmm...somehow I doubt this is the myth Joss and Tolkien looked at it.)

Spiders in psychology are often associated with fear - I think and the idea of being overwhelmed or drained?

In Stephen King's IT - the spider paralyzed its victims with their fears. Trapped them in its web. They never saw the spider until it was too late.

Guess same could be said about evil: it tempts us with
a. power (Frodo and the ring)
b. and vengeance (Holtz and Justine and Anya)

it scares us and paralyzes us with
a. fear
b. despair and doubt
c. self-loathing

Question is how do we break free? In IT - the kids broke free by banding together and spiritually believing in themselves and their gifts. They were all outcasts - one stuttered, one lame, on asythmatic...they used what made them different to overcome it. And they faced their worst nightmares to do so. IT was broken into two parts - one the children's fears and two the adult's. BTVS seems similarly broken - the adolescent fears and the adults.

Tolkien similarly deals with fear but extends it to temptation - the temptation to take the easy way out, the easy way of overcoming fear and despair. In Frodo's case - giving in to the ring, becoming invisible - escaping. Letting it take control. Boromir's temptation to win the war with the ring.

I think it will be Dawn who will be tempted - and I think we've been leading up to it all along. Lessons - Dawn is told "power" is important and she has none. In Him - everyone has power but Dawn - all Dawn can do is die and it still doesn't achieve her goal. In Showtime - Dawn tells Andrew Buffy promised to let her kill him - and Andrew says - that must be a cool thing - to get a license to kill. In Villains - Dawn doesn't understand why Buffy doesn't kill Warren. And in Beneath You - Dawn tells Spike - she knows he can take her in a fight, but she can set him on fire. This girl wants power bad. She's sick of being the damsel, being out of the loop, being protected. Being second to her powerful sister.

So my money is on Dawn. And I'm beginning to think if the First has a true form - it's probably that of a spider and it probably resides in the hellmouth, behind the gate.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Shelob and Jackson's LotR (OT a bit) -- HonorH, 20:13:15 01/08/03 Wed

Jackson said he saved Shelob for RotK because he didn't want to end TTT on that kind of a cliffhanger. Which proves he's a nicer sort of filmmaker than certain people. (*cough*Lucas*cough*)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> OK, while I have the chance -- Tchaikovsky, 14:54:28 01/09/03 Thu

Wow, I get to ask a Middle Earth question to someone who's just written a book on it. Actually not so much Middle Earth.

By the rather coy allusion to First Evil in relation to Shelob, do you mean that she was directly descended from Ungoliant, the big scary spider who teamed up with Morgoth to steal the Silmarils in 'The Silmarillion'? Or is there something else that I'm too ignorant to understand?

Thanks (and incidentally most impressed that you were reviewed in Salon)

TCH
[> [> [> Contrasting Spike and Andrew, and also POV -- slain, 18:41:25 01/08/03 Wed

It struck me that Dawn's line (paraphrasing) "We have to help Spike, because he was controlled by the First Evil - and he has a soul" was a deliberate attempt to draw a parallel between Spike and Andrew - or, more accurately, between the treatment of the two characters by the Scoobies. After all, "he was controlled by the First Evil - and he has a soul" fits Andrew as much as it does Spike. That suggests for me an attempt to generate some sympathy for Andrew, not an easy task, perhaps in the build up to some kind of redemption or, more likely I think, a redemption type death.

But of course you've addressed the ways why Andrew and Spike aren't the same; the show is after all an allegory, an extended metaphor for things which aren't supernatural but are very real and universal. Spike's arc isn't so much about his killing and seeking redemption for it (like Angel's is), but rather about his personal growth as a character. That he's killed is less important than that he's changed - because of The Metaphor.

Which does of course bring on Andrew comparisons - but only on the literal level; Andrew has killed, and now seems to be in a literal way seeking redemption, or at any rate escape. But he's not doing so by changing himself, by growing up. If he is looking for redemption, then he's only looking in the Catholic sense; doing enough 'good works' and paying his dues to get into 'heaven', without in fact becoming a better person. If the show is ultimately an allegory for being a teenager (or rather about the transition to adulthood), which it is, then Andrew isn't progressing in the way that Spike has.

POV was also something that struck me about this episode; I shan't mention postmodernism (no one replies if I do!), but it did seem like the POV of us, the audience, was being compared to that of the SITs, Scoobs and Andrew. It gave the impression that Buffy's fight was what it was - an act, almost like a play. The same thing can be said of her speeches; the other characters are being put in our position, that of the audience, and everything she does is for their benefit. Which draws an interesting issue about Buffy's committment; does she believe what she's saying, about evil being defeatable? I'm inclined to think otherwise.

If we look back to BotN, we can see how the same POV device was used; we're in Buffy's POV (sitting in her chair, bruised from the fight), listening to what's being said in the other room. Buffy has the perspective of the audience, from where she can gauge the mood of the Scoobs and semi-Scoobs; so she reverses the POV, as it were; instead of being the audience, and passive, she becomes active; we're looking at her again, through the POV of the speech-listeners. The content of her speech isn't as important as this; what's important is that Buffy draws the attention onto herself.

This strikes me as an interesting reversal of the male gaze theory in film and TV; namely the idea (well, the fact) that the camera has always looked at women through men's eyes, but that women weren't allowed the same power; here, though, Buffy has the power because she's being looked at.
[> [> [> [> Re: Contrasting Spike and Andrew, and also POV -- shadowkat, 19:29:54 01/08/03 Wed

I'd agree with this assessment and you do a better job of addressing the pov in the episode than I did. It is I think a parallel between the SG, Andrew, the SIT's and the audience. Buffy has taken the action role - we are watching her but unlike BoTN we are not watching everyone else through her. It is an interesting difference. What is even more interesting is the pov is more focused on peripheral characters - Andrew and the protoslayers or SIT's. Which may be why some of the action seems a little confusing at times. Because we are watching through the eyes of characters who don't know what's going on. And there's so many of them - they have in essence become Buffy's audience.
Buffy's trainees. She has moved into the teacher role.

Her rescue of Spike is interesting. I wonder now if part of the reason for it is she needs him to help her train the proto-slayers. She needs her co-teacher. Someone who can not only tell the slayers what a vampire is and how to kill one, but can demonstrate it as well. Who better to help her train a potential slayer - than a vampire who killed them?
Sort of the Fool For Love episode twisted around. Lots of metanarration on Fool for Love this year...


This strikes me as an interesting reversal of the male gaze theory in film and TV; namely the idea (well, the fact) that the camera has always looked at women through men's eyes, but that women weren't allowed the same power; here, though, Buffy has the power because she's being looked at.

Hmmm interesting. (Is that postmodernism? I don't respond on that topic because it confuses me. This episode felt post-modern to me - partly with all its references on pop culture from James Bond to Mel Gibson's Beyond Thunderdom.)
But the male gaze came to mind for me as well - except I'm wondering if it's the female gaze? We have all these comments on Spike's chest being exposed most of the season.
Isn't that partly the female gaze? And in Showtime - Buffy is in the center of the ring - but the attention is on her fighting like a "man" to kill a "beast" - two men enter - says Andrew - one leaves. Also in BoTN - the female gaze - Drusilla (later Buffy in SHowTime) tortures shirtless Spike, seductively lifts her skirts but shows him nothing. His partial nudity is for her pleasure.

But of course you've addressed the ways why Andrew and Spike aren't the same; the show is after all an allegory, an extended metaphor for things which aren't supernatural but are very real and universal. Spike's arc isn't so much about his killing and seeking redemption for it (like Angel's is), but rather about his personal growth as a character. That he's killed is less important than that he's changed - because of The Metaphor.

Which does of course bring on Andrew comparisons - but only on the literal level; Andrew has killed, and now seems to be in a literal way seeking redemption, or at any rate escape. But he's not doing so by changing himself, by growing up. If he is looking for redemption, then he's only looking in the Catholic sense; doing enough 'good works' and paying his dues to get into 'heaven', without in fact becoming a better person. If the show is ultimately an allegory for being a teenager (or rather about the transition to adulthood), which it is, then Andrew isn't progressing in the way that Spike has.

We may both be wrong here. But I don't think so. The metaphor has been repeated too many times and in too many episodes. Also Spike's whole arc this year and even last year seems to be about showing how he's changing himself, trying to become a better man, trying to be someone who Buffy could trust. Trying to grow up. The writers keep giving him challenges that oddly metanarrate on challenges he had while a vampire or still chipped and I think they are using Andrew as a sort of metanarration as well or comparison. She mentions that Spike is ripe - he doesn't react to it, he lets it go. She mentions Andrew is and he reacts. She ties Spike up - he insists she make the ropes tighter, She ties up Andrew he complains much as Spike once did in Season 4. They have to coerce and beat and bribe the info out of Andrew, Spike calmly tells her what he knows and does so with some shame and regret - compare again to Season 4 when they worked Spike over to get info on the Initiative. Never Leave Me metanarrated on Pangs big time.It showed us how Spike reacted in two situations. Same with the whole Anya scene in Sleeper - compare this with Spike in Entropy or Where the Wild Things ARe or even Crush? He reacts with embarrassment and gently tells her that he isn't interested, tries to make her feel better, but will not take advantage of her, even though he is no doubt tempted. We see it again in the basement - when he discovers he's been drinking human blood again - this metanarrates on The Initiative, Triangle, Smashed, Out of My Mind and other episodes where Spike clearly would do anything for some human blood. Now the thought he's drunk it, killed people, horrifies him and he begs her to kill him. Before - he'd beg her to let him live and come up with reasons for her to keep him alive. In Never Leave Me he comes up with reasons for her to kill him.

As we move through the season -- the writers take Buffy and Spike and the other characters through old challenges to see how they handle them now as adults. And the use the peripheral characters as a contrast - here the peripherals are used to show what they may have done in the past. Andrew - what Spike did. The proto-slayers - what an inexperienced Buffy might have done. Yet it's not exact - the proto-slayers seem weaker, lamer than Buffy or Kendra or Faith did, younger somehow, Andrew seems weaker, lamer, less charismatic than Spike, even RJ - the boy with the jacket doesn't seem as charming as Lance did, and Buffy can't remember Webs. As Buffy states going back to the school in Lessons - it seems smaller somehow. I think this is on purpose. I think when we begin to transistion into adulthood - the teen years seem more than the actually were, so when we're forced either through our children or through others to revisit them...we are suprised at how small everything seems and less melodramatic somehow.
[> [> [> [> [> Might be possible... -- KdS, 04:14:51 01/09/03 Thu

That in the end Spike will get through to Andrew and show him how petty and destructive his idea of power was - isn't the last step in the Twelve Step concept to help other people to their own realisation that they have a problem?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Contrasting Spike and Andrew, and also POV -- ponygirl, 13:48:32 01/09/03 Thu

"As we move through the season -- the writers take Buffy and Spike and the other characters through old challenges to see how they handle them now as adults. And the use the peripheral characters as a contrast - here the peripherals are used to show what they may have done in the past. Andrew - what Spike did. The proto-slayers - what an inexperienced Buffy might have done. Yet it's not exact - the proto-slayers seem weaker, lamer than Buffy or Kendra or Faith did, younger somehow, Andrew seems weaker, lamer, less charismatic than Spike, even RJ - the boy with the jacket doesn't seem as charming as Lance did, and Buffy can't remember Webs. As Buffy states going back to the school in Lessons - it seems smaller somehow. I think this is on purpose. I think when we begin to transistion into adulthood - the teen years seem more than the actually were, so when we're forced either through our children or through others to revisit them...we are suprised at how small everything seems and less melodramatic somehow."

I really like this! We've seen a lot of re-working of old themes and episodes but seen through older eyes. Things that were once seemingly minor take on darker more complex overtones. On the other hand the grand dramas and angst seem a bit lame. It's exactly why even though we'll swear up and down that we'll never forget what it was like to be young and misunderstood, we still end up smiling indulgently when a 15 year old tells us of her heartache. I can remember fuming about how my parents automatically took my teachers' side in any conflict when I was in high school, now I sympathize with a friend as she tells me how the kids she teaches have no discipline or respect.

On BtVS where once whole episodes were devoted to Buffy's complaints and fears of what her duty will bring, now she just quietly gets up from the table of scared teens and makes plans in the other room. Where in s4 we had Spike staying with Giles and Xander and offering snarky commentary on the proceedings, we now see Andrew, a skinny little blond guy trying to fit in and be accepted, and failing miserably.

I sometimes wonder what Becoming would be like from Joyce's perspective. All that angst and drama Buffy's going through, it's no wonder that there was no time to spare for Joyce driving around town looking for her lost daughter.

"Back to the Beginnning" has turned out to be a typically simplified Joss explanation of a wonderfully complex theme. In going back we've only seen how much the Scoobies and the show has changed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Exactly... -- shadowkat, 14:36:01 01/09/03 Thu

I realized this actually last night while whining to a friend, who I've managed to get hooked into buffy, about how the new peripheral characters just don't pack the same punch the old ones did. And figured out - whoa, maybe this is on purpose.

Maybe Prinicipal Wood is supposed to come across less melodramatic than Snyder, the Mayor, or even Flutie did. We're looking at him with level eyes now, from an adult's eyes not a childs.

I think this in particular is true:
Things that were once seemingly minor take on darker more complex overtones. On the other hand the grand dramas and angst seem a bit lame. It's exactly why even though we'll swear up and down that we'll never forget what it was like to be young and misunderstood, we still end up smiling indulgently when a 15 year old tells us of her heartache. I can remember fuming about how my parents automatically took my teachers' side in any conflict when I was in high school, now I sympathize with a friend as she tells me how the kids she teaches have no discipline or respect.

It's funny I was walking by a high school today with a friend and I commented to her how watching those kids on the corners made me feel old. That high school had in effect become a blur. Oh I remembered bits and pieces of it, but the drama of it...seemed somehow short-lived and unimportant in retrospect. We see this in Btvs this year.

Xander in the episode HIM - reflects fondly on his own love spell, Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered which posters at the time the episode aired commented was a far more interesting dramatic episode than Him. Yet with adult eyes, Xander realizes how lame the whole thing was and how dangerous the consequences. Even Lance who seemed so wonderful back then - is nothing now.

In Season 2 - the major angst was if Buffy would have to kill Angel - while Jenny's death was important, it barely registered. It wasn't Buffy's focal point. It was Giles'.
Anya's crimes also weren't as important. Yet in Selfless - we see the whole thing through different eyes. This year we and Anya and Spike feel the weight of them far more than before. As Anya states..."I don't remember the crimshaw demon being quite so ....violent."

The kids at the school seem smaller somehow, less attractive, less well-dressed, less vivid than the ones in seasons past, they barely register. This too is deliberate. Because we are looking at them through an adult Buffy's eyes, just as Joyce barely registered Buffy's friends, Buffy barely registers Dawn's.

It is a brillant and ambitious idea I think - but I'm not sure if it's an entertaining one? I'll be interested to see if the writers can in fact pull it off. Can they flip each concept previously shown in the first five seasons from an adolescence's perspective and now show it from the adult one? And I honestly think the seasons they are metanarrating on the most is everything up to Season 6 when Buffy came back. Which means - that people may in fact be right - the disruption the eye is commenting on is Buffy's transistion to adulthood. After all - slayer's aren't supposed to survive their childhoods. Isn't that what Kennedy says? I'm 19 - I'm probably too old? Maybe the fact that Buffy took that leap off the tower of adolescence and was brought cruelly back into adulthood is what screwed up the balance? Maybe the dark power inside her is in effect the same thing that = arrested development for the vampires?
Maybe the reason Spike and Buffy are being targeted by the first is both of them did the one thing they are never supposed to do? Grow up?

Maybe that's the metaphor. That's what Buffy did wrong. What Spike did wrong. What Jonathan did wrong. They decided to grow up?

Spike (vampire without a soul = arrested adolescence, the evil peter pan) - gets soul - begins to become a man grows up??

Buffy - the slayer dies before her 21st birthday. She leaps from the tower and is brought back, so survives and passes 21 becomes an adult.

Jonathan returns to the high school - says with adult eyes how he gets it now and would like to do good. The first has Andrew kill him. (Okay that one might be far-fetched)

Just some random musings. Anyways I loved your response. SK
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Contrasting Spike and Andrew, and also POV -- Malandanza, 22:53:50 01/09/03 Thu

"She ties up Andrew he complains much as Spike once did in Season 4. They have to coerce and beat and bribe the info out of Andrew, Spike calmly tells her what he knows and does so with some shame and regret - compare again to Season 4 when they worked Spike over to get info on the Initiative."

I absolutely think that Andrew is Spike from late Season Four / early Season Five -- and his conversation with Dawn, where she shuts him down with the "you might try not killing your only friend" line sounded an awful lot like some of Buffy's quick put-downs when Spike tried being helpful to Buffy and her friends (the "you want credit for not feeding on the wounded" line from Triangle comes to mind). In fact, I'd say Slain's point about Andrew:

If he is looking for redemption, then he's only looking in the Catholic sense; doing enough 'good works' and paying his dues to get into 'heaven', without in fact becoming a better person.

Fits Season Five Spike rather nicely. Andrew has provided a nice foil for Spike at most of his pre-soul stages of development -- right down to the rich fantasy life (Spike has Byron poetry and gothic novels where Andrew has Star Trek and Star Wars). Spike has certainly progressed further than has Andrew, but Andrew has the potential for reform just as surely as Season Four Spike did.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Nice to see posts from you! -- Rahael, 09:06:05 01/10/03 Fri

I was only wondering last week at your absence from the board.
[> A reply -- Spike Lover, 10:34:07 01/08/03 Wed

I posted before New Year's the same theory, and did not check it until yesterday. I could not find it in archives, but I felt that it was possible that the characters were still asleep. (Bring on the Night really brought that thru.) It could be a sort of combined dream, or separate ones with dire consequences- see Restless.

How does one fight evil? Religiously speaking, there is an external evil force, but there is also a potential for evil in everyone that must be constantly (or occassionaly) surpressed. (I guess you could say the reverse for vamps... There is a choice/potential to do good, but that impulse must also be fought down.)

But anyway, if evil is not corporal, then you must recognize it psychologically. So the idea that this entire season is the combined dreams of the characters makes some sort of sense on this level.
"predictable, maybe, but satisfying - well put! -- justin, 20:29:31 01/07/03 Tue

I agree that the the episode was on the whole very good. A chapter opener/closer, if you will. My wife marks the SITs up to a compulsion to keep introducing teenagers, and thinks it might even be a matter of network pressure. In any case, yeah, they're tedious.

I love this development in Buffy/Spike's relationship.
[> thank the gawdz for Dawn. -- Solitude1056, 20:33:49 01/07/03 Tue

I recall some interview with Whedon or Noxon saying they'd be toning down Dawnie's whininess this season. Now I know why - they planned to introduce six whiny characters. If Dawn weren't keeping her head screwed on straight, it'd be Whinetown overload, and I'd've thrown my tv out the window by now. As it was, I still wanted to throw cold water on the protoslayers. I'll overlook the one who said she didn't have a watcher - it'd be understandable if she's freaked - but the rest? Hello?

sheesh...
[> [> Re: LOL! -- curious, 20:39:56 01/07/03 Tue

[> [> No, no, no, no, no, no...I'm too young for this....<g> -- Rufus, 21:33:03 01/07/03 Tue

Only ME could find a way to get even for those who got sick of Dawn....bring in a chorus....;)
[> [> [> Well here's a bright thought in the whine fest.... -- Briar Rose, 01:01:18 01/08/03 Wed

We do know that LaLaine and the one playing Rhona can't be called as the new Slayer - they are both under contract to Disney (LaLaine on "Lizzy McGuire" and Rhona on "Here's Raven" or some such) and Disney makes their contracts binding for practically an actor's entire LIFE>*L
[> whining -- Flo, 20:46:39 01/07/03 Tue

I'm actually appreciating the whininess for one reason, which is that it's got me thinking about Buffy at age fifteen. Remember the scenes from Angel's flashbacks? She certainly wasn't the deepest well on the farm. Can you imagine proto-slayer Buffy among this group? I think I would have hated her the most!

SO, perhaps it's useful to see the SITs and notice how far Buffy has come along. Appropriate for a final season, yes?
[> [> Re: Buffy whining -- leslie, 09:32:20 01/08/03 Wed

Funny, I was thinking that even at her most callow, Buffy didn't whine. She was snarky, sarcastic, even bitchy, but her attitude was more "I can't bear to do this because of how painful it is, and I don't want to die," rather than "I'm scared and I can't do anything to prevent someone else from killing me." Buffy always knew that there was action she could take, but that she wanted to choose not to have to take, whereas these SITs (except for Kennedy) don't have any faith in their ability to defend themselves and want someone else to take action to save them.
[> [> [> Hey leslie -- ponygirl, 09:57:56 01/08/03 Wed

I'm awaiting the call from my bookstore to tell me my copy of Myth & Middle-Earth has arrived. Any day now!

Hope you're doing ok.
[> [> [> [> Good to see you here, Leslie -- Rahael, 10:12:02 01/08/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> Re: Hey leslie -- leslie, 12:17:51 01/08/03 Wed

Yes, I've suddenly acquired the emotional wherewithal to become obsessed with BtVS just in time for new episodes, how convenient is that?

Hope you enjoy the book. Salon.com called it "eminently readable" and said "You gotta love a writer who can find a way to work the phrase 'suicide by cop' into a book about Tolkien." Exactly the response I was aiming for.
[> What's the development in Buffy/Spike's relationship? -- Clueless Deb, 22:44:23 01/07/03 Tue

Other than they seem to have made a peace, and read each others thoughts. Did I miss something?
[> [> Y'know, I don't think -- HonorH, 23:08:28 01/07/03 Tue

they were actually communicating telepathically. I think it was a moment in which neither actually *needed* to talk. Kind of a first for them, no? They've always been very quick with their tongues with each other (and oh, my, doesn't that have a double meaning?), or not communicating when they need to. This moment, though, was one in which nothing needed to be said because they were really on the same page for once. Buffy had faith in Spike, and he had faith in her, and that faith was bolstered a thousand times by what happened. I'd say that's the real development in their relationship--trust.
[> [> [> Re: Y'know, I don't think -- Deb, 00:51:36 01/08/03 Wed

Ohhh! That's so . . . .romantic, I think. I'm just so confused (whining loudly). Actually, I do have a male friend I trust more than anyone in the world. Problem is, his wife doesn't trust us. sigh. I knew him first from when we were kids!
[> [> [> ooh, shipper getting excited -- Helen, 00:53:41 01/08/03 Wed

If they really are developing trust, could this be the beginning of Spuffy Mark II? The 15 year old in me hopes so (coz then more naked Spike he he).
Seriously, Buffy said (in Seeing Red I believe), "I have feelings for you, I do. But not love. I could never love someone I can't trust." If she now trusts him...
[> [> [> Re: Y'know, I don't think -- shadowkat, 07:02:19 01/08/03 Wed

I would agree with this assessment. The tender look exchanged - was one of relief and trust. "See I came for you." "I knew you would."

What's going on with B/S to me seems to be more interesting than a rehash of the "sexual/romantic relationship" - what's happening is the growth of a possible frienship, movement towards mutual respect, trust and possibly a little admiration? Don't know. But you don't love someone you can't admire or respect or feel comfortable enough with to share with others. To feel proud enough of to tell others this is my friend! This is my boy-friend or girl-friend! This person loves me. Buffy hasn't gotten to that point yet - she still seems ashamed of him, unable to explain why she must save him, and unable to defend him.
And unable to answer all the questions the others throw at her continuously in this episode and the ones that came before about him. With Angel and Riley - she could answer those questions. She hasn't been able to do that with Spike.

The story between Spike and Buffy fascinates me on an intellectual and emotional level. Partly because they've turned the villain into a damsel. Although I think he stopped being a true villain way back in Season 5. So i prefer to call him a fatal - which isn't exactly a villain or good guy - more of a character who sits in between the two and we don't know which way he'll or she'll go.

What hits me as interesting is the writers keep raising the same questions through Spike this year. A twist on the questions they raised the two previous seasons.

In Season 4- it was : will Spike help or hurt the SG? Will they have to stake him? Sort of like Andrew now, but Andrew isn't nearly so gripping, b/c let's face it does anyone see Andrew as a potential threat? Dawn could take on Andrew.
Spike - well he could kill demons and had the ability to
psychologically get inside their heads. But this is beside the point.

In Season 5 - it was: Will Spike try to save Buffy? Will he help the SG? Will they let him? Or will he turn against them b/c Buffy spurns him?

In Season 6: it was: well the same as Season 5. Will Spike save Buffy? will he try to hurt her?

Now in Season 7 : it's become far more complex. It's now will Spike against his wishes be used to hurt Buffy and SG?
And far more intriguing - will Buffy try to save Spike? Will Buffy and through her the SG try to help him? Should they? I find this more fascinating and suspensful than the question whether Spike will help them - we already answered that I think - in Seasons 5-first half of 7. Of course he'll help. Before he'd help because he loved Buffy and wanted her happy. Now he'll help because of his guilt and longing for forgiveness. The question is - will Buffy help Spike and will her friends trust her judgement to help her do so? First we have them finally get him out of the basement. Then we have them figure out that the First is using Spike as a sleeper and help him. Then the First grabs Spike, tortures him, and Buffy and SG figure out how to save him - while being distracted by the SIT's (who don't annoy me as much as Andrew does actually...). Something tells me the next task will be...well the chip.

Does this make him the damsel in the relationship now? Not exactly. It's more interesting than just a damsel. What it is in a sense exploring is several questions, who is redeemable? who can be saved? why should we save someone?
Can people change? Can rules be broken? Are we fated just to be one way? Can you begin to care for someone who has changed from a remorseless killer to a caring individual?
Should you? Then of course...that whole forgiveness thing.

That's why my favorite scene last night was the last one.
That moment where he discovers she is real, she is as beaten up as he is and she has come to rescue him this time, she has unbuckled his chains and is allowing him to lean on her to get out of the cave. For better or worse, Buffy decided Spike was not only worth saving but was willing to risk a great deal to do it.
[> [> [> [> Re: Y'know, I don't think -- leslie, 09:50:33 01/08/03 Wed

"Buffy hasn't gotten to that point yet - she still seems ashamed of him, unable to explain why she must save him, and unable to defend him. And unable to answer all the questions the others throw at her continuously in this episode and the ones that came before about him. With Angel and Riley - she could answer those questions. She hasn't been able to do that with Spike."

I agree with pretty much everything except the above. It isn't just Buffy who dances around explaining why they have to rescue Spike, it's Xander and Willow, too, who are in on the plan to kill the Ubervamp (the setting of which is to be an object lesson to the SITs, yes, but the purpose of which is to eliminate the watchdog guarding Spike's prison). Willow and Xander--and I think Giles and Anya as well, though they are not present at the time the plan is laid out--seem completely unquestioning of the necessity to rescue Spike. The problem is explaining the whole messy situation to a bunch of girls who have never seen anything more than a very blurry photo of a vampire, if that--how do you stop to say to them, "Okay, what you're supposed to do is kill vampires because they are soulless and evil and enemies of humankind, but every so often there are one or two who have some saving grace, and then they can be useful allies, and also quite good in the sack." The SITs are not ready for the shades of grey--they're still grappling with the concepts of black and white. What will be interesting, I think, is how the SITs react to having Spike recuperating in, I assume, the same overcrowded house as them. Is he going to get all avuncular with them, like he was with Dawn? (Are he and Dawn going to have a reconciliation, for that matter?)
[> [> [> [> [> Very good point. -- shadowkat, 09:59:45 01/08/03 Wed

Thanks for pointing that out. You're right. I was grappling with why the SG were struggling explaining this to proto-slayers and to Andrew (whose opinion they admittedly don't care that much about.).

I too will be interested to see how Spike and the protoslayers, Giles and Dawn all deal with each other in the next few episodes. I'm hoping the writers spend a little time dealing with this issue instead of skipping over it and resolving it offscreen.
[> [> [> [> [> Yea, and Whose bed is He going to sleep in? -- Spike Lover, 10:06:19 01/08/03 Wed

The poor creature is trying to recover. Will he have to sleep in the bathtub? Or be a chaperon for the girls? Heaven forbid he would have to share a space with Andrew.

(Likely he will bunk with Giles and Xander.) Darn!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Or they'll tie him up and put him back in the basement. -- Deb, 13:18:52 01/08/03 Wed

He just can't get out of Buffy's head.

Good-bye for a couple. Season 3 just arrived and I've not seen one ep. from that season.
[> [> [> Moment of silence -- Valheru, 15:40:51 01/08/03 Wed

I agree with you and SK on the final scene. Spike and Buffy communicated by body language and facial expressions; that was all they needed. After all, what would they have said?

Spike: "Buffy! You came for me. I knew you would."
Buffy: "As I knew you would be strong. I had faith in you, remember?"
Spike: "I remember. God, how I remember..."
Buffy: "Are you okay?"
Spike: "Only skin deep, luv. I'll survive. Nothin' that I haven't taken before. Nice gash on you, though."
Buffy: "You should see the other guy..."

That's nice and tidy, but none of it really needs to be said. Buffy knew Spike would be strong in "NLM" with the faith speech, just as Spike knew she had that faith. His physical condition was obvious. I'm sure they'll compare notes later, either on-screen or off, but it would have made for a rather boring ending since it's all recap to us. I'm very glad ME didn't have them say anything, since they have a recent tendency to not-show-but-tell things. Sometimes the silent moments are more powerful.

The scene reminded me a great deal of the final B/A scene in "Graduation Day," when they shared the last (or so they thought) moment together just looking at each other. They didn't need to talk, to say goodbye or that they'd write or any other of the more melodramatic conversations that their relationship usually consisted of. They communicated by their silence, and then Angel turned around and disappeared into the smoke for L.A. Not only did it signify that their relationship transcended words or physicality, but it also made for a more poignant scene.

Also look at the final scenes of "FFL" and "Intervention" between Spike and Buffy. In "FFL," Buffy asks what Spike is doing at her house, but he doesn't need to explain (especially since the shotgun in his hand was explanation enough). As she cries, Spike does ask what's wrong, but that's as verbal as it gets. The rest of the scene is communicated by actions and body language. Buffy didn't need to expound her grief for him to know it was bad, nor did Spike need to conduct a Shakespearean soliloquy to convey his change of heart.

In "Intervention," Buffy didn't have to say, "I'm really Buffy!" to announce she wasn't the 'bot, she did it with a kiss. And Spike conveyed that recognition with his manner, not his words. It was a brief moment, but it had much more impact and was more memorable than any kind of dialogue they could have had. It also made Buffy's final words seem louder, more important, than had they been tacked onto the end of an awkward exposition. "Don't. That...thing, it...it wasn't even real. What you did for me, and Dawn...that was real. I won't forget it."

I actually would have preferred more silent scenes of communication like that than the rather drawn-out conversations Spike and Buffy have had since "CWDP." For one thing, showing their feelings via their actions carries more weight than words, plus from a filmmaking standpoint, it moves the story along quicker and seem less padded.
[> [> [> [> We can all romance this scene to death -- Deb, 03:11:22 01/09/03 Thu

But I just see it as more a realization that they both survived; they both hung tough, and there is a window of time to rest and prepare for what's still coming. We got "romantic" love last season, and romantic love is illusionary and self-centered and it blinds. So, sure, have a loving, working ship, but don't read anything more into it. And I'm sorry if anyone cannot think of real thoughts that could be exchanged in this situation. Spike mentioned earlier this season that he and Buffy had been to hell and back together and that counts for something. Well it does. It's one of the most important things two people can share in this life, and it creates special bonds that we really don't have the words to describe. It is love, but not romantic. If you've never had a relationship where you knew the other was in some kind of pain or danger, without being told, even if they lived thousands of miles away, then you don't have any concept of what I am talking about. If I seem a bit pissed, I am. I have three such relationships, and one of my "loves" is headed back down the road to hell once more, and I'm right there beside her, and because we have taken this road several times before there just isn't any need to explain a thing. We are emotionally simpatica.

Spike has taken a lot of time and energy attempting to "figure" Buffy out; to understand what motivates her, to understand what she needs to feel into order to do what she must do, to see how she lines up her priorities and what things affect the changing importance of those priorities, to find that simpatica. There's nothing romotely "shippy" about that.

Buffy could speak of having to kill the "love of her life" because of her calling, but that just was evidence that Angel was not the love of her life. If he was, she would never have to say anything to anyone. Which brings this rant around to this season. Buffy doesn't say anything about Spike to anyone, and they don't have to ask because they have come to realize that there is something special going on. There is no way that they will be at part of that, so they just have to accept it as being real to Buffy.

I'm not a romantic at all, but I am extraordinairly passionate about the ones that own a piece of my heart and my soul.
[> [> [> [> [> Just one more thing -- Deb, 03:51:47 01/09/03 Thu

The common denominator when I first met these people that I am passionately involved with? They were the biggest pains-in-my-ass that ever existed, and every time I thought I was rid of them -- BAM! We were thrown right back together again and again and again. And it was always in situations that were life threatening or so, seemingly, obsurd that I did not have anyone else to talk to about what was/did happen. In fact, I had no one else that I could just sit quietly with, knowing that the other was right in the same place I was. Life wouldn't be worth living without these relationships, and there are so few. One I met when I was 17, and she used to pull her hair out when she was stressed until she had a little bald spot. When she had cancer, and all her hair fell out, I got her a selection of wigs so she still had hair to pull out of her head. I even helped her pull her hair out. After my "date-rape" she stood with me on a bridge spanning a railroad track and debated the pros and cons of jumping in front of a train versus jumping into the Missouri River, and swore that she would also do whatever method I chose, with me. I chose attempting death by consuming chocolate. We, together, failed. When she was attempting to overcome her obsession with neatness and germs, I helped her destroy our dorm room, and thus earn the "pig-sty" of the month award. When she was being abused by a "boyfriend," I kidnapped her. When she was 2,000 miles away and dying, she thanked me for being with her every night in the hospital. When my daughter was born on her birthday, I named my daughter after her. When she died a few months years later, I asked her to watch over my daughter, and when my daughter was five, she told me about her "nice-lady friend" who talked to her when she was alone and afraid. When she described her friend, it was her, my friend.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Wow. -- vh, 09:31:23 01/10/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> TimE -- Flo, 00:27:09 01/11/03 Sat

Deb --

Thanks for this. I'm finding a need to coin an abbreviation for Tears in my Eyes. Thanks for the TimE!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Wonderful -- Tchaikovsky, 06:44:29 01/12/03 Sun

And I tend to find the relationships of deep friendships on Buffy a more interesting reflection of life than the romantic relationships. Romantic love and sexual love are covered everywhere, but where else will you find a non-romantic relationship portrayed with such tenderness as Buffy and Giles, (climaxing, so far, in 'Grave')?

TCH
[> [> [> [> Would agree... -- shadowkat, 16:12:56 01/09/03 Thu

A lot of what you said reminded me of some of Whedon's reasons for doing HUSH without any dialogue - a silent movie. He mentions in his commentary that what annoyed him most about television is it is a visual form but spends most of the time watching two people talk over coffee. He swore when he did a show - it would express as much as remotely was possible visually and cinematically as opposed to the square scene of the two people talking over coffee.

Then - he found himself falling into the same trap. Ugh he thought. Too much dialogue. Two many repetitive scenes. So he challenged himself to write a show without or with as little dialogue as possible. He also made a strong comment in HUSH where often more is said without words. An odd statement for a writer to make.

A statement that is reiterated in the Body - where Buffy's one word Mommy says more than a whole speech. Or the scene where Buffy tells Dawn her mother died. Whedon had written dialogue for that scene, but he decided not to show it as written. Instead he showed the scene from the perspective of Dawn's classmates - we didn't hear a word of what buffy said, we just saw Dawn crumble and sink down the wall slowly in tears as Buffy struggled to comfort her. And in the backgroung the negative space picture Dawn was drawing.
This scene makes me sob every time - it is the most powerful scene I've seen on TV about death - and that's because it shows not tells. Whedon seems to understand the power of language - often lies in using it selectively.

People complained about the rewritten scene in Beneath You - yet that scene is so spare dialogue wise and so much more eloguent visually than the first version which was very wordy and said too much. I found it to be more moving - having read both versions.

Perhaps I'm in the camp of less is more - maybe because I often find myself using too many words to express a thought.
We often admire that which we struggle most to do. But I also think if you have a visual medium at your disposal - you should use it. If this was a book we were all reading - yes, we need the dialogue. But a movie or tv show? Show it to me visually...isn't that the point?

Good post Valheru. SK
[> [> [> [> [> I find this statement of JW 's to be ironic, Plus "There's a ship in the harbour." -- Deb -- might be x-rated depending upon your imagination., 18:40:08 01/09/03 Thu

I have spent five years watching silent film and talkies with the volume turned down, and I have watched Buffy with the volume turned down. Buffy relies much more on dialogue than almost anything I've studied. There are the exceptions as Shadowcat already mentioned, but all-in-all, the visual metaphors are ambiguous or perhaps "elitist" in that you would need to know what the connection between the signifier and signified is (verbally it is this way also.) I'm not saying that there is no visual rhetoric, but Buffy is not rich in it. Television, except advertising, isn't rich in it, and it would be really nice if JW had a writer who really understood visual rhetoric and how to communicate with it. The scripts I've seen, all the versions, don't make hardly any reference to the visual at all. The argument would be that this is up to the director, but, in reality, the screen writer today must be able to write dialogue and write visually. Some actors, JM being the best on Buffy -- perhaps because of theatre background -- seem to understand this. In fact, in watching season 4 and various other shows before season 6, he kinda reminds me of Chaplin's "Little Tramp." -- Coolmax. At times a scary "Little Tramp.".......

I'm not arguing against "silence speaks strongly" but you must view silence within the context of the action that is occurring at the time. The exact same facial expression can mean several different things when the context is understood. Telepathy is so important in 7.11, to the point that they go back and show us that telepathy is being used. Not to consider silence to be telepathy *afterward* might mean missing an important reading of the text. Buffy and Spike have verbally "poked" each other for, well for as long as Spike has been around. At the beginning of Season 7, Spike asks Buffy if they can just rest now. Well what have they been doing that they could "rest from"? Verbally poking and also touching of any kind. (Remember all those images when their hands touch? Who, exactly, had those memories and the emotional baggage that came with them?)

At the end of 7.11, they silently speak, and they do the "sideway" hug thing that is used in many cultures. This isn't "shippy" or at least how I have come to interpret "shippy". "Shippy" appears to be used most often to describe sexual intercourse that is, basically, more hurtful than loving. Kinda reminds me of Ginger playing Cleopatra on "Gilligan's Island":

"A ship! A ship! I see a ship in the harbour!"

and it carries my true love, yada, yada, yada. The "ship" is in the harbour, and Cleo is in her palace. And history tells us what happened to MA and Cleo's ship.

So when I refer to a "ship" I am thinking lusty, sweaty, highly aerobic, recreational shagging that is precluded, and interspersed, with highly tension building games with various home appliances, food, gallons of water, paraffin wax, red hots, hemp in various forms (this is optional), and power tools. Afterward, shippy sex is followed by quick showers and one person leaving while still dressing, calling over the shoulder that s/he will call, and the other person mumbling into their pillow, "Yeah. Whenever. Oh, and lock the door when you leave!"

I want something that doesn't float, something with roots. I think I want a tree: A tree with deep roots and many rings. This is not to say that ships are to be totally avoided. They serve a short-term purpose in which one must remember that this is not serious play and one or the other is going to deflate the ship and sink it one day. But ships are rated well above what Andrew refers to as "his joystick hand."

If someone else defines "ship" differently, then please share, but what I've read I interpret as the above.
[> [> [> [> [> [> By your definition, B/A was not a ship. -- Sophist, 18:58:26 01/09/03 Thu

Nor would W/O or W/T qualify in the full sense of your definition. I think it has to be broader than you suggest.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Since I have just begun to watch season 3 -- Deb, 22:22:17 01/09/03 Thu

You are probably right. I don't count first loves as anything but "first loves" or loving what you see in the mirror. When they end, one learns that s/he is not self. Some people never stop looking for themselves in ships, which is why they are in ships.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> W/O that first love thing, W/T a tree -- Deb, 22:25:26 01/09/03 Thu

How would you define a "ship" as used by most posters on various fan boards? I'm really curious about this.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Being a shipper -- Helen, 01:47:34 01/10/03 Fri

I always thought being a shipper meant feeling emotionally invested in a relationship on a show. I was a major Buffy/Angel shipper in that I wanted them to get together, wanted them to make a go of it and was upset (but in that enjoyable way, like watching the end of Romeo & Juliet)when they parted. Same with Willow and Oz. And Anya-Xander. Never really liked Xander until he was with Anya, she brought out the best in him I think.
Fantasy ships are also possible - relationships which have not occurred but which we wish we could see, if the characters were puppets in OUR sock puppet theatre instead of Joss's. Such as Spike and Angel. Or Giles and just about anyone (Tabula Rasa got me very excited, but not in a sex way).

Anyways, is this not what is meant by a ship? Have I got this completely wrong?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Like you, I think of it as being a fan of a relation 'ship' -- Rahael, 01:53:35 01/10/03 Fri

I've never really heard it used to denote the quality or maturity of the said ship. Though I suppose if you were a hardcore shipper of any ship to the point where you stopped watching the show or hated any new ship because of it, it might denote a kind of viewing relationship with the show!!

Myself, I used to be a C/Angel shipper in the early days of BtVS and more recently a G/Anya on BtVS. On AtS? Lilah/Wesley. As you can see, these ship preferences have nothing to do with the Big Romantic Love or what kind of relationship they may have. After all, the Wes/Lilah ship is solely based on the fact that I have Lilah as my MtP pic and d'Herblay is Wesley. Buffy is my favourite character and I've never shipped her with anybody. My focus on her is total, as a strong individual, and all her relationships just expose aspects of who she is.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rahael, something bizarre has happened to the thread -- Helen, 01:59:55 01/10/03 Fri

I can see your lovely reply when I open my own message, but I can't see it on the main thread? Have we created our own worm hole thread universe? That would be exciting.

BTW, do you have Sky - I thought we were due to get a re-run of Grave, but we got Afterlife instead. Not that I mind, I think its a much better ep. Can't wait for next week - Lessons!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I have Sky at work, not at home -- Rahael, 02:18:06 01/10/03 Fri

at least for the moment. I'm moving out in the next millenium or so. My future flatmate keeps tempting me to get a cable package by saying "you can watch BtVS and AtS on it", though the lustre of that argument gets reduced by the fact this is the last season! So, I guess Joss Whedon finally broke down my resistance to giving money to Rupert Murdoch.

Oh well, she wants to get it for old movies, and that's something we can enjoy together (she is not a fan of BtVS.) I laughed when Arethusa posted about friends who disapproved of BtVS. I should have mentioned that my friend also does for precisely the same reasons. Only, she loves fiction and is partial to the odd SF movie or so. (See? And people think I'm intolerant of those who disagree with me, LOL).

As for Lessons, KdS and myself are watching it at Yaby's place - we're all in London. Looking forward to that!

Re Bizarre thread appearance - I've had that happen to me to every now and then - try refreshing the main page, and my reply will turn up!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Being a shipper -- shadowkat, 21:31:14 01/11/03 Sat

I always thought being a shipper meant feeling emotionally invested in a relationship on a show. I was a major Buffy/Angel shipper in that I wanted them to get together, wanted them to make a go of it and was upset (but in that enjoyable way, like watching the end of Romeo & Juliet)when they parted. Same with Willow and Oz. And Anya-Xander. Never really liked Xander until he was with Anya, she brought out the best in him I think.

This is me too, to a "t". Entirely agree. As I told some friends recently - I really only get involved in the relationship when the writers take me there. I loved B/A - was sad when they parted in I WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER YOU and was happy for B/R. B/R didn't bug me at all - thought it was cool. I got tired of it when the writers did in Season 5 and was totally in the moment when Riley told Xander - she didn't love him.
I didn't go to B/S until well Intervention and she kissed him - again when the writers took me there and I certainly didn't expect more. I was the same with Willow - I rooted for W/X until Willow found Oz and Xander found Cordy...I liked W/X when they got together finally, but understood why Will choose OZ and Xander tried to go back to Cordy and finally fell for Anya. I've been X/A since. I had no troubles switching to W/T in Hush...and now have no problems with a W/K if they go there. If the writers build it right - I'm there. IF it makes sense and drives the characters forward - it works for me. Also helps if the actors and characters have on-screen chemistry. Btvs IMHO actually has been better at this then ATs recently.

Ats - I had no problem seeing Wes fall for Fred or Wes and Lilah - totally works. Also no problem seeing Connor want Cordy...but Cordy go for Connor? Didn't work for me. No problem seeing Angel go for Kate or Darla...but have problems seeing him with Cordy for some reason..also Fred and Gunn, didn't work for me until very recently - possibly Supersymmetry, maybe just before. Not sure why, but for some reason Cordy's romantic relationships in Ats never work for me - it's really the only one struggling with at the moment.

So - I guess the writers are doing their job for me - pulling me in, making me care about what they want me to, and pulling the correct emotions from me.

Never been much into the fantasy ships - although slash fanfiction is real fun to read. Actually i like reading some of the fantasy ships in the fanfics - but that's an entirely different thing.

Not sure if any of that makes me a "shipper" per se.

SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My understanding is the same as Helen's and Rah's -- Sophist, 09:05:04 01/10/03 Fri

Any romantic pair constitutes a relationship, so all the pairings I mentioned are "ships", regardless of their intensity or the amount of sex we see. My imagination did appreciate your description of what a ship should involve, though. :)

Personally, I'm a Rah/d'H shipper.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOLOL -- Rahael, 09:30:05 01/10/03 Fri

I'm pretty sure that we're going to have a better track record than our pictorial alter egos. There's the whole lack of eeeevil for one!

Side note - my liking for Lilah sky rocketed in the ep where she and Cordy bond over the fact they are vicious bitches. Happy sigh!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Me too -- vh, 09:44:11 01/10/03 Fri

Yep. Funny, I was on another board recently and gave the same explanation to a young fan . . .

Ditto for Rah/d'H, BTW . . .

;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Diehard Rah/d'H shipper here; thank God you're not on a JW show.... -- cjl, 10:35:52 01/10/03 Fri

If one of you turned evil and tried to destroy the world, I just know you'd start with everybody on the board....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> hehehehe. I have this little list all prepared. -- Rahael, 10:58:12 01/10/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: hehehehe. I have this little list all prepared. -- yabyumpan, 12:07:02 01/12/03 Sun

O-kay....well...um....I've er just remembered a prior arrangment for next thursday, so I'll er... be out...no offence...bye....

(yikes, that was a close shave, although I did have my suspicions with the whole 'lets meet up' thing. Been feeling strange ever since and I've developed this weird tic.... How are you doing KdS?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A strange string of deaths baffles Interpol. -- Arethusa, 11:26:04 01/10/03 Fri

All over the world, a seemilngly unconnected series of murders plagues the finest police minds. A teacher here, an editor there, even a few harmless mothers. What could they possibly have in common? It might be an occult conspiracy, since the only common link is a few vampire-related bookmarks on their computers. The only clues: a book of poetry dropped at one of the scenes of the crimes, and a message scrawled in blood at another crime scene:

I DID IT. (SIGNED, W. E. HENLEY)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> dying laughing. -- Rahael, 11:36:34 01/10/03 Fri

This is too perfect on so many levels. I'm a Vicious Bitch, and dH has a secret identification with Spike (no, he really does. He even wears a leather coat because of him!). Strangely enough, his real name is Andrew. Make of that what you will. Together, we will wreak stylish, fiendish cunning havoc on the world of AtPO ;)
[> [> Uh oh, anti-Spuffies...she gave him the Watery Eyes of Compassion -- cjl, 07:32:51 01/08/03 Wed

And you know what that means. Next, she'll give him the Upward Gaze of Adoration, and we'll be hip-deep in Spuffy Mark II.

But shadowkat is right, as usual. This season's Spike/Buffy dance is more interesting by half than last year's. Rather than questioning souled Spike's motivations, we're solidly behind the Shirtless Wonder as he tries to do the right thing. But what if he CAN'T? What if he is what he is--a demon--and all of his attempts to act on his newfound soul will go for naught? Will he hurt Buffy and the Scoobs despite all of his efforts otherwise?
[> [> [> Or was it the Solemn yet Empathetic Gaze of Compassion? -- Arethusa, 08:50:39 01/08/03 Wed

Okay, this is probably nonsense, but I'm getting a vibe here, and it's not a romantic vibe. I's a Justice League vibe. So far this season we're seeing the Scoobies' faith in themselves and their abilities being tested. It's too late in the game for doubt or backsliding, and now the Scoobies are gaining self-confidence, finding the parameters of their abilities, and strengthing their ties to each other. Perhaps that's why we are getting so many points of view this year-the audience needs to be shown how each Scooby is moving from the mess they were at the end of Season 6 to a powerful, cohesive unit that is able to take out the source of evil. And I can see the series ending with a power shot of all the Scoobies standing side by side, strong and confident and united, and undefeatable.

Re Spike-it's much more important for Buffy's growth that she learns to trust men, and deal with a man who doesn't leave, than it is for her to be in a relationship, so that is probably where they are headed. Maybe.

Just my ante in the Kitty of Speculation in the poker game known as BtVS.
[> [> [> [> Nah. It was the Unfocused Hooded Stare of Impending Lust ;) -- ponygirl (hehe), 09:26:30 01/08/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> Yeah, baby! -- Rob (doing a terrible Austin Powers impression), 09:48:53 01/08/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> Hey! To the Victor Go the Spoils, Baby! -- Spike Lover, 10:13:24 01/08/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> lol! -- vh, 09:46:33 01/10/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> This may result in my credentials being revoked . . . -- Sarand, 09:39:06 01/08/03 Wed

and in my being considered too dumb to post here, if not too dumb to live, but could someone please explain the "Justice League" reference to me? Without too much derisive laughter. Thanks.
[> [> [> [> [> This sounds like a job for the Geek Patrol! -- cjl, 09:56:18 01/08/03 Wed

OK, here we go. The Justice League is a comic book (and recently, an animated TV series) combining the superstars of the DC Comics universe (Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, the Flash, Wonder Woman, and others) in multiverse-spanning adventures battling villains awe-inspiring and malevolent enough to be worthy of their combined talents.

The Justice League comic (and TV series) usually makes the point that, even though these are distinct individuals, very often with different ideas on how the battle against evil should be fought (esp. Batman), they overcome their differences and combine their unique talents to become a devastating fighting force. Success is built on:

1. Teamwork
2. Teamwork
3. Teamwork
4. Good writing and slick artwork.

Frankly, I think the Scoobies have more of a Marvel vibe (the X-Men or the Avengers) than DC. But that's another level of geekdom entirely.

Andrew's reference to the shapeshifting Imperium (I believe) referred to the JL cartoon series. I don't get cable. Was it, you know, cool?
[> [> [> Unless Buffy is in heels, just about everyone gets an upward gaze, adoration optional....;) -- Rufus, 00:45:28 01/11/03 Sat

Life's a Show.........spoilers for Buffy 7.11 "Showtime" -- Rufus, 22:49:56 01/07/03 Tue

It looks like I liked this episode better than some. I have my reasons and it is all about continuity. Showtime seems to have confused some as to why this episode now, the best answer is that they needed to establish a few things to move on to the next level.

For those who thought the Uber Vamp ended up being fairly easy to kill....well that's the point. The Uber Vamp is a minion, and minions tend to be killable. Every monster that has seemed un stoppable has had it's weakness, even a god, and the Uber Vamp. Buffy said it best....

Buffy: LOOKS GOOD, DOESN'T IT? THEY'RE TRAPPED IN HERE, TERRIFIED,
MEAT FOR THE BEAST, AND THERE'S NOTHING THEY CAN DO BUT WAIT.
THAT'S ALL THEY'VE BEEN DOING FOR DAYS, WAITING TO BE PICKED OFF,
HAVING NIGHTMARES ABOUT MONSTERS THAT CAN'T BE KILLED. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT. I ALWAYS FIND A WAY. I'M THE THING THAT MONSTERS HAVE
NIGHTMARES ABOUT, AND RIGHT NOW, YOU AND ME ARE GONNA SHOW 'EM WHY.
IT'S TIME. WELCOME TO THUNDERDOME.

Good and Evil....it's always there, but one truth remains, you can't totally destroy either and that will be what makes the difference at the end of this season. So, is Giles evil? Is Giles human? Or, is Giles and his not touching of anyone or anything just a mislead? I have to wonder why an evil guy would go into a dark dimension to question Beljoxa's eye..

Beljoxa's Eye: IT CANNOT BE FOUGHT. IT CANNOT BE KILLED.
THE FIRST EVIL HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE SINCE BEFORE
THE UNIVERSE WAS BORN, LONG AFTER THERE IS NOTHING ELSE.
IT WILL GO ON.

Giles: I REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT! THERE MUST BE SOME WAY
TO DESTROY IT!

Beljoxa's Eye: WHAT AM I, TALKING TO MYSELF HERE? THERE'S NO WAY.

Anya: OK, WE TRIED! LET'S GO, GILES!

Giles: YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE FIRST WILL SUCCEED IN--IN WIPING OUT
THE LINE OF SLAYERS?!

Beljoxa's Eye: THE EYE SEES NOT THE FUTURE, ONLY THE TRUTHS OF THE NOW AND BEFORE.

Anya: YES, WE'VE ALL GOT THAT! IT'S CALLED MEMORY! CAN YOU HELP US OUT
WITH SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE DEMONY?!

Giles: IF THE FIRST HAS BEEN AROUND FOR ALL TIME, THEN WHY HASN'T IT ATTEMPTED SOMETHING LIKE THIS BEFORE?! WHY NOW?!

Beljoxa's Eye: THE OPPORTUNITY HAS ONLY RECENTLY PRESENTED ITSELF.

Giles: OPPORTUNITY?!

Beljoxa's Eye: THE MYSTICAL FORCES SURROUNDING THE CHOSEN LINE
HAVE BECOME IRREVOCABLY ALTERED, BECOME UNSTABLE, VULNERABLE.

Anya: SOMETHING THE FIRST DID?!

Beljoxa's Eye: THE FIRST EVIL DID NOT CAUSE THE DISRUPTION, ONLY SEIZED UPON IT TO EXTINGUISH THE LIVES OF THE CHOSEN FOREVER.

Giles: THEN WHAT HAS CAUSED THE DISRUPTION?! WHAT--WHAT IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR LETTING THIS HAPPEN?!

Beljoxa's Eye: THE SLAYER.


So, if the disruption is the Slayer.....which Slayer, there are two...and if it's Buffy, how do they deal with the disruption? She didn't cause it, and she is trying to deal with the results of the magic Willow used to bring her back, and a lot of girls have died in the mean time. Is the disruption Willow's magic as Giles thinks or could there be another disruption....such as some Monks mouding a key, giving it form, making it human and sending it to the Slayer?
I have to throw in my favorite throwaway line of the night.....it was at the motel...

Buffy: HELLO?! IT'S OK. WE'RE FRIENDLY, AND WE HAVE EYES.


To get an idea of where the show is headed you only have to look at the dialogue...

Willow: JUST WATCH. IT'S SHOWTIME.

I found that interesting that it was Willow that said that line given it was also a line used by Sweet in OMWF. Willow has been the one who wore a costume and get stage-fright, so suddenly she is the one to introduce the life that is show in the Buffyverse

BUFFY: Life's a show
And we all play our parts
And when the music starts
We open up our hearts.
It's all right
If some things come out wrong
We'll sing a happy song
And you can sing along.


Where there's life There's hope
Every day's A gift
Wishes can Come true
Whistle while You work
So hard All day To be like other girls.
To fit in in this glittering world. Don't give me songs.
Don't give me songs.

Give me something to sing about.
I need something to sing about.
Life's a song
You don't get to rehearse.
And every single verse
Can make it that much worse.
Still my friends
Don't know why I ignore
The million things or more
I should be dancing for.

All the joy
Life sends
Family
And friends
All the twists
And bends
Knowing that
It ends
Well that
Depends

On if they let you go
On if they know enough to know
That when you've bowed
You leave the crowd.


Back to spirals...again. Last year was one of indecision, angst, and some foolish mistakes...no one knew their part and felt powerless to change the direction of their individual "shows". This year we can see just how far they have come....Xander has a decent job and has quietly contributed when it counts (breaking contact with First and Willow, saving Dawn) he understands his part, he may still feel insecure, but he is still there. Willow became the Big Bad, thinking that the only way to direct the show was to destroy everything....and Buffy, well she was screwing a vampire and dreaming of the heaven she lost. Now, Willow may feel fear but she is using powers (telepathy) that had already been established as those she could control. Buffy is now a mentor at school and now to the new Slayers in Training...she is speaking to them as an adult who has mastered her fear and found a way to live a life as well as be a Slayer.

Eve = first woman = first.....that was a fairly easy one to spot. Eve, or the First reminded me of every poster who comes online to bitch about the show being lame or stupid. But look a bit closer and a realization sets in....the First has rules it has to follow just like everyone else or it wouldn't feel the need to spy on Buffy. In the cave with Spike and the Turok Han, it says kill them all except "her"...I wonder who the her is?

Now to Andrew....he has taken Spikes place as the person Buffy rolls her eyes at. Andrew is the one that is at a place similar to the one Spike was at when he started trying to fit in with the Scoobies (don't take this to mean that Buffy will sleep with him). Andrew follows the leader, and this time the leader is Buffy....will he betray her now that he is untied or will just being around the right type of influence make a difference? For those who wonder if Andrew can be "redeemed"...I say yes..through his interactions with heroes, Andrew can very well become more than the nerd/geek that he has been. He just has to prove he has talents that will shine through the language he speaks but noone understands.

Spike....he didn't have a shirt on...again, I doubt there will be many complaints, and his shirtless state does fit the captive tied to a stone wall motif. He is a bit of a wild card, the First said something that I think we have to remember..

First as Dru: BUT YOU FORGOT...I SAY WHAT YOU TELL AND WHAT YOU KNOW. I SAY WHEN THIS IS OVER. AND I'M NOT DONE WITH YOU YET. NOT NEARLY.

Those words from Bring on the Night trouble me as I have to wonder just how much residual control the First will retain over Spike? It's clear he has changed since getting a soul back and he also has a determination that may work for him. From Lessons on we can see just how much control he has to use to decern which reality is real. I think he is beginning to be able to tell the difference between the FE and Buffy...

First as Buffy: [CHUCKLES] TSK. DREAMING OF ME AGAIN, AREN'T YOU?
POOR SPIKE. HE STILL THINKS I BELIEVE IN HIM. BE REALISTIC.
I DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN MYSELF. AT LEAST NOT ENOUGH TO RISK MY SKIN
TO SAVE YOUR ASS. NOT ENOUGH TO FACE...THAT.[Turok han wanders into view and out again] [GROWLS] I'M SORRY, SPIKE, BUT YOU NEED
TO ACCEPT THIS. YOU KNOW IT NEVER WOULD HAVE WORKED OUT. IT'S TIME TO LET GO SO WE CAN BOTH MOVE ON. I PROMISE, SOON, IT'LL ALL BE--

Spike: [MUTTERING] SHE WILL COME FOR ME. SHE WILL COME FOR ME. SHE WILL COME...FOR...SHE WILL COME FOR...SHE WILL COME...SHE WILL COME FOR ME.
SHE...WILL COME FOR ME.

First as Buffy: NO, I WON'T.

Buffy did come for Spike, but is it only because she needs a strong soldier? She believes in who Spike has become, the man who fought his monster, and he believed she would come for him. It's a start. Will Buffy's belief in Spike make the difference at a pivotal point or will she live or die to regret not dusting him long ago?

Showtime may not end up being my favorite episode but it got the job done, it established Buffy as someone the Slayers in Training could look up to, and trust as protector. Buffy has also started a war, wasn't her idea but things can only fall apart, but only so far before someone or something can claim victory.

Buffy: LOOK, I KNOW YOU'RE ALL SCARED. YOU KNOW WHAT? I AM, TOO,
BUT GILES AND ANYA WILL BE BACK SOON, AND HOPEFULLY, THEY WILL
HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO STOP THE FIRST. IN THE MEANTIME,
WE NEED TO STICK TOGETHER. OK, WE'RE STRONGER THAT WAY. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO FALL APART NOW.

Andrew: SHE'S RIGHT. WHERE WOULD THE JUSTICE LEAGUE HAVE BEEN IF THEY HADN'T PUT THEIR DIFFERENCES ASIDE TO STOP THE IMPERIUM AND HIS SHAPE-SHIFTING ALIEN HORDE?

Andrew is right(he did kill way less people than Spike), it will be in putting aside differences, prejudices and working together, not falling apart where strength will come from. I know some didn't like the telepathy called it lame, but look more closely, the First couldn't hear it. Never knew that the Turok Han was going to become a learning aid.

Buffy: SEE? DUST. JUST LIKE THE REST OF 'EM. I DON'T KNOW
WHAT'S COMING NEXT, BUT I DO KNOW IT'S GONNA BE JUST LIKE THIS--
HARD... PAINFUL. BUT IN THE END, IT'S GONNA BE US. IF WE ALL DO OUR PART, BELIEVE IT, WE'LL BE THE ONES LEFT STANDING.
HERE ENDETH THE LESSON.

And who says Buffy never got anything of value from Spike's lesson in Fool for Love? And for those who were sick of listening to a whiny Dawn....the writers heard you and answered your call for relief....I bet you wish you never complained...;)
[> What if -- Deb, 23:00:08 01/07/03 Tue

The Slayer referred to as causing a weakness in the line is Faith? She is in prison, right? Not really busy doing Slayerish stuff there I guess. That leaves all the SITs vulnerable. Humm. I need to do a little research.
[> [> I disagre. It's Dawn! -- luvthistle1, 03:00:28 01/08/03 Wed

..Faith had been in jail since season 4. there has been "Two" slayer at one time since season 4 , or earlier (what season was Kendra in? season 2) But that never brought about the first evil. the eye said "something surrounding the slayer had be alter. I believe the problem might lie within the Spell , Willow used., or the one the monks used.


It's Spike- no. he is not the only vampire with a soul. I do not believe him being re soul cause the problem. But what about what he said to the cave demon? "to give the slayer what she deserve" . Question: What do the slayer deserve?



It's Faith- the only thing she did was "transfer her powers to Buffy in season 3 to fight the mayor. That was sometime ago. I do not think that would start affecting them now. it's not Faith.


It's Willow's spell- In the spell she ask for the warrior of the people to be sent over. What else? If Buffy powers are rooted in Darkness. maybe that what Willow brought over.


It's Dawn- she was made with slayer blood (supposedly) there is a chance she could be a "sit", by default. But Dawn is also the Key. an immortal green energy ball. If she is call, all fe have to do is change her back into the key...ending the slayer line. The "her" the first could have been referring to could be "Dawn". If the Ubervamp were to kill all the slayer until Dawn is activated. and than "Poof" key. no more slayers. I believe it's Dawn



It's Buffy- in Restless, the scoobies appear to have been stalk and killed by the first slayer. But , in Restless Giles never called it the "first slayer", he calls it "the first. The scoobies were trying to get in touch with the "source" of Buffy's slayer's powers. suppose that source was the first evil? Dracula said that Buffy powers were rooted in Darkness, and each time Buffy had die, she came back "darker". she could be changing. or drawing her power from the whole slayer line, which would weaken the slayer line.


Buffy is the first- In "Afterlife" something came back with Buffy, suppose the first evil is inside her (like that thing inside of Willow)If her powers come from it, and Willow spell was off, that she might had receive more that just a sunburn.
[> [> [> Re: I disagree. It's Dawn! -- Cleanthes, 05:48:57 01/08/03 Wed

Do I understand your suggestion is that Dawn is the "ultimate" Slayer-in-training? So the First doesn't want to kill all the SITs, just all but Dawn, at which point Faith is offed and Dawn, by virtue of her magical creation from Buffy, becomes Slayer and this destroys or perversely mis-activates the key?

I like this.
[> [> [> [> Plus -- verdantheart, 06:37:51 01/08/03 Wed

I agree; I really think there's something up with the whole Dawn/key thing.

But the First is really fixated on Spike and kept him around and wanted to turn him around. I'd really like to know why that was so important.
[> [> [> [> [> Watch Amends from Season 3 -- Rufus, 11:29:12 01/08/03 Wed

The First wanted Angel as well, wanted to turn him back into Angelus, and then was satisfied to let him kill himself if he wouldn't cooperate. I think that as the First has to follow certain rules it is a force that uses fear or seduction to get people or demons to do what it wants. It's all about corruption, bringing out the worst in everyone it touches....I guess it takes pride in it's "job". Spike pissed it off, didn't do what was expected by trying to find himself, trying to do the right thing like her (Buffy). Seduction didn't work and torture didn't work, so what's left? Now all we have to do is find out why the First is taking advantage of this disruption, what it really wants.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ah! Season 3 just arrived. I'll go watch all the shows!!!!! -- Deb, 13:08:55 01/08/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, I see, the First, can't stand to just write off a loss? -- vh, 09:16:54 01/10/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, I see, the First, can't stand to just write off a loss? -- vh, 09:18:28 01/10/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> actually,. -- luvthistle1, 07:42:47 01/08/03 Wed

the first would more than likely change Dawn back into (green energy ball) the key. Considering the key is immortal, if the FE was to turn her back into HER key form, it would make her inactive. therefore no new slayer can be call ..Ever! ending the slayer line.
[> agree w/ Rufus and Deb.... Plus! -- Briar Rose, 00:51:28 01/08/03 Wed

Rufus, you could be very correct about that little Monk Mojo thing as well - hadn't occured to me, and you are brilliant!

As Deb stated, Faith is actually another possible "messed up the Slayer line" as well as Buffy. I wrote more on that all above, couldn't wait! But am so glad that others stated what I was thinking, so I don't feel so mad anymore. :)
[> [> Is that "mad" as in crazy or as in "angry"? ; ) -- Deb, 00:54:11 01/08/03 Wed

[> [> [> Starkers, raving lunacy and howling nutz.*L -- Briar Rose (up late too.), 01:02:32 01/08/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> Thank God! You had me worried there for a moment. ; ) -- Deb, 12:50:10 01/08/03 Wed

[> Andrew.....spoilers for Buffy 7.11 "Showtime" -- Darby, 05:31:11 01/08/03 Wed

Is it possible that the FE's control of Spike can be passed to his victims, especially those of weak or compromised minds?

Is Andrew the Annoying One the new sleeper agent, and has been since Spike bit him? He does seem to like to talk about following, and secret agents.

We've also maybe learned another valuable lesson. When the First accesses the dead. is its knowledge limited to their knowledge at the time of their death (plus whatever it knows otherwise)? Eve could have been a method to demoralize Buffy's army, but it seemed more for intelligence-gathering that Andrew couldn't do (he was still ties up at that point).
[> Hmmm some interesting points -- shadowkat, 09:00:35 01/08/03 Wed

(For my own complete impressions - read my post below. As you can tell I also liked this episode better than some for many of the reasons you suggest.)

For those who thought the Uber Vamp ended up being fairly easy to kill....well that's the point. The Uber Vamp is a minion, and minions tend to be killable. Every monster that has seemed un stoppable has had it's weakness, even a god, and the Uber Vamp. Buffy said it best....

I agree with this assessment. I think this reiterates the theme that we can face and slay our own demons, our monsters. Face our fears and not let them conquer us as they did some of the proto-slayers. Buffy makes sure they see it - so she can show them that they too can conquer their fears. If she'd done it off stage or away from them, they would have made it out to be a mystical impossible feat that she alone could do. She has to prove otherwise. Remember these girls had never seen a vampire before. Some didn't even quite believe in it.

So, if the disruption is the Slayer.....which Slayer, there are two...and if it's Buffy, how do they deal with the disruption? She didn't cause it, and she is trying to deal with the results of the magic Willow used to bring her back, and a lot of girls have died in the mean time. Is the disruption Willow's magic as Giles thinks or could there be another disruption....such as some Monks mouding a key, giving it form, making it human and sending it to the Slayer?

My gut tells me it's Buffy not Faith for many of the reasons the others have suggested. Buffy has disrupted the balance more than once actually.

1. Season 1 - Xander revived her and she came back stronger than ever, killed the Master and disrupted the prophecy.
2. Season 2 - she slept with Angel, caused him to lose his soul, so instead of saving the world as Whistler/Powers that Be intended and becoming a champion - Angel becomes Angelus and tries to end it, Buffy has to stop him. As Whistler remarks - "we never saw you coming."
3. Season 3 - Instead of Faith becoming the new slayer, Faith joins up with the Mayor, feels displaced, and almost dies. Buffy defeats the Mayor. (It's already been established in Season 2, What's My Line Part II, with Kendra that because Buffy died - she is now outside the line of selection, whether she lives or dies means nothing anymore regarding who gets selected next. This is reiterated by the way in Bargaining Part I - that's part of the reason Willow felt they needed to bring her back - it was either that or kill Faith and get a new slayer.)
4. In Season 4 - Buffy joins with her friends to invoke the spirit of the First Slayer - a mystical experiment that Giles realizes could have dire results. The results come about in Restless. The First Slayer is a bit peeved at having Buffy join with others to defeat the big bad. This breaks the rules. It tells her and her friends this in their dreams.
5. In Season 5 - Buffy defies the fates by killing herself instead of her sister Dawn - whose very existence has altered everyone's reality in unknowable ways. If it weren't for Buffy - Dawn would not exist - they made Dawn from Buffy. Dawn is not only Buffy's sister but also partially her child or other self, otherwise Buffy would not have been able to close the dimensions with her blood.
Giles and the Knights, the ones following the rules - tell Buffy she has to kill Dawn. But Buffy breaks the rules again, defies fate and goes another way. First she uses a vampire to try and protect Dawn (someone who doesn't care about rules, only pleasing her) and then when that doesn't work - she sacrifices herself, knowing he'll keep the others from hurting her sister.
6. In Season 6 - Buffy returns from the Dead, another way to defeat fate. Her return does NOT in any way change the calling of the next slayer. She jumped outside that in Prophecy Girl. Only Faith's death changes that. Buffy has jumped outside the province of the First Evil, The Powers,
The First Slayer...she has become something else. She is no longer held within the boundaries of the infinite game. Angel is still within those boundaries. Buffy jumped outside of them. Buffy's existence has in essence become existential. Her own. This depresses her at first, but she eventually grabs strength from it and power. And doing so causes another rule to be broken - a vampire actively seeks and gains a soul.

I'd say that all of those events are a disruption in the mystical boundaries. All break rules. Not just the creation of Dawn but all of it together. My gut tells me Dawn may not be as important as we all think. Buffy is the important one. I could be wrong on this of course. It just seems a little redundant to make this about Dawn again - did that in Season 5?

Eve = first woman = first.....that was a fairly easy one to spot. Eve, or the First reminded me of every poster who comes online to bitch about the show being lame or stupid. But look a bit closer and a realization sets in....the First has rules it has to follow just like everyone else or it wouldn't feel the need to spy on Buffy. In the cave with Spike and the Turok Han, it says kill them all except "her"...I wonder who the her is?

Again I still think this is Buffy not necessarily Dawn.
Why? Because the ubervamp keeps avoiding killing her. It holds back. The first time it held back was in the warehouse. The second time - it ignored Buffy and went after all her friends. For some reason the FE doesn't want to kill Spike or Buffy. Why? It's not through with them yet.
They broke the rules of the game. They jumped outside of the boundaries on more than one occassion.

1. Becoming - Spike helps Buffy save the world from Angelus
They make a truce. That is against the rules. Vamps kill slayers remember? Dru can barely handle being with him after that. Buffy also slept with Angel - creating Angelus. It was supposed to be Angel who saved the world.

2. The Gift - Spike helped Buffy again. Why do you care, I don't smell a soul on you? hisses Doc. I made a promise to a lady. Buffy gives her life also, instead of killing Dawn.

3. Grave - Spike gets a soul. Buffy climbs out of her Grave and agrees to teach Dawn how to fight demons.

Buffy broke the rules ages ago, by allowing Willow and Xander to join with her in her task. The Slayer is supposed to act alone, remember?

Now to Andrew....he has taken Spikes place as the person Buffy rolls her eyes at. Andrew is the one that is at a place similar to the one Spike was at when he started trying to fit in with the Scoobies (don't take this to mean that Buffy will sleep with him). Andrew follows the leader, and this time the leader is Buffy....will he betray her now that he is untied or will just being around the right type of influence make a difference? For those who wonder if Andrew can be "redeemed"...I say yes..through his interactions with heroes, Andrew can very well become more than the nerd/geek that he has been. He just has to prove he has talents that will shine through the language he speaks but noone understands.

Hmmm not sure I agree on Andrew. I'm thinking he may be the sacrificial character. Of course I dislike the character - so that could be clouding my judgement. OTOH perhaps they will redeem him in some way...a small one? Don't know. Right now he seems to be the teller of uncomfortable truths and asker of uncomfortable questions - like Cordy, Anya and Spike have been in the past. He actually reminds me of all three of these characters as well as an early Wesely.

Spike....he didn't have a shirt on...again, I doubt there will be many complaints, and his shirtless state does fit the captive tied to a stone wall motif. He is a bit of a wild card, the First said something that I think we have to remember..

First as Dru: BUT YOU FORGOT...I SAY WHAT YOU TELL AND WHAT YOU KNOW. I SAY WHEN THIS IS OVER. AND I'M NOT DONE WITH YOU YET. NOT NEARLY.

Those words from Bring on the Night trouble me as I have to wonder just how much residual control the First will retain over Spike? It's clear he has changed since getting a soul back and he also has a determination that may work for him. From Lessons on we can see just how much control he has to use to decern which reality is real. I think he is beginning to be able to tell the difference between the FE and Buffy...

I do wish people would stop commenting on his lack of a shirt. Come on. They do this with all the male romantic leads or the men with good chests on these shows. Riley spent a good portion of Season 4 and 5 with his shirt off.
Angel spent a good portion of Season 2 -3 with his off.
It wasn't until he got his own show that the shirt stayed on. Don't know why it bugs people so much.

I think Spike has broken the First' influence over him.
We see this in the dunking of the water and his refusal to give in to it's torments. This is a big change over Lessons where he is literally being driven insane and can't tell which are figments and which aren't. Now he knows. Even then he was somewhat able to discern the difference. And he's never been completely within the First' control. If he was - then he wouldn't have helped the SG as many times as he has this year nor would he have messed up the First' plans in Sleeper or Never Leave Me. The First seems quite fed up with him in fact.

In Lessons - when Buffy asks if he is real. He laughs then reaches to touch her to see if she in fact is the real one and not a figment.

In Selfless - he admits he can't trust what he sees and as if to demonstrate the accuracy of this statement, he sees two Buffy's.

In HIM - he pulls himself together enough to help them and bonds with Xander a bit in the process. Possibly causing Xander to figure out that Spike is being controlled and to realize that Spike won't hurt Anya in Sleeper and Never Leave Me. Also in Help - he pulls himself together long enough to help Buffy and Cassie.

In Sleeper - he is able to find out for himself whether he's been actually hurting people. He admits what he did to Buffy. He resists Anya's charms. (Poor Anya really can't give it away anymore can she?) And he stops himself from hurting Buffy - from biting her as the First desires in the basement, instead of tantalizing him, her blood wakes him up and causes him to remember, memories that revolt him just as Dracula and memories of the first slayer revolted Buffy in Buffy vs. Dracula. Worried he asks Buffy to kill him, but she doesn't. She sees a change. It's not an illusion. It's there. But he has to keep fighting.

The difference between Spike and Andrew here - is Andrew isn't fighting anyone, he just goes with the flow. Anything to protect his own skin. He clearly cares about no one but Andrew. As Buffy states - "when have you done anything good?" Spike on the other hand - in Season 4 - could at least point to Becoming. In Season 6 - to the Gift and OMWF.
In Season 7 - to Help, Him, and even to some degree to STSP.
But Andrew doesn't ask that - instead he asks that same old time worn question -"I haven't hurt as many people as he did. So don't I have a better chance?"

(Again it's hard for me to be objective here, since the character of Andrew has always squicked me.)

No - I think the suspense here is NOT the same as it was in Season 6 and Seeing Red - it's no longer - oh god, will Spike hurt Buffy? It's - oh god, will Buffy attempt to save Spike and can Spike be redeemed? Or more to the point, can Spike grow up and become a responsible adult instead of an insecure juvenile delinquent? Is it possible? And if so what does it take? I honestly see this as more of a growing up theme than a redemption one - the redemption thing is Angel. The growing up is Buffy.

Andrew is right(he did kill way less people than Spike), it will be in putting aside differences, prejudices and working together, not falling apart where strength will come from. I know some didn't like the telepathy called it lame, but look more closely, the First couldn't hear it. Never knew that the Turok Han was going to become a learning aid.

So? He killed Jonathan his best friend. Does it really matter how many people someone kills? Spike wasn't human, he was a vampire without a choice when he killed those people. When he had a soul - he was used as a sleeper agent - again no choice. As Angel tells Faith in Consequences - "I didn't have a choice, you do." Andrew has a choice, he always did. Just as Willow has a choice. Andrew has never been punished for his crimes, never really suffered. Faith has. Spike has. Angel has. Willow has.
Until Andrew shows a little spine - I'm not holding out any hopes for his redemption. Maybe Xander can help him - he seems to identify the most with Xander. Or maybe that's the point - showing Xander and Dawn the path not to follow?

Outside of that I agree completely on putting aside differences, joining together and I sort of liked the telepathy, though it threw me.


And who says Buffy never got anything of value from Spike's lesson in Fool for Love? And for those who were sick of listening to a whiny Dawn....the writers heard you and answered your call for relief....I bet you wish you never complained...;)

odd the whining slayers didn't bug me as much as Dawn usually does. Actually no one really got my nerves this episode. Maybe the whiny slayers is ME's comment on the whiny fans? No that would mean they spend as much time as we do on the internet and somehow I can't imagine that. ;-)

Good post. SK
[> [> I Would Like to Throw In Here - Loved the Ep **Caution, Sappy Post -- Spike Lover, 09:47:57 01/08/03 Wed

Loved it. I think this is the first ep this year that I have REALLY liked. Maybe because it had so many of the cast present.


Prepare yourself, I want to talk about chemistry...

Again, Giles & Anya in the alley had great chemistry. Did anyone else feel it?

That was a good scene between Dawn & Andrew. (I thought they had chemistry there. -And possibly a warped future...)

And OF COURSE the final rescue of Spike. The CHEMISTRY WAS SO GOOD BETWEEN THEM. I kept hoping (well, I would) that she would kiss him. She looked like she wanted to.

Yes, I continue to hope for love between the two, but that is a long shot. (And I think I am probably the only fan who wants that.)

...

I guess I did think it was interesting that Buffy could not explain why she had to rescue Spike. I guess it was good that she did not as the FE was present.

I also think it interesting that Giles has not weighed in (as far as we know) on the whole souled-Spike thing.

...

So is there death of Buffy speculation? If Buffy, as you convincingly argue, and her out of bounds-ness is the problem, will her final death end the problem? If so, will Giles see that for the FE to be weakened, his hero must die? Will he step up to the plate (as he did in the Gift)and do what must be done. Perhaps poison her?

I think the really romantic thing, and traditional solution, would be to have Spike lovingly bite and turn her.

I apologize for all of you who have patiently read this sappy post.

-SL
[> [> [> Re: I Would Like to Throw In Here - Loved the Ep **Caution, Sappy Post -- shadowkat, 10:27:10 01/08/03 Wed

So is there death of Buffy speculation? If Buffy, as you convincingly argue, and her out of bounds-ness is the problem, will her final death end the problem? If so, will Giles see that for the FE to be weakened, his hero must die? Will he step up to the plate (as he did in the Gift)and do what must be done. Perhaps poison her?

I remain unconvinced that Buffy has to die. I think as we see in Bargaining - her death really doesn't change the balance - it didn't get a new slayer called. I think this is a mislead. Perhaps it's Dawn who should have died all along? Maybe keeping Dawn alive was the wrong move and messed up the lineage once Faith goes? Possible. If so, that is Buffy again. And I think another mislead. I'm beginning to wonder if maybe the answer is there is no answer? (shrug) I see at least four possibilities here.
The only one I know for certain won't happen is Buffy won't be turned into a vampire - would screw up the whole arrested development metaphor they keep playing with.

1. Buffy has to die
2. Dawn has to die
3. Buffy has to wake up and realize this is all a dream
4. Faith has to die and Dawn has to die, buffy retires.
5. B/D/F all die
6. Buffy closes the hellmouth and ends the fight forever
7. Spike and Anya must die along with all demons in SD?

Okay make that at least ten possibilities. Have to love a show you can't predict.
[> [> [> Re: I Would Like to Throw In Here - Loved the Ep **Caution, Sappy Post -- diamond in the rough, 12:09:24 01/08/03 Wed

I think the really romantic thing, and traditional solution, would be to have Spike lovingly bite and turn her.

When I read that, my eyes popped from my sockets.

Are you serious, Spike Lover? Buffy would be dead, and an evil soulless demon would be walking around in a Buffy suit. And you consider this romantic? Especially for Spike, who's supposed to be now striving for goodness and redemption?
[> [> [> [> Seconding. -- KdS, 05:29:27 01/09/03 Thu

I really hope that that post was intended as a piece of Swiftian satire.
[> [> [> [> Romanticising vampires and BTvs -- shadowkat, 15:53:29 01/09/03 Thu

Was attempting to steer clear of this guagmire - mostly because the arguments get circular after a while. People see what they want to see. We all do. Human nature - I suppose.

Spike Lover isn't the only fan who likes to romanticize the vampire. I blame fanfiction, Dark Shadows, all those Ann Rice and Laurel K. Hamilton novels personally.

And yes, the vampire seems romantic. What could be better than to live forever, play, have whatever you want? Sounds cool? Right?

Wrong.

There's a price. You have to kill things. And you really aren't free - at least not in Whedon's world. You're connected to evil and that's your raison d'etre. Try to imagine for a moment what it would be like to have no conscience? No feelings of guilt? Angel says it best in the episode Angel - "wonderful way to live - do whatever you want and not care."

Since coming online back in Dec 2001, I discovered an interesting debate. Actually two interesting debates.

1. Can a vampire without a soul be redeemed? Can Spike be good without a soul? (Have to admit the silly writers had me going for awhile on this one, I honestly wasn't sure if they were about to break their entire thesis and actually redeem him sans soul. Fascinating to watch, was on the edge of my seat, curious to see howand if they'd pull it off without alienating or confusing the heck out of the audience and making it all make sense. They sort of compromised by taking the middle road... by having the vampire go after a soul -kind of intriguing choice come to think of it. Also somewhat confusing to the audience...but as a writer, that's not always a bad thing. Gives the audience something to think about and obsess over - audiences love that.)

2. Turning someone into a vampire is a romantic thing and vampires are cool and Buffy is a murderer for killing them.

Sigh. One wonders if people are really watching the same show when this comes up. I tend to agree with diamond in the rough on this baby.

Uhm guys...the writers of BTVS and ATS do not believe vampires exist - you know this right? They are using the vampires as a METAPHOR. They have said this numerous times.
And they are using the soul as a METAPHOR.

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

From the get-go the rules were established. Vampires who have no soul are evil, their raison d'etre is to feed off humans and create more of their kind. The vampire created from the human is not the human but a hybrid, infected by a demon and has no human soul. It is a thing. This is mentioned in : Lie to Me, Angel, Welcome to The Hellmouth, Innocence, and numerous other episodes. The writers really never veer from this view. Of course their job is made a tad more challenging by Spike a)getting the chip and b) falling for Buffy and the fact that they have to come with a good reason for Buffy not to kill Spike and Spike not to attempt to kill or hurt SG and Buffy - or things will get really lame fast (how many times can the villain lose before he becomes a clown or the show becomes a joke and you wonder why someone doesn't kill him?) - but they still go out of their way in different episodes to show soulless Spike is still motivated by evil and really feels no remorse for anything he does until he literally and somewhat inadvertently hurts Buffy - which btw had a direct effect on him - causing him to feel surprise surprise shame and guilt - but it did affect him directly - it destroyed any chance he had of being close to her ever again or any hope he had that she might care for him. This is how they got around the whole soulless vamp can't feel remorse issue. I'm going to wait and see what they do with Ats before I decide for certain on whether they've stuck with canon on this or not. And if I'm right. Every time I think i figure out this whole soul thing - it slips through my fingers like a slippery eel, same with spike - slippery devils, sometimes I wonder if the writers know what they are doing.

The other problem with the little romantic view of turning Buffy into a vamp or making soulless vamps good is the metaphor. The metaphor is that vampires are juvenile delinquents - they represent our fears of growing older, becoming adults, of sex, of lust...gangs. The vampire = arrested development. I figure this is true since the writers go out of their way to refer to it in each season from Season 1 - Season 7. If a metaphor gets repeated often enough - it's a good bet that it's intentional. And Whedon has even stated very clearly in interviews that Buffy is about growing up and the demons in his shows are meant to represent phases of that struggle. Angel is NOT about growing up - it's detective/medical noir. But since Ats comes from Btvs - some of the same basic rules apply.

So if - you suddenly decide to make the metaphor for arrested development - the vampire - into a grown up, without all those arrested development problems? You lose your metaphor and the theme. If you turn the woman you've worked so hard to bring to womanhood and prove female empowerment...into a vampire? You destroy your thesis - female empowerment and growing up.

In short - Joss Whedon would have to be nuts to consider having Spike turn Buffy into a vampire - it would foul up the whole thematic structure of the show...

Anyways hope didn't offend anyone. Just my .10 for what it's worth. SK
[> [> [> [> [> Basic problem of attitudes to humanity -- KdS, 03:43:51 01/10/03 Fri

A few interesting issues about the good or evil of vampires:

Until mid-20th century vampires are evil and that's that. No need for argument. In the 60s there's general questioning of traditional morality, and specifically multiculturalism leads to a (completely reasonable) suspicion of stories that dismiss all of a given group of entities as Evil. Over the last thirty years or so there's a whole series of stories depicting good or morally ambiguous vampires who swear off humanity altogether, only eat people who really deserve it, or at least feel guilty about killing people - Rice and Hamilton most famously at the moment, but also CQ Yarbro, some of Kim Newman's stuff.

Then you get BtVS as arguably a reaction to that - undoubtedly an attempt to get past easy cynicism and moral relativism to a place where you can see the complexities and have compassion but also recognise that there are moral standards. But more interestingly there's a conscious attack on wish-fulfilment transformation fantasies - that fantasies of immortality and power are just that, and that sooner or later you have to confront the real limitations and responsibilities of human life. Look at the various characters in BtVS and AtS - very few of them are actually happier for possessing superpowers. Probably it was this that drove the controversial Willow material in S6 - a feeling that it would detract from the moral lesson to show vast magical power coming without a down side.

(Arguably it was also necessary to do something to weaken Willow from the plot point of view to avoid the problem of escalating power that tends to afflict long running superhero stories. After the last eps of S5 it was hard to see any future episode that didn't run "Monster turns up. Willow blasts it. Grrr Arrgh.")

The fact that they made such a mess of it (an idea: try reading something about the psychology and typical development pattern of real substance addiction instead of copying every cliche of the alarmist antidrug melodrama) doesn't mean it was a bad choice. It's also this tendency that drove my hostility to the protrayal of Cordelia's demonisation in the second half of S3 of AtS - that ME were breaking the metaphor and showing somebody's loss of humanity as an unambiguous blessing, without any apparent down side.
[> [> Re: Hmmm some interesting points ..spoilers for Showtime and the movie Signs -- Rufus, 11:47:25 01/08/03 Wed

I agree with this assessment. I think this reiterates the theme that we can face and slay our own demons, our monsters. Face our fears and not let them conquer us as they did some of the proto-slayers. Buffy makes sure they see it - so she can show them that they too can conquer their fears. If she'd done it off stage or away from them, they would have made it out to be a mystical impossible feat that she alone could do. She has to prove otherwise. Remember these girls had never seen a vampire before. Some didn't even quite believe in it.

BTVS has had a constant theme of learning to trust yourself and do the best you can, even if afraid. That's why I found the little reference to Signs so appropriate. Signs is about a man who loses his faith, only to find out that miracles can come from the strangest things and that there just may be no such thing as a coincidence. Who knew that a pantry door could help stop an invasion? Buffy is the same way...no matter what, even if she loses her faith in herself, something happens that brings her back. We got to see a Slayer training other Slayer Potentials.....and Buffy wanted to make sure that they saw a show that would bring them hope of being more than targets to pick off one by one.

I just had to mention this....the Beljoxa's eye was in a dark dimension....and it didn't even ask for a flashlight when Giles and Anya showed up. The thing to remember is that it only can tell you about the past and the present, not the future, so at any time something could happen in the now to change some of what it said to Giles about the Slayer Potentials.

We see this in the dunking of the water and his refusal to give in to it's torments. This is a big change over Lessons where he is literally being driven insane and can't tell which are figments and which aren't. Now he knows. Even then he was somewhat able to discern the difference.

I think we have to remember that Buffy and Spike have gone through being dunked under water, it isn't the breathing or drowning that makes the difference it's that the experience made both stronger. Buffy has learned from Spike and it showed in her final speech to the SIT's and Spike has learned from Buffy something about hanging onto faith in others.

So? He killed Jonathan his best friend. Does it really matter how many people someone kills? Spike wasn't human, he was a vampire without a choice when he killed those people. When he had a soul - he was used as a sleeper agent - again no choice. As Angel tells Faith in Consequences - "I didn't have a choice, you do." Andrew has a choice, he always did. Just as Willow has a choice. Andrew has never been punished for his crimes, never really suffered. Faith has. Spike has. Angel has. Willow has.
Until Andrew shows a little spine - I'm not holding out any hopes for his redemption.

I think there is a reason that they are drawing a parallel between Andrew and Spike. Andrew is trying to be what Spike became in the department of cool, and just can't get it right. That reminds me of Spike as William, out of his league at that party where Cecily dumped him. I'm going to give Andrew a marginal break because it was made clear that he had been manipulated by the First as well. The First used his dreams and his adoration of Warren to get him to kill Jonathon. At this point I see Andrew as Spike was when first chipped. The chip was the element that started Spike on the road to getting a soul back. Could the influence of the Scoobies be enough for Andrew to eventually change as well? I saw give him a chance, he may be weak but there might be something there worth salvaging.

Maybe the whiny slayers is ME's comment on the whiny fans? No that would mean they spend as much time as we do on the internet and somehow I can't imagine that. ;-)

We know that some of the writers post at the Bronze Beta, but I highly doubt they waste that much time online, they just may pay someone else to do some surfing and information collecting for them.
[> [> [> Which path for Andrew? (spoilers for 7.11) -- ponygirl, 12:18:57 01/08/03 Wed

I'm going to bet my few remaining cyber-kittens that the possibility of Andrew being on a redemptive path is a mislead. I like what they're doing with him (though a little of Andrew Geeky Reference Guy goes a long way), and I thought the reference to his smell in this episode echoed the comment about Spike in STSP, which of course echoed Whistler's comment about Angel in Becoming. Obviously the first step on the path of redemption is towards the shower.

I just think that Andrew is too weak, too malleable to last as a "good guy" for more than a few minutes outside of Buffy's sphere of influence. What's more I think that once the Scoobies do believe that he's relatively harmless he'll prove himself to be anything but... Xander had better watch out, the odd little connection he and Andrew have been sharing makes him a prime candidate for a knife in the back.
[> [> [> [> Have to say I agree with ponygirl on this one -- shadowkat (adding her cyberkitties to the pot), 13:49:41 01/08/03 Wed

I also think Andrew is the mislead. I think he's going to pop up and stab them in the back eventually aka Spike in Yoko Factor or Jonathan in Season 6 after all those times they saved his hide. Or even Faith. I don't think the writers plan on redeeming or letting Andrew grow up - I think it works better structurally for him not to.

I feel that Andrew is being compared to Spike, Dawn and Xander for this reason - as a way of showing what happens when you refuse to grow up. The perpetual Peter Pan who chooses to remain Peter PAn.

Thematically you need a fall guy. Someone who turns out to be a bad guy no matter what you do. Andrew fits this structure pretty well and if he fell completely? It would work on more than one level. Yes - I suppose you could say he's already down at root level, but no I think he has a ways to go yet, which is also why I don't see him coming out on top at the end of the year. I also think the writers get sadistic pleasure out of making him comically pathetic and bad since he's clearly a riff off themselves.
[> [> [> [> [> One piece of thought on Andrew's morality, and a piece of speculation -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:46:56 01/08/03 Wed

First, it might be hard to judge the morality of Andrew killing Jonathan, since he saw what he believed to be the spirit of the dead Warren, and was talking to what he believed to be the spirit of Jonathan in "Never Leave Me". Because of this, and the fact that Warren was extolling the virtues of being a ghost using a Star Wars reference, Andrew might not have realized that he was actually killing Jonathan. If Sophist reads this post, could you mention if this would be enough grounds for not-guilty be reason of insanity?

Second, some speculation. I also don't believe Andrew will be redeemed. Actually, I have a scenario in my head for how his part in Season Seven will play out, though it's not that likely ME will use it: the First Evil convinces Andrew to take down as many of the Scoobies as possible, and he tries to kill Dawn because of that, but Dawn ends up killing him. I think that, given how Dawn has twice been shown making some very menacing threats, as well as some other expressions of a darker personality, killing a human being, even in self-defense, could be a big part of that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Probably not. -- Sophist, 10:58:41 01/09/03 Thu

The basic rule is that an insane delusion can be a defense. Then, however, the test is whether the conduct was reasonable even if we assume the delusion is true. For example, if Andrew believed that Jonathan was about to kill him, the stabbing would be "self-defense" in the mind of the deluded person.

Here, however, it seems that Andrew understood that he was killing Jonathan, and that he did so to benefit himself and Warren. He didn't see FE/Jonathan until after he killed Jonathan, so he can't use that to justify his earlier conduct. And even if he did believe that he was helping Jonathan become a ghost or even a higher being, that's not likely to be considered "reasonable" even if we accept his delusion.

The delusion might, however, reduce his crime from murder 1 to murder 2 or even manslaughter, depending on how the jury viewed it.
[> Re: Life's a Show.........spoilers for Buffy 7.11 "Showtime" -- pellenaka, 12:46:46 01/08/03 Wed

Okay, I'm just going to take this from the Wildfeed summary as I haven't got the ep. right here.

Appearing out of the dimentional void, Anya and Giles are winded and confused. Anya doesn't understand what the Beljox's eye meant. Giles explains that it's not because Buffy died that things are now in upheaval, but because she is living again. Anya starts to get a sullen look on her face, knowing the truth: The First is there because Willow and Xander and she brought Buffy back to life. Everything would be fine if Buffy had just stayed dead.

So my theory is, that the reason why FE says 'Kill everyone but her' is that when Buffy dies, the "The mystical forces surrounding the chose" might be stable again and the FE has no more fun.
[> Re: Life's a Show....spoilers for Buffy 7.10-11 -- Age, 18:21:25 01/09/03 Thu

In regards to Eve, I thought that in the two-parter, (it seems to me) 'Bring on the Night' and 'Showtime,' we were going back to the beginning, so to speak, reiterating one of the main reasons for the show(time)'s existence: the rehabilitation of the male dominated image of women.

Firstly, the battered image of women as the weaker sex, physically and morally, is presented through Buffy's physical condition after the defeat by the uber vamp in 'BOTN', which in turn is supported by the SIT's running to her death, and by FE Dru's image as the woman who has been figuratively killed off to herself as human being(of course from Spike's POV, Dru represents past influences). Buffy's speech is then a call to take responsibility and not run but face life...live, and in fact challenge what could be analyzed, in feminist terms if we go back to the beginning, as what used to be a seemingly unbeatable male establishment in the uber vamp( but he's just a neanderthal/macho vamp, not a god). In fact the idea of not waiting around for the gods to bring back the light(in reference to the time of the year), but to have ones destiny as much in ones hands as possible(not waiting around, ie powerless like meat for the kill) is emphasized. Then in 'Showtime,' there's the actual reference to the beginning of the series in Buffy's greeting to Rona 'Welcome to the Hellmouth' and Andrew's quip about being episode one bored, with Buffy then becoming the role model for the next generation of young women(taking over from Joyce who is not seen in 'Showtime'), and overcoming the doubt and self destruction caused by the ideas contained in the male-dominated image of Eve, literally/figuratively dispelling the ghost/idea from the presence of the next generation (note Eve is blond to match Buffy, and takes over from Dru as FE). In effect, with Buffy left standing and alive, and Eve dead, we have a statement that the influence of that male-dominated portrayal of women is dead, left to look on as a ghost. To cap this off, we have Buffy, not as the Eve-like corruptor of men, but having faced a hard physical challenge, acting to redeem a male in Spike.

Of course another way to look at Eve in the Eden myth is to see her as the bringer not of death and sin, but spiritual growth. However, the Eve of 'Showtime' isn't living, but a facsimile of one that is dead. If the dead Eve in 'Showtime' is meant to be associated with Buffy through the matching hair colour, then perhaps just as the dead Eve portrays the image of woman as a bringer of sin and death, we are to see Buffy as the portrayal of the living Eve, the bringer of spiritual growth?

That was my take on the use of Eve. Although I may simply be projecting my usual patriarchal reading onto the show.

Age.
[> [> Back to the beginning, Eve and patriarchy (Spoilers, Showtime) -- Rahael, 09:19:50 01/10/03 Fri

That was my take on the use of Eve. Although I may simply be projecting my usual patriarchal reading onto the show.

Me too! Lol.

I completely agree - and I think the name Eve, is significant. Joss said this season was back to the beginning, and I think the meaning is two fold. Back to the beginning, season 1, and back to the Beginning, in the sense of 'Primeval'. The wordplay is even there - First Evil - First Eval - Primeval. If we're going back to the beginning, to Eden, its not surprising that Eve might be a potent image. I haven't seen any of the recent episodes, but might the FE's assumption of Buffy's visage to taunt and tempt Spike be seen as the assumption of a traditional view of evil women - she'll betray you, she won't come?

I was also very struck, reading the graphic book 'Tales of the Slayer' - the last section, written by Joss uses the words 'connected' when he has Melaka think of how she is connected to every Slayer that has been. And the book starts with the story of the First Slayer, also written by Joss.

The use of imagery has been very interesting in Season 7, with regard to how the First Evil assumes many shapes, including Spike and Buffy. It hints at their darker shadow selves.

In OMWF, Buffy rescues the Blond Prince, only to turn away with boredom. This time, when she rescues Spike, cutting him down, she is fully engaged in her task.

You refer to the battered image of women - but Spike has been battered too, in recent eps. So we have both Spike and Buffy bearing painful wounds, echoing back to their sense of fellow feeling in early S6, where they both have wounded hands. Both have been battered by the First Evil.

I'm interested in hearing your opinon on how the FE has been coded, gender wise and patriarchy wise, since it assumes both male and female identities.
[> [> Re: Life's a Show....spoilers for Buffy 7.10-11 -- Shiraz, 13:35:27 01/10/03 Fri

Great post,

but I think Andrew's "I'm bored, Episode I bored." was in reference to Star Wars The Phantom Menace (episode one). It fits with his character.
[> [> Re: Life's a Show....spoilers for Buffy 7.10-11 -- Rufus, 22:06:07 01/10/03 Fri

Buffy's speech is then a call to take responsibility and not run but face life...live, and in fact challenge what could be analyzed, in feminist terms if we go back to the beginning, as what used to be a seemingly unbeatable male establishment in the uber vamp( but he's just a neanderthal/macho vamp, not a god). In fact the idea of not waiting around for the gods to bring back the light(in reference to the time of the year), but to have ones destiny as much in ones hands as possible(not waiting around, ie powerless like meat for the kill) is emphasized. Then in 'Showtime,' there's the actual reference to the beginning of the series in Buffy's greeting to Rona 'Welcome to the Hellmouth' and Andrew's quip about being episode one bored, with Buffy then becoming the role model for the next generation of young women(taking over from Joyce who is not seen in 'Showtime'), and overcoming the doubt and self destruction caused by the ideas contained in the male-dominated image of Eve, literally/figuratively dispelling the ghost/idea from the presence of the next generation (note Eve is blond to match Buffy, and takes over from Dru as FE). In effect, with Buffy left standing and alive, and Eve dead, we have a statement that the influence of that male-dominated portrayal of women is dead, left to look on as a ghost. To cap this off, we have Buffy, not as the Eve-like corruptor of men, but having faced a hard physical challenge, acting to redeem a male in Spike.

Right off I will mention my frustration with the "Garden of Eden Myth" and how women became the ultimate scapegoat while men became the ultimate victim of treachery. If both parties to the "apple offence" had next to no knowledge to begin with, then how did we end up with Eve as a villian and Adam an innocent schmuck?....just personal grip in previous bible rant.

Now to Showtime. Welcome to the Hellmouth and the evolution of Buffy makes it clear we have to reference the past to look more clearly at the present. Buffy has been in the place all the Slayers in Training are now, scared. The constant input from the First in the form of Eve didn't help much. The SIT's were under the impression that Buffy couldn't protect them, she couldn't even take out a pesky Uber Vamp. So, what is a ressurected Slayer to do, but give them a lesson a'la Fool for Love, where the SIT's are shown the most basic lesson a Slayer should know...."don't die".

This episode also backs up what you are saying about how things change over the passage of time, but how to clearly see that we have to be aware of the past. Season 7 has been criticized for constantly re-using plot points from the past, where I've just groaned with frustration as that is what the writers are doing on purpose. Our ideas about each other are influenced by books, media, and experience....but one thing is constant, we change and in that change we use the past to interpret the present and frequently change how we feel about what we once thought we knew. If we are to take anything from the past as proof of progression in Slayers we have to note that Buffy has evolved from a Slayer protector, to as you mentioned catalyst that produces spiritual growth.

Current board | More January 2003