January 2003 posts

Joss Whedon defeated? -- grifter, 01:43:50 01/10/03 Fri

The "Grrr Arrgghh!"-Monster, the Mutant Enemy-logo, was defeated by Buffy in "Showtime". (I am talking about the Ubervamp, of course). So does this mean that ME, Joss in particular, have been finally defeated by Buffy. Will everything go her way now? Or was he just the first step in defeating Joss?

I can remember a post (sorry, can´t remember by whom) describing the final scene of the series as a dialogue between Buffy and Joss. Now I´m not indicating that the series will really end this way, but what if The First Evil really is Joss? (Unbeknowenst to Buffy, and only recognizable to the few proud women and men of this forum with the ability to read between the lines and see the hidden meanings.) He has, after all, sent all those evil creatures after Buffy all these years, now he even sent the ME - logo, hand-drawn by him, and a fearsome creature indeed. I wonder if we´ll get to see one of the writers in costume in the future?

So, can the FE not be defeated because it would mean defeating Joss, the writer, himself? Will this quest really claim Buffys life (again), and with it her whole universe?

Of course Buffy´s resurrection was what gave the FE (Joss) the opportunity to mess with the Slayer line. Without it, there would have been no such opportunity, because there would have been no season 7.

So, finally, these mad scriblings lead me to believe that, depending on if there will be a season 8, Buffy will either end it all or find a way to convince the FE that this "game" of theirs is one worth continuing...

[> Re: Joss Whedon defeated? (Spoilers for aired S7 eps above, and in my post) -- Rahael, 02:35:18 01/10/03 Fri

I like this! - have a look at Sophist's thread below, which I think is complementary.

The FE says he is tired of balance, and is going all out, and we know that this may be the last season. Can we just read the playful joke that Joss is just tired of Buffy? Will his characters defeat him? Either way, the real evil, ME, who has kept Buffy jumping through hoops and televising her performance for our viewing pleasure will win in the sense that the series will end. Or is it just a chance for Buffy to finally lay down her arms and rest at last, as Giles promised? Does the fact that the Buffy phenomenon will live on, long after the series ends, mean that the characters will have the final victory over the author? Authors are mortal. Art hangs around a little longer.

[> She could also have slayed the UV's twin vamp from -- Deb, 04:35:15 01/10/03 Fri

Stephen King's "Salem's Lot." No possibility of redemption there, and certainly no human qualities whatsoever. In a way, Buffy also slays Anne Rice's beautiful Brad Pitt version of the aloof from humanity vampire community. Yes Xander, they are a community of family according to Rice also. Rice's vampires don't participate in human culture, while we all know how participatory, yet marginalized, Joss' leading vampires are. So the Titans have been killed, and the Gods are self-exiled, but it appears that Spike and Angel are on the way back to being *just* human.

In this interpretation, Buffy is Joss' Champion or Second. He might be tired of all the work and petty details of working with the networks, but when he goes to sleep at night in a few years, I think even he will be surprised at how his creative work on Buffy has affected so many people, and tapped into revising (or stimulating?) an archetype of the collective.

I really hope to God this is my last post for a few days. I could use a few winks.

[> Buffy vs. Joss: A Metaphysical, Metafictional Speculation (reposted by request) -- cjl, 09:15:13 01/10/03 Fri

(From 11/14/02)

1. As stated by the image of the Master in Lessons, the big bad is something that existed "before the bang...before the Word." The obvious implication is that the Big Bad is the Almighty, the Creator (but that's absurd, so let's move on).

2. In Gnosticism and the Zoroastrian religion, the source of all evil is a false god, a demiurge who has taken the original creation and re-shaped it in his own image. It is the goal of all enlighted beings to penetrate the veil of illusion created by Ialdaboth and perceive the true face of creation.

3. The big bad is a transcendent force who is sick of the balance between Good and Evil, and wants to go out with a blast, taking everything and everyone with it.

4. At the start of every season, Joss Whedon sits in front of a word processor, with the entirety of the Buffyverse in his head before he even bangs on a key. Before the bang. Before the word. He's spent the past six years balancing good and evil on his brainchild, and now he's ready to end it all. Joss doesn't know the source of creation (he doesn't believe in God), but like any evil demiurge, he has shaped its essence to his own will.

5. If you had the chance, what would you say to your creator?

(Buffy leaps through the dimensional portal, looking behind her one last time to see the agonized faces of Willow, Dawn, Xander, Giles, and Spike. The portal closes. She looks around. She seems to be in an office. Peering through the darkness, she sees a man (his back to her) typing at his computer. Buffy is confused.

BUFFY (to typist): Excuse me?
JOSS: Hold on a minute. Gotta catch up here.

(Buffy wanders over to the desk, and starts reading the words on the screen. She reads: "Buffy wanders over to the desk, and starts reading the words on the screen.")

JOSS: There we go. All done. Finally.
BUFFY: "All done?"
JOSS (swivels his chair to face her): The series. The pain. It's over. (Laughs.) I don't have to do it anymore. Gotta tell you, it's a relief. Although...
BUFFY: W-what are you talking about?
JOSS (takes her hand): It's all right, Buffy. You don't have to worry. All the pain in your life--your Mom and Angel and Spike and the Slaying, and worrying about your friends. It's done.
BUFFY: Wait. How do you--
JOSS: When you were seven years old, you accidentally cut yourself playing with your father's razor blade. You cried and cried, and before your Mom got there, you wondered, what kind of a God would make a world where there would be this kind of pain?
BUFFY (withdraws her hand): How did you know that?
JOSS: And when you were fifteen, when you were first called, you were in that cemetary in Los Angeles, squeezing that pathetic-looking stake in your hand, and you had a horrible feeling in the pit of your stomach that God was singling you out for punishment...
BUFFY: Shut up.
JOSS: I wasn't punishing you.

(Buffy steps back, a lump of revulsion and utter horror forming in her throat.)

BUFFY: No.
JOSS (shakes his head): You're amazing. You're so much more than I imagined you'd be. (Laughs again.) Sarah would absolutely freak if she knew you were here.

(BUFFY, terrified, looks around the office, her eyes adjusting to the dark. She sees posters of herself with the logo "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" on top. She sees a photo on Joss' desk. It's her, Xander, Willow, Giles, Anya, Dawn and Spike. The signature is her handwriting, but the name signed is "Sarah." She sees a paperback book on the desk, but barely registers the title before she sees, in small print: "Buffy the Vampire Slayer--created by Joss Whedon.")

BUFFY: This is impossible.
JOSS: No. This was inevitable. You've been fighting evil for so long, you've suffered so much--I think I owed it to you. To see who was responsible for it all. The Biggest Bad of them all, you might say. "Big Bad." (Laughs.) Who came up with that, anyway?
BUFFY: Are you--are you telling me you CREATED me? You're telling me...you're GOD?!
JOSS: I don't believe in God. (Pause.) Funny, though. The existentialists say that once we've eliminated the divine from our lives, we assume--
BUFFY: What am I doing here? If you are...who you say you are, w-why did you take me away from my friends? Why did you
take me away from my sister? M-my mother? WHY?

(Joss looks into Buffy's eyes, sees the tears and the pain, and quickly looks away.)

JOSS: It's complicated.
BUFFY: That's my line.
JOSS: So it is. But it's still the truth.
BUFFY (cold, angry): Then explain it to me.

(JOSS leans forward in his chair, carefully considering his words.)

JOSS: As much as I hate to say this to you, Buffy, you're just a fictional character. A fictional character who's gone so far beyond my original idea...sometimes it seems you're not even mine anymore. But you are. And as much as I love you, you've had to play your part in what I have to say to the rest of the world. About all the crap we face while we're growing up. How we deal with the death of parents or loved ones. How we overcome the obstacles we create for ourselves, how...
BUFFY: I think I get the idea.
JOSS (smiles): You want to kill me right now, don't you?
BUFFY: Very much.
JOSS: Well, don't. As I said, I owe you for everything I've put you through for the last seven years. I wanted to do you one last favor before I let you go.
BUFFY: A favor?
JOSS: You can pick your ending. You go through the dimensional portal, and you disappear, and then...something happens. I'm leaving it up to you.
BUFFY: You're kidding me. Now? After all the pain and suffering and blood, you're letting me choose NOW?! What do I want? I want my mother back, that's what I want! I want you put me back in high school and take away that stupid curse from Angel, that's what I want!
JOSS: I can't do that.
BUFFY: Why not?! You're g--oh, wait. You don't believe in God.
JOSS: And if I did? Deus ex machina--God snaps his fingers and all the problems go away. What does that tell the people in this world about life? There's pain and horror at this end of the telescope, too, Buffy. There are monsters that scare the living hell out of us every day, monsters without fangs or horns or claws. When you and Giles were waiting for Billy Fordham to rise out of his grave, you told Giles--
BUFFY: Lie to me.
JOSS: You wouldn't let him. And I'm not going to lie, either. I'm not going to snap my fingers and make your life a paradise.
BUFFY (thinks hard): I can't go back to Sunnydale?
JOSS: No. The series is over.
BUFFY: It wasn't cancelled, was it?
JOSS: Nope. Could have gone on forever. But I think everybody was getting a little winded after seven years.
BUFFY: Oh. That's cool. Always good to go out on top. (Pause. Buffy smiles.) Wait. I think I've got it.

(Twenty seconds later...)

JOSS: Really? Are you sure? God, the fans are going to hate it.
BUFFY: Like I give a damn what they think.
JOSS (looks into Buffy's eyes): OK. It's the least I can do.

JOYCE: Doctor, thank you. It's a miracle.
DOCTOR: Mrs. Summers, you don't have to thank me. Buffy did all the work herself. She's really a remarkable young woman.
HANK: We never gave up hope. (Nuzzles Buffy's chin.) Never.
DOCTOR: Give me a call when she's settled. I don't think you have anything to worry about, but we should have follow-up sessions at least once every month.
JOYCE: We'll contact you next week.

(Joyce, Hank and Buffy walk out of the asylum and into the parking lot. Buffy is holding her father's hand tightly as they approach the family car.)

HANK: Well, sweetheart, you're going home. How do you feel?
BUFFY: It feels wonderful, Daddy.
JOYCE (hesitantly): Do you miss Sunnydale at all?
BUFFY: A little... No. A lot. But it's just like the doctor said--Sunnydale is a delusion. (Joyce and Hank get into the car. Buffy lingers from a moment, tilting her head up toward the Los Angeles sky, not looking for anything in particular--but definitely for someONE.) Thank you.

(BUFFY climbs into the back seat, and the Summers family drives onto the streets of Los Angeles.)

(At his desk, Joss types: "BUFFY climbs into the back seat, and the Summers family drives onto the streets of Los Angeles." He saves the file, and shuts down the computer. Joss grabs his jacket from the back of his chair, and takes a glance at the headlines of the L.A. Times still on his desk. He dumps the paper in the trash and heads for the door. He stops in front of the Buffy poster on the wall and stares at it for a long moment.)

JOSS: You're welcome.

(He leaves the office, and closes the door behind him.)

[> [> You're a hell of a writer, cjl -- pr10n, 10:17:11 01/10/03 Fri

I just broke a pencil and threw away the pieces in your honor, a tradition in my critique group when we read something we wish we had written.

I don't know why I missed it the first time around, but I really liked that bit. Thanks for the repost.

[> [> Nice.... -- Random, 15:39:24 01/10/03 Fri

I'm one of those fans who would hate an "asylum-verse" ending (the last film/show to do that without evoking my cosmic annoyance was "The Wizard of Oz") but your little vignette makes me almost -- but only almost -- appreciative of such a possibility. I'll go with pr10n and say that it's something I wish I'd written and that you're a helluva writer. But I guess I already figured that out while reading those Lorne vs Sweet blow-by-blows.

If you Americans can keep using American football metaphors ;-) (usual Well-Known Casting Spoiler) -- KdS, 05:21:56 01/10/03 Fri

Sunnydale United: mid-season report:

GILES: The veteran playmaker has been brought out of retirement this year, but hasn't shown much of his old talent, despite his talismanic effect on the rest of the team. Needs to at least get the odd touch in to quell the whispers in the stand that he's not the player he was.

HARRIS: Still an undervalued player in defence despite the ability to effortlessly read the game and pop up just where he's needed that saved United from relegation last season. If he can get his old partnership with Jenkins back he may manage to do the same this year.

JENKINS: Coming back after an unhappy spell on loan that saw her apparently losing all the skill she's worked so hard to build up over the last three seasons. She seems to be feeling her way back to a connection with Harris, but you have to ask yourself if it's really in her interest as a player or if she'd be better off in a more solitary position.

ROSENBERG: This classic playmaker is still a little subdued and mistrusting of her own skills following her disastrous season last year, which saw substance abuse problems, the retirement of her most compatible partner, and a very poor disciplinary record, culminating in a lengthy suspension following one of the nastiest fouls we've ever seen. Meers may have been guilty of bad sportsmanship himself, but no-one wanted to see his career end that badly. Now forming a partnership with one of the youth team that could lead to some exciting action in the box, even if some of us were hoping for fireworks with a forthcoming transfer from LA.

SPIKE: The enigma of the season. Frequently played as the last line of defence over the last few seasons despite his appalling disciplinary record and questionable team spirit, but you can't always play the beautiful game and sometimes you need a hard man at the back. Disappeared under a cloud at the end of last season, amid rumours of a nasty off-pitch incident in the showers, only to appear again suffering from an identity crisis. Not only does he seem confused about the type of player he wants to be, sometimes he doesn't even seem to know what team he's on.

B SUMMERS: Back to her old position as the team's most trusted and effective striker after the crisis of confidence that weakened her last season. She's got all her old commitment and finishing ability back, but could her new strength of mind lead her to fall back on Route One and lose the tactical unorthodoxy that's been her key advantage in the past?

D SUMMERS: Still a dark horse despite signs that she may be maturing this season. Struggling to find a role, which may only come if she learns to control the raw green talent we've seen flashes of in the past.

[> Sorry, also spoilers for all broadcast S7 above -- KdS, 05:23:43 01/10/03 Fri

[> Very nice -- Tchaikovsky, 06:00:58 01/10/03 Fri

Enjoyed this, although I doubt it will cut that much mustard with the Americans. I had a long sub-thread with Rahael a while ago which used cricket metaphors throughout (http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/archives/oct02_p22.html#37), but was actually about Spike's re-negotiation with society. I got told by Caroline that we were going to get thrashed in the Ashes, so I ought to keep quiet. So true. But at least we won the last Test.

Could I compare Giles to Bobby Robson, as an inspirational manager who manages to organise a talented team and keep them focussed? While Scooby United had only the wily Scottish caretaker T Maclay last season, their form dipped dramatically.

On a similar theme--

Summers= Nicolas Anelka. Obviously talented, but going through various phases of unhappiness while searching for the secure niche somewhere or other.

Rosenberg= Gascoigne. Takes the world by storm when young and first experimenting with magical talent. But after various injuries and exile in Italy[/England], fades away. Can the primal power ever be regained? (Answer for Gascoigne was no. Hope Rosenberg ends better.

Harris= Butt. Underrated player who is iften left to clear up if other more talented individuals in the team are injured or being rested for lareger challenges ahead.

Summers D=Wayne Rooney. Definitely. Youngster with disciplinary problems related to not being able to draw the line over tackle and violence against opponenets in the right place.

TCH- getting so abstruse that North Americans everywhere will give me blank looks.

[> [> Kds: LOL and thanks from a "football" fan here in the US. -- isis, 06:49:26 01/10/03 Fri

I loved it...and believe it or not, even understood it all. (It's hard being a fan here, but we brave and few persevere)

[> [> Loved yours and KdS's, notwithstanding my status as a mere North American -- Sophist, 08:33:09 01/10/03 Fri

[> [> Not meaning to complain or troll... BUT! -- ZachsMind, 09:37:02 01/10/03 Fri

I don't mean to be attacking anyone in particular or anything. Just offering my perspective. I'm not a sports enthusiast, be it Wimbeldon or the Super Bowl. The sports metaphors are lost on me and I imagine perhaps some others. Though amusing and intriguing, they don't communicate very well to those of us who know not the difference between cricket and badmitton. Furthermore, comparing the Scoobies to automobiles would also fall flat to all but those who happen to be car enthusiasts.

Something more universal to all cultures would be food. Perhaps a metaphorical approach to the tv series as if one were a food critic for a gourmet restaurant? Comparing Giles to curry, Anya to chicken teriyaki and Buffy to spicy lime-grilled prawns? That might alleviate the potential tensions caused by any cultural sports gap.

Just trying to help.

[> [> [> Maybe I can work on an Emeril, Martha, and Iron Chef comparison -- neaux, 11:32:07 01/10/03 Fri

[> [> [> Food-ignoramus here- but licking lips! -- Tchaikovsky, 06:30:48 01/12/03 Sun

[> [> Giles has to be a player-manager. But the real problem's in the boardroom -- KdS, 10:48:50 01/10/03 Fri

"And the top story tonight is the shocking departure of Slayer United's infamously iron-fiested chairman, Quentin "Toxic" Travers. The club has been plagued for several seasons by dissent between Travers, player-manager Rupert Giles, and star striker Buffy Summers. The dispute began with a public protest by Giles over Travers's interference in training, attempting to institute procedures which the manager described as 'archaic' and 'torture'. Manager and players have pointed to Travers's inflexibility as a major cause of the club's high turnover of players. Mr Giles was unavailable for comment, but Ms Summers told reporters that she had few regrets for the departure of a man whose attitudes had barely changed since the days of the maximum wage."

[> Speaking as a fan of "real" football, as well as the U.S. kind... -- cjl, 07:13:20 01/10/03 Fri

Well done.

But who's the goalkeeper for Slayer United?

[> [> Xander obviously... -- KdS, 09:52:09 01/10/03 Fri

Often the last line of defence, slightly separate from all the superheroes, prone to spectacular failures and clowning.

[> [> [> I like. Especially since I was a netminder in grade school... -- cjl (worst goalie in the history of JHS 52), 10:01:55 01/10/03 Fri

[> [> [> Sunnydale United team roster -- grifter, 12:26:12 01/10/03 Fri

Characters that were on the show but aren´t anymore:

Oz: Defensive Midfielder. The reliable man in the shadow. Sometimes the "beast" will take over and drive him to play with harder bandages then allowed.

McClay: Central Defense. Often the last line of reason for United. The calm one who´ll keep her nerves should her team get into trouble. Can also from time to time help out in the offense.

Calender: Coaches´ Assistant. Sadly got pressured out of the team by striker Angel early on.

Angel: Striker. Started out as right midfielder but replaced Cordelia as striker mid-season since he played together so well with star striker Buffy Summers. Got jealous of the spotlight always being on Summers, so went to play for FC Underworld. Came back, went away again because it just didn´t work anymore between him and Summers. Now the star striker of AC ´Angeles.

Chase: Started out as Striker, but her rivalry with newcomer Buffy Summers led to her being replaced by Angel. Later found a position in Sunnydale United´s midfield, but left with Angel, mainly because of personal differences with goalie Harris.

Finn: Left Defense. Solid man in the back, likes to go on the offense also. Personal problems lead him to leave United and work for teh governement-sponsored Fc Black OP.

So here´s the final team (if everyone was still playing):

Coaches: Giles, Calender
Goal: Harris
Defense: Finn, Spike, McClay, D. Summers
Midfield: Jenkins, Rosenberg, Oz, Chase
Offense: B. Summers, Angel

A team that can rule any competition if only they had stayed together in that formation.

[> Nicely Done. -- Cactus Watcher, 09:44:33 01/10/03 Fri

It was easy to follow even though I personally haven't played that brand of football more than a couple times and haven't watched it much either. That game is played here in the US, though it doesn't evoke the same passions it does elsewhere in the world. If you wanted to befuddle us Americans you could describe Buffy and Angel in terms of cricket using lots of techincal terms from that game. Beyond bowler and wicket, I'm sure I'd be lost.

[> Late S6 Whedon Cup Play-by-Play -- cjl, 12:18:37 01/10/03 Fri

[Whedon Cup semi-finals. 77th minute. Nil-Nil, Sunnydale (Slayer) United vs. Empire (troika plus assorted henchdemons). Ethan Rayne and Wesley Wyndham-Price, BBC announcers...]

ETHAN RAYNE: In-credible! Let's watch that on the replay, shall we? Remarkable stop by Harris, deflecting the shot by Levinson over the right goalpost....
WESLEY WYNDHAM-PRICE: Truly remarkable, Ethan. He was completely out of position for the shot.
ETHAN: But that does seem to describe his style, doesn't it? Seemingly out of the flow of action, yet able to recover at a moment's notice.
WESLEY: Harris sends it out to Rosenberg on the left wing, flanked by Summers on her right.
ETHAN: Not much from Summers this game....
WESLEY: No, indeed. Two or three unimaginative runs directly up the middle, easily checked by Empire's defense.
ETHAN: Still doesn't have her head in the game.
WESLEY: You have to wonder if Rupert Giles will risk taking her out at this crucial point in the match...
ETHAN: He's made it this far with her, and his other quality striker is in a Los Angeles prison. So I doubt it.
WESLEY: Rosenberg brings the ball up, and...OH! Oh my...
ETHAN: My word.
WESLEY: BRUTAL foul by Meers.
ETHAN: I think she's hurt, Wesley.
WESLEY: Yet another bit of choppy play from Empire. Waiting for the...

(Referee whips out a yellow card.)

ETHAN: A yellow?

(Loud whistling from the crowd.)

WESLEY: Slayer United's fans are unhappy--and who can blame them.
ETHAN: Looks like Rosenberg is getting up.
WESLEY: Side out, United.
ETHAN: Wait a minute. What is she doing?

(ROSENBERG walks up to MEERS; her eyes turn jet black. A blast of magic energy swirls around Meers, and he's flayed alive, then immolated on the spot.)

WESLEY: Good Lord.
ETHAN: Well, that was definitely uncalled for.

(Referee pulls out a red card.)

WESLEY: Definitely. Worst possible time for this sort of behavior. Slayer United is going to play a man short for the rest of this crucial match...

[> [> left wing = left hand path? (Nice one, cjl) -- KdS, 14:05:07 01/10/03 Fri

[> [> [> Whenever I watch football (U.K./European) matches on TV.... -- cjl, 14:16:15 01/10/03 Fri

I'm always amused by the theatrics. After the slightest contact, some of the players perform a Shakespearean death scene, holding their ankle/shin/knee, howling in agony, shamelessly begging the ref for a red card.

When you brought up Willow playing Warren in an FA Cup match, I thought to myself: if you're going to get red card-ed and thrown out of the match, you might as well take your opponent out with you.

Slayer United won 1-0, of course. Goal by B. Summers in the 85th minute.

[> [> [> [> I thought Harris pulled out that match. -- HonorH, 10:48:10 01/11/03 Sat

Right at the last minute, he got Rosenberg back into the game, if I recall correctly, and Empire forfeited. Can't really blame 'em, after that foul to Meers. B. and D. Summers were mainly playing defence the whole time.

[> I loved this! -- ponygirl, 12:38:22 01/10/03 Fri

All sports metaphors are going to be pretty lost on me, but I thought that was brilliant. We so need Sunnydale United t-shirts!

[> [> And cheerleaders? -- Tyreseus, 17:53:01 01/11/03 Sat

Okay, so I'm not even sure how this differed from American Football. My knowledge of sports is limited to men's gymnastics during the Olympics.

But I love the Sunnydale United t-shirts idea. And can we get cheerleaders, too? Are those allowed in soccer?/football? How about foam stakes to everyone in attendance at the championships?

And can we get that guy from the Spanish station who yells "Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllll!" to appear every time a vamp gets dusted?

[> [> [> Well, Rob's the cheerleader. -- HonorH, 19:38:10 01/11/03 Sat

Or haven't you noticed his (very manly) tutu and pom-poms? Love the idea of foam stakes and some guy to yell "Goooooooooooooaaaaaaaaallllll!!!" when vamps get dusted. Really, I think you've got something here. You ought to suggest it to ME.

[> [> [> [> You have no idea how hard it is to type, while holding two (manly) pom-poms and doing high kicks! -- Rob, 22:34:31 01/11/03 Sat

[> Love this! -- HonorH, 16:45:45 01/10/03 Fri

Sports metaphors aren't my favorite. I'll let you know that up front. However, having said that, this is as good a summation of the character dynamics this season as any I've seen, and better than most. Love the appalling puns especially!

[> Dead Brilliant! -- Calvin, 10:22:24 01/11/03 Sat

Unfortunately, this has led to some severe problems. I was reading the highlights of the Premiership matches today, and I couldn't help thinking of Buffy. For example, I was reading that Michael Owen scored after a short absence, I thought of Faith coming back with a bang in Season 4 (This Year's Girl/Who Are You?) I now cannot stop thinking, 'Who would make a good Spike? David Beckham, maybe, because you either love him or hate him?' And so on.

Thanks, KdS, like I don't have enough ridiculous thoughts going through my head.

Calvin

[> Truly entertaining -- Celebaelin, 03:14:07 01/12/03 Sun

Sorry if you don't want to hear this but please be careful about the namedropping, remember the Bill Shankley quote "Football isn't a matter of life and death, it's more important than that"! Write with caution.

firsts (spoilers up to 7.11) -- leslie, 10:43:35 01/10/03 Fri

I'm trying to pull together thoughts aroused by a number of threads here....

Pronouns: I noticed that a couple of people have referred to the First Evil as "him"; I think that most people have been using "it," but seeing "him" made me realize that I have definitely been thinking of the First Evil as "her." I think that this in fact dates back to the FE's initial appearance, and maybe was influenced by the fact that the FE's preferred form in that episode was Jennie Calendar, but it does seem that, on the whole, the FE prefers to assume female form. Perhaps it is that we have seen the FE torturing primarily males--Angel, Spike--and that there is some balance preserved here, the FE taking the opposite gender of the person being tortured. But....

Firsts: ...the general femaleness of the FE would also provide a contrast to our other First, the First Slayer. Femaleness split into two aspects: the protector and the destroyer, the two sides of the archetype of the Mother. Yet, weirdly enough, the destroyer is also the creator, in a negative sort of way--the FE creates evil out of the--what, essence, memory?--of the dead, whereas the protector protects by destroying--demons, vampires. There is nothing in here that creates creatively, that produces new life--it's all about death and the demonic. Which makes me wonder...

What if the First Evil and the First Slayer are actually one and the same? Or rather, just as the demon whose name escapes me now split Xander into his two "halves," the Firsts are the two halves of some original entity, a kind of Kali-esque figure who destroys *and* protects, a figure like the Morrigan of Celtic mythology who is the goddess of war, but who can be both mindlessly destructive and fiercely protective (the offensive and defensive sides of war). Which leads me to...

Evolution. Several people have commented that the Ubervamp is part of an effort on the part of ME (as opposed to FE) to remind the audience of the ugliness of vampirism, to make people think to themselves, "This is what is inside Spike. Yuck!" I think it's more complicated than that. It's Giles, I believe, who likens the Ubervamp's relationship to "modern" vampires to that of Neanderthals to Homo sapiens. Now, Neanderthals were (at least by current understanding), an evolutionary dead end. They are related to modern humans, but they are not the progenitors of modern humans; in fact, there's good reason to believe that they were wiped out by modern humans. So the message seems to be that the Ubervamp, for all the Nietzschean overtones of its nickname, is actually a, um, Untervamp. I think we are meant to contrast the U-vamp with vamps such as Spike and Angel and see how *different* they are, not how much the same they are, and this, in a way, answers the questions of "Why save Spike?" and "Why is the FE so interested in Spike?" Spike is, god help us, the new harbinger of vampire evolution--the vampire who willingly sought a soul, the vampire who seeks to produce a powerful and positive melding of demonic strength and longevity and human morality and compassion., Bringing us back to...

Firsts: ... and how Buffy might be able to defeat them. Because I think she has to defeat both the First Evil *and* the First Slayer to get out of this. In Restless, Buffy defies the First Slayer by listing all the ways that she *isn't* like her: "I talk. I shop. I sneeze. I'm gonna be a fireman when the floods roll back. There's trees in the desert since you moved out. And I don't sleep on a bed of bones." (Sleeping on a bed of bones sounds damned Kali-esque to me, incidentally.) Buffy elucidates the results of evolution.

Spike is a threat to the "balance" that the FE seeks not because he has thrown the cosmic balance toward "good" but because he has (inadvertantly, perhaps) unified the two sides of the vampire, a human-demon hybrid in which, to this point, the demon has always won out. He has made whole that which was split. Buffy holds the same threat to the FE, because if she creates the next step in the evolution of the Chosen One, then the FE will no longer be split, and will no longer be a single entity--it will be just part of a whole--perhaps we should be thinking in terms of the true Chosen One being composed of both Slayer and Evil, and hence the whole theme of coming to terms with "darkness" that has been running throughout the series since Restless.

Therefore, it seems to me that the threat that Season 7 holds is the converse of the threat of Season 5 (the other "ending" of BtVS"): Glory threatened to throw the cosmos into chaos; Buffy and Spike threaten to create (oh dear, really bad pun approaching) ... harmony. Wholeness. In this sense, Buffy may not be the Big Bad of the season, but she is the threat that drives the plot.

[> Kali -- Rahael, 10:54:56 01/10/03 Fri

I agree - re the bed of bones, and the whole FS, Kali thing. I should mention that Kali was my mother's favourite Goddess, so I'm biased!!!

But yeah, there seems to be an inescapable connection between the FE and the FS, because recently I've been thinking about Primeval and Restless. But I'm hoping the connection is a surprising one, not a straightforward one.

The First Slayer is a part of every Slayer, so she too takes many guises - and the FE has an amorphous appearance too. But the way that JW depicted the First Slayer in the Tales Graphic Novel was surprisingly sympathetic, showing her as someone who took comfort from the fact that there would be others, who might perhaps experience more joys in life than herself.

[> [> Halves of a whole -- luna, 11:18:10 01/10/03 Fri

I really like the idea of the First Evil and the First Slayer being halves of a whole. Both too are now limited to non-corporeal appearances--FS in dreams, FE as "ghost in machine" controller of apparitions. And interesting how often FE has appeared as a Slayer or proto-Slayer: two different ones in Showtime.

It's the FS who in some ways leads to Buffy's death in The Gift--Buffy recalls her vision when she's up on the platform and sees that "Your gift is death" can mean something really different from "Your gift is killing." Yet it seems that it's Buffy's resurrection that is the disruption (although it certainly might not be)that has brought forth FE again. So this is more basis for seeing FE and FS as somehow connected.

[> [> [> Re: Halves of a whole -- Rahael, 15:27:46 01/10/03 Fri

Intriguing points. My brain's a-whirring - well, much as it can after working in the office until 9.30pm.

[> I love this. Could bounce back and forth with this speculation all day. (spoilers through 7.11) -- cjl, 11:13:40 01/10/03 Fri

The idea of Buffy reconciling the Destroyer and the Creator aspects of the goddess is wonderful. But is Joss going there? Buffy, at the moment, doesn't even acknowledge the role of the Destroyer as an integral, positive aspect of creation; there are times, as D'Hoffryn reminded us in "Selfless," when Buffy is a one-dimensional thinker, viewing evil as something to be hacked, smashed and stomped into the ground.

The great danger with Buffy this season is lack of spiritual clarity. Like Angel in "Amends," she's back on Earth and fighting the good fight, but she still hasn't redefined her purpose to her own satisfaction. In order to defeat the First Evil, she runs the risk of depending on Power as a cure-all, when it could lead everyone to disaster. Her triumph, ultimately, will stem from enlightenment, not another choreographed Slayer Smackdown...

[> [> Echoing the love (spoilers through 7.11) -- ponygirl, 11:48:45 01/10/03 Fri

Ultimately I think Buffy's going to learn the lesson she learned in Restless, that the First, be it Evil or Slayer, cannot be fought. It's part of her, and while ignoring the First Slayer until she went away wasn't necessarily the healthiest thing to do, it was far more effective than trying to fight. It's what Giles has been depressively muttering since he arrived, that the First Evil can't be fought or defeated, though I don't think Giles understands yet the correctness of his statements.

Personally I'm picturing the finale to be a big all out smackdown between Buffy and the First, manifest as the First Slayer. In my mind I see it like the film Greed - a truly epic silent movie, which ended with two men handcuffed together in the middle of the desert, they fight to the death, leaving one man to the dubious victory of being chained to a corpse in the pitiless sun -- there's a moment in Gangs of New York which vaguely echoes this so I'm not pulling this entirely out of the dusty film school recesses of my mind. I think Buffy will have to realize the futility of this fight and do something entirely against her nature - surrender.

[> [> [> Actually, I think she had "Restless" right -- HonorH, 23:54:03 01/10/03 Fri

"You're not the source of me," she said. The First Slayer lived in the hunt, the kill, and Buffy's been doing an awful lot of that this season. She seems to have totally accepted being the Slayer again, which means a lot of sticking pointy things in bad guys. What I think she's going to figure out is that the Slayer route is the wrong way to go with this particular evil. She'll have to turn to a new way and yes, in a way, reject her Slayerhood, in order to foil the First Evil's plans.

[> [> [> [> Re: Actually, I think she had "Restless" right -- leslie, 10:48:27 01/11/03 Sat

""You're not the source of me," [Buffy] said.... She seems to have totally accepted being the Slayer again.... She'll have to turn to a new way and yes, in a way, reject her Slayerhood, in order to foil the First Evil's plan."

This may be where the technicality of Faith, not Buffy, being the actual current Slayer may come in. Buffy is the one who threatens the dichotomy of Firsts because she herself is Slayer-Yet-Not-Slayer. When Buffy has died and a next Slayer called, can the First Slayer still be "the source of her"? Isn't the First Slayer now "the source" of Kendra and then Faith? But Buffy is quite obviously still imbued with the strength, self-healing ability, precognitive dreams, and vocation of a vampire slayer. (Incidentally, I loved in Showtime when the Stripy Fashion Victim SIT said, "Did you see her after she fought the Ubervamp? She was still a walking bruise when we showed up, and that was the NEXT DAY!!" Metacommentary on the fan reaction of "why was Buffy so fragile when Spike tried to rape her?")

The more I think about it, the more I suspect that the threat that Buffy and Spike now pose to the "balance" that is supposed to hold the First Evil in check is ontological rather than moral. Maybe I'm just an unregenerate Levi-Straussian mythologist, but Levi-Strauss holds that the operation of myth is to create mediations between unmediable concepts--if "women" and "men" are conceived to be be completely self-contained with no overlap in their mythological value, the myth presents a way in which a third concept may unite them, provide some overlap. The mythological world, according to Levi-Strauss, is composed of these "binary oppositions" that are mediated through the process of mythic narrative. Binary oppositions in the Buffyverse: good and evil; human and demon; souled and soulless--all challenged/mediated by Angel and now Spike, and also Anya. (And here I really do think it is significant that Spike voluntarily seeks a soul while still a demon, as opposed to Angel and Anya who have souls foisted on them as punishments, no matter how they come to accept and even prefer their souled state.) Other common oppositions: Living and dead--challenged (repeatedly) by Buffy, but also by the mere existence of vampires, who walk and talk and yet are dead. Heterosexuality--challenged by Willow's lesbianism and perhaps Andrew's closeted gayness. Body and soul--challenged by the soul-switch between Faith and Buffy. Unitary body, for that matter--challenged by the two Xanders, Willow and VampWillow, Buffy and the Buffybot. The Buffyverse is a world in which boundaries are constantly breached, in which nothing is stable, in which all oppositions are mediated, often repeatedly and in a multitude of ways. The First, I think, really is fighting against being mediated out of existence.

[> [> [> [> [> Very nice idea... -- KdS, 12:11:16 01/11/03 Sat

And it would really sum up all the sociopoliticophilosophical subtext if the revelation is that evil is threatened by transgression of traditional boundaries (instead of being epitomised by it).

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually, I think she had "Restless" right -- shadowkat, 12:31:24 01/11/03 Sat

The Buffyverse is a world in which boundaries are constantly breached, in which nothing is stable, in which all oppositions are mediated, often repeatedly and in a multitude of ways. The First, I think, really is fighting against being mediated out of existence.

I think you may be right here. It fits with so many things in both series. Also fits what the First tells Willow in CwDP - "I'm sick of this whole-balancing act, I'm going to end it all..." (not exact...sort of a paraphrase). Buffy has been operating outside the boundaries without the rule book. Remember way back in Season 2 - what's my line part II, Kendra talks about the slayer handbook and Buffy asks Giles why she never got one and he says he knew it would never work with her? Well from the get-go we see this is true.

Slayer rules:
1. slayers kill vampires - all vampires. (But Buffy chooses not to kill Angel - because he has a soul. Buffy is the one who chooses this...no one else. Kendra, Faith, even Giles at one point, fights her descision on this. Just wait and see how Giles handles Buffy's decisions regarding ensouled Spike - something tells me, that Giles may not be as understanding as we think. It's against the rules. When he had the chip - he was a harmless creature...now?)
2. slayers die - they have an expiration date. (Not Buffy)
3. slayers work alone and in secret (Buffy works with friends, remember how horrified Kendra was when she discovered all these people knew? Or Wes was when he appeared in Season 3? Or even Giles...when she told Willow and Xander? Or the whole Watcher Council when they appeared in Checkpoint? Or the First Slayer? All these characters - all part of the whole Chosen One Council - Rule Followers - were upset at one point or another with Buffy for letting outsiders become involved in her line of work.)
4. slayers do what is right for the needs of the many they do not put family or friends first (Buffy sacrifices herself to save Dawn and then the world. If Dawn died that would have had the same result, but she puts Dawn first in The Gift.)
5. Slayers don't have family or friends (emphasized by Kendra, the SIT's, Faith - they are taken away early on and just have a watcher. Remember What Spike says in both School Hard and Fool For Love? "A slayer with family and friends isn't in the program." and "It's your connections to the world that keep you alive - the Scoobies, your mom, you kid sister..." Without anyone in your life but a watcher and a job - no wonder you have a death wish?)
6. Slayers follow a Watcher - he guides her. (Buffy fires the Watcher Council and doesn't really follow her Watcher.)

Everything Buffy does in the series is against the dictates of the rules. She does NOT follow the guidelines. The First Slayer is threatened by this in Restless. Kendra questions it in What's My Line. Angel questions it in Prophecy Girl and to some degree in Angel. Spike questions it in School Hard, Fool For Love, and to some degree other earlier episodes...with lines like "she's tricky...or that's just not right..". Quentin Travers questions it in Checkpoint, Never Leave Me, and Helpless. Dracula seeks her out because of it. Dru wonders about it. Faith questions and taunts her on it. And now finally the First Evil.

Similarily Spike stopped following the rules - starting with Season 2.

Vampire rulebook.
1. Vampires raison d'etre is to kill humans and create more vampires and do evil.
2. Vampires do not kill other demons. Demon code - kill living not dead things.
3. Vampires serve the first evil, evil is their raison d'etre.
4. Vampires remain arrested adolescents - never grow up, always kids, always young.
5. Vampires live off human blood.
6. Vampires don't go out in sunlight or sleep above ground
7. Vampire aspire to become old and batlike and powerful like the Master

What does Spike do?
1. He helps Buffy save the world.
2. He kills other vampires and demons - something that enrages the demon world
3. He stops drinking human blood and killing humans (granted had no choice, but he could have found someone to do it for him)
4. He falls in love with the vampire slayer - an agent of good and decides to help her and even saves her life a few times
5. He seeks a soul and chooses to give up doing evil

Uhm...sounds like Spike broke just about every rule in the rule book. No wonder the First Evil is so furious with him.
Even more so than Angel - who really hadn't broken the rules. Angel was cursed - still in balance - still following the rules. Note what First Evil says to him:"What makes you think you have a choice?" And "I'm not through with you yet..." It/She goes out of her way to tell Spike - you're my creature - you work for me - you nit! You don't get to choose to do good and change. That's outside the rules of the game the boundaries. Get over this dumb notion.
You're a vampire - you haven't been good for a hundred years - you can't be good now! You chose sides ages ago.

(It's interesting to note that after 3 years Spike doesn't start killing people and creating new vampires until the First manipulates him and turns him into a sleeper agent - which is a short lived manipulation. And the first of the FE's attempts to change one of it's agents back to its side - to get it to follow the rules again.)

In Buffy - the rules keep getting broken, including the rules of the genre. It keeps taking something we think we know and twisting it on us. Willow becoming Gay. Xander falling in love with the vengeance demon who was summoned to destroy him. The Vengeance Demon falling in love with Xander and getting hurt by him and being unable to wreck violence on Xander. Or of all the Trioka to live - it being the one we assumed was the weakest? I'm not sure - but is ME challenging possibily unconsciously the mythic binary structure? Challenging that nice orderly layer of rules that fantasy writers establish when they create a world and never break? Are they showing...through the breakage of these rules - that rules established in fiction don't necessarily govern the actions of characters - that characters can break free to assert their own will and follow their own path regardless of canon - just as we as human beings aren't necessarily tied to any one path or destiney and can find our own?

Not sure I made any sense whatsoever - or if I've completely misunderstood your Levi-Strauss quote, have to admit it's been 15 years since I read him, memory is foggy.
At any rate good post. SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually, I think she had "Restless" right -- leslie, 19:09:32 01/11/03 Sat

"I'm not sure - but is ME challenging possibily unconsciously the mythic binary structure? Challenging that nice orderly layer of rules that fantasy writers establish when they create a world and never break? Are they showing...through the breakage of these rules - that rules established in fiction don't necessarily govern the actions of characters - that characters can break free to assert their own will and follow their own path regardless of canon - just as we as human beings aren't necessarily tied to any one path or destiney and can find our own?

Not sure I made any sense whatsoever - or if I've completely misunderstood your Levi-Strauss quote..."

Well, you've misunderstood it to a certain point, because for L-S, the thing that differentiates "myth" from simple "fiction" is that it does break down binary oppositions that are the foundations of society. A simple example: in the real world, one is either "male" or "female." There is not (supposed to be) a way to be both, or neither. Myths, however, abound in characters who transcend/change/challenge the "either/or" nature of gender. Myth allows something to happen easily that is not supposed to happen in the real world. However, there are cases in the real world where genders are changed or transcended--there are people who actually are genetically and sometimes even physically hermaphrodites, there are transsexuals, transvestites, and so on. And traditionally there are people who, for religious reasons, blur gender lines--male shamans often take on female gender roles, marrying men; male devotees of Cybele castrated themselves and wore female clothing as a sign of their devotion to the goddess; (interesting that, traditionally, it's men who take on female roles rather than vice versa); the underlying premise of clerical celibacy in Christianity is to remove the religious from adherence to one or the other gender role; and so on. The thing is, these trangressions/transcendences always have a kind of eerie, weird, spiritual overtone when they occur in the real world. In myths, they are par for the course. The point of myth, in a L-S-ian sense, is to break down the strict adherence to binary oppositions (L-S claims that viewing the world in terms of binary oppositions is the standard operating procedure of the human mind--which some others have challenged) and present possible alternatives--mediations--to those static oppositions. Binary oppositions are fixed; mediation is movement. So, whether ME are consciously or unconsciously breaking the conventions of genre--social binary oppositions--what they are doing in the process is moving BtVS from the realm of "fiction" into "myth."

Thus, I justify my obsession with the show. Trust me, I'm a mythologist.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm...I think you may have justified both our obsessions -- shadowkat, 19:37:37 01/11/03 Sat

Although...I can't claim to be a mythologist - having only studied it as a minor in college and not pursuing it much further as my poor minor advisor wished. ;-)

At any rate I like your take on it...and from what I've heard on the commentaries? I think it's the correct one. Whedon repeats more than once how certain elements in his shows are in most mythologies and how the mythic view is important to him. Wonder if he read Levi-Strauss? Or if he just has a vague understanding of it like I do?

Thanks for explaining the quote.
SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmm...I think you may have justified both our obsessions -- leslie, 20:56:49 01/11/03 Sat

"Whedon repeats more than once how certain elements in his shows are in most mythologies and how the mythic view is important to him. Wonder if he read Levi-Strauss? Or if he just has a vague understanding of it like I do?"

I think, given his age, education, and interests, he has to have read Levi-Strauss at some point--whether he likes/uses his theories is another question. Of course, if Levi-Strauss is right, then Whedon--and every one else in the universe, or at least all humans in possession of human brains --can't help but conform to his theories....

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm. -- Sophist, 19:40:50 01/11/03 Sat

the underlying premise of clerical celibacy in Christianity is to remove the religious from adherence to one or the other gender role

Somehow, I don't think Gregory VII would have phrased it that way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> rules and power -- Flo, 19:42:10 01/12/03 Sun

I'd like to tie Buffy's rule-breaking tendencies into previous discussions about power on the show. The common phrase, "All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," seems to have been addressed throughout the series. Faith's behavior in the second half of S3 is a fabulous example of how the power inherent to being the slayer tempts one to use that power for self-interest that damages others.

Buffy seems to have been a foil for this belief about power, pointing a way for one to attain power and to remain "good" or at least interested in using it to serve humanity (although her adherence to keeping Spike around may challenge this -- how much has she kept him alive for her own interests?)

SO -- I think one reason people create rules -- be they formal rules such as criminal code, or informal rules such as saying "Have a nice day" to customers rather than "Now go away" -- is to remove the temptation for people to use power to destroy or harm society. The rules of the Watcher's Council certainly exist in order to control the slayer, and this may be in part to keep her power contained so that it doesn't tempt her to go the way of Faith. (Hmm, interesting play on words there.)

Buffy's ability to claim her own power without letting it corrupt her is even more remarkable given that she operates outside the rules and even creates her own. I've said before and I'll say it again, I think the primary function of Buffy is to offer a model for how each of us can claim our own power without being subverted by the temptation to be corrupted by it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent point. Yes. -- Rahael, 01:57:23 01/13/03 Mon

[> [> Re: I love this. Could bounce back and forth with this speculation all day. (spoilers through 7.11) -- luna, 18:55:32 01/10/03 Fri

Yeah, I really see most of the time an unreconcilable Gnostic-type universe with the overwhelming numbers and strength on the side of evil but the few, the brave making their stand and somehow winning.

But the great thing about all the archtypes and ambiguities is that we can fit other readings in--at least until the next episode demolishes that possibility. And there really do seem to be some links between the two Firsts, not just the name.

[> Neanderthals, totally OT -- sloan, 11:20:27 01/10/03 Fri

Not to refute the point you're trying to make, because it's a really good one, but I wanted to correct some ideas about Neanderthals. New evidence has suggested that they weren't the evolutionary dead end that we think they are. Scientists have found evidence of diseases, which originated with Neanderthals, like cystic fibrosis in modern humans. So this indicates some genetic mixing. One of the theories about the disappearance of the Neanderthals IS conflict with modern humans. Another is the genetic mixing. (I think there's a third but I can't remember it). More evidence to suggest the genetic mixing is a combination of Neanderthal and modern human artifacts found in the same level of occupation in a cave (sorry about the vague details, this is all I can remember from my Prehistoric Cultures class three semesters ago--So, if I've made a gross mistake you've already got an apology and excuse).

What does this have to do with your theory? Absolutely nothing, sorry. I just think it's really cool that we all probably have a little bit of Neanderthal in us.

By the way, I love the idea that this season could be drawing together all the threads of the Buffy mythology and creating, finally, a coherent universe.

[> [> Re: Neanderthals, totally OT -- Darby, 12:08:02 01/10/03 Fri

My information claims just the opposite - cystic fibrosis dates back to the time of our ancestors' invasion of Neanderthal turf, but the assumption is that it arose from a mutation in our own (white European) family tree, not as a "pick-up" from Neanderthals. To tell the truth, I find the indirect way of ferreting this information out to be unconvincing anyway, but I can't imagine a way in which this could reasonably be tied to some sort of Neanderthal input.

The cave remains are still controversial, and being in the same layer does not indicate cohabitation anyway, just occupation over a fairly short (decades) timeline.

My own assumptions are that our ancestors may have wiped out the Neanderthals, but to assume that there was no cross-breeding is to ignore what human males are like. Our slash, burn and murder and then enslave approach would have probably kept the mixing to a minimum, though. You could probably make a case for it being our First Evil.

The studies on the issue are still vague enough that people generally find what they expect to find. I almost never agree with the basic premises of the genetic studies - it's always, "We can't do this directly, so we're doing this as a substitute based on this assumption," to which I'm going, "Huh? How's that make sense?"

But then, I'm a hypercritical sonuvabitch. Makes me lots of fun at science conferences.

[> [> [> Re: Neanderthals, totally OT -- Sophist, 13:00:14 01/10/03 Fri

Just to add to the cacophony here.

My understanding is that the majority view remains as leslie said: Neandertals are cousins, not ancestors. Aside from the skeletal evidence, Svante Paabo has claimed that DNA evidence supports this conclusion -- the most recent common ancestor of humans and Neandertals lived about 700,000 years ago.

A minority view claims that a recently discovered skeleton from about 26,000 years ago shows mixed Neandertal/human characteristics and supports the claim of interbreeding. This conclusion is very controversial.

[> [> [> [> Hmmm -- KdS, 14:11:59 01/10/03 Fri

I remember a children's programme years ago (educational, not the Flintstones) which suggested that if you have the third toe on either of your feet longer than the second it means you have some Neanderthal blood (I do on one foot if you're wondering). Anyone else picked up that snippet?

[> [> [> Re: Neanderthals, totally OT -- Wisewoman, 19:36:25 01/10/03 Fri

From a recent interview with Chris Stringer:

When the mitochondrial DNA of the Neanderthal fossil was compared with that of living humans and chimpanzees, it was found that it was more similar to humans than to chimpanzees, but that the mitochondrial DNA was significantly different from that of anyone alive today. It was equally different when compared with Europeans, Africans, Australians and so on. This suggested that the Neanderthals formed a separate branch to the human lineage that survives today, contradicting the idea that they might be partly ancestral to modern Europeans. Mitochondrial DNA has been sampled from about 10,000 individuals from Europe, and from at least five Neanderthals, and no living person so far tested has anything resembling the DNA types found in Neanderthals. The Neanderthal samples show common features, and analysis suggests that they began to separate from our own genetic line about half a million years ago, developing their own distinct diversity. As is also suggested by the fossil evidence, the Neanderthals are apparently genetically extinct--the patterns seen in their mitochondrial DNA cannot be found anywhere in the world today. {emphasis mine}

Ah, but have they tested Milford Wolpoff's DNA?

;o)

[> [> [> [> Re: Neanderthals, totally OT -- Darby, 20:50:55 01/10/03 Fri

In these cases the DNA evidence seems strong, but there are some basic assumptions that are probably not valid -

- The "modern" mtDNA used for comparison isn't a comprehensive enough sample to assume that no neanderthal lineages persist in any current groups. Note that the claim is for no living person so far tested.

- A small breeding input would still have to be evident after 40000 years.

- mtDNA is exclusively matrilineal. Evidence is starting to accumulate that exceptions may be somewhat common, forcing mitochondrial competition and possibly "lineage" loss.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Neanderthals, totally OT -- Tyreseus, 18:45:05 01/11/03 Sat

Wow! So not following this thread. Not a science dummy, but I know when I'm out of my league.

On the other hand, I'd like to submit my ex-boyfriend for DNA testing. I'm almost certain there's Neanderthal DNA in him. Does this DNA testing require lots of pain, cause if it doesn't, never mind.

[> [> [> [> [> [> ROFL -- Sophist, 19:46:01 01/11/03 Sat

[> Seconds (more bad speculation) -- neaux, 11:47:20 01/10/03 Fri

While you might be hung up on firsts, I myself am hung up on Seconds and how the big "2"s are going to fit into the picture.

I dont see Spike as a first. He is a second vamp with a soul.

Faith is the second slayer.

Dawn is the key. I would argue that she is the second Key and Buffy is the first.

All three of these characters are also secondary characters but I believe they will have more impact in the season finale than Buffy will. Why? because I believe that if there is a choice Buffy will need to make, it will revolve around these three characters. (Damn. I'm mixing my twos and threes now)

back to the twos, we may also see the SITs get picked off until there are only 2 left.

throw in 2 magicians (Willow and Giles)
and 2 humans (Anya and Xander)

and its a big multiplication party.

I dont have any concrete evidence of course as to why the focus will be on twos rather than Firsts but with ME's tract record it always takes seconds to see the whole picture.

[> [> Re: Seconds (more bad speculation) -- yez, 13:44:33 01/10/03 Fri

Spike is the first to ever have chosen a soul, though. I think that's a big difference.

[> [> [> But in a way, Angel *has* chosen his soul. -- HonorH, 23:56:57 01/10/03 Fri

It was forced on him, yes, but he left Sunnydale, left potential happiness with the one he loved, because he wanted to keep his soul. He chooses his soul every time he works for the good of the world rather than his personal happiness.

[> [> [> [> Yes, but... -- yez, 05:47:37 01/11/03 Sat

... I think it's the human in him that chooses the soul -- the soul chooses the soul. But the demon has had no interest in it, and has fought against it.

In Spike's case, it wasn't William that chose the soul -- it was the vampire demon, and that's why Spike is different, IMHO.

yez

[> Great stuff, very elegant. -- yez, 13:47:34 01/10/03 Fri

Regeneration of the Council? (spoilers season 7) -- yez, 11:26:14 01/10/03 Fri

Where the Council and its authority came from has always been a question. Is it possible that one of the things BtVS will mean/explain, in the end, is that this is how it started? A few people who joined in the Slayer's mission out of friendship and courageousness; a few people who helped because they couldn't stand the thought of their friend doing it alone, or wanted to save the world (or because they had nothing better to do) and when the Slayer eventually fell, they stayed true to the mission. And eventually, the "help" became institutionalized, depersonalized -- turned into the Council with its rules and self-proclaimed authority?

I was thinking about this because of a post I read yesterday. Of course, I can't find it now and can't remember the author, so please forgive me for not giving credit. But the author outlined a possible final scene for the season/series with a girl running from a vamp, then turning and fighting it. Then the last remaining Scooby appears, handing the girl a stake and asking her if she knows where the heart is.

So maybe, somewhere in the very distant past, something similar happened to what we've been seeing over the last seven years. Humans coming together, learning about the Slayer's powers, learning how to identify potential slayers (the coven's seers trying to locate more), and helping to pass long the knowledge, the history, the skills. There seems to be a perfect opportunity for this again now with all the slayers in training congregating in Sunnydale, and most or all of the remaining knowledge about the slayer lineage, skills, etc., resting in Giles and the other Scoobies (and weren't Giles and Willow creating a database at one point of all the books Giles had?).

Or not. Maybe the first slayer was just a summoned demon who eventually mixed blood with humans (like the first vamps). Or something else entirely...

yez

[> Where will they go from here? -- xanthe, 13:54:07 01/10/03 Fri

It does seem like at this point we might get some lingering questions answered - questions that before now I don't think Joss & Co. have been too interested in pursuing. How does one become a Watcher? When did the Council first appear? What is the history of the relationship between Watchers (individually or as a Council) and slayers? I'd been shocked if we didn't learn more about the slayer mythos by the time it's all over, but I don't think that was something that ME has been avoiding, only saving for the proper time. I think that I remember reading an interview or something, long ago, where someone stated that the writers had no interest in exploring the Council or slayers as an institution, only as how it relates to Buffy and her personal journey. Well, it certainly appears to be relevant right now.

As for how the Council may survive, the only people connected with them (see how vague I'm being) who we know have survived are Giles and Wesley. There may be others who have avoided the Harbringers' notice so far, but we haven't heard about them. I'd love to see Wesley's reaction to the near total destruction of the Council. It would make sense for the two of them to be involved if the Council was to be rebuilt in some similar form, but I don't expect to see it. For one thing, Wesley is speeding down a far different path these days and I don't think anyone would want to see him abandon it - and that's leaving aside all the on-a-different-show-and-network issues.

It is clear that the future of the Slayer, in whatever form it takes, is dependent on the events of the rest of this season. We've had the fate of the world resting on how our heroes deal with the problems tosses at them, but now it's the fate of the mythology that the show rests on. This season has the potential to rewrite all the rules, which is huge, whether or not BtVS returns or spins off another show.

[> [> When slayers take over the world -- yez, 05:59:03 01/11/03 Sat

Yeah, it does have the potential to "rewrite the rules," as you say. They have a lot of room to maneuver when it comes to doing that, as the characters exist in a state of "What the hell is the meaning of this?" most of the time, so almost anything can go. On the other hand, if they push it too far, it can come off seeming like a retcon, or whatever that's called when they seemed to have retrofitted a character or story with certain aspects to accomodate a new direction.

I was thinking that should a new council spring up now, even an informal one (which is what the Scoobies kind of are already -- a group of people who help the Slayer do her job, make decisions, etc.) then I'd bet they'd capitalize on the new two-for-one thing discovered with Buffy and Faith and start pulling a bunch of Flatlines -- inducing death in the official Slayer for a moment so they can resurrect her and also have the next Slayer called. They could build up a whole army of Slayers this way.

Of course, this could also cause plenty of cosmic balance mayhem (assuming this is what's going on now -- there's always a price), which could be delicious to explore. Inevitably, there'd be rogue slayers and slayer fighting slayer,people jockeying for leadership positions. And then they'd take over the world. :)

yez

[> [> Wesley and Fray -- Scroll, 12:30:54 01/11/03 Sat

You're right that Wesley is headed down a much different path; it's not very likely he would want to return to being a (traditional) Watcher who sits back, researches, and sends out Slayers to fight. The new Wesley is very hands-on; he fights like a guerilla. But I do want to see Angel address the Slayer situation and the Council's demise. After all, Wesley's family, his old classmates, his former co-workers have all been massacred. The institution in which he was raised has been demolished. This isn't something he'll be able to gloss over lightly. I want to see some consequences -- but I'm worried Joss will ignore this storyline since the Council is more a Buffy thing than an Angel thing.

As for the Scoobies becoming the next Council, I think this would make a great deal of sense. But would that mean the Council who is made up of a bunch of insane people, with a Watcher who sets himself on fire in front of Fray, are descendents of the Scoobies? That would be kinda sad and depressing... :)

[> [> [> Wesley as watcher -- Tyreseus, 17:36:17 01/11/03 Sat

After all, Wesley's family, his old classmates, his former co-workers have all been massacred. The institution in which he was raised has been demolished. This isn't something he'll be able to gloss over lightly. I want to see some consequences -- but I'm worried Joss will ignore this storyline since the Council is more a Buffy thing than an Angel thing.

You know, I also worry that ME will ignore the Watchers Council situation on Angel. I have hope, however, because of Spin the Bottle. Very recently, they put Wesley firmly into the watcher mindset. His character may be on a different path for the future, but AtS did reference his watcher upbringing pretty strongly this season. So I hope this is a form of foreshadowing for AtS viewers that will allow them to make sense of the news from London.

And are there really any fans of AtS who don't watch BtVS?

[> Re: Further Speculation on the Regeneration of the Council? (spoilers season 7) -- Angelina, 13:58:17 01/10/03 Fri

How about the entire remainder of the BtVS cast (whoever isn't killed off as the final season comes to an end) becoming the next Council of Watchers? Willow, Xander, Giles, Buffy (they could send her out of town alot, and then come back for cameo appearance - I particularly like that idea). Whatever resolution Joss comes up with AND GOD, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE LET HIM BE THE ONE WRITING THE FINAL EPISODES, this could be a wonderful way of continuing the storyline in another series.

[> [> Yeap, Joss is the writer of 7.22 -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:17:34 01/10/03 Fri

In fact, I heard somewhere that he has already written the final scene to the season (series) finale. I'm tingling in anticipation.

[> 'Twas me ;-) -- KdS, 14:15:11 01/10/03 Fri

It's in archive #1 under MayaPapaya's "On calling a new slayer" topic".

[> [> Oh, good, you saw this -- thanks for the inspiration. :) -- yez, 06:16:49 01/11/03 Sat

"Showtime": plot twist or depressed metanarrative? (spoilers 7.11, casting spoiler and spec) -- Thomas the Skeptic, 14:21:59 01/10/03 Fri

After watching "Showtime" and hearing the dire words of both Anya and the "Floating Eye(s)" about "the Slayer" , I am left with two sets of impressions: First, ME is laying the groundwork for a typical Whedonesque mislead where they suprise us by revealing that it is the existence of the 2nd Slayer, Faith, that is upsetting the cosmic balance and her death required to set things right. If this scenario proves to be correct it would have several things in its favor; the chance to see a knockdown drag-out between two Slayers again, with Buffy half-heartedly trying to convince Faith that her dying is all for the best and Faith not having any. Also, I can imagine a final, grand self-redemptive act of sacrifice on Faith's part, sufficently different from Buffy's in "The Gift" of course, that would bring the season (and perhaps the series) to a thoroughly satisfying conclusion. On the other hand, having Anya express second thoughts about bringing Buffy back could be ME's sly way of stepping through the proscenium and speaking to us directly about their, and our, ambivalence about the show since the end of season 5. Now, before anyone becomes irrate, I know there are fanatical lovers of season 6 here and I don't challenge that affection. Even they must admit, though, that some changes in the Buffyverse lately have'nt always been for the best, for the characters or for us. A few weeks ago, Mister X and I watched "Amends" to reacquaint ourselves with the first appearance of the FE. Afterwards we both remarked how intense the ending was and how stirring the exchange between Buffy and Angel. "They don't talk like that anymore!" he exclaimed and I knew exactly what he meant. Granted, no one in this world or Whedon's can sustain the exaggerated over-sized passions of adolescence forever, yet still, I find myself longing for the exquisitely stylized melodrama of yesteryear. I realize a certain "graying down" is inevitable as the scoobies become grown-ups but I miss the vitality and all the pretty colors. I still love this show and its characters but I find the same world weariness they are experiencing is creeping into my attitude towards them. This makes me wonder if the writers at ME don't feel the same lassitude as well. Surely some of them must feel, at least occasionally, that "Buffy" reached its creative apex at the end of season 5 and the last 2 years have been somewhat anti-climactic. Perhaps it was their collective voices we heard speaking through Anya. In addition to any misgivings they may have about "Buffy" post-Sunnydale High and University, I think they probably also have some personal anxieties about their own futures at the end of this season. I would be exceedingly suprised if that angst did not appear, at least as subtext, in their writing. All of these opinions and feelings may have finally been reflected in this brief foray into metanarrative expression, if this is indeed what that was. Postscript: I suprised me with this post because its the first time I ever admitted, even to myself, that my faith in Buffy and the slayerettes has wavered. Don't get me wrong, I still love all things Whedon but, apparently, after 7 years of brilliant television I seem to be suffering from a dose of excellence-in-narrative fatigue. Maybe I should watch something really vile, like "The Bachelorette", to fully appreciate the genius at work here. Of course, let them announce that there is going to be some kind of spin-off next year with Joss at the helm and see how fast I change my tune ;). Isn't it ironic that one of the themes of this episode was hope?...

[> I don't see it as being metanarrative. ("Showtime" spoilers) -- Rob, 14:49:18 01/10/03 Fri

I think the idea that Anya's line brings the whole cosmic comeuppance thing full circle. It took over a year to get to it, but besides the demon that materialized in "After Life," we are finally seeing the true payback for the Scoobies' resurrecting of "Buffy." I think saying that Anya's line implies that the WRITERS think that Buffy shouldn't have been brought back is reading way too much into it, and very, very subjective. I adored season 6, and so far, season 7 is shaping up to be my favorite. I don't feel any creative drop-off. I think it sounds more like, due to your own dissatisfaction, you assume that the writers feel that way as well, but I would disagree. The writers seem to have been completely revitalized this year, and as always, it's impossible to judge exactly what everything means until the season is over.

Rob

[> [> Sorry for the typos/grammar problems. I was trying to watch TV and type at the same time. Bad Rob! -- Rob, 14:54:54 01/10/03 Fri

[> It is a mislead, but not about Faith (muti season spoilerage) -- Steve, 16:26:54 01/10/03 Fri

My guess is this, given that the the First Evil's little trip "back to the beginning" in the season opener only went as far back as The Master (remember, ME have not been afraid to reference the movie when required):

The gang *will* beat itself up about having brought Buffy back for S6, but in fact the cosmos-screwing event was Buffy's resurrection in "Prophecy Girl" at the end of Season One. Indeed, she would have died, if not for the intervention of that unusual accroutrement for a Slayer: friends. Let's not forget that Buffy's lack of isolation was what was pissing off the First Slayer in Restless, not the UberBuffy spell in itself. The First Slayer may already have been unhappy about Buffy's cosmic upset, a while, but was unable to rememdy the situatin by striking out at Buffy's figurative life support system (Willow, Xander and Giles) until they joined with Buffy at the end of S4. If this is the case, the First Slayer was quite correct to attack them: not only did her friends prolong her life by anchoring her to the World (and occaisionaly outright saving her ass), but they even brought her back from the dead after the cosmos-screwing problem had apparantly resolved itself! (So, yes, maybe the Scoobies should beat themselves up a little. But they still didn't *cause* the problem)

This timing of the cosmos-screw up also fits in with the first appearance of the First Evil in Season 3: It was an initial probe of Buffy's defences, by an entity already aware of the possibilities inherent in Buffy's life. Why else would it turn up at all, when clearly appearances of the First Evil are astronomically rare, given the Council's slim information on it, and even the general ignorance about the First Evil in the demon world?

Another item that reinforces this idea is the backshadowing used in "Help". At the end of "Help", in what seemed like a clear reference to Buffy's own personal experience in "Prophecy Girl" in facing down preordained death, she tells Cassie, "See? You can make a difference," i.e. you can beat prophecy. But, significantly, Cassie doesn't.

So, it's not Faith's existence as a Slayer, or Kendra's before her, that's causing the problem, but Buffy's *continued* existence. Faith's death would simply result in the activation of a new slayer, as did Kendra's. Buffy is not now the locus of the Slayer line, as her second death in S5 did not result in the creation of a 3rd Slayer (if the Coven and the Council can locate potentials, they would surely have been aware of another fully fledged Slayer).

However, I disagree with those who think that this means that Buffy is not a Slayer per se, but some freak, based on her "I feel different" line in Prophecy Girl. We are now simply seeing the reason why there is only one chosen in every generation: the universe simply can't handle two Slayers -- it upsets whatever cosmic balance keeps things like the First Evil in check.

How they're going to get out of this without killing Buffy is going to be interesting: perhaps a ritual/spell/artifact of some kind to remove the mantel of Slayerdom from Buffy. There could have been a need for such a thing in the past to deal with an Evil Slayer (as Faith showed, there's no cosmic garauntee that Slayers will be good). This would allow Buffy to pursue that kind of life she envisioned for herself in S3 and S4, and could be a way to wrap up the show. The show could even continue on after that point, either with Faith, or have her meet a Standard Issue Slayer Sticky End and bung Kennedy/Dawn/???? in as the new Slayer.

Steve

[> [> I like this. -- HonorH, 16:38:39 01/10/03 Fri

We never saw the part of the conversation that caused Giles and Anya to believe it was Buffy's S6 resurrection was the root of the problem, so it is entirely possible they were wrong. I think this is really the first time I've bought this line of reasoning, actually. The first death and revival tipped the scales; the second one really screwed things up. Giving up her Slayer-ness somehow could be the solution. I would like to see Buffy "lay [her] arms down and . . . rest at last," and this is a way she could do that.

[> [> [> Bravo! Steve you have a wonderful arguement and HonorH has hit on great spec I would like to see. -- Briar Rose, 17:47:40 01/10/03 Fri

[> [> This is my hunch as well - I agree with you -- shadowkat, 21:26:47 01/10/03 Fri

I think it's Prophecy Girl that turned the tide. Remember up until Prophecy Girl - we have the intro : "Into each generation a slayer is born, one girl in all the world to fight the vampires and the demons..." That's the exposition throughout Season 1. They drop it in Season 2. Why? Because Buffy died in Prophecy Girl and suddenly it's no longer "one girl" in all the world - it's two girls. Doesn't matter if Faith dies or lives - still be two girls.
If Buffy dies - no new slayer gets chosen - we still have Faith. When Kendra died - yep still two girls. Buffy was meant to be killed by the Master and Angel was meant to become a champion.

Remember in Prophecy Girl how Xander has to convince Mr. follow all prophecies at all costs Angel (he doesn't go off them really until Angel Season 2, and even then still into following the prophecies) to save Buffy? Has to literally shove a cross in his face. And since Angel doesn't breath (apparently this distinquishes him from Spike who can occassionally breath or thinks he can - sorry couldn't resist) - Xander is the one who revives Buffy. Or brings her back. Disrupting the line, causing the show to change dramatically and for the niave virginal girl in her white sacrificial gown to jump outside the boundaries of the traditional horror genre and make her own destiney. She fell off the Power's radar screen after that and beyond the Watcher's control...eventually. But the reason this happened? Is what Buffy did way back in Welcome to The Hellmouth and Harvest - Xander and Willow helped. If it weren't for Xander in Harvest? Would Buffy have lived?
If it weren't for Buffy - would Xander and Willow have lived? So Buffy bringing in her friends disrupted things - if she hadn't done that Xander wouldn't have saved her, but if she hadn't done it would she have gone to meet her destiny? After all it's Willow in Welcome To the Hellmouth and Prophecy Girl that motivates Buffy to go after the vampires?

At any rate - I think it's interesting what Whistler states in Becoming - "Angel was meant to save the day, we never saw you coming." Of course not - she was dead in the Prophecies.

She survived beyond the expiration date = her sixteenth birthday. She was never meant to make it to 17. Let alone 20 or 21. If she had died, there wouldn't have been a Dawn.
Faith wouldn't have joined with the Mayor. Angel would never have become Angelus. Spike would not have broken up with Drusilla, fallen for Buffy and gone after a soul. Etc.
There's supposed to be "one girl" and the vampires - it's what Spike says over and over again. Why do you think he freaks in What's My Line PArt II - when Kendra appears.
"What - who are you?" "Two slayers!" "No waiting?" It threw him off his game. Or in Fool For Love - where he says in Boxer Rebellion - "don't worry Angelus, another one will be chosen and you can grab her" or to Buffy - "When you become a vampire you have nothing to fear except ONE girl."
I'm sure the concept of another slayer wandering around confused him a bit until someone mentioned she'd already died once. Also Dru's line in School Hard - is very telling: "It's dark where she is...all dark. I can't see her Spike." She's very flustered about this. "Kill her for me Spike, kill her for Princess." Up until now I thought all dark was forshadowing for the S/B romance and Angelus - but it's far better than that! It's about Buffy being outside the boundaries. She died. Dru who has visions - can no longer see her - she doesn't exist - Buffy's destiney/ her thread of fate - is no longer visible to anyone. And Dru is a bit like Angel - big about prophecies.

Why did Spike fall for Buffy? Possibly because she faced death and won. She like Spike could care less for the prophecies - she fell outside the rulebook??

So as a result - we now have two slayers alive and kicking, and two ensouled vampires. This has disrupted life big time.

I think you're solution works the best as well - I think the only way for this to work is for Buffy to give up her power, to stop fighting evil and move into the adult role - the role of watcher/teacher. She after all no longer needs to slay the demons of childhood. Instead she should be counseling others on how to do it more peacefully - a role Principal Wood appears to be slowly moving her into. While Giles is insisting she stick with the old childhood role.
Buffy believes she's only done when she dies. But remember it's not about right and wrong it's about power and stripping it away and being who you are.

In Willow's dream - the fear is being the geek - the Slayer strips away the layers and her spirit as well
In Xander's restless dream - he's running from what he believes he is, the slayer takes his heart
In Giles' dream - he's avoiding his duties and shows that he sees them as meaningless, an attitude that is reiterated in Tabula Rasa
In Buffy's dream - she chooses to be a person over a killer, to be a fireman as opposed to lying on a bed of bones and pulls everyone out of the dream when she does so.

And then there's Spike - what power must he choose to give up? To be stripped down again? The power of immortal life, the strength of the vampire?

Dawn - the power of the key and the idea of being a slayer?

Buffy - the power of the slayer?

Perhaps that's where we are going ....it would be a good ending. And allow for a spinoff.

SK (PS:My vote for a spin-off is the xander/spike detective agency...;-) Could be a great anthology series with guest appearences by Buffy, Willow, etc. Now that I'd watch.)

[> [> [> "Restless" and Buffy -- HonorH, 21:49:21 01/10/03 Fri

A lot of people seem to be taking Buffy's rejection of the First Slayer as her source in "Restless" as another denial of who she is. I don't see it that way. I see it more the way you stated it above, s'kat--that she's denying that she is *only* a Slayer, that she can't be more. She's denying the First Slayer as a role model. Being alone. Living in the hunt, the kill. Never being a nurturer or a person in her own right. "You're not the source of me," says Buffy, and she wakes up.

It's not a bad thing, any more than Xander declaring that his father isn't his source would be a bad thing (point of fact, I think he needs to). Buffy has chosen a different path than her foremothers, and I think she'll have a different ending than they had.

[> [> [> [> Yep - I think that's where they are going. -- shadowkat, 11:32:01 01/11/03 Sat

A lot of people seem to be taking Buffy's rejection of the First Slayer as her source in "Restless" as another denial of who she is. I don't see it that way. I see it more the way you stated it above, s'kat--that she's denying that she is *only* a Slayer, that she can't be more. She's denying the First Slayer as a role model. Being alone. Living in the hunt, the kill. Never being a nurturer or a person in her own right. "You're not the source of me," says Buffy, and she wakes up.

It's not a bad thing, any more than Xander declaring that his father isn't his source would be a bad thing (point of fact, I think he needs to). Buffy has chosen a different path than her foremothers, and I think she'll have a different ending than they had.

Have to admit I used to be part of the first camp, convinced for a while that she was denying the darkness - but I've changed my mind. You'll realize how much if you re-read my Buffy's dream essay. I think the whole "you're denying the dark side" theme and "who the slayer is" is a mislead. I realized this was true when I watched a selection of commentaries from Season 5 DVD that a friend sent me. In the Story of Season 5 - which Rahael also kindly transcribed for the board - check back in the archives for it - the writers state Buffy makes a choice in Buffy vs. Dracula and throughout Season 5 - do I give into the darkness and let it take me over - which is the temptation Drac offers her or do I accept it is a part of me, but there's more and I don't have to be this, I'm both?
Also - there's the point made that the slayer is NOT a killer - but someone who deals with issues of life and death equally and survives and helps others survive, and most importantly is willing to sacrifice themselves on a daily basis for others - this is what Whedon says in the commentaries.

So this leads me to believe that Buffy is NOT denying the First Slayer or the hands necessarily in her dream - no what snaps her out of the dream - is she states I'm NOT just a slayer. It's what she tells Kendra in What's My Line and Becoming and it is why Kendra dies - b/c Kendra is JUST a slayer - to Kendra that's all there is, you don't hug, you don't have friends, you don't have high school. Faith is the same way - to Faith - it's JUST about the power - it's just WANT TAKE HAVE - we are slayers. We don't have to go to school, we don't have to worry about these things, we don't have families - it's all about power - Faith gives into the temptation and let's darkness take her over, becomes the killer. What Buffy does differently - is she remains Buffy. When all is said and done, it was NEVER being the slayer that helped Buffy save the world time and time again - it was being Buffy. It's NOT the slayer that Giles, Willow, Xander, Spike, Riley, Dawn, Angel would die for and love dearly and follow - it is and always had been BUFFY. The mythology is important of course...but I think the empowering message is here is this girl, normal valley California girl - given this great power but what makes it possible for her to save the world, to help others, is who she is at heart, her ability to choose not to give into it, to set her own path - which in essence is what I love most about the character and why I've watched the show for Seven years.

[> [> [> [> [> Fabulous Post -- Dochawk, 20:48:05 01/11/03 Sat

Its funny I was thinking tonight about Buffy having to accept her dark side, which I hear all the time, but never saw. But this is the best arguement I have read against it. Thanks

[> [> [> [> [> another argument against "slayer power comes from darkness" -- anom, 13:40:53 01/12/03 Sun

"Have to admit I used to be part of the first camp, convinced for a while that she was denying the darkness - but I've changed my mind. You'll realize how much if you re-read my Buffy's dream essay. I think the whole 'you're denying the dark side' theme and 'who the slayer is' is a mislead."

I agree, & my major argument comes from the spell that united Buffy w/the power of all the previous Slayers. All of them, not just the First Slayer. (Willow: "The power of the Slayer and all who wield it. Last to Ancient First.") When Buffy is fighting Adam, many of her most effective moves are not violent--in fact, are anti-violent. Putting up an invisible barrier against bullets, turning them into doves (what could be more anti-violence than the symbol of peace?), & finally, actually reversing the transformation of Adam's gun-hand so it's a normal hand again, all are things the First Slayer would never have thought of. Sure, she's combo-Buffy, & the power she's wielding is Willow's spell-casting ability, but where's the darkness in this magic? Neither the darkness that's supposedly the source of Buffy's Slayer power nor the darkness of Willow's magic 2 seasons later seems to be holding sway here. The actions Buffy takes that are violent come out of the Slayer's physical power, enhanced by that of all the Slayers before her (& 1 after her--Kendra--or maybe even 2! wonder if Faith had a momentary loss of strength while the spell was in effect?). She uses both together, each as needed. Only the peaceful side of the magic she uses (hmm, "borrowed magic," which Willow supplies here but derides in Grave?) could have safely disposed of Adam's radioactive power source. And throughout the fight, she shows a tranquility that's at odds with the darkness that's supposedly the source of the power she wields against Adam. There have been thousands of Slayers, & they have evolved along w/all of humanity & w/civilization...away from the viewpoint of the First Slayer, also called the Primitive.

So maybe the the true Slayer-essence balances the light & dark sides. Maybe that's the "true essence of magic"--which we also heard about in Grave. Maybe it's about finding both within yourself. Maybe in Restless, when Buffy is offered the Manus card & says, "Oh, I'll never use that," she means it isn't enough, she needs all 4 aspects. After all, throughout her dream she's looking for her friends, assigned the other cards in Primeval, & when the First Slayer tells her she's not supposed to have them, she rejects that. What good is a hand without the mind, spirit, & heart to use it? Can she integrate all these aspects in her life--as Buffy and as the Slayer--without needing a spell?

"Embrace the darkness" is a pretty 1-dimensional approach, isn't it? Not that we don't need to, but when we deny the darkness, does that mean we're embracing the light...or clinging to it? That's equally 1-dimensional, even if that side is the love that Buffy's spirit guide, which interestingly enough takes the appearance of the First Slayer, tells her she's full of. And so is Watcher training as carried out through the centuries, addressing only the Slayers' power & ignoring their dark & light sides. Maybe what we all need to do is give up the narrow view & take a 3-dimensional approach. It's only when we embrace both our dark & light sides that we can also embrace our power--& realize the full potential of our humanity. Like us, Buffy has all 3, & it's when she's in touch w/all of them that she's most effective, as the Slayer & as a human being.

[> [> [> Wow, both S'kat and HonorH agreeing with me.... -- Steve, 11:55:55 01/11/03 Sat

...I'm just sorry for all the appalling spelling mistakes.

Anyhoo, Buffy Scholar kudos to S'kat's analysis of Whistler and Dru's comments on the Slayer.

I would also like to go back to Cassie's line in "Help" - "You will make a difference," Could this suggest that Buffy will somehow, not merely *restore* the balance, but actually *reshape* it? That would certainly be working on an epic scale...

It would also fit with Buffy's boundary breaking narrative and metanarrative. After all, both Kendra and Faith already had their Slayerish isolation broken because of Buffy. Maybe this is a new order of being for the Slayers: not just Watchers to support them, but friends.

The traditional detachment of the Watchers may well have suited the First Slayer's desire for isolation (and indeed, who knows, maybe an earlier, friendly, Watcher's experience with the First Slayer might have been the origin of that detachment), but once again, through Merrick and then Giles, Buffy has changed all that too. With the extinction of the Watcher's controlling influence, there's nothing to keep Slayer's isolated, as Kendra was, and as both Merrick and Giles tried to do initially to Buffy.

The danger is of course that if the Slayer becomes more humanised as a result (q.v. Buffy's comment's on stepping outside the Human world in "Selfless"), will they become less Slayrish (q.v. Dracula's comments at the start of S5). Maybe the future of the Slayer line is not the current model of One Super Slayer, but a squadron of individually less powerful, but more human Slayers.

After all, having one Chosen in all the world may have be adequate up until now, but thanks to the 20th centuries population boom, there's now vastly more people to protect, and vampires to protect them from.

Perhaps, bumps on the road like the First Evil and an Apocalypse notwithstanding, this is How It Has To Be.

[> [> [> [> On Watchers -- shadowkat, 12:54:18 01/11/03 Sat

The traditional detachment of the Watchers may well have suited the First Slayer's desire for isolation (and indeed, who knows, maybe an earlier, friendly, Watcher's experience with the First Slayer might have been the origin of that detachment), but once again, through Merrick and then Giles, Buffy has changed all that too. With the extinction of the Watcher's controlling influence, there's nothing to keep Slayer's isolated, as Kendra was, and as both Merrick and Giles tried to do initially to Buffy.

I think this has already started to happen. I think in fact that this why ME has killed off all the watchers. Notice the only Watcher not attacked is the one who was fired ages ago and no longer acts as a Watcher - Wesely. In fact - Giles has been wandering around sort of aimlessly for at least three seasons now...ever since Helpless in fact - Giles has realized there is less and less he can do to help Buffy. And isn't it interesting that whenever he tries to help he gets knocked out? Or at least on most occassions. Giles continues to suffer injuries to the brain - culminating with that odd ax swipe in Sleeper - one which has yet to be explained.

Also the introduction of Wood who in some ways also operates as a Watcher - giving Buffy a job, counseling her on how to be an effective counselor? Yet is he trustworthy? Does she really need his advice? Is his advice really all that useful? Again we are questioning the father/patriarchial figure - the one who is supposedly the boss of the girl/woman.

This is done repeatedly throughout the series:
1. Prophecy Girl - Giles tries to take Buffy's job, she knocks him out. Angel tries to, probably was the one who was meant to, but Xander revives Buffy and she saves the day.
2. The Mayor - tries to consume the students of Sunnydale and elevate Faith - Buffy knocks Faith out of the running and gets the Mayor in the library where Giles - the other authority figure can destroy him.
3. Principal Snyder - attempts to expell Buffy and keep her from having an education, he attempts to control Willow and push his rules on them. They manage to escape his dictates, partly with Gile's help and Snyder gets eaten by The Mayor.
4. Riley and Adam - again we have Buffy saving the day and Riley relegated to weak kittenish boyfriend. Riley is all rules and order - but instead of Buffy joining his gang and following his rules, he ends up going AWOL and following her. When he discovers she doesn't love him - he goes back to the rules and boundaries, but Buffy continues to follow her own path.
5. Buffy's father leaves her - she is raised by her mother.
And the Watcher...who refuses to take Daddy's place. Throughout the series Buffy survives and asserts her own will in spite of the partiarchial structure surrounding her and the dictates of that structure - and because she does? She survives and beats back the apocalpyse. Those who follow the dictates? Are often defeated or undermined in some way.

The danger is of course that if the Slayer becomes more humanised as a result (q.v. Buffy's comment's on stepping outside the Human world in "Selfless"), will they become less Slayrish (q.v. Dracula's comments at the start of S5). Maybe the future of the Slayer line is not the current model of One Super Slayer, but a squadron of individually less powerful, but more human Slayers.

In a way this is the better course - instead of one girl to slay all the demons...we have a woman who slayed demons in her youth teaching other young girls how to slay theirs. Instead of booklearned men teaching girls how to do things they have never done and have little knowledge of outside of books (notice Giles' lack of knowledge as shown in his Restless dream (all he can advise her on is to stop dropping her elbow) and in Fool For Love..), we have a woman who has seen and fought her own and her friends personal demons counciling others on how to fight theirs. It starts in Lessons where she begins to train Dawn then in Help where she begins to counsel the students. And with Spike - instead of a booklearned human figuring out how to destroy evil or teaching others what is bad, we have man who has personal experiencing being a demon - someone as Petrie states in Fool For Love has no limit to the things he can teach Buffy and the others. Unlike the Watchers - Spike knows what a vampire is and does...he is one. He knows what demons are capable of.

[> [> [> [> [> I disagree on one point -- Steve, 13:23:50 01/11/03 Sat

And the Watcher...who refuses to take Daddy's place

I disagree, because I think the heart of Giles' character arc is that he becomes more of a father than a watcher. The breaking point was of course "Helpless", where despite Buffy's pleas to have him literally take over Hank's role and take her to the ice show, he follows the Council's dictates...for a while. Travers famously correctly identifies the reason for his ultimate rejection of the traditional Watcher's role: "You have a father's love for the child."

Later, in OMWF, the reason for his lament that he wishes he could "play the father/and take [Buffy] by the hand" but cannot is not about his inability or refusal to be her father, but because he knows he can't "Slay [Buffy's] demons." The refrain of that song is "Wish I could stay" after all.

Here he is coming to terms with the fact that (a) Buffy *is* a Slayer, and Giles' knows (all those head knocks finally sinking in I guess) that he can't take on that mantle. (b) Buffy has all this other S6 stuff going on, and Giles is learning, as every good parent must, to let her go to find her own indentity. Giles is learning the lesson of parenthood that Buffy learned at the end of S6 with respect to Dawn -- you can't hide your children away from the world.

What we see in the post "Tabula Rasa" world is that Giles himself is making the final adjustments to being the father of an *adult*, not the little girl that he saw her as in "Restless."

Giles is learning that just because Buffy is his daughter, that doesn't make her a *child*. Learning to have afather's love, not for a child, but for an adult and a Slayer.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Great post, shadowkat. And well said, Steve. I agree. -- Ixchel, 20:20:33 01/11/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> You may have a point...I've always been on the fence on that one -- shadowkat, 21:38:31 01/11/03 Sat

I guess in a way Giles has finally admitted his "father's love" for Buffy - at least in Grave. But if he does feel this way about her - then her statement to him in Bring on The Night strikes me as ironic. "Be nice if you could visit during a happier time.." He never seems to.

But like most good father's he does tend to let the child go. To leave her to her own devices eventually. You can always call when you need help and I will do what I can to support you...but you still need to do it on your own and I believe you will. So in that sense? yep.

I just have always sensed a reluctance on his part to adopt this role. But maybe by leaving the Watcher role and the Council - he finally did?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Regarding Giles' visits (or lack therof) -- Steve, 11:36:41 01/12/03 Sun

her statement to him in Bring on The Night strikes me as ironic. "Be nice if you could visit during a happier time.." He never seems to.

Well, apart from cheating and saying this may have more to do with ASH's desire to live in England than anything else, and that ME are unlikely to foot the cost of bringing him over for just so he can have a non-dramatic visit, I would posit that it's because he is her father. It's one thing to let a daughter find her path on her own, it's quite another to stick to that decision when things are heating up.

Plus, there hasn't really been time for casual visits. He leaves in Tabula Rasa, but is back again in Grave. Then he spends the summer helping Willow learning How Not To Be Evil. Then he got swept up the Council and First Evil business.

Actaully, he's made more transatlantic visits since he first attempted to leave at the start of S6 than I have made to visit my own parents on the other side of the pond in the same space of time.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I really hate it when I forget to close a tag, sorry! -- Steve, 11:41:32 01/12/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Does this help? -- Sophist, 12:06:11 01/12/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> This is the flu talking.........I thought you said @ss wipe....:):):):):):) -- Rufus, 02:17:05 01/12/03 Sun

Which I doubt would have been fatal...;)

As for Principal Wood I've deemed him not evil and I will stick with that opinion to the end....;)

Now Watchers, they are human, they are trained to treat Slayers as talking weapons and the highest priority is to not get attached to these "girls" who have a shelf life of a chocolate bar on my desk. But, there are always exceptions, always Watchers who can't help but care for the girls they are watching in a way that can't help but become parental (jeeze if the Watcher is young enough, romantic). So, who is a First Evil to kill first......well kill off the most toady bureaucrats then work your way down the food chain, and reverse the order for Slayers, so the "girls" can't get an army of Slayers in Training behind them. All plans have flaws and all anomalies can't be accounted for.....like Slayers returning from the dead, twice....Slayers in the Slammer for murder...Watcher's who are chummy with powerful covens...ex-Watcher's who forget to shave and have sex with vicious bitches.....Vampires who follow a trend and get a soul back....Carpenters who should be doing the 9 to 5 instead of building houses.....a most powerful Witch...ex-vengeance demon....Harbingers who call attention to themselves....Uber-Vamps who let slayers garrote them, now all of them know how to kill the not so bright minions....and the fact that even the First Evil has to follow the rules and have to wait for disruptions....the list is endless.

[> Re: A NEW MISSION FOR BUFFY Showtime plot twist (spoilers 7.11spoiler and spec) -- Angelina, 20:30:28 01/10/03 Fri

Perhaps Buffy isn't the "slayer" anymore, and has not been the slayer since she was brought back to life in "Prophecy Girl," ( "I feel different"). Maybe Buffy ceased to be the actual slayer and has since metamorphosed into something else? Some other powerful entity that has not been identified yet. Perhaps no one, not even the Council of Watchers, OR the FE are aware of what Buffy really is? Perhaps the First Good, (and as I have stated in previous posts - I think the First Good is manifested in Joyce) knows what Buffy really is and is trying to make Buffy realize the truth of her journey "Buffy, you need to wake up." All of this is so fascinating. When Buffy died in PG, Kendra was called. Kendra was a "by the book" slayer, but proved too vulnerable and was downed by Dru. After that Faith was called. Unfortunately for the slayer line, Faith was not on the side of good - then. Faith is still alive, so another slayer cannot be called. Since Faith cannot perform her duties as The Slayer - Buffy is still filling the position. It is NOT Buffy's fault - nor the fact that she was brought back that screwed up the line. It was Faith's "walk on the wild side" that messed everything up. AND there's the entire business with Dawn being the Key, a most powerful source of energy that's been around like forever! And the monks chose Buffy's DNA to "hide" the key. Hmmmmmm, maybe they knew something we didn't. Don't know where this is leading, and as I said on the board a little while ago, may be all the remaining Scoobs at the end of this season will become the new Council of Watchers, Buffy included (she travels alot). In the end, I think Joss will give his devoted fans what we want. I mean if we have to lose BtVS as a series, and with it a cast of remarkable and unforgettable characters, I am sure Joss won't let us lose our beloved Buffy. I think we deserve to see her finally get what she has always longed for "a normal life." And "normal" meaning NOT being in love with Souled Vampires, Chipped Vampires, Chipped & Souled Vampires, Crazy Military Mutants or just plain Creep-O's. Buffy is an American Icon. We Need Her, or the Idea of her. The Hero simply cannot die in this saga. It would break my heart. We have to have the hope that she will be there if we need her. Or if they want to do a movie. :-)~

[> [> As if I need a new reason to worship Buffy -- Flo, 21:54:51 01/12/03 Sun

This is brilliant. With all the talk of Buffy being wrong and the dischord created by having two slayers around, I've had the feeling that Buffy isn't really a slayer, but I haven't bothered to THINK it out. It seemed crazy. But now that you've articulated it, it's really not.

After looking back on the discussion in the first half of this thread, I'm thinking about Buffy's choice (thanks for the reminder, SK) in Dracula. Essentially she was offered the chance to accept darkness, and she denied it. At the time I assumed that by denying darkness, she was accepting light as the "source of her." Now it looks like she was accepting or rejecting neither of these two ends of a polarity -- she was denying the polarity itself. SO maybe this is what Buffy is becoming -- a denial of polarity. Human experience and this world have been understood for ages as being based on polarities -- good/evil, light/dark, female/male -- the list goes on. Throughout history as we know it, all knowledge has been framed within binaries.

And, in a world that is built on polarity, a slayer exists as a force for good, meaning it is inherently a force against evil. As Buffy has continually chosen to acknowledge and fight from her human side, her "Buffiness," she has also incorporated endless shades of grey into her being. Perhaps in the Buffyverse, and metaphorically in the outside world, knowledge is melding into such shades of grey that polarity is no longer an acceptable frame through which to understand the world -- hence the need for a new kind of superhero. Buffy.

a thought on Giles (I'm likely not the first to think it) -- Clen, 15:01:56 01/10/03 Fri

I mentioned the name Auron before as to what's up with Giles. Evidently that was too retarded for anyone to get or comment on, so what about Gandalf? Giles pulling a Gandalf?

I watched Grave last night on Space. Giles says he is dying. This is brought up a few times, amongst a few different people. Willow stops with the evil. Giles sits up.
Anya: Why aren't you dead? Why aren't I dead?
Giles ignores the first question, and answers the second. Noone bothers to enquire about it again.

See what I'm getting at?

Who knows how big a risk Giles took to infuse his poor British body with all that magic. Then Willow beats him up bad, then drains him. then he says he is dying. Willow chills, then he gets better. This is out there, but suppose, just suppose, that Giles paid a price for his gamble. Maybe he did die, maybe he knew he would. Maybe he actually already WAS dead, or maybe he is being sustained solely through the Coven's magics, which might explain why he recovered when Willow loosened her grasp on the Coven's power. So...maybe that axe DID hit him, and it didn't matter much because he was already dead. Like Gandalf, his time might be finite, as soon as the Coven's magics either stop sustaining him, or eat him up or go away or whatever.

[> Could make sense in the story line. But.... -- Briar Rose, 17:42:30 01/10/03 Fri

I still agree with posters who are considering REAL World issues to the idea of killing of Giles for ME and ASH.

If they still plan on carrying on "The Watcher" on BBC (which with the quick destruction of Firefly by the network, I think Joss will definitely push to get this series out there!)Giles can't be killed off on Buffy and still carry a show centered on Rupert Giles life as a man who also happens to be "The Watcher" over a supernatural cavalcade of weirdness.

I suppose it could be like Kate Jackson's long stint as a ghost that moved the storyline along on Dark Shadows. But I think that ME would prefer a LIVING character to center a new 'sort of spin off' show around - especially to go after a more adult audience that might not be so familiar with the BtVS story line thus far....

[> [> On the other hand -- Tyreseus, 17:02:19 01/11/03 Sat

The idea of a pretty blonde girl being the action hero of a comic-drama was pretty out there. So is the idea of a show named after a vampire with a soul fighting evil lawyers.

To be true to the Buffyverse, maybe a show centered around a ghost of some kind is a viable project from the Mutant Enemy team. I'd never sell Joss short on his ability to try something usual and make it work.

And any spin-off from BtVS will have some supernatual baggage from before the series began. Angel did (and still does) but has dealt with it and moved on to create its own rules as well (note the significantly more developed landscape of "good" demons).

A "Deep Down" Analysis -- Lara M., 15:17:38 01/10/03 Fri

Because I'm bored and angry we probably will NEVER get an ep like "Restless" on AtS (LOL I'm bitter, what do ya want?), I give you my analysis of "Deep Down". Feel free to add on, debate, call me a damn fool, whatever. But please be gentle. :D

~~Hallucination One: The Dinner Scene~~

//We begin with light conversation and the passing of food along the table. Everyone is there, "safe, happy and together". Angel is the last person shown, not in black. There is a toast to family, with Cordy filling Angel's glass with water because he "can't toast with an empty glass". There is banter between Angel and Connor, leading to an Oedipus reference. Angel insists that everyone eats and they do. The plates are passed around- all passing by Angel. He finally grabs one, and it's empty. He turns to Cordelia, and he drops the very glass she had filled minutes before. When he turns back to the table, everyone is gone, except Connor, who tells him to freeze the moment. End of hallucination.//

Hallucinations and dreams are often the subconscious working overtime for surpressed desires and needs. This is probably the most direct form of Angel's subconscious coming through. This 'dream' gives off Angel's direct and most obvious wants. This is his perfect world. His utopia.

In his 'perfect' world:
-Everyone is together and happy.
-Cordelia is there(As we all know, they never met in 3.22).
-According to Angel, there was a rough summer, but they all pulled through.
-Wesley is there- no scar and happy.
-Angel and Cordy are together in a 'more than friendship' way.
-A.I is having what appears to be Thanksgiving dinner.

First thing that should be noted is that Connor is in every hallucination in one form or another.

In this one, he interrupts Cordy and Angel's kiss, makes fun of Angel's appearance, is the one Cordelia has the bulge of her conversation with ("I like the stuffing", "I thought you would"), who she passes the food to, and who is left when Angel's dream goes awry. Connor becomes the jolt in all his dreams- when everything goes wrong. This could lead to the assumption that Angel believes Connor is the source of all trouble in his life at that moment. But this potentionally hostile way of thinking is always cut in with the thought that Angel loves his son ("I love you, Connor..."). He teeters between extreme love and hate for his boy.

It should also be noted that Angel is wearing a red sweater. Red has significance, alluding to sex, passion (Where does the majority of his passion and in a way, lust go to?), and strength. Throughout this dream, Angel reflects the positive attributes of the color Red(See "Hallucination Three").

Angel is "drinking" water. Connor has milk. The others have wine.

We get the first of the repetitive phrase. "The way it should be" is said in similar forms throughout Angel's hallucinations (And once in 'real time'). This once again serves as symbolism for Angel's desire for a perfect life. In this hallucination, the phrase is said by Cordelia.

Angel feels at peace in this dream. He is with his family, and everything is well. He encourages everyone to eat, to which they happily oblige. Food is passed, but nothing comes within Angel's reach. He is virtually ignored, his Seer actually passing by him to hand his son the plates. This could be a reference to Angel's insecurity, thinking Cordelia's affections will be pushed totally onto Connor- and he will be ignored. Angel's confusion turns into a quick flash of aggression and annoyance as he snatches a plate from Connor's hands to find nothing. He goes for what he wants and ends up with absoutely nothing.

He turns to Cordy for aide like he always has done in the past. She is his "rock", comfort, and his support. In doing this, he knocks over the glass she has filled, sending it crashing to the ground. He destroys the perfect scene.

Instead of giving him the answers and support he wants, needs, and desires; she offers him nothing except scolding and an obvious disappointment ("Now look what you've done, silly"). Her disappointment is made even clearer by the "I should've known" look across her face. Angel thinks he will let Cordelia down and not live up to her expectations. These fears were first made clear in 3.13.

Right after Cordelia says this, everything changes. The room is no longer bright, but dark and shadowy. Everyone is gone except for Connor, who gives a rather taunting message of freezing the moment because "it'll last forever".

It will have to last forever, because it is very unlikely Angel will ever get this happy, pre-change scenerio otherwise.

~~Hallucination Two: Point Dume~~

//Angel is at Point Dume, his last known location before he was thrown into the ocean. He is standing at the exact spot before he was thrown over the cliff. He turns around and sees Cordelia. He registers surprise at seeing her, telling her he didn't think she would show. He doesn't think he knows her, but she insists he does. They talk, both somewhat somber. There is references to both knowing that the scene is not real. Cordelia expresses her love for Angel, and they kiss. He proclaims that he needs her, then morphs into his demon and feeds on her. He interrupts only to apologize, but returns to killing her. End of hallucination.//

It is hard to analyze this hallucination- simply because there is a great amount of confusion on Angel's part.

Angel sees Cordelia in an outfit he was never meant to see.

Cordelia is at her most aware in this sequence. She makes it known (However vague) that she likes the dream better than the reality. She is sad, clear, and 'there'. She insists Angel knows her better than anyone, to which he scoffs at. His insecurities are once again knows- he feels he doesn't know his "dearest friend". She comforts him with the confirmation that he does.

She tells Angel what he wants to hear. She loves him and has known it for a while. This is the scene Angel was probably expecting at the end of 3.22. Of course, things didn't end up that way.

Instead of Angel proclaiming his love for Cordelia, he says he needs her (Maybe referring to her fear of him not needing her, made known in 3.2). In his mind, he gives her what she wants to hear. And needs to hear.

"The way it should be" is said yet again in this dream, this time by Angel. But this time, he corrects himself with "But it's not". It is the first time Angel acknowledges upfront that something is wrong.

Cordelia establishes her place as Angel's "rock", comforting him with a single touch. He needs her.

We see that Cordelia is not the only one aware. Angel is as well. They both know something is wrong- but neither brings it to light. Each time any mention is made to harsh reality, they are distracted by each other.

Angel is the one who destroys the events in this dream, becoming what he is ashamed of and killing the woman he loves. Deep down, he needs Cordelia but is afraid he will harm her. He apologizes for his crime, but continues to do it anyway.

This dream might be a reference to the saying "you hurt the ones you love". Angel loves Cordelia deeply, but always finds a way to hurt her, whether intentionally or not. This dream brings this upfront.

~~Hallucination Three: The Roof~~

//Connor is standing at the edge of a roof. Angel appears. Connor thinks/knows Angel is going to kill him, and insists he finishes it. Angel tells Connor he isn't going anywhere, to which his son confirms. A group of vampires appear. Angel laughs at the vampires, and Connor laughs along with him. They fight side by side. Connor saves Angel. Angel thanks him, only to kill him. End of hallucination.//

Another line is put into a repetitive form here. The word "beautiful" is repeated, this time by Angel (It was first said by Cordelia in "Hallucination Two").

Once again, Angel is in red. This time, the negative attributes are given (Anger, aggression, and impulse).

"The way it should be" is now uttered by Connor.

This dream is a tense one. Connor knows why Angel is there- and accepts it. But Angel feels the need to tease the boy first, rather than cutting to the chase. We see Angel's dark side more than in the second hallucination. The dread and horror at harming Cordelia is now replaced by a cool calm when interacting with his son. It can go back to the 'love/hate' idea.

The two connect during a violent fight, meeting each other's eyes. The fight ends with Connor saving his father. They smile and Angel thanks his son. Once again, everything seems well and perfect with the two bonding over a fight (As they did during 3.21).

Yet again, Angel destroys the utopia, snapping his son's neck and killing him. This dream signifies Angel's desire for revenge for his son's crime, but also a want to bond with his boy.

Angel's trail of destruction in his hallucinations leads to "Hallucination Four".

~~Hallucination Four: Real Time~~

This is the only one of Angel's hallucinations to take place in "real time". He is aware of his surroundings and those around him. For the first time, his hallucination- Lorne- is directly aware of his role, or lack thereof ("...If I wasn't just a crappy hallucination.").

The word "beautiful" is once again said by Angel.

Lorne serves as the instigator, stating Connor is bad. He sings a lullaby, which is the only time Connor appears. When Connor appears, Angel makes the only direct statement of his hate for his son ("I should've killed you...").

Angel reveals that everything he touches "turns to ashes". His insecurities are once again shown. He believes he destroys everything and everyone he loves.

This insecurity/fear ends up ruling all his dreams.

In the end, Angel's dreams are run by what he wants his world to be, and the deep rooted fear that he prevents himself from having the perfect life. His blame, first thrown upon his son, was finally given to the rightful owner in the end- himself. Angel realizes his son was not at fault, but he was. This is the point we see Angel's fears and insecurities at the surface.

So...how was that? :)

[> Excellent - more detailed response tomorrow! -- Rahael, 15:24:26 01/10/03 Fri

[> Quick tone-lowering response -- KdS, 03:26:26 01/11/03 Sat

I like the stuffing

A new record for ME - blue forshadowing ;-)

[> Angel's appetite, and the dream of family (Spoilers for aired Angel S4 eps) -- Rahael, 10:17:01 01/11/03 Sat

The reaspon I really appreciated this post was because I haven't been able to see 'Deep Down' yet, and this was a great description, together with pointed commentary on Angel's dreams.

You've given me a lot of food (ha ha) for thought, so no doubt I'll be back with more thoughts later.

One thing we know about Angel is that he cooks for his team, even when he doesn't eat himsel - that lovely last scene of the Wesley, Rogue Demon Hunter ep, where Wesley and Cordy are sitting eating while Angel cooks for them. Food, eating together - they are symbols of hospitality, family and nourishment.

Later on, Wesley feeds the weakened and hungry Angel with his own blood, a hugely symbolic act with many maternal resonances. It aslo reminded me (again purely from descripiton rather than being able to view the ep) of the Elizabethan symbol of the Pelican - they believed the pelican mother fed its children with her own blood. So it was a symbol of self sacrifice and love. (Hence any pelican imagery you may see in the portraits of Elizabeth I).

One more thought for now - I'm thinking Macbeth, and the feast where Banquo's ghost appears, shattering Macbeth's peace of mind, reminding him what he had done to get there. I don't think it's an intended resonance, just what it reminds *me* of. The ghost at the dinnertable, shattering illusions.

The father will *devour* the son.

That's the obvious subtext at this family dinner table scene, isn't it? The reason why Wesley does what he does, the action that starts the concatenation of events that leads Angel dreaming at the bottom of the ocean. The fact that Angel drinks blood, that he fears himself, he fears his appetite. The son who was born when Angel risked his soul to have sex. The son who appeared threatened by his vampiric appetite.

The dinner table is a poignant place for Angel to fix his ideas of family because his appetites, both food wise and sexually, could spell doom for his 'family'.

[> [> Re: Angel's appetite, and the dream of family (Spoilers for aired Angel S4 eps) -- Tess, 19:10:25 01/11/03 Sat

""Food, eating together - they are symbols of hospitality, family and nourishment.
Later on, Wesley feeds the weakened and hungry Angel with his own blood, a hugely symbolic act with many maternal resonances.""

Food and eating played an even larger part in this show. Angel's second dream had him feasting off of Cordy. Than Fred fed Conner right before she zapped him. I half expected him to choke on the chunk he tore out of that sandwich.

[> [> [> Interesting, thanks! -- Rahael, 15:59:55 01/12/03 Sun

The First Evil and Silence (Spoilers through 7.11) -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:40:10 01/10/03 Fri

I had a thought recently: earlier in the season, the vampires were awfully talkative. In "Lessons" we got the hilarious sequence with Buffy, Dawn, and the vampire whose foot is caught on a root. In "Help" we have the old lady vampire who says "I'm not peaceful" before Buffy stakes her. Of course, there's Holden Webbster who gets into a lengthy psychological session with Buffy. Then there's the vampire in "Sleeper" who tries to hit on Spike and get him into slaughtering the people in the Bronze before he kills her.

So I found it odd, given these chatty vampires, that the UberVamp never spoke a word. Than I remembered the other vampires who rose in "Sleeper" never said a word, so maybe I was wrong to try to read a pattern into it. But then I hit on something: both the UberVamp and the "Sleeper" vampires were pretty much totally devoted to the First Evil. The UberVamp, obviously, was the loyal muscle to the First's mind games, and the vampires in "Sleeper" rose exactly when the First needed them and did exactly what it wanted, even without being told. Throw in the Harbingers, who also never talk and are hopelessly loyal to the First Evil as well as the fact that sleeper agent Spike was heavily silent, and I think we've got a pattern! I think that the talkative vampires near the beginning of the season were meant to serve as a contrast to what would come later in service to the First.

So, vampires and other creatures dominated to the First Evil's will are silent, while those who are not tend to be otherwise. What's the meaning in this, you might ask? I honestly don't know, but I read some posts in the past all talking about the subject of silence, so I thought some people here might be able to make something of this.

The only thing I can think of is that, when the First Evil takes someone over, everything human in them is either destroyed or suppressed. Since our thoughts and feelings are most often expressed through speech, the ability of those not serving the First Evil to speak is a sign of the humanity in them. Which may give some significance to the Andrew scenes, since people constantly refer to him talking to much, and he's also shown himself going against the First by refusing to kill anymore people. As long as he's talking, he isn't the First's lapdog. Now, if Andrew goes oddly silent in the next few episodes, be afraid, be very afraid.

[> Re: The First Evil and Silence (Spoilers through 7.11) -- Dochawk, 19:23:42 01/10/03 Fri

Actualy I don't think Turuk-Han's have the power of speech, so they can't talk. They are vampires from a time before humans had much speech (the Neanderthal's of vampiredom).

[> [> Well, when I tried to find a meaning in it. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:03:56 01/10/03 Fri

I was trying to be metaphorical, which isn't something I'm very good at expressing. The idea I was trying to give off was the association of speech with our ability to express our humanity (though this would run counter to the message of Hush).

You must admit, at any rate, that the First Evil seems to prefer silent minions. Probably because it loves to talk so much, it doesn't want someone else hogging the spotlight.

[> [> [> Re: Well, when I tried to find a meaning in it. . . -- LittleBit, 21:16:20 01/10/03 Fri

I'm not so certain it runs counter to the message of Hush. One thing that was clearly shown was the depression, the isolation and the rage that was brought out when verbal communication was denied to them. Note: only verbal communication was denied, all other forms remained valid, yet people's coping skills were severly impaired. So "the association of speech with our ability to express our humanity" is valid, even in the light [but not sound ;)] of Hush.

[> [> [> [> Reasons for silence -- Tyreseus, 16:50:13 01/11/03 Sat

From a strategist point of view, minions who can't speak also can't reveal the finer points of a plan. FE's two minions who can speak are Spike and Andrew. It tried to silence Andrew (via Spike), and Spike's memory on the FE is dubious at best, what with the brainwashing and all (although it's really yet to be seen or heard how much he knows). Regardless, Buffy can't capture a Harbringer, tie him to a chair and say, "okay, how do I stop the First?"

Or maybe she can. Just because they aren't talking doesn't mean they can't. In Amends, we saw the Harbringers chanting around an altar, so apparently they have vocal capabilites of some kind.

Disruption in the Slayer line. (speculation, spoilers ) -- V.L.S., 18:35:37 01/10/03 Fri

Was just thinking, What if the spell that Willow did to bring back Buffy brought back more or all the essence of the Frist Slayer instead of just what Buffy had in her to begin with. In Willows spell she said "Bring back the Warrior of the people" and we know the spell was interrupted. Supose all of the Essence or ("what ever it is that is drawn into a Slayer canadate to make a new Slayer") is now in Buffy. Even if Faith dies no other Slayer will be called,not untill Buffy dies. So if the First Evil can kill all the Slayer canadates before it kills Buffy there will be a Disruption in the Slayer line. Maybe Buffy has more power then she thinks? We know she came back somewhat different,(maybe less human after all?) Maybe someone else has some thought's on this. Just my Rambling V.L.S.

I've been musing on the First Evil. Pay attention. -- Honorificus (The Cute and Cognizant), 20:32:30 01/10/03 Fri

What's the big deal about? I mean, the First Evil--how much of a challenge can that be? Glorificus managed to claw her way up to 9th Evil. (I don't pay these games much attention; ranking is for poseurs.) The Beast in L.A. is probably the 5th Evil, and Angel's crew will demolish him soon enough. If they can do it, I'm sure Buffy could make short work of him. For crying out loud, a columnist in my Pathetic Alter-Ego's newspaper is widely believed to be the 42nd Evil, and no one ever pays attention to him. So why is the Slayer so upset about the First Evil? It can't even be relied upon to pick a good wardrobe half the time.

If you ask me, Buffy could make much better use of her time. For instance, the 19th Evil spawns boy bands. I certainly wouldn't mind it going. The 81st Evil is responsible for Muzak. Kill it dead, I say. The 57th Evil is the one that makes food spillage on expensive clothes inevitable. I'd kill that one myself if its dimension was accessible to me. Other Evils and their doings:

23rd--voicemail
11th--Spam, both the canned and email varieties
38th--damned inconsistent spelling rules in the English language
44th--the inability to tell when one has on enough perfume for the entire country of Bulgaria
25th--high heels
69th--pleather
90th--Dennis Rodman
15th--both Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears
14th--Christina Aguilera's wardrobe
8th--telemarketers

As you can see, there are many places the Slayer could be putting her attention rather than on the First Evil, which is incorporeal, picks stupid minions, and imitates annoying blondes with bad Southern accents. I mean, really--wouldn't you like to see Buffy doing away with the Evils discussed above rather than spending an entire season angsting over a concept that's not actually combatible anyway?

[> Re: I've been musing on the First Evil. Pay attention. -- MagicBone, 22:08:11 01/10/03 Fri

I don't know if this is the point or not, but the Magic Bone responds nicely to a soothing southern accent. Of course a badly faked one doesn't do anyone any good. But, a half ass one will do the trick anytime. Is Valentine really this bad?

[> And what Muse are you holding hostage now? -- devilish, who rather enjoys the 25th Evil, 23:43:40 01/10/03 Fri

I suppose that you may have a point in that someone should sway the Chosen into doing battle with a few Evils that would greatly benefit the lot of us. But she does have a penchant for choosing battles that last about 5 months with a few weeks break in between. Who has time for that?

[> [> Oh, that's right; I forgot the 10th Evil -- Honorificus (Who Knows All, Sees All), 23:50:00 01/10/03 Fri

"Seasonal arcs"

[> What's after the first? Zero of course -- neaux, 10:05:26 01/11/03 Sat

Hey just like in comics.. what's better than a first edition? A Zero edition.

So.. hell, they might as well bring out Evil Zero.

and I'm not talking about Resident Evil Zero for the Gamecube.

Honorificus, I would love to know more about Evil Zero.

[> [> Re: What's after the first? Zero of course -- Pushy Queen of Slut Town, 15:19:22 01/11/03 Sat

Oh please, Evil Zero?

He's a loser. Anyone who allows his minions to call him "Mr Zero" or "the big zero" isn't even worth the time to mention.

Evil Zero has less social skills than Andrew. Actually, since Andrew turned out to be such a waste of a minion for the first, he might consider being a minion to Zero - at least they spend the same amount of time drooling over boy bands and pretending to have sexual feelings for Star Trek's Seven of Nine.

[> [> [> She's right. -- HonorH, 17:26:38 01/11/03 Sat

It's even more of a poseur. You think the First Evil's "I am the thing the darkness fears" line was pretentious? You ain't seen nothing yet. It's all overture, no show. The worst thing it's done in recent years is spur on the advent of "reality" programming on television.

Come to think of it, that *is* pretty bad.

[> [> [> Only joking huh? -- Celebaelin, 04:35:34 01/12/03 Sun

[> Re: I've been musing on the First Evil. Pay attention. -- skpe, 15:52:08 01/11/03 Sat

The 86 Evil, The executive at Fox who canceled FIREFLY
or should that be the First Stupidity

[> [> Actually, dearest-- -- Honorificus (The Lusty and Lovable), 23:22:09 01/11/03 Sat

The 18th Evil is responsible for stupid network execs. There is, however, a separate ranking for Stupidities. I'll have to post it someday when I've got nothing better to do.

[> My informants tell me... -- ZachsMind, 20:04:05 01/11/03 Sat

My informants tell me spam is the second evil, not the 11th. Eleventh is just way too low on the list for spam. Personally between you and me? I think spam is the first evil. This thing going around playing spooky ghost for the scoobies is like the 1,794th evil. I agree. It's a wash.

All Buffy needs to do is get herself a dog. Like a great dane. Preferably one that talks. Then Buffy and Willow and Xander and Giles just run around in the house opening and closing doors while bubblegum pop music plays in the background and next thing you know they're unmasking IT, and IT whines about how IT "woulda gotten away with it too if not for those meddling kids!"

Oh wait. That's the wrong show.. I think..!

[> 81st? done, not that it did much good -- anomster, 23:28:55 01/11/03 Sat

"The 81st Evil is responsible for Muzak. Kill it dead, I say."

Oh, I knocked off that abomination years ago! Can't stand that Muzak stuff (you sure it was only the 81st? I'd put it a lot further up the list). Tortured it thoroughly 1st, of course (you don't even want to know what I made it listen to!). But satisfying as that was, the damage had already been done, & its disgusting, insipid spawn (anything describable as "lite") continue to proliferate. (The worst example I ever heard was "It Don't Mean a Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing" played in a grocery store. It was both a musical oxymoron & a perfect self-referential example of the title.) It's beyond control now. The only thing remotely useful about it is the way it saps the humans' energy & critical faculties.

What I want to know is, which Evil is the one that steals stuff that was right there in your hand a minute ago? Is it the same one that moves things where you'll stub your toe on them, or knock them over when you reach for them? Actually, I kind of admire that one. The way it raises stress levels contributes so much to destructive impulses & chaos!

A slightly different idea (Spoilers to Showtime and Spec) -- M, 21:47:17 01/10/03 Fri

When Giles and Anya came back from the -Dimension of the Eye- he said "It's not because she died, It's because she lives" Maybe this whole thing about there being two slayers, or about Buffy being different, or even about what Faith may have to do with it are all nothing but red herrings. What if it is something else. Something more recent that Buffy is responsible for, not something she did but something she caused or was the cause of.
At the end of S6 Spike had his soul returned to him. Something he did because of Buffy, she was the cause. If she remained dead (either time I guess) this would not have happened. How does this make the Slayer line vulnerable? I don't really know, but what does this season have in common with S3 Amends? A vampire with a soul. The FE does seem to have more than a passing interest in Spike as well as Buffy.

[> And that goes with the most recent revelation... (spoilers to showtime) -- Solitude1056, 22:09:04 01/10/03 Fri

...that the eyeball's name translates to "good joke."

I'd really like to see the transcripts of that conversation, because now you've got me wondering if the eyeball ever specifically said it was Buffy's return that caused the break in the pattern, or if it's only because she lives. If it's the latter, then it's not necessarily true that Willow, Tara, Anya, and Xander are to blame, or that Buffy will need to die.

Hell, it's been a season, so there could be any of a number of things that she did in her post-post-death-life that triggered the switch to make the FE snap. If Buffy had died and not been botted or resurrected, the trio of Dorkness would never have had a Slayer to take out, and Tara wouldn't have been shot accidentally. Willow wouldn't have gone on a rampage, Dawn might not have rebelled against Tara/Willow the way she did against Buffy and thus not smashed a pumpkin on Halloween, Spike wouldn't have tried to get a soul, even Xander and Anya might've turned out differently - holding off the wedding, perhaps, or agreeing to not get married, or maybe even eloping and missing the demony revenge fantasy altogether. Who knows! In the course of a year, a person can do a major amount of stuff that might have serious impact.

Butterfly in the Azores and all that...

[> [> Re: And that goes with the most recent revelation... (spoilers to showtime) -- Silky, 05:32:54 01/11/03 Sat

Well, it has made me think [again] that the Buffy coming back 'wrong' or 'different' question was really not so easily resolved as S.6 would have us believe, and that the repeated 'you're glowing' comments by Spike mean something as well.

The relationship to Spike getting his soul and upsetting the balance is a very promising idea. Good thought.

Silky - going to check out the meet the posters thing..

[> [> I believe it's in the archives now.... -- Briar Rose, 16:03:03 01/11/03 Sat

I had pulled a copy/paste of the relevent parts of The Eye's spoken lines to Giles and Anya from a post that had it all verbatum posted the night of the showing.

There has been speculation that something was said that wasn't shown... But literally taken from what was implictly stated? The words are not equivocal that Buffy is "The Slayer" in question. Nor that the line, that something "caused a disturbance around the Slayer lineage..." (close enough since it's from memory here.~w~) directly relates to BUFFY, herself.

The addition of spec that "Good Joke" is another form of the Oracle's name is not completely without question, IMO. How does the person who turned up this definition know exactly what spelling was being used by ME for the deamon? That has confused me since I first read it. Is it from a shooting script? Or phonetically deduced? Is there any way to verify that was the intent? IMO - jury's out on that definition. Change my mind! Please!

I also tend to disregard the idea that what was shown on camera was different from what was actually said by The All Knowing Eye. An arguement was made that Giles couldn't have jumped to the conclusion that Buffy living was the cause of the disturbance. This arguement seemed to be based on the feeling that Giles has "never" jumped the gun on conjecture/belief based on incomplete information.

Well, as shown in many episodes, Giles has been quick in the past to jump to conclusions even WITH all the information in front of him! Witness the "Fear Deamon" in Halloween ep, set at the frat house (so many Halloween eps, and I never claimed to be the infallible encyclopedia of ep Titles.*L) ; Even though the page that shows the deamon's likeness says "Actual Size", Giles overlooks that important piece of information in his drive to save the Scoobies and avert potential Armaggedon. Thus a teeny, tiny deamon presents itself and that big fight with Godzilla like foe Giles prepares the Slayer for is reduced to a "stomp the coc-a-roach" ending.*L

And as for Anya's quickness to accept responsibility as an arguement that whatever The A-K-Eye said, on or off screen was directly making resurrection of Buffy the cause? That arguement fails to impress me even more than the one with Giles. Anya was functioning from the normal Anya stance: Her ego was showing.

Anya is the one member of the SG (outside of Dawn as we know her) that will most quickly jump to "I am the center of the Universe" think and decide that her actions/participatory actions and ideas are what caused all the trouble. Or the other side of self envolvement -- that her ideas to stop the trouble are more important than anyone else's (OMWF: "It MUST be bunnies!!!.... or maybe midgets.")

[> [> [> Re: I believe it's in the archives now.... -- leslie, 19:20:04 01/11/03 Sat

"And as for Anya's quickness to accept responsibility as an arguement that whatever The A-K-Eye said, on or off screen was directly making resurrection of Buffy the cause? That arguement fails to impress me even more than the one with Giles. Anya was functioning from the normal Anya stance: Her ego was showing.

Anya is the one member of the SG (outside of Dawn as we know her) that will most quickly jump to "I am the center of the Universe" think and decide that her actions/participatory actions and ideas are what caused all the trouble."

I don't know that this is necessarily a sign of egotism on Anya's part. I pointed out over the summer that Spike's immediate reaction to Buffy's resurrection was that there was a price that was going to have to be paid, and in the process of the season, all four of the people who had participated in the resurrection spell had lost the person they loved most in the world--Xander abandoned Anya out of cold feet, Anya in turn returned to demonism and pretty much ensured thereby that Xander would remain estranged from her, Tara discovered that Willow was using magic to rape her mind, and as for Willow--the one behind the ritual, the one who actually led it--her lover was murdered and incapable of being resurrected. Somehow, I don't think that all of this has escaped Anya. Xander and Willow seem to have been more in denial about it. I think the Eye of the Merry Trickster merely voiced what she was already worried about.

[> [> [> Giles jumping to conclusions -- Tess, 19:22:27 01/11/03 Sat

""Well, as shown in many episodes, Giles has been quick in the past to jump to conclusions even WITH all the information in front of him!""

The episodes which really jumped out at me when I read this was 'I Only Have Eyes For You' when he automatically assumed it was Jenny's ghost. And it made sense that he would be trying to connect to Jenny at that time. Can anyone else think of any other episodes where Giles has jumped to unwarranted conclusions?

On having two slayers (Spoilers for Showtime) -- Marie II, 05:27:01 01/11/03 Sat

I just saw an old Buffy episode where a Slayer came to Sunnydale in the cargo bay of an airplane. It was explained that she had been activated when Buffy drowned, and was "just a little dead."
So, why was there not a new slayer activated when Buffy was dead for three months, and if it was going to be Dawn, why not then? The slayer's in waiting were discussing that there were already two slayers in Showtime, then dropped the subject. I wonder why there aren't three slayers now, or has something happened to Faith?
I am sorry if I missed this in the posts.
Also, in the episode when the people who rented costumes from Ethan's, Ethan does some black magic, looks up and says, "It's Showtime."

[> Hey, MII - I answered your earlier thread, but it got archived -- Rahael, 05:49:34 01/11/03 Sat

[> Buffy's second death doesn't count -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:24:56 01/11/03 Sat

When Buffy died in Prophecy Girl, whatever weird powers involved in the Slayer choosing process instantly made Kendra the next Chosen One. It doesn't matter that Buffy was brought back to life; in the eyes of the powers in charge, she's dead. Her death can't call a third Slayer because she's already passed the torch along. The only way a new Slayer can be called is for Faith to die.

[> [> Re: Buffy's second death doesn't count -- Tyresues, 14:45:11 01/11/03 Sat

I agree with your take on the metaphysics and it got me thinking... wouldn't it be cool (now that all the potentials are gathered) to kill Faith just long enough for the torch to pass then bring her back, repeat with remaining slayer potentials until you did have an army of slayers?

Of course, that's probably the kinda thing that gave the First its little window of oppotunity.

[> [> [> Re: Buffy's second death doesn't count -- ejs, 16:05:50 01/11/03 Sat

Heh. "Don't worry, girls, we're just going to kill you for a little while."

[> [> Re: Buffy's second death doesn't count -- AgnosticSorcerer, 19:38:53 01/11/03 Sat

"When Buffy died in Prophecy Girl, whatever weird powers involved in the Slayer choosing process instantly made Kendra the next Chosen One. It doesn't matter that Buffy was brought back to life; in the eyes of the powers in charge, she's dead. Her death can't call a third Slayer because she's already passed the torch along. The only way a new Slayer can be called is for Faith to die."

I disagree until ME conclusively demonstrates that you are correct. The process is activated when a /slayer/ dies as seen by Kendra and Faith's call and Buffy is still a /slayer/. If she had indeed "passed the torch along" Buffy would no longer be a slayer, but we know she is.

[> [> [> Re: Buffy's second death doesn't count -- Sophist, 19:43:25 01/11/03 Sat

Joss has expressly confirmed in interviews that the slayer line runs through Faith.

[> [> [> [> Death always counts -- Celebaelin, 04:57:10 01/12/03 Sun

[> [> [> The Gift and Bargaining and to some degree Sancturary -- shadowkat, 20:05:17 01/11/03 Sat

This has been reiterated either directly, indirectly or subtly in numerous episodes. They mention it first in Faith, Hope and Tricks - stating clearly that the slayer line ran through Kendra - hence reason Faith was called.
But in case you didn't get it...they subtly refer to it again in This Year's Girl. Then again in Five by Five (Ats) and Sanctuary (ATS). Refer subtly again to it in The Gift and Bargaining.

It's partly why - Buffy is brought back in Bargaining and why they use the Buffbot. Buffy may have forgotten this tid bit but I doubt Giles has. Your confusion may be due to Buffy's off hand comment in Grave - when she tells Giles, "why was I brought back - another girl could have been chosen..." which I think was a tad sloppy on the writers part. But on the other hand - it's possible that Buffy doesn't realize that her death means zip to the slayer line any more. She never paid much attention to the whole thing anyway. Cordy, Giles, Willow and the others did.
They did all the research remember? Buff wasn't really into the research. She's only really started to do it recently.

Also if Buffy's death was to bring forth another slayer? That slayer would be here NOW in Sunnydale with the potential SIT's. Or we'd have seen her dead. The reason she's not - is she is Faith and Faith is in prison.

If you need additional proof? Have a little patience..I'm pretty sure they'll provide you with some soon.

[> [> [> The other problem with your logic is that... -- Rob, 22:40:13 01/11/03 Sat

...the power of a Slayer is not a singular thing that leaves one girl and then enters another. The death of the Slayer merely ACTIVATES dormant powers already in the Potential. If it hadn't, then Buffy would not have had any powers when she was first resurrected in Prophecy Girl. Buffy's death didn't pass her very powers onto Kendra, but did get the Slayer flabatonum to activate the next one. But, as we've seen, that only works once. We saw no other Slayer called after Buffy died in "The Gift." If there were another Slayer, we would have seen her already...and the FE would have targetted her, not just the Potentials. Buffy died, and Kendra was called; Kendra died and Faith was called. Buffy can die and be resurrected 10 more times and still...there'd be no more Slayers. And she'd still retain her own powers. There will not be another new Slayer until Faith's death.

Rob

[> [> [> [> From Restless -- Cactus Watcher, 08:10:51 01/12/03 Sun

Buffy to the First Slayer, "You're not the source of me."

I think there are still an infinite number of possibilities for what Buffy really is, now. And it's a distinct possibility that the original 'Slayer part' of her did pass on to Kendra when the Master left her face down in that puddle. She said at the moment she was revived, "I feel different... Stronger." Like the miraculous rescue of Angel in Amends, Buffy's current powers may be a special gift from forces ME hasn't revealed and may never reveal. The Eye mentioned an unbalance in things because of Buffy. But, assuming that her friends' role in bringing her back both times is the ultimate source of the unbalance, may or may not be correct.

Whether Buffy's current power can be passed on is still in the hands of ME. But, as Rob and others say the Slayer line and all its baggage runs through Faith.

Current board | More January 2003