July 2002 Archives

July 2002 posts

Previous July 2002
More July 2002

News on Anthony Head.....no specific spoilers -- Rufus, 14:53:57 07/11/02 Thu

nydailynews.com

Akita found this news for me.

'Buffy' Fans to See More of Giles

PASADENA, Calif.

nthony Stewart Head, whose character of Giles was missing from UPN's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" most of last year, will be back next season — in almost half the episodes.

"We just worked out a deal," Head said this week. "A minimum of 10."

Anthony Stewart Head with 'Buffy' star Sarah Michelle Gellar
The British-born Head took a sabbatical from "Buffy," without knowing if he would return, and went back to England to seek other work. The first project he took, which was a hit in the United Kingdom, was a comedy-drama series called "Manchild." Head played one of four hedonistic characters in what Brit critics likened to a male, older "Sex and the City." BBC America will air the series beginning Aug. 2.

A second season of "Manchild" is in the works, and Head said he has also been approached to play the time-warping, cross- dressing Frank N. Furter in a British stage production of "The Rocky Horror Show," though nothing's set yet. Also on the horizon, eventually, is "Buffy" creator Joss Whedon's Giles spinoff, planned for British TV.

Meanwhile, Whedon is as comfortable as Head with the arrangement that has Giles appearing and disappearing as Head's real-life circumstances dictate.

"Thank God I work for somebody who has a very open mind, and isn't remotely Hollywood," Head said. "Usually, they say, 'You come back and do what we want you to do, or you're not coming back at all.' He's such a cool guy. And I know, ultimately, he wouldn't ask me back if there wasn't anything for me to do."

Asked whether the British success of "Manchild" eased his doubts about leaving "Buffy," Head said he had none.

"People have said, 'How on Earth can you turn your back on all that money?'" he said. "You have to move on, to create new things.

"Otherwise," he added, "you just stultify and sit there."

David Bianculli

Original Publication Date: 7/11/02

[> Re: What happened to "Ripper"? -- GreatRewards, 15:39:55 07/11/02 Thu

Dead Bodies on Buffy -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:55:41 07/11/02 Thu

Out of curiosity, I decided to go online and look up how many humans have died over the course of the show. I used the website

www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC/Episodes

I found that in:

Season 1: 24 people died

Season 2: 28 people died

Season 3: 44 people died

Season 4: About 60 people died (most of that is from Primevil, where we only know that 40% of the Initiative was killed, so guessed thirty something died)

Season 5: About 60 people died (like in Season 4, most of the deaths occurred in one episode (Spiral), which is estimated at 35)

Season 6 About 18 (I guessed the demon bikers killed about 5 people)

This presents some unusual trends. Seasons 1 and 3 avergaed about two deaths per episode. Season 2 had only a few more deaths than the shorter first season. Seasons 4 and 5 had incredibly large death tolls, but each season actually just killed a lot of people in a single episode. Season 6, despite it's dark themes, had far less violence against humans than any past season.

Anyone draw any conclusions from this?

[> Re: Dead Bodies on Buffy -- ZachsMind, 20:07:42 07/11/02 Thu

Deaths in fiction occur due to a need on the writer's part to illustrate the level of danger and risk involved in the given event. Season five was a firestorm for the series overall, with the loss of Joyce and invention of Dawn. It involved the death of a god. The season prior to that involved Buffy's first brush with a secret government. However, by increasing the level of death the series inadvertently created a sort of insignificance to it. When primary characters deal with immortals and the undead, death inevitably loses its grip.

The latest season, though it was under some critical dispute, shows that the writing team of Buffy has excelled beyond the use of mere death as a factor in risk and danger. Season six was Man vs. SELF in many ways. Buffy facing her life after death. Giles questioning his importance after the psychological firestorm of season five. Willow combatting her growing obsession and thirst for magical powers. Xander's battle over selfconfidence and a need for purpose in his life. Dawn's desire for gratification and reinforcement of her existence. Shall I go on?

Though some critics disliked season six, I hope history will remember it as the most significant and well written season to date. Any conclusions drawn? It means the writers have blossomed and expanded their horizons. They've pushed the enveloped and gone far beyond the original confines of the series' inate design. The sky's not the limit. Buffy left the mere sky a long time ago.

It always gets darkest before the dawn. With season seven, the dawn will break. Hopefully in the metaphorical and not literal.

[> [> Re: Dead Bodies on Buffy -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:16:13 07/11/02 Thu

You are right. The sparcity of death drew the focus from battles to internal struggles. And, when someone died, it became a much bigger deal. I don't know about best written season to date; it all depends on what kind of story you prefer. Season 2 remains my favorite, though Season 7 sounds promising.

But, still, over the past six years there have been 234 deaths in Sunnydale, THAT WE'VE SEEN. This doesn't include vamp and demon victims who don't make it into an episode, or people who die of natural causes. With those it may be almost 400 dead people in six years, and this is WITH Buffy batteling the forces of evil. I'm surprised there's a town left.

Still, I think you can tell quite a bit about a season based on how many people it kills.

[> [> [> Re: Dead Bodies on Buffy -- Drizzt, 21:19:50 07/11/02 Thu

It has been a while since I have read either of the Watchers Guides, however I think they have stats on how many vamps and demons are killed in each ep.

The death of vamps is a whole different issue, however each vamp killed on the show USED to be a normal human...wich indirectly brings the death total of humans WAY up.

So in most cases we do not see these people being turned into vamps? It is unknown how often vamps need to feed & how much blood they need per day, but if Buffy kills five vamps in an ep that is five vamps who used to be human and also in many cases have been hunting/drinking/killing humans before Buffy dusts them...

My point is each vamp on the show indirectly is a human that died and, also say 5 humans on average that that particular vamp has killed...

It is very hard to estimate how many humans an average vamp kills before being dusted; try it yourself.

[> [> [> [> Where I said..."my point is" -- Drizzt, 21:24:11 07/11/02 Thu

was very bad grammer;(

I meant each vamp used to be a human=1 human
I estimated that an average vamp kills 5 humans before being dusted=5 humans

Conclussion; each vamp killed on the show indirectly implies the death of...6 humans.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Where I said..."my point is" -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:52:16 07/11/02 Thu

Well, that depeneds on how many vampires come in from out of town. Still, you're right. Given how many vampires there are, and, except for the ones fresh out of the grave, that each signifies one dead human and has probably killed at least one human, Sunnydale is surviving by a miracle. Can you imagine what it would be without a Slayer present? Actually, without a Slayer the world would have come to an end. Oh.

Maybe they could do an episode where we see the maternity ward of the hospital, and it's enormous. Sort of counterbalancing all the death.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Life, Violence, and Death -- Wizardman, 22:34:57 07/11/02 Thu

I believe that with violence, less is more. Buffy- the character, and to a lesser extent the show- is about violence. No matter how much you want to sugarcoat it, that is the truth. However, violence is far from being the central focus of the show, and I could not be happier about that. Both Buffy and Angel are about life- messy, horrible, infuriating, glorious, incredible, wonderful life. That is what the Scoobies and the Fang Gang are fighting for: for people- and by people I mean human, demon, and all things in between- to be able to live their lives without worrying about supernatural big bads coming along and killing them. Unfortunately, death is part of life, and is therefore shown. If violent death didn't exist, there wouldn't be a need for Champions or Slayers. I have no problem with death being shown, but I will when it becomes gratuitous. Fortunately, I haven't yet seen gratuitous death on either show (not that I've seen every episode of either show), and I haven't seen any signs that gratuitous death will ever happen. ME is too smart for that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Life, Violence, and Death -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:59:13 07/11/02 Thu

Totally agree. If there gets to be too much death, it loses all meaning. However, the human body count indicates several things about each season:

Season 1: A high number of deaths for only twelve episodes. Obviously still in the stage of homages to horror films.

Season 2: Little more than first season, even though it's ten episodes longer. Shows a shift of focus to the dramatic and emotional.

Season 3: Human deaths up again. Buffy's battles are starting to gain a bigger scale, which means more people involved, and thus more innocents slaughtered.

Season 4: Death rate low for most of season, but explodes in Primevil. The failure of authoritative systems in the long run.

Season 5: Death rate pretty normal until the massive slaughter of the Knights of Byzantium. The knights are notably outsiders who are affected the worst by what happened, showing that the personal battles fought in Sunnydale reverbrate throughout the universe(s).

Season 6: Lowest death rate ever. The Buffyverse becomes more like the real world. Death is less common but ultimately more tragic.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> P.S. -- Finn Mac Cool, 23:02:39 07/11/02 Thu

Slightly off-topic, but I've always thought it would be cool if a town only a few miles away from Sunnydale was wiped out. Entire population gone and monsters take their place. That would make an interesting visit for the Scooby Gang. Sort of a "this might be your future" sort of thing.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: P.S. -- Drizzt, 13:11:19 07/12/02 Fri

Riley did mention multiple instances of human villages that were wiped out.
They were not anywhere near Sunnydayle, but still...

[> [> [> [> [> [> I was under the impression... (S3 spoilage) -- tim, 07:44:49 07/12/02 Fri

...that part of the reason for bringing in the Mayor's story in S3 (or at least a nice side effect) was to explain why the town was still there. He builds Sunnydale "for demons to feed off of," and holds a sort of running agreement with them: Happy Meals on legs in exchange for not killing so many people that the town dies, either because everyone's dead or because people decide it's too risky to live there and move somewhere else.

I always found it significant that the Mayor is tied to a pool table in the first Bronze scene in "The Wish." Shows the subversion of the Sunnydale order since the Master rose. You can just imagine the Mayor's anger at the Master overrunning the city the way he did. Obviously, whatever argument they had, the Master won...

Or did I make all that up?

--th

[> Re: Dead Bodies on Buffy -- Rattletrap, 06:33:08 07/13/02 Sat

Hmmm, this is interesting. I knew the body count for season 6 was on the low side, but I thought S5 was also quite a bit lower than 3 or 4. Shows what I know, I guess.

'trap

[> [> Re: Dead Bodies on Buffy -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:28:21 07/13/02 Sat

Well, the majority of Season 5's deaths were in one episode, Spiral. There over thirty knights of Byzantium died. Without that ep's massive body count, seasons 3 and 4 did have more death.

[> [> [> That must've been what I was noticing. Thanx. -- trap, 11:34:07 07/13/02 Sat

Buffy/ Spike " I am going to prove something" Guess? -- Instantkrma, 20:28:16 07/11/02 Thu

*Warning* extra long post, and proof that B/S is hear to stay, and last season was confusing and exagerating for buffy fans, and us newbees, and naked spike was the only thing that is good for your soul! Or at least I think so!

I think that next season Buffy is going to have a serious wake up call, she kind of needs one. She needs to fall shameful in love with Spike, or not at all! Make some moral decision about him and his new soul! Althougth, I really think that this is all boring, done before stuff, the "moral" part and she should just have sex with him! "Sure he's evil, but you should see him naked, I mean really"- Buffy bot

Real love is loving with out judgements. Unconditional.
I came to the conclusion, she was afraid to admit that she was starting to love Spike in S6, because she was angry of the fact that he might be a little superior, maybe a bit smarter. Maybe, evildead makes you have a keen sence of the truth in the living world. (Hint,Hint)I am not saying it nec a good thing. Study how some socialpaths act. Maybe you know some, yourselves?
He was dead and able to feel, she was at one point dead and can't feel alive. Miss I don't feel nothing, I need Spike to feel.! Damn, lucky her!
After all Spike is really capable of great humanity, he was not a complete loss as a Vampire." He was once human, and remembers what humanity felt like. Buffy knows that deep down...pay attention to them, it is not always what they say. (Fool for Love)and him(Becomming II)

**Where as Angelus could not!None. That's right B/A fans! Stop trying to hold on to the past. Get with the program. Spike is light years ahead of Angel. He is not a jeckle and Hyde, wannabe he is bad/rude man and he's sticking around! Hello Buffy's new soul mate!Ha,Ha.

Spike is superior, or at least a superior Vampire. That is never made clear because of his chip. However, he admited to showing humanity, before he even had the chip.( One of those episodes, I forget, when a demon says that Dru and him are full of humanity with their love for each other. He was not exactly disagreing with the demon ,he even defended him self.)

Another, reason I believe that Spike is a superior demon is because alot of his humanity comes from his love for his women. Dru and Buffy. Dru eventually knew that Spike loved Buffy, when he sided with Buffy in Becoming II. Love with out judgements! (The old Spike would never side with Buffy.) Even thought it took Spike two seasons to know this! Spike has no idea the affect love has on him!

Hence, the chip was not making Spike the way he was, he always was that way! An evolving Vampire! A Vampire that evolves through love. (hint) I don't think Spike is coming back as a human! Joss needs to explore and explain this phenomon.

Getting back to Buffy and Spike:
Spike who is very much in love with her,and no fool. Knew that the only way to keep from scaring Buffy off from the, phenmonon that is Spike/William, was to make the relationship physical friendly. Everyone gets off nobodies virtue is challenged.
The only problem is that Buffy refused to go to the second phase,in Spike world,(what is it, I really don't know?) Spike is hoping for( true love?).

(... Buffy's retreat from her world she semi/normal life she trys to master to his "Darkness" Vampire? No he loves her too much! My hero!
Or shall I say yum!)

Why does she hate Spike so? Because, Buffy feels challenged, and she knows that Spike could win out! She could fall in love with him, the Big Bad!?
And, It is only a matter of time. Before Spike, (spikes) the physical relationship, and she has admit sometime. Wheather she ready or not. Notice she breaks up with him. "I am using you, and it is killing me."
When she really meant 'I am using you, I do love you, and it could kill me'.

Which leads us to SR. Spike was going to prove something! However he was too crazy that night to know what he was going to prove for sure. (He lacks common sence when it comes to Buffy, someone said.) If Buffy really loves him or if he was still worthy of Buffy's love and respect.

However, underlining 'there's got to be something bigger'- Smashed. " This is not about you as much as you would like it to be" Spike SR
Just pretend he said this in his mind, "Does not having a soul, mean that Buffy is right in not loving me back! Isn't the real issue with Buffy? *****! Or am I the issue, I can't be as evil as I want to be and I can't be as good as she needs me to be. I can't let her win, I must still be evil! " (He knew about the rape!)
He was truely as lost as Buffy had been all season, but in an even worse way. Only it was a matter of soul. she had one he didn't. She had used him for sex,abused him like hell, denied that he loved her, and refused to love him back. However she was still redeemable, because a soul is literally redeamable, his wasn't at the point.
In other words Buffy was the superior person, because she has a soul and should be forgiving for her actions in all S6,this is what Joss wants, but he can't. Up until Grave, he is now equal with Buffy wheather or not he uses his soul for good or evil?! Having a soul doesn't mean that your automatically good...look how every one in S6 acted. They all sucked as humans.... maybe he will be the next Big Bad. The Ultimate!

I think Joss is god! Buffy should find Spike even more yummy next season! And, Spike should damn well stay naked! He doesn't need a soul for that! (he,he) and:
--------------------------------------------
"Angel's lame, his hair sticks straight up, and he's bloody stupid." -Buffybot

[> Re: Buffy/ Spike " I am going to prove something" Guess? -- Drizzt, 21:44:52 07/11/02 Thu

Interesting

Personally I am for Buffy being in ANY relationship as long as it does not lead to another betrayal or abandonment for her So if Spike can become a better person/vamp, IE morally better and worthy of Buffy, then I will be happy with a B/S storyline.

Note; right now Spike is NOT worthy of Buffy because he is not trustworthy . He is pretty much trustworthy in regards to Buffy & the Scoobies though.

I will quote you; "Spike has no idea what effect love has on him" Spike himself said he is "loves bitch" He is insightfull in the area of psychology of himself and others...I disagree with your oppinion that I quoted.

Spike liked Joice way before he had the chip in his head. Spike loves Dawn in addition to Buffy.

[> Re: Buffy/ Spike " I am going to prove something" Guess? -- PWAC, 22:20:04 07/11/02 Thu

Okay...jumping in here. I'm a newbie so go easy ...kay?

"proof that B/S is hear to stay, and last season was confusing and exagerating for buffy fans"

Now see, I didn't find last season confusing at all. It was the perfect example of what happens when you seek to 'fix' all that is wrong with yourself through a relationship with someone else.

It is unrealistic to expect to have a loving relationship with someone else when you are unable to love and accept yourself. Both characters this past season...and longer...have been filled with self-doubt and to some extent self-hate. Both characters have been stuck in a situation they were unable to fully accept because it was not a situation of their choosing. It wasn't that long ago that Buffy would have been happy to die again and Spike is declaring that he can be neither a monster nor a man...he is nothing. These are not (were not) mentally healthy people.

When you are unhappy with your life it is not a wise course of action to think that the solution is to bring another unhappy person into the picture to 'fix' things.

Buffy needs to not only accept being the Slayer...but to embrace it. Spike needs to not only accept his circumstances but to embrace them. Only when these two have completed that journey will they have completed the cycle of growing up and be in a position to obtain the reward of a loving relationship.

PWAC
really a Spuffy at heart and not minding Shirtless Spike

[> [> Hey, nicely put, PWAC. Welcome! -- Dyna, 15:45:22 07/12/02 Fri

[> [> [> Re: Hey, nicely put, PWAC. Welcome! -- Dariel, 21:49:02 07/12/02 Fri

What she said! That was the shortest and most concise description of what was wrong with Buffy and Spike's relationship I've read. And very hopeful for the future growth of both parties, whether together or not.

And here I was dreading season 7!

[> [> on the other hand -- auroramama, 11:38:14 07/13/02 Sat

...Spike's need for Buffy, however unhealthy, causes him to stop her from dancing herself into spontaneous combustion. The others may love her more healthily, but (in that situation) they loved her much less effectively. Their love and guilt, their conflicting feelings, kept them frozen. Spike, focused only on Buffy, was able to act.

And Buffy's need for Spike, twisted and dark as it was, relieved her anhedonia and gave her something to live for besides her obligations to others. Even if it was a "shouldn't", at least it wasn't another "should." In my opinion it's what kept her alive. She may not have been living well, but she kept on living until life began to yield its sweetness to her again.

auroramama

[> [> [> Re: on the other hand -- DEN, 15:11:28 07/13/02 Sat

Relationships of the type described can--and usually do-- have short-term positive effects. Recognizing and building on them shouldn't entirely obscure the long-run factors.

[> [> Re: Buffy/ Spike " I am going to prove something" Guess? -- redcat, 15:23:46 07/13/02 Sat

PWAC, I agree with much in your post, but question your final assertion that, "Only when these two have completed that journey will they have completed the cycle of growing up and be in a position to obtain the reward of a loving relationship."

Is a loving relationship really a "reward" for growing up? That seems to me to be unfairly deterministic. I'm pretty sure that most of the people I know who have loving relationships, as well as the ones in my own life, came to us pitiful, weak, childish and never fully-grown-up humans not because we had earned them or deserved them, but by some sort of undeserved grace, a gift of life and love given in that odd and sometimes irrational way that life and love both tend to work.

*Sustaining* a loving relationship over time, OTOH, takes hard, hard work, patience, humility and often sacrifice, and (in my own experience, at least) also enormous quantities of joyfulness and a child-like wonder about the nature of love and life and everything in between.

Just a thought...

[> No, no, it's all right. .............I have more scotch!! -- Rahael, suddenly feeling like Giles, 08:00:04 07/12/02 Fri

Nice post PWAC, I agree.

[> [> Can I have some of your scotch? <eeeeek> -- shygirl, 13:25:24 07/12/02 Fri

[> [> If you're sharing, pour me one, please? -- LadyStarlight, 13:34:17 07/12/02 Fri

[> [> Eh, the bottle passed too quickly while I was cleaning my glasses. Is it a single-malt, BTW? -- redcat, 14:23:14 07/12/02 Fri

[> Um. Wow. Not touching this. -- SugarT, 11:45:57 07/12/02 Fri

oz ==> spike foreshadowing in "new moon rising"? (spoilers for that ep & end of s7) -- anom, 20:55:38 07/11/02 Thu

Some of the dialogue in New Moon Rising, which aired last Sunday on UPN (at least where I live), made me think of a more recent situation on the show. When Oz takes Willow outside to see that he doesn't change under the new moon, he says (from Psyche's site):

OZ: I know what I put you through, and I'm not gonna push. But I am... a different person than when I left. And I can be what you need now.
(Willow looks sad.)
OZ: That's what I want. That's why I'm here.

Sound like anyone else who left Sunnydale for faroff places to become a different person for the one he loves (OK, assuming the writers didn't lie, which we can't)? Of course, the outcome may or may not be similar, but the parallel is remarkable.

[> Re: oz ==> spike foreshadowing in "new moon rising"? (spoilers for that ep & end of s7) -- Wizardman, 21:27:59 07/11/02 Thu

The parallel is definitely there, but there are a few key differences.
One- The W/O relationship was vastly different than the B/S relationship.
Two- The way in which Oz hurt Willow was also greatly different from the way that Spike hurt Buffy.

Also, Oz returned essentially unchanged- he wasn't a different person, he just had control of his inner wolf (sort of). We can't make comparisons between Oz and Spike just yet, because we don't know about how Spike will be upon return. If Angel is any indication, souledSpike will be an entirely different creature than normalSpike *and* William, just as Angel is different from Angelus and Liam.

Just my two cents... don't hate me...

[> [> Re: oz ==> spike foreshadowing in "new moon rising"? (spoilers for that ep & end of s7) -- shadowkat, 05:57:28 07/12/02 Fri

Agree Wizardman and anom. Actually I've been having fun
comparing Spike with people. I compared him with OZ
recently and also with Riley.

OZ - he leaves because he almost killed Willow. Terrified
he takes off to Tibet to control his inner wolf.
Spike leaves because he almost raped Buffy (actually
this is no where near as bad as what OZ almost did...but the filming of it was more traumatic and we are visual
folks) Terrified and Tormented by this act - he goes off to change himself.

Riley - he leaves because he can't stand his life anymore, he has no purpose, he is pathetic and Buffy doesn't love him. He goes to the jungel. Comes back stronger and married.

Angel - he leaves to do what's best for Buffy. He comes back off and on in Season 4 and briefly SEason 5, unchanged.

Giles leaves also to do what's best for Buffy and himself, he comes back sans glasses, a powerful warlock, confident.

Spike will come back as....no clue. But it should be
interesting. PErsonally I see Spike emulating Giles/Ripper
more than Angel/Angelus or OZ. But that's just my gut talking.

[> [> [> Re: oz ==> spike foreshadowing in "new moon rising"? (spoilers for that ep & end of s7) -- anom, 07:53:52 07/12/02 Fri

"Spike leaves because he almost raped Buffy (actually this is no where near as bad as what OZ almost did...but the filming of it was more traumatic and we are visual folks) Terrified and Tormented by this act - he goes off to change himself."

On the other hand, Spike had more conscious control over his actions at the time than Oz did. Raises interesting q's. about what part of us makes us responsible for our actions. I don't feel qualified to draw comparisons to real-life human psychopaths (is what's "missing" in their psyches more like a Buffyverse soul or more like...what would it be in a werewolf? a metaphorical superego?), but I'd love to see what anyone who knows more about psychology has to say on the subject.

[> [> [> [> Then again -- Sophist, 08:29:56 07/12/02 Fri

those of us who see the demon and the souled creature as separate and distinct will see no difference in the two events. In WAH, the werewolf controlled the human Oz. In SR, the vampire demon controlled the body of Spike. In both cases, the person who returns has found a way to control the demon, Oz by meditation and herbs, SouledSpike with a soul. Seems clear to me that the latter is more dependable, but ya never know.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: And yet ...then again -- aliera, 10:36:06 07/12/02 Fri

Anom:On the other hand, Spike had more conscious control over his actions at the time than Oz did.

It’s not clear to me which part of Spike was in control, if any *discreet* part at that point. But from what we think about Spike he certainly should have had more control than Oz.

Sophist: those of us who see the demon and the souled creature as separate and distinct will see no difference in the two events. In WAH, the werewolf controlled the human Oz. In SR, the vampire demon controlled the body of Spike. In both cases, the person who returns has found a way to control the demon, Oz by meditation and herbs, SouledSpike with a soul. Seems clear to me that the latter is more dependable, but ya never know.

The perception of separate and distinct is critical to the point. I’m not convinced on this (but very willing to be convinced, I add). On the first point, the lack of vamp face still has me curious if the demon was in control. On the second point, I know we would generally assume that the soul would have that effect…not watching Angel very much but I have read some of the posts here regarding the series and so I ask is it a 'certainty' that he would have control? And are we sure now that the demon souls are the same for Spike and Angel. Very interested if someone could clarify this.

Shadowkat: Personally I see Spike emulating Giles/Ripper more than Angel/Angelus or OZ. But that's just my gut talking.

This I suspect is at the root of my problem in thinking about Spike in general but particularly in terms of either SR or DT and why I generally avoid the Spike threads. I seem unable to separate my emotional or gut reactions enough to analyze the scenes. In SR, I saw intense pain and conflict on his face; but, that was my *feeling*.

Tillow: I think Buffy feels a lot of guilt and self blame over the situation. The whole hero complex. "I should have known better; never have let it get that far." I also wonder if Spike might have thought that's how it would be (the oz dialog), but the soul teaches him otherwise. i.e. that he is "beneath her."

Two good points. I’m unclear on full implications of the soul as it affects the storyline and we can’t forget Buffy.

Anyone else have any thoughts? And where's that Advil?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Would like some of that advil myself -- shadowkat, 12:12:43 07/12/02 Fri

"This I suspect is at the root of my problem in thinking about Spike in general but particularly in terms of either SR or DT and why I generally avoid the Spike threads. I seem unable to separate my emotional or gut reactions enough to analyze the scenes. In SR, I saw intense pain and conflict on his face; but, that was my *feeling*.

Two good points. I’m unclear on full implications of the soul as it affects the storyline and we can’t forget Buffy."

Agree ...having the same problems. Spike soul threads just
give me a headache. Doesn't stop me from analysing him though. ;-)

I'm really unclear where ME is going with Spike, they can go in so many directions. I'm also unclear where they are
going with Spike/Buffy...my gut says one thing, my head
another and the board a third. It is reassuring to know
that everyone else apparently feels more or less the same way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Would like some of that advil myself -- aliera, 12:44:23 07/12/02 Fri

hey you...printed the essay off read it once but have to wait and go through it again, quite a lot to mull over and looks like you got responses so the thread will be up a bit, (aliera=she who reads quickly but thinks slowly, if at all).

No one knows...we're all just blind men verbalizing our bit of the elephant ;-)

Here's what *I* want tho. Spike as a chance to grow his own character and reclaim a bit of the warrior (Buffy's love interests seem to lose their fighting skills) and let's just keep the tension unrequited so we can keep him on the show a while!

[> [> Good catch, anom... -- Tillow, 06:02:37 07/12/02 Fri

Interesting to see how the difference in Buffy and Willow's behavior before both male character's left will affect the scene when Spike comes back into Buffy's life. Willow was essentially an innocent bystander whereas I think Buffy feels a lot of guilt and self blame over the situation. The whole hero complex. "I should have known better; never have let it get that far."

I also wonder if Spike might have thought that's how it would be (the oz dialog), but the soul teaches him otherwise. i.e. that he is "beneath her." FFL

Can't wait.

Tillow

Season 7 Spec. -- Bachman, 21:18:32 07/11/02 Thu

You people re fucking morons!

Buffy's just some bimbo who fights a bunch of lameass vampires and acts all mopey!

Grow up and get a life.

[> Excuse me? -- Wizardman, 21:39:27 07/11/02 Thu

If you truly believe that, then why are you here? We 'fucking morons' happen to be fans of two highly intelligent and captivating shows. Therefore, it is only natural that we like to comment and theorize about what has come before as well as what is coming in the future. Are there more worthwhile things that we could be doing? Quite possibly yes. We do realize that Buffy and Angel are only television shows. However, they happen to be two of the best television shows aired, written by people who are very good at what they do, directed by people who are very good at what they do, acted by people who are very good at they do... I could go on, but I trust that you get the point. I also trust that no one on this board has ever gone to a place that you enjoy frequenting, and flamed it, so please do not do so to us. Thank you kindly.

[> [> Tripple Ditto Wizardman:) -- Drizzt, 21:48:04 07/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> Re: Tripple Ditto Wizardman:) -- SLF, 00:28:53 07/12/02 Fri

I find it sad that people apply their 'minds' to making infantile posts . Intellectual exchanges of ideas, philosophical thought and literary criticism are fundamental to the human state of being. I am sure this poster will be back soon to giggle at what ire he has provoked.

[> [> [> [> yup. makes me get all contemplative -- yuri, 01:32:18 07/12/02 Fri

about what kind of person would get a kick out of that... do I know any people of the sort? What sort of friend would they be? Lover? TTMQ, anyone? Do they do it all the time? First time? What does she/he consider "a life" and being "grown up" --?

P.S. I don't really agree that philosophical thought and literary criticism are fundamental to the human state of being... at least not the common definitions of the two. But hey, to each their own.

[> [> [> [> [> Contemplation on a troll -- Darby, 05:56:53 07/12/02 Fri

Yuri's right. What kind of person does this kind of hit-and- run-and-snicker-under-the-bleachers kind of thing?

How obvious is it that we're dealing with, say, a male, no older than 15, certain that they really get things while all around them are clueless? A limited circle of friends, even including some buds in a shadowy chatroom somewhere that alternates between whining and sniping? Is this a male version of Faith whose powers extend only to getting a keyboard to jump? Is a troll by definition a coward? I've got cowards on the brain this morning, thread to follow.

Whaddaya think? Too off-topic (I tend to think of the board itself as always being on-topic, but that may be just me)? Too nasty for speculation in a warm environment like this?

I do agree with d'Herb - often these sniper attacks produce unique and interesting threads. Just dunno if this is one of them.

[> BOARD CLEANERS-PLEASE DELETE -- Off-kilter on troll patrol, 01:48:57 07/12/02 Fri

[> [> Ummm . . . this is Masq's purview, but . . . -- d'Herblay, 02:30:40 07/12/02 Fri

. . . we don't really do that here. Much. Generally, even the really obvious troll threads can be turned into something worthwhile by the combined energies and insights of the posters here. Of course, these tend to be of the "Angel chopped off Lindsey's hand, therefore we must nuke Afghanistan!!" variety, rather than the "You guys suck!!" variety. Trolls of this approach tend to be just ignored. There's not much one can really say. We don't suck. Quod erat demonstrandum. Luckily, trolls of this variety are usually hit-and-run, and they never get around to comparing us to Nazi Germany.

Because of the lack of responses, these threads usually take care of themselves by falling quickly into the archives, just a click away but beyond the range of most posters' patience. You've got to love the free marketplace of threads.

Should a poster make a habit of obnoxious posting, sometimes the invisible hand will administer a slap, though. I think that two or three people have been banned in the lifetime of this board. Believe me, they earned it. However, this is a tough decision for Masq to make, and she really does prefer a laissez-faire approach. One of the great difficulties with it is its selective enforcement: banning is much more effective with people with static IP addresses than it is with those who have a larger pool from which to be assigned. This means that AOL users seem almost impossible to ban.

Anyway, Masq needs her sleep, so it will be a few hours before she even sees this thread to delete it, by which time who knows what sort of philosophical turn it may have taken?

[> [> [> Late night club! late night club! (...early morning club?) -- yuri, 03:11:13 07/12/02 Fri

[> I vote we turn lemons into Margaritas -- Board Janitor, 06:43:10 07/12/02 Fri

Been saving this for the FAQ, but seems apropro here:

"People search for deeper meaning because they want and need to, not because it's "necessary " or "appropriate." Whether the meaning actually exists is almost besides the point. BtVS is the common language we use to discuss whatever is important to us-justice, morality, sex, friendship, fate, God, whatever. This board lets us conduct conversations with like-minded people that range from the ridiculous to the sublime, and that is a wonderful thing-rare, and worth having. Where Buffy is shallow we spackle in the depth, and where it is deep, we plung our minds into the heady intellectual malestrom of discussion, argument and debate. Hamlet used a silly play to work on the conscience of his king-we use a tv show about a pretty vampire killer to examine ours." --Arethusa

[> Poll: Why do you post? -- Masquerade, 07:22:28 07/12/02 Fri

OK, you could be out there in the sun, frolicking as we speak. But you're sitting by a computer reading this. Why?

Speaking personally, I post because I love the fantasy genre- -movies, t.v., books. I love understanding the nuts and bolts of the fantasy world I am seeing unfold in front of my eyes. I like admiring the artistry a complex, well- constructed fantasy world. And the Buffyverse is one of the most accessible and interesting ones around.

And it's a lot more enjoyable when you can hear other people's perspectives on it that are usually different from your own!

[> [> Re: Poll: Why do you post? -- aliera, 09:11:42 07/12/02 Fri

I agree, Masq.

But that is actually why I read the board. Posting is something different...off the top of my head in the last three months I've posted because...1)I have a question...2)want to recognize someone else's post...3)bored and impulsive...4)have something to share...4)have nothing to share but am so compelled by the other post that I can't help myself.

The turning of a pig's ear into a silk purse is a lovely attribute of this ATPoBTVS!

[> [> Re: Poll: Why do you post? -- Cactus Watcher, 11:42:45 07/12/02 Fri

There isn't much to add to what you, Masq, and aliera said about posting about Buffy. I'd guess it's fair to say those are the general feelings of everybody who posts here.

I sometimes think that we get trolls here at slow times because the words "All Things..." puts the main site early in the alphabetic web search lists. At busy times, the word "Philosophical" seems to scare a lot of people away.

Why we choose to post here is clearly because we have similar interests. I think most of us choose this site precisely because we do have real lives, and sharing with friends outside those lives is an important part of our day.

I had a strange incident happen yesterday. A young relative is visting us from out of town. We took her to a local space museum. The last time we went, the tour guide was an entertaining speaker, but he didn't know which way was up as far as science goes. Every other minute I felt like speaking up and saying "Er, actually no!" But, of course I didn't. Yesterday, the tour guide was completely different. He couldn't keep his mind on any topic long enough to explain any thing. He talked on such a high plane that most of the group, including the little girl we brought, was lost and bored silly most of the time. but, I kept thinking, 'Gee, this guy knows his stuff. He's a terrible tour guide, but I'd love to get him off in a corner and just talk.' Finding people with similar interests is a joy. Even if I don't agree on everything I read here, its fun to read what everyone has to say. Most people here are worth listening to, no matter what the average stray troll may think.

[> Bachman.... How dare you degrade the false name of King with this post? -- Forsaken, 11:44:59 07/12/02 Fri

What was the Original Hell like before humans? -- death, 21:19:44 07/11/02 Thu

[> According to Sartre . . . -- d'Herblay, 23:10:59 07/11/02 Thu

Null set.

[> [> ROTFLMAO! :) -- tim, 10:21:39 07/12/02 Fri

[> [> huh? i thought sartre's hell... -- anom, 14:19:37 07/12/02 Fri

...was other people, with No Exit.

[> [> [> Re: huh? i thought sartre's hell... -- Dead Soul, 17:13:47 07/12/02 Fri

Wasn't that the point? Without people there's no hell? I thought d'H was paraphrasing.

Dead Soul, who knows nothing about Sartre and is criminally bad at anything remotely mathmatical, arithmetical, algebraic, geometric, calculated and shutting up now, even though it's way too late to keep the ignorance under wraps.

S/W Journey Part III: Atonement w/Father Intro -- shadowkat, 05:40:24 07/12/02 Fri

Spike/Willow Journey: Atonement with The Father, Angelus & Giles

Spoilers Through Grave!!

“cough*DaddyIssues*cough” (Anya to Halfrek in Older and Far Away)

As we approach adult hood, we have to come to terms with our parents. The first task is obviously separating from our mother, the second reconciling or atoning with the father.
In Btvs, the writers have focused on both struggles. In Part I of my Spike/Willow journey, I discussed Separation from the Mother, now I hope to discuss the next stage in their journey, Atonement with the Father. But before I do, a little background information.

INTRO: Star Wars, Shane, Red River, and Btvs

When I was a child, I was afraid of Science Fiction movies – they all had scary monsters. So when my father suggested we go to Star Wars, I fought him. But he insisted, saying it was a rite of passage and that it wasn’t scary but fun, something akin to the Wild West meets WW II. So off we went approximately two –three hours away, to see the premiere of Star Wars. Of course we all adored it, particularly my brother and I, who at the respective ages of 8 and 11, became quite obsessed.

The Star Wars trilogy brilliantly explores the hero’s atonement with two separate aspects of his father – the indulgent mentor (Obi-Wan Kenobi) and the horrible ogre (Darth Vader). Many Star Wars fans saw the series as a coming of age tale, many boys as a reflection of their own struggle for manhood. For those who aren’t familiar with it - by the end of the trilogy, the boy (Luke) is forced to come to terms with both aspects of his father in a climatic sword fight, which is both physical and oddly psychological. Luke’s goal in this sequence is not to destroy his ogre father as Obi –wan advises, but to somehow redeem him, save him. Obi-wan believes such a task to be impossible. But Luke ultimately succeeds, literally pulling Anakin, the man, out of the black hooded armor of the monster Vader and in doing so, reunites Anakin with his mentor/foster father Obi- Wan.

Before I ever saw Star Wars, I saw this drama played out every Saturday evening beside my father’s armchair. Most notably in the classic westerns Red River and Shane, both are Westerns that deal with a boy’s struggle to accept aspects of his father and reconcile those aspects with himself. In Red River – the boy, played by Montgomery Cliff is forced to break with his father, John Wayne, to lead a cattle drive. Wayne has been abusing the cattle and the men, trying to prove something. In order to save the herd, Cliff must betray his father and lead the drive. His father swears vengeance on him, but by the time the two men meet, Cliff cannot kill his father any more than his father can kill him. Instead they have a fist fight and bond in the process. Shane – is a bit more complex, in that film, a gunfighter, named Shane, comes to town and saves a boy’s family from local cattle barons. The boy idolizes Shane who in some respects becomes a metaphorical representation of the boy’s future self. Shane flirts with the boy’s mother and saves the boy’s father. But it’s not until the boy’s father sticks up for himself and his family that the boy bonds with him and Shane eventually rides away. Shane, like Star Wars, represents both aspects – except in Shane the gunfighter represents the positive image or indulgent father, while the stoic farmer is the ogre – not allowing the boy to have any fun, seeming to be a coward in the boy’s eyes.

What’s interesting about all of the above examples and most of the examples in Campbell’s book Hero With A Thousand Faces is they are all male. In Buffy the Vampire Slayer: the journey emphasized is not the male’s atonement so much as the female’s. Actually Btvs gives equal time to both with the journeys of Spike and Willow and by extension Buffy. In Btvs Giles and Angelus represent the negative and positive elements of the father, elements that we must somehow reconcile in order to move on to the next step in our respective journeys.

(Splitting this in parts - 1 & 2 to follow) sk

[> Re: S/W Journey Part III: 1. Giles, Indulgent Father -- shadowkat, 05:42:19 07/12/02 Fri

Spike/Willow Journey Part III: Atonement with The Father

1. GILES: The Indulgent Father

The Indulgent parent is described in myths as the father who gives his children whatever they demand. This parent does not restrict or supervise the child, so much as indulge the child’s whims. A classic example is the myth of Phaedon, where the Sun-God Phaedon in Greek myths allows his son to drive his winged chariot. The boy loses control of the chariot, since the power the chariot harnesses is far above his capabilities, and almost destroys the earth in the process. According to the myth, the boy’s misadventure got him killed, scorched the earth, and turned the people of Ethiopia black. Sort of reminds me of DarkWillow’s little misadventure in dark magic at the end of Season 6. Like Phaedon’s son, Willow almost burns the earth to cinder, harnessing the magic that she took from her father, Giles.

Throughout Seasons 1-5 Btvs, Giles indulges Willow’s interests in the occult.
Willow offers to help him research in Harvest and surprises him with her hacking abilities on the computer. Instead of chastising her for doing something illegal or questionable, he encourages her to continue pursuing this path, since it does aid him in his Watcher duties. Then Jenny Calendar is introduced, a computer teacher and techno-pagan, who develops close relationships with both Giles and Willow. (I Robot, You Jane)

Willow is far closer to Jenny than the others are. It is Willow who rushes into the library with Jenny in Prophecy Girl to meet the apocalypse. It is Willow, Jenny asks to help cover her classes when she hunts a way to return Angel’s soul. Not only stroking Willow’s ego, but also giving her a role besides school geek. Jenny is not only Willow’s role model, but also in a sense, surrogate Mom.

From the beginning, Welcome to the Hellmouth – there is the indication that Willow is attracted to the new librarian, Giles, as a potential father figure. Her own father is unapproachable. She refers to him as Ira Rosenberg and mentions him once in Passion, as forbidding her to have any Christian relics or references in their home. Prior to this episode, we rarely hear her mention him. Giles, on the other hand, Willow goes to repeatedly for advice and support. She even admits to having a crush on him in Where the Wild Things Are, managing to give Xander the wiggins in the process. Willow’s own parents appear to be somewhat removed from her life. So she naturally replaces them with Giles and Jenny, two beloved teachers.

After Jenny Calendar dies in Season 2, we see Willow gradually take Jenny’s place. She moves into Jenny’s classroom. Finds Jenny’s old pagan websites. And in I Only Have Eyes For You – gives Giles one of Jenny’s keepsakes. Giles appears to take little notice of Willow’s interest in studying magic, far too wrapped up in his own grief at the time. But Giles does not discourage her either.

Of the four Scoobies, Willow seems to take on the role of comforting Giles. She gives him Jenny’s crystal. She tells him that the ghost haunting the school can’t be Jenny. And when the ghost attempts to suck Willow into the floor, Giles rushes to her rescue, pulling her out. They roll down the stairs in a pseudo-sexual manner, with Giles protectively covering Willow. This reminds me of a comment in Campbell’s The Hero With A Thousand Faces – that while the male fights his father for power, the female takes the mother’s place at the father’s side, to be dominated. (a la Electra Complex). (Personally, I think ME is going for more of the struggle for power metaphor, having grown out of their Freudian obsession.) In Season 2, they examine the Freudian father- daughter incestuous metaphor first. A metaphor that is examined in further depth with the Angel/Buffy relationship. Angel – the protector, father figure, beloved tutor, becomes sexually enamored with Buffy, sleeps with her, and goes evil. Attempts to destroy and dominate her. She eventually wins, destroying him. (More on this in the next section.)

If it weren’t for Jenny and Giles, I wonder if Willow would have pursued magic. Or even known about it. In Becoming Part I: Giles aids Willow with the soul spell – that Jenny had started, the spell that had gotten her killed. (Although he may not know that.) He even encourages Willow to do it because it was Jenny’s last wish. In Seasons 3 & 4, Giles asks Willow to cast all sorts of complicated spells. Example: Truth spell (Something Blue), locator spell (This Year’s Girl), Destruction of box (Choices), and living flame (Revelations). Only a few times does he come down hard on her for playing too harshly with magic. Suggesting she stay away from some of the more complex spell books in Season 3. (Beauty and The Beasts, Choices) And in Season 4’s Something Blue, he advises that she shouldn’t play with magic while emotionally unstable. When she ignores his advice, causing him to become blind, Giles lightly punishes her by forcing her to decal his car and make cookies. Much later that same year – he encourages her to lead the gang in a complex joining spell. (Primeval Season 4, Btvs.)

Giles rarely chastises Willow for increased use of magic. He merely comments on it. When she enters Buffy’s mind in Weight of the World, Giles says off-hand, “that’s a very complicated spell for a novice”. This echoes his words in Becoming Part I, Choices, WOTW, and Primeval. But not once does he attempt to stop her. It’s not until after she brought Buffy back, in Flooded Season 6, that Gile admonishes Willow. Calls her a rank arrogant amateur. But by this time, his admonishment falls on death ears. He’s indulged too many of her whims for her to take much notice of his words now. She even states, somewhat irritably, “that’s right, I’m a very powerful witch, you might not want to piss me off.”

Willow’s journey reminds me more of the anti-heroe’s, who challenges the father, seeks to destroy him in order to take his place. “You ceased to matter long before you left,” she tells Giles in Grave. In some ancient cultures – adulthood is obtained through a ritual cannibalism. The young men symbolically devour the father to become adults. They take his power into themselves. In episode II of the prologue to the Star Wars Trilogy, Anakin is fighting with his foster father and mentor, Obi-Wan, for more power and control. Obi- Wan has been far too indulgent of Anakin, allowing him to race speedcars and use his power at times recklessly. Now Anakin believes Obi-Wan is holding him back, is jealous of his power, doesn’t fully appreciate it. Willow has the same problem with Giles – she tells him in Grave, “when we last spoke, you told me I was a rank arrogant amateur, well guess what, the amateur has turned pro!” Then she fittingly invokes the name of the witch Asmodea, which Giles only manages to stop with a greenish energy field.

The witch Asmodea, according to redcat’s post on 6/29/02, was a woman who was forced by her family to enter a convent. (*Disclaimer: the opinions expressed regarding convents, Asmodea, etc are largely mine, not redcat’s. Her post went in another direction. So if you disagree with these points don’t flame her – flame me! If you wish to read her post in full go to www.atpobtvs.com, archive 3, Dedalus’ essay post, it’s the thread near the bottom. Redcat and aliera did all the research on Asmodea of which I am deeply grateful and taking shameless advantage.) In vengeance, Asmodea’s rebellion takes the form of confessed devil worship and witchcraft. Women were often forced to enter convents by their fathers in medieval and renaissance times because they refused to marry a selected mate or had children out of wedlock. Hence the phrase in Shakespear’s Hamlet: “Get thee to a nunnery.” In books such as Les Liaisons Dangerous and Richardson’s Clarissa, both written in the 18th century, women are either taken to convents by their fathers or coerced into marriages. As late as the early 1900s, women were considered chattel, property in the United States as well as abroad. I’m no historian, but I do remember from my years with Domestic Violence, that as late as 1990, Missouri still had laws on the books, that stated men could beat their wives and sell their daughters into matrimony. They were his property. Another point – in Btvs as well as Western Culture (not sure about other cultures), when women marry – they take their husband’s name and give up their father’s. In effect, they now become their husband’s property. A woman was not allowed to fight her father or the replacement father (husband) for dominance, culturally; no she fought her mother or the mother-in-law for the right to serve her father or husband. In “some” cultures, when a woman got married – she moved into her husband’s family home and served his mother until her death. Asmodea is a little like Willow, insisting on fighting for her own rights, not serving anyone. When these are denied – she enacts her vengeance for being forced to serve a life-time in cloistered repression to a male God.

Redcat goes on in her Asmodea post – to suggest that Willow’s use of Asmodea’s name may suggest a “deeply sexualized relationship to witchcraft and power. In addition, Willow’s “training” in the dark arts, as she calls them – and if such training can even be said to have taken place – occurs primarily through her relationships with books and ancient texts, not with a living mentor or teacher…” Here I disagree with redcat, she did have a mentor, and I’m not speaking of Tara. Giles. Granted he wasn’t entirely present in his mentoring but he does indulge her interest. Where did Willow get access to those books? Giles. In Buffy vs. Dracula – Giles is asking Willow to scan all of his books into the computer and confiding in her his desire to leave Sunnydale. He tells her that she can take over his role of Watcher now. He’s taught her and Buffy, all he knows. Giles is the one who instructs Willow to scan the book containing Moloch into her computer in the Season 1 episode I Robot, You Jane. And again it is Giles who helps Willow figure out the spell in Primeval. Giles is a lot like Phaedon in this story – permitting Willow the use of his books (chariot) but none of the training. Giles doesn’t mentor her so much as just indulge her interests. Then when Willow rises, in her perception, above Giles – she wants to fight him. To take over, to take control. She tells Buffy in Grave– “I don’t want to fight you, I want to fight him!” Willow has always been more interested in impressing Giles than Buffy. From Willow’s perspective, Giles is now her competition in the SG dynamic, he’s the Watcher – the role she wishes to usurp with her magic and her studies. It’s not the slayer she wants to be – so much as the slayer’s manager, the one that she perceives controls the slayer, Giles.

Spike and Buffy who also have taken Giles on as a surrogate father, react differently. If Willow’s reaction to Giles reminds me of Anakin’s reaction to Obi-Wan, Spike and Buffy’s reactions remind me of Luke’s reaction to Obi-Wan. Why is this? Why does Giles cause Willow to react with rebellion? To want to take over? While Buffy continues to see Giles as a mentor, a guide, who shows her laughter? While Spike appears to try to befriend or even obtain Giles approval?

Perhaps because Spike and Buffy have been abandoned by their biological fathers or is it because, like Luke, both have an ogre father they must somehow reconcile themselves with? An ogre represented by Angelus? Willow’s ogre father is her own father, the never seen Ira Rosenberg. Spike and Buffy’s is the formerly present Angel/Angelus. Their own biological fathers having long since left the scene.

Giles to Spike and Buffy is more of a positive role model. He doesn’t appear to indulge them as often as he does Willow. Throughout Seasons 1-6, Giles is placing a lot of pressure on Buffy. In Season 3, he even becomes a bit of the ogre father – poisoning Buffy in order for her to pass a test. ( Helpless.) While being understanding, Giles lets Buffy know on numerous occasions that her role as slayer must always come first. (See Witch, Freshman, Never Kill a Boy on the First Date, and Revelations.)

Giles places a similar amount of pressure on Spike. In the I in Team, he suggests to Spike that he may have a higher purpose. When Spike dismisses this, Giles dismisses him. Makes him pay for any future help. And treats him like a neutered pain. Even makes it clear in IWMTLY that Buffy is off limits. It’s Buffy who allows Spike back into the group, not Giles, who questions her judgment in Spiral, then relents when he realizes that outside of Buffy, Spike is the only one strong enough to handle Glory. In season 6, Spike appears in some ways to be emulating Giles. Or at least trying to up until Giles’ departure. In Tabula Rasa, Giles continues to show disapproval towards Spike. Before and after losing his memory – before he loses his memory he states: “Well, now that we've recovered from Spike's ... sartorial humor,” and after he loses it – “And you do inspire a, um ... (Spike walking out from behind the counter) particular feeling of ... familiarity and ... disappointment”. The episode before, OMWF, when Spike offers his opinion, Giles states – “If I want your opinion, Spike, I'll- (pauses to consider) I'll never want your opinion.” Giles clearly relates to Spike in the way a disapproving father would. Spike can never measure up.

So while Giles appears to be more indulgent where Willow is concerned, he appears to be more demanding where Buffy and to a lesser degree Spike are concerned. I’m not sure if this is because he doesn’t consider Willow to be his responsibility or if he just believes Willow more capable of managing herself. Possibly the latter, which is fitting with the Phaedon myth and to some extent the Star Wars myth of Darth Vader, in both cases, the indulgent father gave the son the tools in which to destroy the world. Tools that come close to destroying the son in the process. At the end of Grave, Giles provides Willow with the tools in which to destroy the world and herself, it’s Xander who stops her not Giles. As Campbell states in The Hero With A Thousand Faces – by indulging the child, the parent allows chaos to erupt.

One last point to make regarding Giles and Spike before moving onto Angelus: in Giles we have two sides = Ripper/Giles just as we have two sides in Angel = Angelus/Angel. In some ways Spike has more in common with Giles’ two personas than Angel’s. (Which leads me to believe Spike is more likely to become like Giles with a soul than like Angel with a soul). Perhaps this is the familiarity Giles notes? Shadows of his former wild boy self? The self we see in Band Candy boinking Joyce Summers against the hood of a car? Remind you of anyone else?

I plan to discuss Becoming Part II in more depth in the next section, but regarding Giles – Spike and Buffy team up in a way to save him. Spike saves Giles first from Angelus and the chain saw, obtaining, oddly enough, Angelus’ approval in the process. “I don’t fancy digging Librarian out of the carpet,” he offers Angelus by way of explanation. Angelus responds: “It’s nice having you watch my back, we make quite a team.” In saving Giles, Spike receives his vampire father, Angelus’ approval. Willow meanwhile is using Giles’ knowledge and his crystal to restore Angelus to his former ensouled self. It is ironically the beginning of both character’s journey’s to atonement – Spike’s to the cave and rebirth, Willow’s climatic fight with Giles and the eventual chaos at the bluff. One results in a soul, one in the potential loss of one.

[> [> Re: S/W Journey Part III: 2. Angelus: The Ogre/Universal Father -- shadowkat, 05:43:59 07/12/02 Fri

Spike/Willow Journey PArt III: Atonement with The Father

2. ANGELUS -The Ogre Father or ANGEL/ANGELUS – the universal father/contradiction

“the ogre aspect of the father is a reflex of the victim’s own ego – derived from the sensational nursery scene that has been left behind, but projected before; and fixating idolatory of that pedagogical nonthing is itself the fault that keeps one steeped in a sense of sin, sealing the potentially adult spirit from a better balanced, more realistic view of the father, and therewith of the world. Atonement (at-one-ment) consists in no more than the abandonment of that self-generated monster – the dragon thought to be God (super-ego) and the dragon thought to be Sin (repressed id). But this requires an abandonment of the attachment to ego itself, and that is what is difficult. One must have a faith that the father is merciful, and then a reliance on that mercy. Therewith, the center of belief is transferred outside of the bedeviling god’s tight scaly ring; and the dreadful ogres dissolve.” (Cited from pp. 129- 130, The Hero With A Thousand Faces, by J. Campbell, 1973 Princeton University Press.) (*Yes, I’m referencing Campbell who references Freud, who is a pain. While try to swing around the Freudian stuff as much as possible. )

Spike’s journey appears to be the opposite of Willow’s. Perhaps because Spike’s father figure and role model was Angelus/Angel. Talk about your mixed messages. Angelus represents the SIN or repressed id in the above quote, while Angel represents the Super-eg or God. Or Angel/Angelus (if you hate Freud) seems to represent the primal universal father, called Viracocha in Peru, who represents both death and life, ogre and mercy, terrifying in the contradictions.

Spike’s relationship with Angel/Angelus parallels Buffy’s. In Season 2, Spike is introduced in School Hard as Angelus’ offspring. He calls Angelus his sire or yoda. Is furious at what he perceives as Angelus’ betrayle of his kind. “You Uncle Tom,” he screams at him in game face. “You were my sire, my yoda!” Angel tells him that people change. Spike screams, “Not us, not demons!” The disagreement reminds me a little of Willow’s confrontation with Giles in Grave. Or even Flooded. It also reminds me of the hero confronting an unexpected side of his father – the contradiction. When Spike encounters Angel in School Hard, he expects to find his old mentor, cruel yoda, Angelus instead he finds Angel, ensouled and more merciful, the Uncle Tom.

Later, in What’s My Line Part II, Spike grabs his old sire, and handcuffs him. He allows Dru to taunt him. Dru, whom we later find out is the one who sired Spike. This actually works, because in What’s My Line, Angel attempts to get Spike to stake him by flirting with Drusilla in front of Spike. Spike is now sleeping with his mother. But his grandsire taunts him with the fact that he will never be good enough. You’ll never satisfy her like me, Angel suggests. This threat is later actualized in Innocence through Becoming Part I, where Angelus literally sleeps with and flirts with Dru under Spike’s nose. Spike incapacitated in a wheelchair must watch as Angel strokes and seduces Dru in I Only Have Eyes for You. Taunting Spike about how Dru only gives him pity access. This is the negative aspect – the portion of the father that challenges Spike.

Spike eventually rises out of the wheelchair and ironically does what Angel might have done if he hadn’t lost his soul and their positions had been reversed. Spike helps Buffy save the world. Granted he does it for selfish reasons, but the image is there. He rises up out of the wheelchair and bangs old Daddy over the head with a wrench. Not unlike Willow who rises up off the ground and bangs her Daddy over the head with dark magic.
Spike’s final act before leaving SunnyDale in Season 2, is to take his mother back from his grandsire, leaving the grandsire to be destroyed by the sister-self. (Not to be confused with shadow self. This isn’t an unconscious projection as much as it is a parallel between the two characters.)

What I continue to find fascinating about the whole Angelus- Spike-Dru-Buffy storyline, is how the characters of Spike and Buffy are paralleled throughout that season. It’s almost as if they are flip sides of each other. Both are incapacitated by their love for the significant other, which in both cases is a pseudo parental figure. Spike will do anything to save Dru, to the degree he ends up being the one incapacitated at the end of What’s My Line not Drusilla. Buffy similarly will do anything for Angel. Literally walking into the lion’s den without backup. “Nobody messes with my boyfriend!” she declares. Luckily the SG is in pursuit. For Spike – it’s Drusilla. For Buffy – it’s Angel. They fight each other, in defense of their significant others. Buffy had threatened Dru’s life just a few episodes earlier in Lie to Me. Spike returns the favor by threatening Angel’s, although he only does so to save Dru. Buffy’s nemesis is Spike not Dru, just as Spike’s nemesis is Buffy. It’s Spike she fights and vice versa. Ironic. When in reality it is Dru that turns out to be the main threat to her relationship with Angel, as well as Buffy herself. Buffy/Dru in combination cause Buffy to lose Angel. Not Spike. Hence Buffy’s dreams of Dru staking Angel. Rewatching them in combination with Becoming Part II = you see Drusilla overlapping Buffy, the Daughter kills the merciful father. (Much like Willow attempts to do in Grave and in the same manner – by touching the heart.) And both times in Buffy’s dream and in reality – it is Angel the merciful father who gets staked not Angelus, the ogre. Spike is the one who wounds the ogre with a monkey wrench.

Spike’s feelings for Angel in Season 2 are murky at best and have an undercurrent of sexuality. On the surface we see the father/child relationship with a homo-erotic sexuality underneath. For instance- (What’s My Line Part II) in response to Willy’s question about what Spike plans to do with an injured Angel. “I’m thinking maybe dinner and a movie. I don’t want to rush into anything. I’ve been hurt.”

Buffy’s feelings towards Angel are equally murky, filled with obvious sexuality and an underlying father child relationship. (The flip side of Spike’s.) Throughout the first part of Season 2 and a portion of Season 1, Angel takes on a protector role for Buffy, acts in many ways like Buffy’s father. He takes her ice-skating just like her biological father used to do. Listens to her hopes and dreams. Enters some of her dreams, guiding her, telling her what to look for. He gives her information on the demons, helps her fight them, saves her life. In some ways he acts like Buffy’s yoda. Just as Angelus might have once acted like Spike’s.

When Angel becomes Angelus - both get betrayed. And both don’t realize it at first. Angelus leads both on. In Innocence Buffy thinks he just went wonky on her, until near the end of the episode when Angelus attacks Willow. Spike thinks they are a family now, that Angelus is his friend and on his side, his father is back, only to realize at the end of Innocence that Angelus is an ogre, leaving the incapacitated Spike behind to face the SG. Doesn’t care a whit about Spike except as something to torment. Both Buffy and Spike struggle with their feelings for Angelus. Angelus, the ogre father, taunts both of them in separate but powerful ways, building their animosity towards him until it reaches the breaking point. In I Only Have Eyes For You – both Buffy and Spike are close to the end of their respective ropes. Spike can barely hide his fury, rising up out his wheel chair and kicking it. Buffy identifies so closely with the rejected spirit of a dead boy, she rages at the spirit and her friends. By the time we reach Becoming Part II, the resulting truce is almost inevitable. The two battling kids have finally banded together against their father. Becoming Part II also echoes Buffy’s prophetic dreams in Surprise, except instead of Angelus’ dark daughter Dru killing him – it is Buffy who sends him to hell as he reaches out to her. (Another interesting point – when Darla first kills Liam she indicates that he should close his eyes, when Buffy sends Angel to hell, she indicates he should close his eyes, symbolically taking Darla/the mother’s place with the father.) Spike is similarly echoed, in School Hard he embraces Angel thinking he is Angelus and in Innocence he attempts to kill Angelus thinking he is Angel, then finally in Becoming, he attacks and wounds Angelus knowing it is Angelus in order to take back his mother/lover Drusilla and take the father/Angelus’ place with her. And Willow symbolically takes Jenny’s place in Becoming Part II, returning Angel’s soul to save the father/Giles.

In one of the posts I read, there was a point made about how Angel and Spike had the same name. Both have variations on the name William. When a father gives his son both his first and last name, it is in a sense passing on his reputation or “good name” to the son. My guess is both William and Liam inherited their names from their fathers. But even if they didn’t, isn’t it interesting that they share versions of the same name? Liam is the Irish version of William. Both mean protector or guardian. Perhaps there is some significance that Spike’s human name is a reflection of Angel’s?

Perhaps I’m reaching? How about this – in Western Australia, the aboriginal people practice the following rite of manhood – for a whole moon, a boy is not allowed any other food but human blood. The blood he must drink is the blood of the men of his tribe or family. In some cases they kill someone and use that blood. But in most cases the blood is taken from each man’s wrist, while the boy’s father holds his head and forces him to drink the blood. This practice, Campbell compares to the metaphorical eating of the primal father or the ogre. (See The Hero With A Thousand Faces). By consuming the ogre, the boy becomes reconciled to him, at one with him, and takes the ogre’s place as the new father. In Btvs – vampires are created by drinking blood. Dru sired Spike with her blood, which in turn was taken from Angelus. Prior to becoming a vampire, Spike was the boy William, a niave young man. Then he drinks blood for many moons – becomes an undead thing, the adolescent, the hoodlum. He gets the chip and stops drinking human blood, has moved to animal blood as far as we know. Then finally, in Spike’s trials, the bugs clean him out and he is given the soul, adulthood.

If Angelus is the ogre father, than what is Angel? Angel may be the merciful father, not the indulgent one. The father who can turn into an ogre at the slightest hint of trouble. How does one trust in this father’s mercy? Spike for the longest time resists becoming anything like Angel, a demon he previously emulated. Now he calls him soul-boy with more than a little disdain. Buffy-whipped. Slayer’s lap-dog. All incredibly ironic terms when viewed in hindsight. After becoming chipped, Spike has become more and more like Angel. Slowly usurping his pseudo-father’s role with SG in the process. Now Spike has Angel’s old place in the Btvs credits, just as Willow has taken over Gile’s. Spike is the vampire Buffy is trying to resist. And soon the vampire with a soul that helps her from the fringes??

By going to the lurker demon –Spike may have wandered down the path he once swore he’d never follow, Angel’s. Several posters have compared Spike in the past to the Greek God, Dionysis. Well there is another term for this god, Dithyrambos – it means killed and resurrected or “him of the double door”, who survived the awesome miracle of a second birth, but not from the mother’s womb -- the father’s. Interesting. It reminds me of a theory I read a while back that the Lurker demon was the oldest of the vampires, a sort of father figure. If this is the case, then Spike’s meeting with him – could metaphorically symbolize a reconciliation with his own ogre father Angelus/Angel. As Campbell states in The Hero With A Thousand Faces : “The problem of the hero going to meet the father is to open his *soul * beyond terror to such a degree that he will be ripe to understand how the sickening and insane tragedies of this vast and ruthless cosmos are completely validated in the majesty of Being. The hero transcends life with its peculiar blind spot and for a moment rises to a glimpse of the source. Beholds the face of the father, understands and the two are atoned.” I’ve seen this happen twice in BTvs: with Willow and Giles, Giles gives Willow the ability to feel and ultimately understand the sickening pain of the cosmos, a pain that almost causes her to rip the world to shreds, and with Spike and Lurker, the Lurker gives Spike his soul which allows Spike to feel the sickening pain of all his past deeds. Once Spike feels this pain – he will ultimately understand Angel. And become reconciled to what Angelus/Angel has now become. Because in essence Spike has now chosen this route himself.

Conclusion

Spike and Willow both seek atonement but in different ways and with different types of fathers. Spike reconciles himself with his father. He metaphorically goes to the father to seek who he once was, to grow. In doing so, he is reborn and becomes in essence like his father, Angel, an ensouled vampire. Yet very different. Just as his name William is but a version of Angel’s name Liam. He chose his father’s path, and in a sense his vampire father’s old place at Buffy’s side, but he has not become his father. He has not become Angel. He has merely faced the universal father and accepted both the merciful and the ogre and seen that the two are one. Willow fights her father. She wants to usurp him, to take over his role, to take his power. She believes she can control it. Instead she becomes overwhelmed by the power he has given her. The moral of the indulgent father is actualized, chaos results. Thus, the journeys that were begun in Becoming Part I & II come to their denouement in Grave. Spike and Willow have atoned with their respective father figures with varying results. Neither have taken their father’s place nor have they become their father. The next stage in their development, like all stages is up to them.
Just like our next stage in development, is up to us.

Hope this made sense and didn’t contain too many historical inaccuracies or mistakes.

Thank you for reading. Feedback please?

;- ) shadowkat

[> [> [> That was great 'kat! Thinking more about Giles -- ponygirl, 08:53:33 07/12/02 Fri

I liked your essay! Your points about Giles echoed some of my thoughts especially in relation to the naming sub-thread (sadly off to the archives, before the thread ate the entire board). Giles certainly was a different kind of father to each of the characters-- his constant impatience with and belittling of Xander could certainly warrant some examination, I think Xander was pretty accurate in his assessment in Restless of Spike taking his place in Watcher training. For all the arguing Giles and Spike seemed to have a greater rapport than Xander/Giles, it was only when Spike was seen as a sexual threat to Buffy that the other two seemed to unite against him. But that's probably a whole other essay, I hope ;)

I keep coming back to Giles' continual rejection of the label of father, wanting to be the "rakish uncle" in Life Serial, Randy's older brother in TR, and singing that he wished he could "play the father" in OMWF. Why can't he play the father? It's a role he seems to have been playing for a while, but without that final step of taking responsibility for his charges. Giles seems to feel that his larger responsibility is to the world, thus he can turn a blind eye to Willow's magic, send Buffy off to fight, even urge the killing of Dawn in The Gift, and finally leave Buffy for her own good. I can only imagine that this detachment is as much a product of Watcher training as Giles' personality, after all Giles was fired in Helpless for having a father's love for Buffy.

Giles came back in the end, but did he come back for the world or for Buffy and Willow? And will he be able to take on the role that he has fled with all of its attendant responsibilities and risks? Or will he return to playing the Absent Father?

[> [> [> [> Thanks ponygirl, agree, keeping thread alive! -- shadowkat, 10:05:10 07/12/02 Fri

Giles' struggle with the father role continuously fascinates me.

I agree - he refuses to be Xander's father. While it surprised and baffled many that he did not return for Xanders' wedding to Anya, it didn't baffle me. Why? He seemed to barely tolerate Xander most of the time.
And he wasn't all that thrilled with the X/A pairing.

You see it in All The Way - after Xander announces his wedding to Anya, and they engage in a kiss. Giles takes off his glasses and wipes them. Buffy suddenly realizes that's why he's always taking them off, so he doesn't see what they do.

I think he truly loves Willow and Buffy, but he does not want to be their father. He says this to Jenny way back in Season 2 - "I'm not her father." He is accused of having
a father's love for Buffy in Helpless, but he doesn't consider that a good thing, it gets in the way of his Watcher duties.

In two earlier threads - in the naming one and the one
about identity discussing angel - we wondered what roles define us. I think that's Giles' problem. He doesn't know
how he wants to define himself. Does he want to play the father? the watcher? the teacher? the warlock? the singer?
As Spike tells him in his dream in Restless - "You need to make up your mind Rupes..." Too true. By didallying and indulging Willow...he has unleashed a force on Sunnydale
that he can only begin to imagine.

It reminds me a great deal of some of the indulgent father myths I recently read. In Phaedon myth - the kid bugs Phaedon relentlessly, until to stop the nagging, he lets him borrow the chariot for a day. Doesn't take the time to go with him or teach him how to drive it. What happens?
The earth is nearly destroyed. Was Phaedon indulgent?
Or merely neglectful in his duties? Is Giles?

Giles seems to be more aware of Spike and Buffy's actions in the last three years. And his laughter regarding their sexual relationship was interesting. I keep wondering if his rapport with Spike is due to seeing himself in him.
Older brother indeed?

Xander...well, I always got the feeling that Xander got on Giles' nerves. When Xander tries to learn how to be a Watcher and works with Giles, Giles appears ready to smack him. The sarcastic comments in HLOD, Hush, Doomed and much of Season 4...are fitting. Giles and Xander almost come
to blows at least twice: 1.Over the restoring Angel's
soul and over Jenny's death in Becoming Part I and
2. Over what Xander did in BBB.

My impression was that Giles saw Xander as having his own parents. He may have liked Xander. But saw no need to be more than a teacher or uncle.Not sure.

Anyways thanks for the comments!

PS: saw what ponygirl stood for...I too was an Outsiders
fan. Like the reference. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> Q re Phaedon -- Dead Soul, 10:19:26 07/12/02 Fri

IIRC, Phaedon (Phaeton) was the son of, in different versions, Helios or Apollo and he was the one who, also differect in different versions, was allowed or took without permission the Chariot of the Sun. Am I right?

Also, BTW and appropos of nothing, a popular 17th c. small carriage was called a Phaeton.

Dead Soul

P.S. Also a big S.E. Hinton fan

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Q re Phaedon -- shadowkat, 11:27:11 07/12/02 Fri

Campbell's version was confusing. But he said it was Phaedon the father and Phaeton the son. Yes, this is why Campbell gives me a headache.

I think Apollo and Phaeton make more sense. I decided to
just state Phaedon and his son...or did my eyes cross when I read Campbell? Campbell experts??

[> [> [> [> [> Watching -- ponygirl, 11:15:43 07/12/02 Fri

"In two earlier threads - in the naming one and the one
about identity discussing angel - we wondered what roles define us. I think that's Giles' problem. He doesn't know
how he wants to define himself. Does he want to play the father? the watcher? the teacher? the warlock? the singer?
As Spike tells him in his dream in Restless - "You need to make up your mind Rupes..." Too true."

By definition the role of Watcher seems to be one of being on the sidelines. As for being a father, once the child has reached adulthood, is there a sense that the parent's story is over? That they must cede the tale to the next generation? Giles seems to fear irrelevance a great deal, it was what he struggled with in s4, his reason for leaving in BvsD, and of course the taunt Willow threw at him in Grave. If Ripper ever gets made maybe we will see if Giles is finally able to define himself.

ps. S.E. Hinton rocks!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Watching -- shadowkat, 11:34:52 07/12/02 Fri

"By definition the role of Watcher seems to be one of being on the sidelines. As for being a father, once the child has reached adulthood, is there a sense that the parent's story is over? That they must cede the tale to the next generation? Giles seems to fear irrelevance a great deal, it was what he struggled with in s4, his reason for leaving in BvsD, and of course the taunt Willow threw at him in Grave."

He does seem to fear it. We see hints of this in Season 4. First in Where the Wild Things Are when he sings Behind Blue Eyes - a song that deals very strongly with identity
and past acts. Then in Yoko Factor - he sings Freebird, which indicates his desire yet reluctance to go.
Spike certainly picks up on his fears of irrlevance in Yoko Factor, using them against him. Just as Ethan Rayne does in A NEw Man. In Season 5, he's given a new sense of purpose, albeit briefly with Dawn being the key and the whole Glory thing and helping Buffy figure out who she is.

But what I always found fascinating is in Fool For Love - the person she goes to for answers is not ultimately Giles, but Spike. Spike seems to know more about who and what she is than Giles does. Just as Angel appeared to know more in seasons past. Possibly the reason she is attracted to them?

She asks Giles why Watchers can't tell her how the slayers died and why they died. He has no answers. Then she thinks a moment and says...wait there's someone who does. Next scene, she's pushing Spike against a piller and asking him for information.

One wonders if part of Giles' problem with Spike towards the end of Season 5, is that Spike is beginning to take his place as well?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Watching -- aliera, 14:45:26 07/12/02 Fri

Perhaps they are telling us (Buffy) that for true answers you must go directly to the source?

I had a similar thought to ponygirl about Giles ambivalence as a father figure although perhaps it depends whose eyes we're looking though. As an adult, I was viewing him as more of a mentor than father; but that may be my own preconceptions coloring the picture and perhaps I'm splitting hairs and they may be viewed as the same.

My own experiences regards my father were mild since he always had quite a hands off approach vis-a-vis my decisions and even today is more encouraging of my learning than most others. Our parenting styles are very similar. I don't have his intellect or charm but my approach to child rearing is very similar. I have my structure but tend to attempt to enable good behavior rather than enforce it. And I believe that there must be mistakes made for the individual to experience true learning or growth. Of course if I make a mistake it doesn't lead to an apocalypse.

This reminds me of Giles approach. There are probably a number of reasons for the strength of Willow's reaction in Flooded; but, I myself was surprised by Giles's statement to her. 0-60 in less than 6seconds and quite out of character.

Perhaps he is indulgent; however, perhaps it is his style to allow events to unfold rather than control the minutae and guide with some gentleness (and often with dry humor) rather than dictate and punish? This made his more feminine? approach in Grave more in character.

All that being said, when we look at it from Willow's point of view it could be much different. In addition to the need to overcome and assimilate the father, we ,may see abandonment and unfair criticism being issues and further alienating her.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks ponygirl, agree, keeping thread alive! - - leslie, 16:24:12 07/12/02 Fri

"Giles and Xander almost come to blows at least twice: 1.Over the restoring Angel's soul and over Jenny's death in Becoming Part I"

The latter occasion has always interested me. Xander somehow seems to feel that he has some claim to be Jenny's champion- -is this a hold-over from her sexual approaches to him when that love spell goes awry? A spell for which Giles reprimands him far more harshly than he ever reprimands Willow until Willow brings Buffy back. Xander definitely appears to be usurping Giles's role as primary bereaved, and Giles reacts strongly to this intrusion on his territory. For Xander, this appears to be an almost Freudian, Oedipal move, but Giles refuses to accept it as such.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks ponygirl, agree, keeping thread alive! - - shadowkat, 20:16:55 07/12/02 Fri

"The latter occasion has always interested me. Xander somehow seems to feel that he has some claim to be Jenny's champion--is this a hold-over from her sexual approaches to him when that love spell goes awry?"

Hmmm...that hadn't occured to me, but it should have.
Xander seems to want to be the dominant male in all the women's lives. He battles with each male figure.

Spike - he never saw as a threat until Entropy - and when he discovered he was, it really hit him, maybe far harder than anything else, possibly enough to push him out of or further into his self-pitying malaise?

Xander in a lot of ways reminds me of Angel. Like Angel, he has a father he hates. Like Angel he has a thing for being the ruling party where women are concerned. But most notably in The Pack - he's cruelty seems very similar to Angelus'.

Not sure where this is leading me...excuse the ramble...
but Xander hates Angel in Becoming. In Passion - he states
that Giles should kill Angelus. Doesn't think for an instant that it could get the Librarian killed. In Becoming Part II, he decides not to tell Buffy, Will is restoring the soul. And in Becoming PArt I is ferociously opposed to the spell. Later when Angel returns, he wants to join forces with Faith to kill Angel.

Why is this? Is this because he felt close to Jenny and Buffy and Will ? In Becoming, Xander is twitchy. He is upset when Will calls out for OZ instead of him. He fights with Giles
about Will getting Angel's soul back. He doesn't tell Buffy about the soul restoration. And he looks very uneasy in the last scene when Buffy does not return to school.

In a post a long time ago, someone noted that Xander wanted to be the comfortador for all the women. I wasn't sure about this at first...but now, I think it may be true and may be partly at the heart of his inability to commit to Anya. What Snyder says to him in his dream in restless may be true:

Xander: I'm a comfortador no a conquestador
Snyder: You're neither...

Xander's problem is he wants to be the bell of the ball, as Buffy states way back in I Robot You Jane. "You're upset because you're no longer bell of the ball". (When Willow gets interested in someone else.) Xander doesn't really want Willow. He doesn't really want Buffy. He wants to be wanted by them. BBB = was Xander's deepest darkest fantasy come true but it almost got him killed. In that episode every woman
wanted him: Joyce, Jenny, Buffy, Willow...but the one he
already had. How ironic. It happens twice. Xander gets the girl. But he loses her because he's too busy concentrating on what he doesn't have or believes he doesn't deserve. As he puts it in one of the early episodes of Season 2, "we want what we can't have...not what's under our nose."

The number of times Xander brags to Giles about a girl having a crush on him - is interesting. He brags first with Faith in This Year's Girl. Then later in regards to Dawn - in Bloodties. Giles scoffs both times, highly annoyed with Xander.

Much has been made of how upset Xander gets regarding the information about Spuffy - this means he has latent feelings for her. No. I think it's far simpler than that.
Xander is upset, because Spike got two women Anya and Buffy and he's undead, evil. (One of those women is his ex-finance and the other, whoa, is the girl he lusted after all through high school. Not FAIR!) Here's Xander, normal guy, why aren't the women falling over him? He gets upset in a similar fashion when he learns Dawn has a crush on Spike.
To him Spike is the lowest of the low. The loser. What a crushing blow.

It is ironic I think that when Xander finally gets the girl, the girl who loves him completely for who and what he is, he tosses her aside, rather brutally (standing up Anya, cheating on Cordy = both resulting in a vengeance demon being called). Makes one wonder if Xander should have a girl? If all he's going to do is break her heart?

[> [> [> Riveting - much to reread and ponder -- Dead Soul, 10:13:33 07/12/02 Fri

Especially Willow having the decal Giles' car. I wonder what the decal would read: "I (heart) my Slayer"?

I actually think she said she had to detail Gile's car, but, hey, maybe I misheard.

Dead Soul

[> [> [> [> "You too can be a Slayer! Ask me how" -- Arethusa, 12:09:27 07/12/02 Fri

Willow: "I'd rather be destroying the world."

Buffy: "I (heart) Mr. Pointy." (with a little stake icon)

Xander: "Carpenters do it plane-ly." (Sorry, couldn't think of a good one.)

[> [> [> Re: S/W Journey Part III: 2. Angelus: The Ogre/Universal Father -- leslie, 16:13:12 07/12/02 Fri

Another mid-read comment:

"Spike’s feelings for Angel in Season 2 are murky at best and have an undercurrent of sexuality. On the surface we see the father/child relationship with a homo-erotic sexuality underneath. For instance- (What’s My Line Part II) in response to Willy’s question about what Spike plans to do with an injured Angel. “I’m thinking maybe dinner and a movie. I don’t want to rush into anything. I’ve been hurt.”"

Parallel with a scene in Something Blue that inevitably cracks me up, between Spike and Giles (quoting from memory, but it's a good memory):

Giles is on the phone leaving a message on Willow's answering machine. Off screen, Spike howls: "It's telly time! Passions is on! Timmy's down the bloody well, and if I miss it..."

Giles snaps: "You'll what? Lick me to death?" (back to the phone) "For one thing, I would like to take a shower sometime today. ALONE."

[> [> [> [> LMAO! Thanks forgot that -- shadowkat, 21:01:55 07/12/02 Fri

"Giles is on the phone leaving a message on Willow's answering machine. Off screen, Spike howls: "It's telly time! Passions is on! Timmy's down the bloody well, and if I miss it..."

Giles snaps: "You'll what? Lick me to death?" (back to the phone) "For one thing, I would like to take a shower sometime today. ALONE.""

You know there was a thread on this yesterday under breeding which I loved. But I honestly think Joss and Company were chomping at the bit to do homoerotic story with our vamps. And JM really plays the character as having the ability to go both ways. Hence all the slash fiction
that popped up after his introduction. Angel also plays it.

Hmmm, maybe it was with both fathers...we do have that
awkward hug in TR and Spike does accuse Giles of owning a car that is "something red and shaped like a penis".

[> [> Re: S/W Journey Part III: 1. Giles, Indulgent Father -- leslie, 16:02:14 07/12/02 Fri

Oooh oooh oooh--just jumping in here before I've even finished, but:

"From Willow’s perspective, Giles is now her competition in the SG dynamic, he’s the Watcher – the role she wishes to usurp with her magic and her studies. It’s not the slayer she wants to be – so much as the slayer’s manager, the one that she perceives controls the slayer, Giles."

In which case, parallel Willow with Anya, who wants to usurp Giles's role as proprietor of the Magic Box. And then think about this in terms of how Grave works out: Willow makes Anya her (unwilling? just how unwilling?) accomplice in overcoming the spell that Giles lays on her; Anya then uses her demon powers for the first time since she has reacquired them not to wreak vengence but to help both Giles and Buffy- -with her priority clearly with Giles. And think back to Giles and Anya's assumption of a husband/wife (to-be) relationship between them in Tabula Rasa. Willow is taking the break-from-the-father route, Anya the stand-by-the- father route.

[> [> [> Re: S/W Journey Part III: 1. Giles, Indulgent Father -- shadowkat, 21:11:37 07/12/02 Fri

"In which case, parallel Willow with Anya, who wants to usurp Giles's role as proprietor of the Magic Box. And then think about this in terms of how Grave works out: Willow makes Anya her (unwilling? just how unwilling?) accomplice in overcoming the spell that Giles lays on her; Anya then uses her demon powers for the first time since she has reacquired them not to wreak vengence but to help both Giles and Buffy--with her priority clearly with Giles. And think back to Giles and Anya's assumption of a husband/wife (to- be) relationship between them in Tabula Rasa. Willow is taking the break-from-the-father route, Anya the stand-by- the-father route."

Another thing I hadn't thought of. Very good pt. When Giles returns...Anya waits for him to notice her then embraces him. He notices Buffy first. Anya says - "I'm a blond. Again." (Competing with Buffy?) Yes - I see her standing by him. She even goes back to him after everyone else leaves.

It's ironic when you think back to the early episodes. Willow wants Giles to stay. Anya keeps trying to get him to leave. Now they've switched roles. Anya is so happy he returned. Willow wishes he never did, although she likes that power boost.

Be interesting to see where they take Anya and Giles next year, if anywhere.

[> Spoilers for Seasons 1-6 (Grave) in above posts!! - - shadowkat, 05:45:08 07/12/02 Fri

[> My printer's a hummin'. Will comment later on good/bad parents, and "lineage" in BtVS -- cjl, 09:46:54 07/12/02 Fri

[> Re: S/W Journey Part III: Atonement w/Father Intro -- Drizzt, 13:47:47 07/12/02 Fri

Hey Shadowcat
Love your essays.

Have you thought about submitting them the the essay section of the Fictionary Corner?

[> [> Re: S/W Journey Part III: Atonement w/Father Intro -- shadowkat, 21:07:00 07/12/02 Fri

I keep trying to...but they never get there. So don't know how to do it. I've corresponded with liq twice on it.

Oh Well (shrug) Maybe they prefer to do the link to my website?
It may be easier for them.

Don't know.

Thanks for the compliment though. Greatly appreciated;-)

[> Fascinating as usual, 'kat; just one point to make.... -- cjl, 22:12:11 07/12/02 Fri

It occurs to me that the Scoobies (and for that matter, most of the other characters on the show) have THREE sets of "parents": (1) their birth parents, usually absent or deficient in some way; (2) their surrogate parents, either beneficent or monstrous (as you stated), whose conflict must be symbolically resolved for the character to reach true adulthood; and (3) the character's ancestral heritage.

The last one is important, because this three-dimensional exploration of parents, both real and symbolic, is what distinguishes Buffy from the run-of-the-mill fodder which passes for television in the early 21st century.

The common soap opera, whether daytime or prime time, concentrates on set #1. Characters endlessly debate about who fathered whose child, whether Mommy is an ogre and if daughter will rebel before she can inherit the family fortune, etc., etc. SMG and Susan Lucci did this bit in All My Children. When I was unemployed, I actually watched the show for awhile. I was hooked. Then after awhile, I got so tired of the blatant emotional manipulation and ludicrous plots, I went back to cartoons and game shows. I was much happier that way. (Thank God I found a job before I completely vegetated....)

The second set of parents are the key figures in the modern bildungsroman in film, TV and literature. They are cautionary figures/spiritual guides to the young protagonist, who either bring the callow youth out of ignorance, or drag the poor creature down into the gutter, and the audience is all the better for the lesson. BtVS is teeming with these figures: Giles as paterfamilias (or rakish uncle) of the Scoobies, and Joyce and Jenny as surrogate moms; Angelus and Darla as the Parents from Hell; and what the heck, you can throw in Snyder, the Master, and even Holtz as negative examples of parental authority as well.

But the third category is what makes Buffy truly special, truly unique. It adds the dimension of myth to the saga of a young person's quest for adulthood. In terms of parentage, Buffy has Hank and Joyce (level 1), Giles (level 2), and the first slayer as ancestral mother (level 3). This point was brought home in Bargaining, when Giles was working with the Buffybot and Anya reminded him that this blond object wasn't the latest in a long line of mystic warriors--it was the descendant of a toaster-oven. BtVS isn't just concerned with reconciling the present and the recent past; there are constant reminders and connections to the beginning of time, to allegiances and forces so awesome and remote that the narrative threatens to explode from the sheer scope of it all.

You can make a case for this with the other Scoobs as well: Willow, in her pursuit of witchcraft, brings into play both the coven (symbolic of the eternal forces of white magic) and Prosperexa (Willow's demon mother, the pseudo-Lilith figure of BtVS); Giles, naturally, has the entire history of the Watchers crushing his shoulders, represented by another evil parent--Quentin Travers (boo, hiss); all the vampires we've come to know and love on BtVS can be traced through the Master all the way back to Aurelius and the Ancients; even Xander--well, Xander's situation truly sucks. We know his parents are completely useless. He picked a surrogate father--Giles--who ultimately rejected that responsibility. His female role model, who pretty much substituted for Mom in forming all his moral values...yeah, I know, this is starting to sound a bit sick. But even Xander has that link to the eternal, the same horrifying link that ME explored in "Billy": the seeming endless parade of violence in the soul of mankind, passed down from one generation to the next. (It's my sincere hope that "the line ends here"--from Xander's dream in "Restless"--means Xander will be able to break the pattern of violence and become his own man.)

It's this third dimension to the question of parentage that has helped make Buffy the Vampire Slayer the unique entertainment we've enjoyed for the past six. Given the spoilers for next year, I think Joss will fully explore this theme is Season 7 and make us all deliriously happy.

Cross your fingers.

[> Intriguing essay, shadowkat! -- aliera, 06:39:53 07/13/02 Sat

...and bears rereading. I continue to be impressed by how prolific your writing and thinking about the season is, especially appreciated in the slow time of summer as we await the new season. Your most recent offering was not just an interesting take on pulling together some of the disparate elements of the show, but indicated some intriguing items for the future watching since many of these issues although addressed are certainly not resolved. Very timely as we look back on this season of change which took a new path and addressed the internal hero's journey and confrontation with the self, without the previous externalizing of personal demons. As we anticipate some role shifting and growth again next season, it will be interesting to note how the themes you noted may affect the direction the show travels next.

Just a sidenote, thanks for the mention; but the research and realization of the Amodea reference was redcat's. As usual I was off on one of my tangents! She drew the appropriate connection to the mention of Aradia in Bargaining II and recognized the signifigance of Amodea's story and how it relates to Willow's journey.

And I am developing quite a file on your essays and those of the other thinkers and writers on this board! Lovely food for thought, not just about the show but about the journeys we each make take.

If you didnt know. Here is the Official BTVS Video Game website -- neaux, 07:57:11 07/12/02 Fri

This is the link

or go to buffy.ea.com

The game comes out july 30th. damn i wish i had an xbox.

[> Re: the video trailer is very very nice too -- neaux, 08:07:07 07/12/02 Fri

Dark Willow and "The Story." (S6 finale, etc., spoilers) -- Darby, 08:09:37 07/12/02 Fri

Reading "The Story" thread below got me thinking about this, but there wasn't really a logical place to insert it...

Tara (or whoever Willow was loving) needed to die to turn Willow to vengeance. Okay, I quibble with the actual realization of the theme, but I'll buy into the necessity for the sake of The Story.

But where in Our Girl Willow has Dark Willow been lurking? As I think back over the character we saw, I see some hint of what is to come, but some apparent contradictions.

We've seen Willow pissed off, and Dark Willow is mega- pissed, enough to do some legitimately evil things. Good enough.

We've seen Willow want to get back at people...have we? We know D'Hoffryn saw a potential vengeance demon in her, but that was telling us she's vengeful. Having we ever been shown Willow attempting "payback"? Resentment doesn't imply revenge.

Dark Willow is sarcastic, as Willow is sarcastic, she's tired of being the sidekick, which we've seen before in Willow, she's needlessly hurtful to Dawn...huh? I get that she was kind of "the voice of the fans" in the scene at Rack's, but it didn't seem "true to The Story" to have her taunt and threaten Dawn. The Willow we know has ocasionally let her "real feelings" slip, but never without massive immediate remorse, but Dark Willow revels in the effects.

And what part of the Willow we know is capable of torture, of toying with someone physically and psychically and killing them in an intensely grisly fashion? And I don't count VampWillow, as that aspect could have been connected to the vampdemon (and itself was not linked to an aspect of the Willow we knew), as it presumably is in Angel. We know that Willow likes power, likes control, but she has never been shown to be cruel, has she? To me, she has always been an interesting combination of deep empathy with limited insight - she feels people's pain even when she doesn't really understand it. That is not a facade over a torturer.

What I'm trying to say here is that ME had over a year to foreshadow the type of person Willow could be, but did a poor job of it. Tara dies, Willow wants to kill Warren, maybe even end the world to end her own pain, I can see all that in the character we know. Was the rest just making the Dark Willow character "interesting," or setting up S7 in violation of the character?

You can't talk about the importance of The Story if you make the puppets dance your dance regardless of the characters they have become.

[> Re: Dark Willow and "The Story." (S6 finale, etc., spoilers) -- Rahael, 08:25:53 07/12/02 Fri

Just a quick point. Do not assume who might and might not torture other people. Perfectly 'normal' people find themselves quite capable of inflicting incredible physical pain on other people.

Also, Willow came *this* close to cursing Oz to a joyless, loveless life forever after she found out about his infidelity.

I've never met anyone who hasn't been capable of cruelty, whether in word or deed. It seems, sadly, to be a constant.

I'll repeat a story - I was once at a human rights reception with my father, when he pointed someone out, and said that he had earlier come up to him and introduced himself as the former governor of a notorious prison. Notorious for torture and other terrible things. My father said "I know. I was there too!" (umm, as a prisoner, I hasten to add!)

So you see, torturers, and those who order it can be perfectly normal people, like ourselves. To pretend that only a few, evil people are capable of it, is to not heed the warnings of history. It's just that most of us are lucky enough never to find out exactly how low we can plunge.

[> [> All too true, perhaps, though we like to think not (usually of ourselves). -- Sophist, 08:34:08 07/12/02 Fri

However, I think Darby's bigger point was to question the continuity of "the story". If everyone is capable of torture, then Willow's actions can hardly be said to be necessitated by "the story".

[> [> [> "look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent underneath" -- Rahael, 09:05:18 07/12/02 Fri

and from the same play:

"oh, full of scorpions is my mind"

Macbeth is an honourable, courageous, loyal man who is shown descending in a spiral toward treachery and murder. It's been referenced before. He and his wife are actively shown repressing all that is good in them, so they can perform what they need to, in order to fulfil a narrative within a narrative - the prediction made by the three witches.

In a way, Macbeth is as possessed by o'er vaulting ambition, and greed, and superstitiousness as Willow by dark magic, and his wife asks for the milk of human kindness to be replaced by gall. They are 'possessed', once honourable but still responsible for their actions.

Season 6 showed us that all our favourite characters were capable of ignoble behaviour. Willow exhibited the worst of it, precisely because 'she was the best of us'. Buffy, already worried about turning into a killer, neglected her responsibilities, and beat up Spike. Giles abrogated his responsibilities. Anya chose to become a vengeance demon, Xander walked away from the thing he had once said "he would never give up". The list is endless.

That was the story. What we are discussing is, did Willow have to be saddled with the worst crime? And that is definitely up for question. I think that seeing someone who appears to be so kind, innocent and sweet behave that way poses more interesting questions than if Buffy had done it. We could easily have argued that Buffy is a dispenser of justice, and that Warren had to be killed. But by then Buffy is shown emerging out of her state, as Willow descends, and Spike moves outward. It's the pattern of those movements that made the end of Season 6 so strong for me, whereas the middle part seemed less satisfying.

[> [> [> [> Re: "look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent underneath" -- Darby, 09:56:56 07/12/02 Fri

I'm not certain that I agree that absolutely everybody is capable, under the wrong circumstances, of any horrendous behavior. I wonder if, when being exposed to the worst in people, there isn't an odd comfort in still being able to see them as regular folks under extraordinary circumstances. I choose to believe that the capacity for evil in individuals is as variable as a sense of humor.

I have no problem, however, with knowing that apparently nice acquaintances can do heinous things, but Willow isn't an acquaintance, she's a person we know well - this may be her "worst of times," but if the writers are doing their jobs, what arises from this tragedy should be an extension of attributes we've already seen. We know that Buffy tends to withdraw and solve problems with violence, that Giles doesn't always pick the best solution to a problem, that Xander fears his family and fears himself, that Anya is a vengence demon in a human - all of those developments were natural extensions of our "friends."

But Dark Willow is like Angelus, exhibiting personality traits that make her seem "other." And it didn't have to be that way - as I've said before, a gradual descent over the season, rather than the "magic is drugs" metaphor that painted Willow as a weak victim (everyone said she was strong, but did we really see it?) to a craving, could have shown us hints of the Darkness. They had even started, yet seemed to veer off from it. The closest they came to showing cruelty in Willow was her attitude toward Tara, but that was much more arrogance than cruelty (that's why the "ending the world thing" works, as it derives from Willow's Supreme Arrogance).

I agree that the directions the various characters were moving at the end of the season were satisfying, and I think Buffy and Spike's trajectories were fairly smoothly set up and very much rooted in the established characters, even the "give me a soul," if you try to fit it to William / Spike. It's this Darth Willow thing...

[> [> [> [> [> Re: "look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent underneath" -- leslie, 12:36:56 07/13/02 Sat

I saw Willow's "turn" as an example of how those who are victimized all too often turn into victimizers the instant they have a chance. Not to open a whole political can of worms here, but as a Jew, I find the whole situation of Israel v. Palestine to be a sickening example of this. Part of me wants to scream at Israel, DON'T YOU REMEMBER???? Willow may not have been physically tortured, but she was certainly psychologically "tortured" before she met Buffy and began to gain a feeling of acceptance. And it seems to me that part of the reason it is appropriate that she would torture and kill Warren is that she also wants to torture and kill that part of her--her inner nerd--as well.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Agree completely (S6 spoiler; includes S7 spec at the tail end) -- J, 13:04:57 07/13/02 Sat

And it seems to me that part of the reason it is appropriate that she would torture and kill Warren is that she also wants to torture and kill that part of her--her inner nerd--as well.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- Willow's entire story since Sunnydale High is about coming to terms with her inner nerd. I don't think that makes her self-discoveries (as witch, lesbian, hottie, etc.) any less real or important, but Willow's still insecure at heart, still afraid of herself--she can't embrace her inner nerd. The trauma of her softer side of Sears years has really scarred her, and killing off Warren, hunting down Jonathan and Andrew, and ultimately trying to end the world were progressively more extreme ways of trying to kill her inner nerd off.

I think that the Willow / Xander scene in "Grave" was the beginning of the end of that phase -- perhaps when Joss talks about how S7 is "back to the beginning", one of the things he means is that we're going to see more nerd Willow (a la S1) in S7.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent points! -- Rahael, 07:13:46 07/15/02 Mon

My initial reaction to Villains, where Willow taunts Warren with his abuse of women was that this accusation must have been all the more felt for Willow because she herself had abused Tara.

Not only does Warren appear more despicable to her because he reminds her of him in a nerdish way, but they both maltreated their lovers. They both tried to make their lovers their 'slaves' in different ways, and could not respect the dignity and boundaries that separated them.

And it echoes the theme of ill treating the person you most identify with because you can't bear to be who you are (Dead Things).

[> [> addendum -- Rahael, 08:39:56 07/12/02 Fri

This is basically a reprise of my post about Willow following Villains, but, to assume that only a very few of us are capable of such acts is to accord them with a demonic status, that allows us to do whatever we want to them.

Which is exactly what Willow did to Warren after all. Someone capable of murder? of cruelty? Torture? We aren't - they must either be 'evil' or insane. No punishment will be good enough for them.

Despite my 'unforgiving' attitude, I've always maintained there is a difference between an evil person, and an evil action. There is a big gap, the gap which is leapt by our choices. And that means that we give due responsibility and agency to human beings. People don't just 'act' because they have a certain nature, a fixed identity - BtVS, shows how complex and uncertain a defition of 'human' is. And Willow is never so sure of who she is either - how come we are?

We are not fated or determined by our personality. We forge our own destiny, we make our own choices.

Rahael, who liked Dark Willow, and depressed Buffy best of all the storylines in Season 6.

[> [> [> Re: addendum -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:08:51 07/12/02 Fri

As I see it, when she went after Warren, Willow got a taste of her own cruelty and decided that she liked it. She'd never shown a cruelty streak before because she had never let herself try it.

[> [> [> [> Re: addendum -- Arethusa, 11:00:55 07/12/02 Fri

There were hints, here and there, of Spiteful!Willow peeking through. The only one I can immediately think of is in "Who Are You," when the gang and Faith/Buffy discuss Faith. (quote by psyche)

Willow: Yeah. I hope they throw the book at her.
Giles: I'm not sure there is a, a book for this.
Willow: They could throw other things.
Buffy: I forgot how much you don't like Faith.
Willow: After what she's done to you?
Oh, I wish those council guys would let me have an hour alone
in the room with her, if I was larger and had grenades.

Thought of another. From "Inca Mummy Girl."

Cut to Willow. Buffy finds her.

Buffy: Where's Xander?

Willow: He's looking for Ampata.

Buffy: We need to find him. Ampata's the mummy.

Willow: Oh. (absorbs the information and smiles) Good.

There have been hints, here and there, of Willow's passive spite or anger. She sometimes seems to let Buffy be her anger substitute, maybe even enjoying Buffy's violence vicariously.
Willow, ignored by her parents, rejected as dating material by her childhood crush, mocked by her classmates, is bound to have deep stores of anger and resentment.

I remember reading in a psychology book about an experiment done at a university, using ordinary students as subjects. The students were told they could anonymously administer painful shocks to other student test subjects. The researchers were horrified to see how readily most students administered and even accelerated the pain, even when they could hear the (fake) screams of the other students.
We never really know what we, let alone others, are capable of until the situation arises.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: addendum -- DL, 11:21:43 07/12/02 Fri

Great thread!

I agree without a shadow of a doubt that Willow is a very angry person. Anyone who has lived life carries anger like that. The key issue to me is the control that one exerts over how they act upon that anger.

Rahael says above that there is a difference between an evil act and an evil person; I agree. Willow is a good person - does anyone dispute that? But immediately after Tara's death, she is temporarily insane. She willingly chooses to utilize the dark magicks that she knows will control her. Those magicks eventually cause everything else. Am I saying that Willow isn't responsible for what she did? Of course not. She is.

We are, as is stated above, painfully in control of our actions. As humans, we do have the capacity to recognize what is evil to us individually, and that in itself allows us to possess evil. Once we see and recognize evil, unfortunately, we gain the capacity to do it. It's our soul, our conscience, and our mind that prevents us from doing so. It keeps us in control. Willow was so befallen with grief that she thought the only way to give Warren et al. what they deserved was to give into the darkness, as she was too smart, too good to do anything to them in her current state.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: addendum -- DL, 11:21:44 07/12/02 Fri

Great thread!

I agree without a shadow of a doubt that Willow is a very angry person. Anyone who has lived life carries anger like that. The key issue to me is the control that one exerts over how they act upon that anger.

Rahael says above that there is a difference between an evil act and an evil person; I agree. Willow is a good person - does anyone dispute that? But immediately after Tara's death, she is temporarily insane. She willingly chooses to utilize the dark magicks that she knows will control her. Those magicks eventually cause everything else. Am I saying that Willow isn't responsible for what she did? Of course not. She is.

We are, as is stated above, painfully in control of our actions. As humans, we do have the capacity to recognize what is evil to us individually, and that in itself allows us to possess evil. Once we see and recognize evil, unfortunately, we gain the capacity to do it. It's our soul, our conscience, and our mind that prevents us from doing so. It keeps us in control. Willow was so befallen with grief that she thought the only way to give Warren et al. what they deserved was to give into the darkness, as she was too smart, too good to do anything to them in her current state.

[> [> [> [> [> agree--slight correction on the social psych -- tim, 13:25:09 07/12/02 Fri

The shock experiment you're thinking of was performed by Stanley Milgram, a Yale professor in the 1950's. It was really more about obedience to authority than people's capacity for torture. That is, if a researcher in a white lab coat tells you to do something, will you do it? (Virtually everything published in social psychology in the 1950's was bent on explaining why the Holocaust happened. This was yet one more take on that question.) A surprising number of people obeyed, even going so far as moving the researcher's confederate's hand onto the (fake) electrode to receive the shock that the researcher claimed was "necessary."

I do tend to agree with those who argue the best of us can become monstrous under the worst of circumstances, though, in part because of another famous study, which indicated it doesn't even have to be the worst of circumstances--there just has to be some minimal justification in our own minds. Students were randomly assigned to one of two groups, a role which they were to act out for two weeks. Some were assigned to be "guards," while the rest were "prisoners." These were normal college students without any unusual histories of violence. They understood the "prisoners" had done nothing worse than be on the receiving end of an unfortunate coin flip. Yet the "guards" became so abusive towards their fellow students that the researchers had to shut the study down after six days, less than half the time they'd allotted.

Never underestimate the human capacity for cruelty. We've spent too long in the jungle for a little civilization to have permanently altered our essential natures.

--tim, who didn't expect this to take such a turn for the dark

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, tim -- Arethusa, 14:13:45 07/12/02 Fri

I read about both studies ten years ago-had forgotten the second, probably deliberately.
Woody Allen said we are monkeys with car keys. I agree. And we aren't very nice monkeys.

The truth often hides in the dark-where our pretensions are stripped away. Sometimes you must go there.

[> [> [> [> [> [> A footnote -- Rahael, 15:12:20 07/12/02 Fri

Sometime this year, apparently the BBC repeated that guards and prisoners experience - a bonding process within the group occurred, except in this version of the experiment, the prisoners bonded, and complained about their treatment, while the guards got very very stressed out by the whole experience. The article I read concluded that this was probably down to the different nationalities involved (but this was a tongue in cheek comment).

But since I didn't watch the programme, nor am I familiar how similarly the two experiments were conducted or the details, and how closely they followed the original. I mean, this was for a television programme!

Following redcat's point, I think it's very true that there's a distinction between the evil we may do in the throes of misery/pain/rage and what we may do because we believe we are right, and we have authority (moral, political, military) on our side. The second, in many ways is far more frightening. We like to be with the powerful group (like Andrew - "I like taking orders!") and it seems some of us would do almost anything not to be turned on next.

The first is so visceral - but the second is so pervasive, so much a part of what is wrong with our world.

I'd like to think that I'd never be capable of inflicting harm on another person, but I have no idea what I might do were I in immediate, and genuine fear of my life. I have some idea though, that I would be able to resist the call of authority to do harm to another human being. Everyone's capacity to do evil tends in different direction.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A footnote -- aliera, 15:36:56 07/12/02 Fri

...and changes with time.

[> The Road to Dark Willow -- cjl, 08:41:51 07/12/02 Fri

We've seen Willow want to get back at people...have we? We know D'Hoffryn saw a potential vengeance demon in her, but that was telling us she's vengeful. Having we ever been shown Willow attempting "payback"? Resentment doesn't imply revenge.

When Glory brainsucked Glory, Willow didn't hang back and wait for Buffy and Giles come up with a plan of attack. She went straight for the dark mojo books and took on Her Skankiness one-on-one. "I owe you pain!" Definite payback time.

And on a smaller scale, remember Willow sabotaging Cordelia's computer lab project way back in Season 1? Even then, she was into payback when she could do it.

And what part of the Willow we know is capable of torture, of toying with someone physically and psychically and killing them in an intensely grisly fashion? And I don't count VampWillow, as that aspect could have been connected to the vampdemon (and itself was not linked to an aspect of the Willow we knew), as it presumably is in Angel. We know that Willow likes power, likes control, but she has never been shown to be cruel, has she?

I think this (and Dark Willow's sarcastic bent) ties in to "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." When Willow went to the Magic Shop and absorbed all of the dark magic, she pretty much knew she wasn't coming back. She was on a suicide run, and all of the restraints of her normal human personality were gone--in a way, it was like the results of a vamping (bye bye, moral restraints), without the actual vamping itself. So we get the VampWillow behavior (torture and sadism) with the extra-snarkiness as a special added bonus.

I wasn't shocked by any of Dark Willow's actions. As a recovering nerd myself, I know there are enormous reserves of bitterness "down there" held back by my brighter nature.

(Gee. What would I be like as a vamp? Nah. Better not to think about it.)

[> [> There was a fascinating thread way back -- Rahael, 08:48:51 07/12/02 Fri

Started by Drizzt, I believe, which asked posters to speculate what they'd be like as a Vamp

[> [> Re: The Road to Dark Willow -- Sophist, 09:00:45 07/12/02 Fri

When Glory brainsucked Glory, Willow didn't hang back and wait for Buffy and Giles come up with a plan of attack. She went straight for the dark mojo books and took on Her Skankiness one-on-one. "I owe you pain!" Definite payback time.

This scene paralleled Giles' behavior in Passion (which Buffy should have remembered before Spike convinced her that Willow would do it). Does this mean Giles would go after a human the way he did Angel? I hardly think so, except maybe in the larger sense Rah mentioned above. Even so, it's not the killing of Warren which so shocks, but the torture which preceeded it. And for that, there's no precedent.

[> [> [> Willow's torture unprecedented? Yes, but still... -- cjl, 09:10:09 07/12/02 Fri

I keep looking at our sweet, innocent Willow in previous seasons, and I can see her anger, and the way that anger could be channeled through her witchcraft. I think especially of when Willow is doing her floating pencil trick on the grounds of SDHS in S3, while she and Buffy are discussing Faith. The sucker starts spinning like an out-of- control gyroscope, then rockets through the trunk of a nearby tree like it was propelled by a tornado.

I have no doubt that, somewhere in her subconscious, Willow substituted Faith for the tree.

This is an example on the smallest scale of magical power. Multiply it by 100, remove Willow's conscience, and you have the torture scene with Warren. It did not come out of the blue.

[> [> [> [> Torture as Science Grad Lab -- redcat, 10:06:22 07/12/02 Fri

I agree with Rahael and cjl on this one. For me, Gentle!Willow’s sharp-edged, if generally
muted, penchant for payback and her attraction to power (“Oh, yeah, I’m bad”), are among the
most fascinating parts of her character and have been since S1. As a completely
unrecoverable and life-long nerd, one of the things that made the Warren-torture scene so
chillingly effective for me was her almost detached, objective, nearly-scientific attitude toward
the whole thing. Her rage, her red-hot anger and grief, lay just under the surface of that cold,
calculating analytical mask. When it finally leaped out, I was not surprised, but almost
relieved. Here was the computer hacker, the scientist, the girl with the so-often-not-
appreciated good mind, calmly observing, watching the cruel effect of her power on lesser
mortals almost without emotional engagement and certainly without either empathy or
sympathy. The flashing crack that her rage finally made in that cold objectivity was essential if
Giles’ “earth/good” magic was to be let in. It is also interesting to me that when Giles’ first
traps her, before the transfer of magic, he does so by enwrapping her in a green, seemingly-
living, moving and pulsating energy field, which metaphorically replaces her former cold, hard
shell of near-emotionless cruelty. She is able to throw it off using her objective and analytical
mind linked to high magicks (intellect/power) - literally by telepathically influencing Anya – but
she is no longer invincible as she was with Warren in the forest. The crack of her rage has
allowed something primal in, something that both touches her deep empathy for others and
thus the source of her own pain, and also allows Xander to reach her through that pain.

And I also agree with Rah that each of us is probably capable, even if not inclined, to levels of
violence and cruelty that would astonish us if we ever were so unfortunate as to have to see
them enacted with our own hands, in our own words. I think, however, that there is a
significant difference between what an individual can and might or even will do in moments of
extreme stress, pain, danger or fear, and what governments, officials, leaders, bosses and
wardens calmly, systematically, and usually “legally,” order to be done to people they do not
even see, by those beneath them in the hierarchy of power, and as parts of their political,
economic or other agendas.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Torture as Science Grad Lab -- DEN, 11:23:47 07/12/02 Fri

The postings on this thread have just about convinced me Dark Willow's roots run deeper than I have wished, or been willing, to believe. Perhaps someone will address a problem that continues to bother me. When Giles returns, it seems to me that he expects--or is expected--to win his fight with Willow. The consequences of her draining him that he discusses in articulo mortis are an emergency backup. It makes NO sense as a primary plan to strengthen Willow's power and hope that somehow (as suggested above) the infusion will tap positively into the empathy that is the source of her pain. In reality, when her empathy is touched, she decides, almost on impulse, to alleviate everyone's suffering by destroying the world!

Part of the problem is that by story's end Willow has mainlined three powerful and very different magics: the dark mojo of the books, Rack's power (which in terms of effect seems to be to the other stuff what crack is to powder cocaine--"nasty Willow " only emerges after a full shot of Rack), and finally the coven's --which interacts with the residues of the other two to produce consequences like those to be seen in Berkeley emergency rooms on Saturday night in the late sixties. If my memories are valid, Willow will need most of the summer just to come down and check out what condition her condition is in.

BTW, the much and legitimately maligned "addiction metaphor" may have been the only way to carry forward in even marginally convincing fashion a story line taking Willow from focused, albeit homicidal, grief to destroying humanity in under two episodes. Good stuff can do it to you!

[> [> [> [> [> [> this is the best rationalization of the addiction metaphor that I've read -- Dead Soul, 11:31:44 07/12/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Seconded, and -- Rahael, 11:41:05 07/12/02 Fri

I finally got the point about the scene in OaFA, where Willow refuses to do magic, even to help the Scoobies, even if their lives were in peril.

It was to hammer home that Willow was conscious of what using magic could do to her, fully conscious. This makes her completely responsible for what followed when Tara died.

Secondly, it showed how important Tara was to her in making that moral choice - she was in front of Tara, and was painfully trying to do what was right, to win her back.

When you lose that person, what's the point? All along you've been doing what's right, and then the entire reason is taken away from you by the world? When all your life you've been 'old reliable' the person who chose to stay in Sunnydale, the 'good' person. When she met Tara, I think she thought "at last" - she found her safe place, her home. That room in restless, like the John Donne poem, was all the world to her.

It's interesting that in OAFA, we have Dawns terrible rage and anger, because the person most important to her, Buffy, just would not notice her.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: yes, and -- aliera, 14:57:28 07/12/02 Fri

Yes, thank you all...now those points ring true. For Tara's sake she started down the path and had she more time she may have been able to use that as a springboard to recovery. But in her fragile state when the prop was removed? Disaster. I have heard also that a fall from grace is usually to lower than you were before and that also is quite in line with events.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Torture as Science Grad Lab -- shadowkat, 11:58:52 07/12/02 Fri

First agree with everything rah, redcat and cjl said above.

Re the problem - I'll take a shot:

"When Giles returns, it seems to me that he expects--or is expected--to win his fight with Willow. The consequences of her draining him that he discusses in articulo mortis are an emergency backup. It makes NO sense as a primary plan to strengthen Willow's power and hope that somehow (as suggested above) the infusion will tap positively into the empathy that is the source of her pain. In reality, when her empathy is touched, she decides, almost on impulse, to alleviate everyone's suffering by destroying the world!"

I don't think Giles understood Willow as well as he thought he did. Often the trouble with fathers and daughters. He tends to only see the positive. In Flooded, he is shocked and dismayed by what she is done. But thinks he managed to get through to her. "Of all people I trusted you most..."
Giles' views of Willow ironically enough echo Sophist
and Darby's above. All he sees is her kindness, her charm, her love...he can't see the turmoil beneath it.

Remember in Dopplegangerland - how upset Giles is, when he thinks Willow has been vamped? Giles says:"She was truly the best of all of us". Xander: "Way better than me."
Giles agrees wholeheartedly. When she shows up alive in her fuzzy pink sweater - Giles embraces her.

How shocking DarkWillow must have been to him. He even tells Buffy that he didn't believe it was Willow until a seer told him about Tara. He is in denial.

I think he truly believed that the Willow he knew, the Willow in Something Blue, who immediately regrets her actions when D'Hoffryn almost makes her a vengeance demon, or the Willow in Primeval who follows his instructions...
or even the Willow in Becoming PArt I, who wants so desperately to help and forgives so easily, is the one
he's facing. He can't conceive that she would react to pain by wanting to distinquish it. Makes sense...considering
the metaphor of Giles' blindness throughout the seasons.

I don't think he realizes that magic has become an addiction for her. Which is ironic really, since it was once his. Think back to the Dark Age. Giles as a youth was getting high off of summoning a demon and letting it possess him. He played with Dark magics and got off on the high. Hence his reluctance to use them much now.

I've noticed in life, that people who used drugs themselves, don't always notice the addictive habits in their children. Which is ironic, because addictions tend to run in families.

Willow in many ways is echoing Giles' youthal behavior..
and I think Giles' is struggling with that realization.

Oh just realized only answered half of the question. Second half - why would touching her empathy make her want to destroy the world?

Fairly simple really. Willow throughout the last five seasons has watched Buffy make the bad guys go "poof". In Something Blue she asks Buffy, "why can't you make the pain just go "poof."? " And in All The Way - she decorates the house and tells Tara, magic decorations are better because they just go poof. To deal with her arguement with Tara?
She does a forget spell - again makes the fight go poof.
In Tabula Rasa another forget spell - also makes everyones pain and memories go "poof". Then in Wrecked - the nasty demon? She disintegrates him - "poof". Willow has become accustomed to the idea of "poof". She reminds me of the little boy in the Twilight Zone episode, A Good Day - if it's not what I want - I make it go poof.

If the world is in pain and I can't heal it and I have to feel it all - I'll make it go poof. I want to go poof and I'm in pain. Why wouldn't the world? In Two to Go - when Buffy says you can't come back. Willow says I don't plan too. Willow wants to go poof as far back as Villains. It's part of the reason she decided to go after the dark magic.
She just wants to make Warren, Andrew and Jonathan go poof first, and poof is too good for them, they got to hurt first.

Giles and Willow's friends don't see this tendency - yet if you watch the episodes...it's there right in front of their noses. We often tend to ignore the things we don't want to see.

Hope that made sense.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Occam's Razor -- Sophist, 12:46:13 07/12/02 Fri

Let me suggest 2 much simpler explanations:

1. Giles (and Buffy and Xander and Tara, for that matter) didn't notice Willow's dark side because it wasn't there.

2. Why didn't Willow just make Warren (and Andrew and Jonathan, for that matter) go poof?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! I guess we just have to...agree to disagree ;- ) -- shadowkat, 13:09:06 07/12/02 Fri

I think Tara knew it was there, it's part of the reason
she left her.

But as you said in another post, we all interpret the story differently. And see the characters differently.

Makes life fun. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If Willow had no dark side, then what was Dopplegangland all about? -- cjl, 13:11:35 07/12/02 Fri

This was Joss practically clubbing us over the head, saying: "See? See?! Our sweet, shy, little Willow has some, dark, DARK ugly things rolling around in that cute redhead of hers!"

And as for Warren, Jonathan and Andrew, she wanted "to play with the puppy" for awhile. I think it was Xander who explained that Willow didn't want them dead--she wanted to kill them. A small, but quantitative differnce.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Wish -- Sophist, 14:05:16 07/12/02 Fri

I can't consider Doppelgangerland (damn, I wish we had a neat abbreviation for that ep!) without going back to The Wish. The Wish was a message to Cordy after her break up with Xander. The alternate universe represented her worst fears about Xander and Willow. We were not meant to see VampXander or VampWillow as "real" aspects of either, but as representations of Cordy's internal, emotional state after Xander betrayed her.

Doppelgangerland, then, just follows up on The Wish. At the end, the irony is that VampWillow returns to the alternate universe and is destroyed. That suggests, at least to me, that this figment of Cordy's anger at Willow was destroyed.

In short, Willow's "vampire" side was never truly Willow, but only Cordy's mental construct of Willow, born of anger. That "side" never really existed in this universe. Even in the alternate universe, that dark side was destroyed. No foreshadowing at all, but a great double episode about "be careful what you wish for".

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "The Wish" was about Cordy; DGLand was definitely about Willow -- cjl, 14:13:14 07/12/02 Fri

It's why Joss wanted to revisit the AU in the first place. He so rarely plays with another writer's toys, but he felt he had to dig into Marti's toybox (no jokes, please) because VampWillow touched on a number of things he wanted to say about RealWillow.

And even "The Wish" was eventually brought back around to the theme of Willow's dark side in "Villains." Dark Willow's simple "Bored now" makes the connection far more eloquently in two words than I could in this entire post....

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Did Joss say that? -- Sophist, 15:19:14 07/12/02 Fri

I'm interested in when and where. That would be important in my evaluation both of the episode and of Willow.

I'm not terribly impressed by the "bored now" line. Sure, the writers used it, but that doesn't mean Doppelgangerland was foreshadowing. It just means that the writers wanted us to think so in retrospect.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Did Joss say that? -- Wizardman, 15:23:30 07/12/02 Fri

I agree that the use of "Bored now" probably wasn't foreshadowing- I don't think that even Joss plans that far ahead. But I don't think that we are intended to believe that it was foreshadowing- I saw it as a link between VampWillow and DarkWillow, designed to show us that our Willow is gone, especially because it was so casually, and unconsciously, made.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm...on the fence, but..here's what I do know -- shadowkat, 20:49:14 07/12/02 Fri

"I agree that the use of "Bored now" probably wasn't foreshadowing- I don't think that even Joss plans that far ahead."

It occurs to me that maybe not...at least at the time.
I remember from interviews I've read between writers at Bronze Beta, in SFX Vampire mag, and others can't remember where - sorry! That Joss did not plan the Willow dark arc
in Doppleganglerland necessarily. No more than he planned on Willow becoming Gay.

But as Darby said once to me - the writers do reference past episodes to build new ones. I think I remember Jane Espenson saying that VampWillow conviently helped them with the gay storyline. And Joss stating in Rah's posting on Hush that he hadn't necessarily intended on a full-fledged romance between Tara and Willow, but had always meant for something to occur between them - because he liked the "experimentation theme". He also said that magic - lent to the experiments with drugs that kids do in college which get out of hand.

Then in his explanation of Restless - he states that what Willow is hiding is not her "homosexuality" but her geekdom, her insecurity, the darkness inside herself. He felt that repressing those feelings of pain and rejection and using "magic" or drugs to hide them and deal with them could lead to serious consequences.

I always knew he was going to flip Willow. I saw it
in Tough Love. And definitely in Choices. But I can see why others didn't. The story could go either way. The reason my gut said it would go the way it did? Several things: 1. They killed Buffy in The Gift. (If Buffy lived? Maybe not.)
2.Giles left. (If Giles stayed? Again maybe not.)
3. Tara...and Willow's increased dependence on her. Not
a good sign.
4. Btvs is a horror show - it will always go to the deep dark nasty place. (see Becoming, Anne, Dopplegangerland,
The Wish, Wild at Heart, Dead Things...Nightmares...)
But as i said, it could be intepreted the other way.

Did they take DarkWillow too far? Maybe.
What I'm most interested in is how they are bringing her
back.

Oh final not - it occurred to me while I was re-watching Becoming Part II tonight...that maybe Dark Willow isn't really Willow? Maybe Buffy was right when she said - this isn't you. It wasn't really Willow in Becoming? Maybe
the dark magic did what hallucingenic drugs do? Possess
the person, so they literally become someone else?

Another thing i wondered - what does it take to make someone snap? Become someone else? Schizophrenia happens
to people in their 20s...they are fine, outgoing, no problems, then whammo whole new person, paranoid, etc.
I've heard stories of people who were loving and kind, get in a car wreck and become sociopaths. I watched part of the new show MONK tonight...the man was a brillant detective, good job, normal life, he loses his wife and becomes an obsessive compulsive, afraid of just about everything.

Is this what happened with Willow?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Umm...what Shadowkat said. -- cjl, wimping out and hiding under his desk, 21:28:34 07/12/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't worry we all feel that way after reading a Shadow essay -- Dochawk, 21:43:21 07/12/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmm...on the fence, but..here's what I do know -- leslie, 12:54:06 07/13/02 Sat

A useful concept: the diathesis-stress model of illness (mental and physical). What this means is that in order to develop a condition such as schizophrenia or cancer, you have to have two things: first, an underlying predisposition for it (diathesis) and second, an environmental trigger that actually activates it (stress). This supposedly explains why, for instance, *everyone* with a family history of breast cancer doesn't develop it, but having a family history of breast cancer increases the likelihood of your developing it. Willow has the diathesis for evil; the question is whether a stress will evoke it, and Tara's death is about as big a stress as one can imagine.

I'd also point out another bit of retro-shadowing in Tabula Rasa, by the way: Willow says, while still blanked out, "And I think I'm kinda gay!" I sincerely doubt that the writers planted those lines in Doppelgangland for use in S6, but it seems pretty clear that reusing them when appropriate is meant to make us remember VampWillow as Willow goes Dark.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmm...on the fence, but..here's what I do know -- yabyumpan, 14:14:31 07/13/02 Sat

"Maybe the dark magic did what hallucingenic drugs do? Possess the person, so they literally become someone else?"

That would be fine except that's not what hallucingenic drugs do. They don't make you 'literally become someone else', I don't know what they do chemicaly but from a lot of experience I can say that they just open up different parts of your sub/un-conscious mind. There is full awareness but the awareness just tends to be of different things than you would normally be aware of. They can free you to act in different ways, which is where the comparison with 'dark magic' may actually be true for Willow. You don't become someone else, just express different aspects of who you are.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Occam's Razor -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:19:23 07/12/02 Fri

Actually, Andrew brought up that point. Slightly paraphrased, it goes:

Andrew: I don't get it. Willow's a witch; why doesn't she just make us dead.

Buffy: She doesn't want you dead. She wants to kill you.

Willow's desire to end the world was different from her desire to kill/torture the Trio. Ending the world was a way to get rid of everybody's pain, once and for all. Meanwhile, with the Nerds, she was trying to force her pain on them. She was thinking that by making them suffer, she was removing some of her own pain and putting it on their shoulders.

As for not noticing Willow's dark side: this season the characters have all really been in their own little worlds. They're so focused on their own problems that they don't have much time to worry about those of their friends.

Occam's Razor doesn't always apply. When you're dealing with the thought processess of complex people, the simplest explanation is wrong at least as often as it's right, maybe even more often.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: -- aliera, 15:14:23 07/12/02 Fri

"Willow's desire to end the world was different from her desire to kill/torture the Trio. Ending the world was a way to get rid of everybody's pain, once and for all. Meanwhile, with the Nerds, she was trying to force her pain on them. She was thinking that by making them suffer, she was removing some of her own pain and putting it on their shoulders."

I agree and disagree with your interpretation of her thoughts...I saw her as vengeance or retribution incarnate. I can see where this would come into play with Warren where she was explaining and recreating Tara's death and her reaction to said; however I did not have the sense that she was doing this to reduce her own pain. She "was not coming back."

"As for not noticing Willow's dark side: this season the characters have all really been in their own little worlds. They're so focused on their own problems that they don't have much time to worry about those of their friends."

Yes, very true. And although it felt extremely long in realtime (especially in light of the events of season 5), I supoose it wasn't.

[> Why not look at the Moral Ambiguities page? -- fresne, 13:36:24 07/12/02 Fri

Well, I'm inclined to point everyone to the Moral Ambiguities page on this Main website.

http://www.atpobtvs.com/moram.html

I'd also like to point out that Willow's does seem to enjoy pulling Jonathan to one side, shining a light in his eyes and questioning him (in I believe, Go Fish). While a pretty funny scene, at the same consider that she's badgering a kid who has severe emotional problems (he tries to kill himself in the next season).

Of course it's not on par with what she ultimately does to Warren, but it does provide background for a character who is insecure, likes to feel powerful, and (if it's for a "right" cause) doesn't mind if that power comes at the discomfort of others.

Also, and others don't have to agree with me, but I believe that once it is psychologically possible to vengefully attack a human shaped thing (Glory - it's okay because she's not human) for hurting someone you love, it is no entirely dissimilar from saying that it is okay to wreck vengeance on an "evil" human for killing someone you love.

And as emotionally satisfying as her attack on Glory was, it was an essentially selfish act. Willow went in with the best weapons that she had and Willow was nearly killed. Who was going to take care of Tara, if Willow was killed? Who was going to work on restoring Tara's mind, defeating Glory, saving the world, protecting Dawn?

Willow hurt. Willow reacted. It was an understandable reaction. However, when your re-actions are paired with Spike (I'd do it), that may not actually be a good sign.

Perhaps, all of this comes from an impression of Willow as not so much empathetic, as someone who bases her self-image on being a good/nice/rarely do wrong person. The two being similar, but not quite the same. Some instances of behavior that inform why I have that impression:
1) Her reaction to Buffy upon her return from running away (it was very me, me). Giles is the one that has to trick the information about Angel out of Buffy.
2) Not noticing that Buffy is insecure on going to college.
3) Not noticing Xander's feelings of exclusion S4.
4) Her behavior when it looks like someone (Faith, Cordelia, Anya, etc.) is going come between her and someone she cares about. See also, her fear that Buffy won't need her as a result of getting telepathy.
5) Both spells of forgetfulness. The second in particular. Although, since that is a S6 example, perhaps, we should ignore that one as example of long term behavioral patterns.

This is not to say that I don't like Willow. Nor that I think that she cannot be empathetic. It's just that I get the impression that Willow's ability to fell the pain of others is directly proportionate to her own emotional state, which when you come down to it is fairly human.

[> [> Exegesis -- Sophist, 14:29:41 07/12/02 Fri

I am going away for the weekend, so I'm leaving Darby to fend for himself after this post.

As I think is commonly known, I'm a lawyer. One of the things that typically drives people crazy about lawyers (and historians and Biblical exegetes) is that they have this tendency to find one little smidgen of evidence and shine it up so they can dazzle your eyes and blind you to all the other evidence in the world.

This may be a good way to win a lawsuit (I doubt it, actually), but it's a lousy way to be a philosopher or a scientist. If we're ever going to do advance understanding, we have to look at all the evidence, every bit of it. Moreover, we have to look at it in the context of the time when it happened (a lesson all historians are supposed to learn; Rah commented on this the other day with respect to class distinctions).

What I think Darby is saying is this: sure, you can find a speck here and there that, with the benefit of hindsight, we can say led Willow to Villains/TTG/Grave. This is the lawyer's approach, though. We have to look at both good and bad.

Does that totality add up to DarkWillow? Not to me, but then I haven't made anything more than a gestalt judgment. If someone wants to convince me, though, that person will have to say "here's the whole Willow. Now can you see?".

[> [> [> Re: Exegesis -- Arethusa, 14:51:51 07/12/02 Fri

I don't think we can numerate the good and bad, add them up and judge whether a person will go evil. IMO DarkWillow takes away nothing from the good Willow we've loved (or tolerated) for six years. I can accept there is both great good and bad in Willow-both contributed to making her what she is.

See how I avoided your question?-Arethusa, related to many lawyers.

[> [> [> [> Playing the lawyer back -- Sophist, 15:31:56 07/12/02 Fri

In two ways. First, I came back after I said I was done. Now...

Ok, I'll accept your point for the sake of argument. But if we can't judge a person on his or her whole character, we surely can't say that the evidence of Willow's past character lapses or flaws leads to her behavior in Villains. In other words, your argument undermines any claim to continuity in Willow's character at all. Especially in light of Rahael's point that we all have the capacity for evil.

This may be true. But in that case we -- everyone -- should stop claiming that the signs of Willow's behavior were there for us to see.

Is that up to the family standard?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Playing the lawyer back -- Arethusa, 11:48:07 07/14/02 Sun

Actually, I meant something completely different-abandon the Western Christian mindset of judgement, and accept DarkWillow as part of the Willow Rosenburg we've known and loved (or tolerated) for six years. Like Buffy-she is able to concentrate on bringing Willow back in "Grave" because she doesn't worry about judging her friend, whom she accepts unconditionally. As, finally, did Xander, who is more judgemental than the other Scoobies. He poured out his love to Crayon Breaky and good Willow, and redeemed her soul. Tara, too showed how unconditional acceptance doesn't have to mean lack of holding someone responsible, when she left Willow until the latter cleaned up her act, but forgave her unconditionally when she returned. Our society can only exist with a system of judgement and punishment, but our friendships can only last if we learn to not make judgements.

Of course, these are very general statements-we wouldn't treat everyone with blanket forgiveness, but this is *Willow.* The same problems and insecurities that created DarkWillow created GlendaWillow.

[> [> [> The Big O -- Malandanza, 01:00:39 07/13/02 Sat

"What I think Darby is saying is this: sure, you can find a speck here and there that, with the benefit of hindsight, we can say led Willow to Villains/TTG/Grave. This is the lawyer's approach, though. We have to look at both good and bad.

"Does that totality add up to DarkWillow? Not to me, but then I haven't made anything more than a gestalt judgment. If someone wants to convince me, though, that person will have to say 'here's the whole Willow. Now can you see?"'"

While I do think that there is ample evidence that Willow has been progressing steadily down this path at least since Season Four, I think that in the context of Season Six Willow's actions are far from out of character.

I think you'll agree that there has been some darkness in her character before Season Six, but after Buffy's death, Willow's use of magic grew without check. Tara was recovering from her insanity period while Willow had an excellent excuse to delve into the darkest magics -- Buffy's resurrection. She hid the extent of her investigations from Giles and probably even from her coconspirators -- Anya and Xander were unaware of the tests that would occur while Tara and the rest were unaware of the sacrifice. So Willow at the start of Season Six was not the powerless, passive aggressive creature she was from Season One. If you didn't have a problem with these scenes from Flooded, you shouldn't have had a problem with Dark Willow:

GILES: Oh, there are others in the world who can do what you did. You just don't want to meet them.

WILLOW: Okay, probably not - but they're bad guys. I am not a bad guy. I brought Buffy back to the world and maybe the word you should be looking for is "congratulations."

and later

WILLOW: You're right. The Magicks I used are incredibly powerful. I'm incredibly powerful.
(beat)
And maybe it's not such a good idea for you to piss me off.

The two just stare at each other. Long beat. Finally, Willow relents, back to herself.

WILLOW (cont'd): C'mon, Giles, I don't want to fight. Let's not, okay? I'll think about what you said, and you ... try to be happy Buffy's back.

If that scene didn't make you realize just how arrogant and reckless Willow had become, how totally detached from responsibility of power she is, I'm not sure dredging up scenes from season two and three to show how the seed of evil was always in her will help. Willow's selfishness (always there, just below the surface) also reached new depths this season when she complains that Buffy has not thanked her for bring her back and, after Tara's death, when she is angry at Warren because of what Warren did to Willow -- he took away something that belonged to her.

Nevertheless, in an effort to bring you the "Whole Willow", I will touch upon some of her past actions that relate to her Season Six actions.

Her desire to dominate those weaker than herself is well established -- and not just the two scenes where she interrogated Jonathan. There is something of the intellectual bully in young miss Rosenberg, as noted somewhere in a previous post, she tricks Cordelia and her friend into deleting their homework in Season One, but she also bitterly abuses Faith in Season Three, prompting Faith to strike her (noting -- "you try to hurt me, I try to hurt you" Choices). In her relationships with Oz and Tara, Willow very much is the dominant party. Oz doesn't get much more than a couple of words out when he tries to apologize and explain about Veruca (you'd think Willow would be a little more sympathetic considering her own checkered past). With Tara, Willow is even worse -- but then, she has been growing stronger. In Season Five, Willow quickly assumes command when Buffy is comatose (ironically telling her underlings: "Try anything stupid like payback and I will get very cranky.") Then there's Vamp Willow. I do not believe that "Willow's 'vampire' side was never truly Willow, but only Cordy's mental construct of Willow, born of anger." Firstly, because Cordelia died mid-episode and if Vamp Willow had been merely a construct of Cordy's she ought to have vanished with Cordelia's death rather than Anya's disempowerment. Secondly, Cordelia just doesn't have that good of an imagination. She says what she thinks (remember Earshot?), she's tactless and straightforward, she rarely had a thought about someone who wasn't Cordelia -- she just didn't have it in her to create such a radically different version of Willow.

Then there's the selfish vengeance thing. Starting with Xander/Cordelia, Willow tried her best to get even with Cordy for dating Xander -- by dating Oz and making catty remarks to Buffy. It was Season Two and she didn't have the ability to do much more. Season Three saw the beginning of the "I hate Faith," club with Willow as the founding member (and President for Life). Willow liked Faith at first, but when Buffy started hanging out with Faith instead of Willow, Faith became a pariah. In Season Four, Willow's confidence and powers have grown, and her vengeance has grown proportionally -- she very nearly curses Oz and Veruca for an incident that really wasn't Oz's fault (we find out from Veruca that the wolf has considerable influence over the werewolves before the transformation occurs) and even if Oz were entirely to blame, the curse was a serious over reaction. The spell in Something Blue was fueled by petty vengeance -- poor Willow was feeling neglected by her terrible friends who have more important things to do than sit around listening to her whine about how rough her life is -- and the curses take effect in moments of anger. Trivial, certainly -- and subconscious. But Season Five's attack on Glory was a direct precursor to Season Six's assault on Warren. The similarities are too strong -- Tara is attacked, Willow grabs the dark magic book and goes hunting. The end result is that she leads Glory to Dawn, risking the world for her own selfish anger. You'd've thought the girl would learn.

But she never does. Willow repeats the same mistakes, careless spells gone awry, and never learns. It's easy to see why -- every failure comes with an excuse. She was "helping" the group (like with Triangle) or she had big time grief (because Willow is the only person on BtVS who ever suffers) that she couldn't deal with. It's not her fault -- she means well. She gets the attention she craves whether the spells go smoothly or not, praise when she succeeds and minor criticism when she endangers the lives of her friends and any innocent bystanders that happen to get caught in the crossfire.

I think that Willow's "Make-over of the Damned" was a logical progression. The problems I have with Season Six regarding Willow is that ME set up the situation so that they could blame magic instead of placing the blame on Willow. Even then, I think it's in character for Xander and Buffy to believe that Willow was not fully herself -- that something in those books made her evil and she had little or no control. Yet at the same time, Willow made the decision to go after Warren before she looted Anya's magic shop -- the stop at the Magic Box was just to stock up on ammunition before she went hunting. Willow made the decision to kill Warren. I hope (and I believe) that Giles will keep in mind that his young protegee fell from grace of her own free will and behave towards her accordingly.

As a final thought (and this gets back to Willow and dominance), Willow's speech to Warren:

WILLOW: You never felt like you had the power with her. Not until you killed her...Now you get off on it. That's why
you had such a mad-on for the slayer. She was the big O - wasn't she, Warren?
Villains

struck me as odd since she was addressing a guy -- the "Big O"? She's describing herself.

[> [> [> [> Free Will[ow] or Possession? (and a revision of the "Big O" -- MaeveRigan, 04:47:56 07/13/02 Sat

Malandanza and shadowcat are both right, IMO--Willow's progress toward darkness can be traced. One more example of her love of power, from B2 "Passion": Miss Calendar puts her in charge of the computer class, Willow is insecure at first, then instantly jumps to visions of domination:

Willow: (suddenly worried) Oh, wait. W-what if they don't recognize my authority? What if they try to convince me that you always let them leave class early? What if there's a fire drill? What if there's a fire?

Jenny: (reassuringly) Willow, you're gonna be fine. [...]

Willow: [...] (smiles) Will I have the power to assign detention? Or make 'em run laps?

No need to reiterate the other examples from seasons 1-6. But in the final DarkWillow arc, although I agree that Willow makes the initial decision to seek revenge on Warren of her own free will, that decision and her own grief and rage make her reckless in acquiring that magic powers she believes she needs. Am I the only one who noticed that after she absorbs all the dark magic books, and especially after she absorbs Rack, DarkWillow sometimes refers to herself in the 3rd person? and occasionally as "we" (though at times this could be explained as her referring to the group she's part of, but she seems too self-absorbed, somehow, throughout).

But even if Willow did choose to go to the dark side, she still needs forgiveness, just like everyone else. IOHEFY is still operant:

Giles: To forgive is an act of compassion, Buffy. It's, it's not done because people deserve it. It's done because they need it.

This doesn't mean Willow won't be dealing with her deeds.

And about the "big O"--isn't Willow saying that Warren got off on attacking Buffy, because she was the most powerful target? Not that Warren thought he was the greatest (though he wanted to be). Yes, Willow gets a rush, "O", from attacking her former friend, too, but she herself is not the O

[> [> [> [> [> Warren's death came before Rack -- Malandanza, 08:36:39 07/13/02 Sat

"But in the final DarkWillow arc, although I agree that Willow makes the initial decision to seek revenge on Warren of her own free will, that decision and her own grief and rage make her reckless in acquiring that magic powers she believes she needs. Am I the only one who noticed that after she absorbs all the dark magic books, and especially after she absorbs Rack, DarkWillow sometimes refers to herself in the 3rd person? and occasionally as "we" (though at times this could be explained as her referring to the group she's part of, but she seems too self-absorbed, somehow, throughout)."

Warren was dead before Willow went to Rack's -- the influence of Rack's negative energy might help mitigate the death threats Willow made to Dawn, the attempted murder of Jonathan and Andrew at the Magic Box, her attacks on Anya, Buffy andGiles and her carelessness in sending a fireball after a group that included Xander and Dawn, but it does nothing to excuse the initial murder/torture nor her attempt to kill Andrew and Jonathan in jail. Willow was very much still Willow when she was driving with Buffy and Xander -- she was rational and calm. Had Warren been on that bus, he would have died right then in full view of her friends -- she got a second chance and she still went after Warren. Willow allowed herself to be taken over by the dark magic with full consciousness of what would ensue. She says as much when she tells Buffy she's "not coming back". The murder and torture have no mitigating factors other than grief.

As for forgiving Willow, I think it is pretty clear that Xander and Buffy have already done so -- and that is part of the problem. Willow is always forgiven, instantly, for her transgressions. There are no consequences and there is no punishment -- and Willow's contrition and amendment lasts until the next the episode. She behaves recklessly and suffers no personal consequences as a result -- unless Giles makes certain that this time, finally, Willow accepts some personal responsibility, it's just going to be another example of "spare the rod, spoil the child" (metaphorically, I mean -- I don't think either Willow or bad children need to be caned). Willow, Buffy and Xander would all willingly agree that what happened wasn't Willow's fault -- it was the magic.

"And about the "big O"--isn't Willow saying that Warren got off on attacking Buffy, because she was the most powerful target? Not that Warren thought he was the greatest (though he wanted to be). Yes, Willow gets a rush, "O", from attacking her former friend, too, but she herself is not the O"

I said it badly, but actually what I was trying to say is that Willow was projecting her own feelings of power on to Warren -- Warren looked confused rather than guilty when she made her "Big O" remark. But Willow was clearly getting off on the power trip, having Warren totally under her control. For Willow, the Big O was when she ripped Warren's skin off. For Warren, the first murder was an accident (how many times have we seen the good guys club someone on the back of the head and cause no harm?) and the second was the result, not of some sick desire to murder Buffy for the sexual thrill he got from it, but an act of frustration and desperation by a seriously unbalanced person. There was no sex in Warren's actions; Willow got up close and personal with Warren, speaking almost seductively as she tortured him. Whether or not Willow "recovers" from this incident, she has some serious psychological problems that need to be dealt with.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Warren's death came before Rack -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:20:49 07/13/02 Sat

And you'll notice that, before Rack, she wasn't all snarky towards her friends.

While she killed/tortured Warren without Rack's corrupting mojo, remember this: the Scooby Gang themselves was divided about whether Warren deserved death, or at least needed to die. I definitely think this will be a factor.

As I see it, most of the evil Willow did was really the dark magic in her doing it, but she allowed it to come into her, knowing the danger to herself and everyone else. Also, some Season 7 spoilers (not sure if you're staying spoiler free or not, so I won't say exactly what happens) indicate that it won't simply be a slap on the wrist come the end of summer.

[> [> [> Exegetical IKEA (hex wrench missing) -- fresne, 08:23:43 07/14/02 Sun

Ooopps, as a technical writer, my document appears to have failed its test in the field. (i.e., it is all very well that I understand what I mean, but my audience should as well.)

My post was not to meant to persuade, but rather respond to the question have we ever been shown a cruel Willow. And in an "ever" sort of way, if it happened once, then we have.

Whether or not the DarkWillow plotline was persuasive is another issue. Now, if this were a manual, then I'd say the plotline failed, because at least a certain percentage of the audience received a pile of parts and a hex wrench and instead of ending up with a widget ended up with a pile of parts, a hex wrench, and some expletive deleting.

However, since Buffy does not come from IKEA, the question becomes slightly more subjective. When is art successful? Is art in the heart or in the head or both? As a detail oriented person, how much should the discussion wend towards, "On the Pritchert's scale I give it a 10 and you can dance to it."

Now, I happened to have ended the season with a nice DarkWillow widget, because I identify with her. I am the crayon breaky Willow. For those who didn't end up with a shiny DarkWillow widget, was the art unsuccessful because you were not moved to a certain conclusion or successful because it has generated a fair amount of emotional and intellectual discussion?

[> Oh, you guys! -- Darby, 15:53:50 07/12/02 Fri

Lots of very good points, lots of good examples, I've gotta say that all I have going for me now is the gut feeling and a continued opinion that it was ME's job to make the transition feel more right.

Finn, perfectly plausible explanation about "tasting" cruelty.

Redcat, great point about Rack's "juice" being an possible influence - I can't believe that I haven't seen that discussed before, it's so obvious when it's stuck in front of me.

Everybody else - Rahael, Sophist, shadowkat, Arethusa, cjl, et al - made good points on both sides.

I think that maybe I didn't make my initial point - that Dark Willow was way Out Of Character but didn't have to be - well enough for it to kicked quite to death on its own. But the most fun and educational threads are the ones that wander from the starting point. I assume that any of us who are the thread originators go just a bit Dark over this, but no flaying of posters, okay?

[> [> LOL! well said... -- shadowkat, 20:30:31 07/12/02 Fri

"Lots of very good points, lots of good examples, I've gotta say that all I have going for me now is the gut feeling and a continued opinion that it was ME's job to make the transition feel more right."

You may be right here. If the transistion felt more right, we wouldn't be having such emotional debates over it, over and over again. ;-)

"I think that maybe I didn't make my initial point - that Dark Willow was way Out Of Character but didn't have to be - well enough for it to kicked quite to death on its own. But the most fun and educational threads are the ones that wander from the starting point. I assume that any of us who are the thread originators go just a bit Dark over this, but no flaying of posters, okay?"

no flaying here. You made some good points. I don't entirely agree...with the Way Out of Character...but what ME attempted to do was very difficult. Taking someone beloved and turning her dark. Lucas is struggling with the same thing in Star Wars Prologue with Anakin. I've rarely seen this done well. Personally I think Joss did a better job than Lucas...but again that's subjective not objective opinion. Also, like Rah, I loved Dark Willow. Still Love
DarkWillow. First ME villain I actually rooted for...outside of maybe Angelus and Spike.

It's hard to be objective about something in our gut. I tend to agree with Aliera on this one. (her comment is on the
anom's Spike thread below and is about advil.)

think i want one here too...

and oh I broke my own rule, after the last two heated debates on forgiveness, and whether Willow could turn Dark, I swore I'd stay far away from these threads. Apparently I'm a moth to the flame...can't help myself. ;-)

[> [> [> Willows fatal flaw......season 6 the year of the Revenge Tragedy -- Rufus, 03:49:21 07/13/02 Sat

If we look close enough at a person and gather enough evidence we can get a general picture of what that person is like....what we won't know is how they feel inside. The happiest face can conceal despair and we would never know it. Willow is a hero of a sorts in that she does so want to help Buffy save the world but deep inside there are hints of a inner turmoil and inner voice that tells Willow she doesn't measure up to other women....season four The Initiative....

Willow : Maybe you're trying too hard. Doesn't this happen to every vampire?

Spike : Not to me, it doesn't!

Willow : It's me, isn't it?

Spike : What are you talking about?

Willow : Well, you came looking for Buffy, then settled. I--I... You didn't want to bite me. I just happened to be around.

Spike : Piffle!

Willow : I know I'm not the kind of girl vamps like to sink their teeth into. It's always like, "ooh, you're like a sister to me," or, "oh, you're such a good friend."

Spike : Don't be ridiculous. I'd bite you in a heartbeat.

Willow : Really?

Spike was about to kill Willow and couldn't perform..but instead of rejoicing, Willow could only think that she wasn't good enough to bite. In Something Blue, the Scoobies thought Willow was getting on with her life after Oz but Spike pointed out what they didn't want to see....

Giles: Um, Willow may have had a very helpful idea. She seems to be coping better with Oz's departure, don't you think?

Buffy: She still has a way to go, but yeah — I think she's dealing.

Spike: What, are you people blind? She's hangin' on by a thread. Any ninny can see that.

Willow ended up doing a spell that almost got everyone killed, but she repented with cookies and the world went on as before. Of course Willow met Tara and discovered she could love someone else, even more than she loved Oz, even more than she loved her friends. Now we can go to the revenge part. Season six has been about growing up and the things we do on the way. If growing up were easy there would be no Clearasil ads or chat line adverts on the TV. Growing up is hard, it's a time where we can feel isolated and misunderstood. Willow seemed to be breezing along, new girlfriend, close friends, and power that gave her confidence she never had before. In Restless we got the hint that Willow was hiding something, and that something was self-doubt.

Willow became addicted to the very power that gave her purpose, became something she needed to get by, even for the simple stuff in life. Willow had gotten to a point in Wrecked that she was caught, and had to go cold turkey, and she didn't like it.....

from Wrecked

WILLOW: I don't know. The magic, I ... I thought I had it under control, and then ... I didn't.

BUFFY: Because of Tara?

WILLOW: No. It started before she left. (pauses) It's why she left.

BUFFY: (pauses) Seemed like things were going so well.

WILLOW: It was. But I mean ... if you could be ... you know, plain old Willow or super Willow, who would you be? (looks at Buffy) I guess you don't actually have an option on the whole super thing.

BUFFY: Will, there's nothing wrong with you. You don't need magic to be special.

WILLOW: Don't I? I mean, Buffy, who was I? Just ... some girl. Tara didn't even know that girl.

BUFFY: You are more than some girl. (walks into the room) And Tara wants you to stop. She loves you.

WILLOW: We don't know that.

BUFFY: I know that. I promise you.

WILLOW: I just ... it took me away from myself, I was ... free.

The only way to be as free from doubt as Willow wanted would be to be stoned/out of it, or dead. But Willow was getting along and until Seeing Red seemed to have herself under control.

Now we get to the revenge..this whole year has been about revenge. It's easy to sit back and formulate how Willow should of or could of done things, but what happened is done. Willow was pushed beyond what any normal person normally is pushed, and instead of crying in a corner, she sought bloody revenge. Warren killed her lover, killed the light that made her feel life was worth living, and she was going to make sure he paid, in blood. The justice system in Sunnydale seems to be a bit uneaven at best, they missed the fact that Katrina was murdered, labeling her a suicide. Willow was making sure there was some payback to the creep who casually killed two women and almost added a third to his score. The scene was set for vengeance, and Willow did it in a grand manner that would make D'Hoffryn proud, she bloodied up the forest with Warren. But vengeance doesn't come without a price, and the price was that the magic Willow absorbed was destroying her humanity, discarding all her good qualities and using her hidden fears and resentments to destroy the world. Revenge was the end result for two characters this season....Anya became again a Vengeance demon because that is all she knew to fall back on when jilted at her wedding, it is no mistake that a vengeance demon was the one around pointing out the grim facts of Willows actions. Willow became the worst kind of monster, the one you though you knew, could depend on, took for granted they were the reliable one....she became the dark personification of all her self-loathing.

We seem to be arguing the fact of Willows potential to be evil, and some say she never had any darkness in her. I disagree. The mask we show to the world is the person we think will be acceptable to the most people we wish to attract. Willow had friends because she was the one they could talk to, go to, depend on. And they never took much notice of her pain because that was a dark part of herself she didn't want the world to know about. That is the reason she needed a costume in Restless, the reason she feared being found out. Dark Willow is only way out of character if we are talking about normal circumstances, but the death of her love is way past normal. Only when you lose something that is vital to your happiness will you find out how dark you can get. The potential has been there for Willow, she had never been tested enough before, now she has. The only thing that kept the tragedy from being complete was the fact that her childhood friend reached out to her and brought her back. How Willow is judged will either destroy or bring her back to life. Willow doesn't need a lawyer, she needs healing.

[> [> [> [> Very good post. I think you hit the nail on the head here. -- shadowkat, 11:50:56 07/13/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> Re: Willows fatal flaw......season 6 the year of the Revenge Tragedy -- DEN, 12:38:41 07/13/02 Sat

And Willow has no MATRIX for handling power. If one thing is consistent in her use of it before s6, it was to relieve pain--her own, or someone else's that was hurting her by osmosis, especially pain caused by insecurity.

Willow can be spiteful, unforgiving, self-willed--all of which proves she is as human as the rest of the gang. But Willow does NOT seek power for the conventional reason: to control, in the usual sense "control" is understood. The "I will it" spell in s4, whatever its consequences, has the clear and limited initial intention of stopping her pain. She "helps" Dawn find a resurrection spell because DAWN's pain is too much for WILLOW. The first "forget" spell on Tara is to end a confrontation--not avoid one: the quarrel is already on the table; and not, as sometimes suggested, to get sex. All Willow wants in those few critical seconds is to have Tara smile at her, to have "everything be all right."

Even the second spell (IMHO MUCH worse because Willow this time breaks her given word) is also designed to STOP PAIN: Buffy's Tara's and of course Willow's. Its wider consequences are caused by a culpably careless mistake-- which, while Willow is of course responsible, is still not the same thing as just turning on the magical juice and letting the dice fall where they will.

Willow, in short, seeks power ultimately for COMFORT. She may have occasional sidekick issues, but does not WANT to run the Scoobies, or anything on that order. Willow does well in emergencies, as in s5 while Buffy is one with the furniture, but quickly reasserts her rejection of "big gun" status. Her exercise of command in the brief goat rope that introduces s6 hardly creates a sense that she is living out a long-suppressed dream! If so, she's doing a damn poor job of it. Lieutenants have been fragged for less!

No--what Willow wants is the power to make pain go "poof." And ME can't treat that wish for power,for power as painkiller, in the same way it can the others it has addressed: The Master, the Mayor, the Initiative, Angelus. It just won't work, because the critics like Darby are right. There's not enough backstory to sustain Willow as Kali-in-waiting, and too many Willow lovers to point out the inconsistencies and anomalies in a major retcon.

So Willow uses magic as demerol--and that damn addiction metaphor comes in through the back door, just as Rufus says.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willows fatal flaw......season 6 the year of the Revenge Tragedy -- Ruth, 13:58:04 07/13/02 Sat

I think that Willow surpressed all her good qualities when she absorbed the magic and all that was left was darkness and evil. I mean any human being on the planet is surely capable of torture if they have no conscience to stop them? Willow was like Faith in that she wanted Warren to hurt and didn't want to feel bad about it. She wanted no human weekness within her that might spare Warren pain.
So absorbing the magic got rid of the pesky conscience. My interpretation is that we aren't seeing Willow gradually embrace her inner darkness throughout the season which was the preferred plot for many. Rather she is recklessly indulging in magic until all that's left is dark and evil. Hence she delights in torture and goading Dawn etc. True she never expressed any particular malice againt Dawn and I always felt her ranting about Dawn being a pain was supposed to be for the benefit of the audience. But otherwise her having the wish to destroy everything she gets her hands on in a rage does make sense. People saying we should have seen more foreshadowing and a gradual build up are IMO wishing we got the other story that was possible. The fact is the cartoon Willow in the final wasn't supposed to be related to the Willow we know. She was corrupted utterly by the dark magic and had no restraints of goodness as the magic wiped it out. Basically she took her overwhelming desire for vengeance and ran with it.

[> [> [> [> [> Goat Ropes and Recreational Use of Magic -- Malandanza, 14:08:04 07/13/02 Sat

"Her exercise of command in the brief goat rope that introduces s6 hardly creates a sense that she is living out a long-suppressed dream! If so, she's doing a damn poor job of it. Lieutenants have been fragged for less! "

I had to look up what a "goat rope" is, but I think that it is a mistake to focus exclusively on this single instance of Willow in command. Each of the initial episodes demonstrate that Willow had become quite comfortable with using power for more than just Demerol. Even in earlier episodes, she hasn't been shy about using magic for any purpose that pops into her head (like starting a fire in BvD) or using magic in a way that she knew others would disapprove (hence waiting for Giles to go to England before raiding the Magic Box for her ball of sunshine spell in Triangle). Willow continues to use magic frivolously in Season Six, prompting the Tara/Willow argument (I'm not talking about magic decorations -- that was frivolous, of course, but to want to shift everyone in the Bronze who's not Dawn into an alternate dimension...) After her fight with Tara, she derats Amy and their Bronze rampage (which took place before she ever visited Rack) was the most gratuitous use of magic we have ever seen on the show. At this point, Willow is less responsible in her use of magic than the Troika -- it would be equivalent to Andrew summoning a demon to fetch cokes from the refrigerator or change the channel of the TV. So the magic isn't just a pain-killer. She also uses it recreationally, and with far too great of frequency.

"There's not enough backstory to sustain Willow as Kali- in-waiting, and too many Willow lovers to point out the inconsistencies and anomalies in a major retcon."

Maybe not as a Kali-in-waiting (I've always thought that role was Buffy's -- destruction incarnate held in check by her puritanical sensibilities). But the extent that Willow had changed before she ever sought out Rack is pretty clear from the Willow-Giles conversation, from Willow as the unchallenged leader of the cabal to bring back Buffy, deceiving even her coconspirators about the dangers and rituals involved, and in this (perceptive, as usual) comment from Spike:

SPIKE: Listen. I've figured it out. Maybe you haven't, but I have. Willow knew there was a chance she'd come back wrong. So wrong that you'd have to-- that she'd have to get rid of what came back.

Spike's comment strikes home with Xander and he approaches Tara -- Tara is usually so level-headed, but she bristles at this comment. She's a bit too defensive, as if Xander had voiced some subconscious concerns of her own. She knows what Xander is asking even before he gets it out. Dawn has a similar reaction when Willow suggests that the created demon could be destroyed by reversing Buffy's revival -- each of the Scoobies is afraid of what Willow is capable of.

And as far as Willow's attack on Warren being a retcon, I cannot disagree more strongly. It's not even original -- it's a deja vu moment from Season Five's attack Glory, only Warren isn't a god.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Goat Ropes and Recreational Use of Magic -- DEN, 15:04:06 07/13/02 Sat

There's no question, Mal, that Willow has changed a LOT well before she seeks out Rack. I'm just having trouble with the way the change was presented. I can't find a convincing body of evidence for the "power" interpretation, but can make sense of a "pain"/self-esteem path in which magic fills the proverbial "hole in the soul"--and like anything else used that way, requires increasing doses to sustain equilibrium. In turn, the magic has the kinds of effects on Willow that you describe: weakening, then eliminating, inhibitions.

As for retconning, through seasons 4 and 5 "social magic" seemed acceptable, more or less along the lines of social drinking and soft drugs in the Realverse. Certainly W/T don't seem to practice spells as a quasi-religious experience! Only in s6 does the "prohibitionist" position emerge as canonical.

IMHO as well,the difference between W's confrontations with Glory and Warren could hardly be greater. In one case Willow throws everything she can scrape together into an heroic and hopeless strike against a hell god--arguably the final appearance of "geek Willow," outgunned but determined. In the other, Warren has no chance. He is doomed from the time they meet. And the way Willow plays with him would sicken a stormtrooper. It's a classic nerd's fantasy revenge--the apparent fulfilment of years of being tormented and thinking "If only I were strong, powerful. THEN I'd make you sorry!" The situation only highlights another question: is there a conceptual difference between Dark Willow and Evil Willow?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pain & Power (spoilers re S6) -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 21:40:28 07/13/02 Sat

Den & Maladanza:

The two points are NOT exclusive. Much of Willow's pain comes from poor self-esteem -- a sense of feeling powerless against the world, unable to help herself or others. So seizing the force of magic to make herself powerful is, in her view, an antidote to the pain of being powerless.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Pain & Power (spoilers re S6) -- DEN, 23:06:30 07/13/02 Sat

Exactly! My contention in that context is simply that Willow's use of magic is essentially analgesic, focused on compensating "internally" for pain/powerlessness/self-esteem issues.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great points, Mal, Den, Fred! -- Rahael, 04:45:42 07/14/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Goat Ropes and Recreational Use of Magic -- Malandanza, 07:14:54 07/14/02 Sun

"As for retconning, through seasons 4 and 5 "social magic" seemed acceptable, more or less along the lines of social drinking and soft drugs in the Realverse. Certainly W/T don't seem to practice spells as a quasi-religious experience! Only in s6 does the "prohibitionist" position emerge as canonical."

Back in Season Four, Buffy and Oz expressed grave concerns about Willow's use of magic -- and not the recreational or pain the relieving use of magic, but magic for a purpose. Once Oz is out of the picture and Willow meets Tara, she has a magically inclined friend who makes magic socially acceptable. I think Buffy was a teetotaler in Season Four, but Willow's use of magic became less visible, since she had Tara to talk to and practice with. Tara's responsible use of magic and the threat of Glory, no doubt, helped soften Buffy's position in Season Five. However, I think it's clear that Tara's example did little to help Willow -- in fact, by making magic more acceptable, Tara helped lead Willow down her current path. She learns that magic is natural and good from Tara, but ignores Tara's example of moderation. It should be no surprise that characters who at one time had a strong aversion to magic should return to those concerns during Season Six. Buffy certainly has little reason to applaud it's use (the resurrection, Tabula Rasa, the vengeance spell, Willow trip to Rack with Dawn) and it's no surprise to me that she's back to being prohibitionist. Xander, Tara and Anya all had concerns about Willow's growing power at the season's beginning, reinforced when they learn the truth about Buffy. Spike knows that "magic has consequences."

"IMHO as well, the difference between W's confrontations with Glory and Warren could hardly be greater. In one case Willow throws everything she can scrape together into an heroic and hopeless strike against a hell god--arguably the final appearance of "geek Willow," outgunned but determined."

I'm afraid we'll have to disagree on this one. Willow's "I owe you pain!" remark when she meets Glory indicates to me that this was not a noble attack, but a self-indulgent vendetta. Willow was quick enough to escape when Buffy showed up to bail her out.

"It's a classic nerd's fantasy revenge--the apparent fulfillment of years of being tormented and thinking "If only I were strong, powerful. THEN I'd make you sorry!" The situation only highlights another question: is there a conceptual difference between Dark Willow and Evil Willow?"

I tend say "Dark Willow" rather than "Evil Willow" merely to keep the moral relativists from deluging me with quibbles on the nature of evil. To me, the former is a euphemism for the latter.

Having said that, I think that Warren has often been called the most evil character on the show. Yet Warren's motivations are surprisingly similar to those that you attribute to Willow.

WARREN (cont'd): It's Warren, remember? Gym class, fifth period?
(still jolly)
Oh man, you and your jock buddies used to give me such a hard time. That thing with the underwear? God, I thought I'd never stop crying.

FRANK: That was you?

WARREN: Yeah, but hey, no hard feelings. I know you were just fooling around.

Seeing Red

And remember how lonely Warren was in IWMtLY, lonely enough that he made a robot girlfriend. Warren is right -- April wasn't just about sex. Warren proves this when he abandons her for a more emotionally satisfying relationship with Katrina.

Likewise, Jonathan had a pretty rough time in High School - Willow may have been taunted by Cordelia, but Cordy never held her head under water to see how long she could hold her breath. Willow had a group of friends who valued her and needed her help. She wasn't the one who ended up in a school tower ready to commit suicide. So I find Willlow's actions more to blame than the Troika's -- yes, she had similar issues, but there was also quite a bit of good in Willow's life. Buffy and Xander, in particular. So while I agree that self-esteem issues are a big part of why Willow abuses magic, there is a kind of whining self-indulgence in Willow's victim issues. She hasn't had such a bad life.

[> [> [> [> Re: Willows fatal flaw......season 6 the year of the Revenge Tragedy -- leslie, 13:07:11 07/13/02 Sat

"Spike was about to kill Willow and couldn't perform..but instead of rejoicing, Willow could only think that she wasn't good enough to bite."

Actually, what's kind of interesting is that Spike is about to kill her but he also gives her the option of whether she wants to come back--she can be dead forever, or he can vamp her. Now, Spike has shown himself to be fairly picky about who he's going to spend eternity with--didn't fancy it with Ford!--but he obviously sees some potential there in Willow, and she's the only one of the Scoobies he seems ever to have considered turning. Worth considering from Mr. Intuitive Manipulation.

[> [> Re: Oh, you guys! -- redcat, 10:22:04 07/13/02 Sat

Darby, thanks for bringing this thread and it's questions to the board. It's certainly inspired some interesting observations in response. Just one quick correction: it was Den, not me, who made the excellent point about Rack's "juice." My posts are usually far more OT.

[> Just to sum up -- Sophist, 10:41:42 07/15/02 Mon

Since I missed the whole weekend, I got to read a thread without feeling compelled to butt in every other post. Lots of good points made on both sides here.

I would not say that Willow in S6 was OOC. Mostly, Mal's points about her character in this season are quite well taken. ME was conscious of the need to move Willow in that direction, and did so. The overall success of that endeavor is a different issue.

What I would say is that Willow's character in S6 was changed in very significant ways from Seasons 1-5. Here, I'm afraid, I find Mal's posts (and Rufus's and Maeve's) much less convincing. It may just be as fresne says: if it works for you, it's art. If not...

I don't believe this change in her character was "necessitated by the story" or anything like that. It was a conscious choice among a variety of alternatives. As such, it is subject to criticism on moral, artistic, and other grounds.

Having read all the posts, I would single out the following as particularly subject to criticism (in roughly this order):

1. Willow's character was taken so far down the dark path that it's implausible for me to believe she can be rehabilitated within the remaining lifetime of the show. The natural consequence is for her to die. I will go on to say that if they intend to go this route, I may change my assessment of the story arc in retrospect, depending on how they handle it in S7.

2. I don't think they do intend this. Published comments by the writers suggest an attempt to "save" the character by the magic/drugs sub-theme. This theme was poorly thought out and not well-developed. Mal, in a previous thread, created a perfectly logical and internally consistent explanation of magic that would have suited this story line. ME failed to set that up (it would have been necessary to do so starting in at least S4), and we were left with the heavy-handed, after-school-special presentation we got starting in Wrecked. The worst part is, magic/drugs is unconvincing as a moral excuse for Willow's conduct.

3. ME lied -- repeatedly -- regarding the W/T story arc.

4. The plotline unintentionally reinforced cliches about lesbians in the following sequence:

a. W/T went approximately 1.5 years without being shown having sex. This was not ME's fault; to the contrary, ME deserves praise for resisting it. ME must, however, recognize this fact in establishing new story lines.

b. The first occasion when they were shown having sex came after Willow cast the forget spell. This conflation of events caused some viewers to go so far as to characterize Willow's behavior as rape. I don't agree with this, but the sequence of events was unfortunate.

c. The lesbian sex was followed immediately by a breakup of the relationship.

d. Tara's return to Willow lacked any obvious motivation. It seems, in retrospect, contrived to exploit emotion, rather than developing an emotional reaction as a natural outgrowth of the characters and the story.

e. Tara's death came in the only other episode in which the couple were shown having sex. Her death occurred in the bedroom immediately after the sex ended.

f. As a result of Tara's death, Willow, the remaining lesbian, went crazy (here, DEN's point is well-taken). She committed one act of unspeakable evil and attempted to destroy the world.

g. The world was saved by the intervention of a heterosexual male. This particular scene appeared to me a contrivance rather than a natural outgrowth of the story and character development.

I realize I have gone rather beyond many of the comments in this thread. To some degree, I've taken comments like those of in the S6 thread to incorporate here (I know, I'm cheating).

Happy to have responses, even this late in the game. This includes responses suggesting I take more time away from the Board. :)

[> [> Re: Just to sum up -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:00:05 07/15/02 Mon

Tara coming back was not a contrivance. After all, after the breakup we saw very little of Tara and how she thought of all this. She probably missed Willow just as much as she missed Tara, and eventually decided to see if maybe it could work out after all.

[> [> [> Re: Just to sum up -- DEN, 13:09:38 07/15/02 Mon

Two points:
1.Tara's coming back was not itself a plot contrivance, but only became one at the end of "Victims." How many posters have observed, or experienced, a similar encounter that starts as "talking about issues" and ends in bed? It's WHAT HAPPENS NEXT, once passion is satisfied, that is important-- and in this case ME killed Tara whie the initial make-up sex was still in progress. Another s6 dropped thread.

2. Xander's heterosexuality is not an issue in the final resolution of "Grave." Even the script makes clear that it is his "ordinariness," his humanity, that is decisive. And if that seems too metaphysical, then surely it is not male/femaleness, but years of bonding, friendship, and love, that come through at the end--however hamfisted may be the actual writing and directing of the X/W encounter.

[> [> [> [> Re: Just to sum up -- Sophist, 17:48:11 07/15/02 Mon

I'm not really disagreeing with you about point no. 1. I used the words "in retrospect" for that reason and because I was plagiarising your point.

That being said, I don't think Tara came back to talk or that there was any "talking about issues". If it had gone that way, you'd be right. Instead, Tara specifically skipped the issues and went straight to the smoochies. The dog did nothing in the night. That was the curious incident.

[> [> I find this odd every time it's mentioned... -- tim, 14:28:47 07/15/02 Mon

"W/T went approximately 1.5 years without being shown having sex. This was not ME's fault; to the contrary,
ME deserves praise for resisting it. ME must, however, recognize this fact in establishing new story lines."

This point has come up countless times since SR. Furthermore, whether posters agree or not that explicit sex was never shown (and I remember some saying they don't), everyone seems to agree that not showing that sex would constitute a problem.

I don't mean to sound puritanical, and I certainly understand the problems of holding a double standard, but frankly, before I knew that it was WB censors who were keeping W/T's sex scenes off the air, I had more respect for the show. After all, we have two attractive, straight women playing in the roles of lesbians--showing the intimate details of their sex lives, it seems to me, smacks of ratings ploy. Keeping the sex off camera but well-implied to me served to keep the focus on the whole relationship, not just on the sexual aspect of it. The former is classy; it maintains respect for a groundbreaking relationship; the latter is Howard Stern-ish in its boorishness.

It's not that I have any problem with gay relationships being portrayed in film and television as openly and honestly as straight ones--far from it. I just see a tendency in popular culture to treat lesbian relationships as eye candy for the straight male 18-29's. These depictions, IMO, only hurt the cause for gay rights. The W/T relationship, meanwhile, focused on the individuals and their emotions; in the end, they presented a much more positive model relationship to the world than almost anything else out there. And I'm not sure that allowing us into what happened after the lights went off wouldn't have detracted from that.

Having said all that, I should also say that I thought the love scenes in SR were handled well, in terms of avoiding those problems, so it's clear that a middle path between the two extremes I've set up is possible. Still, am I completely wrong-headed here? Is it really a problem just to tell a sweet love story and not get into the bedroom nitty-gritty?

Feedback from all quarters would be appreciated.

--th

[> [> [> Re: I find this odd every time it's mentioned... -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:11:34 07/15/02 Mon

Season 6 was all about the nitty-gritty and realism, so yeah.

Also, when this topic was brought up in the past, mention was made that we never found out when W/T first slept together. I've found out that it was sometime in Season 4. In "New Moon Rising", Oz's werewolf senses say that Tara is covered with Willow's scent. Just borrowing a shirt wouldn't cause this. Sex was most likely the reason.

[> [> [> As I saw it, -- Sophist, 17:33:08 07/15/02 Mon

the conspicuous lack of sex scenes, when every other relationship had them (often conspicuously so), was itself evidence of a double standard. The fact that it was the Standards and Practices department which set the rules, rather than ME's artistic judgment, seems to me to reinforce this point.

[> [> [> [> Re: As I saw it, -- tim, 18:10:50 07/15/02 Mon

I understand that there was a double standard, and given the motives of the WB, I agree that this is a problem. My point was more basic.

Simply put, I was trying to question the assumption that not showing sex (in any relationship, but particularly one as ripe for misinterpretation as this one) was somehow wrong. I remember commenting to my wife sometime early this year (as I was catching up via F/X) how impressed I was that they weren't showing sex scenes, that they were treating this relationship as something real, not simply as a way to get two good looking actresses simultaneously naked and on camera. In light of the information I gleaned later (that it was the censors, rather than ME, making this judgment) this view changed, of course. One shouldn't give them either credit or blame in light of that fact.

My point, though (and I swear I have one), is: if it were all ME's decision, why does everyone (ME included) seem to assume it would be the wrong one?

--th

[> [> [> [> [> Re: As I saw it, -- Sophist, 09:17:02 07/16/02 Tue

Other than the double standard issue, I can't answer this. It seems largely a matter of taste in deciding what to show and what to leave to the imagination. Personally, I always enjoy exploitation. :)

Current board | More July 2002