July 2002
posts
Buffy Anne Summers IS "The Prisoner" --
cjl,
19:36:54 07/29/02 Mon
In one of those bizarre cosmic convergences that only
watching way too much television can provide, Sunday night
in NYC saw the broadcast of two of the strangest, most
surreal hours of episodic TV ever created: "Restless," the
fourth season finale of BtVS, and (three hours later) "Fall
Out"--the series finale of The Prisoner. In conversations
with fellow BtVS fans, I’ve often said that the only series
on TV before Buffy to ever truly challenge some of my higher
brain functions was The Prisoner. That’s usually as far as
I’ve gone with connecting the two; I always thought they
were coming from entirely different directions and saying
different things, and I never really tried to analyze them
in tandem. But the synchronicity of Sunday night is just
too great to resist, and I’m going to give it a shot.
Besides, Leo McKern--the wonderful star of Rumpole of the
Bailey, and a key player in the Prisoner series--just died
at the age of 82, and I can feel his spirit berating me in
that gruff, sandpaper-like voice we all loved so much. It’s
going to be seat of the pants analysis folks, so bear with
me...
Since this is a Buffy board, I’m going to assume everyone
here knows the background and events of "Restless," its
significance within the series, and has at least skimmed
shadowkat’s detailed four-part analysis of the symbolism
within each Scooby’s dream. (And if you haven’t--for shame.
BAD lurker. Go to shadowkat’s web site immediately and catch
up.) Given that, I’m going to run down the plot and
symbolism behind the Prisoner finale and sift in the Buffy
material as we go along.
As I’m sure most of you are aware, The Prisoner was the
brainchild of actor Patrick McGoohan, who was the star of
the smash British TV series Danger Man (re-titled Secret
Agent Man here in the states) from 1964-1967. Sick of the
daily grind of the series, McGoohan went to his money man,
Lew Grade, the head of ITC studios, and told Sir Lew he
wanted to do something different. McGoohan spun out the
fascinating concept: a British secret agent, who had just
resigned from his super-secret organization, is kidnapped
and taken to a mysterious Village for the single purpose of
breaking his will and extracting the reason for his
resignation. (Tellingly, even though the series took place
in the middle of the Cold War, it is never revealed which
"side" runs the Village.) The agent, dubbed Number Six by
the Village hierarchy, battles the minions of the Village
autocrat, No. 2, who uses various methods--psychological,
biochemical and electromechanical--to break him down. It is
one man against the system, in a battle for his soul.
Amazingly, Grade gave him the money.
The series, heavily symbolic and damn near allegorical in
spots, was a spectacular ratings flop on both British and
U.S. television. Even though they were told they would go
11 more episodes, McGoohan and his staff were informed in
mid-1968 that they had one episode to wrap it all up. Using
his emergency reserve episode ("Once Upon a Time," co-
starring McKern as No. 2) as a lead-in, McGoohan wrote "Fall
Out" over the course of one weekend, where Number Six would
finally go behind the scenes and meet the mysterious Number
One, the prime mover of the Village. "Fall Out" is, in
turn, fascinating, wickedly funny, and utterly
incomprehensible, with enough eye-popping symbolism to make
any self-respecting ATP poster drool.
As we pick up from where "Once Upon a Time" left off, Number
Six has just defeated Number Two in the ultimate mano a
mano, "I’ll break you or you’ll break me" competition, and
the Village bureaucrats, big softies that they are, dump
Number Two’s body in the portable living quarters they’d
been using for the week-long brainwash-athon and haul it
out. Number Six is then escorted through the labyrinthine
underground corridors of the Village, emerging in a great
chamber. The Village president, resplendent in robes and
powdered wig, graciously explains that the Prisoner has
beaten them, and has proven himself a true individual in a
land of sheep. The Village has one final offer: we’ll
give you back your house, your life, your freedom--or, you
can lead us and know true power. The Prisoner,
inscrutable, eases into the ridiculously ornate throne
awaiting him, and sits back to observe the proceedings of
the Village assembly before deciding. He takes in the
view: the assembly, seated like the Lords of Parliament in
session, are identified as "anarchists," "radicals,"
"conservatives," "entertainers," and other descriptive
sociopolitical nouns, but they’re all dressed in the same
white hooded robes and half-black/half-white tragicomedy
masks. The feel of the proceedings is almost Victorian-era,
but there’s a ton of futuristic gadgetry in the room.
Ominously, modern-looking soldiers (for 1968) with
submachine guns keep guard; and, built into a spire near the
center of the chamber, the watchful eye of Number One keeps
its own record of events, occasionally expressing its
displeasure with a wordless, sonic howl.
In contrast to the Prisoner’s "healthy" rebellion against
the system, the President brings out two other rebellious
souls for punishment: a lanky young man in top hat,
disheveled suit, unbuttoned shirt and gold chain, with an
obnoxious attitude and a penchant for Negro spirituals
(think Roger Daltrey gone to seed). The President admits
that boys will be boys and youth is rebellious, but he tells
the punk you’ve got to grow up sometime. The kid responds
by running amok through the chamber, flattening some of the
assembly drones, overturning tables and getting the soldiers
all riled up. He finally stops in front of the Prisoner’s
throne, and in a baffling, rapid-fire exchange of fifties
and sixties slang, they seem to reach a sort of
understanding. The kid calms down, winks at the Prisoner,
and goes back to his confinement.
Next, the President brings Number Two out of storage,
revives him, and displays him to the Assembly as a source of
amusement. He’s also been brought back as a cautionary tale
about men of power who bite the hand that feeds them--but
dying has, in a sense, liberated Number Two from his service
to the Village. He expresses admiration for the Prisoner,
and only wishes he could have resisted as long or as well.
In his first act of defiance in decades, Number Two walks
toward the glass and steel eye of Number One and tells
whoever is behind the curtain to Stuff It. The eye responds
with a shriek and an impotent blast of smoke. Number Two,
satisfied, returns to his shackles.
At that point, the Prisoner himself is asked to address the
assembly. He goes up to the podium, hoping to sway the
faceless multitudes with his speech, but every time he
starts, the assembly drowns him out. Frustrated, he looks
down at the President, who gives him an almost sympathetic
expression of "What did you expect?"
The preliminaries are over. It’s time to meet Number
One.
A transport tube takes the Prisoner inside the spire; he
walks by the space-age confinement cells holding the Kid and
Number Two, and heads up the spiral staircase leading to the
control room. He sees a figure in yet another white hooded
robe observing the events in the chamber. There is no
dialogue, only the shrill beeping of the equipment, as he
approaches. The figure turns to face him and holds out a
small crystal ball. The Prisoner touches the crystal, and
he sees his own face shouting, "I will not be punched,
stamped, filed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is
my own." Prison bars slam in front of the face in the
crystal--once, twice, three times. The globe drops to the
floor and shatters. Recovering from the shock, the Prisoner
looks up to confront Number One. He rips off the
tragicomedy mask, only to reveal an ape mask beneath. He
rips off the ape mask, and reveals...
His own face.
Eye. I. 1.
Amidst peals of insane laughter, the Prisoner chases his
Doppelganger around the control room, but his other self
slips out through an escape hatch in the roof. No matter.
The Prisoner has a job to finish. He frees the Kid and
Number Two, and arming themselves with machine guns, they
shoot their way through the Assembly and reach the hotel
room on wheels at the other side of the chamber. Driven by
Number Two’s diminuitive, silent butler, the lorry crashes
through a subterranean gate and heads out on the open road
to Freedom. Meanwhile, the President and what’s left of the
Assembly are trying to regroup, when they notice a LOT of
smoke coming out of the spire. Panicked, the President
orders the evacuation of the Village, and an army of
helicopters take off with the citizenry just before the
rocket (yes, that’s what it was) blasts off and decimates
the chamber.
Denouement: back in London. The Kid decides to get out on
the highway, and hitch-hike to his next destination. Number
Two returns to Parliament, and the life he abandoned years
ago. And the Prisoner? With the butler by his side, he
returns to his old house and takes his car, a sporty Lotus 7
out for a spin. The final shot has him peeling down the
highway--ending the series the same way it started...
_______________________________________________________
Well! Where to begin?
The first point of comparison between Buffy and The Prisoner
is the premise of the Prisoner: he’s trapped in the
Village, and unable to escape. The Village is an
extraordinarily pleasant place (it’s an actual hotel resort
in Wales), relaxed and filled with friendly people--but
it’s also a deathtrap for anybody who wants to keep his
soul. Does this sound familiar? On the surface, Sunnydale
is a nice place to raise your kids, with a quick and easy
commute to Los Angeles--it just so happens to be located on
top of a Hellmouth, with a death rate about 300x times the
national average. Similarly, just as Number Six’s sense of
personal integrity and highly evolved moral sense keep him
imprisoned, Buffy’s devotion to her duty and her own highly
evolved moral sense refuse to allow her to abandon her
birthright. Number Six could have a nice cozy life if he
would just freakin’ talk, and Buffy could have had a slayage-
free life if she just kept going after Becoming Part II.
However, both heroes refuse to compromise their moral
standards, and they remain trapped in their respective
prisons.
Getting back to our main comparison: in "Fall Out," the
Prisoner is offered--and rejects---the fruits of a corrupt
society, choosing to free his associates and deal with
society on his own terms; in "Helpless," Buffy is told by
the First Slayer that a Slayer is alone ("No Friends"), but
she defies her ancient heritage to regain control of her own
fate. Both choices have enormous costs (the bloody violence
in "Fall Out," and Buffy’s sacrifice in "The Gift")--but our
heroes will not submit to fate or destiny without a
fight.
There is also a correlation between the joining of Willow,
Buffy, Giles, and Xander in "Primevil" (and "Helpless") and
the teaming of the Kid, Number Two, the Butler and the
Prisoner. The three subsidiary figures in each scenario
represent aspects of the hero’s personality: in Buffy’s
case, Willow is the spirit, Xander the heart, and Giles the
intellect; in the Prisoner’s case, the Kid represents the
Prisoner’s spirit of youthful rebellion, Number Two is that
youthful spirit tempered by experience, and the Butler--
well, the Butler is a complex symbol. All during the
series, he represented the silent power behind Number Two,
but when he attaches himself to the Prisoner at the end of
the series, he’s more of a reminder that no matter how much
we want to go in our own direction, we can’t isolate
ourselves completely. (We have to deal with the world.)
Expanding our scope and looking back on S6, you can see
themes from the Prisoner running through Buffy’s story arc.
If The Prisoner was a elaborate metaphor for one man's
struggle against his own conscience, and an internal debate
about his place in society, Buffy S6 was equally about
Buffy's internal debate about how--and if--she fit into this
world. As a for instance: "Normal Again," with just a
little rewriting, could have easily been a Prisoner episode.
Imagine Number Six waking up in the asylum with his beloved
finacee at his side, telling him that life in the secret
service and his imprisonment the Village were just a
horrible delusion--all he has to do is unburden his soul
about both and he’ll be free to go home.
More similarities: The crystal ball in "Hell’s Bells"
could easily double as the crystal ball from "Fall Out,"
each offering not a glimpse into the future, but a glimpse
into the viewer’s own soul; and (now that I think about it
(the Initiative’s mixture of science and magic mirrors the
Village’s combination of futuristic technology and Victorian-
era motifs, each a perverted attempt to bring the old ways
into the future.
OK, I’m going to stop here. Don't want to hog the bandwidth
If there are any other Prisoner fans out there, I’d like to
hear from you. Hope I haven’t bored everybody
else...c_ê_•_¨_¨ _____ Y_l ö_Z_o ¢_Z '_‰_o_¸_)
½_U_ì_Ø___‡ ±_U__
[>
Whoops. Spoilers for Buffy S6 and the Prisoner
finale -- cjl, 19:57:01 07/29/02 Mon
[>
Arrgh! -- Darby, 20:22:56 07/29/02 Mon
Loved The Prisoner, although it was way too obtuse
for me most of the time. It was a rarity for a tv show to
obviously have a message and have the message not be neat
and clear and tied up in the allotted time. I think it was
the first time I was dealing with a work of art where I
could see the mind behind it at work but often had no idea
what they were attempting to do. My confusion and
frustration may have formed the foundation of my feeling
that authorial intent is important and that to be truly
successful, a work of art should project that intent (even
if that intent is that there is no message, or that everyone
should react differently). I don't think it occurred to me
at the time that because I wasn't part of the intended
audience (England), there was no way I'd pick up on many of
the images. Ah, it's never a simple exercise, is it?
Gotta admit that I think it's a wee stretch to link the two
shows in any specific way, but they are definite cousins as
far as intent is concerned.
But now I can't get that theme song out of my head. I
really like the theme song, but It's. Just. Going. On. And
On. And On.
Bum bum bummmm...
[>
Re: Nice essay, cjl -- Brian, 20:34:20 07/29/02
Mon
Lots to think about here. Must think about the use of music
in both series.
[>
Great Essay ! -- Ete, 20:57:22 07/29/02 Mon
[>
Re: Buffy Anne Summers IS "The Prisoner"
-- change, 03:59:48 07/30/02 Tue
One more little parallel. In the village, all of the doors
always opened and closed automatically. This was because
you were always being observed by the people in the control
room who controlled the doors. When the Prisoner reaches
his home at the end of Fall Out, the door opens for him
automatically indicating that he is still a prisoner of the
Village. At the end of season 5, Buffy "escapes" from
Sunnydale and Slayerdom by sacrificing herself. However,
she is pulled out of heaven and brought back to Sunnydale in
the next episode, indicating that she cannot escape, even in
death.
[>
Thanks, cjl. Another good essay! -- aliera,
05:01:07 07/30/02 Tue
[>
Small correction -- CW, 06:12:51 07/30/02
Tue
As someone who watched it religiously first-run, the first
part of McGoohan's first series ran as 'Danger Man' in the
US in 1961 on CBS. 'Secret Agent' was the title of the rest
of the series when it ran from 1965-1966 also on CBS.
'Secret Agent Man' was the title song, which was a big pop
hit. The show may have run as 'Secret Agent Man' in later
reruns, but never in the original run.
The reason 'The Prisoner" failed in the ratings was that
while it was certainly intriguing, it was also overly moody
and frankly dull. It felt like an extension of Danger Man,
and suffered (by comparison) from lack of action. I watched
'The Prisoner' mostly because I was waiting for what came on
after it. If the whole show had been anything approaching
what the finale was it would have run for years. I remember
thinking after I saw the finale way back when, that it had
made the whole short series worth watching.
[> [>
Does symbolism trump drama, or the other way
around? -- cjl, 08:58:40 07/30/02 Tue
You know what, CW? I was going to disagree with you, and
rant about how The Prisoner wasn't SUPPOSED to be like
Danger Man, how it was a more purely cerebral exercise,
etc., etc.
But you're right. There are some dull patches in the
series. There are times when the symbolism and the mind
games trumped the action, and certain episodes had all the
excitement of McGoohan assembling a 3000-piece jigsaw
puzzle.
On the other hand, I think that most of the time, PMcG and
his staff balanced the two extraordinarily well. Episodes
like the pilot ("Arrival"), "Free for All," "Many Happy
Returns," "Hammer into Anvil," the western ep ("Living in
Harmony"), and the two-part finale balanced action and the
symbolic and allegorical elements to produce a unique and
thrilling televison experience.
But your post raises an interesting question that's a
bugaboo for all TV series: if you're JW or PMcG, and you're
trying to produce TV that can be interpreted on a number of
levels, is your obligation to the symbolic and metaphorical
elements of your story, or do you have an obligation to make
it work as entertainment, first and foremost? (Ideally,
there shouldn't be that kind of disconnect, but the grind of
TV doesn't always allow you the time to refine your
scripts.)
This has nothing to do with plot holes produced by a
multiple level narrative, which is another discussion
entirely. I'm talking about the difficulty in making a TV
series that's both cerebral, thought-provoking,
metaphorically rich AND exciting and a hell of a lot of fun.
Recently, Robert Hewitt Wolfe was fired from Andromeda (a
show that was his baby) because his plotlines were too
complex and cerebral, and Kevin Sorbo and the studio were
afraid they were losing the audience. Did Sorbo and the
suits have a point? What's the point of producing an
extended multi-dimensional, multi-year plot arc if your
cancelled after the first year?
[> [> [>
Re: Does symbolism trump drama, or the other way
around? -- aliera, 12:13:00 07/30/02 Tue
Maybe I've been looking at this the wrong way. I always
thought of the symbolism/metaphor and (great wardrobes sorry
thinking of another thread) as tools to make the story reach
us on more than one level, not visa-versa.
[>
That was amazing! To the video store I go! --
ponygirl, 06:48:57 07/30/02 Tue
Positive message from W/T to general audience. --
cjc36, 06:03:23 07/30/02 Tue
To the fans who thought W/T's ending was cliché, that it
showed punishment after bliss and vengeance after loss, let
me point out that there has to be fans out in the so-called
'hinterland' who now have seen lesbians as people, too. And
if they, like me, were ignorant of the 'cliché', then they
probably noted no punitive cause and effect and saw Tara
being shot like people get shot everyday - a random act of
stupidity and violence. A tragedy. And gosh, it sure was sad
that it happened right after W/T reconciled - look how it
drove Willow mad with grief.
But rewind a season - there's Willow being caregiver to Tara
after Glory's attack, W/T living and loving as a couple,
before that - and having sex. Regular, possibly homophobic-
prone people, saw this change happen to *Willow,* a
character most long-term fans had come to love. And suddenly
she is 'different'. Of course some turned off the show
after W/T arc began. But how many people learned a lesson,
without being really taught one, that being lesbian is no
different than being anybody else? Lesbians love and live
like anybody else. And, sadly, die, too.
I can see a kid somewhere being faced with the choice to
either ridicule or persecute someone around them for being
different possibly considering a different course of action
because Willow and Tara showed the humanity and not the
labels. I feel that message is far stronger than the
“Lesbian Cliché.”
I don't believe W/T were icons to the general viewing
audience. But in being shown as people, maybe the message
given, especially to the non-gay audience, was stronger, and
more positive, than W/T fans think right now.
[>
There were such positive messages, and it's good to
point them out. -- Sophist, 07:39:14 07/30/02 Tue
[>
A positive message... -- Masq, 09:22:30 07/30/02
Tue
Until that lezbiaan turned into a homicidal maniac. Sure saw
that comin' a mile away. Happens when women get all uppity
and man-hatin'.
Not intending to nullify your point, just point out that
people's objections didn't just lie with Tara's death, but
what happened afterward with Willow.
[> [>
Warning: tongue in cheek devil's advocate thingee
above -- Masq, 09:25:56 07/30/02 Tue
[> [>
Re: A positive message... -- cjc36, 09:47:32
07/30/02 Tue
Noted Tongue-in-Cheek above.
Willow’s reaction (a recovering addict suddenly and
violently stressed to the breaking point, picking up – again
– the only weapon at her disposal, the aforementioned Dark
Mojo) proved to me just how much she loved Tara. I can see
this emotional reaction being a sensible (story wise)
outcome of this kind of trauma, and if Oz had still been her
lover in May ’02, and it’d been him lying in Buffy’s bedroom
with a bullet hole in his chest, I have no reason to believe
Willow’s reaction would have been any different. Willow is a
person to me, not a sexual preference.
Heck, for that matter, would any descent-to-hell arc
involving a gay Willow be accepted by the W/T fans? At this
point, despite alternate arcs given by “Clichéists”, I think
perhaps not, because if ME had taken Tara out temporarily,
and had Willow go nuts, it’d still be a LESBIAN going nuts,
and there’s no real way around that. And, if Tara had been
shipped out of town for a while, ME would be hammered for
(and I’ve mentioned this before, so forgive me) suspending
W/Ts active relationship – no snuggles. This would be due,
of course, to some nefarious motivation on Joss’s or Marti’s
part.
[>
Re: Positive message from W/T to general audience.
-- Rob, 09:26:45 07/30/02 Tue
Also, I think the Kitten Board and those other vocal lesbian
fans, who have spoken out against the events at the end of
Season Six would be wise to tone down their attacks, because
I think they are in more danger of reinforcing negative
lesbian stereotypes (namely, the Angry Lesbian stereotype)
by their belligerence than ME did by using a so-called
cliche that not everybody is even aware of (not going to
broach the topic now that that goes against the definition
of a "cliche"). Sending death threats to writers and such
stuff does not, I think, help one's argument about
portraying a healthy lesbian relationship on television.
Rob
[>
Message from the dead horse -- Dead Soul,
10:08:57 07/30/02 Tue
Quit beatin' on me already! I ain't gettin' any deader. The
only thing getting killed around here are the threads on non-
DoT topics.
While I appreciate trying to find something positive about
the situation and realize I'm perpetuating the very thing
I'm complaining about...Argh!!!!!!!!!
Dead (horse's) Soul
p.s. sorry, I know the above is snarky, I'm a snarky kinda
horse in a snarky kinda mood and would really like to be
left to rest in peace.
p.p.s. sorry, sorry, sorry! (I really am sorry and will
probably regret it, but I'm gonna post anyway, (putting on
my flame-proof saddle blanket))
[> [>
Do horses have souls? Do dead horses have dead
souls? -- Sophist, 10:22:36 07/30/02 Tue
Hey, this was my dead horse. And don't tell PETA.
[> [> [>
Re: Do horses have souls? Do dead horses have dead
souls? -- Dead Soul, 10:34:57 07/30/02 Tue
Yup, I know it's your dead horse, I'm just rustlin' it. Do
they still hang horse thieves?
Dead Soul (who has been spending way too much time hanging
out with vampires in the wild west)
[> [> [> [>
Re: New Name Game with Western Flare -- Brian,
12:12:28 07/30/02 Tue
Create a demon, vampire, monster name from the Buffyverse of
the Old West. Example: Wild Kill Morloch
Firefly is doomed (rant regarding Fox) -- The Last
Jack, 07:23:22 07/30/02 Tue
Titus, my favorite tv show after Buffy and Angel, was taken
off the air back in March and replaced by that stupid puppet
show, Greg the Bunny (E tu? Seth Green). I hated Fox for
this for a long time, but eventually got past it. Then, last
night, they started airing the last of the 5 eps of Titus
before its taken off the air. Now I am pissed again, because
they are cancelling this great show, and for what? 30
seconds of Fame? The 12th installment of Worlds most
dangerous police car chases? American Idol (okay, I will
grant you that it has it moments)?
There is no way Firefly is going to last long on Fox. Why?
Cause if its not huge right away, it will be cancelled after
3 episodes, just like Harsh Relam (I'll admit the show had
its problems, but it had potential, and should have been
allowed at least a season). Or, they will keep it for a few
years, and then just drop it because the new president or
whatever decides they want to change format.
So, I say to all those looking forward to Firefly, beware.
Tape all the epiosdes, and dont' get too attached to the
characters, because unlike Buffy, it won't be treated with
the respect it deserves.
[>
Re: Firefly is doomed (rant regarding Fox) -- KDM,
07:39:05 07/30/02 Tue
Firefly is certainly going to face an uphill battle given
the fact that it has a horrible timeslot (Fridays @ 8).
Angel's new timeslot is no picnic either (kind of funny that
it's going to have Charmed as a lead-in given Joss' opinion
of the show, heh), and going head-to-head with Alias could
prove to be quite a quandary. However, given the fact that
it already has a strong fanbase, it should be ok. Have to
agree though; unless firefly really snares the audience
immediately, Fox will probably squash it like a bug.
[> [>
I liked Wolf Lake -- Spike Lover, 08:44:20
07/30/02 Tue
And CBS basically cancelled it before they even aired the
first episode. (It was sort of an werewolf/peyton
place/twin peaks). Very adult, but twisted and funny.
...I hate the big 'four'. I am enjoying USA with its new
offerings of Dead Zone and Monk.
I wish WB would bring back 'Dead At Last-?' I can't even
remember the name. It was about a band "The Problem" that
had the power to see ghosts. It was hysterical. Some of
the funniest stuff I have ever seen.- Wish I had an ep or
two on tape somewhere.
[> [> [>
Re: Me too. -- Isabel, 19:38:30 07/30/02 Tue
Oddly, I only was able to catch it on UPN after Enterprise.
So I didn't even get to see all of the few episodes CBS did
air.
Maybe it's not too strange that I liked 'Dead Ringers'? as
well.
[>
Re: Firefly is doomed (rant regarding Fox) --
darrenK, 09:08:00 07/30/02 Tue
While I agree that it will be a tough battle for firefly,
Fox will give it more time for a number of very practical
reasons.
1. Joss is a proven moneymaker for them. Buffy and Angel
have never had huge audiences, but they pull in huge
licensing, dvd, international sales, critical acclaim and ad
revenue from the perceived fanbase 12-34 year-olds. Fox will
be counting on Joss bringing the critics and that small, but
committed, fanbase with him.
2. Fox has a large 8 figure contract with Joss that they
need to justify. This means giving him some time to build an
audience.
3. Joss does a lot of script doctoring for Fox studios
that's worth enough cash for them to want to keep him
somewhat happy.
I do agree that they will be skittish. I just think
they'll let firefly run through the full 12 eps. After that
I'm not holding my breath.
dK
[>
Re: rant regarding Fox -- Robert, 09:18:26
07/30/02 Tue
>>> "There is no way Firefly is going to last long on
Fox."
I entirely agree with you. But what really scares me about
the FOX network is their propensity for cancelling shows
(especially sci-fi shows) in the middle of unresolved story
arcs. They treat the fan base like dirt.
[> [>
All about money ... -- Earl Allison,
11:47:57 07/30/02 Tue
I know this is an unwelcome view, and worse, that it seems
like I'm belittling fans, but this is an unfair accusation
against FOX, indeed, against ANY network.
Bottom line, networks make money -- they are a business,
like anything else, and in it to generally make a profit,
and that usually comes from advertising.
The good AND bad of the internet is, everyone's voice can be
heard. On the one hand, great, you get more viewpoints than
you might otherwise -- however, you also get ALL kinds of
viewpoints, some enlightened, some not.
That being said, EVERYTHING has a fan-following, all you
need do is look for it. However, FOX (or any other network)
isn't waiting with baited breath, laughing manically as they
cancel something -- if it's proven to make money, it stays.
If there is no faith that it will "earn its keep," or evolve
to do so, it goes.
I don't think FOX or any other network "treat[s] the fan
base like dirt." If the show is making money, or bringing
in the demographics, it stays.
"Dark Angel" didn't, neither did "Wolf Lake" or "Roswell."
So they went. "Roswell" got a new lease on life with UPN,
and still foundered.
As much as it pains me to say this, and worse, that I sound
supremely arrogant in doing it -- people that think the
networks "owe" them something have another think coming.
It's a BUSINESS, and business is there to make money, not to
be a charity. To think a network is out to get fans by
cancelling something is foolish, and said person(s) need to
look at the large picture.
Do you think UPN would have paid in excess of $2M an episode
for "Buffy" if it wasn't profitable? And don't think for a
minute that, should "Buffy" founder, it won't get axed at
some point.
Why do you think a character originally plotted to die in a
few episodes (Spike) stayed on? Because he BROUGHT IN
VIEWERS and was popular. Sure, fans loved him, but if it
didn't benefit the show, it wouldn't be done -- and if that
in turn didn't benefit the network -- well, you see where
I'm going.
I'm not saying shows that were cancelled weren't good ones,
but obviously they weren't bringing the $$ in -- and let's
face it, money talks. Disagree if you like, but it's a
basic fact, businesses that make money survive, those that
don't, die.
Take it and run.
[> [> [>
It's just sad they think of money all the time, and art
very none of the time -- Masq, 12:07:26 07/30/02
Tue
[> [> [> [>
Why should they make art? And I sort of think Buffy is
art -- Dochawk, 14:03:02 07/30/02 Tue
Masq,
Why exactly do you think they should make art? Especially
since art is so subjective. Thats what PBS is for (they
have a public responsibility the nets don't have).
And btw Buffy is losing money for the network. They find
its worth it for prestige and demographic reasons, but they
lose a few hundred thousand on each episode, so sometimes
its not just money.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Why should they make art? And I sort of think Buffy
is art -- Masq, 14:19:44 07/30/02 Tue
I am using the word "art" rather loosely here to mean any
television show of the least bit of substance.
I get really irritated with the "bottom liners" who talk
about how this, that or the other thing is "business" and
has no other criterion to answer to except the dollar
sign.
I think television does have some responsibility to what it
is putting up there. If it only thinks about the bottom
line, I forsee a day when there will be very few shows like
"Buffy" and 600 channels of offerings like "Survivor" and
"The World's Worst Car Crashes".
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I'm not happy with the almighty bottom line, but that's
currently how it is ... -- Earl Allison,
17:10:35 07/30/02 Tue
I don't promote bottom line thinking as being a good thing,
but it is the way things work -- money, demographics and
prestiege are what people look for.
Shows like "Buffy" will always be attempted, and if they
find their niche, they should succeed. UPN is banking on
this in the long term, and it's already paid off
demographically.
I just wanted to say don't hate me for talking bottom line -
- it's not a great system, but it is the one currently being
used.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Art and Patronage -- Rahael, 17:16:25 07/30/02
Tue
This of course is an age old debate in Western Europe. The
artists of the Renaissance had a similarly tense/creative
relationship with their patron. Without the Church, Courts
and individual rich patrons asking for, commissioning and
paying for art, the artists wouldn't have had any
livelihood. Then, as now, the prestige of owning, and being
seen as a tasteful and cultivated person mattered a huge
deal.
The most amusing story I've come across is that of Jonathon
Swift, that merciless critic and satirist of government
corruption, especially of Robert Walpole. He had of course,
some years back approached Walpole, offering his polemical
services for some money. Walpole refused, and Swift never
forgave him. Oh, the irony!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Art and Patronage -- Brian, 18:58:24
07/30/02 Tue
Don't forget the Greeks. All those great playwrights had
patrons supporting them. Of course, in those days, being
creative was to be gifted by the gods, and patrons felt that
the gods would favor them for supporting their chosen
ones.
[> [> [>
Re: All about money ... -- mundusmundi, 13:15:29
07/30/02 Tue
What you're saying is right on the, er, money, Earl.
Personally, I just wish the networks were more
patient with shows that have potential but may be a
little shaky out of the starting gate. (Pardon my
horseracing metaphors, I'm two-thirds of the way through
Seabiscuit.) More than a few big moneymaking
franchises, such as M*A*S*H and Cheers, began
with abysmally low ratings, and while I realize we're living
in a different TV era, with more networks and what-not, I
shudder to think what we'd have missed had the plug been
pulled on them prematurely.
On the other hand, a case could also be made that many
series are allowed to run too long. (Spinoffs are also a
mixed bag. We were treated to a colossal dud in
AfterM*A*S*H, whereas Frasier started as a
dicey concept that paid off bigtime. Although it too is
starting to lose its luster.) Regardless what happens with
Angel or Firefly, or whether or not it's still
profitable, I'm kind of hoping this is Buffy's last
year.
[> [> [> [>
Re: All about money ... -- Robert, 22:09:33
07/30/02 Tue
>> "...I'm kind of hoping this is Buffy's last year."
Why?
[> [> [> [> [>
Because seven sounds like a nice number.:) --
mundusmundi, 04:46:11 07/31/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [>
It's Prime Even. -- Tymen,
05:01:21 07/31/02 Wed
[> [> [>
Re: All about money ... -- Robert, 22:07:35
07/30/02 Tue
>> I don't think FOX or any other network "treat[s] the fan
base like dirt."
All the networks have their own peccadillos, however FOX has
pissed me off in particular.
>> "Bottom line, networks make money -- they are a business,
like anything else, and in it to generally make a profit,
and that usually comes from advertising."
I understand about the money. I worked for 20 years in the
high-tech industry as an engineer. Somewhere along the way,
I picked the notion of the profit motive.
I also learned about "Quality". In the high-tech industry,
quality is most generally defined as meeting your customer's
expectations. Things can get confused when it is less clear
who the real customer is. Is the customer the viewing public
or the purchasers of ad space? The purchasers of ad space
are the true customers to the television networks. The
viewing public is the product which the networks are
selling. If the networks have little or no viewing public,
then they have no product to sell, and they die.
This is where quality enters the television arena. The
networks do not own this precious resource of viewing
public. If a particular network engages in rank behavior too
often, that network could find itself losing the viewing
public.
>> "Dark Angel" didn't, neither did "Wolf Lake" or
"Roswell." So they went. "Roswell" got a new lease on life
with UPN, and still foundered.
The shows I was obliquely referring to where "VR5" and
"Alien Nation". They were both cancelled in the midst of
cliff-hanger episodes. While I momentarily mourned the
passing of "Dark Angel" and "Roswell", both of these shows
were concluded well, with most of the major story lines
brought to a natural stopping point.
If the TV networks have any respect for their viewership,
then they will ensure that the shows don't terminate in the
middle of cliff-hanger stories. If the network of a TV show
is undecided about renewing said show, then that network
should insist that the producer doesn't finish the season on
a cliff-hanger. And, if the show does finish a season on a
cliff-hanger, then they should pay for a special episode or
made-for-tv movie to conclude the story line.
This has everything to do with money. If FOX network
persists in slapping their viewership, then they will lose
their viewership and, with it, their customers.
[> [> [>
Re: All about money ... and sometimes a bit more. -
- Buffyboy, 01:26:06 07/31/02 Wed
I’d be the last person the deny the power of the pursuit of
profit in a capitalist society. Yet, even if most network
executives are only motivated by the bottom line, what
exactly makes up the bottom line and when they draw it
requires interpretation and thus is based upon the judgement
of these executives. These types of judgement are extremely
difficult to make and in the end open up the possibility
that other factors (factors other than the pursuit of
profit) can have some effect on the decision.
For example: a new show that has run for four episodes is
doing very poorly in the ratings. What do you do? (1)You
could simple cut you losses and pull the show immediately
(maybe Fox executives are especially prone to this choice).
(2) You could let the show finish the season hoping it will
improve. (3) You might want to pull the show but the
replacement show you were counting on isn’t ready because
the lead actor broke his leg. (4) You might want to pull a
show but you can’t pull the show because you owe the
executive producer a big favor. Etc etc. Sometimes network
executives simply have no idea what to do to maximize the
bottom line--so they guess. The point is that in all this
uncertainty cracks sometimes open up where good shows
occasionally appear. I suspect this is what happened with
BtVS. A relatively new network (the WB) was looking for
“something different” that might help the network find its
market, Joss came along with an interesting idea that might
grab some of the teenage market, the ratings weren’t
wonderful but good enough for the WB (never would have been
enough for one of the big four networks), the show became a
hit with the critics and began to develop a rabid fan base,
etc. Having some real talent and being real lucky, i.e.
being in the right place at the right time, can very
occasionally, despite the bottom line, produce
greatness.
[> [> [>
Titus was making money -- The Last Jack,
09:30:52 07/31/02 Wed
I know that in the end its all about money with these
people, but that wasn't the problem this time around. Titus
may not have been in the Top 10, but its ratings were good,
and it usually beat out other Fox sitcoms, like Grounded for
Life, etc. I'll grant you it wasn't the cash cow that X-
Files was, but it had a large, loyal fan base, and it did
earn them money.
Ah Well, Chrisopher Titus is talented, and in the end I am
sure he will land on his feet. I just wish his show had been
treated with a bit more respect
[> [> [>
Titus was making money -- The Last Jack,
09:31:06 07/31/02 Wed
I know that in the end its all about money with these
people, but that wasn't the problem this time around. Titus
may not have been in the Top 10, but its ratings were good,
and it usually beat out other Fox sitcoms, like Grounded for
Life, etc. I'll grant you it wasn't the cash cow that X-
Files was, but it had a large, loyal fan base, and it did
earn them money.
Ah Well, Chrisopher Titus is talented, and in the end I am
sure he will land on his feet. I just wish his show had been
treated with a bit more respect
[>
Re: Firefly is doomed (rant regarding Fox) --
cjc36, 09:20:29 07/30/02 Tue
One other possible thing besides Joss's name cred going for
him in regards to Firefly's chances is that Gail Berman is
in charge of programming at Fox. Berman was with Sanddollar
TV (I think that's right) when BtVS was made into a TV
series, and may even still have credit on the show, like the
Kuzui's. She seems to respect Joss and his talent and if any
network programming head is going to give him some slack,
it'd be her.
But, then again, this is Hollywood.
Really dumb question, but it's been bugging me. (oh
and S*P*I*K*E!) -- LadyStarlight, 09:10:46 07/30/02
Tue
Okay, so we all know that in the Jossverse, vampires and
sunshine don't get along very well. This includes sunshine
that has been filtered through window glass, car window
glass and heavy fabrics. (see Spike's more smoky
entrances)
So, given all that, and also given that moonlight is
reflected sunlight, how come the vamps don't go poof on
those bright nights?
(I'd much rather ponder this than pack, but it has been
bugging me.)
[>
same reason we don't get moonburns? ;) -- ponygirl,
09:17:44 07/30/02 Tue
[>
Doesn't your posting name give rise to a similar
question? -- Sophist, 09:48:34 07/30/02 Tue
[> [>
Good point! LOL -- CW, 10:40:21 07/30/02 Tue
[>
may be best not too think too closely about this --
matching mole, 10:10:00 07/30/02 Tue
A superficial answer to your question is relatively easy.
In the Jossverse vampires seems to do fine in the daytime as
long as they aren't in direct sunlight. However the light
they are often exposed to is reflected sunlight just as much
as moonlight is (e.g. when Spike standing in the shade in an
alley in the morning). Angel was also able to survive
outside in the day during a snowstorm. This implies that
sunlight needs to be fairly strong to cause ignition. So
moonlight is safe. Not only is the reflected light much
less intense but not all the wavelengths of light are going
to be reflected equally. However which ones get reflected
are going to vary with the object doing the reflecting.
However, the implications of this are at least twofold.
Vampires should be able to be abroad by day when it is
heavily overcast - not an important issue in southern
California perhaps but elsewhere it could be. And given
that it is not just sunlight itself but its intensity that
seems to be crucial you could presumably devise some sort of
full spectrum high intensity light that would dust vamps on
the spot (and blind human onlookers if care wasn't
taken).
[> [>
Re: may be best not too think too closely about
this -- leslie,
10:50:00 07/30/02 Tue
"And given that it is not just sunlight itself but its
intensity that seems to be crucial you could presumably
devise some sort of full spectrum high intensity light that
would dust vamps on the spot (and blind human onlookers if
care wasn't taken)."
Wasn't this one of Willow's little projects before she went
off the magic?
[> [>
Addendum -- Darby, 10:50:44 07/30/02 Tue
Hell's Bells was set up during a rainstorm
because:
a) It made Xander's "walk around the block" more poignant
(although it did make him walk funny).
b) It symbolized the stormy X&A relationship at its most
sturm und drangiest.
c) It was the only way that Spike could get to the event
without getting all toasty
[> [> [>
Re: Addendum -- Deeva, 11:18:01 07/30/02 Tue
And I thought the rain storm was more or less a portent of
some kind of evil coming. You know, "something evil this way
comes". Or however that line goes.
[> [> [>
LOL! Brilliant, Darby! -- Rob, 11:18:17 07/30/02
Tue
[> [> [>
LOL! well not sure about the only way -- shadowkat,
11:44:45 07/30/02 Tue
Spike could have nicked another car or come with an
umbrella.
[> [> [> [>
*LOL* -- Deeva, 12:02:49 07/30/02 Tue
Yeah, Spike would LOVE using a parasol!
[> [> [> [> [>
Well I'm not sure if Spike would like that... --
Rob, 12:47:58 07/30/02 Tue
but William might have. ;o)
Rob
[> [> [> [>
Re: LOL! well not sure about the only way -- Darby,
12:47:12 07/30/02 Tue
Tough to bring a date when you're smouldering (not just in a
sexy way)...
So whaddya think? Was the skank human or vamp? Did she
know Spike's "secret identity"? Seems like if she did, she
wouldn't have gone out with him no matter which ethnicity
she was.
[> [> [> [>
Am I the only one who remembers a brief fad for beanie
hats with umbrellas coming out of the top? -- leslie,
12:59:02 07/30/02 Tue
[>
Pack? Are you going on vacation or are you moving
too? -- Isabel, 19:31:54 07/30/02 Tue
[> [>
Moving. The big day starts tomorrow. --
LadyStarlight, 05:29:57 07/31/02 Wed
Desperate plea--No more W/T threads for a while,
pleeeez!! -- Rob on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown!!!,
10:53:06 07/30/02 Tue
[>
Maybe we should stick to something we all can agree on
- like Spuffy! -- ponygirl laughing evilly, 11:16:28
07/30/02 Tue
[> [>
Well, that's just another can of worms there. But then
the shelf's full of such cans. -- Deeva, ;o),
11:20:30 07/30/02 Tue
[> [>
LOL--Or whether the Asylumverse or Sunnydale is the
Realverse! -- Rob, 11:21:36 07/30/02 Tue
[> [>
Remember, I can archive and delete threads anytime I
want! -- Masq laughing even more evilly, 11:36:27
07/30/02 Tue
[> [> [>
LOL! But you are also a busy person... --
shadowkat, 11:42:47 07/30/02 Tue
and shouldn't have to patrol us. ;-)
[>
Free Market Economics/Supply and Demand -- Rahael,
11:23:56 07/30/02 Tue
Threads only keep living as long as people keep posting to
them. If people don't post, they die. If people just keep
discussing and responding they keep living.
I would be loath to say "let's stop discussing it, we all
have way too much to say about it".
Even if this has to apply to the constant supply of Spike,
Spike, Spike.
Rah, shuddering.
[>
Rob has a point...Can we keep it to just one post?
-- shadowkat, 11:40:52 07/30/02 Tue
In the last two days four-five different DoT posts have
appeared. All on the same topic. Not a new topic. The same
exact one. I understand the reason for this - people want to
be heard and are afraid they'll be lost in the smaller
threads.
But these posts have pushed other posts on topics ranging
from rejection essay (yes selfish), purpletulip's post, the
demon post, and others to archives much sooner than if we
had just kept the Death of Tara topic to one post. Poor
PurpleTulip had to repost her symbolism essay twice.
Can we agree to stop posting new threads on a topic that is
already on the board until it has actually gone to
archive??
Once it is archived, post on it again. Until then? Add your
comment to the post as it exists. We'll find you.
It frees the board for other topics of equal interest.
Makes Masq's life easier. And keeps some of us who have been
relying on the board for worktime entertainment and are sick
of the DoT topic from going insane. (Rob and SK in this
case.) LOL!
Just a little consolidation is what I'm thinking of.
Like we did with the misogyny thread which lasted a
week.
[> [>
haikus -- Dochawk, 13:55:30 07/30/02 Tue
you know when I posted with a plea about this with Haikus I
got ignored. There is an advantage to having smaller lists.
I agree with Rah, there is a reason why people post like
that, and thats because its an interesting topic. I had 4
different posts sent to archives one within 20 minutes
during the haiku onslaught, but it seems thats what people
were interested in. I don't think asking posters to not
extend a topic is really consideration. The hope is that
the long old thread would fade into archives allowing more
topics to remain (maybe what we need is after say 70 posts,
the last 10 are moved to a new thread and the rest get
archived?)
[> [> [>
Re: haikus -- shadowkat, 07:12:16 07/31/02
Wed
You weren't ignored. I felt the same way. But the haiku
post was just one post that took up space yes, but largely
confined to one post. It would go to archive and get started
again.
Maybe should define what I mean by post: this whole
area from Rob's topic heading to the last thread on it,
including the little off-topic threads are what I mean
by
post.
Yesterday I counted five W/T separate posts...including if
you will this one. I'm not saying this isn't an important
topic. It is. But it would make life easier on the
archivists (well, maybe not - they don't appear to be
complaining) and some of us who want to read other
things...if we confined it to one. I remember back in
Feb
Ann posted a Psyche and Eros essay. I also had one,
different than Anne's instead of posting it separately - i
added it to Anne's posting thread to consolidate. I didn't
want to overrun the board on one topic.
I'm still new to this whole posting board thing - so if I'm
wrong about this and it is better to start new posts on the
same topic...let me know. ;-)
[> [> [> [>
Re: haikus -- Rahael, 08:14:24 07/31/02 Wed
The problem with one huge monstrous thread, which was what
happened to the Haiku one, is that everything else starts
getting archived faster - and as people keep posting to that
one thread, it keeps on living.
Theoretically, therefore, if the W/T had been confined to
one thread, which everyone posted to, Purple Tulip's thread
would have been archived even faster. The problem with the
last couple of days is that there were a number of threads
that were getting a lot of posts. Hence, a lot of space was
being taken up, and all the small things were being sent to
archive.
I'm not an archivist, but I can't see how having separate
threads would make a job harder or easier. Easiest of all
would be if no one posted anything! Nothing to archive.
The solution to the Haiku thread was that people stopped
posting to the monster thread and continued posting to a new
one. I think this is what your solution is? To get everyone
to continue the W/T discussion on the new thread and stop
posting to the old one. The problem with multiple threads on
one topic is if everyone kept talking about the same subject
on different threads at the same time. As long as a thread
gets posts, it keeps living.
[> [> [> [> [>
I like your solution -- shadowkat, 08:49:38
07/31/02 Wed
"The solution to the Haiku thread was that people stopped
posting to the monster thread and continued posting to a new
one. I think this is what your solution is? To get everyone
to continue the W/T discussion on the new thread and stop
posting to the old one. The problem with multiple threads on
one topic is if everyone kept talking about the same subject
on different threads at the same time. As long as a thread
gets posts, it keeps living."
Yes - that's what I was thinking would be most workable.
You're right the problem with both the Haiku and the
misogyny threads was just that. cjc3 tried to pull everyone
up to a new thread. But we kept posting to the old ones and
the new ones simulataneously driving everything else of the
board until it at one point was just becoming those
posts.
So your solution is the best one.
It's a catch-22 situation from my pov. I love the off-topic
threads that crop up and wander off the screen but they also
tend to push on-topic new posts to archives...we can't win.
;-) And yes...I tend to reply to these wandering threads so
am guilty.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Off Topic/On Topic -- Rahael, 09:10:29 07/31/02
Wed
This is a hot button topic with me. I read this board,
primarily for off topic stuff.
After a while, there's only so many new discussions,
especially, as Mundus says, there's only so much filet
mignon on the table. If we privileged on topic over off
topic there'd be no more book reviews of Stephen Jay Gould,
no more CMoTW etc.
As Arethusa put it, this board is for like minded Buffy fans
to move from Buffy topics to other common interests.
How many times have certain Buffy topics been discussed and
rediscussed? As someone whose few attempts at a Buffy thread
have been ignominously cast into the archives with virtually
no replies, I'm not bitter at all. I always find a way of
bringing up my points in the next available thread.
And I'd end by saying that the most heated/upsetting threads
have been rescued by off-topic good humour, that the most
contentious, longest space hungry threads have been devoted
to directly Buffy related topics - race in Buffy, the
Lesbian cliche, etc.
If we ever discuss the off topic/on topic issue, I'm placing
my vote now! Long may huge, off the side of the board
threads (off topic/on topic) continue. It shows that people
are communicating with each other, which is my primary
reason for posting here.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL! Oh...don't get me wrong I love off-topic --
shadowkat, 09:40:54 07/31/02 Wed
There was a great one a few weeks back on Hawaiian
history.
And the whole Merchant of Venice Thread. Best was the off-
topic threads on Misogyny post - some of those were pure
genius.
Also I'm extroardinarily good at bringing off topic back to
on topic to keep it around so...no problems here. I tend to
be better with on than off, unfortunately. But we all have
our strengths.
The best thing about ATP though is our off-topics aren't
chatty as much as informative. I've learned more about 19th
century English Poetry and Literature, History, and
certain philosophies than I did in school. If I wanted on-
topic all the time? I'd have gone somewhere else. ;-)
So nooo I love off-topic. Didn't mean to suggest
otherwise.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: LOL! Oh...don't get me wrong I love off-topic -
- Rahael, 10:26:05 07/31/02 Wed
Just trying to allay that guilt!!
The Hawaiian history thread was great - and I got the
conclusion to it by email cos of 'off topic' guilt. So much
of the board missed out!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
No kidding...and stop feeling guilty! -- shadowkat,
10:38:03 07/31/02 Wed
"The Hawaiian history thread was great - and I got the
conclusion to it by email cos of 'off topic' guilt. So much
of the board missed out!"
I asked and received the same marvelous email. You're right
they missed out and we could have had such a cool discussion
on it.
The only off-topic ones that annoy me are the ones that
attack the board, other posters or just plain weird (see "a"
and "b" posts above.) ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
What is this Hawaiian history thread that you speak
of? -- Deeva, 10:39:37 07/31/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What is this Hawaiian history thread that you speak
of? -- redcat, 13:50:50 07/31/02 Wed
A few weeks ago, we got way off topic and onto
issues of cultural differences and cultural values. Rah
made some great
points about how basic value systems are culturally defined.
We wound up discussing sets of values constructed
differently from the western ones, she from her home culture
and me from the Hawaiian side. Then Vickie asked a
question and Finn made a comment, and before the sun came
up, I had posted two **very** long and off-topic essays
about pre-western-contact Hawai’i. The third in the series
was even longer, although more poignant perhaps, since it’s
a
story rather than an analysis. Several folks asked for it
and I sent it to them by email, but the story of a late 18th
Hawaiian
chiefess really IS pretty far from the universe of the
Buffster – and believe me, I’ve tried to make a connection,
but all I
get is a redux of the phrase, “You’re beneath me.” So yeah,
my guilt factor weighed in, ‘cause I know I have the
propensity to get a bit lectury sometimes. Comes with the
territory, I’ve done it for too many years...
I don’t know how to post the archive link, but it was on or
near July 11th. If you still want Keopuolani’s story
after reading the thread, send me your email and I’ll send
it on.
And thanks, Rah and s'kat, for the kind words. It was fun.
rc
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: What is this Hawaiian history thread that you speak
of? -- Dead
Soul, 14:11:08 07/31/02 Wed
I love the off-topic subthreads! One of the first things I
read that convinced me of the brilliance of the posters on
ATPo was a comparison of vampirism to colonialism by Rahael
in the race thread that occurred after JM's appearance on PI
(IIRC). The first of many Kaboom! moments this board has
given me.
Loved the Shakespeare/Merchant of Venice/anti-semitism sub
thread, the sub thread that explored the roots of the
traditional English dislike/contempt/fear of the Irish
(which archived way too quickly). Far too many wonderful
ones to name. Including the one on Hawaiian history.
(Yeah, yeah, I'm getting to the point - drumroll please)
Redcat, would you please email me the third installment?
Thanks so much!
Dead (and grateful) Soul
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Never stop lecturing, on or off-topic -- Arethusa,
15:29:11 07/31/02 Wed
The highway's fast and direct, but the side roads have the
beauty and character and fun.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
awww, thanks! -- Rahael, 16:11:55 07/31/02
Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
redcat, please email me? -- Vickie, feeling
quite the tourist, 17:12:39 07/31/02 Wed
If you have a second to recommend those non-touristy
texts?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Vickie, check your email :-) -- redcat,
19:29:52 07/31/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: What is this Hawaiian history thread that you speak
of? -- fresne,
17:38:16 07/31/02 Wed
By all means e-mail me the story. I was a bit busy in July
and must have missed the conclusion of the thread/email
invite.
And in a tangential sort of way, my housemate Karen and I
just got back from Oahu where we attended her father's
retirement ceremony after 30 years service in the Coast
Guard. It was quite nice/interesting. I'd have mentioned it,
but it was a bit of whirlwind.
One of the things that came up, and this is a military
culture thing rather than a Hawaiian, is that in the Coast
Guard a lot of the backup support functionality has always
been supplied by volunteers (i.e., officers wives). For
example committees to facilitate military families getting
new housing, schools, etc. As time passes, younger spouses
(men and women, because it aint a men's club anymore) are
less and less willing/able to volunteer in addition to
careers, family and education. And as the older guard
retires out, a lot of that background support is lost.
Which brings me back to Buffy and Co. Unlike, Angel
Investigations, they are not paid for what they do. Buffy in
particular is expected to volunteer her time to fight evil,
hold down a job, and be a mother. Likewise, the Scoobies
fight evil in their spare time. A silent background support
that the world never sees, but greases the wheels to keep
things moving/existing.
No real conclusion, I'm just curious as to what ME's
resolution to this conundrum that they've set up will
be.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
And Buffy doesn't even get dental... -- redcat,
01:18:21 08/01/02 Thu
For a minute there I could almost see it begin to
materialize -- the monster thread begun by an essay on the
socio-political
foundations of the patriarchal Watcher's Council's
expectations that female Slayers should perform specified
essential labor
functions for them (and the larger society) without a proper
compensation packet, said essay no doubt to be followed by
a
heated discussion of whether or not JW and ME intended to
promote such an anti-feminist message, and a snark
contest
between Marxist-feminist economists and anti-post-modernist-
non-deconstructionists about whether or not her unpaid
status "proves" Buffy is really only a middle-class soap
opera (and I was even beginning to look forward to the
hilarious
sub-thread that would discuss how much Buffy should be paid
per vamp versus per demon)....
But then I remembered where I really was, re-read your last
line and breathed a sigh of relief. Even though I've
always
been bothered by the fact that the WC doesn't just put Buffy
on some kind of payroll (cut the girl a check, guys, and
be
grateful she's not charging interest, OK?), I, too, am
content to remain curious and will wait to see how it all
works out
next season.
And hey, the next time you're in the neighborhood, give a
holler...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: What is this Hawaiian history thread that you speak
of? -- shadowkat, 18:28:15 07/31/02 Wed
"I’ve tried to make a connection, but all I
get is a redux of the phrase, “You’re beneath me.” So yeah,
my guilt factor weighed in, ‘cause I know I have the
propensity to get a bit lectury sometimes. Comes with the
territory, I’ve done it for too many years... "
Uhm...having read your story, I see several connections.
1. The idea of the man coming to the woman on his knees,
backwards and naked - reminds me quite a bit of Spike in
Season 6.
2. The man killed her people and was a conqueror, but he
still had to bow in her presence - female empowerment.
redcat - it was a beautiful essay and no more off-topic than
numerous other posts I've seen on this board. My suggestion?
Post. See what happens. Worste case scenerio it will be
archived quick.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: What is this Hawaiian history thread that you speak
of? -- shadowkat, 18:29:29 07/31/02 Wed
"I’ve tried to make a connection, but all I
get is a redux of the phrase, “You’re beneath me.” So yeah,
my guilt factor weighed in, ‘cause I know I have the
propensity to get a bit lectury sometimes. Comes with the
territory, I’ve done it for too many years... "
Uhm...having read your story, I see several connections.
1. The idea of the man coming to the woman on his knees,
backwards and naked - reminds me quite a bit of Spike in
Season 6.
2. The man killed her people and was a conqueror, but he
still had to bow in her presence - female empowerment.
redcat - it was a beautiful essay and no more off-topic than
numerous other posts I've seen on this board. My suggestion?
Post. See what happens. Worste case scenerio it will be
archived quick.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Well, here it is, then... but I'm warning folks, it's
LONG and Way OT... -- redcat, 19:01:59 07/31/02
Wed
Aloha e kakou,
Well, since several folks have now asked, I’ll take
shadowkat’s advice and just post it. I think it will only
make sense if
folks have already read the original thread, which I think
was on July 10th or 11th (?).
It’s a rather long story about the sexual relationship
between two of Hawai’i’s most important historical
figures,
Kamehameha, the ali’i nui (great chief) who unified the
island chain between 1790 and 1810, and his most sacred
wife,
Keopuolani. I wrote this the morning after I had stayed up
quite late (for me, anyway!) writing 2 other long posts
on
Hawaiian culture, no doubt fueled by my fear that I had
given a more "rosy" picture of the relationship between sex
and
power than is completely accurate for pre-western-contact
Hawai’i. I focused on the commoner level when discussing
ideologies of sexual practice with Finn, and the chiefly
level when answering Vickie’s question about law breaking,
when
in fact, both sex and power are much more complexly linked
at all levels of Hawaiian society (as with most societies!).
But
I think it speaks to how differently things we take for
granted as only one thing - sex, love, friendship, maybe
even power
–– are so bound by how our own cultures understand them.
Anyway, I started out by quoting Rah (of course!) from
her
post that came directly before the one this post was
written to follow. So here it is, for better and worse,
two weeks late
and not very well edited. Anyway, thanks for reading and I
really won’t mind if it simply drops into the archive!
Malama pono,
redcat
_____________________________________
Quote from Rahael’s post: “The idea of physical contact
with Royalty being a potent one - that of course is also
present in
Western culture, where monarchs touched people on special
days to cure them of illnesses. “
Hawaiian concepts of ali’i are similar to but not exactly
the same (of course, LOL) as European notions of Royalty,
but
it’s important to be able to find similarities, from which
we can begin to build grounds for understanding differences.
“Class” and “rank,” as well as sex and gender, are concepts
we struggle with a great deal in Pacific Studies, especially
as
folks try to understand the lives of contemporary Island
peoples enmeshed in modern global capitalism, with its
seemingly-
mandatory component of the emergence of new elites and new
forms of poverty. In pre-western-contact Hawai’i, both
rank and sex were infused with notions of power, but their
imbrication was distinctly Polynesian, not western, in
design.
The life of one very special ali’i nui wahine (high
chiefess), Keopuolani, who came from Maui, demonstrates
this.
Keopuolani was the youngest of a group of sisters who were
understood to be the most sacred humans who had ever
been
born. This came about in part because Hawaiians were such
great mathematicians, historians and genealogists. They
loved numbers, counting, family gossip, tracking anything
over time and, most of all, their gods, from whom the ali’i
were
directly and historically descended. Keopuolani, for
instance, could trace her ancestry back either 24 or 17
generations,
depending on whose politically-motivated tale of
genealogical descent one accepted, at which point (and this
*was* the
point of ali’i genealogies) one would find a major god. One
of the things that made Keopuolani so sacred was that
her
family tree, because of judicious and generations-long
controlled mating programs among the highest ranks of the
ali’i
class, wound up with two major gods, one each male and
female, at the beginning of the line.
Further, among a very restricted group of specific members
of the ali’i class (which in itself only
averaged 1% to 1.5% of the total population), a very
specific and sacred type of mating
occurred. Among all human cultural groups world-wide, this
type of mating is extremely rare
but not unknown, and where it is sanctioned, it is most
often linked to notions of embodied
god-hood, as it was in ancient Hawai’i and ancient Egypt.
But unlike most of the other (very
few) groups who practice this type of mating, Hawaiians also
grounded it in a very practical,
experiential and near-scientific understanding of human
genetics that relied on something that
comes pretty damn close to modern understandings of DNA
(including the idea of a helix-
weave-like genetic structure). However, this understanding
of genetics operated within a
cultural context of Hawaiian religion, metaphysics and
myth.
In this system, ali’i were understood to be *literally* (not
just metaphorically or metaphysically)
directly descended from the bodies of the major gods, who
often came to earth and mated with
humans. They came sometimes in the form of a person (male
or female), an animal (gods as
sacred pigs or sharks is a common motif) or as forces of
nature such as wind, a ray of light or
a rainbow. (BTW, although there were only 4 main male gods
in the State-religion pantheon,
there are more than 600,000 named gods in Hawaiian folk
religion, split pretty evenly between
male & female, among whom more than two hundred continue to
have an active presence in
modern Hawaiian dance, chant, song, etc.) Because ali’i
literally carried within their “genetic
codes” the attributes of gods, matings between them were
seen as increasing the
concentration of god-qualities, especially in two areas:
one’s ability to intercede with the gods
on behalf of humans, and one’s mana (inherent spiritual
power), which, like any talent or set of
muscles, had to be well-exercised to be effective but could
be used to affect nature (by
controlling fecundity, regeneration and the weather). The
price of such concentrated god-
power was that eventually, after too many generations, if
the offspring acted in “weak” or
arrogant or non-sacred ways, if they didn’t use their power
to protect the people, the gods
would withdraw their support from that lineage and their
future offspring would be born
deformed.
Given how Hawaiians understood the idea of “gods,” as well
as nature, sex and regeneration,
it is not at all surprising that the highest form of gods’-
sanctioned human mating was the
mating of ali’i full siblings to produce an even more
concentrated, gods-full child, who would be
born a “true” god, an embodied Akua. Such matings, called
incest in English, are called
Ni’aupi’o in Hawaiian and were the most sacred of all
possible human matings. This type of
joining was, in fact, so sacred that it was absolutely kapu
(forbidden) for any but those at the
absolute top of the sacred ali’i lineages, although it was
generally required of them; such
matings were, even in the act, highly ritualized and bounded
by protocol, especially until a first
child was produced; and breaking this kapu was a crime for
which commoners could be put to
death without benefit of pu’uhonua (sanctuary) or ritual
cleansing -- although this was not
because Hawaiians thought such incestuous sex was “immoral,”
but because it was too
“dangerous” on a spiritual level. Ni’aupi’o matings could
also occur between high-ranked ali’i
half-siblings, first cousins, uncle/niece or aunt/nephew,
although these were calculated as
producing mathematically lesser degrees of sacredness in the
offspring. And after the birth of
a first child, female ali’i involved in Ni’aupi’o matings
could have as many other sexual partners
(of either sex, as could male ali’i) as they wanted. It was
generally considered polite for male
ali’i involved in Ni’aupi’o matings to not have other sexual
partners until their sister had given
birth to their first child, although they were not formally
restricted in this way as the female ali’i
were.
Keopuolani and her sisters were the products of at least
four generations of Ni’aupi’o matings
and her parents were sacred full siblings who were
themselves the children of sacred half-
siblings. Further, she was related through at least twelve
different cross-ancestor matings to
every major ali’i lineage, and was the daughter, niece,
aunt, cousin and grand-daughter of the
group of ruling chiefs of Maui Island during the battles
between them and Kamehameha at the
end of the 18thC that eventually led to the unification of
the entire island chain into one
political unit (“the nation”). The fact that she and her
sisters were born perfectly normal and
healthy was proof of the gods’ continuing favor, and
confirmed the sacredness of their line.
As part of his strategy of unification, Kamehameha (who was
also ali’i and the product of
sacred matings, but nowhere near as sacred as Keopuolani and
her sisters), offered to stop
attacking Maui if he could have the sisters as wives. This
was a culturally-accepted way to
peacefully incorporate their Maui Island lineage -- and the
control over land and resources that
came with it -- into his own lineage and political power
base. He was a first cousin, second
cousin and uncle of the girls, and was as tightly linked by
lineage to his Maui male opponents,
their father, grandfather and uncles, but he himself came
from what had previously been
considered a “secondary” line. Producing children with the
sacred sisters, combined with his
military conquests that had already proved the gods favored
him, would cement his lineage as
primary among *all* the ali’i lineages. Further, it would
only be children of such matings who
would have an undisputed claim to his power after his death.
However, Keopuolani’s older
sisters committed ritual suicide rather than mate with a
person of such low, secondary, lineage
- great conqueror or not. (HA!! They were actually telling
him through their suicides that he
was “beneath” them – and I thought I couldn’t pull a BtVS
reference out of this post!!!!) But
Keopuolani, about 17 years old at this time, agreed to marry
the conqueror, who was nearly 30
years her senior and already had about 15 wives and 25
consorts, in order to save the lives of
her Maui commoner people, who were being slaughtered in the
battles because they had few
western weapons with which to fight back, and for whom she
felt an enormous responsibility.
She was so sacred, however, that the greatest leader the
Hawaiian people had ever produced,
the man who unified the islands and brought his people into
the modern world, her husband
the great warrior (who stood nearly 7 feet tall, BTW) and
was old enough to be her father, had
to enter her presence on his knees, backwards and naked. He
had to crawl backwards to her
and be formally and ritually received by her in order to
even see her face, much less touch her,
without being instantly killed by her guards. In spite of
this, and in spite of their age difference
and the circumstances of their marriage, they were, by *all*
accounts, including Keopuolani’s
narrated autobiography, quite comfortable with each other
and content with their arrangement.
Their companionability grew over the years and they often
sought each other out for counsel,
comfort and friendship. She was never his favorite wife -
he preferred her fiery, beautiful,
younger first cousin, Ka’ahumanu, who would argue with him
in public and of whom he was so
jealous that he once killed one of her (many!) other lovers
in a fit of rage. Keopuolani,
however, was his most important political asset. She became
pregnant many times, but only
brought three of their children to term, two sons, who each
grew up to inherit their father’s
throne in turn, as well as one daughter. (The story of the
missionaries’ interference with the
marriage of this daughter, Nahi’enaena, to her second
brother, Kauikeaouli, with whom she
was deeply in love (they were only about 2 years apart in
age and had been raised to be each
other’s literal “soul-mate”), is among the most tragic of
all 19thC Hawaiian stories. She died, “of
a broken heart” as it says in the chants and poems, soon
after her only child by her
brother/husband was born so deformed that the missionaries
drowned him in the ocean in
front of her as she watched and wailed.)
I think it is often hard for westerners to imagine the ways
in which power, sex and the sacred
can have been so culturally-constructed that the most
powerful man in a kingdom, its “absolute
ruler, “ must crawl on his knees naked and backwards into
the presence of his young wife,
herself “merely” a trophy of war, and get her permission to
turn around and see her. But this
was not only these two humans’ reality, from it they
fashioned not only a political alliance, but a
friendship, a working marriage, and a family whose love for
each other was legendary.
At Kamehameha’s death in 1819, as his most sacred wife,
Keopuolani led the seven days and
nights of traditional “women’s wailing” that accompanied the
passing of a high chief. Within
the traditions, a true mourner would also gash out their
front teeth with a lava rock and cut off
all their hair to express their grief. Not all of his wives
and consorts, much less his children or
his life-long friends and counselors, did this, nor were
they expected to. It’s a very personal
expression of grief, culturally-bounded and ritualized, but
not required. But Keopuolani and
her most favorite second-husband both smashed out all their
front teeth, top and bottom, tore
their clothes and hacked off their hair. It is said that
Keopuolani wailed with such a fervency of
grief over losing her first-husband/friend that she came
near to death herself. Her favorite
husband, whose expression of his own grief left him nearly
unable to speak thereafter because
of the damage he had done to his mouth, was a man who had
grown to be one of
Kamehameha’s closest political advisors, and who had been
appointed by the high chief to be
governor of O’ahu Island, the most prestigious of all
bureaucratic posts at the time (and still to
this day). But it was not his political ties to Kamehameha
that led him to such a state of grief
over his chief’s death. Instead, it was because, as a
youth, he been one of Kamehameha’s
“‘aikane nui ku’uipo,” a group of extremely handsome and
intelligent young men who served
the ali’i nui sexually, as well as prepared his food,
cleaned his clothes and did other very
personal “body-service” for the chief (the Royal “page” is
the closest equivalent in English,
although we don’t usually “notice” the sexual service
component of their job..). It was his true
love for his chief that caused him to create a painful
perpetual silence for himself after
Kamehameha’s death.
Keopuolani’s touch did, indeed, heal a kingdom and save an
island’s people from the horrors
of war. She did her sacred duty, and being a well-brought-
up Hawaiian woman, found
pleasure and joy in it, and through it made a life and a
family all her own. Her one regret, she
supposedly said near the end of her life, was that she had
never been out in the sunshine.
This is very shocking to many westerners who hear her story.
Never been out in the
sunshine?? In Hawai’i, the tropical paradise of modern
concrete-and-steel-bound urban
people’s dreams?? But she was SO sacred, and times were so
unsettled, that she could not
guarantee that the commoners would be safe if they came near
her. She could not guarantee
that some poor maka’ainana (commoner), driven to madness by
the haole’s (white’s) rum or
the death of his whole family from one of their diseases,
would not unknowingly mis-read the
markers of her sacredness and come too close, perhaps to
cast his shadow on her sacred self
and be killed by her guards, themselves pushed to their
limits in the new white-man’s world,
before she could stop them. So concerned for the welfare of
her people was this very human
woman that she chose to live almost her entire life indoors
or, while traveling between
locations, inside a covered conveyance, rather than risking
a poor, unsuspecting commoner’s
death. She loved the stars (she was an amateur astronomer
and had a highly- prized early
“eye-glass” telescope near her when she died) and often went
out at night, but she never
swam in Hawai’i’s ocean at dawn, or played with her children
on a beach at noon, or watched
the sunset in her lover’s arms. It seems, though, that she
died content after a long and full life,
a late convert to Congregationalist Protestantism after the
collapse of the system that had
made her sacred. Her last words, recorded by her Boston-
born pastor, were an appeal to her
new god to accept her into his heavenly home.
I sincerely hope she got what she prayed for. And I wail,
long and deep, horrified, terrible cries
of grief and fear, for what will happen to her story when
The Rock and Sony Pictures and
Hollywood in general make their millions, as is now being
planned, off the story of her
husband, the great chief who humbled himself before a young
wife in order to stop a war and
who, with her, went on to build a nation. Auwe!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Mahalo redcat. -- Deeva, 22:26:05 07/31/02
Wed
Don't worry about the length of the post. On this board
your's is pretty much medium-sized. Thanks vary much for
posting this thread, I did miss this the first time around
and will go searching for it. I'm sure that it will be as
enjoyable and as provocative as this was.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
But you never sent me email -- Vickie,
17:07:34 07/31/02 Wed
You promised to share some good references on it (non-
touristy), but never sent me anything. (snif!)
Maybe now? Please?
[>
Is a thread asking for no more W/T threads itself a W/T
thread? -- Sophist, 12:14:11 07/30/02 Tue
I'm not very good with words, but I think this is a
paradox.
Confused as ever.
[> [>
"To fight a W/T thread, you have to *become* a W/T
thread." -- Rambo, erm, mundus, 12:59:42
07/30/02 Tue
[> [> [>
ROFLMAO! -- Rob, 13:16:18 07/30/02 Tue
[> [> [>
Anyone see the advertisements for the Rambo DVD
collection? -- Dedalus, 14:38:53 07/30/02 Tue
It's pretty funny ...
"Rambo - just when we need him most."
I assume they mean because of the war on terror ... despite
the fact that he's fighting for the Taliban in Rambo
III.
They did some great editing. Recall that line in First Blood
Part II ... okay, even more OT but why is Rambo III not
First Blood Part III?! It makes no sense. Anyway, the line
in Rambo where he says about his country "Hey ... I'd die
for it." Well, they put that into the DVD trailer, only this
time, they're advertising the collection, and they're saying
how wonderful it is and it's got all kind of extras and
everything, and then they quickly cut to a war-torn Rambo
saying "Hey ... I'd die for it."
:-)
[> [> [> [>
Re: Anyone see the advertisements for the Rambo DVD
collection? -- mundusmundi, 15:12:43 07/30/02 Tue
I assume they mean because of the war on terror ...
despite the fact that he's fighting for the Taliban in Rambo
III.
ROFL! I'd forgetten that.
okay, even more OT but why is Rambo III not First Blood
Part III?!
Hmmm, shouldn't it Third Blood: This Time It's
Impersonal!? I'm only disappointed Rambo never got to
meet Rocky as planned. Two Slys for the price of one --
surely the universe would have been ripped from its
vortex.
My favorite Rambo review is courtesy of Pauline Kael.
At the end of it she mentions that the book version of the
movie (which she apparently read, mwahaha) included an
advertisement -- "a love letter to Rambo's weaponry," she
wrote -- that urged you to order your favorite crossbow,
hand grenade, serrated blade, etc. "I can hardly wait for my
set to arrive," Kael deadpanned.
[> [>
So if Tara falls in the forest, and no one is around to
hear her, is that a thread? nt -- Fred the obvious
pseudonym, 12:41:19 07/31/02 Wed
NO TEXT
[>
I think we are overdue for a nice Giles post.. --
neaux, 12:23:54 07/30/02 Tue
(wishes he actually had something intelligent to post about
Giles)
[> [>
I miss Giles -- Masq, 12:42:20 07/30/02 Tue
There were many things "off" for me about season 6, and his
absence ranks up there on the list...
I mean, I guess it's necessary when we grow up to leave
behind mentors and parents, but every once in a while, you
just need your daddy. : )
[> [> [>
I was the happiest camper in the world...("Two To
Go" spoiler) -- Rob, 12:45:47 07/30/02 Tue
...when Giles showed up at the end of "Two to Go." It gave
me the chills! And I hope that he is in a lot more of the
seventh season. He really was sorely missed this year.
Rob
[> [> [> [>
Well, they say that is contracted for more eps. --
Deeva, 12:54:46 07/30/02 Tue
Turing Test for Conscience (NOT a Spike thread) --
lulabel, 15:19:09 07/30/02 Tue
I just read a lovely fanfic by Magista at Fanfiction.net
who included in her story the idea of a "Turing Test" for
the soul. The classic Turing Test can be used as a criteria
for determining whether something, such as a computer, could
be considered "intelligent". The Turing Test basically
states that if a person holds a dialogue with two entities -
one human and one machine (say, via e-mail) and cannot
distinguish which one is the machine, then the machine can
be considered to be intelligent. Simple, yet profound.
In this fanfic, the idea was brought up in the context of
Spike's soul. If he acts in a way which is
indistinguishable from what a souled person would do, then
could it be assumed that he does have a "soul" of some sort?
This is a major can of worms, and there has been plenty of
discussion already about Spike. As viewers we have gotten
a lot of mixed messages about what a "soul" constitutes in
the Buffyverse- so I will take the coward's way and instead
see if we can apply the Turing Test to the idea of
"conscience".
For Angel, a soul has been equated with having a conscience,
which gives him the capacity to recognize his wrongdoings
and subsequently to feel remorse and guilt. For the sake of
this particular argument, I will say that the capacity for
compassion and empathy are complementary aspects to remorse
and guilt, and are therefore indicators of a conscience .
(This comes from dredging through my memory of Psychology
101 where the inability to feel remorse goes hand-in-hand
with a lack of empathy. I apologize if I'm making up
stuff)
So, lets say our Turing Test for Conscience can be satisfied
if an individual displays the capacity for remorse, guilt,
compassion and/or empathy. If one or more of these
characteristics is in evidence, then that individual has a
conscience to some degree.
I won't belabor the obvious - the ones who do have a
conscience - the original Scoobies, Angel and the AI team
have all clearly demonstrated one or more of the necessary
traits. The other end of the spectrum is also pretty easy
- Glory is resplendent in her lack of any trace of
conscience, as is Angelus. Some of the other Big Bads are
a little less absolute - the Master, vintage Spike,
Drusilla, Darla, even Warren - because they demonstrate a
capacity for love, however sick or twisted. I would argue
however, that those loves are essentially selfish, and do
not meet the necessary criteria for conscience. The loved
one is an extension of the self, etc. I would also dump
Lilah in this category - she cares for her mom, but it's
essentially a selfish love, the way that children love.
Now on to the juicy part - the gray areas. I can't decide
where to put the Mayor (I really loved that guy) because of
his devotion to Faith. One could argue that his love for
Faith was not a selfish love, but a giving, nurturing,
paternal love. This one has got me stumped. Spike's
affection for Dawn falls in this same category.
And how do we evaluate the ones who have switched teams? We
have Holtz who starts off as a righteous man, but who
becomes so consumed with vengeance that his remorselessness
knows no bounds - he sacrifices everything and everyone in
its pursuit. However, despite his relentless, implacable
pursuit of vengeance, he is still ultimately a righteous
man. It would be very difficult to argue, I believe, that
Holtz lacks conscience. So here we see the Turing Test is
inadequate to the task. Faith also presents problems -
prior to her dramatic fight and breakdown with Angel , she
generally does not exhibit behavior which would satisfy our
test. However one could extrapolate that much of her
dysfunction stemmed from a troubled conscience - her
outward, willful remorselessness was a cover for her own
self-loathing and internal remorse.
And last but certainly not least is the ultimate switch
hitter - Anya/Anyanka. (well, technically Angel/Angel beats
her in the number of switches). I would say that the Turing
Test is put through its paces here. If I were to evaluate
the human Anya's capacity for remorse, guilt, empathy and
compassion prior to Hell's Bells, I'd have to rate her
somewhere below Jonathan, and nominally higher than
Andrew. She never expresses remorse for her thousand years
of demonic mayhem. She has only a rudimentary grasp of
empathy and compassion. In both respects, she is very
childlike. To counter this, she is clearly not a bad
person, and generally treats people with kindness, if not
with tact. Most people would agree that Anya is a better
person than Jonathan, despite his clearly greater capacity
for remorse, and possibly a greater capacity for compassion
(there's not much to go by in either case). So again, we
have a breakdown in the Turing Test.
That being said, Anya really pulls out the stops after she
reclaims her demon heritage and becomes one with her pain.
Her turning point seems to be the mutual misery/comfort
session with Spike - his willingness to share her pain seems
to allow her to do the same. She demonstrates more remorse
and compassion in the final days of Season 6 than in her
entire previous human existence (circa Sunnydale) She has
left behind her childish ways.
So, does it work? There are clearly problems with this
particular Turing Test, but perhaps it can be tweaked to
better evaluate those lovely, murky gray areas.
[>
Or, to put it philosophically ... -- Caesar
Augustus, 16:54:02 07/30/02 Tue
The Turing Test is an extensional test - we judge by
actions, interactions with the outside world, etc.
("extensions") rather than actually analysing any internal
workings.
It should be noted that the Turing Test is not necessarily a
perfect test for computer intelligence. It is, of course, in
its inventor's mind (Alan Turing). I am in fact, a
supporter, but it should be pointed out that many people
have argued against it ...
[> [>
The Turing test is only a positive test -- skeeve,
07:40:47 07/31/02 Wed
In other words, if the test says that something is
intelligent, then it is intelligent, but if the test does
not say that something is intelligent, then we simply don't
know. Of ET, Kendra, and Buffy, at least two would probably
fail the Turing test.
What Was Your First Buffy Experience? -- Finn Mac
Cool, 20:51:43 07/30/02 Tue
What was the first episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer you
watched? Why did you watch it? Was it love at first sight?
What did people say when you told them you watched a show
with the word "Buffy" in its title?
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? -- Rob,
21:10:07 07/30/02 Tue
My first "Buffy" episode was "Ted." I honestly can remember
why I decided to watch it...but I haven't miss an episode
since (except Doppelgangland, which I missed by accident
TWICE...long, sad story! finally saw it on F/X...don't
worry!), and caught up all on the ones I missed during that
summer, when WB reran the first season at one night of the
week, and the second on another. Can't remember which night
for which.
But anyway, I was hooked on "Buffy" from the moment Xander
and Willow were discussing whether the Captain or Tenielle
called the shots.
So I've been a fan for about 5 rich and rewarding years now.
And, no, I was never ashamed to watch a show called "Buffy."
Rob
[>
My First Buffy Ep -- Finn Mac Cool,
21:16:24 07/30/02 Tue
The first episode of BtVS I saw was an FX rerun of
"Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered".
I was really just curious about what this show was like
(watching a few episodes of some show called "Clueless" was
enough to make me avoid television about blonde teenagers
like the plague for a while).
Upon laughing myself silly over Xander and the love spell
gone wrong, I knew I HAD to see more of this show. This was
three or four months ago, and since then I have caught up on
everyone's favorite vampire slayer through online episode
summaries and FX reruns. I've seen pretty much every
episode, except for two (Bad Eggs and Beer Bad), of which
I've only seen a few minutes each.
When I told people I watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer, their
reaction was pretty much, "Oh, okay", wait for that topic to
end, then move on to something else.
The first episode of Season 6 I saw was "As You Were".
Because I was unfamiliar with the arc story, and was just
getting started with Buffy, it didn't strike me as boring as
when I tried to rewatch it.
Anyone else?
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? --
Robert, 21:19:44 07/30/02 Tue
>> "What was the first episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer
you watched?"
I have watched BtVS from the very beginning of the
series.
>> "Why did you watch it? Was it love at first sight?"
I have always enjoyed the competent portrayal of strong
women (such as Ripley in "Alien" and Sarah Conner in
"Terminator". Before BtVS, this did not happen very often on
TV. Zena was interesting, but that show tended to go over
the top. And yes ... BtVS was love at first sight!
>> "What did people say when you told them you watched a
show with the word "Buffy" in its title?"
Usually I experience silence with a look of extreme
incredulity and, maybe, a little fear.
[> [>
*flashes back to horrifying memory of humiliation*
-- AngelVSAngelus, 22:52:01 07/30/02 Tue
My first episode of Buffy was THE first episode, and I
became initially hooked simply by the relationship of its
core cast (being Xander, Giles, Willow, and the Buffster),
and the heroics of the gang in the face of demonized
tribulations of growing up. At first the humor, and then in
the second season the tragedy was the catalyst for my love
of the series.
As for people's reactions... well lets just say that many
didn't want to listen to my diatribe about allegory and
symbolism. They didn't see past the title character's name
and shunned me. Not that I wasn't used to it. I was already
the bitter, quasi-goth comic book kid before the show's
conception.
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? --
parakeet, 21:54:57 07/30/02 Tue
Well, I'd seen the movie and wasn't too impressed. I was in
the room when the first episode aired, but only really
focused in on the last couple minutes (Giles' "we have to be
on our guard" speech), which confirmed my low expectations.
It wasn't until the reruns leading up to the third season
that I really gave the show a chance. I'd read too many
smart reviews not to. I think the hyena pack episode (in
reruns, as I said) was the first I actually payed attention
to; while it wasn't perfect, it was smart and funny. I've
watched it obsessively ever since.
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? -- Cactus
Watcher, 05:41:15 07/31/02 Wed
I'd seen the trailers for the movie and thought it was a
clever concept. But, I didn't bother seeing the movie then.
When the ads for the series started a few years later, I was
curious enough, I thought it was worth a couple of hours to
check out the first ep. I was surprised by the quality of
the writing, and how well the budget had been used to
produce an atmosphere, and how comfortable the actors were
in their parts from the very beginning. It was very much a
show I wanted to keep watching. After a few months the
movie came on TV. After watching it, I thought, "What was
that dreck?" If I'd seen the movie first I probably never
would have watched an episode of TV series. After all these
years of watching the series I can see some of the sparks of
Joss' talent in the movie, but they are buried pretty deep.
I wonder how many people either saw the movie first or heard
about it second-hand and decided the TV show was going to be
the same sort of campy, for-teens-only mess and haven't seen
a single episode because of it?
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? --
Arethusa, 05:53:48 07/31/02 Wed
I had watched the movie because of Rutger Hauer, and wasn't
impressed. So my first experience was "Earshot," because our
free-with-cable-subscription TV Guide said this episode was
especially good. I watched it, and was immediately hooked.
The way Cordelia said *exactly* what was on her mind.
Xander getting distracted from hunting a murderer by Jello.
The honest, all-too-familiar pain Jonathan was experiencing.
Most of all, Buffy's speech about how everyone, from the
beautiful to the obscure, was in pain and insecure.
What was the response when I told people? Deafening
silence, except for my husband, who looked at me sadly and
said, "You read Jane Austen. Now you're watching this?"
[> [>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? -- John
Burwood, 12:52:11 07/31/02 Wed
You could try mentioning that there is one life member of
the Jane Austen Society who has attended AGMs at Chawton -
namely me - who is also a Buffy addict - and that I am a
Buffy addict for the identical reason that I love Jane
Austen. The characterisation - depth, quality, depiction,
and interaction is as good on Buffy as in Jane Austen.
It took me a while to realize it, I concede. I first watched
WttH on its BBC debut, was immediately hooked by characters
of Buffy & Willow & decided to keep watching but it took
until Nightmares before it truly sunk in that I was not just
watching a good show but the best I had ever seen on TV - or
on any screen.
As to other people's reactions - I've never really talked
about anything I do, watch, or think - too much the weird
outsider all my life, perhaps, so can't really contribute
much in that respect.
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? --
MaeveRigan, 06:01:02 07/31/02 Wed
My first Buffy experience ever was the movie. I thought the
whole concept was hysterical! Loved Peewee Herman! Rutger
Hauer hamming it up outrageously. The 90210 boyfriend
acting like he was probably too good for this wacky movie,
but what the heck. Donald Sutherland taking his Watcher
duties oh-so-seriously. And Kristy Swanson was fine. I had
no idea, then (how could I?) that Joss hated it.
In 1997, when I heard that there would be a TV show, of
*course* I was going to watch it, so my first experience of
BtVS on TV was WttH, which was everything I expected, and
more. The tone was less campy, the touch lighter, the
darkness deeper. Clearly the mission had changed somewhat.
Obviously, there would be humor, but no hams, and no Peewee
Hermans--at least, not if Joss had anything to say about it,
and this time, he did.
[> [>
Clarification -- MaeveRigan, 06:11:28 07/31/02
Wed
When I say that WttH was "everything I expected" I don't
mean that I expected it to be just like the movie, or that
it *was* just like the movie--obviously, it wasn't. I
expected it to have some of the same irreverent humor--it
did. I expected it to be offbeat, not the usual TV show--it
was. I expected it to have an unusual heroine--it did.
What is people's reaction when I tell them I watch this
show? Laughter. Confusion. And occasionally, a sheepish
confession, "You too? I love it, but I'm embarrassed to tell
anyone!"
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? -- Purple
Tulip, 06:06:40 07/31/02 Wed
I'm a relatively new fan---my first episode was the musical.
My friends and I were walking to dinner the night of the
musical, me never having seen a single episode before as I
didn't have the WB or UPN until I got to college, plus I
thought that the show would be cheesy judging by the movie.
But one of my friends is the biggest Buffy fan around, and
she had been looking forward to the musical for a year, so
that night she was ecstatic and wouldn't stop talking about
it all the way to dinner. So I decided to give it a shot
and about ten of us crammed in a little tiny dorm room and
watched. I was familiar with the characters (most of them
anyway- didn't know who Anya and Spike were)and I had known
about the whole Buffy-Angel thing from reading magazines and
stuff. But I tried to watch with an open mind. I really
liked Spike right off and was really impressed by the whole
cast. But I was still embarrassed about having watched it
for some reason. But the next night I came back from work
and my roommate had FX on and was watching "Ted", I think,
and I sat down and watched, and from there it was all down
hill (but in a good way :)) I found myself catching up on
Buffy every night, not wanting to go anywhere between 6 and
8 so as not to miss any of the old episodes- I bought Buffy
tapes off of Ebay, searched all sorts of Buffy sites- read
fanfic like it was my job- and eventually ended up here. So
now I am a very proud Buffy fan who's not ashamed to admit
it to anyone- I even converted my siser who was a non-
watcher and now loves the show. That's my story:)
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? -- Majin
Gojira, 07:11:48 07/31/02 Wed
Well, At first I only caught snibits of episodes:
Part of the Mosaleum scene in "Welcome to the Hellmouth"
From where Xander punches out the clown to the Ending of
"Nightmares"
The O So Dramatic ending/climax of "Becoming Part 2" (Where
I pointed at the screen and said in full Nelson Muntz
Persona: "Haw! Haw!")
Then, I caught the ending of "Graduation Day Part 1"
And...did the same thing when Faith Screwed up Buffy's Plan.
The First Full episode I watched was "Graduation Day Part
2"
I didn't begin watching normally until the middle of the 4th
season, and I've been watching Ever Since.
So, It really wasn't Love at First Site...it was "Huh,
That's cool", but I never followed it up.
When I told people I watched, they would say... "Oh". not
mutch else.
Majin Gojira
------------
"What a Horrible Adventure with that Ham Demon"
[> [>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? --
Cheryl, 08:37:00 07/31/02 Wed
I can't for the life of me remember the first episode I
actually saw, but caught an episode on FX last fall when
channel surfing. I stopped to watch it mainly because of all
the buzz I heard last year about the episode where Joyce
died (The Body?). I was hooked from the get-go and starting
watching FX every night and season 6 right away, although it
was already a few episodes into the season.
OMWF may have been the first first-run episode I saw - hard
for me to remember because I have since seen every single
episode of the series and have Seasons 1 & 2 on DVD, along
with the OMWF soundtrack and original unaired pilot episode
(obsessive compulsive much?). Thank goodness I didn't see
the movie first because I don't think I ever would have
tried watching the series.
As for how others react when I tell them . . . well, being a
Star Trek fan, friends and family are pretty used to my
obsessions. Mostly I think they just humor me - BUT, all my
Buffy talk actually got my mom to watch an episode, which is
really saying something (she's 62). She doesn't get it, but
at least she was willing to give it a chance. And I did
find a couple of coworkers who are Buffy & Angel fans (one
named her puppy Willow )and an old Trek friend came to
visit early in the season and I learned she was a big fan
and she caught me up on the story arcs before I was able to
see all the episodes, so that helped a lot. And then I
found all of you, which just enriches the whole experience.
:-)
Cheryl
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? --
Rahael, 11:13:18 07/31/02 Wed
Buffy first started airing in Britain when I was away at
University. When I came back for vacation, my sister said,
“Oh, there’s this great programme you’d really like”. I
tuned half way into “Halloween”. Quite confusing really,
because they were all in costume and I spent about 10 mins
saying “why don’t they know each other”?
However, I just watched, and all became clear. I watched it
eagerly if I was at home – at university I didn’t watch
television at all. I can remember really becoming hooked at
the Innocence/Surprise storyline. I had only become
accustomed to the high romance that was Buffy and Angel
before it all went so dark! And then, it was just complete
suspense all the way onto “Becoming”, at which point I knew
that BtVS had become one of my favourite programmes.
Of course Britain was so late in showing eps, and schedules
were always messing with my Buffy viewings. I truly became a
addict when the box sets came out and I started watching all
the eps I had missed. I think I used to sit through 5 eps at
a time easily. The only reason I didn’t watch entire seasons
in one go was because I wanted to ration the pleasure out.
I can remember getting on the internet when Season 4 was
showing in Britain. I became a complete spoiler trollop, as
my internet access at work allowed me to read the board for
the first time, get involved in all the discussions, catch
up on Season 5 etc.
I’m pretty egotistical about my tastes – if I like something
a lot, it pretty much means it’s good in my view. I wasn’t
about to let people who read Jackie Collins and watched
Hollyoaks sneer at me. If people looked disbelieving, I’d
just shrug and say “your loss!” If I had access to Buffy at
University, no doubt my addiction would have found some way
slip it into tutorials. My sister did use Buffy in one of
her exam papers though – she got a first for it!
It is funny how being off line affected my viewing though –
I hardly noticed David Boreanaz’s looks until late into
Season 3, when I got a Season 1 box set, and I thought
“hmmmm….suppose he is rather striking”. And didn’t notice
Spike until I got online. He was just a bit part character,
and I used to fast forward through a whole lot of
Spike/Drusilla scenes. (ha! Sacrilege!!)
[> [>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? --
aliera, 11:46:37 07/31/02 Wed
Wonder if that makes a difference...I was innocent of
spoilers until last year. Actually, started reading the
wildfeed while waiting on cable (yes, I live in a major city
and didn't have cable, my 14yr son still makes fun of this).
Of course, once aware, it's hard to go back. I've thought
about it though for this year. I'd like to see again how it
all feels when I don't know what's going to happen...will
see how well I do once something really substantial starts
happening!
[> [> [>
I'm curious to know what next year will be like --
Rahael, 16:02:21 07/31/02 Wed
I'll have another season to compare being online to.
Will I stay spoiler free? Absolutely no chance! Means I
don't have a chance of discussing things on the board for
months and months!
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? --
shadowkat, 12:27:53 07/31/02 Wed
I started watching when it first premiered in 1997. I
watched because of ASH who had been on VR 5 which was
cancelled the previous year. I read he was doing Buffy. I'd
seen the movie - which I didn't like. So wasn't expecting
much.
I remember thinking - oh this is okay. Nothing special. Wish
ASH wasn't so under-used. It wasn't until The Pack that I
thought, okay I guess I'll watch this regularly, but nothing
worth rushing home for. I missed a few here and there that
first year. Nightmares blew me away. And I thought the Angel
character was somewhat interesting. But other than that,
nothing special.
Then Season 2 came and Angel became Angelus. I became
briefly obsessed with Angelus and Buffy. This was
interesting and dark and unexpected. Wasn't really into
Spike at the time. I loved the threesome though, really
cool. And I was on the edge of my seat waiting to see if
they'd turn him. Hadn't discovered spoilers yet. But had
discovered a website that gave previews and discussed, went
nuts for a while, lost interest in Season 6. The whole thing
got old fast and outside of Faith, nothing really involved
me. Except Dopplegangland and the whole Faith turning evil
stretch - that hit me as rather interesting and twisty -
hooked on that and hunted spoilers briefly regarding it.
Then came Season 4 and they surprised me. They didn't just
repeat themselves. And did some really interesting
things.
But I didn't go back online and I missed several
episodes.
Wasn't my number one show.
Season 5 got me more hooked. I actually did race home for
that season. I also taped when I was out, but I didn't keep
the tapes. I went online to ACIN to find spoilers and was
spoiled for Intervention and The Gift.
It wasn't until OMWF that I started watching reruns and
keeping my tapes. It wasn't until Smashed/Wrecked that I
went online and found the spoiler boards and went wacky.
Season 6 turned me into a Buffy fanatic.
My friends and family think I'm nuts but in a good way.
Their eyes glaze over when I discuss it with them. They
don't watch it and don't understand what I can possibly see
in it. I had to go online to find anyone to discuss it with
me.
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? --
redcat, 12:30:56 07/31/02 Wed
For me, my obsession with Buffy is wrapped in bits
of bittersweet pain and fondly-returned-to memories of joy.
You have
to understand that I had never owned a television nor lived
in a household that had one until September of 2000. (I
do
remember a group of us in one of my hippie-veggie-communal
abodes borrowing one to watch the 1980 election results.
It was a big deal - we made popcorn and drank fresh mango
juice. I went to bed early -- 4am comes soon no matter
where one lives -- convinced that the newscasters were
lying, that Americans couldn’t all be THAT illusionary. What
a
rude awakening ‘twas there...) Although a fair portion of
my academic work has involved political-cultural analyses
of
media productions, primarily film and social-activist
documentary video, I don’t believe I had never actually
watched an
entire episode of any television show until I was 45. (I
also didn’t grow up with TV as a kid, but for very different
reasons
than my distance from pop culture as an adult.)
In mid-2000, though, I spent a few summer weeks with my
sister, who had been a committed Buffy fan since day one,
ep
one. She had always raved to me about the series but she
also watched sit-coms and turned off MacNeil-Lehrer in
favor
of Wheel of Fortune. I was arrogant and not persuaded.
Then, one day while she was at work, I actually watched a
few
eps from the middle of season 3 that she had on tape. That
night was a rerun of Primeval. I was hooked. Big time.
I
went home and bought a small (11" portable) TV with a built-
in VCR and started watching and taping like crazy.
The following year, Season Five, my sister began the long
and painful process of dying from spinal cancer. I was
incredibly
graced and fortunate to be able to spend the last few months
of her life being her primary care-giver in home hospice.
We
watched Buffy together religiously that winter. Some nights
she didn’t have the strength left to watch Angel; other
times,
the meds would kick in and we would stay up and talk for a
few hours about the characters and their journeys. I think
she
got as much pleasure out of watching the show as she did
from the fact that she had finally turned me on to
something
from her world, something I really, really liked and had
become (completely independently of her own interest in
the
show) deeply hooked on. It made her giggle to see me
discussing the Tarot symbolism or yelping, “Yes! They got
the
color right!”
She just liked Buffy.
She died a few weeks before Joyce did, but I knew that was
coming in both cases. I couldn’t watch The Body until
much,
much later, and still have only seen it once - the only ep
for which that’s true. But as difficult as that time was
for both of
us, I will never forget the simple joys of those Tuesday
nights, of Buffy and the Scoobies, of Glory’s skanky lop-
sided ass
(she was my sister’s favorite!), of our laughter and our
tears. And I will try always to remember that the ability
to be
entertained -- and thus to forget, for just a few minutes,
that every journey comes to an end – is a priceless gift,
one much
like life itself. As much as I sometimes disagree with the
choices JW or ME make, I will always be grateful to them
for
those hours. I think artists rarely know, and can never
predict, the impact their work can have on members of
their
audience. Life, like art, is a subjective experience. I’m
glad my sister and I got to enjoy so many piece of both
while we
were still together.
[> [>
That was beautiful redcat -- ponygirl, 12:52:26
07/31/02 Wed
Thank you for the reminder that art and life are wonderful
gifts. It gave me a little wake up call in the midst of a
day I was going to just let slide by.
[> [>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? --
Caroline, 12:53:45 07/31/02 Wed
redcat, thank you so much for sharing your experience with
us. I understand how you fell. My husband died suddenly
several years ago before he even reached the age of thirty
and when I watch the Body I am stunned and gratified and
hurt and overjoyed by the depiction of loss and pain and
mourning in this episode and subsequent ones. It continues
to have a great impact on me whenever I see it.
[> [>
A lovely post. -- Rahael, 15:27:50 07/31/02
Wed
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? -- Leeta,
12:44:45 07/31/02 Wed
What was the first episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer
you watched? Why did you watch it?
I saw "Welcome to the Hellmouth" when it first aired. I
think I was sick that night, stuck at home with nothing else
to watch. I sure didn't seek it out. I'd seen the Kristy
Swanson/Luke Perry movie and hated it, so I watched the TV
adaptation fully expecting a ridiculous suckfest that I
could mock and deride ala Joel and his 'bots.
Was it love at first sight?
As soon as sweet-virginal-schoolgirl Darla vamped out and
ate the boy, I knew the show was a lot cooler than I thought
it would be. I enjoyed the show, but I was only an
occasional viewer until "Prophecy Girl." After I saw that,
I was totally hooked and counted the days for the second
season premiere.
What did people say when you told them you watched a
show with the word "Buffy" in its title?
It's a battle convincing people it's a worthwhile show. I'd
try explaining the appeal, and non-converts would roll their
eyes in that "I only watch West Wing" kinda snobby way.
They seemed more put off by the high school setting than the
fantasy element, and called it "90210 with fangs."
My best friend held out for six years until I bought the
first season DVDs and FORCED her to watch them. Now she
literally begs me to let her come over and watch the second
season DVDs, and is trying to convince her husband to spring
for cable TV so she can catch the FX reruns. She's
determined to watch all six seasons so she'll know what
happens once the new season premieres.
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? --
matching mole, 13:46:23 07/31/02 Wed
Literally - my first Buffy experience was seeing an ad for
the movie (not yet released at the time) on the side of a
bus in Chicago. I thought it sounded like a pretty cool
idea - but discovered when I actually saw the movie that, as
is so often the case, the cool idea became less cool when
turned into a movie. Not that I hated it, it just lacked
any sort of satirical subtlety or cleverness.
I started watching WttH because I was home by myself and
kind of bored. My wife and our houseguest came home just
over half way through so I didn't see the end of it. I
watched about half of the first run of the first season on
an opportunistic basis. My wife got hooked a few episodes
after I did and we had seen all the first season eps by the
end of the summer reruns (except for Never Kill a Boy on the
First Date which we never saw until the show went into non-
cable syndication last year). Season 2 blew us away. BtVS
went from being a show that we enjoyed and watched regularly
to the number one priority on our viewing list.
My wife is much more prone to attempt to convert the
uninitiated to BtVS than I am. Her major successes include
one of her grad students (and indirectly the student's
husband) and one of her collaborators. A good friend of
mine is a Buffy fan (many of my more heretical views have
been influenced by him) but he began watching the show
completely independently (however I persuaded him to watch
AtS). My brother and sister-in-law don't watch the show but
they have good friends who do (I made up Buffy quiz
questions for them to use at a party). My sister-in-law
says that she enjoys hearing people describe the show to her
more than she would ever enjoy watching it.
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? --
meritaten, 13:47:00 07/31/02 Wed
I wasn't an instant convert. I didn't see past the name,
and didn't watch it until the third season. My cousin loves
the show and was constantly talking about it. She convinced
me to watch WttH and tH when they were rerun. I liked them,
but I didn't fall instantly in love with the show. I
watched too much TV already, and had class on the night
Buffy was on. I later watched another episode at the
beginning of season 3. My reaction was much the same.
However, the humor was starting to get to me. ...and after
a couple of episodes (which I saw when class was canceled),
I began to see how complex the characters were. Soon, I
started taping them. By the end of season 3, I was hooked.
Fortunately, my cousin helped me follow the story despite
the epsiodes I'd missed.
When I admitted watching Buffy, people seemed surprised.
However, I am also a Trekkie, so they have learned to ignore
my taste in TV. However, as I returned to grad school, I
learned that a number of my new classmates were Buffy
addicts. Some still run if the show comes up in
conversation, but others are as addicted as I. One friend
has watched it several times this year, but can't get into
it as she doesn't know enough of the background story - and
she's rather watch other shows on at the same time.
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? -- yffub,
13:53:27 07/31/02 Wed
I can remember vividly when I saw my first episode of BtVS.
It was when I got my new cable modem internet connection.
Also, it was during the time those kids known as the
Trenchcoat Mafia shot up a school. Remember that?
During Season 3, the episode entitled "Earshot" was delayed
in airing on the WB because it dealt with mass murder at a
high school by a student of that high school.
Anyway, while surfing the web with my new speedy cable
connection, I had noticed that someone had posted the entire
"forbidden" episode on the Web. Mind you, that the episode
had not been aird yet and noone knew when it would be. I
thought to myself "Why not? With my increased bandwidth it
would take less then an hour to download the entire
episode.
Needless to say I saw the episode and I was hooked!! The
camaraderie (sp?) between Buffy, Zander, and Willow had me
hooked from the get go. I quickly caught up with the series
as fast as I could.
Wild story, huh? If these events had not occured at the
right time and place I may never have become a true FAN of
BtVS?
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? --
ravenhair.....hope everyone is enjoying their summer!,
14:18:33 07/31/02 Wed
My first Buffy experience was 3 or 4 years ago when I
visited my parents' home. My father was watching Buffy and
I, for shame, teased him. My little sister complained that
Dad had to have the "big TV" for Buffy and dragged me into
her bedroom to watch Dawson's Creek (ugh!).
The first episode of Buffy I saw was a rerun of The Puppet
Show. I thought it was cute but wasn't inspired to catch up
on all the reruns or the current season.
My first real interest in BtVS was while channel surfing and
I caught S5's Checkpoint. I loved Buffy's reaction to
finding out Glory was a god and was curious to see how a god
would be portrayed on this quirky show. Enjoyed the
remainder of S5 and watched sporadically during the
summer.
I discovered the internet fan base during S6 and my eyes
were opened to the wonderful metaphors the show presents. I
caught up on all the reruns on FX and have been a Buffy
fanatic since.
People's reaction? My dad is extremely amused! I don't shout
my Buffy love from the rooftops and I don't know anyone else
who watches the show. My husband was surprised when I
started watching because of all the times I teased my dad,
but he enjoys the show as well. However, he groaned when I
told him we needed to set some time aside on Sundays for
Angel in addition to Sopranos/6FtUnder. Our house is
currently on the market and I would be curious to see
people's reactions to my Buffy wall calendar hanging proudly
over my desk. :)
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? --
(Ju)Lia [I like brackets me], 18:38:07 07/31/02 Wed
Hey, guess this is as good a place to post my first message
(well okay, I did barge in on a couple of threads and then
waltz off last summer so not really) as any.
Longish ramblingish story, cos it wasn't love at first sight
at all.
Okay, so I saw the start of the one with Invisible Marcy and
thought Buffy looked like a clever show, and it was
interesting to see a sassy female character instead of the
twelve year old boy from the future I'd been expecting
(Don't ask, I don't know, a medium sized boy in a backwards
hat just seemed to fit the name...).
I checked out a couple of second season eps, but it still
seemed like ordinary melodramatic high school stuff to me
(though I liked that Buffy's social circle was more like
mine [few friends, but the friends she did have were true
ones at least]than that of most TV teens)and I wanted my
vampires to be, like, Dru-esque (it was just bad luck that I
didn't find out about her til I was catching up).
Didn't watch any of series 3. Did really like the look of
Spike on an ad for Lover's Walk (ooh! It's that ad with the
guy with the white hair! He's taking the piss out of people!
Drop everything!).
I count "Beer Bad" as my first ever Buffy 'cos that's when I
fell for Buffy and decided to watch it every every week. I
don't know exactly what it was, I think it was a mixture of
the real life bits (I wanted to be in college!), still being
into make-believe and that the episode showed me for the
first time how the two are weaved together on Buffy. Plus,
the fact that the storyline wasn't too complicated in that
episode let me get to knwo the characters and made me feel
less behind than when I'd watched Buffy before.
I almost cried when I discovered that my roomates last year
were Buffy freaks too (I found Buffy people! Hurrah!) How
obsessed I let people know I am just depends on how
comfortable I feel with them, I don't bother to get into
huge debates with unbelievers (sometimes), I find that
ignoring them and just doing my own thing leads to passive
Buffy watching, which leads to actual Buffy watching, which
leads to weeping at the end of Becoming Part II etc.
[>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? --
Sarand, 18:56:29 07/31/02 Wed
I caught the movie on TV one day last fall and thought it
was kind of cute. I somehow realized that there was a TV
show based on the movie and I haphazardly watched a few
episodes on FX until I went away for a week or so. Upon my
return, I saw the end of "Dead Man's Party" and even though
I was upset at how badly everyone was treating Buffy I
religiously watched the rest of Season 3 and was hooked. I
think my first full episode of Season 6 was OMWF and of
course I loved that. I'm still annoyed that I didn't tape
it that night. A couple of weeks later, after watching the
end of Season 3 of Buffy, I realized that there was this
other show called Angel so I decided to watch that. My
first episode was "Lullaby" and I was completely blown away.
From then on, I could hardly wait for Monday to come so I
could watch Angel and then for Tuesday to come to watch
Buffy. Wednesdays were the saddest day of the week for
me.
I started going online to learn more about the shows and
discovered this site back in May. Since I don't know anyone
else who watches the shows and my references to Buffy are
met with odd silences, I've been delighted to find others
here who share my new obsession. Either I'm really not
crazy or I have lots of company.
I've been contemplating getting my feet wet on this board
for a while now. Thanks for the opportunity.
[> [>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? -- Dee,
01:42:20 08/01/02 Thu
I watched from the first episode on. I had seen the movie,
thought Paul Ruebens was a hoot, so I decided to follow the
series. I was hooked from the first few minutes. I
remember it so clearly- I had just had my son, and was
always nursing when Buffy came on TV those first few weeks!
People STILL laugh when I tell them it is my favorite show
(or was, before it decended into trashy soft porn. Really-
how many acenes of people having sex do we need to see? And
I think I've seen more than enough of Spike, if you know
what I mean).
[> [>
Re: What Was Your First Buffy Experience? -- Dee,
01:42:37 08/01/02 Thu
I watched from the first episode on. I had seen the movie,
thought Paul Ruebens was a hoot, so I decided to follow the
series. I was hooked from the first few minutes. I
remember it so clearly- I had just had my son, and was
always nursing when Buffy came on TV those first few weeks!
People STILL laugh when I tell them it is my favorite show
(or was, before it decended into trashy soft porn. Really-
how many scenes of people having sex do we need to see? And
I think I've seen more than enough of Spike, if you know
what I mean).
Question ALL assumptions. -- Drizzt, 21:35:46
07/30/02 Tue
[>
Why? -- yabyumpan, 22:38:20 07/30/02 Tue
[> [>
Why not? -- Marie, 01:17:49 07/31/02 Wed
[>
Including this one? -- Deconstructionist,
08:22:29 07/31/02 Wed
[>
So are you assuming that we've come to an
assumption? -- Deeva, 08:29:21 07/31/02 Wed
[>
Is answering a question with a question really an
answer? -- Arethusa, 09:06:40 07/31/02 Wed
[> [>
It's a redirection. -- Deeva, 09:47:36 07/31/02
Wed
[>
Are you talkin' to us? Are YOU... -- Darby (I'm
assuming from my ID, anyway...), 09:22:11 07/31/02
Wed
[>
So...are you trying to imply that the Earth ISN'T
flat?!? Heretic! -- Rob, 09:38:39 07/31/02 Wed
[> [>
Are you saying we're not balanced on the back of a
turtle?! -- Arethusa, 11:01:54 07/31/02 Wed
[> [> [>
Wait...Do you mean the elephant stopped doing that?
-- Rob, 11:36:09 07/31/02 Wed
[>
If I didn't, would that make you an ass out of me?
-- Caroline, 11:32:53 07/31/02 Wed
[> [>
Nothing is ever quite that simple! -- John Burwood,
13:13:34 07/31/02 Wed
Blood -- Purple Tulip, 06:28:44 07/31/02 Wed
Ok, I had a thought this morning as I was getting ready for
work: can vampires feed off each other? Because, honestly,
if they could then two vamps like Dru and Spike could have
just fed off each other for centuries, recycling whatever
blood they had between them, and wouldn't need to kill
anyone else for blood. ~OR~ Do vampires only have blood
inside of them BECAUSE they feed off others? When we die,
what does happen to our blood? Does it just dry up? Are we
somehow drained of it? So if we don't have any blood in us
when we are dead and burried, then how can a vampire bleed
when hit or cut? And how can a vampire have sex when blood
is extremely important for that as well?
Ok, that's my random thought for the day---anyone got any
insight for me???
[>
Okay, I'll bite. -- Arethusa, 06:49:26 07/31/02
Wed
Vampires bite and drain the blood of people to sustain their
bodies. They won't be dead without it, but they evidently
can't fully use the human body they inhabit without fresh
supplies of blood. Since their hearts don't beat, the means
of circulating the blood must be mystical. Since their
blood does circulate, they bleed and can have sex. Blood
sustains vampires, Spike said. It mades them warm, alive,
hard. I imagine Dru and Spike could feed off each other-I
always assumed vampires fed during sex, probably from
watching "Forever Knight." But that blood would be old,
tired.
I've read that when we die our blood seeps to the lowest
part of our body, and stays there until drained. That's all
I know.
[> [>
Prevention of Cranial Explosion -- Darby,
08:22:58 07/31/02 Wed
Try not to think too much about it. I like your suggestion
that blood circulates magically - a non-beating heart could
still be critical to the system. It doesn't make them warm,
though - room temp, after the blood they take in cools.
Maybe that heat's part of the rush. But most of the
Buffyverse particulars on vamp physiology make no real
biological sense, so you pretty much need magic as a motive
force. Heck, do you know how much nutrient-poor blood you'r
have to consume to really keep a super-strong vampire
metabolism running without magic? There's a reason why itty-
bitty vampire bats prey on cattle (not that they drain them
dry, but still...). Sunnydale would have been emptied long
ago.
Basically, they have to bleed because it's critical to
turning someone and dramatic when injuries occur. Just like
they don't breathe so Xander has to save Buffy in
Prophecy Girl, although the rest of the time they're
breathing (and smoking, and being choked) except when a
writer notices they're not supposed to or specifically needs
them not to.
[> [> [>
But back to the discussion of the impossible... --
KKC, 08:33:16
07/31/02 Wed
The possibility that Purple Tulip suggests is that of blood
as a catalyst; that is, the blood is only needed to make
something happen, and it's not used up or otherwise
consumed. If this were true, then it would be the act of
draining blood that sustained a vampire and not the blood
itself. All the evidence in the show points to blood being a
reageant, rather than a catalyst... It's consumed, it's
digested, and presumably excreted, but let's not go there.
:)
Anne Rice (shoot me for mentioning her) has an interesting
take on the purpose of draining blood. In addition to all
the usual 'blood is life' rhetoric, her work suggests that
vampires need blood because they have no other fluids
sustaining their bodies. So when a vampire cries, you don't
get tears but blood instead. If a vampire must perspire,
then blood seeps from the skin rather than sweat. And now
that leads to another unpleasant topic that makes me want to
quit while I'm ahead.
-KKC, who's darn sure he misspelled 'reageant' up
there...
[> [> [> [>
Can I just say..........eewwwwww!! And LOL. --
Sophist, 08:54:35 07/31/02 Wed
[> [> [> [>
Hey, don't knock Anne Rice... -- Rob, 09:07:54
07/31/02 Wed
...She's one of my favorite authors, and the reason I
started getting interested in vampire mythology in the first
place.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Hey, don't knock Anne Rice... -- KKC,
14:20:19 07/31/02 Wed
Not knocking Anne Rice at all... But I always got the
impression that Rice fans and Buffy fans didn't overlap
much, sometimes to the point of the two groups being
antagonistic. Maybe I'm mistaken.
The Whedon and Rice takes on vampires couldn't be more
different. Rice's vampires retain their individuality and
remain morally responsible for their actions before and
after undeath. Whedon's disembodied demons posessing a
corpse are a widely divergent take on the myth. Others have
been better at describing the post-modern artistic
sensibilities of Buffy than I could ever be, so I'll leave
it at that.
-KKC, who wonders if Angel will also be lighter and funnier
next season...
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Hey, don't knock Anne Rice... -- Rob,
21:07:05 07/31/02 Wed
Anne Rice and Buffyverse totally different? Where do ya
think Angel got so darn broody from? ;o)
I understand what you mean. Yeah, they are two very
different mythologies, for the most part--although with the
greying of the Buffyverse rules, they have gotten closer to
each other in some respects, regarding the being a demon
doesn't necessarily mean your evil idea. (In Rice, of
course, they aren't even demons.)--Even so, vamps are vamps.
I actually started watching "Buffy" after having recently
finished reading "The Vampire Chronicles." I had never been
that into vampires or horror books in general before reading
that, but once I was done, I had a voracious appetite for
more vamp stories...and thus I decided to give "Buffy" a
try. To start off with, I admit, I was a bit taken aback by
the difference with the vamps. In Anne Rice's world, vamps
aren't even CAPABLE of being conscious during the day. When
the sun rises, some metaphysical whoozwatzitz knocks the
vamp out cold until morning. Also, they all sleep in
coffins, and a lot of other stuff. Her vamps certainly can't
have sex.
Although at first I favored Rice's interpretation, I have
leaned, over the years, more to the Whedonverse. But I'm
still a fan of Anne's and read all her new releases when
they come out.
Oh, I hope I didn't come off as belligerent when I posted
it. I didn't mean to yell at you. But the way you wrote
implied that one cannot be a Buffy and Anne Rice fan (and
from your reply, it seems like you believed that)...so I'm
just setting the record straight. ;o)
Rob
[> [> [> [>
What about their eyeballs and mouths? -- VampRiley,
09:30:38 07/31/02 Wed
I don't really know much about Anne Rice vamps, but if they
have no other fluids in their bodies, how can they keep
their eyeballs and mouths from becoming dry? Do they take
the water from the blood to help keep them moist?
VR
[> [> [>
Re: Prevention of Cranial Explosion-LOL --
Arethusa, 08:56:16 07/31/02 Wed
I like the idea of a "high" on warm blood. I guess vampires
can force breath in and out if they want to smoke. Perhaps
choking shuts off the flow of blood to the brain? Feeble,
but otherwise we just have to accept ME is fallible. If
Wedon is our god, did I just commit heresy? Do they still
burn at the stake?
[> [> [> [>
Spike did it to Dru. -- VR, 09:24:24 07/31/02
Wed
He wrapped his arm around Dru's neck in Becoming, pt. 2 and
she fell unconscious. He cut off her blood circulation to
her brain.
[> [> [> [> [>
And Angel couldn't do it to Darla. -- Arethusa,
09:35:47 07/31/02 Wed
In "Offspring," Angel chokes Darla, and she reminds him, "I
don't breathe, you idiot! You can't strangle me!" In
Lullaby, Darla said, "I. Don't. Breathe!" when Wesley tried
to teach her Lamaze breathing.
quote by psyche
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Vampires and Breathing -- Finn Mac Cool,
11:07:19 07/31/02 Wed
First, I think we can ignore when we see vampires breathing.
The actors need to breathe, so this can be chalked up to a
technical failure.
Second, when Spike "choked" Drusilla, maybe he was damaging
her spinal cord, which would cause her to go limp until her
vampire healing powers took care of it.
Third, vampires can breathe (see smoking or talking), though
they don't need to and often don't. Why couldn't Angel have
made himself breathe to perform CPR on Buffy in Prophecy
Girl? Well, who knows what a vampire's lungs do to air.
Maybe passing through undead flesh robs it of oxygen.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Vampires and Breathing -- LittleBit,
11:27:28 07/31/02 Wed
Third, vampires can breathe (see smoking or talking),
though they don't need to and often don't. Why couldn't
Angel have made himself breathe to perform CPR on Buffy in
Prophecy Girl? Well, who knows what a vampire's lungs do to
air. Maybe passing through undead flesh robs it of
oxygen.
Well, considering that air passing through live flesh
(lungs) robs it of oxygen, that really wouldn't be a
consideration. I simply thought that Angel wasn't able to
breathe with the the force necessary to inflate Buffy's
lungs, which is a critical function if CPR is to be
effective.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Vampires and Breathing -- Finn Mac Cool,
14:09:05 07/31/02 Wed
Actually, passing through lungs robs the air of half its
oxygen. It is still usable for breathing, though not the
best. But who knows what affect weirdo, vampire physiology
might have on it?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Read in an interview once with Joss... -- VR,
15:50:23 07/31/02 Wed
Where he said Angel couldn't give CPR to Buffy 'cause what
Angel breathed out after taking a breath couldn't make trees
grow. Damn him for not elaborating any further.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
seems like joss & science don't mix -- anom,
21:28:48 07/31/02 Wed
"...he said Angel couldn't give CPR to Buffy 'cause what
Angel breathed out after taking a breath couldn't make trees
grow."
Kinda like what Giles said about the medical & the mystical.
@>) This just makes no sense. What's in human breath that
makes trees grow is carbon dioxide. What makes CPR work is
the oxygen still left in human breath (apparently we use it
really inefficiently--in the CPR course I took, the
instructor said what we breathe out has >70% of the oxygen
that's in the air we breathe in (maybe even more--it was
years ago & I don't remember all that well, but it was a lot
more than I thought it'd be).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Vampires and Breathing -- Maroon Lagoon,
22:25:07 07/31/02 Wed
"...maybe he was damaging her spinal cord."
That line gets my LOL for the day. Isn't love sweet?
[>
Magic seems the best bet.. -- AurraSing,
09:20:12 07/31/02 Wed
When we die and are embalmed,all the blood is suctioned out
of the body and replaced with embalming fluid,which is the
most sure-fire way next to ultra cool temps to avoid gaseous
bloating and the putrid smell of decay...if Jewish you are
buried within a day of death (ideally) and with all body
parts (including blood) intact.
Now since I don't believe everyone in Sunnydale belongs to
the Jewish faith,I would say they are embalmed,in which case
magic is needed to turn the rather toxic fluid into
something life-enabling but it does explain why vamps emerge
from the grave both famished *and* stupid-that stuff cannot
be too good for brain cells! The longer you stay alive and
the more blood you drink,the stronger and smarter you
become.
Blood is needed for the "life-force" within,since a vamp's
blood would be old and stale without it. Thus one vamp
biting another would do them little good-the "life-force"
cannot be within their corrupt blood cells for very long
past a feeding. As for sex,it must be magic too,since
without a beating heart (not to mention some testosterone)
sex should be impossible for male vampires.
[> [>
"It's not physics, it's metaphysics!" --Joss
Whedon -- Masq, 12:08:47 07/31/02 Wed
Words to always live by when you're trying to figure out how
something on the shows is scientifically possible.
[> [> [>
Then there is the Magic Clause- - Rufus CDCW --
Rufus, 03:10:54 08/01/02 Thu
La la la la la.......science schmience, who needs it when we
have a trusty Magic Clause.....:):):):):):):)
[> [>
blood vs. formaldehyde -- purplegrrl, 13:06:37
07/31/02 Wed
I was watching a show on the History Channel the other week
about cemetaries and funeral practices (see what an
obsession with vampires does to you!). One of the funeral
directors they interviewed said that embalming was a choice
before burial, but did not mention any particular religious
motivation. Not everyone who is buried has been
embalmed.
So it's entirely possible that a goodly number of people in
Sunnydale are not embalmed (considering they live on a
Hellmouth, they may want to get the dead into the ground as
soon as possible). Therefore, at least some vamps don't
need to replace the formaldehyde in their systems with
blood. They're just drinking blood 'cause that's the thing
they do.
(The original reason people thought vampires drank blood was
that recently buried corpses would appear to be bloated with
blood (actually bloat from the decay process) -- although
why they were digging up the recently dead is beyond me! It
would also appear that the hair and fingernails on these
"vampires" had grown -- when it was actually in the case of
fingernails just the skin pulling away from the nails during
decay.)
But how the blood circulates in a body with a nonbeating
heart is definately supernatural, either metaphysics or
magic. Not even Bram Stoker, the father of the
"traditional" vampire answered that question.
[> [> [>
Re: blood vs. formaldehyde -- leslie,
13:44:05 07/31/02 Wed
"The original reason people thought vampires drank blood was
that recently buried corpses would appear to be bloated with
blood (actually bloat from the decay process) -- although
why they were digging up the recently dead is beyond me! It
would also appear that the hair and fingernails on these
"vampires" had grown -- when it was actually in the case of
fingernails just the skin pulling away from the nails during
decay."
See Paul Barber's _Vampires, Burial, and Death_. Usually
they were digging them up because there was a spate of
unexpected deaths and the best explanation that people could
come up with was that one of the recently dead was not quite
so dead after all, so they would dig him or her up to give
the coup-de-grace (staking, decapitation, etc.).
Ineresting side note--one of the earliest extant vampire
legends is recorded by Walter Map in the 12th century; it
concerns a knight who came back to Wales from the Crusades,
and his "vampirism" is a nasty disease he picked up in those
heathen climes. BUT! In the locals' attempts to finally kill
him, simple decapitation of the corpse doesn't work--they
cut his head off at the neck and people keep dying. The
"vampire" is not conclusively offed until they actually
split the skull. Now, this story is being told in Wales, a
culture that has a tradition of "talking heads," (most
famously the demigod Bendigeidfran, "Bran the Blessed," who
not only was a giant, but whose head stayed alive after it
was cut off when he was wounded in battle, kept talking for
80 years, and finally was buried at the site of the Tower of
London, where it warded off invasion of Britain until King
Arthur dug it up because he didn't want competetition as the
defender of the island--the ravens that live at the Tower to
this day are mythically connected with Bran, whose name
means "raven" or "crow"... but I digress....) Um, anyway,
Wales, talking heads--in a culture in which cutting
someone's (magical) head off only serves to make the head
*more* potent, decapitating a vampire would be worse than
leaving the head alone; significantly, in medieval Welsh
Arthurian romances (which were being composed around the
same time that Map was writing this story), the way you kill
a supernatural opponent in battle is to deliver a blow that
splits open the skull so that the brains can be seen (there
is a standard description of this that comes up again and
again, naming all the layers that are cut through in the
blow).
[> [> [> [>
Facinating! Thanks! -- redcat, 13:56:22
07/31/02 Wed
[> [> [> [>
unburying the dead -- purplegrrl, 15:19:46
07/31/02 Wed
Actually, having read a lot of vampire lore I understand why
people dug up the dead in the past. But still,
eewwwww!!
But I hadn't heard the Welsh lore. Thanks for the info!
[> [> [> [> [>
social construction of vampires -- leslie,
15:25:52 07/31/02 Wed
I've always thought that Welsh story was interesting in
terms of people wondering whether, for instance, crosses and
holy water would drive off a Jewish or Hindu vampire--it
leads me to believe the answer would be "no"!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: social construction of vampires -- aliera,
17:48:14 07/31/02 Wed
Via Google...this was a quick search, any corrections are
appreciated...
The remedy for Greek (the oldest written reference to
vampires?), Hindu and Chinese vampires seems to be
cremation. It doesn't seem to be a link to the sun since at
least the Greek vampires could move about during the day.
The Jewish reference was difficult to find. Much more recent
and appearing to come from proximity to other cultures that
already had tales of vampires. Their vampire seems to be a
weaker creature that could be restrained and prevented from
drinking blood which would kill them. There is a caution to
fill their mouths with earth after death and to not feed
them bread and salt. Also to not include their names in
prayers for healing.
In spite of Count Dracula, the most common vampires seem to
be female and the most common victims to be children. Again,
many references to sexuality and of course Lilith. Wonder
where the staking solution came from? Also interesting that
the tales are so old and cropped up in so many different
cultures. The christian symbolism seems to have come in much
later? From the church or a particular writer? Perhaps a
writer or writers, since the symbols don't crop up in tales
of other monsters?
Answers always seem to lead to more questions. :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: social construction of vampires -- shadowkat,
18:56:01 07/31/02 Wed
I read on one site that Lilith and Cain were considered the
parents of vampires. And in the poem Beowulf are mentioned
by name as creating the monsters. The site, can't remember
where off hand, went on to mention how Cain and Lilith were
mentioned in apocrypathal text of the Old Testment but that
this text was lost. Not sure if this is true or more
internet legend.
But I find some of the legends on vampirism I've read
interesting. The Lilith/Cain is the Judeo-Christian one.
In the Celtic One - you have the idea of destroying the
brain which makes sense - since the Celts believed the
source of power, in fact our soul, resided in the head or
brain. And often this was the only armor they wore.
In the Lilith/Cain = they gain their power from the Dead Sea
or red of the sea...the blood of the earth. When they have
sex = vampires are born of their union.
Then we have the medical explanation I've read = where
people were considered Vampires because they were anemic or
had an allergy to sunlight. In ancient times the need for
blood transfusions and allergy to sunlight was considered
evil. Sometimes a simple health ailment turned you into a
monster.
The beheading theme comes up again in the story of Vlad the
Impaler known as Dracula - he placed his victims heads on
pikes.
Let's see still scanning the old brain for more on this
theme...ah, the idea of blood as a life source - very
ritualistic. Some cultures believe drinking the blood of the
dead or eating the dead makes them live on in you. You grab
their power and extend your life by theirs. Wish I could
remember the precise location of this myth. The problem with
my memory is I remember the story but not the source or
where it was located...makes it very frustrating.
;-) This is why I did not go on in academia...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Chinese vampires -- TRM, 23:59:05 07/31/02
Wed
My knowledge of Chinese vampires comes only from
questionable stories and various relatively modern movies,
so is probably inaccurate, but I thought I'd throw in what I
(might) know.
The Chinese interaction with the dead is largely played off
on the Taoist side of things, with Taoist priests (a
conundrum I've never understood since Taoism is a philosophy
and not a religion). While they are called vampires, they
are more akin to zombies. As far as I know, the only
resemblences are that they are dead and may harm people. In
fact, Chinese vampires are notably lacking in fluids which
explains why they are stiff (as a corpse). They can't bend
their knees so they hop about as best they can -- it's not
really threatening sounding if they didn't happen to be
undead.
Folklore tends to indicate that the color yellow restricts
the undead (this includes, for example, dead spirits) and so
yellow pieces of paper (generally with some sort of
inscription) are often used to immobilize vampires. Tall
thresholds help keep these horribly arthritic cadavers from
entering most households.
In fact, vampires aren't a completely bad thing. A
combination of Taoist priests and yellow pieces of paper
were supposed to help move a corpse that died far away to
home in order for it to be properly buried/cremated.
And aliera is correct in that cremation is used to prevent
the dead from rising (often as a precaution).
I remember watching a movie with a Chinese/Western vampire
that switched back and forth between the two... I think they
killed it with a cross wrapped in yellow paper...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: social construction of vampires -- KKC, 02:04:40
08/01/02 Thu
All this talk of Christian vampires, Jewish vampires,
Chinese vampires... Looking at this from a Buffyverse point
of view, would the religion or beliefs of the victim
necessarily have any bearing on the type of demon that kills
him or her? If the demon that takes over the body of a
Jewish person is still antagonistic to Christian beliefs,
then a cross should be just as effective regardless of the
original person's faith. I'm making the very generous
assumption that the complex and contradictory beliefs of all
religions are coexisting in the Buffyverse and that no one
religion can claim a monopoly on truth, justice and the
American way. :)
Of course, now we enter a very grey and screwed up area
where we can't tell where the victim ends and where the
vampire begins. But if we're assuming that the victim is
dead and isn't morally responsible for the actions of the
demon in his or her body, then it stands to reason that his
or her individual faith doesn't affect the inherent
strengths and weaknesses of the vampire. Else you'll have
vampires only wanting to attack Italian chefs in order to
have their spawn gain immunity to garlic.
-KKC, who should really get a life at this point. :)
[> [> [> [>
Re: The Welsh -- Purple Tulip, 06:36:46 08/01/02
Thu
Thanks for that interesting info! I'm very Welsh on my
Dad's side, and had no idea about those stories---very
interesting and I always like to learn something about my
heritage. I also have the Celtic background too, so I've
always been very interested in the lore surrounding that
coulture. Guess I'll have to do some research on these
topics! Thanks again :)
No Wonder Willow Was Evil -- Dedalus, 11:15:25
07/31/02 Wed
Check this out -
LandOverBaptist
Scary stuff.
[>
If only the links would work the first time ... --
Dedalus, 11:22:04 07/31/02 Wed
LandOverBaptist
[> [>
Do you suppose it's some sort of jinx? Spell?
Curse? -- aliera, 11:29:26 07/31/02 Wed
[> [>
Isn't that part of the same humor group that does
theonion.com? -- Masq, 11:42:24 07/31/02 Wed
[> [> [>
Re: ROTFWL -- BRIAN, 12:00:33 07/31/02 Wed
[> [> [>
if they are its really well done, "20 Years since
we killed a witch" -- Dochawk, 12:46:47 07/31/02
Wed
[> [> [>
I must be getting senile... -- DickBD, 13:19:49
07/31/02 Wed
It took me several sentences, maybe even paragraphs, before
I realized it was all a put on. Excellent satire. Dare I
send this to some of my very religious friends? Actually, I
think not, for the religious aren't very good sports about
this type of thing--and, truth to tell, I don't like to
upset people. Still, I recall a well-known British
freethough propagandist 50 years ago opining, "The one thing
religion can't stand against is laughter."
[> [> [>
The Onion denies responsibility. Perhaps a rogue
faction? -- mundusmundi, 13:24:32 07/31/02 Wed
[> [>
Did you guys read their review of Scooby Doo?! --
Dedalus, 12:46:25 07/31/02 Wed
Horrifying. I can't believe Sarah Michelle would be involved
with anything like that. "Is Hollywood using a Saturday
morning cartoon to bait young children into signing a
contract with Satan? The answer is yes."
Sc
oobyDoo
[> [>
Deliciously Funny -- Rahael, 15:57:32 07/31/02
Wed
[> [>
At least someone had the good sense to tell other about
how good True christin blood is -- VampRiley,
16:43:54 07/31/02 Wed
As for the bible pages being used as rolling paper, I
thought everyone knew about that? Me? I personally stay away
from them. They burn my lips like acid. Not fun. Believe
me.
Jesus jerky is a delicacy. And no one knowing that you're
eating it is half the fun.
Bladed weapons are much better than using non-bladed ones
for torture and food preparations. With projectile weaponry,
you only have a limited supply of ammo. With bladed weapons,
ammo isn't a concern.
I'm my own god. I don't follow Jesus or Satan. I follow
me.
I'm a demon and a democrat. So, that tracks.
Let me tell you something about casting spells and hexes.
Anyone can do it. But, it's those that are
intelligent who are able to pull them off successfully. So,
[blows raspberry again and again].
I have silver stuff. Just haven't had time to get around to
cleaning it. I have the silver polisher stuff. I swear.
What's wrong with black underwear or nail polish? It can
look very good on a guy.
Okay. The whole penis peircing thing I won't do, but there
are some nuts out there who will do it. Anyone tries to get
it done to me is gonna find their throat ripped out from my
teeth.
Where is Olaf, the vamped troll? Has she been visiting
nursery schools again?
LittleBite?
If you've gotten this far and haven't realized I'm joking
about this whole thing...[lowers head and shakes it from
side to side]
VR
[> [> [>
Re: Staying away from the nursery schools until the
furor dies down... -- LittleBite, 19:15:56 07/31/02
Wed
...but thanks for the raspberries!!! They were
delicious!!!!
:-D
[> [>
That was bad, I know, but I have to have my fun. --
Dedalus, 17:32:14 07/31/02 Wed
[> [> [>
Ded? You were very naughty... -- VampRiley,
18:21:54 07/31/02 Wed
...for making DickBD feel really old. Shame on you. [he
said, waging his finger at the D man. Then, he blew a
raspberry to end all raspberries]
Hahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Take that and try to build a fence now.
Hahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!
VR
[>
Can't hold a candle to the Onion. -- Maroon Lagoon,
19:00:10 07/31/02 Wed
I've never found Landoverbaptist.com very funny. It's not
offensive, just not funny. It's too mean-spirited and one-
note. With the same tired jokes over and over, it sounds
like it was written by disgruntled teenagers.
On the other hand, the Onion has some of the best religious
humor I've ever seen (not counting the Simpsons). If you've
never browsed their archives, check out headlines like:
Christ Converts to Islam.
Mormon Teen Loses Inhibitions After Third Benadryl
Jewish Elders Lift 6,000-Year Ham Ban
I also like the photo in the thermodynamics story: "I Don't
Accept Fundamental Tenets of Science and I Vote!"
http://www.theonion.com/archive/archive_religion.html
[> [>
one of my favorites was... -- anom, 22:51:41
07/31/02 Wed
...a story that ran in the Onion early this year:
Supreme Court Orders God to Break Up into Smaller Deities.
@>)
Current
board
| August 2002