July 2003 posts
A
Bum Squeeze -- Sara, who is 6 degrees of separation away from...,
14:13:30 07/12/03 Sat
Anthony Stewart Head's butt. Not bad! I mentioned that my friend
was in the interesting position of bidding on a cheap feel of
Anthony Steward Head at the Moonlight Rising Con, and won that
opportunity. Here is her tale of a grope with greatness:
Everybody has flights of fancy right? Well, one of mine
was touching Tony Head's bootylicious backside. Please
understand - it's not like I woke up one morning with
this burning desire to cop a feel from a man who was
not only a total stranger to me but is also a well
known actor, with a lovely significant other and two
daughters. Although my grip on reality may be a
little weak on occasion, on the whole I'm sane as
anyone and I honestly never expected that such a
scenario would ever become reality. But every now and
then we get to experience that delicious feeling of
being ushered through a door marked "Do not enter".
A faithful Buffy fan, I watched six full seasons
without taking any particular notice of Giles' behind,
mostly because he was rarely photographed from the
back and if he was shot with his butt to the camera it
was usually covered with some kind of jacket (Band
Candy being a rare exception). And it wasn't even in a
real episode that the fateful booty shot took place.
It was while watching "dailies" from early episodes
that I sat up and took notice. I don't know where
those daily tapes came from but I do know I've seen
them for sale at Sci-Fi conventions and on ebay. You
know - that Internet site where you can buy anything
save for souls, kidneys and virginity. So I'm watching
this tape that had mysteriously appeared in my home,
and which by the way was very interesting from a
technical point of view but does make being a
television actor look dead boring; it appears the job
involves much waiting around. At this one point they
were doing a scene in the library and it was between
takes that Tony was filmed walking around the set. He
wasn't wearing a jacket and there was a clear shot of
him from the back in a pair of trousers that were so
flattering they should be illegal. I would have to say
that was the moment that started the journey that
eventually led to the booty bid.
And then God, oops sorry I meant the folks at
Time-Warner, said 'Let there be digital cable' and I
had access to BBCAmerica and Manchild. Much to my
feminist sisters' chagrin I developed a more than
platonic affection for the characters of Manchild.
Let's be clear here - James, the character Tony plays,
is not the kind of guy you take home to mother because
odds are if your mother is a looker he'll probably
sleep with her. But James is the sort that a girl can
get in a lot of trouble with if she's smart enough not
to believe most of what he says. Despite the
choose 'em, use 'em and lose 'em attitude of the
four male leads I got hooked and had to know more
about the show. Sometimes on breaks at work I check
websites looking for info and articles about my
favorite shows. One day I went to BBC America and was
reading an interview with Tony Head when my eyes
fell on the words "full frontal". I'm sure anyone
reading this who has unexpectedly read something
titillating while surfing the net at work will
understand what that was like. Part of my job may
be keeping my agency's network up and running but at
that moment if every last server had crashed I
wouldn't have bothered to look up until I knew what
the hell full frontal had to do with TH. I was able
to get enough of a breath to thank my co-worker for
the offer of the paper bag to relieve my
hyperventilation and finish reading the article. The
final verdict was that there would not be full frontal
but there would be full backal - (well how would you
describe it?) . Not knowing exactly which episode his
posterior au natural would appear in I watched very
closely. I had expected it to be a fairly brief shot
within the context of a love scene. So wrong! That
was not how it happened and I was so surprised when
the scene came on I just could not take my eyes off
James' ass - sashaying all over Terry's apartment. A
male friend sitting beside me on my sofa asked if I
wanted him to leave room so I could be alone with it.
I have such comical friends. Sarcasm aside, besides
being an inspired use of nudity it was totally
hysterical. Terry's reaction to James' semi-public
peep show was priceless.
But it wasn't even the several minutes of ogling such
an attractive bum, sans clothing, (the bum I mean not
the ogler because I was the ogler and that would just
be weird) that was the inspiration for my dream of
groping the afore mentioned hiney. It was the contrast
between James's and Terry's bums. With all due respect
to Nigel Havers, Tony has the better bum - way better-
and for whatever reason that made me want to touch
it.
Flash forward, I'm standing in front of Tony Head at
the back of the theater; he's signing my Manchild press
kit as I try desperately to put a couple of words
together in a vain attempt to be witty and charming
appearing, if I'm lucky, minimally socially
acceptable with no hint of deep psychological
problems. Mercifully, I don't remember exactly what I
said although I do have a vague memory of hearing the
words Mr. Floppy followed by a sick feeling as I
realized I'm the one who spoke them. I know how to
make an impression - bring up erectile dysfunction
-that's guaranteed to get you remembered and possibly
a restraining order. At the same time, on stage,
Christopher Golden, guest author, and James Leary, the
actor who played Clem on Buffy are at the front of the
theater being very entertaining auctioning off Buffy
stuff to raise money for St. Jude's Children's
Hospital and despite the fact that all but four of my
brain cells had shorted out in my attempt to be witty
and charming I swore I heard jokes about Tony's bottom
being for sale. In a blessed moment of clarity I
asked him if auctioning off body parts was being
seriously considered. I don't remember his exact
response but I do recollect my answering something to
the effect that it sounded like a fine idea to me and
definitely worth bidding on. It was that or mumbling
the words "nice ass" while spittle formed at the
corner of my mouth. Thank goodness I realized the
rest of my brain cells were in danger of imploding and
simply said thank you and made my way back to my seat.
Mere moments later the announcement was made that
Tony was willing to subject himself to ten seconds of
having his bum fondled by the highest bidder. At some
point, I'm not exactly sure when, I determined that it
was going to be me. The auction started and my blood
was infused with so much adrenaline that I was capable
of no more conscious thought than "must win" as I
held up my hand and bid. Someone else bid higher, I
bid again and it rapidly turned into volley of bids
between me and Mara. Little did I know the force I
was reckoning with; The Tweedys. I believe that's
all I need to say. A woman who was one of the
auction helpers came and stood by me to help me bid.
I don't know if it was a device to keep me bidding but
if that was the case she needn't have bothered - I had
no intention of giving up this golden opportunity.
Speaking of Golden -during this insanity Chris Golden
made a comment about not being able to get a quarter
for his behind. Of course someone walked up to the
stage and handed him a quarter. I think he should
have held out for fifty cents. James and Chris were
so funny and entertaining that I almost forgot that I
was bidding real money. But as I said I was
determined and the proceeds were going to a good cause
which spawned the catch "It's for the children". Yeah
right - we were all thinking of children. And so it
went. We finally hit the figure that was my stopping
place and I got off the bidding ride. Sadly, my
determination had given way to common sense. Mara
went one more time and won the bid. Then the heavens
opened up and the angels sang - Tony was willing to
let both Mara and me have a go for our highest bids.
Why I got to go first I'm not sure but I did. I was
called up to front and it during the walk up to the
stage when all my brain cells came back online at once
and I realized what I was about to do and just how
much money I had spent for the privilege. Thoughts
were rushing through my head at the speed of light.
Or maybe that was actually light passing through my
head - I'm not sure. So there I am at the front and
Tony comes running up the aisle and gracefully leaps
on to the stage. I could have gotten up there without
using the side stairs but there was no way I was going
to allow my derriere to be photographed from that
angle while I flopped like a newly caught fish on the
edge of the stage. My athletic ability - not so much.
Demurely I ascended the stairs and waited for
instruction. I'd never done this before - I had very
little idea how to proceed - well no idea how to
proceed without getting myself ejected from the con.
Earlier, during the auction Christopher Golden uttered
one of best lines of the day. The bidding was getting
pricey and he looked out at us and bluntly said, "You
do know, don't you, that you don't get to have sex
with him for that?" Please - sex had nothing to do
with it. Okay, I'm lying. Sex had everything to do
with it but even in my agitated state I knew that this
was strictly a clothed, hands on buttocks area only
proposition. That's the irony of the whole thing is -
on the surface it's hugely funny because a bum
squeeze sounds like a sexual gesture. In reality
there are many different kinds of bum squeezes, many
of which are not sexy at all - just bold; there's the
grabbing someone's bum lightly when they're going up
the stairs ahead of you - often done to speed up
children who are stalling at bedtime, there's the
possibly romantic but mostly just friendly hand on one
cheek bum squeeze as if to say - "How ya doing?" ,
there's the more romantic two handed bum squeeze done
while hugging - very flirtatious and usually means sex
is on, yeah. I've been privy to all of these but
never to one involving rules about keeping the hands
on the bum area proper as well as having to do it in
front of an audience armed with cameras. In fact the
only time I can recall ever spending a full ten
seconds on anyone's bum when it was not a reciprocal
situation involved making sure the ointment covered
the whole rash on my godson's tush. Don't get me
wrong - I would do it all over again in a heartbeat
but it's not like playing Seven Minutes in Heaven.
So, there I am on stage with Tony trying to ascertain
how exactly I'm going to feel his bum respectfully but
in an entertaining way. Yes, that last statement does
qualify me as an idiot. I quickly realized that any
and all thoughts about his being someone's dad had to
go as well as the fleeting concern about what had
passed through his digestive tract in the past twelve
hours. The logical conclusion I came to was that he
knew what he was getting into - after all this wasn't
the first time he'd done this and I simply had to go
for it. After one false start I plunged in and placed
both my hands squarely on his denim clad bum as the
spectators started the countdown. It became rapidly
apparent that whatever exercise program he's been
doing works. There was no fat - none, this was going
to be trickier than I had thought. There was
something soft toward the very lowest part of his bum
that might have been fat or it could have been
slightly bunched up underwear. Either way it was
squeezable so I latched onto it. Then I started
thinking of girlfriends who were going to be envious
and I did little squeezes noting in my head who they
were for. They have since been informed that they
have squeezed Tony Head's bum by proxy and are
appropriately grateful. Chuffed doesn't even come
close to describing how I felt when it was over.
Afterglow is much closer to the truth. By the end of
the day everyone seemed to know who I was and didn't
hesitate to approach me and ask me how it was. I
loved it. I'd made some wonderful new friends and had
had more fun than in a long time. Unfortunately the
con ended and it was back home to cleaning the catbox
and sacking the trash. It wasn't until I was
recounting the tale of my bold gesture to a male
friend that something I hadn't thought of was
mentioned. My friend shared the fact that when he
wears jeans he doesn't wear underwear. That's when my
head exploded.
And yes - one of the gropes was in my honor!!!!
- Sara, busy writing on a placard - "We want Ripper!"
[> That was HILARIOUS, Sara!
And so intimate. One observation... -- WickedBuffy, 15:30:26
07/12/03 Sat
Ummm, your friend understands about male anatomy, right?
All the 'bits'n'pieces' ... ::koff:: ....family jewels? and so
on?
"There was something soft toward the very lowest part
of his bum that might have been fat or it could have been slightly
bunched up underwear."
I would have loved to see the video of Anthony Heads face as all
this grasping and squeezing was going on.
[> [> Re: Hmmm, Buns
of Fun, Fingers that Linger - a head rush, no doubt -- Brian,
15:39:11 07/12/03 Sat
Heck, after all, "Charity begins at home."
A fun story, Sara, and with a count down beat, no less!
[> Re: A Bum Squeeze
-- O'Cailleagh, 15:37:59 07/12/03 Sat
Wow! Well done on those...well two degrees, by my count, not six!
I do believe I can top it though...unless the degrees of separation
are made greater by time.
Not only did I see ASH (back when he was plain ol' Tony Head)
as Frank in the Rocky Horror Show in the early 90s (have to agree
on the bum, looks great in lingerie too!), but I recently discovered
that the priestess of my coven once had a brief affairette with
him, around the time of the coffee commercials (Gold Blend, not
Cutter's Choice...wait...is it Cutter's choice? 'Cos that sounds
like a brand of tobacco now...but then everything does right now!
So my point is...before the US coffee commercials!) At the time
they were both living in the Bath area (from what I recall). Bath
is a place in England BTW, for those of you who thought I was
referring to an actual bath! I'm not sure how well known it is
outside of Britain...
So, two degrees for me too?
O'Cailleagh
[> [> Tasters Choice?
and was he wearing chaps as Frank? -- WickedBuffy ::always
about 190 degrees from everything::, 16:11:53 07/12/03 Sat
[> [> [> Re: Tasters
Choice? and was he wearing chaps as Frank? -- O'Cailleagh,
16:32:52 07/12/03 Sat
Taster's Choice! Thats it...Cutter's choice *is* a tobacco...not
just my insane ramblings!
No he didn't wear chaps as Frank...I'm not sure why anyone would...I'm
probably missing some kind of crazy cultural reference there...his
costume was untraditional, but not so much as it involved cowboy
gear!
Although, now that you mention it, Tony in chaps may be the way
to go for 'Ripper'.
Yeah, Joss could make it into some kind of supernatural western!
O'Cailleagh
[> [> [> [> Well,
basically it's also just pants with no hiney & only part of the
legs are covered. -- WickedBuffy ...or did he wear thonglike
underoos?, 08:13:52 07/13/03 Sun
... just trying to get an accurate mental image here, that's all.
Simply for clarity, y'know. O:>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Well, basically it's also just pants with no hiney & only
part of the legs are covered. -- O'Cailleagh, 12:55:33
07/13/03 Sun
Um..yeah...I know what chaps are (hello, gay now), I was just
confused as to why you thought he may have worn them as Frank.
His main costume, as I remember it (it was like 12 or so years
ago), was not overly dissimilar to the costume worn by Tim Curry
in the movie. Grungier though, and more bondagey, lots of ripped
lace and stuff. And a long reddish brown wig. Try googling "Rocky
Horror Show" and "Tony Head", you may find pics.
O'Cailleagh
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Or you could just try this one..... -- O'Cailleagh,
13:17:40 07/13/03 Sun
http://www.betsyda.com/ash/items/ahrhs.html
It has articles and pics and links to other pics, all of Tony
as Frank!
Enjoy!
O'Cailleagh
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> excellent excellent thanks! didn't mean to insult
your knowledge -- WickedBuffy, 14:39:10 07/13/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> I should think not! There's not a thing I
don't know about arse-less trousers! ;-) -- O'Cailleagh (wearing
a pair now...), 14:43:20 07/13/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> LOL!!! ::trying not to get a mental
image:: -- WickedBuffy, 15:39:31 07/13/03 Sun
[> How cool...I met the
woman who met ASH's ass. Quite an honor! ;) -- Rob, 15:56:02
07/12/03 Sat
[> LOL! Tell her...I wholeheartedly
grok..the action. ;-) -- s'kat, 17:13:11 07/12/03 Sat
And when/if we get to see you all again, be sure to bring her
down again. Really enjoyed meeting her.
Your friend and I appear to have the same taste in men. I did
say, Giles was my original reason for tuning into to Btvs...also
my reason for watching Manchild - which unfortunately focuses
more on Nigel Havers. (Sigh).
Oh and yes, we want RIPPER! And please, please put Ripper on Ats...still
feeling gyyped for S7.
sk
[> [> No if's - a definite
WHEN -- Sara, looking forward to the next NYC meet, 17:34:54
07/12/03 Sat
Just please after August 9th, I'm too busy having a nervous breakdown
currently - oh my god, I still haven't cleaned the house...
- Sara, in a corner staring at the Windex, whimpering
[> [> [> Re: No if's
- a definite WHEN -- s'kat, 21:24:34 07/12/03 Sat
Understood.
Looking at the month of August...
Well, I'm free except for the week of Aug 20 - 26 (have a family
outting in PA I have to go to then. unless of course if I get
a job prior to 8/4 then I am free. Yes, my life is fun. ;-) )
[> [> [> [> I'll
be at DragonCon on August 28-Sept 1 but... -- Rob, 20:21:37
07/13/03 Sun
...would be free just about any other time.
Rob
[> Let's have an ATPoBtVS&AtS auction
& sell Poster gropes! ....er, I mean "groks" --
Wanton Kitten, 17:35:39 07/12/03 Sat
[> VERY FUNNY!!!(As I post
sections on IRC) -- LeeAnn, 22:14:26 07/12/03 Sat
[> Picking myself up off
the floor now ..LOL! -- jane, 23:16:16 07/12/03 Sat
[> Now tell me there isn't
a double standard here... -- KdS, 15:38:47 07/13/03 Sun
Why is this funny, but if you imagined a male poster and replaced
ASH's name with, say, AH's, people would be taking out restraining
orders?
[> [> A standard for
each hand? -- Darby, ducking quickly, 16:18:58 07/13/03
Sun
I could see something like this in an auction situation...maybe...I
think...well, maybe if it was Pamela Anderson's show...
[> [> [> Not quick
enough sweetie! -- Sara, coming out swinging, 17:45:39
07/13/03 Sun
[> [> Depends on the
situation, KdS -- LadyStarlight, 16:50:27 07/13/03 Sun
If it was the exact same situation (auction, suggestion, and the,
er, gropee's choice) it would still be funny.
If it was some random grope in a crowd, then, no. Not funny, male
or female.
OMWF...different
dubs in different parts of the world? -- Kenny,
15:07:27 07/12/03 Sat
The UK is a wonderful place. Lots of good beer. Roundabouts. And
Buffy on DVD through S6. Plus OMWF as a standalone. I skipped
out on getting S5 and S6, partially because I'd end up spending
twice as much as I would if I waited for the region 1 counterparts,
and partly because I want the 4:3 versions instead of widescreen
(whereas Angel I want in glorious 16:9).
I went ahead and purchased OMWF, as my Tivo crapped out on me
and took it to the great digital playground in the sky. The first
thing I noticed is that the voices sounded higher. OK, that's
to be expected in the NTSC to PAL conversion, so no big deal.
But when it got to "Rest in Peace", it sounded like
they used a different take. I just remember JM's voice doing different
things from what happened here. Is there anyone with both US and
UK versions to verify that they have two different mixes? I'm
going to have to go back and listen more closely to everything
else to try and find other discrepencies (heck, who am I kidding,
I just want to hear the pretty songs again).
Angel vs Spike
(Angel Odyssey 4.21) -- Tchaikovsky, 16:18:07 07/12/03
Sat
Hello everyone.
OK, that title wasn't entirely serious. Or maybe it was. You be
the judge. No amount of trawling through the archives will allow
you to find me prefering Angel or Spike, for personal and analytic
reasons. It was not my bag. And 'Peace Out' may explain a little
bit as to why.
4.21- 'Peace Out
There is a special providence in the fall of a sparrow.
If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will
be now; if it be not now; yet it will come. The readiness is all.
Since no man of aught he leaves know, what is ' t to leave betimes?
Let be.
Hamlet V:ii;217-222, taking ideas from Matthew's Gospel. I'm very
Gospel-y at the moment.
The abiding memory of this episode for me was the apparently powerless,
and indeed power-reduced Jasmine after she has been sapped by
the sound of her name, the word that bears all power in understanding
her, and strips away the false-ness. Now we can see exactly why
the preying-mantis type creature was worried about bandying about
names in the previous episode- the name of Jasmine makes a world-bending
difference when it is uttered. And from being entirely convinced
of the wrong she represents, I find myself in the middle of a
desperate woman, trying to explain. How Angel bit that apple that
cast the world out of paradise, and ate of the Tree of Knowledge
for everyone. In this version, the God who denies free will is
female, the encouraging serpent, (Fred), also female, and the
'weak' person who gave into temptation the male Angel. How much
better a light does this episode cast on Eve, looking at this
incident in this light? In any case, when Jasmine is released
of her power- looking instead ugly and maggot-ridden, we are given
a moment or two of sympathy for Jasmine. And it is well-acted,
and it hurts. For Jasmine did believe in her plan, and cannot
understand Angel's thoughts. Suddenly, through super charismatic
acting, we are in Jasmine's boots.
Or are we in Angel's? Or Connor's?
In this episode, Connor has such a very long speech that it is
almost obviously extraordinarily special. Such lengthy soliloquies
are usually reserved for Big Bads and Lead characters. But not
this time. For Connor finally understands about Jasmine and about
his own psyche. They were all lies. "I guess I thought this
one was better than the others." It's a painful realisation-
the final and ultimate separation from parent infallibility. This
one is even harder to bear, for Jasmine had a greater hold and
a greater purpose and a sharper understanding and less punishment,
(literally form Holtz, supposedly from Angel), then any other
live figure. Except perhaps Cordelia. Lying there, unconscious,
having given sacrifice, we have Connor confused as to whether
Cordelia gave her life willingly. Whether she had free choice.
And when we realise that it matters that she does, regardless
whether she did or not, we reach a crux point of the Season. It's
not important how much of Cordelia was in the pregnant lady from
'Apocalypse, Nowish', onwards. What matters is that her will was
no longer free- she was being manipulated by an inner force- an
outer devil- something she could not escape. And so Cordelia,
the ultimate mystery, the confused motive, the twists that launched
a thousand grasping despairing searching posts on Voy alone, is
shown to be symptomatic of the problem of the season- the randomness
and pain when free will is taken away. Here, for me, is a resolution
to Cordelia's story line of the past Season. What happens or otherwise
in 'Home' is a bonus.
So when we realise this, we realise that there's this shadow of
a thought hovering bat-like in Connor's mind. We had bats in our
bedroom this week- very exciting and scary and wonderful. We removed
them gently. How beautiful that they could find their way in here-
and that we could help them back outside, to perhaps fall like
the sparrow, or to swoop like the eagle, or perhaps to live to
compose an 80's rock ballad with the above bird imagery gruesomely
intact. Here's the Hamlet quote. There's a resignation, coming
to the idea of 'The readiness is all'. Also, an idea of fate-
but a view that we can't control it not dissimilar to Gunn's a
few episodes ago. Free will will out, and Connor learns the hardest
lesson yet. Through the torment of childhood, (Quortoth), adn
the mad adolescence, ('A New World', father issues, a sexual awakening,
reblling) he is now nearly ready to become adult- and to do this
he must kill Jasmine. He does so, the last to do so.
Connor is the adolescent finding death oddly beautiful, like Owen
in 'Never Kill a Boy on the First Date', or so many other teenager's
bleak poetry. Thus he can cope as much with Jasmine's nutritional
quirks as with the visage of maggots. He is a believer despite
appearances, and thus his loss of faith, in parallel with the
people under thrall, is Jasmine's greatest loss. This is summed
up in that final scene. The others may have turned to hate for
her, but she is still powerful. It takes the ultimate Judas, the
real believer who turns coat, to defeat her, and that's Connor.
So I've compared Connor and Angel to Judas and Eve, and I was
attempting compliments. It must be almost midnight.
Other thoughts before the punch-line:
-I could have done without the cliche not-quite-death of Wesley
at Connor's hands. I've seen it too many times before.
-"You can take away her power, but you've already lost everything"
taunts the guardian to Angel. Not true, for, as is later explained,
he is still fighting for Connor. So when he re-appears at the
Hyperion, a gaping wound around his heart, we see the pain. He's
saved the world and allowed choice, only for Connor's free wil
still to be to run away from him as a Father- to mistrsut. That
has to sting.
-'To serve man is a cookbook'. Here we go again. Isn't anyone
going to mention 'The Silver Chair'? I don't suppose that's quite
AI's general reading.
-'God is nowhere. Jasmine is the way.' A shout out to 'Miracles'
but also ironic about the real Church, with Jasmine as Christ
and some other stuff as God? Maybe too much of a stretch.
-'I just want a rest', Connor finishes, and we are reminded, in
this Catholic Church, and as Connor almost accidentally pleads
'God, give me a rest', of Spike, burning on that cross in the
incredible end to 'Beneath You'.
-And, gah! Lilah's re-entry is all Giles in 'Two to Go', as in
marvellous and smouldering and just so enigmatic. Not Wesley's
illusion, as the others saw her. I'm so excited about 'Home' I
can barely stop squealing. Minear has a lot to live up to!
So I've mentioned Spike, I've mentioned Angel, who is the better?
Well, in Idol fashion I can officially anounce my answer...
You remember I could sympathise with Jasmine, and with Angel and
with Connor? Well that's the answer. These flame wars are interesting,
because there are two different factions, and each have a point.
And all the imaginary but not real musket fire and plenty of singing
of 'Soldier, Soldier, won't you marry me?' going on in my version
at least- [another Voy attraction, make your own soundtrack].
But the fun of literature, is that we aren't living the people's
lives. We are not only in one point of view, as shadowkat has
shown beautifully time and again. So with the Angelverse and the
Buffyverse. We switch, we trade empathies, we braid like a bored
string merchant, tangling our threads together to make beauty.
It's not only crafted by the writers and actors, but by the viewers'
responses. We complete the picture and colour int he outline how
we will.
And so I'm suddenly frightened wrecked Jasmine, or confused, deflated
Connor, or heartless, trying, right Angel. Or Spike. They don't
negate each other- but even more, we don't have to choose. It's
a role play where you can be every character! Endless fun for
the price of Nike adverts. Virtual paradise- ohne free will restriction.
I don't prefer Angel or Spike. I've tried to decide personally,
just for fun, but couldn't. Both good actors, great characters.
It's not my path, any more than it is to write 'Home', to restrict
my writing to certain subjects, my wants to certain characters.
I shall write where I'm led in the dance of the tangled threads.
If the colours of my threads are reduced by missing posters, I'm
sadder- a vibrancy unique is lost. So I want to read about Spike
and Angel, but also Xander, Willow, Dawn, Buffy, Fred, Gunn, Wesley,
Anya, Giles and Lorne. And I want to read posts by lunasea, dub
and Rufus. Perhaps this is too greedy of me. But the points of
view on the board can be as varied as the points of view pf characters
on an episode of 'Angel'- as many points of view as posters, and
I want to read everyone writing what they want.
And even if I don't I can go and watch England win at cricket
again.
'Peace Out' tells us about pain, choice, free will and thus life.
It's a good episode by David Fury, but not a great one, because
the dots need joining and there are moments that are too slow.
It's not the Best Episode Ever, but it is certainly no slouch-
it holds its own in a good Season.
And just 'Home' to come.
TCH- just about on track after 'Miles to go' a few paragraphs
out there.
[> Interesting review TCH
-- s'kat, 16:50:04 07/12/03 Sat
'Peace Out' tells us about pain, choice, free will and thus
life. It's a good episode by David Fury, but not a great one,
because the dots need joining and there are moments that are too
slow. It's not the Best Episode Ever, but it is certainly no slouch-
it holds its own in a good Season.
Actually according to David Fury's interviews (and a blurb
in Official Buffy Magazine) the episode is by Fury, Deknight and
Craft and Fain. The deal is that Fury needs 8 days to write a
script - so when he's under a crunch, he
gets other writers to help out. Peace Out according to the City
of Angel's or DreamWatch interview - was a particularly tough
one - b/c he'd been working on Buffy and out of the loop. So had
to come back and catch up.
As a result - Fury did the first two acts. Deknight did the third
and part of Fourth act and Craft and Fain did the Lilah scenes
or last act.
Not sure if that makes you like Fury more or less. Made me appreciated
Deknight, Craft and Fain more.
Oh agree...I like both A and S for completely different reasons.
Sort of like I love apples and oranges. But sometimes want to
drink orange juice, yet prefer to eat the tart green apple. And
oranges make horrible pie. Yet really good sorbet. Give me orange
juice in the morning. yuck on apple juice. But give me apple pie
and crumbcake...uhm is there such a thing as orange pie and if
so? gross.
The nice thing about ME is we don't have to choose. In fact as
a friend of mine said once - for those of us in the states, what
could be better than Tom Welling/Michael Rosenblaum (Clark/LEx)
in Smallville followed by David Boreanze/James Marsters (Angel/Spike)
in Ats. Four for one deal. Cool beans.
The abiding memory of this episode for me was the apparently
powerless, and indeed power-reduced Jasmine after she has been
sapped by the sound of her name, the word that bears all power
in understanding her, and strips away the false-ness. Now we can
see exactly why the preying-mantis type creature was worried about
bandying about names in the previous episode- the name of Jasmine
makes a world-bending difference when it is uttered. And from
being entirely convinced of the wrong she represents, I find myself
in the middle of a desperate woman, trying to explain. How Angel
bit that apple that cast the world out of paradise, and ate of
the Tree of Knowledge for everyone. In this version, the God who
denies free will is female, the encouraging serpent, (Fred), also
female, and the 'weak' person who gave into temptation the male
Angel. How much better a light does this episode cast on Eve,
looking at this incident in this light? In any case, when Jasmine
is released of her power- looking instead ugly and maggot-ridden,
we are given a moment or two of sympathy for Jasmine. And it is
well-acted, and it hurts. For Jasmine did believe in her plan,
and cannot understand Angel's thoughts. Suddenly, through super
charismatic acting, we are in Jasmine's boots.
This scene is the reason, coupled with Connor's speech to Cordelia
that I loved Peace-Out so much. We do feel for Jasmine, as we
also feel for Connor and for Angel...and finally for our fab four
down at the Hyperion coming face to face with a ghost.
It's a wonderful piece of writing when we can jump so easily into
someone elses boots. Rare to see on tv.
Stephen Deknight...continues to amaze me.
because the dots need joining and there are moments that are
too slow.
Agreed. That's why it fell flat and I do think it might be a flaw
in Fury's style or just the fact that he was working two shows
at the time. Perhaps only concentrating on one next year will
help? I know where - because when I re-watch, I fastforward over
the middle fight sequence to the Connor/Cordy scenes, the scene
with Wes/Gunn/Fred/Lorne and Connor - amazing piece of subtle
acting by Alexis Denisof as Wesely here - he picks up on Fred's
realization that Connor cares about Cordelia and Cordelia might
be the key to both Connor and Jasmine's undoing.
Here, would like to take time out to mention how ATS does something
Btvs in my humble opinion screwed up on this year, the mislead.
On Ats it is used with brilliant and ironic effect. Cordelia was
supposed to be the one to kill JAsmine, but CC was pregnant and
couldn't work at the time, or move much, so they had to come up
with something else.
So Fury/Deknight write it into the script and give us that suggestion,
with the ironic twist of it being Connor who does it. Possibly
as a result of his own twisted feelings for both Cordelia and
Jasmine, not to mention his two fathers, Holtz and Angel. If only
Btvs' Giles as the FE
packed nearly as much punch. ;-)
Good review TCH. Looking forward to you finishing so we can share
notes on the season. So far S4 Ats is my favorite, even with Cordy's
odd arc.
sk
[> [> Preserving TCH's
PEACE-OUT REVIEW. Before voy gobbles -- s'kat, 21:25:40
07/12/03 Sat
[> [> [> Sticking
the Voynak in the leg with a pointy object, keepin' him at bay
till I can respond. -- Rob, 23:28:37 07/12/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> Twisting
the stake..Ouch! that looks painful!...to keep Voynak in pain
-- Random, 15:30:13 07/14/03 Mon
[> [> Ending World Peace
or Delivering Gnosis? -- AngelVSAngelus, 00:18:42 07/13/03
Sun
I really enjoy your reviews, Tchaikovski. Both for eloquence,
and the fact that I don't feel Angel the Series gets as much analyzation
and scrutiny as Buffy seems to (and not just here on the board,
either.)
Your association of Angel, Fred, Jasmine, and Connor with Biblical
figures rings a bell in my head that has recently been tolling
alot thanks to my exponential repeated viewings of The Matrix:
Reloaded: It occurs to me that when you are complimenting Angel
and Connor for stopping Jasmine as God Figure that it resembles
what I understand to be the Gnostic Christian perspective/telling
of the events of the Garden of Eden.
Just as with the Matrix and its sequel, I certainly don't think
that the Jasmine story arc was just prepackaged Gnosticism, but
that like so many other mythological/folkloric/religious resources
that the writers are influenced by and reference, it may have
had an allegorical influence on the story telling and have been
used as a signifier.
As I understand it, and without going into a long-winded dissertation
without having full certainty of that knowledge, Gnostic beliefs
sort of turned many beliefs of other denominations of Christianity
upside down, in that the God described in the Old Testament is
mankind's arrogant Creator and captor that has imprisoned the
human race in this material world with the curse of mortality.
This came about in the Garden of Eden scenario, in which a snake
sent by the other deities from which the God derives (he apparently
foolishly claims to be the only one, but is not) brings the key
to the humans escape from this world, gnosis, or knowledge, contained
in that apple.
Jasmine's world peace does require if not the complete theft of
everyone's free will, then the bending and manipulation of it.
A population are kept in a paradise as defined by her, and it
is Fred (as you associate her, the Snake) that offers Angel and
the others the knowledge of their prison, their own Gnosis. Despite
the fact that Jasmine was being dealt with by Angel/Connor, it
is still of import that Gunn/Wesley/Lorne/Fred escape of their
own volition from a literal prison.
I wish I had more metaphoric visual/dialogue tidbits or examples
as evidence of what I'm saying here, but unfortunately its been
a LONG time since I've been able to see the episode (not one I
was able to tape).
Am I making sense here? *uncertain eyebrow raised*
[> [> [> jeez, am
I ACTUALLY invisible? -- AngelVSAngelus, 13:12:49 07/14/03
Mon
i'm guessin' the answer to the question at the bottom of my post
was no...
[> [> [> I read it
and liked it, AvsA -- Masq, 17:39:39 07/14/03 Mon
But my knowledge of gnosticism is limited, so I just read it!
[> [> [> [> We
need Solitude to respond to AvsA! -- Rahael, 17:45:27 07/14/03
Mon
[> [> [> [> Oh...
well then self-doubt and lack of self esteem averted *beams*
-- AngelVSAngelus, 12:24:06 07/15/03 Tue
[> [> [> Not to be
overly technical but... -- sdev, 22:24:02 07/14/03 Mon
In the OT there was only one God and it told Adam about the tree
and its fruit. So God created free will. The snake seduced Eve
into eating and Eve gave the fruit to Adam. The promise of the
snake was that in eating from the fruit they would be as gods,
possessing knowledge of good and evil.
As soon as they saw Jasmine's true face they knew she was evil.
Only Connor chose evil. I still don't understand/remember whether
Connor knew that everyone else saw a different face.
[> [> [> [> I think
Connor did (Spoilers, Home) -- Rahael, 02:23:15 07/15/03
Tue
It was apparent in the rest of his conversations with the AI gang
that he knew that he saw a different Jasmine from everyone else.
He scorned them because they were so shallow as to judge right
and wrong from appearances.
Connor reminds us that there are many lies, many different kinds
of evil. We are presented with some evils that seem more painful
that Jasmine's - the way Holtz treated Connor, for instance. War
and pain and doubt. And it's not so simple, I think, to say that
everyone else became undeceived. After all, doesn't Home end with
AI being seduced by Lilah into taking the prize? Lilah, whose
name is very garden of Eden, Adam's first wife. Lilah whose name
sounds like De-lilah. Lilah whose name is euphonious but also
with a sting in its tail. Lie-lah.
So, who exactly chose to take the apple? And did it really open
their eyes? Wesley and Fred and Gunn and Lorne don't even know
Connor exists.
[> [> [> [> [>
Humming 'The Boxer' now... -- Tchaikovsky, 03:10:00
07/15/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
I believe that was "Lilith" -- Masq, 09:08:31
07/15/03 Tue
Adam's first wife.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Sorry yes! I got carried away! -- Rahael, 09:12:26
07/15/03 Tue
I meant to argue that Lilah is an allusion to Lilith
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I think Connor did (Spoilers, Home) -- sdev, 13:01:05
07/15/03 Tue
Thanks for the clarification on Connor. I too do not have tapes
of the last episodes to rewatch. Also thanks for the post on Lilith.
Very interesting. My post was of course referring to the Judeo/Cristian
interpretation of OT- which considers the OT the seminal monotheistic
text.
I do think that Connor repeatedly confused good and evil, surely,
as you say, a result of his upbringing. He was vey unable to separate
Angel from Angelus. He was unable to deal with a temporarily reincarnated
Angelus, brought back for a specific good purpose. And isn't that
his natural ending in Home-he attacks innocents for the wrong
reasons?
And yes, in the end evil may have been chosen (we will see next
season), but that was by Angel alone and after the earlier choice
of destroying Jasmine. Between the eye opener of Jasmine's true
nature and Angel's choice of W&H there was painful clarity. Choices
never end. Each one leads to the next inexorably.
And the terrible lesson is that the choices do not reveal their
true nature up front. They are labyrinthine, choose good- destroy
world peace.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Not to be overly technical but... -- AngelVSAngelus, 12:59:23
07/15/03 Tue
As I understood it, Gnostic Christianity presented a number of
variations on the other, more tradition denominations of Christianity.
One of those, I've read, was the existence of other 'deities'
or god-beings from which the one that created this world and the
kingdom of heaven (populated by archons and angels) spawned.
[> [> [> Interesting.
Couple points.. -- Random, 09:25:01 07/15/03 Tue
The version of Gnosticism you describe isn't precisely accurate...though
gnosticism wasn't monolithic -- the name is a catchall for quite
a few different belief systems with a few constants but no depositum
fidei. The most famous of these is the concept of a demiurge,
the imperfect and often petty creator figure who is not the supreme
deity. (Many people mistakenly believe there is no supreme figure
in Gnostic doctrines -- virtually every single sect believed in
the equivalent of a Universal Spirit, impartial and detached.)
The apparent pantheism of the gnostic doctrines can be attributed
to a primitive version of neo-Platonic Christianity. There are
certain figures -- the demiurge and Sophia -- the Knowledge/Wisdom
Principle, as I'm sure Sophist will be quick to point out -- that
exist as emanations of the Prime Spirit. In certain of the oldest
sects (those originating outside of Semitic lands, and in Syria),
there were several Gods, all in conflict, none with a particular
moral high ground except the particular on a given sect happened
to revere the most. And so on. The Gnostic weren't actually dualistic
-- they were monotheistic with a very heavy pantheistic lacquer.
But more important, and relevant, the the Gnostic doctrines were
their soteriological doctrines. The Gnostic, by and large, believed
two things: 1) this world is an extreme corruption, even a mistake,
and all effort should be made to return to the One; and 2) salvation
was achieved through sophos/logos more than ethos. Mankind was
not saved by grace -- Jesus, in Gnostic doctrine, represented
many different things, depending on the sect (usually he was either
a direct personification of God in human form, but not actually
human, or something akin to a major prophet) but never as the
saviour of mankind in the modern Christian sense.
Marcionism, one of the more notable schools of Gnosticism, probably
comes closest to the concept you are alluding to -- good versus
evil. The demiurge is, if not evil, at least extremely flawed
and tyrannical. The good God seeks to redeem us from our imperfect
state, and sends messengers from time to time to aid mankind in
reaching that goal. The relevance of the serpent, however, is
minimal, really, because there is no Original Sin in these doctrines,
not exactly. We are saved not through absolution but through understanding,
through an awareness of our state. Once we recognize sin, we can
transcend it.
There were quite a few gnostic sects that were even more heretical
than usual, including ones that would find descendants in the
Middle Ages deliberately commiting every form of heinousness in
the name of some confused doctrine of salvation through sin. What
I've outlined here is extremely cursory -- a full study of the
variations of gnosticism would require years, if not decades.
[> [> [> [> Thanks
for the extremely educational highlights, though... -- AngelVSAngelus,
19:37:58 07/15/03 Tue
I've read three books on the subject recently, and have been having
problems with the inconsistency that you just made a whole lot
less confusing for me.
I really appreciate the informative post. Its an intimidating
subject to take on absorbing, for me anyway :)
[> Re: Angel vs Spike (Angel
Odyssey 4.21) -- sdev, 10:30:38 07/13/03 Sun
"The abiding memory of this episode for me was the apparently
powerless, and indeed power-reduced Jasmine after she has been
sapped by the sound of her name, the word that bears all power
in understanding her, and strips away the false-ness. Now we can
see exactly why the preying-mantis type creature was worried about
bandying about names in the previous episode- the name of Jasmine
makes a world-bending difference when it is uttered."
The power of the name and the prohibition on its use is a Jewish
concept which was picked up by Christianity for centuries and
now is being challenged by many Evengelical groups. The name in
question is supposed to be the personal name as opposed to titles
such as God or Lord which can be used with impunity.
From an Evangelical treatise:
"Woe to you, the experts in the Torah (Scriptures), for you
took away the key of knowledge; yourselves did not enter, and
those who were entering you hindered. (Luke 11:52)
This "key" was the knowledge and use of the creator's
personal name-the sacred name Yahweh. Despite the heavy emphasis
placed by the Scriptures upon both the knowledge and use of the
sacred name, popular Christian dogma ignores it, Jewish Talmudic
traditions forbid its use and ordered its concealment"
The Third Commandment says:
Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain; for YHWH
will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Exodus 3:15 Old Testament:
"And God said more over unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto
the Children of Israel, YHWH God of your fathers ... hath sent
me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial
unto all generations."
Romans 10:13 New Testament
"The Apostle Paul (quoting Joel 2:32) declared: ...whosoever
shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved."
From an Evangelical Treatise:
"Jehovah -- the common European rendering of Heb. JHVH (or
YHWH), representing, without vowels, Heb. Jahweh (or Yahweh),
a divine name . . . regarded by the Jews as too sacred for utterance
and hence replaced in the reading of the Scriptures by Adonai
or Elohim; the form Jehovah being due to a mispronunciation of
Heb.
"This name [Yahweh] has not been pronounced by the Jews because
of the great sacredness of the Divine Name."
There is a long history of belief and superstition in the power
of the name in Judeo-Christian belief. This is also reminiscent
of many cultures fears of photographs and pictures having power
over the person. Names and pictures are mere symbolic representations,
yet they conjure fear of power and control with their use. Our
symbols both reveal us and rule us thus giving others who know
them power over us.
The issue of free choice comes to the fore. The name is out there.
Should we use it? Are we ready for the consequences even when
we don't often know what they are? Or is it safer to go along
and let others decide. Do we even really want to see what is behind
the name? Can we still have faith after free choice reveals the
ugliness that is there? But as the Garden of Eden story points
out, even when the world is perfect, imperfect humans have an
innate drive to know more. The choice of Fred as the first one
to see the real face of Jasmine was interesting. She is the inquiring
scientist who seeks to explain the mysteries of the universe not
just accept them.
Maybe Connor is like the desperate adolescent for whom death is
a romantic ideal (Tchaikovsky), or maybe he is into the escapist
drug that is Jasmine. Was anyone else reminded of Woodstock or
scenes from 60's rock concerts by the Hotel scenes of the faithful
crowding for a glimpse or touch of Jasmine? There was a very 60's
hippie feeling there to me.
Just some assorted thoughts.
[> [> Fascinating post-
one particular point -- Tchaikovsky, 14:30:42 07/13/03
Sun
Fred as the enquiring scientist is a really interesting point-
one which I didn't consider when I was trying to work out why
they had chosen her to be the one to see Jasmine's 'true' visage.
The scientist seeks knowledge to make informed opinions on how
the world works. Sometimes they work out how to get to the moon.
Sometimes they split the atom. Often a good and a bad happen together.
So science versus blind faith is a point touched on by choosing
Fred, just as Angel is used to show another version of the Fall,
(he's God's chosen Angel again, but he falls in the flames of
Lucifer).
TCH
[> [> [> Fred is such
a great character -- lunasea, 17:40:22 07/13/03 Sun
I'm working on something that will take a few weeks and will come
after I get Wolfram and Hart done. Fred seems to me to be representative
of Angel's heart. Cordy has also had this role, but as they made
her into a bona-fide hero of her own s3, Fred took the job. The
switch is actually important. Fred makes a much better representative,
with her being trapped on Pylea and the effect that had on her.
Wesley would be Angel's mind and Gunn would be Angel's spirit/dedication
to his mission.
How each of these characters differ from their counterparts over
on Buffy says a lot about Angel and Buffy. It should be an interesting
essay, I hope.
Back to this season though. Which part of Angel would be the one
that would feel the most strongly against what Jasmine was doing?
Angel's mission is to help the helpless and bring them peace of
some sort. Gunn isn't an option. How can Angel rationalize away
what Jasmine is actually doing? Wesley also isn't an option. Angel's
heart, which cares for those who he is saving, not just about
the mission, but about them as individuals would be the part that
rebels against what Jasmine is doing.
Next would come Angel's phenomenal insight into things, represented
by Lorne. Lorne was the next one that got cured.
There are several important moments that show what is going on
inside of Angel this season. When the gang goes down on their
knees in front of Jasmine the first time, the order and how is
very important. When they are in the sewers, how they split up
and interact, again important. The order they are cured and what
they say afterwards, again key insight there.
I love this show, but I bet you already knew that.
[> A brief thing about names
-- lunasea, 11:09:04 07/13/03 Sun
Our name is what separates us from the collective. Without a name,
I am just another poster here. With my name, I become the dreaded
lunasea.
But that isn't even my real name. Only a handful here know that.
My name is very important to me. It is symbolic of my relationship
with people. I only tell my prefered name to people I would consider
my friends. These people have tremendous power over me because
of that friendship. I gladly give them it.
When Angel had Jasmine's real name, he entered into a more familiar
relationship with her. The play of power between these two this
episode is interesting. On the street, they are equals.
This isn't the first season names being power has been used. Way
back in Season 1 at the end of "Blind Date" Lindsey
walks back into Wolfram and Hart and Holland points out "Why
did you come back? To return some disks? Take a moral stand? -
I don't think so. You walked in that door and called me by my
first name. - You never did that before. You wouldn't have had
the nerve. - But you're different now. You stood up to us and
won."
Angel does the same thing to Jasmine.
1. Before he reveals her name, Angel apologizes. Angel knows what
it is like to lose that sort of power and he does feel for her.
2. When Angel sees her first on the street he says, "Jasmine,
it's over. You've lost." He uses the name he can pronounce
and says that she's lost.
3. She tries to put herself above him by saying that he worked
for the Powers. She was a Power, thus Angel is beneath her.
4. Angel reasserts his power, "Because I could. Because that's
what you took away from us. Choice." This ties back to what
Darla said in "Inside Out."
5. She reminds Angel that he isn't human.
6. Angel says he is working on it.
7. She tries to get away
8. Angel won't let her. He also passes judgment on her, listing
her past crimes. He does give her a way out, though
9. She resorts to what all characters on the show do when they
don't get their way, physical violence.
10. The ultimate power still rests with Angel. Jasmine keeps trying
to make Angel feel guilty. His last words to her are "This
isn't my fault! (she grabs his throat) Go to hell."
There are some gray areas that get ducked. Much easier to think
of Jasmine as the bad guy that takes away free will.
JASMINE
Maybe you're right. Maybe I can still make this world a better
place. (punches Angel across the street) One body at a time. I
loved this world. I sacrificed everything I was to be with you.
ANGEL
So you could rule us?
JASMINE
Because I cared. The other Powers don't. Never really did. You
know that's true in your heart. Shame now I gotta rip it out.
Since she is now trying to kill Angel, the good guy, it is easy
to label her bad. Then we have power over her. Much harder to
look at her like we do Angel and Buffy, someone that does what
she does because she cares. Easier to think it is about global
domination and not world peace.
Jasmine brings up the prophecy. Angel should know that what she
says is a lie, since once he plays his part he Shanshus. Hasn't
Shanshued, he hasn't played his part.
The kiss: Why did Jasmine kiss Angel? What would be hell for Angel?
Losing his soul. She had the power to cause happiness. She can't
in the same way, but maybe she can give Angel his perfect moment
through physical contact. In "Magic Bullet" we had the
kiss with Fred, that made Angel temporarily forget about Jasmine.
Are we seeing the flip of that here? I would love to hear some
ideas about it.
Just some quick things to add to the discussion.
[> [> is it ................................RUMPLESTILTSKIN?!
-- Diana, 10:51:45 07/14/03 Mon
[> [> I'm starting to
se your point on greyness in Jasmine- partly good acting by Gina
Torres -- Tchaikovsky, 14:32:52 07/13/03 Sun
[> Who's will is it anyway?
-- Valheru, 13:03:49 07/13/03 Sun
Here's a mind-bender for you guys: Is free will an act of free
will?
Fred did not regain her free will by choice, it was forced upon
her by circumstance. Had Jasmine's blood not been transfurry,
Fred would remain a pod. Free will was forced on the others, as
well.
What does that say about free will? Do we choose it or does it
choose us? Is our ability to choose freely just the will of someone
or something greater than us?
In The Magic Bullet, is Angel's freedom his own, or is
it Fred's will? Are Gunn, Lorne, and Wes simply pawns in the rebellion?
Doesn't Fred, in some strange way, pre-determine choice?
The Jasmine arc runs in concentric circles of theme. Jasmine herself
has free will, which she chooses to impose upon others by robbing
them of theirs. Fred regains hers, which she similarly chooses
to impose upon others, but by returning free will. After Home,
there's another circle. In each case, aren't we seeing God (or
whatever) at work, just at different levels of perception? Jasmine
gods over Fred, who in turn gods over Angel, who in turn.... It's
like Greek creation, where each successive generation becomes
the gods of the next: Chaos to Uranus to Cronus to Zeus to Man.
And just to throw in another wrinkle, does Jasmine really have
free will of her own, or is she simply the subject of a being
higher than herself? In order for her plan to have worked, Jasmine
had to have been the ultimate Power, capable of maintaining her
will over all else. But she wasn't. Her blood, Cordy's blood,
the mantis-creatures, Connor (not to mention the apparently-immune
Sunnydale)...there were too many uncontrollables. Which would
all indicate that Jasmine is a Power, but not God, therefore introducing
the question: does anyone--man, god, or PTB--have total free will?
And so we get to Connor, who perhaps answers the question. In
Connor's wonderful speech in Peace Out, one thing sort
of permeates throughout (again, continued in Home), and
that's the idea that if given a choice, Connor would choose the
life of a pod. All his life, people have perverted his choices
with lies. For Connor, every expression of his free will has been
manipulated. So rather than be lied to and be confused, why not
be a pod-person with predetermined clarity and truth? Free will
is pain, lies, hatred, and anger; pod-life is bliss, truth, love,
and delight. Isn't a false good better than a true bad?
But he can't. Connor is the one person on the show who can't escape
his free will. It's sort of the flip of what Skip said: Angel
thought he was making the choices, but really it was Jasmine setting
him up; Connor thought everyone else was making his choices, but
they were always his own.
Not sure if any of this made any sense. I feel like I need to
have a PhD in transcendent experience to explain it.
As a final thought, think back to the Garden of Eden. Didn't Adam
and Eve always have free will? After all, if they didn't, then
how could the Snake convince them to eat the fruit? All the fruit
did was inform them of duality, but duality always existed. So
if Fred is Eve, then did Jasmine really take free will away? Or
instead, didn't Jasmine just make free will unknown, reversing
the effects of the fruit of knowledge?
[> [> Re: Whose will
is it anyway? -- Darby, 10:57:10 07/15/03 Tue
But that's the way of the world, innit?
As children, we have decisions made for us, gradually being given
the ever-expanding allowance of making our own. Does that mean
that a toddler has no free will?
The question may be, is it ever truly free? Are all choices
equally likely?
Isn't the exercise of will constrained by our internal and external
cultures and controls? You may not really be able to choose
- does anyone think that Buffy could ever really choose to sacrifice
Dawn, no matter what she said about it to Giles?
What Jasmine had was such a tight control on choices that she
restricted individuality, that quality that gives the world
a plethora of paths chosen. One wonders what the continued world
of Jasmine might be, 100 years hence. Would she be terribly bored,
making sure the trains and the garbage trucks ran on time?
Now that would have been an interesting (but very nonheroic) resolution
of the Jasmine arc - to have her travel back from the boring future
and stop herself.
[> [> You can have an
honorary PhD from me if you like- great post! -- Tchaikovsky,
14:35:01 07/13/03 Sun
[> [> Re: Who's will
is it anyway?Agree -- sdev, 15:07:47 07/13/03 Sun
Free will in the Garden is God telling Adam about the tree and
telling him not to eat from it. Knowing of the tree's existence
confers the free will, confers the choice. Then Adam and Eve can
choose whether or not they want to eat from it.
Seeing Jasmine's true face is the same thing. Connor had free
will all the time and chose until the end to go along with Jasmine.
Fred was given free will serendipitously through touching the
blood, but she then conferred it on the others deliberately, her
first act of free will after it is restored. Free will doesn't
exist until they actually see Jasmine's face.
Maybe it seems that there is no choice after seeing the true Jasmine,
but Connor didn't see it that way. Jasmine's hideousness and her
method of sustaining herself were still preferable to him than
the real world. What I never understood was whether Connor was
aware that no one else was seeing the face he saw.
Also the pain and loss they all feel after the revelation of Jasmine's
true face is the pain of being given free will. It is quite a
burden as shown by the Garden of Eden, and in this story too leads
to severe consequences- the destruction of world peace.
[> [> Let's take what
you said to next season -- lunasea, 17:24:58 07/13/03 Sun
Wolfram and Hart, in some warped way, defend choice, the choice
of their clients to do evil. Angel and his friends take away that
choice. Instead they defend the choice of the helpless. Jasmine
says " No. No, Angel. There are no absolutes. No right and
wrong. Haven't you learned anything working for the Powers? There
are only choices. I offered paradise. You chose this!"
I have a feeling that next season we will see that explored. In
the gray Buffyverse (feels funny calling it that any more), there
are no absolutes, but is there right and wrong?
As for free will and theology, per the Catechism we are born with
free will. It is part of our divine nature. What the decision
to eat the fruit represents is our first action to separate ourselves
from God, to set ourselves up as God. I wrote a lot about this
in a thread called THE Story, in which I compare the Catechism
to the philosophy underlying the Buffyverse. It should be in the
archives.
Jasmine didn't take away free will, so much as negated the desire
to choose evil, thus nullifying it. She did kick up our evolution
a few notches.
Angel says, "Our fate has to be our own, or we're nothing."
My question to him is why? Why do we even have to be something?
At the core of every philosophical system is a question that it
can't answer. Angel has hit his.
What answer will he come up with next season?
As he goes on to say: Look, we've all done horrible things. All
we can do is try and make up for it. So, OK, you know, it's not
the world that you wanted, but maybe you can still help us make
it better, even if you have lost your powers.
He is still trying to make amends and basing his life on that.
This could be how someone else becomes his foil. It should be
interesting.
[> Beautiful and moving
-- Rahael, 03:10:41 07/14/03 Mon
[> Great work, TCH! Come
on Home! -- ponygirl, 09:12:18 07/14/03 Mon
[> Re Connor (if you haven't
viewed Home, TCH, I'd skip this one...spoiler or two) -- Random,
09:52:09 07/14/03 Mon
Connor is the adolescent finding death oddly beautiful, like
Owen in 'Never Kill a Boy on the First Date', or so many other
teenager's bleak poetry. I think you've touched on a fundamental
issue in the Buffyverse (yes, dammit, I said it! It'll always
be the "Buffyverse" for me!) The perception of death
is fundamentally, not just incidentally, skewed amongst the primary
characters of both show. How can it be otherwise when the resurrected
dead walk the earth two hundred years after they should have died
a natural (or not-so-natural) death? When Connor himself emerges
from a dead woman? When our intrepid heroes go out and look death
in the face every night and emerge alive, if not unscathed? When
Buffy can die and be brought back -- if not entirely whole? (And
it is my theory that The Body was in essence one of those rarest
episodes, a Necessary Episode. We see that people die, not in
the war against evil, but in the grips of the terribly ordinary
mortality that claims us all. It is a necessary episode indeed,
in the Buffyverse.)
Connor exists on the edge of despair because every major character
on both shows exists there. Denied the constant of death that
most of us are allowed -- even if we sure as hell aren't always
happy about it -- they have nothing else except taxes and the
lowest common denominator ratings ploy. Unfortunately, Connor
has been pushed closer to the edge than the others. Perhaps it's
because he lacks that small adjustment the others must inevitably
make, that tiny rationalization that says, "I have spent
my life in the shadow of the Coming Darkness, and if I don't make
some small measure of peace with the world, the darkness will
devour me whole." Connor, on the other hand, has known little
but rage and suffering, fanaticism and endemic evil. He is a lost
soul. We don't know it yet when we first meet him, but I think
he was one of the very few Buffyverse characters who is doomed
from the beginning. Angel and associates never had a real chance
to save him. A bleak outlook? Yes, quite, and almost certainly
wrong, philosophically and morally speaking, if not practically
speaking (and probably that too, heh.) So that was, in a way,
the brilliance of "Home." Angel couldn't save Connor,
not the Connor he knew. So he took door number 3...he saved another
Connor.
Most of us -- even those like yours truly, who don't have any
yet -- want to give our children the best possible life, no matter
how much they drive us to distraction (Graffiti, if you're reading
this, take note.) What was Angel's choice? Connor's life had been
warped...by the circumstances of his birth, by Hell, by a fanatic
masquerading as a father-figure. I will modify my earlier sentiments
because it utterly galls me personally to imply that someone cannot
be redeemed, cannot be saved. Predestination has never been a
fact of life in the Buffyverse. Prophecy can be subverted, even
overturned. I will, instead, say that Connor was beyond the reach
of Angel to save in the time he had. Jasmine's arrival was the
nail, but had it not been her, it would likely have been someone
else. Connor was loved. But what did he understand of love? It's
like an analogy to the man blind from birth and colors. He simply
hasn't had the experience, not as the rest of us understand it.
We all learn love as we grow up, but Conner was placed in a situation
where he was faced with being full-grown and learning the truth
about love. Dangerously -- but in all innocence, all ignorance
-- those around him treated him in a manner in accord with his
age. The combination is untenable.
And here is the crucial point. The person Connor most resembles
is Angel himself. Coming from a strife-ridden household, being
vamped by Darla and entering into an extremely perverse reflection
of a normal relationship, he was knocked silly when he met Buffy.
(Silly is the right word, too -- consider the Angel we saw in
"Chosen.") He dealt with it like an addictive personality
discovering drugs for the first time. Buffy became his world,
his only real motivation. In a sense, he was Spike before Spike
was. He finally wrested himself from it, though at a terrible
cost to his psyche (as AtS seasons 1 and 2 demonstrate amply.)
Connor lacks that strength. He isn't a Hero, and dammit, he shouldn't
have had to pay so high a price for that simple fact. Gunn didn't.
Wes didn't. Even Cordy didn't, not really. But Connor did, and
there's nothing for it now. He enters the relationship with Cordy,
only to have it ripped away. He forms a bond with his father,
only to have it perverted by Jasmine. Connor loses everything,
even himself. And now I'm way off topic, so I'll wrap it up by
saying that I am extremely proud of myself for writing an essentially
pro-Connor post and want lots and lots of love for this. Plus,
I really would like to hear explorations of Angel's arrested development,
love-wise.
Thanks all,
~Random
[> [> <insert title
of any Barry White song here>, Random! -- Valheru, 13:00:01
07/14/03 Mon
[> [> [> heheh...sigh...poor
Barry...he will be missed -- Random, 13:09:24 07/14/03
Mon
[> [> Re: Re Connor (if
you haven't viewed Home, TCH, I'd skip this one...spoiler or two)
-- jane, 22:03:09 07/14/03 Mon
Poor,doomed Connor. I agree with your assessment,Random. In the
end, I think Angel's choice was made for the love of his son.
Giving Connor a new beginning was painful for Angel, but I would
think it was also freeing in some ways. Perhaps this is why he
didn't seem angst ridden in Chosen; he had done what he could
to ensure that Connor would have a happy family life. Not the
one he was born to, but a happy one still. I suspect the choice
might still come back to bite Angel though..
[> [> [> Re: Re Connor
(if you haven't viewed Home, TCH, I'd skip this one...spoiler
or two) -- Yellow Bear, 00:09:01 07/15/03 Tue
I agree about the level of Angel angst in 'Chosen'. As painful
as his choice with Connor was, Angel believes he has given his
son the best possible world, and he seems free of that burden
when he sees Buffy again.
[> [> Re: Re Connor (if
you haven't viewed Home, TCH, I'd skip this one...spoiler or two)
-- Yellow bear, 00:06:33 07/15/03 Tue
That is one great god d*** post.
[> [> Beautifully written-
and true -- TCH- the Home-having-seen, 03:28:47 07/15/03
Tue
[> [> They are both cookie
dough :-) -- Diana (running out of cute things to say with
my old name), 10:24:06 07/15/03 Tue
Have to wait next week for the arrested development of my favorite
vampire and his relationship with the prettiest blond in the Buffyverse.
[> [> [> How about
"Sea? Luna's gone away" ? -- O'Cailleagh, 11:27:10
07/15/03 Tue
[> [> Re: Re Connor (if
you haven't viewed Home, TCH, I'd skip this one...spoiler or two)
-- Yellow Bear, 13:35:05 07/15/03 Tue
I was thinking about your wonderful post earlier this morning
when something occured to me. You talk of Connor "being doomed
from the beginning" (although later you amend this), and
I thought of the moment in 'Benediction' when Angel chooses a
confrontation with Holtz over being with Connor. Many of the events
that claimed Connor intially sprung from this choose. Not many
mention it but it's a tragic decesion on Angel's part.
[> [> [> That's a
good point -- Random, 13:46:53 07/15/03 Tue
What defining moments can we find in all the character's lives,
or deaths? At what point did Jenny's death become inevitable?
Was there a moment when she and Giles were together and she felt
that, maybe, she could trust him with her secret? And she didn't?
Or was it when Buffy assaulted her on her desk that she was delivered
a shock sufficient to eventually motivate her to research the
Ritual of Restoration? Or was it when Giles said...there are so
many possibities, and the feeling when you isolate a moment is
both profound...and profoundly sad.
[> [> [> [> Probably
when they decided that a certain character -- Diana (the mixed
up una seal), 14:12:27 07/15/03 Tue
was going to lose his soul. They needed something REALLY dramatic
to drive home the point of who he was then, so a biggie was going
to die. It couldn't have been Buffy, Willow, Xander or Giles.
Oz and Cordy may have been candidates briefly. I would say Jenny
was the obvious choice and then they wrote her up so that her
death would mean something.
[> [> Lovely post, Random!
-- LadyStarlight, 10:04:06 07/14/03 Mon
[> [> That was brill,
Ran! -- Rob, sending lots of love to Random for his pro-Connor
post, 10:06:23 07/14/03 Mon
[> [> [> Thanks, both...preserving
thread -- Random, 12:56:38 07/14/03 Mon
Questions
about some terms used on this Board. -- WickedBuffy, 16:54:29
07/12/03 Sat
Even though I haven't memorized ALL those acronyms, I'm finally
to the point of being able to figure them out from context clues.
But a couple terms I'm still in the dark about. And they've been
used a lot more frequently lately. Help?
1. I can't figure out the difference between someone who
likes soandso with what'shisname AND someone who is a "shipper".
(I know that's short for relationshipper.)
Is it that a "shipper" reads and writes fanfic about
the couple? or is obsessed past a certain boundary line with them
being together? I really don't understand what the differences
are and how to tell. And why it matters so much in discussions
which catagory they fall into.
2. Trolls. I've picked up that a troll is someone
who purposely comes in and posts inflammatory remarks just to
upset things - as opposed to someone posting similar remarks,
with a serious intent for valid discussion, even if they do create
some sparks.
Are trolls someone who just found the board and wants to wreak
havoc? Or is there a definition of "troll behavior"
which doesn't discriminate between regular posters and drop-ins?
What is troll behaviour?
Thanks ahead of time! :>
[> Re: Questions about some
terms used on this Board. -- CW, 17:42:22 07/12/03 Sat
As for shipper, I think it's just a matter of degree and pretty
difficult to pin down where the dividing line is. I'd say if a
fan wants this-one-to-be-with-that-one and they've already broken
up on the show, they're probably a shipper.
A troll is someone who gets on solely to promote themselves or
get angry replies, contributes nothing to the discussion and/or
tries to cause trouble with the existing posters. Usually they
make some wild expression of contempt for anyone who likes (fill
in the blank), contmept for some common opinion or make some extreme
politcal statement that many are sure to take issue with. Most
often the troll never replies. The more creative ones either get
back on with a another pseudonym and berate the real posters for
not being receptive to the bad behavior, or they have their friends
get on and do it. The Troll, boke, was an extreme case of someone
promoting his own website at the expense of this one, posting
over and over, making wild statements about his genius, replying
to everything and never reponding to anything that was said to
him and refusing to quit doing it.
Trollish behavior is anything that attacks another poster or their
opinions without a hint of cause. And yes, many of us get mad
enough to commit trollish behavior, occaisonally. We're usually
pretty good about forgiving each other, when it's not an on-going
thing.
[> [> Thanks for clearing
it up for me, CW! I appreciate it. -- WickedBuffy, 08:10:03
07/13/03 Sun
Angel vs Spike Follicle Folliesñ
The Official Bloody Stupid Hair Thread...dedicated to Ronia.
-- Random, 18:03:27 07/12/03 Sat
SighÖsince my Xander post lasted less than 24 hours, thanks
to the two monster posts at the bottom, I decided to go with the
flow. So here it is: ìAngel versus Spike ñ The Official
Bloody Stupid Hair Threadî.
I have been reading the back of my roommateís shampoo conditioner
bottle. Itís a ìSauve Naturalsî ñ she
normally uses Herbal Essences or whatever the hell trendy substance
she manages to find at Bath and Body Works, most of which contain
ingredients like Otters Botters and Grape Nuts and Essence of
Pickling Spices and would have gotten the manufacturers burned
at the stake for witchcraft in the olden days. But right now all
she has is a single bottle of Sauve conditioner and a bottle of
something that smells like coconut and seems more appropriate
for a Cuban barra cum Hawaiian luau than a cold shower.
But there you have it. First, let me quote from the back of the
pina colada shampoo bottle:
ìDelight in the warm scent of coconut [insert picture
of coconut half] blended with exotic fruits and the moisturizing
benefits of soy milk proteins [insert what appears to be a
picture for an old-timey milk bottle, though Iím not entirely
certain how it represents ësoyí milk specifically
ñ most soy milk Iíve seen comes in cartons.] Itís
a tropical refreshment for [insert continuation of milk bottle,
as it is large enough to stretch the height of two lines] your
hair. Moisturizes as it cleans, leaving hair shiny, replenished
, and healthy. î
Consider those lines for a second in the context of the vampire
metaphor. Revitalization, rebirth ñ the hair is subject
to a vampiric analogy. Observe how ìshinyî Spikeís
hair was circa Season Five versus mortal Williams unruly dustbunny
hidiní mop of rags. (Curiously, he still has an approximation
of this hair 20 years later, during the Boxer Rebellion ñ
Georgian fashion, despite the recent Gay 90ís, seems to
be largely an extension of Victorian. Plus it doesnít appear
that heíd actually washed his hair since he became a vampire.)
Shampoo is not, any more than vampiric transformation, innately
evil. It is the demon that makes it so, the little monster withing
that drives us (well, mostly them, unless you count such
members of us as David Berkowitz )to heinous acts. The
act of rebirth is, indeed, a central metaphor of Christianity.
I am the Resurrection and the Life, said Jesus, and we can just
as easily imagine those words coming from the Masterís
fruit-punch (and Buffy-punched) mouth. The moral ambiguity of
shampoo is nothing short than a statement about the moral ambiguity
of the Buffyverse.
Unlike certain vampiric traditions (*cough* Anne Rice *cough*),
BtVS vampire hair is subject to all the vagaries of their mortal
predecessors. It can grow, be cut, be sculpted, be shellacked
ñ the possibilities are endless. This seemingly innocuous
fact is more significant than it appears. It allows vampires,
no matter how exotic their origins, to blend in with current society
and trends. Spikeís Billy Idol phase is a perfect example
of that (assuming one can imagine Billy Idol blending with anything
except a Sideshow Bob Impersonators convention.) Perhaps the exotic
fruits that are mixed to create an ultimately unexotic product
are, in fact, a perfect representation of the vampiric psyche.
Angelís Irish roots might be considered exotic ñ
well, not if youíre from Ireland, I suppose ñ and
his killing spree across most of Europe is certainly more interesting
than the proposals offered by Fodors Guides. Yet they are, in
essence, using this exoticness to revitalize themselves. It doesnít
seem to matter where they come from ñ only that they have
lived in the world. Spike has led a far more interesting ñ
and viciously murderous ñ life than 99 percent of the mortal
population, yet when he alights in Sunnydale, he manages to integrate
himself into the modern world. But the exotic is always there,
lingering, much like Spikeís history of evil and cruelty.
It is a basis for who he is ñ he cannot excape it any more
than a pina colada shampoo can escape the fact that certain ingredients
form the basis for it being a pina colada shampoo.
I find the ìproteinsî remark particularly fascinating.
Iíve wondered exactly what nourishment vampires gain from
blood. Iím not speaking of the metaphysical act, merely
the physical one. As Hobbes ñ Wattersonís Hobbes,
that is ñ once said, ìHumans are a very important
source of proteins.î Would a shampoo provide the necessary
proteins for a vampire to live on? Was the solution the Spikeís
chip-induced starvation sitting beside Harmonyís tub all
along? ME, to my great disappointment, never followed through
on that idea.
ìHis hair grows straight up and heís bloody stupid!î
ñ Buffybot, Intervention
Now, to be fair, Angelís hair doesnít always stick
straight up. Though I think Spike did hit the nail on the head
when he mocked Angelís aversion to having his hair touched
in In the Dark. It would seem, upon casually examination,
that he does moisturize his hair sufficiently. Indeed, at times,
he actually oils it as well, creating a classic oil/water dichotomy
that represents the conflict within him. Assuming he used the
above product, or something similar, he would in essence
Imagine, now, Angel or Spike using this product and reading the
back of the bottle. ìBloody ëell!î Spike says
ìTropical refreshment for my ëair?!? What that all
about, mate?î But once he takes a long sniff, heíll
realize that it smells exactly like Buffyís hair probably
smelled during the notorious ëWaveí period of Season
4. I would even posit that was how he found her in The Harsh Light
of Day ñ just follow the tropical drink smell.
Angel, however, is always acutely conscious of his vampiric status.
The implications of sun and fun, lying on the beaches ñ
such a shampoo is like a foretaste of shanshuÖbut also the
bitter aftertaste of what he has lost in becoming a vampire.
But consider the last part of the print on the back:
ìDirections: Wet hair, lather and rinse thoroughly.
This product was not tested on animals.î
What first jumps out at me is the fact that there is no ìrepeatî
in this particular directive. A single dosage does the trick.
In a sense, this shampoo is geared toward the younger, more impulsive
Spike more than Angel ñ but also toward Angelus. While
not wishing to make broad generalizations, I consider that youth
and impulsiveness affect the nature of the evil of Spike and Angelus.
For all his careful patience and cruelty in the kill, Angelus
ñ at least the Angelus who returned after being in a state
of arrested development for more than a century ñ was remarkably
short-tempered and emotional. I consider him equivalent to Spike
ñ he stopped aging, in essence, the moment Angel with a
soul took over the body. So such a shampoo would be ideal (noting,
of course, that we never saw either of them actually showering
except for Angelís exfoliationfest at the end of IOHEFY.)
In other words, reading labels pays off if youíre a young
vamp with a world of Happy Meals on legs to sample.
The second part is more interesting. (Weíll ignore the
fact that the first part feels the need to explain that hair must
be wettened before lathering ñ some things bespeak more
of psychological problems than legitimate philosophical issues.)
ìThis product was not tested on animals.î As a disclaimer,
I, a normal human with a soul, find it gratifying. But I canít
seem to get the vampiric analogy of humans as cattle out of my
head. It was the Masterís perception, and Angelus ñ
who had more in common with the Master than would have cared to
admit ñ shared this view. Amorality, of course, is a distinctive
characteristic of vampires. The Soul-as-a-Moral compass is not
merely a B/S issue, it is a hair care problem. How do Spike and
Angel react to this particular point? Are they so actively evil
that they find the disclaimer actually discomfiting? Would Spike,
preparing to go have sex with Buffy in an alley, follow the Nazi
mold and discard a product because he finds the creators of the
product weak and unbecoming? Does that explain why he frequently
appeared to have grabbed the lacquer bottle instead? And Angel
ñ not Angelus ñ would he brood over the fact that,
in avoiding feeding on humans, he must instead feed on the lifeblood
of animals. Do animals have souls? This question is beyond the
scope of my observations, but nevertheless, it might send Angel
into a broodfest of such epic proportions that he would see less
screentime in AtS Season 5 than Xander and Willow managed in BtVS
S7Öno small accomplishment there.
Now, Iím not arguing that Spike is better for Buffy because
he doesnít brood over his shampoo, or that Angel is because
he does. I do have a very strong opinion on that exact shampoo-related
issue, but Iím not gonna get into that point. Suffice to
say that shampoos is the great equalizer. Lots of subtextual goodness
there.
In addition to responses to these thoughts, Iíd like a
discussion of the mechanics of mousse, grease and whathaveyou
that allows Angelís and Spikeís respective coiffures
to defy all laws of physics and, in a certain not-to-be-named
case, the colour spectrum. Anybody know more about this than me?
p.s. Iím sorry I didnít get around to analyzing
the metaphorical goodness of the actual list of ingredients. They
seem primarily geared toward the existentialist school of philosophy
(though I did see a couple of Heglian vitamins in there.) And
Iíll see when I can get around to the conditioner ñ
it is far more complex a topic than shampoo, and I want to be
certain I fully understand what it means before I subject it to
the scrutiny of the extremely insightful and knowledgeable posters
on this board.
~Random
[> Sigh, I'll never be able
to take shampoo for granted ever again -- Dead Soul, 18:15:36
07/12/03 Sat
[> oops...unfinished sentence..
-- Random, 18:17:45 07/12/03 Sat
"Assuming he used the above product, or something similar,
he would in essence be representing himself through his hair care
-- a proposition that is, if not earth-shattering, at least fascinating
to say the least"
[> Re: Angel vs Spike Follicle
Folliesñ The Official Bloody Stupid Hair Thread...dedicated
to Ronia. -- curious, 18:18:14 07/12/03 Sat
I think we should be analyzing the touchablity of each boy's hair.
With so much product on those follicles - would you rather run
your fingers through the "grows straight up" look or
the "helmet head" look?
What about the socio-political and environmental ramifications
of the unrestrained use of so much mousse, gel, shellac and peroxide
for purely superficial vanity?
On a more serious note - how do either of these guys maintain
their coiffes when they can't see in the mirror? How do they shave?
Oh - my head is spinning now!!! I'll be up all night.
[> If you want a thoughtful
Xander thread, -- Sophist, 18:21:44 07/12/03 Sat
go Here
[> Re: Angel vs Spike Follicle
Folliesñ The Official Bloody Stupid Hair Thread...dedicated
to Ronia. -- O'Cailleagh, 18:26:01 07/12/03 Sat
Wow! What a deeply insightful post! Surprisingly it actually makes
a lot of sense, as well as the giggles it induced! Do get around
to posting the ingredients asap, I'm sure we can work ourselves
up into a big ol' lather over them, much as anything else that
comes along of late!
On a related topic, has anyone noticed how the height/root lift/volume
of a vampire's hair is intimately connected to the presence of
a soul?
And speaking of big hair, what was going on with Buffy's in 'Helpless'?
A result of the drugs?
O'Cailleagh
[> [> BTW, the Xander
thread is still around, down the board a bit -- O'Cailleagh,
18:37:04 07/12/03 Sat
[> [> [> Masq just
brought it back, bless her Immortal First Evil Soul -- Random,
18:54:08 07/12/03 Sat
[> Wish I had something
to add Ran, my friend, but for now...ROFLMAO!! Sheer hairy brilliance.
-- Rob, 18:55:16 07/12/03 Sat
[> speaking of Xanders hair,
why DOESN'T anyone talk about HIS hair? -- WickedBuffy (ok,
but this post isn't about that at all), 19:28:50 07/12/03 Sat
but on the topic of vampire hair, the Anita Blake novels spend
an inordinate amount of time describing hair. Especially the mens.
Especially how long and flowing and fabianlike it is ...
I believe that the luxuriousness of a vampires hair is a symbol
of a metaphor underlying an analogy though allegory of compensation
for the lifelessness in their dead vampire body.
But, DO vampires ever wash their hair? Bram Stokers "Dracula"
held to the legend that vampires couldn't move over running water
without protection. umm - wait - it was something about moving
water... ok! ... anyway, if this holds true for the vampires of
ME, then it would be incredibly painful for them to take a shower
and shampoo their hair. Of course, they could sit in a bathtub,
very still-like, since that isn't running water, and wash - but
everyone knows not to do that because you are just pouring dirty
body water over your head, which gets in your eyes and ewwww.
Simply put - the real body in a vampires body is all in the hair.
Not just for men, but for women vampires as well.
Who can forget Harmonys thick, flowing locks?
Beautiful! Gorgeous!
But that brings up another disturbing issue that Joss left unanswered
when BtVS ended.
Do vampires need to dye their hair?
Do we really believe that was Harmonys natural color? or even
Spikes? (Angels dull brown color is obviously his own and I love
the guy, goddess bless his total lack of fashion sense.)
We've never seen Harmony or Spike coloring their hair by commercial
means. Or even caught Spike grabbing a bottle of Clorox from the
Summers laundry room. Which leads me to deduct that in addition
to being able to control the length and texture of their hair,
vampires ALSO CONTROL THE COLOR!
And if they can control the color of their hair, which is simply
dead skin - can they also control the color of their ... yes,
you are ahead of me... of their skin. Which begs the next obvious
question.
Do vampires need to exfoliate? Living humans lose hundreds
of dead skin cells daily, a natural exfoliation, allowing new
fresh skin to breath and grow. It's often assisted with the use
of facial masques, sea sponges and various expensive scrubbing
potions.
But vampires are completely made of dead skin. If they shed dead
skin cells as humans did, they'd all be prancing skeletons in
big coats! In fact, it would seem they would have an innate fear
of any exfoliation devices. Yet we never see Slayers wielding
Biore patches or waving loofa sponges around during a vamp nest
cleanout.
So, we come to what has become the most important question of
all time.
Who has better hair? Spike or Angel?
According to what I've just made up here, it's all a matter of
priorities. Spikes hair is better in that it looks brighter and
cooler than Angels, with eye-catching color and intricate curls.
But that means Spike spends much of his vampire strength and attention
creating such a stylish coiffure.
Angel, on the other hand, sports the same dull brown stick-up
hair he's had since the '70's. He chooses to channel HIS vampire
powers into other outlets. Being a champion, intense brooding
sessions and slightly lighter brooding take his time.
In conclusion, there can be no Angel vs Spike Follicle Follies
anymore than there can be an Angelanything vs Spikeanything issue.
It is comparing Apple-enriched shampoo to Orange-scented conditioner.
Yes, they are both fruit-enhanced and smell great, but deeper
comparisons are irrelevant and hopeless.
Exactly as the Angel vs Spike arguments prove to be over and over
again in this forum.
[> [> Inquiring minds
really need to know! Do they exfloiate??? -- disappointed
that you didn't really mention Xander's hair., 19:36:27 07/12/03
Sat
[> [> [> A Brief Essay
on Xanders Hair (with small aside to Giles) -- WickedBuffy,
20:21:52 07/12/03 Sat
I thought Xanders hair was at it's best around Season 2 or 3.
When it was abit long and parted in middle with his bangs swooping
inward, baring a flash of forehead. It seemed to be the height
of fashion, and showed off the lovely face of his shape in the
best, most adorable way. (He might have had that hairdo in the
unaired original pilot, too, come t think of it.)
But, for reasons I could never fathom, he didn't keep that style
for long. Maybe his hairdresser got pregnant and quit to stay
home to raise the baby. Maybe not. All I know was other than that,
Xanders hair never had as much personality. :/
Perhaps they thought Xander shouldn't come off as so fashionable
and good-looking. He was supposed to be more of a dork and not
really "with it". Perhaps with that hairstyle, he took
the limelight off of Buffy too much. It definitely outperformed
Angels hair.
Perhaps David B. complained that Xander was looking cuter than
he was and made Joss decree that Xander could only wear mundane
styles, in hair AND in clothing. There may have been a sudden
surge of B/X fans, outnumbering the B/A supporters - which wasn't
a direction the writers wanted the arcs to go.
It's difficult to pin down his worst hair - since it was all fairly
similar other than those shining Xander hair moments. Sometimes
it varied in length, but not much. He did almost always manage
to have that cute little curl at the end of his hair. You could
see it when his hair was longer, and it showed under his ear.
It's also difficult to name a worst hair period because he went
through a "chubby" phase for awhile. I couldn't tell
if it was a bad haircut or if it was just that his face was much
rounder than usual. He was still adorable, but more in a Disney
chipmunk way than a cute guy way. (Around the wedding time, I
think.)
Now, Giles hair looked its best, imho, when it was long. He looked
younger and the color and curls were great. Again, it probably
didn't suit the older, stern professor "image" ME was
going for, so they cut it shorter and more formal. I always wondered
what Giles hair would look like all tousled and mussed. With his
shirt off. Wearing his guitar and brown leather pants.
Xander's hair, when too long. looked a little on the greasy side.
Then again, if they would have just let him have that bang style
again, any length would be great.
Thus endeth my rendition of Xanders Hair.
(extra note: Willows hair changed the most over the seasons, in
length, color and style. Next would come Anya. Buffy had the more
noticeable, intricate hairdos and Dawns barely varied. Unless
there was a change in time period, the mens hair changed very
little. Except Spikes great hair, the best, when he was mad in
the school basement. The Trio weren't on long enough to have much
of a noticeable coiffure arc.)
[> [> [> [> ROFLMAO!
We have waaay too much time on our hands. -- going to bed
now. Thanks for the Xander hair post., 20:27:18 07/12/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> Regarding
Giles (with a small aside on Xander and Riley) -- s'kat, 22:26:59
07/12/03 Sat
Xander's hair in my humble opinion was at it's best in S3 - Xander
was hot in S3. Actually S1-3.
Now, Giles hair looked its best, imho, when it was long. He
looked younger and the color and curls were great. Again, it probably
didn't suit the older, stern professor "image" ME was
going for, so they cut it shorter and more formal. I always wondered
what Giles hair would look like all tousled and mussed. With his
shirt off. Wearing his guitar and brown leather pants.
Actually we did get Giles with mussed up hair and leather pants
and t-shirt - in Band Candy. I remember it well, because I love
that episode for this reason. Giles with his hair longer and no
glasses - was Ripper. And he tended to go that root more in S2-4
for some reason. It got shorter in later seasons, sigh.
But to Giles' credit it did stay one color. Spike's seems to flucuate
from white to blond to sandy brown or blond tips. Xander's? Stayed
more or less one color.
Now Riley? I liked his hair best actually in S5, a little longer,
I think. More messed up. Although he did have good hair in Yoko
Factor. Way too clean-cut in earlier episodes.
Wonder what shampoo Riley used? Probably some regulation military
product with lots of additives - like Finesse.
[> [> [> [> [>
I liked Rileys hair best when Buffy met him. It was doing that
cool Xander-bang thing then. -- WickedBuffy, 08:00:37 07/13/03
Sun
long bangs, parted in the middle, swooshing down from both sides
so the ends pointed in. Didn't care much for it when it was shorter
and plainer, though. I don't think his haircolor changed much,
either. But it was a nice enough color and complimented Buffys
very nicely.
But Oz's was great whatever length it was. .... umm ....except
werewolf length, a little too shaggy for my tastes. His hair lightened
and darkened a few times - according to what other acting job
he was working on, I believe.
My vote for worst hair? (besides Angel in the '70's) Tom Lenks.
It was breathtakingly bland.
Worst hairdo? Vi in pigtails. (I heard that her contract stated
that if ME made her wear it like that, then she got to be one
of the final survivors in the last episode. Fair enough trade,
eh?)
Most time-consuming hair? Probably Dru's with the elaborate upsweeps.
Sometimes I swear I saw spiders peeking out from it.
Quickest drastic and oddly timed hair change in one episode? Fred.
In the midst of an apocalypse, she managed to keep her spa appointment
for a complete hair and cosmetic make-over.
Most easily managed hair? Dawn - just condition well and brush
thoroughly. (She also wins for "Heaviest Hair" in a
close race with Harmony.)
Slickest hair? Mr. Trick and 3 jars of gel.
And my vote for most idiotic post? This one I just wrote. ;>
[> [> [> [> [>
[> LOL! But agree wholeheartedly on all of it. -- s'kat,
21:41:18 07/13/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> [>
Giles in Band Candy - s'kat, that must be where I got the image!
-- WickedBuffy - - stripped the tshirt off myself, though };>,
08:06:18 07/13/03 Sun
[> This is why i avoid this
board in the off season :) j/k -- Corwin of Amber, 19:56:12
07/12/03 Sat
[> Re: Angel vs Spike Follicle
Folliesñ The Official Bloody Stupid Hair Thread...dedicated
to Ronia. -- leslie, 20:43:03 07/12/03 Sat
Brilliant. Perhaps you should submit it to the Journal of Follicle
Studies, or possibly Demon Cosmetology Quarterly. May I just remind
you of my theory that the whole business of the Turok Han dunking
the (nonbreathing) Spike repeatedly into a pool of water was in
fact touching up his roots, but Neanderthal vampire cosmetology
dated from the period before it was realized that you should
have the client facing away from the water while rinsing.
[> [> Heheh...I like
that theory -- Random, 09:05:31 07/13/03 Sun
It would certainly explain a lot of things, including the fact
that the Turok-han all shaved their heads for some reason. Perhaps
they were discovering that long flowing locks may attract the
babes (or hunks), but weren't worth the aggravation of the cosmetology
practices of the era.
[> Re: Angel vs Spike Follicle
Folliesñ The Official Bloody Stupid Hair Thread...dedicated
to Ronia. -- Celebaelin, 07:20:48 07/13/03 Sun
Back in the days before Daniel Day Lewis ripped off my style for
'Last of the Mohicans' hair was a big issue, in fact big hair
was a big issue. Imagine the Terminator with Shirley Temple's
head and you're in the right area (that's if imagining Shirley
Temple's head doesn't prove too much of a distraction). Shampoo
good enough to maintain the imagine how it will feel when I'm
trailing it over your naked body impact of the aforementioned
tonsure was obviously at a premium. Being male of course the 'Wash
and Go' style of follicular care regimen was the only approach
with sufficient machismo to be permissable under the Overly-Fussed-With-His-Appearance
Regulations (1980) Section 1 Subsection 4: Unnecessary Use of
the Bathroom and/or Mirror, punishable by public ridicule and
a six point endorsement on your Street-Cred licence. Unfortunately
this was way back in the days before Nicky Campbell was one celebrity,
never mind two, so how could the problem of maintaining bangable
hair be addressed with sufficient nonchelance? To all those
'Hey you, what's with the hair?'s who have ever been faced with
this vexing problem I give you (retroactively) the conveniently
timed release of a new brand which is "Doceur Extreme pour
Usage Frequent (En cas de contact avec les yeux, rincer abandonment
avec de l'eau tiede)." I'm sure you get the gist of that.
I don't recall the herbal content being quite so extensive at
the time but looking now it appears that the contents of a small
kitchen garden have been crammed into the bottle alongside the
parfum, industrial detergents and mild insecticides. You'll be
wanting the conditioner as well unless you're a total Oil Baron
but it's worth it for the Sensation Propre Longue Duree.
My theory then is that shampoo is neither inherently evil (unless
it gets in your eyes) or inherently good (unless you end up looking
preternaturally shaggable) it is however rather more a force of
Nature than is commonly believed. Like Continental Drift and Volcanic
Eruptions it shapes our environment in ways which are, even now,
only understood in impirical terms. Despite its' inherent power
it cannot be stressed often enough that Shampoo is in no way a
suitable substitute for real poo (or indeed vice a versa).
PS If you actually want your hair to stand on end try looking
at the prices of hair care products for the discerning lady of
fashion.
[> SF Chron says post is
work of staggering Genius. "Incredible" raves the Alameda
Herald -- fresne, 09:05:04 07/13/03 Sun
Ronia was heard to sob, "Thank you. You really do love me."
Sob.
Finally, after all those years of random hair discussion, we come
to the definitive thread.
Now admittedly, I must wonder if Muppets are considered animals
(with the exception of Animal himself) or some form of Uppet life
form. And if the fact that shampoo was specifically not tested
on Animal, does that exclude it being tested on others of the
Genus Species Uppet Furrius
I'm also randomly intrigued that although Angelus wore a brown
long haired Muppet while on his European Swath of Terror tour
(Asia tour cancelled due to unexpected soul), he didn't powdered
it, as was the style at the time, or at least one of those times,
but kept it in its natural brown acrylic state.
I also wonder if, Spike being a vampire also uses Sweet and Low
to help reduce the pain of bleaching. Since, quite obviously,
during his stay in the basement, his hair grew. This would tend
to put me down on the follicle growth side of the argument. Although,
this may have been the result of soul and not normal to the vampiric
physiognomy in general.
Note also, Spike's very Victorian observance of the cult of mourning,
wherein he styled his hair in a sorrowful, disarrayed state in
observance of the second of a seven year process of mourning Buffy.
The first stage would have, of course, involved sac cloth, ashes
and bourbon. I'm just trying to figure out when the lavender stage
would have been, before being so rudely interrupted by Buffy's
rise from the grave.
Though, clearly Osirus, no hair stylist, though come to think
of it, he may be follically challenged and have had his own Muppet
wig.
[> [> I believe Muppets
are physical symbols of our Higher Self. -- WickedBuffy, 11:03:11
07/13/03 Sun
about three feet over our heads higher, but still - the best part
of us made visible to the eye. With them, we are able to act out
and speak the cherubic brightness that is within us.
Marionettes, on the other hand, are visual projections of our
most base, or lowest, self. "The evil" side of us. They
reside below us, on the stage of hell - jerkily revealing our
most hidden of shames.
So it would be an insult to test anything on the dieties from
Oz called "Muppets". Would you ask Buddha to swallow
fish oil pills for several months just to find out if it reduces
cholesterol?
I think not.
Or "Hey Jesu, do you mind rubbing this cream all over your
face? We just want to make sure it doesn't burn anyone's skin
off in patches before we mass market it. Thanks and oh yah ...
amen."
I'm glad Angelus never powdered his Muppet. Powder in those days
was rumored to have been made from the white ashes of the plague
victims. Ever hear a Muppets death scream? ::shudder:: It's a
deathdust to their systems.
You seem to be very saavy on Muppetology, perhaps you have the
answer to a question that has stymied my collegues and I for years.
There has been many debates on what is on Druscilla's head. One
faction strongly argues it is a small Muppet. Another very quiet,
but formidable group purport that it isn't a Muppet, but it's
the youngest grandson of Cousin It, (from the Addams Family clan).
And there is a small, but active cartel who obnoxiously statw
that Cousin It and offspring are in actuality, part Muppet. The
result of a brief but torrid affair between the aformentioned
Animal and Cher, before she cut her hair.
What do you think? What is perched on Dru's head? Muppet? It?
Half-Breed?
And why did Angel insist on wearing a the corpse of a limp, motheaten
Muppet on his head during the '70's?
Was it a sign of reverence or disrespect?
I theorize it was showing us that he was at his lowest and the
Muppet body was a metaphor for the hopeless state of his Higher
Self. How did you interpret it?
[> [> [> When fair
words from Wicked come, Drucilla the Moon and Buffy the Sun
-- fresne, 22:00:24 07/13/03 Sun
Alas, I believe that your friends have taken a wrong headed direction
entirely. The fibers that rest up on the brow of that fair Dian
of the night are indeed her own. Shaved off sometime in past days
as she prepared to enter into service as a blessed bride of Christ
and then subsequent to her transformation into Camilla's more
gibbering sister, woven together into a cunning wig. While great
the artificer's craft and wondrous too the powers of shampoo and
conditioner, the effects of some several hundred years have been
to wear upon those fibers. To tatter and tease them. To split
each thread, which rested on ruddier cheeks in fairer days even
as the thread of her mind has so split and snapped and splintered.
To mention it to one of such mind, of such tearing, would alas
be a profanation of fairer days, so better in guise and manner
it be to pretend that all is well and coiffed and good. That salt
is sweet and the sun the moon, lest more fractured in our firmament
the moon become and tear from head that remembrance of the sun
and then she kills us, cuz, nonny nonny, she's funny that way.
I theorize it was showing us that he was at his lowest and
the Muppet body was a metaphor for the hopeless state of his Higher
Self. How did you interpret it?
Two minds in more accord could not be found. Such joy it is to
find myself the more stolid foot, even as you have danced forth
the more merry compass leg. In far more succinct manner than ever
I, of verbose and loquacious a vane vanity, could ever hope to
transduce. Easier then to bring base metals into gold than to
surpass the clarity of your thought. For yes indeed, for Angel
to wear upon his pate such a weary piece bespeaks a state of sorrowful
despair, a fear that he himself is a base metal. Err never to
transform to a higher self. By jerky motions and bloody humors
to remain the marionette. It is only when he is brought to such
state of utter guttered despair that he discards from pate dusty
tired Muppet and then is in different direction able to begin
the turn. Start the climb from guttered to coiffed and by his
hair indicate the direction of his desire. That integration with
higher celestial self that in perfect spheres does sing, yes,
good wicked friend, I write of his inner Muppet.
[> [> [> [> Like
gold to airy thinness beat -- sdev, 09:33:51 07/14/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
If they be two, they are two so -- WickedBuffy, 09:56:12
07/14/03 Mon
[> [> Fascinating questions,
heheh. I would argue that... -- Random, 11:44:37 07/13/03
Sun
the Muppets are clearly biocotton spasticallyredundant plushanoids.
The question of whether they have souls can be debated till time
ends, but even more problematic is the question of whether they
have nerve endings. Take Gonzo, for instance -- he suffers enormous
stress to his body at times, yet never seems to be in real pain.
On the other hand, his prediliction for chickens would suggest
that he does have nerve endings in certain places (an issue that
remains forever unresolved in the Kermit/Miss Piggy affair, thanks
to the good taste of the producers.)
But that, too, is irrelevant -- they do have emotions, and most
types of product testing would probably hurt their feelings. So
testing shampoos on Muppets is clearly inappropiate. Nor would
I think it would even be useful -- we have no history of how Muppets
react to shampoos or whether such a reaction would be analagous
to humans. Quite simply, I doubt any of them have ever actually
used shampoo, not even Miss Piggy (or should it be Mrs. Piggy?
I mean, she and Kermit are actually married now, i believe.
Or did I misunderstand that whole wedding scene in The Muppets
Take Manhattan?)
[> Preserving...strictly
for the sake of posterity, honest! -- Random, 21:29:58
07/13/03 Sun
[> [> "Gimme a head
with hair/Long, beautiful hair..." -- Rob, bringing musical
preservation, 22:35:23 07/13/03 Sun
[> [> [> Sure...someday...if
you're a good boy -- Random, 00:59:51 07/14/03 Mon
Questions
for all Canadian Buffy fans: If you've ever had a song stuck in
your head, please help -- Cecilia, 17:43:25 07/13/03 Sun
It was driving me crazy where I had heard the song that the First
used as Spikes trigger. This may sound ridiculous, but any Canadian
Buffy fans who perhaps remember a small Canadian children's show
called "The Friendly Giant"? It was on from the 1950's
through to the 1970's. I'm almost positive that the same tune
is what he used to play on his flute at the end of the program
(a bit slower tempo though). Does anyone remember this? Am I completely
nuts? (If I am, it's ok, I can take it, I just gotta know)
Thank you all in advance.
[> Look up, look waaaay
up... -- cougar, 18:13:53 07/13/03 Sun
The song is "Early One Morning" and the Friendly Giant
played it on his recorder at both ends of the show. Remember the
little rocking chair he set before the fire for you to come sit
in?
[> [> Re: Look up, look
waaaay up... -- Cecilia, 04:16:19 07/14/03 Mon
I knew it, thanks! Ever since I first heard it on Buffy, I had
this little nagging feeling that I had heard it before and then
yesterday I had a memory flash on the Friendly Giant. It had just
been so long since I had heard it I wasn't sure.
O/T -- How
Rob cheerleaded for fate. (re: Bat Boy and me) -- Rochefort,
21:45:27 07/13/03 Sun
About a month ago, Rob posted on the board that everyone should
check out "Bat Boy: The Musical" I was totally curious,
so I checked out the music and quickly got obsessed with it. I
was looking on the web for a plot summary and found out that it
happened to be playing this month in my home town! I was very
excited by the quincidence. So I have about ten people coming
over for pre-theater wine this weekend. But in addition to this,
my obsession with Bat Boy lead me to rekindle my highschool love
of theater and I've begun taking voice lessons. Today I was surfing
the web for area community theater programs looking for something
to try out for at some point, Oklahoma or something, just to give
it a shot. I neglected at first to check the pretty elaborate
community theater about five minutes from my house. To my utter
shock, they're doing Bat Boy in October. It's totally weird because
there's a professional performance of it this weekend uptown.
The whole thing feels bizarre. Open auditions are in two weeks
on almost the exact day that my semester ends, I give my finals,
and I have a month break. I plan at the very least to build a
street lamp for it or create fog effects with dry ice or something.
Yay Rob! (shakes his pom-poms enthusiastically). I'm SOoooooo
dreadfully excited. I'm picking up an audition packet tomorrow.
Wish me luck!
Rochefort
[> Ye gods! I had to sit
through Rob and Roche doing Bat Boy in chat! -- Random, 21:52:19
07/13/03 Sun
Please, someone, anyone, stop the madness!
[> [> You won't say that
when I'm famous and marry the girl on the cast recording.
-- Rochefort, 22:21:11 07/13/03 Sun
[> [> [> Roche, will
you stop trying to destroy Kerry and my happiness?!? -- Rob,
humming "Hold me, Bat Boy!", 00:51:38 07/14/03 Mon
[> LOL Rob and Rochefort
-- Rahael, 04:26:03 07/14/03 Mon
And good luck with both of your future plans. I guess you can't
both get the girl, but I hope Rochefort gets a part in
the musical at the very least!
My favorite
Buffy/Angel Speech -- lunasea, 02:12:12 07/14/03 Mon
Let's compile a list and see how many we can come up with. Right
now one is running through my head, so it is currently my favorite.
I'm sure it will be different tomorrow. What is yours?
Surprisingly, it is said by Buffy herself in "Earshot"
You know what? I was wrong. You are an idiot. My life happens
to, on occasion, suck beyond the telling of it. Sometimes more
than I can handle. And it's not just mine. Every single person
down there is ignoring your pain because they're too busy with
their own. The beautiful ones. The popular ones. The guys that
pick on you. Everyone. If you could hear what they were feeling.
The loneliness. The confusion. It looks quiet down there. It's
not. It's deafening. You know, I could've taken that by now.
[> THE best B&A EVER..
-- ZachsMind, 12:01:27 07/14/03 Mon
"Nothing
can change that. Not even death."
*clears throat*
But then, not being a shipper, I always found Buffy/Angel talk
to be melodramatic. The Zeppo put that into sharp relief.
[> Re: My favorite Buffy/Angel
Speech -- btvsk8, 17:05:12 07/14/03 Mon
Up near the top would have to be-
'When I say, "I love you," it's not because I want you
or because I can't have you. It has nothing to do with me. I love
what you are, what you do, how you try. I've seen your kindness
and your strength. I've seen the best and the worst of you. And
I understand with perfect clarity exactly what you are. You're
a hell of a woman. You're the one, Buffy.'
Purely because (I am ashamed to say) I needed reminding exactly
why I, the viewer, loved Buffy, despite her flaws, and why exactly
she is the heroine of the show.
[> [> Re: Darla's Words
-- Brian, 20:16:29 07/14/03 Mon
What we once were informs all that we have become. The same love
will infect our hearts, even if they no longer beat. Simple death
won't change that.
[> Re: My favorite Buffy/Angel
Speech -- Malandanza, 06:18:03 07/14/03 Mon
"Every single person down there is ignoring your pain
because they're too busy with their own. The beautiful ones. The
popular ones. The guys that pick on you. Everyone."
I have a problem with the Earshot speech -- I've seen the
"softer side of Sears" side of Cordelia. Does she find
abusing people less than fulfilling at times? I should hope so.
Does she feel alone when surrounded by her superficial friends
and is she surprised and hurt when they betray her? The phrase
"poetic justice" comes to mind. The problem is that
not everyone was ignoring Jonathan's pain -- some were deliberately
contributing to it. The people at the bottom of the social ladder
don't just have their own pain to deal with -- they have the pain
inflicted upon them by all those people above them as well.
My favorite speech is Giles' talk with Buffy at the end of Innocence.
Xander's "extraordinary" chat with Dawn in Season Seven
was okay, but I came away wishing that they had just ended the
episode with Dawn quietly returning to her research. More poignant.
For comedy, Spike's voice-over during his LA trip was my favorite.
[> [> Mal - I'm confused
-- Dochawk, 12:21:30 07/14/03 Mon
You didnt like Buffy's speech because of what Cordelia did? Or
you think that Buffy simplified the causes of Jonathan's pain
for dramatic effect?
I still love that speech, because I think Buffy is right - most
people totally ignore the pain of others, especially in high school.
Do they add to it? Frequently and sometimes on purpose (think
of The Pack and what Xander said to Willow). Doesn't change the
fact that two minutes later the perpetrator totally forgets about
it and totally uncaring about the other person's pain or lack
of pain. In NKABOTFD, Buffy is sure everyone thinks she is a dateless
loser, but for the most part they arent thinking of Buffy at all.
Same thing.
[> [> [> I agree with
you both. -- Arethusa, 12:48:38 07/14/03 Mon
The beautiful part of the speech is that Buffy tries to tell Jonathan
that even the popular and beautiful kids that many assume have
perfect lives experience pain in living. It is something we all
share. But like Mal I have a hard time sympathizing with those
who take out their pain on others, simply because their beauty,
wealth and popularity mean they can get away with it. That kind
of spiteful cruelty is not something we all share.
[> [> [> Attackers
as victims -- Malandanza, 20:49:53 07/14/03 Mon
"Doesn't change the fact that two minutes later the perpetrator
totally forgets about it and totally uncaring about the other
person's pain or lack of pain."
The attacker may forget all about the attack, but the victim does
not, as we have seen in early Willow's case (she never really
forgave Cordelia) and, more recently, in Warren's case. In fact,
neither Willow nor Warren ever really got over being the picked
on nerds in High School. In their adult lives they were both still
dwelling upon their high school failures. In Season Six, Willow's
complaint is that Tara would never have loved unmagical old Willow,
who's "such a guy magnet". Warren walks into the Bronze
with all the power of a superhero, yet stops to relive a high
school humiliation. Buffy's speech felt a little too Breakfast
Clubby to me, as if she were equating the pain felt by the "mean
kids" in The Pack to the pain felt by their victims.
[> [> Hm? -- HonorH,
07:20:27 07/14/03 Mon
Xander's "extraordinary" chat with Dawn in Season
Seven was okay, but I came away wishing that they had just ended
the episode with Dawn quietly returning to her research. More
poignant.
Nah. Don't get this at all. It wouldn't have been emotionally
satisfying. Dawn needed to know she was appreciated. We needed
to know it. Xander drawing that parallel between them, letting
her know how extraordinary she is, was far more poignant to me
than having the sixteen-year-old outsider sit down and just be
alone. That would've been just plain sad--like she'd been put
in her place, rather than that she'd found her place. It would've
left her in essentially the same condition she'd been in at the
start of the episode. Feeling alone. Like she wasn't special,
like she didn't have anything to offer. This way, we knew that
she wasn't alone and she *was* appreciated. And she knew it, too.
[> [> Re: My favorite
Buffy/Angel Speech -- Arethusa, 07:34:28 07/14/03 Mon
Yes, there's a big difference between being lost in your pain
and taking your pain out on others. Worst of all is picking on
kids whose overwhelming pain makes them extremely vulnerable to
abuse because they don't have the confidence or emotional strength
to protect themselves by ignoring the taunts or fighting back.
One of the most fascinating things about AtS is dichotomy between
the lofty goals of everyone at AI and way they are subverted by
their human failings. My favorite speech is Angel's Epiphany speech,
which was empathetic and humble-and frequently forgotten. Cordelia
managed to retain her sense of self importance and entitlement
even when she became much more empathetic. And Wes let slip that
despite his own history of abuse, he in turn tormented others
at school.
[> [> Agree completely
with Mal -- Sophist, 08:06:40 07/14/03 Mon
[> [> [> I guess its
just a new approach -- Diana [cause I need a little less Lunasea
in my life :-) ], 09:11:06 07/14/03 Mon
One I've seen on many of my kids' TV shows, actually pretty much
all of them. Pain is pain. Rather than just call the Bully a bad
kid, kids are now taught to see them as kids in pain. They are
even shown how to reach out to that kid. Sometimes it works and
sometimes it doesn't. Our defensive mechanisms can be rather strong.
A lot of times it doesn't work. What are the picked on kids supposed
to do then? Sometimes, just sometimes, it makes them feel better
if they realize it isn't anything personal.
To me that speech is a beautiful statement of "you're not
alone." Buffy, who has been feeling alone and the burden
of being Slayer, accepts that there is something that unites us
all, our pain. She looks down on the students that she protects,
which sets her apart from them (she isn't even in the yearbook,
because she was training), and realizes that she has something
in common with them.
It is also underscored by her action. As she comes to accept why
others don't really care, because they are wrapped up in their
own lives, she is talking to Jonathan. The speech ends with "I'd
rather do it this way." She reaches out to Jonathan, in words
showing him that she does empathize with him, even if she doesn't
say anything and in deed, by how she takes the gun from him.
It also ties to my second favorite speech that season, Angel talking
to Faith in "Consequences."
"You and me, Faith, we're a lot alike. Time was, I thought
humans existed just to hurt each other. But then I came here.
And I found out that there are other types of people. People who
genuinely wanted to do right. And they make mistakes. And they
fall down. You know, but they keep caring. Keep trying. If you
can trust us, Faith, this can all change. You don't have to disappear
into the darkness."
Buffy's speech shows why we make mistakes, why we fall down. As
Buffy is saying that people don't think about Jonathan because
they are too wrapped up in their own pain, Jonathan is too self-centered
to see this. Buffy is the one up there that keeps caring.
Well, I liked it, but that is just my opinion.
[> [> [> [> You
said what I wanted to say, but much clearer -- Dochawk, 12:28:57
07/14/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
Thanks -- Diana (as the luna goes out to sea), 12:46:44
07/14/03 Mon
It is something I have had to deal with recently with my older
daughter. She is 6 and on her bus last year was a bully. He did
typical elementary school bully things, nothing too physical and
nothing economical, so we tried to teach her how to ignore him.
She still felt very bad about the names that he called her. Then
we taught her to have compassion for this person. There is a reason
he lashes out this way. As Angelus said in "Release,"
the only way to stop the pain is to hurt someone else. That isn't
the only way, but it is one way that people use. His home life
probably isn't that great. Knowing this makes her better able
to handle his taunts and teaches her compassion. It is easy to
like and be nice to those that are nice to you. The real test
of our humanity is what we do to the ones that aren't this way.
The Golden Rule doesn't say to treat others as they treat you,
but to treat EVERYONE as you wish to be (not a good rule for masochists).
Is Jonathan's pain any more real because it is inflicted on him
by his peers than Cordelia's whose is inflicted on her by her
home life? Is Buffy's less real because hers in inflicted on her
by her Calling in addition to growing up than the souled vampire
because his is inflicted on him by the curse and what he did?
Pain is pain. It doesn't matter how it gets there. It is the universal
thing that binds us together. The test of our humanity is to recognize
it and to help.
Buffy does this and it is a beautiful moment, IMO. It shows why
she is the hero. For me, Buffy is just a body that surrounds the
real star of the show, her heart/humanity/ability to love/soul.
[> [> Also agree. Well
said Mal. -- s'kat, 09:14:31 07/14/03 Mon
Well except for Xander's speech in Potential...I liked that speech,
it makes me cry. No wait, not Xander's speech.
Dawn's response to Xander is what makes me cry. So it's really
Dawn's speech.
[> It's a tie between Spike
(teaser of "In the Dark") and Holland ("Reprise")
-- cjl, 08:22:47 07/14/03 Mon
Holland's speech to Angel on the Elevator Ride to Hell is classic,
a mindblower. It's been two years, and it still twists my head
around every time I think about it. I cannot wait for my Angel
S2 DVD to HURRY UP AND GET HERE, ALREADY!
And Spike's little rooftop voice-over? Just the funniest thing
I've ever heard on either series. Marsters nailed it. I devoutly
wish we could have another one in ANGEL S5, this time with Angel
commenting on Spike....
[And--in a fascinating bit of Scooby trivia--Seth Green, who probably
watched Marsters in action during the filming of "In the
Dark," does the exact same type of voice-over commentary
in his new flick, "The Italian Job"!]
[> [> Spike cracks me
up every time "To the Angel mobil, away." -- curious,
11:39:25 07/14/03 Mon
[> [> Seth was gone a
year earlier -- Dochawk, 17:30:13 07/14/03 Mon
And I already have my Season 3 DVDs, why are you so slow?
[> [> [> Huh?
-- cjl, 20:33:53 07/14/03 Mon
Uh, Doc?
"In the Dark." ANGEL S1, third ep. Oz and Spike cross
over from Sunnydale to L.A. The whole Gem of Amara thing.
You're pulling my chain, right?
As for why I'm "so slow" in my ANGEL DVDs....
(Sticks out tongue)
[> [> [> Um, Doc?
-- HonorH, 21:05:34 07/14/03 Mon
Cjl's right. "In the Dark" took place during AtS S1/BtVS
S4 before Seth Green left BtVS. It's where we get the wonderful
"usually laconic" Angel/Oz conversation that consists
of like, eight whole words.
Souled Vamp
Talk (Rob? My response to your Question & Answer...) -- ZachsMind,
11:05:17 07/14/03 Mon
Darn thing scrolled off the front page, and I think there was
topic drift. Here lemme try to repost it again before I lose it
in copypaste... [I also open this up to anyone who cares to chime
in.]
That is one interpretation which you suggest [in an earlier thread].
One could say that when Spike was souled, he saw "William"
as a separate entity in his head during Beneath You. However,
that's not in keeping with the rest of what he says both in that
scene and throughout season seven. There is no "separation
of church & state" inside Will/Spike's psyche. In fact for
Spikey, There is no Dana, only Zuul with or without the
soul.
However, I've always thought it was William speaking in the last
scene of Beneath You, so he would have no reason to refer to himself
in the third person. This is one of the many misconceptions between
Angel & Spike that many have. Spike's souling is nothing like
Angel's. The differences may be subtle, but they're clear cut.
With Angel, because of the gypsy curse, there is a distinct separation
between Angelus and Angel. One is Liam without a soul. The other
is Liam with a soul. There's a distinct separation of personality,
because Angelus never asked for this to happen, so he demands
a portion of the ego for himself, even and especially when he
is dormant.
However, DESOULED Spike ASKED FOR THIS. He completely accepted
it on the outset. It was his choice, and he proved through the
trials and tests that he contained the power necessary to ask
for this choice. The evil in Spike wanted Buffy equally as much
as the good, or perhaps better worded "neutral," William
part of his psyche. It was a mutual agreement, so when the soul
entered into the picture, Spike remained the dominant personality,
and with some difficulty incorporated the souled portion of himself
into his psyche.
William is like Liam, but with a Will. Like Angel in some ways,
but unlike him in that Spike has a choice. He had the power. Liam
chose to become Angelus, but Angelus never chose to be Angel.
Instead it was thrust upon him. William chose to become Spike.
Spike chose to become Souled Spike. So there's no glitch.
This makes Spike decidedly different from Angel in many capacities.
Most notable of which the loss of a multiple personality. Ironic,
isn't it? Spike is more psychologically stable than his own sire,
Angelus. Perhaps that is why Spike became the one to accept the
talisman in the EndGame of The First Evil's apocalypse. Spike
had the power. The choice. Angel did not. So fate deemed Spike
the more worthy.
To sdev from
lost thread below. -- curious (with a big non-confrontational
smile), 11:06:46 07/14/03 Mon
sdev - Did you know you were talking to lawyers?
I have been reading this thread for a while and decided to stay
out of it - hoping the lawyers on the board would respond as well
as they have. The problem might be that there is a fair amount
of difference between what the general public understands about
laws regarding rape, domestic violence and gender discrimination
and the reality of how things work in the real world.
I am not a lawyer but I have done counselling with battered women
and rape victims and have worked pretty extensively with the laws
re: sexual violence in my state. I defer to Soph and s'kat on
the specifics but the legal realities are not as simple and straightforward
as you might think - especially in a court of law. That is why
it has been suggested that you research some of this on your own.
It takes a lot of time and energy to sort out a lot of the finer
points of this area of law. And things have changed A LOT since
the '70's and early '80's when I started studying some of these
issues.
As an aside - I thought you were a woman based on your previous
postings but started to think you were a man based on this thread.
I have had (and I'll bet Soph and S'kat have too) numerous conversations
like this with men. Not a slam by any means - just an observation
and explanation about why Soph may have been confused about your
gender.
[> Buffyverse does good.
-- WickedBuffy, 12:20:06 07/14/03 Mon
(First, thanks for bringing the thread, back. It isn't as OT
as it might appear - since it's based on trying to figure out
what exactly was going on and meant by that scene in the bathroom.
Plus, it's also great education on a very important evil our world
is wracked with!)
"The problem might be that there is a fair amount of difference
between what the general public understands about laws regarding
rape, domestic violence and gender discrimination and the reality
of how things work in the real world."
Maybe this is explains part of why there's a magnitude of different
responses to the bathroom scene between Buffy and Spike. Something
it appears ME severely underestimated.
There are huge gaps in knowledge on this topic within the viewing
group. (Look at the thread this came from, for instance!)
Also varying degrees of personal exposure to sexual assault/rape,
(from nada to intimate). And the myriad of different reactions,
emotional/physical/legal, to it. With such a variety of understandings,
no wonder it sparked so much debate, so many reactions - on boards,
etc like this and at M.E.
I stated earlier that I didn't believe ME should be considered
naive because they didn't think it would cause such an uproar.
As if it didn't warrant so much attention. I now amend that to
ME was naive in that it didn't comprehend how much of a hot button
to so many people that situation is. They were unable to anticipate
the backlash, underestimating the effect.
If this was inspired by Marti's experience, we aren't privy to
the details of what happened. Maybe they blamed it on alcohol
- or just decided to pretend it didn't happen. It was uncomfortable,
but not a really bad experience. So the group wrote it based on
the memorable, but not earth-shattering reaction Marti and date
had to it., Who knows.
But if it had been horrible and affected Marti and her date deeply
with all kinds of deep negative reactions and painful emotions
- I don't think ME would have done the scene the way they did.
But a very good thing that came out of it all. All the uproar
brought attention to a very crucial problem. It brought more awareness
and correct information about sexual assault/rape.
Stereotypes were illuminated and addressed. People with little
interest or attention to the crime were exposed to those who had
experienced it more intimately.
By exposure to the true stories, many people's awareness of the
seriousness and depth of this problem was increased. Not just
intellectually, but emotionally, too. All in varying degrees.
What rape actually entails, that men are raped also, that it's
not an act of sex but one for power and control, that there ae
many different forms and sheer strength is only one method used...
and so on.
So, ::hearing a cybersigh of relief from anyone reading this far
as they sense it's finally ending:: that Buffy/Spike bathroom
scene was bigger than just another interesting storyline. More
than a character arc or metaphorical twist for us to analyze and
debate. It hit on a real life crisis and created quite a stir.
The good kind. The kind that can lead to healing ouside Buffyverse.
Something that went bigger than a television show.
Joss had no idea. :>
[> [> oops... forgot
to mention the dramatic crescendo my orchestra hits at the end
of my post. -- WickedB, 12:32:35 07/14/03 Mon
[> [> Will respond later.
I've got RL to attend to. -- curious, 12:41:41 07/14/03
Mon
i.e. bored kids who want to go swimming. ;-)
[> [> Re: Buffyverse
does good. -- curious, 17:49:59 07/14/03 Mon
I can only respond to this thread from personal experience. I
have been thinking about why this ìARî scene didnít
bother me as much as it did other people. And I think that one
reason is the I have seen much worse situations in real life -
but as a health care worker and counselor - not for myself and
not with someone very close to me. In the ER and in the Battered
Womenís shelter, I had to maintain a certain emotional
detachment in order to do my job - But I have never been a victim
of DV or rape or sexual assault so - I looked at the scene fairly
clinically and could appreciate the acting and emotionality without
getting as upset.
Iím just not sure about whether or not ME was brave or
stupid/naive to try to do this ìARî after exploring
an S&M relationship where we switched between Spikeís and
Buffyís POV. We could go around and around about what they
could or should have done differently - but the fact of the matter
is they did the bathroom scene and we have to deal with the aftermath
of that. I love the character of Spike and appreciated the intricate
relationship portrayed but I also thought something dramatic like
the ìARî was somewhat inevitable. Iím not
sure what they were going for. Iím not convinced that it
was ìnecessaryî to the storytelling but Iím
also not convinced an attempted siring would have been better.
I do think they took an artistic chance by making the scene to
stark and realistic rather than mythical/metaphorical. (The cut
to commercial in the middle was TACKY though. It isnít
any better on the DVD.)
The other reason I could see this scene as Spike going too far
in trying to get Buffy to love him without any intent to harm
her initially (Iím trying to short hand this. I realize
more than that was going on) - was BUFFYís reaction - her
state of mind. She didnít act like the victims of sexual
violence I have worked with. She took Dawn to Spikeís crypt
for protection almost immediately after the incident in the bathroom.
(which also causes me to ask - Donít these people have
any other friends or acquaintances??? What about Janiceís
mother? What about that lady from L.A. Law at Social Services???
but I digress.) It can and has been argued that Buffy used
poor judgment here - and I agree - but it also shows that she
was less upset by the bathroom scene than many in the audience
were. ME didnít have to show Buffy taking Dawn to Spikeís
crypt or show her looking sad when she found out Spike had left
town. Iím not sure I want to expand on this point - except
to say that this made sort of a ìvictim impact statementî
to me. i.e. Buffy didnít feel victimized so I didnít
hate Spike after the bathroom scene. (not sure Iím expressing
myself well here.) I also felt Buffy was the stronger party and
was never really in danger of being assaulted. If you think about
it - the ìARî did two positive things - it definitively
ended B/S and caused Spike to seek out his soul. Maybe that is
what ME was going for??
And just a shortish note about Domestic Violence/Abuse (DV for
short). I have seen some people call Buffyís treatment
of Spike DV or more frequently Spikeís treatment of Buffy
=DV. IMO, this was not DV - it was a consensual, mutually abusive,
unhealthy relationship - even though there may have been some
mutual feelings in there somewhere. DV in real life is a lot different.
There is an serious imbalance of power - even though love and
caring might be muddying the waters on both sides. One of the
partners - most often (but not always) the woman in a heterosexual
relationship has a lot less power than the other partner and is
psychologically and sometimes (but not always) physically abused.
(DV can also involve child abuse, elder abuse, homosexual relationships,
etc.) The thing that gets tricky is that sometimes physical abuse
is easier to deal with than the day to day fear that something
might happen. Waiting for the ìother shoe to dropî
is often described as harder to deal with than the actual violence.
When blatant physical abuse happens, there is a possibility of
getting attention and/or sympathy - from medical personnel, from
social services, etc. Psychological, financial, etc. abuse is
much harder to define. The abused partner feels worthless and
embarrassed and canít ìescapeî and is usally
very isolated. It doesnít help when well meaning people
say - ìJust get out.î There is a lot of ìblaming
the victimî so the victim either blames him/herself and/or
hides the abuse. This is especially true of male victims - so
those victims may be under-reported. Medical personnel and police
are finally getting training about how to identify DV in emergency
and medical settings. Back in the old days, the cops would take
the injured party to the ER to get patched up and bring her (usually
her) back home and advise her not to rile up the abuser again
- especially when heís drunk. (sorry if I got pedantic
and OT here.)
Anyway - B/S doesnít fit the pattern of DV. Very different
dynamic.
[> [> [> Very well
said. Thank you. I agree with every word. -- s'kat, 19:33:18
07/14/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> Hi
s'kat. -- curious (waiting until the thread above settles
down), 19:47:13 07/14/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
Oh I think I missed you... -- s'kat (waving back for same
reason), 21:52:56 07/14/03 Mon
I had to leave the board entirely b/c of thread above.
Now strategically avoiding it. ;-)
Let's just say scrolling up from the bottom sometimes works really
really well.
[> [> [> [> I agree
with this analysis. Well said. -- jane, 21:27:03 07/14/03
Mon
[> [> Re: Buffyverse
does good. -- curious, 17:52:52 07/14/03 Mon
I can only respond to this thread from personal experience. I
have been thinking about why this ìARî scene didnít
bother me as much as it did other people. And I think that one
reason is the I have seen much worse situations in real life -
but as a health care worker and counselor - not for myself and
not with someone very close to me. In the ER and in the Battered
Womenís shelter, I had to maintain a certain emotional
detachment in order to do my job - But I have never been a victim
of DV or rape or sexual assault so - I looked at the scene fairly
clinically and could appreciate the acting and emotionality without
getting as upset.
Iím just not sure about whether or not ME was brave or
stupid/naive to try to do this ìARî after exploring
an S&M relationship where we switched between Spikeís and
Buffyís POV. We could go around and around about what they
could or should have done differently - but the fact of the matter
is they did the bathroom scene and we have to deal with the aftermath
of that. I love the character of Spike and appreciated the intricate
relationship portrayed but I also thought something dramatic like
the ìARî was somewhat inevitable. Iím not
sure what they were going for. Iím not convinced that it
was ìnecessaryî to the storytelling but Iím
also not convinced an attempted siring would have been better.
I do think they took an artistic chance by making the scene to
stark and realistic rather than mythical/metaphorical. (The cut
to commercial in the middle was TACKY though. It isnít
any better on the DVD.)
The other reason I could see this scene as Spike going too far
in trying to get Buffy to love him without any intent to harm
her initially (Iím trying to short hand this. I realize
more than that was going on) - was BUFFYís reaction - her
state of mind. She didnít act like the victims of sexual
violence I have worked with. She took Dawn to Spikeís crypt
for protection almost immediately after the incident in the bathroom.
(which also causes me to ask - Donít these people have
any other friends or acquaintances??? What about Janiceís
mother? What about that lady from L.A. Law at Social Services???
but I digress.) It can and has been argued that Buffy used
poor judgment here - and I agree - but it also shows that she
was less upset by the bathroom scene than many in the audience
were. ME didnít have to show Buffy taking Dawn to Spikeís
crypt or show her looking sad when she found out Spike had left
town. Iím not sure I want to expand on this point - except
to say that this made sort of a ìvictim impact statementî
to me. i.e. Buffy didnít feel victimized so I didnít
hate Spike after the bathroom scene. (not sure Iím expressing
myself well here.) I also felt Buffy was the stronger party and
was never really in danger of being assaulted. If you think about
it - the ìARî did two positive things - it definitively
ended B/S and caused Spike to seek out his soul. Maybe that is
what ME was going for??
And just a shortish note about Domestic Violence/Abuse (DV for
short). I have seen some people call Buffyís treatment
of Spike DV or more frequently Spikeís treatment of Buffy
=DV. IMO, this was not DV - it was a consensual, mutually abusive,
unhealthy relationship - even though there may have been some
mutual feelings in there somewhere. DV in real life is a lot different.
There is an serious imbalance of power - even though love and
caring might be muddying the waters on both sides. One of the
partners - most often (but not always) the woman in a heterosexual
relationship has a lot less power than the other partner and is
psychologically and sometimes (but not always) physically abused.
(DV can also involve child abuse, elder abuse, homosexual relationships,
etc.) The thing that gets tricky is that sometimes physical abuse
is easier to deal with than the day to day fear that something
might happen. Waiting for the ìother shoe to dropî
is often described as harder to deal with than the actual violence.
When blatant physical abuse happens, there is a possibility of
getting attention and/or sympathy - from medical personnel, from
social services, etc. Psychological, financial, etc. abuse is
much harder to define. The abused partner feels worthless and
embarrassed and canít ìescapeî and is usally
very isolated. It doesnít help when well meaning people
say - ìJust get out.î There is a lot of ìblaming
the victimî so the victim either blames him/herself and/or
hides the abuse. This is especially true of male victims - so
those victims may be under-reported. Medical personnel and police
are finally getting training about how to identify DV in emergency
and medical settings. Back in the old days, the cops would take
the injured party to the ER to get patched up and bring her (usually
her) back home and advise her not to rile up the abuser again
- especially when heís drunk. (sorry if I got pedantic
and OT here.)
Anyway - B/S doesnít fit the pattern of DV. Very different
dynamic.
[> [> [> Sorry for
the double post. Very slow connection tonight. -- curious
(who can't tell if posts are going through or not), 17:58:17
07/14/03 Mon
[> Oh, I'm much more easily
confused than that. Lots of people here can attest to that.
-- Sophist, 12:42:33 07/14/03 Mon
And following up to WickedBuffy, please don't spend any time googling.
We agree that the issue involves different measures and nuance.
[> [> Heck I've confused
every posters genders at one time or another -- s'kat, 21:59:20
07/14/03 Mon
You really can't tell from people's posts, I don't care what that
recent study said.
I've tried every litnus test in the book - the only one that works
is when the poster themselves tells you.
And oh don't try by names - "shadowkat" - if you goggle
it has male connotations as well as female apparently. Sigh.
Also agree with curious and Sophist: don't bother googling.
[> Thanks for the smile-I
needed it -- sdev, 19:31:01 07/14/03 Mon
Thanks for the post. No offense taken on the gender. And I did
know that Sophist was a lawyer. Although the law is certainly
relevant, it does not always form the basis of, or coincide, with
my beliefs. I like to think of myself as an independent thinker.
Along those lines, I am aware my views on the firemen are not
"PC". Because they are not "PC" I was not
too suprised at the flak. But I am also sure they do not break
any discrimination laws. I was advocating a single standard for
all applicants, a gender neutral test. I believe the job requires
an unusual and exceptional level of brute strength which most
women do not have. If they can prove they do, in the same test
the men take, fine, hire them. I formulated this view after 9/11
when I learned that firemen had to haul 100lbs of gear up 100
flights of the WTC.
I am also not unaware of many legal concepts such as mens rea,
intent, specific intent, inability to give consent due to mental
impairment whether temporary or permanent, elements of the crime,
rape verus sexual assault, etc.
On rape, I feel my posts were very misunderstood and hardly read.
I don't know why. On rape and domestic violence I feel I am very
PC. I posed a question of fact which no one answered. I was not
one of the posters who said men couldn't be raped. I never suggested
that rape was only a crime of physical overpowering. I never suggested
that a victim had to fight to injury or death. I am aware and
agree that "no means no." Nevertheless as WickedBuffy
points out the AR brought important issues to the fore, especially
the issue of misunderstood consent, intent, etc.
Domestic violence, separate from rape which I know can also be
involved, is often quite different than rape in its methodology
and its repetitive nature. I tried to make that point but got
treated as if I were dismissing the seriousness of domestic violence
or not understanding that it can also involve rape. I know. I
am also aware that many crimes that one thinks of as rape are
not legally considered rape but are sexual assaults with the same
elements of the crime except the body parts. This does not lessen
their severity in my opinion whatsoever. I certainly know that
"rape is an act of violence, not an act of sex. Sex is how
the violence is carried out. The weapon of choice for expressing
the violence," as WickedBuffy fairly points out. But somehow
I was not heard.
I think some of what I was trying to say got lost in another point
I was trying to make. Personally, I think it is foolish to ignore
the strength imbalance between men and women. Ignoring what I
consider to be a reality could have dangerous consequences for
women. This is coming from a person who lifts weights daily, is
considerably stronger than her peers, and who has been involved
in sports her whole life. I too have my area of expertise.
Sorry if I offended anyone. I debated whether to post this as
I do not wish to make matters worse, or bore you all to death,
but I felt I was entitled to set the record straight on my views..
[> [> Hi sdev - glad
you came back to the thread -- curious, 19:55:02 07/14/03
Mon
I think that old thread got messy and hard to follow so some of
your posts may not have been read - or not read in the right order.
I know I was having trouble following all the posts.
No one likes to be misunderstood. ;-)
I hear what you are saying about gender strength differences in
real life. I think one of the things BtVS was doing in S6 was
flipping the gender roles here and there. Buffy was clearly stronger
than Spike - so I wonder if some of the gender arguments in that
thread could be completely applied to the real world anyway.
Gotta turn off my computer very soon. I'm being dragged to a water
park in the morning - sort of against my will - by people much
smaller than I am - but they are so cute...- heeeeelp!!!
[> [> Sorry...didn't
mean to misunderstand. -- s'kat, 20:07:16 07/14/03 Mon
Sorry my posts came across as confrontational - they weren't meant
to. As curious posted above, I have a legal background and whether
I like it or not am trained to think and argue like a lawyer.
In fact the more frustrated I got, the more my legal side cropped
up. Sorry for that.
The rape topic is one of my hot-buttons. I'm not sure why exactly,
since my experience with it isn't intimate, although I've had
many friends who have been date-raped and never reported it. I've
also had first hand dealings with the fact that the law does more
to hurt than help the victim in our society.
You did not offend. Well, just a little, but I have my hot-buttons.
As a dear friend of mine realized when she asked "why bother
discussing rape at all or debating it what is the point? "
Arrgh.
Anyways I think you and I were posting at cross-purposes.
Partly because I did misread what you were saying. And after a
while I concluded as curious posts above that you were a man.
So thank you for clarifying on all points.
Let me try to clarify my disagreement with your statement
about brute strength.
I think some of what I was trying to say got lost in another
point I was trying to make. Personally, I think it is foolish
to ignore the strength imbalance between men and women. Ignoring
what I consider to be a reality could have dangerous consequences
for women. This is coming from a person who lifts weights daily,
is considerably stronger than her peers, and who has been involved
in sports her whole life. I too have my area of expertise.
I think what I was trying to point out and doing it badly, was
that you were making a generalization, based on a physically fit
minority of people. Most Americans aren't atheletic or physically
fit. Yes, of course men are physically stronger than women if
they are working out and have the same fitness levels, but there
are women who are stronger than some not all men. I am sure that
you could probably easily beat up some couch potatoe guys I've
met without building a sweat. They've never lifted weights. You'd
terrify them. Heck I could. And I've never lifted weights. I've
met men who were easily beaten up by women who never worked out
a day in their lives. My cousin is just one example - a weak man
with a limp. His wife is 200 pds and 5'4. She could arm wrestle
him without a sweat. Needless to say neither have seen the inside
of a gym.
Now, if both men and women went to the gym on a daily basis, both
lifted weights - yes - you would be right, no contest. That's
why men and women do not compete against each other in competitive
sports. Men are stronger. But that isn't what happens. We don't
normally have bodybuilder Martha taking on bodybuilder Fred. We
have Martha who may run a few miles taking on couch potatoe Fred.
(Excuse the stereotypical phrases - using them to try to illustrate
a point.) I was merely trying to point out the fallacy. And again
doing it badly.
There are also women who can lift 100 tons. Not many admittedly.
Also to be a firemen you don't necessarily have to. 911 was an
odd circumstance, not the norm. And yes - women have to face the
same tough physical as men and lift the same weight reguirement.
They did a special once on the nightly news showing this fact.
So I wouldn't worry, no women are being admitted that can't handle
the physical requirements just as no men are. They aren't required
to beat men at it, just to measure up to the same limits.
I think I was trying to point out the dangers of making an assumption
that no woman is ever stronger than any man.
I wasn't sure from reading your posts whether that was your intent
or not, but it was what I interpreted. My apologies for misinterpreting
it.
Just as you may have interpreted me as stating that a woman can
become stronger than any man. Not true. I was trying to say while
some men are stronger than all women. Some women are stronger
than some men. And some men are stronger than some women. It's
a logic syllogism problem, causes all sorts of miscommunication
;-)
I'm sorry sdeve, I've been enjoying your posts and I really did
not mean to offend or upset you. IT was not for the record your
posts that upset me - it was others in the same thread that did.
Actually the one that hit my hot button was the post that stated:
Women can not rape men. I just could not in good conscience let
that one go. Not when I knew from personal experience it was simply
wrong. I wish I'd stopped with that one. Afterwards - I considered
leaving the board for a while, since I think we may have gotten
a little too heated for such an off-topic topic.
I hope some of that makes sense. And that you accept my apologies
for misunderstanding you.
sk
[> [> [> LOL, s'k:
"There are also women who can lift 100 *tons*."
-- Sophist, 20:15:33 07/14/03 Mon
Even Buffy would have trouble with that. I hope.
[> [> [> [> What
can I say? I suck at math or just numbers period ;-) -- s'kat,
21:43:16 07/14/03 Mon
[> [> [> You made
my night -- sdev, 21:37:07 07/14/03 Mon
"I think you and I were posting at cross-purposes."
That was my impression. I love your posts. They are inspirational.
So let's move forward.
[> [> [> [> Oh
good. Thank you so much for saying that. -- s'kat, 21:46:58
07/14/03 Mon
Not been feeling very inspirational of late. Mostly cranky like
DarkWillow. Sigh...methinks we do all need a break from our vamps.
So thanks so much for saying that. I was worried.
Yes, let's move on.
sk (extending a cybernetic handshake)
More July 2003 | Current
board