[> Canada Day in Brooklyn (Part II) -- cjl, 15:09:34
07/02/04 Fri
A belated Happy Canada Day from here in Chicago. (Currently typing
on 'Bit's computer...)
Brooklyn had its second annual Canada day music concert last week,
with an all-star tribute to Neil Young. Not quite the same quality
as the Leonard Cohen concert last year, but some solid, if unsurprising,
versions of Neil classics (Powderfinger, For the Turnstiles, I
Believe in You, Expecting to Fly, etc.). Also, some not-so-interesting
versions of Neil classics and semi-classics (The Loner, Helpless,
etc.)--hence the dubious quality of the overall enterprise....
More stuff from Chicago later. Thinking of all who can't be here
with us...
CJL
One Quick Chicago question...
-- Belladonna, 08:00:56 07/02/04 Fri
I know today's Friday, so maybe everyone's already there and no
one will notice this question until next week (in which case,
disregard this message). However, in case anyone reads this, I'll
ask. I may not get there until Saturday, in which case I just
look in the conference room, I assume. But there's a slight chance
I may be able to come out on Friday, and I was wondering how I
find people. We don't have the conference room until Saturday,
and I didn't get a room at the hotel. Plus, I don't know anyone's
real names. So how do I find you all if I come? I don't really
relish the thought of wandering up and down the halls of the hotel
yelling out Philosophical Buffy until someone replies. :)
Replies:
[> Re: One Quick Chicago question... -- Masq, 08:18:48
07/02/04 Fri
Little Bit, Lady Starlight and Random are already there and said
in the thread below they would make their hotel room numbers available.
Hopefully, they'll post that info or their email addresses here
for the other Friday people.
[> [> Aaack! -- Arethusa, 08:55:09 07/02/04 Fri
I'm in downtown Chicago right now, about to go to the Oriental
Institute. I'll be back at the hotel in the late afternoon. See
you guys soon!
[> Re: One Quick Chicago question... -- LittleBit, 11:12:36
07/02/04 Fri
When you check in the front desk will have a room number for anyone
checking in for "All Things Philosophical" (and a note
for anyone whose name we actually knew). If you aren't checking
in, ask for the "All Things Philosophical" message.
[> I'm here too! Look me up! -- Ladyhelix,
18:08:44 07/02/04 Fri
Belladonna!! If you get in tonight I'm in room 501. Since I am
a newby and a last minute attendee I m not in the block of rooms
with the rest of the gang (nor have I met them.
I just got back from the desk where I asked "Are there any
messages for the All things philosophical meeting folks in the
Kennedy room, or are there plans tonight" - and they said
"No, but there is a meeting tomorrow at 8am". I stayed
and chatted with them for a bit.. but no more info was forthcoming.
I've been in town since 7am this morning, and I was foolish enough
to have never considered how impossible it would be to try to
pick ATPoBtVS&AtS people out of a crowd! Now I thought about asking
for the room numbers of Little Bit, Lady Starlight and Random
- or asking if Masq, CJS or 'skat had checked in yet but I realized
how silly that would be!! (If I really wanted to - I know I could
demand their room numbers and crash their party - but I'm sure
they're catching up and I'm very content).
I've had a great day here in Chicago - and I would LOVE some company
tonight. I just purchased an internet connection ($9.95 a day)
after my last futile trip around the public area downstairs. If
you don't catch this tonight don't worry - I'll see you all tomorrow!
I'm very very excited to be here!!!!!!
- Nanette (Ladyhelix) Rm 501
Chicago! It's our kind of
town! -- We, the Gathered, 22:38:36 07/02/04 Fri
HI! We're here! We're high!
Masq (incognito ergo sum)
'Bit
d'Herblay
anom
Ann
Arethusa
fresne
Jane
cjl
Rob
BuffyBoy
fidhle
Frisby
LadyS
Sheri
LadyHelix
Random
Darby
Sara
Graffiti
Honorificus is here, we think. There's 'someone' who keeps making
comments about our style. Okay, fine...the lack thereof. What's
wrong with matching teeshirts and funny buttons?
Replies:
[> Whee! -- Scroll, 22:45:16 07/02/04 Fri
Thanks for the update in my LJ, Bit. Yes, yes you are high, aren't
you? I hope you guys are having a wild, wild party! Go easy on
the red wine though! You wanna still be able to remember it all
the next morning. Why? Because I expect you to write it out for
us, in painstaking detail! Come on, we need the Chronicles of
Chicago, ATPo Style!
Love,
Scroll
P.S. Wish I was there!
[> : ( Have fun -- Celebaelin, 23:57:14 07/02/04
Fri
[> Anyone who wasn't here... -- Rob, 00:16:30 07/03/04
Sat
...missed out on the chance to see me wearing two tiaras and an
eyepatch simultaneously. :-D
Rob
[> [> Oh, darn it! -- CW, 06:34:33 07/03/04 Sat
Have fun folks.
[> [> Oh, that's just scary....;) -- Rufus, 17:41:16
07/03/04 Sat
[> [> Party in my eye socket! -- cougar, 20:49:00
07/03/04 Sat
What would be the ultimate
smackdown for Buffy/Angel? -- megaslayer, 07:29:50 07/03/04
Sat
I been Spiderman "Secret Wars"picked 7 warriors for
both to test Good vs. Evil and was think for that type of fight
Buffy/Angel. At Best for good Buffy,Angel,Willow,Faith,Illyria,Kennedy,
and Wesley. For Evil Glory,Beast,Master,Angelus,Vail,Caleb,and
Drusilla.
Replies:
[> Re: What would be the ultimate smackdown for Buffy/Angel?
-- Kana, 03:29:50 07/05/04 Mon
Angel and Angelus on opposite sides at the same time huh? That
would be cool. Another Orpheus type battle perhaps?
The Chicago Chronicles, Volume
1 -- The Chronicler, 08:28:54 07/03/04 Sat
New York, 1:00 PM. I am about to board the flight to Chicago,
when disaster seems to strike. I get a call from the hotel that
they are going to charge us for A/V equipment, which was supposed
to be free. The man tells me that they went ahead and hooked up
the best equipment they had. "That will be seven-fifty a
day," he said. When he clarifies that he indeed means $750.00,
not $7.50, I almost had an anuerysm. Not the funny kind. The woman
I need to call to get this cleared up isn't answering her phone.
I get on the plane, full of trepidation.
Chicago, 2:30 PM. I arrive at Midway Airport, try a few times
to call the managers' numbers and get a machine every time. I
go to wait for the shuttle bus to O'Hare that is supposed to arrive
at 3:00. It shows up at 3:30.
4:30 PM. Due to extreme traffic, I arrive at O'Hare an hour later,
and wait 15 minutes for the shuttle bus to the Holiday Inn.
5:05 PM. I arrive at the Holiday Inn. It has taken me longer to
get between two locations in Chicago than it has taken me to get
from New York to Chicago. And of course, it being a few minutes
after five, the manager just left. I am not the happiest
camper. I am greeted by a small card from LittleBit and LadyStarlight,
though, with a picture of Joss standing in the Wolfram and Hart
building, with the room number printed in the center.
6:30 PM. I get myself settled in my hotel room, and wait for a
call from the hotel, which when it finally comes, is from someone
who cannot help me but tells me that she will try to reach the
woman who can. I decide that I've waited by the phone enough.
I give her my cell phone number, and head down to ATPo Central
a.k.a. Bit and LadyS's room. In the elevator, I run into Sara,
who is going downstairs to have dinner with the rest of the New
York clan, and Jane. I decide to go to the room first, where I
am greeted and hugged by LadyS. Bit is behind her computer, gleefully
typing away, and a mystery guest is sitting on one of the beds.
I puzzle and puzzle until my puzzler is sore, and I still cannot
figure out who she is. After three or four ridiculously obvious
clues from Bit and LadyS, I finally let out a pathetic "Sheri?"
I turn out to be right, but I get no hug. Too little, too late.
Bit regales her with tales of my inability to find anything that
is staring me in the face, including the time I forgot what room
number I had at the Washington, D.C. meet, leaving me forced to
try my key in every door on the lower floor of the motel at 4
in the morning (Note: I am including this as intentional foreshadowing.
Wink wink.). I go down to grab dinner.
7:00 PM. Darby, Sara, anom, cjl, fidhle, and Jane are all sitting
at a table in the restaurant. Graffiti has gone off on a mission
for a Krispy Kreme donut. LadyS and Random join us later, although
Random abandons us in the middle to "pollute his body,"
according to many of us. Over the course of the next two and a
half hours, we have good food and discuss many things, from the
strengths and weaknesses of the last two seasons of Buffy,
Season 7 as a miliatary movie, with Willow as the shellshocked
pilot who is afraid to go back in the air to LadyS's very convicing
theory that the plot of S7 was originally intended to be a two-season-arc,
with Conversations With Dead People as the season finale,
to David Boreanaz's acting ability to cicadas on planes and brain
parasites in deer. Don't ask. Many of us split slices of white
chocolate cheesecake that turns out to really be raspberry cheesecake.
Random and I share. He would like me to insert the disclaimer,
though, that there was no romance involved.
9:30 PM. As everyone piles off to their separate rooms, I go back
to the front desk. Still the elusive manager lady cannot be reached.
I sigh and go back to my room for half an hour. On the way, I
meet Arethusa, who has been here since Wednesday, but hasn't been
able to find anyone! I tell her Bit and LadyS's room number and
go to my floor.
10:00 PM. I go down to Bit and LadyS's floor, but cannot find
their room, even though I walk up and down the hallway three or
four times (See, I told you that earlier story would pay off!
;-) ) I go back to my room, IM Bit, who isn't on-line. I leave
her a message, and lie down "for a few minutes." I fall
asleep.
11:45 PM. I am awakened by a suspicious call, on behalf of the
ATPo Conference, that my presence is requested in Bit and LadyS's
room. I rub my eyes, yawn, throw my clothes back on, and head
for the elevator, where Random is waiting, to make sure I find
my way. He tells me not to enter yet. He sticks his head in the
room, closes the door, and then tells me I can. I open the door
and enter the room, which is completely packed with people: Masq,
Bit, d'Herblay, anom, Ann, Arethusa, fresne, Jane, cjl, BuffyBoy,
fidhle, Frisby, LadyS, Sheri, LadyHelix, and Random (everyone
but the Darby clan, who are asleep). They all turn when I enter
and start applauding. Having just woken up, I am in complete sensory
overload and am still a little disoriented, not helped when I
opened my presents from Bit and LadyS, and found myself putting
on two tiaras and a sequined eyepatch (which LadyS made), in front
of a room full of people. Pictures were taken, of course. Whether
it was a surprise party or an ambush, I'm not exactly sure...but
I had a great time. Due to the size of the room, mingling was
difficult, but eventually everyone seemed to make their way from
one group to another. I talked Spiderman 2, with fresne,
my utter failure at sports with fresne and fidhle, and then the
difference between bad-good movies and good-bad movies with fresne,
fidhle, cjl, Arethusa, and more. Masq pointed out that I like
everything. Except for "Chronicles of Riddick,"
someone chimed in. And d'H made the very good point that if I
hated a movie, it would have to be the best bad movie ever!
As the course of the evening continued on, politics were discussed,
along with Fahrenheit 9/11, and, of course, Buffy and Angel
were discussed, naturallly. One side of the room had a trivia
game. By that point, I'd made my way to the Bit/Masq/d'H/anom
side of the room, where Bit was still typing away (had she left
her seat at the computer all day? I cannot say! ;-) ), leaving
messages for a very gleeful Scroll, among others. We talked Harry
Potter, fandoms, my A/V headaches, why [sarcasm]Harmony was
the ultimate tragic female character of AtS[/sarcasm]. We all
had lots of chocolate and soda, some had wine, all had a blast.
Sheri gave us the t-shirts she made, which say "University
of California, Department of Philosophy" on the front and
have "The 2nd Annual ATPo Board Meet, Chicago, Illinois,
July 2-5, 2004" on the back, along with a picture of philosophers
overlaying a skyline of Chicago. By 3, the party slowly dwindled,
and we all finally made our way to our separate rooms, drifting
off to sleep with the excitement of the evening's festivities,
and anticipation for another 2 1/2 days of more ATPo-ish fun.
To Be Continued...
Rob
Replies:
[> I want to hear LadyS's S7 plot theory. That sounds interesting.
-- Unitas, 10:20:39 07/03/04 Sat
[> Rob, why am I not in any of the chronicles of the trip
to Chicago? -- Rochefort, 15:28:25 07/03/04 Sat
Did you just leave me out because you're still mad that I'm right
about Little Shop?
Rochefort
[> [> Because you're not here?? -- The ATPoers, 21:08:30
07/03/04 Sat
[> [> [> Yeah, but in The Rescue Revisited....
-- Rochefort, 07:26:27 07/04/04 Sun
,which was derailed (however accidentally) by cjl, I made Rob
"President of Prague," and was Rob even IN Prague? No,
he was not in Prague. But I gave him really great parts in both
The Rescue AND Rescue Revisited. But now he writes "The Chronicles
of Chicago," and I don't even appear. I don't think it's
fair.
Rochefort
[> The Chicago Chronicles, Volume 1b and 2 -- Masquerade,
21:26:42 07/03/04 Sat
After a hideous flight from San Francisco, I found the shuttle
stop where the Hotel shuttle allegedly would come to fetch me.
I ran into Fresne, and as we pulled up into the hotel, we saw
the back of d'Herblay's head. We rushed to greet him.
My room with Fresne and anom was a few doors down from party room
central. Fresne and I had to save those poor saps from their midwestern
idea of wine. They thanked us with copious amounts of chocolate
(from Lady S and anom), Ann's cookies, and "UC Sunnydale
Philosophy Dept" t-shirts. Conversation and consumption abounded.
One group spent their time answering Buffy trivia questions while
other posted taunting comments on the board and LJ to ATPoers
who couldn't be with us.
Rob eventually joined us to much cheering. The poor boy was having
a nervous break down because the hotel wanted to charge us $700
a day for the cool A/V equipment (big-screen TV and actual stereo).
The following morning, Rob, Buffyboy and I negotiated with the
hotel to lower the price of the crappy A/V equipment, then joined
the gang who were already watching Buffy season 7 commentaries,
including Chosen, Conversations with Dead People, and Selfless.
They also watched OMWF in English and then in French.
d'Herblay got himself the big comfy chair for CWDP. We learned
that that episode was "meta-textual" on many levels.
That is the new catch word for the board, take note!
Ponygirl had sent along a gift of a bottle of wine which the hotel
was good enough to have waiting for us in the Kennedy room at
9 am on Saturday.
Some folks went off to lunch, leaving behind the Season 6 folks
to hash out ideas for the fic. When the others returned, discussion
groups formed spontaneously talking and sharing, and new people,
including mamcu, Belladona and Chicago Lurker joined us.
In the afternoon, we opened PG's wine and toasted absent friends.
This was followed by the Smile Time sing-along and the original
BtVS pilot. Then we watched every fanvid ever made. At least it
felt that way! By the time we got through them all, we were hungry
for dinner and went to a nearby Mexican restaurant on the hotel
shuttle.
After dinner, we all packed into the party room again, which is
where we are now.
[> [> Re: The Chicago Chronicles, Volume 1b and 2
-- Chicago Lurker, 21:53:20 07/03/04 Sat
About this Saturday s Chicago gathering. While a lurker on this
board, I felt very comfortable at this offline event. Everyone
was very open and friendly. I would highly recommend others in
the Chicagoland area to drop in to share your thoughts or listen.
You might even learn a few things and have a good laugh. I certainly
did.
[> [> [> Re: The Chicago Chronicles, Volume 1b and
2 -- The people at the other end of the table, 21:58:02
07/03/04 Sat
It wasn't us! It was your huuuuuge margarita.
[> [> [> [> Re: The Chicago Chronicles, Volume
1b and 2 -- Chciago Lurker, 06:22:46 07/04/04 Sun
The margarita was troll sized. My commentary power was enhanced
by my Thor-like glass, a weapon that allowed most of the smiting
and pillaging on my rampage through Saturday night's dinner. Crazy
Troll Logic, indeed.
[> [> Hope everyone survived the night -- Pony, 05:17:05
07/04/04 Sun
Drat, I had asked that the wine arrive in the afternoon since
I didn't think even you guys wanted it for breakfast. Glad you
proved me wrong!
Sounds like it's a blast over there - I hope extensive minutes
and incriminating photos will soon be posted!
[> The Chicago Chronicles, Volume 1 -- the Truth --
Random, 22:32:36 07/03/04 Sat
While I'm all for human dignity and all that rot, I must say that
ROb's distortion of the events to protect his reputation is a
wee bit unethical. So, in the interest of accuracy, a few real
tidbits from the dark heart of Chicago.
Friday evening, the group started coming together. To be precise,
they came together in a room approximately 5 X 5, most of which
was already taken up with furniture and Little Bit's luggage,
which would have clothed/fed/befuddled Africa for a year (the
bellhop's look of terror when he saw the sheer volume he would
be expected to carry in was priceless, though the screaming was
a tad over-the-top, I thought.)
Anyway, the excitement of meeting new people and a whole bunch
of previously-owned-but-still-in-good-condition people was worth
the fact that the collective group emitted approximately 5.4 billions
BTUs of bodyheat. Rob's entrance was one of the highlights, and
everybody did indeed stop and clap. Of course, what he fails to
mention is that his exit 4 hours later sparked far more enthusiastic
clapping, and lots of cheering as well. Anom showed up dressed
as Frodo, complete with rucksack and walking stick. An uncomfortable
silence fell over the room as we struggled with the idea of explaining
to her that this was a BtVS/AtS event, not a LotR one. Though
I must admit that the prosthetic size 23 hairy feet were a nice
touch.
Some tension started about midnight when Masq and dH got into
an argument about whether it really wasn't "easy being green."
dH finally called her a "tool of the Muppet propaganda machine."
THey then spent the next twenty minutes jabbing their fingers
at each other and shouting "I ban thee from the Board!"
When LittleBit offered them the use of her computer so they actually
could carry through with their threats, they both looked thoroughly
baffled, and drunk.
Oh, and fidhle and Buffyboy got into a major knockdown dragout
fight over fid's insistence that BtVS and AtS were "reality
series." A quick tribunal by other Gathering attendees ruled
in fid's favor when we established that, by fid's standards, a
melodrama about vampires was probably about as close to reality
as he'd ever manage to get.
Rob gave a 36 minute diatribe (checked my watch every 20 seconds,
you ask? uh-huh) on Lindsay's lust for Angel. Embarrassingly,
he consistently (i.e. every time) mispronounced Lindsay as "Rob."
When this was pointed out to him, he tried to blame his "New
York accent." No-one except Arethusa was fooled.
The story so far on Saturday:
A more complete and detailed chronicle will have to wait. Highlights,
though. Me and Sheri kicked David Frisby and fidhle's asses at
pool. Just wanted to share.
At the costume party, Rob commited yet another faux-pas by coming
as Machida the Penis-Head Monster...but only from the waist down.
Fresne insisted on doing all the parts in the sing-along herself,
complete with costume changes. This got particularly annoying
during "I Have a Theory" and "I'll Never Tell,"
when there were different speakers every other line. I won't even
bother describing the horrors that took place during "Let
It Burn," when two or more people were singing different
lyrics at the same time.
Masq's powerful rendition of "Oh Connor Boy" moved many
of us to tears. Unfortunately, the Irish Anti-Defamation League
was meeting right next door, and came over and demanded that Masq
stop with the Irish stereotyping. They then proceeded to get drunk,
smash up the room, sing bawdy drinking songs and paint anti-English
slogans on the wall.
Okay, more to come...
[> [> Oops... -- Random, 22:33:57 07/03/04 Sat
I've just been informed by Rob that those weren't prosthetics.
My deepest apologies to anom.
[> [> [> no no no... -- anom, 23:26:09 07/05/04
Mon
It just must've felt like they were that big when I planted
one where you so richly deserved it....
[> Sounds great!! -- Jacki,
10:08:58 07/04/04 Sun
I'm so jealous of y'all!!
If someone from my LJ list reads this ('Bit, LadyS), and if y'all
are bored at some point (not that that looks plausible) call my
cell phone! I'd love to make an appearance by cell phone, as I
can't be there at all. You can hold in out in the middle of the
room or something.
I'm babbling now. Half the people there probably don't have a
clue who I am. Oh well.
[> The Chicago Chronicles, Volume 3 -- Masq, 23:01:24
07/04/04 Sun
Dateline: Chicago, 4th of July
While I slept in, the gang watched the David Fury OMWF special.
I finally made my way downstairs and requested the commentary
to Spin the Bottle. The Darbys and CJL went off to go sight-seeing
in Chicago while we watched that extreme silliness with Joss and
Alexis commentating.
After that, we did our Pylea Motif. We wanted to see Joss dance
silly after listening to him making fun of Alexis Denisof in the
StB commentary. Buffyboy put in the commentary for the Pylea episode,
which we thought was supposed to be for Over the Rainbow (according
to the box), but turned out to be the commentary for Through the
Looking Glass instead.
So we watched that commentary, and then had to watch Over the
Rainbow in order to see the Numfar dancin'. After that, of course,
we had to watch There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb in order to get
the rest of the story.
We returned to Season 4 after that with the commentary to Orpheus.
Afterwards we debated the metaphysics of Angel vs. Angelus and
demons vs. souls. See? There was actual philosophical discussion
this weekend!
That got us thinking about the Fanged Four, so we watched the
commentary for Fool For Love and followed it up with the companion
episode "Darla". That got us in the mood to see "The
Trial", which spawned a discussion of how Jasmine manipulated
and took advantage of various events in seasons 2, 3 and 4 to
give birth to herself.
We sought out the answers in "Shiny Happy People". At
that point, we seriously needed to MST3K something badly,
so we popped in "A Hole in the World". That lead to
watching "Shells". This was accompanied by much drinking,
including a drinking game for each of Spike and Illyria's head-tilts.
The group went up for dinnner in the bar after that, followed
by dancing under the mirror ball. I skipped out early with a large
plastic bag to pick up our boucoup trash downstairs and the gang
came down to catch me sneaking in a viewing of "Origin".
Interestingly enough, they joined me in watching the ep, so I
refrained from doing all my usual comments and football fan gestures
that normally accompany my watching of the episode (which I obviously
do a lot, hence the horrible tracking lines crackling over the
TV screen).
After that, the gang watched "Checkpoint" in order to
celebrate the fourth of July. 'Cause, you know... Anya's lame
made-up birthday, as we learned in that episode. I came up here
to chronicle while others watched Justice League (and possibly
Looney Tunes). The gang up in Bit and Lady S's room were watching
SMG interviews and SNL.
We had to say good-bye to some people, like Frisby, and Rob who
will be leaving in the morning.
I'm gonna SOOOOO miss you guys! [puppet angel mode] I love you
guys!!! [/puppet angel mode]
Anyone who wants to sight see in Chicago with me tomorrow afternoon,
DON'T GO HOME!!!
[> [> The most important thing we learned today --
The Gathered, 23:07:57 07/04/04 Sun
Jeff Bell apologizes to Charisma Carpenter, and to all of America,
for the dress he put Cordelia in at the end of "Orpheus"
and that she was therefore stuck in for the next three episodes.
He chose it for the bare midriff, but didn't realize it had beads
and tassels on it until after they started shooting.
'Bit adds: there is a reason they have people do wardrobe and
why the Executive Producers AREN'T those people!!
[> Wow, sounds like fun -- Tyreseus, 15:09:58 07/05/04
Mon
I wish I could rewind time and join you all.
I can't wait to see the photos.
[> [> Fun was had by all! -- Masq, 16:45:45 07/05/04
Mon
Most everyone has gone home now except me, 'Bit, CJL, anom, and
Buffyboy.
Next year probably in New York!!
[> [> [> Attn: Everyone Who Was In Chicago...
-- Rob, 17:23:23 07/05/04 Mon
Since everyone thanked me so much this weekend, I just wanted
to take time to thank everybody else. I had the most fantastic
weekend. Even with all the headaches and tension and terror of
the first day that everything was going to fall apart, I so appreciate
everyone being so understanding. Big hugs to Masq and Buffyboy
for helping me deal with the A/V Fyarl demon. ;-) And while I'm
at it...Big Hugs to Everybody Else, too: 'Bit, d'H, anom, Ann,
Arethusa, fresne, Jane, cjl, fidhle, Frisby, LadyS, Sheri, LadyHelix.
Random, Darby, Sara, Graffiti, Chicago Lurker, Belladonna, and
mamculuna...For those of you who I hadn't met before, you never
know how people you meet on-lin will be in person, but if it's
even possible I love you guys even more now I did before
the meet. ATPo-ers are the best people on the planet. Thanks for
making this one of the best weekends of my life.
Just so you guys now, I'm safe at home, after a slightly bumpy
but mostly uneventful flight. And I'm really jealous of the small
group who get to stay another day and sight-see tomorrow. I got
all the way to Chicago and I still haven't seen Chicago!!
And of course you guys get more time to hang out together, which
is totally unfair. Dude! ;-)
I absolutely cannot wait until next year!!! I also cannot wait
to go to a Gathering that I didn't set up!!! So, d'H, who should
we coerce force "entice" ;-) to set it
up for next year? Because that should get going really soon, especially
if we're going to do it on July 4th weekend next year also. And
don't worry, Future Victim Organizer...LadyS and I will
be posting a list of dos and don'ts for next year. :-)
Rob
[> [> [> [> Oh, and New York... -- Rob, 17:24:40
07/05/04 Mon
...sounds like an EXCELLENT idea for next year. :-D
Rob
[> [> [> [> The tiara has been passed . . .
-- d'Herblay, 20:44:05 07/05/04 Mon
. . . cjl foolishly generously volunteered his services
today as you were checking out. He now has one motto: "No
sleep till (ATPo gathers in) Brooklyn!"
Hmmm. Maybe we should check how the finale of the "Rescue
Revisited" is going.
[> [> [> [> [> Excellent... -- Rob, 21:19:10
07/05/04 Mon
...although from my home, getting to Chicago is almost easier
than getting to Brooklyn!
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> really? -- anom, 20:23:07
07/06/04 Tue
"...from my home, getting to Chicago is almost easier than
getting to Brooklyn!"
Not if you add the part about getting from Chicago to Chicago!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: really? --
Masq, 06:55:36 07/07/04 Wed
Exactly, anom. Beware the Blue Line!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Heh...No, it's definitely
not easier than getting from Chicago to Chicago... -- Rob,
08:23:35 07/07/04 Wed
But Newark Airport from my house, and then a plane over to Midway
or O'Hare...much easier than getting to Brooklyn!
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> An idea for next year.....
-- Ladyhelix,
13:23:14 07/06/04 Tue
How about a "Come dressed as you would if this were the end
of the world" party! Those are ALWAYS fun - and this group
should be MORE than familiar with the concept of Apocali (or whatever
the plural for Apocalypse is)!
Just tossing out ideas!
(my two cents - worth EXACTLY what you paid for it)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Also, a fair warning...
-- Rob, 14:23:37 07/06/04 Tue
I will be making music videos for next year's gathering. I was
sitting and thinking today and came up with an idea that is demented
and hopefully hilarious. So beware my barely existent video editing
skills!!!! Beware!!!!
Rob
[> [> [> [> ROB!!! U R TEH_R0XX0RZ!!1!!1!!1!one11!eleventyone!!1!
-- All of Us, 23:17:34 07/05/04 Mon
Dude! Best.Glittery.Eyepatch.Wearer.EVER!!!!!!!!
We luv you!!!!! We had a great time this weekend!11!!eleven!!!
Thanks for all your hard work and stressing out!!
u rock!!!!
[> [> [> [> [> You guys are *sooooo* teh_kewl!!!
-- Rob, 14:43:45 07/06/04 Tue
[> The dress, the dance, the orgy and the rest of the story
-- [Ann sobs] posted by Dem-ann, 19:42:27 07/05/04 Mon
Ann, the dress and the rest of the story
I expected innocent fun at the meet palace that was the Holiday
Inn International. I expected the ritual to consist of the promised
viewings of the most beloved episodes of Buffy and Angel. However,
I thought that these posters might not know how to have a real
party. All they ever do is post. Therefore, while shopping a week
or so ago, I happened to come upon (on Ebay of course) the very
dress that Cordelia was wearing while evil and not so fashion
impaired. I didn t spend as much as Darby was rumoured to have
spent on other items. Of course, the dress was a little big, as
Cordy was [cough] pregnant [cough] while wearing said dress, so
I was able to take it in here and there, make use of the tassels
and pleats and generally make it wearable. An enjoyable afternoon
spent earlier this week.
Yes, the dance. Again, I believed that these philosophers (not
you Fresne) were unable to dance. My love of lyric and song lead
me to realize one early morning that you all needed a wake up
call. I knew none of you would ask the hotel management to do
that, so I would show you how. You really can t spend all of your
time just, well, um, thinking. The dress would manifest your dance-abilities.
I wore a black, simple ritual coat of concealment because I truly
wouldn t want to shock you one by one. Your little old Buffified
and Angelized hearts wouldn t be able to take it. Season 5 took
the last of what you were. Sorry Masq. It had to be a mass ritual
that would allow the orgy of dance to begin. There was not much
room in L Starlight/L Bit s room as ATPO guests followed them
everywhere, but I knew I had to try. I don t know where I learned
this lesson but I knew I just had to try, or die trying as it
turned out. I shucked the cloak. The dance resulted in a frenzy
of shouts of philosopher s names: Kant, Kant, Kant. The dance
ended.
The orgy began. We knew that these people could write. We knew
them by their words alone. Well, they have other abilities also;
gives essayist a whole other meaning. Action words, ha! Responses,
well I have never seen so many. The long threads of Cordy s fringe
were laid bare.
However, they wanted the dress destroyed. Some of the evil-Cordy
haters felt the need to rip the dress off of me although the orgy
accomplished that pretty well. From there, the scythe was able
to tear through me; Wes would have been proud. (Fashion aside:
I was unable find any Lilah heels to wear with the dress, but
hell, no one is perfect. I am tall, so it is not an issue I say.)
Sherri helped me pack. She was kind. Her t-shirt making abilities
helped hold in the parts. I made my way home. The pilot even came
back to look at my scars. Their horror frightened the flight attendants.
I have a few shreds of the dress left, you evil-Cordy haters.
You did not get it all! You claimed to want to destroy the dress,
but I know you want to use it for your own evil machinations.
The powers of that dress. I still hold the power of that dress.
Wait until next year, it will have incubated, its power reestablished,
tassels restrung, pleats and lace reattached and you will, each
of you, learn the lesson you did not this weekend. My heart is
in exactly the right place.
[> [> Death of "The Dress" by Scythe..
-- Jane, 21:15:34 07/05/04 Mon
Just to set the record straight, Dem-Ann...much debate was held
on whether the weapon of choice to undo the evil dancing spell
of the Cordy dress should be called an axe or a scythe. The "fringe"
factor thought it was definitely an axe. The Kantian factor was
equally sure scythe was the properly philosophical weapon. In
the end, exhaustive research and mediation decided that the weapon
in question was indeed an axe named "Scythe". With that
decided, the ritual axe murder was in full swing. Mwaahaahaa...much
fun was had by all (except for the evil Cordy dress bearer). Save
those fragments, Ann. We will deal with them in New York.
More seriously, I had a blast at the gathering. I must admit it
was a bit surreal at times, but in a good way. As others have
more eloquently said, fun was had by all. I really felt like these
were people I'd known for a long time. Not once did I feel like
a newbie. I enjoyed every minute, and it was so hard to leave.
How often does one get to leave with the sound of applause ringing
in one's ears? My curtesy was a little over the top, I know. A
picture of grace and all that..
Thanks to Masq and Rob and every other person there for a weekend
I will remember with pleasure. I was feeling quite bereft as the
Airport shuttle drove away. I had a good flight home, watched
the movie "Hidalgo" (Viggo Mortenson on a horse - what's
not to like?) It was good to get home though, the cats were happy
to see me, and when I sat down in front of the TV to have dinner,
what was on but "Origins". I did Masq's cheerleading
thing throughout. Oh, fond memories.
See you all next year in New York!
[> [> [> Re: Death of "The Dress" by Scythe..
-- Rob, 21:32:22 07/05/04 Mon
I was feeling quite bereft as the Airport shuttle drove away.
I know what you mean. I'm still feeling a little down, too. After
such an exciting weekend, it's hard not to be a little less than
thrilled for it to end and to have to return to everyday life.
I really felt like these were people I'd known for a long time.
Exactly...It's amazing how we've had relationships with everyone
on-line before we actually met, and so when we're finally in a
room together, the conversations just flow like they do on-line,
without any of the weirdness or awkwardness that usually happens
when you're in a room full of (relative) strangers. It helps of
course that on this board, most of the people--certainly the ones
at the meet--don't have much if any difference between their board
"personas" and how they are in real life. It's kind
of strange in one way but also really cool to reminisce with people
who you never really met before, even though you kinda
sorta have, because you've been talking to them approximately
once a day for a long, long time (even though you've never heard
each other's voices before now!). It's surreal but a good surreal.
Rob
[> [> I am shocked! -- CW, 06:55:03 07/06/04 Tue
What's wrong with you people? That dress is a piece of entertainment
history! How dare you defile the ugliest, sluttiest maternity
dress in the history of network television (confirmed by a J D
Power survey of viewer intial mirth and disgust)? Your granchildren
will bewail the lost to humanity!
[> Not Fade away again, away again, jiggety jig -- fresne
- dude!, 21:31:12 07/05/04 Mon
Linear is so full of structure. Plankton jealous of the landmass
in which they skip, singing, Self esteem is for everyone.
And then. And no and then. Time spools out Friday to Monday, days
1,2,3,4
Buffy La Tuesse des vampryres, OMWF c est magnifique. J aime partiqularement
les marche dans (ou sur ou entre ou etc.) flamb . Oh, la la, les
chanson avec les grande jupe.
I am so not looking up how to spell all of that and the tenses
and actually grammar and words and stuff. Whatever dude. (with
optional W hand gesture). Cuz, I am so like totally into Shakespeare
that like I think Joss is like the new Shakespeare only you know
more like Jane Austen, but with rocket launchers and like I like
think all the ideas that like we were talking about are like cool
and stuff and we should definitely do a book melee on Roz and
Guild, who are like Hamlet, which like ends totally like the last
Forever Knight episode with everyone dead and stuff, which is
like Puff and Stuff only less puffy and more deady, which is like
how Joss talks. Although, yeah, whatever, totally.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition and therefore don t fence
anom(oly) in. Just give us our daily cake and cookies and t.v.
hours five by five by five.
Ah, Darla, she was our Darling Girl. Particularly at three in
the morning giggling over what were we giggling about again? I
know I did the tea pot thing, which I still say is better with
Helium.
And I did dance briefly, but um, that music was unworthy. Although,
seriously ponygirl, thanks for the red. Way with the yum.
MST3K-ing is hard work. Alas, poor Illyria, I knew her not really
at all, but I really, liked her. It was the plankton thing. Poor
Fred, they canonized her, but never a princess like Cordy, or
I suppose Saint Cordy, who bled Jasmine.
I had many theories, some of which were contradictory, but mostly
hinged on the key constraint, Did it make the story cooler for
me? If yes, then it s the truth. All solid and non-wobbly, unless
other people didn t agree, in which case, dude, it s all about
cool. And possibly capes. We did after all watch some Justice
League, which was with the rocking. While Chance was interesting,
if a bit, um not Shakespeare. But pretty people. Plus Lorne with
the not green-ness, but still singing.
I feel like I should name people and say cool things that we did,
cuz, it s all about the cool and, well, self esteem, it s for
everyone.
Yeah, linear. Whatever dude.
[> [> Dude...it's all about the Circle of the Daquiris.
-- Rob, 21:34:34 07/05/04 Mon
[> [> [> Well, like, Yeah Dude, Totally -- fresne,
22:02:49 07/05/04 Mon
[> [> [> May the Circle(of the Daquiris)be unbroken...
-- Jane, 22:04:16 07/05/04 Mon
Because we all have those soft chewy fruity centres of philosophical
goodness, and,and,it's better to burn out than to fade away...Go,Neil
Young! Well, he's Canadian too. Probably likes Buffy too. And
to continue the non sequitorial goodness, Anyone for a banana
daquiri?
[> The Chicago Chronicles, Volume 4b -- Masq, 23:09:32
07/05/04 Mon
OK, let's try this again, since Voynak is determined to defeat
me.
ME!!!!!
It shall not defeat me!!!!
The glorious babes of room 333 blessed the Kennedy the Vampire
Slayer room with their presence this morning and coerced them
into watching "Chance", ripping it from the hands of
Darby, who was determined to take it upstairs and pack it in his
bags. This made me happy, because I got to see Amber Benson making
out with a girl. We also got to see James Marsters in a dress
and makeup, and Andy Hallet without makeup.
While d'Herblay and I went into Chicago to the Field Museum to
see the T-Rex Sue, anom and cjl stayed behind to watch Looney-Tunes
in the Slayer room. 'Bit, Random, and Sheri dragged the kidlets
away from their cartoons long enough to have dinner at Giordano's.
Meanwhile, d'H and I ate at Mickey D's in the museum. They gave
me a girlie-toy Happy Meal. Happy Meals are 25 years old this
year, just like Vincent. (I pitched that stooopid barbie doll!!!!)
I returned to the hotel on the Blue Line, which is the longest
trip in the world if you have to "go". I found the kidlets
STILL watching cartoons. I went upstairs and fell into a Godiva-chocolate-induced
coma. When I got up, they were STILL watching cartooons, only
did you happen to know there are cartoon commentaries??? They're
very short.
At that point, 'Bit arrived to rescue us with her humungous collection
of geekiest ever Fantastic DVDs. We chose to watch the Faith episodes
of Season 1 Angel. Random noted the irony of Wesley being beaten
while tied to a chair, given that he came to LIKE that in later
seasons. After seeing the Buffy-Angel confrontation in "Sanctuary",
we HAD to see the Riley-Angel testosterone-poisoned cat-fight
smackdown in "The Yoko Factor". Reeeoooowwwr!
We then went on to watch "Primeval" so we could see
the rest of the story. At that point, we collected all the remaining
goodies in the room so the hotel COULDN'T HAVE THEM!!!! CJL looked
in vain for the gold tiara that Rob left. We explained to him
that he had to get a NEW tiara of his own if he is to be the new
ATPo meet goddess. It will be a gift from the original ATPo meet
goddess, Teh 'Bit.
The six of us--'Bit, anom, Masq, cjl, Random, and Buffyboy proceeded
upstairs to read all the non-linear posts on the board by the
gang we miss so much!
[> [> Yeah, but... -- Caroline, 06:14:54 07/07/04
Wed
amid all the fun, I'm sure you must've missed me. After all, who
could entertain you with entertaining hand gestures? Heehee
Seriously, I'm glad you guys had a bunch of fun and I'm hoping
to get to America next northern summer (but not sure if it will
when the next meet is on, unfortunately) so I will hopefully to
see many of you then. I'll also be back to the board in the next
few weeks - only 2 more episodes of Angel to go down under so
I can venture in without being spoiled.
See you then,
Caroline
[> [> [> Thanks for braving the possible spoilage,
Caroline! -- Masq, 07:00:49 07/07/04 Wed
[> Re: The Chicago Chronicles, Volume ? -- Ann, 06:46:23
07/06/04 Tue
The actual story:
Flight to Chicago was fine, no delays, beautiful cliff-like clouds
I was able to immerse myself into without much turbulence. The
airport arrival, bag pickup, and shuttle driver were all arranged
by Rob apparently to be waiting for me. Nice touch Rob! The shuttle
driver exposited all of the necessary details for my stay at the
hotel, not the shower taps though.
I rushed to my room, no Sherri although her bed was wrinkled,
dumped my stuff, forgot to call my family and literally ran down
stairs. Actually, I used the elevator but that doesn t sound as
enthusiastic. I wandered some, and then I recognized Lady Starlight.
I had the advantage as I checked the wallpaper and photos from
last year. I walked over somewhat hesitantly and introduced myself.
She was friendly and welcoming, explaining who had arrived and
where they were. Jane came over, introduced herself, and we all
went to Bit and L Starlight s room. The room was full, introductions
were made, weeeee, and cookies were offered. They were immediately
pounced upon as all good cookies expect to be. Not unlike I felt
later in the weekend.
Rob arrived shortly after to ohhhs and aww s and waves and offerings
of gifts. The tiara gift was lovely, and with his new haircut,
he presented a very handsome clean-cut image of queen. Rob does
wear rhinestones well. They don t wear him, and that is the hardest
part to achieve. We hung in out the very steamy room until 2:30
when we departed to leave Bit and L Starlight to their sleep or
whatever.
Day 2.
Well, my adventures always begin early. I woke up and checked
my watch and I thought it said 8:30. I congratulated myself for
sleeping in. I lay in bed, feeling somewhat guilty for not having
called my family. So I thought I would do it before I showered
and got ready for the day. I slunk around the room, trying not
to wake up Sherri, called my family. My husband answered. I had
woken him up. I congratulated him for having been allowed to sleep
in by the children. Wow, both of us were able to. He asked me
why I was calling so early, but I figured he was still asleep.
We chatted. We said our goodbyes, and I looked at the clock. It
was 5:45. Ahhhhhh! I had miss-read my watch with apparent fog
and sleep still in my eyes. I went back to bed and got another
hours sleep.
Went downstairs to the Kennedy room for more introductions and
to watch Chosen. A nice ending in which to begin the conference.
I believe we also watched the commentaries. I have only a few
DVDs so these commentaries were the best part. We did OMWF, and
in French. Anya wears French really well. The French Spike was
much fiercer but the French Buffy was a little too happy.
I lunched (I hate nouns that become verbs, but this works) with
Rob, Jane and Lady Helix. She is a very enthusiastic person btw.
Rob had concerns about the hotels efforts to take his crown but
we reassured him, we would not let that happen. Note to restaurant:
please cut mushrooms in half before serving in sandwich. Your
guests don t appreciate them rolling out of the sandwich. Stains
are not delicious. We walked back for even more episodes, and
fan music videos. Bit s were the best of the bunch btw.
We charted a shuttle (read begged and pleaded) to a very nice
home of a mariachi band. They played for others, not us. Was disappointed
in that but the food was wonderful. A Chicago Lurker impressed
us all with his ability to carry a troll hammer and call it a
margarita. Nice conversation and CL (not cjl) was impressed that
he met Buffyannotator. Belladonna was especially nice and should
post more. We the walked back to the hotel to invade Bit/L Starlight
s room again, posting death and orgy threats and replies to such.
Bedtime: 2:30 I think.
Day 3
See Masq s entries for list of episodes. Much enjoyment. Lunch
pizza. The girl at the counter was working all of the time, through
many meals; I thank her for her service.
Out to the bar for dinner and dancing with Arethusa, d H, Rob,
Jane, Masq, Fresne and Chicago Lurker (no Thor drinks for him
this time). We did have ambitions of taking over the bar, d H
made ipod style threats, but to no avail. Fresne and Masq photos
will be forthcoming. The list of radio stations needed to be procured
earlier to have made the threats more, well threatening. The bartender
was not whimpering. We did not succeed I am afraid. Back to the
conference room for more episodes. Justice League was also a nice
change of pace. I don t remember bedtime.
Day 4-Wah
Coffee in the am with Arethusa, Masq and Fresne. Talked about
race and kids. Headed downstairs to hangout and more episodes
of course. I was deemed Book Melee executive by Sara. Thank you.
Posts for such will be forthcoming. Discussion of Gunn s fears,
ever so long time in his heart, ME history, network politics and
then goodbyes. Wah again.
I missed the 1:00 shuttle, grabbed a sandwich and then caught
the 1:15. I got to O Hare, checked in and was to the gate by 2:00.
So much for my husband s fears of long lines and it was still
early enough for the airport service staff not to be burned out
by the expected throngs. Therefore, I re-enjoyed my weekend. Flight
home was fine.
My impressions of all of the people I met were such that they
are softer and perkier in RL than their posts would indicate.
Cordy again, with the softer side of Sears. I was extremely pleased
to meet you all and if it is possible, you exceed your posts.
WOW.
Diverse topics such as catheters, hobbits, cost fears, bathroom
tap and temperature issues were explored. Hair gel, shades of
blonde, purple, blue and grey were also discussed. There truly
is nowhere you can t go with any topic.
The people that were missing from the meet but should have been
there were mourned. The hole in the world of the Kennedy room.
You were truly missed.
I wish I could have stayed longer. Where is Anya when you need
her? I did not have enough conversations with everyone I wanted
to. Snippets were not enough. I am greedy. People were as expected
but shined brighter. Witty, articulate and sweet were a given.
I have decided I prefer walking into a room of strangers that
I know, and who already know about me. So much easier. You can
get to the good stuff that way. No listing of faults or mimes
of the same. Thank you. There were only a few tears on the shuttle,
as I was buoyed by the wonderful memories provided to me by new/old
friends. I only hope I supplied more than just cookies.
Hub-word of the day or at least the next meet. Airport hubs will
allow more people at cheaper cost next year.
I wasn t killed or scythed or axed. But the orgy was memorable.
Nice change of pace. Had I been murdered, I would have still continued
my lj and posts to the board. By ghost. Like Lilah, this method
of execution can t keep a girl down. I am sure some of you may
regret this decision, but too bad, you have got me for good.
Thank you all for the most wonderful weekend. I look forward to
your posts, as usual, and I hope you all had as much fun as I.
And THANK YOU ROB for helping make this all possible. Thank you
Masq for the board. Thank you Arethusa for the incredible gift
of jewelry. Thank you Sherri for the t-shirt and no snoring. Thank
you all for your gift of friendship.
[> [> Let's hear applause for Lady Helix!! -- Masq,
12:55:06 07/06/04 Tue
She guarded the Kennedy room and helped clean it up! She took
our precious objects up to her room when we left them there! She
let us bug her after she went to sleep to get our objects back!
She rocks!!
[> [> [> Applause, she even made a list of the stuff
she retrieved and posted it on the door -- Ann, impressed
by lists, 13:06:29 07/06/04 Tue
[> [> [> Clapping wildly... -- Jane, 13:11:21
07/06/04 Tue
Bravo! From one list maker to another - very impressive.
Also, she didn't lose her enthusiasm when I dragged her out of
her bed to join the party in 337.
[> [> [> [> Blushing wildly -- ladyhelix,
13:36:19 07/06/04 Tue
Now I ask you - where else would I be so graciously acknowledged
for being anal retentive?
Thank you for making this newbie feel SO very welcome! As an AtS
neophyte I didn t have very much to add (although everyone in
attendance will attest that I still talked ALL THE TIME anyway)!
Should you be so generous as to allow me attend next summer s
gathering I will help out with anything, in addition to providing:
- Notes on how to recognize a ATPoBtVS&AtS member - without embarrassing
yourself beyond redemption. (Sherri - what do you think about
using a CODE WORD?)
- Enough home-made treats and snacks to MORE than make up for
not having a CLUE about that part of the festivities this year
(and watch out - I KNOW my treats & snacks)!
- Ice-breaker Games (trivia, who said this , & whatever else I
can think of)!
It was a WONDERFUL weekend, and I feel very privileged to have
had the chance to meet you all! Thank you again for your kindness,
and for sharing your insights - and your treats!!
[> If anyone doesn't want me to post their photo, please
let me know here -- Ann, 19:29:54 07/06/04 Tue
[> [> The one of me "dancin' crazy." --
Arethusa, 08:41:03 07/07/04 Wed
I'll pay to make it go away, lol.
[> [> [> Well, yeah with that lampshade and the busboy
you were dancing with.... -- Masq, 09:05:20 07/07/04 Wed
I'd be embarrassed, too!
(honestly, you looked fine! better than me!)
[> [> Here they are!! Ta Da! -- Ann,
11:13:15 07/07/04 Wed
Jane
Anom
Anom
CJL
Rob
Masq
L
Starlight Jane
Lstarlight
Ann Jane
CL
Grafitti Darby Anom
Tiara
Rob Tiara Masq
Random
Lstarlight
Masq
Anom dH
Jane
Anom CJL
CL
Grafitt Darby Anom
The
Thinkers
Masq
Finally
Lady Helix
The
Ladies 2
The
Ladies
The
Group
Rob
Masq
cutting the rug 2
Masq
cutting the rug
Anom
Arethusa
Mamcu
Fresne
Mamcu
Fresne
cutting the rug 3
Fresne
cutting the rug 2
Fresne
cutting the rug
Disco
Ball
Cakes
Arethusa
Anom
anom
taking my photo
[> [> [> Re: Here they are!! Ta Da! -- Darby,
10:42:12 07/08/04 Thu
I'm going to get in trouble, but the frightened person in "The
Group" is Sara.
Why does she look so surprised? Ambush is the only way to effectively
photograph her, but you're going to get that special Deer-in-Headlights
response!
"If you wanna be my
friend and you wanna repent" ("Not Fade Away" spoilers)
-- KdS, 15:21:59 07/04/04 Sun
Hats off to the man
On top of the world
Come crawl up here baby
And we can watch this damned thing turn
If you want to be my friend and you want to repent and you want
it all to end and you want to know when
Do it now do it now take a long last bow
Take my hand make a stand and we'll blow it all to Hell
Nick Cave
I have some problems with its implications in Season Five as a
whole, but Not Fade Away is an excellent episode in its
own right, with a fine balance of humour and tragedy. As far as
the rights and wrongs of Angel s plan go, you ll have to wait
till my post on the general season tomorrow. However, here are
some thoughts on the individual elements of the episode.
First of all, the manner of Lorne s farewell to Angel as the team
leave on their missions convinces me that Angel ordered him to
kill Lindsey. We ve seen Lorne fight and kill demons before without
a qualm in situations well beyond self-defence. By contrast, he
s always been, somewhat problematically, a strong supporter of
the special right-to-life of humans. Angel, as I see it, didn
t totally intend to have Lindsey killed until their conversation,
but Lindsey s lack of interest in ideals convinced him that he
was too dangerous and amoral to be allowed to live. Lindsey s
musings about the word team aren t really convincing as any more
than just that, momentary musings. As to whether he could have
been redeemed, one can only guess. Angel, however, was no longer
in the mood to give people that second chance, as we ve seen again
and again this year, unless they are too incompetent to pose a
threat to the world like Harmony.
Spike didn t have a great deal to do character-wise, but in his
drunken contribution to the poetry slam we see him finally allow
himself to show his more sensitive side in public, and the audience
of macho rebels helps to confirm his integration of the dichotomised
sides of his nature. I m not convinced his poetry is any better
than in the 19th century (his throwaway, unmetrical delivery doesn't
help), but the cheers of the crowd gave the scene the air of an
exorcism of his old fears. There s a nice piece of misdirection
with the initial implication that he s looking for a fight, although
I m sure that if the reaction hadn t been so positive he d have
been happy to defend himself.
I was surprised that Connor's scene didn't cause more protests
than it did, given that ME actually had Connor tell Angel that
he did the right thing with the mind-wipe. That single aspect
was the only false note of the episode for me, although that may
be because of my continued moral disapproval of that decision.
To have it endorsed so thoroughly reminded me more than a little
of Angel's wish-fulfilment from last year
The sequences with Gunn and Anne reassured me that ME hasn't gone
entirely back on the Camusian attitude of earlier seasons. Anne
is still willing to carry on the day-to-date fight, but Angel
and the others simply aren't capable of it any more. Too much
violence, betrayal and compromise has left them unable, it seems,
to achieve the connection with other people and life itself that
such a fight requires. One can see it strongly in Angel's defeated
decision to kill Lindsey and Lorne's acquiescence to it, in Angel's
utter inability to come up with any suggest of a future for Eve
when she asks for one, and in Wesley's admission that he can no
longer think of anything worth doing, in such sad contrast to
his fears for Angel in To Shanshu in LA. While the Thorne's
claim to be able to destroy Angel's destiny is debatable, he certainly
believes them, and his subsequent claim not to remember his human
life isn't so much literal as an acknowledgement of the loss of
the final traces of his innocence. Angel, Spike, Illyria and Gunn
can find an antidote to it in heroic death, but Lorne has never
enjoyed violence for its own sake and will have to find his own
sustaining ideals in a different place.
And finally we come to the most tragic aspect of the episode,
for me, the Wes/Illyria scenes. Wes's death makes sense here,
and shouldn't be reversed, because of how clear it has become
that Wes's only hope of sanity is to entirely retire from the
fight against evil that brings out all his most self-destructive
aspects, but that he would never accept such a retreat. His Watcher-trained
mind puts the dividing line between truth and illusion somewhere
that leaves him unable to find optimism in any hope or ideal that
can compare with the suffering and ill-luck he's seen. The saddest
thing about his final retreat into illusion is how much he probably
despises himself for it. I'm undecided on the question of Wesley's
interest in survival. He specifically denies intending to die,
but his underestimation of Vail is very uncharacteristic. It's
very hard to judge Illyria here, and it's probably up to the individual
viewer how much of her scene with Wesley was conscious acting.
It's perfectly in keeping with ME that all her strides towards
humanity have been associated with loss, and it's a pity that
she never gets the chance to get to grips with her feelings before
the final battle.
One of the most pleasant aspects of the script is the manner in
which would could have been simply a sequence of fight scenes
is courageously leavened by making most of the battles understated
or barely shown, especially in the minimal staging of Illyria's
attack on Izzy and his friends. The only one to be shown in real
detail is the struggle between Angel and Hamilton, very clearly
signposted in dialogue as a battle of ideals against commercial
logic. Angel's draining of Hamilton isn't so much a final integration
of his vampire side, as a very literal expression of the episode's
suggestion that Angel has only been able to destroy the Thorne
by acting with their own ruthless logic.
The most surprising aspect for me, came in the final minutes.
I was expecting far more grand numinosity in the final shots,
an underlining of the idea that we're seeing our heroes go to
their death. Instead, the matter-of-factness of the reveal of
the demons and the final cut leaves us with a hope that the characters
aren't doomed, no matter how serious the situation seems. It's
this which makes me slightly more in favour of the season as a
whole than I expected to be when I first saw it, as the subtext
that I feared to see, still see and dislike, didn't become openly
text for the optimistic viewer.
More on that subtext, and comments on the ideology of the episode
in context with the rest of the season, tomorrow.
Replies:
[> Re: "If you wanna be my friend and you wanna repent"
("Not Fade Away" spoilers) -- skpe, 06:53:11
07/05/04 Mon
Looking forward to your post on the general season
[> The Buffyfication of AtS (Total S5 spoilers) -- KdS,
10:22:21 07/05/04 Mon
If this comes across as rather negative, it's because I have a
rather paradoxical reaction to Season Five. I like almost all
the episodes in isolation (some are mediocre, but none actively
awful), but I strongly dislike the season as an entity. Hence,
I've already said most of the nice stuff in my individual episode
reviews.
The Good
General production quality: StS5 joins BtVS3 and AtS2
in the select band of Mutant Enemy seasons not to contain a single
episode that I truly disliked, whether due to incompetence or
disagreement with the content. In general, the season had a freshness
and sense of movement about it, even at its most pessimistic,
that avoided the stasis of BtVS's final season. This may actually
be something that we have to thank Warners for, given their insistence
on a relatively high proportion of stand-alones.
Excellent stand-alones: Some saw the reports that the network
were demanding a larger proportion of stand-alones as a dumbing
down of the concept, and it's to ME's credit that they produced
a succession of really excellent episodes in response, from the
comic (Harm's Way, Smile Time) to the serious (Numero
Cinco, Lineage). The arciness was initially smuggled in with
great skill, such as the slow growth of Spike's interest in shanshu,
or the slow degradation of Gunn's legal skills.
Wesley/Illyria: Otherwise known as "Make sure Amy
can get another job". We've already seen Alexis Denisof play
at least three different characters in the last five years, and
make them all believable as facets of the same person, but who
could have guessed that Amy Acker would have such a wide range?
Illyria isn't entirely new to ME, there are hints of an underpowered
Anya, or a Glory without such an iron sense of purpose and with
more intellectual curiosity. But Illyria is a deep enough character
to make me feel sorry that it only got a few episodes before the
end of the season, and the mock-Shakespearian dialogue only occasionally
tips over into self-parody. By contrast, Wesley finally reaches
the end of his rope. While the requited Wes/Fred relationship
doesn't work very well, it makes perfect sense that Fred would
be the last thing Wes wants to live for, after he's seen everything
else he valued fall apart through his own self-destructive foolishness.
Wes's decline into madness is heartbreakingly good, even if it
encourages those fans who see him as mentally deficient simply
because he doesn't have the others' superhuman resilience. But
it's his very lack of direction and desperate clinging to old
ghosts that makes it possible for him to bring Illyria halfway
into a community. It's blackly ironic that Wesley, in his utterly
broken and hopeless state, is the only character to achieve any
success this season if you're judging things by the pre-Home
AtS mission statement.
Spike: I was absolutely horrified when I heard the confirmation
of Spike's presence in Season Five, given my utter hatred of the
person who the character had been allowed to become in the second
half of BtVS7, and the triumphalism of some of his fans. This
season, however, saw Spike finally making the moral progress that
BtVS7 had seemed to absolve him from the necessity of. It starts
with his admission in Hellbound that he hadn't been acting
merely to protect Fred, but wouldn't have wanted anybody to be
harmed to get his corporeality. His encounter with Dana in Damage
finally strips away the last vestiges of his belief that his unsouled
crimes constituted some form of honourable predation and forces
him to confront the trail of death he left behind him. And it
all comes together in the astonishing scene in Hole in the
World in which Angel is briefly willing to sacrifice thousands
to save Fred, and it is Spike of all people who reminds him of
the worth and uniqueness of the individual human. While Spike
never really fit into the existing web of relationships, ME took
advantage of this and let him provide a vital sounding board for
Angel, who might otherwise have become utterly opaque to the audience
as he was alienated from his former friends, in the same way as
Buffy was for much of Season Seven. And the relationship between
the two vampires itself, shifting with dizzying speed from parental
to fraternal to almost textually sexual, was a joy.
Hamilton: One of the finest individual villains in AtS
and a triumph of inventive costuming - the way his suits are so
svelte and yet tailored, in conscious opposition to the usual
approach, to show off his physical bulk. Based on the trend for
ex-Firefly stars, Fillion should have asked to be on AtS
as well.
The Bad
Lindsey: Was he out to rule Wolfram & Hart? To infiltrate
the Thorne and bring them down? How does one move from the Lindsey
who was disgusted with Los Angeles and only wanted to get out
to the one who bizarrely accused Angel of stealing his rightful
place? How did the man who reacted to events and was manipulated
by others turn into a Machiavellian schemer? Lindsey's plot line
had serious problems even taken in isolation, and made no sense
whatsoever in relation to his past characterisation.
Wes/Fred: A relationship that was constantly attempted
throughout Seasons 3-5, and never really worked. It had zero on-screen
chemistry, demeaned Fred by completing the trend of pairing her
with almost every male member of the regular cast, and brought
the absolute worst out in Wesley. One can hope that the sinister
edge to Wes's all-consuming devotion was deliberate, but unfortunately
any irony is too muted to appear. There's a general difficulty
with Fred this season in the way that she is constantly portrayed
as pure and sweet and victimised. There's no sign of the ferocious
survivor who we saw in, say, That Old Gang of Mine, Billy,
Supersymmetry and The Magic Bullet.
Shallow handling of past baggage: At the beginning of the
season, the big emotional issues that most people were expecting
were Cordelia's reaction to her S4 possession, and the fall out
from the mind-wipe. As it was, Cordelia seemed to accept the hijacking
of her body, yet another demon rape and pregnancy, the near-destruction
of Los Angeles, the attempted enslavement of the human race, and
her own imminent demise, as just one of those things. I'd certainly
like to have heard what the PTB said to her. And Connor has no
problem balancing two entirely incompatible pasts, shows no qualm
over his own more murderous actions, and actually tells his dad
that he did the right thing. Some of it comes from limited actor
availability, but the slapdash nature of Cordy and Connor's portrayals
stresses the philosophical Year Zero aspect of the season, which
I'll be complaining about for the rest of this page. There were
some big shifts in the moral attitudes, metaphysics, and rules
of the Angelverse this season, and while they were well-presented,
I don't agree with any of them. The question of how much responsibility
Joss had for the worldview of earlier AtS seasons is a controversial
one in the fandom, but it's remarkable how the first AtS season
Joss could give his undivided attention to was so shifted in worldview,
and often in a way that forcibly dragged the things which had
marked out AtS as different back to the worldview of the Buffyverse.
I have four serious problems with this season, all of which are
linked, and all of which see Buffyverse concepts being forcibly
imposed on AtS without thought for the implications of such moves.
i) Organisations are Bad: Mutant Enemy sources described
the concept for this season as leaving Greenpeace and going to
work for Shell. However, what we actually got was leaving Greenpeace
and going to work for SPECTRE, unless you believe that the board
of Shell habitually celebrate their quarterly figures by tucking
into a roasted Ogoni infant. There had been a great deal of speculation
over the summer about the likely situation at Angel & Hart - how
much autonomy Angel and friends would be given, whether their
evil employees would be sabotaging things. What I never expected
was that they would be running a Wolfram & Hart effectively unchanged
from what it was before. And it's hard to imagine why the characters
would accept this, even given the mind-wipe. There are intriguing
possibilities at the beginning and end of the season. Conviction
set up a path that was largely not taken - that of the characters'
new role being to restrain the old-style forces of darkness from
unleashing Hell on Earth. Similarly, there are hints of an interesting
concept in some of Hamilton's scenes towards the end of the season
- the idea that the Partners are basically interested in making
money, which could have led into an examination of whether it
is possible to do business and improve the world at the same time.
Instead Mutant Enemy's off-screen resentments and hostility with
their network took over, and the Partners became dedicated to
unleashing Hell on Earth, with the whole of Angel and friends'
acts, good or evil, being merely a distraction from that greater
plan. Unfortunately, Joss seems to believe that examining economics
and politics translates to making jokes about Rupert Murdoch selling
his soul to Satan, which is good knockabout but a little shallow.
So I don't think we're meant to wonder whether, say, the baby-eaters
are now going to break their treaty and start breaking into maternity
wards again, or whether all those vampire-bereaved orphans are
going to be tossed out on the street, sold into extra-dimensional
slavery, or organ-harvested.
ii) Demons are Bad: I've often argued that it's a very
bad idea to try to view the undead and demons on BtVS as metaphors
for real-world cultural minorities. They're personifications of
problems, issues, and dark drives that need to be overcome or
assimilated for mental health or spiritual advancement. By contrast,
while unsouled AtS vampires have stayed dark and essentially irredeemable
parodies of humanity, AtS demons have been people with their own
right to existence. It's most blatantly obvious in Hero
and That Old Gang of Mine, but it's implicit in Lorne,
and in all the Caritas scenes. The implication of the whole Doyle
arc is that the man screwed his life up by denying and recoiling
in fear from the non-human aspect of his heritage, and the human-demon
conflict in the Pylea arc is specifically not presented
as a battle of good against evil, but in terms of real-world inter-racial
conflict. The drive of AI in Pylea isn't to exterminate the demons,
but to take out the racist theocracy and bring the sentient species
into mutual tolerance and respect.
By contrast, in the whole twenty-two episodes of Season Five,
there is not a single episode in which a demonic character other
than Lorne or Illyria is even faintly in the right. Not only are
the demons evil, but in a spectacular retcon of Season Two, a
secret cabal of demons is responsible for most of the human evil
in the world. I would have loved to see some humans in the Black
Thorne - Fries, Magnus Bryce, if they wanted to really go for
the snark the Captain from Thin Dead Line. Instead, there's
Us, there's Them and We need to kill Them. Any hope of compromise
is created by the forces of darkness to distract Us. It's more
than a little dispiriting. There were some uncomfortable problems
with the attitude to violence in earlier AtS seasons, where the
human right to life was always utterly sacrosanct but demons could
sometimes be killed without a lot of ceremony or consideration.
The relatively frequent killings of humans in the early part of
this season were theorised at the time to be a sign of how badly
Angel was going in the wrong direction. Now it seems in retrospect
that the way out of the aforementioned problems in Season Five
was to declare that demons should always be killed, and that humans
frequently needed killing as a regrettable necessity.
The exceptions, of course, are Lorne and Illyria. Lorne was something
of a loose cog this year, probably because he was a left over
from earlier AtS seasons where demons were allowed to have characterisation
and to be moral actors. It fits in far too well with BtVS as opposed
to AtS that both Lorne and Illyria have to be depowered to bring
them down to the human level, and that their moves towards humanity
and complexity always come through humiliation, loss and lessening.
In the previous years of the Angelverse, one might imagine that
an Elder God could find a place in society as an Elder God, without
having to apologise for and be stripped of its difference. Instead,
one's reminded of the single-metaphor Buffyverse, where Anya's
and Spike's demonity is a metaphor for immaturity and an evasion
of true adulthood. Which leads comfortably into
iii) Magic as a snare and delusion: In a lot of recent
fantasy directed at adults, the fear of wish-fulfilment has become
almost an obsession (linked with the common assumption in current
cultural criticism that "adult" equals "downbeat").
There are two mutually incompatible ways to avoid simplistic wish-fulfilment
when dealing with magic, and the two Jossverse series previously
showed them very clearly. The first is the Faustian route, to
suggest that magic is in itself destructive, an evasion of the
hardships of life that can only have destructive consequences
and prevent emotional growth. This is the subtext of much of late
BtVS, especially in the portrayal of Jonathan, Andrew, Spike,
Anya and Willow. By contrast, AtS takes the opposite, normalising
direction, to rationalise magic into a skill no more astonishing
by any other. Nobody mentally healthy in a universe created on
these lines thinks that knowing magic will change their lives
in one fell swoop, in the same way that no sane person in our
universe thinks that learning C++ or marquetry will turn you into
your ultimate ideal self. In keeping with this, magic in earlier
AtS is relatively unspectacular and used to perform specifically
magical tasks, such as demon summoning or inter-universal travel.
It isn't really used as a way to do mundane tasks without effort.
However, the Gunn plot this year is a full-blown magic-as-trap
story, with Gunn's (false) sense of intellectual inferiority leading
him into magical corruption. It's well done, and by the skin of
its teeth manages to avoid the restrictive and politically explosive
concepts of racial authenticity that it teeters on the verge of.
However, like the evil demons, the metaphor is a narrowing of
a universe which had previously valued diversity and mental openness,
that had portrayed very human pain without the need to lecture
its audience on the immaturity and unhealthiness of the genre
they were watching.
iv) The Return of the Dark Avenger: There's been some debate
about whether the ending of Season Five is, or is not, a repudiation
of the ideas of Reprise/Epiphany. The first thing to note
is that the situations are not identical. Angel has undoubtedly
achieved something by wiping out the Black Thorne, while in Reprise
it was very clear that he had no actual hope of killing the Partners
and was merely seeking suicide. Moreover, the Anne scene in Not
Fade Away makes it clear that ME are not arguing that the
day-to-day struggle is worthless. However, Season Five does seem
to me to embrace the exact, very pessimistic, noir concept of
heroism that Angel's personal arc in Season Two was designed to
attack (not to mention AtS3 Holtz, and Orpheus) - the beliefs
that evil cannot be fought effectively within the restraints of
morality, that heroes are empowered by their aggression and cruelty,
and that the hero must attack evil with utter ruthlessness and
pragmatism until he is so tainted by violence and moral compromise
that he can no longer function in society, and must seek oblivion
in heroic suicide. It's blatant in the portrayals of Wesley and
Angel in Not Fade Away, one unable to think of anything
in the universe worth living for, the other signing away all hope
and musing on the final loss of his humanity.
What's missing completely from Season Five is any hint of the
Chestertonian aspects that originally marked AtS out from the
traditional action tale, the concepts of redemption and spiritual
rescue. And Anne's brief part doesn't suggest that it is no longer
desirable, the implication is that the characters are so scarred
that they are no longer capable of it. Angel's failure to even
attempt to set an example for his potentially redeemable employees
is most stressed in Harm's Way, and the only regular character
to attempt to communicate morality trusts the wrong person and
is horribly murdered for it. If Angel is right, even the PTB can
no longer see him as a force of good, but only as a weapon to
slaughter evil. The utter and abysmal failure of Angel's venture
into Wolfram & Hart, judged by the mission statement of earlier
seasons, is the fact that there is hardly anybody in the alley
at the final confrontation who Angel didn't bring into the firm
with him. The only exception is Illyria, brought towards salvation
by Wesley through complete accident, not set an example but brought
to compassion by his total brokenness. The explanation in terms
of existing characterisation is that Angel's failure to prevent
his own son from slipping into evil, or to redeem him, has destroyed
his confidence in his ability to bring out the best in other people.
Unfortunately, when I look at AtS5 as a whole, I'm left with the
choice of either utterly rejecting its ideologies, or accepting
it as subtextually the bleakest tragedy imaginable.
I'm torn about whether to bring real-world politics into this,
but some of all this may be because I'm so pissed off at the constant
stream of right-wing pro-war pundits and bloggers (the left-wing
pro-war faction seem to be largely free of this) who are embracing
the Huntingtonian idea that secular democracy and theocratic Islamism
are locked into an unavoidable death struggle, and that diplomacy,
national self-determination, human rights, tolerance, and any
division between committed Islamist terrorists, convertible fellow
travellers, and the typical Muslim in the street, are all soft-headed-and-hearted
pipedreams for cowardly liberals that must be abandoned in the
name of societal survival. For example, this week's (UK) Spectator
included an item by the appalling Mark Steyn enthusiastically
arguing that given the US Supreme Court's mystifying attachment
to habeus corpus, it is necessary to ensure that all suspected
terrorists are dead before they are officially captured. Some
people have a very different concept of societal survival than
I do. Given all this, for AtS to abandon its former ideals in
favour of black-and-white (human) Good and (non-human) Evil, and
endorsement of ruthless battle, is somewhat painful. I started
getting into ME during the period of BtVS4-6 and AtS1-4, where
it seemed that a universe which had begun by equating biology
with morality and enshrining Good and Evil was moving towards
judging people by their deeds rather than number of eyes and abandoning
capital letters. As a result, I'm somewhat disappointed in both
final seasons.
[> [> Spike's Moral Progression -- Roy, 11:58:07
07/05/04 Mon
" I was absolutely horrified when I heard the confirmation
of Spike's presence in Season Five, given my utter hatred of the
person who the character had been allowed to become in the second
half of BtVS7, and the triumphalism of some of his fans. This
season, however, saw Spike finally making the moral progress that
BtVS7 had seemed to absolve him from the necessity of. "
Don't tell me this is still about "Lies My Parents Told Me".
Did any of you actually expected Spike to fall on his knees and
beg Wood's forgiveness right after the latter had set out to deliberately
murder him? And please remember that Wood knew about Spike's soul
and his efforts to become a better person. And you still expected
Spike to ask forgiveness? Wood should be lucky that Spike didn't
kill him.
Frankly, I think that Spike's story was not about moral progression.
It was about learning to become his own man and not allow anyone
- whether Buffy, Drusilla, Giles, Angel, and etc. dictate on what
type of person he would become. If anything ANGEL's S5 failed
to allow Spike to progress along this road. Even worse, he stopped
becoming his own man and like the other member of the AI Team,
revolved his life around Angel - just as he did with Buffy before
"LMPTM".
So, on this point alone, I heartily disagree with you.
As for the Wes/Illyria storyline - it was like watching Seven-of-Nine
and the Doctor from VOYAGER again. Only Jeri Ryan and Bob Picardo
did a better job. Sorry Alexis and Amy. I think that ME should
have allowed Fred to die and Amy Acker to simply go away.
Another problem I had with S5 - the justification of the mindwipe.
I agree with you here. It seemed as if Connor's remarks had vinidicated
Angel's decision on the mindwipe and I disliked it. In fact, Angel
didn't really suffer from his decision. He had already lost Connor
back in S4. If anything, he had lost Connor, thanks to Wesley,
back in S3. ME's last word on the mindwipe only made the situation
worse. Also, what was the point in Angel going after the Circle
of Thorn? I had the odd feeling that the entire storyline was
contrived.
You were disappointed in BUFFY's final season? I enjoyed it -
aside from a few problems like the Eye of Boxjora and the reason
behind the scythe. If anything, ANGEL's final season had bigger
problems. Like BUFFY's Season 2, it suffered from a disjointed
story arc.
[> [> [> Re: Spike's Moral Progression -- Rich,
13:00:29 07/05/04 Mon
I agree about "Lies" - what people forget about that
situation is that Wood was supposed to be an ALLY of Spike's -
he never declared himself as an enemy until he launched his attack.
It's a little unreasonable to expect Spike to show generosity
under those circumstances.
OTH - Spike's conversation with Angel in "Damage" (
in the hospital ) suggests that he's aware of his responsibility
for his earlier crimes ( I thought the "so were we, once"
line was brilliant). However -IMO, Angel broods on the crimes
in his past, & thinks of (possible) redemption in the future.
Spike focuses on what to do *right now* - as he said in "Touched",
his blood doesn't flow in the direction of his brain. He didn't
get a soul because he chose goodness for it's own sake, he got
it for Buffy. If he does achieve redemption, it will be as a side
effect of his actions, not as a primary goal.
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike's Moral Progression --
Roy, 13:25:14 07/05/04 Mon
"Spike's conversation with Angel in "Damage" (
in the hospital ) suggests that he's aware of his responsibility
for his earlier crimes ( I thought the "so were we, once"
line was brilliant)."
So, what ME was trying to show was the difference between Spike
- who is aware of his past crimes, but doesn't brood upon them
(unlike his attitude in BtVS's Episodes 1-15), and Angel, who
does? Now, I get it. Thanks.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike's Moral Progression
-- Rich, 20:47:44 07/05/04 Mon
That's pretty much the way I see it. Here's another scene from
"Damage" which I think shows Spike's attitude (talking
about Dana):
................
SPIKE
(stops, turns to Angel)
What do you want me to do? Go all boo-hoo 'cause she got tortured
and driven out of her gourd? Not like we haven't done worse back
in the day.
ANGEL
Yeah, and it's somethin' I'm still payin' for.
SPIKE
And you should let it go, mate. It's startin' to make you look
old.
(turns away, walks toward the elevator)
................
Both characters are trying to good - the difference seems to be
that Spike recognizes his crimes - Angel is "still payin'
for " his.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Except ... -- Earl Allison, 04:19:13
07/07/04 Wed
It's hard for me to accept that Spike has recognized his crimes
when he contines to wear the metaphorical flayed Slayer skin for
a coat.
I know that, behind the scenes, it's a character visual issue
(hence the resolution-that-wasn't in "The Girl in Question"),
but it was never actually dealt with, addressed, or even acknowledged
by the Spike character. Ever.
And for what it's worth, I saw the line as an in-joke. That while
DB is certainly beginning to show his age, so is JM -- hence the
"look old" jibe :)
But that's just me.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Except ...
-- Rich, 06:12:38 07/07/04 Wed
I hadn't thought about the "in joke" angle, but you
could be right.
As far as the coat is concerned, NOT wearing it would be sort
of an empty gesture - it wouldn't actually help anybody, so why
do it ?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Empty Gesture?
-- Dlgood, 06:35:27 07/07/04 Wed
As far as the coat is concerned, NOT wearing it would be sort
of an empty gesture - it wouldn't actually help anybody, so why
do it ?
Have you followed the debates about the inclusion of the Confederate
Battle Flag on several of the state flags in the Deep South?
I don't think Nikki Wood's coat would be devoid of symbolism to
the new generation of slayers if they knew who Spike was and how
he obtained it.
And I think for Spike, if he's trying to come to terms with who
he was then, and what he's trying to be now, then it's important
to recognize both the good and bad aspects of what that coat symbolizes.
As long as he wears the coat without acknowledging where it came
from, then he's hiding from and papering over his past instead
of really dealing with it. And that's not a positive sign of personal
development.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Empty
Gesture? -- Rich, 07:00:18 07/07/04 Wed
I agree that that the coat has symbolic value, especially for
Wood. I just don't think Spike cares very much about symbolism
( although the coat also has a symbolic value to him).
As I tried to say earlier ( maybe I didn't do it very well), I
don't think Spike IS "trying to come to terms with who he
was then". He's trying to do good NOW. From his POV (not
necessarily mine, or yours) what matters is helping people in
the present, not apologizing for his past - which he couldn't
change even if he wanted to.I agree that this doesn't help his
"personal development", but I don't think that that's
his primary concern.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Empty Gesture? -- dlgood, 08:44:46 07/07/04 Wed
I just don't think Spike cares very much about symbolism (
although the coat also has a symbolic value to him).
See, I think this is a cop-out and very much a problem for Spike.
He looks at his own past and behavior, and only wants to see the
glory it reflects upon him - and not the uglier truth. And the
truth of that coat is certainly not as pretty as what Spike tries
to see it.
Which is tremendously dangerous, if he's seriously attempting
to be a good man now. How does he avoid the pits he's fallen into
before if he turns a blind eye to his prior bad acts?
He's trying to do good NOW. From his POV (not necessarily mine,
or yours) what matters is helping people in the present, not apologizing
for his past - which he couldn't change even if he wanted to.
The problem is that he can't succeed in being a good person NOW
or in the future is he's not willing or able to apologize for
his own past. One might call it "trying to be a good person
now" but that doesn't make it so. As of LMPTM he's doing
only a small fraction of the work required to make that attempt
a successful reality. Something that is very much revealed in
AtS-5.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Empty Gesture? -- Rich, 10:38:42 07/07/04 Wed
I'm not really trying to disagree here ( I come to explain Spike,
not to praise him ). The point I'm trying to make is that his
definition of a "good person" is different from Angel's
( and presumably yours). What matters - to him - is what he does.
Since apologizing for the past won't actually change anything
in practical terms, he sees no reason to do it, except maybe in
Buffy's case.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Empty Gesture? -- dlgood, 11:20:49 07/07/04
Wed
The point I'm trying to make is that his definition of a "good
person" is different from Angel's
It might have been in BtVS 7. His definition seems to have changed
by AtS 5. IMHO, that evolution is a sign of maturation.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Except
... -- Earl Allison,
06:40:10 07/07/04 Wed
I disagree here.
Not wearing the coat would show that Spike had the ability to
empathize with someone he wasn't in love with. It would show that
it was a part of his life he wasn't proud of, something he realized
was intrinsically wrong. Even after LMPTM, I didn't get the impression
that he understood that killing Nikki was wrong.
Not wearing the coat would have, to me, lent credence to the claim
that Spike had changed.
In other words, imagine a serial killer who murdered a police
officer, and took his badge and wore it as a trophy. Years later,
after serving his time in jail and being paroled, he becomes a
District Attourney to prosecute criminals. However, he still wears
the badge, even in court.
How would others view that? How would the police he works with,
and ostensibly works on the same side as, see that (in other words,
fellow officers, much as Nikki and Buffy are both Slayers)? Is
it a reminder of his previous life? Is it a part of his identity
that he needs and/or gathers strength from?
Spike is allegedly a force for good, now. He fights alongside
the current Slayer, and yet he wears something he took from a
Slayer he killed. Worse, he does so in front of that Slayer's
son (knowingly after LMPTM, unknowingly before). Is it really
an empty gesture to abandon the coat?
To me, it speaks volumes that Spike doesn't see anything wrong
with the coat, with wearing the coat, and with what that coat
might mean to Wood, if to no one else. Would Buffy (or anyone)
be as understanding if Spike had murdered Joyce pre-chip, and
continued to wear her skull, a piece of her jewelry, or somesuch
even after becoming ensouled? Or if Angelus took a trophy from
Jenny Calendar -- and Angel continued to carry it or wear it?
It seems that Spike at this time (S7) lacks anything resembling
true empathy. Yes, he can feel sorry if something happens to someone
he cares about, or by extension to someone THEY (those he cares
for) really care about, but he cannot understand why wearing Nikki's
coat might trouble Robin Wood?
For a character that ME used as "truth-teller" when
it suited them, for someone supposedly very insightful (such as
his actions in splitting up the gang in S4), Spike either lacks
human empathy here, or has it, and simply doesn't care. Or his
IQ took a nosedive when he became ensouled :)
All because ME had to give us the origin of the coat in S5, and
then tie it into Robin Wood in S7.
Hey, maybe you're correct, at least insofar as ME was concerned.
However, just because they didn't want to/lacked the ability to
deal with the issue doesn't make it go away, IMHO.
And the fact that it wouldn't help anybody -- does it need to?
It is, after all, just a coat. So, unless it really is more to
Spike than that, there really is no reason for him to keep it
(offscreen reasons of recognition and character aside).
All IMHO.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think
the coat went beyond being a trophy -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:20:33
07/07/04 Wed
That was Spike's initial reason for taking it, but I imagine that,
after wearing it for 30 years, he just sort of got used to it.
I mean, if he had obtained the coat a year before getting a soul,
I could see the problem. But I think he had it long enough to
transcend it's initial meaning and just become a piece of clothing
he really likes and has grown accustomed to. Notice that in "The
Girl In Question", once presented with a replica coat, Spike
doesn't seem to mind losing the original. If keeping it were really
about having a trophy, I doubt this would have done the trick.
Also, Wood's the only person who really associates the coat with
someone Spike killed, and nobody learned of that until after Spike
was given a reason to dislike Wood.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
I think the coat went beyond being a trophy -- dlgood, 14:55:09
07/07/04 Wed
But I think he had it long enough to transcend it's initial
meaning and just become a piece of clothing he really likes and
has grown accustomed to.
Well, he was a mass-murderer for long enough that maybe the killing
transcended it's initial meaning and just became something he
really liked and grew accustomed to. But if he got over that,
perhaps he could get over the coat.
Also, Wood's the only person who really associates the coat
with someone Spike killed
And what do we think all those slayers would think of Spike wearing
that coat if he'd told them how and why he got it? What would
Buffy think? My guess - they'd be less than impressed.
I doubt he was in any hurry to come clean about that. Positive
self-image before ugly reality and all.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
I think the coat went beyond being a trophy -- Earl
Allison, 03:05:26 07/08/04 Thu
The problem is, you seem to want to gloss over any reason for
Spike to have empathy. If he is, as he claims, no longer that
other person, there is no reason not to suck it up, like the coat
or not, and get rid of it.
Again, would you give a former serial killer with his shiny police
badge the same pass? That he likes it? I'm thinking most people
probably wouldn't.
And TGIQ was really a non-resolution, so I can't really take anything
in it for much of any value. Spike got the exact same coat, and
as far as I am concerned, it was ME's way of dealing with the
issue -- by NOT dealing with the issue. They can hand-wave it
away all they want. THEY were the ones to show us the viewers
where that coat came from -- it becomes their responsibility to
deal with it -- and they either didn't want to, or lacked the
ability to.
Again, Spike never voices any concerns, never shows any empathy
-- and I DO wonder how the other SiTs would react, knowing where
it came from. Here NewSpike is, allegedly fighting alongside Slayers,
and he keeps the murder trophy he took from a Slayer HE murdered?
I just can't get around that fact without concluding that Spike
is either too stupid to see the problem, or too much of a jerk
(or worse) to care.
Living in polite society, we all make changes for the greater
masses around us, whether we enjoy them or not. For Spike to opt
not to, to not even comprehend that the coat is a problem -- that
tells me that he hasn't really changed on a fundamental level.
And that's the greater issue -- and recall we are talking about
BtVS S7 here. Spike doesn't even comprehend that it could be a
problem, and that's being generous to him. I could also conclude
that, knowing who Wood was after LMPTM, and STILL opting to wear
the coat, makes Spike more than simply morally clueless, but outright
morally reprehensible. Morality and goodness is easy to do when
it's someone you like. The real test is, how do you treat people
you don't know, or better, people you don't like?
Finally, SPIKE knows where the coat came from. That should be
reason enough, unless he isn't at all concerned about where it
came from and what it could symbolize to others around him.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I think the coat went beyond being a trophy (Spoiler for
AtS S% Damage and Why We Fight/1943) -- Pip, 13:44:47 07/08/04
Thu
he keeps the murder trophy he took from a Slayer HE murdered?
Well, I think it's fairly obvious that the following won't convince
you, but:
Nikki was a Slayer. The job of a Slayer is to kill vampires. Buffy
killed many, many vampires, often before they did anything evil
whatsoever. 'Sorry ma'am, but it's my job.' Remember that?
So Slayers aren't police-equivalents, and you cannot compare Spike
to a serial killer who's killed a police constable and saved the
badge as a souvenir. The job of the police is to arrest criminals
without killing them, then deliver them to justice. Slayers
are more soldier-equivalents; their job is, in battle, to kill
anyone 'wearing enemy uniform'. By police-equivalent rules, Buffy
is a murderer for what she did in the basement. She killed someone
who had not committed any crime and who was not attacking her.
By soldier-equivalent rules she was taking out a member of the
enemy forces. That's not murder, even if you do it when
they're not attacking you.
But if you say that Slayers are under the Rules of War, then Vampires
are as well. Spike is a murderer - for the innocent humans
he slaughtered. But his two Slayers were killed in fights where
they had an equally good chance to kill him. That isn't a crime,
in a war, when both sides have clearly identified the other as
a member of the opposing force. Nikki would have killed Spike
if she could, and I doubt it would have bothered her at all. The
Chinese Slayer would have killed Spike if she could. Both of them
would have killed him before he made any move to attack - if they
could have done so. Spike's a murderer - but not of the two Slayers.
Yes, he keeps the coat. It's a war trophy, and they're often taken
from the dead. I think, in AtS Damage, he's moved on enough
to realise that he killed two people, with families. But
he killed them in battle, not by murder. And he still kept the
trophy, as soldiers often do.
ME's opinion on this? Well, which uniform did they have Spike
wear in Why We Fight/1943? And remember that wearers of
that uniform were tried for murdering civilians, or for murdering
soldiers who'd surrendered, but they were not, never, tried for
killing enemy soldiers in battle.
Because they were guilty of a lot, but that last wasn't a crime.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Kinda disagree -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:15:37 07/08/04
Thu
I personally tend to view Buffy as a police officer who kills
all the time because there's no means of imprisoning demons are
vampires. When a demon chooses not to engage in murder (like Clem)
or is unable to (like chipped Spike) she lets said demon live.
So, Buffy doesn't kill beings just because they wear "the
enemy uniform", but because they have killed people and/or
are going to kill more. Yes, she goes after vampires before they
even have the chance to kill someone, but I think that's roughly
similar to the "pre-crime" seen in the movie "Minority
Report": they haven't actually done anything yet, but Buffy
knows they will if she doesn't prevent them.
You could argue that Spike simply killed the Slayers because they
were trying to kill him, but what of criminals then who know they
will be sent to prison or given the death penalty if caught: do
they have the right to kill the arresting officers to protect
themselves? Also, considering that Spike actually sought out the
Slayers for the purpose of killing them, I think that defense
kind of goes out the window.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Disagreeing with your disagreeing -- Pip, 15:24:34
07/08/04 Thu
Umm... except the analogies within the episodes are only once
( I think) for police officer, and very frequently for Slayer
as Soldier.
The analogy of police officer comes in Season 2, (What's my Line)
when it's suggested as a career choice for Buffy. Then the 'police
officer' tries to kill her. Police officers try to kill or arrest
Slayers a lot, come to think of it :-)
Making the Slayer someone who is compared to or works with soldiers,
on the other hand, comes with Xander as soldier - very frequently,
starting in Halloween, the famous Slayer with big Rocket
Launcher in Innocence (do police often carry Rocket Launchers?),
the relationship with Riley the Soldier, Buffy working with the
Initiative soldiers for a short period, and the whole semi-military
Potential training thing in S7 (including the truly dreadful boot-camp
movie take-off). Buffy seems fairly comfortable working with 'soldiers'
or 'warriors'. Not with police officers.
There's also the Thanksgiving comparison of Buffy being attacked
at the Fort of Giles's house, and being rescued by the bicycle
cavalry. Plus the many times Buffy is referred to as a 'warrior'.
Similarly, Spike is put in Initiative uniform, and in a uniform
coat in Why We Fight/1943; he's also the one who gives
the 'that's what conquering nations do' speech in Pangs, which
appears to be from a 'soldier', not 'criminal' perspective. Spike,
like Buffy, is also frequently described as a 'warrior'.
I have to say that the idea of I personally tend to view Buffy
as a police officer who kills all the time because there's no
means of imprisoning demons are vampires is paradoxical. Someone
who kills all the time because there is no alternative may be
a military police officer, ie a soldier trying desperately
to keep order in a situation of martial law; but they are NOT
a civilian police officer.
Soldiers are trained to kill; arresting without killing is something
they can do, but it's a secondary speciality. Civilian police
officers are trained to arrest without killing; they may end up
in a situation where they must kill, but again, that's a secondary
part of their job. Civilian police officers are 'officers of the
peace'. They're not supposed to fight, but to stop fighting. Slayers
are trained, very clearly from what we see in the series, to kill.
Arresting without killing is very rare in Buffy's world. Exceptional,
in fact. A police officer who started killing every suspect because
the justice system was crap would rightly be considered very dangerous.
[The 'pre-crime' argument is a dubious one as well - statistically
you can make a fair prediction that a male is very likely indeed
to commit a criminal act between 15 and 25, but I doubt that this
should be considered a reason for locking up all young males (yes,
that's a joke)].
A soldier in war would quite frequently seek out an enemy for
the purpose of killing them (and we see vampires do that a lot
in BtVS, just as we see Buffy deliberately seek out vampires to
kill them).
So I don't think 'Slayer=police officer' is the intended analogy.
Buffy's called a warrior, she doesn't work well with the police,
she does tend to work well with other warriors and she sometimes
uses big rocket-launchers. Sounds like 'soldier in a war' to me.
Adolescence as war.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Except both soldiers and standard police
officers report to a higher power -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:37:33
07/08/04 Thu
Buffy never had much contact with the Watchers Council and usually
challenged their authority when she did. As such, I think we have
to take into account that, whether Buffy is most like a soldier
or a police officer, she is one with no superiors she must report
to. I think she even once said in Season 7: "I am the law".
I guess just saying police officer doesn't work; you also have
to add in the fact that she is judge, jury and executioner as
well. After all, it pretty much is up to her to decide what should
be done with the demons she encounters, and it is also up to her
to carry out those decisions. Even Slayers whose Watchers were
more commanding, thus taking away the judge/jury aspect, can still
fill the role of executioner as well as police officer.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Not necessarily -- Pip, 14:49:03
07/09/04 Fri
I think you are arguing directly against the text [and possibly
from Judge Dredd :-)], which compares Buffy to 'warrior/soldier'
much more than to 'police officer'.
There's another person who could once upon a time say 'I am the
law.' The King. It was the king's law, the king's peace, and the
King was, once upon a time, a warrior who led his troops into
battle.
Maybe I just find the concept of Buffy as 'police, judge, jury,
executioner' incredibly scary. People who have that power in the
modern world are usually referred to as 'dictators'. At least
in a war, no one pretends that people killing one another in battle
is any kind of justice. I don't see Buffy as meting out any kind
of justice. Spike's 'get out of jail free because I'm incredibly
hot' card is not justice, not with all the crimes he's committed.
On the other hand, it is reasonable treatment to (firstly) an
enemy soldier who's been forced to surrender and to (secondly)
someone who's later switched sides for good(ish) reasons.
So that's my problem, really. Buffy as police officer simply doesn't
work for me. It's not there in the text, and it goes against all
my ideas of what a police officer should be and should represent.
I can't see Buffy as representing any kind of justice system,
even one as dark as the MegaCity version.
Buffy as a warrior in an eternal war - I can see that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Justice is only used as a deterrant
of future evils -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:33:51 07/09/04 Fri
Giving out "justice" has three purposes:
1) While it is in effect, usually the guilty party is incapable
of actually commiting further evil acts (for example, prison).
2) To discourage the guilty party from future evils by making
them fear punishment.
3) Making innocent parties not commit evil for fear of punishment.
Buffy chose not to kill Spike because he was harmless, not because
he was hot. He posed no threat of personally resuming his murderous
ways (covering points one and two) and the message "if you
don't kill, I won't kill you" is one she'd want to get out
to the demons, hence covering point three. Inflicting harm on
someone solely because they have done bad things in the past doesn't
really seem right to me.
But really, what seperates warriors from policemen anyway? In
modern days, police are usually able to apprehend criminals without
killing them, but isn't that really just a question of having
different resources at their disposal? Soldiers would apprehend
without killing if they could, just like policemen, it's just
that the former usually can't while the fomer usually can. Also,
in olden days, the people who policed the cities were also warriors
of the kingdom. So, I guess what I'm saying is, for me the line
between a police officer and a soldier is that a police officer
is domestic while a soldier isn't (and, yes, the difference of
where they are does make the morality different). What makes me
lean towards Buffy as police officer rather than soldier is that
the people she protects (humans) and the people she fights (demons)
live in the same territory. Sure, you'll rarely find them in the
same apartment complex, or maybe even the same neighborhood, but
they're all in the same city none the less. As such, there isn't
really enemy territory and allied territory. Also, the enemy has
no real unity. Demons tend to act alone or in small groups; if
Buffy could be said to fighting a war, it's a war against a hundred
different factions. Sure, the factions have common threads among
them (a few biological similarities and some shared ethics), but
they work seperately. All this put together just doesn't sound
like a war in the standard sense.
Take a normal big city as an example: the city has gangs, mafia
groups, drug cartels, plenty of criminal groups that aren't so
easy to name, and no shortage of criminals who work alone. They're
by no means united, sometimes even fight each other, but they
all do hold the law as a common enemy and share the fact that
their usual targets are ordinary citizens. They get into many
skirmishes with the police and, when it comes to an actual fight,
the cops tend to win. However, the police never have a definitive
victory cause there are always new criminals arising or moving
in. Take this and change "police" to "Slayer"
and the "criminals" to "demons", and doesn't
it sound like a good description of Sunnydale. The one thing you
seem to hinge upon is that Buffy kills her foes while police usually
don't, and again I say that all comes down to resources: police
can capture criminals and hall them off to a judge without their
deaths on most occasions; Slayers cannot. But what if you took
away many of the advantages given to the police? What if all judges,
courthouses, lawyers, and prisons in the city were gone? This
would be a very chaotic situation, but the justice system crumbling
has happened in many places before. Do the police who remain automatically
become soldiers because they're forced to fight criminals to the
death, having nowhere to take them? I wouldn't think so; they're
simply police under different circumstances then we are personally
used to.
P.S. What do you make of the War on Drugs and War on Terror then?
Both are actions taken against criminal threats by law enforcement
officers (at least when they take place within the United States,
since police don't have authority outside). Do you believes these
count as wars? If they don't, what exactly makes them different
from real wars? If they do, what makes them different from other
police actions?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Can't believe I forgot
to mention this, PLEASE READ -- Finn Mac Cool, 23:02:42
07/09/04 Fri
There is one other key difference between soldiers and police
officers that I totally forgot, and so this does negate some of
what I said above (should have read through it before clicking
"approve"). The same train of argument applies, but,
yeah, I do have to retract some of my comments.
See, soldiers many times don't have much choice about fighting
and killing. They may have been drafted, or they may have joined
before the current conflict arose, and thus didn't know who they
would be called to fight. The result is that there are probably
a lot of soldiers who don't necessarily believe in the cause they're
fighting for, but do so because they will face imprisonment or
(in some nations) death if they attempt not to. Criminals, on
the other hand, choose to become criminals. Yes, a lot of them
are probably very poor or down on their luck and resort to crime
to solve it. However, I doubt many of these cases bear the same
"Catch 22" power as prison or death can cause. What
I'm getting at here is that a soldier is fighting another soldier,
and neither one may want to be fighting, but they're pushed into.
With the proverbial "cops and robbers", though, the
police usually choose to be police because they want to, and criminals
usually choose to become criminals because their values are different
or at least a tad bit weaker then the police officer. This presents
a moral conflict between the individual policemen and criminals,
whereas there are probably many cases where two opposing soldiers
have morally like views. As such, the manner in which soldiers
are treated and police/criminals are should probably be different,
given that the latter tend to have more choice concerning their
paths in life than the former. Of these, Slayer vs. Demon conflicts
have more in common with the police and criminals, since Buffy
chooses to fight evil (yes, destiny compels her, but there's nothing
besides her own conscience to punish her if she doesn't) and demons
choose to be evil (of course, I come from the camp that believes
you are still held accountable to free will even if your moral
compass is absent or pointed in the other direction). If mystical
forces (or just a Watchers Council assassination squad) forced
Buffy into the fight, and some evil overlord forced demons to
fight back, then I could see the soldier comparison, but the greater
amount of free will Slayers and demons are allowed makes police
and criminals the better comparison.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Different definitions
-- Pip, 14:55:33 07/10/04 Sat
Ah. I'm beginning to suspect that we come from radically different
traditions of policing and that this is why you can see Buffy
as 'police officer' and I can't.
Firstly, with regard to 'justice'. Your description of 'justice'
is, to me, a description of a small part of 'justice' - sentencing
of criminals. I've just looked up 'Justice', on Merriam-Webster
online (
here ), and I note that the weighting assigned is utterly
different to my dictionary. Merriam-Webster puts 'the maintenance
or administration of what is just ... the assignment of merited
rewards or punishments' in the primary definition. The Oxford
English Dictionary has 'just behaviour or treatment' as the primary
definition. ['Just' is defined as 'morally right or fair'.] 'Administration
of the law' is a secondary definition. Even the administration
of the law is largely non-criminal - The Royal Courts of Justice
deal mainly with business law and family law, criminal law being
only a third of what they do. Business and family law are mainly
concerned with 'equity' - fairness, not deterrence or punishment.
So when I said 'Buffy's treatment of Spike is not just', I meant
something utterly different from 'he needs/doesn't need to be
deterred'. Spike, who has killed an awful lot of people, is treated
one way (he gets probation, effectively), the basement-lady, who
has done absolutely nothing, is treated another. This is not fairness,
it's not impartiality. It's not judging people by what they've
actually done, instead it's judging them by what they might do
in the future. It's not justice, by my meaning of justice.
Incidentally, I'm really confused as to how you can think it's
OK for Buffy to kill someone on a 'pre-crime' basis, yet think
it's wrong to inflict harm on someone who's done bad things in
the past. To me, again, that's not equity, balance, justice. Deterrence
is one small part of sentencing; the other part is simply balance.
The wrong that has been done to the community is balanced by a
punishment given out. If no wrong has been done to the community,
why is someone being punished?
In answer to what separates warriors from police officers, I think
the best thing I can do is to use Robert Peel's Nine Principles
of Policing, and explain why I think Buffy doesn't follow them.
You can find this at Short
Police History
SIR ROBERT PEEL S NINE PRINCIPLES OF POLICING
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent
crime and disorder.
Buffy is OK with this one. She tries to stop vamps and demons
committing crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent
upon public approval of police actions.
Buffy appears to not want public approval, or even for the general
public to know what the heck she's doing most of the time.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public
in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain
the respect of the public.
Willing co-operation of the rest of her Scooby team, fine. Willing
co-operation of the Sunnydale citizenry is not sought. Willing
co-operation of vampires and demons is not sought.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured
diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical
force.
Buffy *really* hasn't been told that one ;-)
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to
public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial
service to the law.
Buffy doesn't impartially serve any law. She's not impartial with
Angel, Spike, Dru, Anya or Willow. All of those are treated differently
from other vampires/demons/magic users - for good stategic reasons,
but not in impartial service of law. Buffy's generally pretty
partial, in fact.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure
observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise
of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
Buffy (and Faith) have a 'fight first, and let that persuade them'
methodology.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with
the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the
police are the public and the public are the police; the police
being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time
attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the
interests of community welfare and existence.
Whereas there is only one Slayer in all the world (or was in season
1), and she is especially Chosen, set apart, not a normal human,
etcetera. The duties of the Slayer are not considered the duties
of all citizens. Slayers are not the public, and the public are
not Slayers.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards
their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
Nobody mentioned that one to Judge Buffy, either [grin].
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and
disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing
with it.
I suppose in Buffy's case that's a partial pass, since on the
one hand Sunnydale was always full of demonic crime and disorder,
but on the other hand, only her student class ever realised she
was the one tackling it.
So out of nine principles, Buffy follows one-and-a-half.
I'd disagree about the police being descended from warriors, btw.
The (my)police are more descended from the petty-constables, who
was generally some extremely reluctant ordinary yeoman-villager,
or in the towns they descend from The Watch, who again were basically
civilians, sometimes paid but often just 'call on as needed.'
Royal law enforcement (the High Constables and Sheriffs) was Norman
law, associated with warriors and militia; local law enforcement
was more the Saxon tribal tradition of electing someone to do
it, and picking a bunch of elders if a judgement had to be made.
The jury system comes from Saxon tribal law, btw.
Soldiers have often been called in to keep order (still happens)
- but that was and is considered a sign of disaster, that law
and order have broken down very badly indeed.
I think we are also coming from utterly different backgrounds
when you talk about enemy and ally living in different territories.
My experience of war has included long term low-scale war in which
enemy and ally live only a few streets apart. Or sometimes next
door. I think the official term is 'low intensity conflict (guerilla
and terrorism stage)'. You can easily find armed soldiers doing
the day-to-day patrolling in such a war, and often one side *is*
split into several different factions. So Buffy's fight against
demons sounds like 'war' to me. It doesn't seem strange that a
warrior/Slayer would have to patrol her own town, or that the
enemy might be found in her own house. It doesn't seem strange
that the one part of the opposing side might have a truce with
us, while another is still blowing things up.
I agree that soldiers don't have much choice about where they
fight; even if they're volunteers, they're expected to serve where
called regardless of personal opinion. That's part of having a
non-political army that isn't going to try and take over the country
because it disagrees with the government. But your argument that
this makes Buffy a police officer because they chose to
fight criminals then collapses utterly - because she was drafted!
She was Chosen. She didn't decide on Slayer as career, it got
picked for her. Yes, she decided after she was drafted
that the cause was worthwhile and she should fight, but that happens
to draftees, too. The last mass draft in my country was called
because of the real threat of invasion. Most people didn't stay
in the services because of fear of jail or punishment; they stayed
because they knew the consequences of losing the war. Similarly,
Buffy learns the consequences of losing - and stays.
Criminals generally choosing to become criminals I'm OK with.
Demons choosing to become demons is a bit iffy, vampires choosing
to *become* vampires is very iffy indeed, according to what we've
seen over the years in the show. Vamp-Xander, Vamp-Willow, Darla
being vamped (2nd time) against her will - that sort of thing.
Liam and William don't seem to have had a huge understanding of
what they were getting into, either. Generally, I'd say that the
text doesn't support the idea that a demon or a vampire has chosen
to become such.
But if you believe that vampires have free will (I don't), then
yes, fine, they choose to kill people. Drafted soldiers in the
cause of evil, who then chose to continue the evil cause, if you
like [grin].
Some more comments:
But what if you took away many of the advantages given to the
police? What if all judges, courthouses, lawyers, and prisons
in the city were gone?
This is what I mean when I say we seem to come from radically
different directions. You have no idea how hard I find it to imagine
that happening, except in the case of civil war. The lowest scale
of judge (magistrates) aren't trained lawyers and they aren't
paid - they're selected from volunteers who have no criminal record,
and they're usually people like teachers, or civil servants, or
retired business people, or well, anyone really. They try minor
criminal cases, and can sentence people to up to two years in
prison. Minor civil cases can also be dealt with by magistrates,
or possibly a tribunal (again, often the 'judges' are non-lawyers).As
well as full time paid police, there are also Special Constables,
who are unpaid volunteers. And members of the public do chase
bag snatchers down the street. The legal system, police, even
prisons only work because most people co-operate with it. To imagine
a situation where all that's been taken away, you're not just
in a chaotic situation - you're in the middle of a civil war.
Because in any lesser situation, the grass roots semi-amateur
level of retired magistrates and local tribunal members would
probably get together and start organising a local justice system
again, putting up posters and asking for volunteers of good reputation,
so that the police could go back to doing the arresting, and other
people could do the judging. That's how we got full time city
police in the first place; local magistrates started organising
paid civil forces - eventually it went up to government level.
As you've probably gathered, I'm not from the United States, so
I have only a very dim notion of the War on Terror and the War
on Drugs. Anti-terrorism in this country is divided between the
military and the police, depending on whether military or civil
intelligence/tactics are required. For example, the holding of
hostages by a group of terrorists some twenty years back was under
the control of the police (who normally handle hostage sieges)
until a hostage was executed. At that point it was decided that
the only way to save the remaining hostages was to kill the terrorists,
and the operation was handed over to the appropriate army unit
(who'd been on standby). Again, you see the split between 'the
police are trained to arrest/soldiers are trained to kill'.
So this is probably why I find it very, very difficult to see
Buffy as 'police'. As well as the textual evidence - that she
is generally associated with 'soldier/warrior' types and generally
in opposition to the police, she doesn't follow my cultural understanding
of what the police do, she's in the middle of what looks
more like a low-level war, and she kills people all the time.
Add that to the fact that there's no justice system in sight,
and it's all reading war/soldier/warrior to me.
Shadowkat's suggestion that Buffy/the Slayer might be in the 'gunfighter'
tradition is also pretty attractive. Joss might well have been
working in that tradition as well.
But he does use soldier-images a lot.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> See, if Slayer vs.
Demon fights are war, then they're a specific type of war
-- Finn Mac Cool, 21:23:53 07/10/04 Sat
They're a rebellion. For the most part, humans seem to be the
ones in charge of earth. With only a few exceptions, they run
the corporations, the government, the military; we've seen no
corresponding force of demons that operate on the same scale.
The demons in Sunnydale are either born there or move there and
don't seem to maintain much if any contact with demons on the
outside; the various demon factions work either to overthrow human
rule or at least act in defiance of it in accordance with their
own values (or lack thereof). This doesn't make them invaders
in the traditional sense, but rather rebels and insurrectionists.
And the thing about rebels is that they are criminals. After all,
let's say some psycho thinks he can take over the country by killing
all the post office workers (just for example) starts shooting
up a post office. Does this count as waging war, or is he simply
a criminal with unusual motivations?
Oh, and the values that different orders lives by can change easily
with time. For example, taking the code of ethics/honor that knights
lived by in medieval times and comparing it to how modern soldiers/police/guards/whatever
in modern day England act. Different times and places call for
different from behavior from both their police and their soldiers.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I could go
with demons rebelling against invaders. -- Pip, 11:19:15
07/12/04 Mon
There's even a suggestion of 'demons as natives/humans as invaders'
in the text, with Spike's forced and unwilling surrender to Buffy
being made in the same episode that Buffy's having to deal with
a vengence ghost of the Chumash tribe (Pangs), and thus with her
moral problem of being the descendent of (successful)invaders.
The show's mythology has demons as the original inhabitants
of the Earth, making the humans the invading colonists [grin].
As to rebels being criminals - they're invariably considered so
by the ruling power, whether the ruling power are native or invaders.
The French Resistance were treated as criminals by the occupying
power; they're now considered heroes. The colonial side in the
American Revolutionary War were rebels against their own colonising
power - now they're heroes. I could go on. (Robin Hood, anyone?
With the strong flavour of Saxon rebellion against unjust Norman
overlords?)
So, yeah, I could go with this being a war of rebellious native
demons against long-established invaders. Still a war, though.
If Wolfram & Hart win, they'll call us rebellious humans 'criminal
terrorists'. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> While
demons were the originals, humans are also natives -- Finn
Mac Cool, 15:23:25 07/12/04 Mon
So you could say that humans were originally rebels against the
demonic regime, and that the positions have become reversed over
time. So I don't think pegging humans as invaders works. Now,
a demon who overthrew humans would be a hero in the eyes of other
demons, just as French men who worked to overthrow the Nazis were
viewed by other French, but legality and morality don't always
overlap.
Also, I think a lot of politicizing of demons doesn't work, since
the vast majority of them don't have any sort of big goal; rather,
they just want to go on killing, feeding, and doing as they damn
well please. They don't even do this as a sign of protest or some
sort of terrorist action since most people don't even realize
demons are doing it; rather they just like doing what they do.
Now, certainly they'd prefer humans be subjugated, but few seem
to actively pursue it. This is one of the reasons I think demons
as criminals rather than soldiers works better: soldiers fight
in order to accomplish a goal that other soldiers share (they
actually be fighting for money, thrills, or because they'd face
severe consequences for not fighting, but the motivation doesn't
change the goal they're working towards). However, most demons
don't have that; like criminals, they may commit crimes for religious
or political causes, but they may also do it in order to gain
money, power, or one of many other goals. Criminals and soldiers
all have varied motivations, but the two groups are different
in that soldiers must be part of a group united towards a cause,
while criminals do not have to.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No Invasion
on Either Side -- dmw, 07:27:00 07/13/04 Tue
There's even a suggestion of 'demons as natives/humans as
invaders' in the text, with Spike's forced and unwilling surrender
to Buffy being made in the same episode that Buffy's having to
deal with a vengence ghost of the Chumash tribe (Pangs), and thus
with her moral problem of being the descendent of (successful)invaders.
The show's mythology has demons as the original inhabitants of
the Earth, making the humans the invading colonists [grin].
The fact that demons were on Earth before humans doesn't indicate
that humans are invading colonists any more than the pre-existence
of dinosaurs indicates that. Homo sapiens evolved on Earth; it's
their home, while the demons may or may not have evolved here.
If we look at the origins of the old, demon haunted Earth in HP
Lovecraft, we find that the Earth was settled by alien intelligences
before humans evolved. Whether or not the demons were natives
or immigrants, the situation of one intelligent species evolving
on a planet occupied by others is not as simple as colonization
or invasion and has no parallels in our history, though it has
been examined in SF by David Brin in his Uplift series, in addition
to other works.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Warrior or Goon -- dlgood, 04:45:04
07/09/04 Fri
Spike, like Buffy, is also frequently described as a 'warrior'.
But soulless Spike is a warrior only in the most superficial of
ways.
1. What war is he fighting?
2. On whose behalf (besides his own personal) does he fight?
3. What principle, ideal, or entity does he stand in service of?
4. What cause does he champion?
In S2, he's fighting to save Dru. There, he's at least got a cause
beyond himself.
But in the case of Nikki Wood, the answers: none, nobody's, none,
and none. He has no particular causus belli against The
Slayer, and could have lived for centuries without having to meet
one. He fought Nikki Wood solely for his own ego. That's basically
it. That doesn't make him a warrior. It makes him a goon.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Warrior or Goon -- Pip, 14:21:47
07/09/04 Fri
See my answer below. If you want to argue against the Buffyverse
view of what a 'warrior' is, fine, but if you argue that Spike
isn't a Buffyverse warrior, you're arguing directly against the
text.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Labels -- Dlgood, 16:35:54
07/09/04 Fri
I don't dispute that he's called a "warrior". But your
appeal to authority rather than addressing the main point is a
weak argumentative tactic.
I argue that analysis of soulless Spike's behavior renders the
appelation meaningless in his case. If I announce myself the starting
center fielder for the New York Yankees, does it actually make
me so?
We have, what we call, unreliable narrators. Presuming the term
"warrior" has any meaning, do a few instances of characters
calling him a "warrior" make it so? Is retroactive labeling
by two individuals who did not witness the event sufficient? In
stalking and killing Nikki Wood, what makes him a "warrior"
rather than a thug on a glorified ego trip?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Labels -- Pip,
17:45:39 07/09/04 Fri
I don't dispute that he's called a "warrior". But
your appeal to authority rather than addressing the main point
is a weak argumentative tactic.
The weak argumentative tactics here are yours. You are arguing
that the text disagrees with your world-view and should therefore
be ignored. And in calling him thug on a glorified ego trip
you're using deliberately emotive language, often a warning sign
of a very weak argument.
The two 'unreliable narrators' on Buffy are two completely different
people, with completely different outlooks. Yet both refer to
Spike as 'warrior'. This suggests that his behaviour corresponds
to an accepted definition of 'warrior' within the Buffyverse.
Behaviour, incidentally, includes verbal behaviour. Analysis of
a dramatic character should include what is said about them by
others, what they say about themselves, and what they say about
others.
You argue that analysis of his behaviour makes the appellation
meaningless. Fine. Then you are actually arguing that the Buffyverse
definition of 'warrior' is not in accordance with your world-view.
Stalking (another emotive term) and killing Nikki
Wood. What in those events makes Spike a warrior?
Working from the text, I note:
- Robin Wood is present (though hiding) at the first fight
with Nikki. It is unclear whether Spike recognises that he's
present - he reacts to Robin making a sound, but whether he sees
that it's a child (or knows that it's Nikki's child) isn't made
clear. He doesn't move to attack whoever or whatever made the
sound.
- Robin Wood is alive in Buffy Season 7. He references his
mother being killed, but makes no suggestion whatsoever that
Spike made any attempt to kill him.
- Nikki's Watcher is referenced by Robin Wood in Buffy Season
7 as the person who brought Robin up after Nikki died. Again,
the reference makes it clear that Nikki's watcher is still alive,
and so appears to have not been attacked by Spike. In support
of this, no such attack is mentioned by Wood.
- In the train fight, Spike is unsupported by any other vampires.
The fight is one to one.
This can be compared with the behaviour of Angelus, who tries
to weaken Buffy by first attacking her friends and her watcher,
with the behaviour of Kakistos who killed Faith's Watcher (FAITH:
(angrily) They don't have a word for what he did to her.)
and with the behaviour of Darla against Holtz (who she leaves
alive to torment. Plus she tries to include a back-up squadron
in any fights).
So when compared with the behaviour of other unsouled vampires,
the death of Nikki Wood does display distinct differences, which
might make a demon and a Slayer both refer to Spike as 'warrior'.
One on one fight, no attack on dependents/non-combatants, no torture.
If you want to argue the thug on a glorified ego trip you'd
do better to use School Hard as your main evidence - but
even there he offers Buffy a one-to-one fight and doesn't attack
her mother.
Unsouled Spike is a nasty bloke, incidentally; but his habit of
killing Slayers seems to have some weirdly twisted code to it.
Unlike his other killings.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Slayers, Holtz, Spike,
Angelus...another way -- s'kat (delurking briefly), 21:54:16
07/09/04 Fri
[Sorry for butting in - since I'm sort of hidden down here at
the end of the thread, maybe no one will notice - for the record,
I more or less agree with Pip's take. But I see some things people
have forgotten to look at which may strengthen portions of Pip,
Finn's and Rich's arguments. This is a scary thread for some of
us - because it's about that infamous N/S/R debate which always
ends up in online spitting matches and hurt feelings. The best
approach is to remove your emotions and own moral views from the
analysis and look at it more objectively. Otherwise the whole
thing becomes more about you, the poster, and less about the text.
Not that there's anything wrong with that - it's just better to
be clear on it, or innocent bystanders get hurt. ;-)We all have
our issues, after all.]
Of course this may be splitting hairs, but since the writers of
both series go so far as to hammer us over the head with it on
more than one occassion - I think we need to pay attention to
the comparison.
Holtz killed vampires, and did not care who got in the way.
He was all about the ends justify the means. Robin Wood in some
ways is a descendant of Holtz's way of thinking - the girl in
her place, the slayer under the thumb of the watcher, vengeance
is mine sayeth the lord - the whole eye for an eye view.
The Slayer isn't about that. The Slayer is considered a *weapon*
as stated by the Watcher council in Checkpoint, Helpless, and
in Get it Done. They used her basically in the same way the CIA
(or as seen in movies) trains a man to kill the enemy. She's a
solider for the cause. Sort of like Captain America but the female
version. (Actually I think Riley was supposed to be Captain America,
but that's another thread.)
Up until Buffy Summers, Slayers acted like weapons. They may have
had families but the *mission* came first and they did not have
friends or family members assist them. They were lone guns, always
acted alone - or perhaps a better analogy is the lone gunfighter.
And that was why they died. They fought alone. They acted like
a weapon controlled by a Watcher. The gunfighter - whose sole
reason for being is the gunfight and sooner or later falls to
the better gun. This point is made over and over and over in the
series. First with Kendra - who is all about rules and order,
and acting alone, and following her watcher and not making truces
with the enemy or following her heart. Next with Faith - who is
also a lone wolf, weapon, seals off her heart, and relishes the
killing. So much, that she gets confused when she kills a human.
Then we have the slayers of the past - the Chinese Slayer, who
acts alone and wishes to tell her mother almost as an after-thought,
she loved her, and Nikki, the Subway Slayer, who acts alone and
as a polar opposite of Chinese Slayer wishes to tell her son,
she loved him. Both clearly put the gunfight first. Even though
they adored their families. They separated their families from
the fight and fought alone. This is clearly a concept Whedon and
his staff disagree with. Through Buffy they show us how acting
alone isn't necessary and leads to death. The if you act like
a weapon, after awhile you lose yourself. Faith is an example
of how this can happen to a gunfighter. A good film to see for
comparison purposes is "The Gunfighter" starring Gregory
Peck. Another is the Man With No Name - and later The Unforgiven
- the idea of someone losing themselves through being the lone
wolf.
Nikki Wood is a bit like a "gunfighter" in the Old West.
She wears the white hat. She fights on the side of the townspeople.
While Spike is a black hat or "gunfighter" who fights
on the side of the invading ranchers who want to do the townspeople
out of their livilhoods.
The set up of the Chinese Slayer/Spike, Nikki/Spike,
Buffy/Spike in Harsh Light of Day, is the tale of two combatants.
Or gunfighters. Or hitman. Although knowing Whedon, I think the
Western concept of Gunfighter works better. One lives. One dies.
Except in the case of Buffy - where both live and then end up
saving the world together. With Buffy, Whedon negates the warrior
cycle. He suggests that the two fighters do not have to kill one
another. It's a concept that's been explored before in War Movies
- Apocalypse Now sort of goes there, Enemy Mine (about an alien
warrior and a human warrior, mortal enemies, forced to make peace
and who eventually care deeply for each other). Whedon and ME
suggest in BTVS S1-7 that you can make peace with the enemy. That
the two warriors from both sides can save the world. He does it
first in S2 ATS - with Becoming PArt II, then again in S5 BTVS,
and once again in S7 BTVS. And again, in Not Fade Away with Lindsey/Angel
- although, Angel being the darker show - Lindsey is killed.
But Angel is no Buffy.
The whole coat bit is taken from a noir gothic novel by Frank
Miller called Sin City. It is about a man who is a hitman
or gunfighter - he works his way up the levels of an organization
by killing targets - each target he takes a jacket from, not as
a trophy so much as a second skin or calling card. A Japanese
anime I saw recently borrowed the idea. And I think Miller borrowed
it in turn from some Westerns. Remember Whedon is a Western buff.
Think of it like the Sergio Leone movies where the Man with No
Name has that hat. That's where it comes from. I honestly think
the coat was supposed to symbolize Spike's own sense of power
- sort of a dark version of Spiderman's costume. Peter Parker
puts on his mask and becomes Spiderman, without it he is geeky
Peter Parker. Or Bruce Wayne puts on the suite and becomes Batman,
without it he's just reclusive millionaire Bruce Wayne. BTVS being
a horror show, ME put a dark twist, making the coat that makes
Spike strong the one that belonged to a warrior that matched him
in battle but died leaving a bereft, grief stricken son - Spike's
shadow. Truly is there anything worse they could have come up
with for Spike than Robin. Well, Dana of course. Robin is some
ways -textually speaking - may act as Spike's shadow or other
self. Just as Holtz acts as Angel's shadow or other self.
The Holtz/Angel relationship is far darker and much murkier morally
speaking. But again Angel the series was a darker show. Holtz
isn't a gunfighter - he's an avenger. He's Batman basically or
rather Van Helsing. He has no superpowers and he goes to root
out the evil vampires.
But he has a family and people help him. Unlike the slayers, he
doesn't act alone nor does he care whether he puts others in danger.
And Angelus doesn't hunt Holtz, he hunts Holtz's family and friends.
Partly for revenge against Holtz hunting him. And partly for enjoyment.
Just as Holtz later hunts Angel partly for revenge and partly
for enjoyment. Angelus isn't a gunfighter, he is actually Jack
the Ripper in some respects and just in case we aren't sure about
this - the writers throw Parvayne at us, whose crimes are strikenly
similar to Angelus' so much so that Angelus' name is found cross-referenced
with PArvayne's under "dark soul". Also in BTVS S2 -
the twist of that season is who the dark power rising is. Kendra
foretells it in What's My Line, we assume it is Dru, when in Becoming
and Surprise it is clear that it was Angel all along. And once
again in Damage - Angel tells Spike that for him it was all about
the evil, that he would have done that Dana, that was what Angelus
enjoyed.
Walter in Damage is *not* an illusion to Spike, that's the mislead,
in the end of the episode it's revealed in two scenes that it
is Angelus that he resembles most. This is very important - because
it is Angel's show and that is what Angel must deal with - Angelus
modus operandi was in the corruption and destruction of innocence.
Spike's wasn't about that - Spike is the hitman who gets off on
the rush of the violence, chaos unleashed. Angelus was about control,
about changing someone to fit his ends. Something we see as early
as Becoming Part I in the flashback with Drusilla, who Angelus
corrupts. Holtz is the worste thing they could do to Angel. Holtz
is Angel's shadow - because Holtz goes from being an Angel like
character to an Angelus.
He does to Connor what Angelus did to Drusilla. He corrupts him.
The question ME asks is *not* which vampire deserves to be redeemed
or which one is morally upright. They aren't interested in that.
What they are asking is how do we deal with what we've done and
go on? How do you cope with a universe that isn't clear cut necessarily?
Why do we fight?
And what if what we are doing is making things worse instead of
better?
At the end of Girl in Question you have a moment out of Waiting
for Godot - two men stuck in the transistion between their former
selves and who they will become.
Not sure that adds anything or not...
(going back to lurking now...)
sk
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry for all
the typos! Posted it quickly without proofing first. -- s'kat,
22:01:52 07/09/04 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dana as a bridge...in
Damage -- s'kat, 08:41:04 07/10/04 Sat
Since I'm still nicely hidden along the margins here, I thought
I'd add:
It occurred to me last night that in Damage the writers merged
Spike and Angelus' crimes in Dana's psyche/persona.
We have her reliving Spike's crimes as hitman - when he goes after
the slayers much like a gunfighter or hitman might. And we have
her reliving Walter's crimes, which we are mislead into believing
are Spikes, but clearly are representative of Angelus. This is
the reason Dana can't of course stay with Angel/Spike. And it
is through Dana that Spike and Angel come to an understanding
of each others guilt and the effect of their crimes on themselves
and others around them.
The metaphors in the episode are quite fascinating. The idea of
losing ones hands. And how both men used their hands to torture
at different points for different reasons.
By losing his hands, Spike is forced into the victim role again
- forced into the place of his victims and through the sting at
the end by Andrew, Angel is similarly placed there, just as he's
placed there by what Dana does to Spike, since Angelus' modus
operandi was never to do it to the source of his affections but
the source's friends and family then finally them - breaking down
trust. So we have the closing scene where the loop connects and
Angel/Spike admit to each other what they once were, what they
did, and what they've become as a result. Both are framed similarly
to the Girl in Question's final scene. Two men at the juncture
between past and future, wondering if they can ever overcome the
monster they've been and may still be.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dana
as a bridge...in Damage -- Unitas, 17:57:21 07/15/04 Thu
I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed your two posts.
It's really great to see someone engage the text which for all
the talking about these shows, doesn't really happen as often
as you would think.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Really good
to see you post again, s'kat.. -- Jane, 21:51:28 07/10/04
Sat
I for one miss your insightful posts. I think you've really nailed
this one, that" The question ME asks is *not* which vampire
deserves to be redeemed or which one is morally upright. They
aren't interested in that. What they are asking is how do we deal
with what we've done and go on? How do you cope with a universe
that isn't clear cut necessarily? Why do we fight?
And what if what we are doing is making things worse instead of
better?" I certainly couldn't say it any better. Thanks for
delurking!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Buffy's a Macrophage; Spike's a Virus
-- dmw, 07:49:55 07/13/04 Tue
Imposing a human model onto vampires relies too much on their
superficial resemblence to homo sapiens, when their biology clearly
indicates that they're a virus, i.e. they're parasites on homo
sapiens, who both feed on their hosts and use their hosts to reproduce
asexually, killing the target host in the process. Yes, they're
intelligent, but that simply makes them a more dangerous virus,
some strains of which, like HIV, attacks the immune system, in
this case, the Slayers, who like macrophages, attack and destroy
invading particles.
Looking at this on the human level, Buffy's function is essentially
that of a quarantine officer. She patrols the quarantine zone
(Sunnydale in general, and its graveyards in specific), and kills
any vapmires who attempt to rise from the ground and enter the
human world to feed and spread their infection. Vampires are like
people infected with rabies, a disease that destroys the original
mind and incites behavior that's likely to spread the disease
to others.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> an alternate view -- Rich, 18:20:58 07/08/04
Thu
Slayers may very well think of themselves as police officers,
but I doubt that the vampires share that view. In Spike's case,
I suspect that he regarded his killing of Nicki as a victory in
fair combat between equals. Even now, he knows he's committed
crimes, but may not consider killing Nicki to be one of them.
Conceivably, he might even consider wearing her coat as a mark
of respect (Ok, I might be reaching with that one).He may have
changed his opinion since meeting Wood.
An interesting question ( which I assume will never be answered
) would be - what would he have done if Wood had just asked him
for his mother's coat ?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Of course vampires wouldn't view them as
police -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:49:25 07/08/04 Thu
But that's largely because vampires don't want to see the Slayer
as the one in charge. They either see themselves or some other
vampire/demon as in charge, or don't believe anyone is at all.
However, considering that Buffy was the most powerful fighter
in Sunnydale and executed her will over those people/beings involved
with magic, this makes her effectively the authority within Sunnydale's
supernatural community, and the same goes for other Slayers in
their own hometowns. Anyone can claim to be in charge in an area,
but what determines who really is the boss is which of these people
claiming authority has the power to enforce their will. In the
case of Slayers, they're usually stronger than the vampires and
demons, and so they effectively come to govern their little corner
of the supernatural world. Don't you think that a lot of demons
living in a Slayer guarded town tended to see themselves as living
under a (in their views unjust) regime?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Moral Equivalency? -- Dlgood, 14:42:53 07/08/04
Thu
Yes, he keeps the coat. It's a war trophy, and they're often
taken from the dead. I think, in AtS Damage, he's moved on enough
to realise that he killed two people, with families. But he killed
them in battle, not by murder.
I think this operates under the assumption that Slayers and Vampires
are moral equivalents, and that a Vampire killing a slayer is
equally as just as a Slayer killing a Vampire.
The problem then, for Spike, is that he's begun a process of re-positioning
himself as a "good man" and part of that has been his
acceptance of the belief that Vampires killing people is bad and
wrong, whereas slayers killing Vampires is not wrong.
And this undermines the moral equivalency of a slayer vs. vampire
battle, and the pro-Spike defense that his act of engaging in
war against the Slayer was just. And thus, wearing the coat as
a trophy is not a morally clean act.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Moral Equivalency? -- Pip, 16:16:30
07/08/04 Thu
I think this operates under the assumption that Slayers and
Vampires are moral equivalents, and that a Vampire killing a slayer
is equally as just as a Slayer killing a Vampire.
I think you are assuming that this is my assumption. In the last-but-one
paragraph of my post about the coat, above, I note the apparent
comparison by ME of Spike-as-unsouled-vampire to a particular
side in a particular war, and the two sides in that war were most
definitely not morally equivalent. Other wars can be exampled
where the two sides were probably not morally equivalent - going
back to one where there aren't any strong feelings any more, the
Norman army who invaded England in 1066 were a bunch of rapacious
adventurers. The fact that they won is distinctly unjust ;-)
Given that Slayers and Vampires are engaged in a war, then whether
one side is morally equivalent to the other or not, the actions
of an individual warrior are generally judged as individual actions.
Spike's actions would not be judged on whether he belonged to
the unjust side - they'd be judged on a case by case basis.
If the vampire-slayer situation is a 'war' situation, then Slayers
can breathe a big sigh of relief, because no unhuman rights organisation
is going to start complaining bitterly about their habit of killing
non-humans who haven't actually done anything wrong. Under 'war'
rules, that's OK. Under 'peace' rules, it's not OK, however you
pretty it up with, 'uh, well, they were going to commit a crime.
No doubt about it. OK, so every butcher in Sunnydale seems to
carry large quantities of pig's blood, and then there's the vampire
brothel, so some of them don't seem to kill humans...'
If the slayer-vampire situation is a war situation then Spike's
moral problem is that he was on the (morally) wrong side. That's
a different question from whether he committed (morally) wrong
actions as a warrior while fighting on the wrong side.
If the actions he took against Slayers are the same as the Slayer
took against him, then in a situation of declared war, both are
either committing acts of war, or both are committing a war crime.
But if it's a war situation, you can't argue that Soldier
A was committing a criminal act by shooting at Soldier B, whereas
Soldier B was perfectly justified in shooting at Soldier A - if
they were both shooting at each other in a fire fight. It doesn't
matter which side either of them are on; what matters is that
the fight itself was between two soldiers, in a war.
If Soldier B then goes off and takes a (civilian) girl into an
alleyway and kills her, a court-martial is called for. We've gone
into a different area. But the two Spike-Slayer fights we see
both seem to be 'clean' fights. One warrior is fighting another.
They're on different sides, and the sides are not morally equivalent;
but the fight itself would not be considered a war-crime.
The war might be wrong; the individual acts within it have to
be judged individually.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Moral Equivalency? -- dlgood, 21:19:49
07/08/04 Thu
Given that Slayers and Vampires are engaged in a war, then
whether one side is morally equivalent to the other or not, the
actions of an individual warrior are generally judged as individual
actions. (snip)
One warrior is fighting another.
Not necessarily. As a "soldier" in an unjust cause,
is the vampire a warrior? Or is he just a petty thug, adopting
the pose of a warrior to prop up a fragile ego.
Even if one could make the case that being a soldier in a war,
even if on a fundamentally unjust side, was justification - I
don't think it applies in this case.
Spike's not going after the slayer as part of some Vampire/Slayer
war. He's not standing up for the defense of vampires, or any
such principle. He's fighting solely for his own ego. And as such,
he has no right to make the "all's fair in war" claim.
He wasn't acting as a warrior, though he might like to call himself
that. He was acting as a petty thug.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Warrior is what he's called by others
-- Pip, 14:15:37 07/09/04 Fri
If your original premise is that Spike is a petty thug, then any
violence he offers can be argued to prove the premise.
However, I would like to point out that
- A search on the Buffyverse dialogue database for Spike%thug
and thug%Spike brings a total of zero hits.
- A search of Spike%warrior and warrior%Spike reveals that
Spike has been called a 'warrior' by both the demon side (Mr
Shadowy Demon In The Cave in Villains - 'legendary dark warrior')
and by Buffy after the Spike/Wood fight ('strongest warrior we
have')
So the premise doesn't match the textual evidence. No one in the
text calls him a thug, both Demon and Slayer sides in the text
call him a 'warrior'. You may disagree with the Buffyverse view
of what a 'warrior' is, but within that universe, Spike is clearly
labelled 'warrior'.
He doesn't call himself that. It's what others call him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Problem with your analogy . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:00:13
07/08/04 Thu
A police badge isn't really something people usually wear unless
they're a police officer. You can't really see it as being anything
other than a policeman's badge. Now, if the serial killer had
taken like a nice pair of shoes or a hat from the officer he killed,
and had worn them for long enough before reforming, I don't see
the problem.
Now, as I said, I don't think Spike views the coat as being a
trophy anymore. I do think he holds it as a symbol of being tough
(see "Get It Done" for example), but I don't think he
really associates it any more with Nikki. He no longer sees it
as "that coat I took from a Slayer" but simply as "my
ultra-cool coat".
It should also be noted that everyone around Spike except for
Robin Wood viewed it the same way. It's doubtful if any of them
even knew where the coat came from, and, even if they did, it
would be long after they had grown accustomed to seeing Spike
in the coat, just as Spike grew accustomed to wearing it. Now,
after Spike learned that Robin was Nikki's son, he does have one
reason finally to ditch the coat. However, you state he might
be "too much of a jerk (or worse) to care". I do believe
Spike has made moral growth since his soulless days, but I'd still
be one of the last people to deny that Spike is a humongous jerk.
If Robin had come out and said he was Nikki's son and that Spike
was wearing his dead mother's coat, we don't really know what
would have happened. However, since Robin only revealed this information
as he was trying to kill Spike, it's only natural that Spike didn't
care too much about how the coat made Robin feel. While Spike
may have become a better person, he's still a jerk, and so wasn't
very forgiving of Wood's attempt to kill him and responded in
a petty manner.
Also, I think "The Girl In Question" did deal with the
issue of Spike's coat by revealing there isn't actually an issue.
It shows that the particular coat, and thus how he obtained it,
doesn't matter to Spike as long as he's still got the cool duds.
Think of it like fishing trophies: if someone really cares about
showing off the fish they caught, a replica wouldn't do as a replacement.
However, if the person just thinks a big stuffed fish would look
cool in their home, then one would do. This latter person may
even be a vegetarian, but that doesn't mean that they don't like
the way fish trophies look.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Problem with your analogy . . . -- dlgood, 05:25:00
07/09/04 Fri
I don't think he really associates it any more with Nikki.
He no longer sees it as "that coat I took from a Slayer"
but simply as "my ultra-cool coat".
However, it derives a large degree of it's "ultra-coolness"
specifically because he took it from a slayer. It's not just a
coat to him. Hence the big production when he put it back on.
It should also be noted that everyone around Spike except for
Robin Wood viewed it the same way. It's doubtful if any of them
even knew where the coat came from, and, even if they did, it
would be long after they had grown accustomed to seeing Spike
in the coat
But if they knew, I think it would be a very big deal. People
tend to be sensitive about such things. Case in point - the controversy
over the Confederate flag in the southern states. The flag may
look cool, but there is a large segment of the population of those
states that finds incorporating it into state flags to be morally
repugnant. It's frequently a very huge issue, particularly among
the African Americans in those states.
I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that the Coat would
be a big issue to many of the Slayers if they knew where it came
from.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> See, I guess it's just a matter of association
-- Finn Mac Cool, 11:39:38 07/09/04 Fri
I look at a Confederate flag, and I automatically think of, surprise
of surprises, the Confederacy. When I see Spike's coat, though,
I see, well, Spike's coat. It looks cool and acts as a symbol
for his own toughness, but I never think of it as "that Slayer's
coat" unless a discussion like this comes up. Think of the
crucifix as an example: the symbol is derived from an instrument
of torture and death. However, do you think people think of that
when they see a crucifix, of a cruel and grisly means of execution,
or do they think of the positive religious conotations it has
gained? For the vast, vast majority of people it's the latter.
Originally, the crucifix was a very cruel way of killing people;
the death of Jesus made it into both that and a Christian symbol.
Over time, it has lost most of its association with the original
meaning (most crosses these days don't even have the guy nailed
to them) and is purely a symbol of Christianity. Likewise, Spike's
coat was originally a trophy of a Slayer he killed, then it became
both that and a symbol of his own status as a bad ass, and eventually
has, in my opinion, lost its original status as a trophy and is
now purely a symbol of Spike being a tough guy. The Confederate
flag, however, has never really represented anything other than
the values of the Confederacy, so it cannot claim to have transcended
its original meaning.
Oh, and I'd just like to point out: if Spike's coat really only
held value for him because he took it from a Slayer he killed,
then why, pray tell, did he seem perfectly satisfied with a coat
that merely looked the same in "The Girl In Question"?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Problem with your analogy . . . -- Rich,
20:17:47 07/09/04 Fri
I don't think the comparison ( coat to flag) is exact.
People might ( or might not ) care about Spike's coat if they
knew the entire story - we've never heard anyone actually complain
about it, unless you count Wood's "nice coat" remark.
People definitely do care about the confederate flag, and have
said so repeatedly. The first is a hypothetical offense, the second
an actual one.
If anyone *does" complain, and Spike *still* wears the coat,
you might have a case.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Oh dear........ -- Rufus, 21:22:38 07/10/04 Sat
Well the policeman reading over my shoulder finds the whole Buffy
as a cop bit hilarious. For one, the amount of demons she may
kill in one night would make the paper-work alone insurmountable...meaning
Buffy isn't answerable to someone further up the food-chain in
the bureaucracy.
As for free passes for serial killers. Well, I don't think the
term can be used in anything other than the most vague ways by
people who don't know the specifics of law enforcement. Serial
killers are only something that can exist in our real world. Anything
more and you are stuck with the idea that a whole series was created
around a serial killer imprisoned by tenuous bindings of a soul.
Spike and Angel are the same, only their body count may vary.
But remember we are dealing with metaphorical, fantasy situations
and not the real world.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Doesn't Angel refer to himself as one? -- Rahael,
07:26:45 07/20/04 Tue
in Not Fade Away. Or am I mis-remembering?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Doesn't Angel refer to himself as one?
-- s'kat, 09:52:32 07/20/04 Tue
Yes, he did. Angel told Lindsey, he was the worste mass murderer
Lindsey was likely to have ever met in his entire life.
Spike refers to his awful doings in Damage - stating what Walter
did to Dana, he did to his victims. "You and I did that much
and worse, what am I going to do, complain, that I just didn't
happen to be the one who did them to Dana?"
The writers have the vampires refer to themselves as mass murderers
and serial killers throughout both series. The problem with the
motif is they are mixing metaphors a bit, but hey they mix so
many metaphors on these shows you sort of have to just shrug it
off.
Vampire metaphors:
1. Serial killers/mass murderers
2. Hitmen
3. Gunfighters
4. Arrested Development
5. Bad Boyfriend
6. Lust and incest and sexual taboos
7. Alcoholism
8. Heroism or Drug Addiction
9. Disease
10. Racism (although this seems a tad sketchy in my opinion)
And I'm sure there are more. You could honestly go through the
series and argue that vampire metaphor has been used by
ME for each and every one of these. I have the most troubles with
the serial killer/mass murder/ racism ones because I think they
are clumsily done and border on offensive, partly because they
also had human killers who were just as bad in the mix muddies
the metaphor so to speak.
On the other hand - I tend to give fictional characters a lot
more leeway than non-fictional characters in the morality department,
because I see them as more metaphorical or analogous than direct
representations of the human condition. Often traits that would
be horrid in a non-fictional character are exaggerated in the
fictional one in order to show us a new angle on our condition.
A Mass Murder thus becomes a vampire - because in a way that's
what a mass murderer is, a vampire who kills others to get his
jollies, to live off their pain. So calling a vampire a mass murderer
feels a bit redundant. Because of course they are - that's what
a vampire is a metaphor for.
But in the whedonverse, the writers didn't want to stick with
one metaphor, so it depended on the vampire and the episode and
the season which one they'd use - see above list. Angel S5, I
think they went for all the killer metaphors.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Except
... -- Marginal Drifter, 11:32:01 07/08/04 Thu
Spike *did* stop wearing the coat after becoming ensouled - we
don't know if this is because of his wanting to distance himself
from his dark side - I'm presuming so because of his initialy
abandoning it after SR. He starts wearing it again in "Get
It Done", after the Everybody Sucks But Me Speech, and being
thrown through the ceiling for trying to keep on the safe side.
I think that although Spike has changed, he realises at that point
that the side of him that was reckless, that liked a challenge
and didn't (always) avoid fights even when the odds were against
him was a strength that could be used for good as well as evil,
hence the wearing of the coat, won in a fight that at the end
of the day in Spike's POV was more about an ego and adrenaline
boost than about forwarding the interests of evil.
[> [> Re: The Buffyfication of AtS (Total S5 spoilers)
-- Bjerkley, 13:54:39 07/05/04 Mon
Unfortunately, when I look at AtS5 as a whole, I'm left with
the choice of either utterly rejecting its ideologies, or accepting
it as subtextually the bleakest tragedy imaginable.
This same choice I also faced when looking back at the season.
So of course it's the bleakest tragedy imaginable. How could it
not be? All the characters have been horrifically scarred, and
there's many miles since the characters of the earlier seasons.
I too was uncomfortable with a lot of the implications of the
story in season five, while loving many episodes on their own
terms.
I suppose it's entirely possible that ME intended us to be cheering
Angel in his new approach to evil fighting (although not sure
how far I would say this is a Joss thing - it would be interesting
to look hard at Bell and Fury, the showrunners, episodes). However,
when taken as a whole the series looks increasingly like a steady
descent into darkness. It's interesting to re-examine season 1
in the light of season five, and what's most striking is much
of the things that Doyle says to Angel - particularly on the lines
of the good fight, helping the helpless and so on. And it's sad
to see exactly how far Angel has come from that. The helpess barely
even raise a mention nowadays, let alone warrant any protection.
But I think there are signs even in Not Fade Away that Angel is
defeated, most particularly in how he reacts to Lindsey and Harmony.
One is murdered because he'll not be part of the solution (and
knowing Joss' politics, I find it hard that that's a phrase we're
meant to get behind), the other he expects, even relies upon,
to betray him. Because they're bad people and bad people don't
change. So what does that say about Angel himself? That he's the
exception, or that he's the same? Granted he's not one for saying
out loud his introspection, but if we were to take a look into
his character how dark would he be now?
Of course, there was meant to be a season six. Maybe this was
just the end of the chapter before a more happier tale. Or maybe
ME really are this twisted.
Great review, and agree with almost everything that you say. I'm
curious as to why you also think that Buffy season 7 also had
a similar morality to season 5. Because, personally, while I have
big problems with the ethics of season 5, I didn't feel the same
way about Buffy. Granted that could be my fan nature blinding
me, but I'd be interested to hear why you feel this way.
[> [> [> Basically -- KdS, 14:04:45 07/05/04
Mon
It's the demons as evil walking allegories, the irredeemable evil
of formal organisations, and the "magic as temptation"
plot, that remind me of late BtVS. The attitude to heroism in
BtVS, I will say, is more optimistic.
[> [> Re: The Buffyfication of AtS (Total S5 spoilers)
-- Ann, 06:34:19 07/07/04 Wed
There were some big shifts in the moral attitudes, metaphysics,
and rules of the Angelverse this season, and while they were well-presented,
I don't agree with any of them.
And
Now it seems in retrospect that the way out of the aforementioned
problems in Season Five was to declare that demons should always
be killed, and that humans frequently needed killing as a regrettable
necessity.
And
However, like the evil demons, the metaphor is a narrowing of
a universe which had previously valued diversity and mental openness,
And
the beliefs that evil cannot be fought effectively within the
restraints of morality, that heroes are empowered by their aggression
and cruelty, and that the hero must attack evil with utter ruthlessness
and pragmatism until he is so tainted by violence and moral compromise
that he can no longer function in society, and must seek oblivion
in heroic suicide.
And
What's missing completely from Season Five is any hint of the
Chestertonian aspects that originally marked AtS out from the
traditional action tale, the concepts of redemption and spiritual
rescue. And Anne's brief part doesn't suggest that it is no longer
desirable, the implication is that the characters are so scarred
that they are no longer capable of it.
And finally
embracing the Huntingtonian idea that secular democracy and theocratic
Islamism are locked into an unavoidable death struggle, and that
diplomacy, national self-determination, human rights, tolerance,
and any division between committed Islamist terrorists, convertible
fellow travellers, and the typical Muslim in the street, are all
soft-headed-and-hearted pipedreams for cowardly liberals that
must be abandoned in the name of societal survival.
Great review. I think that your statements above reflect what
happens in times of war. S5 was a reflection of the face of the
propaganda of war. Sides have to be taken for the common folk
to be able to understand their enemy and see it as evil. However,
the common folk have to be convinced. There has to be an evil
enemy for if the enemy is not considered evil, then the war has
no moral center. I think Angel s role at W&H reflected this, as
did their moral updates and revisions over the course of the season.
The slow slide to acceptance of war. A war cannot be waged if
one doesn t see the enemy as one who has to be killed. Because
then the war makers are murders. Both common citizenry and Angel
don t want to see that change so a slow slide makes it acceptable
and invisible. He becomes CEO and wants to make changes. Real
life needs to make heroes of war makers because otherwise they
are murders. This thin line was season 5. The evil enemy of W&H was
just the front. The evil was behind the scenes, making puppets
of both AI and W&H. The final scene is what war is, all of
the horror and fear and reality, the bottom of the slow slide,
and the need for the participants to give their lives because
it makes it all worthwhile . The Anne s need to be protected so
the heroes can and will be able to do these warlike things.
I think this change of moral focus that you describe reflects
recent events both in the real world and in Joss s life. When
war, or the end is coming, groups hunker down, enemies are revealed,
created if necessary, and expanded, propaganda being the method
of delivery. Maybe that is why little Eve became very large Hamilton,
the enemy had to be given scarier form to make it seem more real
and more evil. As the circle of the black thorn came closer to
being revealed, the evil grew into a handsome man with a great
suit. Propaganda at its very best.
[> [> [> The Common Folk -- dlgood, 06:42:02
07/07/04 Wed
S5 was a reflection of the face of the propaganda of war. Sides
have to be taken for the common folk to be able to understand
their enemy and see it as evil. However, the common folk have
to be convinced.
Although, one could argue that it's not in-story propaganda, and
not for an in-story audience. In AtS 5, as in BtVS 7, the "common
folk" are all but invisible. If anything, the "common
folk" the propaganda is being directed at is the viewing
audience.
[> [> [> [> Re: The Common Folk -- Ann, 06:51:59
07/07/04 Wed
But the common folks are always invisible. Usually, until a revolution
of some kind. It almost always does come to that for the common
folk to get a voice. Maybe that is why. Very few strides in social
justice have happened without a war. And wars usually take away
social justice. Talk about a black circle.
[> [> [> [> [> A little pessimistic -- KdS,
02:01:19 07/08/04 Thu
I was discussing this in a different context with a historian
friend a little while ago, and she noted that all of the really
all-consuming wars that the UK has been involved in (the Civil
War and the two World Wars) have been followed by major increases
in working-class solidarity and agitation for social justice.
The Second World War was followed by the election of the most
redistributive Labour government in British history.
I think the difference is what's left of a society and the end
of a war. If the society has collapsed into chaos as a result,
then the effects are usually purely destructive, but if civil
society has remained stable, the sense of solidarity can remain
and be harnessed to more positive purposes.
[> [> Re: The Buffyfication of AtS (Total S5 spoilers)
-- slam dunk delurking, 01:49:54 07/19/04 Mon
For example, this week's (UK) Spectator included an item by
the appalling Mark Steyn enthusiastically arguing that given the
US Supreme Court's mystifying attachment to habeus corpus, it
is necessary to ensure that all suspected terrorists are dead
before they are officially captured. Some people have a very different
concept of societal survival than I do.
Yes, I suspect you are right about you and the "appalling"
Mr Steyn having a "very different concept." But the
difference lies in a sense of irony you appear to lack and in
its stead substitute a sense of literalism. Are you equally literalist
with the hyperbole coming from the left which does not appear
to be ironic but of the literalist vein? To whit Al Gore calling
Abu Ghraib a "Gulag."
This is the end of Mr Steyn's thought which you referenced. I
believe the sarcasm is apparent on its face:
And, given that America always gets blamed for killing hundreds
of thousands of people when she hasn't, it's hard to see what
she has to lose.
I try never to forget a kindness so I'll just leave it there.
[> War...spoilers for Angel and the movie "Starship
Troopers -- Rufus, 21:34:37 07/07/04 Wed
I was surprised that Connor's scene didn't cause more protests
than it did, given that ME actually had Connor tell Angel that
he did the right thing with the mind-wipe. That single aspect
was the only false note of the episode for me, although that may
be because of my continued moral disapproval of that decision.
To have it endorsed so thoroughly reminded me more than a little
of Angel's wish-fulfilment from last year
What Connor said in "Not fade Away"...
CONNOR: No. I don't want to make a thing. I get what you
did. You know... I'm grateful. That's as far as I want to take
it...OK?
Connor makes no judgement past what he says in that one statement.
He gets or understands why Angel did what he did, and on his part
he is grateful. That hardly excuses Angel but shows how far Connor
has come from the kid who punched his way out of the Quor Toth.
Then there is the title of episode 13 "Why We Fight"
and it's connection to World War 2. In the opening of the movie
"Starship Troopers" (I stress the movie) there is the
big banner "Why We Fight". One thing in the commentary
that reminded me of season five...
Paul Verhoven (director) and Ed Neumeier (writer of the film adaptation
of Starship Troopers)..
PV: And we are here in the middle of controversy, immediately.
It s interesting; I m quoting here, an article of Richard Schickel
in Time Magazine, who said that maybe it s saying that war inevitably
makes fascists of us all . Then of course he says that the best
guess is that the filmmakers didn t think of anything like that
at all because they were only concerned with the special effects
. But I can tell you that the movie is, in fact, in our opinion,
stating that war makes fascists of us all.
EN: That s true; that was the theme. And this, this opening was
modeled on the Why We Fight films of World War II; in fact
the movie was modeled on propaganda films made during World
War II.
and later Ed Neumeier says...
but all through human history, the powerful write history,
and the powerful decide how things are going to be done, and that
is usually through violence.
The first thing I thought of when "Why We Fight" aired
was who out of the writers liked Starship Troopers or if the reference
was due to some other influence. Season five was all about why
anyone fights. We can sit and philosophize the rights and wrongs
of what any of the character did, but when it comes down to it,
there seems to be a mind set that settles in when people go to
war. In "Why We Fight" becoming a vampire makes Lawson
lose his reason to fight at all as he no longer has any strong
feeling past the need to create chaos, no purpose, no reason to
continue on. When he finally realizes this is all there is for
him he seeks out the one who created the enhanced version of the
formerly patriotic young man.
So, what happens when we go to war, and is the change from a peace-time
mind set to a war mind-set inevitable? Angel has gone from the
soulless, care-free-range-equal-opportunity-killer, to someone
with a purpose. Are the changes that happen to him by the time
"Not Fade Away" flattering or are they the inevitable
outcome of conflict?
Paul Verhoeven said of the progression of all the characters...
I think this scene proves the theme of the movie, that war
turns everybody into a fascist; that innocence dies in war.
Lorne is the one who reflects most of how much of the characters
innocence has been lost. Lorne showed up from Pylea, a place without
song, and found a place where he thought the worst was over. Instead,
Lorne found that a large dose of bitter tends to accompany the
sweet. There are reasons to fight and "reasons" to fight
and who is to say that any of us are capable of pure motives when
it comes to outright war.
War, or conflict in the scale that Angel was engaged in by the
end of season five is not generally what people want but sometimes
there are reasons to fight that are worth the loss of innocence,
the loss of life...so those left behind can continue on. Angel
came to that type of conclusion when he started the battle with
The Black Thorn. He knew that most everyone would die, but he
as well as the others felt that the only answer to the violence
they had seen was violence, if only to buy the world some time
before the whole cycle would start again.
[> [> I think it would be a better seaosn if there had
been a "Starship Troopers" influence... -- KdS,
02:03:35 07/08/04 Thu
I think the influence was purely from the direct WWII sources
that Verhoeven and Neumeier were referring to.
[> [> [> Little trivia from "Firefly" pertinent
to "Starship Troopers" -- Rufus, 02:55:10 07/18/04
Sun
In the commentary for "Train Job", Joss mentions the
fact that if people think the suits used in the episode looked
like the ones on Starship Troopers it was because they rented
the suits from that movie. I guess they "cull" stuff
from everything from comics, movies, literature....and costume
departments....;)
Current board
| More July 2004