July 2004 posts


Previous July 2004  

More July 2004

The Long and Convoluted Story of the First Whatever (look - the plan, the plan!!) -- Darby, 09:50:33 07/08/04 Thu

Thanks to Doug (in his reply to megaslayer's "Why do people considered the First Evil destroyed in the Buffy Series Finale?" thread, right now in Archive 4), whose theory grows from, What if the First was the essence that the shamans bound into the first Slayer? It's an idea that has been bandied about in various incarnations, and I guess here's another one, extended to ridiculous, obsessive lengths to explain Season Seven. I've used Masq's main site to help me remember what happened in the episodes.

Once Upon a Time, there was a demon, the First Vampire. We don't know much about it, but from snippets of Buffyverse mythology there are a couple of traits we can be fairly sure of: a) it was one of the Old Group, the originals, which suggests that it was large (although it could be spiritually large without being physically large) and immensely powerful; b) it was able to pass some of its essence on to humans, driving out their souls and replacing them with a bit of its own. It did this before being driven from the Buffyverse plane, creating the first vampire (at least, that's what Giles told us in The Harvest). From the legends, this first vampire quite likely was a Turok-Han. The Turok-Han, the "neanderthal of vampires," may have been literally a neanderthal human before being infected - it may then have become necessary for our modern human ancestors to magically displace all neanderthals, vamped or not, to another plane (you don't hear that too often as an explanation for why they disappeared, do you-?). Along the way, the vampire infection spread to our ancestors and threatened humanity. Here's a slight addition: as bits of the original demon's soul pushed out the human soul, the process held the soul (that's pretty much established) and continued to feed from it as it hung between worlds. This makes sense if the First Vampire was more of a psychic feeder than a blood-sucker, and it explains some of how the First Evil will work.

Somewhere in an arid part of Africa, a group of shaman, faced with the threat of vampires, developed a spell to draw the essence of the First Vampire - its heart and soul, more or less - back into their plane and confine it in a specially-made wooden box (we've seen similar spells used on Angel for possession demons, which are themselves psychic feeders) linked to this plane through the Earth itself. I suspect that this may have had the side effect of creating a new vampire weakness, making them vulnerable to a wooden stake through the heart (the wood tied to the wood of the box, the stake a version of the vampiric penetrative bite), in addition to the normal night-demon weaknesses to sunlight, fire, and beheading they already had (the fear of Christian symbols would be added much later), but that still was not enough; even trapped individually, vamps were very difficult for primitive humans to kill. The shaman organized, forming a group of dedicated people who would take on vampires and keep their numbers controlled - this would evolve into the Watchers.

When the vamps did die, their human soul, trapped between the body and the afterlife, could move on, while the First Vampire soul fragment joined the remainder in the box. But another weakness of the spell was that, every time a vampire was sired, a bit more of the trapped demon soul left the box - with enough vampires in our world, the First Vampire might be brought forth (magic and its pesky loopholes!). The shaman eventually realized that they needed a force that could effectively fight for them, a force that could tap into the same source of vitality that the vamps used but not release any - in fact, keep it trapped more securely. Releasing this force into a live human would give them many of the same strengths that a vampire has, and would trap the demon soul in a way similar to what the vampire infection does, preventing it from manifesting (although not from exerting some influence). Who knows how many attempts were made, but the final version of the spell created The Slayer - one girl in all the world, blah blah blah. One could make a good case that vampiric infection, the spreading of seed through penetration, is totemically male, so maybe the anti-vampire needed to be female. One other likely possibility is that the empowerment spell destabilized if the main Slayer power was spread to more than one host (weak echoes of it could be distributed to Potentials, but only one girl could wield the true Slayer Power at a time), and such destabilization released some aspects of the First Vampire from its entrapment (this may have been the earliest incarnation of the First Evil, whose reputation suggests is ancient), but the reasons for this rule that Buffy decided to break were eventually lost to antiquity. The Slayer is in many ways an anti-vampire - it gives life rather than takes it; as the vampiric soul displaces and enslaves that of the host, trapping it in a pseudo-life, the First Vampire soul was enslaved by the soul of the human Slayer, holding it in a pseudo-death.

The First Slayer (she of the face paint and dreadlocks) had the purest connection to the First Vampire, and became the most Primal of the Vampire Slayers, probably the most overtly demonic, but the nature of the Slayer Power was that it carried some echo of each girl on to the next, enhancing each Slayer's humanity to balance out the demonic aspects of the power. However, as the demonic aspect of the Slayer lessened, the demon itself became capable of exerting more power from its confinement, and a cult of psychically-influenced humans grew up around what came to be known as the First Evil (with a mission, to Bring It Forth - or Back). This group of self-mutilating (the First is threatened by They Who See, it's all about obfuscation) troglodyte Bringers / Harbingers were not the most useful of worshippers, however - they did great things for the First's reputation, but little overt evil - what do you expect from folks who cut runes over their eyes? The cult, of necessity, also employed agents who could pass above-ground. The First, of course, still had no physical manifestation in this plane.

And so things went, millenia after millenia. The Watchers did grow out of the original group, charged with fighting the war on many fronts, with the Slayer assigned to the most critical theatre (determined by the worldwide "Watch"), but with much more going on. The Watchers were the intelligence and combat arm of the fight, but the spiritual arm became the Guardians, who were given custody of the original containment vessel (hidden somewhere in Egypt, probably, from their choice of temple motif) of the First Vampire Soul (didn't you wonder what the Guardians were guarding?) and some responsibility to keep watch over the Watchers.Over time, their roles became more and more separate, until their shared beginnings began to fade from their own stories. At some point, fearing that the Watchers might become corrupted, the Guardians (who saw the Slayer as the sacred vessel of the organizations' power) devised a weapon tied to the Slayer power that could draw and control more demonic essence, if needed, maybe be used to fight the weakening of the containment that would happen if there were too many vampires - this weapon was the Scythe, and with the help of seers, it was long ago buried where it would eventually be needed.

In the end, Buffy, the Slayer outside the Slayer line, became a de facto Guardian and was addressed by the shaman spirits as such (although they didn't actually know what she was guarding).

The battle wore on - vampires, fearing the increased capabilities of humans to end their unlives, were careful to keep a low profile and judicious with the production of new vampires, so their numbers never grew near the feared threshold that might set the First truly free. But more people in the world does mean more vampires, so the First's power in the world from within its containment would grow. Perhaps the occasional turning of a Slayer would help destabilize the spell, but not as much as you'd think: with the departure of the Slayer Power to the next Chosen, and the similarity in basic energy between Slayer and vampire, it shouldn't have produced too much instability in the system. The balance persevered, even when in the 19th Century gypsies found a way to reintegrate a vampire's human soul and give it dominance, an act that actually strengthened the First Vampire's captivity and quieted its cult.

Then along came Buffy, and the Master killed her and unplugged the Hellmouth, and Xander revived her. Suddenly there were two fully-empowered Slayers.

Having two active Slayers should have increased the power of the First's confinement, but the shaman had found just the opposite - it destabilized the restraining spell. And when the gypsy curse was reversed, when Angelus reappeared, the ability of the First to manifest increased, and it was able to reestablish its cult, to actually appear (trapped in an undeath, it could only take the images of those who had recently crossed over, or those trapped in vampire limbo) to non-Bringer humans. It began to try to free itself, working in many places to gain power and exploring avenues of escape (is it any wonder that the Death-related events of Killed by Death and I Only Have Eyes for You, possibly Dead Man's Party occurred during this Angelus / Angel-in-Hell period?).

But then Angel returned, reducing the First's ability to manifest. But not all at once; as Angel's sanity, his link to his human soul, grew, the First faded, and it made a desperate attempt to eliminate Angel (although it also seemed to think that a second Buffy death would help it as well). At the end of Amends, Angel is fully back and the First's power, while stronger than it had been, is not up to direct confrontations anymore. Some who are tied strongly into it, however, like Dracula, know that Buffy is a Slayer unlike any before. No wonder he wants a look. And why was it important to turn her? Did Drac like being the predominant vamp in the world, and not want Big Daddy returning?

For the next couple of years, while events like Faith's coma caused fluctuations in the First's power, it spread its influence to cult cells all around the world and hatched a multilayered plot to break free and manifest in the Buffy plane. It could be free if a) it drastically increased the number of vampires in the world, drawing enough power from its confinement to free it, b) it could further destabilize the Slayer line, and/or c), it could access its original containment vessel, if it could figure out where to find it. Its actual knowledge of how the whole confinement spell / Slayer link system worked, however, was limited to knowledge of the Slayers, the recently-dead, and vampires - not a lot of reliable info there. It did somehow find out that an artifact, something linked to the source of Slayer power, had been buried by the Sunnydale Hellmouth, but it didn't know what the object actually was - when the First found the Scythe, which was a obviously a vampire-killing device, it may have believed that it had found its prison, and thought that allowing Buffy to tap its power might further destabilize the confinement spell. After all, the Slayer power is Hers Alone to Wield.

Before the First can act, however, Buffy is dead - again - and her Slayer energy returns to the containment vessel and strengthens the restraints. Working slowly, on the time scale of an Old One, may not have been the best approach. The Slayer line is back on track. Maybe there's a broader crack, but the First's abilities are seriously impaired again...

Buffy is restored by Willow, dipping into powerful Earth and Death magicks, but is she still a Slayer? She has all of her former power, it seems, but how much is still drawn from the First Vampire? No one, not even the First itself, knows, although it definitely knows that it still wants its power back. It's not about Good, it's not about Evil, concepts foreign to an Old One - it's about Power. It works harder to get it back, but even a hurried Old One just ain't that fast.

Through Buffy's difficult period of readjustment, the First is marshaling forces and observing. You could make a case for Amy (returned from a rat limbo) and Rack (why was his face scarred?) being agents of the First. Meanwhile, it was using agents to infiltrate the Watchers and finding a way to trace its own power links to all of the Potentials in the world. Plans were instituted to access the Hellmouth by restoring Sunnydale High and excavating a basement over it (how come one room with a dirt floor?). And when Dark Willow appeared, her further tapping of Earth Dark Magicks provided the Bringers with enough energy to crack the First's prison a little wider and manifest the Seal in that basement. If Buffy and Dawn had explored those caves under the cemetery, would they have run into Bringers?

And in another underground, Spike recovers his soul by way of a demon. The First is there, and already is aware that a souled vampire is not a threat if he is insane (which the restored human soul is, for a while anyway), and ready to make an agent out this one. Having learned some things with Angel, the First takes a more structured approach to establishing and retaining control of Spike (probably learned from recently-deceased spies, or possibly advertising executives - Spike was controlled by a jingle, after all...).

By Season Seven everything is in place for the First's plan to play out. One has to keep in mind that the First, tapped into souls as it is, is not ruled so much by logic, or probably linear thinking at all - its plan doesn't have to completely hold together to still be a legitimate plan. But let's see what we can make, episode-by-episode...

Lessons. A talisman similar to the Bringers' cave stuff in Amends produces physical manifestations of ghosts that pluck at Buffy's new stability and lead her to find Spike where the First's influence is greatest. It is firmly established that "It's all connected," which may be as important to what's happening as "It's all about Power." The removal of the Potentials and their Watchers begins, or at least is revealed. The First learns that Buffy is willing to stop and converse with a newly-risen vampire if it isn't immediately threatening.

Beneath You. The First releases its control on Spike enough to allow him to help Buffy, and for her to find out about his soul, which should make it easier to place him with her as an agent. Meanwhile, as more Potentials die, Buffy begins to tap into their last moments - is the First aware of this, and more convinced by it that she is still tapped into the Slayer Power? As part of its plan, the First is trying to track its buried containment vessel - possibly the origin of "From Beneath You It Devours."

Same Time Same Place. The basic plan of the First continues, but Gnarl is probably not a direct agent. Sunnydale High glows with demonic power when Willow does her spell, an indication that demons are there - or just beneath there. The First has found a way to access the exile plane of the Turok-Han through the Hellmouth, and perhaps the influx of a vampire army to this plane, or the vampires they will sire, will be enough to free it. After eons elsewhere, the Turok-Han's demon soul fragments may not be as linked to the containment spell as new vamps are.

Help, Selfless, and Him. Not a lot of progress, but it is revealed that the demon world is aware that something is going on and that folks at the high school are kind of on the edge. D'Hoffryn makes no attempt to move Anya from Sunnydale - this may be important later.

Conversations With Dead People. The First makes its initial overt move but reveals its ignorance of what may or may not be important details, and shows some of the limits of its power. It arranges for Controlled Spike to sire someone Buffy went to high school with, who may be able to undermine her new mental strength. The First can't actually control the vampire (although it's trying, which is why Holdent is more "connected to an all-encompassing Evil" than new vamps seem to usually be), so this plan backfires when Buffy learns from Holden that Spike sired him. The First also goes after what it perceives as the other major threats, Willow and Dawn (this last is probably because the First, like everyone else, has no idea of whether Dawn's Keyness is a threat - wouldn't it be a hoot if the Key was the containment vessel?) - it tries to take Willow out as directly as a noncorporeal entity can, and tries to weaken Dawn's willingness to be used by Buffy. The First uses Andrew to open the portal to the Turok-Han dimension, but it either doesn't quite work or, as Willow decides, is just the initial step. Meanwhile, as every sired vamp loosens the containment spell, the First exerts its greater control on Spike to make more. Perhaps raising them in groups will further crack the spell...

Sleeper. The First's understanding of how much is too much with Spike is seriously limited, and it loses him, but not before, in desperation, it reveals part of its ultimate plan: to turn Buffy (this is why Spike bites her). It didn't want Buffy dead, but her Slayer Power was no longer in the succession, so turning her was likely to just produce a very powerful vamp - too much uncertainty there, though, and for the most part the First just wants to keep her around until the end. But Spike is too connected to her to do it. In England, for the first time, a Slayer and Watcher are attacked. The First has learned about the back-up plan if the Council is assaulted directly - all remaining Watchers are to get their Potentials to Buffy in Sunnydale while laying down false trails (this is why girls but no Watchers wind up in Sunnydale). It has a better chance of taking out the ones it hasn't found if it knows where they're going. Giles, being Buffy's Watcher, is spared when recognized; the First knows enough about Giles, and his link to Buffy, to not want to use him if possible. Remember, Giles has been cut off from the Watchers before, and he didn't handle it all that well. I suspect that if she was willing to, we might have gotten a scene in that apartment between Giles and First-as-Jenny-Calendar that leaves the Watcher a hollow shell, a Pod Giles just going through the motions.

Never Leave Me. Proving that it didn't learn from Amends, the First underestimates the effect that love has on a souled vampire (and thereafter continues to do so). Spike does have his uses, though - full as he is with several humans' blood, he is one-stop shopping to open the portal. Using his connection to the Turok-Han (maybe that is what Jonathan's blood really was for, to tie the First Vampire psychically to the Turok-Han?), the First arranges for the most powerful of the creatures, a real Uber-Vamp, to come through the portal. In actuality, the Turok-Han long ago ran out of live neanderthals to eat, and are mostly puny things - even Xander could kill one. But, from several thousand, there's got to be a Goliath among the Davids, and why would anyone suspect that all Turok-Han are not as formidible as this freak. Meanwhile, in England, human agents of the First, presumably including Caleb, bomb the Watchers' main headquarters, probably after searching the library for information (but Giles has swiped what little is there), and making certain that the containment vessel isn't hidden there.

Bring On the Night. The First tries to drive Kidnapped Spike insane again, but it really doesn't know how now that Buffy Love as calmed him, a painfully obvious fact. It continues to take advantage of the fact that none of its enemies knows what it truly is, although it never has been "the evil in all of us." To further weaken Buffy's resolve, it sets up an ambush (who knows what it did to set Annabelle running, or lead her where it wanted her to go? We know it can appear as Buffy...) and has the Uber-Vamp beat the snot out of her but not kill her. Working off his knowledge of Season Six Buffy, this should drain her resolve...but it doesn't. This doesn't mean that the First won't continue to try to weaken the group - just allowing the Summers house to fill with frightened teenage girls could do it!

Showtime. "Eve" sets up the possibility that anyone in Buffy's camp could be a replacement. The Bringers continue to try to literally cut off what Potentials they can from Buffy (but note that Giles is never attacked), but the ones that get through can be ignored - as long as their location is known, they can be dealt with at any time. What Beljoxa's Eye tells Anya and Giles about the First - older than dirt, can't really be fought, the forces around the Slayer line are unstable, vulnerable - is accurate but not helpful. Of course, as with oracles, they fail to ask the right questions. Then - what happens when a Turok-Han dies? They have been cut off from the First's power for a very long time, and the rules have gradually changed. When Buffy kills the Uber-Vamp, the power flows to the First Vampire but not into the confinement vessel - it provides the First with the means to empower an acolyte, Caleb, who seems as powerful as the Uber-Vamp but nowhere near as dumb (the power isn't permanent, but later Turok-Han deaths set up Caleb's recharge). The release of more Turok-Han now looks like a win-win situation for the First, if it can arrange it, but somehow the Bringers can't supply the blood needed. The First loses Spike back to Buffy, but it doesn't feel that it can't still use him.

Potential, The Killer in Me, and First Date do little to advance the First's plan, unless Amy is its agent, but we learn some things: although the Bringers seem able to find Potentials on their own, they or the First may tap into Willow's spells as well (we don't really know what they see or how they see it) - they find Amanda only when the spell reveals her, although she has been in Sunnydale all along. The First either doesn't know or doesn't care when a crew of Potentials goes off alone with Giles into the desert. It loses Andrew as an agent, and reveals that Spike still may be a sleeper, while revealing Spike's role in Slayer Nikki's death to her son. It's time to use Spike to foment unrest - Spike's chip, which Drusilla once saw as "a lie," must come out, but that changes nothing but the group's trust in Buffy's decisions. Demon-Date Lissa reveals to Xander that sides, for or against the First, are being formed among the demons - but if the First was pure Evil, would demons (or Buffy-style Buffyverse demons, at least) take sides against it? Are D'Hoffryn's feeble attempts to kill Anya just a way to keep her near Buffy, to supply reinforcements to the Slayer's camp - as a vengeance demon tied tightly to humans, is he more content with the worldly balance as it is?

Get It Done. The ancient shaman foretold events of the end-time, with the emergence of Buffy the Guardian and the destabilization of the Slayer line, they knew that somehow the First Vampire's leash would loosen, and so provided a way of reinforcing that original Slayer spell. Their take was that the spell that created the First Slayer would need to be renewed, and maybe they read the signs wrong (Watchers are good at that). However, the spell they attempt does hint that the power they use is, indeed, rooted in the earth (connecting it to Willow) and male, as the empowerment acts very much like a rape on the female recipient. But it was hard for the shaman to anticipate the person that the Guardian would be, many memes in the future; when Buffy breaks their spell and disperses two of the three shaman. Is it then the last true shaman, or a manifestation of the First that shows her the waiting army of Turok-Han, reinforces the idea that she can't win, she shouldn't try? And what is the "It" that needs to "Get Done"? From what follows, "It" seems to be getting done the plans developed by the First. It involves having an agent go after Faith, the Line Slayer, in prison. If Faith dies, a new, raw Slayer will be created, probably in the Sunnydale group, and further strain relationships among Buffy's "army." If Faith lives, there are other agents to use. But she escapes and helps re-ensoul Angelus, who in fighting the Beast has decimated Los Angeles' multiplying vamp population. Was the blotting of the sun and removal of Wolfram and Hart part of the First's plan, or merely convenient? Probably coincidence - it's hard to believe that the First wanted a world ruled by Jasmine.

Storyteller. Andrew, through the prodding of Buffy, seems to seal the Seal with his tears, and the wackiness in Sunnydale subsides. But does it really work, or is it a misdirect? In the near future, we will find that several Turok-Han have come through the supposedly shut door - plus some sort of psychic influence will clear the residents out of Sunnydale. It looks like the First is merely using the lull to move its agents into position and clear the playing field. It has finally tracked what it believes to be its containment vessel to the winery, thanks to clues found by Caleb - can we really what the lone survivor thinks he saw? - and is working on digging it out.

Lies My Parents Told Me. Spike is lost as an agent, but he was never a major element in the plan - the divisions within the group formed over his presence and the actions of Wood and Giles more than make up for his removal as a pawn. In L.A., Willow helps to restore Angel's soul (there is little the First can do to prevent it) and picks up Faith. The First has a special link to Willow, especially when she taps into magicks - it knows who's coming, and sets up a special greeting through Caleb. We are moving into the endgame.

Dirty Girls, Touched. It's time to access the Scythe, remove the Potentials, take out Faith and turn Buffy, causing the containment of the First Vampire to rupture; then the release of the Turok-Han and widespread siring will feed enough human soul energy into the First to allow it to manifest corporeally. Or maybe it just wants to leave - in this, we can probably trust the things the First said around Caleb more than what it said to him. Caleb, of course, represents that classic misogyny of the First Vampire's energy, and he may be the intended vessel through which the First would manifest. There is mutiny in Buffy's army, but no sign of First manipulation - it's actually better for the plan if they stay united. Another attempt is made to kill Faith, however, this time with agents acting as police. Through Willow and Spike, the First keeps track of what's happening, takes advantage of the group rift to draw Buffy to the Scythe and Faith and the Potentials into a death trap. If another Slayer, outside Sunnydale, is Chosen, what will it matter at this point? The Scythe, it is obvious, is linked to the Slayer power (and apparently allows Buffy to find Faith and the girls when she should have no idea where they are), as the First expected, and although it's useful in slaying Turok-Han, it may be more important for the First to have her take it, and to use Willow and Giles to figure out just exactly how it works. And it's important enough to the Guardians that the First not find the actual containment vessel that they dispatch a representative to Sunnydale. As a mirror to the Watchers, they have their own agenda and are just as likely to have faulty mythology and misleading stories as they are. They are not to be trusted.

End of Days, Chosen. Somewhere well off-screen, Lindsay has been gathering non-Senior-Partner allies to help him supplant Wolfram and Hart's power-base, the current Circle of the Black Thorn (these forces, post Not Fade Away, are moving in on the vacated turf this very day). Lindsay's allies do not want the First's plan to succeed, and provide Lindsay with an amulet that a Champion can use to defeat a vampire army. Oh, yeah, the Champion will also burn up and become chained to the source of the charm - we can be sure that "invisible" Lindsay didn't mind arranging to pass the bauble and planted files on to Angel. But it isn't Angel who will use the amulet, what a surprise! Angel is important in taking out Caleb, however, while the First makes one last attempt to pull Spike over.

Buffy and Willow make plans, based upon the information planted with Wolfram and Hart from Old Powers who actually know How Things Work. The use of the Scythe to empower all Potentials is in there, with one odd but critical detail - Buffy, Faith, and their group must be inside the Hellmouth, with Willow positioned above the open portal. Why? Because the empowering spell will pull its energy from an aspect of the First that no longer is linked to its containment: the power of the Turok-Han! This will draw a separate but equal line of power into the new Slayer line. Will it kill the First? No. Sap its power? The power it drew from the Turok-Han will be gone weakened as it enters the new Slayers, but when the "Grrr-Arrgh" guys are all toast, some weakened version of the First will remain. What effect this all will have on its captivity will take a while to sort out. It starts to realize this during the climactic battle, when the New Slayers decimate his weakened minions, but reduced to petty revenge, it will at least have a last laugh at a dying Buffy - but of course, she won't die. The First retreats, hugely weaker (maybe not even able to appear to non-Bringers) but not gone.

And what is the new paradigm? Does the First now realize that the Scythe is not its prison? Will it free itself from the real thing? Will a future battle require the reestablishment of the Original Slayer Rules, as Fray seems to suggest will happen? The New Watchers are probably a step that way (and Buffy and Willow may be the New Guardians).

Is this what was intended for Season Seven's underlying story? I don't really think so, I think it's a retcon, perhaps so monumental as to be qualified as fanfic, but it's the most consistent retcon I can think of. Thanks to Doug and his noted inspirers, and to the Chicago Gathered, my inspirers - it was important to know that folks were still reading these things. And to all of you folks out there, start pecking away - I know that there have to be holes in this, big honkin' holes you could drive a stake through.

And apologies to Herve Villechaize.

Replies:

[> Even if there were massive holes ... -- Earl Allison, 10:04:19 07/08/04 Thu

Darby,

I LOVE it! I don't agree with a lot of it, but it was an incredible, enjoyable read.

And hey, no matter what else may come, it's clear you put more thought into this than ME did.

I know I have a lot of venom for ME, but I really did enjoy the essay. It makes an effort to draw everything together rather than either pretending people don't notice, or throwing lots of stuff at the screen in the hope something sticks.

Kudos to you, and to Herve as well :)

Take it and run.

[> hey, i came up w/part of that! but i thought it was blatant retconning... -- anom, 15:12:56 07/09/04 Fri

"Because the empowering spell will pull its energy from an aspect of the First that no longer is linked to its containment: the power of the Turok-Han!"

I suggested this shortly after Chosen aired, in a thread started by Hauptman (it's about 2/3--ah, hell, just search on "spackle"). I just spent way too much time trying to find it, but the flattering follow-up feedback I found makes it worth it! And now Darby comes along to provide a context & say it may actually be plausible! (I'll look for those plotholes later...right now I'm just gonna wallow in the validation.)

[> All hail Darby! Master Retconteur! -- Vickie, 21:21:55 07/09/04 Fri


[> [> The weird thing is... -- Darby, 08:32:17 07/10/04 Sat

...I do think that some of this structure was intended - it links not just into elements of the Buffyverse mythology, but into some of the themes that had been building - or not - into and through Season Seven.

Perhaps the largest theme is that people and sources can't be trusted, and that stories will be spread that have no basis, that can fly in the face of the facts. Why keep hammering the idea that Buffy's death would create a new Slayer, when the principals (and the audience) knew that this wasn't the case? And if we were having problems grasping the idea that narrators are often unreliable, they spent all of Storyteller screaming it at us.

I think, too, that like journalists, we need to pay attention to confirming sources - what we saw of the Slayer spell linked to, for instance, but Dracula and Restless had implied about the shared source of the power of Vampires and Vampire Slayers.

All of this should have told us to look past what we were being told and pay attention to what we were shown, to make decisions by melding the two. This tends to make most of what is "known" about the First very suspect. The emotional arc of the season was partially in our willingness to accept - or not - everything that the show tossed out there.

Maybe, following a season where the true Big Bad was the characters, Season Seven's villains were the creators of the show itself?

[> Uh, wow. -- Doug, 16:19:44 07/14/04 Wed

Thanks for the nod.

I'll have to think about this before I post anything more substantial
Worst Reviews -- dmw, 14:00:12 07/09/04 Fri

I discovered the amazon.com knee-jerk contrarian game at this daily log. Pick a book on amazon.com, click on "Customer Reviews" and sort by "lowest rating first." There's no work so good that some idiot won't hate it for the stupidest of reasons. Here are a few examples from the page:


Casablanca


Catch-22


The King James Bible


The Republic of Plato



A quick glance at the worst ratings given to three of the Buffy DVD sets discovered these gems:



Replies:

[> Re: Worst Reviews -- Wizard, 14:48:15 07/09/04 Fri

(Slaps head)

Oy! Just... oy!

Colourized Casablanca! Catch-22 should only be a short story! The King James Bible a work of fiction! (Okay, for many people it is, but I doubt that that is what the reviewer was getting at) Plato omitted Jehovah, the One True God! Buffy is shallow! Buffy is pretentious! Buffy has an stupid annoying brat of a little sister that just shows up and is still not explained after three episodes! Well, this one also has some truth to it, but it's called PATIENCE, reviewer! PATIENCE!

Seeing stuff likes this just feeds my inner DiVA. I have vermin to kill! Where did I put my Hanzo sword?

[> [> Re: Worst Reviews -- dmw, 10:25:01 07/11/04 Sun

Buffy has an stupid annoying brat of a little sister that just shows up and is still not explained after three episodes! Well, this one also has some truth to it, but it's called PATIENCE, reviewer! PATIENCE!

Agreed. I don't have a problem with the reviewers who found Dawn annoying or unbelievable after watching the whole season (think of what you'd say about Dawn if you'd read s5 as scripts without seeing the producers' and writers' names), but expecting everything to be revealed in 3 episodes is ridiculously impatient.

[> Argh! My Brain! -- Majin Gojira, 15:40:45 07/09/04 Fri


[> Re: Worst Reviews -- Kansas, 09:12:07 07/11/04 Sun

And then there's ones like this (check out the first customer review):

Joss Whedon: The Genius Behind Buffy

Hmm, y'think this fellow has an axe to grind? *g*

[> [> Re: Worst Reviews -- dmw, 10:22:22 07/11/04 Sun

I don't see a problem with this review; it's clearly not in the same class as the ones quoted in my original post. The review is well written and if the book is the hagiography that the reviewer makes it out to be and that it seems to be from its title, I'd largely agree with his assessment. Even I think the person's a genius (which is not an opinion I have of any TV producer), I find that type of work cloying and pointless.

[> [> [> A few things that jump out -- Kansas, 11:16:18 07/11/04 Sun

Sure, the guy can string words together decently... but note what he's doing with those words. In the first paragraph he takes a rather mean-spirited slap at the people who don't agree with him, suggesting that they're all slavering hero-worshippers (and note that the rest of the reviews, without exception, are quite positive).

Also note that the only controversies related to the show that he mentions are those involving Willow and Tara. And for that matter, those are the only characters he mentions. Buffy, who's she?

And he ends with a another cheap shot aimed at Whedon's less-successful projects such as Firefly. Candance Havens said only that most of Joss's projects were successful, so I fail to see what valid point the reviewer is making here. Also, he exaggerates for effect; somehow I don't think Havens meant to say that Joss was single-handedly responsible for Buffy.

I'm not trying to say that this review is completely devoid of valid points, but I am sure that it reflects his fan agenda more than it reflects the book in question. (BTW, you can also check out this reviewer's other Buffy-related review: Seven Seasons of Buffy which makes his affiliation much more obvious. For the record, I was also a Tara fan, but I was quite disturbed by the lengths that the more extreme fans went to.)

[> [> [> [> Re: A few things that jump out -- dmw, 12:05:26 07/11/04 Sun

Also note that the only controversies related to the show that he mentions are those involving Willow and Tara. And for that matter, those are the only characters he mentions. Buffy, who's she?

However, what's been reviewed is a biography of Joss Whedon, not Buffy Summers. Perhaps he doesn't have any problems with how Buffy Summers is portrayed, or perhaps he's more interested in Willow than Buffy and there's nothing wrong with that (there's no TV show in which I've found the protagonist more interesting than some of the secondary characters), or perhaps he thinks that there are more problems with the depiction of Willow, or perhaps he feels that setting issues like magic addiction and the puny army of ubervamps are more important than character.

And he ends with a another cheap shot aimed at Whedon's less-successful projects such as Firefly. Candance Havens said only that most of Joss's projects were successful, so I fail to see what valid point the reviewer is making here.

You left out the fact that the reviewer mentioned multiple projects, enough to consist of all of Whedon's work that I've seen except AtS. Perhaps there are enough works that I haven't seen to make it not technically "most," but I'd guess it to be close enough for English if not mathematics. Despite being a mathematically oriented type, I know informal language isn't meant with such precision, so I don't declare the Bible wrong as some do simply because it sloppily describes a wheel as 10 units in radius but only 30 units in circumference.

I'm not trying to say that this review is completely devoid of valid points, but I am sure that it reflects his fan agenda more than it reflects the book in question.

Of course, the book may reflect its own author's fan agenda as the reviewer and its own title suggests it does.

In any case, the only way I could tell would be to read the book myself. In my current situation, I can't tell if it's the author who's biased towards her subject, the reviewer who's biased against it, both, or neither of the above. What I do know is that we've both probably put too much time into this.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: A few things that jump out -- Unitas, 17:07:21 07/11/04 Sun

You both did probably put too much time into this as I am about to. First, anyone who looked at the book for more than 20 seconds would realize that it's a cheaply produced fanography (kinda like something you might see on Hilary Duff in the young adult section of your local Borders), and not a serious piece of critical study/Biography. Heck, even mentioning the biographers he does is a little ridiculous.

I will have to go with Kansas on the concept that Benjamin is someone who lost the faith if you will. The consistent mentioning of Willow/Tara issuses and the nitpicking of evey minor story point indicate a disciple of the Robert Black school of Buffy studies. This group is the David Horowitz of Buffy fans in that they turned rather violently on what they used to love and see no value in it at all now.

Benjamin's sentiments are surely valid if rather overwrought considering what we are actually talking about in this case.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: A few things that jump out -- Tymen, 17:08:55 07/11/04 Sun

I'd say that if the author who wrote the book and is making any money out of it, whatsoever, then she put just enough time into it. The reviewer, I will agree, has far too much time on his hands.

As for Joss's failed products, Alien: Ressurection (a movie which I enjoyed very much), was the director's baby and Joss did not have full creative control of the script or the story, that's what happens when you are a script doctor. X-Men (a very good movie, which could have been great with 15 to 20 more minutes of character development) only kept two of Joss's lines, one of which is great and the other was played wrong, but doesn't destroy the movie.

The Firefly debacle (and I am calling the cancellation and it's reasons a debacle, not the show it self one, I'm a Browncoat through and through) was brought about by Fox's misunterstanding and mishandling of the show. Joss's only fault lay in trusting Fox to stand by the show.

And finally as for the Buffy movie, Joss as writer had no control over how the movie was shot and directed either.

Most of the failed projects which Joss was involved in, really were failures due to the fault of others.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Still PO'd about FIREFLY -- Gyrus, 08:43:06 07/12/04 Mon

The Firefly debacle (and I am calling the cancellation and it's reasons a debacle, not the show it self one, I'm a Browncoat through and through) was brought about by Fox's misunterstanding and mishandling of the show. Joss's only fault lay in trusting Fox to stand by the show.

As I watch FIREFLY on DVD, I am struck by how much of a difference it could have made in the show's ratings if the episodes had been shown in the correct order. For example, the "train job" ep (which I found rather disappointing when it first aired) makes far more sense when you've seen the actual premiere ep first. Why in the world do the network suits think they know more than the producers do when it comes to telling a good story?
Could the Senior partners ever be truly destroyed? -- megaslayer, 09:19:37 07/10/04 Sat

If Good ever found a way to destroy the Wolfram and Hart could they? If then yes wouldn't that destroy the balance between good and evil? I think there would be just a power struggle to assume what is left over of their former power.

Replies:

[> Re: Could the Senior partners ever be truly destroyed? -- David, 15:41:27 07/10/04 Sat

I don't think they can be killed at least not in our ways as in actual death. But i think that if the forces of good found away to take their power away, i.e. ruin Wolfram & Hart's image and kill all their important players then that would be worse than death.

It wouldn't destroy the balence'cause evil will always exist, like the FE and also there would probably be others to try and fill the power vacuum left.

[> Sure, but it'd be a long fight as they'd appeal any defeats all the way to the SCOTPTB. -- dmw, 17:00:57 07/12/04 Mon

The balance of Good & Evil -- David, 15:44:29 07/10/04 Sat

I just wanted to know what would happen if the balence of power shifted towards evil or good, would it just mean there are more demons and other evils in the world than good or would the actual world be affected i.e. would normal humans feel it.

Like on the Charmed finale, the balence completely dipped towards good and ordinary humans were completly good or at least believed that they were good.

Replies:

[> what happens -- frisby, 17:10:39 07/10/04 Sat

When the scales tip towards evil such that it outweights good, then, eventually, over time, there is what Nietzsche calls a 'transvaluation' wherein what was good becomes evil and what was evil becomes good.

For example, Christianity transvalued classical paganism such that Pan (natural goodness) became the devil and the devil (Zeus as the patriarchal monotonous boring one god within polytheism who strives to become the one god peiod) becomes God.

Or more recently, the hip-hop language where 'bad' is good.

there are always exceptions though --

[> Re: The balance of Good & Evil -- BrianWilly, 17:53:44 07/10/04 Sat

Jasmine said that whereas the Powers That Be were as gods and the Old Ones (and their descendants) were as demons, humans were neither and might work to create balance. By gods and demons, I think she meant it in the prototypical human way of looking at things, in which gods are good and demons are evil...and not in the Buffyverse way, in which gods could be hellgods and demons could enjoy Doritos.

The First Evil believed that if the number of its army (either Turok-han or other demons, I'm assuming) outnumbers the humans in this world, then the balance will be lost and the First, being either the sum of all "evil" in the world or at least connected to it, will become flesh and blood.

Thus we know that, like the Charmedverse, the Buffyverse scales of good versus evil are not just metaphysical, but carries actual physical causes and effects. In this whole battle of good versus evil, human beings are either the balancing factor or in some way a power for "good." Joss said that human beings intrinsically feel the drive to do good things, but when you really think about it, there are quite a number of bad humans too. So yeah, the actual world would most likely be affected if the scales were tipped.

What exactly would happen? For one thing, the human population would be considerably lower. And even if that were not the case normal people could probably feel the difference; the citizens of Sunnydale felt the evil energies of the Hellmouth in Season 7. The First would have achieved corporeal form...we don't know how much power it would have in this form, but probably a lot.

What would happen then? The First would probably start killing every creature it can get its hands on...it favors the destroy and conquer method of the chaotic, primal, murderous evil. On the other hand The Senior Partners are still around, and they favor the conquer by infiltration method instead of direct war...they actually want human society to be functional so that human society can be slowly twisted towards evil and decay, so much the better for them to rule over. So if vicious demons outnumber the humans in the world, the Senior Partners would have to drastically change their M.O., maybe directly confronting the First in the process. The Powers That Be, seeing how their battle has ultimately been lost, might feel compelled to take direct action themselves. We might be harkened back into the days of the Old Ones, where godlike creatures battled each other constantly for supremecy.

In what state is the Buffyverse in now? Most of the Scoobies might say that the world is generally of the good...Buffy, in her epiphany at the end of Season 6, holds to the ideal that the world is a beautiful, worthy place and wants to share it with her sister.

Neutrally inclined characters like Whistler or Beljoxa's Eye or even The Powers That Be might say that the world is in a state of balance and neutrality...for the moment.

Most of the characters in Angel Investigations and in LA for that matter, however, would probably say that evil is running the state of the world as we speak. No easy Bush jokes from me, of course.

(And yet, as Angel says in Not Fade Away concerning the demons and the evils, "I keep thinking that once this world was theirs and now it's not.")

[> [> Re: The balance of Good & Evil -- Kana, 01:52:21 07/12/04 Mon

Perhaps there is a balance outside the powers and old ones' control. Forces of nature, rules of the universe and all that stuff.
FYI puppet Angel -- Ann, 12:56:52 07/11/04 Sun

We were talking about this in Chicago and I finally found the link.

http://www.weelittlepuppetman.com/

Replies:

[> I want one!!!11! -- LadyStarlight (who is saving her pennies), 15:06:31 07/11/04 Sun


[> If you like Puppet!Angel, check this site out! -- Wizard, 15:16:49 07/11/04 Sun


[> What, no optional fangs??! -- Ames, 18:21:20 07/11/04 Sun


[> OMG, he's just adorable! -- Jane, 20:50:41 07/11/04 Sun

I want one. (Since I can't have the person sized Angel...) Thank you Ann!
Yea to ATPoBtVSAFBtVSTASFTotSWaAMooSfFBFTVSatWtIT! -- SaraJ, 20:25:20 07/11/04 Sun

I love the expansion, I'm going to start to think of new threads immediately!

Replies:

[> Yippie! -- Masq, 20:34:48 07/11/04 Sun

That's the general idea.

And I'm open to suggestions for our new header

[> [> Best part of the above all-inclusive header... -- Jane, 21:11:52 07/11/04 Sun

is that we can still call it ATPO! Our focus is just a wee bit broader now.

[> [> [> Yep! -- Masq, 21:30:23 07/11/04 Sun

And Jossy/Mutant Enemy stuff gets top billing.

[> But can you say it three times very fast -- skpe, 07:08:56 07/12/04 Mon


[> Shiny! -- Pony, 08:38:32 07/12/04 Mon

Holtz' revenge or Wood's revenge? -- Kana, 02:04:45 07/12/04 Mon

I'm aware that these topics have probably been done to death but as I am reletively new, I will bore you all again.
I was thinking about Holtz' revenge and how Wesley defined it as looking for a sacrifice to help ease his pain. Holtz really frightened me at that point. Although Angel's responsibility could be debated, it disturbed me to know that he recognised Angel was at least a slightly different target than Angelus (hence he realised the difference between the two entities and recognised them as different 'people') and he was willing to exploit that, in fact he thought that Angel was a *better* target than Angelus.

I mean at least Wood wanted to fight the *demon* who murdered his mother. I wanted to know, in what ways can we define justice and revenge in relation to vampires with souls. Are there degrees in which one avenger is more justified than another? Do people identify more with Wood or Holtz?

Replies:

[> Is an avenger ever justified? -- manwitch, 06:43:40 07/12/04 Mon

Speaking for myself, I identify more with Wood, although I think neither is even remotely justified in the vengeance they sought against our souled vampires.

Wood is not exclusively bent on vengeance. He has other purposes. He's the principal. He's trying to run a school. He's being nice to Buffy. He has spent the time since he was wronged, participating in the fight for what is good. That's all positive. His effort to lash out at Spike really kind of falls in his lap. Its not the sole focus of his character from the first moment he appears on screen.

Holtz by contrast is pure malice. His only function, the only thing communicated in his screen time, is his thirst for vengeance against the vampire that wronged him, whether he wants to acknowledge it as Angelus or Angel. He has no other purpose in his life than to hurt the one who hurt him. In the common parlance, that's called "one-dimensional." Its hard to identify with someone who simply has no character. I confess, the introduction of Holtz and his wannabee vampire slayer was when I kinda cut that show loose from my list of societal obligations (so if Holtz became a more complex character, I probably missed that episode).

But that's just me. Its clear from this board that a lot of people see something in that story line that is lost on me. But nevertheless, I think most will agree that Wood lacks the degree of Holtz's obsession. Plus, I think Wood is conflicted about it, otherwise he wouldn't need to see Spike vamp. And I'm sure he's pissed off about the coat.

I also think the Wood story line is more effective because of what it tells us about Spike and Buffy. Angel really changes not at all as a result of the Holtz story line. We get very little in the way of character development for Angel. He's still the remorseful good guy who knows he deserves such malice.

But Spike shows compassion for Wood, in a very Spike sort of way. And Buffy is transformed by that story line. "I'll let Spike kill you if you do this again. I don't have time for vendettas." So Wood is more sympathetic again because he himself learns that there is no vengeance for him to have. Holtz never learns that lesson, but dies in everlasting spite.

I don't think either show in anyway suggests that vengeance is justified. No one thinks Anya is justified in the vengeance she brought down on people, with the possible exception of Olaf. I'd be interested in hearing if people thought what she did was appropriate and justified. But the rest, people are always saying she needs to atone for it. I don't agree, but the argument is pretty common. And no one thinks Uncle Kratchkya was justified in Innocence with his argument about vengeance. We all agree with Jenny that "this is insanity."

I know I identify with Wood more than Holtz because I understand what it feels like to want vengeance, and I understand what it feels like to lose, and to be denied vengeance, and to realize that you yourself are in the wrong for having wanted it. You aren't exacting justice, but committing a crime against it. And so to see Wood go through that whole cycle, well, I identify and I sympathize.

Holtz just reminded me of my brother.

[> [> Re: Is an avenger ever justified? -- Ann, 10:24:14 07/12/04 Mon

"Holtz by contrast is pure malice. His only function, the only thing communicated in his screen time, is his thirst for vengeance against the vampire that wronged him, whether he wants to acknowledge it as Angelus or Angel. He has no other purpose in his life than to hurt the one who hurt him."

Yes. I have thought a lot about Holtz and his pain.

Holtz is what you get when your child is butchered:
-if you are selfish
-if you let your pain be more important than your child s essence and memory
-if you have no one else to live the pain with, not share because that is impossible
-if your grief is so immense it blocks out the beauty of what you once had
-if you had to end your child s suffering even though your child really wasn t there anymore, but it was still what you needed to do
-if those you seek out, show you only nothing but the reflection of your pain
-if vengeance is all you want for yourself and feeds your loss and your grief and the hole that is in you
-if the hole grows with the years rather than blurs
-if the memories of the life you had with your child isn t enough to carry you through
-if you feel guilty that those memories weren t enough to carry you through
-if you don t want to let go of the pain because then you really would have nothing left, and you can t face that; vengeance is better than nothing
-if you see others living what you should have had
-if you see others abusing that which they have and you don t
-if the essence of your child wasn t enough, and the child s death took away any chance of you redeeming it not being enough
-and when you do steal a chance to (maybe) save yourself, you can only torment your savior and favour them with your pain; pain never raised a child in a healthy way

These together give you Holtz. IMO

[> [> [> Re: Is an avenger ever justified? -- skeeve, 07:12:46 07/13/04 Tue

It's worth noting the Holtz was a driven
man even before his family was murdered.
This one wonders how many innocent humans
surprised Holtz by not turning to dust.
Of course, some might not have been surprises.
They might have died for refusing to feed Holtz's army.

[> [> [> [> To be fair those are big assumptions. -- Doug, 07:24:31 07/13/04 Tue

For a start, anyone with access to crosses can test a suspected vamp very easily. And given that he was referred to by military rank in the falshbacks we saw it is quite likely that he and his band of demon hunters were supported by the government, at least while he was operating in England.

[> [> [> [> [> There is also the mirror trick -- Doug, 11:33:06 07/13/04 Tue

Namely, carrying a small mirror (such as a shaving mirror), and seeing if any people you see don't show up in the reflection. Something Holtz and his men could easily have done.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: To be fair those are big assumptions. -- skeeve, 07:29:19 07/14/04 Wed

It's probable that at one time Holtz was in the English military.
Whether he was in the English military while hunting vampires is not as obvious.
Also not obvious is whether his being in the military would make him more or less likely to engage in collateral damage.
Ticking off an armed government employee has always been a good way to get killed.
What happened to peasants who didn't cooperate with Crusaders on their way to the Holy Land?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Mind if I ask why you picked the Crusades? -- Doug, 16:13:14 07/14/04 Wed

I mean, the First Crusade started 600 years before Holtz was born. Couldn't you have used the Napoleonic Wars; or the Jacobite Rebellion? To answer your point, yes there is a long and bloody history of misbehaviour by soldiers when they are in areas where the law of their Homeland is not exercised. Holtz was operating in England, at a period when England was not suffering an enemy incursion; which means that if his soldiers had misbehaved like that he and they would have been hunted down like rabid dogs. And beyond the practical issue the fact that some soldiers acted in this way does not mean automatically that every soldier did.

Secondly, we don't have enough evidence to say conclusively, one way or the other, whether or not Holtz victimized people to achieve his goals before Angelus and Darla killed his family. However we know for a fact that after he came to the present day he repeatedly avoided direct attack on the Fang gang except in the course of hunting Angel. His troops could have easily killed Fred and Gunn when they were fighting vampires in "Loyalty" and several members of Holtz's crew advocated targeting Angel's human allies before killing him, but Holtz refused and kept them under control. Are you arguing that he only started doing that after his vengeance quest started?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mind if I ask why you picked the Crusades? -- skeeve, 07:59:56 07/15/04 Thu

My understanding is that punishing soldiers for hurting low-rung civilians is rather new,
though the question of who watches the watchers is rather old.
The reason I picked on the Crusades is that it is the only non-modern war for which I have even a dim recollection of data (specific to the war) on the subject of soldiers' behavior toward civilians.

Holtz's vengeance quest isn't what made him merciful toward Fred and Gunn.
Anticipation of victory might have done the trick.

I wasn't just thinking of random nastiness.
What happens to John Q. Peasant if he doesn't know where Angelus is and Holtz thinks that he does?
Biting the dust is something likely to happen to Ivan Slow Pedestrian when Holtz's army is in a hurry.

[> [> Why Holtz looks so one-dimensional -- lunasea (jumping up & down, offering appropriate smoochies), 17:31:49 07/12/04 Mon

I don't think Holtz is all about vengeance. Underlying most characters on Angel is the despair of finding out the world is meaningless. The various characters find things to give the world meaning. Some do a better job than others. Few do it consciously. Holtz' storyline is similar to Connor's. Both have nothing in their lives to give it meaning. Jasmine even takes Connor's pain, leaving him with nothing.

The meaning in Holtz' life was his family. Not only was his daughter turned, but his wife and infant child were murdered. He tried to make the world safer and couldn't even protect his own family. The vengeance that consummed him covered up his own guilt. I find Captain Holtz's arc to be fascinating. It is the decay of a good man.

Angel may not change because of Holtz, but we get to see a side of him illustrated. I think Angel does change, not because of Holtz, but because of Connor. Before a son, Angel was just a remorseful good guy who knows he deserves such malice. Because of Connor, he doesn't care about what Holtz wants, but what is good for Connor. Angel is able to move beyond his feelings of remorse because he has a son. Holtz is unable to move beyond his feelings of loss because his family is taken from him. Holtz made an interesting foil.

An aside, we'd love to have you over at the livejournals. It's easy to get more personal there and discussions about spirituality tend to get personal. My journal can be found here. I hope to see you there. The name I chose means good dreams in Sanskrit.

[> [> [> Excuse the smoochies -- Lunasea, 17:33:19 07/12/04 Mon

I didn't notice the Name field fill in itself. Those were Rob's smoochies.

I am glad to see you posting though.

[> [> [> [> That's OK. I like smoochies, as long as they're appropriate -- manwitch, 14:19:46 07/13/04 Tue

Thanks lunasea. I won't rule anything out, but I find the live journals mildly intimidating. But then I find this intimidating too.

I love New England. Can't imagine living anywhere else, except sometimes Wyoming. And several parts of Canada. Hope things are going well for you.

[> [> [> [> [> Then by all means here are some appropriate ones -- Lunasea, 08:08:25 07/15/04 Thu

I almost put "but you can have them if you want." I just didn't want to make you feel uncomfortable.

I don't know if I've ever said this here, but you are the reason I came to the board and one of the reasons I stuck around for so long. At one of my low points on the board, something you said kept my spirits up and probably kept me from leaving.

I fought going over to the LJ for over a month. I have to admit my first month or so over there was scary. Would anyone even notice I was there? Would the conflict here just carry over to there? It's actually a really nice place, and I'd say it is one of my best experiences on the net. I've gotten a few Buffy non-board people as friends now. It is great to expand my circle of friends and become closer friends with people I've never met and some I have met. Email is good, too. It's hard to find people that are easy to talk with. Seeing how they see a tv show, sometimes lets you know a bit more about them as people.

New England is by far our favorite place to live. My oldest daughter was born on Cape Cod. When we left the Tweeter Center this Tuesday, we were greeted by a rousing chorus of "Yankees Suck!!!" Ahhh. Home. It's July and the weather is still brisk and wonderful. Today I'm going over to Portsmouth to look for a few presents for people and see if I can find a good writers group to join.

Another plus to joining LJ will be you can read my post-season 5 Angel scripts. Those are going to be locked (at least at first), so you will need an account to access them. I think anything I have to say about how I see the show can best be illustrated this way. What is the next leg in Angel's journey? It's fun to think about it and give all the characters arcy goodness.

I also posted the essay I was going to enter in saveangel.org's writing contest before it was canceled. I locked it in case I want to enter it somewhere else later. It's incredibly personal, since that was the category I was going to enter.

[> Re: Holtz' revenge or Wood's revenge? -- Ames, 08:24:00 07/12/04 Mon

It would seem that revenge is seldom justifiable, whether on a "moral" basis or a more dispassionate "economic" point of view. But it serves an important and understandable purpose in human society, which probably means that it will always be with us. The existence of revenge as a possible response to one's actions against other members of society serves as a social constraint, and makes the mere threatening of it before the fact credible. It makes anyone think twice before pushing someone else too far, or taking such action against someone with family or friends who may take exception on their behalf. The revenge itself may benefit no-one after the fact, but the possibility of it beforehand may prevent something. And revenge after the fact serves as an example to others in the future.

Now vampires are not strictly speaking members of our human society, and their reactions are different from those of ordinary humans. I doubt that Angelus or Spike are capable of learning much from experiencing revenge. But if stories like theirs make the rounds of other vampires, it's possible that more cautious vampires would get the message that it's best not to go too far if you want a long, healthy immortality.

[> [> I agree (minor spoiler for Kill Bill Vol. One) -- Seven, 12:02:42 07/12/04 Mon

Reading this thread, I was questiong why revenge is present at all. Reading your post puts that in perspective. The act itself does nothing to help the situation that is being avenged, but it does create the schema for the rest of the world. the rest of the world will know that this kind of thing exists and if you don't want it, don't wrong the wrong person. How do you know who the wrong person is? You don't. Guess you'll have to be nice to everyone.

Also remember that those who seek revenge, (in tv shows and movies) are often somewhat honorable people. Look at the Bride in Kill Bill, especially the first one after Vivica A Fox's fight scene. The Bride's words after the fight is over show a certain kind of understanding of how these things work.

[> [> [> That is the logic -- Lunasea, 17:38:55 07/12/04 Mon

that proponents of Capital Punishement use. It has proven itself to be so effective in detering murders (that's called sarcasm).

All it does is allow us to vent for a little while by putting the pain on someone else, but really does nothing to solve the pain. All it does is make more pain. It feeds the cycle of violence and pain in the world. That is the schema it sets up.

We have something besides vengeance. It is called the law. That is why Vengeance demons like to be called Justice demons. Thing is, how effective a deterent is the law? If that isn't a deterent, why would revenge be?

[> [> [> [> Re: That is the logic -- skeeve, 07:18:06 07/13/04 Tue

We have something besides vengeance. It is called the law.

This at least hints that vengeance is moral for those whom the law is unable or unwilling to protect.

[> [> [> [> [> That's a leap in logic -- Lunasea, 08:47:48 07/13/04 Tue

This at least hints that vengeance is moral for those whom the law is unable or unwilling to protect.

The law is unable and unwilling to protect anyone. It is just theory. We put too much of our hope on it rather than dealing with our actual problems. We'd rather build prisons than deal with the gross economic inequalities our society fosters. We'd rather pay for more police than education. On a global scale, we'd rather pay for expensive ships and WMD than rethink our foreign policy.

My point in comparing vengeance to the law is to counter the argument that vengeance works as a deterent. If the threat of jail doesn't, why would vengeance? The police cannot prevent crimes, only deal with them after they happen. The law doesn't protect us. It gives us a false sense of security so we can turn a blind eye to problems, problems we made.

[> [> [> [> [> [> The law does protect -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:22:36 07/13/04 Tue

How many crimes do you suppose are never commited simply because the people who consider them are afraid of being caught and sent to prison? I'd wager it's a lot. The ones who do commit crimes are either the brave, the ignorant, or the clever. Someone of average intelligence (ie, smart enough to understand the dangers but not smart enough to be confident they can avoid them) and not especially brave is unlikely to break the law even if they want to because the threat of jail time looms over their head. Law enforcement also helps to stop criminals from striking again. Beyond the obvious fact that people in prison can't exactly stroll down to the local 7-11 and rob it, there's also the fact that, after being caught once, the criminal realizes that police can catch them and the reality of the punishment they'd face if caught again sinks in, making them weary to commit future crimes. No, most of the time police can't respond in time to stop someone who is attempting to commit a crime (although sometimes they can), but the looming threat deters a great many criminals, it's just that you don't hear about them on the news.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The law does protect -- dlgood, 10:39:11 07/13/04 Tue

How many crimes do you suppose are never commited simply because the people who consider them are afraid of being caught and sent to prison? I'd wager it's a lot

I don't know. It's significantly harder to analyze the negatives. I wish I had the studies or my analysis book in front of me.

There are any number of qualitative counter-arguments as well. Some criminals, after having been caught, will just buckle down seek to do a better "job" of it the next time - never considering that they could do something else.

There is a large selection bias. The type of person who intends to commit crime is generally less risk averse than the average person. The reality of punishment might not outweigh the expected reward. Or feel that, while the police are out there, they won't catch me. Additionally, some commit crime out of pathology, rather than just rational calculation. Fear of getting caught might prove a lesser deterrent to the "rush" of the action.

IMHO, this is a situation that cries out for more specifics and more data - discussing programs and cases in the specific rather than abstract.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> what does recidivism mean? -- manwitch, 14:06:55 07/13/04 Tue

My father-in-law, a probation officer and ex-cop, seems to regularly visit the same people. I wonder why.

Recidivism is, of course, relapsing into crime. There are even tales of people wrongly convicted, who become criminals as a result. There are even tales of criminals who become harder criminals as a result of the time they have served and the people they met while serving it. And of course, the terms of parole and probation, are almost guaranteed to create a certain number of repeat offenders.

Law enforcement, of course, counts on a certain amount of this sort of thing to extend its reach into the population. These people become the informants on whom law enforcement sometimes depends.

On the question of revenge, I must agree with lunasea. I certainly hope that for most people, the reason they behave ethically is not for fear of revenge if they do not. Tell me we still have people whose impulses are good.

The deterrent aspect of revenge is counterbalanced by the fact that revenge tends to perpetuate itself. You hit Krako, Krako hits you. So you hit back harder.

And even if deterrence ever did work as a threat, it fails the minute it has to be put into action. The threat of revenge is fine, but once they do something to you, now you have to exact your revenge. Morally, legally, and I think socially, at that point the "useful function" argument breaks down. You're just committing another crime.

Also, the idea expressed in one of the posts above, I think by Ames, that revenge serves as an example to others for the future, overlooks the fact that it serves every bit as a model for future violence as it does a warning against such action. It also overlooks the possibility that not threatening revenge, remaining civilized, could function as an example for future behavior.

Also, the revenge as useful social function argument fails to acknowledge that the action for which revenge is being sought may have been a totally ethical and justifiable action. I find out that Ames and Seven are torturing puppies in their back yard. I tell them I think they should stop so I don't have to tell their parents. They say, if you tell our parents, we'll burn your house down, and dig up the bodies of your grandparents. I would argue that here, the fear of revenge is counter productive. Of course, being an upstanding young gentleman, I would tell on them anyway. But the point is its every bit as likely that concern about revenge will cause one to think twice about doing what should be done, as that it will thinking twice about what shouldn't.

I realize that ultimately we get to the fascist argument. There are some people that won't go back into the bottle, so to speak. They're gonna keep coming at you until you drop them. But I suspect people like that are more likely to advocate revenge, rather than less. Vengeance is simply another expression of selfishness. And that's not really the most useful social quality.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: what does recidivism mean? -- Seven, 07:31:29 07/15/04 Thu

"Also, the idea expressed in one of the posts above, I think by Ames, that revenge serves as an example to others for the future, overlooks the fact that it serves every bit as a model for future violence as it does a warning against such action. It also overlooks the possibility that not threatening revenge, remaining civilized, could function as an example for future behavior"

Essentially, it's a loose/loose situation. Think of a gang member, or just a regular person, who looses a loved one at the hands of a rival. The person does nothing and by doing so, either sets an example or seems to "punk out." One of this individuals friends can't understand why he doesn't take revenge. He can't understand why he remains civilized. This friend wants to do the job for him and only strengthens the desire to take vengence if the circumstances are in his place.

The problem with this argument is that everyone percieves situations in a different light. Does the death penelty work? No, not in the way it is supposed to. But this could be because when we catch the guy who just murdered 12 innocent women and children at a shopping mall and laughs, we DON"T call the television crew and string him up on live television the second he does it. We wait about 2 1/2 years later, when everyone forgets about it, and mention the report in passing.

Now I'm not stupid. Yes, towns had public executions long ago and it never stops violence. And in reality, public executions are a little too Rod Sterling/Nazi future for my taste, but the fact remains that there is no cause/effect relation to executions.

Also, everything is seen differently. One can see an act of vengence as a deterent or use it to create a schema for future violence, but one could also see the "civil" decision promoting good relations or as being weak and vulnerable to more violence. There is no true answer IMO except for what has been hinted in this thread, MORE EDUCATION.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That's a leap in logic -- skeeve, 07:44:05 07/14/04 Wed

My point was that for some people, there is no law.
No crime against them will be punished unless they happen to bleed where they shouldn't.
Whether the threat of jail would deter such crimes does not matter.
There is no such threat.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm really not into punishment -- Lunasea, 09:23:30 07/14/04 Wed

I don't care if a person is punished. Punishment is just a nice way of saying retribution or vengeance. People don't "deserve" things. I think groups like families that have had a loved one murdered and are against capital punishment show the best of humanity. Killing the murdered or putting them in jail, nothing will bring back a loved one.

I think the way we handle crimes is ineffective and sets up false comfort so that we can ignore the real problem, ourselves.

[> [> [> [> Re: That is the logic -- dlgood, 07:23:49 07/13/04 Tue

We have revenge, because in the short term, it has a powerful emotional tug. Vengeance can feel tremendously rewarding. In the short term. But less so in the aggregate.

Interestingly, the American legal system can be traced back along many pathways to, among other sources, the old Weregild system of the Germanic tribes instituted because vengeance cycles proved to be so socially destructive. Society needed to develop a way to have justice - but also to put a check on the violent fueds that threatened to tear it apart from within.

Thing is, how effective a deterent is the law? If that isn't a deterent, why would revenge be?

Law and revenge have various degrees of effectiveness as deterrents, depending upon application. In a totalitarian state, deterrence by the state can be fairly effective. But most people wouldn't benefit much from the trade-offs.

[> [> [> On crime and punishment -- Ames, 12:18:24 07/14/04 Wed

You seem to have sparked considerable discussion Seven.

I would just make the suggestion that "revenge" is a whole different animal than "justice". Justice is an abstract concept of a highly-structured society. Revenge is a raw and primitive thing that humans share with the higher primates. As soon as primates acquired the social ability to envision what the response of others in the group would be to their actions, revenge was born. Every primate is capable of grasping that if they push another in the group too far, it may trigger an over-the-top reaction that will hurt them. We understand revenge at the emotional gut level. We have to think abstractly about justice - that's why it doesn't have the same effect.

[> You read my mind manwitch -- Kana, 08:41:31 07/12/04 Mon

Few posters answer my question excactly the way I want them to just so I can prove my point, but you did. I realise that makes me sound a little narcissistic but what the heck. Personally I don't think revenge is ever justified and think there such cases where justice can never really be served. For example if some tortures and kills your family and then kills themselves then justice can't be served, this is more or less the case with our soulled vamp friends. There is no justice for the things they have done.

As for Holtz' character, I think the jury could be out on that one. You see I got the impression at first that he believed he was serving a kind of justice, we know of course Holtz believed he was doing God's work or at least that what it seemed. It seems from the outset that Holtz was a good man who had been corrupted by the darkness of hate and a need for justice for what had happened to him and of course Sahjan. But what if Sahjan didn't corrupt him? He already had the proprensity to use and even kill an innocent child just to seek revenge. To me it seems intriguing that someone with a soul who cared enough to seek revenge, would gladly hurt others, even those completely innocent just to serve his cause. If he had believed entirely that he was doing God's work then he would be rather a 1D character, but the fact that later on he realised the diffrence between justice and revenge and was still willing to have his revenge on Angel demonstrates to me a rather tortured soul. This is all coupled with the love he had for Conner, which we later found out was an abusive relationship. To me there are far to many contradictions for Holtz to be 1D. Just because a character is difficult to identify with, it does not make them one dimenstional seen as there are people we cannot identify with in real life. But I honestly think we did get some insight into Holtz' pain and I'm not sure if saw the episode where Angelus and Darla kill Holtz family but that demonstrates to me a man who believed in a cause, broken by the pain of what happened to his family. It was easier for Holtz to believe in his quest for justice for the demon who killed his family than admit that there is no justice. He could not in his mind admit this, so he searched for his sacrifice.

Sorry I think i replied to myself by mistake, anyway this message is meant for manwitch

[> [> For me, Manwitch's most salient point -- dlgood, 10:43:00 07/12/04 Mon

Comes in the discussion of his death. Wood, is trying to live for positive purposes, whereas Holtz has allowed his need for vengeance to consume him.

Whatever love he might have had for Connor, it isn't enough to balance his darker mental state. He abuses and corrupts him. And he kills himself out of spite, in a way that was planned to destroy both Angel and Connor. (IMHO, raising and then abondoning a boy to patricide is pretty destructive.)

that later on he realised the diffrence between justice and revenge and was still willing to have his revenge on Angel demonstrates to me a rather tortured soul.

Holtz, as noted, isn't just tormented by what Angelus and Darla did, or by his desire for vengeance rather than justice, but also by his own failures. When Angelus and Darla killed his family, he was running after them on a wild goose chase. And had he properly warned his family, Angelus and Darla wouldn't have been invited in.

That, coupled with the list Ann compiled explain his torment. Ultimately, his demise is an expression of his moral weakness. That he would rather destroy himself in an attempt to destroy others, rather than build something. Perhaps he believe Angel and Connor to be too tainted to be "saved" or "good", but by that point he had not so much standing to judge.

Wood isn't nearly so broken, at least as far as I can tell. He is still able to care about others, and put his desire to help others above his anger or violent agendas. And he survives to teach and nuture down the line.

[> [> Yes, remember Holtz's last words... -- KdS, 12:31:47 07/12/04 Mon

If I remember correctly, his final words to Justine were along the lines of "I'm only asking you to send me to hell, not to follow me." I don't think he believed that he was doing something justified at the end.

[> [> [> Re: Yes, remember Holtz's last words... -- Ann, 16:16:36 07/12/04 Mon

The line you quote of Holtz is the only reason I have any sympathy for him. Maybe by seeing Justine, he was able to see himself and what he had become. It took a Justine for Holtz to see that justice was not what he achieved for his family. Or maybe it was the growing relationship Angel had with Connor that Holtz was never really able to have himself with Connor. He realized all that he had lost. And it wasn't by Angelus' hand this time.

Great character.

[> [> [> [> Tim Minear on Holtz -- Masq, 16:50:26 07/12/04 Mon

Ganked from my analysis of Benediction:

"[Holtz] never lies in the whole episode. Even though he is completely tricking Connor into thinking Angel murdered him, everything he says is true. He realizes that Angel and Connor are destined to somehow be together; that the kid has found his way here and if that's the case, then they have some kind of destiny. He knows he has to let the kid go but the only thing he cares about is that Connor loves him. The only way to ensure this is to make sure he hates Angel. So he does what he does. He knows that Connor will end up embracing Angel, and he knows if he tries to stand in the way of that, he'll end up driving the kid there. Holtz is basically saying, 'Angel is your destiny and you will learn through Angel what it is you were truly meant to be." (Tim Minear, AtS writer/producer).

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Tim Minear on Holtz -- Ann, 17:29:01 07/12/04 Mon

"but the only thing he cares about is that Connor loves him. The only way to ensure this is to make sure he hates Angel."

So by doing this Holtz knows he has lost. He has lost Connor, for he has to resort to trickery, he knows he has lost himself. And Holtz's closing phrase seals his fate in his own heart. He now has lost everything else in addition to having lost his family. He ensures Connor will be with Angel because Holtz has nothing to give Connor but hatred for Angel, all that he hated. But Holtz gives him so much more. From father to son. The irony is astounding.

[> Vampire culpability -- BrianWilly, 17:58:54 07/13/04 Tue

If I had to pick, I'd say that Holtz's vengeance was a lot more heinous than Wood's. First of all he involved tons of innocent people in his little charades. Secondly, as you said, he targetted the souled aspect of Angel specifically. Wood at least fought the demon and not the man, not that it excused his actions...in particular his dismissal over the significance of the soul.

Others have probably already mentioned this but I wanted to bring it up again: vengeance isn't necessarily justice, so vengeance doesn't really have to be justifiable one way or another. I think that both Holtz's and Wood's vengeances were understandable, but not justifiable. You can't blame them for wanting Angel and Spike dead, but you know that it's the wrong course of action.

"It speaks to us...guides us...passion rules us all. And we obey. What other choice do we have?"

Both Angel and Spike had souls, were no longer killing people(ixnay on the situation with Spike...he was being controlled by the First. Killing someone for something they had no control over is, as Gunn says, "non compos mentis"), and were in fact fighting on the side of good.

It just all goes back to the same cycle of questions: Does a vampire with a soul -- who murdered hundreds in the past -- deserve to be killed in the present? Do we ultimately consider the souled vampire to be the same being, and therefore as culpable, as the unsouled vampire?

In a way, it just all depends on how you look at it and how you want to define these things. The way I see it, we have only two ways to look at a vampire's "responsibility" for someone's death.

Option 1) Morality determines the greater part of a person's being
Let's take an example besides the obvious Angel or Spike...say, Vampire Xander, who appeared in "The Wish." Now, Vampire Xander would do things that ordinary Xander would never do because he doesn't have ordinary Xander's soul and conscience...in a sense he is missing a vital part of what makes Xander the person he is, and therefore it is appropriate to say that Vampire Xander isn't Xander, at least not the whole, complete package that is Xander. He is different from Xander, and thus not Xander. We can't look at living beings merely as potentially movable body parts; how we utilize these tools at our disposal such as our body and mind is what makes the difference, separates one from the other. Change how we conduct these "tools," and you change us, period.

Option 2) Attributes other than morality determine the greater part of a person's being
Saying that a person is different is far from the same as saying that it's a different person; the oft-used argument/propoganda of "It looks like you, but it's not you!" only goes so far because ultimately, Vampire Xander has Xander's body, albeit a changed body. Vamp Xander has Xander's mind, albeit a changed mind. If we view this creature in terms of this psychophysical properties, he is Xander. What else would you call something that has Xander's thoughts and abilities and memories and face? A person at age 54 is different from how he was at age 13, but we don't consider that person a different person. Xander has changed, but it is a change contained within the being that is already Xander and will remain Xander even after the change.

Ultimately, I believe that option 1 is the more correct option.

Now on an emotional level, most people suscribe to option 2. Buffy can't change her emotions for Angel just because he has changed. Angel and Spike may take the view that they are the ones who did the killings, they are the ones responsible. Others like Xander, Giles, and obviously Holtz and Wood would agree; they'd say "Yes, you are the same monster that did the crime," the stance of option 2.

But that's on the emotional level. Emotionally-based logic is often not logic at all. We can't control what we feel. It just feels right. And maybe it is right. But it can't be explained in terms of reasons and logics. Wood wants to kill Spike even though Spike is good now because Spike killed his mother as a soulless demon, and who are we to say "Well that's wrong, you're being stupid"? He's not being stupid. Emotional and irrational maybe, but not stupid.

"Passion is the source of our finest moments. The joy of love...the clarity of hatred...and the ecstasy of grief."

On the realistic, practical level, being a vampire is essentially the same as being clinically insane: the person that once was there is no longer in charge.

Now, this doesn't change the fact that Angel is Angelus and vice versa; they are one and the same, a single vampire. What this does change is the fact that this single vampire is technically not in control of his actions in terms of human morality. We can't prosecute someone for being what they can't help but to be, but because they are infinitely and irrevocably dangerous to us the Slayer has the burden of stopping them. With a conscience, these beings are given their freedom back...in essence stopped, or "slayed."

"Without passion, we'd be truly dead."

[> Re: Holtz' revenge or Wood's revenge? -- LittleBit, 13:06:45 07/14/04 Wed

Oh, just for the heck of it, I think I'll bring in the other outstanding example of this.

From "Surprise"

Enyos: So you just forget that he destroyed the most beloved daughter of your tribe?! That he *killed* every man, woman and child that touched her life?! Vengeance demands that his pain be eternal as ours is! If this, this girl gives him one *minute* of happiness, it is one minute too much!
Jenny: I'm sorry. I thought...
Enyos: You thought what?! You thought you are Jenny Calendar now?! You are still Janna, of the Kalderash people! A Gypsy.
Jenny: I know... Uncle. I know.
Enyos: Then prove it. Your time for watching is past. The girl and him, it ends now! Do what you must to take her from him!

From "Innnocence"

Enyos: You know what it is, this thing vengeance?
Jenny: Uncle, I have served you. I have been faithful. I need to know...
Enyos: (interrupts) To the modern man vengeance is a verb, an idea. Payback. One thing for another. Like commerce. Not with us. Vengeance is a living thing. It passes through generations. It commands. It kills.
...
Jenny: Then, if somehow, if... if it's happened... then Angelus is back.
Enyos: I hoped to stop it. But I realize now it was arranged to be so.
Jenny: Buffy loves him.
Enyos: And now she will have to kill him.
Jenny: (stands up) Unless he kills her first! Uncle, this is insanity! People are going to die.
Enyos: Yes. It is not justice we serve. It is vengeance.
Jenny: (exhales and grabs her coat and bag) You are a fool. We're all fools.

I find it interesting that as we are introduced to characters seeking vengeance in the Buffyverse, we are presented almost with a continuum in which the vengeance sought becomes somehow more understandable and hence, perhaps, more forgivable. We first meet the Kalderash clan, those who cursed Angel with his soul as vengeance for killing one of their clan members, and who a century and several generations later are still actively monitoring, pursuing and attempting to ensure that the vengeance continues. Jenny tells Uncle Enyos that people are going to get killed. They are among the first. And many more follow before Buffy ends it by sending Angel to a hell dimension.

Holtz is just as focused on avenging his family's deaths. So much so that he is willing to accept the assistance of a demon in order to assure his success. A bargain that suggests to me that he had foregone his own strong religious convictions and made a 'deal with the devil' to achieve his goal. We don't know how many people he may have damaged before he was 'awakened' but we do know for certain that there were at least two who were damaged, possibly permanently, by him. Connor was one, and Holtz assured that Connor would never be able to truly understand love by his actions; choices about Connor's life that were made solely to be certain that Angel would be hurt, and hopefully killed. The other person I believe Holtz personally and purposely damaged was Justine, whom he used as his final tool in his plan. A very strong case could be made for much of the damage Wes sustained when Holtz betrayed him and stole Connor. (However, Holtz was not responsible for Wes' decision to take Connor in the first place, or his decision not to tell anyone else about his findings).

Robin Wood wanted to avenge both his mother's death and the loss of his mother. Toward that goal, he trained as a demon fighter and learned what he could about the one who killed his mother. He placed himself in Sunnydale, in a position where he could meet and work with the current Slayer. He at least appeared to be able to see beyond his own quest and understand that there were other things happening that needed attention. Until he found the vampire who killed his mother. Then he turned his actions toward getting inside Buffy's group, and finding a way to get to Spike that would allow him to kill Spike. I think he did realize that in a straight-on fight he didn't stand a chance. And he did recognize that Spike was no longer the same person/vampire who killed Nikki. But, like Holtz, he still wanted (or needed) his revenge. In his case, the only person who was nearly killed was himself, and it was only because Spike had indeed changed that he survived.

But in the long run, vengeance served no one positively. No one benefited, many lost their lives or were damaged. and to repeat Jenny and Enyos:

"...this is insanity! People are going to die." "Yes. It is not justice we serve. It is vengeance." "We are all fools."

[> [> Re: Holtz' revenge or Wood's revenge? -- Kana, 14:31:03 07/14/04 Wed

Vengeance could well be a product of desire, in which case rationalising it is somewhat difficult. Definitly, the kalderash people and Holtz are serving an unprincipled vengeance, i.e the consequence such actions is not at all proportionate to act which incurred the vengeance in the first place, especially, as you said with all the other people involved even with Wes' case. He was certainly responsible for his won actions, but Holtz' was completely guilty to attempt to manipulate him in the first place. Although you could say that Holtz was also being manipulated by Sahjhan but the difference is the respective reasons why they were easily manipulated. Wes' reasons, however ill-advised were more or less noble, Holtz even admitted later on that it was vengeance he served not justice.

This is going to sound really speciesist but hear me out. Wood's revenge was more understandable because he wasn't as callous as to who his vengeance was going to affect, well he certainly didn't use people to the extent that Holtz did, if at all for that matter. Wood wanted to kill the demon who killed his mother, regardless of his soul, but not regardless of who he hurt in the process. The only thing that would have hurt would be Spike's soul which is a soul that belonged to a demon, who could be a unleashed at push of a play button. Whether or not Wood was not morally justified to his vengeance (I don't believe it was) it was less consequence to everyone else, at least that is what he probably reasoned, Holtz or the gypsies could make no such claim. Sorry if I repeated your points but i so ardently.

[> [> [> Re: Holtz' revenge or Wood's revenge? -- Kana, 14:32:33 07/14/04 Wed

in what you are saying. Sorry hit the wrong button.
Serenity: The Firefly Movie -- What do you want? -- Seven, 11:49:36 07/12/04 Mon

Hey all. Haven't been around in a while. Masq, love the format adjustment. Hope everyone is enjoying the summer. (Except of course, those of you who are in winter right now.) Anywho, I just wanted to take advantage of the Firefly inclusion and talk about the movie, cause, let's face it -- that's the next real Joss action we're gonna get (Although I am lovin Astonishing X-Men) So here we go:

First, What does everyone want from the movie? Are we more interested in the River/Simon story, the possibilities of "Shepard" Book, Mal and Amara (Anara?) or a story concerning the Reavers?

Now I'm certain that Joss will weave a complicated web involving all of the above, but what is most important? I think that I subconciously put the topics in my own order of importance, or at least the values that I felt the show placed on them.

Simon and River were the focal point of everything: The Feds, Jayne's treachory, Book's true nature. Their involvement even leads to some Reaver territory. I know Joss won't let me down, but I worry that this story will be just a consice, watered down version of the show. I mean, when we include the labours of exposition, are we going to have anything resembling the masterpieces of "Out of Gas," "Objects in Space," or "Trash?" Or will we just have a replacement "Serenity" parts one and two? In my opinion, Joss should just re-shoot and re-edit "Serenity" and call it the movie. I love Firefly. It was a great series, but does everyone believe that it will work as a movie? Am I the only one having doubts? I want there to be like a 5 movie franchise, but that isn't even the length of the partial season we were given. Can it ever really satisfy us? We're all of us a bunch of needy whores. (pardon my language, but my friends and I have grown accustomed to calling ourselves Josswhores cause we just get on month long kicks)

I just worry that the movie will go something like this:

Main Characters are (re) introduced (exposition), next either Reavers or Feds attack (along with being reintroduced) Simon and River are captured, rescue mission ensues, gunfight, spaceship chase, Jayne decides he won't betray the team, Mal kicks some booty with a couple Jossian one-liners, day is saved, but Book is revealed as Fed turncoat. End movie.

Am I far off here? I want to enjoy the movie and I am certain that I will enjoy the characters and the story, but will it be adding to the series or just re-doing it?

Waddayuguysthink?

7

Replies:

[> Re: Serenity: The Firefly Movie -- What do you want? -- skpe, 13:09:46 07/12/04 Mon

I would be satisfied with a reshoot of "Serenity" with maybe more emphasis on the before story. I think you would have to to appeal to a wider audience, after all there are not that many who saw the series, ('We few we happy few...'). So you are going to need a big part of the story to set the scene

[> [> Well, from what I've heard . . . (one very small spoiler) -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:50:46 07/12/04 Mon

Joss has said that the "Serenity" movie is supposed to fit within the same canon as the TV show. This seems to mean, to me at least, that they won't re-do everyone coming together as that would make the "Serenity" pilot out-of-continuity. So we may have something like the ship landing on some planet and maybe have some outsider or group of outsiders learning about them to serve as exposition regarding who these people are. That's my take on it, at least.

[> [> [> From what I read (spoiler for when movie takes place)... -- Rob, 16:50:30 07/12/04 Mon

...the story occurs about six months after Objects in Space.

Rob

[> [> [> [> We'll know alot more -- Dochawk, 14:16:37 07/15/04 Thu

After Comicon, when Joss shows scenes from the movie and he and the cast talk about it. Hopefully someone will be tehre to take notes.

[> Re: Serenity: The Firefly Movie -- What do you want? -- Gyrus, 08:23:04 07/19/04 Mon

First, What does everyone want from the movie? Are we more interested in the River/Simon story, the possibilities of "Shepard" Book, Mal and Amara (Anara?) or a story concerning the Reavers?

The River/Simon story should be the focus of the movie, since it was the chief plot thread on the show. Book's story could be developed within this plot; because Book apparently has some sort of status within the Alliance, and because the Blue Sun Corp. seems to work for the Alliance, the plot could involve a character from Book's past. The Mal-and-Inara potential romance would be the B story.

I don't see the need to involve the Reavers, as I think they were pretty thoroughly fleshed out on the show (without our ever needing to see one).

I just worry that the movie will go something like this:

Main Characters are (re) introduced (exposition), next either Reavers or Feds attack (along with being reintroduced) Simon and River are captured, rescue mission ensues, gunfight, spaceship chase, Jayne decides he won't betray the team, Mal kicks some booty with a couple Jossian one-liners, day is saved, but Book is revealed as Fed turncoat. End movie.

I can't see Joss being this predictable, unless the studio forces him to be. That said, I can't imagine what the plot WILL be, but then, I'm not Joss. Or I am, and I'm just on this board to talk myself up. :)

[> [> Re: Serenity: The Firefly Movie -- What do you want? -- Seven, 10:56:25 07/20/04 Tue

I'm sure that it won't be that predictable either, but I still worry. I suppose that I am just a little bitter towards the entertaninment biz ever since the cancellation.

I'm sure Joss won't let us down.

7

[> [> [> Re: Serenity: The Firefly Movie -- What do you want? -- Gyrus, 13:39:18 07/20/04 Tue

I'm sure that it won't be that predictable either, but I still worry. I suppose that I am just a little bitter towards the entertaninment biz ever since the cancellation.

Oy, don't get me started on the network "suits". Instead, here's an amusing story that Joe Straczynski (the BABYLON 5 guy) told about dealing with network executives:

(Quote from a Usenet post he once made:)

When I was working on Jake and the Fatman (no defense offered), I had a script I'd written about a cop who's been trying to nail a certain bad guy for the last 10 years. I had a line in that when they meet: the bad guy says, "I suppose I should be flattered. Not every man has his own, personal Ahab." A pretty spiffy line.

The network calls. "We think there's a typo; there's a character referenced named Ahab, but we don't see him anywhere else in the script." My exec tries to explain to the network suit...see, it's Ahab...Captain Ahab...you know, Moby Dick...a nut chasing a big fish...?" The network guy says, "Look, I have an MBA [I think we already see part of the problem here - jms] and if I don't know who Ahab is, nobody else is going to, so cut it out of the script." And so it went, over my strongly stated objections.

Current board | More July 2004