July 2001 posts
Vampires, Mora demon blood,
and gypsy curses. -- Earl Allison, 03:31:39 07/23/01 Mon
Apologies if this has been addressed ad nauseum before ...
Isn't it a very dangerous precident for there to be what is in
essence a "cure" to vampirism? That "all"
one needs (a lot, but doable) to restore someone from undeath
is to introduce Mora (sp?) demon blood into their system and possibly
before that restore their soul via the gypsy curse spell?
Doesn't that diminish the threat of being turned somewhat?
I ask because it's something I've thought of a lot, especially
with vampires I like in the series, like Harmony.
Cordelia was pretty hopeful that VampHarmony could change during
"Disharmony." Why not simply GIVE her a soul once Angel
said that her nature was to turn on everyone?
Even if no one in the main cast could handle the spell, it seems
likely that SOMEONE in LA could be contacted to perform the ritual.
Of course, given Harmony's bedroom tendencies, the "moment
of true happiness" might be more problematic, but still ...
And Angel surely remembers that the demon blood would restore
a vampire to life. I grant you, it's not something he'd want everyone
to know -- especially since Buffy would likely pound him into
the ground like a tent peg when she realized he could be human
at any time, regardless of prophecy. Again, risky, but doable.
He couldn't manage this for Harmony (or Drusilla, or Darla) and
find a way to explain that it was a one-shot special item?
In fact, now that I think about it, could Mora demon blood have
restored Darla, have cured her ailing heart?
So, am I off the wall, or is any of this making sense?
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Love your tent-peg imagery -- Cactus Watcher, 06:47:18 07/23/01
Mon
Angel's internal sense of right and wrong seems to defy comprehension
at times. But, he does obviously have principles he won't go against,
ever. That's the best I can do to explain it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Agreed - that line cracked me up! ;-) -- Solitude1056,
07:42:25 07/23/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Bringing a vampire back to life...is it morally right? --
Kerri, 13:57:07 07/23/01 Mon
So if you are faced with killing a vampire or turning him/her
human which do you chose?
Now it might seem that it would be kind to give the person another
chance at life. However, on the other hand, if we consider that
after a vampire "dies"-that is changes from its human
form to the vampire form-its soul moves on to the next life, just
as it would have done had the person died, would it really be
fair to bring the soul back? This seems to me to be a bit like
ressurection spells. Instead to really be kind to the person would
be to stake the vampire thus allowing the rest of the person to
move on to the afterlife along with the soul. Since we are not
certain what happens to the soul after a person is vamped in the
Buffyverse let's look at another option. Suppose it is something
like in Dracula: the only was for the person to move on to the
next life was for the vampire to be killed. So once again it seems
that the "kindest" thing to do is to allow natural death
to occur and to allow that person to move on to their afterlife
peacefully.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Depends on what you think the soul is...... -- Rufus,
14:53:13 07/23/01 Mon
Joss has said that the soul is the star by which the souled or
soulless naturally are attracted to. So if that is what that means
then I have no problem with a vampire being brought back to life.
Angel made it clear that when his soul was returned he was then
able to care about all the murders he had done. The return of
the soul didn't bring back from the other side Liam but restored
Angel/Liam's ability to care about what he had done as a vampire.
The Gypsies didn't do this to make life easy for Liam but to torment
the demon. Angel got the eternal torment he had forced upon Drusilla.
The Gypsies wanted revenge, not to let Angel actually enjoy a
life. If it is the most humane thing to do, kill the vampire to
let them fully move on to the afterlife then that means Angel
should top the list. My opinion is that the vampire is who they
once were now with a demon inside, the loss of the soul was the
loss of the conscience, not who the person was. I remember Gunns
line "Don't we kill them anymore?", good question, if
killing the vampire frees the mortal to go to his reward then
why doesn't Buffy or Angel kill them all?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> "Don't we kill them anymore?" -- Humanitas,
20:25:08 07/23/01 Mon
Now that you mention it, there's never been mention (that I can
racall - please correct me if I'm wrong) of killing the vampire
to release the victim. Vampires are killed in defense of the rest
of humanity, because they will inevitably kill again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: "Don't we kill them anymore?"
-- Malandanza, 07:56:36 07/24/01 Tue
"Now that you mention it, there's never been mention (that
I can recall - please correct me if I'm wrong) of killing the
vampire to release the victim. Vampires are killed in defense
of the rest of humanity, because they will inevitably kill again."
When Darla is revamped, Angel tells the others he can stil save
her -- if he stakes her before she rises.
ANGEL: I can save her. WESLEY: Save whom? ANGEL: Darla. WESLEY:
Angel -- if what you've been saying is so -- there is no saving
Darla. Not now. ANGEL:It's not too late
If all Angel was worried about was making sure that vampire Darla
died. there would not have been the sense of urgency in this scene.
I think that Angel believes that the souls is in some way corrupted/trapped/lost
when the vampire rises. He alludes to this impression when he
tells Darla that she damned him by changing him into a vampire.
Wesley, an erudite ex-watcher, does not share Angel's view --
Angel may merely be operating under the influence of superstition
or Wesley may be misinformed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Why don't they restore all the souls? -- Marie, 03:57:29
07/24/01 Tue
Actually, that has puzzled me on and off ever since they re-restored
Angel's soul. Although I understand that this is very strong magic,
and should perhaps be used sparingly, I don't really see why they
can't use Jenny Calendar's spell to return souls to certain vamps
- I'm thinking Spike here, of course!
(I know why the writers don't do it for story-interest purposes,
of course, also that the spell takes time and they couldn't do
it for every vamp they meet in street, I'm just wondering why
no-one's ever suggested trying it).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why don't they restore all the souls? -- d'Herblay,
12:59:02 07/24/01 Tue
I would imagine -- at least before the crush set in -- that Spike
would be perfectly happy just sitting around with a Guiness watching
Premier League football on cable. "Uh-oh, Willow. David Beckham
just got a hat trick. Time to do the curse again."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Anniversary Fun: Funniest BtVS/AtS Episode -- rowan, 12:40:30
07/20/01 Fri
A "simple" question -- which episode do you think is
the funniest & why? Please make sure you describe it in detail
(including excerpted quotes if you can) so that we can enjoy the
laugh with you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Funniest BtVS/AtS Episode -- d'Herblay,
13:19:10 07/20/01 Fri
Too many to name them all. I'm partial to "Bewitched, Bothered
and Bewildered," "Homecoming" and, over on Angel,
"Disharmony," but then I'm a Cordelia fan. Milk shooting
out my nostrils funny was the opening of "In the Dark,"
with Spike providing Angel's voiceover:
"'How can I thank you, you mysterious black-clad hunk of
a night thing?' "No need, little lady. Your tears of gratitude
are enough for me. You see, I was once a bad-ass vampire, but
love -- and a pesky curse -- defanged me. And now I'm just a big,
fluffy puppy with bad teeth. [The woman below goes to touch Angel.
Angel shrinks back.] No! Not the hair! Never the hair.' 'But there
must be some way I can show my appreciation.' 'No! Helping those
in need's my job. Working up a load of sexual tension and prancing
away like a magnificent poof is truly thanks enough.' 'I understand.
I have a nephew who's gay, so--' 'Say no more! Danger is afoot,
and I'm almost out of that nancy-boy hair gel I like so much.
Quickly! To the Angelmobile! Away!'"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Funniest BtVS/AtS Episode -- Cactus
watcher, 14:22:09 07/20/01 Fri
My favorite is "The Wish."
Lots of great moments including...
The gang has recently 'captured' Spike who is chained up in Giles'
bathtub. It's Buffy's turn to take care of him. Spike is forced
to sip his blood from a straw from a cup in Buffy's hand. The
cup reads 'Kiss the Librarian!' Spike gripes about this. Buffy's
taunts enrage him. Spike threatens to break his chains and...
Buffy calls out in a falsetto "Giles, help! He's gonna scold
me!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Stupid me -- Cactus Watcher, 19:12:47 07/20/01 Fri
I was looking in the wrong spot in the book. The correct title
of my choice "Something Blue."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Funniest BtVS/AtS Episode -- Sam
Gamgee, 15:03:53 07/20/01 Fri
Whenever "funniest" BtVS episode (or AtS) is brought
up, my mind automatically leaps to The Zeppo. Now, I know this
episode may not have had the most laughs per minute, but it certainly
gets me laughing every time I even think about it. Plus, it is
probably my favorite Xander episode ever.
There are so many moments to pick from, but I will hit the ones
that pop to mind right away for me: the music, especially the
scene between Angel and Buffy that Xander interrupts and how it
surges back up when he leaves, and the cheesy porn-music (not
that I would know anything about that) when Xander and Faith get
up with people; Dead Bob wanting to know if Jack has been taping
Walker, Texas Ranger; Xander interrogating Parker before being
interrupted by a mailbox (okay, maybe I'm the only one who found
that funny).
JACK: Are you scared? XANDER: Would that make you happy?
XANDER: Shoulda learned by now. If you're gonna play with fire
you gotta expect that sooner or later I wasn't finished! Note
to self: less talk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Zeppo -- mundusmundi, 13:14:26 07/21/01 Sat
Great ep. Ya gotta love a show that lifts an idea from Rosencrantz
& Gildenstern Are Dead -- Tom Stoppard's satirical play about
the two supporting characters from Hamlet bemoaning their insignificance
while the main plot happens off stage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Funniest BtVS/AtS Episode -- Wisewoman,
17:50:25 07/20/01 Fri
For me, it's gotta be Something Blue and the whole Buffy/Spike
engagement scenario...they snipe at each other even when they're
supposedly madly in love!
Buffy: There's so much to decide. Ceremony, guests, reception..
Spike: Well, first thing I'd say, we're not having a church wedding.
Buffy: How 'bout a daytime ceremony. In the park.
Spike: Fabulous. Enjoy your honeymoon with the big pile of dust.
Buffy: Under the trees. Indirect sunlight, only.
Spike: Warm breeze tosses the leaves aside, and again - you're
registering as Mr and Mrs Big-Pile-of-Dust.
Buffy: Stop it! This is our wedding and you're treating it like
a big joke!
Spike: Oh, pouty! Look at that lip.. gonna get it.. gonna get
it..
..and...
Spike: He's [Giles] gonna have to take a bit of time to get used
to it, pet.
Buffy: They all will. (She turns back to Giles) But you guys weren't
crazy about Angel at first, either.
(Spike gets upset)
Spike: You wern't gonna say that name.
Buffy: Sorry. Why don't we talk about where we're going to register.
Spike: Well, where would Angel like to register? And can we have
the photographer Angel would've wanted? And, flowers Angel would
have liked?
Buffy: (Stands) Hey! You think I don't live with the shadow of
Drusilla over my head? That I'm not wondering if you're going
to be thinking of her on our honeymoon when you're making.. sweet
love to me..?
..and...
Buffy: Honey, we need to talk about the invitations. Now, do you
wanna be William the Bloody, or just Spike? 'Cause, either way,
it's gonna look majorly weird.
Spike: Where as the name Buffy gives it that touch of classic
elegance.
Buffy: What's wrong with Buffy?
Giles: Huh.. such a good question.
Spike: (Ignoring Giles) Well, it's a terrible name.
Buffy: My mother gave me that name.
Spike: Your mother, yeah, she's a genius.
Buffy: Don't you start in on my mother.
Yup, they were well on the way to a normal, healthy, co-dependent,
dysfunctional relationship!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Can't help but agree with your choice. -- Avatar 2001,
19:38:56 07/20/01 Fri
It's nearly impossible to choose the funniest episode of BtVS
but at the end I must agree with you. I just crack up whenever
I remember that episode. You only laugh once but when you start
you just can't stop.
Buffy: Giles! You'll never believe what's happened! (Buffy holds
up her now ringed ring finger.)
(...)
Giles: Willow, it's-it's me. Something's happened. I need your
help. I can't see very well. Everything's blurred. (He grabs the
scotch) I'm certain it's a spell of some kind, because.... well...it
seems something else is going wrong...
(Buffy bring Spike a mug of blood. She sits on his lap.)
Buffy: Here you go ... 98.6. (They kiss) Giles:... horribly wrong.
(...)
Buffy: Giles, did you see my ring? Giles: Thankfully, not very
well.
(...)
Buffy: From now on, we're a family. Giles: That's alright. I have
more scotch.
(...)
Riley: What's his name? Buffy: Who? Riley: The groom. Buffy: Spike!
Riley: That's a name? Buffy: Don't be mad. Riley: I'm not mad!
Buffy: No, you are mad! Riley: No, I am! Er... I really... Wow.
Who is this guy? Does he go here? Buffy: Spike? (Laughs) Oh, no...
He's totally old. Riley: Old. Buffy: Well, not as old as my last
boyfriend was. Riley: (Befuddled) Okay.... It's late.... and I'm,
I'm very tired now. So, I'm just gonna go far away and be... away.
(...)
Spike: This is the crack team that foils my every plan? I am deeply
shamed.
(...)
Buffy: (Excitedly) Spike and I are getting married! Xander: (Baffled)
How? What? How? Giles: Three excellent questions. Spike: (To Buffy)
What are you lookin' at? Buffy: The man I love. (They kiss. A
lot. Anya and Xander look a bit disgusted) Xander: Can I be blind,
too?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Giles did get most of the best lines in that
ep! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 22:33:55 07/20/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Funniest: The Initiative -- Simplicity,
07:20:54 07/21/01 Sat
This is one of my favorite episodes. I love it when Spike is agitated
or provoked about something.
Spike and another vamp are trapped in sterile white cells. . .
Other Vamp (O.V)
They're gonna kill us, you know.
Spike: And how are "they" going to do that?
O.V.: They starve you. And when you're ready to bite your own
arm, they shoot out one of those packets. You drink, and the next
thing you know - you're gone. That's when they do the experiments.
Spike: And "they" are .... the government? Nazis? A
major cosmetics company?
O.V. Who cares? All I know is, one minute I'm running from the
Slayer, and the next thing, I'm here.....
Spike (ticked off): The Slayer. I knew it I KNEW IT!
O.V.: She took apart my crew and drove me straight to these guys.
Spike: She set me up, too! I always worried what would happen
if the bitch got some funding. She wised up a bit. Fine. I'll
take her apart - I don't care how brilliant she is.
Cut to a scene of Buffy with ink all over her hands and papers
from an exploded ink pen, she looks perplexed.
I LOVE Xander and Harmony arguing. There just. . .cute!
Xander(in a Western, high noon shoot out tone): Harmony
Harmony: Xander
Xander (whipping out a stake): That's close enough.
Xander: I'm warning you. I'm highly trained to put this through
your heart. No mercy, no warning.
Harmony: I can kill you where you stand.
Xander (shades of UPN's Smackdown!): Bring it on, then.
Xander (shocked): OW!
Harmony: Sissy kicker!
Xander Ow - ooh - quit - cut it out ... !
Harmony: I'm just - just - just - so gonna bite you ... ow!
Xander: Okay, stop. Stop. We both just stop. Okay?
Harmony:
I will if you will.
Xander: On three, okay? Ready, one, two ..
Three. Right. Okay. Harmony. Great catching up, really. I'll just
pick up the last tattered shreds of my dignity and go home now.
I'll be honest, I love W/S interactions. She's so kind to him,
even though he has tried to kill her and her friends numerous
times. The impotence insinuation is hysterical!
Willow is lying on the bed, looking confused and afraid. Spike
is sitting on the side of it, looking much the same way. Willow:
Maybe you were nervous.
Spike: I felt alright when we started. Let's try again. Damn it!
Willow: You're probably just trying too hard. Doesn't this happen
to every vampire?
Spike: Not to me, it doesn't!
Willow:
It's me isn't it?
Spike : What are you talking about?
Willow: You came looking for Buffy, then settled. You didn't want
to bite me, I just happened to be around.
Spike: Don't be ridiculous. Why, I'd bite you in a heartbeat.
Willow: Really?
Spike: Thought about it.
Willow: When?
Spike: Remember last year? You had on that fuzzy pink number with
the lilac underneath... (nods, little bit of a leer)
Willow: I never would have guessed. You play the blood-lust kind
of cool.
Spike: I hate being obvious. All fang-y and *grrr.*
Takes the mystery out.
Willow: But if you could, you'd ...
Spike IF. .I could. . . yeah.
Willow (trying to make him feel better): You know, this doesn't
make you any less terrifying. ***only Willow would try to help
a vamp who just tried to eat her!
Spike: Don't patronize me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Funniest: The Initiative --
Rattletrap, 12:01:17 07/21/01 Sat
The scene w/ Willow and Spike was hilarious, but offset by coming
after one of the most disturbing scenes the show has ever aired.
Spike's attempt to bite Willow was hauntingly similar to a rape
scenario that happens a dozen times a year on college campuses
across the country. Only Joss could shift gears like that and
make it work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Funniest BtVS/AtS Episode -- Rattletrap,
06:54:04 07/21/01 Sat
From this season, gotta go with "Intervention," I laughed
until it hurt.
XANDER: Buffy's gone insane. (Anya nods) WILLOW: What? What'd
she do? XANDER: Brace yourself. You're not gonna believe it. TARA:
Everyone, before we jump all over her, people do strange things
when someone they love dies. When I lost my mother, I-I did some
pretty dumb stuff, like lying to my family and staying out all
night. ANYA: Buffy's boinking Spike. Xander nods. Willow and Tara
look surprised. WILLOW: (pause) Oh ... well, Ta-Tara's right.
Grief can be powerful, and we shouldn't judge- TARA: What are
you, kidding? She's nuts!
. .
BUFFYBOT: I don't know where Xander is. I haven't seen him. And
when I came out of the tunnel, Spike was gone. I need to find
him. WILLOW: (winces) Um ... Buffy, this thing with Spike, i-i-it
isn't true, is it? You didn't, you know, sleep with Spike? BUFFYBOT:
No. Willow smiles with relief. BUFFYBOT: I had sex with Spike.
(Willow winces again) I'm sorry if it bothers you. You're my best
friend. WILLOW: I-I am. And I, I always will be, no matter what
you do. I, I'm just trying to figure out why this happened, and
I, I think with ... your mom and everything ... everyone was being
all sympathetic, and, and making you feel weak. A-and Spike wasn't
like that. So, just this one time, you just ... did something
kinda ... crazy. BUFFYBOT: (shakes head) It wasn't one time. It
was lots of times. And lots of different ways. I could make sketches.
WILLOW: (disgusted) No! Buffy, there is something seriously wrong
here! I ... (the bot looks confused) Okay, yeah, you've been with
a vampire before, but Angel had a soul. BUFFYBOT: Angel's lame.
His hair grows straight up, and he's bloody stupid. WILLOW: (confused)
Okay ... look, I just wanna help you. Let me help you. BUFFYBOT:
You're my best friend. WILLOW: Yeah. Again, I ... really am, but...
BUFFYBOT: You're recently gay.
. .
XANDER: Buffy, we need to talk. BUFFY: (alarmed) What's wrong?
Is Dawn okay? WILLOW: Dawn's fine. XANDER: Buffy, we care about
you, and we're worried about you. The way you're acting, the things
you're doing- ANYA: It's wrong. WILLOW: Wait. This shouldn't be
about blame. BUFFY: Blame? There's blame now? WILLOW: No, there's
only love. And ... some fear. ANYA: Which is kind of thrown by
the you having sex with Spike. BUFFY: The ... who whating how
with huh? ANYA: Okay, that's denial. That usually comes before
anger. BUFFY: (angrily) I am not having sex with Spike! ANYA:
Anger. XANDER: No one is judging you. It's understandable. Spike
is strong and mysterious and sort of compact but well-muscled.
BUFFY: (firmly) I am not having sex with Spike! But I'm starting
to think that you might be. XANDER: (scoffs) Buffy, I saw you.
Anya too. (Anya nods) We saw you and Spike ... (gestures vaguely)
with the straddling.
The Buffy Bot enters, looking offended.
BUFFYBOT: Spike's mine. Who's straddling Spike?
She strides up next to Buffy, who stares at her in amazement.
BUFFY: Oh my god. XANDER: (amazed) And so say all of us. BUFFYBOT:
Say, look at you. You look just like me! We're very pretty. WILLOW:
Two of them! XANDER: Hey, I know this! They're both Buffy! BUFFY:
(annoyed at him) No, *she*'s a robot. She acts just like that
girlfriend-bot that Warren guy made. You guys couldn't tell me
apart from a robot? BUFFYBOT: Oh, I don't think I'm a robot. ANYA:
She's very well done.
. .
BUFFY: (shrugs) It's all we got. GILES: (staring at the bot) Quite
extraordinary really. BUFFYBOT: Thank you. But I really think
we should be listening to the other Buffy, Giles. (She pronounces
it with a hard G like "guy") She's very smart and she's
gonna help us save Spike. GILES: Guy-les? (turns to address the
real Buffy) Spike didn't even bother to program my name properly.
BUFFY: Listen, skirt girl, we are not going to save him. We're
going to kill him. He knows who the key is, and there's no way
he's not telling Glory. BUFFYBOT: You're right. He's evil. (smiles)
But you should see him naked. I mean really. Buffy grimaces in
disgust. BUFFY: Okay, guys, split up and spread out. Check the
priciest-looking places first. Xander, you come with me. Willow,
Anya, stick together, and Guy-les ... Giles- (Giles looks annoyed)
you can watch ... it. Giles sighs, turns back to the bot. She
gives him a huge grin.
. .
SPIKE: It's that guy... on TV ... what's his name? GLORY: (frowns)
On the television? SPIKE: That show ... the prize show ... where
they guess what stuff cost? MURK: The Price Is Right? JINX: Oh,
Bob Barker! MURK: We will bring you Bob Barker! We will bring
you the limp and beaten body of Bob Bark-
also, honorable mention to "Triangle" for some of Olaf's
lines:
"Ha!, puny receptacle" "You fight well, although
you are a tiny man" " . . . they will never last, he
is ludicrous and far too breakable."
among others
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Funniest BtVS/AtS Episode -- Malandanza,
07:23:51 07/21/01 Sat
My choice is Superstar because of this scene:
BUFFY: I remember something. Giles, do you have a Jonathan Swimsuit
Calendar?
GILES: No.(a beat)Yes.
He opens a drawer, pulls out the Jonathan Swimsuit Calendar.
GILES: It was a gift.
Of course Something Blue was also very funny -- my favorite scene
from it is:
GILES: Yes, to have her will done. Whatever she says is coming
true.
BUFFY: And both you guys were affected. I probably only escaped
it because I'm the Slayer. Some kind of natural immunity.
XANDER: Yeah. Right. You're marrying Spike because you're so right
for each other.
BUFFY: Xander...
SPIKE: That's it. You're off the usher list.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Funniest BtVS/AtS Episode -- voyageofbeagle,
07:45:39 07/21/01 Sat
Funniest overall episode- have to agree and go with the masses
and go with "Something Blue".
But- funniest scene ever is Giles' "presentation" about
the Gentleman in "Hush". Hilarious from start to finish.
- Giles with his dramatic music and finger waving - Xander misunderstanding
Willow's pantomiming of "heart" and mouthing "boobies?"
with a confused lok on his face -Everyone misunderstanding Buffy's
energetic hand motions that are suposed to be her staking -and
Buffy's lok of annoyance and horror when she she sees the picture
that Giles has drawn of her has big hips!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Funniest BtVS/AtS Episode
-- Nina, 09:33:38 07/21/01 Sat
Hush was frightening and hilarious at the same time. My favorite
scene takes place in Giles' apartment. It starts with Giles and
Spike bumping into each other. Spike then serves himselves some
blood, turns in game face. The big misunderstanding that happens
then makes me laugh everytime. Xander comes in the apartment and
believes Spike bit Anya. Xander punches Spike in the face until
Anya wakes up. They finally leave to get some sweet loving. The
whole scene shot as a movie from the silent era, with dramatic
music in the background, is just superb!
Something blue and Intervention are probably the episodes in wich
I laughed the more per minute. Giles In "SB" and the
BuffyBot in "Intervention" were just hilarious. Have
to agree with those who mentioned those episodes before me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Funniest BtVS/AtS Episode
-- anom, 22:12:59 07/21/01 Sat
But the funniest touch was Anya eating popcorn & enjoying the
whole show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Funniest BtVS/AtS Episode -- mundusmundi,
12:53:45 07/21/01 Sat
Funniest episode: Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered. There isn't
one single scene or line of dialogue that makes it great (though
Joyce coming on to Xander, and Xander's exasperation, gets me
in stitches every time). The whole thing just has great comic
momentum, each scene building laughs into the next.
Funniest scene: I'm picking the one below from Crush, the conversation
between Spike and Buffy following their "stakeout":
SPIKE Well, that was... sad.
Buffy looks around the "vamp campsite."
SPIKE I'm embarrassed for our kind. (then) So, should we chase
'em then? Can't have gone far.
BUFFY Those vamps have been here a while. They've nested.
SPIKE So, you're saying they're a couple of poofters.
BUFFY No. I'm saying they had nothing to do with last night's
murders.
SPIKE How do you figure?
BUFFY Whoever did it only just arrived in town last night.
She turns and moves to the exit.
BUFFY Looks like you just wasted my time.
Spike gets to the door first and holds it open for her. Buffy
stops in her tracks and jumps back, wigged.
BUFFY What are you--
Spike, confused at first, suddenly realizes what he's done and
lets go of the door.
SPIKE I... It was... I wasn't thinking...
Buffy, shaken, moves away from him.
BUFFY What is this, Spike?
SPIKE Don't get your knickers twisted, I was just-
BUFFY No. I mean, what is this? The late night stake out, the
bogus suspects, the flask... Is this a date?
SPIKE (stammering) A - ? Please... A date. You're completely off
your bird. I mean... (quickly/hopeful) Do you want it to be?
That's it. That's what Buffy needed to hear to confirm all of
her worst fears.
BUFFY Oh no. No... Are you out of your mind?
SPIKE It's not so unusual. Two people. In the workplace... Feelings
develop...
BUFFY No! Feelings do not develop. No feelings!
Spike starts to move toward her, but she backs away.
SPIKE You can't deny it. There's something between us.
BUFFY Loathing. Disgust-
SPIKE Heat. Desire-
BUFFY Please. You're a vampire, Spike!
SPIKE Angel was a vampire.
BUFFY Angel had a soul. He was good.
SPIKE And I can be too. I've changed Buffy.
BUFFY You mean the chip? That's not change. That's just holding
you back. You're like a serial killer in prison-
SPIKE Women marry them all the time!
An otherwise unsettling episode, as everyone knows, but this convo,
namely Spike's line about "Two people, in the workplace,"
cracks me up just thinking about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> aaahhh, comedy... -- JBone, 19:48:35 07/21/01 Sat
Since one of the reasons I love Buffy, is the sharp comedy, I
have to weigh in here. You see, I have no choice. I absolutely
must post or risk recriminations. I see most of the obvious episodes
have been mentioned. Like the Xander-centric episodes like "Bewitched,
Bothered, and Bewildered", "Go Fish" (has it been
mentioned? The whole idea of Xander going undercover on the swim
team or as Buffy said 'not under much' is just hilarity ensuing),
"The Zeppo", and "Triangle" (probably more
Anya and Willow than Xander, but still quite funny).
In the last season and a half or so, the best funny lines have
gone to either Spike or Anya. But the funniest line are too numerous
to list. I would like to point out Cordelia episodes because they
were quite substantial. Like "Invisible Girl" (not all
that funny except for a couple lines), "Reptile Boy",
"Go Fish" (again a solid belly scratcher), and "Homecoming"
(Buffy taking on Queen C in the be-all of popularity contests
was fun to watch).
The only other character to get comedy episodes centered on them
is Giles. While I don't think this was a wise idea for more than
an episode or two, some of them have been decent. Starting in
"Bad Girls" in season 3, this marked a shift for Giles
to be more comic relief than authoritative character. "Earshot"
was an excellent episode that really didn't center around Giles,
but the 'you slept with my mother' line out of Buffy watching
Giles walking into a tree was too good. "A New Man",
well kinda sucked, while I enjoyed "Buffy vs Dracula".
The Dracubabes with Giles rocked.
The rest of the really funny episodes were ensemble based. Starting
early on in "The Puppet Show". Others are "Some
Assembly Required" (the chemistry between NB, AH, and even
CC really come out with this one along with Robia LaMorte as Jenny
Calender), "Halloween" (a great twist on Halloween episodes),
"Bad Eggs" (the first appearance of Lyle Gorch), "Faith,
Hope, and Trick" (Mr. Trick's and Faith's first appearance,
I'll always remember Trick yanking the guy out of the drive thru
window and eating the pizza delivery guy, and Xander being fascinated
by Faith's tales of naked slaying), "Band Candy" (Giles
as a teenager, enough said), "Dopplegangland" (Willow's
standout comedic performance), "Beer Bad" (Xander bartending,
Buffy going neanderthal, Willow shooting down Parker, and funny
hair), "Something Blue" (Giles had the funniest lines),
"Superstar" (from the start, through the opening credits,
rewrote Buffy for the funnier), "The Yoko Factor" (Spike
playing everyone), and "I Was Made To Love You" (Xander
and Willow checking out babes together).
I realize that I listed a whole lot of episodes, but I find a
ton of humor in the show. I believe the show really took off once
it tapped into Nicholas Brendons natural upbeat energy, and Charisma
Carpenters ability to put out those hilarious lines with ascerbic
wit. Turning Giles into a little more than a comedy player has
hurt, but the addition of James Marsters as Spike and Emma Caulfield
as Anya have added much needed life after the departure of CC.
This is probably the biggest thing holding AtS back. I remember
watching "Disharmony" thinking, 'I miss Cordelia's laugh.'
She should laugh more. I have probably blubbered way too much
by now, so I'll post and laugh at the replies rolling in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: aaahhh, comedy... -- Rattletrap, 05:45:03 07/22/01
Sun
Ah, you do jog my memory though
The interaction between Giles and Wesley in "Bad Girls"
was great . . .
Wesley: Of course, training procedures have been updated quite
a bit since your day. Much greater emphasis on field work. Giles:
(very bored) Really? Wesley: Oh, yes. (walks around to another
box) Not all books and theory nowadays. (reaches in for some books)
I have, in fact, faced two vampires myself. Under controlled circumstances,
of course. Giles: (uncrosses his arms) Well, no danger of finding
those here. Wesley: (looks up) Vampires? Giles: Controlled circumstances.
(sees Buffy enter) Hello, Buffy. Wesley overhears, looks at her
and smiles condescendingly. Wesley: Well... (steps to the head
of the table) Hello. (smiles smugly) Buffy gives him a quick look
up and down. Buffy: (to Giles) New Watcher? Giles: New Watcher.
Wesley takes a step toward her and holds out his hand in greeting.
Wesley: Wesley Wyndam-Pryce. Buffy makes no move to return the
gesture, but continues to eye him critically. A moment later he
steps back again. Wesley: It's very nice to meet you. Buffy steps
over to Giles, never removing her eyes from Wesley. Buffy: Is
he evil? Wesley: (perplexed) Evil? Buffy: The last one was evil.
Wesley: (thoughtfully) Oh, yes. Gwendolyn Post. We all heard.
No. Mr. Giles has checked my credentials rather thoroughly and
phoned the Council, but I'm glad to see you're on the ball as
well. (takes a secretive step toward her) A good Slayer is a cautious
Slayer. (steps back) Buffy: (to Giles) Is he evil? Giles: Not
in the strictest sense.
or:
Wesley: (flips through Giles' diary) Oh, yes! Here's your first
entry. 'Slayer is willful and insolent.' (smirks) That would be
our girl, wouldn't it? Giles: (continues pacing, takes off his
glasses) Well, you have to get to know her. Wesley: Mm. (reads)
'Her abuse of the English language is such that I understand only
every other sentence.' (looks up) Oh, this is going to make fascinating
reading.
plus, the entire torture scene that is a little long to reproduce
here, the original draft was even better, but they toned it down
some by the final version.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I can't believe nobody has mentioned Triangle yet. -- Anthony8,
20:06:40 07/21/01 Sat
With the exception of Dawn and Joyce, everyone has some hilarious
dialogue. Had me laughing from opening to closing credits. For
example:
Xander sits between Anya and Willow looking uncomfortable. XANDER:
(to Buffy) So, how goes the slaying? BUFFY: I killed something
in a convent last night. XANDER: In any other room, a frightening
declaration. Here, a welcome distraction. (Anya and Willow both
look at him) Tell us all about the killing, Buff. BUFFY: Pretty
standard. Vampire staking. Ooh! But I met a nun, and she let me
try on her wimple. XANDER: Okay, now we're back to frightening.
....
Cut to: Spike holding a box of chocolates. He talks to someone
we can't see. SPIKE: (softly) Um ... there's something I got to
tell you. About showing you Riley in that place. (deep breath)
I didn't mean to ... (long pause) Anyway, I know you're feeling
all betrayed - by him, not me. (The camera pans around and we
see he is talking to a mannequin, which has no legs but wears
a blue blouse and a blonde wig. It's set up on a block of stone
so that it is about Buffy's height.) I was trying to help, you
know. Not like I made him be there, after all. Actually trying
to help you. Best intentions. He gets a little agitated, paces
a few steps away. SPIKE: I mean, you know, pretty state you'd
be in, thinking things are all right (moves back toward the mannequin)
while he's toddling halfway round the bend. (Stares at the mannequin,
gets madder) Oh, I'll insult him if I want to! I'm the one who's
on your side! Me! Doing you a favor! (very angry) And you, being
dead petty about it - me, getting nothing but your hatred and
your venom and - you ungrateful bitch! He loses control of himself,
smashes the box of chocolates over the mannequin's head. SPIKE:
Bitch!
......
Anya comes out from behind the counter and walks over to them.
ANYA: (annoyed) Hey. What are you two doing? WILLOW: Oh, we're
gonna try out a few spells. TARA: There's this thing you can do
where you create light, and we thought, what if you could make,
like, simulated sunlight? WILLOW: Yeah, so then, you know, there
Buffy is, middle of the night, and she finds this whole nest of
vamps, a-and then she just goes, "Presto!" TARA: Only
it won't be "presto" exactly. WILLOW: And, and voom!
There's a, a floating ball of sunlight. Vamps get dusty. TARA:
You don't wanna look right at it, though. ANYA: That's swell,
but you can't use this stuff. Giles has only been gone two days
and you're already causing trouble. You shouldn't do things while
he's gone. WILLOW: (smiling) You're the fish! ANYA: What? Tara
grins. WILLOW: The, the fish in the bowl, in The Cat in the Hat.
He was always saying that the cat shouldn't be there while the
mother was out. ANYA: What are you talking about? TARA: It's a
book. This cat does all this mischief. WILLOW: It's so cute. He
balances a bunch of stuff, including that fish in the bowl! A-and,
but don't try it for real when you're six, because then you're
not allowed to have fish for five years. ANYA: (upset) You're
referencing literature I have no way to be familiar with. You're
trying to make me feel left out, and you're stealing! WILLOW:
I'm not stealing. I-I'm just taking things without paying for
th... (pauses) In what twisted dictionary is that stealing?
.....
WILLOW: Anya, Giles would be totally fine with this. Come on,
it'll be fun. (Gets an idea) We could show you how to do some
stuff! You could be floatin' pencils by the end of the day. ANYA:
Sometimes I miss having powers. (Willow grins. Anya realizes something)
Oh. Oh! I know what this is! (shaking her finger at them) This
is peer pressure! Any second now you're gonna make me smoke tobacco
and, and have drugs. WILLOW: Look how easy. They all look at the
table. A small stick of dried sage and a vial rise off the table
and float in the air. ANYA: Hey! Don't float the merchandise!
(grabs the items and puts them back on the table) Willow turns.
A few items on the counter rise into the air. ANYA: Stop that!
Xander appears, walking past the floating stuff without noticing.
......
WILLOW: (walks back behind the counter, holding a mortar and pestle)
Xander, what I'm doing, it's a good thing. And if it doesn't work,
Giles never even needs to know about it. She puts the mortar and
pestle on the counter, takes a pinch of something out of the bowl,
and sprinkles it on the cash register. The register disappears
in a puff of pink smoke. WILLOW: Oops. Anya rushes over. The others
come over as well. ANYA: The cash register! What did you do with
the cash register? Dear god! WILLOW: I'll fix it, I'll fix it!
Recursat. (latin translation: revert/return) Another pink puff,
and the register reappears, now with the receipt paper hanging
out of it in long curls. Smoke rises out of it. WILLOW: There,
all back. Good as new. ANYA: Money. Did you hurt the money? (Opens
the cash register and coughs as more smoke (not pink) comes out)
Money good? (takes out some money and shakes it at Xander) She
endangered the money! (Xander shrugs) WILLOW: Of course, that's
what she cares about. (imitates Anya) "I like money better
than people. People can so rarely be exchanged for goods and/or
services." ANYA: (horrified) Xander, she's pretending to
be me! .......
We see a lamppost lying on the ground, broken in two. WILLOW:
I'm trying. Put the top up, the pages are all blowy! ANYA: Well,
I don't know how to put the top up, I only just figured out what
the left pedal does. (turns to smile at Willow) It makes us stop!
Anya slams on the brake and they slow down with a screech. Willow
grabs the side of the car for balance. Anya resumes driving. WILLOW:
You don't know how to drive? Why didn't you say you don't know
how to drive? ANYA: Well, I couldn't know if I could until I tried,
could I? They exchange an angry look. WILLOW: This is very, very
bad. There, there's an ogre on the loose- ANYA: Troll. WILLOW:
What? ANYA: Troll on the loose. Now hold on, I'm gonna press the
right pedal harder. (smiling) I expect us to accelerate. She presses
on the gas pedal and they both lean back in their seats as the
car speeds up. Willow looks very angry. WILLOW: (yelling over
the engine noise) There's a troll on the loose, and you're gonna
crash Giles' car! ANYA: (agreeing) It's likely. We're going very
fast. You should have listened to me and not done the spell. Giles
put me in charge. WILLOW: Giles can be an idiot. The smart kind,
but still. ANYA: Xander agreed. WILLOW: Oh, right. Xander doesn't
step out of line. ANYA: (turns to look at her) Well, what do you
mean by that? WILLOW: Nothing. Willow looks ahead, points at something.
Anya looks, twists the wheel quickly. The car screeches around
another corner, narrowly misses hitting another parked car, which
has its roof bashed in. Some of the papers fly out of Willow's
hands and are gone with the wind behind the car. Willow watches
them go. ANYA: Find that spell quickly! WILLOW: Whoa, that's gone.
......
XANDER: I'm gonna run and get Buffy. (Pats Spike on the shoulder)
Or maybe you could fight him. SPIKE: Yeah, I could do that, but
I'm paralyzed with not caring very much. OLAF: (pointing at Spike)
You there! (walks up to Spike and Xander) Do you know where there
are babies? SPIKE: (to Xander) What do you think, the hospital?
XANDER: What? Shut up! (to Olaf) Um ... listen... OLAF: I find
myself very hungry. And when I'm hungry I grow short of patience.
XANDER: Well, we can take care of the hungry, so how's about you
just sit down in one of the ... sturdier chairs, and we can ...
have a calm talk and something to eat. OLAF: Can it be babies?
XANDER: Well, not so much. OLAF: (disappointed) Oh. XANDER: But
maybe ... some roast pigs, and ... stags, and ... much hearty
grog. (grins nervously) SPIKE: They've got this onion thing...
OLAF: You cannot appease me! Do not try! (turns away) More ale!
......
Anya and Willow look over at where Olaf is draining the second
keg. WILLOW: I wish Buffy was here. The door opens again and Buffy
runs in, followed by Tara. BUFFY: I'm here. Willow looks surprised.
WILLOW: I wish I had a million dollars. (The others look at her)
Just checking. BUFFY: (looks at Olaf) What's going on? Where did
he come from?
......
OLAF: You ... told the witch to do that, Anyanka. (Anya looks
alarmed) You seem determined to put an end to all my fun. Just
like you always did when we were dating! Buffy, Tara, and Willow
stare at Anya. Spike stares at Anya. Xander frowns. ANYA: Uh,
um... XANDER: You dated him? BUFFY: You dated a troll? WILLOW:
And we're what, surprised by this? ANYA: Well, he wasn't a troll
then! You know, he was just a big dumb guy, and ... well, you
know, he cheated on me and I made him into a troll, which by the
way is... (embarrassed) how I got the ... job as a vengeance demon.
......
We see Spike crouching next to another injured woman. She has
blood on her face. Spike puts something under her head for support.
Buffy sees him and approaches. BUFFY: What are you doing? SPIKE:
Making this woman more comfortable. (looks up at Buffy) I'm not
sampling, I'll have you know. (looks around) Just look at all
these lovely blood-covered people. I could, but not a taste for
Spike, not a lick. Know you wouldn't like it. BUFFY: (amazed)
You want credit for not feeding on bleeding disaster victims?
SPIKE: Well, yeah. BUFFY: You're disgusting. (Walks away) Spike
looks after her in disbelief. SPIKE: (to himself) What's it take?
(sighs, continues helping the injured woman)
......
ANYA: Oh, and you don't want anyone else to have him. I know what
broke up him and Cordelia, you know. It was you! And your lips!
WILLOW: No it was not! Well, yes it was so, but ... that was a
long time ago. Do you think I'd do that again? ANYA: Why not?
WILLOW: Well, hello, gay now.
......
ANYA: How can I help? WILLOW: Uh, distract him from Buffy, (shot
of Buffy and Olaf grappling over the hammer again) uh, piss him
off. ANYA: I don't know how. WILLOW: Anya, I have faith in you.
There is no one you cannot piss off. Anya smiles proudly, rushes
out from behind the counter. Shot of Buffy and Olaf exchanging
blows. ANYA: Hey Olaf! You're as inadequate a troll as you were
a boyfriend! Olaf looks over at her with an angry grunt. Buffy
lands another blow. Anya looks back at Willow, who gives her the
thumbs-up. Anya looks back at Olaf. ANYA: Uh, y-you're hairy,
and unattractive, and even women trolls are put off by your various
odors. WILLOW: (muttering) Instrumentum ultionis, telum fabuloso,
surge, surge, terram pro voca. (translation: "Instrument
of revenge, fabled weapon, arise, arise," ??) Olaf's hammer
glows green for a moment. He lifts Buffy by the throat. ANYA:
Your menacing stance is merely alarming! Olaf hits Buffy in the
upper arm with his hammer and flings her aside to land against
a wall. ANYA: And your roar is less than full-throated! OLAF:
Desist! (stomps toward Anya) My god, woman, it's been a thousand
years, and yet you are as aggravating and emasculating as ever
you were. He swings the hammer at Anya. She ducks. WILLOW: Vola
cum viribus, dominum tuum nega. Vola! (translation: "I wish
with all men, that god will deny you.") Olaf's hammer glows
green again and flies out of his hand as he tries to swing it
at Anya. It lands on the floor and stops glowing. Olaf stares
at his hands. Buffy gets up. Anya goes over to Willow. ANYA: Hey,
good job. WILLOW: You too, very irritating.
.......
Olaf dissolves into nothing and disappears. Willow smiles hugely.
Shot of Tara watching. BUFFY: (OS) Where did you send him? ANYA:
(OS) The land of the trolls. We see them all standing around in
the magic shop. ANYA: He'll like it there. Full of trolls. WILLOW:
It's hard to be precise, though. Alternate universes don't stay
put. Trying to send him to a specific place is sort of like ...
like ... trying to hit a ... puppy, by throwing a live bee at
it. (They all look at her) Which is a weird image, and you should
all just forget it. ANYA: It's possible that he's in the land
of perpetual Wednesday ... or the crazy melty land ... or, you
know, the world without shrimp. TARA: There's a world without
shrimp? (Willow looks at her) I'm allergic. WILLOW: He, he's probably
in troll land. BUFFY: I only care that he's not here, and I got
this nifty souvenir. She turns and puts Olaf's hammer on the countertop.
After a moment, the glass breaks and the hammer, plus everything
else on the counter, falls into the display case below with a
loud crashing noise. BUFFY: Oops. XANDER: The place is trashed
enough anyway.
.......
Cut to: Buffy and Giles sitting at the table in the Summers dining
room. GILES: I cringe to think what the place would have looked
like if I'd been away for longer than three days. BUFFY: Well,
maybe we would have had time to clean it up. You know, if Willow
used some magicks to help. GILES: Yes, 'cause nothing could possibly
go wrong with that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Funniest BtVS/AtS Episode -- manzanita,
21:41:41 07/21/01 Sat
What about Band Candy? Snyder trying to do Kung Fu, Buffy driving,
Giles and Joyce, studying for the SATs while on patrole . . .
Buffy's look when Joyce offers her manacles to restrain Ethan:
"Never tell me!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> well, one of the funniest moments, anyway... -- anom, 13:07:34
07/22/01 Sun
..if not the funniest show overall, was at the very end of Fear,
Itself. The gang is back at Giles' place after it's all over...apparently.
But then, over ominous music, Giles says:
I should have translated the Gaelic inscription under the illustration
of Gachnar.
Buffy: What's it say?
Giles: "Actual size."
Buffy's dismissive smile, shrug, & tilt of the head are perfect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> It's just a visual... -- Solitude1056, 21:35:35 07/22/01
Sun
The single highpoint for Giles in S4, IMO, was when he & Spike
were rushing to catch Ethan. Suddenly, Giles spies Maggie Walsh
walking down the street. He commands Spike to stop the car, at
which point he jumps out & chases Maggie down the street. She
screams like, well, a girl, and runs off. Giles returns, a very
satisfied smirk upon his demony face. Truly an image that had
me laughing so hard I fell off the sofa. I kid you not - it was
a long time coming for poor Giles, who was so beset & left-behind
that season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yup, one of my favorite moments in the show........
-- Rufus, 23:17:00 07/22/01 Sun
I also enjoyed the fact that he chased that "fishwife"
then got back into the car like he had dropped off some drycleaning.....:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Anya & Spike -- Solitude1056, 07:58:44 07/23/01 Mon
Been trying to find it, and finally did... Where the Wild Things
Are. Anya's out alone after an argument with Xander, when all
of a sudden...
A FIGURE leaps out from the shadows, GROWLING. Anya SCREAMS. It's
SPIKE, in full VAMP-FACE. Mid-snarl, he recognizes Anya and slumps,
disappointed.
SPIKE Oh. It's you.
He MORPHS OUT OF VAMP-FACE.
ANYA Spike. What are you doing? You made me yell really high.
SPIKE (encouraged) Hey, yeah. I did. I scared you. Give me money.
ANYA I'm not paying you for scaring me.
SPIKE You're not "paying" me. I'm robbing you.
ANYA Oh. Well that's just ludicrous. You can't hurt me because
you've got a chip in your brain. Also, I like my money the way
it is when it's mine.
She moves to push past him but he blocks her, GROWLING.
ANYA (cont'd) Now come on. You're not even bumpy anymore.
Spike feels his face.
SPIKE Oh. I was, just a minute ago. Hang on, get me mad again.
Anya glares at him.
ANYA Does that really work? Scaring people into giving you their
money?
SPIKE Yeah, it works! Keeps me in blood and beers. Plus, you know,
funny. Watching the little humans quail.
ANYA I'm beginning to understand why you're so friendless.
SPIKE Look who's talking! I don't see droopy-boy on yer arm. Did
he have better things to do?
A
friendly contest involving S6 speculation.... -- voyageofbeagle,
19:31:26 07/23/01 Mon
Speculation about Season 6 is kicking in hard, spoilers are popping
up, there's no new episodes for a good 2.5 months, and it's hot
as hell here in the heartland. Anyone interested in a friendly
contest involving S6?
Here's what I propose. Everyone who is interested could name,
say, 5 things that they think are going to happen next season.
For instance, your list could be:
Xander develops a "super power" Giles gets a love interest
Buffy remains single throughout the season Tara & Willow break
up Dawn indulges in delinquent behavior
And so on.
Against the rules would be picking things that have already happened
(Anya refers to her & Xander's sex life, Giles nervously sputters,
Spike is in love with Buffy, Buffy kills a demon, Tara and Willow
cuddle and act cute).
We could post them the Ex. Scoobies site, and at the end of Season
6, bow down and praise those with the most correct calls.
Anyone interested?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> My answers (speculation & a bit of spoilerish info- read
at your own risk if you're spoiler-free.) -- Wiccagrrl, 20:19:47
07/23/01 Mon
Humm...ok, here goes...
Buffy will realize she does have some feelings for Xander, causing
some "my best friends wedding"- like issues with regards
to the X/A wedding.
Amy will be deratted and will team up with Willow in the "darkest
magicks" department.
Tension/fight/possible *short-term* breakup between W/T. (Probably
regarding Wills use of magic) But, we'll get very clearly implied
(if not an actual bedroom scene) make-up sex when they do patch
things up.
Custody fight over Dawn with either Child Protective Services
or Hank.
Giles will still be an active pressence in the Scooby Gang. He'll
be going back to England (at least for a while) but he'll return
to Sunnydale when needed and to keep tabs on the gang. Also, if-and-when
X/A get married, I'm guessing Giles gives the bride away and Willow
for best man.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> My speculations -- spoiler free -- d'Herblay, 21:23:56 07/23/01
Mon
Here fortune seems to favor the timid. So I offer two sets:
A)Plausible predictions 1. Xander gets cold feet 2. Anya replaces
Willow as go-to gal on the computer 3. Dawn commandeers Spike's
coat, looks cute as a bug 4. Ethan Rayne returns 5. Dawn has her
first kiss -- and no one turns evil!
B)Wild speculation 1. Tara shows up for her first day of Victorian
Literature only to meet Professor Spike! 2. Riley, infected with
an evil brain fungus, returns to take revenge on the one who took
Buffy from him -- Dawn! 3. Spike trades information on Angel to
Wolfram & Hart in exchange for legal documentation proving he
is the first cousin of the Summers girls, thus enabling him to
become Dawn's legal guardian! 4. Someone of Hispanic descent moves
to Sunnydale! 5. Joss writes and directs an episode that's nothing
but Kabuki!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Professor Spike!! Hee-hee-hee! -- Marie, 03:36:38
07/24/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My speculations -- spoiler free -- OnM, 08:17:52
07/24/01 Tue
To my knowledge, Spike has never told anyone, even Buffy, that
the coat is a trophy from a Slayer that he killed. I wonder about
his reaction if he found Dawn wearing it?
My guess is that he would be appalled, and after pulling the coat
off of her, he would finally confess as to what it represents.
(Dawn is shocked, but now understands why he is so upset that
she was wearing it).
The question then is, does he destroy the coat, put it away but
not wear it, or continue to wear it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A friendly contest involving S6 speculation.... -- Liquidram,
23:35:26 07/23/01 Mon
1. After healing/drinking/feeling so sorry for himself (can't
be bad; unsuccessful at being good) Spike gets a good talking-to
from Willow or Tara, recovers and takes over patrolling with the
occasional Scoobie.
2. Giles/Whomever is given temporary guardianship of Dawn allowing
her to stay in her house with Xander & Anya moving in (and possibly
Spike) while the search for Hank is on. Spike also begans to train
her in self-defense. Giles eventually moves back to Sunnydale
fulltime when his series is cancelled.
3. The X/A wedding never happens, but not because of Xander. Anya
finds herself attracted physically to another male (regular character
(God NO) or someone new... maybe Magic Box customer) and begins
to question whether she wants to settle down in the only relationship
she has ever had since becoming human. She goes bye-bye to find
herself and Xander is so broken up, he goes ...
4. Commando, patrolling with Spike and killing with a vengence
until ...
5. Willow starts to spend more time with him comforting him as
very close friends do which causes some jealousy rifts in her
and Tara's relationship. Rifts which may not be healed in time
to keep Willow on the lighter side of magic. Tara may disappear
from the scene. Hopefully not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A friendly contest involving S6 speculation.... -- Marie,
03:50:07 07/24/01 Tue
1. Agree, Amy finally gets de-ratted, gets mad after being arrested
for public indecency and sues Willow for Wiccan Malpractice.
2. Anya and Xander's wedding does go ahead, but only after some
serious disagreements caused by Willow's re-surfacing jealousy,
which in turn causes a rift with Tara, who shows she does have
a temper after all with some serious mojo of her own.
3. Spike moves into the Summers' basement, and is the first to
see the returned Buffy.
4. Buffy and Spike share some serious kisses, but she is reluctant
to take it further because of her doubts about him, causing rows
and disturbances among all the Gang.
5. Dawn still has a crush on Spike, and is peeved that Buffy rejects
him. She meets a 'bad boy' in school and starts cutting classes
and staying out late, but Spike sorts her out with some straight
Spike-talk.
6. Giles meets an old flame in Britain, and decides, reluctantly,
that he wants to stay there and start a family.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Wiccan Malpractice! ROFL! -- Solitude1056, 08:00:55
07/24/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A friendly contest involving S6 speculation....
-- OnM, 08:23:16 07/24/01 Tue
I like #3, esp. if Buffy does return 'spontaneously' rather than
being 'conjured' in some manner.
For some reason it just makes sense to me that Spike would move
into the Summer's basement, dunno why. Interesting...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hmm... do the Summers get cable? -- Solitude1056,
08:54:26 07/24/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike in Buffy's basement -- mundusmundi,
13:08:49 07/24/01 Tue
Then he really would be beneath her! (Though it would be a step
up from the doghouse.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A friendly contest involving S6 speculation.... -- Malandanza,
07:42:38 07/24/01 Tue
1. Amy's return results in Willow spending quality time with her
old friend engaging in magical pursuits of dubious morality. Tara
becomes jealous and worried, while Willow belittles her concerns
and stresses that Amy is just an old friend -- strife builds between
the couple and reaches a crisis point toward the end of the season
with a break-up followed by attempted suicide by Tara.
2. A minor spell is involved in keeping Dawn with the Scoobies
-- clouding the minds of the Child Protective Services social
workers. I do not think that the Buffybot would be able to retain
custody -- remember that Dawn's councillor/principal told Buffy
that she would lose custody if Dawn missed any more school --
just before the ill-fated road trip.
3. The X/A wedding almost ends disastrously (interfering friends,
Anya's concerns about the cost, etc.)-- then a sudden reconciliation
results in an elopement and marriage at a Justice of the Peace
without any of their friends present (especially not Willow --
who is not happy with the wedding).
4. With Buffy dead, the Watchers Council reneges on its agreements
with Giles -- he will not receive any back pay (and has not yet
received any due to red tape), he is kicked off the Council again
and forced to return to England.
5. Spike finds a Buffy look-a-like to console himself and (as
usual) treats her very badly. When Buffy returns, she is more
spiritual and less emotional -- she is able to see Spike's sick
obsession for her as what it is. There will be no Spike/Buffy
romance. Instead, Buffy begins dating Jonathan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A friendly contest involving S6 speculation....
-- OnM, 08:07:22 07/24/01 Tue
I really like #1-- this is the best reasoning I've heard yet about
how friction could grow between Willow and Tara. I don't agree
with the suicide though, it strikes me as out of character for
someone who would have the bones in her hand pulverized and subsequently
be brain-sucked to protect her friends. A person with that kind
of inner strength and resilence is unlikely to commit suicide,
no matter how emotionally damaged.
The others are interesting. I disagree with #5, although I don't
see a B/S ship either. I think the relationship they established
in 'The Gift' is exactly the way it will stay-- she grants him
a certain measure of respect and comradeship, he accepts that
she doesn't love him:
"I know that I'm a monster. I know that you don't love me.
But you treat me like a man..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: A friendly contest involving S6 speculation....
-- Wiccagrrl, 08:53:37 07/24/01 Tue
I agree- a suicide attempt by Tara seems way out of character.
The girl's been through a lot in her life, and made it through
more or less intact. She's a survivor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: A friendly contest involving S6 speculation....
-- Malandanza, 09:52:18 07/24/01 Tue
"I agree- a suicide attempt by Tara seems way out of character.
The girl's been through a lot in her life, and made it through
more or less intact. She's a survivor."
I think you are underestimating the depth of Tara's emotional
attachment to Willow. Although Tara is a woman of few words, she
has had some of the most powerful, if understated, lines regarding
her devotion to Willow. Tara's world is entirely Willow-centric.
What happens after a break-up? Remember in "Lovers Walk"
that Willow and Xander got custody of their mutual friends --
Oz and Cordelia got left out. Oz had his musician friends to fall
back on and Cordelia had her inner bitca to pull her through,
but does Tara even know anyone outside of the Scoobies? Here's
a scene from "Family" where her brother comments on
Tara's socializing skills (from the shooting script):
DONNY: What, alla you hang out? (to Tara, playfully) That's more
people than you MET in high school. (to the others) Tara wasn't
too social back when. I don't think she spoke till she was eight
--
Tara doesn't have anyone in her life but Willow -- she has burned
some bridges with her family (to be with Willow). Would she even
have a place to stay? Can you imagine her getting a job as a waitress
(like Buffy did in "Anne") to support herself? What
about lingering effects from the Glory induced insanity?
I also do not see Tara as a particularly stong character. Her
relationships with her family, with Willow and with her friends
have been unequal at best. She is meek and accpeting. She is easily
bullied (her father, the Wiccans, Faith as Buffy, Willow). In
"Family," It is Buffy who lends Tara the strength to
stay in Sunnydale -- in most other cases, Tara draws her strength
from Willow (even her magic is stronger when they are together).
I see Tara's willingness to die by Glory's hand as one part resignation
and three parts sacrifice for Willow's sake (i.e., not to save
Dawn for Dawn or Buffy's sake, but to save Dawn because Willow
would want that). I have no trouble imagining that a woman willing
to face annihilation for Willow's sake would not want to live
without her. Any break-up will leave Tara alone, bereft of any
human comforts. In the face of such emotional devastation, I do
not think suicide is beyond question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: A friendly contest involving
S6 speculation.... -- Wiccagrrl, 18:38:55 07/24/01 Tue
Well, I get what you're saying, but, as much as I happen to be
a W/T shipper, I still don't see Tara attempting suicide. I don't
underestimate Tara's devotion to Willow, but I do think she has
a strong moral compass/inner strength that is there regardless
of Willow. Also, depending on how things went down with whatever
a potential fight/breakup would be, it actually isn't out of the
question that Willow could find herself isolated and that the
Scoobs wouldn't necessarilly turn their backs on Tara. A lot would
depend on the circumstances, but a suicidal Tara just doesn't
fit for me.
I also disagree that standing up to Glory was completely, or even
mostly, Willow-centric. I think she genuinely cares for Dawn,
and more importantly knew that Glory getting Dawn could spell
the end of the world. She was doing what she felt was right- it
happened to be in line with what Willow would want, so there wasn't
that conflict. I guess we'll see what Tara's really made of when/if
what she feels is right/necessary comes into direct conflict with
what Willow wants/needs. (Which I think will be a much bigger
internal conflict for her in some ways than her own well being.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A friendly contest involving S6 speculation....
-- Cynthia, 16:21:13 07/24/01 Tue
1. Xander and Willow spend a passionate night together out of
their grief for Buffy, Xander feel guilt, Willow gets pregant
(or at least has a scare).
2. After Buffy comes back, Buffy no longer sees Spike as a "monster"
and Spike no longer (as least for a while)acts like one. Buffy
sees more of the "William" side of Spike. Spike gets
to see more of Buffy's "softer" side. Exposing the sides
of themselves that they have kept from each other (getting "out
of the box") they are becoming more and more attracted to
each other when...
3. Somewhere along the line, Spike finds out that Buffy's in terrible
danger (actually, when is she not? LOL) from an evil from which
there is no escape. To rescue her, he commits a dangerous, almost
lethal act that is seen by all others as a betrayal. And Spike
is not able to explain his actions until the danger has passed.
By then, no one believes him (well at least until season 7).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> You're psychic... -- rowan, 18:35:24 07/24/01
Tue
Cynthia:
I totally agree with you about #3. There will be something that
seems like Spike betrayal, but is really Spike trying to protect
Buffy or someone in the SG. Dawn may be the only one to believe
Spike. He will sacrifice his improved reputation for the SG in
order to do the "right thing" and protect whoever it
is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A friendly contest involving S6 speculation.... -- dream
of the consortium, 08:50:51 07/24/01 Tue
A. gets pregnant, and consequently gets most of the funniest lines
next season. Joss gets to take on yet another of the great "series-killing"
cliches and deal with the classic scenario of the high school
group of friends who follow very different paths, some onto college
and some immediately into family life. Xander and Anya have to
grow up fast. Xander decides to resign from the frontlines of
the demon battles. The demons of course have other ideas.
Willow is approached by a Council of Witches or something like
that - the one she should have registered with? They come requesting
her leadership, full of prophecies about a great witch. Tara is
not invited to join and is mightily peeved by Willow's "more-powerful-than-thou"
attitude. The prophecies convince her she is supposed to raise
Buffy from the dead, and she does so, only to find that this was
part of some elaborate plot that was NOT for the benefit of the
good. (Prophecies and Councils are tricky things.)
Giles starts spending more time in England as the results of a
wild romance kindled while on a demon research trip to someplace
exotic and hot. He takes the trip to help with the grieving process
and falls in love madly with someone gorgeous and brilliant, who
worships him. Giles deserves this.
Dawn tries to be Buffy, learning martial arts, trying to patrol,
etc. She puts herself and her friends in danger a little too often
as a result. Ultimately, she learns that the Key has a different
destiny. (Okay, so that's a cheat, because I haven't even a guess
what that destiny is.)
Spike and Amy, de-ratted and fairly powerful (after all, she was
powerful enough to begin with, and she's been watching Willow
for a long time) take over patrolling, as Buffy in her new, post-rebirth
state has bigger things to do than nightly vamp clean-up. What
those bigger things are, again, I don't know, but will set the
stage for a final, eternal closure of the hell-mouth in season
seven.
If even one of these actually happens, I expect a Californian
snowfall during a total solar eclipse at the next graduation I
attend.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A friendly contest involving S6 speculation.... -- MPN,
08:57:00 07/24/01 Tue
'kay, here goes nothing:
1)A powerful demon bent on making Anya pay for her past crimes
as a vengeance demon reveals her sordid past to Xander, forcing
him to reconsider his relationship with her.
2)Ethan returns for revenge by casting a powerful spell that turns
Buffy, Xander, Willow, and Anya into children. Spike is forced
to play babysitter as Giles and Tara try to find a spell to undo
it. Hilarity ensues.
3) Dawn finds Spike's cigarettes lying around and is caught smoking
one. Spike and Buffy argue over how to punish her, leading Buffy
to realize just how much Spike cares about her sister and bringing
the two of them closer together.
4) The season's big bad acts under the pretense of being a good
guy so as to earn Buffy and the Scoobies' trust before betraying
them.
5) Dawn remains terrified of the destructive power within her
and tries to find a spell that will separate her human form from
the power of the key forever.
-Thanks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A friendly contest involving S6 speculation....
-- Nina, 09:40:09 07/24/01 Tue
1- I think that during the summer we will learn that Willow has
been trying to derat Amy (because she feels guilty about Buffy
and wants to save someone else). There will be a parallel between
Amy and Buffy's return and the two will bond.
2- Dawn will continue to steal little obects until she is caught.
Buffy will ask Spike to back off a little from his relationship
with Dawn because she thinks he is responsible for her behavior.
3- Witches will come to town (they may be the big bad too) and
magic in general will become even more important (maybe more than
slaying).
4- Spike around the end of February sweeps will be able to bite
again and the chip will go bye-bye!
5- Buffy will work full time and will be paid for it.
Not very original... but I believe some of them are very possible!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: These are great! -- voyageofbeagle, 10:19:50 07/24/01
Tue
I'm keeping track of everyone's guesses. Time to add my own to
the mix:
-A love interest for Giles (who we will meet on the show) will
be one his main reasons for a return to England
- Tara & Willow will break up over Willow's mis-use of power,
but will get back together
- The Big Bad will be a human who can control an army of demons
- Dawn will have a mini-arc as a juvenile delinquent
- Finally (this is the biggest stretch) it will be revealed that
Spike (unknowingly) was also used in the creation of the Key,
and is, technically Dawn's father (clearing the way for some grumbling
on his part that he has a kid with Buffy and didn't get to do
any of the "fun stuff"!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A friendly contest involving S6 speculation.... -- vampire
hunter D, 10:24:00 07/24/01 Tue
1)Dawn's rebellious streak continues 2) Spike watches over Dawn,
maybe even coming to her rescue after some rebellious act puts
her in serious danger 3)more fights between Tara and Willow. A
break up is a possability, but hopefully won't last long. 4)Chaos
ensues at Xander's bachelor party. (hey, wouldn't it be funny
to see Willow and/or Tara show up, but just to watch the stripper.)
Maybe the stripper turns out to be a demon or something. 5)Anya
gets pregnant. But don't expect an ex-demon to have a normal pregnancy.
6)More on the origins and history of both the Slayers and the
Key.
I've also had some ideas of stuff to happen, but that probably
only exist in my head (I know it's probably too late, but Joss,
if you're reading this, feel free to use these): A)Dawn's the
first gang memebr to see Buffy after her return, but unfortunately
Buffy's enrty interupts Dawn's first kiss (Buffy:"I'm sorry.
Did I interupt samething?) B)More on Tara's past. Like maybe a
visit by an exgirlfriend or something.
BTW, for this contest, specualtion on Amy's deratting should be
disqualified since Joss has said it definitly will happen. Also,
I noticed MPN's response, and #4 looks like an idea I posted a
while back, if anyone remembers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A friendly contest involving S6 speculation....
-- John Burwood, 11:57:14 07/24/01 Tue
My spec for S6 is that Buffy Mark 2 will fit the announced theme
of S6 & be much more adult. Joss said a season or two back that
his characters were getting more & more like the actors - eg Cordelia
nicer, Willow sexier,and Giles cooller. SMG has influenced her
character from day one by making TV Buffy much smarter than the
movie Buffy. If Buffy gets much more like SMG, adult, organized,
& workaholic - it would make sense of being Buffy but different.
And give new options. A more adult Buffy would not need Giles
much, a highly organized Buffy might provoke Dawn into rebellion,
a workaholic Buffy might have less time for her friends who remain
less adult causing rifts. Odds on I am wrong, but IMO it has possibilities.
Anyone agree or disagree?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I give up!!!! (spoilers) -- Nina, 13:40:50 07/24/01
Tue
"BTW, for this contest, specualtion on Amy's deratting should
be disqualified since Joss has said it definitly will happen."
Sigh!!!!!! I thought a speculation thread wouldn't be a threat
to staying unspoiled... but I give up! I guess I was playing with
the fire here! I'll stick to the 1st anniversary thread!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Oh, I'm sorry! -- vampire hunter D, 14:02:31
07/24/01 Tue
Sorry, I wasn't thinking. I'll try nor to do it again.
btw, EC's gonna spend time as Anyanka the vengence demon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I give up!!!! (spoilers) -- Wiccagrrl, 18:47:55
07/24/01 Tue
Sorry you got spoiled. To be fair, though, for those of us who
are spoiler hos, when asked to speculate on what's gonna happen,
it's tough not to deal with some of the tidbits we've heard. I
did label mine, though ;)
Also, someone mentioned that spoilerish tidbits perhaps should
be disqualified. Well, if you only deal with the spoiler then
that's true. But if you speculate on the hows or what that event
may lead to, then I think it's legit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> spex 'n' stuff -- mundusmundi, 13:49:10 07/24/01 Tue
1. The season premiere will be titled Remembrance (vy? vy not?)
and will have 2-3 flashbacks interspersed throughout the episode,
a la Becoming Part I, that will show the events of the SG shortly
after Buffy's plunge in The Gift. Should any of this Buffybot
stuff actually prove true, this will hopefully lend some clarity
to the Scoobs' decisions following the tragedy (e.g., what to
do with the body, etc.)
2. Xander and Anya's wedding will occur offscreen, so that Joss
can subvert yet another staple TV cliche. The hijinks will follow
afterward, when their reception is crashed by her angry demon
ex-lovers.
3. Dawn will get a real boyfriend, somebody close to her age and
who has a pulse.
4. Tara will stake her first vamp (she hasn't yet, has she?).
This will be Harmony, who attacks Willow after Wil concocts a
spell that makes her temporarily lose her witchy powers.
5. The Buffybot will find the Blue Fairy, make a wish, and become
a real girl.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: spex 'n' stuff -- anom, 18:57:36 07/24/01 Tue
"Xander and Anya's wedding will occur offscreen, so that
Joss can subvert yet another staple TV cliche. The hijinks will
follow afterward, when their reception is crashed by her angry
demon ex-lovers."
I was about to say "and what about *his* angry demon ex-lovers?"--after
all, not for nothing did Willow say he was a demon magnet--but
then I realized they're all dead. So between his demon ex-lovers
& his ex-demon lover, now mortal, I guess that means all the demons
he's been involved with are...Shanshu!
PS: would Cordelia come back to town for the wedding? would they
invite her?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> None of them have met the new, improved Cordy...
-- Wisewoman, 19:55:32 07/24/01 Tue
She and Xander had a pretty painful break-up, and even though
he paid off her prom dress, I don't think she's likely to be invited
to the wedding...to say nothing of the "no crossover"
state of affairs.
And, if Cordy was invited to Xander's wedding, I don't think she'd
go...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Here are my crazy guesses -- rowan, 18:31:56 07/24/01 Tue
Okay, here are my 13 points of speculation for S6:
1. Xander and Anya do marry, but not on the originally planned
date.
2. Buffy and Spike share a "real" (i.e. sexual) kiss.
3. Hank Summers does not appear and does not become Dawn's guardian.
4. Spike's chip stops functioning. He and Dawn hide the truth
for a period of time from the other Scoobies.
5. Willow and Tara do not break up.
6. The BuffyBot does not reappear.
7. Amy is not de-ratted.
8. Willow's magick harms someone innocent.
9. Spike finally does "something heroic" and saves Dawn
from physical harm.
10. Buffy & Spike do not have sex.
11. Dawn begins to manifest slayer traits (strength, agility,
accelerated healing).
12. Spike backslides and feeds from someone, although he does
not kill anyone.
13. Buffy is not resurrected by Willow; although it may initially
appear this way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Okay, now if I could only follow rules (here is my
final cut of 5) -- rowan, 18:41:56 07/24/01 Tue
Okay, if I'm limited to five, here they are (cross-referenced
to post above):
1. Hank Summers does not appear and does not become Dawn's guardian
(#3).
2. Spike's chip stops functioning. He and Dawn hide the truth
for a period of time from the other Scoobies (#4).
3. Dawn begins to manifest slayer traits (strength, agility, accelerated
healing) (#11).
4. Buffy is not resurrected by Willow; although it may initially
appear this way (#13).
5. Willow's magick harms someone innocent (#8).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Anniversary Character Posting Party Update -- rowan, 16:40:31
07/23/01 Mon
There is still more fun to come!
Schedule:
07/26/01 Faith Brian
08/02/01 Dawn mundusmundi
08/09/01 Buffy Nina
08/16/01 Anya Wisewoman
08/23/01 Cordelia Solitude1056 08/23/01 Wesley Sam Gamgee
08/30/01 Xander Lurker Becoming Restless
09/06/01 Oz Sssaaammm
09/13/01 Darla Slayrunt 09/13/01 Lindsay Liquidram
09/20/01 The Host verdantheart
09/27/01 Joyce Shawn 09/27/01 The Mayor d'Herblay
10/04/01 Doyle Liquidram
Still Not Spoken For:
Gunn Kate Villains (The Master, The Annointed One, Adam, etc.)
Minor or recurring characters (Jonathan, Amy, etc.)
Guidelines:
1. One thread per character please, so that we can keep our great
thoughts in one place and reduce board traffic.
2. rowan is the coordinator of the event.
3. Originators of a character thread are selected based on who
volunteers first by e-mail or post to rowan (with all attempts
to resolve conflicts peaceably).
4. A thread can address any aspect of the character that you find
informative, illustrative, illuminating, invigorating, and/or
irritating. Analysis based on sound research into eps and shooting
scripts preferred.
5. One character thread will be posted per week, to stretch the
chewy philosophical goodness as far as possible. rowan will publish
a schedule periodically so we all know what's going on.
6. The naming convention for posts is: Character Name: 1st Anniversary
Character Posting Party.
7. Masq will immortalize your posts on the website for posterity's
enjoyment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Last Posts: Spike in Archive 1, Drusilla in Archive 2 --
rowan, 16:41:35 07/23/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Next up: Faith by Brian on 7/26 -- rowan, 16:43:58 07/23/01
Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Counting Down From 66.6 -- Thanks! -- d'Herblay, 17:22:27
07/23/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party Update -- Nina,
19:09:45 07/23/01 Mon
Rowan, I just wanted to let you know that I seem to have a lot
of trouble with my Word program. I can't type my Buffy thread
without causing my computer to freeze. So if I find out that I
am still unable to use the program in a week I'll ask a delay
until I can fix the problem. All right with you? :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party Update
-- Wisewoman, 19:44:09 07/23/01 Mon
I'm pretty sure I'll be done with Anya by then. I don't mind moving
up a week if Nina's got computer trouble. Just let me know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party
Update -- rowan, 20:19:43 07/23/01 Mon
That would be great!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party Update
-- rowan, 20:18:22 07/23/01 Mon
No problem. Although we may send some of the Existential Scoobies
into some sort of fit if they have to wait for Buffy (only kidding!).
Do you think the Powers that Be are at work here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hey, if we can wait until OCTOBER for new eps,
we can wait another week for the Buffy Post! :) -- Humanitas,
20:30:26 07/23/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Hey, if we can wait until OCTOBER
for new eps, we can wait another week for the Buffy Post! :) --
Nina, 09:16:18 07/24/01 Tue
That little problem I have really bugs me! Thanks Wisewoman if
it's okay for you to switch. :) I'll keep you inform!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Too true! -- rowan, 18:11:24 07/24/01
Tue
Isn't it amazing that the reason there was a late start last year
(for network programming; not BtVS) was because of the Olympics
(which were being held in Australia and therefore occurring during
the Northern Hemisphere's fall) and the networks desire to avoid
putting new programming up against the coverage. Now, what's the
excuse for this year? Or have we automatically now moved to October
for the start of each new season of programming?
The moral/ethical
dilemma of the Buffybot (*S6 spoiler/spec*) -- OnM, 07:46:34 07/24/01
Tue
The idea for this question originally came from a post that The
Godfather made over at the Cross & Stake last week. I thought
it was a wonderful question, and asked Shawn to consider posting
it over here at ATPo for us to chew on.
Either my response was missed, or the GF was busy on other projects,
or whatever, but I'd like to post this topic.
In the movie A.I., we have seen yet another take on the questions
of whether or not to treat an artificial lifeform in such a way
that renders it certain basic 'human' rights. How would you think
this would apply to the Buffybot, if the 'bot exhibited characteristics
that suggested sentience? You will recall that Buffy treated April
in a human-like manner, so Joss is obviously aware of this conundrum,
and through Buffy, perhaps already commented on it.
A respondent to GF's original post stated that it all comes down
to sentience-- i.e., self-awareness in the organism in question--
and I agree.
Let's assume for the moment that Joss does elect to bring the
Buffybot into the story in the early parts of S6. Do you think
the A.I. theme will become an issue? If so, how? If the 'bot begins
to exhibit signs of sentience, do the Scoobies thereafter have
any right to terminate it's existence? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> clarifications on the bots -- Solitude1056, 07:57:15 07/24/01
Tue
April seemed to be aware that she wasn't entirely human, and that
there was something different about her. I don't know if it was
ever stated outright, but I got the impression she was aware she
was created specifically for Warren and only Warren, and her sole
purpose was to love him. The Buffybot, on the other hand, was
unconvinced when Buffy called her a robot. "Oh, I don't think
I'm a robot," I believe she said - and here I was thinking
SMG couldn't get more perky. Yikes. But my point is that the two
bots we've seen so far don't seem to be the best comparison, because
their creators had different purposes. Warren didn't care if April
knew she existed only for certain things, since he wasn't trying
to duplicate a "real" person. Spike, on the other hand...
And I put "terminating a bot's existence" in the same
category with "killing a vampire" - because first you
have to peel off the 15 feet of emotional turmoil and trauma that
results from seeing a loved one's face after that person has died.
Whether they're faked as a bot, or faked by a demon, it's the
same: the person is dead, but the attachment to the original can
be a strong motivation for not getting rid of the replacement.
So first, ya gotta get rid of the baggage around bot-issues. That
was a lot easier to do while Buffy was still alive & the bot wasn't
the only chance anyone was gonna get to hear her voice again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: clarifications on the bots -- anom, 12:05:58 07/24/01
Tue
"The Buffybot, on the other hand, was unconvinced when Buffy
called her a robot. "Oh, I don't think I'm a robot,"
I believe she said...."
Yeah, she did, but it seemed jarring to me--didn't jibe w/her
asking Spike earlier if he wanted her to "start this program
over." Which itself was a little strange, since I wouldn't
have expected her to ask that unless something was going wrong
w/the, ahem, "scenario." Anyway, there seems to be evidence
on both sides. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: clarifications on the bots -- verdantheart,
06:46:12 07/25/01 Wed
That assumes that the Buffybot is aware the the "start the
program over" bit is not natural for humans. My impression
is that the Buffybot, while having AI, has limited awareness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: clarifications on the bots -- Solitude1056,
08:30:14 07/25/01 Wed
Actually, I took that as the bot version (IOW, the awkward stitled
version) of saying, "hey, wanna do that again?" Which
is a very human thing to ask, when teasing a lover after tussling.
It's simply that the Bot wasn't completely programmed given her
ability to "learn," so telling her beforehand the precise
phrasing isn't likely. Instead, I figured she was programmed to
ask whether a lover wanted to do whatever, again, just as much
as she was given the basic information about each friend but not
too many details about how to work this information into a conversation,
if at all. "You're my friend. And you're recently gay."
(But I'll always love the Bot saying to Anya, "Anya! How
is your money?" It was the first time I think anything remotely
resembling Buffy really connected with Anya. A bit sad that it
took the bot to do it.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Another Buffybot issue -- Kerri, 08:41:35 07/24/01 Tue
There has been spoilers about the buffybot being kept in sunnydale
after Buffy's death. Now even if she could be programmed to have
Buffy's characteristics is it right to keep her around? I think
in a way it dishonors Buffy's memory. I also don't know how Dawn
could stand to live with a replica of her dead sister. I just
hope that we saw the last of the Buffybot when Glory kicked off
her head in the Gift. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Two points I've been pondering... (Spoilery) -- Wisewoman,
09:32:21 07/24/01 Tue
1. If the bot is still around in Season 6, there's the possibility
that it will "develop" some sort of sentience. I'm reminded
of the episode of ST:TNG, fairly early in the series, when Data
had to defend his existence before a military tribunal that (I
think) wanted to deactivate him. Picard was able to prove to them
that, as a sentient being, Data had the right to "life."
2. Lotta talk on the 'net these days (sites like Principial Cybernetica)
on the concept of uploading, or virtual immortality, that would
allow humans to upload their memories, personalities, thought
processes, etc., into a computer and, in effect, become immortal.
If Buffy's soul/spirit/id/whatever is trapped in the interdimensional
portal, then there's at least a chance that it could be salvaged
and placed inside the Buffybot, thereby fulfilling all the various
hints Joss has given us: SMG will be back; Buffy is dead; Buffy
is rotting in her grave; Buffy will be back, but different. However,
in this case there'd have to be some re-engineering to get the
bot up to Slayer standard--she obviously wasn't as strong as the
real thing in the fight with Glory. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> uploading Buffy? (spoilery) -- mundusmundi, 10:32:02
07/24/01 Tue
2. Lotta talk on the 'net these days (sites like Principial Cybernetica)
on the concept of uploading, or virtual immortality, that would
allow humans to upload their memories, personalities, thought
processes, etc., into a computer and, in effect, become immortal.
If Buffy's soul/spirit/id/whatever is trapped in the interdimensional
portal, then there's at least a chance that it could be salvaged
and placed inside the Buffybot, thereby fulfilling all the various
hints Joss has given us: SMG will be back; Buffy is dead; Buffy
is rotting in her grave; Buffy will be back, but different. However,
in this case there'd have to be some re-engineering to get the
bot up to Slayer standard--she obviously wasn't as strong as the
real thing in the fight with Glory.
At AICN somebody claiming to be "in the know" in Hollywood
dissed the posted spoilers and hinted how Buffy will supposedly
come back..."Think Buffy v.2.0" he wrote. Didn't think
much of it until Joss's comment in a recent interview that Willow
would get back into computers this season. Hmmmm.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: uploading Buffy? (spoilery) -- vampire hunter
D, 13:14:22 07/24/01 Tue
wouldn't surprise me if this turned out to be the the theory that
is used. I thought the Buffybot was just a one-time gag for an
episode until they brought it back. So it's probable that they
already intended a greater purpose to the robot than we've already
seen. It would also explain why all the red herring spoilers we've
seen involve the robot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: uploading Buffy? (spoilery) -- Cynthia,
16:01:46 07/24/01 Tue
I don't like this idea.
One: We have seen how easily it was to damage the robot, how restricted
its energy resources are. What would be the point in restoring
Buffy's soul to something that was in it's own way so fragile?
Two: Buffy would detest it. Just the idea of a bot in her image
upset her. Imagine if she was stuck in it?
Three: What about the powers of a slayer. Would they continue
with a non-human form?
I think TPTB are going to somehow take the key out of Dawn and
use it to create a new body for Buffy's soul, essence (whatever).
Whether or not they key remains in the new body, well it could
go either way. One would get rid of the responsibility and dangers
that having the key brings. The other gives a slayer new and unique
abilities that would make her a "first of her kind".
Oh, Dawn would still exist, since she would have a soul and has
the right to exist and/or it's a reward to Dawn and Buffy for
what they had done. She just would no longer have the key inside
her. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Buffy becomes the key, hmmmm... -- Mike,
01:17:14 07/25/01 Wed
I like that. i have been pondering the long term future of the
show, and everything seems (apparently, therefore not definitely!)
to point to Dawn as the power of the key, being used to rid the
world of vampires for the next few hundred years.
If Buffy is made the key in the way you suggested, it would be
much more fitting for the central character of the show to BE
the power which ends the series once and for all... know what
I mean?
but i doubt it will happen, is just a nice thought is all! ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Puny Receptacle (Spoilage) -- Lurker Becoming Restless,
09:36:14 07/24/01 Tue
I think it could be an issue if they use the buffybot as a new
body for Buffy's soul (sorry, getting into reincarnation territory
here - if you don't want to go over this again, just ignore me).
This sounds crazy at first...unless you consider the symbolism
involved in Buffy's death and the robot.
When the buffybot first appeared, one of its functions (in a symbolic,
doppleganger kind of a way - not in a prurient, sex-toy kind of
a way) was to show that Buffy had become very cold and distant
to her friends since Joyce died - they couldn't tell the difference
between her and a robot. Later on, Buffy clearly got even worse
(catatonic in WOTW).
Now, it's often said that when somebody close to you dies, part
of you dies as well: maybe Buffy's death was symbolic of this
- it was an aspect of her that died (just don't ask me which one)
or something like that, anyway. Perhaps Buffy will begin to haunt
the Scoobies and they will realise that her soul is not at rest
as it should be - her journey (that some people have mentioned
below) isn't over. They will restore her but her body will be
rotting underground so they will put her soul into the buffybot.
God knows how things would progress from there.
Anyway, that is one way they could bring in the theme you were
referring to - not that I think for a minute that it will actually
happen.
On second thoughts, that sounds pretty stupid. Oh, well, we can
but try... ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I think we were busy posting similar thoughts at the
same time! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 09:45:24 07/24/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yeah - hey, good idea! -- Lurker Becoming Restless,
09:49:22 07/24/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Robots, a reflection of man? -- Rufus, 13:47:16 07/24/01
Tue
The Buffybot sure brought up much strife when it was first introduced
as an idea. I took the tone of IWMTLY as a hint of what was to
come in Intervention. April was made to love, unconditionally,
make Warren happy. As she was rather predictable Warren didn't
destroy her, he deserted her. When Buffy first considered the
bot she was afraid it could hurt someone. She then became more
angry at Warren for leaving April alone to "die". That
emotion from Buffy was facinating. We know the bot wasn't "real"
it only looked like a reflection of man, but Buffy treated April
in a kind way. They may have fought but the bot only fought to
protect what was hers. When Buffy and Warren were searching for
April, he mentioned that if he called her name it caused a feedback,
or like Buffy called it, pain. Who was the monster in the situation,
the man who created a life sized toy out of lonliness, or April
who was only created to love only to be cast off for not being
real. The Buffybot was created to love Spike. All the special
skills and history were his to have programed in. He never got
the chance to reject the Buffybot but he appeared to treat her
better than Warren did April. The Buffybot wasn't aware she wasn't
real, she was only created to love. One thing, with her skills
she was able to leave the crypt and go to slay vampires. She was
capable of going beyond programing and do the job of the Slayer.
She wasn't real but I didn't see any of the SG treat her in a
cruel way. She looked too close to the real thing. Just as Buffy
sat with April to wait for her to "die", the Buffybot
was treated in a kind way. What had my attention was the fact
of Spike treating the reflection of Buffy in a tender way, never
having done that sort of thing for over a hundred years. Was it
better than the real thing, no, but Spike still treated the Buffybot
in a kind fashion. Both bots are not real but they are a reflection
of someones hopes for love, how they were treated was a reflection
of humanity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yeah, sentience, that's the ticket.... -- rowan, 19:51:52
07/24/01 Tue
I would just chime in here to add that I agree that when we cross
the sentience line, we start dealing with an entity that must
be treated not as an object, but as an organism. It appeared to
me that both April and BuffyBot were capable of sense perception.
To treat April as Warren did (like a bicycle to be discarded when
he was tiring of riding) was in sharp, unfavorable contrast to
Buffy's compassion as she held her "death vigil" with
April. If the SG continues to utilize the BuffyBot (and really,
I hope they do not), there comes a point where I think the argument
should be made that she be treated like a sentient being and not
like a programmable robot/doll.
I'm very reminded of my reaction to AI. I distinctly remember
leaving the theatre thinking: 'Gigolo Joe and David are more real
than the humans in this movie.' I certainly felt April had more
value as a 'person' than Warren did, truth be told.
Remorse -- Kerri, 08:52:48 07/24/01 Tue
In looking at whether Spike is truly good one thing that makes
me lean towards no is the fact that he shows no remorse for all
the people he has killed. Angel doesn't just feel sorry, he is
constantly plagued by his actions when he didn't have his soul.
Spike doesn't have this. It is almost as though he lacks a conscience.
He is able to do good for the people he cares about; he even risks
his life for them. But is he truly good? To me a conscience is
more or less essential in being a good person. Spike does not
seem to care that he murdered so many people, and is still proud
of killing the slayers. I'm not certain whether Spike could have
this kind of remorse without a soul, but if he could then and
only then would I really believe he is good.
On the topic of remorse another character comes to mind: Anya.
Now I know she hasn't killed people the same way Spike and Angel
have, but she did hurt and maybe killed many men when she was
a demon. Eventhough Anya possesses a soul she seems to not even
care how many lives she ruined. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Remorse -- Earl Allison, 09:30:10 07/24/01 Tue
I suppose it depends on your definition of "good." I
agree with you, though, that Spike is a far cry from Angel, or
from anyone who has shown remorse, like Faith during her stint
in AtS. Spike may not be able to kill TODAY, but I see very little
that indicates that he wouldn't kill TOMORROW should the opportunity
present itself.
Personally, should Spike's chip ever fail, I wouldn't want to
be anywhere near him. The chip may prevent him from taking the
action of biting, but that's ALL it does -- in essence removing
his ability to do harm without impacting the inner desire. Angel
CAN bite and maim and kill, he simply chooses NOT to, and that
is the major difference between them. Spike can't act on his impulses
to do evil, wheras Angel can and makes a conscious decision NOT
to. He certainly drank from the girl at the Bronze that Dru killed
for him, and has yet to be remorseful over her, either. Until
I see Spike have the opportunity to kill or bite, to really WANT
TO, and choose not to, I can't see him as redeemed, or even starting
on that road.
Spike was more than willing to bite Willow soon after he was chipped,
despite talking to her -- indeed, he was even attempting to try
again.
Even so, his friendship with Buffy and the Scoobies doesn't really
prove anything. Vampires aren't mindless, ravenous beasts, we've
seen them work with and form allegiances with others. Dru and
Darla worked with Wolfram and Hart before turning on them and
Mr. Trick worked for the Mayor while he was still human. Spike
has merely accepted Buffy, Dawn and the others as friends and
comrades. There's still no indication he wouldn't bite someone
he didn't know if the opportunity arose, at least, not yet.
I think Spike KNOWS right from wrong, but unless it affects him
or those he cares about, he doesn't care. Like I said, even with
the chip deactivated, he might not bite Buffy or the Scoobies,
but I don't see him giving up human blood. The merest kernel of
a conscience might be there, but unless he develops it, shows
some remorse, he won't really change too much.
Anya is a more interesting case -- she seems sometimes to be so
far removed from humanity that she's almost incapable of remorse
only because she doesn't really understand what she did -- or
that she justifies it as fulfilling the wishes of others. She
enjoyed it, yes, but she was the proverbial bullet in the gun,
and the women who summoned her pulled the trigger.
Take it and run. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Remorse -- Humanitas, 09:33:59 07/24/01 Tue
This is a tricky one, that's for darn sure. Spike is a cynic of
the first water. From "Pangs:"
Spike : You won. All right? You came in and you killed them and
you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what
Caesar did, and he's not going around saying, "I came, I
conquered, I felt really bad about it." The history of the
world isn't people making friends. You had better weapons, and
you massacred them. End of story.
Not much room for remorse there. It's not so much that he thinks
it's morally right for the strong to prey on the weak. He takes
no moral stance on the subject at all. His point is that it's
inevitable, and there's no point in being appologetic about it.
It's the old saw about not getting upset at a snake for being
a snake. Similarly, you don't get mad at a vampire for just doing
what vampires do (eating people). You might well stake him, but
it's not a hatred situation.
Now, Angelus' behavior is another story. Spike was never impressed
by the elaborate 'art killings' that Angelus was into. To Spike,
there was no point. You kill because it's your nature to kill,
not in the service of some twisted aesthietic. If you want vampy
fame and glory, you kill something tougher, like a Slayer.
What's interesting about the chip is that it has changed Spike's
nature, allowing the more romantic side to be expressed in such
a way that humans can relate to it (hmm, a cynical romantic. No
wonder I like this guy). Because he cannot kill, he is slowly
coming 'round to a point where he no longer wants to kill, at
least not in the way he once did. Opperant conditioning is a lot
more powerful than we like to believe. Whether or not that conditioning
holds up once the chip is out remains to be seen.
So is Spike truly good? No. Not in the same way that Buffy is.
He has very little choice in his behavior. I think the best we
can say is that Spike is good now. He was evil in the past. Who
can say what he will be in the future? But it's pretty clear that
he is good now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> As always on this particular subject, I quite agree
with you. -- Liquidram, 10:55:39 07/24/01 Tue
As I have said before, if Spike wants to take someone out, he
does not allow the chip to stop him. He has proven he is willing
to endure the pain of the chip if it is the result of a greater
good. A few of the most common examples:
* punching Tara in the nose to prove her humanity. (An unorthodox
method, but he did it to protect his friends and at times I've
even wondered if he faked the pain to get her off the hook.)
* punching the KoB in "Spiral" to protect Buffy from
harm.
* and in a bizarre, yet strangely warm bonding moment between
the two further cementing their tenuous moves toward accepting
each other, Spike whacking Xander upside the head. "This
is gonna be worth it." ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: As always on this particular subject, I
quite agree with you. -- voyageofbeagle, 11:22:45 07/24/01 Tue
Good points. We also saw in "Crush" that Spike can kind
of measure the pain and decide if it's worth it ("It'll hurt
for about 2 hours, but she'll be dead a lot longer than that")
What's interesting is that the chip's direct result- physical
discomfort- has caused, or at least given the space for, emotional
discomfort- his moment of conflict before feeding with Dru at
the Bronze is an example.
With humans, this tends to work the other way. Ever been so upset
you've gotten a headache? Or felt so badly about something your
stomach hurt? The emotional distress causing the physical distress,
in these cases.
Hopefully this season we get to see if, once the physical pain
is removed, the emotional pain is still generated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: As always on this particular subject,
I quite agree with you. -- Humanitas, 11:35:25 07/24/01 Tue
"With humans, this tends to work the other way. Ever been
so upset you've gotten a headache? Or felt so badly about something
your stomach hurt? The emotional distress causing the physical
distress, in these cases."
I'd definitely say it works both ways in humans. I know when I'm
hungry or for some reason pysically uncomfortable, I can get pretty
cranky, much to the distress of thosae around me, alas. I think
the key here is to recognize that the physical and the emotional
are not as separate as we tend to imagine. They feed into one
another quite a bit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Remorse -- Cynthia, 15:41:02 07/24/01 Tue
Spike : You won. All right? You came in and you killed them and
you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what
Caesar did, and he's not going around saying, "I came, I
conquered, I felt really bad about it." The history of the
world isn't people making friends. You had better weapons, and
you massacred them. End of story.
If anything studing history has taught me one thing: one people's
worst enemy is another's hero.
I find it hard to judge Angel's 100+ years of remorsing to Spike's
year of change. They are certainly at different places and times.
Also, since the curse is to make Angel suffer, remorse would fit
right in. So is it the soul itself that causes the remorse? Or
is remorse another aspect of the curse? Can you gain (recover?)
your humanity without regret or remorse being part of it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Remorse -- Wisewoman, 18:09:23 07/24/01 Tue
"It's the old saw about not getting upset at a snake for
being a snake. Similarly, you don't get mad at a vampire for just
doing what vampires do (eating people)."
This is exactly the way I look at Spike's behaviour. He didn't
murder anybody, he fed off human beings because that's what vampires
hunt and eat. It's like saying the meat industry murders cows
(and I do know there are plenty of people who feel that way) when
there are still thousands upon thousands of people eating hamburgers.
Sharks who attack and devour swimmers aren't murderers, and neither
are vampires. They're a different, non-human species. We define
them as "bad" because we happen to be their food source.
We demonize sharks, and sometimes tigers and bears and other animals,
the same way. If they maim or kill us for food, then they are,
ipso facto, evil. Pretty anthrocentric (is that a word?) if you
ask me.
;o) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> only 'cause you asked... -- anom, 18:39:35 07/24/01
Tue
"Pretty anthrocentric (is that a word?) if you ask me."
Well, no, but close. It's anthropocentric. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thanks! (close, but again, no cigar...)
;o) -- Wisewoman, 19:28:19 07/24/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I think that's supposed to be
anthropomorphic. -- Deeva, 22:48:08 07/24/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> not exactly--wisewoman got
it right -- anom, 22:07:06 07/25/01 Wed
Anthropomorphic means attributing human characteristics/motivations
to nonhumans; anthropocentric means taking a human-centered point
of view. In a way, these can be opposites--if you're being anthropomorphic,
you think sharks attack us because they're evil (not 'cause they're
hungry), & if you're being anthropocentric, you think sharks are
evil because they attack us. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The Food Chain -- Humanitas, 18:46:33 07/24/01
Tue
Reminds me of that other classic of non-pc pulp, Tarzan. Most
folks remember the phrase "the Law of the Jungle," but
they forget what that law is.
Everybody is somebody's lunch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Remorse -- Kerri, 18:53:33 07/24/01 Tue
"Pretty anthrocentric (is that a word?) if you ask me."
I definately see your point. It is in a vampire's nature to kill.
They are a large part animal. The thing is this animal nature
can be fought, as Angel does. For Spike not to be, as he says
"a monster", he needs to fight his animal impulses and
embrace his humanity.
If you want to look at vampires as not doing anything wrong because
its in their nature then they could be regarded as superior beings.
Looking at it this way it is simply like they are at the top of
the food chain and should be allowed to kill humans.
But as Buffy realizes in the Gift humans are good and need to
be saved. Ofcourse you may disagree with me-I'm one of those people
who think eating a hamburger is murder. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Remorse -- Rufus, 20:54:43 07/24/01
Tue
Vampires choose to kill humans and consume their blood. They do
this because of the influence of the demon. The last demon to
leave our reality bit a human and the vampire was born. I see
it as a typical vengeance gig that the human host has never figured
out. We got the old ones place on this reality and they wanted
to leave us a parting gift of chaos. A demon that kills what it
once was, not because it has to but because the soul of the last
demon compells it to.
Another thing that has my attention in The Harvest the vampire
is "waiting for the animals to die out, and the old ones
to return".....now, if I were a very smart demon I wouldn't
be too interested in wanting the return of the old ones being
that I would resemble the "animal" that caused them
to lose their purchase on this reality. I'd be thinking that there
would be a bit of an ethnic cleansing that removed the stain of
humanity. I'd be wanting things to stay just the way they are.....speaking
as someone who would be one paranoid vampire. Of course due to
demon integration into human society I think the wait for the
old ones has been largely abandoned by those who like ESPN ect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> is it really a choice? -- anom,
11:39:25 07/25/01 Wed
"Vampires choose to kill humans and consume their blood.
They do this because of the influence of the demon."
I'm not sure they have a choice. All their instincts are telling
them to do exactly that. And without blood...well, Spike told
us in Pangs what happened to a vampire who couldn't feed. Like
a walking skeleton. (OK, so I don't have time to look up the exact
words. But he did tell us.) And according to Harmony in Disharmony,
nonhuman blood tastes funny. Before blood banks, there was no
way to get human blood except directly from a human.
OK, it's possible animal blood tastes funny because they're used
to human blood, not because it's "unnatural" for them
to drink it. But it probably doesn't occur to most vampires that
they have any other choice, until they can't do what's "normal"
for them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: is it really a choice?
-- Rufus, 13:07:35 07/25/01 Wed
I can go for instinct for a certain amount of what a vampire does,
but how do they generally learn how to kill and who or what to
kill? They are socialized by other vampires and learn the killing
ropes from them. They are encouraged to kill what they once were,
human. I remember Dru mentioning lions blood in an ep and thought
that vampires must be used to making do if there is no human prey.
There could be a taste preference due to that being the blood
they are started on when they are turned. But the kicker for me
is the fact that as sentient beings they understand what they
are doing and do it for pleasure as much as for food. They have
a choice, maybe less of one due to some instincts, but as man
evolved to become less violent and live by rules set up to benefit
society, the vampire remembers those rules and decides to live
by a new set of demon rules. The first rule would be to remember
that what you once were is now an it, an animal, to kill one is
the simple act of getting dinner. But in Disharmony you can see
than some vampires just have a harder time adjusting to demon
reality. Just like some people need life coaches, it appears that
for some vampires unlife coaches , or evil mentors are needed
for them to toss the rest of their empathy for humanity. Once
you relate to someone as a thing or an it, killing them it so
much easier, but it's still at some level a choice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: is it really a choice?
-- anom, 19:17:38 07/25/01 Wed
"Once you relate to someone as a thing or an it, killing
them it so much easier, but it's still at some level a choice."
Gee, same as w/humans...yet more evidence that vamps still have
some human in 'em. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Remorse -- Millan, 00:14:43 07/25/01 Wed
"This is exactly the way I look at Spike's behaviour. He
didn't murder anybody, he fed off human beings because that's
what vampires hunt and eat."
Actually, we've seen at least one murder done by Spike's own hand.
In School Hard he states that the man he's captured is to old
to eat - snap - but not to old to kill.
Now, I'll be the first one to come rushing to his defence and
remind everyone of the difference between Angelus and Spike. Spike
seems to be less evil than Angelus, he isn't very interested in
torture and ... wait, how was it he got his name? Oh, yeah, torturing
people with railroad spikes!!
I think that Spike as we meet him in the second season is less
cruel than he once was but he's still a vicious killer that doesn't
care about anything than himself and the only person he loves.
He doesn' seem to care much about elaborate torture, instead he
prefers a good fight. He probably enjoys a good opponent better
than a scared victim - it would make him feel more "manly".
:)
I think that Spike in the fourth season is not any different than
in the second, but I believe that he IS changing in the fifth.
How much remains to be seen.
So, that's my religion and I'm sticking by it. :)
/Millan
'What can I say? I couldn't wait.' - Spike, School Hard ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> but does she? -- anom, 11:20:17 07/24/01 Tue
..possess a soul, that is.
"Eventhough Anya possesses a soul she seems to not even care
how many lives she ruined."
She got stuck in human form when her talisman was smashed, but
does that mean she has a soul? None of the methods (or is there
only 1?) we've seen to return a soul to its body was used on her.
Come to think of it, what happened to her human soul when she
was changed into a demon? Did it hang around, suppressed? Did
it go where a vamped human soul goes? Anya is learning to be human,
& it's a fascinating process, but I don't think it's clear whether
she has a soul or not.
Maybe she does, but it's just rusty? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: but does she? -- Deeva, 12:19:32 07/24/01 Tue
Anya the human, that she is now, would really depend on the type
of person that she was 1100 years ago. As Olaf, her ex, said she's
just as annoying now as she was all those years ago. So, maybe
that's a clue that a part of her, or maybe she is, just a very
unforgiving person. Don't get me wrong, she has her moments of
clarity, where she is right on. But being a demon for that many
years, you've got to cut her some slack in the relearning dept.
You've probably met people like this to some degree where they
just can't move past a certain event that happened.
Demon "souls" are another question. I'm not sure that
it would be the same type of make up that vamps have. I think
that it is suppressed to a point of non-existance. Which makes
demons unable to empathize with humans and their past human self,
if in fact they were ever human.
Which brings to mind another question. Judging from the Mayor's
ascension into being a full blooded (humongous!) demon. Does that
mean that all the demons that we see are only half-breeds? I seem
to remember from AtS that there were full demons there but what
made them different? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: but does she? -- anom, 15:39:26 07/24/01
Tue
"But being a demon for that many years, you've got to cut
her some slack in the relearning dept."
Oh, absolutely! I didn't mean to imply I wouldn't cut her some
slack. After all, she was a demon for about 50 times as long as
she'd been human the 1st time. You can see how she could forget
a lot about human-ness.
But the question of her soul, I think, is still open. She only
got involved w/the gang because of her attraction to Xander, & is
slowly learning the value of being one of the good guys for its
own sake. She still doesn't seem all that motivated from within
as much as by "what's in it for me?" Kerri makes some
good points on Anya & Darla, who were both brought back as human,
so maybe they didn't need a ritual to bring back their souls like
Angel, who remained a vampire, did.
Speaking of Anya & Xander, I'd say it's pretty clear at this point
that she loves him, but I can't remember: has she ever actually
said so? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Can Remorse be relearned? -- Rufus, 13:57:19 07/24/01 Tue
Both Anya and Spike have been or are demons. They have both killed
for pleasure. Both have been reduced to living around what they
formerly tormented and killed. Both parties at one time had been
human, remembered what it was like to have family and friends
and to love and be rejected. They both became demons after a rejection
they couldn't live with. Now Anya is human and Spike can no longer
kill humans. Can either ever feel remorse? I think that just as
they forgot how to relate to the humanity they used to be part
of they can re-learn how to again care for who they once were.
It will be easier for Anya as she is now mortal. Spike is a bigger
question, can he ever truly be trusted around humans? Look to
the one thing that seems to motivate both characters at this time,
they both love someone. Anya is going to marry Xander, her love
has been returned and she seems to be on the way to becoming a
real girl, but there still isn't much remorse in what she says
about her past life. Spike is in love with Buffy, he has done
some stupid things to attempt to get her attention, her love,
to own her. It was all wrong. He also was offended that Xander
called him a monster. In The Gift he told Buffy he knew he was
a monster, is that the start to understanding what he had done
all those years? I think so, but I don't think that Spike will
show remorse the way that Angel did. Angel got flooded with the
ability to care about what he had done. Both Anya and Spike are
being gradually introduced to the emotions of being able to care.
We can only wait and see if both take the final steps to understanding
then feeling remorse for what they did. I think the both can do
it, but they will have to choose to. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Anya, Darla, and becoming human again -- Kerri, 15:08:46
07/24/01 Tue
The thing about Anya is that as anom said before we're really
not sure if she has a soul. When Darla became human again she
had a soul, so let's assume for the moment that Anya does too.
When Darla became human, eventhough she pretended to be uneffected
by what she had done she was clearly disturbed by her actions.
Darla was discusted at what she'd done, which is shown by the
fact that she smashed all of the mirrors in her apartment. If
Anya is in this same situation the she is unremorsefully due to
who she is as a person. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Anya, Darla, and becoming human again --
Slayrunt, 17:08:46 07/24/01 Tue
When Darla became human, eventhough she pretended to be uneffected
by what she had done she was clearly disturbed by her actions.
Darla was discusted at what she'd done, which is shown by the
fact that she smashed all of the mirrors in her apartment.
I disagree, she was not disgusted at what she'd done as a vampire,
she was disgusted at being a weak human again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Anya, Darla, and becoming human again
-- Kerri, 18:57:32 07/24/01 Tue
"I disagree, she was not disgusted at what she'd done as
a vampire, she was disgusted at being a weak human again."
I think that she tried to pretend that she was just frustrated
at being a weak human, but she really was discusted at herself.
Darla wanted to be a vampire again not only because she feared
death but so the pain and guilt could go away. She smashed all
the mirrors because she couldn't stand to look at herself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Anya, Darla, and becoming human
again -- Rufus, 20:42:38 07/24/01 Tue
I also saw that Darla has a large amount of self hate. As a human
she was a prostitute who was used then discarded before she was
turned by the master. She had power as a vampire she didn't in
her life as a prostitute. The ability to see herself wouldn't
just bring back feelings as a human but a powerless human. Her
reflection would only remind her of what she once was and she
didn't much like that person. She only seemed to get humanity
just before she got turned by Drusilla. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Why a person chooses to become
a vampire.... -- Kerri, 09:45:27 07/25/01 Wed
"I also saw that Darla has a large amount of self hate. "
Now this is just my oppion but to me a person chooses to become
a vampire for several reasons. One reason is that the person is
unhappy with who they have become and with their life. This is
somewhat reminisant of the slayer's death wish. It is much like
what we see in Faith-she is discusted at what she has become and
where her life is leading. The person who choses to become a vampire,
however, is to fearful of death and instead chooses to "kill"
themselves by becoming immortal. As an immortal this same person-minus
their soul-goes about punishing what they used to be by killing
people and compensating for what they hated about their mortal
self. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree.... -- Rufus,
13:15:37 07/25/01 Wed
If you noticed that each of the best known vampires were given
a choice to be turned. Darla was given a choice by the Master,
her contempt for God sticks with me. Liam was given the promise
of a new life where he would have control. William was given the
choice to leave his mediocre life. The only one who didn't get
much of a choice was Dru who had her mind destroyed then turned
to forever cause her torment. One question being is if Angelus
wanted eternal torment, who was this torment for....humanity because
Dru would not only be a demon but an insane one, or is there a
small part of the philosophical ghost that would remember the
loving person she once was? Being able to from somewhere inside
of Drusilla watch in horror, as she kills what she once held as
precious? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree....
-- Kerri, 14:50:23 07/25/01 Wed
"One question being is if Angelus wanted eternal torment,
who was this torment for"
I think the torment was an outward expression of Angel's self
hatred, much like when Faith tortures Wesley. He kills goodness
and humanity because in his mortal life they caused him pain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> On the subject
of choosing to be vamped... -- Juliette, 19:03:36 07/25/01 Wed
I'm not sure that any of them knew exactly what a vampire was
when they were turned, not in the same way that Billy Fordham
did when he demanded that Spike turn him in 'Lie To Me'. I agree
that Darla, with her "let the Devil take me if he'll have
me," wanted to turn to evil immortality, and that Liam wanted
a new, dark, dangerous 'life,' and would probably have wanted
to be a vampire. I think that Drusilla may have known and feared
vampires when she was sane, but ultimately couldn't escape Angelus
- I would imagine that she struggled against being turned - Angel
stated in 'The Trial' that a human who has been caught doesn't
have much choice in whether or not they get turned. And I don't
think William had a clue what was going on - he just wanted someone
to love/have sex with. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: On the
subject of choosing to be vamped... -- d'Herblay, 20:26:16 07/25/01
Wed
So when Spike, in "The Initiative," offers Willow the
choice of coming back as a vampire or not, he's just being polite?
Chippy goodness sure works fast!
I think that becoming a vampire is an act not so much of choice
but of surrender. There comes a point in the feeding where the
victim just can't fight anymore, and gives in to fate. Darla,
William, having less to live for, just surrendered themselves
to fate earlier in the process. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Who
is the vamp trying to kid......... -- Rufus, 22:48:07 07/25/01
Wed
Sure the vampires that made Angelus and Spike gave choice, I never
said it was informed choice. I have to wonder why the vampire
would need to even attempt to give a choice to become undead to
the people they turn, knowing full well it is more on their own
whim that they make another. It's like when Giles talked about
the seduction number that Dracula goes through, in the end you
still end up dead. What the Master, Darla, and Dru promised was
a life better than the victims thought they had, with power at
a point in their lives they felt they had none. I don't remember
any mention, of "oh, by the way you will become a murderer,
and will never interact with the living world in a meaningful
way again". Willow would have been able to make a more informed
choice because she understood what vampires were, but not because
she was told the truth by a vampire. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
On the subject of choosing to be vamped... -- Kerri, 09:18:40
07/26/01 Thu
"There comes a point in the feeding where the victim just
can't fight anymore, and gives in to fate. "
I think at this point they have a choice of dying or being "reborn"-the
choice of whether or not to drink is the victum's. Darla, Angel,
and Spike not knowing what being a vampire really is and fearing
death choose to become immortal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: On the subject of choosing to be vamped... -- Juliette, 12:04:59
07/26/01 Thu
I think Angel said in 'The Trial' (or was it 'Reunion'? Might
have been 'Reunion') that when you're that close to dying and
someone puts liquid in your mouth, you don't have a choice - you
swallow automatically, as your body tries desperately to survive.
So when Darla was turned for the second time, even though she
had chosen not to become a vampire, she was powerless against
Drusilla - she would have had to fight incredibly strong natural
urges as she was dying in order to prevent herself from being
vamped. Similarly, if Spike had been unchipped and took a fancy
to Willow in 'The Initiative,' no matter how hard she tried, she
would probably have been turned against her will - which is presumably
how VampWillow and VampXander were created in Bizarro World, where
everyone seemed to know what vampires were and lived in fear of
them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> It would be like gasping for air when you are drowning......:):)
-- Rufus, 16:07:29 07/26/01 Thu
Pretty much a reflex action. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Darla and being
vamped -- Slayrunt, 02:43:28 07/26/01 Thu
If you noticed that each of the best known vampires were given
a choice to be turned. Darla was given a choice by the Master,
her contempt for God sticks with me.
I don't think Darla had much choice. She was on her deathbed,
weak and sick. Fear of death as Kerri suggests may have played
a part, but the Master was going to vamp her regardless.
Now, once Darla became a vampire, she no longer felt powerless,
no longer a usee. She became the powerful, the user. I think it
was you, Rufus, who pointed out the Darla killed the prostitute
along with the petty nobleman in "Amends"(?) because
she reminded Darla of her powerless human life. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Anya and becoming human again -- Deeva,
21:31:20 07/24/01 Tue
"If Anya is in this same situation the she is unremorsefully
due to who she is as a person."
Exactly. Since we have no idea what she was like a thousand years
ago, all we can think is that maybe this is a part of her character.
I think that Anya has also learned to distance herself from her
doings as a demon and her current state of mortality. She might
be able to say to herself that that was then and this is now.
She was only a "weapon" called upon by others to do
their bidding not her's. From "Triangle" she makes a
very telling statement that reveals her thinking in the matter
of remorse.
"Humans make the same mistakes over and over. I saw it when
I was a vengeance demon. Some guy dumps a girl, she calls me...
I exact vengeance, blah blah, then the next year, same girl, different
guy. After you smite a few of them, you start going, my goodness,
young lady, maybe you're doing something wrong here too."
She doesn't regret the doing. I think the only thing that she
truly regretted was not being immortal anymore. She despaired
over that for a long time. Especially in "The Body".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> He's not good, but he's okay -- mundusmundi, 15:05:49 07/24/01
Tue
I see Spike as a work in progress. And, it could honestly go either
way. In Spiral, he was still perfectly willing to sacrifice the
lives of any of the SG save for Buffy and Dawn (e.g., his comment
to Dawn that he should have nabbed a smaller car, with only room
for the three of them; and his remark to Xander that they should
make a break for it past the Knights). However, I'm not sure if
at this point he's any longer the same Spike who bragged about
his kills in Fool for Love and Crush. The B6 premiere should give
us a good inkling of where Spike stands, but it wouldn't surprise
me if at some point this season he gets an offer from some Big
Evil to remove the chip...and refuses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Remorse -- verdantheart, 06:42:27 07/25/01 Wed
My only point here is that while we have not seen much remorse
from Spike (and certainly none over his victims), we have seen
some remorse. He has begun to feel remorse at the way he treated
Buffy. We've seen his shame over the Buffybot at the end of "Intervention"
and in "Tough Love" he had a hard time looking Dawn
in the eye, let alone Buffy. But even further back, after the
events of "Into the Woods," he practices apologizing
to Buffy with his bruised box of chocolates. It can be argued
that he wanted to make up with Buffy in his self interest, but
I believe that part of his motive was his guilt over seeing the
pain that he caused Buffy.
That said, this thimbleful of remorse can hardly be said to equal
the ocean of sins he has committed as a vampire. But Spike's "humanization"
has only begun. It started with his loving Buffy, or the realization
that he loves Buffy. Whether his adoption of Buffy's viewpoint
grows to the point that he begins to regret what are the natural
acts of a vampire remains to be seen. I'm looking forward to finding
out. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Vampires, Murder, and Sin -- Wisewoman, 09:28:11 07/25/01
Wed
Just to reiterate, what I'm saying about Spike is that he is not
human, therefore the terms "murder" and "sin"
do not apply to him, any more than they would apply to an animal
that took a human life.
Perhaps it's harder to recognize this about vampires because they
appear quite human. And, as someone mentioned above, using humans
as prey does put vampires at the top of the food chain, and therefore
they may be in a position eventually to take over from humans,
but that does not make them evil, either. We don't consider it
evil to fumigate a home to kill off any pests that reside there,
and this is the same situation. We just have to think outside
the human box...
;o) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Vampires ARE part human -- Kerri, 09:53:30 07/25/01
Wed
"Perhaps it's harder to recognize this about vampires because
they appear quite human"
When Angel was in Pylea we saw what the beast in him was-a mindless
killed that gave him the lust for blood. However, it was the human
who was truly evil. It was the human who enjoyed the torture and
the pain.
We can't, however, expect that a vampire has an idea of right
and wrong because they are with out a soul-their conscience. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Vampires....human, demon hybrid...... -- Rufus,
13:19:57 07/25/01 Wed
Considers lower to other demons due to their human content. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vampires, Murder, and Sin -- Dariel, 20:30:51
07/25/01 Wed
"Just to reiterate, what I'm saying about Spike is that he
is not human, therefore the terms "murder" and "sin"
do not apply to him, any more than they would apply to an animal
that took a human life."
Although I'm rooting for Spike (that identification thing again),
I don't think I'd let him off so easy. Can we really say "how
sweet" every time he does something human, and then write
off the bad things as part of his vampire nature? Unlike animals,
vampires understand and often enjoy the pain they inflict on humans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> No, no, no, no, no.... -- Talking Drum, 19:48:03 07/26/01
Thu
Just because vampires aren't human does not endow them with the
innocence of animals. When we say animals kill from instinct,
we do not mean that senseless killing is in their nature. It is
only in the rarest circumstances (curiously seen mostly in species
whose intelligence is close to our own--i.e., whales, chimpanzees)
that we can observe animals killing for the sheer enjoyment of
it rather than to serve a true instinctual need such as hunger
or teaching young how to hunt.
Vampires are consciously aware of the evil they commit and, in
fact, delight in it. Moreover, they have memories of their past
human lives and fully understand the meaning of human morals and
laws. Animals, even those that engage in plesure killing, do not.
Repeatedly, throughout the Jossverse, it has been pointed out
that vampires are an infection, so they can't be treated as a
lifeform entitled to the same consideration as animals or humans.
They are more like rabies or AIDS. The fact that the shell they
possess sometimes exhibit attributes that serve to confuse their
true nature does not lessen the evil that they choose to perpetrate
or have committed. Of course, if you consider rabies entitled
to the same right to exist as other life forms then I suppose
all bets are off. But then again, vampires like Spike really aren't
alive in the first place anyway are they?
TD ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> It's not about innocence... -- Wisewoman, 22:23:04
07/26/01 Thu
I am defining murder as the taking of a human life by another
human being (under specific circumstances, of course).
And sin is, also by definition, a human concept. I'm not defending
vampires as being mindless animals, I'm simply saying that they
don't belong to the species that is, by definition, capable of
murder and sin, and so those terms do not apply to their acts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Point taken. -- Talking Drum, 00:06:22
07/27/01 Fri
Faith- 1st Anniversary
Character Posting -- Brian, 02:27:24 07/26/01 Thu
THE BALLARD OF WANT, TAKE, HAVE
Girl, she's on the run
Everyone's next one
Until she gets the call to Slayerhood
She's bad even when she's good
Kristos, he's one old, bad vamp
Forces Faith to decamp
To California, she's again on the run
Finds Buffy in the land of laidback sun
Together they're one bad ass team
But little Faith, she's got a dream
To be number one is her scheme.
Men are puppets to be used
Her sexual skills make men confused.
But Angel he won't play the game
Along with Buffy he thinks she's insane.
The joy of Slaying is one fine gig
Until she sticks a human like a pig
No where to turn
When the Watcher Council's learn
Try to take her back
Faith won't take that petty flack
Joins the Mayor's team,
she's no hack
Finds a father figure in
one so black
She joins the dark side
from the light
Now she will have to
Buffy fight
In a long coma she
finally awakes
Payback time, she wants
to take.
Becomes Buffy, what a life!
But finds goodness is too much strife.
When life's too high a price to pay
She's off to run another day
In LA she makes her suicide run
Taunts Angel with the game, it's so much fun
But Angel he still won't play that game
Makes her see all her shame
Using violence she tries to pay the cost
But all Angel sees is little girl lost
He holds her in his protecting arm
She finally sees all her harm
Confession is so good for the soul
Faith plays her final role
In prison she finally sits and smiles
She's happy, at least, for awhile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Very clever, Brian! -- Marie, 03:03:42
07/26/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> kudos! truly original way of tackling it! :-) -- Solitude1056,
05:41:56 07/26/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Small gripe -- Cactus Watcher, 06:42:28 07/26/01 Thu
It's hard to remember the names of all the villians, but Kristos
was not a good substitute for Taquitos ...er... Kakistos. Kakistos
is pretty close to meaning "Bad Guy" in Greek. Kristos
is painfully close to the way most folks around the world pronounce
the Greek name Xristos, a rather different sort of fellow, I've
been told.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Faith and Buffy's fight in GD -- Kerri, 09:08:12 07/26/01
Thu
"Now she will have to Buffy fight"
I'm not sure this is a matter of has to fight as much as wants
to fight. Like Spike told Buffy in FFL slayers want to die. Faith
is disgusted with what she has become: a killer.
Faith wants to destroy herself and in doing so wants to bring
Buffy down with her. Faith wants to corrupt Buffy the same way
she has been corrupted.
In Enemies when Buffy and Faith have a knife at each other's throat
Faith tells Buffy, "What are you gonna do, B, kill me? You
become me. You're not ready for that, yet."
Xander realizes this as well in GD1: Buffy: Someone should take
over for Giles after a while. Watch Angel. Xander: I don't mean
to play devil's advocate here, but are you sure you're up to this?
Buffy: It's time. Xander: We're talking to the death. Buffy: I
can't play kid games anymore. This is how she wants it. Xander:
I just don't want to lose you. Buffy: I won't get hurt. (reaches
into a weapons cabinet) Xander: That's not what I mean. Buffy:
Just get me an address. They stare at each other for a moment,
then Xander leaves. Buffy is holding Faith's fancy knife.
Killing has a dark and seductive power that Faith both loves and
hates. She wants Buffy to kill her so that she doesn't have to
live with what that power has done to her and so that it can seduce
Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Faith- 1st Anniversary Character Posting -- Wisewoman,
09:34:49 07/26/01 Thu
Faith has always been my least-favorite character. I just don't
get what the attraction is. Hey, I know she's a sexy chick, but
talk about your evil, psychotic murderer--she could teach the
vamps a thing or two!
And I don't buy the, "hey I was messed up as a kid and now
I hate myself and do bad things" defense. Lot's of messed
up kids turn out just fine. For my money, Faith is right where
she belongs, in jail, and I hope she stays there.
Okay, tirade, rant, whathaveyou, over!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Faith- 1st Anniversary Character Posting -- Kerri,
10:01:39 07/26/01 Thu
If you watch the Wish and see how Buffy turns out without her
"ties to the world" it is interesting to compare to
Faith. This Buffy is cut off, only relies on herself, trusts no
one, thinks the worls sucks, and believes the only reason she
is alive is to bring death. This is all very reminisant of Faith.
However, Buffy is not a murderer.
In Doppledangland Willow and Buffy are discussing Faith and have
the following conversation: Buffy: (ruefully) I know Faith's not
gonna be on the cover of Sanity Fair, but... she had it rough.
Different circumstances, that could be me. Willow: (shakes her
head) No way. Some people just don't have that in them.
Now I know that line was used to show that Willow DID have it
in her-but the only way for it to come out was for her to lose
her soul. I don't think that Buffy has it in her to become a kmurderer.
She is not enticed the same way Faith is by killing, she's a more
moral person.
However, I really liked Faith as a character. She was interesting
and brought up issues for Buffy regarding what being the slayer
meant and how it affects her. I'd really like to see Faith as
a character on AtS; she fits it really well with the redemption
theme. Too bad ED's making movies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Faith- 1st Anniversary Character Posting -- darrenK,
11:41:45 07/26/01 Thu
I think the problem was that Faith was doing this whole--tough-to-follow
acrobatic act between good and evil that seemed to go on for too
long and became hard to follow.
It's because Joss and the Powers That Write wanted her to be both
flexible and redeemable, fulfilling many plot functions like they're
now doing with the Buffybot.
The problem is that not every character can hold the story the
same way Buffy can.
In other words, they burned out. dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Giving Faith a little slack -- Brian, 14:05:08
07/26/01 Thu
Wisewoman - Here's my take on Faith's early days. I believe that
either her father or some adult, authoritative family member physically
and sexually abused Faith as a child. Her mother failed Faith
as a maternal, protective figure, probably due to alcoholism or
metal illness/weakness. Faith quickly learned that she could not
protect herself from the stronger abuser in her life, and she
developed her skills at running and hiding to protect herself.
Her emotional walls went up very early, and although they cracked
a few times, didn't fall until the Angel episode 5 by 5. Being
the child of abuse her self-image, her self-worth were very bad,
and she probably grew up alone, distancing herself from the others
in her life who either hurt or betrayed her at every step. She
dropped out of school at the first opportunity. And them, Kendra
died, and suddenly Faith had power, real power to avenge her wrongs.
But the Watcher's Council found her and whisked her away before
she could confront, or even understand how to confront those who
had abused her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Giving Faith a little slack -- Rufus, 16:04:27
07/26/01 Thu
Boy, that sure sounds a lot like what happens when a vampire is
created, they use their power to destroy what hurt them in life.
Buffy can learn much from Faith. We can clearly see what happens
to someone who has had no nurturing as they develop into adults.
Buffy envied Faith the attention she got as the new slayer on
the block. She actually started to think some of Faiths methods
"want, take, have" were pretty good, then the consequences
of being a loose cannon came home to both girls. Faith killed
a human the first time by accident, the subsequent murder she
did like a pro. It gave us an idea of just how dangerous a rougue
slayer could become. Buffy also got to appreciate what she had
with her mother and Scoobies. They are her ties to this world,
something Faith never had. I may not like Faith much, but I can
see she doesn't like herself much either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Giving Faith a little slack -- LadyStarlight,
05:24:40 07/27/01 Fri
Haven't seen the ep where Faith kills for the first time yet (relying
on the Watcher's Guide), but didn't Giles say something like "It
happens sometimes, it's regretful and sad, but it happens"
to Buffy? This implies (to me anyway) that the Council has had
to 'cover up' accidental homicides before.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Giving Faith a little slack
-- DEN, 21:54:11 07/28/01 Sat
Faith's first killing of a human clearly falls in the category
of "friendly fire" in war; regrettable but inevitable
given the close-quarter fighting against odds that is a norm for
slayers. Dealing with the contingency does not necessarily mean
"covering up," but more likely an investigation of the
circumstances and --usually--a conclusion that "s--- happens."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Defending Faith -- Masq, 16:38:48 07/26/01 Thu
Well, I was going to post a long treatise on why I love Faith,
then I thought, "why do I love Faith since so many people
seem to dislike her in this thread?" It could be Eliza's
powerful on-screen presence. But that's not all. I think she plays
the bad girl in a t.v. show full of good girls.
Buffy, Willow, Anya, Tara, and Dawn may have their flaws, Joss
knows, but Faith was always desperate, tortured, lonely, disconnected,
and never certain about anything she did no matter how unhesitantly
performed.
One can see why Angel identifies with her in a way he can't with
"soul-mate" Buffy.
Faith was the less priviledged of the other women characters,
and gave the others a different perspective on life--it's easy
to be good when you have family, friends, and a comfortable life.
That's not an excuse, she needed jail, but not just for redemption,
but for the peace of getting her act together. Prison's no bed
of roses, but it's better than anything she had before, especially
considering she's the strongest woman in the yard and can survive
what they throw at her.
I think Faith's always been the devil's advocate character--making
the good guys ask why they do what they do besides knee-jerk "goodness".
No non-souled character could play that role. She's easy to spit
at and detest for killing, siding with the Mayor, and using her
strength to gain power over other people, but to tell the truth,
except for the killing of the professor and a couple of other
deeds she's currently being punished for, everytime she mouthed
off at Buffy or appeared on screen for that matter, I was "you
go!" 'cause she always had a point hidden in that bitterness.
It's that Eliza energy again.
End treatise
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Defending Faith -- Nina, 18:02:27
07/26/01 Thu
Thanks Brian and Masquerade! I was pretty indifferent to Faith,
but I see through your eyes what you see in her and it makes me
reconsider my previous views on her. I always knew she was acting
that way due to severe abuse in her childhood, but somehow I never
could like her anyway. Not judging Faith and take her as she is
is maybe the better way to like her. She's been a great asset
to show darkness in the slayer lineage. She's had a great influence
on Buffy. And if she hadn't been there something would be missing.
Definitively!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Defending Faith -- JBone, 19:48:05
07/27/01 Fri
I've been lurking since "Faith" was originally posted,
biding my time, until I thought I had something worthwhile to
contribute. Too bad, I didn't wait long enough. So consider this
fair warning for some superficial ramblings.
I dig Faith, probably more for her leather pantaloons and cut-off
tops, but I believe that is as valid as a choice as any Spike
fan hot for the blood-sucker for his platinum hair and leather
coat. So I won't feel guilty over that.
I like the whole dichotomy of the slayers between Buffy and Faith.
A whole Civil War, brother vs. brother thing. Someone is wrong,
someone is right, but they are brothers (sisters, duh, I have
eyes). As far as I'm concerned, Faith's flame never burned brighter
than the scene on the Bronze dance floor with Buffy in the episode
"Bad Girls." I would have loved to have been the choreographer
on that set to say, "no, bump and grind more like this."
Okay, I need to back off that line of thinking. As far as Faith's
upbringing, I can't identify with the urban street part that I
perceive of her. But I can I can definitely identify with growing
up dirt poor. I just happened to do it on a farm in the heartland
of America. So as I watched the rich farm kids (who never worked
on their parents farm while I worked like a slave on my parents,)
drive around in their brand new trucks while I had to make do
with any used mopar piece of shit my parents saw fit enough to
break down and get me, I can understand the evolution of "want,
take, have." Luckily my parental influence was much stronger
than Faith's appears to be, so such a philosophy lived out would
leave me a incredible guilt complex. Thanks Mom. I'm 30 years
old feeling guilty over stuff I never did. Just stop asking me
why I'm not married yet.
Anyhow, I see the Faith storyline as unended and more substantial
as any for any other villain on BtVS other than evil Angel. I've
seen it before in this thread that she is Buffy. She is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> And right now she is The Slayer
-- Masq, 23:05:57 07/27/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, I have written
out a treatment for our next fictionary involving Faith... --
Talking Drum, 23:20:56 07/27/01 Fri
..filling the Slayer gap between Buffy's death and resurrection.
That is so long as I don't get myself crucified over another misunderstood
post.;)
TD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Faith- 1st Anniversary Character Posting -- anom,
14:46:00 07/26/01 Thu
"And I don't buy the, "hey I was messed up as a kid
and now I hate myself and do bad things" defense. Lot's of
messed up kids turn out just fine."
True, but usually they had someone in their lives to give them
support--not even so much a positive role model, but positive
reinforcement of themselves as people who are not worthless like
the people raising them keep telling them, who are strong & have
choices other than being either a victim or, once they grow up
some & have some power of their own, a victimizer. I think Faith
didn't have someone like that until her 1st Watcher, & when she
couldn't protect her Watcher from being killed by Kakistos, this
sole source of support was pulled out from under her. Being a
Slayer may have also been (or at least looked like) her 1st chance
to be good, & she may have felt there was no way to be good short
of being a superhero. So when she thought she'd failed at that,
it wasn't worth trying some other way, & she defined herself as
evil. And acted accordingly.
When this sequence of eps was airing, I remember thinking it might
have helped to suggest to Faith that staying on the good guys'
side could be a way to honor her Watcher's memory, rather than
being something that she had to live up to or that was her duty
as a Slayer. That might have had a better chance of reaching her.
But part of what makes Buffy a great series is that the characters
are human & don't always think of the best things to do or say.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Remember...Faith is Buffy -- Talking Drum, 16:47:26
07/26/01 Thu
Hey watch it that's Buffy you're dissing here! No really, I'm
not kidding. According to the VHS writers' interviews, Faith was
Joss' way of having Buffy's evil twin without resorting to the
trite soap opera device of actually having Buffy's evil twin.
Faith IS (once again, according to those who created her)what
Buffy could be without the right amount of love and support. That
is in no way to excuse Faith's actions. Instead, the whole exercise
was to demonstrate how fine a line there is between choosing between
good and evil given each individual's circumstances and personality.
In fact, I would argue that Faith is closer to the original purpose
and spirit of the "pure" Slayer (as defined by the First
Slayer: "No friends! Just to kill!") than Buffy. Perhaps
if it weren't for the corrupting influence of the Watcher's Council
on the institution of the Slayer (they appeared to have glommed
onto this force not unlike some modern corrupt religious/political
institutions have done with respect to other pure spiritual forces)combined
with the loathesome behavior of the people who influenced her
earlier upbringing, Faith could have been a better Slayer than
Buffy. Of course, Buffy, depending on how she is incarnated when
she returns, may represent the next evolutionary step in slayerdom--we
don't really know that yet, though.
Also for those of us that keep track of these things, one of the
fundamental constructs of all mythologies, Jossverse included,
is the existence of corresponding pairs of opposites. Ordinarily,
the opposite exists in each individual. Within every Wisewoman
there is a corresponding polar opposite Unwisewoman ;). If we
each play our cards right, nobody ever sees our darker side. With
the creation of a second Slayer (even Kendra was an opposite in
a different way than Faith, of course, but opposite nonetheless),
we were given the opportunity to see our Hero's true dark side
without having her too tainted in the process.
Personally, Faith is one of my favorite characters and I hope
they get the opportunity to explore where she ends up now that
she has appeared to turn the corner. In many ways, she is more
interesting than Buffy because she has been to a place Buffy has
never been. Yes, she has been an evil, psychotic murderer. She
certainly hasn't committed the severity and quantity of offenses
as Angel and Spike who, I might add, have an alarmingly large
fan base on this board. By all rights, though bad from a plot
perspective, both of them should have been dispatched to dust
long ago based solely on their potential and propensities to commit
unspeakable harm (regardless of the fact that they each have turned
over a new leaf). In fact, it is a tribute to the writing staff
that they have been able to manipulate some of us (myself not
included)into a such a compelling of sympathy for these despicable
characters that many revel readily in their ongoing antics (especially
those antics that refer to their past misdeeds) despite their
evil nature and past crimes. Anthony Burgess did a similar thing
with Alex in A Clockwork Orange. It does give me a little better
understanding now as to why Ted Bundy and Richard "The Nightstalker"
Ramirez were so successful among the ladies, though. And it makes
me to shudder how easily people can be manipulated to forgive
an evil boy's trespasses for a little taste of the dark side,
as well.
TD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Little sister -- Kerri, 18:00:43 07/26/01 Thu
"Faith was Joss' way of having Buffy's evil twin "
In the past Buffy has had two sisters:Faith and Dawn.
Faith was Buffy's "slayer sister." A concentration of
the slayer part of Buffy. Buffy learns about her slayer self through
Faith. She learns that eventhough she may want to give it up the
slayer is a part of her.
Dawn is Buffy's "human sister." The concentration of
the other aspect of Buffy. Dawn, like Faith, helps Buffy learn
about that part of herself. Buffy embraces the humanity she though
she was losing through Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> In response...(umm, somewhat longish) ;o) --
Wisewoman, 18:19:56 07/26/01 Thu
I have to say that I agree with Brian, and others, that Faith
probably did have an abysmal childhood and early adulthood. I
understand the self-loathing that that can engender. However...
My personal breaking point is the one that Masq mentions, the
murder of the professor in Graduation Day Part I:
INT. LESTER WORTH'S APARTMENT - NIGHT
He's a rumpled, professional type, hurrying to the door as the
bell rings.
There's a bit of introductory chit-chat, then Faith cuts to the
chase...
FAITH We alone here, Lester?
He stops. Odd question.
LESTER Well, yes... life long bachelor. Like my space.
FAITH I hear that. You wanna turn and face the wall, Lester.
Still the same conversational voice. The knife coming out from
the back of her waistband.
LESTER What are -- what are you doing?
FAITH I'll make it quick.
LESTER Put that away. (she doesn't) I'll scream...
FAITH Who wouldn't
He backs against the wall, terrified.
LESTER Please...
FAITH Sorry, friend. Boss wants you dead.
She crosses in a blur and grabs him by the throat. He manages
to wheeze out:
LESTER Why...?
FAITH You know, I never thought to ask.
And as she goes to work on him, the camera pushes past them to
the wall, to a print of a volcano. We continue to push slowly
in at the volcano, Lester's dying gasps (and possibly a shadow)
all we get of his demise.
BLACK OUT
This scene is one of the most chilling there's ever been on BtVS,
and there's not much in the writing to cast any sympathy on Faith
whatsoever. She is simply a heartless, cold-blooded killer.
If, as TD has said, Faith is the writer's attempt to show us Buffy's
dark side without corrupting their hero, then it's a cop out.
I do not believe that Buffy would be capable of the act described
in the foregoing scene, no matter how different her early life
may have been. I'm not saying she's incapable of murder, (under
the right circumstances I think we're all capable of it) I'm saying
that she's not capable of it under these circumstances. I believe
the writers have created Buffy as a three-dimensional character
in her own right, with her own very present and accounted for
dark side, of which we've been shown several hints. The persona
that cold-bloodedly murders Professor Lester Worth (Less Worth?)
is no part of the Buffy Summers I've watched for the last five
years.
Is it easier to consider Faith on the path to redemption because
the person she murdered was someone we only saw for two minutes,
and had no time to identify or empathize with? Would you be as
willing to let bygones be bygones, forgive and forget, if it'd
been Willow or Xander she disposed of so dispassionately?
I can forgive her first, accidental killing of a human being.
I can forgive even the torment she but Buffy and her friends through,
and the torture of Wesley...but I can't find it in me to forgive
her for Lester Worth... :o(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: In response...(umm, somewhat longish)
;o) -- Talking Drum, 19:02:22 07/26/01 Thu
I agree with you that, with respect to that murder in particular,
Faith is "simply a heartless cold-blooded killer." But
then again, I reassert my point that the writers' intent was to
show you Buffy's dark side without getting any dirt on Buffy.
After all, they could have chosen to have Buffy accidentally kill
the Mayor's assistant, but they didn't. And for a very calculated
reason which Joss has explained in one of his interview's on the
commercially released VHS tapes. He stated that he didn't want
people to think of Buffy as a killer because it would be too hard
for the audience to accept a teenage girl (who is supposedly the
Hero) killing people with such a flippant attitude on a weekly
basis. This is one of the reasons that vamps burst into dust the
way they do on BtVS. And this is the reason that Faith doesn't
die--it conveniently absolves Buffy from any wrongdoing. Faith
isn't killed so Buffy's record of having not taken a human life
goes unblemished (attempted murder is seldom treated with the
same contempt as the successful completion of the task--the hardy
constitution of the victim always rewards the assailant).
They created Faith to portray the classic evil twin, once more
to explore Buffy's dark side without tainting her with the sin
of murder. I'm not making this up--that was the writers' intent.
Yes Faith is an actual character (not a ghost or an image in a
dream sequence) in the story. But her reason for existing in the
first place was to allow the writers to explore Buffy's (not just
the Slayer in general) dark side. They make Faith cross the line
because if they made Buffy do it, it might so repulse the viewer
that it would be impossible or very difficult to see her in that
Hero light again.
That having been said, they do have Buffy flirt with that line
when they have her attempt to murder Faith. We're okay with this
because of how bad Faith has been, but if you take Buffy's actions
on their own, they should send a chill up our spines. Why? Well,
first of all Buffy's attempt on Faith's life is almost entirely
unrelated to any moral cause or Slayer duty. It is an act of pure
selfishness (Buffy needs Faith's blood to cure her ex-serial killer
vampire boyfriend's illness) and it is an act of revenge (in many
mythologies, killing for revenge is the ultimate no-no, since
it makes the Hero's act a personal one, thereby negating its value
as a boon for society). The fact that Buffy's success would have
resulted in a benefit to society (eliminating an agent of evil)
is entirely undone by her personal motivation for going after
Faith--100% payback. The writers neatly address this by not rewarding
Buffy for her selfish action--she is unable to obtain Angel's
cure from Faith. Otherwise, the series' mission statement would
have been corrupted to "ends justify the means" which
would readily allow us to question the nobility of any of Buffy's
subsequent actions (for example her sacrifice in 'The Gift').
So kudos again to the writers. I stand by my argument and add,
to paraphrase the immortal words of Jessica Rabbit that Faith
is not bad, "she was just drawn that way."
TD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: In response...(umm, somewhat
longish) ;o) -- anom, 21:42:17 07/26/01 Thu
"We're okay with this because of how bad Faith has been,
but if you take Buffy's actions on their own, they should send
a chill up our spines. Why? Well, first of all Buffy's attempt
on Faith's life is almost entirely unrelated to any moral cause
or Slayer duty. It is an act of pure selfishness...."
But even w/the same motivation, Buffy would never have made this
kind of attempt on an innocent. Maybe that's another reason Faith's
murder of the professor came before that--in addition to selfishness
& revenge, there was a valid reason Faith had to be stopped (for
something she'd actually done not before the fact for what she
& the mayor were planning), & the justice system wasn't really
capable of dealing w/her. Not that I think that justifies killing
her either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: In response...(umm, somewhat
longish) ;o) -- DEN, 22:06:26 07/28/01 Sat
Buffy's attempt to murder Faith for essentially personal reasons
also can be interpreted as part of a Joss continuum. In "Becoming,"
Buffy dispatches a resouled Angel to save the world. By "The
Gift," she is willing to see the world destroyed rather than
have harm come to Dawn. The encounter with Faith can be interpreted
as a midpoint in a moral arc in which Buffy acts more and more
for personal reasons--whether one sees that development positively
or negatively.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: In response...(umm, somewhat
longish) ;o) -- Sean, 23:40:09 07/30/01 Mon
I don't see saving Dawn as selfish.
Saving the one is as Noble as saving the many. Perhaps even more
so.
I never loved Buffy more than the moment she told Giles that Dawn
wasn't to be touched under any circumstance. It was one of the
most beautiful moments on Television.
GILES Buffy, if the ritual starts, every living creature in this
and every other dimension imaginable will suffer unbearable torment
and Death. Including Dawn.
BUFFY Then the last thing she'll see is me protecting her.
GILES You'll fail. You'll die. We all will.
BUFFY I'm sorry. I love you all, but I'm sorry.
If I was in that room at that moment, I would have told Buffy
that I understood. That this was the most noble, selfless thing
I have ever heard. And that I accepted her decision, and loved
her all the more for it. I would rather die, I would rather have
all the universe fall into the absyss than to kill such love.
I learned so much from that episode. Life isn't a numbers game.
Buffy made the right decision.
BUFFY I'm sorry. I love you all, but I'm sorry.
Don't be sorry Buffy. You taught us all to love. You should us
all what it means to be human in it's highest, most noble sense.
You showed us the power within our own heart, and through your
decision you reaffirmed the importance of life. How ONE life can
truly be worth the entire world.
There are some things you don't do, for any reason, no matter
what. Killing your innocent kid sister certain comes close to
topping that list.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: In response...(umm,
somewhat longish) ;o) -- Malandanza, 17:07:09 07/31/01 Tue
GILES Buffy, if the ritual starts, every living creature in this
and every other dimension imaginable will suffer unbearable torment
and Death. Including Dawn.
"If I was in that room at that moment, I would have told
Buffy that I understood. That this was the most noble, selfless
thing I have ever heard. And that I accepted her decision, and
loved her all the more for it. I would rather die, I would rather
have all the universe fall into the absyss than to kill such love."
I think Giles was being overly melodramatic in an attempt to get
Buffy to follow a more utilitarian approach. Or maybe it's just
faulty logic -- as soon as Dawn dies, the threat ends. Buffy and
Dawn were standing on top of a rickety framework as close to the
gateway as possible -- they would almost certainly have been among
the first to die had Buffy carried out her threat to stand by
Dawn until the end. "Every living creature" would not
have suffered -- Dawn would have died before then. More people
would have died (including Dawn and some of Buffy's friends) if
Buffy had not sacrificed herself, but this was not a world-ending
apocalypse.
So why would Buffy fight to save Dawn when she had to know that
the battle would be hopeless? Probably for the same reason that
Angel decided to return to the side of righteousness. The effort
is important, not necessarily the ends. As in "The myth of
Sisyphus" (a rewritng of the Greek myth by Camus), doomed
or not, the struggle is what is important.
Giles' insistence that Dawn be killed is chilling. He must not
ever have viewed her as a real person -- just a product of a spell
to be disposed of as needed. In other instances (Buffy's birthday,
Willow's kidnapping by Faith) he has not been quite so hard-line.
I would not like to see Giles gain custody of Dawn (and I wonder
what Dawn would think if she knew that her murder was being discussed
by Giles as a means to thwart Glory...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: In response...(umm,
somewhat longish) ;o) -- Rufus, 21:13:01 07/31/01 Tue
Remember when Giles said that Dawn wasn't Buffy's sister? The
fact that every cell of Buffy's body felt Dawn is her sister is
important. Buffy felt Dawn was part of her not just a fancy spell.
Giles had shut down part of himself to do an unthinkable job,
be it on Dawn or in the end Ben.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Faith, Hope and Charity -- AK-UK, 20:28:59
07/26/01 Thu
Ok, I'll lay my cards on the table. I LOVED Faith. I loved her
because of here no-nonsense attitude, because she was quick witted,
sarcastic, and energetic.......because she was a young woman who
seemed to revel in her youth. She smoked, she drank alcohol and
she DANCED! She had fun! I was at University when Faith came on
the scene and it was cool to see a young person acting like that.
I recognised it.
And she was a sexually aggressive woman! She enjoyed casual sex!
Can I just point out how refreshing I (and a number of my female
friends) found that? What a contrast to the other characters on
the show......what a breath of fresh air in a show that could
sometimes be a little bit.......preachy.
Also....*gulp* Eliza Dushka is beautiful. Yes, if you lot get
to drool other JM, I should be allowed one paragraph in which
I can indulge my hormones. Tight leather trousers and a tight
black T-shirt never looked so good.
So, I'm kind of suprised to see that other pople don't seem to
love her as much as I do. Even stranger still, some of these people
are ones who have expressed positive feelings towards the character
of Spike.
Bizarre.
I can cut Faith a heck of a lot of slack, and not just because
I fancy her (hey I'm a 26 yr old male, sue me :). The poor girl
seems to have had a lousy family life. She than gets the incredible
task of being THE CHOSEN ONE dumped on her, without any of the
support group that Buffy has to help her cope with the strain.
Then her Watcher, the one person who could be expected to lend
her support, is killed before her eyes. So the poor kid loses
the one person in all the world who cared for her and supported
her, the only person Faith could possibly call a friend. Then
she comes to Sunnydale and gets a new Watcher....and guess what?
The new Watcher, Mrs Post, couldn't care less about her. She pretends
to care, manipulating Faith into trusting her, succesfully reinforcing
Faith's feeling of seperation and loneliness. than, when she gets
the Glove of Myhnegon, Mrs Post tries to kill Faith.
Is it possible to overstate the importance of those two events?
Faith finds herself powerless to save her first Watcher's life,
and is brutally betrayed by her second. As a result she feels
alone in this world. She is powerful, and yet powerless. She can't
let other people into her life. Why? Because people are treacherous.
Because people are liars who pretend to care just so they can
get what they want. Or, if they really do care about you, they
die, and the pain of seeing that happen again is just too much
for Faith's battered heart to bear.
So is it any suprise that she falls in with Mayor Willkins? He's
an authority figure, just like the watchers. But, unlike Faith's
first Watcher, he's invulnerable! She can afford to love him because
he isn't going to break her heart by dying on her. She isn't going
to have to stand, paralysed by fear, watching helplessly whilst
some vampires tear him to pieces. And, just as importantly, he
isn't going to betray her (unlike her second Watcher) because
he doesn't lie to her. Yeah, he's evil, but he's upfront about
it. No lies, no faked friendships, no sudden kidnaps and re-education
attempts here. Just trust, understanding and love.
So when the Mayor, Faith's de-facto Watcher, tells her that there
is a Professor who could be jepordise his Ascension, Faith kills
him. Wisewoman, remember that Faith is a Slayer. She is used to
killing enemies that have a human face. If you spend enough time
sticking stakes into things that look, walk and talk like humans
you're probably gonna find it easier to kill the real thing. She
can't allow herself to feel anything for the professor; he's the
enemy! She has been given a task by the one person in the world
who cares about her; she isn't going to betray him. The Boss wants
him dead, so he's dead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Faith, Hope and Charity (part
II) -- AK-UK, 21:06:55 07/26/01 Thu
Faith killed the professor because she was evil, because she told
herself she was evil, and this is what evil people do. She did
it because slayers kill, she did it because the only person in
the world she cared about needed her to do it. She did it because
it made her feel powerful, made her feel useful, made her feel
loved. She did it because the small voice in her head which told
her she was wrong wouldn't SHUT UP and had to be shouted down
if she was going to get any peace. She killed him and all the
others because she was a screwed up kid without a good friend
in the world, filled with self loathing, pain, and guilt, stuck
in hell with no hope of respite.
I can forgive her. I could have forgiven her if she'd killed Xander
or Willow or Giles. I can forgive the teenage girl in the pouring
rain, beating her fists against the chest of a vampire, tearfully
pleading with him to fight her, to kill her, because she's bad.
Yeah, I can give her some charity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well said, AK... -- Wisewoman,
21:23:25 07/26/01 Thu
..doesn't change my mind about her, but I certainly see where
you and other Faith-fans are coming from.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: In response...(umm, somewhat longish)
;o) -- Malandanza, 22:08:38 07/26/01 Thu
"Is it easier to consider Faith on the path to redemption
because the person she murdered was someone we only saw for two
minutes, and had no time to identify or empathize with? Would
you be as willing to let bygones be bygones, forgive and forget,
if it'd been Willow or Xander she disposed of so dispassionately?"
Remember Spike trying to kill Willow in "The Initiative?"
How about those Lawyers Angel let die? Or the Pylean rebels Wesley
sent to their deaths? Ben and Giles?
There is plenty of sympathy to go around for these murderers (notice,
I do not include Angel's murder of Ms. Calendar or Buffy's self-defense
killings of the KoB).
There has always been a double standard for Faith -- she alone
is expected to be punished for her crimes (not that she doesn't
deserve to be punished...) I do think that she should have received
preferential treatment considering her background -- however,
that is not the way justice works in real life. The people with
the best excuses for transgressing are the ones that pay the highest
price -- the elite get away with murder with little more than
a slap on the wrist.
And as far as empathizing with Faith goes -- even if Faith had
murdered Xander, Willow and Giles, it would be difficult not to
empathize after her breakdown with Angel. Personally, I believe
if Angel deserves Shansu for anything he has done, it is his work
saving Faith's soul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Maybe Faith was the Slayer Angel
was really supposed to help to "become someone." --
Talking Drum, 23:01:48 07/26/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Faith, a lily that festered? --
Vickie, 11:52:15 07/30/01 Mon
de-lurking here briefly.
It's been said here before somewhere, but we seem to hold Faith
to a higher standard than other flawed characters. It reminds
me of this Shakespeare sonnet:
XCIV
They that have power to hurt, and will do none, That do not do
the thing they most do show, Who, moving others, are themselves
as stone, Unmoved, cold, and to temptation slow; They rightly
do inherit heaven's graces, And husband nature's riches from expense;
They are the lords and owners of their faces, Others, but stewards
of their excellence. The summer's flower is to the summer sweet,
Though to itself, it only live and die, But if that flower with
base infection meet, The basest weed outbraves his dignity: For
sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds; Lilies that fester,
smell far worse than weeds.
It's a common theme in philosophy that those who have the greatest
potential/capacity for good commit the greatest sin/harm when
they do evil. Who has a greater capacity than Faith (who has all
the power, strength, and ability, at least in theory, that Buffy
has)?
Certainly not Liam, nor William the Bloody Awful Poet. At least,
not IMHO.
Thus, it's harder for us to "forgive" Faith. We have
an idea of how much good she could do. And (so far) she hasn't.
Just my $.20 (inflation you know).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Wonderful sonnet. Printing
it out as we speak. -- mundusmundi, 14:44:45 07/30/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Faith, a lily that festered?
-- Rahael, 16:05:14 07/30/01 Mon
Vickie,
Loved the sonnet, my favourite Shakespeare verse. But in my opinion,
isn't Faith the weed, Buffy and the Scoobies the lilies? That's
the thing that makes us root for her. For me, the poem always
meant that those who could be strong, those who inherited all
the best that nature gave, who were the 'masters' of their faces,
sometimes, their humanity could cross the line to cold, self rightous
inhumanity. I.e not interested in helping Faith, not forgiving
her, not understanding what she needed.
Last week, I suggested on this board that Willow could be a lily
that festered. That despite her sweetness and her emotionalism,
this was the very thing that made her not understanding of Faith,
and sometimes Buffy.
At the end of the day, wasn't Faith's problem too much openess,
too much of a need to be loved and appreciated? First Buffy and
the Scoobies, Gwendolyn Post, Angel, the Mayor. It is Giles, Willow,
Xander and Buffy who could be seen as exhibiting the cold, emotionless
decision making which the poem terms excellence.
Buffy stabbing Faith anyone? Giles murdering Ben? Xander's lie
to Buffy?
Of course, such a great poem is so full of ambiguity, that we
can all take so much from it.
Can I offer another great poem for faith?
Flying Crooked
The butterfly, a cabbage-white, (His honest idiocy of flight)
Will never now, it is too late, Master the art of flying straight,
Yet has - who knows so well as I? - A just sense of how not to
fly: He lurches here and here by guess And God and hope and hopelessness.
Even the aerobatic swift Has not his flying-crooked gift.
Robert Graves
Anyways, thanks for letting me indulging in my poetry addiction!!
Whether we agree or disagree about content seems almost beside
the point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Fascinating! -- verdantheart, 06:46:28
07/27/01 Fri
Now I'm going to have to go back and research Faith! The range
of responses she inspires is truly fascinating. What a great character!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Why? -- Sean, 23:20:55 07/30/01 Mon
I could have forgiven every thing Faith did before, and everything
after this one act, but cold-blooded murder is hard to excuse
Faith for.
I know it is easy to overlook this act. I really want to forget
it when I think about Faith, but there it is.
That one act makes Faith unredemnable as a slayer. Perhaps they
put that in there to make Buffy slaying Faith seemed more justifiable.
But I really wish they wouldn't have had Faith do that. As I think
it makes it all the more difficult to sympathize with Faith's
fall.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Remember...Faith is Buffy -- Rattletrap,
06:50:14 07/31/01 Tue
Y'know, it seems like the writers did something similar with the
Buffy/Kendra dynamic, except that Buffy was the evil twin. "Evil"
may be too strong a word, but Kendra was clearly the dutiful daughter
who did everything that was expected of her without question.
Buffy was the one that questioned orders and played by her own
rules. Perhaps, then, this is why Buffy has always been the effective
one, she finds the happy medium between Kendra's "good"
and Faith's "evil."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Cool - love the format :) (NT) -- VampRiley, 12:33:46 07/26/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Faith- 1st Anniversary Character Posting -- Rendyl,
14:02:39 07/26/01 Thu
Don't have time to comment much but I did want to say I love the
format you chose Brian. (your poem is great!) Seeing how each
poster presents the character they have chosen is almost as much
fun as the threads themselves.
Ren -off to finish packing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> My previous tirades fail to mention how much I enjoyed your
poem...sorry, Brian! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 18:47:14 07/26/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> OK, this poem is now up at ATPoBtVS -- Masq, 12:55:08 07/27/01
Fri
Go to:
http://home.4w.com/pages/btvs/faith.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Marq, Thanks for making the poem look so cool!
-- Brian, 13:10:34 07/27/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Faith and Buffy--Two Sides of the same coin -- Anthony8,
22:42:33 07/28/01 Sat
I've always thought of Faith as Buffy's "shadow", the
moon to her sun. In a way, Buffy is Faith's sire since Buffy's
death initiates Faith's calling. But before Faith the Vampire
Slayer is allowed to fully form, Mummy is back from the dead.
Faith can never equal Buffy since Buffy will be the "First
Among Equals" as long as she lives. Buffy is older, more
experienced, more gregarious and enjoys her own little worship
circle. While they both derive their power from the same source,
Faith's title is diluted by Buffy's continued existence. And yet
both together represent the duality of temporal existence.
Like the moon, at best, Faith can only reflect Buffy's light.
It is only as a shadow that the moon ever eclipses the sun, and
then only for a very brief period. The sun represents the creative
light of eternity while the moon is tied to all things earthly
and temporal. The sun is essential for the origination of life,
but the moon is necessary to regulate the tides, the floods that
nourish the soil, and the female cycle that maintains reproductive
fertility (things that have come to be characterized as evil in
western mythology). The evil reflects the good.
To quote Joss Whedon in the Slayer Chronicle interviews: "Bad
Girls and Consequences were our attempt to start exploring the
idea of being a Slayer in terms of the power of it and how much
fun it could be, and how intoxicating it could be, and how dangerous
it could be, and we used Faith as a vessel." Douglas Petrie
(Bad Girls writer) adds: "She is in many ways Buffy's evil
twin. She gets to do all the things that Buffy would like to do
but can't." And Joss again: "She was everything that
Buffy would never let herself be." With these comments and
keeping in mind the moon/shadow motif proposed above, Faith is
very much Buffy's mirror image. I looked back over the tapes and
noticed that, at least prior to her reawakening in TYG, Faith
never strikes Buffy first. This may have been intentional on the
writers' part or just pure synchronicity, but a shadow or a mirror
reflection can never strike first. Stand in front of a mirror
and try it. In fact, Faith never makes an attempt on Buffy's life.
Not only that but Faith saves Buffy's life on at least two occasions
(from Trick and by giving her the heads up on the Mayor's weakness
in their shared coma dream). Buffy does try to kill Faith though
and nearly succeeds (Buffy trying to eliminate her own evil self?).
To twist things even further, Faith as Buffy in Buffy's body tries
to kill herself (that is the Faith body) in WAY.
Some particular telling scenes of the Buffy/Faith duality:
From Enemies:
[Buffy and Faith end in a standoff, each holding a knife to the
other's throat.] Faith: What are you gonna do, B, kill me? You
become me. You're not ready for that, yet. Faith grabs Buffy's
neck and kisses her on the forehead. Faith runs away.
And from GD1:
[In Faith's apartment. She reads a comic book while music blares.]
[Cut to show Buffy behind her, across the room. Buffy turns off
the stereo.] Buffy: Thought I'd stop by. Faith: Is he dead yet?
Buffy: He's not gonna die. It was a good try, though. Your plan?
Faith: Uh-huh. The Mayor got me the poison. Said it was wicked
painful. Buffy: There's a cure. Faith: Damn. What is it? Buffy:
Your blood. As justice goes, it's not un-poetic, don't you think?
Faith: Come to get me? You gonna feed me to Angel? You know you're
not going to take me alive. Buffy: Not a problem. Faith: Well,
look at you. All dressed up in big sister's clothes. Buffy: You
told me I was just like you. That I was holding it in. They approach
until they're standing face to face. Faith: Ready to cut loose?
Buffy: Try me. Faith: Okay then. Give us a kiss. Buffy punches
her in the jaw.
And from Consequences:
Faith: (grins evilly) Scares you, doesn't it? She climbs over
the railing and hops down to the dock. Buffy: Yeah, it scares
me. Faith, you're hurting people. You're hurting yourself. Faith:
(approaches Buffy) But that's not it. That's not what bothers
you so much. What bugs you is you know I'm right. You know in
your gut we don't need the law. We *are* the law. Buffy: No. She
turns her back and walks away. Faith follows right behind. Faith:
Yes. You know exactly what I'm about 'cause you have it in you,
too. Buffy: No, Faith, you're sick. Faith: I've seen it, B. You've
got the lust. And I'm not just talking about screwing vampires.
Buffy stops in her tracks. Buffy: Don't you *dare* bring him into
this. Faith: (taunting her) It was good, wasn't it? The sex? The
danger? Bet a part of you even dug him when he went psycho. Buffy:
No! (continues walking) Faith: (follows) See, you need me to toe
the line because you're afraid you'll go over it, aren't you,
B? You can't handle watching me living my own way, having a blast,
because it tempts you! You know it could be you! Buffy has had
enough. She stops, faces her and backhand punches her in the jaw.
Faith comes up smiling wickedly. Faith: There's my girl.
And from Who Are You:
Faith (Actually Buffy in Faith's body): You can't win this. Faith
as Buffy: Shut up! Do you think I'm afraid of you? [Buffy grabs
Faith and throws her down, then sits on top of her and starts
punching her.] You're nothing. [Punch. Punch.] Disgusting. [Punch.
Punch.] [Buffy grabs Faith's hair with both hand and bangs her
head.] Murderous bitch. [Bang. Bang...] You're nothing. [Bang.
Bang...] [Switches back to punches] You're [Buffy is now crying.]
disgusting. [Faith grabs Buffy's hand to stop a punch and their
hands glow.]
And finally, there is the revealing camera trick at end of the
ep where we see Buffy's face and Faith's face superimposed together
on the screen as real Buffy fades out and real Faith fades in.
Nice!
IMO Faith really loves Buffy and is ill-equipped because of her
hard-knocks past to express her love in anything but a dysfunctional
way (temptation, and striking out out of fear of rejection) which
ultimately leads her into a spiral of evil. Buffy, on the other
hand, is repulsed by Faith because she sees a little too much
of her hidden self in her evil twin (dabbling with the dark side
through her relationship with Angel, which she knew was wrong
and doomed from the start) and refuses to face that fact. So while
in the beginning she goes through the motions of appearing to
have Faith's best interests at heart, she really wishes to control
Faith or have Faith disappear altogether. Furthermore, when Buffy
is in the power position to forgive Faith (in Sanctuary), which
would be the ultimate heroic act of compassion, She can't bring
herself to do it so it falls upon Angel to provide the only hope
for Faith's reform and redemption. The tragedy is that Faith and
Buffy lose each other because of their inability to accept the
other as part of an integrated whole. Imagine the possibilities
of two fully empowered Slayers (drawing power from each others
strengths) facing the forces of darkness!
I know this is getting long, but the concept of Faith as Buffy's
necessary opposite reminded me of some interpretations of Satan's
relationship to God. In the Koran, Satan is banished to a place
beyond God's love because he refuses to bow before man. Some have
suggested that Satan so refuses because his love for God is so
great that he can't bring himself to worship the lower human beings.
God's reward for Satan's love is to deprive Satan of God's light.
From that point on Satan, with God's permission (see the Book
of Job) makes a career out of tempting and tormenting God's most
beloved creation, humankind. Satan never attacks God directly
because he loves him so (even obssessively, perhaps). God never
blinks Satan into oblivion because Satan is one of his beloved
creations and therefore a part of him. Now keep in mind that Faith
(and Angelus II for a time-you know the post Buffy sleepage, pre
Willow restorage Angelus) never tries to kill Buffy. She does
go after Buffy's most cherished loved ones. Angelus II does the
same, despite Spike's protestations to just kill the girl. More
synchronicity or just wicked writer's tricks?
And finally, in keeping with my earlier sun/moon references, the
snake or serpent are associated with Satan. Mythologically, the
snake has always been associated with the moon as well because
the snake sheds its skin (like the moon sheds its shadow)and thus
represents the duality of death and rebirth or earthly mortality
in the field of time. In Faith's dream right before her reawakening
in TYG, a snake slithers into the picture while she and the Mayor
are out on their picnic. Not so subtle, but very synchronous nonetheless.
Any thoughts?
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Faith and Buffy--Two Sides of the same coin --
dream of the consortium, 13:14:38 07/30/01 Mon
What a great post! I would agree with the dualist nature of the
Faith/Buffy relationship. I think it is significant that Faith
showed up when she did - after Buffy had 1) lost her virginity;
2) killed someone (with a soul) she loved and 3) run away from
home. Buffy's character was allowed to develop past the super-innocent
pretty girl we saw at the beginning of the first season. In many
ways, Faith takes Buffy's behavior to extremes. Buffy sleeps with
the person she loves; Faith sleeps with Xander as a casual power-trip.
Buffy makes a difficult decision to kill someone for the good
of the world and constantly suffers as a result. Faith accidentally
kills someone, and uses her function as a "good guy"
to allow her to ignore any feelings of remorse. Buffy runs away
and comes home. Faith has nowhere to go home to. She represents
Buffy's fears about herself, and yet is a fully developed character
in her own right. I was really impressed with the way the writers
set the scene for Faith's arrival, and the ways she has developed
since. I definitely would like to see a return, if ED can find
the time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Satan -- Malandanza, 19:56:35 07/30/01 Mon
While I do think that her primary function on BtVS was to tempt
Buffy away from the path that the watcher's had laid out for her,
I have never seen Faith in her pre-mayor days as evil; instead,
I would use the word "feral" to describe her. Buffy
has never been tempted to forsake good for evil, and I do not
believe any such attempt would have a reasonable expectation of
success. What Faith offered was a reversion to the primitive,
where killing could take place without any of those "pesky
little moral ambiguities" that the Host spoke to Angel about.
I feel that Faith has more in common with the First Slayer than
Buffy does, and that, although Faith was the second born, she
is the true heir to the slayer birthright (I'm afraid first born
Buffy was a disappointment to the First Slayer). For me, Faith
is the real slayer while Buffy is rather domesticated. The closest
Buffy got to her roots was when she was hunting, instead of patrolling,
at the start of the season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Closure -- Kerri, 22:19:31 07/30/01 Mon
I know that the Faith character was more or less wrapped up-in
jail, on the road to redemption and all so ED could make movies-but
there was no resolution between Faith and Buffy. Given how close
they are and how much they share I would really like to see some
closure between them. I really get the feeling that Faith and
Buffy love each other. When they look at each other they see what
they could have been. In light of how Buffy felt she was a killer
and how she had her epiphany about the role of the slayer and
died and everything I'd think she might want to resolve things
with Faith and show Faith she forgives her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Closure -- Steve, 23:01:39 07/30/01 Mon
"I really get the feeling that Faith and Buffy love each
other."
I am sorry, but as much as I want closure from the Faith/Buffy
relationship as well I must disagree with the statement above.
As much as I love Buffy, I really see this as the one big black
mark in her life. She might be full of love, but that love never
extended to Faith. It is so sad as Faith really needed that love
from Buffy whether she realized it or not.
Again, I love Buffy. See her as a character that has so much love
to give. And has demonstrated that love time and time again, even
to people she hardly knew (Jonathan, Chantarelle/Lilly, Ford,
even April the robot). I have met people in my life who are that
special, who shows that kind of love to others, who are a joy
just to be around but they are still human. And with Buffy somehow
Faith was one of the few who that love didn't extend to. She felt
threatened by Faith. And that poisoned the relationship from the
start.
As Joyce re-fills Faith's soda.
JOYCE I like this girl, Buffy.
BUFFY Yeah, she's personable. Gets along with my friends, my watcher,
my mom -- look! Now she's getting along with my fries!
ANGLE: FAITH is in fact reaching over and snagging some of Buffy's
fries.
JOYCE Now, Buffy --
BUFFY Plus, in school today, she was making eyes at MY not-boyfriend.
It's creepy.
JOYCE Does anybody else think Faith is creepy?
BUFFY No, but I'm the one getting Single White Femaled here.
JOYCE It's probably good you were an only child.
BUFFY Hey, I... Mom, I'm just getting my life back. I'm not looking
to go halfsies on it.
The Biggest black mark in Buffy's life (Again I love her, she
is human can't expect her to be perfect though she came close)
was how she treated Faith. Not to say being Faith's "sister"
would have been easy for Faith was full of "issues".
But Buffy was unwilling to try. Not from the start.
BUFFY Hey, I... Mom, I'm just getting my life back. I'm not looking
to go halfsies on it.
JOYCE It's probably good you were an only child.
When I look back at the statement by Buffy "I'm not looking
to go halfsies on it", I just think about Dawn. With Dawn,
Buffy didn't only go "halfsies" she had to go all the
way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Closure -- Kerri, 08:45:16 07/31/01 Tue
I think that the shared dream in GD showed the slayers' love for
each other. They are connected, sister. When Buffy wakes up and
kisses Faith on the head, she embraces her sister and herself.
The way Buffy kissed Faith was much like the way she kissed Dawn
in "The Gift."
At first, when I watched Sanctuary, I thought that Buffy was just
being jelous and holding her grudge when she didn't forgive Faith.
But Faith really took more from Buffy than anyone else. I understand
why Buffy wouldn't be willing to forgive Faith right away-and
I could even see her never wanting to forgive Faith. But, I think
that being as Buffy embraced love in her death she would want
to forgive Faith.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Closure -- Sean, 19:10:02 07/31/01
Tue
Again I love Buffy. I think of her in the most highest terms.
She is an hero in the most noble sense. And to me she is something
more as well. I have actually been fortunate enough to have been
able to know a few of her kind in real life. So please don't take
this as some kind of attack on Buffy. I really do love her.
But even though I know what she is, and can't help but love her
for it, I still must understand that as great and full of love
she is, she is also human, and might be near perfect, but has
some faults as well.
One of her faults was, until recently, she really felt that she
needed a romantic relationship to complete her. That was so wrong
for her to think because she was such a complete person. Others
knew that, but she didn't.
Anyway. Faith (mostly unintentionally) got in the way of two relationships
that Buffy put much importance in. Angel in season 3 and Riley
in season 4. That is why Buffy reacted as angry as she did towards
Faith
As to the dreams, we were first led to believe that there was
some kind of psychic link between Buffy and the comatose Faith.
I tend not to believe that. I think it was all Buffy. And while
the dream helped Buffy come to terms, it did little for Faith.
I am sorry, but if Buffy has any thought of Faith at all, they
are unpleasant ones. Not ones of sisterly love. Faith having sex
with Riley and then running into Angel's arms was too much for
Buffy to handle.
She doesn't love Faith. And I wonder if she can forgive (I do
think she can.)
PRIMITIVE Love. Give. Forgive. Risk the pain. It is your nature.
Love will bring you to your gift.
I always wondered about the "Forgive" part of that.
Are all the posting
party characters now on a page somewhere? -- Marie, 03:07:32 07/26/01
Thu
I was away when the Spike one was put up - Aquitaine, well done,
really enjoyed it, and my boy did too! (Spike, not Davie, Sol).
Marie ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Spike is in the archives (try a #2 or #3), everyone else...
-- Masquerade, 07:16:04 07/26/01 Thu
All the initial posts are at:
http://home.4w.com/pages/btvs/[character name].html
e.g., so Drusilla is at
http://home.4w.com/pages/btvs/drusilla.html
I also have tara, willow, giles, angel, angelus, and riley
I am working (slowly) on putting up posting board responses posts
as well. Just have it for Tara right now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks, I have read them, but I... -- Marie, 09:00:37
07/26/01 Thu
..was looking for the nifty page you did before, with the pictures!
M ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thanks, I have read them, but I... -- Masq,
09:09:20 07/26/01 Thu
That's what I was refering to with the
http://home.4w.com/pages/btvs/drusilla.html etc.
Original character posts with pictures. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> OH! and OOOOOOH! -- Marie, 11:35:28 07/26/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> O.K., 1st Anniversary posts on Tara-Willow-Giles-Angel(us)-Riley-Dru-Spike
-- Masquerade, 23:18:39 07/26/01 Thu
First anniversary posts on all of the above. Board discussion
of posts coming soon (except Tara, which is already there)
Tara
Willow
Giles
Angel(us)
Riley
Dru
Spike
question about dead bodies
-- nathan (aka: pocky), 18:59:39 07/26/01 Thu
Hopefully this board has a resident Funeral Director.
Here's my question: Aside from draining the corpse of blood, what
else do they take from the body? Do they remove their insides
as well?
~nathan~ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Morbid much?:) -- Squonk's Tears, 19:22:36 07/26/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> no! lol -- nathan, 19:33:50 07/26/01 Thu
I asked because I was thinking that if the undertaker removes
the insides of the corpse before burial--what happens to the blood
the vampires drink? and if the insides *were* removed, possibilities
of Buffy being brought back from the dead as something other than
a zombie would be negated.
I'm really not that morbid--Honest! ^_^'
~nathan~ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> And if she were cremated, then what? Yikes--ashy
Buffy! -- Squonk's Tears, 19:51:57 07/26/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: question about dead bodies -- LadyStarlight, 20:57:50
07/26/01 Thu
AFAIK, after the blood and other liquids have been drained, the
body is flooded with formaldehyde (SP?). This acts as a preservative,
and prevents the body from decomposing quickly. Unless needed
for evidence of some sort, organs are not usually removed before
burial.
Really gross sidebar: however, the fully sealed coffins available
these days prevents the decomposed body from ah, going anywhere.
(hey, what can I say? I'm an ex-librarian, I know lots of bizarro
stuff like this.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> formaldehyde, yep, that's right. and... -- anom, 21:31:50
07/26/01 Thu
"Really gross sidebar: however, the fully sealed coffins
available these days prevents the decomposed body from ah, going
anywhere."
Unless it's opened with...vampiric strength! Does it also slow
the decomposition even more, in addition to the formaldehyde?
I guess w/all the dirt on top, it doesn't make much difference
in air circulation.
"(hey, what can I say? I'm an ex-librarian, I know lots of
bizarro stuff like this.)"
Know whatcha mean, I'm an editor. That's why I can answer all
the spelling q's. (don't worry, only if you ask). And it's another
good way to learn all sorts of interesting & weird stuff. Like
aerobic vs. anaerobic decomposition.
(Note to self: Enough of that, this is a philosophy board, not
a science board!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Modern burial methods defeat the traditional purpose
of burial... -- Anthony8, 23:12:24 07/26/01 Thu
Which was literally to replenish the Earth by planting the body
in the ground. Modern preservative methods, however, effectively
prevent reabsorption of the corpse into the Earth thus preventing
any meaningful fulfillment of "ashes to ashes, dust to dust."
It's kind of sad how we've used technology to sterilize our lives
to the point that even our funeral rituals are rendered all form
and no substance. While I do admit, much of the preservative aspect
is for sanitary reasons, much of it is to preserve the aesthetic
quality of the body for the benefit of loved ones to view at their
own convenience. IMO cremation is more in line with the real purpose
of burial in then first place. Sorry--I yield my soapbox.
A8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> No problem; that's why I'm going to be cremated
.. -- verdantheart, 05:58:42 07/27/01 Fri
Wrong impression -- Rendyl, 21:22:43 07/26/01 Thu
Having loaded the jeep and headed for bed I stopped to skim the
messages. The following is from the 'Faith' thread and I have
only started a new post because I am very far off topic..
Quoting Talking Drum -
***She certainly hasn't committed the severity and quantity of
offenses as Angel and Spike who, I might add, have an alarmingly
large fan base on this board.***
Alarmingly large fan base? Angel and Spike are very well written
characters portrayed by good (and in JM's case very good) actors.
Why is it alarming that they have fans? They are not real. Neither
of them live in the house down the road. Neither of them is going
to be waiting around when I come out of the store or restaurant
to snack on me. We (or at least I) are fans of compelling characters.
Why shouldn't we be?
***In fact, it is a tribute to the writing staff that they have
been able to manipulate some of us (myself not included)into a
such a compelling of sympathy for these despicable characters
that many revel readily in their ongoing antics (especially those
antics that refer to their past misdeeds) despite their evil nature
and past crimes.***
There is nothing wrong in disagreeing about a character on any
given movie or tv program. I do think it is a little narrow-minded
to assume everyone but yourself has been manipulated into feeling
a certain way.
***It does give me a little better understanding now as to why
Ted Bundy and Richard "The Nightstalker" Ramirez were
so successful among the ladies, though.***
Uh, those men were real. Real men, real victims. Men, not vampires.
Beings who should have had a soul, a morality, a guide...something
to stop them from committing monstrous acts. Real people died
there. No witty dialogue, no artfully arrainged death scenes,
and rotting corpses to be dealt with. Real death. It is just not
the same. Spike is an imaginary character and maybe you get nice
insights on serial killers from him but I get none. Spike can
never come close to being the monster those men were. HE IS NOT
REAL and he is not human.
***And it makes me to shudder how easily people can be manipulated
to forgive an evil boy's trespasses for a little taste of the
dark side, as well.***
Spike and Angel are not boys. They are not even men. They are
Vampires. A completely different creature. If it makes you feel
better to believe some of us are so gullible and stupid we can
easily be made to believe anything that is your prerogative. (you
are wrong-grin-but it is your right to hold an opinion)
Perhaps you did not intend to be insulting but your above remarks
are much more at home on one of the boards where the posts consist
of "Spike is soooo kewl" and "Angelus looks sexy
when he tortures people". (actual quotes from messages) Most
of the discussions here address all aspects of the characters,
not just whether they are cute or not. However you may see it
we are not discussing -real- monsters here. We are (or at least
I am) enjoying a make believe storyline/world.
Ren - who is really going to bed this time ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Round of applause for Rendyl -- AK-UK, 21:54:02 07/26/01
Thu
I'm not a lady, but TD's comments got my back up too. It's 5:30am
in Britain and I'm knackered, so I was just gonna to type IT'S
NOT REAL 50 times, but your well thought out post is much more
effective :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> definite kudos! *very* well said. -- Solitude1056, 22:29:07
07/26/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I wasn't gonna go there, but I'm glad you did! ;o) -- Wisewoman,
22:41:00 07/26/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> While I'm at it nothing personal intended towards
you either... -- Talking Drum, 01:16:33 07/27/01 Fri
I just couldn't think of anything opposite Talking Drum any more
clever than murD gniklaT. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> All is forgiven...as far as I'm concerned ;o)
-- Wisewoman, 11:08:40 07/27/01 Fri
My gripe was with the serial killer reference...I have no problem
with Unwisewoman! She often makes an appearance here.
I totally understand the situation you found yourself in...it
happened to me on other boards when I first started posting, and
ended up in days of back-and-forth point-counterpoint and recriminations.
I'm confident that won't happen here, because, believe me, this
board is different.
You are obviously a thoughtful, articulate person and it's really
a comment on the posting board as a medium of communication...we
all gotta be careful how we express ourselves now and then. And
yes, emoticons seemed juvenile and silly to me at first, but they
sure help!
;o)
Wisewoman ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Is this for real? -- Rufus, 23:16:28 07/26/01 Thu
I'll go through a quote Rendyl used from Talking Drum, who has
hit a nerve or two, or has he/she?
She certainly hasn't committed the severity and quantity of offences
as Angel and Spike who, I might add, have an alarmingly large
fan base on this board.
The first bit was fair enough, how do you compare apples and oranges,
most of the main parties involved in BVS has been a killer. So
how do you judge them fairly? Spike and Angelus/Angel are demons
who are doing what their demon society norm encourages, they kill
humans. They are the villians that the slayers battle to protect
the earth. The change with both characters happened when they
for whatever reason (chip, soul) have begun to act against their
societal norm and sided with humanity. While they both continue
to act for instead of against humanity I don't think we should
be killing them as they can be valuble allies in a war not many
are aware is even going on.
The Slayer is the hero, the one we expect to act as a protector,
not become one of the villians. Faith is now in jail because she
broke human rules and murdered a man and was caught. Buffy slays
demons which aren't accounted for in our judicial system(can't
prosecute what you don't think exists). Buffy did finally kill
humans in Spiral still the hero as she was protecting unarmed
civillians. But the fact remains BtVs is a fictional situation
using myth and legend to tell a story. There is a big difference
between the unreality of a fictional show and the very real serial
killers mentioned by Talking Drum. They simply can't be compared
to Spike and Angel as the real murderers wouldn't ever be able
to show any empathy for their former victims. So TD is using situations
that can't logically be compared as one is real one is not. The
fans on this board like the actor and the struggle between good
and evil, they don't take their tv experience and project it onto
actual murderers.
The original idea of why do we come down hard on Faith and then
cut Angel and Spike slack is fair enough. But TD changed the subject
and hinted that fans of Angel or Spike are immoral. At that point
he/she lost me as there is no debate possible with someone who
has decided that they are the voice of morality and anyone else
is a serial killer loving fool. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Sorry already! I didn't know what emoticon to use
for "tongue in cheek." Sheez! -- Talking Drum, 23:58:19
07/26/01 Thu
I have contributed quite a few, admittedly more subtle, posts
to this board as well as portions of our "Relations"
fanfic, so I certainly had no intent to disparage the morals of
fellow posters here. Maybe I should have signed on with another
name. "Devils Advocate" perhaps? Anyhow, we quite often
discuss these characters as they relate to our view of real life
and the real world. As AK-UK pointed out and my post was intended
to illustrate, some posters have a double standard when it comes
to Faith versus Spike and/or Angel. This double standard may just
be my own perception. However, I drove the point home with a sledgehammer
when a nudge would have worked just as well (attribute it to late
afternoon caffeine).
In my defense, let's not take ourselves too seriously here. This
is an open-minded discussion board. Even extreme viewpoints should
be encouraged for the sake of debate at least. The hint that my
post would be more at home on one of those boards (this is the
only board I've frequented, so I wouldn't know about any others)
where people post such gigglies as "Spike is kewl" is
a bit elitist in light of the fact that I've seen quite a number
of entries by regular, respected posters here that have addressed
such thought provoking topics as "keep your hands off my
Spike" and "spankings for all." So let's not get
too full of ourselves here. Okay?:) If anything, the defensive
tenor of some the responses to my original post are just as ad
hominem towards me (and obviously so intended) as my "controversial"
comments were perceived (not at all intended) by those who reacted
negatively. Oh well.
TD (sheepishly) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sorry already! I didn't know what emoticon
to use for "tongue in cheek." Sheez! -- Rufus, 00:54:10
07/27/01 Fri
Hmmmmmm....I bet you felt manipulated....like I took you the wrong
way....now you know what Rendyl felt like. You had a valid point
about the difference in attitudes between the characters Faith
and Spike and Angel, but you brought in a comparable (real life
serial killers) that didn't belong in the situation. You used
an extreme example and got an extreme reaction.
And remember when you talk about me it's "hands off my chocolate!"
...:):):) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Actually, not manipulated at all since...
-- Talking Drum, 01:07:16 07/27/01 Fri
..my post here was supposed to be a response to Rendyl's and
ended up under yours. Like I said somewhere else in this tangle
of responses, this is the first and only board I've ever frequented.
Never been to a chat room or employed any other interactive forum
on the Net other than e-mail. So I'm still a little new to all
this.
TD ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Wasn't just speaking about my own
post............. -- Rufus, 01:15:51 07/27/01 Fri
I totally understand about writing on the net being new as I started
about last November. I'm no writer so I feel like I'm speaking
like a kindergarten student. If people get upset with you or misunderstand
you they will say something, if they think you are only a troll
they will eventually ignore you. Never worry you will get used
to the boards. Masquerade said it best when she told us how abrupt
the conversations on the net can be, we can't see a face and we
don't know if the person is being sarcastic ect., emoticons are
great to get your point across.
Your point about Faith is valid. I feel that my reaction to her
is because as a hero I expected more of her. As I got to understand
the character more I could see that she was lost. I think prison
is a good place for her at this time because she needs to be saved
from herself(and with a movie career she could end up doing life:):)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hey. Monty Python is a very thought-provoking
topic. Really. (Isn't it?) -- Solitude1056, 05:32:28 07/27/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I always thought so -- verdantheart, 06:10:15
07/27/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Of course, all things Python are good
in my book. -- Talking Drum, 10:05:46 07/27/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A different point of view -- Liquidram, 00:37:55 07/27/01
Fri
When I began reading this thread, my first thought was that a
new troll had reared their silly little head. Finding out that
the point in question was written by Talking Drum threw me. I
have found TD's posts to be well thought out, informative and
superbly written. I went back to the offending post with a new
insight and quite frankly was still not in the least bit offended
by it as I did not take the words as an attack on me personally,
but as a compliment towards the writers and actors.
Since I am seldom as literary gifted as a great number of posters
on this board, sometimes what I am trying to say and what actually
is perceived become separated in my ill attempt to put it into
words.
I have become substantially closer to alot of people here because
of the amount of work we are doing on the website and with "Relations".
We communicate daily, several times in fact and TD is a part of
our team. We joke, we argue plot points and we get both frustrated
when things get overwhelming, which they most certainly do, and
excited when it comes together.
It has been said time and time again that the main pride of this
board is that we respect each other's opinions whether or not
we agree (which means that I also respect the opinions expressed
above me on this thread.)
My purpose in this post is to explain that my interpretation was
different, which describes, yet again the reason why this is the
board I frequent and no others.
We are very lucky with this board in the respect that we have
come very close to a friendship. We may never meet face-to-face,
but we'll be able to continue adding up the tidbits that we share
with each other until we have portraits of people we care about.
I'll step off my soapbox now! ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks--I guess you got what I was trying to say.
-- Talking Drum, 01:01:10 07/27/01 Fri
I am not a writer, just a dabbler here, so I know there was probably
a more accurate way for me to get my point across in my original
post. In fact, the apparently "offending passage" was
a bit of a throwaway with a little bit of very dark humor tossed
in that some took the wrong way. Oops. The fact that it provoked
some controversy and discussion(except for the superfluous personal
attacks) is a "good," though. I think.
TD ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> One of the benefits of regular posting... --
OnM, 07:30:28 07/27/01 Fri
..is that you can gradually get away with a bit more extreme
positions, or play a devil's advocate role, without getting dumped
on overly much or being designated a troll, who after all are
usually hit 'n run types, not regulars.
Maybe it was the late hour, or maybe because I thought you have
some valid points, but your original post didn't bother me. One
thing for sure is that the fact that it was signed 'Talking Drum',
and that I have read other thoughtful posts by you, I automatically
tended to assume that no rude intent was present, as you have
demonstrated none in prior posts.
This can get scary sometimes when you are new to it, so don't
take this too personally. Words can be dangerous, like Faith,
that can get to be part of the 'charm'. Intent is everything.
People, such as myself, who greatly enjoy the Faith character
(and I remember making it clear in one of my past posts to Rufus
that if I actually met someone like her in the realverse, common
sense would say run like hell!.
So don't go away, we like ya. My writing philosophy here at this
board has always been:
1. Be interesting, or try to.
2. Be interesting in an entertaining way.
3. Hope the others like what you're doing.
4. Be careful.
5. Occasionally be a little dangerous.
6. Worship cats.
:) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Acck! Forgot to finish a sentence! --
OnM, 07:39:19 07/27/01 Fri
This was supposed to be:
"People, such as myself, who greatly enjoy the Faith character
(and I remember making it clear in one of my past posts to Rufus
that if I actually met someone like her in the realverse, common
sense would say run like hell!), usually successfully differentiate
between fantasy and reality. Some people don't and that can indeed
be very, very scary."
(Appy-polly-loggies for da goof!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> While I'm not exactly certain how I would
incorporate point 6 into my writing philosophy... -- Talking Drum,
10:17:23 07/27/01 Fri
..I agree with your list and try to do the same. I really wasn't
that alarmed by the response, but felt I needed to explain my
intent for those who didn't understand. I'm not one to shy away
from a good debate. In fact, I do from time to time test the limits
just to see how vehemently people will defend their position.
Yes, it can be a frustrating tendency. Oh well, I guess that's
one of the plusses of poster anonymity.
TD ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Things to worship... -- LadyStarlight,
12:50:33 07/27/01 Fri
OnM, you're not going to worship me, I mean us Canadians anymore?
*snurfle, sniff* Just CATS!?!
;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Well said, Liq...that's a soapbox of a different color!
;o) -- Wisewoman, 11:11:34 07/27/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sorry..I didn't mean to touch such a sensitive nerve. --
Talking Drum, 00:53:11 07/27/01 Fri
I have addressed some of your concerns in a post misplaced in
response to Rufus' post below. I didn't mean to offend you. Of
course these characters are NOT REAL (not shouting here just parroting
your response). I believe the operative word here is "DOY!"
I do believe, however, that many times the writers do specifically
bait and manipulate their audience and kudos to them for it. After
all, their job is to entertain and one of the big tools of entertainment,
no matter how artful the writer, is manipulation. If they are
really good, they manipulate you without you even knowing it.
Oftentimes the audience consciously buys into the manipulation
for entertainment's sake. In any event, everyone is susceptible--even
you. That is not to say that you have been manipulated in this
case. I have no idea there.
I do agree with you that Angel and Spike are compelling characters
(NOT REAL--sorry had to remind myself) due to the quality of the
writing and acting. There have been many evil characters in literature
(also NOT REAL) who were very compelling. The actors breathe such
life into the BtVS characters that they are fun to watch (probably
again because they are NOT REAL). However, our discussions on
this board regarding the morality of the characters in this fictional
world we enjoy frequenting are informed by our views of the real
world either consciously or subconsciously. Joss Whedon, in various
interviews, has indicated that the vampires and other nasties
of the Buffyverse are metaphors for many things bad encountered
in the real world. Metaphors are a tool of evocation. Consequently,
our reactions, good or bad to these nasties, one way or the other,
are probably informed by our REAL feelings regarding the REAL
world truths that underly the metaphors (granted, in the safety
of the fictional environment). That was all that I was saying.
No intent to insult although your response was clearly intended
to insult me (no insult taken--all pachyderm here).
Devil's Advocate (aka TD) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> OT: manipulation/subversion -- verdantheart, 06:30:42
07/27/01 Fri
Just addressing the "manipulation" issue. Yes, I think
Joss knew exactly what he was doing when he drew us into Spike's
point of view, even as he was stalking Buffy (then abducting her).
In real life stalking is not nearly so romantic as it can appear
in fiction ('though it can be every bit as horrific). It's one
of the aspects of BtVS I like. Makes me think.
A while back there was a series on Fox called Profit. It was dealt
a quick death blow after four episodes, but by that time I was
already hooked. A friend of mine called it "evil." Why?
Because the "evil" character was sympathetic and all
of the "good" characters came off as holier-than-thou
snobs. I wanted to see Profit's schemes succeed. It was subversive,
and I really, really liked it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> OT: Profit-Which was a David Greenwalt production.
-- Ophelia, 07:03:18 07/27/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: OT: Profit-Which was a David Greenwalt
production. -- verdantheart, 14:38:41 07/27/01 Fri
.. which, oddly, I found out just after having posted that comment!
Figures, doesn't it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: OT: Profit-Which was a David
Greenwalt production. -- Ophelia, 19:01:52 07/27/01 Fri
And I was reminded of it right before I saw your post-talk about
a coincidence! ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: OT: Profit, me too! I thought I was the
only one. -- Deeva, 09:56:38 07/27/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sorry..I didn't mean to touch such a sensitive
nerve. -- Wiccagrrl, 09:26:48 07/27/01 Fri
I think it's important to look at just what Joss is doing with
these characters. I actually tend to think Spike, Angel, Faith,
and Anyal all have very different roles in the Buffyverse in terms
of examining the ideas evil and redemption/rehabilitation. And,
since, as we've all been saying, these are fictional characters
(we're all very clear on that, right ;)) it's a good forum for
doing that. Many interesting issues have come up because of the
attempted rehabilitation/redemption of these characters- questions
about motivation vs. behavior, the importance of remorse, do any
of these characters deserve a second (and in some of their cases
third or fourth) chance. Is Angel a hero? Should Anya have to
face some consequences for her past, and why does she seem to
get a free pass? And, of course, does it matter that Angel has
a soul? (or that Spike doesn't if he's trying to do the right
thing)
The Buffyverse tends to do things on a fairly large scale. The
crimes of these characters are in some ways almost larger than
life, but the issues are very human (even though, in Angel and
Spike's case, the characters aren't ;))
I think it's a little unfair to belittle those people who are
interested in examining these issues, who don't think Angel or
Spike, are lost causes. Can they ever make up for the evil they've
done? No, probably not. But Angel is actively trying to make this
world a better place, and Spike is more and more aligning himself
with people who are fighting the good fight and even helping in
that fight. Looking at the four characters I mentioned, I am interested
in looking at Joss' answers to the question "Can people (or
demons) change?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> A quick point on art/literature... -- Javoher, 16:25:26
07/27/01 Fri
I found both Rendyl's and Talking Drum's points well taken. (How's
that for middle-of-the-road???) ;) We use unreal characters to
explain our real lives. Angel and Spike are conflicted, almost
completely (morally) grey characters. That's why they have such
broad appeal. Everyone can relate in some way or another, since
none of us is perfect.
Indifferent art re-tells a timeless myth or legend; good art explains
its own time; great art explains all times. Anyone ever cried
upon seeing a Rodin for the first time? How about a Michelangelo?
And I don't know where Joss' work fits into this spectrum. That
can only be answered, like all art, by time.
Ooops...broke my soapbox. End of pontification... ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Chalk me up as dense. -- Solitude1056, 20:13:04 07/27/01
Fri
Yanno, I didn't even pay attention to who was being quoted. I
went in search of the causative post & couldn't find it - at least
not one with the timbre I was expecting.
Not surprised, since I find that sometimes we do get one or two
folks who really don't know the difference between real/fantasy
critters/characters. On the other hand, I'm bemused by some of
the attraction towards Spike, Angel, Faith, and yes, even my own
towards Evil Willow. Other than the physical appreciation since
they're all very fine specimens, that is. Personality-wise? Hmph.
Would I really want to be in a relationship with someone who'd
only be able to socialize outside during night hours? And would
I really want to be with someone who's got their own death certificate?
No, I don't think so. And, like OnM, I think that Faith's a great
character, with just the right mix to really off-set the SG as
an "opposite," but I've met folks like her, in person,
and yeah... I made tracks in the opposite direction, pronto. As
my mother used to say, "that person is bad news."
And to add, I agree that Faith got held to a higher standard -
regardless of her ability or capabilities to cope with that expectation
- because of her 'calling' as a Hero. Not all Heros make it, and
some are just doomed, by circumstance or by the writers who created
them. That's where we get the tragedies, and it's another strain
of the Hero myth, albeit a dark one. Whoever made the observation
that Faith was acting - in her murder of the bookselling demon,
and the old professor - on the demands of her pseudo-Watcher/authority
figure, was right on. If Buffy were the standard Slayer, she'd
be doing the same on demand of her Watcher & the C.o.W., and who's
to say which is a worse crime? Killing someone that you know is
guilty, or killing someone because it's a war and that's what
you have to do? Buffy's a step beyond Faith - and thus IMO carries
greater responsibility than Faith - because she calls the shots
herself. Faith acted on someone else's demands, regardless of
her own justifications, and did so without second thought. She
was the tool that someone else wielded, just like the Slayers
before her, and in some ways I think that's a crucial reason for
making her Buffy's opposite.
Kendra did and said and was what her Watcher wanted, and she's
dead. Faith did and said and was what her Watchers wanted, and
she barely survived. In one case, it's a matter of ultimate submission
to the authority figure; the other case is a matter of ultimate
loss-of-direction without an authority figure. Until Faith could
find a replacement, she was adrift, and once she found a replacement,
she was back at work. Buffy, of the three, is the only one who
made the step to declaring herself to be her own authority figure.
This changes the tone, IMO, when one considers responsibility
for one's actions, such as Buffy's defense against the Knights.
Yeah, act of war & all that, but who's to say that there hasn't
been a Slayer in the past who's been forced to fight, and possibly
kill, a human whose intentions are entirely against the greater
good - such as the Mayor pre-demon, or a human who aids and abets
vampires, or a sorcerer whose works put humanity in danger?
Ok, tangled questions, but hell... it's friday. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Starting to get worried that you're paying too much
attention to my deranged notions...;) -- OnM, 22:34:11 07/27/01
Fri
***Kendra did and said and was what her Watcher wanted, and she's
dead. Faith did and said and was what her Watchers wanted, and
she barely survived. In one case, it's a matter of ultimate submission
to the authority figure; the other case is a matter of ultimate
loss-of-direction without an authority figure. Until Faith could
find a replacement, she was adrift, and once she found a replacement,
she was back at work. Buffy, of the three, is the only one who
made the step to declaring herself to be her own authority figure.***
You probably didn't think consciously of this when you wrote the
above, Sol, but this relates awfully closely to my Riley-post
alternate creation theory where I compared Riley and Buffy to
Adam and Eve and stated that Eve/Buffy actually passed 'the test'
by eating the apple and getting cast out of paradise.
BTW, OT, you had recommended some books to me, a trilogy I think,
and I wanted to check them out, but I didn't write the names down.
Could you give me the titles again? Might have time to get to
the bookstore this weekend.
Thanks! ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yikes, I'm not channeling Joss... I'm channeling
OnM! -- Solitude1056, 22:43:02 07/27/01 Fri
The books were, uh... hmm. Gee.
Oh, right.
The Golden Compass The Subtle Knife The Amber Spyglass
and now I can't remember the author's name - Philip something,
I think... Paulson, maybe? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Close...Philip Pullman ;o) -- Wisewoman,
22:53:52 07/27/01 Fri
All three books have recently been published in a single volume
titled, "His Dark Materials." ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Faith as the Moon to Buffy's Sun (very long--sorry)
-- Anthony8, 00:49:15 07/28/01 Sat
I've always thought of Faith as Buffy's "shadow", the
moon to her sun. In a way, Buffy is Faith's sire since Buffy's
death initiates Faith's calling. But before Faith the Vampire
Slayer is allowed to fully form, Mummy is back from the dead.
Faith can never equal Buffy since Buffy will be the "First
Among Equals" as long as she lives. Buffy is older, more
experienced, more gregarious and enjoys her own little worship
circle. While they both derive their power from the same source,
Faith's title is diluted by Buffy's continued existence. And yet
both together represent the duality of temporal existence.
Like the moon, at best, Faith can only reflect Buffy's light.
It is only as a shadow that the moon ever eclipses the sun, and
then only for a very brief period. The sun represents the creative
light of eternity while the moon is tied to all things earthly
and temporal. The sun is essential for the origination of life,
but the moon is necessary to regulate the tides, the floods that
nourish the soil, and the female cycle that maintains reproductive
fertility (things that have come to be characterized as evil in
western mythology). The evil reflects the good.
To quote Joss Whedon in the Slayer Chronicle interviews: "Bad
Girls and Consequences were our attempt to start exploring the
idea of being a Slayer in terms of the power of it and how much
fun it could be, and how intoxicating it could be, and how dangerous
it could be, and we used Faith as a vessel." Douglas Petrie
(Bad Girls writer) adds: "She is in many ways Buffy's evil
twin. She gets to do all the things that Buffy would like to do
but can't." And Joss again: "She was everything that
Buffy would never let herself be." With these comments and
keeping in mind the moon/shadow motif proposed above, Faith is
very much Buffy's mirror image. I looked back over the tapes and
noticed that, at least prior to her reawakening in TYG, Faith
never strikes Buffy first. This may have been intentional on the
writers' part or just pure synchronicity, but a shadow or a mirror
reflection can never strike first. Stand in front of a mirror
and try it. In fact, Faith never makes an attempt on Buffy's life.
Not only that but Faith saves Buffy's life on at least two occasions
(from Trick and by giving her the heads up on the Mayor's weakness
in their shared coma dream). Buffy does try to kill Faith though
and nearly succeeds (Buffy trying to eliminate her own evil self?).
To twist things even further, Faith as Buffy in Buffy's body tries
to kill herself (that is the Faith body) in WAY.
Some particular telling scenes of the Buffy/Faith duality:
From Enemies:
[Buffy and Faith end in a standoff, each holding a knife to the
other's throat.] Faith: What are you gonna do, B, kill me? You
become me. You're not ready for that, yet. Faith grabs Buffy's
neck and kisses her on the forehead. Faith runs away.
And from GD1:
[In Faith's apartment. She reads a comic book while music blares.]
[Cut to show Buffy behind her, across the room. Buffy turns off
the stereo.]
Buffy: Thought I'd stop by. Faith: Is he dead yet? Buffy: He's
not gonna die. It was a good try, though. Your plan? Faith: Uh-huh.
The Mayor got me the poison. Said it was wicked painful. Buffy:
There's a cure. Faith: Damn. What is it? Buffy: Your blood. As
justice goes, it's not un-poetic, don't you think? Faith: Come
to get me? You gonna feed me to Angel? You know you're not going
to take me alive. Buffy: Not a problem. Faith: Well, look at you.
All dressed up in big sister's clothes. Buffy: You told me I was
just like you. That I was holding it in. They approach until they're
standing face to face. Faith: Ready to cut loose? Buffy: Try me.
Faith: Okay then. Give us a kiss. Buffy punches her in the jaw.
And from Consequences:
Faith: (grins evilly) Scares you, doesn't it? She climbs over
the railing and hops down to the dock. Buffy: Yeah, it scares
me. Faith, you're hurting people. You're hurting yourself. Faith:
(approaches Buffy) But that's not it. That's not what bothers
you so much. What bugs you is you know I'm right. You know in
your gut we don't need the law. We *are* the law. Buffy: No. She
turns her back and walks away. Faith follows right behind. Faith:
Yes. You know exactly what I'm about 'cause you have it in you,
too. Buffy: No, Faith, you're sick. Faith: I've seen it, B. You've
got the lust. And I'm not just talking about screwing vampires.
Buffy stops in her tracks. Buffy: Don't you *dare* bring him into
this. Faith: (taunting her) It was good, wasn't it? The sex? The
danger? Bet a part of you even dug him when he went psycho. Buffy:
No! (continues walking) Faith: (follows) See, you need me to toe
the line because you're afraid you'll go over it, aren't you,
B? You can't handle watching me living my own way, having a blast,
because it tempts you! You know it could be you! Buffy has had
enough. She stops, faces her and backhand punches her in the jaw.
Faith comes up smiling wickedly. Faith: There's my girl.
And from Who Are You:
Faith (Actually Buffy in Faith's body): You can't win this. Faith
as Buffy: Shut up! Do you think I'm afraid of you? [Buffy grabs
Faith and throws her down, then sits on top of her and starts
punching her.] You're nothing. [Punch. Punch.] Disgusting. [Punch.
Punch.] [Buffy grabs Faith's hair with both hand and bangs her
head.] Murderous bitch. [Bang. Bang...] You're nothing. [Bang.
Bang...] [Switches back to punches] You're [Buffy is now crying.]
disgusting. [Faith grabs Buffy's hand to stop a punch and their
hands glow.]
And finally, there is the revealing camera trick at end of the
ep where we see Buffy's face and Faith's face superimposed together
on the screen as real Buffy fades out and real Faith fades in.
Nice!
IMO Faith really loves Buffy and is ill-equipped because of her
hard-knocks past to express her love in anything but a dysfunctional
way (temptation, and striking out out of fear of rejection) which
ultimately leads her into a spiral of evil. Buffy, on the other
hand, is repulsed by Faith because she sees a little too much
of her hidden self in her evil twin (dabbling with the dark side
through her relationship with Angel, which she knew was wrong
and doomed from the start) and refuses to face that fact. So while
in the beginning she goes through the motions of appearing to
have Faith's best interests at heart, she really wishes to control
Faith or have Faith disappear altogether. Furthermore, when Buffy
is in the power position to forgive Faith (in Sanctuary), which
would be the ultimate heroic act of compassion, She can't bring
herself to do it so it falls upon Angel to provide the only hope
for Faith's reform and redemption. The tragedy is that Faith and
Buffy lose each other because of their inability to accept the
other as part of an integrated whole. Imagine the possibilities
of two fully empowered Slayers (drawing power from each others
strengths) facing the forces of darkness!
I know this is getting long, but the concept of Faith as Buffy's
necessary opposite reminded me of some interpretations of Satan's
relationship to God. In the Koran, Satan is banished to a place
beyond God's love because he refuses to bow before man. Some have
suggested that Satan so refuses because his love for God is so
great that he can't bring himself to worship the lower human beings.
God's reward for Satan's love is to deprive Satan of God's light.
From that point on Satan, with God's permission (see the Book
of Job) makes a career out of tempting and tormenting God's most
beloved creation, humankind. Satan never attacks God directly
because he loves him so (even obssessively, perhaps). God never
blinks Satan into oblivion because Satan is one of his beloved
creations and therefore a part of him. Now keep in mind that Faith
(and Angelus II for a time-you know the post Buffy sleepage, pre
Willow restorage Angelus) never tries to kill Buffy. She does
go after Buffy's most cherished loved ones. Angelus II does the
same, despite Spike's protestations to just kill the girl. More
synchronicity or just wicked writer's tricks?
And finally, in keeping with my earlier sun/moon references, the
snake or serpent are associated with Satan. Mythologically, the
snake has always been associated with the moon as well because
the snake sheds its skin (like the moon sheds its shadow)and thus
represents the duality of death and rebirth or earthly mortality
in the field of time. In Faith's dream right before her reawakening
in TYG, a snake slithers into the picture while she and the Mayor
are out on their picnic. Not so subtle, but very synchronous nonetheless.
Any thoughts?
A8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Faith as the Moon to Buffy's Sun (very long--sorry)
-- Rufus, 02:47:30 07/28/01 Sat
That's quite the gift the Mayor gave Faith, the ability to become
what she most desired, Buffy. She finally had Buffy's life and
friends but didn't have the skills to interact with them in a
meaningful way, she was still Faith. When she saved that girl
in the alley she got something I don't think she ever saw much
of...gratitude..and she begun to shed her skin and see herself
and her actions through Buffy's eyes. She still tried to screw
Buffy by doing her boyfriend....Riley who said something I don't
think she ever heard in her life..I love you(and he meant it).
Faith finally got the fact that Buffy's life wasn't just a random
popularity contest that her blonde locks won for her...she cared
about the people she saved and felt an obligation to help others...it
became catching because Faith(in Buffy still) came back to help
the people in Church (she saw the light perhaps)only to be returned
to her own body to leave town defeated. The level of self hate
couldn't just have happened overnight, this is a character that
placed no value in humanity because she saw no value in herself,
through Buffys eyes she got the first taste of what being wanted
and needed really is.
Some have suggested that Satan so refuses because his love for
God is so great that he can't bring himself to worship lower beings.
God's reward for Satan's love is to deprive Satan of God's light.
From that point on Satan, With God's permission (see the book
of Job) makes a career out of tempting and tormenting God's most
beloved creation, humankind.
That reminds me of the dispute between the old ones that used
to inhabit the earth before they lost their purchase, and man
who took over. The last demon bit a human making the first vampire
who has made a career of destroying what it once was, compelled
by the demon who is a very sore loser. Seems to be a lot of vengeance
and pay back in the Buffyverse.
Exercise
in counter-factuals: Where was Dawn? -- d'Herblay, 00:10:18 07/28/01
Sat
In "Superstar," the spell Jonathan cast altered everyone's
memories of significant Buffyverse events to be centered around
Jonathan; i.e., Jonathan smashed the Master's bones, blew up the
Mayor-snake, etc.
The spell the monks cast must have altered significant memories
in similar ways, but, to the best of my knowledge, we never hear
if or how Dawn's presence affected the events of seasons one through
four. (Joss has said that the Buffy cartoon, which will be set
back during Buffy's internment at Sunnydale High School, may feature
Dawn.)
So, my challenge: If you could rewrite any season 1-4 episode
to include Dawn, how would you do so?
For example, in October of 1997, in was not unheard of for pre-teenage
girls to idolize the Spice Girls. Dawn dressed for Halloween as
Posh. Unfortunately, she bought a feather boa from Ethan's, and
became Victoria Addams. Then, while Xander set the defensive perimeter,
Cordelia had some words about foundation, and a minor cat-fight
ensued.
Of course, maybe Dawn, at eleven, was a little old for the Spice
Girls; maybe Ethan's didn't sell feather boas. But, hey! It's
my fantasy counter-factual and I'm sticking to it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Exercise in counter-factuals: Where was Dawn? -- Malandanza,
09:37:46 07/28/01 Sat
Angelus visits Dawn's bedroom instead of Willow's -- and kills
Dawn's fish. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Exercise in counter-factuals: Where was Dawn? -- Wiccagrrl,
09:38:16 07/28/01 Sat
This is a great question- one I've been kinda wondering about
for a while. Some of the comedies it'd be fun to see how she fit
in- Ted, Band Candy. But I also have some questions on the bigger
issues- how she woulda reacted to the B/A situation back in season
two (and more importantly Buffy running away), how/when she learned
about Buffy being a slayer, etc. I also wonder what she thought
of Faith. I imagine that she felt maybe a twinge of jealousy at
the F/B bond at first. Also, it's been my experience that it's
a whole lot harder to keep secrets when you have a kid sister
in the house (and Buffy did a whole lot of secret keeping and
sneaking out of the house the first couple of years) Sorry, no
great answers, just intrigued by the possibilities. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Exercise in counter-factuals: Where was Dawn? -- MPN,
11:28:58 07/28/01 Sat
I would have loved to see Dawn in the classic "Becoming Part
2," not only because it remains one of my favorite episodes
to date, but because of how important it was in the Buffy/Joyce
relationship. This is of course the episode in which Joyce finally
finds out about Buffy being the Slayer, and while she doesn't
understand what it means, the point is she now knows. I'm sure
Michelle Trachtenberg could have added a great deal to the scene
where Buffy and Joyce confront one another, even if not verbally,
just with facial expressions showing her horror at the fight they
get into. She's one of those actresses that can convey tremendous
emotion without even speaking. It also would have been priceless
to see her inital reactions to Spike when he first shows up with
Buffy, heh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Exercise in counter-factuals: Where was Dawn?(Superstar)
-- Malandanza, 06:53:12 07/29/01 Sun
"In "Superstar," the spell Jonathan cast altered
everyone's memories of significant Buffyverse events to be centered
around Jonathan; i.e., Jonathan smashed the Master's bones, blew
up the Mayor-snake, etc."
"he spell the monks cast must have altered significant memories
in similar ways, but, to the best of my knowledge, we never hear
if or how Dawn's presence affected the events of seasons one through
four. (Joss has said that the Buffy cartoon, which will be set
back during Buffy's internment at Sunnydale High School, may feature
Dawn.)"
How about changes to "Superstar"? Let's say Jonathan's
spell made Dawn the slayer (and Jonathan's faithful sidekick)
for the day while Buffy was merely the normal older sister. Dawn
is a little young to be the slayer, but it would be interesting
to see the role reversal and see how Buffy would react to sharing
Xander's role as a powerless Scooby. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Exercise in counter-factuals: Where was Dawn? -- Cactus
Watcher, 09:09:29 07/29/01 Sun
Having Dawn around certainly would make it easier to explain why
Joyce never figured out Buffy was sneaking out every night. -
"Where's Buffy, Dawn?" - "In her room writing in
her diary, AGAIN. How come she's always writing when I want to
do something? I've got a dairy. I don't write in it ALL the time."
-"Well, Buffy's a teenager and teenagers need their privacy."
-"Aw!" - said Dawn in a pretend whine, thinking, 'Mom,
you are so dense!'
Seriously, every time I think of "Superstar" it cheapens
Dawn's existence for me. Personally, I would be happier with a
Buffy universe with Dawn and without the episode "Superstar."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Superstar led to Dawn -- Wisewoman, 09:56:11 07/29/01
Sun
I think in many ways we needed to see Superstar and to hear the
alternate reality, "World without Shrimp," hypotheses
to prepare us for the introduction of Dawn.
I remember feeling exactly the same way in both instances, confused,
fascinated, willing to suspend disbelieve and trust in Joss.
I think I understand what you mean about cheapening the concept
though. Jonathan was just a normal shmo who changed the whole
reality of the Buffyverse, while it took Monks with special knowledge,
lots of time, an end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it reason, and the
Key (possibly to everything) to alter it in a similar manner the
second time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Superstar led to Dawn -- Darrick, 10:23:03
07/29/01 Sun
Actually, didn't Jonathan do much more than the monks. I was under
the impression that the monks didn't actually alter the course
of reality but only manipulate memories. They would have had to
alter some records, but otherwise I think Dawn is literally around
1 year old.
So, is Dawn a case of altered reality (i.e. the monks changed
history so she would be there for the scooby's adventures), or
did they just subtly manipulate memories? Memory manipultion would
obviously be easier, you wouldn't even have install complete sets
of memories. People would fill in the blanks themselves.
Also, did Jonathan's superhero effect extend beyond Sunnydale?
Since Dawn's memory alteration "virus" would almost
certainly have to, perhaps the monk's did have the harder job.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Superstar led to Dawn -- John Burwood,
12:19:40 07/29/01 Sun
Actually there is one other distinct difference. The magics of
Superstar were 'unstable', & created a countervailing monster
of evil. Tne monks' magic was stable & permanent, & created no
monster. A much more professional job, & not unravelled easily
as was Jonathan's effort. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> So it would seem, but... -- Cactus
Watcher, 12:53:57 07/29/01 Sun
Can you not see that the monks did a rush job? Glory was breaking
down the door at the time. It is rash indeed to assume the monks
understood all that they were doing. The monks literally ruined
Buffy's life. The world was indeed out of balance. As soon as
Dawn was created either Buffy or Dawn had to die to put the world
right again. When she died, Buffy had no way of knowing whether
anything she remembered of her family life was real or not. If
Dawn had died instead of Buffy, who's to say all of those false
memories wouldn't have been erased? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Superstar led to Dawn -- Cactus Watcher,
12:01:45 07/29/01 Sun
I really enjoyed "Superstar" when it aired. Maybe I
am saying that Joss (who every one insists is a genius) was a
serious klutz last year. I think it's time to stop trusting Joss
at all levels, and to demand more of him occasionally. There are
many ways Dawn could have been introduced with the same ultimate
results. I believe each of us could think of one. Instead of thinking
something new, Joss picked an old way, one that had been discredited
in "Superstar," as unreal and something to be reversed.
For you we wouldn't be prepared with out "Superstar."
I'm sure a lot of people must agree with you. For me the coming
of Dawn was ruined by "Superstar." Like Giles I always
felt during the season that Dawn just wasn't real. Now it seems
to me Dawn is real, but everything going on around her isn't quite
right. It also occured to me today that Buffy has too much in
common with April. April was programmed to love Warren. Dawn was
created in such a way that Buffy was programmed to love her. I
really despise the episode with April because it gives weight
to the idea that it's wrong that Buffy cared so much about Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> April & Warren vs Buffy & Dawn -- Wisewoman,
13:38:28 07/29/01 Sun
"It also occured to me today that Buffy has too much in common
with April. April was programmed to love Warren. Dawn was created
in such a way that Buffy was programmed to love her. I really
despise the episode with April because it gives weight to the
idea that it's wrong that Buffy cared so much about Dawn."
I don't think the monk's programmed Buffy to love Dawn at all.
They just depended on what they believed Buffy would feel upon
being presented with the "reality" of a younger sibling--protective
affection with occasional doses of exasperation. And that's exactly
the relationship between them until Buffy does the "pull
back the curtain" (aka "rotate many foodstuffs")
spell and realizes that Dawn is not "real." At that
point, there's no love programming in evidence; she's pretty pissed
and physically threatening to Dawn.
It's only when the dying monk reveals Dawn's true nature that
Buffy seems to develop her overwhelming love for her--a combination
of implanted natural sibling affection and a recognition of the
position this poor "child" has been placed in, through
no fault of her own. Buffy loves Dawn as much as she does because
she realizes that Dawn, real or not, is an innocent bystander
in the whole Hellgod scenario, and one who has no way of knowing
(at that point) that's she's anything other than the 14-year-old
sister of the Slayer.
I think she can't help but love her, but I don't think she was
programmed to love her, as April was Warren.
;o) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: April & Warren vs Buffy & Dawn
-- darrenK, 15:14:41 07/29/01 Sun
Part of Buffy's goodness is her intuitive compassion for others
and her willingness to make sacrifices for them.
That's what makes her a hero.
When Buffy thinks that Dawn is just her little sister, she treats
her like she's just a little sister.
When she realizes that Dawn isn't her little sister, then her
compassion kicks in and her love for Dawn becomes greater and
larger like her love for the world.
Warren and April are indeed the other side of the coin. Love both
created and thrown away for selfish reasons. First warren creates
a loving being simply for sex then he's willing to endanger his
community just to throw it away.
He's a metaphor for everything from SUV's and out of control consumerism
to polluting corporations and the Bush administration.
As always, Buffy is different. She has already taken on a burden
larger then most people could endure: Slayerhood. Now she accepts
Dawn, the KEY to a problem that is certainly not hers, but she
does more than embrace it. Like the Buddha, she accepts it and
Dawn and the fate of Death with equal selfless compassionate sacrifice.
More than willing to love and accept oblivion if it means redeeming
the world.
dK ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: April & Warren vs Buffy & Dawn
-- Cactus Watcher, 16:19:33 07/29/01 Sun
I didn't say they programmed Buffy. We know that the Slayer would
have protected the Key in any case if she knew what was at stake.
The monks apparently did not or they could have gone to her and
asked her, "please, protect this!" Instead (perhaps
because they had run out of time) they chose to send the Key to
Buffy in a form SHE WOULD LOVE. Remember what Glory said. The
monks could have made the key into virtually anything; a doorknob,
a puppy, a pile of ooze or a rock on the moon. The monks chose
to make the Key in the form of a sister, a human being. The monks
made Dawn so that Buffy would love her, and protect her even if
they didn't get a chance to tell Buffy what was going on. The
topic of Buffy as a sister deserves it's own thread so I won't
go into it here. But, you should understand that the monks intended
to USE the Slayer, and for better or worse they did. Buffy's love
for Dawn is real, but Dawn was built specifically for drawing
on her love. I can't help but feel uneasy about that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Superstar led to Dawn -- Malandanza,
13:50:12 07/29/01 Sun
"I really enjoyed "Superstar" when it aired...
There are many ways Dawn could have been introduced with the same
ultimate results. I believe each of us could think of one. Instead
of thinking something new, Joss picked an old way, one that had
been discredited in "Superstar," as unreal and something
to be reversed. "For you we wouldn't be prepared without
"Superstar." I'm sure a lot of people must agree with
you. For me the coming of Dawn was ruined by "Superstar."
Like Giles I always felt during the season that Dawn just wasn't
real. Now it seems to me Dawn is real, but everything going on
around her isn't quite right. "It also occurred to me today
that Buffy has too much in common with April. April was programmed
to love Warren. Dawn was created in such a way that Buffy was
programmed to love her. I really despise the episode with April
because it gives weight to the idea that it's wrong that Buffy
cared so much about Dawn."
We have seen three different instances of alternate universes/alternate
realities: the Wishworld, the Jonathanverse and Dawn. Of these,
the Wishworld seems to be the only true alternate universe. Both
Adam and Buffy (under the influence of a spell) were able to penetrate
the illusions created by Jonathan and the monks. Additionally,
Anya has spoken on many occasions about alternate realities, leading
one to suppose that the Wishworld was just another such place
she visited (plus, in the "Dopplegangland" shooting
script -- written by Joss -- the Wishworld is explicitly referred
to as an Alternate Universe in the stage direction). Had Dawn
followed the pattern of "Wish," merely being alternate
reality Dawn, I think the results would have been less than satisfactory.
But the Jonathanverse has much in common with the Wishworld. As
John Burwood pointed out, the Jonathanverse was unstable. Ultimately,
it would have collapsed on itself, with or without Buffy's help
(which is why Adam remained unconcerned). In both "Wish"
and "Superstar," Cordelia and Jonathan were granted
powerful wishes -- with powerful strings attached (Cordelia ended
up dead). It does not alarm me that Jonathan was able to call
up such powerful forces -- it seems to be established in the Buffyverse
that the most powerful demons cannot act in the Buffyverse except
through a human agent. These "unstable magicks" wreak
havoc for a time (destroying the person who was supposed to benefit
from them) and then fade away, leaving little or no imprint behind.
A big difference between Jonathan's spell and the monks' spell
(aside from the lack of negative consequences) is that the monks
actually created a new creature, rather than just modifying memories
of existing creatures. I do think that much of the last season
could be reversed by destroying Dawn (just as breaking Jonathan's
spell reversed the course of the past few days). However, I think
there would be lasting effects since the monks' spell has endured
so long (like Buffy and Glory would still be dead). That Dawn
isn't entirely real is emphasized in "There's No Place Like
Home", when Buffy performs the Tirer la Couture spell, she
sees through the lies and deceptions, just as Adam saw through
Jonathan's lies. Furthermore, Buffy knocks Dawn back into the
wall when she thinks Dawn is some sort of malign entity -- demonstrating
that she had not been programmed to love and protect Dawn. The
monks gave her false memories so she would protect Dawn, but they
did not place any sort of compulsion upon Buffy. If Buffy had
not found out from the monk that night that Dawn was an innocent,
it is not clear what Buffy would have done to her little sister.
Certainly, I think that the Scoobies would have worked to reverse
the spell.
Was it wrong that Buffy "cared so much about Dawn" even
when she knew Dawn was a figment of the monks imagination? I think
it would have been out of character for Buffy to turn her back
on Dawn -- just as it would have been out of character for her
to allow Tara to be taken away by her family. The false memories
may have made it a little easier for Buffy to love Dawn, but I
believe that even if the monks had made Dawn into a homeless waif,
we would still have seen Buffy willing to sacrifice herself for
Dawn in the end -- no programming necessary.
A real life article and Dawn -- Sue,
10:24:32 07/29/01 Sun
Below is a link to a story about a missing teenager. The only
reason I post it here is the following paragragh
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0107/30/national/national6.html
"Before dawn, she dressed in a green gown her mother had
bought for her school formal later this year, and walked barefoot
to Mona Vale beach, where she had swum for the first time in Australia
as a five-month-old baby. She left her neatly folded clothes by
steps and vanished."
Reminds me so much of that scene with Dawn. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A real life article and Dawn -- Wisewoman, 10:50:14
07/29/01 Sun
You're right, it is very reminiscent of Dawn in The Gift. It's
also interesting that Passy Reyes watched TV before going to bed
on Tuesday night and then disappeared on Wednesday morning. When
is Buffy shown in Australia? This young woman was obviously under
a great deal of pressure and very troubled as well. She may, in
fact, have been suffering the early symptoms of schizophrenia
or schizo-affective disorder.
The other, much more mildly, freaky thing is reading a news report
dated Monday, July 30, when it's still only Sunday morning here
on the west coast of North America. Weird!
tara changed? -- gds, 10:50:36 07/29/01 Sun
After her ordeal Tara obviously will not be quite the same as
she was before. Major trauma always leaves its scars, but I am
wondering if there are not deeper changes. Does she share any
of Glory's (or Ben's) memories? Does she now have any of their
skills or powers? Did she inherit any of Glory's mental instability?
It seems doubtful that the restoration was 100% successful. There
were probably pieces of her left in Glory and pieces of Glory
left in her.
OT. I haven't been keeping track of the sponsors of my favorite
show, but I noticed with some amusement that in the latest showing
of THE GIFT that the cotton industry was a sponsor to the destruction
of that well known hater of cotton (Glory). Hmm. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: tara changed? -- OnM, 11:49:38 07/29/01 Sun
Some interesting points, quite possible the writers will draw
on that. While I doubt that Tara will gain any 'powers' as a result
of her unwilling bond with Glorificus, the instabilities or memories
are a distinct possiblity.
BTW, regarding your cottonific OT, please be sure that when you
e-mail Masq with your regular poster's credentials, you fill in
'11' in the TTMQ portion. I proudly welcome you to this elite
portion of ATPo credibility/insanity!! (Hee-hee-- or is that Bwa-ha-ha?
I always get those two confused...)
;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: tara changed? -- gds, 14:49:42 07/29/01 Sun
Actually I had said 9 for the TTMQ , but she who is god on this
board has the power to adjust such things. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: tara changed? -- Cactus Watcher, 12:30:20 07/29/01 Sun
An interesting idea. What springs to my thoughts is having Tara
's lesbian sanity, mixed up with Glory's half-crazy narcissism
(and perhaps Ben's troubled hetero mind as well). ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: tara changed? -- Liquidram, 14:39:35 07/29/01 Sun
Interesting comments and some that I even made in our "Relations"
team discussions of where to take Tara.
It would stand to reason that Willow could not have separated
Tara's essence alone from Glory during the spell, which would
also mean that Tara had some of the KoB (Dominic's) essence also....
and she would probably on occasion have the urge to deliver mail.
:) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: tara changed? -- gds, 14:56:38 07/29/01 Sun
True, unless all trace of the others had been consumed by Glory.
She did refer to EATING a brain so perhaps these traits disappeared
after complete digestion -I don't even want to think about what
would happen after that.
Also lets not forget Willow was the conduit, so she also probably
has pieces of Glory & Tara. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> tara changed? Maybe, but somewhat off topic -- darrenK,
14:57:10 07/29/01 Sun
I don't know how much time there will be to explore such things.
What with Buffy's resurrection/reincarnation/reanimation/cyborgiation/etc.
My own opinion is that the mindsuck was just a foreshadowing of
Tara's victimhood. Joss and co. have gone out of their way to
make sure that every character of the past 5 years has been complex
with traits that are strong, weak, good, evil,etc. Only Tara has
been maintained as good, wise and innocent, almost painfully so.
And there has been plenty of time to complicate her.
Her only moment of slippage was in thinking she was half-demon,
but even that wasn't true.
I like her and Willow's relationship, but I think Willow's growing
greed for power and lack of boundaries when it comes to magical
knowledge will somehow lead to Tara's death.
I know this is off-topic, I just don't think we're going to see
Tara exhibit any schiz tendencies, mainly because I think she
will stay good and uncomplicated, then she'll be toast.
Sorry.
dK ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> cyborgiation? LOL! -- spotjon, 13:35:53 07/30/01
Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: tara changed? -- Wisewoman, 19:37:08 07/29/01 Sun
Well, there may be some changes to Tara, but her first words to
Willow after the transfer were, "You found me!" and
I thought she meant, "In amongst all the dreck that Glory
had floating around in what passed for her mind, you managed to
find the part that was me and brought me back to myself."
But hey, I've been wrong before... ;o) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: tara changed? -- Lucifer Sponge, 08:54:55 07/30/01
Mon
*sheepishly* Actually, her first words after the transfer were
"Willow? I got so lost." And then Willow said "I
found you! I will always find you!" Just to clear that up.
And, interestingly enough, I always thought that Tara was lost
inside herself, not in Glory. I think what Glory really stole
was Tara's strength and stability. My theory is that when she
feeds she consumes a person's connection with reality. Having
lost that connection the person's consciousness and personality
gets lost in a sea of rampant insanity.
But I'm think I'm the only one who thinks that... ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> No you're not. -- Solitude1056, 19:00:40 07/30/01
Mon
My theory has pretty much stayed the same, that Glory stole folk's
identity (IOW, what ties them to the common reality, in what they
know as their Selves). So the rest of the person's still there,
but without an Identity, they have no basis or means to interact
with others. No foundation. I'm sure there's a pop-psych way to
express that, but got me if I know. ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: tara changed? -- Malandanza, 19:34:55 07/30/01
Mon
"*sheepishly* Actually, her first words after the transfer
were "Willow? I got so lost." And then Willow said "I
found you! I will always find you!" Just to clear that up."
"And, interestingly enough, I always thought that Tara was
lost inside herself, not in Glory. I think what Glory really stole
was Tara's strength and stability. My theory is that when she
feeds she consumes a person's connection with reality. Having
lost that connection the person's consciousness and personality
gets lost in a sea of rampant insanity."
When I think of crazy people, I think of Lovecraft. In his stories,
the protaganists are driven insane by too much reality. Rather
than breaking a person's connection with reality, Glory might
have severed their connections with all those parts of the brain
that filter reality so it doesn't overwhelm us in a rush of sensation
and horror. Contibuting to this impression is that Glory's insane
victims could see through the illusions that the monks created
to hide the key. Arguing against the notion is Glory's description
of the insanity to Tara -- as if the conscious mind is forcibly
locked away, leaving the subconscious to react to outside stimulae.
It's hard for me to imagine what Glory removed from each victim's
mind, or why Tara's brain was so much different from that of the
various others she had destroyed.
The
'Car Talk Puzzler' may be on vacation, but 'CMotW' is not - Also
some links... -- OnM, 11:34:32 07/29/01 Sun
. to some interesting articles in today's Philadelphia Inquirer.
Firstly, for those who have just gotten back from vacation and
clicked on your PC to go and viddy my most recent Classic Movie
column (oh, yeah, that'll happen anytime soon!! ;)-- No, I didn't
forget it, or run late, it's just that with the lengthy current
main posts and the recently shortened main board page length,
I got bumped to The Archives in just a mere day & a half. Ouch!
If you read the column and want to respond, you are welcome to
do so here, since according to Masq you can't post responses to
archived threads.
With that out of the way, and in the meantime, I read two very
interesting articles in today's Philly Inquirer that I think my
fellow ATPo boarders may find of interest, so I'll pass them along.
The first is movie & A.I. related and can be accessed at this
link:
http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/07/29/arts_and_entertainment/HUMAN29.htm
As a teaser, this quote concludes the article (Copyright Philly
Enquirer / Carrie Rickey / 2001):
***Communicating via e-mail, Aldiss rejects the idea that these
movies redefine what we mean by humanity. For him, they indicate
"that we are the only animals on this planet, or possibly
any other planet, who concern ourselves with such matters."
In other words, the smarter we get, the more reflective we become.***
The second is a site I haven't had a chance to visit yet, but
sounds very intriguing for those of a philosophical or spiritual
bent:
http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/07/29/local_news/WEB29.htm
Please keep in mind that this is a daily paper, so I have no idea
how long the links will stay active. I do know you can search
their archives for free for up to a week after original publication.
Well, got some stuff to do at the moment, but, as usual, I'll
be back later on. See ya'all!
:) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thanks! (o/t) -- Wisewoman, 11:57:49 07/29/01 Sun
Checked out killthebuddha.com and it's a fascinating site...most
recent article is on the death of Carlo Giuliani in Genoa last
week.
Going on to read the article that quotes Aldiss now.
;o) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> "Killing the Buddha" is an interesting site .
. -- d'Herblay, 19:49:53 07/29/01 Sun
That Arts & Letters Daily sent me to a while back for an article
on the spiritual and profane in the life and music of Sam Cooke.
The direct link is http://www.killingthebuddha.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Buffy in the 'Car Talk Puzzler' -- d'Herblay, 20:21:30 07/29/01
Sun
Listen or read. (RealPlayer needed to listen.)
Nail polish and the Buffyverse -- Simplicity, 15:07:47
07/30/01 Mon
While watching "Tough Love" the other night, I noticed
that Glory's nails were painted with black polish. That in itself
suprised me. Is it just me or does it seem like she'd be likely
to have long red talons? What does the polish symbolize?
So. . .I started thinking about the meaning of black nail polish.
Two other people have worn it. . .
Spike has been known to wear black nail polish. Have you noticed
that it's always "chipped" and peeling? Does this mean
that he's not completely evil or the chip prevents him from doing
all of the evil deeds himself?
Oz is another character who routinely had black nails. Following
my line of thinking, this probably refers to his wolfness.
Other nail polish mentions. . .
Drusilla is yet another. Though, hers tends to be red and chipped.
Not sure what this certifies? Red is madness maybe? Glory wore
only red and was obviously quite mad.
Last of all, Dawn . In "Fool for Love" she covers for
Buffy saying that she was using the alcohol to remove nail polish.
And says something to the effect that "some nail polish experiments
are doomed to failure. . " Joyce made it sound as if Dawn
routinely polished her nails. I'm not sure what this means. But,
I wonder what color she would choose?
Any thoughts on this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Nail polish and the Buffyverse -- Little Stef, 15:50:45
07/30/01 Mon
I think Dawn would wear a really Deep Red colour, because it is
the colour of blood, and isn't it Dawns blood that makes her special
as it holds the key.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Nail polish and the Buffyverse -- Rahael, 16:06:51
07/30/01 Mon
I have seen Buffy wear natural nail polish and also green. Wonder
what that means........?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Buffy used to wear silver a lot, too. -- Cactus
Watcher, 19:04:23 07/30/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Okay, you all rate TTMQ 11:5! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 21:07:00
07/30/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Just you wait until... -- OnM, 21:46:42 07/30/01 Mon
..someone does their doctoral thesis on 'Asynchronous Digital
Chromatic Character Deconstruction in Post-Modern Heroic Folklore'.
I have no idea what the hell that means, but it sure sounds good!!!
Color me outa here for tonight!
;-)
Character theme
tunes -- Little Stef, 16:06:17 07/30/01 Mon
Angel: Creep/Karma police both by Radiohead Willow: The Witch
by The Cult Tara: Army Dreamers by kate Bush Xander: Heroes by
David Bowie Buffy; Love will tear us apart by Joy Division Spike:
I wanna be your dog by The Stooges Giles: The Fragile By Nine
Inch Nails (how he feels towards Buffy) i cant think of anymore...what
do ya think guys ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Character theme tunes -- lagomorph, 17:21:33 07/30/01
Mon
How about:
BuffyBot: "Electric Barbarella" by Duran Duran
I had that song stuck in my head for days after "Intervention"!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Character theme tunes -- Simplicity, 17:30:14 07/30/01
Mon
Good choices! Especially Xander's song. I think that suits him
perfectly.
Let me try. . .
Buffy: "Bitch" by Meredith Brooks * Don't get me wrong,
I like Buffy and the song too, I think it sums up the softer as
well as the harder side of her personality.
Spike: "Every Breath You Take" by The Police or "Addicted
to Love" by Robert Palmer
Willow: "Hey Pretty" by Poe Think this captures both
her darker side (which I hope we get to see this year!!!) and
her lighter side. Speaks of secrets and I think Willow has a lot
of them.
Giles: "Riders on the Storm" by the Doors This captures
more the Ripper side "There's a killer on the road. .. his
brain is squirming like a toad"
Angel: "Loser" by Beck. Okay, so just during brood sessions.
.but come on "I'm a loser baby, so why don't you kill me?"
"All the Man that I Need" by Whitney Houstan rounds
him out, maybe from Buffy's perspective. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Could Glory's be "Let's go Crazy" by
Prince? -- Soulkiller, 17:31:50 07/30/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Or Petula Clark's song about going shopping
downtown... -- Solitude1056, 18:54:32 07/30/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Even More Character Tunes -- Squonk's Tears, 18:19:33 07/30/01
Mon
Okay, I'll bite.
Angel: Temptation Waits by Garbage
Spike: Vicious by Lou Reed, or Eaten By The Monster Of Love by
Sparks
Faith: Not Angry Anymore by Ani Di Franco
Riley: Running Up That Hill by Kate Bush
Tara: Voodoo by The Neville Brothers
Willow: Day for Night by Bryan Ferry
Xander: Save Me by Aimee Mann
Anya: The Girl Can't Help It by Little Richard
Oz: The Stranger Within by Ultravox
Jonathan: Gravity's Angel by Laurie Anderson
Darla: Bad Reputation by Joan Jett
Drusilla: Shine On You Crazy Diamond by Pink Floyd
Giles: The Mayor of Simpleton by XTC
Dawn: Little Bird by Annie Lennox
Buffy: Just a Girl by No Doubt, The Ghost In You by The Psychedelic
Furs
OK, campers, here's one for
ya to check out. I suspect there will be opinions forthcoming!
-- OnM, 21:33:36 07/30/01 Mon
Got to this link originally via Buffy News Wire. Seems some folks
out there don't cotton to our l'il Buffy and her sexy, foul-mouthed,
violence-prone friends.
While you're there, don't forget to click back to the home page
and check out the call to action on a recent South Park episode.
It's either hilarious or tragic, depending of course on which
side of the fence you're on.
The link to the BtVS/Angel relevant stuff is:
http://www.parentstv.org/2001BestWorst/2001toptenworst.html
Now, my first question is, did The National Review suddenly go
all liberal, 'cos I seem to remember just a very short while ago
they declared BtVS ...one of the most moral shows on television.
Hummm, must be one of those dichotomy things I keep hearing about...
I'm confused... please help.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> *cough*cough*cough* -- Solitude1056, 22:05:54 07/30/01 Mon
So I check the top ten, and it's Touched by an Angel, along with
7th Heaven - yes, campers, it's your favorite whitebread show
- and several other shows that all revolve around good Christian
values such as miracles, angels, and whatever. Hmmm. Maybe I should
check out a few more of their ten worst shows - there's two in
there that I already like so much! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Wow! Two shows in the Top Ten! -- Cactus Watcher, 22:11:53
07/30/01 Mon
It's good to know there are still websites out there for the mentally
challenged. Seriously, Buffy/Angel isn't for younger teens, and
doesn't pretend to be. On the other hand, it's too bad there is
so little on of any quality for younger kids.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> National Review likes Buffy, New Republic doesn't -- d'Herblay,
22:14:34 07/30/01 Mon
The New Republic criticizes The National Organization for Women's
"Feminist Primetime Report Update" for praising, among
others, Buffy. Amanda Fazzone writes, "[M]any of the characters
NOW praises don't break out of the sex object role at all; they
bask in it."
More quotes: "Take 'Buffy, the Vampire Slayer,' among the
shows 'NOW Recommends.' Starring blond bombshell Sarah Michelle
Gellar as a vampire-slaying college coed, 'Buffy' receives feminist
kudos for depicting a take-charge woman who kicks butts of both
genders. But the constant barrage of 'Buffy' promo photos featuring
the cleavage of a braless and tumescent Gellar makes it difficult
to divorce the ass-kicking from the tits and ass."
"Moreover, it's clear that these female leads are being marketed
outside their time slots not for their smarts and self-confidence
but for their sex appeal. That's why Gellar is selling makeup
for Maybelline--that is, when she's not playing silver-screen
temptresses in Cruel Intentions, I Know What You Did Last Summer,
and Simply Irresistible."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Jeez, I didn't know women could *be* "tumescent!"
LOL!! -- Wisewoman, 22:20:22 07/30/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I thought "effulgent" was wierd! --
Cactus Watcher, 22:23:41 07/30/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> How can I put this? -- d'Herblay, 22:27:14 07/30/01
Mon
Wisewoman writes: Jeez, I didn't know women could *be* "tumescent!"
Nipples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Gotcha! Ooooh, how evil can SMG get? LOL
again! -- Wisewoman, 22:31:07 07/30/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Looks like New Republic didn't bother watching the
show ... -- verdantheart, 05:45:48 07/31/01 Tue
.. relying on ads and promo material instead. Besides, don't
you have to be a tad more voluptuous to be considered a "bombshell"?
Their comments are pretty funny.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: National Review likes Buffy, New Republic doesn't
-- dream of the consortium, 09:26:16 07/31/01 Tue
I read that article. Did you notice no indication was given that
the writer had actually watched the show? She writes about the
marketing and the promo material and what else Sarah Michelle
Gellar does with her time, but makes no mention of other facts
about the show that might be of interest to people concerned with
the depiction of women on television - like, oh, say, the presence
of a positive and complex lesbian relationship that involves one
of the central characters? Or the depiction of a strong, competent,
sexual, intelligent single mother who is devoted to her child?
Critics seemed to have forgotten that marketing is not the same
thing as content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: National Review likes Buffy, New Republic
doesn't -- mundusmundi, 12:22:05 07/31/01 Tue
Critics seemed to have forgotten that marketing is not the same
thing as content.
Roger Ebert, who at least hasn't forgotten, likes to say, "A
movie is not what it is about, it is how it is about it."
Replace "movie" with "TV series," and it's
a nice reminder for how to view shows like Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Good grief! Wonder what they'd think of UK TV! -- Marie,
04:25:49 07/31/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> They could at least learn to spell Drusilla... -- Lurker
Becoming Restless, 05:47:38 07/31/01 Tue
Oh, no. That would mean actually investigating the program.
I get the impression that the people who compiled this list just
browsed through a TV guide and picked any shows they felt they
could whine about - no context, no understanding, no wish to engage
with the ideas presented...it's just so last millenium.
Yuck!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: OK, campers, here's one for ya to check out. I suspect
there will be opinions forthcoming! -- anom, 07:11:59 07/31/01
Tue
"Now, my first question is, did The National Review suddenly
go all liberal, 'cos I seem to remember just a very short while
ago they declared BtVS ...one of the most moral shows on television."
They did? Don't s'pose you have the link to *that* one....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Anom-- Couldn't find the link, but I will look
further. Here is the text. -- OnM, 09:07:09 07/31/01 Tue
The following is copyright 2001 The National Review Please do
not redistribute w/o noting as such. I always make every attempt
to give credit were credit is due! The original link to this was
one that I found on Buffy News Wire, if I recall correctly. I
will check into it in the event the original article is still
posted.
*******
Morality Tale...From the Crypt Buffy the Vampire Slayer is one
of TV's most morally serious shows.
By Chandler Rosenberger, assistant to the president of Boston
University May 26-28, 2001
At the end of the season finale of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, there
was only the tombstone.
BUFFY ANNE SUMMERS 1981-2001
BELOVED SISTER DEVOTED FRIEND
SHE SAVED THE WORLD A LOT
In the show's final episode, Buffy faced a cruel dilemma - save
the life of her sister Dawn, or save the world? The Vampire Slayer
had tried all her trademark weapons - the battle plans, the pointed
quips, the martial-arts kicks. But in the end she had to hurl
herself into oblivion to save both her friends and her kin.
Buffy - dead? After five years, was the show finally over? The
chat room on the official Buffy website went berserk. Was the
show ever going to appear again, or had UPN backed out of its
deal to take it over from the WB?
Joss Whedon, Buffy creator and impresario, logged in to reassure
the show's fans. "BUFFY WILL BE BACK NEXT SEASON," Whedon
wrote. "How will we bring her back? With great difficulty,
of course. And pain and confusion. Will it be cheesy? I don't
think so."
Great difficulty, pain, confusion, but no cheese - that has been
Buffy's life thus far. For five years, Whedon has subjected his
heroine to nightmarish boyfriends, demon resurrections, petty
jealousies, and six or so narrowly averted apocalypses. Buffy
has faced it all, all the while offering up color commentary in
her crisp, Valley-girl lingo.
But as entertaining as Buffy has been, the show also deserves
respect for being one of the most morally serious on television.
(Italics mine-- OnM) Loyal fans have watched as Buffy has struggled
to be good in a world that, for all its supernatural foes, is
still riddled with the anguish and difficult choices that teenagers
across America face every day.
Buffy began her career battling the demons of Sunnydale High School,
not all of them supernatural. There were, of course, plenty of
horrors. The sexy substitute teacher who turned into a giant praying
mantis. The swim coach who turned his team into championship-winning
monsters. The hyenas that possessed kids on a class trip to the
zoo. Sunnydale, it turned out, had been built on a gateway to
Hell and as such attracted all manner of beasts.
But some of Buffy's worst opponents were all too human. Snyder,
the school principal, seemed determined to expel her, while Cordelia,
the hallway's queen bee, was frighteningly adept at dispatching
self-esteem. "Nice dress!" Cordelia once remarked to
a cowering classmate. "Good to know you've seen the softer
side of Sears."
Buffy was the strange new kid, one who shunned the cool clique
to hang out with the school's untouchables. She made friends with
Willow, the geeky computer whiz, Xander, the class clown, and
Rupert Giles, the school librarian and Slayer mentor. Slowly,
the outsiders bonded together to battle high school's dangers,
both mortal and moral. And one of the biggest challenges, they
discovered, was tending to one's soul.
Since the very beginning, Buffy has always been more than a battle
between the living and the living dead. Vampires can take life,
but that's not really why they are dangerous. Vampires are dangerous
because they steal the soul, the moral compass that gives life
its direction and worth.
This is a threat that Buffy takes very seriously. One of the show's
most powerful themes is that the vampires often seem to have the
better deal. An eternity of leather, sex, and will-to-power, after
all, can seem very attractive to your average high school kid.
Vampires are not hobbled by conscience, and seem to be masters
of adult indulgences. One minute, a high-school guy is nervously
babbling as he tries to ask Cordelia out; the next he's confident,
sexy, mysterious. You just don't see him much during the day.
But again and again, Buffy shows that this rock-star life is empty
and brutal compared to the more difficult and more rewarding business
of becoming a responsible adult, soul intact.
In the search for a worthy, mature life, the actual adults on
Buffy haven't been much help. Buffy's father abandoned her. Her
late mother, while loving and supportive, tended to turn on the
psychobabble whenever Buffy had a real battle on her hands. Mayor
Wilkins, villain of the show's third season, was a hilarious caricature
of the clean living Pharisee. As he plucked Handi-wipes from a
cabinet full of skulls, Wilkins would insist on good etiquette
from his vampire lackeys.
"Remember," Wilkins once said as he ordered a massacre,
"fast and brutal. And boys? Watch the swearing."
With its finger on the pulse of contemporary America, Buffy has
cut frighteningly close to the anomie rampant in its high schools,
where no adult seems interested in an honest discussion of right
and wrong. In one episode, Buffy became clairvoyant, and discovered
that students' minds were lost in a swamp of worries, fears and
resentment. "This time tomorrow," she heard one mind
think, "I'll kill you all."
The episode was ready to air in late April 1999, but was yanked
in the wake of the Columbine High School shootings, which happened
just a week before it was scheduled to appear.
With no adults to guide her, Buffy has had to learn her lessons
the hard way. Her first serious boyfriend, Angel, was the show's
only "good vampire" - one whose conscience had been
restored. But he was cursed to lose his soul again after his first
moment of "true happiness." When Buffy and Angel slept
together for the first time, Angel's demon side took over. The
"bad" Angel mocked a stunned Buffy for surrendering
to him so easily, then abandoned her to go on a killing spree.
Naturally, Buffy had to have "the talk" with her mother,
but the story of Buffy's troubles with Angel explored more than
just propriety and hygiene. Sex, it turns out, is a risky not
only because it has physical consequences, but - more importantly
- because it unleashes such powerful passions. Where is the sex-ed
class that teaches that?
Of course, it's possible to lose one's soul while remaining human.
There was, for instance, the brilliant, charismatic character
Faith, whose troubled childhood had given her a lust for mindless
gratification. Faith seemed to be "girl-power" on wheels,
driven to have men as she pleased. "It's strictly get some,
get gone," she told Buffy. "You can't trust guys."
But for all her willfulness, Faith was shown to be wretched, living
without real trust or love. In one of the show's most poignant
episodes, Faith swapped bodies with Buffy, intending to escape
in her new disguise and keep living as she pleased. Instead she
discovered that she yearned to live out the moral life that Buffy
had made for herself.
Buffy is sharp commentary, but it has not stooped to the snide
American Beauty-style satire of suburban life. Even as a college
student, Buffy has stuck close to home, and seems to want nothing
more than freedom from schemes to overthrow her world. Her chief
villains, on the other hand, are power-mad professors and velvet-clad,
decadent, aristocrats waxing ponderously about schemes that will
make the "very stars hide."
Buffy may be just an ordinary middle-class kid, but she knows
how to put such vaunting ambition in its place. When Dracula himself
appeared early this season, she wasn't sure whether to take him
seriously.
"You're sure this isn't just some fan-boy thing?" Buffy
asked the Prince of Darkness. "'Cause I've fought more than
a couple pimply, overweight vamps that called themselves Lestat."
It's enough to make you wish that college students could treat
Foucault with that kind of disdain. And another good reason, among
many, to look forward to Buffy's rise from the dead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Got 'em-- here are the original links I followed...
-- OnM, 09:31:06 07/31/01 Tue
The first one is the National Review article.
http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/television/television-rosenberger052601.shtml
This one is the one from Buffy News Wire that leads to the above.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BuffyNewsWire/message/247
Don't know if the NR link is still active, but this is just so
you have some proof I didn't make this up!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thanks, OnM -- Masq, 10:10:55 07/31/01 Tue
Love this quote. Vampires as the Neitzschean Superman:
"One of the show's most powerful themes is that the vampires
often seem to have the better deal. An eternity of leather, sex,
and will-to-power, after all, can seem very attractive to your
average high school kid. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Awwwww...for me? @>) -- anom, 21:20:19 07/31/01
Tue
Thanks! New Republic, huh? Aside from calling Xander the class
clown, I'd say they got it right. One of the best things about
the show is that it shows people as human, with flaws, making
mistakes and having to deal with the consequences, complex (my
best example is Willow crying in the bathroom after she found
out Xander had had sex with Faith--even though she had a boyfriend
she was very much in love with). And I agree w/others about the
"10 Worst" list. They talk about the Buffybot as though
the show had treated it as just fine, ignoring the fact that Buffy
herself called it "gross and obscene."
BTW, that's my mutant cyclops smily in the subject line. I got
sick of happy faces in the '70s.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: OK, campers, here's one for ya to check out. I suspect
there will be opinions forthcoming! -- Rendyl, 08:13:08 07/31/01
Tue
I think the gist of the site was a list of shows they do not feel
are appropriate for children to view. The main objection seems
to be that many of these shows are broadcast in what used to be
the traditional 'family hours' for television. The error is not
that they listed BtVS and Angel as unsuitable for children but
that they did not acknowlege the disclaimer WB runs before each
show stating it deals with mature themes. There are no surprises
with Buffy and Angel. You know before viewing it will not be something
for small kids.
(they also failed to mention that the sex and violence on Buffy/Angel
do have repercussions and costs for the characters which is much
better than pretending those things just do not exist at all)
I have a six year old. She occasionally watches a Buffy episode
if I have seen it first. We do not let her watch Angel or South
Park. (they are not kids shows)
I understand what the site is trying to do but even I have to
disagree with their statements on turning the channel as losing.
Not everyone has kids, but everyone does have a choice to change
the channel or turn the thing off. When they advocate campaigns
to remove shows they find offensive they are overstepping.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> my thoughts -- spotjon, 19:43:22 07/31/01 Tue
I've been thinking a bit lately about what should be considered
appropriate or inappropriate for television broadcast, and I think
that these people have missed the mark with their "top ten"
list. My thought is this: it's not so much what is portrayed on
the screen that is bad, but rather what is promoted as acceptable
behavior that can be bad. I have no problem with a show that has
violence, murder, mayhem, swearing (to a certain extent), and
sex (though extended sexual scenes with lots of skin showing is
unnecessary, IMO). The problem I have is when a TV show or movie
promotes these things as good, or as something that would be fun
to do. Shows like Ally McBeal or Friends rub me the wrong way
because they not only contain, but promote with great intensity,
immature and dangerous behavior. I appreciate the harsh reality
of the pain that sex can bring in the early seasons of Buffy,
and for showing how perverted something like the Buffybot is (a
point which these reviewers apparently missed). I don't think
that "graphic, bloody violence" is bad, so long as it
isn't played for "fun," like it is in a lot of movies
these days. These two shows are definitely not for kids (I probably
wouldn't let any of my hypothetical children watch it until high
school), but I don't think they need to be watching it, anyway.
Parents indeed should not let their kids watch these shows, but
that doesn't mean the shows are as decadent as Temptation Island.
I appreciate what PTC is trying to do, but I think that they're
going about it the wrong way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: my thoughts-- Very nicely put, spotjon -- OnM,
08:26:05 08/01/01 Wed
That really is the point, isn't it? What flips me out is how these
folks mean well, but end up having the people they are trying
to influence disregard their intent because of the often obvious
cluelessness that they go about their task with. They seem to
concern themselves with surface issues, rather than what those
surface issues actually cover. They see only the most obvious
of outer appearances, and judge the whole on that basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The thing is... -- Kerri, 09:53:45 08/01/01 Wed
I have no problem with them saying the show isn't appropriate
for young children (which I don't disagree with-it's an adult
show. You could say the same about most movies that win an oscar),
but it's just that they call it offensive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Offensiveness is relative -- spotjon, 11:00:02
08/01/01 Wed
The question shouldn't be whether or not a TV show is offensive.
Everybody gets offended by something, but that doesn't necessarily
mean that it's a bad thing. What we should be asking is whether
or not such things are objectively bad to portray on screen. Nudity
(at least in a sexual context) is bad to portray on screen, simply
because sex should be private. Watching people have sex onscreen
is close to being the equivalent of a peep show, the only difference
being that the actors are simulating having sex. I don't care
whether or not two characters having sex is important to the plot,
they still don't need to show them getting it on. Just show them
going into a bedroom and coming out again the next morning. In
our sex-saturated culture, I think it's important not to go too
far.
Keep in mind that I'm not speaking against this simply because
I find such depictions to deeply offend me or because they make
me uncomfortable, though they probably should offend me much more
than they do. It's a little scary just how much I can watch without
being offended. I think that our sense of propriety has been severely
damaged by the popular culture that sensualizes everything from
PETA to herbal shampoo. I think that it is a great wrong and disservice
to publicize what should be private.
I generally appreciate the way that Buffy and Angel have handled
sex, though I feel they have gone too far in showing more than
they need to at times.
Just my 2¢, for what it's worth. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Offensiveness is relative -- OnM,
12:43:32 08/01/01 Wed
You know, this strikes me as a perfect argument in favor of all
television being 'Pay TV', in that you have to buy what you want,
and only what you want. Commercial television is driven by advertising,
and advertisers support whatever sells. Like lawyers, who espouse
the (theoretical) neutrality of the law, it isn't a morality issue
to most of them, it's a business decision. If people didn't want
it, they wouldn't support the shows, and the advertisers wouldn't
advertise. The people at the PTC site understand this, which is
why they target the advertisers when they are unhappy.
It interests me that on the one hand, many congresspersons decry
the 'low morality' of broadcast TV, but when it comes time to
support PBS, (which for all practical purposes is now a viewer
supported PPV service), they are only too happy to keep slashing
the tiny remaining funding for it.
Also, the PTC folks are unhappy that the TV rating system seems
to be having little effect on who views what. Whose fault is that?
I remember watching 'The Matrix' a couple years ago and found
myself appalled that, just a few rows back from me, some moron
actually took his 5 or 6 year old along with him to see it. What
good are ratings if adults stupidly ignore them, and expose their
children to adult material?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Nope. -- Solitude1056, 13:27:13
08/01/01 Wed
The PPV theory won't work if there's too many folks like me, who'd
say (and possibly have said): I don't want to pay Mister Monopoly
Cable Company that $17 a month, $25 a month, $35 a month whatever,
when fer cryin' out loud, I'm only watching TV for two hours each
week - one for Buffy, one for Angel. You break it down, I could
get away with only paying at most a dollar or two a month, right?
So no, I don't see anyone with any business sense ever going for
the PPV route. Just too easy to make money when you can force
someone to take, and pay for, a variety of options just so you
get the extra cash.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> This won't happen just yet,
but the technology will soon begin to support it. -- OnM, 21:09:03
08/01/01 Wed
What you need most of all to pull this off would be lots of bandwidth,
maybe a nice fat fiber optic pipe into your local neighborhood
(copper is fine from that point on, you really wouldn't need fiber
into your home).
Look at what the Net has done for buying and selling books, videos,
etc. What will happen when you can download a movie or TV show
in a few minutes and watch it when you want?
The industry will change, that's what. I make no guesses at this
point as to what the final form will look like, but when it has
happened, you pretty much might be able to just buy two hours
a week. Of course, you'll pay your pipeline provider, just like
you do now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> This says it all..."This season her younger sister,
Dawn, who is also a slayer, will join Buffy." -- Kerri, 21:56:56
07/31/01 Tue
I found the qoute when I clicked on the link to the show's main
page. I'm sorry but shouldn't someone at least watch the show
before saying how wrong it is?
"Another episode featured Spike and Drucilla[could at least
spell it right], another vampire, being sexually aroused by targeting
a couple, breaking their necks, and sucking their blood in a public
place." They talk about it as if the show presents killing
in a positive light and shows sex without consequences.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> And also... -- Kerri, 22:01:52 07/31/01 Tue
The show is criticized for depicting a gay realtionship. Honestly,
how closed minded can people get?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Close-mindedness. -- Solitude1056, 06:33:40
08/01/01 Wed
I honestly never would've thought that I'd be on a board, discussing
a TV show. Beyond that, I never thought I'd be on a board discussing
a TV show that actually has a set of characters in a gay relationship.
Let alone a TV show that's showed KISSING between a set of characters
in a gay relationship! TV's come a long way, even if it's still
got far to go. I recall long bitter arguments over the TV world's
conservatism back in the 80's, when AIDS was first hitting the
radar. And I know it's been a long haul, but it's still amazing
- and wonderful - that we've got a wide variety of ages, backgrounds,
and perspectives... and in writing the fanfic it's been pretty
much unanimous that no one wants to include even the remotest
note that there's tension between Tara & Willow. "No, don't
set the stage for them to break up," I get emailed.
At first I thought, oh, that's sweet, and then it dawned on me:
this is a lesbian relationship we're talking about, the kind of
thing that even recently seemed to hit folks' buttons. (Reminds
me of an old friends joke: "I don't mind heterosexuals as
long as they act gay in public.") And yet, the fans of this
show don't classify the relationship as anything other than "this
is someone Willow loves," much the same way the Scooby Gang
did, themselves.
Hell, we had the precursor in Larry, a character that I liked
once he got over his whole macho-hetero thing. Recognizing himself,
and being happy and content with that, was reflected in the way
Joss wrote his character as well as the way other people treated
him. That's way cooler than the Very Special Episode crap where
a normally straight character is "oooh, going to kiss so-and-so"
- or the Very Special Episode where the audience gets to find
out that the character they've been certain is gay, all this time,
actually IS gay, and they're gonna say so. Gasp! Horrors!
So ranting mode flitting on & off... I guess there's a lot of
people that still have to do a lot of work on themselves. But
I really appreciate not only that the Jossian view is to accept
relationships and people for themselves, independent of society's
expectations, but more importantly that he doesn't make a big
deal of the fact that he does so. That's the best part - he treats
things that make most TV folks jump hoops or have heart attacks
- as just "one more part of living," and that has a
great deal more power than the ol' "token gay (or black,
or female)" routine.
Then again, it's this contented nonchalance with such things that
really steams the socially conservative. And that's why I guess
I've enjoyed working on a story where Tara/Willow figure in so
large - it's a great dynamic, complex relationship, and it's a
fun, sweet one. And better, none of the writers (anymore than
Joss') seem to care that it's a hot political issue.
Well... that, and I suspect that after Tough Love/the Gift, every
fan is at least a little bit in love with Tara. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Close-mindedness. -- Malandanza, 19:38:58
08/01/01 Wed
You mentioned Larry -- suppose instead of Tara/Willow Joss had
done a Larry/Xander romance -- do you think BtVS would still be
on the air?
Personally, I doubt it.
Lesbians are far more accepted in our society than homosexual
males -- probably because they often figure into male sex fantasies.
I don't see acceptance of lesbians as a sign of an enlightened
civilization, but rather as a sign that prejudices are still in
effect. Willow and Tara may have a "great dynamic, complex
relationship, and it's a fun, sweet one" (although I see
Willow as a domineering, control freak and Tara as the long-suffering
partner), but there will always be people who tune in to watch
two girls kissing. Sort of reverse prejudice, but still prejudice.
As far as the articles go -- one saying BtVS is moral and the
other commenting on its immorality -- I just see that as the natural
ambiguities of our language. The Moral article was commenting
on Good vs Evil, with uncompromising Buffy as a moral leader.
She does try to do the right thing -- and feels very guilty if
she strays -- even refusing to condone a morally bankrupt utilitarianism
in "The Gift." So it is a moral show in that sense of
the word.
But sexually moral? Sure, pre-season four sex was typically shown
with all its potential for ugliness (Angelus' treatment of Buffy,
in particular). But the sexathon between Riley and Buffy in season
four is enough to justify the comments about Buffy's morality
-- too graphic -- we did not need to see that much skin (I didn't,
anyway -- I have a good imagination :). The Angel/Buffy reunion
in IWRY similarly seemed more an excuse to get Angel and Buffy
virtually naked on national TV than vital for the plot (and cheapened
Buffy's character by having her cheat on Riley). Even the first
episode of Buffy had a scene eerily remisniscent of a rape at
the end of the first episode, with Luke(?) hopping into the coffin
directly about a battered Buffy. Not for children. This season:
the sexbots, roleplaying between Harmony and Spike, stalking (and
some bondage) with Spike/Buffy/Dru, Tara & Willow -- a host of
sexual activity deviating from the norm.
I don't have a problem with National Review's comments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Close-mindedness. (Warning:
Somewhat TV-14ish post) -- OnM, 21:28:46 08/01/01 Wed
1 . *** Lesbians are far more accepted in our society than homosexual
males -- probably because they often figure into male sex fantasies.***
2. *** (although I see Willow as a domineering, control freak
and Tara as the long-suffering partner)***
3. *** but there will always be people who tune in to watch two
girls kissing. ***
Regarding your comments that I've excerpted above, and because
for whatever reason I feel like being the Evil Clone at the moment,
I would like to comment/query:
1. True. You have to start somewhere. Judging from the fanfic
sites I've scanned over in the last year from time to time, there
doesn't seem to be a great shortage of 'ships of all types and
gender configurations. Joss can only push the limits so far, so
you take what you can get.
2. My question for the good ATPo posters to consider-- do you
see Willow/Tara in any kind of a D/S relationship, even if subliminally,
and if you do, which character is the dominant partner and which
is the submissive one? Do you think this is consensual or is Malandanza
correct and is it exploitative of either Willow or Tara?
3. Also true. That's a bonus for most heterosexual males, of which
I am one, quite admittedly. But it's not enough by itself. (If
T&A were sufficient, I would be watching Baywatch, which I don't).
BTW, anyone read the Playboy 20-questions (actually 12) article
with Aly Hannigan?
E.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I read it, & Aly is NOTHING
like Willow. Woo, and hoo! -- Solitude1056, 21:32:03 08/01/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Question 2 -- Cactus Watcher,
22:07:04 08/01/01 Wed
It looked to me during the blow up between Willow and Tara, that
the fight was really about Tara coming out of her shell. I was
shocked at 'sweet Willow' griping that Tara wouldn't listen to
what she had to say. We are talking about Tara, who's barely able
to say anything in public. Maybe Will was just having a bad day,
but it sounded like, "Listen sister, if I'm not the boss,
I'm outta here!" The relationship won't necessarily proceed
down that road. But being accepted by the other Scoobies means
Tara is going to get more confidence (just like Willow did in
high school). If Willow does try to be 'the' dominant one, I don't
see them staying together.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry, don't read Playboy...............
-- Rufus, 23:15:33 08/01/01 Wed
So is there a copy of the article that I can read to see what
got Sol woo and hooing??????? Sol, does that mean Ally is closer
to being like "Evil Willow"???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> If I post a link will
you respect me in the morning? -- d'Herblay, 23:59:51 08/01/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> As a night owl
I'm hooting myself in laughter................:):):) -- Rufus,
00:03:58 08/02/01 Thu
Of course I will respect you....I take it there are no naughty
pictures involved......:):):)And thankyou in advance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Here you
go . . . -- d'Herblay, 00:09:43 08/02/01 Thu
no naughty pictures . . . somewhat naughty talk. Call it a soft
R rating. Here's the link.
And here it is spelled out if you're text only. http://www.playboy.com/sex/feature/dirtydozen/alysonhannigan/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks....I'll
never look at a chain link fence the same way again....... --
Rufus, 00:24:58 08/02/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> All
I can say is that Alexis Denisof is one very, VERY fortunate guy!
-- Squonk's Tears, 11:21:43 08/02/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Evil Willow is taking
notes right now... ;-) -- OnM, 06:35:52 08/02/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> When it comes to sex, though...
-- Solitude1056, 21:30:10 08/01/01 Wed
I might agree with the whole chicks-kissing argument if Joss were
as in-our-faces with it as he was with Riley & Buffy plotlines.
But he wasn't, for various reasons, and I think that worked well,
since it meant you couldn't deal with them as a sexual pair but
simply as a pair. Yeah, I get the point about homosexual relationships,
and I don't know. I don't think TV/society is there yet - I was
just remarking that the fans have proven to be open-minded on
a variety of levels, and easily able to adapt to not only the
moral ambiguities but also sexual/relationship ones, too.
As for sex, I had more than enough o' Buffy/Riley kissage and
nakedage. I mean, come on, people, it verged on soft-core porn
at times. Perhaps Joss was making a point that their relationship
was grounding down to simply physical while others were moving
to emotional, but I dunno.
As for Willow's issues and Tara's issues, I've no counterargument,
because in many ways I agree with you there. It's not a perfect
relationship, but it's sure easier to relate to than the Xander/Anya
shindig, what with Anya being such a difficult character for me
to grok. We don't see a lot of X/A being all sweaty and nekkid,
but they're both real clear that the sweatiness is one reason
they're together - and honestly, I'm usually left thinking, "gee,
guys, that's not always enough." Tara and Willow, on the
other hand, seem to relate intellectually as well as the implied
physicality, is all.
Ah, but it's late, and I ramble...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, Anya is a difficult
character to grok??? -- Rufus, 23:17:39 08/01/01 Wed
Before I assume you are talking dirty...what the hell is grok?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> No, no talking dirty,
talking Heinlein. -- Solitude1056, 06:24:47 08/02/01 Thu
"Grok" is a verb created by Heinlein in his book, Stranger
in a Strange Land. In it, the protagonist, Valentine Michael Smith
("Mike"), is the child of two astronauts who'd crashed
on Mars many years earlier. A later Earth mission to find their
remains discovers, instead, the now-grown child who was rescued
and raised by the inhabitants of Mars.
- from the Jargon Dictionary:
grok /grok/, var. /grohk/ vt. [from the novel "Stranger in
a Strange Land", by Robert A. Heinlein, where it is a Martian
word meaning literally `to drink' and metaphorically `to be one
with'] The emphatic form is 'grok in fullness'. 1. To understand,
usually in a global sense. Connotes intimate and exhaustive knowledge.
Contrast zen, which is similar supernal understanding experienced
as a single brief flash.
And to understand why "grok" is such a powerful word,
you have to sort of understand where it originated, and why that
book was (and continues to be) earth-shattering for so many people.
(Caveat: each person has their own "earth-shattering"
book, usually read between 6th and 8th grade, when a person is
perhaps most ripe. SinSL was not mine - I didn't read it til my
mid-20's, but it's still powerful.)
From an *excellent* essay on Heinlein's novels, by Elizabeth Jordan:
Mike, having never been exposed to religion on Earth, knows only
the Martian concept of philosophy. Life after death is a certainty,
anyone on Mars can speak with the "Old Ones" who have
died, or as Martians say, discorporated. (Stranger 15-95) God
is also a given, something Martians grok as a concrete fact while
still in the nest. To grok literally means "to drink,"
and is reminiscent of the water ceremony, but it also means to
understand something so fully that you are a part of it. (Stranger,
266) Mike says "... there is only one religion - and that
one is not a faith, it's a certainty." (Heinlein, Stranger,
381) God is something inside each person, inside each living thing.
It is bizarre to him to see all the major world religions squabble
over the nature of God when this information was a given to him
while he was on Mars.
Heinlein seems to speak through Mike at many points in the novel
about the nature of organized religion and how utterly senseless
it is. As Mike finishes studying a pile of religious books, he
says to Jill, his water brother, "Bits and pieces grok true,
but never a pattern - or if there is a pattern, every time, without
fail, they ask you to take the hard part on faith. What a dirty
Anglo-Saxon monosyllable." (Heinlein, Stranger, 382) Heinlein
also seems to lament through his character about the inability
of most people to understand simple concepts. Mike says, "Thou
art God and I am God and all that groks is God." (Stranger,
509) The message "Thou art God," means to Mike, "...not
a message of cheer and hope [but one of] defiance - and an unafraid,
unabashed assumption of personal responsibility. No matter what
I said, [my followers] insisted on thinking of God as something
outside themselves. Something that yearns to take every indolent
moron to His breast and comfort him. The notion that the effort
has to be their own... and that all the trouble they are in is
of their own doing... is one that they can't or won't entertain."
(Heinlein, Stranger, 510)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Is there a difference?
-- d'Herblay, 07:02:38 08/02/01 Thu
Sol warns: Caveat: each person has their own "earth-shattering"
book, usually read between 6th and 8th grade, when a person is
perhaps most ripe.
6th and 8th grade. Hm. That would make my earth-shattering book
. . The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
Damnit! I absorbed the wrong Heinlein!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is there
a difference? -- Solitude1056, 07:45:33 08/02/01 Thu
Gee, my earth-shattering book for 4th & 5th grade was Tolkein
- by the time I got to 8th grade, it was J.J. Bronowski's The
Ascent of Man.
Yeah, I was warped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Is there a difference? -- d'Herblay, 08:21:40 08/02/01 Thu
Grades 4 and 5? Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy.
The Dinosaur Heresies kicked me into non-fiction about tenth grade.
Then I went to college and books stopped changing my life and
started being my life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I beg to differ -- spotjon, 07:19:12 08/01/01
Wed
The PTC review doesn't say anything about Buffy depicting a lesbian
relationship. It did say that the show had "bloody violence
and perverse sexual situations with greater frequency and intensity
this season," but I'm pretty sure that's referring to the
Buffybot, not Willow and Tara's relationship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I beg to differ -- OnM, 08:39:06 08/01/01
Wed
You could be right, spotjon, but I have to admit that when I read
a phrase like 'perverse sexual relations' on an obviously conservative
site like this, the first thing that springs to my mind is that
they are referring to homosexuality. I tend to believe they think
of the other (e.g. Buffybot/Spike) 'perversity' as just a logical
extension of anything that deviates from 'normal' heterosexual
relations. It's the old 'you smoke marijuana, next thing it's
crack and heroin' concept. Of course sometimes that's true, and
sometimes it's not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> maybe, maybe not -- spotjon, 09:02:16
08/01/01 Wed
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that comment was referring
to the lesbian relationship in the show (though I doubt they've
watched the show enough to even notice it), but I just don't think
we need to jump to that conclusion when they haven't stated what
they mean by it. It seems to me that if the lesbian thing was
foremost on their mind, they would have explicitly mentioned it
alongside of the Buffybot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> It was when you click on the link to the
show's main page -- Kerri, 09:48:36 08/01/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> thanks -- spotjon, 11:32:11 08/01/01
Wed
I hadn't noticed that link before. I still think that the "perverse
sexual situations" comment refers to the Buffybot, though.
They don't seem to rate W&T's relationship as particularly
worse than all the heterosexual encounters, so I don't think you
can label them as homophobes. It's just another notch on their
list.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Please do not post spoilery things in subject lines
-- Masquerade, 07:01:23 08/01/01 Wed
No matter how truthful or silly they are.
Thanks!
Masq
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Sorry....it was referring to last season so
I thought it was ok -- Kerri, 09:49:54 08/01/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Since I don't read spoiler threads, no
way for me to tell : ) -- Masq, 14:57:56 08/01/01 Wed
Could Faith ever become a Scoobie
-- Brian, 09:37:35 07/31/01 Tue
Rewatching the opening episode of Angel's second season made me
realize just how much had happened in one season, and how much
forshadowing there was in that first episode. The epilogue with
Angel visiting Faith got me thinking. Faith seems to now identify
with Angel.
FAITH The road to redemption is a rocky path.
ANGEL (smiles a bit) That it is.
FAITH Think we might make it?
ANGEL We might.
A beat, as they garner strength from each other.
So, if Faith feels that she eventually has redeemed herself, could
she go back and face the Scoobies,and try to be part of them?
Or would her past encounters with them, prevent that from ever
happening? Could the Scoobies forgive her? And if they forgave
her, could they move on with their work. Could they ever really
trust her?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Could Faith ever become a Scoobie -- Wisewoman, 11:36:08
07/31/01 Tue
"So, if Faith feels that she eventually has redeemed herself,
could she go back and face the Scoobies,and try to be part of
them? Or would her past encounters with them, prevent that from
ever happening? Could the Scoobies forgive her? And if they forgave
her, could they move on with their work. Could they ever really
trust her?"
While it may sound as if I'm arguing the other side of the coin
here, I think that Faith definitely could become a Scoobie. (Just
because I can't forgive her for Lester Worth, doesn't mean the
Scoobies can't!)
As AK-UK pointed out during the recent discussion, there are very
good reasons for identifying with Faith and giving her a shot
at redemption. It all comes down to what you do, if Spike is any
indication. He could say whatever he wanted to Buffy about turning
over a new leaf and being good, but it wasn't until he actually
put the words into action, resisting Glory's torture, that Buffy
acknowledged his actions as "real." I think Faith would
be in the same boat. There'd be a lot of anger, distrust, and
tension, but if she managed to prove herself by her actions they'd
eventually come to trust her.
I think, for Faith, the biggest challenge would be in admitting
that she actually wanted to be a Scooby, after having been so
dismissive of them and their moral high ground in the past. Just
that admission might be enough to make the Gang take a second
look at her.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I see a reformed Faith still as a loner, but good
points! -- Cactus Watcher, 12:03:52 07/31/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Could Faith ever become a Scoobie -- Deeva, 12:33:02
07/31/01 Tue
For Faith, I feel that there is nothing in Sunnydale that could
draw her back. Unless, with the death of Buffy, she feels some
sense of duty. But, since we know that Buffy (in some form) will
be back, back to square one.
Could she go back and face the gang? Eventually, but her sense
of gulit is huge. She felt incredibly guilty about the death of
her own Watcher, she thought that she was at fault for not being
able to stop Kakistos.
From "Faith, Hope & Trick"
Faith glances out the window herself, badly shaken.
BUFFY: What happened?
FAITH: I... (starts to cry)
BUFFY: It's okay.
FAITH: I was there when he killed my watcher. I saw what he did
to her, what he was going to do to me... I tried to stop him,
but I couldn't... I ran...
BUFFY: Faith, listen to me. First rule of slaying: don't die.
You did the right thing, you didn't die. Now do the math: one
of him, two of us...
I just can't see Faith trying to be a part of the Scoobies, after
all that's happened. Don't know how to explain it, it's just how
I feel. As for forgiveness, the gang probably won't come around
for a while on Faith. Xander might be the first one to give her
a chance but Willow, Anya and so on will take a whole lot longer,
if at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Could Faith ever become a Scoobie -- vampire hunter
D, 12:58:43 07/31/01 Tue
I don't think Faith will become one of the Scoobies. I think that
she could perhaps someday if she wanted to, but I doubt she would.
I agree with Deeva that there is no real reason for Faith to ever
go back to Sunnydale (she may return once to try to reconcile
with Buffy, but that would be it). Faith never really trusted
the gang, and they never really acepted her. So with Buffy dead
(and assuming noone tells Faith when she returns), then as far
as she knows, the only person in Sunnydale she would want to see
is gone. And even if Faith did go back, she probably wouldn't
stay long. If you ask me, when Faith gets out of jail, she'll
probably stay in LA with Angel. I say this because not only does
she not only have nowhere else to go, but also the only person
she really trusts (Angel) is in LA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Is asking Faith to become a Slayer again like asking an
alcoholic if they'd like a Scotch? -- OnM, 14:52:46 07/31/01 Tue
I personally doubt that Faith would want to be a Scoobie, even
if they were willing to cut her some slack and allow her to join
them. I agree with her probably staying in L.A., at least initially,
because of her need to have Angel help her in dealing with her
death addiction.
My real thoughts on this issue are spelled out up there in the
subject line-- if she is even willing to resume her Slayer duties,
should she? Is the alcohol analogy valid?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Analogy not great -- Cactus Watcher, 16:07:09 07/31/01
Tue
Most alcoholics I've known told me they hated whatever they were
drinking. The scotch, wine or whatever was just a means of getting
wasted. The sooner they were drunk the sooner they didn't notice
what it tasted like and the happier they were. Faith, on the other
hand, loves killing. As you suggest that is not particularly a
healthy thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I think I misread your title, but what I said
still holds. -- Cactus Watcher, 16:12:16 07/31/01 Tue
Death -- Kerri, 13:11:02 07/31/01
Tue
Now I'm not sure exactly what the right word here is: conquer?
accept? embrace? In "The Gift" Buffy in a way accepts
death as hers. Now-bear with me please 'cause despite my trouble
communicating I do have a point coming.
Buffy doesn't defeat death. She doesn't fight it. She can't. She
can fight something that brings death but not actually death itself.
Death isn't a thing-its more a part of each person. It may not
be within someone's control how or when they die-but it is in
their control how they face it. Buffy uses her death-she makes
it her own. Death doesn't have power over her like it used to-PG.
Death itself isn't inately evil.
Buffy doesn't fear death or try to fight it- she embraces it as
an expression of her love for Dawn. And becasue of this, as Buffy
says, she's "okay." Not happy(like she would be if she
had a death-wish), but okay. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to
quote Harry Potter(yeah, yeah I know its a kid's book but I really
love it), Dumbledore(for those who don't know the characters-he
acts as Harry's mentor on his journey) tells Harry, "to the
well organized mind death is just the next great adventure."
Death is a part of life.
This seems to be a bit of a Buddhist philosophy. And its previously
been noted on this board that there have been several Buddhist
images in the show. But, anyway, death is a part of life. It's
a part of the cycle. It's a part of the journey. As Giles says
in Restless, "It's all about the journey, isn't it?"
Back to the hero's journey and death being a part of that.
So, I'm sorry that got a bit rambly, but I'm getting to my point
now.
Contrast the way Buffy faced death with the way vamps face death.
You might say that a vampire "overcomes" death. It is
an obstacle. They can defeat it. But there is a cost. They lose
their soul. They lose who they are. So really death defeats them.
The vampire is lost in death. They don't complete the journey.
This all kind of goes back to the original vampire myth being
Christian in nature. Now I'm not Christian so I really, really
don't mean to offend anyone if I get something wrong and please
correct me if I do. In Bram Stoker's, book Dracula was the anti-Christ(hense
the crosses, holy water, etc.). He was all things evil and corrupt.
This centers in a way around Dracula defying death. Jesus embraced
death(no I'm not going to go on about the whole Buffy/Christ metaphore),
Dracula and other vampires believe themselves better than death.
Now Joss could have chosen to eliminate the crosses, etc. like
Anne Rice did, but he chose not too. And I don't think that the
show really supports any religion over another. Willow is Jewish.
There are TPTB-God-like but not really like any particular religion.
The cross being where Jesus died is something that opposes vampires.
It repressents acceptance of death.
Where am I going with this? Well, I'm not sure. The contrast between
Buffy and vampires mainly. How that is related to Dracula calling
Buffy kindred. Also, the importance of death as a part of the
journey and why Joss wanted to Buffy to die then return.
So, this is the end of my really discombobulated rambling rant.
Agree? Disagree? Comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Death -- Brian, 13:54:46 07/31/01 Tue
Man, you raise a great question! Why did Joss decide that Buffy's
journey needed her to die. There are several choices available
for the "Campbell" hero. However,when Buffy comes back
(with knowlege) her impact upon the status quo should be enormous.
Of course, we will have to see just what that status quo is when
the season starts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> You get a cookie............:):):) -- Rufus, 16:49:08
07/31/01 Tue
Death for Buffy in my opinion was a stop on the way through her
journey. In Restless Giles in Xanders dream said "it's all
about the journey isn't it?" then the voice of Tara at the
end of Restless said...."You think you know...what's to come...what
you are. You haven't even begun." Then in Intervention the
guide said..
Guide:"You think you're losing your ability to love.?"
Buffy: "I-I didn't say that. (sighs) Yeah."
Guide: "You're afraid that being the Slayer means losing
your humanity."
Buffy: "Does it?"
Guide: "You are full of love. You love with all of your soul.
It's brighter than the fire....blinding. That's why you pull away
from it."
Buffy: (surprised)"I'm full of love? I'm not losing it?"
Guide: "Only if you reject it. Love is pain, and the Slayer
forges strength from pain. Love...give...forgive. Risk the pain.
It is your nature. Love will bring you to your gift.?
We know that the guide told Buffy her gift was death. Buffy just
wasn't sure of who the gift was for. She didn't get it. Her last
words to Dawn included telling Giles that she got it now, that
she was doing her work. I saw death as the gift that Buffy gave
to the world out of love. And it will be the love of her friends
that brings her back. Death was something that Buffy feared, now
having experienced it will she ever feel that fear again? The
Slayer forges strength from the pain, I wonder what the pain of
death will forge in Buffy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Sorry my reply was for Kerri, she gets the cookie......:):)
-- Rufus, 16:50:16 07/31/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Rufus, don't be mean! Cookies for everyone....:)
-- LadyStarlight, 17:02:45 07/31/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Oh alright...........cookies for
the board....:):):) -- Rufus, 21:14:44 07/31/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Now that you bring it up, the part I have trouble
with... -- anom, 17:07:02 07/31/01 Tue
..is the part about "love is pain." It kind of got
lost in the shadow of "death is your gift." Being open
to love means also being open to pain, but that doesn't mean they're
the same thing, & I would certainly dispute the idea that they
are.
BTW, I'm glad I read vampire hunter D's rant before I started
reading this thread. When I clicked on Kerri's (great!) post about
death, one reply was shown under it. Her actual post showed 2
replies, but when I went back to the board & refreshed it, the
whole thread was gone! At least I was able to Alt -> back to
the post & click on the replies, which did show up (I think there
was even 1 more). Makes me wonder if I'm typing straight into
the archives here. At least I have some idea what's happening,
if not why.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Buffy's gift.... -- Kerri, 17:21:38 07/31/01
Tue
Rufus, thanks for the cookie! Yum! :)
"I saw death as the gift that Buffy gave to the world out
of love."
I think that's partially it. But more importantly, perhaps, it
was a gift to Buffy. She understood what being the slayer meant.
That it was about giving life not bringing death. She understood
the importance of love and life.
"Death was something that Buffy feared, now having experienced
it will she ever feel that fear again? "
After Buffy "died" in PG she tells Xander, "I feel
strong, I feel different." Ok-now I know there's a lot of
different interpretations of this, but on the most clear level(that
is without speculation about TPTB, whether maybe she she is more
than the slayer now, etc.) this statement reflects the fact that
Buffy gained strength by facing her fear. She overcame her fear.
This was a victory not against death but against fear. Buffy was
changed by this.
But this is different. How will Buffy be changed by being dead
of four months? Well that depends...does she remember what happened
when she died? What was it like? How did she come back? So many
questions...but no answers! :( Well unless you count aint-it-cool
spoilers-but they're just too depressing for me to believe! (Suicidal
Buffy-oh God I hope not!) Guess we'll just have to wait 'till
Oct 9th to find out where the journey goes next...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> What could be on the other side that would
make Buffy anxious to go back? -- Rufus, 21:22:06 07/31/01 Tue
It will interest me to find out if and why Buffy would feel suicidal
when she returns from the dead. I don't go with all the spoilers,
I believe that Willow is capable of bringing Buffy back. If those
hacks at Wolfram and Hart can bring back a mortal Darla (small
flaw dying of syphillis)then why can't a very powerful witch bring
back her much loved friend. I know the others had taken an oath
to not mess with the natural order of things but Willow isn't
one for rules if she wants something bad enough. The clawing out
of her grave could be symbolic of a birth of a sort, it sure wouldn't
be easy even for a slayer. But in the end we have to wait til
the first ep airs to answer our question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Who was it who said... -- Solitude1056,
06:19:42 08/01/01 Wed
"You were so busy wondering if a thing could be done, you
never stopped to ask if it should."
Same thing goes for the ultimately selfish act of bringing back
someone who's died, beyond that, who made the choice to do so.
I'm just not sure I could still respect Willow's character in
the morning if she did, and I certainly wouldn't blame Tara for
dumping her ass for it, either. Nor would I blame Dawn, Spike,
Giles, Xander, or Anya if they had undercurrents of resentment
at Willow as a result - and if they didn't, I'd be resenting Joss.
So it's more wait-and-see...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ian Malcolm said that -- purplegrrl,
09:00:30 08/01/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I'm workin' on one possible answer
to that, Rufus-- stay tuned! One other comment... (*S6 Spoiler*)
-- OnM, 08:48:08 08/01/01 Wed
I have a hard time seeing 'clawing her way out of the grave' as
any kind of passible symbolism for a rebirth. If this is in fact
what happens, then Joss mislead us by using the 'rebirth' term,
IMO.
I'd be interested to hear from any Christian-oriented posters
here whether they think of Christ's return from death to be a
'resurrection', or if they ever think of it as a 'rebirth', and
if so, why?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> "resurrection" vs.
"rebirth -- d'Herblay, 13:46:51 08/01/01 Wed
OnM writes: "I'd be interested to hear from any Christian-oriented
posters here whether they think of Christ's return from death
to be a 'resurrection', or if they ever think of it as a 'rebirth',
and if so, why?"
I would be lying if I called myself "Christian," but
I would also be lying if a denied being "Christian-oriented."
(I'm an atheist whose mother is in seminary. She's agnostic. Life
is complicated.) Here goes.
The correct term for "Christ's" "return from death"
is "resurrection." The corpse comes back to life (it
is made perfect in the process). This is why the three Marys found
an empty tomb (Luke 24:1-3). On the Day of Judgment, "all
that are in the graves shall here his [Jesus's] voice, and shall
come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of
life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
(Jn 5:28, 29.) Catholic doctrine insists on resurrection of the
body because the soul cannot die.
"Rebirth," when it means "reincarnation,"
which means a soul is placed into an entirely new and different
body, has no place in traditional Christian theology. "Rebirth"
can also mean the process by which one is "born-again"
in various well-publicized American denominations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, Let's see if I
stir it up a bit (with no disrespect to anyone intended) -- Anthony8,
18:16:09 08/01/01 Wed
Ultimately the "resurrection vs. rebirth" debate probably
hinges on what dictionary you use. In terms of the Christian Bible,
I would suggest that it is a question of dealing with literal
and symbolic images simultaneously much in the same way that Jesus
speaks in parables. Some individuals are incapable of understanding
the truth behind symbols, so for them the literal will have to
suffice. The symbolic, metaphors and parables, allow different
individuals to have access to the Truth within their own level
of understanding. Some have evolved enough so that they have a
better understanding of what are essentially incompreshensible
concepts (eternity, the infinite, ultimate source of all things,
etc.). Some will never completely understand because of the physical
limitations of their intellect, but the parables ensure that they
are not shut out because of this disability. In fact, Jung had
a theory that the Jesus's, the Buddhas, Einsteins (name your own
"genius", "advanced thinker" or otherwise
"enlightened one") were but the vanguards of human spiritual
and intellectual evolution. They have evolved beyond the rest
of society and are misunderstood in their time and are, consequently
revered or feared as "supernatural" or "evil,"
respectively. Jung proferred that this is why such geniuses are
often condemned since it takes society quite a while to catch
up with them. Only later does society at large recognize the mistake
of their ignorant ancestors because, to paraphrase Jesus they
"knew not what they had done."
Anyhow back to resurrection. From what I have read (disclaimer:I
am no biblical scholar, nor am I a follower of any particular
religious practice, but I do study these things),"resurrection"
in the New Testament refers primarily to the fact that the holy
cannot truly be killed. The rising of the body is but a symbol
of the eternal nature of God. Moreover, the physical resurrection
of Jesus' body is necessary for him to fulfill Old Testament prophesies
of the legitimacy of the Jewish Messiah. Throughout the Gospels,
Jesus asserts his legitimacy by reminding those around him as
to the prophecies he is fulfilling by his actions. With respect
to "resurrection," specifically, the Sadduccees put
the question to Jesus in terms of the practical inconsistencies
of bringing people back to life. They point out that if one follows
Mosaic Law in which a brother must marry his dead brother's widow,
any resurrection of the dead would make the remarried adulterers
and polygamists, which would obviously frustrate the other biblical
laws. Christ corrects their interpretation of "resurrection"
stating (in Matthew 22:29) "You are wrong, because you understand
neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For at the resurrection
men and women do not marry; no, they are like the angels in heaven.
And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you never read what
God himself said to you: 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac and the God of Jacob'? God is God, not of the dead, but
of the living." The "living" is a reference to
the eternal thread of all the souls that derive their existence
from the biblical God (Actually, that's my interpretation).
This ties in well with Jesus' resurrection since he repeatedly
tells those who ask for a sign from heaven that he is the messiah
that the only sign that will be given is "the sign of Jonah."
Jesus states: "For as Jonah was in the belly of the sea monster
for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in
the heart of the earth for three days and three nights."(Matthew
12:40). Jonah's internment in the "whale" has been interpreted
by many (Campbell was a proponent) as being metaphorical of the
spiritual "death" and "rebirth" of the hero
Jonah. The belly of the beast is supposed to be the realm of the
unconscious from which the archetypes of eternity emerge. Fear
is what prevents most from entering the dark realm or from understanding
the message (eternal truth untouched by matters in the field of
time) that awaits within the beast. Overcoming the fear is what
leads you to the Truth and allows you to emerge from the darkness
to embrace the Light (Nirvana, spiritual rebirth, etc.). There
is a particular significance to the number three, which is another
thread in and of itself, but I'll just note that you have to pass
three before you can get to four (which in many religions represents
the completion of a cycle or the embracing of the eternal). And
many, many people spend their lives stuck at "three,"
if they even get there in the first place. So whether or not Jesus'
"resurrection" is the factual revivification of his
body is not as important as the sign that it fulfills (remember,
"resurrection" itself is not so remarkable as to be
exclusive to a messiah, since Jesus himself resurrects a few people
in his journeys). The metaphor should not be confused with the
truth which underlies it.
Okay, I know that was long. Sorry about that. I would like to
add one more thing that I don't think anybody has mentioned yet
with respect to crosses and vampires and addresses Kerri's first
post in this thread, above. Another way the cross may be interpreted
is as a fulfillment of the cycle of The Fall and the return of
mankind into the good graces of "God." Mankind is sent
out of paradise as a punishment for eating from the Tree of Knowledge.
The new awareness gives mankind the knowledge of opposites--good
and evil, male and female, man and god--a knowledge previously
only possessed by God itself. Mankind is forbidden access to the
Tree of Life because God reserves the right to eternal life to
itself and is fearful that mankind would become as "God"
with access to the fruit of the tree. Jesus on the Cross is not
merely a symbol of the acceptance of death and a path to spiritual
rebirth, but is the Tree of Life itself transplanted from the
ideal realm of the heavenly paradise to the brutal reality of
the mortal Earth. It is the symbol of eternity (unity with the
source of everything) and as such is a powerful force against
vampires who can never experience the eternal because they do
not have human souls. It is not necessarily an anti-christian
reaction by the vampires, but rather a mystical aversion to the
ultimate symbol of what they cannot have--a direct relationship
with the eternal (or at-one-ment).
And finally, another tidbit for OnM, if he is reading this: remember
our 2001: A Space Odyssey discussion a few months back? How about
this. The three monoliths (on Earth, the moon, and near Jupiter)
are the Tree of Knowledge enlightening mankind in stages until
he is ready to take "the ultimate trip." The monolith
at the end of the film that transforms Dave into the Starchild
is the Tree of Life that completes the cycle and brings mankind
to at-one-ment with the source of creation. Have I gone too far
this time (to quote Peter Gabriel: "...but I don't know how
to stop--I don't know how to stop!"
What do you think?
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow. Kaboom Warning
on the Above! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 19:24:17 08/01/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Feedback.
Please--I crave feedback. Villify me, validate me, whatever. Just
feed me please;o) -- Anthony8, 19:33:55 08/01/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Kaboom
= so rich with philosophical goodness it may actually make your
head explode. -- Wisewoman, 19:47:45 08/01/01 Wed
That was my feedback!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
But I'm still hungry. Anything in particular that you agree/disagree
with? -- Anthony8, 20:02:14 08/01/01 Wed
Thanks for the compliment. Your posts are always interesting,
so if you feel like elaborating...
It doesn't appear that there are very many people on the board
tonight and there is no Buffy rerun (at least on the SF WB affiliate)
tonight due to a pre-emption by the movie "Spawn." Where
is everybody?
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> I'm here..........:):):) -- Rufus, 20:03:38 08/01/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> I'm checking my book of heresies . . . -- d'Herblay, 20:22:45
08/01/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> If I'm mentioned, I guess I better make other plans
for the afterlife! :0 -- Anthony8, 20:46:33 08/01/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> By 'SF' do you mean San Fran, CA? I suspect that... -- OnM,
20:35:33 08/01/01 Wed
..many of us don't check in here until after 10 or 11 PM on most
evenings, I know I often don't. That would be three hours earlier
for you West Coasters. I've often posted stuff at midnight or
so, and then sacked out, only to check in the next morning and
found responses that would have been at 2 or 3 in the AM here
in the East.
Interesting trivia question that I confess I don't know the answer
to-- What country of the world spans the most time zones? My guess
would be Russia, but I dunno for sure. Even the four that're in
North America seem like a lot to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Yep. San Francisco it is. Baghdad By The Bay. "Sodom
Redux" ... -- Anthony8, 20:41:55 08/01/01 Wed
..in the eyes of many a far right winger.;o)
I think Russia spans six time zones. I don't know where I heard
that. Perhaps those "heretical" voices in my head.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> For some of us, San Francisco is the only town
that'll take us! -- Masquerade, 09:06:19 08/02/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> No matter where I go... -- Anthony8, 12:05:38
08/02/01 Thu
..I always end up back here, like some newt returning to his
pond of origin. For others, who were not born here, it's about
as far left as you can go in the contiguous U.S. without falling
into the sea. Whatever it is, there is something magnetic about
this place.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Which explains... -- Masq, 12:09:25
08/02/01 Thu
the aluminum foil cap on the head of the homeless guy who lives
on my street corner.
"magnetic rays!" grumble, grumble "magnetic rays!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Ah! A question I can answer easily! -- d'Herblay,
20:57:21 08/01/01 Wed
OnM writes: "Interesting trivia question that I confess I
don't know the answer to-- What country of the world spans the
most time zones? My guess would be Russia, but I dunno for sure.
Even the four that're in North America seem like a lot to me."
Yes. Russia with 9. Canada has 6 time zones (or 5 1/2 maybe):
the four in the Continental U.S. plus Atlantic (Eastern Standard
plus an hour) and Newfoundland time (EST plus an hour and a half).
Plus Alaska includes two time zones, one for mainland Alaska,
one for the Aleutians (a time zone shared by Hawaii). Greenland
has three time zones, Atlantic Standard and EST+2 and EST+4. So
North America spans the time zones from Greenwich Mean Time -1
to GMT -10 for a total of (no GMT -2, but with those heretical
Newfoundlanders thrown in) ten time zones. I have no idea whether
this is true for both Standard and Daylight Savings times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Ah! A question I can answer easily! -- Solitude1056,
23:20:43 08/01/01 Wed
I was gonna say China, now that the Soviet Union isn't around
(and a lot of the western parts of the former USSR aren't really
considered part of Russia anymore) ... or are they? Hm. Russia
it is, then, I suppose. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Ah! A question I can answer easily!
-- d'Herblay, 23:57:24 08/01/01 Wed
China, despite being wide enough for four time zones, is entirely
entirely on Beijing time. Which means that when it's noon in Beijing,
it's noon everywhere, including Tibet and Xinjiang, where the
sun's been up only a few hours. In Xinjiang, stores often post
two sets of hours, "official" and "real."
But because businesses are required to open on Beijing time, much
business commences well before sunrise.
Much of Continental Western Europe does the same thing, meaning
that parts of France and Spain that are west of the prime meridian
are, in the summer, two hours ahead of GMT. I was in France just
before the summer solstice, and it didn't get dark until after
11 p.m. I checked my watch against a sundial on the side of Chartres
Cathedral, and while the official time was three o'clock, the
sun indicated it was only one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> ...and a *half* (Newfoundland)?? how does that
work? (NT) -- anom, 07:32:14 08/02/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: ...and a *half* (Newfoundland)?? how
does that work? -- d'Herblay, 08:07:45 08/02/01 Thu
When it's noon in New York, it's 1:30 p.m. in . . . I don't know
of any cities in Newfoundland.
Whole countries do this. India, parts of Australia, Iran, Burma.
Afghanistan is four-and-a-half hours ahead of and 400 years behind
Greenwich Mean Time (can I make fun of Afghanistan without offending
anyone here?). Nepal is five hours and forty minutes ahead of
GMT. A number of island groups are off by fifteen or forty-five
minutes.
A time zone is just a convenience. If every town in the world
used local solar time (i.e., noon is when the sun is at the highest
point in the sky for that day), then when it is noon in New York
City, it would be 11:59 in Newark, 11:55 in Philadelphia, 11:36
in Pittsburgh, 11:29 in Cleveland, 11:24 in Detroit, 11:05 in
Chicago, and eleven o'clock in Decatur, Illinois. This is actually
pretty much the way it was 150 years ago, but it screwed up the
railroad schedules something fierce, so we invented the time zone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> St. John's, NFLD! -- Wisewoman,
10:57:33 08/02/01 Thu
I don't think they do it anymore, but the CBC in Toronto when
I was a kid used to announce all it's programs with the tag..."half
an hour earlier in Newfoundland." It was a hoot. Just one
of those things that's intrinsically Canadian (and Newfoundlandish)
I guess!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Come on we're Godless Canadians,
can't expect us to do the time zone thing in whole numbers....
-- Rufus, 13:11:07 08/02/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey, wait a minute.
I'm pretty sure God is FROM Canada... -- Anthony8, 16:57:40 08/02/01
Thu
..didn't anybody see "Dogma"?
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Many times........
-- Rufus, 16:59:50 08/02/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> I had no idea! -- anom, 20:25:37
08/02/01 Thu
"(can I make fun of Afghanistan without offending anyone
here?)"
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Taliban aren't monitoring this board.
"If every town in the world used local solar time (i.e.,
noon is when the sun is at the highest point in the sky for that
day), then when it is noon in New York City, it would be 11:59
in Newark, 11:55 in Philadelphia, 11:36 in Pittsburgh, 11:29 in
Cleveland, 11:24 in Detroit, 11:05 in Chicago, and eleven o'clock
in Decatur, Illinois."
Something like that happens w/the Jewish Sabbath, which begins
at local sunset. Many Jewish calendars give the times for lighting
Sabbath candles (18 minutes earlier) each week in different cities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I had no idea! -- d'Herblay,
21:00:58 08/02/01 Thu
Of course, while noon is the same for all points on the same line
of longitude, the length of day (and therefore sunrise and sunset)
varies according to latitude, being longer in summer, and shorter
in winter, the farther north you go.
In Islam, the start of each month is established by direct observation,
i.e. the month starts when someone sees the first sliver of moon
east in the evening sky after the new moon. This leads to some
variation as to when months start and end between localities.
And my most hated violation of celestial-mechanics in Buffy is
not the eclipse in GD2. It's in WML2, when the ceremony to reinvigorate
Drusilla must take place during the new moon. Night falls, and
Drusilla says, "Spike. The moon is rising. It's time."
I just want to say, "Where? Iran?" Drusilla, baby, if
the new moon is rising and you go outside, you're gonna fry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! Reminds me of a
friend who wanted to get married "by the light of the new
moon!" ;o) -- Wisewoman, 21:16:53 08/02/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Ooops. Went to bed early last night and missed all the fun...
-- Wisewoman, 12:05:13 08/02/01 Thu
..you certainly engendered a great discussion, though. I can't
seem to clarify my thoughts on your original post. Don't know
what it is...I know there's profundity there as is evidenced by
the response, but for some reason my mind goes blank when confronted
with mainstream theology.
It did raise a question in my mind about Joss, though. He must
see the Buffy/Christ metaphor (analogy?) and be using it consciously,
yet his general attitude toward religion in the Buffyverse is
decidedly non-Christian (the Powers That Be, Hellgods, etc.) Is
he trying to say something specific, or is he as confused as I
am?
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Interesting Test (somewhat o/t) -- Wisewoman, 16:23:50
08/02/01 Thu
In this discussion of various religious viewpoints, it interested
me that people described their own position vis-a-vis religion
in the negative, IOW, not Christian, or Jewish, etc.
I recently took a test at smartselect.com called Belief System
Selector (!). What surprised me about it was that I answered the
questions as truthfully as I could, but while I was doing so I
was thinking, "Oh, this is gonna come up that I'm really
a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or something along those lines,"
and it didn't at all. I was actually quite impressed with the
result. (Umm, that sounded wrong...I would have actually been
delighted had the result pointed to Buddhist or Hindu.)
If anyone else wants to give it a try it's at:
http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/
Let me know if you think it was accurate for you.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Whatelse
do ya want, I just killed a tree for you, now off to think too
much about it...:):):) -- Rufus, 20:02:22 08/01/01 Wed
Remember the Slayer forges strength from pain, the pain can be
that of rebirth or resurrection. I still see the climb from the
grave as a rebirth from darkness to the light of the world. Buffy
has proved to be an advanced thinker in relation to her slayer
abilities and her sacrifice was an example of her ability to solve
a problem in a new way. She could have shoved her sister into
the portal or watched Dawn leap to her death, but Buffy saw that
option as unaceptable. Buffy didn't want to send her sister into
a void and accepted that void for herself. She took a chance and
let love lead her to a new conclusion. I do not feel that Buffy
will be back out of the selfish desire of one person but because
she was meant to be in this world to complete her journey. Buffy
will be back because the world needs her more than she needs the
world. She will take up the task of protecting the world because
that is the work she does.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ah, Buffy--a bodhisattva of sorts. -- Anthony8, 20:06:39 08/01/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 'The metaphor
should not be confused with the truth which underlies it'. (Ooooooo....)
-- OnM, 20:27:03 08/01/01 Wed
Kaboom indeed! Some minds are obviously never on vacation! ;)
There must be some variety of metaphysics occurring that is associated
with this board, 'cos just a half-hour ago I was browsing through
a copy of Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook 2001, which I just purchased
earlier today.
Being that this is the '2001' issue of this tome, he comments
on Kubrick's film at some length. This part is relevant to your
comments, methinks:
"Now consider Kubrick's famous use of Richard Strauss' Also
Sprach Zarathustra. Inspired by the words of Nietzsche, it's five
bold opening notes embody the ascension of man into spheres reserved
for the gods. It is cold, frightening, magnificent."
"It is associated in the film with the first entry of man's
consciousness into the universe-- and with the eventual passage
of that consciousness onto a new level, symbolized by the Star
Child at the end of the film."
(Copyright 2001 / Roger Ebert)
Synchonicity much?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> How's this
one? -- Anthony8, 20:32:45 08/01/01 Wed
I was reading a review of the Kubrick Collection DVDs on a DVD
review site (and, drats, drats and double drats!I can't remember
which one) where the reviewer noted in his discussion of '2001'
that the word "monolith" means one stone. He continues
that the German translation of "one stone" is "Einstein."
Synchronicity, indeed!
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay, Let's
see if I stir it up a bit (with no disrespect to anyone intended)
-- anom, 22:55:38 08/01/01 Wed
Whoo. Some deep stuff here. I can only comment on bits & pieces
of it.
"Moreover, the physical resurrection of Jesus' body is necessary
for him to fulfill Old Testament prophesies of the legitimacy
of the Jewish Messiah."
OK, I'm a lot more familiar with Hebrew than with Christian scripture
(it's not old to us, & not necessarily a testament either) @>),
& yes, there are predictions of a Messiah, but I don't know of
any prophecies that he would be killed & resurrected (any sooner
than everyone else). He was supposed to bring an era of peace,
& I don't remember anything about having to come back a 2nd time
to do it. Oh, & btw, that supposed prophecy of a virgin birth
in Isaiah? Mistranslation, dating back to the Greek. Yup.
"'...And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you never
read what God himself said to you: "I am the God of Abraham,
the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob"? God is God, not of
the dead, but of the living.'"
Now I'm really confused. God said this after Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob
were dead.
"Mankind is sent out of paradise as a punishment for eating
from the Tree of Knowledge....Mankind is forbidden access to the
Tree of Life because God reserves the right to eternal life to
itself and is fearful that mankind would become as 'God' with
access to the fruit of the tree."
First, "The Fall" is a Christian concept, & not the
only one that can apply to this story (something I wanted to get
into during the Riley:Buffy::Adam:Eve thread but didn't have time
for). I'm not sure banishment from Eden was part of the punishment
(cursing of the ground for man & of the body for woman) for eating
the fruit rather than a precaution against their eating from the
tree of life (not gonna look it up now, but I'm pretty sure it
says so). Second, the original prohibition applied only to the
tree of knowledge of good & evil; the tree of life was never expressly
forbidden but was made inaccessible, & that only after Adam & Eve
had eaten from the tree of knowledge--as if it's only a risk once
they have that knowledge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Insightful
post--perhaps I can clarify my original points. -- Anthony8, 09:02:42
08/02/01 Thu
As I said, I'm not religious in any way that people who are strict
adherents of any one faith would probably want to associate with
me. Moreover, I would never make any claim to speak for what other's
believe. That is their right and so long as they don't harm anyone
in the exercise of their beliefs, I wish them well.
I've always viewed the world's religious texts (all myths included)
as being expressions of a greater truth that is ultimately beyond
human comprehension. I am an adherent to the theory of archetypes
advanced by Carl Jung. For me this is why there is such a great
degree of similarity in the stories of the Native Americans, the
Australian Aboriginal peoples, the African tribal religions, Judeo-Christianity,
the Hindus, the Buddhists, and so on and so forth. I am also in
agreement with Joseph Campbell that the greatest religious disputes
in the world are essentially "metaphor wars." People
of Faith (and I'm really generalizing here, so forgive me for
that) will have none of that archeo/anthropological nonsense.
Faith, afterall, is the belief in something that cannot be proven.
Proof extinguishes Faith. Faith innoculates one against proof.
Proof is a scientific idea grounded in the world of logic and
the five physical senses. Faith lives in the world beyond sensation,
although I would argue that all our thoughts and feelings, including
Faith (uh-oh paradox time!), originate from our existence as sensual
creatures.
Anyhow with regard to the specifics of your post, yes the Fall
is a Christian interpretation of Genesis which is contradictory
to begin with (there being two fundamentally different accounts
in the bible-is the second not present in the Jewish texts? If
not I stand corrected. My only copy of texts biblical is in a
combined Old/New Testament book). However, I think I have assessed
the "banishment" in the "Fall" chapter correctly.
To quote: "then Yahweh God said, 'See, the man has become
like one of us, with his knowledge of good and evil. He must not
be allowed to stretch his hand out next and pick from the tree
of life also, and eat some and live for ever.' So Yaweh God expelled
him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he had
been taken." (Genesis 3:22) Yeah, man is not expressly forbidden
to eat from the second tree. Read optimistically, one could interpret
a hint that man may be allowed to return some day and partake
in the fruit of that tree. At any rate, Yahweh doesn't seem to
want man to have eternal life anytime soon at that point in the
story.
Okay,the fulfillment of Old Testament stuff is also an interpretational
thing. After all, their are Jews in the world today that believe
that the messiah has been in here in the last decade (a rebbe
from Brooklyn) and they base their belief on scriptural interpretation.
The Jewish Jesus followers at the time of Jesus (I would suggest
seeing the Frontline documentary on this for a quick anthropolical
overview) were looking for a sign that Jesus was who he said he
was. Some saw him as a blasphemer, some as a prophet (Islam views
him this way), and some as the messiah. All based their beliefs
on scriptural interpretation. When questioned as to his nature,
Jesus, as a rabbi, cites specific "Old" testament passages
to support his followers' belief in him as the messiah, but he
often leaves it up to them to conclude for themselves based on
their own understanding of those biblical passages. That's all
I was saying with regard to that.
As for the "God is not of the dead, but of the living,"
quotation, I don't think it is that confusing if you interpret
it in the context of the living spirit of God that is present
in the line from Abraham to Isaac and Jacob rather than focusing
on their physical deaths. Now that's just my interpretation of
it.
Once again, great post. I would definitely like to hear more from
a Jewish prospective (what are your thoughts on the cross and
vampires--do you think it represents a pro-christian prejudice?)
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Apologies
for all the misspellings. -- Anthony8, 12:47:10 08/02/01 Thu
Oops. Thinking too fast for my typing skills again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Another
perspective -- Kerri, 13:20:27 08/02/01 Thu
A8: You said you wanted to hear a Jewish perspective. Now my family
is Jewish but I don't really consider myself to be only Jewish.
I would call myself religious for my belief in a God(s), and I
have read a bit about many religions. So I don't know if I qualify,
as I'm certainly not an expert on Judaism but I was bat mitzvahed
so I have studied Jewish beliefs. On that note I thought I would
give my oppinion on crosses and vampires.
I began to get into this topic a little in my original post. I
think that the origin of the vampire myth is Christian in nature.
The depiction of Dracula as the anti-Christ seems to explain in
part how the cross became a symbol that repels vampires.
Joss' Buffyverse does not seem to be partial to or supporting
Christianity. Willow is a Jewish character. In "Passion"
she hangs crosses in her room to keep Angel from entering and
while she is worried that her parents will be upset she does not
seem to think that this goes against her religion. Also there
are TPTB-certainly not a Christian figure. TPTB are a God-like
entity that does not appear to be linked to a particular religion.
BtVS and AtS have both shown signs of devine influences-Amends,
IWRY. These devine interventions do not seem to be linked to any
particular religion but also seem not to oppose any religion.
In my oppinion the show has at least as much Buddhist influence
as it does Christian. The idea of death being a part of the cyclke
of life, and the abondance of Buddhist images in the show.
So-here's the question. If BtVS shows no allegiance to Christianity
then why keep the crosses as part of the myth? I more or less
discussed this in my original post but I'm going to get into it
a bit more...
The cross represents sacrafice. It represents acceptance of death.
Acceptance of the next phase of the journey-death. Vampires do
not enter the next part of the journey. Out of fear, defiance,
whatever, they chose not to die at a terrible cost. Death is natural.
Vampires are unnatural beings. They have defied the natural order.
The cross represents acceptance of this natural part of life.
Vampires don't accept this natural process-they flee from it-and
thus the cross causes them to flee.
Note that Buffy was in the possition of a cross when she jumped
into the potal-she accepted the next step of the journey-and as
she asks Dawn to tell Giles she is "okay". When I watched
"The Gift" I was struck by hearing Buffy say "and
I'm okay" just as we see her body. It seemed to me a bit
eerie at first. She's dead but she's alrught. This reflected a
new level of peace and serenity in Buffy's character. While seeing
this image made me cry a little more(I know, I know-but I really
don't cry at tv that much-in fact at all) it also made the end
of "The Gift" less sad-because Buffy wasn't sad. She
understood. She accepted.
On a side-note it would be interesting if because of Buffy's acceptance
of death and her newly obtained serenity(kind of a Buddhist concept
there) she had a power kind of like the cross. If she could hurt
vampires with her touch. I know this is a strange idea that will
never happen. It didn't just come out of the sky though. Actually
it came from Harry Potter(once again I know kid's book and all
but it really is excellent and I'd recomend it to all of you-most-actually
I think all of my friends who like Buffy like Harry Potter). Harry's
mom died to protect him. Because of this Voldemort can't touch
Harry. He is marked by the goodness and sacrafice and Voldemort,
representing the opposite-corruption and evil-is burnt by touching
Harry.
Wow-that got a bit rant like sorry about that. I tend to start
with an idea then go off on tangents.
Agree? Disagree? Other ideas?
~Kerri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Vampire Paradox -- Rufus, 15:10:09 08/02/01 Thu
Season four was better than many give it credit for. They had
many good ideas. One was Adam. In Who are You he says some things
that are worth remembering.
Adam: I've been thinking. About vampires.
Boone: (threateningly) This is my place.
Adam: (unintimidated) You're place, yes. The sewers. You hide
from them. Crawl about in their filth. Scavenging like rats. What
do you fear?
Boone: Kill this guy already.
Adam: You fear the cross. The sun. Fire. (looks at his captive)
And, oh, yes.........
(He clamps his other hand on the unfortunate vamp's shoulder.
Close up shot of Adam as we hear him rip its head off. Cut to
Adam's feet and the vamp's body falls to the ground, quickly followed
by its head and it's in mid roll when they both disintegrate to
ashes.)
Adam: I believe decapitation is a problem as well.
Boone: You can have the place. I mean, we don't have to stay here
anymore.
Adam: You fear death. (Adam walks closer to them) Being immortal,
you fear it more than those to whom it comes naturally. Vampires
are a paradox.
Boone: (nervously) Okay. We're a paradox. That's cool.
Adam: Demon in a human body. You walk in both worlds and belong
to neither. I can relate. Come.
The vampire is a creature of the darkness unable to tolerate the
sun and fire, they fear the cross. They are a creature that can
belong to neither the human or demon world..a scavenger like rats...this
would explain Angelus's need to find meaning in his killing. He
can no longer be approved of by the people in his life that would
have mattered, he is powerful, immortal but fears the nothingness
of death most of all. Vampires are creatures that have never progressed
on the journey of life and death. They are trapped by their human
form to be feared and despised by both man and demon. Buffy is
herself a paradox, she is a slayer created from darkness to fight
for the powers of light. She hates killing but does it to make
the world safe for humanity. She feared death, but in The Gift
finally understood death could also become a posative thing, a
gift. She has accepted death and her place in her journey. She
can progress, the vampires cannot. When Buffy jumped she was in
the position of the cross, the thing that creates dread in vampires,
she accepted the gift of death that the vampire fears. Buffy also
feared that killing made her less able to love only to find out
that her love is brighter than the flame. Buffy because she is
so capable of love and sacrifice overcomes fear and uncertainty.
Adam: (pacing) I have a gift no man has. No demon has ever had.
(faces them) I know why I'm here. I was created to kill. To extinguish
life wherever I find it. And I have accepted that responsibility.
You have lived in fear and desperation because you didn't have
that gift. But it's time to face your fear.
Boone: Tell us what to do.
Adam: You are here to be my first. To let them know that I am
coming.
Adam had a the ability to kill whatever he saw, he thought his
gift was to extinguish life. Buffy feared her work as a killer
because she didn't see death of any kind as a gift. Once Buffy
understood the nature of the gift of death, she was okay with
it and her work. Fear and desperation over her ability to love
gave way to understanding and serenity. Adam failed because he
misunderstood death as a gift. He saw his power as a way to destroy
life and make a new master race of demon hybrids. His ideas came
from the mind of a woman who had lost touch with humanity. Buffy
kills to preserve life, only killing when she has to. Her gift
of death was a sacrifice to save the world and all life. Both
vampires and Buffy originate from darkness but love is what makes
the difference. Vampires love in a self serving way, Buffy's love
was for all. This is why vampires are scavengers and Buffy is
the one thing they fear more than the cross, she is the embodiment
of sacrifice and love, something a vampire fears. Adam told Boone
to tell others he was coming, and he was destroyed by Buffy. Buffy
has sacrificed herself and we all know she is coming back. She
has work to complete.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> hey,
thanks! flattery will get you...more discussion (looong) -- anom,
22:43:39 08/02/01 Thu
I don't think there actually is any such thing as "Judeo-Christianity,"
but I don't want to get into that in this post.
"...there being two fundamentally different accounts [of
the creation of humans] in the bible-is the second not present
in the Jewish texts?"
Yes, it's there. There are several different ways of explaining
this in various strains of Jewish thought. I think someone already
mentioned the Lilith story; one other story is that the original
Adam was both male & female & was separated into Adam & Eve--I'm
not sure how its adherents explain the use of the plural in "male
& female created S/He *them*."
"However, I think I have assessed the 'banishment' in the
'Fall' chapter correctly. To quote: 'then Yahweh God said, "See,
the man has become like one of us, with his knowledge of good
and evil. He must not be allowed to stretch his hand out next
and pick from the tree of life also, and eat some and live for
ever." So Yaweh God expelled him from the garden of Eden,
to till the soil from which he had been taken.' (Genesis 3:22)"
Hmm, sounds like a modern translation. Guess it is a matter of
interpretation then. This strikes me as closing the barn door
before the other horse is gone. The way I read it, banishment
is presented as a reaction not to the disobedience of the command
against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge but to the result:
the knowledge itself, & as a preventive measure to keep the humans
away from the tree of life. Once humans have that kind of knowledge,
can't let 'em live forever. (Sorry, that's a bit convoluted.)
I once heard a talk about various creation stories that share
a similar element of breaking a commandment not to eat/take/etc.
something that would confer knowledge/awareness/understanding.
The (Jewish) speaker said he thought the commandment was meant
to be broken & the stories were metaphors for adolescence, a time
of disobedience & rebellion in which we lose innocence (the Garden)
but which is necessary to grow up. When I asked if the tree of
life is ever forbidden (initially, that is) in these stories,
he said no. Not in any of them. I wonder (just occurred to me)
if losing access to the tree of life means that this is also a
time when we begin to understand/accept the idea of death, that
we won't live forever.
"I've always viewed the world's religious texts (all myths
included) as being expressions of a greater truth that is ultimately
beyond human comprehension. I am an adherent to the theory of
archetypes advanced by Carl Jung."
I can't address Jung's theory--I don't know enough about it. I'm
a panmonotheist myself. But I'm with you on the greater truth
part. There's a yoga center in NYC with a mandala above the door
showing the symbols of many different religions. Around its circle
are the words "Truth is one, paths are many."
"I would definitely like to hear more from a Jewish prospective
(what are your thoughts on the cross and vampires--do you think
it represents a pro-christian prejudice?)"
I'm thinking about the joke where a werewolf--in the joke it's
a werewolf--breaks into a woman's room. She picks up two pencils
& holds them up in the shape of a cross. The werewolf laughs & says,
"Oy! Have you got the wrong verevolf!"
I assume you're talking about European vampire myths (& stories
based on them) in general, not the Buffyverse specifically. I
wouldn't say it's prejudice so much as just a Christian viewpoint.
Since these myths arose among Christians, of course crosses & holy
water repel them. (OK, yeah, if I lived in Sunnydale & needed
to keep an invited vampire out of my house, I'd try to find out
if something other than crosses would work. It would bother me,
but not because I think it represents prejudice.) There are vampire-type
myths in other cultures, but I don't know much about them, except
I doubt crosses figure as a defense. I've seen different interpretations
in more modern vampire stories. There was a vampire storyline
in the X-Men years ago (anyone remember?) in which the effectiveness
of a cross or other religious symbol depends on the belief of
the person using it--or trying to. A vampire isn't stopped when
Wolverine holds up a cross because he doesn't believe in it. Kitty
Pryde steps in holding a Jewish star & it works because she does
believe in it. But in "I Am Legend" by Richard Matheson
(can't remember the name of the movie version, w/Charlton Heston
as the only human left--OnM?), it depends on the (pre)vampire's
belief system (now, don't have nightmares about invulnerable atheist
vampires!). @>)
There's another example but I can't think of it. Enough already.
Up too late. Post too long. 'Night, folks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
"Truth is one.....paths are many" .....I like that........:):):)
-- Rufus, 00:34:16 08/03/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> . . . no disrepect
inferred. But . . . -- d'Herblay, 03:34:24 08/02/01 Thu
A8 (may I call you A8?) writes: "Ultimately the 'resurrection
vs. rebirth' debate probably hinges on what dictionary you use."
Strict definitions are important to me; if words come to mean
anything, they start to mean nothing. And resurrection and rebirth
connote entirely different things. Resurrection comes from the
Latin resurgere, "to rise again." It shares a root with
surge and, by ecclesiastical Latin times specifically meant "to
rise from the grave." There is no "birth" in that
concept, and rebirth is never used in the King James Bible. Resurrection
applies equally to the risings of Jesus, of Lazarus and of all
on the Day of Judgment. It was established Christian doctrine
that the Resurrection (both of Christ and the general resurrection)
was bodily as early as the writing of the Apostles' Creed. Any
interpretation of resurrection that was not bodily resurrection
was considered heresy. On the borders of Christianity, Gnostics
and Manichees denied bodily resurrection because they believed
that the body was evil, because they believed that all matter,
all creation, was evil, because ultimately they believed the creator
God was either senile or a lesser, evil demiurge in rebellion
against the true God. To the early Christians, however, the essential
goodness of the body reflected the essential goodness of creation
and Creator.
A8 continues: "In terms of the Christian Bible, I would suggest
that it is a question of dealing with literal and symbolic images
simultaneously [ . . . ] Some individuals are incapable of understanding
the truth behind symbols, so for them the literal will have to
suffice. The symbolic, metaphors and parables, allow different
individuals to have access to the Truth within their own level
of understanding. Some have evolved enough so that they have a
better understanding of what are essentially incomprehensible
concepts (eternity, the infinite, ultimate source of all things,
etc.). Some will never completely understand because of the physical
limitations of their intellect, but the parables ensure that they
are not shut out because of this disability." He adds, "The
metaphor should not be confused with the truth which underlies
it."
I am not here to defend the simple-mindedness of Biblical literalists,
as not only do I deny the "metaphor" but I'm pretty
dodgy about the underlying "truth." That said, I must
point out that both Catholic and mainstream Protestant doctrine
rely on the inerrancy of the Bible as written. (Well, actually,
Catholicism relies on the inerrancy of the Church's interpretation
of the Bible.) While interpretations of the Bible as allegory
or metaphor are on the rise within C/mP, so are reactionary literalist/fundamentalist
interpretations.
(I may be too rigidly hewing to a doctrine that I don't actually
subscribe to here, but OnM's request was, "I'd be interested
to hear from any Christian-oriented posters here whether they
think of Christ's return from death to be a 'resurrection,' or
if they ever think of it as a 'rebirth', and if so, why?"
and I thought the best way to respond was with the doctrinal definitions.)
Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism insist on the inerrancy
of the Word as they insist on the reality of the world as we perceive
it. The esoteric/occult traditions (esoterichos and occultus are
Greek and Latin, respectively, for "hidden"), such as
Kabbala, Gnosticism and their off-shoots, use metaphor because
they hold that our perceptions are not to be trusted, that there
is a hidden reality beyond what we see. They hold that the world
is, in fact, metaphor. One direction leads to the knee-jerk literalism
of Jerry Falwell; the other leads to the modern mystery cult of
L. Ron Hubbard. I say, a pox on both their houses of worship.
A8 theorizes, "It [the cross as the representation of the
Tree of Life] is the symbol of eternity (unity with the source
of everything) and as such is a powerful force against vampires
who can never experience the eternal because they do not have
human souls. It is not necessarily an anti-Christian reaction
by the vampires, but rather a mystical aversion to the ultimate
symbol of what they cannot have--a direct relationship with the
eternal (or at-one-ment)."
Sounds good to me. Are there any extra-Christian symbols suggesting
a relationship with the eternal that we've seen vampires react
to? Any such symbols which we've seen vampires treat as benign?
A8 continues, "There is a particular significance to the
number three, which is another thread in and of itself, but I'll
just note that you have to pass three before you can get to four
(which in many religions represents the completion of a cycle
or the embracing of the eternal). And many, many people spend
their lives stuck at 'three,' if they even get there in the first
place."
Please explain. Once you reach "four," don't you then
have to strive to achieve "five"? Will only then have
you achieved "quintessence"? (Oh, let's leave The Fifth
Element out of this. A little Chris Tucker goes a long way.)
(And this not-so-little post has gone a long way towards giving
me a headache.)
One final question: The Catholic Encyclopedia says: "Among
the opponents of the Resurrection we naturally find first those
who denied the immortality of the soul; secondly, all those who,
like Plato, regarded the body as the prison of the soul and death
as an escape from the bondage of matter; thirdly the sects of
the Gnostics and Manichaeans who looked upon all matter as evil;
fourthly, the followers of these latter sects the Priscillianists,
the Cathari, and the Albigenses; fifthly, the Rationalists, Materialists,
and Pantheists of later times."
I can claim to partake in number one and two-thirds of number
five. How many can you check off?
(Also, I think this post demands an emoticon. Here goes-- : )
)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I could
mention the Holy Hand Grenade here, but I won't... ;-) -- OnM,
06:33:18 08/02/01 Thu
*** Once you reach "four," don't you then have to strive
to achieve "five"? Will only then have you achieved
"quintessence"? ***
The thing with numbers and various and sundry holy writs is a
category unto itself. Most physicists do tend to regard mathematics
as the 'language of creation', should they feel a philosophical
bent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Speaking
of which . . . -- d'Herblay, 07:13:14 08/02/01 Thu
Have you done Pi as your movie of the week yet?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I think he did it in June - gee, you could check the archives
if... -- Solitude1056, 07:42:35 08/02/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> . . . I had half a clue how to do that. -- d'Herblay, 08:18:13
08/02/01 Thu
Actually, I've found it in the Google cache. Dated 6/1 so it got
bumped from the archives maybe a week ago. Doesn't fall into the
Oct 2000-Mar 2001 batch, and the only person who seems to be archiving
threads at ivyweb is . . . Solitude1056.
My apologies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Welll, sheesh. -- Solitude1056, 08:38:59 08/02/01
Thu
Actually, that's just cause I can do the coding faster, so I got
it out of the way (but haven't done the older threads I've started,
for obvious reasons). There's other folks working on their archives
right now, but I don't know if they've been added to the list
- no one's sent me anything, just told me that they're working
on it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Maybe I should just... -- Masq, 09:41:18 08/02/01
Thu
do another mass massive upload like the Oct-March InsideTheWeb
archive. It's not pretty like your format, but at least they'd
be available and not gathering cyber-dust on my hard drive....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
'Pi' was posted on 051801. If anyone wants a copy of any of my
CMotW columns... -- OnM, 19:34:45 08/02/01 Thu
and you can't find them in the archives, just e-mail me and I
will be happy to e-mail the column to you. Just specify the name
of the featured movie.
Here is a list of all films I've done to date. The format may
look funky because of being copied from my word processor.
(Hey Sol, how do ya do tab stops in html?)
DATE TITLE DIRECTOR
020201 Brazil..... Terry Gilliam 020901 The Conversation.....
Francis Ford Coppola 021601 They Live..... John Carpenter 022301
L.A. Story..... Mick Jackson 030201 The Seventh Seal..... Ingmar
Bergman 030901 McCabe and Mrs. Miller..... Robert Altman 031601
Shadowlands..... Richard Attenborough 032301 The Last Temptation
of Christ..... Martin Scorsese 033001 The Road Warrior..... George
Miller 040601 A Perfect World..... Clint Eastwood 041301 Defending
Your Life..... Albert Brooks 042001 Georgia..... Ulu Grosbard
042701 Altered States..... Ken Russell 050501 Fearless..... Peter
Weir 051101 Sorcerer..... William Friedkin 051801 Pi..... Darren
Aronofsky 052501 Until the End of the World..... Wim Wenders 060101
***Summary to Date*** OnM 060801 Batman Returns..... Tim Burton
061501 The Avengers (The TV Series)..... (Anti-review of Avengers:
The Movie) 062201 Wm. Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet..... Baz Luhrmann
062901 The Quick and the Dead..... Sam Raimi 070601 The Arrival.....
David Twohy 071301 The Year of Living Dangerously..... Peter Weir
072001 Princess Mononoke..... Hayao Miyazaki 072701 Infinity.....
Matthew Broderick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you
for the clarification re: doctrine. Here's a little more. -- Anthony8,
09:34:48 08/02/01 Thu
I make no claim to speak for how Christians view the world and
their beliefs. My impressions on that are anecdotal at best. Also
when I refer to "Truth," I am making reference to the
concept of something much broader than anything I can comprehend
and something vague enough that would include the concepts of
God or enlightenment, whatever. Like I said, I've spent a lot
of time studying these things and the only satifactory conclusion
I've ever reached is that there is just too much information for
any one person or group to lay claim to really knowing what the
"truth" is, if there is any real truth at all.
I've always had a big problem with the concept of "inerrancy"
because it requires every conduit of the message to be infallible.
In almost all cases those conduits were human. That means every
person who was ever entrusted with the keeping of scriptures (every
priest, scribe, messenger, delivery person, and translator) since
the time they were first written down had to be infallible. It
also requires every word of our languages to be unambiguous. No
misspellings, not a single word that would reflect the scribes'
own beliefs, not one mistranslation in 6 millenia. I just don't
have that much faith in human beings. Even Jesus had doubts. Okay,
that rant aside, I do understand what you are saying about doctrine.
Once again my response was not to explain the Christian perspective,
but rather to offer some non-doctrinal perspective with some inflection
of my own, hopefully with the prospect of encouraging some interesting
discussion. Success! Yay!
Regarding the numerology stuff, not only do you have to continue
on to "five" (which begins a whole new cycle), but I
believe the journey continues on through "nine." I am
just beginning to study literature that deals with that subject
as we write here today. My analysis in that area could only be
cursory since I only have a rudimentary understanding of these
concepts at this time. In the context of the Hero's Journey, "four"
should not necessarily mean the culmination of the trip. Instead
it is the transforming step that allows the Hero to take the journey
to the next level. So if my take on this has some validity, Buffy
is at "three" right now, when she comes back this fall,
she should be at "four" and will proceed from there.
Am I making any sense at all? Or am I starting to sound like Charlie
Brown's teacher ("Mwah, mwah, mwah, mwah....") here?
And by the way, A8 works for me. It's a carpal tunnel saver.
A8 (two key strokes--ah my wrists!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> These
go to eleven. -- d'Herblay, 19:34:14 08/02/01 Thu
What do "three," "four," "nine"
signify? "Three" what?
I'd appreciate your analysis, even if cursory.
I'm skeptical, but I am interested.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Buffy's Death and Faith's coma -- Anthony8, 12:26:50
08/02/01 Thu
Something just occurred to me when I read your post. We know from
Buffy's experiences in 'Anne' and Angel's experience after he
is regurgitated from Acathla's hellish dimension that the passage
of time in demon dimensions can pass with a great rapidity compared
to Earth's dimension. [And just as a curious aside, under Einstein's
theory time slows to a halt for one as his speed approaches the
speed of light.] Chances are that when Buffy returns, three months
will have passed in Sunnydale but Buffy may only experience it
as a matter of moments. Remember that transcendental/transformational
experiences come from a place outside the field of time. So it
follows that she may be in for a kind of shock similar to that
which Faith experienced when she reawakened from her coma only
to find that eight months had passed and everybody had moved on
with their lives. Just another random wacky thought. I will return
to my hobbit-hole now [bows head and sheepishly retreats to the
shadows].
A8
Current board
| August 2001