July 2001 posts
Giles and Malone -- Kim,
10:17:18 07/01/01 Sun
I saw the Untouchables on Superstation WTBS today.
The Malone character reminds me a lot of Giles. Especially the
type of advice he would give and his actions (telling Ness how
to get Malone, Shooting the dead guy).
Both Malone and Giles knows that to fight evil you must employ
evil methods.
I liked it when the mountie said "I don't approve of your
methods". Ness responded "you don't live in Chicago."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Giles and Malone -- Andy, 11:03:15 07/01/01 Sun
Ooh, interesting comparison, but it rings true. Especially Malone's
line, "What are you prepared to do?" And then Ness's
speech to the judge later on about how he fallen to villains'
level, become what he beheld, but was content that he had done
right. He was a long way from being the rigid do-gooder that he
was in the first half of the film.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Giles and Malone -- Sue, 15:40:52 07/01/01 Sun
Giles was prepared to kill an innocent (Ben) to protect the world.
In a way, he became the enemy, breaking the rules (protecting
the innocent) he was sworn to behold. But he knew he was right.
He knew he did what he had to do.
Evil can't totally be defeated without Good people using evil
methods.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Giles and Malone -- Max, 16:01:50 07/01/01
Sun
Giles did evil to defeat evil.
Ness finally realized that the only way he could defeat Capone
was to become like him, and break all the rules (which as a law
man he was sworn to uphold) in order to bring him down.
Giles speech to Buffy about the lengths he would go to in order
to protect the world, and Ness's speech to the judge seemed very
similar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Giles and Malone -- Rattletrap, 12:57:10 07/01/01 Sun
" I liked it when the mountie said "I don't approve
of your methods". Ness responded "you don't live in
Chicago." "
That scene is especially reminiscent of the conflicts between
the SG and the Watchers' Council. Quentin and the crowd in their
offices and libraries in England don't approve of the Scoobies'
methods, but they also don't fight vampires, demons, and apocalypses
every day. One can almost imagine Giles saying "That's the
Sunnydale way" just like Malone did.
1st
Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene -- Sebastian, 21:01:42
07/01/01 Sun
I hope its okay for me to go ahead and launch this thread - please
feel free to reprimand me if I'm being rude by doing this.;-)
Last week's thread about eye candy was fun to read - and it was
great to see those pics that Masquarade posted.
I thought this week we should do our favorite "scene"
It can be a conversation, fight scene, confrontation, etc.
I'm going to go ahead and name two from this season. The first
was the last five minutes of "Forever" with the arguement
between Buffy and Dawn that strips down their insecurities (especially
Buffy's) layer by layer. I thought the emoting both SMG and MT
did were beyond stellar. It took me back to a similar argument
I had three years ago when I lost my own mother and gave me goosebumps
the entire time.
The second - and more humorous - was the intervention in "Intervention."
"I am NOT having sex with Spike. But I'm starting to think
you might be." was the jewel in the comedy of that entire
scene.
The flow of wit and caustic humor that SMG, AH, EC, and NB showed
was just beyond hysterical in a fantastic comedy scene.
At least for me.... :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene -- Wiccagrrl,
00:56:40 07/02/01 Mon
Oh my gosh- so many possibilities.
From Prophecy Girl: the "I'm 16 years old. I don't want to
die" scene.
Sword fight in/ ending of Becoming 2.
Spike's "Your not friends" speech in Lover's Walk
Extra flamey candle scene in NMR
Buffy's "Power" speech in checkpoint.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene
-- Rattletrap, 06:07:25 07/02/01 Mon
Gotta agree with you about the "Power" speech in Checkpoint.
Buffy throwing the sword at the watcher guy made my season.
Another great one was the confrontation with The Judge in Innocence.
I've always found something incredibly sexy about that shot of
SMG with a rocket launcher. (is that normal?...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene -- Slayrunt,
03:05:30 07/02/01 Mon
I agree with Wiccagirl, there are many but ... here goes.
Buffy going to the Master flanked by Xander and Angel in her nice
dress with the theme music from the last show of season 1.
Spike and Joyce in the livingroom. "Do I know you" "Yeh
you hit me with and axe, 'stay away from my daughter'" Season
2.
Faith's speach to Spike in the Bronze while in Buffy's body season
3.
Spike speaking to the Buffy manniquin with candy and then hitting
it. season 4
Buffy expaining about Dracula changing to a bat, thinking "ah
a bat" season 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene
-- Morgane, 05:00:21 07/02/01 Mon
Don't have time to think about it now, but one just came came
suddenly in my head while reading.
The "Out...For...A...Walk...Bitch" scene made me so
much laugh each time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS
Scene -- Rob, 08:32:15 07/02/01 Mon
My favorite scene is the one from "Hush" where Giles
is using the overhead projector to explain things to everyone.
That whole scene was absolutely brilliant, especially the misunderstanding
Buffy and Xander had, when Buffy was trying to ask Giles if she
could stake the Gentlemen. Her...um...hand gesture and Xander's
face were absolutely priceless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite
BtVS Scene -- Humanitas, 11:26:26 07/02/01 Mon
Too many great scenes to pick a favorite overall, but...
Favorite fight scene: Harmony and Xander's slo-mo slap fight.
I fell off the couch laughing!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene -- vampire
hunter D, 13:33:16 07/02/01 Mon
My favorite scene was from "Who are You?" when Buffy
(in Faith's body) was trying to tell Giles who she really was.
The dialog was funny ("Your inching! Stop inching!")
and the acting was excellent. This scene more than any other shows
off ED's talent as an actress, to be able to pull of another actress'
character flawlessly.
btw: stevedor (stee'-ve-dor") n, one who loads or unloads
ships.
I'd also like to nominate just about any scene with Wllow and
Tara togther. Those two are the cutest couple ever. And no, this
is not coming from some perverse fascination with lesbians, those
two really are cute together.
One question: Are any of these posts going to be put up on a website
like the Character posts. I think it would be really cool if they
were.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene
-- Deeva, 22:53:11 07/02/01 Mon
I absolutely love the whole second act of The Gift especially
the scene between Buffy & Spike at the her home. The following
lines are just stuck in my head.
Spike: I know you'll never love me.
She turns, says nothing.
Spike: I know that I'm a monster. But you treat me like a man,
and that's...(stops himself) Get your stuff. I'll be here.
Then, of course there's Fool for Love. The whole bit where Buffy
says to Spike that he is beneath her. I could barely watch the
pain on Spike's face. It was heart wrenching.
Deeva
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: bewitched, bothered, & bewildered -- JBone, 16:10:22
07/02/01 Mon
I loved this scene
XANDER I have a plan. We use me as bait.
BUFFY You mean, make Angel come after you?
XANDER No I mean chop me into little pieces and stick me on hooks
for fish to nibble at cuz that would be more fun than my life.
BUFFY I heard about you and Cordy. It's her loss.
XANDER Not the popular theory...
Buffy runs her hand through his hair, looking into his eyes.
BUFFY You know what I'd like? Why don't you and I go do something
tonight. Just us.
XANDER Really?
BUFFY Yeah, we can comfort each other.
XANDER Would lap dancing enter into this scenario at all? 'Cause
I find that very comforting.
BUFFY Play your cards right...
XANDER Okay. You do know that I'm Xander, right
BUFFY I don't know... I heard you and Cordy broke up, I was surprised
how glad I was.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene -- Millan,
00:10:36 07/05/01 Thu
I would like to draw everyone's attention to an (in my opinion
often underrated) episode from season 4: Beer Bad.
I like that episode, and it has one (of many) of my favourite
scenes:
Willow goes up to Parker. She's angry and confused, both at Parker
for Buffy's sake and at Oz for her own sake. They talk and it
seems as though she's slowly warming up to him, just up until
he reaches out for him and we see how she really feels: 'Parker,
can I ask you something? Just how gullible do you think I am?!'
It's absolutely priceless! :)
/Millan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene
-- Millan, 00:12:45 07/05/01 Thu
Sorry for the typo. "They talk and it seems as though she's
slowly warming up to him, just up until he reaches out for him..."
should obviously be "They talk and it seems as though she's
slowly warming up to him, just up until he reaches out for her..."
/M
Monsters in the Buffyverse --
Marie, 06:29:56 07/02/01 Mon
Reading the Glory thread below, and thinking over the earlier
'Cheekbones' thread, has made me think about the various monsters
and Big Bads over the past 5 seasons, and what frightens me.
Take vampires, for example. When I started watching BtVS, about
halfway through the first season, the first vampire I saw was
the Master, and I thought, oooh, horrible! But I've noticed that
I've become hardened, so to speak, when it comes to vamps - Buffy
and the Gang seem to be almost casual in their vamp-killing these
days, like swatting away a pesky fly. Personally, I've always
been more scared of what might be around the corner, the things
you can't see that go bump in the night. Take the Mayor. A brilliant,
spooky villain all the way along, partly because he looked so
normal, until you noticed that gimlet stare that chilled you to
the marrow....and then he turned into the Worm! Not the greatest
special effects ever seen in Buffyland! For the eeew! factor,
give me the Bug Man, Kookookatchoo! A normal-looking, average
guy, and suddenly Mr. Maggots. Urgh!
Angelus in vamp-face form was far less frightening to me than
Angelus smiling after he'd done something - I've mentioned in
a previous post his look through the window at the effect of Jenny's
death on Buffy and Willow.
Adam I didn't find scary at all. I don't know if it's just because
the Mayor was a hard act to follow, or because he (Adam) just
wasn't around often enough or killing horribly enough - actually,
now that I've typed that out, I think it was because he wasn't
a personal threat to the people I care the most about. That is,
the Mayor took Faith and captured Willow and walked in and made
a nasty little speech about Buffy and Angel, etc., Angelus - well,
needn't add much about who he threatened, whereas the only real
personal threat Adam was, was to Reilly, about whom I am ambivalent.
As for Glory - she also didn't make much impact until the last
few episodes. I found her rather naive in her attitude to killing,
in that she took it as her due - she was a god, after all, and
people were as nothing to her, so killing them didn't matter,
did it - in fact they should be glad to die for her instead of
whining about it. Would I have found her more scary if she metamorphosed
into something disgustingly ugly instead of Ben? I suppose so.
Doc was scarier to me because he looked like a grandad, and then
his eyes turned black and evil - so unexpected!
Just a few reflections, really - sorry if it turned into a ramble!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Monsters in the Buffyverse -- rowan, 18:19:57 07/02/01
Mon
Not to hijack your post, but the next logical question is: what
would really scare us next? You started off your post describing
what really frightens you. I'm definitely in agreement with your
sentiments. I feel hardened towards the vamps as well. They seem
to be less and less of a threat to Buffy and the SG. It's hard
to imagine Buffy actually losing to a vamp at this point (except
through boredom, inattention, or that pesky death wish as we saw
in FFL: and I think her rebirth will put paid to these notions).
The Master represented a traditional evil of vampire lore: the
vamp with a master plan, who needs to kill their heroine to bring
it into being. He was the stuff of prophecies and dark nights.
His defeat (and that of the Annoying One) essentially ushered
in the age of the modern vampire, Spike, who basically justs wants
to enjoy the sensation of destruction for as long as possible.
Angelus (who IMHO is the great evil of the Buffyverse to date)
was devastating in the sadistic, psychological, imaginative, and
almost intellectual approach he took to crafting his evil. He
was a very personal evil with potential to do harmfully apocalyptic
ill.
The Mayor was a less personal evil (although connected through
Faith), but creepy in what you point out as his good guy surface/demony-desirous
underneath. He was like a nurturing father gone very, very, bad.
Truly the authority figure from hell. He also ironically symbolized
the evil of bureaucracy (hey, he wasn't a politician for no reason,
right?)
Adam represented the evil of soulless technology. Boring. Enough
said.
Glory was a god like the pagan gods of old. She was like a force
of nature clearing a path in front and behind. Her malice was
only personal because somebody had her property. But she had strength
and endurance not previously seen in the Buffyverse.
But where do we go from here? Speculations anyone? Who would frighten
us? What great evil have we not seen yet in the Buffyverse? The
only evil left might be...the evil inside us all, the evil of
a friend turned foe, the evil we do when we try to do good...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Monsters in the Buffyverse -- Ben/Glory, 21:48:22
07/02/01 Mon
I don't know how I feel about this but..
We are all having good thoughts about Buffy. For good reason.
She was a great human being, wonderful friend, loving daughter
and sister. The represented what all of us could become if we
tried hard enough. And of course she made the ultimate sacrifice,
in the name of love, and saved her sister, her friends and the
world.
So how would we feel about someone coming back with Buffy's face,
outward mannerisms, etc, and be truely evil? Have sex with Xander
to break up his relationship with Ayna. Tell Dawn that she isn't
real, never meant anything to her as a sister, and is now very
sorry that she didn't push her off that tower. Tell Giles that
he is a silly old man. A better watcher could have saved me. Attack
Willows relationship with Tara. Tell her that she thinks she is
a powerful witch, but the truth was that Buffy was just pitying
her by being her friend, and she is the same pathetic geek she
was in high school. Etc.
Basically talking every good memory we have of Buffy and perverting
it.
I don't know how I would feel about that. I want to keep my good
memories of Buffy. And while this would give SMG a great part
as the Anti-Buffy similar to Angel turning evil, I don't know
if I want to have my memories of Buffy tarnished in that way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Monsters in the Buffyverse -- Rufus, 18:42:50 07/02/01
Mon
Monsters of the unreal kind can be spooky like The Gentlemen,
in Hush, but they don't really scare me. It has been the evil
that humanity can cook up on it's own that I find far more frightening.
I've already mentioned Kralik from Helpless, he is truly scary
because he is very much the man he was as a vampire, down to needing
the same drugs to calm him. He just carried on with his killing
of a specific type of target. Kralic was still after dear old
scissor wielding mom, even when his heart no longer beat. Giles
said something in Pangs that I remember "vengeance is never
sated", I think of the vampire when he said that. You have
a person who upon becoming a demon hybrid goes about getting vengeance
on the people who wronged them in life. They now have a physical
power to destroy their opponent, but they still can never change
how that person made them feel about themselves. That makes for
one scary monster like Kralic, Angelus,Darla ect. Some vampires
just kill you, some vampires are attempting to settle some long
past score that compells them to forever look to change the past
through detroying the image of it they see in a victim. Now, that's
a monster.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Monsters in the Buffyverse - what's next? -- KendratVS,
19:38:24 07/02/01 Mon
Since the end of season 5, I have been racking my brain, desperately
trying to envision what Joss could throw at the gang for the next
season that would really have an impact and stir up some fear.
Giving us a god as the latest Big Bad really did seem to represent
the ultimate in an externalized villain, and I tend to agree with
many of you that the next foe will have to be something drawing
its fear and menace from within humanity, namely the SG or someone
close to them.
Following are some of my silly ramblings and postulations, just
for fun, as to what could possibly stand as villains in next season
(omitting the likely ones such as Willow, who have already been
discussed)-
-The Watcher's Council decides having 2 non-cooperative slayers
is getting a bit tiresome, so shortly after Buffy returns, they
perform some ancient rite designed to "wipe the slate clean"
and bring upon the next calling of the chosen one. This could
involve the manifestation of something big and nasty that acts
on the Councils orders to seek and destroy active slayers. Think
along the lines of the ritual Ben did to bring the Queller and
cleanse the crazies, but maybe some little known spell that served
the council in the old days when it was geographically too difficult
to hunt down rogue slayers. A bit far-fetched, but hey, just speculating...
-One of Glory's fellow hell-gods decided the hell they hailed
from wasn't so hot and when the Key was used, jumped ship into
the Buffyverse. That portal was open enough time to let some nasty
stuff into the Buffyverse, so maybe this hell-god would be a major
departure from Glory and rather than the sheer tank-mentality
she embodied, would rely on more of the traditional tactics of
villains in the series (could possibly be the catalyst to entice
Willow into a descent into darkness...think magical mentor/protege).
-Along the same portal-theory, perhaps in the demon dimensions
there exist a sort of anti-slayer, an otherwise normal girl or
human whose sole existence is to do the behest of the evil powers-that-be.
It would be sort of fun to see a reciprocal version of Buffy (i.e.
young, often unsure, but otherwise powerful instrument for a higher
power) doing harm but with the same faults and dilemmas the slayer
faces. I know Faith sort of embodied this, but I am imagining
if the whole slayer-mentality were flip-flopped for eons with
the completely opposite purpose. Perhaps anti-Buffy even brings
her evil Watcher on some sort of mission to quell the rising good
in the Buffyverse. This could also give Joss much latitude in
unraveling more of the slayer mythos.
OK, I know some of these are just silly, but I am truly dying
to know what the next season holds for Buffy and the SG. Anyone
else have any wild speculations?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Monsters in the Buffyverse - what's next? -- Andy,
10:07:53 07/03/01 Tue
I think those are some very fun ideas, actually :)
One thing that occurred to me is that now that we've seen Buffy
versus a god, how about Buffy versus THE God? Not in the Christian
sense of the word, I mean, but I'm thinking more in the Lovecraftian
sense of the word (I'm thinking of that Authority storyline here...).
Something that is just hugely powerful and indestructible and,
unlike Glory, something that absolutely can't be related to on
any human level. Just a big, cosmically abstract thing which can't
be understood but whatever the hell it's all about isn't good
for humanity :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Monsters in the Buffyverse -- gds, 20:23:13 07/02/01
Mon
What is truly frightening is when the world doesn't seem to make
sense any more. When the rules you use to perceive & interpret
things don't apply. When things happen for no apparent reason.
For this reason the most deeply frightening (as opposed to sickening
& disgusting) thing I've ever seen was Hichcock's "The Birds".
They eventually realized 'what' was happening, but they never
had even a clue as to 'why', or 'was it over' or 'would it happen
again'. I doubt Joss will use this 'world goes inexplicably insane'
approach on a TV show, but he likes to do the unusual, so who
knows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Monsters in the Buffyverse -- anom, 21:52:50 07/08/01
Sun
What really scares me is something that happens all the time in
the Buffyverse: having your mind & body taken over. A spell, a
cursed costume or candy, a lobstery thing that taps into your
motor control system...leaving you totally powerless over your
own body & decisions. You know it's happening & you can't do a
damn thing about it. Or you find out later, or maybe not at all,
but there are still consequences of what you did & you have to
deal w/them (did Sunnydale have its own baby boom 9 months after
"Band Candy?"). I'm amazed Sunnydale-ites cope with
it as well as they do. Maybe they're in some kind of denial about
how it feels. Maybe Xander's "no more butt-monkey" outburst
was what happened when he couldn't deny it any more. Me, I'd freak.
At least the 1st time, & a few more.... I'm glad it's not something
that happens in real life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Monsters in the Buffyverse -- spotjon, 20:29:25 07/02/01
Mon
Personally, I thought Glory was a pretty good villan for this
season. I liked this season for the fact that they didn't focus
so much on the bad guy as they did last time. In the fourth season,
they spent too much time building up to a bad guy that wasn't
all that bad in the end. The focus of this last season wasn't
so much on the bad guy, but was more on how the upcoming crisis
affected Buffy and her friends. I guess Whedon & Co. learned from
the last season how to balance the two, especially when the big
bad isn't spectacularly evil and intriguing. I personally thought
that Glory was rather freakishly scary because we didn't know
a whole lot about her or what she could do. She was the great
unknown, a force of nature that would sweep your life into eddies
of disarray. She wasn't really evil, at least not in the same
way that Angelus was sadistic and just plain wicked. She was simply
extremely selfish and didn't see any other living beings as being
worth the time of day. She is what happens to a person with no
conscience and power over others: an unsympathetic tyrant.
I liked Glory as the big bad of this season because she made us
focus more on the Scoobies, and she made them focus on each other.
We were able to learn more about the Scoobies because of her presence,
even though she wasn't much to look at herself, except for when
she was in that tight red dress... rowrrr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Know what scares me? -- Wisewoman, 20:55:11 07/02/01 Mon
Serial killers. Real ones. They're out there.
Now imagine a serial killer in the Buffyverse just lucky enough
to be vamped. Imagine, say, Hannibal Lecter (or Jeffrey Dahmer,
or one of the other real ones) as a vampire with the same motivation
and predilections he had in life.
Now that's scary!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Know what scares me? -- rowan, 21:03:34 07/02/01
Mon
Wouldn't that be Angelus?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Whoops, you're right! Been there... ;o) -- Wisewoman,
21:06:21 07/02/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Actually... -- Masq, 14:16:12 07/03/01 Tue
Liam of Galway had no killer predilictions in life. The example
on BtVS is Zachary Kralik, a bonafide serial killer of women in
human life who was vamped. They sent him after Buffy in "Helpless"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Actually... -- Rufus, 15:36:29 07/03/01
Tue
I agree that Liam had no killer predilictions in life, but he
had some dark emotions about his family that I think he dealt
with using alcohol. He said in Amends the man he was had always
been weak. When he became a vampire all he did was act out all
the things he thought but never expressed as a man. His confrontation
with his father was so sad because he just didn't get the fact
that his father actually loved him but was lousy at showing it.
Everything Angelus did was born out of how worthless his father
made him feel. With Kralik, you had a serial killer who was an
abused child who grew up to wreak vengeance on all women for the
sins of one. He was a monster alive or undead. He changed little
when he became a vampire. That makes me think what happens when
the soul is removed, with Angelus it made all the difference,
with Kralik there was nothing to corrupt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually... -- rowan, 18:19:56
07/03/01 Tue
The aspects of Angelus that reminded me of serial killers were
his ritualized killing of Jenny and his relentless, stalking pursuit
of Buffy and the SG. I'm not saying he was a serial killer, but
he did share some traits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually... -- Rufus,
18:26:55 07/03/01 Tue
Not just Jenny but his stalking of Dru, his methodical way of
wiping out her family to wipe out her mind. Liams mind was a dark
place, would he have acted out any of his thoughts, I don't know.
Lots of people have dark thoughts that they never act upon, becoming
a vampire let Liam express his anger and insecurity without the
consequences of feeling any guilt about his actions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Know what scares me? -- Ben/Glory, 21:54:47 07/02/01
Mon
Been done way too many times. (Profiler, Millennium, X-files,
the movies you mentioned).
Almost to the point of being Cliche.
Perhaps though, if the big surprise is precisely that the big
bad beast who we thought to be demon, was actually human.
For example when they slay him, expecting him to turn to dust,
he just bleeds to death.
A slayer would know the difference (though Faith didn't), so it
would have to be one of the SG.
Surprise, not a Vampire. Just a very evil guy who likes to go
around drinking human blood.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Know what scares me? -- Rufus, 22:04:47
07/02/01 Mon
There are a few serial killers who got into the drinking blood
thing cause they got it into their heads that they needed blood
to survive. Some of the stuff the real killers do you can't put
into any movie or book(including Silence of the Lambs). We don't
like to think that other human beings are so capable of dreaming
up such horror. Movie monsters are safe predictable, human monsters
are another matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Know what scares me? -- Sean, 22:37:50
07/02/01 Mon
Actually I find human killers quite predictable (at least how
they are protrayed on tv)
Killer gets fixated on some aspect of the victim (hair like mom's
whatever). Goes around killing women with that aspect.
Calls the Detective who is charged with catching him. Taunts her
(or him, but often her). Quotes nursery rhymes. Mails in clues.
Riddles.
More killing. More taunting. More nursery rhymes.
They think they have gotten the guy. Detective goes home. Gets
ready to take a shower Phone rings. It's the killer. He quotes
nursery rhymes. Hickery Dickery, Doc, the Mouse ran up the clock.
The Clock strikes 12 (the time the killer usually strikes, which
is 5 minutes from now) Phone hanges up. Detective traces call.
It's from next door. Oh no, I left the window open.
At the end they go to the killers house. Sees a picture of "mom"
when she was young. Looks like the victims and perhaps even like
the detective.
Boring. Been there Seen that. You can only rewrite Silence of
the Lambs so often before it becomes stale. Ask Chris Carter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> ROFLMAO! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 09:41:40
07/03/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Know what scares me? -- Rufus,
15:39:37 07/03/01 Tue
If you want to get picky, all murder is just a re-write of all
murders past. People are pretty consistant in the reasons they
kill, money, sex, escaping detection. I think if you read on many
serial killers they share many traits it's just in how they carry
out their crimes does the difference show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Know what scares me? --
Brian, 05:38:15 07/04/01 Wed
How about something from outer space? After all, Joss made the
robot work in terms of the Buffyverse, and he's already planted
the seed with the quiller demon. This "alien" might
have the power to control minds, turn the Scoobies to do evil
things, make Willow's magic really bad? Who knows?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Know what scares me? -- Scout, 15:06:25 07/06/01
Fri
Ted Bundy. Vamped.
I won't be able to sleep tonight now, thinking about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> my weird idea -- vampire hunter D, 12:20:49 07/03/01 Tue
I've kind of had an idea for a villain in my head for a while,
and so I'd like to take this opportunity to show you some of him
and and seewhat you think.
The villain (actually, this guy would be an apparent villain,
but I'll explain that in a minute) is very powerful and evil.
However, unlike most evil forces in the Whedonverse, he doesn't
have any interest in hurting our heroes. Just the opposite, he
wants to HELP them. Of course, he goes about doing this in the
most disturbing and evil way possible, but in his mind he is still
helping. But his motives are still evil. He doesn't care about
the forces of good, or in stopping evil. But, due to a series
of circunstances, the best way to achieve his agenda (whatever
it is, I'm still working on some of the details) is to help the
Slayer(s). Of couse, Buffy and the Scooobies don't know what he
wants. All they know is that some force is out doing evil (and
not realizing he's doing it for their "benefit"). This
causes a series of encounters where they try to stop him doing
whatever he is doing, and unintentionally making a bad situation
worse.
I doubt this is like anything that Joss has ever planned. I'm
just putting it here to get your opinion. I just really like the
idea that the apparent Big Bad is not really the Big Bad. So,
what do you think? And feel free to be brutal.
btw, this is kind of related to my idea on how to bring back Buffy.
Maybe I'll post more in another thread if you guys are interested.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yes - post the rest of your idea, please! :-) -- Solitude1056,
12:38:36 07/03/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> ok, I'll get to it sometime over the weekend
(maybe) -- vampire hunter D, 11:20:21 07/04/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: my weird idea -- Max, 00:17:44 07/04/01 Wed
A villian who does good for evil sake. Kind of a mirror of Giles
who did evil for good's sake.
Here is a related idea. I have often thought that Willow (or Dawn)
might become addicted to magic. At first the effects of their
magic might be good and useful, which of course encourages them
to continue.
But as they continue, they find themselves unable to stop. And
the effects of their magic begins to instead of helping the ones
they love, hurting them. But again, they have gotten in too deep,
and can't stop themselves from doing the magic.
They don't intend to harm others, but again they are addicted,
and are powerless to stop themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: my weird idea -- Marie, 02:05:45 07/04/01 Wed
Actually, doesn't this sound a little like the 'Willow-goes-bad'
theory that's been posted recently? (I don't mean that Willow's
motives would've been evil, just misguided).
Myself, I'd quite like to see a sorcerer-type villain - I'm thinking
Black Wizardy, with, preferably, goblins! (And I mean really nasty
Lord of the Ring-types - not silly minions!).
Gift + I will Remember you -- Mav, 07:51:45 07/02/01
Mon
recently I resaw I will remember you, and in it there was this
whole thing with Angel loseing his mortality to save Buffy, so
I was wondering if any of you think this maytie in with Buffs
reserection?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> no -- vampire hunter D, 12:45:03 07/02/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Doubtful Angel will be directly involved, if simply because...
-- Wiccagrrl, 19:16:28 07/02/01 Mon
with Buffy moving to UPN and Angel staying on WB, with apparent
bad blood about how things went down, I'm doubting any big crossovers
are in the near future. Now, I am wondering if maybe Buffy will
remember the events of the lost day...but they'll probably wait
to bring that up again until they can have a crossover as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Doubtful Angel will be directly involved, if simply
because... -- gds, 20:09:03 07/02/01 Mon
True, we can (unfortunately!) rule out much in the way of crossovers
for a while, but there is nothing to stop someone giving information
about how something Angel had done had paved the way for her resurrection.
There are at least 2 Angel episodes which could be referenced
in bringing back Buffy. In the first of these episodes he decides
to return to being a vampire & in the second he uses his vampire
strength to earn a resurrection for Darla which she is unable
to use. The Oracles said that the Slayer would die sooner if he
were human. Since that time we have seen nothing he has done to
save her life, so his ordeal for Darla may have been what they
meant. Of course they could have meant she would have died in
a situation which never even materialized because Angel had changed
history - which is a tricky business in an infinitely interconnected
universe. E.g. maybe she would have died protecting Angel, so
merely by removing the need for her to protect him she lived longer.
father figures in BtVS - revisited
-- purplegrrl, 12:07:02 07/02/01 Mon
((I got on this train of thought after thinking how differently
Superman was portrayed by Christopher Reeve in the movies and
by Dean Cain in the TV series, "Lois & Clark: The New Adventures
of Superman." The movies follow the comic book story -- Superman's
biological and adopted fathers are dead. In the TV series Superman's
adopted father is still alive, giving him a role model and a sounding
board.))
I have some thoughts on why it appears that Joss has "father
issues" in BtVS and AtS.
We know that Joss is a big comic book fan. We've already discussed
the influences of Batman (Angel) and Superman (Riley) in the Buffyverse.
Besides the whole crime-fighting, superhero gig, what do these
two comic book characters have in common? Their fathers are no
longer living. This is also true of Spiderman. (I'm sure there
are others. Perhaps some of you can supply the names of other
characters.)
With no father in their life, these characters are forced to become
their own father. In effect to raise themselves, develop their
own code of right and wrong, etc. In most cases, they also develop
a stronger bond with the mother figure (mother/aunt). Because
of the extreme "maleness" of their chosen calling, they
seem to need the nuturing influence of the mother. (I'm not trying
to be sexist here. It's just that most of the original superheros
were male.) Even when they are well past the point of *needing*
a mother.
Also, with no father there is none of the traditional father-son
rivalry. Granted, the hero/superhero has no one to look up to,
but neither does he have anyone with whom to compete.
In the Buffyverse we have two fatherless heroes -- Buffy and Angel.
Buffy "lost" her father when she was 16. Although Buffy's
father is alive, he might as well be dead. She hasn't seen him
or, as far as we know, spoken to him in several years. And now
he is living in Spain with his secretary. Buffy became the strong
protector, needing the nuturing figure (Joyce) but also protecting
her (not telling her mother she is the Slayer -- similar to Spiderman
not telling his aunt he is a crimefighter/superhero).
Angel may have "lost" his father at about the same age,
at a time when he would have wanted to strike out on his own but
his father had other plans for him. Angel/Liam rebelled against
his father, further alienating father and son. His father was
not positve influence in Angel/Liam's life. Of course Angel/Liam's
rebellion leads him to Darla and his siring as a vampire. He then
kills his father. Like Batman, his father's death eventually leads
him to become a hero, but he is constantly fighting the memory
of his father and his death.
Where I'm heading is that it is sort of "traditional"
for the hero/superhero to have father issues. Either because their
father is dead and can no longer give them the advice and support
they need/desire. Or because they are rebelling against what the
father stands for.
Would Buffy's father accept that she is the Slayer? Or would he
have a similar reaction to Joyce's first reaction -- that maybe
she can give this up to be a "regular girl"? Would he
blame Giles for having "done this" to his daughter?
Would Angel's father approve of his son's chosen path? Or would
he continue only to see the mistakes he has made -- being sired
as a vampire, heading down the dark path for a while, his inability/unwillingness
to stake Darla and Drusilla, etc.? If he could, would Angel even
*want* to be reunited with his father?
Other thoughts??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Buffy's dad -- vampire hunter D, 12:41:12 07/02/01 Mon
I'm sure Joss has already asked those questions about Buffy's
father already. Which is why we havn't seen much of Hank recently.
I remember Joss saying in an interview that bringing Hank in would
make things too complicated. That's why he's been AWOL at the
one time his daughters need him most.
I find your thoughts on Angel's father interesting. Maybe that's
somthing Joss should consider for an upcoming episode.
One thing you seem to have missed in your post is that noone on
these shows seems to have a good relationship with their fathers
(see the "What does Joss have against.." page on this
site).
Before I close this, I have one question. Have we ever seen Hank
other than that brief scene in Buffy's memory in "The Weight
of the World"? I can't think of any other time He's made
an appearence (but, then again, I missed a lot of the first two
seasons).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy's dad -- Rahael, 14:36:09 07/02/01 Mon
Yes, Hank has appeared at least twice - in 'When she was bad'
you see him help Joyce unpack Buffy's clothes, and they talk about
how distant Buffy is. He appears as a fairly decent person.
He also appeared in Buffy's nightmare version of Buffyverse in
S1 - he turns up to tell her that he doens't love her - how could
he love someone like her. All grist to the mill methinks!
But just one point - isn't Gile's a great father figure for Buffy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy's dad -- Scout, 02:20:34 07/04/01 Wed
It was in an Entertainment Weekly interview on May 8 that Joss
explained why Hank wasn't around:
EW: Why didn't Buffy's father come back for the funeral? He seems
pretty heartless.
JW: We see him as being increasingly far away and awful mainly
because I wanted to keep things simple. Buffy's father figure
is Giles (Anthony Stuart Head). That's not to say the father might
not appear again, but it complicates things enormously.
It seems to me that Hank has undergone this apparent personality
change for no other reason than Joss simply doesn't want to deal
with the character anymore. I think it's a pity because it would
be interesting to explore Buffy's relationship with her father.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What do we expect from fathers? -- Lurker Becoming Restless,
12:48:35 07/02/01 Mon
At the risk of leaping into some trashy pop-psychology, I think
that both Buffy and Angel could be looking for approval from their
fathers. This is common but, importantly, in the case of these
two heroes (and the other characters you mentioned) they can never
get it.
From the little we have seen of Buffy's father and Angel's father,
they are unusually (for Buffy) boring, stereotypical characters.
I think this emphasises the fact that we can never really tell
what they would want from their children - they are simply figureheads,
almost abstract ideas. This could be something that is driving
the heroes on - they can never know the answers to the questions
you posed (and often they assume the worst rather than acknowledging
this).
One other important thing about the absence of their fathers is
that they never got to see their flaws in the way most people
do (unless you take Hank Summers' absence as his major flaw, but
that's kinda different). This could enhance their need to prove
something even more, since they are trying to prove it to an ideal
that was never destroyed.
Maybe I'm only looking at this from a male perspective, but I
certainly think that they are trying to prove something to a missing
father figure rather than rebel against them.
For the best example (IMO) of a father-son superhero relationship,
see 'Unbreakable', which features an extremely clever reversal
in which the father is the hero and the son is trying to get him
to acknowledge this rather than garner his approval.
Better than last time?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What do we expect from fathers? -- Steve, 18:57:19
07/02/01 Mon
(unless you take Hank Summers' absence as his major flaw, but
that's kinda different).
Buffy stayed with Hank over the summer (between season 1 and 2).
Hank couldn't help his absence as he was divorced from his wife
and she had custody over Buffy.
Hank was a good father.
Season 5 Hank was odd. It wasn't the type of behavior from him
that we had come to expect. It leads me to think something has
happened to him (like being turned into a vampire).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What do we expect from fathers? -- Solitude1056,
20:40:00 07/02/01 Mon
Season 5 Hank was odd. It wasn't the type of behavior from him
that we had come to expect. It leads me to think something has
happened to him (like being turned into a vampire).
Buffy had never mentioned her father having an affair with his
secretary as the reason for her parent's divorce, for starters.
I often wondered if this new absentee style of Hanks was less
that he *was* an absent father, and perhaps more due to Dawn's
inclusion. Perhaps the only way to make sure that Dawn's solution
wasn't to run to her father was to instill memories that Hank
didn't want his kids. I'd always understood Hank to love his children
as much as his wife, and Buffy spent summers with him (and, as
pointed out at Buffy's birthday, so did Dawn) - but in the battle
with Glory, sending Dawn off to be with Hank had to be out of
the question and not just from Buffy's point of view.
IOW, it seemed making Hank unavailable was another deus ex machina
on the level of the chip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: What do we expect from fathers? --
Max, 20:51:44 07/02/01 Mon
I think Dawn is going to have to slay her father (well the vampire
who her father became).
This will be quite difficult as Dawn really, really loves her
father. And also because her father was the last member of her
family. (But if he is a vampire, then Hank is already gone).
Buffy had enough difficulty in slaying an ex. She just couldn't
do it, even though Angulus was different from Angel. But she never
had to slay a family member. Poor Dawn.
Hankulus might be next year's big bad. Joss must have had a very
poor relationship with his own father, as he sure presents them
in a bad light.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What do we expect from fathers?
-- Steve, 20:56:27 07/02/01 Mon
Wait until Hankulus and Spike meet up.
Talk about "meeting the parents."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What do we expect from fathers?
-- Sue, 21:30:33 07/02/01 Mon
I wonder if Hankula will tell Dawn that he blames her for what
happened to Buffy.
"Too bad it wasn't you Dawn. Didn't you know, I always loved
her more than you?"
No one can hurt you more than those you love the most. Buffy had
it real tough being the slayer and all that happened to her, but
poor, poor Dawn. She never seems to get a break.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited -- Coral Cat, 17:58:34
07/02/01 Mon
I'm not comic book literate enough to have a good sense of the
conventions in that genre, but I know that Joss is, so your theory
is a good one.
But Hank has been a more attentive father than most fans give
him credit for. It's only been since "Helpless" that
the writers have intimated that he's been negligent in any way,
and they have yet to come out and actually say that he is. Maybe
that doesn't matter; the point is perhaps that Buffy perceives
him as negligent.
BtVS is, also, a coming-of-age/hero's journey type of story, so
I also see a certain amount of parental/authority figure issues
involved as well. Buffy and her friends have always occupied a
position of special knowlege: The adults and parents in their
lives literally do not understand them and the problems they face.
Giles doesn't count in this equation because he's always been
more 'us' than 'them'; he's the mentor who treats his students
like equals, the token elder who's still the rebel.
Buffy herself also has some major abandonment issues that center
around most of the major male figures in her life (and perhaps
the female figures as well now that her mother is gone).
Joss has said that S6 will focus more on the theme of growing
up and on making the same mistakes that your parents did, so I
expect that this will turn around somewhat and we'll see a more
sympathetic portrayal of parenting next season, if only because
Buffy will have to be doing some of it herself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited -- Wiccagrrl,
22:07:56 07/02/01 Mon
The girls have been trying to reach him for months- since Joyce
first got sick. The numbers they have for him aren't working,
he apparently didn't contact Buffy on her birthday. He missed
his ex-wife's (the mother of his two daughter's) funeral, for
gods sake. If he's not dead (which in the Buffyverse is a possibility)
then I'd say he's been pretty neglectful, especially as portrayed
in the last year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited -- Sean,
22:15:17 07/02/01 Mon
Got to believe he is either dead (vamped) or captured by some
sinister forces as part as some yet to be revealed scheme against
our Sunnydale gang.
I am not going to condemn a man as a Father because ONCE he was
unable to take his daughter to the ice capades. That happens to
the best of fathers. And Buffy was able to stay with him over
that summer.
Season Five Hank was totally out of character. Got to believe
that there were forces out of his control keeping him away from
his family at the time they needed him the most.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited -- Coral
Cat, 22:17:21 07/02/01 Mon
As far as we know, Buffy's failed efforts at reaching Hank were
restricted to the time immediately after Joyce's death. She mentioned
that he was off in Spain during her mother's illness, but we don't
know if she ever actually talked to Hank then. In any case, at
that time she seemed determined (typical Buffy) to take care of
her family herself. We don't know how much effort she put into
reaching him.
And why was Hank unreachable? And why wasn't Buffy more concerned
about his unreachability? If Hank were my father, I would have
been making all kinds of calls to hospitals and the authorities
in Spain. Given the nature of her life on the Hellmouth, I'd expect
Buffy to at least be worried. Joss could have easily established
Hank as a bad father by having him talk to Buffy and telling her
that she's old enough to take care of things on her own. Instead,
Hank seems to have dropped into the Twilight Zone. (Frankly, I
think Joss is keeping his options open about Hank.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited
-- Sean, 22:24:02 07/02/01 Mon
"Joss could have easily established Hank as a bad father
by having him talk to Buffy and telling her that she's old enough
to take care of things on her own."
Oh, but would that be Hank she would be talking to or Hankulus
(Hankula)?
I hope Joss doesn't make Hank "the bad father". I hope
that he hasn't been vamped, and instead Dawn can save him from
the evil forces that have captured him.
After Season Five the Sunnydale Gang needs some pure wins under
their belt. Especially Dawn. She has had more suffering than Job.
She will be in a mental hospital before she reaches 20 the way
she has been going.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited
-- Wiccagrrl, 22:26:26 07/02/01 Mon
I think she mentions in one of the early eps when Joyce is sick
(Family?) that she's been trying to call him and he hasn't called
back. In Forever it's made pretty clear that she and Giles have
been trying everything they knew to get ahold of him. But, I am
perfectly willing to believe something's happened to him. This
is fairly out of character, he seemed like a caring, if busy,
father before. If he is alive and well, then I'd say he has been
a fairly neglectful father. But I'm thinking something did happen
to him- that he's either dead or vamped or something.
As far as Buffy not being more worried about him, I think she
was just a little overwhelmed with taking care of Joyce and Dawn
and dealing with Glory. And He hadn't been a big part of their
lives recently. She seems to have been somewhat concerned, somewhat
irritated, and eventually just decided the hell with him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited
-- Coral Cat, 23:11:07 07/02/01 Mon
Double checking the scripts, I think Buffy called Hank at least
twice. The first time, when Joyce was sick, he didn't call back
(she must have left a message), and the second time she couldn't
get a connection at all. She seems ready to believe the worst
of him, which given the situation may have been easier for her
than having yet another thing to worry about. I don't blame her,
but in her shoes I would've at least wondered. As far as I can
tell, we simply don't know if Hank ever got any of those messages.
Could have been some weird interference from the monk's spell
too.
I do hope that Hank makes an appearance S6, and I hope that he
and Buffy manage to reconcile to some extent. She has abandonment
issues out the wazoo, and she's never going to have a healthy
adult relationship until she starts dealing with them. Hank would
make a good start, and if next season is going to be about making
the same mistakes your parents make, Buffy's confronting him with
his perceived bad fathering could make for an eye opener, especially
if Dawn turns out to be a handful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: father figures in BtVS
- revisited -- Wiccagrrl, 23:20:18 07/02/01 Mon
From the Shooting Script:
BUFFY I'm phoned out. Can you? I mean, unless it's Dad.
GILES Of course.
Giles gets it. Buffy and Dawn listen attentively.
GILES Hello? Yes... They did. Thank you... The service is tomorrow
at three. Do you know the Brown Brothers Mortuary?...
Giles trails off as he moves into the living room. Buffy's agitated
now.
BUFFY I can't believe he hasn't called yet.
XANDER Your Dad's still AWOL, huh?
BUFFY (nods) The number he left for us in Spain is no good. And
I've left messages all over the place.
DAWN We should try his girlfriend's place-
BUFFY I don't have that number. I told you.
DAWN But we could ask one of his friends at work or something.
Buffy's getting irritated, but tries hard to maintain.
BUFFY Dawn. I tried that. Okay? (to Willow and Xander)
A lot of that didn't make it to the ep, but the part about the
number(s) he left her not working, and her leaving messages all
over town did, if I remember right. Something's up there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: father figures in
BtVS - revisited -- Sean, 00:48:18 07/03/01 Tue
Doesn't sound like Hank.
But it does sound like what you could expect from someone who
has turned into a vampire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: father figures
in BtVS - revisited -- Malandanza, 08:38:32 07/03/01 Tue
"Doesn't sound like Hank."
I do think that Hank has been a bad Father -- we've only heard
about him a handful of times during the show. However, the complete
disregard for his family this season has been a bit out of character.
I would suggest that the monks altered enough of the past to propel
Hank into a different path than he might have otherwise followed.
After all, the first we heard of Hank cavorting with his secretary
was this season. And, perhaps, the monks had to make him less
attentive since the introduction of Dawn into Hank's and Joyce's
life would have necessarily changed the dynamic between them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Exactly
my points - but much better said! :-) -- Solitude1056, 12:33:53
07/03/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> As it relates to reality.......
-- AngelVsAngelus, 22:33:36 07/03/01 Tue
I must ask you all, who seem to have some background in psychology
and philosophy, especially Masquerade, is a good relationship
with your father really required to be a healthy individual? If
your answer is yes, then I must worry... my relationship with
my dad is non-existent, due to his being a condescending, dogmatic,
domineering person. He and my mother divorced before I can remember
(when I was three I believe), and since then he's been like a
blurred silouhuette in my life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: As it relates
to reality....... -- Solitude1056, 23:05:15 07/03/01 Tue
IME - there's your disclaimer - it's not necessary that the biological
father play the role of "parent". Being a parent, above
the financial responsibilities, is a multi-tasking deal that can
be shouldered and shared by non-blood folks. Bear in mind that
when we're discussing the Buffyverse, we're talking about a universe
created by a guy who's deep into comic books... and many of those
comic books call on a long-standing tradition dating from the
20's of father equals authority, mother equals love. Housewifey
and all that. Ok, so that's oversimplification maybe (and the
more modern comics aren't so cut & dried), but the tradition is
there - Batman and Superman are two examples already cited.
All that aside, the issue of parents isn't whether you have two
parents, or whether you get along with them. It has its biggest
impact on our lives as adults because our relationships with our
parents were the first major relationships we've probably ever
had. My mother the developmental psych professor always used to
say that if you wanted the measure of how a man would be in marriage,
look to how he interacts with his mother. After all, his first
and longest relationship with the opposite sex was via his mother,
and vice versa if it's a woman and her father. If he patronizes
her and belittles her behind her back, that's a bad sign. If she
takes her father for a fool and plays him for all he's worth,
another bad sign. Granted, relationships are more complex than
that, and get even more so as we gain experience, but it's a warning
that under it all may still lurk the quiet belief that "all
men are pigs" or "all women are simpering idiots."
These sentiments, based on our initial relationship with a parental
figure, can be just as damaging as "my father is the perfect
man" or "my mother loves me like no one else ever will."
All of the above are ways to stulify one's growth, but the parental
relationship is a good way to measure one's starting point. It's
not necessarily where one will end up.
It's hard to gauge whether Joss considers such psychological issues
when developing a character - as a former writer, I know all too
well that sometimes characters develop independent of the writer's
intentions. But each character's relationship with the opposite
and same sexes is impacted by their understanding of such relationships
as seen through the lens of their first relationship, with their
parental figures. So it could be a grandparent, uncle, aunt, long-term
next door neighbor, family friend, or even older sibling who imprints
on a person how that person is going to react later to that gender.
We do un-learn such reactions, as we get older (such is part of
growing up), but the instinctive reaction may always be there,
under the surface.
And while Joss has a thing about fathers, as has been noted, I
also wonder if he doesn't have a thing about mothers, too. Look
at Joyce: she'd been divorced how long, and only just prior to
her death was finally going out on a date? The only other time
we've glimpsed Joyce having anything close to a normal interaction
with her peers was that fiasco with Ted. After that, Giles and
the band candy was as close as she got. For that matter, Angel
may have issues with his dad, but his mother is practically non-existent.
(I think she was dead by the time he was vamped, but I'm not sure.
Even if she was, he's never expressed any sign that he even thinks
of her, and certainly not nearly as much as he thinks of his father,
these hundred years later.)
So to bring it around to your question, A/A, if there's a man
in your life, somewhere, who's been your primary male relationship
for the majority of your childhood years... there's your father
figure. Even if this person is no longer in your life, studying
how you feel about that person may reveal undercurrents that still
reveal themselves when you're dealing with the male gender now.
The part played by a biological father who's absentee is pretty
much null, IME, and the child will effectively replace that parental
figure with someone else as soon as possible. The child may never
consider that new person a father, or even anything remotely similar,
but the new person is fulfilling one aspect of the parental role
by providing a relationship which the child will later use as
a basis as s/he grows up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel's
mom........ -- Rufus, 00:20:59 07/04/01 Wed
One thing you brought up that caught my eye is Angel's mom and
her role in his life. Angelus came back and killed his family
taking relish in the fact that he had won the contest with his
father. The stuff with dad is easy to understand but it's the
mothers role that is a bit more complicated. At the very least
Liams dad was verbally abusive, she where was mom when all this
happened? The gender roles would have been pretty specific back
then where the man calls the shots in the family. But why show
mom as non existant? Usually when I look at an abusive situation
the mothers role again can be a bit fuzzy, going from "I
didn't know about what happened" to "I had no choice
in the matter". You never get a sense that Liam experienced
any love in his life other than the unconditional love of his
sister(makes me think of Dru). So where is Mom in the Buffyverse?
Dads may be getting taken to task but moms aren't faring much
better. Look to Amy the rat's mom who took over her daughters
body so she could have the youth she missed. Willows mom who only
seemed to exist in Gingerbread. Xanders mom was a voice and that
was it. The only mother that had any impact is dead. Parents are
made fun of in Band Candy. But for the most part they don't exist
much and the Scoobies have had to make up the missing family parts
with each other. I see this happen in real life. Is Joss trying
to tell the older generation something or is he just writing a
good tv series?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The
Scoobies & Peanuts & Ponderings -- Brian, 05:25:08 07/04/01 Wed
I once made a comment to a fellow Buffy fan that the show reminded
me of Peanuts where the adults(parents) are off stage, perhaps
only a voice.
Almost all young people go through a rebellious stage with their
parents as they try to establish a separate idenity from them,
from the family. If they are lucky, after they find out who they
are, what their idenity is, the family ties are reestablished.
Unfortunately many times, once those bonds are severed, they are
never reestablished.
I wonder and worry about the Scoobies:
Xander's parents are fighting alcoholics. Until they get help,
I can't see him getting back with them. Makes you wonder what
the wedding will be like?
Willow's parents seem so remote and over-intellectual. Do they
even know about their daughter's sexual choices?
Buffy's Dad is definitely AWOL. I can't believe that the father
I saw in the first seasons is the same one in season 5 without
some explaination that "something happened" to him.
Vamped? Monked? Mid-life crisis? Aliens?
Anya's parents are long gone. Will she miss having them at her
wedding, the happiest day of her life?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Angel's mom........ -- Wiccagrrl, 09:42:25 07/04/01 Wed
Ok, I don't know why, but I always assumed she was already dead
(childbirth with Cathy, maybe?) I know it's conjecture, but something
about the family dynamic and particularly her absence made me
think she was no longer in the picture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Angel's mom........ -- Rufus, 13:11:25 07/04/01 Wed
Nope, I saw her in the Prodigal. I just went to the transcripts
and she is mentioned in there as well. She never said anything,
but she was there. Liam spoke to his sister and father and that
was it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I apologize if... --
AngelVsAngelus, 22:35:31 07/03/01 Tue
I apologize if anyone is offended by that post. I don't really
mean to turn the forum into a personal therapy session or anything,
I'm just curious, since we're on the topic of fathers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I apologize
if... -- Rufus, 00:26:11 07/04/01 Wed
Don't worry about your question it is valid. Sols answer kinda
sums it up. Family is who cares about you, are people you can
count on. Biology does not a parent make, loving involvement does.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited -- rowan, 18:05:26
07/02/01 Mon
Hmmm...this is very interesting. I don't know much, but I'm always
game to share my ignorance for you to mock. ;)
The first thing that naturally comes to mind when discussing father
figures is authority (and feel free to psychoanalyze me -- I know
you already are because of the whole Spike thing anyway). Comic
book heroes often have to deal with authority and in particular,
the relationship of authority with justice and vengeance. These
heroes often fall into two camps (with all the wackiness that
ensues as the dimensional walls bleed): those who rebel against
authority (e.g Batman) and those who establish authority (e.g.
Superman). Perhaps the absence of the hero's main authority figure
symbolically sets up the internal conflict within the hero as
s/he must either rebel against the paternal authority to establish
identity or become the paternal figure to establish identity.
It's basically the battery that makes the hero run like a little
Energizer bunny. The whole identity crisis: am I good or am I
bad? am I just or am I vengeful? Without the paternal figure there
to tell the hero (i.e. give the authoritative judgement), hijinks
ensue.
In BtVS, of course, Hank is absent. Who represents paternal authority
for Buffy? Well, let me hijack Rufus's thread and say that it
is Giles and the CoW. But over the course of five seasons, we've
seen that authority essentially be revealed for the sterile bureaucracy
at its heart. Giles has steadily distanced himself from it to
in some ways take on the more nurturing role of mother or neutral
role of mentor. Finally, in Checkpoint, we see Buffy establish
her authority (the authority of the power of action) over the
CoW, neatly reversing the tables.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited -- Coral Cat,
00:58:16 07/03/01 Tue
Hmmm, I like! I have to mull this over for a while, but I think
you might be on to something. My first impulse was to put Buffy
in the Batman camp, and I think S3 & S4 Buffy did belong there,
but on second thought I'm not so sure S5 Buffy is still there.
"Checkpoint" she asserted her authority over the council,
and they essentially acquiesced.
If there is any authority over Buffy at this point, it would have
to be the First Slayer -- the very essence of the primal feminine
-- who reassures Buffy that she is love, but also tells her that
her gift is 'death'. Buffy can challenge that power, but she seems
to also hold her in awe. In any case, she gave the First's judgement
authoritative weight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited -- purplegrrl,
14:08:23 07/06/01 Fri
***the relationship of authority with justice and vengeance***
Rowan, this is pretty much what I was trying to getting at with
this thread.
That, and not so much that Joss actually *has* father issues (although
he may, and that's something else all together), it's that because
a lot of the traditional comic book heroes had absent fathers.
And despite all the psychological quirks we read into that condition,
that is one of the reasons for the absent fathers in BtVS. Also,
BtVS is not about adults or traditional nuclear families. It is
about a group of teenagers growing up and meeting real life head
on, with demons and what not as the metaphor/simile/reality of
that grown-up world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited -- Rattletrap,
06:46:42 07/08/01 Sun
an interesting thread . . .
BtVS is a show that has always been largely concerned with growing
up. The Scoobies are their own family unit, though united by something
other than heredity (Family). Giles acts as a father figure all
the way through. For the first several seasons he is the father
of a group of teenagers, but by S5, the relationship has changed,
they are now young adults. Just like real life--we grow up under
the authority of our parents, but eventually we have to strike
out and make our own decisions and exert our own authority, just
as Buffy does in Checkpoint and the rest of S5. It's not that
the parental figure are gone, it's that the kids have grown up.
Giles remains friend and mentor, but realizes that he no longer
has authroity in the classic sense. He becomes the middle-aged
parent that we visit a couple of times a year and call once a
week. In some ways, Giles going down to recurring next year is
quite fitting.
Buffy or the Buffybot?
-- Jessica, 14:51:59 07/02/01 Mon
In the episode the gift that I recently watched for the 100th
time (I know I'm obsessed), I was left wondering, when Buffy tells
the gang before they leave the magic shop that if the ritual starts
everyone will die and that if anybody gets close to Dawn she will
kill them; is it Buffy or the Buffybot. In the beginning Buffy
is wearing the leather jacket and the leather pants but when the
fight begins the Buffybot is wearing them and it seems that she
didn't have time to change after she told them that and before
the fight; so did Buffy programmed the Buffybot to protect Dawn
at all cost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy or the Buffybot? -- Slayrunt, 16:07:20 07/02/01
Mon
Hi Jessica,
It was Buffy who said that she would kill anyone who got near
Dawn, but I know what you mean. I think Joss & co did that clothes
thing to fool people, so when the Buffbot is beheaded it is a
little surprise.
That is an interesting question about programming the Buffbot
though. Unless Willow changed the program, the Buffbot's main
concern would have been Spike, unless Spike told her to do that
for him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy or the Buffybot? -- rowan, 18:23:51 07/02/01 Mon
I think it was Buffy who delivered that line. She hung back from
the group a little (they left before her), and I assumed this
was to give her time to change clothes. Glory had seen Buffy in
those clothes in Spiral (need laundering much?) so it probably
was part of the bait and switch.
As for the BuffyBot protecting Dawn, I think that was part of
Spike's programming of the BuffyBot. She had all the slayer programs.
In Intervention, we saw the BuffyBot participate in a mission
essentially designed to go kill Spike to keep him from spilling
the beans to Glory about The Key (granted, she got distracted
alot by his hot, tight body, but hey, who wouldn't?). So the BuffyBot
I think had all the basics to take on Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy or the Buffybot? -- Nina, 19:07:04 07/02/01
Mon
The way I see it I think that Buffy told Xander and Anya that
their idea of using the Buffybot was good. We don't hear the word
"bot" but it's obvious that they are talking about it.
While Buffy and Spike were away, Willow probably just fixed the
bot. She said in "Intervention" that it would be an
easy fix. I am quite sure she didn't have time to reprogram anything
(which means that protecting Dawn was part of the original programing).
Buffy comes back to the magic shop with a black bag on her shoulders
(probably containing her new clothes), she then heads for the
basement while the others head for the tower. The switch was pretty
quick, but they wanted us to be surprised! Didn't work with me
though. Right when I heard Willow talking about an easy fix, I
knew the bot would be back. At least I hoped so. It was cleverly
done. Enough confusing to leave fans doubt how it was done even
after lots of screening! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy or the Buffybot? -- Rufus, 19:23:10
07/02/01 Mon
I guess that meant that Willow had to take out the make Spike
happy programs so the Bot would be able to focus on Glory......:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy or the Buffybot? -- Nina, 20:41:53
07/02/01 Mon
Hmmm.... maybe. But in Intervention the Buffybot helped Giles
over Spike. The slayer part of her was stronger than the "make
Spike happy" part. The slayer had a file to her name. She
was even programed to go slay even when Spike was asleep, so maybe,
just maybe, it wasn't that important to reprogram anything! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy or the Buffybot? -- rowan,
21:01:17 07/02/01 Mon
I think Spike deserves some credit for not having made the BuffyBot
a one dimensional SexBot. He gave her all the connections to the
SG as well as her Slayer roots. Even if he didn't intend for her
to get out of the crypt (bad Spike!), he apparently gave her enough
"free will" so that she could choose to help the SG
hunt Spike down with the intention of killing him to keep him
from spilling the Key beans (granted, she got confused alot...darn
his sinister attraction...and that coat...and that hot, tight
body...and have you seen him naked...sorry, Evil Hand got away
from me there for a minute).
Thankfully, the whole BuffyBot incident was not what I spent several
weeks dreading it would be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy or the Buffybot?
-- Rufus, 21:22:35 07/02/01 Mon
The Bot did offer to draw Willow sketches.......:):):)In the fight
the bot had with Glory I could just imagine her saying "have
you seen Spike naked?" could have won the fight that teeny
bit faster.......:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy or the Buffybot?
-- FanMan, 00:58:53 07/03/01 Tue
Bad Spike? Yes Spike is a bad boy, however keeping the Buffybot
in the crypt was because he was embarrassed.
Maby it was because he did not want Buffy to find out and take
away his substitute...that would be selfish and bad.
Two options? I go with the first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> are you guys kidding? -- anom, 21:52:22
07/05/01 Thu
C'mon, folks. Ro-Buffy had a total personality transplant. As
in having one at all, let alone some semblance of intelligence.
Warren's version was a lot like April, with the extremely limited
responses & knowledge about her friends. Everyone who knew the
real Buffy could tell something was wrong, but they attributed
it to a vision hangover. The ro-Buffy that faced Glory sounded
and acted like the real one, & knew stuff about how to fight her
that Spike could never have had programmed into the fake. Sure,
April had fighting skills, but she *growled*. Nothing like the
running commentary ro-Buffy came up with. Willow had to have done
some major reprogramming. (Plus it seemed like all the "Oh,
Spike!" programming was gone.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: are you guys kidding?
-- Rufus, 00:42:50 07/06/01 Fri
That would be a ghost in the machine that made April *growl*,
I must admit that when Intervention came on I thought if April
*growls* what the heck will the Buffybot do?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: are you guys kidding?
-- anom, 23:11:08 07/07/01 Sat
"That would be a ghost in the machine that made April *growl*,
I must admit that when Intervention came on I thought if April
*growls* what the heck will the Buffybot do?"
Huh? They were never in the same episode.
But I was quoting Buffy in "I Was Made to Love You."
Was I the only one who heard those asterisks (or italics, or whatever)
when Buffy said, "You made her so she *growls*?!"
(not to mention the "?!")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: are you guys
kidding? -- Rufus, 00:23:46 07/08/01 Sun
I was pretty spoiled by the time that Episode with April aired
and at the end Spike gave Warren his order. So I thought if the
Aprilbot *growls* what the heck could a Buffybot do......plus
I saw the episode twice that night and could reflect upon what
I already knew when Buffy asked about the Bot growling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: are you guys kidding?
Good points and a question... -- KendratVS, 14:49:01 07/08/01
Sun
(ROFLMAO remembering the part about April *growling* and Buffy's
reaction when she confronted Warren! Damn, that series has some
great humor interspersed with all the other goodness!)
My question is fairly trivial, and maybe not worth too much thought,
but right before Glory knocked the Buffy-bots head off, she (Buffy-bot)
was saying "You're about to..." Was the Buffy-bot alluding
to real-Buffy being behind Glory with Olafs hammer, or was it
just part of her fight-banter routine? Until the camera pans back
and we see Buffy, the viewer didn't know, so I am just wondering
what would have come out of the Buffy-bots mouth if Glory hadn't
knocked her block off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> No Dawn programing. -- vampire hunter D, 11:33:21
07/03/01 Tue
I don't think Spike gave it any real programming to protect Dawn.
When Buffy (pretending to be roboBuffy) offered to tell Glory
who the Key was (to stop her from hurting Spike again), he didn't
seem surprised by it. He was obviously mad and affraid at the
possibility, but no surprised. If protecting Dawn had been part
of hte original programming, this slip up by Buffy would have
given her whole act away. But that's just my take on it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: No Dawn programing. -- Solitude1056, 12:12:19
07/03/01 Tue
That would've involved telling Warren that Glory was bad guy who
was after Dawn, I'd think. And Spike knew the less folks who know,
the better. I didn't recollect that Buffybot had too many details
about Glory other than she's "another bad guy," at most.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: No Dawn programing. -- AK-UK, 14:48:59
07/03/01 Tue
I assumed that the Buffybot was programmed to go into a default
mode when not around Spike; she would act like the real Buffy
insofar as her limited programming would allow.Thus she might
well protect Dawn (as long as it didn't conflict with her overiding
wish to serve Spike) I don't think Spike would have been stupid
enough to tell Warren that Dawn was the key, so I'm guessing that
Spike thought the "Buffybot" found out about Dawn's
true identity when she met up with the SG.
Need some technical assistance -- LadyStarlight,
06:02:35 07/03/01 Tue
OK, so I'm writing this new fic and Wisewoman (shakes fist in
air & says "Damn you, Wisewoman! Now I must neglect housework
to write more...oh, right, that's not really a bad thing, is it?)
brings up this little niggling point: Do vampires show up in photos?
Angel proved that they show up on videotape (twice, I think),
so would a photo be the same thing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Need some technical assistance -- Marie, 06:24:23 07/03/01
Tue
When Wesley was trying to prove to the rebels of Pylea that he
knew the 'Princess', he showed them a clear picture of himself,
Cordelia and Angel, so I guess the answer is 'Yes'.
(Begs the question of why Angel was so fascinated by his hair
in the mirror, though - hadn't Wes showed him the picture??).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Need some technical assistance -- Shaglio, 07:25:09
07/03/01 Tue
This question was brought up a while back (maybe it's somewhere
in the archives). I beleive it has to do with the type of camera
being used. Back in the old days, cameras used to work using mirrors,
which wouldn't be able to take a picture of a vampire for obvious
reasons. I don't know much about the inner workings of modern
cameras, but I'm pretty sure they don't use mirrors anymore. Can
anyone else verify this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Need some technical assistance -- Solitude1056,
07:55:34 07/03/01 Tue
Yes and no. Depends on the camera. Most 35mm more-than-one-use
cameras still use mirrors, which bounce the image up to the viewfinder.
That mirror then flips out of the way, blocking the viewfinder
and revealing the unexposed film for the duration that the shutter
is open. So technically, while framing the picture, you wouldn't
be able to see the vampire because it's a reflection into the
viewfinder. But once you take the picture, it'd be an image going
straight through the lens and onto the film. (Ok, so maybe not
all cameras. This is ignoring those that have a viewfinder that
goes straight through the body of the camera, and doesn't actually
show you the picture through the lens - most point-and-clicks
and digitals are like this, in which case... no mirrors.)
To confuse issues more, though, I recall an image of Darla from
season one, where Giles shows Buffy what appears to be a reprint
of a daguerreotype. Last time I checked, many of of the older
large-format cameras (pre 35-mm) didn't always have a focusing
viewer, which would usually use a mirror to reflect the image
from the lens up to the viewfinder. The oldest cameras you just
had to guess, but with the long sitting times, the depth of field
was going to be large enough that a great deal of the picture
area would be in focus anyway (just like a pinhole camera now-a-days).
The optics hadn't really caught up to the point where in-focus
and not-quite-in-focus were instantly obvious.
I don't know if there's anything in Joss' schema which has ever
stated explicitly that vampires would or wouldn't show up on film.
If the argument's that mirrors in cameras would prevent us from
seeing the vamp in the final image, then I'm thinking that this
assumption may result from just a lack of knowledge about how
cameras work, for the most part. (And not surprising; it's an
arcane science to many.) In that case, if I were doing a vampire's
portrait, I'd just open it up to a greater depth of field and
put the camera on auto-focus. Just because I can't see the vampire
through the view doesn't mean the camera can't focus on its own,
since the camera's lens-eye has no problem seeing the vamp, even
if the mirror is negating my view.
So basically: old or new, there's only a few cameras which would
involve mirrors within the exposure process itself, and that design
is so rare I'd consider the risk negligible. Consider vampires
as photographable and videotapeable as anyone else... and then
you can start dealing with that old tradition about witches not
showing up on film. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Need some technical assistance --
Marie, 08:23:15 07/03/01 Tue
I recall an image of Darla from season one, where Giles shows
Buffy what appears to be a reprint of a daguerreotype.
I'd forgotten that, but you're right, though this was actually
Drusilla, I think, in 'Lie to Me' (after Buffy had seen Angel
talking to her in the park).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Need some technical assistance
-- Humanitas, 08:49:43 07/03/01 Tue
Angel also appears in a picture from the 50's in "Are You
Now or Have You Ever Been."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Need some technical assistance
-- Andy, 09:48:01 07/03/01 Tue
I believe what Whedon said on the matter of cameras is that vampires
can be photographed because a camera simply isn't, in a metaphysical
sense, the same thing as a mirror, or reflecting pool or whatever.
So even though mirrors are part of a camera's overall mechanism,
they can indeed be photographed or filmed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Oh, we do too show up! I've been filmed
many times... ;o) -- Wisewoman, 09:29:39 07/03/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> There you go, LadyS. You were right! (I knew they'd know)...
;o) -- Wisewoman, 09:31:33 07/03/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> a technical description -- vampire hunter D, 11:24:19 07/03/01
Tue
Alright, I know this has nothing to do with Buffy, but the following
appears in Vampire: the Masquerade Lasombra Clanbook (Lasombra
being the only vamps that don't appear in mirrors): "We do,
in fact, partially appear in mechanical media for recording images
(as opposed to those based on capturing reflections). Videocameras,
colorphotography, security monitors, motion sensors, and any other
forms of mechanical surveillence pick us up, aln=beit as shadowy
flickers. Black and white photography is the exception to this
rule. Perhaps because this form of photography is based on the
absorption of light by a silver based compound (a form of reflection,
perhaps?)."
Don't know if this helps any, but it's interesting(I've always
liked White Wolf's vampires better than Joss'. Maybe Joss should
use this as a basis for his own vampire's weeaknesses.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> not the clearest... -- Solitude1056, 12:10:25 07/03/01
Tue
"We do, in fact, partially appear in mechanical media for
recording images (as opposed to those based on capturing reflections).
Videocameras, colorphotography, security monitors, motion sensors,
and any other forms of mechanical surveillence pick us up, aln=beit
as shadowy flickers. Black and white photography is the exception
to this rule. Perhaps because this form of photography is based
on the absorption of light by a silver based compound (a form
of reflection, perhaps?)."
It's not clear to me whether the WW variant on the tradition is
saying they do appear on b/w film (as opposed to color) - or that
they do not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> clarification -- vampire hunter D, 12:31:16
07/03/01 Tue
It said that Lasombra do not appear in black and white photography.
Sorry or the confusion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> word from a photographer -- Solitude1056, 12:30:56 07/03/01
Tue
And now for something not quite different, I asked my housemate,
the aforementioned Peanut Gallery, who's also been a pro photographer
for for uh, a lot longer than I'm gonna say here. His response:
1. All photographic film is based on the interaction of some range
of electromagnetic wavelengths with chemicals that have been designed
to be sensitive to that range. True IR, for instance, is a different
set of wavelengths than visible light. There are X-Ray films,
etc. as well.
2. I've yet to hear a non-superstitious explanation of something
you can see with your eye but not with a mirror. The origin of
the "no-reflection" rule had to do with the idea of
seeing one's spirit or soul in the mirror.
3. There are, of course, situations that are the other way 'round:
things you "see" but that don't show up on any recording
device, because they're not really "there" in the visible
sense -- ghosts, for instance (spirit photography notwithstanding).
Now, if you posit a being that does not reflect light at all,
then I suppose it would only be visible, whether to the eye or
a recording device, by the negative space or shadow effect. [Anything]
that could let light pass straight through [itself] would be completely
invisible. There are such things, and much sci fi -- and religion!
-- is based on the idea that some could be sentient [such as]
angels, etc. Depending on which rationalization you accept, an
angel is either only visible because your mind translates the
presence into visual stimulus, or it vibrates at such a high frequency
that it only partially intercepts and reflects light, the rest
passing straight through. I like the second, myself, as far as
angels go, though it's not necessarily an either/or for all creatures.
So first, if vampires didn't have a physical body, they wouldn't
be visible. They do, so that's out. Second, if vampires didn't
reflect light at all, not only would the camera not be able to
see them, but our own eyes would effectively be unable to see
them, because our eyes don't work by "seeing" an object
- our eyes actually interprete the lightwaves bouncing off an
object, and our brain extrapolates this into "seeing"
an object. So if vampires didn't reflect light, we wouldn't be
able to see them in the first place.
To which the Peanut Gallery replies:
Of course, no bounce at all + absorption = shadow; no bounce +
transmission (ie, straight through) = invisible. So my stance
would be that vampires are photographable, videographable, etc.
It's possible vampires wouldn't show up on Kirlian (sp?) photography,
which measures low level electrical fields. It's touted as "aural
photography" but in fact all bodies generate an electrical
field as a result of the molecular activity going on - but we're
getting away from my and my housemate's knowledge of photography
and into some murky scientific waters, there. So if you posit
that vampires don't have an electrical field due to the braindeadness
of their bodies, they wouldn't show up on Kirlian. But if the
demon's making the body work - regardless of the power source
- then they'd still show up, perhaps a bit quieter on the print
than most humans. Or perhaps just as vividly.
(If you're wondering, "infrared" film does not measure
how "hot" something is. It's film that's supersensitive
to certain wavelengths outside the normal visible spectrum, but
it doesn't pick up that the person is "hotter" than
the sky - it only picks up which is bouncing back more of a certain
wavelength at the camera.)
And lastly: I don't know about that no-soul or no-spirit as the
justification for witches not showing up on film. Seems to me
that this wouldn't be something to boast about.
1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- Rendyl,
23:30:28 07/04/01 Wed
"Well, judging by the outfit, I guess it's safe to come in.
Evil Angel never would've worn those pants." (Cordelia, "Eternity")
Oh, how we love to drool over the leather pants of evil and the
sexy vampire wearing them. As long as we don't have to get any
closer of course, since the vampire wearing them is not our sweet
brooding Angel but instead is Angelus, The Scourge of Europe,
and a legendary evil even among vampires. Cruel, violent, and
sadistic, he is the epitome of a demon.
The question (discussed on many a forum) is how did Angelus evolve
from Liam? As we saw in 'Over The Rainbow' and in 'There's No
Place Like Plrtz Glrb' the demon inside Angel/Angelus is nearly
a mindless animal, with no thought but to kill, eat, and kill
again. It even goes for the blood Fred lures it with, rather than
attack Fred. There are no indications of the cruelty we see in
Angelus.
As Greta from this board put it so well,
"...it makes clear that the it's the vampires' human nature
that makes them "evil." I.E. when Angelus killed Jenny,
it was the beast that let him catch her and snap her neck, but
it was the soulless MAN whose twisted artistic vision arranged
the body in Giles' bed" (Greta, 8:28 5/18/01).
We have Angelus; famous not so much for how many humans he killed
but for how painful and inventive his torture of them was. How
do we get Angelus from Liam? The newly risen Liam is a typical
vampire. He rises, has his first meal, and then slaughters his
village. No grand plans or involved torture here, just some good
(or rather evil) old-fashioned killing and mayhem. Then his memories
begin to influence him.
"What we once were informs all that we have become."
(Darla - 'The Prodigal')
Time to turn on his family. He saves his father for last. He seems
to enjoy the pain his father feels at seeing the family dead and
bloody but he seems most happy at having beaten his father.
"You told me I wasn't a man. You told me I was nothing. -
and I believed you. You said I'd never amount to anything. Well,
you were wrong. " (Liam- 'The Prodigal')
He kills his father and for a few minutes he is happy. Then Darla
speaks the words I believe created Angelus.
Darla: "This contest is ended, is it?" Liam: "Now
I've won." Darla: "You're sure?" Liam: "Of
course. I proved who had the power here." Darla: "You
think?" Liam: "What?" Darla: "Your victory
over him took but moments"... "But his defeat of you
will last life times." Liam: "What are you talking about?
He can't defeat me now." Darla: "Nor can he ever approve
of you - in this world or any other."
With a few words she reduces Liam, who had been feeling frisky
and fine, likely almost high on his new found power over life
and death, back to the drunken worthless son. He not only lost,
he can never win.
My husband tells me that being accepted as an adult by your father
is an important part of growing up. Liam will never have this.
His father never acknowledged him as an adult or as a man worthy
to be his son. Now he never will. Because of this, Liam becomes
Angelus, a vampire who thrives on making his victims suffer, proving
(at least to himself) that he holds power over them. The more
helpless his victims appear, the more powerful he feels.
Angelus never fights a battle he cannot win. In 'Fool For Love',
Spike wants more danger, bigger challenges and the possibility
of losing. Angelus only wants a soft bed, fine clothes, and innocent
victims to torture and eat. If Angelus cannot win a fight he avoids
it, and in doing so he avoids the possibility of failure. As Liam
he failed at most things, including revenge on his father. As
Angelus he is going to make sure he never fails again.
"Eternal torment. - Am I learning?" (Angelus, 'Dear
Boy')
There is a certain amount of speculation on whether Drusilla was
a success or a failure. Angelus was obsessed with her, with making
her believe she was evil. He succeeded in breaking her, but not
(I think) in the way he intended. Ultimately she was able to escape
him by going insane. She was still tormented but the essence of
who she was died when she did. He created an insane demon that
is tormented, rather than a human girl who willingly embraced
evil.
Then we have his obsession with Buffy. There are several similarities
to Drusilla. Buffy is young, innocent, and beautiful. She has
a supernatural ability that sets her apart from her friends and
family. She is uncertain about what she is and where her gifts
come from.
Not enough just to kill her, he wants to torment her, and to completely
destroy her. He tells Spike "to kill this girl you need to
love her" but that love becomes the root of his inability
to kill her. Even without a soul he still loves her. He hates
her for it, but he still feels it. He spends hours watching her
sleep, making sketches of her. He looks for reasons to fight her,
excuses to touch her and be near her, but never takes complete
advantage of her inability to kill him. He kills Jenny and leaves
her as a morbid present for Giles instead of choosing someone
closer to Buffy. He torments her friends but he never leaves them
dead on her doorstep.
Angelus knows if he kills Buffy it is all over. The same applies
if he pushes her too far and it drives her insane. His fun ends
and she wins. So he struggles with wanting to be close to her
while at the same time wanting to hurt her.
In the end his need to be in control, to be powerful, and to win
overrides any thought or reason. He cannot bring himself to kill
her (or to admit that he cannot kill her) and he cannot win if
she is still alive. Enter Acanthla and suddenly Angelus has the
ability to suck earth into a hell. Eternal torment for Buffy seems
like the perfect solution. It is big, showy, and tailor-made for
his reputation. Her pain never has to stop and he insures he will
never lose her, or lose to her.
(Of course he does lose and regains his soul but that is another
topic, for another poster.)
************************************************************ Morning
all! My take on 'he in the leather pants of evil' is posted. Question,
comment, ponder, or dissect him at will. Just don't invite him
in. ;) -Ren ************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party:
Angelus -- Rufus, 03:27:54 07/05/01 Thu
Rendyl....leather pants, gotta be evil.
Angelus is the worst of vampires, he is what the old ones would
have had in mind when they created the vampire. He is the venus
flytrap of lust in leather. The face of and angel that even fooled
his sister.
I take the villiage to be the practice session, his family the
main event in Angelus/Liam's quest for the big win over his father.
Total destruction for his feelings of worthlesness. Darla sure
knew how to pick a monster. Angelus is all about power, he also
sees love as an enemy of power with the ability to drain strength
as it makes him feel vunerable again. The influence of the demon
is that of trickery, fooling Angelus into thinking he is a winner
by killing others. With every victim Angelus loses again as he
is forever stuck, eternally searching for the fatherly approval,
love, he will never get. The more he kills the more he feels that
loss. When Angel fell in love with Buffy then lost his soul, Angelus
became enraged knowing that Buffy could never approve of him just
like dad. The act of killing only giving Angelus power for that
moment before he realizes that his victim has escaped him just
like his father did. Dru escaped by insanity, his other victims
by death. Buffy had the most power over Angelus of anyone, she
is the one person he had ever loved, a power over him that the
ego of Angelus couldn't take. Angelus is a homicidal Peter Pan,
the only thing that stopped him was the return of his soul. Only
then could Angel begin the slow process of growing up.
Great post Rendyl, love the subject.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- Wisewoman,
17:45:53 07/05/01 Thu
Really insightful on the role Darla played in turning Liam into
Angelus. Like Rufus, I want now to see the process of Liam/Angelus
growing up into Angel...
Great post, Ren!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- Slayrunt,
06:20:45 07/05/01 Thu
Rendyl, great post, I have been a fan of the show for years but,
now that I have found this board and you fine people, I see new
and interesting facets that I would not have on my own.
I can't wait for season 7 to start so I can read all of your ideas
and insights. Thank you all.
I believe that Darla lead Liam to the scene above from 'The Prodigal'.
She is the Col Parker of the vampire world, molding and refining
the rough gem she found in Liam.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- Rendyl,
08:25:49 07/05/01 Thu
***She is the Col Parker of the vampire world, molding and refining
the rough gem she found in Liam.***
Rofl Slayrunt...no special comments - just thought your idea of
Darla as the Col deserved being in print again.
(my sick-at-home hubby listened to my laughing and now thinks
I am demented, but I am hoping to pass it off as him being delirious-grin)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- Sophie,
13:14:16 07/05/01 Thu
I know the obvious reply to this is - but he has got his own series
- but the story of Angelus is one thing that Joss is constantly
revealing and with a lot of focus. Despite the obvious contrast
to Angelus, courtesy of the soul, Joss and co. have not IMO ever
really dealt the issue that this creature came from Liam. The
idea that Angelus needed fatherly approval and reacts like a petulant
child (albeit an evil one) in true 'they f@?# you up your mum
and your dad' style, is an appealing one. However, it is his extreme
sadism that I feel is never really reconciled with Liam. I know
the demon is supposed to take the natural instinct of the individual
to logical extremes but I am not sure I can see this in Liam.
I too think Darla must have had a lot to do with what Liam became.
Immature just does not do evil that well! Anyway that is just
my opinion and thanks for listening - Sophie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I was quoted:) -- Greta, 06:39:11 07/05/01 Thu
I'm flattered.
*He kills Jenny and leaves her as a morbid present for Giles instead
of choosing someone closer to Buffy.*
I never considerd that aspect too much before, but now it adds
a whole new dimension to that arc. Do you think that if Angelus
had killed, say, Xander, Buffy would have been as willing to forgive
Angel?
I also really liked your thoughts on Angelus still loving Buffy
but nonetheless unable to endure the thought of defeat. It's interesting,
and very telling, that he equates love with defeat, perhaps because
love (in any sort of healthy way) involves a certain surrender
of control.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- spotjon, 10:30:00
07/05/01 Thu
Nice analysis, Rendyl! It's given me some food for thought for
my "Angel" post, which won't be up until later tonight.
I already have the outline done for the post, but I haven't started
writing it, yet. It'll be up by midnight tonight, Central Time,
I swear! ;-)
In other news, I just picked up the second issue of Fray, and
I have to say that this series is very very cool. I love the characters
and plot, and there are some promised revelations concerning why
the Slayers stopped being called in the next few issues, so what's
stopping you from picking this up? :) I won't spoil any of the
specifics of the story, but perhaps I'll write one of these character
analyses for her once the series is over.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Simple question. Is Angelus a sociopath or psychopath???
-- Emcee003, 12:35:39 07/05/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Simple question. Is Angelus a sociopath or psychopath???
-- Brian, 13:21:01 07/05/01 Thu
Not so simple a question. I always thought that a socipath is
someone who could function in society at large, but was a monster
with his family/friends. A psychopath is someone who can not function
in society on any level for very long.
So Angelus, I think,is neither. He is a predator who stalks human
prey. In his vampire world he is fully functional and admired
for his abilities to torture, maim, slaughter on physcial and
psychological levels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Simple question. Is Angelus a sociopath or psychopath???
Neither -- Brian, 13:36:38 07/05/01 Thu
I think a sociopath is someone who can function in society at
large but is a monster with his family and friends. A psychopath
can not function in society for any length of time without breaking
down. Angelus is neither. He is a demon, a stalker of human prey.
In his vampire circle he is admired for his abilities to maim,
torture, kill, and destroy people on the psychological level as
well as physical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Fantastic post! Thank you. :) -- rowan, 14:37:12 07/05/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Grin and thanks! -- Rendyl, 13:35:49 07/06/01 Fri
*Blush*
Actually you need a thanks for organizing this whole posting party.
So far it has been a lot of fun, Masq needs a thanks because..well
just because it is her board, (grin) and everyone else needs a
thanks cause their replies have been very cool.
I would have jumped into the discussions more (for Angel and Angelus)
but I seem to have caught (sigh...I hate feeding Solitude's ego
but here goes) a stomach bug. So instead of waxing philosophic
I have been stuck on the couch watching cartoons and soaps. Hmm,
maybe I posting partied to hard? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Stomach Bug -- Brian, 15:50:19 07/06/01 Fri
YOu have my sympathy and best wishes for a speedy recovery. I
had it for about ten days, no fun, but it has only slowed me down,
not stopped me from missing work. Rats!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- sollig, 14:56:38
07/05/01 Thu
Okay, I don't mean to be dim, but I still don't quite understand
the Angel/Angelus dichotomy. On another posting board I once asked
why it was impossible for Buffy to love Spike, yet she could love
Angel. (And by that I meant, in regard to her morals, what allowed
her to love Angel.)
Most replies said that Angel is worthy of her love because he
has a soul, and that Angelus is really a separate entity sharing
the same body. Angel is therefore "good" and not responsible
for the actions of Angelus. Spike, on the other hand, is just
plain evil and only does good deeds because of his chip. (I feel
this is debatable and fodder for other discussions; I'm really
not trying to turn this into a Spike thread!)
Huh? Is that the general consensus here? Or was I just terribly
mislead about the nature of Angel/Angelus? Help me out here!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- Rufus,
15:08:05 07/05/01 Thu
Buffy fell in love with the Angel that had time to consider his
actions via the gypsy curse. He was never meant to be happy, he
was supposed to be in torment. And tormented he was until he saw
Buffy. I think that was the intervention of the PTBs through Whistler
to goad this unpredictable character onto the side of light. The
Scrolls say that it's not certain exactly which side Angel is
on when the final battle happens. It's ironic that a curse was
Angel's start to redemption. The reason that Buffy finds it hard
to love Spike is that to contemplate loving a soulless being starts
a paradigm shift in the vampire situation, and these shifts aren't
easy and are hotly contested as it's hard to go against all you
have been taught to feel and believe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- Liquidram,
01:37:09 07/06/01 Fri
I believe Buffy justifies her love for Angel because she loves
him which is not that much different than a mother believing her
child can do no wrong regardless of ample proof because of the
unconditional love she has for her child.
The Spike/Buffy storyline is more than likely a prologue into
Joss' Season 6 Grow Up theme. Buffy is older and presumably wiser,
yet she still refuses to acknowledge feelings for Spike (which
I believe she has).
We, with the privilege of knowing more about Angel and Spike than
Buffy does via those flashbacks that she is not privy to, understand
that Angelus was far more evil than Spike. We also know that if
Angel loses his soul, he instantly becomes Mr. Super Evil whereas
Spike potentially will remain good even if the chip is removed
because of his ever increasing feelings for Buffy, Dawn and the
SG because he has chosen goodness. It has not been forced upon
him.
Buffy's analogy of the serial killer in prison was clever, but
not really applicable since Spike could still be very evil by
association with other demons and chooses not to be.
Back to the Grow Up theme. Buffy and the SG must now acknowledge
that things are not always black and white. This has been discussed
in previous threads, so I won't repeat everything here. The main
point being that all humans are not necessarily good, and the
demons ain't always bad. Buffy can no longer justify that killing
demons is automatically acceptable because they are all evil.
Her love for Angel and her acceptance for Anya (and even for Tara
before Spike punched her (and was his pain real or did he fake
it for a person(s) he respected and cared about?) show that she
is willing to look beyond the past. Her refusal to acknowledge
feelings for Spike or even accept that there is a possibility
of feelings will hopefully be addressed as part of her growth
in Season 6.
I really hope that Joss can find a way to work a few crossovers
into the new season with the UPN move. Angel and gang are a very
big part of the Buffyverse and it will be pathetic and sad if
we lose that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul? -- Wisewoman, 17:58:19 07/05/01
Thu
Okay, I'm getting confused here...we have Liam, a human being
with, presumably, a soul, who becomes Angelus when he is demonized,
and Angelus has no soul. Then Angel, while still demonized, gets
his soul back.
Well, how come Angel, with both soul *and* demon, seems to be
a *better* human being than Liam was? I take the point that Angel
had lots of time to become who he is today, but did he get a different
soul than Liam had originally, or what?
Would Liam, had he remained undemonized, eventually have grown
into the sort of *good* man Angel is? It wouldn't appear so.
What's the deal here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul? -- Slayrunt, 18:32:33
07/05/01 Thu
Would Liam, had he remained undemonized, eventually have grown
into the sort of *good* man Angel is? It wouldn't appear so.
I don't think so, Liam would have continued to be the kind of
man his father wanted, which was worthless. IMO he would have
gone through his life as a drunken whoremonger trying to live
down to his father's expectations. It is doubtful that Liam would
have ever been as evil as Angelus and I think that evil was the
thing the soul rejected.
IMO family can really screw with your mind and if you become a
good person, it is in spite of it, not because of it. But when
Angelus got his soul back it was the evil acts he committed that
made him seek redemtion not the cause of the evil act which were
Darla and his father.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul? -- Rufus, 19:08:40
07/05/01 Thu
Actually I think that Liam could have become a better man if he
got out of the pubs. He was young enough that the intervention
of the right type of influence could have made all the difference.
Unfortunately he met up with Darla.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul? -- AK-UK, 19:29:18
07/05/01 Thu
Wisewoman, I think the answer lies with the demon. Let me explain:
it has been said time and again on BtVS that when a human becomes
a vampire, the demon that enters their body warps aspects of the
human's personality and forms a new personality. What we tend
to overlook is that the "demon" probably had some personal
characteristics of it's own. So, I'd say that the demon was probably
more intelligent, more insightful than Liam. Liam appeared to
me to be incredibly self centred. Therefore I'd say that Angelus's
ability to pyschologically torture his victims, preying on their
fears, etc etc, came from the demons ability to look beyond itself;
it's ability to see and understand other creatures hopes and fears.
So, when Angelus's gets Liam's soul back, the soul warps the demon's
"personality" and Angelus becomes Angel. Angel is now
able to look beyond his own desires. He has a greater understanding
of what makes people tick, but now, because he has a soul, this
new found awareness leads to empathy, rather than hate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul? -- Rufus,
20:18:58 07/05/01 Thu
In the eps that occured in Pylea it became clear that the demon
was quite primative. It needs the personality and memories of
the host to function. What happens is that the soul of the human
is gone taking with it the natural tendancy to favor good, feel
good about doing good. The demon gives the vampire the desire
to create chaos. The thing that makes a vampire act is the personality
of who it was/is. Liam may have changed his name to Angelus but
he is still Liam, still insecure, weak, with an extreme need for
approval. As the worst vampire around he got that approval by
the reputation he got. When he got his soul back Angel is what
remained of Liam and Angelus. The demon is still in the man, but
it's clear that it's the man the makes the choices be them good
or evil. What Liam was missing was the ability to love. For whatever
reasons Liam was incapable of love, he was too busy in the contest
with his father. When Angel found Buffy he found out what love
was, he was finally acting on another emotion other than pride.
He told Buffy it was the man that was weak, the man that was the
problem. Having a soul made it less likely that he would do evil,
but not a guarantee, as he needed an Epiphany this season. "What
we once were informs all we become"(Darla the Prodigal).
You may be able to kill the person but you can never get rid of
who they were, they are all who they once were with a demon inside
directing them to act out on all of their past hurts, and grudges,
their moral compass no longer giving them the preference towards
good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul?
-- Wisewoman, 20:48:04 07/05/01 Thu
"What happens is that the soul of the human is gone taking
with it the natural tendancy to favor good, feel good about doing
good."
I guess my point is, even with his soul Liam didn't seem to have
the natural tendency to favor good or feel good about doing good.
That seems to have come, paradoxically, as AK-UK points out, from
his demon!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul?
-- Solitude1056, 21:52:04 07/05/01 Thu
I guess my point is, even with his soul Liam didn't seem to have
the natural tendency to favor good or feel good about doing good.
That seems to have come, paradoxically, as AK-UK points out, from
his demon!
I'd say it came not from the demon, but from experience.
Liam's been on this planet now for almost 250 years... that's
a long time by anyone's standards. And our glimpses into post-soul,
pre-Whistler show a guy who doesn't want to kill but doesn't know
what he wants to do instead. The guy who left those folks in the
hotel with the paranoia demon isn't exactly someone I'd want to
meet in a dark alley, soul or no soul.
I've gotten the impression that few on this board qualify as youngsters
without much experience, so I don't think I'll be leaving most
in the dark when I say that many slackers I knew in high school
have turned out to be quite productive folks. At some point, something
happened and they decided to move along to a different way of
being - it's called growing up, I hear. The first catalyst of
this sort that Liam ever met just happened to be Darla, but it
could have easily been any of a number of other things, like joining
the military, getting thrown out of his house, or falling in love.
Frankly, no matter how much I love this life and this world, eternity
sounds like a pretty grim thing. I recall the characters in Johnathan
Swift's novel, in the land where certain people are born with
some sort of signifying mark that identifies them as immortal.
They've grown old from seeing so much, and are pitied by the mortals,
because everyone is aware that the immortals are doomed to watching
their loved ones eventually die, and all that they knew will pass
away... and they don't even get the release of a long sleep at
the end of a full life. Knowing they'll live forever, there's
no reason to do anything but mark time, which they have plenty
of. A vampire, to me, seems like that - something to be pitied,
because there's no eventual goal, no destination: just mark time,
another victim, another night, another decade.
But I digress... point is, Liam's inside Angel (and you can hear
it at times, when DB lets a soft lilt into his voice when the
character is especially comfortable), and he's grown as much as
those slackers I knew in high school. Anyone can change, given
time, and it doesn't take a demon (or 200 years) to do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Soul vs Demon vs
Demon/Soul? -- Rahael, 03:08:10 07/06/01 Fri
There's something that has always puzzled me.......when the Gypsies
restore Angel's soul, which presumably was Liam's, where had it
been all that time? Heaven? or Hell? Or was it just in a peaceful
nothingness?
What happened to it when he lost it again?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Soul vs Demon
vs Demon/Soul? -- LadyStarlight, 05:52:03 07/07/01 Sat
Something I've always thought interesting: when discussing Angel's
soul (or the lack thereof) the term used is always "a soul";
not his soul. This sort of makes me think that perhaps souls are
interchangeable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Soul
vs Demon vs Demon/Soul? -- Cynthia, 11:56:34 07/07/01 Sat
Maybe the soul isn't lost just deeply buried under tons of resistance.
I pasted a stone wall the other day and between the layers was
a young tree sapling sticking out, growing despite the rock and
concrete.
Perhaps, Liam's soul, (and Spike's also as another example) although
greatly influence by the presence of the demon and the experiences
of both Angel and Angelus, is growing and gaining strength despite
the length of time it took or the adversity it faced. Perhaps
it not soul or demon but a intergration of both? Sorta like the
blending of two personalities in split personality cases, two
halfs become a new whole.
In one case, the growth is forced by external forces (gypsy curse)
and the other it seems to be coming from within. It would be interesting
to see if the different reasons make for different outcomes; like
is one stronger and more likely to survive adversity than the
other?
One could argue that this is rarely seen since most vampires not
last to long. Either thru lack of intelligence and/or bad luck.
And the passage of time doesn't always allow the opportunity for
soul to find a footing (i.e. The Master). But given an opportunity
(curse/chip/major emotion) and time, it could sometimes happen.
Of course, I could be completely wrong. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul? -- Rahael, 10:34:53 07/08/01 Sun
Thanks Cynthia!
I think your right about the soul being present all the time.
After all, it would make Angel's remorse all the greater, if he
had been a horrified onlooker the whole time. And when Angel came
back after a brief episode of angelus in AtS1, he did remember
everything that happened. It makes for more moral culpability.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul? -- Malandanza, 19:00:38 07/08/01
Sun
"Maybe the soul isn't lost just deeply buried under tons
of resistance...Perhaps, Liam's soul, (and Spike's also as another
example) although greatly influenced by the presence of the demon
and the experiences of both Angel and Angelus, is growing and
gaining strength despite the length of time it took or the adversity
it faced. Perhaps it is not soul or demon but a intergration of
both? Sorta like the blending of two personalities in split personality
cases, two halfs become a new whole."
The biggest problems I see to the human soul still being present
in vampire are 1)the curse (what did it restore if not a soul?),
2)other vampires (like Darla) are able to sense a "soul"
in Angel 3)Angel didn't combust when the judge touched him (if
the good in him was merely buried, why didn't he burn -- or at
least smoulder a bit?) 4)why is Angel so different from other
vampires?
On the other hand, just what was Angel trying to save in "Reunion"?
From becoming a vampire? Why was it so urgent?
Angel: "I can save her." Wesley: "Save whom?"
Angel: "Darla." Wesley crouches down beside him while
Angel continues to frantically search through the cabinet. Wesley:
"Angel, if what you've been saying is so there's no saving
Darla. It's too late." Angel: "It's not too late!"
Wesley puts a hand on Angel's shoulder: "It is! She's dead
already and come nightfall she will rise again." Angel: "She
won't. (He stands up spinning a big wood stake in his hand) I
can save her from that." (Psyche's Transcripts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul? -- Cynthia, 04:42:23 07/09/01
Mon
"The biggest problems I see to the human soul still being
present in vampire are 1)the curse (what did it restore if not
a soul?), 2)other vampires (like Darla) are able to sense a "soul"
in Angel 3)Angel didn't combust when the judge touched him (if
the good in him was merely buried, why didn't he burn -- or at
least smoulder a bit?) 4)why is Angel so different from other
vampires?"
Humm, let's see, for the fun of it.
1. The curse might have released the buried soul so that it could
flourish.
2. Haven't seen the entire series but could Darla sense a soul
in Angel when he was just Angelus, or just after he obtained one?
If it was buried as Angelus, she wouldn't have sensed one. Not
until its presense was detectable after the curse.
3. Don't know about the judge, wasn't watching then. I would have
to see the episodes in order to comment. So you got me on that
one, for now :)Plus, I didn't say good, I said the soul, which
is not nessarily a perfect one. The debate on Liam, and whether
he is the source of Angelus's evil, is another thread. Although
I would like to think that it is not as tied into Liam's memories,experiences
and emotions as the demon seems to be.
4. As I wrote, Angel is special, not only because he has lived
so long but also becauses the opportunity (conditions)for the
buried soul to grow presented themselves. Something that does
not happen very often.
and
5. I could be wrong. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The term "restoration" -- Shiny Special One, 06:15:09
07/09/01 Mon
I always think of the Restoration in England. When Charles II
came back to England as king after Oliver Cromwell died, the idea
the monarchists presented was that he hadn't now become king,
he had always been king. But now he had been restored to power.
So, in vampires, the soul could very well be there, exiled or
drowned under human blood (remember what Darla said about needing
to feed to take away the "bitterness?"), with a curse
restoring it to the control seat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul?
-- AK-UK, 21:07:30 07/05/01 Thu
Gah! Pylea! I think I must have been blotting out those episodes
when I made my last post. Bang goes another pet theory.
Can I just go o/t here and say how much i hated the last four
episodes of Angel, and how disappointed I was to see that the
vampire demon was just a variation on a werewolf?
I do have problems with this whole Liam/Angelus/Angel thing. I
don't buy for one second the idea that Angel is just a well adjusted
Liam. Angel is a demon with a human soul, so surely the demon
part of him has added something to his personality -- maybe some
natural instinct/insight into other creatures mentalities?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul?
-- Rufus, 21:34:10 07/05/01 Thu
The demon gave Angel immortality, strength, the drive to kill
to consume blood. How the demon creats chaos is totally up to
the mind of the host. The vampire is a demon/human hybrid. The
thing that strikes me most from the season one explanation was
if the demon that bit the human making the first vampire was primative
then the infection it passed on stayed constant, the mind of humans,
however have evolved. When a new vampire is created now, the infection
is the same, it changes the body and influences the mind to desire
chaos and the creation of evil, but needs the hosts mind to carry
that drive out. In Pylea we were shown that the pure demon part
of Angel was still primordial, but Angel has a mind that has evolved
far beyond that. The contribution of the demon in the mind department
is just a primative drive to kill and do evil, the human mind
makes up the rest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Soul vs Demon vs
Demon/Soul? -- Malandanza, 15:35:12 07/07/01 Sat
The mindless demon from Pylea was foreshadowed throughout the
show when we witnessed just-emerged vampires. None of these vampires
have been sentient -- merely mindless killing machines that Buffy
easily destroys. It is not until the vampire first drinks (human?)
blood that it becomes capable of assimilating its host's thoughts
and memories.
I prefer the Freudian view of vampires, with the soul acting as
the superego and the demon replacing the human's id with a new
and stronger set of drives. When the soul departs, the ability
to distinguish between right and wrong is lost and the vampire
acts merely for its own pleasure. With the gypsy curse, I have
thought that the gypsies did more tham just restore Liam's soul
-- that they also included an industrial grade conscience to make
sure Angelus felt guilty, but Solitude1056 brings up a good point
-- 200 years of atrocities might well have been enough to make
an impact on Liam and make him see the light. Indeed, we saw the
same thing happen with Darla (presumably, sans curse) where 400
years of evil did finally have an impact on her pysche.
So I believe that the reason vampires resemble their former victims
so closely is as Rufus says: "The contribution of the demon
in the mind department is just a primative drive to kill and do
evil, the human mind makes up the rest." Stripped of its
inhibitions and any moral sense, the human mind is certainly capable
of great evil.
Vampires, then, seem more akin to animals (killing on instinct)
than to any sentient creatures -- so it is no wonder that real
demons look down on them. The vampires cannot really be held responsible
for their natures and, conversely, their can be no resonable expectation
of reformation (as we have seen with Harmony). Attempts at saving
them remind me a little of a passage from the ancient bestiaries
where Christian monks, believing monkeys to be "wild men
of the woods", undertook to educate them but found that "however
kindly they were treated it was impossible to civilize them, because
they refused to recognize law and order."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Collective unconcious
and the Vampire -- Rufus, 16:16:44 07/07/01 Sat
I go back to what OnM said about holographic memory storage in
the brain. When a vampire is created it displaces the soul and
attempts to rewire how the demon acts. But if as it was said before
the memory is not localized but like a hologram, throughout the
brain, the only way the the infection of the host by the demon
can totally control the body would be by the total destruction
of the brain. Darla said "What we once were informs all that
we become" I think that can also mean that we are all connected
by the collective unconscious. Most vampires are happy with the
status quo, but we now have Spike who has been greatly affected
by first the chip, which seemed to allow Spike to access the collective
unconscious(through his human memory) to be able to act upon his
love for Buffy. I see the holographic memory not only to be about
who the person once was but who humanity was and is. I think that
as Spike has only interacted with vampires until now he was tuning
into the collective unconscious of the demon part of the vampire.
Spike's continual interaction in addition to his love for Buffy
may have caused Spike to break the connection to the collective
unconscious of the demon and reconnect to the collective unconscious
of humanity. This would be another good reason why the vampire
tries so hard to distance itself from any genuine contact with
humanity. Vampires may be on a continual hunt, but for Spike the
hunt was ended with the chip forcing him to access parts of his
mind he hadn't while distracted by killing and living in vampire
society.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> It's all rowan's fault -- Slayrunt,
01:15:06 07/06/01 Fri
Actually I think that Liam could have become a better man if he
got out of the pubs. He was young enough that the intervention
of the right type of influence could have made all the difference.
Unfortunately he met up with Darla.
Yes, he could have. Sorry I let my inner distrust for humans show
through.
As the worst vampire around he got that approval by the reputation
he got.
I think he got his approval from Darla. Sorry I'm on such a Darla
kick these days, but I got Darla for the posting party and I seem
to have Darla on my mind a lot, Darla. I see Darla as the Darla
behind the monster, Darla. Darla was the Darla with the leash
and, Darla, Angelus was the pitbull, Darla. Not that Angelus,
Darla, wasn't artist in his torments, Darla, but he had to be,
Darla, to keep getting the, Darla, approval of Darla, Darla.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Liam's Soul? -- Cynthia, 04:50:12
07/06/01 Fri
I'm confused. Why do people believe that Angel's soul is Liam's
soul.
I always thought it was Liam's memories, demon's possession, and
a new soul placed on top of (inside of) both.
Otherwise, wouldn't Angel still be Liam and view himself as such
as well as call himself Liam?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Using Joss' Metaphor
-- Solitude1056, 05:52:22 07/06/01 Fri
I always thought it was Liam's memories, demon's possession, and
a new soul placed on top of (inside of) both. Otherwise, wouldn't
Angel still be Liam and view himself as such as well as call himself
Liam?
For starters, calling oneself by a name from long ago, no matter
how much you relate to your past Self, just doesn't work for everyone.
It'd always seemed to me that calling Angelus "Liam"
once he'd gotten his soul back would be sort of like me moving
back to my hometown and reverting to using a childhood nickname.
That ruffian is still part of me, but not the whole part, and
the name used then just doesn't work anymore. Hence Angel not
going by "Liam," because he'll never be Liam again,
same soul or different soul.
There's been a few notes here and there that make me suspect that
we're working on a one-soul-per-person rule. Darla, Angel both
being folks who've gotten second shots at their souls... and folks
like Dawn who may or may not have a soul in the first place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sol, you were
a what? You can tell us your nickname......:):):):) -- Rufus,
12:51:00 07/06/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'd say
an "angel," but that might get miscontrued in this group...
-- Solitude1056, 15:41:28 07/06/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Only
if you are into wearing black trench coats, and start to brood.....:):):)
-- Rufus, 16:03:40 07/06/01 Fri
Start cutting off peoples hands and I'm outta here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Liam's Soul? --
Rattletrap, 06:20:18 07/08/01 Sun
Perhaps a soul doesn't have to be inherently personal. Most of
what I've seen of the BuffyVerse sees to equate soul with conscience.
People are shaped by their history (i.e. their actions in the
past) and by the way their conscience responds to those actions.
It follows, then, that Angel, a demon attempting to atone for
a couple of centuries of evil would have a very different perspective
than 25 year old Liam. Whose soul doesn't seem to be an issue,
I think a soul is a soul is a soul.
*drops 2 cents into the proverbial jar*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> *WHO* are you doing your post
on? ;o) -- Wisewoman, 11:32:55 07/06/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wait, let me check...
Oh, yeah, Darla -- Slayrunt, 21:18:26 07/06/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, yea, blame the girl hosting
the party... -- rowan, 17:30:29 07/06/01 Fri
I mean, I didn't even get to DO a post because I had to give everyone
up that I wanted to someone else....
*sob*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Danger! Danger! Will Robinson! Circuits overloaded! Arggh!!
-- rowan, 18:00:00 07/06/01 Fri
There is too much goodness in this thread. I'm (like Anya) on
overload and feelin' guilty about it. I'm going to consolidate
all my responses in this one reply.
It's.All.About.Grey
Notice how we love discussing these characters who straddle the
good and the evil? (Spike, Willow, Giles, Angelus).
Liam/Angelus/Angel
Well, I'll go right out on a limb here and say that I think what
Joss is showing us is that Angel is NOT Liam. To grossly oversimplify
Sol's point, Angel is Liam plus Angelus's experiences. But I think
it also may go further than that. We have the imprint of Liam's
experience (which we know can be filtered strangely through the
demonic vampire intelligence), plus Angelus's own nasty demonness,
plus the soul (and good point -- whose soul? I always assumed
it was Liam's). So these have now created the new mixture of personality
that is Angel. We've also seen Angel do things in S2 that demonstrated
that Angelus is still in there somewhere. So as time marches on,
we see that the vampire is not a separate entity from the human;
they are a messy blend. This begs the question -- shanshu who?
Is Angel minus the demony part still Angel? Or will he be, like
Joss has predicted for Buffy, a little off?
Buffy Love
I liked Rufus's point in an earlier post about the theory that
Angel's love of Buffy made Angelus's demon go insane (serves him
right for the whole Dru thing). I like Rendyl's point that Angelus
still loves Buffy, and that his obsessive actions are the outgrowth
of that love. He has to continually reject it. His plan to not
kill her, but torment her eternally, can be viewed as a response
to Darla's point about Liam's father. Angelus killed Liam and
can never be truly satisfied; but he planned to continue torturing
Buffy for eternity.
Since ATLtS, notice how Angelus's obsessive stalking of Buffy
compares to Spike's. This bolsters the argument that Angelus still
loved (or felt) the imprint of Angel's love. However, notice how
much less violent Spike's stalking is. Angelus cannot face his
love, so it becomes violent. Spike can, so it becomes a sham of
violence.
Now, about Buffy. Someone asked: Why can she love Angel and not
Spike? Well, the jury's still out on Spike. ;) But seriously,
she met Angel before she was confronted with Angelus. Because
he had a soul, because he was tormented, because she did not directly
experience his acts of evil, she could love. Then, even the horror
of experiencing Angelus could not truly kill that love. Soul restored,
love back. Angel/Angelus proves that Buffy can love a morally
grey person.
Then what's up with Spike? First, Buffy is bringing her Angel
baggage to her Spike trip. Who wants to be hurt like that again?
What does it say if she can love two evil undead? Plus, Buffy
met Evil Spike first and saw his acts firsthand. It's hard for
love to grow under those circumstances. But as time progresses,
and Spike begins doing more "good" stuff and less "evil"
stuff, we see Buffy begin to soften.
Ah, I feel better getting all that off my chest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> rowan remember what happened last time there was talk
of straddling...:):):):) -- Rufus, 18:58:11 07/06/01 Fri
Well, I happen to thing that Angel is Liam who became Angelus
who became Angel who became Angelus(again) then back to Angel.
All the same guy at a different phase of his life or unlife. I'm
the same person who was born many years ago but I'm no longer
the teenager I once was. All still me just at different times
of my life. It's important to realize that the demon that infected
Liam resulting in Angelus is quite primative and couldn't have
contributed much, as it needed the mind of the host to function.
All the stuff that Angelus did came from a dark part of Liams
mind. Say you dislike someone enough to consider (in your mind)
ways they could be dispatched to the beyond, you won't act on
it because your conscience would tell you you're a bad dog. Angelus
was Liam without the brakes on, an imaginative lad with very dark
thoughts about family and love. He was obsessed with control and
went into despair when he thought he had no options to exercise
control in his life. Then Darla flitted into his life promising
him "fun". Liam was at a part of his life where he was
very suggestable and Darla looked good so what the hell?? The
result was that all those thoughts that Liam had for years about
his father, the constraints of duty to the family unit, were gone.
Angelus not only killed the villiage but saved his father for
the final victory. I'll show you how a true monster was created.
The Prodigal.
Darla: "This contest is ended, is it?"
Angel has his feet up on the table playing with his father's pipe.
His family lies dead around him.
Angel: "Now I've won."
Darla: "You're sure?"
Angel puts his feet down and picks up a mug of ale: "Of course.
I proved who had the power here."
Darla: "You think?"
Angel: "What?"
Darla: "You're victory over him took but moments."
Angel looks over at the body of his father and gets up: "Yes?"
Darla: "But his defeat of you will last life times."
Angel: "What are you talking about? He can't deafeat me now."
Darla: "Nor can he ever approve of you: in this world or
any other. -What we once were informs all that we have become.
(Angel looks at his father's body) The same love will infect our
hearts : even if they no longer beat. (Angel looks at his mother's
and his sister's body) Simple death won't change that."
Angel: "Love? - Is this the work of love?"
Darla steps closer and smiles up at him: "Darling boy. -
So young. Still so very young."
Angelus was Liam striking out at what he thought was an enemy...his
family. Because he had no idea of what unconditional love was
like(his sister loved him-how did he see her?)he saw it as a foe
to defeat to get the power he craved. Angelus hated love of any
kind, struck out at people who had the potential to make him love.
Mother, sister, Dru, Buffy.....all because he thought love took
power and control away from him making him trapped, confined.
The Gypsies saved Angel with a curse to torment the demon, but
is the demon the only one to blame for the carnage caused by Angelus?
Angel knew what it was like to be able to live without caring
about his actions, the curse of the Gypsies ended that, he has
the same feelings, he only can care about what he does with them.
Epiphany was a start of an Angel who not only cares about what
he did and what he now does, but understands why love is not an
enemy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Liam/Angelus -- rowan, 19:38:19 07/06/01
Fri
"All the stuff that Angelus did came from a dark part of
Liams mind."
Then Liam's mind must be a very dark place indeed. Even if I were
vamped tomorrow, I could never come up with the unbelievable cruelty
of Jenny C.'s murder & artistic arrangement in Giles' bed. Some
people's minds are inherently much darker than others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Liam/Angelus -- Wisewoman, 19:44:57
07/06/01 Fri
That was kinda my point, earlier. If the "arrangement"
of Jenny in Giles' bed was devised by Liam's mind, then I really
don't see how Angel ever came to be. To me, the equation Liam+Angelus+soul
(+time and life experience) just does not equal Angel. It's as
if Angel is something new and completely different that has no
relationship to Liam except a physical resemblance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Liam/Angelus -- Rufus, 20:34:41
07/06/01 Fri
Where do you think the ideas would have come from. Read any murder
mystery, the author didn't do any of the murders but the idea
came from their mind. Liam was angry and repressed all his negative
feelings, when vamped they came out. The demon just changes the
moral compass to encourage evil, the rest comes from the mind
of the host.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Liam/Angelus -- Wisewoman,
20:38:38 07/06/01 Fri
I'm agreeing with you! I believe that evil did come from Liam's
mind under the demonizing influence of the vampire in him, but
I don't see how Angel could have come from Liam, no matter how
long he had to ponder his past deeds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Liam/Angelus -- spotjon, 10:38:20
07/07/01 Sat
I think that Liam's mind was a pretty dark place. He hated his
father, and bore bitterness against his family for years on end.
When you have that much hatred, and no way to act on it, your
mind can come up with some pretty twisted thoughts. I'm certain
revenge had been on his mind for a very long time, but he had
too many things holding him back. But with his ascension from
the grave, he had nothing holding him back, plus he had an extra
desire to kill and destroy on top of that. Not a good combination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Liam/Angelus - My question --
Rahael, 10:30:13 07/08/01 Sun
I had always assumed that the demon that set up shop in a vampire
was an amoral force that simply wanted blood. This in turn inevitably
led to evil actions that further turns the vampire into an irredeemably
evil agent in the world. The initially amoral demon would also
be overlaid with, and encouraged by the darker sides of the former
human being.
I thought that the whole point of staking the newly made vampire
was partly to protect the human from the evil that it would do,
what it would be forced to become.
So perhaps, Spike, forced to stop killing and feeding can have
a chance to reform. After all, the Buffyverse has stopped being
a place where demons are automatically evil. Most seem to be able
to have and make moral choices cf Doyle.
But most people seem to agree here that vampires = evil. So maybe
I was wrong!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Futher condensing -- AK-UK, 19:18:48 07/06/01 Fri
Liam = human with soul.
Angelus = demon + (Liam - soul)
Angel = Angelus + soul
So, as I see it, Angel isn't Liam with a hundred years of experience
under his belt. He is a different creature entirely.
Guilty admission: I find Spike's journey far more compelling than
Angel's. The exchanges between Spike and Buffy in Crush (as well
as the look on Spike's face before he bit into that dead girls
neck) told me more about the inner conflict of a vampire trying
to be good then 2 seasons of Angel.
Argh. This thread is not about Spike. Must. Stay. On. Topic.
I'm not sure I fully buy the idea of Angelus having any feelings
for Buffy, other than hatred. i like it, but surely if he had
residual attachment to her, the Judge's touch have destroyed him?
The Judge actually says Angelus is pure, contrasting with Spike,
who feels love and is therefore tainted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Futher condensing -- Rufus, 19:26:57 07/06/01
Fri
Angelus resents the ability Buffy had to make Angel love for the
first time. Angelus sees love as an enemy as it has the potential
to contol him. You strike out at what you fear or hate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Futher condensing -- rowan, 19:39:50 07/06/01
Fri
"So, as I see it, Angel isn't Liam with a hundred years of
experience under his belt. He is a different creature entirely."
Yes, that's the conclusion I was fumbling towards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Me, too. -- Wisewoman, 19:49:45 07/06/01
Fri
And as I tried to point out above, before reading AK-UK's equations.
In particular, the goofy, fun-loving Angel of the last few episodes
of last season (however much one might have reviled him) just
could not have come from Liam IMHO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Futher condensing -- Rufus, 22:12:23 07/06/01
Fri
Okay
Liam = human with soul
Angelus = demon = Liam - soul
Angel = Angelus (demon + Liam - soul)+ restored soul
Without Liam you have no Angelus or Angel. Angel references his
memories before and after vamping. The personality and memories
have always been intact. Angelus is a continuation of Liam as
a demon hybrid. Angel is the hybrid with a restored soul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Liam -- Malandanza, 15:43:26 07/07/01
Sat
I'm not sure Liam is really an important factor(well, term actually
:) in these equations. When Darla returned, she could not even
remember her name from her previous human existence. I would say
that after 200+ years as a vampire, and several decades as a souled
vampire, Liam is a very insignificant part of the equation --
orders of magnitude less significant, in fact -- something that
could be lost with rounding error.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Liam -- Rufus, 16:20:29 07/07/01
Sat
Oh I think Liam is the most important part of the equation. "What
we once were informs all we become". Liam is the base for
all that Angel has become. When Angel went into complete despair
in Reprise it was a return to the way that Liam felt so many years
before. Angel has the same attitude problem he has always had.
It is Liam that is weak and Liams mind is what informs the vampire
how to act out and why. Without Liam there is no vampire and no
Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Liam -- Malandanza, 20:24:47
07/07/01 Sat
"Oh I think Liam is the most important part of the equation.
"What we once were informs all we become". Liam is the
base for all that Angel has become. When Angel went into complete
despair in Reprise it was a return to the way that Liam felt so
many years before. Angel has the same attitude problem he has
always had. It is Liam that is weak and Liam's mind is what informs
the vampire how to act out and why. Without Liam there is no vampire
and no Angel."
Well, yes. Initially, Liam was important. Angelus was (Demon +
Liam - soul). But, if you accept that vampires change over time
(and the Spike Girls seem to accept change as an established fact
-- even drastic changes in short periods of time) then 200 years
is an awful lot of change.
Compare Liam, pre-vamping, with Human Angel from "I Will
Remember You." They are not the same person -- he did not
go out drinking and whoring upon becoming mortal. Yet, if we look
at the equation: ([Angelus + (Liam - soul)] + Soul) - Angelus,
everything cancels but Liam.
The conclusion I reach is that the experiences of the last 200+
years have far more to do with who Angel is now than the 26 years
of experiences of a spoiled, rich boy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Liam -- Rufus, 22:11:23
07/07/01 Sat
I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that Angel remembers his
life so clearly. He is still impacted by who he was, that part
of him is who he remembers when he was in similar situations like
Kate and her dad. It's all part of why he needs redemption, if
he weren't weak he wouldn't have been open to Darla in the first
place. For it to come up at all shows it's importance to why Angel
is who he is now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great post, Rendyl!
-- Marie, 03:17:28 07/09/01 Mon
Bit of a late response, due to a weekend of shenanigans in the
Lake District!
These posts are all so interesting! I'm wondering why, though,
you folk seem to be mostly of the opinion that Liam was a terrible
person. I'm wondering if you are looking at him through twentieth-century
eyes, when he should be looked at as a man of his times. He was
obviously the son of a fairly well-off, middle class family (we
aren't told, but I get the impression that his father is not an
aristocrat, but more the 'local squire' type). They have a servant,
so they aren't poor, and obviously have enough that Liam can indulge
his really rather pathetic vices. Drinking and whoring wasn't
unheard of among the lads of his age - and it certainly wasn't
surprising that he rebelled against his father's autocratic ways.
Not many sons don't, in one form or another. I think that, had
Darla not come along, Liam would have eventually married some
local girl, had several children, and settled into stolid, middle-class
existence.
At the time he met Darla, he was quarrelling violently with his
father, and hot-headed enough to wish him dead, certainly, but
how many things are yelled at parents in anger, and then bitterly
regretted?
I agree that Angel is a composite of Liam+Angelus - the demon
bringing out the worst of the man, etc.. Giles, in the first season,
pointed out that vampires may retain the host's memories, but
that they are not the humans, but the thing that killed them.
When Angel got his soul back, wouldn't it have been that part
of him that remembered Liam, and his family, that was most tortured?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Great
post, Rendyl! -- Rufus, 03:31:41 07/09/01 Mon
I'd go for the soul having the memory of Liam except for in FFL,
Spike clearly remembers what it was like to be William. So to
me the memories are all part of what makes the vampire who he/she
becomes, you can't get away from what the person started as. What
they started as, the good and the bad informs all that they become.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's
what I meant! -- Marie, 03:43:53 07/09/01 Mon
Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly enough. Yes, Spike remembers
what it was like to be William, just as Angel would have memories
of his life as Liam - but Angelus ate his family! Imagine having
to keep remembering that!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: That's what I meant! -- Rufus, 11:50:47 07/09/01 Mon
I think the horror for Angel is not just the amount of people
he killed but why he killed them. He wanted the most distress
he could get out of a victim. As Angelus he said something to
Spike in FFL that caught my attention. Spike confronted Angelus
about only getting involved in fights he could always win. Angelus
replied that a kill a good kill takes artistry, that without that
they were only animals. I found that statement an interesting
excuse for his killing style. He was not in it to be a champion
of vampires but to do his art in the form of death. Spike wanted
recognition so he went for the battle he may not win. Both were
killers that killed at whim but still had different motivations
for what they did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: That's what I meant! -- Rahael, 15:33:52 07/09/01 Mon
Angel's attitude that a good kill took artistry - isn't there
a correlation here with the first slayer - the art of death?
Also, for 18th century perspectives for Liam what about Lovelace
(in Clarissa)which perfectly fits his pursuit of the innocent
and chaste Drusilla, who he rapes. Or there's Fielding's Tom Jones,
for a more sympathetic interpretation!
What about Don Giovanni? Also had father issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: That's what I meant! -- Rufus, 16:01:18 07/09/01
Mon
That, and the fact that even as a vampire Angelus and the other
vampires frequently try to give their unlife meaning. Angelus
didn't want to be just an animal...he wanted to be an artist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: That's what I meant! -- Slayrunt, 17:07:12
07/09/01 Mon
I think the horror for Angel is not just the amount of people
he killed but why he killed them. He wanted the most distress
he could get out of a victim. As Angelus he said something to
Spike in FFL that caught my attention. Spike confronted Angelus
about only getting involved in fights he could always win. Angelus
replied that a kill a good kill takes artistry, that without that
they were only animals. I found that statement an interesting
excuse for his killing style. He was not in it to be a champion
of vampires but to do his art in the form of death. Spike wanted
recognition so he went for the battle he may not win. Both were
killers that killed at whim but still had different motivations
for what they did.
Rufus, I agree to a point, but as I look at the development of
Angelus, I see a different source.
Angelus kills his village saving his family and his father especially
for last, then he and Darla cut a bloody path through northern
England. After leaving the Master, they go to Italy then France,
where they are hunted by the vampire hunter. He and Darla have
a running conversation about living in the finest hotels and killing
the bellboys etc. Angelus wants to go to Romania, they know how
to treat you there. Darla says that's what you said about France.
The point is, IMO, that Angelus kills big in the beginning and
that causes problems for them, much like Spike after he was turned.
Darla broke Angelus of the habit and turned his desires to the
artistic kills, often giving or picking the victim then watching
him work. Angelus is trying to depart the knowledge to the new
guy in the group, but Spike was not Dru's, Angelus' or Darla's
dog like angelus was Darla's
different motivations of the diferent people
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Futher condensing -- Mindtrekker, 14:33:10
07/07/01 Sat
If I may belatedly add a thought. I think this discussion has
been overlooking the influence of Darla.
I would argue that without Darla as his sire, the drunken whoremongering
Liam would merely become a drunken whoremongering bloodsucking
Liam as a vampire. Darla gives him focus. She tutors him into
a more sophisticated, almost aristocratic class of vampire with
a larger vision of the world and an understanding of people that
he can use to control and terrify them even further. I agree with
Rufus that Angelus is motivated to become more than his previous
self by the desire for approval, but not the vague, distant approval
of the crowd afforded by a reputation--although that's a plus.
No, it is Darla's approval that serves as his reward and it is
for her that he performs. In fact I seem to recall in one of the
more recent Angel episodes one of the characters commenting that
with Angel, "it's always about Darla." (Wish I could
remember what episode that is)
Beyond that I don't think the small glimpses we've been given
of Liam really allow us to conclude that the character of Angel
is inconsistent with him. I would remind people that one can be
a drunken insensitive whoremonger and still be deeply affected
and appalled at finding you're responsible for the death and torture
of dozens of people, including your own family. I would also note,
that in flashbacks in recent episodes we've seen that Angelus's
transformation into Angel was not really as automatic as we'd
previously thought. Some flashbacks have shown Angel not doing
what we would necessarily consider the right thing even after
having acquired a soul. And I would argue that the end of this
season suggest that until now, he's never really understood right
and wrong. He's seen it simply as a matter of what side you're
on in some big cosmic battle.
There's a lot more I could say to that but that's enough for now.
Got to go to a wedding. I'll be interested to see how badly you
all tear up my theories. :>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Darla the power behind the monster --
Rufus, 16:33:48 07/07/01 Sat
Darla is more complex than some have given her credit for. She
is a hooker so she tends to be seen as just a sex toy. She is
a lady that is full of rage at her powerless life. When she was
dying she had been deserted by everyone left to die alone. She
said to the master that God had never done anything for her. She
was someone that was trapped by her profession stuck forever on
the outside of society, scorned by the very men that would have
partaken of her services. If you notice, Darla took an extra effort
to kill the family unit, down to the children. Made me think that
she was in a revenge loop acting out against the johns of her
life and the society they would not let her join. Darla didn't
remember her real name because she didn't want to. Her life a
reminder of her powerless nature. When she found Liam he was first
a toy for her then he became the monster of her dreams. When Angel
got his soul she rejected him, taking him back long enough to
discover that he couldn't be her monster, her dear boy any more.
A newly human Darla still had no connection to humanity, just
a desire to go back to what she was as vampire. But her exposure
to an ensouled Angel made her feel unconditional love for the
first time in any life, only to have that snatched away. Darla
is now stuck with the residual feelings of love. Darla was a hooker
without a heart, now she is a vampire out to get even with Angel
for making her miss it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Darla the power behind the monster
-- Malandanza, 20:47:27 07/07/01 Sat
"Darla is more complex than some have given her credit for...She
said to the master that God had never done anything for her. She
was someone that was trapped by her profession stuck forever on
the outside of society, scorned by the very men that would have
partaken of her services."
I agree that Darla is a very complex character. In particular,
I would point out that although she had a "curse God and
die" attitude at the end of her human life, after her return,
she had some reservations about religion:
Darla: "I have question. Where was I? I don't remember anything.
It's a great big nothing. Could it be there is no hell?"
("Darla")
Additonally, in "Dear Boy," we see her kill a lord because
she hates "cheap royalty" that would haggle over prices
with a streetwalker -- but she also kills the prostitute, about
which Angelus asks her and she gives no satisfactory response:
Angelus: "Why'd you kill the streetwalker?" Darla: "Oh
- I just liked her.
Killing a prostitute -- seems like Darla had some self-image problems
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Darla the power behind
the monster -- Rufus, 22:13:12 07/07/01 Sat
No kidding.......:):):):)Must have been tough to be a Missionary
in the part of China Darla was in during the Boxer Rebellion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Danger! Danger! Will Robinson! Circuits overloaded!
Arggh!! -- spotjon, 10:46:02 07/07/01 Sat
No, Angel is not Liam, at least in the same sense that I am no
longer the same person I was during my high school years. He has
grown up a lot, and he is very different. I like what the Host
at Caritas said in Epiphany:
Angel: "I'm still not sure I understand what happened."
Host: "What's to understand? You think you're the first guy
who ever rolled over, saw what was lying next to him and went
'Guyeah!' And you're not. Believe me. - It's called a moment of
clarity, my lamb. And you've just had one. Sort of appalling,
ain't it? To see just exactly where you've gotten yourself?"
Angel: "I don't know how to get back." Host: "Well,
that's just the thing. You don't. You go on to the new place.
Whatever that is." Wise words from a man with horns growing
out of his brain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- purplegrrl,
07:50:36 07/11/01 Wed
Rendyl, I wanted to compliment you on a great post. Angel/Angelus
is my favorite character (or is it that I just lust after hunky
DB?!? -- ***Oh, how we love to drool over the leather pants of
evil and the sexy vampire wearing them.***).
Unfortunately, I have nothing pithy to add to the above discussion.
I've been saving all my pithiness for job hunting so I can have
continued access to computer, Internet, etc. so I can discuss
philosophy, cheekbones, and cyber-chocolate with all the other
BtVS-philes on ATPoBtVS.
Something
on the silly side... -- Solitude1056, 14:46:07 07/05/01 Thu
I've been watching the posts & thinking back to that discussion
about Tara & what her name means... and it got me thinking. What
can we tell about a person from hir screen alias? Hmmm... so I
present for your perusal a list of my first impressions of screen
names, in no particular order. Feel free to continue the silliness
with any of your own! Disclaimer at bottom of post. :-)
Coral Cat: at night, all felines are peach. FanMan: "if only
I had air conditioning..." Humanitas: "Yeah, I like
people. No, really." OnM: almost gets the Buddhist thing,
but not quite. Nina: has a stash of old german punk rock vinyl
tucked away in the back of the hallway closet, behind the rolls
of toilet tissue. Wiccagrrl: is sometimes surprised when people
think she's an Adult. Purplegrrl's evil twin. LadyStarlight: space
cadet. Wisewoman: used to be blonde, but defected. Probably now
a redhead. Sebastian: British, definitely. vampire hunter D: harbors
a secret love of retro 80's. Andy: knows how to whistle like nobody's
business. Malandanza: kind of like "abracadabra," but
different. Manoon: say "man on the moon" ten times,
really fast. Scout: Boo Radley, come out and play! Rendyl: was
aiming for Renfield but just couldn't groove on the bug-eating
parts. purplegrrl: a devotee of the artist formerly known as an
unpronounceable symbol who was formerly known as the artist named
Prince. Slayrunt: card-carrying member of Petite Killers, Inc.
mundusmundi: tends to croon old Mommas & Papas songs at the dentist's
office, but translates them into latin first. Rahael: one letter
short of being an angel. voyageofbeagle: darwinist with itchy
feet. Lurker Becoming Restless: chooses long alias due to minor
inferiority complex from having a one-syllable first name. Emcee003:
understudy for the master of ceremonies at a Spy Novel convention.
KendratVS: doesn't care much for Druscilla. Dedalus: wax and feathers.
or is that tar and feathers..? Liquidram: Taurus, with Cancer
rising. spotjon: sometimes only bleach will do the trick. Aquitaine:
prefers bottled water, thank you. rowan: would've gone for "sassafras,"
but it's too hard to spell when slightly tipsy. Rufus: wasn't
that the big red dog from the children's books? oh, wait, that
was Clifford. Hmm...
and last but hardly least:
Masquerade: "who was that masked philosopher?"
- = - Disclaimer: This post is intended to impart a sense of humor.
Given the web's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial
expressions, it may fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges
the limitations of the technology and assigns to the software
in which this message was composed any ill feelings that may be
returned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> ROTFL, especially mundusmundi's -- Masqued philosopher,
15:09:20 07/05/01 Thu
If I ever get a FAQ up for this board with all the various rules
and conventions for newbies, we could introduce the regular posters
with this.
*snerk*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Oh yeah, and you "Alone ten years before the Norman
Invasion" -- Masq, 15:11:59 07/05/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I prefer to think of it as being ahead of my time.
:-) -- Solitude1056, 21:41:29 07/05/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Having another giggle fit here........:):):):) -- Rufus,
15:17:26 07/05/01 Thu
Sol, you are closer than you think about Rufus. The current Rufus
is a blue eyed siamese(well half siamese)who my husband has nick
named...bag of hammers, for her intellect. The original now RIP,
Rufus was a very large dog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You're about a week off :0) -- Liquidram, 16:29:31 07/05/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Actually, it's brown now, but I still have "Blonde
Moments" ;o) roflmao! -- Wisewoman, 17:41:04 07/05/01 Thu
So now I can't get, "Mundus Mundi, can't trust that day..."
out of my head...thanks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Something on the silly side... -- Slayrunt, 18:15:49
07/05/01 Thu
Did I see you at the meeting? I was told to keep the group secret,
did I miss a memo? (LOL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Actually I'm 5' 11" with long brown hair... --
Slayrunt, 06:00:03 07/06/01 Fri
a beard and moustache
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Uh, yeah, and I meant to say that you're an
HONORARY member... :-) -- Solitude1056, 06:14:54 07/06/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'm confused..... -- AK-UK, 18:59:03 07/05/01 Thu
Should I be unhappy at being overlooked, or profoundly grateful
:) ?
The most striking name I have come across on this board is Dream
of the Consortium. It makes me think of empty skyscrapers at night,
peaceful and at rest, silent offices, images flashing randomly
on computer monitors, slices of electronic dreams.......
Whoa......I've really got to lay off the felt tips, or stick to
using them in a well ventilated room :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Alex Kingston - wishes she had taken Joss' call --
Liquidram, 19:20:31 07/05/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Dream of the Consortium -- alternative rock band or
80s one hit wonder? ;) -- rowan, 19:28:33 07/05/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hey, I'm working my way around... -- Solitude1056,
19:33:59 07/05/01 Thu
Never fear, your turn comes soon...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Good save Sol.... hehe -- Liquidram, 00:26:31
07/06/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I'm confused..... -- Shaglio, 05:45:18 07/06/01
Fri
AK-UK - a British machine gun?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I'm confused..... -- Dream of the Consortium,
14:09:45 07/09/01 Mon
Hey - thanks! The name comes from the title of a wonderful short
story by Steven Millhauser, who is a tremendous writer and sadly
underread. The story combines elements of the mundane and the
fantastical, so I figured it would be appropriate for Buffy-inspired
musings. Except, of course, in Millhauser's story, the mundane
is a department store in Middle America probably circa 1955, whereas
the mundane in Buffy is sunny California 2001. Anyway, I recommend
his short stories highly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Something on the silly side... -- Sebastian, 19:23:06
07/05/01 Thu
That was absolutely great...and I needed a good laugh after today!!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> There's 2 trees you don't mess with...the willow & the rowan.
:) -- rowan, 19:26:26 07/05/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Silliness, part II: son of silliness -- Solitude1056, 20:11:57
07/05/01 Thu
alrighty now, continuing with other posters... I didn't include
some of these last time since I wasn't sure y'll would groove
with my bizarre mental connections, but hey. You ask, I'll continue.
(You did ask, didn't you?)
AK-UK: Echolalia, misspelled. Rattletrap: drives an MG. Morgane:
suffers from headaches, hair loss, & a tendency to plot about
being queen of England. JBone: vegetarian. verdantheart: 1/3rd
of an evil law firm who's a closet green thumb. fresne: oh, like
totally tubular...! dream of the consortium: "I am angst."
Rosenberg: still looking for Guildenstein. Little One: actually
six-foot-two. Etoile: not quite chenille. heywhynot: an accountant
whose idea of a thrill is putting in a quarter... and taking out
two newspapers. Anthony8: wanted to be Eve6, but it was taken.
sollig: "It's my last six tiles, and yes, it really is a
word!" Olympia: Not everyone can be the Himalayas. Jarrod
Harmier: real name, Bob Smith. squireboy: not quite a knight.
more like a late afternoon. darkpoet: "no, I am angst!"
Lucifer Sponge: "One day I'll be satan's loofah. You'll see.
I'm going places." Newbie: Masquerade, in disguise. Virgill
Reality: dwells in the ninth circle of Microsoft.
Enjoy! :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Silliness, part II: son of silliness -- AK-UK,
20:44:04 07/05/01 Thu
AK-UK: Echolalia, misspelled.
HEY! I RESENT THAT THAT that
AK-UK firmly believes that the obvious jokes are always the funniest
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> AK-UK -- Scout, 05:45:09 07/06/01 Fri
For some reason, AK-UK is just fun to say. A-K-U-K. It sticks
in my head like a mantra. A-K-U-K, A-K-U-K.
Oh God, now I'll probably find myself murmuring "A-K-U-K"
under my breath this afternoon while waiting on the playground
for my son to get out of school, making all the soccer moms (or
the British equivalent thereof) wonder what I've been smoking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> time to join in -- anom, 21:21:38 07/05/01 Thu
..that is, I finally have some. This is a great board, & this
seems like a good thread to introduce myself, especially since
I have a framed quote from Horace (that's what it says) on my
wall: "How lovely it is to be ~silly~ at the right moment."
Any takes on my name are welcome. I'll letcha know the real story
later.
I think I can manage to scroll farther down the list for one more
tonight. Lookin' forward to chiming in more often. That is, as
time permits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Oooh... -- Solitude1056, 21:39:30 07/05/01 Thu
I wonder how many other lurkers are waiting in the wings... perhaps
Silliness Part III: "This Time It's Personal" shall
be only for lurkers who've just now delurked. Come one everyone,
and expose - err, introduce - yourselves to our rerun madness!
Share the love! :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I have another poster name on this board,
but it's not Newbie... -- Masquerade, 22:06:26 07/05/01 Thu
But since I haven't seen this "Newbie" post yet, maybe
it's my First Good alternate personality...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Oooh... -- Javoher, 13:38:04 07/14/01
Sat
Posted here several times, but I usually lurk. (Still have server
problems updating this board.) Got a real kick out of your sense
of humer, Sol! Feel free to whack at mine if you like!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: time to join in -- Shaglio, 05:58:29 07/06/01
Fri
Now that I think about it, I never did officially "introduce"
myself as a delurker. I just started posting one day and that
was that. No grand entrences here. I usually don't post too often
because I'm not very deep and philosophical, but I enjoy reading
the posts of those who are. But sometimes my fingertips get ahead
of my brain and start typing before I can stop them. I _have_
been posting for almost a year now :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: time to join in -- Solitude1056, 06:00:22
07/06/01 Fri
I'll put you on the list for the next go-round. Actually, I don't
have everyone memorized so what I did was use names I found on
this page for the first set... for the second set I went back
another page. Will probably keep going back because there's more
names in there, along with yours (and all those lurkers we're
trying to coax out). :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Dead on, give or take a foot! -- Little One, 06:32:39
07/06/01 Fri
Well, take a foot actually (like pulling a leg only different)
I'm really 5'2". But I talk big! (or is that my alter moniker
Canadificus Terriblis? *waving to Wisewoman*)
Thanks, Sol, for giving me a major chuckle with a minor in guffawing!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> what's this "dead on" stuff? it's
pretty clear you're a live one! ;-) -- Solitude1056, 06:42:57
07/06/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> "Dead" to keep with the Angel/Angelus
theme! ;-p -- Little One/Canadificus Terriblis, 07:36:28 07/06/01
Fri
A live one? Who, Moi? ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> *Waving back!* ;o) -- Wisewoman, 11:19:43 07/06/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Silliness, part II: son of silliness -- fresne,
07:26:59 07/06/01 Fri
Oh, my gawd! Like, like how did you know, that I was like toootally
in the Valley when like it was rad to go hang out at the mall.
Like gag me with a spoon, you're like totally psychic.
fresne ponders her own tubularity as the breeze gentle drifts
through the ash trees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Bwa-ha-ha -- oops! Got to water the African violet
.. -- verdantheart, 07:43:07 07/09/01 Mon
Thanks for remembering me!
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Whew - you're all being really good sports... glad you enjoyed!
:-) -- Solitude1056, 21:33:38 07/05/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Don't worry Sol, I only cut down trees, not solitary,
very old Norman Invaders..:):):) -- Rufus, 21:35:44 07/05/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Whew - you're all being really good sports...
glad you enjoyed! :-) -- LadyStarlight, 19:14:53 07/10/01 Tue
Hi Sol,
Would have posted sooner, but Wisewoman & Liquidram twisted my
arm & I wound up writing another fic.
I prefer to think of myself as "a sometimes skewed version
of reality" rather than a space cadet. Phhbbtt's to you ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Disregard above message--see end of post --
LadyStarlight, 19:42:21 07/10/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Brilliant! These need to be added permanantly to Masq's
site somewhere... -- OnM, 22:07:19 07/05/01 Thu
..perhaps an index to the board regulars, or something. We could
have little mini-bio's about who we really think we are so as
to help confuse visitors. ;)
Sol, what's really scary is that not only is your take on my netname
really funny, but it's pretty accurate. I first started posting
way back last year because this really great Buddhist poster,
Ryuei, inspired me to give it a go.
They're all great, but my faves among your takes are: mundusmundi,
Coral Cat, spotjon, Slayrunt and Rendyl-- esp. inspired.
BTW, I always thought Masquerade was Lemonade's secret identity,
but whadda I know... certainly not any of the really juicy details.
I also thought Emcee003 was just trying to one-up Einstein, and
clearly stated before that Leora was just 'Lion in the Sun'.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Brilliant! These need to be added permanantly
to Masq's site somewhere... -- Solitude1056, 22:30:57 07/05/01
Thu
If you go look at the Not So Legendary Journeys fanfic site, my
favorite part of it is the bios of the writers. Some of them are
hilarious, and I was thinking of suggesting we have that on the
archives/fanfic site(s). Problem is that I couldn't think of a
single funny thing to say, let alone come up with a decent example.
(Yes, can you tell, it's dead at work this week with everyone
on vacation?) A'course, that was part of what got me thinking
about people's aliases...
Besides, I figured it was enough to encourage folks to start archiving
their own past threads... we could do the bios at a later date
for those who volunteer. Then again, I was also thinking of taking
various threads & comments from the boards & creating an archive
that's just "newcomers" or something. Kind of like what
Masq is talking about, but more just quotes from the board folks
themselves to newcomers, from advice to banter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Awww! Now I wish I'd made up a name! -- Mariebutnotforlongsothere!,
01:16:24 07/06/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Awww! Now I wish I'd made up a name!
-- Solitude1056, 06:17:10 07/06/01 Fri
Well, if you switch, let us know so we don't say to ourselves:
"gee, where did that Marie go? she just up & left one day!"
and read the new-name posts going, "oh, this one reminds
us soooo much of Marie... pity Marie's not here so we could introduce
them, they'd get along great!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Brilliant! These need to be added permanantly
to Masq's site somewhere... -- Masquerade, 09:44:57 07/06/01 Fri
OnM,
Actually I was thinking of adding it to a FAQ for the board--it
would have posting rules, board customs, board slang, and intros
to regular posters.
What do you think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> FAQ -- Solitude1056, 11:31:02 07/06/01 Fri
OnM: please put "ATLtS" and "ATLtR" on that
list - those had me confused for the longest time, until someone
spelled them out! :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Who's R? and why would all threads lead
to him/her? -- Masq, 15:08:16 07/06/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> uh... "Restless"? -- Solitude1056,
15:39:55 07/06/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> *Ack* shoulda known. Sssh
don't mention that word -- Masq, 16:39:58 07/06/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Cool! Would we get a little membercard w/ a
hologram & the words 'Thinking too much since (year)' ? -- OnM,
20:41:05 07/06/01 Fri
Please show us a sample page when you get a chance! Along with
the board slang & stuff could be a question/answer type of bio
for regulars, like:
1 > BtVS watcher since-- 2 > Hanging out at ATPo since--
3 > Origin of posting name 4 > Age / species / day-job 5
> Favorite philosopher 6 > Most memorable BtVS quote 7 >
TTMQ (Think Too Much Quotient, scale 1-10) 8 > Strangest thread
topic ever posted 9 > Coolest thread topic ever posted 10>
Why I love this board more than unlife itself
Just some ideas, please take or leave as needed!
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The Proust Questionnaire, a la ATPoBtVS!
ROFL!! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 17:48:05 07/07/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Something on the silly side... -- Rahael, 03:01:17 07/06/01
Fri
Thanks for that! very honoured to be included what with me being
such a new poster, and liable to go wildly off topic at all times!
My name is actually much more prosaic than it sounds.....its the
Tamil version of Rachel - and its my mother's middle name. But
she died when I was young, so I guess that thing about angels
is very close to my true feelings...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Something on the silly side... -- Scout, 05:35:03 07/06/01
Fri
Strangely enough, Scout really is my name. Good thing I wasn't
a boy or my father probably *would've* called me Boo Radley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Something on the silly side... -- Humanitas, 05:41:08
07/06/01 Fri
Hey! You - I - um - ...
OK, ya got me! :P :)
Very funny stuff, Sol! Thanks for making me laugh at myself, along
with everyone else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> how could you possibly know... -- Manoon, 05:53:26 07/06/01
Fri
that is precisely where the name Manoon comes from?!
methinks u r displaying a certain psychic awareness in your humour...
you need to get yourself a costume, and call yourself something
like "Psi-Sol Man"
hey, why doesn't Buffy have a costume? I can just see her now
in Wonder Woman-type threads :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: how could you possibly know... -- Solitude1056,
05:58:33 07/06/01 Fri
Woah! Dunno, most of them just came to me. I take no blame for
any 'genius' that showed up - I read y'll's posts and maybe something
sank in. (Hey, with a skull as thick as mine, that's worth commenting
on!)
;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> credit where credit due, Sol! -- Manoon, 06:18:12
07/06/01 Fri
you know, you should try writing for real. i've thought for a
while now that you should get together with some of the other
more frequent 'heavyweight' posters, and come up with original
stories of your own (completely un-Buffy related), with a view
to writing a brand new series. new characters, new heroes, villains,
new settings.. not FANFIC.
with your insights and your humour, you might surprise yourself
how well you could do!
(this time zone thing does my head in.. i was just thinking 'what
on earth is Sol doing posting in the middle of the night' but
of course, it's not anymore, is it! DOH!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> awww, shucks :) -- Solitude1056, 06:26:28
07/06/01 Fri
I used to write short fiction & some poetry, but I've finally
come to grips with either my secret Aries or my ADHD tendencies
& recognized that I do best on short short short and as for example,
short, stories. I'm flattered, but I'll stick to essays - my favorite
form of communication, and an art in itself IMNSHO - but collaborating
might be a fun thing to try... you volunteering? :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I'd love to, only -- Manoon, 06:34:27
07/06/01 Fri
the logistics kind of get in the way.. me fast asleep when u wide
awake, normally!
But then if other people up for it, I'd certainly like to be involved
in some form.
Mission - to create a new series (to rival Buffy!)
I would think that most of the people who contribute to this board
have some desires/fantasies about writing their own material,
but maybe a lack of confidence/motivation prevents them... a group
effort might be just the thing to inspire us all??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'd love to, only -- Liquidram,
07:42:17 07/06/01 Fri
I would totally be into this. I have been sketching out ideas
for ages now and have notes tossed aimlessly all over my desk
and crammed into various purses. Count me in!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'd love to, only
-- rowan, 15:08:26 07/06/01 Fri
I'm the queen of finished scenes that don't add up to a coherent
whole. I have a great bit on what happens to Dru in the end (which
also, as a matter of fact, is tied up with Spike finally realizing
that Buffy will never truly love him), and about a dozen other
vignettes, but I can never see the whole picture...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Vignettes -- Solitude1056,
14:13:30 07/07/01 Sat
Why not have a corner of the fanfic for "incomplete works"
or "vignettes," - the kind of moment-in-time short fiction
that's quick enough that even those of us with lives have the
time to write. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Vignettes
-- rowan, 19:09:51 07/07/01 Sat
That's a good idea. Perhaps someone who can really write (unlike
me) a coherent whole might like to make use of a vignette or two.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'd love to, only -- Little
One, 07:49:33 07/06/01 Fri
Count me in as well. I keep writing short stories but then my
interest peters out around the mark where it is too long for a
short story and too short for a novel. This sounds like just the
thing.
Hmmmm....desires/fantasies, huh? I take it there'll be cheek bones
and leather pants in our Collective Effort? ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Something on the silly side... -- mundusmundi, 07:24:33
07/06/01 Fri
"mundusmundi: tends to croon old Mommas & Papas songs at
the dentist's office, but translates them into latin first."
You're right on about the dentist's office -- been spending way
too much there lately, first with a root canal, followed by accidentally
chipping off my temporary filling -- but usually I just take to
screaming, which fortunately gets muffled over the drilling sounds.
(As for Latin, well, 'bout the only other words I know are in
vino veritas, but let's not go there. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Something on the silly side... -- Nina, 09:24:28
07/06/01 Fri
Yeah, right! :)
You got the German part covered! I learned it in school! But no
punk group in my house! :) I came with the name Nina by default.
It was the name of an unimportant character in a script I wrote.
The last charcater I wrote for before posting here in January.
Let's say that Nina has covered a lot more grounds here than in
my script! ;) (in which she wasn't a punk fan either!!!! :) :)
:)
Fun, fun, fun!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Lacking knowledge of Latin . . . -- Shaglio, 10:48:19
07/06/01 Fri
. . what does "in vino veritas" mean? I assume it
has something to do with wine? I only ask because I saw that in
someone's autosigniture in the Civilization Fanatic Forum Discussion
Board. That wasn't you was it?
P.S. I'm looking forward to Season 6! (Just thought I'd throw
that in there so my post would have some Buffy content).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Lacking knowledge of Latin . . . -- rowan,
10:58:55 07/06/01 Fri
In wine there is truth. Or in musical eps -- take your pick (see
spoilers above).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: "In wine there is truth...." --
mm (i.e., mundusmundi, history geek ;), 13:10:03 07/06/01 Fri
..I also know "Carthago delando est," or something
to that effect, which a Roman senator used to say at the end of
every meeting, meaning "Carthage must be destroyed."
And so they did.
There was also a "stupor mundi," the nickname of Frederick
II, a remarkable Holy Roman Empire during the Middle Ages(not
the later Prussian king) whose talents couldn't keep him from
getting embroiled in endless struggles with the Church and dying
a failed ruler on his island kingdom of Sicily. His nickname meant
"amazement of the world," which from the POV of most
Europeans wasn't really a compliment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Yep, you got that right -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 11:46:04
07/06/01 Fri
But maybe that's just what I want you to think. Maybe I'm an elderly
Dutch lady...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Yep, you got that right -- Solitude1056, 15:37:05
07/06/01 Fri
With comments like that, I'll start suspecting you're actually
Masq's hidden half. Hmmmm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Masq's Dutch??!! -- Wisewoman, 16:16:39 07/06/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Actually, yeah. Pennsylvania dutch. *snerk*
-- Masq, 17:58:24 07/07/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> So, lessee, you're a half-Canadian
Amish lady who uses Macs? -- OnM, 21:04:26 07/07/01 Sat
I sense a fanfic coming on! BtVS meets Witness...
"I'm so very sorry, sir, but I simply can't be Slaying any
demons at the moment, the cows need milking, and Amos is out helping
to raise a barn, so he'll be gone most all day, and I'll need
to watch over things at the vegetable stand."
"Uhh, what about tomorrow then? We might, uhh, get away with
that, since the apocalypse isn't due until Monday?"
She seems rather taken aback, and affixes him with a steely (but
not *too* steely, sort of a look up, look steely, look down kind
of) stare.
"Tomorrow's Sunday, good Watcher, and there are *no* Sunday
Slayings here!"
Rachael the Vampire Slayer turns and heads over towards the barn.
Chickens scatter as she approaches.
(Jonathan Zook, the Watcher, played by Harrison Ford, glumly leaves
the Chosen One to her chores, and walks back down the long dirt
farm lane out to the highway, and takes a train back to Philadelphia,
wondering *what on Earth* the PTB were thinking).
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> There's a vignette for ya...
I think. -- Solitude1056, 21:23:19 07/07/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So, lessee, you're a half-Canadian
Amish lady who uses Macs? -- Maskuraide, 21:52:37 07/07/01 Sat
No, not Amish. Just the great great grandaughter of a German man
name Jakob who lived in Pennsylvania. His son decided to seek
greener pastures in Nebraska, and then Jakob's grandson decided
to seek golden pastures in Los Angeles. That's my dad's side of
the tree.
Doncha just love hearing my own personal "Roots"?
Mom's side is all Canuks. That's why Mom just got back from vacationing
on Vancouver Island with her bro and is bringing me *kilos* of
Macintosh's Toffees. Which, BTW, have nuthin' to do with Apple
Computers. I eat the Macintosh's and work on the iMac.
Or is it the other way around?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh please, let's publish this
! ROFLMAO!!! -- Wisewoman, 12:02:49 07/08/01 Sun
It's so inspiring...I'm envisioning BtVS meets Working Girl, Joan
of Arc, Ripley, Sarah Conner, Private Benjamin, Erin Brockovitch,
etc, etc.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Something on the silly side... -- vampire hunter D,
13:05:49 07/06/01 Fri
Wow! I'm actually included. I didn't think anyone on this baord
noticed me. As for being into retro 80's, I can tell you that
I was out shopping today and was listening to Motley Crue and
Slayer in the car.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Something on the silly side... -- purplegrrl, 15:20:55
07/06/01 Fri
LOL!!!
Although I like Prince, I named myself for my favorite color.
By the way, I like the idea that Wiccagrrl is *my* evil twin!!
;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Something on the silly side... -- Coral Cat, 02:02:20
07/07/01 Sat
LOL! Well, it is night, and there's a cat on my living room floor,
and she's got peach spots (and black). That's it. You've nailed
me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Do you think enough lurkers have appeared... -- Solitude1056,
14:17:38 07/07/01 Sat
.. that it's time for part III? :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Oh, please, may we have some more......:):):):)
-- Rufus, 16:35:30 07/07/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Just so you know.... -- rowan, 19:12:17 07/07/01
Sat
I'm taking credit for all lurkers becoming posters (until someone
loses an eye after running with scissors, and then it's all Rufus's
fault). I feel it's the First Anniversary Party that's drawing
them out. Either that or the "going insane until the next
new ep of BtVS" factor.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> No, it isn't just the insanity... You're
definitely having an influence! -- OnM, 20:39:04 07/07/01 Sat
Reckon its because it's that vacation time o'year that things
have slowed down a lot this last week, but I'm sure things will
get hot'n'heavy again real soon after all the mad money runs out
and the newly sun-broiled ATPosters return to our midst. ;)
I'm sure there are still any number of potential de-lurkers waiting
in the wings. Was doing the same over at the C&S a while ago,
and saw a thread where AK-UK was trying to get sassette (a C&S regular
who posts very thoughtfully) to come visit us. She replied that
she does lurk here occasionally, but hasn't posted yet. Maybe
you can get her to do one of the remaining Anniversary Character
essays.
You out there sass? You are most welcome to become visible, I
like your stuff and I'm sure the other crazies here would also!
:)
P.S.-- I never run with scissors. I have the Evil Clone do that!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: No, it isn't just the insanity...
You're definitely having an influence! -- Rufus, 22:23:04 07/07/01
Sat
We could have scissor relay races.......the winner gets Canadian
Candy......:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Sassette, where are you? -- rowan,
07:41:47 07/08/01 Sun
Yes, I keep waiting for her to show up her, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sassette, where are you?
-- AK-UK, 18:13:25 07/08/01 Sun
I was talking to Sassette on BCAS yesterday. Had a lively debate
with a third poster about Spike, paying special attention to such
themes as egoism, abstract morality, predeterminism, and redemption.
Midway through debate I did ask why Sassette doesn't post here.
Apparently, she prefers to lurk.
Bad Sassette!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Well, get more to show up! Get on it,
girl. :-) -- Solitude1056, 21:21:13 07/07/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Silliness, Part Thirty-three & a Third: "This Time
It's Personal." -- Solitude1056, 20:04:45 07/08/01 Sun
Ok, for all the lurkers who are (finally) appearing, and those
who weren't in the last roll call...
Shaglio: "The landlord says I can't rip it up, but I figure
it goes with the lava lamps." John Burwood: real name, Herbert
Finkelstein. Lazarus: That's no excuse for being late for work.
cknight: the dark side of C++. marta: hello farta, here I am,
at camp grenarta... Victor Enfante: "Yes, I'm the crowned
& conquering child. You called?" darrenK: the cosmetic line
you've never heard of. Shiver: Frequently seen in company of Vishner
and Brahmer. dy: skip It, and just Do Yourself. Astar: but low
in nicotine! Lyra: the third Gershwin brother. Clueless: uh...
macadam: frankly, my dear... gds: "Yes, Pat, I'd like to
buy a vowel." SingedCat: Coral Cat, after making dinner.
Umbriel: debuted in that movie about Cherbourg. Halcyon: couldn't
afford prozac. Cleanthes: "Starched, or just pressed?"
Age: Is that Bronze or Iron? Tanker: You're welcome. thisbe: brought
to you by Whamm-O (TM). Javoher: Javoher? I hardly know her. Marie:
Real name, Nefaria DarkAmber. Deeva: I can hit that note in one,
uh, note. Cactus Watcher: Pointless. Brian: Last name, Damage.
Anom: used to be aeretS. Mindtrekker: Join the Army, sweep your
mindfield. vulpes: A little penicillin will clear that up. Mishka:
bear with me, I'll think of something. The Godfather: Give him
a pseudonym he can't refuse. change: "Gimme two quarters,
I'll give you three dimes." Wilder: Even crazier than Oscar.
Ok, folks, you take over from here: I'm named out! :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Shiver, Vishner and Brahmer! lol!! ;o) -- Wisewoman,
20:17:44 07/08/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Tee-hee-hee! -- Mariea.k.a.NDA(but why?), 02:06:50
07/09/01 Mon
Just back from a weekend in Wordsworth country to find so many
interesting posts! This is the one that's made my morning, though,
so thanks Solitude - the Lazarus one made me laugh out loud, and
I had to do some quick thinking for my boss's benefit!
And how did you know I love Amber?! You have cameras on us, don't
you? I always knew this board was too clever for our own good.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> NDA -- Solitude1056, 11:54:36 07/09/01 Mon
"No Discount Analysis"?
oh, wait, no, ok. I got it. (hehe.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Silliness, Part Thirty-three & a Third: "This
Time It's Personal." -- anom, 10:48:30 07/09/01 Mon
"Anom: used to be aeretS."
Huh? I don't get this one at all. Does it refer to someone who
stopped posting on this board before I started reading it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> There's a logic for everything. Really. Somewhere.
Ok, it was here a minute ago... -- Solitude1056, 11:44:42 07/09/01
Mon
Anom was a name that I stared at for awhile, but my housemate
nailed in 2 seconds... the meaning, though, requires being a little
brainwhacked to "get" it. (Well, that goes for many
of the more obscure and esoteric references, like the Crowned
& Conquering Child comment.) Anom, backwards, is a singular word.
Now go backwards with aeretS. Now think about it.
(Btw, if you got dy's meaning, then you're doing better than my
housemate - he had to take a few minutes to figure that one out.
So we're all even.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> OK, I got it-- and being who I am, shoulda
got it before. I am deeply shamed! ;) -- OnM, 20:53:50 07/09/01
Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> And I was guessing OnM would get
it - must be his day off. Hmm. Does he get those? -- Solitude1056,
21:24:00 07/09/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: There's a logic for everything. Really.
Somewhere. Ok, it was here a minute ago... -- anom, 21:13:49 07/09/01
Mon
Ah yes. A doubular word. It did take a bit of thinking about,
even w/the hint. Actually, I tried backwards the 1st time I saw
it, but my name's not Mona, so that didn't help.
I guess we are even, 'cause I had no problem figuring out dy.
(The capital letters helped.)
OK, I guess now it's time for the real story. Anom is short for
anomalous. As in my sometime tagline, "I prefer to remain
anomalous." I also have it on a button. (The buttonmaker
is a friend of mine; she sells 'em at sf conventions. Is it OK
if I post her website's URL on the list? What's the policy?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> No idea - ask Masq. -- Solitude1056,
21:34:57 07/09/01 Mon
Tho' if your friend does buttons for philosophers, like, oh, that
one OnM suggested ("Thinking too much since ____") -
that'd be especially cool. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> O.K. with me -- Masq, 09:03:58
07/10/01 Tue
But here's the official policy: Ahem. I'd prefer this board not
become a big haven of the evil capitalist military-industrial-entertainment
complex advertisement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> button website -- anom,
20:40:39 07/10/01 Tue
[if you just want to know the URL, scroll down to the end]
Sol: "Tho' if your friend does buttons for philosophers,
like, oh, that one OnM suggested ("Thinking too much since
____") - that'd be especially cool. :-)"
She does (not that one specifically, but you could custom order
it). One of my favorites is "Metaphysics 5¢ The philosopher
|is|" (The formatting doesn't come across in email. That
should be a cents sign after the 5, the 2 lines should be centered,
& "is" has a box around it, like "in" on the
sign "The doctor is |in|.") It looks a lot better on
the button.
Masq: "But here's the official policy: Ahem. I'd prefer this
board not become a big haven of the evil capitalist military-industrial-entertainment
complex advertisement."
That's Anom, not Ahem! Don't worry, Nancy is none of the above.
(I'm not at all surprised if several people reading this are now
thinking, "Oh, *Nancy's* buttons!") She has a small,
nay tiny, business--capitalist yes, evil no. It's not military
or industrial, though it is quite entertaining, & not all that
complex. Advertising is mostly word of mouth (or in this case,
word of mouse). Her website is at nancybuttons.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That was me clearing
my throat for an official pronouncement. *Ahem* -- Masq, 09:24:18
07/11/01 Wed
Or possibly channeling Farsi. I'm not sure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That
was me clearing my throat for an official pronouncement. *Ahem*
-- anom, 22:14:06 07/11/01 Wed
I knew that, I was joking! To quote Tweety Bird, "She don't
know me vewy weww, do she?" Y'see, I originated the "Master
of Pun Fu" button--you can tell because mine, unlike all
but one of the others, has the telltale black belt on it. (I gave
the other one to my Pun Fu sensei.)
The button site, btw, doesn't have all that many buttons directly
related to slayage, but like I said before, you can always order
custom ones.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Credits, Additions & Corrections -- Solitude1056, 09:17:44
07/09/01 Mon
Should've mentioned this before, but my housemate proved invaluable
on some of the name meanings. Probably should also mention that
my bizarre way of attaching meanings didn't start with you guys
- I first met my housemate a few years ago through an elist where
he was using the moniker "cor flammae," which I promptly
turned into "heartburn."
So take a look at the following, and let me know if they measure
up better than the first time around... hopefully some not quite
as obscure, and not quite as, uh, ambiguous (since I do like the
intelligent convos here, and don't want anyone misinterpreting
this teasing as being anything but complimentary in my usual INTP
way). Ah, the disclaimer again.
Jazz: Zip's younger sibling. dream of the consortium: 80's one-hit
goth band Victor Enfante: you'd be surprised how far a temper
tantrum can get you. Lady Starlight: The softer side of astrophysics.
dark poet: "I'll wear black til they come up with something
darker." Umbriel: The patron saint of parasol manufacturers.
Andy: slightly raggedy. Virgill Reality: sells condos in the ninth
circle of Microsoft. macadam: only 77% nut.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Brillant! My co-workers keep shushing my hysterics.
(N/T) ;p -- Wilder, 21:09:38 07/09/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Credits, Additions & Corrections -- LadyStarlight,
19:40:44 07/10/01 Tue
Aww, sniff, snurfle.
Memo to self: read to the END of posts before replying.
I take back the Phhbbtts and send cyber-chocolate kisses.
(except I failed the one Physics course I took in high school.
I really think the only reason I passed was the teacher kept looking
down my shirt.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hey, at least you passed. -- Solitude1056, 20:19:57
07/10/01 Tue
I failed physics utterly - I was too busy cracking jokes under
my breath. Not that you'd ever guess that, would ya. Nawww. :-)
spoilers for Buffy S6? -- Deeva,
16:44:39 07/05/01 Thu
Has anyone been to Harry's site yet and seen hte possible spoilers
there? I read them and some of it sounds plausible. Here's the
link to it.
http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=9473
Deeva
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: spoilers for Buffy S6? -- AK-UK, 20:21:28 07/05/01 Thu
I have a really hard time believing any of it. Well, that's not
quite true. I believe that someone has took information that already
exists about season 6 (Giles becoming a recurring character, Emma
Caulfield having to shoot scenes as Anyanka) and used it to provide
foundation for some wild theories of their own. One of the posters
at AICN points out 8 or 9 problems with these spoilers, all of
which I agree with. I'll be charitable and say that someone has
fallen for a bit of disinfo spread by Joss and Co.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: spoilers for Buffy S6? -- Manoon, 00:53:20 07/06/01
Fri
I have mentioned various times the telephone number advertising
the next Buffy season here in the UK (on Channel 5 teletext AK),
and have always resisted cos a) i'm not sure i would believe what
is predicted and b) i hate the idea of having to pay premium rates
(i know, i know, I'm a tight git!)
but the interesting thing at the moment is the headline for this
number states somethng like "new slayer to rival Buffy"...
he wouldn't... would he???
chew on that one, guys!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: spoilers for Buffy S6? -- AK-UK, 05:52:35
07/06/01 Fri
Manoon, you don't need to ring that number. You just need to go
to the BCAS site: I guarantee you that some weak willed poster
will have rung that number and posted the info there :)
Aren't those C5 lines a bit of a fiddle anyway? They tend to just
recycle information on the latest US episodes, rather than give
out real scoops.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> reckon so -- Manoon, 05:57:36 07/06/01
Fri
they prob are a fiddle ALTHOUGH
I used to check out the headlines on the adverts each week just
to see what was going to happen in the sunsequent episode.. it
was obviously based on episodes already released in the States.
Which makes me wonder whether there MIGHT possibly be some truth
in the pre-season adverts... dunno
(By way, I'm bit thick today, what you mean by BCAS site?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: reckon so -- AK-UK, 06:14:06
07/06/01 Fri
Buffy Cross And Stake. Not a bad site, although the B/A S/B shipper
fights can get a bit tiresome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: reckon so -- Manoon, 06:24:02
07/06/01 Fri
I'll definitely check it out just for curiousity value
thanks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spoilers for season
6 -- Brian, 08:57:00 07/06/01 Fri
I have a hard time accepting these spoilers. I guess I expect
more from Joss & Co. I want them to "up the stakes"
like they have done for the past five seasons, to move towards
the final episodes in season 7 to knock my socks off, and leave
a lasting impression that won't fade until "Fray" actually
happens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> UK spoiler line
info is up on BCAS -- AK-UK, 14:08:27 07/06/01 Fri
You see, patience is the key.
And, suprisingly enough, they sound an awful lot like the AICN
spoilers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I thought
Dawn was the key... :-) -- Scout, 14:37:41 07/06/01 Fri
I just felt the irrational need to throw an ellipsis in there...
OT here, though, for Sky One viewers in the UK, have any of you
had truly, sucky, words-fail-me problems with your sound lately?
I have, especially on Sky channels (plus the History channel,
Paramount & others) but I'm having trouble discovering the fault.
The good people on the Sky helpline are being less-than-helpful.
If any of you are having the same problems (or even if you're
not), I'd appreciate feedback from you.
Sorry about clogging up board time about this, but it's driving
me nuts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
I thought Dawn was the key... :-) -- verdantheart, 07:52:20 07/09/01
Mon
Don't know if this applies, but this is a really bad season for
sunspots, which has made reception of digital channels via satellite
difficult for me lately.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Patience?
Is she related to Faith? (NT) -- anom, 21:45:33 07/10/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Stupid spoiler -- vampire hunter D, 12:57:48 07/06/01 Fri
That is one of the dumbest spoiers I've ever seen. Not only is
this too amaturish to have come from Joss, but there are some
points of logic that would make this scenario fall flat on its
face. 1. Buffy's dead. They had a funeral and have a headstone
marking her grave. So why have the Buffybot pretend to be Buffy
if everyone knows she's dead? 2.No court would givve guardianship
of a minor to a lesbian couple, especially ones who don't have
jobs (If anyone in the group would get Dawn, it would be Xander
and Anya. They're engaged and both have steady employment). 3.After
what happened in "forever" I don't see willow reviving
Buffy, if for no othr reson than that Tara would stop her
And these are just the problems I found. Some guy on AICN had
a top ten list.
As for the other episodes, some of that stuff sounds believable.
Not all of it, but some. I could see Buffy's house falling apart
as the basis for humor in one episode. And Dawn out joyriding
on Halloween would be interesting (you can't convince me that
we've seen the last of Dawn's rebellious streak). But, as I swore
I'd do in a previous post, I hace saved this, and will post it
when we have the spoilers edition of the Anniversery Posting PArty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Stupid spoiler -- mundusmundi, 13:42:36 07/06/01
Fri
"If anyone in the group would get Dawn, it would be Xander
and Anya. They're engaged and both have steady employment)."
Frankly, I can't even see them gaining custody. Can you imagine
the interview? Xander nervously telling one lame joke after another,
and Anya saying, "Why, yes! I love Dawn. But not as much
I love money, which can be used in a capitalist system for goods
and services."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Spoilers -- rowan, 14:59:35 07/06/01 Fri
I found these spoilers depressing, more than anything. A few of
my own thoughts...
1. The whole custody issue is sticky. None of the SG are good
candidates (in the eyes of the bureaucracy) because of singlehood,
sexuality, and/or economic status. Joss also said after The Gift
that he wanted to avoid the whole Hank & custody-messiness issue.
Using the Buffybot to impersonate Buffy to keep the authorities
away could be the way to do it. Plus, how long would they expect
to keep up the charade? Maybe it's just a cover-up while they
try to find Hank. However, it's hard for me to imagine that any
of the SG could tolerate being around the BuffyBot after Buffy's
death. That would be a big obstacle to the truth value of this
spoiler.
2. The Buffy/Spike ship spoilers are a little hard to swallow,
too. Joss has revealed that the musical ep demonstrates what it's
like to live in a world where people burst into song at the drop
of a hat -- perhaps revealing what conversation normally would
hide. So I can believe quite easily that Buffy might reveal some
heretofore hidden feelings about Spike. The whole kiss thing sounds
a little too "early" for me. It would be a very quick
turnaround on Buffy's part.
3. Willow raising Buffy from the dead depresses me the most. I
guess the whole concept that the SG would negate Buffy's sacrifice
by bringing her back (and thereby overriding her free choice of
death) just seems wrong. Personally, I'm hoping this isn't true.
4. Willow using magic to "influence" Tara and then realizing
consequences feels right to me. One of the traditional "magickal
no-nos" is using magic on other people and thereby interfering
with their free will.
5. Xander jilting Anya is going to require a big turn on Xander's
part after the "long silly life with you" speech (which
was touching). I guess it's possible and EC has let slip a couple
things about having to wear the demony contact lens...this is
another spoiler that bothers me on a personal level. If they made
the committment to get them engaged, then leave them alone so
they can get married and live happily ever after. However, Xander
may have a few unresolved issues regarding Anya's ex-demonness,
since the SG never really seems to equate her situation with Spike's.
Maybe the lack of remorse stuff will be at the root of Xander's
problem...that could work.
6. Rumors have been running rampant about Jonathan's return. Seems
right that he'd get sucked into a bad crowd.
7. Off camera crossovers just seem cheesy to me.
Well, it's early -- it will be interesting to see what Wanda comes
up with after her visit to the set.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spoilers -- Solitude1056, 15:51:54
07/06/01 Fri
Somewhere I read that since Marti Noxon's going to have more control
this upcoming year, we're going to probably see Jonathan back.
Why? What's the deal behind that? Jonathan served his purpose
as the Faceless Everyman of High School (which Xander also provided,
until about the Zeppo) - but sheesh. Again? If he added anything
to the cast, Joss would've kept him around for more than just
a few random episodes, he would've found a way to work him in
like he has with other characters who originally were only 3-episode
appearances (Tara and Cordy come to mind).
If anyone's got any clue, would love to hear it...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re Jonathan -- mundusmundi, 06:19:35
07/07/01 Sat
Marti may just be overly fond of the character, but it may also
fall in with Joss's whole M.O. about never forgetting a character
or situation, however small, and bringing them back from time
to time. Which is why a one-or-two-ep Riley return also seems
a likely bet to me, probably the second half of the season, where
he has a more likely chance of blowing a gasket over Lord knows
what Buffy/Spike are doing by then.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> A logical possibility? -- Liquidram, 15:55:59
07/06/01 Fri
The only way I have been able to imagine this happening is that
Willow and Tara may be able to cast a spell that turns back time
(while also allowing Dawn, Spike and the SG to retain their memories
of that night), therefore allowing Spike to knock Doc off the
platform before he cuts Dawn. I think that the only reason Doc
was able to best Spike was because Dawn had screamed out his name,
warning Doc that he was there. If Spike had the luxury of a surprise
attack, he may have been able to to strike first and get Dawn
off the platform before Buffy arrived.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> or even... -- anom, 21:34:39 07/10/01
Tue
Willow could have told Buffy where Dawn was, & she could have
gone up & freed her while ro-Buffy kept Glory busy. (& then they
could've told Buffy it was Willow's witchly powers that found
Dawn, although we know how lousy the gang is at keeping secrets,
especially big awkward very personal ones.)
In fact, I've wondered why this didn't happen in the actual episode--there
was certainly enough commotion below that Dawn could've heard
it & screamed for Buffy before Glory knocked ro-Buffy's block
off. I know, it had to go the way the plot called for, but Joss
& co. are usually better about providing reasons for it to go
that way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Bogus internet rumors? Get out! ;) --
mundusmundi, 13:15:14 07/07/01 Sat
"I found these spoilers depressing, more than anything."
Personally, I found them hilarious, a mix of truth, half-truths,
and utter ludicrousness. Looks like Joss is once again filtering
out a grain of truth in a pack of lies, with the less discerning
unable to tell the difference.
"1. The whole custody issue is sticky. None of the SG are
good candidates (in the eyes of the bureaucracy) because of singlehood,
sexuality, and/or economic status. Joss also said after The Gift
that he wanted to avoid the whole Hank & custody-messiness issue.
Using the Buffybot to impersonate Buffy to keep the authorities
away could be the way to do it. Plus, how long would they expect
to keep up the charade? Maybe it's just a cover-up while they
try to find Hank. However, it's hard for me to imagine that any
of the SG could tolerate being around the BuffyBot after Buffy's
death. That would be a big obstacle to the truth value of this
spoiler."
This may be one of the most intriguing of all the expected developments
(and not just b/c Dawn's my character on the anniversary post
;). I see no way for any of the SG to legally gain custody of
Dawn; and unless Joss intends to make some half-baked "A.I."-ish
point, the notion of using the Buffybot seems a tad...creepy,
to say nothing of the logistics involved. The only remaining possibilities,
then, seem to be A) Dawn's in an orphanage; B) Dawn's in a foster
home; or C) Hank comes to Sunnydale. Yeah, Joss has pooh-poohed
Hank's return, but he's lied before, and there seemed an awful
lot of foreshadowing last season that would go to waste. Still,
this one's a tricker.
"2. The Buffy/Spike ship spoilers are a little hard to swallow,
too. Joss has revealed that the musical ep demonstrates what it's
like to live in a world where people burst into song at the drop
of a hat -- perhaps revealing what conversation normally would
hide. So I can believe quite easily that Buffy might reveal some
heretofore hidden feelings about Spike. The whole kiss thing sounds
a little too "early" for me. It would be a very quick
turnaround on Buffy's part."
Agreed. Kiss/schmiss. November sounds premature. Maybe February,
if ever.
"3. Willow raising Buffy from the dead depresses me the most.
I guess the whole concept that the SG would negate Buffy's sacrifice
by bringing her back (and thereby overriding her free choice of
death) just seems wrong. Personally, I'm hoping this isn't true."
It would definitely be upsetting, but it's not out of the realm
of possibility. Willow was the most open to helping Dawn raise
Joyce in "Forever," and we didn't see her learning anything
from the experience, as Dawn and Buffy did. Negating Buffy's sacrifice
may be wrong from an ethical standpoint, but not necessarily from
a dramatic standpoint. Joss likes to upset people and he isn't
afraid to make his characters unlikable now and then. Still, we
are talking Buffy: Resurrection here, and nobody wants that.
My hunch, though, is that the Willow angle is a red herring, along
with most everything else reeled in so far.
Apt quote from Claude Rains's character in Lawrence of Arabia:
"If we've told lies, you've told half-lies. And a person
who tells lies, like myself, merely hides the truth. While a person
who tells half-lies, has forgotten where he put it."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Naive (?) and delurking -- Dariel,
17:32:45 07/07/01 Sat
Finally delurking here after reading this wonderful board for
a couple of months. . .
I' m curious here--Joss and gang really circulate rumours to keep
us off the track?! How do they do that--post things on various
boards under fake names?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Naive (?) and delurking
-- Rufus, 17:56:29 07/07/01 Sat
Welcome to the board...........writers or staff posting under
assumed names.....pretty much how I'd do it to keep everyone off
track, or at least confused.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> assumed names & red
herrings -- wilder, 20:51:46 07/09/01 Mon
"Welcome to the board...........writers or staff posting
under assumed names.....pretty much how I'd do it to keep everyone
off track, or at least confused."
Which just makes me wonder if any of them have been posting here.
Def. by now, Whedon & Co. would have gotten wind of this unusual
and most thoughtful board.
It's like a classic murder mystery : " One of you in this
chat room is really .... Joss!" The rest mumble ahh, it all
makes sense now, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> ROFL! you nailed Xander & Anya, totally! --
Solitude1056, 15:34:39 07/06/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Stupid spoiler -- Malandanza, 21:22:50 07/07/01
Sat
"Frankly, I can't even see [Xander and Anya] gaining custody.
Can you imagine the interview? Xander nervously telling one lame
joke after another, and Anya saying, 'why, yes! I love Dawn. But
not as much I love money, which can be used in a capitalist system
for goods and services.' "
I think you are being too hard on Xander -- we have seen him as
Xander Suave and he is the most mature of the Scoobies. He might
be able to pass the interview -- even with Anya making the occasional
odd remark. However, I doubt they could get custody as a merely
engaged couple. Perhaps they could start the season off with a
marriage -- but even then, there would be a long bureaucratic
process before Xander and Anya would be approved as foster parents,
let alone being allowed to adopt (even in California, the state
authorities will not give teen-age girls to anyone who asks for
one). Also, Hank is alive. No one should be able to get custody
of Dawn without either his permission, or the courts first determining
him to be unfit. Either way, we would need a return of Hank.
Perhaps a way around this problem would be to make Hank truly
unfeeling. So callous that he is eager to get rid of his youngest
daughter by any means available -- so he could give custody to
Xander and Anya, making them her legal guardians, without involving
Child Protective Services.
Less appealing routes might be to have the Watcher's intervene
and flex their bureaucratic muscle (but, honestly, why would they
care? Buffy is dead). Or to have Willow cast a spell to insure
that whoever wants Dawn, will get her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> or.... -- Liquidram, 22:43:49 07/07/01
Sat
"Perhaps a way around this problem would be to make Hank
truly unfeeling. "
A spell could be performed to erase his implanted memories of
her being his daughter....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: or.... -- anom, 18:57:22 07/08/01
Sun
"'Perhaps a way around this problem would be to make Hank
truly unfeeling.' A spell could be performed to erase his implanted
memories of her being his daughter...."
Assuming he has them. I've been wondering if there might be limits
to the "reach" of the monks' spell. If it's powerful
enough to turn energy into a human being, with all the biological/emotional
complexity we have, maybe it can remain in effect throughout the
world for the rest of time, or at least Dawn's natural (I hope)
lifetime. But maybe not. What if people outside...Sunnydale? California?
USA? Some unspecified radius?...aren't subject to the spell? Hank
Summers wouldn't even know he had another daughter. Would the
memories associated w/Dawn snap into place once he "crossed
the border"? Would they remain in place if he left? We know
Dawn remembers Angel, but is the vice versa true? There's been
no indication one way or the other on his show that I can think
of. It could be pretty interesting to have Hank think--know--he'd
lost his entire family & then trying to be there for Dawn, as
if it'd always been that way. Or maybe the memories wouldn't snap
in. How awful would it be for him to show up, mourning for Buffy
& Joyce, & not even recognize Dawn. Actually, I hope Joss & co.
wouldn't do that to her....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> On a swingset. Spike and Giles
will watch Dawn (long, sorry) -- darrenK, 22:19:46 07/08/01 Sun
All of the speculation about the spell that created Dawn is interesting,
but these monks were way too thorough to think that they left
Hank, or even Angel, out of the spell.
In Blood Ties, Dawn talks about the summer that her and Buffy
visited Hank and walked on the beach picking up shells.
In Weight of the World, Joyce and Hank come home from the hospital.
My suspicion is that if Dawn and Buffy share memories of Hank,
that the monks took care to give Hank the same memories. It'd
be unlike them for that not to have happened.
The only indication that the spell wasn't seamless is that moment
at the end of the Dracula episode when we see Dawn for the first
time. Buffy seems to be just as startled as we are. And I've always
wondered if that was the moment the spell hit?
More importantly, whoever made that statement about the Watchers
Council pulling bureaucratic strings for Dawn brings up a good
point. Rarely on Buffy do the writers go to great lengths to make
a point without following it up. Just tonight, watching the Replacement
they suggested that the other Xander could be a "robot"
no less than three times. The first time it aired we, the audience,
had no less than 4 months to wait to find out that they were foreshadowing
I Was Made To Love You and Intervention.
I think the Watcher's council would be more than obliged to pull
the strings to make sure that Giles was named as Dawn's guardian.
The council might have seemed adversarial towards Buffy, but she
was still their Slayer and she never shirked her duty. She died
ridding the world of Glory and the council has to be grateful.
Protecting Dawn would be a matter of not only pride, but a way
to assure that the Key doesn't fall into the wrong hands.
But what will they pull strings to do? They will make sure that
Giles is her legal guardian. Whether he likes it or not, Giles
will allow Spike to live with him and Dawn as well.
Why do I think this?
More foreshadowing. In the Gift Giles tells Buffy that "he
loves Dawn, but he's sworn to protect this lousy world."
In I was Made to Love You, Giles tells Buffy that Dawn is too
old for a babysitter and "the situation has to be changed."
This of course sets up the funny, touching premise that situation
does get changed with Giles as Dawn's seemingly permanant babysitter.
Along with the foreshadowing, there is also the emotional logic
of it. Giles will be filled with remorse at Buffy's death. He
was responsible for Buffy as her watcher. He pushed her to kill
Dawn out of necessity. She killed herself instead. His guilt will
lead him to put his responsibility for Buffy onto Dawn. Dawn is
also still the KEY and though Glory is dead, there has got to
be some evil purpose the key can be put towards. Giles will feel
responsible for protecting it.
He'll probably also feel some responsibility to Joyce's memory
and, of course, he's the only real adult in sight.
As for additional foreshadowing there is plenty. Spike swore to
protect Dawn "until the end of the world." in the Gift.
He's already demonstrated a serious love for Dawn.
But most importantly, there was that scene in Restless: Giles
and Spike, both in the suits of Watchers swinging on a swingset
together. Why were both dressed as Watchers? Because both had
sworn the same oath? Why on a swingset? Because they were to be
responsible for a child. Remember in Blood Ties when Dawn passes
the swingset and remembers Buffy pushing her on it? That was no
frivolous memory. It was a direct reference to Restless meant
to associate Dawn with the swingset that Spike and Giles were
swinging on.
So, Giles and Spike both love Dawn and both have either sworn
to protect her or the world, and of course she's still the Key,
so protecting her is protecting the world.
No one else was asked to swear anything. And no one else did.
Spike and Giles will watch Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: On a swingset. Spike
and Giles will watch Dawn (long, sorry) -- mundusmundi, 04:56:35
07/09/01 Mon
I like your theories, and picking up on all the foreshadowing
is very astute.
The only kink I see in this is...Giles is leaving, at least part
time. And his feelings of responsibility for Dawn wouldn't jibe
with his going back and forth to England all the time. One possible
way out of this would be to have him looking out for Dawn until
Buffy's unexpected return. Then, seeing no need to hang around
anymore, he leaves. (Of course there's still the problem of *how*
he would gain custody of Dawn, which isn't possible outside of
some major trickery.)
In "Restless," wasn't the Giles/Spike scene on the swingset
from Xander's dream? I don't see all the dreams as being prophetic;
only Buffy gets the occasional prophecy. For me, that scene was
a sign of Xander's insecurity at the time, his fears of getting
passed over and left behind. (And if it were a prophecy, why tell
Xander, if he has nothing to do with it?)
As far as the writers telling viewers something about Giles and
Spike in that scene -- and the one in "Blood Ties" --
I'm with you there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: On a swingset.
Spike and Giles will watch Dawn (long, sorry) -- Cynthia, 05:34:45
07/09/01 Mon
"In "Restless," wasn't the Giles/Spike scene on
the swingset from Xander's dream? I don't see all the dreams as
being prophetic; only Buffy gets the occasional prophecy. For
me, that scene was a sign of Xander's insecurity at the time,
his fears of getting passed over and left behind. (And if it were
a prophecy, why tell Xander, if he has nothing to do with it?)"
In addition to your points about Xander, perhaps he was fearful
of being replaced by Spike, especially in regard to Giles. I believe
that even more so than Buffy (whose father although currently
absent seems to have been an active father in her childhood),
Xander looks upon Giles as a father figure. Xander's father although
physically there is a awful father due to his addiction. Xander
admires Giles, perhaps wants to be somewhat like him. The smart,
learned, resourceful one that people come to for information and
advice. A brainy heroic guy. Especially since fighting is not
Xander's strong point.
Spike becoming a watcher and getting alot of Giles attention because
of it could mean for Xander that Spike may be looked upon favorably
by Giles. He knows that Spike is more experienced than him, more
secure (well, as least on the surface) with himself and is probably
perceived as smarter too. Ten years from now, Xander wouldn't
be this insecure, but at the moment he is still finding himself.
As for the dream being prophecy. It could be. Xander may have
been chosen for the dream as a revealing of a truth that he may
have already unconciously known before anyone else had.
If Spike does become a watcher to Dawn and/or Buffy it should
be interesting to see who in the group brings it up for discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: On a swingset.
Spike and Giles will watch Dawn (long, sorry) -- darrenK, 07:02:47
07/09/01 Mon
While you're right it is technically Xander's dream, Restless
takes place after the core Scoobys have joined together in Primeval
to augment the power of the Slayer.
The prophetic dreams of Restless are a consequence of this joining.
And though it isn't typical for Xander or Giles and Willow to
have prophetic dreams, in this case it is possible because prescient
awareness is a power of the Slayer to whom they have so recently
joined.
I believe the real clue to this is the Cheese Man. Joss has declared
that he has no symbolic value and he doesn't, but this seemingly
random non-sequitur does appear in each dream. Such a thing wouldn't
happen if their minds weren't still linked on some level. So that
they are able to share imagination as well as prophecy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: On a
swingset. Spike and Giles will watch Dawn (long, sorry) -- mundusmundi,
15:21:09 07/09/01 Mon
"While you're right it is technically Xander's dream, Restless
takes place after the core Scoobys have joined together in Primeval
to augment the power of the Slayer."
Interesting point. But the question remains: Why reveal it to
Xander? Though the Fab Four were joined and obviously shared some
of their subconscious states (good call on the Cheese Man), each
dream was still pretty specifically tailored to each person. Do
you or does anyone else remember what Spike told Giles during
his dream, when he was getting photographed in B&W? (And,
has anyone wondered what Spike's dream might have been like, had
he been a part of "Restless?")
Fascinating discussion. You've made me want to see the ep again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: spoilers for Buffy S6? -- Andy, 17:33:12 07/07/01 Sat
To paraphrase an old friend of mine, these spoilers "smell
like butt." I didn't think it was possible, but these are
actually even more fannish than the "everyone who's ever
been on the show comes together for an EPIC BATTLE^TM VERSUS GLORY~!!!"
that was rumored to be the finale this past season. That didn't
happen at all and I agree with the others who are saying that
these spoilers are unlikely.
Oh well. Back to vacation for me :)
1st
Anniversary Posting Party: Angel -- spotjon, 22:25:22 07/05/01
Thu
The Many Lives of Angel
"Vampire living in a city known for its sun, driving a convertible...
Why do you hate yourself?" - Faux T'ish Magev
"That's who you were, not who you are. You don't know who
you are anymore. You can't." - Teddy, Memento
Why does Angel hate himself so much? Low self-esteem? Guilt strickenness?
Broken heart? Perhaps a little of all of these make up what Angel
is today. Let's take a look at Angel's life and death and undeath
to try and get a comprehensive view of who he is.
"Liam, Beloved Son 1727-1753"
The vampire with a soul that we now know as Angel was born as
Liam in 1727, to a fairly well-to-do family in Ireland. For whatever
reasons, Liam was a rowdy, unmotivated, thrill-seeking, lazy boy.
His father was never extremely abusive, though he never failed
to express his disapproval towards his son's actions and attitudes.
Liam's father: "Up again all night, is it? Drinking and whoring.
I smell the stink of it on you." Liam picks himself up: "And
a good morning to you, father." Father: "You're a disgrace."
Liam: "If you say so, father." Father: "Oh, I do.
I do say so. Have you not had enough debauchery for one night?
Must you corrupt the servants as well?" Liam: "Servant,
father. We have *one* servant. Anyway, - everyone gets corrupted,
- but I find some forms of corruption - are more pleasant..."
His father hits Angel hard across the face, making him spin around.
Father: "I am ashamed to call you my son. You're a lay-about
and a scoundrel and you'll never amount to anything more than
that." - The Prodigal Driven by his father's disapproval,
Liam fell deeper and deeper into the bottle, living a life of
drunkenness and whoremongering. After so long of failing to receive
any sort of love from his father, perhaps Liam simply gave up
trying, and decided to go all the way.
Liam: "You'll want to move away from the door now, father."
Father: "Go through it, but don't ever expect to come back."
Liam: "As you wish, father. Always, *just* as you wish."
Father: "It's a son I wished for - a man - instead God gave
me you! A terrible disappointment." Liam: "Disappointment?
A more dutiful son you couldn't have asked for. My whole life
you've told me in word, in glance, what it is you required of
me, and I've lived down to your every expectations, now haven't
I?" Father: "That's madness!" Liam: "No. The
madness is that I couldn't fail enough for you. But we'll fix
that now, won't we?" Father: "I fear for you, lad."
Liam: "And is that the only thing you can find in your heart
for me now, father?" Father: "Who'll take you in, huh?
No one!" Liam: "I'll not lack for a place to sleep,
I can tell you that. Out of my way." Father: "I was
never in your way, boy." Liam opens the door and storms out.
Father: "If you'll go courting trouble, you're sure to find
it!" - The Prodigal Liam does indeed find trouble at the
fangs of Darla, a seductive woman he eyes at the local tavern.
Thinking perhaps that he will indeed have a place to sleep tonight,
he follows the blond beauty into an alley behind the tavern. He
uses the best line he can think of, given his drunken stupor.
Liam: So, I'd ask myself... What's a lady of your station doing
alone in an alley with the reputation that this one has? Darla:
(still facing away) Maybe she's lonely. Liam: In that case, I'd
offer myself as escort to protect you from harm and to while away
the dull hours. Darla: You're very gracious. Liam: Hmm. It's often
been said. Darla: (turns to face him) Are you certain you're up
to the challenge? Liam: (approaches her) Milady, you'll find that
with the exception of an honest day's work, there's no challenge
I'm not prepared to face. He stops in front of her and looks into
her eyes. Liam: Oh... But you're a pretty thing. Where are you
from? Darla: (smiles) Around. Everywhere. Liam: I never been anywhere
myself. Always wanted to see the world, but... Darla: I could
show you. (smiles) Liam: Could you, then? Darla: Things you've
never seen, never even heard of. Liam: Sounds exciting. Darla:
It is. And frightening. Liam: I'm not afraid. Show me. Show me
your world. Darla: (closes her eyes) Close your eyes. - Becoming,
Part 1 Munch.
"There's mention some two hundred years ago in Ireland of,
of Angelus, the one with the angelic face."
"She thought I returned to her - an angel."
A hand breaks through the earth in the graveyard, and a man-like
figure climbs out from the ground into the starry night. A fair
and frail-looking woman awaits him beside his grave. A new sensation
fills the dead man, newly arisen.
Angelus: "I could feel them - above me - as I slept in the
earth. Their heartbeats - their blood - coursing - through their
veins." Darla smiles: "Yes." Angelus: "Was
it a dream?" Darla: "A dream for you. Soon, their nightmare."
- The Prodigal As a hapless groundskeeper disturbs their conversation,
he finds himself as the first human meal this undead man-like
creature consumes. This new sensation fills the creature with
a thirst and desire for more.
Darla: "You can do anything, have anyone in the village.
Who will it be?" Angelus: "Any one? (Darla nods) I thought
I'd take the village." - The Prodigal For 143 years, Angelus
and Darla cut a swath through Europe, killing not with simple
hunger, but with great pleasure and skill. Angelus takes great
joy in distilling despair in his victims before they die. Why
does Angelus become such a sadist? Is it because, in the face
of every victim, he sees somebody who hated him or whom he hated
in life? Perhaps it is.
Darla: "Your victory over him took but moments." Angel
looks over at the body of his father and gets up: "Yes?"
Darla: "But his defeat of you will last life times."
Angelus: "What are you talking about? He can't defeat me
now." Darla: "Nor can he ever approve of you - in this
world or any other. - What we once were informs all that we have
become. (Angelus looks at his father's body) The same love will
infect our hearts - even if they no longer beat. (Angelus looks
at his mother's and his sister's body) Simple death won't change
that." - The Prodigal Maybe this psychoanalysis of Angelus'
motives is too simplistic, though. He was not driven only by his
hatred of others, but also by his desire to seek a new thrill,
and a disdain for authority. He refused to join the Order of Aurelius
when given the opportunity, instead opting for a "life"
of freedom to kill and have luxury. He's not quite ready to let
go of all those billions of happy meals with legs.
Angelus: "This is no place for you - bound to the likes of
him." - Darla For whatever reason, Angel was one of the most
feared vampires of his era, until one night when Darla gave him
a little present in the form of a gypsy girl. The family does
not take kindly to the death of their daughter, so the clan finds
the perfect curse for the vampire with the Angelic face - a soul.
"You got a real addiction to the brooding part of life. Anyone
ever tell you that?"
Gypsy Man: It hurts, yes? Good. It will hurt more. Angel: (confused)
Where am I? (pants hard) Gypsy Man: You don't remember... everything
you've done for a hundred years. In a moment, you will. The face
of everyone you killed... our daughter's face... they will haunt
you, and you will know what true suffering is. - Becoming, Part
1 Suddenly, Angelus is left with no place in the world. He is
wracked with guilt over his past sins, so he cannot go back to
his past life, though he tries.
Darla: "What do you want?" Angel: "A second chance."
Darla: "What?" Angel: "I want things to be like
they were. - You and me - together - Darla. - I miss the view."
Darla shakes her head, still with her back to him: "That's
impossible." Angel: "It's not impossible." Darla:
"You still have a soul." Angel: "I'm still a vampire."
- Darla This desperate attempt to find a meaning in death ultimately
ends in failure.
Angel looks down at the baby in the basket. Darla: "What
do you mean you can't? You won't!" Angel: "I can't seem
to be able to uhm, I'm sorry." Darla shakes her head ever
so slightly: "You disgust me." Angel grabs the baby
and runs out on Darla, crashing through some glass doors. - Darla
Angel spends the next 96 years in the Americas, wandering without
a purpose or goal. He cannot eat humans anymore, though he doesn't
have much sympathy for them, either. Finally, in 1996, a friendly
demon known as Whistler finds Angel living in filth, and offers
him the opportunity to make something of himself. Whistler takes
Angel to Sunnydale, where he witnesses Buffy's call to be a Slayer.
In this mission, Angel finds a new meaning in life, and somebody
other than himself to live for
Angel: I wanna help her. (Whistler looks at him) I want... I wanna
become someone. - Becoming, Part 1 Angel has always been selfish,
in his mortal life as well as his afterlife. He's tired of it.
He doesn't want to be a nobody that people laugh at behind their
backs, anymore. He has the opportunity to grow and become. And
he does. He helps Buffy, falls in love with her, and becomes a
real man, if only for one brief moment.
"One moment of true happiness, of contentment, one moment
where the soul that we restored no longer plagues his thoughts,
and that soul is taken from him."
Rule number one: don't boink the undead. Angel loses his soul
and the demon asserts itself with great intensity. Angelus lashes
out at the ones who would be his friends, and the one he loved,
and perhaps still does. He no longer cares about the world he
once defended against the Master, and instead decides to finish
what the Master started. Angelus is plagued, not with a conscience,
but with a memory of love and hate, and he cannot take it anymore.
Destroying the world is much easier than trying to live in it.
Unfortunately, Spike takes Angelus' old position concerning the
fate of the world, and manages to help Buffy stop Angelus before
the whole world is doomed to do math homework forever.
Too bad Willow found an inopportune time to save Angel's soul.
"Lasa orbita sa fie vasul care-I va transporta sufletul la
el!"
The restored Angel is sucked into hell for 300 years of torment.
And then, one day in hell, a small portal opens up, allowing the
vampire with a soul passage back to earth. He is found and tended
to by Buffy, but he is alienated from those who were closest to
being his friends before he tortured and killed some of them.
This alienation and mistrust and guilt brought back from ages
past causes Angel to lose all faith and hope. He does not believe
he is fit to live after all he has done.
Angel: I want to take comfort in you, and I know it'll cost me
my soul, and a part of me doesn't care.... Look, I'm weak. I've
never been anything else. It's not the demon in me that needs
killing, Buffy. It's the man. - Amends He tried to make something
of himself, and the one time he really tried it blew up in his
face. Without hope, he tries to end it all, but cannot. Something,
or someone, has better plans for him. The snow falls like hope
to the ground and covers the dirt with a fresh whiteness.
Ultimately, of course, it does not work out with Buffy. They both
know that their relationship is impossible, and only creates too
much pressure on them both, so he leaves for the city of angels.
He wanders there for a while, trying to find a solid footing,
but is unable to until a fellow Irishman with a link to the powers
that be finds him. Finally, Angel has a purpose, and he knows
that it is not purely selfish anymore. He does pretty well for
himself, fighting the cause of good, and even finding out that
he has a big reward coming to him somewhere down the line. Unlife
is good, and his promised reward seems closer than ever. That
is, until an old lover makes a sudden reappearance in his life.
Darla is brought back as a human, not as the vampire she was.
With a soul and no demon inside her, she creeps her way into Angel's
life with the hope of returning to what she once was. She hated
her life, and treasured every moment of the power she held as
a vampire. Now she is reduced to a syphilis-ridden ex-prostitute
with no chance of survival save what Angel can do for her. He
tries everything except that. He tries to save her by every means
he knows of, but he cannot. But just as he is about to save her
soul, that is ripped from her violently.
Darla is killed and raised again as a creature of the night. Angel
realizes that he has failed again. He ceases to care anymore.
He allows humans to die and becomes darker in his actions. He
finally decides on a kamikaze mission to kill the Senior Partners
at Wolfram & Hart, but is brought to a shocking reality.
Holland: "Welcome to the home office." Angel: "This
isn't..." Holland: "Well, you know it is. - You know
*that* better than anyone. Things you've seen. Things you've,
well - done. You see, if there wasn't evil in every single one
of them out there (Angel watches as some people in the plaza start
yelling at each other) why, they wouldn't be people. - They'd
all be angels." - Reprise Angel loses it. He finally hits
rock-bottom and decides to lose it all in a night of passion with
Darla. This is worse than when he was suicidal. At that point,
he was simply disappointed in himself. Now, he feels that there
is no reason or purpose to anything at all. Since it doesn't matter
what happens anymore, he decides to lose his soul so he doesn't
have to care. It doesn't quite work the way he expects, though.
Last night was perfect, but not perfect enough.
Angel: "Yeah. And it *was* perfect, Darla. - It was perfect
despair." - Epiphany He summarizes what had been going on
quite nicely.
Angel: "And you were the reason. You've always been the reason.
You were the thing that made me what I am, and - I thought - if
I could save you, I'd somehow - save myself, but - but I was wrong.
And when I failed...." Angel: "I fought for so long.
For redemption, for a reward - finally just to beat the other
guy, but... I never got it." - Epiphany He still believes
that there is no purpose in anything, but that doesn't stop him
from finding one, anyway.
Angel: "Not all of it. All I wanna do is help. I wanna help
because - I don't think people should suffer, as they do. Because,
if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness
- is the greatest thing in the world." Kate: "Yikes.
It sounds like you had an epiphany." Angel: "I keep
saying that. But nobody's listening." - Epiphany So now we
are left with a fairly chipper Angel, with no purpose in the world
save those "small acts of kindness." He manages to reconnect
to his friends and starts to build a real life, for perhaps the
first time. He faces the demon within at Pylea, but manages to
control it and accept it as a part of him, but a part that he
has power over. He actually smiles how, and is a fairly happy
camper. Too bad he had to come home to the bad news of Buffy's
sudden demise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Fairly Chipper Angel...ROFLOL -- Little
One, 07:16:42 07/06/01 Fri
Great post, spotjon. I find Angel fascinating with his blend of
man and monster. Mr. Tall, Dark and Broodiness seems to make it
all work though. He is charismatic and memorable to all who meet
him. Not many people have a chance to become part of a legend
in this world but he is part of two, as Angel and as Angelus,
the split personality taken to the extreme.
As Angel, he keeps giving of himself, trying to fill that great
swirling void of regret and angst. He gives himself over, body
and soul, to the mission of battling evil. But if he keeps giving
and giving, what is going to be left but a bigger void? And even
if he can come to terms with himself (which perhaps his epiphany
accomplished), he is still denied ever having that one moment
of true happiness. So, knowing the price of total surrender to
happiness, he keeps a part of him in reserve at all times. Adding
to his pain, but protecting himself. The one person he gave himself
completely too has died. I don't relish watching him come to terms
with Buffy's death. I should start stocking up on Kleenex and
Visine in preparation for S6!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: consolation for Angel in S6 - spoilery suggestion
-- John Burwood, 00:09:25 07/07/01 Sat
My guess is that Angel will find consolation for Buffy's death
in a new love interest - Fred! She is obviously smitten with the
handsome stranger who saved her, seems to cope with the demon
in him, and has an almost Buffy-like mixture of innocent vulnerability
and resourceful strength that should appeal to Angel. Plus it
will give Angel dramatic angst when Buffy returns, a reason not
to dashback to Sunnydale, and a running threat of finding a happiness
and cursing Angelus back into being. It would make dramatic sense
IMO - does anyone else agree?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angel -- Wisewoman, 12:04:07
07/06/01 Fri
Well done, spotjon!
"Because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest
act of kindness - is the greatest thing in the world."
This is indeed an epiphany, and one that we all might envy. I
only hope Angel is able to retain some of the impact of this revelation
in the light of Buffy's death.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angel -- spotjon,
10:26:09 07/07/01 Sat
Well, I disagree with this philosophy for various reasons, but
it should be enough to get Angel by for a while. I think that
Angel will come to a full realization that there is a higher meaning,
and that not everything is ultimately meaningless. The fact that
he's receiving supernatural messages from on high should have
tipped him off by now.
I look forward to seeing how he reacts to Buffy's death in the
upcoming season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angel -- Rufus, 13:07:01
07/06/01 Fri
Loved you post, good job.
I see Angel as a fellow that has been in a state of despair that
started long before Reprise. As Liam he didn't want to be who
he was and longed for more but for whatever reason couldn't or
wouldn't change his situation. It isn't clear about just how abusive
his father was but I do suspect he didn't spare the rod when it
came to child rearing. They have a new history of Angel section
up at the WB and there are a few details that don't seem to be
in the series.
http://www.thewb.com/angel/index_history.shtml
I don't remember the detail about Liam returning home to steal
silver. They have a part two coming out next week to cover his
years in Sunnydale and LA.
I liked Epiphany and Reprise as Angel was finally jolted out of
his despair and into the world...took long enough.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angel -- Masquerade,
13:12:20 07/06/01 Fri
It was briefly mentioned in "Becoming, pt. 1"
Liam and his buddy are tossed out of the pub shortly before Liam
meets Darla.
Liam says to his pal that they should come back to the pub when
they get more cash-money. He suggests they go steal some of his
father's silver.
"He'll never miss it," Liam adds, "he eats with
his hands, the pig."
His friend promptly passes out on the cobble-stone street from
drinking too much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angel --
Rufus, 14:55:18 07/06/01 Fri
Thanks, don't have copies of B1 so I'll look for it when it starts
in the fall.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Now what channel&when exactly are the
old Buffys supposed to be re-airing? -- Masq, 15:03:41 07/06/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Now what channel&when exactly
are the old Buffys supposed to be re-airing? -- Rufus, 15:56:24
07/06/01 Fri
For Canada it will be the Space chanel at
http://www.spacecast.com
go to the monthly FAQ section for the details.
Starting around the second week in September Space will air the
series I think from the first ep to the end of season four. I
have forgotten most of the first three years so I look forward
to September. I don't know anything about the American station.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Now what channel&when exactly
are the old Buffys supposed to be re-airing? -- gds, 18:50:21
07/06/01 Fri
FX has been advertising it though they have been skimpy on details
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Now what channel&when exactly
are the old Buffys supposed to be re-airing? -- Brian, 20:26:45
07/06/01 Fri
I've been reading that Buffy will be on FX twice a day, at 4 pm
and 7 pm EST, starting on Sept 24th, and that the episodes will
be in order. Whether they will be cut for more commerials, I haven't
heard a murmer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> happiness clause -- Solitude1056, 19:50:56 07/06/01 Fri
It seems odd to me, reading your post for the second time, that
the curse specifically states "one moment of happiness"
implying that it's one moment of forgetting one's past deeds,
I suppose. What's preventing a lifetime of "being aware,
but willing to enjoy living despite that"? A truly chipper
Angel may have an ability to finally accept that life can be good
even if the past isn't. Do you think, based on your study of the
character, that this is possible for him? Or are we doomed to
see him go through this whole epiphany nonsense once a season?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: happiness clause -- spotjon, 06:48:46 07/08/01
Sun
I wondered the same thing during the first Pylea episode, where
Angel was walking around in the suns, having the time of his life.
It seemed to me like he was coming to grips with his past, but
he was no longer letting it drag him down. It made me wonder whether
or not he could have happiness just by everyday living, and if
so, whether that would revert him back to Angelus. I always figured
that his "one moment of happiness" was a moment of contentment
unfettered by everything else that was happening and had happened.
If Angel could be content with his life and not be tormented by
his past any more, would he lose his soul again? Maybe we'll see
the issue discussed this next season. I certainly hope so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: happiness clause -- Sean, 12:17:30 07/08/01 Sun
"Angel may have an ability to finally accept that life can
be good even if the past isn't."
We tend to want to ignore past deads of people because they are
cute or because the person is so romantic (whatever).
For example the whole Luke raping Laura thing. Forget it like
it never happened.
We are starting to do this with Spike. Forget all the people he
has tortured and killed. After all he is so cute. And he did help
Buffy at the end.
Can even the most heroic deeds wipe out an evil past? On Xena
she ultimately had to pay for her past.
Now with Angel there is some justification to "forgive and
forget". After all it was Angelus not Angel who did the evil?
Angel had no control did he?
Only by separating Angel from Angelus can I ever justifying him
accepting that life can be good even if the past isn't. For if
it wasn't so, then he deserves no happiness. After all the people
he killed and tortured he deserves nothing but pain and suffering
himself. He should never forget his past deeds. Not ever. They
should haunt him forever.
It all depends on how you view Angel as it relates to his culpability
for Angelus's deeds. If you don't think he is culpable, then he
should free himself of the guilt (for it is misplaced) and stop
trying to make up for sins that aren't his to make up for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: happiness clause -- Morgane, 06:15:14 07/09/01
Mon
I'm sorry to say that I totally disagree with you. The reason
why Angel, and even Spike, should forget about their evil past
isn't because their cute or because they did nice thing after
but because, if there's no redemption there's no reason to do
good. I mean, if you do evil things all your life (or un-life)
long and suddenly you stop to do these things because you realize
their wrong or because of any other reason, no matter, I agree
that nothing can undo what you did, but it's too late... If you
keep thinking that whatever you do, you'll never be good, and
you don't deserve pardon because you were evil, then you have
no reason at all to do good, but plenty to do evil.
"What is done can not be undone." "What is not
yet done can be avoided." so the Oracles said... (I Will
Remember You)
The reason to do good isn't to change the past, but to change
the future. And the only way to do so, is to draw a line on what
you did before and start to go forward. It won't change any of
what you did, but it will change what you will do.
Nobody deserves pain, no matter what they did, if they're not
a danger for anyone anymore. I believe I'm not much of a revenge
person.
And as first evil/Jenny said: "You're sorry? For me? Don't
bother. I'm dead. I'm over it. If you wanna feel sorry for someone,
you should feel sorry for yourself. Oh, but I guess you've already
got that covered." (Amends)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: happiness clause -- Coral Cat, 19:13:12
07/09/01 Mon
I agree. Taking my cues from Giles here:
Season 2 "I Only Have Eyes for You" GILES: To forgive
is an act of compassion, Buffy. It's not done because people deserve
it. It's done because they need it.
Giles was, at least in part, addressing Buffy herself in that
episode, letting her know that she could forgive herself for what
happened to Angel. Part of redemption is being able to forgive
oneself for one's past mistakes. You should never forget those
mistakes -- they will always shape who you are -- but if you desire
to be other than what you were, you can't let your guilt paralyze
you to whom you can be in the future (as post-soul Angel did before
he met Buffy).
And:
Season 3 "Beauty and the Beast" BUFFY (talking about
Angel after Angel returns from hell in less than perfect psychological
condition) He'd be a monster. A lost cause.
GILES Maybe... Maybe not. In my experience, there are two kinds
of monsters. The first type can be redeemed. And, more importantly,
they want to be redeemed...
BUFFY And the second type?
GILES The second - is void of humanity. It can not respond to
reason. Or love.
The point is not whether the monster is a monster or not, but
whether he has the capacity to move beyond that, or to even desire
to move beyond that. Post-souled, pre-Buffy Angel had not started
on his path to redemption yet for that reason: at that point he
hadn't let go of his guilt enough to want to be redeemed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: happiness clause -- verdantheart,
07:15:49 07/11/01 Wed
I largely agree with you. However, I don't agree that "if
there's no redemption there's no reason to do good." If so,
how do we then explain Spike (sorry, ATLtS)? He hasn't changed
his behavior because he's seeking redemption, but because he loves
Buffy. He sacrifices his prediliction toward evil acts out of
his regard for her. And as he moves forward, these initially hollow
acts take on real meaning as he begins to see and adopt Buffy's
point of view (do good because it's the right thing to do--what
you want to do). (And because Spike doesn't expect Buffy's love
in return for his actions, the actions take on a certain nobility
in the eyes of the audience.) Whether he eventually seeks redemption
from tPtB is a good question. It seems to me that Angel can have
some hope for his human soul that Spike, a demon in a human shell,
does not.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: happiness clause -- Morgane,
13:09:16 07/11/01 Wed
Well, sure, there's probably no redemption from anyone for Spike,
but one thing is sure, he doesn't worry much about what he did
in the past. His new and old behaviours has nothing to do with
good or evil and redemption, simply because he doesn't care. I
believe that I shouldn't have included Spike in this thread, it's
more about Angel, and maybe Faith too. Still, scoobies shouldn't
keep saying that Spike isn't able to do good simply because he
was bad, it's more what I meant. Whatever he did in the past,
the only thing that matter is how he's acting now, more that kind
of redemption than the Angel kind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: happiness clause(slightly OT) -- Rendyl,
07:55:46 07/10/01 Tue
Normally I would pass this by but it seems to come up lately on
a variety of discussion boards so here goes. When the Luke/Laura
rape occurred it was done very ambiguously. The writers were never
clear exactly what happened that night, even in the middle of
the storyline. Luke was never written as though it was a rape,
(in fact he was instructed to play it as a romance) and Laura
refused to tell anyone it was him. At best it is an example of
storyline and character being tossed aside because of chemistry
and at worst it was just a very bad idea.
Fast forward nearly 20 years into the era of PC and suddenly the
soap writers decide to address the issue. They change some facts
to add more tension and angst than the story originally had and
toss it in to disrupt everyone's life. (again done at the expense
of characterization) I could go on about the emerging trend to
cast all women as weak victims but I will spare everyone my ranting.
(grin)
As for Angel, I think the important point is not whether he needs
to atone for the sins of Angelus, but that he is able to feel
guilt and long for redemption from those actions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angel -- Coral Cat, 21:15:41
07/07/01 Sat
Great insights on the character of Angel. I never cared too much
for him when he was the resident hunk and love interest on BtVS,
but once he was off on his own show he started developing in all
sorts of endearing ways. What I seem to like best about him is
his uncertainty, his social awkwardness, his creaky and geekiness.
He is a deeply lonely person, I think, and not too certain how
to open himself safely to people who care about him. "Chipper"
Angel (LOL) is just beginning to think that maybe he can.
An Angel-Buffy exchange in "Gingerbread" says a lot
to me about Angel:
ANGEL: Buffy, you know I'm still working things out; there's a
lot I don't understand. But I know it's important to keep fighting
and I learned that from you.
BUFFY: But we never --
ANGEL: We never win.
BUFFY: Not completely.
ANGEL: We never will. That's not why we fight. We do it 'cause
there's things worth fighting for.
He's known this, at least since BtVS S3, yet it is still a lesson
that he's absorbing. The battle isn't about winning, about the
destination. It's about the journey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angel -- Marie, 03:38:48
07/09/01 Mon
Wow! Great post, Spotjon!
One of the most interesting moments for me was when Angel fired
his staff. I remember at the time having a lot of arguments with
friends because I disagreed wholeheartedly with their thoughts
that Angel was 'turning evil', when I saw it as him wanting to
safeguard the people he most cared about from danger (including
any coming from himself) - an opinion validated at the end of
the season. (I had a smug moment, there!).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Angel's mind -- Sssaaammm, 08:12:48 07/10/01 Tue
Great post Spotjon!
Having seperate posts for Angel and Angelus seems to have worked
very well.
In the same way that a human's personality will influence the
personality of the vampire when the human is vamped, I think we
can explain alot about Angel in terms of his vampire mind.
Although the drive for good/evil is reversed when he changed,
there seems to be many superpsychological (is that a term) attributes
to his mind (used here to mean his psychological framework without
etherial forces of good/evil).
Existing for so long would surely alter personality beyond that
of a human, carrying so much guilt for so long would make someone
'a little nuts' - not just sulky, and going through torture for
perhaps the equilvalent of hundreds of years whilst in hell would
make a human mind twist apart until unrecognizable permanently
(not just for a few weeks - BtVS S3).
To endure so much psychological pressure Angel would possess a
robust (made for a long personal history) Vamp "mind"
with the human soul. Although he lost the plot a bit mid S2, Angel
still seems to be keeping it together.
The insanity of Drucilla pulls at the axis of this arguament but
can be seen as another level of what makes the mind and personality.
Her human mind was crazy as the basis for all that follows.
Would this mean that perhaps reincarnated 'human' Darla had a
vamp mind? Maybe this could explain why she held no attachment
to being human again when she only changed her mind (decision)
as a way of choosing good over evil (not human over demon).
Death is her gift -- Metron, 10:24:20 07/06/01 Fri
thought I posted this last night, but it seems not to be here.
hmmmmm
Just thought I'd share my own feelings about the meaning of Death
is her gift. It seems to me that with her death at the end of
the last season, another Slayer will come into the world. This
will make three slayers existing at the same time (albet Slayer#2
- Faith, is incarcerated at the moment). I'm fairly sure this
is the first time this has happened.
My own feelings are that her "gift" is the creation
of new Slayers, brought about by her deaths/rebirths. Each time
she dies, the forces of good have a chance of gaining a new champion
in their eternal fight with the dark. I say 'chance', because
being a Slayer doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be a good
guy (look at Faith who is, granted, working on redemtion).
Met
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> sorry but no -- vampire hunter D, 12:20:31 07/06/01 Fri
Unfortunatly, Joss and CO. have already said that there will be
no more Slayers called until Faith dies. I know this sucks, and
I too would like to see another one, but that's the way it is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: sorry but no -- Sue, 18:20:20 07/08/01 Sun
I see Dawn becoming a Slayer, but I don't think it breaks the
"one slayer" rule. Just bends it again.
Since Dawn was created from Buffy it would be "Buffy's"
power she would share.
Other than that, I believe that it is correct to say that the
line has to be passed on by Faith. She has to die for another
Slayer to be called.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Death is her gift -- chuk_38, 15:15:06 07/06/01 Fri
wait just a minute. Sorry if i have this all wrong but i thought
that a new slayer would only be called when the 'current' slayer
is killed. If this is true then a new slayer would not be called
because buffy is not the current slayer,she has not been since
she died at the end of the first season. So for a new slayer to
be called, then Faith would have to die,right??? i think
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Death is her gift -- AK-UK, 15:32:31 07/06/01
Fri
Based on what Joss has said, yep. You're right.
But this whole slayer death/calling thing is a bit of a mess.
In what sense is Faith the current slayer? More to the point,
in what sense isn't Buffy the slayer? What does being the current
slayer entail? Is power transfered on the death of a slayer? Where
does the slayers power come from? All these questions and more
will (fingers crossed) be answered in season 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Death is her gift -- anom, 23:03:47 07/07/01
Sat
Apparently the "current" slayer means the latest slayer.
I had assumed there'd be a 3rd slayer after Buffy's 2nd death,
but if Joss says no, then I guess not. Which also eliminates the
idea I had after Faith first showed up: the 2 slayers could be
flatlined & revived at a hospital under those rare-in-Sunnydale
controlled conditions, 2 new slayers would be called, they'd undergo
the same process, etc., & eventually an army of slayers would
be created! Buh-bye vamps. (Of course, also buh-bye excuse for
the series. I told this idea to a friend at a science fiction
convention, & she said she knew someone who was writing a fanfic
piece in which somebody decided to do just that...without that
pesky detail of obtaining the slayers' informed consent.)
Ah well, it was a nice idea while it lasted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Death is her gift -- AK-UK, 06:22:14
07/08/01 Sun
Funnily enough, I had a similiar fanfic idea, but it works on
the principle of only one slayer being called at a time. It was
a very creepy story.
I do hope season 6 delves into the origins of the slayer. Fingers
crossed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re:origins of the Slayer -- darrenK,
21:13:46 07/08/01 Sun
Supposedly, Fray will contain info as to the origin of the Slayer
as will the anthology of Slayer comics that Joss is putting together
to be published in November.
In other words, the history of the Slayer is very obviously on
the minds of Joss and the other writers. They started down that
road at the beginning of Season 5, then they were diverted by
Joyce's tumor and Glory's Key.
I think we're going to get back on that road.dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Anniversary Posting Party Update -- rowan, 17:16:55 07/06/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 07/05/01 - Get yer red hot Angelus & Angel below (or above)
;) -- rowan, 17:18:25 07/06/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Upcoming Character Posting Schedule -- rowan, 17:26:00 07/06/01
Fri
Schedule:
07/12/01 Riley OnM 07/19/01 Spike Aquitaine 07/19/01 Drusilla
Marie 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
08/30/01 Xander Lurker Becoming Restless 09/06/01 Oz Sssaaammm
09/13/01 Darla Slayrunt 09/20/01 The Host verdantheart 09/27/01
Joyce Shawn Carter
Still Not Spoken For:
Gunn Wesley Kate Doyle Lindsay 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. I (rowan the perilous) am the coordinator of the event. Behold
me and tremble (sorry, I've been reading The Lord of the Rings
again, and I really think it's affecting me).
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Potential Upcoming 1st Anniversary Fun Postings -- rowan,
17:28:56 07/06/01 Fri
Favorite Theory for Buffy's Rebirth Most Revealing BtVS Funniest
BtVS Episode Best One Liner Funniest BtVS Scene Who Would You
Want to Be Stuck on a Desert Island With & Why? If You Had 15
Minutes to Inteview Joss, What 1 Question Would You Ask & Why?
Episode that Needs a Do-Over Interpret Restless - What Happened
in Season 5 and What's Still to Come? Which Character Would You
Want to Interview and What Would You Ask? Most Emotional BtVS
Moment Character Who Hasn't Lived Up to Potential Yet Character
Who Has Exceeded Potential Set the Stage for the Start of Season
6 If You Could Have One Thing Happen on BtVS, What Would It Be?
Season 6 Spoiler Zone: What's True and What's False
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Potential Upcoming 1st Anniversary Fun Postings
-- James, 15:25:02 07/08/01 Sun
I realize you want to do a thread on these topics separately but
I really feel the urge to comment on some of these now.
Sorry.
Character Who Has Exceeded Potential
Spike of course. (He's a souless vampire)
Anya (the vengence demon)
Character Who Hasn't Lived Up to Potential Yet
Dawn. Not her fault. Actually quite compliment. She has so, so
much potential within her. She just needs to stop stealing other
people's stuff.
Buffy. Yes as incredible as it sounds, she still hasn't lived
up to her full potential. She is so incredible. What she did this
year was so incredible, yet there is still even more, though I
can't imagine what could top this.
Jonathan. Sorry, I like the guy. He has a very, very big heart,
it is sad no one has ever recognized it in him.
Who Would You Want to Be Stuck on a Desert Island With & Why?
Buffy. But not for the reasons you might think. She really is
an incredible person. Not perfect, mind you as no human is, but
love flows from her in waves. Just to be around her would be incredible.
She has such power (and I am not talking about her Slayer strength).
Most Emotional BtVS Moment
GLORY (duh) People. How do they function? Here. Like this, in
the world, with all this bile running through them. Every day,
it's ...
She runs her hand up and down, "rollercoaster" style.
GLORY (cont'd) Whooo... you have no control they're not even animals
they're just these meatbaggy slaves to hormones and pheromones
and their, and their... feelings. (beat) Hate 'em. (beat) I mean
really, is this what the poets go on about? This? Call me crazy.
But as hard core drugs go, human emotion's just useless. People
are puppets, everyone getting jerked around by what they're feeling
- am I wrong? Really, I want to know.
Glory waits for an answer. Dawn, holding her throat, doesn't say
a thing.
GLORY (cont'd) Gonna bleed you either way.
DAWN It depends on the person.
GLORY So, you're saying some people like this?
DAWN Some.
GLORY Funny, 'cause I look around at this world you're so eager
to be a part of, and all I see's six billion lunatics looking
for the fastest ride out. Who's not crazy? Look around - everyone's
drinkin', smokin', shootin' up, shootin' each other or just plain
screwing their brains out because they don't want 'em anymore.
I'm crazy? Honey, I am the original one-eyed chicklet in the kingdom
of the blind 'cause at least I admit the world makes me nuts.
Name one person who can take it here. That's all I'm asking -
Name one.
DAWN Buffy.
(I am not moved to tears often, but that certainly came close).
Second Place
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.
(one of the most beautiful scenes ever, never loved Buffy more
than at that moment.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I could attempt Doyle or Lindsey -- Liquidram, 17:48:05
07/06/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Pick your poison partner. Both are available. -- rowan,
18:01:12 07/06/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ok, Doyle it is ... & Lindsay too if no one
else chooses him -- Liquidram, 18:30:14 07/06/01 Fri
Classic Movie of the Week - July 6th 2001 -- OnM,
20:00:42 07/06/01 Fri
*******
"If you can't tend to your own planet, none of you deserve
to live here."
*******
In last week's column, I mentioned that I wasn't the greatest
fan of Westerns, that in terms of escapist entertainment, outer
space was the place for me. Genenerally speaking, this is still
the case, but the thing that I dislike about so many Westerns--
that the genre is so often ultra-cliched and repetitive-- also
applies equally to science fiction. SF writer Theodore Sturgeon
once made the very dead-on comment that '90% of everything is
crud'. (A quote which subsequently became known as 'Sturgeon's
Law'). And of all the possible sub-categories of science fiction,
none shines darker as a more exemplary example of this principle
than the '***Aliens are Invading!!!***' story.
The beginnings of this particularly noxious sub-genre are often
ascribed to the paranoid 50's, when 'Commies and furriners' were
supposedly hiding under every rock, just waiting to crawl out
and destroy our beloved American way of life. The simultaneous
advent of the modern technical age made it very easy to morph
those terrestrial political demons into evil aliens from other
planets, who also wanted to steal what was 'rightfully' ours,
and furthermore do so with weapons far more powerful than any
that we might have available to defend ourselves.
Why do this? Isn't the usual means of political discourse via
newspapers, radio, magazines, books, etc. sufficient? Isn't it
a ludicrous form of overkill to make genocidal Martians into the
metaphorical stand-ins for our natuaral xenophobia? Not at all...
Recall that on several prior occasions your humble movie-man has
made the statement that movies are the common language of Western
society, and for sure no country on Earth produces more of them
than the good old U.S. of A. One of the key elements of establishing
your homeland as a global superpower is to be sure you can dominate
all the other countries of the world not just economically or
militarily, but to go beyond such brute physicality into the realm
of the human pysche, to control others by controlling their culture,
their very thoughts. There are several ways to do this.
If you are a really boring and stupid country, you will print
up lots of little books and pamphlets and distribute them en masse
in order to teach all those impressionable little minds the correct
way to think. After all, if a person in the government puts something
down in actual *print*, it has to be true, right? Putting lots
of posters of the current grande benefactor up on walls in busy
public places is a favorite tactic, too. Smiling dictators make
a much better impression on the public gestalt. Finally, you take
over all the radio and TV stations and make sure folks don't get
distracted by anything that involves those most prized and most
distracting of all human concerns, namely food, sex, cars, money,
clothes, dancing, sex, and beer.
Well, scratch those ideas. Americans figured out a long time ago
that the way to get corrupt pols off our backs is to pretend that
we're listening to them, pay them lots of money and give them
lots of perks, and let them do their schtick. It's expensive,
yes, but still much cheaper than prison, and they always know
really good lawyers anyway. As for food, sex, cars, etc., we pretend
to be all moralistic and righteous and affect disdain for them,
but on the other hand we just can't get enough of them. And how
do we know that this is the case? Is it the billions in collective
advertising the marketplace spends every year? Is it carefully
detailed research obtained by highly paid consultants? It is Oprah?
Naahhh. It's simple. We make movies and see who goes to them.
Then we make new movies that draw in even more viewers by pandering
to whatever they seem to like best. The practice is self-enabling
and ongoing. You don't need to alter the collective psyche by
preaching to your flock about the dangers of whatever. If you
are really, really clever, you can do it by getting them to engage
in a practice they enjoy, and seek out-- like going down to the
local theater to see a movie. And it works. It works so well that
sometimes you don't even need the visuals, just ask Orson Welles.
Visuals are better, though.
Where was I now? Oh, yeah, politics, movies, Martians, apocalypse.
Collective psyche. All good and true, yea. Except for one little
problem...
There are these people out there who *don't* make movies to corrupt
our minds and instill hapless obedience. They don't write, produce
or direct down to the lowest common denom. They seek a higher
purpose, to inform, enlighten, root out socio-political evil,
and oh yeah, entertain the hell out of you in the meantime. They
are people like Mr. David Twohy, who make films like this week's
Classic Movie, *The Arrival*.
You know, BtVS shouldn't work. It's a member of an extremely tired,
supremely overworked genre. Vamps, horror, evil, blah-blah-blah.
But it does, because the people behind it are creative, and clever,
and they don't talk down to us, or try to misdirect our minds
so as to build up the powerful in the world at the expense of
the rest of us. They teach us that *we* are powerful, sometimes
individually, sometimes collectively. They teach us that the king
is no better or no worse a being than we are, that there is no
'divine right' based on birth. That respect must be earned, not
handed out with a golden crown and a jeweled sceptre.
We just finished celebrating Independence Day here in the USA,
and back in 1996 that was also the name of one of the summer's
biggest movie blockbusters. And hey, it was alright, lotsa good
explosions and stuff. But if you craved more than lots of sound
and fury in your movie diet, then you would have been ill-advised
to miss Twohy's superb Alien Invasion flick. This film brought
me back to what used to go through my head visually when I was
reading the very best literary fic of my younger days, images
that had a sense of wonder and originality to them. I have gotten
so tired of SF universes where the aliens look like us except
for some funny ears and odd colorings, and all conveniently speak
perfect American English through handy universal translators.
I want aliens who look like aliens, and I don't want them phony-weird,
I want them *strange*-weird.
Furthermore, I want them to be like Twohy's aliens in *The Arrival*,
where they have an actual reason for wanting to take over our
planet, and have that reason be one that makes us nervous wondering
if they are right. A reason that makes the film's main protagonist,
Zane Zaminski (Charlie Sheen) ask "Why didn't you come to
us and ask for help?" and know the answer to it as soon as
he speaks it-- they didn't because we're idiots who live on a
giant shining jewel of a planet and we piss on it at every opportunity
so long as it suits our baser motives. It may still be necessary
to defeat these creatures, because after all, we were here first--
but that's still a pretty weak defense.
Politics and economics and ecology aside, this is a marvelous
looking film. After it was released on laserdisc, I used it for
several months afterward to demo our big theater system at the
store, usually showing the opening scene with Lindsay Crouse in
a field of flowers in the midst of the arctic snow. This scene
segues in stunning fashion into the mother of all pull-back shots,
and then into a cross-fade edit that, if it doesn't make the hair
stand up on your arms, you are probably dead. (My condolences!)
CGI and other special effects are solid, realistic and convincing
throughout the entire film.
There are a number of homages paid to past efforts in the SF continuum,
the acting is first rate all around, and the script is intelligent
and scientifically credible to such an extent that one almost
never has to suspend disbelief. For BtVS fans, there is the additional
treat of seeing Lindsay Crouse play a non-bitch-monster-from-hell
scientist, Ilana Green, who is searching for an answer to the
odd global warming effects she has discovered while doing research
in the above-mentioned arctic regions. Veteran actor Ron Silver
also plays a beautifully understated and scary role as Zane's
primary nemesis.
If you missed this in '96, then it's time to see one of the best
films of that year. Go forth, just don't multiply too much-- recall
the words of the Martian king in Tim Burton's *Mars Attacks*:
"Nice planet-- we'll take it!"
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technical Invasion Force:
*The Arrival* is available on DVD. Running time is 1 hour 55 minutes.
The DVD is double sided with the widescreen version (1.85:1 aspect
ratio) on one side and the pan'n'scan (1.33:1 standard TV) version
on the other side. Sound is Dolby Digital 5.1 (English & French).
The screenplay was written by David Twohy, cinematography by Hiro
Narita. The music score is by Arthur Kempel (and is very well
done). The film was produced by Thomas G. Smith and James Steele.
Main cast members include:
Lindsay Crouse, Charlie Sheen, Richard Schiff, Ron Silver, Teri
Polo, Phyllis Applegate, Tony T. Johnson, Alan Coates, Leon Rippy,
Buddy Joe Hooker, Javier Morga, Catalina Botello, Georg Lillitsch
and David Villalpando
Note: If your TV is on the smallish side, and you happen to have
a friend with a good quality large-screen home theater system,
consider bribing them to borrow it for viewing this flick. It's
not as outrageously dynamic and showy as *The Matrix*, but it
nonetheless deserves a more cinematic presentation if you can
swing it.
*******
*Castaway* is now out on DVD. Tom Hanks. 'Nuff said.
Next Thursday, it will once again be time for a brand spankin'
new ATPo Anniversary Celebration Character Study Thang, and I'll
be posting my own eminently well- researched Riley treatise (ahem--
~cough~, ~choke~). So, I thought as a possible neato complimetary
item, on Friday night I'd do a Classic Movie that has some similarities
to the Riley zeitgeist.
Your question of the week, should you decide to accept it, is:
What movies can you think of that have characters in them which
speak eloquently to that which is the 'essence of Riley', and
why?
(This CMotW column will self-destruct in seven asterisks).
*******
(Well, actually, it's still here, it just kinda, like, stops).
(You're still here? Show's over-- Go home!)
:-p
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Nope, aint seen this one either :( -- AK-UK, 21:01:38 07/06/01
Fri
But I did catch the Ferris Bueller (sp?) line at the end, so I
don't feel completely left out :)
Man, what exactly is the "essence of Riley"? I'd say
that Riley was essentially your All American Solider, who is brought
face to face with the grim realities of life. So, Platoon is one
film that immediately springs to mind.
Charlie Sheen's character goes down a fairly dark path before
getting in a helicopter and flying away. Things unravelled for
both characters when they realised that the war they were fighting
in wasn't as clean cut as they had been lead to believe. The good
guys could perform acts of incredible evil, and the enemy might
just be harmless civilians caught up in something they couldn't
control (I'm thinking about Riley watching the torture of Oz,
and Charlie Sheen's witnessing the killing of Vietnamese villagers
as turning points in the lives of both characters).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 6th 2001 -- Rufus,
13:49:15 07/07/01 Sat
On quote from Angel, Bachelor party
Cousin: "Yeah, who want a wife who's knees only bend the
one way?"
I laughed when I heard that quote as it made me think of The Arrival.
It is a movie that I enjoyed quite a bit. The Buffyverse is the
same in that you never really know anyone until you can see their
demon self, some actually have a physical manifestation of this
self like vampires and other demons, and humans who only act upon
their inner demon. When I heard that comment on Angel I wondered
if any of the writers had seen The Arrival. It also brings to
mind the season one ep The Harvest where we learn that Demons
were here first losing their purchase on this reality to man.
Humanity has been in constant conflict with demons ever since.
Who has more rights? The beings who were here first, or the ones
who will respect the planet they inhabit?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 6th 2001 -- anom, 21:46:14
07/07/01 Sat
"There are these people out there who *don't* make movies
to corrupt our minds and instill hapless obedience. They don't
write, produce or direct down to the lowest common denom."
This list being what it is, & me being the punslinger I am, I
hafta ask--is that last word short for denominator, or did you
try to type "demon" too fast? Which then raises the
question, which is the lowest common demon in the Buffyverse?
Hmm, I think I'll start by (de)nominating Barney's species of
empath demon. Although I don't know if they're all as low as he
was.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 6th 2001 -- Wilder,
21:22:58 07/09/01 Mon
Wow. Neat - that you picked this flick. My brother was a either
a set decorator or asst. art director for this movie and I often
wonder if anyone saw it.
how come
when vampires get staked their clothes dissolve aswell??? -- ronzey,
02:14:59 07/07/01 Sat
juss wonderin', how come when vamps get staked thru da heart their
clothes seem to get dusted too. U would think that there bodies
would be dusted and their clothes will still remain behind!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: how come when vampires get staked their clothes dissolve
aswell??? -- cknight, 09:32:23 07/07/01 Sat
I think they combust from the inside out with like a mystical
flame that consumes them and the clothes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: how come when vampires get staked their clothes dissolve
aswell??? -- vampire hunter D, 11:57:52 07/07/01 Sat
because it's easier for the special effects people to do it that
way
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: how come when vampires get staked their clothes
dissolve aswell??? -- Sssaaammm, 16:32:02 07/07/01 Sat
I read somewhere that the reason it's set up like that is as it
helps the story flow more in that there isn't the need to dispose
of a body every few minutes (apart from the odd non-vamp demon).
The vampires in the original film didn't combust at all. Metaphysically,
it could be tied in with spontaneous combustion. Alternatively,
the clothes might get sucked into a demon dimension (a recall
to hell for the demon soul after the death process picks up the
unnatural presence) along with the vampire's body (like with Angel
e.o.S2) with any dirt particles on the vamp's body falling to
the ground (belonging to this dimension) which appear as ashes.
I've noticed loads wrong with that idea as I typed it but I'll
let the pros pick it apart
(Please attach any cool baby names you can think of as my wifes
pregnant and won't let me call the baby Buffy or Angel :( lol
)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Baby Names o/t -- Wisewoman, 17:30:19 07/07/01
Sat
Well, a woman at work actually named her little girl Kendra a
couple of years ago, from the show. That's actually quite a nice
name for a little girl (but I'd stay away from Faith!)
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Baby Names o/t -- Solitude1056, 19:07:02
07/07/01 Sat
I vote for Kendra, but it's my sister's name, so I'm partial.
In case you're wondering, it's an old gaelic name, allegedly remotely
related to Kenneth, but means "knowing woman" or "wise
woman."
WW, hush. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Baby Names o/t -- rowan, 19:14:59
07/07/01 Sat
I went to school with a woman named Kenetha. How about Liam? Cordelia?
Willow? (or Rowan, for that matter *snicker*) William? Cecily?
Anne?
Mr. Pointy? That might be appropriate if suction is required.
I hope this isn't your first child, or that remark may not be
as funny to you as I intended. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Baby Names o/t -- Sebastian,
15:08:36 07/08/01 Sun
Elayne Madeleine Cassandra Natalie Maeve Rosamund Mirelle Valentine
Monet Diana
Severin Adrien Sebastian :) Luke or Luc Matthieu Rand Simon Adam
Christian Batholomew
Sorry...I'm a huge name freak. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanx all ( lol Mr Pointy)
-- Sssaaammm, 10:09:04 07/09/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> So I'm walking along... -- Marie, 04:19:55 07/09/01
Mon
..minding my own business, doin' what I'm paid to do...that is,
general cemetary dogsbody, sweeping up the leaves, clipping the
grass, when....what's that I see? A pile of old clothes?! Where's
the person that should be in them?! And what's that? Another one
- wow! Flowered bell-bottoms and love beads! What happened here
last night? And why wasn't I invited?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> LOL! -- Solitude1056, 05:50:43 07/09/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: how come when vampires get staked their clothes dissolve
aswell??? -- Sean, 12:28:58 07/08/01 Sun
Because it is easier from the story tellers sake, as it leaves
no evidence.
You have to cut them a little slack (just a little though, we
shouldn't cut them much).
I am still trying to figure out what MacLeod on the series Highlander
did with all the headless bodies of all the immorals he slayed
week after week.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: how come when vampires get staked their clothes dissolve
aswell??? -- Millan, 23:59:05 07/08/01 Sun
Apart from the why and the how I have noticed a detail in regards
to this. When a vamp is dusted with a stake (or something stakish)
that remains embedded in him/her and *not* still held by the-one-that's-doing-the-staking,
the stake is dust as well. But if the stake is still held by the
"staker" it remains solid. Well, most of the time anyway...
:)
/M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: how come when vampires get staked their clothes
dissolve aswell??? -- anom, 15:41:27 07/09/01 Mon
"When a vamp is dusted with a stake (or something stakish)
that remains embedded in him/her and *not* still held by the-one-that's-doing-the-staking,
the stake is dust as well. But if the stake is still held by the
"staker" it remains solid. Well, most of the time anyway...
:)"
Seems to me most of the time the stake drops to the floor/ground
when the vampire goes to dust. I distinctly remember hearing stakes
clack onto the floor several times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> ..and their clothes and what they hold doesn't show up in
mirrors -- Sssaaammm, 10:12:05 07/09/01 Mon
how come there are only female
slayers and no male slayer????? -- cordie, 22:38:55 07/07/01 Sat
how come only females can be slayers??? i haven't seen one male
slayer except 4 angel and wesley ,but there not considered as
official slayers. i little sexist isn't it!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Because.... -- mundusmundi, 11:06:56 07/08/01 Sun
In an interview on the video of "Welcome to the Hellmouth/The
Harvest," Joss discusses how he always felt sorry for the
pretty blonde girl who gets killed by the monster in horror movies,
so "BtVs" was his way of turning the tables and reinventing
that scenario.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Because.... -- Sean, 12:22:36 07/08/01 Sun
A good point though.
When one goes too far one way to compensate that is just as bad
as what they were trying to compensate for.
But as it relates to Buffy, it doesn't bother me that much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Because.... -- Wiccagrrl, 19:04:36 07/08/01
Sun
It's an interesting question. Like people have said, if you want
to look behind the scenes, Joss had a story he wanted to tell-
examining the power and coming of age of a young woman. He did
this by showing a chosen one as *she* copes with her new powers
and responsibilities. And part of this comes from knowing there
is a lineage of strong, brave young women who have gone through
the same experience. OTOH, she is usually paired with a watcher,
who (at least until recently) was probably usually male, so there
is some balance there.
If you want to look within the story, it's a bit harder. We know
little of the source of the slayer's power. But I would assume
there was something about it that either a) could only make the
right "connection" with a young girl or b)was tapping
into something primal and inate about a woman coming of age. Her
energy, a protective/maternal instinct, I dunno (they haven't
elaborated much on this). But it has been stated that Slayers
are, as far as we know, always girls. Not sure even the Watcher's
Council knows why. They don't call them, they just find the chosen
one once she is "called". In the framework Buffyverse,
no human force is deciding this is a girl-only thing. For whatever
reason, it's just always been a female.
Also, don't forget- until Kendra showed up, we were told that
there "could be only one". These rules can change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Because.... -- Niamh, 03:01:02 07/09/01
Mon
interesting then that Dedalus suggested the power of the Slayer
comes from the Key, and the key made in human form is also female.
I'm sure that nothing in Buffy is an arbitrary choice...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: how come there are only female slayers and no male slayer?????
-- LadyStarlight, 17:51:44 07/09/01 Mon
Because Joss is deconstructing the patriarchal myth of feminine
powerlessness as typified in the popular culture; which, as we
all know, permeates every part of our daily lives. ;)
It's waayy too hot here today!!! Makes my brain do funny things!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> What she said and he likes blondes.........:):):):)
-- Rufus, 22:33:35 07/09/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Including... -- Masq, 06:18:31 07/10/01 Tue
"Because Joss is deconstructing the patriarchal myth of feminine
powerlessness as typified in the popular culture; which, as we
all know, permeates every part of our daily lives. ;)"
Including, can I just say, "Angel"? Kate the Cop is
gone, and I know Cordy's supposed to be struggling with the visions
that are "wearing her out" and all, but the women on
BtVS--Buffy, Willow, Dawn, Tara--are all strong, gung-ho women
who take on the dangers around them. Cordy just kind of waves
a hankerchief out the window of the hotel as her three macho men
go off to fight the evil she's seen. And when they come home from
the battle, she's dutifully typing.
"Make's me wont to heave!"
She used to fight with them, and she used to have the personality
for it... remember Queen C who never took shit from no one?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Including... -- Rufus, 00:14:16 07/11/01
Wed
Is interesting that the power structure in Angel is very testosterone
driven.......Cordy needs to take charge. She wields a mean axe...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Cordy and some ramblings on gender balance.
-- Humanitas, 05:25:07 07/11/01 Wed
Of course, she was pretty impressive with her "crossbow in
each hand" look near the end of "Disharmony." I
was watching that Monday Night, and I thought "Now that is
bad-ass! I want to see more of this Cordelia!" And she does
fight monsters sometimes ("The Dead Blue Line" comes
to mind), so we know she's capable. I agree - more fightin', less
typin' for CC.
Hmm... Having said that, I think that the more "traditional"
female role that she got relegated to in the last few eps of this
season was effective for the story that Joss was telling. That
was sort of a classic fairy-tale structure, and was fun to explore.
I saw it as sort of a last gasp of the old self-centered Cordelia,
necessary before this new, more compassionate (in the heroic sense
of having compassion for the world) side of the character fully
emerges. Now that Our Heroes are home, though, let's see Cordy
be more involved with the hunt.
Another thought (if you'll forgive the ramble): At the moment,
the two shows are each a little heavy on one side of the gender
line or the other. BtVS is very female-oriented, and AtS is very
male-oriented. In a sense, they balance each other out. Granted,
in the context of the wider male-dominated culture that balance
is less significant, but looking at the Jossverse in isolation
I can certainly see how Joss might want to play with both styles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Cordy and some ramblings on gender
balance. -- Masq, 10:01:36 07/11/01 Wed
Other Cordy toughness (off the top on my head, but check out http://home.4w.com/pages/btvs/good.html#co
· Staking a vamp at graduation · staring down Spike
with a cross-bow (In the dark) · Joining the boys in fighting
vamps and Deevak the demon and being Gunn's body guard with her
lady-smith battle ax (3rd ep of ATS s. 2) · Joining the
boys to fight the robe-wearing slime demon devotees ("Darla")
1st Anniversary Fun Post: Which Character Would
You Like to Interview -- rowan, 07:45:59 07/08/01 Sun
Okay, fellow philosophers and BtVS-obsessives. Here's this week's
question. Let's say you're suddenly a world-renowned journalist
who is so powerful, you can even get interviews with fictional
characters. Which character in the Buffyverse would you interview,
what would you ask, and what answers do you think you'd get?
P.S. Help save the trees...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun Post: Which Character Would You
Like to Interview -- Wisewoman, 11:49:20 07/08/01 Sun
In light of recent discussions, I'd like to interview Giles and
ask him if he has any fatherly feeling toward Buffy, and I'd like
to interview Angel and ask him if he feels there's anything of
Liam left in him!
Giles would stumble and mumble and clean his glasses and try to
explain to me the difference between a watcher and a father, and
Angel would say he can't even remember who Liam was, but that
he doesn't think he liked him very much...
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'd like to interview a few people......... -- Rufus, 13:57:12
07/08/01 Sun
Number one I would like to interview Riley and ask..."what
the hell were you thinking????" Not that I'd get an answer
that would make sense, but for a guy with all that psychology
training and military training under his belt he was awfully easy
to turn into an insecure puddle of goo.
Giles, of course I'd interview Giles(are there refreshments with
this job?). I would also make sure he had a few drinks in him
so I'd get something close to the truth. It is ethical to let
your victim....errr....subject have something to calm their nerves.
I would be for his own good.
Spike.......I'd have to have a few words with Spike. First I'd
have to ask if he knew that there are some women who have obtained
plastic figures in his image and he is on the desks of many an
academic lass. Even grief stricken I think his ego would have
to puff up a bit knowing this. I would tell him that I would like
to ask a few questions and if he didn't tell the truth I'd do
a Maggie Walsh on him and the next chip would do more than inhibit
his killing impulse.........:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> give Riley a break -- cknight, 18:33:25 07/08/01 Sun
Give the guy a break. I don't care how much training you have
in whatever. when your in love the IQ takes a drop. Also the person
you love does gain the magic power to rip your heart out and show
it to you. :)....just a little rant. I have issues :).
I was the "Riley" to this one girl and she put me through
the spin cycle in the end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: give Riley a break -- Rufus, 18:57:29 07/08/01
Sun
Actually if you read in the archives I like Riley very much, in
a milk and cookies way of course, but I like him. OnM will be
doing a post on him on Thursday that I think you will enjoy. I
do agree that love does tend to drop the I.Q. points as it makes
all logic float away. BTW I married a "Riley", I haven't
as yet been tempted to rip his still beating heart, and never
have contemplated placing him in the spin cycle. Give me time
anything can happen...jk..:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: give Riley a break -- cknight, 19:03:34
07/08/01 Sun
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> In just one more day, you'll know more about
Riley than you ever wanted to know. Trust me..... -- OnM, 21:25:35
07/10/01 Tue
..and be afraid, very afraid.
Evil Clone: Stop that. That stupid phrase is so overused I'm just
about ready to choke on it.
OnM: Well, it fits, so natuarlly...
EC: I'll fit it somewhere you won't want it, if you don't stop
right now.
OnM: Boy, you're cranky today, even for someone who's perpetually,
well, evil and all.
EC: Just 'cos you identify with Cap'n Cardboard doesn't mean you
have to write 28 pages on him you know. They'll all be asleep
before they get halfway through!
OnM: It's not 28 pages! Where'd you get that figure?
EC: How long is it, then? You've been researching the damn thing
for four weeks now, it must be some kind of minor novel.
OnM: I owe it to my fellow Buffyphiles to be thorough and professional.
They dig this stuff.
EC: Nobody's that professional. Get a life already.
OnM: What little life I have, I dedicate to Buffy. No, wait, that
sounds like I'm dying or something...
EC: You will be when they read this. Great satan's ghost, an outline!
You never use outlines! It's Alzheimers, isn't it? Great. Next
you'll forget to feed me. Damn.
OnM: I need to work. Hie thee to the basement, fiend!
EC: Boy, you guys are in for it. And he calls me evil...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Oh, no, get the saw out I'm cuttin me
a tree........:):):) -- Rufus, 00:11:47 07/11/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Uh hunh. -- Solitude1056, 18:56:58 07/08/01 Sun
I would be for his own good.
Your freudian slip is showing, Rufus.
;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Uh hunh. -- Rufus, 18:59:32 07/08/01 Sun
Slip....I'm not wearing a dress......:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Then, again, I would be for his own good......:):):):)
-- Rufus, 19:01:28 07/08/01 Sun
In a milk and cookies way of course, just like Riley of course......:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun Post: Which Character Would You
Like to Interview -- KendratVS, 14:31:35 07/08/01 Sun
I think it would be a great interview to delve a little deeper
by asking Mayor Wilkins some questions about what led him to the
whole ascension/governing a town on a hell-mouth and encouraging
the demonic influx. I mean, at some point in his life (I believe
he was purely human early on in his existence) he made the choices
that led to his path. What possesses someone to opt for a demonic
political (redundant?) existence as his, with the ultimate goal
of attaining the status of a purely demonic entity? We always
saw some of his idiosyncrasies and methinks there would be some
great backstory into all the factors that led up to how we knew
him as the big bad of season 3.
My actual first choice to interview though would be Glory. I know
I carry an odd fascination with ye old hell-god, but I think some
of the scenes, such as her speech to Dawn in Weight of the World
about humans being crazy/hating emotions/etc., hinted at some
really disturbed but also interesting insight on the human condition.
I think what would be the most fascinating would have been to
follow Glory around a la Barbara Walters on a "normal"
day for her, meaning not in Key-seeking mode. Obviously she had
a thing for shopping, but I'm wondering what the magnificiently-scented
one did on a standard day on this marble, besides suck-brains
out of hapless humans and hunt down her precious Key with extreme
prejudice. Or possibly get her take on a number of typical activities
we humans engage in on a daily basis to get her interpretation
of what is going on. An added perk would be to get to interview
Ben as well and get their thoughts on each other - the material
would probably be as tawdry as something from a Jerry Springer
show or a Fox special (i.e. "When hell-gods attack...").
Just my two-cents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun Post: Which Character Would You
Like to Interview -- Marie, 04:29:51 07/09/01 Mon
Hey, Rowan, I know you think I'm going to say a certain blond
bad guy, but, No! I'd actually like to interview Faith, and find
out what made her tick (a-tick-a-time-bomb!) and maybe give her
a hug, because I think she needs one.
(And I'll try not to make my boy too tired for interviews, just
for you!).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> :) -- rowan, 19:21:27 07/09/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun Post: Which Character Would You
Like to Interview -- purplegrrl, 09:41:51 07/09/01 Mon
The first character that came to my mind was Wesley. He has hidden
depths.
Also, I think he could use the ego boost that being interviewed
by a "world-renowned journalist" would give him.
I asked him about his demon research, his feelings about the Watchers
Council, and his working relationship with Angel. I'd also have
my photographer take pictures of him in his black leather "rogue
demon hunter" clothes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> "What's a Rogue Demon?" ;-p -- Little One,
06:45:27 07/10/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: "What's a Rogue Demon?" ;-p --
Brian, 15:10:45 07/10/01 Tue
I think Wesley meant that he is a rogue, demon hunter. Rogue in
the sense that he is no longer working for the Watcher's Council.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: "What's a Rogue Demon?"
;-p -- Little One, 06:37:54 07/11/01 Wed
Sorry, that was just one of my favourite Cordy lines. After Wesley,
trying to be a manly man in front of Angel, said he was a rogue
demon hunter, Cordy's flippant "What's a 'rogue demon'?"
and Wesley's glare still cracks me up!
giggle giggle snerk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Well, my boy Spike's... -- Marie, 01:08:44 07/11/01
Wed
..a bit of a scamp, but a rogue? Mmmm.
(Actually, I think it's comparable to 'rogue elephant' - i.e.,
one that is separate from the crowd, gone bad, etc.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Spike...rapscallion, rascal but -- Little
One, 07:24:00 07/11/01 Wed
surely no rogue. Though rogues do have a certain attraction themselves.
The outrageous Okona from Star Trek:TNG comes to mind. Very much
a rogue and, well, humina humina!
And he didn't even have those delectable, um, cheekbones, yeh
that's it, cheekbones!
Sorry, I didn't mean to take this thread on a Spike tangent.
Hmm...character I would most like to interview? I would have to
say Drusilla (though perhaps after getting tattoos of crosses
on my jugular for safety). I would sit her on an overstuffed chesterfield
and, with her legs tucked up, a knit afghan spread over her, and
a steaming cuppa warming her cold hands, I would begin the interview.
My pocket recorder would be a definite asset so that I could replay
the tapes over and over to retrieve every lip-smacking morsel
of prophecy and lunacy. We would discuss her daddy and grandmama.
I would get the inside scoop on her ex, Spike and her feelings
about his affection for the slayer. And I would find out how she
feels to be her grandma's mother, her daddy's grandma, and her
own great-grandma ("I'm my own grandpa", everybody sing-along!).
Everytime she would get overly disturbed and fluttery, I would
gently lead her back to the discussion (as some gallant souls
lead us back when we go astray on Cheekbone sighings *cough-OnM-and-Sol-among-others-cough*).
After our interview, I would give her a down-filled duvet for
her and her dolly to snuggle into, dim the lights and let her
get some rest away from her tortured thoughts. You can be sure,
though, that I would not be there at dusk in case she wakens famished.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> It's gotta be Giles -- rowan, 19:19:10 07/09/01 Mon
Yes, all you smarty-pantses, you don't know me as well as you
think you do. I'm interviewing Giles. All that esoteric knowledge,
that hidden Ripperness, the stiff, British upper...er...lippishness
is too irresistible a package.
I think I would want to ask Giles how he thinks the world will
end -- basically, how's it all going to turn out? Where does he
think we're headed (e.g. the human species). I'd also like to
ask him about the nature of evil and what he thinks its source
is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Me and my slip got him first.....talk to the plastic
doll......:):):) -- Rufus, 19:42:36 07/09/01 Mon
I mean Action Figure.....:):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Me and my slip got him first.....talk to
the plastic doll......:):):) -- rowan, 22:02:27 07/09/01 Mon
You're just jealous because you don't have any action figures.
Right Action!Spike? Action!Spike agrees. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Mmmmm hmmmmmm............:):):) -- Rufus,
22:39:42 07/09/01 Mon
I bet you found him a soul too.......:):):):) Plus it's a hard
choice..action Giles or action Spike...there is always Captain
Cardboard...:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Ack! My ears, my ears! -- rowan,
20:52:53 07/10/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> no cookies for Rufus...........:):):)
-- purplegrrl, 07:04:13 07/11/01 Wed
Now, Rufus, you're going to give poor Riley a complex by calling
him names like that -- even if you do seduce him into doing your
housework with milk and cookies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: no cookies for Rufus...........:):):)
-- Rufus, 12:25:19 07/11/01 Wed
Oh yeah, milk and cookies.......Captain Cardboard is a valid pet
name.......just like boo boo(which really fit Spike after Glory
got her hands on him). :):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun Post: Which Character Would You
Like to Interview -- bess, 19:56:03 07/10/01 Tue
a bronze booth, over a flowering onion....
me : so... do you remember a lot about your human life ? like,
when you think of that time, can you remember what you felt, do
things strike you the same way, or have you changed that much
?
spike : eh ? what are you yappin' on about ?
me : never mind. uh...
spike : if this is twenty bloody questions i'd rather not play.
me : m-hmm. so...
spike : (picks idly at nail polish)
me : alright. desert island - one album. pick one - sex pistols
or ramones ?
spike : are you insane ? you can't pick one !
me : touchy, touchy.
spike : you're a bloody yank, that's what you are.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hey, Bess! You could expand on this for the fiction
site!! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 21:36:22 07/10/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Hey, Bess! You could expand on this for
the fiction site!! ;o) -- bess, 11:02:38 07/11/01 Wed
thank you! i had to do it... i'd love to submit stuff, (maybe
an interview !!!) to the fiction site, i just don't know how.
i'm not any good at html or anything, so if you're willing to
take plain text or help me out... i'd love to be a part of the
site !!! (grins wickedly to self -"self, you might get to
have an audience for your spike ramblings !")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Basic Instructions for Fiction...I think
;o) -- Wisewoman, 18:06:11 07/11/01 Wed
Hi Bess:
Up there near the top of the board Liquidram is writing about
archiving posts. I gather from her comments that the way to submit
fiction is to e-mail it to her (find a post where her name is
highlighted and underlined [like mine is in this one] for her
e-mail address) as a plain text file. I think all the htmling
gets done later...(Liq, please bail me out if I'm wrong on this!)
Good luck! Wisewoman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> here's the email address! (and you
are correct) -- Liquidram, 00:41:50 07/12/01 Thu
Just a mention -- Cynthia, 08:36:36
07/08/01 Sun
This is just let you know that ASH's series has been confirmed.
Production will probably start as soon as ASH's as enough of his
Buffy episodes in the can, combined with how quickly JW can set
up production i.e. scripts, castings, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Just a mention -- KendratVS, 14:35:51 07/08/01 Sun
Pardon me for the silly question, but what does ASH stand for?
I have been racking my brain here and cannot seem to recall...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Anthony Stewart Head.......:):):) -- Rufus, 15:20:35
07/08/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Just a mention -- cknight, 18:19:21 07/08/01 Sun
This great news...but where did you hear this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just a mention -- Marie, 03:52:57 07/09/01 Mon
This has been mentioned on UK Teletext service. It's also been
'officially confirmed' that Anthony Stewart Head has left BtVS
for good, now, after completing work on some S6 episodes. ("...really
enjoyed working on the series....sorry to go, but...wanted to
be with my family...." etc., etc.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just a mention -- Cynthia, 04:17:58 07/09/01 Mon
For me, it was the new wire service that I get on my internet
connection. They run news topics on different subjects i.e. international,
science, entertainment, etc. This was under the entertainment
section. I thought it interesting that they deemed this worthy
of headline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just a mention -- Deeva, 23:02:07 07/09/01 Mon
It's also mentioned over at eonline.com. I hope that they show
it here in the States on BBC America.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> any fact and spoilers welcome -- Emcee003, 16:16:27 07/11/01
Wed
Okay, so maybe asking for facts is stupid.
Does anyone know anything about this? Like how many Eps? What
is it about? Or what it is going to be called? All this talk and
the thing has yet to get a nickname, an A.k.A. for ASH's spin
off of BtVS. Maybe we here sould be the first to give it one ASAP
before some one else does? Don't I always seem to ask way to many
questions? Okay the A.D.D. in me is taking over. Later
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: any fact and spoilers welcome -- Slayrunt, 18:32:15
07/11/01 Wed
It's working title the "the Watcher" there are 6 ep's
scheduled and it is going to be more on mystery that demon's (ghosts
etc.). Suppose to be more adult and British, ASH said "there
are a lot of ghosts in England"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: any fact and spoilers welcome -- Cynthia,
19:12:18 07/11/01 Wed
With the possibility of crossovers from Buffy and Angel. Right
now it sounds like an idea they have that might not come through
due to production conflicts and/or decisions on basic premises.
Demon soul question -- Mindtrekker,
17:54:56 07/08/01 Sun
Have there been any statements by Joss or characters in the Buffyverse
to specifically indicate that the process of creating a vampire
involves a demon entering the body from outside? I know Joss has
specifically said that when a vampire is created the human soul
leaves the body but I don't recall any statement that a demon
soul then enters the body. I think he also said that once the
human soul departs, the body is "posessed" by a demon.
But does that mean it entered from outside the body.
It seems to me that posession could also occur if the demon were
ALREADY PRESENT in the body, but deeply sublimated by the human
soul.
Consider that when Angel tries to go to the source of demons to
destroy them all, Holland returns him right back to the world
of humans, telling him that the evil he fights is in every one
of them.
This would certainly explain why vampire personalities are so
greatly affected by the personalities of their former human selves.
This is something I've wondered about for a long time. Any thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Demon soul question -- Wisewoman, 19:01:29 07/08/01
Sun
Very thought-provoking question, IMHO. We had quite the discussion
a while back about the possible source of Buffy's slayer powers
and the idea that they could come from the same original source
as the vampires' powers, and that that source might, in fact,
be The Key (i.e. Dawn).
At present this is still just conjecture, but if it turns out
to be the case then I, for one, will be left wondering exactly
where to draw the line between human and demon. When we saw Angel's
demon in Pylea it appeared as a mindless, instinctive, killing
machine. The suggestion that all humans in the Buffyverse might
have one of those lurking inside them doesn't seem too terribly
far-fetched to me, in light of some of the goings-on at Wolfram
and Hart.
And, as ATLtS, this would give the Bleached One a formidable edge
in the quest to prove to Buffy that he's as capable of being as
"good" as anyone else.
Don't know if you've posted before, but, if not, welcome! And
thanks for the food for thought.
Wisewoman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Demon soul question -- Rufus, 19:24:22 07/08/01 Sun
Season one, The Harvest, Giles told the gang how vampires were
created:
Giles: "The books tell the last demon to leave this reality
fed off a human, mixed their blood. He was a human form possessed,
infected by the demon's soul. He bit another, and another, and
so they walk the Earth, feeding...killing some, mixing their blood
with others to make more of their kind. Waiting for the animals
to die out, and the old ones to return.
So, we have a "human form" infected, possessed by the
soul of the last demon to leave this reality. But in this human
form though the soul is gone the mind is still there. So you have
the personality and memories of the person the host was. So does
the person that was exist? Or are they gone forever? Possession
suggests to me that you have something of the person left as the
demon didn't take over the body as much as infect it, possess
it only kicking out the soul. In Pylea we saw that the demon part
of the vampire is very primeval, not so much a personality than
an instinct to kill. So to exist the demon soul needs a place
to live (human body) and a mind to function. So how much of the
person is the vampire and how much is the demon soul?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hehehe- knew you'd have that one handy ;) -- Wiccagrrl,
19:26:37 07/08/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Pylea's not the best example -- Solitude1056, 05:57:29
07/09/01 Mon
The only vamp we've seen in Pylea, after all, had a human soul
along with a demon's. So it's hard to tell if Angel's reaction
to Pylea is true of all vampires - I would think it's more likely
that all other vampire, upon entering Pylea, would promptly turn
into that instinctive killing animal. Angel's "human"
half, it seemed to me, was due entirely to the human soul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Pylea's not the best example -- Rufus, 11:39:05
07/09/01 Mon
I'm not just going by Season one but what Joss said about the
soul at the Paley festival.
Audience member: "I'd like to know what your definition of
a soul is? And what distinguishes Angel from the other vampires,
because it becomes clear from both Buffy and Angel that vampires
have human emotions and human attachments. So is that a conscience?
And then what separates vampires from humans if it is a conscience?"
JW:"Um, very little. Essentially, souls are by their nature
amorphous but to me it's really about what star you are guided
by. Most people, we hope, are guided by, "you should be good,
you're good, you feel good". And most demons are guided simply
by the opposite star. They believe in evil, they believe in causing
it, they like it. They believe it in the way that people beieve
in good. So they can love someone, they can attach to someone,
they can actually want to do things that will make that person
happy in the way they know they would. The way Spike has sort
of become, an example is Spike obviously on Buffy, is getting
more and more completely conflicted. But basically his natural
bent is towards doing the wrong thing. His court's creating chaos
where as in most humans, most humans, is the opposite, and that's
really how I see it. I believe it's kind of like a spectrum, but
they are setting their course by opposite directions. But they're
all sort of somewhere in the middle."
I think that what that means is that in Pylea you would get the
same results with any vamp that you did with Angel. The difference
would be that you would see a difference in how the human side
acted with no conscience. If Joss had said that the soul was the
spark of life or something more than he did I'd agree with you,
but he didn't. Pylea separated the physical characteristics of
the man and vampire. Angel didn't come off that sympathetic at
first because he always had a bit of a problem personality wise.
He always said it was the man that was weak and we saw some of
that in Pylea. His wake up call was just how savage the demon
side was, with just the instinct to kill if it felt threatened.
But even so, Fred was able to subdue it. So my feeling is that
if we put another vamp in Pylea you would get the same reaction
but the human side would have no conscience. As this is an infection
a possession there would still be a separation of the demon and
human self. Just an opinion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Demon soul question -- Morgane, 12:34:53 07/09/01
Mon
That would mean that every vampire come from the same demon, no?
So, if the essence of a vampire is the demon inside them, then
every vampire has the exact same essence, and the difference between
them would be their human side.
It's strange, vampires have been my obsession for some time now,
and I've never seen them this way before. I mean, a single demon
that take place in every vamp body. So their ability to love,
to do good, or evil would have nothing to do with their vampire
personnality but with their human's. If I get the Buffyverse deal
well, then every vamp has the same blood inside them (started
by the Master) a bit like a virus or something. And more it's
far from the original demon, more the demon blood is diluted (not
sure about the word though), and that would explain the level
of power and evilness in different vamp especally in the Master-Darla-Angel-Drusilla-Spike
line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The Master? -- vampire hunter D, 13:13:43 07/09/01
Mon
When you say "the Master", do you mean that to be the
original vampire or the character by that name. I doubt those
two would be one in the same. In fact, based on some things said
in the show, it's obvious that some vampires were around before
the master.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Master? -- Morgane, 05:31:14 07/10/01
Tue
Possibly, I guess I meant more the first vamp. If it isn't the
Master (and you're probably right) then it doesn't change anything
only that another vamp is the master in the first-one way. A bit
as Dracula in Bram Stoker's novel.
Don't you think Buffy should meat him once. After meeting the
first slayer, the first vamp would be a great suite.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Demon soul question -- Wiccagrrl, 19:25:19 07/08/01
Sun
It's an intriguing possibility, but I do think there is something
that enters from the outside, and that the vampire is not just
"human minus soul"
For one thing, I believe Giles makes the comment in one of earlier
eps that the first vampire was created when one of the last demons
bit a human host and "infected" the host with it's demon
soul. Rufus will remember the quote, I'm sure. I know she's quoted
it before when the subject of the soul came up.
Second, if it were just an inate part of human nature, then why
the physical changes, and more importantly, when Angel was cursed
to have his soul back, why was he still a vampire?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The Mohrah Clinic -- Sssaaammm, 08:24:44 07/10/01
Tue
If this is true and the demon 'pseuo-soul' is just an infection,
then when someone is vamped and the human Soul is ejected, would
a vampire be sentient?
If a Mohra demon farm can be cultivated and the orb of ephesala
(something like that) re-employed, perhaps the scoobs could open
up a clinic where they can treat vamps who have conflict about
their vamp-positive status such as Harmony. The Initiative could
be re-grouped to section unwilling 'patients'.
question on the season 5 finale???? -- anya,
03:58:01 07/09/01 Mon
juss wonderin', on the season 5 finale "the gift", when
Anya pushes Xander out of the way from the falling concrete, does
she die in the process???? ( i haven't watched it yet, and i'm
dying to find out). Also, isn't it cruel that buffy dies, after
all the good things she's done. It's a great storyline , but give
buffy some credit and maybe some slack. Moreover, when buffy returns
in season 6, what storyline are they gonna use to bring her back
to life??? I'm really curious on whats gonna happen from now on!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: question on the season 5 finale???? -- Jessica, 04:16:32
07/09/01 Mon
Anya doesn't die when she pushes Xander out of the way, she'll
be back next season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: question on the season 5 finale???? -- Lyra, 12:31:23
07/09/01 Mon
Hey Anya!
Join the club!! I dont think there is a single buffy fan who isnt
curious about wots gonna happen from now on! As for how Buffy
is commin back; rumours and gossip! Only one person knows for
sure and thats Joss!!!!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: question on the season 5 finale???? -- mundusmundi,
15:27:06 07/09/01 Mon
"Also, isn't it cruel that buffy dies, after all the good
things she's done."
I agree with you. But it also shows life isn't fair, which is
a good reminder for everyone now and then. (Ever see NYPD Blue?
Sometimes I've thought they've gone overboard on poor Sipowicz,
especially last season, which began with the death of his partner
and ended in the death of his wife. As Cordy might say, "Overkill
much?" :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: question on the season 5 finale???? -- gds, 15:41:43
07/09/01 Mon
But it also shows life isn't fair
One of the lines from Babylon 5 that I'll never forget is Marcus
talking about this issue. He said that it used to bother him that
life was unfair, until it occurred to him how much worse it would
be if people actually deserved the bad things that happened to
them. After that he took great comfort in the fact the universe
was unfair.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Too true -- Humanitas, 05:10:30 07/10/01 Tue
"Let every man be used after his deserts, and who shall 'scape
whipping?" --Shakespeare
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Great insight. -- mundusmundi, 10:18:50 07/10/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> No, life isn't fair...(o/t) -- Wisewoman, 18:46:41
07/09/01 Mon
..as I was reminded today listening for the first time to the
cd "Songbird" by Eva Cassidy, who died of cancer at
the age of 33, in 1996. She was an accomplished artist, as well
as a phenomenal musician, but she supported herself by working
as a gardener and was almost too shy to appear on stage.
Her voice is only now becoming known outside of her stomping grounds
in Maryland, and, for some reason, her amazing posthumous success
in the UK.
Find it. Buy it. Listen to it. ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: No, life isn't fair...(o/t) -- Rahael, 16:21:54
07/10/01 Tue
The fact that so many unfair things did happen in the Buffyverse,
that happiness was such a rare commodity was one of the reasons
I kept watching. Born and grew up in a war torn country - I have
never considered 'fairness' a useful category for looking at life.
I guess most of us here haven't known what it is to starve, or
to be tortured, and that's all through an accident of birth. This
is not true for far too many people in the world.
fate of the key -- vampire hunter D, 13:05:13 07/10/01
Tue
Alright, a question has come to mind I wanted to run past you
guys: If Dawn dies a natural death, would the Key just cease to
exist? Because if the monks goal was to preserve the Key, making
it Human was the worst thing they could do because, no matter
what, it will only last maybe 100 years at the most. It could
be that if she dies from natural causes, she'd revert back to
her raw state, but then the Key would have no keepers or guardians.
And what happens if she has children. Would they inheirit the
powers of the Key? thoughts. comments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: fate of the key -- cknight, 17:25:11 07/10/01 Tue
I think she would change back to a being made of pure energy,
but her experience as a human would make her different in that
she'll have a will. "I think there for I am", before
she was a tool, now she'll be a lot more.
Dawn can't be killed. her human form can.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The KEY: More than an inanimate object, but does it
have a soul? -- darrenK, 07:19:08 07/11/01 Wed
IMHO, this question touches on a future plot point.
As far as we know, the monks made the KEY human so that the Slayer
would protect it, but they also gave the KEY free will.
But what if they also made it able to harness its own power?
We'll soon find out. There's at least two more seasons left and
there's that pesky HellMouth to close.
A related question:Dawn was made human, but does she have a soul?
Any opinions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The KEY: Has it a soul? Does it have Faith?
-- Simplicity, 09:52:43 07/11/01 Wed
"A related question:Dawn was made human, but does she have
a soul? Any opinions?"
IMHO, the key does not have a soul. Which is why I think the writers
have gone out of their way to pair Dawn up with Spike (both are
without souls and both seem to be able to perform good acts as
well as bad ones).
There have also been hints at Buffy finding out where she comes
from. Then, Dawn appears on the scene. I think that maybe Dawn
and Buffy share the same power source or one provides for the
other, etc.
Also, we've heard that Dawn was made of "the slayer".
However, there were two slayers at this time. Buffy says that
Dawn was "made out of (her)". But, have you noticed
that she has long dark hair, has quite a temper, and has a tendency
to make morally questionable choices. Does that remind any one
else of Faith?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The KEY: Has it a soul? -- Marie,
01:22:00 07/12/01 Thu
'Fraid I have to disagree, here. No, the 'key', as energy, wouldn't
have a soul, but the monks made the key human, with human faults,
idiosyncrasies, likes and dislikes, and a soul. And why wouldn't
they? They were monks, after all, presumably with some sort of
religion and god (by that I mean not necessarily our God - whoever
or whatever He may be to any of us), so above all they would think
of giving their new little human not only physical protection
(Buffy), but afterlife protection. Anything I've ever read about
various Brotherhoods leads me to believe that these men are dedicated
to (their) God, prayer, doing good works, etc. I'm certain that
Dawn has powers we haven't been shown yet, but what makes anyone
think that the monks wouldn't ensure, as a top priority, that
she also got a soul?
This is only my opinion, of course, and I'm sure some of you will
let me know if you think otherwise!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The KEY: Has it a soul? -- Humanitas,
05:49:20 07/12/01 Thu
I'd say that Dawn definitely does have a soul, just based on her
behavior. Accoding to Joss, the soul is what predisposes someone
to do good. Dawn's behavior seems to be in keeping with having
a soul, in that it is no more morally questionable than any other
teenager's. She certainly hasn't exhibited any tendancy to want
to hurt anyone, the way most vampires (for example) do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Hmm -- Greta, 13:45:27 07/12/01
Thu
I agree that the monks undoubtedly wanted to give their human
creation as much protection and guidance as possible.
But maybe the question is COULD they give her a soul? The Rom
restored Angel's soul; what that means is up for debate but clearly
it implies they worked with something already in existence. So
we don't know if it's possible to create a soul out of thin air
or even out of pure energy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Considering Dawns reaction
in The Gift........ -- Rufus, 15:21:23 07/12/01 Thu
Does it matter if she has a soul? The soul as Joss has defined
it sure is no guarantee of good behavior. So as the soul isn't
the only thing needed to make a person good then does it matter
if Dawn has one? Her first move was to jump into the portal because
she knew that the world would be destroyed and she wanted to prevent
that. Her actions were unselfish and she thought of the consequences
to the portal opening. To me it matters little how she started
and if she has a soul, her actions are what counts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Considering Dawns
reaction in The Gift........ -- Greta, 13:53:17 07/14/01 Sat
To me it matters little how she started and if she has a soul,
her actions are what counts.
I completely agree. But if it is revealed that Dawn does not have
a soul, would the Scoobies agree? Probably Willow, certainly Anya
(another question mark in the soul-having category) and Spike
would stick to the actions-only criteria. Buffy, most likely,
would agree if only because this is her baby sister, though she
might shy away from any larger implications.
But Xander and Tara tend much more towards black and white views
of the universe. And Giles has spent a lifetime studying ways
to counteract and destroy soulless creatures based on a foundation
that, by definition, they need to be fought and killed.
It could be interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The KEY: Has it a soul? -- darrenK,
15:14:26 07/17/01 Tue
The only thing I doubt about this situation is the thought that
the monks have the ability to "make a soul."
The Gypsies didn't make a soul for Angel. They just put back the
soul that was there to begin with.
To make a soul is to be GOD.
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The KEY: More than an inanimate object,
but does it have a soul? -- anom, 14:31:00 07/16/01 Mon
"As far as we know, the monks made the KEY human so that
the Slayer would protect it, but they also gave the KEY free will.
But what if they also made it able to harness its own power?"
I wondered: in The Gift, when Dawn wants to talk to Glory instead
of Ben (or just gets disgusted w/Ben) & says, "Be her!"
& then screams Glory's name 3 times, she appears. Is this part
of the Key's power--to call Glory forth? Or would she have shown
up at that point anyway? Could the Key have sent Glory back inside
Ben, but Dawn didn't know it? Does the Key have other powers?
Only over beings from Glory's dimension? Or more widespread?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Calling forth Glory -- vampire hunter
D, 13:57:09 07/17/01 Tue
Actually, if you watched the show, you'd realize that what happened
was that the barrier separating Ben and Glory had become so weak
that theythemselves could consciously control the change. (As
Ben said "Alright, just stop yelling!")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The KEY: More than an inanimate object,
but does it have a soul? -- Cynthia, 16:21:00 07/16/01 Mon
Is it better to trust a soul that has no conscious. No a no-soul
with one?
We have seen characters on the show who were born with a soul
and yet are totally devil. Yet those who suppose to have none
act honorably.
Perhaps conciousness (empathy) is what Joss feels is more valuable,
or what actually make a person human. Maybe the soul is just the
container which can be stolen, or lost, or tossed away, pushed
aside or damaged by outside forces.
Identifying
slayers -- Masquerade, 11:45:00 07/10/01 Tue
Hi all, I just got the following email:
===
I was checking out your Buffy site looking for some info that
may have never been given out by Mr. Whedon. Do you or anyone
you know, have any idea just how it is that the Council of Watchers
is supposed to find the "new" Slayer once she has "manifested"?
I would assume they use some sort of magic, but am not at all
sure.
The reason I'm asking is that I'm considering putting up a not-for-profit
site that has White Wolf character variants, and want to use Slayers.
===
Now, to the best of my knowledge, Joss has never made any definitive
statements on this, on- or -off-camera. If he has, do tell! But
I don't think so. Any interesting speculations how this process
occurs? Good theories will probably end up on my site, 'cause
I'd love to have them.
Just plllzz keep in mind that the watchers don't "call"
slayers; the PTB's do. Watchers just find'm... somehow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> slayer characters -- vampire hunter D, 12:20:49 07/10/01
Tue
i don't know how they find the slayers, but I do have Vampire:
the Masquerade versions of Buffy and Faith if hte guy wants to
use them (I've also been working on Mage: the Ascention versions
of Willow and Tara).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Vampire: the Masquerade -- cknight, 17:14:55 07/10/01
Tue
Vampire hunter D, I used to play Vampire: the Masquerade & Mage.
There isn't any games in my area is there a online place to play?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: slayer characters -- malmorra, 09:42:30 07/11/01
Wed
Sounds cool. I haven't bothered making direct W.W. characters
for characters on the show, because most of my players watch the
show. One of the players is running a Slayer named "Muffy"
(nickname from Millicent) who is more like the movie Buffy than
anything else. Once I actually get the time to put the site up,
I'll post here to let y'all know where it is.
Oh, and I'd make Willow a Mage, definately. But Tara? I'd almost
have to make her a Sorcerer according to the revised rules. If
you haven't gotten your hands on a copy of Sorcerer Revised, do
so! It's much more rules oriented and has a COMPLETE listing of
Psi abilities and the rules for them. It rocks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Identifying slayers -- Liquidram, 14:55:36 07/10/01
Tue
The book "Spike & Dru Pretty Maids in a Row" has a very
definitive explanation of how Slayers are chosen, but I don't
know if it is Joss sanctioned or not. Christopher Golden wrote
it and he is usually in the loop.
Each Watchers Council member identifies potential slayers in young
girls from all over the world and trains them for the possible
selection. (Remember when Merrick was stunned that Buffy had never
been trained?) These girls were usually taken from their families
when they were young, around 10 years old.... (can anyone say
Jedi or Harry Potter?) When the present slayer dies, the new slayer
is chosen in some mystical way that is never clearly explained....
she suddenly develops her slayer strength and powers and becomes
the new Slayer. None of the Watchers or candidates know who will
be selected until it happens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Identifying slayers -- Masquerade, 15:54:36 07/10/01
Tue
That's not the question, exactly--the question is, how do the
watchers identify these girls among the millions of girls out
there of slayer-calling age?
In the movie, they had a mole in a particular place, and Buffy
had it removed and hence hadnt been identified before her powers
were manifest.
Obviously, they don't go around taking girls at random from their
homes and training them *just incase* they should develop slayer
powers. There has to be some way to know in advance.
Hairy mole? Magic spell?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I might have to read the book again now -- Liquidram,
17:54:09 07/10/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Identifying slayers -- malmorra, 09:35:19 07/11/01 Wed
Masquerade, thanks for posting my question so quickly and for
letting me know where to find this board!!
I knew that in the movie, Slayers have a mole that identifies
them, and that there is some "mystic force" that empowers
the Slayer, but have not been able to find out just how the Council
finds the Slayer. Since Joss (everyone seems to referr to him
by his first name) has made it evident that there are sorcerers
(wizards, magi,etc.) in the employ of the Council, I've been assuming
that they have a ritualistic spell that they use to locate the
new Slayer, wherever she may be. Probably somthing along the lines
of the "demon energy locating spell" thingy that Willow
tried to do with Tara last season.
Does anyone have any better ideas?
Oil is the lifeblood of your car!
-- Dedalus, 16:51:50 07/10/01 Tue
Okay, so I haven't posted here in a couple of weeks. Still, I
can't get rid of this image. Remember when I was on pain pills
after my really long root canal? Well, during that, my aunt kept
on talking about taking her car to Jiffy Lube, and how oil was
the lifeblood of your car. Then I watched the Gift. So this is
what we have ...
Some have complained that making the Key into a defenseless fourteen
year old girl was not a very good decision on the part of the
monks. Despite how well it worked mythically, they should have
transformed the Key energy into something else. Maybe even an
inanimate object. But I insist it would not have worked except
how it came down. I mean, for instance, how would it have worked
dramatically if they had transformed the Key into say ... a car?
Probably a Chevrolet Cavalier. I don't know why, I just see Dawn
as a Chevrolet Cavalier.
How would the season have gone down? Who would have cared about
the car? I suppose it could have been used as a metaphor for Buffy
having to take care of her Mom's car and getting into all these
wacky adventures, but for some scenes, it simply wouldn't have
worked. For instance, when Joyce was going into surgery, would
she really have been talking about the car? "I know I shouldn't
think like this ... but the car ... it's not mine, is it? But
somehow ... it belongs to us, doesn't it? It's important to the
world ... precious ... "
And you would have had no adolescent angst when the Chevy found
out it was the Key. It just wouldn't have cared.
I suppose it would have been useful when the Knights of Byzantium
got after them, and Buffy would have been faced with the dilemma
of whether or not she should use the Key as a weapon, and aim
"for the horsies."
And then Glory would have kidnapped ... well, stolen, the car
- even if Buffy had put one of those safety rod things on the
steering wheel, she would have just broken it off - and learned
that the ritual would have to be started using the Key's lifeblood.
In other words, its oil.
And then she would have had to build a REALLY big tower to get
the Chevrolet above the hot spot, and then start draining its
oil down to open the portal. And then Buffy would have made it
up there, and it just wouldn't have been the same. Unless she
really, really liked the car, she would have just held the accelerator
down and let it zoom down into the portal. On the other hand,
if she could not bring herself to sacrifice the car - say it reminded
her of her mom or something - it still would not have worked.
Picture this - Buffy is standing up there, the portal is opening,
dragons and demons are all over the place ... then she has her
epiphany as the sun begins to rise - "Of course it's oil.
It's always got to be oil. It's what makes your car run. It's
what makes it other than stalled." "The monks manufactured
it out of me ... " "It's motor oil ... it's just like
mine." "Death is your gift" "Death ... "
" ... is your gift." Then Buffy pulls out two bottles
of 10W-40 and leaps off the tower into the energy portal.
I don't know. I just feel bad if I don't contribute here. These
are the kind of thoughts I have when I'm on heavy medication.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> ROFL - and I thought *I* needed a vacation! :-) -- Solitude1056,
17:31:35 07/10/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> ROFL, too! Missed you, Dedalus!! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 18:08:03
07/10/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Oil is the lifeblood of your car! -- Sebastian, 20:19:34
07/10/01 Tue
I drive a gold-colored Chevy Cavalier (I call it, to the ridicule
of my friends, "Buffy") that just had an oil check -
so that was ULTRA cool to read. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> So now do I feel inspired to do a post on 'Electrons are
the lifeblood of your stereo'? -- OnM, 20:40:38 07/10/01 Tue
Uhhh, not really.
Good'un though, D. Great imagery.
:-p
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You haven't been talking to Action Spike have you??? --
Rufus, 21:16:05 07/10/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Glad your feeling better, Dedalus! -- Little One, 09:28:52
07/11/01 Wed
It's not "do androids dream of electric sheep" but do
Chevy Caveliers dream of oil-changes
Spike would have called Dawn not L'il Bit but L'il Dipstick.
I drive a white chevy cavelier named Mookie (Ferengi School of
Business bumper sticker on rear window) and it recently leaked
oil. Your post made me picture little portals opening on the asphalt
with every drip,drip,drop of oil. And we thought potholes were
bad this year!
Thanks for the giggle and guffaw!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Oil is the lifeblood of your car! -- mundusmundi, 09:32:56
07/11/01 Wed
Or, Dawn turned into a jelly donut: "Of course it's jelly?
It's always got to be jelly!" Or a can of dedorant: "Of
course it's Old Spice! It's always got to be Old Spice!"
The possibilities are endless.
Hilarious, Dedalus. Thanks for the bellylaugh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> No, gas is the lifeblood -- vampire hunter D, 13:38:10 07/11/01
Wed
It's what makes the car go. That's why it cost $2 a gallon (thanks
George W.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> How about petroleum? That covers both of 'em. ;) --
OnM, 21:28:59 07/11/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Now I've contributed ... and I'm feelin' mighty good
:-) -- Dedalus, 18:43:39 07/11/01 Wed
Is the prophecy wrong? Is angel
realy the Vampire with a soul? -- Ardyn Majere, 21:27:48 07/10/01
Tue
A freind of mine brought this up, and I beleive it merits more
discussion. Is Angel realy the vampire with a soul? I beleive
that Angel as we know him is a soul inhabiting a Vampire body,
and that he isn't the one who will fufill the prophecy. If you
look closely into Spike's character development, you'd see that
now (well, close to the end of the season with glory running amok)
he is starting to develop a soul. I beleive that even if he didn't
have the chip, he'd stay where he is now amongst the Slayer's
group, and that perhaps HE is the one the prophecy speaks of.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Is the prophecy wrong? Is angel realy the Vampire with
a soul? -- Wiccagrrl, 21:42:50 07/10/01 Tue
It would be rather Jossian to do a switcheroo like that- and they
made a point of the fact that the prophecy didn't mention Angel
by name. But Spike does not have a soul. Whatever he's developed,
it's not that. Doc even mentions not smelling a soul anywhere.
So, I'm not thinking Spike. But is it possible that both W & H
and the Fang Gang are jumping to some unwarrented conclusions?
Oh, yeah.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Wait and see, There is more to come I beleive. :) -- Ardyn
Majere, 04:57:08 07/11/01 Wed
I beleive that we shall see Spike develop more humanity (at least,
he'll care more about what happens to people, I'm not idealizing
humans here. ;) in the next season.
Oh, off-topic question, are there many wiccans on the list? :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I've long wanted to see another vampire with a soul -- Greta,
09:51:17 07/11/01 Wed
whether it's Spike or not. I don't think it would make Angel less
unique, in fact it would only deepen his characterization to see
another ensouled vamp as sort of a control.
It would help us take a look at what was in Liam/Angelus/Angel's
personality, experience, etc. that made him TPTB's candidate for
a warrior. What is in him, uniquely in him, that made him destined
to get that soul?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I've long wanted to see another vampire with a
soul -- LadyStarlight, 10:52:02 07/11/01 Wed
Wasn't it sort of an accident that Angel was ensouled? Darla brought
the gypsy girl to him as a gift, right? Were the PTB working through
Darla, or did they just take advantage of the situation? Albeit,
100 or so years after the fact. Obviously, no-one got the memo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I've long wanted to see another vampire
with a soul -- Rufus, 14:02:04 07/11/01 Wed
The restoration of Angel's soul was an act of vengeance by the
Gypsies who had lost a favourtie daughter. They wanted Angel to
be able to care about what he had done and the demon to be tormented
by this new conflict. Angel still killed for awhile humans he
thought were criminals, eventually finding even that was too much.
He was then trapped by his conscience,while his mind replayed
the tapes of all the death he caused, remembering everything from
the enjoyment of the kill, the blood, to realizing what his art
had made him into. I think the PTB's took advantage of a new potential
warrior of light, it's still not clear in the scrolls which side
Angel is on in the final battle, telling me that he is still tempted
by evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I've long wanted to see another vampire
with a soul -- Sssaaammm, 15:31:47 07/12/01 Thu
How did the Gypsy's know it would work? Did they know? Perhaps
they have used the same revenge many times but the vamps have
committed suicide to avoid the guilt. Perhaps they have lost their
soul again more quickly. Angel is often classed as unique but
that is only as far as the records show. Did Jenny ever mention
anything about it being the first time they've used that revenge
curse? Sorry about writing this all in questions but it's been
one of those days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I've long wanted to see another
vampire with a soul -- Rufus, 15:47:06 07/12/01 Thu
They seemed to understand that the spell had the limitation of
making Angel lose the soul if he was ever happy, that's why Jenny
was there. I was under the impression that they had lost the ability
to do the type of magic that spell required. When Willow did the
spell it looked like she got a power boost from another source
that wasn't Willow. I guess it's like being a good at anything,
if you don't use it you could lose it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Angel's curse........ -- Rufus,
16:32:29 07/12/01 Thu
First I'll give you the curse and why Angel was given it.
Uncle Enyos: "To the modern man vengeance is a verb, an idea.
Payback. One thing for another. Like commerce. Not with us. Vengeance
is a living thing. It passes through generations. It commands.
It kills."
Jenny: "You told me to watch Angel. You told me to keep him
from the Slayer. I tried. But there are other factors. There are
terrible things happening here that we cannot control."
Enyos: "we control nothing. We are not wezards, Janna. We
merely play our part."
Jenny: "Angel could be a help to us. I mean, he may be the
only chance we have to stop the Judge."
Enyos: "It is too late for that."
Jenny: "Why?"
Enyos: "The curse. Angel is meant to suffer, not to live
as a human. One moment of true happiness, of contentment, one
moment where the soul that we restored no longer plagues his thoughts,
and that soul is taken from him."
So with the curse ended in Innocence, Uncle Enyos tells Jenny
that Buffy has to now kill Angelus. Angel was never meant to live
as a man, he was meant to suffer, watch the lives of others he
could never join. Angel was never meant to become human, humane,
he was meant to suffer, forever. These people of Jenny's took
vengeance seriously, they wanted eternal torment for Angel and
were prepared to offer up the lives of future generations to make
sure vengeance was served. To the Gypsies that cursed Angel, vengeance
is never sated, never over, never is one forgiven. If Angel could
no longer suffer, then he was to die. They just never considered
Angelus would take another daughter and her uncle with him. Buffy
asked Jenny if the curse could be redone. This is the answer.
Buffy: "Curse him again."
Jenny: "No, I-I can't. I mean, those magicks are long lost
even to my people."
Before she died Jenny was able to leave the spell needed to recurse
Angel and Willow eventually found it and did the spell, but I
think she got a little help.
Without warning Willow's head snaps back and she looks up with
her eyes wide open. Her head snaps back dosn and her eyes stare
into the Orb. She begins to chant steadily in Rumaninan as though
possessed.
It never says for sure in Becoming 2 if Willow was possessed but
it sure looked and sounded like it. I only wonder what helped
Willow, could it be the spirit of vengeance that won't die even
if the Gypsies do? Or is it somehow Jenny who has found a way
to help from beyond, feeling that vengeance came at too high a
price.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I've long wanted to see another vampire with a
soul -- Liquidram, 00:32:34 07/12/01 Thu
I agree with you to an extent, but I am also enjoying Spike's
evolution arc. Things are no longer black and white. The demon
without a soul is doing good. Whatever Joss has in store for him
is bound to be dynamic.
Before, we may have been intrigued by him, but I doubt many actually
cared about what happened to him. Who now could easily deal with
Spike getting dusted in the Season opener?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I've long wanted to see another vampire
with a soul -- Greta, 09:02:40 07/12/01 Thu
Who now could easily deal with Spike getting dusted in the Season
opener?
The shrieks from BAPS members across the country alone would probably
split open the heads of the Emmy committee. Although, with any
luck, that could lead to re-voting during their incapacitation;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Another, related theory -- Greta, 09:16:20 07/12/01 Thu
someone over on the Angel's Soul board noted a few weeks ago that
maybe the shansu has already come and gone. The Prophecies of
Aberjian said after a plague, great battles with demons and an
apocalyptic situation, Angel would become human. -Angel/Angelus
was around during the Black Death and smallpox plagues -There've
been any number of great battles with demons, and some apocalypses
as well (Acathla, Ascension, etc.) -Angel has become human (IWRY).
Just because it didn't stick doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Granted, it's far-fetched, but an interesting train of thought.
Even it this didn't turn out to be the case, it would be fascinating
to watch Angel deal with the ramifications if he BELIEVED it.
As it would be to watch him deal with possibly not being the vampire
with a soul in question. Either way, he'd still be looking at
an eternity. He might not be consciously focusing on the shansu
post-epiphany, but I doubt it's completely gone from this thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Dirty Weekends In Pylea -- Sssaaammm, 04:45:13 07/13/01
Fri
Why was Angel's curse lifted when his body was regenerated in
IWRY? Would the regeneration actually class Angel as human? The
only explanation I can think of is that the curse was directly
attached to the vapiric aspects of Angelus.
If in Pylea Angel's human and vampire part are alot more seperate
(e.g. when in human face mode he can go in the sun and in vamp
mode he shows all the demon) then maybe the curse is not present
there unless he vamps.
What I'm leading to is.....If the potential romance I've read
on previous posts between Angel and Fred takes place....and with
the control they have over the portals and the possible safety
in Pylea now, Angel and Fred could use the dimension as a "nooky
room" to dissappear to for the odd weekend.
Sorry for the superficialness of the eventual conclusion but it
did have a metaphysical basis........honestly! :)
A Nietzschean Mustache -- BobR, 09:36:49 07/11/01
Wed
This week I finally got to see all of the Angel episode "Disharmony."
Of philosophical interest is the mustache worn by Motivational
Speaker turned Vampire Doug Sanders. It was just like the one
worn by the German philosopher Nietzsche.
Another echo of Nietzsche, though distant, is that Sanders talks
of "Self-actualization" a lot, a bit of terminology
which came from long-dead psychologist Abraham Maslow, though
in contemporary psychobabble it's used in ways that Maslow wouldn't
have recognized. The Nietzschean echo is that Maslow was himself
influenced by Nietzsche and "Self-actualizers" (in Maslow's
own writings) seem to be clones of Nietzsche's "Uebermenschen."
(Sorry about the lack of umlaut!)
I don't know if any of this was deliberate, but I wouldn't put
anything past the writers on Buffy and Angel. Intellectual history
is a can of worms, especially when philosophical concepts become
a part of trendy popular drivel, which describes contemporary
psychobabble perfectly. (I myself think that the Ultimate in being
Trendy is the Lemming--a suicidal rodent!)
I know this forum is devoted to Buffy and Philosophy, and I'd
guess that a mustache can have a philosophical signficance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> All of todays "New" ideas can be attributed to
dead philosophers and economists. -- Uberphilosopher, 09:55:12
07/11/01 Wed
Buffy the movie and
continuity -- vampire hunter D, 13:28:46 07/11/01 Wed
Why does everyone think that there is some continuity between
Buffy the Vampire Slayer the movie and the tv show? Are they supposed
to be linked? It was my impression when I first started watching
that the two were separate, linked only by being based on the
same concept. Therefore, the events in the movie never happened
to our Buffy and therefore are irrelevent to our discussions of
the show. But whenever we talk abou Buffy's past, people keep
adding stuff from the movie. So did I miss something or is everyone
else confused?
Actually, there is evidence in the show that the events surrounding
Buffy's calling didn't happen the way they did in the movie. Remember
Angel's flashbacks in Becoming? He was there. Yet none of the
stuff he saw matched the movie. Plus the fact that all the metaphysics
are different.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy the movie and continuity -- Cactus Watcher, 13:50:33
07/11/01 Wed
It has been published, (in the Watcher's Guide, etc.) that the
movie was a compromise between what Joss wanted and what the studio
wanted. Therefore it is a titanic mess, good only if you like
to see a really lousy movie once in a while. While there obviously
is some continuity between the movie and the TV show (Joss did
have a hand in the movie), it's probably best to forget the movie
existed, as far as the canonical Buffy story. But, if someone
likes exploring the relationship, between TV Buffy and movie Buffy,
I'm not going to say I won't listen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy the movie and continuity -- Andy, 14:46:44
07/11/01 Wed
As I understand it, the tv show is *roughly* based on Joss's original
film screenplay, not what actually became the film. It's not exactly
the same because Joss is older and wiser than he was when he wrote
the screenplay and since it wasn't produced and seen by the public
he felt free to tinker with the smaller details as he developed
the show.
Dark Horse Comics actually did an adaptation of the screenplay
a couple of years back which was okay (unimaginatively called
"The Origin"). It's kind of bizarre in that the writer
and artist didn't bother to truly conform the story to the show
continuity because some of the vampires look much different and
the setting is 1992 and not 1996, but the creative team added
a short epilogue featuring Buffy telling the tale to Xander and
Willow anyway. Overall, it fits the main events that we've seen
on the show, though, and the tone is similar. Might be worth looking
at for curiosity's sake :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy the movie and continuity -- Humanitas,
06:36:49 07/12/01 Thu
My impression has always been that the basic events of the film
happened, but not necessarily as portrayed. I love the film (for
different reasons than I love the series), and it's always interesting
to me to see the seeds of some of the things that have come up
in the series. True, the metaphysics are different, but the basic
themes of identity and growing up are still very much present.
Also Buffy's relationship with Merrick provides some good comparisons
and contrasts with her relationship with Giles.
Inconsistancies over time are always an issue when looking at
a body of work from any artist or philosopher. I remeber a great
discussion on this board about how Sartre expressed some very
different opinions at various stages of his writing (this was
back during the Noir Angel eps this season, before we changed
board hosts). So if we're looking at Joss's work as philosophical
texts, it's entirely reasonable for there to be some lack of consistancy,
especially when there are huge time lapses between the creations,
as there is between the film and the series. IMHO, that doesn't
mean that we shouldn't look at the film, just that we may have
to deal with some tensions between the film and the series.
Disclaimer: I have no idea how Joss thinks about this (or even
if he thinks about this :). This is just the impression that I've
gotten from the ep's that I've seen and the transcripts that I've
read.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy the movie and continuity --
Brian, 08:59:14 07/12/01 Thu
The only two consistencies I can think of are:
Merrick was Buffy's first watcher, and he got killed. She got
blamed for burning down the gym.
So, there was delicious irony in that she blew up Sunnydale High
at the end of Season 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy the movie and continuity
-- vampire hunter D, 12:56:17 07/12/01 Thu
I know it's been a while since I've seen the movie, but Buffy
didn't burn down the gym. In fact, I remember the principal going
around the gym giving detention slips to the vampires.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy the movie and continuity
-- malmorra, 12:07:48 07/14/01 Sat
There actually is some continuity between the movie & the series.
As stated in earlier posts, the metephysics are different, and
Buffy starts of younger and more virginal in the series opener
than she was in the film. Basically, if you consider the film
to be set during her freshman year, it fits in fairly well with
the series.
1st Anniversary Posting
Party: Riley ( Part 1 of 3 ) -- OnM, 20:58:37 07/11/01 Wed
*************************************************** Reconstructing
Riley - Duty, Love, Perception and Reality - Part I
***************************************************
It was late June and I was thinking about this essay, just pondering
some general thoughts and outlines, when this song by Peter Himmelman
came on the radio. Almost immediately this vision appeared in
my imagination, where these words well up from Riley's soul and
pass through his conscious mind, as he lies beside Buffy in bed,
silently watching her sleep. It just seemed to sum up some of
the essence of the man, reflected in his feelings towards the
woman he loves:
With you I can see / past the lies and greed in this burned out
city With you I can run / from the shell-shocked demons dancin'
in my head You give me strength / when my legs are tired You feed
my soul / when I'm uninspired
With you I can speak / in a voice that rings with love and mercy
With you I can stand / no matter where the howlin' wind of change
may blow I lie in bed and I watch you sleep / There is no dream
that I would not keep with you
There is no face that I love as much / There is no dream that
I could not touch / with you
With you I can love / with a heat that defies explanation With
you I can sleep / like an infant held up in its mother's arms
I know you well / and you know me too There's no hope so lost
/ that it can't be touched with you
*********************************************
The scene is in Xander's basement. Finally possessed of a decent
job that he seems to have a genuine talent for, Xander is bidding
the much-despised digs farewell, as he and Anya ready their new
apartment. It's moving day, and the Scoobies are gathered to help.
After piling her up with boxes, and getting a 'Fine-- I'm just
your slave' comment from Anya, Xander and Riley are alone in the
basement. Xander turns to Riley, and gives a wry smile. The following
conversation ensues:
X: How is it that she can always make me feel that Suave Xander
has left the building?
R: You two have your friction, but she digs the whole package.
It's obvious.
X: Still, I do envy you sometimes. I mean, for the sanity. Not
that I'm still into Buffy. Not that I ever was.
R: (smiles): Hey, I'm well aware of how lucky I am. Like, lottery
lucky. Buffy's like nobody else in the world. When I'm with her,
it's like I'm split in two-- half of me is just on fire, going
crazy if I'm not touching her. The other half is so still and
peaceful, just perfectly content. Just knows: this is the one.
R: (pauses in his reverie, turns to Xander): But she doesn't love
me.
He says it without bitterness, merely with quiet acceptance. Xander
doesn't know what to say. Buffy and Dawn reenter, Dawn goes for
a nearby box as Buffy moves to Riley.
B: You got more for me to carry?
R: You can help me pack this.
B: Sure.
Buffy gives Riley a quick, casual kiss and then they pack the
box together. Xander watches.
*******
Such is the manner of Riley's body language, and the forlorn look
on his face, that even though we are shocked to hear these words
actually spoken aloud, many of us instinctively feel that they
are true, and at the time I counted myself among them. There is
little doubt that Riley believes this sad aphorism with all his
heart, a heart that has just spoken so eloquently of the degree
of love that he feels for Buffy. But is it true? Furthermore,
if it is not true, why does Riley feel with such certainty that
it is, and what does this say about Riley's perceptions of himself
as reflected in his relationship with Buffy? After all, he gives
not the slightest indication that he intends to break up with
her-- love him or not, he seems to define his total self-worth
at this stage in his life by his love of Buffy.
So after starting near the beginning of the end, we will now go
back to the beginning itself and try to outline just how this
strange state of affairs came about, and then follow it to its
ultimate(?) resolution when the two finally do seperate their
entanglements, at least for the moment. In doing so, I will attempt
to define just who I believe Riley is, and how I feel that he
is misunderstood, for part of the problem with defining Riley
is that there is no possibility of doing so without also involving
Buffy. This is because the man we speak of today did not truly
exist before he met the love of his life-- Riley was only a potential
waiting to be realized, and as with so many others whose lives
Buffy has touched, what they once were is not what they are now,
or what they are becoming.
*******
Part of the overall richness of the Buffy universe is that the
writing carries a scope beyond that necessary to simply define
a given episode, plotline or character. When we view an ep for
the first time, we are caught up in the moment, and so often don't
see clues that predict or expand upon the ultimate destination
of the story arc. Such is the case when we first meet the character
of Riley Finn, which takes place in the first outing of the fourth
season, 'The Freshman'.
Buffy and Willow are on the campus of UC Sunnydale, having met
up after wandering about seperately for a short while. Willow
is so excited about her new adventures in gathering knowledge
that she describes the occasion (humorously, and rather unintentionally)
in terms of a sexual release. Buffy, on the other hand, is overwhelmed
and feels distinctly out of her element. As they are gathering
books and supplies for the coming term, one book that Buffy requires
for her psych class is stacked atop a set of very tall shelves.
She has to stretch to reach it and in doing so manages to knock
the books over onto the head of a very tall, and very handsome
upperclassman, whom we shortly discover is one 'Riley Finn'.
This first meeting seems to tell us more about Buffy and Willow
than it does Riley, for he appears to be nothing more than a pleasant,
reasonably intelligent, but otherwise average student. Such is
not the case, however, with the benefit of hindsight.
The reactions to the book-dropping incident are predictable--
Buffy is flustered and apologetic, her clumsiness (as always,
supremely ironic in terms of the physical gifts of her Slayer
alter-ego) an expresssion of just how out of place she considers
herself in the college environment. Willow, on the other hand,
gets to be suave and charming, and Buffy's already wounded ego
deflates further when the very attractive man in front of her
latches on to Willow's obvious scholastic self-assurance, and
interacts with her in a slightly flirtatious manner.
We don't realize it at this moment, but a significant clue has
just been presented as to what makes Riley Finn tick. Behind the
hunky-looking, solidly masculine exterior is a man who carries
several deep and well defined character traits. One of these is
a sense of duty, and a solid feeling of having a place in the
world, a purpose. The other is less conventional, but more interesting
in many ways-- Riley respects authority in general, and loses
none of that respect even when it's presented to him in a person
of female gender.
In a better world, this wouldn't be a contradiction, but in our
conventional, early 21st Century realverse, it certainly still
is perceived as such. Men carry authority, women do not. Men who
have respect for women of power are seen as being less masculine,
regardless of the personal merits of the woman whose authority
they respect. Later on, as the season progresses, we will see
this expression of our society's 'conventional wisdom' played
out in the interactions of Riley with the other members of his
paramilitary group, 'The Initiative'. When push comes to shove
near the end of season four, 'Initiative-Riley' will be viewed
as a traitor to both his duty and his gender for choosing to follow
the authority of his 'girlfriend' rather than that of the other
men about him.
The fact that he is eminently correct in doing so continues the
Buffyverse tradition of putting a stake through the heart of 'conventional
wisdom', but this doesn't mean all will turn out rosy for the
newly enlightened. Making the correct choice doesn't guarantee
freedom from pain. Sometimes, many times in fact, it precipitates
it, and the best you can do about it is to minimize the hurt and
get on with your life.
*******
In the popular quote by Robert Browning-- 'A man's reach should
exceed his grasp, or else what's Heaven for?'-- we are presented
with a key to one of the primary subtexts of the initial meeting
between Riley and Buffy, and I'd like to go into this a bit because
I think it frames the events that come after with an essential
perspective.
If one considers the Biblical creation mythology of Adam And Eve,
it seems that the primary interpretation would be that some types
of knowledge should not be sought out and investigated. God gives
Adam and Eve a paradise to live in, free of age, suffering and
death. In return, God asks only that his creations not partake
of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Satan
then tempts Eve to disobey God's will and partake of this fruit.
Eve does so, tempts Adam, and so causes their fall from Grace
(and, metaphorically, of course, all of humanity's).
I have a big, big problem with this concept, and my guess is that
Joss does also. Why does the act of striving for knowledge guarantee
that evil will result, or at minimum a fall from a 'Grace' that
is essentially imposed, not chosen freely. If one does not know
the difference between Good and Evil, then there is none. A sentient
being acting without this knowledge is merely another animal,
who acts on instincts, and thus garners neither credit nor blame
for any actions they may persue. It could be reasoned that this
was exactly Satan's point-- and even if he's evil, that doesn't
mean he can't speak a truth.
Buffy is symbolically reaching for knowledge when she stretches
out to grasp the psych textbook. Conventional wisdom (God's wisdom?)
might have been interpreted that she should concentrate on her
main purpose in life (slaying) and not go to college, not take
Psych 105 with Professor Walsh, not open herself to the world
beyond her 'duty'. Buffy is very fearful about taking this next
step, but she takes it anyway. In doing so, in the scene with
the book, her attempts to become less a creature of instinct and
more a being of self-actualization have the consequences of initiating
her personal involvement with the 'real' Adam of the story, not
the false one to come later.
Initially, Riley is not tempted, because he does not see anything
particularly special in Buffy. As this changes over the course
of season four, we see that he does eventually accept the offer
she presents, and in so doing leaves the safety of his 'paradise'
of secure belonging to an predetermined, externally created worldview.
This causes him great pain, which also reflects back from him
onto Buffy. The difference in this Jossian 'creation' mythology
from the Biblical one is that the pain is deemed necessary because
it brings growth and freedom, and that on balance it is better
to willingly choose to do good than to be directed to do so by
others.
*******
After 'The Freshman', Riley pretty much disappears for several
episodes to allow some other, more Buffy-centric elements of the
season's story arc to be put into place. First, she must deal
with a nearly-literal 'roommate from hell' ('Living Conditions'),
then a new boyfriend who will betray her in a pedestrian and demoralizing
fashion (Parker in 'THLOD' & 'Fear, Itself'), the general scholastic
stress of college life, and the changing relationships of her
friends in the SG. Looming on the horizon is yet another betrayal
from another 'lover', Maggie Walsh and the Initiative.
During this time, what we do see of Riley reinforces the notion
that he is a decent, caring individual with a solid sense of self.
In 'Fear Itself', he gives Buffy excellent advise in telling her
that she must try to balance her work and her life. While he means
schoolwork (having no idea at this point who Buffy *really* is),
the message is right on. The contrast between his mature Superego
and Parker's nominally-functioning Id is quite revealing, and
as Buffy gradually gets over her loss of self-esteem from her
well-intentioned but misguided fling with Parker, Riley's increasingly
apparent 'normality' becomes more and more of an attraction.
The scholastic year progresses, and Buffy gains more confidence.
She even eventually wins praise for her mind from Professor Walsh,
and in turn becomes less fearful and more admiring of this intense
and demanding adult figure. Riley seems to sense this growing
self-assurance on Buffy's part, and in keeping with his tendencies
to be attracted to powerful women, finds himself becoming increasingly
drawn to her. A critical turning point in this regard occurs in
'The Initiative', when Willow, who is despondant over Oz leaving
town to try to gain control over his inner wolf, attempts to explain
to professor Walsh that Oz will be returning. The professor is
unmoved:
"Riley. I noticed you left off a name today in roll call.
Osbourne, Daniel Osbourne, Oz?"
"He's not in this class anymore. I hear he dropped out,"
replies Riley, who, unknowing of the backstory, thinks this is
an innocent question.
Willow looks very distressed. "Oh, well you heard way wrong
then. I mean, he's not gone. He--he left temporarily to work out
a few things. I know that sounds lame in its vagueness, but I
assure you, Oz will be back."
Walsh strides up to where Willow and Riley are. Her demeanor is
cold enough to drop the room temperature several degrees. "Not
to my class, he won't. An educated guess. You know the rules,
you know I hate exceptions, and yet somehow you feel your exception
is exceptional."
"Oh, but-- "
Walsh cuts her off abruptly. "It is. To you. But since I'm
neither a freshman nor a narcissist, I have to consider the whole
class. If your friend can't respect my schedule, I think it's
best he not come back."
Willow, looking even more hurt and miserable, walks off. Buffy,
who's been watching from the sidelines, and who now looks very
angry, fixes Walsh with a steely glare.
"You know, for someone who teaches human behavior, you might
try showing some."
Walsh seems neither particularly amused nor perturbed at this
obvious challenge. Riley seems stunned.
"It's not my job to coddle my students," Walsh answers
evenly, returning the challenge. Buffy's glare continues, unfalteringly
and intensely, her face tightened in obvious disgust..
"You're right. A human being in pain has *nothing* to do
with your job."
Buffy stalks off. Riley, still in abject disbelief over what he's
just heard take place, looks at Walsh, unsure what to say. Walsh
looks over at him, and her upbeat response only serves to confuse
him further.
"I like her."
Riley, grasping for a truly cogent comment, can only come up with,
"Really? You don't think she's a little-- peculiar?"
*******
In just a few short minutes, Riley has radically evolved his opinion
of just who this strange young woman is, and begins his quest
to know her better. It has been obvious since we first met him
and Professor Walsh that he admires, respects, even slightly fears
her, considers her a powerful individual who could/should never
be challenged in such a manner, but here is this harmless looking,
petite little blonde woman doing exactly that, and never backing
down for a second. The first offering of forbidden fruit has just
appeared before him, and he will spend the rest of this episode
trying to segue into meeting with her socially, finally doing
so the next morning after the commando raid on the dorm in an
attempt to capture Spike. This time the interaction goes more
positively, with Buffy expressing some interest in Riley, although
admitting to him she finds him 'peculiar'.
Next we move on to 'Pangs' & 'Something Blue', where respectively
Buffy and the SG have to fight Hus, the Native American vengeance
spirit, and Willow casts a 'work my will' spell that goes very
wrong. Riley has only short interactions with Buffy in these eps,
but his meet-ups with his new and peculiar girlfriend only serve
to confuse him more, in particular as Buffy falls under Willow's
spell and plans to marry Spike.
Two things do occur that set the stage for future eps-- one, the
overall theme of ambiguity in determining just what constitutes
true evil-doing and what is instead possibly justifiable anger
on the part of those who have been wronged and are seeking justice
or retribution. This will relate to Riley's difficulties in seeing
the demon world in other than black and white, either/or terms.
Two, the apparent unity of purpose of the Initiative will be revealed
as far more fractious, with various members, including Riley's
friend Forrest, acting against Riley's wishes and indeed against
the supposed high moral purpose the Initiative attempts to honor.
One example foreshadows this clearly, as Forrest, Riley and Graham
are out on patrol, and are also making plans for the Thanksgiving
holiday. Riley feels duty-bound to achieve Maggie Walsh's goal
of capturing Spike. His friends are more willing to let things
slide a bit, rationalizing that Hostile 17 is not that much of
a threat. The conversation:
R: We'll do one more sweep, then cash it in.
F: I gotta pack tonight. You got a flight?
R: Wednesday night. Professor Walsh wants me here for the debriefing.
F: That's a pretty short thanksgiving.
R: Hey, with a hostile on the loose, we're lucky to be going home
at all.
F: It's neutered. The implant works great. He can't hurt a single
living thing.
R: As long as he knows about the initiative, he's a threat. We
do this the professor's way.
F: (coughing the words): Mama's boy.
R: That's a nasty cough. You might need to spend the weekend in
quarantine.
F: Oh, no. I'm done coughing.
R: I just don't want anyone getting sick. (he pats Forrest on
the arm)
*******
Riley still ardently believes in his cause, and in Maggie Walsh's
leadership. You could argue that this is a foolish and naive position
to take, but first, we as the viewers are privy to information
that Riley doesn't have, and second, it is a part of Riley's belief
system at this point in time that the people who lead him and
the others are in this position because they both deserve and
earned it.
In 'Something Blue', Buffy meets Riley when he is helping to put
up a large banner for the campus 'Lesbian Alliance'. Buffy jokingly
asks if there is something that she should know about him, and
he jokes back that 'yes, I am a lesbian'. Most interpretations
of the banner-hanging scene see it as a foreshadowing for Willow's
introduction to Tara in 'Hush'. Interestingly, I feel there is
an additional subtext present with this scene that does involve
Riley, which may be that Joss is referring to Riley's atypical
respect for women being manifested as if he integrates his sexual
and social relationships to women in the manner of another woman,
rather than a male. Thus, Riley is a 'lesbian'. I don't think
that this is a dig, but rather a complement towards what Joss
views as Riley's acceptance of strong females.
The B/R 'ship sails into warmer waters as Riley invites Buffy
to a picnic, and also sincerely impresses her by referring to
her as mysterious and beautiful. He admits to feeling a bit unsure
as to how to deal with her (the mysterious aspect, that is) and
that he 'rehearses' before speaking to her. Later when Willow
and Buffy talk, Buffy tells Willow that she feels good about Riley,
that he is a good man and wouldn't hurt her. Unfortunately, she
betrays her limited dealings in the realverse of love when she
also wonders whether the hurt is part and parcel of the intensity
of the relationship, and if so, will her time with 'Joe-Normal'
Riley lack that wild intensity and passion she's experienced previously.
Of course, during this same episode, Spike is hiding out from
the Initiative with some reluctant help from the SG-- Buffy is
even feeding him blood while he's chained up in Giles' bathtub--
ironically begging the question of whether Buffy is getting enough
'intensity'in her life. She, along with the rest of the SG are
also missing the fact that Willow is still devastated by her breakup
with Oz, and as Spike accurately declares, is 'hanging by a thread'.
Thus we should take with several grains of salt just how experienced
Buffy is in predicting whether a relationship will be a good one
or not, and for what reasons.
Near the end of the ep, Buffy reassures Riley that her bizarre
behavior in supposedly dating/marrying Spike was all just a game
she was playing to get his attention. That he accepts this questionable
theory and is still as smitten with her as ever is important in
that when he finally comes to discover just who Buffy really is
in the following ep, 'Hush', taking that next-- and very huge--
step in his relationship becomes reasonably possible.
*******
We arrive at the events in 'Hush' & 'Doomed', and these become
pivotal eps of the entire season in many more ways than I'll take
time to detail here, so as to keep the main focus on Riley. Suffice
it to say that the mainly seperate twin story threads of Initiative
and Scooby Gang finally meet, and the result will dramatically
change many lives, some for better, some for worse.
The Initiative relies on science, technology and 'reason' to underpin
it's works in defending the world against the HST's. Buffy and
the SG are not unwilling to use these tools, but they are also
aware that such means have severe limits in a universe where magic
and mysticism are real, something the Initiative doesn't recognize
or even believe in, summed up nicely in Forrest's comment that
the HST's are 'just animals'. At the point in time where he makes
this comment, Riley is starting to have a few doubts, having just
been introduced to the concept of Vampire Slayers, and that his
new girlfriend happens to be this 'Chosen One'. The offered apple
of Knowledge of Good and Evil has been accepted, and bitten into,
and while Riley doesn't realize it, he has just acted to cast
himself out of 'paradise'.
I will reiterate here that I do not see this as a bad thing, in
fact it is necessary for this to occur for Riley to grow, a process
that will take the rest of the season to seek some resolution.
I would suggest that Joss reveals this alternate take on the Adam/Eve
mythos in unmistakable terms when in the beginning of 'Hush',
Riley states "If I kiss you, it'll make the sun go down",
and Buffy comments "Fortune favors the brave".
Ironies continue in that while Buffy may have offered Riley the
apple, she isn't too pleased with the results of the bite either.
Still wary of her past tumultuous/doomed relationships, the shock
of finding out that Riley isn't 'normal' makes her anything but
delighted. When they meet up by accident out on the streets of
Sunnydale as the ep progresses, Buffy tries to break up with Riley,
certain that the 'ship is 'doomed':
B: I really thought that you were a nice, normal guy. R: I *am*
a nice, normal guy. B: Maybe by this town's standards, but I'm
not grading on a curve.
Riley is having none of it, though. His desire for this strange
young woman has only been fueled by her now obviously supernatural
nature, and the strengths and dangers it portends. Far later on,
during season five, Riley is accused by the SG of wanting to be
'danger man', but this is an element of Riley's basic nature,
a way to let himself feel he's both alive in the Id sense and
serving the forces of good in the Superego sense.
Mystery is usually a preface to danger, and the mysterious quality
Buffy possesses is what drew him to her in the first place. Riley
has in fact done exactly the right thing in understanding this
element of himself, and the need to harness it for constructive
purposes. While the Initiative turns out to be corrupt and unworthy
of his innate desire to do good and 'have an adventure', that
does not negate the instinct. Buffy possesses many of the same
instincts, but she pushes them away rather then trying to accept
and divert them in useful ways. Riley accepts his 'danger man'
needs, Buffy resents hers. Their close personal relationship is
one means to deal with this very non-trivial issue, and each learns
from the other things that will make them more balanced individuals,
although this largely will not occur for Buffy until season five.
Buffy does finally relent, and decides to stay with Riley, whose
assertive and self-confident behavior acts to reassure her. The
SG, now aware that Riley is one of the Initiative soldiers, accepts
him as one of the 'good guys' who will work by their side, after
some initial fears that the Initiative may have been acting to
evil ends, which of course turns out to be true as the season
progresses.
*******
'A New Man', 'The I in Team' & 'Goodbye Iowa' form a sort of trilogy
within the overall story arc of the season. Riley wants Buffy
to join the Initiative, certain that her demon-fighting talents
will be of great use to the cause. When she does join, tests run
to determine her strengths and capabilities both impress and unnerve
Maggie Walsh, who finally gets to see just how formidible Buffy
actually is in combat situations. She realizes that not only does
Buffy have the ability to distract Riley from what she sees as
his destiny, but is in fact strong and capable enough to become
a very serious enemy to the Initiative if she were to decide it's
motives were questionable or could possibly cause harm to Riley.
Riley, of course, knows nothing as to what Walsh's Project 314
entails, or his eventual role in it, and is ecstatic that Buffy
has proven to be everything he claimed her to be. His awe of her
keeps growing as he learns more and more of her past accomplishments
as Slayer, aptly summed up in his statement:
"I suddenly find myself needing to know the plural of apocalypse."
To his credit, he continues to accept the challenge she presents
to him, becoming more and more assertive with her despite a situation
that should intimidate the hell out of any normal human male.
R: I'm not even sure that I could take you. B: That depends on
your meaning.
When Ethan Rayne shows up, Riley gets to see firsthand what will
soon become a pattern when Buffy and the Initiative cross paths--
Buffy takes charge, and expects him to follow or get out of the
way. This is disconcerting to him not because he distrusts Buffy's
judgement, but because it means that he must decide whether to
follow the orders of the Initiative or not when they conflict
with Buffy's plans. This situation is entirely new to him, and
he also is starting to pick up, at least subconsiously, on the
fact that Walsh doesn't like having her golden boy pulled in two
directions at once.
The matter comes to a head when Walsh, upset that Buffy asked
too many awkward questions at a mission briefing, and later that
night, while watching them make very passionate love (via an obviously
hidden camera planted in Riley's room) , realizes that if push
comes to shove, Riley will almost certainly choose Buffy over
her, an intolerable option. She plots to have Buffy killed, and
claim to Riley that it was all a tragic accident.
The plan itself was well crafted, but Walsh severely underestimates
Buffy's abilities, and she not only survives, but Riley returns
to the Initiative and hears the 'news' that Buffy is dead at the
worst possible time-- as the reputedly dearly departed reappears
on the security monitor and makes it plain that Maggie is in for
some very serious heartache in return for this nasty little treachery.
Riley, seeing Buffy alive, realizes that there are things worse
than evil HSTs afoot, and stalks off angry and confused. Walsh
calls out to him, but there is no way to repair the damage-- Riley
has left his 'mother', and there's no going home again. She goes
back to room 314, and presents a vitriolic speech to some unseen
individual in the room, stating that 'some little bitch isn't
going to destroy everything I've worked for', but the unseen entity
turns out to be her other 'son', Adam, who promptly kills her
without compunction or even the slightest hint of emotion.
When Buffy informs the SG about the attempt on her life, they
assume that Riley may be involved, but Buffy is skeptical, pinning
the blame on Walsh. As they are debating the issue, Riley comes
in and tries to figure out what happened. Even though the evidence
damning Walsh is overwhelming, Riley refuses to accept that the
Inititive itself is up to anything evil-- his sense of duty and
loyalty to his brothers in arms is too strong to sway him, and
he leaves, walking alone throught the long night, trying to cope.
Riley finally arrive back home at the frat house and meets up
with Forrest. When he explains what has happened, and that Professor
Walsh tried to have Buffy killed, his friend's reaction startles
him-- Forrest suggests that if Walsh thought Buffy should die,
then there was probably a good reason for it. Thus, betrayal follows
betrayal. Graham then bursts in, informing them that Walsh has
been murdered.
In Walsh's laboratory, they find her body, obiously impaled by
something very stake-like. Forrest sees this as more proof that
Buffy is responsible, and confronts Riley with increasing agression.
Riley sticks to his guns, although he is getting wound tighter
and tighter. Everything he believed in, trusted, loved, stood
up for and defended is falling down around him. He is as certain
as he has ever been of anything in his life that Buffy could not
have done this, but the alternative is nearly as bad-- the Initiative
is corrupt, his friends and leaders are turning against him, and
for what? His love of a woman?
Riley would be even more upset if he knew that part of the anxiety
besetting him at this moment was due to withdrawal effects from
the drugs planted surreptitiously in his food by Walsh to prepare
him for his 'ultimate destiny'. Thus, the insults continue to
be piled upon injury, as Riley, still seeking answers, locates
Buffy in Willy's Bar, where she is prodding Willy for info on
the whereabouts of Adam. He is becoming seriously unhinged as
the collective effects of drug withdrawal and the death of his
idealism combine, and threatens Willy, then Buffy, then a harmless
human woman trying to run out of the bar to escape the crazy 'army
guy' who is brandishing a gun and shouting.
I find it odd that some BtVS fans refer to Riley by Spike's derogatory
appellation, 'Captain Cardboard', implying that down deep he isn't
made of very stern stuff, when despite everything that is happening
he regains enough control of himself in the bar to stand down
from his threatening behavior and allow Buffy to help him. *This
is not the act of a weak person*. Even though this moment is unquestionably
the emotional nadir of his entire life, a part of him remains
rational enough to realize that he's irrational. One could argue
that he didn't shoot because Buffy gave him a reason not to, but
that isn't the way people act when they are truly out of control--
*nothing* gets through to them, not love, not logic. I find it
sad that people see a good man who attempts to keep himself on
an even keel, and then decry his 'lack of passion'.
Buffy and Xander break into the 314 lab, trying to find out what
Walsh was doing to Riley. Adam shows up, and injures Riley in
the fight that ensues after Adam reveals at least some of Maggie's
plan, and Riley's part in all of it. Buffy and Xander are expelled
from the lab, and Riley is taken to the med center. He is shaking
uncontrollably, and his wounded hand clutches Buffy's scarf, desperately
hanging on to the one and only thing left in his life that he
feels he can trust.
*****************
( Continued in Part II )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Riley ( Part 2 of 3 )
-- OnM, 21:07:35 07/11/01 Wed
*************************************************** Reconstructing
Riley - Duty, Love, Perception and Reality - Part II
***************************************************
The next two episodes, 'This Year's Girl' & 'Who Are You' are
primarily organized around the conflict between Buffy and the
rogue slayer Faith, and the havoc she wreaks upon waking from
her long coma. Riley's character seems to be in the background,
but in reality he is one of the key players in this particular
drama, and this occurs because of his basic nature, and because
the love that Buffy has given him gets passed along to another
in a very unexpected way.
Faith awakes from her coma, and upon finding that Mayor Wilkins
is dead, goes gunning for Buffy. She lays low for a period of
time, gathering information on the current status of B. and the
SG, finding out among other things that Buffy has a new boyfriend,
which does not sit well with her, since Buffy's attempt to kill
her was purportedly to save Angel, and now he seems to be out
of the picture.
Meanwhile, Riley is feeling somewhat better, although still weakened
by his Adam-inflicted injury, and attempts to leave the Initiative
to go and see Buffy. His friend, Forrest, again objects strenuously
at this, making it plain his hatred for the person he clearly
sees as causing the Cause to unravel. Riley defies him and leaves
anyway, making it equally plain where-- and with whom-- his loyalties
now lie. Riley has evolved to a point where he now differentiates
between the collective actions of a group, and the individuals
that make it up, realizing for the first time how his blind sense
of duty and loyalty to an otherwise righteous cause has in fact
allowed him to be shamelessly used and manipulated merely to serve
the ulterior motives of his so-called 'superiors'.
Placing a possible feminist spin on this is intriguing. Typically,
male heroes who find themselves in Riley's position seek solace
or advice from other alpha males. Any aid, comfort and advice
from the women in their lives-- should they even have women in
their lives, since nearly all of these stereotypical men become
'lone wolves' after breaking apart from their former associations--
is limited to some random and generally meaningless sexual interaction.
Even then, this sexual interaction is often seen as a negative
value, inevitably reminding them that comfort will lead to betrayal,
and so repeat the cycle. It is therefore better to pull away from
society completely, write your own rules, do your own thing, beholden
to nothing and to no one.
Does this sound familiar? Yes, in this mythology the 'lone wolf'
isn't Riley, it's Faith, who was previously allied with a supposedly
righteous cause that eventually betrayed her, causing her to pull
away from society and trust only herself and her own instincts.
Thus, she and Riley share an immense commonality without ever
realizing it, and the final resolution of this mini-arc occurs
in a transfer of power from Riley to Faith that effectively saves
her from her downward spiral into the clutches of darkness and
evil.
All this happens because Riley has the good sense to realize that
Buffy, having allowed him to taste the apple of knowledge, is
now leading the way in showing him how to deal with the consequences.
He sees through his fear and trepidations that this 'alpha female'
is worthy of trust, while the 'alpha males' in his former company
are either not trustworthy, or suspect at best. He again defies
the gender role of his creation, and puts his faith in 'Eve'.
This is doubly significant in that he previously trusted and respected
Maggie Walsh, also a powerful female who sought to 'enlighten'
him, and found that hers was the highest betrayal of all, yet
this does not poison him towards relating with women of power.
Going back to the story, Faith and Buffy have now switched bodies,
and Riley moves into the background again for the moment. Faith,
finally getting what she wants more than anything in the world
(though she would never admit it even to herself), is now 'Buffy',
the one, the only, the respected and admired Chosen One. Many
BtVS philosophers have wondered at whether there was ever a subliminal
lesbian context existant between Faith and Buffy, that Faith may
have even loved Buffy, whether she thought of it consciously or
not. I'll not get into that subtext here, it's a whole essay in
and of itself, but I will note that it is hard to deny that Faith
admires Buffy on at least a subconscious level, that her own lack
of self esteem which she tries to make up for with arrogance and
bravado covers up for this simple fact.
Stop and think-- of all the gifts that Mayor Wilkins could have
bequeathed to Faith, why the one he chose? Why not just give her
some form of Buffy-specific Slayer Kryptonite, and let her kill
Buffy and be done with it? Because, whatever great evil the Mayor
was capable of, there is no doubt that his love for Faith was
genuine, and his insight into her psyche allowed him to realize
that the only way his 'daughter' would be truly happy (barring
his success in becoming fully demonic and taking over the world
in the Ascension) would be for her to become the one thing she
desires more than anything else-- to be admired, respected, gifted
with love-- i.e., Buffy. Knowing this truth causes him to present
the perfect weapon to her in order to defeat her nemesis, by becoming
her.
Just as prophesies are 'tricky things', fate can turn aside even
the best laid plans. Faith's original strategy to get the hell
out of Dodge fall prey to her desire to exact some revenge on
Buffy and the SG. The final coup de grace occurs to her after
Willow innocently suggests that she go visit Riley. What could
be better retribution for betrayal than to victimize Buffy by
sleeping with her new boy-toy? It's perfect.
Except the unexpected happens, and Faith is totally unprepared.
She assumes that Riley is just like all the other men in her past
life, either victimizers, users or simply clueless (such as Xander).
She attempts a seduction intended to not only give herself some
orgasmic jollies, but to prove, once again, that all men are beasts.
But Riley won't play this game.
F: You're hurt.
R: I'm not that bad. I guess those drugs the professor was feeding
me really did make me stronger. I'm healing pretty quick.
F: Well, why don't we give you a test drive?
R: Wouldn't say no.
She crawls back onto the bed, back to him as she says, "How
do you want me?" She turns and sits, waiting for him to follow.
"How do I..." He sits close to her. She comes in close
to him.
"What do you want to do with this body? What nasty little
desire have you been itching to try out? Am I a bad girl? Do you
wanna hurt me?
He sits back a bit, eyes her curiously, not entirely happy. "What
are we playing at here?"
"I'm Buffy."
"Okay, then I'll be Riley"
"Hey, if you don't wanna play..." She is starting to
get up as she says this. He grabs her arm.
"Right. I don't wanna play." He kisses her with tender
passion. She responds in kind.
At this point we cut to Tara's room, where she and Wilow are doing
the spell to locate Buffy. Willow is making the transition into
the netherworld, Tara serving as her anchor to reality. She falls
backward, and seconds later is gripped in what appears to be the
throes of sexual release. The scene cuts back to Riley and Faith-as-Buffy
in bed, where they appear to be in the aftermath of that climax.
Uncharacteristically, Faith is on the bottom, Riley is on the
top. The only light now is the moonlight pouring in through the
window. They are both breathing heavily, slowing down. He is looking
into her eyes, hands by her head, stroking her hair, her face,
completely focused on her. She looks at him with equal focus.
Riley speaks first, very softly:
"I love you."
A reaction swells within her-- surprise, confusion, almost panic
as she suddenly is struggling, fighting to get out from under
him, barely forming the words, "No... No... Get--",
as she scrambles out of bed, crossing the room to the window,
standing there silhouetted, freaking out.
"Buffy... what? What's wrong?"
Riley sits on the bed, uncomprehending. (...that he has just stated
the words Faith has never before heard uttered with such obvious,
undeniable sincerity...) (the addition in ellipses is mine)
F: Who are you? What do you want from her? ( she is anxious, almost
muttering it )
R: Should I not have...
F: This is meaningless.
R: You're shaking...
He comes to her, pulling the blanket with him, and wraps it around
the both of them. A moment, and the shaking subsides.
R: What happened?
She rests her head on his chest. Stares at nothing.
"Nothing."
He holds her, kissing the top of her head.
*******
Later, Riley's gift begins to have an effect on Faith, despite
her best efforts to disregard what happened. When she meets up
and argues with Forrest as she is leaving the house, she angrily
snaps at him that "I'm not a killer! I'm a Slayer. You don't
know the first thing about me." Later still, at the airport,
she is dressed in soft, Buffy-at-her-most-feminine garb, and hesitates
to board her plane when she hears about the vamp hostages being
held in a Sunnydale church. There is no good reason for her to
respond to this crisis, she isn't really Buffy, but... she goes
anyway, missing her plane.
She meets Riley at the church-- he happened to be going there
anyway for the normal reasons, and stumbled into the vamp attack--
and she makes the very revealing comment when he attempts to help
her go after the vamps, "I can't use you." No, she can't.
Riley can be tricked into being used by others, but he isn't a
user, and Faith now knows this. Riley is a good man, a creature
she didn't believe existed. And if Riley exists, and this good
man loves Buffy, then Buffy must be a good woman. This being the
case, and now that she effectively *is* Buffy, there is simply
no alternative but to do the right thing.
Of course, the glory is short lived. Even possessed of both her
Slayer-strength and her new conviction of finally belonging to
a world that will care for her, the one vamp, Adam's 'first',
is surprisingly strong and is beating her. She is struggling to
keep up when suddenly the real Buffy (in her old body) appears
and stakes the vamp. They fight, the bodies get switched back,
Faith runs away in despair.
Buffy informs Riley of what took place, and here we learn that
Riley seems to understand what happened better than Buffy. Buffy
is stunned that Riley wouldn't recognize 'her,' meaning Faith,
meaning that it wasn't Buffy he was making love to, despite the
body switch. Buffy has had some valid disagreements with Riley
before, but here she is clearly off the mark in her presumptions.
Riley has had only minimal exposure to magic-- a mere few weeks
back, he didn't even know that it existed. It is patently unreasonable
for him to assume that someone who looks like, feels like, smells
and tastes like, and except for some minor quirky behavior (which
of course Buffy *never* exhibited before!) acts in all regards
like his beloved is, in fact, some other woman entirely. Yet Buffy
seems unable to get over the fact that he slept with her 'enemy'.
This will cause them some friction until after 'Superstar', when
Jonathan gives her advice that causes her to reconsider her thinking
and move forward, that she and Riley have something too good going
between them to get hung up over this issue, and that it is really
her own insecurity talking.
Because what really gets Buffy unnerved about Faith sleeping with
Riley is that if Faith could pull this off, then Faith is far
more like her than she cares to admit. Buffy is also unaware,
and probably remains so to the current day, that Riley is the
one whose innate decency and caring saved Faith from a fate truly
worse than death-- the loss of her soul.
*******
In 'Where the Wild Things Are' Riley seems to be back in Buffy's
good graces again, certainly if the amount of sexual activity
they engage in is any indication. This ep is really about the
results of sexual obsessions, and how attempting to frustrate
or vilify this natural human need leads to all sorts of problems,
some of which can become quite serious. Speaking via metaphor,
B/R's loss of their seperate selves into a physical/spiritual
unity to the exclusion of the outside world is an indication that
no matter how much they love one another, they have a higher calling
to meet. It is interesting that they are ultimately rescued from
themselves by the couple that we normally expect to behave in
an over-sexualized manner, namely Xander and Anya. As jenoff notes
in his review of this ep, (see my references list at the end of
the essay) it seems that only hidden or secret sex brings out
the poltergeists. Hummmm.... but onward, now, to 'New Moon Rising'.
Riley seems at least partly back in the good graces of the Initiative,
but only partly, what with both Forrest and some of the Ini. leadership
still watching him suspiciously. Things get stirred up when Oz
returns to town, having managed to cure himself of his full-moon
wolfiness. While walking on patrol, Buffy fills Riley in on Willow's
past relationship with Oz, and Riley perturbs her with his take
on demonic types mixing it up with normal humans:
R: Oz is a werewolf and Willow was *dating* him?
B: Well, yeah. Hence the high emotion.
R: Man. You're kidding me.
B: (growing defensive): It wasn't like he was bad all the time.
He only changed three nights a month. I mean, besides the wolf
thing, Oz is a great guy.
R: That's a big 'besides', Buffy. Gotta say, I'm surprised. I
didn't think Willow was that kind of girl.
B: (offended): What kind of girl?
R: Into dangerous guys. She seems smarter than that.
B: Oz is *not* dangerous. Something happened to him that wasn't
his fault. God, I never knew you were such a bigot.
R: Whoa! How did we get to bigot? I'm just saying that it's a
little weird to date anyone who tries to eat you once a month.
B: (angrily): Love isn't logical, Rye. People can't just be Joe
Sensible about it. God knows I haven't been.
R: We're not talking about you...
B: How 'bout we don't talk about it at all. Let's just patrol.
Riley soon finds out that Buffy's point should be well taken,
after Oz, in wolf form, gets captured by the Ini. and taken into
the lab for 'medical testing'. Riley wants to kill the wolf creature,
certain that it is the one that attacked his men, but the wolf
morphs back into Oz just as he points a gun at the beast. Riley's
bloodlust subsides at the sight of the naked and defenseless human
sitting inside the cage. The Ini doctors are unmoved, just simply
more curious than ever. Riley again finds himself on the outside
looking in as he tries to dissuade the doctors from torturing
Oz to find out what makes him turn into the wolf. He later attempts
to help Oz escape, and fails, causing himself to be arrested by
Col. McNamara, the current head of the Initiative who was sent
to replace Maggie Walsh. McNamara is much like Riley used to be,
all loyalty and by-the-books, but without Riley's common sense
or compassion. He has no interest in hearing Riley's defense of
his actions, and states that he cannot fathom why a promising
soldier such as Riley would throw his career away for, as he puts
it, a 'bunch of anarchists', meaning of course Buffy and her friends.
MacNamara gets his answer when Buffy, Xander and Willow sneak
into the Ini complex and rescue Oz and the now imprisoned Riley.
R: How did you...
B: Talk, later. Stealthy escape now.
R: Buffy, I leave now, I can't ever come back.
He pauses, thinks.
R: Just wanted to hear it out loud...
They go.
As they complete the retreat from the Ini, Riley is the last one
to leave the elevator. McNamara glares at him, barely able to
suppress his rage at this flagrant disloyalty.
"You're a dead man, Finn."
"No sir, I'm an anarchist."
He punches McNamara and drops him, walks away.
*******
Riley and Buffy are setting up a hideaway in the least damaged
part of the old high school, figuring the Ini. is less likely
to find him there. After settling in a bit, they talk:
B: Quite a day. Woke up to a big bowl of Wheaties, now you're
a fugitive.
R: Could be worse. At least I've got a hottie girlfriend to keep
me warm on the lam.
B: True, but...
R: Seriously? I don't know. I'm sorry it had to end that way.
But I'm glad to know where I stand, finally. (Pauses) I was wrong
about Oz. I was being a bigot.
B: No you weren't. You we're thrown. You found out Willow was
in kind of an unconventional relationship and it gave you a momentary
wiggins. (She thinks of Willow and Tara) It happens.
R: Still, I was in a totally black and white space. People vs.
monsters. Ain't like that. especially when it comes to love.
Buffy pauses, considers something.
B: I gotta tell you some stuff. About my past. It's not all stuff
you're gonna like.
R: You can tell me anything.
B: I think so. I think I can.
*******
Col. McNamara is speaking via a video hookup with a Mr. Ward,
obviously a bigwig in some oversight group that keeps tabs on
the Inititive. Ward is generally supportive of McNamara, but can't
resist a little dig at him nonetheless:
Ward: The incident with Finn was unfortunate.
McN: Fell in with the bad crowd. Quite frankly, I don't think
he was ever the soldier you all hoped he was. The boy thinks too
much.
*******
We now come to the season's end with 'The Yoko Factor' and 'Primeval'.
Riley is still a fugitive from the Initiative, Adam's evil plans
are proceeding with the sometime aid of Spike, who is doing a
respectable job of planting the seeds of dissention in the ranks
of the SG. Buffy has returned from a visit to L.A., where she
meets with the aftermath of the conflict between Angel and Faith,
and is none too pleased, even though Faith has finally done the
unthinkable, and turned herself in to the police.
Xander tells Riley about Buffy and Angel, filling in a portion
of the story that Buffy left out, fearing to upset Riley. Those
fears soon prove valid, as Riley runs into Angel while out trying
to surreptitiously help his previous comrades-in-arms fight off
a large group of HST's. Thinking Angel's gone bad again-- and
why that would have occurred-- Riley launches into a ferocious
battle with him. Angel beats him down momentarily, not realizing
this is Buffy's new squeeze, and goes off to the dorm to find
her. When he does, he no sooner starts a conversation with her
than Riley runs in. The fighting begins again, but Buffy seperates
them. After retreating to the hall to speak to Angel privately,
she returns to her room and the very chagrined Mr. Finn.
Riley is sure that Angel has turned evil again, and is distraught
about what he thinks has caused this to occur. Buffy is equally
shocked and dismayed that he would think for even one second that
she would do such a thing, old boyfriend or no. She eventually
reassures him that Angel is *not* evil again, and that he has
nothing to fear from Angel in the competition department. She
wonders why he is acting this way, asks if she has ever given
him one reason not to trust her. He answers no.
Buffy: "Then why with the crazy?"
He lays it all on the line...
Riley: "Because I'm so in love with you I can't think straight."
She takes all this in, blown away, touches his face tenderly.
They embrace for a long time, feeling the intensity of the moment.
Then Buffy's face clouds-- Forrest. She is going to have to tell
him that Forrest has been killed by Adam. She pauses, then does
so, as gently as she can.
Although Riley and Forrest have been seriously at odds since Buffy
came into his life, Riley still is shocked, and obviously grieves
for his former friend. He softly moans, holds his head in his
hands. Buffy does what she can to reassure him, tells Riley that
they will find Adam, destroy him. Then, Riley stands up abruptly
and states that "I have to go." His expression is blank,
as if he was suddenly transformed into some kind of emotionless
machine. He repeats his last words, and quickly exits the room.
*******
Riley finds himself in Adam's cave, face to face with his 'brother',
as Adam insists on referring to him. Adam reveals that professor
Walsh did indeed 'chip' him, and that he is now under Adam's control.
Riley attempts to fight the invisible force that is restraining
him, but to no avail. Adam delivers a speech on how 'mother's'
vision came to bring about this turn of events. The speech is
revealing not only for explaining the immediate questions of how
and why, but in subtext says quite a bit about how 'mother' views
the world around her and her 'children', including, and especially,
her favorite son Riley:
"Demons cling to old ways and ancient feuds, and they're
hopeless with technology. Unworthy. Disappointed by demonkind,
we turn to humans. Smart, adaptive, but emotional and weak. Blind.
There is imperfection everywhere. Something must be done. Who
will deliver us?
"Mother. She creates me-- demon strength, human will, high-grade
titanium. Evolution through technology. I am the new standard
for all living beings and our mother knew that. She saw our future,
yours and mine. She saw that you were necessary. She saw the role
that you will play by my side. Stand up."
Riley stands, having no choice.
"You see, we *are* brothers, after all."
*******
Of course, Riley is about as much like Maggie's Adam as a normal
human is like a vampire, except there is more latent humanity
in most vamps than there is in the entirety of Adam. Riley has
never been aware until this very moment just how supremely accurate
Buffy's long ago accusation was that "For someone who teaches
human behavior, you might try showing some." Maggie, in many
ways, is worse than Adam. Adam, the vampires, and many other demons
are largely 'programmed' entities, mostly primal in their instincts,
blindly following their DNA. They exhibit no sense of morality
because they are, like Parker, are Id-creatures. Adam is sentient,
but is rather mistaken in thinking he is the next upward level
of that sentience. He really doesn't have a clue as to the nature
of what will eventually defeat him. He says he sees all, but he
shares Maggie's characteristic blindness.
Maggie was human, and possessed of a soul, which in the Jossverse
is intended to impel one to embrace the cause of good. Yet to
her, any means necessary to achieve a goal was justifiable if
that goal could be met, even if it caused pointless suffering
for all the innocent bystanders who crossed her path. All of the
truly noteworthy misanthropic tyrants of history would have been
proud of how her 'vision' cut through the meaningless emotionality
of her fellow, non-visionary humans, yet in the end that which
she discredits as being of no value in her fellow humans is her
downfall, as Riley and Buffy and all the other 'anarchists' in
the SG exemplify those 'weaknesses'.
The SG has been driven apart by Spike, who manipulates their latent
fears and self-doubts. This action is a temporary setback, for
love and caring-- those sentiments Walsh and Adam do not understand
in any intrinsic sense-- abound among the Scoobies. They really
cannot be kept apart for very long, the ties between them are
too solid. They overcome their self-doubts and band together,
and it is also significant that the idea that ultimately saves
the day comes from Xander, who, like Riley, is sometimes criticized
by fans as being 'dull and ordinary', but whose quick wit enables
him to often draw connections among disparate ideas that the others
don't see-- any standup comedian will tell you that improvisation
is the hardest thing in the world to pull off successfully.
One last time, the SG breaks into the Ini complex, but are captured
by Col. McNamara and his troops. The subsequent verbal sparring
in his control room shows just how painfully out of his depth
he really is, his foolish and pig-headed behavior illustrating
again that Riley is far too intelligent and emotionally deep an
individual to have remained in the service of the military, or
at least this part of it. McNamara sees things in terms of total
black and white, as Riley recently claimed that he did, and will
not listen to Buffy as she tries to clue him in to what is actually
happening and what needs to be done to solve it. The argument
is barely finished as things dissolve into chaos when Adam begins
the real 'Initiative', executing his variant of Walsh's grand
plan.
Buffy first goes to save Riley, who remains under chip control.
She is having a hard time defending herself again the newly 'enhanced'
Forrest, and in a supreme effort of will enabled by seeing his
beloved in mortal danger, manages to cut his chest with a shard
of glass and pull the chip from his body. Some viewers have claimed
that this is a near impossibility, and therefore an example of
a 'plothole', but they are missing the point, which is that it
*is* a near impossibility. If it isn't, then it has little meaning
symbolically. Riley's love for Buffy is so strong, that for at
least this short, crucial moment in time he inherits the ability
to execute a superhuman feat, one which Adam would have assured
him is beyond the abilities of 'emotional, weak' humanity. Whether
the momentary 'gift' was granted by the PTB, or emanated from
Riley's own soul does not matter, it is still the stuff that defeats
monsters.
Buffy leaves Riley with Forrest, knowing that Riley will not have
closure unless he destroys the thing that has taken over the body
of his friend, much as Gunn (in A:tS) knew that he and he alone
had to destroy the vampire that was once his sister. She and the
SG then unite to cast the enjoining spell that will draw on the
power of the Primitive ('The First Slayer') and create an 'UberBuffy'
to defeat Adam. After one of the most creatively visualized fight
scenes in the history of the series, Adam stands uncomprehendingly
as Buffy pulls the 'source' from his chest and destroys it-- stating
"You could never hope to grasp the source of *our* power."
This action also mirrors the one where Riley himself pulls the
chip out of his chest, in that the former action saves Riley-Adam,
and the latter destroys Maggie-Adam. In my earlier Biblical creation
analogy, I spoke of Riley as being a metaphorical Adam to Buffy's
Eve. I have sometimes conjectured that this traditional mythology
could be alternately interpreted as God presenting his creations
with a test-- offer them the choice between 'paradise' and lack
of will, or free will and the terrible and wonderful responsibility
that comes with that freedom. God's original Adam failed that
test, but Eve did not, and thereafter convinced her mate that
the pain was worth the gain. Riley's 'Adam', having experienced
firsthand the moral consequences of 'just following orders', and
the amoral ends to which that can be taken, rejects the influence
of the 'divine right' and thereby establishes that if he is going
to die for somebody's sins, then they need to be his own, or for
someone that he cares about. The analogy continues in that at
first, he was happy to remain in the 'paradise' of the Initiative,
doing good things (or so he thought) and following God's (Maggie's)
advice. Buffy (Eve) presents him with a plan 'B', which after
some trepidations, he ultimately accepts.
Thus, we grow.
******************
( Continued to Part III )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Riley ( Part 3
of 3 ) -- OnM, 21:15:28 07/11/01 Wed
*************************************************** Reconstructing
Riley - Duty, Love, Perception and Reality - Part III
***************************************************
We are now finally near the last episode of season four, and Riley
is being rewarded for his efforts by Mr. Ward and the oversight
committee, who now realize that the Ini project has been a horrible
mistake, and that it must be shut down:
"This was an experiment. The Initiative represented the government's
interest in not only controlling the otherworldly menace but in
harnessing it's power for our own military purposes. It is the
considered opinion of this council that the experiment has failed.
"Once the prototype took control of the complex our soldiers
suffered a forty percent casuality rate, and it seems that it
was only through the actions of a deserter and a group of civilian
insurrectionists that our losses were not total. I trust the irony
of that is not lost on any of us.
"Maggie Walsh's vision was brilliant, but ultimately unsupportable.
The demons cannot be harnessed, cannot be controlled. It is therefore
our recommendation that this project be terminated, and all records
concerning it be expunged. Civilians will be monitored, and we
have the usual measures prepared should they try to go public.
We don't think they will.
"The Initiative itself will be filled in with concrete. Burn
it down, gentlemen. Burn it down and salt the earth. That's all."
*******
Now, I am aware that the season officially ends with 'Restless',
and that Riley appears in it, but I won't discuss his role therein,
since by it's nature the whole episode is so wildly open to different
meanings, and has already been discussed extensively. Feel free
to post any new thoughts you may come up with on that still ongoing
discussion, should you feel influenced by any of the things I've
written here so far.
*******
A bit of a preface is in order, before we launch into That Which
Is Rileyness, S5. One of the unusual things that Joss has done
with both BtVS and Angel is that, at least from S2 Buffy (the
first full, 22 ep. season), the shows have appeared to occur in
more or less real time, according to the calendar year. What this
means is that while we, the fans, see the previous season's ender
splicing neatly into the next season's opening ep, in the Buffyverse,
three or four months of the summer have passed-- think back, and
you will realize that this is always the case.
I mention this because I would like to point out that taking this
into account for S4/S5 means that Buffy and Riley have enjoyed
at least 3 or 4 months of what must have been a reasonably joyful
relationship, if we are to judge by how they first appear to us
in the S5 opening act, 'Buffy vs. Dracula', where they are playing
on the beach, with Xander, Willow and Tara also present. Naturally,
there is no drama without conflict, and just a commercial or five
before this happy scene, the show's teaser presents us with Buffy
and Riley in bed, Riley sleeping, Buffy getting up to 'hunt' and
kill a vamp, then returning to bed with a satisfied look on her
face.
This first 5-7 minutes of the program pretty much sets up the
dynamic for the B/R ship for the remainder of season five. Both
characters will undergo some transformational experiences, mostly
as victims of circumstances beyond their respective controls,
but also partly as personal attempts to gain greater understanding
of themselves and their place in the world.
In 'B vs. D', we see a return of some of Riley's old insecurities
when Drac pays a visit to the 'renowned killer' Buffy Summers,
who is just a little too impressed with Drac's general famousness.
He isn't entirely off base, since Drac does manage to get Buffy
in his 'thrall' to some extent, even getting to bite and drink
from her neck, where he notes the scar left by Angel. While of
course she eventually resists and dusts (?) the Dark Prince, the
incident does set things up for further difficulties as the season
unfolds.
At the very end of 'B vs D', the character of Dawn is rather mystically
and mysteriously introduced, and so some of Riley's interactions
with the Summers' women expand to include her. Dawn sees him as
being nice, but generally indifferent to her, treating her pretty
much like the 'kid sister to his girlfriend', which of course
is exactly what she is. Much later in the season, some well-meaning
but misinterpreted comments that Dawn will make to him regarding
'how much better he is for her than Angel' will end up having
a profound effect on how his relationship with Buffy ends, or
at least radically changes form. By and large, however, there
is not too much going on between them for most of the season.
While it seems obvious that Riley should end up as a sort of protector/big
brother figure to Dawn, that role is taken over by Spike, of all
(un-)people, and there is a steadily increasing dynamic between
Riley and Spike that forshadows Riley's eventual exit from Sunnydale
in 'Into the Woods'.
This excerpt from the shooting script for 'Real Me', actually
gives away quite a lot of things, with mid-summer 2001 benefit
of hindsight, naturally:
R: Morning, Mrs. Summers. You look great.
J: Thank you, Riley. (Buffy goes and greets Riley as Joyce exits
upstairs)
B: Suck up.
R: What, it's a nice outfit. Besides, 'I'm here to violate your
firstborn' never goes over with the parents. Not sure why.
D: (in voiceover): Riley, my sister's boyfriend, is so into her.
They're always kissing. And groping. (pause) I bet they've had
sex.
R: (noticing Dawn watching ): Hey, kid.
D: I'm not a kid.
B: This is a surprise of the nice kind.
R: Now it's my turn to be surprised. Thought we had plans today.
B: Plans? We planned plans?
R: Well, you said 'come over and we'll hang'. Then I said ''kay'.
Not the invasion of Normandy, but still a plan.
B: Oh, right, uh...
R: We're not hanging, are we?
B: Giles is on his way to pick me up.
R: (understanding): Slayer training.
B: Slayer shopping, actually. (defensive) But it's just as important.
R: I've no doubt. Okay, we'll hook up later.
B: You're not mad?
R: No, no, I'm plotting your death, but in a happy way.
B: (teeny bit worried): Oh, good...
R: (sincere): Buffy, I know what this means to you. I think it's
great you've got this new mission. (he kisses her on the cheek
and exits) See you tonight. (calls out) See you, kid!
D: I'm *not* a *kid*.
(REVERSE ANGLE ON BUFFY, in doorway, watching him go and feeling
somehow guilty)
*******
OK, you might want to go back and read that again. Yes, this is
the second episode of the season, and this one little four-way
conversation (Buffy/Joyce/Riley/Dawn) has just laid out about
half of the main events of the rest of the season, and the comments
that are most relevant are those that Riley makes, by the implications
of what Dawn really turns out to be, that he complements Joyce
who then 'exits upstairs', that he had plans with Buffy that get
deferred, that he respects her 'new mission' and that he is 'plotting
her death, but in a happy way'. Either this show's writers are
having their keyboards possessed by the Buffyverse PTB, or they
had the whole year planned in exacting detail before 'Real Me'
was written. (Your call).
On to 'The Replacement', a mainly Xander-centric ep, but where
several key scenes occur that involve Riley which have great significance
for future B/R relations, one of which comes at the very end of
the ep and is a bombshell if ever there was one. This scene establishes
the beginning of a pattern whereby Buffy will increasingly distance
her inner self from Riley, out of the best intentions (to protect
him, just as it is her job to protect others) but to ultimately
tragic consequences:
(Riley and Buffy are alone again)
B: I guess I should go. I'm thinking maybe the guy actually likes
smelly places. So I'm going to do a whole tour de funky, starting
with the sewers.
R: I'm coming with you.
B: Um...
R: I've never told you this about me, but I love the sewers. Probably
get a place when I retire. B: Riley, this Toth guy walks softly
and carries a big blasty rod. He almost hurt Xander-- I'm not
going to let him hurt you.
R: I don't know. I don't like you facing off alone with these
creeps who come gunning for you. I mean, first it was Dracula...
B: Dracula wasn't the first guy to come Buffy Hunting. Lots of
baddies want the Slayer trophy kill. I can handle it.
R: I know... and if you want me to stay out of it, that's cool.
But you can't blame me for worrying. Your job makes you a target.
I mean, who knows how many bad guys are out there just waiting
for a chance.
Later on, in act four, Buffy and Riley are in his car, racing
to Xander's apartment:
B: Can't this thing go any faster? Ultimate Driving Machine my
ass.
R: We're pushing 70.
B: Hey Riley. Do you wish... . R: No.
B: No? You don't even know what I was going to say!
R: Yes, I do, You wanted to know if I wished you got hit by the
Ferula-gemina. Got split in two.
B: Well, you have been kinda rankly about the whole 'Slayer' gig.
Instead of Slayer Buffy you could have Buffy Buffy.
R: I *have* Buffy Buffy. Being the Slayer is part of who you are.
You keep thinking I don't get that, but...
B: I just know how unfun it can be. Bad hours, frequent bruising,
cranky monsters...
R: Buffy , if you lead a perfectly normal life, you wouldn't be
half as crazy as you are. I gotta have that. I'm talking toes,
elbows, the whole bad-ice-skating-movie obsession, everything.
There's no part of you I'm not in love with.
( Buffy thinks about his answer. After a quiet beat, she allows
herself a little smile.)
B: We better get there soon. If Xander kills himself, he's dead.
(thinks) You know what I mean.
*******
So there it is-- just how clearly, and in how many ways can he
state it? Riley has never been shy about expressing his innermost
feelings to Buffy. It seems impossible that she could miss the
message that he's sending and I don't think she does, yet other
than the time in L.A., when she did say to Angel that she loves
and trusts Riley, I am still not sure she has ever stated it out
loud to him, the man that she exhibits all the normal signs of
love with. Why the holding back? It seems unlikely to me that
it would be fear of commitment, so the only remaining emotion
that I can see playing a role in this recitience would be fear
of being unable to protect Riley from harm, and indeed the above
excerpts suggest just this scenario. Riley accepts that Buffy
has a dangerous job, one in which she could be badly hurt or even
killed, which considering the conventional protectiveness most
men feel towards their mate, is astoundingly adaptive and mature
of him, to grant her this degree of space and not try to impose
on her that which he knows she would resent. Buffy, however, seems
afraid to grant Riley the same consideration, and he begins to
sense this, and chafe at it, even though he understands intellectually
why she feels this way.
*******
So we are back to where I started at the beginning of this essay,
with Riley in Xander's basement shocking us all with the remark
that 'Buffy doesn't love me'. Is this true? No, I have come to
believe that he was wrong, and that Buffy does love him, still
loves him, but simply let her fear get in the way of her actual
heart's desire. There is nothing harder than living through and
then beyond the death of a lover or loved one. Buffy finds this
out first hand when Joyce dies, and Buffy has to deal, knowing
that there was nothing she could have done, but torturing herself
anyway with '...if only I had'.
Buffy has dealt with death on a daily basis since she first answered
her calling, but these deaths did not directly involve a loved
one. Buffy is still very young and inexperienced in many ways
and her only serious longer-term romantic relationships (Angel,
and to some extent, Faith) were with people possessed of superhuman
strengths and responsibilities, exactly like herself. She expected
that they could look out for themselves and survive life on the
hellmouth. Riley is different, or at least she perceives him as
such, and since Riley is extremely capable for a human in term
of slayage duties, he begins to resent this attitude. He doesn't
see that he difference between him and the SG is that Buffy see
them as friends and helpers who complement her skills and abilities,
that they are a 'team', much like the one Riley fought beside
when he was in the Initiative. The death of a brother (or sister)
in arms, a friend, is devastating enough, but the emotional entanglement
with a lover is several orders of magnitude higher. Buffy simply
wasn't prepared to deal with this, yet. Her mistake was not in
feeling this way, it was in not communicating it clearly to Riley
by telling him why she was carrying these fears, and allowing
him to help her deal with it as he did with his own fears of losing
her. Riley does understand, as he says to Buffy in 'Out of My
Mind':
"Loving you is the scariest thing I've ever done."
*******
The rest, as they say, is history. The early signs of her illness
are becoming apparent to Joyce, and with the tremendous emotional
stress of dealing with the possible loss of her mother, Buffy
never gets a chance to pursue working out what at this point are
eminently solvable relationship problems with her lover. Riley
gives Buffy the space to deal with this crisis, but in return
he is not given the opportunity to care for her with the only
thing he has that he can give, himself, and so provide a place
for her to seek solace in her time of need. Buffy has always felt
that it is part of her duty to be strong, to look out for all
others first, a cause that she and Riley share, and one of the
greatest reasons they are such a great potential match for one
another. Whether it is just random circumstance or fate, the result
is the same. Riley needs Buffy, and knows it, and accepts the
consequences. Buffy needs Riley, but is afraid it will show weakness
on her part, or that she will let him in only to see him die,
and that is just too much to handle. All of which ends things
with the age old musical question,
"Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've
got 'til it's gone?"
*******
Final thoughts:
As you have undoubtably noted, I've concentrated mostly on the
events of season four in this essay, since they are further out
of mind for most of us (they certainly were for me, as I began
to play back my tape collection, study the scripts, etc. etc.)
I found that while I have always regarded both the character of
Riley Finn and Season 4 of BtVS as representing high levels of
the Jossian art form, my admiration has only been increased by
reviewing it all again. I disagreed before, and now disagree more
strongly so than ever, with those fans who decry this season,
or Riley, as being a poor representaion of the worth of the series.
Everyone has their favorites, their likes and dislikes among characters.
This is only natural and there is nothing wrong with any of these
impressions, except when they are based on trying to cite specific
reasons that come down to accusing the creators of the show of
'not doing their job' or doing 'sloppy work'. This is nonsense.
Some people may not have liked this particular story, but the
story was *extremely* well told.
You will also notice that I have omitted detailed discussion of
the endgame of the B/R 'ship, including the involvement of Riley
with vampSandy and later the vamp hookers. This topic has been
extensively discussed fairly recently, and nothing I have read
so far in terms of comments from other fans dissuades me from
my original thinking on this matter, which is that Riley was desperate,
and like other desperate people, he did foolish things. I consider
this aberration just exactly that, similar to any otherwise healthy
person who experiences physical or emotional difficulties and
takes to drinking, drugs or other negative behavior as a refuge.
Riley needed help, and if circumstances hadn't been what they
were, I have no doubt he would have gotten his act together, and
that Buffy would have eventually forgiven him. In a way, his taking
off for Belize with the ex-Ini demon-hunting guys could be seen
as another kind of 'drug', but at least it doesn't *have* to be
a negative experience for him, and that is encouraging in itself.
As to Season 6, as always, I'm along for the ride. I'm hoping
to see Riley again, maybe not right away, but I feel there is
too much spark present for this fire not to burn brightly again.
Captain Cardboard? I say anyone Spike will sit down and share
a beer with after getting a plastic stake in the heart can't be
all bad.
*********************************************
References and resources used to help create whatever the hell
this thing was/is:
1. The OnM personal off-air original-broadcast videotape collection
of BtVS S4 & 5, and Angel S1 & 2.
2. Rayne's Buffy Shooting Script website (www.mustreadtv.com/buffyscripts/)
Bless you, my child!
3. jenoff's TV reviews. (www3.sympatico.ca/jenoff/tvrev.htm) This
is an incredible collection of summaries/analyses for the last
3 seasons of BtVS and Angel. Like any other Buffyphile, jenoff
doesn't always get it exactly right, but he gets it right so often
that it's scary. Amazing insights into the subtexts of the show
and its characters. Download 'em, print 'em out, stick 'em in
a 3-ring binder and read 'em. I guarantee it's worth your while.
4. The Buffy Cross and Stake, Buffyguide.com, Buffy News Wire,
Above the Law, Little Willow's Slayground, The Council of Watchers
(the site, not the one Quentin Travers heads) and a number of
other websites for dropping interesting thoughts into my brain
over the past year.
6. Last, but certainly not in the least, Masquerade, ATPoBtVS,
and the other wonderful Buffyfreaks who hang out on the discussion
board here. Bless you all!
*********************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Bloody hell...get the fire
extinguisher.....somethings happened to my printer.....:):):)
-- Rufus, 23:01:20 07/11/01 Wed
I in a calm manner waited for your post(specially since you never
delivered on my Rileybot). Captain Cardboard was first spoken
by Spike along with other terms such as "giant hall moniter"
and "what's his height"...I don't take them as insults
but as exactly the opposite. To have come up with those terms,
Spike had to have given Riley a lot of thought. Riley intimidated
Spike, Riley was the one who had Buffy. The only reason Riley
is gone is because he let his insecurities get the best of him.
I always liked Riley. Spike is the type of bad boy that women
gravitate to because of his complex nature, but give me a Riley
every time. Buffy called him the God of boyfriends, and maybe
that was part of the problem, Buffy wasn't ready to trust love
in any way, she had been burnt and still hurt. If the situation
with Joyce hadn't happened I wonder if Riley would be gone today,
but he is gone. Captain Cardboard isn't a bad name it's an indication
of just how threatening perfection can seem, and not just to certain
blonde vampires.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Bloody hell...get the fire extinguisher.....
-- OnM, 19:38:35 07/12/01 Thu
I thought it strange that a lot of fans who didn't care for Riley
remarked that 'You know, he left the show just when he was getting
sorta interesting...'.
We seem to concentrate quite a bit on the dark sides of the characters
on the show. Obviously, that enhances the dramatic aspects, but
you can't have absolutely everybody brooding and kvetching all
the time, that gets tedious fast. Riley never was 'perfect', he
was just a lot 'less dark' than many of the regulars and because
of that people tuned him out.
I think I may write a little more about this in answer to another
post below, but I eventually noticed that as I was putting the
essay together that I was utilizing the concept of 'negative space'
in a way that applies to writing. That is, I described the character
by describing the people around him (particularly Buffy, of course)
and when I was done, hopefully, there was Riley.
Riley was hard to get a handle on because he was so much a character
that was 'becoming' for most of his 1 1/2 years on the series.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Rileys change of perspective........
-- Rufus, 03:17:59 07/14/01 Sat
Being able to see things from different perspectives isn't just
a trait that Buffy has alone. Riley showed that he could change
how he felt towards different issues. One of the most difficult
changes was in how Riley saw demons. In an exchange with Forrest
they discuss how demons are just animals, not to be considered
capable of feelings or thoughts like humans. That brings me to
the Initiative practice of vivisection. The Initiative experimentation
of demons raises ethical questions of just how far were Maggie
Walsh and her cronies willing to go to make the perfect soldier.
In Restless, the mortal looking "Adam" can't remember
his name...was he a victim or a volunteer? It was clear that Walsh
was willing to experiment on more than just the demons. Riley
had to first overcome his feelings that demons were animals. Funny
but the word animal comes from the word anima or soul. But being
able to label the demons animals, the Initiative doctors were
able to do experiments that were clearly torture. Riley was onboard
with all that until he was forced to see demons from a different
perspective. Oz was Rileys wake up call. Riley was ready to shoot
dead the "animal" that he thought killed one of his
men. No questions asked, Oz resembled the demon that killed so
who cares if maybe they were wrong. The gun is ready to fire until
Oz reverts back to his human form. Riley recognises Oz, he can
no longer see the demon as just an animal but a guy he had spoken
to and liked. Riley was so upset about what the doctors were doing
that he attempted to help Oz escape and was put in a cell himself.
So from his different perspective Riley could see that he could
no longer support a system that experimented on beings that could
have feelings and understand what was happening to them. Riley
was a very brave man who was ready to be courtmarshalled as an
anarchist because he knew that the Initiative was wrong in what
they were doing. I don't think that Riley got enough credit for
going further than just verbally protesting vivisection. Riley
took action and tried to free someone he knew, not just an animal.
His perspection changed and he could never go back. The question
is how many others were capable of the same change of heart?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Rileys change of perspective........
-- anom, 12:21:45 07/15/01 Sun
"Riley had to first overcome his feelings that demons were
animals. Funny but the word animal comes from the word anima or
soul. But being able to label the demons animals, the Initiative
doctors were able to do experiments that were clearly torture."
I think in order to hurt or kill anyone, people first have to
think of them as not human. That's how racism works--"those
people" are portrayed as a lower form of life. That's why
when a government wants to whip up sentiment among its population
for war, it demonizes (interesting word, huh?) the leaders &/or
the people of the supposed "enemy" country.
Did you read "Marathon Man"? (I didn't see the movie,
because of this very scene, but I hope they kept the line in.)
The main character asks the evil dentist (Laurence Olivier in
the movie) torturing him how he can do this, & the dentist actually
has to think a little before he replies, "You see, for me
you are not quite human." It's a lot easier w/people you
don't know personally, at least for most people.
BTW, about "animal" coming from a Latin word for soul,
a term in Hebrew for animal is "ba'al nefesh," basically
meaning (as Spike once called Angel) "soul-having."
In this case "soul" is used in the sense of "life"
or "life-energy"--Hebrew has several words that can
mean "soul," all w/different nuances.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Riley ( Part
3 of 3 ) -- Wiccagrrl, 23:24:03 07/11/01 Wed
Wonderful post. I have to admit, Riley wasn't always one of my
favorites, but I think he could have been very good for Buffy.
I also found the reversal of some of the expected gender roles
in the Buffy/Riley relationship very interesting. He was definitely
the one more emotionally invested, even needy. She was somewhat
emotionally unavailable. She threw herself into her job, she had
the mission. He felt himself at risk of losing himself in this
relationship, and the fact that he was at risk of becoming just
"mission's boyfriend", of losing his own identity, is
brought up by Graham.
I have been wondering since ITW (maybe even before) if we were
intended to see B/R as Doomed from the start. One of the biggest
gripes I've heard about this character is that the writers tried
to shove him down the audiences throats- he was given so much
screentime, seemingly Mr. Perfect at first. But, I dunno...did
those things fail, backfire? Or, as is implied in the title of
B/R's first big ep, were they "Doomed"? Did they try
to make him Mr. Right, or were they setting him up to look that
way so they could peel away the layers and show the problems in
the 'ship later?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Doomed from the start? -- OnM, 20:05:10
07/12/01 Thu
Your last paragraph brings up a very good point, especially since
I have read posts by quite a few fans who felt that Riley's role
was originally intended to be a much shorter one, and Marti Noxon
somehow 'coerced' Joss and the other writers to give 'her boy'
more air time.
Now, Joss has stated on a number of occasions how much respect
and admiration he has for Marti, so I find it hard to believe
that there would have been any arm-twisting involved if Marti
thought that Riley needed a longer story arc, but I really don't
think this is the case. The writers have a fair amount of freedom,
but the basic series' outline is always Joss'. If Riley got more
air time or a longer story arc, then that was the master plan.
I don't think it had anything to do with fan opinions one way
or the other, or Marti having to 'prove anything'. So, your conjecture
about 'peeling away the layers' may be exactly right, it would
make sense. These people write for the long haul, not just for
the individual ep, or even for just one season.
***He was definitely the one more emotionally invested, even needy.
She was somewhat emotionally unavailable. She threw herself into
her job, she had the mission.***
Yep, that is the nutshell, and I love the gender reversal involved,
because it's there all along, but we are just so conditioned to
see it in the 'normal' terms of female=needy, male=distancing
that it doesn't register.
Also, it was even harder for Buffy to deal with Riley's 'need'
because she has several missions, not just one-- her Slayer duties,
taking care of her mother, protecting Dawn, everything all piled
together. Weight of the world, indeed...
I also think that Riley knew this intellectually, maybe even to
a certain extent emotionally, but just how much can you really
feel if you don't have actual first-hand experience? Isn't this
the essential dilemma of the Scoobies when Joyce dies, they want
to help, and be recipients for Buffy's needs, but just how much
can they really do? Unless I'm mistaken, all of the SG's parents
are still alive, except for Tara, who was the one who could really
connect with Buffy.
No matter the degree of his sincerity, Riley isn't the Slayer,
so it is impossible to really, truly know what Buffy's emotional
burden is.
The final answer to Buffy/Riley is that there is no final answer.
It's just plain old messy reality. You do what you can at the
time and move on, just as the Host said to Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Riley
( Part 3 of 3 ) -- anom, 20:41:13 07/12/01 Thu
"I have to admit, Riley wasn't always one of my favorites,
but I think he could have been very good for Buffy. I also found
the reversal of some of the expected gender roles in the Buffy/Riley
relationship very interesting."
Seems to happen a lot w/Buffy, most clearly, I think, in--lemme
think, I don't have all the episode titles down yet--I Only Have
Eyes for You, when the ghosts take her & Angel over.
"Did they try to make [Riley] Mr. Right, or were they setting
him up to look that way so they could peel away the layers and
show the problems in the 'ship later?"
Well, it's like they say (on a button at least): There are no
normal people, just people you don't know very well yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> So good, it's delish! -- Deeva,
00:08:08 07/14/01 Sat
Congratulations on a such a bang up job on Riley! I always felt
that most fans weren't giving poor Rye a chance because of the
good soldier, Iowa farm boy, Captain Cardboard thing. I couldn't
stop reading, I finally had to stop and print it out to read (was
still at work and boss was starting to wonder why I was so quiet).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> wow... that's all.... just wow -- Liquidram,
23:27:36 07/11/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I prostrate myself at the altar of The Misspelled
Buddhist. -- Solitude1056, 06:51:07 07/12/01 Thu
Wow, wow, hold on, woah, wow, wow. I'll manage some coherent compliments
any minute now. Woah. Lemme re-read that. Again. Wow. More wows.
Kudos heaped on your head, OnM, along with a few muttered curses
for raising the bar so high! I willingly and happily concede to
a true character analysis master!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Um, what Sol said. Great job, OnM! --
LadyStarlight, 07:00:00 07/12/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The 'Misspelled Buddhist'? That's my 'altar'-ego?
-- OnM, 20:15:22 07/12/01 Thu
Oooooo, I really like that!
I put quite a lot of thought (gee, how unexpected! (*snark*))
into my OnM-ness, but should I ever decide to retire it, I will
accept most gladly your extremely delicious appellation.
10-Q veeery much for your kind comments, I miss you too!
By the way, remember, my Neo-Phyte-- There is no bar...
;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Can I also say -Wow- -- Rendyl, 09:46:58 07/12/01
Thu
Wow...I said that already didn't I? Bah, I will say it again.
Wow.
I now have to be embarrassed. I see the gender switching the writers
have used with Spike (most notably his willingness at one point
to change to whatever Buffy wanted just to try and make her love
him) but I completely missed it with Riley. I also wanted to thank
you for your even handed treatment of him. It is very easy to
get caught up in his flaws (and he does have them-poke) and miss
the stronger, better parts of his character.
I do want to mention the Faith incident. If I were in the same
situation as Buffy I would have been devastated. I know it sounds
unreasonable but I would have expected my guy to be able to tell
the difference. (truth be told my guy was annoyed that Riley was
unable to tell it was not Buffy-grin). I suspect the incident
would have colored my thoughts and feelings on every aspect of
the relationship from then on. And Buffy was able to forgive him,
but forgetting is not quite as simple.
As for the rest....OnM...wow...(grin)
Rendyl -who is just...wow
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> You can, but you should know the Evil
Clone is already very unhappy... -- OnM, 20:36:39 07/12/01 Thu
.. that he was off by only one page, so don't depress him too
much more. When he gets depressed he starts raiding the fridge
and eating up all my frozen fruit bars-- bummer!
***I do want to mention the Faith incident. If I were in the same
situation as Buffy I would have been devastated. I know it sounds
unreasonable but I would have expected my guy to be able to tell
the difference.***
You're giving us way too much credit, my child. Men are just not
all that perceptive. As I said in my essay, if she looks, talks,
tastes and smells like Buffy, she is Buffy. Even Willow didn't
pick up on her odd behavior at the Bronze, and Willow is what,
her best friend? It took Tara to point out that something was
wrong, and Tara had never met Buffy before.
Nor did Spike, and he's supposed to be the 'perceptive' male of
the group?
Also, recall my comments as to what really made Buffy angry and
hurt was the idea that if Faith could pull this off, and fool
Riley in this manner, then Faith must have more in common with
her than she cares to admit, and that is truly scary for her to
think about. Buffy has every right to despise Faith, but she also
knows deep down that Faith is more seriously misguided than genuinely
evil, but 'seriously misguided' is a lot harder to deal with emotionally
than 'evil', it's just so damn grey.
Thanks for your thanks! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Riley ( Part
3 of 3 ) -- Rattletrap, 20:09:25 07/12/01 Thu
Wow, an amazing essay OnM, good job. I've always found Riley a
fascinating character, and now see him even more so.
I do have a question about one statement. In part III, you say:
Buffy has always felt that it is part of her duty to be strong,
to look out for all others first, a cause that she and Riley share,
and one of the greatest reasons they are such a great potential
match for one another.
I agree with your premise that Riley and Buffy are both protective
types, but I had always come to the opposite conclusion: this
is why their relationship didn't and couldn't work. Both of them
needed to protect more than to be protected. They could reconcile
this so long as they were both protecting others from an outside
menace. After OOMM, when Buffy tries to keep Riley from patrolling
is when things take a real turn for the worse. Thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Opposites attract, but do they stay together,
or just fight all the time? -- OnM, 21:56:47 07/12/01 Thu
A good question. My short answer is that I think that for the
long haul in relationships, you need to have people who mostly
share one another's goals and ideals, with enough complementary
differences to strengthen the relationship-- one has qualities
the other lacks, and so the whole is greater than the sum of the
parts.
I personally feel that the concept of 'opposites attract' leaves
out the basic problem that unless the inevitable fighting over
differences that ensues is part of what the couple sees as 'passion'
and they use it for stimulus to the relationship, that the 'ship
is ultimately doomed. And when it dies, it's usually really, really
ugly.
I might have some more to say on this later, it's a good topic,
but for tonight, I'll leave it at that. It's nearly 1:00 AM here
in the East, and soon time to hit the hay.
Anyone else wants to run with this topic, go for it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Opposites attract, but do they
stay together, or just fight all the time? -- Nina, 15:09:29 07/14/01
Sat
Okay, now I find the time to read all the posts! (gee, I have
for more than 24 h worth reading here!)
"After OOMM, when Buffy tries to keep Riley from patrolling
is when things take a real turn for the worse. Thoughts?"
I found that they were patrolling quite well together around the
end of season 4. Buffy didn't mind his presence and they were
fighting well together. She even liked him to be there. In OomM,
something is off since the beginning of the episode (actually
since the beginning of the season). Buffy doesn't want Riley to
patrol even when he is strong.
The big change occured when Dawn arrived. Actually when you look
at it, Riley and Spike switch places right about that time. Whatever
people say, I really didn't see any interest from Buffy for Spike
in season 4. She wants to kill him until he's neutered. She merely
ignores him everytime they are together. All her attention is
on Riley. Comes Dawn and everything is different. Suddenly Riley
is off patrol, off her emotional circle and Spike gets all the
attention (be it with punches or not)
I expect we'll have more information about what Dawn appearence
really provocked. Buffy and Riley had their fights and difficulties,
but it could well have worked. I think that the fans did the job
here and decided for Riley's fate more than Joss did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Opposites attract, but
do they stay together, or just fight all the time? -- Cynthia,
16:01:52 07/14/01 Sat
Well, it has been noted that Dawn seems to have an effect on people.
Perhaps exposes things or feelings that are deeply hidden and/or
separated (i.e. Riley's overwhelming need to be wanted and Glory's
feeling of Ben's feeling) etc.
My impression was: Angel put Buffy on a shine. Kinda looking up
at her as something so perfect that he could never be worthy,
perhaps even with redemption.
Riley, even with his complete admiration and respect for her strength,
still wanted to be the dominant one. She could do all the things
that The Slayer needed to do (after all, who better to admire
a warrier than another warrier) as long she was emotionally dependent
on him. That he be the first one that she tells everything she's
feeling to regardless of the fact that she has long standing relationships
with her friends or that circumstances caused others to be in
the know first. He had to be the stronger one (the hero)in someway.
The first to console her. The first to get advise. The first one
to try and help her.
He didn't understand that perhaps Buffy was being too overwhelmed
with the events and feelings that came from them to even be able
to fully articulate them. Especially when they involve such overwhelming
emotions as the illness of a parent. Nor did he give it the time
for her to get to the place where she would have articulated them
to him. It can be very hard to tell someone about a problem, even
a loved one, when you can't even describe it to yourself. Perhaps
if he had toughed it out, they would, as you say, worked.
Spike seems to be a strange combination of both. With his own
flaws as well. While he may not be the best fit for Buffy, he
is yet a different one.
But I have to disagree with you regards the fan's deciding Riley's
fate. I seriously doubt the show would be so consistantly good
if Joss was so easily swayed. It's his baby and he's the boss.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Opposites attract,
but do they stay together, or just fight all the time? -- Nina,
19:10:48 07/14/01 Sat
"But I have to disagree with you regards the fan's deciding
Riley's fate. I seriously doubt the show would be so consistantly
good if Joss was so easily swayed. It's his baby and he's the
boss."
Okay, then we can say that Joss finally saw that JM was worthy
of having a better time screening! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Egads! -- JBone, 20:47:22 07/12/01 Thu
As a somewhat casual visitor to this posting board, and an avid
fan of BtVS, I must say this was the first post I was worried
about. I have a certain kinship for Riley, unlike previous subjects.
I have about zero in common with Tara, and other than an appreciation
for Giles, that's about it. I do share some Irish heritage with
Angel, but never felt much empathy for his part in Buffyverse.
I see myself as more of a Xander guy, but I have more in common
with Riley since he grew up in Iowa corn country. I hail from
South Dakota corn country, basically the same thing but colder.
I just feel we come from the same place.
Anyway, not knowing the individuals volunteering to do the character
essays, I was worried that whoever ended up doing Riley would
do the hatchet job on him that most fans end up doing. Thank you
OnM. I will concede you had an advantage over someone doing an
essay on, say, Giles, since Riley was a season and a half character.
You did a unbelievable job of breaking it down.
I want to say I loved season 4. This was a time before I knew
about spoilers and whatnot, so everything that came down was a
complete and total surprise. And I intend to live spoiler free
for now on. As great as season 5 was, it let me down just a little
how much I knew ahead of time. I just remember in "The Initiative"
when we first see Riley, Forrest, and Graham get in the secret
elevator going down into the Initiative with my mouth hitting
the floor. And I thought that Buffy and Riley really had a Selina
Kyle/Bruce Wayne thing going on until the end of "Hush."
Rambling now, loved the essay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> How we got trapped by Vampire Hookers from the
pen of Joss.......... -- Rufus, 23:34:47 07/12/01 Thu
I remember the first time I saw that Riley had gone to the vamp
hooker, I knew that it would be the only thing some people would
see. The sex aspect completely eclipsed the addiction Riley fell
prey to. I find it was fun to watch people demonize Riley yet
still be able to find good in both Angel and Spike. If we did
a balance sheet on these three men Riley would still come out
looking pretty good. He made a mistake, he lost control. Vengeance
cost him everything with Buffy. He paid a big price. The relationship
with the hookers was interesting in that the Hookers were Vampires
both considered predators. My conversations with hookers gave
me a more clear picture of just how not about sex their life is,
but, survival. The Vamp hooker looked like a hype, skinny, sad
looking, but in Vamp face appearing all the predator. A closer
look showed a beaten defeated girl, who had no fight in her when
she was staked in the alley by Buffy. She wasn't someone that
Riley wanted sexually, her bites in his arm however kept him coming
back, risking his life every time. His situation was exactly what
Giles described and ambiguous evil. Riley made a bad choice, but
he became an addict, just like Spike and Angel are addicts in
respect to human blood. Many hookers are just as defeated as the
Vamp hooker, their lives meaningless to many because their profession
disgusts people. The hooker ended up like so many of her sisters
in real life, prey that appears to be a predator. Riley made a
mistake, he found out that being "the lucky guy" was
meaningless when Buffy didn't love him. Joss showed us a guy that
seemed to be perfect then proved to us that there is no such thing
as perfection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: How we got trapped by Vampire Hookers
from the pen of Joss.......... -- OnM, 06:04:37 07/13/01 Fri
Correct me if you think I'm wrong, Rufus, but I always assumed
that there was no sex taking place between Riley and the vamp
hookers-- the exchange was about blood for the vamp vs. a thrill
for the human, sort of a 'I'm cheating death' rush. (And we already
know that Riley is predisposed to be a 'danger man'). I don't
think Riley ever had actual sexual intercourse with the vamps.
Comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: How we got trapped by Vampire
Hookers from the pen of Joss.......... -- Solitude1056, 20:55:44
07/13/01 Fri
I agree - I never got the impression that it was even remotely
a sexual thing, at least not in the physical sense. It was something
else, it was just how & what Riley described in his last scene
with Buffy: a sense of being desperately needed. I didn't get
the feeling that this passion was something that he felt came
just from sex, or he would've already been satisfied with Buffy.
Nope, that desperate unbridled passion comes through all the time,
not just when your clothes are off, and Riley seems to have known
that... and thus known it wasn't coming from Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How we got trapped by
Vampire Hookers from the pen of Joss.......... -- Rufus, 23:12:51
07/13/01 Fri
When I wrote the post A Different Perspective, I was thinking
about Riley, but as there was an existing post I left it out.
Riley and Buffy had a lot of sex, sex was never the problem with
the relationship. There was insecurity on the part of both parties.
Buffy was preoccupied by her family problems, some (Dawn)she never
told Riley about. Riley sensed that Buffy wasn't being honest
with him about something and Buffy was not in a trusting mood.
Buffy took Riley for granted, not because she is an awful person,
but because she got comfortable in the relationship. Riley had
many problems plaguing him. Riley had done nothing but lose in
the last year. He lost his trust of the government he worked for.
He became addicted to a steroid type drug he never knew he was
taking. He lost a mentor, first by finding out she(Walsh)was a
monster, and then by the mentors death. Riley never got to resolve
his conflicting feelings about the woman who had cameras in his
room. Riley is loyal and even though he did the right thing, leaving
the Initiative had to be very frightening. Then he met Buffys
old boyfriend Angel. First Riley lost the borrowed power he got
from the steroids then he met someone who had power beyond what
the steroids could give, Angel had Buffys love, something Riley
didn't feel he ever really had. Season five was worse, the incident
with Dracula made Riley feel that indeed Buffy needed a monster
in her man. Or at the very least someone who wasn't considered
weak and kitteny. Buffy was so confident in her relationship with
Riley she never asked him how he felt. She kept things from him,
and never let her guard down. Both parties did things that were
wrong. But sex was never a problem with them, communication was.
If Buffy had listened or paid attention, she would have noticed
that Riley wasn't happy being turned from the man to the kitteny
liablility. Riley saved Buffy in a few spectaculor ways. He was
there for Buffy in Fool for Love, saving her from that vampire,
he then went all lone wolf and blew up the crypt the nest of vampires
were in. Not before he personally killed the vampire that was
bragging about staking the Slayer. Throw out saving Buffy's life
and go to where Riley punches out Parker when he compared a freshman
Buffy to a toilet seat......I loved Riley for it. Riley was set
up for an addiction, he already had become an addict once(doesn't
matter he didn' know), he lost his identity in the Initiative,
he lost physical strength, the woman he loved didn't love him
back. His first bite with Sandy was a desperate act partly out
of revenge......he never had a chance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: How we got trapped by Vampire Hookers
from the pen of Joss.......... -- Rufus, 21:28:18 07/13/01 Fri
The whole vamp bordello was actually closer to a shooting gallery
where the hypes go to fix. Riley had his shirt off but there has
never been any indication that there was more than the high of
the bit involved with the transaction between hooker and john.
Even Giles said it was an ambiguous situation. Riley had become
a "drug addict", his sex life with Buffy had always
been fine. The fact that he knew that she didn't love him made
him feel empty enough to look for something to fill the emptiness
he felt. What he did was stupid but it wasn't motivated by sex.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Well, yeah, I see your point, but...
-- Masq, 15:22:29 07/15/01 Sun
Would he have let a boy vamp bite him to get his "high"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, yeah, I see your
point, but... -- Rufus, 18:03:56 07/15/01 Sun
I think it's an innate gender bias to do with wanting to stay
on top. He also wanted that feeling of being needed, not by a
man but by a woman. I do wonder,what would happen if there were
no available women vamps if Riley could still enjoy the high of
the bite given by a man?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Riley ( Part
3 of 3 ) -- Malandanza, 07:16:22 07/14/01 Sat
"Now, I am aware that the season officially ends with 'Restless',
and that Riley appears in it, but I won't discuss his role therein,
since by it's nature the whole episode is so wildly open to different
meanings, and has already been discussed extensively. Feel free
to post any new thoughts you may come up with on that still ongoing
discussion, should you feel influenced by any of the things I've
written here so far."
I do think it is a mistake to ignore Buffy's dream in Restless.
Mundusmundi posted elsewhere: "I don't see all the dreams
[form Restless] as being prophetic; only Buffy gets the occasional
prophecy. For me, that scene was a sign of Xander's insecurity
at the time, his fears of getting passed over and left behind."
This is the interpretation of the dreams that I adhere to -- that
they showed us each of the characters' insecurities and gave us
insight into how they see themselves and how they see each other.
In Buffy's case, we saw Dream Riley refer to her as "killer."
He also tells Buffy that he's "Oh, we're drawing up a plan
for world domination" because "we're the government.
It's what we do." Since season one (with the invisible girl),
Buffy has had issues with the government. Her conflict with the
WC and Professor Walsh's attempt to kill her have strengthened
her uneasiness about authority. Riley's involvement with a corrupt
(but incompetant -- "coffee makers that think"? -- getting
pillows to build a fort?) government contributes to Buffy's unease
and helps keep Riley at arm's length.
Also interesting in this dream is Buffy's self-image. She is a
"killer" and questions the source of her slayer abilities.
"we're not demons," she tell Adam -- to which he replies
sardonically, "Is that a fact?" As Buffy prepares to
fight off the escaped demons, she reverts to a more primitive
mode -- covering her face in mud. Dream Riley sees her -- sees
what she really is -- and abandons her as a result ("If that's
the way you want it baby, I guess you're on your on your own.")
So even with the perfect guy, Buffy fears being left -- because
there is something in her that she does not fully understand and
cannot completely control.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Riley ( Part
3 of 3 ) -- Nina, 14:22:11 07/14/01 Sat
Okay I confess I didn't have time to read all the answers to this
post, so sorry if some of this stuff has already been said.
First of all, very good job OnM! (okay, now I am being repetitive!)
I just received all the episodes of season 4 two weeks ago (one
of the many reasons I am not on this board as often!;) I watched
the whole thing in two days! 11 episodes each day. Okay, I was
in need like a junkie, but to watch the whole year in two days
made me realize a lot of stuff I never saw while reading the scripts.
Season 4 was a very strong season. And Riley was some very nummy
treat as a boyfriend. I think if Joss made a mistake (if mistake
there was) it was to crossover Angel and Buffy just before establishing
the Riley/Buffy relationship. I think the fans who were still
mourning Angel didn't accept the new guy. And for a reason. We
see Buffy and Angel happy ever after for an episode and BAM it's
over and BAM the new guy is rushed in. Even though I am aware
of I Will Remember you, I didn't see it and the overall result
is that I found the Riley interactions with Buffy very sweet and
loving. As a matter of fact I found them very much in love.
Riley is a deep character with many layers. Everytime I hear someone
saying "I don't like him, so I'll do as if he didn't exist"
I don't understand. Riley/Buffy wasn't about passion, but it was
about sweet love. How love doesn't have to hurt. And it's not
until season five that things really started to go sour in their
couple (even if they had a couple of drawbacks over season 4).
It's weird, but now that I've seen what Buffy has had with Riley
I am not sure at all I want to see a Buffy/Spike relationship.
To go back to the "Bad boy" fantasy would feel a lot
like regressing to me. (sorry completely O/T here)
Anyway, I should have written all my thoughts while reading your
post because I seem not to recall half I wanted to say...so later!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Oh, boy! -- Marie, 03:13:31 07/12/01 Thu
Just want you to know that I haven't done a stroke of work yet
today, and it's all your fault!
What fabulous posts! I have to admit that I've always been ambivalent
about Riley. I wasn't a season 4-hater, just didn't enjoy it as
much as the others, but when I re-watched it, I realised that
this was probably because I missed Angel and Riley just didn't
cut it for me. I never hated Riley; in fact, I pretty much sympathised
with him - Angel was never going to be an easy act to follow,
although at least Xander was always going to be on his side! You
didn't touch much, as you said, on the end of the relationship,
and this is where my sympathies with Riley more or less vanish.
I've lost both my parents and if my partner-of-the-time had behaved
like Riley did, I'd have been most upset. You're concentration
is 100% on the sick parent, and you just trust that your lover
is going to be understanding, not getting upset that you're not
leaning on them more, for goodness sake! And as for the whole
'Sandy' bit! Puh-lease! He couldn't just insist that Buffy listen
to him, he had to turn to 'another woman'?! And all the reasoning
and interpretations of these actions just don't work for me -
after all, this wasn't a one-night-stand, he went back for more,
regularly! And after their big fight, he gives her hardly any
time before he just takes off! Sorry, can't sypathise here, Riley!
Should've stayed and fought for her love, if her love was worth
fighting for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Experience is a wonderful teacher... -- OnM, 21:02:07
07/12/01 Thu
Because it allows you to recognize a mistake when you make it
again!
Seriously, your points about Riley's behavior are well taken,
and, as I said, I didn't get into the endgame situation too much
because it is still somewhat of a fresh discussion. It might be
time to look at it again and see if anyone's viewpoints have morphed
with the passage of the second half of the season.
One thing to keep in mind is that Riley's 'crimes' against his
relationship with Buffy were relatively minor compared to the
damage Angel, Faith and Spike (or even on occasion, the Scoobies)
inflicted on her. Buffy is by nature a very loving person, she
eventually realizes whether the hurt inflicted was a forgivable
hurt or not, and usually it is. Also, Riley left before we could
see whether his negative behavior was going to be a repetitive
thing. (I lump all the 'vamphooker' incidents together as I would
someone who start drinking a beer a night and then ends up on
a binge. The question is, do they wake up with the mother of all
hangovers and say, and mean it, that 'I'll never do *that* again!
Or do they do it again next week, and the next, and the next,
etc.) In other words, a temporary lapse of reason, or an ongoing
declining spiral?
The call to join the Ini mission to Belize was what made the timetable
so short, it forced Riley's hand. No, it wasn't fair to Buffy,
but there it was. Riley is the kind of guy who normally doesn't
brood or ponder, he wants to make a decision, and go with it.
(His military training would only have reinforced this innate
tendency). I'm like that myself, I may take a long time to come
to a decision, but I don't linger over the decision itself, or
go back and forth and back and forth.
Again, not excuses, just explanations. It's a tough call, for
sure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Experience is a wonderful teacher... --
anom, 13:43:52 07/15/01 Sun
"One thing to keep in mind is that Riley's 'crimes' against
his relationship with Buffy were relatively minor compared to
the damage Angel, Faith and Spike (or even on occasion, the Scoobies)
inflicted on her."
Yeah, but it might have hurt more that, unlike Angel(us), Faith,
& Spike, he didn't do it *in order to* hurt her. It was more of
a betrayal because of that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Experience is a wonderful teacher...
-- OnM, 19:57:19 07/15/01 Sun
Could you elaborate just a bit? I'm not sure I get what you are
trying to say, which as I'm reading it, is that someone who deliberately
intends to hurt you is better than someone who does it out of
carelessness or because they are in the grip of some addiction
or dependency? I don't think that's what you're getting at...
(???)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Experience is a wonderful teacher...
-- anom, 21:47:22 07/15/01 Sun
OK, I'll try. I think the things Angelus, Faith, & Spike did to
hurt Buffy didn't hit as close to home because she wouldn't have
expected anything else from them (except Angelus right after he
turned, before she was on to him). Maybe not the specific actions,
but in general they were out in the open as enemies & behaved
accordingly. For Riley to go behind her back the way he did, not
because he had "turned against her" but when he still
supposedly loved her, was not carelessness; maybe dependency,
but Buffy couldn't see that at the time. I can see how Riley's
betrayal--"sleeping with the enemy" in a way that's
at least analogous to having sex w/them--might hurt her more deeply
than anything her enemies did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> OK, now I gotcha. That makes
more sense. Valid point, anyone else agree? -- OnM, 04:33:58 07/16/01
Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Experience is a wonderful
teacher... -- mundusmundi, 05:51:55 07/16/01 Mon
"I think the things Angelus, Faith, & Spike did to hurt Buffy
didn't hit as close to home because she wouldn't have expected
anything else from them (except Angelus right after he turned,
before she was on to him). Maybe not the specific actions, but
in general they were out in the open as enemies & behaved accordingly."
Your point reminds me of a passage from Havana Bay, the latest
of Martin Cruz Smith's terrific Russian detective novels, in which
the main character, Arkady Renko, experiences the loss of a loved
one due to a doctor's carelessness. "Since then he had become
more tolerant of killers," Smith writes. "The carefully
planned ambush, colorful wiring, the car packed with Semtex, the
trouble they went to. At least they killed deliberately."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Experience is a
wonderful teacher... -- anom, 08:09:41 07/16/01 Mon
Interesting. I haven't read his stories. But there's still a difference.
The doctor didn't choose to make a mistake. Riley did choose to
go to the vamp hookers. If he had done something by mistake (not
sure what that might be--certainly not in the same category as
vamp hookers), that might have been more forgiveable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Experience
is a wonderful teacher (o/t)... -- mundusmundi, 09:07:07 07/16/01
Mon
"But there's still a difference. The doctor didn't choose
to make a mistake."
Very true. I didn't mean an exact correlation. But it is interesting
to compare Whedon and Cruz Smith's POV's: they work in different
genres (horror fantasy/detective reality), yet both work from
a similar dark romanticism (and strong female characters, and
a grim wit, and a knack for seeing the humanity in even their
"villains") that shine through.
Smith wrote Gorky Park, if that rings a bell. Nearly all his stuff
is good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thank you all for your responses so far - I'm pleased if
you're pleased! :-) -- OnM, 07:38:06 07/12/01 Thu
Alas, I really want to comment on some of the responses, but I
have to log off and hie myself workward. I will be back tonight,
so keep the board warm for me in the meantime! :)
Masq, if this thing is too big to post on your site, I can try
to produce an edited version, though I don't know if I can squeeze
it down to 10 pages or so or not-- the writing style really doesn't
lend itself to much compression. My work scheduling is such that
I doubt I could do it before Sunday, and I still have my usual
CMotW to do for Friday.
Lemme know, 'k?
See ya'all!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Adam/Eve issues -- Solitude1056, 09:15:54 07/12/01 Thu
Just finished reading a triology that's pretty amazing - been
a loooong time since I've come across an author who really does
rival CS Lewis or Tolkein or L'Engle, and not just cause some
hack was paid to say so in large quotes on the back of the book.
OnM, go look these books up, get them, and READ THEM. Seriously.
I suspect (if you've not already read them) that you'll just get
totally eaten up in them. I myself was up all night several nights
in a row cause I just couldn't put them down... and that's pretty
rare for me these days. (Oh, yeah, and read them in order, too.)
His Dark Materials triology by Philip Pullman (available in paparback,
quality, and audiotape from Amazon)
Book One: The Golden Compass Book Two: The Subtle Knife Book Three
: The Amber Spyglass
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Adam/Eve issues -- Rufus, 13:19:57 07/12/01 Thu
Hey Sol, I just picked those books(The Golden Compass ect.) up
and added them to the pile of books to read......I also was shamed
into getting The Hobbit and the rest of the Lord of the Rings..my
board friends were shocked I managed to get this old and never
cracked open a Tolkien book.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Forget Spike, all roads lead to Tolkein! :-)
-- Little One, 13:45:23 07/12/01 Thu
ok, don't forget Spike (as if we could!), but I have noticed that
quite a few threads lead to Tolkein as well as to our Spikey who
brings new meaning to the phrase dead heat(incidently, JM is on
Hollywood Squares this week..humina, humina).
You'll love LotR, I'm sure! I was 9 the first time I muddled through
the trilogy (I had the 3 books in one that I lugged around, it
was almost bigger than I was) and I've read it 14 times since.
Not that I'm obsessed (really, I'm not). It's just that every
year or so, I pick it up, dust it off and cozy up with my old
friends, Pippin, Merry and others.
Sorry to be o/t, just couldn't resist replying to anything vaguely
Tolkein related.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Forget Spike, all roads lead to Tolkein!
:-) -- Rattletrap, 19:56:45 07/12/01 Thu
Total agreeement on LotR. JRR Tolkien and Joss Whedon have always
struck me as two of a kind. Both have developed these fabulously
intricate fantasy worlds that almost work on their own. There
is always the feeling that there's so much more story out there
than could ever be contained in a few books or a TV series.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Too busy applauding to type anything sensible :-) -- Little
One, 12:41:55 07/12/01 Thu
Truly phenomenal, OnM. I must admit that prior to reading your
post, I didn't pay much attention to Riley. I think I just saw
him as a representative of the stereotypical "good guy"
(as shown as Cowboy Guy in Restless). Now I'm going to have hunker
down and re-watch S4 and S5 paying attention to the many nuances
and intricacies of Riley that you have pointed out. Thanks for
showing me there's more than meets the eye to Riley Finn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Too busy applauding to type anything sensible
:-) -- John Burwood, 14:36:26 07/12/01 Thu
I too am sore from applauding. I had my own ideas ready to post,
but have been forced to see my own insect reflection instead.
I would only like to emphasize my own perception that Riley is
a guy who does not love himself as himself. His self-esteem came
from applying himself & getting it done. Significantly - & in
total contrast to Parker, he did not know how to dance or chat
Buffy up, & had to research & rehearse the latter. He loved himself
for what he did, not what he was, so when his ability to do got
stripped away - andespeciallly his ability to help & protect Buffy
(primeval instinct of any man for a girlhe loves) all his self-love
went with it -and if you can not love yourself, it is natural
to believe others can not love you. With Buffy too inhibited to
prove otherwise, Riley left himself wide open to Spike's lies
&insinuations about not being the long haul guy. He set himself
up - tragically for both him & Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Jonathan and Spike -- Malandanza, 16:15:17 07/14/01
Sat
"I would only like to emphasize my own perception that Riley
is a guy who does not love himself as himself. His self-esteem
came from applying himself & getting it done. Significantly -
& in total contrast to Parker, he did not know how to dance or
chat Buffy up, & had to research & rehearse the latter. He loved
himself for what he did, not what he was, so when his ability
to do got stripped away - and especially his ability to help & protect
Buffy (primeval instinct of any man for a girl he loves) all his
self-love went with it - and if you cannot love yourself, it is
natural to believe others cannot love you."
I think you make some valid points about Riley's insecurities.
I think that the problems in Buffy & Riley's relationship really
began with the Faith/Buffy body swap. In "Superstar,"
omniscient Jonathan has a talk with both Buffy and Riley (in his
role as world's greatest relationship councilor):
BUFFY: It's all Faith's fault. She's like poison. No, worse, like
acid that eats through everything. Or maybe a bomb. The point
is, everything's going great with Riley and then she comes along
and messes it all up.
JONATHAN: Buffy, you know what I think? I don't think this is
about you being angry with Faith. I think you're angry with Riley.
BUFFY: Riley?
JONATHAN: Sure. I mean, you have this amazing connection with
him. And then at the one moment when it matters most, he looks
into your eyes and he doesn't even see it's not you looking back
at him.
BUFFY: Oh. But... but he couldn't have known. I mean, you don't
just go, "hey, that's not your body. Get out of that body
with your hands up."
JONATHAN: I know you know that. But you have to believe it. Buffy,
if any part of you is blaming Riley for what happened, well then,
it seems like there's a part of you that needs to forgive him.
I am inclined to believe that Jonathan is right, both in this
advice to Buffy and his subsequent advice to Riley. After all,
he had a spell on him that made him perfect. We have seen villains
(if you can call Jonathan a villain) giving good advice before
-- the Mayor and Spike both lecture Angel and Buffy, for example.
But they have ulterior motives -- they see the weaknesses of their
hated enemies and try to exacerbate them -- playing upon Buffy
and Angel's own subconscious fears. In Jonathan's case, he has
a genuine desire to help, and, thanks to some black magic, the
ability to do so.
He further advises Riley:
RILEY: She's not the only one feeling that way. I feel like I
should've known. I feel terrible.
JONATHAN: She's ready to forget it. I think you'd better be ready,
too.
RILEY: I don't know. I mean... I don't know if she's really ever
gonna forget it. Every time I try to touch her...
JONATHAN: She's scared.
RILEY: Scared of me?!
JONATHAN: Scared of what you're thinking about her.
RILEY: What do you mean?
JONATHAN: She knows that Faith is... experienced.
RILEY: What are you saying. Experienced? Oh God. Does she think
I'd...what? That I'd be comparing? She knows she's the one I...
I care about.
JONATHAN: Have you let her know that?
RILEY: I think I -- haven't I? She has to know...
JONATHAN: People can't always see what's right in front of them.
Unfortunately for the Buffy/Riley romance, Jonathan's altered
reality comes to an end and everyone begins to forget about what
happened. At the end of the episode, Jonathan and Buffy talk again,
and, although neither of them can remember the specifics of his
advice, Buffy agrees to put Faith behind her and begin the relationship
again. Riley never has this second talk with Jonathan and when
he tries to talk to Buffy, she is too...um...distracted to carry
on a conversation. My feeling is that Riley never resolved his
"betrayal" of Buffy and carried the knowledge that he
had failed her with him.
"Riley left himself wide open to Spike's lies & insinuations
about not being the long haul guy. He set himself up - tragically
for both him & Buffy."
Again, I think you are right on target about Spike's role in the
Buffy/Riley breakup. The first part of season six had Spike doing
a reprise of "The Yoko Factor" as he tried to drive
a wedge between Riley and Buffy. He successfully convinced Riley
that Buffy has a fascination with vampires and Riley wanted to
know why... which ultimately led him to the vampire brothel. When
Buffy found Riley with the vamphooker (thanks to Spike), Riley's
reaction was interesting. He knew that Spike had led him astray
-- yet rather than blaming Spike entirely (as would have been
the case if he had staked Spike with a wooden stake) he was willing
to accept the responsibility for his own moral failing. Again,
the problem with his self-image comes into play -- he had failed
Buffy once before with Faith and now he had done so again. He
had had his second chance and had thrown it away. His flight from
Sunnydale was necessary, to rebuild his shattered ego (maybe he'll
find some nice young girl from Belize to settle down with).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> As Glory would say -- Fantabulous -- mundusmundi, 13:50:29
07/12/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: OnM as Killer -- Brian, 16:57:07 07/12/01 Thu
Great job, OnM - your post reminded me of a certain Rock & Roll
singer who earned the name "Killer" as any one who came
after him looked pale and wane. I pity those poor bastards. Hey,
wait a minute, I'm one of them. Oh, well, like Riley, I'll try
to rise to the challenge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I can see it now - Rufus will refer to me as
OnM the Tree Slayer. ;) -- OnM, 21:17:28 07/12/01 Thu
I was going to write a little something about this, but it's getting
late and so I'll give the short form for now.
I do my best to make my posts interesting, but my style is my
style, and there is no need to emulate it if it isn't what *your*
style is. There is no right way to write, in that you don't need
to be long or short or fancy or simple, or whatever. You just
need to get your point across and try not to lose too many readers
along the way.
I tend to write in a sort of 'straight descriptive narrative'
way most of the time, and so that tends to lead to lengthiness.
I admire poeple who are succinct and still tell a good story or
impart information clearly, but that is an advanced skill. I do
it when I can, but the muse isn't always there, so I then do my
fallback method.
I have enjoyed all the character posts so far, regardless of length
or style of writing. (I would have commented more on them if I
wasn't currently so darn busy at work, and then working on the
Riley thing in some spare time, which really did take a lot longer
and involve far more research than I first thought. I hope to
post a few thoughts on the other character posts in the coming
weeks). So do your thing, whatever you are happy with is cool.
Remember, trees are a renewable resource!
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> OnM is a Killer!.....that felt good......but
I have this paper taste in my mouth now.....:):):):) -- Rufus,
23:10:19 07/12/01 Thu
I also ran out of ink......trees, ink....you fiend....what next?
They already have me reading the Hobbit....:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I can see it now - Rufus will refer
to me as OnM the Tree Slayer. ;) -- Rendyl, 21:40:25 07/13/01
Fri
It wasn't the length so much as the content. Any post that can
get us all seeing a character in a completely different way is
a good post. Riley is an easy character to bash and you managed
to not only avoid that but to actually showcase him and his strengths.
That is worth a few 'wows' tossed your way.
Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> tree slayage -- anom, 15:28:51 07/15/01
Sun
"Remember, trees are a renewable resource!"
For once I'll restrain myself from eco-comment (coughrecycledpapercough)
& just recommend that anyone who hasn't yet, read damon knight's
"Eripmav." It's a short (very--it's been printed on
both sides of a T-shirt, w/a note at the bottom of the front saying
"Please turn person") story w/a big & a little twist
on vampire stories. The little twist is at the very end, & I doubt
any of you will see it coming. The story was first published in
"Fantasy & Science Fiction" magazine in 1958, & it can
now be found in "100 Great Science Fiction Short Short Stories"
or "The Best of Damon Knight." (He spells his name w/no
capitals, but I guess when it's part of the book title it gets
capitalized.)
Enjoy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Riley ( Part 1 of 3 )
-- Rahael, 18:00:40 07/14/01 Sat
I really liked the way you pointed out the whole Adam/Eve issue
that was going on in Season 4.
Having thought about it, the analogy could be extended even more.
It could be Buffy and her friends leaving innocense/childhood
behind forever - leaving high school for University/Knowledge.
And there is also the rebellion against authority in the shape
of the Initiative, the Government and Maggie Walsh. These are
the people who created Adam. (Who thirsted after a different kind
of knowledge.)
Perhaps I have strained the analogy!
Should
Dawn and Spike become Romatically Involved Next Season? -- Kirstin,
22:34:29 07/11/01 Wed
I happen to think not, but I don't want to be too judgemental
on the issue.
Would love to hear other people's opinions on the subject.
If they are really in love with each other, whom am I really to
say, as much as I might personally not like it.
I hope others don't think me harsh. I am not saying they shouldn't.
I guess I would have to accept it, and grow into acceptance of
it. My first gut reaction was no, and I am embarrassed that I
was so intolerant. If they are in love, I have no right to be
so Authoritarian.
Still it bothers me. I guess that is just a poor reflection on
myself. I am sorry. I know I will learn to accept it in time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Should Dawn and Spike become Romatically Involved Next
Season? -- Ben, 22:49:51 07/11/01 Wed
Sure would push the envelope.
Would be a courageous move on Joss's part.
Would make television history.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Should Dawn and Spike become Romatically Involved
Next Season? -- Ben, 22:51:02 07/11/01 Wed
I wouldn't want to judge one way or the other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> No.. -- Rufus, 23:02:30 07/11/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: No? -- Ben, 23:09:32 07/11/01 Wed
Please explain your reasons.
You are seeming very absolutist here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Agreed.... His love for her is fraternal ... -- Liquidram,
23:34:34 07/11/01 Wed
.. seeded by his love of Buffy, but evolved into feelings for
her as a child he must care for as well a person who treated him
as a friend.
Chemistry isn't there; would seem to much like a plot device.
and, last and definitely not least, the age difference between
MT and JM would make it a big Ewwwwwwwwww.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Agreed.... His love for her is fraternal
.. -- Kirstin, 23:46:17 07/11/01 Wed
..definitely not least, the age difference between MT and JM
would make it a big Ewwwwwwwwww."
Why?
I mean if they are really in love, who's to say?
Just because you don't like it, or I don't like it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Are you kidding? !? -- Liquidram, 23:50:17
07/11/01 Wed
We are talking about a 14 - 15 year old CHILD (Excuse me, I'm
a mom) and a 30+ man (let's forget that 126 year old vampire thing
for a minute).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Are you kidding? !? -- Kirstin,
23:55:11 07/11/01 Wed
"We are talking about a 14 - 15 year old CHILD (Excuse me,
I'm a mom) and a 30+ man?"
So?
I mean if they are truely in love, what does age have anything
to do with it?
This bothered me at first as well, but at least I was able to
recognize how wrong I was.
The Authoritarian Nature of this board has become quite frighting.
I honestly didn't expect such a hostile response.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> No hostility intended toward
you Kirstin -- Liquidram, 00:13:00 07/12/01 Thu
Just strong parental belief system.
You opened up an interesting vein of discussion (or can of worms,
take your pick) which people have very strong feelings about.
Let it flow and definitely don't take anyone's response as a personal
attack on you.
You are obviously entitled to your opinion and luckily have the
freedom to discuss it openly. I also have that freedom and will
continue to express my opinions whether popular or not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No hostility intended
toward you Kirstin -- Kirstin, 00:15:39 07/12/01 Thu
But it is.
I am personally offended by the rude and hateful comments coming
from this board tonight!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No hostility
intended toward you Kirstin -- Liquidram, 00:19:24 07/12/01 Thu
May I respectfully suggest you reread this thread.
I based by entire posting on my personal belief AS A PARENT. I'm
not telling you what to do; I'm not telling Joss what to do. I
am simply explaining my personal reasons against your suggestion.
Again, with all due respect, the only person slinging labels and
names was you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No hostility
intended toward you Kirstin -- Kristin, 00:24:07 07/12/01 Thu
Well maybe you as a parent are wrong.
I have some problems with it as well, and that is wrong.
You need to be more flexable. What makes you think your beliefs
are any better than anyone elses?
Children need to be freed from their parents, and society's belief
system. Otherwise our society is on the same path as Germany was
in the 1930s.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Closure
and an apology -- Liquidram, 01:33:01 07/12/01 Thu
I am about as flexible as it comes until my children are threatened.
Children need to be guided by their parents and the other significant
adults in their lives until they are old enough and mature enough
to be able to make their own reliable decisions.
If you believe the average 14 year old has this maturity level,
you are probably 14 yourself. My 14 year old is mature enough
to know that at this point in his life, he still needs mom and
dad's guidance.
It has become clear to me that you and "Ben" came on
this board strictly to troll a dispute and I am certainly sorry
I fell into the trap and wish to apologize to the rest of the
board for my participation in keeping it going.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Closure and an apology -- Ben, 06:34:02 07/12/01 Thu
I don't know what you are talking about.
Your closed-mindedness scares me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Are you kidding? !? --
rowan, 21:03:39 07/12/01 Thu
Since sexual relations between a 14 year old and a 30 year old
constitutes statutory rape, I'm voting no on the romance thing.
Societies establish social contracts comprised of boundaries that
enable the individual to enjoy the benefits of living within society,
but which also result in the individual ceding some personal freedom.
We're at that line for me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Are you kidding?
!? -- Ramo, 19:19:39 07/15/01 Sun
I agree. Even though the character Spike remains the same age
next season, the actor James Marsters gains a year just like MT,
and it's just gross. They must be at least 12 years apart in real
life. Though Buffy was 16 on the show just like Dawn will be at
the time of Buffy and Angel's relationship, they were probably
in real life only 4-7 years difference in age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Are you kidding? !? -- vampire
hunter D, 12:15:58 07/12/01 Thu
14-15 a CHILD? Says who? I don't see that as a child. Hell, in
my opinion, 16 should be the legal voting age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Well, there's one thing, and there's other
things -- Solitude1056, 08:14:17 07/12/01 Thu
Just so you know where I stand, I like the MT/JM (and Dawn/Spike)
chemistry - and I don't think "chemistry" always translates
as "let's go have sex!"
For starters, Spike's supposedly in love with Buffy. Small potatoes
that'll mean if she returns to find he's taken advantage of her
younger sister. Spike's more likely to cherish Dawn twice as much,
but transferring his love to Dawn would be a slap against Buffy's
memory (in some moral systems, not all), not to mention it might
also offend Dawn, if she interpreted it as him asking her to intrude
on her sister's memory, somehow.
Second, and independent of any plot line that Joss may or may
not come up with, Michelle T. is 15. James M. is gives his age
as low as 32, but there's word it may be as high as THIRTY-EIGHT!
Yeah, he's damn fine looking, and most 18 year olds would give
their eye teeth to date a man like that, even if he is nearing
his 20th reunion for High School. But an 18 yr old is already
worlds apart from a 15 yr old. No matter how mature that 15 yr
old may be, their body is still flooding with hormones. It's a
physical fact, and that can make things really confusing, especially
when you add in that usually kissing=pleasurable, and when it's
a good friend, things can get confusing through that midst of
hormones, no matter how badly the 15 yr old tries to be professional
about it.
Granted, we're not talking that to do "love scenes"
(graphic or no) requires a relationship, but it's could make things
rough for a bit - on the set, between the two actors, or just
for one actor turning her own growing-up issues in on herself.
Those who are more familiar with TVcraft can speak up if I'm wrong,
but I've seen it on the stage & I can't see how it wouldn't be
a factor on a set. This is not a slam against either actor, because
I think they're both powerhouses. In three or four years, Michelle
will be 17, 18 - and maybe doing a scene with a familiar co-worker
along relationship lines would be comfortable.
The B/A relationship didn't bother me because on some level I
was still aware that SMG was 21, and DB was what, 28? 29? at the
time. But 15 and 38... uh, that's putting wayyyy too much pressure
on the 15 year old, even in a working situation. Joss has spoken
out repeatedly in defense of/and favor towards his young actresses,
and I doubt he's likely to exploit the chemistry to any degree
if it puts an actress' young heart in a questionable hormonal/emotional
position.
(One other note: writing this, I wonder if Riley, then, was Joss'
ode to his own perception of women - the whole "recognize
& respect strong women" code.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Do not ask a question that you may not like the answer
to..... -- Rufus, 00:27:14 07/12/01 Thu
Some questions have easy answers, you asked for a personal opinion
and I gave it, now I see that extreme words are being thrown about
because you don't like the answer. My answer is No. It will stay
No. Telling me that I'm wrong or narrow minded or even hateful
won't change my opinion. You have the right to your opinion, I
have a right to mine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Should Dawn and Spike become Romatically Involved Next
Season? -- Alice, 23:22:05 07/11/01 Wed
I think it could be a beautiful story line if done right.
Those two would make a great couple. Could really be a great season
opener!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Ok, not trying to be mean, but...I *so* don't see this --
Wiccagrrl, 23:28:44 07/11/01 Wed
In fact, the idea kinda (ok, totally) squicks me. She's fifteen.
I know, I know...B/A...but, Buffy's the Slayer, and emotionally
older that Dawn comes across to me at this point, and besides,
JM is what, like, twice as old as MT??? At least SMG and DB were
much closer in age. I just don't see any kinda romance developing
there. Friends, confidants, Big bro/little sis kinda thing? Sure.
But lovers? Raise your hand if eww.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Raised hand -- Sebastian, 23:43:07 07/11/01 Wed
Total "Eww."
Loved the use of the word "squicks", btw.... :)
A "romance" between Dawn & Spike? Totally INapprorpiate
- and would be in COMPLETE violation of the promise Spike made
to Buffy.
Even if Dawn still has a crush on Spike - I wholeheartedly doubt
he would allow anything unseemly to happen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Raised hand -- Kirstin, 23:49:14 07/11/01
Wed
Why INapprorpiate?
Whose to say?
Lots of Authoritarian thought going on this board tonight.
Scary!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Unseemly -- fresne, 07:34:26 07/12/01 Thu
Okay, must compliment on the rare use of the word unseemly.
Pretty much sums it up.
I'd have to say no for the much same reasons that I now have a
hard time reading romance novels in which the woman is 17/18 and
he's 30+. I'm older now. I can see that the power relationship
is off. Life experiences, common interests....unequal. Such stories
don't entertain me. And that is what its all about. Entertainment.
What does not entertain me, I do not watch. Like (forgive me if
I insult anyone, personal preference being expressed) 7th Heaven
or Ally McBeal (which I used to like but then they made me stop
watching with annoying plot lines, darn them).
I like Buffy because it stretches my mind. Makes me think. But
mostly because I enjoy the experience of watching it. I couldn't
get pleasure from two fictional people in an emotionally unstable/uncomfortable/ick-o-rama
relationship.
Just remember Eww is either a three letter word or if strongly
expressed, (Ewwwwww) a seven letter word. While Love, like hate,
is always four.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ok, not trying to be mean, but...I *so* don't
see this -- Kirstin, 23:47:45 07/11/01 Wed
I hear a lot of judgemental people tonight.
I am disappointed to see how intolerant people are being.
Remember HATE is a four letter word.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Ok, not trying to be mean, but...I *so*
don't see this -- Wiccagrrl, 23:57:34 07/11/01 Wed
It's not about being judgemental- it's about feeling that, under
the circumstances, I don't see how this can possibly be an equal,
healthy relationship. There is a major power differential. And
a protective, looking-for-advice/ watching-out-for-the-kid dynamic.
Dawn is still very much a kid- the events of this year may have
made her grow up to some extent, but she was 14 going on five
when the season started. Buffy/Spike, while I don't necessarilly
love the idea, are at least on equal footing. I just don't see
that with Spike/Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Ok, not trying to be mean, but...I
*so* don't see this -- Kirstin, 00:00:07 07/12/01 Thu
Who are you to say what's "Healthy?"
Not to be mean or anything, but there are some real biases you
must work out within you. I had problems myself with this, but
if they are in love, others shouldn't say it is wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Sorry, but there is such a thing
as an age of consent -- Wiccagrrl, 00:05:07 07/12/01 Thu
Dawn is not an adult. If two consenting adults are in love, I
say more power to 'em. But we don't assume that children can consent,
or are mature enough to make some of these decisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, but there is such
a thing as an age of consent -- Kirstin, 00:09:49 07/12/01 Thu
So you are saying because some law says they shouldn't then we
MUST OBEY THE LAW.
Now that really scares me. Obey every law regardless of how unjust.
Well, I learned in school where that thinking leads to.
This has been a very disturbing night for me. I didn't realize
how close our country is to facism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Ok, not trying to be mean, but...I
*so* don't see this -- Ben, 00:07:19 07/12/01 Thu
If Pacey could have a mature relationship with his teacher on
Dawson Creek I see no reason why Dawn, who I believe is very mature
for her age, couldn't have a mature relationship herself.
I agree what I have read on this board tonight frightens me!
I learned in school where such Authoritarian thinking leads, and
I for one don't want to go there.
I think if it is done right, it could be quite beatiful. I am
not own to say that two people's love for one another is wrong.
I REFUSE to be judgmental or engage in Authoritarian thinking.
If they are in love - More power to them. It is so difficult to
find love, and when two people do, they shouldn't let anyone or
anything stand in their way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ok, not trying to be mean, but...I
*so* don't see this -- JoRuss, 21:34:45 07/15/01 Sun
Having a good time? Looks like the same person posting as Ben/Kirsten
to me. Most people don't use the same speech forms, typos, and
arguments. Certainly people are allowed their own opinions...on
all sides. IMO, people who are forgoing argument in favor of bashing
are in search of something other than discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Ok, not trying to be mean, but...I *so*
don't see this -- Liquidram, 00:04:39 07/12/01 Thu
Judgemental? Intolerant? Yep, with this issue - and not ashamed.
Where, however, do you get hate from this discussion? I'm very
curious as to your age.
A lot can happen in Buffyverse, but in real life, I seriously
doubt Joss would put an adult and a child together for a storyline.
SMG was over 18 when she began portraying the relationship with
DB who was about 24-25 at the time. Both adults.
As a parent, I do not believe that it would ever be appropriate
for a 15 year old child (one of my kids is 15 btw, so I speak
from experience)to be involved with someone more than double their
age. Period. My belief and I'm sticking to it with no further
discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Ok, not trying to be mean, but...I
*so* don't see this -- Kirstin, 00:14:32 07/12/01 Thu
I don't know if I should even continue a conversation with such
hatred out there.
You obviously have an Authoritarian Personally. Black is Black,
White is White, Right is Right, Wrong is Wrong.
That was exactly the kind of thinking that led to Hitler. This
Authoritarian personality. While I might agree with your opinion,
your absolutism really frightens me, as I know what that leads
to!
I don't know if I will be able to sleep tonight. This whole conversation
is giving me nightmares.
I didn't realize how close we are!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Ok, not trying to be mean, but...I
*so* don't see this -- Ben, 00:21:03 07/12/01 Thu
"My belief and I'm sticking to it with no further discussion."
That one statement sums up the Authoritarian Personality.
An obsessive belief system!
You must become more open minded and not so intolerant!
Hate is a four letter word. And lead to some very bad things!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> In all the months... -- Marie, 01:55:50
07/12/01 Thu
..I've been reading these posts, this is the first time I've
come across this sort of bickering. 'Authoritarian'?! For the
information of the two who keep using this word, the discussions
on this board are always friendly, whether people agree with each
other or not. The only people who seem to be upset here, are the
ones who are being disagreed with! Doesn't that make you the authoritarian
ones? Is everyone who disagrees with you wrong?
I don't suppose you care, but I agree with the others - both Dawn
the character and Michelle the actress are too young to be involved
romantically with Spike/JM.
We have a word for 32-year-old men who go with 14-year-old children,
and it begins with a 'p'. Yuck!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I agree, Marie. -- Solitude1056,
08:35:19 07/12/01 Thu
A friend was just commenting last night how envious he is that
I've got an e-board full of intelligent, witty, erudite people
where I can participate in intelligent, witty, not-always-on-topic
philosophical, anthropological, sociological psychological discussions
about Buffyverse and what it means to the Realverse. Oh, and the
fact that this eboard isn't full of folks who must immediately
spring to slippery slope, ad hominem, or any other fallacies the
first minute their statements are questioned. Well, ok, so I guess
that breed finds us every now and then, but this board has a remarkable
security device that prevent such folks from sticking around for
too long. It's called intelligent conversation. For some reason,
they flee as soon as they find out we'd rather debate than fight.
And back on topic: I find it curious how our sociological backgrounds
may have prompted us each to come to the decision that a D/S (non-platonic)
relationship is "not for now" (if ever). I mentioned
Michelle T's real age & situation, Wiccagrrl mentioned age of
conset, and Liq mentioned parental concerns about children not
yet being able to make such major decisions. But looking within
the storyline, it seems there's just as many reasons (if not more)
that each character hirself would balk at such a relationship.
Joss may rule the Buffyverse with an eye towards his final vision...
but he doesn't have characters jump hoops just so we can get a
random gratification scene or plot device. The plot is character-driven,
not characters are plot-driven... and frankly I can't see either
character deciding to follow a relationship - and even less so
in the wake of Buffy's death. I adore the JM/MT chemistry, and
I intend to watch them both in anything they're in for as long
as I've got eyeballs... but I also don't think (as I've said before
on the boards) that it's necessary to get nekkid for two people
to be soulmates on some other level. I think Spike and Dawn are
being written as the brother-sister soul-bonded relationship to
mirror the Cordy-Angel brother-sister soul-bonded relationship
on AtS. I, I think, that's a good thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree, Sol and Marie
-- Little One, 09:17:23 07/12/01 Thu
I know what you mean, Sol. I have never taken part in a chat room
or other posting board for the reason that inane, banal conversations
irritate me and waste my time. Why spend time arguing over who
has the better bum when one can be debating the finer philosophical
elements which are portrayed on this high caliber program. As
well, arguments are a waste of time (I'm right, you're wrong)
without disclosing the whys and hows and wherewithals of your
point of view. If one posts on this board, I love the fact that
the topic is taken up with vigor, commented on intelligently and
with open-minds thoughtfully examining the many facets of each
new idea before discarding and proceeding to the next. If somebody
posts a topic and refuses to hear any debate or disagreements
to their topic, perhaps this is not the best posting board for
them. This comment is not intended to put anyone down, but simply
to say that everyone is different, with different preferences
and viewpoints.
That said, *stepping off my personal soapbox and folding up for
easy and convenient carrying* I would like to address the topic
at hand. I agree with quite a few others about the high ewww factor
involved in a Spike/Dawn sexual relationship. For a romantic relationship,
both individuals involved have to share the same (or approx. same)
level of maturity. While the argument might be said that Dawn's
experiences have forced her into a deeper level of maturity than
an average 15 year old, I find it hard to believe that she would
be as mature as a several hundred year old vamp or indeed even
as a 38 year old man. And I can not believe the flip side as well,
that Spike only has the maturity of a 15 year old. There is too
wide a gap between their emotional level, maturity level and physical
level for them to be romantically involved in my opinion. That
she is a minor, the younger sister of his true love-interest,
and in an extremely vulnerable and fragile state right now are
all other arguments for a D/S ship being wrong, IMHO. It would
create a sham of Spike's past season emotional turmoil over his
love for the slayer and would extremely disapoint me in regards
to writing, plot and story development. I think Joss has more
respect for his portrayl of Spike than to make him a dirty old
vamp taking advantage of a young, troubled girl. Spike is honourable
(though deliciously evil at times).
I agree with you Sol, the chemistry SM/MT share is breathtaking
and is one of the many reasons I so quickly accepted MT as part
of the cast. I wish I had a brother as gallant and protective
as Spike is to Dawn.
And to everyone who made it through my whole rant and rave, thanks!
(cyber chocolate xxx's all round)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> We get them every blue
moon... -- Masquerade, 09:17:29 07/12/01 Thu
Snippy threads. Or snippy-poster threads.
Remember the L.o.C. thread? (if you were here since early 2001,
just think a few minutes).
I *brrr* to spell out the name of that thread. But people will
have noticed I left it in the Oct-March archives.
We are priviledged here to have an fun, intelligent, civilized
group of posters, but the internet breeds uncivilized behavior
at times, and I don't have any "official policy" to
exclude people (erase their posts on occasion, sure, mhah, hah,
hah, this isn't a total democracy).
Like Sol said, a certain element wouldn't enjoy themselves here
anyway and soon leave when they see how "dull" we are
because we don't raise controversial subjects just to get a rise
out of people, but to discuss them (*gasp*!) and we don't think
the loudest shouter "wins".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Awww, Masq...and
I thought Kristin & Ben were YOU, trying to spice things up a
bit! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 10:24:48 07/12/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: We get them
every blue moon... -- rowan, 21:15:31 07/12/01 Thu
Actually, I think I remember Kristin from another board and I
believe s/he did basically the same thing -- put up a controversal
topic, then accused everyone else of hatred and intolerance. Obviously
some attention-getting ploy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Raised hand, ewww & yuck -- Deeva, 11:10:07 07/12/01
Thu
I sooo can't this happening also. It's the age thing and the maturity
thing. Dawn is not mature for her age. I'm not against true love
but hello? Didn't we just go through like a whole season of Spike
being scarily and painfully obsessed/loving Buffy? Dawn most definately
saw this in him and if he were to turn his attentions to her in
this vein I think that she would be offended and rightly so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> It would contradict season 3. -- change, 03:43:49 07/12/01
Thu
One of the themes in season three was that the Angel and Buffy
relationship had to end. At one point, Joyce talks to Angel and
points out that their relationship is a dead end and that he has
to break up with Buffy. He's dead, he's hundreds of years older
than she is, and can't give her a normal relationship.
Given that Angel has a soul and Spike doesn't, and that an unsouled
Spike is much closer to his violent and demonic (i.e. evil) true
nature than Angel, I don't see how the writers can purse a Dawn/Spike
relationship after having said that Buffy/Angel was bad. It would
be inconsistent, and the BtVS writers try to be consistent when
they can.
Besides, Spike thinks of Dawn as a child. Any affection he has
for her is fatherly. And Dawn's crush on Spike is a passing thing.
During season 5 she also had crushes on Xander, Ben, and that
kid in Art class (and probably the Back Street Boys too). The
first boy who asks her out will make her forget about Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn/Spike relatioship -- Brian, 06:03:57 07/12/01
Thu
I was a high school teacher in boarding schools for twenty- five
years, and during that time I witnessed many sad and disturbing
situations. If a young girl (13-15) is sexually involved with
an older man there is almost always a history of sexual abuse
in that girl's history. Her sexual activity allows her to relate
to older men in the only way she can understand by her past experiences.
Ironically, she is looking for a satisfactory father relationship,
which is why these relationships end badly. Dawn has no such history.
Her memories of her father are as a loving parental figure. I
believe, she looks at Spike as an older, "safe" figure
who actually listens to what she has to say. Spike, himself, is
a Romantic. As such, he is committed to Buffy as his love interest,
and looks at Dawn as someone to protect. Her death will not change
his feelings.
This is the third time since I joined this board that it has been
"flamed" (right word?) As in the past, the members of
this board kept their calm and responded with maturity. Makes
me proud.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> How I think it'll *really* go down... ;-P -- Solitude1056,
08:46:55 07/12/01 Thu
The first boy who asks her out will make her forget about Spike.
You're assuming that Spike is going to let anyone get near Dawn!
And even if she gets past Spike, he's likely to be waiting for
her when she gets home, ready to interrogate the hell out of whatever
poor soul had the nerve to ask her out. Dating's rough enough
when you're 15 and wanting to ask out a cute girl - what a way
to make it a nightmare, to have to deal with her over-protective
"older brother," who's a 100+ year old vampire to boot.
But then, after Spike's roughed up the kid & sent him home, Dawn
will finally get her voice back and get over the shock and outrage,
and start hollering at Spike and maybe she'll get upset. And that
would make Spike upset that she's now upset, and he'd feel guilty
that he screwed it up for her, and not being sure how he can fix
it, he might do something silly like find the boy and try to get
him to come ask Dawn out again. If the boy refuses, Spike might
end up beating the boy up again because now Spike's mad at the
boy for not wanting to ask Dawn out again. Oh, man, talk about
hijinks. It's all in there!
(Reminds me of a friend's father who sat down next to his daughter's
date on the sofa, leaned over, and quietly told the boy: "whatever
you do to her, boy... I'm gonna do to you." yeah, I can see
Spike saying that.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How I think it'll *really* go down... ;-P
-- LadyStarlight, 11:10:26 07/12/01 Thu
I read through all the posts on this thread before deciding to
reply. I can bring some personal experience to this 'debate',
because when I was 16, I became involved with a 24 year old, married
but separated man with a small child. He didn't tell me about
the marriage/child thing until we had been involved for 8 months
(and on Valentine's Day to boot...hate Valentine's Day), yet I
continued to be involved with him. He used me sexually, deprived
me of important parts of high school life, cheated on me, hit
me, and yet I thought I was in love with this man. Had I stayed
with him, I probably would have been a battered wife.
That said, no matter how mature I thought I was at 16, I couldn't
see the power play that was going on. Even though "weird
love is better than no love" is a truism in the Buffyverse,
said love shouldn't hurt. A Spike/Dawn relationship would damage
something inside of Dawn--her innocence, for lack of a better
word. I think that Spike would want her to live life, and hopefully
will help her to do so.
If you've made it this far, thanks for listening to my .02.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: How I think it'll *really* go down...
;-P -- Solitude1056, 11:22:12 07/12/01 Thu
Yah, and I was 18 and involved with someone who was 37 - and I
was pretty mature for an 18 yr old, in some areas. It's still
going to be an unequal relationship, if for no other reason than
that the 18-yr-old is still financially dependent on someone,
and the older person most likely isn't. That alone is enough to
upset a relationship's usual balance - hell, that element (finance)
destroys many a relationship between people of the same age. We're
not even going into the emotional, mental, and psychological aspects
- just taking "financial" as metaphor for "dependent"
and you've got an unhealthy paradigm right there. Once's got the
money, one doesn't. *shrug*
And secondly, the other comment from the Peanut Gallery was that
whomever is arguing that there should be a Dawn/Spike relationship
might be a 14 yr old girl asserting her age group's maturity...
but his first thought was that it could just as likely be a 50
yr old man hoping to justify wanting some nubile piece. And that,
as the P.G. added, is statutory rape. Period, end of sentence
- the younger party may have consented, and our laws may have
a lot of errors, but this is one at least that pay some acknowledgement
to our society's awareness that radical age differences are usually
a warning sign of radical power differences... and that's a big
warning sign for an unhealthy relationship.
That, and I think Dawn's just too bright to think it'd be okay
for her to be "with" Spike, especially after hearing
about his stalker-tendencies. And she's likely still grieving
over her sister's death - she'll need Spike more for his counterpart
non-human insight than as a romantic interest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: How I think it'll *really* go down...
;-P -- Shaglio, 13:08:16 07/12/01 Thu
When I was 20, my 14 year-old neighbor had the biggest crush on
me. She flirted with me, whispered naughty things in my ear, and
was convinced someday we'd get married. Now, 7 years later, I
still see her from time to time and she always says how embarrassed
she is for how she acted back then. At the time, she KNEW she
loved me; but looking back she realized it was just a young girl's
obsession/fantasy and that she was wrong. I hope I have a point
somewhere in there - if not, then I'll refund your money.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How I think it'll *really* go down... ;-P
-- Shaglio, 13:01:21 07/12/01 Thu
I serioulsy like that kid from Dawn's art class. He seemed like
a nice fellow, and he didn't look down upon her for cutting herself.
Plus the other girl thought he wanted her, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How I think it'll *really* go down... ;-P
-- Rufus, 13:30:55 07/12/01 Thu
"Whatever you do to her, I'm going to do to you."
First...LOL.....I like this guy.....one my husband uses is "if
you think of putting your hands on her think of my face".....of
course the office which is part of our living room has a "top
sniper" trophy....top gun plaques.....and my husband is a
darkly quiet man who intimidates almost everyone he meets, not
because he is trying but because he has a presence that makes
one pay attention. All except for me of course.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Should Dawn and Spike become Romatically Involved Next
Season? -- darrenK, 06:40:51 07/12/01 Thu
Yuck.
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Won't happen -- darrenK, 06:43:54 07/12/01 Thu
Yuck.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Should Dawn and Spike, etc redux -- Rendyl, 10:34:04
07/12/01 Thu
Kirstin,
Your original post asked a question. Yes or no are perfectly acceptable
answers to it. You and Ben have insulted most who responded. You
called them names and belittled their answers. You insulted the
forum as a whole calling it and the posters 'authoritarian' and
'facist'. You ordered the other posters to be more open minded.
And yet on this supposedly intolerant board your posts (even the
insulting ones) still remain. Your viewpoints and beliefs are
still there, available to be read by any who frequent this board.
Tolerance is a two-way (maybe even three-way) street. If you want
perfect tolerance and acceptance you must be willing to give it
in return. You and Ben obviously are not. You toss out sound bites
like "how scared you are at the views on the board"
without ever realizing the true freedom of expressing your ideas
IS that you can put them up here at all. People may agree with
you, or they may disagree but the basic point is that everyone
can do so freely here. You cannot censure one group and then call
it freedom for all others. In order for your viewpoint to be valid,
mine has to be valid as well.
Having said all that here is a news flash. It is okay to have
an opinion. It is even okay to have a strong opinion. In some
circumstances it is even okay to have an unchangeable (assuming
that is a real word-grin) opinion. How can you have ANY strength
of character if you have no beliefs, no inner guide to what you
see as right or wrong?
Being open to new ideas and willing to see another person's viewpoint
are important. Equally important is being able to take a stand
on something you believe in.
My answer (assuming I am still entitled to it) to your original
question will follow in the next message.
-Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Should Dawn and Spike become Romatically Involved Next
Season? -- Wisewoman, 10:37:22 07/12/01 Thu
"If they are really in love with each other, whom(sic) am
I really to say, as much as I might personally not like it."
Well, there's the whole thing in a nutshell. Spike and Dawn are
NOT really in love with each other. Spike loves Dawn, as a sister
or possibly a daughter, and Dawn loves Spike as a brother, as
well as having a normal 14-year-old crush on him, which seems
to come and go.
Nowhere and never have we ever seen any hint of them being "in
love" with each other, so the whole thing is moot, as far
as I can see.
And standing firmly behind Liq, Sol, Little One, Brian, etc, etc,
there was absolutely no need to react in such an extreme fashion
to people's clearly stated personal opinions. We're all entitled
to 'em. There's never been anything approaching "authoritarianism"
or "hate" on this Board, that I've ever seen.
As I said above, I was (somewhat naively) hoping that "Kristin"
and "Ben" were actually alter-egos (not to say evil
clones!) of some of the regulars here, just trying to save us
from the summer doldrums. But then OnM has certainly done that
with his "Life of Riley!" ;o)
Wisewoman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Naw, "Glory" already tried that... -- Solitude1056,
10:46:59 07/12/01 Thu
And within 2 posts it became obvious that the plan had backfired
when we all responding by discussing why we thought Glory was
such a boring big bad. And now we're leading swiftly into a meta-debate
called How to Argue Intelligently. I was telling the Peanut Gallery
about this morning's amusing reading, courtesy the ben-kirstin
trolls. And so far, I'd say our responses can all be summed up
inside his one response:
"Go away, dears, the adults are talking."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> *snerk* -- Masq's good twin, 10:53:26 07/12/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Sticking my neck out -- -- Rendyl, 11:07:04
07/12/01 Thu
***"Go away, dears, the adults are talking."***
Okay, I know this was meant as a joke. I even snickered when I
read it. (or did I snerk? snerkered? aghhh) But truthfully age
is not the best indicator of maturity. Many posters on this board
are in their 30's but we also have some teens who post intelligent
and mature comments. I just did not want us to insult them.
Ren -maybe I snerked?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> being adult -- Solitude1056, 11:13:57
07/12/01 Thu
The age on your driver's license is no indication as to whether
you are an adult, in my experience. I work with a great many folks
who are no better than teenagers, just in larger-sized clothing.
This board is full of adults, and I mean that in a maturity sense...
not in an "older than thou" sense.
And yeah, I snerked too when he said it. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Hey, Guys, new game.....Spot the
logical fallacy...........:):):) -- Rufus, 13:10:01 07/12/01 Thu
These types hit the boards every so often and basically are trying
to be a pain in the ass. When I see a question that is loaded
but simply asks an opinion, I give a simple answer, that usually
brings out the true reason for the post. As soon as someone uses
a bullying tactic, or changes the subject and personally attacks
someones morals, we know we have a troll onboard. I answer once
or twice then ignore them, they have nothing valid to contribute.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> More fun: discuss anyway!
;-) -- Solitude1056, 13:19:41 07/12/01 Thu
I enjoy the way we intellectualize a debate - it's utterly boring
to anyone hoping for an emotional reaction, but I also find the
meta-discussion fascinating in what it tells us about ourselves.
IE: noting each person's reaction, what does it say about our
various perspectives when you look at the range of justifications/explanations
(legal, emotional, psychological, character, plothole). But then,
I always was an introspective kind of philosopher.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> As long as you keep
your eyeball out of your navel. : ) : ) -- chronicNavelGazer Masq,
13:53:12 07/12/01 Thu
oohh... too much java today.
And I aint talkin' about coffee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Should Dawn and Spike become Romatically Involved -
my two bits -- Rendyl, 10:56:09 07/12/01 Thu
The age point has been made by many of the posters, both from
a character and from an actor perspective. I would just like mention
a few character age problems.
Buffy was 16 when she became involved with Angel. Angel was a
240-something ...man? vampire? Star-crossed, soul mates, forever
love, etc etc. All that may very well be true. It does not change
the fact that loving Angel nearly destroyed Buffy and she carries
the scars from it even now. That relationship set the tone of
all others that follow it and influenced every aspect of her life.
Angel was always the one in control. Buffy may have been the Slayer
but in matters of their relationship he held all the cards. He
came and went without warning. She saw him when and where he chose.
He kept things from her to protect her, which further reinforced
him as the adult and her as the child. The word 'healthy' was
mocked earlier but it applies. As much as Buffy and Angel loved
each other this was not a healthy relationship for either of them.
In this time of instant gratification and 'do whatever you want,
whenever you want to do it' we sometimes forget that there are
ALWAYS consequences for our actions. We forget that just because
we have a choice, that doesn't mean we are compelled to make one.
Dawn (in life experience) is what 8-9 months old? Spike is over
120. There -is- no comparison. How could they ever possibly be
equal? Even given this being Spike (who tends to let people make
their own choices and mistakes) it is still so far a gap that
it is not bridgable anytime soon. Dawn is still struggling to
define who and what she is. A few years down the road it could
become a possibility. A Dawn in her 20's would be on a much more
even footing with Spike.
The phrase "just because we can do a thing, doesn't mean
we should do a thing" keeps buzzing around my head. It does
not mean we should be rigid or intolerant, it just means we should
try and be responsible for ourselves.
-Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Should Dawn and Spike become Romatically Involved
- my two bits -- Wiccagrrl, 20:19:38 07/12/01 Thu
humm...it's interesting, but I never saw Angel as being the one
"in control" in the B/A ship. I know he was older than
she was (well, duh) but I never really felt a major power differential.
And, in a lot of ways I felt Buffy was the stronger/more mature/more
focused of the two. I consider myself a B/A shipper, but I don't
feel he ever made a truly mature, selfless decision until he decided
to walk away from their relationship, fearing he'd never be able
to make Buffy happy- to give her what she needed.
They both needed to do an incredible amount of growing up. I think
part of that was Angel finding his own path. I think, up until
he went to LA, the good he'd been doing was tied to his relationship
with Buffy- she was such a clear force for good, and he wanted
to be a part of that, follow her lead. I think he needed to find
out what his role was in this world, and I'm not sure he ever
could have done that if he had stayed with Buffy.
That said, I have hope that these two may find their way back
to each other. The "kid" and her "cradle-robbing,
creature of the night boyfriend" thing was never gonna work
out- not really. But an Angel who had acheived his Shanshu and
another chance at a "normal" life, and a slightly older,
wiser Buffy could be a very good thing.
Oh, and just to be fair on the B/A age issue- rewatching Becoming
the other day. How Lolita-esque was Angel's first view of Buffy?
Complete with lollipop and everything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Should Dawn and Spike become Romatically Involved Next
Season? -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 11:49:00 07/12/01 Thu
Straight off: this seems to me like asking if Xander is gonna
have a fling with Tara in Season Six - it just doesn't fit with
the characters.
As for the age thing, I would never say never, but then I'm an
idealistic, ingenuous 17 year-old and I guess my view could change
over time.
Two other things:
Firstly, this post actually reminded me of W B Yeats. He was in
love with a woman for years and years and eventually, after constant
rejection married her younger sister (don't ask me how young!).
And let's not forget about Spike's poetic past...
(no, it's still never going to happen)
Secondly, the only thing that always worries me when people talk
about children and their vulnerability is how over-protective
and even hysterical adults can get (see Gingerbread) since their
emotions understandably get the better of them. It's clear that
people with teenage kids would be concerned about this topic and
I think it was mean and immature for Kristen and Ben to play with
that fact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Should Dawn and Spike become Romatically Involved
Next Season? -- Liquidram, 14:41:33 07/12/01 Thu
"Secondly, the only thing that always worries me when people
talk about children and their vulnerability is how over-protective
and even hysterical adults can get (see Gingerbread) since their
emotions understandably get the better of them."
Although I am by no means hysterical nor over-protective, this
is an excellent point.
My daughter, as a baby used to jump around on the coffee table
which was very low to the ground. I was constantly grabbing her
off until one day my hubby finally insisted that I just let her
do it.
"But she'll fall!" I cried.
"Only once." he calmly replied.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> My opinion on your responses -- vampire hunter D, 12:44:05
07/12/01 Thu
LIGHTEN UP!!! I've been looking at everyone's reponses to this
question, and I think Kirstin was right in her take on them. I
don't know if that justified her reaction, but she was right.
Kirstin posted a question on our take on the relationship between
two characters. But your responses were sort of mean, like you
were belittling her for not coming to your conclusions on her
own. It's almost like you were trying to give her a verbal smack
upide the head or something. Also, this question was to me seemed
to be more about the emotional disposition of the characters.
But most of your reasoning is based on the age of the ACTORS.
Lurker Becoming Restless (who I think gave the best response)
was the only one who limited her reponse to just the characters.
I'm sorry if this makes anybody mad, but I just had to say it.
And no, I am not Kirstin or Ben posting under another name (when
I ask question, I am always vampire hunter D). And no, I not a
teenager either (I'm old enough to buy beer, that's all Im saying).
And my opinion on the Dawn/Spike question: no. I think they love
each other, but thay're not in love with each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My opinion on your responses -- Solitude1056,
13:31:36 07/12/01 Thu
I guess I wasn't very clear - I agree with LBR completely. The
story doesn't support it, the characters don't support it. Joss
is too character-driven to force a relationship line if the characters
wouldn't naturally lead into themselves. That said, I do feel
a tinge of pity at the broad age range between the actors, because
it cuts out any possibility of a relationship for at least a few
more years, from a pragmatic point of view.
But anyway, VHD: I didn't think you were either newcomer, and
I never figured you for a teenager, either. Anyone who remembers
Slayer & Metallica from the first time around must be at least
[censored] years old. *cough* Hehe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Mine too -- Liquidram, 14:52:49 07/12/01 Thu
Actually, aside from my soapbox last night (and although I'll
be the first to admit that I am somewhat obstinant when it comes
to my kids I do not agree that I ever attacked her opinions, only
her attitude) I think this thread has turned into a great discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My opinion on your responses -- rowan, 21:24:40
07/12/01 Thu
I think it's perfectly acceptable when being asked about the likelihood
of a certain event happening in the Buffyverse to question what
RealVerse events might influence it. For example, alot of what
happened with Buffy and Angel has been influenced by the RealVerse
event (the spinoff AtS) and potentially the move of BtVS to UPN.
I believe as characters that Spike and Dawn could have a quite
interesting and convincing romantic relationship when Dawn as
a character has matured in 3-4 years. Despite Spike's obsession/love
for Buffy, his personality is much more suited to Dawn's.
However, when I look at the likelihood of such a plot development,
I have two thoughts: JM/MT are an impossible pairing because that
age difference equals statutory rape in the RealVerse and the
show probably won't last long enough for that to ever change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: This discussion is actually interesting ... -- Dedalus,
12:46:54 07/12/01 Thu
Okay, I don't think the said thesis is going to happen. Spike
loves Buffy, and I think he thinks of Dawn as sister. As someone
mentioned, I would LOVE to see Spike as the overprotective older
brother, playing hell with Dawn's potential suitors. Much fun
could be had.
ANYWAY, the initial question was, if two people, regardless of
age, are in love, what is wrong with it?
Speaking from my own experience, I don't think I've ever actually
been out with anyone my own age, lol. Okay, usually just a year
or so off, a couple of times, more than that. It just amazes me
that age could have that much of an impact ... I've always been
the guy in these things, and I have never taken advantage of anyone,
be she girl or woman. I just don't work like that. The whole relationship
= power struggle is just strange to me. Then again, probably why
I'm not in a relationship.
I find it a bit ridiculous, though, that age somehow naturally
equates to wisdom. Cause, ya know, it doesn't in most cases. Do
you guys live in the world? All I see are a bunch of people who
just keep on repeating the same mistakes over and over and over
again. Most never grow up. In one way or another, most people
never do. And, sorry to say, but the last couple generations of
parents ... well, put it this way, I look back and shudder to
think those people had near complete control of our lives at one
point.
I think Kirstin/Ben (or is it Glory/Ben) are funny, but they raise
a good point. I don't think parents necessarily always know better
than their kids. Heresy, I know, but that's just my opinion. Growing
up is largely about learning to "go with the flow,"
much moreso than being a fully actualized adult. And you know,
we go crazy in this society if people try to force their beliefs
on another group of people, yet adults do it to kids everyday.
I'm thinking specifically religious beliefs, before they even
have a chance to start developing objective thought habits. It's
not right, imo.
Am I being immature? Probably.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: This discussion is actually interesting ... --
Shaglio, 13:25:11 07/12/01 Thu
"Am I being immature? Probably."
I don't think you are. I especially agree with your criticism
of forcing religious beliefs on a child. I was born and raised
a catholic (but I don't consider myself one) and I got into an
arguement with my coworker, who was another catholic, about confirmation.
She claimed that I chose to be confirmed of my own free will,
but I argued that I really didn't have much of a choice. I was
13 years-old and in 8th grade, I certainly didn't care to be confirmed,
but I knew that if I didn't my parents would kill me. My mom would
never let me live it down that all the other kids got confirmed,
but her son refused to do so. So for my own sanity's sake and
peace within my household, I followed the flock and got confirmed.
Sorry if I went off on a rant here or offended anybody, but I
feel really strongly about this subject.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> religion - OT -- Solitude1056, 13:36:40 07/12/01
Thu
Parents have their own values, which they work hard to instill
in their kids. Sometimes these values stick, sometimes not, and
all can be good, or bad. Hard to tell, when it's too soon. And
off-topic, but amusing: my younger sister was confirmed in the
Episcopal Church at age 14. She made a clear point of telling
everyone that she had been Conformed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Religion is a whole different story --
Liquidram, 15:04:55 07/12/01 Thu
I believe you should start your kids out with a basic belief system
but then allow them to form their own path as far as religion
goes.
I too was forced to go to church every day of the year except
Saturdays until I was 12 and then every Sunday for as long as
I lived in my parent's home. I moved out and stopped going yet
still have very strong Christian beliefs. That's the best I can
offer my children until they decide for themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Would that be Kendra, the *wise* woman?
;o) lol -- Wisewoman, 18:32:25 07/12/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> No, that would be the Kendra "what
color is my hair this week?" woman. (bwahahaha) -- Solitude1056,
20:39:19 07/12/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: This discussion is actually interesting
.. -- Dedalus, 13:37:58 07/12/01 Thu
That's what I mean. Not to mention, inherited faith is largely
worthless. It means nothing to you. It's not yours. It was your
parents. Actually, it wasn't even theirs, it was just their parents',
and so on ad infinity.
I just can't understand how more people don't have a problem with
that. And I'm not being anti-religious, because I'm still quite
religious (just in a very liberal way). Forcing an entire belief
system on kids is just ... in the words of Kristin/Ben ... authoritarian
and scary.
And so is a society/legal system that sticks its nose in people's
personal relationships.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: This discussion is actually interesting
.. -- Rendyl, 20:11:38 07/12/01 Thu
It is impossible not to expose your children to your belief systems.
You live them, you view the world through them, and you structure
your behavior and responses to them. Your kids will pick up on
this no matter what you do. I am sorry if you had a 'bad experience'
with religion. It happens. Your parents also made you wear clothes,
go to school, and possibly use certain manners at the dinner table.
Life goes on. (unless you were sacrificed in some bizarre cult
ritual in which case you would obviously not be posting here..grin)
The only thing to do with kids is to let them have a variety of
experiences and decide for themselves. I can tell my daughter
that stealing is wrong. I can explain all the reasons why it is
wrong and hurtful. I can set an example by not stealing. (or cheating
on my taxes, etc) I can even forbid her to steal. (grin) Ultimately,
she has to make the choice whether to steal or not. The same applies
to most things as we grow up.
Should your parents have forced you to church? Probably not. Religion
is a very personal issue and it should be each individuals decision.
Should you be thankful that your parents cared enough about you
to even worry about your religion and character? That answer would
definitely be a yes.
***And so is a society/legal system that sticks its nose in people's
personal relationships.***
If you are referring to age of consent those laws are to protect
children, not limit anyone's personal relationships. They exist
to try and prevent children from being abused or exploited. If
we are referencing Dawn (who is 14) then we are talking about
children.
Kirstin and Ben came on to troll. (we have not seen them since
the original posts which has me wondering if they stepped out
into the sun and turned to stone, but anyway) The subject is still
valid but the accusations of intolerance are not.
Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Agreed .... I've had to grow up right along side of
them. -- Liquidram, 14:55:42 07/12/01 Thu
And sometime I make the wrong decision for them. We all learn
from it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Ok, now that it's a new day - my logical discussion -- Liquidram,
14:08:22 07/12/01 Thu
I think the relationship and platonic chemistry between the two
characters (and actors) is amazing and I believe it will only
strengthen. Sometimes platonic love becomes even stronger than
romantic love because it usually never dies. If the series lasts
long enough and Dawn sticks around until she's 18 or 19 she could
develop romantic feelings; however, my guess is that if he remains
in her life, she will think of him as a surrogate big brother
or best friend.
My "child" comments were on a strictly personal level
because I still hold my 5'7" 160 lb. son's hand and cry with
him when he is crying and in pain at the hospital and I still
toss his stuffed gizmo that he's had since he was two on his bed
in the morning where it's fallen off during the night. I yell
at him, ground him and make him do his chores. Duh - I'm his mom.
Hey, I let him get his ear pierced when he was 8 and you better
believe I took a ton of flak from all of his friend's moms!
I also treasure his intelligence and he is my best friend. I can
sometimes whip him in Magic the Gathering but more than likely
not.
I discussed this thread with him this morning. His first reaction
was to agree with Kirstin until I mentioned him dating a family
acquaintance who is 37. His response? "That's just gross."
I think he understood my point of view after that. He has mentioned
more than once that he thinks it's just weird that we discuss
a tv show the way we do. Of course, if you mention Dungeons & Dragons
in the same room with him, a bright aura will erupt over his head
and he'll start developing a character for you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> perhaps we forget the one in the middle -- Solitude1056,
17:48:06 07/12/01 Thu
Dawn, that is.
For all that some 15 yr olds are ready for relationships with
people years their senior... I doubt Dawn is. Dealing with a relationship
that crosses generations is just as difficult as one that crosses
educational, cultural, financial, social, or racial lines - both
people are coming to the relationship with different POVs, and
in some cases these can be quite strong. In the case of age, the
lack of knowledge can result in the same behavior that we'd attribute
to thoughtlessness in an adult, but in the kid's case, it's a
result of not-knowing. (I am thinking of the father's day card
that said, "Actually, Dad, I really did think you were made
out of money.")
And dealing with these lines, and crossing them, doesn't require
any amazing qualities other than tenacity, trust (in self and
Other), respect, and the willingness to at least attempt communication
- even if it doesn't always succeed. Those qualities form part
of what I'd identify as a certain type of maturity, since there
are many different types, degrees, areas, etc. And frankly, dealing
with such issues also requires a certain strength of self - in
that sometimes one must realize that the other person's bias shouldn't
be taken personally, but dealt with as a distinct and separate
issue. Sometimes we identify strong self-sense as maturity, but
sometimes it's wrapped up in an otherwise still naive package.
I think Dawn's got an early sense of her Self, and her character's
been given a solid background of love, trust, communication, and
respect. She's got the tools. But she's still young enough in
some ways to be crying in the bathroom because a boy called her
"freaky."
Wiccagrrl, I believe, introduced the notion of "healthy relationships"
being based on an equal power structure - right on. But it's not
just age, it's all the other possible lines I mentioned, too.
Sure, Joss could hand us a Dawn/Spike affair, and the chemistry
between the actors might make it work. But it wouldn't be one
I'd be comfortable watching - the power in the relationship would
be so off, so uneven, knowing the eventual expected consequences
would make watching the development just too agonizing. I don't
like putting a relationship down without a chance, but sometimes
ya gotta say, hey - this ain't healthy.
When one person in the relationship has money and the other doesn't
- the one who doesn't is eventually either going to feel like
a mooch, be intimidated, or feel inadequate because s/he never
pays for dinner, can't purchase the movie tickets, etc. When one
person has reams of education and the other doesn't, there's a
risk that the one without may unconciously compensate in other
ways. If one person has travelled the world, and the other's never
been out of the state, the one who's always stayed home may belittle
the traveller's inability to settle down. You see what I mean?
When a person, on some level, suspects they're in an unequal balance,
they'll seek to right it through communication and respect...
or they'll seek to right it by building themselves up or bringing
the other person down. And sometimes, they'll force the inequality
to continue by forcing themselves down, in effect making it seem
as though of course they're the less powerful one, aren't they
the one who's worth less anyway?
That last point is the risk with a younger person and older person,
in particular. "He always pays, he's so good about it, I'm
really lucky, cause if it weren't for him, who'd be with me?"
or whatever other self-defeating nonsense keeps a person in such
a mindstate. Crazy thing is, the partner may be completely unaware
of this - but the inequality is there, and it's got to be dealt
with. We've already got a relationship that borders on the unhealthy
(at times) between Tara's submissiveness and Willow's unintentional
domineering qualities. It seems to me, though, that those two
do work on it. Some have that maturity & tenacity - regardless
of physical age - and some don't.
My point is that IMO, Dawn doesn't... yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: perhaps we forget the one in the middle -- Rahael,
18:13:55 07/12/01 Thu
When I was 14-15 I was an emotional mess..... and I certainly
needed protecting, and I didn't get it. I have met more girls
my age (23) who have regretted early relationships than those
who waited a while.
There's a difference between giving children intellectual and
emotional freedom, and making sure that they understand risks.
And as far as I can see, there is very little present in western
culture at the moment which isn't telling young girls to be more
sexualised, to become women at even earlier ages.
And I don't think "love" by which I assume Kirsten/Ben
were talking about romantic love, can be used to justify anything
and everything. Love can be selfish and destructive. Its not the
euww factor so much with me, but as so many people have pointed
out, its respecting the characters.
Final point/rant - I really hate it when people use the word fascist
so casually. Firstly it has a historical context. Secondly, its
hugely disrespectful to all the real victims of fascism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: perhaps we forget the one in the middle
-- Dedalus, 18:44:53 07/12/01 Thu
But if love is selfish and destructive, is it really love?
That's curious ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: perhaps we forget the one in the middle
-- Rahael, 17:20:40 07/14/01 Sat
I don't think love always acts positively - I love my family very
much, and vice versa. We hurt each other more than we would someone
we couldn't care less about.
Does that mean that we don't really love each other? Love can
engender fear, and jealousy. And when those ugly emotions enter,
anything can follow. Love isn't a cure for life.
I don't want to be negative. Love in all its forms is what makes
life worth living. But the real, messy complicated version is
much more interesting than the idealised one.
I like Robert Graves and Philip Larkin's take on it myself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Should Dawn and Spike become Romatically Involved Next
Season? -- Q, 00:38:47 07/13/01 Fri
Thought I better chime in before the thread is too long.
Obviously age of consent laws are in place for a good reason.
Some people have claimed that following laws no matter how injust
they are is not the way to form an opinion on the matter. But,
I think that is a general statement, and the laws should be looked
at individually. Statutory rape laws are not Jim Crow laws--they
are about keeping predators from preying on vulnerable minds and
body's. The biggest problems arising from laws that make it legal
for adults to do something that kids can not is the seemingly
arbitrary age that is always set. 18 is the legal age. Unfortunately
some 18 year olds are still developing emotionally and mentally,
and are no where near mature enough to be involved in adult situations,
while some 14 year olds are more emotionally stable and mature
than many adults. BUT...there is no way to distinguish, so an
arbitrary date must be set.
With Buffy and Angel, I never felt the ick factor, because Buffy
has always been very mature for her age. At 16 she was making
major adult life decisions, and yes some mistakes. I always maintained
that a slayers shortened life expectancy caused them to mature
at a VERY accelerated rate. Meanwhile, Angel was obviously not
an old predator. He was a very immature late-teen early twenty
when his life ended. He then lived in another life, and was forced
to pick up as that late teen, early twenty once his soul was restored.
But even then he was slow to develop, as he was exiled from any
real social or emotional attachments for many years--until Buffy.
Buffy was perhaps his first serious "human" relationship,
and she was obviously very mature and was not "seduced"
into anything.
Dawn and Spike is another matter. Where Buffy was portrayed as
a girl who wanted the teen life she should have but was forced
into adulthood by a much accelerated maturing process, Dawn is
obviously portrayed as a young, vulnerable, little girl. Check
out the scene in the girls room in "The Body", or the
burning the diary fit in "Blood Ties". Joss writes adolescent
girls so well, and she is obviously not to an adult emotional
maturation level. She is still HEAVILY dealing with hormonal changes,
and is still a pre-pubescent teen not able to make a mature decision
on issues of such magnitute. Spike/Dawn would be a typical "lolita"
type predatory male, confused young girl relationship, where in
another case, arbitrary dates aside, it might not.
I wouldn't rule it out though, because Spike is evil, and would
possibly take advantage of the situation.
Oh--one other thing. I get tired of people bringing up Hitler
and fascism every time a view isn't liberal enough for them--it
is so cliched, please think of a better argument than--"ya,
but that's what led to Hitler"--because what led to the holocaust
could take volumes, it wasn't one simple reaction to social taboos,
there were many factors, and that argument is getting pretty spineless
as the years go on! Obviously if people are fans of Buffy they
are nowhere near the level of intolerance that your drumming up.
We are talking about a show that is very progressive in taking
stands against established society, especially in gender roles
and morality. Just because somebody shudders to think of a still
developing girl having sex with an old pervert doesn't make them
close minded. They are not on the rode to becoming Hitler.
Besides, I get an icky feeling when something as serious and on
such a level as the holocaust is reduced to a cliche. It was much
more horrible than anything we can possibly discuss , and should
not be taken as lightly as that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Okay, I'm WAAAAY behind the eight-ball here... -- Javoher,
10:37:18 07/16/01 Mon
..but I gotta post. Too much of an opinion to let this go. I
read every reply first before doing this, though.
To address the characters, and the original question: I think
Dawn is far too intelligent to want anything romantic with Spike,
really. She may be a raging bag o' hormones and make the kinds
of choices a lot of 14-year-olds make, but underneath she has
a canniness to her brain that I admire and expect more of. She
understands things quickly, and even if she makes a mistake I
don't expect her to make it a second time.
Spike IS evil, takes advantage of people's weaknesses and situations,
but...I doubt that extends to pedophelia (and that's what he would
consider it to be.) No evidence of it to date. His screwed-up
brain knows the difference between right and wrong, like that
his desire of Buffy was wrong. ("I'm not a *complete* idiot.")
And all evidence points to a protectiveness of Dawn that may take
interesting turns. He is indeed a western Romantic (yes, the cap
R type) by birth and inclination. He's just as likely to take
an idealistic attitude to the whole protection thing as he is
to take advantage of the other Scoobies.
To address the actors and creators: I think there's almost 20
years between MT and JM. From reading his bio, JM's done too much
to be any younger than me. (And I applaud his refusal to discuss
his age, and all actors over the consenting adult age.) Even if
Joss were perverse enough to write a relationship into the script,
JM is professional enough that he would do his job and any objections
would be taken up offline. And Joss isn't perverse enough. (Although
I think perhaps he should address the question somehow, if only
because it's raised such a ruckus. It would be an interesting
side note, and Dawn IS a raging bag o' hormones. Would fit.)
To address the age of consent vs love question: My guy comes from
a part of the world where 14 yr old girls/women are routinely
married off to men 20, 30, 40 years older, usually as 2nd, 3rd,
4th or more wives. Love is never a reason for that kind of marriage,
although the parties are often told they "will come to love
one another." Equality of partners is also not a factor,
and almost never becomes one over their lifetimes. The alliances
are formed for financial/social/political advancement and to perpetuate
complex familial ties. The girls, and sometimes the men, are pawns
of their families. Once in a while true romantic love does emerge
from this kind of union, but it's unlikely.
When I was 20, I dated a 48 yr old man. I enjoyed my relationship
with him very much and it's one of the few I don't regret. I was
not in love with him and had no intention of staying with him
long-term. I didn't fancy taking care of an elderly partner while
I was still in my prime. And 20 is not 14. I was preyed upon by
a 40+ man when I was 14, and while nothing actually happened I
was so unaware of what his real intentions were I would have denied
they actually existed. But exist they did.
My point? The kind of love we expect in modern western cultures
doesn't emerge from an inequality of life experience. The respect
that love is founded upon can't happen easily. We have a sometimes
idealized view of romantic love, which I believe is what the original
poster was referring to.
And finally, to address the flaming and name-calling: I totally
reserve the right to think and act in an Authoritarian manner.
My actions must reflect my moral compass or I am not a good person,
in my universe. My moral compass gives me the right to roundly
condemn actions and beliefs I find to be extremely repugnant to
myself and the standards of the societies in which I live. That
is not fascism. That's freedom. You'll know you're in a fascist
society when you can't call people names on a public Internet
chat board and not expect that "knock-knock-knock" on
the door at midnight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> *very* well said. -- Solitude1056, 20:15:31 07/16/01
Mon
This is down at the bottom where some may miss it, but hell.
Others said it well, too, but I applaud the inclusion of the visual
'knock-knock-knock.' How right you are, how right all of you are.
As an aside, during my time in Sweden, I and my sister threw around
a common D.C. joke. Instead of saying, "you've got to be
kidding," we would respond, "you're on drugs,"
or "put down the crack pipe." Our gracious Stockholm
host is not only our new cousin, he's also a policeman. He expressed
constant shock and dismay at our joking, and was visibly uncomfortable.
We asked him why, and his response was simply to remind us that
Sweden is socialist. A joke about drugs can be considered reason
for a search, or at least a stopping & a good talking-to. He wasn't
interested in that, and he couldn't figure out why we'd tempt
it. It had never occurred to us that a joke could be grounds for
a search. Yeah, there's plenty wrong with the USA - and while
in Sweden, we noticed people looking utterly shocked if we joked
that "yeah, Bush is our president, but he's a moron,"
because, well... you don't go about saying such things in a socialist
country. Sweden may have a number of liberal policies that leave
the US in the dust, but there's still some elements verging on
thought-police (from an American perspective) that left my sister
and I just as vaguely uncomfortable ourselves.
All told, the internet is probably the least fascist of any society
you could invent or find. That has a lot to do with the fact that
the internet consists solely of its denizens, and what we decide
- liberal or conservative, open or closed - becomes our society.
As long as this board, and its cousins, counterparts, forerunners
and descendents, continue the "information is free"
philosophy, it's gonna be real hard for fascism to get its dirty
fingers into this game. The US has good points, and bad, like
any other country, albeit with less ability to swing freely towards
fascism than other countries, because its citizens are allowed
free speech. The internet, though, is the freest speech of all.
Ok, soapbox mode is off now...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: "knock-knock-knock" (OT)(way OT)
(not even Buffy-related) -- Javoher, 22:53:14 07/17/01 Tue
For those with an interest in music history...my visual comes
from Shostakovich's 8th string quartet, written in St. Petersberg
(Leningrad) during the Stalin era. This piece of music terrifies
me like no other.
Shostakovich was one the U.S.S.R's (Mother Russia's) premier composers
of the 20th century, and as such his music, behavior, and teaching
methods were subject to rigid review and censure by the artistic
review bureau (I've forgotten their name). He carefully did everything
this bureau and the government told him, from writing for national
events to obeying all stylistic "suggestions." On a
tour of the U.S. in the 60's, he publically praised the Soviet
system and told the press how happy he was with his life.
Shostakovich was awakened one night by a heavy pounding ("knock-knock-knock")
on the front door of his small apartment. Terrified, he got up
and crept to the front. He heard a door crash open and a man,
his next door neighbor, begging for his life and his family. The
knock was actually on that man's door. The man was dragged away
and never heard from again. Shostakovich wrote the 8th quartet,
nicknamed "the KGB", soon after. As a popular public
figure, he lived out his life expecting that knock to come for
him.
The Soviet artistic reviewers were artistic illiterates. Shostakovich
managed to pour a depth and emotional intensity into his music
that can define the word sublime, managed to lead and advance
the cause of all music globally, all while following each stricture
given to him. Legend has it the Soviets never caught on.
Yes I know I'm mixing communism and fascism. Different cause,
same effect. 'kay, now I'm getting off the soapbox too.
Current board
| More July 2001